WTH-Ketelsleger,Eva (2)

J. HAROLD SEAGLE
Senior Partner
ROUNTREE & SEAGLE, L.L.P.
. ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3zR1a4l;1Sa i.YrTall
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403
August 22, 1996
VIA TELECOPIER AND U. S. MAIL
Mr. Roger N. Schecter
State of North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Re: Eva S. Ketelsleger
Application for CAMA Major Permit
Goat Island
Our File No. 6500.003
Dear Mr. Schecter:
As you know, I represent Eva
her application for a CAMA permit t
Goat Island in New Hanover County.
exercised its option to purchase
Ketelsleger would like to withdri
permit.
MAILING ADDRESS
P.O. Box 1409
WBmingt NC 2840E-1409
TELEPHONE [phone]
FACSIMILEA 910.763-0320
Ketelsleger in connection with
o construct a house and pier on
The State of North Carolina has
Goat Island; therefore, Mrs.
w her application for a CAMA
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
With best regards, I remain
spe fu y yours,
V d
J arold Seagle
JHS/gw AC11rti'PcF1�
pc: Mrs. Eva S. Ketelsleger
William A. Raney, Jr., Esquire
J

MEMORANDUM
'if
North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve
Center for Marine Science Research
The University of North Carolina at Wilmington
7205 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
910-256-3721
fc5k4j)?
4EDEMfN �s wl
TO: Laird Davison
THROUGH: Roger Schec
FROM: John Taggart
SUBJECT: Acquisition of the Ketelsleger Property on Goat Island
within the Masonboro Island Reserve Area
.bra
March 4, 1996
Goat Island is a privately -owned dredge material island within
the proposed boundary of the Masonboro Island Estuarine Reserve
component (please attached maps). One of the owners of Goat Island
has applied for a LAMA permit to develop a residence. This creates
a potential conflict with the purpose of protecting the Masonboro
complex as an undisturbed natural area for research, education and
compatible recreational uses. Thus, our desire is to acquire the
property to preclude development.
The Society for Masonboro Island, a local non-profit group
that promotes preservation of the island, has secured a signed
option to purchase Ms. Ketelsleger's property (18.57 acres) for
$ 229,000. This is a compromise price between the two attached
appraisal opinions -- $ 197,000 and $ 269,275. The Society is
willing to assign the option to the state for $ 5,000 as explained
in the attached letter from William Raney to Bobby Poole. Funds
for this purchase are budgeted under C.I. Fund 4916 (Natural
Heritage Trust Fund Award).
Copies of POls, maps, appraisals and options are attached.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Attachments
The North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve is a cooperative program between the
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources/Division of Coastal Management, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

—.. .... -- —1-1— —iauni awn aaa—rao—vnaa 1L. LL. 3YY� 13:11
P. 2
BEFORE THE COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
NEW. HANOVER COUNTY
i NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL
OF REQUEST FOR
DECLARATORY RULING
IN THE MATTER OF THE XETELSLEGER
PERMIT APPLICATION, CAMA PERMIT NO. 95 0487
Now come the Petitioners and give notice of withdrawal of the Request for Declaratory
Ruling, Petitioners reserve to right to refile the petition if the continued settlement negotiations
agreed to by Mrs. Ketelsleger and The Society for Masonboro Island are unsuccessful, This
withdrawal is filed to facilitate those negotiations as is a concurrent request by Mrs. Ketelsleger
to extend the comment and resolution process for the EA/FONSI issued by the Division of
Coastal Management for the Ketelsleger permit application to construct a dwelling house and
pier on Goat Island in New Hanover County.
Respectfully submitted this the 4 h; de
y . of Becentbvr, 1,
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
AT WILMIN TO
cf
Daniel F. Me ay.
Special Deputy Attorney General
Counsel for UNC-W
THE SOCIETY FOR MASONBORO
ISLAND, INC,
Marian T. McPhaul, Executive Director
RecE1vED ` NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BAN 3 E6 ~ > t
Cu.
P,9ANAb ,,L. f David F. Weaver
mctaMunew,not

••...n., n� �r eeanc ui:uHi iurr rt7-eiJ-quiu 12.22. 1995 13: 12 P. 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF
WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RULING in the above -captioned matter
upon all parties by depositing a copy of same in "the United States mail, postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
Roger Schecter
Division of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Robin Smith
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Protection Division
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
J. Harold Seagle
Post Office Box 1409
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
This the Iffir
-,2' day of Reeerf r, 1.995
Daniel F. Mcl swhorn
Special Deputy Attorney General

I'.
SPECIAL LITIGATION

r �-
January 2, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Bagget ,)State Clearinghouse
FROM: Roger Sch stal Management
SUBJECT: Goat Island EA Extension of Comment Period
Please review the attached request by Mr Harold Seagle for an indefinite extension of the
comment period for this document. Also note request for closure of the comment period within
two weeks of her request for closure. Please let me know if this is satisfactory.
CC: Mr Harold Seagle

1 —DEC 28 '95
04:09PM ROUNTREE & SEAGLE
P.2
ROUNTUE & SEAGLE, L.L.P.
MORO ROUNTREF., JR.
ATTORNEYS AT LSW
MAM OADDRUS
(190/4929)
Pp, Box 1409
OLORo6 Roumm-, R1
W1 Wvymn, NC 28i02•:-069
1. XAFALD SFAOL6
CHARM M. LDUBERRF, JR.
WEMINUMN, NORTH CAROLPIA2W3
1ELEPHONE: 910463,3104
DOLOM M. Wumms
FACSIMILE: 910-7634320
oPAnM a LASFE
JOHN S. AUSLW
—
December 28, 1995
OFARGES, FRW4AN,JA
otcawxW
VIA TELECOPIER AND U. S. MAIL
Mr. Roger N. Schecter
State of North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Re: Eva S. Ketelsleger
Application for CANA Major Permit
Goat Island
Our File No. 6500.003
Dear Mr. Schecter:
As you know, I represent Eva Ketelsleger in connection with
her application for a CAMA permit to construct a house and pier on
Goat Island in New Hanover County. Mrs. Ketelsleger previously
requested an extension of the comment period for the Environmental
Assessment for this project which request was granted. The earlier
request was to provide time for discussions to take place
concerning possible acquisition of Mrs. Ketelsleger's interest in
the Island by the State of North Carolina or the Society for
Masonboro Island. Discussions regarding the possible acquisition
are continuing and the parties have agreed that the negotiations
can be conducted in a more favorable atmosphere if the permit
process continues to be deferred.
Accordingly, I request that the comment period on the
Environment- Assessment be extended indefinitely until Mrs.
Ketelsleger requests that the comment period be closed. If Mrs.
Ketelsleger requests the closure of the comment period, we would
further request that it be closed within two (2) weeks of her
request.

DEC 28 '95 04:10PM ROUNTREE & SEAGLE P.3
y
r
Mr. Roger N. Schecter
Page Two
December 28., 1995
Please acknowledge receipt of this request and your action on
it.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
With best regards, I remain
espectf ly your
J. Harold Sea le
JHS/gw
pc: Mrs. Eva Ketelsleger
Ms. Chrys Saggett
RouNTREE & SEAGLE, L.L.P.
WILMiNarON, NORTH CAROLII:A

ROUNTREE & SEAGLE, L.L.P.
GFORGEROLNIREE, JR.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MARJNOADDRESS
(1904-1979)
P.O.Ems 1409
GEORGEROUNrRER R1
2419 MARKEiS1REET
wno,R,Nczegoz-wog
J. HAROfD BEAGLE
CHARL ESM. L INEBERRY, JR.
WRMINGION, NORTH CAR011NA28403
TELEPHONE [phone]
1)DIAAFS AL wRl]AMS
FACSIMILE 910.763-0320
_ _ __
GEOFFREYA.LOSES
.
.' ,-• `.�/�__�,
JOHN S. AUSEA7
GEORGEJC FREErMAN.JR.
December 28, 1995
"W'
iO
2105
Cc
VIA TELECOPIER AND U. S. MAIL
Mr. Roger N. Schecter
State of North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Re:,_ Eva S. Ketelsleger
Application for CAMA Major Permit
Goat Island
Our File No. 6500.003
Dear Mr. Schecter:
As you know, I represent Eva Ketelsleger in connection with
her application for a CAMA permit to construct a house and pier on
Goat Island in New Hanover County. Mrs. Ketelsleger previously
requested an extension of the comment period for the Environmental
Assessment for this project which request was granted. The earlier
request was to provide time for discussions to take place
concerning possible acquisition of Mrs. Ketelsleger's interest in
the Island by the State of North Carolina or the Society for
Masonboro Island. Discussions regarding the possible acquisition
are continuing and the parties have agreed that the negotiations
can be conducted in a more favorable atmosphere if the permit
process continues to be deferred.
Accordingly, I request that the comment period on the
Environment Assessment be extended indefinitely until Mrs.
Ketelsleger requests that the comment period be closed. If Mrs.
Ketelsleger requests the closure of the comment period, we would
further request that it be closed within two (2) weeks of her
request.-

Mr. Roger N. Schecter
Page Two
December 28, 1995
Please acknowledge receipt of this request and your action on
it.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
With best regards, I remain
ctfsepely your
LJ. HaroldSeale
JHS/gw
pc: Mrs. Eva Ketelsleger
Ms. Chrys Baggett
RouNTREE & SEAGLE, LLP.
WRMNGTON, NORTH CAROUNA

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
0
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
P. O. BOX 629
RALEIGH
27602-0629
December 18, 1995
Roger Schecter, Director
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
REPLY TO: Daniel F. McIawhom
special Litigation
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
✓� REC VEO r
DEC 21 1995
CGASfAL
MANAGENIENT tV
Re: In the matter of the Ketelsleger Permit Application,
CAMA Permit No. 95 0487
Dear Mr. Schecter:
In accordance with 15A NCAC 7J.0600, enclosed is the original and one copy of the
Request for Declaratory Ruling for filing. Please stamp the copy and return to me for my files.
Sincerely,
c k
Daniel F. McLawhorn
Special Deputy Attorney General
DFM/sp
Enclosure
cc: Robin Smith
J. Harold Seagle
Marian T. McPhaul
David F. Weaver
l
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer ` 33

BEFORE THE COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
REQUEST FOR
DECLARATORY RULING
IN THE MATTER OF THE KETELSLEGER
PERMIT APPLICATION, CAMA PERMIT NO. 95 0487
NOW COME the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, the Society for
Masonboro Island, Inc. and New Hanover County and request that the Coastal Resources
Commission issue declaratory rulings finding that the Eva Ketelsleger CAMA permit application
to construct a pier is incomplete. This request for declaratory rulings is made pursuant to NCGS
15OB-4 and Title 15A NCAC 7J Section .0600. The requests are for declaratory rulings on the
applicability of stated rules and statutes to the described facts.
AGGRIEVED PERSONS
The aggrieved persons are:
The University of North Carolina at Wilmington (hereinafter
UNCW)
Attention: Daniel F. McLawhorn
Department of Justice
Attorney General's Office
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
2. The Society for Masonboro Island, Inc.
Attention: Marian T. McPhaul, Executive Director
P. 0. Box 855
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
3. New Hanover County
Attention: David F. Weaver, Assistant County Manager
414 Chestnut Street, Room 101
Wilmington, NC 28401-4093
UNCW is aggrieved because the permit application seeks to construct a private .pier in
a duly designated Coastal Reserve/Nature Preserve on state-owned submerged lands which use
is inconsistent with the research purposes UNCW has made for more than twenty years of the
submerged lands and waters in the Coastal Reserve/Nature Preserve. In addition, UNCW was
recently appropriated monies to construct a major marine and estuarine research facility directly

opposite the site of the proposed pier. The proposed private pier will be detrimental to the
research purposes of the facility to be constructed and the additional purposes for which the
Coastal Reserve/Nature Reserve was created.
The Society for Masonboro Island, Inc. is a non-profit corporation whose primary goal
is the acquisition and preservation of the Masonboro Island Coastal Reserve/Nature Preserve.
The construction of a private pier on the state-owned submerged lands is contrary to the
purposes for which the reserve lands were dedicated. The construction of the pier and residence
on Goat Island will make it more difficult for the Society to complete the acquisition of the lands
designated for inclusion in the Reserve. The members of the Society use the reserve lands for
aesthetic purposes, for public trust purposes, for education purposes and enjoy the lands for their
spiritual values. These uses will be adversely impacted if the permit application is issued before
the applicant obtains permission from the Governor and Council of State.
New Hanover County objected to the permit application for its inconsistency with the
duly adopted, and CRC approved, land use plan of New Hanover County. The proposed
development is subject to the land use plan. New Hanover County believes the Director of the
Division of Coastal Management intends to find the proposed development is consistent with
NCGS 113A-120(a)(8). The county will be aggrieved by such decision.
STATUTE OR RULES TO BE CONSTRUED
The following statutes and rules may be required to be construed by the requested
declaratory rulings:
1. NCGS 113A-164.7,-164.8,-164.6(c),-164.2;
2. NCGS 113A-129.2,-129.3,-129.1;
3. NCGS 113A-120(a)(8),-120(b),-120.1, -119;
4. T15A NCAC 12H.0401(2);
5. T15A NCAC 70.0202(2);
6. T15A NCAC 7J.0204(b)(4).
FACTUAL SITUATION
The requested declaratory rulings arise from the application of the above listed rules and
statutes to the permit application filed by Eva S. Ketelsleger to construct a house and septic tank
on Goat Island in New Hanover County and to construct a pier on the submerged lands adjacent
to her lands on Goat Island. Petitioners submit the following statement of facts as those relevant
and necessary to disposition of the requested declaratory rulings. Petitioners submit these facts
are undisputed and request the Division of Coastal Management so stipulate.
1. Mrs. Eva S. Ketelsleger made application for a CAMA Major Development Permit
to construct a single family residence on Goat Island, New Hanover County and a 160 foot long
pier from the island towards the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway on June 7, 1994.
04

2. The Ketelsleger application was returned as incomplete on June 24, 1994.
3. Mrs. Ketelsleger submitted a revised permit application on March 29, 1995. The
application required additional information which was provided on June 6, 1995.
4. During review of the application, the Attorney General's Office advised that the
proposed project was subject to the environmental review procedures of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA).
5. The rules of the CRC require that any project subject to review under the NCEPA
must have the appropriate environmental assessment document as part of the application before
the application can be considered complete for processing. See T15A NCAC 7J.0204(b)(8).
6. The processing of the CAMA permit application was suspended pending compliance
with the NCEPA.
7. The Division of Coastal Management prepared an Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) for the project.
8. The deadline for receipt of public comments on the EA/FONSI is December 29,
1995.
9. Goat Island is located within the boundaries of the Masonboro Island Coastal Reserve
and Nature Preserve. The island is not a part of the reserve/preserve, but all of the waters and
submerged lands surrounding the island are within the reserve/preserve.
10. Pursuant to NCGS 113A-164.7, any development which is inconsistent with the
purposes of the nature reserve or its management plan must be approved by the Governor and
Council of State. An Attorney General's Advisory Opinion issued on October 25, 1995 to Roger
N. Schecter, Director of Coastal Management, found "... any development on state-owned
submerged lands within a dedicated nature preserve requires a permit approved by the Governor
and the Council of State."
11. The construction of a private pier over waters and submerged lands within the
Masonboro Island Coastal Reserve/Nature Preserve is inconsistent with the purposes of the
preserve and its management plan.
12. Mrs. Ketelsleger has neither applied for nor obtained approval from the Governor
and the Council of State for construction of the proposed pier over the waters and submerged
lands within the reserve/preserve.
13. Pursuant to NCGS 113A-129.2(e), improvements and alterations of lands within a
coastal reserve shall be limited to public uses, research and education.
7

14. The construction of a private pier by Mrs. Ketelsleger over and upon the submerged
lands within the Masonboro Island Coastal Reserve is inconsistent with NCGS 113A-129.2(e)
and T15A NCAC 70.0202(2).
15. The procedures for removal of lands from the Masonboro Island Coastal
Reserve/Preserve require public notice and hearings, amendment of the plan for the
reserve/preserve, approval of the Secretary on Environment, Health and Natural Resources the
Governor and Council of State, and the US Secretary of Commerce. See 15 Codes of Federal
Regulations § 921.33.
16. No request has been made to remove any of the reserve/preserve lands that are
required for the pier construction and use from the Masonboro Island Coastal Reserve/Preserve.
17. The CRC rules, at T15A NCAC 7J.0204(b)(4), require that a permit application for
a CAMA Major Development Permit be accompanied by a copy of the deed or other instrument
under which the applicant claims title or the ability to develop the lands. Mrs. Ketelsleger failed
to submit with or in support of her application a deed or other instrument under which she can
build a private pier over and on state-owned submerged lands dedicated and included in the
Masonboro Island Coastal Reserve/Nature Preserve.
18. In a letter dated 14 August 1995, New Hanover informed the Director of the
Division of Coastal Management that the Ketelsleger permit application was inconsistent with
the New Hanover County land use plan adopted pursuant to CAMA. That plan has been
determined consistent with CAMA by the CRC.
19. The Director of the Division of Coastal Management intends to find the permit
application is consistent with the New Hanover County land use plan.
REQUESTED DECLARATORY RULINGS
Based on the foregoing facts, the petitioners request the Coastal Resources Commission
make the following declaratory rulings pursuant to NCGS 150B-4;'
1. The Ketelsleger CAMA Major Development Application to construct a private pier
over and upon submerged lands within the Masonboro Island Coastal Reserve/Preserve is
incomplete for the failure of Mrs. Ketelsleger to include with the application a deed or other
instrument under which the applicant claims title to, or the ability to develop, the pier on said
lands.
2. The Ketelsleger CAMA Major Development Permit to construct a pier cannot be
processed until the Governor and Council of State approve of the request under NCGS 113A-
164.7 and affected lands are removed from the Coastal Reserve consistent with the procedures
in NCGS 113A-129.2(b) and 15 CFR § 921.33.
Cl

Respectfully submitted this the 19a day of December, 1995
mclaw\decrul.mem
5
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
AT WILMINGTON
n
�! *0 G; �ic4c
Daniel F. McLawhorn
Special Deputy Attorney General
Counsel for UNC-W
THE SOCIETY FOR MASONBORO
ISLAND, INC.
C3 Q
Marian T. McPhaul, Executive Director
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
David F. Weaver

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing REQUEST FOR
DECLARATORY RULING in the above -captioned matter upon all parties by depositing a copy
of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Roger. Schecter
Division of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Robin Smith
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Protection Division
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
J. Harold Seagle
Post Office Box 1409
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
This the. Nq day of December, 1995.
Daniel F. McLawhom
Special Deputy Attorney General

North Carolina National a Science
Research Reserve
Center for Marine Science Research
The University of North Carolina at Wilmington
7205 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 29403
910-256-3721
December 8, 1995
TO: Gary Thompson
Division of Land� /Resources/Geodetic Survey
FROM: John Taggart'/
SUBJECT: Request for Survey of Goat Island, New Hanover County
by Rick Carraway and Loie Priddy
Goat Island is a dredge material island within the proposed
boundary of the Masonboro Island component of the North Carolina
National Estuarine Research Reserve (please see attached maps).
The high ground of the island is in private ownership per a 1953
deed from the State Board of Education.
One of the owners wishes to build a private residence on the
property and has applied for a permit that is currently being
reviewed by the Division of Coastal Management. The proposed
project would be within the Masonboro Island complex and, thus,
represents a potential conflict with the intended protection of the
area for research and education. We feel that the best resolution
to the situation would be state purchase of the property. An
appraisal has been performed, but a survey needs to be done to
determine exactly how much high ground is in private ownership.
Since Rick and Loie are so familiar with the island, I would
truly appreciate it if they could perform a survey of the entire
island property (some 30 acres) as soon as possible. Our program
will gladly pay their travel expenses. A boat will be available
through our Myrtle Grove Reserve office for transportation to and
from the island.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Thank you.
cc: Zoe Bruner
Marion McPhaul
William Raney
✓Rich Shaw
The North Carolina National Estuarine Research Rrs�nr is a <rwywrative program Iw•tNvrrn the
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, The North Carolina Department of Environment, health, and
Natural Resources/Division of Coastal Management, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

December 1, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett, S e learinghou
FROM: Roger Schecter tal Management
SUBJECT: Goat Island EA
By request of the applicant, Mrs. Eva Ketelsleger, I am asking that the comment period
for this EA be extended to December 29, 1995. As I indicated by phone earlier, discussions are
underway regarding the acquisition of the subject property. The letter from the applicant's
attorney is attached.
CC: Melba McGee
Robin Smith

W
ROUNTREE & SEAGLE, L.L.P.
GEORGE ROUNEREE,IIL ATIORNMATL4W MAR240 ADDRESS
(1904.1979) P.O. Boa 1409
GEORGE ROUNIREE. IR 2419MARKErSIRFEr Wffi i n, NC 28402.1409
J. HARO D SEAGLE
CHARLES M. L ENEBERRY,JR. W11M NG10N NORTHCAR0LM2B903 TELEPHONE [phone]
GEOF1REY A I.OSEE FACSIMILE 910-763-0320
JOHN S. ALIMIN November 22, 1995
GEORGE.W.JFIR A,J
VIA TELECOPIER AND U. S. MAIL dJ
Mr. Roger N. Schecter
State of North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761177687
Re: Eva S. Ketelsleger
Application for CAMA Major Permit
Goat Island
Our File No. 6500.003
Dear Mr. Schecter:
As you know, I represent Eva Ketelsleger in connection with
her application for a CAMA permit to construct a house and pier on
Goat Island in New Hanover County.
Mrs. Ketelsleger has been approached by the representatives of
the Society for Masonboro Island about a voluntary sale of her
property to the Society or the State of North Carolina. In order
to avoid adversarial comments or proceedings that might arise out
of the permit process which could adversely affect negotiations or
unnecessarily increase expenses, Mrs. Ketelsleger has no object to
a thirty (30) day extension of the period for comments on the
Environmental Assessment prepared by the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources. I believe the comment period is
currently scheduled to end on November 29, 1995. Mrs. Ketelsleger
understands that this action will extend the comment period until
December 29, 1995.
Please. advise me of the position of the Division on this
matter by return fax as soon as possible. The Society for
Masonboro Island is aware that this letter is being sent and has
concurred in it. I am providing Bill Raney, who has been my
contact with the Society, with a copy of this letter.

U
Mr. Roger N. Schecter
Page Two
November 22, 1995
With best regards, I remain
JHS/gw
pc: Mrs. Eva S. Ketelsleger
William A. Raney, Jr., Esquire
ROUNTREE & SEAGLE, LLP.
WRMINGTON, NORTH CAROUNA

North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve
Center for Marine Science Research
Vie University of North Carolina at Wilmington
7205 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
910-256-3721
November 27, 1995
N0 2i)t1995
MpNpGEMENT
TO: State Clearinghouse
n.�
FROM: John Taggart
Reserve Coor inator
SUBJECT: EA/FONSI for Proposed Development of Goat Island
by Ms. Eva S. Ketelsleger
I have two comments concerning the referenced document:
1, The specific issue of water quality impacts relative to
Reserve regulations (T15070 .0202 8a) was not mentioned.
Also, the potential cumulative impacts from other
possible developments on privately -owned spoil islands
within the Reserve boundary may need to be considered.
2. The proposed pier would be placed across Reserve
property (intertidal marsh within the Reserve boundary)
that is also part of a dedicated State Nature Preserve. Is
private use of this public property, specifically allocated
for preservation of natural features, allowable?
Please call me if there are any questions.
Thank you.
.rtc .r.-sJe Cat c�/tii
�jC GJ a 1 4�f 4 sl
J
/ f
cc: 'Rich Shaw
Roger Schecter
The North Carolina National Estuarine Research llmttrve is a cvailx,rative program Ix•twcen the
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, The North Carolina INrparunrnt of Environment. Health, and
Natural Resources/Division of Coastal Management, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve ,
Center for Marine Science Research
The University of North Carolina at Wilmington
7205 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
910-256-3721
November 27, 1995
TO: State Clearinghouse
FROM: John Taggart�'�
Reserve Coor inator
SUBJECT: EA/FONSI for Proposed Development of Goat Island
by Ms. Eva S. Ketelsleger
I have two comments concerning the referenced document:
1. The specific issue of water quality impacts relative to
Reserve regulations (T15070 .0202 8a) was not mentioned.
Also, the potential cumulative impacts from other
possible developments on privately -owned spoil islands
within the Reserve boundary may need to be considered.
2. The proposed pier would be placed across Reserve
property (intertidal marsh within the Reserve boundary)
that is also part of a dedicated State Nature Preserve. Is
private use of this public property, specifically allocated
for preservation of natural features, allowable?
Please call me if there are any questions.
Thank you.
/`-v k.� .try hf✓¢ G//o.LGGrti�
trk
cc: Rich Shaw
Roger Schecter
The North Carolina National F.stiarine 11march Rca•rve is a aegWTat4e pro{,.raoi N-tw(rn the
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, The North Carolina Deparinavt of 1?mironment. Health, and
Natural Resources/Division of Coastal Management, and the National Umanie and Atmospheric Administration.

NEW HANOVER COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER
320 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 502
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4093
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
November 21, 1995
State Clearinghouse
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
ALLEN' O'NEAL
County Manager
DA VID F. WEAVER
Assistant County Manager
414 Chestnut Street, Room 101
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
�Vb RECEIVED
NOV 2 2 1995
:LEARINGHOUSE
�t� ?-4 JX0%A-+
RE: Goat Island Environmental Assess P'AaA'� 0(L Lh
Dear Mr. Schecter: ��' 1•
Based on our discussions, it appears that the s on
vehicle to use in determining whether the Goat Island maj
application is inconsistent with New Hanover County's Lan - e
Plan. The major policy that the proposed permit is inconsistent
with is:
1.2 (2) Development of estuarine system islands shall be
permitted only if proper measures are taken for hurricane
evacuations, utilities provision,. access on and off the
island, pollution control, and other design considerations
that will ensure compatibility of the development with the
estuarine systems.
The EA is inadequate with regard to addressing the concerns of
the above policy. These concerns have been previously documented
in the attached letters of August 14, August 24, and September 12.
Dexter Hayes, New Hanover County Planning Director, has also
attached some comments specific to the EA:
The public safety concern with regard to proper hurricane
evacuation and emergency access on and off the island should be of
paramount importance, but no discussion is made of it in the EA.
The Division of Coastal Management must consider this concern in
its consistency determination.
The County's Land -Use Plan, including the above stated policy,
was approved by the Coastal Resources Commission on November 19,
1993. North Carolina law states: "No permit shall be issued under
Part 4 of this Article for development which is inconsistent with
the approved land -use plan for the County in which it is
proposed.(113A-111)"
The proposed project is clearly inconsistent at present with

State Clearinghouse
Page Number Two
November 21, 1995
the County's Land -Use Plan. Our letter of August 14 discusses
these inconsistencies; our letters of August 24 and September 12
specifically state how the present project could be reasonably
modified to remove inconsistencies with the Land -Use Plan.
If the Division, however, finds that the present project as
proposed is consistent without modification, we would greatly
appreciate a written statement of the reasoning behind the
determination, particularly in regard to public safety concerns of
proper measures for hurricane evacuation and access on and off the
island.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or
comments.
Si�nccerely,
/
Dave Weaver
Assistant County Manager
New Hanover County
DW/nf/697
cc: Allen O'Neal, County Manager
Wanda Copley, County Attorney
Dexter Hayes, Director of Planning

' a4alto�
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
P. O. BOX 629
RALEIGH
27602-0629
October 25, 1995
Roger N. Schecter, Director
Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27602
REPLY TO: Rabin W. SmiN
Evvim—mul Division
Td. (919) 733-5n5
F..(919) M3 91
Re: Advisory Opinion; Request for Advice on Application.of the Coastal Reserve
Statutes, N.C.G.S. § 113A-129.1, et seq., and Rules Adopted Pursuant to the
Statutes.
Dear Mr. Schecter:
This letter is offered in response to your request of August 24, 1995 for advice on
application of certain development and use restrictions set out in the Coastal Reserve statutes and
rules to private property within the designated Reserve boundaries. In order to address your
questions, it is first necessary to review the history of the North Carolina Coastal Reserve
Program and adoption of the statutes and rules governing the program.
Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. § 1451, et seq.,
(CZMA) established a National Estuarine Sanctuary Program that provided for designation of
certain estuarine areas as estuarine sanctuaries to be preserved and used for research purposes.
The statute also created a federal grant program under which the Secretary of Commerce could
make grants to the coastal states "for purposes of acquiring such lands and waters and any
property interests therein, as are necessary to ensure the appropriate long-term management of an
area as a national estuarine reserve." The Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization Act of 1985
amended section 315 of the CZMA by renaming the federal system the "National Estuarine
Research Reserve System."
North�Carolina began acquiring estuarine lands for inclusion in what is now the National
Estuarine Research Reserve System with the acquisition of Zeke's Island in 1980. That
acquisition was followed by acquisitions for the Rachel Carson Reserve in 1983, the Currituck
Banks site in 1984 and the beginning of acquisitions in the Masonboro Island Reserve in 1985.
Those four original sites were acquired with the assistance of federal grant funds for inclusion in
the National Estuarine Research -Reserve System and included both estuarine waters and lands to
-be acquired with federal grant assistance. At the time, the North Carolina Coastal Reserve
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer ?Zp

2
System did not exist; neither the coastal reserve statutes, N.C.G.S. § 113A-129.1, et seq., nor the
State's administrative rules governing use of reserve lands, T15A NCAC 70, had been adopted.
Under federal rules adopted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) to implement Section 315, the state's grant application was required to include "[a]
description of the proposed site and its major resources, including location, proposed boundaries,
and adjacent land uses." 15 CFR § 921.1l(e)(2). NOAA approves Estuarine Research Reserve
designations based on the proposed acquisition boundaries. See 15 CFR §§ 921.12 and 921.13.
Actual acquisition of property included in the Rachel Carson Estuarine Research Reserve took
place over a period of six years (1983-1989) and acquisitions in the Masonboro Island Estuarine
Research Reserve have been underway since 1985 and are not yet complete.
In 1986, the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
(predecessor to the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources) as the grant
recipient, adopted rules governing the administration and use of lands in the four North Carolina
components of the National Estuarine Research Reserves. T15A NCAC 70. Those rules
prohibited certain activities on reserve lands and waters.
The Department acquired Permuda Island in 1987 and began acquisitions in Buxton
Woods in 1988 with state funds; those sites were not designated as National Estuarine Research
Reserves. In 1989, the General Assembly created the North Carolina Coastal Reserve System for
purposes of "acquiring, improving and maintaining undeveloped coastal land and water areas in a
natural state." N.C.G.S. § 113A-129.2(a)(1989). The Permuda Island and Buxton Woods sites
(already acquired or under acquisition) became part of that system - as did the four sites already
designated under the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Since creation of the North
Carolina Coastal Reserve System, the State has acquired or begun acquisition of two additional
sites to be included in the state system - Bald Head Woods (acquisition completed in 1995) and
Kitty Hawk Woods.
State-owned lands and waters within the coastal reserves are also dedicated nature
preserves under N.C.G.S. 113A-164.1, et seq. Under N.C.G.S. § 113A-164.7, any development
on state-owned submerged lands within a dedicated nature preserve requires a permit approved
by the Governor and Council of State. Rules governing use of the nature preserves restrict
improvements in dedicated nature preserves to those "necessary for the security, safety,
information or access of the public and those improvements necessary for maintenance and \
management of the preserves." T 15A NCAC 12H.0402(2). We do not undertake in this opinion
to address how those rules affect private property adjoining submerged lands or any associated
riparian rights within a nature preserve except to note that an additional permit may be required.
With this as background, the two questions raised in your memorandum are addressed
below:

3
QUESTION 1: DO THE RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF COASTAL RESERVE LANDS SET
OUT IN THE STATUTES AND RULES GOVERNING THE COASTAL RESERVE
PROGRAM APPLY TO PRIVATELY -OWNED LANDS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES
SHOWN ON THE COASTAL RESERVE MAPS?
No. The coastal reserve statute creates a framework for State acquisition and
management of estuarine lands and waters; it does not purport to regulate private property. The
only language in the coastal reserve statutes expressly limiting the use of reserve lands appears in
N.C.G.S. § 113A-129.2(e) which states as follows:
All lands and waters within the system shall be used primarily for research and
education. Other public uses, such as hunting, fishing, navigation, and recreation,
shall be allowed to the extent consistent with these primary uses. Improvements
and alterations to the land shall be limited to those consistent with these uses.
Words and phrases of a statute must be interpreted in context; individual expressions must be
interpreted as part of a composite whole, in a manner which harmonizes with the other provisions
of the statute and which gives effect to the reason and purpose of the statute. Jolly v. Wright, 300
N.C. 83, 265 S.E.2d 135 (1980).
The statute creating the state coastal reserve system identifies its purpose as being
"acquiring, improving and maintaining undeveloped coastal land and water areas in a natural
state." N.C.G.S. 113A-129.2(a). The statute further provides that "[ajll acquisitions or
dispositions of property for lands within this system shall be in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 146 of the General Statutes." N.C.G.S. § 113A-129.2(d). This language indicates that the
General Assembly's intent in creating the Coastal Reserve System was to create a framework for
state acquisition of undeveloped natural areas at the coast and for dedication of those lands "to
the extent feasible" as components of the State Nature and Historic Preserve. N.C.G.S. §
113A-129.3(b).
The statute expressly speaks of acquisition of these land and water areas. The uses of
reserve lands identified in the statute - research, education and "other public uses" - anticipate
public occupation and use of lands within the system. The fact that the only uses identified as
appropriate on coastal reserve lands are public uses reinforces the fact that the General Assembly
intended the lands within the Coastal Reserve System to be public lands.
Conversely, nothing in the statute indicates an intent to create a new regulatory program
for private property. The statute does not include any regulatory mechanism - such as a permit
requirement - through which such restrictions could be enforced on privately -owned property.
Many, although not necessarily all, privately owned lands within the designated coastal reserve
boundaries will be within the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act (N.C.G.S. §
113A-100, et seq.; CAMA) and development on those lands requires a CAMA permit and
compliance with all CAMA development standards. CAMA permits, however, are required only
in Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) designated by the Coastal Resources Commission
pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 113A-113. The CRC has not designated the coastal reserve sites as

separate AECs; only those parts of the coastal reserves that fall within the generic AEC
designations (e.g., public trust waters and the estuarine shoreline AEC) are subject to CAMA
permit requirements.
Several of the designated coastal reserves may include areas outside of CAMA permit
jurisdiction - most often the upland area landward of the estuarine shoreline or ocean hazard
AEC. To the extent there are private in -holdings within the proposed boundaries of the coastal
reserves and outside of CAMA permit jurisdiction, the coastal reserve statute provides no means
of enforcing any restrictions on development or use.
As noted above, the statute presumes that coastal reserve lands will be used only for
public purposes; it identifies acceptable public uses and allows "[i]mprovements and
alterations... consistent with these uses." N.C.G.S. § 113A-129.2(e). The only criteria established
by statute for development on reserve lands are that: 1. it must be related to one of the identified
public uses; and 2. it must be consistent with the overall intent to preserve these areas in a
natural state. This provides further evidence that the legislature adopted the coastal reserve
statutes to provide a framework for acquisition of public lands and riot to create a new regulatory
program for private property.
Finally, the application of the statutory language limiting use of reserve lands to research,
education and "other public uses" to privately -owned lands would have the effect of confiscating
private lands for public use without compensation. The confiscatory effect would result from the
restriction of the use of those lands to public uses, denying the property owner any ability to
make private use of the property. That result would be directly contrary to the plain statement in
N.C.G.S. § 113A-128 that:
[n]othing in this Article authorizes any governmental agency to adopt a rule or
issue any order that constitutes a taking of property in violation of the
Constitution of this State or of the United States.
This injunction applies not only to decisions of the Coastal Resources Commission under
CAMA, but also to actions of the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources in
implementing the coastal reserve statutes which are also codified in Article 7 of Chapter 113A.
While this statute does not directly affect implementation of the Nature Preserves Act, the
prohibition set out in N.C.G.S. § 113A-128 codifies constitutional limitations applicable to all
state agency actions.
With regard to application of the Department's coastal reserve rules, the Department is
authorized by statute to define the areas to be included in the coastal reserve system and set
standards for use of those lands. The Department must do so in a manner consistent with the
statutory authority. The statutes do not authorize the Department, by simply drawing a proposed
acquisition boundary around privately -owned property, to prohibit all development on such
property and appropriate it for public use.

