20010521 Ver 1_Complete File_20010316

r O?CF W ATFRQG
> y
o ?
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross,Jr.Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
. Wetlands1401 Unit
Location: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250 Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: General 919-733-1786 Fax: [phone]
Fax 7
Com
Fax Number: O U-)- - a- 6
Date: ? h 10
Frorr Phone:
No. Of Pages including cover sheet:
Notes or special instructions:
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality 2321 Crabtree Blvd, Ste 250 Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Wetlands/401 Unit: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
F vvHiF
`O?O 9pG Michael F. Easley
Governor
f7 William G. Ross, Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
June 12, 2001
Hyde County
DWQ Project #: 010521
APPROVAL OF 401 Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS and Tar-Pamlico River
Ms. Claudia Touhey
Post Office Box 9
Ocracoke, NC 27960
Dear Mr. Touhey:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
dredge in 14,607 square feet of waters for the purpose of constructing a channel, pier and platform
at your property on Ocracoke Island, as you described in your application dated March 13, 2001.
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3274. This approval is also valid for the Tar-Pamlico River buffer rules (15A
NCAC 2B .0259). In addition, you should get any other federall 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. This approval will expire
when the accompanying 404 or 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 application
except as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required
to send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this
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) (6) and (7). This approval shall expire when the
corresponding Nationwide Permit expires or as otherwise provided in the General Certification. For
this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any
additional conditions listed below.
1. The applicant must follow all conditions of the Minor Variance issued by DWQ on April 8, 2001.
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, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to
the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification
and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the
Deborah Sawyer at our Washington Regional Office at [phone].
Sincerely,
C?a4
Kerr T. Stevens
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Washington DWQ Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Washington Division of Land Resources
Joe Lassiter; Quible & Associates, PO Drawer 870, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949-0870
A
N EMIR
Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Wetlands/401 Unit: [phone]
1:2„• 401 Q) 711 RAC11
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
DWQ Project No.: County:
Applicant:
Project Name:
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification:
Certificate of Completion
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 this
certificate to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1621 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1621.This form may be returned to DWQ by the applicant,
the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. It is not necessary to send
certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities,
due care and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the
construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401
Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and
other supporting materials.
Signature: Date:
Agent's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities,
due care and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the
construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401
Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and
other supporting materials.
Signature: Date:
If this project was designed by a Certified Professional
I, , as a duly registered Professional
(i.e., Engineer, Landscape Architect, Surveyor, ect.) in the State of North Carolina, having
been authorized to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for
the Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in
the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built
within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer
Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature Registration No. Date
??
RL5D_ 00
Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Wetlands/401 Unit: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
F VvH fF
(? 9 Michael F. Easley
?O? pG Governor
fi) r William G. Ross, Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O r Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
June 12, 2001
Hyde County
DWQ Project #: 010521
APPROVAL OF 401 Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS and Tar-Pamlico River
Ms. Claudia Touhey
Post Office Box 9
Ocracoke, NC 27960
Dear Mr. Touhey:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
dredge in 14,607 square feet of waters for the purpose of constructing a channel, pier and platform
at your property on Ocracoke Island, as you described in your application dated March 13, 2001.
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3274. This approval is also valid for the Tar-Pamlico River buffer rules (15A
NCAC 2B .0259). 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. This approval will expire
when the accompanying 404 or 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 application
except as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required
to send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this
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) (6) and (7). This approval shall expire when the
corresponding Nationwide Permit expires or as otherwise provided in the General Certification. For
this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any
additional conditions listed below.
1. The applicant must follow all conditions of the Minor Variance issued by DWQ on April 8, 2001.
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, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to
the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification
and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the
Deborah Sawyer at our Washington Regional Office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Kerr T. Stevens
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Washington DWQ Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Washington Division of Land Resources
Joe Lassiter; Quible & Associates, PO Drawer 870, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949-0870
MAX
*W ERA
Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Wetlands/401 Unit: [phone]
F,v• 401 Q) 711AAQA
d-72-0' £a Od6,1AyoyinLP AND ASSOO.
fVC ill\D
TO.
FRl M.**
DATE
r
S, P.C.
Phn,dnv EnriromenW Seleno
tho 1999
F,ACSII&Y..E TRAN,%OTTAL.

e- A& a l TOTAL NU S. M P'A P',
fm,g eriapage}
Votat MA,TIM
RAW AND COUMM
Ca MtATMXAlM
AMOVAL
NUD RESPCNSS AZAX.
• PLBASiT X???' Z'O 1?15?]S3
PLEA= MCi11T AND RETCMN.
PLBASSRSPLY VIA PAX
- PJ F.A.SR REPLY VIA MAIL
40
rr -` , mss,
,NIA OIC+' GQ]?IE
The is 20un cr odued in this fmsh b tia temitcoi is paivlkg4 and ooodides Uat soil its iniW6M for
ime add sacb only. Ifynu ert ndtlw the irldMded rb*kmt Dwihc ernrloyec or agog msp mibic for
de]iv tbus ysage 1o the ijtmdcd jodpkt? any diseomm of tbis iofdnna6en is stiicay pioii@ift& Tf
yam ha xmceive dE this #=Wa;ttd in m W, pIcatt notify the p tmsrvdttmg the infonTat=
maae IV seta utum Me sramm issim to the firm Ret omt above 5mmo4tely.
8 JuuiperTYA
post Office Drawer 870
Kotfy Sark, Nortb CuoUna 27949L-4570
phones (252) 261-MOO Fax: [phone]
r-Mail: giblo@o mindspr?ng.oom
:1 2%2 26% 12030 !h
[Fwd: touhey modification]
Subject: [Fwd: touhey modification]
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:57:29 -0400
From: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
Organization: DENR
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
John,
Attached is the cover for the modification. It is from Doug Dorman of
Quible and Assoc. for the Claudia N. Touhey CAMA major project in Hyde
Co., Ocracoke on June 12, 2001.
Thanks,
Deborah
Name: touheyfaxcover.bmp
+. touheyfaxcover.bmp Type: Bitmap Image (image/bmp)
Encoding: base64
1 of 1 6/12/01 11:12 AN
N

I
' I
i -?
3 O
p:
1 Y
S ? S
1 S .
-G+i 3?OtaN ?pJ?DLC aK0 s}?p?,
le I,-
`3 ots km .
can C?? I I Jr k
p?
F ?. L Hr we]
AK
N 'N?? . ?? N. I N -N?' -I"-\
y 4r 9
i a
o?o? wAT ?9p?
r
o `ii? ,c
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
MEMORANDUM
May 24, 2001
To: John Dorney
To: Cyndi Karoly
Through: I?Y- Jim Mulligan
From: Deborah Sawyer Subject: Section 401 Recommendation for Denial
Claudia N. Touhey
Hyde County
The above subject project has been reviewed by this office. There are several proposals on the
project. Comments on the various proposals are as follows:
• The proposal to construct 246 ft. of bulkhead along MHW is recommended for approval
• The proposal to construct 377 ft. of retaining wall along the upland/coastal wetland
interface is recommended for approval.
• The proposal to construct a 6 ft. by 200 ft. pier with 4 fixed slips and a 12 ft. by 18 ft.
platform is recommended for approval.
• The proposal to construct a 24,491 diked disposal area for the containment of dredged
material in Zone 2 of the Tar-Pamlico Buffer area is recommended for approval if a 2 ft.
freeboard is maintained and the dike wall is vegetated as required by the Minor Variance
issued by the DWQ.
• The proposal to dredge a 55 ft. wide by 450 ft. long access channel to a proposed depth of
5 ft. which would connect the proposed channel at an approximate 90 degree angle to the
existing dredged channel located offshore of the neighboring property to the east for a
total of 24,750 sgft. of dredged shallow water habitat is recommended for denial. This
portion of the proposed project is recommended for denial of the Section 401 due to loss
of use of the waters in the proposed dredging area. These waters are classified as SA
Waters and are open to shellfishing. Dredging in this area would be a loss of shellfish
habitat. This area also contains submerged aquatic vegetated (SAV's) as determined by
Sara Winslow of the Division of Marine Fisheries on March 28, 2001. The removal of the
SAV's is a loss of important aquatic habitat.
The applicant prepared a SEPA document in 2000 proposing the width of the channel to
be 30 ft. wide but the CAMA Permit applicationproposes a width of between 42 ft. and 70
ft. wide. There were objections to the narrower width proposed in the SEPA document.
The wider widths were never proposed for the environmental review.
This area of the Pamlico Sound is very dynamic due to the high winds and fetch of the
943 Washington Square Mall Washington, NC 27889 252-946-6481 (Telephone) 252-946-9215 (Fax)

waves. This wave energy results in significant sand movement as has been experienced on
the adjacent property. Frequent dredging would be required to maintain the channel. This
could result in additional and continuous impacts and losses of use of the waters over
time.
This office recommends denial of the dredging portion of this application. This denial is
consistent with other denials for similar dredging projects with similar impacts to Waters
of the State.
cc: John Dorney / Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Bob Zarzecki, Wetlands/401 Unit
WaRO File
F WAIF
Q 9 Michael F. Easley
?O? pG Governor
co William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
p `C Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
MEMORANDUM
May 24, 2001
To: John Dorney
To: Cyndi Karoly
Through: -/?Y- Jim Mulligan
From: Deborah Sawyer?o?
Subject: Section 401 Recommendation for Denial
Claudia N. Touhey
Hyde County

