55004_ROSEMOND, JAMES_20041110

FLCAMA / ❑ DREDGE & FILL
GERIEiZAL PERMIT Previous permit#
New modification Complete Reissue ❑Partial Reissue Date previous permit issued
As authorized by the S�ti�"o`flJorth aro i epartment of Environment and Natural Resources
and the Coastal Resources Commission in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15A NCAC
F7 RulPd.trarh
Applicant Name
"i
`Y
Address
('YJ
n
City
State kkt-ZIP �
Phone # (^'r�)
- �``� : Fax # ( )
Authorized Agent
ElCw
❑ EW
�^
G1PTA I9a C PTS
Affected
AEC(s): ❑ OEA
F-1HHF
El 1H ❑ UBA C N/A
❑ Pws:
ETC:
ORW: yes / no
PNA
yes / no Crit.Hab. yes / no
Type of Project/ Activity
Project Location: County
Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s)
Subdivision
City
ZIP
Phone # (__) — River Basin i /::, <
Adj. Wtr. Body - (nat /man /unkn)
Closest Maj. Wtr. Body
(Scale:;,V 77 )
Pier (dock) length
Platform(s)
Finger pier(s)---
Groin length
number
Bulkhead/ Riprap length.
avg distance offshore 1 III I J
max distance offshore ---
Basin, channel
_
cubic yards_
C-
Boat ramp t --
Boathouse/ Boatlift
Beach Bulldozing O-Agq
Other 4"
Shoreline Length
SAV: not sure yes no
Sandbags: not sure yes no
Moratorium: n/a yes no
Photos: yes ,no
Waiver Attached: yes no
A building permit may be required by:
Notes/ Special Conditions
Agent or Applicant Printed Name
Signature ** Please read compliance statement on back of permit **
Application Fee(s)
Check #
❑ See note on back regarding River Basin rules.
r.y r
Permit Officer's Signature
Issuing Date
Local Planning Jurisdiction
The time period requirement for this
aevelapment is suspenaea unci! ±z -5-L-
2010, pursuant to Senate Bill 831. The
effective date of expiration for this
permit is ,, /1
Expiration Date
Rover File Name

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, certifythat 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 Morehead City Headquarters
Mailing Address: 400 Commerce Ave
1638 Mail Service Center Morehead City, NC 28557
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638 252-808-2808/ 1-888-4RCOAST
Location: Fax: [phone]
2728 Capital Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-733-2293
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

Ward, December 16, 2009
I have read Christine Figueireda's response to General Permit 2400, #55004, written to James Rosemond
by Heather Styron. Originally, Heather wrote the permit to allow the rock revetment to close the
existing prop -washed opening at the waterward end of the marsh. This was to aid in the replacement of
the marsh as it existed in the most recent photo, 2007. After I reviewed the permit, and saw that the
average distance from the existing marsh edge would exceed that allowable in the GP, and that it would
cross a very limited navigable opening, Heather changed the permit to authorize the rock to extend
along the marsh edge inside the blown -out opening in the marsh. As written now and as constructed,
the rock will aid in the repair of the marsh at its present escarpment, as the GP is intended. All review
agencies have signed off on the use of the GP for this purpose.
As issued and constructed (photos sent by Heather), and as monitored by Ryan Davenport, the structure
is consistent with the .2400 rules, with one small exception. On the southwest side, the rock is more
than 6" above substrate, and the permittee has agreed to remove the top 6" of rock. This information is
not in any of the objections by Ms. Figueireda, nor has it been acknowledged by her. This breach in the
standards does not affect any argument Ms. Figueireda makes.
At one time there was a small dock near the 10' town alleyway adjacent to Mr. Rosemond's property,
legal or otherwise is not known. I spoke with David McCabe, Public Works Director for the Town of
Morehead City, today, and he said that the dock was not constructed by the Town, but by individuals.
There is no evidence of permits for this structure. During the time that this dock was used, the marsh
tended to stay open with a slough coming into the road. Sometime between'95 and 2000, the dock fell
into poor repair, and the marsh began to re-establish. In the 2006 aerial photo, there was a wide sand
berm preventing navigation, and by 2007 (photo enclosed) the marsh had colonized across the mouth of
the slough.
The document claims that the rock structure negatively affects commercial and sport fisheries. This
General Permit is intended for the protection of the marsh, which is used by commercial and sport
fishery species, and provides detrital export. The General Permit has been approved for this use by all of
the environmental review agencies, as it has a positive impact on the habitat through its reduction of
wave and tide energy, without causing scour, reducing water quality, or interrupting species migration.
The rock itself provides limited habitat as well. No marsh excavation or filling is allowed under this
General Permit.
What does negatively affect the system is the use of props to dredge the mud/silt substrate, the marsh,
and shellfish habitat. This had been happening regularly as of late, which is why the applicant felt the
need to protect the marsh within his riparian corridor from further erosion. Photos show the recent
scour activity from small boats.
The appellant also suggests that this area has been used as a small boat harbor for generations. As
stated above, there was an area that was used for at least 15 years, probably illegally, for a couple of
small boats. This area was not owned by the users, nor was it within the 10' riparian area of the Town of
Morehead City. After'95 (probably the '96 hurricane season), activity all but ceased, the pier

disappeared, and the marsh naturally restored itself. Only recently when the prop wash began in
earnest did the marsh start eroding again.
The appellant says that this "tidal" pool has been used by neighborhood children for play and swimming.
Legal access to this area is only by the way of water, not across land. if a parent wishes to bring his child
into the slough by boat and allow him to play in tidal muck with live oysters, remnant shells, and pilings
with oysters, it is still available for that use.
Lastly, she claims that the width of the opening has been narrowed such as to increase siltation,
stagnate the waters, disallow tidal exchange, and impair public usage. The area is tidally flooded all
around in adjacent low marsh; therefore, the opening should not affect siltation of the water body or
tidal exchange. However, prop wash does affect siltation of the system. Because the waters are tidal,
and the area within the slough is dry by mid tide, there should be no increase in stagnation by the
placement of rock against the marsh edge. However, the areas scoured by boat prop do hold water at
low tide, allowing for limited local stagnation. The area at high tide has between 6" and 1' of water in
depth. Thus, only very small vessels can navigate into the marsh for fishing or other legal purposes. The
opening between the rocks at the marsh edge is 6.5' to 7' at its narrowest. Consequently, these vessels
should still be able to navigate the system. Mooring a boat in the waters within the riparian area of Mr.
Rosemond would require trespass. As far as being directly affected by this project, the appellant must
consider the trespass across the permittee's property to be a legal right. All other rights still exist, and
the natural habitat has benefitted by the project.
Ward, I have asked Heather to email you some pics that were scanned to you. I am not sure of the
quality of the scanned photos, but the electronic version is pretty good. If you have questions when
looking at them, give one of us a call. We will both be out on the water with Shellfish Sanitation
tomorrow, but you may call me on my cell at 252 725-1685. Have a great Birthday, and a wonderful
holiday. T

