19970698 Ver 1_Complete File_19911114

RECEIVED
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT NOV 1 til 1993
Mr. Robert Jantsen, Me. Sue Januen REGULATORY BRANCH
Mr. John Gavigan and Me. Anne Gavigan
Permittee do Mr. Nelson C. Paull
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Permit No. Ant4nn =n_ 192MOA11
Issuing Office
s-$
NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term
"this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted
activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer.
You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below.
Project Description:
To place fill material in 0.43 acre of wetlands adjacent to Rice Creek and Bay River
to construct an access road, Pasture Point Plantation Subdivision.
Project Location:
Florence, Pamlico County, North Carolina.
Permit Conditions:
General Conditions:
1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on T)e msl%Ar 31- 1334 . If you find that you need
more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least
one month before the above date is reached.
2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and condi-
tions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make
a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain
the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of
this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area.
3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by
this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordina-
tion required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places.
ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION of SEP 82 is ossoLETE. (33 CPR 325 (Appendix A))
1
" ,
4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided
and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization.
5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions specified
in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is attached if it con.
tains such conditions.
- 6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure
that It is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit.
Special Conditions:
Sae anelosed.
Further Information:
1. Congraniorad Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to:
() Section 10 of the Riven and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403).
(Z) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
( ) Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413).
2. Limits of this authorization.
a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law.
b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.
c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.
d This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project.
3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following:
a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural
causes.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf
of the United States in the public interest.
c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity
authorized by this permit.
d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work.
2

e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit.
4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public
interest was made in reliance on the information you provided.
8. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances
warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or
inaccurate (See 4 above).
c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision.
Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation
procedures contained in 33 CPR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The
referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms
and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any
corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations
(such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the
cost.
6. Extensions. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Unless
there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest
decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit.
Your signature below, as pe ittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
RO ERT J ZB)1 im IN4:GA GAN ANNE GAVIGAN
(DATE)
This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below.
-??
2 ?c
b8T(DATE)
? ??pp,, ????h?ttlr, Cnnorps of I;ngine?
w 9t icjure sor work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and
conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit
and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below.
(TRANSFEREE)
(DATE)
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: IW6 - 717-126
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
a. Compensatory mitigation will be provided in accordance with mitigation
plan, entitled Plan to !Mitigate for Wetland Losses associated with Access Road
Construction, prepared by Environmental Consultants and Permit Specialists,
dated August 1, 1991 and revised October 2, 1991.
b. The fill material will be clean and free of any pollutants except in
trace quantities. Metal products, organic materials, or unsightly debris will
not be used.
c. Sufficient culverts will be installed through the roadway fill to
assure that surface flow of water between wetlands on each side of the road is
not restricted.
d. The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a
significant increase in turbidity outside the area of construction or
construction-related discharge. Increases such that the turbidity in the
waterbody is 25 NTU's or less are not considered significant.
-? ?ggooo¢??

5-7- it REVISION
(F=GURF- I LOCA-rrON MAP)
XANTZEN/GAVIGAN
A=F.3S ROAD
(NO SCALE)
eAY RYVER
CREEKS
LOT
i /\ \\ U PLAN DOS
, ; LOT
WLrrLAND
- _? \ LOT
ACCESS Oaf
/ LOCA I L N
LOT

Ex=s-r="c ROA o '
S?I?T Z of ? ?D
PASTURE POT-N'r PLANTA o?w
SL)B0'ZVT--ST-ON ---l
PAML=GO COUNTY C
i

3'- 7- 9 1 REVZ5=ON
(FT:G V R E 2. -- LOT LA\/ O u T
ZANTZEN /GAVIG A N
ACCESS aoAD
I" ^ r.oo l

P/t_
• u P>_ qN O5
C.Olm- APPR VIED
/ 18 I V'4ETLAN C/
UPS-At?tD
•y?• f90tJNCARY
U PLAN OS
M-0-7 L O3
A •? I? 7 ROAD - L2KE
\ ARCA 1 i
I I
J i
lo,
WER4N ? VEO ?\/ /
UPI..Aty v '\
SOUN OAftV
C \
PROPOSCD i`\` PR Po3E C
M." CULVERT \, \ OWNY
1-0-r IL \
BOA E SUM. J'ANTZ r6N
114 11 ' JORDAN LANE
Q R fa A-r FAL9-3 , VA.
VL0404O

\ 1
\
WfCrLaNDS \

NO SCALE
-- -- - BO - - -
GX=3TLK?-AC
SN7 3 of /D
MOTE:
CffNraRLSNM ROAR LENG-rHS
AT A : 4S?' AT O : V t S'
TOTAL AREA Tb BE
F=LLEO: 1-14paz 3or Oa
.4Z' Ae R E.S .
(FIGURE - PROPO 3AL)
-.7AN7 Z EN /GAVrG^t4
ACCESS ROAD
If= 100'
S-7- 91 REV=SI'Ot4
wETLANOS
-TORN ? ATMMS G,AYIGAN
No. 4, ,No R' CR6 EIC ROgC
N014-rp PORT NY
`117406
ZS'
± z'
TYP=CAL SErGT=ON
/ I r I
/ LOT lS'
? I I
W=!V OaOWS \ LOT 14
/l
v
U PILgN O S
i•
UPLANDS
WETLANOS-
/ a
PROPERTY
LINE
/r AREA IS
' ' ?-- MA RS H N
1 r
r /
r ?
r ?
1 ?
,

