20081046 Ver 5_More Info Received_20110624

Page Two
Oyster Landing, LLC
Attn: Jon T. Vincent
DWQ Project # 08 1046 V5
May 13, 2011
vnsloW
5. The DWQ also has major concerns about the reduction of the preservation that was a
condition of the previously issued 401. The DWQ concurs with the USACE about
the necessity of reducing the preservation type. In addition, to the justification of this
proposed reduction of the strict preservation, please provide justification for the
mowing of the entire area between lots 10 & 11, the entire area on lots 170, 171, 172
and 173. On lots 361 and 365, please explain how you propose to keep the small
sliver of wetland from being mowed and justify the necessity of mowing it. The
average lot is usually around 75' X 100 `, the following lots have been proposed to
have wetlands mowed beyond the 100' (Lots # 245, 246,118, 119, 120,130, 131, 133,
?J 134, 442, 443, 445, 446, 448, 449, 178, 179, 144, 145, 429, 431, 432; 358, 359, 366,
367, 368, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 210, 213, 218, 219, 229, 166, 165, 164,163,
163,162, 161, 223, 16, 22, 23, 24, 35, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,
59, 234, 312, 313, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 296, 297, 271, 272,273,274, 275,
383, 384, 385, 305, 347, 348, 349 and 350), please provide the justification for this.
6. For wetland impact # 9, Figure 8 does not show the impact going all the way to the
ROW on the north side of the impact and the impact on the south side show impacts
over 50 feet from the rip rap pad, please explain.
7. No drawing was included for the proposed 10' easement for some of the property
owners to access the high ground at the back of their lots. Please submit a drawing
and/or a detailed explanation of what is being proposed for these areas and how you
propose to get the property owners to comply.
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending this information to me in
writing and two copies to Ian McMillan c/o NC DWQ Wetlands and Stormwater Branch 1650
Mail service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650. If we do not hear from you within three weeks,
we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as
withdrawn.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 910 796.7306.
Sincerely,
oanne Steenhuis
Senior Environmental Specialist
cc: Dana Lutheran - SEGi
Ian McMillan -Wetlands & Stormwater Branch/Raleigh
David Bailey - USACE Wilmington
WiRO
T ' y I
50utkern Environmental Group, Inc.
5515 South College Koacl, Suite E. Wilmington, North Carolina 2841 2
910.452.2711 - Fax: [phone] • [e-mail]
www.segws
20 June 2011
Hand Delivery
Mr. David Bailey
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Ms. Joanne Steenhuis
NC Division of Water Quality - WiRO 401 Unit
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: Response to USACE/DWQ Request for Additional Information
Oyster Landing Subdivision
USACE AID#: 2006-00189
DWQ Project #: 08 1046 v5
Dear Mr. Bailey and Ms. Steenhuis,
@6Q?MQ
JUN 2 4 2011
This letter is in response to both the US Army Corps of Engineers' and the Division of Water Qualities'
request for additional information (RFAI). Below you will find this correspondence addresses the
USACE RFAI and then is followed by the response to the DWQ RFAI:
USACE Letter Dated 26 April 2011
Wetlands proposed to be impacted in Parcel ID: 747-13.66 were verified in the original NW 29
Permit issued 3123109, but were not determined to be isolated. As such, they are still treated as
Waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Documentation including
Final JD (Raponos) Forms and other pertinent information such as wetland data forms and maps
are required to re-evaluate these areas to determine their jurisdictional status. (Note: if these
wetlands remain Waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the CWA, purpose and need for and
avoidance and minimization of these impacts must be given. As currently proposed, the total
proposed wetland impacts exceed the threshold for a NWP and thus must be reviewed under the
Standard Permitting process)
These areas are no longer proposed to be impacted. Pages 4, of the PCN, and all
accompanying Appendices have been revised to reflect this change (see attached).
2. Section DI in the PCN requires revision. The response to section Dl b. is really just a
continuance of Section Dla. Section Dlb. should be revised to include the avoidance and
ISM Project # 10-32.011
minimization techniques proposed during construction, including headwalls, silt fencing, erosion
control measures and other techniques.
The PCN has been revised to reflect the changes.
3. Temporary wetland impacts are proposed for several road crossing involving culverts. Please
provide a brief summary plan for these areas including returning the areas to pre-existing grade
and contour and stabilization with wetland vegetation.
Wetlands temporarily disturbed, for the placement of culverts, will be returned to their
original grade and contour and seeded with a wetland seed mix upon completion.
4. See Wetland Impact Map W-2: on this sheet in the southern portion there is a wetland completely
surrounded by road. While avoidance of this wetland feature is appreciated, please justify how
hydrology to this area will be maintained so as to avoid secondary and cumulative impacts.
It is anticipated that runoff from the road will sheet flow into this area, as the road will be
crown shaped (see typical detail below), and thus all interior portions of the road will drain
into this area. Stormwater management structures will be installed (within uplands) to
prevent flooding of the roadway.
E E
O
L P
P
5. Please confirm that rip-rap dissipater pads at road crossing are included as permanent wetland
impacts, and that this acreage is included in the permanent wetland impact calculations.
Due to the scale of the plan view exhibits, it is difficult to decipher where the temporary
impacts are proposed to take place. However, all rip-rap dissipaters have been accounted
for in the permanent wetland impact calculations. Profile drawings have been revised to
better depict the proposed impacts (see Appendix 3, Figures 3A, 6A, 7A, 7B and 8).
6. Lots 240, 241 and 282, among others, show very little room for error related to providing enough
upland area for a reasonably sized dwelling and access. In particular, Lots 240 and 241 both
show "building footprints" that extend up to wetland lines. How will there be enough room to
construct these houses without impacting surrounding wetlands? We strongly recommend
combining lots 240 and 241, and any other similarly situated lots to avoid permit compliance