5
In fact, the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Coastal Management has never applied the coastal reserve statutes and rules to privately -owned
property within proposed coastal reserve boundaries. In implementing the coastal reserve
program, DCM has interpreted the statutory language concerning uses of reserve property to
apply to lands actually acquired by the state pursuant to the statute (and to state-owned
submerged lands) and not to privately -owned lands within the coastal reserve boundaries.
On issues .of statutory construction, the interpretation of the agency with responsibility for
implementing the statute is entitled to great weight. MacPherson v. City of Asheville, 283 N.C.
299, 196 S.E.2d 200 (1973).
QUESTION 2: IF THE WATER AREAS WITHIN THE COASTAL RESERVE ABUT
PRIVATELY OWNED SHORELINE MAY THE STATE PROHIBIT THE PRIVATE
PROPERTY OWNER FROM BUILDING A PIER OR BOAT RAMP FOR WATER ACCESS
FROM THEIR PROPERTY ONTO STATE-OWNED SUBMERGED LANDS WITHIN THE
COASTAL RESERVE PURSUANT TO THE COASTAL RESERVE STATUTES?
No. The coastal reserve statutes do not in themselves support a decision to deny
permission to build a pier on privately -owned shorelines abutting waters within a designated
coastal reserve. The Division Of Coastal Management may, however, deny a CAMA permit for
such a pier based on inconsistency with CAMA development standards unless denial of a permit
would constitute a taking under N.C.G.S. §113A-128. This advisory opinion does not examine
any basis for permit denial, or imposition of permit conditions, other than the Coastal Reserve
statutes.
Submerged lands within the designated coastal reserves are owned by the state and held
in trust for the use of the public. Thus, there is no question that the coastal reserve statutes and
rules apply to the submerged lands within the coastal reserve boundaries. As discussed above,
however, the coastal reserve statutes do not operate to regulate private property above mean high
water. The question that you raise about pier construction necessarily involves development on
both private property and state-owned submerged lands and is not clearly addressed in the coastal
reserve statutes.
The statutes limit use .of reserve lands to education, research and "[o]ther public uses,
such as hunting, fishing, navigation and recreation" to the extent consistent with the primary
uses. The statute goes on to state that "[i]mprovements and alterations to the lands shall be
limited to those consistent with these uses." Since the statute recognizes fishing, navigation and
recreation as uses allowed on reserve lands and allows improvements and alterations consistent
with those uses, there appears to be no absolute statutory bar to construction of a pier on
submerged lands within coastal reserve boundaries. The statute could be interpreted, however, to
limit such structures to those associated with research and education activities or those available
for public use.
The reserve use requirements set out in T15A NCAC 70 .0202 also do not specifically
bar construction of piers, boat ramps or similar structures on reserve lands. The broadest
restriction appearing in the rules prohibits "acts or uses which are detrimental to the maintenance

6
of the property in its natural condition... including, but not limited to, disturbances of the soil,
mining, commercial or industrial uses, timber harvesting, ditching and draining, deposition of
waste materials". In the context of the statute, which allows improvement and alteration of
reserve lands consistent with the public uses enumerated in the statute, the Department has the
authority to permit structures on reserve lands. If private piers are entirely prohibited under the
coastal reserve statutes and rules, it will be solely because of their private rather than public
nature.
This result would contradict the conclusion reached above that the coastal reserve statutes
do not regulate privately owned upland property. A total prohibition against pier construction on
private property abutting waters within a designated coastal reserve would, in fact, be a severe
restriction on use of that privately -owned shoreline and limit the riparian owner's common law
right to construct a pier for water access.
North Carolina recognizes riparian rights to be property rights that cannot be taken for
public purposes without compensating the owner. Mason v. Huber, 78 N.C.App. 16, 337 S.E.2d
99 (1985). In addition to the right to make reasonable use of the adjoining waters, the following
rights arise from the ownership of land bounded by navigable waters:
1. the right to be and remain a riparian proprietor;
2. the right of access to and from the water, including its navigable parts;
3. the right to build a pier or wharf out to the navigable water. &ubject to
reasonable regulations by the State, and
4. the right to accretions or alluvium.
Shepard's Point Land Co. v. Atlantic Hotel, 132 N.C. 517, 44 S.E. 2d 39 (1903). [Emphasis
added.]
Nothing in the statute indicates that the Legislature considered the impact of a coastal
reserve designation on riparian rights - or even recognized the potential for an impact. As
discussed above, the focus of the statute is on creating an acquisition program for coastal lands
and defining the uses of the properties acquired. In reviewing the history of the coastal reserve
system, we have found no evidence that the State has acquired this particular property interest
from the owners of private in -holdings within coastal reserve boundaries. Absent acquisition of
this property interest, nothing in the statute indicates an intent to prohibit property owners from
exercising their riparian rights by constructing piers for water access on privately -owned
shorelines adjoining lands and waters within a coastal reserve.
The legislature had no direct role in designating the coastal reserve components and
delineating the boundaries. The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
designated the components and established the boundaries by rule. Since actual designation of
the coastal reserves occurred after adoption of the statutes, neither knowledge of the sites nor

7
their boundaries can be imputed to the legislature. While the coastal reserve statutes clearly
allow inclusion of estuarine waters ( and the state-owned submerged lands underlying those
waters) in the coastal reserves, the statutory scheme indicates that the legislature intended that
those waters would be contiguous to state-owned lands within the reserve and not riparian
property in private ownership. Instead, in several instances DEHNR has included both privately
owned upland property and the estuarine waters abutting those privately owned shorelines within
designated coastal reserve boundaries.
As noted above, DEHNR drew certain of the coastal reserve boundaries to include
privately owned upland property (such as Masonboro Island) because those boundaries
represented the area for proposed state acquisition. DEHNR then also included within the
boundaries a buffer of estuarine waters around the lands proposed for acquisition. All of the
estuarine waters designated as part of a coastal reserve immediately adjoin lands owned by the
State or proposed for State acquisition and the wat&ward boundary of the coastal reserve is set
off from any privately owned shoreline that is not proposed for acquisition (such as the Beaufort
waterfront across from the Rachel Carson site and the mainland shoreline in the vicinity of the
Masonboro Island site). Thus, it appears that DEHNR, in setting coastal reserve boundaries,
intended to include only those estuarine waters immediately adjacent to lands to be acquired by
the State.
This approach is fully consistent with the intent of the statute. The questions that you
raise arise from the fact that the State has not yet acquired all of the lands proposed for State
acquisition. Actual State acquisition of these areas or revision of the boundaries to include only
those land areas actually acquired by the State would resolve the issue and eliminate the potential
conflict between the intent of the coastal reserve statutes and the Department's implementation of
the coastal reserve program. Nothing in the statutes, however, authorizes DEHNR to prohibit
pier construction on privately -owned shoreline based solely on a designation of the waters
adjoining the shoreline as part of a coastal reserve.
The Division of Coastal Management may regulate pier construction on these shorelines
under CAMA development standards. The riparian right to build a pier for access to the water
clearly is a qualified right, subject to state regulation and subordinate to the rights of the public
under the public trust doctrine. As the Supreme Court stated in Bond v. Wool, 107 N.C. 139, 12
S.E. 281 (1890) :
...a littoral proprietor and a riparian owner ... have a qualified property in the water
frontage belonging, by nature, to their land, the chief advantage growing out of the
appurtenant estate in the submerged land being the right of access over an extension
of their water fronts to navigable water, and the right to construct wharves, piers or
landings, subject to such general rules and regulations as the Legislature in the
exercise of its powers may prescribe for the protection of public rights in rivers or
navigable waters. [Emphasis added.] Id. at 148.
In Weeks v. N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Development, 97 N.C. App.
215, 388 S.E.2d 228, rev. denied, 326 N.C. 601, 393 S.E.2d 890 (1990), the Court of Appeals

g
applied this principle to hold that denial of a CAMA permit for a proposed pier of 900 feet in
length did not constitute a taking of the property owner's riparian rights. In doing so, the Court
noted the balance required between public and private rights:
[P]laintiffs right in the appurtenant submerged land is subordinate to public trust
protections, such as those evinced in N.C.G.S. § 113A-120(a)(5) (permits may be
denied upon a finding that the "development will jeopardize the public rights and
interest" in the waterways and lands "under or flowed by tidal waters or navigable
waters, to which the public may have rights of access or public trust rights"). The
Legislature's authority to protect public trust rights always is limited by plaintiffs
right to retain some use or value of his property.
In support of the Weeks permit denial, the CRC had made extensive findings concerning the
adverse impact of the proposed pier on other public trust uses due to its unusual length. In
finding that the State was entitled to summary judgment on the takings claim in Weeks, the
Court noted that: (1) the CRC had not foreclosed the possibility of permitting a pier of some
length on the plaintiffs property; and (2) the uncontested facts indicated that the near -shore
submerged lands were also subject to many recreational uses.
All of these cases support the State's right to limit (and -possibly prohibit) pier
construction based on adverse environmental or public trust impacts. Such an action would be
consistent with the common law limitation on the riparian right to build a pier or wharf - that it
is subject to regulation "for protection of the public rights in rivers or navigable waters."
Complete denial of the right to construct a pier for water access may be subject to challenge
only if it is unsupported by a determination that construction of the pier would interfere with
public trust rights or cause environmental harm.
In this regard, we note that the Coastal Resources Commission has the authority under
N.C.G.S. § 113A-113(b)(4) to make special designations of "fragile or historic areas, and other
areas containing environmental or natural resources of more than local significance",
specifically including State Nature and Historic Preserves, as areas of environmental concern.
The Commission has used this authority in the past to designate Jockey's Ridge State Park and
and an area immediately adjoining the park as an AEC: These special AEC designations allow
the Commission. to develop specific use standards designed to protect the unique values of the
site and to reflect the greater public interest in preservation of the natural or historic resources
present. Under this provision, the CRC could designate one or all of the Coastal Reserves as
AECs and adopt specific development standards for each site. On making the proper findings,
the development standards could include restrictions on pier construction.

We hope this is of some assistance.
Sincerely,
C.o
Daniel C. Oakley
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Robin W. Smith
Assistant Attorney General
ep/6526

October 24, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robin Smith, AG's Office and Joe Henderson, State Property Office
FROM: Roger Schecter
SUBJECT: Letter Reply from
c aul re: Goat Island EA
Please review the attached letter which again raises the issue of ownership of Goat Island.
I need your input for the file and to respond to McPhaul's request that 1) the final EA is held
pending the resolution, 2) DCM declare that the application is not complete until resolved, and
3) that "the State" survey the entire island or require the Applicant to do so.
Thanks in advance for your patience!
'1( A- AV- La`a-k
a

Society For Masonboro Island Inc
Ir
U
October 16, 1995
to
�W
State Clearinghouse
116 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27,603
Re: Environmental Assessment
Finding of No Significant Impact
Application of Eva S. Ketelsleger for Development of
Goat Island, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Prepared for Roger Schecter, Division of Coastal
Management
Dear Sirs:
We have reviewed the deed description for the property which
is -proposed for development as referenced above and have found a
discrepancy which raises an issue as to whether the applicant for a
CAMA permit is the owner of all of the property which she seeks to
develop.
It is our understanding that the basis of the applicant's
claim of ownership of Goat Island is a deed from the State of North
Carolina to Earlie C. Sanderson dated September 14, 1953 and recorded
November 20, 1953 in the New Hanover County Registry in Book 511 at
Page 500. This deed contains a metes and bounds description and
recites an approximate acreage of 21 acres for the entire tract. When
the description is plotted, the acreage actually calculates to 23.4
acres.
The application submitted by Ms. Ketelsleger depicts the
property on a survey map. This survey map and later deeds show a total
acreage for the property of 33.67 acres. Given the fact that the
beginning point on the two descriptions is different, it is difficult
to determine the relationship of the two descriptions as they would
exist on the ground.
There is no indication of how the additional acreage was
acquired. The records of New Hanover County do not seem to provide any
basis for a claim that additional acreage was granted to the applicant
or her predecessors in title by the State of North Carolina. It seems
unlikely that the land could have been enlarged by almost 500- through
natural processes.
P.O. Box 855 9 Wrightsville Beach, N.C. 28480 • [phone]

State Clearinghouse
October 16, 1995
Page Two
If the 1953 deed did not grant the entire island as it
existed at that time, then the. State would have continued to own parts
of the upland property and would gain title to any additions to its
property that occurred later by natural or artificial means.
In order to know whether the applicant is the owner of the
specific property which she intends to develop and which is required
for access to her property, it is necessary to know how the additional
acreage came into existence, when it came into existence and where the
property lines from the two descriptions are located on the ground
before the State makes a final determination on the environmental
assessment. Likewise, it is essential that this issue be resolved
before final action is taken on Ms. Ketelsleger's permit application.
There may also be a question as to the validity of the
acquisition of the property from the State of North Carolina. The
property was apparently raised totally, or in part, by spoil disposal
during the construction of the Intracoastal Waterway in the 1930's.
The predecessor in title to the current claimant apparently tried to
obtain a grant of the property by virtue of Entry No. 9162 dated August
28, 1947. This entry was protested and later dismissed. Although the
Society has not conducted in-depth research on this issue, it raises a
question as to whether the land was a type authorized for transfer by
the procedure used for the 1953 conveyance from the State to Earlie
Sanderson.
In conclusion, the State should further investigate this
matter to determine the ownership of the entirety of Goat Island. To
the extent a resolution of the ownership question requires surveys or
historical research, the State should undertake such surveying and
research or should require the applicant to do so. We request that the
Clearinghouse reserve a final determination on the environmental
assessment until such time as the ownership issue is resolved. We
further request that the Division of Coastal Management declare that
the permit application is not complete until such time as the ownership
issue is resolved.
Sincerely,
SOCIETY FOR MASONBORO ISLAND, INC.
.�Y�V `Vt
By. ,V��
Marian McPhaul, Executive Director
MM:WAR:ktw
WAR\MASNBORO\COR.001
CC: Mr. Roger Schecter

FM206
MAILED TO:
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 NEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA Z ,6M5;WQ3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
N.C. DEPT, OF EHNR
ROGER SCHECTER
OIV. OF COASTAL MGT.
COOPER BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
FROM:
MS. JEANETTE`/
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
EA/FONSI FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES ON GOAT ISLAND, NEW HANOVER
COUNTY
TYPE - FA/FONSI
THE N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 96E43000265. PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE.
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 11/29/95.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone].

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 •
Division of Coastal Management _
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E H N F 1
Roger N. Schecter, Director
10 4RN i7
To:
Interested P 'e
From:
Roger Schec
Subject:
Goat Island Env' n_ ental Assessment
Date:
October 6,1995
The Division of Coastal Management has completed its Environmental
Assessment (EA) of the proposed house and pier at Goat Island in New
Hanover County, N.C. Eight agencies comment the assessment during the
review by the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
Based on comments received during the departmental review, comments from
14 state and federal agencies received during the initial Coastal Area
Management Act permit review, and a careful analysis and review of the
proposal by Coastal Management staff, the Division has concluded that:
* The proposed project will have minimal adverse effects on the resources
of the area;
* The proposed project does not warrant the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement; and
* A Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate for the proposed
project.
You may make comments on this document. Your comments should relate to
items addressed in the environmental document. Please mail your comments
to the State Clearinghouse, 116 West Jones Street, Raleigh, N.C. 27603.
Comments must be received by November 29, 1995.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Single Family Residence
and
Associated Amenities
Goat Island
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Proposed By:
Ms. Eva S. Ketelsleger
Prepared For:
Mr. Roger Schecter
Director
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687
[phone]
October, 1995

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Purpose 2
H. Background 2
III. Existing Environment 3
IV. Purpose and Need 4
V. Alternative Analysis 4
A. No -Build 4
B. Construction Of Vacation Home on Alternative Location 4
C. Preferred Alternative 4
VI. Existing Environment 5
A. Changes in Land Use 5
B. Wetlands 5
C. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands 5
D. Public Lands 5
E. Scenic and Recreational Areas 6
F. Archeological Resources 6
G. Air Quality 6
H. Groundwater and Water Quality 6
I. Introduction of Toxic Substances 7
J. Noise Levels 7
K. Water Supply 7
L. Wildlife 8
M. Threatened and Endangered Species 8
N. Fish/SheMh 8
O. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters 9
P. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts 9
VIL Mitigative Measures 9
Finding of No Significant Impact
Ifl
Appendix A. Threatened and Endangered Species of New Hanover County 12
Appendix B. Agency Comments Received During Internal
Departmental Review 17

I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to provide the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), Division of Coastal Management with
a decision -making tool to determine if the single-family structure and associated amenities
proposed for Goat Island in New Hanover County is of such impact on the environment as to
require the preparation of an environmental impact statement.
This document was prepared in accordance with requirements specified in the North
Carolina Administrative Code, Title I - Department of Administration, Chapter 25 - North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act, Section 0.500 - Environmental Assessment.
H. BACKGROUND
Ms. Eva Ketelsleger contacted the Division of Coastal Management in 1994 concerning
permit requirements for the proposed development. It was initially determined that the proposed
development was a candidate for a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit exemption
under 15NCAC 7K.0200. However, the applicant was unable to obtain the required approvals of
all adjacent riparian property owners, thereby eliminating the permit exemption. Objections raised
by an adjacent property owner also led the Division to determine that a CAMA General Permit
was not appropriate in this case, and that a CAMA Major Development permit would be required.
A CAMA Major Development Permit was originally applied for on June 7, 1994. The
application was determined to lack certain information required to adequately review the
proposal. Therefore, the application package was returned as incomplete to Ms. Ketelsleger on
June 24, 1994. A revised application was submitted to the Division of Coastal Management on
March 29, 1995, and additional information provided on June 6,1995. The application package
was accepted as complete for processing at that time, and has since been reviewed by state and
federal environmental review agencies. The state and federal agencies that have provided review
comments on the Ketelsleger permit application are listed below:
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
- N.C. Division of Coastal Management
- N.C. Division of Community Assistance
- N.C. Division of Land Quality
- N.C. Division of Environmental Management
- State Property Office
- N.C. Division of Archives and History
- N.C. Division of Environmental Health
- N.C. Division of Highways
- N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
- N.C. Division of Water Resources
- N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
2

During review of the application, the Division of Coastal Management was informed by
the Attorney General's office that the proposed project was subject to the environmental review
procedures of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) (G.S.I13A-1 et. seq.).
The requirements of this Act are that any State agency action affecting the use of public land must
prepare a detailed statement of the environmental impacts of the proposed action. In the case of
this proposal involves construction of the pier over state-owned submerged lands.
Rules governing the processing of CAMA Major Development Permits require that any
project subject to review under NCEPA must have the appropriate environmental assessment
document as part of the application before the application can be considered complete for
processing (15NCAC 77.0204(b)(8)). Consequently, the processing of the LAMA application
was suspended pending compliance with NCEPA.
III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
Goat Island, a private estuarine island lying within the boundaries of, but not a deeded part
of, the Masonboro Island Component of the North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve,
in New Hanover County (see Figure 1). The island, which is in the vicinity of the Atlantic
Intercoastal Waterway channel marker 139, was formed about 1935 by the placement of dredge
spoil material on and around an upland hummock. The average elevation of the island is
approximately 15' above MSL. Approximately 52% of Goat Island is within U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers right of way, which has been used previously for dredge spoil disposal (see Figure 2).
Goat Island is approximately 34 acres in size and is currently divided into three tracts. The
Ketelsleger tract, which is at the.north end of Goat Island, is 18.57 acres in size. The title to and
ownership of this tract have not been disputed by either the State Property Office or the
Submerged Lands Section of the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries.
Goat Island is bordered by a wide expanse of regularly flooded Spartina alterniflora
marsh to the east, and the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway to the west. The perimeter of Goat
Island is wooded primarily with loblolly pine, with dense understory vegetation such as wax
myrtle, sweet gum, red maple and cat briar. The inner portion is sparsely vegetated, with a very
sandy substrate with a high concentration of shell fragments. No development currently exists on
the island.
The surface waters surrounding Goat Island are designated as SA-ORW. SA waters are
tidal salt waters suitable for production of shellfish for market purposes, primary recreation,
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife and secondary recreation. Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) are those estuarine waters and public trust areas that are determined by
the N.C. Environmental Management Commission to be of exceptional state or national
recreational or ecological significance. The waters surrounding Goat Island are also classified as a
Primary Nursery Area, and are open to the taking of shellfish.
New Hanover County has zoned Goat Island for residential development under the R-20
residential zone. Goat Island also has a land use classification of Conservation.
W

IV. PURPOSE AND NEED
The applicant, Ms. Eva Ketelsleger, wishes to utilize the proposed development as a
vacation residence.
V. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
A. No -build Alternative
The no -build alternative would eliminate potential impacts to the natural environment in
the vicinity of Goat Island, but would deny the applicant the right to utilize her property.
B. Construction of Vacation Home on Alternative Location
Construction at an alternative location on Goat Island would have similar impacts to that
which is proposed. Construction of a vacation home at an alternative location off of Goat Island
would eliminate potential impacts to the natural environment, but would deny the applicant the
right to utilize her property. It is impossible at this point to determine what impacts may be
associated with construction of Ms. Ketelsleger's vacation residence at an unspecified alternative
location off of Goat Island.
C. Preferred Alternative
The proposal is to construct a single family residence on the northern end of Goat Island,
with a pier extending westward towards the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway (see Figure 2). The
residence is to be constructed east of the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway right of way. At its
closest point, the home will be approximately 160 feet from mean high water. The home will be
serviced by a well and septic system, and electricity will be provided through the use of a gasoline
generator, with generator fuel transported to the island during visits. Ms. Ketelsleger has
indicated that no fuel will be stored on the island except during periods of occupancy. The
proposed home and deck have a total footprint of 1368 square feet. There will be no associated
patios, driveways or other impervious surfaces. Approximately 0.5 acres will be graded to
accommodate construction of the house and associated well and septic systems.
A boardwalk is proposed which will connect the home to the proposed pier to the west.
The boardwalk will be approximately 350 feet long and 4 feet wide. The pier will be six feet
wide, and will extend for 160 feet, with 20 feet above mean high water, 60 feet over Spartina
alterniflora and 80 feet over open water. The pier will connect to a 20 foot by 25 foot T-head.
Water depth under the T-head will be approximately 3.8 feet below mean low water. The T-head
will terminate approximately 200 feet from the edge of the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway
0

VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A. Changes in Land Use
The land upon which this project is proposed is currently undeveloped. The proposed
development would change the land use to low density residential, but would not alter the land
use of any surrounding properties. The proposed house, well and septic system will be sited in
open areas to avoid impacting existing forested or wetland areas.
Approximately 52% of Goat Island lies within an U.S. Corps of Engineers easement for
activities that include, but are not limited to, dredge spoil deposition. A portion of the proposed
boardwalk and pier fall within this easement area (see Figure 2). The Corps of Engineers has
indicated that it would not object to the proposed project, provided the property owner is
prepared to remove the pier and/or boardwalk should the Corps decide to exercise its easement
rights. Therefore, this land use component will not be changed.
B. Wetlands
No wetlands will be excavated or filled by the proposed project. Construction of the
boardwalk and pier will shade approximately 120 square feet of marsh and will incorporate
approximately 980 square feet of open water. Temporary construction matting will be utilized
when crossing wetland areas with building materials and equipment. This matting will be
removed immediately following completion of construction.
C. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
Goat Island was created by the placement on and around an upland hummock of dredge
spoil material resulting from the dredging of the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway. The site has
never been used for agricultural activities and there are no significant prime or unique agricultural
land within the project area.
D. Public Lands
To the west of Goat Island is the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway. Approximately 52% of
Goat Island is within an U.S. Corps of Engineers easement for activities that include, but are not
limited to, dredge spoil deposition. A portion of the proposed boardwalk and pier fall within this
easement area. The Corps of Engineers has indicated that it would not object to the proposed
project, provided the property owner is prepared to remove the pier and/or boardwalk should the
Corps decide to exercise its easement rights.
The State of North Carolina claims title to all lands falling below mean high water.
Therefore, the proposed development will encroach onto public lands only from the construction
of the 140' long pier. However, the proposed pier dimensions fall well within the standards of
that which is allowable under the Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission. Numerous piers of
similar or greater length exist along the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway within a 1 mile radius of
Goat Island, and such piers, following regulatory review, are routinely authorized by the Division
of Coastal Management. The pier will end approximately 200 feet from the edge of the
5

maintained Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway channel.
The North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve management plan shows that the
Masonboro Island component boundary encompasses Goat Island. However, the State does not
have title to the island since it is privately owned.
E. Scenic and Recreational Areas
The proposed home will likely be visible from certain locations within the Masonboro
Island Reserve as well as the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway. By leaving the marshes and
forested fringe unharmed, a visual barrier will be maintained and visual impacts minimized.
Although in private ownership, Goat Island is occasionally used for educational field trips.
It is anticipated that these field trips will be reduced following the construction.
The proposed development should have no adverse affect on recreational usage of public
trust waters or on the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway.
F. Archeological Resources
According to information provided by the N.C. Center for Geographical Information
Analysis, no historic structures, sites or properties eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places are known to exist within a 1-mile radius of the project location. No shipwrecks
are known to exist within the project vicinity. During initial permit review, the N.C. Division of
Archives and History offered no objections to the proposed project.
G. Air Quality
No adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated from the construction and use of the
proposed house and associated amenities.
H. Groundwater and Water Quality
The transportation by boat to and from Goat Island, as well as the docking at the
proposed pier should not cause a significant impact to water quality. Slight impacts to water
quality caused by localized turbidity during pier construction are expected, although these impacts
will be temporary. Construction of the house should not have any noticeable impact on water
quality.
Ms. Ketelsleger will be required to obtain a septic system permit from New Hanover
County, and the proper design and permitting of this system should minimize the potential for
groundwater contamination. A possibility does exist that the capabilities of the septic system
could be reduced if the Corps of Engineers were to exercise their dredge spoil disposal easement
rights on the island. While the proposed site of the septic system is approximately 200 feet from
the edge of the Corps of Engineers easement, dewatering of the spoil material could affect the
water table in the area of the septic system. A berm would be placed around the disposal area to
confine the spoil material, but no efforts are anticipated that would prevent seepage of water from

the spoil material into the groundwater. It would, however, be anticipated that any impact on the
septic system would be temporary. Furthermore, the Corps of Engineers has indicated that, due
to the relatively small size of their easement, it is unlikely that spoil material from the maintenance
of the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway will be disposed of on Goat Island.
It should be noted that the N.C. Division of Environmental Management, the state agency
charged with protecting water quality, has offered no objections to the project during the initial
CAMA permit review. No stormwater management plan will be required for the proposed
development.
I. Introduction of Toxic Substances
The proper permitting of the septic system by New Hanover County, of generator fuel
transport by the U.S. Coast Guard and of generator operation and temporary fuel storage by New
Hanover County, will minimize the potential for the introduction of toxic substances into
surrounded waters. Ms. Ketelsleger has indicated that no fuel will be stored on the island, other
than that necessary to operate the generator during an individual visit.
It is anticipated that all solid wastes will be carried off of Goat Island and deposited in
appropriate disposal receptacles.
J. Noise Levels
Noise levels associated with the construction and use of the proposed single-family
residence are expected to be typical of other homes in the general area and are not anticipated to
be of an intensity. and/or duration that would be considered a nuisance. The highest noise levels
are expected briefly during certain stages of construction. Intermittent boat traffic to and from
the island should not significantly raise noise levels over the ambient levels currently generated by
Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway traffic. The noise level associated with the occasional operation
of the generator should not exceed the noise levels generated by motorboats in the Atlantic
Intercoastal Waterway.
K. Water Supply
The property owner proposes utilizing a well to supply water to the house. It is not
anticipated that, based upon the intent and scope of the proposed development, a single well will
adversely affect aquifer levels in the area.
The possibility that the Corps of Engineers may at some point in the future place dredge
spoil material on a portion of the island does give rise to the possibility of temporary
contamination of the well water. However, long term impacts to ground water supplies have
apparently not occurred as a result of past disposal activities, and it would be expected any
disruption of well service by spoil disposal activities would be temporary. Furthermore, the Corps
of Engineers has indicated that, due to the relatively small size of their easement, it is unlikely that
spoil material from the maintenance of the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway will be disposed of on
Goat Island.

L, Wildlife
The proposed project will have minimal impacts to surrounding surface waters. The
amount of land disturbing activity has been kept to a minimum, and forested and wetland areas
will not be disturbed, with the exception of the area underneath the boardwalk and pier.
Therefore, the potential impact to wildlife is limited.
M. Threatened and Endangered Species
Table 1 lists species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened or
endangered for New Hanover County. Brief species descriptions and biological opinions are
provided for these species in Appendix A. Based upon these biological opinions, it is not
anticipated that the proposed project will have an adverse affect on any federally threatened or
endangered species.
Table 1.
Federally
Threatened (T) and Endangered (E) Species
of New Hanover County
__. � ulu • ul
Fish
Bald Eagle
Peregrine Falcon
Red -cockaded Woodpecker
Piping Plover
Short -nosed Sturgeon
Reptiles
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle
Leatherback Sea Turtle
Green Sea Turtle
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
I_►ILYI� Sul
Haliaeetus leucocephalus E.
Falco peregrinus E.
Picoides borealis E.
Charadrius melodus T.
Acipenser brevirostrum . E.
Lepidochelys kempi E.
Dermochelys coriacea E.
Chelonia mydas T.
Caretta caretta T.
Plants
Seabeach Amaranth Amaranthus pumilus T.
N. Fish/Shellfish
The current habitat for shellfish and fish may be temporarily disturbed by the construction
of the pier and transportation of equipment to the site. However, these operations will be
completed within a very limited time frame, and, upon their completion, it is anticipated that the
habitat will retain its ability to support the fish and shellfish species in the area. The permanent

shading of 360 sq. ft. of coastal marsh and 980 sq. ft. of open water habitat by the pier is not
anticipated to adversely affect fish or shellfish habitat. No closure of any areas open to the taking
of shellfish is anticipated. Furthermore, the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries and the N.C.
Division of Environmental Health offered no objection to the proposed project during initial
CAMA permit review. Therefore, it is not anticipated that fish or shellfish habitat will be
adversely affected by the proposed project.
0. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
Wastewater from the house will be disposed of by way of a septic system. If care is taken
in the design and operation of the system, and if New Hanover County issues the appropriate
septic system permits, adequate protection against eutrophication of receiving waters should be
provided.
P. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project is unlikely to generate secondary impacts or contribute to
cumulative impacts because the project does not involve the construction of any infrastructure
that would give rise to future development. For example, access to the island will be by boat and
pier, and not by a bridge which could provide for wider access to the island. Similarly, the
proposed septic field and generator are sufficient to accommodate only a single family residence.
VII. MITIGATIVE MEASURES
The measures proposed to minimize or avoid significant adverse impacts are briefly
summarized as follows:
Other than the house, deck and boardwalk, no other structures or impervious surfaces are
proposed. The footprint of the house (912 sq. ft. living space, 456 sq. ft. deck) has been
kept to a minimum.
No wetlands are to be excavated or filled.
Temporary construction matting will be utilized when crossing wetlands with building
equipment and materials.
In order to minimize the potential impact to coastal marsh and shallow water habitats, the
proposed boardwalk and pier will not exceed a width of six feet through these areas, and
the structure height in these areas will be at least four feet above ground elevation.
- The proposed house will be sited outside of the densely vegetated or sensitive areas of
Goat Island.
- No generator fuel will be stored on the island except in times of occupancy.

Compliance with the rules of the Coastal Resources Commission must be determined prior
to the issuance of required CAMA permits.
Ms. Ketelsleger will be required to obtain all local building permits and will be required to
comply with all local ordinances.
10

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES .
GOAT ISLAND
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
The following is a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSn for the proposed
development by Ms. Eva S. KeteLsleger for a portion of Goat Island adjacent to the Atlantic
Intercoastal Waterway in New Hanover County, North Carolina.
The proposed project, as outlined in the Environmental Assessment, is the construction of
a single-family vacation residence and associated amenities on Goat Island. The project is being
located to the fullest possible extent outside of areas of wetlands, waters of the State, or other
environmentally sensitive areas. Because the project is located in a Coastal Area Management
Act (LAMA) Area of Environmental Concern, an application for a CAMA Major Development
Permit has been prepared by Ms. Ketelsleger and submitted to the Division of Coastal
Management (DCM). This permit application is reviewed by 14 Federal and State agencies to
insure that the impacts to the association of natural resources in the area are minimized.
Furthermore, the draft Environmental Assessment has been reviewed by 8 agencies within the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Comments received during the
Departmental review were not considered significant.
Therefore, it is the conclusion of the Division of Coastal Management that the proposed
project will have minimal adverse impacts to the resources of the area and that adequate
protection measures have been designed to insure that no significant impacts occur. For these
reasons, no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared and this Finding of No
Significant Impact completes the environmental review record for this project.
11

APPENDIX A
Threatened and Endangered Species of New Hanover County
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) - Endangered
Bald eagles area found in North America from Florida to Alaska. The only major nesting
population in the southeast is in Florida, with other nesting occurring in the Coastal Areas of
Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. Migrants and rare nesting pairs do occur elsewhere in
the southeast.
There are several factors that affect an eagles selection of a nest site. Eagle nests are
found in close proximity to water with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in
the area, and having an open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an
eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. Eagle nests are approximately 10 feet across.
The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the major
food source for the bald eagle. Other food sources may include coots, herons and wounded
ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
Based upon evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, no occurrences of
this species have been noted in the project area.
Acipenser brevirostrum (short -nosed sturgeon) - Endangered
The short -nosed sturgeon is a small (3 feet in length) species of fish which occurs in the
lower sections of large rivers and in coastal marine habitats from the St. John River, Canada to
the Indian River, Florida. The short -nosed sturgeon prefers deep channels with a salinity less than
sea water. It feeds benthicly on invertebrates and plant material and is most active at night. It is
an anadromous species that spawns upstream in the spring and spends most of its life within close
proximity of the rivers mouth. At least two entirely freshwater populations have been recorded,
in South Carolina and Massachusetts.
The short -nosed sturgeon requires large fresh water rivers that are unobstructed by dams or
pollutants to reproduce successfully.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
While the sturgeon may exist within the project area, it is not anticipated that the pier and
boardwalk will have an affect on the species.
Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) - Threatened
The loggerhead nests on suitable beaches from Ocracoke Inlet, North Carolina through
12

Florida and on a small scale off of the Gulf States. There are also major nesting grounds on the
eastern coast of Australia. It lives worldwide in temperate to subtropical waters.
Loggerheads nest nocturnally between May and September on isolated beaches that are
characterized by fine grained sediments. It is mainly carnivorous feeding on small marine animals.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
The marsh boarder around Goat Island, rapid transition from open water to dense forest
border, lack of substantial beach, and the very coarse nature of the sand on the island would likely
preclude the use of Goat Island by nesting loggerhead turtles. The limited intrusion of the pier
into open water should pose no threat to individual loggerheads. Furthermore, based upon
evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, the closest recorded occurrence of this
species is on the ocean beach mote than 3/4 miles from the project location.
Charadrius melodus (piping plover) - Threatened
The piping plover is a small migratory shorebird that resembles a sandpiper. The piping
plover breeds along the east coast from New Foundland to North Carolina. It winters from North
Carolina southward into the Florida Keys and along the Gulf of Mexico. Plovers return to their
breeding grounds in March or early April.
Piping plovers nest in flat areas with fine sand and mixtures of shells and pebbles. They
nest most commonly where there is little or no vegetation, but some may nest in stands of
beachgrass. The nest is a shallow depression in the sand that is usually lined with shells and
pebbles. The piping plover feeds on invertebrates such as insects and marine worms. The piping
plover is very sensitive to human disturbances. The presence of people can cause the plover to
abandon its nest and quit feeding.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
Based upon evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, no occurrences of
this species have been noted in the project area.
Chelonia mydas (green sea turtle) -Threatened
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and tropical oceans and seas. It ranges as far
north as Massachusetts on the east coast and British Columbia in the west. Nesting in North
America is limited to small communities on the east coast of Florida.
The green turtle can be found in shallow waters. They are attracted to lagoons, reefs, bays,
Mangrove swamps and inlets where an abundance of marine grasses can be found, marine grasses
are the principle food source for the green turtle. These turtles require beaches with minimal
disturbances and a sloping platform for nesting (they do not nest in NC).
13

Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
Based upon evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, no occurrences of
this species have been noted in the project area. Because this species does not nest in North
Carolina, the limited encroachment of the proposed development into open water, the mobility of
the green turtle, and the lack of reported sitings, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will
have an affect on this species.
Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea turtle) - Endangered
Leatherbacks are distributed world-wide in tropical waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and
Indian oceans. They range as far north as Nova Scotia and New Foundland and as far south as
Australia and the Cape of Good Hope. Major nesting areas occur in tropical regions and the only
nesting population in the United States is found in Martin County, Florida. Leatherback nesting
occurs from April to August.
Leatherbacks prefer deep waters and are often found near the edge of the continental
shelf. In northern waters they are reported to enter into bays, estuaries, and other inland bodies of
water. Leather back nesting requirements are very specific, they need sandy beaches backed with
vegetation in the proximity of deep water and generally with rough seas. Beaches with a suitable
slope and a suitable depth of coarse dry sand are necessary for the leatherback to nest. Artificial
light has been shown to cause hatchlings to divert away from the sea. Leatherbacks feed mainly
on jellyfish. They are also known to feed on sea urchins, crustaceans, fish, mollusks, tunicates,
and floating seaweed.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program has no record of occurrences of this species in the
project area. Based on the lack of the highly specific nesting characteristics of this species, it is
not anticipated that the proposed project will have an impact on nesting. The limited
encroachment of the proposed development into open water, the mobility of the leatherback
turtle, and the lack of reported sitings, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will have an
affect on this species.
Falco peregrinus (Peregrine falcon) - Endangered
The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the United States in areas with high
cliffs and open land for foraging. Nesting for the falcons is generally on high cliff ledges, but
they may also nest in broken off tree tops in the eastern deciduous forest and on skyscrapers and
bridges in urban areas. Nesting occurs from mid -March to May.
Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small mammals and birds, including mammals as
large as a woodchuck, birds as large as a duck, and insects. The preferred prey is medium sized
birds such as pigeons. Peregrine falcons are at the top of their food chain and are therefore
extremely sensitive to chemical toxins such as DDT.
14

Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
Based upon evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, no occurrences of
this species have been noted in the project area.
Lepidochelys kempi (Kemp's Ridley's sea turtle) - Endangered
Adult Kemp's Ridley's sea turtles inhabit the Gulf of Mexico, with immature turtles
ranging the east coast as far north as Massachusetts. This turtle is an infrequent visitor to the
North Carolina coast and usually does not nest here. Recently, there have been recordings of
nesting. The primary nesting area for these turtles is a single beach in Mexico.
A majority of this sea turtle's nesting occurs in a 14.9 mile stretch of beach between Barra
del Tordo and Ostioal in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Here the turtles come on shore in mass
to lay their eggs during the day. This can occur as many as three times during the April to June
breeding season.
Kemp's Ridley's sea turtles prefer beach sections that are backed up by extensive swamps
or large bodies of open water having seasonal narrow ocean connections and a well defined
elevated dune area. Kemp's Ridley's sea turtles live in shallow coastal and estuarine waters, in
association with red mangrove trees. Kemp's Ridley's sea turtles feed on crabs, shrimp, snails, sea
urchins, sea stars, medusae, fish, and marine plants.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect.
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program has no record of occurrences of this species in the
project area. Based on the infrequent occurrences of this species in North Carolina Waters, the
rarity of nesting in this region, the limited encroachment of the proposed development into open
water, and the mobility of this turtle, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will have an
affect on this species.
Picoides borealis (red -cockaded woodpecker) - Endangered
The red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to southern
Florida and west to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas,
Oklahoma and Missouri. The RCW is now found only in coastal states of its historic range and
inland in southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations
occur in the sandhills and southern coastal plain. The few populations found in the piedmont and
northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of former populations.
The RCW uses open, old growth stands of southern pine, particularly longleaf pine (Pines
palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack
a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW.
These birds nest exclusively in trees that are greater than 60 years old and are contiguous with
pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 500 acres. This
15

acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting habitat.
The RCW nests exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are infected with
the fungus that causes red -heart disease. Cavities are located 12 to 100 feet above the ground
with an average height of 30 to 50 feet The cavity can be identified by a large incrustation of
running sap that surrounds the cavity. The large incrustation of sap is believed to be used as a
defense by the RCW against possible predators. A clan of woodpeckers usually consists of one
breeding pair and the offspring from previous years. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May and
June, and the eggs hatch 38 days later. All members of the clan share in raising the young. Red -
cockaded woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may occasionally feed on seasonal fruits.
Biological Conclusion - No Affect
Suitable habitat for this species does not exist on Goat Island.
Amaranthus pumilus (seabeach amaranth) - Threatened
The seabeach amaranth is endemic to beaches of the Atlantic coastal plain. This plant was
historically known from Massachusetts to Florida and is presently confined to 55 known
populations in North Carolina, New York and South Carolina.
Habitat for the seabeach amaranth is found on barrier island beaches functioning in a
relatively dynamic and natural manner. It grows well in overwash flats at the accreting ends of
islands and the lower foredunes and upper strands of non -eroding beaches. Temporary
populations often -form in blowouts, sound -side beaches, dredge spoil areas and areas of beach
renourishment This species is very intolerant of competition and is not usually found in
association with other species.
Biological Opinion - Not Likely to Affect
Based upon evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, no occurrences of
this species have been recorded within 3/4 miles of the project area.
16