WZN G ROW
ARE A. ^

LOT 10
P R a Pt<RTY
We-r LAN 0S /
\ EXTST2?JG
ROAD
LOT 1 I
UPLAN OS
LOT 12
AREA TO SM ARE A G
CONVERT= %-j
TO WETLANDS
CSEE F=4URE S
SEE ATTACH E O PLAT
FOR AREA LOCAk7r=ON S
ON PROPERTY.
Sail 4• of ? /D
(F=Ca V R E 4- M=T= G ATIO N)
Z-AN-rZEN /CGAVSGAt4
ACC= S S ROAo
1rr = 100'
.5-'7-91 R EYZ S=O nl
WETLANOS UPLANDS
PENCE - EXCAVAT I O N
/? - CAP=LLARY FR=NGE
MARS H
I
(VAfk=sv
6.,
PERMAN Ent'r WATER TABLE
S'=LT
FENCE
WETLANOS
CROSS SECT= O N
ZN FO RMATION
GROUND SURFACE
TOQ OF
CAP=LLARY FR-X ?AC'sE
ORGANI=C MATER=AL ?RE?=LL?
EX C AVAT 2 O N LZM=TS (pOvYNlwa RD)
PERMANENT
Wkl E R
TABLE
SNEE'r S oF' ? 10
(F=(s,URE S- tAx-rx z AT=O N)
J'ANTZEN /GAVrGAN
ACCESS ROAO
5--7-9c REVMGTON-
Figure 6
Jantzen/Gavigan Access Road
Florence, Pamlico County, NC
Plan to Mitigate for Wetland Losses Associated with Access Road
Construction.
August 1, 1991
(O--tober 2, 1991 Revision)
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Overall Proiect Description
The applicants are Mr. Bob Jantzen and Ms. Sue Jantzen owners of
Lot 2; and Mr. John Gavigan and Ms. Anne Gavigan owners of Lot 3
in the Pasture Point Plantation Subdivision located on the Bay
River and Rices Creek near Florence in Pamlico County, NC.
Typically on these properties, coastal marsh wetlands border Bay
River and Rice Creek. These wetlands are irregularly flooded and
generally consist of black needlerush, salt grass, and salt meadow
grass growing on the hydric Lafitte Muck soil series. Moving
inland with a gradually increasing elevation, these coastal
wetlands give way to uplands consisting of loblolly pine, water
oak, sweet gum, red male, wax myrtle, greenbriar, highbush
blueberry, and bracken fern, growing on the non-hydric Fork soil
series. As the elevation levels off further inland, gradually the
Fork soil series changes to the hydric Yonges series with no
change in elevation and with almost no perceptible changes in the
vegetation. Royal fern, switch cane, pepperbush, black willow,
pennyworth, and salt bush increase in density, replacing
particularly the bracken fern and highbush blueberry. These areas
and the coastal marsh areas have been identified as 404 wetlands
in a previously Corps approved delineation on the property. Both
lots have been clear-cut of large trees and are in the early
stages of revegetating.
1.2 Purpose of Protect
The orientation of uplands and wetlands on these properties
require the applicants, in order to gain access to upland portions
of the properties from a prior existing road, to cross wetlands.
The properties are to be used by the applicants for single family
residential purposes with individual houses being constructed on
each ten acre lot.
1.3 Avoidance
The applicants have investigated several options for avoidance and
these have been incorporated into the project to the maximum
extent possible.
S'`/EE7_ 6 o.--- * /,O
Page Two
Initially, avoidance was the goal of investigating innovative
methods of access by utilizing wooden structures laid on the
wetlands that would support vehicular traffic. Placement of a
wooden structure to cross these wetlands would cost $40,280.00
(5301 long by 12' wide at $76.00 a linear foot. Source:
Telephone conversation on 7/9/90 with and regarding firm bid by
Mr. Dan Foley, Foley and Foley Marine Contractors, Inc. (919)
636-2515.) of course, an elevated bridge structure would cost
even more. Such wooden bridging structures are not commonly used
for private permanent accessways to residences in similar
situations in coastal North Carolina because of other
impracticalities involved. Construction of the fill road with
mitigation would cost approximately $13,000.00 which is
substantially less than the wooden alternative. (Source: Mr.
Bob Jackson, Developer, P.O. Box 733, oriental, NC 28571 (919)
745-4114). Because of the expense and other usage impracti-
calitities, the wooden crossing alternative was rejected from
further consideration.
The second option was to utilize upland portions of Lot 1,
currently owned by Ms. Susan Fenner in order to access Lot 2.
These lots have a continuous highground connection, albeit very
narrow. Ms. Fenner was written about this on 12-6-90 and
responded negatively on 12-12-90. This option would have avoided
some wetland impacts, however, wetland impacts would still have
occurred accessing Lot 3 from Lot 2.
Avoidance of wetland impacts has been considered and incorporated
into the project design to the maximum extent possible.
1_.4 Minimization
The proposed fill roadway has been determined to be the least
damaging practical alternative available to the applicants. In
the latest modification of the project (5-7-91), the roadway has
been realigned to follow an existing, previously-disturbed
4-wheel drive path at the recommendation of Federal Review
Agencies. In addition, the applicants have chosen an individual,
jointly owned accessway to serve their lots, rather than
requesting individual roadways. Individual roadways would have
approximately doubled the wetland impacts. The common closest
point to the uplands on both lots to the existing road was
selected, in an attempt to reduce the length of the crossing. In
addition, provisions have been made to allow the future owners of
Lot 4 access along the same route, eliminating future similar
requests in this immediate area. The 25' roadway width (including
shallow drainage swales) is an absolute minimum, and allows only
one-way traffic to and from the proposed lots.
Sr??T 7 0? 10
Page Three
2.0 Compensatory Mitigation Description
2.1 Mitigation Concept
The roadway alignment shown on the most receipt (5-7-91)
modification will still impact approximately 19602 square feet of
wetlands or .45 acre (Figure 3). Three upland areas re to be
converted into wetlands. This will be done by inducing wetland
hydrology by excavation and grading and by insuring the
reestablishment of indigenous hydrophytic vegetation. These areas
total 45953 square feet of 1.05 acres. This provides a mitigation
area to impacted area ratio of 2.34 to 1.
2.2 Mitigation Site Description
Sites A, B, and C (Figure 4) are upland areas that do not differ
substantially from adjacent wetland areas. Primarily, their
difference is in soil character and being essentially the
taxonomic differences between the Fork (non-hydric) and Yonges
(hydric) soil series. All sites have been cut over similarly as
adjacent wetland areas and are in the process of revegetating.
2.3 Mitigation Site Modifications
The mitigation sites will each be divided into grid points
situated 33' apart. On each point, soil indicators will be
examined to establish the depth to the permanent water table. The
amount of overburden to be removed will be calculated for each
point to establish a uniform 6" undercut of the capillary fringe.
This will be excavated and backfilled with 6" of highly colloid
organic material (Figure 5). The purpose of this to elevate water
retention capabilities of the soil and to minimize standing water.
Impacts to adjacent wetlands will be minimized by operating
equipment from mats where required and by direct loading and
trucking overburden offsite for disposal on uplands on Lot 11.
Silt fences will also be established around each of the mitigation
areas to eliminate sedimentation of adjacent lands.
2.4 Planting Layout
The planting layout is represented in the sketch shown on page 5.
Four species have been chosen primarily because of their habitat
value as a food source for wildlife. The four species to be
planted are Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii), Willow Oak
(Quercus phellos), Water Oak (Quercus nigra) and Laurel Oak
(Quercus laurifolia).
Six-inch seedlings will be obtained from commercial greenhouses
and planted in 1 gallon containers of suitable potting material by
the applicants. Plants will be wet cultured (continuous
saturation) until the tress are 11-2' tall. About 20% more than
the planting requires will be produced to allow for greenhouse
'5h ? 8 0,,=- /O
Page Four
and early establishment mortality. The potted plants will be.
planted during the late Fall (October-November) in the densities
and spacings illustrated on page 5. The four species will be
planted on 15' centers in roughly equal amounts. This amounts to
a density of 48.5 of each species per acre, with a total density
193.6 plants per acre.
3.0 Mitigation Performance Monitoring
The fixed 33' grid, established in the Mitigation Site
Modifications (2.3), will be utilized in the mitigation
performance monitoring. Random one-tenth acre plots will be taken
with grid points as plot centers to evaluate species by live stem
counts and heighth, one month, 1.5 years and 3 years after
planting completion. Strategic grid points having description
viewpoints will be utilized to photo-document the mitigation
progress with color pictures at each monitoring interval.
Original photo reports will be provided to Federal Review Agencies
at each monitoring interval. Ultimate survival of 75% of the
plantings over the three-year period will be considered a
successful mitigation.
4.0 Mitigation Logistics and Security
Each time the mitigation performance is evaluated, suggested
remedial measures will be made if the evaluation indicates such
measures may be required. If the mitigation is performing below
the required standards, the evaluator will note his or her opinion
as to why and suggest what remedial measures would correct the
problem. No remedial measures will be undertaken without input
from the Federal Review Agencies. Remedial measures can be as
extensive as regrading areas where mortality of a particular
species was excessive. Substitute species may be selected for
planting in selective areas rather than chosing to regrade (or
fill) which maybe logistically difficult.
The applicants assure that the mitigation will be conducted
concurrently with the project causing the wetland losses that
required this mitigation. The applicants will retain title to the
properties on which the mitigation is being performed along with a
perpetual easement for access, should the surrounding properties
be sold.
SdE&'T ? OF /O
° V C v O v 0 v o
.1/10" ACRE
SQUARE It C=RCULAR PLOTS

