19870278 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19871221

Al
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
December 10, 1987
SUBJECT: File No. SAWC088-N-016-0043
Rouse-Watson, Incorporated
Route 1, Box '927
Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28557
Gentlemen:
RECEIVED
9Eu 2 1 ;987
WATER QUALITY SECTION
OPERATIONS BRANCH
Reference your application for a Department of the Army permit
to excavate a channel/canal and basin and construct bulkheads, a
boatramp and docks for a marina facility off Bogue Sound
associated with Cedar Point Villas, adjacent N.C. Highway 24, Cape
Carteret, Carteret County, North Carolina.
Your proposal has been reviewed and found to be consistent
with the provisions and objectives of general permit No. SAWC080-
N-000-0291. Therefore, you may commence construction activity in
strict accordance with applicable State authorization and the
enclosed plan. Failure to comply with the State authorization or
conditions of the general permit could result in a violation of
Federal law.
If any change in your work is required because of unforeseen
or altered conditions or for any other reason, plans revised to
show the change must be sent promptly to this office and the North
Carolina Division of Coastal Management prior to performing any
such change or alteration. Such action is necessary as revised
plans must be reviewed and the authorization modified.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. David Baker,
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
a: r
a
-2-
Copies Furnished with enclosure:
Director, Atlantic Marine Center
National Ocean Service
ATTN: MOA 232X1
439 West York Street
Norfolk, Virginia 23510-1114
Ms. Beverly Etheridge, Chief
Wetlands Section
Region IV
Marine and Estuarine Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Ms.,L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 25039
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5039
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Randy Cheek
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Charles Jones
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Ms. Ann Miller
State Property Section
North Carolina Department of
Administration
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
d
r
¦

UT N`cVld 1.N3WdO-13/130 3.LIS
ON ' A.LNno:3 Lvkj3.LkjV0
'::)NI 'NDS1tYM - Reno i
A.Ltdadouci aiwHjLnE3
'll
't• , 153
00
4, ? tl

I
I ?
I
Or
S?
Ii
v
N ?1 0?
y e(\
_ r
a
I
_x
k
a t?g
o°
Y c
J

0 Qo?g pp ?1
J a$sv?l,? g?s3
Q r.
N
N
s

i
I

It ,
w
?? `3 I• D
u
Z Z
It
°314.
31?
J
- _ f J
0

L U
Y
,a
M
N

' M 1
?r-
1
Z
7z
Z Q? 11 X
U 1 Z
. %C% I
Qn7
II
Y- ? I l X
w ? I I-F--J ? n
7 I? ?o
Z
Nyyorr d
1r o
i

v
N
z

-31
Z ?
v
L
0
0

shlz - ¢ cv:?- 13 .
ON ' AlNnoo l3tl31tiVO
'ONI 'NOSIVM - 3SnOb
3flt>Nlv'tf? WtI015 9 flNiflb'ti!7 kiaaciouci aitiH-Lns
I I
1
Y
O

A_
r_

_.- J
d
C, Vin{
o .

o d

o
O
?
w d
z
D

J a
Z
p

? ?
u

Z

1
? a
!ti?

a 0
v
Z v

0

a
_ r
0
I
i

.1
ti

I
F
i

i
I
_z
t

-a
z -
Q
W
N

r
?o
3'a
-A F
01 ?
u. OZ _
o.
of
?z
LL
N i CJ N
Z '
?a

4Y
N
,. ,
w ?I b
i
i
P- ? Z
WF- P
N
w
77-
o?? 111
h r
2

ui
e
T
F
S?
?d
?l
Z
V
da
l+!
}( W
}}VV(( t
n
F-
q
x
•? x
1
? 0
nv u?'

N r N
x
h? J
Z N
3
M o

0 t i
IC
5 r- X
> nX Fy

O c
e
y? ?-
N H W r
V M O W
f u
X Wng X
b
U u

h W i,.
:
o?
G
Z
O
O
X
-4 J

i 4L
K
o

O: u N

W
N
.,
wy O
Z?

<

?"'
< U

W
N
?2
L ? 1-, t ?'1
If
ac ? Z
a
8 id
t?
?a
7
o
,tI w
Q
IW . Q
Q
N
a o
0
O
IL
U
d
F-
O
w
F-s
O
J
N
z
Z
O
Q
J
J
Q
F-
V)
z
w
0-
a
z
Q
o
IL
J
Q
U

m
N
o
J? w
p ~
o
Va
•
z
O

Q

Q

a

IIII III D o
>
3 o t? i d a
j ? t4 YI ? O .? ip
- It1 t0 IWj' e ? d ? Q
U
A W
H
pw?w?
w- 3
tG 9 d °C w ? Z '
v 2 L AA -3
Lo LL
I- r
0 W?Fd e Ww1
-2 w cc
X3a do°pp ? ?40?}?? W?
tc g?
4d
N 0i
FZ ---•'? {' ...ice r IS ,
I 'I 1,
I I1 II III
JY
r ?
?j ?? ?6 dd Ud ? .
J
J
W
Z
O
F-
Q
}
W
to
co
O
U

m
cn
a7OtlNltrtlCl Wtl013 9 CNiCd` UE3 aN ALNnoo tats
'ONI 'NOS1tYM -
'k-UiadOtid aIUH_
a ? o s o ? i
...... ...?.
't<'ttl ¦`/?313 1?+1d t ......... :i!! ?:: -!t !i: J
'"T.?.p-« Lj -y1?,, g?(,r : ri 8?,jTTb. 1 ? ? ? ? t:: j .. t t
M
C
I(
aJ.av:3
asnou
Un
? l
L
r
N

. ... ..... .... ! I
A -V-&dT ` rit s H W ' I .. .
.i.
.........i...
I
t

. ........I .. I. _ I?- ....i.... ....
!I4il, III
,. ?.. .. ? .' .... .. I .. I .. 1 I ???? AI 1,1 'ill s? ''•' ;?,
_ •1• .II. 1' ill I, II i i• :Iti :;:
1H I Ill
? .... ... ....... .. ..:? l I ill l?i Ilj .il lil
F1
I... .. .. ? .. .. I .. .. d ..?. 1 J .: -'•11? ..I ?I lil' 1 !! ?1'? Ill.
.i• • i I?11 ? 111 s,I
?... I .. .. ...?... .......1 .?. '1 '• !!• Ij !! I ?l `
?... ....... ........ .. t. .:c._I..
? •-....._... ,i•'1,??1-_ 9•M1? •1' _ i• 1 li I111 ii
.. .. is ...........i.....
_ ...... - - .. _ I .. I ........ --1----
. ... ... 'i 1 ili 1 I I? 1? t
......... I ....... ....... `` .. Itl i.
1•
' . ?...:... ' .. ' `.I ! ?? I i': ICI
! ?..fl-
111 ill!
H O ?I
....... ... .?. ....1__. _?? :1 I:I
.. .r .......i...... ` ..... .. ? .?.?? , I' .j.'? .1?T :!!; I• 'ICI:
1....... i........ .. 11 -.?;
i...._....1.........? .. .. .......
.. 1 ........I_....... - 1, ! 1j1 I •? ICI I j. I' I? :I '
. ? 1? :? s ;!!: .!ii III •?; i!I, I! -111
...................i ...... 1 .... ..
9 7rly oo•v ti ?,3-i--S.l?it•:l+ Z H _ • • ..
o r, J:
1 F !
.... .....t i ; 1... , .. ...i.... ........
....... .. . ...i...... .....'.......... .......I.I ..... .l i. ...' I I I,
oo..p •vu T.... t11-1 .:
• I I
H '? Q tf? Q
I

U E
r
Y
1
i
I
I
r
r
N

{. r

: ?i :?
r ; i N t

7 Ir
13
1 ?
li ili? I II' ?? •
? N _.
- -_.

I,
.1,. ..
• .? I •... ..
.1
•
I ? ,..I. .. .. ..
.. .. L
.
... ...
...
?:??
II ? ?? I! I
I I ? ,. I .; i
i
1rIl 'ce .. _?. .
'i? jr: Ij If?l :?? :? .. :; riji ;• :..i... .. ........
' ?' 'ysl n II l?l' ??::i. :II .I: ;??I ??I. .r•
. I
?
r,
.. .
..
.
• . ..•
?4i
' r'

? ?? I I ?
1 Ir 1
• '1?
i1? ?I
fJ
-I 'j I .I

.
'
? 1
L? ? ?'Ii
1 r•
f ?I
I I i;
I!. ??I1
I:i. i
, i
r
•
. . .;.
..
,
r
1i I
i1 1
?,: - ,;; ;± 1
1
.
, ; Iil i
I;' :ij ; i i
.

?'. il: ... I .r? ? 0.S ,. '- f• t
Ir??
7 ?
•
I
? ? 1 - .. '.._ .-_ ._?-.Y
.
;I'(I ?Ij1 • :
j
??j
j
,,I_I I i- ;i

} I. 1 -.... ..

... Lt ?z •Nei-* -7im" 1
r o i ,in %+r, j !

--- --..... f
.. . ................
U '
•n71Z }J 1y s?z ri l -^r-41
'
-;f fl ?4
z{?
C
U f
Y

N
r
N
.......
I
. .....?
- _... U
!
_._!... ...............
i I I
lalrT
FiM
•,:I.. 1 ?•ii

:I
T T
!I?i
0
0
J
?- =?frofi?-:
O
0
{
;.z.....?...:.. ? ..... ..........
{
..... . ...... ......?.. .......
i
t ? 8
li_._
.. ..... ........
I i 1 i i {
?..^ :.i........ _ . .._ ........
.?1
N ....... I ......
II i ...:.-. ..-i.... !........
J ..... ... o .:.............
,
i;l I
I!II •. ji Iij _I _...I........
I
1
1
.... ...I .. ....
La
¦
cn
{
1
1
a?
I
S
O t
? i
Y
I . -

Permit Class Permit Number
New STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 235-87
- - --Department of Natural P. irr Community Development

bi 1 ntin `
to NCGS 113-229
Issued to Rouse-Watson, Inc., Route 1, Box 927, Emerald Isle. NC 28557
authorizing development in Carteret Countyat AIWW at Cedar Point Community
as requested in the perrnittee's application dated 12/16/86 including
attached plats, sheets 1-13 of 13 dated 12/10/86 and companion blueline drawings of same
date, not attached.
This permit, issued on JZ/c'?/( 7 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may subject
permittee to a fine, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Prior To Construction
(1) Prior to, any construction at the project site, plans and specifications
for the wastewater treatment plant must be approved by Division of Health
Services. A copy of the approved plans and notification of approval must
be submitted to the Division of Coastal Management. Should treatment plant
limitations cause a subsequent reduction in residential units or should
there be significant changes in the project planview due to treatment plant
redesign (or other changes to the basic plan overall) a modification of
this permit will be necessary. ,
(2) An Erosion and Sedimentation control plan will be required for this project.
This plan must be filed at least thirty (30) days prior to beginning any
land disturbing activity. Submit this plan to the Dept. of Natural Resources
and Community Development, Land Quality Section, 7225 Wrightsville Avenue,
Wilmington, NC 28403.
Marina Basin and Channel Excavation and Construction
(3) All interior boat basin excavation must be accomplished in the dry and/or
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee
or other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the
issuing date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work
initiation or continuance, as the case may be.
This'permit must be accessible on-site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification
not covered hereunder requires further Departmental
approval.
All work must cease when the :permit expires on
December 31. 1990 -
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina
agrees that your project is consistent with the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DNRCD and
the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
?iLbt q
David W. Owens, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Permittee
A
Rouse-Matson, Inc: Permit #235-V
page 2 _
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
in combination with temporary bulkheads or coffer dams. A 24 hour waiting
period after excavation is completed will be observed before the temporary
...plugs are removed.
(4) All interior bulkheading of the. expanded basin must be completed prior
to opening the basin to tidal waters of Bogue Sound.
(5) Dredging of the entrance channel from the AIWW to the basin will be accom-
plished in accordance with the work plat drawings and must not involve
the displacement of any submerged aquatic vegetation such as eel grass
or shoal grass.
(6) The dike disposal area will be constructed a sufficient distance from the
mean high water level or any marsh to eliminate the possibility of dike
erosion into or upon any marsh or surrounding waters.
(7) The dike will be properly graded and provided a ground cover sufficient
to restrain erosion within 30 days upon its completion.
(8) All excavated materials will be confined landward of the mean high water
(MHW) elevation contour within adequate dikes or other retaining structures
to prevent spillover of solids into any vegetated wetlands or surrounding
waters
(9) The terminal end of the pipeline from the dredge into 'the diked retention
area will be positioned at or greater than 50 feet from any part of the
dike and at a maximum distance from spillways to prevent dike erosion and
to allow adequate settlement of suspended solids.
(10) A water control structure will be installed at the intake end of the effluent
pipe leading from the retention area in order to ensure maximum settlement
of suspended solids.
(11) Flow from the diked retention area will be confined by pipe, trough, or
similar device to a point at or below the mean low water (MLW) elevation
contour to prevent gully erosion and resultant unnecessary siltation.
(12) Vegetated wetlands will not be excavated or filled.
(13) Excavation in the channel/canal will not exceed 6 feet below the elevation
of mean low water (MLW). Excavation in the basin will not exceed 5 feet
below the elevation of mean low water (MLW).
(14) The temporary placement or double handling of excavated or fill materials
within waters or vegetated wetlands is not authorized.
(15) The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a significant
increase in turbidity outside the area of construction or construction-related
discharge. Increases such that the turbidity in the waterbody is 25 NTUs
or less are not con!'idered significant.
4

(16) The bulkheads will be positioned in strict accordance with permit plans.
Marina Operation
(17) The permittee will maintain the authorized work in good condition and in
conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. The permittee
is not relieved of this requirement if he abandons the permitted activity
without having it transferred to a third party.
(18) Approval of the structures was based on determination that there would be
no obstruction to navigation. Under conditions existing in the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), a possibility exists that facilities may be
adversely affected by wave wash from passing vessels. Unreasonable slowing
down of vessel traffic cannot be required because it would tend to nullify
the navigational benefits on which the AIWW was justified. Issuance of
this permit should not be construed as relieving the permittee of taking
proper steps to ensure the structure and moored boats will not be damaged
by wave wash normally to be expected in the AIWW.
(19) The marina will post and enforce a "No Sewage Discharge" policy for the
basin.
(20) Prior to the occupancy of any slips at the marina, a pump-out facility to
service boats with holding tanks will be installed, and maintained for the
life of the project.
(21) No floating structures other than boats were proposed in the application
and none are authorized by this permit. Any such use of the basin will
require a modification of this permit.
(22) Living aboard is not authorized at the marina.
(23) Transient docking is not authorized at the marina.
(24) Monitoring in the marina basin for dissolved oxygen will be carried out
by a certified laboratory on a weekly basis from June 1 - September 30 beginning
after completion of construction. Reports will be filed with the Division
of Environmental Management and the Division -of Coastal Management on 'a
monthly: basis during the summer season and-may be terminated after two
(2) consecutive summers unless water quality problems appear and corrective
measures are necessary.
NOTE: Inasmuch as channel markers have not been requested, none are authorized.
Such amenities would require a modification of this permit.

Wastewater Treatment Facility
(25) See Condition No. 1.
(26) The proposed drain fields ;and repair `.areas'?shodld be kept at least; 60 feet
away from the Bound-water'' lowering drains in order to maximize the amount
of time it will take for effluent to reach them. The wastewater treatment
facility must also be kept at least 25 feet away from the ground-water lowering
drains.
NOTE: Treatment plant, disposal area and repair area layout may undergo minor
adjustments so as to meet required well separations without modification
of this permit.
Potable Water
(27) Plans and specifications for the water supply system must be approved by
the Potable Water Supply Branch, Division of Health Services prior to construc-
tion of that part of the project. Such plans must be prepared by an engineer
licensed to practice in North Carolina.
Stormwater Management
(28)x' The stormwater management plan and associated operations and maintenance
manual have been approved by the Division of Environmental Management subject
to stipulation submitted in that agency's memorandum of May 11, 1987. The
pertinent section of that memorandum is attached to this permit and becomes
enforceable under this authorization.
Other
(29) All land disturbing activities must be preceded by the installation and
proper maintenance of erosion control techniques to prevent silt, sedimentation
and runoff from escaping the property and entering adjacent surface waters
of Bogue Sound.
NOTE: The permittee and/or his agent and contractors are urged. to meet with
the: representatives of the Division of Coastal Management and " the U.
S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to the project initiation.
NOTE: The project bulkheading and project dredge effluent discharge is authorized
under General Water Quality Certifications issued by the Division of
Environmental Management.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
,4' Y]IvGTON D'57RIC7, CORPS GF PvGiNEERS
.O. EM tfi91
_Y,NG?ON. `?,)R- CARC=_,',A 2= ?2- >!K R p?
November 5, 1987
N =,_?_ _ - a 7c D
Regulatory Branch
NOV 10 41987
SUBJECT: Files 'Nos. SAUIC087-N-016-0 47 and SAWC088-N-WAfE* 11TY SECr(ON
OPERATIONS BRANCH
Xr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Develo=ent
Post Office Bog 27687
Raleigh, 'north Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Xr. Parker:
Reference the application of Rouse-Watson, Incorporated, for a
Department of the Army permit to e:zcavate a 340-foot-long, 60-
foot-Bride, 6-foot-deep channel/canal and a 340-foot-long, 330-
foot ride, 5-foot-_eep basin and construct bulkheads, a boat ramp
and docks for a ID-1 boat marina facility off Bogue Sound,
associated with a Cedar Point Villas, a condoninimun development,
adjacent to N.C. TI-ghway 24, Cape Carteret, Carteret County, North
Carolina.
The Federal agencies have completed review of the proposal as
presented by the application and your field investigation report.
The National '.urine Fisheries Service and the J.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service indicated no objections by letters of February 6
and February 19, 1 ?87, respectively. After reviewing additional
information provided by the applicant, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency informed us on October 28, 1987, by telephone,
that t°2ey would not object to the proposal.
We recommend t-at the following conditions be included in the
State authorizatio-a:
a. Tne bu "z'-e_ds will be positioned in strict accordance with,
permit plans.
b. Ail excavated materials will be confiaed landward of the
mean hi0 h water (? W) elevation contour -within adequate dikes or
-2-
other retaining structures to prevent spillover of solids into any
vegetated wetlands or surrounding waters.
c. The terminal end of the pipeline from the dredge into the
diked retention area will be positioned at or greater than 50 feet
from any part of the dike and at a maxims distance from spillways
to prevent dike erosion and to allow adequate settlement of
suspended solids.
d. A water control structure will be installed at the intake
end of the effluent pipe leading from the retention area in order
to ensure maximum settlement of suspended solids.
e. Flow from the diked retention area will be confined by
pipe, trough, or similar device to a point at or below the mean
low water (.*LW) elevation contour to prevent gully erosion and
resultant unnecessary siltation.
f. Vegetated wetlands will not be excavated or filled.
g. Excavation in the channel/canal will not exceed 5 feet
below the elevation of mean low water (XLW). Excavation in t?le
basin will not exceed 5 feet below the elevation of mean low water
(MLW).
h. The temporary placement or double handling of excavated or
fill materials within waters or vegetated wetlands is not
authorized.
i. The permittee will maintain the authorized work in good
condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of this
permit. The permittee is not relieved o= this requirement if he
abandons the permitted activity without having it transferred to a
third party.
j. The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to
prevent a significant increase in turbidity outside the area of
construction or construction-related discharge. Increases such
that the turbidity in the waterbody is 53 N-117J's or less are not
considered significant.
k. Approval of the structure was based on deter-mination that
there would be no obstruction to navigation. Under conditions
existing in the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), a
-3-
Y
possibility exists that facilities may be adversely affected by
wave wash from passing vessels. Unreasonable slowing down of
vessel traffic cannot be required because: it would tend to nullify
the navigational benefits on which the A'WW was justified.
Issuance of this permit should not be construed as relieving the
permittee of taking proper steps to ensure the structure and
moored boats will not be damaged by wavewash normally to be
expected in the AIWW.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. David Baker,
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Copies Furnished:
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
.-Management
.orth Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 25039
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5039
Mr. Randy Cheek
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
4s. Beverly Etheridge, Chief
Wetlands Section
Region ly
Marine and Estuarine Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. Charles Jones
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
T
r ?
t' !
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
May 11, 1987
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: John Parker
FROM: V/ill Mill
SUBJECT: Application for CAMA Permit
Rouse-Watson, Inc.
Carteret County
The Subject application has been reviewed for water
quality impacts and the following comments are offered:
a. As indicated in our March 3 memo the project meets
the requirements for General Certification No.
1272 for bulkheads. The project also meets the
requirements of General Certification No. 1273 for
discharge of effluent from an upland diked
disposal area.
.
b. The proposed marina would result in a closure of
approximately 12 additional acres according to the
DHS marina policy. A shellfish survey in 4 acres
of the 12 acres indicate that there is no resource
present in those waters. If a further survey
shows no shellfish resources in the entire 12
-IN acres expected to be closed, then Antidegradation
Policy would not be violated by the automatic
closure which is anticipated.
C. No discharge of sewage overboard can be allowed at
the marina if it is approved. The following
requirements and management practices should be
adhered to:
1. There should be a sewage pumpout facility
installed for the marina.
2. There should be a -locked-head policy
established and strictly enforced.
3. There should be signs posted on the piers
advising owners of the prohibition against
overboard discharges and advising of the
location of pumpout facilities.
4. There should be no transient dockage or
live-aboards allowed.
i Y
. ? t
- 2 -
d. The stormwater management plan in the April 14
submission conforms to our requirements with a few
changes and/or additions as described below:
1. To the construction notes printed on SD-1:
a. That the topsoil should also be removed
beneath the building sites.
b. That the soil be removed down to the
lightcolored sand free from organic
matter or to a depth of 8 inches,
whichever is greater.
2. To the Porous Pavement Design Specifications:
a. That the requirement of "Batch-type"
mixing be added to Sec. 1.9-(4).
b. That the use of paver on tracks (vs. a
paver on rollers) be required in Sec.
1.9-0).
C. That Sec. 1.12 be added to address
construction inspections. Items
inspected shall include at least the
items listed on attached Table 5-2. The
engineer shall also notify the
Wilmington Regional DEM office 48 hours
prior to construction. Sec. 1.12
should also require the Engineer's
certification that the porous pavement
was properly constructed, a copy of the
certification must be sent to DEM in
Wilmington Regional Office.
3. To the Operations and Maintenance Manual:
a. The last sentence of the section titled
Remedial Methods should read
"Replacement with new pervious pavement
shall be required ..."
b. From the section titled Inspection of
the Infiltration Beds the last sentence
of the second paragraph regarding ocean
discharge should be deleted.
4. To the CAMA permit the following as
conditions:
a. It is required that the riding vacuum
street sweeper be obtained prior to
construction of the porous pavement.

- 3 -
b. It is required that each section or
sections of the parking area be level
with a 6-inch curb or elevated crown
around the entire perimeter of each
level section of porous pavement.
5. In addition to the shellfish survey referred
to in comment (b), the flushing
characteristics of the marina must be modeled
to show that the contraventions of the
dissolved oxygen standard will not occur
(this request has also been made by EPA).
It is recommended that the permit not be issued until
it is demonstrated that the 12 acres of expected closure
does not have a shellfish resource and the dissolved oxygen
standards violations will not be expected to occur in the
marina basin.
BM/dkb
cc: Preston Howard

October 21, 1987
Mr. Lee Pelej
Region IV, Wetlands Section
Marine and Estuarine Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Re: Rouse-Watson Marina Permit
Dear Lee:
nK ?- copy .5?-4- to-z9? $'7
PATON / ZUCCHINO
N \ ;(a :I ATE'*S I A.

I have enclosed for your review a memorandum dated October
15, 1987 from the NC Division of Environmental Management
recommending approval for the Rouse-Watson Marina. It is our.
understanding that this affirmative action by NCDEM will
allow EPA to forward a positive recommendation for the
project on to the Corps in Wilmington.
Given the extended period of time it has taken to gain final
approval for the project, it would be very helpful if you
would expedite your final recommendation to the Corps.
Sincerely,
LA41? zl"(/L"Ko
Lawrence R. Zucchino
Paton/Zucchino & Associates, P.A.
Enclosure: 1
cc: Mr. Frank Rouse, Rouse-Watson, Inc.
Mr. Preston Pate, NCDCM
Mr. Dave Baker, USACOE
Mr. George Everett, NCDEM?
Laii,l<,,il,r ?rrliii,•rlur,•
1lnlri A1 i. A.1 ;. 2 ;0 1
1-8020
. -le - ...k.
1111r, ?Arry .Cu •++n,o
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
October 15, 1987
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: John Parker
Orin ^ 1" . By
FROM: George Everett Cc;`:.-- •- ••• 1-• -',.TT
SUB.TECT: Application for CAMA Permit
Rouse-Watson, Inc.
Carteret County
Earlier comments were forwarded to your office on May
11, 1987 addressing water quality impacts of the proposed
facilities wi-t:r the erception of the evaluation of the
dissolved oxygen modeling which has been prepared by the
applicant's consultant. -he model resuitc have now been
reviewed by our staff and the following c-1=crt ;. e
submitted for your consideration:
Water quality models which are used to predict
dissolved oxygen values in marinas have two variables which
are important in determining impacts. Sediment oxygen
demand and the number of boats (along with their a:-,sumed
discharges) are inputs to these models. Division of
Environmental Management's evaluation indicates that
sediment oxygen demand has a far greater impact on final
dissolved oxygen values than the number of boats. Because
there is such a large variation in the possible value of the
sediment oxygen demand, it is difficult to predict the
c=-= d-t=-,=•? f-:-,?_ 'i •-? r_ %,al.:_v occur 3hou =d the maYinr. ba
constructed.. With eery minimal impact expected f•:o:n boats,
"'Division of Environmental Management recommends that the
LAMA permit be issued with a requirement for dissolved
oxygen to be monitored by the permittee on a week:y
frequency in the summer. Other operating procedures for the
marina were recommended in our May comments. If :'=equent
water quality problems appear, it may be necessary for
corrective actions to be required in the future.
GTE:BM/dkb
cc: Preston Howard
Alan Klimek
Bill Mills
ti

October 21, 1987
Mr. Lee Pelej
Region IV, Wetlands Section
Marine and Estuarine Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Re: Rouse-Watson Marina Permit
Dear Lee:
I'ATON / ZUCCHINO
W UES.11
OCT. 28
I have enclosed for your review a memorandum dated October
15, 1987 from the NC Division of Environmental Tement
recommending approval for the Rouse-Watson Mar4 3 our
understanding that this affirmative ar}' _ will
allow EPA to forward a positive the
project on to the Corps in Wilmington
Given the extended period of time it
approval for the project, it would be
would expedite your final recommendatioi
Sincerely,
LAO? &awAo
Lawrence R. Zucchino
Paton/Zucchino & Associates, P.A.
Enclosure: 1
cc: Mr. Frank Rouse, Rouse-Watson, Inc.
Mr. Preston Pate, NCDCM
Mr. Dave Baker, USACOE
Mr. George Everett, NCDEM?
011
/ u
I.:?n?l-? al??• 1r? liilrrlnn•
?r- / Ary?uC? ?n.o
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
October 15, 1987
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: John Parker
FROM: George Everett CE:'•.a_.- =??:TT
SUB.;ECT: Application for CAMA Permit
Rouse-Watson, Inc.
Carteret County
Earlier comments were forwarded to your office on May
11, 1987 addressing water quality impacts of the proposed.
facilities the exception of the evaluation of the
dissolved oxygen mode•l.inc: which has been prepared by the
applicant's consultant. J^ne model res ll_-c have row been
reviewed by our staff and the following co=crt?i -.r o
submitted for your consideration:
Water quality models which are used to predict
dissolved oxygen values in marinas have two variables which
are important in determining impacts. Sediment oxygen
demand and the number of boats (along with their assumed
discharges) are inputs to these models. Division o'
Environmental Management's evaluation indicates that
sediment oxygen demand has a far greater impact on final
dissolved oxygen values than the number of boats. Because
there is such a large variation in the possible value of the
sediment oxygen demand, it is difficult to predict the
ccr.diti •:a: t._;•.;. `3` ._+ • : "Zal:_v occur 3 hou _d -the mat-ina b a
constructed. With eery minimal impact expceted f':om boats,
-'Division of Environmental Management recommends that the
CAMA permit be issued with a requirement for dissolved
oxygen to be monitored by the permittee on a weey
frequency in the summer. Other operating procedures for the
marina were recommended in our May comments. If :'_equent
water quality problems appear, it may be necessary for
corrective actions to be required in the future.
GTE:BM/dkb
- D/o
• - ?d
pNM
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor David W. Owens
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary Director
February 4, 1987
Ms. Renee dhi 1-Earley
Enviro ntal Re/view Coor ator
U ' 'on of Arc History
eigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley:
Bluelines available on request
The attached copy of an application submitted by:
Rouse-Watson, Inc (The Guthrie Property)
Applicant's Name
Southside Hwy. 24
SR 1116, Cedar Point Comm Carteret
Location of Project County
X_ for a State permit to perform excavation and/or fill
work in coastal North Carolina and for a CAMA major
development permit...
for a LAMA major development permit (only) ...
..* is being circulated to State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction
over the subject matter which might be affected by the project.
Please indicate on the reverse side of this form your viewpoint on
the proposed work and return it to me not later than 2/25/87
Sincerely,
R. Parker, ?Jr., hie;
Major Permits Processing Section
JRP:ap:2480
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
R
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 18, 1987
TO: George Everett, Chief
Water Quality Section
FROM: A. Preston Howard, Jr., Regional Engineer
Wilmington Regional Office 'ej4d
QRIGINAL SIGNtQ R_U
THROUGH: Charles Wakild, Regional Supervisor 0.4k s 1069KI{J?
Wilmington Regional Office
SUBJECT: Regional Office Review & Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Rouse-Watson - Additional Comments
(Addendum to 4/28/87 Memo
Carteret County
The applicant is proposing to construct a condominium complex
with 100 units, and a 2.6 acre-100 slip marina. The project
design includes an approved stormwater management plan and
requires two (2) general 401 certifications, for bulkhead
construction and for discharge from a diked disposal area. The
project is located adjacent to Bogue Sound which is classified
SA.
The project has been reviewed to determine the impact that the
permitting of a marina may have on Bogue Sound. With respect to
water quality, there are two concerns. One concern centers
around the loss of a shellfishing resource through automatic
closure by the Department of Health Services (DHS). The second
concern involves the expected depletion of dissolved oxygen
(D.O.) within the marina basin.
In accordance with DHS' automatic closure policy, the presence of
the proposed marina would cause closure of any waters within 800
feet of the boat slip closest to the entrance channel of the
marina. The closure would affect approximately 12 acres, see
Figure 1. The Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) conducted a
survey of shellfish resources within an 800 foot area of the
proposed marina and did not find a shellfish resource within the
affected area (see the attached memo from David Taylor to Preston
Pate). The shellfish survey suggests that the closure of said
waters would not preclude an existing use; therefore violation of
DEM's antidegradation policy is not expected.
In assessing the potential for D.O. depletion, data from a number
of sources was studied. The applicant's consultant has submitted
a Marina Hydrology Study (copy attached). Included in the study
was an EPA approved model used to predict the change in D.O.
Page Two
Memo to George Everett
September 18, 1987
given different variables. When using the average tidal range
for Bogue Inlet, a sediment oxygen demand (S.O.D.) of 1.0
g/m2/day, and a pollution dilution factor of 90%, the model
predicts a reduction in D.O. of 0.9 mg/1 - 1.1 mg/1, depending on
the number of boats in use at the marina. The consultant also
submitted data that suggests that the ambient D.O. in Bogue Sound
ranges from 79 to 115 percent of the D.O. saturation level (Dr.
Hans Paerl - data attached). However, DEM has operated ambient
monitoring stations in the White Oak River at Swansboro and in
Bogue Sound, just west of Morehead City, as part of DEM's ambient
monitoring network, (see Figure 2). In reviewing DEM's
monitoring data collected between 1982 and 1986 (May through
September), the D.O.s ranged from 56 to 127 percent of the D.O.
saturation levels, with an average D.O. concentration of 78% and
91% of saturation at the Bogue Sound and White River Stations,
respectively (see Table 1). If a comparison is made between the
predicted depletion of D.O. within the proposed marina utilizing
(1) the field data provided by the applicant, (2) the White Oak
River Station, and (3) the Bogue Sound Station; the model would
predict violations of the D.O. standard 13%, 18 - 32%, 42 - 50%
of the days monitored, respectively.
The model used by the consultant to predict changes in D.O. has a
number of variables, one of which is tidal range. The tidal
ranges used were 1.2, 2.2 and 3.5 feet (the average tidal range
at Bogue Inlet is 2.2 feet). When using a tidal range of 3.5
feet and a S.O.D. of 1.0 g/m2/day the model predicted depletion
of D.O. by 0.5 to 0.6 mg/1. This office has investigated the
depletion of D.O. in several marinas in New Hanover County where
the tidal range averages 3.8 - 4.0 feet. The staff investigated
3 marinas which have constricted entrance channels relative to
the basin (see Figure 3). Two (2) of the marinas were found to
have higher D.O. concentrations outside the marina basins than
inside the marina basins. The extent of D.O. depletion within
the basins generally increases with depth (see Table 2).
Based on the predictions of the consultant's model in combination
with the available ambient data from Bogue Sound and the White
Oak River, it appears that during the summer months there would
be a considerable number of days (13 - 50 percent of the time)
when the standard for D.O. would be contravened.
If you have any questions, please so advise.
DHC:kc
CC: Bill Mills
CF, WiRO

TABLE 1
Bogue Sound - DEM's Ambient Monitoring Network 1982 - 1987
Approximate Approximate
Date D.O. (mg/1) Temp (C) Sal (ppt) 100% D.O. Sat. % Sat.

