20050240 Ver 1_Complete File_20050208

-TF
United States Department of the Interior pS o a 4 o
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 22, 2005 0 i? ? 1-7-41 L W D
MAY 2 2005
Mr. Henry Wicker
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers DENR - V.NFER GU 1LITY
Wilmington Regulato VETUJZ' Sk<DSTC 1't,ATERErWXi ry Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Subject: Action ID. 200500435, Queens Point, LLC, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Wicker:
This letter provides the comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the letter of the Land
Management Group (LMG), Inc. regarding the subject Public Notice (PN). As the consultant for the
applicant, Queens Point Limited Liability Corporation (LLC), this letter, dated March 29, 2005, provides
responses to Service comments sent to you by letter dated March 18, 2005. The PN states that the
applicant has applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit to dredge an access channel from a five-
acre waterfront tract to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) and excavate a larger basin around an
existing dock dock. These comments and our earlier statements on the proposed work are submitted in
accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d). Comments related to the FWCA are to be used in your determination of compliance with
404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR 230) and in your public interest review (33 CFR 320.4) in relation to the
protection of fish and wildlife resources. Additional comments are provided regarding the District
Engineer's determination of project impacts pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Our letter of March 18 and Service comments to the North Carolina Intergovernmental Review
Clearinghouse by letter dated November 10, 2004, discuss the resources at risk in the project area. We
also provided recommendations for achieving the stated goals of the project while minimizing adverse
impacts to important coastal resources. Our letter on the PN concluded with five specific
recommendations. The LMG letter addresses these five points. We have reviewed these comments and
offer the following points for the Corps to consider in developing the coordinated federal position (CFP)
on this permit application.
First, we requested additional information. including specific draft requirements, to clearly distinguish
between the need to preserve navigation by traditional small recreational boats and the dredging to enhance
of navigation for the larger boats which would use the expanded dock. The Environmental Assessment
(EA) prepared by LMG in May 2004 states (pp. 1-2) that the existing dock has two slips for boats up to 20
feet in length. As part of the proposed dredging, this dock would be enlarged to provide six slips for boats
up to 28 feet in length. The LMG responded that the requested depth of four feet at mean low water
(MLW) was consistent with traditional small boat use. This statement merely reiterates statements given in
the. EA without any supporting information. The supporting information which we would have found
useful include statements that specified individuals have accessed the ARVIA7 from the Queens Point tract
and along Howe Creel: for a specified number of v--a-, in boats reouiring at least four feet of draft at 1\2?? .
1)
The draft requirements of the 20-foot-long boats (at the existing dock) and the 28-foot-long boats (for use
at the expanded dock) are not provided. There is no discussion of the number of boats within the 28-foot-
long size range which have traditionally used the project area to access the AIWW. While boats
approximately 20 feet long may represent traditional small recreational craft, this point is not made by the
LMG. Such statements would document that boats kept along the creek and near Queens Point for many
years have encountered navigation problems in recent years. We continue to find that there is insufficient
evidence to conclude that the stated project purpose, preserving traditional small boat recreational use of
the area (EA, p. 4), requires a channel dredging to a depth of four feet at MLW. If, however, the applicant
wishes to provide "enhancement of access" (EA, p. 16) for larger boats, the stated purpose should reflect
this goal.
Second, the Service requested a consideration of an alternative access channel which starts north of the
existing dock, follows deeper water around the northern tip of the intertidal shoal, and then proceeds east
toward the AIWW. This alternative may be similar to the channel which existed in the 1970 and early
1980. The Field Investigation Report, dated January 31, 2005, of the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management mentions such a channel and notes that it was blocked by shoaling in the mid-1980s. Such
an alternative could minimize the loss of intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats. The LMG responded that
such an alignment would increase the square footage of disturbance to subtidal bottoms. Furthermore, the
LMG notes that a "sharply curving channel" would be more difficult to steer and result in "unintentional
channel side bottom disturbances from boat hulls, outboard lower units and prop wash."
The Service believes that while a northern alternative would be longer, perhaps by a few hundred feet, the
required dredging would not increase in proportion to the increased length. Figure 1 of the EA show that
some water depths around the northern edge of the marsh island are 2.0-3.5 feet at MLW. Less dredging
would be required in such areas of naturally deeper water as compared to dredging through the marsh
island which has elevations of one-half to one foot above MLW. The amount of material to be moved
could be reduced and project cost could even be lower. We also note that proposed channel (EA, Figure 2)
has certain bends which would be not that much different from those required to align the channel around
the marsh island. Furthermore, the fourth comment of the LMG states that slow, potentially idling, speed
may be needed to navigate the turns in the proposed, small channel. Therefore, a channel around the
northern end of the marsh island seems no more harmful to the estuarine habitats than the portion of the
channel along the alignment proposed by the applicant.
We would add that the rules of the Coastal Resource Commission (CRC) discourage dredging through
coastal wetlands. The North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) at 15A NCAC 07H.0208 (b)(1)
states that navigation channels, canals, and boat basins shall be aligned or located so as to avoid, among
other sensitive areas, regularly or irregularly flooded coastal wetlands. The rule goes on to note that
navigation channel and canals may be allowed through narrow fringes of regularly and irregularly flooded
coastal wetlands if the loss of wetlands will have no significant adverse impacts on fisheries resources,
water quality or adjacent wetlands, and, if there is no reasonable alternative that would avoid the wetland
losses. We see an alternative around the northern end of the marsh island, perhaps the access route used in
the recent past, as a reasonable alternative.
Overall, the Service continues to recommend that a permit not be issued until a detailed evaluation has
been made of an alternative that goes around the northern ed._*e of the marsh island rather than throu?,,h the
island. We believe that a small increase in the channel length would be balanced by the preservation of the
intertidal marsh and flats. Furthermore, a navigation channel around the marsh island would reduce the
potential for the additional loss of some coastal marsh due to sloughing and boat wakes over the long term.
3
The slow boat speeds apparently necessary in other parts of the channel should allow boaters to successful
navigate the turns in such a northern channel.
Third, the Service recommended that the coordinated federal position (CFP) should require that dredging
and sediment disposal in the environmental sensitive area be scheduled to avoid both the fish
migration/spawning period and the shorebird nesting season. The exclusion of these important periods
would allow dredging and disposal from October I through February 14. The LMG responded that
hydraulic dredging would not occur from April 1 to October 1. However, the applicant has requested no
restriction on mechanical dredging (clamshell bucket and barge). In our March letter, the Service outlined
reasons for limiting both types of dredging to the period from October 1 through February 14. The CFP
should also consider that the January 2005 FIR recommended that no excavation occur between April 1
and September 30 of any year without prior approval of the NCDCM, in consultation with the North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. As we noted, excluding the period from February 15 through the
end of March would benefit anadromous fish and avoid impacts to fish nursery area.
The Service also raised the issue of adverse impacts on dredge material disposal on the designated spoil
island during the shorebird nesting season, generally April 1 through August 31. While the EA notes (p.
20) that if disposal was required during the nesting season, the material would be placed "outside the
nesting area." However, there has been no consideration on the possibility that shorebird nesting could
occur throughout the disposal site. The LMG responses did not address this issue. For the benefit of both
fisheries resources, other aquatic resources, and shorebirds, we continue to believe the lack of any seasonal
restriction on bucket and barge dredging has not been justified and that a period of four and half months
should be more than sufficient to move approximately 3,000 cubic yards of material.
Fourth, the Service recommended that there should be more information on preventing secondary, adverse
impacts, such as the loss of marsh due to erosion produced by boat wakes. Measures such as aligning the
channel farther from the marsh, an enforceable no wake speed zone, or reduction of the 30-foot width of
the channel in areas adjacent to marsh, would help preserve valuable marsh habitat. The LMG responded
that future marsh erosion is "not anticipated to be a significant factor" due to the slow speeds required to
navigate the turns in the small channel. However, the increase in boat size from a maximum of 20 feet to
28 feet in length, which is likely to occur with the expanded dock, has the potential increase wake impact
simply due to the greater water displacement of the larger boats in the 30-foot wide channel. The Service
continues to believe that the long-term adverse impacts of the proposed channel through and adjacent to
the coastal marsh due to passage of more and larger boats have not been fully considered.
Fifth, the Service recommended that the CFP should fully consider the potential that the initial dredging
would inevitably lead to a permanent requirement for maintenance dredging of the channel. If the
additional information on future boat use in the area indicates that, after initial construction of the channel,
boats requiring the deeper, four-foot MLW draft would navigate the deeper channel, it should be assumed
that permanent dredging in the area would be required for boater safety. In this case, the environmental
impacts of permanent dredging and disposal operation should be considered in permitting initial
construction. The LMG responded that future maintenance would require additional permit review and
authorization. The response also notes that the channel would be for small recreational watercraft. This
issue is related to the first point regarding whether the project is intended to "preserve the traditional small
boat recreational use of the area," as stated in the EA (p. 4) or to enhance access (EA, p. 16) for the lamer
boats proposed for the expanded dock. We believe that if the "initial project," the term used in the EA (p.
1), can be reasonably expected to result in an approximately 40 percent increase in size of boats using the
access channel, then a permanent program of channel dredging is inevitable. Future requests for additional
4
dredging and disposal would be presented as a matter of safety for individuals who acquired larger boats
after the initial project. The presence of significant risks to lives and property would diminish the
opportunity to protect important coastal habitats during future permit reviews. Therefore, it is important to
