19940554 Ver 1_Complete File_19941209

i .•
.- 4' 4 r
g?L
e ?-
1
- _ N p D?5 -r ?-Tc-
-Lo Yaj
cwrco ? Juu}(1 ?- aF,w,g, FruF.cea.u-.
? y?aV?c l,w?u.r Flo ?«t
VAlk
p U pall
d?+a.
,K,?7rdo? uk?'a - ? (?"` Fo e?vo,K?'fa.
da {n' M coe?
0"\ vv?
`-?

wJww
^
. \
m

t ?
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
MEMORANDUM: f I
TO: John Dorney
FROM: Ron Ferrell
SUBJECT: Mitigation Plan for Alcoke/CGW, Inc
DATE: April 6, 1995
The following comments are submitted in response to the review of the
subject document dated March 15, 1995.
1. The mitigation plan as submitted continues to be deficient in a number
of areas and should not be accepted until the plan has been finalized. I
can agree with the plan on a conceptual basis, however sufficient
information has not been submitted to determine if the proposal has a
reasonable chance of success. This mitigation proposal should not be
treated any differently than plans submitted by any other applicant and
should be held to the same standards used to evaluate other projects..
Outlined below are specific areas of concern that must be addressed
prior to approval of this plan.
2. The stated goal of the project is to restore a wet hardwood flat on Rains
soils. The location of the proposed reference forest ecosystem should be
identified and the existing hydrology and vegetation of this area should f
be documented with a particular emphasis of the herbaceous understory
which are the most sensitive to changes in hydrology. If the herbaceous
understory is dominated by species that are facultative or drier then the
site is not acceptable as a reference site. Also, the functions lost and the
functions to be restored should be identified.
3. Although the COE hydrology criteria is important in determining the f
jurisdictional status of an area it should not be used to determine if
hydrology has been restored. The reference hydrology should first be
determined then the project site should be designed to establish that
hydrology.
4. The water budget does not account for the loss of water through
infiltration and deep seepage. Rains soils may have an infiltration rate
that is sufficient to affect the hydrology on this site. Another factor that
may affect the hydrology of this site is the presence of ditches in
I
i
proximity to this site that will not be plugged/filled. No data has been
presented on the direction of groundwater flow and the potential of
nearby ditches to intercept this flow.
5. Water budget continued. No response was provided to the previous
questions (memo dated 12/8/94) concerning the assumptions used in
the water budget. Specifically the allowances for runoff,
evapotranspiration, offsite runoff, evaporation and groundwater flow.
6. Previous comments concerning frequency of monitoring of hydrology
and soils have not been addressed.
7. The comments concerning species to be planted have not been
addressed. These issues must be addressed before this plan can be
accepted. Also, when will the plantings occur.
8. Written verification from the USACOE must be submitted concerning
the legality and acceptability of the conservation easement.
alcoke/cgw.495 /mitigation
Post-it' Fax Note 7671
To
:10?? ?__
Cc i;-i'l
prone M
?x k

Dat?`Y .
From 7
Co.
Faz u
I
i
D MIQfAIyDUM:
?- I
,16n-AL MANAG
JTY SECTION
TO: John Dorney
FROM: Ron Ferrell,k_
SUBJECT: Mitigation Plan for Alcoke/CGW, Inc
D ATF,- December $,, 1994
The following comment' are submitted in response to the review of
the subject document dated November 15, 1994.
1 A description of the soil -types, vegetation and hydrology dated August
9, 1994 is referenced. I Flo not have this document. This document is
supposed to conti.in a description of the wet hardwood flat area that
will be used as the reference forest ecosysiem (RFE). Please have
applicant provide me with a copy of this document.
2
A map (or maps) of the -mitigation site must be submitted which show
the following information: 1) general location. of mitigation site; 2)
location of drainage ditches and proposed plugs; 3) elevations; 4)
direction of surface water and ground water flown; 5) predicted wetness
of areas within site; 6) species to be planted in each area if areas of
different wetness present on site; 6) location of overflow swales;
location of monitoring wells and all permanent sample plots. ?
3. De-wribe how the hydrogeomorphology will be used to determine
where species will be printed. (referenced on page 5)
I
4. Species should be selected based on predicted wetness o? site and
ordered from a reputable source. Nursery availability is not an
acceptable criteria for determining the species to be planted. With the
exception of Yellow Poplar I have no objection to the species selected
(assuming that they are referring to Nyssa sylvatica var biflora)
however it does not appear that any thought has been given to which
species should be planted based on expected hydrology. The species
selected. range from facultative to obligate which is OK if these
ronditions exist on the site. Also, what is species composition of
reference site? If refererce site has been logged and massaged they may
need to locate a "pristine" site to determine species c:orAposition or

DFT 08 1 q4 nl?: 96PM
P. 2:2
consult the literature for descriptions of hardwood flats before they
were all converted into lain forests.
5 What is the justification for plugging the ditches instead of filling the
ditches in? How deep are the ditches on the site? Have the ditches
penetrated any soil layers that restrict the downward movement of
water? If so the ditches may have to be filled with some type of
impprvious material.
6. Have the soils been evaluated for the presence of plow pans, hard pans
or anything that may inl-ubit the growth of the trees?
7. Because the site has been actively farmed some provision should be
mach to "rough" the site to increase the micro topographic relief.
R What is the current depth to groundwater on the site? What is the
predicted depth to groundwater after ditches have been plugged, i.e.
how often during the growing season is the depth to groundwater
expected to to 1efs than 12 inches. It would be useful to use
17RA1NMQT) to predict the hydrology of the site.
9. Provide explanation of how the numbers used in the water budget
were determined, i.e. what is basis for using 10% of precipitation for
runoff rate, etc.
10. Permanent sample plc,ts should be randomly selected throughout the
site pric:?r to planting of -Irees. There should be a minimum of one 0.05
acre sample plot per acre unless it can be demonstrated that the site is
so uniform in elevation ind wetness that this number of plots is not
needed.
11. Specify the frequency of monitoring of hydrology and vegetation.
Recommend that hydrology be monitored monthly during the first
year and quarterly thereafter. Recommend that vegetation be
monitored frequently during first growing season. Soils should be
monitored in the permanent plots for the presence of indicators of
hydrology.
12. An "as built" report should be submitted within 30 days of completion
of planting of trees.
13. Remedial actions must t* taken to control nuisance vegetation which
is defined as any species that is not planted.
14. All monitoring reports and requests to conduct remedial actions
should also be sent to the Division of Environmental Management.

i

DEC OP '94 05:37PM
s . ..
P. 3%3
15. Vegetation success criteria should be 320 trees per acre that have
survived for three full f70wing seasons.
16. 1 have no idea if the prc posed Conservation Easement is legal. It
specifies the United Stages of America as the holder of the easement.
Need to check with the ;lawyers can this one.
?1R-2q-35 THU 9:42
P. 01
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
INDEX
1. General ........................................ 3
2. Particulars ...................................... 3
3. Impact Area Description ............................ 4
4. Mitigation Area Description ......................... 4
5. Mitigation Ratio .................................. 4
6. Reference EcoSystem ............................. 4
7. Success Criteria .................................. 5
8. Vegetation ...................................... 5
9. Soils ........................................... 6
10. Hydrology ....................................... 7
11. Water Budget .................................... 7,8
12. Hydrology Monitoring .............................. 9
13. Project Monitoring ................................ 9
14. Reports ........................................ 10
15. Remedial Actions ................................. 11
16. Final Disposition of Mitigation Site .................... 11
17. Conservation Easement ............................ 12
MITIGATION PLAN
ALCOKE/CGW INC. SITE
1. GENERAL :
As a condition for obtaining a permit to place fill in approximately 30 acres of
wetlands during development of a commercial site on U. S. Highway 17 South in New Bern,
North Carolina, the owners of the site agree to perform restoration of the wetland functions
for a 72 acre off-site area as mitigation for the fill.
2. PARTICULARS:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Action ID: 199402975
COE PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED: June 9, 1994
SITE NAME: ................ Joe Alcoke/CGW Inc. Mitigation
SITE LOCATION: ............ West of N.C.S.R. 1259
.......................... North of Cove City,
.......................... Craven County, North Carolina
.......................... Core Creek Watershed/Neuse River
SITE CO-ORDINATES: ....... N=535,000; E=2,503,000 (NC Grid)
N.C. DEM 401 CERTIFICATION Number 2900 dated 2 August 1994
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES:..... Mr. Joe Alcoke
.......................... 3305 Clarendon Blvd.
.......................... New Bem, N. C. 28562
.......................... CGW, Inc.
.......................... C/O Mr. Calvin G. Wellons
.......................... P. O. Box 1018
.......................... Morehead City, N. C. 28556
TYPE OF MITIGATION:....... Concurrent, offsite, in kind restoration
IMPACTED AREA:........... 30 Acres' wet pine flat
MITIGATION AREA: ......... 60Acres" converted agricultural field and pasture
MITIGATION RATIO ......... 2:1

3
3. IMPACTED AREA DESCRIPTION:
The 30 acre site to be developed includes a wet pine flat that is located within the
City of New Bern. The site is located in the Lawson Creek/Trent River Watershed and that
discharges into the Trent River approximately one (1) mile upstream of the confluence of
the Trent River and the Neuse River. The site is generally cleared of timber except for
small pines along the abandoned railroad right of way just adjacent to the highway on the
south. The site is bounded by commercial and retail development along U. S. highway 70,
U. S. highway 17 and Glenburnie Road. The development will include placing fill on the
Alcoke parcel, the CGW Inc. parcel and the extension of McCarthy Blvd.
4. MITIGATION AREA DESCRIPTION:
The 72 Acre site that will provide the 60 acres of mitigation area is located off NCSR
1256 (Wintergreen Road) near Cove City, North Carolina. The site is located in the Core
Creek Watershed which discharges Intothe Neuse River approximately 16 miles upstream
of the confluence of the Trent River and the Neuse River in New Bern, North Carolina. The
site is bounded on the North, South and West by woodland and on the East by agricultural
development. The site has been previously converted by clearing and drainage from a
hardwood wet flat to agricultural use. The mitigation plan for the site is to re-establish the
wetland hydrology and vegetation thereon. The restoration will be concurrent with
development work on the 30 acre site.
5. MITIGATION RATIO$
The development and fill at the 30 acre site on U. S. Highway 17 will be mitigated by
restoration of the 72 acres at the Wintergreen Road site and 60 acres of this restored
hardwood wet flat will provide the 2:1 mitigation ratio.
6. REFERENCE ECOSYSTEM:
The Land Management Group, Inc., Wetland Classification Summary, dated August
9, 1994 provides descriptive relationship of the soil types, vegetation and hydrology at the
development site and the mitigation site. In addition, the surrounding vegetation and soil
profiles were noted for adjacent areas as reference. The wet hardwood flat area adjacent
to the mitigation site will be utilized as reference during mitigation of the 72 acres.
4
,I,I I
{

7. SUCCES S CRITE RIA:
r
The subsurface hydrology of the mitigation site will be restored by filling the on site
drainage in order to maintain a saturated soil condition within 12 inches of the surface, or
ponded and flooded for at least 12.5% of the growing season under reasonable average
climatic conditions.
Vegetation will be re-established with a survival goal of 320 trees for acre after three
(3) years. Final tree composition goal is that no more than 20% of any one hardwood
species will dominate.
8. VEGETATION:
The tree species to be planted will include the following. The exact mix and quantity
of each species to be determined by nursery availability and soil test. The U. S. Dept. of
Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report SE-76 "Guide to Regeneration of
Bottomland Hardwoods" will be utilized as reference in the final species selection.
(a) Swamp Chestnut- Quercus michauxii
(b) Water Oak - Quercus nigra
(c) Willow Oak - Quercus phellos
(d) Green Ash - Fraxinus pennsylvania
(e) Cypress - Taxodium distichum
(f) Yellow Popular- I-iriodendron tulipifcra
(g) Black Gum - Nyssa aquatics
(h) Black Gum - Nyssa sylvatica
It is expected that a natural regeneration of loblolly pine and sweet gum will occur
on the mitigation site. Mowing or chopping will be utilized if found necessary to eliminate
excess competition to the selected species that are planted. The species selected will
provide a habitat similar to that existing in the reference adjacent areas prior to logging.
The initial planting will be 400 trees per acre under the direct supervision of qualified
forestry professional. The seedling stock is to be obtained from a nursery located within
200 miles of the mitigation site. The stock shall be bare root, 1 year old, 12 to 18 inches
high, 1 /4 inch or greater diameter root collar and with 4 or more lateral roots. Condition of
this stock shall be monitored prior to and during planting to assure high survivability rate.
The site distribution of species shall be based on soil fertility, species growth rates
and hydrogeomorphology in individual portions of the mitigation site.
5

Sample plot for survival analysis shall be a minimum of one 0.05 acre sample plot
per two (2) acres of the mitigation site. Sample plots shall be conducted in
August/September each year until vegetation success criteria is met.
9. SOILS:
The mitigation site soil is to be sampled and analyzed to determine PH, lime and
fertilizer requirements before planting of tree seedlings. Corrective measures will be taken
as found necessary to promote the successful regeneration of the wetland hardwoods.
Site soil fertility and genetic differences within species can influence the ability of trees to
tolerate flooding and this pre-planting site study will assist in selection of species.
Soils on the mitigation site are mapped as Rains and on a site examination confirms
the mapping. The site is currently part under cultivation and the remainder used as cattle
pasture.
The mitigation site consists of farmland that was cleared and converted
approximately eight (8) years previous. The site drainage is southwest to Northeast with
three (3) main lead ditches and two (2) laterals. The fields had not been leveled or crowned
and no sub-surface drainage has been constructed. The two (2) debris windrows (30'x
500' approximately) located in the Southwest pasture portion of the site are to remain to
provide transition habitat for wildlife. The windrows are partially overgrown and are not to
be disturbed.
The existing drainage system is to be plugged at ditch intersections or outlets with
minimum length of 50 feet. Each plug is to be cut down along the centerline to provide a
swale overflow 0.5 feet below adjacent original grade. The banks of the ditches will be
peeled back with a dozer or motor grader to partially fill the flow line of the ditch inverts
creating periodic standing water condition within the resulting depression along the filled
ditch line.
6

10. HYDROLOGY:
The mitigation site selection was based upon the existing small variations in
topography typifying a wet hardwoods flat. The location of the site is adjacent to a true
Carolina Bay pocosin located to the Southwest and having a slightly higher elevation (+3
feet more or less). The seep effect of ground water from the adjacent bay combined with
precipitation will provide the primary hydrologic input. Analysis of uncleared timberlands
adjacent to the mitigation indicates that the mitigation site priorto conversion supported wet
hardwood flat vegetation.
11. WATER BUDGET:
The Water Budget for the mitigation site follows and indicates sufficient water will be
available to restore the hydrology necessary to support the wetland hardwood vegetation.
<1.> Precipitation (P)
(a) Average annual precipitation Craven County, N. C. Is 54.5 inches
(b) Precipitation inflow =54.5" x 72 ac = 327 Ac.ft/yr.
12
<2.> Runoff (R)
(a) Surface runoff from the Mitigation Site will be restricted by grading and filling
existing ditches.
(b) Allowance for Runoff due to storm events will be 10% of the annual
precipitation.
(c) Groundwater Outflow =0.10 x 54.5 x 72 = 32.7 Ac.-Ft/Yr.
12
<3.> Groundwater Flow (G)
(a) Groundwater flow from the mitigation site will be limited due to elimination of
adjacent ditches and the rains soils.
(b) Allowance for groundwater flow will be 20% of the annual precipitation.
(c) Groundwater Outflow = 0.20 x 54.5 x 72 = 65.4 Ac.-Ft/Yr.
12
7
t a-
<4.> Evaporation (E)
(a) Free water evaporation will be limited to periodic ponding within the mitigation
site.
(b) Allowance for evaporation will be 41 inches per year over 10 acres of ponded
water
(c) Evaporation Outflow = 41 x 10 =34.2 Ac.-Ft/Yr.
12
(d) Free water evaporation should cease to occur as full revegetation is
established on the mitigation site.
<5.> Evapotranspiration (ET)
(a) Allowance for evapotranspiration rates forthe mitigation site when vegetation
is fully established will be 70% of the annual free water evaporation rate of
41 inches per year.
(b) Evapotranspiration Outflow = 0.70 x 41 x 72 = 172.2 Ac.-Ft/Yr.
12
<6.> Offsite Runoff (OR)
(a) The sandridge west of the mitigation site is expected to provide a combined
surface runoff during storm events and groundwater flow into the mitigation
site that will enter the mitigation site hydrology. The area contributing to this
runoff will be approximately 50 acres and an allowance for runoff equaling
20% of the annual precipitation will exit this area.
(b) Offsite Runoff - 0.20 x 54.5 x 50 = 45.4 Ac.-Ft/Yr.
12
<7.> Wetland Soil Storage (S)
(a)
(b)
The excess water available for establishing and maintaining the wetland
hardwood vegetation will be stored in the rains soils.
Soil storage = S=P+OR-R-G-E-ET
S=327 + 45.4 - 32.7 - 65.4 -34.2 -172.2
S= 67.9 Ac.-Ft./Yr.

