20060197 Ver 1_More Info Received_20060608

~~zna/ ~~~ ~~, inc.
~a6~ ~~~ ~o~ 2522
~l~~n~~, ~drfil ~~~ 2802
~d~ ~2aincfi Gee ' c~/c
3805 ~~~e ~uP~~,~e ~ici~e ~5
~vi~rt~ir, ~/~28~03
June 6, 2006
FILE COPY
~~~me: 9~0-/~52- 000
~aix: 940-~52-0060
urzrru~. ~iin~t ~ °T,r~a. net
TO: Ms. Jennifer Frye
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890 ~~~nM~ D
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 p u V
RE: Helmsdale at Landfall; response to agency comments ~~N ~; ~:Q06
Wilmington; New Hanover County, NC ~~
u~~~ ~ wA~r~~ nu~H
Dear Jennifer: ~~'~ ~ ~
Thank you for your letter dated May 12, 2006 in which you provide comments received
during the Public Notice period for the Helmsdale at Landfall Individual Permit application.
Comments were received from the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, we received comments from the Division of Water Quality
and the Division of Coastal Management separately. This letter addresses all agency comments.
NC Department of Cultural Resources (State Historic Preservation Office)
We recommend that an archaeological survey be conducted within the project area to identify and
evaluate potentially significant sites prior to initiation of the subdivision facilities (e.g. roads,
utilities). If significant sites are identified, appropriate measures can then be taken to minimize
adverse impacts. A site inspection by an Office of State Archaeology archaeologist identified key
areas where archaeological testing should be concentrated. We will be pleased to assist you in the
development and review of any scopes of work, proposals, or other documents relating to this
matter.
Mr. Nathan Henry of the Office of State Archaeology has been contacted regarding his
comments. The applicant is in the process of obtaining a professional archaeologist to work with
Mr. Henry to identify and evaluate potentially significant areas within the site.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1. The Service has considered the wetland bridging alternative presented in the PN. The four
wetland bridges, built to NCDOT standards, would cost $250, 000 each and the two
driveways would cost $125, 000 each, for an overall cost of $1, 250, 000. These costs seem

high and the Corps should verify that the cost estimates are for residential roads which
would not carry the same heavy vehicles as standard state roads.
The residential roads within this tract must conform to the City of Wilmington standards, which
are very similar to DOT standards. The design and, therefore, estimate took into consideration
the local road requirements. The estimate was received from Contech Construction Products,
Inc, a company that specializes in the construction of bridges.
2. If streams and wetlands are crossed without bridging, culverts would be expected to convey
water. Culverts should maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without
scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage. Culverts or pipes should be of sufficient
size to allow normal surface water exchange between the wetlands above and below the
culvert. The Service recommends that streams and wetlands be crossed by a series of buried,
box culverts which extends across the entire wetland area and include a portion of each
adjacent upland margin.
The applicant has revised the site plan and now proposes crossing the stream by using a
bottomless culvert to eliminate stream impacts. Furthermore, the applicant will bridge the entire
span of wetlands at crossing #4. This crossing was selected because it is one of the wider
crossings and connects to the greatest extent of wetland fingers on the site. Bridging this
crossing would reduce wetland impacts by 0.088 acre and maintain a complete connection to a
relatively large wetland system. Because of economic considerations the applicant still proposes
to utilize culverts at the remaining crossings. However, total impacts have been reduced from
0.295 acre of wetlands and 72 LF of stream to 0.207 acre of wetlands and no stream impacts.
3. The Service has concerns about the wetland compensation plan. While the preservation of
38.25 acres of wetlands is desirable, there should be a discussion of the type(s) of wetland
communities, current condition of these wetlands, the nature of the conservation easement,
and the easement holder. Wetlands to be preserved should be of high quality. If these areas
have been degraded by drainage or vegetation removal, there are opportunities for
enhancement. If the areas are undisturbed, the conservation easement should include all the
prohibited and restrictive activities given in article II of the Corps' model conservation
easement.
Wetlands to be preserved on site consist mostly of riparian wetland fingers that drain into a
tributary of Howe Creek. The off-site wetland preservation areas contain a mix of freshwater
and tidally influenced wetlands that are directly adjacent to Howe Creek. In addition, an area of
uplands located on site that contains mature longleaf pine habitat will be preserved (see
enclosed photos). The applicant will .preserve these wetlands and uplands using restrictive
covenants and will follow the standard Corps language for preservation. The applicant is
currently in the process of preparing these covenants.