not segment, or fragment, the environmental analysis of the initial dredging and future maintenance
dredging in this important coastal area. Furthermore, the permanent loss of coastal marsh would require a
proposal for compensatory mitigation.
The Service supports recreational boating in cases where vessel size is compatible with maintaining
important coastal habitats. If individuals wish to create access for larger vessels which are not consistent
with existing navigation conditions, both the short- and long-term environmental impacts should be fully
considered in permitting such alterations of coastal areas. We continue to believe that a DA permit should
not be issued until greater clarification is provided on need, purpose, alternatives analysis, avoidance,
minimization, and potential long-term adverse impacts due to a permanent program of channel dredging
which would require compensatory wetland mitigation.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to respond to the comments of the LMG on this permit
application. If you have questions regarding these comments or wish to discuss the development of the
CFP, please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext. 27 or by e-mail at < [e-mail] >.
Please provide this office with a copy of the coordinated federal position, if one is developed.
Sincerely,
John Hammond
Acting Ecological Services Supervisor
cc:
Rebecca Fox, US EPA, Whittier, NC
Ron Sechler, NMFS, Beaufort, NC
David Cox, NCWRC, Creedmore, NC
Susan Cameron, NCWRC, Stella, NC
John Domey, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
Mike Street, NC division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC
Doug Huggett, NC Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City, NC
Jim Gregson, NC Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington, NC
Steve Morrison, Land Management Group, Wilmington, NC
Y
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
March 18, 2005
a9(r---1@flW95
Mr. Henry Wicker
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers MAR 3 0 2005
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890 DENR-WATEllQUALITY
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 V;tN11 ,D3N?,DS70i., ?`'?TER6FfJtL
Subject: Action ID. 200500435, Queens Point, LLC, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Wicker:
This letter provides the comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the subject Public
Notice (PN). The applicant, Queens Point Limited Liability Corporation (LLC), has applied for a
Department of the Army (DA) permit to dredge an access channel to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(AIWW) and excavate a basin around an enlarged dock. These comments are submitted in accordance
with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Comments related to the FWCA are to be used in your determination of compliance with 404(b)(1)
guidelines (40 CFR 230) and in your public interest review (33 CFR 320.4) in relation to the protection of
fish and wildlife resources. Additional comments are provided regarding the District Engineer's
determination of project impacts pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Proposed Actions and Environmental Impacts
The Service provided comments on the proposed wort: to the North Carolina Intergovernmental Review
Clearinghouse by letter dated November 10, 2004. This office provided you a copy of our comments.
The basis for our November comments was an Environmental Assessment (EA), dated May 2004,
prepared by the Land Management Group, Inc. (LMGI), of Wilmington. LMGI was also provided a copy
of our comments.
The work currently proposed is the same as that presented in the May 2004 EA. The proposed work and
the anticipated impacts are described in the Field Investigation Report (FIR), dated January 31, 2005, of
the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM).
The project area is located at the mouth of Howe Creek at its confluence with the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway (AIWW). The area has been traditionally used by small, recreational boats for navigation
between Howe Creek and the AIWW. The area is part of a larger estuarine system known as Middle
Sound.
The action alternative given in the PN would create an access channel to the east of the dock, cross a
portion of the intertidal shoal, and continue through a shallow, subtidal area north of the shoal to the
AIWW. The channel would be dredged to a depth of-4.0 feet at mean low water (MLW) and have a
bottom width of 30 feet. The access channel would have an overall leny(tli of 750 feet. The FIR states
1)
that part of the dredged channel would cross a sand flat. This sand flat appears to part of the margin of a
marsh island between the dock and the AIWW. The proposed channel would be 22 feet from the marsh
island at its closest point. The FIR states that the applicant anticipates a natural equilibrium slope of 3
horizontal to 1 vertical which would keep the upper edge of the channel approximately ten feet from the
edge of marsh vegetation. The FIR does not indicate that any vegetated shallows would be dredged and
that the process would impact 32,100 square feet (ft), or 0.74 of an acre, of "non-vegetated wetlands."
Dredging would be performed by either a hydraulic cutterhead dredge or a barge mounted excavator.
The existing floating dock structure would be enlarged to a size of ten feet wide by 100 feet long. A
basin around the enlarged dock would be dredged to a depth of -4.0 feet at (MLW). The upper area of the
basin would lie within approximately two feet of the edge of marsh vegetation.
The proposed work is expected to remove 2,900 cubic yards (cy) of sediment. This material would be
pumped or transported to an existing spoil island just east of the junction of the AIWW and Mason Creek.
The EA noted (pp. 19-21) that mechanical dredging could be conducted at any time of year, but
hydraulic dredging and disposal would avoid periods of "peak biological activity." Since birds may nest
in the disposal area, the EA stated (p. 21) that "if any nests are located within or immediately adjacent the
proposed disposal area ... the applicant will consult with the NC WRC [North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission] for avoiding disturbances to these nests."
Federally Protected Species
The Service has reviewed the federally threatened or endangered species under our jurisdiction known to
occur in New Hanover County. This information can be found on our web site at < http://nc-
es.fws.eov/es/cntylist.html >. Information for a more limited area around the project site is available
from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database. This database contains
occurrence records for both state and federally protected species within each U. S. Geological Survey
quadrangle (quad). The occurrence data of special status species within this quad can be obtained on the
internet under the Database Search section of < litti)://www.iictilip.or(-,/PaLes/lierita(-,ed-,ita.litilil >. The
project is located near the junction of the Scotts Hills and Wrightsville Beach quads.
As noted in the EA (p. 13), the Carolina diamondback terrapin (Afalaclemys terrapin eentrata) may occur
in or near the project area. There are occurrence records for this State Special Concern species in both the
Scotts Hill and Wrightsville Beach quads. The species occurs in salt marshes and tidal channels.
Our review indicates that the only federally listed species likely to occur in the project area is the West
Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), a federally-endangered mammal. The species is known to occur in
New Hanover County and there is a current occurrence record in the Wrightsville Beach quad. The EA
states (p. 13) that manatees migrate through the coastal marsh areas during the warmer months. The
shallow, estuarine waters of the project area may provide suitable habitat for manatees that move along
the Atlantic Coast during summer months and are seasonal transients in North Carolina, primarily from
June through October. Manatees may travel in water as shallow as one to two meters (3.3 -6.6 feet) deep.
The species moves extensively when in North Carolina waters and past occurrence records cannot be
used to precisely detennine the likelihood that it will be presence at a particular construction site.
The Service is concerned that dredging in the project area, especially the use of a bucket and barge
dredging procedure, poses a risk to manatees during the wanner months of the year. Pier construction
which requires either jetting and/or pile driving for timber placement can also create a risk to manatees.
3
To minimize any risk to this endangered species, the Service developed "Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts
to the West Indian Manatee - Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina
Waters." These guidelines are available on our web site at <
httn://nc-es.fws.ov/mammal/manateeuidelines.pdf>. The guidelines are intended mainly to ensure
that construction personnel are informed that manatees may occur in the work area, that work should
cease if a manatee approaches the work area, work should not resume until the manatee leaves the work
area, and procedures for reporting the death or injury of a manatee. Protection of the manatee would
further enhanced by scheduling construction during the period from November 1 through May 31 where
the species is least likely to be in North Carolina waters.
With the inclusion of our manatee guidelines, the Service would concur with a determination by the
District Engineer that the action is not likely to adversely affect species designated as threatened,
endangered, or their designated critical habitat. The Corps' requirements under section 7(a)(2) of the Act
would be fulfilled. However, section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review;
or, (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Service Concerns and Recommendations for the Coordinated Federal Position
Resources at Risk - The Service is concerned about any permanent loss of intertidal and shallow subtidal
habitats. Both areas are important fish and wildlife habitat. The ecological values of North Carolina
intertidal flats have been described (Peterson and Peterson 1979). Estuarine soft bottoms play a very
important role in the ecology of estuarine ecosystems as a storage reservoir of chemicals and microbes
(Street et al. 2004, p. 374, available at < http://www.ncdmf.net/habitaUchpp28.litml >). Shorebirds forage
along intertidal habitat of exposed sand bars. Removing a portion of the intertidal shoal would adversely
impact foraging habitat of shorebirds and waterbirds. Birds such as the sanderling (Calidris alba), black-
bellied plover (Pluvialis sguatarola), willet (Catoptrophores sentipalmates), ruddy tumstone (Arenaria
intcrpres) , greater yellowleg (Tringa melanoleeca), lesser yellowleg (Tringa flavipes), marbled godwit
(Limosa fedoa), American oystercatcher (Naenratopes palliates) , laughing gull (Lanus atricilla), herring
gull (Lai-its argentattts), and great black-backed gull (Larus marinus) forage on the algae and
invertebrates of intertidal sand flats. Invertebrates inhabiting intertidal shoals are an important food
source for shorebirds and fishes. The EA notes (p. 18) that intertidal macrofauna that are present in the
dredge footprint would be subject to immediate impact associated with the excavation of the shoal.
Much of Howe Creek is classified as a primary nursery area (PNA) (EA, p. 10). The mouth of Howe
Creek serves as a corridor for fish species migrating to and from spawning, nursery, and feeding areas.
Both the unvegetated shallows and the surrounding marshes serve as important habitat for both resident
and migratory fisheries resources. Direct and indirect adverse impacts to these habitats would be
detrimental to fisheries resources.
The EA states (p. 13) that the NCNHP has designated the proposed disposal island, along with other spoil
disposal islands in the vicinity, as special habitat because it may provide nesting habitat for a variety of
waterbirds including gulls, turns, and skimmers. Three state species of "special concern," the black
skimmer (Rynchops niger), least tern (Sterna antillarum), and common tern (S. hirundo), have current
occurrence records in the Wrightsville Beach quad. Least terns (Sterna antillarum), state listed as
Significantly Rare, have been observed nesting on the proposed disposal island (EA, p. 13).
4
Need and Purpose - Considering the important habitats in the project area, the need for altering the area