issues once home construction begins.
The Applicant has reconfigured the subdivision, which resulted in the loss of 3 lots. With
that said, all lots provide ample building area, without jeopardizing the wetlands. Please
see the revised Wetland Impact Map and Preservation Maps for details.
7. Are areas not included in lots to be common area owned by a Homeowners Association, or will
they remain the possession of a different property owner?
Any area not located within a designated lot will be owned by the HOA.
8. Please note that future phases/sections of the area encompassed by the SAW-2006-00188, SAW-
2006-00189, and SAW-2008-02279 JDs may be considered part of a single and complete project,
and impacts may be considered cumulative with impacts permitted during earlier phases/sections
of Oyster Landing subdivision. As such, if impacts proposed in these areas, in combination with
impacts permitted in Oyster Landing, exceed the NWP threshold, future phases/sections may be
subject to Individual Permit review.
According to Mark Hargrove, the acting engineer on this project, the depicted cul-de-sac is
a temporary measure. Onslow County required the road for interconnectivity purposes (see
attached PCN addendum #12). However, the NC DOT requested the cul-de-sac to provide
an area where vehicles can turn round, since there are driveways off this road. The cul-de-
sac will later be replaced by a road. The other "road to nowhere" is also required by
Onslow County. A cul-de-sac is not necessary with this feature, as there are not driveways
to which the road provides access. Wetland impacts are not anticipated with the
development of the adjacent tract.
9. The current compensatory mitigation plan is unacceptable in the following ways:
a. No justification is provided for why strict preservation within the lots is not feasible.
Strict preservation was an integral part of the compensatory mitigation plan for the
previously issued NWP and was included as part of the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). Why has this changed?
The Applicant has drastically reduced the proposed mowing area within the
subdivision (see revised Appendix 7). On the 13 lots where mowing is proposed, the
depth of the lots has been reduced 100'. In total, mowing within wetlands is
approximately 2.0 acres. The remaining wetlands will be placed under strict
preservation. Lots that have the provision for mowing will be addressed within the
restrictive covenants (see attached).
b. The current proposal involves the same magnitude of wetland impacts, but with less
mitigation. Given the the previously permitted plan was the LEDPA, the current
compensatory mitigation plan must be revised to account for the reduced value of
wetland preservation (i.e. increase in compensatory mitigation ratio, Hofmann Forest
mitigation bank) in order to maintain the LEDPA.
As discussed above, the Applicant has drastically reduced the mowable areas, within
the lots. With that said, the Applicant and SEGi feel that compensatory mitigation
should not be necessary for the requested mowing.
While the project previously proposed was viewed by the USACE and the DWQ as
the LEDPA, SEGi would contend that the Applicant exceeded the minimum
requirements to offset permanent and temporary impacts to wetlands. Impacts
consisted of permanent fill and conversion of forested non-riparian wetland to
herbaceous non-riparian wetland. The following table summarizes the
compensatory mitigation approved previously and that which SEGi considers to be
sufficient, excluding the preservation component entirely:
Type of Impact Impact Mitigation Ratio
Fill 0.494 1.12 1:1
Wetland Conversion 1.12 1.12 1:1
Sections 230.93(e)(1 & 2) of the Federal Registry states:
(1) The amount of required compensatory mitigation must be, to the extent
practicable, sufficient to replace lost aquatic resource functions; and
(2) The district engineer must require a mitigation ratio greater than one to
one where necessary to account for the method of compensatory
mitigation (e.g., preservation), the likelihood of success, difference
between the functions lost at the impact site and the functions expected
to be produced by the compensatory mitigation project, temporal losses
of aquatic resource functions, etc...
In keeping with the intent of the Federal Registry, it important to consider that the
wetlands (wet flat) proposed to be permanently impacted by discharging fill do not
provide an important physical, chemical or biological function for the watershed.
The wetlands found on this tract are primarily useful for water storage. According
to the Division of Water Quality's "A Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands"' and
the "Wetland Assessment Method Version 43"2, wet flats do not typically provide
habitat for rare species and are most valuable for timber production, hunting, and
nature studies. The wetland credits purchased by the Applicant, from the Hofmann
Forest Wetland Mitigation Bank (HFWMB), have been classified as pocosin, swamp
forest, and other more functionally valuable systems. The restoration/enhancement
performed at the HFWMB has been deemed successful for some time, which should
remove any temporal lag between the active functionality of the resorted wetlands
and the loss of function with the proposed impacted wetlands. With that said, SEGi
feels the Applicant has met the compensatory mitigation requirement for the
permanent impacts.
With regard to mitigation to offset the conversion of forested non-riparian wetland
to herbaceous wetlands associated with the installation of the utility line, the impact
areas are located adjacent to a highly traveled, two lane highway with development
on the east and west sides. Generally, these areas serve to reduce pollutants, carried
via stormwater runoff, from entering productive, open waters and little in the way
of habitat. Since the areas will remain stable with herbaceous wetland species, it is
anticipated that the wetland will perform this function as well as if it were forested.
Thus, a 1:1 mitigation ratio is more than sufficient to offset "some" loss of
functionality provided by these wetlands.
In summary the Applicant and SEGi feel the compensatory mitigation, in
conjunction with the Applicant's willingness to reduce the number of lots that will
allow the mowing provision, is sufficient to offset impacts to 404 jurisdictional
wetlands, associated with the development.
The line between the proposed strict preservation area and preservation allowing
mowing area is arbitrary, confusing for property owners, essentially unenforceable, and
therefore unacceptable.
The Applicant has reduced the depth of all lots, where mowing is being proposed, to
