51143_SUGGS, DONALD_20080617

❑ CAMA" / ❑ DREDGE & FILL LA
GENERAL PERMIT Previous permit #
LlNeva C Modification ❑Complete Reissue El Partial Reiss ile Date previous permit issued
As authorized by the State of North Carolina, Department of Environment and Natural Reso ces
and the Coastal Resources Commission in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15A NCAC
❑ Rules attached.
Applicant Name;
Address
City
Phone # ()_
Authorized Agent
Affected ❑ cW
AEC(s): ❑ OEA
❑ PWS:
ORW: yes / no
_ State ZIP
Fax # ( )
El EW ❑ PTA ❑ ES ❑ PTS
❑ HHF ❑ IH ❑ UBA ❑ N/A
❑ FC:
PNA yes / no Crit.Hab. yes / no
Project Location: County
Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s)
Subdivision
City ZIP
Phone # ( ) River Basin
Adj. Wtr. Body < (nat /man /unkn)
Closest Maj. Wtr. Body
Type of Project/ Activity
Pier (dock) length `
Platform(s) —~
Finger pier(s)
(Scale: )
Groin length
number
Bulkhead/ Riprap length
avg distance offshore
max distance offshore
Basin, channel
cubic yards
Boat ramp
Boathouse/ Boatlift
Beach Bulldozing
Other i iZ
I
I
�
i
I i
Shoreline Length
SAV. not sure yes no —
Sandbags: not sure yes no
Moratorium: n/a yes o)
Photos: yes
Waiver Attached: yes i no
r
A building permit may be required by: I� �'>�• r o ❑ See note on back regarding River Basin rules.
Notes/ Special Conditions ��wpp� t n4k
Agent or Applicant Printed Name
Signature Please read compliance statement on back of permit"
@ermitOffiicer's Signature
Issuing Date Expiration Date
Application Fee(s)
Check#
Local Planning jurisdiction
Rover File Name

r
Statement of Compliance and Consistency
This permit is subject to compliance with this application, site drawing and attached general and specific conditions. Any
violation of these terms may subject the permittee to a fine or criminal or civil action; and may cause the permit to become
null and void.
This permit must be on the project site and accessible to the permit officer when the project is inspected for compliance. The
applicant certifies by signing this permit that 1) prior to undertaking any activities authorized by this permit, the applicant will
confer with appropriate local authorities to confirm that this project is consistent with the local land use plan and all local
ordinances, and 2) a written statement or certified mail return receipt has been obtained from the adjacent riparian
landowner(s) .
The State of North Carolina and the Division of Coastal Management, in issuing this permit under the best available
information and belief, certify that this project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
River Basin Rules Applicable To Your Project:
❑ Tar- Pamlico River Basin Buffer Rules ❑ Other:
❑ Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules
If indicated on front of permit, your project is subject to the Environmental Management Commission's Buffer Rules for the
River Basin checked above due to its location within that River Basin. These buffer rules are enforced by the NC Division of
Water Quality. Contact the Division of Water Quality at the Washington Regional Office (252-946-6481) or the Wilmington
Regional Office (910-796-7215) for more information on how to comply with these buffer rules.
Division of Coastal Management Offices
Raleigh Office
Mailing Address:
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
Location:
2728 Capital Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-733-2293
Fax:[phone]
Morehead City Headquarters
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808/ 1-888ARCOAST
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Carteret, Craven, Onslow -above
New River Inlet- and Pamlico Counties)
Elizabeth City District
1367 U.S. 17 South
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
252-264-3901
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Camden, Chowan, Currituck,
Dare, Gates, Pasquotank and Perquimans
Counties)
Washington District
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
252-946-6481
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Beaufort, Bertie, Hertford, Hyde,
Tyrrell and Washington Counties)
Wilmington District
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
910-796-7215
Fax:[phone]
(Serves: Brunswick, New Hanover,
Onslow -below New River Inlet- and
Pender Counties)
Revised 08/09/06

DONALD W. SUGGS 555
147 FRONT ST. 66-30/531
SWANSBORO, NC 28584 / Date 342
Pay to the C U �DQ p
Order of �l
rI � Dollars
First Citizens
Bank
rstcitizens.com/
IVP
For—f,,
5
1:0531003001:0034 L77894 L Lii' 00555
-- GUARDIAN AFETV BLUE
HarinrM Clarke—�— —
:J4