5/82 7.4 28 31 6.6 112
6/82 6.3 29 28 6.7 94
7/82 4.0* 28 30 6.7 60
8/82 6.1 26 25 7.2 85
9/82 5.1* 22 21 8.0 64
5/83 5.9** 23 16 8.1 73
6/83 5.8* 25 15 7.8 74
7/83 3.8* 30 22 6.7 57
8/83 5.2* 30 12 7.1 73
9/83 4.0* 29 14 7.2 56
5/84 9.4 25 33 7.4 127
6/84 4.6* 23 19 7.9 58
7/84 5.5* 27 19 7.3 75
8/84 6.9 24 18 7.8 88
9/84 7.6 24 11 8.5 89
5/85 6.8 22 33 7.5 91
6/85 6.0** 25 34 7.0 86
7/85 6.7 26 32 6.9 97
8/85 5.8* 28 35 6.5 89
9/85 6.6 24 31 7.3 90
5/86 6.7 25 27 7.3 92
6/86 N/A
7/86 5.4* 30 26 6.6 82
8/86 7.0 28 19 7.1 99
9/86 6.9 24 21 7.1 90
* Minimum predicted reduction in D.O. will cause violations of
State Standards.
** Additional violation of standards with maximum predicted
reduction in D.O.
NOTE: Some ambient D.O. readings are below the State Standar d of
5 mg/l
3
TABLE 1 - Continued
White Oak River at Swansboro - DEM's Ambient Monitoring Network
1982-1987
Approximate Approximate
Date D.O. (mg/1) Temp (C) Sal (ppt) 100% D.O. Sat. % Sat.
5/82 6.3 25 25 7.4 85
6/82 5.8* 29 24 6.8 85
7/82 5.4* 29 21 7.0 77
8/82 6.0** 26 25 7.2 83
9/82 6.5 22 17 8.1 80
5/83 6.4 19 19 8.5 75
6/83 6.9 27 14 7.5 92
7/83 6.3 30 16 70 90
8/83 5.9** 29 18 7.1 83
9/83 6.9 24 14 7.8 88
5/84 7.7 25 30 7.2 107
6/84 n/a
7/84 6.2 25 18 7.7 81
8/84 8.0 26 19 7.4 108
9/84 7.8 20 13 8.6 91
5/85 7.6 19 29 8.1 94
6/85 6.8 24 32 7.2 94
7/85 5.7* 23 29 7.5 76
8/85 6.8 25 >40 6.8 100
9/85 n/a
5/86 6.5 23 28 7.6 86
6/86 6.2 28 27 6.8 91
7/86 5.9** 29 23 6.9 86
8/80 5.5* 27 9 7.7 71
9/86 6.7 25 21 7.6 88
* Minimum predicted reduction in D.O. will cause violations of
State Standards.
** Additional violation of standards with maximum predicted
reduction in D.O.

TABLE 2
Date - 9/987 - Full Moon High Tide at High Tide
Shin Point Marina - approximately 30 boats
Approximate
Depth (M) Temp oC D.O. mg/l Sal ppt % Sat. Level
Basin 0.1 27 4.2 19 57
0.5 27 4.2
1.0 27 4.5 26
Control 0.1 27 5.1 27 73
0.5 27 5.7
1.0 27 6.8
Tangle Oaks Marina - approximately 40 boats
Center of
Basin .1 27 4.1 26 58
1.0 27 3.7
2.0 27 4.0
3.0 27 2.9
4.0 27 1.4
5.0 27 0.6
Bottom <6.0 0.1 .
Corner 0.1 27 3.9 26 55
Kitty Corner 0.5 3.6
From
Entrance 1.0 3.5
<2.0 2.0
Corner 0.1 28 4.3 26 63
Inside Corner 0.5 3.3
1.0 3.6
Bottom 1.5 2.7
Control 0.1 27 4.4 26 62
0.5 4.1
1.0 4.8
Bottom 2.0 4.0
Outside of
Entrance 0.1 27 4.7 67
R'
Depth (M) Temp oC D.O. mg/l Sal ppt
Caroline Beach State Park - No Boats
Center 0.1 28 5.8 15
0.5 5.5
1.0 5.4
2.0 4.5
Bottom 2.25 4.0
Control 0.1 28 6.0 15
1.0 5.8
2.0 5.8
Bottom 3.0 3.2
Approximate
% Sat. Level
79
82
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
October 15, 1987
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: John Parker
FROM: George Everett CE?:
SUBJECT: Application for CAMA Permit
Rouse-Watson, Inc.
Carteret County
Earlier comments were forwarded to your office on May
11, 1987 addressing water quality impacts of the proposed
facilities with the exception of the evaluation of the
dissolved oxygen modeling which has been prepared by the
applicant's consultant. The model results have now been
reviewed by our staff and the following comments are
submitted for your consideration:
Water quality models which are used to predict
dissolved oxygen values in marinas have two variables which
are important in determining impacts. Sediment oxygen
demand and the number of boats (along with their assumed
discharges) are inputs to these models. Division of
Environmental Management's evaluation indicates that
sediment oxygen demand has a far greater impact on final
dissolved oxygen values than the number of boats. Because
there is such a large variation in the possible value of the
sediment oxygen demand, it is difficult to predict the
conditions that will actually occur should the marina be
constructed. With very minimal impact expected from boats,
Division of Environmental Management recommends that the
CAMA permit be issued with a requirement for dissolved
oxygen to be monitored by the permittee on a weekly
frequency in the summer. Other operating procedures for the
marina were recommended in our May comments. If frequent
water quality problems appear, it may be necessary for
corrective actions to be required in the future.
GTE:BM/dkb
cc: Preston Howard
Alan Klimek
Bill Mills
1
1
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM SIEP 221987
DATE: September 18, 1987 VA
TO: George Everett, Chief 5?1?; Y;
Water Quality Section '
FROM: A. Preston Howard, Jr., Regional Engineer
Wilmington Regional Office
THROUGH: Charles Wakild, Regional Supervisor Wilmington Regional Office
SUBJECT: Regional Office Review & Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Rouse-Watson - Additional Comments
(Addendum to 4/28/87 Memo
Carteret County
The applicant is proposing to construct a condominium complex
with 100 units, and a 2.6 acre-100 slip marina. The project
design includes an approved stormwater management plan and
requires two (2) general 401 certifications, for bulkhead
construction and for discharge from a diked disposal area. The
project is located adjacent to Bogue Sound which is classified
SA.
The project has been reviewed to determine the impact that the
permitting of a marina may have on Bogue Sound. With respect to
water quality, there are two concerns. One concern centers
around the loss of a shellfishing resource through automatic
closure by the Department of Health Services (DHS). The second
concern involves the expected depletion of dissolved oxygen
(D.O.) within the marina basin.
In accordance with DHS' automatic closure policy, the presence of
the proposed marina would cause closure of any waters within 800
feet of the boat slip closest to the entrance channel of the
marina. The closure would affect approximately 12 acres, see
Figure 1. The Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) conducted a
survey of shellfish resources within an 800 foot area of the
proposed marina and did not find a shellfish resource within the
affected area (see the attached memo from David Taylor to Preston
Pate). The shellfish survey suggests that the closure of said
waters would not preclude an existing use; therefore violation of
DEM's antidegradation policy is not expected.
In assessing the potential for D.O. depletion, data from a number
of sources was studied. The applicant's consultant has submitted
a Marina Hydrology Study (copy attached). Included in the study
was an EPA approved model used to predict the change in D.O.
Page Two
Memo to George Everett
September 18, 1987
given different variables. When using the average tidal range
for Bogue Inlet, a sediment oxygen demand (S.O.D.) of 1.0
g/m2/day, and a pollution dilution factor of 90%, the model
predicts a reduction in D.O. of 0.9 mg/l - 1.1 mg/l, depending on
the number of boats in use at the marina. The consultant also
submitted data that suggests that the ambient D.O. in Bogue Sound
ranges from 79 to 115 percent of the D.O. saturation level (Dr.
Hans Paerl - data attached). However, DEM has operated ambient
monitoring stations in the White Oak River at Swansboro and in
Bogue Sound, just west of Morehead City, as part of DEM's ambient
monitoring network, (see Figure 2). In reviewing DEM's
monitoring data collected between 1982 and 1986 (May through
September), the D.O.s ranged from 56 to 127 percent of the D.O.
saturation levels, with an average D.O. concentration of 78% and
91% of saturation at the Bogue Sound and White River Stations,
respectively (see Table 1). If a comparison is made between the
predicted depletion of D.O. within the proposed marina utilizing
(1) the field data provided by the applicant, (2) the White Oak
River Station, and (3) the Bogue Sound Station; the model would
predict violations of the D.O. standard 13%, 18 - 32%, 42 - 50%
of the days monitored, respectively.
The model used by the consultant to predict changes in D.O. has a
number of variables, one of which is tidal range. The tidal
ranges used were 1.2, 2.2 and 3.5 feet (the average tidal range
at Bogue Inlet is 2.2 feet). When using a tidal range of 3.5
feet and a S.O.D. of 1.0 g/m2/day the model predicted depletion
of D.O. by 0.5 to 0.6 mg/1. This office has investigated the
depletion of D.O. in several marinas in New Hanover County where
the tidal range averages 3.8 - 4.0 feet. The staff investigated
3 marinas which have constricted entrance channels relative to
the basin (see Figure 3). Two (2) of the marinas were found to
have higher D.O. concentrations outside the marina basins than
inside the marina basins. The extent of D.O. depletion within
the basins generally increases with depth (see Table 2).
Based on the predictions of the consultant's model in combination
with the available ambient data from Bogue Sound and the White
Oak River, it appears that during the summer months there would
be a considerable number of days (13 - 50 percent of the time)
when the standard for D.O. would be contravened.
If you have any questions, please so advise.
DHC:kc
cc: Bill Mills
CF, WiRO
TABLE 1
Bogue Sound - DEM's Ambient Monitoring Network 1982 - 1987
Approximate
Date D.O. (mg/1) Temp (C) Sal (ppt) 100% D.O. Sat.
Approximate
% Sat.
5/82 7.4 28 31 6.6 112
6/82 6.3 29 28 6.7 94
7/82 --- 4.0* 28 30 6.7 60
8/82 6.1 26 25 7.2 85
9/82 5.1* 22 21 8.0 64
5/83 5.9** 23 16 8.1 73
6/83 5.8* 25 15 7.8 74
7/83 -- 3.8* 30 22 6.7 57
8/83 5.2* 30 12 7.1 73
9/83 -- 4.0* 29 14 7.2 56
5/84 9.4 25 33 7.4 127
6/84 ?-- 4.6* 23 19 7.9 58
7/84 5.5* 27 19 7.3 75
8/84 6.9 24 18 7.8 88
9/84 7.6 24 11 8.5 89
5/85 6.8 22 33 7.5 91
6/85 6.0** 25 34 7.0 86
7/85 6.7 26 32 6.9 97
8/85 5.8* 28 35 6.5 89
9/85 6.6 24 31 7.3 90
5/86 6.7 25 27 7.3 92
6/86 N/A
7/86 5.4* 30 26 6.6 82
8/86 7.0 28 19 7.1 99
9/86 6.9 24 21 7.1 90
* Minimum predicted reduction in D.O. will cause violations of
State Standards.
** Additional violation of standards with maximum predicted
reduction in D.O.
NOTE: Some ambient D.O. readings are below the State Standard of
5 mg/l
TABLE 1 - Continued
White Oak River at Swansboro - DEM's Ambient Monitoring Network
1982-1987
Approximate Approximate
Date D.O. (mg/1) Temp (C) Sal (ppt) 100% D.O. Sat. % Sat.

5/82 6.3 25 25 7.4 85
6/82 5.8* 29 24 6.8 85
7/82 5.4* 29 21 7.0 77
8/82 6.0** 26 25 7.2 83
9/82 6.5 22 17 8.1 80
5/83 6.4 19 19 8.5 75
6/83 6.9 27 14 7.5 92
7/83 6.3 30 16 70 90
8/83 5.9** 29 18 7.1 83
9/83 6.9 24 14 7.8 88
5/84 7.7 25 30 7.2 107
6/84 n/a
7/84 6.2 25 18 7.7 81
8/84 8.0 26 19 7.4 108
9/84 7.8 20 13 8.6 91
5/85 7.6 19 29 8.1 94
6/85 6.8 24 32 7.2 94
7/85 5.7* 23 29 7.5 76
8/85 6.8 25 >40 6.8 100
9/85 n/a
5/86 6.5 23 28 7.6 86
6/86 6.2 28 27 6.8 91
7/86 5.9** 29 23 6.9 86
8/80 5.5* 27 9 7.7 71
9/86 6.7 25 21 7.6 88
* Minimum predicted reduction in D.O. will cause violations of
State Standards.
** Additional violation of standards with maximum predicted
reduction in D.O.
TABLE 2
Date - 9/987 - Full Moon High Tide at High Tide
Shin Point Marina - approximately 30 boats
Approximate
Depth (M) Temp oC D.O. mg/l Sal ppt % Sat. Level
Basin 0.1 27 4.2 19 57
0.5 27 4.2
1.0 27 4.5 26
Control 0.1 27 5.1 27 73
0.5 27 5.7
1.0 27 6.8
Tangle Oaks Marina - approximately 40 boats
Center of
Basin .1 27 4.1 26 58
1.0 27 3.7
2.0 27 4.0
3.0 27 2.9
4.0 27 1.4
5.0 27 0.6
Bottom <6.0 0.1
Corner 0.1 27 3.9 26 55
Kitty Corner 0.5 3.6
From
Entrance 1.0 3.5
<2.0 2.0
Corner 0.1 28 4.3 26 63
Inside Corner 0.5 3.3
1.0 3.6
Bottom 1.5 2.7
Control 0.1 27 4.4 26 62
0.5 4.1
1.0 4.8
Bottom 2.0 4.0
Outside of
Entrance 0.1 27 4.7 67
Depth (M) Temp oC D.O. mg/l
Caroline Beach State Park - No Boats
Center 0.1 28 5.8
0.5 5.5
1.0 5.4
2.0 4.5
Bottom 2.25 4.0
Control 0.1 28 6.0
1.0 5.8
2.0 5.8
Bottom 3.0 3.2
Approximate
Sal ppt % Sat. Level
15 79
15 82
-Ij
t ? ` •? 4 ? ? ?? I e Enns
Dots, •'•• ,.1 I • ?' ( "/ ` lj.. l ? ? ?N' ?i /? r 3
Myrtle ,?•.f. e
Light
con
h - /5 6 c; .? ?l. •;l 1 Spoil Area
Light
?.,_ (1??` r / CY2 > Spoil Area
x/` 1 /fir
?\? J/ i,' \? ?S Y, l_1 7( / rL( 1
Mud
13
Bogm
-41 74
(E \I /ci,' ,5 ! r5 _ li?F? J ,ins
zz?
Dudley Island
r nes ,
Sp1N1n8`'? G Ou 5 Feet ---
O ke
W ;-> '? • St Gufird
/ Station . I „1>>
Acl:
FI
/
Pte! / 10
(',Urrc v??l ?roPosc? J" /
l
4o or ol, o N
j
j? ??v/ toet Cgk?ur? Gr?;c? („ e,re
? ?CJ4
N
L
• 40 r l/
C?og?re areq ?.. acGor?ur+GG u • ? ? ?? ? ? O 11L I
EZ
>E
/ OJ zc»Jv? Y?s aiwdnr/ , ?sw ?? \
•?' ? `? i ' 111
CC ?7 (A 1?
6Z ,Cst
,
L ` l ill
1
le i Abe v,,0 1
f BZ I 1
j ?•U i'o'1 -'
1 i I l??
A VI
vd X
'wd
? ' el ?asglul3 A .1
....vd I , ? v, °as lu 3 ?. ? ` 1
9 I
.191 r A.....:
.. i 0 / ny y 4??
1.991 0. ?? O 1
'a. NOS b Id'10 } 1
p? ......,....IIL? ?asq tul 3_ ` 1h
O \ \
IJAI'tV
1
W 1 °^
1 ' 1
' ?j" :110 ??ro? S 1
/t
I ,??rs,??l?o
1
I
i
1
1
. 1

I(
?
0
9
ZE
1
le
6z
Ji
6z
Of

M
ti
(?Z
Q

V •81
?
Z
O
6Z
OIL/ E?
11 nl o as9,ut,3
\•• ,? op
210 ,I
?ao ?-
'S1.
l ?? - i vaO? ` 8
j,
Oki,
1 09 `? „`„ \0y 0 9 ez
6z
6z
cz
4 iQ' ,far J c?
L
t• X 1 r-
O Z ? • ,S )
m' (?r.wj.• ? > .i° ate.. 4 i ?} i I ? ?? J ?- i fj)(,/
. _X ^ ?, ? I I, d o c J
Z Z
7I 7 c ? -
L) u
0' 0
--
- 0
JQ
rG C J 1 v. ? OJ-I? _I 1o O i ;.
a yZjl? - ? c 6',•. ?. ?. \\ ,? ?' •?? to I ? ` L ` 1 \?` ?J.
IU - o cn I ?. ;., /
LLJ
I d
"Cr
1 - !
If? r? /ppr•? I P ?•••b.
v ( ?I
A I /t? SLO
co s ",z
o j ?> Z ???11J - / c
m
° a I ? N. 1 ? Ilu?n Uc I __A ,
W • Q ' (,-
(\1 t
LAJ Er.
ULIJ
BOGUE SOUND MONITORING DATA
Prepared by Dr. Hans Paerl
University of North Carolina
Institute of Marine Sciences
Morehead City, North Carolina
19 June 1984
Depth (m) Temp °C 02ppm
0 28.2 5.4
.25 28.2 5.4
.50 28.2 5.1
.75 28.2 4.4 ---
1.0 28.2 4.0-
1.5 28.2 3.8 -
2.0 27.3 3.6 -
26 June 1984
Depth (m) Temp °C 02ppm
nity PPm lot o sk
00
34.0 ?
34.0 34.0
34.0 pH=8.070
34.0
34.0
34.0
Salinity ppm
0 27.0 5.8 Average = 22.25
.25 27.5 5.7
.50 27.2 5.7
.75 26.5 5.5 pH = 8.124
1.0 27.5 5.6
1.5 27.2 5.5
3 July 1984
Depth (m) Temp °C 02ppm Salinity ppm Conductivity

0 27.0 7.4 27.5 450
.25 27.0 7.4 27.5 450 -7
6) fob
.5 27.0 7.4 27.5 -
450 pH=8.206
.75 27.0 7.4 27.5 450
1.0 27.0 7.4 27.5 450
1.5 27.0 6.9 28.0 450
10 July 1984
Depth (m) Temp °C 02ppm
0 26.0 7.6 Salinity Average = 22.5%
.25 26.0 7.6
?
.5 26.0 7.5 Conductivity
'
2 1,01
.75 26.0 7.5 Average = 375 x 10
1.0 26.0 7.5
1.5 26.0 7.5 pH = 8.307
17 July 1984
Depth (m) Temp °C 02ppm
0 29.0 7.6 Salinity Average = 22.5%
.25 29.0 7.5
.5 29.0 7.3 pH = 8.298 1b9
.75 29.0 7.4
1.0 29.0 7.4
1.5 29.0 7.1
24 July 1984
Depth (m) Temp °C 02ppm Salinity ppm Conductivity

0 27.0 7.1 31.2 490 x 102
.25 27.0 7.1 31.3 490 x 102
.50 27.0 7.1 31.5 490 x 102
.75 27.0 7.1 32.0 490 x 102pH=8.342 10:
1.0 27.0 7.1 32.0 495 x 102
1.5 27.0 7.1 32.0 498 x 102
31 July 1984
Depth (m) Temp °C 02ppm
0 26.5 7.6
.25 26.5 7.6
.5 26.5 7.6
.75 26.8 7.6
1.0 26.8 7.6
1.5 27.0 7.6
7 August 1984
Salinity Average = 28.0%
Conductivity l?
Average = 440 x 102
pH = 8.350
Depth (m) Temp °C 02ppm Salinity ppm
0 29.8 7.3 31.5 of
.25 29.8 7.2 31.5
.50 29.8 7.1 31.5
.75 29.8 7.0 31.5 pH=8.224
1.0 29.8 7.0 31.5
1.25 29.8 7.0 31.5
1.5 29.8 6.3 31.5
3 May 1985
Depth (m) Temp °C 02ppm Salinity ppm Conductivity 06
0 22.5
.25 22.7
.50 22.7
.75 22.7
1.0 22.7
1.5 22.7
2.0 (near 22.7
bottom)
17 May 1985
Depth (m) Temp °C
7.7 30.3 440 x 102 ?S Ion
7.6 30.3 440 x 102
7.6 30.3 440 x 102
7.6 30.3 440 x 102pH=8.295
7.6 30.3 440 x 102
7.6 30.3 440 x 102
7.6 30.3 440 x 102
02ppm Salinity ppm Conductivity
0 24.0
.25 24.0
.5 24.0
.75 24.0
1.0 24.0
1.5 24.0
2.0 (near 24.0
bottom)
31 May 1985
Depth (m) Temp °C
7.4 28.0 440 x 102
7.4 28.0 415 x 102
?i'
7.3 28.0 415 x 102
?!1
7.2 28.0 415 x 102pH=8.236
7.0 28.0 415 x 102
6.8 28.0 415 x 102
6.3 28.0 415 x 102
02ppm Salinity ppm Conductivity
0 27.1
.25 27.1
.5 27.0
.75 27.0
1.0 26.9
1.5 26.8
2.0 (near 26.8
bottom)
7.2 31.2 460 x 102 4.1
7.2 31.2 460 x 102 ??y
7.2 31.2 460 x 102
7.2 31.2 460 x 102pH=8.210
7.1 31.2 460 x 102
7.1 31.2 460 x 102
7.0 31.2 460 x 102
14 June 1985
Depth (m) Temp °C 02ppm Salinity ppm
Conductivity
0 28.2 7.0 31.2
.25 28.2 7.0 31.3
.5 28.2 7.0 31.3
.75 28.2 7.0 31.3
1.0 28.2 7.0 31.3
1.5 28.2 7.0 31.3
2.0 (near 28.1 6.9 31.3
bottom)
26 June 1985
Depth (m) Temp °C 02ppm Salinity ppm
460 x 102
465 x 102 6.7
465 x 102
465 x 102pH=8.297
465 x 102
465 x 102
465 x 102
Conductivity
0 28.5
.25 28.5
.5 28.5
.75 28.5
1.0 28.5
1.5 28.5
2.0 (near 28.5
bottom)
6.8 31.8
6.8 31.8
6.8 31.8
6.8 31.8
6.8 31.8
475 x 102
475 x 102
475 x 102pH=8.229
475 x 102
475 x 102
Lo I;
?aM2 f
O n
13 vt'
o ? ? ? tt c !I; J
I= <3 • .) C) I W o
m m
D O o o ? !
J = c ° 'J Z '' V
I -° c o
J\? (? W
i SHE o
Q ~ a ^ 1?"?
KID: ^'`-^-f N •? -•?`
{ W _ W C
1 ? F
..o ._ t o
LLI
?Ak
C ~ ? I)
-? C I VV
W ` 1L? N ? G
. a o ?r e,
f Q 11 . _ -- - - -- _._ .. _ .. - -- - -- - - _. _
I s ? I -
01
I
d 0 0
CO t
40,
J
I ? ? C
N 5
CS a
co
b; :m
JJ o - .. Q-, v .ti .n!? c1f
r 9
`1 e O 1 I 5? + I\.
w 00
y ? ? l
o c w vt? - 5 ?,n_ ?)? f
May 7, 1987
MEMORANDUM
TO: PRESTON PATE
air

FROM. DAVID TAYLOR
SUBJECT: CEDAR POINT SURVEY L
I was requested by Jim Mercer to conduct a survey _of -she-1-1:f37sh resources
within an 800 foot arc of the proposed Guthrie project that would be impacted
by Shellfish Sanitation's new marina policy.
On May 6, Jim Mercer, Maury Wolff and I conducted the survey. The areas out-
lying the portions of shoreline already sampled during previous investigations of
Cedar Point Villas and the Guthrie project were raked to determine shellfish abundance.
Approximately five manhours of moderate hand raking yielded two live clams
and six oysters. Small patches of eel grass are present on the south side of the
waterway and on the shoal on the eastern portion of the survey area.
The area encompassed by the extension of the polluted area does not contain
commercially significant numbers of shellfish. Therefore, the shellfish and shellfish
harvest would not be affected adversely by the increased scope of the polluted area
closure.
CC : JJM Mercer
/jtg
,?UL 1 G 1981
F COASTAL MAN NI
OFF ICE NGICN ho'301 pFfME
W1LM ...-?