should be clearly stated. The area has been traditionally used by small, recreational boats for navigation
between Howe Creek and the AIWW (EA, p. 3). The EA states (p. 3) that existing water depths between
the dock and the AIWW create a navigation hazard during a significant portion of the tidal cycle. The
need for action relates to maintaining the existing use of the area and allowing safe, unobstructed access
from the dock to the AIWW. The EA states (p. 16) that the proposed dredging would "preserve boating
access." However, the same paragraph notes that any "enhancement" of access is considered beneficial.
While there is no specific statement of purpose, the rationale for rejecting the no action alternative
provides the clearest expression of the project goal, i.e., to preserve the recreational use of the area by
traditional small boats (EA, p. 4).
The preferred alternative contains two elements which were not discussed in the need, purpose, or
development of alternatives. First, a 60-foot extension of the existing dock would be constructed. The
dock extension would increase the number of slips from two to six and increase allowable boat size from
20 feet to 28 feet (EA, p. 2). Second, dredging would be conducted in the immediate vicinity of the dock
to allow for safe unobstructed access to and from the slips. These aspects raise the question of whether
the proposed access channel is needed for the "small recreational boats" which have traditionally
navigated between Queens Point and the AIWW or is needed for the larger boats which would use the
expanded dock.
The current PN does not provide information to clearly distinguish between work to preserve "traditional
small boat recreational access" and an effort to enhance or expand access to larger boats. This
information would include the draft requirements of the small recreational boats as well as the draft
requirements of the larger boats which for which the expanded dock is proposed. Such draft requirements
could be considered in relation to the area with a tidal amplitude of 3.8 feet which creates depths of over
two feet to more than seven feet at high tide throughout much of the area. There is no specific discussion
of the degree of access for the 20-foot-long boats which currently use the applicant's dock. If the project
seeks to remove the navigational constraints which exist only at low tide, this need should be presented.
A discussion of the access needs at low tide which cannot be met during high tide should be presented.
A clear distinction between boats which have traditionally used the channel and those which would use
the dredged channel is important in establishing the need for future maintenance of the four-foot channel.
The EA states (p. 1) that depending on channel conditions following initial dredging, "a maintenance
dredging event may be applied for within the first three years." The environmental impacts and sediment
disposal procedures for maintaining the proposed channel have not been considered. If the "initial
dredging" is intended to allow access for boats larger than the traditional small recreational boats of the
past, then maintenance dredging will be continuously required as a matter of safety. The long-term
environmental consequences of a permanently maintained access channel should be considered in the
Corps public interest review.
Analysis of Alternatives - The Service is concerned that the selected alternative cuts across the intertidal
flat rather than following existing, deeper water around the northern end of the marsh island. The EA
recognizes this concern and notes (p. 20) that "different channel alignments have been evaluated in an
attempt to reduce disturbance to intertidal shoal habitat." However, an alignment around the northern tip
of the marsh island was not considered. The preferred alternative would convert approximately 5,750
square feet (0.13 of an acre) of intertidal habitat to subtidal bottoms (EA, p. 19). The EA acknowledges
(p. 19) this loss would disturb a small portion of the foraging habitat of shorebirds and waterbirds in the
area.
While direct losses have been considered, the Service is concerned that the long-term, adverse impacts to
co-,:stal marshes have not been fully evaluated. While the applicant estimates that natural equilibrium, or
sloughing of the channel sides, would bring the channel to within 10 feet of the marsh. A part of the
deeper basin would be within two feet of marsh vegetation. These small buffers may not persist over time
and additional encroachment on the marsh could occur. Chabreck (1988, p. 76, and reference therein)
considered channel dredging adjacent to wetlands and notes that "[A]fter initial construction, canals
continue to widen causing further land loss; the width of canals may double after a decade ... Wave
wa.;h from boats cause shoreline erosion and the widening rate of canals." It has been recommended that
there be no changes in the depth of the muddy areas adjacent to salt marshes (North Carolina Sea Grant
College Program [hereafter NCSGCP], 1996, p. A-30). Since the proposed channel is intended for boat
use, the long-term impact of persistent prop wash poses a risk of continuous marsh erosion.
Du: to both the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed alignment, the Service recommends that
Coordinated Federal Position (CFP) request a consideration of an alignment which would go north from
the existing dock, pass around the northern tip of the shoal, and bend back toward the AIWW before
joining the waterward section of the preferred alignment. Based on Figure 4 of the EA, such an alignment
may only a few hundred feet longer and reduce the need to remove the intertidal shoal. The Service sees
environmental benefits from an alternative which goes around the marsh island rather than through it.
Such an alternative may be the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative
Scheduling Dredging and Disposal - Regardless of the alignment ultimately used, some dredging is
likely to be required to maintain traditional small boat recreational use. The Service seeks to ensure that
non-emergency dredging is timed to avoid the most sensitive period of biological activity. The Service is
concerned that project contains no commitment to establish a definite work period for types of equipment.
A restricted work period would minimize the adverse impact of turbidity and sedimentation. Several
resources would benefit from a limited period for dredging and sediment disposal. Fisheries resources
use the PNA in Howe Creek (EA, p. 10, Figure 8). Primary and secondary nursery areas are generally
used from February 15 to September 30. Shorebird/waterbirds may nest on the disposal island, generally
from April 1 through August 31.
The EA states (p. 4) that if hydraulic dredging is used, the work period would conform to the accepted
period for such work. However, bucket and barge (mechanical) dredging could be conducted throughout
the year. The lack of a seasonal restriction on mechanical dredging appears to be based on the premise
that such operations harm aquatic organisms only through entrainment. The EA notes (p. 19) that
mechanical excavation can be conducted throughout the year since it is generally recognized that "this
form of excavation allows adequate opportunity for individuals to avoid the operating equipment."
The Service does not agree with this assessment. While this rationale considers the actual equipment, it
does not encompass the adverse impacts resulting from turbidity and sedimentation which can extend
over a much wider area than the actual excavation area. If submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) exists
near the dredge area, suspended solids may drift out of the immediate project area and settle on nearby
SAV. Drifting sediment plumes can bury the plants or block sunlight needed for normal growth. High
levels of suspended solids also harm benthic fauna by disturbing food intake by filter feeders and
smothering sedentary organisms. Increased settling of suspended solids can bury fish eggs and make
them nonviable. Increased turbidity can directly interfere with the feeding of certain fish by clogging
gills of filter feeders and deposit feeders and inhibiting feeding by those species that depend on visual
cues to detect food (NCSGCP 1996, p. A-32). Such adverse impacts during the times when post-larval
6
and juvenile fish may be using the PNA of Howe Creek were not fully considered in proposing a work
schedule.
In our November continents the Service recommended a greater consideration of the ability to place
dredged material in the disposal island during the waterbird nesting season without harm to bird nesting
success. As noted, the applicant proposes (EA, p. 20) to evaluate the disposal site if disposal activities are
scheduled during the waterbird nesting season. This evaluation, prior to disposal, would determine if
nests are on the disposal site and the location of any nests. The applicant would then consult with the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) to avoid disturbance to nests in the area. If
nests are located, material would be placed outside the nesting area in coordination with the NCWRC.
While the disposal of 2,900 cy within this area may be able to avoid direct burial of nests, the operation is
likely to be disruptive to nesting birds throughout the site. The EA does not address a situation in which
equipment availability occurs during the nesting season and waterbirds nests are scattered throughout the
disposal area. The EA contain no discussion of an alternative disposal site. There is also no detailed
schedule for the selection of equipment, initial nesting surveys, and actual dredging. The precise timing
of these events would be critical. The point during the nesting season when the island could be
determined to be an acceptable disposal site should be specified. Without such detailed planning and a
backup disposal area, there would be an economic incentive to complete the project as proposed even if
adverse impacts to waterbird reproduction would occur.
The Service recommends that the CFP specify that any dredging and sediment disposal be limited to the
period between October 1 and February 14. Excluding the period from February 15 through September
30 would conform to the period used to protect fisheries resources in primary and secondary nursery
areas. Excluding this period would also provide protection for birds nesting on the disposal island. This
excluded period would also include all but the last month (October) when the federally endangered
manatee is most likely to be present in North Carolina waters. A period of four and half months should
be more than sufficient to move approximately 3,000 cy of material.
Potential for Long-term Loss of Coastal Marsh - The Service is concerned that proposed placement of
a navigation channel close to a marsh could result, over time, in the loss of some coastal marsh. Street et
al. (2004, p. 350) state that the most detrimental effect of boating on wetlands is probably the loss of
vegetation from wave action. While the actual impact of boat wakes on wetlands has not been quantified,
erosion from boat traffic along the AIWW and elsewhere is readily observable and is likely responsible
for substantial (or just localized) loss of fringing wetland habitat (Riggs 2001 as cited in Street et al. 2004,
p. 350). The loss of fringing wetland can result in increased erosion of waterfront property along the
AIW W (Street et al. 2004, p. 350).
Several options could be used to minimize future harm to coastal marsh in the area. First, as noted above,
the access channel could be routed around the marsh island rather than cutting through the northern tip.
Second, the desired 30-foot width of the channel could be reduced in areas where it is adjacent to coastal
marsh. Third, boats using the access channel could be required to travel at low, no wake speeds. While
having a no wake speed zone is desirable, the legal requirements to establish such a zone are complicated
and boaters who ignore the regulation can greatly reduce the intended benefits.
Long-term Impacts of Permanent Channel Maintenance - The Service is concerned that the proposed
work, designated as the "initial project" in the EA (p. 1), would create conditions which require
permanent maintenance of the access channel. As noted, the EA does not clearly establish whether the
proposed channel is meant to preserve navigation for small recreational boats (p. 4) or for the