100'. This should clear up any confusion that may occur on behalf of the land
owner and will make enforcement much easier (please see the revised Wetland
Preservation Maps for details).
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources: Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands. Division of
Water Quality.
2 NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Wetland Assessment Method (WAM), Version 4.1.
Division of Water Quality. October 2010.
Note: If a preservation area allowing mowing is proposed, it must be clearly defined on a
wetland preservation area map including meets and bounds; this must be received prior to
permitting.
a. Note also that, in the past, we have required boundaries between types of
preservation areas be clearly marked with concrete markers to facilitate easier
compliance from property owners.
Due to the change in the proposed mowing area, the Applicant respectfully
requests that concrete markers not be a condition of the permit.
ii. If a preservation area allowing mowing is proposed, the language in the restrictive
covenants documents must be revised such that it is clear that mowing is allowed, but
disturbance of the root mat is not.
The restrictive covenants have been revised to reflect this change.
iii. The remaining wetlands in the common area in strict preservation can be accomplished
with a Declaration of Restrictions, but it must also clearly refer to a preservation map
including meets and bounds.
The meets and bounds will be provided to your office upon approval of the
proposed preservation plan.
END USA CE RFAI
DWQ Letter Dated 13 May 2011
1. The DWQ also has the same concerns raised by the USACE's incomplete application letter dated
26 April 2011 and will require that he same information be sent to the DWQ.
It is SEGi's belief that the information found within and attached to this correspondence
addresses the concerns raised by the USACE.
2. The DWQ would require avoidance and minimization for the wetlands A-F if they are determined
to be isolated.
Please see the response for item #1, of the USACE RFAI.
3. For wetland impact #5, the wetland seems to continue beyond the road crossing and there seems
to be a very small portion left. Unless there is evidence otherwise, the DWQ would require that
area to be impacted and needs to be included in the amount of wetlands being impacted.
The impact has been included with the cumulative permanent impacts. The wetland impact
map, profiles and PCN have been revised to reflect this change.
4. On Figure 5, the proposed impact #5 stops at the road ROW but impact #4 shows the wetland
being impacted beyond the ROW. Please explain this discrepancy and correct it in the drawing
and the table of impacts.
Area #4 exhibit shows wetland disturbance behind the right-of-way. This is due to sewer
being installed and impacting the wetlands. The impact has been accounted for as
permanent, as there may be the potential for further work to take place in this area.
The DWQ also has major concerns about the reduction of the preservation that was a condition
of the previously issued 401. The DWQ concurs with the USACE about the necessity of reducing
the the preservation type. In addition, to the justification of this proposed reduction of the strict
preservation, please provide justification for the mowing of the entire area between lots 10 and
11, the entire area on lots 170, 171, 182 and 173. On lots 361 and 365, please explain how you
propose to keep the mall sliver of wetland from being mowed and justify the necessity of mowing
it. The average lot is usually around 75'x 100', the following lots have proposed to have wetland
mowed beyond the 100' (see original for lot #'s), please provide justification for this.
The proposed mowing area has been significantly reduced. Please se response to item 9c, of
the USACE's RFAI.
6. For wetland impact #9. Figure 8 does not show the impact going all the way to the ROW on the
north side of the impact and impact on the south side show impacts over 50 feet from the rip-rap
pad, please explain.
Previously, the impact included a driveway crossing. However, the Applicant has
reconfigured the lots to minimize the impact in this area. The exhibit (#8) has been revised
to reflect the true impact (see Attachment 8).
7. No drawing was included for the proposed easement for some of the property owners to access
the high ground at the back of their lots. Please submit a drawing and/or a detailed explanation
of what is being proposed for these areas and how you propose to get the property owner to
comply.
The access easements are depicted on the wetland impact plans. For lots where access to
uplands is being requested, the easement will be 10' in width. As with the mowing allowance
on lots, compliance will be ensured through the restrictive covenants language.
It is my sincere hope that the information found within and attached to this correspondence will allow the
agencies to process the approval request and the authorizations will be issued. However, if you find you
need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 910.452.2711 or email me at
dlutheran(i?segi.us.
As always, thank you both for your time and for assistance with this project. We look forward to hearing
from you.
Sincerely,
c_
Dana A. Lutheran
Project Manager
Enclosures: Attachment 1 - Revised Page 4, of the PCN
Attachment 2 - Revised Oyster Landing Wetland Impact Plan (PCN Appendix 3)
Attachment 3 - Revised Page 6, of the PCN
Attachment 4 - Revised Figures 3A, 6A, 7A, 7B and 8 (PCN Appendix 3)
Attachment 5 - Revised Oyster Landing Preservation Map (PCN Appendix 7)
Attachment 6 - Revised Oyster Landing Restrictive Covenants Language (PCN
Appendix 7)
Attachment 7 - Onslow County Interconnectivity Language (PCN Addendum Appendix
12)
Attachment 8 - Revised Exhibit 8 of PCN Appendix 3
Cc: Mr. Ian McMillan - Raleigh 401 Express Permit Coordinator (1)
(Oyster Landing PCN Revised OZ-01)
Akachlr&9? /
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past? Yes X No Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
SEVERAL PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR THIS PROJECT (SEE BELOW):
0 SAW-2006-00189 NWPs 12 AND 29
• 67-49 DLR MINING PERMIT
• ONSLOW-2008-020 S&E PERMIT (SEE APPENDIX 4)
• SW8 070653 STORMWATER PERMIT (SEE APPENDIX 5)
• DWQ 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION SW8 1046 V4
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? Yes No X
6b. If yes, explain.
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
Wetlands X Streams - tributaries Buffers
Open Waters Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland Impact