13 D O O p p

?/ .o v o v o, v o

O O %; O p O ; Q O
, ,
1 1 ,

o

v 1 1
1 1
1 to v o v
1 .
, ,
o;

%to

o

0 0 ',?0 [1 d ? ?;; a d
r
1 ?
1 ? 1
" 1
o V 1 0 ? ?/ o ?/ . ' O I ?/ O

d v d ? Q d a d
PLANTING LAYOUT

° N/ o
5YMB0 L SPECZEZ SPACING NUMISER
PE R ACRE
C QUERCUS LAURSFOL-XA IS' 48.4

L
? OUERCUS M=CH AU X==
C tS' 48.4
. QUER
US N=QzRA 466
C7 QUERCUS PHEL.LO S IS' 48.4
TOTAL Iq3,C.,
sw-ErT /o ar /o
PA G E
S
10/Z /1 t REV.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Action ID No. 199000411 October 9, 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
AND STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
Applicant: Mr. Robert Jantzen, and Ms. Sue Jantzen,
Mr. John John Gavigan and Ms. Anne Gavigan
c/o Mr. Nelson C. Paul
Environmental Consultants and Permit Specialists
2216 Dobbin Place
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
This permit action is being taken under authority delegated to the
Wilmington District Engineer by the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of
Engineers by Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 325.8, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Pro ect Description: Plans submitted with the application show the proposed
placement of fill material, obtained from an upland source, in 0.45 acre of
wetlands adjacent to Rice Creek and Bay River for construction of a 25-foot-
wide, 530-foot-long road to provide access to high ground on two residential
properties, each encompassing approximately 10 acres.
Environmental Setting: On the affected property, coastal marsh wetlands
border Bay River and Rice Creek. Part of the area to be filled is irregularly
flooded and supports the growth of black neddlerush, salt grass and salt
meadow grass on hydric LaFayette Muck soil. At higher elevations, loblolly
pine, water oak, sweet gum, red maple, wax myrtle, greenbriar, highbush
blueberry and bracken fern are present on non-hydric Fork soil. Adjacent to
the existing road, from which the access is to be constructed, soils of the
hydric Yonges series support the growth of royal fern, switch cane,
pepperbush, black willow pennywort and salt bush. The project area has been
clear-cut of large trees and is in the early stages of revegetation.
Environmental Impacts: The alignment of the proposed roadway is to follow an
existing, previously disturbed 4-wheel drive path. It is the shortest route
to span the wetlands and is as narrow as consideration for safety will permit.
Accomplishment of the work will result in the filling of 19,602 square feet
(0.45 acre) of wetlands. The roadway is to be shared by two property owners.
Compensatory mitigation, on a 2.34 to 1 basis, is to be provided by converting
three upland areas, totalling 1.05 acre, to wetlands. These areas are to to
excavated and graded to induce hydrology and wetland hardwood species are to
be planted on 15-foot centers in strict accordance with a compresentative plan
prepared by the applicants' consultant.
-2-
Alternatives: The applicants investigated several alternatives to avoid and
minimize adverse impacts. A wooden bridge structure was considered, but a
cost of $40,280.00 would have been required to completely span all wetlands.
Other alignments, which would have involved less filling of wetlands, we
considered, but such would have required crossing properties not owned by the
applicants. Permission to utilize such alignments was refused.
Summary: I have reviewed the application and plans furnished by the applicant
and the environmental assessment. I am aware that the project would involve
the placement of fill material in 0.45 acre of wetlands. However, I do not
consider this impacts significant as the area has been previously disturbed
and the least damaging, practical alternative has been chosen, impacts have
been minimized and adequate mitigation is to be provided.
The proposed project has had extensive review through our normal public notice
process, and there are no substantive objections to the project as of the
writing of this statement. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have
reviewed this application and have no unresolved concerns.
I have reviewed the application and plans and the public interest record, and
I find that the proposed work is not controversial and will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
I find that this application is not a major Federal action significantly
affecting the human environment; and hence, the preparation of a detailed
statement under Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environment Policy Act of
1969 is not required.
I have given full consideration to this application. After weighing favorable
and unfavorable aspects, I find that the issuance of a permit to Mr. and Ms.
Jantzen and Mr. and Ms. Gavigan will not be contrary to the general public
interest provided that they adhere to the conditions incorporated in the
permit.
??L alter S. Tulloch
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
\ District Engineer
Jason C. Hauck
Major, Corps of Engineers
Acting District Engineer