4. If wetland creation would be combined with preservation, the Service recommends that such
creation should occur at a ratio of at least 1. S-to-one and that the creation site have natural
2

hydrology which can be maintained without artificial controls. The plan should describe the
target wetland vegetation community and note whether vegetation would be planted or
recruited from a nearby area. There should be a statement of the prohibited activities within
the created wetlands and the entity responsible for ensuring perpetual conservation of the
area. The applicant may wish to consider purchasing wetland restoration credits from an
established mitigation bank near the site.
Since the Individual Permit application was submitted, we have determined that the original
area designated for mitigation would not be suitable for wetland creation. We then evaluated on-
site creation options, including the upland area located between the passive common .area
(wetlands) and the proposed road in the southeastern part of the tract. However, this area
supports a small yet mature longleaf pine habitat (see enclosed pictures). Although no red-
cockaded woodpecker cavities were observed, the area appears to be a healthy, functioning
upland community. Instead of converting this area into wetlands, which would require
eliminating the existing vegetation, the applicant prefers to preserve the area as an upland
buffer. Most of the other wetland areas within the site consist of drainage features with
significant topographic breaks and performing wetland creation adjacent to these areas would be
difficult to do successfully. Therefore, the applicant proposes to buy into the Ecosystem
Enhancement Program for the restoration of 0.25 acre of riparian wetlands, preserve all
remaining wetlands within the site (8.98 acres) and within two other Landfall tracts (37.61
acres) and preserve 0.176 acre of uplands on site.
Division of Water Quality
1. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Based on the economic analysis provided, it appears that it is economically feasible to
utilize bridges for the proposed wetland and stream crossings or to minimize the number of lots
to 32 versus 48. It also appears that the amount provided as the average sale price per lot is not
current. Comparables in the area recently sold for as much as $293, 000. Even if we use
$250, 000, the return on your investment for the development and sale of 32 lots at the subject
site would be approximately 58%, and the development and sale of 48 lots, if the bridges were
constructed based on the proposal provided, would result in a 94% return on investment. This
appears to be a fair and reasonable return in the current real estate market. Based on this
information, all impacts can be reasonably avoided and a practical alternative does exist on-
site. This office strongly recommends that you revise the site plan to avoid some if not all of the
proposed impacts.
The applicant has revised the site plan and now proposes crossing the stream by using a
bottomless culvert to eliminate stream impacts. Furthermore, the applicant will bridge the entire
span of wetlands at crossing #4. This crossing was selected because it is one of the wider
crossings and connects to the greatest extent of wetland fingers on the site. Bridging this
crossing would reduce wetland impacts by 0.088 acre and maintain a complete connection to a
relatively large wetland system. Because of economic considerations the applicant still proposes
to utilize culverts at the remaining crossings. However, total impacts have been reduced from
0.295 acre of wetlands and 72 LF of stream to 0.207 acre of wetlands and no stream impacts.
3

2. Signature Authority
Please note that the applicant must be an official member of the LLC (Smith, Rawl, or
Parker). Mr. Moore has signed the agent authorization form as an agent, but he is not the listed
registered agent and not a listed member of the LLC. Please have the appropriate person sign
Land Management Group, Inc. authorization form or the Individual Permit application form.
Enclosed is an agent authorization form signed by Mr. Tim Smith.
3. Jurisdictional Determination Map
Please provide a copy of the jurisdictional determination map. Please make sure the
wetlands on Lot 25 have been included on the final signed map.
Enclosed is the wetland survey for Lot 25. The survey is being sent to Jennifer Frye for her final
approval.
4. Plan Details
The cross-section details provided do not show the culverts. If you decide to move forward
with the project as proposed, despite DWQ's objections, please make sure that surveyed cross-
sections depicting the culverts placed below grade (20% or 12 ", whichever is less) to allow for
the passage of aquatic life.
Attached is a revised cross section that shows a culvert.
5. Mitigation
Please provide a more detailed conceptual mitigation and monitoring plan including stream
mitigation at a minimum ratio of 1: 1. Please also provide a draft copy of the proposed
conservation easement/preservation language.
Since the Individual Permit application was submitted, we have determined that the original
area designated for mitigation would not be suitable for wetland creation. We then evaluated on-
site creation options, including the upland area located between the passive common area
(wetlands) and the proposed road in the southeastern part of the tract. However, this area
supports a small yet mature longleaf pine habitat (see enclosed pictures). Although no red-
cockaded woodpecker cavities were observed, the area appears to be a healthy, functioning
upland community. Instead of converting this area into wetlands, which would require
eliminating the existing canopy, the applicant prefers to preserve the area as an upland buffer.