The above subject project has been reviewed by this office. There are several proposals on the
project. Comments on the various proposals are as follows:
• The proposal to construct 246 ft. of bulkhead along MHW is recommended for approval
• The proposal to construct 377 ft. of retaining wall along the upland/coastal wetland
interface is recommended for approval.
• The proposal to construct a 6 ft. by 200 ft. pier with 4 fixed slips and a 12 ft. by 18 ft.
platform is recommended for approval.
• The proposal to construct a 24,491 diked disposal area for the containment of dredged
material in Zone 2 of the Tar-Pamlico Buffer area is recommended for approval if a 2 ft.
freeboard is maintained and the dike wall is vegetated as required by the Minor Variance
issued by the DWQ.
• The proposal to dredge a 55 ft. wide by 450 ft, long access channel to a proposed depth of
5 ft. which would connect the proposed channel at an approximate 90 degree angle to the
existing dredged channel located offshore of the neighboring property to the east for a
total of 24,750 sqft. of dredged shallow water habitat is recommended for denial. This
portion of the proposed project is recommended for denial of the Section 401 due to loss
of use of the waters in the proposed dredging area. These waters are classified as SA
Waters and are open to shellfishing. Dredging in this area would be a loss of shellfish
habitat. This area also contains submerged aquatic vegetated (SAV's) as determined by
Sara Winslow of the Division of Marine Fisheries on March 28, 2001. The removal of the
SAV's is a loss of important aquatic habitat.
The applicant prepared a SEPA document in 2000 proposing the width of the channel to
be 30 ft. wide but the CAMA Permit applicationproposes a width of between 42 ft. and 70
ft. wide. There were objections to the narrower width proposed in the SEPA document.
The wider widths were never proposed for the environmental review.
This area of the Pamlico Sound is very dynamic due to the high winds and fetch of the
943 Washington Square Mail Washington, NC 27889 252-946-6481 (Telephone) 252-946-9215 (Fax)
4e
waves. This wave energy results in significant sand movement as has been experienced on
the adjacent property. Frequent dredging would be required to maintain the channel. This
could result in additional and continuous impacts and losses of use of the waters over
time.
This office recommends denial of the dredging portion of this application. This denial is
consistent with other denials for similar dredging projects with similar impacts to Waters
of the State.
cc: Jo?n Dorney / Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
i.-6b Zarzecki, Wetlands/401 Unit
WaRO File
[Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]]
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]]
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 200108:43:02 -0400
From: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
Organization: DENR
To: John Domey <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>, Steve Trowell <[e-mail]>,
Sara Winslow <[e-mail]>
John,
WHO'S ON FIRST!!!!!! I think there is some serious misinformation. Most of the area where the
dredging is taking place is open waters. Only the immediate shoreline is closed (per Gena of Shellfish
Sanitation this morning). Shellfish Sanitation is mostly concerned with the spoil deposit area which is on
the shoreline and in immediately closed waters. The dredging is not a concern of theirs so that is why their
comments were "no concern". It appears that the COE messed up on the federal end by calling it
maintenance dredging which it is not. That is probably why the fed. agencies did not comment negatively.
The best thing to do is hold comments until this can be sorted out. I will line up a boat to go to the area and
personnally look at the bottom and take pictures for the presence of SAVs. I have a map from shellfish
sanitation which I will get the coordinates and overlay the closed area over the plat. As I said before,
though, most of it appears to be only at the immediate shoreline not out in the open water. All documents I
have say the waters where the dredging is taking place are open and according to Sara are active clamming
areas. The Despo lease is a clamming lease and is right beside this proposed dredging area.
I will reiterate, WaRO has consistently denied dredging in open waters with the presence of SAVs. It is a
removal of use if the resourse is significant.
Deborah
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:13:15 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>, Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>, Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>
just talked to doug huggett again. the area is closed to shellfishing according to shellfish sanitation':
comments to DCM. also according to the field report, aerial photos and consultant there are no SAVs.
dennis has the file for decision.
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
John,
I just called Sara Winslow of DMF to see what was going on with the
conflicting info. She said it has been a long time since she talked to
Doug Huggett, she has not talked to him recently. She told him that
avoiding the SAVs would lessen the impacts of the proposed project but
she did not tell him that the project would be OK with DMF if the SAVs
1 of 4 6/5/01 7:33 AN
[Fwd [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]]
were avoided. Both Sara and I are well familiar with the area and the
SAVs were scattered over the area in March which means there are
potentially more now with the warmer waters. Besides the SAV issue there
is the bigger issue of the open shellfish waters. Sara says there is no
reason that oysters would not be in the area. There are active leases on
both sides of the project. She has not done a survey so she is not sure
how many are there. To continuously dredge this area would totally
remove this use for any resources there now or which may be present in
the future. Sara is aware, though, that this is a big clamming area so
this resource would definitely be there and would be removed by the
dredging project. I'm not sure what info. you have received on this
project but it seems to be in conflict with the info. that DMF has and I
have. Thanks.
Deborah
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:15:03 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Roger Thorpe <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <Jimmie.Overton@ncmail. net>,
Sara Winslow <[e-mail]>,
Terry Moore <[e-mail]>,
Doug Huggett <[e-mail]>,
Tom Steffens <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
okay. i will package it up and send to dennis. i did brief dennis on the background yesterday.
dennis - as you know we need a decision asap since ms. touhey is screaming. i will get the folder to you
this afternoon.
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
John,
The WaRO is still recommending denial of the dredging portion for the Touhey project. The WaRO
has consistently recommended denial of projects such as this in open shellfish waters and especially
with the presence of SAVs. Terry Moore spoke with Sara Winslow this morning and she has not
changed her recommendation of denial of the dredging portion of the project. There are active shellfish
leases immediately adjacent to the project. Sara also noted the presence of SAVs. It is DMF who
makes the call on the presence of shellfish. Shellfish Sanitation makes the call on the closure of
shellfish waters which would not be in the case of this project.
It should also be noted that the DMF Shallow Water Habitat Committee, called the "Habitat and Water
Quality advisory Committee", has reviewed this project and also recommends denial of the dredging
2 of 4 6/5/01 7:33 AN
[Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke I II
portion. Voting members present for this vote are as follows:
• Willie Phillips, DMF Commissioner
• Barbara Blake, DMF Commissioner
• Doug Rader
• Mark Brinson
• Terry Pratt
• Jim Stevenson
• Dick Briery
• Pricey Harrison, CRC Commissioner
The WaRO is requesting that the decision be submitted for arbitration by Dennis and Coleen. It would
be inconsistent for the WaRO to recommend anything else but denial on this dredging project. The
reason there were no comments on the SEPA is that we never received it to comment on. The first time
we had the info. on this project was when the CAMA Major was received. The Variance application
was for the Zone 2 impacts not the open water impacts. I have been telling the applicants consultants
as well as you for months that the dredging is a 401 issue not a buffer issue and will be addressed
separately. I have always had concerns with this part of the project.
Thanks,
Deborah
Subject: Re: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke
Date: Tue, 29 May 200108:45:06 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
just talked to doug huggett (DCM) and he told me that he has discussed the
matter with sara winslow from DMF. the SAV's are widely scattered and can
be avoided by the dredging if done carefully. Shellfish Sanitation says
that the area is too sandy and actively shoaling to have significant
shellfish. also the area is not a PNA so new dredging is allowed. the
federal agencies are okay with the project as well. therefore i plan to
issue approval for this one with a condition that a SAV survey be done
before dredging and that dredging avoid all SAVs. our previous issuance of
the minor variance (which showed the dredging on the site plan) and the lack
of comment on the EA also weaken our case.
as you know if you object to this decision, you can "appeal" to dennis and
he can arbitrate. please respond by thursday may 31. also be aware that ms.
touhey has called again (and again) and i will call her back today. i wil
not tell her that you recommend denial unless she demands a copy of your
recommendation (it is a public record). please advise. thankx
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
3 of 4 6/5/01 7:33 AM
[Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke
> Cyndi,
> I have finished my review of the Claudia N. Touhey project in Ocracoke,
> Hyde County. I am recommending denial on the dredging portion of the
> project due to loss of use of the waters. There are some parts of the
> proposal; pier, breakwater, retaining wall,; which are OK. The CDF is OK
> if the dike wall is vegetated and a 2 ft. freeboard is maintained. I am
> sending a memo. to you via mail and FAX (just to make sure you get it)
> with reasons for the denial. Thanks.
> Deborah
4 of 4 6/5/01 7:33 AM
[Fwd: Touhey Project
Subject: [Fwd: Touhey Project]
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 18:10:39 -0400
From: Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
John
If there is a resource there that will be removed by this dredging
(shellfish and/or SAV) what are our options? Is denial automatic
without some type of variance?
Has our guidance to the regions been recommend denial if the use would
be removed?
Have we denied other similar projects?
Have we issued other similar projects?
I am perplexed by this project. Considering the high energy that
everyone seems to agree that exist in the area of the proposed dredging,
how can the proposed channel not be a constant maintenance problem? It
almost seems like this is a joint dock/sand mine project
Do you know if there are any other viable docks in this general area
that has been able to maintain their channels?
If we end up issuing a Certification, do we have to issue it for twice
as wide and twice as deep as they said they needed during their EA
process or can we restrict the impact to their EA specified needed
inpact?
If they do dredge the new requested channel, it appears that it will be
a dead end since the "existing" channel has already filled in. Do we
know where the material needing to be dredged from that channel will go,
since the new requested channel will be using the previous disposal site
for dredge disposal?
Hopefully the issues will clear up following Deborah's and Bob Z's road
trip and wading expedition to the coast.
I share many of Deborah's concerns and need to know our options. Since
you and Coleen are meeting tomorrow while I am in Statesville, you may
want to go ahead and discuss it with her and get her ideas. I will drop
the fine into her chair.
Thanks
Dennis
1 of 2 6/5/01 7:07 AN
[Fwd: Touhey Project)
Subject: Touhey Project
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 16:53:52 -0400
From: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
Organization: DENR
To: John Domey <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>, Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Tom Steffens <[e-mail]>,
Joanne Steenhuis <Joanne. Steenhui s @ ncmai 1. net>
Everyone,
There seems to be a lot of misinformation on this project. I have
information from both DCM and DMF that there are SAVs in the project
area. Bob Z., Tom Steffens and I are going to Ocracoke tomorrow (planned
for other projects) so we will make a side trip and check out the SAV
issue. Since the water is only 2 ft. deep, we will wade out and check it
out for ourselves; pictures will follow. The other, and main issue, is
the removal of a use of the waters. DMF including their Commission says
there is a resource which is actively being retrieved. The resource is
clams. There are clamming leases on both sides of the project, so it
makes sense there is a resource. It will be up to Dennis and Coleen to
decide if the resource is being removed by the proposed project. I did
not have a choice of recommendations to make. If there is a resource
which will be removed, I have consistently recommended denial. That has
been my guidance for the 16 years I have been reviewing these projects.
The final decision must be made at the management level. I am sending
this to Joanne so she can relay to you if the WiRO recommends anything
any different. I'll notify everyone on Thursday of what we find.
Deborah
2 of 2 6/5/017:07 AM
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:14:52 -0400
From: Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
CC: John Dorney <John. Dorney @ ncmai 1. net>, Cyndi Karoly <Cyndi.Karol [e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>, Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
Dear Folks--As was indicated in my earlier email to John, this resource is very limited and this proposal to
eliminate uses in waters of this type is recommended for a 401 denial. Since John disagrees, it should be
elevated to the Section Chief for a decision. Jim Mulligan
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
John,
I just called Sara Winslow of DMF to see what was going on with the
conflicting info. She said it has been a long time since she talked to
Doug Huggett, she has not talked to him recently. She told him that
avoiding the SAVs would lessen the impacts of the proposed project but
she did not tell him that the project would be OK with DMF if the SAVs
were avoided. Both Sara and I are well familiar with the area and the
SAVs were scattered over the area in March which means there are
potentially more now with the warmer waters. Besides the SAV issue there
is the bigger issue of the open shellfish waters. Sara says there is no
reason that oysters would not be in the area. There are active leases on
both sides of the project. She has not done a survey so she is not sure
how many are there. To continuously dredge this area would totally
remove this use for any resources there now or which may be present in
the future. Sara is aware, though, that this is a big clamming area so
this resource would definitely be there and would be removed by the
dredging project. I'm not sure what info. you have received on this
project but it seems to be in conflict with the info. that DMF has and I
have. Thanks.
Deborah
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:15:03 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Roger Thorpe <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>,
Sara Winslow <[e-mail]>,
Terry Moore <[e-mail]>,
Doug Huggett <[e-mail]>,
1 of 3 5/30/01 4:15 PN
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]
Tom Steffens <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
okay. i will package it up and send to dennis. i did brief dennis on the background yesterday.
dennis - as you know we need a decision asap since ms. touhey is screaming. i will get the folder to you
this afternoon.
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
John,
The WaRO is still recommending denial of the dredging portion for the Touhey project. The WaRO
has consistently recommended denial of projects such as this in open shellfish waters and especially
with the presence of SAVs. Terry Moore spoke with Sara Winslow this morning and she has not
changed her recommendation of denial of the dredging portion of the project. There are active shellfish
leases immediately adjacent to the project. Sara also noted the presence of SAVs. It is DMF who
makes the call on the presence of shellfish. Shellfish Sanitation makes the call on the closure of
shellfish waters which would not be in the case of this project.
It should also be noted that the DMF Shallow Water Habitat Committee, called the "Habitat and Water
Quality advisory Committee", has reviewed this project and also recommends denial of the dredging
portion. Voting members present for this vote are as follows:
• Willie Phillips, DMF Commissioner
• Barbara Blake, DMF Commissioner
• Doug Rader
• Mark Brinson
• Terry Pratt
• Jim Stevenson
• Dick Briery
• Pricey Harrison, CRC Commissioner
The WaRO is requesting that the decision be submitted for arbitration by Dennis and Coleen. It would
be inconsistent for the WaRO to recommend anything else but denial on this dredging project. The
reason there were no comments on the SEPA is that we never received it to comment on. The first time
we had the info. on this project was when the CAMA Major was received. The Variance application
was for the Zone 2 impacts not the open water impacts. I have been telling the applicants consultants
as well as you for months that the dredging is a 401 issue not a buffer issue and will be addressed
separately. I have always had concerns with this part of the project.
Thanks,
Deborah
Subject: Re: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke
Date: Tue, 29 May 200108:45:06 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <Cyndi.Karol y@NCMai].Net>,
Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>
2 of 3 5/30/01 4:15 PN
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke)
References: <[e-mail]>
just talked to doug huggett (DCM) and he told me that he has discussed the
matter with sara winslow from DMF. the SAV's are widely scattered and can
be avoided by the dredging if done carefully. Shellfish Sanitation says
that the area is too sandy and actively shoaling to have significant
shellfish. also the area is not a PNA so new dredging is allowed. the
federal agencies are okay with the project as well. therefore i plan to
issue approval for this one with a condition that a SAV survey be done
before dredging and that dredging avoid all SAVs. our previous issuance of
the minor variance (which showed the dredging on the site plan) and the lack
of comment on the EA also weaken our case.
as you know if you object to this decision, you can "appeal" to dennis and
he can arbitrate. please respond by thursday may 31. also be aware that ms.
touhey has called again (and again) and i will call her back today. i wil
not tell her that you recommend denial unless she demands a copy of your
recommendation (it is a public record). please advise. thankx
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
> Cyndi,
> I have finished my review of the Claudia N. Touhey project in Ocracoke,
> Hyde County. I am recommending denial on the dredging portion of the
> project due to loss of use of the waters. There are some parts of the
> proposal; pier, breakwater, retaining wall,; which are OK. The CDF is OK
> if the dike wall is vegetated and a 2 ft. freeboard is maintained. I am
> sending a memo. to you via mail and FAX (just to make sure you get it)
> with reasons for the denial. Thanks.
> Deborah
3 of 3 5/30/01 4:15 PN
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:20:20 -0400
From: Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>,
Cyndi Karoly <Cyndi.Karol [e-mail]>, Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
Dear Folks--The issue is not whether or not some transitory activity has impacted the waters somewhat
already, but is there a significant resource present that would be lost by conducting the project as
proposed? In my opinion there is a resource of high value here(the shellfish waters) that the project would
irretrievably impact. Jim Mulligan
John Dorney wrote:
just talked to doug huggett again. the area is closed to shellfishing according to shellfish sanitation's
comments to DCM. also according to the field report, aerial photos and consultant there are no SAVs.
dennis has the file for decision.
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
John,
I just called Sara Winslow of DMF to see what was going on with the
conflicting info. She said it has been a long time since she talked to
Doug Huggett, she has not talked to him recently. She told him that
avoiding the SAVs would lessen the impacts of the proposed project but
she did not tell him that the project would be OK with DMF if the SAVs
were avoided. Both Sara and I are well familiar with the area and the
SAVs were scattered over the area in March which means there are
potentially more now with the warmer waters. Besides the SAV issue there
is the bigger issue of the open shellfish waters. Sara says there is no
reason that oysters would not be in the area. There are active leases on
both sides of the project. She has not done a survey so she is not sure
how many are there. To continuously dredge this area would totally
remove this use for any resources there now or which may be present in
the future. Sara is aware, though, that this is a big clamming area so
this resource would definitely be there and would be removed by the
dredging project. I'm not sure what info. you have received on this
project but it seems to be in conflict with the info. that DMF has and I
have. Thanks.
Deborah
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:15:03 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <Bob.Zarzecki @ncmail.net>,
I of 3 5/30/014:22 PIv
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracokell
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Roger Thorpe <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>,
Sara Winslow <[e-mail]>,
Terry Moore <[e-mail]>,
Doug Huggett <[e-mail]>,
Tom Steffens <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
okay. i will package it up and send to dennis. i did brief dennis on the background yesterday.
dennis - as you know we need a decision asap since ms. touhey is screaming. i will get the folder to
you this afternoon.
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
John,
The WaRO is still recommending denial of the dredging portion for the Touhey project. The WaRO
has consistently recommended denial of projects such as this in open shellfish waters and especially
with the presence of SAVs. Terry Moore spoke with Sara Winslow this morning and she has not
changed her recommendation of denial of the dredging portion of the project. There are active
shellfish leases immediately adjacent to the project. Sara also noted the presence of SAVs. It is DMF
who makes the call on the presence of shellfish. Shellfish Sanitation makes the call on the closure of
shellfish waters which would not be in the case of this project.
It should also be noted that the DMF Shallow Water Habitat Committee, called the "Habitat and
Water Quality advisory Committee", has reviewed this project and also recommends denial of the
dredging portion. Voting members present for this vote are as follows:
• Willie Phillips, DMF Commissioner
• Barbara Blake, DMF Commissioner
• Doug Rader
• Mark Brinson
• Terry Pratt
• Jim Stevenson
• Dick Briery
• Pricey Harrison, CRC Commissioner
The WaRO is requesting that the decision be submitted for arbitration by Dennis and Coleen. It
would be inconsistent for the WaRO to recommend anything else but denial on this dredging project.
The reason there were no comments on the SEPA is that we never received it to comment on. The
first time we had the info. on this project was when the CAMA Major was received. The Variance
application was for the Zone 2 impacts not the open water impacts. I have been telling the applicants
consultants as well as you for months that the dredging is a 401 issue not a buffer issue and will be
addressed separately. I have always had concerns with this part of the project.
Thanks,
Deborah
Subject: Re: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke
2 of 3 5/30/01 4:22 PN
Re: [Fwd: (Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracokefl
Date: Tue, 29 May 200108:45:06 -0400
From: John Dorsey <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
just talked to doug huggett (DCM) and he told me that he has discussed the
matter with sara winslow from DMF. the SAV's are widely scattered and can
be avoided by the dredging if done carefully. Shellfish Sanitation says
that the area is too sandy and actively shoaling to have significant
shellfish. also the area is not a PNA so new dredging is allowed. the
federal agencies are okay with the project as well. therefore i plan to
issue approval for this one with a condition that a SAV survey be done
before dredging and that dredging avoid all SAVs. our previous issuance of
the minor variance (which showed the dredging on the site plan) and the lack
of comment on the EA also weaken our case.
as you know if you object to this decision, you can "appeal" to dennis and
he can arbitrate. please respond by thursday may 31. also be aware that ms.
touhey has called again (and again) and i will call her back today. i wil
not tell her that you recommend denial unless she demands a copy of your
recommendation (it is a public record). please advise. thankx
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
> Cyndi,
> I have finished my review of the Claudia N. Touhey project in Ocracoke,
> Hyde County. I am recommending denial on the dredging portion of the
> project due to loss of use of the waters. There are some parts of the
> proposal; pier, breakwater, retaining wall,; which are OK. The CDF is OK
> if the dike wall is vegetated and a 2 ft. freeboard is maintained. I am
> sending a memo. to you via mail and FAX (just to make sure you get it)
> with reasons for the denial. Thanks.
> Deborah
3 of 3 5/30/01 4:22 PM
RECEIVED
March 14, 2001
MEMORANDUM
Linda Sewall, Director
Division of Environmental Health
FROM: DoucT Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
APR 0 4 20?