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
CESAW-C090-N-069-0411 August 30, 1990
PUBLIC NOTICE
MR. BOB GANTZEN, MS. SUE GANTZEN, MR. JOHN GAVIGAN and MS. ANNE GAVIGAN,
represented by MR. NELSON G. PAUL, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS AND PERMIT
SPECIALISTS, 2216 Dobbin Place, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604, have applied
for a Department of the Army (DA) permit TO PLACE FILL MATERIAL IN WETLANDS
ADJACENT TO RICE CREEK AND BAY RIVER TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESS ROAD AT PASTURE.
POINT PLANTATION SUBDIVISION, NEAR FLORENCE, Pamlico 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 the proposed placement of fill material, obtained from a high
ground source, on 13,250 square feet (0.3 acre) of wetlands for construction
of a 25-foot-wide, 530-foot-long road providing access to high ground on two
residential properties, each encompassing approximately 10 acres. Part of the
area to be filled is irregularly flooded and supports the growth of black
needlerush, salt grass and salt meadow grass on hydric LaFayette Muck soil.
At higher elevations, loblolly pine, water oak, sweet gum, red maple, wax
myrtle, greenbriar, highbush blueberry and bracken fern are present on non-
hydric Fork soil. Adjacent to the existing road, from which access is
desired, soils of the hydric Yonges series support the growth of royal fern,
switch cane, pepperbush, black willow, pennywort and salt bush.
The permittees considered the alternatives of a wooden structure placed
directly on wetlands and construction of an elevated wooden bridge. These
alternatives were discounted because of higher costs and impractical
maintenance and repair requirements. The applicants believe they have
minimized impacts by agreeing upon common access to the two properties and
restricting the length and width of the roadway. At a location approximately
2,000 feet east of the project site, the applicants offer compensatory
mitigation in the form of restoring a degraded wetland similar to the area to
be filled for the roadway. The applicants' consultant claims that all work
will result in a net gain of 11,300 square feet (0.26 acre) of wetlands.
The purpose of the work is to provide road access to high ground for
construction of two single family residences. Plans showing the work are
included with this public notice.
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 (NCDCM) for

-2-
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 (NCDCM) 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
(DEM)•
b. The issuance of a permit to dredge and/or fill under North Carolina
General Statute 113-229 by the NCDCM.
c. The issuance of a permit under the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) by the NCDCM 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(b) 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
for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register
constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District
1
-3-
Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the presence of such resources.
Presently, unknown archaeological, 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 contrdry 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
are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the
overall public interest of the proposed activity.

-4-
Generally, the decision whether to issue this DA permit will not be made
until the 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
serve 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 DEM plans to take final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act
certification on or after October 5, 1990.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the DEM, Post
Office Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before October 1,
1990, Attention: Mr. William Mills.
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.,
October 1, 1990, or telephone [phone].

1
V/CIN/TY , MAP
BAY RId
`? ?LQREtJc.E .
.1
Sl TE
X324
sT>Lj E-
WALL 55
?3?YBOR? RR i T
(FrTr=URE I LOCATSON M A P?
GAN'TZEN/GAV IGAtq
ACCESS ROAD
No SCALE)
SAY R=V E R
CREEK
\ VPLANOS.',
?J
LOT
` t UPLAN 03 1 ? / ? .
I
LOT WCTLANO
ACCESS OAO
LOCAT'2 N
LOT i I
=X'T5-r-XNG ROAD
PASTURE P0,=NT PLANTA .\j
SU B O=Y= S'=.O N , ,
PAML=co COUNTY C
i
(F IXGURE 2.-L0T LAVOu' T
GANTZEN /GAVIG A N
ACCESS ROAD
I# ,.*= Z.O O'
61
r
--PLL-
W STI-ANo 3
` ua?wos i

UPLANDS
\
\
\

.I
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
L o-r 7
BOB a SUE GAN-rzEN
WMANDS
L c.r
JOHN f ANNE
GAY 6 AN
No. 4, NO R TH CR EE K
R D.
14 I i 'TO R DAN LANE t, ? ± NORTH PO RT, NY
GREAT . FALLS, VA. 1 t 1 17 Cob
zzo (04
1 1
i I
I 1
PROPOSED
ROAD 1 '
1
zs? ? '
'
as,
T TYP=CAL SjWC-i I-ON i -
NO SCALE EXTSnKG ROAM (-TO-Row)
(rrGURE 3 - PROPOSAL)
GANTZEN /GAVIGAN
ACCESS ROAD
" _ (o0'

i
P/L.
?' W}NDRDW?
P/L ? / C`uPLAN OS
V
1
/ /
WTHOROws To
y/h Be Pu3NEfl wN i I
' ANO LlYL?L_Z®RM,
A 7ACIENT LAN D
LSMTTS OF i s
LaymLTNe
L Orr 7
f r
? ? r
\ ftOAO
sue' Row
I
1 ; V PLAN, DS \ \ ? ? ? , ? -? _ -??
UPL^ND 3
(FIC= U R E 4- MrMG AT=o? I
GANTZEN /GAvTGAN
ACCffs s ROAD
1" = I oo" ????
Please type or print. Carefully describe all anticipated
development activities, including construction, excava-
tion. filling, paving, land clearing, and stormwater con-
trol. If the requested information is not relevant to your
project, write N/A (not applicable). Items 1-4 and 8-9
must be completed for all projects.
1 APPLICANT
If you plan to build a marina, also complete and
attach Form DCM-MP-2.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an
ext tng project, new work, or both?
°v?1 i..J o r k
C.
Will the project be for community, private, or
commercial use?
Pr; ? cr ?e,
a. Name f5J 6 t 5? a- 6 ar i+z- a ,t o.. 0d
Address L/o t7G F,5? Tyra , zJ z t (. Dol-& .t M.
City izo l e" s h State rf L
Zip Z7( 04 Day phone 9 - 231 - 0(:,3
V/_ Landowner or Authorized agent
b. Project name (if any) C G.i9 -1 46a,i, f=- a..r
A c, c,,,,-, S 9o,-A
C. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give the
_
owner's name and address.
t t4 l T rya ,?r "It o -4 tJ c.-i i.. Gre eklK'?'.
Gc,e, n! + l k C. . nJ a I'll' cr urn f'J y b.
l 1` 61Fg
2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. Street address or secondary road number
b. City, town, community, or landmark
c. County
d. Is proposed work ithin city limits or planning
jurisdiction? +a .
e. Name of body of wat r nearest project
t ?.: a.tr Gr-e,ek
3 DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. Describe all development activities you propose (for
example, building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead,
or pier). r-omcl Ke.;rclo_?J e.-4
d. Describe the planned use of the project.
oGCA W I 1-p a- LA5mac) 4-ta q GGdf ?
In : c l.. c r o ?.. ,,.? c? a G pro ?>5 ? ??
c?J e?-I rG,r.!'d s ?so?1 ?? ex; ,+;.,.r?•
o a c,l ..J o
4 LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Size of entire tract
Size of individual lot(s)