# Perm (Temp) 2b.
Type of
impact
Perm (Temp) 2c.
Type of
wetland 2d.

Forested 2e.
Type of jurisdiction
(Corps - 404,
DWQ - non-404, other 2 f.
Area of impact (acres)

Perm (Temp)
W1 X FILL FORESTED Yes X No Corps X DWQ 0.0070
W2 X X FILL EXCAV FORESTED Yes X No Corps X DWQ 0.0370 0.007
W3A X X FILL EXCAV FORESTED Yes X No Corps X DWQ 0.0910
W3B X FILL FORESTED Yes X No Corps X DWQ 0.0065
W3C X FILL FORESTED Yes X No Corps X DWQ 0.0107
W4 X X FILL EXCAV FORESTED Yes X No Corps X DWQ 0.0085
W5 X FILL FORESTED Yes X No Corps X DWQ 0.0367
W6 X X FILL EXCAV FORESTED Yes X No Corps X DWQ 0.1020 0.002
W7 X X FILL EXCAV FORESTED Yes X No Corps X DWQ 0.0338 0.002
W8 X X FILL EXCAV FORESTED Yes X No Corps X DWQ 0.1531 0.002
W9 X FILL FORESTED Yes X No Corps X DWQ 0.0100
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.4963 0.013
2h. Comments: SEE WETLAND IMPACT MAP FOR DETAILS (APPENDIX 3 - SITE PLAN Revised 6/20/11)
Page 4 of 21
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
74wl&wv-W