Most of the other wetland areas within the site consist of drainage features with significant
topographic breaks and performing wetland creation adjacent to these areas would be difficult to
do successfully. Therefore, the applicant proposes to buy into the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program for the restoration of 0.25 acre of riparian wetlands, preserve all remaining wetlands
within the site (8.98 acres) and within two other Landfall tracts (37.61 acres) and preserve 0.176
acre of uplands on site.
4

Division of Coastal Management (Consistenc~Review~ '
The consistency submission letter does not document how the proposed project utilized proper site
selection and design criteria to minimize adverse impacts; it merely asserts that the impacts have to
be allowed to lessen the economic burden to the developer, not to protect the resources at risk.
As stated in the Alternatives Analysis, the proposed project v<=ould be an expansion of the
existing Landfall Subdivision. According to its regulations, Landfall can only annex those tracts
of land that have their sole access from Landfall. Based on these rules, the off-site alternatives
evaluated were adjacent, undeveloped tracts without alternate access. Only one other tract
meeting these criteria was located. However, the owners of that tract were not interested in
selling the property. Two on-site alternatives were also evaluated. The first option was an
alternate roadway pattern that would stop before crossing any wetlands. This alternative would
develop sixteen fewer lots than the preferred alternative, which would be a loss of
approximately $2,786,000 dollars. Because of this financial loss, this site plan is not considered
a viable alternative.
The second on-site alternative is developing uplands within the entire site by bridging all of the
wetland crossings. Four bridges would need to be constructed to NC DOT standards, which
would cost approximately $1,000,000 total. In addition, two smaller bridges would be needed
for driveway crossings in Lots #10 and #18, which would cost approximately $250,000. Based
on comments received from the agencies, the applicant has redesigned the site plan and will
utilize a bottomless culvert to cross the stream, thereby eliminating stream impacts. In addition,
road crossing #4 will utilize a bridge to eliminate wetland impacts at this crossing. This site plan
modification will reduce wetland impacts by 0.088 acre and will avoid all stream impacts.
Additionally, the consistency certification submission does not disclose what measures, pursuant to
1 SA NCAC 07M. 0800, have been taken to "control development so as to eliminate harmful runoff
which may impact the sounds and rivers of the coastal area and the adoption of best management
practices to control runoff from undeveloped lands is necessary to prevent the deterioration of
coastal waters ".
Potential impacts to wetlands and water quality from erosion and stormwater runoff will be
minimized by the development and implementation of a Stormwater Plan and a Sedimentation
and Erosion Control Plan. This project will be low density and will follow all required low-
density stormwater measures.
.....there is no affirmative evaluation demonstrating how the proposed project would be consistent
with the New Hanover County land-use plan.
The site is zoned R-20 and the proposed development is consistent with this zoning. The project
has received local subdivision approval and is awaiting City zoning approval.
The New Hanover County Land Use Plan classifies a majority of the site as a Watershed
Resource Protection Area. The land located along the northwestern property boundary (UT of
Howe Creek) is classified as Conservation.
5

Watershed Resource Protection: "This subclass occurs along the tidal creeks and is defined as
the area within'/z mile of the 100-year floodplain for those creeks. The impact that the resources
is being protected from is pollutant laden stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces within the
watershed. The protection strategies for this subclass of resource protection area focus on
minimizing new impervious surface, retrofitting protection measures to improve water quality
of runoff from existing impervious surfaces and to promote low impact best management
practices for development and redevelopment.
The proposed development will be low-density and therefore conforms to this land
classification.
Conservation: "Generally, estuarine areas of environmental concern (AFC's} as defined by the
State of North Carolina and adjacent Lands within the 100-year floodplain have been classified
as Conservation. Conservation areas should be preserved in their natural state. Exceptions to this
standard are limited to water-dependent uses, shared industrial access corridors, and those
exceptional development proposals which are sensitively designed so as to effectively preserve
the natural functions of the site. In no case, with the exception of the Wilmington National
Register Historic District, shall residential density in the Conservation class be permitted to
exceed 2.5 units per acre or greater than 25% impervious surface coverage, regardless of the
existence of public urban services."
No disturbance to wetlands is proposed except far road crossings. No wetlands along the main
UT will be disturbed and all remaining wetlands will be preserved in perpetuity through
restrictive covenants. Furthermore, the project will conform to the classification's density
requirements.
Please provide a final mitigation plan, sample deed restriction, and graphic displaying the wetlands
to be protected.
