19990293 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19990319

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Mr. R. Duane White
Gaston Point developers, LLC
78 River Road
Littleton, N.C. 27850
Dear White
&LT?1WAA•
AWWA% 0-0M% won
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
July 1, 1999
Re: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
Proposed improvements at Gaston Point Resort
WQC Project # 990293 COE # 19920482
Warren County
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No.990293 issued to the Duane White dated July
1, 1999.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Attachments
3238.wgc
Prr e y ,
. teven
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
-10W7"hWDVM'y
Mr. John Parker, Division of Coastal Management
Central Files
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Enviro. Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401
Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (DWQ) Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500. It is issued to Duane
White resulting in impact to 450 feet of shoreline in Gaston County pursuant to revise
application filed on the 19 day of March 1999 to construct boatslips and shoreline stabilization at
Gaston Point Resort.
The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the
waters of Lake Gaston in conjunction with the proposed development will not result in a
violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State
of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections
301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the
application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your
application, as described in the Public Notice. If you change your project, you must notify us
and 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 211.0506 (h) (6) and (7).
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed below. In addition, you
should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project
including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-discharge
and Water Supply watershed regulations.
Condition(s) of Certification:
Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those
outlined in the most recent version of two manuals. Either the "North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual" or the "North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual" (available from the Division of Land Resources in the
DEHNR Regional or Central Offices). The control practices shall be utilized to prevent
exceedances of the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh
water streams and rivers not designated as trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and
reservoirs, and all saltwater classes; and 10 NTUs in trout waters);
2. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be
removed and the natural grade restored after the Division of Land Resources has
released the project;
3. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact with
waters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
4. Should waste or borrow sites be located in wetlands or other waters, compensatory
mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities;
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification
and may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void
unless the above conditions are made conditions of the Federal 404 and/or coastal Area
Management Act Permit. This Certification shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA
permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon
written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must
be in the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C.
27611-7447. If modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an
adjudicatory hearing on the modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following
receipt of the Certification. Unless such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and
binding.
This the 1 st day of July 1999
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WQC # 3238
Wetlands Tracking
Facility Name Duane White/Gaston Point Developers I County Warren
Project Number 99 0293 County2
0Inactive Region Raleigh
Project Type purpose of stabilization I DCM Office
Location Lake Gaston I COE Office Raleigh
401s Last Total Total Total Mit Recvd Sent to Recvd Action 401 401 Totals Mit
Recvd From Date Region Region Date Last Action Acres Feet Acres Feet
APP 9/9 01
1401
e
Total for Project:
Inspections/ Violations
Inspection Date Inspector Compliant Letter Type Date Sent Reply Date Current St
.: r- .
InsDect.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment LTWMAI
and Natural Resources / • •
Division of Water Quality
61 AdMINE
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor D E N R
Bill Holman, Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch & Wetlands/401 Unit
Location: 4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Mailing Address: 1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699
FAX: [phone]
FAX TO: /Vf 1-4v) ve I -C I FAX NUMBER: I
FROM: C
PHONE:
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
If you receive this fax by mistake call: ESB [phone] or Wetlands [phone].
TO: Jean Manuele, Regulatory Specialist
Corps of Engineers ?i'edmont 4a-1- FROM: Owen F. Anderson, Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: July 15, 1999
SUBJECT: Comments and Recommendations on Site Visit to Gaston Point Development,
C/o Mr. R. Duane White, 78 River Road Littleton NC, Action ID No. 199920482
Staff biologists with the Wildlife Resources Commission have completed a review of the
subject pre-discharge notification to assess impacts on wildlife and fishery resources in the area.
Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33
U.S.C. 466 et seq.), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
This correspondence is pursuant to the public notice listed above and dated March 18,
1999 and the site visit with the applicant, USCOE and Division of Water Quality on June 8,
1999. We had requested that the initial permit be held because it did not minimize impacts to
shoreline and follow our original recommendations.
The shore at the site is not exhibiting excessive erosion except in isolated spots where the
banks are steep. Most of the shoreline is gentle and does not appear to be eroding abnormally.
The application had proposed bulkheading and/or riprapping relatively long reaches between
piers. There was also a bridge proposed over a shallow cove that would have isolated the
shallow cove from the lake.
We are providing the following recommendations to assist the applicant, the COE, DWQ
and North Carolina Power with minimizing impacts to the shoreline and completion of this
review.
1. Based on the erosion and potential for erosion, we request that shoreline stabilization be
limited to the extent needed to protect the pier foundations at the shore and that this
stabilization be done using riprap instead of bulkheads. Filter cloth should be used
beneath the riprap. The pier abutments can extend to the top of the bank in these areas
and waterward for three feet and should be on a 2:1 slope. The stabilization should be
Duane White 2 July 15, 1999
199920482, Lake Gaston
limited to 15 feet on either side of the pier or to the minimum distance needed to protect
the pier structure from erosion.
2. It is recommended that the remainder of the shoreline be protected using the most
environmentally friendly means of stabilization. The reaches of the shore where there is a
gentle slope (e.g., back of shallow cove) could probably be stabilized with plantings of
native shrubs at the waters edge and trees on the adjacent shore. For areas exhibiting
some minimal erosion, using coir (coconut fiber) rolls along the shore and backfilling and
f, planting the area with native shrubs and trees is a recommended method of stabilization.
An alternate method is to use a single line of rock along the toe of these areas that have
'44t slight undercuts, back fill the voids and stabilize with native shrub vegetation at the
shoreline-water interface and plant the adjacent (minimum 10 foot wide) near shore area
with trees and shrubs. Filter cloth should be used to prevent the soil from eroding into
the lake. Soils will need to be stabilized with grasses or other herbaceous species and
planted with native shrubs.
3. The proposed bridge, which was to be used for fishing and to protect a swimming area,
will need to be modified so that it does not extend across the cove. The cove at the
proposed location is 127.5 feet. Based on our standard recommendations and conditions
of permits, the piers should extend only'/, the distance or no greater than 31 feet from the
water's edge during normal pool levels.
4. The species of trees and shrubs planted along the shore should be species native to the
area. Species selection should take into account the soil moisture, the soil holding
characteristics and the proposed use of the property. Tag alder, black willow and button
bush are shrub species that are suitable for planting at the soil water interface. Tag alder
may be preferable for the site since this species should not grow as tall as black willow.
River birch may be a good candidate to plant in the 10-foot near shore area because this
species exhibits fast growth, tolerance for various soil moistures and good stabilization
characteristics. Surveying undisturbed stable shorelines in the area may reveal additional
species that are appropriate for this site.
We previously had some discussion concerning restoration of native forest, shrub and
herbaceous vegetation to the NC Power Property at this project site. The goal was to work
cooperatively with the applicant and NC Power so that this shoreline reach would serve as a
demonstration area for this FERC project. We can provide guidance on species selection for
wildlife benefits and aesthetics and review landscape plans. We would like to continue to
explore this opportunity because we believe it would be beneficial to all parties. However, the
forest buffer restoration is a separate issue from this permit and the conditions we have outlined
above.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this permit application and hope these comments
will be helpful in completing the new application and review. If we can provide further
assistance to you or the applicant, please contact our office at [phone].
cc: Cindy Bell, Wetland Scientist, DWQ
Joe Peterson, Reservoir Manager, NC Power
Duane White, Applicant
??oa93
?,?e-?,-F _ ? -F? .-??? ? ?Q ? ? obi-?o?
c6i &I
f L /l
ar ,l .I ?? lip 11
nG v ?G 6A i s fuel ,
CV

3- l-77 6-jc/ Pr,
ae,
r
12
q S'? F ?r h f/' O S?-,o? C a,17 r S ?,
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL HEADER SHEET
Fm use of llis fort see AR 25.11; the propowt apemy is 001SC4
COMMAND/ NAME/ OFFICE TELEPHONE FAX NO.
OFFICE OFFICE
SYMBOL NO.
(AUTOVON/CommJ. (AUTOVON/Comm.!.
FROM:
USACOE/RALEIGH CESAW-RG-R [phone] [phone]
REGULATORY FIELD
OFFICE
TO:
UNCLASS

CLASSIFICATION PRECE ENCE N0. PA S DATE-TIME MONTH YEAR RELEASER'S SIGNATURE
(Including this
ea er
••??

REMARKS C ? v •
Space Below for Communications Center Use Only

DA FORM 3918•R, AUG 12 IS OBSOLETE
USAPPC V2.10
DA FORM 3918-R, JUL 90

T,01? C ?? V-'\ (A,? E-) ?4?