"enhancement of access" (p. 16). However, the stated ability of the enlarged dock to accommodate larger
boats (EA, p. 2) suggests that the work would directly lead to use of the channel by boats which have not
traditionally had access. Over time as natural shoaling occurs, the larger boats made possible by the
initial channel dredging would encounter access problems. Safety issues would emerge as a justification
for the maintenance dredging mentioned in the EA (p. 1).
The Service recommends that the potential requirement for long-term maintenance dredging be addressed
during the public interest review for the initial channel creation. If access between the applicant's
property and the AIWW is for small recreational boats that have traditionally used the area and access
maximizes the use natural channels of deeper water, then maintenance dredging would be less frequent.
Such circumstances would not require a consideration of maintenance dredging as part of the initial
permit. If, on the other hand, the initial dredging would be used as an opportunity to bring larger boats
into the area, then maintenance dredging would be a certainty and a requirement every few years. In this
case, the environmental consequences of maintenance dredging should be fully considered in permitting
the initial operation.
Summary
The Service supports the goal of preserving the traditional small boat recreational use of the project area.
However, the development of the Coordinated Federal Position (CFP) requires clarification of certain
aspects of the project; a greater consideration of both direct and, especially, long-term environmental
impacts; and a thorough evaluation of measures to minimize adverse impacts. In order to develop the
least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative, the Service recommends that:
1. Additional information should be provided, including specific draft requirements, to clearly
distinguish between the need to preserve of navigation by traditional small recreational boats and the
construction to enhance of navigation for the larger boats which would use the expanded dock. This
information would document that traditional small recreational boats require four-foot water depths at
MLW;
2. In order to minimize the loss of intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats, there should be a consideration
of an alternative which starts north of the existing dock, follows deeper water around the north tip of the
intertidal shoal, and then proceeds east toward the AIWW;
3. The CFP should require that dredging and sediment disposal in the environmental sensitive area avoid
both the fish migration/spawning period and the shorebird nesting season. The exclusion of these
important periods would allow dredging and disposal from October 1 through February 14. This period
should be sufficient to move approximately 3,000 cy of material;
4. There should be more information on preventing secondary, adverse impacts, such as the loss of marsh
due to erosion produced by boat wakes. Measures such as buffers wider than 10 feet, enforceable no
wake speed regulations, or reduction of the 30-foot width of the channel in areas adjacent to marsh, would
help preserve valuable marsh habitat; and,
5. The CFP should fully consider the potential that the initial dredging would inevitably lead to a
permanent requirement for maintenance dredging of the channel. If the additional information on future
boat use of the area indicates that, after initial construction of the channel, boats requiring the deeper,
four-foot MLW draft would navigate the deeper channel, it should be assumed that permanent dredging in
14 It
the area would be required for boater safety. In this case, the environmental impacts of permanent
dredging and disposal operation should be considered in permitting initial construction.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this permit application. If you have questions
regarding these comments or wish to discuss the development of the CFP, please contact Howard Hall at
919-856-4520, ext. 27 or by e-mail at < [e-mail] >. Please provide this office with a copy
of the coordinated federal position, if one is developed.
Si cer ,
Pete Benjan
Ecological Services Supervisor
Literature cited
Chabreck, R. A. 1988. Coastal Marshes. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MN. 138 pp.
North Carolina Sea Grant College Program. 1996. Protecting Coastal Resources from Cumulative
Impacts: An evaluation of the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act. Completed by B.
A. Doll and A. S. Coburn. Edited by C. Burgess. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources. NC Sea Grant Publication No. UNC-SG-96-12. 45pp +
Appendices.
Peterson, C. H. and N. M. Peterson. 1979. The ecology of intertidal flats of North Carolina: a
community profile. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of biological Services. FWS/OBS-
79/39. 73pp.
Riggs, S. R. 2001. Shoreline erosion in North Carolina estuaries. UNC-Sea Grant, Raleigh, NC, 01-11,
68p.
Street, M. W., A. S. Deaton, W. S. Chappell, and P. D. Mooreside. 2004 (September). North Carolina
Coastal Habitat protection Plan - Draft. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Division of Marine Fisheries. Morehead City, North Carolina. 608 pp.
cc:
Rebecca Fox, US EPA, Whittier, NC
Ron Sechler, NMFS, Beaufort, NC
Bennett Wynne, NCWRC, Kinston, NC
Susan Cameron, NCWRC, Stella, NC
John Domey, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
Mike Street, NC division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC
Doug Huggett, NC Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City, NC
Christian Preziosi, Land Management Group, Wilmington, NC
?QF WA1-F9p Michael F. Easley, Governor
?O G William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
March 23, 2005
Queen's Point, LLC
c/o Mr. Robert E. Long, Jr.
300 N. Greene St.,Suite 2050
Greensboro„ NC 27401
SUBJECT: Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification
and Additional Conditions
Queen's Point, LLC
DWQ Project # 050240
New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Long:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions (WQC # 3400) to conduct the
following activity located off Middle Sound Loop in Wilmington, New Hanover County. This approval
allows you to:
1. Dredge an access channel approximately 30' X 750' to a depth of -1.0 mlw ;
2. Dredge a boat basin approximately 60' X 160' to a depth of -1.0 mlw for the boat basin;
3. Construct extensions to the existing floating structures.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your CAMA Major
application received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) in the 401 Wetlands Unit on February
8,2005. After reviewing your application, we have determined that General Water Quality Certification
Number 3400 covers this activity. This Certification allows you to use your CAMA Permit when the NC
Division of Coastal Management issues it. Please keep in mind that there may be additional Federal,
State or Local regulations applicable to your project, such as (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion
Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations, NPDES and Coastal Stormwater. In
addition, this approval will expire when the accompanying CAMA Permit expires unless otherwise
specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your completed CAMA
Major Permit application received by the Division of Coastal Management on January 12, 2005. If you
change or modify your project, you must notify the Division (DWQ) in writing and you may be required to
send us a new application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a
copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If
total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be
required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
conditions listed in the attached certification and the additional conditions listed on the following
page:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Phone [phone] Customer Servicel-877-623-6748
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NO 28405-3845 FAX [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Noce hCarolina
?/ uturally
- - Page Two
Queen's Point, LLC
c/o Mr. Robert E. Long, Jr.
Project # 050240
March 23, 2005
1. Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of completion to this office and a copy to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650;
2. No excavation and no spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian
areas beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the CAMA Major Application. All
construction activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment
and erosion control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state
water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur.
Please notify this Office at the number listed below if any problem arises during the construction of
the project that may affect water quality.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a
written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
. This letter completes the review of the DWQ Permit #050240 under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Joanne Steenhuis or Edward Beck at 910-395-3900.
Sincerely,
X-I
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Attachments: GC # 3400
Certificate of Completion
cc: Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office - Henry Wicker
WiRO- Joanne Steenhuis
401 Oversite Unit, Raleigh - Cyndi Karoly
CAMA - Jim Gregson
CAMA - Doug Huggett
Land Management Group - Steve Morrison
U L??ISI) V
MAR 2 9 2005
tt'tT1AP DSAND STO,??;? TEa BRRANCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact: J. Steenhuis
Non-Discharge Branch WQ Supervisor: Fri RPCk
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Queens Point, LLC
Project Number 05 0240
Recvd From DCNI
Received Date 2/8/05 Recvd By Region
Project Type Dredge & fill