c. Elevation of tract above mean sea level or
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
_T s'
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
f'-01?? •- ?IC??i OAS - S?ufl ti L7A,n?
T _
e. Vegetation on tract
f. Man-made features now on tract stir D?a a
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classification of
the site? (Consult the local land use plan.)
,/itConservation Transitional
Developed Community
V Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government'?
i. How arc aacent waters classified?
!54 - V4 5W
j. Has a professional archaco?logicai survey been
carried out for the tract? . o , If so, by whom?
1289
5 UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
Complete this section if the project includes any land
development.
a. Type and number of buildings, facil' 'es, or
structures proposed
b. Number of lots or parcels ?-
c. Density (Give the number of residential units and the
units per acre.) O. 1
d. Size of area to be2graded lor diisturbedL
R,yod u?a. y 17 (?' V 3'p s VLI :T .?G aJN "
7_1 LSO Sr
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than one
acre of land, the Division of Land Resources must
receive an erosion and sedimentation control plan at
least 30 days before land disturbing activity begins.
If applicable, has a sedimentation and erosion
control plan been submitted to the Division of Land
Resources? NO "
E Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet of
mean high water to be coveted by impermeable
surfaces. such as pavement, buildings, rooftops.
v#.T a.,
g. List the materials, such as marl, paver stone, asphalt,
or concrete, to be used for paved surfs s.
?y?r ;- I ? GGtYs ??o
h. If applicable, has a stormwater management plan
been submitted t fate Division of Environmental
Management? a .
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste
water treatment facilities.
v1 L..3<1
j. Have these facilities received state or local approval?
Yu .
k. Desch
a existing treatment facilities.
>J e, .
1. Describe location and type of discharges to waters of
the state (for example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, ?ndustrial/commercial effluent, "wash
down"). ?Pg,
m. Water supply source ?r-t%AA J , 3&4 d,s-
n. If the project is oceanfront development. describe
the steps that will be taken to maintain established
public bee4 ccessways or provide new access.
o. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will be the
elevation abovye mean sea level of the first habitable
floor? ? /+4
6 EXCAVATION AND FILL
INFORMATION
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation
or fill activities (excluding bulkheads, which are
covered in Section 7).
Length Width Depth
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break-
water. pier,
boat ramp,
rock jetty)
Fill placed in
wetland or-below
- ?J?ti of u y
rLl:t: ?c-j-.•crJ
Upland fill
areas

b. Amount of material to be excavated from below
water level in cubic yards
c. Type of material rJJR
d. Does the area to be excavated include marshland.
swamps, or other wetlands?
A1 <A
e. High ground excavation, in cubic yams
rf /a
2 12/89
f. Dimensions of spoil disposal area
KI/A
g. Location of spoil disposal area \J1 A
h. Do you claim title to the disposal area? rj (p,
If not, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
i. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? ?J / A
If so, where?
j. Does the disposal area include any marshland,
swamp Awater areas?
k. Will the fill material be placed below mean high
water? 'J t A
1. Amount of fill in cubic yards 6J,/#k
m. Type of fill material rJ k
n. Source of fill material _,J A
o. Will fill material be placed on marsh or other
wetlands? y?-;
p. Dimensions of the wetland to be filled
' 4,T4,700 5 F=
q. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled?
6?-r' c I,?1S u'Pd I o...raA ;...? .
r. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)? P? t nz e r- ,??ac=?c I.. i Q_
s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? If yes, explain steps that will
be taken to lessen environmental impacts.
C-:-.; c..:., 6 v. 0.0J fi ..J . I ( tv z •-u?s?'r , '' t"f

7 SHORELINE STABILIZATION
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap tj a
b. Average distance waterward of mean high water or
normal water level r?.( k
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months, in
feet rJ /A
d. Type of bulkhead material P31A
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be placed below
mean high water '\S / A
f. Type of fill material nT jet
8 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the follow-
ing items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other
instrument under which the applicant claims title to the
affected property. If the applicant is not claiming to be
the owner of said property, then forward a copy of the
deed or other instrument under which the owner claims
title, plus written permission from the owner to carry out
the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and cross
sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black ink on an 8
1/2 x 11 white paper. (Refer to Coastal Resources
Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats arc acceptable only if 18 high
quality copies are provided by applicant. (Contact the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding that agency's
use of larger drawings.) A site or location map is a part
of plat requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed
to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
site. Include county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and
the like.
A stormwater management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
individuals have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management and should be advised by the applicant of
that opportunity.
12/89
L-1-11-
Name M4-. Sus4,.? ?=???J r-
Address &-LAsti.y r-r4_-c, Lnt . ?X ?y?
Name o t' -M 5c,)Q 6'..
s c,.J
Address D. 7 3
fir; PfiA N G 43'5"71
Name
Address
A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permiee, and issuing dates.
I atj 4- ,
A check for $100 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health & Natural Resources to cover the
costs of processing the application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront
and inlet areas.
A statement on the use of public funds. If the project
involves the expenditure of public funds, attach a state-
ment documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to 10).
4
9 CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
Any permit issued in response to this application will
allow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to conditions and restrictions
contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's ap-
proved Coastal Management Program and will be con-
ducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I further certify that I am authorized to grant. and do in
fact, grant permission to representatives of state and
federal review agencies to enter on the aforementioned
lands in connection with evaluating information related
to this permit application and follow-up monitoring of
project.
This is the 1 L day of 4 , 19 TJ
X kLzoi?10_
?? C j rJG
Lando er or Authorized agent
1289
VICINITY AMP
i
R? JER
SAY
SI TE
s1??..1E-
/ ' ALL 55
? ?YBOR? ??FRRiT
?F2GuRE 1 - LOCA-rrON M q p)
GANTZEN/GAV IGAN
ACCESS ROAD
(WO SGA L E)
C,AY R=V E R
v
GREEK /
VP gNOS.
LOT
W Pt-AM O'S
LOT
14011,
LG T. WET'LANc
ACCESS OAS
LOGATT N
LOT ? ?
? EXIST=N
PASTURE PO=NT PLANTA N
5UB0=V2SZON
PAML=GO COUNTY C
i
4 ROA 0
(rrra R E 2. -LOT LAYOUT)
GANTZEN /GAVIG A N
ACCESS ROAD
I* ,.,= Z.0 0 '
.ALL.
W ETL.ANo S
U PLAN DS
01
uaaros /•
'- j
Vy//
/. 1
AN?S ?
?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
L.OT ?-. 1
`ts,
T
PROPOSED
ROAD