August 5, 1987
Mr. Lee Pelig
Region IV, Wetlands Section
Marine and Estuarine Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
RE: Rouse-Watson, Inc. Marina Hydrology Study
Carteret County, North Carolina
Dear Lee:
2_0? do?vl
In response to our conversations concerning the hydrology
study for the Rouse-Watson, -Inc. marina permit request, I
would like to present some additional information for your
consideration:
1. The model used in the hydrology study to determine
projected dissolved oxygen levels came directly from the
EPA Marina Assessment Handbook. It is clear in this EPA
model that the existing ambient dissolved oxygen level
of adjacent waters is a very significant factor in
determining the projected level of dissolved oxygen for
a proposed marina basin. The EPA der 'v mula
predicts the .e solved -` Ls tg-lie-6.18
en ve
mg However, past field derived data for Bogue Sound
see attachments) confirms levels averaging from 6.74 to
700 mg/1.
The lower EPA ambient dissolved oxygen level was used in
the May 1987 hydrology study prepared by Dr. Pietrafesa.
The model used a wide range of conditions including some
worst case scenarios which are highly unlikely to occur
for any extended period of time. It is our opinion that
the hydrology study data, which uses the EPA derived
ambient dissolved oxygen data, should be viewed with a
tolerance of up to 0.80 mg/l when considering worst case
conditions.
The attached field data was gathered in Bogue Sound
during the summer months of 1984 and 1985 as a baseline
study for a different marina site. The data should be
reasonably comparable to conditions at the Guthrie site.
I have attached for your review, four sets of modelling

PATRON / ZUCCHINO

results using ambient dissolved oxygen levels of 6.74
mg/l and 7.00 mg/1. The resulting dissolved oxygen
levels cl aexceed the state standards except in only
the most improbable worst case circumstances.
2. I have also discussed with Dr. Cavender some marina
basin design changes which might be made to improve
projected dissolved oxygen levels within the proposed
basin. We reviewed two options which, if recommended by
your office, would be studied for inclusion into the
marina design permit application.
These changes might include: a) changing the rectilinear
geometry of the basin by replacing ninety degree corners
with fourty-five degree diagnol corners, and b)
providing some version of a breakwater or perforated
bulkhead along the waterfront edge of the basin which
would allow a greater degree of flushing and oxygenation
at high tides.
It is our understanding that this project has resolved all
outstanding state agency objections. The requirement for the
preparation of the hydrology study was requested by EPA after
the permit was well into CAMA review process. We have placed
the permit on hold for a three month period pending the
preparation and review of the hydrology study by your office.
We respectfully request that you give full consideration to
the positive State agency comments on the marina, the fact
that the dissolved oxygen data must be reviewed in context of
both the EPA derived dissolved oxygen input data and the
attached data from Bogue Sound, and the understanding that
the applicant is willing to investigate basin design changes
based upon your recommendations to do so.
Please feel free to contact me concerning any comments or
recommendations you might have.
Sincerely,
"-
Lawrence R. Zucchino
cc: Mr. Frank Rouse, Rouse-Watson, Inc.
Mr. Preston Pate, NCDCM
Mr. Charles Hollis, USACOE
Mr. Tom Cavender, USEPA
Attachment: 2
Rouse Watson, Inc. Marina
Guthrie Tract
Carteret County, North Carolina
PROGRAM OXYGEN
C
C D06.FOR Program changed Aug.1 1987
C THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES THE DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONTENT.
C DOE CORRESPONDS TO DOs,
C RL CORRESPONDS TO R + L,
C FN CORRESPONDS TO Nf,IN ORIGINAL FORMULA.
C A1,A2,A3,A4,A5 ARE THE GIVEN VALUES OF ALPHA.
C
DIMENSION D(5),NB(5),A5(5),R(5),RL(5),P(5)
DIMENSION A1(5),A2(5),A3(5),A4(5,5,5)
DIMENSION DOR(5,5,5,5,5),B(5),FN(5,10),A(2),DOE(2),U(2)
DATA A /10424.0,8000.0/
DATA DOE /6.7375,7.0/
DATA U /0.05,0.1/
DATA (D(I),I=1,2) /0.1,0.01/
DATA (NB(J),J=1,2) /25,40/.,-,
i,u I,S ?ac??S 7.
DATA (A5(K),K=1,3) /0.11333,0.22666,0.34/ ?D+,-+
DATA (R (L) ,L=1 ,3) /0.36576,0.67056,1.0668/ --,K
DATA (RL(L),L=1,3) /1.88976,2.286,2.5908/ ? L = N
DATA (P(M),M=1,3) /0.75,1.0,1.25/ 61a 54T
OPEN (UNIT=II,FILE='DO6.DATA',STATUS='NEW')
C
C PROCESS
C
DO 20 IA=1,2
DO 30 IDO=1,2
DO 40 IU=1,2
IF (A(IA).Eg.8000.0) THEN
NB(I)=10
NB(2)=15
RL(1)=2.46888
RL(2)=2.68224
RL(3)=2.8956
R(1)-0.94488
R(2)=1.15824
R(3)=1.3716
ENDIF
C
C Calculate basic parameters
C
DO 50 L=1,3
Ai(L) = 3*R(L)/RL(L)
A2(L) = 1.5*(RL(L)-R(L))/RL(L)
A3(L) = 2.3/RL(L)
BI = 4.0*A(IA)*R(L)
132 = 3.0*(4.47*4.47)*(U(IU)**2.0)*1.524*1000000.0
B(L) = B1/B2
50 CONTINUE
WRITE(11,1100) A(IA),DOE(IDO),U(IU)
1100 FORMAT (///5X,'THE VALUES OF A, DOE, U;',3F10.4//)
C
C
DO 100 I=1,2
DO 200 J=1,2
DO 300 Y.=1,3

" R- ,6`105

DO 400 M=1,3
DO 500 L=1,3
FNI = LOG(D(I))
FN2 = (1-B(U)/(1+(RL(L)-R(U)/R(L)) Cc?, c `??? o r._ ?}
FN(I,L) = FN1/LOG(1-FN2)
A4(I,J,L) = 19.36*FN(I,L)*FLOAT(NB(J))/(A(IA)*RL(L))
DO1 = AI(L)*DOE(IDO)*(0.3+0.033*P(M))
D02 = 1.0-(0.67*A2(L))
DOR(I,J,K,M,L) _ (D01-A3(L)*A5(K)-0.4*A4(I,J,L))/DO2
500 CONTINUE
WRITE(11,1200) D(I),NB(J),A5(K),P(M),
- (DOR(I,J,K,M,L),L=1,3)
1200 FORMAT (10X,F5.2,2X,I5,F8.5,4X,F5.2,2X,3F8.4)
400 CONTINUE
300 CONTINUE
200 CONTINUE
100 CONTINUE
C Print B and FN
DO 800 I=1,2
DO 700 J=1,2
DO 600 L=1,3
WRITE (11,1300) D(I),NB(J),R(L),RL(L),AI(L),A2(L),A3(L),
A4 (I ,J,L) ,B (L) ,FN (I ,L)
1300 FORMAT (5X,F5.2,I5,8F10.5)
600 CONTINUE
700 CONTINUE
800 CONTINUE
40 CONTINUE
30 CONTINUE
20 CONTINUE
END

-1_- Guthrie --- A=10424,- DOE=6.7375, -- U=0.05 ----(GA)

- DOR for
-------
--
-----
D NB A5 F ------
R(1) -
R(2) R(3)
----
.10 --------
25 --------------
.11333( •5) ------
.75 ----------
5.3765 ----------
6.0337 -
6.2649
.10 25 .11333 1.00 5.5468 6.2025 6.4329
.10 25 .11333 1.25 5.7171 6.3713 6.6008
.10 25 .22666(1
0) .75 4.6486 6402 6.0188
.10 25 ,
.22666 1.00 4.8189 .80 6.1868 /,1.)-
.10 25 .22666 1.25 4.9892 5.9778 6.3547
.10 25 .34000(1.5) .75 3.9208 5.2467 5.7727
.10 25 .34000 1.00 4.0911 5.4155 5.9406
.10 25 .34000 1.25 4.2614 5.5843 6.1086
.10 40 .11333 .75 5.0168 5.9036 6.2048
.10 40 .11333 1.00 5.1871 6.0723 6.3727
.10 40 .11333 1.25 5.3574 6.2411 6.5407
.10 40 .22666 .75 4.2890 5.5101 5.9587
.10 40 .22666 1.00 4.4593 .678 6.1266
.10 40 .22666 1.25 4.6296 5. 77 6.2946
.10 40 .34000 .75 3.5611 5.1166 5.7126
.10 40 .34000 1.00 3.7314 5.2854 5.8805
.10 40 .34000 1.25 3.9017 5.4542 6.0485
.01 25 .11333 .75 4.7770 5.8168 6.1647
.01 25 .11333 1.00 4.9474 5.9856 6.3326
.01 25 .11333 1.25 5.1177 6.1544 6.5006
.01 25 .22666 .75 4.0492 5.4233 5.9186
.01 25 .22666 1.00 4.2195 5.5921 6.0865
.01 25 .22666 1.25 4.3898 5.7609 6.2545
.01 25 .34000 .75 3.3214 5.0299 5.6725
.O1 25 .34000 1.00 3.4917 5.1986 5.8404
.O1 25 .34000 1.25 3.6620 5.3674 6.0084
.01 40 .11333 .75 4.0578 5.5565 6.0444 ?A
3-
.O1 40 .11333 1.00 4.2281 5.7253 6.2123
.01 40 .11333 1.25 4.3984 5.8941 6.3803
.O1 40 .22666 .75 3.3300 5.1631 5.7983 G y? Z
14
.01 40 .22666 1.00 3.5003 5.3319 5.9663
.01 40 .22666 1.25 3.6706 5.5006 6.1342
.01 40 .34000 .75 2.6021 4.7696 5.5522
.O1 40 .34000 1.00 2.7724 4.9384 5.7201
.01 40 .34000 1.25 2.9427 5.1072 5.8881
D(I)
---- NB(J)
------- R(L)
---------- RL M
------------ A(1)
----------- A2 M
------------ A3 (L)
----------- A4(I,J,L)
------------ BM
--------- FN(I,L)
--
.10 25 .36576 1.88976 .58065 1.20968 1.21709 .28399 .06678 11.55847
.10 25 .67056 2.28600 .88000 1.06000 1.00612 .15714 .12243 7.73647
.10 25 1.06680 2.59080 1.23529 .88235 .88776 .10244 .19477 5.71619
.10 40 .36576 1.88976 .58065 1.20968 1.21709 .45439 .06678 11.55847
.10 40 .67056 2.28600 .88000 1.06000 1.00612 .25142 .12243 7.73647
.10 40 1.06680 2.59080 1.23529 .88235 .88776 .16391 .19477 5.71619
.01 25 .36576 1.88976 .58065 1.20968 1.21709 .56798 .06678 23.11695
.i: 25 .67056 2.28600 .88000 1.06000 1.00612 .31427 .12243 15.47294
... 25 1.06680 2.59080 1.23529 .88235 .88776 .20489 .19477 11.43238
.01 40 .36576 1.88976 .58065 1.20968 1.21709 .90877 .06678 23.11695
.01 40 .67056 2.28600 .880(x) 1.06000 1.00612 .50284 .12243 15.47294
.01 40 1.06680 2.59080 1.23529 .88235 .88776 .32782 .19477 11.43238
2. Guthrie A=10424, DOE=6.7375, U=0.1 (GB)
DOR for
D
------ NB
------ A5
--- F R(i) R(2) R(3)

.10
25 --------
.11333 ---------
.75 ----------
5.4102 ---------
6.0576 ---
6.2839
.10 25 .11333 1.00 5.5805 6.2264 6.4519
.10 25 .11333 1.25 5.7508 6.3952 6.6198
.10 25 .22666 .75 4.6824 5.6642 6.0378
.10 25 .22666 1.00 4.8527 5.8330 6.2058 s
.10 25 .22666 1.25 5.0230 6 T018 6.3737
.10 29, .34000 .75 3.9546 5.2707 5.7917
.10 25 .34000 1.00 4.1249 5.4395 5.9597
.10 25 .34000 1.25 4.2952 5.6083 6.1276
.10 40 .11333 .75 5.0709 5.9419 6.2352
.10 40 .11333 1.00 5.2412 6.1107 6.4031
.10 40 .11333 1.25 5.4115 6.2794 6.5711
.10 40 .22666 .75 4.3431 5.5484 5.9891
.10 40 .22666 1.00 4.5134 I- 7172 6.1570
.10 40 .22666 1.25 4.6837 5.8860 6.3250
.10 40 .34000 .75 3.6152 5.1549 5.7430
.10 40 .34000 1.00 3.7855 5.3237 5.9109
.10 40 .34000 1.25 3.9558 5.4925 6.0789
.01 25 .11333 .75 4.8446 5.8647 6.2027
.01 25 .11333 1.00 5.0149 6.0335 6.3706
.01 25 .11333 1.25 5.1852 6.2023 6.5386
.O1 25 .22666 .75 4.1168 5.4712 5.9566
.01 25 .22666 1.00 4.2871 5.6400 6.1246
.01 25 .22666 1.25 4.4574 5.8088 6.2925
.01 25 .34000 .75 3.3889 5.0777 5.7105
.01 25 .34000 1.00 3.5592 5.2465 5.8784
.01 25 .34000 1.25 3.7295 5.4153 6.0464
.01 40 .11333 .75 4.1659 5.6332 6.1052
.01 40 .11333 1.00 4.3362 5.8020 6.2732
.O1 40 .11333 1.25 4.5065 5.9707 6.4411
.01 40 .22666 .75 3.4381 5.2397 5.8591
.O1 40 .22666 1.00 3.6084 5.4085 6.0271
.O1 40 .22666 1.25 3.7787 5.5773 6.1950
.01 40 .34000 .75 2.7102 4.8462 5.6130
.01 40 .34000 1.00 2.8805 5.0150 5.7810
.01 40 .34000 1.25 3.0508 5.1838 5.9489
D(I) NB(J) R(L) RL(L) A(1) A2(L) A3(L)
-- A4(I,J,L)
----------- B(L)
--------- FN(I,L)
--
----
.10 -------
25 -----------
.36576 -----------
1.88976 -----------
.58065 ------------
1.20966 --------
-
1.21709 .26798 .01669 10.90690
.10 25 .67056 2.286C* .88000 1.06000 1.00612 .13979 .03061 6.88219
.10 25 1.06680 2.59080 1.23529 .88235 .88776 .08301 .04869 4.63192
.10 40 .36576 1.88976 .58065 1.20968 1.21709 .42877 .01669 10.90690
.10 40 .67056 2.28600 .88000 1.06000 1.00612 .22366 .03061 6.88219
.10 40 1.06680 2.59080 1.23529 .88235 .88776 .13282 .04869 4.63192
.01 25 .36576 1.88976 .58065 1.20968 1.21709 .53596 .01669 21.81380
.01 25 .67056 2.28600 .88000 1.06000 1.00612 .27957 .03061 13.76438
.01 25 1.06680 2.59080 1.23529 .88235 .88776 .16602 .04869 9.26385
.01 40 .36576 1.88976 .58065 1.20968 1.21709 .85754 .01669 21.81380
.O1 40 .67056 2.28600 .68000 1.06000 1.00612 .44731 .03061 13.76438
.01 40 1.06680 2.59080 1.23529 .862--5 .881176 .26564 .04869 9.26385
3_ Guthrie A=10424, DOE=7.0, U=0.05
(GC)
_
-
- - -
-- ---------
DOR for
--

D
--
-
NB
-
-
A5
------------
F
-------- --------
R(1)
------
- -----
-------- -
R(2) R(3)
------------
-
.10 -----
--
25 .11333 -
.75 -
5.6376 6.2925 6.5225
.10 25 .11333 1.00 5.8146 6.4679 6.6970
.10 25 .11333 1.25 5.9915 6.6433 6.8715
.10 25 .22666 .75
.10 25 .22666 1.00
.10 25 .22666 1.25
.10 25 .34000 .75
.10 25 .34000 1.00
.10 25 .34000 1.25
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
40 .11333
40 .11333
40 .11333
40 .22666
40 .22666
40 .22666
.75
1.00
1.25
.75
1.00
1.25
.10 40 .34000 .75
.10 40 .34000 1.00
.10 40 .34000 1.25
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.O1
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
25 .11333
25 .11333
25 .11333
25 .22666
25 .22666
25 .22666
25 .34000
25 .34000
25 .34000
40 .11333
40 .11333
40 .11333
40 .22666
40 .22666
40 .22666
40 .34000
40 .34000
40 .34000
4.9098 5.8991 6.2764
5.0868 6.0745 6.4509
5.2637 6.2498 6.6254
4.1819 5.5056 6.0303
4.3589 5.6810 6.2048
4.5358 5.8563 6.3793
5.2780 6.1624 6.4623
5.4549 6.3378 6.6368
5.6319 6.5131 6.8113
4.5502 5.7690 6.2162
4.7271 5.94,x, 6.3907
4.9041 6.1197 6.5652
3.8223 5.3755 5.9701
3.9992 5.5508 6.1446
4.1762 5.7262 6.3191
.75 5.0382 6.0757 6.4223
1.00 5.2152 6.2510 6.5967
1.25 5.3921 6.4264 6.7712
.75 4.3104 5.6822 6.1762
1.00 4.4874 5.8576 6.3507
1.25 4.6643 6.0329 6.5252
.75 3.5825 5.2887 5.9300
1.00 3.7595 5.4641 6.1045
1.25 3.9364 5.6394 6.2790
.75 4.3189 5.8154 6.3020
1.00 4.4959 5.9908 6.4765
1.25 4.6728 6.1661 6.6510
.75 3.5911 5.4219 6.0559
1.00 3.7681 5.5973 6.2304
1.25 3.9450 5.7727 6.4049
.75 2.8633 5.0284 5.8098
1.00 3.0402 5.2038 5.9843
1.25 3.2171 5.3792 6.1588

-----
-----
D(I)
---- ------
-------
NB(J)
------- -----------
-----------
R(L)
----------- -----------
-----------
RL(L)
----------- -----------
-----------
A(1)
----------- ------------
------------
A2 M
------------ -----------
-----------
A3 (L)
----------- ------------
------------
A4(I,J,L)
------------ ---------
---------
BM
--------- --
--
FN(I,L)
--
.10 25 .36576 1.88976 .58065 1.20968 1.21709 .28399 .06678 11.55847
.10 25 .67056 2.28600 .88000 1.06000 1.00612 .15714 .12243 7.73647
.10 25 1.06680 2.59080 1.23529 .68235 .88776 .10244 .19477 5.71619
.10 40 .36576 1.88976 .58065 1.20968 1.21709 .45439 .06678 11.55847
.10 40 .67056 2.28600 .88000 1.06000 1.00612 .25142 .12243 7.73647
.10 40 1.06680 2.59080 1.23529 .88235 .88776 .16391 .19477 5.71619
.O1 25 .36576 1.68976 .58065 1.20968 1.21709
.01 25 .67056 2.28600 .88000 1.06000 1.00612
.01 25 1.06680 2.59080 1.23529 .88235 .88776
.01 40 .36576 1.88976 .58065 1.20968 1.21709
.01 40 .67056 2.28600 .88000 1.06000 1.00612
.01 40 1.06680 2.59080 1.23529 .88235 .88776
.56798
.31427
.20489
.90877
.50284
.32782
4. Guthrie - A=10424, DOE=7.0, 1k0.1 -- (GD)

-
---- DOR f or
----- -
--------
D
-- NB
- A5 F --
R(1) R(2)
- R(3)
---
-
-
.10 --
-----
25 -------------
.11333 ---------
.75 --------
5.6714 -------
6.3165 -
6.5415
.10 25 .11333 1.00 5.8484 6.4919 6.7160
.10 25 .11333 1.25 6.0253 6.6672 6.8905
.10 25 .22666 .75 4.9436 5.9230 6.2954
.10 25 .22666 1.00 5.1205 br0981 6.4699 " .
.10 25 .22666 1.25 5.2975 6.2738 6.6444
.10 25 .34000 .75 4.2157 5.5295 6.0493
.10 25 .34000 1.00 4.3927 5.7049 6.2238
.10 25 .34000 1.25 4.5696 5.8803 6.3983
.10 40 .11333 .75 5.3321 6.2007 6.4928
.10 40 .11333 1.00 5.5090 6.3761 6.6673
.10 40 .11333 1.25 5.6859 6.5515 6.8418
.10 40 .22666 .75 4.6042 5.8073 6.2467
.10 40 .22666 1.00 4.7812 6.4212
.10 40 .22666 1.25 4.9581 6.1580 6.5957
.10 40 .34000 .75 3.8764 5.4138 6.0006
.10 40 .34010 1.00 4.0533 5.5891 6.1750
.10 40 .34000 1.25 4.2302 5.7645 6.3495
.O1 25 .11333 .75 5.1058 6.1236 6.4603
.01 25 .11333 1.00 5.2827 6.2989 6.6348
.01 25 .11333 1.25 5.4597 6.4743 6.8093
.01 25 .22666 .75 4.3780 5.7301 6.2142
.O1 25 .22666 1.00 4.5549 5.9055 6.3887
.O1 25 .22666 1.25 4.7319 6.0808 6.5632
.01 25 .34000 .75 3.6501 5.3366 5.9681
.O1 25 .34000 1.00 3.8271 5.5120 6.1426
.01 25 .34000 1.25 4.0040 5.6873 6.3171
.01 40 .11333 .75 4.4271 5.8920 6.3628
.06678 23.11695
.12243 15.47294
.19477 11.43238
.06678 23.11695
.12243 15.47294
.19477 11.43238
.01 40 .11333 1.00 4.6040 6.0674 6.5373
.01 40 .11333 1.25 4.7809 6.2428 6.7118
.01 40 .22666 .75 3.6993 5.4986 6.1167
.01 40 .22666 1.00 3.8762 5.6739 6.2912
.01 40 .22666 1.25 4.0531 5.8493 6.4657
.01 40 .34000 .75 2.9714 5.1051 5.8706
.01 40 .34000 1.00 3.1483 5.2804 6.0451
.01 40 .34000 1.25 3.3253 5.4558 6.2196
D(I) NB (J) R(L) RL(L) A(1) A2 (L)
---- A3 (L)
----------- A4(I,J,L)
------------ B(L)
--------- FN(I,L)
--
----
.10 -------
25 -----------
.36576 -----------
1.88976 -----------
.58065 --------
1.20968 1.21709 .26798 .01669 10.90690
.10 25 .67056 2.28600 .88000 1.06000 1.00612 .13979 .03061 6.88219
.10 25 1.06680 2.59080 1.23529 .88235 .88776 .08301 .04869 4.63192
.10 40 .36576 1.88976 .58065 1.20968 1.21709 .42877 .01669 10.90690
.10 40 .67056 2.28600 .88000 1.06000 1.00612 .22366 .03061 6.88219
.10 40 1.06680 2.59080 1.23529 .88235 .88776 .13282 .04869 4.63192
.01 25 .36576 1.88976 .58065 1.20968 1.21709 .53596 .01669 21.81380
.01 25 .67056 2.28600 .88000 1.06000 1.00612 .27957 .03061 13.76438
.01 25 1.06680 2.59080 1.23529 .88235 .88776 .16602 .04869 9.26385
.01 40 .36576 1.88976 .58065 1.20968 1.21709 .85754 .01669 21.81380
.01 40 .67056 2.28600 .88000 1.06000 1.00612 .44731 .03061 13.76438
.01 40 1.06680 2.59080 1.23529 .88235 .88776 .26564 .04869 9.26385
5.
- -- LLOYD
-------- A=8000,
--------- DOE=6.7375,
------------ U=0.05
------- -----M-
- - A)
---- -------- --------- ------------- -------- ---------
DOR for
- ---

-------
D
-- NB A5 P ------
R(1)
- --------
R(2)
-
-
- R(3)
-
--
.10 --------
10 --------
.11333 -----------
.75 ------
6.2803 -
---
-
-
6.3378 -
-
6.3757
.10 10 .11333 1.00 6.4484 6.5057 6.5434
.10 10 .11333 1.25 6.6166 6.6735 6.7111
.10 10 .22666 .75 6.00222 6.1113 6.1846
.10 10 .22666 1.00 6.1703 6.2791 6.3523
.10 10 .22666 1.25 6.3384 6.4470 6.5200
.10 10 .34000 .75 5.7241 5.8847 5.9935
.10 10 .34000 1.00 5.8922 6.0526 6.1612
.10 10 .34000 1.25 6.0603 6.2204 6.3288 _
.10 15 .11333 .75 6.2509 6.3162 6.3588
.10 15 .11333 1.00 6.4190 6.4841 6.5264
.10 15 .11333 1.25 6.5871 6.6519 6.6941
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 28, 1987
TO: Bill Mills
Operations Branch
FROM: A. Preston Howard, Jr.
Wilmington Regional Office
THROUGH: Charles Wakild
Wilmington Regional Office
SUBJECT: Regional Office Review & Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Rouse-Watson - Followup to Memo dated 2/9/87
Carteret County
The applicant has submitted additional plans and material dated
April 15, 1987 (received April 14, 1987). The applicant's
resubmittal is an effort to adequately address concerns expressed
in my February 9, 1987 memo to you concerning the subject
project. During the time between the initial review and current
submission, the Division of Health Services-adopted a new marina
policy. The new policy greatly expands the area that will be
closed to shellfishing in response to the construction of this
project. Therefore, a new use attainability analysis has been
completed.
As indicated in Comment 1 of the 2/9/87 memo, the project will
meet the conditions for a general 401 Certification for bulkhead
construction. The project also meets the conditions for a
general 401 Certification for the effluent discharge from an
upland dike disposal area.
In accordance with DHS's current marina policy approximately 12
additional acres of SA waters, currently open to shellfishing,
will be recommended for closure. Marine Fisheries has conducted
a shellfish survey in approximately 4 of the 12 acres that
suggest there is no resource in the immediate area of the
proposed marina. A shellfish survey of the entire recommended
closure area will be required before compliance with the
antidegradation standard can be ascertained. In addition to the
shellfish survey, the flushing characteristics must be modeled to
show that contraventions of dissolved oxygen standard will not
occur (this request has also been made by EPA). It is expected
that water quality, inside and adjacent to the mari?}a will be
protected only if Best Management Practices recommended in the
Use Attainability Analysis are incorporated as conditions of the
CAMA Permit and are strictly enforced.
Page Two
Memo to Bill Mills
April 28, 1987
A full stormwater management
Plan 14th submission including was submitted as
data, technical specifications, supportin part of the calculations
Operations and Maintenance Plan, construction gtechniques, and aann
has 3 essential components: The stormwater management
plan
1- a subsurface
natl hi groundwater drainage system to lower the
y 9h groundwater table;
2. porous asphalt pavement and basal stora e
the rainfall that falls on the g designed to handle
pavement; and
3. dry retention ponds located beneath each building to handle
the runoff from each individual building.
Independent analysis done by the constnt
suggests that under normal conditions therelwill bend DEM staff
feet of separation between the bottom of an
and the water table. grater than 2
In addition y infiltration system
was ample storage capacity it was determined that there
the normally unsaturated soil z nee 2 -year 24-hour storm event in
o
capacity of
the soil will also transmit the wateref omllthetstn orm into the
soil in less than S days.
The following represents the ons and/or
referenced plan attachments that aarretrecommended b changes t the
1• To the construction notes y this office:
printed on SD-1:
a. That the topsoil should also be removed beneath
building sites. the
b• That the soil be
sand free
removed down to the light colored
from
inches, whichever iganic matter or to a depth of g
greater.
2. To the Porous Pavement Design Specifications:
a- That the
requirement of "Batch-Type" mixing be added
to Sec. 1•9_(4)_
b- That the use of a
rollers) be required in S tracks (vs. a paver
p
Sec. . 1.9-(g), on
C. That Sec. 1.12 be
inspections. added to address construction
the Items inspected shall. include at
items listed on attached Table 5- least
shall also notify the Wilmington 2 The engineer
48 hours prior to construction. Regional DEM
require the office
Engineer's certification Sec. t1.12 hat should also
pavement was that the porous
certification mpu opbely constructed, a copy of the
sent to DEM in Wilminryt-

Page Three
Memo to Bill.-Mills
April 28, 1987
3. To the Operations and Maintenance Manual:
a. The last sentence of the section titled Remedial
Methods should read "Replacement with new pervious
pavement shall be required..."
b. From the section titled Inspection of the Infiltration
Beds the last sentence of the second
regarding ocean discharge, should be deleted. paragraph,
4. It is also recommended that the following condition be
incorporated as a condition of a CAMA Permit:
a. That it be required that the riding vacuum street
sweeper be obtained prior to construction of the
porous asphalt.
This office recommends denial of the permit unless it can be
shown that there is not a shellfish resource within the area to
be closed around the proposed marina. The applicant must also
demonstrate that D.O. standard contraventions will not occur in
the marina basin.
If you have any questions, please call Dave-Cotton or me.
APH:DHC:kc
cc: CF, WiRO
"20 198?
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
September 30, 1987
MEMO TO: George Everett
FROM; Alan Klimek 14 W1/
SUBJECT: Rouse-Watson Marina
We have briefly reviewed the dissolved oxygen analysis for
the subject marina submitted by the developer, as well as the
evaluation of the Wilmington Regional Office. After discussions
with Dr. Len Pietrafaesa, EPA and DEM staff, there appears to be
general agreement that the major variable dominating the
calculations is the bottom sediment oxygen demand. While the
number of boats discharging into the basin reduces the dissolved
oxygen by roughly 0.1 mg/l, the bottom demand can cause a drop on
the order of 1 mg/l (see calculations in detailed submittal for
more precise values over a range of assumptions). Therefore when
ambient oxygen levels are somewhat depressed, or for some of the
combinations of the more conservative assumptions, the marina
basin is projected to violate our dissolved oxygen standard.
That this can occur is supported by the field data provided by
the Wilmington Field Office.
Whether this particular marina would cause violations is,
for practical purposes, independent of whether boats are
discharging within it (using EPA Marina Assessment Handbook
data). The construction of the marina creates the potential water
body conditions that could cause problems - depending upon the
bottom substrate that is present. Obviously these same type of
conditions could also be found to occur naturally. While
enlarging the entrance to the marina might provide better
circulation and flushing of bottom materials, it would also alter
a greater area of natural area adjacent to the basin. This
would probably be resisted by the Division of Marine Fisheries,
and there is some questions as to the effectiveness of this
approach anyway.
Because there is such a large variation in the possible
value of the sediment oxygen demand, it is difficult to predict
the conditions that will actually occur should the marina be
constructed. It is important to note that we are not talking
about extremely low dissolved oxygen values, but rather those on
the order of 4 mg/l even under conservative assumptions. I would
therefore suggest that we recommend approval of this marina if
some condition can be place in the permit to require periodic
dissolved oxygen monitoring and subsequent mitigative actions
should violations be documented. This could include aeration of
the basin or some type of bottom modification - subject to
appropriate state approval.
cc: Chuck Wakild
RECEIVED
JUN 18 1987
Wilmington Regional office
.)Fh4
MARINA HYDROLOGY STUDY
GUTHRIE MARINA
CARTERET COUNTY , N.C.

n
r
MARINA HYDROLOGY STUDY
1 GUTHRIE MARINA
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MAY 1987
Prepared for
Rouse-Watson, Incorporated
Emerald Isle, North Carolina
¦ Prepared by
Dr. Len Pietrafesa
?.. Fluid Physicist
and
Dr. Jerry Janowitz
Fluid Physicist

Consultant to
t Paton/Zucchino & Associates, P.A.
Raleigh, North Carolina

1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.0 Baseline Description . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Meteorology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3 Hydrodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Bathymetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.0 Water Quality Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.0 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendixes
A. Model Input and Output Summaries . . . . . . . . . 26
1
1
1
1
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 4
Figure 2: Vicinity Context Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 3: Proposed Channel and Basin Layout. . . . . . . . 6
Figure 4: Atmospheric Temperature, Wilmington,
North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 5: Normal Total Monthly Precipitation
Maximum Monthly Precipitation. . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 6: Maximum precipitation in 24 hour period. . . . . 12
Figure 7: Daily Averaged Wind Stress Stick Plots,
Wilmington, North Carolina . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 8: Monthly Mean Winds, Wilmington,
North Carolina, 1976-1979. . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 9: Tidal Hodograph Ellipse Plat,
Onslow Bay, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 10: East-West Component of Wind,
Wilmington, North Carolina 1975-1979 . . . . . . 16
Figure 11: Tide Gage Observations, Bogue Sound
North Carolina January-March, 1978. . . . . . . 17
Figure 12: Tide Gage Observations, Bogue Sound,
North Carolina June-August, 1978. . . . . . . . 18
Figure 13: Dissolved Oxygen Remaining in
Initial 25 Hour Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

t

1

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Mean Monthly Temperatures. . . . . . . , . . . . .
Table 2: Mean (Normal) Monthly Precipitation. . . . . . . .
Table 3: Contaminant Return Flow Factor . . . . . . . .
Table 4: Contaminant Flushing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 5: Dissolved Oxygen Remaining . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page
20
21
22
23
24

1

MARINA HYDROLOGY STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Paton/Zucchino & Associates coordinated a water quality study
conducted in April, 1987 to assess the potential water quality
impact of the proposed Guthrie marina and canal system near Bogue
Inlet, North Carolina. A water quality model based on basic EPA
concepts was used in this study to predict the water quality in
the proposed marina system. The model was not calibrated in the
preliminary study, but it used conservative literature parameters
to simu ate projected water quality following i.mp ementation of
the marina.
The following summarizes the study results:
(1) Based on the results of the model, which used real data
as input, the results agree well with measured, natural
conditions.
(2) The diagnostic model predicted conservative results.
(3) The average flushing time in the marina is between.
2 days and 2 weeks. 7 c ` Sp 14.?^t,?v
(4) The amount of sedimentati that will accrue is less
than 9,581 cubic feet/year.
(5) The projecte average oncentration of dissolved oxygen
concentration proposed Guthrie Marina will b
greater than 5.4 mg/1 ?0\e. S suy-1 ?. avg. S.c-?„.L
(6) The marina related disolved oxygen reduction is most
sensitive to bottom sediment type and tidal range and
least sensitive to the number of boat hours.
(7) The proposed dev ve less than an 12% a
impact on the water qthe locale.

i
1.0 on
Introduct
Rouse-Watson, Inc. is preparing a development plan for a
residential community on a twelve acre tract adjacent to

' Bogue Sound in Carteret County, North Carolina (Figure 1).
The development will include a 100 slip marina basin for
exclusive use by the residents of the proposed development.
An upland basin is planned with a single -access channel
which will connect directly with the Intercoastal Waterway
which lies immediately adjacent to the,project (Figure 2).
The basin will be constructed to a depth of minus five feet
at mean low water. The access channel will be sixty feet
, wide and will range in depth from five to eight feet.
The hydrology study is a formal piece of the application
' package submitted to the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management for issuance of a Major CAMA Permit to allow
construction of the marina basin, access channel and
surrounding upland property.
The objectives of this report are to:
(1) Predict the most conservative flushing time of the
' proposed marina.
(2) Predict the maximum sediment buildup in the proposed
' marina.
(3) Predict dissolved oxygen changes resulting from
potential direct boat discharges in the proposed marina
' using conservative parameter input values.
A water quality model, based on the fundamental concepts
pre sented in the EPA Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook was used
to simulate and diagnose the water quality of the projected site.
F1

2.0
2.1
2.2
t
Baseline Description
Site Description
The Guthrie property is a twelve acre tract which lies
adjacent to Bogue Sound in Carteret County, N.C. Figures 1
and 2. The property is approximately -miles east. of
Swansboro, and south of N.C. Highway 24 on State Road 1116.
The property is open non-forested land which is currently in
use for rental campsites. A small (6,000 sq. ft.) manmade
basin and ramp is currently in use along the shoreline.
Ground elevation ranges from sea level to seventeen feet
MSL. The majority of the property in the proposed basin
area is at approximately six feet MSL. There are no surface
streams or tributaries or other defined drainageways on the
property. The groundwater level is approximately eighteen
inches to two feet below the existing ground surface. The
soil in the proposed basin area is the Seabrook Series, a
loamy sand.
The Intercoastal Waterway lies immediately adjacent to the
property in an alignment parallel with the southern property
shoreline approximately 300 feet south.
Meteorology
Temperature: The annual average six temperature at the site
is 63.8 F. The summer average is 79.2 F. The average
monthly means, minima, maxima, and record highs and lows are
shown in Figure 4 with means in Table 1.
Precipitation: The annual average precipitation at the site
is approximately 52 inches. Monthly average normals, maxima
for days within the month and maxima for any single 24 hour
period within the month are all shown in Figures 5 and 6
with means in Table 2.
Winds: Winds in this area are never absent and are
generally buried in weather systems which persist for
periods of two days to two weeks. Moreover, there is a
diurnal seabreeze phenomenon which is aligned principaly
onshore/offshore, blowing onshore from mid-morning to mid-
day and offshore from early evening to early morning. The
North Carolina coast is graced with a synoptic scale
windfield that tends to align itself with the coastline.
3
Robinson I O s` ??
I
o -l ?M ` - 5 - • .. 1
u
I / -? ?, ?i r?aaaa
M sa•
l +a ¢t a
ones
nt Island \.. +?.._„
•? '. Q t• ou8e
,
ar of
Swansboro
\5 O 02 ms... : aen °aaaaa r 1.
?i / +?D ` n. asr 1
ghts /? .-Daybese0 .'ly p . i . 25 • no , ?t26
?y _ A Q ? N
\\\\i I.°:, PROJECT LO
p
9 r
?? ?? h 4 as
N• ter;.. ? t 5
t.. t N 3
`? ,\, ?8 \?CO•?~) ., ? .??';?;att., ? D`? ??
IJ"
\-,,,Ught
,X/2 ..., yr \\ WA
?pW`; ?.? ..Stf _?p-• ?" .
» ?? \ T
1.6
SPI
A Area
SpOi! .
e.
a ns Isl d '` >~
? ..w ?' -
cm,
4p
amine o ?•% ?•
Bogue Eo ?/ t ? 6
.oeF / V ij
n
?C
. p`1 tgo p/ud?/l@y tslsh - / e . .
S6
Figure 1. Location Map.
4

I J SPOIL ISLAND

d
y
1° -400'
e n
Vicinity Context Plan.
5
Figure 2.