I? @?? b
C?
n
VR 1 6 2001
;
SHELLFISH S
ANITATION
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEN
APPLICANT: CLAUDIA N. TOUHEY
PROJECT LOCATION: Off SR 13>7, in Hyde County on Ocracoke Island
PROPOSED PROJECT: Dredge an Access Channel to Construct a Docking Facility
Please indicate below your agency's position or view' int on the proposed project and return this
form by April 3, 2001. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact
Doug Huggett at 733-2293. When appropriate. in-depth comments with supporting data are
requested.
REPLY
This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project. only if the recommended changes are incorporated.
? for reasons described in the attached comments.
T*4gency objects to the-project
SIGNED`.- l ?7f-C1 i'? /-e/ DATE
4- f
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Health
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Linda C. Sewall, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Doug Huggett
FROM: Gina Brooks
SUBJECT: Claudia N. Touhey, Hyde County
DATE: March 20, 2001
IL" V r
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
From the maps attached in the permit application, it appears that the subject project is located in
an area which is closed to shellfish harvesting. It also appears that the dredge discharge pipe will
be located in a closed area. Please see the attached closure map. If dredging is to occur from a
closed area with disposal to a closed area, no comment would be necessary; however, if the
dredged area is closed with the disposal area open to shelltshing, this Section would need to be
contacted prior to dredging, so that a temporary shellfish closure can be made. Should you have
any questions or concerns, please contact me at (2521726-6827.
SHELLFISH SANITATION SECTION, P. O. BOX 769, MOREHEAD CITY. NC 28557-0769
TELEPHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN ECZUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 50% RECYCLED/ 10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
PROHIBITED TERRITORY
SILVER LAKE - OCRACOKE AREA HYDE COUNTY
Area G-6 (Map 9) (Prohibited areas are shaded)

