19970404 Ver 1_Complete File_19970428 (2)

)WQ"FMater Quality Section
Date: V
NEMORANDUM
TO,
? Trish MacPherson (end. sps) 1_
? Kathy Herring (forest/ORW/HQW)
? Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
? Matt Mathews (toxicology)
? Jay Sauber (intensive survey)
4-1

SEp I ra WO
Non-Discharge Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Kim Colson (Permitting)
Wetlands (WQ Lab)
? John Domey (Corps, 401)
O Cyndi Bell (DoT)
A Eric Meek (dredging)
C) Eric Galamb (other)
rYC?I1orrrs.?yl am t:-.. ?
O Ed Buchen (i
Q Brent McDoi}?,'
Regional Water
O Asheville O 1 ` _: _....-.
? Fayetteville O 1.;
? • Winston - Salem
Planning Branch , (,,
O Alan Clark (bas;,
? Boyd DeVane
O Beth McGee (may a
? Steve Zoufaly
? Ruth Swanek
Point Source Branch (Archdale 9th)
p Dave Goodrich (NPDES) ?
C) Bradley Bennett (Stormwater) O
O Tom?l?o featment) (Archdale 7th) ?
ROM: T.isa Mahn, Regional / Program Management Coordination Brmic-; ,
'R JE T:
kttached is a Eopy of the above document- Subject to the requirements of the 1,}
'olicy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential sisnincant o
:specially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. PI
)ox below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, l;

mil- dal.?1?
- -112
^
RESP.ON r?'?
SEEADLINE 3?'n '
- J
0-'; OMMENT ': Q RIENTS? ATTACH, ij
c?.'
:.s
M' : _-..::: - _ .r.'?_a?- _ _ ? r._.?.. -• . a
'haak you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining this process are greatly
Totes:

can be reached at:
hone: [phone], ext. 565 fax: (919) 7 9- e-mail: lisa_marti-u(x)1
Is:\circmemo - mac version `76-6?3?
a''
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ed Buchner
THROUGH: John 7y
FROM: Eric Fle
SUBJECT: Replacement Hatteras Ferry Channel Bird Nesting (DENR# 944, DWQ# 12225)
Based on a review of the EA, the following issues should be addressed in the FONSI:
1. Under the "Project Description" portion of the EA it is stated that "subsequent or maintenance
disposals may take place in the future in order to rebuild the island after significant erosion or to
maintain the early successional state of the island for colonial waterbird use." Under the "Alternative
3, Using Sandbags or Geo-tubes to Confine the Material" portion of the EA it is stated that "sandbags
and geo-tubes are very expensive, and the selected location is quite protected from high-energy water
flow or wave action so erosion should not be a serious problem." Which of these two statements is an
accurate assessment of the new island location? We believe that the use of geo-tubes or sand bags for
the portions of the new island most vulnerable to wind, waves, currents, and boat wake should be
required so that erosion on the new island can be minimized. This will prevent the need for another
new island and EA in subsequent years. As the EA details, geotubes/sandbags can be detrimental to
forage/feeding/loafing areas for the birds the island is intended to attract. It is for this reason that only
the most vulnerable portions of the island should be required to have protective measures
implemented.
2. After a close examination of Figure 2, we recommend that the footprint of the island be shifted to the
ESE (into deeper water) to lessen the amount of impact to the shallower water to the West. This would
likely increase the amount of favorable habitat (as discussed in the EA) for the birds likely to use the
island.
If there are any questions regarding this matter please feel free call at [phone].
Environmental Assessment
for
Replacement of Hatteras Ferry Channel Islands
for Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Dare County, North Carolina
1998
Environmental Assessment for
Replacement of Hatteras Ferry Channel Islands
For Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Dare County, North Carolina
Abstract: Two islands near the Hatteras Ferry Channel in Dare County totaling 12.0
acres were used extensively by nesting colonial waterbirds. During the 1970's, an island
only known as "Uni, Hatteras Ferry Channel #1" in the Colonial Waterbird Atlas, held
about 3000 nests of royal terns, as well as providing nesting habitat for 9 other species of
colonial nesters. The other island only known as "Uni, Hatteras Ferry Channel #2", held
148 common tern nests, as well as nests from black skimmers and gull-billed terns. Over
the last two decades the islands have severely eroded. Uni, Hatteras Ferry Channel #I is
now less than 2 acres in size, and is almost completely over-washed during high spring
tides. Uni, Hatteras Ferry Channel #2 is now completely underwater, even at low tide.
The loss of these islands has been a significant one to colonial waterbirds in the area.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District (COE), and the Colonial Waterbird Management Committee
propose the establishment of one island just to the North of previous island Uni, Hatteras
Ferry Channel #2 through the use of dredged material while maintaining the states
waterways. The construction of this island would be through open water disposal and
control-of-effluent. Alternatives include establishment/rebuilding of an island at the
same location as one of the aforementioned islands, using another location entirely, using
sandbags or geo-tube to confine the dredged material, or no action.
If you would like further information
on this assessment please contact:
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
David H. Allen
355 Paul Dr..
Trenton, NC 28585
252-448-1546
INTRODUCTION
This project is being undertaken by the committee charged with management of the
State's colonial nesting waterbirds. The committee is comprised of individuals from
Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout National Seashore, National Audubon Society, National
Marine Fisheries Service, N.C. Division of Coastal Management, N.C. Division of
Marine Fisheries, N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Nature Conservancy, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District and Washington's Regulatory Field
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Water Quality Section of the Division of
Environmental Management, and others. It is organized by the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission. The applicant for the CAMA permit will be the Nongame and Endangered
Wildlife Section of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
The coast of North Carolina has been divided into five colonial waterbird management
regions (Parnell and Shields, 1990). The North Carolina Colonial Nesting Waterbird
Management Plan calls for the maintenance of suitable colony habitat in each region for
those species that have historically nested in each region. The Cape Hatteras area falls
within Region 2. The need is to re-establish nesting habitat for early successional
colonial waterbird nesters in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras. In particular, nesting habitat
is needed for royal terns, sandwich terns, common terns, gull-billed terns and black
skimmers. Although the North Beach of Hatteras Inlet does produce nesting habitat for
some of these species, natural predators, humans and dogs often disturb the site. The
closest protected location royal and sandwich terns have for nesting is clam shoal which
is 7 miles away, but this site often gets over-washed, and many nests are lost. The closest
protected location within region 2 for gull-billed terns, common terns, and black
skimmers is near Oregon Inlet on Old House Channel, Island L. This site is 42 miles
away. Clearly this distance is too far to foraging birds to make use of the productive
waters near Hatteras inlet. Furthermore, an island with early successional habitat in the
Hatteras area may also provide a nesting site for Caspian terns which nests in very low
numbers in the state, and usually only at one or two locations.
ASSEMBLY
Major Conclusions and Findings. It has been concluded that the re-establishment of a
nesting island in the Hatteras Ferry Channel area is needed and should be performed.
The exact location of the new island will be 35° 13' 00" N and 75° 42' 55" W. This
location is about 500 ft. north of the former island Uni, Hatteras Ferry Channel #2, and
0.3 mi. North from island Uni, Hatteras Ferry Channel #I (fig. 1). The maximum size of
the island will be 12.0 ac. Analysis of aerial photographs over time shows the previous
islands total combined size to be 12.0 acres in 1977, 10.7 acres in 1980, and less than 4
acres in 1984, 1993 and 1995. The size of Uni, Hatteras Ferry Channel Island # 1 is now
less than 2 acres. Both the old islands will be left to erode away, and re-vegetate with
SAV. No attempt will be made to rebuild these two islands.
Material for the new island will come from the Hatteras Ferry and Rollinson Channels
during normal maintenance dredging by the Wilmington District COE. The material
within those channels is beach quality, medium to course grain sand and shell. No
material will be taken from within the Ferry basins to construct the island since more
fine-grained material (silt) tends to accumulate at these locations. Work will be done
within the normal dredging window for that area (Oct. 1- Apr. 1). The project will
benefit royal terns, sandwich terns, gull-billed tern, common terns and black skimmers.
Initial impacts on aquatic resources of the area should be minor due to the small scale of
the project and short period of time necessary for construction. Since the target nesting
species to benefit all require a relatively bare sand/shell substrate or sparse vegetation, no
vegetation will be planted to stabilize the site. Furthermore, since the proposed
excavation and discharge is expected to result in environmental gain, no compensatory
mitigation is necessary. All attempts have and will be taken to avoid and minimize
impacts. No additional funds will be needed for the project, since all work will be done
through normal maintenance of the Rollinson and Hatteras Ferry Channels.
Areas of Controversy. The areas of controversy center around the depletion of sub-
aquatic vegetation (SAV), open water habitat, and recreation possibilities. In this case, it
has been determined that the benefits to colonial nesting waterbird species outweigh the
anticipated adverse impacts to SAV, open water, and recreation. A new set of high
quality aerial photographs (flown 11-25-97) shows no SAV at the location of the
proposed site. Some recreational opportunities will be provided by the island itself
during the non-nesting season. It can be used by fishermen and other recreationists.
During the bird nesting season the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission will post it
against trespass.
Unresolved Issues. There are no unresolved issues.
Project Description. With the help of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the States
Colonial Waterbird Committee is proposing to build and maintain an island to benefit
colonial nesting waterbirds. The island will replace two islands that have been lost to
erosion over the years, and will be maintained through the regular disposal of dredged
material. No additional dredging will occur over that which is currently being conducted
during regular maintenance of the Rollinson and Hatteras Ferry Channels. Dredged
material which is currently being taken to the beach or deposited just outside the surf
zone will be used for this island. The material to be dredged is "beach quality material"
and is composed of greater than 90% sand. The method of disposal will be a
combination of open water disposal and control-of-effluent through a pipeline dredge
system. The spoil is free from toxic materials, and no navigation channels will be
obstructed.
The depth of the water at the site ranges from 3.2 to 6.8 ft. at low tide (fig 2). Because of
the relatively shallow water and beach grade sand as disposal material, it was deemed by
the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers that open water disposal can be
accomplished in conjunction with control-of-effluent to build the island without
significant runoff of material. The perimeter of the site will be staked-off and deposition
will be made in the center of the area. As the sand builds above the water level, control-
of-effluent will be used to shape the island. Because of the large grain size of the
material, most will settle-out before flowing from the staked area. Deposition of material
will be through a pipeline dredge. The area within the stakes will be 12.0 ac. Deposition
is estimated at as much as 350,000 cu. yd. of material the first year. This will be enough
material to create an island about 10 feet high over 10 acres. The general shape profile
of the island is described in figure 3. The island will not be permitted to extend beyond
12 acres since larger islands tend to promote bird nest predators. The island will also not
be permitted to reach more than 15 feet in height since wind often becomes a problem by
covering nests with sand on high coastal sites.
Subsequent or maintenance disposals may take place in the future in order to rebuild the
island after significant erosion or to maintain the early successional state of the island for
colonial waterbird use. However, the island will not be allowed to get over 12.0 acres in
size. During initial and successive disposals a bulldozer may be used to push sand
around on the island to create a flattened crown and gently sloping sides to the waterline.
Realistically, underwater impacts to the site will be somewhat greater than 12.0 ac. since
the underwater footprint will be larger than the above water island size. This will create
a shallow water area near the island, which should be more conducive to SAV
establishment.
None of the species to benefit from this project are considered federally endangered or
threatened. The gull-billed tern is now a state threatened species, and the common tern
and black skimmer are state listed species of special concern. All of the species to
benefit except sandwich terns did show a marked decline in nesting numbers this past
year during the statewide colonial waterbird census. It appears that very little successful
nesting of these species has occurred on the barrier beaches. With disturbance and
predator problems becoming worse, the early successional nesters will have to depend on
dredged material island sites even more than they are now.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives to the proposed project include rebuilding either UNI, Hatteras Ferry
Channel # I or #2 at their current locations, placing the island at another location
altogether, using sandbags or geo-tube to confine the dredged material, or no action. A
discussion of the components of these various alternatives follows.
