20130465 Ver 1_401 Application_20130513

213x
Transportation 0 0 65
Land Development
Environmental
Services
•
imagination I innovation I energy Creating results for our clients and benefits for our communities
I 1
April 30, 2013
Ref: VHB Project No. 33259.1
Ms. Karen Higgins
N.C. Division of Water Quality
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: National Park Service
Cape Lookout National Seashore
Harkers Island Visitor Center
Harkers Island, N.C.
401 Water Quality Certification
Dear Ms. Higgins,
The U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service (NPS), Cape Lookout National Seashore recently
completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act for
proposed modifications to their Visitor Center area on Harkers Island, where the NPS owns 91 acres at the
eastern tip of the island. The Visitor Center serves as the primary gateway to the park and will serve as a
passenger ferry departure site beginning in 2014.
Limited funding Is available for the improvements described in the EA; therefore, the NPS is proposing to
construct a limited subset of facilities at this time as the first phase in making the proposed Improvements.
The remaining improvements will be implemented when funding becomes available, and the NPS will acquire
the appropriate permits for those actions at that time. The actions currently proposed for construction
(Phase 1) include the improvement of existing facilities to provide areas for orientation, ticketing, passenger
staging/waiting, and adequate mooring space for both NPS and ferry concessioner boats.
Specifically, two (2) existing fixed docks and associated mooring piles would be removed from the boat basin
to allow for the installation of a new aluminum gangway and floating dock system that is designed for
passenger ferry services. A new covered shelter, or queuing area, would be constructed adjacent to the ferry
docks for waiting visitors. Additional sidewalks and gathering area would be constructed around the shelter
and up to the Visitor Center where a ticketing booth is proposed. Finally, the existing fuel island would be
repositioned to accommodate the queuing area and to better service NPS vessels moored along the southern
side of the basin. The area of land disturbance for the project is estimated at 0.51 acres, while the new dock
system will increase dock space by 1,143 square feet of open -water within the basin (the two existing docks
each are about 150 square feet each, and the new dock will be approximately 1,443 square feet).
The NPS does not believe that any jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by the proposed construction.
Adjacent to the visitor center, a small (0.3 acre) rain garden was constructed in 2008 as a demonstration
project with grant funds from the N.C. Coastal Federation. Capacity affected by grading for the new ticket
booth will be replaced and performance maintained.
351 McLaws Cirde, Suite 3
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 -6316
7S7.220.0500 ■ FAX [phone]
www.vhb.com

Ms. Karen Higgins
Ref: VHB Project No. 33259.11
Apr1130, 2013
Page 2
On behalf of the NPS, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) is seeking NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) approval of the proposed modifications. Based on early coordination
conducted by park staff with DWQ and ACOE representatives, these activities may qualify for a NC General
Water Quality Certificate and Nationwide Permit 3 for Maintenance. The enclosed Pre - Construction
Notification (PCN) form, supporting drawings and $240.00 check for the application fee are being submitted
for your review and consideratipri .FJve (�) complete copies of the PCN and drawings are included.
IV ; ; ' yet i
We are forwarding additional copies urit�e4e: ai'ate cover to and Mr. David Timpy (ACOE), who has offered
to provide a copy to Ms. Joann @`SMVn 9JDWQ), as well. Upon review, should you have any questions
regarding the submittal please feel free to contact me at (757) 220 -0500. We look forward to working with
you through the permit process.
Very Truly Yours;
iGEN BRUSTLIN, INC.
Senior Environmental Scientist
w /enclosures
• Pre - construction Notification (PCN) Form
• Permit drawings to support the PCN (sheets 1- 9)
• Excerpt from the Harkers Island Passenger Ferry Departure Site Environmental Assessment
• Concurrence letters from the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the N.C. State Historic Preservation Officer
• Agent Authorization Form
cc: Mr. David Timpy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ms. Joanne Steenhuis, DWQ, Wilmington Regional Office (via David Timpy)
Mr. Pat Kenney, Park Superintendent, Cape Lookout National Seashore
El

Transportation
Land Development
Environmental
Services
Ref: VHB Project No. 33259.11
Ms. Karen Higgins
N.C. Division of Water Quality
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: National Park Service
Cape Lookout National Seashore
Harkers Island Visitor Center
Harkers Island, N.C.
401 Water Quality Certification
Dear Ms. Higgins,
The U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service (NPS), Cape Lookout National Seashore recently
completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act for
proposed modifications to their Visitor Center area on Harkers Island, where the NPS owns 91 acres at the
eastern tip of the island. The Visitor Center serves as the primary gateway to the park and will serve as a
passenger ferry departure site beginning in 2014.
Limited funding is available for the improvements described in the EA; therefore, the NPS is proposing to
construct a limited subset of facilities at this time as the first phase in making the proposed improvements.
The remaining improvements will be implemented when funding becomes available, and the NPS will acquire
the appropriate permits for those actions at that time. The actions currently proposed for construction
(Phase 1) include the improvement of existing facilities to provide areas for orientation, ticketing, passenger
staging /waiting, and adequate mooring space for both NPS and ferry concessioner boats.
Specifically, two (2) existing fixed docks and associated mooring piles would be removed from the boat basin
to allow for the installation of a new aluminum gangway and floating dock system that is designed for
passenger ferry services. A new covered shelter, or queuing area, would be constructed adjacent to the ferry
docks for waiting visitors. Additional sidewalks and gathering area would be constructed around the shelter
and up to the Visitor Center where a ticketing booth is proposed. Finally, the existing fuel island would be
repositioned to accommodate the queuing area and to better service NPS vessels moored along the southern
side of the basin. The area of land disturbance for the project is estimated at 0.51 acres, while the new dock
system will increase dock space by 1,143 square feet of open -water within the basin (the two existing docks
each are about 150 square feet each, and the new dock will be approximately 1,443 square feet).
The NPS does not believe that any jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by the proposed construction.
Adjacent to the visitor center, a small (0.3 acre) rain garden was constructed in 2008 as a demonstration
project with grant funds from the N.C. Coastal Federation. Capacity affected by grading for the new ticket
booth will be replaced and performance maintained.
351 McLaws Circle, Suite 3
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 -6316
757.220.0500 ■ FAX [phone]
www.vhb.corn