OCRACOKE AREA
In any of the waters of Silver Lake.
All waters bordered on the north by a straight line beginning at a point on Ocracoke Island at 35°
0708" N - 76° 5754" W; thence in a westerly direction to a point on shore at 35° 07' 08" N - 76°
58'24" W.
NO PERSON SHALL TAKE OR ATTEMPT TO TAKE ANY OYSTERS, CLAMS OR MUSSELS OR POSSESS, SELL, OR
OFFER FOR SALE ANY OYSTERS, CLAMS OR MUSSELS TAKEN FROM THE FOLLOWING AREAS, AT ANY TIME:
3ENERAL COMMENTS Applicant:

_ The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system improvements must be
approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as
required by 15A NCAC 18C 0.0300 et, seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)733-
2460.
_ This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with state and federal
drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information, the applicant should contact the Public Water
Supply Secton, [phone].
_ If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish.
For information regarding the shellfish sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation
Section, [phone].
_ Cumulative impacts from this type of project could cause deteriorafion in water quality. The proposed project
would increase impervious surfaces and alter natural drainage patterns. There would be a loss of natural
vegetation causing an increase in stormwater runoff which could jeopardize the open status of adjacent waters.
For more information, the applicant should contact ft-tee Shellfish Sanitation Section at [phone].
The subject project is located in an area open to shellfish harvesting. The 10-slip dock, as proposed, would not
cause closure in accordance with 15A NCAC 18A MARINAS: DOCKING FACILITIES: OTHER MOORING AREAS,
however, dockage at the facility could exceed 10 boats. If itus was to occur, closure would be recommended in
accordance with DEH rules. For information regarding shellfish sanitation, the applicant should contact the Shellfis
Sanitation Section at [phone].
Proliferation of these type facilifies could cause deterioration in water quality and consequentty additional closures
of shellfishing waters. For more information, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at
[phone].
_L,/ The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem. For informaion
concerning appropriate mosquito breeding measure, the applicant+should co act the blic Health Pest
Manaaement S lion (31 [phone]. The applicant should also contact with MosaullC
Control in County at
I/ ? U
V This is a mosquito breeding area. Construction plans and operations snoula include awareness of this The
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management at (252)7/2t-8970 for a site visit or intorrT mon to ne!-_
prevent the creation of more mosquito habitat.
The applicant should contact
County at
with Mosquito Ccntroi ir.
The applicant should be advised that this area is a mosquito infested habitat. Mosquito contra will be a ;,ropler-
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapiaated structures, an extensive
rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the migration of rodents to adjacent areas. For
information concerning rodent control, contact the local health department or the Public Hecltn Pest Manaaeme-
Section, [phone].
_ The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their requirements for se'?nc
tank installations (es required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.sea.). For information concerninc sectic tank enc
other on-site waste disposal methods, contact the On-Site Wastewater Section ar 19191733-2E95
Tne applicant should be advised to contact the local health aeocr.ment recardinc me sanitary facilities iecure•,:
this protect.
The applicant should work with the local health department to assure that pians tot me
are appro?vve?d, prior to construction.
?G 7
Review-r. Date. 3/-;*-
0? W A T1c9?G
co r
> 1
o ?
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr. Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
May 30, 2001
MEMO
TO: Dennis Rams y
FROM: John PtIX"i
RE: Claudia Touhey project
DWQ # 010521
Hyde County
Attached is a copy of the file for the abovementioned project. It is fairly self-explanatory. The
only thing I would add is that I discussed the SAV and shellfish resource issues with Doug Huggett
(DEM -733-2293) who told me that he had discussed the matter with Sara Winslow (DMF) and she
would not object to the CAMA Permit (and DWQ approval presumably) if there was a condition to
avoid all Submerged Aquatic Vegetation with the proposed dredging. According to the recent letter
from the consultant (Joe Lassiter) there are no SAV's in the proposed dredging area. Please call me
if you have questions. As we discussed, we need a decision fairly quickly. Ms. Touhey has been
calling (as has her consultant) and is aware of the internal dispute. Thankx
Cc: Deborah Sawyer, WaRO
Doug Huggett, DCM
T
06 MR
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
Division of Water Quality 1621 Mail Service Centel Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 [phone]
Stag of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
FROM: Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director
Division of Marine Fisheries
DATE: 4-16-01
IL"WA
1 •
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
h.-
A P
z 7L,
SUBJ: CAMA/DREDGE AND FILL PERMIT
°udia'J'.ouhey / Ocracoke Island / Hyde County
I have reviewed the comments provided by the District Manager and/or Bio-Supervisor
and concur with their recommendation (s).
Director, Date
Preston P.Pate, Jr.
Deputy Director, Date
Michael,G. Buhl
`G Habitat Protedon Section Date
Section Chief,
Michael W. Street
P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
i
?CEfYf ?!
MAR2220
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary 13 March 2001
Donna D. Moffitt, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Preston P. Pate, Jr. , Director
Division of Marine Fisheries
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge and Fill Permit Application Review
Applicant: Claudia N. Touhey
Project Location: Off SR 1357 in Hyde County, North Carolina
on Ocracoke Island near Horse Pen Point
on the Pamlico Sound

APR

Proposed Project: Dredge Access Channel, pier with 4 fixed slips plus platform along
with bulkhead.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
2 April 2001. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Steve
Trowell at 252-946-6481. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is
requested.
REPLY This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended
changes are incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the
attached comments.
Z/- d-P/CAI - Date s 0 /
Sis;ne
A 60
NCDENR
Washington District \ 943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director
11 April 2001
LT-.XVTA
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
TO: Doug Huggett, DCM Major Permits Processing Coordinator
THROUGH: Mike Street, Chief, Habitat Protection Sectie-
FROM: Sara E. Winslow, Northern District Manager
SUBJECT: Claudia N. Touhey Proposal
DATE: April 11, 2001
The following comments by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries are provided
pursuant to General Statute 113-131. The Division objects to the project as proposed based on the
following reasons.
Pamlico Sound serves as a nursery area for spotted seatrout, red drum, weakfish, flounder, shrimp,
blue crabs and other commercially and recreationally important species. Viable oyster and clam resources
also exist throughout the project area.
The applicant proposes to dredge a 55' wide (average width) x 450' long access channel to a
proposed depth of 5', connecting the proposed channel with an existing dredged channel. The diked
disposal area is to be constructed on the neighboring property to the east. A total of 1,697 cubic yards of
sand is proposed to be dredged. A 6' x 200' long pier is proposed with a 12' x 18' platform and 4 slips
with associated finger piers. A 55' long breakwater is proposed to be constructed under the pier in the
vicinity of the slips. A 244' long bulkhead and 377' long retain hg wall between the upland and wetlands
are also proposed.
The Division noted in its comments on the EA that the plat showed the proposed channel width to
be 30'. However, in the CAMA application the proposed width varies from 42 - 70'. There is no
indication of the size vessels that would utilize the channel of the slips. Most vessels commonly used in
this area are fairly small, generally not exceeding 22 ft in length. If the boats to be used at this site are
similar, there is no need for the proposed channel depth and width. A depth of 3 ft and a width of 25 ft
would be sufficient. We urge that this specific issue be addressed.
On March 28, 2001, I made an onsite visit. Areas of SAVs were observed throughout the shallow
water area. The adjacent property, Mr. John Geewax, was the site of a previous dredging project that
included a dredged access channel, which the Touhey channel would connect with-; that area has filled in.
The average depth of the existing access channel is less than 2.5. The existing water depths at the
proposed site are 2'. The existing basin has also shoaled in and has not been maintained since 1995. The
intent of the Geewax basin was to moor boats. A pier structure was also approved though never built.
Even if this project were approved the existing channel would require dredging to obtain a 5 ft depth.
This area is very dynamic due to the winds and fetch of the waves, resulting in significant sand
movement. Due to the high energy of the area, the proposed access channel would fill in and require
frequent maintenance. Frequent dredging could impact resources in the adjacent area. The associated
impacts would be unknown at this time.
In summary, the Division objects to the proposed access channel due to the loss and/or impacts to
24,750 sq ft of shallow water habitat, SAVs and SAV habitat, and probable excessive channel depth and
width. The importance of these areas as a nursery were previously stated. This agency would approve of
the other aspects of the project.
If this project is approved over this agency's objections, a dredging moratorium would be
requested. The moratorium time period would be February 15 - June 30 for the access channel. This
moratorium will ensure that the environmental integrity of the area will be protected during critical times
of usage. The Division would also request that the width of the access channel be reduced.
P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director
MEMORANDUM:
A741*9
N R
NORTH CAROLINA DEPART'-1-_.'47 OF
ENVIRONMLNT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
THROUGH: Mike Street, Chief Habitat Section
FROM: Sara E. Winslow, District Managev--;-?
SUBJECT: Project No. 1089-EA Claudia N. Touhey Property, Ocracoke
DATE: January 2, 2001

The following comments by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries are
provided pursuant to General Statute 113-131.,.'.
The EA does not state what the length, width and-depth of the proposed access
channel will be. Based on DMF measurements the channel will be -450 feet long. The
cross section on the plat shows a channel width of 30 feet. However, the shaded area
on the plat is 50-65 feet in width. The Division assumes that the depth will be 6 feet,
yet this is not stated. These dimensions need to be included in the EA.
The Division will approve of the EA if this information is included. Specific
conditions will be included by the Division in the CAMA permit process. This agency will
request a dredging moratorium from February 15 - June 30 for the access channel.
This will ensure the environmental integrity of the area will be protected during critical
times of usage.
6 Y=?. - cam. ", aTt' 30f--

P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10". post-consumer paper
RECF? AFC
APR 1 8 'OCi
COASTAL K4ANK3=iV,?Dv1
March 14, 2001
MEMORANDUM
Mike Street
Division of Marine Fisheries
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
Fon lL7 n 1,
7r : 6 2ooi
MAR 1 9 2?
I D?? -AIT??T
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW
APPLICANT: CLAUDIA N. TOUHEY
PROJECT LOCATION: Off SR 1357, in Hyde County, on Ocracoke Island
1
PROPOSED PROJECT: Dredge an Access Channel to Construct a Docking Facility
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this
form by April 3, 2001. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact
Doug Huggett at 733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data are
requested.
REPLY
There are no known public trust conflicts with the project location or design.
There appear to be public trust conflicts that require additional investigation.
Approximately days additional review time is needed.
It is recommended that changed to be made to the project to reduce or eliminate public trust
comments, as discussed in the attached memo.
be ed 5 ub m. cl uja.s i l ( p_5 i b le . U nab f e +v d-e4e r it i n e
pre er4y boue%dry rQ;f" an Qt5k 6 et-
SIGNED DATE 3 -,(9 -O 1
ot 0 vJ ATFRQG
Vj r
o ?
Michael F. Easley
Govemor
William G. Ross, Jr. Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
May 30, 2001
MEMO
TO: Dennis Rams y
FROM: John Dome
RE: Claudia Touhey project
DWQ # 010521
Hyde County
Attached is a copy of the file for the abovementioned project. It is fairly self-explanatory. The
only thing I would add is that I discussed the SAV and shellfish resource issues with Doug Huggett
(DEM -733-2293) who told me that he had discussed the matter with Sara Winslow (DMF) and she
would not object to the CAMA Permit (and DWQ approval presumably) if there was a condition to
avoid all Submerged Aquatic Vegetation with the proposed dredging. According to the recent letter
from the consultant (Joe Lassiter) there are no SAV's in the proposed dredging area. Please call me
if you have questions. As we discussed, we need a decision fairly quickly. Ms. Touhey has been
calling (as has her consultant) and is aware of the internal dispute. Thankx
Cc: Deborah Sawyer, WaRO
Doug Huggett, DCM
NCDENR
Customer Service Division of Water Quality 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 [phone]
1 800 623-7748
\O?0 ?,? h ?rgQG
O ?
Michael F. Easley -
Governor
William G. Ross,Jr.Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Oimlity
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetlands1401 Unit
Location: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250 Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: General 919-733-1786 Fax: [phone]
Fax To: OaL ax Number:
Compan : Date: S I ?? ?? 1
From:
Phone:
No. Of Pages including cover sheet: ?
Notes or special instructions:

e IrA
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality 2321 Crabtree Blvd, Ste 250 Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Wetlands'401 Unit: [phone]
Fax: [phone]c"93
[Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]
Subject: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]
Date: Wed, 30 May 200109:13:33 -0400
From: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
Organization: DENR
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <Cyndi.Karol [e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>, Roger Thorpe <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>,
Sara Winslow <[e-mail]>, Terry Moore <[e-mail]>,
Doug Huggett <[e-mail]>, Tom Steffens <Tom. Steffens@ ncmail.net>
John,
The WaRO is still recommending denial of the dredging portion for the Touhey project. The WaRO has
consistently recommended denial of projects such as this in open shellfish waters and especially with the
presence of SAVs. Terry Moore spoke with Sara Winslow this morning and she has not changed her
recommendation of denial of the dredging portion of the project. There are active shellfish leases
immediately adjacent to the project. Sara also noted the presence of SAVs. It is DMF who makes the call
on the presence of shellfish. Shellfish Sanitation makes the call on the closure of shellfish waters which
would not be in the case of this project.
It should also be noted that the DMF Shallow Water Habitat Committee, called the "Habitat and Water
Quality advisory Committee", has reviewed this project and also recommends denial of the dredging
portion. Voting members present for this vote are as follows:
• Willie Phillips, DMF Commissioner
• Barbara Blake, DMF Commissioner
• Doug Rader
• Mark Brinson
• Terry Pratt
• Jim Stevenson
• Dick Briery
• Pricey Harrison, CRC Commissioner
The WaRO is requesting that the decision be submitted for arbitration by Dennis and Coleen. It would be
inconsistent for the WaRO to recommend anything else but denial on this dredging project. The reason
there were no comments on the SEPA is that we never received it to comment on. The first time we had
the info. on this project was when the CAMA Major was received. The Variance application was for the
Zone 2 impacts not the open water impacts. I have been telling the applicants consultants as well as you for
months that the dredging is a 401 issue not a buffer issue and will be addressed separately. I have always
had concerns with this part of the project.
Thanks,
Deborah
1 of 2 5/30/01 12:15 PM
[Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]
Subject: Re: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke
Date: Tue, 29 May 200108:45:06 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>, Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>, Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>
just talked to doug huggett (DCM) and he told me that he has discussed the
matter with sara winslow from DMF. the SAV's are widely scattered and can
be avoided by the dredging if done carefully. Shellfish Sanitation says
that the area is too sandy and actively shoaling to have significant
shellfish. also the area is not a PNA so new dredging is allowed. the
federal agencies are okay with the project as well. therefore i plan to
issue approval for this one with a condition that a SAV survey be done
before dredging and that dredging avoid all SAVs. our previous issuance of
the minor variance (which showed the dredging on the site plan) and the lack
of comment on the EA also weaken our case.
as you know if you object to this decision, you can "appeal" to dennis and
he can arbitrate. please respond by thursday may 31. also be aware that ms.
touhey has called again (and again) and i will call her back today. i wil
not tell her that you recommend denial unless she demands a copy of your
recommendation (it is a public record). please advise. thankx
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
> Cyndi,
> I have finished my review of the Claudia N. Touhey project in Ocracoke,
> Hyde County. I am recommending denial on the dredging portion of the
> project due to loss of use of the waters. There are some parts of the
> proposal; pier, breakwater, retaining wall,; which are OK. The CDF is OK
> if the dike wall is vegetated and a 2 ft. freeboard is maintained. I am
> sending a memo. to you via mail and FAX (just to make sure you get it)
> with reasons for the denial. Thanks.
> Deborah
2 of 2 5/30/01 12:15 PM
[Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: OcracokeJl
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 11:43:10 -0400
From: Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Dear John--I agree with Deborah to submit this one to Coleen and
Dennis. There is a clear elimination of use of waters that are a very
limited resource; this has always lead us to recommend denial of a 401
certification. Jim Mulligan
Subject: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]
Date: Wed, 30 May 200109:13:33 -0400
From: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
Organization: DENR
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <Bob.Zarzecki @ncmail.net>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>, Roger Thorpe <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>,
Sara Winslow <[e-mail]>, Terry Moore <Terry.Moore@ ncmail.net>,
Doug Huggett <[e-mail]>, Tom Steffens <Tom. Steffens@ ncmai 1. net>
John,
The WaRO is still recommending denial of the dredging portion for the Touhey project. The WaRO has
consistently recommended denial of projects such as this in open shellfish waters and especially with the
presence of SAVs. Terry Moore spoke with Sara Winslow this morning and she has not changed her
recommendation of denial of the dredging portion of the project. There are active shellfish leases
immediately adjacent to the project. Sara also noted the presence of SAVs. It is DMF who makes the call
on the presence of shellfish. Shellfish Sanitation makes the call on the closure of shellfish waters which
would not be in the case of this project.
It should also be noted that the DMF Shallow Water Habitat Committee, called the "Habitat and Water
Quality advisory Committee", has reviewed this project and also recommends denial of the dredging
portion. Voting members present for this vote are as follows:
• Willie Phillips, DMF Commissioner
• Barbara Blake, DMF Commissioner
• Doug Rader
• Mark Brinson
• Terry Pratt
• Jim Stevenson
• Dick Briery
• Pricey Harrison, CRC Commissioner
The WaRO is requesting that the decision be submitted for arbitration by Dennis and Coleen. It would be
inconsistent for the WaRO to recommend anything else but denial on this dredging project. The reason
there were no comments on the SEPA is that we never received it to comment on. The first time we had
1 of 2 5/30/01 12:18 PM
[Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]
the info. on this project was when the CAMA Major was received. The Variance application was for the
Zone 2 impacts not the open water impacts. I have been telling the applicants consultants as well as you for
months that the dredging is a 401 issue not a buffer issue and will be addressed separately. I have always
had concerns with this part of the project.
Thanks,
Deborah
Subject: Re: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke
Date: Tue, 29 May 200108:45:06 -0400
From: John Dorsey <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>, Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>, Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>
just talked to doug huggett (DCM) and he told me that he has discussed the
matter with sara winslow from DMF. the SAV's are widely scattered and can
be avoided by the dredging if done carefully. Shellfish Sanitation says
that the area is too sandy and actively shoaling to have significant
shellfish. also the area is not a PNA so new dredging is allowed. the
federal agencies are okay with the project as well. therefore i plan to
issue approval for this one with a condition that a SAV survey be done
before dredging and that dredging avoid all SAVs. our previous issuance of
the minor variance (which showed the dredging on the site plan) and the lack
of comment on the EA also weaken our case.
as you know if you object to this decision, you can "appeal" to dennis and
he can arbitrate. please respond by thursday may 31. also be aware that ms.
touhey has called again (and again) and i will call her back today. i wil
not tell her that you recommend denial unless she demands a copy of your
recommendation (it is a public record). please advise. thankx
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
> Cyndi,
> I have finished my review of the Claudia N. Touhey project in Ocracoke,
> Hyde County. I am recommending denial on the dredging portion of the
> project due to loss of use of the waters. There are some parts of the
> proposal; pier, breakwater, retaining wall,; which are OK. The CDF is OK
> if the dike wall is vegetated and a 2 ft. freeboard is maintained. I am
> sending a memo. to you via mail and FAX (just to make sure you get it)
> with reasons for the denial. Thanks.
> Deborah
2 of 2 5/30/01 12:18 PN
5-30-01;10:41AM:QUIBLE AND ASSOC.
Quible
;1 252 261 1260 # 2/ 3
9ulble & Associates, RC. P.O. Drawer 870
Wty Hawk. NC 27949
ENGNEEfaNG • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES • PLANNING Phone: [phone]
SINCE 1959 Fax: [phone]
PRINCIPALS
Sean C, Boyle, P.E.
Joseph S. Losslter. C.E.P.
Eduardo A VOIdlvieso. P.E,
ASSOCIATES
May 29, 2001 DOM S. Narr
Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit
Parkview Bldg, 2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re Touhey Project - Ocracoke - DWQ 401 Certification- Minor Variance
Dear John:
The purpose of this correspondence is for Quible & Associates, P.C (Quible) to respond on
behalf of Ms. Claudia N. Touhey, representing her parents, related to your verbal indication
during our telephone conversation on 5/29 that Ms. Deborah Sawyer of the NC Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) staff had recommended denial of the 401 certification for the Touhey
project. The basis for the recommendation, as I understand it, is related to concerns about
impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV's) in the alignment of the access channel that is
proposed to serve the Touhey property. 1 further reference the SEPA Environmental Assessment
(EA) and the Major LAMA Permit application that have been in process for this project for more
than a year. My response to the position Ms. Sawyer has taken is as follows:
First, let me say that I am absolutely amazed by a recommendation of denial from Ms. Sawyer
based on a concern that was not raised by DWQ during the permit review process. I refcrence an
April 18`s letter to Ms. Touhey from DWQ that you signed on behalf of Kerr T. Stevens. In that
letter information was requested on four items, none of which were related to SAV's. Also,
please be advised that the referenced letter, which DWQ indicates was sent by certified mail, was
never received by Ms. Touhey or Quible by that method. The only way we found out about the
letter was by talking with Doug Huggett of DCM, and subsequently with you, after which you
fax'ed and mailed both of us a copy which I received on May 4", 2001. Following receipt of the
letter by that method we responded to those specific items and were advised by DWQ staff,
including Ms. Sawyer, that the concerns were resolved and that we were moving towards
issuance of the 401 and Minor Variance. No request for additional information concerning
SAV's has been received, and no documentation that there are SAV's in the channel alignment
has been presented.
5-30-01:10:41AM:QUIBLE AND ASSOC.
1 252 261 1260 # 3/ 3
page 2 - Touhey Project - Ocracoke - DWQ 401 Certification- Minor Variance
May 29, 2001
Secondly, this project has been through the SEPA EA process and received a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) from the State Clearinghouse on March 27, 2001 followed by a letter
on no further actions from Doug Huggett, Major Permits and Consistency Coordinator for the
DCM on April 3, 2001 on behalf of DENR. During the EA process a request was made in a Jan
27, 2000 letter from Mr. Huggett that Quible provide "in greater detail impacts to shellfish
resources and to SAV ad(sp) shallow bottom habitat". Based on that request, Quible expanded
the geographic area under review and provided additional narrative and a separate plat which was
included with an amended EA in May 2000. That plat indicated the location of SAV's and
shellfish leases in proximity to the project area.
In fact, the search for SAV's by Quible and DENR staff has been extensive in the project area,
and continued throughout calendar year 2000 as the EA and CAMA Permit application moved
through review. No rooted SAV's were found in the proposed project alignment and it was
generally agreed that the high energy, shallow water habitat in which the channel was proposed
was not supporting SAV's. Rather, the SAV's were found in deeper water where wave action
had less impact on the bottom contour. Given the scrutiny this project is receiving by DENR
staff, I think it is reasonable to conclude that if significant SAV's had been found in the channel
alignment no FONSI would have been issued.
In closing, I am at a loss to explain the position of certain DCM and DWQ staff on this project.
The Touhey's have been working with staff from both Divisions from day one in preparing the
EA, CAMA application and plats associated with this project. I reference the meeting that you,
Deborah Sawyer, Pete Petersen, Terry Moore, the Touhey's and their attorney, and I had on the
property during the implementation of the buffer rules on Ocracoke and our discussion that day
related to the proposed project and what DWQ and DCM would support. I ask that you review
this matter and consider whether the Touhey family is being treated fairly and equitably in this
matter. My conclusion is that they are not.
Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please contact me at 252-261-3300 if you
have questions and I would appreciate your letting me know when a decision is made regarding
this project. I would also like a copy of Ms. Sawyer's comments for our files.
Sincerely,
As iates
o assiter, CEP
resident
cc: Claudia Touhey
Doug Huggett
Charles Jones
Beth Atkins
MEMORANDUM
May 24, 2001
To: John Dorsey
To: Cyndi Karoly
Through: Jim Mulligan
From: Deborah Sawyer
Subject: Section 401 Recommendation for Denial
Claudia N. Touhey
Hyde County
The above subject project has been reviewed by this office. There are several proposals on the
project. Comments on the various proposals are as follows:

freeboard is maintained and the dike wall is vegetated as required by the Minor Variance
i?N
SAV's is a loss of important aquatic habitat.
The applicant prepared a SEPA document in 2000 proposing the width of the channel to
be 30 ft. wide but the CAMA Permit applicationproposes a width of between 42 ft. and
70 ft. wide. There were objections to the narrower width proposed in the SEPA
document. The wider widths were never proposed for the environmental review.
This area of the Pamlico Sound is very dynamic due to the high winds and fetch of the
The proposal to construct 246 ft. of bulkhead along M1 4W is recommended for approval
The proposal to construct 377 ft. of retaining wall along the upland/coastal wetland
interface is recommended for approval.
The proposal to construct a 6 ft. by 200 ft. pier with 4 fixed slips and a 12 ft. by 18 ft.
platform is recommended for approval.
The proposal to construct a 24,491 diked disposal area for the containment of dredged
material in Zone 2 of the Tar-Pamlico Buffer area is recommended for approval if a 2 ft.
issued by the DWQ.
The proposal to dredge a 55 ft. wide by 450 ft. long access channel to a proposed depth of
5 ft. which would connect the proposed channel at an approximate 90 degree angle to the
existing dredged channel located offshore of the neighboring property to the east for a
total of 24,750 sgft. of dredged shallow water habitat is recommended for denial. This
ar'
portion of the proposed project is recommended for denial of the Section 401 due to loss
of use of the waters in the proposed dredging area. These waters are classified as SA ?
Waters and are open to shellfishing. Dredging in this area would be a loss of shellfish
habitat. This area also contains submerged aquatic vegetated (SAV's) as determined by
Sara Winslow of the Division of Marine Fisheries on March 28, 2001. The removal of the
f?' 5 __ IkV -
waves. This wave energy results in significant sand movement as has been experienced
on the adjacent property. Frequent dredging would be required to maintain the channel.
This could result in additional and continuous impacts and losses of use of the waters
over time.
This office recommends denial of the dredging portion of this application. This denial is
consistent with other denials for similar dredging projects with similar impacts to Waters
of the State.
cc: John Dorney / Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Bob Zarzecki, Wetlands/401 Unit
WaRO File
Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke
Subject: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:39:50 -0400
From: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
Organization: DENR
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
CC: Rob Ridings <[e-mail]>, Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
John Dorney <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>
Cyndi,
I have finished my review of the Claudia N. Touhey project in Ocracoke,
Hyde County. I am recommending denial on the dredging portion of the
project due to loss of use of the waters. There are some parts of the
proposal; pier, breakwater, retaining wall,; which are OK. The CDF is OK
if the dike wall is vegetated and a 2 ft. freeboard is maintained. I am
sending a memo. to you via mail and FAX (just to make sure you get it)
with reasons for the denial. Thanks.
Deborah
_l
psi ?
1 of 1 5/24/01 11:44 AM
c
(?nl as?a-

c,7cl?

j._
P 7 \ov\
S
ePSUA
Dpu?`

N°
l
C?? $2
OJAI')
V?t
WarFof Michael F. Easley
?O Governor
Cq 9 G r William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
j Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
May 21, 200
DWQ # 01-052
Hyde Count•
Page 1 of
Ms. Claudia Touhey
PO Box 9
Ocracoke, NC 27960
Cc: Quible & Associates, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Douglas Dorman
PO Drawer 870
Kitty Hawk, Nc 27949
252-261-1260 (fax)
RE: Lots 2, 3 and 4, Trent Woods Subdivision, Gaskin Drive, Ocracoke, Hyde County, NC
Pamlico Sound [03-03-07, 29-(40.5), SA HQW]
APPROVAL of Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Buffer Protection Rules MINOR VARIANCE [15A NCAC 2B
.0259(9)(b)] and Authorization Certificate with ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Dear Ms. Touhey,
You have our approval, in accordance with the conditions listed below, to impact 10,400 ftz of Zone 2 of the
protected riparian buffers for the purpose of constructing the proposed spoil containment area on the subject property. This
letter shall act as your Minor Variance approval as described within 15A NCAC 2B .0259(9)(b). In addition, you have our
approval to construct the proposed bulkheads and pier on the subject property. This letter shall act as your Authorization
Certificate per 15A NCAC 2B .0259(8). Also, you should get any other required federal, state or local permits before you
proceed with your project including but not limited to CAMA Permits, 404 USACE Permits, 401 DWQ Water Quality
Certification and Sediment and Erosion Control Permit.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your Minor Variance Request and cover
letter dated 5/7/01 and "Base Map for Environmental Planning" revised 5/3/01 and initialed by Mr. Bob Zarzecki on
5/21/01. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new request for approval. Foi
this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed below.
1. No impacts shall occur to Zone 1 of the protected riparian buffers, except for those directly associated with
the proposed bulkheads.
2. Any vegetation removed to install the tie-rods and footings or any grading associated with the proposed
bulkheads must be restored immediately following installation.
3. Upon completion of all work approved within this authorization, and any subsequent modifications, the
applicant is required to return the attached Certificate of Completion to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
4. An approved CAMA Major Permit and its associated 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for
activities associated with this project prior to construction. The Division of Water Quality has received the
CAMA Major application and will provide its comments to you.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Quible
3`d1P
Ulosa1 202_
9uible & Associates, P.C. P.O. Drawer 870
Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Phone: [phone]
ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES • PLANNING OX
SINCE 1959 Fax: [phone]
PRINCIPALS
N. n Sean C. Boyle, P.E.
l4 t; F?
99 1' Joseph S. Lassffer, C.E.P.
n i Eduardo J. Valdivieso. RE.
4
ASSOCIATES
± ! David S. Neff
`?..fl()I I
May 7, 2001
Mr. John R. Dorney
NCDE&NR - Division of Water Quali y
2321 Crabtree Blvd
Raliegh, NC 27604-2260
Re: Revised Minor Variance Request for Claudia N. Touhey Property
Ocracoke Township, Hyde County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Sawyer:

This letter is regarding the recent Minor Variance Request submitted to the Division of Water
Quality on behalf Claudia N. Touhey for lots 2, 3, and 4, Trent Woods Subdivision.
Enclosed are the revisions and in formation requested for the subject project.
•
•
•
1
The proposed detail of the dike around the spoil area indicated a 1:3 slope, however
the plan view and associated calculations for the spoil disposal area show the correct
3:1 slope for the dike. The dike detail has been corrected to show a 3:1 slope as well
as adding vegetation notes to stabilize the bank of the spoil disposal area.
2. The spoil containment area has been modified to increase the freeboard to 2 feet which
reduces the spoil containment area to 2,020 cubic yards and yields a 121 holding
capacity. The spoil material associated with the dredge project is sand with very little
silt associated with it, therefore the settlement of the material should be very rapid and
the holing capacity should be adequate. If neccessary the dredge project can be phased
to accomodate the amount of spoil material, but it is our feeling that this will not be
neccessary to complete the project as described.
3. The purpose of the bulkhead is to abate erosion along the shoreline. The subject
property has a northeast facing shoreline which is exposed to the wind and wave
energy associated with major storm events. The exposure of property along the
Pamlico Sound make it vulnerable to substantial erosion and put a permitted
wastewater system in jeopardy by decreasing the uplands available for the proposed
residence. The proposed retaining wall will control the placement of fill material
`U ?lr? ?"vi tip";
?\ v
a
adjacent to coastal wetlands along the entrance to the subject property. The proposed
pier will provide access to deeper water for mooring facilities as well as provide
access to an existing channel.
• 4. A single family residence is proposed and the Hyde County Health Department has
approved and permitted a wastewater design for a 4 bedroom single family residence.
The proposed single family residence will be constructed within Zone 2 of the
protected buffer and a minor variance for the proposed residence will be applied for
upon approval of the CAMA Major and Minor Variance.
The following items have been revised and are included with this submittal package:
• A revised copy of the Minor Variance Application.
• A copy of the revised plan.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. If you have any question, or require any
additional information, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Quible & Associates, P.C.