Appendix 2
Page 1 of 4
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Best Management Practices
For Bridge Demolition and Removal
The following Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(BMP-BDR) were developed in coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
the Wildlife Resource Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and others
with the goal of establishing a consistent, environmentally sound approach to the
demolition and removal of bridges on North Carolina's public road systems. These
Practices shall be an addendum to (not a replacement for) NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
The primary objective of these guidelines shall be to protect the water quality and
aquatic life of the affected environment in the vicinity of a project. The Department shall
use these BMP-BDR consistently on all projects involving bridge removal over Waters of
the United Stated.
BMP-BDR's AFFECTING PLANNING PHASE
All projects shall be categorized at the planning stage as Case 1, 2, or 3. For
Case 1 "in water" work is restricted to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or Threatened and/or Endangered Species (T&E
Species). All work potentially effecting the resource will be carefully coordinated with
the agency having jurisdiction. Case 2 allows no work at all in the water during
moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into
nursery areas. Case 3 is where there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in
Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and the supplements added
by this document on Bridge Demolition. All three Cases are subject to BMP-BDR's.
During the planning stages of a project, the impacts of Bridge Demolition shall be
considered and then addressed in the planning document. An approximation of the
volume of bridge debris which is to be dropped into Waters of the United States is to be
summarized. The quantification shall be a simple calculation of discharge quantities
(length of bridge multiplied by an approximate cross section of bridge deck and beams
plus a similar calculation of the bridge piers) in cubic yards. NCDOT's Natural
Resources Technical Report (NRTR) shall summarize possible impacts to aquatic life and
to water quality. Because it is not feasible to establish the extent or potential use of
causeways during the planning document, the NRTR shall assume that there will be
causeways or construction pads and address their impacts qualitatively but not
quantitatively.
During the planning stages of a project, the Wildlife Resource Commission, the
Division of Water Quality, the Division of Marine Fisheries, or National Marine Fisheries
Service may indicate a special concern regarding increased sediment levels during
construction. During their NRTR field investigations, the NCDOT Natural Systems
1 For the purposes of this document, the terms water, waters, or Waters of the United States shall be
synonymous and shall include jurisdictional wetlands.
Appendix 2
Page 2 of 4
Specialist shall determine if the streambed is composed of such a material. In the event
that disturbance of the streambed would create sedimentation concerns, the sediment
shall be contained where feasible by means of turbidity curtains (or similar devices)
surrounding the area of concern. It shall be noted in the Environmental Commitments
Section of the Planning Document as to whether this measure is appropriate.
BMP-BDR's AFFECTING DESIGN/ PERMIT PHASE
During design of a project, quantification estimates of fill due to causeways and
workpads (associated with both demolition and construction) shall be forwarded to the
Natural Systems Specialist responsible for obtaining project permits. In addition, all
appropriate BMP-BDR shall be included in the plans (e.g. turbidity curtains). With the
exception of timber bridges, there is no practical way of knowing whether dropping
components of a bridge into the water will be required before the project has been let to
construction.
As a result, a worst case scenario will be assumed for the purposes of the permit
with the understanding that NCDOT shall under no circumstance pursue that course
of action unless the contractor can demonstrate to the Resident Engineer and to the
Army Corps of Engineers that there is/are no feasible avoidance measure(s). In that
event, the Resident Engineer and contractor will strictly adhere to the guidelines set
out below.
BMP-BDR's AFFECTING CONSTRUCTION
It is not the intention of these guidelines to prevent the creativity of the contractor
in the removal of the bridge. If the contractor or Resident Engineer devises a means of
removal that retains the spirit of these guidelines but does not adhere to the letter, such a
means will be considered by the NCDOT Resident Engineer and the USAGE. With that
caveat in mind, the following guidelines will be applied as appropriate during the
construction and demolition stages of a project:
• The contractor shall be required to submit a plan for bridge demolition and debris
removal to the Resident Engineer, and must receive written approval from the
Resident Engineer prior to any demolition work beginning.
• If there is a special resource, Case 1 (for example a Threatened or Endangered
Species), pointed out in the document, special provisions will apply to both the
construction of the new structure and demolition and removal of the old structure.
Such special provisions may supersede the guidelines herein.
Bridge Shall Be Removed Without Dropping Components Into The Water
• If a bridge is to be removed in a fashion such that there is a practical alternative
to dropping bridge components into the water, that alternative shall be followed.
In the case of a concrete deck, removal may be in sections out between the beams or a
cut full length of span between the beams. No part of the structure will be allowed to
Appendix 2
Page 3 of 4
fall into the water. The concrete shall be removed from the site intact and
placed/retained in an upland disposal area.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, all
efforts will be made to minimize the overall impact to the surface waters. If the
bridge is composed of several spans, the demolition shall occur one span at a time.
Components from a given span which have been dropped into the water must be
removed from the water before demolition can proceed to the next span.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, any
and all asphalt wearing surface shall be removed and not dropped into the water.
If a CAMA permit is required, dropping any component of a bridge into the water
will not be acceptable unless it is proven that there is no feasible alternative. Such an
activity would require coordination with and approval of CAMA.
• Every bridge to be removed which is constructed completely of timber shall be
removed without dropping components of the bridge into the water. If an unusual
circumstance arises where the contractor believes that a bridge component must be
dropped into the water, the contractor must alert the Resident Engineer. The Resident
Engineer shall coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Systems
Specialist who obtained the permit to discuss the necessary course of action. This is
anticipated to be a rare occurrence.
If the substructure of a bridge includes timber or steel piles, they shall be removed by
cutting them off level with surface of the streambed. In no circumstance are the piles
to remain above the surface of the streambed. This shall be accomplished in a fashion
which minimizes the increase of sediment into the surface waters. As an exception,
piles that are in conflict with the proposed piers may be completely removed by
pulling. Timber or steel piles will be removed in a fashion that does not allow the
pile to fall into the water. In tidal areas it may be necessary to remove the piers
completely or to some depth below the substrate because of sand/current movement
over time. Such a need will be established in the Planning Document Environmental
Commitments Section
Non Shattering Methods
• Every bridge demolition shall be accomplished by non-shattering methods.
Shattering means any method which would scatter debris. A wrecking ball is no
longer an acceptable tool for bridge removal. Explosives, a "hoe-ram", or other
comparable tools may be used in such a fashion that fractures but does not shatter and
scatter bridge components into the water. A possible exception to this rule might be a
concrete arch bridge in which case a method shall be found which minimizes impact
to the extent practical and feasible. In the case of an exception, the method of
demolition will be developed in consultation with the appropriate federal and state
agencies.
Appendix 2
Page 4 of 4
Use of Explosives
In the event that there is not a practical alternative to non-shattering, alternate
methods of bridge demolition shall be discussed with and approved by the Army
Corps of Engineers and other federal and state resource agencies having jurisdiction
over the resource.
• All parties involved recognize that explosives are sometimes required to remove
components of a bridge. However, at the present, the proper means of applying those
explosives is not agreed upon. The consortium of agencies involved agree that over
time, we will come to agreement on the use of explosives in a form that will be
included in these BMP's for Bridge Demolition and will not require special
consultation. For the present, if it is determined that explosives are required to
remove any component of a bridge, that activity shall be coordinated with the Army
Corps of Engineers in addition to the state or federal agency with jurisdiction over
that particular water. This issue shall be revisited at the earliest time possible to
determine appropriate measures to include in these BMP's which shall minimize or
eliminate the consultations required in the future.
General
• Where sedimentation concerns are identified in the planning stages, the
Environmental Commitments shall call for the use of turbidity curtains (or similar
devices) in the demolition and construction phases of a project in the area of concern
to limit the impacts.
• If damage is done to the bank as a result of debris removal, the COE shall be
consulted and the bank shall be re-stabilized to natural contours using indigenous
vegetation prior to completion of activities in that period of construction.
• If the new bridge does not go back on the original alignment, the banks shall be
restored to original contours revegetated with indigenous species as appropriate.
• Any machine operating in an area which could leak engine fluids into the water shall
be inspected visually on a daily basis for leakage. If leakage is found, the fluid(s)
shall be contained and removed immediately in accordance with applicable state
regulations and guidelines, as well as the equipment repaired prior to further use.
• When pumping to de-water a drilled shaft pier, the discharge shall be into an
acceptable sediment containment bin to minimize siltation in the water.
Appendix 1
Page 1 of 2
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Policy: Bridge Demolition and Removal in Waters of the United States
The Issue
May 4, 1999
The demolition and removal of a highway bridge over Waters of the United States
may involve dropping components of the bridge into the water as the only practical means
of removal. When it is determined that this method is required, a Corps of Engineers
permit is required for this activity, in addition to the permit required for the actual
construction of the new bridge. However, planning documents have traditionally not
addressed the activity of demolishing old bridges, especially the potential for dropping
debris into and removing the debris from the water.
Although the Corps of Engineers has, in the past, issued a permit for a bridge
replacement project, and then subsequently issued another permit to allow dropping
debris into a stream, it does not like doing so for two reasons. First, it believes that the
method of demolishing the old bridge should be disclosed and addressed in the planning
document, so that potential impacts of all activities can be assessed at one time, and one
permit issued. Second, the issuance of two permits - one for the bridge reconstruction
and one for the bridge demolition - is inefficient.
Current Practice
There exists, in the Department of Transportation's "Standard Construction
Specifications", a Section 402 titled Removal of Existing Structures. It states that a
"structure shall be removed as provided by this section unless otherwise required by the
plans and special provisions." Furthermore, Section 402-2 (A) states that "Excavated
materials shall not be deposited ... in rivers, streams, or impoundments," and "the
dropping of parts or components of structures into any body of water will not be
permitted unless there is no other practical method of removal. The removal from the
water of any part or component of a structure shall be done so as to keep any resulting
siltation to a minimum."
In order to produce competitive bids for bridge and highway construction, the
Department of Transportation generally favors giving contractors as many options as
possible. The prohibition to dropping debris into a body of water clearly restricts
contractors' options, and the word "practical" in the phrase "no other practical method of
removal" may have been interpreted as "cheaper."
1 For the purposes of this document, the terms water, waters, or Waters of the U.S. shall be synonymous
and shall include jurisdictional wetlands.
Appendix 1
Page 2 of 2
Alternatives
The Department of Transportation recognizes that dropping debris into the water
is an undesirable activity, and earnestly desires to address the concerns of the Corps of
Engineers and other federal and state resource agencies. Currently, all work done in the
water can be divided into three cases: Case 1 - in water work is limited to an absolute
minimum, due to the presence of special resource waters or threatened and/or endangered
species, except for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure below the water. The
work is carefully coordinated with the responsible agency to protect the Special Resource
Water or T&E species. Case 2 - no work at all in the water during moratorium periods
associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas
occurs. A third situation (Case 3) is where there are no special restrictions other than
those outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. The
identification of a stream crossing as Case 1, Case 2, or Case 3 should be possible during
the preparation of the environmental document. Consequently, it should be possible for
the environmental document to specify allowable alternative means of demolition of an
existing structure. Thus the permit issued as a result of the environmental document
would cover both the demolition of the existing bridge and the construction of the new
bridge.
Recommendations
The following recommendation is proposed to address the issue:
NCDOT will supplement Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters with a section to be known as Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal (BMP-BDR's).
NCDOT will categorize all projects into one of three groups.
? Group I will be composed of projects for which the Natural Resources Technical
Report is written after April 30, 1999. Bridge Demolition will be fully addressed
within the Environmental Document.
? Group II will be composed of those projects which have a Natural Resources
Technical report written on or before April 30, 1999 and does not address Bridge
Demolition. In this case, Bridge Demolition will be quantified and disclosed at the
time of the permit application.
? Group III will be composed of those projects which had a permit application
submitted on or prior to April 21, 1999. Bridge Demolition will be addressed for this
Group through a collection of data and a brief review by USACE, WRC, and NMFS.
copy
March 29, 1999
Mrs. Jean B. Manuele
Department of the Army - Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Mrs. Manuele:
RECI?,JVE); ? 51999
I q q 9 aoyga.
I read with consternation the Littleton Observer's article on the proposed boatdocks at
Gaston Point Resort. As a homeowner in the Cornerstone subdivision at the back of Big
Stonehouse Creek, I am appalled to think that approval would be given to this project. Currently
there are approximately twenty-five homesites in this small, dead end cove. Due to shallow
waters, wetlands, and power lines across the middle of the water, limited building can occur in
the future. To more than double the current capacity of boat slips by issuing this permit would
prove extremely dangerous for all who use the cove for fishing and boating.
The only access to the cove is a triple tunnel culvert that runs under highway 903. These
tunnels are narrow, built at an angle that makes entering and exiting hazardous, and already
overused. The proposed 56 boatslip users would have to navigate these small tunnels to travel
anywhere else on the Lake and to return to their lodging. The cove itself is too small to handle
more than a few boats at a time on the water. The safety of all boaters would be endangered by
increasing boat traffic in this area to this extent.
In addition, the cove is a breeding ground for many types of fish and fowl. A bald eagle
feeds here. The great blue heron, Canada geese, mallard ducks, and other water birds nest just
past the proposed construction site. There is not much land left for these wonderful creatures on
the Lake. It is time to think of them, too.
The water in the creek is shallow for the most part, and extremely so in the area of the
proposed piers. That is probably why they are requesting piers of 125 feet. The cove itself is not
very wide, although I do not know the exact measurement. The water is often muddy from
erosion. Just think how much more erosion will be caused by the wakes from all the additional
boats.
I would like to invite you to come up and take a look at this special place. I am sure you
will agree that the carrying capacity for boat traffic on this end of Big Stonehouse Creek could
not possibly tolerate 56 new boatslips.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,,
Blair AF. Davis
&V?)
832 Castaways Trail
Rocky Mount, NC 27804
Owner: Lot 6 Cornerstone, Littleton, NC
RECE,'yED APR R 1999
COPY
I q q R 2oti?/ a
7ylo?cc??j
41?? 64e-e? eel
4"j 4 "6""e 6474