Since the Individual Fermit application was submitted, we have determined that the original
area designated for mitigation would not be suitable for wetland creation. We then evaluated on-
site creation options, including the upland area located between the passive common area
(wetlands] and the proposed road in the southeastern part of the tract. However, this area
supports a small yet mature longleaf pine habitat (see enclosed pictures). Although no red-
cockaded woodpecker cavities were observed, the area appears to be a healthy, functioning
upland community. Instead of converting this area into wetlands, which would require
eliminating the existing canopy, the applicant prefers to preserve the area as an upland buffer.
Most of the other wetland areas within the site consist of drainage features with significant
topographic breaks and performing wetland creation adjacent to these areas would be difficult to
do successfully. Therefore, the applicant proposes to buy into the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program for the restoration of 0.25 acre of riparian wetlands, preserve all remaining wetlands
within the site (8.98 acres) and within two other Landfall tracts (37.61 acres) and preserve 0.176
acre of uplands on site.
6

Wetlands will be preserved through the subdivision's restrictive covenants and will include the
Corp's language regarding preservation. The applicant is currently in the process of preparing
these covenants.
Based on the proximity of the project site to an unnamed tributary of Howe Creek there is a
potential that some project elements may be within an Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) ......
The section of the unnamed tributary of Howe Creek that forms the western boundary of the site
is a stream but does not have any tidal flow. Therefore, no estuarine AEC is located within the
property.
I hope this response adequately addresses agency concerns. Please let me know if you need
any additional information. Thank you for your assistance with this project.
Sincerely,
Kim Williams
Wetland Scientist
Encl.
C: Mr. Ken Kirkman
Mr. Robin Rose, Preston Development
Ms. Cyndi Karoly, DWQ
Ms. Noelle Lutheran, DWQ
Mr. Stephen Rynas, DCM
Mr. Howard Hall, USFWS
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley, SHPO
7

06/05/06 16:13 FAX [phone] PRESTON DEVELOPMENT CO. C~j002
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
TO WI- OM IT MAY CONCERN:
Uwe, th ~ undersigned, hereby authorize Land Management Croup, Inc. to act as our agent in the
prepara don and representation of information related to the permit application for the Helmsdale
project located in New Hanover County, NC. All questions in regards to this project should be
directec i to Land Management Group, Inc.
Sincerely,
Helmsdale Invest LLC
er/Applicant `1A0`"''''b'b`
/ !inn ~~ `
Print Name
~~.~~-- ~, zoo G
Date

.
-....
\
~,\
\\ \ _ _ ~ i
\ ~~
,:~
\ - - 153 ~ --^~
~` ~
~ ~~ \{~
~_ ~~• / c -
... ~ _
I _
'..
...:: `~ I if I;~ 16) .,_~ - /.~_... ..- :... rt-fi w,yyg,o ~ ytl~ ~~~
\ -.. Ill Ili. '~ ~__ s~. .... . _ (~ ':"1
\ T hn
-. <« ~;
r W ~ _ »~
- o l~d oo ^~ ~cti~ j- ec oo'~ ~ lug .~8. oe ivu ` iao''- goo - i a' Yvo'' 4-tI~'~;->
\\\ ~ w /:.,o' ...,• 6 i „I ~ 1 i 25,868~f1 ~ -~ati,~,~""^~'~~ ~ mow."tih 1I' J.h..~^~~ t ~ ~ 11 ~ ~,
\ az 36 831 5 F. 1 1 11 t 1 / :..< -. ~ ^-- ~, ~ is---__ ~ _.. j) '.
~V A ~ ~ •-•• ~ I I,'I~Ili ~1~~~~\~ 21 f~ 201 ~ ~ ~~~" 1'~`r~~l I i i I I ~ ~. `~`-_""'..^"T ~~ _. ~~~ I i ~:, ~"~ ~~~``~;P..~J~ru[im i'1a
\ 1 1 v.' ~ 23 ~ ~~ P I . 2'
\ ,` 2a' • l~ 1 s. , 4,566 5 F I I 1I30,605 S.F. - , I ~\,~ !'' ~ \~" f I : v3 ~Y
\\ \ • '_~i , 1 i, ` 0 \ \ \ J~ I ry to h ' i i -f~ I I, ~ ~__~~. ~ ~ .