8

il r
g
l:
(a) The water budget indicates that sufficient excess water will be available
within the mitigation site to support establishment of wetland hardwood
vegetation.
(b) Provisions for allowing offsite runoff of excess water will be a swale spillway
constructed in each drainage ditch plug. These swales shall be initially also
plugged with small earthen check dams approximately 10 feet wide and will
later be opened manually with shovels should added drainage be found
desirable when the initial surface water supply is found to be in excess of that
required for seedlings. In apparent lowest areas bedding will be desirable for
Immature plantings and is to be accomplished as necessary to raise the roots
sufficiently for the planted trees to thrive.
12.
The groundwater hydrology and surface ponding will be monitored by periodic visual
observations, hand borings and monitoring wells installed per WRP Technical Note HY-1A-
3.1 dated August 1993. The slight variations in topography throughout the mitigation site
are expected to maintain wetland hydrology in a portion of the site during dry periods and
these areas will be documented to verify suitable conditions to allow the selected species
of trees to thrive. Should some area indicate excessive soil moisture or flooding, limited
drainage may be restored to direct the water to drier areas on site after consultations with
Corps of Engineers Representatives.
13. PROJECT MONITORING:
The overall responsibility for this mitigation project will be:
Mr. Joe Alcoke
3305 Clarendon Blvd.
New Bern, North Carolina 28560
[phone]
tell 7--,

CGW Inc.
Mr. Calvin Wellons
P. O. Box 1018
Morehead City, N. C. 28557
[phone]
The responsibility for actual development of the mitigation site will be delegated by
the owners to various engineers, biologists, foresters, and contractors as necessary during
the three (3) years required for successful completion of the mitigation.
14. REPORTS:
The progress of the mitigation shall be documented by annual reports over the three
year monitoring period developed during August - September of each year as the project
progresses. The annual report shall be submitted within 30 days of monitoring and shall
include the following:
Photographs
Sample Plot Data
Well Data (if applicable)
Problems/Resolution
Upon determination that the mitigation plan has been successfully implemented a
final "As-Built" report will be prepared and issued. This report shall include the following:
Final Elevations
Photographs
Sample Plot Locations
Well Data (if applicable)
Problems/Resolution
Planting Design/Sample Plot Data
General Discussion
10
i
15. REMEDIAL ACTION:
Any deviations from this plan will be coordinated with and approved by the Corps of
Engineers.
Unsuccessful vegetation survival will be corrected by re-planting of the same or
similar species or by alternate species that may be determined by soil/hydrology conditions.
The hydrology within the site shall be monitored and areas within the site determined
to be too wet or too dry are to be corrected by modification of the surface
water/groundwater drainage.
Vandalism or animal depredation shall be monitored and corrective action taken as
found necessary.
16. FINAL DISPOSITION OF MITIGATION SITE
Upon successful completion of the development of the 72 acre site to a wet
hardwood flat the property will remain in the ownership of the principals until such time as
a transfer of ownership is deemed suitable. Upon transfer of ownership, the deeds will
contain a conservation easement or deed restriction to maintain the site as a wet hardwood
flat. Donation or sale of the site to education or conservation organizations will include
similar conservation easement or deed restrictions.

11
{ }' f??. ? it ? 4 ? - =
s x.G 1 F tt
17. CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Upon approval of this Mitigation Plan bythe North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management and by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and issue of a permit to fill a 30
acre site by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the following Conservation Easement will
be recorded by the Owners in the office of the Craven County Register of Deeds:
This DEED OF EASEMENT, made this day of
by hereinafter called the Grantor.
WITNESSETH:
1994,
WHEREAS, Grantor Is the Owner in fee simple of certain real property situated in
Number 3 Township, Craven County, North Carolina being more particularly described as:
BEGINNING at a point, an iron stake in a ditch about 50 ft. from State Road 1256,
2 miles north of Cove City, N. C. in Number Three (3) Township, Craven County, said
beginning point is the Northeast corner of a Tract Number Three (3) of the T.J. Bryan
Estate, thence South 66° 30' West 2670 feet to a corner thence North 54° 48' West 340
feet to a point; thence North 36° 30' West 296.00 feet; thence North 32° 45' West 200.60
feet thence North 66° 37' West 120.0 feet; thence North 38° 33' West 138.9 feet; thence
North 04° 47' East 104.7 feet; thence North 00° 35'86.8 feet; thence North 66° 30' East
2750.00 feet to a corner; thence South 51 ° 22' East 98.2 feet, thence South 36° 54' West
361.00 feet to Stephen Perjanytz lot; thence South 66° 30' West 522.72 feet; thence South
36° 54' East 250.0 feet; thence North 66° 30' East 277.72 feet to a new corner; thence
North 36° 54' West 325.0 feet; thence North 66° 30' East 200.0 feet; thence South 28° 25'
East 131.62 feet; thence South 26° 35' East 100.00 feet to the point of beginning being 72
acres more or less.
WHEREAS, the Grantor is restoring the subject tract to a wet hardwood flat as
mitigation for a permit allowing development of another tract of land;

12
WHEREAS, the Grantor, as a condition of said permit is willing to grant a
Conservation Easement over said property and contiguous water areas of said property,
on the terms and conditions and for the purposes hereinafter set forth, and the Grantor is
willing to accept such easement;
WHEREAS, the Grantor recognizes the scenic, natural, and aesthetic value of the
property upon completion of the restoration of said property to a wet hardwood flat and will,
by the recordation of a Conservation Easement, have the purpose of conserving the natural
values of said property, preserving the natural character of said property, and preventing
the development of said property for any purpose or in any manner which would conflict
with the maintenance of said property in its scenic, natural and wooded condition;
NOW THEREFORE, Grantor hereby grants and conveys to the United States of
America forever and in perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and character
and to the extent hereinafter set forth, in respect to the lands described herein and located
in Craven County, North Carolina:
The terms, conditions and restrictions of the Conservation Easement are as
hereinafter set forth:
No building, billboard or advertising material, fence, or other structure shall
be erected on the property unless such structure replaces a pre-existing
structure of similar size, bulk, or height.
2. There shall be no dumping of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste, or other un-
sightly or offensive material.
3. There shall be no excavations, dredging or removal of loam, gravel, soil,
rock, sand, or other material nor any building of roads or other change in the
general topography of the land, excepting the maintenance of existing foot
trails, fire lanes, farm roads, or other accesses.
4. There shall be no removal, destruction, or cutting of trees, shrubs, or other
vegetation except as may be necessary for (a) the maintenance of existing
foot trails, fire lanes, or other accesses, (b) the prevention or treatment of
disease, or (c) other good husbandry and silviculture practices.
5. No advertising of any kind or nature shall be located on or within the property.
13
i? ; I.

Sim
6. There shall be no activities, actions, or uses detrimental or adverse to water
conservation, erosion control, soil conservation, and fish and wildlife or
habitat preservation.
The terms, conditions and restrictions set forth above shall in no way restrict the
Grantor in earthwork, mowing, planting, ditching, seeding, or any other operations
considered by the Grantor as necessary to complete the restoration of the subject tract as
mitigation for other permitted work.
In the event the mitigation of the site is not successful and not accepted by the
United States Government Army Corps of Engineers within five (5) years of the date of this
Easement, this Conservation Easement shall become null and void and shall be removed
from said property.
The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns, the right to continue the use of the property for all purposes not
inconsistent with the Conservation Easement.
The Grantor agrees that the terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this
Conservation Easement will be inserted by him in any subsequent deed, or other legal
instrument, by which he divests himself of either the fee simple title to or of his possessory
interest in the subject property.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto the United States of America (Grantee) and Grantor
to the use of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. The covenants agreed to
and the terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes imposed as aforesaid shall not only
be binding upon the Grantor but also his agents, personal representatives, heirs, and
assigns, and all other successors to him in interest and shall continue as a servitude
running in perpetuity with the above described land.
14
Tr
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors has hereunto set their hands and seals in
the day and year above written.
WITNESS:
WITNESS:
GRANTOR
By:
GRANTOR
By:
NORTH CAROLINA
CRAVEN COUNTY
I, , a Notary Public of the County and State
aforesaid, certifythat personally appeared before me
this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing document.
WITNESS my hand and notarial seal, this the day of ,
1994.
(SEAL)
NOTARY PUBLIC
15
it i
NORTH CAROLINA
CRAVEN COUNTY
I, , a Notary Public of the County and State
aforesaid, certify that personally appeared before me
this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing document.
WITNESS my hand and notarial seal, this the day of ,
1994.

NORTH CAROLINA
CRAVEN COUNTY
(SEAL)
NOTARY PUBLIC
PIT
The foregoing certificates of ,
and are certified to be
correct. This instrument was presented for registration this day and hour, and duly
recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Craven County, North Carolina, in Book
, at Page
Thisthe day of , 1994, at
o'clock M.
BY:
REGISTER OF DEEDS DEPUTY REGISTER OF DEEDS
mp93401
16
1--4
6J
IO
O
M
M
1?-
O
m
r
r
eN
O
N
C ?
11 ii

?
E- V `J J; ?.. 1y

, - N. C. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALI-11 ,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
3 P.O. 'Box 27687
~Ralcigh, N.C. 27611
Environmental Sciences Branch
FAX [phone]
T=COPY TO:
FAX NUMB E
FROM:
C?
-S

'HONIE: ?33 7V
{
I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
i
Al - MI.WA
tot
C) FE [***4 1=1
December 9, 1994
MEMO
TO: Bob Chiles
FROM: John Dorne
RE: DEM review of mitigation plan
Joe Alcoke project
Craven County
DEM # 94554
The attached memo from Ron Ferrell describes shortcomings of
the proposed mitigation plan for the Alcoke project. The main
problem is that the amount and quality of data are nor sufficient
at this time to approve the mitigation plan. After you have
reviewed the comments if you need clarifications, please call Ron
Ferrell at 919-733-0026. Please send two copies of your amended
plan to me so we can complete our review and approve the
mitigation plan.
I can be reached at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions.
alcokel.mit
cc: Ron Ferrell
Deborah Sawyer, WaRO
Central Files
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
60% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Post-it" Fax Note
b
7671. I Date
?I
L?_.
MENTAL MANAGEMENT
JTY SECTION
MEMQRANDUM:
TO:
FROM.-
SUBJECT:
DATE;
John Dorney
W
Ron Ferrell
Mitigation Plan for Alcoke/CGW, Inc
December $,, 1994
The following comments are submitted in response to the review of
the subject document dated November 15, 1994.
1. A description of the soil 'types, vegetation and hydrology dated August
9, 1994 is referenced. I do not have this document. This document is
supposed to contzin a description of the wet hardwood flat area that
will be used as the reference forest ecosysiem WE). Please have
applicant provide me with a copy of this document.
2. A map (or maps) of the 'mitigation site must be submitted which show
the following information: 1) general location of mitigation site; 2)
location of drainage ditdies and proposed plugs; 3) elevations; 4)
direction of surface water and ground water flows; 5) predicted wetness
of areas within site; 6) species to be planted in each area if areas of
different wetness present on site; 6) location of overflow swales;
location of monitoring welts and all permanent sample plots.
3. Describe how the hydrolwom
where species will be planted.
4. Species should be selected based on predic
ordered from a reputable source. Nursery
acceptable criteria for determining the spe
exception of Yellow Poplar I have no objes
(assuming that they are referring to Nyssa
however it does not appear that any thoul
species should be planted based on expecte
selected range from facultative to obligate
conditions exist on the site. Also, what is
reference site? If reference site has been Iq
need to locate a "pristine" site to determin
1 be used to determine
n page 5)
d wetness of site and
vailability is not an
as to be planted. With the
on to the species selected
ylvatica var biflora)
t has been given to which
hydrology. The species
hick is OK if these
)ecies composition of
;ed and managed they may
species composition or
DEC OR- '94 05:96R,'
P.2/3
consult the literature for descriptions of hardwood flats before they
were all converted into pine forests.
5. What is the justification For plugging the ditches instead of filling the
ditches in? How deep are the ditches on the site? Have the ditches
penetrated any soil layers that restrict the downward movement of
water? If so the ditches xnay have to be filled with some type of
impervious material.
6. Have the soils been evaluated for the presence of plow pans, hard pans
or anything that may inl'dbit the growth of the trees?
7. Because the site has been actively farmed some provision should be
made to "rough" the site. to increase the micro topographic relief.
8. What is the current depth to groundwater on the site? What is the
predicted depth to groundwater after ditches have been plugged, i.e.
how often during the growing season is the depth to groundwater
expected to be less than 12 inches. It would be useful to use
ORAINMOD to predict the hydrology of the site.
9. Provide explanation of how the numbers used in the water budget
were determined, i.e. what is basis for using 10% of precipitation for
runoff rate, etc.
10. Permanent sample plots should be randomly selected throughout the
site prior to planting of trees. There should be a minimum of one 0.05
acre sample plot per acre unless it can be demonstrated that the site is
so uniform in elevation imd wetness that this number of plots is not
needed.
11. Specify the frequency of monitoring of hydrology and vegetation.
Recommend that hydrology be monitored monthly during the first
year and quarterly thereafter. Recommend that vegetation be
monitored frequently during first growing season. Soils should be
monitored in the permanent plots for the presence of indicators of
hydrology.
12. An "as built" report should be submitted within 30 days of completion
of planting of trees.
13. Remedial actions must be taken to control nuisance vegetation which
is defined as any species that is not planted.
14. All monitoring reports and requests to conduct remedial actions
should also be sent to the Division of Environmental Management.
DEC 08 '94 35:37PM
P. 3i3
15. Vegetation success criteria should be 32D trees per acre that have
survived for three full ;rowing seasons.
16. I have no idea if the prcposed Conservation Easement is legal. It
specifies the United States of America as the holder of the easement.
Need to check with the lawyers on this one.

Fo `- I T
y
ROBERT M. CHILES,.P.E.
ENGINEERS, CONSULTANTS a
Y_A _r q

MARINE SURVEYORS
417-A BROAD STREET BUSINESS: 919-637-4702
P.O. BOX 3496 NIGHTS: 919-638-2346
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA 28564-3496 FAX: [phone]
March 15, 1995
RECEIVED
Mr. John Dorney
Department of Environment Health MAR Z 1 1995
and Natural Resources ENVIRCINWENTAL SCIENCES
P. O. Box 29535 ARAtlrw
Raleigh, N. C. 27626-0535
Subject: Wetland Mitigation Site for Alcoke/CGW Inc.
Ref: (a) U.S. Corps of Engineers Permit #199402975 dated March 2, 1995
(b) N.C. DEHNR 401 Certification-Project 94554 dated August 2, 1994
(c) Your Memo dated December 9, 1994 with copy of Ron Ferrell's memo
dated December 8, 1994.
Enclosures: (1) Wetland Classification Summary for Alcoke Project
and Mitigation Site by Land Management Group dated 8-9-94
(2) Mitigation Site Location Map-RMC No. 94082 dated 4-29-94
(3) Mitigation Site Topographic Map-RMC No. 94254 dated 3-8-95
(4) Mitigation Site Drainage Flow Map-RMC No. 94254 dated 3-8-95
(5) Mitigation Site Drainage Modification Plan
RMC No. 94254 dated 3-8-95
(6) Mitigation Site Monitoring Plan-RMC No: 94254 dated 3-8-95
Dear John:
Enclosed please find copies of the additional information regarding the subject
mitigation site requested by Ron Ferrell per reference (c). My comments relating to other
matters included in this memo follow in the order listed in reference (c).
1. Enclosure (1) is the Land Management Report describing the mitigation site.
2. Enclosure (2) shows the site location.
Enclosure (3) is a topographic map of the site showing the relative elevations,
locations of existing ditches and the windrows and other existing vegetation.
MECHANICAL, CIVIL, AND MARINE ENGINEERING MARINE HYDROGRAPHIC AND LAND SURVEYS
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, MARINE AND RAILROAD FACILITIES DESIGN
FORENSIC ENGINEERING AND FAILURE ANALYSIS BOUNDARY SURVEYS AND MAPPING SERVICE

Mr. John Dorney
Page 2
March 15, 1995
Enclosure (4) is an overlay of the topographic map showing direction of
surface and ground flow. As is evident from the elevations, surface flows are
nil except in the ditches. The near surface groundwater flow is expected to
exist as shown.
Enclosure (5) is an overlay of the topographic map showing the proposed
ditch plugs and overflow swales. The plugs and swales are subject to
modification as the mitigation is developed based upon monitoring well data.
Enclosure (6) is an overlay of the topographic map showing location of
ground water monitoring wells and permanent sample plots.
3. The analysis of the interaction surface hydrology with the surface water and
soil types throughout the site will be utilized in the final selection of particular
plant species to be planted at individual portion within the mitigation site.
Data collected from monitoring wells and observation of the ditch flows will be
utilized for the analysis prior to planting.
4. The species selection will only be from reputable sources since the survival
goal of planted trees is the basis for the success criteria of the mitigation.
Nursery availability must be considered for selection of species since we
cannot plant what is not available within the 200 mile radius of the mitigation
site. However, the species selection will be from the list contained within the
mitigation plan and the nursery order will be for planting seeds of the species
selected for later transplant to the site. These listed species were selected
after review of literature and consultation with registered foresters as to
historic species to be found in wet hardwood flats.
5. Plugging ditches was selected as the preferred method of modification of the
drainage in order to minimize mechanical disturbances within the site and to
allow later modification if excess surface standing water endangers the
planted seedlings. Soils investigation to date indicate that the existing ditches
have not penetrated restrictive soil layers that would prevent subsurface
outflow of surface drainage. This will be monitored during the mitigation
process and sealing of ditch inverts will be completed if found necessary.
i
14

Mr. John Dorney
Page 3
March 15, 1995
6. The site has been in agricultural use about 15 years or less and soil borings
have not indicated a hardpan that would inhibit growth of selected species.
7. Our intent is to initially disc the entire site prior to initiating the tree planting
and to periodically disc areas between the plantings to limit unwanted
competition if necessary.
8. The current depth of the groundwater on the site is seasonal and varies
between 12 inches and 24 inches. It is our professional judgment based
upon experience with similar sites that plugging the existing drainage will
result in groundwater hydrology that will support the wetland vegetation to be
planted.
9. The water budget was prepared using published data and best professional
judgment. The 10% surface runoff was included as a nominal entry in the
budget and can be varied by changes in the outlet swales as is found
necessary.
10. The sample plot of one 0.05 acre sample plot per two (2) acres of the
mitigation site is considered sufficient due to the topography of the site (see
enclosure (3)).
11. The plan (paragraph 8 page 6) specifies that the sample plots shall be
monitored in August/September of each year. The hydrology will be
monitored and reported in conjunction with these sample plots. Additional
random vegetation and hydrology monitoring will be conducted throughout
the development of the mitigation in order to assist in the success of the plan.
12. An "as built" report of the completion of planting can be prepared.
13. Paragraph (8) page (5) of the mitigation specifies mowing or chopping to
eliminate excess competition and control nuisance vegetation.
14. Correspondence relative to the mitigation will be sent to N.C.DEM.
15. The success criteria of the mitigation plan is 320 trees per acre.

l
I
I
Mr. John Domey
Page 4
March 15, 1995
16. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has agreed with the conservation
Easement.
I trust that the enclosed report and maps, along with the above comments will be
sufficient for your approval of the mitigation plan. Our clients expect to begin construction
in June 1995 but closure of the development property is currently on hold until such time
as the mitigation plan is approved by your office. Your early action will be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Robert M. Chiles, P.E.
RMC:jrf
cc: Joe Alcoke
CGW Inc.

i-
i
' I
I I
I
• I
i
i ? ?