Ms. Karen Higgins
Ref: VHB Project No. 33259.11
April 30, 2013
Page 2
On behalf of the NPS, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) is seeking NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) approval of the proposed modifications. Based on early coordination
conducted by park staff with DWQ and ACOE representatives, these activities may qualify for a NC General
Water Quality Certificate and Nationwide Permit 3 for Maintenance. The enclosed Pre - Construction
Notification (PCN) form, supporting drawings and $240.00 check for the application fee are being submitted
for your review and consideration. Five (5) complete copies of the PCN and drawings are included.
We are forwarding additional copies under separate cover to and Mr. David Timpy (ACOE), who has offered
to provide a copy to Ms. Joanne Steenhuis (DWQ), as well. Upon review, should you have any questions
regarding the submittal please feel free to contact me at (757) 220 -0500. We look forward to working with
you through the permit process.
Very Truly Yours,
ASS GEN BRUSTLIN, INC.
Chris Frye
Senior Environmental Scientist
w /enclosures
• Pre - construction Notification (PCN) Form
• Permit drawings to support the PCN (sheets 1- 9)
• Excerpt from the Harkers Island Passenger Ferry Departure Site Environmental Assessment
• Concurrence letters from the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the N.C. State Historic Preservation Officer
• Agent Authorization Form
cc: Mr. David Timpy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ms. Joanne Steenhuis, DWQ, Wilmington Regional Office (via David Timpy)
Mr. Pat Kenney, Park Superintendent, Cape Lookout National Seashore
Is

W n r�Rp6
r
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑ Section 404 Permit ❑X Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑X Yes ❑ No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
0 Yes ❑ No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Harkers Island Passenger Ferry Improvements
2b.
County:
Carteret
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Harkers Island
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
United States of America
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
parcel 1663: book 426, pg 487; parcel 1693: book 14, pg 172
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Patrick Kenney
3d. Street address:
131 Charles St
3e.
City, state, zip:
Harkers Island, NC 28531
3f.
Telephone no.:
252 - 728 -2250 x3014
3g.
Fax no.:
252 - 728 -2160
3h.
Email address:
Pat_Kenney @nps.gov
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
4d.
Street address:
4e.
City, state, zip:
4f.
Telephone no.:
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Chris Frye
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
5c.
Street address:
351 McLaws Circle, Suite 3
5d.
City, state, zip:
Williamsburg, VA 23188
5e.
Telephone no.:
757 - 220 -0500
5f.
Fax no.:
757 - 220 -8544
5g.
Email address:
cfrye @vhb.com
Page 2 of 10