\ ~ 1 24,296 S.F. ~ ~/ i ~ ~ rni
5 to t rm' ~
\ o \ \ \ \ s \ \,\ ~\ 4 ~ ~)s\ 5 3\ I 15 ~ 10. 13 ~ I 12 11 C c
i I O I^ O n l o
\~~\~\\ ~ © ~~ \\ \ ~\,, \ /~ ~ ~ ~ 16 ~ ~ I ~ ,a ~ 14 ~ I : C91 I ~ ~ 0 ~ ;" 0 ~ 3 2 , j ! I
`~\\ \~ \~ 6,020 S.F.//;t1~,, t',~\ // 1 19 ~''~. ~1~035 S,F.'~, 30.962 5F 30,889 S.~.i ~ 0816 SE ;3,292 S 3,206 S. F. ;33,120 5.., i0,5D6 SF1 i0, 433 SF.: y0,36C SfF. ':30,287 FI ;0,215 S'F 0369 SF ~~,,:,234 SF. 32,884 y~F,
\\\\\\ /^ l\'\\ \`\~ / ~ 01 n! 24. i 46 S F. I' ~ I I ~ I I '~, i I ~ I I I l
6 ~ ~ A\\~>tl \ 22 ~ ~ ~ I I ~~, I i
~\ •. ,
i I
\~ s' ~ , ~ V ~, 30170 S. F. ; f' ti ~~~~ ~ ~ J ~ ~~ ~~ -. ~~ I
\ ~\ ~?.~ 9~ ~Op I _J I I 1
/ \ \ \%. ~ / \ IOE 108' 108 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 6
_.....
\ _ __ I
\\ \ \\ '~ 'f ',•.~. ~ Y\ ` \\ \ 7ti ~ ~ \\\ \ IOU' 700 100 100 -.1-_ -- I ~ 1
. __........- .._ _... __._. ... ..1..... . _..
`;\
~~, ///
\~ ~ ~ .•..•.•.•.•' %i.• ~t\ `~ as ~ ~°6~ 18
~\ `,_a~ • tit; %. • '`\ o. ~\\\~ \\ 1/ '\\ 8,15 S.f ~ ~ G.
"\ \ \\~ 1'` \\ \ \~69\
2 S F.
~~~ ~ ~~~$'7 7 ~
~~ 76\ \ /,
- 26.017 S F~ \~ ~~ ;037 S.E ~ ~ - /
2 xam~cyq ~VA A\ I /
s 31 eo,nm.,.~a ~, '
~~ 1~ ~ s _•~`••. 31028 SF ~ ~r• .~~~qi JJJ
\ , ~ \ 6 // ' Wetland Creation area: / ~
~ 870D sf; D.2 acre , / f:~~
• / ~
\ ~ ~ // ~ ..- IOA'_ / 212' II 100'
~~\ ~ ~s s~ 29230 S ~ ~~, v~ 9q 992 ~b/' .~~~- /~lr / I i ~i I ~j
~ ~ e ndI~+GHCRnz:3 S.F / ~ l / !ll,,o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.,
1 \~~ A ~ ~ ~ sf,.~~ ac) ~ 43 ~~ l' ~ il(% 47 I I 'I .PASSIVE.•.•.•. ! ~.. _
~~~ ®„ . •- 37,271 S.F ~ ~~ ~~~// 32,564 SE ~tin~~ ~~~ r(,r, 60A7~O S F. ~ I ~ ' •COMMOh .'m '11~
\ \ v / \ (/ / 44 /°~/ / ((~ ~f;g Wetland Impacd,Y~ 1, I.I _ '
v ../. - ~~ aV /~~30.53OS.F~~(/ rhl, ~.,(es\e.zsr,v.v2~l~~ 1 ~ ...
~\~~ i~•_••','.c~.~ etland lmpad • /Ox ~\ ~/' J l 1 45 Ill \ \'~ }p. ~s 1 I '
\ \ 175.1 a1, 0.004 ~" ~ /' ••'~
~A ( /' ~~~~~~ ~ ~ l ~~34,391 S.F/~ rr,' ~.~~ I . I '1w ~ I ' ...
\ `a\ ~ ~ 34 / ~,/ ,~\~~1 /zJ~ / / '~ • 1 I 48 ~ ' • • • U f • • , ~ a I
'\\ \ ,~ ~ \r l I - I' , S p aPd.Praserveho Agee' • I
~. s ~ ••56,436 S.F./~~ % / a ~ ~ VV l l~ ~l _ '. I. •I I 1.1•.•.•. •76T6•sP•D.176acr8 I I
.1 1149,120 5 F I
~ \ III n
/ ~ ~ ~~ l •,'~ ,'~ I I
~.., \~ ~ 38, ~ i ~~ , 4 • rs , X56 596 S F ~ I ~ ~ . • ~~- I ~ I
/ ~ ~ •-
I ~ ' V ~,k' A ~r i / 30,969 S~ro; ~ , ~ ~ Is -_~ I • I II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ '.