Alternative 1, Rebuilding Former Islands. Consideration was made to rebuilding either
UNI, Hatteras Ferry Channel #I or UNI, Hatteras Ferry Channel #2 on their original
locations. Positive aspects (at least with rebuilding UNI, Hatteras Ferry Channel #I)
include the ability to deposit the material using exclusively control-of-effluent. Since
this island is still above mean high water, no open water disposal would be needed.
Another positive aspect of rebuilding this island is that the ownership of this island is not
in question, and would remain the property of the state and managed by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's (WRC) Nongame Program for colonial
waterbirds. Although allocation of a new island to the WRC for management of colonial
waterbirds is possible, it should not be taken for granted. It should be said that whether
the new site is allocated to the WRC or not, it can still be used by the COE for dredge
deposition, and therefore somewhat managed for colonial nesters. One last positive
aspect of re-building one of the former islands is that these islands were located very
close to the Hatteras Ferry Channel, thus there would be possible educational
opportunities as observers from the Ferry pass. On the other hand, these sites would
probably also receive more human disturbance, being close to a major channel where
recreational boaters often pass.
Negative aspects of using either of these two sites are that both of them now have
significant SAV within the site. Furthermore, UNI, Hatteras Ferry Channel #1 is now
about 300 yd. from the outer banks. If it were enlarged in the direction of least SAV, it
would extend to within only 200 yd. of the Outer Banks which would place it
dangerously close to predator populations which could swim the short distance and wipe
out all nest attempts. Given the well-documented benefits of SAV, and the fact that
predators may be a problem on an enlarged UNI, Hatteras Ferry Channel 41 island, this
alternative was discarded. It should be noted that this was initially the preferred
alternative (to re-build Uni, Hatteras Ferry Channel #1) in the early stages of the planning
process. As SAV established itself around the island, this alternative was abandon for the
current alternative.
Alternative 2 Placing the Island at Another Location. Consideration was made to
building a new island at another location altogether. In fact, over the last two years, two
other sites were considered for the island. There are a large number of navigable and
maintained channels in the Hatteras Inlet area. Therefore, the number of possible
locations for a new island is limited. The objective was to find a location close to the
previous islands that would not impede navigation and without SAV. Otherwise,
placement of the island needed to be within easy pipeline access of both the Rollinson
Channel and the Hatteras Ferry Channel. Other locations were available but most
contained large amounts of SAV. Of those that contained little or no SAV, none were
positioned as well as the proposed location when considering proximity to the old site,
proximity to the channels to be dredged, and distance from the shoreline.
Alternative 3 Using Sandbags or Geo-tubes to Confine the Material. Positive aspects of
using sandbags or tubes to confine the sand include the added assurance that the material
will not leave the site during disposal. Underwater impacts would also be less since the
sand can not spread greater than the perimeter of the bags or tubes. Sandbags will also
help prevent erosion. However, sandbags and geo-tubes are very expensive, and the
selected location is quite protected from high-energy water flow or wave action, so
erosion should not be a serious problem. Sandbagged islands are not as beneficial to the
birds or other wildlife. Aquatic organisms such as sea turtles and diamond-backed
terrapins can get caught in the warm/hot shallow water sometimes found between the
sandbags and the shoreline. Un-bagged islands have gentile slopes with larger shallow
areas which make better feeding, watering, and loafing or resting areas for shorebirds,
wading birds and other species. Once the young from the nesting bird colonies are
mobile, they tend to gather in large groups called "creches". These creches usually form
at the water's edge near open shallow water. Sandbags often produce steep drop-offs or
ledges, which would not permit the cresh, access to water. Also, gentile slopes are more
likely to be vegetated by typical low beach vegetation and sub-aquatic vegetation
(especially on the lee side of the island where there is some protection from wave energy)
than sandbagged or geo-tubed islands. Sandbagged sites tend to produce more tall,
invasive, and non-native species such as phragmites (Parnell et. al. 1978). For these
reasons, the use of sandbags or geo-tubes is not preferred.
Alternative 4, No Action. The last alternative to be considered is no action. Under this
alternative, no nesting habitat will be available to replace that which has been lost over
the last ten or twenty years from the erosion of islands UNI, Hatteras Ferry Channel # 1
and #2. This will contribute to the statewide decline in several of the species that nest on
dredge spoil islands including royal terns, common terns, gull-billed terns and black
skimmers. This area is very important to these early successional nesters since it is
historically an area where large numbers of them nested. Also, this group of species has
experienced large declines in nesting numbers as well as nesting success over the last 20
years. Therefore, this alternative is not acceptable.
An additional positive benefit of having the COE pump the dredge spoil to the new island
site rather than the "no action" alternative of beach or near surf zone disposal, is that the
pumping distance will be considerably less. Thus, a savings in tax dollars will be
realized as the contract for dredging is let.
IMPACTS TO SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES
Fisheries. The waters of Pamlico Sound support a diverse and valuable fishery. While
none of the area to be affected by this project is classified as a primary nursery area, it
could be considered a secondary nursery area since it supports large numbers of juvenile
shrimp, crabs, and fnfish. The area is important in the commercial fishing industry for
crabs and fin-fish as both crab pots and pound nets are located within a half mile of the
proposed site. Finfish that inhabit the estuary include flounder, channel bass, cobia,
trout, bluefish, croaker, and sheephead.
Pipeline dredge disposal into open water is usually not desirable because of the
possibility of dredged material flowing off site. Both on-site and off-site material can
adversely affect fishes and benthic organisms through various mechanisms such as gill
clogging due to turbidity, smothering and burial of immobile species and through the
direct conversion of estuarine bottom to high ground. Impacts of this project are
expected to.be minimal since: (a) the time required for initial disposal will be short,
probably less than 2 weeks; (b) the material to be deposited will be composed primarily
of medium to coarse grain sand (thereby reducing turbidity); (c) the location of the island
will be on a site with no SAV, which tend to be less productive waters; (d) the location
selected for the island has low wave action and little current which will also help keep
the sand in place during disposal and in the long term, and; (e) a relatively small area of
estuarine bottom will be affected.
Shellfish were sampled on the site by taking a random sample of six, 2.5 gallon buckets
of sand from the site at various water depths. The samples were later closely examined
for shellfish. No shellfish were found. Additionally, there are no shellfishing leases in
the area.
Water Quality. The entire area around the proposed site is classified as SA by the Water
Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management's water quality
classification. SA means the site is suitable for shellfishing for market purposes, primary
recreation, aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, and secondary
recreation. Since the material to be dredged is beach grade material consisting of mostly
coarse and medium grain sand, the impacts normally associated with un-diked disposal of
dredged material such as turbidity, resuspension of pollutants, etc., should be minimal.
Cultural Resources. No cultural resources are known on the site. Dredging will occur
within established dredging channels, so no additional area will be impacted from the
dredging standpoint. Deposition of sand may cover some unknown cultural resources.
Endangered Species. Several endangered or threatened species may occur in the area:
bald eagle, peregrine falcon, American alligator, Florida manatee and 5 species of sea
turtles. This discussion of impacts will only address the deposition of the material as
opposed to pumping it onto the beach. The actual process of dredging the Rollinson and
Hatteras Ferry Channels has been analyzed, and the results can be examined in the
Environmental Assessment for Maintenance Dredging of Rodanthe, Avon, and Rollinson
Channels (1996), Finding of No Significant Impact for Maintenance Dredging of
Rodanthe, Avon, and Rollinson Channels (1997), and Final Environmental Statement,
Maintenance of Navigation Projects on Sounds of North Carolina (1976).
The bald eagle and peregine falcon should not be affected by this project. Both are
known to pass through the area, but do not breed there. Since there are no perch sites
presently available for eagles on the site, the loss of open water habitat is not an issue
from an eagle foraging standpoint. Peregrine falcons do not need open water for
foraging, and may benefit from an island with a concentration of birds for food.
The American alligators, Florida manatees and sea turtles are all mobile species that can
avoid dredged deposition. Although all are known to occur in the area, even occasionally
in cold months, the dredging window should help to prevent take of these species.
Manatees and perhaps alligators and sea turtles may be seen in the 5-6 ft. of water, and
therefore avoided when initiating deposition. Before deposition of sand, the area will be
surveyed to help assure no endangered or threatened species are within the area.
COORDINATION
The needs of nesting colonial waterbirds are well known to the resource management
agencies in North Carolina. A cooperative agreement between The North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission and the other management agencies involved or
concerned is in place. The agreement states that all the signatories will attempt "To
develop management tools including... dredged material disposal management... which
help stabilize or increase populations of those native species (of colonial waterbirds)
which are presently at low numbers or declining". This is not to say that colonial-nesting
waterbirds should be considered above other concerns, but so long as the other concerns
have been satisfied, the agreement recognizes the need for colonial waterbird
management. Other agencies such as the Division of Environmental Management are not
signatories to the cooperative agreement, but are active members of the Colonial
Waterbird Management Committee and have also been contacted so their concerns could
be addressed.
Most members of the committee were involved in a site visit in 1994 when the
alternative of rebuilding UNI, Hatteras Ferry Channel #I was being investigated.
Another meeting was held in November of 1996 where all pertinent agencies were
invited for further discussion of concerns. Again in November of 1997 a meeting was
held and plans were refined even more through further comments. All agencies were
once again encouraged to make any oral or written comments pertaining to the project.
The only written comment received was from the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program that stated full support of the project. Since then, all agencies have been
contacted by phone to further update and discuss concerns. All agencies seem
comfortable with the present design.
REFERENCES
Parnell, J. F., D. M. DuMond, and R. N. Needham. 1978. A comparison of plant
succession and bird utilization on diked and undiked dredged material islands in North
Carolina estuaries. Tech. Report D-78-9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Parnell, James F. and Mark A. Shields 1990. Management of North Carolina's Colonial
Waterbirds. UNC-Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-90-03, 169 pp.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. July 1976. Final Environmental
Statement, Maintenance of the Navigation Projects on Sounds of North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. December 1996. Environmental
Assessment for Maintenance Dredging of Rodanthe, Avon, and Rollinson Channels, Dare
County, North Carolina. 21 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. February 1997. Finding of No
Significant Impact for Maintenance Dredging of Rodanthe, Avon, and Rollinson
Channels, Dare County, North Carolina. 10 pp.
Figure 3. Contour of Bird Island
Elevation above MLW in 2 ft. increments