Stream
CI
County New Hanover
County2
Region Wilmington
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream U00 Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
CAMA OTH O Y 57 18-37-23 SA ORW 30,624.
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? Q Y O N Did you request more info? Q Y O N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? Q Y O N
Is Mitigation required? p Y O N Recommendation: Q Issue (* Issue/Coed O Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 341456 Longitude (ddmmss) 774715
Comments:
This office has no objection to this project as proposed, provided that all of the conditions of the
General Water Quality Certification #3400 and the additional conditions in the written 401 Water
Quality Certification are met. JHS 03/23/05
The=-Water.Quality-Certification was written on 03/23/05 JHS=-:
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
Facility Name Queens Point, LLC
Project Number 05 0240
County New Hanover
Regional Contact: J. Steenhuis
Date:
Comments (continued from page 1):
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 2
N.
HCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
February 1, 2005
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Cyndi Karoly
Supervisor
401 Oversight and Express Permits Unit p ??
Division of Water Quality-Surface Water Protection @9 J?
FCB B - 200
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator t, oFP,R w
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review ,DSa',D T oRR?47-ER U0
Applicant: Queens Point, LLC
Project Location: 2535 Middle Sound Loop Road, adjacent to the AIWW and Howe Creel., near
Wilmington, in New Hanover Co.
Proposed Project: The Applicant proposes to excavate a 30 ft. wide by approximately 750 Ft. long access
channel extending from the AIWW to an existing private boat dock. The Applicant also
proposes to excavate a basin around the docking area and to enlarge the existing floating
dock structure.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
February 24, 2005. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Jim Gregson at
[phone]. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached. - -
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED DATE
121 Cardinal rive I ming on, North Carolina 2840b-364b - - --
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net _
An Equal Cppertunity1 A` rmaM Adcn Employer- 50°o Recycled 110°,'o Pcst Consumer Paper
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT - Proposed Permit NIodification
1. APPLICANT'S NAI<IE: Queens Point, LLC
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: 2535 Middle Sound Loop Road, adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway and Howe Creek, near Wilmington, in New Hanover County.
Photo Index - 2000: 22-275 K-L, 3-4 1995: 22-258 K-L, 13-14 1989: 174-10 U-V, 5-6
State Plane Coordinates - X: 2366800 Y: 183903 Rover File: S011217A
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/D&F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - 01/12/05 !:d
Was Applicant Present - Yes (agent) FEB
? - ?oc5
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - Complete on 01/31/05 DENR, WATER QUL, 1'Y
Office - Wilmington t''Ei1 DSAk'DSTOR" Miik't cry
6. SITE DESCRIPTION: ,? i"` nr
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Wilmington/New Hanover Co. 0 Q-`"?'
Land Classification From LUP - Developed
(B) AEC(s) Involved: EW PT ES OR r "
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Private DE`
vzwll
(E Wastewater Treatment: Existing - Septic Tank
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - Single family residence and garage, bulkhead and dock
Planned - Excavation of access channel and basin, addition to existing dock
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source : N/A
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
[AREA]
DREDGED FILLED OTHER
(A) Vegetated Wetlands
(B) Non-Vegetated Wetlands - 32,100 sq. ft. 600 sq. ft.
Open Water (incorporated)
EOt
her - Highground disturbance 160,000 sq. ft.
p
il area)
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 4.4 acres
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F) Water Classification: SA-ORW Open: No
8. PROJECT SUNINIARY: The applicant proposes to excavate a 30 feet wide by approximately 750 feet long
access channel extending from the AIWW to an existing private boat dock. The applicant also proposes to
excavate a basin around the docking area and to enlarge the existing floating dock structure.
U `'
ueens Point, LLC D
Q
Page Two Ft:? ? - 7005
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
l'CIU pSA1JD STCttidi!%si GrAt.'CN
The project site is located at 2535 Middle Sound Loop Road, adjacent to the AIW`W/Middle Sound and Howe
Creek, near Wilmington, in New Hanover County. To find the site, travel north on US Highway 17 from
Wilmington. In the community of Ogden, turn right onto Middle Sound Loop Road (NCSR 1403) and travel
approximately two miles to the entrance of Queens Point (on right). The property is secured with an electronic
gate, and as such, the applicant's consultant, Steve Morrison (Land Management Group, Inc.) should be
contacted at [phone] for access to the property. The high ground property is a 3.14 acre tract of land
that abuts an 8.47 acre, three lot subdivision, also owned by Queens Point, LLC. Existing development on the
site includes an entrance drive, and a single-family dwelling and garage. With the exception of the wetland
areas bordering the site, the entire site is landscaped. High ground vegetation includes ornamental shrubs,
lawn grasses, and large, mature Live Oaks (Quercus virginiana). Elevations on the tract range from 12 to 20
feet above mean sea level (MSL). The property is bordered on the north by a small creek (Spring Branch), on
the south by Howe Creek, and on the east by Middle Sound and the AIWW. The site is directly across the
AIWW from the mouth of Mason's Creek.
The entire 11.61 acre area owned by Queens Point, LLC has 1.06 acres of Section 404 Wetlands that were
delineated by Land Management Group, Inc. and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on June 7,
2001. Section 404 Wetlands are located along the perimeter of the property, associated with the three water
bodies mentioned above. Wetlands along the upper portion of Spring Branch are dominated by freshwater
species including Water Oak (Quercus nigra), Jack-In-The-Pulput (Arisaema triphyllum), Catbrier (Smilax
spp.), and Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). The remainder of the wetlands that border the lower portion
of Spring Branch, Howe Creek and Middle Sound, are typical mixed Coastal/404 Wetlands, vegetated
primarily with Salt Meadow Grass (Spartina patens), Salt Grass (Distichlis spicata), Sea Oxeye (Borrichia
frutescens), and Marsh Elder (Iva imbricata).
The property has approximately 500 linear feet of shoreline along Middle Sound and the AIWW. This area of
the property drops sharply in elevation to a wetland border averaging approximately 15-30 feet in width. The
majority of this shoreline is stabilized by wooden bulkhead and terraced retaining walls. These structures were
permitted under the CAMA General Permit process on July 20, 2001 (General Permit No. 27390-D) and
September 28, 2001 (General Permit No. 28303-D). Waterward of the bulkhead is an area of Common Reed
(Phragmites australis) averaging approximately 10 feet in width. This area transitions to a band of mixed high-
marsh vegetation averaging approximately 15 feet in width and to a band of Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina
altendflora) averaging 3-10 feet in width, along the waters edge. The area of open water adjacent to the
bulkheaded shoreline averages approximately 250 feet in width and is separated from the AIWW channel by a
marsh island measuring approximately 600 feet in length by an average of approximately 300 feet in width. A
large portion of this open water area is exposed sand flat at low tide.
An existing pier and dock extends from the property into Middle Sound just east of the residence. This
structure was permitted on June 27, 2001, also under the CAMA General Permit process (General Permit No.
27390-D). This structure consists of a 6 feet wide by 40 feet long access pier that ramps down to a 10 feet
wide by 40 feet long floating dock which parallels the shoreline. Existing water depths at the floating dock
average approximately -2.0 feet at mean low water (MLW). Access to the existing dock from the AIWW is
via a small shallow channel that runs just west of the marsh island and east of the sand flat. This channel
connects to a deeper water area just north of the applicant's dock. Water depths in this channel average
approximately -0.5 feet at MLW. Another shallower channel extends from the dock into Howe Creek, west of
the sand flat. Water depths at the connection to Howe Creek average -0.0 feet at MLW. An inspection of
aerial photography for this area indicates that the open water area adjacent to the dock was connected to the
AIWW via a deeper channel north of the marsh island in 1978. By 1984 this channel showed signs of
significant shoaling, and by 1989 the channel was completely blocked at low tide.
Queens Point, LLC
Page Three
#?Z`@_ C?m nq
D- ` Ulf,?
c
?'OSA,,011/J?i,,r,,
STCy{f{:n:Cl, y
The waters of Middle Sound and Howe Creek area classified "SA-ORW" by the North Caron4a,?,;vision of
Water Quality. The waters of Middle Sound in the project area are not designated as a Primary Nursery Area
(PNA) by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, however, the waters of Howe Creek, just upstream
from the project area, are designated as a PNA. The proposed project area is outside of the designated PNA
boundaries. This area of Middle Sound is closed to the harvesting of shellfish. The Wilmington/New Hanover
County Land Use Plan classifies the upland areas of the project site as Developed and all areas within CAMA
Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) as Conservation.
.PROPOSED PROJECT:
The applicant is proposing to excavate an access channel from the existing dock to the AIWW. The applicant
is also proposing to enlarge the existing floating dock and to excavate a basin around the newly expanded
structure. To comply with the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA),
an environmental document was prepared for the project and reviewed by NCDENR. A Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by the Division of Coastal Management on October 15, 2004. The
State Clearinghouse review of the project was completed on November 19, 2004. The CA1bIA Major
Permit Application reflects the applicant's preferred alternative as described in the Environmental
Assessment (EA).
The proposed access channel would measure 30 feet in width at the channel bottom and would extend
approximately 750 feet to the -4.0 feet MLW contour near the AIWW channel. The channel would extend
from the existing dock in an easterly direction for approximately 170 feet, crossing the sand flat mentioned
above. The channel would then turn southeast along the deeper water area behind the marsh island and would
continue approximately 250 feet to the southern tip of the marsh island. The channel would then turn northeast
and would follow the existing deeper water contours to the AIWW channel (see applicant's work plan drawing
sheet 5 of 9). At it's closest point to the marsh island, the channel cut would be approximately 22 feet from the
edge of marsh vegetation. The entire channel would be excavated to a depth of -4.0 feet at MLW. Following
construction, the applicant anticipates a natural equilibrium slope of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical, which would
keep the upper edge of the channel approximately 10 feet from the edge of marsh vegetation. At the existing
dock, the channel would terminate in a basin area measuring approximately 160 feet in length by approximately
60 feet in width. This area would also be excavated to a depth of -4.0 feet at MLW. Assuming a 3:1
equilibrium slope in this area also after excavation, the upper area of the basin would lie within approximately
2 feet of the edge of marsh vegetation. The applicant states that the channel and basin would be excavated by
either a hydraulic cutterhead dredge or by a barge mounted excavator. The resulting spoil material (2,900
cubic yards) would be pumped or transported to an existing diked disposal island located east of the project
site. This island is on the eastern side of the AIWW channel, and borders the northern side of Mason's Creek.
This disposal island was used as a borrow site for a beach nourishment project at Figure Eight Island in 1999.
Disposal will be on part of an 11.7 acres portion of the island that is located outside the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer's Right-of-Way. The discharge of effluent resulting from the hydraulic dredging would be through an
existing outlet structure located on the AIWW side of the disposal island. This structure is located within the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's Right-of Way and would be in an area that is currently open to sliellfishing.
The applicant estimates that the disposal area has a capacity to handle approximately 26,700 cubic yards of
material.
The applicant is also proposing to expand the existing floating dock structure. The expansion would consist of
10 feet wide by 30 feet long extensions on each end of the structure. The additions would create a final
floating dock structure of 10 feet by 100 feet. The applicant states that after excavation of the basin area, the
new structure would provide docking space for up to six vessels.
Queens Point, LLC
Page Four
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS:
The excavation of the channel and boat basin would disturb approximately 32,100 square feet of sandy, shallow
bottom area. A shellfish survey of the area conducted by the Division of Marine Fisheries on April 14, 2004
found only one clam and four oysters in sixty (60), one meter square hand rake samples that were taken within
the footprint of the proposed dredge area. In a Memorandum dated April 15, 2004, from Clay Caroon to Fritz
Rohde, Clay Caroon states that even though there are no significant shellfish in the footprint of the dredge area,