RMW
zs
i!T
lief
'
4�
.-:w�►�
�
�
�
.,. . � .,,E ..i �: *,.. v r,'
• y
,�
�. .• r'."` yc
....:fin"4R^� _y.c�,� Y �
^"may.- •;-,-;
.
�'
...
rte-
.,
ti � .-,�;.
,Y. M,�- _
-

DCM FORM 5
PETITIONER'S NAME
COUNTY
FILE NUMBER
D9_11
(Petitioner leave this line blank)
PD!9 1
'gc WED
Morehead City DOM
THIRD PARTY HEARING
REQUEST ON
CAMA PERMIT DECISION
PLEASE TAKE NOTE that the undersigned, a person affected by the decision of (check one):
a Local Permit Officer acting on a CAMA Minor Development Permit
/ application; or
V the Division of Coastal Management, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, acting on a CAMA Major Development Permit
application or CAMA General Permit application
hereby requests permission from the Coastal Resources Commission to file an appeal pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b) and N.C. Admin. Code tit_ 15A, r. 7J.0300 (Please attach a
copy of the permit application decision. If you cannot obtain a copy of the permit application
decision, please provide the name of the permittee, the project location and the permit number.)
Requests are reviewed by the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission to determine
whether a hearing should be granted. The determination of whether to grant a hearing is in the
sole discretion of the Chairman. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r_ 710301 (b).
For this application to be complete, the Petitioner must address each factor listed below on a
separate sheet of paper. You must address these factors before your request will be reviewed.
The Chairman's decision to grant a hearing will be based on whether the Petitioner:
(1) Has alleged that the decision is contrary to a statute or rule [N.C. Gen. Stat. §
113A -121.1(b)(1)];
(Please cite the statute or regulation allegedly violated by the permit decision_)
(2) Is directly affected by the decision [N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b)(2)]; and
(Please describe how you are directly affected by the permit decision.
Persons directly affected by a decision include, but are not limited to:
(a) any owner of real property in the vicinity of the property to
be developed who can show that the proposed development
is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the value
and enjoyment of his property; and
(b) any person who can demonstrate a history of substantial
use of public resources in the area directly affected by the

development when the development is within or touches
upon an area subject to the public trust.)
(3) Has alleged facts or made legal arguments that demonstrate that the request for
the hearing is not frivolous [N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b)(3)].
(Please summarize the evidence or arguments you will present at a
hearing in support of your appeal.)
Based on the attached responses to the above factors, the undersigned hereby requests a third
party hearing.
Date Signature of Petitioner or A� ey
Name of Petitioner or Attorney
av T
Address
City State Zip
Telephone Number
NOTES: This request must be served on the Director, Division of Coastal Management, at
the address shown on the attached Certificate of Service Form, within twenty (20)
days of the disputed permit decision. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b). Failure to
do so constitutes waiver of the right to request a hearing. A copy should also be
sent to the Attorney General's Office, Environmental Division, at the addresses
shown on the attached Certificate of Service Form.
Approval of a Third Party Hearing Request allows a petitioner to file a contested
case petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings within twenty (20) days
of receipt of the Chairman's Order. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b).
Denial of a Third Parry Hearing Request is a final agency decision which may be
appealed to the Superior Court in the county where the property is located under
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b) and Chapter 150B, Article 4.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this Third Party Hearing Request has been served on the State
agencies named below by depositing copies of it with the United States Postal Service with
sufficient postage for delivery by first class mail or by personally delivering copies to the named
agencies.
Original served on: Director
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
and a copy served on: Attorney General's Office
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
This the / Q day of , =�,_Oo9
6itLureof Petitioner A ey
Updated: June 1, 2005

Styron, Heather M.
From: Ken Rosemond [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 8:48 AM
To: Styron, Heather M.
Subject: RE: appeal
Attachments: rip rap 016.JPG
Thanks Heather, will do. Bonaire was great, 82 and sunny all week. I came back to 38 and
rainy. Yuck.
I have attached a photo of how I left the project. Take a look and see if that is how you saw
it and let me know. I didn't remember a difference in the height of one side over the other,
and can't really see it here. I am worried about tampering, so I take lots of pictures.
Do you mind telling me the basis for the appeal? What are they contesting? I assume in the
appeal process that I will have a chance to make my case. Here is a link to a blog I wrote
about the situation.
http://tortugacharters.net/content/?cat=5
Until, I will stay out of the marsh.
Ken
Quoting "Styron, Heather M." <heather.m.styron(@ncdenr.gov>:
> You will need to contact our Directors administrative assistant for
> this. She is the person who receives the appeal. Her name is Angela
> Willis. Her email is Angela.Willis([e-mail]. Thanks, Heather
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Rosemond [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 6:05 PM
> To: Styron, Heather M.
> Subject: Re: appeal
> Interesting information. Do you mind emailing or faxing a copy of the
> appeal application? I would lime my lawyers opinion on the matter,
> Thanks for all. I will be in MHC next week,
> Ken
> On Dec 11, 2009, at 3:25 PM, "Styron, Heather M."
> <[e-mail]
> > wrote:
> > Hello Mr. Rosemond, I wanted to let you know that after I emailed
> > you yesterday an appeal to the permit was brought in. What this
> > means is at this point no more work can be done with your permit at
> > this time. You will be receiving a stop work letter soon but just
> > wanted to let you know. Thanks, Heather
1

Styron, Heather M.
From: Ken Rosemond [[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 6:05 PM
To: Styron, Heather M.
Subject: Re: appeal
Interesting information. Do you mind emailing or faxing a copy of the appeal application? I
would lime my lawyers opinion on the matter,
Thanks for all. I will be in MHC next week,
im,
On Dec 11, 2009, at 3:25 PM, "Styron, Heather M." <heather.m.styron(@ncdenr.gov > wrote:
> Hello Mr. Rosemond, I wanted to let you know that after I emailed you
> yesterday an appeal to the permit was brought in. What this means is
> at this point no more work can be done with your permit at this time.
> You will be receiving a stop work letter soon but just wanted to let
> you know. Thanks, Heather
1