i
77
I-A OL-V '??e C/-Z

i?

7C-? uy?

OAK ? ?
?. _ .

COPY
RECEIVED APR 21999
199'
March 29, 1999
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Attn. Jean B. Manuele
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Re: Permit boatslips
for Proposed Gaston Point Resort
Big Stonehouse
14S qa0 q q q
Dear Ms. Manuele:
I strongly OBJECT to the permit for construction of 56 boatslips, on Big Stonehouse
Creek. Being a property owner in Stonehouse Acres, This will present a problem
for all homeowners.
The reason for my objections are:
1. The creek already houses 25 other boat houses, who has to use a very small,
dangerous tunnel for access to the main lake.
2. Adding an additional 56 more boat slips to an already hazardous creek will add
additional boat traffic in and out the creek
3. To extend piers and boat slips 125 feet from shoreline will interfere with the
alignment of the tunnel to exit and enter the creek. This would present a hazardous
condition and make it almost impossible.
4. To extend piers and boat slips 125 feet from shoreline will take up a large section of
the creek which is right in front of the tunnel.
3. The creek is not large enough for an additional 56 boats plus the normal boat traffic
in the creek.
6. There is already heavy boat traffic on Big Stonehouse Creek during the summer. With
the additional boat traffic in and out tunnel someone will most definitely be injured with
a boat accident.
7. THIS WILL ALSO IMPACT THE CLEAN WATER, WITH NORMAL BOAT
TRAFFIC THE WATER IS ALWAYS MUDDY FROM THE CONSTANT
CHURNING., AND THE ADDING OF MORE BOATS WILL MAKE THIS
CONDITION WORSE.
I strongly urge you to please take into consideration the hazards this will cause the
Property Owners.
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs. Roger Silcox
cc: N.C. Division of Water Quality
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Attn. John Dorney
Mrs. Jean B. Manuele
Department of the Army Con- ?
Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
PO Box1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mrs. Manuele:
1??9 ? 0 L4 g2,
RECFTVFD AI,PR 1, 9
This letter is in reference to the proposed construction of 56 boatslips on Big Stonehouse Creek at Lake Gaston. I
have been a visitor in this part of Lake Gaston for five years and will be moving there in June. I would hope that
before any permits are finalized, extensive investigation of the pros and cons of such construction would be
considered. I sincerely hope that public hearings will be conducted in order for both sides to be heard and evaluated
This matter does not need to be finalized at a time when many people who would have valid opinions and
experience of this waterway are not yet here for the summer.
I am a frequent boater in the small creek on the Gaston Pointe side of the Salmon's Landing Bridge. Under
optimum conditions it is not easy to pass under the 903 bridge to travel to the main part of Big Stonehouse Creek
The culverts you have to pass through are small and also positioned so that you don't always know what is coming
at you from the other side. Frequently I have been involved in near miss collisions due to speeding bass boats and jet
skis. The best conditions for passing under the bridge are (1) windless days: (2) limited watercraft traffic: (3) water
at a standstill under the culverts. These conditions seldom exist. One day traffic was stalled for 30 minutes because
a pontoon, leaving the small cove to go back to the main part of the lake, went sideways trying to pass under the
bridge. It took that long to find someone that could tow the pontoon away from the culverts because the current and
wind was too strong for the pontoon to navigate away from the bridge. Names of those involved can be supplied
The current in this cove varies from hour to hour sometimes. Navigation through the culverts takes experience and
some luck. You may aim for the far right culvert but end up going through the middle or vice versa. Hot rodding jet
skiers and impatient boaters occasionally choose to go through the bridge from the same side at the same time as
previously in place boaters. Two boats or a boat and a jet ski coming out at the same time are very dangerous.
Once you are through the culverts then one has to avoid the stumps that are on the other side. Safety and
environmental protection should be a prime consideration for any kind of building project. Private homeowners are
subject to stringent limitations as to what they can and cannot do to their property and their waterfront on Lake
Gaston. I hope that big business and big money backing this project will not affect how governmental agencies
respond to the request for 56 boatslips. I do hope these agencies will carry out their mandates to protect the
environment and the safety of the populace.
There is a wealth of wildlife that calls this small body of water home. I have seen eagles, egrets, herons, ducks and
birds of all varieties in this cove. I don't know what the precise acreage of this body of water is. You might
compare it to a large pond I do know that there is only so much activity that such a small body of water can bear
both environmentally and safely. During the summer this area is a favorite for skiing and jetskiing by people other
than landowners in this area of Big Stonehouse Creek At times, it is already too congested Law enforcement will
not be able to handle all the problems that I foresee occurring. They cannot handle the problems that already exist
here such as people fishing from the 903 bridge or parking on the bridge or throwing their trash in the lake or on the
banks of the bridge. Come took at all the trash left on the banks of the Salmon Landing Bridge.
It is hard for me to imagine that Gaston Pointe resort is being allowed to construct multiple units in such a small
water area. I believe the Gaston Pointe Resort will have the effect of boating accidents, excessive litter and our
wildlife deserting this cove. I also believe they requested such a large amount of boat slips knowing that the amount
would be denied. Perhaps they believe that if they ask for 56 and get 20 or so then all who are concerned about this
matter will be appeased Ask for more than is remotely reasonable to be assured of what is really wanted.
Sincerely
Sherrill Webb
PO Box 537
Macclesfield, NC 27852
COPY
RECEIVED APR 71999
Attn: Mrs. Jean B. Manuele
Dept. of the Army, Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mrs. Manuele:

This is in response to an article in the Littleton Observer about the proposed 56 boatslips
at Gaston Point Resort on the west side of the culvert on Big Stonehouse Creek, NC Route 903,
Lake Gaston.
We believe that the increased boat traffic on the creek resulting from an additional 56
boatslips would cause excessive congestion and safety hazards in an area with only a narrow triple
tunnel culvert as its only outlet. Due to the angle of the culvert, 125 foot long piers at the resort
would further contribute to an already existing blind spot when entering and exiting the tunnels.
With the existing boat and watercraft traffic from the 25 property owners and other boaters in this
west side cove, another 56 boats would more than triple the traffic in an extremely narrow and
shallow area. This cove also has power lines across the creek and is approximately one half mile
long and 100 yards at it widest point.
We are also concerned about the adverse effects this additional traffic will have on the
natural environment. This area of the creek includes a wetlands habitat for many species of
wildlife including Canadian geese, mallard ducks, the blue heron, woodpeckers, and even bald
eagles. It not only serve a as a nesting area for the aforementioned, but also a spawning ground
for many species of fish and other aquatic wildlife.
Other environmental concerns resulting from the additional boat and watercraft traffic are
the increases in noise, water, and air pollution. The shallow water in this cove 19 ahWy quite
muddy during peak usage. Traffic associated with 56 additional boatslips in such a small area
would tremendously increase this erosion. •
We respectfully request a public hearing to discuss the proposal and our concerns. We
would further extend an invitation to your or someone from your office to visit and take a first-
hand look at the development area.
Your consideration in denial of the proposed permit is greatly appreciated.
Lot 2 Stonehouse Acres
Littleton, NC 27850
April 2, 1999
Sincerely
C. John Br ey, Jr. and Barbara J. Bradley
cc: Joe Peterson, North Carolina Power
Roger LeQuire, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

COPY

PY
Big Stonehouse Creek Property Owners and
Concerned Citizens
Lake Gaston
Warren County, North Carolina
March 29, 1999
ATTN: Mrs. Jean B. Manuele
Dept. of the Army, Wilmington
District
Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mrs. Manuele:
RECEIVED APR g 1999
1 gqqaoLa 8a
We, the undersigned property owners and concerned citizens of Big Stonehouse Creek,
respectfully request the permit for 56 boatslips at the proposed Gaston Point Resort be denied.
Included in our concerns are:
1. The additional boat and watercraft traffic on the creek resulting from these structures
will create extremely unsafe congestion in a small body of water. The entire waterway
on Big Stonehouse Creek is fairly narrow and shallow with many unnavigable areas.
2. Boat and personal watercraft traffic on the Creek is already extremely heavy and
dangerous at tunes. These proposed units will be rented primarily for weekend use,
and weekend traffic is already at a peak.
3. There will be significant erosion from the additional boat and watercraft traffic.
4. A hazardous culvert exists to reach the proposed resort area. The culvert is
perpendicular to the road but not true to the channel, thereby, causing a blind spot
when entering and exiting the culvert. The entry and exit through the culvert in this
area are extremely hazardous due to the angle of the culvert which requires a sharp
turn and involves a blind spot and sandbars. Piers extending 125 feet into the water
will further obstruct one's safe entry and exit through the culvert. The current at
the culvert changes so much it is not always possible to select entry into a specific
tunnel even for the most experienced and safe boater. Due to the stumps and shallow
water at the mouth of the culvert, one of the three tunnels of the culvert is virtually
unusable.
5. The location of the resort is in an area where the water is extremely shallow,
probably averaging five feet deep. Much of this area is unnavigable due to shallow
water and hidden submerged stumps. This area west of the culvert has a fluctuating
shoreline and is only about 1/2 mile long and 100 yards wide at its widest point. There
are about 25 homes on this small west side location which already experiences heavy
boat and watercraft traffic.
6. A power line with supporting poles in the water exists on the west side of the culvert.
7. Water, noise, and air pollution will increase due to the additional boat traffic.
8. This increased water traffic and associated dangers will virtually prohibit recreational
swimming and activities such as pedal boating in the creek.
9. The additional traffic will have an adverse effect on the existing natural wildlife habitat
and water quality. The cove at the end of the creek is a haven for Canadian geese,
mallard ducks, bald eagles, woodpeckers, the blue heron, and serves as a spawning
ground for various species of fish including the large mouth bass, catfish, crappie,
carp, striper, bream, and various other aquatic wildlife.
10. With the additional traffic and changing water currents, safe exiting of property
owners' boathouses will become more dangerous due to the necessity to back out
of boathouses.
11. There is already heavy traffic on Big Stone House Creek due to one commercial
property with rental units. Also opposite to the mouth of the creek is a campground.
The increased boat and watercraft traffic resulting from an additional commercial
property with a proposed 80 rental units and 56 boatslips on such a small and narrow
creek increases hazards on the water, diminishes water quality, and has the potential
for disaster.
12. We are also concerned about the safety and capacity of the facilities which will be
used for launching these additional boats and watercraft, and the location of such
facilities, i.e., the existing wildlife ramp at Salmon's Landing, or is there a plan for
a new ramp at the resort? We would strongly oppose a new ramp in such a
congested, small area and also believe that there would be excessive congestion at the
Salmon's Landing ramp to accommodate 56 boatslips at the resort.
Due to the serious ramifications of these decisions, we would request a representative
from your office come and view the existing conditions of the creek with some of the property
owners prior to making a final decision on the issuance of permits. We would recommend this
on-site visit be made on a weekend when seasonal property owners and visitors are utilizing the
creek. This would be more representative of actual creek usage and conditions during the peak
season. For reference, we have enclosed a copy of a more accurate portrayal of the actual creek
with the culvert marked. The original submission from the permit applicant failed to show the
culvert and the adjacent shoreline. We also request a hearing be held to discuss the
aforementioned concerns.
As environmentally concerned citizens and property owners of Big Stonehouse Creek, we
do not wish to destroy the existing balance between man and nature, nor do we wish to see an
increase in the potential for hazards and disasters on the waters of Lake Gaston. Your
consideration in these efforts is greatly appreciated.
Should you need a point of contact from Big Stonehouse Creek, please feel free to contact any of
the following property owners:
John Bradley Earl Bullock
(H) 252-586-6727 (H) 252-586-5224
(W) 252-586-3121
Earl Merson Elton Rook
(H) 252-586-2836 (H) 252-6153
Jerry Shinn
(H) 252-586-5098
cc: Joe Peterson, North Carolina Power
Roger LeQuire, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
f
d f
o'
z
?b1
? t-
2
:A
t?a
QL
? C
of
? v
ob ?? k
_ QQ ,