WETLAND CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY
ALCOKE PROJECT AND
MITIGATION SITES
8/9/94
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.

FOR
SWUA, 'Aw.
ad OPM ST60,23"
%4 mini", ?{rbA %wkna 28402
J'l• 910-452-0001
9204d 9
SPa.? ?' Si?ld?
Bob Chiles
P.O. Box 3496
New Bern, N.C.
Dear Bob:
28564-3496
August 9, 1994
99"aa >4
2..V A.A CIA. OW
3805 WIto"W& dwmw
Wi&d'V&X'.NW M03
As requested on 8/4/94, I examined and documented the soils,
vegetation and apparent hydrology on the t 30 acre Alcoke
Development site in New Bern and the t 71 acre mitigation site near
Cove City. The purpose of this examination was to determine
whether or not the development site was a Pocosin wetland and to
classify the wetland that existed prior to agricultural activity on
the mitigation site.
Most of the project site was cleared in the recent past which
removed all native vegetation and root mat. The site was replanted
with Loblolly Pine which is now 3-4' high. The other vegetation in
this replanted area consists of Woolgrass, Dog Fennell, Beak Rush,
Wire Grass, Blue Stem, Eastern Baccharus, Wax Myrtle and various
other successional species. The northeast end of the project area
has recently been clear cut. This activity has removed all
standing vegetation leaving the tree stumps only. Vegetation
around this clear cut area consists of Loblolly Pine, Sweet Bay,
Bracken Fern, Wire Grass, Red Bay, Red Maple, Sweet Gum, Vaccinium
and Black Gum.
Soil profiles were documented at two locations on the project site
(profiles 3 and 4). Profile 3 as shown in the enclosed photos was
augered near the center of the cleared, replanted area. Profile 4
was augered near the edge of the clear cut area to the northeast.
All soil descriptions were to a depth of 48".
Soil descriptions noted on the project site at profile sites 3 and
4 are as follows:
Soil Profile 3
A 0-8" 10 yr 2/1 fine sandy loam
Btg 1 8-17" 10 yr 5/2 heavy sandy loam
Btg 2 17-31" 10 yr 6/1 light sandy clay loam, 10 yr 6/5 mottles
Cg 31-48" 10 yr 7/1 sandy loam
3
2
Soil Profile 4
A 0-7" 10 yr 2/1 fine sandy loam
Bw 7-15" 10 yr 4/2 fine sandy loam
Btg 1 15-36" 10 yr 6/1 light sandy clay
Btg 2 36-42" 10 yr 5/2 sandy clay loam,
Bcg 42-48" 10 yr 6/2 light sandy clay
loam, 10 yr 6/5 mottles
10 yr 6/5 mottles
loam
Watertable levels were noted as being greater than 48" below the
surface at soil profile 3 and 38" at soil profile 4.
Pocosins typically are characterized by vegetation which includes
Pond Pine, Loblolly Bay, Sweet Bay and Red Bay with a dense layer
of evergreen shrubs which include Fetterbush, Titi, Inkberry and
Smilax. Of course, these vegetation types can be found in various
types of wetland systems.
Vegetation at the project site has obviously been altered to the
point where it could no longer be considered a functioning Pocosin
community - if it ever was. The remaining surrounding vegetation
as noted does not indicate a true Pocosin blend. The overstory of
Loblolly Pine and the absence of Pond Pine and Loblolly Bay
indicates a slightly higher better drained inclusion within the
mapped Torhunta soil unit. The Pocosin soils are organic or very
poorly drained acid mineral soils which feature a black fine sandy
loam A horizon generally 10 to 24" thick. Organic Pocosin soils
are most commonly known for their thick 0 horizons ranging from 16
to 108".
The documented soil profiles on the project site show only a 7 to
8" thick A horizon which is far short of the norm for a mineral
Pocosin soil. Again, the project site is displaying
characteristics of a better drained inclusion within the mapped
soil unit.
Based on the noted vegetation types and soil profiles, the project
site would not be characterized as a Pocosin. The higher degree of
diversity within the surrounding vegetation and the non-
characteristic soil profiles indicate that this site was a poorly
drained wooded flat with possible micro-topographic drainage-ways
of very poorly drained soils.
With the past clearing activities on this property and surrounding
drainage impacts, it is highly unlikely that even if a Pocosin
wetland existed on this site in the past, that restoring one at
this point would not be a realistic endeavor.
The mitigation site consists of prior converted farmland currently
being used for soybean production and cattle grazing. A small
wooded section'is along the farm entrance road and wooded land is
present off the tract boundaries. Soils here were mapped as Rains
which is a poorly drained soil common to regional wetlands in an
i
3
unaltered state.
Vegetation in the small wooded area on the tract consisted of Red
Maple, Loblolly Pine, Sweet Gum, Water Oak, Sweet Bay, Red Bay,
Switchcane, Fetterbush, Sweet Pepperbush and Cinnamon Fern.
Soil profiles were documented at two locations on the mitigation
tract (Profiles 1 and 2). Profile one was augered approximately
60' from the edge of the soybean field in the western end of the
tract. Profile 2 was augured within the small wooded area off the
entrance road at the eastern end of the tract. Soil descriptions
were to a depth of 48".
Soil descriptions noted on the mitigation site at profile sites 1
and 2 are as follows:
Soil Profile 1
AP 1 0-6" 10 yr 2/1 fine sandy loam, many uncoated grains
Ap 2 6-12" 10 yr 6/2 fine sandy loam
Btg 1 .12-26" 10 yr 6/1 sandy clay loam, 10 yr 6/8 mottles
Btg 2 26-40 10 yr 7/1 sandy clay loam, 10 yr 6/8 mottles
Soil P rofile 2
A 0-8" 10 yr 2/1 fine sandy loam
Btg 1 8-20" 10 yr 6/1 light sandy clay loam, 10 yr 6/7 mottles
Btg 2 20-30" 10 yr 5/1 sandy clay loam, 10 yr 6/7 m ottles
Btg 3 30-42" 10 yr 6/1 sandy clay loam, 10 yr 6/8 m ottles
Cg 42-48" 10 yr 5/1 light sandy clay loam, 10 yr 6/7 mottles
Watertable levels wer e noted at 30" below the surface at Profile 1
and 36" at Pro file 2.
The native vegetation and soils on the mitigation tract are typical
of those found on broad inter-stream wooded flats in this region.
The soil profiles closely correlate to the mapped rains soil unit.
Most undisturbed rains soils areas are indeed flat wooded wetlands.
Restoring this prior converted tract to wetland is a logical and
workable undertaking. Plugging the existing ditches should
successfully restore wetland hydrology. Watertable levels here
were already higher than the project site.
Not far from the western corner of the tract is a large Carolina
Bay. Water was noted seeping to the surface of a woods road just
off the tract. Bay vegetation could be seen around this corner of
the property which also indicates a healthy level of groundwater
nearby.
With the proper number and mix of plantings along with the restored
site hydrology, this tract should perform well as mitigated
acreage.
4
Please contact me to discuss any questions you may have at any
time.
Si'n'cerely,
Steve Mor ison
Environmental Consultant
SM/dm
Enclosures:
Maps, Photos

SITE MAP
Alcoke Property ;
PROJECT SITE
?"IL -PROFILE THREE AND FOUR LOCH IONS
! . Boox.15PAGE 39
.w •• •
M+»• •, At ?a•? SOIL FILE
i•
+, •? ?. A Job
SUTCH
alt. .r . „` v • ?rf.
• w y
• ?' ti
?N? ?? ? t!i• a* ° s
tw%
? M
O

G MUM I?wAY ;KTA •
um
u AM I TAN A
_L•

' _ - 1=84A

vu-TU Mill

41s?n
.16.00
'tsaoo'
0?4'?io'
4sON
c ;fd- " Ilaw =3(xe
».e)I .
.Solt. P2oFl LE
.30
' .. 21.43:. ?5• ?? ? ?' I ,
b
v+ ,
:'. •' t III` . •...??
-3010
f• 1 ' ° • 1'
tool,
?r'},;•'•c, S'• ?tA>?.• Vy _ HEET 3 of 5
• ,
MITIGATION SI
SOIL PROFILE ONE AND TWO CAT ONS
ASS •??. ? 't
ell
bpi!
pwn
y?l• 0 v
NN
• • Soler PRpFIL6
•? A lG'
j
¦
• . •• PROPOSED SITE
for,
WETLAND MITIGATION

JOB NO.

)BERT M. CHILES, P.E.
ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS'
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
SHEET 5 of 5
i

? y
i
1 1
`
? _ ?

?

'
,} ?
?+y
i
1 ? ?
1
f
? t
F

,. 1
N
? S _.
a }: tk

i ?. It
1:
I_ ? .
! #.
A I t
.. '?
t ?
`.
?
ft ?.
r
i
?' - -

i

'

1

i '
.

?
? . ;.
?? F.
F
r,
I

},
3
I ._
4
l
' I I q.
j ? i

? f
?,
3
i
i -
i
i ! - _ I
??
p,
1
r }
FM? T7

ADJACENT WOODS AT PROJECT
.'' 1Y ..
?1 ?
MITIGATION SITE
SOIL PROFILE ONI
C.

SOIL PROFILE ONE DETAIL
0 TO 12"
SOIL PROFILE ONE DETAIL
24 TO 36"

36 TO 48"
! E:
c.
MITIGATION SITE
SOIL PROFILE TWO
SOIL PROFILE TWO DETAIL
0 TO 12"
SOIL PROFILE TWO DETAIL
24 TO 36"
PROJECT SITE
SOIL PROFILE THREE
SOIL PROFILE THREE DETAIL
0 TO 12"
SOIL PROFILE THREE DETAIL
24 TO 36"
36 TO 48"
c.
PROJECT SITE
SOIL PROFILE FOUR

-K

c.
SOIL PROFILE FOUR DETAIL
0 TO 12"
12 TO 24"
ic.
SOIL PROFILE FOUR DETAIL
24 TO 36"
__ ,•�,., , ��S N.+..� i �\`. ;�;,n i x26• /iI L' r,t ^` awjL
101,• exp
as II � 1 // '•k
as � „ • I
x
y • �,� 1 �!1 , tf "Yi :. P '�.1�'tj}'+ '+� ' � ;,1 :?l � ,:?�1� •a •?� � + • ?�•' � w j j � �.
Ob i
• Z.�r rrh�` �� � J'" `'. y'BW �rn � •�� jS �Y,� S!1'r'` ., ` � � b
r '•�µ YI 7x t :L�1 ,,yyr,�,.� 1. � � tt ) •'.,a W � l,�Qi� • � • }'
t•( '� ?-<' { ,4T y„� Y•y I � 1 SS �'!7i t, 4� � 1215 �, � O 1 ..
' '� _,'A�•',•`tt'�'� ',i'fll, / L �'h'7�� r'� f •: `' �' '•'tw� , \\ ' . � , � -
XiQ tX x't @�y ��'. 1]. 4 �,,;ill • t�f d
' .,,,ti.e , • r
• �y : '• 1 •; ''
ow Bern _ —"r---
• • = t: ^' ', a '` — Radio To
0 70
•'`" B .'1 , u • � • •R� li\,'L II 1111. ,• . • �• , • • ,!.rte— /•
., -.y Ma � �i� n� 1 +K � M• 1111 •.� �:� .i y '•��f;.••• t.�z�• • t,• L'
•
� �N � , II '91 L • •.. . .•' , ki.... . ! \\ •Y', / ail'
N, . •r, ' Ire 11.2/ '. • . '� :: i� i:�',':R1r"\"Zql• ... •
',ti • II • •• .111..1 • �• .,
.s�'•�!lr I . r � .•,,�'!:`— •' . r6 �#' a "'•1y
I'�TI� �.: '^a`• •...: x6200 �1,� i y• •� •`y., •
211 'r •'• \ .%: � • � `+> "..� � 1 �i �.., • .e•' `'..J e
4�•
tery
Be
•S • '' i' • l •ice. l � .+�'
�L.• entry
1213 • _ ••. . --- =' .-�
•M
—• I It
�, \ ��typN��;��: I .i .11. • ' • • MBR �� -7.
r1�.�1 � ' .:;d, a �,���;, • ., ,,,, �� � r✓`� ..� - .�
d �l
y �d•.yee.�on,�.
hr
0 ����tN p.. :r+ "►.� ( -.'?c 111"'' P t �+ �!; PilUg O • +�
as • � • •+{� •;'� �+",:y�`p ..� v �
�C I'M \ 5 �h'r ' *- •.r�
14 1 y1wrt ;i. �µi• ..�>�' II • •. /
Light
51 . n�
•' �I • 11 .' �d ,
' x:11 ` t. II C at■ t I \\ 4
t " ', I1I X S hll �[' • '•n ! Y► r• A• 1 ' ..,Iq's _

t _
I
? ` ?
,, i ? i ?
r ?
p

?

?
I ? ? ?
1
l

i
k s

I
F I
:
'?
i _
? ? ,
8 ?

f,
f
i
F _
' 6 1
? .

}, i
?
j ?
€

Y
'
Y ? ? ? ? ?

4'.
jj
Y ? ?

O

I
?.