72
S
1
1
PROPOSED CHANNEL
N.
a•
%kh-6 i it F# 11 v r,
- c
u` lv
x
d p^ ? L ? • _ J
N •
. C TROD POIN • z • • •
Q
29
?T N •
111 \_.a •°+? .oF SZ G GZ ?- Icx ?,SZ• a
IL q
in l ..? .' I. _ __ I4 Q L.
Figure 3. Proposed Basin and
Channel Layout.
?I.E. i? pcET
20 •Eo ?
fNTERCOASTAL wAT
ERwAy
? tR
3Z
133
mm

L-13
6

In Figures 7 and 8, wind stream vectors for winds measured
at the Wilmington airport show that both the 40 hour and
monthly averaged winds, separately tend to be aligned along
a line which lies approximately 56 degrees east of north and
56 degrees west of south. Note that the coordinate system
in which the time series of the wind stress vectors is
plotted has been rotated 56 degrees clockwise so stick
vector which points up represents a wind blowing towards the
east-northeast and a stick pointing straight down indicates
' a wind blowing west-southwest. At this locale, winds during
the summer tend to blow towards the northeast, and as a
consequence, sealevel at the coast tends to drop indicating
' a seaward flow of nearshore coastal waters.
2.3 -Hydrodynamics
Tide: The project site is at the western end of Bogue
Sound, on the Intracoastal Waterway, near the confluence of
the Sound and the White Oak River. The locale is strongly
influenced by coastal ocean M2 tidal fluctuations. The
semi-diurnal tide is the principal flushing agent of a
marina located in the Guthrie locale. In order for a
current to be an adequate flushing agent it must be regular
and substantial in magnitude. The former criteria is met
' since the M2 tidal constituent experiences a cycle every
12.421 hours, or more specifically, an ebb or flow out of
the inlet every 6 hours, 12 minutes, 38 seconds. In Figures
7 and 8 we address the latter criteria of range. The mean
tidal range at Bogue Inlet, as suggested by the tide gauge
data shown in Figures 7 and 8 for the two periods of January
- March and
low of 1.2 June - August, is
ft. (36.6 cm) and a 2.2 feet (67
higher high cm) with a lower
of 3.5 ft. (106.7
cm).
' According to NOAA's National Ocean Survey Tidal Current
Tables, the peak flood and ebb in Bogue Inlet should be 1.1
knots, respectively. Actual observations during a summer
' period yielded a flood current of 1.1 knots (56 cm/sec.)
confirming the extended NOS estimates.
' 2.4 Bathymetry
The average depth of Bogue Sound near the project site is
' about two to three feet deep at mean low water as determined
in a bathymetrical survey taken in December, 1987. The
Intercoastal Waterway channel averages eight and one-half
th at mean low water in this location.
t de
f
p
ee

3.0 Water Quality Modeling
A water quality model EPA - Link, as described in the EPA
Coastal Marina Assessment Handbook was evaluated for its
application to determining the hydrology and the water
quality in the proposed Guthrie Marina.
The EPA model described in the Coastal Marinas Assessment
Handbook is a dynamic volumetric flux model. We have
created a complex three - dimensional model of the marina

' which must be solved numerically. However, because
geometric simplicity of the marina and its relatively of the
small
size t e i
mo a cen roi resu s are pre tI -
e'y"aze
hiah r enresen a ive_o t e res roug out a assn.
' It should be noted that the comp e e mo e o the ime
dependent flow in a three - dimensional basin which contains
internal barriers, the slips, is a complex calculation (cf.
' Pietrafesa et al, 1986) and cannot be modeled with such
simple codes as a uni-dimensional link-node model.
The approach taken within is to assume the Guthrie basin to
' be a rectangle with restricted inflow and discharge that is
specified at the appropriate location on the boundary. The
flushing time of the marina is then computed in terms of the
' percent of contaminant dilution which is desired. Given
these results, a sedimentation rate model and finally a
model of the amount of dissolved oxygen remaining is
' computed.
We begin our linked model system, which we refer to as the
MAPS (Marina Assessment Prediction Scheme), as a'function of
tidal flushing superimposed on a small background current of
5 cm/sec. This assumption is appropriate since the tides
are the important flushing agent of this marina. The
technique used to estimate the number of tidal cycles
necessary to achieve 10% and 1% dilution of a contaminant
necessarily invokes the measure of the percent of
' contaiminant
having exited which reenters the
on a preceeding ebb. marina on a flood after
From our MAPS model we find that a minor background current
of 1.97 inches/sec present in the intracoastal waterway,
will act in concert with an M2 tide with either a 2.2 foot
(mean case) 1.2 (best case) or a 3.5 foot (worse case) tidal
' range to create a mean case "b" of 0.123, a worse case "b"
of 0.195 and a best case "b" of 0.067 as presented in
Table 3.
11
1 8

Given the values of "b", presented in Table 3, we, then
compute the flushing times of 3 days 1 hour, 3 days 22
hours, and 6 days 3 hours for a 90% disappearance of the
contaminant for the tidal ranges of 1.2, 2.2 and 3.5 feet,
respectively. For a 99% disappearance of the contaminant,
' the flushing periods jump to 6 days 1 hour, 7 days 20 hours,
and 12 days 5 hours for the three respective tidal ranges.
These values are presented in Table 4.
' Next we calculate the rate of sediment buildup. For a
representative value of particle density of 2.0 gm/cm3 and a
' sediment concentration of 227 mg/l and assuming that the
marina drains the entire property without loss of rainfall,
the rate of sediment buildup will be between ' 7,148 and 1, 373
cubic feet/year for all of the flushing times presented in
Table 4. Given the rainiest July in recorded history, it is
possible that 431 ft3 could accumulate during this summer
month.
' Finally, we compute the amount of dissolved oxygen
remaining. Given the fact that the ambient dissolved oxygen
' has bee to range from 100% to 125% of saturation, we
ssume a worst case valuip of Also, we make a worse
case assumptions of 50 boat hours/day during a period when
average maximum temperatures and maximum salinities are
attained thereby creating conditions for the relatively low
U' value of amount of oxygen which is soluble in water. Given
the above constraints, and depending on flushing rates,
' tidal range and number of boats, we find that the dissolved
emaining will range from a hi o 9 to a low of
4.38 o in mg iter. Table 5 (and the taMIZ in
page A- ents a s t
should a noted that thesg--are extreme ca a values for
west lent isso ve ox a Under more ypical
con remaining issolved oxygen values
generally ranged from 5.42 to 5.64 g/1.
11
I-
11

9
,
I V 7 L4,

4.0 Summary and Conclusions
' 1. The maximum flushing time that is required to flush out 90%
of the pollutant at any location in the proposed Guthrie
' mare system is about 6 days. The average flushing time is
about 3.5 days. --?

ril

t

2. The average summer dissolved oxygen concentration in the
marina will be in excess of 5.42 mg/l even given hot, salty
water and a heavily used marina. The proposed marina will
flush during a reasonable time erio an wi resu t in
dissolved oxygen levels of 14% below and a ove the
minimum 0 m 1 for class SA waters establishe
by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management,
in a worst case scenario.
3. Sedimentation buildup in the marina system is predicted to
be modest at rates of less than 9,581 cubic feet/year or
less than 4.5 inches/year averaged over the marina basin and
correcting channels.
10

1

10
9
6
Q
w 5
CL
w
f-
4
0-
0
0 p -1-•---. ?
0
0
0
/• •' ,
0
0 / • - --
0
0
J F M A M J J A N
Figure 4. Atmospheric Temperature,
Wilmington, North Carolina
11

15 •
•

W
S IO
•i •?
'

s
'
o
J F M A M J J A S N 0
MONTH

.
Figure 5. (1) Normal total monthly precipitation.
' (2) Maximum monthly precipitation.

10
W
S •

J F M A M J J A S O N 0
' MONTH

Figure 6. Maximum precipitation in 24 hour period.

12
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DYNES/CM =
0 2
WINO STRESS
STICK PLOTS
JAN. - FES
WIL 7S STRESS d4 'Ill.,
MAR-APR.
WIL 7S STRESS
MAY -JUNE
WIL 7S STRESS
JULY -AUG.
WIL 7S STRESS
SEPT. - OCT.
WIL 7S STRESS
NOV. - DEC.
WIL 75 STRESS
0000 ""
DAY
Figure 7. Daily Averaged Wind Stress
Stick Plots, Wilmington,
North Carolina 1975.
13

W
Z
Z
v1
sn
Z
N
co
Z
2
cn
tD
2
N ... O •» N
1 1
Figure 8. Monthly Mean Winds, Wilmington
North Carolina, 1976-1979.
14

7a• 77.30• iv- I. _ '? 7s•
•. ?•.•• 1.
I I e
Cart LOOKOUT
3 4.3 O' ?.-?- 34 '3 0'
,.' ,.•? Yeonw ?
,G
f •• Yoerip C
? ?tp 133'1
i-
} 1. ° Mooring a r
34* too (116•) 34*
• !„ .? SPEED SCALE
N. VA ? ? cot /t ?f? : f ••
CAPE FEAR
r e
?. r p ? i. Meo..p E •• f'•
too (137-) ••N•,N
r •.? ` • •?. _ •• 3 3.30•
33.34 f • ?f
ACALC to ttt•et CTC-8
1
t
1 r•• ?
7t• 77-,.1d 77• 7t 30' 7i•
Figure 9. Tidal Hodograph Ellipse
Plot, Onslow Bay, North
Carolina
15

w
w?
w
r
r
=4
r
•
rft
.w
• w
r W
M
•
h
r A
Nw
N
N
N
N
N Q

• r
N r
w
w
N
N
A
_1
• N • N O
%S/W) 033dS
Figure 10. East-West Component of Wind,
Wilmington, North Carolina,
1975-1979.
1A
1
1
1
1
1
1
r =w
COV 9!2
'. '.
I is
H + + + + + O ?• •
Q
m
LL
01
Z
7
Figure 11. Tide Gage Observations,
-Beaufort, North Carolina
January-March 1978.
17
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Figure 12. Tide Gage Observations,
-Beaufort, North Carolina
June-August, 1978.
18
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0. W N -
N -+N ?
NNNN r•
i @
N
t rt ft
f F-j
:4JC1F% 8
?l -j . - ,?
*Sh. 1P CD CD
dP
w
- - - - ft
N N O O
LnLn00
dP dP dP dP
r•
8
O
Uill
n
fA
v
O
N
N
O

9'
b
(mg/i)
P
cn
-4 -4
oD
O cr O
Figure 13: Dissolved oxygen remaining in the initial 25 hour period.
19
C-P9 ?`a

Table 1
Mean Monthly Temperature

Month Month Mean Temperatures
OF °C
8
9
January 48 .
February 49 9.4
March 54.5 12.5
' April 63 17.2
May 71 21.7
June 77 25.0
' July 80 26.7
August 79 26.1
September 75 23.9
October 65 18.3
November 55 12.8
December 48 8.9
11

t

I,
20
1
Table 2
Mean (Normal) Monthly Precipitation
Precip itation
Month in inches in cm
t January 2.5 6.35
February 3.5 8.89
h
M 4
0 10
16
arc . .
April 2.75 7.0
May 3.5 8.89
' June 4.5 11.43
July 7.5- 19.05
August 6.75 17.15
September 6.25 15.88
October 3.25 8.26
I November 3.4 8.64
December 3.6 9.15

t
I 21
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 3
Return Flow Factor
? b
Q? Basin Tidal Return
Range Area Depth Period Flow
Case (in ft ) (in ft) ( in ft) (in hrs) Factor

1 2.2 1.122 (105) 5.0 12.421 0.12242
2 3.5\ 1°I 1.122 (105) 5.0 12.421 0.19475

3 1.2 1.122 (105) 5.0 12.421 0.06677

\a

22

TABLE 4
Contaminant Flushing
' Mean Sediment
Low Tidal Dilution No of No of Buildup
Range Water Period Factor Tidal Days, (in ft /
Case (in ft) (in ft) (in hrs) (in %) Cycles Hours year)

1 2.2 5.0 12.421 10 7.55 3d, 21.8h 9581
<--
r 2 3.5 5.0 12.421 10 .5.82 3d, 0.3h \
1374 43 ? 3 I ?`
3 1.2 5.0 12.421 10 11.77 6d, 2.2h 9458
'
4 2.2 5.0 12.421 1 15.1 7d, 19.6h 8506
' 5 3.5 5.0 12.421 1 11.64 6d, 0.6h 9492
6 1.2 5.0 12.421 1 23.54 12d, 4.4h 7148

23

TABLE 5
Dissolved Oxygen Remaining
' Mean No of DOR DOR
Low Tidal Tidal Bottom Number for DOA for DOA
Range Water Period Cycles Type of • 100% of 1257
Case (in ft) (in ft) (in hrs) (in hrs) Sandy Boats DOs DOs
1 1.2 5.0 12.421 11.77 0.5. 50 4.3786 4.5348
2 3.5 5.0 12.421 5.82 0.5 50 5.7924, ')5.9463
1
r
1 V
3t
1 _
t

t

1
24
t
t
REFERENCES
1. Weisberg, R. H. and L.J. Pietrafesa, 1983. Kinematics and
Correlation of the Surface Wind Field in the South Atlantic
Bight. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 88, No. C8,
pps. 4593 - 4610, May 30, 1983.
2. Ruzecki, E. P., 1974. A Socio-Economic Environmental
Baseline Summary for the South Atlantic Region Between Cape
Hatteras, North Carolina and Cape Canaveral, Florida,
Climatology, Vol. 2, Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
Gloucester Point, Virginia, 1974.
3. Pietrafesa, L. J., J. O. Blanton, J. D. Wang, V. Kourafalou,
T. N. Lee and K. A. Bush, 1985. The Tidal Regime in the
South Atlantic Bight, Coastal and Estuarine Sciences, Vol.
2, American Geophysical Union, pps. 63 - 76.
4. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Marinas Assessment Handbook.
1985. Coastal
25
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX A
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1 26

Key to Input Data

D = .01 99% dilution
D = .10 90% dilution
N b = No. of boats = 50 and 25
A5= 0.34 estuarine mud case
A5= 0.11333 sandy bottom case
= 1
2
1 ft 36576
0
.
R (
) .
m
R (2) = 2.2 ft 0.67056 m
R (3) = 1.25 1.0668 m
*
P = .75 75%
saturation
1 P = 1.00 100% saturation
P = 1.25 125% saturation
1 °
DOS = 6.18 m9/l F
Temp = 30
Salinity = > .20 ppt

' 3vvG ,??j , ?.S'y

1

1 D02_Df3TA C 104 4
____________________ U=0.05)
____
_
___
t'- DOR
tor
,
X
D Nb R5 F R(I) P(2) RC-35%
--------
.10 ----
25 ------------
.34000 ? --------
.75 -------
3.1661 --------
4.6970 - -----
5.2327

' .10
.10 25,
25 .34000 r
.34000 1.00
1.25 3.5223
3.6785 4.3513
5.0066 5.3865
5.5403 -1•? i?
-:7
.10 25 .11333 .75 4.8218 5.4839 5.7242
.10 25 .11333 1.00 4.9780 5.6387 5.8780
' .10 25 .11333 1.25 5.142 5.7936 6.0318
10 50 .34000 .75 2.7667 4.4801 5.1471
. 10 50 .34000 1.00 2.9229 4.6349 5.3009
r;
.10r 50 .34000 1.25. 3.0791 4.7897 5.4548

' .10'
.10 50
50 .11333
.11333 .75
1.00 4.2223
4.378E 5.2670
5.4219 5.6386
5.7924
--,
.10 50 .11333 1.25 4.5348 5.5767 5.9463
01 25 .34000 .75 2.7667 4.4801 5.1471
.01 25 .34000 1.00 2.9229 4:6349 5.3009
.01 25 .34000 1.25 3.0741 4.7897 5.4548
.01 25 .11333 .75 4.2223 5.2670 5.6386
' .01 25 .11333 1.00 4.3786 5.4219 5.7924
.01 25 .11333 1.25 4.5348 5.5767 5.9463
01 50 34000 75 1
5679 4
0463 4
:9760
.01 50 .
.34000n^^' .
1.00 .
1.7241 .
4.2011 .
5.1`298
.01 50 .34000 1.25 1.8803 4.3559 5.2837
I .01 50 .11333 .75 3.0235 4.8333 5.4675
.01 50 .11333 1.00 3.1798 4.9831 5.5213
01 50 11333 1..5 3.3360 5.1429 5.7752
t
1
Steady state dissolved oxygen remaining as a
function of % dilution, number of boats, type
of bottom % saturation, tidal range, and
tidal flushing.
1
Z'
'r LI

t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
O
of
5
A=10424, D=0.1, Nb=25, A5=0.34
5
4
R1=0.36576
+ R2-0.67056
-t R3=1.0668
3
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
P
A=10424, D=0.1, Nb=25, A5=0.1 13
1.3
6
R1=0.36576
+ R2=0.67056
i R3=1.0668
4
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
P
1.1 1.2 1.3

6
5
4
3
od
O
A=10424, D=0.1, Nb=50, A5=0.34
o RI-0,36576
+ R2-0.67056
i- R3=1.0668
z
0.7 0.8 0.9
6
1.0 1.1
P
1.2 1.3
A=10424, D=0.1, Nb=50, A5=0.1 13
5
R1=0.36576
+ R2=0.67056
t R3=1.0668
4
0.7 0.8 0.9
1.0
P
1.1 1.2 1.3
t
t
t
6
5
4
3
O
O
A=10424, D=0.01, Nb=25, A5=0.34
R1-0.36576
+ R2-0.67056
f R3=1.0668
2
0.7 0.8 019 1.0 1.1
P
6
5
1.2 1.3
A=10424, D=0.01, Nb=25, A5=0.1 13
4
0.7 0.8 019 110 1.1
P
R 1=0.36576
-? R2=0.67056
f R3=1.0668
1.2 1.3
t
t
6
5
4
3
2
O
a
A=10424, D=0.01, Nb=50, A5=0.34
R 1-0.36576
+ R2=0.67056
i R3-1.0668
1
03 0.8 0.9 1.0 111 1.2 1.3
P
A=10424, D=0.01, Nb=50, A5=0.1 13
6
5
4
3
0.7 0.8 0.9 1,0 1. 1 1.2 1,3
P
RI-0,36576
+ R2=0.67056
t R3-1.0668

r PROGRAM OXYGEN
C
C THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES THE DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONTENT.
C DOE CORREDPONDS TO DOs,
C RL CORRESPONDS TO R + L,
C FN CORRESPONDS TO Nf,IN ORIGINAL FORMULA.
C AI,A2,A3,A4,A5 ARE THE GIVEN VALUES OF ALPHA.
C
DIMENSION D(5),NB(5),A5(5),R(5),RL(5),P(5)
DIMENSION DOR(5,5,5,5,5)
DATA A /10424.0/, DOE /6.18/, U
/0..05/
' DATA r
(D(I),I=1,2) /0.1,0.01/ ?W,a:.mK:'r^
DATA (NB(J),J=1,2) /25,50/ Pr?"us
DATA (A5(K),K=1,2) /0.34,0.11333/

DATA fc-
(R(L),L=1,3) /0.36576,0.67056,1.0668/%ti.,
DATA (RL(L),L=1,3) /1.88976,2.286,2.286/ 1
DATA (P(M),M=1,3) /0.75,1.0,1.25/
OPEN
DO 1 (UNIT=II,FILE='DO2.DATA',STATUS='NEW")
00 I=1,2
DO 200 J=1,2
DO 300 K=1,2
DO 400 M=1,3
DO 500 L=1,3
Al = 3*R(L)/RL(L)
A2 = 1.5*(RL(L)-R(L))/RL(L)
A3 = 2.3/RL(L)
B1 = 4.0*A*R(L)
B2 = 3.0*(4.47*4.47)*(U*U)*1.524*1000000.0
B = BI/B2
FNI = LOG(D(I))
. FN2 = (1-B)/(I+(RL(L)-R(L))/R(L))
FN = FNI/LOG(1-FN2)
A4 = 19.36*FN*FLOAT(NB(J))/(A*RL(L))
' DOI = AI*DOE*(0.3+0.033*P(M)l
DO2 = 1.0-(0.67*A2)
DOR(I,J,K,M,L) _ (DOI-A3*A5(K)-0.4*A4)/DQ2
500 CONTINUE
' WRITE(11,1001) D(I),NB(J),A5(K),P(M),
- (DOR(I J v m Ll L-1 3`
1011 FORMAT
400 CONTINUE
300 CONTINUE
200 CONTINUE
100 CONTINUE
END

1

fl
(10X,F5.2,2X,I5,FB.5,4X,F5.2,2X,iFB.4)
f/ ,

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ia
1
1
1
1
1
1
N - Number of tidal cycle, required
for flushing.
S - Amount of sedimentation in kg/day pL? 0-
Vet e? SS:y5l3 ?-?
N Simi S/W S/W
1 1 6052 5071? 6968.. 7667.4105
2 2 303125395 3484.1474 3833.70525
5 12!2.50158 1393.65896 1533.4821
4 10 606.25079 696.82948 766.741 05
5 15 404.16719333 464.55298666 511.1607
6 20 303.123395 348 41474 383 370525
7 x 242 500316 278.731792 306.69642
8 30 202.0.0.359E+66 232.27649333 255.58035
9 35 173.21451142 199.09413714 219.06887142
10 40 151-56269-745 17420 7377 191.6852625
Data from "S/A1"
8000
soon
4000
2000
0 -i
0
10 20 30 40 50
N
Sedimentation rate as a function of number of tidal
cycles and depth of basin.
-w SAM
-? S/U2
?- S/U3

F1

l
r

J

1

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 284021890
March 9, 1987
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: File No. SAWC087-N-016-0147
Rouse-Watson, Incorporated
Route 1, Box 927
Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28557 i
cc
C_
1987
i ?
b viIF'1
Gentlemen:
Reference your application for a Department of the Army permit
to excavate a 60-foot--wide, 300-foot-long channel and a 330-foot-wide,
340-foot-long basin and to construct a bulkhead, boatramp and
docking facilities for 100 boats on the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway (AIWW) and Bogue Sound, associated with a condominimum
development, Cedar Point, Carteret County, North Carolina.
By letter of February 27, 1987 (copy enclosed), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expressed concern that your
proposed work would result in degradation of water quality in
Bogue Sound. This agency has asked that you provide additional
information prior to their final comments and recommendations.
They ask to be able to review (1) a hydrological model of your
proposed canal and basin with computer calculated results from
flushing times and expected dissolved oxygen and (2) calculations
of expected sedimentation and provisions for disposal of sedi-
mentation from dredging. Before we can complete processing of
your application, it will be necessary for you to make this
information available. We would appreciate being made aware of
your intentions prior to March 23, 1987.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. David Baker,
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
-2-
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Charles Jones
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Mr. William L. Kruczynski, Chief
Wetlands Section
Region IV
Marine and Estuarine Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. James Mercer
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division
of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557

./
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
March 3, 1987
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Joh Parker
FROM: ill Mills 64
SUBJECT: Application for CAMA Permit
Rouse - Watson, Inc.
Carteret County
The Subject application has been reviewed for water
quality impacts and the following comments are offered:
1. This project does require a 401 certification but
does meet the requirements for the general
certification for bulkhead construction.
2. The adjacent waters are classified as SA and open
to shellfishing; however, a use attainability
analysis has shown there to be no existing
shellfishing use of these waters and
Antidegradation Policy should not be.a problem
even if the waters become closed. .
3. A preliminary review of the stormwater management
plan has been performed. The lack of calculations
and supporting data to demonstrate the system's
ability to comply with 15 NCAC 2H .0408 make it
impossible for this office to provide an informed
recommendation. The following list provides some,
not necessarily all, of the items that need to be
addressed in the scope of the stormwater
management plan:
a. demonstration of the effectiveness of the
subsurface groundwater drainage system.
b. evaluation of the effect that the drainage
system from stormwater and wastewater
disposal areas will have on water quality
both within and outside of the boat basin
area (ie, violations of fecal coliform
standards for SA waters?).

2 -
C. show calculations of storage capacities,
volume of runoff, percent impervious cover,
etc.
d. lack of an Operations and Maintenance Manual.
e. technical specifications of porous pavement.
These along with inconsistencies within the
Hydrologic evaluation and the inappropriate use of
parking area as a maintenance spoil site are some
of the areas that are inadequately addressed
by the applicant and their consultants with
respect to stormwater management.
4. Applicant should contact DHS with respect to well
location with respect to wastewater disposal area.
5. It is recommended that applicant be determined to
be incomplete until a more complete stormwater
management plan is submitted. Applicant is urged
to work closely with Wilmington Region on the
development of the revised plans. Mr. David
Cotton is our contact in that office.
BM/dkb
cc: Preston Howard

,. s .s

N ? RI m
? D
?• C1
? J
C
P
J
R
i _.
r- -
D
J
l
i
m = Z ?G E
- _4?
'ems •.w••w.. ??- ? •. _ _ - • i D -? ? - ` ? 1?
r? C ?G?s? -? $ ?•zt• b' tJ• •s •' Se• se•? .e• ? ?„? i??
D
Z Z t3
_ ti
e
• ` mmj
D 1)
C0 1
If Qi?
f dfi 4
F. t
GUTNRIE PROPERTY
-ROUSE ? WATQON• INC. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CARTERET COUNTY , NC

-TT
JaN` ?^ m m 3
O
L
t
R
/
/

tv -1
3,,

A
l
oo

C
L _

? ? tst , C
/
N C
N I

1
fA
s
9

s 2`"? m
C

1
r / r / 1
r i ?
I
i
i
I

I
I
I
/ ! \
l 1' ON 1 I t
1

I Y ?m 1
I
?D I i
I '

I $
D -, ? 1
I 1
1 3 rD 1 i

:I t ym /
? I ?DF
y I ? 1 1?3p
t 3 / D
I
m / t
2
•
c ? r >< ? ? I r
- s
o,
'
?
.I
??mr'a.
r > C
i I
Fr K

m 1
?
m \
\ q
R
i
\ \
?

\
i Nc ? 8

/ Lam'. \\ .
?
/•-
-? • ? ?- p '

?• \ \ \ ??
i

0
I'
it
II ?

a
AL
n >' N
Y' L
r .
rn ?
11

n _
o ?
n
D
Z ..
.D
m _ IIII
Z 17
D
'r
r
D
? vnR?ES TY?cat.
z
c
z
r
o
m
0
??I11
y. = IVt
Ml -I,
o I ?.
D (?] =III •r .?
III
m ITi??'J
N =? ' x '?< xnm s..
Z ? _ _ ? N H
g ?m
?O
i > Z N
89 #A
_ ? H Q
It
Y
m
3
m?