Davenport, Ryan
From: Ken Rosemond [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:16 AM
To: Davenport, Ryan
Subject: Permit for drive at 511 Avery in MHC
Ryan,
What a small world. I am Ken (Capt James) Rosemond of Tortuga Charters. I also own 1/3 of the house over the water at
510 Avery Street. (Which is at the end of a Town alley with access from Fisher Street.)
I called and talked to Heather and she is making me a copy of the permit to improve the alley and driveway that Katrina
Winters originally applied for and is now in the possession of Martin Bolster. I believe i talked to you a few years back
about the drive, as well as Martin's permit for his pier. I would like to talk to you again about the drive, as it is my
understanding that Martin has applied for an amendment to change some of the materials approved in the original permit.
We have presented a letter to Martin stating that no work or improvements can be made on our portion of the drive without
a written agreement as to the cost to improve and use of the finished product. Any work that starts on the project without
that agreement will not be with our permission until that agreement is reached.
Could you please call me at 919-272-5561?
I am coming down tomorrow and running a fishing trip Saturday, and dive trip Sunday and another fishing trip Monday.
Ken

NORTH CAROLINA
z DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Site Inspection Summary
PermitNo.: PermitType: PermitteeName:
N/A N/A Roseman, Ken
Address Location:
Avery St
Insp ate:
111912009
RepsName:
Davenport
Description
Shoreline Protection
Comments:
InspType:
Monitoring
Discuss riparian cooridor with Mr. Roseman.
Violation District: Township: County Name:
MHCDO MHC Carteret
Printed On: Tuesday, December 15, 2009

PermitNo ' PermitType:
55004C General
Address Location:
509 Avery St.
InspDate:
11/18/2009
RepsName:
Davenport
Per itteeName:
Rosemond, James
Inspype:
Monitoring
Rip rap for wetland protection
Comments:
Met with Ken Palmer to discuss location of rip rap placement.
Violation District: Township: County Name:
MHCDO MHC Carteret
Printed On: Tuesday, December 15, 2009

NORTH CAROLINA
o �
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Site Inspection Summary
Per itNo.: PermitType: PermitteeName:
NIA NIA
Address Location;
Avery St
i s ate:
1113012009
Davenport
Description
Shoreline Protection
Comments:
Rock placed as permitted.
Violation District:
MHCDO
Roseman, Ken
Printed On: Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Inspiype:
Monitoring
Township:
MHC
County Name:
Carteret

.moi rec�zs�
tf0
04,1-0- 09. -Zoo9
Caere �sclo l-ce-? 6-m�a,A"e- 74// 5-4, R 7j, 131,
���
/L
e7�. �%rn, IVC a-7 7i3 Ca ird
rn� � 55 oo / �bCa�larC
U
Ike -
'fie as wieae
7k4e-
w<u
/.SANCgC 6'1 N.Ozo6

Z/)
-/n�
509 Q s�

ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to ��Ie5
property located at
(Name of Property Owner)
S%2t�F7
(Lot, block, Road, etc.)
on 6?�e-0 C186� , in e/ , N.C.
(Waterbody) (Town and/or County
Applicant's phone #: �%7 Z7� '�''S� Mailing Address: .5- 7 4�17
.j ?'l " e
Z771-5
He has described to me, as shown below, the development he is proposing at that location, and, I
have no objections to his proposal.
DESCRIPTION AND/OR DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
(To be filled in by property owner proposing development)
(Information for Property Owner Applying (Riparian Property Owner Information)
for Permit)
Mailing Address Signature
City/State/Zip Print or Type Name
—;;'S 2- . 7 2L SLS
Telephone Number Telephone Number
ZZ, T,d2
Signature Date Date

------ __j
CONSTRUCTED)
- APPRi MA IM
OF IIAR94
_
I
r
�
L
r
I
C,

--��'- ,11.E :■.■��■�:y: •.����■ ���Jl♦. _- -: - --_... __ _
plain$ mo
-=
�.-�• .� t c � :� � Wit: � � � i � rry �
•-
�_-
,L�

T
lov-
I line
ir
I'll I a #ANIL
wim
- W-1
�AA
Xr, kill

HELEN R BASS 1520
JAMES KENNETH ROSEMOND
COTTAGE ACCOUNT //>
3401 UNIVERSITY DRIVE! v ��� 66 Il1311
a
DURHAM, NC 27707
/n�ol
--l-
BUT 7�CA
BRANCH BANKING qND TRUST COMPANY
)fR%HAM NORTH CAROLINA
1:053L0LL2WSL9435L 03lI1 L520

a �
t 4
+�
�r

i ►MA / ❑ DREDGE & FILL
s ,
vxo/q i F
L'PERMIT Previous permit #
gi�Wew odification Com lete Reissue ❑Partial Reissue Date previous permit issued
��f � ev ous
As authorized by the S�t�of'Nortfi aro i e artment of Environment and Natural Resources p
P
and the Coastal Resources Commission in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15A NCAC
Lam' B ttach .
Applicant Name ; Project Location: County
Address CIV I Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s)
City j W7 rr y'Y State kUtZIP -,97�?.
Phone #� -= '-L r
(� ) Fax # O Subdivision
Authorized Agent City ZIP
L� CVN ®'E GLPTIC C' I' T- ❑ PTS (l.. ) _ 1 ."
Affected PhoneBasin(','
# � %: •River .
AEC(s): ❑ OEA ❑ HHF ❑ IH ❑ UBA ❑ N/A r -
❑ PWS: ❑FC: Adj. Wtr. Body f i v> nat man unkn
ORW: yes /( n� o PNA yes /(no Crit.Hab. yes / no Closest Maj. Wtr. Body r °. 1 _ t=� = 1 ; • i
Type of Project/ Activity
Pier (dock) length
Platform(s)
Finger pier(s)
Groin length
number
Bulkheadl('Riprap length
11
avg distance o shore— J
max distance offshore
Basin, channel
cubic yards
Boat ramp
Boathouse/ Boatlift
Beach Bulldozing
Other
I
(Scale: A." � )
jL41A riVlrn Q � � 'a : a/10r9-al r
`N
Shoreline Length Q /C0
;
SAV: not sure yes no ;
Sandbags: not sure yes F not '
Moratorium: n/a yes
Photos: yes
Waiver Attached: yes no ---
A building permit may be required by:
Notes/ Special Conditions
❑ See note on back regarding River Basin rules.
Agent or Applicant Printed Name
Signature Please read compliance statement on back of permit
Application Fee(s) Check #
I
The time period requirement for this
� development Is suspended until 12-31-
2010, pursuant to Senate Bill 831. The
PermitOfficer's'signat'ure effective date of expiration for this
f permit is
Issuing ate r , + Expiration Date
Local Planning Jurisdiction Rover File Name

CENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to
property located at
IE SE" P (/
(Name of Property Owner)
Road, etc.)
on C CDCie6 , in McWt/a6p90 G/`7
(Waterbody) , N.C.
n (Town and/or County
Applicant's phone #: Mailing Address: Ad/3�7 t=�
."Ve'
277/-S
He has described to me, as shown below, the development he is proposing at that location, and, I
have no objections to his proposal.
---------------- -
DESCRIPTION AND/OR DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
(To be filled in by property owner proposing development)
---------------------------
a----------------------
(Information for Property rty Owner Applying (Riparian Property Owner Information)
for Permit)
Mailing Address
Signature
City/State/Zip "C"/k--
Print or Type Name
Telephone Number
Telephone Number
- Zi. Td2
Signature Date
Date

HELEN R BASS 1520
JAMES KENNETH ROSEMOND
COTTAGE ACCOUNT2/1
�l �
3401 UNIVERSITY DRIVE ` �� Ci *,q ss 1S110
DURHAM, NC 27707 F
%%r'
4
S /n I'J17�'r• n�
. BiT 1111191
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY C L A S S I C
H�A.M, NORTH CAROLINA 1y�
1:05310LL20:5L9435L 03umdL520 F

i
-�AiR�'b. '.1 .. � r ' ,. -h Y•"6t l`�.�,. A��� �� ��: �''��.� w• y"' ��efi� `
-
It'

�4
. C jr.'- • f� „t� Y s ! i v t`�7�' .''i"� , �i y' t.�l� ' r. , .. _
sir
4 s a • +r
I.
2r.. • i'G,ji '• ; j,• p d,W-V!X '+,t•�t� ,rN�, },,'1+' ; d: ° l .�
r.X
•t;j -.t's�""'`�'l �� .�' ♦ r •1 - '•s t ��y r;lfx'Si��.. �yd ��''a� /r 'r.•. l •� Il
5 S � � 0911 �!," w c �. � , '. .��`� �'ir ,� O;y �! � • !� .�. i.. � a a �. �,f
y� �`1i �:3�� ,i' ''�° i''� .F' tl'cd'•y". .�' ? :i"' ,, ��.. •1 t '� '� %R S-! - . j1 f!,•'1 e �, .�`. f ,�y .r ,. �,.:yi �/ -
{
r
�..
3• .� -7 L t' / 1;� \T� _
: / � • �, _ tom. , � � ; ,/! _ � . ' j �3 s � r , �..
� ! •, 1, � i r _ � r � .. �•t�� �
" • � .. ' !- ,' � % �- �, f r • 1. � �i ,Ir .� ,,. � ti's �,��, ., d•,,.

low gi
A wm—
loll III Ills"

a •
a/ r
it
."q. ,� M �• N` _''�"1^Y. :Rfl `t yisy,•ll Jyi\• B. >

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN
COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
COUNTY OF CARTERET CMT -09-14
IN THE MATTER OF THE THIRD PARTY RECOMMENDATION OF THE
HEARING REQUEST BY CHRISTINE DIVISION OF COASTAL
FIGUEIREDO MANAGEMENT
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner Christine Figueiredo (Petitioner) requests permission to file a petition for
contested case hearing as a third party pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1 (b). Petitioner d
seeks to challenge Coastal Area Management Act CAMA General Permit No. 55004 issued to
g g ( )
�Q U
James Rosemond (Permittee) on November 10, 2009. The permit was issued by Heather Styron,
Field Representative, Morehead City �, Division of Coastal Management (DCM). The
permit authorized a rock revetment along a marsh edge on Calico Creek in Morehead City,
Carteret County, North Carolina.
Under�CAMA, a third party may file a contested case hearing petition to challenge the
issuance or denial of a CAMA permit to someone else only if the Coastal Resources Commission
(CRC) first determines that a contested case hearing is appropriate. Section 113A-121.1 (b) of
the North Carolina General Statutes provides that the determination as to whether a hearing is
appropriate should be based upon a consideration of whether the petitioner:
1. Timely filed a petition for contested case hearing;
2. Alleged that the decision is contrary to a statute or rule;
3. Is directly affected by the decision; and
4. Alleged facts or made legal arguments that demonstrate that the hearing request is
not frivolous.
1of18

The CRC has delegated the authority to its Chairman to determine whether a third party
request for a hearing should be granted or denied. Rule 15A NCAC 7J .0301 (b). A third party
whose hearing request is granted may file a contested case hearing petition with the Office of
Administrative Hearings (OAH). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1 (b). A third party whose hearing
request is denied may seek judicial review. Id.
II. FACTS
A. Permittee owns property at 511 Avery Street, Morehead City, Carteret County,
North Carolina. Permittee's property includes a residence, a driveway, marshland, and a dock
which extends out into Calico Creek. See Attachment A. This property's shoreline and 75 feet
landward of the normal high water line is in an Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) pursuant
to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-118.
G
B. Petitioner is the adjacent riparian property owner to Permittee, located at 509
Avery Street, Morehead City, Carteret County, North Carolina. Petitioner's property is separated
from Permittee's property by a 10' town alleyway. See Attachment A.
C. Permittee's property includes a slough segment of the marsh that is subject to
tidal flooding. On this area, there once existed a small unpermitted dock near the 10' town
alleyway, which fell into disrepair and was eventually removed in the late 1990s. By 2007, the
marsh had begun to re-establish within the slough area with a wide sand and marsh berm at the
mouth of the tidal depression. See Attachment B. This prevented water navigation into the tidal
depression.
D. In January 2009, the tidal depression on Permittee's property was illegally
dredged with a combination of prop -wash and shoveling. See Attachment C.
2of18