:ON sor
L
ON 38nou
IToz/zT19 HNN
31Va 'Ae 03noaddv
, 0001=„ i HNN
:31VOs :A9 NMYNO
90POO ON 'NO,LONIIR'IIM
IOTZ X08 '0'd
3d `SAOUDUVH XU'V 1i
S.LOddNI QNV I,LU
Zoe
9091
S,LO YdNI QNY.L U
NOISIAIQSIIS DNIQNY7 HH1SAO
KINO `JNLI•IMiHd 210d - NOI.I MILLSNOD XO3 Q'3SV'd'M .TAN - NOIOU 'TVNU
OV 96V'0 = ?d101
is L L9' LZ = I`d101 000 l = u0u! L
AS SCt - 6# lOVcJhl
AS 899`9 - 9# loddWl oooz oooL oos o 000L
AS ZL v' L - L# lO'VdWl 3?dOS OIHdV10
dS ct-v`-v - 9# lo`ddWl
3S 009` L - S# loddWl
AS 69C - t# lOVdWl
3S S9ty - 30 lovdm 6# lOddWl
is 59Z - 80 lo`ddWl ONd?13M
AS 996'? - dC# i3VdWl
3S L L9` L - Z# lo`ddWl .
3S toc - L# lovdWl ? ?• -
'L• • r i ?? • • mot: • ••?•? ,??: • • tom.... ?• • ? ..j it
110 0,0 6
• .-> i i-
r
a ? ?? ??rC?• • • > qtr //%. /
1 v??•?° • ?} ??..'. r tax /.
L# i3VdVT
ON`d-l13M •>; y Jt, .
??i ?y p???I•?• •
r r ? / ?
??? ?r _ t• i ? - it i?•1 tt • • ?•
9# i:DVdWl
ONb'?13M ;v • . -?. .? •_ gin: • .
.
-• • • • • ,C_ ?• •
.0 wm
P, r • •
9# i:DVdhl

S# i:DVdWl _
ONd?13M
-b# lOVdWl
ONVi]]M
?
???•' `ice { ` ,•`? • t?.'{?
ems-,
DO lOVdWl
ONVi3M
80 lOVdWl
GNV13M
.x
Z# lOddWl
ON`d313M
L# lOVdWl
G N V13M
V2# 10`ddWl
ON`d-l13M
?+?acr? ?- ?) O? 1 ?v? ? ?JYI?U ? --4- O U
s
J7 jo, Z -5'E
111 / / _ O ?+
I rr??
11 / / / \ V
V ?
J8
/ , 1i1 ® ? rco s
111 ? ® ? G
I ;
U
v? 11 ?? // ® ® v
LLJ
?`J?'?. 111 I 1 ( 1 ®
ooN
l 1
?W zap
2
w
04
4, coo
.
`/ - Z
z 02F
,
' ® 1' +
? 1 ?_ •, ,` ;? • '• ,'• -? ?:' III - _ _ .1?. cp
r I'
11 O ®Q \}'.;k' \\ ® c,' .'•'' '. '.'r'/_ /`
8 VD)
1 N ?i• vv A ?? \. ?t? Q I +IO
1 it 0 v' , l ! /: . \ A ! ? • \. ?/ Q
LLJ
,
1•
r
It s„ + l w
L'i
1 ?„ it ?+ J L?,\s L - _ _ p€¦ Y
I - < N o
11 +i?\ QL - -- W m
? U ^
1 LLJ C
1 ? s
:11
lI%OZJ? ?"U ??

N 8 JT
?
?
US SM T i \

00 +

h'
'
•
r
? ? i a ,
.
/
??
\ tea'- i /-. ,?,4 a?• ' I /
? ??r •a t???a?? ?• ,? M+? Q

\ •? n rs I1 .i \ ra .a
, , ?
r ? _
*%`= 11`? ? a g
.
it,
1 ??
®
® \
®
?? cl
?
i
®
. i ® - Ss? ?n
®° ®°
N ? ?NU
1
??
a O 0
- __ ?
17 + az
(10 ?D
?
r ,

,
%
?
r \ M
?
_ __
a
%
+

T

?
n
-

Z
r
a?
,
?.
,?. /
' ,
- :3
n
l
, ?
?
v
, w? _
® ter
+ co
?
,

"
'
14
i q
.
,
^l.. S; Ai yr'+''??+' n.'+ '.l
i \

\
o
\ h
/
? \ aD

? o ? o
® pp

/
~ ( /
W r? y?E f y

3
I

lf/oz?a? ?? ??