D
n?
P?
It
L
. 11?
t- '? ? ? 9? cam Z?
Ln
D L S ? ?.... ? 2 •. 2 -h
T--
O "
z
QQ N '
m p?m?m ?u0p < < gOp ?i?0
p,? ?? -fin ? mml ? ni
i n
n (n
cm?o q,r aA P mm
L L
L QlL
?
r
f
t
610
B
Ir

?? n
AAA
• ??,??:?
C_
r ? -4 3

r" ?
p P ?P?
14
as n p i? k m ?? c

r L41 ,
O VQ
m
o e
I
VI
i4
?..}........ ......l............?
....t .. ........ . .... ....
.
I1. 1
- I..... ...i...'...
ill?•. I..... +. ....
?Tr-t N ? ?-r._. Ic ral
,...;? ? ..............
i . .......:.
1
1
1
r?
?I
U)
1
1
Mal
1
?IF 1
• 1
N
LIEU=, -T-7 MTP?
GUTHRIE PROPERTY
ROUSE _ WATSON. INC.
CARTlR!T COUNTY . NC. ORAOING & STORM DRAINAGE
oil

J
c:
NMI
i

0 ?. p
? .... r V 1N w•-1 C'rA. O -o
..
.t... :;:(:lel LIH .CIE V.. 4
I ?.I.o .o
I
•

..-?•' Milz A. 14'13 4-.j,-ri4. I n..o.oO 1?C 13
r r
?-I
:c?G'.1?1 tea- r-t:c??..••.e.z? ...... ....... ......... .
_-..r_. ....................
i ....... ! .......
iWil .. ......... ?.........
- -- I ...i :... :........ I ...... . ....:..
..... ........,... .. .......1..
i..... ,. .
.! .... ......
................
oil
?...?:....... ..I.... ......... .?--
I i
_. ...1... !. .. ; ....... ...........
... ..;'... ?....I.... _.. ` ?... ,' ... ............. ..i.... ...i
Q
1 TT- 7. r.--,-:
177
?• ;ii I C?I: . :j•
1711 i:11 i I' ?i?' I ?• ?1•- .t ? •'•
t ?t
i:li ;;•; 'I: itj, !?, Ili (It? I
I 1 ! ,
i
,?j..,. Pi.
....... .. i..:....j
J ,. .tR . ' .... ...1:... , .?... .......
?... 0 .. .. 1 :. ...*... j
i ?... ^.?..........
' ?. ..... _._.?... _ ...?..__..:.?
,:i Vic. !......?......:..!..... .:.::j.:::::.
1
_ _ 5f!? lt]? ?I
i
r
J
Q N
p (?- 111
•---• -•._.._.._.._...... a ?. -•-? ----•---- --- -..
t
x
e?
s
I
r
'Q
N I
i
>? t
i.
it
i I
L

1 f_
0 i;.

r ;
_ I
II I
I
? I I
>a
i
? I I zj ra i I :
+... .. .. ...l:.
-..._. _'.. ... ----{....._ o _ •?• i ? is ? •i ,. ?I:
.......:.....I:.. ;... .'r
....... l .?. .?... .. :?.
?::'` .
?...:...- .... :.......... ..-...j....
i... ,....+. .. ... .... ...:... .. .. :...1... ...
_ a •?•. •?.i.... ::. ??' ?) i?11 ilk' I! Ell li;
y '' a w.lco.a era. . en' ? ; • ''
• v • `
I
i
. 3
I ?
e g
ce <
ri
i r
z
4
1
I
?.. :..... ....... __......?........
......: i ... .... ....... ......
? ......... ....i.:
........ .I....
?, ..? .......
...... ...;. o ?. ...`.r. ..
ro :..
f ?
o....... .......... ...... . ......?
r .
.?. 1. N'
I
W - r ?a!./otN.3.5
....... II.. +.... Z
0
..........? ..............1
III'
11.1
.I.
!ill
.,1I
....4 :t: 1........
i.;. .. I .
-1
i 1 1 p ( .
t p
N
.s
k
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
r
7
l
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
May 7, 1987
Bill Mills
Operations Branch
A. Preston Howard, Jr.
Wilmington Regional Office
Charles Wakild
Wilmington Reg onal office

A'iI t i,tt . i f st 3:
W
SUBJECT: Regional Office Review & Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Addendum to Memo dated 4/28/87
Rouse-Watson
Carteret County
This memo is to address the construction of the porous pavement.
In addition to the comments and conditions recommended in the
memo of 4/28/87, in order to protect the adjacent waters, it is
recommended that the following condition be incorporated as a
condition of a CAMA Permit.
That each section or sections of the parking area be level
with a 6 inch curb or elevated crown around the entire
perimeter of each level section of porous pavement.
DHC : kc '?
cc: DCM - Jim Mercer
CF, WiRO
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
SUBJECT:
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
April 28, 1987
Bill Mills
Operations Branch
A. Preston Howard, Jr.
Wilmington Regional ffice/#
Charles Wakild
Wilmington Regi nal office
Regional Office Review & Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Rouse-Watson - Followup to Memo dated 2/9/87
Carteret County
The applicant has submitted additional plans and material dated
April 15, 1987 (received April 14, 1987). The applicant's
resubmittal is an effort to adequately address concerns expressed
in my February 9, 1987 memo to you concerning the subject
project. During the time between the initial review and current
submission, the Division of Health Services adopted a new marina
policy. The new policy greatly expands the area that will be
closed to shellfishing in response to the construction of this
project. Therefore, a new use attainability analysis has been
completed.
As indicated in Comment 1 of the 2/9/87 memo, the project will
meet the conditions for a general 401 Certification for bulkhead
construction. The project also meets the conditions for a
general 401 Certification for the effluent discharge from an
upland dike disposal area.
In accordance with DHS's current marina policy approximately 12
additional acres of SA waters, currently open to shellfishing,
will be recommended for closure. Marine Fisheries has conducted
a shellfish survey in approximately 4 of the 12 acres that
suggest there is no resource in the immediate area of the
proposed marina. A shellfish survey of the entire recommended
closure area will be required before compliance with the
antidegradation standard can be ascertained. In addition to the
shellfish survey, the flushing characteristics must be modeled to
show that contraventions of dissolved oxygen standard will not
occur (this request has also been made by EPA). It is expected
that water quality, inside and adjacent to the marina will be
protected only if Best Management Practices recommended in the
Use Attainability Analysis are incorporated as conditions of the
CAMA Permit and are strictly enforced.
I A

Page Two
Memo to Bill Mills
April 28, 1987
A full stormwater management plan was submitted as part of the
April 14th submission, including supporting calculations and
data, technical specifications, construction techniques, and an
operations and Maintenance Plan. The stormwater management plan
has 3 essential components:
1. a subsurface groundwater drainage system to lower the
naturally high groundwater table;
2. porous asphalt pavement and basal storage designed to handle
the rainfall that falls on the pavement; and
3. dry retention ponds located beneath each building to handle
the runoff from each individual building.
Independent analysis done by the consultant and DEM staff
suggests that under normal conditions there will be grater than 2
feet of separation between the bottom of any infiltration system
and the water table. In addition, it was determined that there
was ample storage capacity for the 2-year 24-hour storm event in
the normally unsaturated soil zone. The infiltration capacity of
the soil will also transmit the water from the storm into the
soil in less than 5 days.
The following represents the additions and/or changes t the
referenced plan attachments that are recommended by this office:
1. To the construction notes printed on SD-1:
a. That the topsoil should also be removed beneath the
building sites.
b. That the soil be removed down to the light colored
sand free from organic matter or to a depth of 8
inches, whichever is greater.
2. To the Porous Pavement Design Specifications:
a. That the requirement of "Batch-Type" mixing be added
to Sec. 1.9-(4).
b. That the use of a paver on tracks (vs. a paver on
rollers) be required in Sec. 1.9-(9).
C. That Sec. 1.12 be added to address construction
inspections. Items inspected shall include at least
the items listed on attached Table 5-2. The engineer
shall also notify the Wilmington Regional DEM office
48 hours prior to construction. Sec. 1.12 should also
require the Engineer's certification that the porous
pavement was properly constructed, a copy of the
certification must be sent to DEM in Wilmington.
S

Page Three
Memo to Bill Mills
April 28, 1987
3. To the Operations and Maintenance Manual:
a. The last sentence of the section titled Remedial
Methods should read "Replacement with new pervious
pavement shall be required..."
b. From the section titled Inspection of the Infiltration
Beds the last sentence of the second paragraph,
regarding ocean discharge, should be deleted.
4. It is also recommended that the following condition be
incorporated as a condition of a CAMA Permit:
a. That it be required that the riding vacuum street
sweeper be obtained prior to construction of the
porous asphalt.
This office recommends denial of the permit unless it can be
shown that there is not a shellfish resource within the area to
be closed around the proposed marina. The applicant must also
demonstrate that D.O. standard contraventions will not occur in
the marina basin.
If you have any questions, please call Dave Cotton or me.
?-
APH:DHC:kc
cc: CF, WiRO

TABLE S-2
POROUS ASPHALT PAVEMENT
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
ITEMS
1. Pre-Excavation
a. Runoff diverted y
- No runoff enters pavement area from.disturbed areas
b. Stabilized Area
- No runoff enters pavement area until all areas stabilized '
2. Excavation
a. Size b location
- Conforms to plan
- At least 10 feet from foundation walls
- At least 100 feet from water supply wells
b. Permeable soil
- No sealed surfaces
- Rocks and roots removed
- Voids refilled with permeable soil
c. Groundwater/Bedrock '
- No groundwater seepage or presence of bedrock
3. Filter Fabric
a. Fabric specifications
- Conforms to plan
b. Bottom b sides
- Fabric on bottom b sides of excavation
- Overlap at least 2 feet between rolls
- Does not extend across top of aggregate
4. Aggregate Base Course `-
a. Size
- Between 1 and 2 inch clean stone
b. Placement
- Laid, not dumped
- 12 inch lifts, lightly compacted with plate compactors
- Depth conforms to plans
5. Aggregate Filter Course
a. Size
- Between 3/8 and 5/8 inch clean stone
b. Placement
- Laid in single, 2 inch layer
6. Porous Asphalt Surface Course
a. Temperature
- Asphalt laying temperature between 230° and 260° F
- Minimum air temperature of 50° F
b. Compaction
- 1'or 2 passes with 10 ton roller
- Roller wheels moistened
7. Final Inspection l
a. Smooth surface & transitions
No surface projections
5-4
- Even and level grades y
- Smooth transitions between new paving and other
materials or existing pavement
b. Test section
- A few gallons of water infiltrates
c. Stabilization
- Adjacent areas stabilized

5'-5

t
TO:
Bill Mills
Operations Branch
Division of Environmental Management
Use Attainability Analysis for
Proposed Marina Projects in Class SA Waters
(Check all Appropriate Boxes or fill in Blanks)
Project Name LZ5 C-' - c,4 o r,
Section I. Project Description
A. )_New Marina Marina Expansion
B. X New Basin (dug out of high ground)
-- (Include Specifications and Sketch)
Existing Basin Expansion
(Include Specifications and Sketch)
Natural Waters
Others (Please describe below)
C. Proposed No. Slips I () D
Existing No. Slips
D. Commercial Marina
Private Marina
Publicly Owned Marina
Other (Please describe below)
E. Description of Any Unique Characteristics or Operational
Proposals.
Section II. Existing Use Determination (for waters outside of marina basins)
A. Closure Status (Check One)
Open Waters
Closed Waters (By Data) Date Closed
Closed Waters (DHS Marina Policy)

B. Will the proposed project result in additional closed
acreage? (Please attached analysis showing calculations
for area of closure.)
-4-Yes
No
Not Clear
C. Does the area to be effected by any closure have significant
shellfish resources?
Yes No Unknown
a,-e_-,,q S Jav
Briefly provide description of resource and any other
characteristics.
/ OnG
1 / / r
!? ?D o? ?L PA/o/b»rn {- l((e ?iJJrc. JIBS /1 //> /Y ?St??/ ?S C? DYCiS e,r
t,P?.. lit lt/ C4,?c'.(f -?p ?JZ G1D.i t°? [,l ??l by ?:, iC:I?il G Gr!-S
.' Has the area to be impacted by the propod pro]ec been
available for shellfish harvesting and has shellfish harvesting
occurred since November 28, 1975?
Yes No _ X Unknown
E. Is the entire area to be impacted by the proposed project
currently unavailable for shellfishing because of the DHS
Marina policy or other irretrievable man induced impact?
Yes A No
If yes, briefly describe below.
Section III. Attainable Use Determination (To be completed only if the answer
to ILA is Closed Waters (by Data), and if the answers to II. C and
I I. D are No).
A. What are the major sources of pollution causing the closure?
B. What actions are required to reduce or eliminate these existing
sources of pollution?
a
C. Can the areas be expected to be open for shellfishing given
reasonable efforts to control the existing sources of pollution?
Explain.
Section IV. Project Decision
A. Recommend Project Denial
There has been a recent shellfishing use (Answer to IL D
is Yes) and the area is not currently irretrievably closed
(answer to II. E is No).
OR
Shellfishing is a reasonably attainable use according to
Section III.
OR
X Insufficient information (Answers to II. C and/or II. D are
Unknown)
B. Recommend Project Approval
There has not been a recent shellfishing use (Answer to
IL D D is No) and shellfishing is not a reasonably attainable
use according to Section III.
OR
The entire area is irretrievably lost to shellfishing as a
result of the DHS policy or other irreversible man-inducted
impact (Answer to I I . E is Yes)
C. Conditions to be included in permit (check appropriately)
Zol Pump-out Facilities (_Only boats w/o heads
Locked-head Policy
?-No Transient Docking
X, No Live-aboards
D. What additional information is required to make an informed
permit decision?
l \ ? ?n (- 1? ? L,T 1? tir n A•rti? T'?%?1 r' ?,C?111 ?
f1A C K„ U 0 e-eJ,- r G? l Or+ L?
Le S A c C its- eA
of

This analysis and recommendation has been prepared by the Wilmington Regional
Office.
Date
This evaluation of the attainability of shellfish uses in the waters in the vicinity
of s is approved by:
Gape. C-, Arc.,
Water Quality Section
Director's Office
R. Paul Wilms
Director
Date
Date
DOI
may., ?. ?I `•1ST7 ?. ??. .t?`~i .? y,.i„':" 'x yy9pa B /_Y3 % I : ;` < v , i-" ) i ?tcr r?2 t 'I sly
(J_
BM ' • _ tcl __-haybeaeoo 6
Spoil Area i
is light 1-
` Spoil Area
Huggins Islykcl' __
.
All
, 17.
It's
` ? r,? \ \ ;'7 - ?/ \ U , G'I ?t'? It ? I . ? - . j `Mud ?1C ?J
130,
j 8ogue or, W4 -
214.
,.i (E
16
Dudley Island .\0'/? ?.
23'?
sand
ID es
aOt W ?? _ Shiklnd 5 Feet =? . ?-?/
a (e?
//2i 'SDt ?' / J ,
Stetton.-
/ .
/5'
•• ° 24
/ O
/ /O
l II
/ ?,Urr?w-CI ?roPose.d? CIo
G j / ?? 1y5 a?,?4 o N
n
a J9
c?k1&ur G r ?„ ire
Ov. ?.A e,q i
CIOSt/r H1? I be 1, VJj A?ju.c,a? Q ?O
N
nn?,
/ ,XO VSC-Wa,{5?'1'? ?h?? r e? ? Qc-C77. ??. AcX'`'•' L '
do
April 10, 1987
PATON / ZUCCHINO
& ASSOCIATES. VA.
Mr. Dave Cotten
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section RECEIVED
7225 Wrightville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28401 APR 1 4 1987
RE: CAMA Major Permit Application WUmingtOn ?1onal office
Amendment to Stormwater Management Plan
Guthrie Property, Rouse-Watson, Inc.
Carteret County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Cotton:
Please accept this letter and the accompanying attachments as
an amendment to the plans originally submitted and dated December
10, 1986, for the above referenced project. This amendment to
the project stormwater management plan will serve as a supplement
to the original submittal.
The amendments included in this resubmittal are made in
response to review comments specifically outlined in a memorandum
from Bill Mills, NCDEM, to John Parker, NCDCM, dated March 3,
1987 and those comments made during working sessions with you and
project engineers and planners on March 3, March 30 and April 9.
The amendments respond directly to the DEM review comments and
are substantiated and recorded in the appended reports and plans,
identified as Attachments A, B, C, D and E.
Attachment A
Attachment A includes a response to the questions raised
concerning the demonstrated effectiveness of the subsurface
groundwater drainage system and also addresses the question
concerning the effect of the drainage system from stormwater and
wastewater disposal on water quality in the boat basin and
adjacent SA waters. This attachment is in the form of a letter
report prepared by the project consulting hydrogeologist, Ed
Andrews. The letter defines the resultant water table surface
after the engineered drainage system is in place; provides an
explanation of the capillary rise, capillary zone and
intermediate vadose zone; quantifies the available storage volume
of the soil column, and provides an analysis of projected
retention times for the stormwater once it enters the soil.
I•arirl I'I;rnnin
I,;ur?l?? :rln• ,?n•Iril?•rlur?•
.nuln'I' ti?Ilr;l f?•
i, 1.1?•n?c??u?l ???•.
)19-1 1--!4)2'11
I
April 13, 1987
CAMA Major Permit Application
Page 2
These analyses are specifically designed to provide a
conceptual understanding of the storm water/groundwater
relationship specifically as it pertains to the designed system
by Withers & Ravenel, P.E. and the site characteristics. The
analysis in Attachment A provides the background for our design
and engineering assumptions and clearly shows that the drainage
system will adequately function to lower the unsaturated zone
sufficiently to accommodate a two year storm event and provide an
effective drawdown in five days as required by current DEM
regulations.
Attachment B
Attachment B provides clarification and substantiation for
the design of the rooftop stormwater drainage system. Details of
this system have been included on Sheet SD-2 of the stormwater
engineering plans. A written narrative of the system is provided
in letter form for the file by Sam Ravenel, the project engineer.
Attachment C
An operations and Maintenance Manual for the porous
asphaltic pavement has been prepared and is included in report
form as Attachment C.
Attachment D
Technical construction specifications for porous asphaltic
pavement have been prepared as Attachment D for the file and are
included on Sheet SD-2 of the stormwater engineering plans.
Attachment E
Attachment E is the revised stormwater engineering plan,
sheets SD-2 and SD-3. The plan revisions reflect changes made
based on the formal DEM comments made in the March 3 memorandum
and in subsequent working sessions with your office. Revisions
include, among others, changes to the grading plan; specified
construction requirements for removal of topsoil beneath the
proposed paving areas; plans and details for the rooftop
stormwater drainage system; removal of the maintenance spoil area
from the original spoil site; removal from the site of existing
layer of black silty sand located in the area proposed for the
basin; the addition of construction specifications for the porous
asphaltic pavement; summary data on pervious and impervious
surfaces; and, the addition of a monitoring well adjacent to the
proposed well site.
April 10, 1987
CAMA Major Permit Application
Page 3
The basic concept for the stormwater management plan is tc
install a subsurface drainage system which would lower the water
table so that the two year twenty-four hour storm event could be
stored in the unsaturated zone above the water table. This
appeared to be the best solution for this particular site, based
on the results of the detailed hydrogeological evaluation by
Russnow, Kane & Andrews. Having lowered the water table with the
subsurface drainage, we proposed to simulate natural conditions
by uniformally distributing the rainfall on the site.
The revisions made for this resubmission bring the proposed
stormwater plan to a point where the current DEM coastal
stormwater regulation standards are satisfied and in some cases
exceeded. Please review the supporting documentation and contact
me if, you require any further information or clarification
concerning this resubmittal. We appreciate your prompt review
and response to the N.C. Division of Coastal Mangement.
Sincerely,
LA ?4i440
Lawre ce R. Zucchino
Landscape Architect
cc: Mr. John Parker, NCDCM
Mr. Frank Rouse, Rouse-Watson, Inc.
Attachments: A, B, C, D and E
Attachment A
RKA RUSSNOW, KANE & ANDREWS INC.
Hydrogeology Post Office Box 33634 Offices:
Geology Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 Raleigh, North Carolina
Environmental Sciences [phone] Newport News, Virginia
Soils
March 22, 1987
Paton, Zucchino 8 Associates
17 Glenwood Ave.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Re: Rouse-Watson Property/ Guthrie Property
Dear Mr. Zucchino:
In responce to the comments Mr. Preston Howard made in his memo
dated February 9, 1987 to Bill Mills, regarding the Rouse-Watson Property
in Carteret County, the following analysis will further document our previously
submitted site analysis.
Four specific issues are addressed in this addendum to the "Hydrogeologic
Evaluation for the Cedar Point Beach Condominiums, Carteret County, North
Carolina" November 1986. The first issue is to define the resultant water
table surface after the engineered drainage system, is in place (Attached
site map). The second issue is an explanation of our discussion of capillary
rise relative to evapotranspiration. Capillary rise, capillary zone and intermediate
vadose zone are defined and related. The third issue is to determine the
effective porosity of the Intermediate Vadose zone in order to quantify the
available storage volume. The fourth issue is an analysis of retention time,
i.e. velocity calculations relative to the ground water drainage system.
Issue 1- "...demonstration of the effectiveness of the
subsurface ground water drainage system." The effectiveness
of the average annual result of the ground water drainage
system is demonstrated using the Darcy Eauation to define the
steady state. The drainage design is planned to allow for
a maximum water table elevation "no more than" 3 feet above
the center elevation of the drain tile at any point of the site.
Thus, dh is defined as 3 feet, and the di is 75 feet, by design
(150 foot drain spacing, the length of the drain tile is W =
2500 feet. Transmissivity is calculated from an aquifer test
to be 283 ft.2/day.
Qmax- 283 ft.2/day x 2500 ft. x (3 ft./75 ft.)

r
Associates
/ Guthrie Property
Qmax = 28.300 ft.3/day
Therefore, using a transmissivity derived "on site" and
the planned drainage system, 28,300 ft.3/day or 10,329,500
ft.3/year can be discharged. Based on an annual rainfall of
55 inches per year, the total required flow is 1,896,675 cubic
feet, which is 18.36. % of the maximum discharge determined
in the Darcy Equation for a gradient of (0.04). The drain
the spacing is set at r = 75 feet, therefore,18. 36 % recharge
will result in the head of 0.55 ft. above the center of the
drain tile.
If the drain tile is six feet below land surface at the
Northern end of the site,the calculated depth to the water
table will be 5.45 feet between the draintile (r = 75 feet).
In the Southern end of the site, the drain tile should be 8
feet, thus, the calculated depth will be 7.45 feet.
This analysis includes an assumption that the line sink
derives recharge from the total saturated cross section. However,
the velocity of the discharge increases due to convergence to
the drain tile.
The effect of this convergence is to increase the velocity
near the drain tile. This velocity is calculated as follows:
Q = 1,896,675 ft.3/year divided by (0.5 diameter of the drain
tile times' 2500 feet (length) divided by 365 days per year,
the velocity at the drain the is 4.16 ft. /day. The gradient
at the drain tile is determined by dividing the derived velocity
(4.16 ft./day) by the hydraulic conductivity (10.88 ft./day).
The gradient at the drain the necessary to sustain the 4.16
ft./day velocity is 0.36.
In summary, the effectiveness of the drainage system will
be to lower the water table surface to 0.55 feet above the
drain tile midway between the drain tiles, and the maximum
necessary velocity, at the drain tile is 4.16 ft./day.
Issue 2.- On page 9 of the Hydrogeologic Evaluation the
statement, " Because the texture of the soil is fine, the capillary
rise may be as high as 50 inches. This is significant, because
the resultant evapotranspiration will be high (estimated evaporation
loss of 20 to 25 inches per year" is not a statement that the
Paton, Zucchino &
re: Rouse-Watson
March 22, 1987
p9 • 2
6
Paton, Zucchino 8
re: Rouse-Watson
March 22, 1987
pg. 3
Associates
/ Guthrie Property
capillary zone (or the "zone of complete capillary saturation"
Terzaghi, 1942) is anywhere near 50 inches. Lohman quotes
Terzaghi, indicating that the capillary rise (forming the saturated
zone for sand from 0.1 to 0.2 mm is 42.8 cm. (or 16.8 inches).
The area in which surface tension allows some percentage of
moisture to be reta ined after drainage, is called the Intermediate
Vadose Zone. The percentage of moisture contained after gravity
drainage is called gravitational water. The statement using
capillary rise in the report is intended to include gravitational

soil water as well ,
as the capillary zone. For the purpose
of determining stor age capacity of the soil above the capillary
zone, specific yield already takes into account gravitational water
and soil water. It should be noted that the determination
of the specific yield is of the saturated zone only.
Issue 3. In order to evaluate the interstitial storage potential
of the vadose zone, it is necessary to equate the effective
porosity of the vadose zone compared to the effective porosity
of the saturated zone. Only the saturated zone is determined
directly. (specific yield). This comparison is made by comparing
the median grain size, which is a principal determinant of specific
yield. The average median diameter of 14 randomly selected
samples of the vadose zone is 0.189 mm vs. 0.144 mm from
the saturated portion of the test wells (131.6 %). The adjusted
specific yield based on grain size alone should be 0.12. Another
factor affecting the effective porosity is the packing. An example
is the weight of a 50% quartz/50$ water formation at a depth
of 20 feet will have a packing pressure of approximately 115.48
pounds per square inch. The packing pressure of the unsaturated
zone at a depth of four feet is 2.34 pounds per square inch.
Therefore, the specific yield of the unsaturated zone will be
greater than the deeper portions of the saturated zone even
if the grain size distribution is identical.
In order to be conservative, a specific yield of 0.12 is
used to determine that the necessary storage space above the
capillary zone is 37.5 inches (4.5 inches/ 0.12 = 37.5 inches).
Add the capillary zone of 16.8 inches, the maximum depth to
the water table is 4.53 feet.
The depth to the water table at the upper portion (North)
of the site will be 5.45 feet, thus providing a 0.92 foot buffer.
This does not take into account evapotranspiration or the discharge

Paton, Zucchino & Associates
re: Rouse-Watson / Guthrie Property
March 22, 1987
pg. 4
through the drain tile during the storm event, which will reduce
the needed storage by ± 15% to 31.9 inches (15 % based on
Q = 20,000 ft.3/day of ground water discharge due to the
head increase during the day of the storm event).
Issue 4. The question of the retention time of the stormwater,
in order to allow for the removal of fecal coliform bacteria
was implied. Understanding that retention time is a direct
function of velocity over distance, the location of specific fecal
contamination will determine the retention time. Rainfall that
falls directly on open drainage will immediately reach surface
water. Using an infiltration rate of 36 inches per hour per
direct rainfall above the drain tile will take two hours to reach
the drain the (six feet below land surface). The velocity
at r = 75 feet (midpoint) from the drain tile is defined: K
(10.88 ft. /day) x gradient (0.55 ft. /75 ft.) is equal to 0.08
ft. /day. Retention time for any point between these two extremes
can be calculated by dividing the distance by velocity. This
clearly indicates that the drainage system will lower the water
table by the removal of predominantly ground water instead
of water directly resulting from a two year storm event.
These analyses are specifically designed to provide a conceptual understand-
ing of the storm water / ground water relationship specifically as it pertains
to the designed system by Withers and Ravenel and the site characteristics.
The constant flux of variables through space and time makes more detailed
analysis impractical. It has been clearly shown that the drainage system
will adequately function to lower the unsaturated zone sufficiently to provide
storage to accommodate a 2 year storm event.
Very truly yours,
RUSSNOW, KANE & ANDREWS, INC.
Edwin E. Andrews III, P.G.
Consulting Hydrogeologist
EEA/kl
encl.
cc. Mr. Sam Ravenel, P.E.
Attachment B

WITHERS & RAVENEL, P.A. 1149 Executive Circle
Cary, N.C. 27511
CONSULTING ENGINEERING 919/469.3340
March 30, 1987
Mr. Larry Zucchino
Paton-Zucchino & Associates, P.A.
Cooper Square
17 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
RE: Guthrie Property
Carteret County, NC
Dear Mr. Zucchino:
This letter is in response to the review comments of the Division
of Environmental Management regarding the proposed stormwater
management plan for the referenced project.
The basic concept for the plan was to install a subsurface drainage
system which would lower the water table so that the two year twenty-
four hour storm event could be stored in the unsaturated zone above
the water table. This appeared to be the best solution for the site,
based on the results of the hydrogeological evaluation by Russnow,
Kane & Andrews. Having lowered the water table with the subsurface
drainage, we proposed to simulate natural conditions by uniformally
distributing the rainfall on the site.
Parking areas are addressed by providing porous pavement. Note that
the intent of the porous pavement is not to store the rainfall, but
to transmit it to the subgrade to be stored interstitially in the
available unsaturated soil.
Rainfall from the roof drainage will be discharged by roof leaders
under the buildings which will be elevated (See attachment). The
area within the building footprint will be graded to provide for up
to one foot of ponding. Roof leaders will be spaced at a maximum
interval of twenty feet to provide for a uniform distribution of
runoff. Splash pads will be placed at the leader outlets to minimize
scour and distribute the runoff. Again, the principle is to simulate
the uniform distribution of rainfall by providing a recharge area
under each building equal to the area of impervious roof.
In our opinion, the proposed stormwater management plan is the best
approach to meeting the current DEM coastal stormwater regulations.
Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
'J?? (J- a"-?
Samuel F. Ravenel, P.E.
cc: Mr. Ed Andrews, P.G.
. a ?
d
a
w
0
W
o?
N
?L -2

0 ?
0
Z
0
t
? Z
0

w

a ?

`
C

d

1`
d
9

n?