Z
H
K
W
i
01
p
44
44

1

I

H v

W
IL
i
W

IJ
w LM

J
,

PETITION SIGNATURES
Z7 SZ X.6
-a S'A 803. ?a
53
Sa - y? y?3 3/0

C S2?
a
?.?.? -SSA-1049
ate

?lj
7
A!
PETITION SIGNATURES
v n
r? {{ r p d,, rn
i ,
ot? n
? C. a sz?
v v .`pLr? .
Joy ??S
WC-
F
Teen rit Cc.
% A 'h tG
v7 ? ,
Aot
129,
rr 4 c 4i
Y.31
/`o?-mss y'L

r
2 ZEJ-6
Lkz !? - ?r
; f/.
?, , -7 z
lop-
aj A")
i
• -?•-, ?.? ? to

S' l3 /00
416x$
f OD
y
S 7` e
s? - 37
18 ?-I u ?? ?fi .
Ff -a. l d a,)z @s

zs'z-fiL3.7Zs/
-LA4
7-62 - e-), ?
?? - -! ?-
Y 3 7

PETITION SIGNATURES
PETITION SIGNATURES

?•?••`?. ? o?r?cu crfl
v
M J _ ? ?D~0 G
t
Ge 17`x,- ??N. C s•?

J.oT I ;L
?Tane. 4.0115 ? J?fZ
I- i T T( e?' p f•(? iii . C . a7$ 51?
61.2 i / If,-c-

Lo i /Z)
s-n Ngz&()s-c- -9R.
LrTTWc ZAl, V,C-
,5 S h? As
,lic 2
/y, e
- ??ff?-v
PETITION SIGNATURES y.?

7 o M-c. r ? C G
r'
77__
r
t
r-
h?.? l Ti m,(jt Q? mow/" -

At C 7 9 s a

j?, ?,Q ?7
44 F5D
r C
9h ss.Sz - D 7?z 7 - ?"
" AtA !-
Asa- sgb
Lt(q -'7'l5?-C? 1?1
, r..:., -r =al
f
S
! ?C 2 7?S
Cr"c2L?

lacp>
DLO ,C 1 _,1'ut ie"j
`?i.. }1C 1'? ?SU >S2 Sb'(? 33,23
rv\ ;z_ fJ
-a ? /YL iY ?w? ? . / /YI )
,77 C ?']K5-r 25.2-5%, 3=,.23
y?v ?,?lA. n . D V
, 1 -? 71 2') f s 2 s? 5W(-, 33,23
?lC ? ?E w
4tzttoneho, co 4A
0 ?z'1
- ?2- :::: ? ?4,,,, ? ei ?-,-
PETITION SIGNATURES
r j

iy O

c
'iA
,?YG4 -7? i' ? v?jJ •\

J
f
7 STo /y 14 i) 5 i IJ,(Li do
L,, rt L K" T M X cl 17 S' f[:p
?f 5
sv 2s t. n

PETITION SIGNATURES
i &. ?:L= d
3L ? -G cwt"

z7 ??
PETITION SIGNATURES
RECI,I.`IED 5 1999
Eaton's Ferry Estates
Property Owners Association, Inc.
COPY
Attn.: Mrs. Jean B. Manuele
Department of the Army
Wilmington District
Corps of engineering
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N. C. 28402-1890
Dear Mrs. Manuele,
March 29, 1999
1 g: = a.
I am writing as an elected representative of the Eaton's Ferry Estates Property
Owners Association, currently President of the Board of Directors. Eaton's Ferry Estates
has 270 property owners. Approximately 25% of them live on Big stone House Creek,
site of a proposed commercial development near NC route 903.
I am petitioning as their representative to request a public hearing concerning the
proposed building of 56 boatslips. Our understanding had been that there would be 15
rental cottages/condos built on that property. While that in itself will add to the boat
traffic, safety issues and noise levels in Big Stone House Creek, it now appears that the
difficulties are being compounded by a proposal to build a large number of boatslips.
We as a community believe that boat traffic and commercial development
currently extant in that area already creates excessive noise levels for residents therein, as
well as safety hazards, because of heavy boat traffic navigating through relatively narrow
channels with many curves, placing at risk swimmers as well as boaters. We thus believe
that building accommodations for 56 more boats is excessive. We believe that the
necessary balance between commercial development and private residences is being
placed at risk with this proposal. Therefore we request a hearing to discuss the proposal
and to give local residents an opportunity to voice their concerns so that a balanced
approach may be forthcoming. Please schedule a public hearing. Thank you for your
attention.
Jerry L. hinn, President
Eaton's Ferry Estates Home Owners Association
CC: Warren County Board of Commissioners
Nix 625
Littleton. N. C. 27850
LAKE GASTON

ASSOCIATION
LAKE GASTON ASSOCIATION
BOX 1010
UTTLETON, N.C. 27850
April 16, 1999
Dept. of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N. C. 28402-1840
Attn: Mrs. Jean B. Manuele
Re: The Lake Gaston Association letter of April 8, 1999 -
Action ID. 199920482
This letter is to expand on, and explain why, the proposed
boatslips at Gaston Pointe Resort need discussion.
1 - Access from the resort to the main lake would -be
through an extremely small culvert under highway 903
bridge. About 75% of the boats on this lake are pontoon
or deck type boats. Those with hard tops cannot clear
the bridge above. (Those with soft tops must be lowered.)
Guests at the resort would have to put their boats in the
water at a public boat landing on the east side of hwy. 903
and negotiate them to the west side of two lane road
through the culvert to get to the resort and boat slips.
2 -• Homeowners in area sub-divisions fear further congestion
in an already busy area with the addition of 56 boat slips,
and feel that it will make for unsafe conditions for
navigation.
3 - There is a beneficial plant , locally known as willow
weed , which is good for the environment in the lake and
might be lost with the installation of so many slips.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
&M Q?.?,?
r,itty Slaton, Zoning Chairman
Lake Gaston Association
COPY
4/1/99
Department of the Army, Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: Jean B. Manuele
RECEIVED
APR 7199'