(O
(?7
4
O!
s
4h+
Q rn
as m
L
c? LO
L
3
LO
LL M
v
M
fri N
z
W
O N 00 00
r U)
(p OD
(y ? (Y7

N

N
OD
4
U)
M
L6
00
ri
00
m
Ti
N

ao
6
rn
C6
co
cv
(O LO
ID Q} 00
G
C13 V
TJ \ ,
rI? \
O
O \
a
o ?
0
~ N
C?
a?
bA
CE
a?
?. D ro
o „ 3
o`
o to
.a ?.
cts
C
'O G y \
w c
U `.

4

i
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
?\rVCnR - ;
JAMES B. HUNTJR.a:
August 24, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative Affairs
FROM: John ParkerQ{??
Major Permits Processing Manager
SUBJECT: Clancy's Marina Environmental Assessment
Attached, please find eight (8) copies of an Environmental Assessment for proposed
expansion of Clancy's Marina located on Smith Creek, in Oriental, Pamlico County.
The EA has been developed by David Noble. Should your review have any questions
about the proposal, they may call Mr. Noble, Ted Tyndall in our Morehead City office, or myself.
JP/aw
Enclosure
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NC 2761 1 -7687 127213 CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CON5UMER PAPER

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
For
Compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
CLANCY'S MARINA
Proposed by
Gregory Andrew Bohmert
Post Office Box 562
Oriental, NC 28571
[phone]
Prepared for :
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
[phone]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose
Background/Proposed Action
1. Existing Environment
2. Project Need
3. Alternative Analysis
a. Proposed Action: Open Water Marina
b. Upland Basin Marina
c. Drystack Storage Marina
d. No Action Alternative
4. Environmental Effects
a. Land Use Changes
b. Wetlands
c. Prime Farmland
d. Public Lands
e. Scenic and Recreational Areas
f. Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value
g. Air Quality
h. Groundwater Quality
1. Water Quality
J. Noise Levels
k. Water Supplies
1. Shellflsh/Fish and their Habitats
m. Wildlife and their Habitats
n. Introduction of Toxic Substances
o. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
5. Cumulative Impacts
6. Mitigative Measures
7. Appendix A: N. C. Natural Heritage Program: List of Rare, Threatened and
Endangered Plant and Animal Species and Natural Communities
2
S. Appendix B: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service: List of Rare and Endangered Species
9. Appendix D: Project Plan/Aerial Site Photograph
10. Appendix E: Project Site Plan
References
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CLANCY'S MARINA
SMITH CREEK, PAMLICO COUNTY
NORTH Carolina
Purpose this is an Environmental Assessment as required under the
State Environmental Policy Act (G. S. 113 A-1 through G. S. 113A-12).
The Environmental Assessment is required because the proposed
project involves the use of " public lands," which in this case involves
the construction of a commercial marina over state-owned submerged
lands. This document was prepared following the Procedures for
Complying with the State Environmental Policy Act as outlined by the
State Clearinghouse, North Carolina Department of Administration. This
document is being submitted in conjunction with a Coastal Area
Management Act ( CAMA) Major Development Permit Application.
Background/Proposed Action: The project site is a .8 acre developed
tract located near the mouth of Smith Creek in Oriental, Pamlico County,
North Carolina. The site is located on the north side of Midyette Street
within the corporate limits of Oriental. The site street address Is 311
Midyette Street. The proposed project is the expansion of an existing
ten-slip boat dock and an existing commercial boat engine repair
facility. Specifically, the project proponent proposes to construct nine
additional boat slips and to replace the existing fixed piers with floating
docks. The applicant proposes to excavate approximately 1000 cubic
yards of spoil material to accommodate the proposed slips. The
proposed expansion combined with the existing slips would bring the
total number of slips at the site to nineteen. The applicant also proposes
to install 108' of PVC bulkhead. The proposed marina development and
expansion is the focus of this Environmental Assessment.
1. Existing Environment
The property is a .8 acre developed lot located at 311 Midyette Street within the Town
of Oriental, Pamlico County, North Carolina. Currently, the owner of the property
4
resides on site In a 1200 sq. ft. house and operates a marine repair service specializing
in mechanical and electrical services. In addition to the marine repair service, there
are also two piers with a total of ten slips that the owner rents out to supplement his
income. These existing slips have water and electrical service. In addition to the
marine businesses, the owner also rents out space on site for operation of a hair salon.
The businesses have been in operation for over five years. There Is an existing gravel
drive and parking area on site. The project site was formerly used as a loading dock for
a sawmill. Soils on the site are mapped as Altavista loamy fine sand.
Some of the surrounding land uses includes several commercial marinas. Adjacent to
the applicant's property on the downstream side is a 12 slip commercial marina and
railway repair facility. On the upstream side of the property is a residence with a
seven-sllp dock. Also in the immediate vicinity is a 16 slip residential marina, another
12 slip commercial marina, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission public
boat ramp, a commercial boat storage yard and an ice plant/cold storage/commercial
fish processing house.
The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Land Use Plan for the Town of Oriental
designates the project area as 'Developed'. The project site is zoned Residential
/Business-Marina by the Town of Oriental. The project has received approval from the
Town of Oriental under its Growth Management Ordinance.
2. Project Need
The existing piers and the repair/storage buildings on site are in disrepair. The project
proponent is faced with the choice of major repairs to the pier and buildings or to
remove the structures and redevelop the site. Furthermore, marketing analysis by the
proponent has identified a need for additional boat slips with greater draft for boaters
in the local community. In order to efficiently increase the water depths for slips at the
site, the proponent plans to remove the existing piers and excavate the area of the
existing slips. The excavation can most efficiently be accomplished with all of the
docks and piers being removed. The removal of the existing piers and subsequent
excavation dictates the need for construction of new docking facilities. Construction of
a single pier with a total of nineteen slips will allow for the consolidation the two
existing piers Into a single pier.
Similar redevelopment of the upland area at the site is also planned. The proponent
plans to consolidate existing parking with proposed new parking to more efficiently
utilize the upland area on site.
3. Alternatives Analysis
a. Proposed Action: Open Water Marina
The proposed project is the removal of the existing docks, excavation of a
boat basin, Installation of a bulkhead, installation of boat docks and slips,
and redevelopment of the upland area on the project site. The applicant
5
proposes to remove all existing docks. Then the applicant proposes to
excavate by dragline and bucket and barge a 100' x 150' x -5.0 NWL boat
basin. The existing water depths at the site of the proposed basin are -1.0 to
-6.ONWL. The excavation of the basin will require the removal of
approximately 985 cubic yards of sand/slit spoil material. The spoil materials
will be deposited on site into two confined spoil disposal areas of 135' x 40'
and 100' x401. These spoil materials will be confined with soil berms and silt
fences. Any excess spoil materials, which cannof be adequately confined on-
site, will be trucked offsite to an approved high ground spoil disposal site.
Spoil materials will also be used for backfilling the bulkhead. The applicant
proposes to Install 108' of pvc bulkhead at an average of 2' and maximum of
5' from NWL. After excavation of the basin the pier will be Installed. The
entire dock system that the applicant proposes to install is a floating dock
system. The applicant proposes to construct a single 166' x 6' main pier with
a 65' x 6"T' at the waterward end. In addition to the 'r the plans call for one
20' x 4' finger pier and three 4' x 25' finger piers on the north side of the main
dock. On the south side of the main dock, three 4' x 30' finger piers are
planned and at the waterward end of the pier, two 4' x 30' finger piers are
planned. A total of 19 slips are planned. That is nine more than the existing
ten slips.
On the upland area, the applicant proposes to remove the two buildings at
the edge of the water. These two buildings are currently used for boat repair
and storage. A new 24' by 40' service building will be constructed about 30'
from NWL. The service building will house men and women's restrooms and
showers, a marina office and a repair center. Parking at the site will be
reconfigured to provide 18 total spaces for the business patrons. The
parking surface will be gravel and marl.
The project site will continue to be served by the Town of Oriental's water
and sewer system.
b. Upland Basin Marina
An upland basin marina was considered for the project. However, due to the
limited amount of upland property (.8 acres) and the existing business
operations already on site the upland basin alternative was not selected.
c. Drystack Storage Marina
An upland basin marina was considered for the project. However, due to the
limited amount of upland property (.8 acres) and the existing business
operations already on site the dry stack storage alternative was not selected.
Additionally, due to the relatively small scale of the project and lack of space a
drystack storage marina would not be economically feasible. The construction
of a drystack storage marina would also significantly increase the impervious
surface area on site.
6
d. No Action Alternative
The no action alternative would be for the existing marine business to continue
to operate without any changes at the site. A socioeconomic impact of this
alternative would be the potential loss of Income to the property owner if he
does not expand his business. The expansion of the marina may justify the need
for additional employees at the business. The benefits of removing the
waterfront structures, regrading the site and establishing vegetative buffers
would not occur under this alternative.
4. Environmental Effects
a. Land Use Changes
The project as proposed will not create any significant land use changes on
the site. The redevelopment of the site will allow for more boat slips and
additional parking area but the commercial marine related business
character of the site would remain the same. There are several commercial
marine businesses in the vicinity of the project site.
b. Wetlands
There are no hydric soils or hydrophitic vegetative communities on site.
Therefore, there are no wetlands on site and no impacts to wetlands from the
proposed project.
c. Prime Farmland
There is no prime farmland on site and there are no anticipated impacts to
prime farmland from the proposed project.
d. Public Lands
The proposed marina piers will occupy approximately 11,000 sq. ft. of public
trust waters and the proposed excavation will disturb approximately 15000
sq. ft. of estuarine bottom of public trust waters. The current piers and slips
occupy approximately 5,000-sq. ft. of public trust waters. The net Increase to
impacts on public trust waters from the existing piers to the proposed piers
is approximately 6,000 sq. ft. The creek width at the project site is
approximately 511' and the proposed total pier length is 166' or
approximately 1/3 of the creek width. The existing pier is approximately 1301.
e. Scenic and Recreational Areas
The construction or operation of the proposed marina expansion is not
expected to interfere or significantly impact any scenic or recreational area.
f. Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value
Based upon a review of maps compiled by the North Carolina Division of
Archives and History which are housed in the N. C. Division of Coastal
Management's Regional office, there are no known areas of archaeological or
historical value on the project site.
g. Air Quality
The project site is located in an attainment area as designated by the N. C.
Division of Air Quality. Due to this fact, it is not anticipated the significant air
quality Impacts will occur.
h. Groundwater Quality
There is a plentiful groundwater supply in Pamlico County. According to the
NRCS-USDA Pamlico County Soil Survey, " the surficial aquifer ranges from
the water table to a maximum depth of about 75 feet. The Castle Hayne
Formation is a very productive artesian aquifer and is the main source of
water supply in the county. It ranges from 200 to more than 400 feet thick.
The overlying Yorktown Formation produces moderate supplies of water".
The Town of Oriental's water system currently services the project site.
1. Water Quality
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality designates Smith Creek as SC-
NSW-HQW. The applicant proposes to install a permanent 30' vegetative
buffer landward of the bulkhead to enhance water quality. Additionally, the
applicant proposes to have the site graded to drain away from the bulkhead.
The site will also be regraded to drain to the south side of the property to a
vegetative filter strip. The total Impervious coverage for the project site is
less than 30%. The applicant has applied for a stormwater management 'low
density development' authorization.
J. Noise Levels
Noise levels are not expected to significantly increase from the construction
and operation of nine additional boat slips.
k. Water Supplies
The proposed project is not expected to significantly impact the Town of
Oriental Water Supply System.
1. Shellfish/Fish and their Habitats
Only short-term minor impacts to shellfish or fish and their habitats are
expected from the construction and operation of the proposed marina. The
brackish waters of Smith Creek are typical of nursery areas found in the
Pamlico Sound and Neuse River estuaries. Fish and shellfish which utilize
these estuarine nursery areas are spot ( Leiostomus xanthurus) , Atlantic
Croaker ( Micropo4onias undulatus ), weakfish ( Cynoscion reealis ), flounder
Paralicthys spp. ), Atlantic menhaden ( Brevoortia tyrannus ), penaled shrimp
Penaeus sap. ) , and blue crabs ( Cailinectes sapidus). These estuarine
nursery areas are utilized by these species for parts of their life cycle,
primarily for breeding and/or hatching and early development of the young.
The waters of Smith Creek are closed to shell fishing. The North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries designates Smith Creek as a Secondary Nursery
Area.
m. Wildlife and their Habitats
The total upland project area is only .8 acres and has been significantly
disturbed. Based on lists provided by the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service there are no known
threatened or endangered species or critical habitats at the project site.
n. Introduction of Toxic Substances
Petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants, etc which are
associated with boating activities will be used on boats utilizing the marina.
Bottom paints will be used on vessels occupying the marina. The patrons of
the marina will need to strictly adhere to standards of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the U. S. Coast Guard, as well as other federal and
state laws to minimize impacts to the environment from these substances.
Disposal of hazardous wastes from boat repair and maintenance will be
performed in compliance with existing laws.
o. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
See description under Water Quality
5. Cumulative Impacts
Due to the relatively small nature of the project, (less than an acre of upland and
less than 15,000 square feet of estuarine bottom) cumulative Impacts from the
project are not expected to be significant. Dredging projects of a similar
magnitude have been permitted recently in the vicinity of this project.
6. Mitigative Measures
Measures specified in slip lease agreements
No overboard discharge and locked head policy.
Redevelopment is complying with stormwater management rules and improving
the site control of runoff.
References
Coastal Marinas: Field Survey of Contaminants and Literature Review, Report No. 91-
03, March 1991.
Guide to Estuaries.Albemarle Pamlico Estuarine Study.
Marinas and Small Craft Harbors,Tobiasson and Kolimeyer; 1991.
North Carolina Administrative Code T1SA: Subchapter 26, 7H and 3J.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management,
North Carolina Coastal Marinas: Water Quality Assessment, Report No. 90.01, January
1990.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management,
Oriental Land Use Plan, Town of Oriental.
Pamlico County Soil Survey, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
August 1987.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program.
List of Rare Species of Pamlico County. February 1996.
Saltwater Sportfishing and Boating in North Carolina, 1981.
The Physical Oceanography of Pamlico Sound,Pietrafesa, Janowitz, Chao, Welsburg,
Askari and Noble, Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, North
Carolina State University
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federally-Listed , Candidate Species and Federal
Species of Concern,
April 1996.
SCIENTIFIC AND STATE FED. STATE
COMMON NAME PROT. PROT. RANK
Pamlico
Vertebrates
ALLIGATOR MISSISSIPPIENSIS T
AMERICAN ALLIGATOR
BOTAURUS LENTIGINOSUS SR
AMERICAN BITTERN
HIMANTOPUS MEXICANUS SR
BLACK-NECKED STILT
LATERALLUS JAMAICENSIS SR
BLACK RAIL
LEPIDOCHELYS KEMPII E
ATLANTIC RIDLEY (TURTLE)
MALACLEMYS TERRAPIN TERRAPIN SC
NORTHERN DIAMONDBACK TERRAPIN
NERODIA SIPEDON WILLIAMENGELSI SC
CAROLINA SALT MARSH SNAKE
PICOIDES BOREALIS E
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER
TRICHECHUS MANATUS E
MANATEE
URSUS AMERICANUS SR
BLACK BEAR
Vascular plants
CAREX LUPULIFORMIS SR
HOP-LIKE SEDGE
DIONAEA MUSCIPULA C-SC
VENUS FLYTRAP
LYSIMACHIA ASPERULIFOLIA E
ROUGH-LEAF LOOSESTRIFE
PLATANTHERAINTEGRA T
YELLOW FRINGELESS ORCHID
SOLIDAGO VERNA E/PT
SPRING-FLOWERING GOLDENROD
Natural communities
BRACKISH MARSH _
COASTAL FRINGE EVERGREEN FOREST _
ESTUARINE FRINGE LOBLOLLY PINE FOREST -
HIGH POCOSIN -
LOW POCOSIN _
MESIC MIXED HARDWOOD FOREST (COASTAL PLAIN -
NONRIVERINE SWAMP FOREST -
NONRIVERINE WET HARDWOOD FOREST -
PINE/SCRUB OAK SANDHILL -
NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, NC DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DEHNR
Data compiled using BCD software developed by The Nature Conservancy.
T(S/A) S3
- S1B,S3
- S2B
C2 S3B,S2
LE SAB,SZ
C2 S3
- S3
LE S2
LE SIN
- S3
S1
C2 S3
LE S3
S1
C2 S3
S5
S1
S3?
- S4
- S3
S4
- S3
S1
S3
GLOBAL
RANK
G5
G4
G5
G4?
G1
G5T5
G5T3
G3
G2?
G5
G3?
G3
G3
G4
G3
G5
G3?
G3?
G4
G3
G5T5
G2G3
G1
G4
FEBRUARY19%