N_
?y d
4
1.0 Porous Pavement Design Specifications
1.1 Aggregate Gradation
April 10, 1987
Attachment D
The gradation required to obtain a porous asphaltic concrete pavement is
of the "open" graded type as contrasted to the "dense" graded type which is
capable of close packing. The following aggregate specification is
recommended:
U.S. Sieve Opening Specification: Percent
Series Size mm Passing by Weight
1/2 in. 12.70 100
3/8 in. 9.51 95-100
#4 4.76 30- 50
#8 2.38 5- 15
#200* 0.074 2- 5
*Aggregate should be uniformly graded between the #8 and #200 sieves.
1.2 Type and Quality of Aggregate
The aggregates selected for porous pavement construction should meet
requirements of the standard specification for "Crushed Stone, Crushed Slag,
and Crushed Gravel for Dry- or Water-Bound Macadam Base and Surface Courses
of Pavements," ASTM D 693-77, with two exceptions. First, the gradation test
must be of the open graded type described here. Second, a soundness test is
required, as specified in ASTM D 692-79, Coarse Aggregate for Bituminous
Paveing Mistures," to determine if the aggregate is susceptible to
disintegration by water.
1.3 Asphalt Cement Grade in Mix
The suggested viscosity grade of asphalt cement to be used is AC-20 of
AASHO M-226-73 I. This grade is to be considered a tentative starting point
because test results obtained from the design process may indicate an
advantage or a necessity to alter the asphalt grade.
1.4 Mixing Temperature
To ensure that he individual aggregate particles are completely
surrounded by asphalt, and that the asphalt is tightly bound to each
particle, temperature of mixing at the hot mix plant shall be rigidly
controlled. Too low a mixing temperature will result in inadequate asphalt
binding and coverage of the aggregate, while too high a mixing temperature
will allow asphalt to drain from the mix, resulting in a lower asphalt
content and decreased strength. Suitable mixing temperatures range from 230
to 260 degrees Fahrenheit, but the lower end of that range (230 degrees to
240 degrees Fahrenheit) is recommended.
1.5 Asphalt Content in Mix
For road paving durability and to prevent too rapid hardening of the
asphalt, it is desirable to have the highest asphalt content possible in the
mix. Too much asphalt would separate out under traffic, so that maximum
asphalt content is generally limited by that factor. Experience has shown
that 5.5 percent by weight is the minimum recommended asphalt content.
Asphalt content should be determined according to the testing procedure
recommended in Federal Highway Administration Report No. FHWA-RD-74-2.
1.6 Stabilization
To preclude premature clogging and/or failure to this practice, porous
asphalt paving structures shall not be placed into service until all of the
surface drainage areas contributing to the pavement have been effectively
stabilized in accordance with North Carolina standards and specifications for
Sedimentation and Erosion Control.
1.7 Subgrade Preparation
(1) Alter and refine the grades as necessary to bring subgrade to required
grades and sections as shown in the drawings.
(2) The type of equipment used in subgrade preparation construction shall
not cause undue subgrade compaction. (Use tracked equipment or
oversized rubber tire equipment - DO NOT use standard rubber tired
equipment.) Traffic over subgrade shall be kept at a minimum. Where
fill is required, it shall be compacted to a density equal to the
undisturbed subgrade, and inherent soft spots corrected.
1.8 Aggregate Base Course
(1) All stone used shall be clean, washed, crushed stone, meeting local
highway department specifications.
(2) Aggregate shall be of two sizes: the reservoir base course shall be to
depth as noted on drawings of aggregated (maximum of 2", minimum of 1"), *c
and a 2-inch deep top course of 1/2" aggregate (maximum of 5/8", minimum '01111
3/8").
(3') Aggregate base course shall be laid over a dry subgrade covered with
engineering filter fabric to a depth shown in drawings, in lifts to lay
naturally compacted. The stone base course shall be compacted lightly.
Keep the base course clean from debris, and sediment.
1.9 Porous Asphalt Surface Course

(1) The surface course shall shall be laid directly over the 1/2" aggregate
base course and shall be laid in one lift.
(2) The laying temperature shall be between 230 degrees and 260 degrees,
with minimum air temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit, to make sure that
he surface does not cool prior to compaction.
(3) Compaction of surface course shall be done while the surface is cool
enough to resist a 10-ton roller. One or two passes by the roller is i
all that is required for proper compaction. More rolling could cause a
reduction in the surface course porosity.
(4) Mixing plant shall certify the aggregate mix and abrasion loss factor
and the asphalt content in the mix. The asphaltic mix shall be testedt
for its resistance to stripping by water using ASTM D 1664. If the
estimated coating area is not above 95 percent, anti-stripping agents
shall be added to the asphalt.
(5) Transporting of mix to site shall be in clean vehicle with smooth dump
beds that have been sprayed with a non-petroleum release agent. The mix
shall be covered during transportation to control cooling.
(6) Mix of asphalt shall be 5.5 to 6 percent of weight of dry aggregate
(7) Asphalt grade shall meet AASHTO Specification M-20 for 50 to 65
- penetration road asphalt as a binder.
(8) Aggregate grading shall be as specified in Table 3-3.
1.10 Protection
After final rolling, no vehicular traffic of any kind shall be permitted
on the pavement until cooling and hardening has taken place, and in no case
less than 6 hours (preferably a day or two).
1.11 Workmanship
(1) Work shall be done expertly throughout and without staining or damage to
other permanent work.
(2) Make transition between existing and new paving work neat and flush.
(3) Finished paving shall be even, without pockets, and graded to elevations
shown.
(4) Iron smoothly to grade, all minor surface projections and edges
adjoining other materials.
1 C?e
V0 ?f

GUTHRIE PROPERTY
ROUSE-WATSON, INC.
CARTERET COUNTY, NC
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Attachment C
April 10, 1987
V
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
Authority
The operation and maintenance requirements contained herein are to be
provided for in the Bylaws for the "Guthrie Property" Homeowner's
Association.
Inspection of the Pavement
The area of the project that is paved with pervious asphaltic pavement
shall have routine visual inspections weekly. Any observation of sediment,
grass clippings, trash, etc on the surface should direct the routine sweeping
operation to that area. Should there be any sudden rise in water elevation
in any well or should turbidity, odor, or oil sheen be noticed, the Engineer
of Record or other qualified Engineer and N.C. Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development personnel must be notified immediately.
A seriesof further observations,- closely spaced in time, may be needed to
evaluate the problem.
Maintenance of Pavement
The pervious asphaltic pavement of the driveways and parking areas is
designed to allow rainwater falling on the pavement to percolate vertically
and to collect in the underlying high porosity base course prior to its
infiltration into the underlying sandy soils. Gutters and catch basins have
no place in this system since the water will flow vertically through the
pavement and base into the ground. In order to ensure continued satisfactory
operation of the pavement, routine maintenance is necessary to prevent the
accumulation of fine sand, dust, and organic debris in the top surface of the
asphaltic pavement. This maintenance is to be accomplished by the use of
power driven, brush and vacuum sweepers.
At no time shall storm water from the parking areas be discharged to
waters classified as SA quality by the N.C. Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development. If emergency pumping becomes necessary, NRCD
personnel must be notified immediately for consultation.
Equipment Required o? P?Q Y
A riding vacuum street sweeper parking lot maintenance machine Tennant 7,0
235 or equal as approved by the Engineer is required. Any convenient
sweeping pattern that ensures 100% coverage of the parking and driveway areas
will be satisfactory. Particular attention should be paid to areas where
there are visable signs of an accumulation of blown sand, silt, or organic
material and any areas where there has been a noticable reduction in the
percolation rate of storm water. Multiple passes may be necessary in these
areas to remove the trapped material choking the pavement.
Frequency of Sweeping
The equipment provided can sweep approximately 3500 square yards per
hour and since there is a total of 11,500 square yards of pavement to be
maintained, the time required for a single complete maintenance cycle is
anticipated to be about 6 hours. The entire project must be swept at least
once every 2 months but it will probably be more convenient to develop a
regular weekly schedule to sweep portions of the area. This will make it
easier to maintain the area to be swept clear of traffic for the time needed
for maintenance. Residents should be notified of the schedule on which
parking areas are to be temporarily blocked to minimize inconvenience.
Temporarily barricades have been provided so that areas scheduled for
maintenance can be blocked off as needed.
round Water Monitoring
en ground water monitoring wells have been installed at various
locat s on the edges of the paved portions of the project. The
satisfactory operation of the pervious pavement storm drainage system depends
on outflow of ground water from the site to the adjacent sound waters to the
south. The ground water monitoring wells are intended to allow the
development of information about the seasonal pattern of such ground water
flow and will measure the performance of the pervious pavement. Each well is
set inside an iron surface box with a removable lid. To take a reading, the
lid is opened and the screw plug in the top of the well is removed. The
depth to the surface of the water in the well is measured from the top edge
of the screw plug socket. Each of these points has had its elevation
determined by survey so that the ground water elevation can be calculated by
subtraction. A data recording journal is provided to allow the permanent
retention of these water level elevation records.
Frequency of Observation
Water level readings on each well will be recorded monthly for the first
two years of operation and quarterly thereafter. In addition, readings
should be taken immediately after rainfall events which produce 3.5 inches or
more of rain in any 24 hr. period (1 Yr.-24 hr. storm) and in periods of
extreme drought.
Four groundwater samples must be taken from monitoring wells evenly
distributed over the site. The first samples must be taken immediately after
installation of the wells prior to beginning construction thereafter samples
must be taken in March, July, and November (3 times per year). Samples must
be taken within 24 hours after a measurable rainfall event. The samples must
be tested for total coliform, fecal coliform, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, oil
and grease, lead, copper, zinc, and ammonia. The results of each test must
be submitted to the Wilmington Regional Office of NRCD. A rainfall gauge
must be installed on site. Rainfall measurements must be made and recorded
in a journal specified for this purpose. Locations of the wells to be
sampled shall be designated on the approved storm water plans.
s
Remedial Methods
Should repairs to the pavement become necessary due to damage or loss of
permeability as evidenced by severe rutting of the pavement, ponding water or
other surface irregularities, the Engineer of Record or other qualified
Engineer and the N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development must be notified immediately. Repairs must be made as directed
by the Engineer and NRCD personnel. Replacement with new pervious pavement
be required where remedial methods fail to be effective.
Inspection of the Infiltration Beds
The infiltration beds beneath buildings shall be inspected weekly and
immediately after rainfall events which produce 3.5 inches or more of rain in
any 24 hour period (1 yr - 24 hr storm). The berms shall be inspected to
ensure that they conform to the original lines and grades. Depths of ponding
and time of drawdown shall be recorded after measurable rainfall events. If
drawdown time becomes excessive the Engineer shall be notified. The berms
surrounding the infiltration beds shall be maintained to the original lines
and grades. Rip rap shall be used to stabilize any areas where erosion is
occurring. The bed surface shall be kept free of trash, leaves and other
debris which may alter the permeability of the soil. If plugging of the soil
occurs as evidenced by excessive water ponding, the sand surface shall be
removed and replaced with clean sand to restore the original permeability.
Sediment deposits shall be removed from the infiltration beds when the
available storage volume has been reduced to one-half of the original volume.
At no time shall storm water be discharged to waters classified as SA
quality by the N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development. If emergency pumping becomes necessary, NRCD personnel must be
notified immediately. The discharge may be directed toward the ocean side of
t e front dune line.
Only authorized personnel shall have access to the infiltration bed
areas. The disturbance of the beds shall be kept to a minimum.
A;, I
lozz
7
D?yn?
` DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
March 3, 1987
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Joh Parker
FROM: ill Mills
SUBJECT: Application for CAMA Permit
Rouse - Watson, Inc.
Carteret County
The Subject application has been reviewed for water
quality impacts and the following comments are offered:
1. This project does require a 401 certification but
does meet the requirements for the general
certification for bulkhead construction.
2. The adjacent waters are classified as SA and open
to shellfishing; however, a use attainability
analysis has shown there to be no existing
shellfishing use of these waters and
Antidegradation Policy should not be a problem
even if the waters become closed.
3. A preliminary review of the stormwater management
plan has been performed. The lack of calculations
and supporting data to demonstrate the system's
ability to comply with 15 NCAC 2H .0408 make it
impossible for this office to provide an informed
recommendation. The following list provides some,
not necessarily all, of the items that need to be
addressed in the scope of the stormwater
management plan:
a. demonstration of the effectiveness of the
subsurface groundwater drainage system.
b. evaluation of the effect that the drainage
system from stormwater and wastewater
disposal areas will have on water quality
both within and outside of the boat basin
area (ie, violations of fecal coliform
standards for SA waters?).
111
2 -
C. show calculations of storage capacities,
volume of runoff, percent impervious cover,
etc.
d. lack of an Operations and Maintenance Manual.
e. technical specifications of porous pavement.
These along with inconsistencies within the
Hydrologic evaluation and the inappropriate use of
parking area as a maintenance spoil site are some
of the areas that are inadequately addressed
by the applicant and their consultants with
respect to stormwater management.
4. Applicant should contact DHS with respect to well
location with respect to wastewater disposal area.
5. It is recommended that applicant be determined to
be incomplete until a more complete stormwater
management plan is submitted. Applicant is urged
to work closely with Wilmington Region on the
development of the revised plans. Mr. David
Cotton is our contact in that office.
BM/dkb
cc: Preston Howard

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
February 9, 1987
MEMORANDUM
To:
From :
Through:
Bill Mills
Operations Branch
A. Preston Howard, Jr.
Wilmington Regional Office
Chuck Wakild
Wilmington Regio ce

Subject: Regional Office Review & Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Rouse-Watson
Carteret County
The applicant proposes to build 4 condo buildings with 100 total units, develop
a 100 slip marina, and provide for parking and tennis courts. The project is located
just off the AIWW of Bogue Sound, classified SA, and open to shellfishing. A
shellfish resource survey was conducted in the area of the Guthrie property. The
investigation revealed that there was not a resource present.
The project has been reviewed to determine impacts to water quality. The
following comments are provided:
1. The project will require a 401 Certification and should meet the
requirement of the general 401 Certification for bulkhead construction.
2. The use attainability analysis for the marina has been completed and is
attached.
3. A preliminary review of the stormwater management plan has been
performed. The lack of calculations and supporting data to demonstrate
the system's ability to comply with 15 NCAC 2H .0408 make it impossible
for this office to provide an informed recommendation. The following list
provides some, not necessarily all, of the items that need to be addressed
in the scope of the stormwater management plan:
a. demonstration of the effectiveness of the subsurface groundwater
drainage system.
b. evaluation of the effect that the drainage system from stormwater and
wastewater disposal areas will have on water quality both within and
outside of the boat basin area (ie, violations of fecal coliform
standards for SA waters?).
c. show calculations of storage capacities, volume of runoff, percent
impervious cover, etc.
d. lack of an Operations and Maintenance Manual.
e. technical specifications of pourous pavement.
Bill Mills
Operations Branch
Page Two
These along with inconsistencies within the Hydrologic evaluation and the
inappropriate use of parking area as a maintenance spoil site are some of
the areas that are inadequately addressed by the applicant and their
consultants with respect to stormwater management.
4. It is recommended that the applicant contact the DHS-Water Supply Branch
to look at the location of the water supply well with respect to the location
of the wastewater disposal area.
5. It is recommended that if the applicants would like to resubmit a more
complete stormwater management plan that they be encouraged to contact
David Cotton at the Wilmington Regional Office.
APH:DC:bc
cc: DCM - Jim Mercers
WiRO
CF
TO: Bill Mills
Operations Branch
Division of Environmental Management
Use Attainability Analysis for
Proposed Marina Projects in Class SA Waters
(Check all Appropriate Boxes or fill in Blanks)
Project Name ROB S G -\d ? 1or
Section I. Project Description
A. New Marina Marina Expansion
B. New Basin (dug out of high ground)
(Include Specifications and Sketch)
Existing Basin Expansion
(Include Specifications and Sketch)
Natural Waters
Others (Please describe below)
C. Proposed No. Slips 100
Existing No. Slips
D. Commercial Marina
_Private Marina
Publicly Owned Marina
Other (Please describe below)
E. Description of Any Unique Characteristics or Operational
Proposals.
Section II. . Existing Use Determination (for waters outside of marina basins)
A. Closure Status (Check One)
X, Open Waters
-t Closed Waters (By Data) Date Closed
Closed Waters (DHS Marina Policy)
B. Will the proposed project result in additional closed
acreage? (Please attached analysis showing calculations
for area of closure . )
X Yes No Not Clear
C. Does the area to be effected by any closure have significant
shellfish resources?
Yes X -No Unknown
Briefly provide description of resource and any other
characteristics.
D. Has the area to be impacted by the proposed project been
available for shellfish harvesting and has shellfish harvesting
occurred since November 28, 1975?
Yes _No Unknown
E. Is the entire area to be impacted by the proposed project
currently unavailable for shellfishing because of the DHS
Marina policy or other irretrievable man induced impact?
Yes _'-? -No
If yes, briefly describe below.
Section III. Attainable Use Determination (To be completed only if the answer
to ILA A is Closed Waters (by Data), and if the answers to IL C C and
I I . D are No).
A. What are the major sources of pollution causing the closure?
B. What actions are required to reduce or eliminate these existing
sources of pollution?
C. Can the areas be expected to be open for shellfishing given
reasonable efforts to control the existing sources of pollution?
Explain.
Section IV.
Project Decision
A. Recommend Project Denial
There has been a recent shellfishing use (Answer to II. D
is Yes) and the area is not currently irretrievably closed
(answer to II. E is No).
OR
Shellfishing is a reasonably attainable use according to
Section III.
OR
Insufficient information (Answers to IL C and/or IL D are
Unknown)
B. Recommend Project Approval
There has not been a recent shellfishing use (Answer to
II. D is No) and shellfishing is not a reasonably attainable
use according to Section III.
OR
The entire area is irretrievably lost to shellfishing as a
result of the DHS policy or other irreversible man-inducted
impact (Answer to IL E E is Yes)
C. Conditions to be included in permit (check appropriately)
'A Pump-out Facilities
_?K_Locked-head Policy
X No Transient Docking
-No Live-aboards
Only boats w/o heads
// ff ,
C64"L
-$?t)ns+ pos?a? o?'??e. dot, ?. , ooer?oat?
Ot+Sc.`.q? c ana cl ' l ?
D. What additional information is required to make an informed
permit decision?
This analysis and recommendation has been prepared by the Wilmington Regional
Office.
Date
This evaluation of the attainability of shellfish uses in the waters in the vicinity
of e. klmh 1 is approved by:
Water Quality Section
Date
Director's Office Date
R. Paul Wilms
Director
??N-.- ?^c l'?? mac, ?f ?,??` -feel L°. ?,o?w.?? c??J ??Z! f?v'
?C Il.? j? 6G `it/ w L11 /vL ?13 ????t .?e? YTS

15 n 4 K Y 1. R .?" >> C S 4, Y {
s. .
MEMORANDUM
TO: PRES PATE
FROM: DAVID L. TAYLOR 211,
SUBJECT: SHELLFISH SURVEY "CEDAR POINT BEACH CAMPGROUND
Jim Jfercer, OCM Consultant, requested that""a shellfish resource
survey be,conducted by the Division at,Cedar.Point'Beach Campground. The
.request. originated ?with Larry. Zucchino who represents 'the prospective
developers of the property.
On September.
30, X1986, I:' conducted. a survey'. with* sir.." Mercer
in.,the waters in 'front of the campground.. The.area surveyed gas
roughly 200 :feet by 800,
feet.. running >the length ..'of ;the bulkhead and
more along shore, And offshore to the 'barrel' buoys. -the area 'was raked
with handrakes for about'an hour during ebb.-tide by both Mr. Mercer and
myself fora total time of effort of two man hours.. The area was
covered quite thoroughly from the bulkhead where water depths were six
"inches, to the barrels at a' depth of 41j. feet. .
Several eel grass beds dotted the area with the largest measuring
approximately; 20.feet "by 20 feet and:the smallest measuring 2 feet by
2 feet. A"few whelks inhabited these beds'but nothing of commercial
significance was found. .One clam was found in the entire-area. The
bott9p :was extremely hard-, bare. ; sand-;.with-? a ridge. of-.. shell fragments .l
and , old dead . shells running nearly the . entire. length of - the off shore
boundary.
It is my opinion that no,shellfish`resource-presently exists
in the vicinity of Cedar Point Beach Campground Enforcement Officer
Howard Bogey who has worked in-the area for many years, stated that he
had never seen anyone utilize the area for,sh;ellfish harvest because
of its economic infeasibility and concurred that.no resource exists.
• DLT/csw
cc:`•Jim Mercer
•
FE.3 9 1987
t'r Vt WINGTON . REGIONAL PRICE
r
''i"'is?,y?."'?"*,4.iiM??' ?s4•,,^q'.4f...- , _ .A.,._??a?n9.?2 , , LeQ??.Gf.•.

srn>F o
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor David W. Owens
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary January 12, 1987 Director
Mr. R. Paul Wilms, Director
Division of Environmental Management
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
`Dear Mr. Wilms:
The attached copy of an application submitted by'':
Rouse-WatSori, Tnr, Me (gin _hri P Property)
Applicant's Name
southside Hwy 24, SR 1116 (Ohdar Point Com.) Carteret
Location of Project County
-XX_ for a State permit to perform excavation and/or fill
work in coastal North Carolina and for a CAMA major
development permit...
for a CAMA major development permit (only) ...
.., is being circulated to State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction
over the subject matter which might be affected by the project.
Please indicate on the reverse side of this form your viewpoint on
the proposed work and return it to me not later than January 27, 1987
Sincerely,
h R. Parker, Jr., Chief
Major Permits Processing Section
JRP:ap:2480
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
M
(A) this agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
($) This agency has no comment on the project as proposed.
(C) This agency approves of the project (or project concept) and/or recommends
these minor refinements for project management.
(D) This agency objects to the project and recommends permit denial based on a
finding of:
(1) adverse impacts under G.S. 113-229(e) 1-5 (the dredge and fill law)as
enumerated below:
(e)(1) ... that there will be significant
adverse effect of the proposed dred-
ging and filling on the use
of the water by the public;
(e)(3) ... that there will be significant
adverse effect on public health,
safety, and welfare;
(e)(2) ... that there will be signifi-
cant adverse effect on the value
and enjoynent of the property of
any riparian owners;
(e)(4) ... that there will pe signifi-
cant adverse effect on the con-
servation of public and private
water supplies;
(e)(5) that there will be significant
adverse effect on wildlife or
fresh water, estuarine or marine
fisheries;
(1) Inconsistency with Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission
as enumerated in 15 NCAC 7H (or other). Please site
rule.
(3) Inconsistency with the local Land Use Plan (Please elaborate).
(4) Inconsistency with Rules, Guidelines or Standards of
this agency or a finding that the project is in conflict
with other authority or interest as stipulated below.
(E) Attachment. Include memorandum or other documentation that support
findings relating to D1-4 or provide general comments.
Signature
ate
•. .,. ?., ..a \ ,.i ?..1? 111 li l l\, 1.111\1
FIE;LD TINF :TTGATTON Ini'Toicr
1. Applicant's name __R0use=Watson, Inc. he Guthrie Property)
2. Location of project slle So_uthside HWY 24, SR 1116 in the Cedar Point_
-community just off the AIWW Bogue Sound, west of Cedar Point Villas
3. Investigation type: Dredge & Fill xx CAMA__ _ xx
4. Investigative procedure: (A) Dat:efi of site visit 10-30-86 12-31-87
(B) Was applicant present ves_. no _
5. Processing procedure: Applicati.on received Dec. 22, 1986 Office Morehead'City
6. Site description: (A) Local L_itid Use Plan_C_,jretert Count_LUP 1985
Land classification from LUP Transitional commercialJ_conservatic
Development constraints identifi,?d in LUY -`lAMA review!
34 40 23 N _
77 05 23 W Air Photos 10-23-1978 Stria #25
M - Frame 145 L-16
(E) AEC(s) involved: Occan -}Ia::ard
Coastal wetlands
Estuarine waters x
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
Estuarine shoreline x
Public trust waters x
Other. SA Open Waters
j•atcr dependent-: Yes x No Other
Intended use: Public Private x Cor,duercial
Typa of waste water treatment: 'Existing_ Individual sqPtic_to be rgmovedy
P1auned Tertiary treatment plant with ground absorb
?_
Type of structures: *_;,-_isting_ single family residence and RV park to be
--- ---removed
Planned- 4 condo _.b_d?ngs , park i ncr lots. ham.arrow.nd,_bsaat_.hasin- _o.n_11__..ac .
Estiplatc-d annual rdte of Bros ion 0 Source bulkheadjer
7. Habitat- dcscr iptio:i: AREA
(A) Vegetated wetlands: Dredged Filled no coastal wetlands
(B) Non-vegetated wetlands: bottom land Bogue Sound 0.47 ac.
(C) Other:
highground_ basin
_ 9.5 _ ac
(1))1 Total area disturbed: Aunroximately_l t9 ??_a.cres_
S. I.,ro.ject sitamarv The applicant Proposes to develop 12 acres with 2_.5._ ac_high
ground boat basin with 100 boatsli.ps cj ncdxa?.???nS
blzildings with 100 units , total;- varki lots t tennio?zr_R__?,,?1.1_
.__wstewat?.
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Parker, Major Permits Section
Cliff Winefordner, Corps of Engineers
Stephen G. Conrad, Div. of Land Resources
Dr. William T. Hogarth, Div. of Marine Fisheries
Alice Beddingfield, Div. of Community Assistance
-R. Paul Wilms, Div. of Environmental Management
Bill Mills,• Div. of Environmental Management'
FROM: Jim Mercer
RE: Permit application for Rouse-Watson, Inc.
Carteret County
DATE: January 28, 1987
Attached is a revision of the Narrative Description and
Anticipated Impacts sections of the Rouse-Watson, Inc. permit
application package. Please substitute this copy for the one
submitted with the original package dated January 12, 1987.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
l
1
1
?'.?MY ?' ?tJ y
• r? ? •3r `' ,? RC?1:iX??,

9..
r
r
1
Narrative description
The Cedar Point Beach Campground, formerly owned by James
Guthrie, is a 12 acre tract of highground property located on the
west end of Carteret County, just south of Hwy. 24 and east of SR
1116 in the Community of Cedar Point just off the AIWW of Bogue
Sound.
As the work plat drawings show, the property does not extend all
the way from Bogue Sound to Hwy. 24, but is interrupted by a 1
acre private residence owned by David Guthrie and a commercial
tract of land owned by Austin Guthrie which adjoins the highway.
The project site is immediately west of the Cedar Point Villas
project site which was 'routed through the CAMA review process in
1986. This project is the second in a series of three marina
basins that are scheduled for development along the immediate
1000 ft. section of shoreline to the east.
Although this land recently was sold to the current applicants,
the property in question has been used over the course of the
past several years as a family swim beach and RV type campground.
The current owners and developers are Frank Rouse and Ronnie
Watson. With the planning assistance of Paton and Zucchino
Assoc., they plan to completely redevelop the 12 acre site with a
marina basin and 100 unit condominium complex.
In order to'make the 2.5 acre.highground boat basin operative the
applicant proposes to dredge an access channel leading in from the
intracoastal waterway to the.southeast corner of the property
where a small boat basin and ramp exist. As proposed, the new
access channel will measure 340' long by 60' wide and will have an
overall depth of -6' relative to mean low water. The channel
alignment has been staked off by the applicant and will pass
through some shallow water habitat dominated by barren sand
flats. A narrow marsh island is located within 100' of the east
side of the proposed channel. The field inspections which were
made during October 1986 revealed that no significant amounts of
clams or oysters exist along the entire waterfront of the Guthrie
property. However, extensive shallow sand flats dominate the
300-500' wide open water area. between the intracoastal waterway
and the old bulkheaded waterfront property to the north. In
addition, three significant patches of submerged aquatic
vegetation occur along the west end of this shallow water area.
Rather than opening the entire 350' face of the Guthrie property
,to the open waters of Bogue Sound, the developers plan to cut a
90' wide opening in to the highground property and extend the
basin from that point. The actual basin will measure
approximately 340' long by 330' wide and will be excavated to a
depth of -5' MLW. The applicant projects that some 38,000 cu.
yds. of earthen material will be removed from the basin. This
material will be used throughout the project site for landscaping
and grassed areas around the condominium areas. The entire basin
will be bulkheaded with a timber pile structure that will extend
T
some 1500 li.- ft.around the new shoreline. Within the new
basin, floating docks and piers and other walkways will be
constructed to accommodate 100 boat slips assigned in some manner
to each of the respective condominium owners. The applicant
anticipates the following breakdown: 18 40' slips, 20 50' slips
and 62 25' slips. In the upper northeast corner, next to the
basin, there are plans for constructing a small ships store and a
concrete boat ramp.
It is in this generar area between the new bulkhead and the four
highground condominium buildings that the project calls for the
maintenance of a 75' wide vegetated buffer zone. Except for the
intrusion of the concrete boat ramp, access road and the corner
of one condominium building, the area will remain permeable to
rain water and runoff. Work plat drawings labeled S2 and S3 show
the stagger stepped arrangement of the four condominium
buildings, A, B, C, and D. Each building will house 25 units and
have a footprint measuring 120' by 50' or 6000 sq. ft.
Approximately.2.5 acres of land are dedicated to the condominium'
buildings. The majority of land around each of the building will
be maintained as a grassed lawn. Another 2.5 acres just north of
the condo buildings is reserved for automobile parking. The
projected 250 car lot conforms to the county's requirements of
2.5 car spaces per unit. The remaining 4.5 acres of upland
property closest to Hwy 24 will be used.for the wastewater
treatment plant and drain field system, the well site with a 100'
safety radium and a pair of tennis courts.
Storm water management and impervious coverage are major design
features for any development when locating a condo/marina complex
on or adjacent to estuarine waters that are classified open SA
surface waters of the state. The CAMA standard for impervious
surface coverage within the 75' estuarine shoreline AEC is 300
without providing the review agencies innovative designs for
additional surface coverage. The developer of this property has
designed very close to the maximum allowable percentages without
having to provide the additional detail and innovative design
measures that would otherwise protect the surface water quality.
In the case of this proposal, the mathematical calculations are
as follows: the total surface area of the estuarine shoreline
AEC is determined by-multiplying the constant-75' factor by the
shoreline length of 336' which equals 25,200 sq. ft. The
predictable 30% factor of the estuarine shoreline AEC would then
equal 7560 sq. ft. Now for the footprint coverage of each of the
proposed structures within the AEC. The proposed ships store is
measured at 30' x 40' and equals 1200 sq. ft. The concrete
driveway, boat ramp and turn around area combine to equal 44-00
sq. ft.. The 6' wide concrete sidewalk is calculated at 390 sq.
ft. The last impervious item within the AEC is a corner of
r building unit A and is calculated at 1500 sq. ft. When all of
the component parts of the impervious surface areas are added
together, the total equals 7490 sq. ft. This is, of course, 70
sq.. ft. less than the 30% maximum allowance as-prescribed by the
{ CAMA use standards.. The remainder, area of 700 of the AEC will be
covered in lawn grass and will be permeable and capable of
absorbing rainwater runoff. The absorptive capabilities of the
AEC are.important to this project since the condominium area
slopes down towards the marina basin.
Landward of the CAMA AEC line is a 3 acre section of land that
has been designated for the construction of four condominium
buildings which will approximate a total of 21,000 sq. ft, a
central pool and bathhouse which will occupy 5600 sq. ft. and
approximately 15,000 'sq. ft. have been assigned to various
parking spaces. The remainder of this 3 acre area will be
vegetated with yard grass and will cover approximately 2.1 acres.
As indicated by the work plat drawings, all of the paved parking
lot areas will be covered with porous asphalt. The porous
asphalt has been used successfully in other states to reduce the
direct runoff coefficient and increase retention time for volumes
of rainwater. This design technique is continued throughout the
remainder of the project. The applicant has submitted, under
separate cover, a comprehensive stormwater management plan which
is being reviewed by the Division of Environmental Management.
Information gathered during the course of this permit review
indicates that the surface waters of Bogue Sound which connect to
the project site are classified by the Division of Environmental
Management as SA and are open to the harvesting of shellfish.
The applicant has made pre-application contacts with the Division
of Archives.and History and has performed the necessary surveys
required by that agency. Work plat drawings sheet S5 and S6 show
the projected storm water management plan which has been filed
with the Division of Environmental Management. Additional
information concerning the details of these two reports can be
obtained by contacting the appropriate review agency.
10. Anticipated Impacts
The key issue in the review of this marina project is the
possibility of having to close to shellfishing the open SA waters
of Bogue Sound. As was the case in the review of the Cedar Point
Villas project, the tidal range and flushing capabilities of this
particular area of Bogue Sound are exceptional because of their
proximity to Bogue Inlet. This.may be a determining factor in
the obvious lack of oysters and clams in the general area of this
development. It is certain that permit conditions, along with
development scheduling can allow this project to be undertaken
without significant interference to the local marine ecology.
Techniques for excavating the highground basin and controlling
'sedimentation and runoff during construction phases have been
exemplified over the past few months during the course of
development at Cedar Point Villas.
CAMA Review
The 1985 updated Land Use plan for Carteret County was consulted with
the review of the proposal at the Guthrie property. The land
classification map shows the high ground property to be "transition,
commercial", while the surface waters of Bogue Sound are classified
"conservation". Further reading on page 183 of the Land Use Plan
indicates that private services allowed within the transition
commercial class include water and sewer disposal by-package treatment
plant or central distribution.
A review of the Land Use Plan failed to locate any identifiable
physical or development constraints that would otherwise block the
proposed development. The proposed project appears to be consistent
with the goals and objectives of the Carteret County Land Use Plan.
Submitted by: James L. Mercer Date: January 28, 1987