`• ?.. ,?_ _,•, ? !u ..? 1 tit r x r?. ,, j? ? r 1252 ,? ? ` i •? ??/?\\
?.. -w- ?•?r.• 1 f r wl M'f r . .'?; 14? M;'! a ?, /! I ?- _
OVE
?"" ? ? --•w?`,r. -•"- ``fir ' c::' ; J
?, - - .•,,. ,1.'?•- ,,t . -• (? Wint 7green
Ce /
-,? wr Mwl M 6 *. c
,yam „p,??•-, rr...ry i? 1'!t •? r .ry'r"rY? +?;4 •' 1"ih ?M. ?`?. /' /
i yet ?
r ?,,.•, '.r" / S •••d rM 'h-°a"p„?I,,.+ '?'r7'-!t'.Yt' ' wg' ?;k '? (.y.l?,?JF?j`1 v • ?.. ( 'i,
+Y?
2
- _ ? ?^.'?J''?. "'y'.rr' ?'.w- - `•",yo.\ ?'?r ? s ?I i?' , r ` 1 • ?+ 1 - ? 12$
w .rte .gab, _•? •a : r. ;, 4 ?Cem • '. . • ' to ?i
..,,
vd.
Fqw
14
,Yo- ? -'Wr+.: ?YY- .,•1W- . / .? . /??-'?.
tw-
+? -? - . - • .'wl. :nr- ' :•...- ?--?' ' ? ? / Al ?? '?.
1r
411- ''- ?1. 4Y T A•- y •.--?1 =; •r..? 1 1
46- '46-
.,•,. :.•?- may. _ . •??-....: -• •'?.•\ 1 • 1 ??`-•?.?y.. _ yh• _ p? 1
- .W. _.r. ••Y- ..r- 'Y•' •?•".-W. -.'r" _'?'` - -.r`1 1w° 1 • O
? 1F -,?- ql?. _-'Ylr. ?'YIT .. yllf .}I/-"•?. -'YY-?'? (/ i \ I
4b- ol
w _ '•!?:' • W ?Y. ' ???- ?r_.r J ?/ • •
y-??. "?' yr-? ,r„ ?-•+w- ..Y? -•W. ? ?'? ,W../? // /a • ?==y / ? ?/' / ,' ?/?% 771256 •,rr +? .
10
411- "1-
1 -.? is
f ?.w" ,dew. fit. } ?r?l ?' rlr??`'.. (z/ 1l0 c 'f'- 245
--
i 1r
r. _
4i
?` ? • / ?i'• • • ; . • 1251 ? , '• l / / / '?? 6 `f .w.• ? )
•. ls.s, ?Cov
•• 2 Q ??. ?. y G
/ @r, .? "•. 1256 .-BM 147)
1210 i ; ' • lJ.O a? ?, ?,, ±•4 - .. - \•
k x ` °? + 1'%?y *1'" 1 " e Cell 1 1232' .
(> j \ 1233 •
ix
I
j
I
t
i?
;?
i}
t
ae,
MEN COUNTY SOIL SURVEY ►~<<� ,+ ::`,�
,� Pa • a f '� L •ypr d,�j',k� A
.+ ...�, IQr 'bw i2 `K'.�d �11��,41�Y r e,.,mc •'NOB 1,
Sr Rq K1i�e W' Ml yy ?
rr•� . % g 1. ' t � rn
' ' � 1 ~ �_ ti> �1 ��'4 : ����� ,.w ')11 nG1u� J:�t• v� •AuB �/ .`. ttu� .r
1� `� �a� •�. r car:. ;�R•, i , 4,^'• r rr >� + `. Zals� r t 'xr / '� AP ��' i :A
'�� � �,2r';��o..t • � ' �•• C
1.•
PRO E TJ r U
R � `� ..� ��� 1. �; .,, T� ,�1h' any + . • ; a,.: •
!� y. '.v w � Ln .r .1 Ir'r r • , � • rr � { i • 4'd�A � 1.
'r�.S4.'L".'1' ' {►�.."V.'✓ •.i NT; 'ap�,.� _ [4 ° . '4T `� •• I r'��"r'�!K �r r .r .1 • + ,r�;7.
s-
�oA�.
L
AYB `'� . Au8 .• , M� „«�,.` •dy'er`� ' ', �• � /: Ra • ! '� «..Mli�.. ,, � :'I,NM•r..A
• '` t� Uf, lit f•+ •Z'•« +A.. '•..� f. J�a .. ', ' r+. �' 1
ZA
• �.;•ll'�f j f�'}ti •�1 .� � � j, k,,Cr, +'r��.',��_ ti4• x `�/r"`r ../, •r. ,Jrte ��/,•,
-r Sii � Au8 r Ra r . t' �' ^r;• �:' ,a
•�,•.. E, r ,� 'TY' •AuB ( +U't�.'�1 . ..
A t'a . C� ' /►uB J •" ry '' } r t GOA
i� �;ia Ln" r Tag
•^� p r ' +7 .:ita Yr V�' f_« • ^ f'. 'i �% . A01«.; .,�r�, .... 1t>C�(!Q/ T&B
//� t t .t, N +a' N1 �5'oA ` �:�"• ;'' •' yi .'Qy� 'Lp •ra j
I .i AaA a t .y '�' r � r � t. Ra .'0 `''r y is »:�,,.� ':i/ • • Ln L�
AP
MM AuB Ge
t. 'y NoA ' j 2T,n�
X.1 CnBhy� � . . ,Lr:.lat ' �S/►p ��' �. c . r ' .Ln �t • �• ,. 'si r..
F •' r��1vn^ �,^ 'II, �!t R i `J1
C
�... �. ;.5,,ane
T to urate StA
in
�� • .p;,j . ��,• x � :: 1 ��{' �; i;'+, , t is �t'i •p,• ri.R pkv ` • y l' i r:
P.saK��j' A y�;fkis/ ir&.j/ ,baa,. •: '.' ,`',1,`'+, t��i;{ >`
Sa• ' +�« r , j/�'�`.� t ili►'1! f- r . ••a✓' ..� �T� Tab -1 a•4 �, :�' + • 1:i1} • a tt ' : , rY I
"' 1. < 't .. � ^, ' H �• �/ "i�•
f,} * • .:. '' r,► • �� it C7e .1, ,j,+ $a, YaB
T 50
µ n . � M5 • •1, A rwa
StA. T � �'•uM . a�1,'� 1 r .� � MI
�« •;i Ayl%�. 'j Te1B �• ' +• 1/ ���•~ �" It � �i' % rv,,�fJj} �+• .•
• � � ',�, �,yykii�• �•, t .�r. •`x , t�; orf ,;.�aB•:Y
+;,,' �r moi. •1 '� �' .� i ?Y'r. '•'1 �B'.' r i ' r r �r i`. . t F;� r t .ar•J '
r
'�{'j� • 1'� •i ]•aB i. •� ! ter:
SCALE 1"=2000'
��. ti ,�YY�'n„ !'4' .1 " •t {�,_�,�• .: a '' , r �' � �.
'�;`�. OQ � �rw9 • , t'i?a+ �1 •Cn9 "ut •:,_: ' • ��B ` A
TaB ilr�
Ta-Au¢1 4 St
lei , y.. Z+` iM
tt }S��i ++ i
A..o •+wbi

i?
k
p
? [A 1 1 r
p
I

NJ
,'� r �„T,j` �V. tr .••+rp • r 4i .'l• ,�
An _ 252
pa
r' �• _�. }� it 5 rr. 7 .ti, ty.,Ss »wr Rah
��r:"' r /- q I , i,�.,: I rrr• �1i •, NOA
��'g��'« � 'k iRt-.r^V,' {•.( .,,I .7' ''1 r•! M `•rc: . i. ' '' ° r 6 � ':,, '1 h. ',� La � , ".: �s!\..
c
11` �t V4 . r Y� l• tsJUt t r .� t ii,.w v �Voe •"'Cr:
e
INV. !c x . 111".
Fyi 7 t J L . QFy P' b' L Y
4 ,{'�Yt,*wCrB
s'*'*' r.'�,.1.�.`•i cr i' :w, •{. t
•� T.� . � r u � . ., ' � J f,: \ .;r rr�` ,'l .�. :. '•�r ���• ..Y4! � f14 ���! �•;�. v •�
4� at yoP # c r rla t rU'Lc' / t+.'tip v `l�fr ,s J ��tiA7fr�'��� Ott , f • i1%� �y �t :4r + l r� A QOA sv
i��i4��t��'� y ' , `�• " k�f' \'.'�j. �+�� f�t O`r �A�y N+� 'N b �~ V *' •�. .� 7Qp �. '.` �
� ,f � �'�'Fr�H r1 �1' r�r , � .h '4..,��i ,i,:YMf•�' .•,y', ., rLY » � � .: � y ,,
L
�•y�;��f �M: ryt; � ;p .�. .M� MM �� �,. r.�hy�7!_ r � God i:•r �'• �t f :y,+�
Se
ibis 5 f t e NoA �s i
MITIGATION SITNY
E
r, 4 N', yr''tt ,?,�1 A ,t♦6 y� 7 ` �'4/" '1''N' y: ,r nj�• . v X Y , • t ♦ QoA'rir•�l�'k,, .. r' 'jr}, '•
'it�1 }'r� :b, '° •'rr �ir�if� ° y i• •I• A&A
Al i. • !Y•. ('N T r q F �li i•�•+y,✓!J. , • , `r �:1 ,..��. • r, 'i l'.
r''�°� r �' �• r r Z AAA t
(�• .r?J' 256 Ra r{I)
''-•1,,,{ _ � r .�?% •� 1 r '+� �r i' .f .t r i�' � ''r .� �A)• t \ a'. S. ,Sr, , e
.V", i• S '�`" , . , t '• 'MU , '. t. �'.,. t Jnr` v� . k �� Yinf �i�.' O • r t�
A ., Ci tiw`. L,�, '' 11 9vr ,tV r Y tnr r. 11 i� ; Y'' h(ryw1 +1�r" �•7^ l?a. ler�4Y• } LY Se
, t" 15 r`' t� JAL t y ri • GOA
� 7 e ' YiY.h; F .�, t 1 t� �� r M ;;.,r,+ �„t �. „+. �i� , err.H ,� �,/,� .� r `-�� �, r � •' '
�� �. � r t,' w. ' � `4 ,•��^•� X�r, �kft�tli; ,,►►�� r,5,,�.,p,�t �`,'Vd�t' ry,� •'y ^''�t • � 7 ' o
"`� `� K*. y ', • Tp'
LY
,e Vii. ; � :� ' ,i.*� . '4,�„��"�r _ �� � .1 � , • ,
�
�y/(?Mr. I 1�iy "t. ttt isd y t
R�r r �.' S.4 rk •,t ''�: r., n 4 .tYN '] „�� r`~ t + 7f `.•`Dj j' n J•L '�fl.� ..' r� • r�'.t
r 1.�r ►; '�•+. • ,err :i. ..t s✓si$�'`r,��t ,s'y�'�•�u r ,� Y'! '�1 �'{ �'.�'� s�'1%1( r� Y
'S.. t,�.. ti i. •. i N ' ,!?•"Sy r!� �' 3''.,Y,v:;� a , Ni r •+ki?i�vc. ..A.,. t''iSG�? T ~tN l�lti!� 'y' N, '�••
Ly
Yl
�J �-����' � �/'t�" «`� { A r �.ti,•�i, ;(� . 'L.�'t'LP�.� k'�i�' �t'��' . �1;. : � •kM.. � ek1e
a /
j�0 t M�.
t
So Rar r 2
LY
W
.40;. ' w, t. LY Aa Tm a
LY Y
.•r�. I r' SCALE 1 =2000
• .t '� �. +i�City F=r
:`! �� '�''� i w Ra ;.. ,�s LY • � s �+• � rrl :�• ter..: g^•' n � � �, �•• :�? �
t 1W TT P AaA 'Yt
,4Ytr r LY
uc. , . QoA I tit' ®x' •W A t,,e "y "r f
Ra °- �.QoA !. Go A ' LY
Se QOA
' rt 1 rl QoA '
d %L LY NoA ]
L�
Se
o

i ?
I
? i ?
i
i
r ? ?

i
i I ?

IMPOSED SITE LOCATION
for
WETLAND MITIGATION
DATE: 04-29-94 ROBERT M. CH
d09 No. 94082 ENGINEERS AND i
P.E

???_{ ,

i

i ?, {
-?

?rk
F
'
? f
r ? I
,, ? ? ;

9
#? .::
_

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 2, 1994
Mr. Joe Alcoke
3303 Clarendon Boulevard
New Bern, N.C. 28562
Dear Mr. Alcoke:
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal
Clean Water Act,
Proposed commercial development
Project # 94554, COE # 199402975
Craven County
FILE COPY
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 2900 issued to Joe Alcoke dated 2 August
1994.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
eston Howard, r. P.E.
erector
Attachments
wgc2900
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Washington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. Steve Benton, Division of Coastal Management
Central Files
Mr. Bob Chiles; Robert M. Chiles Engineers

P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Telephone [phone]
50% recycled/ 10% post-c
ATk." IF
4*7?A??m -
AANHAAbWml?dMKW09?ft
[D F= F11

NORTH CAROLINA
Craven County
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public
Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to Joe Alcoke and C.G.W.,
Inc resulting in 25 acres of wetland impact in Craven County pursuant to an application filed on the
9th day of June of 1994 to construct a commercial shopping area.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the waters
of Core Creek in conjunction with the proposed development in Craven County will not result in a
violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of
North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate Sections 301,302,303,306,307 of PL 92-500
and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
That the activity be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant
increase in turbidity outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the turbidity in the stream is 25 NTU's
or less are not considered significant).
2. Stormwater controls must be done in accordance with DEM's Washington
Regional Office.
A final mitigation plan must be developed and approved in writing by DEM
before wetlands are filled.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification. This
Certification shall become null and void unless the above conditions are made conditions of the
Federal or Costal Area Management Act Permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon
written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in
the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and
filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 276 1 1-7447. Unless
such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 2nd day of August, 1994.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ston Howard, Jr.
i ctor
WQC# 2900
E ? 1 I ? F1 3

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
September 2, 1994
Colonel Robert J. Sperberg
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
REFERENCE: ACTID-94-2975 Mr. Joe Alcoke and C.G.W. Inc.,
Application to Fill 25 Acres of Wetlands for
Shopping Center in New Bern, Craven County, NC
Dear Colonel Sperberg:
The State of North Carolina has completed its review for
consistency with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program,
pursuant to 15 CFR 930, of Corps Public Notice number Action ID-
199402975, regarding an application Mr. Joe Alcoke and C.G.W.
Inc.to place fill material in 25 acres of wetlands above the
headwaters of Wilson Creek near the intersection of US 17 and US 70
in New Bern, NC. The applicant also proposes to mitigate for this
project by restoring 60 acres of a 72 acre tract adjacent to a
large pocosin within the Neuse River/Core Creek Watershed.
Based upon our review, we cannot disagree with the applicant's
determination that the proposed activity is consistent with the
North Carolina Coastal Management Program, provided the following
conditions for project construction and for mitigation are met.
1. All conditions of the 401 Water Quality Certification
issued by the Division of Environmental Management must be
met.
2. An approved sedimentation and erosion control plan is
required. The plan must be submitted to the NC Division of
Land Resources at least 30 days prior to the initiation of
land disturbing activities.
3. The applicant will work with the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission and the NC Division of Environmental Management to
develop a final mitigation plan to be approved before any
wetlands are filled. At a minimum, the plan will include the
following:
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
1

cc: Charles Jones, Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City
V/John Dorney, Division of Environmental Management
Richard Hamilton, Wildlife Resources Commission
Patrick McClain, Division of Land Resources
Richard Rowe, Division of Environmental Health
Tom Richter, Division of Community Assistance
Norm Sanders, Wilmington District Army Corps of Engineers
06
,? I 1 'I 'l; Ir 'I, ,I' 'MITI ill -i I,r 1 \L?f'
+ ? ? ?,,?lt 11 I'f'1',M M!,._"?' I'1?; n.l . '?"?;l'!,•I? r i!; ?,,: n! : n ;,r ?!, nlr,,i, n„i?,i ! ? l?„ , , .
!11r1'.M!11, Yf'. flO!!1,!'!'` : !dl?.V1,,J
nl'IIIA ?".nPJ`!' P•111M1";: lr,} ?ll??'+`I?I?
1)R0,11;(. P `:I, r:'f).MMTI'.?; 11.1 F!