APPENDIX B
Agency Comments Received During Internal
Departmental Review
17

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
A�.�V-
James B. Hunt, Governor . FDE H N FR Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster Il, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
FROM: Melba McGee
'�y
Environments Review Coordinator
RE: #756 Environmental Assessment, Goat Island/Eva Ketelsleger
Vacation Residence Construction, Masonboro Island, New Hanover County
DATE: October 5, 1995
This is to advise your office that division comments have been
satisfactorily resolved regarding the subject proposal.
I appreciate the attention given to the concerns of the N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission and the Division of Parks and Recreation. The attached
comments are for your information and should also be incorporated as part of the
environmental document.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If this department can be of
further assistance, please let me know. Project can be forwarded to the State
Clearinghouse for further review.
attachments
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50 % recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

r n�
e:
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. S:tlivhury Street, Ralcigkt, North Carolina 27611, 919-7.33-3391
Charles R. Ftillwood, Ejeccoutive Dircctx)r
MEMORANDUM
TO: laOlba McGee
ntfir.".e of Legislative- r Tttrergovexnmcntal Affairs
FROM: Bennett Wynne
HahitM-. Conaervation program
DATE: october 2, 1995
Si7BJFCP_ Draft EA for Gnat. T slancl/Eva Xetelsleger vacation
r.Osidence nnn .r.�10tion, adjacont to MasUsboro
Island 'anal the AIWW, New Hanover COLtnty, Frr:jar..t_ ft
The Wildlife RP.�nr.lrr_.aS Commission has revicwcd then
Subject Draft F,A. Our comments are provided in accordan-e
With ptrivi..sions .6f the fish a:id Wildlife Coovdinatlon ,Ac;l.
(48 SLat. 401, as amended; 16 L7.N.C. ti6.l, flt. r3er.j.), the
Clean Writ.nr Ar:t of 1977 (as amended) ;arid the Nu-'Lh CarOlirLeJ
Env.Lro=Onta], Yolioy Act ([ .O. 113A-1 et Secs., a5 amended;
14CAC-25).
The applicant PropO..os to consttuuL A 2 Ibedroom
vacat.i.on rasi-dencc'.with septic eyrtom, }�.Ler, and CL�Ck uu
Goat x8land, y rir,iv3tcly Owned island within LhC Masanl�r,rr,,
lsl t:d Estuarl ne :Resc.�xch..Resewve. Aroa wacteru are 0A-oit&
Primary Nttr:3ery, -aiid open :tO ahellfi.shing.
During nttt yiew of Lhe projoct in the to
rm o c CHMA
permit ' xp liaati6ri' e,arl:Ldr thie year, we recgmatncided the
following:
1.. Elevate.t1%d pier a Minimtiin of 4 ft. off Lttcz marsh
floor. to i.ncra4sesunlight pon.c:LraLion underneath aiW
mi.nintite, Lhe,''e,fPectS O Shading.

i 111rih biological. productivity,
3. Use parts whan transporting equipment anti mWt'.r:rinl,r,
aerona the marsh.
Recommendations 1. and 3. have bean incorporated ar
mi.ti.gative moasuroo in the draft M and we commend UiLid
action. Rogaxding recommendation 2.1 however, reLecertue is
mado only to oonotruc:L•ion being "completed within a ver,•y
Limited time frame' (p.0) , too Contiaut. Lu recoituuend that
activity i.n the mareh avoid the April 1 to VeJtemUer 30
period of high biological activity. However, iC L11ist px'ave3
impossible, the aroa in which equipment and materials are
Loaded onto the -inland should be located on the AIWW aide at;
a puial- Whore the marsh ivax:yii, ,La narrowest.
Thant: you for the opportunity to cormue:tL un LIJIS
project, if you ricod to discuss these comment$ or riNwd
addlt.i,onal assistance, please call me aL (919) .522-�i736.
c;<;; William.Wcrcott, Coastal IIab. Con. Coord.ittaLox'
S:\boat fish \habc;on\coast (guaLdea.doc)
6

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 0
0
Division of Coastal Management _
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E H N
Roger N. Schecter, Director
October 4, 1995
MEMO TO: Bennett Wynne
FROM: Doug Hu gett
SUBJECT: Goat Island/Ketelsleger Draft Environmental Assessment
Please reference your October 2, 1995 correspondence to Melba McGee in which
comments on the referenced draft environmental assessment were provided. In response to your
comments, as was stated in your memo, item 1 (elevate pier at least 4 feet) and item 3 (use of
construction matting) have already been incorporated into the EA. With -regards to item 2
(construction moratorium), if, after completion of the SEPA and CAMA permit reviews, it is
determined that issuance of a CAMA permit is appropriate, the permit will be conditioned
prohibiting work in the marsh between April 1 to September 30 without the prior approval of the
Division. As is always the case with construction moratorium conditions, the applicant may
request limited relief from the condition. If such a request is made in this case, the Division will
consult the Wildlife Resources Commission prior to making a decision on shortening the
moratorium period. Furthermore, with regards to minimization of construction disturbance, the
area at which equipment and materials are brought onto the island will also be located at a point
where the marsh margin is very narrow.
The Division believes that these comments adequately address the concerns raised in your
memo. If you are in agreement with our position, it is requested that a memo stating such be
faxed to this office (fax # [phone]) as soon as possible. Please feel free to contact me at 733-
2293 if you wish to discuss this matter further.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 60%recycled/ 1 o% post-commer paper

f' gourCC3 Commission 1 1
i1� rr, t;ulikury Strccl, [Uleigli,.h'ui lli CURAIn{l Z70It, 919-7:33-:339t —
Charles R. fulbvood, Executive. Director
Merno To: Doug Huggett
From: Bennett Wyunc
Date: 10-4-95
guUjeut. Gout isl:tntt/R4[0g16ger Drati LA comments
Per our telephone conversation this morning, we appreciate your coramitinetn to itirchide
the April 1 to Suptumbur 30 constractfott tuoratodum as a u nditiuuifa CAMA p 4wit is isstred
for this project. Our recommendations on pier freight and use ofcoustniction nrattiug were
incorporated into the Drab RA. We now consider our concoras to be adequately addressud.
cc: William Wescott, Coastal HabCon Coordinator
S:\ boattish\habcon\coast (goat2,doc)

OCT 64 195 10:09 165 rUw
l '
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
October 3, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Lysa Hartle�%J
THROUGH: Stephen P.'Hall S �•�
SUBJECT: DEA - Development on Goat Island, New Hanover County
REFERENCE: 756
The Division has previously expressed concerns about the impacts of this project on Masonboro
Island Estuarine Reserve (Hartley, June 6 1995). The Reserve is owned and administered by
the Division.of Coastal Management (DCM), and it was dedicated as a State Nature Preserve
in 1987, along with three other components of the North Carolina National Estuarine Reserve
System. The dedication represents the State's recognition of the site's natural significance and
the State's commitment to permanent protection of the site's integrity. While Ms. Ketelsleger's
property is not part of the Dedicated Nature Preserve, it is located so close to the dedicated area
that impacts from this development, unless very carefully controlled, could affect the Preserve.
This is a unique and very sensitive area. Water quality in the Dedicated State Nature Preserve
could be affected by construction and waste disposal. Impacts on water quality from the septic
system and ground disturbance during construction are of particular of concern. Installation of
a septic system on a dredge spoil island, with sandy soil and high water table, could result in
contamination of the ground water and ultimately the surrounding estuarine waters, including
those of the Reserve, if great care is not taken. There could be impacts on the adjoining waters,
habitats, and estuarine organisms that are intended to be protected within the Estuarine Reserve.
Regarding construction disturbance, the EA states that matting will be used to minimize impacts
of construction in the wetland area. Based on the EA, we continue to have reservations
regarding these issues. However, we are confident that DCM will fully explore and address
these issues in the permitting process.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 •0
Division of Coastal Management _
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ��
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
October 4, 1995
MEMO TO: Lysa Hartley
Stephen P. Hall
FROM: Doug Huggett�V N�
SUBJECT: Goat Island/Ketelsleger Draft Environmental Assessment
Please reference your October 3, 1995 correspondence to Melba McGee in which
comments on the referenced draft environmental assessment were provided. In response to your
comments, the Division of Coastal Management shares your concerns on potential impacts to
water quality from the proposed development. However, the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management and the N.C. Division of Environmental Health, both state agencies charged with
protecting water quality, have offered no objections to the proposal during early CAMA permit
review. Furthermore, a representative of New Hanover County Health Department has visited the
site and stated that a septic permit is likely available for the project. If, after completion of the
SEPA and CAMA permit reviews, it is determined that issuance of a CAMA permit is
appropriate, the permit will be conditioned requiring that the applicant properly design the septic
system and receive any and all required septic system authorizations and approvals.
With regards to minimization of construction disturbance, construction matting will be
utilized when crossing any wetland area. The area at which equipment and materials are brought
onto the island will also be located at a point where the marsh margin is very narrow. The
Division is also considering prohibiting work in the marsh between April 1 to September 30,
which is the period of highest biological activity. No wetlands will be permanently excavated or
filled.
The Division will continue to look closely at water quality issues related to this project as
they arise. Based upon comments that may be received during either the EA or permit application
reviews, additional conditions which may further protect water quality may be added to the permit
as appropriate.
The Division believes that these comments adequately address the concerns raised in your
memo. If you are in agreement with our position, it is requested that a memo stating such be
faxed to this office (fax # [phone]) as soon as possible. Please feel free to contact me at 733-
2293 if you wish to discuss this matter further.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

t KUH HG VHKK] :e KtGKtHiiuri — HKGHVHLL SLUU. lU. nv. lyyo 19:
I
i DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREA`1'ION
October 4, 1995
mvm jkxnYTM
TO: Doug Huggett
i
FROM ;I Lysa Hartle
SUBIE(�T: DEA - Development on Goat Island, New Hanov�r County
In
LMH/
to your memo of October 4, 1995, we are confide t that'the Division of Coastal
t will address the concerns expressed in our memo Of October 3, 1995.
I
I
I
I

EC
EYVE
State of North Carolina Or-r 0 2 1905
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resou s
Division of Land Resources By
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. G
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: /•.� County: ti (�i).'��•—ri
Project Name:
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact _ geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
.Raleigh,. N.C. 27611 [phone].- Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
L' This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached) ..
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
-Erosion and Sedimentation. Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land -'disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
V� other (comments attached) pie,, ~sf b�__ by
Formoreinformation contact the Land Quality section at [phone].
LT/ io �yf 9s
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Melgh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmatfve Action Employer

State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW — PROJECT COMMENTS I Project Number: I Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permits) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Normal Process
Regional Office.
Time
(statutory time
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
limil)
❑
Permit to construct 8 operate wastewater treatment
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of
'
30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions. 8 sewer
construction contracts On -site inspection. Post -application
systems not discharging into state surface waters.
technical conference usual
(90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or
Application 180 days before begin activity. On -site inspection.
90.120 days
❑
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
Pre -application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters.
construct, wastewater treatment facility -granted after NPDES. Reply
(NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit -whichever is later.
30 days
❑
Water Use Permit
Pre -application technical conference usually necessary
IN/A)
7 days
Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the Installation of a well..
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property
55 days
❑
Dredge and Fill Permit -
owner. On -site inspection. Pre -application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of
(90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
❑
Permit to construct 8 operate Air Pollution Abatement
60 days
days)
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06
NIA
(90
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
60 days
❑
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal
NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733-0820.
(90 days)
❑
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion 8 sedimentatio
❑
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30
20 days
days before beginning activity. A lee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or part must accompany the plan
30 days)
❑
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: .. -
(30 days)
On -site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
❑
Mining Permit
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area
30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond
(60 days) -
must be received before the permit can be Issued.
❑
North Carolina Burning permit
On -site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit
1 day
exceeds 4 days
(NIA)
❑
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22
On -site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required -'if more
1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils
than rive acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
(NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
❑
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities
NIA
(NIA)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
El
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans.
30 days
Dam
Dam Safety Permit
inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv.
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And
(60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An Inspection of site is neces.
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must ac.
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
P„�; Continued on reverse

_
Normal Process
Time
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
limit)
File surety bond of $5.000 with EHNR running to State of N.C.
10 days
❑
Permit 10 drill exploratory oil or gas well
conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon
(NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
❑
Geophysical Exploration Permit
Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit
10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form.
(NIA)
❑
State Lakes Construction Permit
Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include
15 20 days
descriptions 8 drawings of structure 8 proof of ownership
(NIA)
of riparian property.
❑
days
407 Water Quality Certification
ificallon
NIA
(130 days)
❑
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$250.00 fee must accompany application
(150 days)
❑
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development
$50.00 fee must accompany application
(25 days)
❑
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687. Raleigh, N.C. 27611
❑
Abandonment of any wells. if requiretl, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
❑
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 211.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. �.� pjc_%c* Wt �,� �` ,(,i
a 45 tys
•
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
❑ Asheville Regional Office ❑ Fayetteville Regional Office
.59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovfa Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] - [phone]
❑ Mooresville Regional Office
ElRaleigh
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Mooresville, INC 28115
Raleigh, INC 27609
[phone]
733.2314
❑ Washington Regional Office
`i�y(9'19)
1424 Carolina Avenue
120 Wilmington Regional Office
!!! ��` 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
[phone]
❑ Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
. Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]

State of North Carolina Reviewing office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Project Number: Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW —PROJECT COMMENTS Pro I^ _-
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permits) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office.
Normal Process
Time
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
(statutory lime
limit)
❑Permit
to construct & operate wastewater treatment
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of
30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions. & sewer
construction contracts On -site inspection. Post -application
systems not discharging into state surface waters.
technical conference usual
(90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or
Application 180 tlays before begin activity. On -site inspection.
90.120 days
❑
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
Pre -application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters,
construct, wastewater treatment facility -granted after NPDES. Reply
(N/A)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit -whichever is later.
❑
Water Use Permit
Pre -application technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(NIA)
Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued
7 days
prior to the installation of a well.
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian properly
55 days
❑
Dredge and Fill Permit
owner. On -site inspection. Pre -application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of
(90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
❑Permit
to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06
NIA
(90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
,
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be In compliance with 15A
-
60 days
❑
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal
NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733-0820.
(90 days)
❑
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentatio
❑
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30
20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or part must accompany the Ian
30 days)
❑
The Sedimertation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
(30 days)
On -site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
❑
Mining Permit
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area
30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond
(60 days)
must be received before the permit can be Issued.
❑
North Carolina Burning permit
On -site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources it permit
1 day
exceeds 4 days
(NIA)
El
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22
On -site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required"if more
1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils
than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
(NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
Oil Refining Facilities
NIA
90.120 days
(NIA)
11 permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
❑
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified -engineer to: prepare plans.
30 days
Dam Safety Permit
Inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv.
ad plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And
(60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces.
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of S200.00 must ac.
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
"'w Continued on reverse

w

Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources /
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governorry p FEE N F1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretacreta
Roger N. Schecter, Director
10 �1]
To:
Interested P
From:
Roger Schec
Subject:
Goat Island End ental Assessment
Date:
October 6, 1995
The Division of Coastal Management has completed its Environmental
Assessment (EA) of the proposed house and pier at Goat Island in New
Hanover County, N.C. Eight agencies comment the assessment during the
review by the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
Based on comments received during the departmental review, comments from
14 state and federal agencies received during the initial Coastal Area
Management Act permit review, and a careful analysis and review of the
proposal by Coastal Management staff, the Division has concluded that:
* The proposed project will have minimal adverse effects on the resources
of the area;
* The proposed project does not warrant the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement; and
* A Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate for the proposed
project.
You may make comments on this document. Your comments should relate to
items addressed in the environmental document. Please mail your comments
to the State Clearinghouse, 116 West Jones Street, Raleigh, N.C. 27603.
Comments must be received by November 29, 1995.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 60%recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1' ' •
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, ,Secretary p FEE N� Jonathan B. Howes, Secrets
Roger N. Schecter, Director .
September 26, 1995
MEMO TO: Melba S. McGee
FROM: Roger Sche c�
Director
Division of Coastal Management
SUBJECT: Goat Island/Ketelsleger Draft Environmental Assessment
As per our recent conversation, I am providing a copy of the draft Environmental
Assessment for the subject project. Due to the fact that many Divisions within this Department
have had the opportunity to review and comment on this project during the review of the Coastal
Area Management Act (LAMA) pemit application, I believe that the internal review of the draft
EA can be expedited. I am therefore asking that the internal review be completed by October 3,
1995. 1 am enclosing copies of agency comments received during the CAMA permit review for
your information. .
Any help you could provide in expediting the internal review would be greatly
appreciated. If you have any questions or if I may provide any additional information, please feel
free to contact me at [phone].
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Single Family Residence
and
Associated Amenities
Goat Island
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Proposed By:
Ms. Eva S. Ketelsleger
Prepared For:
Mr. Roger Schecter
Director
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687
[phone]
September 1995

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Purpose
2
II.
Background
2
III.
Existing Environment
3
IV.
Purpose and Need
4
V.
Alternative Analysis
4
A. No -Build
4
B. Construction Of Vacation Home on Alternative Location
4
C. Preferred Alternative
4
VI.
Existing Environment
5
A. Changes in Land Use
5
B. Wetlands
5
C. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
5
D. Public Lands
5
E. Scenic and Recreational Areas
6
F. Archeological Resources
6
G. Air Quality
6
H. Groundwater and Water Quality
6
I. -Introduction of Toxic Substances
7
J. Noise Levels
7
K. Water Supply
7
L. Wildlife
8
M. Threatened and Endangered Species
8
N. Fish/Shellfish
8
O. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
9
P. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts
9
VII.
Mitigative Measures
9
Appendix A. Threatened and Endangered Species of New Hanover County
11

I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to provide the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), Division of Coastal Management with
a decision -making tool to determine if the single-family structure and associated amenities
proposed for Goat Island in New Hanover County is of such impact on the environment as to
require the preparation of an environmental impact statement.
This document was prepared in accordance with requirements specified in the North
Carolina Administrative C6de, Title I - Department of Administration, Chapter 25 - North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act, Section 0.500 - Environmental Assessment.
H. BACKGROUND
Ms. Eva Ketelsleger contacted the Division of Coastal Management in 1994 concerning
permit requirements for the proposed development. It was initially determined that the proposed
development was a candidate for a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit exemption
under 15NCAC 7K.0200. However, the applicant was unable to obtain the required approvals of
all adjacent riparian property owners, thereby eliminating the permit exemption. Objections raised
by an adjacent property owner also led the Division to determine that a CAMA Minor
Development Permit was not appropriate in this case, and that a CAMA Major Development
permit would be required.
A CAMA Major Development Permit was originally applied for on June 7, 1994. The
application was determined to lack certain information required to adequately review the
proposal. Therefore, the application package was returned as incomplete to Ms. Ketelsleger on
June 24, 1994. A revised application was submitted to the Division of Coastal Management on
March 29, 1995, and additional information provided on June 6, 1995. The application package
was accepted as complete for processing at that time, and has since been reviewed by state and
federal environmental review agencies. The state and federal agencies that have provided review
comments on the Ketelsleger permit application are listed below:
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
- N.C. Division of Coastal Management
- N.C. Division of Community Assistance
- N.C. Division of Land Quality
- N.C. Division of Environmental Management
- State Property Office
- N.C. Division of Archives and History
- N.C. Division of Environmental Health
- N.C. Division of Highways
- N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
- N.C. Division of Water Resources
- N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
2

During review of the application, the Division of Coastal Management was informed by
the Attorney General's office that the proposed project was subject to the environmental review
procedures of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) (G.S.I13A-1 et. seq.).
The requirements of this Act are that any State agency action affecting the use of public land must
prepare a detailed statement of the environmental impacts of the proposed action. In the case of
this proposal involves construction of the pier over state-owned submerged lands.
Rules governing the processing of CAMA Major Development Permits require that any
project subject to review under NCEPA must have the appropriate environmental assessment
document as part of the application before the application can be considered complete for
processing (15NCAC 77.0204(b)(8)). Consequently, the processing of the CAMA application
was suspended pending compliance with NCEPA.
M. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
Goat Island, a private estuarine island lying within the boundaries of, but not a deeded part
of, the Masonboro Island Component of the North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve,
in New Hanover County (see Figure 1). The island, which is in the vicinity of the Atlantic
Intercoastal Waterway channel marker 139, was formed about 1935 by the placement of dredge
spoil material on and around an upland hummock. The average elevation of the island is
approximately 15' above MSL. Approximately 52% of Goat Island is within U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers right of way, which has been used previously for dredge spoil disposal (see Figure 2).
Goat Island is approximately 34 acres in size and is currently divided into three tracts. The
Ketelsleger tract, which is at the north end of Goat Island, is 18.57 acres in size. The title to and
ownership of this tract have not been disputed by either the State Property Office or the
Submerged Lands Section of the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries.
Goat Island is bordered by a wide expanse of regularly flooded Spartina alterniflora
marsh to the east, and the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway to the west. The perimeter of Goat
Island is wooded primarily with loblolly pine, with dense understory vegetation such as wax
myrtle, sweet gum, red maple and cat briar. The inner portion is sparsely vegetated, with a very
sandy substrate with a high concentration of shell fragments. No development currently exists on
the island.
The surface waters surrounding Goat Island are designated as SA-ORW. SA waters are
tidal salt waters suitable for production of shellfish for market purposes, primary recreation,
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife and secondary recreation. Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) are those estuarine waters and public trust areas that are determined by
the N.C. Environmental Management Commission to be of exceptional state or national
recreational or ecological significance. The waters surrounding Goat Island are also classified as a
Primary Nursery Area, and are open to the taking of shellfish.
New Hanover County has zoned Goat Island for residential development under the R-20
residential zone. Goat Island also has a land use classification of Conservation.
3

IV. PURPOSE AND NEED
The applicant, Ms. Eva Ketelsleger, wishes to utilize the proposed development as a
vacation residence.
V. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
A. No -build Alternative
The no -build alternative would eliminate potential impacts to the natural environment in
the vicinity of Goat Island, but would deny the applicant the right to utilize her property.
B. Construction of Vacation Home on Alternative Location
Construction at an alternative location on Goat Island would have similar impacts to that
which is proposed. Construction of a vacation home at an alternative location off of Goat Island
would eliminate potential impacts to the natural environment, but would deny the applicant the
right to utilize her property. It is impossible at this point to detemrine what impacts may be
associated with construction of Ms. Ketelsleger's vacation residence at an unspecified alternative
location off of Goat Island.
C. Preferred Alternative
The proposal is to construct a single family residence on the northern end of Goat Island,
with a pier extending westward towards the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway (see Figure 2). The
residence is to be constructed east of the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway right of way. At its
closest point, the home will be approximately 160 feet from mean high water. The home will be
serviced by a well and septic system, and electricity will be provided through the use of a gasoline
generator, with generator fuel transported to the island during visits. Ms. Ketelsleger has
indicated that no fuel will be stored on the island except during periods of occupancy. The
proposed home and deck have a total footprint of 1368 square feet. There will be no associated
patios, driveways or other impervious surfaces. Approximately 0.5 acres will be graded to
accommodate construction of the house and associated well and septic systems.
A boardwalk is proposed which will connect the home to the proposed pier to the west.
The boardwalk will be approximately 350 feet long and 4 feet wide. The pier will be six feet
wide, and will extend for 160 feet, with 20 feet above mean high water, 60 feet over Spartina
alternii fora and 80 feet over open water. The pier will connect to a 20 foot by 25 foot T-head.
Water depth under the T-head will be approximately 3.8 feet below mean low water. The T-head
will terminate approximately 200 feet from the edge of the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway
Cl

VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A. Changes in Land Use
The land upon which this project is proposed is currently undeveloped. The proposed
development would change the land use to low density residential, but would not alter the land
use of any surrounding properties. The proposed house, well and septic system will be sited in
open areas to avoid impacting existing forested or wetland areas.
Approximately 52% of Goat Island lies within an U.S. Corps of Engineers easement for
activities that include, but are not limited to, dredge spoil deposition. A portion of the proposed
boardwalk and pier fall within this easement area (see Figure 2). The Corps of Engineers has
indicated that it would not object to the proposed project, provided the property owner is
prepared to remove the pier and/or boardwalk should the Corps decide to exercise its easement
rights. Therefore, this land use component will not be changed.
B. Wetlands
No wetlands will be excavated or filled by the proposed project. Construction of the
boardwalk and pier will shade approximately 120 square feet of marsh and will incorporate
approximately 980 square feet of open water. Temporary construction matting will be utilized
when crossing wetland areas with building materials and equipment. This matting will be
removed immediately following completion of construction.
C. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
Goat Island was created by the placement on and around an upland hummock of dredge
spoil material resulting from the dredging of the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway. The site has
never been used for agricultural activities and there are no significant prime or unique agricultural
land within the project area.
D. Public Lands
To the west of Goat Island is the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway. Approximately 52% of
Goat Island is within an U.S. Corps of Engineers easement for activities that include, but are not
limited to, dredge spoil deposition. A portion of the proposed boardwalk and pier fall within this
easement area. The Corps of Engineers has indicated that it would not object to the proposed
project, provided the property owner is prepared to remove the pier and/or boardwalk should the
Corps decide to exercise its easement rights.
The State of North Carolina claims title to all lands falling below mean high water.
Therefore, the proposed development will encroach onto public lands only from the construction
of the 140' long pier. However, the proposed pier dimensions fall well within the standards of
that which is allowable under the Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission. Numerous piers of
similar or greater length exist along the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway within a 1 mile radius of
Goat Island, and such piers, following regulatory review, are routinely authorized by the Division
of Coastal Management. The pier will end approximately 200 feet from the edge of the
N

maintained Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway channel.
The North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve management plan shows that the
Masonboro Island component boundary encompasses Goat Island. However, the State does not
have title to the island since it is privately owned.
E. Scenic and Recreational Areas
The proposed home will likely be visible from certain locations within the Masonboro
Island Reserve as well as the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway. By leaving the marshes and
forested fringe unharmed, a visual barrier will be maintained and visual impacts minimized.
Although in private ownership, Goat Island is occasionally used for educational field trips.
It is anticipated that these field trips will be reduced following the construction.
The proposed development should have no adverse affect on recreational usage of public
trust waters or on the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway.
F. Archeological Resources
According to information provided by the N.C. Center for Geographical Information
Analysis, no historic structures, sites or properties eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places are known to exist within a 1-mile radius of the project location. No shipwrecks
are known to exist within the project vicinity. During initial permit review, the N.C. Division of
Archives and History offered no objections to the proposed project.
G. Air Quality
No adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated from the construction and use of the
proposed house and associated amenities.
H. Groundwater and Water Quality
The transportation by boat to and from Goat Island, as well as the docking at the
proposed pier should not cause a significant impact to water quality. Slight impacts to water
quality caused by localized turbidity during pier construction are expected, although these impacts
will be temporary. Construction of the house should not have any noticeable impact on water
quality.
Ms. Ketelsleger will be required to obtain a septic system permit from New Hanover
County, and the proper design and permitting of this system should minimize the potential for
groundwater contamination. A possibility does exist that the capabilities of the septic system
could be reduced if the Corps of Engineers were to exercise their dredge spoil disposal easement
rights on the island. While the proposed site of the septic system is approximately 200 feet from
the edge of the Corps of Engineers easement, dewatering of the spoil material could affect the
water table in the area of the septic system. A berm would be placed around the disposal area to
confine the spoil material, but no efforts are anticipated that would prevent seepage of water from

the spoil material into the groundwater. It would, however, be anticipated that any impact on the
septic system would be temporary. Furthermore, the Corps of Engineers has indicated that, due
to the relatively small size of their easement, it is unlikely that spoil material from the maintenance
of the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway will be disposed of on Goat Island.
It should be noted that the N.C. Division of Environmental Management, the state agency
charged with protecting water quality, has offered no objections to the project during the initial
CAMA permit review. No stormwater management plan will be required for the proposed
development.
I. Introduction of Toxic Substances
The proper permitting of the septic system by New Hanover County, of generator fuel
transport by the U.S. Coast Guard and of generator operation and temporary fuel storage by New
Hanover County, will minimize the potential for the introduction of toxic substances into
surrounded waters. Ms. Ketelsleger has indicated that no fuel will be stored on the island, other
than that necessary to operate the generator during an individual visit.
It is anticipated that all solid wastes will be carved off of Goat Island and deposited in
appropriate disposal receptacles.
J. Noise Levels
Noise levels associated with the construction and use of the proposed single-family
residence are expected to be typical of other homes in the general area and are not anticipated to
be of an intensity and/or duration that would be considered a nuisance. The highest noise levels
are expected briefly during certain stages of construction. Intermittent boat traffic to and from
the island should not significantly raise noise levels over the ambient levels currently generated by
Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway traffic. The noise level associated with the occasional operation
of the generator should not exceed the noise levels generated by motorboats in the Atlantic
Intercoastal Waterway.
K. Water Supply
The property owner proposes utilizing a well to supply water to the house. It is not
anticipated that, based upon the intent and scope of the proposed development, a single well will
adversely affect aquifer levels in the area.
The possibility that the Corps of Engineers may at some point in the future place dredge
spoil material on a portion of the island does give rise to the possibility of temporary
contamination of the well water. However, long term impacts to ground water supplies have
apparently not occurred as a result of past disposal activities, and it would be expected any
disruption of well service by spoil disposal activities would be temporary. Furthermore, the Corps
of Engineers has indicated that, due to the relatively small size of their easement, it is unlikely that
spoil material from the maintenance of the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway will be disposed of on
Goat Island.

L. Wildlife
The proposed project will have minimal impacts to surrounding surface waters. The
amount of land disturbing activity has been kept to a minimum, and forested and wetland areas
will not be disturbed, with the exception of the area underneath the boardwalk and pier.
Therefore, the potential impact to wildlife is limited.
M.. Threatened and Endangered Species
Table 1 lists species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened or
endangered for New Hanover County. Brief species descriptions and biological opinions are
provided for these species in Appendix A. Based upon these biological opinions, it is not
anticipated that the proposed project will have an adverse affect on any federally threatened or
endangered species.
Fish
Reptiles
Table 1.
Federally
Threatened (T) and Endangered (E) Species
of New Hanover County
�i]inZi).11:
Bald Eagle .
Peregrine Falcon
Red -cockaded Woodpecker
Piping Plover
Short -nosed Sturgeon
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle
Leatherback Sea Turtle
Green Sea Turtle
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus E.
Falco peregriitus E.
Picoides borealis E.
Charadrius melodus T.
Acipenser brevirostrum E.
Lepidochelys kempi E.
Dermochelys coriacea E.
Chelonia mydas T.
Caretta caretta T.
Plants
Seabeach Amaranth Amaranthus pumilus T.
N. Fish/Shellfish
The current habitat for shellfish and fish may be temporarily disturbed by the construction
of the pier and transportation of equipment to the site. However, these operations will be
completed within a very limited time frame, and, upon their completion, it is anticipated that the
habitat will retain its ability to support the fish and shellfish species in the area. The permanent

shading of 360 sq. ft of coastal marsh and 980 sq. ft. of open water habitat by the pier is not
anticipated to adversely affect fish or shellfish habitat. No closure of any areas open to the taking
of shellfish is anticipated. Furthermore, the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries and the N.C.
Division of Environmental Health offered no objection to the proposed project during initial
CAMA permit review. Therefore, it is not anticipated that fish or shellfish habitat will be
adversely affected by the proposed project.
O. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
Wastewater from the house will be disposed of by way of a septic system. If care is taken
in the design and operation of the system, and if New Hanover County issues the appropriate
septic system permits, adequate protection against eutrophication of receiving waters should be
provided.
P. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project is unlikely to generate secondary impacts or contribute to
cumulative impacts because the project does not involve the construction of any infrastructure
that would give rise to future development. For example, access to the island will be by boat and
pier, and not by a bridge which could provide for wider access to the island. Similarly, the
proposed septic field and generator are sufficient to accommodate only a single family residence.
VIL MITIGATIVE MEASURES
The measures proposed to mininuze or avoid significant adverse impacts are briefly
summarized as follows:
Other than the house, deck and boardwalk, no other structures or impervious surfaces are
proposed. The footprint of the house (912 sq. ft. living space, 456 sq. ft. deck) has been
kept to a minimum.
- No wetlands are to be excavated or filled.
- Temporary construction matting will be utilized when crossing wetlands with building
equipment and materials.
In order to minimize the potential impact to coastal marsh and shallow water habitats, the
proposed boardwalk and pier will not exceed a width of six feet through these areas, and
the structure height in these areas will be at least four feet above ground elevation.
The proposed house will be sited outside of the densely vegetated or sensitive areas of
Goat Island.
No generator fuel will be stored on the island except in times of occupancy.
W

Compliance with the rules of the Coastal Resources Commission must be determined prior
to the issuance of required CAMA permits.
Ms. Ketelsleger will be required to obtain all local building permits and will be required to
comply with all local ordinances.
10

APPENDIX A
Threatened and Endangered Species of New Hanover County
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) - Endangered
Bald eagles area found in North America from Florida to Alaska. The only major nesting
population in the southeast is in Florida, with other nesting occurring in the Coastal Areas of
Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. Migrants and rare nesting pairs do occur elsewhere in
the southeast.
There are several factors that affect an eagles selection of a nest site. Eagle nests are
found in close proximity to water with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in
the area, and having an open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an
eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. Eagle nests are approximately 10 feet across.
The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the major
food source for the bald eagle. Other food sources may include coots, herons and wounded
ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
Based upon evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, no occurrences of
this species have been noted in the project area.
Acipenser brevirostrum (short -nosed sturgeon) - Endangered
The short -nosed sturgeon is a small Q feet in length) species of fish which occurs in the
lower sections of large rivers and in coastal marine habitats from the St. John River, Canada to
the Indian River, Florida. The short -nosed sturgeon prefers deep channels with a salinity less than
sea water. It feeds benthicly on invertebrates and plant material and is most active at night. It is
an anadromous species that spawns upstream in the spring and spends most of its life within close
proximity of the rivers mouth. At least two entirely freshwater populations have been recorded,
in South Carolina and Massachusetts.
The short -nosed sturgeon requires large fresh water rivers that are unobstructed by dams or
pollutants to reproduce successfully.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
While the sturgeon may exist within the project area, it is not anticipated that the pier and
boardwalk will have an affect on the species.
Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) - Threatened
The loggerhead nests on suitable beaches from Ocracoke Inlet, North Carolina through
11

Florida and on a small scale off of the Gulf States. There are also major nesting grounds on the
eastern coast of Australia. It lives worldwide in temperate to subtropical waters.
Loggerheads nest nocturnally between May and September on isolated beaches that are
characterized by fine grained sediments. It is mainly carnivorous feeding on small marine animals.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
The marsh boarder around Goat Island, rapid transition from open water to dense forest
border, lack of substantial beach, and the very coarse nature of the sand on the island would likely
preclude the use of Goat Island by nesting loggerhead turtles. The limited intrusion of the pier
into open water should pose no threat to individual loggerheads. Furthermore, based upon
evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, the closest recorded occurrence of this
species is on the ocean beach more than 3/4 miles from the project location.
Charadrius melodus (piping plover) - Threatened
The piping plover is a small migratory shorebird that resembles a sandpiper. The piping
plover breeds along the east coast from New Foundland to North Carolina. It winters from North
Carolina southward into the Florida Keys and along the Gulf of Mexico. Plovers return to their
breeding grounds in March or early April.
Piping plovers nest in flat areas with fine sand and mixtures of shells and pebbles. They
nest most commonly where there is little or no vegetation, but some may nest in stands of
beachgrass. The nest is a shallow depression in the sand that is usually lined with shells and
pebbles. The piping plover feeds on invertebrates such as insects and marine worms. The piping
plover is very sensitive to human disturbances. The presence of people can cause the plover to
abandon its nest and quit feeding.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
Based upon evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, no occurrences of
this species have been noted in the project area.
Chelonia mydas (green sea turtle) - Threatened
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and tropical oceans and seas. It ranges as far
north as Massachusetts on the east coast and British Columbia in the west. Nesting in North
America is limited to small communities on the east coast of Florida.
The green turtle can be found in shallow waters. They are attracted to lagoons, reefs, bays,
Mangrove swamps and inlets where an abundance of marine grasses can be found, marine grasses
are the principle food source for the green turtle. These turtles require beaches with minimal
disturbances and a sloping platform for nesting (they do not nest in NC).
12

Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
Based upon evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, no occurrences of
this species have been noted in the project area. Because this species does not nest in North
Carolina, the limited encroachment of the proposed development into open water, the mobility of
the green turtle, and the lack of reported sitings, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will
have an affect on this species.
Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea turtle) - Endangered
Leatherbacks are distributed world-wide in tropical waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and
Indian oceans. They range as far north as Nova Scotia and New Foundland and as far south as
Australia and the Cape of Good Hope. Major nesting areas occur in tropical regions and the only
nesting population in the United States is found in Martin County, Florida. Leatherback nesting
occurs from April to August.
Leatherbacks prefer deep waters and are often found near the edge of the continental
shelf. In northern waters they are reported to enter into bays, estuaries, and other inland bodies of
water. Leather back nesting requirements are very specific, they need sandy beaches backed with
vegetation in the proximity of deep water and generally with rough seas. Beaches with a suitable
slope and a suitable depth of coarse dry sand are necessary for the leatherback to nest. Artificial
light has been shown to cause hatchlings to divert away from the sea. Leatherbacks feed mainly
on jellyfish. They are also known to feed on sea urchins, crustaceans, fish, mollusks, tunicates,
and floating seaweed.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program has no record of occurrences of this species in the
project area. Based on the lack of the highly specific nesting characteristics of this species, it is
not anticipated that the proposed project will have an impact on nesting. The limited
encroachment of the proposed development into open water, the mobility of the leatherback
turtle, and the lack of reported sitings, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will have an
affect on this species.
Falco peregrinus (Peregrine falcon) - Endangered
The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the United States in areas with high
cliffs -and open land for foraging. Nesting for the falcons is generally on high cliff ledges, but
they may also nest in broken off tree tops in the eastern deciduous forest and on skyscrapers and
bridges in urban areas. Nesting occurs from mid -March to May.
Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small mammals and birds, including mammals as
large as a woodchuck, birds as large as a duck, and insects. The preferred prey is medium sized
birds such as pigeons. Peregrine falcons are at the top of their food chain and are therefore
extremely sensitive to chemical toxins such as DDT.
13

Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
Based upon evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, no occurrences of
this species have been noted in the project area.
Lepidochelys kempi (Kemp's Ridley's sea turtle) - Endangered
Adult Kemp's Ridley's sea turtles inhabit the Gulf of Mexico, with immature turtles
ranging the east coast as far north as Massachusetts. This turtle is an infrequent visitor to the
North Carolina coast and usually does not nest here. Recently, there have been recordings of
nesting. The primary nesting area for these turtles is a single beach in Mexico.
A majority of this sea turtle's nesting occurs in a 14.9 mile stretch of beach between Barra
del Tordo and Ostioal in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Here the turtles come on shore in mass
to lay their eggs during the day. This can occur as many as three times during the April to June
breeding season.
Kemp's Ridley's sea turtles prefer beach sections that are backed up by extensive swamps
or large bodies of open water having seasonal narrow ocean connections and a well defined
elevated dune area. Kemp's Ridley's sea turtles live in shallow coastal and estuarine waters, in
association with red mangrove trees. Kemp's Ridley's sea turtles feed on crabs, shrimp, snails, sea
urchins, sea stars, medusae, fish, and marine plants.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect.
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program has no record of occurrences of this species in the
project area. Based on the infrequent occurrences of this species in North Carolina Waters, the
rarity of nesting in this region, the limited encroachment of the proposed development into open
water, and the mobility of this turtle, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will have an
affect on this species.
Picoides borealis (red -cockaded woodpecker) - Endangered
The red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to southern
Florida and west to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas,
Oklahoma and Missouri. The RCW is now found only in coastal states of its historic range and
inland in southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations
occur in the sandhills and southern coastal plain. The few populations found in the piedmont and
northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of former populations.
The RCW uses open, old growth stands of southern pine, particularly longleaf pine (Pines
palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack
a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW.
These birds nest exclusively in trees that are greater than 60 years old and are contiguous with
pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 500 acres. This
14

acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting habitat.
The RCW nests exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are infected with
the fungus that causes red -heart disease. Cavities are located 12 to 100 feet above the ground
with an average height of 30 to 50 feet. The cavity can be identified by a large incrustation of
running sap that surrounds the cavity. The large incrustation of sap is believed to be used as a
defense by the RCW against possible predators. A clan of woodpeckers usually consists of one
breeding pair and the offspring from previous years. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May and
June, and the eggs hatch 38 days later. All members of the clan share in raising the young. Red -
cockaded woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may occasionally feed on seasonal fruits.
Biological Conclusion - No Affect
Suitable habitat for this species does not exist on Goat Island.
Amaranthus pumilus (seabeach amaranth) - Threatened
The seabeach amaranth is endemic to beaches of the Atlantic coastal plain. This plant was
historically known from Massachusetts to Florida and is presently confined to 55 known
populations in North Carolina, New York and South Carolina.
Habitat for the seabeach amaranth is found on barrier island beaches functioning in a
relatively dynamic and natural manner. It grows well in overwash flats at the accreting ends of
islands and the lower foredunes and upper strands of non -eroding beaches. Temporary
populations often form in blowouts, sound -side beaches, dredge spoil areas and areas of beach
renourishment. This species is very intolerant of competition and is not usually found in
association with other species.
Biological Opinion - Not Likely to Affect
Based upon evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, no occurrences of
this species have been recorded within 3/4 miles of the project area.
15

Figure 1. Project Location.

Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan

5EP-2,a--1995 14:59 FROM
TO C. MGT. PHLEIGH P.01
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
ATr0RNF,y GENERAL
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
R O. BOX W9
RALEIGH
276c72<1629
—MEMORANDUM—
T(): Doug Huggert
F(tUM: Robin Vv. S 14
Assistant Attorney General
R1 : Goat Island/Ketelsleger Draft Environmental Assessment
September 20, 1995
U PLVTu. R9mu%.imuh
rnv:r.nmeoW Uv.nou
id
iu.1919) "I>o)9)
; hink that it would he advisable to include a brief consideration of
cumulative impacts, since those issues have been raised by opponents of Jhe pri 'wk t. It
ud ne fair to point out. for example, that the project is unlikely to generate secondary impa, t>
or contribute to cumulative impacts because the project does not involve the construction of any
i, f .:tf, cn:rc :hat would fuel further development - e.g., the applicant has proposed a simple pier
.:!:1 L�' `„Kaad water access rather than a bridge to provide land access. The same point could be
trade with regard to the proposal to use a generator as the sole source of power.
An Equal Opprtunit. r Affirmath, .. :zn Employer
1 TOTAL P.01

FfiOM : CHARLIE HOLLIS REGULATORY CONS PHONE NO. : 9103926e33
Sep. 15 1995 09:32RM P02
CHARLIE HOLLIS
REGULATORY CONSULTANT
138 Green forest Drive
Wilmington, NC 28409
910/392-6833 (Phone/PAX)
Sepcomber 1.5, 1995
Project 4_M2 r-- ermi ion
C Iva S. 1CeteJ.sl.eger, Coat Is and;
New-Hanavt=i' -Count , C.
Mr. Roger N. Schecter, Director
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh NC 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Schecter:
Harold Beagle has furnished me a copy of Dave Weaver's letter to you
dated August. 24, 1995 in which he stated several concerns of New Hanover
County about the vacation cottage and pier proposed by Mrs. Ketel.sleger on
her property at Coat Island. I am very familiar with this property, with
its character, its history and ownership over the part 60 years, with the
Corps easement Interests and with the proposal of. Mrs. Ketelsleger who is a
continued close friend since our childhood. i feel compelled to provide my
views about tHis project and some of the comments of Mr. Weaver.
Eva Ketelsleger inherited her interest: in Coat Island from her uncle,
Mr. Early Sanderson who constructed a two-story house on the north end of
the island in the mid-1940's. The house was complete with a water well and
septic tank; no electricity was needed. Mr. Sanderson also constructed a
landing strip for his private airplane and brought goats to the island to
keep the grass cropped along the pathway of the strip. The Sanderson house
survived Hurricane Hazel (1954) but, with the failing health of its owner,
and his less frequent visits, it soon fell to vandalism and decay and
eventually disappeared. _
About 15 months ago, Iva contacted me about helping with the permit
application to build a simple private pier on the island to serve a small.
vacation house on top of one of the high hills there. We began that process
in early .Lune 1994. Eva talked to various people in the New Hanover County
zoning enforcement office and with others in the Planning Department and
with the Corps of Engineers to get advice about how the application should
be prepared. initially, it was to be treated as a "minor CAMA" permit by
the Local CAMA officer (Ms. Ann Hines), but upon filing the application, the
objections from the Director of: the Masonboro Estuarine Reserve caused the
application to be considered under the "Major. CAMA" process. You and your
staff know most of the steps that have taken place since then.
I have provided some additional comments about the island and about the
permit proposal and about Mr. Weaver's comments. I hope they wi.l.l be useful
to you.

FROM : CHARLIE HOLLIS REGULRTORY CONS PHONE NO. : 9103926833 Sep. 15 1995 09:33AM P03
Page 2
Consider these things:
I. Coat Island is an interconnected series of large piles of sand and
shell resulting from the disposal of material. dredged from the Atlantic
Intercoastal Waterway (AIWW) during its construction in the 1.930's and on a
few occasions of maintenance up to about: 1.970. New Hanover County tax maps
indicate that the land above mean high water measures 34.33 acres. During
the AIWW construction, there was no concern for the containment of the
material within the construction/maintenance easement, and vast quantities
of material. was deposited well outside the easement limits, of the six
principle mounds of sand on Coat Island, three are nearly all outside the
easement, and three are nearly all within the easement. All were piled to a
height 1.0 feet. or greater above sea Level.. The Ketelsleger property,
consisting of 18.57 acres, contains the largest tract outside the easement
which is comprised of the two highest interconnected hills in the complex.
Elevations shown on the New Hanover County topo map (No. 77-01) range as
high as +13.8' msl with significant area (about 1.5 acres) above +8' msl.
These two high hills blend together to form a north —south ridge having about
three acres above +7'msl all outside, the easement. The Corps easement
boundary is about 200' west of the crests of these hills and slopes westward
from Life +7 contour 250' to l:he 4.2' .contour (approximate MHW). The lower
slopes of the hills are heavily vegetated (some large pines and yellow
poplar), the upper slopes are aparsly grassed.
2. The `Corps of Engineers, prior to the early 1970's, was not required
to contain it:s dredged material within diked areas. It was common practice
to place the dredge pipe some.distance away from the channel (sometimes in
marsh or on existing spoil. piles) and freely pump the material and allow it
to flow where it wished. In the early 70's the State of North Carolina
began to require all dredged material. to be placed on high ground behind
dikes in a manner that only the return water could flow back, to the estuary.
It is my belief and observation (aerial. photographs, etc.) that no dredged
material. has been placed on the Ketelsloger property (within the easement.)
since that policy change. Further, it would require great effort on the
part of the Corps contractor to bring heavy equipment onto the island and
gouge into the hillside and push great quantities of sand downhill. to form
the. required dike. Given the extremely limited dredging budget for the past
several. years and its even greater future limitations, is is highly unlikely
that those scarce dollars would be spent on that effort when numerous nearby
areas are already lower 'in e.l.evat:ion and/or are already diked (aerial
photographs). )urthermoro the AIWW shoaling in this reach is not a chronic
problem that would cause Like need for the Ketelsleger land to be
anticipated.
3. If Like Corps did decide to use the Ketelsl.eger Casement land, the
resultant spoil material and saltwater placed behind the dikes would reach
an elevation much Less than the hill. crests on which the cottage is proposed
and the outside toe of the closest dike would be more than 200' from the
proposed house or well. or septic tank and significantly downhill. it would
not seem to require a hydrogeol.ogist to conclude _that the saltwater from the
diked area 200-300' down the hill. would not affect the well and/or septic
Lank. Then too, the Corps is required to dredge during the winter when
biological. activity in t:he round is at. its lowest, and a time when the
cottage would be generally closed up.

FROM : CHARLIE HOLLIS REGULATORY CONS PHONE NO. : 9103926833 Sep. 15 1995 09:33AM PO4
Page 3
4. It is inconceivable to me that the infrequent users of the proposed
cottage would be caught in a situation where hurricane evacuation would be
during the storm. The mainland is about 10001 away (slightly more than a
city block). and the and of the new UNOW pier is 450' closer than that.
Seems unusual to require a deeded interest in a mainland location to which
one might evacuate; the residents of the beach communities (Wrightsville,
etc.) are required to evacuate in hurricane situations and certainly few of
them have a deeded place to go. Then, I'm not too sure that staying on Coat.
Island might not be as safe as any...no flying debris, no downed wires, no
loss of electricity or -water, above the 100—year flood elevation...
5. The need for electricity at this cottage would only be an occasional.
thing. This is an island retreat, to be used for vacation times to escape
the morass of the mainland (but apparently not the rules). The generator
would be run to pump a short—term storage of water or provide other`
occnti.onal power, but would not: be run on any long—term continuous basis. A
few gallons of fuel would last several days in such a situation. The well
will also he equipped with a manual pump for intermediate water supply.
6. This is not a subdivision, it is a single small cottage (plans in
the application show 912 sgft living area with 456 sgft deck) for occasional
vacation use. There art no roads or streets, no other buildings other than
a small pump house, and no plans for additional. expansion, Building
materials will be brought over by boat and carried (maybe a wheel —barrow
will be used)"to the construction site and utilized for construction. Trash
and debris will be hauled back to the mainland for proper disposal. Wood
pieces may be burned in the fireplace. This how the Sanderson house was
built and the process worked very well. The plans show a boardwalk on the
ground from the cottage to the pier. The route of this boardwalk can be
adjusted to avoid any easement use the Corps could have.
7. To suggest that access Hurst be provided for EMS, law enforcement,
and fire fighting, personnel seems highly unnecessary and arbitrary .in this
setting. The users of the cottage accept completely the risks that may
attend any vacation time on the island. It seems similar to being out on a
fishing trip where none of these things are available. The "threat to
public safety" is minimal and small; not nearly as great an on the mainland;
and this "isolated island living," is not really very isolated (not as much
as could be desired).
S. Finally, Eva Ketelsl.eger grew up in the Masonboro Sound community'.
She was involved with her father in fishing and shrimping and £arming for a
living there. No one anywhere has a greater sensitivity for protecting the
fragile resources that are found in the round. Without question, the
construction and use of this small retreat cottage will be managed with
utmost care and concern for the (her) environment. indeed, it Is that
environment that she wishes to enjoy at this site.

FROM : CHARLIE HOLLIS REGULATORY CONS PHONE N0. 91039=6833 Sep. 15 1995 09:34RM P05
Page 4
I hope these comments give you a better insight of Coat Island and this
small. project. Many of Mr. Weaver's concerns have been previously addressed
in our correspondence to Tere Barrett (LAMA ConsultanL) and/or in the CAMA
application. If you have further questions, or wish to go to the island,
give me a call.
m
Cho . is
Cy: Eva Ketelsleger
Harold Seagle
Dave Weaver

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
DNision of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
Roger N, Schecter, Director
September 15, 1995
MEMO TO: Preston Pate
John Parker
Robin Smith
John Taggart
FROM: Doug Huggett
,, •
�EHNF=?L
SUBJECT: Goat Island/Ketelsleger Draft Environmental Assessment
Enclosed is a draft copy of the Environmental Assessment for the Ketelsleger/Goat Island
project in New Hanover County. This document is for your review and comment prior to
submittal to the State Clearing House. Roger has asked that you return any comments that you
may have as soon as possible. Due to the fact that this is a draft document, it is also requested
that the document not be offered to anyone else for review at this time.
If you have any questions concerning this issue, please feel free to contact me at (919)
733-2293.
cc: Roger Schecter
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 60% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

P
ENVERONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Single Family Residence
and
Associated Amenities
Goat Island
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Proposed By:
Ms. Eva S. Ketelsleger
Prepared For:
Mr. Roger Schecter
Director
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687
[phone]
September 1995

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Purpose
II. Background
III. Existing Environment
IV. Purpose and Need
V. Alternative Analysis
A. No -Build
B. Construction Of Vacation Home on Alternative Location
C. Preferred Alternative
VI. Existing Environment
A.
Changes in Land Use
B.
Wetlands
C.
Prune or Unique Agricultural Lands
D.
Public Lands
E.
Scenic and Recreational Areas
F.
Archeological Resources
G.
Air Quality
H.
Groundwater and Water Quality
I.
Introduction of Toxic Substances
J.
Noise Levels
K
Water Supply
L.
Wildlife
M.
Threatened and Endangered Species
N.
Fish/SheMh
O.
Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
VII. Mitigative Measures
2
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
0
Appendix A. Threatened and Endangered Species of New Hanover County 10

I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to provide the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), Division of Coastal Management with
a decision -making tool to determine if the single-family structure and associated amenities
proposed for Goat Island in New Hanover County is of such impact on the environment as to
require the preparation of an environmental impact statement.
This document was prepared in accordance with requirements specified in the North
Carolina Administrative Code, Title I - Department of Administration, Chapter 25 - North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act, Section 0.500 - Environmental Assessment.
II. BACKGROUND
Ms. Eva Ketelsleger contacted the Division of Coastal Management in 1994 concerning
permit requirements for the proposed development It was initially determined that the proposed
development was a candidate for a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit exemption
under 15NCAC 7K.0200. However, the applicant was unable to obtain the required approvals of
all adjacent riparian property owners, thereby eliminating the permit exemption. Objections raised
by an adjacent property owner also led the Division to determine that a CAMA Minor
Development Permit was not appropriate in this case, and that a LAMA Major Development
permit would be required.
A CAMA Major Development Pernut was originally applied for on June 7, 1994. The
application was determined to lack certain information required to adequately review the
proposal. Therefore; the application package was returned as incomplete to Ms. Ketelsleger on
June 24, 1994. A revised application was submitted to the Division of Coastal Management on
March 29, 1995, and additional information provided on June 6, 1995. The application package
was accepted as complete for processing at that time, and has since been reviewed by state and
federal environmental review agencies. The state and federal agencies that have provided review
comments on the Ketelsleger permit application are listed below:
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
- N.C. Division of Coastal Management
- N.C. Division of Community Assistance
- N.C. Division of Land Quality
- N.C. Division of Environmental Management
- State Property Office
- N.C. Division of Archives and History
- N.C. Division of Environmental Health
- N.C. Division of Highways
- N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
- N.C. Division of Water Resources
- N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
2

During review of the application, the Division of Coastal Management was informed by Vr
the Attorney General's office that the proposed project was subject to the environmental review
procedures of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) (G.S.113A-1 et. seq.).
The requirements of this Act are that any State agency action affecting the use of public land must
prepare a detailed statement of the environmental impacts of the proposed action. In the case of
this proposal involves construction of the pier over state-owned submerged lands.
Rules governing the processing of CAMA Major Development Permits require that any
project subject to review under NCEPA must have the appropriate environmental assessment
document as part of the application before the application can be considered complete for
processing (15NCAC 7J.0204(b)(8)). Consequently, the processing of the CAMA application
was suspended pending compliance with NCEPA.
III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
, Goat Island, a private estuarine island lying within the boundaries of, but not a deeded part
of, the Masonboro Island Estuarine Research Preserve, in New Hanover County (see Figure 1).
The island, which is in the vicinity of the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway channel marker 139, was
formed about 1935 by the placement of dredge spoil material on and around an upland hummock.
The average elevation of the island is approximately 15' above MSL. Approximately 52% of
Goat Island is within U.S. Army Corps of Engineers right of way, which has been used previously
for dredge spoil disposal (see Figure 2). Goat Island is approximately 34 acres in size and is
currently divided into three tracts. The Ketelsleger tract, which is at the north end of Goat Island,
is 18.57 acres in size. The title to and ownership of this tract have not been disputed by either the
State Property Office or the Submerged Lands Section of the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries.
Goat Island is bordered by a wide expanse of regularly flooded Spartina alterniflora
marsh to the east, and the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway to the west. The perimeter of Goat
Island is wooded primarily with loblolly pine, with dense understory vegetation such as wax
myrtle, sweet gum, red maple and cat briar. The inner portion is sparsely vegetated, with a very
sandy substrate with a high concentration of shell fragments. No development currently exists on
the island.
The surface waters surrounding Goat Island are designated as SA-ORW. SA waters are
tidal salt waters suitable for production of shellfish for market purposes, Iprimary recreation,
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife and secondary recreation. Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) are those estuarine waters and public trust areas that are determined by
the N.C. Environmental Management Commission to be of exceptional state or national
recreational or ecological significance. The waters surrounding Goat Island are also classified as a
Primary Nursery Area, and are open to the taking of shellfish.
New Hanover County has zoned Goat Island for residential development under the R-20
residential zone. Goat Island also has a land use classification of Conservation.

IV. PURPOSE AND NEED
The applicant, Ms. Eva Ketelsleger, wishes to utilize the proposed development as a
vacation residence.
V. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
A. No -build Alternative
The no -build alternative would eliminate potential impacts to the natural environment in
the vicinity of Goat Island, but would deny the applicant the right to utilize her property.
B. Construction of Vacation Home on Alternative Location
Construction at an alternative location on Goat Island would have similar impacts to that
which is proposed. Construction of a vacation home at an alternative location off of Goat Island
would eliminate potential impacts to the natural environment, but would deny the applicant the
right to utilize her property. It is impossible at this point to determine what impacts may be
associated with construction of Ms. Ketelsleger's vacation residence at an unspecified alternative
location off of Goat Island.
C. Preferred Alternative
The proposal is to construct a single family residence on the northern end of Goat Island,
with a pier extending westward towards the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway (see Figure 2). The
residence is to be constructed east of the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway right of way. At its
closest point, the home will be approximately 160 feet from mean high water. The home will be
serviced by a well and septic system, and electricity will be provided through the use of a gasoline
generator, with generator fuel transported to the island during visits. Ms. Ketelsleger has
indicated that no fuel will be stored on the island except during periods of occupancy. The
proposed home and deck have a total footprint of 1368 square feet. There will be no associated
patios, driveways or other impervious surfaces. Approximately 0.5 acres will be graded to
accommodate construction of the house and associated well and septic systems.
A boardwalk is proposed which will connect the home to the proposed pier to the west.
The boardwalk will be approximately 350 feet long and 4 feet wide. The pier will be six feet
wide, and will extend for 160 feet, with 20 feet above mean high water, 60 feet over Spartina
alternif fora and 80 feet over open water. The pier will connect to a 20 foot by 25 foot T-head.
Water depth under the T-head will be approximately 3.8 feet below mean low water. The T-head
will terminate approximately 200 feet from the edge of the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway
11

VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A. Changes in Land Use
The land upon which this project is proposed is currently undeveloped. The proposed
development would change the land use to low density residential, but would not alter the land
use of any surrounding properties. The proposed house, well and septic system will be sited in
open areas to avoid impacting existing forested or wetland areas.
Approximately 52% of Goat Island lies within an U.S. Corps of Engineers easement for
activities that include, but are not limited to, dredge spoil deposition. A portion of the proposed
boardwalk and pier fall within this easement area (see Figure 2). The Corps of Engineers has
indicated that it would not object to the proposed project, provided the property owner is
prepared to remove the pier and/or boardwalk should the Corps decide to exercise its easement
rights. Therefore, this land use component will not be changed.
B. Wetlands
No wetlands will be excavated or filled by the proposed project. Construction of the
boardwalk and pier will shade approximately 120 square feet of marsh and will incorporate
approximately 980 square feet of open water. Temporary construction matting will be utilized
when crossing wetland areas with building materials and equipment. This.matting will be
removed immediately following completion of construction.
C. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
Goat Island .was created by the placement on and around an upland hummock of dredge
spoil material resulting from the dredging of the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway. The site has
never been used for agricultural activities and there are no significant prime or unique agricultural
land within the project area.
D. Public Lands
To the west of Goat Island is the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway. Approximately 52% of
Goat Island is within an U.S. Corps of Engineers easement for activities that include, but are not
limited to, dredge spoil deposition. A portion of the proposed boardwalk and pier fall within this
easement area. The Corps of Engineers has indicated that it would not object to the proposed
project, provided the property owner is prepared to remove the pier and/or boardwalk should the
Corps decide to exercise its easement rights.
The State of North Carolina claims title to all lands falling below mean high water.
Therefore, the proposed development will encroach onto public lands only from the construction
of the 140' long pier. However, the proposed pier dimensions fall well within the standards of
that which is allowable under the Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission. Numerous piers of
similar or greater length exist along the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway within a 1 mile radius of
Goat Island, and such piers, following regulatory review, are routinely authorized by the Division
of Coastal Management. The pier will end approximately 200 feet from the edge of the

))kq
maintained Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway channel. Pr
The North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve management plan shows that the
Masonboro Island component boundary encompasses Goat Island. However, the State does not
have title to the island since it is privately owned.
E. Scenic and Recreational Areas
The proposed home will likely be visible from certain locations within the Masonboro
Island Reserve as well as the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway. By leaving the marshes and
forested fringe unharmed, a visual barrier will be maintained and visual impacts minimized.
Although in private ownership, Goat Island is occasionally used for educational field trips.
It is anticipated that these field trips will be reduced following the construction.
The proposed development should have no adverse affect on recreational usage of public
trust waters or on the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway.
F. Archeological Resources
According to information provided by the, N.C. Center for Geographical Information
Analysis, no historic structures, sites or properties eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places are known to exist within a 1-mile radius of the project location. No shipwrecks
are known to exist within the project vicinity. During initial permit review, the N.C. Division of
Archives and History offered no objections to the proposed project.
G. Air Quality
No adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated from the construction and use of the
proposed house and associated amenities.
H. Groundwater and Water Quality
The transportation by boat to and from Goat Island, as well as the docking at the
proposed pier should not cause a significant impact to water quality. Slightimpacts to water
quality caused by localized turbidity during pier construction are expected, although these impacts
will be temporary. Construction of the house should not have any noticeable impact on water
quality.
Ms. Ketelsleger will be required to obtain a septic system permit from New Hanover
County, and the proper design and permitting of this system should minimize the potential for
groundwater contamination. A possibility does exist that the capabilities of the septic system
could be reduced if the Corps of Engineers were to exercise their dredge spoil disposal easement
rights on the island. While the proposed site of the septic system is approximately 200 feet from
the edge of the Corps of Engineers easement, dewatering of the spoil material could affect the
water table in the area of the septic system. A berm would be placed around the disposal area to
confine the spoil material, but no efforts are anticipated that would prevent seepage of water from

f �
i
the spoil material into the groundwater. It would, however, be anticipated that any impact on the
septic system would be temporary. Furthermore, the Corps of Engineers has indicated that, due
to the relatively small size of their easement, it is unlikely that spoil material from the maintenance
of the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway will be disposed of on Goat Island.
It should be noted that the N.C. Division of Environmental Management, the state agency
charged with protecting water quality, has offered no objections to the project during the initial
CAMA permit review. No stormwater management plan will be required for the proposed
development
I. Introduction of Toxic Substances
The proper permitting of the septic system by New Hanover County, of generator fuel
transport by the U.S. Coast Guard and of generator operation and temporary fuel storage by New
Hanover County, will minimize the potential for the introduction of toxic substances into
surrounded waters. Ms. Ketelsleger has indicated that no fuel will be stored on the island, other
than that necessary to operate the generator during an individual visit
It is anticipated that all solid wastes will be carried off of Goat Island and deposited in
appropriate disposal receptacles.
J. Noise Levels
Noise levels associated with the construction and use of the proposed single-family
residence are expected to be typical of other homes in the general area and are not anticipated to
be of an intensity and/or duration that would be considered a nuisance. The highest noise levels
are expected briefly during certain stages of construction. Intermittent boat traffic to and from
the island should not significantly raise noise levels over the ambient levels currently generated by
Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway traffic. The noise level associated with the occasional operation
of the generator should not exceed the noise levels generated by motorboats in the Atlantic
Intercoastal Waterway.
K. Water Supply
The property owner proposes utilizing a well to supply water to the house. It is not
anticipated that, based upon the intent and scope of the proposed development, a single well will
adversely affect aquifer levels in the area.
The possibility that the Corps of Engineers may at some point in the future place dredge
spoil material on a portion of the island does give rise to the possibility of temporary
contamination of the well water. However, long term impacts to ground water supplies have
apparently not occurred as a result of past disposal activities, and it would be expected any
disruption of well service by spoil disposal activities would be temporary. Furthermore, the Corps
of Engineers has indicated that, due to the relatively small size of their easement, it is unlikely that
spoil material from the maintenance of the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway will be disposed of on
Goat Island.
7

L. Wildlife
The proposed project will have minimal impacts to surrounding surface waters. The
amount of land disturbing activity has been kept to a minimum, and forested and wetland areas
will not be disturbed, with the exception of the area underneath the boardwalk and pier.
Therefore, the potential impact to wildlife is limited.
M. Threatened and Endangered Species
Table 1 lists species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened or
endangered for New Hanover County. Brief species descriptions and biological opinions are
provided for these species in Appendix A. Based upon these biological opinions, it is not
anticipated that the proposed project will have an adverse affect on any federally threatened or
endangered species.
Fish
Reptiles
Table 1.
Federally
Threatened (T) and Endangered (E) Species
of New Hanover County
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
Red -cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis
Piping Plover
Short -nosed Sturgeon
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle
Leatherback Sea Turtle
Green Sea Turtle
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
Charadrius melodus
Acipenser brevirostrum
Lepidochelys kempi
Dermochelys coriacea
Chelonia mydas
Caretta caretta
WEN
E.
E.
E.
T.
E.
E.
E.
T.
T:
Plants
Seabeach Amaranth Amaranthus pumilus T.
N. Fish/Shellfish
The current habitat for shellfish and fish may be temporarily disturbed by the construction
of the pier and transportation of equipment to the site. However, these operations will be
completed within a very limited time frame, and, upon their completion, it is anticipated that the
habitat will retain its ability to support the fish and shellfish species in the area. The permanent

-DRA.Fr
shading of 360 sq. ft. of coastal marsh and 980 sq. ft. of open water habitat by the pier is not
anticipated to adversely affect fish or shellfish habitat. No closure of any areas open to the taking
of shellfish is anticipated. Furthermore, the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries and the N.C.
Division of Environmental Health offered no objection to the proposed project during initial
CAMA permit review. Therefore, it is not anticipated that fish or shellfish habitat will be
adversely affected by the proposed project
O. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
Wastewater from the house will be disposed of by way of a septic system. If care is taken
in the design and operation of the system, and if New Hanover County issues the appropriate
septic system permits, adequate protection against eutrophication of receiving waters should be
provided.
VII. MITIGATIVE MEASURES
The measures proposed to minimize or avoid significant adverse impacts are briefly
summarized as follows:
Other than the house, deck and boardwalk, no other structures or impervious surfaces are
proposed. The footprint of the house (912 sq. ft. living space, 456 sq. ft. deck) has been
kept to a minimum.
- No wetlands are to be excavated or filled.
Temporary construction matting will be utilized when crossing wetlands with building
equipment and materials:
In order to minimize the potential impact to coastal marsh and shallow water habitats, the
proposed boardwalk and pier will not exceed a width of six feet through these areas, and
the structure height in these areas will be at least four feet above ground elevation.
The proposed house will be sited outside of the densely vegetated or sensitive areas of
Goat Island.
No generator fuel will be stored on the island except in times of occupancy.
Compliance with the rules of the Coastal Resources Commission must be determined prior
to the issuance of required CAMA permits.
Ms. Ketelsleger will be required to obtain all local building permits and will be required to
comply with all local ordinances.

APPENDIX A
Threatened and Endangered Species of New Hanover County
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) - Endangered
Bald eagles area found in North America from Florida to Alaska. The only major nesting
population in the southeast is in Florida, with other nesting occurring in the Coastal Areas of
Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. Migrants and rare nesting pairs do occur elsewhere in
the southeast.
There are several factors that affect an eagles selection of a nest site. Eagle nests are
found in close proximity to water with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in
the area, and having an open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an
eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. Eagle nests are approximately 10 feet across.
The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the major
food source for the bald eagle. Other food sources may include coots, herons and wounded
ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
Based upon evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, no occurrences of
this species have been noted in the project area.
Acipenser brevirostrum (short -nosed sturgeon) - Endangered
The short -nosed sturgeon is a small Q feet in length) species of fish which occurs in the
lower sections of large rivers and in coastal marine habitats from the St. John River, Canada to
the Indian River, Florida. The short -nosed sturgeon prefers deep channels with a salinity less than
sea water. It feeds benthicly on invertebrates and plant material and is most active at night. It is
an anadromous species that spawns upstream in the spring and spends most of its life within close
proximity of the rivers mouth. At least two entirely freshwater populations have been recorded,
in South Carolina and Massachusetts.
The short -nosed sturgeon requires large fresh water rivers that are unobstructed by dams or
pollutants to reproduce successfully.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
While the sturgeon may exist within the project area, it is not anticipated that the pier and
boardwalk will have an affect on the species.
Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) - Threatened
The loggerhead nests on suitable beaches from Ocracoke Inlet, North Carolina through
10

Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
Based upon evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, no occurrences of
this species have been noted in the project area. Because this species does not nest in North
Carolina, the limited encroachment of the proposed development into open water, the mobility of
the green turtle, and the lack of reported sitings, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will
have an affect on this species.
Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea turtle) - Endangered
Leatherbacks are distributed world-wide in tropical waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and
Indian oceans. They range as far north as Nova Scotia and New Foundland and as far south as
Australia and the Cape of Good Hope. Major nesting areas occur in tropical regions and the only
nesting population in the United States is found in Martin County, Florida. Leatherback nesting
occurs from April to August.
Leatherbacks prefer deep waters and are often found near the edge of the continental
shelf. In northern waters they are reported to enter into bays, estuaries, and other inland bodies of
water. Leather back nesting requirements are very specific, they need sandy beaches backed with
vegetation in the proximity of deep water and generally with rough seas. Beaches with a suitable
slope and a suitable depth of coarse dry sand are necessary for the leatherback to nest. Artificial
light has been shown to cause hatchlings to divert away from the sea. Leatherbacks feed mainly
on jellyfish. They are also known to feed on sea urchins, crustaceans, fish, mollusks, tunicates,
and floating seaweed.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program has no record of occurrences of this species in the
project,area. Based on the lack of the highly specific nesting characteristics of this species, it is
not anticipated that the proposed project will have an impact on nesting. The limited
encroachment of the proposed development into open water, the mobility of the leatherback
turtle, and the lack of reported sitings, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will have an
affect on this species.
Falco peregrinus (Peregrine falcon) -Endangered
The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the United States in areas with high
cliffs and open land for foraging. Nesting for the falcons is generally on high cliff ledges, but
they may also nest in broken off tree tops in the eastern deciduous forest and on skyscrapers and
bridges in urban areas. Nesting occurs from mid -March to May.
Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small mammals and birds, including mammals as
large as a woodchuck, birds as large as a duck, and insects. The preferred prey is medium sized
birds such as pigeons. Peregrine falcons are at the top of their food chain and are therefore
extremely sensitive to chemical toxins such as DDT.
12

-DRAFT -
Florida and on a small scale off of the Gulf States. There are also major nesting grounds on the
eastern coast of Australia. It lives worldwide in temperate to subtropical waters.
Loggerheads nest nocturnally between May and September on isolated beaches that are
characterized by fine grained sediments. It is mainly carnivorous feeding on small marine animals.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
The marsh boarder around Goat Island, rapid transition from open water to dense forest
border, lack of substantial beach, and the very coarse nature of the sand on the island would likely
preclude the use of Goat Island by nesting loggerhead turtles. The limited intrusion of the pier
into open water should pose no threat to individual loggerheads. Furthermore, based upon
evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, the closest recorded occurrence of this
species is on the ocean beach more than 3/4 miles from the project location.
Charadrius melodus (piping plover) - Threatened
The piping plover is a small migratory shorebird that resembles a sandpiper. The piping
plover breeds along the east coast from New Foundland to North Carolina. It winters from North
Carolina southward into the Florida Keys and along the Gulf of Mexico. Plovers return to their
breeding grounds in March or early April.
Piping plovers nest in flat areas with fine sand and mixtures of shells and pebbles. They
nest most commonly where there is little or no vegetation, but some may nest in stands of
beachgrass. The nest is a shallow depression in the sand that is usually lined with shells and
pebbles. The piping plover feeds on invertebrates such as insects and marine worms. The piping
plover is very sensitive to human disturbances. The presence of people can cause the plover to
abandon its nest and quit feeding.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
Based upon evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, no occurrences of
this species have been noted in the project area.
Chelonia mydas (green sea turtle) - Threatened
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and tropical oceans and seas. It ranges as far
north as Massachusetts on the east coast and British Columbia in the west. Nesting in North
America is limited to small communities on the east coast of Florida.
The green turtle can be found in shallow waters. They are attracted to lagoons, reefs, bays,
Mangrove swamps and inlets where an abundance of marine grasses can be found, marine grasses
are the principle food source for the green turtle. These turtles require beaches with minimal
disturbances and a sloping platform for nesting (they do not nest in NC).
lfl

D
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect
Based upon evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, no occurrences of
this species have been noted in the project area.
Lepidochelys kempi (Kemp's Ridley's sea turtle) - Endangered
Adult Kemp's Ridley's sea turtles inhabit the Gulf of Mexico, with immature turtles
ranging the east coast as far north as Massachusetts. This turtle is an infrequent visitor to the
North Carolina coast and usually does not nest here. Recently, there have been recordings of
nesting. The primary nesting area for these turtles is a single beach in Mexico.
A majority of this sea turtle's nesting occurs in a 14.9 mile stretch of beach between Barra
del Tordo and Ostioal in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Here the turtles come on shore in mass
to lay their eggs during the day. This can occur as many as three times during the April to June
breeding season.
Kemp's Ridley's sea turtles prefer beach sections that are backed up by extensive swamps
or large bodies of open water having seasonal narrow ocean connections and a well defined
elevated dune area. Kemp's Ridley's sea turtles live in shallow coastal and estuarine waters, in
association with red mangrove trees. Kemp's Ridley's sea turtles feed on crabs, shrimp, snails, sea
urchins, sea stars, medusae, fish; and marine plants.
Biological Conclusion - Not Likely to Affect.
The N.C.Natural Heritage Program has no record of occurrences of this species in the
project area. Based on the infrequent occurrences of this species in North Carolina Waters, the
rarity of nesting in this region, the limited encroachment of the proposed development into open
water, and the mobility of this turtle, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will have an
affect on this species.
Picoides borealis (red -cockaded woodpecker) - Endangered
The red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to southern
Florida and west to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky; Tennessee, Arkansas,
Oklahoma and Missouri. The RCW is now found only in coastal states of its historic range and
inland in southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations
occur in the sandhills and southern coastal plain. The few populations found in the piedmont and
northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of former populations.
The RCW uses open, old growth stands of southern pine, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack
a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW.
These birds nest exclusively in trees that are greater than 60 years old and are contiguous with
pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 500 acres. This

_Dk
acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting habitat A.
The RCW nests exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are infected with
the fungus that causes red -heart disease. Cavities are located 12 to 100 feet above the ground
with an average height of 30 to 50 feet The cavity can be identified by a large incrustation of
running sap that surrounds the cavity. The large incrustation of sap is believed to be used as a
defense by the RCW against possible predators. A clan of woodpeckers usually consists of one
breeding pair and the offspring from previous years. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May and
June, and the eggs hatch 38 days later. All members of the clan share in raising the young. Red -
cockaded woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may occasionally feed on seasonal fruits.
Biological Conclusion - No Affect
Suitable habitat for this species does not exist on Goat Island.
Amaranthus pumilus (seabeach amaranth) -Threatened
The seabeach amaranth is endemic to beaches of the Atlantic coastal plain. This plant was
historically known from Massachusetts to Florida and is presently confined to 55 known
populations in North Carolina, New York and South Carolina.
Habitat for the seabeach amaranth is found on barrier island beaches functioning in a
relatively dynamic and natural manner. It grows well in overwash flats at the accreting ends of
islands and the lower foredunes and upper strands of non -eroding beaches. Temporary
populations often form in blowouts, sound -side beaches, dredge spoil areas and areas of beach
renourishment This,species is very intolerant of competition and is not usually found in
association with other species.
Biological Opinion - Not Likely to Affect
Based upon evidence provided by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, no occurrences of
this species have been recorded within 3/4 miles of the project area.
14

r4
on
w

3.91 A ES
,WOFALL /M.VERTIe, %WC. a —OP
_ATWW Easement R/W
�fTB1[t �
=,yMP[pASTAL W A7ER•+1 AY
9.q1 ACRES \
LAEEY S/.NDESE 4
TEaESP Eu,4 SANWQR
0.9T ACEES
Proposed
Pier
M1
Proposed
Boardwalk /
-Pump I R•IBI.E Res
/ House E A KEiE$f4ER /
EVA Kfi?E4S�EE.ER
ATWW Easement R/W
� 0.4c 4cEESA`
0.94 A4EHouse — \
—r Septic Field
Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan

S
ve 7C.l e/ w.1�i Qo� -5� / %1 l , G•.�• _ofe!`+!•ions
YDtec/y - e S�o.l eusernm-f Fo
f �ro�ecProject}'lt, no¢�e r fe,: �7-c
k\ (s lei •Pt �1 plo�etf, -,"�E S�n;� �,at r�
- - --.LWas..
�fa_ v.f.l;ae -- t----.. s-4r a, O'sti'/ n rle. woa C( .
•i VSC 6e /(+15 4nc/ wo✓/d �r XV c� o _ -e ey se r7l. ?
-... PCa,evt.n .. �e ..._ y./sp.--sti c1_ ..-�s1. --6u sect :..on .:71e sue, %/ ..:._...
.. i
-------....--------i-S�.�2_-_�'Y'---�'�i P.GSPr+,Pnf
_VnIIt-.p 1. 77,y*._.7;�ConPs ...w,// vf�;�e.--> eeSPnP��
�I �'� _key{�s lPyeti...-T��c-f; ._k �tho✓yG� _ t6Qy Goo �iaf wtinf'
e;rGsemenf/ ` /,fs
i.. _._Conleln;r5 -`�^i ...... m_.__...�i16,._rt{lsley�r .mti� �uLe- _r...
Was 4//1 CgWu/e .. aY un s:.r .14r S j`r uf;u✓r5.. �J� c1 wti s I3¢2'Yc/e
_ . - _.. .
- -- `n r3 CRSL
bV'AA
�
1k Co rpm f r yA 1s . P,lC , � —

GFARGEROUNIRFP,JR.
(1904-1979)
GEORGE ROUNIREE, M
J. HAROLD SFAGLE
CHARIES M. L NEBERRY.JR.
" -
RO=I EE & SEAGLE L.L.P. `—�
ATTORNEYS AT LAW MARINO ADDRESS
2419MARKEISPREET
W RMPJGIUN, NORTH CAROUNA 2M
DOLORES M. WRIIAMS
GEOFFREYA. LOSEE�
JOHN S. AUSTIN 't.V"
GEORGE K. FREEMAN,JR. September 13, 1995 g 'SE�E�VE�
OfCo�1 j�
SEp 20 1995
� i,tinsfA�
titrr:,,c�n;E�l
rn
L
VIA TELECOPIER AND U. S. MAIL
Mr. Roger N. Schecter
State of North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Re: Eva S. Ketelsleger
Application for CAMA Major Permit
Goat Island
Our File No. 6500.003
Dear Mr. Schecter:
P.O.B. 1409
WEmi %NC2840L1409
TELEPHONE [phone]
FACSIMRb 910-763-0320
We have now received copies of David Weaver's letter of August
14 in the above matter regarding his concerns about policies within
the New Hanover County Land Use Plan and his letter of August 24
which includes suggested "measures [Mrs. Ketelsleger] could employ
so that [her] proposed development may be consistent with ... the
Plan." We appreciate the efforts of the Division of Coastal
Management to keep us informed. This letter is in response to Mr.
Weaver's concerns and suggestions.
Mr. Weaver's list of "specific violations" of the above policy
are conclusory in nature and consistent with the County's continual
modification of its position, which has been modified each time
Mrs. Ketelsleger has met the County's prior concerns.
"The Land Use Plan is intended to provide substantial
guidance" ... but it "is not law in the sense of an ordinance. "
Wilmington - New Hanover County Land Use Plan, Page 1. Though Mr.
Weaver cites numerous provisions which he claims support
disapproval, approval of the proposed project is permissible under
the Land Use Plan. The Plan states that innovative and flexible.