1 ?
1 ?
1
1 ?
1 i
1 ?
1 '
1 ?
1 ?
1 ?
IETLANOS
LCT1-'
,710H N ANN M
GAYTF AN
No. 4, NORTH CREEK
RD.
NORTH PORT, NY
117Co8
TYPrCAL SECT ZON
NO SCALE Ex=sr=HC ao?+?c (sa• R,ow)
(FTG u R E 3 - PROPOSAL)
G A TZE
N N/GAVZGAN
/ ACC E 5 S?oROAD
BOB > SUE GAPITZE'N
11411 ?Z-ORDAN LANE
GREAT FALLS, VA%.
?-ZO (.!r

cI

_ P/L.
1 `
PAL - / WFUVEIGR s
-i 00-
r - i
f
y/,, r W2NCROVdS TO
QE Pv3HED WN /
f ^NO LNYE LL'
? ? AQTAC?NT LAND ? /
I
(APPROX.) w
t LOT 7
I
? I ? I 1
. ? E ROApN6
30' ROW
r? r
? l
U FLAN 03 \ i . ? ??? ' '- ?.
• ?.?i UPLI,N? 3
FIG U R E 4 - M=G A-rro
GAN TZEN /GA\/zG AN _ I
ACc.-5 5 ROAD

Figure 6
Jantzen/Gavigan Access Road
Florence, Pamlico County, NC
Plan to Mitigate for Wetland Losses Associated with Access Road
Construction.
August 1, 1991
(Oztober 2, 1991 Revision)
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Overall Protect Description
The applicants are Mr. Bob Jantzen and Ms. Sue Jantzen owners of
Lot 2; and Mr. John Gavigan and Ms. Anne Gavigan owners of Lot 3
in the Pasture Point Plantation Subdivision located on the Bay
River and Rices Creek near Florence in Pamlico County, NC.
Typically on these properties, coastal marsh wetlands border Bay
River and Rice Creek. These wetlands are irregularly flooded and
generally consist of black needlerush, salt grass, and salt meadow
grass growing on the hydric Lafitte Muck soil series. Moving
inland with a gradually increasing elevation, these coastal
wetlands give way to uplands consisting of loblolly pine, water
oak, sweet gum, red male, wax myrtle, greenbriar, highbush
blueberry, and bracken fern, growing on the non-hydric Fork soil
series. As the elevation levels off further inland, gradually the
Fork soil series changes to the hydric Yonges series with no
change in elevation and with almost no perceptible changes in the
vegetation. Royal fern, switch cane, pepperbush, black willow,
pennyworth, and salt bush increase in density, replacing
particularly the bracken fern and highbush blueberry. These areas
and the coastal marsh areas have been identified as 404 wetlands
in a previously Corps approved delineation on the property. Both
lots have been clear-cut of large trees and are in the early
stages of revegetating.
1.2 Purpose of Project
The orientation of uplands and wetlands on these properties
require the applicants, in order to gain access to upland portions
of the properties from a prior existing road, to cross wetlands.
The properties are to be used by the applicants for single family
residential purposes with individual houses being constructed on
each ten acre lot.
1.3 Avoidance
The applicants have investigated several options for avoidance and
these have been incorporated into the project to the maximum
extent possible.
_s#cET ?o oc- * /D

Page Two
Initially, avoidance was the goal of investigating innovative
methods of access by utilizing wooden structures laid on the
wetlands that would support vehicular traffic. Placement of a
wooden structure to cross these wetlands would cost $40,280.00
(5301 long by 12' wide at $76.00 a linear foot. Source:
Telephone conversation on 7/9/90 with and regarding firm bid by
Mr. Dan Foley, Foley and Foley Marine Contractors, Inc. (919)
636-2515.) Of course, an elevated bridge structure would cost
even more. Such wooden bridging structures are not commonly used
for private permanent accessways to residences in similar
situations in coastal North Carolina because of other
impracticalities involved. Construction of the fill road with
mitigation would cost approximately $13,000.00 which is
substantially less than the wooden alternative. (Source: Mr.
Bob Jackson, Developer, P.O. Box 733, oriental, NC 28571 (919)
745-4114). Because of the expense and other usage impracti-
calitities, the wooden crossing alternative was rejected from
further consideration.
The second option was to utilize upland portions of Lot 1,
currently owned by Ms. Susan Fenner in order to access Lot 2.
These lots have a continuous highground connection, albeit very
narrow. Ms. Fenner was written about this on 12-6-90 and
responded negatively on 12-12-90. This option would have avoided
some wetland impacts, however, wetland impacts would still have
occurred accessing Lot 3 from Lot 2.
Avoidance of wetland impacts has been considered and incorporated
into the project design to the maximum extent possible.
1.4 Minimization
The proposed fill roadway has been determined to be the least
damaging practical alternative available to the applicants. In
the latest modification of the project (5-7-91), the roadway has
been realigned to follow an existing, previously-disturbed
4-wheel drive path at the recommendation of Federal Review
Agencies. In addition, the applicants have chosen an individual,
jointly owned accessway to serve their lots, rather than
requesting individual roadways. Individual roadways would have
approximately doubled the wetland impacts. The common closest
point to the uplands on both lots to the existing road was
selected, in an attempt to reduce the length of the crossing. In
addition, provisions have been made to allow the future owners of
Lot 4 access along the same route, eliminating future similar
requests in this immediate area. The 251 roadway width (including
shallow drainage swales) is an absolute minimum, and allows only
one-way traffic to and from the proposed lots.
Sr{EE7- 7 0o,--- ? !D