t
r
i
f
APPLICATION
- FOR
PERMIT TO EXCAVATE ANDIOR FILL

WATFR OUALITY CERTIFICATION
EASEMENT IN LANDS COVERED BY WATER CAMA PERMIT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Department of Administration State of North Carolina Department of the Army
(GS 146.12) Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Corps of Engineers, Wilmi ngton District
(GS 113.229, 143.215.3(a)(1), 143.215.3(c), 113A-118 (33 CFR 209.320-329)
_j I
? ni l
Please type or print and fill in all blanks. If information is not applicable, so indicate by pla cing N/
' in bl nk; r •r? C, : i
J
_
1. Applicant Information ----- ---------
A. Name-_ ROUS> -WATSON INCORPORATED -
-
Last First Middle
B. Address
Route
Street, P. O. Box or Route $34-8'20
Emerald Isle, NC 28557 354-2872?? rv.o
City or Town State Zip Code Phone
If. Location of Proposed Project: 3?o'O :211 A. County Cart-art- y ? I 2 N
B. l: City, town, community or landmark Cedar Point C'nn"ini t-g
/7 OJr Z3
2. Is proposed work within city limits? Yes No ._X_
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project Bogue Sound
111. Description of Project
A. 1,. Maintenance of existing project N/A 2. New work RPCi r1enti a 1 r1PVP1 npcaent T.ri th M. ri nn basin
B. Purpose of excavation or fill
1. Access channel X length 300 ftwidth 60 ft depth avera e
_G, ft. MW-
2. Boat basin X length 340 ftwidth 330 ft. depth average - 5. ft. MLW
3. Fill area N/A length width depth
4. Other length width depth
C. 1. Bulkhead feng th+1 , 500 feetA
verage distance waterward of MH1V (shoreline) Behind MHW/Existing at new
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material) CCA Treated S.Y.P. Timbers
D. Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards ± 43,000 c.y. 2. Type of material coarse sand and shell
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (see also VI: A)
1. Cubic yards N/A 2. Type.of material ____N/A
IV. Land Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment:
A. Does the area to be excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes -_ No.
B. Does the disposal area include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes No X
C. Disposal Area
1. Location upland area on-site adjacent to 1prQuQPrd basin
2. Do you claim title to disposal area? yes
0. Fill material source if fill is to be trucked in N/A
L. Flew will excavated material be entrapped and erosion controlled? vegetated earth dike with riser and
i pipe- at di.scharae mint
! . I.'ype of equipment to be used _ hydraulic dredge, dragline
G. Will marshland be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? If yes, explain No
t
10/78
A. 1. Private
2. ' Commercial
3. Housing Development or Industrial _ Private residential develognent with upland boat basin
4. Other
B. 1. Lot size(s)
Attached residential units/condominiutns - 100 units
Elevation of lot(%) above Jnean high water five feet (MSL) to fifteen feet (MSL)
3. Soil type and texture Vmrs.- sand /sandy loam
4. Type of building facilities or structures mid-rise concrete and steel
5. Sewage disposal and/or waste water treatment A. Existing-
B. Describe Private tertiary treatment plant
VI
A
Planned _
1 system
6. 'Land Classification ' VELOPED
CONSERVATION OTHER
Pertaining to Fill and Wat
area following, project completion? Yes-No X (Stormwater will meet current NCDEM standards)
2. Type of discharge N/A
COMMUNITY RURAL
-(Se"e CAMA Local Land Use Plan Synopsis)
A. Does the proposed project involve the placement of fill materials below mean high water? Yes No X
B. 1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned use of the
3. Location of discharge _ N/A
VII. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known): minitnal - property water frontage is bulkheaded.
Vlll. List permit numbers and issue dates of previous Department of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
work in project area, if applicable: N/A
IX. Length of time required to complete project- _ three years
X. In addition to the completed application form, the following items must be provided: '
A. Attach a copy of the deed (with State application only) or other instrument under which applicant
claims title to the affected property. OR if 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 on his land.
B. Attach an accurate work plat drawn to scale on 8%z X 11 " white paper (see instruction booklet for
details). Note: Original drawings preferred - only high quality copies accepted.
C. A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by registered or
certified mail or by publication (G.S. 113-229 (d))Enter date served Ter-^mber 18. 1986
D. List names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's.
Such owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
Cedar Point Villas, P O Box 211, Pollocksville, NC 28573
Austin Guthrie, Highway 24 East, Swansboro, NC 28584
David Guthrie RFS 2, Swansboro, NC 28584
X1. Certification requirement: I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed activity complies
with the State of North Carolina's approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a
manner consistent with such program.
XII. Any permit issued pursuant to this application will allow only the development described in this appli-
cation and plat. Applicants should therefore describe in the application and plat all anticipated devel-
opment activities, including construction, excavation, filling, and land clearing.
i lo-,
DATE 16, 1986
i
t
DA F-82
Rev. 10178
Applicant's Signature
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR MAILING INSTRUCTIONS
X
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
1"ATON / 1 UCCIIINO
GUTHRIE PROPERTY
CAMA Permit Application
Sheet
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
S=9
S-10
S-11
S-12
S-13
r
r
Description
i tf .. f? t , J ? i t,
_..---------------- ---
Vicinity Map
Site Development Plan
Site Development Plan
Channel Alignment and Section
Stormwater Plan ,
Stormwater Plan
Marina Bulkhead and Spoil Basin Details
Storm Drain Pipe and Porous Pavement Details
Observation Well and Drain Pipe Detail
Stormwater Drainage Profiles
Stormwater Drainage Profiles
Stormwater Drainage Profiles
Stormwater Drainage Profiles

t L
H- Cy -A3 `la
I,:uul?ral??• :1r?•liitr?•Iur?•
1:????1??•r ti?lnan•
17 i:i4•imm,41 :1\4 .
I Ia1Ci,, l1. N. C. 2-4 61 13
1)19-; t:; I-11I1_'U
r
i
f
i

a ? ? N Np
N ,--1,y, a m N
N\no'o?o U
?N, 1
Awn-
r 3
7
1n° ,? D

1?.? 9/
%•? N
Q

2 _
r- -
J - -
:1

u- l?L a
-
L c

_ . a
W

am

-4 X

sky F
pp L T ?DDe[ M1
f ?7C ? _ p • ?R / ? i v ? i `W m
r
a"11P m g - .
V %
C •;? •?, .A i .A.
I zz m ' RRRaS???
i
GUTi HRIE PROPERTY
ROUSE - WATfiON, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CARTERET COUNTY, NC ??
n
v-
OSO?4(???j?4?? -? D
N Q ? ? l1
N
N^ ? mm
y • ?• ,1'
N 0
oa°
X cA Z m
S
- -
2 -
s NA
j a, M
r?
a
r u -- -

I

? ? I r

r >
m I
1 1
1 o
1 I I

'
l
vm i
? I
r
t r

I ?

I ?
I ?
D ?
rm
D 1
I I

-
/
w I I1
1 I
S ? N
s
`L
I F
.-M
41
,I

S
N
L
O
;Z
a
S
A
A

z
U `
1
r
N
A
i
i
1
f
L
.Ss
3I
33
O t3
0 J1

? z
Z ?

• • o
?^ o
z
^1 • Z*1
x . • ?Z it ? w ,
--D ?
? Z
t - 1 om ' z
z? L
? n
7
:A .
?-Ij
??. ' Y v
cw , n
c ?
6jtr?4
ur
O
-A.
G
3
r
c -
z-
C
I
1
1 ¦
=
I
I
_-
I _
0

o m
°
r g m

n

C

U L Z m _

0
'
g o Z p !m
"
p C.

Z
m
? Io
P

,,j

-?k
q c
Q O
CQ
t
r
I
1
1
UA
Y
? -1
4-
t
_GUT_H_RIE PROPER'L'Y
ROUSE - WATSON. INC,
CARTERET COUNTY . NC
rvGGRAOING r- STOPM ORAIN GE

? m
o

D_
? r ac•h

i
i
t
1

.I
s?
S ?)
3
r-
2
1 i
1
C +
c
I oil
a• ADA
F?
S
r
i
i
Z
O Y
z
Z
0
Z
Z
u
L
r
L ? 2
? D
z-
N?
D
d ova'

zp
Ag

w

7$ \A

?'
-?
rn -

!
j
?•
Q D a

-y D x

4
0
r
r l
L1 ?
n? z
i'
t

'o A L
n QN
D Z

r . ?
0!
?
11
. v
?

n _
O
? n
D
Z
-o
m
aU_
-4 ?I
D
A '
z
c
z
N
r
O '
m
0
ro
0
A
r
'o
O
;l
O
c
N
D
N
S
D
r
. -v
D
m
x
m
z
N
m.
n
--4
O
z
ur
®IIV
a
4
?s
u ? x Z O
b zz
f"' r'r N
w ..
w Y N ^.
n r O M O
: H
s o $ u
n ?
Y O ,q O O
O p ?
? ? 1 2 p
n D
j > • X
-4 N <
Z '4 •y o_
b ? O
}I '?1
D?
.?1
3
m?
1 O N
N
? (r ? V
N ? x
n
-1
N
3 tP
P
n
p?
1
L
Iq
n
0
co
m
;u.
0
z
m
r
r

3z
-3

a p
m P
I L
Q ) J?
Q
00PP??
1 A
? O
?l
9al
--( Z
,llj !N
?S3?n<. ? gop
l`LZ?IA? ????
pui?z r mmz
?Q O 1 ? ? ? Z Jn
zm?•• Q m ?(1
y m??-t m
?oNC ? ? 0?0
LT m
N ? ? ? i
IF
• &L
r
I
i
SAM
Wt
z

v m?3
c
JD U) )3 fi fI>

%A 4
p?m

ID
cP-.n? ?
?P?? 3
?

j r
rn
Q P
/J Q
Q l? ? ,h
fa
1 .
ut
11

z
'D

N
r
Lm
° av

m
o y
I

n?
Z
m
P?mm 0
-+ m
?m?OO c?
P mm
L ?
J

....... _._' .....__....j
?:. ?.;... .'............
-ji +_ .i....j.........? ........ .........
I .?
1
I •
i
1
M ? .
GUT
HOUSE
CARTCi
'.. .. .:....
I I?! i ,•'I: 11,`?!'•. ir??/.!/LLT .. . • .... I. .. . tI .. .....
U-2 la,
;... I 3... t ...... .......
....... .. .. .. ...1 •.. I•...,....!... ...I .. ..
................ •
o ............. ...: ,.... tp . I
Ir T'
• ?? ,I , :PAM Et-cv'-10.2-
Hl!
.... ..
.
_.1. 0. m...... .
.
.. i
J 0 s 0 vl p
*771
'HRIE PROPERTY
WATSON. INC.
ley COUNTY, NC GRADING & STORM DRAINADE
.n
• ? i
1
1
I ?
1

h
H041 -•1 n-A.
C.r H ,GLli V. - 4. o
;..i... is , .?....I. m ?. ..1 .. .. .: ..
I 1 ??
:....;.... ..

to , I.1 1 , ---- -•-j--- -
iii.l' .I lII, IIIF +tl .,'
M H Z .?. ltl'S ;..1 E A I- A. o,oo ?..
1 G B
r1.cL :f::6.z1 1:: ILI
-j -..... I ...... : ....... ........ ..........
I
;....I.........?....... ..I...... .. .
.:. i1..:.... .......... t ...................
... .............
1- -- .. _, ... ...... -- .
:?.....
+. .. : .. ....... .... ...
...... .... + .. _ ...- ....... .
III {I .L,? ??} ; ,.1 .? ....... .. ...? .... .

f'
1
1
g
.
f
ji?ii!
Ai'i tl.i ??•:I.I?i .f? i .?? .
?''' 1.11 I I. ,'11 ,1 ' ? _•
.III N I ? , Ijt I! '1 1 1
1 r .,
r
II
j:r 11 IIII I j 11 ;I;:
i 11 I? +li. ?I li.s
'I X11, iii '-!?'?' I+•, 1,?, I ,;
?. . I I ,III •: I
r-lu.?• sf1,r..,-e-, i
i I e1H E' K,14-.Qil i
1 1
I 1 ?
.......:,.. -
i
?'. E.. ?... ....... .?........

(? o s o s " - •
n 1 •% Irl• Z_S R-trt E?LN. a ie 1T!. ltj} 1.1
iUOI
J
t - a-?- s
}
r® +
k'?!1 1

I?
' X
I
1 °-
a
1
1

• , L 1

j Z r' I j

... .. ...1... .. .. ....
?:.

'
1

•

11

jt

.17
1 I'
t
- iii ?!! : : .1
........ {....,:.. .i.. ..;... ?

;...;... :... ;... ;... ,l I I .f. d .'... 1 ?.

I 1
........ ...'... ....... .. 1 ' ;

.. .. ' t :, 1, ?:I i 1t r• { .I. I 1 1,? .., :L111 (li i.j

.. ..
...
?... r.1 .E
.;..;:i EJ.ii
11 15..
1t?
it.,:

. ......
...?.
a
... 14

I 17,1
' I
I
I
.
:... .
... ..
:/ .. . ? :.
- .. .. ?. li.l;'• . s • -? 7 ES {CIICI?p LYA . b14' ? ; • _.:.:.j ? : 1 1
......--I-- '---- -------- '
, N?
!i
1
I ?
I
1
F lb

1.
i•
;4 n
?s
;a
iQ
c...... i ....... ...... ......
1
I
........ .... :
......... ...
i = N i
...... ...!. o R. ...l.r. ..
1° 1.
N >n i • .
1
1
i .. ...I ...: .. ........?. N .i..
........ ?....
o
._ .. i ?F dl c, tr-r..
t ..............::. 'T.TJi7:.ti.o. ,
Q
' I
........
o
. .... .1....
..........l ....... .......
0
. ' 1
1 (?
1 t
O
0
T
J
i?11(
VIII
.. (...... ....?. :I... j?...
,.11 . ... .... .... .....
.,.
_... ..j ice. .">:.i.,r?...?o..?
?. (. :.. I. :?. .,.
•H11 '! 110 ?'JIA, 1
1

A
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ti z REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 80365
FED 2 7 1987
4W4D-MEB/LP
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION : Mr. Dave Baker
SUBJECT :. Rouse-Watson, Inc.
(Public Notice No. 87-N-016-0147)
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
This is in response to the subject public notice concerning a proposal to
construct a residential development on 12 acres of uplands with a 2.5 acre
upland boat basin with 100 boatslips. The project site is located in the
Cedar Point Community adjacent to Bogue Sound, Carteret County, North Carolina.
In addition to the boat basin, the applicant proposes to dredge an access
channel leading in from the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway to the southeast
corner of the property. The proposed access channel will measure 340-ft.-long
by 60-ft.-wide and will have an overall depth of minus 6 ft. relative to low
water. Zhe boat basin will be approximately 340-ft.-long by 330-ft.-wide by
-5-ft.-deep MLW. It should a rioted tFiat?t?iough no signs i.dant amounts of
shellfish exist in the vicinity of the proposed project, the surface waters of
Bogue Sound are classified by the Division of Environmental Management as SA
and are open to the harvesting of shellfish.
Increased activities in and around marinas will increase the introduction of
pollutants (fecal bacteria, gasoline and oil) into the waters in and near the
marina. Accordingly, the Environmental Protection Agency has concerns that
the proposed project may create a cronic source of poor water quality.
Consequently, we have determined that the following information will be
necessary before we can fornulate our final comments on this project:
1) A hydrological model of the proposed access canal and boat basin with
cmVuter calculated results fram flushing times and expected dissolved
oxygen. Emphasis should be placed on a worst case analysis.
2) Calculations of expected sedimentation and provisions for disposal of this
sedimentation when dredging becomes necessary.
• -2-
4Je recon¢mend that the permit be held in abeyance until the above referenced
information is received and analyzed by this Agency.
Sincerely yours t
16
E.T. Hein ,Chief
Marine and Estuarine Branch
Water Management Division
cc: see enclosed

cc: Mike Gantt, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raliegh, NC
// R. Paul Wilms, Director
NC Division of Environmental Management
Preston Pate, Chief
Field Supervisor
NC office of Coastal Management
W. Donald Baker
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
John Parker, Permits Coordinator
NC office of Coastal Management
Randy Cheek, Area Supervisor
National Marine Fisheries Service
Beaufort, NC
J.T. Brawner, Regional Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
St. Petersburg, FL

S > ?
E
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
John Parker, Major Permits Section
Cliff Winefordner, Corps of Engineers
Stephen G. Conrad, Div. of Land Resources
Dr. William T. Hogarth, Div. of Marine Fisheries
Alice Beddingfield, Div. of Community Assistance
R. Paul Wilms, Div. of Environmental Management
Bill Mills,, Div. of Environmental Management
Jim Mercer
Permit application for Rouse-Watson, Inc.
Carteret County
January 28, 1987
Attached is a revision of the Narrative Description and
Anticipated Impacts sections of the Rouse-Watson, Inc. permit
application package. Please substitute this copy for the one
submitted with the original package dated January 12, 1987.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
L, 2 : 1 E
ka ? d ' !,.z I Y Wit:: a >

r
r
s

9. Narrative description
The Cedar Point Beach Campground, formerly owned by James
Guthrie, is a 12 acre tract of highground property located on the
west end of Carteret County, just south of Hwy. 24 and east of.SR
1116 in the Community of Cedar Point just off the AIWW of Bogue
Sound.
As the work plat drawings show, the property does not extend all
the way from Bogue Sound to Hwy. 24, but is interrupted by a 1
acre private residence owned by David Guthrie and a commercial
tract of land owned by.Austin Guthrie which adjoins the highway.
The project site is immediately west.of the Cedar Point Villas
project site which was routed through the CAMA review process in
1986. This project is the second in a series of three marina
basins that are scheduled for development along the immediate
1000 ft. section of shoreline to the east.
Although this land recently was sold to the current applicants,
the property in question has been used over the course of the
past several years as a family swim beach and RV type campground.
The current owners and developers are Frank Rouse and Ronnie
Watson. With the planning assistance of Paton and Zucchino
Assoc., they plan to completely redevelop the 12 acre site with a
marina basin and 100 unit condominium complex.
In order to make the 2.5 acre highground boat basin operative the
applicant proposes to dredge an access channel leading in from the
Intracoastal waterway to the southeast corner of the property
where a small boat basin and ramp exist. As proposed, the new
accesschannel will measure 340' long by 60' wide and will have an
overall depth of -6' relative to mean low water. The channel
alignment has been staked off by the applicant and will pass
through some shallow water habitat dominated by barren sand
flats. A narrow marsh island is located within 100' of the east
side of the proposed channel. The field inspections which were
made during October 1986 revealed that no significant amounts of
clams or oysters exist along the entire waterfront of the Guthrie
property. However, extensive shallow sand flats dominate the
300-500' wide open water area between the i.ntracoastal waterway
and the old bulkheaded waterfront property-to the north. In
addition, three significant patches of submerged aquatic
vegetation occur along the west end of this shallow water area.
Rather than opening the entire 350' face of the Guthrie property
,to the open waters of Bogue Sound, the developers plan to cut a
90' wide opening in to the highground property and extend the
basin from that point. The actual basin will measure
approximately 340' long by 330' wide and will be excavated to a
j depth of -5' MLW. The applicant projects that some 38,000 cu.
yds. of earthen material will be removed from the basin. This
' material will be used throughout the project site for landscaping
and grassed areas around the condominium areas. The entire basin
will be bulkheaded with a timber pile structure that will extend

some 1500 li. ft. around the new shoreline. Within the new
basin, floating docks and piers and other.walkways will be
constructed to accommodate 100 boat slips assigned in some manner
to each of the respective condominium owners. The applicant
anticipates the following breakdown: 1840' slips, 20 50' slips
and 62 25' slips. In the upper northeast corner, next to the
basin, there are plans for constructing a small ships store and a
concrete boat ramp.
It is in this.generaf area between the new bulkhead and the four
highground condominium buildings that the project calls for the
maintenance of a 75' wide vegetated buffer zone. Except for the
intrusion of the concrete boat ramp, access road and the corner
of one condominium building, the area will remain permeable to
rain water and runoff. Work plat drawings labeled S2 and S3 show
the stagger stepped arrangement of the four condominium
buildings, A, B, C, and.D.. Each building will house 25 units and
have a footprint measuring 120' by 50' or 6000 sq. ft..
Approximately 2.5 acres of land are dedicated to the condominium
buildings. The majority of land around each of the building will
be maintained as a grassed lawn. Another 2.5 acres just north of
the condo buildings is reserved for automobile parking. The.
projected 250 car lot conforms to the county's requirements of
2.5 car spaces per unit. The remaining 4.5 acres of upland
property closest to Hwy 24 will be used for the wastewater
treatment plant and drain field system, the well site with a 100'
safety radium and•a pair oftennis courts.
Storm water management and impervious coverage are major design
features for any development when locating a condo/marina complex
on or adjacent to estuarine waters that are classified open SA
surface waters of the state. The CAMA standard for impervious
surface coverage' within the 751-estuarine shoreline AEC is 300
without providing the review agencies innovative designs for
additional surface coverage. The developer of this property has,
designed very close to the maximum allowable percentages without
having to provide the additional detail and innovative design
measures that would otherwise protect the surface water quality.
In the case of this proposal, the mathematical calculations are
as follows: the total surface area of the estuarine shoreline
AEC is determined by multiplying the constant 75' factor by the
shoreline length of 336' which equals 25,200 sq. ft. The.
predictable 30% factor of the estuarine shoreline AEC would then
equal 7560 sq. ft. Now for the footprint coverage of each of the
proposed structures within the AEC. The proposed ships store is
,measured at 30' x 40' and equals 1200 sq. ft. The concrete
driveway, boat ramp and turn around area combine to equal 4400
sq. ft. The 6' wide concrete sidewalk is calculated at 390 sq.
ft. The last impervious item within the AEC is a corner'of
building unit A and is calculated at 1500 sq. ft. When all of
the component parts of the impervious surface areas are added
r together, the total equals 7490 sq. ft. This is, of course, 70
sq. ft. less than the 30% maximum allowance as prescribed by the
,t
CAMA use standards. The remainder area of 700 of the AEC will be
- 1 w •
covered in lawn grass and will be permeable and capable of
absorbing rainwater runoff. The absorptive capabilities of the
AEC are important to this project since the condominium area
slopes down towards the marina basin.
Landward of the CAMA AEC line is a 3 acre section of land that
has been designated for the construction of four condominium
buildings which will approximate a total of 21,000 sq. ft., a
central pool and bathhouse which will occupy 5600 sq. ft. and
approximate1y.15,000 'sq. ft. have been assigned to various
parking spaces. The remainder of this 3 acre area will be
vegetated with yard grass and will cover approximately 2.1 acres.
As indicated by the work plat drawings, all of-the paved parking
lot areas will be covered with porous asphalt. The porous
asphalt has been used successfully in other states to reduce the
direct runoff coefficient and increase retention time for volumes
of rainwater. This design.technique is continued throughout the
remainder of the project. The applicant has submitted, under
separate cover, a comprehensive stormwater management plan which
is being reviewed by the Division of Environmental Management.
Information gathered during the course of this permit review
indicates that the surface waters of Bogue Sound which connect to
the project site are classified by the Division of Environmental
Management as SA and are open to the harvesting of shellfish.
The applicant has made pre-application contacts,with the Division
of Archives and History and has performed the necessary surveys
required by that agency. Work plat drawings sheet S5 and S6 show
the projected storm water management plan which has been filed
with the Division of Environmental Management. Additional
information concerning the details of these two reports can be
obtained by contacting the appropriate review agency.
10.- Anticipated Impacts
The key issue in the review of this marina project is the
possibility of having to close to shellfishing the open SA waters
of Bogue Sound. As was the case in the review of the Cedar Point
Villas project, the tidal range and flushing capabilities of this
particular area of Bogue Sound are exceptional because of their
proximity to Bogue Inlet. This.may be a determining factor in
the obvious lack of oysters and clams in the general area of this
development. It is certain that permit conditions, along with
development scheduling can allow this project to be undertaken
without significant interference to the local marine ecology.
,,Techniques for excavating the highground basin and controlling
sedimentation and runoff during construction phases have been
exemplified over the past few months during the course of
development at Cedar Point Villas.
f
CAMA Review
The 1985 updated Land Use plan for Carteret County was consulted with
the review of the proposal at the Guthrie property. The land
classification map shows the high ground property to be "transition,
commercial", while the surface waters of Bogue Sound are classified
"conservation". Further reading on page 183 of the Land Use Plan
indicates that private services allowed within the transition
commercial class include water and sewer disposal by package treatment
plant or central distribution.
A review of the Land Use Plan failed to locate any identifiable
physical or development constraints that would otherwise block the
proposed development. The proposed project.appears to be consistent
with the goals and objectives of the Carteret County Land Use Plan.
Submitted by: James L. Mercer
Date: January 28, 1987

r
r
i
ti
s
? AA d
OFFICE OF COASTAL I°IANAM!"ME'NT
-FIELD INVESI'TGATION PETORT
1. Applicant's name Roug2-:: atson, -Inc. (The Guthrie Proper)
2. Location of project :;i.t-e Southside HWY 24, SR 1116 in the Cedar Po
int

community just off
the_
AIWW-Bogue _
_
Sound, west of Cedar Point Villas
3. Investigation type: Dredge & Fill xx CAMA __ x
4. Investigative procedure: (A) Dates of site visit 10-30-86 12-31-87

(B)
Was applicant _
present_ves-.______ no
5. Processing procedure: Application received Dec. 22, 1986 Office -Morehead City
6. Site description: (A) Local Lund Use Plan-C_aretgrt County__LUP 1985
.
Land classification from LUP Transitional comner_cia1?/conservat.it
Development constraints i.denCified in LUP CAMA review-,
34 40 23 N ___.
77 05 23 W Air Photos 10-23-1978 Strin #25
Frame 145 L-16
(B) AEC(s) involved: Ocean-Hazard Estuarine shoreline x
Coastal wetlands Public trust waters `-^x
Estuarine waters_ x Other SA Open Waters
(C) Mater dependent: Yes x No Other____
(D) Intended use: Public PrIva e x Cont:ercial
(E) Type of waste water treatment: Existing Individual septic to ber_?mOVed.
Planned Tertiarv treatment plant with ground absorb
(F) Type of structures:. F-:isting single family residence and RV park to be
-- -- removed.
Planned- 4 condo I u ldirlas, 1? Axk.ing to phighgxoiarzsl__b-aat,-_baain_szn_12_.ac.
(G) Estimat.cd annual rate of 'erosion. 0 Source
7. Habitat description:
AREA (A) Vegetated wetlands: Dredjs?-ed Filled Other _
no coastal wetlands
(B) Non-vegetated wetlands:
bottom land Boque 'Sound 0.47 ac.
(C) Other:
highground: basin
-----9_.5 ac
(D) / Total area disturbed: Anproximatel 1?
s. ?- ro:ject stmuriary The applicant _proposes _to develop 12 acres with _2_._S _ac._hiccfh-•
ground boat basin with 100 boatslips _and _-- a*n
Mbuildings with 100 units totall parking
wastewatg._a.ttn?n
.
a
9. Narrative description
The Cedar Point Beach Campground, formerly owned by James
Guthrie, is a 12 acre tract of highground property located
on the west end of Carteret County, just south of Hwy. 24
and east of SR 1116 in the Community of Cedar Point just off
the AIWW of Bogue Sound.
As the work plat drawings show, the property does not extend
all the way from Bogue Sound to Hwy. 24, but-is interrupted
by a 1 acre private residence owned by David Guthrie and a
commercial tract of land owned by Austin Guthrie which.
adjoins the highway. The project site is immediately west
of the Cedar Point Villas project site which was routed
through the CAMA review process in 1986.
Although this land recently was sold to the current applicants,
the property in question has been used over the course of the
past several years as a family swim beach and RV type camp-
ground. The current owners and developers are Frank Rouse
and Ronnie Watson. With the planning assistance of Paton
and.Zucchino Assoc., they plan to completely redevelop the
12 acre site.with a marina basin and 100 unit condominium
complex.
In order to make the 2.5 acre highground boat basin operative
the applicant proposes to dredge an access channel leading
in from the intercoastal waterway to the southeast corner
of the property where a small boat basin and ramp exist. As
proposed, the new access channel will measure 340' long by
60' wide and will have an overall depth of -6' relative to
mean low water. The.channel,alignment has.been staked off
by the applicant and will pass through some shallow water
habitat dominated by barren sand flats. A narrow marsh
island is located within 100' of the east side of the
proposed channel. The field inspections which were made during
October 1986 revealed that no significant amounts of clams
or oysters exist along the entire waterfront of the Guthrie
property. However, extensive shallow sand flats dominate the
300-500' wide open water area between the intercoastal waterway
and the old bulkheaded waterfront property to the north. In
addition, three significant patches of submerged aquatic
vegetation occur along the west end of this shallow water area.
Rather than opening the entire 350' face of the Guthrie
property-to the open waters of Bogue Sound the developers
plan, to cut a 90' wide opening in to the highground property
and extend the basin from that point. The actual basin will
measure approxiately 340' long by 330' wide and will be
excavated to a depth of -5' MLW. The applicant projects
' that some 38,000 cu. yds. of earthen material will be removed
from the basin. This material will be used throughout the
r project site for landscaping and grassed areas around the
condominium areas. The entire basin will be bulkheaded with
y a timber pile structure that will extend some 1500 li. ft.
i around the new shoreline. Within the new basin, floating.
docks and piers and other walkways will be constructed to
A
I
accomodate 100 boat slips assigned
the respective condominium owners.
the following breakdown: 18 40' s
25' slips. In the upper northeast
there are plans for constructing a
concrete boat ramp.
in some manner to each of
The applicant anticipates
lips, 20 50' slips and 62
corner, next to the basin,
small ships store and a
It is in this general area between the new bulkhead and the
four highground condominium buildings that the project calls
for the maintenance of a 75' wide vegetated buffer zone.
Except for the intrusion of the concrete boat.ramp, access
road and the corner of one condominium building, the area
will remain permeable to rain water and runoff. Work plat
drawings labeled S2 and S3 show the stagger stepped.arrangement
of the four condominium buildings, A, B, C, and D. Each
building will house 25 units and have a footprint measuring
120' by 50' or 6000 sq. ft. Approximately 2.5 acres of land
are dedicated to the condominium buildings. The majority of
land around each of the buildings will be maintained as a
grassed lawn. Another 2.5 acres just north of the condo
buildings is reserved for automobile parking. The projected
250 car lot conforms to the county's requirements of 2.5 car
spaces per car unit. The remaining 4.5 acres of upland
property closest to Hwy 24 will-be used for the wastewater
treatment plant and drain field system, the well site with a
100' safety radium and a pair of tennis courts.
Information gathered during the course of this permit review
indicates that tree surface waters of Bogue Sound which
connect to the project site are classified by the Division
of Environmental Management as SA and are open to the
harvesting of shellfish. The applicant has made pre-application
contacts with the Division of Archives and History and has
performed the necessary surveys required by that agency. Work
plat drawings sheet S5 and S6 show the projected storm water
management plan which has been filed with the Division of
Environmental Management. Additional information concerning
the details of these two reports can be obtained by contacting
the appropriate review agency.
10. Anticipated Impacts
The overshadowing issue of this marina project is the possibility
that the opened SA waters of Bogue Sound will have to be closed
to shell fishing. The proposed 100 slip marina is the second
in a series of three marina basins that are scheduled for
development along the immediate 1000' section of shoreline.
The potential compounding factor of cumulative impacts from
all three new developments must be adequately assessed. As
was pointed out in the review of the Cedar Point Villas project,
the tidal range and flushing capabilities of this particular
area are exceptional because of their proximity to Bogue Inlet.