E. Upon learning of this illegal dredging, Permittee contacted DCM and requested
assistance in helping to reestablish the marsh on his property to its state prior to the illegal
dredging.
F. On November 10, 2009, DCM issued to Permittee CAMA General Permit No.
55004 authorizing a rock revetment along the edge of a depressed area in the marsh that is
subject to tidal flooding. See Attachment D. Petitioner was furnished with a copy of this plan. "
G. On December 10, 2009, DCM received a Third Party Hearing Request objecting
to the issuance of CAMA General Permit No. 55004 on two main grounds: (1) the rock
revetment is allegedly environmentally detrimental because it harms species propagation and
eliminates a natural refuge for fish and waterfowl; and (2) the development is allegedly
recreationally detrimental because it reduces "the capabilities of the waters to be used by the
public." See Attachment E.
III. DCM'S RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Was the appeal of the permit timely filed?
No. CAMA specifically requires that third parties "may file a petition for a contested
case hearing only if the Commission determines that a hearing is appropriate. A request for a
determination of the appropriateness of a contested case hearing shall be made in writing and
received by the Commission within 20 days after the disputed permit decision is made." N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b). In this case, the disputed permit decision was made November 10,
2009, and the Third Party Hearing Request was received by DCM on December 10, 2009.
Therefore, Petitioner's request was not timely filed within the 20 days required by statute.
B. Has the Petitioner Alleged that the Decision is Contrary to a Statute or Rule?
3ofIS

Yes. In order to prevail in a third party hearing request, a petitioner must first allege
that the agency has made a decision that is contrary to a statute or rule. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-
121.1 (b) (1). Petitioner alleges that DCM's decision to issue CAMA General Permit No. 55004
violates 15A NCAC 07H.0206, 15A NCAC 07H.0207, and 15A NCAC 07H.0208. See
Attachment C. Petitioner, however, does not specify which sections of these rules are alleged to
be violated.
C. Is the Petitioner Directly Affected by the Decision?
No. Petitioner alleges in her first numbered paragraph that "[t]his project clearly
affects commercial and sport fisheries of the coastal area, as well as the nonmonetary value
associated with the recreation and aesthetics of the tidal pond." See Attachment E. Quite to the
contrary, however, this project is intended for the protection of the marsh, which is used by
commercial and sport fishery species, and provides detrital export. The General Permit was
approved for this use by all of the environmental review agencies, as it has a positive impact on
the habitat through its reduction of wave and tide energy, without causing scour, reducing water
quality, or interrupting species migration. The rock itself provides limited habitat as well. No
marsh excavation or filling is allowed under this General Permit. Therefore, this portion of
Petitioner's claim is without merit and does not satisfy the nexus requirement between the
project and harm done to the Petitioner under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1 (b) (2).
Petitioner next claims that "[t]he tidal pond has been used by the public for generations,
from fishermen to children playing and swimming... [and the] building of a rip rap wall around
the tidal pond has jeopardized the capability of the waters to be used by the public." See
Attachment E. This claim is equally without merit. Since the entire tidal depression in question
is surrounded by Permittee's property, the only legal access to this area, without Permitee's
4of18

explicit consent, is by water. These access rights have not changed. Additionally, mooring a
boat in the waters within the riparian area of Permittee's property would require trespass.
Petitioner also claims that "[t]he width of the channel entrance has been closed so much
[due to the recent project] as to hinder the public usage and does not provide adequate water
circulation... [increasing] siltation and stagnant water." Id. The area is tidally flooded all
around in adjacent low marsh; therefore, the opening should not affect siltation of the water body
or tidal exchange. However, prop -wash within the tidal depression has affected siltation of the
system. Because the waters are tidal, and the area within the slough is dry by mid -tide, there
should be no increase in stagnation by the placement of rock against the marsh edge. However,
the areas scoured by illegal boat prop dredging do presently hold water at low tide, allowing for
limited local stagnation. The area at high tide has between 6" and 1' of water in depth. Thus,
only very small vessels can navigate into the marsh for fishing or other legal purposes. The
opening between the rocks at the marsh edge is 6.5' to 7' at its narrowest. Consequently, these
vessels should still be able to navigate the system.
In sum, DCM has ensured that its rules and their underlying intent have been explicitly
followed through its permitting process. DCM's position is that the current project creates
sufficient lanes of navigation for Petitioner to both legally ingress and egress. Thus, Petitioner is
not at this time "directly" affected by this permitting decision, and does not meet the
requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1 (b) (2).
D. Has the Petitioner Demonstrated that the Hearing Request is not Frivolous?
No. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the hearing request is not frivolous as
required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1 (b) (3). It is staff's position that CAMA General
Permit No. 55004 is in accord with all statutory and regulatory requirements, including those
5of18

V�
involving
environmental protection and public use. The project has been "designed to minimize
adverse effects on navigation and public use of public trust areas," as set forth in 07H.0208 (b)
(5) (H). See Attachment F.
Under the permitted development plan, Petitioner continues to have reasonable direct
access to any previously accessible public trust areas; and there has been nothing, save a few
empty assertions, by Petitioner to show that this project, as permitted, impinges upon this 4,L
navigation and use. Thus, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the hearing request is not V LAI
frivolous as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1 (3).
IV. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Staff maintains that Petitioner has not met the criteria justifying a
contested case hearing. For the reasons stated herein, the Division of Coastal Management, Cv
through its undersigned attorney, recommends that the Petitioner's Third Party Hearing Request
be DENIED by the Chairman.
This the day of December, 2009.
FOR THE DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ROY COOPER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Ward Zimmerman
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
[phone]
[phone] (FAX)
[e-mail]
6of18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have served a copy of the attached Recommendation of the
Division of Coastal Management on Petitioner by causing a copy thereof to be placed in the
United States Postal Service bearing sufficient postage for delivery by first class mail and
addressed as follows:
Christine Figueiredo
509 Avery Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
and to Permittee
James Rosemond
5 Bobcat Court
Durham, NC 27713
This the day of December, 2009.
Ward Zimmerman
Assistant Attorney General
7of18

00
0
M
W
1
� 71II15a3--�—
j
TVd neo,,- !
m
7F
F
ivrA 1. v.:?:Sh}iii
AYNM'MN
r �
e
-
41:
1
IfIJ
U
m
7F
F
ivrA 1. v.:?:Sh}iii
AYNM'MN
r �
1 ,tiJ 1A ?� .09
-
IfIJ
j
1 ,tiJ 1A ?� .09

ATTACHMENT B
2007 Photograph of Reestablishment of the Marsh at the Mouth of the Tidal Depression
9of18