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
1693 and 4663 and old right of way easement b/w them
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
I Latitude: 34.6852 Longitude: 76.5266
1 c. Property size:
3.5 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Core Sound
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
SA: HQW, ORW
2c. River basin:
White Oak
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The NPS owns approximately 91 acres at the eastern end of Harkers Island. Within the area of proposed improvements, the shoreline of the boat
basin is hardened with bulkheading. The surrounding shoreline beyond the boat basin is hardened with large stone rip rap. The surrounding land use
offers visitor parking and picnic facilities associated with the National Park Service Cape Lookout National Seashore Harkers Island Visitor Center.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 0
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the project is to improve the gateway facilities at the Harkers Island Visitor Center to better serve as a departure site for passenger ferry
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
At this time, the NPS plans to remove two of the existing fixed finger piers in the boat basin and replace them with an F- shaped floating dock. Equipmer
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
Comments: see 5b, below.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency /Consultant Company:
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑X Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
A permit was granted for maintenance dredging within the boat basin, which took place November 2012. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) was e:
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑X Yes ❑ No
6b. If yes, explain.
The NPS plans to provide future improvements at the 91 -acre site when funding becomes available. Improvements would include 3 additional fixed
piers and other landside improvements for visitor comfort and circulation. The full project is shown in the EA excerpts included in the attachments.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ❑ Streams –tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑X Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
—Temporary
W1
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W2
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W3 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W4 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W5 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d,
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1
Choose one
-
S2
Choose one
S3
Choose one
-
S4
Choose one
-
S5
Choose one
-
-
S6
Choose one
-
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form – Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 P
Boat Basin off Core Sound
Other
Other
0.03
O2 -
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: All open water impacts are associated with the new floating dock and are contained within the existing man -made basin.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number -
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet )
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1 -
Yes /No
B2 -
Yes /No
B3 -
Yes /No
B4 -
Yes /No
B5 -
Yes /No
B6 -
Yes /No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The new dock (shown on Sheet C2, attached) will replace existing docks (see Sheet C1) in an already disturbed area. The design of the new floating
dock (the access ramp parallels the existing bulkhead) minimizes the reduction in open waters (which totals approximately 1,143 SF) while providing
improved mooring space.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
The proposed dock location avoids the small pocket of submerged aquatic vegetation in the opposite corner of the boat basin (see Sheet Cl).
Measures to control sedimentation and erosion are noted on Sheet C4. A silt curtain will be installed along the landside limits of construction (Sheet
C4), and a floating turbidity barrier will be used to minimize the spread of suspended solids through the water column (Sheet C5). The construction
entrance shown on Sheet C4 would be paved with gravel or logging mats and would be restored with sod.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes X❑ No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form —Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
Yes nX No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
20.6%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
The area of disturbance is less than 1 acre (it is approximately 0.5 acres). The overall percent imperviousness in section Eta above includes new and
existing impervious surfaces divided by the area of disturbance for this project.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
n/a
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
El Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006 -246
❑Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑X Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA /SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) The NPS is in the process of reviewing the comments provided by the NC State
❑ Yes ❑X No
Comments: Clearinghouse and providing responses to the concerns by state agencies.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑Yes ❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
El Yes ❑X No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑X Yes ❑ No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project will not itself result in additional development; however, this project is one element of overall improvements planned at this site.
Cumulative impacts related to this project are discussed in chapter 4 of the environmental assessment. Permits will be acquired for future actions, as
appropriate.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
No wastewater would be generated by the proposed project.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ❑X No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
X❑ Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh /species /cntylist/carteret.html, the park's Interim Protected Species Management Plan, consultation on a similar plan for
Beaufort, and knowledge of the area from park specialists. The USFWS letter of concurrence is attached. NMFS declined to comment.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Improvements will take place in the vicinity of 175 SF of submerged aquatic vegetation. Any indirect impacts associated with disturbance of sediment
during construction will be minimized through use of BMPs. NMFS offered no EFH conservation recommendations pursuant to the MSA (attached).
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NPS determined that no historic properties will be affected; the SHPO provided concurrence with this assessment of effect (letter attached). There are
no federally recognized tribes with an interest at the park.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑X Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
The project would be designed to prevent/reduce flood damage. An emergency evacuation plan would also be developed. Given these steps towards
risk mitigation, the risk to life and property would be minimized. The proposed improvements will not increase flooding nor cause any increases in
flooding that would impact any other properties. The NPS would use sustainable design principles, appropriate siting, and best management practices
during and after construction and finds the proposed project to be consistent with Executive Order 11990. See appendix B of the EA for more detail.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
https : / /msc.fema.gov /webapp /wcs/ stores /serviet/info ?storeld =10001 &catalogld =10001 &tang Id = -1 & content= firmetteHelp_A &title= FIRMettes
Patrick Kenney
/
so ( S
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE
HARKERS ISLAND PASSENGER FERRY DEPARTURE SITE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
Cape Lookout National Seashore's Harkers Island area and visitor center is approximately 30 minutes
driving distance from the Town of Beaufort, North Carolina. The project area includes approximately 91
acres on the eastern end of Harkers Island managed by the National Park Service (figure 2). The visitor
center and associated facilities provide the only NPS- managed gateway to the park's barrier islands. The
project area includes a cluster of structures at the southern end of the NPS property (Shell Point) as well
as trails throughout the northern portion of the property.
The proposed improvements discussed in this environmental assessment are focused on the developed
area surrounding the Harkers Island Visitor Center, mostly in the southeastern corner of the NPS
property. This area includes the following key elements:
■ Harkers Island Visitor Center
■ Boat basin, docks, and boat ramp
■ Main visitor parking lot
■ Core Sound Museum parking lot
■ Picnic area and parking lot
■ Access roads
■ Area walkways and trails
Harkers Island Visitor Center
Introduction: Purpose and Need 5

CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE
HARKERS ISLAND PASSENGER FERRY DEPARTURE SITE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ALTERNATIVES
This chapter describes two alternatives for the improvement of existing gateway facilities at the Harkers
Island Visitor Center to better serve as a departure site for passenger ferry service. The alternatives for the
proposed action were designed to provide dedicated areas for ferry passenger ticketing and staging /waiting,
additional public restroom facilities, increased dock spaces, improved circulation, and a high - quality visitor
experience. The environmental assessment examines two alternatives: a No- Action Alternative (alternative
A) and Proposed Improvements (alternative B). Additional alternatives were considered during early stages
of planning but were dismissed from further analysis for the reasons documented below.
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives presented in this document were developed as part of the 2007 Commercial Services Plan,
which provided guidance for the National Park Service to authorize and implement the actions needed to
conduct commercial visitor services at the park. As part of the plan, the National Park Service has decided to
provide passenger ferry service from the Harkers Island Visitor Center to Shackleford Banks and the Cape
Lookout Lighthouse, as well as service from Beaufort or Morehead City to Shackleford Banks and the Cape
Lookout Lighthouse. In order to provide these services, the park conducted the Cape Lookout National
Seashore Passenger Ferry Transportation Feasibility Study in 2010 (NPS 20 10) to identify program
elements necessary to fully carry out ferry service at Harkers Island, as well as at Beaufort/Morehead City.
The data gathered and developed as part of the feasibility study was used to inform the preliminary site
design proposed in this environmental assessment.
ALTERNATIVE A: NO- ACTION
Under the no- action alternative, the park would provide ferry service from the Harkers Island Visitor
Center using existing facilities (figure 3), including the following buildings and infrastructure:
■ the current visitor center building
■ the existing boat basin and docks, including existing fueling station
■ the existing parking lots (including the main parking lot, the picnic parking lot, and the Core
Sound Museum parking lot)
■ the existing vehicular circulation using existing roads
■ the existing pedestrian routes, including concrete walkways and both formal and informal trails
Alternatives 17

CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE
HARKERS ISLAND PASSENGER FERRY DEPARTURE SITE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
HARKERS ISLAND VISITOR CENTER
Under the no- action alternative, passenger ticketing, passenger staging /waiting, and orientation would all take
place in the existing visitor center building. The building currently provides an information desk, a bookstore,
a theater for the viewing of orientation videos and holding of lectures, an interpretive area with exhibits, public
restrooms, and NPS staff offices. Ferry passengers would purchase tickets, receive orientation within the
current visitor center, and would wait for the ferries either inside the visitor center or outside. Visitors waiting
to ride the ferry during times where a storm is passing would most likely wait inside the visitor center, creating
congestion and interfering with the orientation of other visitors. The visitors would continue to use the current
visitor center restrooms, which provide capacity for five women and five men.
BOAT BASIN
Under the no- action alternative, the boat basin would remain in its existing configuration. The boat basin
provides dock space for up to 12 slips (depending upon the size of the vessels), which includes the piers
associated with the boat ramp. Slips provide secure tie -ups on both sides of the vessel. Additional
mooring could take place along the seawall. The park would continue to moor all of their vessels within
the boat basin; however, the park would not be able to provide overnight mooring for the concessioner's
ferry vessels under the no- action alternative. The concessioner would load and unload at the docks located
on the boat ramp on the southern side of the boat basin. Visitors may walk through an area where park
operations are taking place (on the western side of the boat basin) in order to access the ferries.
Compliance with Architectural Barriers Accessibility Act Standards at the boat basin is currently limited
and would remain so. The ferry concessioner would be required to meet Architectural Barriers
Accessibility Act Standards between the vessel and the docks.
PARKING AND CIRCULATION
Adjacent to the visitor center, the National Park Service provides two parking areas, picnic tables, picnic
shelters, and two nature trails. The main parking lot has a total capacity of approximately 66 parking
spaces (57 standard spaces and nine spaces for recreational vehicles/busses /trailers), although these
spaces are not striped. Three spaces are reserved for disabled permit holders. Circulation would remain
one way in and one way out, as it is currently configured, with both access to and egress from the main
parking lot taking place from and onto Harkers Island Road. Vehicles wishing to access the Core Sound
Museum (which would serve as overflow ferry service parking as well as a stand -alone visitor
destination) from the main parking lot must go back out to Harkers Island Road and turn right onto Cape
Point Drive. Stormwater currently flows from the area of Charles Street and the employee parking lot into
a shallow drainage basin between the parking lot and the visitor center.
There is a double- track, unlit, pedestrian trail providing access between the main parking lot and the Core
Sound Museum parking lot and Willow Pond Nature Trail; however, even though this trail is only about
200 feet long, the dense patch of maritime scrub through which this trail passes prevents a visual
connection between the two locations. A brown sign indicates the connection.
Alternatives 18

►
(1)
CORE SOUND MUSEUM
PARKING AREA (18 SPACES)
20
TRAIL TO CORE SOUND MUSEUM
4)
TREE GROVE REMAINS AS IS
®
EXISTING VISITOR CENTER
(FERRY TICKETING INSIDE)
0
CONCRETE SIDEWALKS
©
EXISTING PARKING AREA
51( SPACES)
0
EXISTING RV PARKING (9 SPACES)
®
NPS DOCKS SHARED BY FERRY FLEET
9O
FUEL PUMP
io
EXISTING PICNIC SHELTERS
11
EXISTING PARKING AREA
PROVIDES 40 SPACES TOTAL

CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE
HARKERS ISLAND PASSENGER FERRY DEPARTURE SITE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
There is no crosswalk across Cape Point Road. Some pedestrians walk along Cape Point Road and
Harkers Island Road, despite the lack of any formal trail or safety accommodations. Many visitors would
continue to park in the main visitor center parking lot, access the visitor center, and get back into their
cars if they are looking to visit the Core Sound Museum, instead of using the informal pedestrian pathway
through the woods that connects the visitor center parking lot to the museum.
Wayfinding sign indicating turn into Cape Point Road from Harkers Island
Road to access the Core Sound Museum from the main visitor center
parking lot.
Pedestrian trail connecting the Core Sound
Museum to the Harkers Island Visitor Center.
The picnic area would remain the same under the no- action alternative and would continue to offer
visitors an opportunity to view the lighthouse from the comfort of their vehicles. There are no pedestrian
accommodations (i.e., crosswalks or separate sidewalks) to connect the picnic area to the rest of the site.
As such, pedestrians would continue to walk along the roads and parking lot, sharing this infrastructure
with vehicular traffic. The picnic area provides four picnic shelters (15 by 15 feet), one larger (45 by 25
feet) picnic shelter, and three charcoal grills. The parking lot between the picnic area and the water would
remain unstriped but with a capacity for approximately 40 standard size vehicles. Water would continue
to pond in the parking lot after heavy rains due to a lack of drainage.
The living seawall located along the edge of the water would remain in place. The park would continue to
offer the canoe and kayak launch site at the picnic area parking lot. Day and overnight parking would
remain the same for paddlers, and they would continue to park during the day and overnight at the picnic
area parking lot, as well as in the main visitor parking lot. Visitors would continue to walk through the
middle of the main visitor center parking lot to travel between the picnic area and the visitor center,
because there would continue to be no formalized walkway between the two sites.
There are a number of concrete walkways connecting the visitor center to the boat basin and providing
visitors with opportunities to walk along the seawall on the eastern side of the project area. These
walkways stop short of connection to the network of nature trails on the northern side of the project area.
Alternatives 20

CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE
HARKERS ISLAND PASSENGER FERRY DEPARTURE SITE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ALTERNATIVE B: PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
(NPS PREFERRED)
Under alternative B, the park would provide ferry service from the Harkers Island Visitor Center using
improved park facilities (figure 4), including the following buildings and infrastructure:
■ the visitor center building, including a new ticketing office /porch
■ the existing boat basin with expanded, specifically designed, accessible ferry docks and a
relocated fueling station
■ reconfigured parking lots with lines and designated short-term parking
■ improved vehicular circulation using existing roads and a new one -way drive leading to the Core
Sound Museum, including wayfinding signs
■ improved pedestrian circulation, including additional sidewalks and crosswalks connecting site
elements, and pedestrian wayfinding signs
■ orientation exhibits near the ticket office and passenger staging /waiting shelter
The park would phase the construction and implementation of the various improvements, based on funding.
HARKERS ISLAND VISITOR CENTER
Under this alternative, the park would provide additional facilities to accommodate passenger ticketing,
staging /waiting, and orientation (figures 4 and 5). The existing visitor center would continue to provide an
information desk, a bookstore, a theater for the viewing of orientation videos and holding of lectures, an
interpretive area with park exhibits, public restrooms, and NPS staff offices. Ticketing would take place at
a ferry ticketing office and porch. This porch and office would be an extension off of the existing visitor
center building. The ticket office would measure approximately 10 feet by 13 feet in size and the porch
would measure approximately 10 feet by 90 feet in size. When ferry service begins at this site, ferry
visitors would purchase tickets at the ferry ticketing office. The porch next to the ticket booth and the
separate staging shelter adjacent to the boat basin (described below) would be available for visitors to
wait for the ferry and be sheltered from the sun and rain.
The park would install a separate 600- square -foot restroom facility to the west of the proposed ticketing
office /porch. Visitors could continue to use the restrooms located inside the visitor center; however, the new
facility would provide facilities that could be made available during times when the Harkers Island Visitor
Center is closed, and allow for some separation between those visitors only using the ferry service and those
visitors seeking interpretive and /or orientation information in the visitor center. The new restroom facility
would include rinse off showers and changing areas. As part of the installation of the new outdoor restroom
facility, the park would install an additional septic field and tank system.
Alternatives 21

CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE
HARKERS ISLAND PASSENGER FERRY DEPARTURE SITE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
BOAT BASIN
Under this alternative, the docks within the boat basin would be reconfigured to better serve NPS
operations and the ferry service (figure 5). The two finger piers on the northwestern side of the basin,
located closest to the visitor center, would be removed and replaced by a floating dock system. The park
would also add two finger piers to the southern side of the boat basin. The park would continue to moor
all of their vessels within the boat basin, and as part of the dock reconfiguration, the National Park
Service would be able to offer space at the boat basin for the ferry concessioner to moor up to three ferry
vessels overnight. The NPS operations would take place on the southern side of the boat basin, allowing
for separate NPS operations and the ferry passenger operations. The visitors would access the ferries on
the western side of the boat basin, closer to the existing visitor center.
A new shade /rain shelter (approximately 550 square feet) would be built along the western side of the
basin near the ferry docks to allow for passenger staging /waiting outside in close vicinity to the ferries.
The shelter would also allow for protection from the elements during loading operations at the boat basin.
The shade /rain shelter would be designed to aesthetically match the visitor center and would be built on
top of a new concrete pad that would connect into the existing sidewalk system in front of the existing
visitor center. The NPS fuel pump would be relocated to the southern side of the boat basin, next to the
docks that would be the focus of NPS operations.
PARKING AND CIRCULATION
Under this alternative, the main parking lot would be reconfigured on the existing asphalt with new
striping to produce 84 parking spaces, plus seven recreational vehicle/bus /trailer parking spaces. There
would be an expansion in the parking lot of one row of 20 parking spaces on the western edge of the
parking lot, adjacent to the grove of trees in between the parking lot and Cape Point Drive. The addition
of these parking spaces would increase the total lot capacity to 91 spaces. The restriping of the parking lot
would allow for the park to dedicate seven recreational vehicle parking spots, several short-term parking
spaces, and the required disabled permit holder spaces and would help ensure full use of the lot capacity.
Some of the existing parking lot islands would also need to be reconfigured as part of the parking lot
improvements. The park would also make drainage improvements in the main parking lot area, and best
management practices would be included in the design.
As part of the parking lot changes, the access to and egress from the parking lot would also be
reconfigured. The trail that provides a pedestrian access /connection between the visitor center and the
Core Sound Museum would become a one -way vehicular exit from the main parking lot onto Cape Point
Drive. There would be a one -way access drive into the main parking lot from Harkers Island Road and a
one -way access drive out of the main parking lot onto Harkers Island Road. A bus and vehicle drop -off
lane would be provided to allow for individuals to drop off equipment and for large visitor groups to be
dropped off separately from parking traffic.
The picnic area would remain mostly unchanged. The picnic area would continue to provide the same
picnic facilities as described under the no- action alternative, but the parking lot would be subject to
improvements. The park is considering options for reconfiguration of the lot. One option would keep the
parking lot in its current location, would add striping to maximize capacity at approximately 40 vehicle
Alternatives 22