there are at least four natural shellfish beds (oyster beds) adjacent to this proposed and alternative channel to be
dredged. He also states that the proposed channel is adjacent to only one oyster bed and the alternative channel
is adjacent to three oyster beds. The placement of 2,900 cubic yards of excavated material in the disposal site
would disturb approximately 3.7 acres of an existing disposal island. The proposed dock expansion would
incorporate an additional 600 square feet of Estuarine Waters and Public Trust Area. After dredging of the
proposed basin area, there appears to be a potential for dockage of up to eight (8) vessels at the structure.
There would be increased turbidity levels during project activity, however, if timed to avoid periods of peak
biological activity, no long-term adverse impacts are anticipated.
Submitted by: Jim Gregson Date: January 31, 2005 Office: Wilmington
D ?(r-">
a?g%
_ p05
F EB g 2
DENR - p SSOEF nA?R ??iCN
Form DCM-MP-1
A-P-PLICATION 91"3" s`r7 I I ?'?
(To be completed by all applicants) FEt3 - nol
DE11R-W,^1fC_`; .'?.! 'Ty
??cTU1:DS I`J?D S7Q??Mn'?+i cn ui'4i?+?F!
1. APPLICANT
c. Street address or secondary road number.
2535 Middle Sound Loop Rd.,Wilminaton (NC)
a. Landowner:
Name Queens Point LLC
Address Suite 2050. 300 N. Greene St.
City Greensboror State NC
Zip 27401 Day Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
b. Authorized Agent:
Name Land Management Group. Inc.
(attn. Christian Preziosi)
Address PO Box 2522
City Wilmington State NC
Zip 28402 Day Phone[phone]
Fax [phone]
c. Project name (if any) N/A
NOTE Permit wilfbe issuedin name of
Candmvner(s), and/or project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County New Hanover
b. City, town, community or landmark.
Wilmington (Middle Sound Loop Road)
Revised 03/95
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? X Yes No
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g.
river, creek, sound, bay)
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterwav (AIWW)
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier,
And excavation and/or filling activities.
Extension of existing private dock to
accommodate four boat slins. Maintenance
dredging of existing channel. Installation of
shower/rinse area.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an
existing project, new work, or both?_
Maintenance dredging of channel: upgrade of
dock: and new shower/rinse area
c. Will the project be for public, private or
commercial use? Private
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, method
of construction and daily operations of proposed
project. If more space is needed, please attach
additional pages. See attached narrative
+? +
?' MAY 19 2GO3
Form DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size-of entire tract 2.3 ac
b. Size of individual lot(s) 50.080 sf
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW
or NWL 12' to 20'
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Wakulla sand
e. Vegetation on tract Magmolia vir.Ziniana.
Mvrica cerifera. Ilex vomitoria. Ouercus
virginiaiia. Celtis occidentalis
f. Man-made features now on tract Sinele-family
residence
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? lca.v tthelocalland useplan)
Conservation Transitional
X Developed Community
Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
Residential (R-20)
1. Is the proposed project consistent with the
applicable zoning? X Yes No
(Attach =oning compliance certificate, ifapplicable)
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment
been done for the tract? X Yes -No
If yes, by whom? Brockineton & Assoc.
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes X No
m. Describe existing wastewater treatment
facilities.
New Hanover Countv Sewer
n. Describe location and type of discharges to
waters of the state. (For example, surface runoff,
Sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
effluent, "wash down" and residential discharges.)
Water from shower/rinse area
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
New Hanover Countv
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
* A copy of the deed (with state application only)
or other instrument under which the applicant
claims title to the affected properties. If the
applicant is not claiming to be the owner of said
property, then forward a copy of the deed or other
instrument under which the owner claims title,
plus written permission from the owner to carry
out the project.
* An accurate, dated work plat (including plan
view and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale
in black ink on an 8 %z" by 11" white paper. (Refer
to Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203
for a detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred
and only high quality copies will be accepted.
Blue-line prints or other larger plats are acceptable
only if an adequate number of quality copies are
provided by applicant. (Contact the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers regarding that agency's use of
larger drawings.) A site or location map is a part
of plat requirements and it must be sufficiently
detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with
the area to
1. Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes No
Coastal (marsh) X Other
If yes, has a delineation been condvc1q4WY&?_r=
Attach documentation, if available)
? V L5 ?
V
Revised 03/45 F E B
B - 2005 r
MAY 19 2Ga3
DENR - WATER QUALITY I 1J
J Li
ViETWIDS &ND STOA ATER CMX.H y
DIVISION OF
COAS _Iiai ?,1L n^ 11-.17
Form DCM-MP-1
the site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
* A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
* A list of the names and complete addresses of
the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners
and signed return receipts as proof that such
owners have received a copy of the application
and plats by certified mail. Such landowners
must be advised that they have 30 days in which to
submit comments on the proposed project to the
Division of Coastal Management. Upon signing
this form, the applicant further certifies that such
notice has been provided.
Name Mr. Archer Wainwrieht
Address 2565 Middle Sound Loop Rd.
Wilmineton. NC 28405
Phone [phone]
Name Mrs. Caroline Baldwin
Address 2519 Middle Sound Loop Rd.
Wilmineton. NC 28405
Phone [phone]
* A list of previous state or federal permits
issued for work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
N/A
* A check for S400 made payable to the
Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources
(DENR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
* A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
* A statement of compliance with the N.C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S.113A -1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of
public funds or use of public lands, attach a
statement documenting compliance with the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
I understand that any permit issued in response to
this application will allow only the development
described in the application. The project will be
subject to conditions and restrictions contained in
the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the
proposed activity complies with the State of North
Carolina's approved Coastal Management Program
and will be conducted in a manner consistent with
such program.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in
fact, grant permission to representatives of state
and federal review agencies to enter on the
aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating
information related to this permit application and
follow-up monitoring of the project.
I further certify that the information provided in
this application is truthful to the best of my
knowledge.
U1
This is the // day of 114 y , 20 03
PrintName Cf/,?IsTA/J PxF2tost
Signature :, ,
Landowner or Au fed Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your
proposed project.
X DCMMP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
_ DCM MP-3 Upland Development
X DCM MP-4 Structures Information
DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOTE: Please sio and date each attachment in
the space provided at the bottom of each
form.
M1 AY 19 2003
Revised 03/95 FEB Q - -?
• 20C`' DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMEi"QUALITY 4'?n DENR WATER cuti `? 15 "1D STO M V,4TER
Form DCM-MP-2
EXCAVATION
AND FILL
(Except bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA
Major Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to
complete all other sections of the Joint Application
that relate to this proposed project.
Describe belowthe purpose ofproposed excavation
or fill activities. All values to be given in feet.
Average Final
Existing Project
Length Width Depth Depth
Access 1) 750' 30' -1.5' -3'
channel
(MI-W) 2) 160' 60' -1.5' -3'
Canal
Boat
Basin
Boat
Ramp
Rock
Groin
Rock
Breakwater
Other
(Excluding
shoreline
Revised 03/95
Q
f tt3 - 2005
1` ? DSO,' S
IVATE TO {'iS?ATE tCRRAnCH
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below
MHW or NWL in cubic yards 2.900 cy
b. Type of material to be excavated Sand
c. Does the area to be excavated include coastal
wetlands (marsh), submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAVs) or other wetlands? Yes X No
d. Highground excavation in cubic yards N/A
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED
MATERIAL
a. Location of disposal area On disposal island
across AIWW from project area (see figure).
Disposal area is located outside of COE easement
on privately owned land.
b. Dimensions of disposal area 400'x 400'
c. Do you claim title to disposal area?
Yes X No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner. *See Attachment
d. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? X Yes . No
If yes, where? Same disposal area
i
j j `? ! i ^1rs J
MAY 1 g 2003
DIVISION OF
COASTAL ivI.4:kNAGE V1ENT
Form DCM MP-2
e. Does the disposal area include any coastal
wetlands (marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes X No
f. Does the disposal include any area in the water?
Yes X No
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION
a. Type of shoreline stabilization N/A
Bulkhead Riprap
b. Length
c. Average distance waterward ofMHW orNWL
d.Maximum distance waterward ofMHW orNWL
e. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months
f. Type of bulkhead or riprap material
g. Amount of fill in cubic yards to be placed below
water level
(1) Riprap
(2) Bulkhead backfill
h. Type of fill material
i. Source of fill material
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
(Excludinb Shoreline Stabilization) N/A
a. Will fill material be brought to site? N/A
Yes No
Revised 03/95
FEB 0 - 2005
e
-ilA1 DS' t
li 40 ST0,21A',QgTUALITY
ER G
XH
If Yes,
(1) Amount of material to be placed in the water
(2) Dimensions of fill area
(3) Purpose of fill
b. Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes _ No
If Yes,
(1) Dimensions of fill area
(2) Purpose of fill
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on
site and erosion controlled? If hvdraulic dredge is
used. material will be dewatered within diked
disposal area. Inlet pipe to be located 50' from
dike. Outlet structure to be located on opposite
side of disposal inlet. Outlet pipe to extend below
MLW. (See attached drawing.)
b. What type of construction equipment will be
used (for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)?
Hvdraulic dredge or bucket and barue
c. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting
equipment to project site? Yes X No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
VEE.vs pol &rr - Z t
Applicant or Project Name
?k-lfj - (12-,-
Sib dff ature
s--/?- 63
Date -_;
I ? Per;`; 1 q c?,,3 ?
DI'1iSlO+'l OF
COASTAL i,,W\I AGENMENT
t
Form DCM-MP4
STRUCTURES
(Construction within Public Trust Areas)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA
Major Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to
complete all other sections of the Joint Application
which relate to this proposed project.
a. Dock(s) and/or Pier(s)
(1) -Commercial Community X Private
(2) Number I (existing)
(3) Length 40'
(4) Width 6'
(5) Finger Piers Yes X No
(i) Number
(ii) Length
(iii) Width
(6) Platform(s) X Yes No
(i) Number I
(ii) Length 40' (existinu); 60' extension
proposed
(iii) Width 10'
(7) Number of slips proposed 4
(8) Proximity of structure to adjacent riparian
property lines >15'
(9) Width of water body 275'
(10) Water depth at waterward end of pier at
MLW or NWL -1.5' mlw
b. Boathouse (including covered lifts) N/A
(1) Commercial Private
(2) Length
(3) Width
c. Groin (e.g. wood, sheetpile, etc.) N/A
(1) Number_
(2) Length(s)
d. Breakwater (e.g. wood, sheetpile, etc.) N/A
(1) Length
(2) Average distance from MHW, NWL or
wetland
Rnised 03/95
'ULI
°LSC?Q?I?'--'
DENR - WATER QUALI
1'?'cT",y 03A',o 5TOntA ATER U ? N
FEB - ?v
DENR - WATEf C, !, °r.,
1'-CTW@SANDSTOa\hv„ i:,
4?'Yu
(3) Maximum distance beyond MHW, NWL,
or wetlands
e. Mooring buoys N/A
(1) Commercial _Community_Private
(2) Number
(3) Description of buoy
(Color, inscription, size, anchor, etc.)
(4) Width of water body
(5) Distance buoy(s) to be placed beyond
shoreline
f. Mooring structure (boatlift,mooring pilings, etc.)
N/A
(1) -Commercial -Community _ Private
(2) Number
(3) Length
(4) Width
g. Other (Give complete description)
Qlzmu LE I LLC
Ap icant or Project Name
Signature
S- iy- 4 3
Date
.., ? g 2603 ?.?
ASDai-
ent By: LAND MANAGEMENT;
010 452 0080 ; liar-14-03 3:28PM; Page 3/3
AGENT AUTHORIZATION
Re: CAMA Major Development Permit Application preparation and
associated tasks for boat channel and dock area navigation
maintenance, addition to the existing floating dock and pier
modification..
I hereby authorize Land Management Group, Inc. to act in my behalf as my agent in the
preparation, submittal and processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this application.
Signature for Queen's of , LLC Date
#@/;z,?U
FEB
8 - 2005
IP ? flsA%DSTp?R?,1 ?R11Y
C'ZVdGfi
111
j ?? r:?r 1 2 U3
DI`J1?{O; t O?
?i [> n j i L "tV111l? ?G R'1 ?
r M r
K,X ?• , ••ti-,.s J .• +
17
4 '??-- SITE -
Y y.
- tui?.•f,i K s • .
?1 2'
FIB 3 - 200.5
17Y
81Wq CH
\v
N SCALE 1". = 2.4 miles
Queens Point Land Management Group, Inc.
New Hanover County, NC Environmental ConsuRants
Maintenance Dredging Project Wilmington, N.C.
AGO ASS
Sheet I of I
Site Vicinity Map
w=