Mr. Roger N. Schecter
Page Two
September 13, 1995
development standards shall be developed to insure availability of
housing types. To date, the County's actions have shown only
innovative methods to block Mrs. Ketelsleger's development. Mr.
Weaver's endless pursuit of "obstacles" overlooks the fact that the
County Commissioners of New Hanover County zoned this very property
for residential development.
In response to the specific concerns raised in Mr. Weaver's
invocation of the Land Use Plan, the following information is
provided:
1) "PROPER MEASURES HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY TAKEN FOR HURRICANE
EVACUATION."
COUNTY's CONCERN
a. Distance to mainland pier is "unreasonably long and
dangerous."
b. Ownership of mainland evacuation site "not attached to
title for Goat Island."
C. Loss of easement from Corp of Engineers would prevent use
of Goat Island Pier.
d. "[A]t no time did Planning staff state that the
applicant's proposal would constitute proper and safe
hurricane evacuation for residential development."
RESPONSE
a. Mr. Weaver suggests that "no reasonable person can say
that an approximately 25 mile boat ride is a proper measure for
hurricane evacuation". The bridge and road network being an
unrealistic option, the logical and proper method of evacuation is
by boat.
The key to a safe and proper evacuation is information. With
the current state of weather forecasting technology and hurricane
tracking ability, as well as the multi -media dissemination of that
vital weather information, it is hard to take Mr. Weaver's stated
concern seriously. As was vividly demonstrated by New Hanover
County Emergency Management's response to Hurricane Felix, an early
warning to area residents, allowing evacuation long before it would
be necessary to cross turbulent waters, may reasonably be relied
upon.
ROUNTREE & SEAGLE, L.L.P.
WI MINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Roger N. Schecter
Page Three
September 13, 1995
The June 24, 1994 letter from Tere Barrett, Division of
Coastal Management, indicated that access "would require a place to
leave your vessel and access from this location to a place of
safety. This may be as simple as obtaining an easement from a
friend to waterfront property on the mainland who has a docking
facility adequate to moor your vessel." In response to that
requirement, Mrs. Ketelsleger indicated that she owns and has ready
access to a pier on Topsail Island which has previously been
acceptable and has never been the subject of an objection. The
County's attempt to place a distance factor on the requirement for
access off the island adds an additional arbitrary burden.
Mr. Weaver's August 24 letter suggests that the construction
of a permanent bridge and road network would be the preferred
method of evacuation from Goat Island. Mr. Weaver's suggestion
fails to consider the significantly more dramatic effect on the
area of environmental concern which would be caused by installation
of a permanent bridge. This suggestion is simply another
innovative and rather transparent effort to block Mrs.
Ketelsleger's use of her property by imposing upon her a monumental
burden for no reasonable purpose.
b. We do not know how the County could impose a more
exacting requirement then that Mrs. Ketelsleger have outright
unrestricted ownership of the mainland facility. In fact, the
County previously suggested to Mrs. Ketelsleger that the Topsail
property was fine.
Despite Mr. Weaver's insistence on ownership of a mainland
access point for evacuation, even if Mrs. Ketelsleger did not have
mainland access (which she does), the common law of North Carolina
has recognized the defense of "necessity" in the law of trespass
for over 100 years. According to the doctrine of necessity, one is
privileged to enter and remain on land in the possession of another
if such entry is, or reasonably appears to be, necessary to save
the actor from death or peril. As such, should the inhabitants of
Goat Island require some emergency evacuation, the physical point
of their landing is virtually irrelevant. In any event, this added
security is not necessary as Mrs. Ketelsleger does own mainland
access.
C. Mr. Weaver's statement that the applicant's easement from
the Corps of Engineers is temporary is misleading. Mrs.
Ketelsleger's permit application proposes a pier structure which is
a permissible use, clearly within the CAMA permit regulations. The
CAMA regulations regarding construction and placement of piers were
obviously issued with full knowledge of the scope of the Corps of
Engineers' easement. Indeed, virtually every one of the piers
ROUNTREE & SEAGLE, L,L.P.
WILMINMON, NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Roger N. Schecter
Page Four
September 13, 1995
which border the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway throughout the
State are subject to the Corps' easement. It is because of the
easement that the regulations regarding the size and placement of
piers were developed. Mr. Weaver's evocation of the possibility of
a change in the Corps' treatment of that easement is characteristic
of the County's obstructionist tactics and protean position
evidenced in this matter.
d. Andrew Olsen's letter of November 14, 1994 discusses the
form/method of title/interest in Topsail Island property to be used
as evacuation point, never hinting that the location itself was
subject to question. As there has never been a suggestion of a
distance requirement, we would like to know what distance would
find the County's favor and what justification exists for any such
requirement. We should certainly be allowed to respond to a
clearly stated distance requirement rather than have the permit
denied based upon our inability to divine a solution to an
undefined "problem".
2) "PROPER MEASURES HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN FOR THE PROVISION OF
UTILITIES."
COUNTY'S CONCERNS
a. Septic field may become saturated and non-functioning.
b. Well for potable water threatened by saltwater intrusion.
C. Gasoline is not safe fuel for generator.
d. Limited supply of fuel may result in loss of power during
hurricane.
RESPONSE
a. Mr. Weaver's suggestion that "the preferred method for
water and sewer provisions would be the installation of water and
sewer lines crossing to the mainland to appropriate water and sewer
utilities", again fails to consider the environmental impact of
such an installation and suggests an incredibly unrealistic and
over burdensome solution to a non-existent problem.
Mrs. Ketelsleger has proposed to use a septic tank as
authorized by permit. On December 29, 1993, Cathy H. Timpy,
R.S.I., New Hanover County Environmental Health Division, indicated
that the County Health Department was in the process of reviewing
the application for on -site sewage disposal. At that time, the
County Health Department indicated that it had three concerns:
ROUNTREE & SEAGLE, L.L.P.
WRMWMN, NORTH CAROUNA

Mr. Roger N. Schecter
Page Five
September 13, 1995
(i) Whether the property is part of the Masonboro Island
System;
(ii) Whether development will require a CAMA permit and
delineation of CAMA setbacks; and
(iii) A determination from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers as to the presence of designated wetlands and
any assigned buffer to the development on that property.
With regards to each issue, Mrs. Ketelsleger has responded
promptly. The island is not part of the reserve program; the
project designs incorporate all required setbacks and the Corps
voiced no objections to the proposed development. (See January 7,
1994 letter from Clifford Winefordner: "your proposed work is
authorized if you can comply with all general permit conditions".)
Mr. Weaver indicates that the County has invested millions of
dollars for a sewer system designed at least partially to minimize
estuarine pollution. The County's efforts in minimizing estuarine
pollution is certainly admirable; however, the County's sewer
system is irrelevant in this case. Mr. Weaver's attempt to impose
the requirement that Goat Island could only be developed if
completely linked to County sewer and water fails to recognize that
literally thousands of residences in New Hanover County exist
without County water and sewer.
His speculation that a septic field installed on Goat Island
might become saturated and non-functioning is without foundation
and evidences a remarkable lack of concern for Mrs. Ketelsleger's
rights to use her property. This strange speculation is based on
the further speculation that the Corps,will deposit dredged spoil
on Goat Island, and that, in some mysterious fashion, the spoil so
deposited would effect the septic system. The fact that this
"concern" was not raised almost two years ago is a further
indication of the arbitrary application of transitory "standards"
to Mrs. Ketelsleger's permit. Furthermore, by her May 24, 1994
letter, Cathy Timpy, R.S.I., indicated that only information
regarding her "Item 2" (CAMA setback requirement) was lacking
regarding the issuance of a septic permit based on the plans Mrs.
Ketelsleger had submitted to New Hanover County Health Department.
At that time, Mrs. Ketelsleger had no indication that someone
employed by the County was of the opinion that her septic system
would be subject to something more or different than any other
septic system in the County. As I am sure Mr. Weaver knows,
even if a traditional septic tank system would not work, there are
other methods of properly and lawfully disposing of sewage which
the County could and has approved. Mrs. Ketelsleger would expect
ROUNTREE & SEAGLE, L.L.P.
VVIIIANGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Roger N. Schecter
Page Six
September 13, 1995
her County government to share this sort of information with her if
there was a genuine concern for her welfare.
b. The suggestion of the possibility of saltwater incursion
into a functioning well is pure speculation and could not
reasonably be the basis for denying a permit. Mrs. Ketelsleger
could always use a portable water supply.
C. Mr. Weaver's suggestion that "the preferred proper
measure for energy supply would be to run an electric line over the
island from the mainland" again fails to recognize the
environmental impact of such an undertaking and disregards the lack
of necessity for such a drastic measure.
Mrs. Ketelsleger's proposal to use a gasoline powered
generator, and haul only enough fuel to last each trip, represents
a reasonable manner to provide electricity to a residence which is
used on a transitory basis.
Mr. Weaver's recognition that on -site energy supply could be
provided by a fuel driven generator is a small indication of some
effort to be reasonable; however, in expressing his concern over
the exact type of fuel to power the generator he, again, takes on
the role of the obstructionist. His concern over the handling
characteristics of gasoline is incomprehensible. Gasoline and
marine diesel fuel are the primary fuels for the propulsion of
thousands of vessels which ply the waters of Masonboro Sound. Each
of these vessels carries fuel in her tanks, and many smaller
vessels carry additional fuel in DOT approved containers. The
availability of approved containers, and the frequency and ease of
their use should allay any reasonable concern.
d. Mr. Weaver's indication that carrying only enough fuel
for each visit will leave occupants without electricity or drinking
water during a hurricane cannot be accepted as genuine concern.
These are the very same risks that any coastal dweller faces during
a hurricane. With the current storm tracking capabilities and
channels of communication available, it is hard to take these
expressed concerns seriously. Mrs. Ketelsleger's property is
presently at far greater risk from her County government than from
any storm.
3) "PROPER MEASURES HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN TO ENSURE ACCESS ON AND
OFF GOAT ISLAND."
COUNTY'S CONCERNS
a. Ability to provide emergency services to Goat Island.
ROUNTREE & SEAGLE, L.L.P.
WKMNGTON, NORTH cAROLRJA

Mr. Roger N. Schecter
Page Seven
September 13, 1995
b. "No island development has taken place in the County
without a bridge and road network."
RESPONSE.
a. Access on and off Goat Island can only be provided by
boat. Access to the proposed residence, would be by means of a
pier which is the subject of the same permit. If a permanent
bridge and road network was a prerequisite to development of any
kind, that could be stated in the law. It is not and Mr. Weaver
has no legal authority to impose such a drastic requirement on a
citizen's use of their land and the attempt is offensive to the
constitutional guaranties our government is supposed to uphold.
In any event, Mr. Weaver has disregarded the fact that our County
government has zoned this very property for residential
development.
Mr. Weaver's concern about access to Goat Island by law
enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical services is yet
another diversion. The imposition of different building codes
(fire suppression sprinkler system) and/or a requirement to address
emergency services access smacks of the County's continued attempts
to modify existing codes, regulations or permit processes to
preclude any development. The answer to emergency access to Goat
Island is obvious; access would be by boat. Whether that boat is
provided by the United States Coast Guard, a local municipality
which operates vessels, or the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission is irrelevant. The fact that these resources are
available, however, is apparently unknown to Mr. Weaver. If the
County has the power to deny a citizen the use of their property
based upon such subjective concerns as those expressed by Mr.
Weaver, all of our property rights are in jeopardy.
b. The assertion that no island development has taken place
in New Hanover County without a bridge and road network is
historically inaccurate and irrelevant. Long before the current
County planners were in place, the development of islands served
only by water access was essential to the growth of this area. Our
State government is certainly familiar with many instances of
island development on North Carolina's coast.
4) "PROPER MEASURES HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN TO PROVIDE POLLUTION
CONTROL."
COUNTY'S CONCERNS
a. Septic tank pollution. See item 2(a).
ROUNTREE & SEAGLE, L.L.P.
VMMINGION, NORTH CAROUNA

Mr. Roger N. Schecter
Page Eight
September 13, 1995
b. Disposal of solid waste.
RESPONSE
a. See response to item 2(a).
b. Mrs. Ketelsleger has not presently been asked to address
the disposal of solid waste. As with all other matters involved in
her proposed development, Mrs. Ketelsleger will fully comply with
the laws and regulations of the State. Solid waste from the site
would be removed to the mainland by boat. It is unlikely that the
solid waste generated by the occupants of a two bedroom vacation
home will overwhelm the occupants and make it impossible to dispose
of that waste.
A plan for legal disposal of solid waste will be forthcoming,
if necessary. However, the late imposition of this requirement,
without citation to appropriate statutory or regulatory guidelines
for compliance, is further evidence of the County's attempts to
preclude development by the addition of new requirements each time
Mrs. Ketelsleger satisfies the County's prior requirements.
5) "PROPER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN TO ENSURE
COMPATIBILITY WITH THE ESTUARINE SYSTEM."
COUNTY'S CONCERNS
"[P]roposed project appears to take no special
consideration of [the value of the Masonboro Island
Reserve system] in its design."
RESPONSE
Proper design considerations have already been taken to insure
compatibility of the development with estuarine systems, by the
promulgation of CAMA setbacks and pier design limitations.
Mr. Weaver's attempt to have project design approved from the
Reserve Manager is an attempt to dredge -up an obstacle which Mrs.
Ketelsleger has already addressed and overcome. Goat Island is not
part of the Masonboro Island Reserve System.
CONCLUSION
Although consideration of Land Use policies is warranted in
the development of property within the estuarine system, it must be
noted that those policies provide guidelines only. Adherence to
those policies without flexible development standards and without
ROUNTREE & SEAGLE, L.L.P.
WII1,1A1GTON, NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Roger N. Schecter
Page Nine
September 13, 1995
considering the rights of the property owner is constitutionally
impermissible and would deprive the property owner of any
economically viable use of their property. It is disappointing and
disheartening to see how Mrs. Ketelsleger has been treated by her
own County government. She has been working for many months on the
effort to enjoy this land which she owns and upon which she pays
taxes to New Hanover County. She has worked diligently to seek out
the concerns of her government and to address them all. She has
patiently and genuinely tried to do everything her government has
asked of her, including going from one agency to the other, and
back again, only to have new obstacles created by the time she
overcomes the last. We believe the County's recital of its
transitory, ill-defined and ambiguous concerns is evidence of the
County's lack of concern for Mrs. Ketelsleger's rights.
Mrs. Ketelsleger has answered each and every question and
issue regarding hurricane evacuation, utilities provision, access
on and off the island, pollution control, and design considerations
at each instance. She is entitled to the permit applied for. If
there are reasonable conditions on that permit, at least she could
have the opportunity to satisfy those conditions.
If the County refuses to issue the appropriate permits based
upon the Land Use Plan and the policies contained therein, those
actions will constitute a denial of all economically beneficial or
productive use of the land. As such, Mrs. Ketelsleger would suffer
a "taking" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment of the United
States Constitution. Her situation is remarkably similar to that
upon which the United States Supreme Court decided the case of
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 120
L.Ed.2d 798, U.S. (1992). In that opinion, the Supreme Court
stated that, to win its case, the State of South Carolina could not a
simply proffer the legislature's declaration that the uses the v
landowner desired were inconsistent with the public interest, or
the conclusory assertion that they violated a common law maxim that
"one should use his own property in such a manner as not to injure
that of another". Instead, the State must identify background
principles of nuisance and property law that prohibit the uses the
property owner intends in the property's present circumstances.
The North Carolina General Statutes, in creating the North Carolina
Coastal Reserve System under N.C. Gen. Stat. Chapter 113A,
recognized that "all acquisitions or dispositions of property for
lands within [the Coastal Reserve] System shall be in accordance
with the provisions of Chapter 146 of the General Statutes". N.C.
Gen. Stat. 113A-129.2(d). Chapter 146 of the General Statutes
provides for the purchase of areas to be included within the
Reserve System. This is explicitly recognized by N.C. Gen. Stat.
113A-128, "Protection of Rights". That Statute states, as follows:
ROUNTREE & SEAGLE, L.L.P.
WI IANGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Roger N. Schecter
Page Ten
September 13, 1995
Nothing in this Article authorizes any governmental
agency to adopt a rule or issue any order that
constitutes a taking of property in violation of the
Constitution of this State or of the United States,
without payment of full compensation."
In this case, there is no logical basis nor legislative support for
the County's continued efforts to block Mrs. Ketelsleger's
development and she is entitled to the permit for which she has
applied.
Should you have questions or if I may be of further
assistance, please feel free to contact me.
With best regards, I am
spec f ly yours
• Harold Seagl
JHS/gw
pc: Mrs. Eva S. Ketelsleger
Mr. Charles Hollis
Mr. David F. Weaver
RouNTREE & SEAGLE, LLP.
W IIIINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
August 31, 1995
Mr. David Weaver
Assistant County Manager
414 Chestnut Street, Room 101
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401-4093
Dear Dave:
l t �ti
A•1
;tea
E:)FEE HNF1
%v4r���
€CEi a
SEP 7 J
rAANAGEMLN r
As you know, the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) is processing an application
submitted by Mrs. Eva Ketelsleger for development on Goat Island. One comment from
you and others about the potential impacts of this project relates to the proposed use of
a septic tank for on -site sewage disposal. The concern is that a septic tank will fail and
pollute the surrounding waters if the Corps of Engineers uses the island for spoil disposal.
DCM is preparing an Environmental Assessment on this project to evaluate all of its
potential impacts. To help us in that task, please provide any factual information you may
have to substantiate the impacts of the proposed on -site system both with and without spoil
disposal. I would also like to know of any specific local or state ordinances or rules
governing the use of on -site systems that will be violated and any other grounds on which
the county would deny approval of such a system.
Please give me a call if you have any questions about this request.
Preston P. Pate, Jr.
Assistant Director
cc: Roger Schecter
Bob Stroud
P.O. Box 769, 3441 Arendell St., Morehead City, North Carolina 28557 Courier #11-12-09
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

NEW HANOVER COUNT' ALLENO'NEAL
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER County Manager
320 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 502 DAVID F. WEAVER
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 23401.4093 Assistant County Manager
rE1,EP110NE [phone] 414 Chestnut Street, Room Telephone [phone]
FAX [phone] Fax [phone]
August 24, 1995
Roger N. Schecter, Director
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
RE: Ketelsleger (Goat Island) Major Development Application
Dear Mr. Schecter:
In reference to your letter of August 18, I would like to
outline some measures the applicant could employ so that the
proposed development may be consistent with the Land -Use Plan.
Please note, however, that these measures are county staff
recommendations and that the Board of County Commissioners has not
had time to act on these recommendations within the five (5) days
that you have given me to respond.
The policy in question states as follows:
1.2(2) Development of estuarine system islands shall be
permitted only if proper measures are taken for hurricane
evacuations, utilities provision, access on and off the
island, pollution control, and other design considerations
that will ensure compatibility of the development with the
estuarine systems.
specific measures that could be pursued include the following:
1) Proper measures f r hurricane evacuation
- The construction of a permanent bridge and road
network would be the preferred measure of evacuation.
- No reasonable person can say that an approximately 25
mile boat ride is a proper measure for hurricane
evacuation. The determination of a proper trip, however,
depends on a number of factors including water conditions
during pre -hurricane situations and availability of
access. In this case, a proper evacuation could be
conducted if the mainland access point was located on the
section of mainland on the other side of the AIWW behind
and parallel to Masonboro Island, so that the evacuees

C
Roger N. Schecter
Page Number Two
August 24, 1995
would not have to cross turbulent waters associated with
Masonboro Inlet or Carolina Beach Inlet and would not
have to travel more than several miles. There are ample
Opportunities along this stretch of mainland for
acquisition of waterfront property and a slip.
- Ownership of the mainland access point would have to
be permanently attached to the title for Goat Island.
- The evacuees on Goat Island would have to have
immediate and permanent access to the Goat Island pier.
This access could not be compromised at any time by the
Corps easement.
2) Proper measures for prov.1sion of utilities.
- The preferred measure for water and sewer provisions
would be the installation of water and sewer lines
crossing to the mainland to appropriate water and sewer
utilities. Please note that the County has invested
millions of dollars for a sewer system designed at least
Partially to minimize estuarine pollution.
- A study should be undertaken by an appropriately
licensed hydrogeologist/engineer or similarly qualified
person, that clearly shows that disposal of dredged
materials by the Corps of Engineers will not impact the
functioning of either the well or the septic system, if
on -site utilities are pursued.
The preferred proper measure fo,- energy supply o:ould
be to run an electric line over the island from the
mainland.
- On -site energy supply could be provided by a fuel
driven generator. For reasons of safety, however, the
'fuel source must be LPG or other fuel that is more easily
handled than gasoline. In addition, the fuel supply
should be adequate to last at least 14 days in order to
accommodate short-term rentals and possible unexpected
lengthy stays due to hurricanes or other unforeseen
emergencies.
3) Proper measures for access on and off Goat Road
- Please review the comments made for hurricane
evacuation to adequately cover proper access on and off
the Island.

L
Roger Schecter
Page Number Three
August 24, 1995
- The County, as previously addressed in our August 14
letter to you, has serious concerns about quick and easy
access to Goat Island by law enforcement, fire
protection, and emergency medical services (Ems). Given
the lack of access, the applicant should include a fire
suppression sprinkler system for all buildings. The
applicant should address how law enforcement, fire
Protection and EMS will be provided.
4) Proper measures for ID011LItiOn control.
The concern over septic tank failure has been
previously addressed.
5)
- The applicant must provide a plan for legal disposal
of solid waste including, at a minimum, container storage
adequate for solid waste for seven days on Goat Island,
ability to transport the container to the mainland, and
evidence of a contractual or other arrangement for
garbage pick-up at the point of mainland access.
- Due to the location of the project proximate to the
Reserve, the project design should receive review and
approval from the Reserve manager and from UNC-W. Such
considerations as zero discharge and non -degradation
should be noted. County staff would rely on the
judgement of the appropriate State officials in this
regard.
The County has no intention to remove all development rights
to estuarine islands. Mr. Seagle's June 6 letter to the Division
of Coastal Management states that development is not precluded,
Development, however, must be very carefully performed because of
the threat to public safety caused by isolated island living and
because of the potential for harm to the estuarine environment.
This need to ensure that proper measures are taken is heightened by
the restrictions placed by the Corps easement and the proximity to
Masonboro Reserve.

Roger Schecter
Page Number Four
August 24, 1995
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or
comments.
Sincerely,
Dave Weaver
Assistant County Manager
DW/nf/663
cc: Board of County Commissioners
Allen O'Neal, County Manager
Wanda Copley, County Attorney
Dexter Hayes, Planning Director

WANDA ht COPLEY
Cowdy Allomey
KEMP P. BURPEA11
Asti,. nnl County Aaomq
ANrI$EW 1i'.OLSEN
A,tislnnl Caunly Adomey
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
320 CHESTNUT STIiE) T, ROOM 309
W LLMINGT ON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4095
T'64&'HONE(9IO)341-i1S3
r,LY(910) 341-4170
August 14, 1995
Mr. Roger N. Scltecter
Director, Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Re: Ketelsleger application for major permit on Goat Island
Dear Mr. Scheeter:
On behalf of the Now Hanover County Board of Commissioners, I request that you deny
the application for a major CAMA permit on Goat Island. The Board favors the protection of the
estuarine system ill New Hanover County and views this proposed project as a contravention of
the Wilmington - New Hanover County Land Use Plan.
Tile detailed reasons for the County's objections to the project are stated in all August 14,
1995 letter to you from Dave Weaver, Assistant County Manager.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or the Planning staff if we can provide further
assistance in this matter.
Silcerely,
anda M. Copley
County Attorney
WMC/kc
cc: County Manager
Assistant County Manager

I
Manoaament
A119119 22, 1995
LAW
Skeet
Noah L., 29403
► letter if to ttotiry You of the ctatuq of Mrs, Bva S. Keteldeger's Co" Area
at Aot (( AMA) nWOr pormlt applloallon for development on (coat island In New
lusty, 7 it Attorney 4eneral'e offloo ha advised me that your clirnt's proposal to
or oin sul mer'g6d lands uwnad by the State of North Carding iq eulUoot to thn
dal }qv!e N pmoedurea of the North Carolina Enviranmetnal Policy Aot (NCBPA)
i &L R•q'). The requlromento of that Act are that any Swg agwroy aotlon Affcoting the
o labd t 11 prepare a dotalled staternatt of 010 onvlroruneutal Impacts of the
dlon. U e of publlo land, In this oace, Involves conetnrotlon of ft pier, In part, over
I ou lands and public trurt waters.
t the pioecvsing of applloatlot►q for CAMA mi jor development permits
sp4ect to review under the NC$PA must have the appropriate
"it dooument aq part of the applloation before the applioatlon can be
Ior processing (1 SNCAC 7J.0204(bx8)), Beoauso your client's
ariderod InO mpleto, we are s►ttpendlnj prooeuing until the
tt hap bem oompietod.
Qivisio of Coaetal Maxgemont has the reiponAlblllty to prepare the onvironmontal
rr this IN QJ60t, because it to the state agency taking the action Offbcting State landc. if
to imM diately begin preparing an Bnvironniental Assessment (13A) to datmnhu
prg eon Ovill have a elgnifioant Impact on the environment. 1 think that we have
WaMIM in our Sles to complete the PA without deltsy. We will contact you
If we dptornduo that we nood edditiontd information.. Your oliont can roviow and
the d4 ant.
>t7b67, NolthCcroona27611.7W TNephone914-7$3,2299 FAXV14.733-1496
Equal A&MOINr AaPon fmplo w IiDtt roovd4v 1o%pod-eonam6t pop&(
I

Id BORS191
t,
o con
t 010 as soon m poMblo Ifyou wish to Mass this docislon or If you wish
Oic NCEPA procoss.
Sinmvly,
Roger N. Scheclef
bin SU+ Alvormy bowers oflice

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, LVM!XA
IT KW
Health and Natural Resources A&4CVOe
Division of Coastal Management _
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ID E H N F1
Roger N, Schecter, Director
--MEMORANDUM--
TO: Dan C. Oakley
Senior Deputy Attorney Gene
FROM: Roger N. Schecter, Directo
Division of Coastal Mana *naet
RE: Interpretation of Coastal Reserve Statutes and Rules
DATE: August 23, 1995
The Division of Coastal Management is currently reviewing a CAMA permit
application for construction of a house and pier on an undeveloped estuarine island
in Myrtle Grove Sound known as Goat Island. The permit applicant's father acquired
the island in 1953 under State Board of Education Deed.
The island; although in private ownership, may lie within the boundaries of the
Masonboro Island Coastal Reserve as shown on the reserve maps prepared by DCM.
The waters of Myrtle Grove Sound adjoining the island are definitely in the
Masonboro Island Reserve. (The coastal reserve boundaries frequently include the
water areas adjacent to lands acquired by the State as coastal reserve lands.)
In reviewing the permit application, several questions have come up concerning
the application of the development restrictions set out in the coastal reserve statutes
(G.S. 113A-129.1-129.3) and in DEHNWs coastal reserve rules (15A NCAC 70) to
privately owned lands within the reserve boundaries. I would appreciate receiving
advice from your office on these questions:
1. Do the restrictions on use of coastal reserve lands set out in the statutes
and rules governing the coastal reserve program. apply to privately -owned lands
within the boundaries shown on the coastal reserve maps?
2. If the water areas within the coastal reserve abut privately owned
shoreline, can the State prohibit the private property owner from building a pier or
boat ramp for water access from their property onto state-owned submerged lands
within the coastal reserve based on the use restrictions set out in the coastal reserve
statutes and rules?
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 60%recycled/ 10% post -consume r paper

In the past, the Division has maintained that the restrictions on use applied
only to areas actually acquired by the State for inclusion in the Coastal Reserve
System. This follows guidance provided by NOAA's Division of Sanctuaries and
Reserves which was reconfirmed last week. Dan McLawhorn has suggested, however,
that they apply to all lands within the boundaries of a designated coastal reserve
based on his interpretation of the Court of Appeals decision in the Buxton Woods
case.
Since this permit application has been under review for some months and these
questions have come up late in the process, I would appreciate receiving your advice
as soon as possible. Please call if you need more information.

August 22, 1995
Mr. Roger N. Scheeler, Director
Division of Coastal Management
Raleigh, NC 2761 1-27687
Re: Application for CANIA Major Permit on Goat Island
Dear Mr. Schecter:
Thank you for our meeting of August 16, 1995. As we slated at that time, the Society for
Masonboro Island Ire. and the Universily of North Carolina at Wilmington (UNCW) oppose
the issuance of the subject permit.
It is our position that the aclivilies embraced in the permit application threaten, degrade, and
are inconsistent with the mission of life North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve.
We also assert that the activities embraced in the permit application violate, contravene, or
are inconsistent with numerous local, stale, and federal stalules, regulations, and policies.
We cite the following:
While the proposed residence in the permit application is snore than 40' from
the estuarine shoreline AEC, the exemption for single family residences in
15A NCAC 7K.0208, by its plain language, does not include the proposed
septic lank and drain field. Their inslallalion will clearly involve development,
as defined in GS 113A-103(5)a., and requires a permit since it is within the
575' AEC for the ORW shoreline. Although 7K.0208 may have been
interpreted to exempt the septic lank and drain field, we oppose such an
interpretation, which must be rejected as an unadopled rule that is
unenforceable and inconsislcnl with the plain language of the adopted rile.
2. The proposed house and septic tank are within the ORW 575' estuarine
shoreline AEC. See 15A NCAC 711.0209(b). h appears fi-ont a review of the
pending file that the DC<\4 has considered only the 75' shoreline generally
applicable to all estuarine waters. 1 fowever, we strongly urge reconsideration
of this matler. DCN1's own Field Investigation Report holes that "the waters of

R. Scheeler: Goat Island Permit
August 22, 1995
Page -2-
Masonboro Sound are classified SA-ORW by the Division of Environmental
Management; this area is designated Primary Nursery Area; and the waters are
Open to file taking of shellfish." In addition, [lie DCM Field Investigation
Report notes: "AEC(s) Involved: p-r, m, ES, CW".
3. The proposed pier in the permit application will be for private use of publicly
owned lands within SA-ORW waters and within file National Estuarine
Research Reserve, and shall not be permitted under the Coastal Reserve statute
or rules. See GS 113A-129.2(e), 15A NCAC 70.0202(2), and Friends of
latteras Island v. CRC, 117 NC App. 556, 569-579 (1995). Thus the pier
application should be denied under 15A NCAC 211.0601.
4. From the DCM pernk file, it appears (fiat lire pier application was withdrawn
from the CAMA general permit and is being evaluated oil* a case -by -case
standard under 15A NCAC 7J per 15A NCAC 711.1204(f). Therefore, a
NCEPA environmental analysis document is required. See GS 113A-12(2). If
the pier application has not been withdrawn for case by case consideration, we
assert that it should be so withdrawn due to (he unique, highly sensitive, and
especially protected area into which it is to be placed and which it impacts.
Specific advantages of an EIS would be to address many of the issues found
most troublesome by.the objecting parties: cumulative impacts; multiple
development; sewage disposal or treatment; solid waste disposal; fuel spills;
and county services (fire, rescue), It is our understanding that there is some
staff sentiment to the effect that even if the pier has been or is withdrawn
from general permit liter case by case consideration, that it is exempt from
SEPA review as long as it is eligible to be approved under general peruif
standards regardless of whether it is actually approved in a general permit. We
strongly disagree with any such interpretation, and assert -that such an
interpretation is inconsistent wilh the plain language of the rule. If the permit
is withdrawn from the general permit, as it either has been or should be, (hen
it is no longer under the rule for any purpose. Again, a contrary interpretation
must be rejected as an unadopled rule, inconsistent with the plain language of
the adopted rule.
5. The effect of (lie legislation creating the North Carolina National Estuarine
Research Reserves is to de facto and de jure designate them as AECs pursuant
to GS 113A-113(b)(4)(a) and Section 315 of the U.S. Coastal Zone
Management Act, IG U.S.C. 1461, pursuant to which the United Stales
officially designated the Masonboro Island Component of the North Carolina

R. Schecter: Goat Island Permit
August 22, 1995
Page -3-
Estuarine Research Reserve. The federal Designalio n (copy attached)
specifically noted that "North Caolina stale law provides long-term protection
for reserve resources to ensure a stable environment for research [and] to
enhance public awareness and understanding of estuarine areas and provided
suitable opportunities for public education and interpretation [and] North
Carolina has complied with the requirements of the regulations relating to
designation of a National Estuarine Research Reserve." Consequently, the
permit application should be denied pursuant to GS 113A-120(a)(4) as
incompalible with the purposes for which the reserve was created. The island
and the surrounding waters are clearly within (lie boundaries of the reserve.
15A NCAC.7O.0105 requires (lie DClv4 to keep a,"detailed boundary map for
each component. As only one such snap exists (copy attached), it must be lire
official boundary map. Ilowever, even if Ilre high lands of the island are
outside the reserve, [as argued by counsel for [lie applicant], the surrounding
waters are clearly within the reserve. Therefore, activities even on private
lands wilhin the reserve which will violate current rules (discharges of
contaminated water and noise beyond file bounds of tine private land) are
forbidden and are a basis of permit denial under 15A NCAC 71I.0601. ..
6. "Ile proposed development, and cumulative impacts of further development,
will have an adverse impact on the uses and anticipated uses of the coastal
reserve in violation of the antidcgradation provisions of the Stale and Federal
Clean Walcr Acts. See 15A 2B.0201, and ,fille 33, USC 1313(d)(4)(D). Thus,
the permit application should be denied under 15A NCAC 711.0601. The
development, if pernnilted, will undoubtedly be the first of several similar
developments oil this island and other privately owned islands within tine
coastal reserve. The cumulative impacts of the houses, their septic systems,
their access piers and docked boats will result in violations of the state
standards protecting coastal reserves, ORWs used for university research,
PNAs, and shellfish harvest._"rims, the permit application should be denied
pursuant to GS 1 13A-120(a)(10).
7. The potential problems from [lie septic tank are greater than the problems
subject to regulation solely as human health concenrs by the county septic tank
permit procedure. The drain field will cause an increase in the nutrients
naturally occurring in the waters of the Coastal Reserve. Such discharge into
the reserve will violate 15A NCAC 7O.0202(8)(1)) [barring any activity which
will result in the discharge of liquids other than uncontaminated estuarine
water into a reserve] and [lie statutes requiring protection of coastal reserves.

R. Schecter: Goat Island Permit
August 22, 1995
Page A -
The septic system will most likely fail and cause a discharge of untreated
sewage into the Coastal Rescrve when the Army Corps of Engineers (COB)
exercises its right to deposit dredged materials and salt water on the island. We
arc infomred and believe that a pennit application was denied in file Culriluck
Reserve for a reverse osmosis plant that would have discharged non -estuarine
waters into the reserve.
8. The generator proposed by the applicant to be used as a source of power to the
house must be more fully analyzed. Insufficient information has been
presented by the applicant on this proposed use. The generator, especially
when used inlernillenlly as proposed, and also if exceeding certain noise
levels whether or not operated intermittently, can cause noise pollution
problems to nesting and feeding shore birds and poses all unacceptable risk of
fuel spill damage to (he coastal reserve. See 15A NCAC 7O.0202(e) and
(8)(b)-
9. The pennit application does not indicate how solid waste will be handled that
is generated by occupancy of the house. The risk -Ilia( it will be disposed of,
even inadvertently, in the reserve requires the application to he denied. See
15A NCAC 7O.0202(8)(a) (barring any activity which might result in the
deposition of solid materials not indigenous to (he local coastal ecosystem].
10. For the reasons stated in the August 14, 1995 letter from the Assistant County
Manager of New I lanover Counly, and reilcraled, stressed and extended by the
Assistant County Manager and the Counly Attorney in the tneeting will: you
and Deputy Secretary Rimer on August 16, 1995, the pennit application
contravenes, violates, and is inconsistent with the New I lanover County Land
Use Plan and should be denied pursuant to GS 113A-120(a)(8) and 15A
NCAC 711.0601.
For the foregoing reasons, we maintain that approval of the proposed development clearly
contravenes and violates key statutes, regulations, and policies of the federal, state, and local
governments, and that such development also represents a major threat to the mission of the
North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve and (lie preservation of this vital
estuarine system.

R. Schecter: Goat Island Permit
August 22, 1995
Page -5-
'thank you very notch for your consideration. We will be glad to provide further infonnation
and assistance upon request.
Sincerely yours,
A.I"( CjiIt 'Ar._. � . �VY�I I
/�,tji0Y..
Marian McPhaul, Executive Director
Society for Masonboro Island
Marvin Moss
Provost. and Vice Chancellor
for Academic Affairs
University of Notch Carolina at Wilmington
Copies Secretary Jonathan I (owes
Assistant Secretary Linda Rimer
Ilonorable Richardson Prcycr
Attachments: _
I. U.S. Designation of National Estuarine Research Reserve
2. Boundary Map, nlasonboro Island Component

L
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCPI
The Under Secretary far
Oceans ■nd Atmoaphare
Waslvnp[on. OC 20230
DESIGNATION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE
HASONDORo ISLAND COMPONENT
Consistent with the provisions of Section 315 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1461, the State of North Carolina has
met the fol•lowing conditions to establish Hasonboro Island as a
component of the North Carolina tlatlonal Estuarine Research
Reserve.
1) Hasonboro Island is a representative estuarine ecosystem
that is suitable for long-term research and contributes to the
biogeographical and topological balance of the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System.
2) North Carolina state law provides long-term protection
for reserve resources to ensure a stable environment for
research.
3) Designation of Hasonboro Island as a reserve component
wlll'serve to enhance public awareness and understanding of
estuarine areas and provide suitable opportunities for public
education and Interpretation.
4) The State of tlorth Carolina has compiled with the
requirements of the regulations relating to designation of a
National Estuarine Research Reserve.
Accordingly, I hereby designate
component of the North Carolina
Reserve, the boundaries of which
Hanagement Plan.
the area of Masonboro Island as a
National Estuarine Research
are specified in the Final
Jo n A. Knauss
Uri er Secretary for Oceans
and Atmosphere
( I*
ME ADMINISTRATOR ,�`-:!