Douglas A. Dorman
cc: Claudia N. Touhey
Deborah Sawyer, DWQ Washington Regional Office
I OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request #
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form - for Minor Variances
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rules
NOTE: This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Please identify which Riparian Area Protection Rule applies.
o Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC.0233)
6 Tar-Pamlico River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC.0259)
Part 1: General Information
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the property):
Claudi N. Touhey
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person lerIly responsible for the property and its compliance)
Name: Claudia N. Tou ey
---.._....---.... .._..---..__._..._._...---.... ......... __.._..-- -- -
Title:
Street address: P-_ o. Box 9
._.____..__._._.____.-
Citv. State. Ziq: Ocracoke, NC 27960
Telephone: ( 252 )__928-4351
Fax: [phone]
3.
Contact person who can answer questions about the proposed project:
Name: Joe Lassiter, Quible & Associates, P.C.
Telephone: (252 ) 261-3300
Fax: [phone]
Email: quible@ indspri.ng.com_-
4. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, OReration and maintenance agreements, etc.):
Tou ey Property
5. Project Location:
Sroecaskins Drive, Lots 2, 3, 4, Trent Woods Subdivision
address:
City, State, Zip: Ocracoke, NC 27960
County: Hyde
Latitude/longitude: 35 07 OON/75 58 1.2W
Version 1: February 2000
A.
6. Directions to site from nearest major intersection (Also, attach an 8'h x 11 copy of the USGS
topographic map indicating the location of the site):
Right off NC 12 on Backroad. Left at Back Porch Restaurant. Right at
Coffee Shop. Diagonal through next intersection onto Gaskins Drive.
_.._.... ...... ._ _. _ ..
Gravel drive on left with gate.
7. Stream to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Stream name (for unnamed streams label as "UT to the nearest named stream):
Pamlico Sound
-_-------- ---------- .__._._.__....----..__.-._..__.-._..._____. _---- __...... _____..._-__._-............... _._.._._._._._.._.._....._...................... Stream classification [as identified within thAe Schedule of Classifications 15A NCAC 2B
0315 (Neuse) or.0316 (Tar-Pamlico)]. __._.__...._._.__.._._...__._____._._..__._..__. ---____--
8. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required or have been received already for
this project?
Required: Received:
X

Date received
3/16/99
Permit Type:
CAMA Major
CAMA Minor
401 Certification/404 Permit
On-site Wastewater Permit
NPDES Permit (including stormwater)
Non-discharge Permit
Water Supply Watershed Variance
Others (specify)
Part 2: Proposed Activity
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Description of proposed activity [Also, please attach a map of sufficient detail (such as a plat
map or site plan) to accurately delineate the boundaries of the land to be utilized in carrying
out the activity, the location and dimension of any disturbance in the riparian buffers
associated with the activity, and the extent of riparian buffers on the land]:
........ __...... _.___......... _.__......... _.__----------- -..._.:See _.._ar-tached._.marrative _and .__site..-_plan--
2. State reasons why this plan for the proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished,
reduced or reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers:
See alternatives analysis in enclosed EA.
3. Description of any best management practices to be used to control impacts associated with
the proposed activity (i.e., control of runoff from impervious surfaces to provide diffuse flow,
re-planting vegetation or enhancement of existing vegetation, etc.):
The proposed dredge spoil area will be graded and vegetated per
approved seeding specifications, The proposed_si.ngle family residence
. __ ....
will be low density for an approximate 1 acre parcel of land
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 1: February 2000
A
4. Please provide an explanation of the following:
(1) The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from the strict application of this
Rule.
Owner would be unable to use entire property as 50' buffers off the
Pamlico Sound & Coastal wetlands overlap.
(2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
The proximity of coastal wetlands in parallel alignment with the
sound an n -b----a-- c_k--s_--i--d-e----o--f----s----an-----e---rwa------sh --- r-,.id.._.-g-e._ i..s-.-.._..-
- -----
un dy- ov-_a fairly rare
configuration but not unique.
(3) If economic hardship is the major consideration, then include a specific explanation of the
economic hardships and the proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
The property has been owned by Ms. Touheys family for 25 years.
A strict interpretation of the buffer rules would make a historically
buildable property unbuildable.
Part 3: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 5 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 4: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm):
Mailing address:
City, State, Zip: - -
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
[phone]
[phone]
[e-mail]
Part 5: Applicant's Certification
Title: ?___rce Quible & Associates, P.C.
Joseph S. Lassiter (print or type name of person
listed in Part I, Item 2), certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions. _
Signature: ---------
Date:
P. 0. Drawer 870
Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 1: February 2000
O?O? W A T ?9QG
r
>_ y
D 'C
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
April 18, 2001
DWQ Project # 01-0521
Hyde County
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Claudia N. Touhey
PO Box 9
Ocracoke, NC 27960
Cc: Quible & Associates, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Douglas Dorman
PO Drawer 870
Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
252-261-1260 (fax)
Re: Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Buffer - Minor Variance Request & CAMA Major
Lots 2, 3 and 4, Trent Woods Subdivision, Gaskin Drive, Ocracoke, Hyde Co., NC
Pamlico Sound [03-03-07, 29-(40.5); SA HQW]
Dear Ms. Touhey,
Your application for a Minor Variance from the Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0259)
was received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) / 401 Wetlands Certification Unit on March 8, 2001. The activity for which
the Minor Variance is sought is to construct a dredge spoil containment area in a manner that would require impacts to Zone 2 of the
protective buffers. A Minor Variance Approval is a determination by the DWQ that the activity for which the approval is sought
meets all of the requirements per 15A NCAC 213 .0259(9)(a).
After a thorough review of your proposed activity, DWQ staff have determined that you have not demonstrated that your
proposed activity meets all of the requirements per 15A NCAC 2B .0259(9)(a). Please provide us with information supporting your
position that states your project must be constructed as planned and that you have no practicable alternative to placing fill in these
protected riparian buffers. Specifically;
1. The proposed dike around the spoil area is indicated as having a 1:3 (1 foot of length for every 3 feet of height) or 6710
slope. This is very steep dike and the DWQ believe that the health of the vegetation and the diffuse flow of stormwater
within Zone 1 would be compromised by placing this steep dike within Zone 2. Also, no vegetation is proposed on this
dike to provide soil stability. Please provide information as to why this dike needs to be as steep as proposed and can not
be constructed at a 2:1 (2 feet of length for every 1 foot of height) or 50% or less, vegetated slope.
2. The proposed spoil containment area and dredging project would yield a 1.5:1 holding capacity with only a 1-foot
'freeboard. The DWQ believe that this is inadequate. Please provide information as to why the holding capacity can not
be increased to 3:1 (or at least 2:1) and the freeboard increased to at least 2 feet. Phasing the dredging project may help
in achieving these goals.
3. A proposed pier, bulkhead and retaining wall is indicated on the "Base Map for Environmental Planning" provided with
the Minor Variance Request Form. These activities will require written authorization from the DWQ for impacts to the
protected buffers. Please include these with justification for the need for the structures within the narrative section of the
Minor Variance Request Form.
4. The Minor Variance Request Form indicates that, "The proposed single family residence will be low density for an
approximate 1 acre parcel of land." This is the only reference to a "proposed single family residence" indicated in the
information provided to this office. The "proposed single family residence" will require a Minor Variance approval if
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
TF9
WA
?G
r
"C
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
MEMORANDUM
March 8, 2001
To: Bob Zarzecki
From: Deborah Sawyer 4
Subject: Minor Variance Request
Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules
Claudia H. Touhey
Hyde Co. - Ocracoke
The Washington Regional Office has reviewed the above subject request. There are several
concerns with this project. They are as follows:
The outer edge of the 3:1 slope of the berm is immediately adjacent to the 30 ft. setback
required by the rules. Even if vegetation were to be proposed on the berm slope, it would
be difficult to establish due to the environment. Other projects which have proposed a 3:1
slope on the 30 ft. setback line have been determined potentially have an impact on Zone
1. A vegetated 2:1 slope is much more stable.
Historically the DWQ has required at least a 2:1 holding capacity for CDF's with a 2 ft.
freeboard. With hydraulic dredging a 3:1 holding capacity is preferred. We have allowed
a lesser ratio if the applicant proposes to phase the dredging so that there is a 3:1 holding
capacity in the diked area at the time of the dredging, allowed to settle and decanted water
discharged, then dredge again to a 3:1 holding capacity. This dredging project does not
propose phasing the dredging nor does it have a 2:1 holding capacity. The applicant only
proposes a 1.5:1 holding capacity with a 1 ft. freeboard which is inadequate.
This project was looked at by staff members, including the Director, Section Chief, and EMC
member at the time of the Public Meeting on Ocracoke. This solution was proposed at the time
but no specifics were discussed. The WaRO does not recommend issuance of this Minor Variance
as it is proposed. Modifications will need to be presented to the Division to address the above
concerns. It is the opinion of the WaRO that as the project is proposed, there will be impacts to
Zone 1 which would make it necessary for the applicant to apply for a Major Variance which
must be presented to the EMC for a decision.
943 Washington Square Mall Washington, NC 27889 252-946-6481 (Telephone) 252-946-9215 (Fax)
If you have any questions or comments, please call. Thank you.
cc: Terry Moore / Steve Trowell, DCM
WaRO File
Quible
9uibie & Associates, RC. P.O. Drawer 870
IOtty Hawk, NC 27949
ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES • PLANNING Phone: [phone]
SINCE 1959 Fax: [phone]
E-mail: qulble®mindspring.com
February 7, 2001
"EB 0 8 2001
PRINCIPALS
Sean C. Boyle, P.E.
Joseph S. Lassiter, C.E.P.
Eduardo J. Valdivieso, P.E.
Ms. Deborah Sawyer .BY: ?u
NCDE&NR - Division of Water Quality
1
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Re: Minor Variance Request for Claudia N. Touhey Property
Ocracoke Township, Hyde County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Sawyer:
ASSOCIATES
David S. Neff
Victor E. White, P.E.
On behalf of Ms. Claudia N. Touhey, Quible & Associates, P.C. is submitting for your review
and approval a Minor Variance for the construction of a dredge spoil containment area within the
50' Tar-Pamlico Buffer for the proposed access channel dredge spoil. The subject property is
located on Gaskins Drive adjacent to the Pamlico Sound in the Trent Woods Subdivision,
Ocracoke, North Carolina.
Enclosed with the application are two copies of the site plan and Environmental Assessment that
explain in detail the extent of the project. The enclosed EA has been reviewed by the NC
Division of Coastal Management and other environmental regulatory agencies and has been sent
to the NC State Clearinghouse for final approval.
The proposed spoil will be placed within an upland containment area with a spoil capacity of
2,630 yds3. The spoil containment area will be constructed on both the Touhey property and the
adjacent property owned by Mr. John Geewax. The Geewax property was formerly permitted
for spoil placement under a Major CAMA permit issued on 8-28-87 for the creation of the
Cochran basin and channel. The proposed spoil placement area will be in the same general
location that was used for the previous dredge project.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. If you have any question, or require any
additional information, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Quible & Associates, P.C.
Douglas A. Dorman
cc: Claudia N. Touhey
I OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request # _
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form - for Minor Variances
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rules
NOTE: This form may be photocopied for use as an original.