.
.
?• r 4J
'Nz
(
.,
+-„'111 j? ., ,,r,r

V
T
O
j (
t t -
? t ---
O
'?

_

N
HOWE.

' SITE - -
r
• -_
4

AP 5
v

K.'

Ry

Proposed
Disposal Area MASCN
INLET
tr.t ?
J?? 4 ` 3 i fk , 5 LGW
C.3p - 10,7
]?R ?Rar ,y

C.? r,
PSG ??
GO
SCALE 1" = 2000'
Queens Point
New Hanover County, NC
Maintenance Dredging Project
Land Management Group, Inc.
Environmantai Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
Sheet Z of I
USGS Topographic Quad
is

a?

1=

"s .
Queens Point
New Hanover County, NC
Maintenance Dredging Project
12@tRONIT
FE8 g - ?0()., D
DENR - WATE Z U,;,; TY
1'-9TL -X3 J1@ sTO,-,j,1 {ATEA C3,t';!C?t
Land Management Group, Inc.
Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
J
l is
f J

of
SCALE 1" = 1320'
Sheet 3 of 9
Soil Survey Map
FEB 8
1005
DEER Fk?- L"?
IS ',DSANDSTC)R ,Q ,4 ry Dy
0
0
N
II
r
W
J
Q
U
U)
U <n
Y c
? o
=o
c
0
C)
-
4
O c
x
x
?. W
ai
u) a)
5
c
c?
11
XA
c
0
c>s
m
cfj a?
Z' t co
-p U) M
-O
M C:
m o m
> N ¢
J ? _ Im
W
? O O 0
E E E O
rn
O O
O O
CL a a O
a a a L
¢ ¢ ¢ a-
i
1
1
1
I
1
N
11 L j
:J 0 c c`aa
? ? rn
0
00
cni? d a
3o$m
J N O O CL)
(a
N 0 0
: ME c0)
E >> E
E o
N d
CD *0
cE
0 "" m (u
N
O O N m
cn?om
6I
W
i-
O
ZI
Cs
IZ
r
? C
a Z
c
O O
? m
(D c c
tM E
mc-
c0
c
w
?c
a
c
m.
U
tv
T'O
C n-
c O C
o U .?
a. W a)
N C
O O U
O = c
Cl 3 c?
a) c
Z 0
C
2
P o
D ?-?E
FEB 3 - 2005 °
n a
""OA DENR - WATER QUALITY =
?')ETLANDS AND STDRWNATER Mr-H `- O C
LLI 6)
p ry,?A, (n O
t? r r. ?i' i'> o U) U)
I
O
L`' 1-a •?! t?r • N
•r ?' E '; J LU
Z V
N
to :rl
O
N N
?r,, } _ "? 11 II Q
4
r,4 • • r ?rxk [• sti ti t,. rla c4 O .?.
{ ?3 M ?;3 ice} 1•' ' 'h ,?c•. ` *' r, tr v .. co
S,f Sy?? }E+Ca ?r..t•^, ,,'"°r =; i, r"a S?1S ?.i any , 1 r F ? ,. O V :a U
z
i c9 C
r _ Jyr ?Y .V ti Nt,4
V O
r S
c; o E cm
ca >
CL a) ca
?r ?. i4 S co ' r `, t E 6
= cu
b A3
71 a)
t }h'.rati t+Yi'a t••..- 4µi''" _ ?^' .". .!M'."? 4.
a) 0,
"(i U 75 75
a ri t i E ?'
7? ': 1 r s ci .'rlk r i s' t r q? '! .; d C O
Ca.
CL CL 0-
.. • j r § .{?tpT p}y i ?. a a.:Y r?r y ?'§J ?` r / ' C ?
c iw fttl't •(,?''r.) ad '-{} `5 '.C St .j. f 1"r '? f,. "F;( 3? ?,-t l.. a) C cu L)
O
ca
a? a)
a
w: 1 -I/
G
`ii?l!J. a JD
COASTAL ;:1A"''1 =.G?'v1Ef?IT
THIS MAP FOR PRELIMINARY PLANNING ONLY
PROPOSED DREDGE DESIGN
Al YYY
4_10'-?+
N1LW

A2
30' Channel Bottom Width j
Existing Grade (- -1.5' MLNV)
Dredge Depth (-4' MLV)
U i
tic ?ENR. ???!\? , ?
?! l P1g 1 3 2 33 LUFj1V ;510;'i OF
COASTAL i?,?MAN4uFti1??iT
Horizontal Scale: V = 20'
Queens Point
New Hanover County
Maintenance Dredging Project
Land Management Group, Inc.
Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, N.C.
-10'-?
ML?V
Sheet ? of I
Cross sectional view of
proposed dredging alignment
- - J
Cross-Section of Existing & Proposed Structures o

Cf)

Vertical Scale: 1"=4' -I p
<
z
15' - - Horizontal Scale: 1" = 8' &_5
Shoymr Stantion D
Shower/RlnseArea D Z o
(same elevation as G) O 1-n
existing pier) m -n r+i
K O
M C13;U
Z.
m

10,
Z U
6-'
O n a-
y

Existing Pier

E 5' High Marsh 9R?,h
..`. Wetland MHW
Boundary t
y
Low Marsh
C
O \?
I (f? (Spartlna alt miflora)
I
Existing Floating Dock
Wate and

W

' Edg of
Vego tion

MLW
0
10' 20' 30' 150'
I 60' 70'
H 14' - -- ---------------

_5?
Distance (ft) Proposed Dredge Cut (to -4' MLW)
Queens Point Land Management Group, Inc. SHEET 6A OF 9
Environmental Consultants Dock Cross-Section
New Hanover County Wilmington, N.C. Existing & Proposed Structures
D'Y" by CAP 7-03

EisnOH ONUSIX-D Ol
"j, 0
r

o?
°

r
z z
m rn
O O
2 z V
0
O 0
OOD
D o
mO
F
O
cn
w
w
n
rn
o
V,
a
m
0
-D
r -
k
---.. -- -/-... \ ..... --\- - --I- ---r---