ATTACHMENT C
2009 Illegal Dredging of the Tidal Depression
10 of 18

ATTACHMENT D
Permittee's CAMA General Permit
%2KA" % ❑ ©ftUAdN A FILL ► I f L • " d r
PERMIT Previ permit # "
ew Complete Reissue ❑Partial Reissue Date previous permit Issued
As authorized by tfse - ent of Environment and Natural Resources
and the Coastal Resources 6pmmission in an area of environmental concern pursuant to I SA NCAC /O
:Applicant Narne Project Location: County L
Address Street Address! State FLot #{s)
��y�� it
Se e- .zlY-S�► ! 1� �7 'T' ' i
Audtorizad?lgeret City IIC_ ZIP
f Z
` .Affected a'cw w -f aprX R9a- ❑PTs Phone# ) — 'verBasin(.C�u.�lLTIYiF-.
❑ OEA ❑ HHF O IH ❑ UBA ❑ WA_
AEC(s): ❑ PWS: QFC: Adj. Wtr. Body i -�F l �l- { C d !/man lunknn„
Closest Maj. Wtr. Body tj
ORW: yes � PNA yes / no Crit.Hab. yes / no r
Type Of Project/ Aetiv'tj' ) ) i�u Yd tz, _
Pier (dock) length
ser pier(6)
Fin c
Groin Wi& {_-- 1-
I
number — y
Bulk Rip W.P
avg distance ore ti _
max distance offshore
L
Bazin, channel
I I'
cubic yards_—' _. ,,ire
}
Boat ramp
BoathouseJ BoadiR
Beach Bulldonng
Odw
f
�alldbigt% f10C 9dfY j. yes n0
,
Moratorium. Na :•yes
Photos: - yes
Waiver A -died• yes no—}--i---T
A building permit may be required by: +� ❑ See on bads regarding River Basin rules. t
Notes/ Special Conditions t t _ rt ,
'.... ....
`
I smrernentonbackofpermit" .
Ok
1 I 4
Lt The time period requirement for th;5
development is suspended until 12-31-
(' 2610, pursuant to Senate Bill 831. The
ieffective date of expiration for this
(permit is—%/� _
; ut r�irotnogoa
7,
11 of 18

ATTACHMENT E
Petitioner's Third Party Hearing Request
DCM FORM 5
PETITIONER'S NAME fHe151,111
1C FGUEieED�
COUNTY Gla r'ff-
FILE NUMBER O —I — l y
(Petitioner leave this line blank)
DcC r 0 2009
Morehead Gity DCM
THIRD PARTY. HEARING
REQUEST ON
CAMA PERMIT DECISION
PLEASE TAKE NOTE that the undersigned, a person affected by the decision of (check one):
a Local Permit Officer acting on a CAMA Minor Development Permit
/ application; or
V the Division of Coastal Management, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, acting on a CAMA Major Development Permit
application or CAMA General Permit application
hereby requests permission from the Coastal Resources Commission to file an appeal pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b) and N.C. Admin. Code tit_ 15A, r. 77.0300 (Please attach a
copy of the permit application decision. If you cannot obtain a copy of the permit application
decision, please provide the name of the permittee, the project location and the permit number.)
Requests are reviewed by the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission to determine
whether a hearing should be granted. The determination of whether to grant a hearing is in the
sole discretion of the Chairman. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 710301(b).
For this application to be complete, the Petitioner must address each factor listed below on a
separate sheet of paper. You must address these factors before your request will be reviewed.
The Chairman's decision to grant a hearing will be based on whether the Petitioner:
(1) Has alleged that the decision is contrary to a statute or rule (N.C. Gen. Stat. §
113A -121.1(b)(1)];
(Please cite the statute or regulation allegedly violated by the permit decision.)
(2) Is directly affected by the decision [N.C. Gen_ Stat. § 113A -121.1(b)(2)]; and
(Please describe how you are directly affected by the permit decision.
Persons directly affected by a decision include, but are not limited to:
(a) any owner of real property in the vicinity of the property to
be developed who can show that the proposed development
is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the value
and enjoyment of his property; and
(b) any person who can demonstrate a history of substantial
use of public resources in the area directly affected by the
12 of 18

development when the development is within or touches
upon an area subject to the public trust.)
(3) Has alleged facts or made legal arguments that demonstrate that the request for
the hearing is not frivolous [N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b)(3)].
(Please summarize the evidence or arguments you will present at a
hearing in support of your appeal.)
Based on the attached responses to the above factors, the undersigned hereby requests a third
party hearing.
Date Signature ofPetitioner or At6fney
/
Name of Petitioner or Attorney
Address
City State Zip
(� 52-1?7/
Telephone Number
NOTES: This request must be served on the Director, Division of Coastal Management, at
the address shown on the attached Certificate of Service Form, within twenty (20)
days of the disputed permit decision. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b). Failure to
do so constitutes waiver of the right to request a hearing. A copy should also be
sent to the Attorney General's Office, Environmental Division, at the addresses
shown on the attached Certificate of Service Form.
Approval of a Third Party Hearing Request allows a petitioner to file a contested
case petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings within twenty (20) days
of receipt of the Chairman's Order. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b).
Denial of a Third Party Hearing Request is a final agency decision which may be
appealed to the Superior Court in the county where the property is located under
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A -121.1(b) and Chapter 150B, Article 4.
13 of 18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this Third Party Hearing Request has been served on the State
agencies named below by depositing copies of it with the United States Postal Service with
sufficient postage for delivery by first class mail or by personally delivering copies to the named
agencies.
Original served on: Director
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
and a copy served on: Attorney General's Office
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
This the �Q day of , s 9
lgn ture of Petitioner /A ey
Updated: Jwe 1, 2005
14 of 18

-'/o a �'vrrL rri� a �e
7720 r��� _ 6- _ :2 P
a �v� 4, �
/
)(e 5-//,,ur�y 7a �� 01'i2
"-c> N(f Ge rr . Std: 1134 -/Z/, �(�J
aX,d(IV,
V,C. �� 1�1. Coe L 7 i / / 54) R 7-), 0300,
/'L � ` rni / /2� 'S aa- Z L. c_� leo. /YI
5 666(2c�- C 7� . Z,4Arn , ti� a -7 713
°O %b cion ,,�
Vey Sze_ ss
-ICA
c 67r4/, ozo�
15 of 18

16 of 18

3�
A/o J�20�
/S,-� NC4 e d 71-1- O Zok
�) la4 4,zd, �
arc_ tkz ziz v/r,�ka-
ell,
�a- O
° 6 cue s
/54 7AI, oao�
O�p Ste- 6y
17 of 18

aA-1 `4LZ
-/i�l C
18 of 18

'` .f.