,I

r.' • , 1 ? 8 ? bl

__ ?'?%' mow' • ? . .
I.
' I ,• /1 ili 11' '?s, III __? -?1'. .?: H
r ?
+ +v6
i
•1. ® ? ? ' ? ?•,'. ? iA' . 1, ?.`, '',`.
?? ? ?? ? l ?'? •? I I ?? ? I I ? I TLS ? ?', '' r
\\
L +1
J w /
?? ?'?? ' •,i. nk I r` % ? ? lam. ? ? 1:
III - - - ??? ; ' ?.? ?? + ;. • ? :r? ;' . ?r - (?? .
y
i
n
/ A/
Cz7
Q
Y 1 I,
G
a-
Q
Q
W
W N
a
N Z
(7 X
x z
`m d116
Ya?
Q ?
O
M
V)
J CO
ON
re
a Z
Z
0
? U U
>-Z_
O J
O
N
O
V)
C)
Z
Z
Q
L.Li
O

I
(Oyster Landing PCN Revised (Vizbf11)

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ) NA
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Neuse Tar-Pamlico Other:
Project is in which protected basin? Catawba Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) for impact Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
or Temporary required?
T
B1 PT Yes No
6h. Total buffer impacts NA NA
6i. Comments:
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
DURING THE DESIGN AND PLANNING PORTION OF THE PROJECT, THE APPLICANT RECONFIGURED ROADS
TO AVOID IMPACTING A LARGE AREA OF WETLANDS. IN ADDITION, ROADS, AS WELL AS PROPERTY LIMITS,
WERE RE-ALIGNED TO REDUCE IMPACTS EVEN FURTHER. ALL PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACTS ARE
NECESSARY TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS WITHIN THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES WILL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE ONSET OF LAND
CLEARING ACTIVITIES AND WILL REMAIN UNTIL PERMANENT STABILIZATION HAS TAKEN PLACE.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for Yes X No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): DWQ X Corps X
Mitigation bank X (PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE - SEE
APPENDIX 6 - MITIGATION BANKING RECEIPT)
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this Payment to in-lieu fee program
project? Permittee Responsible Mitigation X (SEE APPENDIX 7 -
DRAFT PRESERVATION AND RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS LANGUAGE AND ACCOMPANYING
EXHIBIT)
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: HOFMANN FOREST WETLAND MITIGATION BANK
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type: NON-RIPARIAN Quantity: 1.614 ACRES
Page 6 of 21
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
L
1.S' ASPHALT
& 8* BASE COURSE
54
52
50
48
46
44-
42--
40-
SECTION C-C
WETLAND IMPACT 6
I-ov p,rrna?n-??i 1
n
54 114-0
52
50
48
48
44
42
GRAPHIC SCALE
50 0 25 50 100
1 inch = 50 ft.
1 inch = 5 ft. VERTICAL
I SECTTON C-C FIN& DESIGN - NOT RKEASEZ) FOR OONMUMON - FOR PERWrrM ONLY J
l WETLAND WACT 16
OYST'E'R LANDING SUBDIVISION WETLAND WACT 16 DRAWN BY. SCALE' FIGURE No.
CROSS SECTION UNH l'-w' 6A
WETAND IWACTS MARK HARGROVE, PE
BY. DACE JOB No-
P.O. BOX 2101 AWROVED
1608 308 lImmGTON, NC 28402 MIN R) faa/wl
12Q V. b l zz1 11
40
0+00+50 1+00