RE: Proposed plan to build 56 boat slips inside the bridge on Big Stonehouse Creek, Lake
Gaston, NC, Littleton, NC
Dear Mrs. Manuele,
I appreciate you returning my phone call Wednesday regarding the above mentioned
proposal. I wanted to briefly respond with a re-cap of our conversation on our position,
being a landowner in Cornerstone S/D which is inside the bridge. (The bridge must be
utilized by us to get out onto the main water)
1) We would not be opposing Dwayne's request if he were trying to place this operation
in a reasonable location that could accommodate his boat slips. The shear fact that he
started out requesting 100 slips to put in that tiny area shows that he has absolutely NO
regard for common sense planning or how it will effect the neighbors there. It must just
be all about money and return on investment. If he is overbuilding for that area and
wants to rent out the rooms to 100 people at a time, there is nothing we can do to stop
him. We can however voice our opinion on the fact that he is requesting to make a
curren v azar ous situation become RY DANGEROUS AND UNMANAGRABLF
2) We still feel 10 to no more than 15 slips is REASONABLE for that location due to the
very narrow bridge that one must pass through to get to any descent water.
3) If any more slips are granted above this reasonable amount, we feel that tensions will
run very high on a daily basis with that many people trying to come and go through that
bridge. Wildlife Commissioners would almost have to patrol the area to keep the peace.
4) Is there going to be a NO WAKE ZONE sign posted for the bridge? Is the bridge
going to be labeled "IN" and "OUT" to avoid head on collisions? Who do we request this
be done through?
5) You made it clear to me that it was of your opinion that 56 boat slips would not have
an envionnmental impact on our small, shallow cove. We totally disagree with you and
are very concerned about this issue.
6) Can you please inform us as to how you have determined that 56 slips is not
unreasonable for that area. We are very interested in the process outlined by Army Corp
of Engineers to determine such requests.
Thank you agai or your consideration.
Sincerely,
Q-2 ? Z
Daren & Cecelia Kirts
Lot 8 Cornerstone S/D
Lake Gaston, NC
3/29/99
Department of the Army, Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: Mrs. Jean B. Manuele
RECEIVED APR
2 1999
pqqaoU,Ka
RE: Proposed plan to build 56 boat slips inside the bridge on Big Stonehouse Creek, Lake
Gaston, Littleton, NC
Dear Mrs. Manuele,
The purpose of this letter is to voice our concern over the above mentioned proposal. We
own property located at Lot 8 Cornerstone S/D, which is in Big Stonehouse Creek, inside
the bridge.
Our first of many concerns is the bridge that must be utilized by all who are inside the
area incuding ourselves as well as the 56 proposed slips. Please take a look at it. A boat
passing through it has ZERO clearance. I believe it is tv-,) feet wide. When the water
is high, one must duck in order to not be decapitated, literally. In the summer months,
there is substantial traffic already by jet skiers. They wish to come through there to our
side since it is relatively quiet and they can scoot about as they wish without much boat
traffic as is the case on the "Big Water". There were several times last summer when we
were trying to get through the bridge to go boating on the Main Lake when a jet skier
forced our boat to slam up against the concrete walls inside the bridge. Even if a "no
wake" zone is posted, we feel there would be a substantial increase of traffic accidents
there resulting from too many boats in an area where there is just not enough room for
them.
Our second concern is environmental. That whole side of the inlet as well as down by
our property at the opposite end of the cove seems to be a haven/home for the many
geese and ducks. They need their home. We feel that a reasonable amount of docks on
that side would not force them to go elsewhere. What the proposed developer is asking
for, whomever they are, is completely unreasonable for the location. We feel up to 10 l3 aI
slips would be reasonable, no more. Believe us when we say that amount of slips is
being very generous. The whole cove does not get more than approximately 5 feet deep
throughout. With 56 boats in our cove, pollution would be probable. We like to swim
off our dock in our 4 feet of water. Please do not allow them to ruin this for us. The
water is too shallow and the cove too small to accomodate that many boats. The water
would be polluted for certain.
001
Personally, I, Cecelia Kirts, believe the developer is playing politics. I think he is
requesting an obscene amount of boat slip permits hoping to get what his real bottom line
number of slips is, probably somewhere in the 30-ish mark. That is still too many.
Please do not be fooled by these antics. This is along the lines of someone asking way
too much for their home, hoping to get what they really want for a settlement/purchase
price. Another analogy comes to mind. How about stuffing 100 sardines into a can that
only holds 20. It wouldn't be pretty, and neither would this scenario. I understand the
Corp has cracked down on restrictions on the shorelines of Lake Gaston since January
1998. PLEASE CRACK DOWN ON THIS RIDICULOUS PROPOSAL AND
PREVENT THEM FROM RUINING OUR COVE!!!
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Daren & Cecelia Kirts & family
Lot 8 Cornerstone on Lake Gaston
Littleton, NC
P.S. A note from our daughter, Jennifer: Please do not put in 56 boatslips, because I am
just learning how to ski. It is already hard enough to ski with all the wake that we get
from jet skiers, and such. I love to use our cove as a traning center to learn. And the
Main Lake is way too busy to learn on. And another thing, I love to see all the pretty
ducks that hang out there, and they probably wouldn't like to hang around with all the
pollution that boats and your buildings would give off. I really would appreciate if you
wouldn't allow them to put that many because, I love swimming with my friends in the
Summer, and that would make me convinced not to in the polluted water.
Thank you very much,
Jennifer Kirts
?i??/
w4vv
copy
April 14, 1999
RECEIVED MAY - 3 1999

Ms. Jean B. Manuele
Department of Army, Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Ms. Manuele:
Recently I read an article in the Littleton Observer concerning fifty-six (56)
boat slips at the development Gaston Pointe Resort (old Pandalawn) on
Stonehouse Creek. The article mentioned opposition of said slips by a Mr.
Mearson. His concerns were about safety and the over crowding of boats in the
area. He also said the owner of the development was trying to sneak in his
application by submitting them in the off-season, and that he was getting people
to sign a petition to call for a public hearing to try to block said slips.
I am employed as a Captain of a 4200 hp towboat and responsible for the
movement of million gallons of oil products. Being certified as a vessel safety
officer with years of vessel traffic management, I feel more than qualified in
stating that, after a review of the Gaston Pointe Resort, I see no safety issues,
nor could I see where navigation would be a problem. The opponents are
assuming that all fifty six (56) slips will be occupied and all fifty six (56) boats will
be coming and going at the same time and this just isn't likely. If all the boaters
follow the rules and are courteous of one another, the culvert thruway will be of
no problem for anyone coming or going. Also, currents were mentioned. The
rules state that whichever boat has the current with them has the right-of-way
and the boat against the current must yield and give way. But the quoted10-15
mph speed needed to keep steerage, I believe, is very exaggerated. Everyone
must realize that certain areas of the lake are traffic lanes and extra caution
should be taken. Whenever roads become clogged or there is an accident, cars
aren't banned or roads closed, and the same theory goes with waterways,
airspace and railroads. Remember safety is a relative issue. If everyone obeys
the laws and rules of navigation and practices safety, then every person will be
fairly safe. As soon as the one bad apple starts playing by his or her own rules,
then everyone is in danger-Le. recently the trucker who tried to beat the railroad
Ms. Jean C. Manuele
April 14, 1999
Page Two
crossing gate and got smacked by the train. Had he stopped and waited, fifteen
(15) people would have lived and no accident would have happened.
I have several problems with statements made about this project. First of
all, I do not believe Mr. White "the developer" was fairly treated when he was
accused of trying to slide the application in during the off-season. This is a totally
unfair and uncalled for statement. Mr. White lives full time in this area, employs
many people, and brings revenue and commerce and much needed public
access to the lake and provides recreation for all to enjoy. He, nor anyone else
for that matter, is obligated to contact anyone for permission before applying for
permits.
Over crowding was touched on. This doesn't make a good argument for
anyone opposing the slips. I have seen water ways so crowded that you could
not see the water: Wicomico River, Baltimore Harbor, Norfolk, Virginia Beach,
Delaware River, C & O Canal. I have seen more waterways than most and a lot
of other waterways share the lanes with commercial traffic such as ships and
tugboats and also commercial fishing vessels and everything flows along
smoothly. Once you exit the main thruways everything opens right up. Lake
Gaston will be no exception. The thruways will always have the bottlenecks with
or without any extra slips. No one will notice the difference.
. In closing, I believe certain people are making unfounded comments about
this issue to bolster their case, to get people angry enough to sign petitions and
so forth, and some of these people do not even live here full time. I am writing
this letter knowing in my heart that these fifty-six (56) slips will not negatively
impact anyone on the lake. The residents who live year round should be able to
conduct any legitimate business or live on or around the lake as they see fit.
Please call me for any follow up questions you might want to ask or if I can
in anyway be of any help whatsoever. Thank you for taking the time to read my
comments and any consideration you might give them.
Sincerely,
(2 -r _ e"
Capt. Charles C. Creekmore
Qualifications: 1600 Ton Master "NC" 5th issue
Unlimited Radar Observer
Certified Traffic Safety & Navigation Management
Radio Licensed
AB-any waters "Global"
DGPS Certified
Wiper
Stewart
Attended: Seaman's Church Institute
Manhattan, New York
King's Pt. "CAORF"
Long Island, New York
University of Delaware
Lewes, Delaware
Maine Maritime
Castine Island, MA
COPY
April 16, 1999
Mrs. Jean B. Manuele
Department of the Army, Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mrs. Manuele,
RECEIVED APR 2 2 1999
1999aG482
As a Warren County resident, I'm writing to comment on the pier permit request
for Gaston Point Resort. I don't feel that any additional safety hazard would be
created if these piers were allowed to be built.
We frequently travel by boat in that area and believe that there is plenty of room
for everyone. When we added on to our boat dock, we applied for and received
a permit. The people at Gaston Point Resort have the same right to do so.
Please allow them the pier permit.
Sincerely,
7 .??.?%?-ems
Graham and Clyde Pulley
Eatons Ferry Estates
Littleton, NC -;999s'd

COPY
RECEIVED APR 13 1999
Mrs. Jean B. Manuele
Dept of the Army, Wilmington Dist.
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Mrs. Manuele:

9 q q ab yK?.
This letter is to express our concerns about the proposed rental units and rental boat
slips on Big StoneHouse Creek at Lake Gaston, NC. We are permanent residents
on Big StoneHouse Creek. This creek is a high traffic area for boaters and skiers,
due mainly because of the rental units, gas pumps & slips that are already in place
at StoneHouse Timber Lodge. There is also another marina/campground on Little
StoneHouse Creek , known as Outdoor World. There are also a lot of fishing
tournaments that are held at StoneHouse Timber Lodge - that creates a lot a extra
boating. The proposed site for the new rental units is also located very near a
culvert near the head of the creek. It is a small culvert and any extra traffic would
be an enormous safety hazard.
Thank you for any assistance you can give with this matter of great concern.
Tony & Kay Drakidlz
Rt. 5,Box 112
Littleton, NC 27850
COPY
GASTON POINTE DEVELOPERS
76 RIVER ROAD
LITTLETON, NORTH CAROLINA 27850
April 26, 1999
Ms. Jean B. Manuele
Department of Army, Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Re: Gaston Pointe Resort Project
Dear Ms. Manuele:
19q?aby q;).
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to respond to the letters and petitions
received in opposition to our project. I respect the comments made in the letters, but
have little regard for the petition considering that it does not appear to be attached or
associated with any specific purpose or statement detailing the concerns that these people
want to have addressed.
As for the issue of navigation and safety, I would like to take a moment to
comment on these two topics.
SAFETY:
(a) Speed - one of the letters referenced the need to travel approximately 10-15
mph in order to move safely thru the bridge due to conditions with the current.
I disagree with this because the speed of 10-15 mph would produce
substantial wake. You should always maintain no wake conditions when
passing thru any area that may be determined as a traffic restriction. Even the
larger bridges such as Pea Hill Creek Bridge have no wake area surrounding
the traffic passage.
(b) Length of pier - I do not feel the length of pier will provide negative impact
on safety. The closest pier to the bridge is located in excess of 300 feet from
the bridge with an existing pier located between the bridge and the closest
proposed pier. The body of water where the piers are proposed is wide
enough to prevent the length of piers from being an issue. We do plan to
place safety reflectors at the end of the piers so they will easily be recognized
RECEIVED MAY - 3 1999
Ms. Jean B. Manuele
April 26, 1999
Page Two
at night. Furthermore, the proposed piers will be open as opposed to covered slips
in order to provide for good visibility.
(c) Traffic- with regards to the issue of traffic, I pose the following questions.
How do you take any portion of public water and mandate what is crowded or
overcrowded? Currently fishing tournaments, 40 to 50 boats (or any other
number of boats) could decide to fish in the back part of Stonehouse Creek.
This use of the water would be deemed acceptable. I do not agree with
mandating a type of traffic as acceptable verses recreational traffic that this
opposition is trying to mandate unacceptable.
(d) Wildlife- we have taken several steps to minimize any negative impact of
wildlife. They are as follows:
(1) Originally we proposed 84 slips, we have reduced this to 56;
(2) We have changed the design to 4 long piers instead of several short
piers which results in a smaller portion of the shoreline being
disturbed.
(3) We have increased the length of the slips which provided for the first
20 feet being undisturbed and eliminating the need for dredging.
(e) We plan to submerge the stumps and other natural structure materials under
the piers in order to provide additional wildlife habitat.
(f) The amount of requested bulkhead has been reduced to a minimum in order to
reduce any potential impact.
I understand the requirement for permits and the permitting process, and
depending on the nature of the permits, I understand the need for public notice. I
do feel that the recent front page article in the Littleton Observer fell short of the
intent of public notice.
I have tried to develop and proceed with the plans for this project in a way that is
not detrimental to the wildlife, or the safety of Lake Gaston residents, their guests,
or the public in anyway whatsoever. From the start of this project, I have
consulted officials from N.C. Power, U.S. Corps of Engineers and N.C. Fish and
Wildlife in an effort to develop a project that is beneficial to all parties.
I have enclosed copies of a recent newspaper article that was published by the
Lake Gaston Gazette which addresses the issue of safety in a qualified and
professional manner as opposed to the one sided articles published in the Littleton
Observer under the pretense of public notice.
L
Ms. Jean B. Manuele
April 26, 1999
Page Three
I understand the property owners have rights, but developers have the right to
develop property and non-residents who are tax payers also have a right to use
and have access to this wonderful nature resource we so affectionately call our
lake.
Thank you for your time and assistance. If I can be of any further assistance or if
you should need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at
[phone].
Sincerely,
R. Duane White
RDW/wpr
Enclosure
Loca'I'Sail'or Feels
B oat'lips Will b 6No
Pro blem
r..
By Mike, Bollinger
actually will work in favor of
Gazette Editor -' ; safety, since that will restrict
the size of the boat which can
LAKE GASTON A local be docked," he said. ;
resident with extensive boating Duane White of Gaston Point
experience says
in his opinion Developers is proposing to
,
,
t e propog- ,7.56 boatslips??" build 56 boatslips on Stone-
s o e , , o
Ur hMW4treeFtafil9WAjungW6i?

c
robTe -
w1tA h ;ojMill4PW A4*A4 gh
,ter
p
Charles' a?Cwekmore, ,who % there for rental units. `
lives in.the Lyons Creek area, As far as published reports
currentlyrserves?`` a Master of relating to the currents in that
Vessel e6r a. large transporter area of the lake, Creekmore
ofpetr6leut products, and has said.he'feels that should not be
20 years .610erience as a pro- a problem: '
fessional'sailvr•:, "The currents are sporadic at
"The fiot%that the bridge best, depending on wherr ;the!,,`
(which boajs d 11 ked there will
have to pass 1rnder to get to the
main lake,?.mav,be a little small
.
.
4 i Prop+,
osed
j
gates are open at Kerr. I live on
a creek, and I can tell when the
water is moving, but the cur-
rent is only one-quarter. knot at'
bestsaid ,Creekmore.
"Generally, there".aren't any
currents to be concerned about
on is lak '
theiu?esrwvhich say the vessel
with "the current has the right of
way and`othe'rs hold their boats
until"
they proceed, . there,
wouldn't be any problems any-
way," he said.
Creekmore."went on to,say
that' it is unlikely that all 56
slipstwould be full at one time,
or that everyone ,who rents.
frorri Gaston, Point would, evert.
have a boat.
"If I thought it would cause a
problem or restrict the use of
the . lake in any way, or espe-
cially cause a safety problem,,
I'd say so. I don't want to see
anyone get hurt," said Creek--
more;' ".I just don't think peo-
ple will notice a difference
other than the slips being
there, ",he added. I
Due to the nature of his work,
Creekmore said he took notice
when the applicpLtion was'made
public and took it upon himself r.
to trayel tp . Stonehouse fnd.
looks at` the bridge' onf )Route
903. ;, :...
"I see this bringing jobs "and
recreation to 'the' lake. `Before
people deny him the right Ro
make a living and jump to con-
clusions, I'd just like to see all
the. facts on the table,:" he con-
fi
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID No. 199920482
March 18, 1999
PUBLIC NOTICE
MR. R. DUANE WHITE, Gaston Point Developers, LLC, 78 River
Road, Littleton, North Carolina 27850, has applied for Department
of the Army (DA) permit for the PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIO "0,56
BOATSLIPS AND THE PROPOSED DISCHARGE OF 300 CUBI F FILL
MATERIAL ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF L RR SET OF
BULKHEAD WITH RIP RAP TO STABILIZE THE ERODI] EL OC TED
AT THE PROPOSED GASTON POINT RESORT on the so hw aside NC
Highway 903, approximately 2 miles west of Ea t\ Wry
northwest of Littleton, Warren County, North C li
The following description of the work is taken 3W-om data
provided by the applicant and from observations made during a
site visit by a representative of the Corps of Engineers. Plans
submitted with the application show the proposed construction of
4 community boatdocks/piers, each containing 14 individual
boatslips, for a total of 56 boatslips. Boatslips are proposed
to be 12 feet wide by 24 feet long. Each community boatdock/pier
will extend 20 feet from the existing shoreline before the first
boatslip construction occurs. Seven individual slips will be
located on each side of every community boatdock/pier, with
alternating 3-foot wide and 111-? inch wide piers located between
slips to provide access to each slip. Each community
boatdock/pier will extend a total of 125 feet from the existing
shoreline. The method of boatdock construction chosen by the
applicant has eliminated the need to dredge the lake bottom since
the slips will be located in deep water.
The applicant also proposes to discharge 300 cubic yards of
clean earthen fill material and rip rap into waters of the United
States associated with the installation of 450 linear feet of
treated-wood bulkhead to reduce erosion along the eroding
peninsulas located on the property. The earthen fill will be
utilized as backfill for the proposed bulkhead, which will be
installed 1 to 4 feet waterward of the existing shoreline, and
the riprap will be placed in front of the new bulkhead. The
purpose of the work is to provide boatdock facilities for tenants
located in the proposed Gaston Point Resort. Plans showing the
work are included with this public notice.
40 1.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to
determine the need for the applicant to obtain any required State
authorization. No Department of the Army (DA) permit will be
issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has
been received and reviewed by this agency, nor will a DA permit
be issued until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) has determined the applicability of a Water Quality
Certificate as required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 10
of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may
request, in writing within the comment period specified in this
notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this
applica-ion. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particu rr,ity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
r
,r
The:;•D, s4 t Engineer has consulted the latest published
version o'ff`°the National Register of Historic Places for the
presence or Absence of registered properties, or properties
listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and this site is
not registered property or property listed as being eligible for
inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register
constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the
District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the presence of
such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific,
prehistorical, or historical data may be lost or destroyed by
work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not
aware that the proposed activity will affect species, or their
critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant
to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an
evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts,
of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public
interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed
activity may have on the public interest requires a careful
weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each
particular case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected
to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its
reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to
authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which it
will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome
of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect
the national concern for both protection and utilization of
important resources. All factors which may be relevant to the
proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects
2
thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics,
general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish
and wildlife values, flood hazards and flood plain values (in
accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation,
shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and
conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership,
and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For
activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials
in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied if the
discharge that would be authorized by such permit would not
comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other
applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted
unless the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary
to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the
public; Federal, State and local agencies and officials; Indian
Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and
evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments
received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to
determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit
for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to
assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water
quality, general environmental effects and the other public
interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the
preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also used to
determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the
overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of
the Army (DA) permit will not be made until the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) issues, denies, or
waives State certification required by Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. The NCDEM considers whether or not the proposed
activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the
Department of the Army (DA) permit serves as application to the
NCDEM for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act
certification may be reviewed at the offices of the Environmental
Operations Section, North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM), Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh,
North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished to
any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
3
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the
application for Clean Water Act certification should do so in
writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-
7687, on or before April 9, 1999, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined
above, will be received in this office, Attention: Mrs. Jean B.
Manuele, until 4:15 p.m., April 16, 1999, or telephone
[phone], Extension 24.
4
A