North Carolina National Estuarine
Itesearch Iteserve
Ctt.t1..1
Ilt.l C►Itlt1
' / CIIm110i fall Vert►
c % IWIIIWIIIWII�17
/
c
Atlantic
/ J y
� U"n n
I...t
lulll.t I.1481
. _ # /.
M It CI.1
% Iy.1t Ianl
` .... 1...,
Figure 10. Ooundary and Ilabltets of tba
Husunbutu Island Component
YE

' State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
August 22, 1995
Mr. Harold Seagle
Roundtree and Seagle
Attorneys at Law
2419 Market Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Dear Mr. Seagle:
® FEE HNF1
This letter is to notify you of the status of Mrs. Eva S. Ketelsleger's Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) major permit application for development on Goat Island in New
Hanover County. The Attorney General's office has advised me that your client's proposal to
build the pier on submerged lands owned by the State of North Carolina is subject to the
environmental review procedures of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA)
(G.S.113A-1 et. seq.). The requirements of that Act are that any State agency action affecting the
use of public land must prepare a detailed statement of the environmental impacts of the
proposed action. Use of public land, in this case, involves construction of the pier, in part, over
state-owned submerged lands and public trust waters.
Rules governing the processing of applications for CAMA major development permits
require that any project subject to review under the NCEPA must have the appropriate
environmental assessment document as part of the application before the application can be
considered as complete for processing (15NCAC 7J.0204(b)(8)). Because your client's
application is being considered incomplete, we are suspending processing until the
environmental document has been completed.
The Division of Coastal Management has the responsibility to prepare the environmental
document for this project, because it is the state agency taking the action affecting State lands. It
is my intent to immediately begin preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine
whether the project will have a significant impact on the environment. I think that we have
sufficient information in our files to complete the EA without delay. We will contact you
immediately if we determine that we need additional information. Your client can review and
comment on the document.
P.O. Box 27687, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Mr. Harold Seagle
Page 2
August 22, 1995
Please contact me as soon as possible if you wish to discuss this decision or if you wish
more information on the NCEPA process.
Sincerely,
Ro N. chec er
cc: Robin Smith, Attorney General's Office

I
0
u
LL
0
w
3
g
w
r
w
rl
State reviews
Sy PHILIP HERVE1
Staff Writer
State officials will take a closer
look at a womaa's plans to build a
house and pier on an undevelopedNew Hanover County island
giving her their blessing.
Even if Eva Ketelsleger wins the
go-ahead from the state, it appears
unlikely she'll persuade New
Hanover County to grant local Per-
mits needed to begin construction
on Goat Island.
The state was to rule on Ms.
Keteisleger's permit application by
Sept. 24. But that date won't be
met because the N.C. Division of
Coastal Management has put the
,IA� zo�-
/* ta s
plan for
permit on hold so it can conduct an
environmental impact study on We
project.
"It is a delay, that is definite,"
said Alison Davis, a spokesman for
Coastal Management. She couldn't
say how long the review would
take.
Coastal Management decided to
do the study on advice from the
N.C. Attorney General's Office
that one is needed under the state
Environmental Policy Act, she
said. flans to build a pier over pub-
lic waters triggered the need for
the additional study.
Ms. Ketelsleger owns about half
of the tiny island, which is nest to
Masonboro Island. The slate has
been, working for more than a dec-
G�,�b-GL'd�l lvS�J
0 /Z
Goat Island development
ade to preserve Masonboro' the
longest strip of undeveloped beach
south of Cape Lookout.
The state owns 471 of the 515
acres on Masonboro Island. Goat
Island is one of two spoil islands
the state doesn't owninthe
Masonboro area. They e
consid-
ered ripe for preservation.
Because.of the preservation ef-
fort, Ms. Ketelsleger has been
forced to apply for a "major" per-
mit for the house and pier. Several
state agencies in addition to.
Coastal' Management have been
reviewing the application.
Ms. Davis said the additional•
scrutiny by Coastal Management is
routine and has nothing to do with
Goat Island's proximity to Mason
boro.
"This is not being done in an at-
tempt to get the island." she said.
Harold Seagle, Ms.
Ketelslege:'s attorney, would not
comment on the matter Tuesday.
Calling the project a violation of
its land -use plan, the county isn't
planning to allow any construction
on Goat Island. The land -use plan
is a guide for how the county
should develop.
The county says it won't issue
Ms. Ketelsleger any building per-
mits.
"We're trying to hold that back
because it nets counter to our land -
use plan for barrier islands," said
Sam Burgess, a county planner.

�i
J�tv-; l-
��•jf:. �rtl•a tiSY
rR r %. � • rc.. +•s�
Ji.. s... r.31X�..a..
FOR PERMITS TO DEVELOP IN NORTH CAROLINA'S COASTAL AREA
COMPLETE THIS
FORM TO BEGIN
THE APPLICATION
PROCESS UNDER
THE LAWS USTED
BELOW:
STATE
Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
N.C.G.S.113A-118
Dredge and Fill
N.C.G.S.113-229
Water Quality Certification
N.C.G.S.143-215
Easements in Land
Covered by Water
N.C.G.S. 146-6; 146-12
FEDERAL
Construction, Dredging,
Filling, or Other Work in
Navigable Waters
Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899
Discharge Dredged or
Fill Material into any
Waters or Wetlands
Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act
•
DIVISION OF
COASTAL
MANAGEMENT
NORTH CAROLINA
Dept. of Environment,
Heohh and Natural
Resources
Forms DCM-MP•1—MP-6
JANUARY 1995

N.C. Division of Coastal Management
Raleigh Headquarters
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Tel. [phone]
FAX [phone]
- Washington
_ Pender,
New
ano,
Brunswick
Elizabeth Clly District
1367 U.S. 17 South
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
Washington District
P.O. Box 2188
1424 Carolina Ave.
Washington, NC 27889-2188
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
V\,
o�. s
/ Hertford � .q\4Oe
l
0
eerie dam'
•�_Scaulorl �
e Owen
Pamlico
Wihlhgton District
Field Offices
Morehead City Disfilot
P.O. Box 769
3441 Arendell St.
Morehead Ctty, NC 28557
[phone] or
1-800-682-2632
FAX: [phone]
Reserve Education
P.O.'Drawer 1040
Beaufort, NC 28516
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
Hyde
Ellwbeth Cly DISIF M
Darn.
Morehead city District
Wilmington Di Met
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
Reserve Coordination
7205 Wrightsville Ave.
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
[phone]
FAX: [phone]

4
THE MAJOR DEVELOPMENT.
PERMIT PROCESS
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
authorizes the Division of Coastal Management
(DCM) to manage development in Aree^ of
Environmental Concern (AECs) in North
Carolina's 20 coastal counties. These AECs
encompass oceanfront, soundfront and riverfront
areas, as well as some special water supply and
unique geologic areas. Any activity involving
construction, excavation, filling or other land
disturbance within an AEC is considered
development and requires authorization under
CAMA.
A project is considered major development if it
requires another state or federal authorization
(permit license, etc.), involves alteration of more
than 20 acres of land and/or water, or involves
the construction of one or more structures
covering a ground area greater than 60,000
square feet within an AEC. Projects usually are
considered major development if they involve:
excavation, filling or construction in public trust
waters or wetlands within an AEC; or activities
disturbing more than one acre of land. Such
projects must be authorized by a CAMA Major
Development Permit.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The Major Development Permit process covers
application for authorization needed under
certain state and federal laws. State
authorizations needed include: Coastal Area
Management Act, Dredge and Fill Act; Water
Quality Certification; and Easement in Public
Trust Areas. Federal authorization include:
Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 10, Navigable
Waters) and Clean Water Act (Section 404,
Jurisdictional Wetlands). The state review is
coordinated by DCM and involves the divisions
of Environmental Management, Water
Resources, Land Resources, Marine Fisheries,
Environmental Health, Archives and History and
Community Assistance, as well as the Wildlife
Resources Commission, the Department of
Administration and the Department of
Transportation. 'Ile federal review is
coordinated by the Army Corps of Engineers
and involves the Environmental Protection
Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, and
the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Each project also is reviewed for compliance
with local regulations and for consistency with
the local government's land use plan. The
CAMA land use plan sets forth the community's
policies regarding development and identifies
land classifications where certain activities may
or may not be allowed. A conservation land
classification for example typically is very
restrictive where developed or community
classifications are not.
The application review process begins the date
DCM receives an application that is complete.
That review takes approximately 75 days;
however, DCM is allowed an additional 75
days, by law, if more time is needed. An
application also may be put on hold, and the
review delayed, if more information is needed to
complete the permit file.
A permit application will be denied if the project
is inconsistent with any state, federal, local
regulation, or the CAMA land use plan. If the
application is denied, the applicant may file for
an appeal within 20 days of the decision.
If the project is approved, a major development
permit will be issued. Typically, the permit will
list specific conditions or restrictions on the
development. The project must be constructed
according to the permit and any changes will
require modification of the permit.
Major development permits are valid for a
period of three years and typically expire on
December 31 of the third year. if the project is
not completed within that time, the permit may
Revised 03/95

be renewed at the applicant's request. Any
changes in ownership of the project will require
a transfer of the permit at the discretion of the
Director of the DCM.
THE PERMIT APPLICATION
An application package for a Major
Development Permit should consist of : 1) a
completed application form; 2) a narrative
description of the project, including its proposed
use and construction methods; 3) detailed work
plat(s) that have been signed and dated and that
show a plan view and cross -sectional drawings;
4) a site map that shows the location and/or
gives directions to the project site; 5) a copy of
a deed or other proof of ownership for the
project site and authorization from the property
owner, if applicable; 6) a stormwater
management plan, sedimentation and erosion
control plan, sewage treatment plan or special
use permit, if applicable; and 7) a $250
application fee by check or money order made
payable to the'North-Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR).
This application form consists of a basic
'information section and specific subsections for
various types of development. The basic
information section should be completed by all
applicants. The appropriate subsection(s)
(Excavation and Fill, Upland Development,
Structures, Bridges and Culverts, and Marinas)
should be completed to provide information
about the proposed development. All of the
information in these sections should accurately
correspond with the submitted work plat(s).
Excavation and Fill (I)CM-MOP-2) information
should include all dredging and excavation work
or filling in public trust waters or wetlands. All
excavation depths should be expressed in
number of feet below the elevations of mean low
water (MLW) or normal water level (NWL).
Any fill in water or wetlands should also be
clearly shown on the plat(s).
Upland Development (DCM-MP-3) includes all
land disturbing activities, such as grading, filling
and construction of buildings. Critical issues to
be reviewed in 'this section are the amount of
impervious surfaces within the Estuarine
Shoreline AEC and the control of stormwater
runoff and erosion on the project site. For
oceanfront development, you should show the
appropriate setbacks, any impacts to public
beach access, and indicate when the property
was platted.
Structures (DCM-MP4) information includes
all structural development in public trust waters.
This includes piers, docks, boathouses,
bulkheads, groins, breakwaters and mooring
structures.
Bridges and Culverts (DCM-MP-5) section
should include all road crossings of public trust
waters or wetlands within the project area.
Impacts to traditional navigation or drainage
patterns will be carefully considered in the
review of this type of development proposal.
Marina Development (DCM-MP-t) section
applies to all facilities providing dockage or
mooring for more than ten boats. The area of
public trust waters impacted, the number of slips
provided, and the waste -handling facilities to be
provided will be carefully considered.
NOTE: Contact the appropriate Regional Office
(see map) for pre -application meetings and
assistance in completing any portion of this
application. Also, see DCM-MP-1, Section 5 of
the application form for other instructions.
Revised 03/95

0
Form DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
1. APPLICANT
a. Landowner:
Name
Address
City
Zip Day Phone
Fax
b. Authorized Agent:
Name
Address
City
Zip
Fax
Day Phone
c. Project name (if any)
State
State
(To be completed by all applicants)
N07E. Perndr will be issued in mw of lands r(s), ord/or
pwied MM.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County
b. City, town, community or landmark
c. Street address or secondary road number
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes No
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g. river,
creek, sound, bay)
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/or filling activities.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work, or both?
c. Will the project be for public, private or commercial
use?
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.
Revised 03/95

Form DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract
b. Size of individual lot(s)
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NWL
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
e. Vegetation on tract
f. Man-made features now on tract
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (rowult the local land use plm.)
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable
zoning? Yes No
(Anach zoning mnpliance certificate, if applicable)
j-
Has a professional
done for the tract?
If yes, by whom? .
archaeological assessment been
Yes No
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible properr !
Yes No
1. Are there wetlands on the site? _ Yes _ No
Coastal (marsh) Other
If yes, has a delineation been conducted?
(Anach dom"wntadon, if available)
m. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters
of the state. (For example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/commercial effluent, "wash
down" and residential discharges.)
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
• A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
- to
instrument under which the"applicant claims title
.. to the affected properties.' If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
• An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross -sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7I.0203 for a
detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue -line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings.) A site or location map is a part of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
Revised 03/95

Form DCM-MP-1
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like. 6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
• A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
• A list of the names and complete addresses of the I understand that any permit issued in response to this
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and application will allow only the development described in
signed return receipts as proof that such owners the application. The project will be subject to conditions
have received a copy of the application and plats and restrictions contained in the permit.
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal North Carolina's
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant approved Coastal Management Proo gram and will be
further certifies that such notice has been provided. conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
Name I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
Address grant permission to representatives of state and federal
Phone review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
Name permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
Address project.
Phone
I further certify that the information provided in this
Name application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
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.
This is the day of , 19_
Print Name
Signature
Landowner or 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 03195

EH R - COASTAL ;1 ft'VAG/:MENT
rvA: 07r.02oo
(3) an accurate work plan as described in 15A NCAC V .0203 herein must be attached to all CAVIA
major development and/or dredge and fill pernit applications;
(4) a copy of a deed or other instrument under which the applicant claims title must accompany a
CAMA major development andior dredge and fill permit application;
(5) notice to adjacent riparian landowners must be given as follows:
(A) Certified return mail receipts (or copies thereoo indicating that adjacent riparian landowners
(as identified in the permit application) have been sent a copy of the application for the proposed
development must be included in a CAMA major development and/or dredge and fill permit
application. Said landowners have 30 days from the date of notification in which to comment.
Such comments will be considered by the Department in reaching a fmal decision on the appli-
cation.
(B) For CAVIA minor development permits, the applicant must give actual notice of his intention
to develop his property- and apply for a CAMA minor development permit to all adjacent ripa-
rian landowners. Actual notice can be given by sending a certified letter, informing the adjoining
property owner in person or by telephone, or by using any other method which satisfies the
Local Permit Officers that a -good faith effort has been made to provide the required notice;
(6) the application fee must be paid as set out in this Subparagraph:
(A) Major development permit - a check or money order payable to the Department for two
hundred fifty dollars (8250.-00).
(B) Minor development permit a check or money order payable to the permit -letting agency in
the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00). Monies so collected may be used only in the administration
of the permit program;
(7) any other information the Department or local permit officer deems necessary for a thorough
and complete review of the application must be provided. Any application not in compliance
with these requirements will be returned to the applicant along with a cover letter explaining the
deficiencies of the application and will not be considered accepted until it is resubmitted and
determined to be complete and sufficient. If a local permit officer receives an application for a
Permit that the local permit officer lacks authority to grant, the permit officer shall return the
application with information as to how the application may be properly considered; and
(8) For development proposals subject to review under the North Carolina Environmental Policy
Act (NCEPA), NCGS 113A-100 et. seq., the permit application will be complete only on sub-
mission of the appropriate environmental assessment document.
(c) Upon acceptance of a major development and/or dredge and fill permit as complete, the Depart-
ment shall, within a reasonable time, send a letter to the applicant setting forth the data on which ac-
ceptance was made.
(d) If the application is found to be incomplete or inaccurate after processing has begun or if addi-
tional information from the applicant is necessary to adequately assess the project, the processing will
be terminated pending receipt of the necessary changes or necessary information from the applicant.
During the pendency of any termination of processing, the permit processing period will not run. If
the changes or additional information s �nilicantly alters the project proposal, the application will be
considered new and the permit processing period will begin to run from that date.
(e) Any violation occurring at a proposed project site for which an application is being reviewed will
be processed according to the procedures in W .0408 - 0410. If the violation substantially altered the
proposed project site, and restoration is deemed necessary, the applicant will be notified that processing
of the application will be suspended pending compliance with the notice of required restoration. Sat-
isfactory restoration of any unauthorized development that has substantially altered a project site is
deemed necessary to allow a complete review of the application and an accurate assessment of the
project's potential impacts. The applicant will be notified that permit processing has resumed, and that
a new processing deadline has been established once the required restoration has been deemed satis-
factory by the Division of Coastal Manage or Local Permit Officer.
(f) If during the public comment period a question is raised as to public rights of access across the
subject property, the Division of Coastal Management will examine the access issue prior to making a
Perm it decision. Any individual or goventmental entity initiating action to judicially recognize a public
right of access must obtain a court order to suspend processing of the permit application. Should the
parties to legal action resolve the issue, permit processing will continue.
11fstory Note: Statutory Authoritr G.S. 113-?29,- /13A-119; 113.4-119.1; 1/3.4-122(c); /13.4.124; LOT "farcl, /S, /9is'
NORM CAROLINA ADJ/LVINTR-17•It's �nnc

EH.NR - COASTAL MANAGEMENT T15A: 07H .0600
3
SECTION .0600 - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL AECs
1 .0601 NO VIOLATION OF ANY RULE
No development shall be allowed in any AEC which would result in a contravention or violation of any
rules, regulations, or laws of the State of North Carolina or of local government in which the development
takes place.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-107(a),(b); 113A-124;
Eff. September 9, 1977.
.0602 POLLUTION OF WATERS
No development shall be allowed in any AEC which would have a substantial likelihood of causing pollution
of the waters of the state in which shellfishing is an existing use to the extent that such waters would be
officially closed to the taking of shellfish. This rule shall also apply to development adjacent to or within
closed shellfish waters when a use attainability study of those waters documents the presence of a significant
shellfish resource in an area that could be expected to be opened for shellfishing given reasonable efforts to
control the existing sources of pollution.
History Note: Statutory Authority G. S. 113A-107(a), (b);113A-124;
Eff. September 9, 1977;
Amended Eff. July 1, 1987.
.0603 MINIAIUM ALTITUDES
No development involving airspace activity shall be allowed in any AEC which would result in violation of
minimum altitude standards adopted by the Federal Aviation Administration and codified at 14 CFR Part
91.79. Future amendments by the Federal Aviation Administration shall be deemed to be incorporated into
this Rule pursuant to G.S. 15013-14(c) unless the Commission objects within 90 days of publication of the
action in the Federal Register. Upon objection by the Commission to a change, the Commission shall initiate
rule -making proceedings on incorporation of the amendment into this Rule. The amendment will not be
incorporated into this Rule pending a rule -making bearing and final action by the Commission on the proposed
amendment.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-107(a),(b);
Eff. March 1, 1990.
.0604 NOISE POLLUTION
Except as required for safe aircraft takeoff and landing operations, airspace activity associated with coastal
development shall not impose an increase in average noise exceeding 10 dBA above background levels. Noise
measurements shall be normalized Ldn as set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency in its report
550/9-74-004 entitled Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect the Public Health
and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. The maximum noise level associated with any single event
shall not exceed 85 dBA. These limits shall not apply where noise impacts are confined to surface areas
owned or controlled by the project's proponent. Any noise monitoring required to ensure compliance with
this Rule shall be the responsibility of the proponent.
HistoryNote: Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-107(a),(b);
Eff. March 1, 1990.
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 12111191 Page I

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
August 18, 1995
Mr. David F. Weaver
Assistant County Manager
New Hanover County
320 Chestnut Street, Room 502
Wilmington, N.C. 28401-4093
IDFEE HNF1
Re: Ketelsleger (Goat Island) Major Development Application
Dear Mr. Weaver:
Thank you for your letter of August 14, 1995 concerning the referenced Coastal
Area Management Act permit application. In your letter, it is stated that the
proposed project is inconsistent with New Hanover County Land Use Plan policy
1.2(2), which states that estuarine system island development shall only be permitted
if proper measures are taken to provide for hurricane evacuation, access on and off
the island, utilities, and pollution control.
In a June 6, 1995 letter to the Division's Wilmington regional office, Ms.
Ketelsleger's attorney, Mr. J. Harold Seagle, contended that the plan proposed by Ms.
Ketelsleger adequately addresses the requirements of policy 1.2(2). Based upon your
letter, it appears that New Hanover County has taken the position that these
proposed measures do not satisfy the intent of the land use plan. Therefore, it is
requested that New Hanover County advise the Division of Coastal Management as
to what measures Ms. Ketelsleger could employ so that the proposed development
would be consistent with the land use plan.
It is further requested that a response to this matter be provided within 5
working days. A copy of Mr. Seagle's letter is enclosed for your information. Please
feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss this matter further. Your attention to
this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Roge N S ecter, Director
cc: Wanda M. Copley, New Hanover County Attorney
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer W%recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper

GEORGEROUNIREL11L
(1904-1979)
GEORGE ROUNTREE M
1. HAROLD SEAGLE
CHARLES M. LINEBERRY.IR
DOLORES M. WILUAMS
GEOFFREY A LOSES
GEORGE K. FAFEMAN,1R.
GJc.,a
ROUNTREE & SEAGLE, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2419 MARKET STREET
W111AAlGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403
June 6, 1995
Y JUN 8 lvlg'
HAND DELIVERY In COhSU;L .
Ms. Tere Barrett :9
North Carolina Department of Environment, g
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management 77
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
MARAIG ADDRESS
P.O. B.. 14M
Wdm-8m NO 28402-1409
TELEPHONE [phone]
FACBB.91E: 910-763-0320
Re: Eva S. Ketelsleger
CAMA Minor Permit #94-020 _
Goat Island _
Our File No. 6500.003 -- =-
Dear Ms. Barrett:
I represent Mrs. Eva Ketelsleger in the above -referenced
application. In this regard, I am compelled to respond to the May
26, 1995 letter addressed to you from Mr. Dexter Hayes.
Mrs. Ketelsleger has been pursuing the effort to make use of
her property for many months now. She has been delayed for an
extended period of time by the County Planning .Department's
announced position that the property was subject to the New Hanover
County Subdivision Ordinance.. The Planning Department has now
retreated from that position, as acknowledged by Mr. Hayes.
Mrs. Ketelsleger has been most cooperative and has made a
constant and concerted effort to satisfy all requirements for the
use of her property. In her previous meetings with representatives
of New Hanover County, when it was thought that the subdivision
regulations offered substantial barriers to developing the
Property, there was no suggestion that Goat Island was considered
a "barrier island". We hear that suggestion now, for the first
time. The property is clearly not a barrier island. Mrs.
Ketelsleger, as any other property owner in the State of North
Carolina, is entitled to the reasonable use of her property and she
would like very much to proceed.

Ms. Tere Barrett
Page Two
June 6, 1995
1Q^� J _.
:!� v ."o
Before responding to the comments in Mr. Hayes' letter, we
noticed an error in the Public Notice. That Notice published in
the Star -News indicated that the application for a development
permit proposes construction on "an undeveloped island within the
Masonboro Island Estuarine Research Reserve System." This is
inaccurate. Goat Island is not a part of the Masonboro Island
Estuarine Research Reserve System.
In specific response to Mr. Hayes' comments in his letter:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY ZONING APPROVAL
Mr. Hayes cites Section 7.5 or 75 apparently in error. I
believe the correct reference would be to Section 65 entitled
"STRUCTURES TO HAVE ACCESS". The CAMA Major Permit applied for is'
to include the building of a residential private pier which will
provide access on and off the property. The property has access to
the waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.and the Plan
provides for mainland access.
Section 66, cited by Mr. Hayes as "limiting" structures within
the easement of the Intracoastal Waterway is again incorrectly
cited. Section 66 is a notice provision, requiring that "the
building inspector shall- notify the United States Corps of
Engineers of application for a building permit... within the
easement of the Intracoastal Waterway." The required notice has
been provided.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY LAND USE PLAN
The Land Use Plan sets forth "policies". The Land Use Plan,
on its face, indicates that it is "not law in the sense of an
ordinance".
Policy 1.1(2) regards the development of "Barrier Islands".
The island known as "Goat Island" which is the subject of Mrs.
Ketelsleger's application is not a barrier island. To the West of
the property, approximately 1,000 feet away, is the mainland of
Masonboro Township in New Hanover County. To the East, Masonboro
Island isolates this property from the Atlantic Ocean. In fact,
Masonboro Island is the barrier island protecting this property.
Goat Island is more properly classified as an "estuarine system
island". "Estuarine system island" is not specifically defined in
either the Land Use Plan or any other ordinance affecting the
zoning/development of the area.
ROUNTREE & SEAGLE, L.LP.
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

Ms. Tere Barrett
Page Three
June 6, 1995
However, under every canon of statutory construction and
interpretation, the use of the term "estuarine system island", in
Juxtaposition to the term "barrier island", indicates a clear
delineation between the two types/classifications of islands.
Therefore, those restrictions aimed at development of barrier
islands are not applicable to the development of estuarine system
islands.
Under those policies regarding "estuarine system islands",
development is not precluded. Although Mr. Hayes directs attention
to certain policies, and a technical report prepared in May, 1988,
he provides no support for any argument that Mrs. Ketelsleger, in -
complying with the CAMA permitting process, would not satisfy all
those policies.
The current Land Use Plan was adopted well after the May, 1988
report cited by Mr. -Hayes, however, that technical report is not
among those listed in the 1993 Land Use Plan Update. It should not
now be given more credence by its mere mention by Mr. Hayes. Even
assuming that the report cited by Mr. Hayes was considered in
developing the latest update to the Land Use Plan, .the policies
adopted allow development on estuarine system islands.
Mr. Hayes' concern about impacts on ground water that would
occur when dredged materials are deposited on the island are not
well founded. The Army Corps of Engineers has used Goat Island
extensively as a spoil island over an extended period of time. Mr.
Hayes presents no evidence that the Army Corps of Engineers'
actions have caused any damage to ground water and Mrs.
Ketelsleger's proposed use would certainly be considered by anyone
to be relatively insignificant.
The protection of Areas of Environmental Concern is well
provided for in the existing permit process. Under the existing
permit regulations governing development, the planned development
is permissible. Mrs. Ketelsleger has responded in good faith to
each and every requirement as set forth in your June 24, 1994
letter. She has cooperated at every turn with the myriad
regulations and interpretations of regulations by the various
governmental agencies involved.
Finally, it must be recognized that New Hanover County, by
whom Mr. Hayes is employed, has zoned this property for residential
development under the R-20 residential zone. The proposal meets
all zoning requirements and is well within the permissible scope of
development as determined by New Hanover County. We trust Mrs.
Ketelsleger's application will be found acceptable and necessary
ROUNTREE & SEAGLE L.L.P.
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

Ms. Tere Barrett
Page Four _.._ ' r •. ' .1Q -
June 6, 1995
permits issued as quickly as good order will allow. If we can
answer questions or provide assistance in any manner, please let us
know.
JHS/gw
pc: Mrs. Eva S. Ketelsleger
Mr. Dexter Hayes
Mr. Charlie Hollis
ROUNTREE & SEAGLE, L.L.P.
WILMINGTON• NORTH CAROLINA

AUG-10-95 THU 02:25 PM KAREN GOTTOVI
910 350 0199 P.13
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Under Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere
Wa6hington• D.C. 20230
DESIGNATION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE
MASONBORO ISLAND COMPONENT
Consistent with the i provisions of Sec, iq�n 315 of � o
Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1461, the jS a of Nor o
met the following conditions to est Masonbo -1
component of the North Carolina Nat •'Estuari' e
Reserve.
S":
1) Masonboro Island is a repres-htativi� est. '�'He
that is suitable for long-term research"and cantr�utes
biogeographical and topological balance of the National
Research Reserve System. .,,,,
stal Zone
ina has
nd as a T
rch
l7
r
ecosystem
to the
Estuarine
2) North Carolina state law provides long-term protection
for reserve resources to ensure a stable environment for
research.
3) Designation of Masonboro Island as a reserve component
will serve to enhance public awareness and understanding of
estuarine areas and provide suitable opportunities for public
education and interpretation.
4) The State of North Carolina has complied with the
requirements of the regulations relat,j?lg to designation of a
National Estuarine Research Reserve....Y1
Accordingly, I hereby designate the '��'' ,�
g Y. Y g �•,' of Masora Island as a
component cif the North Carolina Nat . Yi�T Estuari.*" Rk search
Reserve, the boundaries of which are:"";fied :., Final
Management plan.
rS f
Jo n A. Knauss
Unger Secretary for Oceans
and Atmosphere
a'
AWty
�'jDMINISTRATOR
o

AUG-10-95 THU 03:04 PM KAR^EN GOTTOVI 910 350 0199 P.02
YI
L
planii�i: ` of any construction within the reserve will
an a cc laeotagi�a� S 1 vey of the q ven com onen'. A
tion willbe ma e w e rc aeo og>cal sites
isturbed by construction. C�tact will be made with
e Division of Archives and History to evaluate
l effects to cultural resources, Whenever feasible,
U tion plans will be altered to avoid disturbance to
ogically significant sites.
In order to protect the integrity of the Reserve,
proposed activities which manipulate habitats will be
carefully reviewed to avoid irreparable damage to specific
sites. However, manipulative research which is deemed
acceptable (e.g., within dredge material areas) by NOAA, the
reserve staff, and pertinent local advisory committee, will
be approved. Restoration of the manipulated areas should also
be considered-4rk,the proposal review.
Restora"$stli'activities will be minimal. The components
are genell " ,istine with only sporadic areas that have
ex erienced X disturbance e.g-, dredge material
deposition, h�#"i# grazing). Minor restoration such as litter
cleanup, eropi control, or reestablishment of original
shoreline vegetation may be undertaken where necessary to
enhance the research and education value to the reserve. Only
native species recognized as part of the local ecosystems may
be planted.
Because the NCNERR components fall under a number of
different and sometimes overlapping jurisdictions among state
and local agencies, coordination and cooperation among all
authorities is essential. The reserve will coordinate with
these regulatory agencies concerning activities that may
potentially impact the reserve components.
Though the four components are generally encompassed by
the preceding discussion and the use requirements listed in
the North Cargli.na Administrative Code (Appendix C), there are
a number of site -specific policies. The following policies
have been dev _d with the assistance of the local advisory
committees an'' D. Review of the use standards at a given
.component wil' part of 4onnual local advisory committee
meetings.
a. Reoresition a
Policy_ Traditional recreational uses of each component shall be allowed to
continue as long as they do not disrupt the natural integrily of the
component or any research or education projects.
m

August 9, 1995
MEMO TO:
Roger Schecter
FROM:
Doug Huggett,,,.�,/// a�
SUBJECT:
Eva Ketelsleger CAMA Permit Application
Project Description
The proposal is to construct a single family residence on the northern end of
Goat Island and a pier that would extend westward towards the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway (AIWW).
Goat Island is a privately owned island that was created about 1935 by the
placement of dredge spoil material on and around an upland hummock. The island
lies with in the boundaries of the Masonboro Island Estuarine Research Reserve but
is not a part of the Reserve property.
The proposed house and associated deck have a total footprint of 1368 square
feet. There are no associated patios, driveways or other impervious surfaces proposed.
The house will be serviced by a well and septic system, and will use a gasoline
generator for electricity. At its closest point, the house will be approximately 160' from
mean high water. A 350' x 4' boardwalk will connect the house to the 160' x 6' pier.
Approximately 60 feet of the pier will cross Spartin alterniflora marsh. A 20' x 25' T-
head is proposed at the end of the pier; the combined pier T-head will terminate
approximately 200' from the AIWW.
Issues Raised During Permit Review
1) Consistency with Local Land Use Plan
The land use plan consistency review by DCM's Wilmington District concluded
that several questions needed to be answered before the project could be found
consistent with the Wilmington/New Hanover County Land Use Plan. These questions
related to hurricane evacuation and resource protection from possible pollution caused
by either septic system failure or generator fuel spills. These issues stem from sections
of the land use plan that address development requirements of both estuarine system
islands and barrier islands.
The Wilmington/New Hanover land use plan prohibits development of barrier
islands for residential use. The DCM permit staff does not consider Goat Island to be
a "barrier island," such as Masonboro Island and Wrightsville Beach, based on widely
accepted definitions of that term.

The local land use plan, however, defines "barrier islands" as follows:
20-20 Barrier Islands: Any land formation composed of unconsolidated
materials lying on the ocean side of the mainland. Estuaries or
wetlands separate the islands from the mainland.
This definition is in the Subdivision Regulations portion of the land use plan.
It is the only definition of "barrier islands" in the plan.
New Hanover County has zoned Goat Island for residential development under
the R-20 residential zone. On March 22, 1995 the New Hanover County Attorney's
Office informed the applicant by letter that she is exempt from Subdivision
Regulations. Therefore, DCM staff believes it is not reasonable to define Goat Island
as a "barrier island" for the purposes of applying 1.1(2) to the proposed project.
DCM staff has concluded that the proposed development is on an estuarine
system island. With regards to estuarine system islands, the land use plan states:
1.2(2) Development of estuarine system islands shall be permitted only if
proper measures are taken for hurricane evacuation, utilities provision, access
on and off the island, pollution control, and other design considerations that
will ensure compatibility with the estuarine system.
The applicant's plan addressed the issues listed in 1.2(2) by including:
commuting by boat to and from Topsail Island; proper permitting of the septic system;
and proper permitting of generator fuel transportation and storage. Therefore, DCM
permit staff believes the applicant's proposal is consistent with the portions of the land
use plan that address estuarine system islands.
2) Corps of Engineers Dredge Spoil Easement
A portion of the applicant's proposed boardwalk and pier fall within an U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers easement for activities that include, but are not limited to,
dredge spoil deposition. The Corps of Engineers has indicated that it would not object
to the proposed project, provided the applicant is prepared to remove the boardwalk
and/or pier if the Corps decides to exercise its easement rights. This requirement has
been included in the permit conditions.
3) Water Quality Issues
The Masonboro Island Estuarine Research Reserve and the N.C. Division of
Parks and Recreation have raised concerns about the potential for pollution of the
waters adjacent to both the proposed development and the Reserve due to fuel spills
or septic system failure. Restrictions on activities and uses within the Reserve are
cited in Coastal Reserve Regulations T15:07O.0202, which states that;
(8) No activity shall be allowed which might pollute any stream or body of
water in the Reserve. Acts of pollution shall include:
(b) Discharge of liquids other than uncontaminated estuarine water.

The subject property is not a part of the Reserve. These concerns will be
addressed through septic system and fuel storage permits, both of which must be
obtained from New Hanover County. These permits have been required as a condition
of the CAMA permit. Additionally, the Division of Environmental Management, the
state agency charged with reviewing projects for water quality concerns, offered no
objections or comments to the proposed project. It can be reasonably assumed that
these permitting entities, with expertise in either septic system design or water quality
issues, would not issue permits or would offer objections if they felt that the project
presented unacceptable risks to water quality.
With these points in mind, we believe the applicant has adequately addressed
water quality issues.
4) Additional Review Agency Comments
The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) and the N.C. Division of Marine
Fisheries (DMF) expressed concerns over method(s) of construction access through
wetland areas. The applicant provided information about the methods and location of
construction access and staging areas that satisfied these concerns.
The WRC also asked that the portion of the pier crossing marsh habitat be
elevated to at least 4 feet above the ground elevation to increase sunlight penetration
to the marsh area beneath the pier. This request has been included as a permit
condition.
The remainder of the review agencies offered no significant comments on the
project.
Conclusion
The applicant's proposal has been determined to comply with the applicable use
standards of the Rules of the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission. Based on Section
113A-120 of the Coastal Area Management Act, which requires permit approval unless
a project is found to be inconsistent with state guidelines or local land use plans, we
recommend that the proposed development receive Coastal Area Management Act
authorization.

NEW HANOVER COUNTY
DEXTERLHAYES
Plannin9Director
Mr. Doug Huggett
Div. of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-27687
Dear Mr. Huggett:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
-HESTNUT STREET, ROOM 403
i%ON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4027
EPHONE [phone]
HS9g5 �
July 25, 1995
In response to our telephone conversation of yesterday, I am forwarding you additional
information regarding the County's definition of a barrier island. Enclosed is a copy of a 1994
letter from our Chief Zoning Officer, Ann Hines, to Ms. Tere Barrett which outlines the County's
concerns with development on islands off our coasts.
Our primary concern is one of health and safety of our residents in having adequate access
on and off the island, especially as it relates to hurricane evaluation. Section 1.1(2) of the County
Land Use Plan states that barrier islands that are not connected to the mainland by a permanent
network of roads and bridges shall only be developed for water -dependent uses.
The County has already defined barrier islands and uses that definition in our
administration of ordinances and regulations. In fact, all previous development that has occurred
within the County's jurisdiction on barrier islands or riverine islands has consistently adhered to
these requirements. There is no question in our minds that Goat Island falls within our definition
of a barrier island.
I hope this information is useful to you and appreciate this opportunity to comment.
Please call if you have additional questions.
cc: Ann Hines, Zoning Enforcement
Andrew Olsen, Asst. County Atty.