*NO IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED
r
f
17
KEY
CORE SOUND MUSEUM
PARKING AREA (18 SPACES)*
®
TRAIL TO CORE SOUND MUSEUM
0
THIN TREE GROVE
®
ONE WAY LOOP ROAD
RESTROOMS
©
SEPTIC FIELD
0
EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN
®
FERRY TICKETING PORCH
0
TRAIL CONNECTION
io
EXISTING VISITOR CENTER
ii
PICNIC SHELTER
12
BUS & VEHICLE DROP -OFF
13
NEW SIDEWALKS
is
QUEUING AREA*
15
i6
EXISTING SIDEWALKS*
EXISTING PARKING AREA
MODIFIED (84 SPACES)
v
RV PARKING
RECONFIGURED (1 SPACES)
18
SHADE /RAIN SHELTER
i9
NEW FERRY DOCKS (FLOATING)
20
NEW NPS DOCKS (FIXED)
21
EXISTING NPS DOCKS (FIXED)*
22
RELOCATED FUEL PUMPS
23
TRAIL TO PICNIC SHELTERS
2a
EXISTING PICNIC SHELTERS*
25
256
ADD STRIPING TO EXISTING
PARKING LOT (40 SPACES)
RELOCATE EXISTING PARKING
LOT (40 SPACES)
2s
LOOP TRAIL
*NO IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED
r
f
17

NATUR�#RAIL w
CONNECTION _
• EXISTING
PICNIC DRAINAGE EXISTING
NEW SHELTER BASIN* VISITOR CENTER
r SEPTIC 1
FIELD FERRY TICKETING �w
PORCH
PEDESTRIAN RESTROOMS
TRAIL TO CORE TRAIL LIGHTING EXISTING
SOUND-- MUSEUM NEW CONCRETE PAVING*
PAVING
NEW ROAD /
SUS & YEHICLEf 0P -OFF QUEUING AREA
NEW
`IIIIl11
FERRY DOCKSG
(ALL OTHERS ARE FIXED)
THIN TREE H T 7E
GROVE PAR1N1 F, SHELTERI ISTING lit (1 SPACES) X
S DOCK
PARKING E! T M I I NEW NPS DOCK
EXPANSION NEW NPS DOCKS
(20 SPACES) 5 ING. (2 TOTAL)
*
•Kt`
= RELOCATED
II I11111111111111111111IHEWILO:O.12AMRA1 - Y d I i FUEL PUMPS #
fir` •""�.�- _,.
HARKERS ISLAND ROAD
Harkers Island Passenger Ferry Departure Site
Environmental Assessment
National Park Service NORTH
U.S. Department of the Interior Figure 5
Alternative B: Proposed Alternatives
\w, 7 Cape Lookout National Seashore O 8 100 Feet (Enlargement)
o
( PP )

CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE
HARKERS ISLAND PASSENGER FERRY DEPARTURE SITE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
spaces, and would improve the drainage to avoid standing water, while preventing stormwater runoff
from the lot and entrance road directly into the sound. During rain events, water ponds on the parking lot
pavement. The reconfiguration is expected to take place mostly within the existing footprint of the
parking lot because there is little room available between the lot and the edge of the water. This option
would require less construction work and would require less funding. A second option would move the
parking lot from its current location to the grassy area between the picnic shelters and the road. This
option would separate the picnic area from the road, allowing for kids playing in the picnic area to be
further from the road and traffic. In addition, this option would allow for more shoreline stability by
restoring natural ground cover /vegetation adjacent to the shoreline instead of the paved parking lot.
Although the design of this parking lot would be finalized at a later date, the relocated parking lot would
be configured with one -way access from and egress to Harkers Island Road. Under this option, a cul -de-
sac would need to be retained in the area of the existing picnic area parking lot near the shoreline to
continue to provide an opportunity for visitors to view the lighthouse from their car. The canoe and kayak
launch site and living seawall would remain in place at the water's edge regardless of the site of the picnic
area parking lot, and reconfiguration of this lot is of a lower priority than other aspects of this project.
A number of additional sidewalks /trails would be added throughout the site. In most places, especially in close
proximity to the shoreline, these sidewalks /trails would be constructed using pervious materials. The park
would add a formal pedestrian sidewalk, with trail lighting, along the northern side of the new one -way exit
drive to allow visitors to walk between the main parking lot and the Core Sound Museum. The park would thin
the vegetated grove located to the west of the main parking lot and the area just north of the exit road /sidewalk
to the Core Sound Museum, targeting the bayberry, pines, and wax myrtle species and working to preserve the
live oaks and cedars. The thinning would create a visual connection for visitors between the main visitor
parking lot and the Core Sound Museum. Additional sidewalks would also be added between the main parking
lot and the picnic area, in addition to sidewalks in front of the new restrooms, new picnic shelter, and new ferry
ticketing office and porch. In addition, the park would add a new loop trail along Harkers Island Road and
running up Cape Point Drive, facilitating improved connections to the trails at the Core Sound Museum. The
park would also work with the North Carolina State Department of Transportation to add crosswalks on Cape
Point Drive and Harkers Island Road to allow for pedestrians to safely cross in order to access the various park
facilities. This new sidewalk network would intersect a new spur trail that would lead visitors to the nature
trails in the northern portion of the project area.
Alternatives 25

av
y��Pd A
TES
Mr. Patrick M. Kenney
Superintendent
Cape Lookout National Seashore
Harkers Island, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Kenney
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmosphedc-Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
26313th Avenue South
5t. Petersburg, Fludda 33101 -5505
http- 1/sero.nmf5 noaa.gov
April 5, 2013
NCAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the Environmental Assessment (EA) for
the Harkers Island Passenger Ferry Departure Site
Based on the information in the EA, the proposed project would occur in the vicinity of essential fish
habitat (EFH) designated by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council or NMFS. We also
anticipate that any adverse effects that might occur from the project to NOAA trust resources would be
minimal. Consequently, NMFS offers no EFH conservation recommendations pursuant to the
Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and no recommendations under the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act.
Sincerely,
3 t Ak
Fritz Rohde
Habitat Conservation Division
National Marine Fisheries Service
Beaufort, North Carolina