SCIENTIFIC AND
COMMON NAME
POND PINE WOODLAND
TIDAL CYPRESS--GUM SWAMP
WET PINE FLATWOODS
Special animal habitats
GULL*TERN*SKIMMER COLONY
COLONIAL WATERBIRDS NESTING SITE
MARSH BIRD NESTING AREA
1
STATE FED. STATE
PROT. PROT. RANK
S4
S3
S3
NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, NC DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DEHNR
Data compiled using BCD software developed by The Nature Conservancy.
GLOBAL
RANK
G4G5
G4
G3G4
FEBRUARYI9%
April 1, 1996
PAMLICO COUNTY
Common Name
Vertebrates
American alligator
Black rail
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
Northern diamondback terrapin
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Manatee
Vascular Plants
Venus flytrap
Rough-leaved loosestrife
Spring-flowering goldenrod
PASQUOTANK COUNTY
Common Name
Vertebrates
Bald eagle
PENDER COUNTY
Common Name
Vertebrates
Shortnose sturgeon
Bachman's sparrow
American alligator
Henslow's sparrow
Loggerhead sea turtle
Piping plover
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
Southern bognose snake
Southeastern myotis
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Carolina gopher frog
Manatee
Invertebrates
Buchholz's dart moth
Atlantic pigtoe
Venus flytrap cutworm moth
Yellow lampmussel
Croatan crayfish
Carter's spartiniphaga
Vascular Plants
Seabeach amaranth
Scientific Name Status
Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Laterallus jamaicensis FSC
Lepidochelvs kempii Endangered
Malaclemys terrapin terrapin FSC
Picoides borealis Endangered
Trichechus manatus Endangered
Dionaea museipula FSC
Lvsimachia asperulaejolia Endangered
Solidago verna FSC
Scientific Name Status
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Scientific Name Status
Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered
Aimophila aestivalis FSC
Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Ammodramus henslowii FSC
Caretta caretia Threatened
Charadrius melodus Threatened
Corvnorhinus (=Plecotus) rafrnesquii FSC
Heterodon simus FSC
Alivotis austroriparius FSC
Picoides borealis Endangered
Rana capito capito FSC
Trichechus manatus Endangered
Acrons buchhoLi FSC
Fusconaia masoni FSC
Hemipachnobia subporphvrea subporvi tiyrea FSC
Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Procambarus plumimanus FSC
Spartiniphaga camerae FSC
Amaranthus pumilus
Threatened

9?b
r
*0
Y
W
. W
U 8
133l1LC 3113A0" .1 ab _
.i Q L .O
-1 2 Z :E o
II --- .a JN?MiAYJ 17INIt Y?.I (?, h
-133211 S 53900N OJ. - +--
-----
?i 9 41 II= Z
----------------
-------------- -I ?(9 Q O iu
+ oz a
.l C'?6 M .l C.Y7.l? S d. Z
N
a lri a+ ' I j W? O
t I I O >- v
.. rro' I ? I ?Q Z F-'
II z
L
o g ?I 0?
'I'tf , 7 ? I I
li ? ? if ' ' ^ ? ' ? ? i ryr tllrurrrrlu'rrrrrrr,
OOH +
Iv -cc CE.
4'O NI O i,> M J
qi M ? : 1 1 1 rrrrrrrrrrrrrtr`111
h ? ? N • 5? ? I ? ?
u 5 I? P<
+
I IO_- ry1
/ ? • I I ? ? ? 'may 1fy
wall AMwr.C Lr/rNtY ryN l1V Q
y V7 ? j `
N
3
+; ? + It V eo
.rrr o
t n b
'n fa
r
4
.rrr .? `?+ I 4
I
r.
t?J o ? la l tl I gj? ^?
.? \ rt ?/? Z
14
Y I ?1 3 9 rtlKt L?U
+ 1 r,,ylll cNC[K
A
r a _
Q + r '..r6 SPY I.r a I? N
+ ?? e' p . p r° I1
'? ?? b? t q r- -.ery I ?t? r Q h h
rl?
a
+ t, o It! a M
o\ tf?
?? 1 rf1 a ° g i
l 2` I
N ?J V 7d J. N3GUd0 7JAJO a a o u
VA11V 7W 2103 / 13YIIS 33S ? N .t J ai ? ? ..
V
6
b
r
r
0
Q
m

+l L' I
?y
I

F
,
I RE
oil UpslaN° b ?-
yEE st`?E (2 ' J pop po"
7,
?' b Y, N r ?.oYI
13
rapf t
o
v ?y? rjp
d.I m ? .r
,'•/j1?/,111 YI1. ••',•••'

lal ?f+A .
N
i II
w
U N Q
r J Z . O N
ZO Q OZ.
z <
Woo _j
4 ? 4- Q
U
0 3:
Z
tiQ J Z Ft3
rz
.r
y•a
6'll ?f p

? R• ??L 1 O
c;
_?T' ? / / rl 1 I ?? In
? 111 Sri
I i N'
N
/ / Ilgi I
? / ,? I II
Ilj aE? '
lo:?tj
R
04 x
i?
n'
YM
W
h
/
//? I 9NIlIJ j- _n-.ac
/ 1VV3lJ( cNIIOQ -
I
N33?1? FI.L/WS
coat vMnval
Y YC4
c
F
? -
y
p s3 '
? J
Q t c

?? 6 - to 1

? l
1 ) ? YY
6a y_
LLI
J
N

v ?

Y

41?
gh
(S 1?
ti
to
0114
I
",it
xJ
I- nr

FJ
C
°j 2
I A
q
?o 0
41 (f`
1, Y)lil
4, °? I'I
h C7
vi
if
,! yl
v I?

'
I? ml?l
IlOjl
O I?
n: In
n: h
' 2 O O 11
1.1 F 1;1
1,1 n)p)
Y).q/.s wnw/uIIY .G/ Q F. n: h?
yv n
N7l!l? Ill IVs 3N1
lJlXY%s 3[KYl l h
Z
Cl
I-
U
f1'
I-
U
L
n
Y
U
O
z
i?
a
I
i?