Zoning Division
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
INSPECTIONS SERVICES
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ANNEX
414 Chestnut street, Room 203
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
Phone [phone]
June 22, 1994
Ms. Tere Barrett
N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C. 28405
Re: Eva Ketelsleger - Application
for CAMA permit on Goat Island
Dear Tere:
.You have asked me to address Section 1.2(2) of the 1993
Wilmington - New Hanover County Land Use Plan Update, relative to
Mrs. Eva Ketelsleger's proposed residence on Goat Island. The
section reads: "Development of estuarine system islands shall be
permitted ,only 'if proper measures are taken for hurricane
evacuation, utilities provision, access on and off the island,
pollution control; and other design considerations that will
ensure compatibility of the development with the estuarine
systems." I'will focus on the first three criteria, i.e., proper
measures for hurricane evacuation, utilities provision, and
access on and off the island..`
The issues ,of hurricane evacuation and access are
closely linked. An obvious question is: Must the island be
linked to the mainland by a bridge? I believe the answer to this
question is found in the attached Section 41-1(11) of the County
Subdivision Regulations, and that a bridge is not required as
long as certain other steps are taken.
First, it must be noted that attached Section 20-20 of
those regulations classifies Goat Island as a barrier island, as
the term is used in the Subdivision ,Regulations. Planning
Director Dexter Hayes confirms that interpretation, noting that
even islands on the West side of the Intracoastal Waterway (e.g.,
Cedar Island), are considered barrier islands in this context.
Second, it appears the lots on Goat Island are subject
to the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations, by virtue of
their size and their fairly recent creation (September 1993). I
had initially thought the island was divided roughly in half
between Ketelsleger and Sanderson, based on the Minor Permit

Ms. Tere Barrett
June 22, 1994
Page 2
application Mrs. Ketelsleger submitted to me. However, research
at the County Tax Office reveals what appeared as the Sanderson
tract actually contains two tracts of 7.88 acres each, owned by
different parties. I am enclosing copies of deeds and a portion
of the tax map. for your reference. The acreage of these tracts
is significant, since only a limited number of exemptions from
the subdivision ordinance are allowed (Section 20-17, attached)„
and the creation of lots of under ten acres disqualifies this
division from such an exemption. Planning Director Hayes advises
me that a map of the division should be submitted by the owners)
to the County Planning Department for approval. That department
should make the formal determination as to whether a subdivision
violation exists.
If my. interpretation is correct, such a violation does
exist, and to correct it, among other things, community boating
facilities with at least three slips on both the island and the
mainland will be required. Even if this division is ultimately
found to be exempt from the Subdivision Regulations, it is my
position that the same provision of community boating facilities
should apply to this development, in order to satisfy the Land
Use Plan requirements for access and hurricane evacuation.
Planning Director Hayes concurs with this interpretation.
If we then look to the.Zoning Ordinance (Sections 23-62
and 23-62.1 attached), we see that such boating facilities, whose
use is limited by easement appurtenant to specific residential
lots, are divided into two categories. Facilities serving five
or more lots are called Community Boating Facilities and are
created only by special use permit. For a three -lot development
such as this, a Private Residential Boating Facility performs the
same function. This type of facility does not require a special
use permit. When such a facility is established on the mainland,
two conditions should be met:
1. The use of the facility must be authorized by recorded
easement appurtenant to the island lots and running with the
land (both on the island and on the mainland).
2. If an existing mainland pier is utilized, sufficient in
size to accommodate the three added slips, a special use
permit will be needed in the: event the total number of lots
served exceeds four.
As to the Land Use Plan issue of utilities provision,
Mrs. Ketelsleger has said she plans to use a generator for
electric power. The Fire Marshal's office advises that LP gas is
probably the preferred fuel, since the owner can transport a tank
to and from the mainland for fueling. If bulk fuel is off-loaded
on the island, fire code (NFPA) provisions will dictate certain

Ms. Tere Barrett
June 22, 1994
Page 3
setbacks and other requirements. Gasoline or diesel fuel would
present other requirements, notably, a containment dike around
the storage tank area. Either way, it would appear you will need
more information on the type and location of the generator and
fuel tank.
Finally, the Zoning Ordinance imposes certain road
access requirements on lots created after the effective date of
zoning. Since these lots were created after the October 4, 1982,
imposition of zoning on the area, Ordinance Section 65-1,
attached, does apply. In the event the division is found to be
exempt from the Subdivision Regulations, a zoning determination
will still need to be made concerning access between the lots and
the pier area. Additional survey work and deed conveyances may
be required.
Please let me know if there are further questions.
very trulJy yours,
l7Yr,-y
Ann S. Hines
Chief Zoning Enforcement Officer
CAMA Local Permit Officer
ASH:swr
cc: Dexter Hayes, Planning Director

20-17 Subdivision: A "subdivision" shall include all divisions of a tract or
parcel of land into two or more lots, building sites, or other divisions for
the purpose, whether immediate or future, of sale or building development,
and shall include all divisions of land involving the dedication of a new
street or a change in existing streets; provided, however, that the following
(1) the combination or recombination of portions of previously subdivided
lots where the total number of lots is not increased and the resultant
lots are equal to or exceed the standards of the County as shown in its
subdivision ordinance.
(2) the division of land into parcels greater than ten (10) acres where no
street right-of-way dedication is involved.
(3) the public acquisition by purchase of strips of land for the widening or
opening of streets;
(4) the division of a tract in single ownership whose entire area is no
greater than two (2) acres into not more than three (3) lots, where no
street right-of-way dedication is involved and where the resultant lots
are equal to or exceed the standards of the County as shown in its
subdivision ordinance.
20-18 Subdivision, Minor: A minor subdivision is a subdivision
(1) involving not more than five lots, all of which front on an existing
approved street; and
(2) not involving any new streets or prospectively requiring any new street
for access to interior property; and
(3) not requiring drainage improvements or easements to serve the applicant's
property or interior properties.
20-19 Surface Drainage: A drainage system consisting of culverts and open ditches.
20-20 Barrier Islands: Any land formation composed of unconsolidated materials
lying on the ocean side of the mainland. Estuaries or wetlands separate the
islands from the mainland.
20-21 100 Year Flood Area: The area of 100 years flood inundation as shown on New
Hanover County's official Flood Insurance Maps, as amended.
20-22 100 Year Coastal Hazard V Zone Area: The area of 100 year coastal flood
inundation with high velocity waters and hurricane action as shown on New
Hanover County's Official Flood Insurance Maps, as amended.
Section 21 Tense and Number
(1) The present tense includes the future tense and the future tense includes
the present tense.
(2) The singular number includes the plural number and the plural number
includes the singular number.
section 22 Word Interpretation
For the purpose of this ordinance. certain words shall be interpretea as
follows:
(1) The word "may" is permissive.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Wilmington Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Roger N. Schec-er
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Director
June 24" 1994
CERT)FiED MAIL. P 286 656 283
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Eva S. Ketelsleger
P. O. Box 56
Kenansville, NC 28349
Dear Ms. Ketelsleger:
F Jam.
MAR 31 1995
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
I am writing to you with regard to the application you submitted for development on your property in New
Hanover County. The proposal is for a residence and pier on an island near channel marker 139, locall;
referred to as Goat Island. Before an application can be processed it must be completed in such a manner
that the review agencies can make a thorough and complete evaluation of the project. The application you
have submitted is not complete for such a review for the following reasons:
1) There is some concern as to whether the proposed project is in compliance with the New Hanover
County Subdivision Ordinance. The manner in which this island was subdivid 1993 leaves some
question because of the fact that the parcel of land was subdivi mto lots with less than 10 acres. This
issue must be reconciled with the local government before we can process your request. The Division of
Coastal Management cannot issue permits that are inconsistent with local regulations.
2) There is a question as to whether the proposed project is in compliance with the New Hanover County
Zoning 9sdinance. As with the above, the fact that the island was su a 993 may Gave caused
the..tract to lose the option to utilize any available grandfa enng clause. Once again, before this issue is
recon`cffe3, we are-not"free-to process-the,applicado¢-
3) The New Hanover County Land Use Plan specifically states that "Development of estuarine system
islands shall be permitted only if proper measures are taken for .... access on and off the island .... This
has been interpreted in the past and currently by local and state officzafis to mean that the occupant must
not only be able to exit the island in an emergency situation, but must also have access onto the mainland.
This would require a place to leave ,your vessel and access from this location !qxplace of safety. This
may 6e as simple as obtaining 'an easement from a friend with waterfront property on the mainland who
has a docking facility adequate to moor your vessel. The County has stated that depending on the method
of access you utilize here, a Special Use permit may be necessary. Once again, this must be resolved
before we can process your application.
127 Cardiac Dore Extension. 'Ard=gmn. N.C.:S 405-3345 a Telephone [phone] a Fax [phone]
An Equal oppotmni v AfErmauve Action Emplover

Eva Ketelsleger
June 23, 1994
Page Two
4) The Fire Marshall has expressed concern over how to fuel your generator, storage of fuel, etc. We
need to see some detail on your plans regarding this issue.
5) Section 5 on your application is not filled out, and is applicable.
6) The chart in section 6 needs to be filled out with the information pertaining to the pier.
7) The plan view of the house appears to be more of a sketch. We need to see the location, the footprint,
any improvements such as sidewalk, sheds, patios, etc. This plat must be to scale.
S) Lastly, a profile view of every part of the pioject must be supplied. Though you have submitted this
for the pier, you have not submitted one for the residence.
I am returning your application to you for completion. Before you return it, please resolve the first three
items with New Hanover County and provide proper documentation. When we receive this information
along with the completed application, we can continue processing of your request. If you have any
questions, feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
T. Barrett
cc: Bob Stroud
Ann Hines
Jeff Richter
D IT'T-IT7u1 3
MAR 31 1995 J
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT

GEORGE ROUNTAFE JR.
(1904.1979)
GEORGE ROUNTREE M
1. HAROLD SEAGLE
CHARLES M. LPIESERRY, JIL
DOLORES M. WHI14MS
GEOFFM A. LOSEE
GEORGE[ FREEMAN.I&
qC.14
RouNTREE & SEAGLE, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAw
2419 MARKET STREET
WII.MINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
June 6, 1995
HAND DELIVERYq$ir+ '
MANf�
Ms. Tere Barrett
North Carolina Department of Environment, g
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management -_
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
MAILING ADDRESS
P.O. B.. 1409
Wilmlrymo, NC 7802.1409
TELEPHONE [phone]
FA(SBALE 910-763-0320
Re: Eva S. Ketelsleger
CAMA Minor Permit #94-020 _
Goat Island _
Our File No. 6500.003 --
Dear Ms. Barrett:
I represent Mrs. Eva Ketelsleger in the above -referenced
application. In this regard, I am compelled to respond to the May
26, 1995 letter addressed to you from Mr. Dexter Hayes.
Mrs. Ketelsleger has been pursuing the effort to make use of
her property for many months now. She has been delayed for an
extended period of time by the County Planning Department's
announced position that the property was subject to the New Hanover
County Subdivision Ordinance. The Planning Department has now
retreated from that position, as acknowledged by Mr. Hayes.
Mrs. Ketelsleger has been most cooperative and has made a
constant and concerted effort to satisfy all requirements for the
use of her property. In her previous meetings with representatives
of New Hanover County, when it was thought that the subdivision
rQgulations offered substantial barriers to developing the
property, there was no suggestion that Goat Island was considered
a "barrier island". We hear that suggestion now, for the first
time. The property is clearly not a barrier island. Mrs.
Ketelsleger, as any other property owner in the State of North
Carolina, is entitled to the reasonable use of her property and she
would like very much to proceed.

Ms. Tere Barrett
Page Two
June 6, 1995
i
Before responding to the comments in Mr. Hayes' letter, we
noticed an error in the Public Notice. That Notice published in
the Star -News indicated that the application for a development
permit proposes construction on "an undeveloped island within the
Masonboro Island Estuarine Research Reserve System." This is
inaccurate. Goat Island is not a part of the Masonboro Island
Estuarine Research Reserve System.
In specific response to Mr. Hayes' comments in his letter:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY ZONING APPROVAL
Mr. Hayes cites Section 7.5 or 75 apparently in error. I
believe the correct reference would be to Section 65 entitled
"STRUCTURES TO HAVE ACCESS". The CAMA Major Permit applied for is'
to include the building of a residential private pier which will
provide access on and off the property. The property has access to
the waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.and the Plan
provides for mainland access.
Section 66, cited by Mr. Hayes as "limiting" structures within
the easement of the Intracoastal Waterway is again incorrectly
cited. Section 66 is a notice provision, requiring that "the
building inspector shall- notify the United States Corps of
Engineers of application for a building permit... within the
easement of the Intracoastal Waterway." The required notice has
been provided.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY LAND USE PLAN
The Land Use Plan sets forth "policies". The Land Use Plan,
on its face, indicates that it is "not law in the sense of an
ordinance".
Policy 1.1(2) regards the development of "Barrier Islands".
The island known as "Goat Island" which is the subject of Mrs.
Ketelsleger's application is not a barrier island. To the West of
the property, approximately 1,000 feet away, is the mainland of
Masonboro Township in New Hanover County. To the East, Masonboro
Island isolates this property from the Atlantic Ocean. In fact,
Masonboro Island is the barrier island protecting this property.
Goat Island is more properly classified as an "estuarine system
island". "Estuarine system island" is not specifically defined in
either the Land Use Plan or any other ordinance affecting the
zoning/development of the area.
ROUNTREE & SEAGLE, L.L.P.
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

Ms. Tere Barrett
Page ThreeIj
June 6, 1995
However, under every canon of statutory construction and
interpretation, the use of the term "estuarine system island", in
Juxtaposition to the term "barrier island", indicates a clear
delineation between the two types/classifications of islands.
Therefore, those restrictions aimed at development of barrier
islands are not applicable to the development of estuarine system
islands.
Under those policies regarding "estuarine system islands",
development is not precluded. Although Mr. Hayes directs attention
to certain policies, and a technical report prepared in May, 1988,
he provides no support for any argument that Mrs. Ketelsleger, in _
complying with the CAMA permitting process, would not satisfy all
those policies.`
The current Land Use Plan was adopted well after the May, 1988
report cited by Mr. -Hayes, however, that technical report is not
among those listed in the 1993 Land Use Plan Update. It should not
now be given more credence by its mere mention by Mr. Hayes. Even
assuming that the report cited by Mr. Hayes was considered in
developing the latest update to the Land Use Plan, the policies
adopted allow development on estuarine system islands.
Mr. Hayes' concern about impacts on ground water that would
occur when dredged materials are deposited on the island are not
well founded. The Army Corps of Engineers has used Goat Island
extensively as a spoil island over an extended period of time. Mr.
Hayes presents no evidence that the Army Corps of Engineers'
actions have caused any damage to ground water and Mrs.
Ketelsleger's proposed use would certainly be considered by anyone
to be relatively insignificant.
The protection of Areas of Environmental Concern is well
provided for in the existing permit process. Under the existing
permit regulations governing development, the planned development
is permissible. Mrs. Ketelsleger has responded in good faith to
each and every requirement as set forth in your June 24, 1994
letter. She has cooperated at every turn with the myriad
regulations and interpretations of regulations by the various
governmental agencies involved.
Finally, it must be recognized that New Hanover County, by
whom Mr. Hayes is employed, has zoned this property for residential
development under the R-20 residential zone. The proposal meets
all zoning requirements and is well within the permissible scope of
development as determined by New Hanover County. We trust Mrs.
Ketelsleger's application will be found acceptable and -necessary
ROUNTREE 6L SEAGLE, L.LP.
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

Ms. Tere Barrett
Page Four
June 6, 1995
nor
permits issued as quickly as good order will allow. If we can
answer questions or provide assistance in any manner, please let us
know.
,Sincerely/yours,— / /'?
Harold Seagle
JHS/gw
pc: Mrs. Eva S. Ketelsleger
Mr. Dexter Hayes
Mr. Charlie Hollis
RGUNTREE & SEAGLE, L.L.P.
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROL INA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO May 27, 1995
Construction -Operations Division
Mr. John Parker
CAMA Permits Coordinator
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Parker:
This is in response to your offices notice of Application for a CAMA Major Permit by
Ms. Eva S. Ketelsleger. She is seeking State approval for development of her property on an
island locally known as Goat's Island, located in the vicinity of channel marker 139 in the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW).
The Wilmington District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for
maintaining navigation in the AIWW, which passes adjacent to the involved property, and we
have easement rights in part of the tract of land involved in the proposed permit.
As shown on the applicant's drawing, approximately 3 of the 10 acres in the tract are
subject to our easement. Based on our present information, we cannot conclude that we will not
need to exercise these rights, including the right to deposit dredged material in this area.
Accordingly, we consider the full and free exercise of these rights to be essential to future
maintenance of navigation in this portion of the Waterway.
We have no objection to Ms. Ketelsleger building a walkway and dock across our
easement, as long as she is prepared to remove it during our use of the easement. If you need
further information, please feel free to contact me or Mr. Bob Sattin, our Operations Project
Manager, at [phone].
� Sincerely,
James H. Bradley
Chief, Construction -Operations
_ Division

NEW HANOVER COUNTY
DEXTERL HAYES
Planning Director
Ms. Tere Barrett
Div. of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Dear Ms. Barrett:
PLANNINGDEPARTMENT
320 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 403
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 284014027
TELEPHONE [phone]
May 26, 1995
MAY 3 0 1995
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Per your notice of May 12, 1995, New Hanover County would like to make the following
comments concerning the application for a CAMA permit for property located on Goat Island,
which is owned by Eva Ketelsleger.
New Hanover County Subdivision Approval
Pursuant to a North Carolina court decision (Williamson v. Avent 21 NC 211 (1974)
conveying the division of heir property, we have determined that Ms. Ketelsleger's property
would be exempt from the requirements of the County's Subdivision Ordinance. The County has
also determined that other divisions of property on the same island were not exempt from the
Subdivision Ordinance and in fact would have to comply with certain access requirements prior to
being recognized as legally subdivided property. See Sections 20-20; 32-17; 41-10; 41-11; and
41-12.
New Hanover County Zoning Approval
Section 75 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that structures have adequate access prior to
the issuance of building permits.
Section 66 limits structures within easement of ICWW.
New Hanover County Land Use Plan
Policy 1.1(2) states that barrier islands having certain characteristics shall only be
developed for water dependent uses and shall not be developed for residential purposes. C This
policy also states that a barrier island should not be developed for residential use where it is not
connected to the mainland by a permanent network of roads and bridges for evacuation purposes.
This requirement is not the same as the access via Topsail Island discussed with Ms. Ketelsleger
in the context of subdivision requirements, which were waived as stated above.-3

Policy 1.2(1) states that estuarine waters, shorelines, and public trust area shall be
prohibited from use by development activity which would result in significant adverse impact to
the natural functions of these areas.
Policy 1.2(2) states that the development of estuarine system islands shall be permitted
only if proper measures are taken for Hurricane Evacuation, utilities provisions, access on and off
the island, pollution control, and other design considerations that will ensure compatibility of the
development...
Technical Report titled, "Potential Development of Estuarine Islands in New Hanover
County, May 1988, prepared by New Hanover County Planning Department and funded
by CAMA (page 3)
This report discusses some of the problems associated with the development of these types
of islands. Specific limitations involve the impacts to groundwater that would occur when
dredged materials are deposited on the island. This has the potential to negatively impact any
wells or septic system that might be located nearby.
Another major drawback to residential development would be the difficulties encountered
in their evacuation in case of a hurricane.
All other subdivision and residential permits that have been approved on island
developments off the mainland have complied with the County Zoning, Subdivision, and Land
Use Policies.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the permit application and hope this
information is useful. If you have additional questions, please contact us.
cc: Eva Ketelsleger
Ann Hines, Zoning Enforcement
Andrew Olsen, Asst. County Attorney
Roger Schecter, Div. of Coastal Mgmt.
S�incerel , 14
Dexter Hayes
J w T J/
MAY 3 C 1995
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT

HUG-10-95 THU 02:24 PM KHREN GOTTOVI _ 910 350 0199 P.12
DANE.SUMMERS
Director
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
P.O. BOX 1525
20 NORTH FOURTH STREET
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 29402-1525
TEWHONF [phone]
FAX [phone]
MEMORANDUM
.RECEIVED
TO: Dexter Hayes, Planning Director
FROM: Dan E. Summeg� PLANNING DEpr.
RE: CAMA Application - Ketelseger Property
DATE: May 22, 1995
Recently, my Office received copies of correspondence related to the CAMA application on the
site known as Goat Island near channel marker139. The Department of Emergency Management
has serious objections about the development and habitation of that island. My concerns stem
from the fact that New Hanover County does not have the ability to provide the same standard of
care afforded the other residents in our community in terms of public safety services.
The emergency response systems in New Hanover County are not designed nor funded to provide
quick response watercraft type emergency services. There is not a certified boat -ambulance in the
area. Rescue squads normally do not keep rescueboats in the water which would result in a
delayed response time. Furthermore, New Hanover County is not equipped to conduct any off-
shore or island type fire -fighting with such a limited water supply. The response process is further
complicated by the inability to combat a fire due to the lack of resources to accommodate a heavy
emergency vehicle such as a fire truck.
Thank you for your time and interest in this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please
feel free to call.
cc: County Attorneys Office
Roger N. Schecter, DEHNR

EVA S. KETELSLEGER
POST OFFICE BOX 56
KENANSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28349
March 29, 1995
HAND DELIVERY
Ms. Tere Barrett
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Dear Ms. Barrett:
Enclosed is my original application dated June 7, 1994 for a
CAMA Major permit to build a pier and vacation house on my property
located adjacent and east of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
near Marker No. 139 in New Hanover County, North Carolina. Please
refer also to your letter dated June 24, 1994 (copy enclosed)
requesting additional information about my project.
Since your letter, I have been working to get answers to your
questions, and I believe I now have those for your consideration
and hopefully your agreement. With reference to the questions in
your June 24 letter, the following information is provided:
QUESTIONS 1 AND 2: My attorney, Harold Seagle, received a
letter last week from Andrew W. Olsen, Assistant New Hanover County
Attorney, concluding that I am "...exempt from the requirements of
compliance with the subdivision ordinance.." of New Hanover County.
This exemption stems from the fact that the property was divided to
allocate my part of an inherited estate rather than for any intent
to develop or resell. Indeed, Mr. Olsen noted that my property was
greater than ten acres and was already entitled to exemption from
the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. A copy of Mr.
Olsen's letter is enclosed.
QUESTION 3: I discussed the matter of mainland access with
the New Hanover County Planning staff and was advised that I could
use the pier and dock I own at Topsail Beach to comply with this
requirement. That property is located at 1116 Channel Boulevard,
Topsail Beach, North Carolina.

Ms. Tere Barrett
Page Two
March 29, 1995
QUESTION 4: I talked to the Fire Marshall who did not seem to
be particularly concerned about this matter and advised that I
could use whatever fuel I chose. I plan to use a gasoline
generator which will be equipped with its own fuel tank. I will
bring fuel to the island in approved gasoline safety cans as needed
for the particular visit. No fuel will be stored on the island.
QUESTION 5: Section 5 of the application has been completed.
QUESTION 6: The chart in Section 6 has been filled out for
the pier.
QUESTIONS 7 AND 8: A plan and profile of the proposed house
is enclosed. No sidewalks, sheds or patios are planned.
Thank you for your patience. I hope this information will be
sufficient for the processing of my application. If additional
information is needed, please contact me in Kenansville at 910-296-
2033.
Sincerely,
ezia- A'
Eva S. Ketelsleger
Enclosures: Application
Barrett letter
Olsen letter
House plan and profile
pc: Mr. Charlie Hollis
J. Harold Seagle, Esquire
Mr. Jeffery Ritcher
Ms. Ann S. Hines

WANDA M. COPLEY
CountyAttomey
KE R P. BURPEAU
Assistant CountyAttomey
ANDREW W. OLSEN
AssistantComty Attomey
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
320 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 309
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4095
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
Harold Seagle
Rountree and Seagle
Attorneys at Law
2419 Market Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
March 22, 1995
Re: Applicability of Subdivision Ordinance toiKetelsleger Parcel
Dear Mr. Seagle:
mo. " `—� 7 7 r _
v MAR 31 1995
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
I have reviewed the decision of Williamson v. Avent, 21 NCAP 211 (1974), which you
submitted to this office at the meeting between ourselves and Wanda M. Copley. The case which
you provided us does hold, as you indicated, that the division of property amongst heirs is not
subject to the provisions of a local subdivision ordinance.
Whether this decision exempts your client from the provisions of the New Hanover
County Ordinance in this situation, however, is more problematic. Although your client appears
to have inherited an interest in the property as envisioned by the Williamson decision, she did not
choose to have a surveyor provide a division of the property between herself and her brother,
who is apparently her co -heir. Rather, I understand that her brother's interest went to BB&T
through foreclosure, and was subsequently further divided to two parties who then, along with
your client, sought division by the surveyor. Clearly, the two parties who gained their interest
from the BB&T foreclosure are not entitled to any waiver of subdivision requirements pursuant
to the Williamson decision. The issue then becomes does your client have an interest which
stands apart and is exempt from subdivision requirements.
We believe the foregoing to be a close question, but the County has decided that your
client's interest is exempt from the requirements of compliance with the subdivision ordinance
since (1) she gained her interest in the property as an heir, and (2) is presumably entitled to claim
the presumed intent of the Williamson court that the division was made to identify her interest
rather than for the purpose of development or resale. Since the Williamson court read subjective
intent into the enabling act, it would seem appropriate to credit such intent to your client
individually in this case. In discussions with our Planning Department, we also made note of the
fact that your client's property size, which is greater than ten acres, would also entitle it to

exemption from the requirements of the subdivision ordinance otherwise applicable here.
I trust the foregoing is of some assistance. Please contact me if you have any questions
or comments.
r
ly,
",- L c)lSl _.
Andrew W. Olsen
Assistant County Attorney
AWO/kc
cc: Dexter Hayes, Planning Director O � r s
Sam Burgess, Planner I
Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney
MAR 31 1gg,y
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT

a
C)
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
APPI<ICATION TRANSMITTAL/PROCESSING RECORD
APPLICANT: Eva S. Ketelsleger COUNTY: New Hanover County
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Channel marker 139 in the AIWW, north end of Goat's Island
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED COMPLETE BY FIELD: 03/31/95
FIELD RECON04ENDATION: Attached - Yes To Be Forwarded - No
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: Attached - N/A To Be Forwarded - N/A
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Tere Barrett
DISTRICT MANAGER REVIEW:
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED IN
PUBLIC NOTICE REC'D:
ADJ. RIP. PROP NOTICES REC'D:
121: s95
OF N031ft 1
Wilmington
REC'D: $ S'
APPLICATION ASSIGNED TO: ON:
75 DAY DEADLINE: 6%ii ' '/ "' 150 DAY DEADLINE:
MAIL OUT DATE: STATE DUE DATE:
FEDERAL DUE DATE: FED. COMMENTS REC'D:
PERMIT FINAL ACTION: ISSUE DENY DRAFT ON
AGENCY
DATE COMMENTS
RETURNED
OBJECTIONS
YES NO
NOTES
Coastal Management Dist. Office
!;/vt, 5-
✓
Div. of Community Assistance
6j��j5
Land Quality Section
Div. of Env. Management
L) _ S
State Property Office
- 5- - %
Div. of Archives & History
_/3-y)
l
(/
Div.. of Env. Health
-7
Div. of Highways
Wildlife Resources commission
S'- 31- ci5
Div. of Water Resources
Div. of Marine Fisheries
't7_ !v- 4 f
V

Recommendations for State Permit - Eva S. Ketelsleger
I recommend the approval of this project based on the following conditions:
1) The waterward end of the pier must terminate 85' or greater from the AIWW.
2) At the point where the boardwalk intersects wetlands, it and all portions of the pier must be elevated
a minimum of 4' above substrate.
3) Any and all measures necessary must be taken to insure the integrity of the estuarine system during
the construction phase of this project. Mats must be used when crossing the wetlands with any heavy
equipment.

- ��� RECENE4
MEMORANDUM ^_ `2 1995 5 / 31 / 9 5
TO: DOUG HUGGETT r JUNGp$SpENT
FROM: T. BARRETT MpNPGEM
RE: KETELSLEGER
This memo is with reference to the lett`dr`-from Dexter Hayes,
Planning Director for New Hanover County, addressing the
Ketelsleger proposal. I discussed this project with the Planning
Department and the county attorney prior to writing my field
report. I was assured by the attorney, who researched the question
and returned my call, that the facts regarding the mainland access
were as Ms. Ketelsleger had relayed them to me in her letter. She
stated that the county had told her that her lot on Topsail Island
would satisfy the Land Use Plan requirements for access to the
mainland. I was concerned that she may have misunderstood, and
therefore, checked with the attorney myself. He informed me that
the issue had been discussed and the planners and attorneys
together had determined that because Topsail Island is connected to
the mainland by state maintained road, that this would indeed
satisfy the necessary requirements for mainland access. I told the
attorney that I was uncomfortable with this decision as I could
foresee difficulties traveling by boat during hurricane conditions
from Goat Island to Topsail, which may have been evacuated
previously. He understood, but restated that this determination
had been made.
On 5/30/95, I received the letter from Mr. Hayes, discussing the
project. In it Mr. Hayes states that access onto an island does
not meet the requirement for mainland access. I called Mr. Hayes
to filter through this issue. He informed me that when he and the
attorneys discussed this with Ms. Ketelsleger and her attorneys,
and came to the initial conclusion, they were stating that Topsail
Island met the requirements for mainland access required in the
subdivision ordinance, not the Land Use Plan. Mr. Hayes stated
that the applicant had not specifically asked if the mainland
access issue referred to in the Land Use Plan could be satisfied
with this location. He stated further that although the applicant
meets the mainland access requirement in the subdivision ordinance,
she is also exempt from that ordinance, making it a mute point. He
does not consider the Topsail Island site to be adequate to meet
the mainland access requirements of the Land Use Plan.
I would agree with the assessment, as do our Land Planner, and
District Manager, but sympathize with the applicant who has spent
one year attempting to satisfy the needs of the various agencies,
and feels she has done so. I can anticipate her confusion over
this particular issue because it makes me feel rather light headed
myself. I told Mr. Hayes that I would appreciate his calling Ms.
Ketelsleger's attorney, because I have no desire to explain the
County's mindset on this issue.
I notice that you have put the Ketelsleger application on hold for
information regarding access across the marsh during construction.

As I discussed with you on the phone, the COE and the Fire Marshall
have also re-evaluated their initial responses to the applicant
regarding this project, and she may wish to check with them again
to iron out their recent concerns while the project is on hold for
the access issue.
I wish this memo to serve as a modification to my recommendations,
as my recommendations they did not address this issue because the
County assured me that they had. I recommend that the project be
approved based on the previously stated conditions only after the
applicant has obtained permanent access to the mainland in the
approximate vicinity of the project site.
cc: Pres Pate
Bob Stroud

$late of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
May 1, 1995
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Zod D. Bruner, District Planner
_ Division of Coastal
John R. Parker
Major Permits Processing Coo ator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant:
Project Location: Channel marker 139 in the AIW W, north end of Goat's Island, New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: the construction of a vacation home and pier on an undeveloped island within the
Masonboro Island Estuarine Research Reserve System.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by May 22, 1995. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Tere Barrett
at 910/395-3900. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
"'Ok" This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED Tl����pT DATE S o
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845 • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

MEMORANDUM
TO: John R. Parker
we I
ZI]iLl1�C A
Amn-KVA
�EHNR
Major Permits Processing rdinator
C.R.Stroud, Jr
FROM: Zo8 D. Bruner, District Planner,
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & F1LL Pe rut Application Review
Eva S. Ketelseger, AIWW Mile Marker 139, Goat Island
DATE: May 19, 1995
This permit consistency opinion is based on my review of the Ketelsleger permit application, the
Field Investigation Repon (T. Barrett, 4/28/95), and my understanding and interpretation of the
policies presented in the Wilmington/New Hanover County Land Use Plan.
The applicant's project is construction of a vacation home and pier on an undeveloped island
within the boundaries of the Masonboro Island Estuarine Research Reserve System. The location
and complete description of the project are in the Field Investigation Report.
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: Conservation (definition attached)
POLICIES: attached
CONSISTENCY OPINION:
Attached is an inclusive, but not exhaustive, list of Land Use Plan Policies which relate
to this permit application. The importance of this list is that there are so many policies applicable
to this project. Although each policies stands on its own merit, the weight of the collective group
indicates the importance of careful scrutiny of the impacts of the residential development of an
estuarine island. The impacts include destruction of coastal habitat and alteration of the natural
ecosystem by the activities during and after development; possible degradation of water quality
by erosion, wetland destruction, mnoff of contaminants, and septic failure; and health and safety
issues. It should also be noted that there are three lots on this island, each of which may wish
to develop. The effect of cumulative impacts may enter into future permit consistency opinions.
Resource Impacts
These impacts must be minimized to the fullest extent possible or avoided all together
for this project to be consistent with the Land Use Plan. While the project will be monitored
during construction (by permit requirements and the frequency of County and state inspection),
activity on the island after project completion will be minimal. For example, a fire in a vacant
ete eger emtenu buy 19,

building on the mainland is usually extinguished before extensive damage is done to the
surrounding ecosystem. This would. not be possible on an island inaccessible by road. One
possible remedy is to require the installation of a sprinkler system in the dwelling. Another
example of negative impact is septic failure and the detrimental effects such failure might have
on the adjacent waterbody; a possible remedy is required annual inspection and/or cleaning of
the system on Goat's Island. Finally, during the dwelling life, repairs and changes will be made
to the structure. Care must be taken to assure that undue harm is not applied to the island and
surrounding primary nursery/ORW (waters) during these activities.
Health and Safetv
Utilities
The issues surrounding health and safety are addressed in both the Land Use Plan and
the County's 1988 study, Potential Development of Estuarine Islands. The Plan requires that
utilities be provided if an estuarine island is to be developed, and the applicant has addressed
such provision. However, the Ketelsleger lot is adjacent to a Corps dredge spoil easement. The
County's Estuarine Island study raises the point that use of the easement by the Corps may
damage both well and septic systems.
... dredge disposal (on the Corps easement) severely disrupts the groundwater of the entire island by
the raising of the water table with an Infiltration of saltwater from the dredged materials. This impact
would disrupt wells and septic systems.
This possible problem could be resolved with a requirement for frequent monitoring of well and
septic should the Corps easement be used for spoils deposition.
However, there is no mention of fuel storage on the island for.the generator. How will this be
managed?
Access Of and On the Island:
The Estuarine Island study also cites the following Wilmington/New Hanover County
1988 Land Use Plan policy:
1.2(2) Development of estuarine system islands shall be permitted only if proper measures are taken
for hurricane evacuation, utilities provision, access on and off the island, pollution control, and other
design considerations that will insure compatibility of the development with the estuarine system.
The policy is repeated in the 1993 Plan, confirming the County's commitment to this policy and
requiring attention in this report.
The applicant proposes to commute from Topsail Island. Under normal conditions, this may be
reasonable on the face but does not in our opinion satisfy the intent of the Policy. Routine
emergency may be managed by paid dockage at commercial marinas in the area. However, the
Study says the following about hurricane evacuation,
KefcIskger sis vcy hey 19,

One major drawback to residential development of these islands would be the difficulties encountered
in their evacuation in case of a hurricane. The time required for evacuation would be significantly
extended because the first step would be evacuation by boat which would be hampered by the adverse
water conditions that often precede a hurricane long before the severe winds and flooding of a
hurricane are felt. .In addition, adequate docking facilities and parking would be required on the
mainland. It should he noted that the County has adopted a stringent policy in its Land Use Plan that
eliminates the use of barrier islands for residential development if the island does not have an adequate
eaNNOWNEetwork of roads and bridges.
Further, should the property be sold at some future date, it is unclear that any mainland access
would accompany the sale.
inion
CIt is the opinion of this office that there are several questions which need to be answered before
this project can be found consistent with the Wilmington/New Hanover County Land Use Plan.
1. Regular inspection of utilities should be arranged as a permit condition to protect the
natural resources from septic failure and the residents from contaminated water. Generator fuel
must be transported and stored in accordance with state requirements.
2. Mainland access must be found at a location in closer proximity to the applicant's lot.
cc: T. Barrett
R. Shaw
ete s egc, C.sncy may

LAND USE PLAN DEFINITION: CONSERVATION
The purpose of the Conservation class is to provide for effective long-term management and
protection of significant, limited or irreplaceable natural resources. Management of these areas
may be required for a number of reasons, including natural, cultural, recreational, productive
or scenic values.
Generally, estuarine areas of environmental concern (AFC's), as defined by the State of
North Carolina, and adjacent lands within the 100-year floodplain have been classified as
Conservation.
Conservation areas should be preserved in their natural state. Woodland, grassland and
recreation areas not requiring filling are the most appropriate uses. Exceptions to this standard
are limited to water -dependent uses (i.e., uses that cannot function elsewhere), ... and those
exceptional development proposals which are sensitively designed so as to effectively preserve
the natural functions of the site. The following guidelines clarify these Conservation area objec-
tives:
3. Exceptional developments preserving natural features are projects which are sensitively
designed so as to harmonize with the site's natural features. Such projects minimi7R
erosion, impervious surfaces, runoff and siltation; do'not adversely impact estuarine
resources; do not interfere with access to or use of navigable waters; do not require
extraordinary public expenditures for maintenance; ensure that ground absorption sewage
systems, if used, meet applicable standards; and do not damage historic, architectural or
archeological resources.
RELATED POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES:
1.0 GENERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICY
1.0(1) PRESERVE, PROTECT AND AUGMENT THE AREA'S IMPORTANT NATURAL
RESOURCES, WHICH INCLUDE THE AIR, LAND AND SEA ENVIRONMENTS.
1.1 NATURAL RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS ON DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
1.1(1) DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN OCEAN ERODIBLE AREAS, HIGH
HAZARD FLOOD AREAS, AND INLET HAZARD AREAS SHALL BE CAREFULLY
CONTROLLED. THE PROPER LOCATION AND DESIGN OF SHORELINE STRUCTURES
AND THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL PROTECTIVE FEATURES SHALL BE
REQUIRED.
1.1(3) DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN SHALL BE
CAREFULLY CONTROLLED TO MINIMIZE DEVELOPMENT, ENCOURAGE LOW
INTENSITY USES SUCH AS OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION, AND ENSURE STRICT
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS CONCERNING WETLAND
PROTECTION.
1.1(8) THE CITY AND COUNTY SHALL SEEK TO PRESERVE AND RESTORE
SHELLFISHING IN ALL SA WATERS AND TO BRING ALL COASTAL WATERS
DESIGNATED OR FORMERLY DESIGNATED SA TO THE HIGHEST QUALITY
POSSIBLE.
Ketchleger tsWncY Y

Implementation Measures
2. The City and County shall support the management of Masonboro Island in the
Estuarine Sanctuary Program,
4. All land auras falling within the 100 year floodplain will be designated
Conservation on the Land Classification Map.
1.2 PROTECTION OF CAMA-DEFINED AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERN
1.2(1) ESTUARINE WATERS, ESTUARINE SHORELINES AND PUBLIC TRUST AREAS
SHALL BE PROHIBITED FROM USE BY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY WHICH WOULD
RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE NATURAL FUNCTION OF
THESE AREAS.
1.2(2) DEVELOPMENT OF ESTUARINE SYSTEM ISLANDS SHALL BE
PERMITTED ONLY IF PROPER MEASURES ARE TAKEN FOR HURRICANE
EVACUATION, UTILITIES PROVISION, ACCESS ON AND OFF THE ISLAND,
POLLUTION CONTROL, AND OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS THAT. WILL
ENSURE COMPATIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT WITH THE ESTUARINE SYSTEMS.
1.2(3) DRAINAGE FROM LAND USE ACTIVITIES SHALL HAVE RATE OF FLOW AND
VOLUME CHARACTERISTICS AS NEAR TO NATURAL CONDITIONS AS
REASONABLE.
1.2(8) THE COUNTY AND CITY SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS TO
PREVENT FURTHER DETERIORATION OF ESTUARINE WATER QUALITY AND LOSS
OF PUBLIC TRUST USES IN THE CREEKS AND SOUNDS AND TO BRING ALL
COASTAL WATERS UP TO THE HIGHEST QUALITY POSSIBLE.
1.2(11) NO MOWING OR CLEARCUTTING OF COASTAL WETLAND VEGETATION
SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN ANY COASTAL WETLAND AEC EXCEPT WHERE
SUPPORTED BY SOUND SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE.
Implementation Measures
1. Effective State and local standards for development within estuarine systems shall
continue to receive support.
3. The County shall encourage the State to develop regulations to require inspection
and maintenance of all septic tanks with specific emphasis on the estuarine watershed
areas.
10. All coastal wetlands,. estuarine waters, estuarine shorelines, and public trust
waters shall be designated Conservation on the Land Classification Map.
19.. All state and federal building codes and other regulations relating to construction
below the six-foot contour line shall be strictly enforced.
Kmlsleger Cbnsotmoy May