I?H VIwP AN),? , ,t.W 1-?Ai N #i : /Veu

Wil
1rJ L ' ? (I.'!"` )!'; 1 1? 1 :
1;J1 ;fr>r' • ?'w'? V
loll, Poll

MT`! ! ;".'I'I?.C?l: . [' hq!?I?It ?t?r?lr?r.t 01111)1,;.
I!fT [+_!`?.'I'1{)I,' 17,1,. 2OZaC_ i-1',IV( .: Y/f"
L,_ },,J1,•?I?i,h,I,,1r, ?,?:'?`I'IIr(; ?';I1_??L, !1?!..I.j,,r ialr'?". ? 'I`J
n f I I cl- I
8 -

c 1 ?_? ? 5y

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID. 199402975 June 9, 1994
PUBLIC NOTICE
Mr. JOE ALCOKE, 3303 Clarendon Blvd., New Bern, North Carolina 28562, and
C.G.W., INC, Post Office Box 1018, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557, have
applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit TO PLACE APPROXIMATELY
100,000 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL MATERIAL INTO APPROXIMATELY 25 ACRES OF WETLANDS,
LOCATED ABOVE THE HEADWATERS OF WILSON CREEK, AND OFF U.S. 17 IN NEW BERN,
CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. THE APPLICANTS PROPOSE TO MITIGATE 60 ACRES
FOR THIS PROJECT BY RESTORATION OF A 72 ACRE TRACT ADJACENT TO A LARGE POCOSIN
WITHIN THE NEUSE RIVER/CORE CREEK WATERSHED, OFF SR 1256, NORTH OF COVE CITY,
CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the
applicant and from observations made during an onsite visit by a
representative of the Corps of Engineers. Plans submitted with the
application show approximately 100,000 cubic yards of fill material is
proposed to be placed into approximately 25 acres of wetlands located above
the headwaters of Wilson Creek, to facilitate-the development of retail stores
and to connect McCarthy Blvd from US 17 to Glenburnie Road. Of this proposed
project site, approximately 21.6 acres of the Alcoke property were cleared in
1991 by unauthorized mechanized landclearing. This property previously was
vegetated with Red maple, Lobolly bay, greenbriar, low gallberry, tall
gallberry, blueberry, fetterbush, and waxmyrtle. The entire 21.6 acres was
revegetated in 1992. The adjoining C.G.W., Inc. property is currently
vegetated with the same species. The purpose of the work is to facilitate the
development of retail stores and to complete the connection of McCarthy Blvd.
Plans showing the work are included with this public notice.
To mitigate for the wetland impacts, the applicants propose to return a 72
acre, prior converted tract to wetlands, utilizing 60 acres as mitigation for
this project. The site is currently farmland and pasture, having drainage
ditches surrounding the site. The soils are classified as Rains. An
inspection of the site on 24 May 1994, found hydrology ranging from 8 to 18
inches below the surface. Approximately 75? of the property is currently
planted in soybeans. The remaining 25t is being used as pasture for cattle
grazing. The applicants propose to plug the ditches to completely restore
wetland hydrology. Once the depth of the restored seasonal high water table,
fertility and drainage throughout the site has been determined, individual
hardwood species will be selected on the basis of site suitability, and in
. r
-2-
accordance with the Corps current migitation guidelines. The exact species to
be planted have yet to be determined. One or two disking treatments may be
necessary during the first growing season following planting to reduce
competition for the seedlings.
The applicant has determined that the proposed work is consistent with the
North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Plan and has submitted this
determination to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management for their
review and concurrence. This proposal shall be reviewed for the applicability
of other actions by North Carolina agencies such as:
a. The issuance of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management.
b. The issuance of a permit to dredge and/or fill under North Carolina
General Statute 113-229 by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.
C. The issuance of a permit under the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act (LAMA) by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management or
their delegates.
d. The issuance of an easement to fill or otherwise occupy State-owned
submerged land under North Carolina General Statute 143-341(4), 146-6, 146-11,
and 146-12 by the North Carolina Department of Administration and the North
Carolina Council of State.
e. The approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Land
Quality Section, North Carolina Division of Land Resources, pursuant to the
State Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NC G.S. 113 A-50-66).
The requested DA
permit will be denied if any required State or local authorization and/or
certification is denied. No DA
permit will be issued until a State coordinated viewpoint is received and
reviewed by this agency. Recipients of this notice are encouraged to furnish
comments on factors of concern represented by the above agencies directly to
the respective agency, with a copy furnished to the Corps of Engineers.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the
comment period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to
consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the
National Register of Historic Places for'the presence or absence of registered
properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and
this worksite is not registered property or property listed as being eligible
-3-
for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register
constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District
Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the presence of such resources.
Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical
data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that
the proposed activity will affect species, or their critical habitat,
designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which
it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern
for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive order
11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water
supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the
placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a
permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit
would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable
guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer
determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal,
State and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested
parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed
activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers
to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this
proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on
endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental
effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used
in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental
Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments
-4-
are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the
overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this DA
permit will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The DEM considers whether or not the
proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the DA
permit serves as application to the DEM for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Salisbury Street, Archdale
Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished
to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management plans to take
final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act certification on or after
July 8, 1994.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before June 27, 1994, Attention: Mr. John
Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. Norm Sanders, until 4:15 p.m.,
July 11, 1994, or telephone [phone].

4•'?1 0 ?b /ao'
C THIS H/?p eEVUCeo)
Ko?.O
In o
s
t

G
L
O
C
I
0
n
v
6NEET I OFF-
C? ?r
r?
ALeeKE PgorLFT`r
ceSO DcbK it It - Pf14e 591
GIT-r or WEv e+c
Tov?IsHiP N*• d cpA%Aw ce. fJOFrH OAKOLWA
v^-re, y-aA•,4 rCp6EkT m. GN(Lss, rE.
Joe. g.• I?SA01 E94146EG,y 4 "06ULt/Nte
",6L6, tC60"Cv) r1E.. oe-rw' QatTH c,,wLiN?
71-
N•Lo?\
0
?A
T
W
J
Ll
LL Z to hl ti4:TED Fr
w oV F.C.. SATE
o.
o•
06..
ccrsT?Na c,KDiIND?
LEVEL•
_-_.- x- SECT?oN 11A N
H.6APTFIY
6L- '0
camrA6Teo v
iiLLiMPK1FA i F1gLL0 ?V rug L ii UM.PAG1Eo
I '
- I I I 11
x- s Ec-T O N 6
? oTE ••
SEE SHEET I of Z. "SITir HAF- ,ALcoKE
I'rDmr-TY For sire Loc/t?loll * Lo%Tlo?
of X-SFcllou6 ohl rr_0PEFrY.
SHEET Z of Z
SITE MAP
TYPICAL X- SECTW e
ALGOKe Pr-OIBr-T-`r
DE.Gp BOOK IZ°1y- rA&jE 3111
c rfY o F o'-' FiEGIi
TO\vNSHIP 11•• a ceAveN cewT`( t orTH ?oLIrJA
DATE MAY L4,119'14 ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
JOB NO. 95Ao1 ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
SCALE SON NEW BERN. NORTH CAROLINA
SHEET 2 of 5
•r,7r yE .o,,. ? ,y 4 ,
i
SITE MAP
Alcoke Property
WWTHY SOUNKIt-
. ??,.' ? •Ft 6d 70 N?
.!v ? ?.. Nom'/( ?'}gMfi • N.1?. vl'- i
• , ?• :,mac ? YG
VICINITY SKETCH ?
t7
lGTS ^.q'
30 •nrrv ai bu ON
o+
"mom -
JLI
0
i o
i •
J . i c xr ?uNlr KWYIAY PAT,A '
c 1us A T i
4 " - W-743 413.4m i5A00' 4S t r 6'v
32'LO 11Q00? 35 iI'3g'
3 'E
»t''. O??N CARp??h
?1-70900 J
ennu 1 0t. r

..lZ`1 •cp` w o_b'' .
;' yO?I.1' 1 a
?1 N' 1
_31 •
.? tv; .
21.G3_-ft ?K?S u oa I
? 1 v I
u •1
r 4
43
L= - ?
s I
o
r? t.
i I
,^r I P4M6?1?
-rip
geA
61v 40
t
?`""X-'''V?' EET 3 of 5
... - fI ?IU
ZONEC ?.
r
SITE
ZONE C
ZONEC
a
PROPOSED SITE LOCATION
for
WETLAND MITIGATION
COVE CITY CRAVEN COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: 04-29-94 ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
JOB N0. 94482 ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
SCALE; NTS NEW BERN, NORTH CARO(JNA
SHEET 4 of 5
At%- Z4
..

c: •t..? .,i ?l.•.
14 '11,
y? /Y , .,
i
PROPOSED SITE
for'.
WETLAND MITIGATION
COVE CITY CRAVEN COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
DATE 04-29-94 ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
JOB N0. 94482 ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
SCALE. NTS NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
SHEET 5 of 5

Pxoject name
County
Name of evaluator
-.feet;
1 A*N -_
Hydrologically isolated

: Wetland type (select one) ? Ottic- r------------.----__-__ ______ •
? Swamp forest ? Shorelim
J Bottomland hardwooi loresl ? Brackish ma h
Ci Carolina bay (=J Fresnv,'.';;r rr:?rs!.
? Pocosin ? Boo/Fe;.
0
J_z'ine savannah ? Ephenl? r?l '•,e;iar?
flat
• The ralinc, s,'sienl cann,o; ;e applied to salt marshes.
N
» H)'* rn!"/Snon slal)IlV ii l ?.?lit I + ?
:•^ ' - - Y
I(fl
Illve wal
{
? Y
,ilf?l).1? ? I
I'
'IlYi
Wetland area - acres
0 Hydrologically connected
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
Deb°`?- S? 0
W
e
G4?, 12L)>
A&14;
oft
?EHNR
-.. 1
11'ASHIIYGTC)1V lOE 1t
0 19
aEM.
JIIN ? n 1994
06/17/94
i,DIVISfON OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Mr.
NC DEH&NR
Div. Environmental Management
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
REFERENCE: ACTID-94-2975 County: Craven
Applicant/Sponsor: Joe Alcoke anu C.G.W., Inc.
Fill 25 Acres Wetlands for Shopping Center
Dear Mr. Gregson:
The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice, dated
06/09/94 describing a federal project or permit is being circulated
to interested State agencies for comments concerning the proposal's
consistency with the North Cartilina Coastal Management Program.
Please indicate your viewpoint on the kenB. al and return this
form to me before 07/04/94. Sin tep enton
Consi stency Coordinator
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Atn o-4
Signed
Date 7 /1
Agency ll[?.'r?J?'nFN2 - De?s'/?-wdi - W- 0-4)
P.O. Box 27687, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Project naMe Nearest road u S
A_A,U--?_ Wetlan area-1 _ acres Wetland d ??-feet
County
Name of evaluator M Date . -3110 q
.
.
.
Wetland type (select one) ? Other

? Swamp forest ? Shoreline •
? Bottomland hardwood forest ? Brackish marsh
? Carolina bay ? Freshwater marsh •
? Pocosin ? Bog/Fen '
? Pine savannah ? Ephemeral wetland
11--Wet flat (AAA e
T e rcannot
tem be applied to salt marshes.
.•••.•.••••••••••r.•••••
? •sum'•••••• ••.•••.•••••.•.••• •.•.•.
'
Water storage
Bank/Shoreline stabilization - x 4.00 = •
Pollutant removal t '

rshed
t
iti
S
ve wa
e
ens x 1.50 -
Weila
nd srorc
ravel corridor
T ;
Special ecological attributes
x 1.50 =
Wildlife habitat
14' ;_ 0 .
Aquatic life value
Recreation/Education
x0.25=
Economic value -` •
49
? Hydrologically connected Qlydrologically isolated

PROPOSED SITE LOCATION
for
WETLAND MITIGATION
DATE: 04-29-94 JOB NO. 84082
SCALE: NTS
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
SHEET 4 of 5
ri c. ~+ t•+r ytl.•
11 J/ t'
.41 'A
41 v
PROPOSED SITE
for.
WETLAND MITIGATION
COVE CITY CRAVEN COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
q7 DATE: 04-29-94 ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E
( ?? \ Il JOB NO. _94082 ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
?SCALE: NTS NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
SHEET 5 of 5
? Kif i'L � ;aiLa7iL ^ •r L; 1�� � � �e�.'• 'v ,
�. t F•rSahF.l / (/,I 'rte'!. r' �' - �
:4111 -
JI.
'�. (yr `�.1'f y>- f�r`,Sk:ti � •fi���,�`
ii " � '' r- „!, �}'h�,�t�7� �j�,y�r s. �•..0 yy�.l(;ti: � y'�'; 'g''*k
WA
�� ��{"'s#�,� •���` tyre � ` � r�% ; r�..r
.�� %nor• . ' � • � K
Tip,
f C,
�' M': tl�d,yi AL1 � ` ,�� 4 'i���i yA � .'�it ^ lr If'}•ir ,..i
^�I �y •' I ,ri
i`,
ti1,,l,1y^
C,}+y �T,RYR L � 11'x' ." � N � l
f'� ' f� �.11�. d�' .,> "`r �•A .i j��.�d���rJ f�;._3���r t 4Vk.t
i "}r•}�'.. Y ,';}h'+ '�py ",y i Y i�F��F�CC[717..'�, « r C
tr y=y .�+!'+d t. y,r� t. � Sr V �'• 4F �J lji�tr r 4;' ,
J" L'
r
.✓.,. rile `'�"}�p4''�;.
1 '4^F♦.:^ f rr.. ry1 .A.M1 J,�� �y.. .� {�.� �*�' i� f;'¢$L }N i,�j .�1 .K Nk���.�.
r i � ,. �� � x{tr� �, 4• i" Xr r f ' {• ,r�} �+'� 3L ;�*y�` J j11f"'�
p'' ^ .�• ^l1 ' Yr 1 l �+ 1�. ry�4Yi X' yr .i =. `f� ^
� .+ '. r '� '' �� ° �y, r r p" ��qA' i +3R ♦ �' ,{I PA 'r+• w''Yr r !'
✓'/ J' f i Pt }�; vjF �\ 1S ��� 1.A -. qi , {���� } �. � � L C1� .�
.�, � t � � . y. :..�� � { M. -�� ^" v tp Y, •' j"*fir Y§e��: rte /� ryr'Vlr..};{k� 4 7�:a1 r �,. ��i" �`�•f�r Kt rw r •y�
i � �v i.. f;�jL} • �rl. , r i .� r ?�'jl 'alt � C .}r'rt�t ,`?,Y .,�C�� xt �'l 'Y±iei"Y';. 1 �'1�, y4',�., 1r i '2
Y i. r�... 'r <.. �Y.,.r ': "{5' i �, r` jSr��'' in y ^LV "y ¢..4Y t"'. f,7 �A {.. .r. r,� • , ,r�y.�.r \ r +. ;Y:i'•Y %N'' 't1
r }�

Project name-
County
Name of evaluator

? Hydrologically connected
C"ydrologically isolated
..::.::.....:::....
Wetland type (select one) ? Other
• ? Swamp forest ? Shoreline •
? Bottomland hardwood forest ? Brackish marsh
• ? Carolina bay ? Freshwater marsh •
• ? Pocosin ? Bog/Fen •
? Pine savannah ? Ephemeral wetland
• ? Wet flat
The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes.
• . • .... • .... • . • • .. • •2 • • • •suin • • • • • . • . • . • ... • • • . • • • •... .... .
Water storage 7
Bank/Shoreline stabilization x 4.00 = •
Pollutant removal

Sensitive watershed

Travel corridor
,
x 1.50 -
d; -4 ti-

Weda

Weda .

•
nd score
nd score
;

:
Special ecological attributes
Wildlife habitat 3 >
x 1.50 = M
Aquatic life value
.
...............
.
Recreation/Education
x 0.25 = "
•
Economic value

49
WETLAND CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY
FOR
ALCOKE PROJECT AND
MITIGATION SITES
RECEIVED
MAR 1 1 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
RRAllfnH
8/9/94
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
5?l A w.
9W CIAMS&M 15"
%4d6znytom, .?YodA %it4-na 28402
d'- 910-432-0001
z., gr SGtat ."
0 ?tgdieK .?llowr oK
`B'SS 9?e.
Bob Chiles
P.O. Box 3496
New Bern, N.C. 28564-3496
Dear Bob:
August 9, 1994
Yid& 14
AOp.A4
=5 vaputda dwMae
9W6i*StM' .W MW3
As requested on 8/4/94, I examined and documented the soils,
vegetation and apparent hydrology on the t 30 acre Alcoke
Development site in New Bern and the t 71 acre mitigation site near
Cove City. The purpose of this examination was to determine
whether or not the development site was a Pocosin wetland and to
classify the wetland that existed prior to agricultural activity on
the mitigation site.
Most of the project site was cleared in the recent past which
removed all native vegetation and root mat. The site was replanted
with Loblolly Pine which is now 3-4' high. The other vegetation in
this replanted area consists of Woolgrass, Dog Fennell, Beak Rush,
Wire Grass, Blue Stem, Eastern Baccharus, Wax Myrtle and various
other successional species. The northeast end of the project area
has recently been clear cut. This activity has removed all
standing vegetation leaving the tree stumps only. Vegetation
around this clear cut area consists of Loblolly Pine, Sweet Bay,
Bracken Fern, Wire Grass, Red Bay, Red Maple, Sweet Gum, Vaccinium
and Black Gum.
Soil profiles were documented at two locations on the project site
(profiles 3 and 4). Profile 3 as shown in the enclosed photos was
augered near the center of the cleared, replanted area. Profile 4
was augered near the edge of the clear cut area to the northeast.
All soil descriptions were to a depth of 48".
Soil descriptions noted on the project site at profile sites 3 and
4 are as follows:
Soil Profile 3
A 0-8" 10 yr 2/1 fine sandy loam
Btg 1 8-17" 10 yr 5/2 heavy sandy loam
Btg 2 17-31" 10 yr 6/1 light sandy clay loam, 10 yr 6/5 mottles
Cg 31-48" 10 yr 7/1 sandy loam
?ik4
i