50
481 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 .1 V:i 6-1 ero w 0 14* j 1 1 48
461 1 1 1 1 1-11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1T 4V
44
0+00 1+00
SECTION B-B
WETLAND IMPACT 3A
GRAPHIC SCALE
50 0 25 50 100
1 inch = 50 ft.
1 inch = 5 ft. VERTICAL
I FINAL DESIGN - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION - FOR PERMrTTNG ONLY
l OYSTER LANDING SUBDIVISION CROSS SEC770
WMAND DWACT 13A 14
WETAND nWACTS MARK HARGROVE, PE
P.O. BOX 2101
Iwo 802 WMMGTON. NC 28402
DRAWN BY: SCALE;
Im 1=50'
APPROVED BY. DAIS
MNH 8/$8/$011
FIGURE NO.
4A
JOB NO.
,zuv. ( / 11/ an)
1.5' ASPHALT
& 6' BASE COURSE
541 T , , ,
52
50
1 I?>?i?-o?Pe.?ma??
46
44
42
40
-' 40
1+00
GRAPHIC SCALE
50 0 25 50 100
1 inch = 50 ft.
1 inch = 5 ft. VERTICAL
SEC770N D-D FINAL DESIGN - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION - FOR PERNI ITING ONLY
1IE1UM WALT I'7
OYSTER LANDING SUBDIVISION D S 17
lllsTAND IIQ'ACTS CROSS SEC77O TION
PARK HARGROVE, PE
P.O. BOX 2101
1606 908 liH"GTON, NC 28402
CENTERLINE ROAD
ELEV 49.32
54
52
50
46
44
42
0+00 0+50
SECTION D-D
WETLAND IMPACT 7
DRANK Br SCALE;
am 1 -50'
APPROVED or DATE
mm 2/22/8011
FlOURE NO.
7A
JOB No-
(e(v. (41v/ if)
W ACDUAl T CENIMNE ROAD
)it
SECTION E-E
WETLAND IMPACT 8
mid--a?^-n? V
(,?1 Iq I m P"V
GRAPHIC SCALE
50 0 25 50 100
1 inch = 50 ft.
1 inch = 5 ft. VERTICAL
SECTION AE-B
CT J8 FINAL DEWGN - NOT RB EMW FOR
IIETLAND I1Q'AC ,
OYSTER LANDING SUBDIVISION
IIETAND LIPACTS
1609 908
MARK HARGROVE, PE
P.O. BOX 2101
lMENGTON, NC 28402
- FOR PERWIT G ONLY

DRAWN BY. SCALE
YNH 1 =60'
APPROVED BY: DAIS:
Im 8/28/8011
FlGURE NO.
7B
JOB NO.,
Q-?Av- ("I zo / I )
0+00 0+50 1+00

SECTION F-F
WETLAND IMPACT 9
mGtr}eflk
i m 4 &p p
wtflo? ImfzQ{-
GRAPHIC SCALE
50 0 25 50 100
1 inch = 50 ft.
1 inch = 5 ft. VERTICAL
SECTION F-F
1IM AND IMPACT 19
FINAL DENGN - NOT RKEM® FOR OONSIBUOTION - FOR PERAUMNG ONLY
OYSTER LANDING SUBDIVISION
IIETAND (PACTS
1609 908
MARK WGROVE, PE
P.O. BOX 2101
III aNGTON, NC 28402
DRANK Or. SCALE:
Im 1'-501
APPROVED BY. DA7E
1[NTH 8/88/TiiO11
ROURE NO.
8
JOB No-
?a_v . 6f 2c)(11)
0+00 0+50 1+00

-
1, -
I1 c7
1 Z
1\ II III ® 1 ? ® ' ? ??? ? Q
z w
V)
LLJ
<,
LLJ
i
W N
( \1 1\ 1 NU
II ?, r cr
?l 1 % 1 O
< C04
? 1 ® t, ' F z
,' 1 <' ' ' `v v 3
I 1 I / i? \• .I \ \ S W
U)
J"? ;• ;'' lip ?" ®? Q I ®1"v` ?' ?? ?` 1v
• FWW
1 . W S
1
LLWO '+.%++l
LLL
S '
1
1
K;
1.
Z_ _XYxeznd? 010210 - I?V
?r'•?' '
?* x N
', i

a
z + Lid
?V
<
yl?
8 2 ,.4
uR

Ljj

'
'•
•
. .
,? ,

y?
O
1
' NU
O
\
-? ? `
Z
_ --- - - -
--- - _- ? - ?
Z O C9

1 _
,
?

,a
,

00

i
l

,
,
?
r ,
a +
r

%
..i v ? 1.
,
? ,
a ?' i •? _ -
\
1
Y
, J

LLJ

1
y
D

.
<> $ a ss
?
< Q :z

V? iii

46 -
?4Y f 1J¢2/ 4 ' ?l

jl-
al
1 ?
:A.
I
f ,',sue

U
Q
,

? q
\ uA , W
Kp i O D
LLB!
y! yy? W
3 3 <
\NLW?
f

?r ?I \
I I'
/ a - _ ? ?. ?,+ •? ; ? ? JAI
44
Ggn)
N
,
I
® 'r? 111 ` • •' ' •' %? -- ® \?? ? / `?, j+; ??
W-\ \\ ? ?
<;?h•\ \ /
-^ J
'>
' 4