United t t s Department of the Interior
FISII AND WILDLIFE, SERVICL
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
RaleiL)h. North Carolina 27636 -3726
March 14, 2013
Superintendent Patrick Kenney
Cape Lookout National Seashore
131 Charles Street
Harkers Island, NC 28541
Re: r A
L 1.11_ hTsailers ls!.nnd Dassci:Ig P . ^ a inrr Departure Site- C?rtP'Pt County, N C
Dear Superintendent Kenney:
This letter is to inform you that a list of all federally- protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) web page at http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh. Therefore, if you have projects that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office's area of responsibility (see attached county list), you no
longer need to contact the Raleigh Field Office for a list of federally- protected species.
Our web page contains a complete and frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened
species protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a list of federal species of concerns that are known to occur in
each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non - federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally- listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally- protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http: / /www.fkvs.gov /raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
I The teen "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal .protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern.

If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally- listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally - protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (finless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to the above - referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Our comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally - listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down - gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary).
2

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis of this office at
(919) 856 -4520 ext. 26.
Sincerely, /
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
3

List of Counties in the Service's Raleigh Field Office Area of Responsibility
Alamance
Beaufort
Bertie
Bladen
Brunswick
Camden
Carteret
Caswell
Chatham
Chowan
Columbus
Craven
Cumberland
Currituck
Dare
Duplin
Durham
Edgecombe
Franklin
Gates
Granville
Greene
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Hertford
Hoke
Hyde
Johnston
Jones
Lee
Lenoir
Martin
Montgomery
Moore
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow
Orange
Pamlico
Pasquotank
Pender
E
Perquimans
Person
Pitt
Randolph
Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham
Sampson
Scotland
Tyrrell
Vance
Wake
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Wilson

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Pat McCrory, Governor
Susan W. Kluttz, Secretary
Kevin Chevy, Deputy Secretary
February 8, 2013
Patrick M. Kenney, Superintendent
National Park Service (NPS)
Cape Lookout National Seashore
131 Charles Street
Harkers Island, North Carolina 28531
Office of Archives and I liston
Division of I listorical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Passenger Ferry Facilities at the Harkers Island Visitor Center, Harkers Island, Carteret County,
ER 12 -1752
Dear Mr. Kenney:
Thank you for your letter of January 17, 2013. We have reviewed the archaeological survey report for the
above project and offer the following comments.
Archaeologists from the NPS conducted an archaeological survey of an area near the existing visitor center at
Harkers Island. This area is proposed for construction of new facilities related to the existing visitor center (the
study area). The proposed study area is located within the boundaries established for archaeological site 31CR2
(Shell Point). Shovel tests within the study area failed to produce any prehistoric artifacts or evidence of intact
cultural features or stratigraphy. The methods used are consistent with standard archaeological suiirey
methodology.
Based on this work, the report author concludes that site 31 CR2 will not be adversely impacted by the
undertaking. We concur with this finding. In addition, the author recommends that the NPS proceed with the
construction of the proposed new facilities without further archaeological investigations. We concur with this
recommendation.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Location: 109 East )ones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 \ -fail Sen-ice Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax: [phone] -6599

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above - referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
cc: Robert Hellmann, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center

STATE Q,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona Nil. Barton, Administrator
Pat McCron-, Governor
Susan W- Klutt /., Secretan
KC611 C11MV, Depuh• tiecretarc
iVlarch 14, 2013
Superintendent Patrick Denney
Cape Lookout National Seashore
131 Charles Street
Harkers Island, NC 28541
Office of Archives and I fistort
Division of 1 fistorical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Environmental Assessment (EA) for Harkers Island Passenger Ferry Departure Site, Carteret County,
ER 12 -1752
Dear Superintendent Kenney:
Thank you for your letter of February 22, 2013, concerning the above project. We believe the EA adequately
addresses our concerns for historic resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above- referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
i A
t t °
.'
4'A -'iv, Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 Fast tones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax: [phone] -6599

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL ID: 1693 & 4663
STREET ADDRESS: 131 Charles Street Harkers Island NC 28531
Please print:
Property Owner: United States of America (managed by the Department of Interior, National Park
Service, Superintendent Patrick M. Kenney)
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize
Chris Frye of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc (VHB)
(Contractor / Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.
Telephone: 252 - 728 -2250 x3012
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.
Date:
Authorized Signature