11.,naai�_aasa��►lT�i�litl�=,�lt=lYt►�1����'������ll:�_� i !
fill'
r
`�`_ � ;'{'.t�•�� ', i'r %,Ij 1�•. •Qj`tt ��r�'��:,; �i;i `g••1 ti 1• �`.ii. 1r•' �••io..yil {�rt r�•,,�d�33•• — -
} Y f�+� •1��,1 '� •` f• /♦Jf]� i T 'fit? ,e f�- ` Y•�
.6,. I , �� � �(. `+4'�i�:l �.' 4 t;, \ ���� � � � k' �� �. { , , �i�51{yF � �� tl���;, �`� '' � ��► �>.; >.' Si �
.3 :�4V �.A 3: P -t*. � �ett�� �,'�s �:7: ��� �. { h° 1V'k,� /„r� ���yyy � � : • L'a��,c�x- 'Lr',
r�c ;'iy.• t Yr.',,i'% .) I , 1�. � 1,�y � � t �;�f t r, � �..� : � :x � _ ,, • '� ,��. ' • ZrlF�it y
I ,t • � t'. � , � y f� ! C,. • r rrj /�. jJ ' � � i����j� � q.
i' 1. ..'t� i� r I ,tea il`� i ��� <t ,�,.�.t:.�' i r r,� � � 1" J. ll����q�`�•.S"n'a �1•�� - �
t
7:• (11 �' r� ,, 1� �� ! r�' J' "' I� . 1 �i. +3y/ y J /:1 `t °� i 3

. mi

Styron, Heather M.
From: Ken Rosemond [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:22 AM
To: Styron, Heather M.
Subject: Pictures
Attachments: Marsh Blowout 2.JPG; boats encroach ing.JPG; Marsh Blowout 1.JPG
Heather,
I will send the photos of the tidal pool enclosed with marsh grass when I get home.
Attached are a couple that I showed you today.
Thanks,
Ken Rosemond
919=272-5561

Styron, Heather M.
From: Ken Rosemond [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 5:06 PM
To: Styron, Heather M.
Subject: RE: Pictures
I picked it up. Thanks so much.
From: Styron, Heather M. [mailto: heather. [e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:50 PM
To: Ken Rosemond
Subject: RE: Pictures
The secretary was supposed to have called you earlier. I spoke with Ryan and he said he recommended you apply for this
so I have issued you a permit. The fee is 200 dollars. If you have any questions feel free to contact me. Thanks, Heather
From: Ken Rosemond [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:06 PM
To: Styron, Heather M.
Subject: RE: Pictures
Thanks Heather. Any news? I took a bunch of pictures after you left. Like I said earlier, I suspect continued evaporation of
marsh grass until open water hits the town alley way.
Ken
From: Styron, Heather M. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:28 AM
To: Ken Rosemond
Subject: RE: Pictures
I will get back with you on this ASAP. Thanks, Heather
From: Ken Rosemond [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:22 AM
To: Styron, Heather M.
Subject: Pictures
Heather,
I will send the photos of the tidal pool enclosed with marsh grass when I get home.
Attached are a couple that I showed you today.
Thanks,
Ken Rosemond
919=272-5561

Styron, Heather M.
From: Ken Rosemond [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:15 PM
To: Styron, Heather M.
Subject: RE: Pictures
Attachments: Tidal Pool.July 2007.jpg
Heather,
I found the picture on my home computer. I was afraid I had lost it. It was taken July 2007 just a month after the
new neighbors arrived.
It is attached.
Please forward it to Mr. Davenport, because I don't have his email address and I had told him about it too.
Thanks,
Ken

Styron, Heather M.
From: Ken Rosemond [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:46 PM
To: Styron, Heather M.
Subject: Presentation
Heather,
I prepared a little picture show that shows what happened over the last two years in the
marsh next to my house, all inside our deeded property lines.
It is on youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-i-7rKl3eBI
I also just found out I have an eyewitness (an contractor installing new windows in my house)
who has personally witnessed people digging with shovels in the tidal pool.
I hope I will be able to share this video with your District Manager.
See you in the morning.
Ken
1

Styron, Heather M.
From: Ken Rosemond [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:54 AM
To: Styron, Heather M.
Subject: Marsh restoration project
Heather,
My brother and I just arrived to start putting in more rip rap. We have a load coming at 10. Low tide is at noon. I would like
it if you or Ryan stopped by to see if we are doing it correctly per the permit. I also have a question about height.
Thanks,
Ken
919-272-5561

Styron, Heather M.
From: Ken Rosemond [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:16 PM
To: Styron, Heather M.
Subject: Re: your project
Thanks Heather I am in Bonaire this week but will take care of that when I get back to the
states.
On Dec 10, 2009, at 11:23 AM, "Styron, Heather M." <heather.m.styron(@ncdenr.gov > wrote:
> Hello Mr. Rosemond, Tere and I went to look at your progress with the
> riprap protection for the marsh and it is looking great. With that
> said we did notice that if you are looking from the street at the
> water the left side is higher than it should be. It should only be a
> maximum of 6 inches above the marsh substrate in that area and it is
> more. There is a small circular strip of marsh next to the house that
> indicates where you would need to lower the rirprap to meet the six
> inch height. Start here and come landward to the road.
> You can place what you remove on the right side. If this is done then
> it would be done as the permit states. If you have any questions feel
> free to contact me. Thanks, Heather
1

Styron, Heather M.
Subject: FW: appeal
-----Original Message -----
From: Ken Rosemond [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:51 AM
To: Styron, Heather M.
Subject: RE: appeal
Thanks Heather, I can wait for the letter.
Ryan came by the other day and seemed to think the height was good but I will do whatever you
guys tell me too.
Quoting "Styron, Heather M." <heather.m.styronPancdenr.gov>:
> I have not seen the appeal so I do
> not know what it is based on. I spoke with Angela this morning and
> she said she
> supplied a copy of the appeal with the required stop work order
> letter for you.
> It should come certified today. She said if you wanted her to she
> would scan it
> and email it to you and to just let her know. If you have anymore
> questions feel
> free to contact me. I looked at the picture and this I what we saw. The left
> side should only be a maximum of 6 inches above the substrate(soil). Thanks,
> Heather
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Rosemond [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 8:48 AM
> To: Styron, Heather M.
> Subject: RE: appeal
> Thanks Heather, will do. Bonaire was great, 82 and sunny all week. I
> came back
> to 38 and rainy. Yuck.
> I have attached a photo of how I left the project. Take a look and
> see if that
> is how you saw it and let me know. I didn't remember a difference in
> the height
> of one side over the other, and can't really see it here. I am worried about
> tampering, so I take lots of pictures.
> Do you mind telling me the basis for the appeal? What are they contesting? I
> assume in the appeal process that I will have a chance to make my
> case. Here is
> a link to a blog I wrote about the situation.
> http://tortugacharters.net/content/?cat=5
1