-lmu.AWN!-'-Z
DD_C4 M
? ?X ?X N-o W
O P? C ?th P
X Q 33 U1 0
-u
p -1 S
amOO3?X
a- cr C+0 P a'UI <CIN
X '+ f0 I r0
10 M Cr M ? n :3
to -3
3 ?°ooo
m PIANin
p P 1 p
n 0 C+Z n
C
13 h J
?? 3 h
P - 3
P cf c+ !^ -A
O Q0-903
P rF N 3
n
N m X"
tn coo
W P
3 m
'0 s
O
0
3
W

24'TYP. ---i
N
IO
N
•
lake Gaston Mier-Pobt Contractors, InC, PROJECT NAME, PROPOSED BULKHEAD, PIERS, L BOAT
s, Box NOI, Ut*t«,, IC zm, 22-w44 G A S T G N POINT RESORT IS TD MMW MWWY BOAT A
C IN LAKE GASTON
nil VI6o=Il jffl ?gP?nJ A/?NoTv'? GdG?oP? ?S AT, BIG SUQM CREEK
DAZE, 02-14-99 llm AD I of 4 iC'? ?•?/ ti? 2 7 s? rOUNTY OF, VARREM NC
6/---,,l
N'
0
W N

'-' N

N
•
W N

T
?.
r ?

N

W N

r
N

N

2•x10•
AREA VARIES
1' TO 4'
2' X 6' WALES 2-INSIDE MP L BOTTO
I-OUTSIDE TOP ONL
RIP-RAP SLOPED
UPWARD T13 WATER LEVEL
NOTES,
1. ALL TIMBER (INCLUDING PIER) PRESSURE AND
CHEMICAL TREATED
& ALL HARDWARE (INCLUDING PIER) HOT DIPPED
GALVANIZED (EXCEPT FOR 1/4' STAINLESS STEEL
CABLE AND CLAMPS)
3. APPROX 300 CU. YDS. OF UPLAND FILL
2' X 6' TONGUE
-L GROOVE SHEET
4' TU B' LENGTHS
BACK FILL
DEAD MAN PILE 4' X 4
GRADE
1/4' STAINLESS STEEL CABLE L CLAMPS
Lake Gaston Pier-Point Contractors, Inc, PROJECT NAME,
ROUte 5, in 1401, Uttietan, NC zia5o, 252-5" 93 G A S T G N POINT RESORT
SCALE, 3/41=11 DmvN BYI sm PPP I_. T r.AN T
?j,?$TO?1J Pv.yE lJ6v?'G ??2
DAZE= O6-14-99 SHAVN UIN 2 of 4 ,rz'?? ?c 079
PROPOSED BULKHEAD, PIERS, L HUAI ?
PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE O MM NAT N
IN LAKE GASTON
ATi BIG STONEHOUSE CREEK
COUNTY OFt VARREN, NC

•
-D
H
n
D
F- d
w r g
H
ty
m
mD
fTl H
D
--1
H
O
z

d
z
H N • ;7
z z X #-
NNO; m N
D N A?
X10 yI
S S? m
Agig
r r,r
C7'RI
;l %
MX
to ON
."a
C
z
z
r'1
? nl
• ' V
tj
r9
n
A
Z
W
I-'
fv
1 V
-u F2-
" ru,
F9 L
Xi rv
Iq L
' V
PI
J IIO
W
F-?
fU
W
F=?
f-?
>>00UIn4%.t=owr- !-'z
-v 'u - >- X, ri ' D ' O
-1-4
N-
U
NNe rDmDQM
;U;o <rXI-H .m?-<rl
X r- -U W W •
-
H=?rcl .Cya (v
M
-+
-+
o a
w
d tj tj
-d M
3
tj _ D L-1
f i m
--I M
r
0
m f
*1
t J
?D u0 y ??
?

1 v
O W <x
D
0 m
(4
m --1 w Z7 Z
D M 3 O
to
•:t7 = Z N W
C3 I

ao ?,
C) p
D ? C n

U
1N d m Z

H r'1
f
-i? m N N
l?
S .-+ C 3
-Tl z
R° 0-4
z

Inc
ke Gaston her-Point Contractors
l PROJECT NAME! PROPOSED BULKHEAD, PIERS, L BOAT
'?n H°"T "
,
,
a
G A S T 0 N POINT
RESORT pMSE
IS TO SHOE ?"
We s, Bar 1401, L ttseton, NC 27mo, 22-5"93 IN LA
KE GASTON
IN LA
mf l 1/16=1r ? Bpi 1 ??
' w");??
'' P (AP _StoI fnlof
'E ?O_ CdEc0FiCS
ATI BIG STONEHIISE CR0
DATE: 02-14-99 SHAVN 3 of 4 L? _ roar/ c Z s so COUNTY OF, VARRE* NC
T ,.
N
«
i
S
n
T
? w r
a
« w?
p?
F
. ? 1M .? Vf '?:w'll
V C jl 1? O i " .tom
A r-
7r -44'
N
0
0
C)
E3
Z
r- -1
? O
Z C
r'7 m
?\ 7
So5•50'00'E t1
S0I.43'40•W 1
w ru !- Z
E3
NryH -i
m Z ? m r, rrrl r"
c_i
-V
W
C
n V
-gLn -rtl
6--. V rq rq
E3 Z >
ZoUD
3`Cr-
> M
-U D -1 M
v D =
? rTl
m
m v)
:ru
rq
N
0
/;
A
N
-A
m
? I
2~ ?
+a'
rr
Sl6 •
rn GI
m
O D
CD
<
c° M
D
r.
'tea,
lake Wm Mer obt Contractors, 1IK, PROJECT NAMEi PROPOSED BULKHEAD, PIERS, L BOAT SLI
(Foote s, NX 140, Ut*toN NC 2705k zz GASTGN POINT RESORT ?E is T COMM MAT "?
,4PPLICANTi 19 LAKE GA STUN
SCALES 1'=1?(r VN p u E -G,q sTV /0 ?ti, c AT, BIG STDit M S[ tREEI(
, caurnr OF, vary X
-0 I
DAZE, 92-14-99 SHNVN UM 4 of 4. C??7z fro v .vim 7g.
o?
0-
q
tJl
y o
t'1
I