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE
COMMUNITY DOCKING FACILITY
AT FALES SUBDIVISION
MASONBORO SOUND
NEW NANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE APPLICATION FOR A
MAJOR COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT ACT PERMIT
FILED ON APRIL 15, 1998 BY JACK H. MCPHAIL (FALES)
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
PREPARED BY
CHARLIE HOLLIS
REGULATORY CONSULTANT
138 GREEN FOREST DRIVE
WILMINGTON, NC 28409
JUNE 1998
14 1. Kesl @10,
'aw °r r 8409 T '?. .
r e f/n Or ''u n 417 a .,
??. + Q' l 1 sr r ri 51 D Tau p'
t+ke -•_, ??--. C/Wo°W !tlG 5a\" ? wni y "? Y- "le
)av 4a a, °I'
a d? `bw q or,n lore E 0 ,t/ .,
d r d rj ara R / o Po na 3 Wa a ?} t
vOe GY p& ?9 FAWN CREEK NJ ?yr?'
b Gown qo ?T 1 r , / / PARK 05/TE QP C - 1 4 -r r..
+ n
R r °" ,Or ? iq K° •9,?n,d ?V.4??' ? m..M"f34?'t?,
n?
65. Maraevnls CI
r
' - ? u rt - Fi+T . Bullernut CI
Ober Anry 7. Prbnivera CI
fL c?C, Dry 5.. ._. -___ `i h,•T.._
? 0 vei Rd . ) ...fn Qy Deer,1 .6 9?1:lango 0l
z 3 I C ave Cl c T Snorowoy+. H o
Ci Y 1. Kige Arens CI c 4 6. °' 1 ry+ ,°arl
? y^ yd Z. crowrwg PI \?vP n ,a \i A r
'am0en.n l c7 F 7. RUmwnd Cu d Dr 9enre y Ma / 4 J . alrtt'+ J t C /
a Cr son , .? +
+ CuIW CI ' MuMaver Q ury q a 9 ! I X;'
•?T d? -? 'moo i1- p, Mwr , arq •.?{
yt•?y 6 G Ct Sn a 11 •}q )ao t nn? J f y?4?•,??,.,.A. „?p,'yC.. r iti ?ti
G Ct
71
4yM t'}'Sr' \ tl?''1 +'FS{44"1"G r t.ll /J.
3 H er .' t Coe
e
- ,JW N vane i a^^e ) Or Tr n ? ~ `' b! ,...:5 I ,t S ..1. we st , ?'' / . '
Sc °Or o[,oa MARINA 71
- ? j' r H;us
Dr r
Ound
S K, N
"r, , ??NMn / a ! done a Dr ^ ?_ C 1 (r /.?...
Basra, Or 7 r `f• ° 7r SC a d rs?, ' cl f , ?q ?n1X
Fr,e^o! °^e/Haven0,
, Hours 4 h ? o v t 7K?;? \ {?:.. • ' /
t ? k
?' Rd Sdcema4er /ASONBORO ISLAND
n
ogaun+. ?,, ra,n ? l 3•,\?t / PARK
n s )?
'ban qc-
''^b Fnaes q ? •?ror ?i7 (n J ., f a f/ ?'? r +
'Y I 11. id!
r .?
'"3 I :4 Tr t . n t j* ?Y of +el+ Y .? t
%+s'e 7 •s 7; tif+i#??fl i x L*?a:Us? ''s' '? • ? r ?
?''T,A \ .` !!( R 1 w? +?.I¢1?'•
+Jr.+Y,?ny r,•t yc, Yr 7 ', rb,?y? ? yt+h' llp ki??J
:V p
',? , Nr W ? E ?F ,1 ?? •,
I?w 1 ...• M` T' I fia."7 •? r. -? N ?`yr 1f }?NF ?'7 r?„i N?•?? .:
LG"" .. _ aV r + y y'1.1rQ4.? t
a •y
\.\'t.r i f+?trfil. yl. s"r 1," 1 k'?\L? yid t...
r•y .... ? .?.4!? ....1 tI'n, ._. ?fJ.?.l'? 'YJ'}y?i,?sNv.I?.
oryv •;
,'4SCALE'
r
05. 1
KIC
SITE MAP
COMMUNITY DOCKING FACILITY
AT FALES SUBDIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
COMMUNITY DOCK-ING FACILITY
AT FALES SUBDIVISION
MASONBORO SOUND
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
JUNE 1998
1.00 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
1.01 General. The proposed Community Docking Facility at Fales Subdivision is a 360'-long, 100'- ' ,
6'-deep inland boat basin dug into high ground and connecting by way of ab00'-long 30'-wide-6L-1
deep access channel to the existing channel of the Oyster Bay Community Marina and then to the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW). The proposed facility will provide docking space for 10
boats and a small-boat launching ramp all for use by the residents of the intended Fales Subdivision
located west of the boat basin. Plans showing this work and the completed application for a Major
CAMA Permit are attached to this Assessment.
1.02 Construction.
(A. cess Channel. The access channel is to be located immediately adjacent to the north edge of
e Oyster Bay Marina, such that the channel excavation will take place within the "prism" slope
of the Oyster Bay basin. In order to limit the impact of this new channel on the marsh and mud
flats to the north it is proposed that, prior to the excavation of the access channel, a retaining wall
will be constructed along the north side of the new channel. Excavation of the channel will then
proceed, utilizing a barge-mounted excavator, which will transport the excavated material to the
shore of the Fales property where it will be spread within the designated high-ground disposal
area. Mud and surface sediment will be placed along the north side of the retaining wall to bring
that area up to the elevation of the adjacent mudflats.
B. Inland Basin. The inland basin will be excavated entirely on high ground behind an earthen
"plug" separating the work from Masonboro Sound. All bulkheads, piling, and all other
construction steps that can be taken within the unconnected basin will be completed prior to
removal of the plug and connecting the basin to the Access Channel. Excavated material will be
spread evenly across the designated spoil disposal area and placed as needed behind the
bulkheads. Upon completion of all excavation and the connection of the basin and channel,
floating docks will be constructed and positioned as shown.
2.00 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
2.01 General. This project is located on and east of the Fales Estate immediately north of the existing
Oyster Bay Subdivision in New Hanover County and north of Whiskey Creek adjacent to the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (AIVM. The property extends from Masonboro Sound Road eastward
approximately 1900 feet to the mean high water of Masonboro Sound and consists of approximately 11
acres of high ground, none of which contains jurisdictional wetlands subject to Federal and/or state wetland
regulations. The land elevation at Masonboro Sound Road is approximately 30 feet above mean sea level
and gradually slopes downward toward the east to form a terrace approximately 5 feet above msl at a point
PAGE 1
about 600 feet from the shoreline. It is within this terrace that the inland basin and spoil disposal area is to
be located. Existing and past land use is residential, The "terrace" area where the basin and disposal areas
are proposed has been extensively used in the past for a family vegetable garden. The existing Oyster Bay
Marina north dock is immediately adjacent to the Fales south property line without benefit of any setback.
2.02 Soils. Soils in the "terrace" area are mapped as Lynn Haven poorly drained fine sands; soils at the
higher elevations are mapped as Leon poorly drained fine sands
2.03 Surface Waters. The tidal surface waters of Masonboro Sound are located east of the Fales property
and the access channel is proposed to be constructed within these waters. The waters are designated as a
"Primary Nursery Area" by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries and, although the waters are
designated as "SA", the area is closed to shellfishing because of its proximity to the Masonboro Boat Yard
Marina.
3.00 NEED
3.01 Private Need This property has been in the Fales family for over 100 years, but the family is now
scattered and unable to continue to personally occupy or use the property. In fairness to the remaining
heirs, it has therefore become necessary to sell the tract in the form of single family residential lots and
equitably distribute the proceeds. In pursuing this goal, and recognizing the very limited access to
navigable water that is naturally available, it has been determined that there is a clear private need for the
Fales family to improve the navigable water access by utilizing some of the property for the construction of
an inland boat basin with a narrow access channel to the nearest (boatable) navigable water.
3.02 Public Need. New Hanover County derives much of its revenue from the influx of retirees and others
seeking the tranquility of coastal living and the enjoyment of water related sports and other activities.
These amenities are best realized when persons are able to locate their residences where water vistas and
access are available such as within the Fales Subdivision as proposed. The public need for this particular
project is accentuated when one considers the rapidly decreasing inventory of similar available properties
in the area; and, in this case, the very near proximity of high ground to the waters of the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway.
4.00 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
4.01 General. This analysis will be limited to the issue of navigable water access.
4.02 Alternative 1: Expansion of Oyster Bay Marina. This alternative has been discussed with
representatives of Oyster Bay, the Fales family and with the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management to determine its feasibility, cost, and acceptability. This alternative involves extending the
north dock of the Oyster Bay Marina 90'eastward and the south dock 75' eastward to accommodate the
dock space needed for the Fales project. Additional dredging would be necessary and would approximate
1500 cubic ydrds of material to be removed. Approximately one-quarter acre of Public Trust waters would
-lie utilized by the addition to Oyster Bay. This alternative would require the Fales family to enter into a
development agreement with the developers of Oyster Bay, the terms of which cannot be clearly
determined. The details of such a complicated agreement were considered beyond the wishes of the Fales
heirs, especially_since they all are-not-lo cated in North Carolina. This alternative, therefore, is not
practicable-
PAGE 2
4.03 Alternative 2: Construction of Pier and Gazebo. Plans were drawn and considered for the
construction of a pier and gazebo for use by the residents of Fates Subdivision. Soundings of the depth of
water eastward from the Fates shoreline (except adjacent to the Oyster Bay north dock) was generally less
than 1' at high tide and most of the mud flat is exposed at low tide. This alternative envisioned that the pier
would extend eastward from the Fates shoreline beginning at a point greater than 15' from the Oyster Bay
property (as stated by CAMA guidelines) and extending about 150' waterward to a 500 square-feet covered
Gazebo. This alternative would involve some excavation along the south side of the pier to accommodate
small boat docking adjacent to the Oyster Bay basin. The construction of such a substantial pier would
involve considerable expense and construction effort, and when completed would not provide sufficient
useable boat access for the Fates Subdivision, nor would the esthetics of an exposed mud flat be attractive
for frequent use of the pier.
4.04AIternative 3: Do Nothine to Provide Navigable Water Access. The alternative to forgo any effort
to improve the navigable water access was considered. This alternative would meet neither the private or
public eeds as stated above, and is therefore not practicable.
4.05 AI rnative 4: Preferred Construct an Inland Boat Basin and Access Channel. This is the least
enviro mentally damaging (to the estuarine resources) practicable alternative that will satisfy the private
and 'Pub;ic needs that have been identified- It is the most damaging to the private land owned by the Fates
family, but the cost of this damage is clearly offset by the benefits of improved navigable water access and
enhanced value to the remaining property. Construction of the project will be accomplished in an
appropriate season and phased so as to minimize and limit impacts to surrounding waters. At such season
as is advised by the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, it is planned that construction of a retaining wall
along the north side of the proposed access channel will be accomplished first. The top of this wall will be
slightly above the elevation of the existing mud flat surface to the north and will serve to prevent the
development of a side-channel slope into the mud flat. This wall will be constructed of treated timbers or
pre-cast reinforced concrete panels. Upon completion of the wall, excavation of the access channel will