RE: "Corena" in Swansboro
Subject: RE: "Corena" in Swansboro
From: Stephen Moore <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:34:43 -0400
To: Ryan Davenport <Ryan.Davenport@ ncmail.net>, "," <[e-mail]>
Mr. Davenport, the corena has not moved off that lump of sand in nearly a year. And
the reason why should be clear if you inspected the corena at low tide. I did and
have photographic and video evidence that directly contradicts your report. You
should be able to adequately explain this discrepancy very easily. You have failed
to do so. I reluctantly must conclude that the inspection is flawed. What else
should i conclude? When will you conduct your next inspection so i can watch from
the shore the miraculous cruise the very stationary corena? (time and day please)
-----Original Message -----
From: Ryan Davenport <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:15 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: "Corena" in Swansboro
Mr. Moore,
At the time when I inspected the CORENA it was free floating with an
operational motor. I even went for a ride on it! It was registered
with NC Wildlife and had all required safety equipment. I will perform
another inspection this week.
RD
[e-mail] wrote:
Ryan, it has been several months since you should've have inspected
the Corena for violations. I am very concerned about something. You
have indicated that you found the vessel with a "properly" functioning
motor and the the vessel was free floating. And you have stated that
the owners claim nothing has changed. I don't want to be ugly about
this but these claims are simply untrue. The boat is not free floating
and the motor does not operate. I have photographs and video of the
vessel at low tide and high tide and in between tide changes. The boat
is deeply wedged into the sand and is unable to move AT ALL. The motor
is NOT functional. Why are they allowed to PERMANENTLY beach a boat
(it's not moored as you claim!!!!!!!!!) below the high tide mark? This
is my concern (more than the owners creating an eye sore and getting
awa! y with something unfair): CAMA represents the people of North
Carolina and our coastline NOT wealthy citizens who want a private
little island to play on. Your inspection was flawed (I'm sorry, I
don't want to be ugly but that's the only possible conclusion I can
come to given the facts as I know and what you have said --remember, my
family and I are also members of the citizenry of North Carolina and
we deserve to be represented by CAMA as well as the owner's of Pelican
Island). I am at a loss as to why the inspection process should be so
flawed in this matter. Unless there is a REAL and HONEST inspection
and a REAL and HONEST evaluation of this matter I will take my
concerns to the next level(s).
Stephen Moore
-----Original Message -----
From: [e-mail]
To: Ryan.Davenport@ncma
1 of 2 6/17/2008 4:50 PM

RE: "Corena" in Swansboro
[The entire original message is not included]
2 of 2 6/17/2008 4:50 PM

Re: "Corena" in Swansboro
scenically and environmentally, are of paramount issue here. What does having a dock there
entitle them to, exactly, under the law?
Sincerely,
Stephen Moore
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Davenport <Ryan. Davenport@ ncmail.net>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: roy Brownlow <[e-mail]>;
Sent: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 2:32 pm
Subject: "Corena" in Swansboro
Mr. Moore,
I am writing in response to your concern about the vessel "Corena" that is presently moored off of Pelican Island across from
the Swansboro waterfront. On 9/18/07 I met with the owners of Pelican Island on site to investigate and discuss previous
complaints on the use of the vessel. During that visit the "Corena" had a functional motor and had a current registration with
the NC Wildlife Resource Commission. The vessel was free floating and not placed on pilings. The ramp to shore was not
permanently attached. At that time I witnessed the motor operate and the vessel moved about freely in the vicinity.
Today (11/30/07) I spoke with the owners again and informed them of the complaint received to our office and performed a
compliance inspection. They indicated that the status of the vessel has not changed. They also indicated future plans to
construct a permitted dock on the island in order to securely moor the vessel. I have scheduled another on -site inspection
with the owners on 12/11/07 to ensure that Coastal Management rules continue to be met.
I appreciate your concern in this matter. We will continue to monitor this situation closely and we will take enforcement
action if it is determined that Coastal Management rules are not met. You may contact me at [phone] or via email if
you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Ryan Davenport
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!
Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!
2 of 2 6/16/2008 8:11 AM

Re: "Corena" in Swansboro
Subject: Re: "Corena" in Swansboro
From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:52:19 -0400
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Ryan, it has been several months since you should've have inspected the Corena for violations. I am
very concerned about something. You have indicated that you found the vessel with a "properly"
functioning motor and the the vessel was free floating. And you have stated that the owners claim
nothing has changed. I don't want to be ugly about this but these claims are simply untrue. The boat is
not free floating and the motor does not operate. I have photographs and video of the vessel at low tide
and high tide and in between tide changes. The boat is deeply wedged into the sand and is unable to
move AT ALL. The motor is NOT functional. Why are they allowed to PERMANENTLY beach a boat
(it's not moored as you claim! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !) below the high tide mark? This is my concern (more than the
owners creating an eye sore and getting awa! y with something unfair): CAMA represents the people of
North Carolina and our coastline NOT wealthy citizens who want a private little island to play on.
Your inspection was flawed (I'm sorry, I don't want to be ugly but that's the only possible conclusion I
can come to given the facts as I know and what you have said --remember, my family and I are also
members of the citizenry of North Carolina and we deserve to be represented by CAMA as well as the
owner's of Pelican Island). I am at a loss as to why the inspection process should be so flawed in this
matter. Unless there is a REAL and HONEST inspection and a REAL and HONEST evaluation
of this matter I will take my concerns to the next level(s).
Stephen Moore
-----Original Message -----
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Sent: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 9:51 am
Subject: Re: "Corena" in Swansboro
Ryan,
Thanks for your time. I have great concerns that the "Corena" is not free floating at all nor has
it been free-floating since I have observed it for the last month or two. At low tide the stern of
the "vessel" is clearly a foot or more above the water line. It clearly DOES NOT move up or
down with the tides and at low tide one can see a piling of some sort underneath the hull. It is
not beached on the sand; it never moves, up or down or to the side, nor does it pitch to any
angles that would be expected if it was beached; it is not anchored by real "used" shore lines
or a moring anchor line (meaning that if there are lines it is not these lines holding the vessel
securely, rather it is the pilings under the hull). It is instead resting on a piling of some sort
which is clearly visible at low tide and is most assuredly not free floating in ANY meaningful
way. I drive by it every morning an evening and see it at the various stages of t! ide and it
does not move. In fact, as I stated above, it is actually a foot or so above the water line, in the
air, at low tide! Additionally, what process did they have to go through in order to get a permit
for a dock there and is it contestable? Surely citizens' concerns for that sensitive area, both
1 of 2 6/16/2008 8:11 AM