Soil Profile 4 S.>????'2

A 0-7" 10 yr 2/1 fine sandy loam
Bw 7-15" 10 yr 4/2 fine sandy loam
Btg 1 15-36" 10 yr 6/1 light sandy clay loam, 10 yr 6/5 mottles
Btg 2 36-42" 10 yr 5/2 sandy clay loam, 10 yr 6/5 mottles
Bcg 42-48" 10 yr 6/2 light sandy clay loam
Watertable leve ls were noted as being gre ater than 48" below the
surface at soil profile 3 and 38" at soil profile 4.
Pocosins typically are characterized by vegetation which includes
Pond Pine, Loblolly Bay, Sweet Bay and Red Bay with a dense layer
of evergreen shrubs which include Fetterbush, Titi, Inkberry and ?t
Smilax. Of course, these vegetation types can be found in various
types of wetland systems.
Vegetation at the project site has obviously been altered to the
point where it could no longer be considered a functioning Pocosin
community - if it ever was. The remaining surrounding vegetation
as noted does not indicate a true Pocosin blend. The overstory of
Loblolly Pine and the absence of Pond Pine and Loblolly Bay
indicates a slightly higher better drained inclusion within the
mapped,Torhunta soil unit. The Pocosin soils are organic or very
poorly drained acid mineral soils which feature a black fine sandy
loam A horizon generally 10 to 24" thick. Organic Pocosin soils
are most commonly known for their thick O horizons ranging from 16
to 108".
The documented soil profiles on the project site show only a 7 to
8" thick A horizon which is far short of the norm for a mineral
Pocosin soil. Again, the project site is displaying
characteristics of a better drained inclusion within the mapped
soil unit.
Based on the noted vegetation types and soil profiles, the project
site would not be characterized as a Pocosin. The higher degree of
diversity within the surrounding vegetation and the non-
characteristic soil profiles indicate that this site was a poorly
drained wooded flat with possible micro-topographic drainage-ways
of very poorly drained soils.
With the past clearing activities on this property and surrounding
drainage impacts, it is highly unlikely that even if a Pocosin
wetland existed on this site in the past, that restoring one at
this point would not be a realistic endeavor.
The mitigation site consists of prior converted farmland currently
being used for soybean production and cattle grazing. A small
wooded section'is along the farm entrance road and wooded land is
present off the tract boundaries. Soils here were mapped as Rains
which is a poorly drained soil common to regional wetlands in an
3
unaltered state.
Vegetation in the small wooded area on the tract consisted of Red
Maple, Loblolly Pine, Sweet Gum, Water Oak, Sweet Bay, Red Bay,
Switchcane, Fetterbush, Sweet Pepperbush and Cinnamon Fern.
Soil profiles were documented at two locations on the mitigation
tract (Profiles 1 and 2). Profile one was augered approximately
60' from the edge of the soybean field in the western end of the
tract. Profile 2 was augured within the small wooded area off the
entrance road at the eastern end of the tract. Soil descriptions
were to a depth of 48".
Soil descriptions noted on the mitigation site at profile sites 1
and 2 are as follows:
Soil Profile 1
Ap 1 0-6" 10 yr 2/1 fine sandy loam, many uncoated grains
Ap 2 6-12" 10 yr 6/2 fine sandy loam
Btg 1 .12-26" 10 yr 6/1 sandy clay loam, 10 yr 6/8 mottles
Btg 2 26-40 10 yr 7/1 sandy clay loam, 10 yr 6/8 mottles
Soil Profile 2
A 0-8" 10 yr 2/1 fine sandy loam
Btg 1 8-20" 10 yr 6/1 light sandy clay loam, 10 yr 6/7 mottles
Btg 2 20-30" 10 yr 5/1 sandy clay loam, 10 yr 6/7 mottles
Btg 3 30-42" 10 yr 6/1 sandy clay loam, 10 yr 6/8 mottles
Cg 42-48" 10 yr 5/1 light sandy clay loam, 10 yr 6/7 mottles
Watertable lev els wer e noted at 30" below the surface at Profile 1
and 36" at Pro file 2.
The native vegetation and soils on the mitigation tract are typical
of those found on broad inter-stream wooded flats in this region.
The soil profiles closely correlate to the mapped rains soil unit.
Most undisturbed rains soils areas are indeed flat wooded wetlands.
Restoring this prior converted tract to wetland is a logical and
workable undertaking. Plugging the existing ditches should
successfully restore wetland hydrology. Watertable levels here
were already higher than the project site.
-from the western corner of the tract is a large Carolina
Bay.'k' ater was noted seeping to the surface of a woods road just
off the tract. Bay vegetation could be seen around this corner of
the property which also indicates a healthy level of groundwater
nearby.
With the proper number and mix of plantings along with the restored
site hydrology, this tract should perform well as mitigated
acreage.
4
Please contact me to discuss any questions you may have at any
time.
Sincerely,
Steve Mor ison
Environmental Consultant
SM/dm
Enclosures: Maps, Photos
. ti"*.. "•' SITE MAP
;,ti,: • • Alcoke Property
'PROJECT SITE
.xrgr: l .
, "`%IL • PROFILE THREE AND FOUR LOCH IONS
•800K.12 5 WE 3 J
86
Off
wo?r+rw ?_ ?.
% '06
SOIL R2oFILE o
.•? ;A=,? ?• mod?
VlCQM SKETCH
it U' -? • ` ?'w 6. '' \
VOU:
004 s
111 b" ?•??+' ` .
1? tp? l?J
SA,

. I

c r?cuN? IuIY GKTA
u
i. ti".a.tvl
win 14?II"
413?r1 . q.oo
iiaoo' o???W
?z'tfb?'
"s ?a6 321 iTaoo' usr
501L AZOFAI. %W
.3 0 = .~
S
-A !g6- J`
n
I
41
;,!Saw
raw
AL -
N ?,•" t' • .', _ _ y,KN? .• v5 EET 3 of 5
N:. JI
• I
MITIGATION SI
SOIL PROFILE ONE AND TWO CAT OHS
4.V .ti/ J
' SOI L PROF;
'v0 ?j? ', ' • ;r 0 v?'
Qt
64 IP
Vol.
' t, I t<y
AN.
• .. . q L'PRpF11.6 • , • PROPOSED SITE
?for.
WETLAND MITIGATION
COVE CITY CRAVEN CWNIT NORTH CAMINA
DATA 04-29-94 ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
JOB No. 04082 ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS '
SCALE. NTS NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
SHEET 5 of 5

ADJACENT WOODS AT MITIGATION SITE

1
V ?
G?
.
Now-

LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
I
ADJACENT WOODS AT PROJECT SITE

LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
MITIGATION SITE
SOIL PROFILE ONE
SOIL PROFILE ONE DETAIL
0 TO 12"

{
1
I1
II
SOIL PROFILE ONE DETAIL
24 TO 36"
MITIGATION SITE
SOIL PROFILE TWO

c.
SOIL PROFILE TWO DETAIL
0 TO 12"

12 TO 24"
c.
SOIL PROFILE TWO DETAIL
24 TO 36"
rf
1
36 TO 48"
PROJECT SITE
SOIL PROFILE THREE

c.

SOIL PROFILE THREE DETAIL
0 TO 12"

2
12 TO 24"
c.
SOIL PROFILE THREE DETAIL
24 TO 36"

Aff. I- FIB f k.0.,+

36 TO 48"
c.
PROJECT SITE
SOIL PROFILE FOUR
SOIL PROFILE FOUR DETAIL
0 TO 12"

12 TO 24"
c.
SOIL PROFILE FOUR DETAIL
24 TO 36"
ti-
36 TO 48"

c.
r •b � � �aa � � r^p � t1:: UR ra y
�`•— t>.• 'fir A� /rK C +' \`�, ." BM I
x26 //�i .rlvl �{ •� 4' an�G
c u e � v I ''y''N "/ l • 4i . •etc,,, •—C' ,• .
��•�������:• � II ,_ ��• Nom` 'v. 7 .,
µ; M� i• •\/`f4 ti{t'i Y!'rr a '�' �. I P0A. ♦ : �- e, W
,�: .fit v , F.tI •1 r. v:(.. ,G.�iyi .kyr' • 'V . �+► . I /� '+: r , �
26
' } � % •v \� � l ��! . �T 1215 a No �
'.�� ,Jt+� ay }� i. ail '� ?t�y {. h'�yy, ''Lt�• ,,r s • _ . ,
30y fyA.rR • 25 +L•
!. �• u
'. r r 4. ;' i .rr"�'''!. ,� � .'" '� i+1 'li:r e i 4; � +'� : s� A4 � X• ,.
r'.
so
r.:.IL
isc, sl
e 0
• I.0•• •'. \\
?•� , • • h;.�I � °r* � • ' PAR
�• ii,: • •�• eW Bern \,-�''�_° _ M!8 ♦ • `��� ,�
is ` �`'. - RaElo To 70
or
16,
.. �. .�4 t � a� l w QC ♦ p. 111• ,♦ ,1 h �� ��,•.. •i.$���. 1,' f.
� per, �.� f• S�� II • }+ )f ,1. i. • �•-
• � •+ ••� { r.,., •. •y. •�2• 111, � • •• },+� / ...c '� '. �
•�rrtira.�r ,tid y;;•e� r a fi • � •• bry. w: _ • • •I.c�•�� ►` � `�s-, ..�..: .• ` 1�.
211 - �' u •'• .t+; • �� • • • •• • a'
' •, �� entry lub I ' •, , • .z? .
^�, ! 1213 • _ Mr, Q.. r'-1:r ,gid �„ "w�-
Ems
0 'ry ti t, '�•• n • A .. fir'' �/ - e
Y Q
M o r LE T!-20
pil no
✓ /1 ;'�♦ ., •y` \ (. n • �hy.'1�/1I y`f�r�"`I' I i'tl... ,;i�°l i .�,4 n
l �' . \ S '.. Ir'y' + *- ♦ir �M�Y'7.'n1 ht, �.t+ �- �i LI ht}�h� • III N /�: /•
-
r �� X

?. W. _ W _ •1 t /, 1252
...°•+r y e li`L?' Ti4 : .????.. eat A ` 1• (0 1 %\//???,
- .•r_. r+W---•Y1ts-' " `?'?? i ,aE Y e,- h'3 Y
OVE
=. ,W 4 -, Ito
?a J
Wint rgreen G(
- rir!??7???f?TyYV '"' 1`•yT .n rM?fr . '.•? ? •r 4'^ w., /'.
Wr _ '?" ?'w,fwr" / S r,??r1?a,: .y? ?O ?l i? ? w? i?*?.{?_/„? ?.J•? ?. I t, \^A ? h:''?/, !`.tl ? ? _i • `-' '? • `_?? ` i
"rr -?~ T"y?l'?,.•Ir- `rte..x! t {1,?.' Y, } 1' .n .. C9m? •12 3.0• rJ ) /i
ter, - „? ?.••.- T.y. rYr " r•' _ .- ,) ; ^. ' r. • • • 10
•Yr - ?J••. LY1. ? r? r ?YM• "YY• 'M_ '.. n11N "• T? f • ' .. / ? ? / /'?
?` 4 •^-.ry•.. ..W.? VW- •111•• .•yr. l."T' ? ? ?1d.? ? l
14
4w- m
Allf 2.4
•+• _+• •+w•• .'?- -° .r1..-+1? ? •,?, ;n??1` .11•. T•r'? :: ? O ib? / ?. S o O ? O y ? `
,W.. ?1•- ?.-_?r- ''4' ?• -.rr- •`- / • .. __.u, •"~?_ ter,. :~%c/.
': ,r .n,. / c '. ?-?. L? - ?1• ? ,? gyn. -_
"? _- •+ '11''11. ,?,.e.. rr.w• ••,'? - t '; .•r...?r-_.r / ? '' 1256
••? '.? '1??I•- -,11 `? +Ir- it 1 •. •+r••.w./? / / /' fa, • ?= _y / /' i 1 i /- + I
.,•. _? '•' Win- •V' -W- =?..o;. ?_ 1 ,-11•--.r!/ • ?/ . _? /%/ '? • ? ?? ?•?.% _ ' ? ,
46-
41b 10
4w. Sl E-
/ r 1 r? w ti / /.. # r ???? T "•C ?. 1t0 215
+y' ; } 0 l
t? 7 .?• ? IIII- l?
.14
1•, / ^ 1&0 ° \ .?\ /•" '?•• - ` - 'O
a ?? 'i;4i '? '/i / ????? • I 0 \\ ?i.ter-'W` " ?i
SM U.
14
1257 'li• •. '. • • • 1257 . • / / "? O V ?/ .W
• /
a.
• •Q • • . . • : •• 1256 • IBM 14.71 ,0 er i
• ?„ "?
1 12
• , • • * • o ? 1•. • • •? 1005 ._ .,1•. _
1a0
120
Ito
'ABM Me? r ?
k 7 ?:,,? • 1:4 t`? ? ? ?1 ka :f; v , "" e ?1? . 1232
t.
1 \\l) /? .?. ?- 4 _ .r9 ? 1233
t,a CRAVEN COUNTY SOIL SURVEY '?- :.,. Se. `K
ti Ft y'
Pa i =
Crd
1^? A +
0, A
`?? ti ? ?.(? :jry';ir? +:Ra +. qtr T B 1y??.
t
. i{n
L Vti ,7A•T` g 9?yA y p' 2/i •:
I+ ?.:rAn r + ''9?''?Fr r •R K.'? e • , k . r.• r
?'• h. :S w<? ?. 'ti;p?;y Au8 I;,i. ? . ,.
' ? ? ?Ra ? ,J .,? ? MM '!' '?'rLn ,, • Au8 Ur ; .,•
?.?y, Y +t: ,'.?? r. ? f{ i fa A , t ?, ?'' ?Aue Lr' l '.t ?..
'a du
-?, PROJECT SITE
n ?` Ur e•? ',;', '?; ° Th {, dry • '' ?, R?, ....
•??.kc,I•rr{ '? 'nM..r 'S K.. s • r? , • ?, • ? x t' Ln r .. t ? Jk, ''tt• • ? • r ? N', ' ; '4,R',. ?• i
T t •r J r ?,n]
?. !?. .? B? ??`•• . .: 121 i•t ?'• f' 'A? 1 •a
ga . er nitr `'
,Au8'
AuB
iM1 '? fr
r + o III UoA r T l , c? a !(' ir' Ir ?I' u " w,l! ee _
WS B
;•,i r r• _I v ?,ir, q+. Ira *,'•rr '• ` .?d ,C
iA"? AuB r P '1 Ln;. "" i•
Pa . "+ ? r I GoA li Y a Tab
/1uB J `?k
N ? • .Gq,1 r, ? .. ; a, . ;r , AD..,:;..ya. .. uw?er Tab Se
A&A
MM / ALB NoA •'ti r1 ' 'ARIA ? i {? '?I '' TaB ?..
I CnB y? yi.' / ' 11' Yl. • R - Gn? .::: Ln Ta .
1 rt r •?a.`?t !j. ,r%•Nd^'ti'r? :;; •:r L!1 } Ss .'
to water StA
Fl2q
r?,. eY', '^> ?. L218 '] :`,j. Ott .h a ! • ? r r je
J i°rypr ' k
h •ti I,.,.?tAj:'?.h AY' a T•
I As . ,
Y •1
?f s lri'.d .?• t. ,{, ?
f ?Q`. • ?'r? i
ty r Sa, +.«" M , l ? l s1'^ 0 •?Sa: ?1N 64 . t,' ?;
?. ?( q ??'... ?, • y ?Tm' TaQ eR t I ?, t;l ` It r f`EY 0
r'h s4 +^. !' ,( ?,Cpe r ?1o',t7 + $e
: 7aB N. .
TaB..
StA ?u
'~ ?` a llllti it 1 1 ., , ToB 1?t 1 i ?, ., ; ._ vl' ?!1 •?f?al. 7 y'A• A,?y's •'?
(f ?'. 1RiYI • •1,• ?1. y, ' r •` ! . it •ti. ?r f wtaB j'
Igo rt• icy ? ' i „ ????? ? ? ? , • , ? t ` ' r
e nn '1
SCALE 111=2000'
nA'
TsB
` t r I1tiQ 1 ` 4
?? I Tab 5
Bak
. ? :yv. • . ,+?gyq,???jjRR ?t?i'1{S` St c. ,IY' ? M i a, :IA•i n
'? ? . ?y.: fS'. ? i f • r ^ /' t ? r rtr. PAP
-LALA
,v _ it, .a ••bci: Z..r .°.4A, ...i' Y MM!v
f r
262 .
pa ?cRa Ni + . 6oA
f
7,;a.•?n!" Rahn ,r ..
NoA
Le 4
GoA
? i, ? ?• 4, + &-z4h L `t f r , R'?? +•?; .. Nog' "Cr:
?'??tY i t `? r t ;,R•e ?c *
t r iG, *+L'' r :ti'?\mr - .
414
.ra'' ' ;,?i ,. ti .a:'?:,' i?' r, 7••T •1•'11!\I' ?,1 '??r r?•'?rJ?r J' •t. .t ,ry ?. •k YJJ ? N? G .L '.
L7t•???hyp'! t .,?fy•`'??r?l?'f??'? ?` ?? Jpa. kH• :?? +•L oA oA -1I
y? n
?'.?? 1. ? ? I I' f K ?t /irf,;fz ii'7+?1•1.. '?' ? Y , f + >A ? ? ><.y` r
all ffil
rr«,?+ rw + w?? ?. }. r GoA . LY Y. ER
LY A 'n i GOA i mm s.
Ott ?,?.• ?l j ?, , ':(
rF}s ,y{ MITIGATION SITE :• L $e y r
t l; •i/ (FP{? r:?.. M•1? }?? - 11''x: yR 'i ?? ??^fY. ? v+y f.M)Y?.?. ?-
r '?? 1, T]k <<y '? .Tr ky iY rr w?w .? r v. Y ? i
r? :. , i ?. ?a?• ,. , AaA M'ir e
'•'Z ??,.1 ih w. r i •m(f -rL r ; r ff ?a , A 1 ;-?wS. ' "f ?'` 4? ; ?t?'.T Z ... ?/? . • , , rt,(
1),, 'N • t?i !i' " ,•i?1?. 2 . -AaA
Re
A CT?:„ v ,?T' Y?,,,,' f Y 1 r.r I, r \ n y 4 L n? t w'rt.} F Y w+'Y j 1?• .. $a ?t 'vTf
??? ?+,•Mi , dti.1'',•{r ". t,: . i t r1`?lTp-???. P W N,+J `? ? i ? S? Y
.- ''? ti`?sJ+! i, +','. ?? r. ?4'S.,a?;?f!''?'h? '? ::'? ; '?:• GoA ? u,,,,r? ? {
a•, l • ' ?4'? i •`t1 i '4 •Iv f ?? ??'? r..' j rf???(,1 t ? 7r?; ?w , ?. ' K' r ` ? • ' •
CnB
'? J? . .s v ? '? ? ?'!. ?,?• '? Its 'Sep
? tN v• ,!? '?," '•+:w, r7,dfY "'t l? i L 'M',P. y 'r1,
MIR
r
L •1: t
Y ??.
No v
w r'
' Sa Rr ' • r' ?, ? : r ? :?1,
Ym "A "A
SCALE 1=2000'
?`!W 1 f ?,J.?• t.r t?' LY GbA A?
a?!s? LY ® oA f 121 Rya • 'rs AaA r,1t3 E? y«'Y, AaA4? s4:
?Y ? • G 001 ?' A ? ? s i
GoA
GoA
GoA
1'•' . ( GoA AL a w A m•"+r^'??'? ' C? Y 11 Ra`r ..? R,
y L' LY NoA Seo . 9 Fw La '

fJf_?