begin at the shoreline and advance eastward utilizing a barge-mounted excavator with capability to
transport the excavated material back to shoe where it will be off-loaded and spread on high ground in the
designated disposal area. During the course of this work, suitable muddy substrate material will be
deposited on the north side of the wall to bring the level of the surface up to the elevation of the
surrounding mud flat. The channel is to be located, insofar as possible, within the northern side-slope of
the Oyster Bay basin, thereby minimizing the dredging to about 600 cubic yards and utilizing the retaining
wall to eliminate future slope erosion caused by future dredging and boat traffic (from this project and from
Oyster Bay). Upon completion of the wall and channel, the construction effort will then focus on the
inland boat basin. This work will be separated from the tidal waters by an earthen plug, which will remain
in place until all excavation, and sidewall stabilization has been completed The excavation will be
accomplished with a trackhoe or similar excavator, which will place the excavated material on high ground
where it will be transported and spread within the designated disposal area. As the excavation proceeds,
the installation of treated timber or reinforced concrete bulkheads around the basin will begin and continue
until completed. The final work will consist of the removal of the earthen plug separating the basin from
the channel and the installation of the final bulkheads. Floating docks will be brought into place and
secured.
5.00 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
5.01 Chanees in Land Use. The existing and past use of this and neighboring land is Residential. This
use will not change. Threatened or endangered plants listed regionally are: Cooley's meadowrue, Rough-
leafed loosestrife, and the Seabeach amaranth. No impact on these species or their habitat is anticipated.
PAGE 3
5.02 Imnact on Wetlands. A few square feet of sparsely spaced coastal wetlands (Spartina alterniflora
and Spartina patens) are located at the shoreline in the path of the proposed access channel and will be
destroyed. The stabilization of the remaining shoreline will enhance the growth of adjoining marshes and
quickly replace that affected by this work. There are no inland 404 Wetlands on this site.
5.03 Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands. Not Applicable
5.04 Public Lands. Not Applicable
5.05 Scenic or Recreational Areas. No public areas existing. This area will be a scenic recreational area
for the residents of Fales Subdivision.
5.06 Areas of Archeological or Historic Value. There are no known archeological sites on this tract. The
Fales house may be of some historic significance, and if so, appropriate steps will be taken to prepare
documentation or other records necessary to satisfy all requirements of the Federal and/or state Cultural
Resource agencies. The house is not within or will actually be affected by the work that is the subject of
the requested permit, but it is within the overall area of the Fales Subdivision.
5.07 Air nualitt. No impact is anticipated
5.08 Ground Water Quality. Some temporary impacts on ground water may occur within the spoil
disposal area because of the leaching of salt water through the soils. This impact is expected to be minimal
and not unusual since the disposal area is seasonally subject to exceptionally high tides. The excavated
materials from the channel will have high salinity but will not be deposited directly onto the ground, but
will be transported after allowing time for decantation and drainage. Other soils will not be saline and will
not affect ground water. In any case, the short-term minimal impacts will be localized and not affect
potable water in the area.
5.09 Noise Levels. Noise levels will temporarily increase during the construction period.
5.10 Water Supplies. No impact
5.11 Shellfish, Fish and Wildlife and Their Habitats. The channel excavation will affect some scattered
shellfish (within this closed area), however shellfish habitat will be increased and enhanced by the presence
of the proposed retaining wall and the creation of additional mud flat area to its north_ Shrimp, crab, and
fish habitat will be increased and enhanced by the addition of the sheltered waters of the boat basin.
Regionally listed endangered aquatic mammal species are:
Finback whale
Humpback whale
Right whale
Sei whale
Sperm whale
West Indian manatee
Endangered fish are:
Shortnose sturgeon
PAGE 4
Endangered reptiles are:
American alligator (threatened)
Green sea turtle
Hawksbill sea turtle
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
Leatherback sea turtle
Loggerhead sea turtle
No suitable habitat for any of these species is present on the site. Some of the aquatic species may visit
the offshore waters, particularly the deeper waters of the AIWW, but no adverse impact on the species or
their habitat will occur because of this project.
5.12 Introduction of Toxic Substances. Care will be taken during construction to assure that fuel or
grease spills do not occur from the equipment. The boat basin will not provide fueling facilities and will
caution users to avoid spills of fuel or other substances. A "Locked Head" policy will be in place and
monitored for enforcement by the homeowners.
5.13 Eutrophication of Receiving Waters. The waters in this area are subject to daily tides ranging nearly
4' and this tidal exchange of water within the basin will prevent eutrophication from occurring.
5.14 Mitigation or Avoidance of Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts. The design of the access
channel with its retaining wall and the phasing of the construction as described in Paragraph 4.05 (above)
will clearly avoid the occurrence of significant adverse environmental impacts to the State Waters.
Conditions now are such that continued maintenance dredging of the Oyster Bay basin and/or prop wash
from Oyster Bay boats can cause advancement of side-slope erosion well into the Fales proposed access
channel. The retaining wall will stop that advancement and the placement of suitable organic substrate
north of the wall will restore that mud flat area that has previously been subject to dredging and/or prop-
wash disturbance.
PAGE 5
Form DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
„ . (To be completed by all applicants)
b. City, town, community or landmark
1. APPLICANT W11.1M1PlrsrDN
c. Street address or secondary road number
'?iOoG MOSOMSoft SovNU ('oAD
a. Landowner:
II c /
Name ? CK P14AIL (FA- Le d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
Jurisdiction? Yes Y No
Address _ S"-18 E0CL-ID QVC,
e.
Name of body of water nearest project (e.g. river,
„
City State
3?12kL,E?/ ?_ creek, sound, bay) A =WW
,
Zip q4968 Day Phone - -l o - 527 -6 o68
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
Fax
OF PROPOSED- PROJECT
b. Authorized Agent:
' I
Name (2NArzLtE Noc.c.is
a.
List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
?' DR.
Address ?38 ?12S?N I-o12LS7" excavation and/or filling activities.
GoN3TAucT INLAND BASIN AMP ACCESS
11 '' CkANNEt•. FOR 10 130AT5 -GONNECTTO >rXlsrll
City Wi,LwIING`Ccy?,l State N e- 5"ISTERBA14 CHANNEL - 10 uPLA?4P 2F_r 51,PEW iq
1-0Ts ARE PRoQoSED
Zip 28y0 Day Phone [phone] b. Is the proposed activity maintenan ce of an existing
project, new work, or both? /.IEw wortic
Fax 0110 -39' 2 - 6 S33
c. Project name (if any) (20m uNITtil'DOCKINLS
_F?q_CILITY AT 'T:'1_qL .S Susolylstorl
NOTE: Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s), and/or
project name.
c. Will the project be for public, private or commercial
use? Pr4tvwrE GURDI VISION
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed
project. If more space is needed, please attach
additional pages.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County NE"LJ 014NOVER
Work will consist of (1) excavating an upland BoatBasin in high ground,
constructing bulkheading around the basin and providing 10 boat slips and
a launching ramp; and (2) excavating an access channel alongside the existing
Oyster Bay Subdivision Harbor, confming the north side of this excavation
with a retaining wall to prevent erosion of existing marsh and mud shallows;
the access channel will intersect the Oyster Bay channel near the end of their
existing docks. Offshore work will be performed with barge-mounted
equipment and all excavated material will be placed on high ground. The
purpose of this project is to provide water and boating access to the residents
of ten proposed upland single family lots.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-2
e. Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes ? No
f. Does the disposal include any area in the water?
Yes • ? No
If Yes,
(1) Amount of material to be placed in the
water
(2) Dimensions of fill area
(3) Purpose of fill
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION
N ,g
Typ of shoreline stabilization
Bulkhead Riprap
b. Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes ? No
If yes,
(1) Dimensions of fill area
(2) Purpose of fill
b.. Length
c. Average stance waterward of MHW or NWL
d. Maximum dis\ance waterward of MHW or NWL
e. Shoreline erosion\uring preceding 12 months
(Source of information)
f. Type of bulkhead or riprap material
g. Amount of fill in cubic
water level
(1) Riprap
(2) Bulkhead backfill
h. Type of fill material _
i. Source of fill material
s to be placed below
5. GENERAL.
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? • Dike-s rQ?,jp
SILT F'LE I CC
b. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)? .
-TRAe-KHOE FOR U?L ANP WORK
CLAM-SRUU- OR -r VWCKVi0a f=mz C4ANNEL
c. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes ? No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. Will fill material be brought to site?
Yes ? No
Ct+gRLIE P-O--L??..LLIs '' II
Ae-e-N r ;=. DR y fit CK H? (? S R4 Q1 L
Applicant t Name
Signature
APRIL 149 S
Date
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-1
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
• A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary
• A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name R20 If C SflNoRA 5, AARK1t4
Address 338 S'?Aaae?z? Bi-vn,
Phone WjLw+tNwgzN NC ZV 4011
Name C2ytirE2 BAS +AomLOWNER'5 ASSN
Address Zo8 OYSTlere BAY LONE
Phone InliLvn,NGroa N.(2, ZS-1403
Name
Address
Phone
• A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and issuing dates.
• A check for $250 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
• A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
• A statement of compliance with the N.C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A - 1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of public
funds or use of public lands, attach a statement
documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act.
6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
I understand that 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
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I 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 the
project.
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
This is the ISM day of R?L , 198 .
Print Name CNA9(_11' 4OLc.w S
FoR ?wUc rnsPNwic.
A P
SignatureP -s-
Luwd wwf-er Authorized Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
_ DCM MP-3 Upland Development
DCM MP-4 Structures Information
DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
_ DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOTE. Please sign and date each attachment in the
space provided at the bottom of each form.
Revised 03/95
AV.M341r HLSV,ryW ouwrur