Re: "Corena" in Swansboro
Subject: Re: "Corena" in Swansboro
From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:19:54 -0400
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Dealing with you guys is extremely frustrating. Your current response does not addresses my
concerns at all. Are you or are you not inspecting the Corena again, and can you or can you not explain
how the Corena has been allowed to stay in its present non -free-floating condition through all these
months during which you have repeatedly reassured me of re -inspections etc? At this point I'm
losing trust in CAMA to inspect anything at all if you couldn't even figure out that the Corena
has not been free floating for all this time and that the Pelican Island Group has lied to you.
Other people who do this get in trouble! Why are showing favorit! ism to these guys? This is
fast becoming about YOUR duty as a representative of the public interest than anything Davis and
Suggs have done. Unless I get an adequate response from you ASAP I will be taking this matter to
another level and then another level and then another level and so on. Trust me, I know how to do this
and I will do this. CAMA needs to be unblemished when it comes to this sort of thing and I'm
beginning to think that CAMA needs some cleaning up. Give me some straight answers (in other words,
reply directly to my concerns instead of giving me the runaround like you have been doing for the last
eight months!).
-----Original Message -----
From: Ryan Davenport <[e-mail]>
To: Stephen Moore <[e-mail]>
Cc: Roy Brownlow <[e-mail]>; Jonathan Howell <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 8:06 am
Subject: Re: "Corena" in Swansboro
The Pelican Island Group was issued a permit on 6/17/08 to construct a dock on the island. It is my understanding that
construction on the dock has already begun and that CORENA will be moored on the dock after completion.
Ryan Davenport
Stephen Moore wrote:
> Mr. Davenport, the Corena has not moved off that lump of sand in nearly a year. And the reason why should be clear if you
inspected the corena at low tide. I did and have photographic and video evidence that directly contradicts your report. You
should be able to adequately explain this discrepancy very easily. You have failed to do so. I reluctantly must conclude that
the inspection is flawed. What else should i conclude? When will you conduct your next inspection so i can watch from the
shore the miraculous cruise the very stationary corena? (time and day please) >
> -----Original Message -----
> From: Ryan Davenport <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:15 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: "Corena" in Swansboro
> Mr. Moore,
> At the time when I inspected the CORENA it was free floating with an > operational motor. I even went for a ride on it! It
was registered > with NC Wildlife and had all required safety equipment. I will perform > another inspection this week.
> RD
> swmooreunc(&aol.com wrote:
> >> Ryan, it has been several months since you should've have inspected >> the Corena for violations. I am very
I of 2 6/19/2008 8:00 AM

Re: "Corena" in Swansboro
concerned about something. You >> have indicated that you found the vessel with a "properly" functioning >> motor and
the the vessel was free floating. And you have stated that >> the owners claim nothing has changed. I don't want to be ugly
about >> this but these claims are simply untrue. The boat is not free floating >> and the motor does not operate. I have
photographs and video of the >> vessel at low tide and high tide and in between tide changes. The boat >> is deeply
wedged into the sand and is unable to move AT ALL. The motor >> is NOT functional. Why are they allowed to
PERMANENTLY beach a boat >> (it's not moored as you claim!!!!!!!!!) below the high tide mark? This >> is my concern
(more than the owners creating an eye sore and getting >> awa! y with something unfair): CAMA represents the people of
North >> Carolina and our coastline NOT wealthy citizens who want a private >> little island to play on. Your inspection was
flawed (I'm sorry, I >> don't want to be ugly but that's the only possible conclusion I can >> come to given the facts as I
know and what you have said --remember, my >> family and I are also members of the citizenry of North Carolina and >>
we deserve to be represented by CAMA as well as the owner's of Pelican >> Island). I am at a loss as to why the inspection
process should be so >> flawed in this matter. Unless there is a REAL and HONEST inspection >> and a REAL and HONEST
evaluation of this matter I will take my >> concerns to the next level(s).
>> Stephen Moore
>> -----Original Message -----
>> From: [e-mail]
>> To: Ryan. Davenport@ ncma
> [The entire original message is not included]
Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!
2 of 2 6/19/2008 8:00 AM