i- ?(??tivC_C` 5 1 l

1r- ct.cn?c? r- C, n.r-.k.JC /
H` DR-o? o?, l
o _
?2,5 (o Ilt,.-rl MI ?I< nll ,?, SIVC (V t/"

At

S \4 1\??? CCcS ? 51: fl?f\\t 9 C?--A ? ?? •/\(

? o
IOAT
- ?_ h(? ? l •1, Al C? t {\ ?,
?-??( ?(Z <)?oC??l e I?Ca> N I ?7;,? ???_??\l?rt`1 ? ?'--il_ i ?c, ? ?G?'?•Jwl r.1G ,.5??"'?S?r.-1
1
? ? ? ?< `? ?? ?/7? ! .; ? ?:? /v ? ? (?-r (`v L I ? ? //? GAL- ?`N
PI,,,)A
2C-1
?NIS
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
TO: John Dorney
FROM: Ron Ferrell
SUBJECT: Mitigation Plan for Alcoke/CGW, Inc
DATE: April 6, 1995
The following comments are submitted in response to the review of
the subject document dated March 15, 1995.
1. The mitigation plan as submitted continues to be deficient in a number
of areas and should not be accepted until the plan has been finalized. I
can agree with the plan on a conceptual basis, however sufficient
information has not been submitted to determine if the proposal has a
reasonable chance of success. This mitigation proposal should not be
treated any differently than plans submitted by any other applicant and
should be held to the same standards used to evaluate other projects..
Outlined below are specific areas of concern that must be addressed
prior to approval of this plan.
2. The stated goal of the project is to restore a wet hardwood flat on Rains
soils. The location of the proposed reference forest ecosystem should
be identified and the existing hydrology and vegetation of this area
should be documented with a particular emphasis of the herbaceous
understory which are the most sensitive to changes in hydrology. If
the herbaceous understory is dominated by species that are facultative
or drier then the site is not acceptable as a reference site. Also, the
functions lost and the functions to be restored should be identified.
3. Although the COE hydrology criteria is important in determining the
jurisdictional status of an area it should not be used to determine if
hydrology has been restored. The reference hydrology should first be
determined then the project site should be designed to establish that
hydrology.
4. The water budget does not account for the loss of water through
infiltration and deep seepage. Rains soils may have an infiltration rate
that is sufficient to affect the hydrology on this site. Another factor that
may affect the hydrology of this site is the presence of ditches in
proximity to this site that will not be plugged/filled. No data has been
presented on the direction of groundwater flow and the potential of
nearby ditches to intercept this flow.
5. Water budget continued. No response was provided to the previous
questions (memo dated 12/8/94) concerning the assumptions used in
the water budget. Specifically the allowances for runoff,
evapotranspiration, offsite runoff, evaporation and groundwater flow.
6. Previous comments concerning frequency of monitoring of hydrology
and soils have not been addressed.
7. The comments concerning species to be planted have not been
addressed. These issues must be addressed before this plan can be
accepted. Also, when will the plantings occur.
8. Written verification from the USACOE must be submitted concerning
the legality and acceptability of the conservation easement.
alcoke/ cgw.495 /mitigation
*.
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
ENGINEERS,CONSU_'ANTS
MARINE SURVEI'JRS
417-A BROAD S- BEET
P.O. BOX 3496
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA 28564-3496
BUSINESS: 919-637-4702
NIGHTS: 919638-2346
1. FAX: [phone]
March 15, 1995 ^ see." I,- F'"r
Mr. John Dorney
Department of Environment Health
and Natural Resources
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N. C. 27626-0535
Subject: Wetland Mitigation Site for Alcoke/CGW Inc.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 1 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
aR A II1?u
Ref: (a) U.S. Corps of Engineers Permit #199402975 dated March 2, 1995
(b) N.C. DEHNR 401 Certification-Project 94554 dated August 2, 1994
(c) Your Memo dated December 9, 1994 with copy of Ron Ferrell's memo
dated December 8, 1994.
Enclosures: (1) Wetland Classification Summary for Alcoke Project
and Mitigation Site by Land Management Group dated 8-9-94
(2) Mitigation Site Location Map-RMC No. 94082 dated 4-29-94
(3) Mitigation Site Topographic Map-RMC No. 94254 dated 3-8-95
(4) Mitigation Site Drainage Flow Map-RMC No. 94254 dated 3-8-95
(5) Mitigation Site Drainage Modification Plan
RMC No. 94254 dated 3-8-95
(6) Mitigation Site Monitoring Plan-RMC No: 94254 dated 3-8-95
Dear John:
Enclosed please find copies of the additional information regarding the subject
mitigation site requested by Ron Ferrell per reference (c). My comments relating to other
matters included in this memo follow in the order listed in reference (c).
1. Enclosure (1) is the Land Management Report describing the mitigation site.
2. Enclosure (2) shows the site location.
Enclosure (3) is a topographic map of the site showing the relative elevations,
locations of existing ditches and the windrows and other existing vegetation.
MECHANICAL, C'VIL, AND MARINE ENGINEERING MARINE HYDROGRAPHIC AND LAND SURVEYS
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, MARINE ANE =AtLROAD FACILITIES DESIGN
FORENSIC ENGNEERING AND FAILURE ANALYSIS BOUNDARY SURVEYS AND MAPPING SERVICE
Mr. John Dorney
Page 2
March 15, 1995
Enclosure (4) is an overlay of the topographic map showing direction of
surface and ground flow. As is evident from the elevations, surface flows are
nil except in the ditches. The near surface groundwater flow is expected to
exist as shown.
Enclosure (5) is an overlay of the topographic map showing the proposed
ditch plugs and overflow swales. The plugs and swales are subject to
modification as the mitigation is developed based upon monitoring well data.
Enclosure (6) is an overlay of the topographic map showing location of
ground water monitoring wells and permanent sample plots.
3. The analysis of the interaction surface hydrology with the surface water and
soil types throughout the site will be utilized in the final selection of particular
plant species to be planted at individual portion within the mitigation site.
Data collected from monitoring wells and observation of the ditch flows will be
utilized for the analysis prior to planting.
4. The species selection will only be from reputable sources since the survival
goal of planted trees is the basis for the success criteria of the mitigation.
ursery availability must be considered for selection of species since we
N b c cannot plant what is not available within the 200 mile radius of the mitigation
(V `E./o0(3site. However, the species selection will be from the list contained within the
?? ®?`SP l mitigation plan and the nursery order will be for planting seeds of the species
selected for later transplant to the site. These listed species were selected
after review of literature and consultation with registered foresters as to
historic species to be found in wet hardwood flats.
5. Plugging ditches was selected as the preferred method of modification of the
drainage in order to minimize mechanical disturbances within the site and to
allow later modification if excess surface standing water endangers the
planted seedlings. Soils investigation to date indicate that the existing ditches
have not penetrated restrictive soil layers that would prevent subsurface
outflow of surface drainage. This will be monitored during the mitigation
process and sealing of ditch inverts will be completed if found necessary.
Mr. John Dorney
Page 3
March 15, 1995
6. The site has been in agricultural use about 15 years or less and soil borings
have not indicated a hardpan that would inhibit growth of selected species.
7. Our intent is to initially disc the entire site prior to initiating the tree planting
and to periodically disc areas between the plantings to limit unwanted
competition if necessary.
8. The current depth of the groundwater on the site is seasonal and varies
between 12 inches and 24 inches. It is our professional judgment based
upon experience with similar sites that plugging the existing drainage will
result in groundwater hydrology that will support the wetland vegetation to be
planted.
9. The water budget was prepared using published data and best professional
judgment. The 10% surface runoff was included as a nominal entry in the
budget and can be varied by changes in the outlet swales as is found
necessary.
10. The sample plot of one 0.05 acre sample plot per two (2) acres of the
mitigation site is considered sufficient due to the topography of the site (see
enclosure (3)).
11. The plan (paragraph 8 page 6) specifies that the sample plots shall be
N? z?> 7" monitored in August/September of each year. The hydrology will be
monitored and reported in conjunction with these sample plots. Additional
random vegetation and hydrology monitoring will be conducted throughout
the development of the mitigation in order to assist in the success of the plan.
N u
12. An "as built" report of the completion of planting ;fin be prepared.
13. Paragraph (8) page (5) of the mitigation specifies mowing or chopping to
eliminate excess competition and control nuisance vegetation.
14. Correspondence relative to the mitigation will be sent to N.C.DEM.
15. The success criteria of the mitigation plan is 320 trees per acre.
Mr. John Dorney
Page 4
March 15, 1995
16. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has agreed with the conservation
Easement. - 5c-6N,T
I trust that the enclosed report and maps, along with the above comments will be
sufficient for your approval of the mitigation plan. Our clients expect to begin construction
in June 1995 but closure of the development property is currently on hold until such time
as the mitigation plan is approved by your office. Your early action will be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
L W-?
Robert M. Chiles, P.E.
RMC:jrf
cc: Joe Alcoke
CGW Inc.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
TO: John Dorney
FROM: Ron Ferrel f e??
SUBJECT: Mitigation Plan for Alcoke/CGW, Inc
DATE: December 8,1994
The following comments are submitted in response to the review of
the subject document dated November 15, 1994.
1. A description of the soil types, vegetation and hydrology dated August
9, 1994 is referenced. I do not have this document. This document is
supposed to contain a description of the wet hardwood flat area that
will be used as the reference forest ecosystem WE). Please have
applicant provide me with a copy of this document.
2. A map (or maps) of the mitigation site must be submitted which show
the following information: 1) general location of mitigation site; 2)
location of drainage ditches and proposed plugs; 3) elevations; 4)
direction of surface water and ground water flows; 5) predicted wetness
of areas within site; 6) species to be planted in each area if areas of
different wetness present on site; 6) location of overflow swales;
location of monitoring wells and all permanent sample plots.
3. Describe how the hydrogeomorphology will be used to determine
where species will be planted. (referenced on page 5)
4. Species should be selected based on predicted wetness of site and
ordered from a reputable source. Nursery availability is not an
acceptable criteria for determining the species to be planted. With the
exception of Yellow Poplar I have no objection to the species selected
(assuming that they are referring to Nyssa sylvatica var biflora)
however it does not appear that any thought has been given to which
species should be planted based on expected hydrology. The species
selected range from facultative to obligate which is OK if these
conditions exist on the site. Also, what is species composition of
reference site? If reference site has been logged and managed they may
need to locate a "pristine" site to determine species composition or
consult the literature for descriptions of hardwood flats before they
were all converted into pine forests.
5. What is the justification for plugging the ditches instead of filling the
ditches in? How deep are the ditches on the site? Have the ditches
penetrated any soil layers that restrict the downward movement of
water? If so the ditches may have to be filled with some type of
impervious material.
6. Have the soils been evaluated for the presence of plow pans, hard pans
or anything that may inhibit the growth of the trees?
7. Because the site has been actively farmed some provision should be
made to "rough" the site to increase the micro topographic relief.
8. What is the current depth to groundwater on the site? What is the
predicted depth to groundwater after ditches have been plugged, i.e.
how often during the growing season is the depth to groundwater
expected to be less than 12 inches. It would be useful to use
DRAINMOD to predict the hydrology of the site.
9. Provide explanation of how the numbers used in the water budget
were determined, i.e. what is basis for using 10% of precipitation for
runoff rate, etc.
10. Permanent sample plots should be randomly selected throughout the
site prior to planting of trees. There should be a minimum of one 0.05
acre sample plot per acre unless it can be demonstrated that the site is
so uniform in elevation and wetness that this number of plots is not
needed.
11. Specify the frequency of monitoring of hydrology and vegetation.
Recommend that hydrology be monitored monthly during the first
year and quarterly thereafter. Recommend that vegetation be
monitored frequently during first growing season. Soils should be
monitored in the permanent plots for the presence of indicators of
hydrology.
12. An "as built" report should be submitted within 30 days of completion
of planting of trees.
13. Remedial actions must be taken to control nuisance vegetation which
is defined as any species that is not planted.
14. All monitoring reports and requests to conduct remedial actions
should also be sent to the Division of Environmental Management.
15. Vegetation success criteria should be 320 trees per acre that have
survived for three full growing seasons.
16. I have no idea if the proposed Conservation Easement is legal. It
specifies the United States of America as the holder of the easement.
Need to check with the lawyers on this one.
P 5 S w t ? (-J? I Z-- Glyn,.ti seouvw -
o P Ai- i s ?-•?3 h t?E? s ?S s ?r??? Nei- 14 4,.i-s-
Z? L A CA- 3 r-- > c c.,rLsSh/LsSJ ?

6&Knft- T7PZ? ?C- SaI` o,N S?
S??!?'?? v /i-'t'1 ?`?1i13 "'' v! % ?G?/zsf' / ??C4?t7?.,--^ d? ?l?l ?.tJ
?-
fo U ?o F

J SA Wl? t,??crD 17 h1N? Pt..A,DM4 Cj

71D D _ c- ?th2 ?ra A^?j j} t J w?'47 L VdZ -F
(o (..? ?> ?-t`( P41-t-z e-7 (= , 1 zs
?/z C- Dot /,?Go w

ot>s
A-5 LS F??= (,-,? - to e1`
G--aEfz F ?? ?a fr P
E ?,M'?hZr?-off - (v ?.- ?'avv?nZ ?
c i

I 0? ?? tj (-,

5

WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
FOR
ALCOKE/CGW, INC.
72 ACRE SITE
COVE CITY, CRAVEN COUNTY, N. C.
COE ID #199402975
,??+?? GARp •a
* y? SEAS
5365
e
:,?0 FNG t NEF' ?v
•??FR r M ?? ,:
Prepared By:
ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E.
Engineers & Consultants
New Bern, N. C. 28560
RMC #93401
NOVEMBER 15, 1994
INDEX
1. General ........................................ 3
2. Particulars ...................................... 3
3. Impact Area Description ............................ 4
4. Mitigation Area Description ......................... 4
5. Mitigation Ratio .................................. 4
6. Reference EcoSystem ............................. 4
7. Success Criteria .................................. 5
8. Vegetation ...................................... 5
9. Soils ........................................... 6
10. Hydrology ....................................... 7
11. Water Budget .................................... 7,8
12. Hydrology Monitoring .............................. 9
13. Project Monitoring ................................ 9
14. Reports ........................................ 10
15. Remedial ,Actions ................................. 11
16. Final Disposition of Mitigation Site .................... 11
17. Conservation Easement ............................ 12
MITIGATION PLAN
ALCOKE/CGW INC. SITE
1. GENERAL ;
As a condition for obtaining a permit to place fill in approximately 30 acres of
wetlands during development of a commercial site on U. S. Highway 17 South in New Bern,
North Carolina, the owners of the site agree to perform restoration of the wetland functions
for a 72 acre off-site area as mitigation for the fill.
2. PARTICULARS:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Action ID: 199402975
COE PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED: June 9, 1994
SITE NAME: ................ Joe Alcoke/CGW Inc. Mitigation
SITE LOCATION: ............ West of N.C.S.R. 1259
.......................... North of Cove City,
.......................... Craven County, North Carolina
.................... Core Creek Watershed/Neuse River
SITE CO-ORDINATES: ....... N=535,000; E=2,503,000 (NC Grid)
N.C. DEM 401 CERTIFICATION Number 2900 dated 2 August 1994
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES:..... Mr. Joe Alcoke
.......................... 3305 Clarendon Blvd.
.......................... New Bern, N. C. 28562
.......................... CGW, Inc.
.......................... C/O Mr. Calvin G. Wellons
.......................... P. O. Box 1018
.......................... Morehead City, N. C. 28556
TYPE OF MITIGATION:....... Concurrent, offsite, in kind restoration
IMPACTED AREA:........... 30 Acres+ wet pine flat
MITIGATION AREA: ......... 60Acres" converted agricultural field and pasture
MITIGATION RATIO ......... 2:1
3
3. IMPACTED AREA DESCRIPTION:
The 30 acre site to be developed includes a wet pine flat that is located within the
City of New Bern. The site is located in the Lawson Creek/Trent River Watershed and that
discharges into the Trent River approximately one (.1:Jrt?ile upstream of the confluence of
the Trent River and the Neuse River. The site is generally cleared of timber except for
small pines along the abandoned railroad right of way just adjacent to the highway on the
south. The site is bounded by commercial and retail development along U. S. highway 70,
U. S. highway 17 and Glenburnie Road. The development will include placing fill on the
Alcoke parcel, the CGW Inc. parcel and the extension of McCarthy Blvd.
4. MITIGATION AREA DESCRIPTION:
The 72 Acre site that will provide the 60 acres of mitigation area is located off NCSR
1256 (Wintergreen Road) near Cove City, North Carolina. The site is located in the Core
Creek Watershed which discharges into the Neuse River approximately 16 miles upstream
of the confluence of the Trent River and the Neuse River in New Bern, North Carolina. The
site is bounded on the North, South and West by woodland and on the East by agricultural
development. The site has been previously converted by clearing and drainage from a
hardwood wet flat to agricultural use. The mitigation plan for the site is to re-establish the
wetland hydrology and vegetation thereon. The restoration will be concurrent with
development work on the 30 acre site.
5. MITIGATION RATIO:
The development and fill at the 30 acre site on U. S. Highway 17 will be mitigated by
restoration of the 72 acres at the Wintergreen Road site and 60 acres of this restored
hardwood wet flat will provide the 2:1 mitigation ratio.
6. REFERENCE ECOSYSTEM:
The Land Management Group, Inc., Wetland Classification Summary, dated August
9, 1994 provides descriptive relationship of the soil types, vegetation and hydrology at the
development site and the mitigation site. In addition, the surrounding vegetation and soil
profiles were noted for adjacent areas as reference. The wet h__ardwaodftta-rea adjacent
to the mitigation site will be utilized as reference during mitigation of the 72 acres.