a a
a a a
a
a
a
a
a
a a
a
a
a ? a
• a
a > a
a a
a
a
a
a z 1
a
a
bb ,
?Y a 'a a
1$i a
a a a
a a +
a a
? a
a
a a

z
z 1 d
c o
o
p ? H
3a
z a
?F N
O
:3
?3 o
J
Z? p U
4V47 C N
? p
p< 8
N
11
z
0
Ao
UO
as
a,l
e
Ol
a .

a31vM HOIH U(
SSY40 Jo 300
3NIl )112l3d0i _
S
2
C"
5

L.
0
Z
w
LL. w D
za O Br
Zg zxt?,!x- _
o2 obQ13!
p?NOOZ U co
ztn z a
X33
w w.r° x?
1. Z zamwma°d
Q

MATCH LINE (With Sheet No. 3)
`?' y W y
W W W V'
W W W W
W W W W
W W W W
W W V
PROPERTY OF: r
a
3 2 W W
o _t
3 W
Z w 5
0
8 HIGH V
w
w o m 7
W
4\AJ1` 9 W
? 10
28'
NEW DREDGING a > GUFST
C b CONCRETE B AT RA P
? 20' WIDE x } 0? LONO I ? 4? ti RICH WA
}
OA DIN
o
in
330' RETAINING
0 7'
4
222.89 _
PROPERTY OF:
OYSTER BAY
HIGH WA
`- I
COMMUNITY DOCKING FACILITY PLAN
50 25 0 50
SCALE IN FEET
NOTE:
ELEVATIONS AND SOUNDINGS BASED ON MSL-0.0
MAP ADAPTED FROM SURVEY BY CENTURY/von Oesen P.E.
WILMINGTON, N.C. DATED 8/11/97.
0.0 MSL - 1.54 MLW (Beaufort Datum)
COMMUNITY DOCKING FACILITY
AT FALES SUBDIVISION
NEAR WHISKEY CREEK
WILMINGTON, N.C.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BY: JACK McPHAIL
848 EUCLID DRIVE
BERKLEY, CA.
DRAWN BY: W. H. WARREN, JR.
APRIL 1998 SHEET 2 OF +
MATCH LINE (With Sheet No.2)
771
W W
W W
GRASS
W W W
W W W v
W W W W
W
W W W .y
WATER W W W W
W W
W W W W
W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W /y
W W W W W W W W Y/
??? W W W W W W W W/
WATER -?? W W W QRASSW W W
W W W W W W
DSO, W W W W
D`k W W W W ?^-`?
W W L? 220'
R `, W W W W W W WAL
GRASSr W W
SO M o W
?N ?y. ?ti' O ? ? p o
1 M ? ? 4
iy 1• O b
' '^ i? iy y'1' ? a l
EXISTING FLOATING DOCK
EXISTING RETAINING WALL
I b
?Y
OYSTER BAY
DOCKING FACILITY 1 v NEW DREDGING
\ ,a
\? \ ' X09
MARKER PILE0 Q \
(TO BE REMOVED)
ekT ANo C _'\ MARKER PILE
1 6-
I MARKER PILE \
EXISTING FLOATING DOCK
I \
- - - - - - - - - - - \
LOW WATER 0-,
MARKER PILE
COMMUNITY DOCKING FACILITY PLAN
50 25 0 50
SCALE IN FEET
NOTE:
ELEVATIONS AND SOUNDINGS BASED ON MSL-0.0
MAP ADAPTED FROM SURVEY BY CENTURY/von Oesen P.E.
WILMINGTON, N.C. DATED 8/11/97.
0.0 MSL - 1.54 MLW (Beaufort Datum)
COMMUNITY DOCKING FACILITY
AT FALES SUBDIVISION
NEAR WHISKEY CREEK
WILMINGTON, N.C.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BY: JACK McPHAIL
848 EUCLID DRIVE
BERKLEY, CA.
DRAWN BY: W. H. WARREN, JR.
APRIL 1998 SHEETS OF+
O
H

nN0 GRADE
RCTAMO WAU CONCRETE RAMP
y
NION WATER
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
y
lDw WATTA
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
SECTION C THRU BOAT RAMP
NOT TO SCAIL
ILOATINO DOCK I -w DRMNO UNITS _ I -RETALNINO 'MAIL
LW
Casma BOTTOM VAR.
EXISTING OYSTER BAY BOAT BASIN
SECTION D THRU ACCESS CHANNEL
NOT To SCAUC
-- W -
_
ODSTINO QRANNTL VAM DDSTNO BOTTOM vAAlE1 -
SECTION E THRU ACCESS CHANNEL
NOT TO wmz
-PLTAINNO WALL
1 COMMUNITY DOCKING FACILITY
AT FALES SUBDIVISION
NEAR WHISKEY CREEK
WILMINGTON, N.C.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BY' JACK MCPHAIL
848 EUCLID DRIVE
BERKLEY, CA.
DRANK BY. W. H. WARREN, JR.
APRIL 1998 SHEET4 OF 4-
SEC1ION A THRU WALKWAY
AND RETAINING WALL
NOT TO $CALL
SECTION 8 THRU RETAINING WALL
NOT TO scut
Y Y d L= u LLcI I I Ly LJCl.. LIU11
tyLi- RANDUM Z ,
TO:
? Trish MacPherson (end. s s;
? Kathy Herring (fbrest/ORIA?
? Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
p Blatt Mathews (toxicology)
? Jay Sauber (intensive survey)
Non-Discharge Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Kim Colson (Permitting)
Wetlands (WQ Lab)
? John Dorney (Corps, 401)
? Cyndi Bell (DO'1?
Z Eric Fleck (dredging)
? Eric Galamb (other)

? Ed Buchea
? Brent McDorrs
Regional Water ()..
? Asheville O
? Fayetteville O l ;
? , Winston - Salem
Planning Branch-J,
O Alan Clam (bas; ,.
? Boyd DeVane (._
O Beth IIv1cGee (=.i a,,
? S teve Zoufaly 0
? Ruth Swmek (,.-
Point Source Branch (A_rchdale 9th)
? Dave Goodrich (NPDES) O
O Bradley Bennett (Stormwater) O
O Tom Poe ._tr atmen0 (Archdale 7th) O

FROM: i a f _-dn, Re2iona1 / P o=am Management Coordination Bran(.;
PROJECT
Attached is a copy of :`e above document. Subject to the requirements of the NIC. _ , :-
Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential sQnicicanr_ )
especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or pen-nit authority. PI., 7
aox below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any,
RESP.4?lSF`'EA_DI
? sY0 COMMENT, i C0?1?YiENTS ?TTA C
-??,DaLG ~s < a r,r _ """,` T--
- ^w...•.nwx?.+d -
Fhank you for your assistance. Suggestions for strearnlining this process are greatly
Votes:
can be reached at:
)hone: [phone], ext- 565
fax: [phone] e-mail: lisa_martin@I-- __ r_st :e.r.c.us
4
lts:\cirememo - mac version
September 28, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ed Buchner
THROUGH: John DorneT
FROM: Eric Fleur
SUBJECT: Community Docking-Fales S/D EA Comments (New Hanover County, DENR# 948, DWQ#
12235)
Based on a review of the EA the following issues need to be more thoroughly addressed in the FONSL•
1. The preferred alternative will require a 360' long by 100' wide by 6' deep upland boat basin and a
connecting charnel 300' long by 30' wide by 6' deep. The submitted plat shows a triangular basin trot
print. This basin geometry combined with the long 300' access channel may result in the violation of
State Water Quality Standards-especially for Dissolved Oxygen. The basin should be modeled for
Dissolved Oxygen and should also be redesigned to a more circular "bladder-like" footprint (i.e.,
rounded corners).
2. It is unclear in the EA as to the extent of coastal marsh and the exact amount of impacts to coastal
marsh from retaining wall construction, dredging, and/or spoil disposal will occur. The EA mentions
"a few square feet of sparsely spaced coastal wetlands located at dhe shoreline and in the path of the
proposed access channel will be destroyed". The FA also mentions that "suitable muddy substrate
material will be deposited on the North side of the wall to bring the level of the surface up to the
elevation of the surrounding mud flat." Will this material also be placed on/in any adjacent/nearby
coastal marsh? In addition, the FOSNI should address exactly how the placement of this "suitable
muddy substrate" will enhance mud flat habitat on the Northward side of the retaining wall. Under
1.02 Construction, A. Access Channel there is discussion of building the retaining wall to "limit" die
impact of the channel excavation on the Northward marsh and mudllat communities and that "mud and
surface sediment will be placed along the retaining wall to bring that area up to the elevation of die
adjacent mudflats". Will fill be placed onto existing mudflats after retaining wall completions? Are the
mudflats in this area of differing elevation such that it is necessary to place fill material in one area of
mudflat to increase its elevation relative to another mudllat? lfiis aspect of the project is unclear and
needs to be elaborated on in the FONNI.
3. The explanation of Alternative 1 is unclear. Why will the extensions of one dock by 75' and another
dock by 90' in an existing docking facility result in more dredging and overall impact than the
construction of an entirely new docking facility and connecting channel? Alternative 1 deserves more
attention and should be more carefully addressed in the FONNI.
If there are any questions regarding this matter please feel free to call at [phone].
u - I
DWQ - Water Quality Section -
Date: 7 ? -' -' --- -? ---
vtEMORANDUM ???---
TQ Env. Sciences Branch (W Q Lab) Re?./ Pr;. Mg_mt_
C) Trish MacPherson (end. sps) O Ed Buchen ( -
O Kathy Herring (forestiORW/HQW) Q Brent MCDoI) :: .
O Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
O Matt Mathews (toxicology) Regional `Vater O;_
O Jay Sauber (intensive survey) O Asheville O ? _--
O Favetteville O 1:. _
Non-Discharge Branch (Archdale 9th) 3?aIS`- alem
O Kim Colson In Wetlands (VVQ Lab) Planninch _' -- --- --
O John Dorney (Corps, 4-91) 114 inn . (ba??,
p Cvndi Bell (DO1) C )?oyd Demme
Eric Fleck (drwoi-ig) C?,.. Beth-,'-kicG e (m:L«
E c Galamb (ctber) ?EtLAt ` ` t `Ave Zou? v i .
.
llA? ImL Swa_ e c ( ' . .
YI*JER
Point Source Branch (:'_rchdaIe 9t+r),--
Dave Goodrich (.',s'PDE5) C ---
O Bradley Bennett (Stcr= -) C' A_--_---
p Tom P e?eaent) (_A ,rchdale 7th) C
-j2(,?titAv
FROM: L, a M? Re?:cr;, / Pro=am Ma"raze.Len: Cccr: -narcn E=
I(' % ... - : _ .:--
PROJECT:

'= ? O O LITENT-_
C CO NLALENTS ITT JCL
=
-T??.
-
G??ir---
"-?
? -
_
.
_
'? ?1sir? ? -_ __yL
r1-?ta? -
rlA 5?i+w!?Y =vS ice- +.?i-K-? _? -
1 5c)

Chaak you for your assi.-ance. Su_=°_saons for streamlining the process are greatly
Totes: - - • . JAW tloo Z?l d*l4 e&6
4t

can be reached at:
hone: [phone], ext 5/65
*Acircmemo - mac ver:ior
fax: [phone] E: Lsa_n:ar-dn -c.?s

Attache: is a copy of L_e a b c v e cCC 1 Lent. Subject to 1=:e 1-z=' -en,ts of:he iN't
Policv P_cL you ane berg assed to rzvie"N the d0curce:it fcr ?cL'neal siT-._rlcant
especially pe:uI!e:1L i0 vGLr ju.c;ion, le•/el of e;,iP.rL?e Cr .e.:u:t a Lori ?. F_
box below and rear t.:s or = :.o -e along with ye`: Wzi,
c?r_ -e a ly, i,