19960894 Ver 1_Complete File_20051229

OF W ATE9
r
o ?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
December 29, 2005
DWQ Project #1996-0894
Carteret County
Ms. Jennifer May-Brust
Wal-Mart Corporation
2001 SE 10th Street
Bentonville, Arkansas, 72716-0550
Subject Property: Hestron Plaza Shopping Center (currently known as Cypress Bay Shopping
Center)/Wal-Mart/McCotter Property
DOA Action ID. No. 200201244
Re: Substitution of Mitigation Site to meet conditions of 401 Water Quality Certification
Dear Ms. May-Brust
Reference is made to your written request dated March 21, 2005, through Troutman Sanders, in which you proposed
mitigation alternatives to replace the failed wetland restoration mitigation site (Laurel Road site) associated with the
Hestron Plaza Shopping Center project (DWQ Project No. 1996-0894). A 401 Water Quality Certification was
issued for this project on June 26, 1997. In our June 22, 2005 teleconference with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, we concurred that, given the unlikelihood of achieving full success throughout the Laurel Road site,
combined with unavailability of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program, it would be appropriate to use the McCotter
tract as compensatory mitigation for this project. Please note that the Laurel Road site will still be used for 5.0 acres
of restoration credit toward your goal of mitigating for 21.01 acres of wetlands impact. The approximately 214 acre
McCotter tract (containing approximately 73 acres of pocosin, 65 acres of bottomland hardwood, 66 acres of
estuarine marsh, and 11 acres of pine uplands) will provide up to 204 acres of wetland preservation area to
compensate for the deficit. You are hereby notified that the preservation of wetlands on the McCotter property will
serve to meet the conditions of the 401 Water Quality Certification in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h),
provided that the wetlands are placed in a permanent conservation easement or other legal mechanism to ensure
preservation in perpetuity. A copy of this legal mechanism shall be provided to this Office. This will resolve
compliance issues associated with mitigation conditions of the 401 Certification for the Hestron Plaza Shopping
Center. In correspondence dated June 29, 2005, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also provided written approval
of this revision to the 404 Permit.
If you do not accept the terms of this agreement, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60
days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter
150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This agreement is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh at 919-733-9721 or Noelle
Lutheran in the DWQ Wilmington Regional Office at 910-395-3900.
Sincerely,
4`
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
4010versight/Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
One
N Carolina
w,ra!!y
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Ms. Jennifer May-Brust
Wal-Mart Corporation
page 2 of 2
December 29, 2005.
AWK/cbk
cc: USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
DWQ Wilmington Regional Office
DLR Wilmington Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Robert Belcher, 701 Town Center Drive, Suite 600, Newport News, VA, 23606-4296
Shannon Varner, Troutman Sanders, 1001 Haxall Point, Richmond, VA, 23218-1122
Filename: 19960894Hestron(Carteret)Mit

Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENTOF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX 1890
WILMINGTON NC 28402-1890
June 29, 2005
Subject: Action ID No. 200201244
Ms. Jennifer May-Brust
Wal-Mart Corporation
2001 SE I& Street
Bentonville, Arkansas 72716-0550
Dear Ms. May-Brust:
?h?7'ESOp L7?
4
rs ?9
.? acme ?i
(?? naxe?uw.vi pa
f?IF.'1fORa?
.. This letter serves to confuxn the receipt of the March 21, 2005 letter from your attorney,
Mr. Shannon Varner of Troutman Sanders LLP, proposing mitigation alternatives to comply
with our January 29, 1998 issued permit for the expansion of Cypress Bay Shopping Center, near
Morehead City, Carteret County, North Carolina. Please reference our January 6, 2005 letter
concerning this issue.
. In the March letter, Mr. Varner. summarizes Wal-Mart efforts, in coordination with our
office, to provide adequate mitigation and detail several options that are practicable and
available. These potential alternatives include the following, 1) conducting additional
construction efforts on the original Laurel Road Restoration Mitigation Site, 2) provide financial
payment into DENR Wetland Trust Fund or the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP), 3) Preservation of the Lewis Property just north of Newport, and 4)
Preservation of the McCotter Property just south of Newport.
Based our evaluation of the alternatives, which includes onsite investigations, it is our
position that attempting to conduct improvements on the Laurel Road Restoration Mitigation
Site is not practicable. Due to site conditions and the limited ability of the site, our office has
determined that this site will not provide the mitigation credits to fully compensate for the 21.01
acres of impacts associated with the permit. It is' our understanding that personnel from the
NCEEP staff also verified the uncertainties of success for this site. However, we, do recognize
that approximately 5.0 acres of jurisdictional areas have been restored on the site. Accordingly,
we will allow the use of 5.0 acres of restoration credits toward your mitigation total.
Your second mitigation alternative is to provide financial payment into the NCEEP at a
amount of $148,785.12. This calculated total is based on your estimates that approximately
12.12 acres of restoration acres/credits will be needed to satisfy the remaining mitigation
deficiencies. In our discussions with NCEEP, their agency currently does not have any non-
riverine mitigation sites within Carteret County. With the absence of any restoration sites
-2-
coupled with the difficulty in locating restoration areas within the vicinity of the impact area, it
is our position that NCEEP alternative is not a viable or practicable option. It should also be
noted that on July 1, 2005 the NCEEP rates will be adjusted to $13,123/impact acre, which
would increase your payment to $159,087.12.
In light of the difficulty to fully restore the Laurel Road site and with the absences and
difficulty for NCEEP to provide near future restoration, your remaining practicable mitigation
alternative was to seek the option to purchase and preserve wetlands within the impact
watershed. To our knowledge, Wal-Mart and Tribek Development has evaluated at least (5)
separate tracts of land for wetland preservation. For various reasons, only two tracts were
practicable and suitable to mitigate for the project impacts, the Lewis Property and the McCotter
Property. The 215-acre McCotter tract provides in-kind mitigation and is also located in the
Newport River watershed. The wetlands and waters on this property consist of approximately 73
acres of Pocosin, 65 acres of bottomland hardwood forest, 66 acres of tidal marsh adjacent to the
Newport River, and 11 acres of upland mature pine community. Of the two preservation
alternatives disclosed in Mr. Varner's letter, our office considers the McCotter tract as the most
suitable site to offset the impacts and to bring the shopping center project into permit
compliance.
In a June 22, 2005 teleconference with Ms. Cyndi Karoly and Ms. Noelle Lutheran of North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ), we discussed the appropriateness of using
preservation for this project in order to satisfy their mitigation requirements. During the
discussion, it was confirmed by DWQ that preserving wetlands on the McCotter tract will be
suitable to offset the unaccounted impacts associated with the original permit. With this
agreement, our office is accepting your proposal to utilize the McCotter tract for mitigation. It is
our understanding that Wal-Mart is currently working on the purchase agreement to obtain the
property and will be conducting all the real estate necessities in acquiring the property, which
potentially could take up to 120 days, but are expected to be completed sooner. Once the
property has been conveyed to Wal-Mart, you are required to provide a legal mechanism,
preferably a conservation easement, which will preserve the property in its natural wetland state
in perpetuity. With this extended time frame, our office is requiring you to provide a status
report by July 29 on the progress of the land acquisition and an update on how you. intend to
preserve the property.
Additionally, our office has requested on several occasions that Wal-Mart provide a
signature on the issued permit to validate the transfer of the permit as it pertains to the parcel in
their ownership. To date, our office has not received a signed copy. We request that you, or the
appropriate personnel, provide a signature on page (4) of the enclosed copy of the permit to
validate the transfer of the permit.
-3-
Thank you for Wal-Mart's persistence in pursuing mitigation options and your immediate
attention and cooperation in moving toward complying with the issued permit. If you have any
questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Mickey Sugg at [phone],
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office.
Sincerely,
Keith A. Harris, Chief
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries, NOAA
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
State Property Office
N.C. Department of Administration
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh,-North Carolina 27611.
Ms. Noelle Lutheran
Division of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Ms. Linda Lewis
Division of Water Quality-Stormwater Section
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
U. S. Attorney
Eastern District of North Carolina
310 New Bern Avenue
Suite 800, Federal Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Ms. Kacy Campbell
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Protection Section - Region IV
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
-4-
Ms. Linda Stabb, Planning Director
Town of Morehead City
Post Office Drawer M
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Mr. Blanton Hamilton
Tribek Corporation
200 Providence, Suite 106
Charlotte, North Carolina 28207
. Shannon Varner
X outman Sanders LLP
Post Office Box .1122
Richmond, Virginia 23218-1122
Mr. Todd Simmons
Freeland and Kauffman, Inc.
209 West Stone Avenue
Greenville, South Carolina 29609
Bob Belcher
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
701 Town Center Drive, Suite 600
Newport News, Virginia 23606
Wal Mart Morehead City
Subject: Wal Mart Morehead City
From: Noelle Lutheran <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:38:56 -0400
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
CC: John Dorney <[e-mail]>, Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>
Cyndi,
Hello! Hope you are feeling better.
I need to ask you (or someone else up there that is willing) to write the letter to
Shannon Varner (Wal Mart attorney) stating that we will accept the preservation track
in exchange for the failed restoration site. I will fax you the letter that they
sent us last Spring. We had a conference call this summer and agreed to accept the
preservation (using "at the Director's discretion"). I just cannot find the time to
take care of it. The part that still bothers me is the fact that they are not
proposing to modify the 401. You may need to make sure we can do this with out a
actual modification. Note that the permit is not in Wal Mart's name (960894).
Actually, just realized I have your file, so I will enclose the latest letter and
other correspondence from the USACE and others in the file and put in the courier.
Thanks,
Noelle
1 of 1 10/17/2005 11:19 AM
[Fwd: Wal-Mart, Moorehead City]
Subject: [Fwd: Wal-Mart, Moorehead City]
From: Noelle Lutheran <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:24:50 -0500
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
CC: John Dorney <[e-mail]>, Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>
Please assist them if you can. They have been very patient. I just am not clear on
how to draft the letter. The files have been forwarded to your office. I hope you
have them. Thanks, Noelle
Subject: Wal-Mart, Moorehead City
From: "Belcher, Bob" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:02:45 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, "Aitkenhead, Bruce" <[e-mail]>,
"McElroy, Mark" <[e-mail]>
Noelle,
Shannon has told me that Wal-Mart has completed their Phase 1, title review and survey of the McCotter
Property. With the exception of a few minor items Wal-Mart is ready to move forward in acquiring the
property. As we discussed in August, Wal-Mart needs written confirmation that DWQ will accept the
preservation of the McCotter Property as fulfillment of all mitigation requirements associated with the 401
Certification for DWQ Project number 960894.
Please let me know when you expect to be able to provide the letter so that I can advise our client and the
Corps.
If you have any questions please let me know.
Bob Belcher
Robert T. Belcher
Project Scientist/ Wetlands Ecologist
Federal and Industrial Environmental Restoration
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
701 Town Center Drive, Suite 600
Newport News, VA 23606-4296
Office: 757-873-8700
Direct:757-873-4493
Fax: [phone]
bbelcher(ct)pirnie.com
3Gd>
Wal-Mart, Moorehead City; Content-Type: message/rfc822
1 of 2 12/16/2005 2:16 PM
Hestron Shopping Center, Morehead City
Subject: Hestron Shopping Center, Morehead City
From: "Varner, Shannon R." <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:41:31 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
Ms. Karoly,
I represent Wal-Mart and write to check on the status of a DWQ letter
confirming acceptance of the acquisition of the approximately 215 acre McCotter
property as alterative compensatory mitigation for the wetlands impacts associated
with the development of the Hestron Shopping Center. For your reference, I have
attached the Corps letter dated June 29, 2005, accepting the McCotter property for
this purpose. The Corps letter also indicates that you have accepted this option. I
and Wal-Mart's wetland consultant (Bob Belcher with Malcolm Pirnie) have previously
been in contact with Noelle Lutheran who indicated some time ago that similar written
confirmation would be forthcoming from DWQ. I understand from Wal-Mart's wetland
consultant that Noelle Lutheran has said this matter is in your hands.
Wal-Mart has completed due diligence, survey and title work and received
written agreement from the Corps. However, we are nearing the end of our option to
purchase this property. Thus, the only significant outstanding matter is
confirmation from you that purchase and preservation of the McCotter property will
satisfy all permit, mitigation and compliance issues associated with the 404 and 401
permits for the 21.01 acres of impact as the Corps has done.
Please let me know the status of your letter as we have a delicate agreement
with multiple heirs involved with the McCotter property. Closing is scheduled for
shortly after the holidays but cannot occur without your agreement with this
approach.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Thank you for your assistance,
Shannon R. Varner
This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you believe that
it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that
you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you.
Shannon R. Varner
Troutman Sanders LLP
Troutman Sanders Building
1001 Haxall Point
Richmond, VA 23218-1122
[phone] (direct dial)
[phone] (direct fax) mailto:[e-mail]
Content-Description: Document.pdf
Document.pdf Content-Type: application/pdf
Content-Encoding: base64
1 of 1 12/19/2005 12:27 PM
N
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX 1890
WILMINGTON NC 28402-1890
January 9, 2006
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 199202851
?D
Jai : p
N G
6 2006
Ms. arlene A. Waddell, Executive WEItAl6i DeNk_ 6AI
North Carolina Global Transpark Autthorityr ` srftQERe 0CN
2780 Jetport Road, Suite A
Kinston, North Carolina 28504-8032
Dear Ms. Waddell:
This correspondence confirms our receipt of the letter dated December 20, 2005, sent to us on
your behalf by Mr. Jerry McCrain, EcoScience, regarding the North Carolina Global Transpark
Authority's (NCGTPA) request to further modify its Department of the Army permit (AID
199202851) to authorize an extension of the time allowed to complete the land transfer/easement
transactions for the Dover Bay mitigation site as required by permit special condition. The
subject permit is associated with the construction and development of a global air transportation
facility north of Kinston, between North Carolina Highways 58 and 258, in Lenoir County, North
Carolina.
Pursuant to your written request, the permit is hereby modified to extend the deadline by
which time the NCGTPA shall complete the land transfer/easement transactions for the Dover
Bay mitigation site to April 1, 2006. Please be advised that failure to comply with this special
condition may result in referral of this matter to the United States Attorney with a
recommendation for appropriate action, including consideration for civil or administrative
penalties.
It is understood that all conditions of the original permit remain applicable and that the
expiration date is unchanged.

-2-
Sincerely,
J km E. P iam, Jr.
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Commander
Thank you for your time and cooperation. Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr.
Scott Jones of my Washington Regulatory Field Office staff, telephone [phone],
extension 27.
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Ronald J. Mikulak, Chief Wetlands
Protection Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, NC 28516
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
151-B NC Highway 24
Hestron Plaza II
Morehead City, NC 28557
Chief, Source Data Unit
NOAA\National Ocean Survey
ATTN: Sharon Tear N/CS261
1315 East-West Highway, Room 7316
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282
Dr. Jerry McCrain, President
EcoScience
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Amanda Jones, Permit Coordinator
Asheville Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Cyndi B. Karoly, Supervisor
401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit
NCDWQ Wetlands and Stormn-ater Branch
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 24, 2006
rR°
Q?c??oMf-R3D
JAN 2 6 2006
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
SUBJECT: Conceptual Mitigation Plan for US 521/Elon Property, Mecklenburg County
HDR Engineering has compiled requested information needed after the public comment period for the referenced
landfill project. The US Army Corps of Engineers routinely seeks advice and concurrence from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) for 404 Permits. We have reviewed information provided by the
applicant and field biologists on our staff are familiar with habitat values of the general project area. These
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The project is to develop a large construction debris demolition landfill. It appears from the most recent document
submittal that the primary concerns about the site relate to the presence of the federally listed endangered Dwarf-
flowered heartleaf (Rexastylis nan#lora) and stormwater issues plus impacts to 2.1 acres of wetlands and 3,940
linear feet of stream channel. No listed heartleaf plants were found during required surveys of the site.
Mecklenburg County proposes to mitigate wetland impacts by putting 31.88 acres of contiguous floodplain buffer
along Six-Mile Creek into a Conservation Easement. The floodplain is composed of a mosaic of jurisdictional
wetlands and other landforms that act as natural buffers. The corridor is indicated to provide significant foraging
and movement corridor for wildlife. In addition, the county proposes options for stream mitigation. These options
include the use of 2,480 credits from the City of Charlotte/Mecklenburg County Mitigation Bank plus additional
stream restoration activities at Davie Park Branch, Coulwood Branch, or in lieu NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) payments.
We will not object to the proposed Conservation Easements on Six-Mile Creek providing the buffers are
permanently preserved as undisturbed, contiguous forested habitats. Any disturbed wetlands in the buyer zone
should be restored. The wildlife corridor in conjunction with reclamation activities at the landfill should provide
significant natural areas and wildlife habitats if reclamation activities restore naturalness to the landfill site.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
. Telephone: [phone] • Fain: [phone]

US 521 Landfill/Elon Property -Page 2 - January 24, 2006
Concerning the stream mitigation options, this office prefers that payment to EEP not occur. Instead, we
recommend that restoration activities occur within or near the project area to offset lost habitats and to improve
aquatic habitat and water quality. Our review of the Davie Park Branch and Coulwood Branch options finds that
both options have similar environmental benefits. In the long run, it appears.that the Coulwood Branch option
should be the preferred option even though this site is not directly associated with the proposed landfill The Davie
Park Branch is entirely on county-owned land so it is probable that restoration of Davie Park Branch can be
accomplished separate from landfill mitigation using other funding sources, including inclusion into the local
mitigation bank. This less developed drainage appears to be less problematic than the Coulwood Branch site.
Alternatively, the Coulwood Branch site is subject to more urban influences and associated ecosystem impacts.
Sound stormwater management and restoration at the Coulwood Branch site should provide enhanced aquatic and
terrestrial habitat benefits. It is also possible that additional restoration activities could be accomplished in the
Coulwood Branch area cooperatively with Colonial Pipeline.
Irregardless of the mitigation site selected, we offer the following construction and operational recommendations for
the proposed public projects:
1. Only autochthonous plant species should be used for restoration, reclamation, reforestation, stabilization
and shading.
2. Conservation areas must be permanently protected through conservation easements. The area should be
protected from timbering and land disturbing activities in order to provide mature forest ecosystems. To
ensure long-term stability and habitat values, the entire landfill site should be preserved as a wildlife
sanctuary when the landfill is closed to mitigate for lost or diminished terrestrial habitats in the
metropolitan area.
3. The use of motorized recreational vehicles should be banned during and after landfill operations.
4. Unstable roadbeds and paths should be stabilized and well maintained. Where walking trails are allowed,
they should be constructed of pervious materials. Trails must not exceed the minimum widths required
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Trail placement should be kept away from
jurisdictional waters to the extent practicable.
5. Feral dogs and cats should be controlled and eliminated from land facility sites as they are harmful to
wildlife. Rabies (or other similar diseases) can be spread by feral dogs and cats. Packs of feral dogs
endanger wildlife and the public.
6. Tree laps from timber removal should be placed in linear rows along exterior edges of cleared areas to
provide small game habitat. Periodic openings every 100.200 feet should be provided for animal
movement.
7. Landfill areas that will be closed out should be vegetated using native plants and managed according to
recommendations provided by NCWRC district wildlife biologists. The applicant should contact the
NCWRC District Wildlife Biologist to discuss the use of native plants for revegetation. Planting and site
management activities like those used in the NCWRC Cooperative Upland-habitat Restoration and
Enhancement Program (CURE) should be used to restore wildlife habitats on the landfill property.
Alternatively, the Mecklenburg County Parks has developed native prairie restoration capabilities
beneficial for native prairie habitat restoration. The final reclamation plan should focus on species
biodiversity through inclusion of various habitat types.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions regarding these
comments, please contact me at 336/769-9453.
Cc: Denise Moldenhauer. USFWS
Chris Matthews, HDR Engineering
0
1
1
1
INITIAL MITIGATION PLAN
FOR CYPRESS BAY SHOPPING CENTER
Submitted to:
Hestron Corporation
Carteret County, North Carolina
1
i
Land Management Group, Inc.
Wilmington North Carolina
June 24, 1996
1
1
0

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................. 2

LIST OF TABLES .............................................. . 3
INTRODUCTION .......................... 4
.....................
IMPACT ASSESSMENT ......................... 7
' .................
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION .................................. 9
MITIGATION .............................. 16
....................
M CONDITIONS AT MITIGATION SITE ................................. 16
EXISTING CONDITIONS AT REFERENCE SITE ........................ 24
RESTORATION MITIGATION ........................... 24
...........
Hydrology
...............................................
Vegetation 24
............................................... 28
ENHANCEMENT MITIGATION ......................... 28
............
Hydrology
............................................... 28
1 Vegetation ............................................... 28
TIME OF CONSTRUCTION/PLANTING ............................... 29
MONITORING ................................. 29
................
SUMMARY ................... .
LITERATURE CITED .....
.....................
. 31
.
................
.
APPENDIX .............................. 32

1
0

3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Dominant vegetation of test plots in impact site . .................. 13
Table 2 . Soil characteristics of (a) Plot 1, (b) Plot 2, and (c) Plot 3 of the impact
site .................................................... 15
1 Table 3. Dominant vegetation of test plots in the mitigation site . ............. 22
Table 4 . Soil characteristics of (a) Plot 4, and (b) Plot 5, of the mitigation site. 23
Table 5. Dominant vegetation for reference site. ....................... 26
1 Table 6. Soil characteristics of the reference site . ....................... 27
I

4
INTRODUCTION
1 This mitigation plan has been developed to compensate for unavoidable impacts
to approximately 26.9 acres of jurisdictional wetlands from the expansion of the
Cypress Bay Shopping Center in Carteret County, North Carolina. The site is located
1
near the junction of HWY 70 and 24 in Morehead City, North Carolina (Figure 1). The
mitigation tract (approximatley 50 total acres), located adjacent to Laurel Road in
1 Carteret County (Figure 2 ) will consist of 23.6 acres of restored wetlands and 6.6 acres
of enhanced wetlands. Remaining wetlands at the mitigation site will be retained for
use by the property owner at a later time,
1 Hestron Corporation is proposing to construct three buildings and expand parking
for of the Cypress Bay Shopping Center. Construction has been designed to minimize
1 wetland impacts, including the use of 3.2 wetland acres as final treatment and
discharge of pre-treated stormwater. The impacted wetlands are currently at a low
functional capacity level due to isolation and encroachment by an urban landscape.
1 The proposed shopping area will serve the Morehead City/Havelock/Beaufort area and
will employ approximately 300 persons.
The owners reserve the right to resubmit an amended final mitigation, subject to
1
agency review and approval, should it deem other options more amenable to the overall
scope and objectives of the owner. All actions set forth in this document will be
considered part of the permit issued by the review agencies and shall be binding until
an amended plan is submitted and approved by both the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, & Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management
1 (DEM), Division of Coastal Management (DCM), and the Army Corps of Engineers

* .
I0
•
I17

i'I

ilttwoo
BM
it 5r
v
23
-
J,
c DaySeaco?
r.
r
. 'yc
"4 r
?•,`?,? .hSansfie
o Dagbeacon Dapeawn
o Light o Dzybeacor
S 0 U N
I
,I

N
SCALE 1:24,000
Figure 1. Impact Site. LAND MANAGEMENT Carteret County
GROUP, INC North Carolina
May 15, 1996

0

,r
?r
Figure 2. Mitigation LAND MANAGEMENT Carteret County
Tract GROUP, INC North Carolina
May 15, 1996

7
(COE).
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The impact site consists of two nearly adjacent tracts (Impact Tract 1 and Impact
Tract 2) located between U.S. 70 and N.C. 24 approximately 1500 feet west of the
intersection of said roads in Morehead City North Carolina (Figure 3). The tracts are
located approximately 600-1000 feet apart and are separated by Cypress Bay Shopping
Center.
Impact tract 1 (Figure 3) consists of approximately 62.4 acres, including
approximately 22.1 acres of wetlands. Approximately 21.9 acres will be disturbed for
the proposed buildings and adjacent parking.
Impact Tract 2 (Figure 3) is comprised of approximately 10.9 acres, including
approximately five acres of wetlands will be filled for a proposed building to expand the
existing shopping area and for adjacent parking. The site is adjacent to existing sewer
l plant and fields.
The impacted wetlands can be classified hydrogeomorphically (Brinson 1993) as
mineral soil flats. These are wetlands occurring along interstream divides that receive
precipitation as their sole water source. Since flats lack a supplemental water source, it
is poor drainage rather that allows flats to retain their wetland status.
As a mineral soil flat, the impacted site would normally function in both surface
and subsurface water storage, removal of elements and compounds in precipitation and
dryfall, nutrient transformation and processing, organic carbon storage, maintenance of
J
typical vegetation and habitat maintenance for vertebrate and invertebrate species

8
C
O
U
L
O
z
Z,
c
U
U
N
Q
N
U
m
L
O
2
a
0
E°
m
N
LL
L
V
C

W
J
Q
U
CO
O
L
A /1
O?
U co
/
C
J .?
'c m
cc
O ?
C
?W
C%j
cc
T 0
H c
c M
0

O
C
CD ?'' m

V
Q
z
U.
w
O?
ow
wQ
m3
w?
m
O-
?m
0
LL,
m q~
? W
? W
?a
Op
OW
W Vr
J Q
ON
zo
CO)
Q?
02
g?
J
c z
-q E
cz
c
N
V
M
C)
1L
a
w
2O
UW
OQH
U.
H
Cl 2 d
Dm't
F-0-1
0Cl) 0
W?o
OW>
p¢0
Q ? ?
0iw
J F- 0
J , _Z
LL. 0
mZ H-
? OC
? a
_W
w
z
z
goo
-i IX
?W
F-
o?W
v02

U
m
N
t
U
C
CL
3
/2
V
C
E
A
W
c
v
c
J

9
(Rheinhardt et al. in press). Encroachment and isolation by an urban landscape,
I* however, has reduced the sites's functional ability. The site is partially ditched (Figure
4) which reduces both surface and subsurface water storage, removal of elements and
compounds in precipitation and dryfall, nutrient transformations, and organic matter
storage. The lack of overstory reduces nutrient transformations and processes and
greatly reduces habitat maintenance for vertebrates and invertebrates. Isolation by
1 roads as well as urban landscape also hinders the site's ability to function as habitat for
vertebrate and invertebrate species.,
Three test plots were randomly established within the impact sites (Figures 5 &
6). Vegetation was sampled at the sites using methods described in the 1987 U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers delineation manual. All three plots lacked overstory
vegetation; plot 1 lacked a herbaceous layer; and Plot 3 lacked a shrub/sapling stratum
Table 1. Dominant vegetation is shown in Table 1.
The soils of the impact site have been mapped as Leon (Aeric Haplaquods),
Murville (Typic Haplaquods), and Torhunta (Typic Humaquepts) series (Figure 7). All of
these soils are hydric. Soil profiles were taken at each sample plot and are shown in
Table 2.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
i D The impact area consists of approximately 26.9 acres of wetlands. The
proposed site design reduces wetland impacts to approximately 26.9 acres. The
remaining 3.2 acres will be used for final treatment and discharge of pre-treated
stormwater. Diverting stormwater into the remaining wetlands will actually increase

a
10
•
•

•

Figure 4. Small ditch in LAND MANAGEMEN Hestron Tract
impact area. GROUP INC Carteret County N.C.
Ia
11
1•
I0

P
S
I
i
Figure 5. Location of LAND MANAGEMENT Hestron Tract
test plots at GROUP, INC Carteret County, NC
the impact site 1996
June,
IJ
I•
•

I0
(a)
(b)

?J
Figure 6. Test plots
in (a) Plot 1. (b) Plot
2, and (c) Plot 3.
12
LAND MANAGEMENT Hestron Tract
GROUP, INC Carteret County, NC
r
i
13
Table 1. Dominant vegetation of test plots in impact site. Dominance determined using
methods from 1987 Corps Delineation Manual (1987).
Vegetation Plot 3
Stratum Plot 1 Plot 2
Overstory N/A N/A N/A
Shrub/sapling Ilex glabra flex glabra N/A
Ilex coreacea flex coreacea
Lyonea lucida Rhus copallina
Herbaceous N/A Osmunda Lyonea lucida
cinamonea Pteridium
Smilax laurifolia aquilinum
flex coreacea
Woody vines Smilax laurifolia Smilax rotundifolia N/A
Smilax rotundifolia
?t
I0
I0
!•

I9
0
9
10
I*
0
I•
•
1 4

14
J
R2

N
SCALE 1" = 2,258'
Figure 7. Soil map of LAND MANAGEMENT S.C.S. Soils Map
the impact site. GROUP, INC
March, 1996
On
i
Ra
tt'
Ln
j.:
y
I0
I•
15
I•
Table 2 . Soil characteristics of (a) Plot 1, (b) Plot 2, and (c) Plot 3 of the impact site.
(a)
Depth (inches) Horizon Color Texture %
0-22 01 Black Sappric muck
22-36 Bh very dark gray-brown Loamy sand
36-45 C1 very dark gray-brown Loamy sand
KemarKS: murvuie/Famiico Series.
1• (b)
1•
I•
1•
I•
Depth (inches) Horizon Color Texture
0-26 O, Black Sapric muck
26-30 E dark gray Sand/loamy sand
-?- - ve-v clark, gray brown LcF-,,
KemarKs. murviiie/F amiico series. uocatea in aepression.
(c)
Depth (inches) Horizon Color Texture
0-3 01 Black Sapric muck
3-10 A Loamy sand/ 10%
organic matter
10-25 E light gray Sand
24 -45 Bhir Spodic horizon
Remark& Leon senes.

•
16
water storage which is currently hindered by drainage.
r Avoidance and minimization was considered in the selection of the impact site.
Ditching and vegetation alteration have lowered the sites functional capacity. Wetland
functions in the Morehead/Beaufort area may actually be enhanced with the completion
of the mitigation project.
• MITIGATION
The mitigation plan proposes to mitigate the loss of approximately 26.9 acres of
wetlands in two phases: restoration and enhancement (Figure 9). Mitigation success
• goals will be determined using a relatively undisturbed reference site (reference site)
located adjacent to the mitigation site (Figure 9). Since the impact site is greater than 3
• acres and greater than 1000 feet from surface water, mitigation ratios of 1 acre
restored/acre impacted and 2 acres enhanced/acre impacted will apply. These ratios
were determined using guidelines provided by the North Carolina Department of
• Environment, Health, and Natural Resources; Division of Environmental Management
(1995) for 401 Water Quality Certification Review Requirements. While mitigation will
be off-site, the impact sites and mitigation site are only approximately 9 miles apart.

CONDITIONS AT MITIGATION SITE
The mitigation site (Figure 2) is composed of approximately 51 acres immediately
south of S.R. 1163 between HWY 101 and S.R. 1300 in Carteret County, North
Carolina. Approximately 23.6 acres are in agricultural production. The prior conversion
statement is included in Appendix A. Approximately 27.4 acres was converted to lobolly
i•
i
L
}seal uoile6ip!w gyp 10
dew ol!S ONI `dnoNo seaae }ummueyue pue
heal uoije6ij!W 1N3W3E)VN`dW ON`d1 uoileaoIsa-d •6 ain6i j
l 1 , 4
,ab ?. ?R •1 ?? .t . ?? is ? ?? .`? 4 rk? ` ?:n." - z^"`i?•'?r ?-'?S?* ?,`...
(?
c? , " sz '?4 ,G. .- ". -? t>' ?.e° "Gw c Tg k s, R fix .x7' q- 'u^ t
k+' .Y '? ?p T ?itw s r4 vst h. .1
4;4
i?S
i? `:y.c f ?iy a+ .,? '. ?` .??i" e4 .? rti.; ,k A.. r? ?, 7" z. •"?• :? ..
• ^ Y-1Y »? 1 l }.1 FY'. .?k t G.S L Th ?J
t f vs. r ,fit t XZyac?'•? -' ' ,ty ?''`? . 1¢'?' ..,
}} x w j? r t + ''
,3"r ,c?t?`? ya : ?f „1 ??" ? ?'x o-flF" rt' '`??? u ,r' t? St ? . rasa ?• { ?'t
r4 ..30 " :'S_ "'x 3'r k N `a`s .. d i - als r'z t {, - i
•?3rY•- t ? • ? .u ,. 9 o-e+r ?"`?"'? n' a ,? ate., c i.x i.. o- .i -?'«t€1 n?.:r -:
vrt. ?f•N#
f ::' L -?,4 d? ?' e .R .s •AIR,
? er fie! aSa.. ,y 4 '? x :+n° .?+ -s4, tii G `, rre -
3? i a
.,ar ?? _.~ 1
N ?y t??k7
l it ?F t `"RFCCly ¢
s fy tij bj - d 11 a ???
V
?? } 4
4 4 :'' -,r
.aa ?c..t. :? .?,n,.•, ? ?? [ Y. Jam,
/C.iBpu noq all s
s ;
S
X
11 (sane 9.9v
[6f
t ? eajV )uauaaoue4u3
,
r
Y f . ?gil'ti M..
y 5
Af-
?k?.. }{spy ? ? _
o r r. Fi'
(sagas 9¦£ZV)
b _.
Bead u O llej olsa?
j6 i s'xx T £ya,",? '? J.. k ..,k,''-F.-•'N'-sue ':r
3. J t k ?! Y i a.
?•i'l.f y z
• ? .. g + ;,x t ! : ? Fry : .?'!y- "`^w+.r.., X
a
.?a - }?n ray{, iy s -
0 I
4
•
•I
f
t
0
•
1%
C
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
JamesB. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 21, 1996
Mr. Paul Farley
Land Management Group, Inc.
PO Box 522
Wilmington, NV 28402
Dear Mr. Farley:
?EHNR
I have reviewed the compensatory wetland mitigation plan for Hestron
Corporation's proposed development at the Cypress Bay shopping center in Carteret Co. I
have the following comments:
1) Page 4. "The impacted wetlands are currently at a low functional capacity level due to
isolation and encroachment by an urban landscape." An alternative interpretation can be
that these wetlands are of high value, since they are some of the remaining wetlands in a
developing urban setting. Please provide the scientific rationale for your conclusion.
2) Page 4: The statement "The owners reserve the right to resubmit an amended final
mitigation, subject to agency review and approval, should it [the owners?] deem other
options more amenable to the overall scope and objectives of the owner." is not clear. The
owners have the right to consider any alternative. I am not sure what an "amended final
mitigation" is. The antecedent for the pronoun'it' is not clear.
3) Page 4 (and elsewhere): Note that the Division of Environmental Management should be
the Division of Water Quality.
4) Page 9 and 31. The journal reference for Rheinhardt et al (in press) lacks the journal
that is publishing your paper.
5) Page 9. The statement that three test plots were randomly established indicates that plant
community data were measured or estimated. Although you reference the 1987 Corps of
Engineers delineation manual as the source for the sampling method, it would help if these
methods were outlined briefly. This would aid in determining how species dominance
(Table 1, page 13; Table 3, page 22, Table 5, page 26) was determined. For example, was
species density or cover used for determining dominance? If cover was used, how was
this estimated?
6) Page 9. The statements that covey the size of the impacts (26.9 acres) and how the
proposed site design reduces impacts to 26.9 acres is not clear. The statements covey that
no avoidance and minimization was done. In addition, a portion of this site was to be used
as stormwater treatment for a proposed retail (Lowe's) facility. We cannot evaluate your
proposal until we know the status of previously submitted plans for the site.
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
7) Page 16. How the reference site will be used to determine mitigation success is not
clear. Although additional details are found on page 28, it is not sufficient to say, for
example, that (p.28) "species composition and density will be identical to those to those of
the reference stand." Volunteer species and should be included in a measure of success for
vegetation if and only if those species are native and have an indicator status of FAC or
wetter. Wetland hydrology must be established regardless of the hydroperiod found at the
reference site.
8) Pages 28 and 29: On page 28, a three year monitoring period is proposed, and on page
29 a five year monitoring program is proposed. A five year monitoring program is
necessary.
Please contact me if you have any questions. My telephone number is (919) 733-
1786.
Sincerely,
Steven Kroeger
cc: John Dorney
i
18
pine plantation 1978.
Like the impact site, both the restoration and enhancement sections of the
mitigation site can be classified as mineral soil flats (Brinson 1993). Occurring on the
interstream divide between the North and Newport River, the site lacks a measurable
degree of slope. The lack of slope impedes drainage and, along with a low permeable
soil layer, allows the site to attain wetland hydrological conditions. The soils of the
• mitigation site (Figure 10) are mapped as Deloss fine sandy loam (Soil Conservation
Service 1987), a hydric mineral soil.. The site under agricultural cultivation has interior
ditches at approximately 200 foot intervals. The portion of the site in silvicultural
production do not have an extensive ditching network. The ditches have not been well
maintained with large trees growing at the ditches edge.
• Two sample plots were established in the mitigation site (Figures 11 and 12).
Vegetation and soil profiles were examined as with the impact site. Plot 4 was located
in a cultivated field and was dominated by Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) (Table).
• The overstory in Plot 5 was dominated by Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and Sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua). The shrub layer was dominated by Loblolly pine, Sweet gum,
and Red maple (Acer rubrum) (Table 3). Netted chain fern (Woodwardia aerolata)
•
dominated the herbaceous layer with Catbrier (Smilax rotundifolia) dominating the
woody vines.
• Soil profiles taken in the sample plots confirm the soil as of the Deloss series .
Soil descriptions are listed in Table 4.
I•
i•
10
19
I[7
I0
I•
•
N
I.
'•
Figure 10. S.C.S. soil LAND MANAGEMENT
map of the mitigation site. GROUP, INC
SCALE 1" = 2,258'
Hestron Tract
Carteret County, NC
I??

I•
I•
I•
•
I•
I•
•
•
I•
C", Sample Plot SCALE = 400'
Figure 11. Sample plots LAND MANAGEMENT Hestron Tract
in the mitigation and GROUP, INC Carteret County, NC
reference sites.

IJ
I0
(a)
(b)
i0

I•
21
Figure 12. (a) Sample plot LAND MANAGEMENT Hestron Tract
4, and (b) sample plot 5. GROUP, INC Carteret County, NC

22
Table 3. Dominant vegetation of test plots in the mitigation site. Dominance
determined using methods from 1987 Corps Delineation Manual (1987).
Vegetation Stratum Plot 4 Plot 5
Overstory N/A Pinus taeda
Liquidambar styraciflua
Shrub/sapling N/A Pinus taeda
Liquidambar styraciflua
Acer rubrum
Herbaceous Triticum aestivum Woodwardia aerolata
Woody vines N/A Smilax rotunifolia

I !"'1
23
Table 4 . Soil characteristics of (a) Plot 4, and (b) Plot 5, of the mitigation site.

I•
r
I•
I•
I•
Depth (inches) Horizon Color Texture
0-17 A Very dark gray Sandy loam
17-30 Btg1 Dark gray Sandy clay loam
30-45 Btg2 Dark gray Sandy clay loam
/Clay loam
rceriiarKS. ueIUS5 Genes. LOGateQ in cuitivatea neia.
(b)
Depth (inches) Horizon Color Texture
0-13 A Very dark gray brown Sandy loam
13-20 Btg1 Gray Sandy clay loam
20-45 Btg2 Light gray Clay loam/Sandy
clay loam
Kemancs: ueioss genes.

10
24
EXISTING CONDITIONS AT REFERENCE SITE
•
a
•
Like the impact and mitigation sites, the reference site is classified as a mineral
soil flat. Dominated by a mixture of pine and hardwood, the reference site was selected
as a reference target as it represents the likeliest climax community for a mineral soil
flat if fire is excluded. The reference site is located immediately south of the mitigation
stand (Figure 13). As a relatively unaltered flat, the reference site will have hydrologic,
biogeochemical and habitat functions similar to those of the impact site if that site were
in a more pristine condition.
A sample plot was establish to sample vegetation and soils of the reference
;J
•
•
0
•
li
stand (Figure 13 ). Vegetation of the overstory is dominated by Loblolly pine, Sweet
gum, and Red maple, although Water oak (Quercus nigra) is also present. The
shrub/sapling stratum is dominated by Loblolly pine, and Sweet gum). Fetterbush
(Lyonea lucida), Wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) and Cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinamonea) dominate the herbaceous stratum (Table 6).
Soils of the reference site were confirmed as the Deloss series of the mitigation
site. Results are presented in more detail in Table 6.
RESTORATION MITIGATION
Hydrology
The dominant measure of restoration success will be to establish a hydrologic
regime comparable to the reference site. Wetland hydrology will be restored by
impeding drainage from drainage ditches through the construction of four earthen berms
at the site perimeter (Figure 13). Ground and surface water levels will be monitored for
I0
ON /(4unoO jaaapeo
IMI uoaIsaH
,oot, =J 31dos
-Solis aauejejea pue
ONI `dnoNo uo!Ie6i}iw aia ui suolleaol
1N3W3E)VNVW ONVI 11am pue swaau •£? aan6i=l
told eldweS
uoileaol Ilem ua8 uau?e3
,?a
1.
0
4
r1
u
26
Table 5. Dominant vegetation for reference site. Dominance determined using
methods from 1987 Corps Delineation Manual (1987).
Vegetation Stratum Plot 6
Overstory Acer rubrum
Pinus taeda
Liquidambar styraciflua
Shrub/sapling Pinus taeda
Liquidambar styraciflua
Herbaceous Lyonea lucida
Myrica cerifera
Osmunda cinamonea
Woody vines N/A
1
1
71
27
Table 6. Soil characteristics of the reference site.
Depth (inches) Horizon Color Texture
0-16 A Dark gray brown Fine sandy loam
16-30 Btg1 Gray Sandy clay loam
3045 Btg2 Light gray / Yellow brown
mottles Fine sandy clay
loam / clay loam:]
MWIlIdMb. veiuss Jenes.
28
three years using ten continuously monitoring wells (Figure 13 RIDS WI-40). Success
1 criterion will be defined as having the same or greater hydroperiod as the reference
site.
1
Vegetation
Species composition and density will be identical to those of the reference stand.
1 Planting will take place during the dormant season on ten foot centers. Survival goals
will be a density equal to that of the reference site, including volunteer species.
1
Vegetation success will be monitored in the plots established.
ENHANCEMENT MITIGATION
1 Hydrology
With wetland hydrological conditions presently existing in the enhancement
portion of the mitigation site, no modifications will be necessary to enhance wetland
1 hydroperiod.
Vegetation
1
Vegetation will be enhanced by selective logging of loblolly pine in the mitigation
site once the pine has reached a marketable pulpwood age (approximately 1999 -2003).
1 Remaining pine and hardwood trees should be of similar composition and density as
the reference site. This procedure will also allow for greater survivability and basal area
of the mitigation area relative to clear-cutting and seedling planting. Vegetation success
10 will then be monitored for three years using the permanent plots referred to in the

29
I
hydrology section.
TIME OF CONSTRUCTION/PLANTING
Berm construction should begin in mid to late summer of 1996, depending upon
I
weather conditions. Completion is expected by early fall. Restoration mitigation
plantings should occur in mid to late winter of 1996/1997. Removal of pines in the
I enhancement area will occur when the trees have reached an age of 20-25 years or
have attained pulpwood/chipsaw size.
I MONITORING/CONTINGENCY PLAN
A five year monitoring program will be established to determine the success of
both the restoration and enhancement mitigation. Biannual reports will be submitted for
I
the first two years and annually thereafter. If the project is deemed successful after five
years, monitoring will be terminated. If deemed partially successful based on hydrologic
I or vegetative data, a contingency plan will be enacted. The hydrologic contingency plan
may require additional alterations for hydrology enhancement. The vegetation
11
contingency plan will call for the use of the reference site to develop a list of additional
species which may be added.
Hydrology will be monitored by measuring static water tables (one reading/day)
for analysis using corresponding rainfall data as a basis for determining normalcy. Data
will be recorded using ground water wells located adjacent to the permanent plots in
both the mitigation and reference wetlands.
b Vegetation will be monitored by establishing both absolute and relative densities

30
of overstory and sapling species. Monitoring will be conducted in the permanent plots
I established in both the reference and mitigation sites.
SUMMARY
I
Hestron Corporation has proposed this mitigation plan to compensate for
unavoidable impacts to 26.9 acres of mineral soil flats wetlands in Carteret County
I North Carolina. The impacts are necessary for the expansion of Cypress Bay
Shopping Center. Wetland impacts have been minimized site planning. Approximately
4.3 acres of wetlands have been preserved on-site. Further minimization has been
0 accomplished by using highly degraded wetlands as an impact site. The impact site
has been ditched, lacks diversified vegetation stratum, and has been highly impacted by
encroaching urban landscape. The mitigation site is located approximately 9 miles
I
northeast of the impact site on a similar topographic position with a soil type commonly
found on mineral soil flats in Carteret County. Both restoration mitigation (1:1 mitigation
I ratio) and enhancement (2:1 mitigation ratio) will be used. The final mitigation site will
consist of 23.6 acres of restored wetlands and 6.6 acres of enhanced wetlands. Both

the restored and enhanced wetlands will be monitored for a period of five years. The
highly anthropogenic nature of the impact site and the less impacted nature of the
mitigation site insures that the overall wetland functional capacity of the Carteret County
I landscape will increase with a successful mitigation project.
I

31
LITERATURE CITED
1 Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical
Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1995. Report of the
1 Proposed Rule Amendments and Adoptions Relating to the Classification of Wetlands
and Review Procedures for 401 Water Quality Certifications for Activities which
Involve the Discharge of Fill Material into Waters and Wetlands: Volume I, Summary
and Recommendations. Environmental Management Commission. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
1
Rheinhardt, R.D., M.M. Brinson, P.M. Farley, and J.J. Russell. 1996. Development of
an initial reference data set for functional assessment of forested wetland
flats in North Carolina. In press.
Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Soil Survey of Carteret County. U.S.D.A. Soil
/ Conservation Service. Washington DC.
Wetlands Research Program. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. Washington, DC.
1
1
1
1
0

0
USDA--Natural Resources Conservation Service
P.O. Box 125
Beaufort, N.C. 28516
[phone]
December 12, 1995
Ms. Gilda Pesta
282 Hardesty Cemetery Rd.
Newport, N.C. 28570
Dear Ms. Pesta:
2 have completed a highly erodible land and wetland
determination for the farm areas delineated on the ASCS map.
Each field has a symbol on it which represents its
classification. The following symbol applies to this farm:
PC-Prior Converted wetlands-.-can be cropped and
are not affected by the wetland conservation
provisions as long as the field is not abandoned
(not cropped for 5 successive years)--a wet depression
or small portion of the entire field containing a
hydric soil will result in placing a PC on that field.
Normatl maintenance of existing open ditches and adding
additional drainage within PC-Prior Converted wetland fields
is allowable under the FSA regulations provided that no
additional wetland, FW or FWP is converted.
Enclosed is a photocopy of the map for this area and
form SCS-CPA-026.
If Y can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely, 1
Harry S. Tyson,
M District Conservationist
HT/clw
enclosure
I
0
1'?i i''i' 1995 15:47 919785 "232
b:,HEATLY WHE_TLV ?JOBL Fri=c 04

12/12/ ILS95 15: 47
U.S.D.A, --'?'
Soil Conservation Service
0
91'37285252
t. Name of USDA Agency or Person Requesting Determination
5. Farm, No. ar•.d Tract No.
SECTION I • MOSLY ERODIBLE LAND
1. Is sc;l survey now available for making ahighly erodible land determination? Yes No ?
Are there hrghfy erodible soil map units on this farm? Yes ?? I?lo v
t List highly em-dible fields that. according to ASCS records, were used to produca an agricultural commodity in any
crop year during 1981 - 1985.
). List ilighfy erodible fields that have been or will be converted for the production of agricultural commodities and,
according to ASCS records, were not used for this purpose in any crop year during 1981.1985; and were not
enrolled in a USDA set-aside or diversion Doormen
0 .
uiHEAITL'v N02L
1. Name and Address of Person
Gilda Fiesta
282 Hardesty Cemetery Rd.
Newport, N.C. 2S570
tha: Office P
SECTION It -
1. Are there hydnc soils on this farm? Yes 10 No J
'2. Wetlands W. including abandoned wetlands, or Farmed Wedands (FW) or Farmed Wetlands Pasture (FWP).
Wedands may be farmed under natural dons. Farmed Wedands and Farmed Wetlands Pasture may I),-
farmed and maintained in the same manner as they were price to Cacemoer 23, 1985, as long as they are not
abandoned.
Prior Converted Cropland (PC). Wetlands ttiet were converted prior to December 23, 1985, The use, management.
drainage, and alteration of prior converted cropland (PC) are not 3ub)ect to the wetland conservation
the area reverts to wetland as a result of abandonment, provisions uriles
s. Artificial Wetlands (AW). Artificial wetlands includes {rrigacon-induced wetlands, These wetlands are not subject
_ to the wetland conservation provisions.
S, MiNrnal Effect Wetlands (MW). These wetlands are to be farmed according ;o the minimai-etfen agreement signed
at ere time the minimal effect determination was made,
6, Mitigation Wetlands (MI W). Wetlands on which a person Is actively rnkigating a frequently cropped area or a wetland
converted between December 23. 1985 and November 29, 1990.
7. Restoration with Violation (SM-year). A restored wetland that was in violation as a result of conversion after
November 2a, 1990• or the planting efan agricultural commodity or forage crop,
r 8. Restoration without Violation (RSW). A restored wetland convened between December 23, 1983 and
November 28, 1990, on which an agricultural commodity has not beer planted.
9. Replacement Wetlands (RPM. Wetlands which are converted for purposes other than ;o increase produ0cri.
where the wetland values are being replaced at a second site.
fl. Good Faith Wetlands (GFW+year). Wetlands on which ASCS has detarrrined a violation to be In good faith and the
wetland has been restored.
10 1. Converted Wetlands (CW), Wettands converted atter December 23, 1985 and prior to November 28, 19%. In any
year that an agricultural commodity i5 planted on these Converted Wetlands, you will be ineligible for USDA benefits.
2. Convened Wetland (CW+year). Wetlands converted after November 28, 1990. You will be ineligible for USDA
program benefits until this wetland is restored.
3, C, Averted Wettand Non-Agricultural use (CWNA). Wetlands that are converted for trees, fish production, shrubs,
cranberries, vineyards or building and road construction.
10 t. Converted Wetland Technlcal Error (CWTE). Waftricis that were convened as a result c` incorrect determination
by SCS.
PACE :tom
2. Date of Request
11-30-95
3. County
CarcereL

FIELD NO,(s) TOTAL ACRES .

FIELD NO.(s) TOTAL ACRES
1 _-I I-:;,-
3, The planned alteration measures on wetlands in PAWda
with FSA. are considered maintenance and are in compliance
A. )Te planned alteration measures on wetlands In fields
installed will cause the area to become a tonverted Wetland (CW). See item 22 for information on CW+year are not considered to be maintenAnce and it
7. The wetland determination was completed In the ohlostj field and was delivers
1 8. Remarks, malledM to the Person on i 2- i 2-4 5
Determination trade for cropland fields only--Does not include worlds.
9. 1 rerrrjv that the uhnHr determination is corner and adequure jor use is de it-init+
fisihilir' R 310. Signatur
e for i%5l1A prntram heueJlrs, mid rAar wrrlond hydroloxy, hydric soils. and
hvdr„ph}•trr ve,eeration under nonrwl rircuersrahers exist an all areas outlined as
Wrrland ra,v Wr µt "*
!/sbtanoe one pmp"nm ai Itm SON Coneervadan Ss Moe avsR w0wit !eipt to race, ra!lpcbrt,
SCS-CPA-026
(June 8r,
HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND AND WETLAND
CONSERVATION DETERMINATION
of SCS District Ccnaervatlonist 11. Oat,
earl ear, Of
,ar

'?,-. •'"?:'?'•4?.?;... ,?J +y 1' 'may 1v • i3 ?. t .. ,? .•
f ..j 1 I ??:?r"?w4`r;?? ,.' '?.?,a .'..?•+ :.tip" ""? s?*'i- .r ? 4•'• ?_,
tit
WOO
10
1t{
l'
S ?• i.'4 y
t
• ?4 1

1+11 t • ',.,•' r • ; "' •.;3::? •r '??...:,.:
• ?? 'V ? : t ? ::i ,? I?1 ?• i ?I •S .'C'-.NS ,?••?0?1"K "'3•••?4.
'?..? '? .? `i'.? _' •<. yam. '?' '.:Y. ?• .? i.S, •Y.i -, ,p'7e1- *'?
tit
? :`'''.:.: • x. `dip
..;?•. • 't' '.'.: dir.. , '.;:; r„ ;,t• t1 y.{• :`?;
- • t ? t ''t r, . ' ';;?? _ ?` ? t .-- -? • ,, ice'':
Expo stkr ?"' _ c. Ste' ', ??? ?••
w..weu - - - - f .T_. ............
•4i.- a.? ?.2t;1?'1.,?.' ... _ ?.`.. ? Y'.'.. '?_ ?'?l L "t•-:.aa:. .i ,

I
1
FINAL COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN
FOR THE HESTRON SHOPPING CENTER
USACOE Action ID# 199603796
1 NCDEHNR WQC# 960894
Prepared for:
1
1
The Hestron Corporation
Hestron Plaza
Morehead City, North Carolina
Prepared by:
0
i
Land Management Group, Inc.
Wilmington North Carolina
Job # 95-073
July 1997
1
1
N
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................... 4
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................... 5
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 6
PRELIMINARY WETLAND STUDIES ..................................... 7
HESTRON SITE ................................................. 7
Description and Classification ................................. 7
r Reference Wetland ......................................... 7
Vegetation ................................................ 8
Soils ..................................................... 9
LAUREL ROAD SITE ............................................. 9
Description and Classification ................................. 9
1 Reference Wetland ........................................ 10
Soils .................................................... 10
IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................... 11
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION ....................................... 11
r
MITIGATION ........................................................ 12
HESTRON SITE MITIGATION ..................................... 12
Restoration Mitigation ....................................... 12
Hydrological restoration ................................ 13
1 Plant community restoration ............................ 13
Creation Mitigation ......................................... 13
Enhancement Mitigation ..................................... 14
Preservation Mitigation ...................................... 14
UTILIZATION OF WETLANDS IN STORM WATER DETENTION .......... 14
1 LAUREL ROAD MITIGATION ...................................... 16
Restoration Mitigation ....................................... 16
Hydrological restoration ................................ 16
Plant community restoration ............................ 16
Preservation Mitigation ...................................... 17
r
MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE .............................. 17
MONITORING PLAN .................................................. 17
HESTRON SITE MITIGATION ..................................... 17
1 Hydrological restoration ................................ 18
Plant community restoration ............................ 18
Creation Mitigation ......................................... 18

LAUREL ROAD MITIGATION ...................................... 19
Restoration Mitigation ....................................... 19
Hydrological restoration ................................ 19
Plant community restoration ............................ 19
AS-BUILT REPORT AND DRAWINGS .................................... 20
1 SUMMARY ......................................................... 20
LITERATURE CITED ................................................. 22
FIGURES, TABLES, AND APPENDCES .................................. 23
1
0
0
I
0
I
11
Y-alnd Jta??? Sweq?, Jnc-
t 2522
Vdminy&a, ?YWA %ea4na 28402
3d'. 9Yo-452-000Y
920& -T .
Y.W gr Sal
?!! ??en .iN,onuaom
Jam.
July 31, 1997

99U& Y4
.7805 *14Y/e4+,IA jkmae
Vdminy",.M M403
Mr. John Domey
N.C. Department of Environment,
Health & Nat. Resources
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Re: 7NCDEHNRR Mitigat{ora flan- ron Project
WQC# 960894
Dear John:
Per your request, I have enclosed the final mitigation plan for the Hestron shopping
center in Carteret County. I have previously forwarded a copy to Mickey Sugg of the Army Corps
of Engineers.
On behalf of Land Management Group, I would like to thank you for your assistance with
the project. If you have further questions, please advise Lary Baldwin or me.
Sincerely:
9UIM. Parley
Wetland Scientist
enclosure: Mitigation Plan
cc: Mr. Charles Hester
Mr. Blanton Hamilton
Col. Monroe McNeill
Mr. Rob Wheatly
e
^ay ?
4
1
0
I
I
I
0
0
1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Hestron Site . ................................ 24
Figure 2. Vicinity map of the Laurel Road Site .............................. 25
Figure 3. The Hestron and Bob-a-Lou Tracts ............................... 26
Figure 4. Reference wetland on the Hestron Site ............................ 27
Figure 5. N.R.C.S. soil map of the Hestron Site ............................. 28
Figure 6. The Laurel Road Site . ........................................ 29
Figure 7. Reference plot and planting mixtures for the Laurel Road Site.......... 30
Figure 8. N.R.C.S. Soils map of the Laurel Road Site . ....................... 31
Figure 9. Site plan for the proposed shopping center on the Hestron Site......... 32
Figure 10. Specifications for stormwater management plan ................... 33
Figure 11. Specifications for the stormwater management plan ................. 34
Figure 12. Stormwater management plan overview . ......................... 35
Figure 13. Topographical map of the Hestron Site ........................... 36
Figure 14. Stormwater assimilation areas . ................................ 37
Figure 15. Monitoring wells/sample plots in the Hestron Site ................... 38
Figure 16. Monitoring wells/sample plots in the Hestron Site ................... 39

5
R
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Dominant vegetation of the Hestron Site . ........................... 36
1 Table 2 . Soil characteristics measured at three points at the Hestron Site. ........ 37
Table 3. Dominant vegetation of the Laurel Road Site ......................... 38
Table 4. Soil characteristics of the Laurel Road Site . ......................... 39
Table 5. Mitigation summary of Hestron Corp. compensatory mitigation plan. ....... 40
Table 6. Increase in water yield of on-site wetlands from incorporation into stormwater
management plan . .............................................. 41

M
1

1
I

6
0 INTRODUCTION
Hestron Corporation (applicant) is proposing to construct seven buildings and
i
associated parking area to expand Cypress Bay Shopping Center. The following plan is
being processed under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Action ID # 19903796 and The
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources WQC #
1 960894. Construction has been designed to minimize wetland impacts. The vast majority
of on-site wetlands have been incorporated for use in the final storm water treatment plan.
The impacted wetlands are currently at a low functional capacity level due to isolation and
1 encroachment by an urban landscape.
This mitigation plan has been developed by Hestron Corporation to compensate for
1 the unavoidable impacts to 21.01 acres of jurisdictional wetlands from the expansion of
the shopping center. The impacted site (Hestron Site) is located near the junction of HWY
70 and 24 in Morehead City, North Carolina (Figure 1). A total of 13.73 acres (0.23 acres
U preserved, 2.41 acres restored, 1.48 acres created, and 9.61 acres enhanced) will be
mitigated on-site at a ratio of 1 acre mitigated: 1 acre impacted. The balance of fill
1
impacted wetlands will be mitigated off-site. The off-site mitigation area (Laurel Road
Site) is located adjacent to Laurel Road in Carteret County (Figure 2). Off-site mitigation
will include the restoration of 23.6 acres of agricultural fields and the preservation of 27.5
1 acres of preserved pine/hardwood wetlands. Off-site mitigation ratios will be 5:1 for
restoration and 10:1 for preservation. Total mitigation will include 64.08 acres at a ratio of
3.08:1.
1
The Hestron Site consists of two nearly adjacent tracts (Hestron Tract and Bob-A-

7
1 Lou Tract) located between U.S. 70 and N.C. 24 approximately 1500 feet west of the
intersection of said roads in Morehead City North Carolina (Figure 3). The tracts are
1
located approximately 600-1000 feet apart and are separated by Cypress Bay Shopping
Center.
The Hestron Tract consists of 62.4 acres, including 22.1 acres of wetlands. 19.01
1 acres will be disturbed for the proposed buildings and adjacent parking.
The Bob-A-Lou Tract is comprised of 10.9 acres, including 5.55 acres of
wetlands. Two of these acres will be filled in order to complete a proposed retail building
1 and associated parking. The site is adjacent to existing sewer plant and fields.
I
PRELIMINARY WETLAND STUDIES
HESTRON SITE
Description and Classification
The wetlands of the Hestron Site are currently of low value for water quality
I
purposes (John Domey, personal communication 1996) and depapaurate of vegetation.
The wetlands of the site are classified hydrogeomorphically (Brinson 1993) as mineral and
organic soil flats. These are wetlands occurring along interstream divides that receive
precipitation as their sole water source. Since flats lack a supplemental water source, it is
1 poor drainage rather that allows flats to retain their wetland status.
Reference Wetland
1
The best available wetland for use as a reference wetland is a small wetland in the
N
8
0 southwestern portion of the tract (Figure 4). This area was chosen due to its presence on
site and that it will be preserved as part of the mitigation effort. This area will serve as a
0
benchmark in monitoring hydrological success of on-site mitigation.
Wetland Functions
I The Hestron Site would normally function in both surface and subsurface water
storage, removal of elements and compounds in precipitation and dryfall, nutrient
transformation and processing, organic carbon storage, maintenance of typical vegetation
1 and habitat maintenance for vertebrate and invertebrate species (Rheinhardt et al. 1997).
Encroachment and isolation by an urban landscape, however, has reduced the sites's
functional ability. The site is partially ditched which reduces both surface and subsurface
water storage, removal of elements and compounds in precipitation and dryfall, nutrient
transformations, and organic matter storage. The lack of overstory reduces nutrient
I transformations and processes and greatly reduces habitat maintenance for vertebrates
and invertebrates. Isolation by roads as well as urban landscape also hinders the site's
P
ability to function as habitat for vertebrate and invertebrate species.
Vegetation
i/ Vegetation was sampled in three plots using methods described in the 1987 U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers delineation manual. All three test plots lacked overstory
l/
vegetation; plot 1 lacked a herbaceous layer; and Plot 3 lacked a shrub/sapling stratum.
Dominant vegetation is shown in Table 1.
IN
9
1 Soils
The soils of the Hestron Site are mapped as Leon (Aerie Haplaquods) series,
1
1 r
Murville (Typic Haplaquods) series, and Torhunta (Typic Humaquepts) series (Figure 5).
All of these soils are hydric. Soil profiles were taken at each sample plot and are shown in
Table 2.
LAUREL ROAD SITE
Description and Classification
1 The Laurel Road Site (Figure 6) is composed of approximately 51 acres
immediately south of S.R. 1163 between HWY 101 and S.R. 1300 in Carteret County,
1 North Carolina. 23.6 acres are currently in agricultural production (restoration area). The
prior conversion statement is included in Appendix A. 27.4 acres (preservation area) were
converted to loblolly pine plantation 1978.
1 Prior to agricultural and silvicultural production, the Laurel Road Site would have
1
been classified as a mineral soil flat (Brinson 1993). Occurring on the interstream divide
between the North and Newport River, the site lacks a measurable degree of slope; which
impedes drainage. The lack of drainage and the presence of a low permeable soil layer
will allow the site to attain wetland hydrological conditions. The restoration area has
1 interior ditches at approximately 200 foot intervals. The preservation area has not been
ditched except for perimeter and roadside ditches.
0

10
1 Reference Wetland
As requested by DWQ, a monitoring well will be placed on site in the preservation
0
1
area (Figure 7) for use as a reference wetland. A monitoring well will be placed in this
area to help determine hydrological success of the Laurel Road mitigation area. This area
was selected since it will be preserved and is similar to the mitigation area.
Vegetation
Vegetation samples were taken on June 7, 1997 in one plot each of the agricultural
1 and plantation areas (Table 3) . The restoration area was in Triticum aestivum production
which dominated the herb layer. The preservation area is dominated by (Pinus taeda) and
1 Liquidambar styraciflua in the overstory, P. taeda, L. styraciflua, and Acer rubrum in the
shrub layer, and Woodwardia aerolata in the herb layer. Smilax rotundifolia was the
0
dominant woody vine.
Soils
The soils of the Laurel Road site (Figure 8) are mapped as Deloss fine sandy loam
0
(Soil Conservation Service 1987), a hydric mineral soil. Soil profiles taken in the sample
plots confirm the soil as of the Deloss series (Table 4).
1 Soil samples were taken from the Laurel Road Site and have undergone standard
soil nutrient analysis. Results are shown in Appendix B. The results show that the site is
more suited for bay-pocosin type vegetation rather than hardwoods due to high pH and
1 low calcium and other nutrient levels.
N
11
1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The shopping center site plan (Figure 9) shows approximately ten acres of retail
1
space in seven buildings. Approximately eleven acres of parking is required for retail
space of this size. The remaining fill area is required for access roads, loading docks, and
other miscellaneous areas. The proposed development plan proposes a minimum amount
1 of retail space for a site of this size (Appendix C).
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
1 The applicant does not possess sufficient uplands to complete the project without
wetland impacts. The Hestron Site is in the best available location for a retail shopping
1 center in the Morehead City area. Location is by far the most important consideration in
determining the feasibility of such a shopping center. The location represents a major
retail area for the Morehead City area. If suitable uplands were available for the project,
1 the applicant would certainly not opt for expensive wetland mitigation. For these reasons,
the applicant believes that no practical alternative location is suitable for the project. Thus
the applicant has proposed to mitigate and offset unavoidable wetland losses.
1
The site plan has undergone nine different changes in order to minimize wetland
impacts. Typical shopping center development requires retail floor space to occupy
1 approximately 33% of all developed lands. Retail shopping area of the Hestron Site
occupies approximately 27% of the Hestron Site. The site plan also calls for restored,
created, enhanced, and preserved wetlands to occupy approximately 18% of the site.
1 Thus the shopping center land will have a greater wetland acreage than shopping and

12
/ parking areas. The applicant believes that wetland impacts have thus been avoided and
minimized to the greatest extent possible.
1
MITIGATION
Mitigation will occur both on-site and off-site. Early consultation with resource
/ agencies revealed the agencies' desire for on-site mitigation. The applicant has thus
utilized on-site mitigation to the greatest extent possible. The remaining mitigation will
occur at the Laurel Road Site. Total on-site mitigation will include both restoration,
1 creation, enhancement, and preservation. Off-site mitigation will include restoration and
preservation. The proposed shopping center and the Laurel Road Site are located
1
approximately nine miles apart.
HESTRON SITE MITIGATION
1 On-site mitigation will consist of restoration, creation, enhancement and
preservation (Figure 9). Deed restrictions will preclude additional wetland impacts in
perpetuity.
1
Restoration Mitigation
1 A total of 2.41 acres of wetlands will be restored on-site (Figure 9, Table 5). This
area consists of one wetland block where wetland hydrology no longer exists due to a
1
drainage ditch.
N
13
1 Hydrological restoration
Wetland hydrology will be restored through the filling of an existing drainage ditch
1
1
(Figure 10 #3) and through storm water recharge as a part of the storm water detention
plan. Details of wetland use in storm water detention are described in detail in a later
section.
Plant community restoration
Wetland vegetation will be established in the restoration area in the form of
1 overstory and emergent vegetation. Pending availability, Juncus effusus, Saururus
cemurus, and Typha latifolia will be planted throughout the restoration area. Nyssa
1 sylvatica and Acer rubrum will be planted at eight foot intervals along the perimeter of the
restoration area.
1 Creation Mitigation
Created wetlands total 1.48 acres of wetlands (Table 5). These wetlands will be
1
created through non-hydric soil excavation, hydrophytic vegetation planting, and through
storm water recharge. Approximately two or three, feet of soil will be removed (Figure 10
#5) bringing the creation area to a grade level with adjacent wetlands. Precipitation and
1 storm water recharge will create wetland hydrology in the creation area. Hydrophytic
vegetation will be planted in a manner identical to restoration area. Organic strippings
from impacted areas will be placed in the creation area to provide a suitable substrate for
1
vegetation establishment.

R
14
III Enhancement Mitigation
On-site enhanced wetlands total 9.61 acres (Table 5). These current wetlands will
t
be incorporated into the storm water retention plan. This detention plan will be described
in detail in a later section.
/ Preservation Mitigation
Preserved wetlands total 0.23 acres (Table 5). Appropriate deed restrictions will
L
ensure preservation of this wetland in perpetuity.
UTILIZATION OF WETLANDS IN STORM WATER DETENTION
The majority of on-site wetlands have been incorporated into the storm water
1
detention management plan for the shopping center (Figure 12). The existing open canal
ditch on the east end of the property will be reconstructed into a shallow 3:1 swale ditch.
1 (Figure 10 #3). Since the north end of the property is two feet lower than the south end
(Figure 13), storm water will be directed from south to north through an interconnecting
1
wetland/detention pond system. Storm water from impervious surfaces will be directed
through rip-rap into wetlands (Figure 10 #1). Water will then be passed through the
wetland system until they reach detention ponds. (Figure 10 #2). The water directed on
1 the west end of the property will pass through final treatment in a created wetland before
being transferred off-site.
The proposed water budget was determined by estimating the water input
1 provided per inch of rain. Rainfall input for each wetland was estimated using wetland

15
1 areas. Evapotranspiration was estimated as utilizing 25% of precipitation.
The stormwater input was calculated as 27,225 gallons of rainfall (3630 ft) per
1
inch of rain. The mitigation areas of the Hestron and Bob-a-Lou tracts were divided
into four areas (Figure 14). Topographic maps (Figure 13) were used to estimate the
acreage draining to each area. The increased water inputs for each area are outlined
1 1 in Table 6.
Stormwater assimilation area 1 (Figure 14) contains 0.95 acres of created
1
wetlands and -x2.15 acres of enhanced wetlands. It was estimated that approximately
9.3 acres of the Hestron Tract (46.6 acres of impervious cover) will drain into this area.
Thus the incorporation of this area into the storm water system yields a net increase of
/ 33,832 ft3 of water/inch of rain. This area will be connected to drainage area 2 to
ensure that the area will not become over saturated due to this increase.
Stormwater assimilation area 2 (Figure 14) contains -0.14 acres of enhanced
/ wetlands. It is estimated that 10% of all impervious cover of the Hestron Tract will drain
into this wetland (in addition to the runoff from drainage area 1). This will yield a net
increase of 16,916 ft3 of water/inch of rain for this area. To ensure that the wetland
vegetation is not drowned out, this area will be connected to the next wetland drainage
area.
0 Stormwater assimilation area 3 (Figure 14) contains 0.9 acres of created
wetlands. Runoff from -20% of all impervious cover will be directed into this area. In
addition, runoff from assimilation area 2 will be directed into this wetland. The directed
stormwater will cause an increased water yield of 33,832 ft3 of water to this area. Any

16
111 excess water will be directed off-site.
Stormwater from approximately 50% of the impervious cover of the Hestron Tract
/
will be diverted into Stormwater assimilation area 4 (Figure 14). This area consists of
2.4 acres of enhanced wetlands and 4.5 acres of restored wetlands. The diversion of
stormwater will increase the water yield of these wetlands by 84,579 ft3. Excess water
1 will be directed from the wetland to the off-site drainage system.
The Bob-a-Lou tract will contain 5.35 of impervious cover in the current site plan.
The diversion of stormwater from this area will increase the water yield of the 3.5 acres
1
of wetlands by 32,126 ft3.
1 LAUREL ROAD MITIGATION
Off-site mitigation at the Laurel Road Site will total 51.1 acres (Figure 5). The
agricultural fields will be restored to wetland status with the remaining wetlands being
1 preserved in perpetuity.
1 Restoration Mitigation
Hydrological restoration
Wetland hydrology will be restored by filling all agricultural drainage ditches (Figure
1 15). The filling will remove all on-site drainage. The removal of all drainage will restore
wetland hydrology to all areas of the Laurel Road Site.
1

17
0 Plant community restoration
Plant community restoration will concentrate on the re-establishment of canopy
species. An equal number (pending availability) of local Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Quercus
0 bicolor, Quercus michauxii, Quercus phellos, and Liriodenderon tulipifera seedlings will be
planted systematically at a ratio of 600 trees/acre. Planting distribution is shown in Figure
1 n 7. Volunteer Acer rubrum, Liquidambar styraciflua, and Pinus taeda are also anticipated
by local surrounding seed sources.
III Preservation Mitigation
The preservation area consists of 27.5 acres. This area (along with the restoration
0
area) will either be dedicated to an acceptable conservatory or perpetual trust.
MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
The implementation of the mitigation plan will occur in two phases. Weather
permitting, the grading and ditch filling will be completed prior to December 1997.
D
Vegetation planting will occur prior to February 27, 1998.
MONITORING PLAN
HESTRON SITE MITIGATION
Both hydrology and vegetation will be monitored in both the restoration and creation
areas. Hydrology will be monitored in the enhancement areas. Hydrology will also be
P monitored in the preservation area for use as a reference wetland.

18
/ Restoration Mitigation
Hydrological restoration
A Remote Data Systems WL-40 groundwater monitoring well (WL-40) will be
1
installed established as shown in Figure 16. Data will be collected from the well on a daily
basis to monitor the success of hydrological restoration. The goal of hydrological
1 restoration will be the establishment of a groundwater table at or above 12" from the soil
surface for 12.5% of the growing season during periods of reasonably normal
precipitation. The success criteria will be the establishment of groundwater table at or
1 above 12" from the soil surface for either 5% of the growing season or the establishment
of a hydroperiod at least as great as that of the reference site. Groundwater tables will be
monitored for five years unless the project is determined as successful prior to that time.
1
Plant community restoration
1 A 50'x50' sample plot will be established adjacent to the well (Figure 16) to
1
1
determine the success of plant community restoration. Vegetation will be monitored
annually for five years. Success criteria will be the 70% survival of all planted vegetation,
including acceptable volunteer species, at the end of monitoring period. Any pine species
will not be considered acceptable.
Creation Mitigation
A WL-40 and 50'x 50' sample plot will be established as shown in Figure 16.
0 Hydrology and vegetation monitoring and success criteria will be identical to those criteria

19
1 of the restoration mitigation.
1
LAUREL ROAD MITIGATION
Restoration Mitigation
Hydrological restoration
1 Six WL-40s will be installed as shown in Figure 17. Data will be collected from
these wells on a daily basis. As with on-site restoration, the goal of hydrological
restoration is the establishment of a ground water table at or above 12" from the soil
1 surface for 12.5% of the growing season during normal periods of precipitation.
Hydrological success criteria is the establishment of a groundwater table at or above 12"
from the soil surface for either 5% of the growing season or the establishment of a
1
hydroperiod at least as great as that of the reference wetland. Groundwater levels will be
monitored for five years beginning January 1, 1998. If the project is determined to be
1 successful prior to that time, monitoring will be terminated.
Plant community restoration
1
Six 50'x50' sample plots will be established adjacent to the WL-40s (Figure 17).
Vegetation will be monitored annually for five years. Success criteria will be either of 70%
1 survival of planted species by the end of the monitoring period or the survival of 320 trees
per acre at the end of the monitoring period, including acceptable volunteer species.
Pinus taeda and Liquidambar styraciflua seedlings which exceed 10% of the total trees
1 present will not county towards survival goals.

20
I
AS-BUILT REPORT AND DRAWINGS
As-built drawings, photographs, plans, and specifications will be provided to the
1
appropriate regulatory agencies within 90 days after the mitigation project is completed.
Annual monitoring reports, including photographs and potential problem area
summaries, will be submitted in January (beginning in January 1999) for the duration of
the monitoring period.
1
SUMMARY
Hestron Corporation is proposing to develop the Hestron Site in Carteret County,
1 North Carolina in order to expand the present Cypress Bay Shopping Center. The
applicant has avoided and minimized wetland impacts to the maximum extent possible.
However, the project will require the filling of 21.01 acres of wetlands. The applicant is
0 proposing both on-site and off-site mitigation to offset the unavoidable wetland losses.
The applicant has further minimized wetland impacts by incorporating on-site wetlands into
a storm water management program. All but one on-site mitigation areas have been
1
included in the storm water management program. The off-site mitigation area at the
Laurel Road Site, located approximately nine miles northeast of the Hestron Site,
0 occupies a similar topographic position with a soil type commonly found on mineral soil
1
flats. Mitigation ratios exceed overall ratios required by both the Corps of Engineers (1:1;
MOA between Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Army) and the NC
Division of Water Quality (1:1 restoration, 1:5:1 Creation, 2:1 enhancement, and 5:1

21
0 preservation; N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 1995).
Success criteria and goals have been clearly defined and both mitigation areas will be
monitored for a period of five years or until success criteria have been met. When
1
compared with the current highly anthropogenic nature of the Hestron Site, the proposed
on-site and off-site mitigation will insure that the overall wetland functional capacity of the
0 Carteret County landscape will increase with a successful mitigation project.
1
1
h
1
I
P
22
LITERATURE CITED
Brinson, M. M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical
Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Domey, John. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality. On-site personal communication. December 18,
1996.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army. Memorandum of
agreement between the environmental protection agency and the department of the
army concerning the determination of mitigation under the clean water act section
404(b)(1) guidelines.
Farley, P.M. 1996. The Effects of Silvicultural Practices and Stand Development on
Surface Water Storage in Forested Wetland Flats. Masters Thesis. East Carolina
University. Greenville, NC.
Fetter, C.W. 1988. Applied Hydrology, Second Edition. MacMillan Publishing Company.
New York.
McCarthy, E.J., and R.W. Skaggs. 1992. Simulation and evaluation of water
management systems for a pine plantation watershed. Southern Journal of Applied
Forestry 16:48-56.
Rheinhardt, R.D., M.M. Brinson, and P.M. Farley. 1997. Applying wetland reference
data to functional assessment and restoration. Wetlands 17: 195-215.
Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Soil Survey of Carteret County. U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service. Washington DC.
State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 1997.
Report of Proceedings for the Proposed Rule Amendments and Adoptions Relating to
the Classification of Wetlands and Review Procedures for 401 Water Quality
Certifications for Activities Which Involve the Discharge of Fill Material Into Waters And
Wetlands: Volume I Summary and Recommendations. The Environmental
Management Commission. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Wetlands Research Program. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. Washington, DC.
I
25
1
1

1
I
1
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
July 1997
North R
0 1000 2000 4000
SCALE 1" = 2000'
Hestron Corp.
Carteret County, NC

Figure 2. Vicinity/topo map
of the Laurel Road Site.
4
24
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
July, 1997
Hestron Corp.
Carteret County, NC

r
r r
/r 4 $t Masks;, (%J> ??it` ,zs
C r
.'Trade ---
y ;??-_._ '?' ?? Park ! 1 •, Ttt7
/J V' -' ?• ?y ? ' `?'v.-•tir'?1- `. ? ? ?.-sue
?j
0 1000 2000 4000
SCALE 1" = 2000'
Figure 1. Vicinity/topo map
of the Hestron Site.

r

i
I
1
E

m ?
z ?
m
i
f
a
m
A
a
O
0
2
O
f
5
2
a
F
0
m
x
z
s
o'
z
°w
0
D
a
T
H
A
a
a
in
m
In
W
(D
CD
(P
e-t•
O
3
Q,
O
cr
III
I
O
n
1••f-
dl
15 .
m -4
11 A
4 0 m
r
D >
? m c
N a a
s 70 =
A O n
m c a
? Z d
n
3 r' 9
m m M
m C -
A D i
n i
n Z ?
9 m!
r 1
1
o'
t 1
? I
w
)
r!
?r
;t
M
D
0
d
71
8
n
7
•
n
i
7
)
C
i 7
1
1 ?
1
n 1
• 1
v
in
M
D
ti
m
a
t
D
C
a
7
n
2
V
t(`
I 7
7 7
)
C ?
n
i
o '
D
a
111
4 ? 1{ ,
?N
1 m
> a
O C
D ?
? n
9 7
m ?
7A0 C
1 0 C
I O
u <
a 1
1 „ 1
• Y 1
1
G
0
_ ?7 T1
n m
6
N ti C
..t SL •2
?l y
0
f"h
.I f.?r?111111^. I, y.
=2?rzlil??s?ii1 rsi??

ti
no- -4
tl I.
ILL: . ` "' • ,•r. 'v •-`
O ?•• I. '.'?•: ••111.+1. 11f1''1? 9 _
?••_•-. '.11'{11'1 I/1 '. +Gx,
,1? ''If if JillI t.rt .f
1 1 • w
1 . ?
?.•?? _• fl Iff 1.11 I
•?. ••• 11 11111' ' ! -dZ
Ij IL
1 x
BJ x is QJ -
J/ X a
C n lQ :? vXX. ?>i
4
D s7 r??0 O
T ` 8
30
to
sh fy
:.
O
olopin9 Cent,
i
I
C-D
f"h
1 1 1{ I I
t?lfill,
{11 ti
I
1111 t i'{l .?}• . r ? .
{I. ,,t .1{11'1{G- ? ) .
? I?IJ. ? I f I t I 1 . ? •,-. •O. .
7 a ? /{f{1 1 ???
• co
?I t l l I .•? :.. -?
n '.II 1 .I if u .
I' I
n !f 1,111111
.Q
vJ
Z
S
a?
•C
0

//?/? N
cn
Q
0
r
M o
o
11
O
O
0
O
N
1
1
1
1
1
1

I
1

?Q
CD
CDyl
CD
CD
CL
O
3
CD
CD
H
O
N
? T
n m
c 6•
h? C
CD CD
?+t t
CD L ti
Q
n

?
'1;1111 1
Tf'??? Z„\
11L+/ 11111 ? I•
d <L= I
'
11
I

:.
11 ,
l 111 11
!?) ,

R ID

Gt
z rn
a N
-9 > r. A C! •

+ 7i

}
Y x m to
o
+-
f ?
A ?
'+ ;
Y 4
r
Y m
O o
? r
2
? y
m

? in i m
O O p
3 y
Y O
p b
A >
w

r ?

2 N
Y
m

C ?

7

p

G

D

f

?
O
1

? >
O

1'I

Z z

O

r N

ti
O 4

O
• Y

A
m m

'O
9 W

I^
= :;

n
a a

A W ?

N N
y •H ?

2
O
w
= a
1>7 z
O y
C ,n
O c
-4
2 r 2 O m x

to m
l'1

O fn
m
-4 -4
=

z
N x
O

> I-
^

Z c
T

zo
fp ., o s
0 <

'+ • W.

o
C1
V .
O p
z a

2
J. •_
a
b
v
a
"a
z Z
C01 ; 3

D y
z
..1 p
t?7

9
i

°
7

a°o

" O
9

v_

a

7s
z

°

? =

>
a
Q
v
•
?
n `
o
; ?
c
? n
i
n
D
v ?
a
'' ?
> i
n n
m ?
n >
^
M T
?
O u u G)
111
•}•1 D
z n 311.
a O
m m e

3
m >
.+
w
t? ? ? jr ?? !•: •' :7 •'. ? ?:• jam'..
? 1 11 l I I' I I 1'. K
?? 7.•..•''i1 I'Iil+l 1 w
/-..ply _ 1 III I, .`>sw•Ir
77 ??l(1+1! Z
- 1111 ?% s
:?; ' 1! w1t x/11 4 + ?
arkpRg 5 ? .. ,
.a 1..?`
8
(FXisli,?9
4N, 0
ShOppig9 CQ?ie 0
I I I 1 1
111111111'' ar
1t11 111jt 111
11\ 1111111,11 ? 7 .'..
I,, ,It? 111111 •- ?-`:1?. .?
..;?, t• 'AI;?;+
r; •y 1 ?
I'
' \• 1,11 .111 11
b 1,11,111
r?f 3 t•
111
II.1

C
T02
S2
0
0
N
co
O
D
r
M o
.A
O
Q
OD
O
O
N
4
28

0 1000 2000 4000
SCALE 1" = 2000'
Figure 5. N.R.C.S. soil map of LAND MANAGEMENT
the Hestron Site. GROUP, INC
Hestron Corp.
Carteret County, NC
March 10, 1997
0
p
1
1 r
r
r
I
1
1

SO ttwv Nc?R 1153 La+u? ecw••
poi

r it
Preservation Area
29
t
Restoration Area
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
March 10, 1997
300 600 1200
SCALE 1" = 600'
Hestron Corp.
Carteret County, NC
Figure 6. The
Laurel Road Site.

I
30
1
1
1
0
I
I
1
X well locat
--- Filled
1
Mixture 1 = F. pennsylvatica, Q. michauxii, Q. bicolor
Mixture 2 = Q. phellos, L. tulipifera, Q. michauxii.
Figure 7. Reference well
location and planting
mixture at the Laurel
Road Site.
1
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
July, 1997
1200
SCALE 1 = 600'
Hestron Corp.
Carteret County, NC

0
a
0
1
L
1
I
1
1
1
N
31
T in

..qDE

Tt*
?
f: --sue"

k4. L"
?
e

0 1000 2000 4000
SCALE 1" = 2000'

Figure 8. N.R.C.S. soils map LAND MANAGEMENT Hestron Corp.
of the Laurel Road Site. GROUP, INC Carteret County, NC
July, 1997
N
11
1
0
I
I
I
1
1

14
(D
n to
O cD (D
CD ?

.(n . (D
O
? Q
CD 00
°3

S1 (Q
0Q
CL ti O

O {
(DD
OQ
D ca

Q C
0 G
<
?+ (D
?
O
J31
(D (DD
t7
-+
0-

3

M E

m C m ? + m A ,°• °s ?
z c o ? a m z
i z p ?? z m -mi ro d
r
f y
rt 9
" 3
> ?
_' m
O

- o
e s

z D
?_ y
A
J. m z ?' O on
Imo 7 t^ O
?o 7ro 3 ? D
P s
A m
+
? D
2 s
m ? s z o g s

S
O
m

C?
p q

O
o
A
m N
a W
m
p
O m
M m 2
P 7 O A i,l m A Z M
Y
n
.. 2
O m
P !
y ?
7 ?'
p _
b <
fA m

Z
o
°z
cDi Z
v
v O
p 2 r z o m = ? O

m
F
3 T
,mil
=
N

A .
.
n C
P
M f
'1
z 2 C A i ?'• -1
T c z ;

z y S P b o r

ZO
?• r
=
m
z
9 p
i O b _
T

O P
s m
T z
O s
p
V ?' ? m 7 Ilf

y

a 3 m )P
v
`
m m O1 { i
21 O
m

m s -±
'?
m O
T w
a
Y M
3
m
n
w
?* -n
n m
es
fn' C
L fo
?! y
0

!_ r .C

0
f
,yam J:
ch
O,.
,.d
lit.
I: 102; _ . , _ f ,r;,
lit: . f ' % ••%" ?? ? t '??~
..rt,Ir
z
2
N

f 0 :s`

s•F
a
1-1:x s/0
10 ?A
S'
p/J?
ce'e?)
tilt''1'1??
1, III{F ,Ir, . ?
1
I I 1 I''
? a
? ? ,,/III
yY rM
Y r f i i
R
7C'
o?
.Cl:
.Clj
2
S
O
s
0
z
N
ri) 10
D O
r
M o
O
0
00 u
a
O
N
0
/
/
1
1
#1 SPECIFICATIONS SHEET FOR ON-SITE WETLANDS MITIGATION 33
WITHIN THE HESTRON TRACTS
Morehead City West Area - Carteret County - North CaroNna
Swooned Inlad iA fih curb & Gvvor Vft cancrete
?r P1ft: Pips a 25 in?ra tee a Grade R*4up To Plrererd MpAnp To hx4nes To Apow Perri g Lot
\ Muging Of f0 InOfts0do Flow to vvo ands \ SlornaMater Flow To WkQuas
Flow Diec6on To Near Wadonds Arm
x 14 Enhanced 404 Wetl.nd$ Area i

92 SPECFICATIONS SHEET FOR ON-8ITE WETLANDS 11 rWATION
WITHIN THE HESTRON TRACTS
Morehead City West Area - Carteret County - North Carolina
Inbi Flow Pipe
Stoffma r Detention Pond J
Rem"M Pre 6 Past Ulettand Treated Stomw W
1
1
93 SPECIFICATIONS SHEET FOR ON-SITE WETLANDS MITIGATION
WITHIN THE HESTRON TRACTS
Morehead City West Area - Carteret County - North Carolina

1

N
--- - ---
Rid v Open ca"of Oikh To
A Shapow 3:1 Swe9 Oitfi
Figure 10. Specifications
for stormwater management
plan.
------- ----------------.?.
\ CordrAed wlsler Lwel ouNet Row Pipe
i
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
July, 1997
Hestron Corp.
Carteret County, NC

/
1
1
1
1
1
1

LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
July, 1997
34
Hestron Corp.
Carteret County, NC
#4 SPECIFICATIONS SHEET FOR ON-SITE WETLANDS MITIGATION
WITHIN THE HESTRON TRACTS
Morehead City West Area - Carteret County - North Carolina
Existing Surface Existing Wetlands Existing Surface
i
2-3 it ,
- i * 2 3 ft Excavate
Excavate -*-----? ---- `? .`? ` ? ----
--------
Wetland Creation Through Excavation Of Upland Area and Establishment
Of Kyddc Vegetation (Red Maple, Biackgum, Cat Tail, Juncus Grass)
#5 SPECIFICATIONS SHEET FOR ON-SITE WETLANDS MITIGATION
WITHIN THE HESTRON TRACTS
Morehead City West Area - Carteret County - North Carolina
Curbed Bander
Concrete Apron For Flow To Wetlands
? ? .? .`' ', ?:?{fnipeaviousSurfsoea
Wetland Area
Figure 11. Specifications
for stormwater management
plan.

I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
to
CO)
-er14
w
E
d
r
as
3
E
0
r
N
i
O
w
N
O
Q
O
a
L y
v ?
4 ?
S =
U cu
R 'a
vai _
d
3
0
0
3
0
d
cis
3
as
a?
a?
d
N
i
Q
d
N
O
Q
U
Z
Q.
L
U=
C O
O ()
N d
L
2 ?
U
1r-
Z
W
20
tLU Z
V ?
a ?w
r
ap
G? w
?C)
Z
a
r
c
m
E
m
r co
?N =
r Rf
C ._ E
00,
N
N cc
E
CD-6 o
u. 3 0'
0
O
co
0
0
v
n
0
o W
? J
Q
U
C)
0
N
/
c?
M
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
:j I
\ It
'6,/dob4
d a
_ ? Q
1 ?
' z
- IV
? r
i r
;r? -'t r ,': C% t?>,?fi,',^? i III?_
Sti .! ( ?„ . , a I
p• / ?' l ? ttt
5 \`? i ?L t ? Ilr
1 ? i ,.c ?tJ
i 1
s
o
r~ ? 1? r I t ? r L
z
c
m
E
d
L
d
cc
3
E
L
O
w
N
N
Z
c
O
Q.
a
o ?
P
W ?
9 ?
o ?
a+
m 3
O
J
fill W
LL LL C
K W ?
p h V
z a,
4 d y'
-.1 c
W I" O
3 Q L
? to
o ? 3
G m
V ?
V O ?
z d
a Q iT
t-
c
0 z N
a y
Q ? L
CL
vt N
! O
f
a
3 .?
0
0
CC)
O
0
O
O w
N J
Q
C) U
C)
N

P
36
Table 1. Dominant vegetation of the Hestron Site. Dominance was determined using
methods from 1987 Corps Delineation Manual (1987).
Vegetation Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 3
Stratum
Oversto N/A N/A N/A
Shrub/sapling flex glabra Ilex glabra N/A
Ilex coreacea flex coreacea
L ones lucida Rhus co allina
Herbaceous N/A Osmunda Lyonea lucida
cinamonea Pteridium
Smilax laurifolia aquilinum
Ilex coreacea
Woody vines Smilax laurifolia Smilax rotundifolia N/A
Smilax rotundifolia

37
/ Table 2 . Soil characteristics measured at three points at the Hestron Site.
(a)
1
1
De .th inches Horizon Color Texture
0-22 01 Black Sa ric muck
22-36 Bh ve dark gray-brown Loam sand
36-45 C1 ve dark gray-brown Loam sand
KemarKS: murvnieiramuco 5enes.
(b)
1
1
1
1
1
1
Depth inches Horizon Color Texture
0-26 O Black Sa ric muck
26-30 E dark gray Sand/loam sand
IL_30-45 B very dark gray brown Loam sand
KemarKS: murvmeivamuco series. Locatea in depression.

Depth inches Horizon Color Texture
0-3 01 Black Sa ric muck
3-10 A Loamy sand/ 10%
organic matter
10-25 E light gray Sand
24 -45 Bhir S odic horizon
KemarKS: Leon senes.

P
38
Table 3. Dominant vegetation of the Laurel Road Site. Dominance determined using
methods from 1987 Corps Delineation Manual (1987).
1
Vegetation Stratum Restoration Area Preservation Area
Overstory N/A Pinus taeda.
Li mbar styraciflua
Shrub/sapling N/A Pinus taeda
Liquidambar styraciflua
Acer rubrum
Herbaceous Triticum aestivum Woodwardia aerolata
Wood vines N/A Smilax rotunifolia

39
III Table 4 . Soil characteristics of the Laurel Road Site.
(a) Restoration Area
0
1
0
C
1
1
1
0
Depth inches Horizon Color Texture
0-17 A Very dark gray Sand loam
17-30 Bt 1 Dark gray Sand clay loam
3045 Btg2 Dark gray Sandy clay loam
/Clay loam
Kemancs: ueioss 5enes. Located in cultivated field.
(b) Preservation Area
Depth inches Horizon Color Texture
0-13 A Very dark gray brown Sand loam
13-20 Bt g1 Gray Sand clay loam
20-45 Btg2 Light gray Clay loam/Sandy
clay loam
Kemancs: ueioss 5enes.

40
Table 5. Mitigation summary of Hestron Corp. compensatory mitigation plan.
Location Mitigation Type Ratio Area (acres)
Hestron Site Restoration 1:1 2.41
Hestron Site Creation 1:1 1.48
Hestron Site Enhancement 1:1 9.61
Hestron Site Preservation 1:1 0.23
Laurel Road Site Restoration 5:1 23.6
Laurel Road Site Preservation 10:1 27.5
TOTAL 3.08:1 64.83
41
Table 6. Increase in water yield of on-site wetlands from incorporation into stormwater
management plan.
0

I
P
Assimilation Area Area (acres) Water (ft3)
1 creation 3449
--------------
enhanced
7805
runoff 33832
evapotranspiration 2813
2 enhancement 508
runoff 16916
evapotranspiration 127
3 creation 3267
runoff 33832
----------- ---
evapotranspiration
817
4 enhancement 8712
restoration 16335
runoff 84579
evapotranspiration 6262
Bob-a-Lou enhancement 12705
runoff 19421
evapotranspiration 3176
IN
42
APPENDIX A. PRIOR CONVERSION STATEMENTS FOR THE LAUREL ROAD
RESTORATION AREA
0
D
0
1
0
0

r,
ecember 12,
1995
s. Gilda Pesta
82 Hardesty Cemetery Rd.
ewport, N.C. 28570
ar Ms. Pesta:
43
"I. have completed a highly erodible land and wetland
?determiration for the farm areas delineated on the ASCS map.
:Each field has a symbol on it which represents its
~classification. The following symbol applies to this farm:
PC-Prior Converted Wetlands--can be cropped and
are not affected by the wetland conservation
} provisions as long as the field is not abandoned
(not cropped for 5 successive years)--a wet depression
or small portion of the entire field containing a
hydric soil will result in placing a PC on that field.
Normal maintenance of existing open ditches and adding
additional drainage within Pc-Prior Converted wetland fields
is allowable under the FSA regulations provided that no
additional wetland, FW or FWP is converted.
area and
can a of further assistance, please contact me.
i,.,Enclosed is a photocopy of the map for this
:form sCS-CPA-o26.
,1
'If Y b
Sincerely,
-Harry S. Tyson,
District Conservationist
/clw
,enclosure
15:47 9197?8?382
417 4t ? • fry -? ..
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation service
P.O. Box 125
Beaufort, N.C. 28515
[phone] -
WHEATLY WHEA U i U7EL
P 443E vas
z Fv

Ai

44
.D.A. SCS-CPA-028
i Grorservattar
Servic
' 1. Narnt) and A=,jss w ?arson 2- Data of Fw-t ezt
.
e WWW
,411
C;lda Pesta
282 Hardesty Cemetery Rd.
HIGHLY EA001SLE LAND AND WETLAND Nevpc. t , N. C. 2S57C s• county
CONSERVATION DETERMINATION
C a r t e r e t
;Verne of USCA Agency cr Person Requesting Determination. ' S. Farr. No. and Tract No.
q• GR^
i
SECT*N I • MOHLY ERODIBLE LAND
Fltct.0 NO,($l TOTAL ACRES .
'IS 3ctt survey ^cW available for magi a highly ered'+.ble land deteririnaticn? Yes •, No Q :
- :
Are !hers h rd erodible soil map units on this fain? Yes Q lo"X
List nighty a;.ditto Nabs lhaL aceardlttg to ASCS records. were used :o producs an arricuhurl camrrcdity in any
crop yoar dunng t981.19t7s.
List highly er•_dible fields that have been or wig be corwerted for the production of agricultural commodities and
,
acz=ding !o ASCS retards, were not used for this purpose in any crop year during 1981-1985; and were not
snrollad to a USDA set-aside ce diversion prWam
T1is Htorly 5•odibla Land determination was c
Ctf
m
l
d i
h
cr,
o
we
n t
ice
o
a:
, F"e;d Q
sECT*N It - WETLANO

t
. Are there hydnc soils on this farm? Yes No FleLD NO.(sl TOTAL ACRES

Wetlands (W), including abandoned wedands. or Farmed Wetlands (FW) or Farmed Wedan;a Pasture {FWP).
Weeards maybe famrnsd under natural exx5tions. Farned Wetlands arxf Farmed Wetlands Pasture may tr-
f2rnned anc maintained in the sans manner as r,ey wero pricy to Cacernoer 23, 1985, as !ong as they are not
abandoned.
Pner Converted Co
land (PC)
t
W
,
*
p
.
ar
et
s
W were =nvertad prior to Cacsmber 23, 1985. The use, manigernert
,
drainage, and iteration of pr'or converted croptand (PC) are not sut•,)ect to the wetland extsarvation pmviaicns unless
tl`e area reverts to wetland as a result of abandonment.
11--i
J . Artihciat Wetlands (AW)
Artifi
i
l
d
.
a
c
we
ands krJudes i,-rigaran-ir>dreed wetlands. These wetlands are rot subject
to the wetland .=.,nservation provisions.
J +Airrmal Etfoct Wetlands W". Thar w-ardanda are to be famed actoraing :o the mir:ima(-eft_: agreement signed
at ma time the rniniMW-effect d4termin4tfon was maoa.
L Lxtigattor
Wetlands (MIW
t
W
.
).
at
ands on which a person is acdvely mttlga:!-g a frequently Creppod area or a wetland
converted between Cecsrnber 23.1985 and Navencsr 28, 1990. i
. Rastortion wim Violation (AM-year). A restored wadan4 that was In violation as a reswY cif .orrvarsicn after
November 28.1990. or the planting d an ag iarltural commodity or forge c.co.
8. Restcrahon without Viol
ti
RSW
a
on (
). A tenoned wetland converted between (r-acamoer 23. 1985 and
,November 28. 19SC. on which an tttgnattlural t7omnmdLy has -v beer. planted.
9. Replacement Wetlands (RPM. Wetlandc which are convened for purposes o. erthan :o Increase production
.
wnerre the wetland values are being reoiaced of a second $49.
0, Good Faith Wattands (GFW+year). WeCar is an which ASCS has deter Tined a violation to be In good faun and the
wadard has oaen restored.
1. Converted Wetlands
C
d
W
r
(
e
M.
anda conve
ted after Cvosmber 23, 1985 and pncr tc November 28. 1990• In any
year that an agriculcxal commodtty Is planted an these Converted Wadands. you will be (nefigrde fcr USDA beneft
2. Corweoed Wetland (CW+year). Wetlands converted after November 28, 1990. You will be ineligible for USDA
program benetfts until this wetland is reasoned.
3. Converted Welland Non-Agr9t:Jhural use (CWNA). Wedands that are converted tar trees, fish production. shrubs
,
cranberries, vineyards or building and road conswicson.
t• Converted Wetland Technical Error (ONTE). Wetlands that were convened as a result ci Incorrect determination
try SCS.
3_ Th. wr.,w A .. --- -- _ t
wrth FSA.
are considered rnaintarance and are in comoance
. rre Wdrwwa anemom measures On we0ardr in AeL.!$ are not considered to be maintenance and V
Installed -11 cause rw area to becorm a Corww-*d wst(and (C%M. See item 22 fur information on Cw-year.
1. The wetland datermnation was completed in the
OtACarl Reid ("I and was delivered""I matled-l to ttrs person on 12 1 ? v 5
it RemarKs
Determination glade for cropland fields only--Does not include woods.
! rrrrt%v rh,rr rhr yM.y drrerarinadort it ra?rm and afi¢Lart jbr er< is 2cror.+inin; 30. Signawre of SCS District Coruervatlorust 11. Dew
elitihilirv1sw 4rSOA proxiem hynrflrt. andThar wrjandhy?rology. by fric tails. and p rnr vegmdaxlewder eorwwl ar, rt rzW on all.real outlined at
M1rJI1E?1 IetO pr?lyrr?+ a/ tr11 Sa?lf COrlearYedO11 9+rNW AVI*VW* WV)C" 1
n1Qar'! fo fade. 1!l(Q;VDr>, Mfr ? a,,

?y
r
44
• ?,.r? I.{ ?ar _ .,?; i,?,?., ? • •.: Vi'a'.
*.A 40
?;'+'?v • ?. _?•• ce' m? :i.• ..`, ? .. ?:- ,(?', ?Y : •?' y! _ '.? '" ? ?'?,1• ,1 ,?}L'` {
? •?' V1 ..? _.n? r_, .. ?` jG ,tea •1•?•'? Y1 ?_? ??%'X. ???,•• 1, •. ?1
w : i aT ?1 ?. Ty I•.•••? .1 ^?TnLr•'?si '•? ;\'• 1
j' ,? '•?••••••:?• ' {?*'?,??'• 1 ::.Z.. r .• '1. .?(•Y.t :l ?Vb?r? ?, ss •, C?_r. W.?r 1 • TJ
'?_'.'w.?• .. -L ..' "? ?:f,,,.t_??.._js •t;, `.. ;':?!...'?,'.Y:r• `11?Cr'. ..i,.x:::ttg;
$t•.?Y ,, LI '•'•..r ?, '.?w.?t.« 1 t 1 ?i ??'.,??• •+ ,?'? .,%!! ti's->?.,? ? ?T?11
5??;. t, ? 0 .-. .? .?•Y j•• •, • :l •• ! .?'. i:ti ?I "• y 1;.:'i?•.. t•.? `..f:?,(??. i .1,
10
I'V
• 1.z., :::.cr • ... . t
A T,
•A + ?',Ty47? s

7 n
h
45
?. • law .
46
APPENDIX B. SOIL ANALYSIS OF LAUREL ROAD SAMPLES
0
ti
IV
.J
!1
V'1
i
u
v
u
cL

U
Z
T
Cl)
CY)
W C'
a:
O
Q v
C a
0 N
Q N?

J c 1
N
i?
-0
J Os
O
`
'
U
-
x
J
R U-
ca
Q co
Z?
C
N
W
L
L

W Cv
J ?

a

x
w ti
m ?-
%J
z r-
LY
0
a ?
w

Or a

J

r` ?
>- a c?

? Cn
n >-
_ t UA J
>

v
LU U.
W Q
LU
i w W

m dd
to n p
CY
to
N
0
z;
G
Z
d

\ f-
a ?
rr 0
°
a
u W
x a:
Q N

X Q

? Q
w J
0

L'3
CL

xr
v w v
J :t_?
!-• rv LU
Z <
ul ?.. v a

w .j
0 = Z
d d O

d N U2
Z: V, x ti
¦• N H CT
Z £ \

J qC U. :S
ti

z
L O

CL
O
CL
w
Q
LL
O
w
a

0
.cc
?z

LU
0-
=,
¦
•
f
¦
a
m . _n M r r M
O

O •
U .
. o V e ¦ ¦ ¦ e
:7 Q

e'-
w

m ..
v o? a a- ao

: N 1? •O '•O N
o O o c- to O .- a
?ca L to
( Lt. Q
a ¦ f ¦ f ¦
U w £ r tt1 s70 Q

Cl
z $':
N
n.
tt1
a
ow=-- a . . . ¦

x.; E-
a N tV to t?. 3v
LL;` n a ¦ ¦ a ¦

S
a

y ?' :Cl WN vt sn
w

., E
a

?:. > s a
V •
C.? G O o o 0
Q E a0 0 co -t co
V a. tt? +7 K1 r. t[!

Lu •, vt
co C) (? (?
'•4 M
P
a r

F u?. >

IL
T .' ice. ' > .>

y a ern. Nt t-
o.., E r? Irl K? .T r7

O t; V-

> 7 7

CL m
o ?•: a
r'1
ti
N
N N

•
o M ?o o
V ¢. '. W.0
N
M
?t
v)

'?
k.:,
.LU M f?- '•O T-
1. t!1

L-J
"m m o. 01. O% a

M M M M rn
z-
LU cc
m
a
22 '

T N M L'1

U
m
d Z
m
m m N
W
= W m m _
¢
= a F

W
y y

n
_
y N O
-
2, C3
Q ? Q J 1
Z..
a. m-

N
W J
¢
N.. m c m

U) G•
EH J
?
J N 6
U } m m C7
5 T¦

a °
m ?
- ? J-
e
m Q
Cl)
J
t
7
E
m ..
G
?
e z. E
L m r
? E
} S
C ¢?
OW2
n¢

w. .: `w
O ': 6

O L)
U
J
U a
w
F
J
¢
y
mF E
D _j
00 o
y:.,.,E.
E
,
...
N W
?
J
C
?.
>c 2
Lu J
w

Om m
m EE
L
W
Ov y
n
w
z
Q u ti
EE
a
W
LiJ
fA
r
a
z- - cr

. E
:
c

F
a
N
E
n

Jy .,
y
c
W:.: z
c
c
I.. Z
.
W
am

w Z..c.
Y
U
m
z
O
Z
O
Q
Z
a
X
w
w
w
lA

?F r
N1
M
0

111

v ax

Q LL.

4
CL
U

z
rn
J o
w
T
-0
? D-

a
m
'
. W u
i co

O

v p

Oc
C\I
Q N "t
a
J Co m•

N
/
)
s
_

x w
U- 0
cc
V
%u
Q O
Z?
W
• vJ >
W cm
J
Q
J

!t ?
m O
z
O%
O ?-
a a
W
m
N r-
:71 ^Y
1
r
L7 0
N
C !-
W J
>a
F-1 Z
tit Q
t.J
W U.
= Q
LLi U.)
as
Q A
a
LU
M
N
N
z
J
cn

'J N N

v w v
J t0
F- LC N ?
? Q
a
w LL. v
X: Z
uJ .,d
tD O Z
Q Q O
ZLL NF-
Q N C9
N 2 )?
•• N M O`
r
?
Z H caj e
-
Q f- O U4 e?
go; Lu is I%
ti

u O

2
O
(L
w
s
LL
O
W
Q

z

LU
F

2
O ell
Z U ..
2 ..
5 o tj •
wa a
a?

Q
47
N o
_ 03 •

m J

Ln

2
= C)
n
j
is
O° u
COO m •
N
x
W O
rn

=
ow
•
y tS:,.; :m N
S E
I
C*,i'•. Ri"ter
: C w
14,

n
- LL
•
O 'o

.i',d lY,.xA. L
O o. •
,:
W.
4n, L4 t-c
7 a

to ..,, r $
U)"

? a ?
U ?..tj
C7
E M

y
Z M
a - ...: E f
? n
.: W z
?_
N ra
¢
v
.
Y "]G t
M
O n ?
a
T
¢
y d?.:
'
O : n
y
S
<
O
_ . U
5
m
a , a
iY;a w
CD E kn

:.
2cc wM N
a ?rz5r'ivt:t-

:::v?y

W

M
Z
J w ?..
'c

' m
m a U
=
m ?
ai
Em _w
:.,
f JO am O
y "Oh-
N W Ea
_y O
C

a

' ?
N Q J

Q -
W HCn
E N ?
J N ¢
r •Q t? a
tL N ? w

: w
.
yn . m •
G 'a
E
0.
Z °E
.,R

- O
N
F E
m? .o..,
rZntI.-
-OW,n
?O n
D
Q
. ¢
p U :V

CX
. W
m
om.
J a
O to t

E
W
X J
W

m +? n
Yf r ? \ n
cc a
W
a3.

c:r_?: zsa?:?:n ,
ui

U.
LL
'. a
n
W
y W
~.
W
Z . ad

O- ?pp

w

E
--? v ?.
IL (ft;

N n
-Q
~
.
.
o O

,
,
Z
E
?

J W
v? g<
t?,y
Z

1-1
i
49
APPENDIX C. MINIMIZATION STATEMENT FROM DEVELOPER

/ I
I

P R O P E R 7- / E S

• May 16, 1997
Mr. John R. Dorney
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
• Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear John:
Thank you for taking some time to meet with Larry Baldwin, Paul Farley, Col. McNeil, Fred
Morton, Linda Lewis and me in Wilmington on May 9, 1997 regarding the proposed
development of the Hestron tract in Morehead City, North Carolina. I hope you will agree that
this was a productive meeting where we reached a mutual understanding on all major issues.
•
Although I recognize that the general layout of the site plan we discussed is not the perfect plan
in your personal opinion, you understand the constraints of the market and our willingness to
compromise to reach a wetlands plan that is a win/win for both parties. Larry Baldwin and Paul
Farley of Land Management Group will be submitting a revised plan for your review within the
• next several days. This plan will reflect the changes discussed in our meeting. Specifically, we
will be creating a larger contiguous wetlands area in the southwest portion of the property, as
well as the central area adjacent to Wal-Mart's existing storm water detention pond. Our
buildings will be pushed away from Highway 24 and toward Highway 70. Providing that this
revised plan contains at least 13 acres of on-site wetlands and meets with your approval, we can
reasonably expect to have a 401 Certification within 2-4 weeks of submittal to you. I recognize
• that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must then review the plan in order to grant a 404
Certificate.
I believe that this plan represents a good compromise for both the State and the developer. As
you know, in addition to the 13 acres of on-site wetlands, we are also providing approximately
50 acres of off-site mitigation. For your information, most commercial developments cover
approximately 67% of the land in impervious area. This site is anticipated only to include
approximately 40% impervious area.
For these reasons, we feel strongly that our final site plan will be one which achieves a fair
balance between wetlands issues and market-driven commercial development.
200 Providence Road • Suite 106 • Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 • 704/333-8484 • Fax: [phone]
40 COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES
Letter to John Dorney
May 14, 1997
Page 2
Thank you again for agreeing to meet with us. I look forward to your prompt review of our final
plan. If I can answer any questions for you about this project, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
E. Blanton Hamilton, Jr.
Partner
EBH:aak
cc: Charles Hester
Col. Monroe McNeil
Rob Wheatley
Fred Morton
Larry Baldwin
Paul Farley

I
0
0
IN
nt?By: LAND MANAGEMENT;
910 452 0060;
LAND MANAGEMENT
Environmental Cor
Post Office Box
Wilmington, North Caf
PHONE No: 910-4
FAX No: 910-452
Nov-15-00 2:37PM;
r
ROUP, INC.
itants
ina 28402
%__•a_ A
Page 1
Robert L. Moul
Larry F. Baldwin
W. Stephen Morrison
G. Craig Turner
PLEAS DELIVER THE FOLLOWING DOC
?f ( 1119 T? - fls auiie -I"+
Downey Branch Office Park
3805 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
ENT(S) TO:
THIS TR NSALS FROM:
NUMBER OF PAGES 3
DATE% lll???i3e TIM
TIM
Ldr C.4wl ;Yt. i (INCLUDING THIS COVER)
OF TRANSMISSION:_. Z°"' ?M
E RECEIVED:,
r

i
F

• t1
f
Sent By: LAND MANAGEMENT; 910 452 0080; Nov-15-00 2:38PM; Page 2/3
r
r DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS F ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1 age
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA X402-1890
September 5, 200
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 199603796
Mr. Blanton Hamilton
Tribek Corporation
200 Providence, Suite 106
Charlotte, North Carolina 28207
Dear Mr. Hamilton:
This letter confirms my July 19, 2000, onsite me
of Land Management Group, regarding mitigation coml
Department of the Army permit for the expansion of Cy
Morehead City, Carteret County, North Carolina. Also,
mitigation monitoring report for the Laurel Road site.
As stated in the monitoring report, it was determil
criteria for the initial year of monitoring. The report shoe
including the reference well, exceeded the hydrology regl
12 inches of the soil surface for 5% of the growing seasol
depicted an average of 534.9 trees per acre, including the
trees per acre requirement.
Upon reviewing the report, it was noted in Table (
for well # 1 (s34e 12) was 44 days. In reading Figure 4 of
the 44 days does not imply consecutive days. In fact, the
12-inches only 10 consecutive days, August 29 to Septem
5% growing season (12 straight days) requirement. The c
within the 12-inch level during the growing season was fc
water table patterns for well #2 (s3 42c77) were very simil
shows the water table within 12-inches for only about 11
not reach 12-inches, outside the September month,- at any
season.
with your agent, Ms. Kim Williams
0 of our January 9, 1998, issued
Say Shopping Center, near
e reference the March 2, 2000,
l that the site met the wetland success
that all five monitoring wells,
ement of groundwater levels within
Additionally, the vegetative survey
flunteer species, surpassing the 320
I that the number of days > 12 inches
z well results, my interpretation of
.adings show the water table within
m 8, 1999- This does not satisfy the
ly other time the water table was
two days from October 18-20. The
- to that of well #1. The reading
insecutive days. The water table did
ther time during the entire growing
These results are of significant concern for two rea ons: 1)'The hydrology parameter was
not met for these two wells, and 2) the high recorded wateq tables occurred during simultaneous
storm events, Tropical Storm Dennis and Hurricane Floyd.( These rainfall events dropped over
20-iLiches in the area in a matter of days, Additionally, the results showed the other three wells
only meeting the hydrology parameter during this same time period. In fact, the Inngest reading
Sent By: LAND MANAGEMENT; 910 452 0060; Nov-15-00 2:38PM; Page 3/3
• f
f
I .
r
within the 12-inch level occurred for only 5 consecutive day4. This was well #4 (s342ad1) from
April 30 - May 5, 1999. As discussed in the meeting, the rel;Prt must include the Wets Table that
shows normal or average monthly rainfall for the past 30 Yeats. With this information, you can
extrapolate drought and excessive rainfall conditions occumig during the year, and aids in
interpreting normalcy for the recorded data.
t
In the vegetation sampling, it was noted that Table (2) included all volunteer species, and
did not incorporate any of the planted species. As discussed 4vith Ms. Williams, the success
criteria of 320 trees per acre are based only on the planted spgCies and the 10% &W #
(loblolly, pine) and Liqutdambar s r ciflu (sweet gum) volunteer species. My inspection
revealed no evidence of survival for the planted species. It w4s noted that the predominant tree
speciea populated within the old cropland fields is sweet gumJ. As stated in our June 10, 1999,
the failure to comply with the "prescribed success criteria for blanted vegetation may result in
the need to replant." [r
Based on the monitoring report and onsite inspections, it has been concluded that the site
does not meet the vegetation parameter, and fails to exceed th 5% requirement for wells #I and
42. Additionally, there is inconclusive evidence that the ren ring wells satisfy the hydrology
parameter. The annual monitoring report must include the follipwing: 1) As stated, provide the
Wets Table for average comparison, 2) GPS or conventional stkrvey of all well and vegetative
sampling plots, 3) note all volunteer and herbaceous species to help record the condition of the
site, and 4) readjust Table 1 to include consecutive days.
To ensure compliance of the permit, you must entirely plant the site this winter prior to
conducting any construction within the permitted area, It is ou recommendations that you
reconsider grading the cropland to eliminate drainage field cro , and/or bush hogging all
cropland areas to promote growth for the planted species. Wh i replanting the site, it is strongly
recommended that each planted species within the sampling plats be flagged for easy
identification and to differentiate planted and volunteer species.
Please be reminded that failure to meet the success trite is established in the mitigation
plan will result in the non-compliance of the issued permit.
Thank you for your immediate attention in this matter. you have any comments or
concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (910) 251-481 !j.
Sincerely,
Mickey Sugg
Regulatory Specialist
Wilmington Field Office
C-4
I2,? ?-e?s
ko? -

kkr?,lJ'Q
d ?`" ` GCS

scXXII
a 1 ov cccrt
[Fwd: Cone Mills Directions]
Subject: [Fwd: Cone Mills Directions]
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 13:23:48 -0400
From: Jennifer Frye <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR Water Quality
To: Steve Kroeger <[e-mail]>
Larry set this up for 10 am. I am not sure who we are meeting. See you
there.
Jennifer Serafin Frye
Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
Subject: Cone Mills Directions
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 14:42:03 -0400
From: Larry Coble <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Jennifer Frye <[e-mail]>
The address is 3101 North Elm St. in Greensboro.
If coming from Raleigh take Rock Creek exit off I-40. Turn right and go
1 block. Turn left on Bus. 70 which becomes Wendover Ave. Go west to
N. Elm and turn right. About 3-3.5 miles and 3101 will be on the left.
Larry D. Coble
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: [phone] ext. 259
FAX: [phone]
1 of 1 9/7/012:44 PM
Spp? la i 2ov I
Nc? s??5
s?.

L-z4 meo-,qvvQ4 Col\?4J ?X

roevF Akfv? u

?•(? ?- - n?c?lw?? cap (? e??? c' ?'
Ao?
f ! I cD %,J
PC I
--7 Wr6?4
0
MapQuest : Printer-Friendly Street Map wysiwyg://46/http://www.mapquest.com/cgi...%3aa%3bwh%7c2%24hgv%2813iedgv%24511t%3
W W W . M A T Q U S T R C O l
< Back
Print Options
69 DARLINGTON AVE, WILMINGTON, NC, 28403-1343, US
1V1A?Gt?t '_ 0
?3oOm
n ?F
rr r/(? '`
w - t -
I i> }0 Y
? r Gaston St
m
$;
h}fi q S ?` rn
fi8,1 a
z E ' °r Ice
a3 8g
ti
aw,
1p lD
€ 7 , Wakaf?,-ld Ave = Broad !St
t
f

(
{? O 'S`
i 1 .

#
Randall R k V

Gor -i?
' CreekCt`
S f.
r Uobr
a.4Y
`
f 7
? o
?
,." f2 t j

{
?
nn
T
6 2
C?l ? I
X2001 MapQuest.oom. Inc.: 02001 GDT. Inc."-- :
-
All Rights Reserved. Use Subject to License/Copyright
This map is informational only. No representation is made or warranty given as to its content. User assumes all risk of use. MapQuest and its
suppliers assume no responsibility for any loss or delay resulting from such use.
1 of 1 9/12/016:19 AN
0 ?

SaA SUruy- v? V?-V
?3 6 o"C6.

CC 4k?,,t
A"
qp
r
kl?
MapQuest : Printer-Friendly Street Map wysiwyg:H30/http://www.mapquest.com/cgi...%3aa%3bwh%7c2%24hgv%2813iedgv%245111%3
WWW.LNAPQUEST. COM
< Backs -_`
Print Options
3101 N ELM ST, GREENSBORO, NC, 27408-3184, us
21 goft
?F PISg ,3h,Chu ch -att-PI1 f T?
kite Oals}Heigf7ts
?° ri1? ?Cn picas d StL_ ,
` r ? - r? N i ounIamide-D,
Marth H de Pa k -
y.,t :Denny Rd ? F---?
?ief ?'rj- E,err/rnai S1t ?__ x ankin R
T ttan??fE rk-?`ti' ! 6?nHn shro?._
. S °n ?Hrrlry r F yrl SRry t r
Broadvi ?- L -
Tyi - G chenr y oa s
r -?o r }??Fli3ltisSt ?? fiarlc
anKn
r e o IVeV+ S[ S? fi
L-21
Vd` one [BI, ? cea? irl ark l
z I jjr ah r
Eflanr!`ar' ?.t Phil a?el ip
;
OT- - tirkWood 23
?. t [ rn
-_ - ?,
Biue?ntio?t ar ti 4 a --F I ;?-, Rego ution
l i. J ??g N1G? ido6-H_?i ht5 - pr ?-y_
alr-field t q °untry CA Dr , East white-
Hood PI Friin?lJtliiYl
ro±- E r_ h, iF1 t ti C Val r f.
74-
I ...
rying Park- r`` -Dogtvo Parl'< £ ?`-F ??+
20 -?-
-Statham P=_rl
f
_ YVend[?4 t- .ca ?er??u? Er x? E€??? li?? rd? E- e 'r ?•,' ?f..+,J-x ? -'_-
Campo Drf,I_r j E4 sserne Qv z i Jul
Ia f' r r ?
Li keDaniel - {?? ?crrrr?_Hill Fisher Fork m °`??
{La! a}Daniel c?rnrrrt
- F1rk
<:
- fiiFr-.. tBhldtiflfl?if-CJr -',?Z
02001 MaPquest.com, Inc.;192001 Navigation Technobgias Cr
All Rights Reserved. Use Subiect to License/Copyright Subiect to License/Coovright
This map is informational only. No representation is made or warranty given as to its content. User assumes all risk of use. MapQuest and its
suppliers assume no responsibility for any loss or delay resulting from such use.
1 of 1 9/7/012:58 PTV
C-Ivp?, C^?&w .?) - T,
AK.
f
( k-
L ?5T UctN
k 9A I ,,- Ak- / r-o evv?

I
S?? Svcv?J
f P-f E-
? LQC,
MapQuest : Printer-Friendly Street Map wysiwyg:H24/http://www.mapquest.com/cgi...in_label=&origin_icon=2&origin_commen
Olt
-n
WWWEMAPQUEST. C014
< Back
Print Options
3101 N ELM ST, GREENSBORO, NC, 27408-3184, US
T,?ti ! t li J' IN
t
AM
, . ??O 1 km
29
Hic he
r
.?•+ mo`t' '?""? ?i•? .?''^- M U r r `.I • ? 0 ?{ ,ti??d,?
f-
20 _ 40 ht
ar ?- Hirt s CFyapet Rds
20 -rr I f `
Brad i
1
r? n r
r
b Q d
fl 5 ! i
7 t-
rin
it?o 4V B "?
^IGly all Rd
4
esso `
r
pat#
+ mrI t
421 t
02001 mavQuest.ccm, Inc.; ®2001 Navigatbn Technobaies
All Rights Reserved. Use Subject to License/Copyright
This map is informational only. No representation is made or warranty given as to its content. User assumes all risk of use. MapQuest and its
suppliers assume no responsibility for any loss or delay resulting from such use.
1 of 1 9/7/012:55 PM
MAR 7 2000
Try 0!J't; IT'
MOREHEAD CROSSING
(formerly known as Hestron Shopping Center)
Wetland Restoration and Mitigation Plan
First Year Monitoring Report
USACOE Action ID# 199603796
NCDENR WQC# 960894
Submitted to:
10
John Dorney
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Submitted by:
Land Management Group, Inc.
P.O. BOX 2522
Wilmington, NC 28402
March 2, 2000
Introduction
The final mitigation plan for the Morehead Crossing (formerly known as the Hestron
Shopping Center) was submitted July of 1997 and called for on-site and off-site mitigation to
compensate for unavoidable impacts to 21.01 acres of jurisdictional wetlands due to the expansion
of the shopping complex. The impacted site is located near the junction of highways 70 and 24 in
Morehead City, North Carolina (Figure 1). A total of 13.73 acres (0.23 ac preserved, 2.41 ac
restored, 1.48 ac created, and 9.61 ac enhanced) are planned to be mitigated on-site. Off-site
1 mitigation occurred off of Laurel Road, also in Carteret County (Figure 2). This included the
restoration of 23.6 ac of agriculture fields and the preservation of 27.5 acres of pine/hardwood
wetlands. As of the fall of 1999, mitigation actions such as plugging ditches, planting wetland
vegetation, and installing monitoring wells, were completed at the Laurel Road site. Because of
construction delays, both wetland impacts and mitigation efforts on-site have been delayed.
Therefore, this monitoring plan evaluates only the completed off-site actions at Laurel Road,
which are approximately one year old. Monitoring at this site and on-site will be done annually for
five years or until mitigation success criteria are fulfilled.
Hydrology
Wetland hydrology was restored by filling all agricultural drainage ditches, which removed
on-site drainage. Four shallow groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the wetland
restoration area and one well was installed in the adjacent wetland reference area (Figure 3).
These wells collect data on a daily basis. The goal of the hydrological restoration is the
establishment of a groundwater table at or above 12" from the soil surface for 12.5% of the
growing season (March 17-November 12) during normal periods of precipitation. The
hydrological success criterion is the establishment of a groundwater table at or above 12" from
the soil surface for either 5% of the growing season (a total of 12 days) or at least as long as that
of the reference wetland.
Wetland hydrology results for year 1 monitoring (April 16, 1999 to January 28, 2000) are
shown in Figures 4 and 5. Groundwater tables rose above 12" from the soil surface in the spring
and then fell during the summer months. Water levels rose again and remained at or above 12"
from the end of August until mid- to late September, depending on the well. The number of days
each well read groundwater levels at or above 12" is listed in Table 1. The success criterion
requires groundwater levels be within 12" of the soil surface for at least 12 days of the growing
season. All four of the wells located within the restoration area meet this hydrology requirement.
Table 1. Number of days each monitoring well at the Laurel Road site recorded a groundwater
level at or above 12 inches.
Well Number # of days reading z 12"
1 (s342el2) 44
2 (04207) 22
3 (s342e69) 17
4 (s342adl) 41
Reference Well (s342c3b) 26*
* Well stopped reading on 9/25/999 due to mechanical problems. Therefore, actual wetland hydrology is
most likely longer. Well has since been repaired.
Vegetation
0 Five 50'x 50' vegetation sample plots were established adjacent to each of the monitoring
wells (Figure 3). During the spring of 1999, an equal number of Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Nyssa
sylvatica, Q. michauxii, Q. nigra, and Acer rubrum seedlings were planted systematically at a
ratio of 600 stems/acre. The success criterion is either 70% survival of the planted species by the
end of the monitoring period or the survival of 320 stems/acre at the end of the monitoring
period, including acceptable volunteer species. Pinus taeda and Liquidambar styraciflua seedlings
that exceed 10% of the total trees present do not count towards survival goals.
2
Vegetation results are given in Table 2. Although survival of planted species was low, the
mitigation site was dense with volunteer species. Sweetgum, wax myrtle, and loblolly pine were
the dominant volunteers (Figures 6 and 7). Even when the number of sweetgum and loblolly pine
were adjusted to fit monitoring requirements (no more than 10% of all trees), the average number
of trees per acre was 534.8, which was greater than the 494.2 trees/acre found in the reference
site and the requirement of 320 trees per acre. All species found in the mitigation plots had an
indicator status of facultative (FAQ or wetter. Therefore, the vegetation success criterion is
achieved.
3
Table 2. Number and species of trees sampled at the reference and mitigation plots located at Laurel Road.
Plot Species Wetland Wacre % used in success #/ac counted towards
Indicator criteria success criteria
Reference Pinus taeda FAC 575 10 134.1
Liquidambar styraciflua FAC+ 540 10 134.1
Quercus nigra FAC 87 100 87
Acer rubrum FAC 69 100 69
Ilex opaca FAC- 35 100 35
Persea borbonia FACW 35 100 35
Total 1341 494.2

Restoration 1 Liquidambar styraciflua FAC+ 924 10 148.2
Myrica cerifera FAC+ 453 100 453
Pinus taeda FAC 105 10 148.2
Total 1482 749.4

Restoration 2 Liquidambar styraciflua FAC+ 592 10 66.2
Pinus taeda FAC 70 10 66.2
Total 662 132.4

Restoration 3 Myrica cerifera FAC+ 383 100 383
Liquidambar styraciflua FAC+ 261 10 74.9
Pinus taeda FAC 105 10 74.9
Total 749 532.8

Restoration 4 Liquidambar styraciflua FAC+ 993 10 153.3
Myrica cerifera FAC+ 401 100 401
Pinus taeda FAC 122 10 153.3
Persea borbonia FACW 17 100 17
Total 1533 724.6

Restoration Avg 1106.5 534.8
Summary
The hydrology success criterion for the Morehead Crossing mitigation plan requires
groundwater levels be within 12" of the soil surface for at least 12 days of the growing season. All
four of the wells located within the restoration site meet this hydrology requirement. Due to
mechanical problems with the well located within the reference wetland, no direct comparison
between the number of days the restoration site and the reference site reached wetland hydrology
can be made. However, Figures 3 and 4 show that the wells located within the restoration site
recorded water levels very similar to that of the reference site for most of the year.
The vegetation at the Laurel Road mitigation site meets the vegetative success criterion
that requires the survival of 320 stems/acre at the end of the monitoring period, including
acceptable volunteer species. The vegetation survey found that although survival of planted
species was low, the mitigation site was dense with volunteer species, especially sweetgum, wax
myrtle, and loblolly pine. The average number of trees per acre was 534.8, when adjusted for!
volunteer species. This number was not only greater than the mitigation requirement but was
larger than the number of stems found within the reference site as well.
It is the determination of the first year monitoring report that wetland success criteria have
thus far been achieved for the Laurel Road mitigation site. The next monitoring report will be
submitted in the winter of 2001 and will include an evaluation of both on-site and off-site wetland
mitigation.
5
i

J
k'F
ltl _ ti
?Tb
` ,

f BM -
'? c
l
e
-
f " A`L lp

St marks
Chapel

s site boundary Kansfield-,
Approximate
?
• ? artik't

,.p kbretnesd

o Dayceacan
i
0 1000 2000 4000
SCALE 1" = 2000'
Figure 1. Vicinity/topo map
of the Hestron Site.
o Dayoeacon
o Light a Daybe a con
:. Fou;- z..
s _-
LAND MANAGEMENT Tribek Properties, Inc.
GROUP, INC Carteret County, SIC
0
I•
I0

~ i
_AL
?7
1 V •'I'
!1! ? a
9J ,•1,?
North R
4
Approximate site boundary
F
mm?
0 1000 2000 4000
SCALE 1" = 2000'
1=inure 2. Vicinity/topo map N® MANAGEMENT Tribek Properties, Inc.
of the Laurel Road Site. GROUP, INC Carteret County, NC
19
II

I t t ;G LUIUU
w ? a
t ' }
1 2 3
Mr L .'.
?. .. ,? _ -7. ?. T ... .
r rr
? t
} t
I

4 { I
}
r 4 }
r
I I 1
t 1 }
? ? a w

Restoration Area
I0
r ri
Preservation Area
Figure 3. Monitoring well/sample plot locations at the
Laurel Road site.
N
0 300 600 1200
SCALE 1" = 600°
WellNegetation Sample Plot
Tribek Properties, nc.
Carteret County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.

i
10
I0
,76 (?n 4L
-9 O CCri O

9 19
'9

?p
O '9
9
ID v ?
o
77

'
o
99

=r r
Ap
v v 9
O?
9
O 0 A _
?y9
? W 9
06,
Z
0 o n '

a
W
70 9
9

o ?

o?y
Cn CA
n? Z3
a) P `99
7
CD = C
?

3
U) 9
9
v
T ?

CD ay
9
9
?6

?y
9
9
00
? ?d
y9
?
(7 O 9
?
? v
G
W ??9
0? 9
i/
G
W ? 9
9
77
1

9
7S 9
G
'9
9
79
G0
m Z 90

a D
19
55G) ?,
?9
9
m M
Z
a ?
v
G)
70
O
C
u
z
n
Depth (inches)
W W N N
Cn O Cn O
u
Cn O U1 O
CD
O ? N C'13
Rainfa?V (Inches)
® o
_ 1'
?I J
? m
r
CID
J
? l
1
.p cr
r?

i11-D
!•
0, &
0
`?
/
os 99

O c7G/
g 99
O
CD
o v ,
Z 99
o i7G

n 3 /,
-11.1 99
v
?
c7G
0o 9
CD VG,
N 2? 99
0 o n `?Gj
a s 2,g 99
n Q `iGi
,9
O
o? 9
?
9

CD a) G
P,
?
Q
C/) UJ '
G
7
99
C
n Q
9
'
9G
9
CCD v W? 199
79,
CD 7 G9,9
9
? ?
G
R
99
.q
G
? 9,
99
G
CD
99
3
?
9
G
9,
Oct 99
CA) s
O? 9,9
's
7
9
J
9
s
9
,9
99
7s
s
X
r

Z
41
70 99
>
CJ ,
99

a D s
'
9 9
0
.s

CD M 9
Q Z
O
C
z
Depth (inches)
C n o Cn o cn o Cn o Cn
o
CD

0
® a
CD
4
CID

i"Z
O
O
D
rn
3
S'
Cn ?
?n
?I
O
Z
f)
qV 4 t?l
Raynfal? (,Inches',

I•
Depth (Inches)
0 w w iv r?o
'O o cn o cn o Cn o C o
Os 9 °?
o 9

O ?,
09 199
?" 0
?
o O ,

?o 99
O
s
0 ?9
c,'
O9

o ?

1199
1
v 0
9 cf9

v n 9
O Oo
k
,
? v 0
a
C) _ 9
o
3 z,
7
-4,,
a? 7
L?
?
9
U) U)
v v
Co z
9
co
C n 2 Ot-

m O
6' X99
M
00 0l
9
N. 0 o`9
0
:T O ???9
rn y7 0,
O 9
e

U)
w O9
9
40
2u -
q
,
O 9
0
? co
2Q
-0q
On
O
9
q
0' 9
l9
a
0
10
L O
a
0,
do
V o

o_ > a
' I .10
o
° 7 ado
0
a
m D
a z ?' 00

5' G) a

?
?s
°o
a
'
M
Z OO
G)
X
O
C
70
z
n
<n
u
o (D
i
a
i
?I
I?,
I
I

I
?

I
i
i
i
1
1
p N W -1?1
Ra nfai9 (finches)
7
?o
CL
LIM
0
?l J

CD,
CTI
?t
Mon
O
O
CL2
s
MEW

0
z

ice)

?y
9 O CCn O
pr
'199
130
O ?o
? v r
9

o = p

Z
r`99
%
O
r
0 0. 99
02
a

y
%.
9
ai W 9
00
'
0 o N ?ay
CY 99
-70
n a
o Cr 99
v m
CO cn ?j ay
9
v v v 9
,0
c ? ma
? y
99
Z 3

9
9

`9
9
00
?a
N y9
CD 0 9

O v
(i
h 9
O" 9

9
9

n
M 9
9
Z r
DZ
m ?
-? D
a D
c? M
CD M
a Z
?
y
G)
O
C
Z
C?
S
% 9
9
?IV, '79
20 9
1> '-99
IV
9
Depth (inches)
W N
Cat O Cn
O Cat O
Cat O
i
i
I
i
i
I
I
I.
i
i
O U w
Race ? Onches)
m
v
M
M
CD
t
V'J -J
CD
0
I<
-^
].1 J
C
m
rn
Vn

O?
CD
CD tv
O_ _
Z
O
?. o
n3
v R
.
0 0
v ?
v?
z0
O G
?a
nCD
a
o Cr
v ?
CO Cn
sv
C C?
G
CD p?
?. m
i
Z D
co Z
? D
z
a D
M
M
a Z
O
?
G)
x
O
C
z
O,
Off. 99
,
09 99
Q
Q
99
c?
;
cp `?Gj
2s 99
g `,
e?9 99
`,
02? 99
N G
06 19,
G9,99
'0
v '?; `99
9
G9,
J ? 99
G9,
c?2 99
9
w G9
? '0 G9'99
_ G9,
N 0CR 99
10 ?a
0.1 .99
s
??
99
', s
gyp.
'6.1 99
61 10.1
79, 99
U
A.tS1??S 99
10 99
Depth (inches)
W GJ N N
CCn O Cn O Cn O Cn O Cn
O Cn
tl
O
CD
CL
9:
n?
cS
w
p
''

D

o
SCI _.
o
Cn
O
Z

O N W -0h,
Rainfall ('inc'hes)

IJ
I0

Depth (inches)
;v
07, 0 o cWi? o Cn c Cn
C?f
SO 99
O
v °c(
9 `99
O
? ?c119
o
.. 9
0
c'
Z ?,,
-99
.0
0
? 3 X 9
v 3
0 0 O?
biz 19,
v g LQ cf9
9
v

z 0CK
0
99
C
a W o
OL
+,
99
n Q-
oCT N ! O
?O
`99
m ?
`99
O
7
t?? j 99

n
Sv ,
OL
co 99
C
T. cD OL
?
-
N Q
Oz
O 9
°? OC,
O 9
co e
'
?
0
Q
`
99
e

N ?
7
O Q
O

n n
Q
9
M O
L- 9
Q 9
O
C9
O 9
O
0?
b,
L? 9
°1 S 0
/. O
?
°9
? O

Z D ,
?d O
10
O

?
D
Q> -0
?
v O
_" G ?s ?10
cc M
oEf

?'
CD ? °O
Q?
?G)
X
0
z
o c},
c CD
1
?a
II
II
I
I
II
I
I
? I
I
p ? N W
Rainfall (Inches)
CL
Cn
0
C
0
CID
CD
w
In

CL
mn
.
0
tme
%v
3
MMIT
CD 9
SLW

]J /
O
Z

The reference plot contains a variety of trees, such as loblolly, maple, and water oak.
ins.%t '•. ..T. .
}y3
G
`•_ .fit x _ ?;?. ?•, .Pf Y
x s?
z
aa?
Z g I
4. I
Restoration plot #2. This plot contains mostly sweetgum
Figure b. Reference and restoration plots at the Tribek Properties, Inc.
Laurel Road site. Carteret County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.
?J

0
7
I
FROCT!ON
Restoration plot #3. This plot contains mostly sweetgum, loblolly pine,
and wax myrtle,
Figure 7. WL-40 continuous monitoring well and Tribek Properties, Inc.
vegetation sample plot. Carteret County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc,

5WMA, Jtw.
god 6fdee Ax 2522
9VWmkt#(m, AWA haw yea 28402
3d'. 910-452-0001
91o&W Y..4(& d
Z.Y F. "..
°N! ? .?fouiaon
March 9, 2000
Steve Kroger
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Dear Steve:
gal& 1,4
-Totmy A C)F- A4
3805 Vtt18titaty & s Awwe
'VdLmi 7&a, M 28403
MAR 1, 3 2000
WET''"A?ADS rN?-
7` ?ALa ij? ?EGTj%1
Enclosed is the additional copy of the First Year Monitoring Report for the Morehead Crossing
Wetland Mitigation Plan that you requested. If you have any questions regarding the report,
please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Kim Williams
Wetland Scientist
MOREHEAD CROSSING
(formerly known as Hestron Shopping Center)
Wetland Restoration and Mitigation Plan
First Year Monitoring Report
USACOE Action ID# 199603796
NCDENR WQC4 960894
Submitted to:
Steve Kroger
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Submitted by:
Land Management Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 2522
Wilmington, NC 28402
March 2, 2000 ! 13 2000
Introduction
The final mitigation plan for the Morehead Crossing (formerly known as the Hestron
Shopping Center) was submitted July of 1997 and called for on-site and of site mitigation to
compensate for unavoidable impacts to 21.01 acres of jurisdictional wetlands due to the expansion
of the shopping complex. The impacted site is located near the junction of highways 70 and 24 in
Morehead City, North Carolina (Figure 1). A total of 13.73 acres (0.23 ac preserved, 2.41 ac
restored, 1.48 ac created, and 9.61 ac enhanced) are planned to be mitigated on-site. Off-site
mitigation occurred off of Laurel Road, also in Carteret County (Figure 2). This included the
restoration of 23.6 ac of agriculture fields and the preservation of 27.5 acres of pine/hardwood
wetlands. As of the fall of 1999, mitigation actions such as plugging ditches, planting wetland
vegetation, and installing monitoring wells, were completed at the Laurel Road site. Because of
construction delays, both wetland impacts and mitigation efforts on-site have been delayed.
Therefore, this monitoring plan evaluates only the completed off-site actions at Laurel Road,
which are approximately one year old. Monitoring at this site and on-site will be done annually for
five years or until mitigation success criteria are fulfilled.
Hydrology
Wetland hydrology was restored by filling all agricultural drainage ditches, which removed
on-site drainage. Four shallow groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the wetland
restoration area and one well was installed in the adjacent wetland reference area (Figure 3).
These wells collect data on a daily basis. The goal of the hydrological restoration is the
establishment of a groundwater table at or above 12" from the soil surface for 12.5% of the
growing season (March 17-November 12) during normal periods of precipitation. The
hydrological success criterion is the establishment of a groundwater table at or above 12" from
the soil surface for either 5% of the growing season (a total of 12 days) or at least as long as that
of the reference wetland.
MAR 1 3 2000
Wetland hydrology results for year 1 monitoring (April 16, 1999 to January 28, 2000) are
shown in Figures 4 and 5. Groundwater tables rose above 12" from the soil surface in the spring
and then fell during the summer months. Water levels rose again and remained at or above 12"
from the end of August until mid- to late September, depending on the well. The number of days
each well read groundwater levels at or above 12" is listed in Table 1. The success criterion
requires groundwater levels be within 12" of the soil surface for at least 12 days of the growing
season. All four of the wells located within the restoration area meet this hydrology requirement.
Table 1. Number of days each monitoring well at the Laurel Road site recorded a groundwater
level at or above 12 inches.
Well Number # of days reading z 12"
1 (s342el2) 44
2 (04207) 22
3 (s342e69) 17
4 (s342adl) 41
Reference Well (s342c3b) 26*
* Well stopped reading on 9/25/999 due to mechanical problems. Therefore, actual wetland hydrology is
most likely longer. Well has since been repaired.
Vegetation
0 Five 50'x 50' vegetation sample plots were established adjacent to each of the monitoring
wells (Figure 3). During the spring of 1999, an equal number of Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Nyssa
sylvatica, Q. michauxii, Q. nigra, and Acer rubrum seedlings were planted systematically at a
ratio of 600 stems/acre. The success criterion is either 70% survival of the planted species by the
end of the monitoring period or the survival of 320 stems/acre at the end of the monitoring
period, including acceptable volunteer species. Pinus taeda and Liquidambar styraciflua seedlings
that exceed 10% of the total trees present do not count towards survival goals.
2

Vegetation results are given in Table 2. Although survival of planted species was low, the
mitigation site was dense with volunteer species. Sweetgum, wax myrtle, and loblolly pine were
the dominant volunteers (Figures 6 and 7). Even when the number of sweetgum and loblolly pine
were adjusted to fit monitoring requirements (no more than 10% of all trees), the average number
of trees per acre was 534.8, which was greater than the. 494.2 trees/acre found in the reference
site and the requirement of 320 trees per acre. All species found in the mitigation plots had an
1 indicator status of facultative (FAQ or wetter. Therefore, the vegetation success criterion is
achieved.
1
MAR 13 2000
3

Table 2_ Number and snecies of trees sampled at the reference and mitieation plots located at Laurel Road.
Plot Species Wetland Wacre % used in success #/ac counted towards
Indicator criteria success criteria
Reference Pinus taeda FAC 575 10 134.1
Liquidambar styraciflua FAC+ 540 10 134.1
Quercus nigra FAC 87 100 87
Acer rubrum FAC 69 100 69
Ilex opaca FAC- 35 100 35
Persea borbonia FACW 35 100 35
Total 1341 494.2

Restoration 1 Liquidambar styraciflua FAC+ 924 10 148.2 .
Myrica cerifera FAC+ 453 100 453
Pinus taeda FAC 105 10 148.2
Total 1482 749.4

Restoration 2 Liquidambar styraciua FAC+ 592 10 66.2
Pinus taeda FAC 70 10 66.2
Total 662 132.4

Restoration 3 Myrica cerifera FAC+ 383 100 383
Liquidambar styraciflua FAC+ 261 10 74.9
Pinus taeda FAC 105 10 74.9
Total 749 532.8

Restoration 4 Liquidambar styraciflua FAC+ 993 10 153.3
Myrica cerifera FAC+ 401 100 401
Pinus taeda FAC 122 10 153.3
Persea borbonia FACW 17 100 17
Total 1533 724.6

Restoration Av 1106.5 534.8
Summary
The hydrology success criterion for the Morehead Crossing mitigation plan requires
groundwater levels be within 12" of the soil surface for at least 12 days of the growing season. All
four of the wells located within the restoration site meet this hydrology requirement. Due to
mechanical problems with the well located within the reference wetland, no direct comparison
between the number of days the restoration site and the reference site reached wetland hydrology
can be made. However, Figures 3 and 4 show that the wells located within the restoration site
recorded water levels very similar to that of the reference site for most of the year.
The vegetation at the Laurel Road mitigation site meets the vegetative success criterion
that requires the survival of 320 stems/acre at the end of the monitoring period, including
acceptable volunteer species. The vegetation survey found that although survival of planted
species was low, the mitigation site was dense with volunteer species, especially sweetgum, wax
myrtle, and loblolly pine. The average number of trees per acre wasi 534.8, when adjusted for
volunteer species. This number was not only greater than the mitigation requirement but was
larger than the number of stems found within the reference site as well.
It is the determination of the first year monitoring report that wetland success criteria have
thus far been achieved for the Laurel Road mitigation site. The next monitoring report will be
submitted in the winter of 2001 and will include an evaluation of both on-site and off-site wetland
mitigation.
5

• `

fy

St Marks
Chapel

t .

--1 It
o Dapeacan
a Daybeacon
o Light
, .•
a Dsybeacon
Fout',.
mmmi
0 1000 2000 4000
SCALE 1'' = 2000'
Figure 1. Vicinity/topc reap
of the Hestron Site.
LAND MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC
Tribek Properties, Inc.
Carteret County, NC
"D

_ N
G - i
,---_, Cara-
-North r%
Approxhnate site boundary
4 r

0 1000 2000 4000
SCALE 1" = 2000'
SAND MANAGEMENT Tribek properties, Inc.
Figure 2. Viciraigy/t®p® gala
of the Laurel Road Site, GROUP, INC Carteret County, NC

? t3fi3 L??
F1'V 14?
,Jac t

Restoration Area

r V
Preservation Area
Figure 3. Monitoring well/sample plot locations at the
Laurel Road site.
i
i
t?
0 300 600 1200
SCALE 1" = 600'
Well/Vegetation Sample Plot
Fribek 3roperties, inc.
Carteret County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.

0
Depth (inches)
i i '
9p O ccn O ccn' O ccn O cn O cn O
r ,J
-9
1`O

O ,
qp
r
9

o
?
Z r 99

o
n 3
r

0 99
27
d
n? ? y
?
Q1 C/1 (n3 ?/l
9

9

CD
C) 9
70
a

ns co ply
cn
?y
9
v v 9
7?
? N =
C `9
m y to 9
P
m W ? ?d

cD L
99

`9
9
00

0 0 9
%
9
O> 9
?
W ? 9
9
?
Q 7
-Q
7s 9

9
719 IQ
r v
O?
Z
? 99
20
??
C(D D ? 9
D 9

? ? 99
a ?
-a
v
C
v
C7
it
i
I
I
i
i
i
i
t
i
I
f
i
I
I

i
i ?
O ?lj
Raanfa7i (inches)
M
0

7

93

yJ

S J

?I
C
m

?I0
O7
06. 99
v4
F. 09 /99
o y v4
?J
9
n 3 99
0 0• ell
9
- 7 9
v U)
v n Co
9
Z ? ? ? ?s 9
o° n! ?4/
?,g 99
o A 0 /99
4
C/) 06' 999
? 94
CD c = 9,
,0 99
V+
CD v 71 X99
? 11 0 1919
?? 999
2 ?I `99
CD OD 19,
49,
Oct' 99
s
O? "9,9
77, 99
,7 1
151 99
10
19
'9s 99
19,
> A'99
O
M '19
n 9
o z
O
C
v
to ? ?
CD Cn. CD
Depth (Inches)
W Cj K)
Cn O Cn
by -?
O Cn o Cn
o ?
CL
9:
rq-
J
C7)
n

L
0
0
n
./"
Cn
CP
CD
W
Cn
3
er%
]J
¦
O
z
i r )
C
L
o
uRa r'fa:'l (Inches)

y
n =
O -
O_
77
z
0
o
y y.
o.
v
m cyn
Zo
O
=r a
C7 a
o Cr
v ?
m
v ?
? cp
C 0
m v
r
3 Z
0 0
C D
CD ?
m
o Z
O
C

v
U)
Co
N
CD
N
N
Z3
n
5
CD
W
A
N
Q-
Depth (inches)
07 Cn W W N i?
00 C li O Cn O Cn O Ct O
U Cat
°c
&I
10 LQ
OOO f 99
7C'-
,-? 199
O 9
c'70 X99
c? 10X99
c?9 c119,
O
02 0/
"g,
9
o OL9
70 OG
x" 99
7 OG9
O
70? 99
`99
00 `99
? 99
o? 01-
o 99
? On
O `99
0 99
?6 mac;
O? ,
99
c?v OC
X99
O 9
o7 On
-9,
9
oS, d? 0
O
d
099 %0
?10
V, 0
?? o
2,7DO
c's ?-o
`?? O
)IO
O
i?
11
O CD
1
i
i
I
I

i
I
i
i

I

1
j
?
n

i

i
I
i
O N W
Ra Trfall (inches)

X
0
0
q?
lLy J
7
`
Cr
CL
y ?
O
Z
k V
?3

Depth (Inches) ?
y O can O cn 0 can O cn Q Cr. CD
a? C
0m
rn v
O =
Z
?- o
03
O ?
v
v ?
Z o
?a
C7 ?
a
cn Cl)
v v
C <,
cD v
Z Z
c?
D
D
ca T
Q
K
?i
O
C
C;
4%-?
wi
?I
I
?I
w
n
A'
v
?i
wNi
(DI
3?I
(D
2 9
101,0
c? 9
'9,br
P
96, `99
,O 99
77 99
,7 99
?y
99
??L9
?O 99
-
19
9
O, 9
7 9
?91
'9
's 19
9
7 9,
9
4? 9
9
9
I
0

_J

C
?
rn

Ul

0
Q 3 i3 w ? U?
Re?nfe1j flnc'nes )
?p
I3
O7
O5. 99
0 ;u
?4 9
F.:3 0
/9
o 7
9
Z . 7? 9
C? 7, 99
v
9
9
v W V,i,
2s 99
z
a ? ?9 x/99
C7 a V,
o 02? 99
cn
CCD A
C() C 06 19,
c? CD 7 99
C f7 O 9
.9 99
49
1 6> 99
c?c? 99
?I
99
G)l 0 9
0S 99
1 n O, 99
s
7? ?? `99
s
6p
15, 99
Z 161
94.
79Uq 99
D 9
rn
6110 Q
a D ?j
_' G s
CJ m 9?C
z
d ?
m
G)
X
O
C
Z
0
O can o
Depth (inches)
(-n o Cn
o Cn o cn
i?
o
C.
I

r
S
J

Lrl
J
CD
G)71
J
O
Z
rv w 41-
IJ
O?
c? y
O =
T
Z
o o
0 y
0 0.
v
Z °
o ?
?Q w
n Q
v m
_CD CA
v v ;J
C C7
G -
CD W _
?. m
w
iV
CD
O?
0
11 N
0
I0
CD
U)
a z
c
co
AOL
5*
C
O
C
7
-Depth ('I'nches)
070? o
s0
99
09099
7?0 X99
,7 c?'9
lb 9
X99
7%
2?0 /:99
??O X99
°?'. c'9
9
°6
? 99
70 ??
99
7? Off,
99
o
2c,? x99
9
o OL
O 99
o On
O 99
72 @C
Q ,Q
9
76, ?c
Q `99
`,°. Oc9
O 9
?C9
Q 9
,DcP 6'c'9
Q 9
O7 O?9
V 9
Os?.
o
7? %"o
;, o
,7 ??o^
27 % o
v O
-DS,0,>.
0
?°
0
CTI o cil o cn CD
o N w
Raanf,;I; Nnahes;
W
o
7
S
ul
l<
CL
-z
O
O
LL2
?r

3
]J J
V ?
O
Z
3

The reference plot contains a variety of trees, such as loblolly, maple, and water oak.

Restoration plot #2. This plot contains mostly sweetgum
Figure b. Reference and restoration plots at the Tribek Properties, nc.
Laurel Road site. Carteret County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.
3
Restoration plot #3. This plot contains mostly sweetgum, loblolly pine,
and wax myrtle.

Figure 7. WL-40 continuous monitoring well and Tribek Properties, !nc.
vegetation sample plot. Carteret County, NC
Land Management Group, Inc.