\\ .`~
j I i ,% ~ i/~ % ~ / !/ l 31 /~f i l lj/ 'o,' -~\~`~ _.~ . I 1 amHm a ~~.-~ ~ y~/y ~ ~l l i
~;' ~~ Ia8 / ~(/~ ~ ~. 614 Sb.~~ (om, / I~„ ~ Da° i ,~ . ..
l'I Al -~ :, 1 / ( ; ~/ / /~ 38 /~., l I~~ ~ S1p_'_3 si'UDSIad
'~ I I ~ A ~ ~~ n0 / / ~ 21 9 4 S/ / / 39 I~ /'~'--_.- -.'___ j.~ a
a ~ ••m I
\ /,
~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ,~~~ ~: ~.,~_ ~ ~ ~~25.631 ° a0 1 I ACTTAE ~i I u .. ~:'am ~ ..
.~
I I I ^~' ~ +~ ~ ~ I COMMON I I
~~2
1 2 71 F
A
Iii
I I ~"'ar. 7 S AR
I { 1 j' ,
i6g -
I ~ I ~. '[' ---..,
i i \: I
I~ ~
___.. i I 1 i \ , .. ._ ISp' `/ III
\ i
~ ..D i
,
. ~' \
,
111 1
I ,
`
-- 11
W
- 404 4hiETLANDS (8.55 acres) ',
Helmsdale at Landfall
- PROPOSED 4NETLAND IMPACTS (Q20? acre)
Figure 9 Slte plan showing proposed
®-PROPOSED uP~AND euETER (a~~6 acre) wetland and stream impacts.
2co ~ oc o zoo Boa
[~ ~y t ~ I
[~ ~. [ I [ V sca F: ~ "=200' Withers & Ravenel
January 2006: revised May 2006 Land Management Group. Inc.

J
\`p'C.
\ ~ ~ \\ i, r
~~ O ~ \ \ ~ ~, - ,tea.. /~ ~ y
~ ~~ ,....
~~., ~ ~~Land~lr~-pace#1..~ ~~ - -,; ,
~ ,~ '~ ~~~\ ~ \\~ °'~ \\ ~fq ~t~1~~r1~-~' Pact ~~ -~~j ~-
~- ~'' ~ ~ . \ ~, \\~~~~ otto culvert) 3 g , 0 0 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ _
\.
~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~, \ ~.
29,20 ~.~`~ % i ~ ~- =' ~~
~~ \ ~V `~ `- ~-
~ ~ / / / ~ ~ ,
~ ~ ~ /
~~ ; r ~ ~I(V~~t~ ~ d I m pct ~#~ : ; ;'
.v i' , j' ,\\ ;,
i , , ,, ~ ~ ;
y, ,~, / 9 ~etland Impact #3. ~ \\
W ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 75.7 sf; O.O~a~c-~--
.v ~' ~ ,~,
~, ~
0 - CERT!EIEO 404
WETLAND AREAS 50 25 0 50 _ .....................................
(TOTAL - 8.55 AC.t)
- TOTAL PROPOSED _
WETLANDS FILL AREA
SCALE: 1 "=50'
PF~~.l3'~lt~A~"
\~ ~~ `~
~~:~ ~~
FIGURE 11.

/ / ~ ~ y ` ~
~ % `Y I ~
;' ~ 3 4 , 3 91 S ~ E~ ;, ~~ ,, ~ ~ I ~,
/ ~ I I y I ~I
/ ~l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ II ~ ~ ~ jl II
W ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ etland ~mpact #5
i , , ~
;% '~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ 4 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ W `' ~; ,98.2 sf;; 0:'1,021 ac)
,,, ~ ~, ,I I ' I ~
~, ,_, 56 X95 S~E~
-_ ~ ~,,, I I, I,
_^~ ~
~~~ .~ ~,
,^ ~~-.,, ~, . ~~ ~ III ,
\ ~ '' 'I I
.~
`--
~~. ;, g~~ ~ rQS_s i n g ----_-- -- - _ _ _ ___----- _ ~ I
"~:,,
- O ~ ),-' ~_(~ erl~JlVetlan~#~~rppact#4;-Q,6`S8-~a~)~~...-_.,._ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'll
,_
,, -_ - -
,,, 1 __ .
,,
_ _ --- _.
~ ~, ~ ~.,., --- _ I _.. __..