t-d
4
7. SUCCESS CRITERIA:
The subsurface hydrology of the mitigation site will be restored by filling the on site
drainage in order to maintain a saturated soil condition within 12 inches of the surface, or
ponded and flooded for at least 12.5% of the growing season under reasonable average
climatic conditions.
Vegetation will be re-established with a survival goal of 320 trees for acre after three
(3) years. Final tree composition goal is that no more than 20% of any one hardwood
species will dominate. aap /ate wm vA s, RAVaP A-, 3 r?5
8. VEGETATION:
aq icy S
The tree species-to bed nted _ ill include the following. The exact mix and quantity
of each species to be determin6d by_ nursery availability and96=6 The U. S. Dept. of
Agriculture Forest Service general Technical ReporSL`76 "6 to Regeneration of
Bottorniand Hardwoods" will be utilized as reference in the final species selection.
°s?
(a) Swamp Chestnut- uercus michauxii
(b) Water Oak - ?n"Quercus nigra VJ YJ` ?5-?
(c) Willow Oak - *Quercus phellos 2S?
(d) Green Ash - fnu°' Fraxinus pennsylvaniaF-WI¢ b&
(e) Cypress - o??-Taxodium distichum why 1V:
(f) Yellow Popular- FPS-Liriodendron tulipifcra
(g) Black Gum - o?,LNyssa aquatica
(h) Black Gum - ? Nyssa sylvatica w? ?T`?
ONLI
It is expected that a natural regeneration of loblolly pine and sweet gum will occur
on the mitigation site. Mowing or chopping will be utilized if found necessary to eliminate
excess competition to the selected species that are planted. The species selected will
provide a habitat similar to that existing in the reference adjacent areas prior to logging.
The Initial planting will be 400 trees per acre under the direct supervision of qualified
forestry professional. The seedling stock is to be obtained from a nursery located within
200 miles of the mitigation site. The stock shall be bare root, 1 year old, 12 to 18 inches
high, 1/4 inch or greater diameter root collar and with 4 or more lateral roots. Condition of
this stock shall be monitored prior to and during planting to assure high survivability rate.
The site distribution of species shall be based on soil fertility, species growth rates
and hydrogeomorphology in individual portions of the mitigation site.
5 ?.
i. ??
Samplq?plot for survival analysis shall be a minimum of one 0.05 acre sample plot
per two (? acr s of the mitigation site. Sample plots shall be conducted in
August/SepteMer each year until vegetation success criteria is met.
9. SOILS:
The mitigation site soil is to be sampled and analyzed to determine PH, lime and
fertilizer requirements before planting of tree seedlings. Corrective measures will be taken
as found necessary to promote the successful regeneration of the wetland hardwoods.
Site soil fertility and genetic differences within species can influence the ability of trees to
tolerate flooding and this pre-planting site study will assist in selection of species.
Soils on the mitigation site are mappe as Rains of d on a site examination confirms
the mapping. The site is currently part under cultivation and the remainder used as cattle
pasture.
The mitigation site consists of farmland that was cleared and converted
approximately eight (8) years previous. The site drainage is southwest to Northeast with
three (3) main lead ditches and two (2) laterals. Th_efield orcNwned
and no sub-surface drain ge has been constructed. The two (2) debris windrows (30'x
500' approximately) located in the Southwest pasture portion of the site are to remain to
provide transition habitat for wildlife. The windrows are partially overgrown and are not to
be disturbed.
The existing drainage system is to be plugged at ditch ante wc:ti
ons or outlets with
---- -
minimum length of 50 feet. Each plug is to be cut down along the centerline to provide a
swale overflow 0.5 feet below adjacent original grade. The banks of the ditches will be
peeled back with a dozer or motor grader to partially fill the flow line of the ditch inverts
creating periodic standing water condition within the resulting depression along the filled
ditch line.
6
10. HYDROLOGY:
The mitigation site selection was based upon the existing small variations in
topography cdW flat. The location of the site is adjacent to a true
Carolina Bay pocosin located to the Southwest and having a slightly higher elevation (+3
feet more or less). The seep effect of ground water from the adjacent bay combined with
precipitation will provide the primary hydrologic input. Analysis of uncleared timberlands
adjacent to the mitigation indicates that the mitigation site prior to conversion supported wet
hardwood flat vegetation.
11. WATER BUDGET:
The Water Budget for the mitigation site follows and indicates sufficient water will be
available to restore the hydrology necessary to support the wetland hardwood vegetation.
<1.> Precipitation (P)
(a) Average annual precipitation Craven County, N. C. is 54.5 inches
(b) Precipitation inflow =54.5" x 72 ac = 327 Ac.ft/yr.
12
<2.> Runoff (R)
(a) Surface runoff from the Mitigation Site will be restricted by grading and filling
existing ditches.
(b) Allowance for Runoff due to storm events will be 10% of the annual
precipitation.
(c) Groundwater Outflow =0.10 x 54.5 x 72 = 32.7 Ac.-Ft/Yr.
12
<3.> Groundwater Flow (G)
(a) Groundwater flow from the mitigation site will be limited due to elimination of
adjacent ditches and the rains soils.
(b) Allowance for groundwater flow will be 20% of the annual precipitation.
(c) Groundwater Outflow = 0.20 x 54.5 x 72 = 65.4 Ac.-Ft/Yr.
12
7
<4.> Evaporation (E)
Qoao,?
V o (a) Free water evaporation will be limited to periodic ponding within the mitigation
site.
(b) Allowance for evaporation will be 41 inches per year over 10 acres of ponded 1
„I
water ?L
(c) Evaporation Outflow = 41 x 10 =34.2 Ac.-Ft/Yr.
12
(d) Free water evaporation should cease to occur as full revegetation is
established on the mitigation site.
<5.> Evapotranspiration (ET)
(a) Allowance for evapotranspiration rates forthe mitigation site when vegetation
is fully established will be 70% of the annual free water evaporation rate of
41 inches per year.
(b) Evapotranspiration Outflow = 0.70 x 41 x 72 = 172.2 Ac.-Ft/Yr.
12
<6.> Offsite Runoff (OR)
(a) The sandridge west of the mitigation site is expected to provide a combined
surface runoff during storm events and groundwater flow into the mitigation
site that will enter the mitigation site hydrology. The area contributing to this
runoff will be approximately 50 acres and an allowance for runoff equaling
20% of the annual precipitation will exit this area.
(b) Offsite Runoff - 0.20 x 54.5 x 50 = 45.4 Ac.-Ft/Yr.
12
<7.> Wetland Soil Storage (S)
(a) The excess water available for establishing and maintaining the wetland
hardwood vegetation will be stored in the rains soils.
(b) Soil storage = S=P+OR-R-G-E-ET
S=327 + 45.4 - 32.7 - 65.4 -34.2 -172.2
S= 67.9 Ac.-Ft./Yr.
8
(a) The water budget indicates that sufficient excess water will be available
within the mitigation site to support establishment of wetland hardwood
vegetation.
(b) Provisions for allowing offsite runoff of excess water will be a swale spillway
constructed in each drainage ditch plug. These swales shall be initially also
plugged with small earthen check dams approximately 10 feet wide and will
later be opened manually with shovels should added drainage be found
desirable when the initial surface water supply is found to be in excess of that 9-1
required for seedlings. Inapparent lowest areas bedding will be desirable forw 115
immature plantings and is to be accomplished as necessary to raise the rooter
sufficiently for the planted trees to thrive.
12. HYDROLOGY MONITORING:
The groundwater hydrology and surface ponding will be monitored by periodic visual
observations, hand borings and monitoring wells installed per WRP Technical Note HY-1 A-
3.1 dated August 1993. The slight variations in topography throughout the mitigation site
are expected to maintain wetland hydrology in a portion of the site during dry periods and
these areas will be documented to verify suitable conditions to allow the selected species
of trees to thrive. Should some area indicate excessive soil moisture or flooding, limited
drainage may be restored to direct the water to drier areas on site after consultations with
Corps of Engineers Representatives. ??.-
13. PROJECT MONITORING:
The overall responsibility for this mitigation project will be:
Mr. Joe Alcoke
3305 Clarendon Blvd.
New Bern, North Carolina 28560
[phone]
and
9
CGW Inc.
Mr. Calvin Wellons
P. O. Box 1018
Morehead City, N. C. 28557
[phone]
The responsibility for actual development of the mitigation site will be delegated by
the owners to various engineers, biologists, foresters, and contractors as necessary during
the three (3) years required for successful completion of the mitigation.
14. REPORTS:
The progress of the mitigation shall be documented by annual reports over the three
year monitoring period developed during August - September of each year as the project
progresses. The annual report shall be submitted within 30 days of monitoring and shall
include the following:
Photographs
Sample Plot Data
Well Data (if applicable)
Problems/Resolution
Upon determination that the mitigation plan has been successfully implemented a
final "As-Built" report will be prepared and issued. This report shall include the following:
Final Elevations
Photographs
Sample Plot Locations
Well Data (if applicable)
Problems/Resolution
Planting Design/Sample Plot Data
General Discussion
nN?
N??N?
F?
effi
10
15. REMEDIAL ACTION:
Any deviations from this plan will be coordinated with and approved by the Corps of
Engineers. -?- V1?
Unsuccessful vegetation survival will be corrected by re-planting of the same or
similar species or by alternate species that may be determined by soil/hydrology conditions.
The hydrology within the site shall be monitored and areas within the site determined
to be too wet or too dry are to be corrected by modification of the surface
water/groundwater drainage.
Vandalism or animal depredation shall be monitored and corrective action taken as
found necessary.
16. FINAL DISPOSITION OF MITIGATION SITE:
Upon successful completion of the development of the 72 acre site to a wet
hardwood flat the property will remain in the ownership of the principals until such time as
a transfer of ownership is deemed suitable. Upon transfer of ownership, the deeds will
contain a conservation easement or deed restriction to maintain the site as a wet hardwood
flat. Donation or sale of the site to education or conservation organizations will include
similar conservation easement or deed restrictions.
11
17. CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Upon approval of this Mitigation Plan bythe North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management and by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and issue of a permit to fill a 30
acre site by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the following Conservation Easement will
be recorded by the Owners in the office of the Craven County Register of Deeds:
by
This DEED OF EASEMENT, made this day of , 1994,
hereinafter called the Grantor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor is the Owner in fee simple of certain real property situated in
Number 3 Township, Craven County, North Carolina being more particularly described as:
BEGINNING at a point, an iron stake in a ditch about 50 ft. from State Road 1256,
2 miles north of Cove City, N. C. in Number Three (3) Township, Craven County, said
beginning point is the Northeast corner of a Tract Number Three (3) of the T.J. Bryan
Estate, thence South 66° 30' West 2670 feet to a corner thence North 54° 48' West 340
feet to a point; thence North 36° 30' West 296.00 feet; thence North 32° 45' West 200.60
feet thence North 66° 37' West 120.0 feet; thence North 38° 33' West 138.9 feet; thence
North 04° 47' East 104.7 feet; thence North 00° 35'86.8 feet; thence North 66° 30' East
2750.00 feet to a corner; thence South 51 ° 22' East 98.2 feet, thence South 36° 54' West
361.00 feet to Stephen Perjanytz lot; thence South 66° 30' West 522.72 feet; thence South
36° 54' East 250.0 feet; thence North 66° 30' East 277.72 feet to a new corner; thence
North 36° 54' West 325.0 feet; thence North 66° 30' East 200.0 feet; thence South 28° 25'
East 131.62 feet; thence South 26° 35' East 100.00 feet to the point of beginning being 72
acres more or less.
WHEREAS, the Grantor is restoring the subject tract to a wet hardwood flat as
mitigation for a permit allowing development of another tract of land;
12
WHEREAS, the Grantor, as a condition of said permit is willing to grant a
Conservation Easement over said property and contiguous water areas of said property,
on the terms and conditions and for the purposes hereinafter set forth, and the Grantor is
willing to accept such easement;
WHEREAS, the Grantor recognizes the scenic, natural, and aesthetic value of the
property upon completion of the restoration of said property to a wet hardwood flat and will,
bythe recordation ofa Conservation Easement, have the purpose of conserving the natural
values of said property, preserving the natural character of said property, and preventing
the development of said property for any purpose or in any manner which would conflict
with the maintenance of said property in its scenic, natural and wooded condition;
NOW THEREFORE, Grantor hereby grants and conveys to the United States of l5??
America forever and in perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and character
and to the extent hereinafter set forth, in respect to the lands described herein and located
in Craven County, North Carolina:
The terms, conditions and restrictions of the Conservation Easement are as
hereinafter set forth:
1. No building, billboard or advertising material, fence, or other structure shall
be erected on the property unless such structure replaces a pre-existing
structure of similar size, bulk, or height.
2. There shall be no dumping of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste, or other un-
sightly or offensive material.
3. There shall be no excavations, dredging or removal of loam, gravel, soil,
rock, sand, or other material nor any building of roads or other change in the
general topography of the land, excepting the maintenance of existing foot
trails, fire lanes, farm roads, or other accesses.
4. There shall be no removal, destruction, or cutting of trees, shrubs, or other
vegetation except as may be necessary for (a) the maintenance of existing
foot trails, fire lanes, or other accesses, (b) the prevention or treatment of
disease, or (c) other good husbandry and silviculture practices.
5. No advertising of any kind or nature shall be located on or within the property.
13
6. There shall be no activities, actions, or uses detrimental or adverse to water
conservation, erosion control, soil conservation, and fish and wildlife or
habitat preservation.
The terms, conditions and restrictions set forth above shall in no way restrict the
Grantor in earthwork, mowing, planting, ditching, seeding, or any other operations
considered by the Grantor as necessary to complete the restoration of the subject tract as
mitigation for other permitted work.
In the event the mitigation of the site is not successful and not accepted by the
United States Government Army Corps of Engineers within five (5) years of the date of this
Easement, this Conservation Easement shall become null and void and shall be removed
from said property.
The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns, the right to continue the use of the property for all purposes not
inconsistent with the Conservation Easement.
The Grantor agrees that the terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this
Conservation Easement will be inserted by him in any subsequent deed, or other legal
instrument, by which he divests himself of either the fee simple title to or of his possessory
interest in the subject property.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto the United States of America (Grantee) and Grantor
to the use of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. The covenants agreed to
and the terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes imposed as aforesaid shall not only
be binding upon the Grantor but also his agents, personal representatives, heirs, and
assigns, and all other successors to him in interest and shall continue as a servitude
running in perpetuity with the above described land.
14
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors has hereunto set their hands and seals in
the day and year above written.
WITNESS:
WITNESS:
GRANTOR
By:
GRANTOR
By:
NORTH CAROLINA
CRAVEN COUNTY
I, , a Notary Public of the County and State
aforesaid, certify that personally appeared before me
this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing document.
WITNESS my hand and notarial seal, this the day of
1994.
NOTARY PUBLIC
15
(SEAL)
NORTH CAROLINA
CRAVEN COUNTY
I, , a Notary Public of the County and State
aforesaid, certify that personally appeared before me
this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing document.
WITNESS my hand and notarial seal, this the
1994.
day of ,
(SEAL)
NORTH CAROLINA
CRAVEN COUNTY
NOTARY PUBLIC
The foregoing certificates of ,
and are certified to be
correct. This instrument was presented for registration this day and hour, and duly
recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Craven County, North Carolina, in Book
at Page
This the day of
1994, at
o'clock .M.
BY:
REGISTER OF DEEDS
mp93401
DEPUTY REGISTER OF DEEDS
16
i
PROPOSED SITE LOCATION
for
WETLAND MITIGATION
DATE: 04-29-s4 ROBERT M. CHILES, P.E
Job No. 94482 _ ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
SCALE. NTS NEW BERN, NORTH CAROUNA