?D

O
07 m 0
O f -?
, )
m D ? .
m m cn
c
? 1.
`
x O r ?_ A
O 0 ?• M -.,
Q ra OOCK EXTENSION
__ x 30')

-
m
n
=
G) 1 [
o'--l
rn ?-- -- .JO "

z
m
--- ------- :
? -- ---------------
? NI
rrl
am
x m m
_ cx
x
Z Ln
= z
o c
i Z Z
m cn ?
o
ca ? y ?
y V
z ?
z Q

DOCK EXTENSION
EXISTING FLOATING DOCK
'
' (10' x 30') s
x 40
10
Jo "
WATER CONTROL STRUCTURE
TYPICAL
I
I / DISCHARGE PIPE
TOP VIEW
FRAME
CHANNEL IRON
FRAME \
GALVANIZED HALF-PIPE
X „ V -GROOVE RISER BOARD
48' 0
pEN 1???
;;pSa ?sjo? nQV? !;y
?kE3'Zq?;'Cy
CHANNEL IRON --_
2 X 6 V-GROOVE RISER BOARD
FRONT VIEW
GROUND SURFACE
DIVISIO`a C
iAL
If
I NO SCALE
DISCHARGE PIPE
SHEET 9 OF 9
INSTALLATION, SPECIFICATIONS PER CONTRACTOR
Bare Sand Area
Y
W

U

W

Z

O
00

z?
o
?
W
Q

0
0

m z
O
J1
J
J
Q
In
a

I
:Me.
u r
? I
6p/nr 13.
WmACCASTAL\
yU 11'"AY ?
14`1'
15

I
w
lY
W
c?
Ltl
z
z
a
4

Outlet Pipe (to extend below MI-W)
I ` -

Water Control Structure
Inflow Pipe
/ p/W
1NIRACOASTAL
wATEpw?Y
Limit of COE Right-of-Way
1b ?
1
? w
+\ 1` 2' -
\ 1 ?
IL \ • ` r
}
0
MLW

"'- -
klrl - -'?
1 I 1 ?/ _r

---.
i

1
1
?,-- ®,Area near capacity
/ (avg. 3' from top dike)
/

Existing Dike Wall 0
`
• ,?? ?? a
NOTES:
- Water control structures including inflow pipe and outlet pipe to be used with hydraulic dredge operation.
- Elevations are relative to MLW.
- Inflow pipe will follow toe of dike.
Queens Point
New Hanover County
Maintenance Dredging Project
tl

0
e
I
L4-
9
Z
U
rY
0
MLW
D
FEB 8 - 2005
QUALITY
%-k IAZAN HIGH WAIM LINE
NEAN Low wAIM uNE 3
4
-
SURVEY REFERENCE: LZ.,
BOOK 770, PAGE 620
MAP BOOK 5, PAGE 20
MAP BOOK 4, PAGE 109
FIELD SURVEY do PLOT BY.
RpT A E, PA
R
SO atrawAm ?J? nL we =01
dAL' .ri
CAL 11101 ¦ = FW DAT- 0=61M = INS
SCALE. 1'200'
Land Management Group, Inc.
Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, NC
Sheet 7 of 9
Plan view of disposal area
N.C.G.S. GP.S STATION
'CIWCLOC
® N • 129574.50 FEET
E • VMIC5.31 FEET
1 C V91ND FACTOR : 1.=I-'594
APPRO. LOCATION
PRCPCSED COUNT
SSM 1423
(W= PnYS)
TOP- 16 0-
INN-11.8
>,A
4
1'^
U1N
m\c. C1
\f
1 f O!t
1 / y? t
U
l
1 C!o
11 !fh IQ
1 I
ql
1
!?7
i f yll
LEGEND f a a .I a
1
_-_-_ __ EDSTOXICFM
.?.. PROPERTY Ent
- -11- - - cacm'R U:c 4C
PFHfERlPt C a
._?-,.-
• !',? =TING CONCRETE 1(9 a.
_
.
ACCESS EASE" 441
0
a
? a
a a a ?
'•_r- --1 VETW(D a ?
.T ? SAN. SEVER EASEPENT
-
NEV IRN PIPE PT)
OL IR
NEE
p
0 R
OLD 1RON PIN (0
(O.I.PTN)
p OLD CONCFETE MOTY ENT (OCN) ),I LOCAnON NAP
IV NOT TO SCALE
RLN OF SPI2lc CPANCA 15 LNE
r7 y! YO
?xJ W]W OR t091['dT 1 A W,
oa )ss Pr. 161
?? A• t i._
'Q
-TSfN...?-'.•?S4t110 C`"\'??C ?. • . •• . IJ.9
i ( \ t\11\? \? _1 pCN of e ,@re ?/ ?1..? Nov H"C'%TR COUNTY
11 NNW. IINE
`A \?'"?. ??'.?- 1 v f \ ??\ ?_.?____ '\.,?• EL 2.25
rv,?- SSUH 11 \ V ?? 3OLI ??VAVAIAA\VA?.A1 1 1 Av ,? ___? ?? ??? ' RGD.9
TOP-'6.5 \ 1 1 n?rY 111 \ \ \
is?.'. ' Pa+12.5 \ 1 1 1 ? ? ? \ A\\I S 1 1 \ ?` ? 1 \
CORE LLWC : ? \ \ \ \ 1 l o
FOR 2' CDNNEC10!I 111 ` \?? 11\ NEN NWOAR COVN7Y
°• A
75' CCF:,[RlATICN SET5ACK DS 1\
LOS t 41V1i;;\? 1 1°? 3.14 ACRES 2
LOT \-J,
1 l NAP 8CCR N, I"n `1 1? 1 MAP R..7ORt,t. , ! \ \, ,•s
1 \ V PACE 171 PAE 171
\ I
L
"?y9 rJ?(v,.YuD1S0'R/M?11 1 ,\\111 `\?\? 11 ?-•\, T' \1,?1*.,a",o "+.`!`,, r
•11NA• II JU1?_'I \\ 1 ` \ l 1 (`')m1r\`\ L\cu tlt A\`,Y?? ,. F ,- :?1
av3
nun
?? O?? 111 1 ?'? (??w vA??v`?V av ?- •1,y;F
C' 111 ?'. L1??r?r AAv?`
Jq AadPdNmr 11 IA72 ` ??-- IF-?I \ 1 t•` .
?.wPCwC1n Bl,? IU DEtK 44.
1 1 1 ??
oa lm IT1j 1 FAZE 171
1 1 ^``?'-i',l 1 ` 1
1 11 1 1 1 SAT S PAP IL 1 ( ---- ; 1
11 \ 1 1 YAP DOCK 44.
Nrw 11 {I 1 N PACE 171
PNA1,04 SE
75' '1\
1V 75• CONSEYUPD SETBACK LINE 1
1
aY --,1-?-?` flew pn,E / ILI
CCNS[rN1','4 L11
ANEW wiaEW COUN'TS'
?11 eea,Ara„ LL =i HOWE CREEK
it
a 215
/ Ml9 29
1 1 EBB
1 / FLOOD
NJP. -
YAW. U7t
EL 125
W1 O 29
Dl IEM o< n0
1PA(T 3
DZEPT C IIg4NG 4 w
NEW NAl^u CO.'Nfl•
CONSLWATCH LINE
Y \
ayin
1. PIUfE 14800 r" ID PAM Y ED - Dm gyp( I'M. PNt I74
4 q U1,.v. A ID 'N ?'L - - DUD N 'I'D. -E 1111.
1 PNIM uwuc Y TO W.MNt 9-9 f ATWOM PAAAE WMb E VW
N V. CwU I t-C I• DUD NDA IM P/ 1111
.w0M 3Z PAY 117
A PdIYAI OF M P !IFS 9,.M 15 IOLIIM - A
FLOW WZWD AqA A=S & TO M ROW P51RUM
PAR WP FOR"RW]U C0.Tf. 4G (CCWM^
Pula Na 3MIS8 Dal L KN. E/03A2-)
R I?(c E 7vF
JAN 312005
DIVISION OF
COASTALMANAGEMENT
COMPOSITE SURVEY
FOR
QUEENS POINT, LLC
MEBANE TRACT
HARNETT TOWNSHIP NEW HANOVER COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA JANUARY 9, 2001
SCC 1' = 50'
B+ ?ISHE=;'IN aD. CRIBB
CFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR L-1099
1144 SHIPYARD BLVD.
N9LMINGTON,NC 28412
910-791-0090

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO July 15, 2005
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200500435 and State Permit No. 111-05
Queens Point LLC
Suite 2050
300 North Greene Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27401
Dear Madam or Sir:
R-T F
JUL [R r.,ra [2 0 W R R
2 2. zao5
DENR -WATER QUALITY
V;r7. ,DS AND STOPUNATER BRANCH
Reference your application for a Department of the Army permit to excavate a 30 feet
wide-by 750 feet long access channel extending from the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway to an
existing private dock, excavate basin around dock and enlarge the existing floating structure at
2535 Middle Sound Loop Road, adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway/Middle Sound,
near Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina.
Your proposal has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the provisions and
objectives of general permit No. 198000291. Therefore, you may commence construction
activity in strict accordance with applicable State authorization and the approved plan
(enclosed). Failure to comply with the State authorization or conditions of the general permit
could result in civil and/or administrative penalties.
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 me at the Wilmington Field Office,
Regulatory Division, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Henry Wicker
Regulatory Project Manager
J
Enclosure
Copies Furnished without enclosure:
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Ronald J. Mikulak, Chief
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. David Rackley
NMFS, Habitat Conservation Division
219 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110
Mr. Jim Gregson, District Manager
Wilmington Regional Office
North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management
1237 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
2