Page Three
2.0 Compensatory Mitigation Description
2.1. Mitigation Concept
The roadway alignment shown on the most receipt (5-7-91)
modification will still impact approximately 19602 square feet of
wetlands or .45 acre (Figure 3). Three upland areas re to be
converted into wetlands. This will be done by inducing wetland
hydrology by excavation and grading and by insuring the
reestablishment of indigenous hydrophytic vegetation. These areas
total 45953 square feet of 1.05 acres. This provides a mitigation
area to impacted area ratio of 2.34 to 1.
2.2 Mitigation Site Description
Sites A, B, and C (Figure 4) are upland areas that do not differ
substantially from adjacent wetland areas. Primarily, their
difference is in soil character and being essentially the
taxonomic differences between the Fork (non-hydric) and Yonges
(hydric) soil series. All sites have been cut over similarly as
adjacent wetland areas and are in the process of revegetating.
2.3 Mitigation Site Modifications
The mitigation sites will each be divided into grid points
situated 33' apart. On each point, soil indicators will be
examined to establish the depth to the permanent water table. The
amount of overburden to be removed will be calculated for each
point to establish a uniform 6" undercut of the capillary fringe.
This will be excavated and backfilled with 6" of highly colloid
organic material (Figure 5). The purpose of this to elevate water
retention capabilities of the soil and to minimize standing water.
Impacts to adjacent wetlands will be minimized by operating
equipment from mats where required and by direct loading and
trucking overburden offsite for disposal on uplands on Lot 11.
Silt fences will also be established around each of the mitigation
areas to eliminate sedimentation of adjacent lands.
2.4 Planting Layout
The planting layout is represented in the sketch shown on page 5.
Four species have been chosen primarily because of their habitat
value as a food source for wildlife. The four species to be
planted are Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii), Willow Oak
(Quercus phellos), Water Oak (Quercus nigra) and Laurel Oak
(Quercus laurifolia).
Six-inch seedlings will be obtained from commercial greenhouses
and planted in 1 gallon containers of suitable potting material by
the applicants. Plants will be wet cultured (continuous
saturation) until the tress are 11-2' tall. About 20% more than
the planting requires will be-produced to allow for greenhouse
'5#67F7- 8 '0,0 =-

Page Four
and early establishment mortality. The potted plants will be.
planted during the late Fall (October-November) in the densities
and spacings illustrated on page 5. The four species will be
planted on 15' centers in roughly equal amounts. This amounts to
a density of 48.5 of each species per acre, with a total density
193.6 plants per acre.
3.0 Mitigation Performance Monitoring
The fixed 33' grid, established in the Mitigation Site
Modifications (2.3), will be utilized in the mitigation
performance monitoring. Random one-tenth acre plots will be taken
with grid points as plot centers to evaluate species by live stem
counts and heighth, one month, 1.5 years and 3 years after
planting completion. Strategic grid points having description
viewpoints will be utilized to photo-document the mitigation
progress with color pictures at each monitoring interval.
Original photo reports will be provided to Federal Review Agencies
at each monitoring interval. Ultimate survival of 75% of the
plantings over the three-year period will be considered a
successful mitigation.
4.0 Mitigation Logistics and Security
Each time the mitigation performance is evaluated, suggested
remedial measures will be made if the evaluation indicates such
measures may be required. If the mitigation is performing below
the required standards, the evaluator will note his or her opinion
as to why and suggest what remedial measures would correct the
problem. No remedial measures will be undertaken without input
from the Federal Review Agencies. Remedial measures can be as
extensive as regrading areas where mortality of a particular
species was excessive. Substitute species may be selected for
planting in selective areas rather than chosing to regrade (or
fill) which maybe logistically difficult.
The applicants assure that the mitigation will be conducted
concurrently with the project causing the wetland losses that
required this mitigation. The applicants will retain title to the
properties on which the mitigation is being performed along with a
perpetual easement for access, should the surrounding properties
be sold.
SdE r 9 of /o

III
C V O C v O v o
, I / to *?+ AGR E
SQUARE £ G=RCULAIR PL..OTS
'? O D O ? O D O ?
o v ;-o--; ,; v-----
-----v =;; --o?
o V o
1
?
0 O ;,? O ? O ? ?; O O
1

o
v 1
o v o v
of
o

0 0 ',a a O o Al O d
r
1
1 ?
I O ?V Q v ,1
V

0

a v a O o E3 D O
PLANTING LAYOUT
I'" = ZO'
o V o u o V o V o
5yM$OL_ SPECIES SPACING NUMpER
PE R ACRE
C QUERCUS L AUR=F'OL.IA tS' 48.4

D QUERCUS M=CH AU XII 1S' 48.4
QUERGUS NZGXAA ?S' qgq
C1 QUERCUS PHEL-LOS IS' 48.4
TOTAL 1Q3.co
-5#15"T /O O,c- /O
PPS G E
S
lo/p. /"I REV.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
kJ ILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
September 20, 1991
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199000411
Mr. John Dorney r
Water Quality Section c?
Division of Environmental Management c\j
North Carolina Department of Environm
Health and Natural Resources C
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Dorney:
S: September 30, 1991
27 0
4 ?711
o t.
.S ', .. J
Ln / Lo y
5 1 £ L ll
Reference our August 30, 1990 public notice whereby we announced the
application of Bob and Sue Jantzen and John and Anne Gavigan, for Department
of the Army (DA) authorization to place fill material in 0.3 acre of
wetlands adjacent to Rice Creek and Bay River to construct an access road
within Pasture Point Plantation Subdivision, near Florence, Pamlico County,
North Carolina. Processing of the application was suspended on December 3,
1990, at the request of their consultant.
Presently, we have received revised plans which realign the proposed
access road on an existing, previously disturbed, four-wheel drive path. The
realignment inspected during a January 1991 onsite meeting would increase
the amount of wetlands impacted to 0.45 acre and increase the amount of
cubic yards of fill material to approximately 1,450 cubic yards. In
addition, provisions would have to be made to allow access to adjoining Lot
No. 4 through upland portions of Lot No. 3, eliminating the necessity for
any future wetland impacts on Lot No. 4.
The applicants have submitted a mitigation proposal to convert 1.05
acres of upland areas to wetlands within Pasture Point Plantation
Subdivision by excavation, grading, and planting of indigenous hydrophytic
vegetation (see enclosed "Plan to Mitigate for Wetland Losses Associated
with Access Road Construction," dated August 1, 1991). Three mitigation
sites are located on adjoining lots within the subdivision (Mitigation Plan
enclosed).
Please review the enclosed-information and provide comments by
September 30, 1991. If you have *questions regarding this matter, please
contact Mr. Norm Sanders at our Washington Regulatory Field Office,
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Gne Wr ht
CRegulatory Branch
Enclosures