q
This may also explain the obvious lack of shell fish in the
immediate vicinity-of the development. .
,It is certain that permit conditions.along with development
scheduling can allow this project to be undertaken without
significant interference with the local marine ecology.
CAMA Review
The 1985 updated Land Use Plan for Carteret County was
consulted with the review of the proposal at the Guthrie
property. The land classification map shows the high
ground property to be "transition, commercial", while the
surface waters of Bogue Sound are classified "conservation".
Further reading on page 183 of the Land Use Plan indicates
that private services allowed within the transition
commercial class include water and sewer disposal by package
treatment plant or central distribution.
A review of the Land Use Plan failed to locate any
identifiable physical or development constraints that
would otherwise block the proposed development. The
proposed project appears to be consistent with the goals
and objectives of the Carteret County Land Use Plan.
Submitted by:
James L. Mercer
Date; January 12, 1987
1
i
APPLICATION
FOR
PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL WATER OUALITY CERTIFICATION
EASEMENT IN LANDS COVERED BY WATER CAMA PERMIT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Department of Administration State of North Carolina Department of the Army
(GS 146.12) Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(GS 113.229, 143.215.3(a)(1), 143-215.3(c), 113A-1 J&? (33 CFR 209.320-329)
Please type or print and fill in all blanks. If information is not applicable, so indicate by placing N/ in bl nk: r+ F `.:°,ns
L?D LJ U l
i
1. Applicant Information _-______„_--------
A. Name ROUSE-WATSON. -INCORPORATED r
Last First Middle
B. Address Route 1, Box 927
Street, P. 0. Box or Route $3?I-,2Q x,??
Etlterald Isle, NC 28557 354-2872
City or Town State Zip Code Phone
II. Location of Proposed Project: 3?o-O' , i
I
A. County C'a
_ r erPt 1 7
B. 1: City, town, community or landmark Cedar Paint Chmmnni ty ?7d .?
2. Is proposed work within city limits? Yes No X
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project - BCSUe SOUnd
111. Description of Project
A. 1. Maintenance of existing project NSA 2. New work. - esi rlPnti a 1 rlinwonl nrrnAnt- with Marina basin
B. Purpose of excavation or fill
1. Access channel X length 300 ftwidth 60 ft depth average _ 6 ft. NLW
2. Boat basin X length 340 ftwidth 330 ft. depth average 5. ft. MLW
3. Fill area N A length width depth
4. Other length- width depth
C. 1. Bulkhead length+l x500 feetAverage distance waterward of MHW (shoreline) Behu?d-kffA]ZExisti.nq at new
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material) CCA Treated S.Y.P. Timbers
D. Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards + 43,000 c.y. 2. Type of material coarse sand and shell
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (see also VI'. A)
1. Cubic yards NSA 2. Type of material _N/A
IV. Land Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment:
A. Does the area to be excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes _X No
B. Does the disposal area include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes No X
C. Disposal Area
1. Location tinl anti - area on-site- -adjacent to pr=-,ed ba2in
2. Do you claim title to disposal area? yes
D. Fill material source if fill is to be trucked in _N/A
E. H?w will excavated material be entrapped and erosion controlled? _ vegetated earth dike with riser and
f pipe at discharge point
1. (,'ype of equipment to be used hydraulic dredge, dragline
G. Will marshland be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? If yes, explain No
ev. 10/78 ?
A. 1. Private
2. Commercial
3. Housing Development or Industrial _ private residential developme-nt with upland boat basin
4. Other
B. 1. Lot size(s) Attached residential units/condominiums - 100 units
Elevation of lot(%) above mean high water five feet (MSL) to fifteen feet (MSL)
3. Soil type and texture CmrsP sand /sandy loam
4. Type of building facilities or structures mid-rise concrete and steel
5. Sewage disposal and/or waste water treatment A. Existing N/A Planned X
B. Describe Private tertiary treatment plant and disposal system
6. 'Land Classification' 6,0 -
COMMUNITY RURAL
CONSn!VELOPED
N OTHER (See CAMA Local Land Use Plan Synopsis)
VI. Pertaining to Fill and Wat
A. Does the proposed project involve the placement of fill materials below mean high water? Yes No X
1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned use of the
area following. project completion? Yes-No x (Stormwater will meet current NCDEM standards)
2. Type of discharge N/A
3. Location of discharge _ _N/A
VII. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known): minimal -property water frontage is bulkheaded.
Vill. List permit numbers and issue dates of previous Department of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
work in project area, if applicable: N/A
IX. Length of time required to complete project: - three years
X. In addition to the completed application form, the following items must be provided:
A. Attach a copy of the deed (with State application only) or other instrument under which *applicant
claims title to the affected property. OR if 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 on his land.
B. Attach an accurate work plat drawn to scale on 8%z X 11" white paper (see instruction booklet for
details). Note: Original drawings preferred - only high quality copies accepted.
C. A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by registered or
certified mail or by publication (G.S. 113-229 (d))Enter date served Decemher 18. 1986
D. List names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's.
Such owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
Cedar Pont Villas, P. O. Box 211, Pollocksville, NC 28573
Austin Guthrie, Highway 24 East, Swansboro, NC 28584
David Guthrie , RFS 2, Swansboro, NC 28584
XI. Certification requirement: I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed activity complies
with the State of North Carolina's approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a
manner consistent with such program.
XII. Any permit issued pursuant to this application will allow only the development described in this appli-
cation and plat. Applicants should therefore describe in the application and plat all anticipated devel-
opment activities, including construction, excavation, filling, and land clearing.
1.4 / /
DATE .p2?,r 16, 1986
i
i
Applicant's Signature
D&F-82 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR MAILING INSTRUCTIONS
Rev. 10178
,t EXHIBIT A •
EXHIBIT B
PZ
A
'ON / ZUCCIIINO
rn, ,
GUTHRIE PROPERTY "
CAMA Permit Application -?
Sheet
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
S=9
S-10
S-11
S-12
S-13

Description
Vicinity Map
Site Development Plan
Site Development Plan
Channel Alignment and Section
Stormwater Plan
Stormwater Plan
Marina Bulkhead and Spoil Basin Details
Storm Drain Pipe and Porous Pavement Details
Observation Well and Drain Pipe Detail
Stormwater Drainage Profiles
Stormwater Drainage Profiles
Stormwater Drainage Profiles
Stormwater Drainage Profiles
Land I'lannin?
Lalldscajjv.:kn hit° inn
Cool)(.1. Square
17 Glen soml ,1 r.
Raleigh, N.C.'37003
919-83 1.=8020

i
r
I
,t
i
t

,Npy $?LLL LN?YrfD' C-
Z
to ? ?° m N
t??°'$ Nw$o?o U
1
a
x
a-
r-
0
J - -
Wh-
z
L 1, o .
=s
?E
n0
?n 0

713
c-
N.

N
r ? ? K
cfiCCy 7 ? i '? T 'r w L
O (R1mCt11? nnn _ 1 ? , y ?L
1 m
2c
(j M
M.'
N
GL..J°T HRIE PROPERTY
.+ -_..-_. SITE OEVEL.OPMEPJT PLAN
.ROUSE • WATSON, INC.
CARTERET COUNTY, NC L
A AIL
I
C'-l
M m • R ^T
oQO
s
9
3 - l
r- `
r-
r
i
o
s
c?
7v
...- .?- t--"
,
Fill
i
l "
I
Ir o P? i i I
1 I
I I° 4N 1 i I
I tnm I t ' I
i
I I j
g ma I I I
a r n , I
? 1 r I
M> MM
1 ZI
r p I ??F$
r
N t ?
/ t R m
o

?I
a
m
N
7
d
S

3
r
L
3
N
• I
0

i 14
1
O is
0 ?1
d
uoR?.H .
O
a
?c
L
• • ` ? Z
? G
N
?rnrn ` ` L
Z-7 3
7
M. ? ? •
? a J
f
1
i
i
I
t
e-
'x -
C-
1
1 =
1
I
? o

o o ? i ? n ? m

(
U P p
? E Z m-
Z
^ ^ < ? L O

? g ? L a ? m

? V
m
A -
c ^"

-c
o
Y
?a
c \
?W
E
GUTHRIE PROPERTY GRADING & STORM DRAINAGE
ROUSE - WATSON. INC,
_
CARTERET COUNTY. NC 15

0
m P?

sr
D

7
r
i
fin
6
;n
m
C ?
c -I
M'-
C ?
I
i
a
F
t
S
i
r
?z
a v'
o s
Z
Si
Z
V
Z

u

D?p
L
D R
rr??
/ l
N?
A
d ov`?
m I?
D I
I 1i•
? I I cry
• I f

_0 p
Ag
cn
a

a

-ci C% rn
?
S
p

.EE
,

,om
N. -EA

714
s
0
s

v L
A
eN
D Z

r ?
C'
' ui PI
v

n
0

n
;u

-v
Ilp
m ?jo
m
ail
Z -1 1
N nTl
D
'r -
r
D
? voR?E? T(Pica?
Z
C
Z
N
r
0
ly
t
ADM

39
D
Il
P?
• F$
i
L
• 111
D?
m
3
ms
m
v
43

0 Pill
rD- . ®Nti7
v
O =1iV =

m N
N ?1-
D Mill
?
0 ?
III
D ?il!

<. - lI
m I??V
Z
O
S -r b -4
?
x <
^~'
o
m

m u
> s S
A
vu ?
2 Z'
? 7D

O
A
r Z N
O O C
Q

z

n?
=
:

,+? H
N 2
no n
C
-1
3'.0

O y
Ian 140

-?
p
?2 p M

? o O
A 7?
-4
•< f

z z
rn
N
.4 -4
0
>. 0
N

N. 4
-1
? ny g 1> -4
O N
X C
i n
v g' ci w
N
-1
?
a
p1
V1
v? ?m VA
?O Nit G ? ? (?ml U
N f ?L A
Jk
..•',1111II, 11 I?i? ?I?1 ICI I?I?tb ?ild:i ?'I It .I;i??ii?b?i?h
<• S? ? X25' 2?
0
Z
(?j N
Pl.
? p?mAm ?Oppn< < gOp oi??
?PLLp
ni
n-t?.a Sao ?? r ? -tpL?
Lm?•' 0 m ?? mom
4og F L,=?, g MM P;4?1m ?
L?n< < T{o p L
?m o ??rcZ? o m m
?l m N CR
p
n Q LL N
r
i
i
v cP P
r
a, ?
o pmm '
p o r
71
0 n III Ott z
? ? ? ?Q A =1I?D L
Z
,D i.
m ,
z =
r@ m Q
n 3 ? ?? A?? `"nn
.i mo p•
D
--a
o vp
me
m -
o
,;.?y... .........?.........
jT ..
...I. I .t1N?tt4- STa. t .r41: '
t ,... I . ..............
... ? .... ........... ........ .
•• 1
,
i
... ... .. .. : CI,M E i-F..Y, 18. z
4 1
r
fink
it
® I
? ....:...:.... _
I0 s 0 ?' D
GUTHRIE PROPERTY
ROUSE - WATSON, INC.
CARTERET COUNTY. NC oRADING S. STORM DRAINAGE
It
i
e '
i
1
Q
I
.. ,.I.. HOOP-1 STA. 0-0
- - - ----------- --------------- -
-i; .. ?. ., r 1 .. .. ... .... .. ,
_.?5.?.' .?....-.?•- HN? ^•.L?.. ?.ta .. .`...
OltYa j...o?oo......;. i.
-? • ......... ... .... j• i........ I
II' H IIII II1? I(j, ?I' I ' I _ _' 1
ii' •;, it', ;II; _ ;' .. .. ....... • ..... ...'.........
I i?? I II l•II I ; i ' I ? ? I• ? ; I
.....I........ .
?. •i I`t. I... ....I......... ?....
1.... ... .... .
....... ..:i
I i! 1, I I I l``
•I!, ilii ? ,.,III, jIi .?: LEI .- --.? _ ....... __ ` ? .._... ? --•--... '
....... .?....?.......
............I
_ ..;.:. '... '....I....,... L... It .. . . ........:..... j...
-•?? ??.I I„ •}: ,? .0 'y ,.r..?- tT - - •I'%/t-1i1? S?'.?: Ce Y?o ?j _....-L.-.Tt _-•.I
...?.. .i. .1: c.1. •r•t.. +'. .'; ;. .1. ...1:.. ...?....f ........ ........
I
ih !'? I!?I III li !lil I'i? illi ? ? ?- ?--X---• ----i - .- -
r T-
1 - -- -i
(tf il'? (I i? I Ili III' I!I?? .. I L,... ?..v.. ; i. ?... ,...
' i;1 '?? .I + I ICI i! •: ?j? ,
.. , ...,....I
II , •I ?' ?i I'?; ;'I I !! ill ?: I .I .... ._.1... ' ...?_._._....j
;-?*r .III I i I , ?---•?
?;• j! ii {??. .:i ;?? :i. 11 III .I.... :..!... ..:.I.• ....
It
1
Ir
f
i
. MA

w
1 1 V. 1X. 2.S A4m ELLI/, s 8.i
r
10 -c-
? T
-- - - ----------------- --------
O f I 1 i
o i ? I J
l
.... ll:iv .1r. 4.0' I HN!RZ. S-TX,. Z?-47 ... i
R EE Or-

I
F?
I ?
( z
R
• ' I L I 1 t
:3 Ali i
119
7-1
.. i ... .. .. ..: i i
I i (I; Iii I• I?? ?I .I
?...
.......f.-- -- ......
................ .. .. ...'.. '?. .+I I .}.... . V .f....
'
i........ _
j?
i !' l I' ,! ; I I (ill i IHm ??II
rl -7 -1,
?a__ - : ik : I l !
I .I.. ...!:.,• 'i; I I: 'I; :?. ,IKfH.E EV.I 15-i iii
Ili l' 1 !ii
l ( I 'J ? ! it Illi ?II. •?' ?l;
I 'T ( ? ?. i! it '?'• ;;;
UI
... . .:t .?....
- ., •• 1-l?•,?• ,s• -? ill Ec.u?wa ,s?'a.. mom. :;. ?;,
----h1V.1 •o.0
-

i
Ir
Oak
4t
W

°
0
I . ...... ........
•
I
I ;

..
a ........ ....

........................... ? ?..... .
'o I
1... ...I...
A........?........ ?....?... ?...
t ............
• I '
. ,. . . ....
o ` •
r ?1 J- oy1 J,

C

i

?i
:?. !III
r~ -
. y.. ...... i ........
I
_ I -
N
? 0

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
k P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890 R E
December 23, 1986
IN REPLY REFER TO r• t~ (? ?''?'
Regulatory Branch INA) ? ? I +?u
SUBJECT: File No. SAWC087-N-016-0147 `?P s F ;?ITS` E l0"!
'JOVVI C:
Rouse-Watson, Incorporated
Route 1, Box 927
Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28557
Dear Mr. Rouse:
On February 6, 1986, we renewed general permit No. SAWC080-N-
000-0291 (enclosed), which provides Federal authorization for
construction activities that receive authorization from the State
of North Carolina.
A review of your application received December 18, 1986, for a
Department of the Army permit to dredge a 300-foot access channel,
a 340-foot by 330-foot basin, construct docking facilities for 100
boats and construct a concrete boat ramp and bulkhead on Bogue
Sound in conjunction with a condominium development off of
Highway 24 in Cape Carteret, Carteret County, North Carolina,
indicates it to be a candidate for Federal authorization under
this general permit. Accordingly, the administrative processing
of your application will be accomplished by the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management. Comments from Federal review
agencies will be furnished to the State.
If your application must be withdrawn from this general permit
process for any reason, you will be written and informed of its
further management. If there are no unresolved differences of
State-Federal positions or policy, the final action taken on your
application by the State will result in your receiving written
notice from us that your application has been successfully
processed under our general permit. Only after receiving such
confirmation should you begin work.
Your application, pursuant to Section 10 of the River and
Harbor Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, has been
assigned No. SAWC087-N-016-0147 and will be coordinated by
Mr. David Baker. Mr. Baker is available to address questions or
comments you may have at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure

-2-
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Manag ement
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
I Mr. William Mills
v Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Charles Jones
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Mr. Larry Zucchino
Cooper Square
17 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 25039
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5039
Mr. Randy Cheek
National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. William L. Kruczynski, Chief
Wetlands Section
Marine and Estuarine Branch
Region IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. James Mercer
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division
of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
December 23, 1986
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: File No. SAWC087-N-016-0147 E ! _7 1 V E D
J 9 1981
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
North Carolina Department
Resources and Community
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Mills:
Management
of Natural
Development
27611-7687

Enclosed is the application of Rouse-Watson, Incorporated, for
a Department of the Army permit and a State Water Quality
Certification to discharge fill material in Bogue Sound in
conjunction with the construction of a condominium development and
associated 100-slip marina facility on Bogue Sound near Cape
Carteret, Carteret County, North Carolina . Your receipt of this
letter verifies your acceptance of a valid request for
certification in accordance with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our
administrative regulations.
We are considering authorization of the proposed activity
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have
determined that a water quality certification may be required
under the provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A Department
of the Army permit will not be granted until the certification has
been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, 60 days
after receipt of a request for certification is considered a
reasonable time for State action. Therefore, if your office has
not acted on the request by February 19, 1987, the District
Engineer will deem that waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to David Baker,
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
a S W.. lis
ief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
-2-
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. James Mercer
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division
of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557

YD It

PATON / ZUCCHINO
& ?:;???:? 1'IT-.-k. 11 \.
December 16, 1986
Mr. Jim Mercer
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557

Dear Jim:
Please find enclosed an application for a major CAMA permit to develop a one
hundred unit residential development and private marina basin on the Gutherie
Property near Swansboro in Carteret County. A pre-application conference was
held on-site in October with agency representatives. The supporting
technical reports requested at that meeting covering hydrogeology, stormwater
runoff and archeology are attached for your review.
Also, in September, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries field personnel
completed a shellfish survey which indicated that no significant shellfish
resources are present in the waters adjacent to the project. The marina basin
will be for private use and will not be open to the general public. The
basin location, design and operation will be consistent with current NCDCM
and NCDEM standards.
We have gone to considerable effort to provide complete and substantive
information concerning the existing site conditions, stormwater management,
archeological review, and marina design and operation. To our knowledge, all
base information concerning the project proposal is provided in the submittal
package. If you require any additional information or supporting material,
please contact me immediately so that we may provide that information as
expeditiously as possible.
The applicant is of course interested in securing a permit in as short a
period of time as possible. Given the extent of the project background data
which has been provided, we would appreciate your efforts to complete the
permit review within the seventy-five day review period.
Sincerely,
LMt q4t66 "
Lawrenc R. Zucchino
cc: Mr. Frank Rouse
Mr. Dave Baker, (USACOE) - cover letter w/permit application
Laml I'launinl
LanIL ralll• i?rl•Ilitl•1•tul•1'
Culllll•r 51(uarr
l i (.ll'llt?111111 :??Y'.
Halcir;ll, N.C. 27003
()1O-83 L-8620
r
? a
s
I
December 16, 1986
GUTHRIE PROPERTY
APPLICATION PACKAGE CONTENTS
1'NTON / IUCCIIINO
1. Application Form
2. Site Development Plans (8 1/2" x 1111)
3. Stormwater Plan (8 1/2" x 1111)
4. Stormwater Management Report
Cnd?
5. Hydrogeologic Evaluation Report
6. Archaeology Survey and Assessment Summary
7. Property Deed Description
8. Development Plans (Blueline 24" x 3611, sets)
t
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
I.;unl-r;iln• 1r?•liil,•, tun•
(a,?,l?rr ?,?u:?n•

APPLICATION
FOR
PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND;OR FILL WATER OUALI TY CERTIFICATION
EASEMENT IN LANDS COVERED BY WATER LAMA PERMIT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Department of Administration State of North Carolina Department of the Army
(GS 146-12) Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(GS 113.229, 143.215.3(a)(1), 143.215.3(c), 113A-118 (33CFR 209.320-329)
Please type or print and fill in all blanks. If information is not applicable, so indicate by placing N/A in blank.
D EV 8 u??
Applicant Information
A. Name ROUS5-WATSON, INCORPORATED
Last First Middle
B. Address Route 1, Box 927
Street, P. O. Box or Route
Emerald Isle, NC 28557 354-2872
City or Town State Zip Code Phone
II. Location of Proposed Project:
A. County f artPrPt-
B. 1. City, town, community or landmark C't-tlar Pni nt- CnnTmini t-y
2. Is proposed work within city limits? Yes No X
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project BOctue Sound
III. Description of Project
A. 1.. Maintenance of existing project N/A 2. New work. Raci rlanti al rlavpl r)=ent- wit-h- Marina basin
B. Purpose of excavation or fill
1. Access channel X Ivngth 300 ftwidth 60 ft depth average - 6? ft. )W
2. Boat basin X length 340 ftwidth 330 ft. depth averaqe - 5. ft. ML,W
3. Fill area N/A length width depth
4. Other length width depth
C. 1. Bulkhead length+1 , 500 feetAverage distance waterward of MHW'(sho'reline) Behind lf-iW/Existinq at new
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material) CCA Treated S.Y.P. Timbers
D. Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards _j: 43,000 c.y. 2. Type of material coarse sand and shell
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (see also VL A)
1. Cubic yards N/A 2. Type of material N/A
IV. Land Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment:
A. Does the area to be excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes • X No
B. Does the disposal area include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes No X
C. Disposal Area
1. Location upland area on-site ad?acPnt to pimpused basin
_
2. Do you claim title to disposal area? yes
D. Fill material source if fill is to be trucked in iN/A
E. How will excavated material be entrapped and erosion controlled? vegetated earth dike with riser and
___pipe at discharge point
F. I ypc of equipment to be used hydraulic dredge, dragline
G. Will marshland be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? If yes, explain No
-El
r
. _v
Intended Use of Project Area (Describe)
A. 1. Private
2. Commercial
,3. Hou-ing Development or Industrial Private residential development with upland boat basin
4. Other
Attached residential units/condominiums - 100.units
Elevation of lot(s) above mean high water five feet (MSL) to fifteen feet (MSL)
3. Soil type and texture narsp -,ancl /sandy loam
4. Type of building facilities or structures mid-rise concrete and steel
S. Sewage disposal and/or waste water treatment A. Existing N/A Planned X
8. Describe Private tertiary treatment plant and disposal system
6. 'Land Classification(circle one) DEVELOPED
' -RAC COMMUNITY RURAL
I_ q
CONSERVATION OTHER (See CAMA Local Land Use Plan Synopsis)
B. 1. Lot size(s)
VI. Pertaining to Fill and Water Quality:
B. 1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned use of the
area following, project com p letion? Yes-No X (Stormwater will meet current NCDEM standards)
2 T f,-!*. h N/A - -

A. Does the proposed project involve the placement of fill materials below mean high water? Yes No X
. ype o sc arge
3. Location of discharge N/A -
minimal -property water frontage is bulkheaded.
VII. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known):
VI I I. List permit numbers and issue dates of previous Department of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
work in project area, if applicable: N/A
IX. Length of time required to complete project: three years
X. In addition to the completed application form, the following items must be provided:
A. Attach a copy of the deed (with State application only) or other instrument under which applicant
claims title to the affected property. OR if 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 on his land.
B. Attach an accurate work plat drawn to scale on 8%z X 11" white paper (see instruction booklet for
details). Note: Original drawings preferred - only high quality copies accepted.
C. A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by registered or
certified mail or by publication (G.S. 113-229 (d))Enter date served ppc'Pmler 18 1986
D. List names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's.
Such owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
Cedar Point Villas, P O Box 211, Pollocksville, NC 28573
Austin Guthrie, Highway 24 East, Swansboro, NC 28584
David Guthrie RFS 2, Swansboro, NC 28584
X1. Certification requirement: I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed activity complies
with the State of North Carolina's approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a
manner consistent with such program.
XII. Any permit issued pursuant to this application will allow only the development described in this appli-
cation and plat. Applicants should therefore describe in the application and plat all anticipated devel-
opment activities, including construction, excavation, filling, and land clearing.
)ATE DLc-emI er 16, 1986
osF•B2
Rev. 10/78
Applicant's Signature
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR MAILING INSTRUCTIONS

GUTHRIE PROPERTY
CAMA Permit Application
Sheet Description
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
PjVr )N / I UCCfIINO
?, ,? ,, 1 11 1 I? 1
S-1 vicinity Map
S-2 Site Development Plan
S-3 Site Development Plan
S-4 Channel Alignment and Section
S-5 Stormwater Plan
S-6 Stormwater Plan
S-7 Marina Bulkhead and Spoil Basin Details
S-8 Storm Drain Pipe and Porous Pavement Details
S-9 Observation Well and Drain Pipe Detail
S-10 Stormwater Drainage Profiles
S-11 Stormwater Drainage Profiles
S-12 Stormwater Drainage Profiles
S-13 Stormwater Drainage Profiles

Q,
N

?7r
DDD
N ? Rj tR
v
n A n
???? rJ?oo?o to
c p
Wh- 13
41
„?NNNY? A?l
?'? n
0 p
f??'s L µ N
r -
N-
0
m
J
c--

A
a
n
?Rm
L
m
?. 0Q
m W
Ali ? -1

EE
h 0
L n ?
ohm ? ? .11 0
'

AXE a

o?
?
u
- g
GUTHRIE PROPERTY
ROUSE - WATSON, INC. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CARTERET COUNTY , N C nrc In as
P
(? D
?P k?
ova ? Z -?i
rF ? ? z

9

C, --
A
N
I
Wig
\ .D
C oa
L
y? 0
? m
i
FF/ I
_? -
- I
- / i
II ? I i
? I
I i; P
o Dm I i I
I I ? I I
am I I I I
I
I I I
I $ WD ? I ?
l 1 rD
I
D-4
:I I Dm I i D
m
E II Z
I I i /-- I m1
? zl
?? n I
$ / c I]o
3 m
L r I I
U) I ti»
m II `?\
I-T
s
:I
•I N
I?•

r
N
L
73
a

A
U
N
A
3
L
.S,
3
33
oN
o?
K
?
Z i
.?

NORTH
O
46.
O
? o
d -
N s r,' -ZiN
z ? 3L.
T_
3? ?v d
u

r -

N-
1 ?.
1 =

i
i
o

r
=
Z P a G-)

° m
m ? ? z ? -
n o v

? g ? z ? m m
t

? z q
++
-- v
m ?
P

-J
-e
_t

E
GUTHRIE PROPERTY.
R GRADING &, STORM DRAINAGE
OUSE - WATSON, INC,
CARTERET COUNTY. NC tl)fr in HK
?.
C'
8 m
0
? `
m F? c
? '
? ? ? ?o, ,
D_
z r ac?A

D v
?? '
? ?

..1 ? i
r-
? _ i
? ?.
N
? `
C ?
s
_? ?`?.??
??
a???
a
? ?? ?
? ? ?
F
y ?i
F?
??
i ` _
??

0
z
Z
? u
Z
u
'L
Dt?a
Z
D
N
D
oa`?
L .?

Ag
o
V' W
X
?? Sr
R
a
I?.
IQ ? ?
I .
-? m
o
CS1
F
r
a
0

N
-c
v
D
r
471
n
0
D_
z
m
z
Ul
D
r
r
D
--I
O
z
I
c
z
N
r-
0
m
0
D
r
'v
O
m
O
c
N
D
N
D
r
A
m
x
m
z
N
m
0
O
2
~ S X ;; O to x a i
Y r+? g
? C

p
xu 0 N
v o

-
' u n'
;ID ?

0 ?

+
\
"
O
M OC •
A

J r
? u
L4 A m
N D
(A
X
Z o $u z° '-4
n +
>o 4A o

ou
-i

>
pX oT ,"o

Z ~ 2
n N
AL
eN ??
L Iq n

l?
n?
<'L 3Z
P. f\ P V.
9 ?m z
-1 -3
o m
ILL
N
W . I...!i!:hla?!
D '
O r
Z 1
r p?((Annm ?v0an< < OOP pgL?$
r- ?eVF ?'LZ-{N?pp ?f??^ Zm
nz
n-l?p nm?, ??m nJ m?m?
,? PP Z? ? m < =? c o -{ m
n ,
B CRti
? p?A PJm? 3
P Q D
rn
`- ?P nrrn ?-
hQ, ?p ?Z?tn r
n ? . III i?i L
? rte A =11=1?
r L
Z
m
z =
D
p ,n G1
N L?
o ?a
-? c
IM -
A T

57.1, 10r41
i
N
?I ,
iil j' ......! ........j .
i
I..... ...............
1 ? .
, i
M N fl. 5. 7L. h + a4
.. . ZJ,M ELEV,= 18.Z
F r
..
GUTHRIE PROPERTY
ROUSE - WATSON. INC.
CARTERET COUNTY . NC GRADING & STORM DRAINAGE
s
? i
i
N
I
I.. r1u0'-1 4TA. o.oo
1 =.LO I r-1 r'i L-C V.. l..o
..?... ??•i I... ?. ' ... .... j .
ji.. iil .. ..... ... _ ..
?... ....... I........I.........?..
i?: : ;-- :....?........ ? .........:.......... .........
1 I I
ilij ?...?... I.
..... - .....I....... ,... .?
ii `I I
. T r_ ...: .i 1 .::: : ..........................
::.::.:'.'.:
" 7' .. I . I . I . !
.I i.........I
Irl ( ? !I'I j? !!i I !. ?' .1.
?lii I' L. Itt? iiii ', i• :.? ..I.:.:;... ...... .......
- ..:. i:.. I?.. ............. i... ...i
0

.tt .,, H ,OAET y.'7 '
I ? ;tll III
tit:I.rt tet t• 1 ?
lo: '11;
Mud
IC.1 r') E
Sf V
V. ,74.5
c
I I
- .........
1
7
7
i
..
.......
...:...
I.....??

I
14
L' . ..
1 C ..:I
I :..
r 1...
i
---
- ;

a
• F?

a
-- T
c• r
D I i i 4 j I j i !
It:voU•1z4.O' 1 NN!t4 6TJ•.:2+47-'
0 V` Q
1 _- •'Sf!? 121? U
t' a2t=J.L?
^ ... 1 V. I&J•2:S FdK ELCV.<B.i
i UY
OA - P 1 t in
t._... _ ... I !A R
A
I 'li I I
P....... .... .... .....
f i t
1.
_a-._ 3k • 1 ? ?
+. _ N .. ..
•I' .I. . ? i i it
I?1 I[?* . 6 L 1 KIrE.ALY }ST2l: 3?
- 7-7....
m
t1
'B
t
Q
T

i
i
I
+R-

O-
i ?
I
0
3
R 3
S j
S
I
4
i
' ... ... ... .... ...i
....... ...I....
p I i
I
D !
........ ,
....!...
... . : . ;. ..
I
. ....... -......
--
?.... .....I. ...... i... ...? ..
??.
?r ... ..-I-
? til'
I'1' ' • I
II III
I?I? ?I
....I .... .i....
; l

•
' ? 1
?
i _ N
I
. ..... ...... a
I .c. .
N i1 i
I 66
l
? i.
.
Z

..1 .... ........ .......
L .. ......?.. .
....... ........ .
....
?...... ..I.
0 f
N
CC

1 ..... .... ?... . ..... ?.. z?.;

.. ....... I ........
I
. ..:....?.... _.._ ............
I

...
I .... ..
! ?. .... ....
? I
II
r}F ......., ... .. ..?. .. .1 Z I
.
1P

' O. .... ;
......

0
0
!.!I!..al... li...
1 L
1
. .... .. ... .. ?.
I
t
l?, I
I