> Until, I will stay out of the marsh.
> Ken
> Quoting "Styron, Heather M." <heather.m.styronPancdenr.gov>:
> > You will need to contact our Directors administrative assistant for
> > this. She is the person who receives the appeal. Her name is Angela
> > Willis. Her email is Angela.Willis(@ncdenr.gov. Thanks, Heather
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ken Rosemond [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 6:05 PM
> > To: Styron, Heather M.
> > Subject: Re: appeal
> > Interesting information. Do you mind emailing or faxing a copy of the
> > appeal application? I would lime my lawyers opinion on the matter,
> > Thanks for all. I will be in MHC next week,
> > Ken
> > On Dec 11, 2009, at 3:25 PM, "Styron, Heather M."
> > <[e-mail]
> > > wrote:
> > > Hello Mr. Rosemond, I wanted to let you know that after I emailed
> > > you yesterday an appeal to the permit was brought in. What this
> > > means is at this point no more work can be done with your permit at
> > > this time. You will be receiving a stop work letter soon but just
> > > wanted to let you know. Thanks, Heather
2

f -VITT [-I---
Em

. ;.:.
�, , � _ ,.aiia

December 16, 2009
James H. Gregson �, �.^;#:
DirectorR "�
Division of Coastal Management tJ� I. e 6 2009
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557 moreneac —ily DSM
Re: Appeal of Permit #55004C
Dear Mr. Gregson:
On behalf of the owner group of the property in Morehead City, NC at the address 511
Avery Street, I would like to make the following arguments in rebuttal to the application
for a hearing request on permit #55004C issued to James K Rosemond. It is our opinion
as an owner group that the permit is of significant public benefit, for it will aid in the
restoration of marsh that once existed in the area in question. It also serves as breakwater
against storm driven waves that threaten our property in a NE gale. The high ground that
once existed in what is now the mouth of the tidal pool, was instrumental in protecting
our property during Hurricane Ophelia.
The survey clearly shows (see attached) that the tidal pool cannot be accessed without
trespassing over our property, except by water from the public trust area. We have made
our intentions clear to Ms. Figueiredo and co-owner Mr. Bolster via a letter from our
attorney (see attached) that we intend to stop their unlawful trespass and use of our
property.
To enter the tidal pool from dry land is clearly violating our property rights. There exists
no public right to use or access the water over our property without the owners direct
permission, nor did a "community" dock ever exist. There was a dock that Clarence
Rosemond (one of the original owners) built many years ago and gave permission to use
to several of the neighbors.
Clarence's daughter and her Mother Marion Rosemond, current co-owners of the
property recollect the following and I paraphrase:
"Permission was given to Alton (Buddy) Robinson (who lives on Fisher St.) and Mr. William Willis
(now deceased) to access the water from our pad and dock. When our small dock located in
front of the pad became in ill repair Buddy and Mr. Willis together requested permission to repair
it for their use and that was granted. When Buddy gave up shrimping and no longer used the
dock, we tore the dock down to clean up the area and discourage anyone outside of our group
from using it because we were concerned about injury to others and liability risk. It is my
assumption that no one else in the neighborhood had been given "permission" to access water
from our property."
The small pier was removed long before the FigueiredoBolster's moved in as neighbors,
(circa 1996) and the tidal pool closed in and a healthy stand of marsh grass had begun to
grow there. That was soon destroyed upon their arrival. Any claim to continuous public

use across our property by anyone permission or otherwise can be totally refuted be the
photograph attached that shows the condition of the marsh and tidal pool in the summer
of 2007 when the petitioners moved in.
Ms. Figueiredo's claim that the closing of the tidal pool has caused "undue interference
with access" to the water is an invalid claim, as that access is only granted by permission
from the owners of our property. Because of circumstances outlined in the letter from Mr.
Richard Stanley on our behalf, no parties, including but not limited to Ms. Figueiredo,
Mr. Bolster and the children living with them, have permission to access the water over
our property.
We have photographic documentation and eyewitness accounts of the systematic
destruction of the marsh by human hands that created the tidal pool as it exists today.
This clearly is contradictory to Ms. Figuereido's implied concern with the health and well
being of the sea life and marsh. The permit we were given was approved because CAMA
agreed that the rip rap would be beneficial in the restoration of the marsh. The claim that
inadequate water exchange exists since the construction of the project is also an invalid
claim, as with each high tide, the pool floods at a level higher than all of the rip rap and
the opening is adequate for all of the water to exit the pool with the ebbing tide, insuring
a complete water exchange twice a day. The real culprit to a healthy marsh in that area is
human activity.
The bottom line is, that this is a civil matter over property lines and rights and not a
CAMA issue except to determine if the project for which the permit was issued is
positive or negative for the marsh and surrounding wetlands. We stand in our opinion that
it can only improve the natural value of the wetlands next to our property, not deter them.
It is also our opinion that this application is frivolous and wastes valuable public and
private resources in the form of time, effort and energy, the sole intent being an attempt
to justify the illegal use of property that does not belong to the petitioner and associated
parties.
On behalf of the owners of the above property, I would like to petition the Chairman to
deny the request for an administrative hearing on the grounds that claims are not based on
facts, either historical or scientific, and are actually made with the intent to influence
existing civil disputes underway. These civil disputes should not be a matter that CAMA
needs to consider in this decision.
Sincerely,
James K Rosemond
See Attached Photographs and survey

The condition of the tidal pool in the summer of 2007 that clearly shows that use of the
tidal pool as access to public trust waters had not occurred for a significant period of
time.
After the illegal dredging and digging by shovel (we have a witness) during January 2009
RSM®
s0M
-
--
RSM®

The tidal pool as it existed in November 2009
The tidal pool after work on the project completed to date taken 12/1/2009

The portion oft thesurvey (conducted in November 2009 by James Philips) that cG21
shows thk access m the tida1pool from high ground can only be accomplished
travelling over our property. Also worthy of note is the 10' dG\that exists 54we n our
property and that oft the petitioners.
7r zam e\&
C oe cJwa� act �
` ' \
' a,
y
— _
�.�
I--,---- - - |
a6o)w764
, e a
�
—A—Li -