?ENr of ; United States Department of the Interior
"? of FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 M
September 30, 1991
?h /R
Colonel Walter S. Tulloch 6-?w Oct19
District Engineer r? ??
U.S. Army Corps of EngineersC'i
' :y,?"j? rr'?i^u
Post Office Box 1890 r•, P/ QU,?
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 cc, R'h?l 1rj,
Dear Colonel Tulloch: s?s,_ ?,Cr
This letter is in response to Dr. G. Wayne Wright's September 20, 1991
letter concerning the application of Bob and Sue Jantzen and John and Anne
Gavigan (Public Notice CESAW-C090-N-069-0411; Action ID. 199000411) for
authorization to place fill material in wetlands adjacent to Rice Creek and
Bay River to construct an access road at Pasture Point Plantation
Subdivision, Pamlico County, North Carolina. The Corps' September 20, 1991
letter included two letters from the applicants' consultant, Mr. Nelson
Paul, dated May 13 and August 1, 1991. The letters provide plans to
mitigate for the proposed project's impacts to 0.45 acres of wetlands. This
report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and supplements our previous
reports.
Upon review of the mitigation plan presented in the August 1 letter, Service
biologist Patty Valentine provided informal comments to Mr. Paul by
telephone on August 19, 1991. As she discussed with Mr. Paul, we have two
basic concerns with the mitigation plan. The first involves the vegetative
species proposed for planting. It was not clear to the Service until
reading the August 1 letter that each of the three mitigation sites are
presently vegetated with the same vegetation as that proposed for planting.
Our second concern is with the proposed density of trees to be planted--
approximately 912 trees per acre, with a goal of 50 percent survival. We
believe that with some degree of natural revegetation from surrounding
areas, this high density of planting will not be necessary.
To address the above two concerns simultaneously, we suggested that the
applicants may wish to consider the use of a greater spacing of trees, on
15-foot centers, and the planting of hardwood species that are native to the
area, such as swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), willow oak (Quercus
phellos), water oak (Quercus n_igra), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), and
perhaps overcup oak (Quercus lvrata) or green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica).
The Service suggested the planting of hardwoods because the project site had
been impacted due to its having been clear-cut of large trees. Also,
according to the Pamlico County Soil Survey (Goodwin 1987) these sp cies
grow in the non-hydric Fork and hydric Yonges soil types of the project
area. The first three species listed commonly occur on Yonges soil in
Pamlico County, and laurel oak is found on Fork soils. A 15-foot spacing
would provide room for the natural revegetation of some of the species that
are currently proposed for planting, such as red maple (Acer rubrum) and
sweet gum (Licruidambar styraciflua), which occur in the adjacent areas. We
realize that hardwood species may be more expensive than other species
proposed, but planting trees on 15-foot centers would require the planting
of many fewer trees than proposed, thus offsetting some of the costs.
During our conversation with Mr. Paul, we also stated that with the
Service's suggested planting scheme, a relatively high survival rate would
be particularly important; thus, we recommended consideration of a 75-80
percent survival rate. The last point discussed was the time of year for
planting. According to the August 1 mitigation plan, potted plants would be
planted during the late fall, in October through November. We discussed
that, according to recent research conducted in this area, "Creation and
Restoration of Forested Wetland Vegetation in the Southeastern United
States" by A. Clewell and R. Lea, in Wetland Creation and Restoration: The
Status of the Science, the preferred time to plant in the Southeast is
January to March. The article does, however, also state that containerized
seedlings may be planted further into the growing season than may bare root
seedlings (copy enclosed).
The remainder of the mitigation plan proposed in the August 1, 1991 letter
is acceptable to the Service.
The Service appreciates this opportunity to provide input, and we hope these
comments are helpful in refining the mitigation plan. Please keep this
office informed of any action taken in the matter.
S? innce?-rely,
L.K. Mike Gantt
Field Supervisor
COUNTY:
APPLICANT"
PERMIT NUMBER: ll(?191
REASON DONE:
TOTAL /# OF ACRES AND TYPE/ OF WE/TLyAND:
LOCATION:
OTHER INFO: ?o? ?? 'q ?J ???z ?? _ . -Z-

MEMO
DATE:
TO: SUBJECT: _
4 ZLC>
From:
A,.. /'?'
7-16

r o.
srnTE
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Printed on Recycled Paper
1

• APPLICANT/PROJECT NAME :
Jantzen and Gavigan
• DEM #: WQC#:
91698
• COUNTY:
Pamlico
• LOCATION OF MITIGATION SITE (LAT. AND LONG.)
• DIRECTIONS TO MITIGATION SITE:
• ACREAGE AND TYPE OF WETLAND IMPACTED:
• ACREAGE AND TYPE OF WETLAND MITIGATED:
• DESCRIPTION OF MITIGATION(IN FILE):
• DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION(IN FILE):
• SUCCESS CRITERIA STATED(if any):
• WHAT IS THE PROJECT STATUS?(mark one):
MAP #:
***NO INFO IN FILE AND
DEVELOPER REFUSED TO BE
HELPFUL.***
RESTORATION, ENHANCEMENT, CREATION, PRESERVATION
• MONITORING PLAN:
• WHICH REGULATORY AGENCIES ARE INVOLVED?:
• TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT(mark the ones that apply):
RURAL, URBAN, PUBLIC, PRIVATE
s
.•
FIELD INFORMATION
• DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION(AT SITE):
• SURFACE WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS:
• SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER RELATIONSHIPS:
• HAVE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS BEEN MET?:
0 DESCRIPTION OF SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN: