19930259 Ver 1_Complete File_19930428

t
X
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ACTION ID. 199301273 March 4, 1993
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Dare County Board of Education, Post Office Box 640, Manteo, North
Carolina 27954, telephone [phone], has applied for a Department of the
Army permit TO CONSTRUCT 1,050 LINEAR FEET OF BULKHEAD, PLACE FILL MATERIAL IN
45,474 SQUARE FEET (1.04.AC) OF SECTION 404 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS, AND TO
UNDERTAKE ONSITE, IN-KIND COMPENSATORY MITIGATION ACTIVITIES TO FACILITATE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CAPE HATTERAS SCHOOL RECREATIONAL FACILITY. All proposed
work will take place within property owned by the Dare County Board of
Education, Cape Hatteras School, located off the north side of N.C. Highway
12, adjacent to the Pamlico Sound, Buxton, Dare County, North Carolina.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the
applicant and from observations made during onsite inspections by
representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). The Dare County
Board of Education has revised their proposed plans to develop athletic
facilities at the Cape Hatteras School Campus to reflect consideration of
comments received during review of their previously denied CAMA Major
Development Permit Applications. The revised plan further reduces wetland
impacts through the combination of proposed athletic and recreational
facilities, the utilization of recently acquired property adjacent to the
campus, and deletion of the proposed track. The revised plan also provides
for onsite, in-kind mitigation at a 1.84 Acre to 1.00 Acre ratio and includes
review of alternate sites that were identified during the previous permit
review periods. The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM)
has re-delineated the Coastal Wetland alignment and the proposed project has
been re-designed to eliminate the placement of fill material into the Coastal
Wetland Area of Environmental Concern. The revised plan proposes mitigation
for 404 Jurisdictional Wetland losses at the site in accordance with Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act and the mitigation policies
identified in the Memorandum of Agreement between the USACE and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The revised application requests approval to place fill material in
wetlands to provide adequate area to construct one sanctioned baseball field
and one multi-purpose field to be used for sanctioned football, soccer, and
softball games. The combining of the athletic fields and attendant facilities,

-2-
and the deletion of the track, has reduced the wetland area proposed to be
filled to 45,474 square feet (1.04 AC). A 1,050 linear foot wooden bulkhead is
proposed along the northern and western edge of the proposed fill area to
further attempt to reduce wetland impacts by eliminating the need to slope the
proposed fill.
The project site can generally be described as a ridge and swale
topography which is on the northern trailing edge of the Buxton Woods Complex.
The highground areas at the project site are composed of ousley fine sands and
Fripp fine sands, with small mapping inclusions of Conaby, Corolla, and Osier
soils. The Conaby and osier soils are located in the wetter troughs and
depressional areas in the project site. Existing vegetation within the
highground areas of the site includes Pinus taeda (loblolly pine), Quercus
laurifolia (laurel oak), Quercus virainiana (live oak), Ilex vomitoria
(yaupon), Juniperus virainiana (eastern red cedar), and Vitis spp. (grape).
The wetlands located within the proposed fill area consist of Fripp Soils with
Carteret inclusions, and are vegetated with Juniperus virainiana (red cedar),
Persea borbonia (red bay), Magnolia virainiana (sweet bay), Sabal minor
(palmetto), Iva frutescens (marsh elder), Baccharis halmifolia (groundsel
tree), Spartina patens (salt meadow hay), and Phraamites communis (common
reed). The application and associated plats and plans for the proposed project
are available for review at the Wilmington District Office, Post Office Box
1890, Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890.
The applicant has determined that the proposed work is consistent with the
North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Plan and has submitted this
determination to the NCDCM for their review and concurrence. This proposal
shall be reviewed for the applicability of other actions by North Carolina
agencies which may include:
a. the issuance of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management;
b. the issuance of a permit to dredge and/or fill under North Carolina
General Statute 113-229 by the NCDCM;
C. the issuance of a permit under the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) by the NCDCM or their delegates;
d. the issuance of an easement to fill or otherwise occupy State-owned
submerged land under North Carolina General Statute 143-341(4), 146-6, 146-11,
and 146-12 by the North Carolina Department of Administration and the North
Carolina Council of State; and
6
it
-3-
e. the approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Land
Quality Section, North Carolina Division of Land Resources, pursuant to the
State Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NC G.S. 113 A-50-66).
The requested Department of the Army permit will be denied if any required
State or local authorization and/or certification is denied. No Department of
the Army permit will be issued until a State coordinated viewpoint is received
and reviewed by this agency. Recipients of this notice are encouraged to
furnish comments on factors of concern represented by the above agencies
directly to the respective agency, with a copy furnished to the Corps of
Engineers.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404(b) of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within
the comment period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to
consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the
National Register of Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered
properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and
this worksite is not registered property or property listed as being eligible
for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register
constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District
Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the presence of such resources.
Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical
data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer has determined, based on a review of data furnished
by the applicant and onsite observations, that the activity will not affect
species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which
it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern
are
-4--
for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy
needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of
property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For
activities involving.the placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of
the United States, a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be
authorized by such permit would not comply with the Environmental Protection
Agencies, 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any
other applicable guidelines or criteria„ a permit will be granted unless the
District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal,
State and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested
parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed
activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers
to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this
proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on
endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental
effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used
in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental
Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments
are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the
overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army
permit will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The DEM considers whether or not the
proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of
the Army permit serve as application to the DEM for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Salisbury Street, Archdale
Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished
to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management plans to take
final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act certification on or after
March 26, 1993.

-5-
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Post office Box 27687, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before March 26, 1993, Attention: Mr. John
Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. Raleigh Bland, until 4:15 p.m.,
April 5, 1993, or telephone [phone].
FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION MAP
NT5

borK.
WETLAND MITIGATION SITE SUCCESS FORM
• APPLICANT/PROJECT NAME :
Cape Hatteras School Recreational Facility
• DEM #: WQC#: MAP #:
93259 2826 1
• COUNTY:
Dare
• LOCATION OF MITIGATION SITE (LAT. AND LONG.)
• DIRECTIONS TO MITIGATION SITE:
Hatteras Island on Hwy 12 SE of Buxton. Six lots on the west side of Hwy 12.
• ACREAGE AND TYPE OF WETLAND IMPACTED:
1.04 acres--shrub thicket
• ACREAGE AND TYPE OF WETLAND MITIGATED:
1.04 acres---shrub thicket
• DESCRIPTION OF MITIGATION(IN FILE):
planting of six lots adjacent and to the north of the campus
(details on pages 18-20 of application "book")
• DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION(IN FILE):
red cedar, Persce borbonia (red bay), Magnolia virginiana (sweet bay magnolia)
(details on pages 18-20 of application "book")
• SUCCESS CRITERIA STATED(if any):
75% of all trees must be alive after 3 years
• WHAT IS. THE PROJECT STATUS?(mark one):
RESTORATION ENHANCEMENT, CREATION, PRESERVATION
• MONITORING PLAN:
3 years. Two copies of the report should be sent to DEM-Wetlands Group
• WHICH REGULATORY AGENCIES ARE INVOLVED?:
DEM, DEM, COE
• TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT(mark the ones that apply):
RURAL, URBAN, PUBLIC, PRIVATE
of
FIELD INFORMATION
Project not begun.
• DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION(AT SITE):
• SURFACE WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS:
• SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER RELATIONSHIPS:
• HAVE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS BEEN MET?:
No
• DESCRIPTION OF SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN:
The Dare County Board of Education
Post Office Box 640
Manteo, North Carolina 27954
[phone]

r

l? V C?a ?

o

c
A
o

? ? a
Ey N A

C4 o
o ? W d ?
? ti

Q
z z
A o
z ?
?
?°
H
O
?
c
o a H U ?
? _
? a ° o o

ter-- .4
Please type or print. Carefully describe all anticipated
development activities, including construction,.excava-
tion, filling, paving, land clearing, and stormwater con-
trol. If the requested information is not relevant to your
project, write N/A (not applicable). Items 1-4 and 8-9
must be completed for all projects.
1 APPLICANT
a. Name Environmental Professionals,
Address 122 Sir Walter Raleigh Dr.
Kill Devil Hills
City State N.C.
zip27948 Dayphone_(91 9) 441 -0239
If you plan to build a marina, also complete and
attach Form DCM-MP-2.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an
existing project, new work, or both?
New work
c. Will the project be for community, private, or
I nc Commercial use?
Community
d. Describe the planned use of the project.
Recreational facility for
Kindergarten - 12th grade
Landowner or X Authorized agent
b. Project name (if any) Cape Hatteras School
Recreational Facility
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give the
owner's name and address.
Dare County Board of Education
4 LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract ± 36 acres
P. O. Box 640
Manteo, N.C. 27954
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
c. Elevation of tract above mean sea level or
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED 2-6 feet
PROJECT
a. Street address or secondary road number
N.C._State Road #12
b. City, town, community, or landmark
Buxton, N.C.
C. County Dare
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes
e. Name of body of water nearest project
Pamlico Sound
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract Cdrolla Fine Sand
Fripp Fine Sands, Carteret Soils
e. Vegetation on tract _Pinus taeda, Juni erus
virginiana, Persea borbonia, Ilex
vomitoria, Magnolia spp.
E Man-made features now on tract K-12 school
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classification of
the site? (Consult the local land use plan.)
X Conservation X Transitional
Developed Community
_ Rural Other
3 DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. Describe all development activities you propose (for
example, building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead,
or pier). Retaining wall and fill for
recreationa area development and
mitigation plan.
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
S-1
i. How are adjacent waters classified?
j. Has a professional archaeological survey been
carried out for the tract? No If so, by whom?
12/89
f - UOLAND DEVELOPMENT
Complete this section if the project includes any land
developmem
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, or
structures proposed _ _ 2 ball fi ldg, fnnl-r-allIn .
/
soccer field, attendant structures n.
b. Number of lots or parcels N/A
c. Density (Give the number of residential units and the
units per acre.) N/A
d. Size of area to be graded or disturbed
7.22 acres o.
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than one
acre of land, the Division of Land Resources must
receive an erosion and sedimentation control plan at
least 30 days before land disturbing activity begins.
If applicable, has a sedimentation and erosion
control plan been submitted to the Division of Land
Resources? rvo
f. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet of
mean high water to be covered by impermeable
surfaces, such as pavement, buildings, rooftops.
None
g. List the materials, such as marl, paver stone, asphalt,
or concrete, to be used for paved surfaces.
Asphalt
h. If applicable, has a stormwater management plan
been submitted to the Division of Environmental
Management? No
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste
water treatment facilities.
N/A
j. Have these facilities received state or local approval?
No
k. Describe existing treatment facilities.
Low pressure drainfields
1. Describe location and type of discharges to waters of
the state (for example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/commercial effluent, "wash
down"). None
Cape Hatteras -Water = Association ii-C Water supply source and on-site wells for
irrigation
If the project is oceanfront development, describe
the steps that will be taken to maintain established -
public beach accessways or provide new access.
N/A
If the project is on the oceanfront, what will be the
elevation above mean sea level of the first habitable
floor? N/A
6 EXCAVATION AND FILL
INFORMATION
b. Amount of material to be excavated from below
water level in cubic yards N / A _
c. Type of material N/A
d. Does the area to be excavated include marshland,
N a Aps, or other wetlands?
e. High ground excavation, in cubic yards
14,000 cy
2
12189
f `Dimensions of spoil disposal area
N/A
g. Location of spoil disposal area N/A
h. Do you claim title to the disposal area? N (A
If not, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
i. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? N/A
If so, where?
j. Does the disposal area include any marshland,
swamps, or water areas?
N/A
k. Will the fill material be placed below mean high
water? No
1. Amount of fill in cubic yards N/A
in. Type of fill material N/A
n. Source of fill material N/A
o. Will fill material belaced on marsh or other
wetlands? Yes
p. Dimensions of the wetland to be filled
4 474 sy fact
q. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled?
Bulkhead
r. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)? Bulldozer
S. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? No If yes, explain steps that will
be taken to lessen environmental impacts.
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months, in
feet- N /A
d. Type of bulkhead material wood
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be placed below
mean high water - 0 -
f. Type of fill material Sand
8 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the follow-
ing items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other
instrument under which the applicant claims title to the
affected property. If the applicant is not claiming to be
the owner of said property, then forward a copy of the
deed or other instrument under which the owner claims
title, plus written permission from the owner to carry out
the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and cross
sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black ink on an 8
1/2 x 11 white paper. (Refer to Coastal Resources
Commission Rule 710203 for a detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 18 high
quality copies are provided by applicant. (Contact the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding that agency's
use of larger drawings.) A site or location map is a part
of plat requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed
to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
site. Include county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and
the like.
A stormwater management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
individuals have 30 days in which to submit comments
7 SHORELINE STABILIZATION on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management and should be advised by the applicant of
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap _1 , 0 5 0 1 j e r foehthat opportunity.
b. Average distance waterward of mean high water or
normal water level - 0 -
12/89
Name Guy C. Quidley Heirs
Address P. 0. Box
Buxton, N.C. 27920
Name Donald Stein et ux
Address 97-14 162n Avenue
Howard Beach, N.Y. 11414
Name
Address
A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and issuing dates.
None
A check for $100 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health & Natural Resources to cover the
costs of processing the application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront
and inlet areas.
A statement on the use of public funds. If the project
involves the expenditure of public funds, attach a state-
ment documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to 10).
9 CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
Any permit issued in response to this application will
allow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to conditions and restrictions
contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's ap-
proved Coastal Management Program and will be con-
ducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I further certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in
fact, grant permission to representatives of state and
federal review agencies to enter on the aforementioned
lands in connection with evaluating information related
to this permit application and follow-up monitoring of
project.
This is the 1514 day of , 19
Landownefor Authorized agent

4 12/89
d ? SWZ
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
lames B. Hunt, Jr., Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary April 28, 1993 Director
Dare County Board of Education
P.O. Box 640.
Manteo,N.C._27954
Dear Sirs:
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal
Clean Water.Act,
Proposed Cape Hatteras School Recreational Facility
Project # 93259, COE # 199301273
Dare County
Attached. hereto is a copy of Certification No. 2826 issued
to Dare County Board of Education dated April 28, 1993.
If 'we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
?C/Y'? ' .
eston ?iowar Jr. . P . E . .
4
''Director
Attachments
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Washington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. John Parker
Central Files
George Wood, Environmental Professionals
Regional Offices
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Wasbiogton Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Preven?ion Pays
P.O. Box 29535, P2162h, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An EauaJ Opportunity Affu;na6ve Action Lnployer
NORTH CAROLINA
Dare County
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the
requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500
to Dare County Board of Education pursuant to an application
filed on the 24th day of February, 1993 to fill 1.04 acres of
wetlands for a recreational complex.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the
discharge of fill material into wetlands adjacent to the waters
of Pamlico Sound in conjunction with the proposed recreational
facilities in Dare County will not result in a violation of
applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines.
Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies that this
activity will not violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL
92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the
application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as
to prevent significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the
turbidity in the stream is 25 NTU's or less are not
considered significant).
2. The mitigation plan as proposed is acceptable with
the following additions:
a. Hydrological monitoring must be conducted by
the applicant to demonstrate that the Corps
of Engineers hydrological criteria is met on
the mitigation site;
b.-Monitoring period shall be for 3 years and
done twice a year;
c. The target tree survival.rate shall be 750
after 3 years; and _
d. Two copies of all monitoring reports should
also be sent to DEM-Wetlands Group
3. The DEM Wetland Group in Raleigh shall be motified
in advance of the site grading so a site visit can
be scheduled.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
Dare County Board of Education
Post Office Box 640
Permittee WAmyan_ North Carolina 27954 kI'.ZJ
Permit No. Ae 11an TI}- 1991(11273- 3 Issuing Office CESAW-CO-E
NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term
"this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted
activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer.
You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below.
Project Description:
To authorise construction of 1,050 linear feet of bulkhead, the placement of fill
material within 45,474 square.fest (1.04 AC) of Section 404 jurisdictional wetlands,
and the construction of an onsite, in-kind compensatory mitigation project to
facilitate development of the Cape Hatteras School Recreational Facility. All
authorised work will take place within property owned by the Dare County Board of
Education, Cape Hatteras School, located off the north side of N.C. Highway 12,
adjacent the Pamlico Sound, Buxton, Dare County, North Carolina, according to
enclosed plans.
Project Location:
Buxton, DAre County, North Carolina.
Permit Conditions:
General Conditions:
1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on December 31, 1995 . If you find that you need
more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least
one month before the above date is reached.
2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and condi-
tions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make
a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain
the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of
this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area.
3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by
this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordina-
tion required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places.
ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE. (33 CFR 325 (Appendix A))
'4.. Iflyou sell the property associated with this
permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided
and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization.
5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions specified
in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is attached if it con-
tains such conditions.
6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure
that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit.
Special Conditions:
8" Melos" sh"t •
Further Information:
1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to:
() Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403).
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
()Section 108 of the'Marine' Protectiott,..Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413).
2.. Limits of this authorization.
a. This Permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or focal authorizations required by law.
b. This permit does not grant any property right or exclusive privileges.
c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.
d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project.
8. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following:
a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural
causes.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf
of the United States in the public interest.
c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity
authorized by this permit.
d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work.
2
?i
e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit.
4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public
interest was made in reliance on the information you provided.
5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances
warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or
inaccurate (See 4 above).
c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision.
Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation
procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The
referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms
and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any
corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations
(such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the
cost.
6. Extensions. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Unless
there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest
decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit.
Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
DASE r-z!:: OF EDUCATION
1a
(PE MITTEE)
(DATE)
This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below.
RICT ENGINEER) (DATE)
GEORGE L. CAJIGAL, COLONEL
When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and
conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit
and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below.
(TRANSFEREE)
(DATE)
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1986 - 717-425
ti
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
a. All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict
compliance with the attached plans, which are a part of this permit.
b. The compensatory mitigation project, pursuant to the plan developed
by the applicant and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will be implemented
concurrently with all phases of construction activities undertaken on this
site as authorized by this permit. Planting of the mitigation areas will be
undertaken at the earliest opportunity as determined by the success of the
grading efforts, seasonal conditions, and coordination with the Corps of
Engineers.
c. The permittee will undertake an archeological survey to determine the
nature, extent, condition, and significance of any archeological resources
that may exist on the fill source area located northwest of existing school
facilities. This survey must be undertaken prior to any ground disturbance,
in accordance with standards established by the NC Division of Archives and
History. 3
d. The permittee will stake the bulkhead alignment prior to undertaking
any land-disturbing activities on the site. The permittee must notify the
Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, to schedule an onsite inspection of
this alignment.
e. No excavated or fill material will be placed at any time in any
waters or wetlands outside the permitted project boundaries.
f. All fill shall be generated from-an upland source, and consist of
suitable material-free from toxic pollutants in-toxic amounts.
g. All excess materials, including unsuitables, generated by this work
will be placed and retained entirely on high ground.
h. The permittee will employ and maintain appropriate sedimentation and
erosion control measures throughout the life of the project.
i. The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a
significant increase in turbidity outside the area of construction or
construction-related discharge. Increases such that the turbidity in the
waterbody is 25 NTU's or less are not considered significant.
j. The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management Wetland Group
in Raleigh will be notified in advance of the site grading so that a site
visit can be scheduled.
I
a
FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION MAP
NTS
IV-
A,.
%-a
c
v ?
C) In
LLLL
O
O
O
z
E?
w
W
Un

Q•
ry 1
Cr
C
l
SOIL TYPES
OuB - Ousley
CeA - Carteret
FrD - Fripp
m
0
J?
1
n
l•
r: •
FIGURE 4: SOILS MAP
N
N
d
v
l
C
D
O
N
O
2
z
O J
O Q
`7 U
N
_N Q
m O
U Z
? r
r
z
O
U
w
cc
Gl G 0
G
O
U
r?
;OXIMATE 404
ANDS ALIGNMENT
FIGURE 7: ALTERNATIVE SITE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Applicant: Dare County Board of Action ID: 199301273
Education
Waterway: Pamlico Sound
This document constitutes my Environmental Assessment, Statement of Findings
and review and compliance determination according to the 404(b)(1)
guidelines for the proposed work (applicant's preferred alternative)
described in the attached public notice.
I. Proposed Protect: The Dare County Board of Education, Post Office Box
640, Manteo, North Carolina 27954, telephone [phone], has applied
for a Department of the Army permit to construct 1,050 linear feet of
bulkhead, place fill material in 45,474 square feet (1.04 AC) of Section 404
jurisdictional wetlands, and to undertake onsite, in-kind compensatory
mitigation activities to facilitate development of the Cape Hatteras School
Recreational Facility. All proposed work will take place within property
owned by the Dare County Board of Education, Cape Hatteras School, located
off the north side of N.C. Highway 12, adjacent the Pamlico Sound, Buxton,
Dare County, North Carolina. All numbers in reference to wetland acreage
were generated by the applicant's application and from observations made
during onsite visits by representatives of the Corps of Engineers.
II. Environmental and Public Interest Factors Considered:
A. Purpose and need: As indicated in the February 17, 1993
application, the purpose of the project is to place fill material within
wetlands to create high ground to facilitate the development of a
recreational athletic facility for the Cape Hatteras School. The proposed
facility includes the construction of one sanctioned baseball field, one
multi-purpose field to be used for sanctioned football, soccer, and softball
games, and the construction of associated attendant features.
Due to the growth of Hatteras Island and the establishment of team
sports, both on-campus and in the community, there is a greater need for new
recreational facilities, as well as a higher demand on existing facilities.
The project as proposed will result in a facility that will benefit both the
school as well as the local community.
B. Alternatives f33 CFR 320.4(b)(4) 40 CFR 230.101:
. (1) No action: The no action alternative (denial) would not
accomplish the applicant's stated purpose and need to successfully develop a
-2-
recreational facility for the school. Without the placement of fill
material into wetlands on the site, the existing high ground site is not
large enough to facilitate the development of sanctioned athletic fields and
associated attendant features. Therefore, the no action alternative would
result in no project.
(2) Other project designs (smaller, larger, different etc.)
Numerous other project designs have been considered by the applicant. In
1987, an application was submitted to the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management to place fill material in 3.2 acres of Section 404 jurisdictional
wetlands and 1.4 acres of irregularly flooded coastal marsh to facilitate
construction of a track/soccer field and two ball fields. This plan did not
offer mitigation and was subsequently denied on June 9, 1988 by the Division
of Coastal Management.
After numerous revisions and modifications, another permit application
was submitted in 1992. This project included a bulkhead, a combination
track/soccer field, and tennis courts. The plan also offered compensatory
mitigation, but it was off-site and out-of-kind. This application was
denied on July 14, 1992 by the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management and by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management on
August 14, 1992.
The current proposal represents a significant decrease in the area of
Section 404 wetlands to be filled, eliminates the placement of fill material
into any irregularly or regularly flooded coastal marsh, deletes the
construction of the track and tennis courts, incorporates agency comments
submitted during past permit application review periods, and reduces the
total area impacted by re-designing the proposed facility to utilize
multi-purpose areas for numerous athletic events. The current proposal also
incorporates onsite, in-kind compensatory mitigation.
(3) Other sites: The applicant has considered numerous
alternative sites within the vicinity of the school and the community for
the construction of this facility. The applicant limited the search for
alternative sites to a 5 mile radius for several reasons. Cape Hatteras
School is a Kindergarten through 12th grade facility, and this search area
limitation reflects the practicable and reasonable range of liability risks
for the transportation of children to such a facility. In addition, an
off-campus recreational facility would be unusable to the students for
physical education classes on a day-to-day basis.
Beginning in 1986, extensive efforts were undertaken to locate a
suitable area to construct a recreational facility for the school. In 1990,
an ad hoc committee was formed to assemble a list of potential sites and
review concerns regarding: (a) wetlands, (b) available acreage, (c) distance
from school campus, (d) accessibility, (e) appropriate topography for
facility siting, (f) appropriate zoning, and (g) availability for purchase.
-3-
The committee reviewed forty-two (42) sites and determined that the tract
immediately adjacent the school was the preferred site. Although the
preferred site contains wetlands subject to Federal jurisdiction, the
majority of the other sites reviewed were not suitable due to the following
reasons: (1) ownership by the U.S. Government, or the State of North
Carolina, (2) extremely high cost due to the resort/vacation home aspect of
Dare County, and (3) locations within specially zoned environmental
districts. Other upland sites may exist within Dare County, but were not
considered based on the above factors.
(4) Pursuant to the February 6, 1990, Corps/EPA Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) that establishes procedures to determine the type and level
of mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines, the applicant has adequately demonstrated avoidance and
minimization of wetlands impacts to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition, the applicant is proposing onsite, in-kind compensatory mitigation
at a 1.84-acre to 1.00-acre ratio.
The mitigation plan involves the excavation of an upland ridge to a
pre-determined target wetland elevation. The target wetland elevation was
derived by surveying elevations of adjacent undisturbed wetlands on the
tract, and from a survey of the wetland elevations within the impact area.
The plan also includes the planting of wetland plant species within the
proposed mitigation area. The list of species to be planted was determined
by field sampling undertaken within the proposed impact area, and from field
sampling undertaken within the adjacent, undisturbed wetland areas. The
proposal also includes the implementation of a structured monitoring plan.
Based on the above, the sequencing requirements of the MOA have been
adequately addressed.
C. Physical/chemical characteristics and anticipated chancres (check
applicable blocks and provide concise description of impacts)
(x) Substrate: The soil(s) within the wetland area to be filled
are identified as Fripp Fine Sand with Carteret Sand inclusions. Impacts to
the substrate will consist of compaction and filling activities. These
impacts will result in permanent loss of the substrate.
However, due to the composition of these soils, the rapid accumulation
of marine deposits along eroding tidal shorelines, and the proximity of the
proposed mitigation area to the interface with the irregularly flooded
coastal marsh, the proposed mitigation site should develop conditions and
substrates similar to those removed.
-4-
effect.
( ) currents, circulation or drainage patterns: No appreciable
( ) Suspended particulates; turbidity: No appreciable effect.
( ) Water quality (temperature salinity patterns and other
parameters): No appreciable effect.
( ) Flood control functions: No appreciable effect.
(x) Storm, wave and erosion buffers: The project as proposed
will result in the removal of an important vegetative wetland buffer between
the coastal marshland area of the Pamlico Sound and the high ground areas of
the site. It has been demonstrated that the site has served as a buffer
area for storm tides as evidenced by wrack lines deposited by recent storms.
The construction of a bulkhead in the vicinity of the buffer zone will
likely be the subject of direct wave attacks during storm events, and
subsequently result in accelerated erosional impacts on adjacent properties
and wetlands. The coastal wetlands located waterward of the proposed
bulkhead will likely be the candidate of accelerated erosional forces.
The proposed mitigation site should serve as a buffer area between the
coastal marshland area of the Pamlico Sound and the high ground areas of the
site. Once vegetated, the site would function as the interface between the
coastal marsh and the high ground areas of the site in the same manner as
the filled area once did.
(x) Erosion and accretion patterns: The project as proposed may
result in increased and accelerated erosion on the site, and on adjacent
properties. The proposed bulkhead will be located in an area that has been
observed to receive notable wave energy during storm and large tidal events,
and may serve to accelerate the erosion of the coastal marshlands located
soundward of the proposed alignment. The scouring effect of bulkheads
located behind coastal marshlands have proven to subject wetland areas to
additional erosive forces. These impacts would be long term.
( ) Actuifer recharge: No appreciable effect.
( ) Baseflow: No appreciable effect.
Additionally, for projects involving the discharge of dredged material into
open water;
( ) Mixing zone, in light of the depth of water at the disposal
site; current velocity, direction and variability at the disposal site;
degree of turbulence; water column stratification; discharge vessel speed
and direction; rate of discharge; dredged material characteristics; number
of discharges per unit of time; and any other relevant factors affecting
rates and patterns of mixing: No appreciable effect.
-5-
D. Biological characteristics and anticipated chancres (check
applicable blocks and provide concise description of impacts).
(x) Special aquatic sites (wetlands mudflats coral reefs pool
and riffle areas, vegetated shallows sanctuaries and refuges as defined in
40 CFR 230.40-45): The proposed project will result in the loss of 1.04
acres of scrub-shrub wetlands located adjacent a Spartina cvnosuroides marsh
and the Pamlico Sound. The wetland area to be filled is primarily vegetated
with Magnolia vircriniana (sweetbay), Persea borbonia (red bay), Quercus
laurifolia (laurel oak), Baccharis halimifolia (eastern baccharis),
Juniperus virginiana (eastern red cedar), Sabal minor (palmetto), Phragmites
australis (common reed), Spartina patens (saltmeadow cordgrass), Distichlis
spicata (salt grass), Iva frutescens (marsh elder), and Smilax spp.
(greenbriar). This loss is permanent.
The proposed mitigation plan will attempt to compensate for the
loss of 1.04 acres of scrub-shrub wetland by creating a scrub-shrub wetland
onsite at a ratio of 1.84 acres to 1.00 acre_
(x) Habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms: Direct impacts
of the proposed project will result in no appreciable effect to the habitat
for fish and other aquatic organisms. However, secondary impacts may result
in the form of reduced pollutant trapping and filtering, increased
sedimentation, and a reduction of an organic detrital food source. These
impacts should be relatively short-term pending successful implementation of
the mitigation plan.
(x) Wildlife habitat (breeding cover food travel general):
The proposed project will result in a short-term loss of habitat for
numerous species of birds, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. The
area provides nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for resident and
migratory songbirds, hawks and owls, and wading birds. The area also
provides cover and foraging habitat for opossum, raccoon, gray squirrel,
marsh rabbit, and numerous species of small mammals. Numerous snakes,
frogs, and other reptiles and amphibians depend on the impact area wetlands
for cover, feeding grounds, egg laying areas, and larval production areas.
These species are mobile and should move to adjacent undisturbed areas.
The proposed mitigation area will also serve to provide valuable
nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for resident and migratory species
of songbirds, hawks and owls, and various wading birds. The mitigation area
will also provide cover and foraging habitat for numerous species of small
mammals, including opossum, raccoon, gray squirrel, and marsh rabbit.
Numerous species of reptiles and amphibians will utilize the mitigation area
to provide cover, foraging, and larval stage production areas.
-6-
(x) Endangered or threatened species: The US Fish and Wildlife
Service has not identified any endangered or threatened species, nor
critical habitats that would be adversely affected by the proposed project.
( ) Biological availability of possible contaminants in dredge or
fill material, considering hvdrography in relation to known or anticipated
sources of contaminants: results of previous testing of material from the
vicinity of the project: known significant sources of persistent pesticides
from land runoff or percolation; spill records for petroleum products or
designated (Section 311 of the CWA) hazardous substances; other public
records of significant introduction of contaminants from industries
municipalities or other sources: No appreciable effect.
E. Human use characteristics and impacts (check applicable blocks and
provide concise description of impacts):
( ) Existing and potential water supplies; water conservation:
No appreciable effect.
( ) Recreational or commercial fisheries: No appreciable effect.
( ) Other water related recreation: No appreciable effect.
(x) Aesthetics of the acruatic ecosystem: The project will remove
1.04 acres of scrub-shrub wetland and replace it with a recreational
athletic facility. Whether this change is adverse or not is a matter of
personal opinion. The mitigation area will develop into a scrub-shrub
wetland larger than the one removed, and should aesthetically blend with
adjacent natural areas.
( ) Parks. national and historic monuments national seashores
wild and scenic rivers wilderness areas research sites etc.: No effect.
( ) Traffic/transportation Patterns: No appreciable effect.
( ) Energy consumption or generation: No appreciable effect.
( ) Navigation: No effect.
(x) Safety: Some short term concerns may arise if construction is
under way during the school year. Implementation of proper safety measures
should suffice, and any potential future problems be alleviated when
construction is completed.

-7-
( ) Air cruality: No appreciable effect.
( ) Noise: No appreciable effect.
(x) Historic Properties (Section 301(5) National Historic
Preservation Act): According to information provided by the North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources, the proposed mitigation area contains
archaeological site 31DR26, a late prehistoric site initially recorded in
1956. At that time it was reported that human skeletal remains were
recovered from the site, portions of which were later reburied in the
vicinity.
The site has been revisited several times by representatives of
the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, but it has not been
evaluated to determine its eligibility for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places.
The applicant has agreed to undertake an archaeological survey and
testing of site 31DR26 to determine the site's nature, extent, condition,
and significance after a permit decision is made. The applicant does not
want to undertake additional expenditures of the public's financial
resources by undertaking a survey prior to a permit decision.
(x) Land use classification: The project site is classified as a
conservation area by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.
(x) Economics: The proposed project will result in economic
growth to the school and to the local community. Sanctioned athletic
facilities will attract schools with sponsored programs to schedule area
contests and result in increased visitors to the area. Spectators attending
athletic events will most likely utilize local area business establishments,
such as restaurants, hotels, and gift shops. The economy of the area could
also be boosted by potential new residents to the area who may have
considered not to live in the area in the past due to the lack of sanctioned
athletic opportunities for their children. These benefits would be long
term.
( ) Property values: No appreciable effect.
( ) Regional growth: No appreciable effect.
( ) Tax revenues: No appreciable effect.
(x) Employment: The proposed project will result in
-8-
increased employment opportunities in the area. Short-term employment
opportunities will exist during construction of the facility, and potential
long-term employment opportunities may be available in the form of facility
caretakers, maintenance workers, and support staff.
(x) Public facilities and services: The proposed project
will provide opportunities and services for the local community. In
addition to school sponsored and sanctioned events, the proposed facilities
will also provide space for community league events such as little league,
organized softball, and local soccer leagues. These benefits would be long
term.
(x) Business activity: Local business activity is
anticipated to increase with an increase in potential customers and
speculative clients to the area. Additional people in the area, as a result
of athletic event spectators and participators, should assist in stimulating
the local economy. These benefits would be long term.
( ) Prime and unique farmland (7 CFR Part 658): No effect.
( ) Food and fiber Production: No appreciable effect.
( ) Water cruantity: No appreciable effect.
( ) Mineral Needs: No appreciable effect.
(x) Consideration of Private Property: The site of the proposed
recreational facility is owned by the Dare County Board of Education. The
site of the proposed mitigation area is currently owned by out of state
private property owners. Condemnation actions have been filed in the Office
of the Clerk of Superior of Dare County, North Carolina for acquisition of
the mitigation site. The appropriate funding has been deposited with the
Clerk for the condemnation price, as provided by the North Carolina General
Statutes, and condemnation actions have been executed on the defendants.
(x) Community cohesion: The proposed project will result in
increased opportunities for members of the community to interact with each
other as spectators or participants during school or community sponsored
sporting events. These benefits will be long term.
( ) Community growth and development:
( ) Relocation (business, home etc.)
( ) Other: No appreciable effect.
No appreciable effect.
No appreciable effect.
-9-
F. Summary of secondary and cumulative effects: The proposed project
will result in the loss of 1.04 acres of scrub-shrub wetland located
adjacent to a regularly flooded coastal marshland of the Pamlico Sound. The
proposed mitigation plan is designed to compensate for the loss of the
impacted wetland area by constructing an onsite, in-kind scrub-shrub wetland
at a 1.84-acre to 1.00-acre ratio. There are potential negative secondary
and cumulative effects associated with the proposed project regarding
storm/wave buffering patterns and accelerated erosion impacts. The
construction of the bulkhead and the implementation of the mitigation plan
may serve to lessen these potential impacts.
The proposed project will result in numerous positive secondary
and cumulative impacts regarding Human Use related-factors, including, but
not limited to: increased local economic opportunities; increased local
business activity; increased employment opportunities; and an increase in
public facility and service opportunities. The proposed project will result
in a positive contribution to the needs and welfare of the Dare County Board
of Education, the local community, and the children of the Buxton area.
In addition, the Dare County Board of Education will develop
educational programs within the school system. This will involve studying
the mitigation work, and promoting the preservation, enhancement, and
understanding of maritime forest and wetland ecosystems.
III Findings:
A. Other authorizations:
(1) 401 Certification (North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management):
Date 4-28-1993 issued X denied waived_
Special Conditions Yes X_ No (If yes see attached)
(2) Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination:
Date 7-16-1993 concurred X non-concurrence
Conditions for Concurrence Yes_X No (If yes see attached)
(3) State and/or local authorizations (if issued): None.
B. A complete application was received on 2-17-1993 . A public
notice describing the project was issued on 3-4-1993 , and sent to
all interested parties (mailing list) including appropriate State and
Federal agencies. All comments received on this action have been reviewed
and are summarized below.
-10-
(1) Summary of comments received:
(a) Federal agencies:
i. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in a
letter received March 19, 1993, stated that no position would be taken on
the project at this time. The correspondence also stated that EPA's
discretion regarding review of this issue in no way implies concurrence on
permit issuance, or consistency with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
ii. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), by
letter dated April 14, 1993, recommended that a Department of the Army
Permit not be issued for the proposed work. The Service letter describes
the project site and proposed project in accordance with information
obtained from the Public Notice and from onsite observations made by Service
representatives. The report describes in detail the type of wetlands, as
well as the plant species composition of the wetlands that will be impacted
by the proposed project, including the impacts that will occur in the
proposed mitigation area. In contrast to previous applications submitted by
the Dare County Board of Education for the same project, the Service
acknowledges in the report that the plan significantly reduces impacts to
wetland habitats and avoids all impacts to coastal wetlands under the
jurisdiction of the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.
The Service report states that their policy regarding mitigation
for damage to habitats considers both the value of those habitats to fish
and wildlife, and their relative scarcity. The Service states that the
scrub-shrub wetlands, forested wetlands, and maritime forests affected by
the proposed project have high fish and wildlife resource value and are
considered to be relatively scarce on a national and regional basis. The
report identifies various types of species of birds, mammals, reptiles and
amphibians that are likely to be found in the area and their use of the
wetland area for various stages of their life cycle. The report also
discusses the functions and values of the affected wetland area, and the
wetland's role in water quality functions, stormwater retention, and
groundwater recharge. The Service states that these water quality benefits
are important in alleviating the negative effects of urban and commercial
runoff on water quality and the biological productivity of the Pamlico
Sound.
The report also addresses the interplay among storm tides, wetland
vegetation, and topography of the site and the anticipated impacts of the
proposed project on the affected wetlands. The Service states that the
construction of the proposed bulkhead would remove almost half of the storm
-11-
tide buffering area, would accelerate erosion of the wetlands located
soundward of the proposed bulkhead, and would result in additional loss of
wetland habitat and functional values. The Service also states that
indirect impacts associated with the construction of the bulkhead would
result from the reduced storm tide buffering and groundwater recharge
functions as well as the reduced sediment and pollutant filtering capacity
of remaining wetlands.
The Service report states that sports facilities are not a water
dependant activity, and the Service, therefore, recommends that a Department
of the Army Permit not be issued for the proposed work. The Service
realizes that the wetland impacts of this latest proposal (1.04 acres) are
less than half the 3.2 acres proposed last year, and that wetland impacts
have been greatly reduced from the original application of 4.6 acres in
1988. However, the Service believes that the public interest would best be
served by maintaining the high fish and wildlife habitat and functional
values of the project area wetlands.
The applicant was furnished a copy of the Service report by
Department of the Army correspondence dated May 17, 1993, with an
opportunity to address concerns raised by the commenting agency. The
applicant responded by letter dated June 28, 1993, to address numerous
concerns identified in the Service report. The applicant states that the
scrub thicket and forested wetlands impacted as a result of the proposed
project will be mitigated for at a ratio of 1.84 to 1.00 acre. The
applicant states that more habitat will be created than lost. The applicant
also states that the high ground areas of the property are not currently
regulated as a Special Environmental District by Dare County, are not
included in the Buxton Woods Area of Environmental Concern, nor included in
the area considered by the Corps of Engineers for Discretionary Authority as
critical maritime forest. The applicant states that the S-1 Zoning
designation in the upland area of the project site could be intensively
developed, including mining, without DA permits.
The applicant also states that the proposed mitigation plan will
improve the current storm water and filtration capabilities of the site, and
will result in an improvement to the existing overall filtration of storm
water. The applicant states that the proposed project will either provide
similar storm buffering potential (as a result of wetland creation), or will
be compensated for by the construction of the bulkhead. The applicant
states that their engineering data indicates that there will be improved
flood buffering in the project area as a result of the construction of the
bulkhead.
The applicant states that they have followed the 404(b)(1) -
Guidelines and have demonstrated avoidance and minimization to the maximum
-12-
extent practicable. Compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable losses of
wetlands, as well as the extensive search for high ground alternatives not
regulated by Federal, State, or local governments should address the
commenting agency's concerns.
iii. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), by
correspondence dated March 31, 1993, recommended that the proposed permit
not be issued. The NMFS states that the proposed project would be
detrimental to fishery resources due to the loss of an area of mixed
wetlands. NMFS also states that the Pamlico Sound and its adjacent wetlands
provide valuable forage, nursery, and spawning habitat for a variety of
commercially and recreationally important species of fish. The NMFS also
states that the Pamlico Sound is the most important commercial fishery area
in the state, and a majority of the primary nursery areas in the state are
in the Pamlico River and along the shores of Pamlico Sound. The NMFS also
states that the mixed wetlands included in the project area provide a source
of organic detritus and a filter for upland run-off trapping pollutants and
reducing sedimentation.
The NMFS also states that the self-imposed local restriction has
limited the search for alternative site locations to an area within five
miles of the Cape Hatteras School. The NMFS states that feasible upland
alternatives do exist in other areas of Dare County. The NMFS states that
by pursuing an arbitrary limit to restrict the search area, the applicant
has not fully explored all available alternatives. The NMFS states that the
project remains non-water dependant, and that NMFS continues to object to
the authorization of non-water dependant work in valuable wetland areas.
The NMFS also states that they do not object to the proposed
mitigation plan. However, the NMFS inquires that if an area of upland large
enough to provide compensatory mitigation for the proposed project exists
adjacent to the school property, why is the area unacceptable for
construction of a recreational facility?
The applicant was furnished a copy of the NMFS letter by
Department of the Army correspondence dated May 17, 1993, with an
opportunity to address concerns raised by the commenting agency. The
applicant responded by letter dated June 28, 1993, to address concerns
identified in the NMFS letter. The applicant states that mitigation is an
acceptable approach to offset unavoidable impacts to wetland areas, and that
the proposed project will result in wetland creation at a 1.84 to 1.00 acre
ratio. The applicant also states that the proposed stormwater management
plan will enhance the existing stormwater runoff pattern and will increase
the control of stormwater and filtration for the site.
The applicant states that the consideration to limit the search
area for alternative sites was self-imposed, but not arbitrary. Cape
-13-
Hatteras School is a Kindergarten through 12th grade facility, and this
search area limitation reflects the practicable and reasonable range of
liability risks for the transportation of children to such a facility. In
addition, an off-campus recreational facility would be unusable to the
students for physical education classes on a day-to-day basis.
The applicant also states that the shape and orientation of the
upland areas on the property does not allow for the construction of the
proposed recreational facilities. The upland areas are long and slender
while the proposed development site is approximately square. The topography
and facility orientation were taken into account during the alternative
analysis.
iv. Other: None.
(b) State and local agencies: During the course of the
review by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) to
determine consistency with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program,
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the North
Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation Natural Heritage Program (NCDPR)
expressed concerns over the destruction of valuable maritime forest habitat
for purposes of mitigation for wetland losses, and for use as a fill source
for the project. It was also stated that the NCWRC generally preferred a
mitigation ratio of 2:1. On July 13, 1993, the applicant and
representatives from the NCDCM, NCWRC, and the NCDPR met onsite to address
resolution of agency concerns. As a result of the meeting, an alternative
mitigation plan was conceptualized which included a proposal to lessen
wetland creation impacts within the maritime forest habitat area, and to
protect the maritime forest peninsula located on the southwest corner of the
proposed mitigation site through a conservation easement.
As a part of the consistency determination review, the
aforementioned conceptualized mitigation plan was not included as a
condition of the consistency determination. However, it was strongly
recommended by the NCDCM that the modified mitigation proposal be
implemented should a DA permit be issued. These comments have been
considered, and where appropriate and enforceable, will be included in the
final mitigation plan.
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History, by correspondence dated March 25, 1993, stated that
the proposed mitigation site contains archaeological site 31DR26, a late
prehistoric site initially recorded in 1956. At that time, it was reported
that human skeletal remains were recovered from the site, portions of which
were later reburied in the vicinity. The site has not been evaluated to -
determine its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
-14-
Places. The Division of Archives and History recommends that an a
archaeological survey be undertaken to fully determine the nature, extent,
condition, and significance of site 31DR26. An archaeological mitigation
plan may need to be developed and implemented prior to initiation of
construction activities. This is included as a condition of the permit.
(c) Organizations: None.
(d) Individuals: None.
(2) Evaluation:
1. I reviewed and evaluated, ever considering the overall public interest,
the impacts of this application, as well as the stated views of Federal and
non-Federal agencies and the concerned public.
2. I have determined that the work can be permitted in accordance with
regulations published in 33 CFR, (Parts 322 and 323). My decision to issue
this permit was based on my evaluation of the impacts, including cumulative
impacts, and anticipated effects on the public interest. Evaluation of the
probable impacts which the proposal could have on the public interest
included a careful weighing of all relevant factors. The benefits, which
reasonably could be expected to accrue from the proposal, were balanced
against reasonably foreseeable detriments. My decision to authorize the
proposal was determined by the outcome of this general balancing process.
My decision reflects the national concern for both protection and
utilization of important resources. All factors relevant to the proposal
have been considered including the cumulative affects thereof. Among these
are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,
wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood
plain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation,
water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and
fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and,
in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
I have reviewed and evaluated, in light of the overall public interest, the
documents and factors concerning this permit application as well as the
stated views of other interested agencies and the concerned public. In
doing so, I have considered the possible consequences of this proposed work
in accordance with regulations published in 33 CFR Part 320 to 330 and 40
CFR Part 230. The following paragraphs include my evaluation of comments
received and how the project complies with the above cited regulations.
(a) Consideration of comments: Concerns expressed by the
resource agencies have been fully considered and are addressed above. The
decision to issue this permit is based upon the applicant having adequately
avoided and minimized wetland impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
-15-
The applicant also proposes to compensate for unavoidable wetland losses
through the development of an acceptable wetlands creation project. In
addition, the public benefit to be derived from the construction of this
facility weighs in its favor.
(b) Evaluation of Compliance with 404(b)(1) guidelines
(restrictions on discharge 40 CFR 230.10): (An * is marked above the
answer that would indicate noncompliance with the guidelines. No * marked
signifies the question does not relate to compliance or noncompliance with
the guidelines. An "X" simply marks the answer to the question posed.)
i. Alternatives test:
1) Based on the discussion in II
B, are there available, g
practicable alternatives Yes No
having less adverse impact on
the aquatic ecosystem and without
other significant adverse
environmental consequences that do not
involve discharges into "waters of the
United States" or at other locations
within these waters?
2) Based on II B, if the project is
in a special aquatic site and _X_
is not water-dependent, has Yes No
the applicant clearly demonstrated
that there are no practicable
alternative sites available?
ii. Special restriction. Will the discharge:
1) violate state water quality
standards? X
Yes No
2) violate toxic effluent standards
(under section 307 of the Act)? _X
Yes No
3) jeopardize endangered or
threatened species or their X
critical habitat? Yes No
-16-
4) violate standards set by the
Department of Commerce to protect _X_
marine sanctuaries? Yes No
5) Evaluation of the information _X_
in II C and D above indicates Yes No
that the proposed discharge
material meets testing exclusion
criteria for the following reason(s):
(x) based on the above information,
the material is not a carrier
of contaminants.
( ) the levels of contaminants are substantially
similar at the extraction and disposal sites and
the discharge is not likely to result in
degradation of the disposal site and pollutants
will not be transported to less contaminated
areas.
( ) acceptable constraints are available and will be
implemented to reduce contamination to acceptable
levels within the disposal site and prevent
contaminants from being transported beyond the
boundaries of the disposal site.
iii. Other restrictions. Will the discharge contribute
to significant degradation of "waters of the United
States" through adverse impacts to:
1) human health or welfare,
through pollution of
municipal water supplies,
fish, shellfish, wildlife
and special aquatic sites?
2) life stages of aquatic
life and other wildlife?
3) diversity, productivity and
stability of the aquatic
life and other wildlife
or wildlife habitat or loss
of the capacity of wetland to
assimilate nutrients, purify
water or reduce wave energy?
*
-X
Yes No
*
-X
Yes No
*
-X
Yes No
-17-
4) recreational, aesthetic and
economic values?
Yes No
iv. Actions to minimize potential
adverse impacts (mitigation). _X_
Will all appropriate and Yes No
practicable steps (40 CFR
230.70-77) be taken to minimize
the potential adverse impacts of
the discharge on the aquatic
ecosystem?
In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1341(d), all conditions of the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Management certification are incorporated as
part of the Department of the Army permit; therefore, they are not listed
as special conditions.
The following special conditions will also be added to the
permit:
a. The compensatory mitigation project, pursuant to the plan developed
by the applicant and the Corps of Engineers, will be implemented
concurrently with all phases of construction activities undertaken on this
site as authorized by this permit. Planting of the mitigation areas will be
undertaken at the earliest opportunity as determined by the success of the
grading efforts, seasonal conditions, and coordination with the Corps of
Engineers.
b. The permittee will undertake an archeological survey to determine
the nature, extent, condition, and significance of any archeological
resources that may exist on this site. This survey must be undertaken in
accordance with standards established by the NC Division of Archives and
History.
C. The permittee will stake the bulkhead alignment prior to
undertaking any land disturbing activities on the site. The permittee must
notify the Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, to schedule an onsite
inspection of this alignment.
d. No excavated or fill material will be placed at any time in any
waters or wetlands outside of the permitted project boundaries.
e. All fill shall be generated from an upland source, and consist of
suitable material free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts.
-18-
f. All excess materials, including unsuitables, generated by this work
will be placed and retained entirely on high ground.
g. The permittee will employ and maintain appropriate sedimentation
and erosion control measures throughout the life of the project.
(c) General Evaluation 33 CFR 320 4(a)1:
i. The relative extent of the public and private need
for the proposed work ...This sanctioned athletic facility, constructed in
accordance with guidelines established by the North Carolina Education
Board, will provide recreational and educational opportunities for students
attending the school. The project will also provide recreational facility
opportunities for the public, facilitate the development of community
sponsored recreational programs in the area, and result in an increase in
local employment and business opportunities.
ii. The practicability of using reasonable alternative
locations and methods to accomplish the objective of the proosed structure
or work..The applicant has considered many alternative construction sites
within the vicinity of the school and the community. Beginning in 1986,
extensive efforts have been undertaken to locate a suitable area to
construct a recreational facility for the school. As a result of agency
comments received during previous permit application efforts, numerous
specific areas have been reviewed by the applicant and review agencies. In
1990, an ad hoc committee was formed to assemble a list of potential sites
to review concerns regarding: (a) wetlands, (b) available acreage, (c)
distance from school campus, (d) accessibility, (e) appropriate topography
for facility siteing, (f) appropriate zoning, and (g) availability for
purchase. The committee reviewed forty-two (42) sites and determined that
the tract immediately adjacent to the school was the preferred location for
the construction of this facility. The applicant has designed and arranged
the development to avoid and minimize wetland impacts to the maximum extent
practicable.
iii. The extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or
detrimental effects that the proposed structures or work may have on the
public and private uses to which the area is suited... The proposed project
will result in the permanent loss of 1.04 acres of Section 404 scrub-shrub
wetlands. This wetland loss can be mitigated through the creation of an
onsite, in-kind wetland at a 1.84 acre to 1.00 acre ratio. Depending on the
intentions of the property owner, numerous other development activities
could be undertaken on the site, including, but not limited to, residential -
development and sand mining. DA authorization would not be required for
-19-
activities undertaken on the high ground portions of the property. As a
result of the proposed project, the site will be developed into an area that
will provide school-related and public use opportunities.
(3) Determinations:
(a) Finding of No Sicrnificant Impact (FONSI) (33 CFR Part
325): Having reviewed the information provided by the applicant, all
interested parties and the assessment of environmental impacts contained in
Part II B of this document, I find that this permit action will not have a
significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
230.12 (b) 404(b)(1) Compliance/Non-compliance Review (40 CFR
( ) The discharge complies with the guidelines.
(X) The discharge complies with the guidelines, with
the inclusion of the appropriate and practicable
conditions listed above (in III.B.2.b.iv) to
minimize pollution or adverse effects to the
affected ecosystem.
( ) The discharge fails to comply with the requirements
of these guidelines because:
( ) There is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge that would have less
adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem and
that alternative does not have other
significant adverse environmental
consequences.
( ) The proposed discharge will result in
significant degradation of the aquatic
ecosystem under 40 CFR 230.10(b) or (c).
( ) The discharge does not include all appropriate
and practicable measures to minimize potential
harm to the aquatic ecosystem, namely...
( ) There is not sufficient information to make a
reasonable judgement as to whether the
proposed discharge will comply with the
guidelines.
i •
-20-
(c) Public interest determination: I find that issuance of
a Department of the Army permit, as prescribed by
regulations published in 33 CFR Parts 320 to 330, and
40 CFR Part 230:
X is not contrary to the
public interest
is contrary to the public
interest
Approved by: Date 3
70-1 ge L. Cajigal
nel, Corps of Engineers
trict Engineer
V
G p to m E ?
O iii o N
A m
Im ~ O O O O LL7?
O
• ?h? I m -I; m o
- o? N
m 7
v U 00
II ? rn
O ? r N
m e
n 'O I aO-' li O III
o cu 00 wrn
O O
>' In
Q>) x L0 Lo
0 co
Q > c-
,] I
0 `> L1 t E M d Q
?" Lw tl0 W
Ala°? U I ? ??
Li Lo DT,, o
J o a;,..:m;?; s?Cb III .,., 3?Y:•'i r` . ??? --1` -?.,` .,,,_ ??- ,o 0
cl?
Z
III a -., mQ z
L:? ifl ?? ?? r my co c m
C. o
i i i a
m I a c
` w: • C =
E 7E!
?Q" a I o ?
f m ?lj? o T
II l: '
I
a
o
i.? I ?1 III '?t._•? 0
° I Ii '? Wo a
?IIII !I " ?L???I Q? °
r
C ? is P, 2m a
x III ill U?
?m
CJ I1VI11 11 ;.
,?????jjjyI ?
II'' ? III
°
mo
ti I mL i.
? •'F I I .... DI I I I
ry b V I? III
V
^?? ' I f
PP aa11I W
1ryV ?l I ? • ?, I, t I a D .'$ ® III ?? I I y'L:
0 I
w
w
I W Q O ? fn
d
C'c
II ? ,'1 • 4° o? It?ll I ill ? Y o o
o w N Z
' o° a 010
h I it ? 3
?? ?I o ii II 0) N ? J
LL } G
O I, m 4 I I III o 2z
0 U>Q
° wm
D, 4 LL fm a
,? I: II.I 4 U I -Oow o0v
'l ?? 4 III i I I' E w a ." J
II!I III' QLI llilll 16? g LLpjX a Iwm
II h O v LO
?rw-p
O as
Channel I o aiN
Harbor O JJEa $>
Q¢xa
Buxton JI. o, II\tii >UOa <Ct°z
o
ti, N ??a QOa
;.. I a• I °°'' I?allll l Q r"° Fwaw° oU)
w) Ljj J ?}_ ~J
° I
Lu a
I
h Q U o Z U
J d
Qs' L z z
_ c II III OUwi NC7C7
II II.111I1 , 111 o N Oz2' cL .
N,: 0
?F-
I ?

i .

r ? \
.. ? ? } ? _
i

`...
r
?

..

_.. _ _ - r
? i
_.. ? j

_? -..
.:

. 9

- ? 1
1
3
?
- - ? ? a ?
.>z
r

..

,. ,;.

?.

__ ? .

, n? ,. ? J
?
x }
PREPARED FOR
Dare County Board of Educatioll
?'e"bruary 15, 1993
Prepared By
Environmental Professionals, Inc.,
Waterway Surveyrs & Engineering, Ltd.
1
PERMIT APPLICATION
FOR
CAPE HATTERAS CAMPUS
ATHLETIC AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
February 15, 1993
Prepared For
Dare County Board Of Education
P.O. Box 640
Manteo, N.C. 27954
[phone]
Prepared By
Environmental Professionals, Inc.
122 Sir Walter Raleigh Drive
Kill Devil Hills, N.C. 27948
[phone]
Waterway Surveys & Engineering, Ltd.
2503 N. Croatan Hwy.
Kill Devil Hills, N.C. 27948
[phone]
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
List of FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
List of ATTACHMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PROJECT HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
EXISTING CONDITIONS AT PROJECT SITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
PROPOSED MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
i

FIGURES
Figure
1 Site Location Map
2 Land Disturbance Plan
3 Proposed Site Development Plan
4 Soils Map
5 Plant Community Patterns
6 Mitigation Plan
7 Alternative Site
ii

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment
1
2
3
4
5
6
Application for Fill Permit
Letter from Tom Hartman (NPS) to Dare County
School Board, March 20, 1986
Alternate Site Analysis (Data Sheets)
Conclusions of available alternate sites by
ad hoc committee
Letter from Ray Sturza to Dare County School Board
Letter from Louis Midgett summarizing the N.C.
Department of Public Instruction 1977 and 1985
survey
iii

INTRODUCTION

' The Dare County Board of Education has revised the proposed
recreational facilities at the Cape Hatteras School Campus to
reflect consideration of the comments made during the review of the
March 6, 1992 application. This revised application further
reduces the wetland impacts due to the combination of facilities,
0
0

C
L

0
0
I I
L

the recent acquisition of key property at the campus and the
deletion of the track. This new application also provides for
onsite, in-kind mitigation at a 1 to 1.84 ratio. Additional review
of an alternate site identified by the Division of Environmental
Management was conducted and documented. The Division of Coastal
Management has redefined its wetland limits and all proposed fill
impacts in this jurisdiction hak been eliminated. The new plan and
this document proposes mitigation for wetland losses at the chosen
site in accordance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean
Water Act (40CF230) and mitigation policies set forth in the
Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1

C
C
I I

PROJECT HISTORY
In 1985 preliminary work was initiated to investigate the
feasibility of expansion of recreational facilities at the Cape
Hatteras Campus near Buxton, North Carolina. Efforts were focused
on the 12.5 acre tract to the west of the existing campus and
preliminary design work was initiated. The property was reviewed
in 1986 to determine the extent of environmentally sensitive areas
which the proposed development may impact. This preliminary plan
was submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which resulted in
the response of March 3, 1986 requesting additional information.
Wetland delineations were accomplished in 1986 and revised plats
were provided to the Corps of Engineers and the Division of Coastal
Management on September 16, 1986. This wetland alignment was
approved on September 16, 1986. A letter was sent to the Board of
Education on November 6, 1986 from the Corps of Engineers
requesting that an application be submitted for the proposed
development which showed the intended use of the fill area and
' explored practical construction alternatives and/or alternative
site locations. The County of Dare responded to the request on
' August 9, 1987 and the application was accepted on October 6, 1987
by the Corps of Engineers, to be reviewed under General Permit #
' SAWCO 80-N-000-0291. The project was circulated, reviewed and a
' decision to deny was made on June 9, 1988 by the Office of Coastal
Management based on the resulting loss of 3.2 acres of Section 404
wetlands and 1.4 acres of coastal marsh. The nonwater dependent

11
n
n

L

L
r

nature of the project could not be permitted in coastal wetlands.
and concern was expressed over adverse impacts to estuarian
resources. In August of 1988 the School Board's representatives
sought to reduce the plan to avoid impacts to wetland areas. At
this time an exhaustive alternate sites analysis was resumed.
In 1989 the CAMA jurisdictional wetlands were delineated by the
Division of Coastal Management and surveyed so that the project
could be reconfigured to avoid impacts to irregularly flooded
wetlands. Continuation of search for additional land for the
project and investigation of mitigation to offset potential losses
of resources were undertaken in February of 1989. The Corps of
Engineers in 1989 subsequently re-authorized the wetland alignment
on the project site so that plans to utilize the site could
incorporate design to minimize wetland impacts. Pursuit of
alternate property was continued during the following year and an
ad hoc committee comprised of Hatteras Island residents was
established in July 1990 to further investigate available
alternative sites for the project. The results of the search for
alternative sites is documented in this report. A meeting was held
with resource agencies on April 10, 1990 to discuss the new plans
for the Cape Hatteras Campus Recreational Facility. It was the
consensus of the resource agents during the meeting that adherence
to the Memorandum of Agreement, including avoidance, minimization
and/or compensatory mitigation is the most reasonable route to
obtain authorization for the project.
3

1
' The Section 404 wetlands were redelineated and approved March 4,.
1992 and the project was scaled down to avoid impacts to
irregularly flooded wetlands. Mitigation to offset unavoidable
' wetland losses was offered on National Park Service property at
near-by "Canadian Hole". During the review process, the Division
' of Coastal Management determined that physical changes had occurred
to the extent to require a new coastal wetland alignment. This new
alignment resulted in the project impacting coastal wetlands. The
' project was denied by the Division of Environmental Management on
July 14, 1992 and the Division of Coastal Management on August 4,
' 1992.
An appeal was sought by the Dare County Board of Education which
' has been placed on hold while a new application is reviewed. The
current application reflects considerations of the new wetland
' limits, additional property available for the project, deletion of
some proposed facilities, combination of facilities, onsite in-kind
mitigation, and other modifications to address concerns raised
' during the prior application review.
0
0
u
H

H

1

u

PROPOSED PROJECT
The growth of Hatteras Island during the 1970's and 80's has
severely taxed the Kindergarten through Twelfth Grade facilities at
the Cape Hatteras Campus. In addition, the establishment of team
sports, both on the campus and in the community, has resulted in
greater need for new recreational facilities and higher demand on
existing facilities. This need was documented in a survey
conducted by the Division of School Planning under the Department
of Public Instruction in 1977 and 1985. As stated in the March 17,
1986 letter from Louis Midgett (Attachment 6) the 1977 survey
stated "approximately 35 acres are needed for a K-12 school and
athletic field." The 1985 survey said in part "that the campus is
48% adequate in size for a K-12 school." In response to these
reports, plans were initiated to expand the existing 18 acre campus
to enhance recreational opportunities for the children. As
mentioned in the Project History Section a request was made and
denied 'in 1988 to construct soccer/track facilities and two
baseball fields on the property adjoining the existing campus. The
scope of the project was reduced and the subsequent proposal to
construct the track and soccer facilities was denied in 1992.
The current proposal reflects some significant changes due to the
availability of additional property at the site, new wetland limits
established by the Division of Coastal Management, opportunities
for onsite in-kind mitigation, and further reduction and
5
n

' combination of facilities. The acquisition of the six lots on the.
north side of the campus has also allowed the use of the 50 foot
right of way which bisected the campus.
' The current application requests approval to provide adequate
area
t to construct two ball fields (1 softball and 1 baseball both sized
for sanctioned games), a football/soccer field and attendant
' structures (bleachers, dugouts, etc.). The combination of
facilities and the deletion of the track has reduced the wetland
area proposed to be filled to 45,474 square feet. A bulkhead along
the northern and western edge of the fill area is proposed to
reduce wetland impacts by not having to slope the fill. Attached
' you will find plats which exhibit the proposed fill areas and
t project scope (Figures 2 & 3) and a copy of the application
(Attachment 1). Associated with this proposal is onsite, in-kind
' mitigation which is discussed in detail in the mitigation section
of this proposal.

0

COMPARISON OF 1992 AND CURRENT APPLICATION
1992 Current
Application Application
Track 1 0
# of Baseball Fields 1 1
# of Softball Fields 0 1
# of Soccer/Football Fields 1 1
# of Tennis Courts 1 0
Highjump 1 0
Shot Put 1 0
Pole Vault 1 0
Feet of Bulkhead 1,445 L.F. 1,050 L.F.
Coastal Wetland Fill 1.69 acres 0
Section 404 Wetlands Fill 1.51 acres 1.04 acres
Total Area Disturbed 5.26 acres 7.22 acres
Mitigation off site- onsite-
out of kind in-kind
7

EXISTING CONDITIONS AT PROJECT SITE
1 The project site can generally be described as a ridge and swale
' topography which is on the trailing edge of the Buxton Woods
complex. The soil types, distribution and description are taken
' from the Dare County Soils Maps prepared by the Soil conservation
r
Services.
' The highground areas at the project site are composed of Ousley
fine sands and Fripp fine sands. (Figure 4).
Ousley fine sand are moderately well drained soil on low dunes near
' the sound side of the Outer Banks. It is farther away from the
ocean and out of the main salt spray zone.
' Typically, the surface layer is grayish brown fine sand about 3
inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 80 inches is
' fine sand. It is yellowish brown and light olive brown in the
' upper part, dark grayish brown in the next part, and dark gray in
the lower part.
Permeability is rapid. The soil is very strongly acid or strongly
acid. The seasonal high water table is 1.5 to 3.0 feet below the
' surface. This soil is subject to rare flooding during hurricanes
or exceptionally strong wind tides.

8
11

11

G'
0
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Conaby,.
Corolla, and Osier soils. Conaby and Osier soils are in the wetter
troughs and depressional areas. The nearly level Corolla soils are
on the slightly higher nearly level parts of the landscape. The
included soils make up about 10 percent of the map unit.
The Ousley soil is used mainly as woodland. The major plant
species on this mapping unit at the site include Pinus taeda
(loblolly pine), uercus laurifolia (laurel oak), puercus
virginiana (live oak) and Ilex vomitoria (yaupon). Loblolly pine
is the dominant tree. Wetness is the main limitation affecting
woodland.
1

1

LEI

This soil generally is not used as cropland, mainly because of its
location on the Outer Banks and the wetness.
The main limitations affecting urban and recreational uses are
wetness, flooding, seepage, and the sandy texture. The wetness can
be reduced by installation of perforated drain tile, drainage
ditches, or a combination of the two systems.
Fripp soils are well drained to excessively drained soils. They
are on the sandy ridges and on side slopes along portions of the
sound side of the barrier islands. The rolling to steep ridges
appear to be a series of older dunes that have been vegetated for
more than 30 years. Many of the ridges are separated by small,
9

' narrow troughs that contain either ponded water, shallow organic.
soils, or poorly drained mineral soils. Water moves readily
' through the Fripp soils, and the seasonal high water table is
' usually several feet below the surface. Both soil fertility and
available water capacity are rated low.
1
The dominant tree species in this mapping unit are Pinus taeda
' (loblolly pine) and Quercus virginiana (live oak). Other species
include Ilex vomitoria (yaupon holly), Juniperus virginiana
(eastern red cedar) and Vitis sPP. (grape).
The wetland areas which exist between the ridges of highground are
' not shown on the soils map. This soil is generally described as a
' component of the Fripp soils and inclusion of the Ousley series.
This scrub thicket wetland area is vegetated primarily in Baccharis-
' halimifolia (grundsel-tree), Persea borbonia (red bay), Magnolia
virginiana (sweet bay), Sabal minor (palmetto) and Phragmites
communis (common reed).
The coastal wetland area which lies to the North of the CAMA
I jurisdictional alignment are supported on Carteret Soils.
' Carteret Soils consist of irregularly flooded salt marshes. They
' have been formed in sandy marine sediments, and the soils have
variable amounts of shells. Most areas lie about 1 to 1-1/2 feet
above sea level. They flood at least monthly and in some areas may

10

11
' flood weekly with storm or wind tides. Salt contents that range
' from about 15 to 30 parts per thousand were measured in typical
areas of.this unit. The surface layer commonly contains a thick
root mat. Where the soil material is exposed to the air, it gives
off a sulfur odor.
The dominant vegetation is Juncus roemerianus (black needlerush),
' Spartina cynosuroides (giant cordgrass), Spartina patens (salt
meadow hay) and Baccharis halimifolia (groundsel-tree).
1 The existing condition at the proposed fill site is Fripp Soils
with Carteret inclusions. The dominant highground species are
Pinus taeda (loblolly pine), Ilex vomitoria (yaupon holly), Quercus
' laurifolia (laural oak), Similax bona-nox and Vitis rotundifolia
(grape). The dominant species of the wetland area are Juniperus
virginiana (red cedar), Persea borbonia (red bay), Magnolia
virginiana (sweet bay), Sabal minor (palmetto), Iva frutescens and
' Spartina patens.
A graphic depiction of the plant community patterns at the project
site is shown as Figure 5.
11

11

' PROPOSED MITIGATION
n
' This section of the report will focus on the appropriate and
practicable measures to offset unavoidable impacts by addressing
' the mandates of . avoidance, minimization and compensatory
mitigation.
Avoidance
As stated in the MOA, permit issuance is allowable for only the
least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. In an
' effort to address this mandate a search was initiated in 1986 to
seek alternative sites that do not involve aquatic sites (wetlands,
etc.). The first and most obvious request was made of the single
largest property owner in the area; The National Park Service. By
statutory mandate, National Park System lands cannot be used for
' school recreational facilities (Attachment 2). An ad hoc committee
1 was formed on July 26, 1990 to actively seek other property for the
recreational facility. They were charged with reviewing all
properties which meet the following criteria; (a) adequate
available acreage (4-5 acres); (b) no more than 5 miles from
Campus (for safety concerns); (c) accessibility; (d) appropriate
shape for facility siting; (e) appropriate zoning; and (f)
availability for purchase. Forty two sites were identified and
reviewed for adequacy. The information on these sites is shown as

12

0
0
0
I I

0

Attachment 3.
During the review of the 1992 application, the Division of
Environmental Management requested additional review of three sites
across N.C. S.R. 12 from the existing campus. Approximations of
existing conditions at these sites is graphically depicted by
Figure 7. The three properties currently support three structures,
the Buxton United Methodist Church, a single family residence and
a small strip shopping mall. The property was reviewed to a depth
of 500 feet from N.C. S.R. 12 where the Special Environmental
District begins. In this area, the property along the road
frontage, approximately 280 feet deep, would be considered
highground. A discontinuous ridge of highground exists beyond this
area, surrounded by low ground that would be subject to
jurisdiction of Section 404. In order to use this area, the
property must be purchased and approximatelCO-i6?cres of wetlands
must be filled. The tax value of these parcels is .$ 6 4-9. An
alternative orientation of the ball field would allow use of only
one lot (value at 5230,040--but would result in the fill of?0.59
acres of wetlands. This configuration is depicted in Figure 7. It
is considered that the use of this property for the project is not
practicable.
1
To summarize the findings of the alternative sites analysis, the ad
hoc committee did not identify a suitable alternate site which met
' the required criteria (Attachment 4). This is due in large part to
13
u

i
three considerations: (1) most large tracts are owned by the
National Park Service or the State of North Carolina and are not
available for use or acquisition; (2) remaining large highground
tracts that are not maritime forests are found along the oceanfront
and acquisition is not feasible due to cost; (3) most remaining
large tracts are within the Buxton Woods area of environmental
concern and Special Environmental District and recreational
facility development is not consistent with the spirit of these
designations (Attachment 5).
The chosen site meets the facility siting requirements, however
contains wetlands subject to federal jurisdiction.
Minimization
The N.C. Division of School Planning under the Department of Public
Instruction determined in their survey that the Cape Hatteras
Campus needed approximately 35 acres for a kindergarten through
twelfth grade school and recreational facilities (Attachment 6).
The current campus comprised 18 acres. A 12.5 acre tract to the
' west of the campus was purchased and an application to fill was
submitted for this tract on October 1, 1987. This application
requested to bulkhead and fill 4.0 acres of uplands, 3.2 acres of
404 jurisdictional wetlands and 1.4 acres of irregularly flooded
' coastal marsh to construct a track/soccer field and two ballfields.
No mitigation was proposed. This request was denied June 9, 1988
1 14

fl
n

by the Division of Coastal Management.
After years of study and meetings with concerned parents, federal
and state agencies, the Dare County Board of Education minimized
the impacts to wetlands by a combination of reduction of scope and
project design. Proposed in 1992 was a bulkhead, combination
track/soccer field and tennis courts which involved fill on 2.09
acres of highgrounds, 3.21 acres of Section 404 and coastal
wetlands. This application proposed mitigation on National Park
Service Property. This project was denied on July 14, 1992 by the
Division of Environmental Management and the Division of Coastal
Management on August 14, 1992.
In response to the concerns expressed during the 1992 application
review, the scope of the project was further reduced to provide
' facilities which would impact only 1.04 acres of wetlands subject
to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No irregularly or regularly
' flooded wetlands subject to CAMA jurisdiction will be filled.
CoMensatogy Mitigation
The MOA states that appropriate and practicable compensatory
' mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain
after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
explored. Realizing that the chosen site would result in fill in
wetlands subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Dare
15

' County Board of Commissioners initiated a search for a site.
suitable for mitigation. Primary consideration was given to in-
kind replacement near the project site with out-of-kind replacement
' further away from the site as the least desirable.
' Proposed site work would result in the loss of 1.04 acres of
wetlands vegetated primarily in Juniperus virgin iana, Persea
' borbonia, Magnolia virginiana, Iva frutescens, Sabal minor,
Baccharis halimifolia and Spartina patens (see Existing Conditions
section for more detail). Emphasis was placed on identifying a
' local site for replacing this shrub thicket wetland habitat.
' Sites reviewed for facility development were re-evaluated for
mitigation use. Tracts which exist along the oceanfront were both
cost prohibitive and did not offer an opportunity to produce viable
' wetlands which would contribute to a larger existing system. Tree
removal and earth work necessary to create wetland environments do
' not meet the spirit and intent of the Buxton Woods AEC and Special
Environmental District and therefore sites in those areas were
' unavailable. Some details of sites reviewed are as follows:

(1) The Fesseden tract was reviewed for both facility siting

and/or mitigation. The Fesseden tract currently provides
the only opportunity for recreational league softball in
the area and plans are under way to construct a gymnasium
for adult use at the site. The property was unavailable
i
16
V, J
???=?
Q l _0
i
for use.
(2) The Carolina Cays, a series of spoil islands along
' Roanoke Sound near Manteo was considered. As mentioned
in other mitigation documents, the Cays are privately
' owned and a sales contract (reputedly for $200,000/acre)
is currently being negotiated for resort development.
These islands were considered cost prohibitive and too
far from the project site.
(3) As mentioned in a Department of Transportation mitigation
document, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service offered a
' diked impoundment in the Alligator River Wildlife Refuge
' for potential mitigation use. As stated in the DOT
report, "the dike is approximately 17 feet in width and
' raised 2-3 feet above surrounding maritime shrub wetlands
(wax myrtle, marsh elder, sea-myrtle, etc.). The site is
' isolated with poor access. Preliminary calculations
' indicate that approximately 2 acres could be graded to
wetland elevation and planted for mitigation. However,
' NCDOT personnel determined that site preparation (grading
and removal of spoil) expenses may exceed $75,000/acre,
' exclusive of planting costs. This site was eliminated
' from mitigation consideration because of site preparation
costs and negligible gains in resource value which would
be derived from modification." This consideration
' 17

' combined with the distance from the project site resulted.
in a rejection of this opportunity.
' (4) Six lots adjacent and to the north of the campus were
considered for acquisition to utilize as mitigation. The
' County of Dare Tax assessed value of these properties is
$189,930. This site offered the best opportunity for
onsite, in-kind mitigation.

Site # 4 was chosen as the mitigation site because this site
offered the best possibility for onsite, in-kind mitigation. In
addition, acquisition of these properties also allowed for
reduction of wetland impacts because a 50 foot access which
bisected the campus can then be abandoned.
Mitigation Site Specifications

The species chosen for the mitigation were based on vegetation
surveys conducted at the fill site and adjacent to the mitigation
site. The intention of the choices were to provide a canopy much
like the natural canopy of the fill site which would simulate the
subcanopy light conditions to enhance endemic species invasion.
Since the larger woody plants are slowest to naturalize but most
important to establishment of the subcanopy conditions, planting of
these species was specified. The location of the zones were
18

' established utilizing natural contours as much as possible with the
idea that natural wetland areas would not be disturbed so that they
' could contribute to the naturalization of the created areas. The
proposed mitigation plan is graphically depicted by Figure 6.
' The upper reaches of the mitigation site is proposed to be planted
in Juniperus virgin iana (red cedar) at 20 foot centers. This
' spacing is proposed for the 3 gallon plants (approximate 4 foot in
' height) to promote proper growth while establishing a visual and
wind screen. It is recommended by the supplier that a 17-6-12
' application of Sierra fertilizer (or comparable) be mixed into the
backfill. The site must be prepared for elevations not to extend
' lower than approximately 2.63 feet NGVD. This elevation was
obtained by surveying elevations of existing healthy red cedars at
the site.
The next zone of plants will be a mix of Persca borbonia and
' Magnolia virginiana planted at 10 foot centers. The elevations of
' target species in the area averaged 2.5 feet NGVD. Fertilizer
mixture as specified above should be mixed into the backfill. It
' is anticipated that this area will be subject to intense
competition from the higher and lower zones. Therefore, it is
' recommended by the supplier that 3 gallon plants be used for this
' area to provide better success of the target species.
The lowest zone (target elevation of 2.02 feet NGVD) will be
19

n
r

vegetated by liners of Spartina patens. This hardy plant can be
planted in the understory of part of the mitigation site to double
as a decelerator for the stormwater runoff (see Figure 3 for
stormwater details). These plants will be planted at two foot
centers and bottom dressed with fertilizer. It is anticipated that
this zone will partially be invaded by Baccharis halimofolia and
other aggressive perennials.
Planting is proposed to be accomplished during the species' dormant
season when the site is not wet. Typically this is January or
February for this region. In the last few years, we have
experienced atypical rainfall during this period and it is
recommended that this planting schedule be modified should the site
be too wet to accommodate successful planting. All plants will be
obtained from local natural stock and/or purchased from commercial
' suppliers.
t
f

Monitoring Plan
l
1. Monitoring will be conducted over a 2 year period by a
representative of the Dare County Board of Education.
2. The site will be inspected prior to planting, within one
month after planting and every two months thereafter for
the first year. The site will then be inspected every 6
20
11

' months for the following year. The data which will be
collected includes acceptable quality of plant species,
' proper planting spacing and methods, survival rates, site
photographs, approximate aerial coverage and description
of invasions of natural species. The reports` will be
' sent to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
' 3. Mitigation success will be based on a determination that
' survival of 70% of the planted species has occurred at
the June, July, August monitoring interval for ?o years.
Consideration will be given to the impact of successful
invasion of endemic species as to the need for
i replanting.

L

21

11

11
FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION MAP
NTS

IL .Vll:,?Irl
CJ
O
z
H
w
x
a
z 010

J
1

C?
c)
cl
i(1
N
N
v
t
C
O
1
Q
c
U
O
O
O
N
Q)
U
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
Z
a
Z
J
O
a
U
f-
Ir
O
rz
r
z
Z)
0
U
W
Ir
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
FIGURE 7: ALTERNATIVE SITE
)XIMATE 404
kNDS ALIGNMENT

' Please type or print. Carefully describe all anticipated
development activities, including construction, excava-
tion, filling, paving, land clearing, and stormwater con-
trol If the requested information is not relevant to your
project, write N/A (not applicable). Items 1-4 and 8-9
must be completed for all projects.
1 APPLICANT
' a. Name Environmental Professionals,
Address 122 Sir Walter Raleigh Dr.
Kill Devil Hills
City State N.C.
Zip27948 Dayphone [phone]
i Landowner or X Authorized agent
If you plan to build a marina, also complete and
attach Form DCM-MP-2.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an
existing project, new work, or both?
New work
c. Will the project be for community, private, or
I nc Commercial use?
Community
d. Describe the planned use of the project.
Recreational facility for
Kinderaarten - 12th arade
b. Project name (if any) Cape Hatteras School
Recreational Facility
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give the
owner's name and address.
Dare County Board of Education
P. O. Box 640
Manteo, N.C. 27954

' 2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. Street address or secondary road number
' N.C. State Road #12
b. City, town, community, or landmark
' Buxton, N.C.
c. County Dare
' d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes
e. Name of body of water nearest project
' Pamlico Sound
' 3 DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. Describe all development activities you propose (for
example, building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead,
or pier). Retaining wall and fill for
recreational area development and
mitigation plan.
12/89
4 LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract ± 36 acres
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
c. Elevation of tract above mean sea level or
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
2-6 feet
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract Corolla Fine ;Sai
Fripp Fine Sands, Carteret Soils
e. Vegetation on tract Pinus taeda, Juniperus
Virginiana, Persea borbonia, Ilex
vomitoria, Magnolia spp.
f. Man-made features now on tract K-1 2 school
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classification of
the site? (Consult the local land use plan.)
X Conservation X Transitional
Developed Community
Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
S-1
i. How are adjacent waters classified?
j. Has a professional archaeological survey been
carried out for the tract? No If so, by whom?
1

n

f. Dimensions of spoil disposal area
N/A
g. Location of spoil disposal area N/A
h. Do you claim title to the disposal area? N/A
If not, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? N/A
If so, where?
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months, in
feet N/A
d. Type of bulkhead material Wood
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be placed below
mean high water -0-
f. Type of fill material
Sand
8 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
j. Does the disposal area include any marshland, In addition to the completed application form, the follow-
swamps, or water areas?
N/A ing items must be submitted:
k. Will the fill material be placed below mean high A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other
' water? No instrument under which the applicant claims title to the
Amount of fill in cubic yards N/A
1 affected property. If the applicant is not claiming to be
. the owner of said property, then forward a copy of the
' m. Type of fill material N/A deed or other instrument under which the owner claims

N / A title, plus written permission from the owner to carry out
n. Source of fill material the project.
' o. Will fill material be placed on marsh or other. .
wetlands? Yes
An accurate work plat (including plan view and cross
sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black ink on an 8
' p. Dimensions of the wetland to be filled 1/2 x 11 white paper. (Refer to Coastal Resources
4 5, 4 7 4 s g feet Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a detailed description.)

' q. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled?
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
Bulkhead only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 18 high
quality copies are provided by applicant. (Contact the
' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding that agency's
r. What type of construction equipment will be used use of larger drawings.) A site or location map is a part
' (for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)? Bulldozer of plat requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed

to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
site. Include county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and
s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment the like.
' to project site? No If yes, explain steps that will
be taken to lessen environmental impacts. A stormwater management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
' A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
individuals have 30 days in which to submit comments
7 SHORELINE STABILIZATION on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
' Management and should be advised by the applicant of
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap 1 , 0 5 0 1 dLnear f ee4hat opportunity.
' b. Average distance waterward of mean high water or
normal water level -0-
1 12/89
i

'
t?\t or,
rye
It
` A
O T
A
o

IN REPLY REFER TO:

L30
CAHA

r,4

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Wright Brothers National Memorial
Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Route 1, Box 675
Manteo, North Carolina 27954
March 20, 1986
Mr. Louis Midgett, Chairman
Dare County School Board
Manteo, North Carolina '27954
Dear Louis:
ti
I have considered the Dare County School Board's request for Cape
' Hatteras National Seashore lands for the development of physical ed-
ucation/recreation facilities. Lands within the National Park System
' have been established by the U. S. Congress for specific purposes. Any
request for use of National Park System lands requires assessment in
light of directives established for their protection.
r
' The enabling legislation establishing Cape Hatteras National Seashore
(16 USC 1) states that "Except for certain portions of the area, deemed
to be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming,
boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar
' nature, which shall be permanently reserved•as a permanent wilderness
and no development of the project or plan for the convenience of visi-
tors shall be undertaken which would be incompatible with the preserva-
tion of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now
prevailing in the area."
' Facilities for the provision of park resource-based recreation have been
outlined in our January 1984 General Management Plan. Physical education/
recreation facilities do not fall within the categories outlined in the
' enabling legislation or the General Management Plan.
General statutory standards for managing the National Park System were
set forth in the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, USC 1, which
' establishes the purpose to "conserve the scenery and the natural and
historical objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the
enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave
' them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
These statutory standards were reasserted by Congress in 1978 in 16 USC
' la - 1, which directed that management of these areas: "shall be conducted

I
Mr. Louis Midgett

Page 2
in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park
System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and
purposes for which these various areas have been established, except.as

' ALTERNATE SITE ANALYSIS
' FOR
CAPE HATTERAS SCHOOL RECREATION FACILITY

Site Location (General) :
Property Owner: T ro w~ `J ?OqP
' Dare County Tax I. D. #: O?.6 5&y - oo5 0030 013'7
Local zoning: 0 ?!- 667-6, oS- 7 7- -f 13 3
0

L

u

11

Criteria
Type of facility:
Playground and P.E. (P.E.)
Interscholastic Program (IP)
Community (Com)
Acreage: (approximately 4 - 5 acres needed)
Distance from campus:
(approximately 5 miles max.)
Location:
Centrally (Cent.)
North (N)
South (S)
Accessibility: (roads.and/or utilities)
Wetlands: yes/no
Shape:
Occupied:
PF•
5- 0
q
1- .1
'',,nnU? S
K?
Other Comments: dEAs ?
f-11-kId- -!mss

ALTERNATE SITE ANALYSIS
FOR
CAPE HATTERAS SCHOOL RECREATION FACILITY
P
n

G

0

1

I I

Ll
Site Location (General): 8U-)(4'1
Property Owner: 3oW 'xA• 94d ? q k4 UY
Dare County Tax I. D. #: Oa(, 3,2 6 -0b6 - 0030 -09,90
Local Zoning: vz-/ bS?G?oB/ ?I 8,503
Criteria
Type of facility:
Playground and P.E. (P.E.)
Interscholastic Program (IP)
Community (Com)
Acreage: (approximately 4 - 5 acres needed)
Distance from campus:
(approximately 5 miles max.)
Location:
Centrally (Cent.)
North (N)
South (S)
Accessibility: (roads.and/or utilities)
Wetlands: yes/no
Shape:
Occupied:
Other Comments : J Z

6U,Al--?
4(0

' ALTERNATE SITE ANALYSIS
I FOR

Site Location (General) : Axtyt p ?
' Property Owner: OQfW, a. V,- • lc.?-t?? ?e??vv?S
CAPE HATTERAS SCHOOL RECREATION FACILITY
' Dare County Tax I . D . # : p a. ? 6-9D-C>00 0U31) Da 3r)
Local Zoning: 02 - 07 2-&O I ' /57' 7-45-If
n

Criteria
Type of facility:
P E-

1

Playground and P.E. (P.E.)
Interscholastic Program (IP)
Community (Com)
Acreage: (approximately 4 - 5 acres needed)
Distance from campus:
(approximately 5 miles max.)
Location:
Centrally (Cent.)
North (N)
South (S)
? . SD

Accessibility: (roads.and/or utilities) ?aA -
Wetlands: yes/no UPS
Shape:
Occupied: ltp.S
!r
Other Comments: Ck, Soo- qV0 to,-,X

SR 1113
MASHOES RD.
SEE PLANS ` EE PLANS
100'
F
r. w - EL. = 2.5
q---?..-r-------------?-.1\w;
=
4:1 MAX. SLOPESI ?- EL. = 1.5 it
1
PROCESS POND ROADSIDE DITC
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1 SHOWING APPROXIMATE GRADING LIMITS
USE TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1 FROM STA. 16+00 TO 28+50
4:1 MAX. SLOPES y - ^? - - -
EL. = 1.5
APPROXIMATE GRADING LIMITS
tL.r 1'U ? `?-
SR 1113
MASHOES RD.
30'
*35'
W
0
rn
x
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 2 SHOWING APPROXIMATE GRADING LIMITS
USE TYPICAL SECTION NO. 2 AS FOLLOWS:
-L " STA. 28+50 TO 3+50
*•L
- STA. 32+50 TO 38+50(+/-)
PRELIMINARY PLANS
ro Nor use roe iowmakTav
J
w
w
H
H
x
w-- r -
4:1 MAX._ SLOPES
08-JAN-1998 08:26
DI+RDY-12551a1nprOj+12551. 1,p
-------------------------------------------------•---.-----.---------wausse7---.-.------------------••---
REVISIONS
RROIECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
R-2551WM 2-A
RAY SHEET NO. N/A
ROADWAY DES*N NYDAAULICS
9JGINEER ENGRlF91
PRELIMINARY PLAN'S`
' r" "T VsE: Mft l'ON51'Ri't'ftp
• 1
\.1 l t,T0,,.f4? 6 11 ?°°? °
r3
. i4
j x?,?,? h? ? ?•r -tom= ? o-o.l /? ;? .y; 1. ° .?
0 09
o r_ of A o
1.6
"11 "6,0
A)3-0 ? o o
e 6 0
JIM 1,
?• 1 WE ?• ?, a
0 0 CeJ o VA ? '?
?.S ( 0 r ???/Itl (?. ?0 7 0
0 ?? 9 022
K
E? o °Xo?
5
Vsl, ?_-' ?' 0 ?.? ? UE ^'? ? 0 6• ti5. ? .: !?l i,7`, p\E, 0 °•?N
r
o?
L4j
^n 1 a a - 4'fM
e 04.1 G`' T
- "?
4J -
0 co
ST C%11
-?-_ ?_ MASN° R? 018 8
a 0 SR 1117
({
c u: I ? ??` ?? rr_r=..;? o q •3 \? 'I ?\` `v`_1'_-,?---_, ti W
J.
e ` v
/. ?. 049
_ ?0 Q.I
11 2• ? - ?_)) = ?_-°_ 3 5 ?, ?'
0-1 q
e
v WE --? ° ?3' e? ?Jl? o
6.5 4.
1 09 4.3 9 J i3 j3 0
3 66t?j ??
2 J
-.,m EOM / f'? 0 l? O'yll,V
SITE MAP WITH EXISTING CONTOURS
REVISIONS

SITE MAP WITH EXISTING CONTOURS
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
R•255M'M 2-8
RW SHEET NO. N/A
ROADWAY DESrm HYDRAULICS
EWUNEER ENGINEER

'''I'RE1IDfINARY"
? PLA]VSr
?!pHRTRM'I'ItIN '.
'. MRNCT tNRYOR?

PROTECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO.
A 2551WM 3

/07/98
M.
0*cnonr: HUSSEY DATE
DAM

TATE OF N

RTH CAROLINA TRH
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SUMMARY OF EARTHWORK
IN CUBIC YARDS

t
>c
0
a

LOCATION UNCL.
EXCAVATION UNDERCUT EMBT+% BORROW WASTE
-L- RT STa.16+00 TO 28+50 31,606 0 1,817 0 29,789

-L- LT STA. 16+00 TO 38+50 25,731 0 74,691 48,960 0

SUB TOTAL 57,337 0 76,508 48,960 29,789

ADDITIONAL ON-SITE MATERIAL 19,171 19,171

TOTAL 76,508 76,508 48,960 48,960

USE WASTE IN LIEU OF BORROW -48,960 -48,960

GRAND TOTAL 76,508 0 76,508 0 0

SAY 76 600

m oj Ea REF ERE NCE NO . SH EET NO .
REASIONS D A T U M D E S C R I P T I O N R • 255 1W M 4
R W SHE ET N O. N/ A
THE LOCALIZED C OO R DI N AT E SY S T EM D EV EL OP ED F OR THIS PROJECT.. RO AD WA Y D ESIG N HYD RA ULICS
IS BASED ON TH E ST A TE P LA N E CO O RD IN AT ES E STABLISHED BY E NG INEE R EN GI NEER
NC D OT . FO R MO NU M E NT ' GP S R• 25 5 1 •i"
WITH N AD 8 3 S TA TE P LA N E G R I D CO OR D IN ATES OF
NORTHING:
THE AVERAGE
C 8
O 0
M 3,
BI 7
NE 94
D .9
G 08
RI 1
D
F EAS
AC T
TO IN
R G:
US
E 2,
D 9
O 5
N 0 907.5230
WIS PROJECT
( GR O U ND TO G RI D) IS : 0.9 9 99 3 50 98
P
RE
LI
MI
N
A
RY
P
LA
N
S
S
THE N. C. LA MB E RT G RD BE A RI NG AN D L OCALIZED
YrWTA I
??'
i

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OIL TRANSPORTATION
PLAN FOR PROPOSED

1
x
N
O
DO
U
ti
O
EXISTING
MITIGATION SITE
4a
rOAt%tq
ARBOR
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES

ltrloralalion - - - ?
1630,03 'Temporary Silt Dilck ......
1630.05 Temporary Diversion TD --
1605.01 Temporary ;ill I?rnrr -Ilf-- IH--ffl-
1622.01 Temporary 11rma and Slepr Dr.ina..
1630.01 Silt I1..in 'Type A 49
1630.02 Silt Ilaoin Type 11
1633.01 Temporary Rork Silt Cls"k 'Type A _ ..
1633.02 Temporary Rock Silt CLMk Typr-11 . __. .?
1634.01 Tmnporary (lock Sediment Dam Typr-rA_.. .
1634.02 Temporary Rork Sediment Dam 'I'ypr-l1 ..
1635.01 Rork Pipe Inlet Sediment 'Trap Type-A.... .
_
1635.02 heck Pipe Inlet Srdimrnl Trap '1'ypr-ll . .
1636.01 Bork Silt ti(,r-n ..
1630.04 Stillin,. Bain
Rock In6t Srdimrnl I'rap: A[ Olt A)
1632.01 Typr A...
B
'
Olt
BD
1632.02 Typr 14
c13
,
, Olt -0
1632.03 w r C
71
1
w
HIGHWAY EROSION CONTROL
DARE CO UNTY
TYPE OF WORK.
GRADING AND EROSIOg CONTROL
EXISTING COASTAL MARSH
POND i /
LOCATION: CROATAN SOUND SITES FOR US 64-264 FROM US 264
TO NC 345 EAST OF MANTER
CLEARING F0 GRUBBING
Prepared In tte Office d:
ROADSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
. RALEIGH.N.C.
1998 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
Hoadway Standard Drcwino
7Lc folhmina rmnf v r cn liah atand.rds as apprnr in "Roadwny Slandarti Urawinln"- Roadway Duitln
Unit - N. G Department nf'I'nnapnrtation - RA.Ld,. N. G. J.tnl January 20. 19,98 mad the heat
revison thereto my applimble to thin proleet and by mferenm horebr are conddemd a Met of
the" plate.
1633.01 Temporary Hock Silt CI-ICF po A
EXISTING FORESTED WETLANDS
_ TOTAL SHEETS
PROJ. REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
---.- .-_ . -----
C-2
R-2551WM EC-2---
STATE PROJECT NO. F.A. PROJ. NO. DESCRIPTION
€r

.,.I .
....................................................... .. ......................................................................................:;
_ _ _ _ ~--3,... t
1 y,,...< 4.k.. , _ . ~.r.. , _
1 9 I'
~ , t". ••'4'~,383A~ i r:
t ~ t
I ~ / i i°
. ~ ~ i~~ - I ~ ~ itil
1 i ,r' I'~ I I, x.
1 i 1 i i ; I t, '4
.a _ r ~ _ ~ ~ . ~ 1 ` i~
r 7 ~ ti ~ , I ~
. l__ i / ~ ''llll ~II~
1 ~ / y
~ 1, ~ _ ~ ~ r_ ~ / ~ ~ i
~ , M
J j + ~ ~ ti \ _ _ I I I'
~ ~ y k-, y ~
~ ~ _t 1 1 1 _J~ i 1~ .1 r ~ ~~r E _ . v _ ~ aw=~cet ...P ~ ~ti~ ' 1 ~ ELEVATIOti 26' & A60VE~ 3 CA~L!~fv I , A T_ X ~ PLC,^! ~5 !t~ HIGH ~ PLArjTF~n C ;
R, ac C_.~TE~,_.
~ j . ~t, M,'. \~i _
I \ ~
. I , _ ~ ~
~lT1aA~~V'TIC OCE:~N I - ~ _ t ~ 'i ' 1 F E, " i ~ -
i ' ' . ~ r
3 I e a ~ /
}
V
~ _ ~ ~ G~ C, ~ ~ 1~~ ' Y
~ li q I- I IL /..L1_. N~ $ a x z
~ ° Yc+ zys~' z ~ J Y J <
/ i
/ ~ ~ ` ~ i i _ S > J
Y1 V Y Y ~ •v m o ~ ~ ~ A ~ ; L ~ v
u~~u ~o~"x~a
I i I ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ , ,
~ t m
~ ~ ~ I
i I- ~ !i`
CAMA LINE ~ l ;
ii
. ~ iii! ' I ~ ~ E
I i f i
1 pp ~1
I` i z _ F ® ~
a 40~ LINE ~ z °ml
5 i
i
i ~ i
j ;
~ ~ _ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,1 - I
z ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ - l ~ 1- ~ ~ I o 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ - _ - -
w ~ , - j < E _
N N - - - O
N' Z
• ' ~ - _ _
_ _
% _ - - f
- - - - - _ I Q
4
V~ I ~ I
Q - U
_1~ ~ / r ~ _ _ _
~ % - t- - j - r D! ~ .
r O N Z ~
~ ~ ~ `t
I 1, 1
of
I O a rn
I ? d
o~ i J A B C B B C 6 ~.1
J / ~ o wETUw~s w °r\' }40' }35' }40' }25 ~ }40" }35' t35' +~1.~~es ~ N
' ~ l ' Z Q I o
E I I Q ~ U
Q, 2
~ ~ ~ - h
~ ~ I Z O 2 r-'~ _ `I

~I I
43 ~I I ~ .L r"~ ~ - ( ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ { 't' ~.,r i
BULKHEAD 2 ~ i ? 'Y ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~
I ,I~i, ,~li, ,Ili, ~ ,Ili, ,~li„ ,III, al ~ . , ~ s Q
1 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ a ~
l ~ 1 s CAMA INE ~ ~ 404 LINE _ - Q
SECTION AA z NTS 3
l ~ ~ I I~
- I ~ 0 ~ i
, i 0
z _ ^ ~ U
- ~ ~ o - ~
- - l r~ w _ i i ; ~ZI z o,, ~
N , ' ~ ~ o i x
ca - - - - ~ I I j ~ N~
o c as~c ~ A&c I m EXIST. _
- _ ~ i - I ~ETUnos t70' t60' t30' _ - _ ~
5 ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ w ~ . 1
~ ~ ~ I ~ ~
'3 \ / ao - - ~ ' ~ ~ j Growing No. 2754FIG6
u+ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ EXIST. GROUND ~ , ' PROP. r'~ELD ~ ~ ; survy~d N/.a
o _ ~ ~ -r . ! ! Designed GHW/JLO
~ ~ ~ _ ~ \ r / Orown PUI/2-15-93
X \ ~ i
~ ~ ~ ~ T ,Reviewed ~LD/2-15-93
x ~ ' Ffle No. 85-2754 r
P. N 88'20'00" W ~ _ N 88'20'00" W 273.50' 50.26' I I ~ i ~ Scab 1~=60' / ~ FIOw SPREADER ~,I~~
N 88'2G'00" W 273.50' ~1I1 ~ ~ i I r - . .....r-._-~..._ - ~ e t-15-93
N 88'20'00" N 88'20'00" 289 w 07 _ -------~~~r-__ ~T,~t~ __a ____.._y_ _ - ;SHEET N 0.
PROP. CRAOE BULKHE.40, TAP _LE'+ = i' j
N.C. 12 GRAPHIC SCALE _v_-___. I
,_--9---~-..Jp~.-•--."`_.50~~~~~ t20 ~ 210 I I
I 1 ,
i I
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 60 ft ,-s

i
i
I PAMLICO SOUND
i
J BUXTON "'`ti,_~
` - ~
t 1
i ~ ~
` ~ . SITE - - - -
I- MITIGATION SPECIE ~ S SPECIFICATIONS
FRISCp
~ - - r _ i
' ~ ~ ~ T CAPE f1A7'[ERAS 1dA71dNAL SPASHORE ~ / , ~ I Juni erus vi iniana
A MITCHELL 'i, - - '1 AIRPGRT ELEVATION ?-6' & aBC'JE; GALLON A PLANTS t4' H!~N1 Pi AN fF
_ I 1 i l _C ..N tl CENTERS
~q®c~.~c~s~~~~,
9®
ATL r A.~V TIC OC~~1'~ e
MIX OF Persea borbong and Ma nolia vlr iniana ~ ELEVATION ?1` l,+ % 6'; GALLON ° ~t`? ~
PLANTS; PI_ANTE4~ JN 1!' ~ .,ENTERS ; p: • ; ~
~o,".
~a®~
VICINITY MAP / , ~ T 0@@@J@@@@@If1~i60i
~ S artina patens / -
~ ~ ~ ~ ELEVATION 1-2' & RELCW, Pi ANT ON 2 FOOT ';ENTERS } ~ q i ~ ~ - ~P qW
_ _ _ ~r W Fqm
}Z d(/~~tlC I1 Q ~ W }y1 J FFJ N_
~W €J`Z y~Kp•J~
' ~ . Q U' ZF ~ j ~ 3 Z } W ~ W X30
m ~
m N3Zgo j II~~c3v,m
_ ~ O ~ O W [ J
Y
0
LAMA LINE ~
( I
i ~ I ! i

1 Z z I OF
404 LINE ~ ~ Ul U
w SN
~ ' W°
~ ~ - - e ~ z ~ I I
, ~ - z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - i~
o ~ ~ I
_ _ N ' ~ / ~ ~ - ~ I - - _ a °
~ i ~
N i ~ _ k
r'. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - x X
/
_ - - h.- _ - _ l ' ~ - - @ I
~ _ ~ ~
~ i ~ 4 Z 4
_ k ~ 0
i - I - ~ e _
_ ~ , - - ~ / _ x I - - ~ ,,A ~ - - - ~ i z ~
- A ~ -t- . ~ ~
~ O N Z I

~ - / d~
0 ~ rn
~ rn ~
oI I J A--- B C ~ B B C ~ ° ~ EXIST. _ - ~I`- i - - -
J ' ~ t40' t35' ~ t40' t25' WETLANDS f4U' ~ f~`' ~ wEn Nos ~ w ~ t3~ ~ I i
1, r i i Z~ Q N~
i Q o ,J ' U
\ ~ LL 2
i - -
( Z
O =
43 I ~ r~ ~ - - - ~ T- - ~~T i Q i ~ a~
1 ~ BULKHEAD ~ S < T , ~ ~ ~ ~ 7"-' < 0 _ _ k +a , k i ~ ~ ~
~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ i k ~ - i I ~ i _I ~ Y
_ ~ I J ~I' Ili ~I~ ,i~ ~ ~ i, .I ~ ~ li U , ~ _ v~ ~
~ ~ i ~ Q ~ I ~ ~
ail ! ~ ~ 1 I w ~ ~
~ ~ CAMA~IINE , ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ 404 LINE ~ ~ j , ~
~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ SECTION AA Nrs ' I, _
I 3 2` I
_ - I ~ - - 1 ~ o!
I I ii f~~' - ~ A i li ~
- ~ , - ~I U~
~ I - ~ ' ' f ~ _ ~ , - - ~ O - _ - ~ i
w - ~ ~ - - ~ I ~ ~ 2 I Z
N , - - - l ~ I N - - i ~ - ~ U `k"~ 6 OI ~i Oi
N ? ~ i ~ - 00 / i ~ . Xi ~~i I ~ N
~ - ~ r---~ , ~ i - ~ C B&C I A&C ~ ~ ~ m EXIST. - - _ * ~ ; I
~ ~ WETLANDS f70 t60 } j ~ - j ~
/ - - ~ i - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ i
~ ~ i ~ - - / - - - ~ . I~_
~ ~ - \ - - 3 ~ / cn ~ ~ ~
- ~ ~ - - ~ EXIST. GROUNDS ~ ~ Nk ~ ; Drvwing No 2754fIG6 ~
. ' ~ ~ ~ Surveyed ~ N/q i i _
~ - _ ~ - - Desi ned 9 GHW/JLQ
X / - ~ , - _ ~ - Jrown PLMj'Z 15-93
_ - / ~ 2' _ } Reviewed JLGj<-~5-93 ~I / - ~ _ _ I
~ t- ~ _N 88'20'00" W / T- ~ _ ; File No. ~ ! ~ ~ ~ - . - 85--2754 ~ ~ ~
P " - N 88 20 00 W 27;'.50' 50.26 N 88'20'00" W - - 273.50' ~ ~ - ~ ~-.r_ h 'Scale I
- _ N 88'20'00" N 88'20'00" ' i ~ r ~ = - Date 2-15-93 / ~~I
W _ 289.07 '.0T ~ JII,
PROP. GRADE y „
GRAPHIC SCALE - N.C. 12
60 p 30 60 120 246
FIGURE 6
( IN FEET ) SECTION BB
1 inch = 60 ft. NTS

i I;
NOTES. / 1_ EXISTING BASE MAP INFORMATION TAKEN FROM ~~I
~ SURVEYS AND DRAWINGS PREPARED 8Y C.P, i~i
r p LEWIS, SURlEYOi~, QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
{ ANO BISSELL ASSOCIATES. i
I 2 INFCRMATION SHOWN HEREON IS fOR PERMIT
F~~~iL'C'0 ,5'0.r ri~!Ii APPt_ICAt10N ONLY AND IS NOT 10 BE USED FOR I ~ CONSTRUCTION.
I
I
~ 6~ x?nr~ I
~ I i
_ I i i
j ~~II 1
51 TE I
~I i I;
~h!5'_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j I r
y _ ~1 ~ P .i _ Y r j '/p eelrhr
h~ { t ~R.ir92~4y. ~4SMQJ~,~ i ~o`° ~ rrri m 'r~ ~ 'rri~i
N~~~ ~i 1.. Ni.. A~kviH' f I ~ ~ • ~Q
j ~ • ~ ~~~y°~ • i •
Zed
• i ~ 2 ~
r~,j r„~~~.., ~ ~
.~~~.a11.~ C?C~~.:~~'~ aav~ TA Y Oar Pea
L _ _ _ _ _ rr1 lel~ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ OOOOOIIIn _ r
1 ~ AVE. SPECIES o
i I N0. SPECIES ELEV. z / I ELEV. ~ W
sinus taedo ~ ~ ~ _ - ' z w ~ e € a _ _ _ 'r.' 3~ ~s~~m ~ ~ i
VIC - r INITY MAP _ Flnus tgeda _ ~ ~ F _ _ _ _ _ ...._.ti Q C7 f ~ J Z ~
- ~ Z C Persea borbonia 3 w ~ ~ ~
- _ - _ _ m ok'W~rc 4 Persea borbonia ~P' ~ m o 3 o
I _ u~nw ~ ~ ~ ~ I _ n r t.. ~ O W rc 7
! Magnolia vir iniana = . - ~ , - `0
i - - I ~ ~ F Ma noli vir i_, ng iana 2.77 m
I r-----rt--------------------- ~ ~ ' 7 Baccharis halimifolia ' 69' I , I
i ~4 +4 y i i i i ~ ,4 i4 Jc J. ~4 J. +L ~ J. J. I +L i4 I J. ~ J~ i4 I I - - _ 49 I I i
I 9 ~ Baccharis halimifolia ~ ~ I I' - - - - _ I
g cabal minor _ _
J, i4 Ji J. J. i4 Ji il. Ji Ji .4 ~4 .4 .4 .~4 ~ ~4 i .L ~4 ~ i J~ ~ SIC ~4 ~4 ~4 4 `i ~abai mirror ' ' I
i ~ ~ V ~ i ~ _ _ - - _ _ _ I ' I I !lex vomitaria (n
~ i I I ~ _ _ _ _ 4., Z _ i
~ i ~ i ( ! I ~ ~ Ilex v_om_itoria ' u o I ~ ii i _ - F,
f ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ I Fhra mites commuris ~ N u, ! I ~I
i i ~ r ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q t hro~mites communis ~ t ± °
u, ,r ~ m ,u m ~ v. ~ m ,v m ~l v., r. w'~ m }r ,a ~ r, m m ,n ,4 m ~ I W I I ~ r_ _ _ _ . ___y ~ j I I
~ ~ ~ ~ Juncus roemerionus ` 6'~ i ! ' I
I i ^r Juncus roemerionus ~ I ' _
~ ~2- ~ ~ v z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ ~ ~ + t - - _ -k ~ I I I
h 4 `I' - - _ ~ l i f - ~ _ _ - W
z ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 1 a _pgrting ~ate_ns ~ . ~ o`- ~ , !
,n ,v m ,v ~ ~ ,r, ~ ,r ,4 1 B ~ ~ 12 i ~ i CA _ _ - I Ig ~g frutescens o ~8. ~ - - _ - - - _ - - - Z ~
~ - 1 - _ _ ~ L~=~ Iva frutescens
N 2k 1 ~ _ ~ _ , ~ , Jurlperus vir ig niara -_;~9' ~
~ m ~ m ~ u~ ,n y ~ t lr - - - - - - ' - - - _ - - Cb - - - - ~ ~ _ I _ i
_ - - - ~g _ _ _ .url erus vir miar_a p - 9-- - _ - _ - _ e--- _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
S - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a *1
,r m m ,4 ~ ,r u~ m 19 ~ ~ I - _ ~15~ t7 - } _ _ _ - _ _ 20 ~ - y ~ _ _ . _ Ji _ _ _ _ _ ~~I
.g r r _ _ _ - - Y,~
_ _ _ _ (_1
i f,~....J.- 1 ~ ~ - - - _ _ - - ~ _ - - - _ _ ~ I ~
i - - _ _ ~ ~I - - - _ _ ;r ~
r _ - _ - _ _ C~ N- N i L
il. y J. ~ ~ y ~ ,4 _ y y Jr i4 ~ may, _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- - - - - - - _ _ O
JI ~ i .4 Ji y i _ - L 3 ,L ~L iL - . 7 O! REGULARLY & IRREGULARLY FLGODED WETLANDS ~ (n
I. C z ,y, - _ _ ci5ti~nli~ s icgg ~ , u ! ~ ~
- _j - - ~ ~ m m ,r y y ~ _ y m m r~ m m ~ i ~ CK , I ~ parting pates I,iJ i ~ ~ '
( - 1 ~ .j Spartira ~asuroides I I ~f w , ~ ; 1~~ N~
~ ~ - ~ J ' I , Juncus roemeriaru_s ' ~ I Q: Clgdium lon^_aicense Q o
J i ~~I
, - I Z
y I
v' I - ,4 ~4 m ,4 ~L u. i4 +4 W Z ~
L r _ W V - ~ ~ 1 ~ i', ~ 'A'i
` ~ I ~ ~ ~ _ W N S vi SHRUB/THICKET ETLA D ~ ~ .
II I SECTION 404 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS ~ ~ ~ ~+cn
~ ~ - - O 3 Y - Baccharis halimifolia ' U
Z ' 't - - _ - Persea_ borbcnia ~ tq
W F Mggncliq vir in_iang F- Q W
fA - _ _ _ ~ - i _ ~artin~ patens Q ~ ~
- 0 ~ ; - - - - - - - { ~a I !~a fr~te~cEr_ J ~ Q
Ja ~mbn-atc ~ ~ ; I 3~ Phrcgm ;e~ cr irquni~ I ; I
t ~ µ ~ I =abol m t-c_ ~ j {
O ~ ~ Q c Gr~eru° vr~n~~rc ~ j ` p
1 I _ _ Y _ ,4 ~ ~ ~ dy ~ , - j P k o PRi:~FEkTy uF ~ I ~ 01
_ 1_ _ UI
_ _ _ _ _ _ . DARE CO. Ba ~ ~ ~ ATION HIGHCROUND I RE CO. BOARD OF EDUC `z
y, ~ _ ~ _ t- -i z (CAPE H _ _ (CAPE HATTERAS SCHOOL) - - - ~int,s tae~~c I ~ z ~ ~ i
~ i G - lex cr~_~ f F- ~
. I ~ r.~ - ~ ' 'uer~..u- cuhtolic ~ ~ X _ _ _ _ I N i _ ~ur,iper . :_r~r ~r g ~ ' ~ I
N ~ ~ - I r _ _ Vltis r ' ~r ~ `~%i~ I
S1 I
_ y~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ i
l
_ 1 ____r___ growing Np. 7754f65 I
_ . " I I Surveyed AIEK~1-18-93
- - i Dtsi nea ~ / '
9 NSA
- _ ~ i _ y _ I ~ 2 5 93 Reviewed JLO~ YIS-93
y'- t --._t
I i, - File No ~5-2'54 J _ _ _ _ }
f.~_ - _ Scale ~ ~,_6Ci _ ~I
_ ~...m,.~~,.......,....~ p ~~.tE Gate .-16`93 ' J
J + j n 4.~ ~ r S('' ~ ~s~- . , ~ ~l ~F'~
CC° VY N RR'~r'r~r" .,u 289 f}7'
N. . , C. 12 :r
FIGURE 5

i ilia
rir.r ~ T`. - X'~. S;iSE UHF !;'F ,kMA ~Ic°d iAKtN FROM 1k\F_'i~ ,flf, ~:RAWIP,~~~ r~KE~ARE~u,Y C.F.
ill rbJl~, SU~V~Y~.R, ~ ~ ;~'_~IB'~E & ASSOCIATES, N.O.,
ANA HIS~~L ASSCC!A.F~
,i NF 'ttMATl,i(v ~HC~Wh HtKEC~~iv FOR PERMIT ; I i
PAMI 'CO 0I~`~"D aF'r ~Ar10N ~NI Y ,~~1J NAT 7~^ FEE USED FOR ' ~ ~ i" ~N~(R~ ','I('~rI
i ',l i
~cx-~N _ l T
- k m 1'~ ~
~ ` ~I
,,F I i II
i I I ~~I~ ~ I
i
s n~ ~ i, r, `T ~ ~ d ~ ~ e ~ ~ r- ~ I I
ti f li' ~~';,i ~ it
SAPS (~IC'"'u~RAS N,4'~'l~AIAL 5'~AS69QDf~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ a A `y ~ ~ I I r-PROPOSED 6ULKHEAG i
mt. ~ ~ Mir HEC f . ~.n.-, ~ FINISHED GRADE ®®14®~N
AIkF~JHT ~ ~ / ~-AREA TO BE FlLLED ~ ~ti~i ~ ~ . °~S ~~ti.
_ _ s o f
W.uJ „
rQof/a ~ Z:>: : .,y, (7• :
l ~i ~~~.'~r`j'I C 0 ~~',t~ • ~ ~ EXISTING GRADE =iY s~o ~ ~
_ ',d tidd / .,0~ ~o N~ ~
o~
I ~~~II y 11~ /IIIIl11
/ I
~ _T _ >
VICINITY MAP ~ o rco _ _l~r-~ TIE BACK AS -i; my ay~-'Oa
r ~ ~ REQUIRED W ~ ~ ~ 3W €~~zz
wz m~ •~o _ ~ F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F
~ _ - F ~ _ - F
~ - F
-._P~F
- F rXA
U - F
~ - F
~ F