Ile)
g?
An

z
0
/N(y
LL.
?LLJ
(n
w
0
z
Q
J
F-
ALL J
W N
a
O p N
N Z
x
'co
x
ZOZ
K
Yak
a ?
?I
V
Q
O
M
Ng
J Q IA
J O N
Z
Q OZ
J?0
>-Z_
oaf
H
J
0
0
m
V)
z
0
Q
J
ch
LL I
O
I g Io s I
17 44ah metn4-10
jarrl,na X 7 - Oyster Landing Restrictive Covenants Language (Revised 6/2b/11)
The following language should be used within restrictive covenants on lots that have not been sold
already:
"The areas shown on the recorded plat (identify the plat by title, date, and recording data) as
conservation and shall be maintained in perpetuity in their natural or mitigated condition. Therefore, no
person shall perform any of the following activities within the identified conservation areas:
a. Fill, grade, excavate or perform any other land altering activities that disturbs the root mat;
b. Construct or place any roads, buildings, mobile homes, signs, utility poles or towers, or any
other temporary or permanent structures;
c. Drain or otherwise disrupt or alter the hydrology or drainage ways of the conservation area;
d. Pump or store soil, trash, or other waste; and/or
e. Graze or water animals, or use for any agricultural or horticultural purpose.
This covenant is intended to ensure continued compliance with the mitigation condition of the Clean
Water Act authorizing issued by the United States of America, Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District, Action ID SAW 2006-00189, and therefore may be enforced by the United States of America.
This covenant is to run with the land, and shall be binding on the Owner, and all parties claiming under
it."
If the covenants have a provision that allow property owners (either all or some percentage) can amend
or modify the restrictive covenants, you must include the following statement:
[Call out the section of the covenants] or [add to the end of the above "This provision"] cannot
be amended without the express written consent of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District."
A41-9-ehm eo 4- 7
,g 7CY(J -Appm 2-
604.6 Easement maintenance. Provisions shall be made for the continued upkeep and
maintenance of all easements in a manner acceptable to the Planning Board. A statement
regarding maintenance shall be included on the final plat. The developer shall make it
clear that neither Onslow County nor NCDOT provides upkeep and maintenance of
easements.
Section 605. Block Design
605.1 The lengths, widths and shapes of blocks shall be determined with regard to:
provision of adequate building sites suitable to the needs of the type of use contemplated;
zoning requirements; needs for vehicular and pedestrian circulation; location of off-
setting streets; control and safety of traffic; limitations and opportunities of topography;
and convenient access to water bodies.
605.2 Blocks shall have sufficient width to allow two tiers of lots of minimum depth except in
non-residential subdivisions or where abutting a water body. Single tier lots may be
allowed to separate residential development from through vehicular traffic or another
type of use.
605.3 Where deemed necessary by the Planning Board, a pedestrian easement at least 15 feet
in width may be required to provide convenient access to a public water area or to other
public or private areas, such as parks, schools, shopping centers, religious or
transportation facilities.
Section 606. Streets
606.1 Conformance with official plans. The location and design of streets and roads shall be
in conformance with any applicable, adopted transportation plan. Where conditions
warrant, right-of-way widths and pavement widths in excess of the minimum street
standards may be required.
606.2 Conformance with adjoining road systems. The planned street layout of a proposed
subdivision shall be compatible with existing or proposed streets and their classifications.
606.3 Access to adjoining property. Where, it is desirable or necessary to provide for street
access to adjoining property, proposed streets shall be extended, reserved, dedicated, and
where appropriate, constructed to the boundary of such property. Generally, providing
access shall be required (i) where the zoning and/or land use on the adjoining property
are compatible with the proposed subdivision, (ii) where there are no natural or man-
made barriers that make the street extension impracticable, (iii) where the street extension
will result in desirable traffic flows and patterns and where inappropriate levels of
through traffic are avoided, and (iv) where the street extension will promote the overall
orderly development of the area. All stub streets shall be designed and, where required to
be built, constructed in accordance with the standards herein.
28

+ +?+ +
316 ??, ??\? %+ +++i +1?++
'+ +

317
IMPACT #9
435 SF
0.011 AC
/ 301 ?--
? \ / ? ? 30037

RAPHIC SCALE
--- 25 50
inch = 50 ft.
100
'ss
+ +
/ I +
++

318 ?
I?
I

s\
--38-
vz ?
?? 6S GN
OYSTER LANDING SUBDIVISION
W TAND [PACTS
1608 308

? I
319 ?
299
- NOT RF.LEASBD F ,MONCTIR? # O Y
1?1IsT1?AND PACT 78 DRAWN Br. SCAtE FlDURE Na
YNH 1,-50, 6
MARK BARGROVE. P ArpRoYED er. WE JOB NO.
BOX 2101
WMAfl VGTON, NC 28402 Imu 8/N/Xff