---- -- _
_::_
.v , ... ,, --- --- _.._ _
~~ ~ ~. ~W-et~an-d tmpaCt #
.,
,,
,,
_., ---
~, ~ ' ~,,, i ~ -_ __ - ---,_ _ --- - -
.~ .~ I _ ,- - - - -
I ~.
~ - I ~ ~ ~
~ V/ ~ .~ r
V ~ ~ r ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ v
__._ __ ............... E._1._2w ____ _
." CERTIFIED 4D4 Helmsdale at Landfall
- wEn.AND AREAS 50 25 0 50 _ ........................._._...._......_......_........_...._..............................._..................................................................................._..............._-
(TOTAL - 8.55 AC.t)
- TOTAL FRO~osED Proposed Wetland Impacts #5 & #6
WETLANDS FILL AREA :...........................................................................................................................~
SCALE: ~ "--50' Withers & Ravenel
}~ , ~ i~11I~~~Y .January 2006; revised May 2006 ~ Land Management Group Inc

~~ ~ ~~ _II_~J ~ ~ ~L ~L ~~ STEADFAST BRIDGES
A CONTECH COMPANY
4021 GAULT AVENUE FQftT PAYNE, AL 35967-8139
1-866-294-9767
A ~'

A ~~
CENTER TO CENTER OF BEARING
TYPICAL ELEVATION OF BRIDGE
N_T.S.
NOTE:
PRELIMINARY USE ONLY;
SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH
FINAL DESIGN.
Helmsdale at Landfall
New Hanover County, NC
Individual Permit Application
40-OS-298P
Land Management Group, Inc.
Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
June 2006
FIGURE 13.
Typical cross section
of proposed bridge.

t'-6" STRUCTURE N0. t-39
~2' STRUCTURE N0. 40-87
DEADMAN HEADWALL WIDTH (ALWAYS 90' TO STRUCTURE CENTERLINE) WINGWALL(4.6,7,8)
ANCHOR (SEE TABLE 4)
(2,3,4 VARIES (4~-9" NPICAL) (2'3'4)
CORNER ANCHOR ROD CORNER PANEL
PANEL (2'3) CENTER PANELS 2)/ (TYPICAL) (8) (4'_6" TYPICAL)(2,3,4)
END ~ANELS ADDITIONAL WING PANEL
3„ 4'-6 (TYPICAL) ry I ~ ~ CAP WALL
HEIGHT (3)
(SEE TABLE 4)
DIMENSION
"D" (SEE
TABLE 5)
WALE BEAM -~
2:1 OR STEEPER
SIDE SLOPE
PANEL ENTRENCHMENT (3)
(APPROX. 67 0mm)
•~ i A RISE "B" /~
~a I FILLER REINFORCING REINFORCING
RIB TO BE PUNCHED RIB
I AND FITTED TO BOX
i~ CULVERT HEADWALL
(EACH SIDE IF INVERT PLATE
I REQUIRED) j
SPAN "A"-
B' 9' (STREAM WIDTH 2' AVG)
FOOTING PAD OR
~ CONCRETE FOOTING.
VERTICAL(5)
JOINT
(SEE DETAILS ON
1010394,DWG)
TYPICAL HEADWALL ELEVATION
FOR CONTECH ALUMINUM BOX CULVERT
NC]T T^ SCALE
Original Last Revision Drawing
Drwg. Date Date Nunbero
K.fd.K.
5-29-98 N/A 1010395A
wNotes are on drawing 1010393A.dwg.
WALE•
BEAM
LEgS_THAN ~: _.-
SIDE SLOPE
DIMENSION "D"
(SEE TABLE 5)
FIGURE 14. TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
OF BOX CULVERT CROSSING
~: , A~~~~~~1TCAv
~ACK PRINT' ~ I„~ ` ~tar~
il: •:; ffiN ~n ~ ~~ ~ ~
CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS, INC.
CAP (6'
CAD file is in \Library\ALBC\1010395.DWG on the CD
Ail drawings copyright 2000, Contech Construction Products Inc.
NOTE: This view may not print to scale

=CTION
CULVERT
PREPARED BY WITHERS & RAVENEL
0~ 00 1 ~ 00

'TNS certifies rirot tNS c^PY of tNs plat accwately
oi~me a v~'at.~n~i av ~aeraiNe~~ ip~d
on Ws tlate. UNess there Is a cHanpe h tNr lse ar
pubUShed repulaibnz, tNS tletendrwibn of Sectbn 4D1~
ew edktbn naY be e14tl upon far PmNM t to
ce d five years fran iNS tlate. TNZ geterNnatbn eas
ewtle utMlzhG tde 198J Corps of Erynerri Vettantls
Delheatbn Nanwl.'