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑X Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑X Yes ❑ No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 In
below.
❑X Yes ❑ No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Harkers Island Passenger Ferry Improvements
2b.
County:
Carteret
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Harkers Island
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
United States of America
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
parcel 1663: book 426, pg 487; parcel 1693: book 14, pg 172
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Patrick Kenney
3d.
Street address:
131 Charles St
3e.
City, state, zip:
Harkers Island, NC 28531
3f.
Telephone no.:
252 - 728 -2250 x3014
3g.
Fax no.:
252- 728 -2160
3h.
Email address:
Pat — Kenney @nps.gov
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
4d.
Street address:
4e.
City, state, zip:
4f.
Telephone no.:
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Chris Frye
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
5c.
Street address:
351 McLaws Circle, Suite 3
5d.
City, state, zip:
Williamsburg, VA 23188
5e.
Telephone no.:
757 - 220 -0500
5f.
Fax no.:
757 - 220 -8544
5g.
Email address:
cfrye @vhb.com
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
1693 and 4663 and old right of way easement b/w them
1b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 34.6852 Longitude: 76.5266
1 c.
Property size:
3.5 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Core Sound
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
SA: HQW, ORW
2c.
River basin:
White Oak
3.
Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The NPS owns approximately 91 acres at the eastern end of Harkers Island. Within the area of proposed improvements, the shoreline of the boat
basin is hardened with bulkheading. The surrounding shoreline beyond the boat basin is hardened with large stone rip rap. The surrounding land use
offers visitor parking and picnic facilities associated with the National Park Service Cape Lookout National Seashore Harkers Island Visitor Center.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 0
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the project is to improve the gateway facilities at the Harkers Island Visitor Center to better serve as a departure site for passenger ferry
D
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
At this time, the NPS plans to remove two of the existing fixed finger piers in the boat basin and replace them with an F- shaped floating dock. Equipmer
D
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
Comments: see 5b, below.
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency /Consultant Company:
Other:
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑X Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
A permit was granted for maintenance dredging within the boat basin, which took place November 2012. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) was e:
D
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑X Yes ❑ No
6b. If yes, explain.
The NPS plans to provide future improvements at the 91 -acre site when funding becomes available. Improvements would include 3 additional fixed
piers and other landside improvements for visitor comfort and circulation. The full project is shown in the EA excerpts included in the attachments.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ❑ Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑X Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W2
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W3
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W4
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W5
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W6
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (I NT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1
Choose one
S2
Choose one
S3
Choose one
S4
Choose one
S5
Choose one
S6
Choose one
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Tem ora T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 P
Boat Basin off Core Sound
Other
Other
0.03
02
Choose one
Choose
03
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: All open water impacts are associated with the new floating dock and are contained within the existing man -made basin.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number -
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet)
B1
Yes /No
B2
Yes /No
B3
Yes /No
B4
Yes /No
B5
Yes /No
B6
Yes /No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The new dock (shown on Sheet C2, attached) will replace existing docks (see Sheet Cl) in an already disturbed area. The design of the new floating
dock (the access ramp parallels the existing bulkhead) minimizes the reduction in open waters (which totals approximately 1,143 SF) while providing
improved mooring space.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
The proposed dock location avoids the small pocket of submerged aquatic vegetation in the opposite corner of the boat basin (see Sheet Cl).
Measures to control sedimentation and erosion are noted on Sheet C4. A silt curtain will be installed along the landside limits of construction (Sheet
C4), and a floating turbidity barrier will be used to minimize the spread of suspended solids through the water column (Sheet C5). The construction
entrance shown on Sheet C4 would be paved with gravel or logging mats and would be restored with sod.
2.
Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a.
Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2b.
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a.
Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b.
Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c.
Comments:
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a.
Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b.
Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d.
Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e.
Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f.
Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g.
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h.
Comments:
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a.
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
Yes X No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
20.6%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes 0 No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
The
area of disturbance is less than 1 acre (it is approximately 0.5 acres). The overall percent imperviousness in section E2a above includes new and
existing
impervious surfaces divided by the area of disturbance for this project.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
n/a
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
F1 Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
❑X Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑X Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) The NPS is in the process of reviewing the comments provided by the NC State
❑ Yes ❑X NO
Comments: Clearinghouse and providing responses to the concerns by state agencies.
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
El Yes ❑X No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑X Yes ❑ No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project will not itself result in additional development; however, this project is one element of overall improvements planned at this site.
Cumulative impacts related to this project are discussed in chapter 4 of the environmental assessment. Permits will be acquired for future actions, as
appropriate.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
No
wastewater would be generated by the proposed project.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes 0 No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
0 Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh /species /cntylist /carteret.html, the park's Interim Protected Species Management Plan, consultation on a similar plan for
Beaufort, and knowledge of the area from park specialists. The USFWS letter of concurrence is attached. NMFS declined to comment.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Improvements will take place in the vicinity of 175 SF of submerged aquatic vegetation. Any indirect impacts associated with disturbance of sediment
during construction will be minimized through use of BMPs. NMFS offered no EFH conservation recommendations pursuant to the MSA (attached).
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes 0 No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NPS determined that no historic properties will be affected; the SHPO provided concurrence with this assessment of effect (letter attached). There are
no federally recognized tribes with an interest at the park.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
0 Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
The project would be designed to prevent /reduce flood damage. An emergency evacuation plan would also be developed. Given these steps towards
risk mitigation, the risk to life and property would be minimized. The proposed improvements will not increase flooding nor cause any increases in
flooding that would impact any other properties. The NPS would use sustainable design principles, appropriate siting, and best management practices
during and after construction and finds the proposed project to be consistent with Executive Order 11990. See appendix B of the EA for more detail.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
https : / /msc.fema.gov /webapp /wcs/ stores /servlet /info ?storeld =10001 &catalogld =10001 &langld = -1 &content= firmetteHelp_A &title =F1 RMettes
Patrick Kenney
Applicant /Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant /Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10