LOW
North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve
Center for Marine Science Research
The Universitv of North Carolina at Wilmington
7205 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
910-256-3721
M
�j
Dcy
M REcFivE� ��
JUN 5 1995
May 31, 1995
ty L'U aIAl
MANAGEMENT
�
r
MEMORANDUM
t
it
TO: John Parker
Major Permits Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
FROM: Dr. John Taggart
Coastal Reserve oordinator
Division of Coastal Management
Mark W. Lanier ''V
Special Assistant to the Chancellor
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
SUBJECT: Eva Ketelsleger Permit Application
for Development
of Goat Island within the Masonboro
Island Complex
The Coastal Reserve Program and the University of North Carolina
at Wilmington have jointly reviewed this permit application
relative to the anticipated impacts of the proposed development on
the Masonboro Island component of the North Carolina National
Estuarine Research Reserve. UNCW has interest in this permit
because the university: 1. houses and supports the Reserve program
by an existing cooperative agreement with the Division; 2. owns
property directly across the waterway from the project site; and 3.
uses the island complex regularly for research and educational
activities.
The Reserve management plan shows that the component boundary
encompasses Goat Island (please see attached map). However, the
State does not have title to this property since it is privately
owned (by Mrs. Ketelsleger, in part) with an easement to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers for the purpose of dredge material
deposition.
The proposed development raises a definite water quality concern
relative to the surrounding estuarine waters. Mrs. Ketelsleger
wishes to use a septic tank to handle sanitation. However, the New
Hanover County Soil Survey maps Goat Island as dredge spoil which
has: "... poor filtering capacity for septic tank effluent and
The North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve is a cooperative program between the
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
National Resources/Division of Coastal Management, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Mr. John Parker
Page II
May 31, 1995
marshes" (SCS, 1977, page 38). In addition, Mrs. Ketelsleger
proposes to use a gas -powered generator as an energy source. Thus,
a fuel spill or storage tank leak in such a soil could also pollute
the adjacent estuary.
The proposed development would be in conflict with the Coastal
Reserve Regulations (T15: 070 .0202): (8) No activity shall be
allowed which might pollute any stream or body of water in the
Reserve -- (b) discharge of liquids other than uncontaminated
estuarine water. Masonboro Island has been specifically acquired
and designated as a site for research, education and compatible
recreational uses. Degradation of the site's natural integrity
must be avoided to maintain its pristine character for future
generations of users.
In addition, the UNCW property at Myrtle Grove is the proposed
site for a new marine science center to be under construction in
the near future. This facility will require access (via intake
pipe) to unpolluted waters of the intracoastal waterway adjacent to
the proposed development.
This permit review is particularly important as there may be
other individuals wishing to develop adjacent spoil island tracts
along the waterway boundary of the Reserve component. Therefore,
we recommend that the permit be denied.
Please call Dr. Taggart if you have any questions.
Thank you.
cc: Marian McPhaul
Dr. James Merritt
Roger Schecter
Rich Shaw
Dr. Steve Ross
Attachments

North Carolina National Estuarine
Research Reserve
III, I:, a;:Dredge Spoil
�� I fit,,
s
IIV 1 fia
��yIIII, III
/ R1P
Shrub Thicket
IIIIIMSuit Xarsh
II �rpul,
'IIIAIUII�IJIII !IFBeach
a
• . I�UI. d II33°
Atlantic
Ducal
Illill ' W �f
I III }tailMaritime rarest
"Iln i Ilil �_f
I _o
I
1 _ II IIII Ida$Scale 1:5000
Figure 10. Boundary and Habitats of the W E
Masonboro Island Component
S

SGS. /%77. New i�4-houc�r
so.; Sure y
10) Dred e S oil
wnese areas are along the Intracoastal Waterway and are the
result of dredging maintenance of the waterway. Most areas are
composed primarily of sand and shells. Many have a "chocolate
drop' or cone shape; others are somewhat flatter. They have been
deposited on the surrounding soil which, for the most part, is
marsh.
Most areas were not shaped and seeded after the dredging
operation; thus, areas bare of vegetation or only sparsely covered
with vegetation are common. A few of the older established areas
are covered with trees and shrubs. These spoil areas range in
height from a to 15 feet but most are less than 10 feet. The
areas that are large enough to be of value as building sites or
similar uses generally are filled and leveled to 6 to 8 feet above
the original ground level.
These areas generally are droughty because of the sandy tex-
ture and the amount of shell fragments. They have poor filtering
capacity for septic tank effluent, and there is a hazard of
pollution in the underlying ground water and marshes.
A good choice of plants for stabilizing this soil is coastal
bermudagrass since it can be established and maintained with con-
ventional methods. At any rate the acidity of these soils should
(38)

PIINI? - CO.ISTAL .11ANAG1i.I ENT T15: 070 0200
SECTION .021H) - MANAGEMENT: I'SE AND PROIECTTON OP Tllli
NORTH CAROLI\A COASTAL RFSI:RVE
-11201 M %NAGE\IE\T PLAN
The Division of Coastal Management shall prepare a management plan for the Reserve. the man-
agemcnt plan shall contain specific policies for research, education, and traditional uses at each com-
ponent. The Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development shall
approve the management plan and its revisions. The Division of Coastal Management shall monitor
and manage the components and report to file secretary violations of the approved plan and any other
situations that may be harmful to the natural resources of the Rcscrvc.
Uistarp Nate: Stanttary Amhority G.S. /13.3; 1/3.8; 143-341; 143.342; 14311-l0;
EfJ. JtrlP 1. /986.
Amended Lf: April 1, /988.
.0202 RESERVE I:SE RI:QI'IRhNII•:\'IS
The following use requirements shall apply to all of the components of the Reserve:
(1) The essential natural character of the Reserve shall be maintained.
(2) Traditional recreational uses within each component shall be allowed to continue as long as the
activities do not disrupt the natural integrity of the Reserve or any research or educational projects.
Incompatible traditional uses shall include:
(a) fishing. hunting, or trapping activities not allowed by stale regulations;
(b) target shoolina:
(c) hydraulic clam dredgine within Rewnr bound:uies:
(d) use of vehicles off designated corridors at components %%here vehicles are allowed for upland
transportation aecordine to the management plan; and
(e) production of noise disruptive to local wildlife and the aesthetic enjoyment of the Reserve as a
natural area.
(3) No user shall disturb a research project or research equipment in place at the Reserve.
(4) Camping or any fonn of habitation, whether on the uplands, wetlands, or waters within Reserve
boundaries, shall not be alloyed without the written permission of the Division of Coastal Man-
agement.
(5) Personal property not authorized by the management agency may not be placed within the
boundaries of the Rcwnr for more than two consecutive days.
(6) Users of the Rc%crvc shall not disturb or remove any lice animals, except those allowed by state
hunting and fishing regulations as they apply to the Reserve, or vegetation within the Reserve
unless such action is part of a research or educational project approved by the management agency.
(7) Persons wishing to engage in scientific research or collection of natural materials within the Re-
serve shall first secure a rillen pernnssion from the management agency.
—� (8) No activity shall be allowed which might pollute any stream or body of water in the Reserve.
Acts of pollution shall include:
(a) Deposition of solid materials not indigenous to the local coastal ecosystem; and
(b) Discharge of liquids other than uncontaminated estuarine water.
(9) No other acts or uses which are detrimental to the maintenance of the property in its natural
condition shall be allowed including, but not limited to, disturbances of the soil, mining, com-
mercial or industrial uses, timber harvesting. ditching and draining, deposition of waste materials.
11irtaty Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 14317-10;
Fff. July 1, 1986:
Amended Fff. April 1, 1988.
\ oR 171 C t ROU.\. I .I1).111.\JSTRATII'F CODE. 11109189 Page 1

June 6, 1995 Sb '
MEMORANDUM 9 .5
.NA
TO: John Parker
Major Permits Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
FROM: Lysa Hartley
Division of Parks and Recreation 1
THROUGH: Stephen P. Hall, DPR < 14
SUBJECT: Eva Ketelsleger Permit Application for Development of Goat Island within the
Masonboro Island Complex
The Division has strong concerns about the possible impacts of this project on the Masonboro Island
Estuarine Reserve. Although the Reserve is owned and administered by the Division of Coastal
Management (DCM), it was also dedicated as a State Nature Preserve in 1987, along with three other
components of the North Carolina National Estuarine Reserve System. As such, protection of the
natural features of the Reserve is the joint responsibility of DCM and the Natural Heritage Program
of the Division of Parks and Recreation. While Ms. Ketelsleger's property is not part of the
Dedicated Nature Preserve, it is located so close to the dedicated area that impacts from this
development will almost certainly have an effect on the Preserve.
Impacts on water quality are particularly of concern, and could result from a number of different
causes. During the construction phase, removal of vegetation and disturbance to the unconsolidated
sediments that compose the dredge island will undoubtedly lead to increases in silt- or pollution -laden
run-off. Installation of a septic system on a dredge spoil island, with its coarse sands and high water
table, is highly likely to result in contamination of the ground water and ultimately the surrounding
estuarine waters, including those of the Reserve. Leaks or spills of gasoline stored on the island to
power a gasoline generator are yet further threats to water quality.
In none of these cases are the impacts confined to the immediate vicinity of the project site; there will
undoubtedly be impacts on the adjoining waters, habitats, and estuarine organisms that are intended
to be protected within the Estuarine Reserve. Furthermore, we believe that these impacts would be
very difficult to avoid, given that construction would take place on a dredge spoil island, and that the
project site is located immediately adjacent to the Reserve We therefore strongly recommend that
the applicant address all of these issues before any decision is made on whether to grant the
construction permit'
cc: John Taggart

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
May 10, 1995
MEMORANDUM
KIT
/\ �: •
i...� 4t
�r L
E H , ,_. '1995
J M NAr,E�ENT
\'
�. ` m
FROM:
APPLICANT: Eva S. Ketelsleger
PROJECT LOCATION: Channel Marker 139 in the AIWW, north end of Goat's Island,
New Hanover County.
SUBJECT:
John ParkerJr. �
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
Mr. Charles R. Fullwood, Jr., Director
Wildlife Resources Commission �
Attn: Habitat Conservation Programvat
CAMA/DREDGE &FILL Permit Application Review
PROPOSED PROJECT: To construct a vacation home and pier.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed and return this form
by May 31, 1995. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact
John Parker at 733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data are
requested.
REPLY This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project, only if the recommended
changes are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the
attached comments.
Signed '
g �n t
T Date
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Parker, Jr.
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
FROM: Frank McBride, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program /
DATE May 31, 1995
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge and Fill Permit Application for Eva S. Ketelsleger, north
end of Goat's Island, near Channel Marker 139 in the AI W W, Masonboro
Sound, New Hanover County, North Carolina.
Staff biologists with the Wildlife Resources Commission have completed a
review of the project and associated impacts on wildlife and fishery resources in the area.
Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et. seq.) and the Coastal Area
Management Act (G.S. 113A-100 through 113A-128).
The applicant proposes to construct a vacation home and pier on a privately
owned 18.57-acre tract on the north end of Goat's Island, within the Masonboro Island
Estuarine Research Reserve System. The island is bordered by a wide expanse of coastal
wetlands to the east and the AIW W to the west. Area waters are classified SA-ORW,
designated Primary Nursery, and open to shellfishing. The island has been used for spoil
disposal in the past. The two bedroom residence would have a footprint of 1,368 sq. ft.,
including a deck, and would be connected by a 4-ft. wide boardwalk to a 6-ft. wide by
160-ft. long pier accessing the AIWW. Approximately 0.5 acre of highground would be
graded for construction of the house and installation of a well and septic system. Projects
documents and a phone conversation with the Division of Coastal Management indicate
that the New Hanover County Health Dept. Sanitarian has visited the site and found it
adequate for a septic system.
Project impacts include shading by the pier of approximately 120 sq. ft. of high
marsh, 360 sq. ft. of Spartina alternii fora, and incorporation of about 980 sq. ft. of open
water. Wetlands will be traversed during construction and may be damaged. Also, the

Ketelsleger 2 May 31, 1995
project may stimulate additional development on private inholdings within the
Masonboro Island Estuarine Research Reserve boundaries, the cumulative effects of
which may threaten the area's excellent water quality. Therefore, we make the following
recommendations:
Elevate the pier a minimum of 4 ft. off the marsh floor to increase sunlight
penetration underneath and minimize the effects of shading.
�Z1 GI1N'.'J
Avoid crossing the marsh with equipment and materials between April 1
and September 30, a period of high biological productivity. do n
Use pads when transporting equipment and materials across the marsh. Q S• Sri
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you need to discuss
these comments or need additional assistance, please call Bennett Wynne at (919) 522-
9736.
BW/&n
cc: Bennett Wynne, Coastal Fisheries Coordinator
William Wescott, Coastal Habitat Coordinator
Brad Hammers, District 2 Fisheries Biologist
Bobby Maddrey, District 2 Wildlife Biologist

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Project Location:
Proposed Project:
May 1, 1995
Mr. Bruce Freeman, Director
Division of Marine Fisheries
IDFEE HNR
John R. Parker
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
t
4
CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Eva S. Ketelsleger
--
Channel marker 139 in the AIWW, north end of Goat's Island, New Hanover Co.
the construction of a vacation home and pier on an undeveloped island within the
Masonboro Island Estuarine Research Reserve System.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by May 22, 1995. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Tere Barrett
at extension 246. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
V_ This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED 0 DATE 5 -3 -� S
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845 • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

MEMORANDUM
May 3, 1995
TO: John Parker
FROM: Fritz Rohde
SUBJECT: Eva Ketelsleger
The construction of the house and associated pier will have
little direct impact on marine resources. But getting the
material and equipment onto the island to do the construction
could have a major impact on the wetlands and adjacent primary
nursery area. The application does not describe how this will be
accomplished.if This description should be detailed and mehtods
used should be environmentally.sensitive so that there is no
impact to the nursery area and minimal impact to the wetlands
Until such a description is submitted and approved, the Division
of Marine Fisheries does not approve of this project.

Department of Environment,
Heath and Natural Resources
.Wilmington gton Regional Office
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Project Location:
May 1, 1995
Mr. Bruce Freeman, Director
Division of Marine Fisheries
John R. Parker
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Eva S. Ketels er
Channel marker 139 in the AIW W, north end of Goat's Island, New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: the construction of a vacation home and pier on an undeveloped island within the
Masonboro Island Estuarine Research Reserve System.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by May 22, 1995. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Tere Barrett
at extension 246. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
s agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
q`I�
SIGNED DATE"
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845 • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

July 5, 1995
TO: Doug Huggett
FROM: Fritz Rohde
SUBJECT: Eva Ketelsleger
The Division of Marine Fisheries has received and reviewed
the material on construction. If proper precautions are taken,
there should be no impact to the marine resources. The Division
has reservations concerning the project but does not object to
it.

jq♦�3-1995 14:00 FROM EHNR WILM REG OFFICE TO 919197331495 F.E13
State of North Carolina
Clepartment of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan. B. Howes, Secretary
Roger ri. Schecter, Director
AUMQ$ANMUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 1, 1995
Mr. William A, McNeil, Director
Division of Community Assistance
Ad I Allmmdwftsdwik� ok
C>EHNFit
John R. Parker
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
CANWDREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: Eva S. Ketelsleger
Project Location: Channel marker 139 in the A1WW, north eud of Goat's Island, New li Co.
Proposed Prvject: the construction of a vacation home and pier on an undeveloped island within the
Masonboro Island Estuarine Research Reserve System.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by May 22, 1995. if you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please conta.: t Tere Batt
at extension 246. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
`_This agency hasty comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED & Lo-�,e, �
DATE J
eeene ee.r --- ---- _ .. .._,.
- TI ITHL F, :_ _

JUN-'30-1995 13:59 FROM EHNR WILM REG OFFICE TO 819197331495 P.02
pw `t^TEe�
J
'►y„rN
North Carolina
Department of Commerce
James 13. Hunt, Jr., Governor S. Davis Phillips, Secretary
To: John Parker
FROM: Tom Cassell jjt tL
DATE: May 2, 1995
SUBJECT: Eva e. setelsleger'a Application, Goat's is.
I believe that one of the purposes of the Coastal Area Management Act is
to discourage people from doing just what this applicant proposes to do.
It illustrates that given enough money and resources, all obstacles can be
overcome. Who was it that said, " A fool and his money will soon depart."
Division of Community Assistance
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, N.C. 29405-3945
Telephone 910-35C"2002 a Fax [phone]
M Pa.aal Or rortsnity AEiir.,,....... a..r'✓.n F.....L...�.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
May 16, 1995
E)FE
RECEIVED
IAY 18 1995
MEMORANDUM 01V. OF MARINE FISHERIES
TO: P. A. "Ski" Wojciechowski 6
Division of Marine Fisheries
FROM: John Parker
Major Permits Processing Coordinator 7
w
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge and Fill Permit Application Review
APPLICANT: Iiwr6rKetelsleger�Z>�i
PROJECT LOCATION: Channel Marker 139 in the AIWW, north end of Goat's Island,
New Hanover Co.
PROPOSED PROJECT: Construct a home and pier within the Estuarine Research Reserve
System.
Please indicate below your agency's position or findings on the proposed project as it relates to
matters of public trust. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact John
Parker at 733-2293 or the DCM field representative for the project. This form should be used
only for tracking and intra-agency commenting.
REPLY ' There are no known public trust conflicts with the project location or
There appear to be public trust conflicts that require additional
investigation. Approximately _ days additional review time is needed.
It is recommended that changes be made to the project to reduce or
eliminate public trust conflicts, as discussed in the attached memo.
Signed Date 2 3
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 60%recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources G/S
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
L�
May, 1995
MEMORANDUM
�EHNF1
TO: Ms. Renee Gledhill -Early
Environmental Review Coordinator
Division of Archives and History
FROM: John Parker, Jr.
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
APPLICANT: Eva S. Ketels1W
PROJECT LOCATION: Channel Marker 139 in the AIW W, north end of Goat's Island,
New Hanover County.
PROPOSED PROJECT: To construct a vacation home and pier.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return
this form by May 31, 1995. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please
contact John Parker at 733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data
are requested.
REPLY This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
40� ?I-- This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project, only if the recommended
changes are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the
attached comments.
i
Signed /AZ4y-S"'Date
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper

J
ate of North Caroline
epartment of Enviror
Health and Natural Re / P
Division of Coastal Manage) ��l a �dM I'l l:
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor AN
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretc
Roger N. Schecter, Director
-H
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Linda Sewall 1vg5
Deputy Director
Division of Environmental Health �� OF ENV;RONMENIAt H�AI Td
FROM: John Parker, Jr.
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
APPLICANT: E lM
PROJECT LOCATION: Channel Marker 139 in the AIWW, north end of Goat's Island,
New Hanover County.
PROPOSED PROJECT: Construct a vacation home and pier.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return
this form by May 31, 1995. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please
contact John Parker at 733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data
are requested.
REPLY This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project, only if the recommended
changes are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the
attached comments.
Signed/ �G/ l�� ,!/1� Date*4-
O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10%post-congener paper

Ift
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
May(, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. John Sutherland, Chief
Water Planning Section
Division of Water Resources
Q��
EMEHNR
FROM: John Parker, Jr.
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
ffffff I M...
DIVISION Of WATER RESOi GES
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
APPLICANT: Bete eger
PROJECT LOCATION: Channel Marker 139 in the AIW W, north end of Goat's Island,
New Hanover County.
PROPOSED PROJECT: To construct a vacation home and pier.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return
this form by May 31, 1995. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please
contact John Parker at 733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data
are requested.
REPLY This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
vow This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project, only if the recommended
changes are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the
attached comments.
Signed /11 Date . 7 S u
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Project Location:
May 1, 1995
Mr. Charles Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources
A 00
61LA
1DEHNR
John R. Parker
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Eva 8: Ifetelsleger
Channel marker 139 in the AIWW, north end of Goat's Island, New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: the construction of a vacation home and pier on an undeveloped island within the
Masonboro Island Estuarine Research Reserve System.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by May 22, 1995. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Tere Barrett
at extension 246. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED DATE
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845 • Telephone [phone] a Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

State of North Carolina DP ������
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources MAY 2 D
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Coastal Management ___................ _._..
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor 1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary 1Nit/
Roger N. Schecter, Director
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
May 1, 1995
A&4
IDFEE HNR
Mr. A. Preston Howard, P.E., Director
Division of Environmental Management
John R. Parker
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
rooIU1 �'11
Dip
MAY: 16 1995
DIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL MGT'
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Eva S. Ketelsleger
Project Location: Channel marker 139 in the AIWW, north end of Goat's Island, New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: the construction of a vacation home and pier on an undeveloped island within the
Masonboro Island Estuarine Research Reserve System.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by May 22, 1995. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Tere Barrett
at extension 246. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
lv, go Fr10
SIGNE DATE
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845 • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
May 10, 1995
MEMORANDUM
IDFEE HNR
TO: Mr. Larry R. Goode, Phd., P.E. /p
Highway Administrator
Division of Highways M lg iy95
cq t .
FROM: John Parker, Jr.�taAG'-Stt.T V
Major Permits Processing Coordinator /�, 00
011 g�
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
APPLICANT: Eup & Kammer
PROJECT LOCATION: Channel Marker 139 in the AIWW, north end of Goat's Island,
New Hanover County.
PROPOSED PROJECT: To construct a vacation home and pier.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return
this form by May 31, 1995. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please
contact John Parker at 733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data
are requested.
REPLY This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project, only if the recommended
changes are incorporated. See attached.
This, age cy objects to the project for reasons described in the
at hed mments.
Signed Date 9 5-
P.O. Box 27687, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper

r:
•
A
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
/0
May J, 1995
MEMORANDUM
A&
dRftddftWdft�
ED FE F I
TO: Mr. Wallace R. Sherron, Director
State Property Office
Department of Administration
FROM: John Parker, Jr.
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
APPLICANT: telsleger
PROJECT LOCATION: Channel Marker 139 in the AIW W, north end of Goat's Island,
New Hanover County.
PROPOSED PROJECT: To construct a vacation home and pier.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return
this form by May 31, 1995. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please
contact John Parker at 733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data
are requested.
REPLY This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project, only if the recommended
changes are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the
a c ed comments.
Sign ._ Date �
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% past -consumer paper

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: Eva S. Ketelsleger
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Channel marker 139 in the AIWW, north end of Goat's
Island, New Hanover County.
Photo Index - 1989: 178-23 gr. 11 & 12, L thru N 1984: 17-217 gr. 8 & 9, P thru R
State Plane Coordinates - X: 2345000 Y: 143700
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - 2/15/94
Was Applicant Present - Yes
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - cc: 3/31/95
Office -Wilmington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - New Hanover County
Land Classification From LUP - Conservation
(B) AEC(s) Involved: PT, EW, ES, CW
(C) Water Dependent: Piet - yes; Home - no.
(D) Intended Use: Vacation home
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - None
Planned - Septic system
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - None
Planned - Residence, Pier
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source - N/A
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
DREDGED FILLED INCORP
(A) Vegetated Wetlands
SSpartina alterniflora
360 sf
Mixed high marsh
120 sf
(B) Non -Vegetated Wetlands
(C) Other
High Ground
.5 ac
1400 sf
Open Water
980 sf
(D) Total Area Disturbed: .5 acre
(E) Primary Nursery Area: Yes
(F) Water Classification: SA-ORW Open: Yes
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: Applicant proposes to construct a vacation home and pier on an
undeveloped island within the Masonboro Island Estuarine Research Reserve System.

Ketelsleger
Page 2
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4/28/95
The project site is a private island lying within the boundaries (but is not a part of) the Masonboro
Island Estuarine Research Reserve System, in the vicinity of the AIWW channel marker 139. The
island is approximately 34 acres in size, and is divided into three tracts. The project tract is 18.57 acres
in size. This is an estuarine island that does not directly border the Atlantic -Ocean. The island is
bordered by a wide expanse of regularly flooded marsh to the east, and the AIWW to the west. The
island is partially within the US Army Corps of Engineers right of way, and has been used previously
for spoil disposal. The perimeter of the island is wooded, and heavily vegetated with typical understory
vegetation such as wax myrtle and cat brier. The inner and largest portion of the island is sparsely
vegetated with vegetation showing early stages of succession. As would be expected on a spoil island,
this area is largely void of vegetation, and has a very sandy substrate. The island averages 15' in
elevation.
New Hanover County classifies this island as Conservation. The Plan addresses development on barrier
islands and states that any development must be water dependent if five criteria are met. This island
meets only four of these criteria, and is questionably called a "barrier" island. In addressing estuarine
islands, the Plan requires that certain measures be taken, such as utilities provision, access on and off
the island, etc. The applicant has spent the past year trying to address and satisfy these requirements,
and feel she has done so. The County attorney has stated that the project is exempt from the
subdivision ordinance addressing infrastructure road systems. This interpretation is included.
The waters of Masonboro Sound are classified SA-ORW by the Division of Environmental
Management; this area is a designated Primary Nursery Area; and the waters are open to the taking
of shellfish. Federal flood insurance is not available for any development on this island. The New
Hanover County Health Department Sanitarian has visited the site, and determined that a septic system
permit is available. They have chosen not to issue this permit until the applicant can show permits for
the primary use, namely, the residence.
The location of this island within the Estuarine Research Reserve System has necessitated full review,
and a major CAMA permit.
The proposal is to construct a single family residence on the northern end of the island, with a pier
extending westward towards the AIWW. The home and deck proposed have a total footprint of 1368
square feet. There will be no associated patios, driveways, or other impervious surfaces. The home
will be serviced by a well and septic system, and will utilize a gasoline generator, transporting fuel to
the island during visits. The residence is to be constructed east of the AIWW right of way. At its
closest point, the home will be approximately 160' from mean high water. The applicant anticipates
approximately 1/2 acre will have to be graded for the construction of the home, and the installation of
the well and septic system.
A boardwalk is proposed to connect the home to the proposed pier to the west. The boardwalk would
be approximately 350' in length, and 4' wide. The proposed pier will be 6' wide, and extend for 160'
in length. Approximately 20' of this is above mean high water, 60' stretches over Spartina alterniflora,
and the remaining 80' extends into the open body of water. The pier connects to a 20' x 25' T-head,
terminating in -3.8' mean low water, approximately 200' from the AIWW.

For hurricane evacuation the applicant has proposed and been approved by the County to utilize a pier
on property they own on Topsail Island. Though the policy in the Land Use Plan requires a access to
the mainland, the New Hanover County Planning Department has determined that access onto an island
with a DOT maintained bridge satisfies this requirement.
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Approximately 1/2 acre of high ground will be graded and filled for home construction, and well and
septic tank installation. The project falls far below the percentage allowance for built -upon area within
the ORW Estuarine Shoreline. The boardwalk will be placed on 1400 square feet of high ground. The
pier will be elevated over approximately 120 square feet of mixed high marsh, approximately 360
square feet of Spartina altemiflora and will incorporate approximately 980 square feet of open water.
Wetlands will be crossed with equipment and supplies during construction. This must be accomplished
very carefully in order not to damage the wetland system.
Submitted by: T. Barrett Date: 4/28/95 Office: Wilmington

Please t}pe or print. Carefully describe all anticipated
development activities, including construction, excava-
tion, filling, paving, land clearing, and stormw•ater con-
trol. If the requested information is not relevant to your
project, write N/A (not applicable). Items 1-4 and 8-9
must be completed for all projects.
1 APPLICANT
a. Name I= ✓A C. ISle a er
Address P_c2 eX -D!o
t
CityState /� G
Zip 3y Day phone 9/0- 2 96-J e 3 3
3ndo%vner or :atho.^4z,-4 ages.
b. Project name (if any) IJn d ,?-
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give the
owner's name and address.
ND
2 LOCATION OF PROPOSiEB
PROJECT JUN
a. Street address or secondary road number
b. City, town, community, or landmark
If you plan to build a marina, also complete and
attach Form DCM-MP-2.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an
existing project, new work, or both?
Ne• [ o r. k
c. Will the project be for community, private, or
commercial use?
Safie, «r
r
d. Describe the planned use of the project.
r I mts Vfl KEfieN -inrvr e
4 LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. /Y Size of entire tract If /Qz✓
15. Size of individual lot(s) A
vation of tract above mean sea level or
tional Geodetic Vertical Datum
,A l 9ncA1. A
d. Soil type(s) and textur(s) of tract .
SPW
L Man-made features now on tract A0 k e
!T'lflSCNDora T�u+i✓shiY n q� e�
-� 1 19�5
c. County /1/r r .) 1-�.E} nt„ ne t^ �i�R g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classification of
4the cite? (COr , 1,. the lc a. lama.- use tom^
d. ,s proposed work within city limits or planning til\r 1S1 � t7r, p" )
NT
jurisdiction? NetA, Z11A1,rt r Ccunll`tr '\L Conservation
onser
agon —Transitional
e. Name f body of water nearest project Developed _ Community
Z T t, 1 4. 1 Rural _ Other
3 DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
2-20
L How are ad'acent waters classified?
-9 1,J
a. Describe all development activities you propose (for j, Has a professional archaeological survey been
example, building a home, motel, marina, bulkh ad, carried out for the tract? O If so, by whom?
or pier). Y1� C. A fi,qi✓ 40 me. gH
3/91

5 UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
Complete this section if the project includes any land
development.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, or
structuresproposed
tip U S e
b. Number of lots or parcels d%dc
c. Density (Give the number of residential units and the
unitsper acre.) r e, 1" e 5 r d e
hn l<< AN 19' 19Gf 5 �
d. Size of area to be graded or disturbed
c. if the proposed 'y'i GjeCi'..'ih &:
disturb mo. 'n C....
acre of land, the Division of Land Resources must
receive an erosion and sedimentation control plan at
least 30 days before land disturbing activity begins.
If applicable, has a sedimentation and erosion
control plan been sut)rtyined to the Division of Land
Resources?
f. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet of
mean high water to be covered by impermeable
surfaces, such as pavement, buildings, rooftops.
�f o ty
g. List the materials, such as marl, paver stone, asphalt,
or concrete, to be used for paved surfaces.
WO 11e d SG r-FAce 5 1LOPb sect
h. If applicable, has a stormwater management plan
been submitted to the Division of Environmental
Management? 6[ / 0
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste
water urea � facilities�A ly t�
j. Have these facilities received state or local approval?
A �32 P71b DIE ; 5
k. Describe existing treatment facilities.
n� Ce —
1. Describe location and type of discharges to waters of
the state (for example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/commercial effluent, "wash
down"). IN 0 hle
,2
in. Water supply source � N e1 1 r/t d awl /-/
n. If the project is oceanfront development, describe
the steps that will be taken to maintain established
public beach accessways or provide new access.
o. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will be the
elevation above mean sea level of the first habitable
floor?. DI/ A —
6 EXCAVATION AND FILL
INFORMATION
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation
or fill activities (excluding bulkheads, which are
Access channel
(1rI1-W) or (IN,;
b. Amount of material to be excavated from below
water level in cubic yards ti'o lJ ni
c. Type of material
d. Does the area to be excavated include marshland,
swamps, or other w,etll ds?
e. High ground ground ex tion, in cubic yards,,
cubic yards,
MCI�44
€or Noas< f1t'Pror,/rn4lel/
f- a Cµ- 4, 3/91

f. Dimensions of spoil disposal area
g. Location of spoil disposal area
h. Do you claim title to the disposal area?
If not, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
i. 'Pill a disposal area be available for future
maintenance?__ 1/l�
If so, where?
j. Does the disposal area include any marshland,
swamps, or water areas.)
ZO
k. Will the fill arerial be pmean
laced below n high
water? �rZ
I. Amount of fill in cubic yards
in. Type of fill material/!1
n. Source of fill material
o. Will fill material be placed on marsh c
wetlands?_ ND
p. Dimensipns of the wetland to be filled
q. How will excavated or fill material
and erosion controlled?
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months, in
d. Type of bulkhead material .#
e. Amount of fill, in cubic ids, to be placed below
mean high water
f. Type of fill material
8 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the follow-
ing items must be submitted:
A copy of the do-d (with state application. only) or other
instrument under which the applicant claims title to the
affected property. If the applicant is not claiming to be
the owner of said property, then forward a copy of the
deed or other instrument under which the owner claims
I,r iq s written permission from the owner to carry out
e , ct. JC - CAplA d
1/Ic.._r I S CNelaS-4
19on accurate work plat (including plan view and cross
sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black ink on an 8
x 11 white paper. (Refer to Coastal Resources
!A .on Rule 7J.0203 for a detailed description.)
r. What type of construction equipment w4116e uszq; ( '1
(for example, draggline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)? A/77 A] a-- nnn^tt�
s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site'? _ If yes, explain steps that will
be taken to lessen environmental impacr�
L15e ter kP1d I3oAnlwalK
Te m fJP rn r / 111 (4 ttl Vc
7 SHORELINE STABILIZATION
S' giuza-no^f 12D pa5ED
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap
b. Average distance waterward of mean high water or
normal water level
1'.5 doer rh ­5 s *61e . PtCv G.ar/d
1/1
L.jt_gp cj,/rarAmcl-t<u�L indtrdw4g<
31915'rdm 'thy h6,s`Tvtft4 (atcr., 7'hi5
brna�,IujalK_i�,11 b V-J9JPrbK1MJ,tety
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
_onlyhig"uality copies will be accepted. Blue -line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 18 high
quality copies are provided by applicant. (Contact the
Arm orps of Engineers regarding that agency's
usrof
larger drawings.) A site or location map is a part
of plat requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed
id gutdeLagency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
site'.cYKlude county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and
the like.
A stormwater management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
individuals have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management and should be advised by the applicant of
that opportunity.
3 6D L�f G6u4rr

(_S vu7h )
Tame �Jk aw LeAfc L 5:ay4erso_,&I_
Address Te r e s.w r= . 5 H Xd c rs e e
A03-4
Name
Address
(�Name KoYet wi-th.N a000�
Address
A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
perminee, and issuing dates.
A check for $250 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources to cover
the costs of processing the application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projectf in oceanfront
and inlet areas.
A statement on the use of public funds. If the project
involves the expenditure of public funds, attach a state-
ment documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to 10).
9 CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
Any permit issued in response to this application will
allow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to conditions and restrictions
contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's ap-
p.oved Coastal Management Program and will be con-
ducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I further certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in
fact, grant permission to representatives of state and
federal review agencies to enter on the aforementioned
lands in connection with evaluating information related
to this permit application and follow-up monitoring of
project.
This is the �_ day of 0 I M A 199
X��
Landowner or Authorized agen
7 �, FIR
JL Ii,
J MAR 331 1995 J'U
DIV1SiON OF
COASTAL i'diAPJAGEMErNT
3/91

INTR.Ac-o ASTAL WATErc,.aaY
rr.w• o pprtoros�
pICR
7•3Z AG 13c, D 11
wpy11 °. Ly
11 .0
M,j-rQA�ASTA" q
u�/gERWI.Y R��J 7 µ18.5L G
01v w.t Jv �e II
TZ-33 4�es..
/
EJA 1-ETELS(J54F4Z
Nov
7.94 AG2E$
P¢o DOSED
Z9EA ¢ooH
p..1 FiLl.1G
L
t�•.1 �yr.f° n 1Z
114. 0w /N.w•�'
Y,ue SQ. Pr.
4 RQJ F, aS
ooO�Lt;? •pq0'•�,�
SEAL�G`
X
�L W.
LIGNELL W. HOOD Ill (BILLY)
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOn
118 Friendly Lane
Wilmington, NC 28409
[phone]
FAX [phone]
JUN 1)( 1994
2N ��.,rz` Hpp.CER
n
1.146 AG.
ai,a no,+.
ITZ-35
SH.dY � •=NTRA COASTAL
S,ro�w"e
,.)AT62wa`( 21L-)
/ 4),
°S� µ JC7
L '
2- L, MAR 31 1GO9�
DIVISION OF
COASTAL Pv1AiiNAGcMF`dT
PROPOSED PIER
MASONBORO SOUND, NEW HANOVER COUNTY
For
EVA S. KETELSLEGER
P.O. BOX 56
KENANSVILLE NC 28349
June 7, 1994
SHEET 1 of 2

i 5
0
EDGE OF �.ppQoX.SouNo�Nos 3Ecow/vt.LW
,draw ,�.SN-1401
�ot4N I/iEw
S-e -Tiot1 ✓ �W
/mot, Scncc
/Ya jVo2rec�e- S�re<S
_z
W
�
m
W UJ
Oo
Or
C � �
> Q
/�PP.eOX;Zoo'
To Face' ��
W(M LW)
r
Z
W
Uj
u Uj
PROPOSED PIER
a
MASONBORO SOUND, NEW HANOVER COUNTY
j0
For
<
N
EVA S. KETELSLEGER
_
P.O. BOX 56
J
KENANSVILLE NC 28349
01
—' U)
June 7, 1994
SHEET 2 of 2

A

X X
m
-9
ci
LIVING ROOM 0
0
15' - 8" x 24- - 0"
4.78m x 7.32m
26'.0" x 6'-0"
7.93m x 1.83m
BEDROOM-1
14'-07x 9'-4".
4.27m x 2.85m
NOD
r
x x 0 1
- 31,
j
z
—Ix
Mll-
BEDROOM-2
14'- 0" x 9'- 4"
4.27m x 2.85m
38'- 0" x 24'- 0"
11.59m x 7.32m
912 SQ. FT. LIVING —84.72m'
456 SO. FT. DECK —42.36M2
1368 SQ. FT. TOTAL —1 27.08m'
7
f

Division of Coastal Management
Application Processing Notes
Applicant: 1Cn / s/s � er, C',,^ (-,.Il�h
.TT
Deadline: � //N/`/.Sr
Date/Time: Message: AIV
sissys
R{�; Av o-6i.r
A
u��lPt��ti
c/13/4i -
rZev cw. St,li Hd Fey[ QQ�Ocnse,
/
:. !�
GCC CS
�c,��. n1•Sres SP/ w, %� %dhn. (u/if�rd� l•
7LTt� `}did^f Lt a5 C�m,'�y-:o1J Lcf=. Stn�
*o4,- C Aeur
(h/o Z46-1o33�.Wt
yi31/ef
- UeEsf,v1 /�PGi•c^"♦3 Pliant C^!I
6H0-, '.11ou t .ct mo c. vu
w,ll CO(
Ttfe P: ,f +t f ..✓ho s•,'r/ t?�nt Ge Fi« (•�^Fr
R l kt� �/e r�
wus o^ >u
4 ✓�'�[v.+f:an, M4r f:+�/Se hel0l^�qJ (• h.m" rli'l (SiGyGI.
�` ACCtfa iL Q m �+CI3,
iD Ij wk"i n=CAINEE �O /
6/IZ/C7
r inlroJ PNfRfi tv 0,5Cv55
-A?oC 4 I so 10.rsian ,

Division of Coastal Management #'f
Application Processing Notes
Applicant:
Deadline: 7//%9s
Date/Time: Message:
trace' xW' 4 /u, 4-" ^ aPp 1.c, 7- f'AL, I
Ctnsfiv�an aKCs� I.4 of ScIW b
1'-16-'; - Apnl,c--,I. qd%- Gl✓r54vBn51"L
r_
_Se n-' 0, I „ it�k-
( ,
r,It"4 0M-f �ck,�� Orwr Cpeninsn%
7-1 to qIS
- GoT 1u5r rdt WuAr r"J.
7- 1( 9t
- of Sc"ssrd
yso,rry
-�.
" 14
H.. Yty r A/hV I�P,4JCr /J fje_c731-tii iC
\ u.,o-d1k sc k �+�
-7
T-4Ika Sec/ �r:rl;„ymeno.
/nti�;es, ®M�Ph.�l rellr�- St./l ob�ufS
- 5✓y5rs�'s r4/I;nS �i2 /hpistilje/ tine
V. S, <ousl if vc re re Fv t( Ire, gprf.
�-ti-ys -
r, ,3 ��5tr „v, auk. re✓ ��t
^� morn Iz,lNei is -F;2 m.tslr,l

A