Reptlatory Oiikial
Tide
Datr ____~_~___~_-~--_
USAGE Acton IO
ENO EtlsYy Lvn foe
%12 Vetbrtl f49 lawbr
1 N/F
y SMART ROSENBFRG
WSCENLLANEWS ~

~

N/F / / I 1 /

I WRt~toyXole)
_
LANDFALL TRACTS ~ _ - ~ YF1155A .ERR61
,„. - pRIVE

ARB
YA~ woyr
~~ -pRENMRr'~ ~~;
M

`
I ' I
(6D ~
®
!k Ngg21'~_,~,,wpr~~' ~aTe
pl ~~
~siY
'
1
'
t>~~
\ ~ N~ I
J05EPH E SADIER
`
°.
1
or
y5.S1 ~ \ t ~
~ ® xwlal~gt ~~ '
~
\
I
mT~h s~ © ~~
r~n~m~ x~p~s
NlymVypYF ~ Ilp z16T ~ ~M•x ~
~Y '~a
f~f! `11~,~1s ~ TRADEWNDS
\ A5500ARON5 II.C
~ 1 ~ N/F
Al1MD
ANRIOaY TODD SUTRIN PROPERTIES,
LLC
'°'°:
J
' `
~
ai o
m
~ WERANO AREA 4 ~ I " ~~
^~,~ rorAL PARCEL ~ Rid
' ~ °poo
ARBORETUM OR/l~E
AREA : 25,181 5G. FT.
®
AOtES : D.Se u>y ~si0~2~'~ sl'E AREA :125,526 50. FT.
ACRES : 2BB ~~
~ =t. ey
(60' PR/1~i17E R~NJ
WE
.
Nra'nY~t N~1nY -~11.W
p ---- 81288' ~-~ _ _ v
~~~~ 5 5551Y1' E
__ ~ _ 1591.88_
___~_ J
_ R/W lti~ ..
NrT
ItENAN H.
FRANK
AIFOR
G RASI( Ji

LANOFALLI ry~ N/F
RAIFdID C. 7RASK JL
CHAPEL D
.
R
YAWAN B. TOMAfS
~ i
N/F
I~I~~~ I¢ ~ I \ \ \ PFM~REs
/ I \ AIBER~W. tr / / i
t~ ~ \ SORT[ P. WNN I- ~N
ALLARD PRDPIXTIES, LLC I \ V GARY L s PAUU J. SIIIHERLNID I N/F ry~ JA4E8 1 k xJl4 A S FARIEY - - ISY~~p ~ ^\\
- _ - - ~ ~ I ` - - - - ~ -AxTHONY A. h ROBIx S SAFFO \ -NARRtli ISUJIU cAPlru LLL \ - - pE~R PRIVp~ R~ 1
RrW ua. n
R-25.00'
ARBORETUM OR/I/E _ i' ~ /' x.,52,• P ,
(60' PR//qIF R~N'J =.Ay0.55• . ~ _ TOTAL PARCEL 5251]',3'E i ~
5551'11' E 1591.88' pp. R~1300.00' _ - ~ - AREAApI~g'S2Z ~' Fr. 0130.08• 1O
.. ___. ___________ ____-__ ________ ____ ________ _ bl$
N55'„'11'W R/`Y IYw _ _ ~ _ _ _ .. _ . - -_ ~-~> ° I
______ ____ ____ 61288 _______ ____ __ _____-- 3
bT~
~Im
N/F Y. m
RAIFORO G TRASK Ji. aj
s ,zYa•5p. K Y
108.03 E rI
GRAPHIC SCALE 3/2 ~ ~~. USA 40~NTALVO n
IASA ~6oR
I °-~ I HELMSDALE AT LANDFALL it I Wetland Delineation Plat 1"w~`wew~' I I xx WITHERS ~{' RAVENEL III (I
owl Cary, NC 27$13 [fflYllf/~ ~IAMYfff I fY99EY0ff I i
Wilminglon Tovmship Wilminxmn New HanoverCWmY No1RIGrolina

~~ ,~ ~

~~.~
~4
~.~ y
,~~:-~
Helmsdale at Landfall Land Management Group, Inc.
New Hanover County, NC Environmental Consultants Photos of proposed
-____
Individual Permit Application Wilmington, N.C. upland buffer area.
40-OS-298P Lune 2006
1 Mature longleaf pine trees.
1 View of area from S. Moorings Drive