Please identify which Riparian Area Protection Rule applies.
o Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC.0233)
6 Tar-Pamlico River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC.0259)
Part 1: General Information
(Please include attachments it the room provided is rnsutrIcrent. )
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the property):
Claudi N. Touhey
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the property and its compliance)
T
h
Name: ey
ou
Claudia N.
._.......
__..... ..._.__......_..._.........._..._.. .... _....... _._.... ......._. _.._._..__ .............. ........... ............ ......_.._....................... ....._..... .._........... ...... ........ _......... ......
Title:
Street address: P. o. Box 9
_...._._._ ....................... ..... .... ........._._._..._...._.__._......_..........._._............ ......_....._..._........... ...._....... .... _................_.._...._.._........_..............._.... ........ _....... .._.......... ........_
City, State, Zip: Ocracoke, NC 27960
Telephone: (252 )..._928.-43.5_l._....._...._..._.._..... _ ....... ........... _.......................
Fax: [phone]
3. Contact person who can answer questions about the proposed project:
Name: Joe Lassiter, Quible & Associates, P.C.
Telephone: [phone] _?
Fax: 252 ) 261-1260
Email: quible @interpath com
4. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
5. Project Location:
Street address: Gaskins Drive, Lots 2, 3, 4, Trent Woods Subdivision
City, State, Zip: Ocracoke, NC 27960
County: Hyde
....35...07 OON%75 58 12W?- _...._.........-
Latitude/longitude.
Version 1: February 2000
6. Directions to site from nearest major intersection (Also, attach an 8'/2 x 11 copy of the USGS
topographic map indicating the location of the site):
Right off NC 12 on Backroad. Left at Back Porch Restaurant. Right at
Coffee Shop. Diagonal through next intersection onto Gaskins Drive.
Gravel drive on left with gate.
7. Stream to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Stream name (for unnamed streams label as "UT' to the nearest named stream):
Pamlico Sound
----------------- ._.... __.._ .._.._..__.._..__........ .-_-_...... ....................... .... Stream classification [as identified within the Schedule of Classifications 15A NCAC 2B
.0315 (Neuse) or.0316 (Tar-Pamlico)]:.__-SA._ ................_.._.._.__....... _..__....._......__.__...... ...... -._-........ __.-......
8. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required or have been received already for
this project?
Required: Received
X

Date received
3/16 99
Permit Type:
CAMA Major
CAMA Minor
401 Certification/404 Permit
On-site Wastewater Permit
NPDES Permit (including stormwater)
Non-discharge Permit
Water Supply Watershed Variance
Others (specify)
Part 2: Proposed Activity
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Description of proposed activity [Also, please attach a map of sufficient detail (such as a plat
map or site plan) to accurately delineate the boundaries of the land to be utilized in carrying
out the activity, the location and dimension of any disturbance in the riparian buffers
associated with the activity, and the extent of riparian buffers on the land]:
See attached Environmental Assessment & Drawings
2. State reasons why this plan for the proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished,
reduced or reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers:
See alternatives analysis in enclosed EA.
3. Description of any best management practices to be used to control impacts associated with
the proposed activity (i.e., control of runoff from impervious surfaces to provide diffuse flow,
re-planting vegetation or enhancement of existing vegetation, etc.):
The proposed dredge spoil area will be graded and vegetated per
approved seeding specifications. The proposed single family residence
-- ... ..... ...... _ ..._.... . .... ....... ........ ........ ....... -_._.- ..... _ ......_..._.
will be low density for an approximate 1 acre parcel of land.
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 1: February 2000
4. Please provide an explanation of the following:
(1) The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from the strict application of this
Rule.
Owner would be unable to use entire property as 50' buffers off the
Pamlico Sound & Coastal wetlands overlap.
(2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditl6hs that are unique to the property
involved.
The proximity of coastal wetlands in parallel alignment with the
sound an back side of sandy overwash ridge is.afairl_y rare
configuration but not unique.
(3) If economic hardship is the major consideration, then include a specific explanation of the
economic hardships and the proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
The property has been owned by Ms. Touheys family for Z5 years.
A strict interpretation of the buffer rules would make a historica y
buildable property unbuildable.
Part 3: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 5 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 4: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm): Quible & Associates, P.C.
Mailing address: P. 0. Drawer 870
City, State, Zip: Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: quible@mindspring. com_
Part 5: Applicant's Certification
I, Douglas A. Dorman (print or type name of person
listed in Part I, Item 2), certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date:
Title: F.nvi-rnnmPnfn1 gri,pnHQt
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 1: February 2000
Subject: Touhey Variance
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 16:30:31 -0500
From: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
Organization: DENR
To: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Terry Moore <[e-mail]>,
Steve Trowell <[e-mail]>
Bob,
I just got the Touhey variance request by FedEx today. After I review
and comment on it, I'll forward a copy to you. This is the one at
Ocracoke on the Sound to const.a CDF on the beach 30 ft. from NWL.
Deborah
P.S. Is this your 1st niece or nephew? Congratulations!!!
j lk -? flu ?G?( t=om` 4/
1rwa: louney rroJecy
Subject: [Fwd: Touhey Project]
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 18:10:39 -0400
From: Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
John
If there is a resource there that will be removed by this dredging
(shellfish and/or SAV) what are our options? Is denial automatic
without some type of variance?
Has our guidance to the regions been recommend denial if the use would
be removed?
Have we denied other similar projects?
Have we issued other similar projects?
I am perplexed by this project. Considering the high energy that
everyone seems to agree that exist in the area of the proposed dredging,
how can the proposed channel not be a constant maintenance problem? It
almost seems like this is a joint dock/sand mine project
Do you know if there are any other viable docks in this general area
that has been able to maintain their channels?
If we end up issuing a Certification, do we have to issue it for twice
as wide and twice as deep as they said they needed during their EA
process or can we restrict the impact to their EA specified needed
inpact?
If they do dredge the new requested channel, it appears that it will be
a dead end since the "existing" channel has already filled in. Do we
know where the material needing to be dredged from that channel will go,
since the new requested channel will be using the previous disposal site
for dredge disposal?
Hopefully the issues will clear up following Deborah's and Bob Z's road
trip and wading expedition to the coast.
I share many of Deborah's concerns and need to know our options. Since
you and Coleen are meeting tomorrow while I am in Statesville, you may
want to go ahead and discuss it with her and get her ideas. I will drop
the fine into her chair.
Thanks
Dennis
? .ate
1 of 2 6/4/016:23 PM
Touhey Project
Subject: Touhey Project
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 16:53:52 -0400
From: Deborah Sawyer <Deborah. S awyer@ncmai 1. net>
Organization: DENR
To: John Dorney <John. Dorney@ncmai 1. net>,
Dennis Ramsey <Dennis. Ramsey@ncmai 1. net>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Tom Steffens <Tom. Steffens@ncmail. net>,
Joanne Steenhuis <Joanne. Steenhuis@ncmail. net>
Everyone,
There seems to be a lot of misinformation on this project. I have
information from both DCM and DMF that there are SAVs in the project
area. Bob Z., Tom Steffens and I are going to Ocracoke tomorrow (planned
for other projects) so we will make a side trip and check out the SAV
issue. Since the water is only 2 ft. deep, we will wade out and check it
out for ourselves; pictures will follow. The other, and main issue, is
the removal of a use of the waters. DMF including their Commission says
there is a resource which is actively being retrieved. The resource is
clams. There are clamming leases on both sides of the project, so it
makes sense there is a resource. It will be up to Dennis and Coleen to
decide if the resource is being removed by the proposed project. I did
not have a choice of recommendations to make. If there is a resource
which will be removed, I have consistently recommended denial. That has
been my guidance for the 16 years I have been reviewing these projects.
The final decision must be made at the management level. I am sending
this to Joanne so she can relay to you if the WiRO recommends anything
any different. I'll notify everyone on Thursday of what we find.
Deborah
1 of 1 6/4/01 5:47 PM
[Fwd: 1Fwd: ,Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracokefl]
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]]
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 08:43:02 -0400
From: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
Organization: DENR
To: John Domey <John. Domey@ncmail. net>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <Bob.Zarzecki @ncmail. net>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <Jim.Mull [e-mail]>,
Steve Trowell <Steve.Trowel [e-mail]>,
Sara Winslow <[e-mail]>
John,
WHO'S ON FIRST!!!!!! I think there is some serious misinformation. Most of the area where the
dredging is taking place is open waters. Only the immediate shoreline is closed (per Gena of Shellfish
Sanitation this morning). Shellfish Sanitation is mostly concerned with the spoil deposit area which is on
the shoreline and in immediately closed waters. The dredging is not a concern of theirs so that is why
their comments were "no concern". It appears that the COE messed up on the federal end by calling it
maintenance dredging which it is not. That is probably why the fed. agencies did not comment
negatively.
The best thing to do is hold comments until this can be sorted out. I will line up a boat to go to the area
and personnally look at the bottom and take pictures for the presence of SAVs. I have a map from
shellfish sanitation which I will get the coordinates and overlay the closed area over the plat. As I said
before, though, most of it appears to be only at the immediate shoreline not out in the open water. All
documents I have say the waters where the dredging is taking place are open and according to Sara are
active clamming areas. The Despo lease is a clamming lease and is right beside this proposed dredging
area.
I will reiterate, WaRO has consistently denied dredging in open waters with the presence of SAVs. It is a
removal of use if the resourse is significant.
Deborah
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:13:15 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <Deborah. Sawyer@ncmail. net>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <Dennis. Ramsey@ncmail. net>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>, Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>
just talked to doug huggett again. the area is closed to shellfishing according to shellfish sanitation's
comments to DCM. also according to the field report, aerial photos and consultant there are no SAVs.
dennis has the file for decision.
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
John,
I just called Sara Winslow of DMF to see what was going on with the
conflicting info. She said it has been a long time since she talked to
Doug Huggett, she has not talked to him recently. She told him that
avoiding the SAVs would lessen the impacts of the proposed project but
she did not tell him that the project would be OK with DMF if the SAVs
were avoided. Both Sara and I are well familiar with the area and the
SAVs were scattered over the area in March which means there are
1 of 3 6/4/01 9:30 AM
[Fwd: IFwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracokell]
potentially more now with the warmer waters. Besides the SAV issue there
is the bigger issue of the open shellfish waters. Sara says there is no
reason that oysters would not be in the area. There are active leases on
both sides of the project. She has not done a survey so she is not sure
how many are there. To continuously dredge this area would totally
remove this use for any resources there now or which may be present in
the future. Sara is aware, though, that this is a big clamming area so
this resource would definitely be there and would be removed by the
dredging project. I'm not sure what info. you have received on this
project but it seems to be in conflict with the info. that DMF has and I
have. Thanks.
Deborah
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:15:03 -0400
From: John Dorney <John. dorney@ncmail. net>
To: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Roger Thorpe <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <Jimmie. Overton@ncmail. net>,
Sara Winslow <[e-mail]>,
Terry Moore <Terry. Moore@ncmail. net>,
Doug Huggett <[e-mail]>,
Tom Steffens <[e-mail]>
References: <3B 14F 1 FC.CC81 [e-mail]>
okay. i will package it up and send to dennis. i did brief dennis on the background yesterday.
dennis - as you know we need a decision asap since ms. touhey is screaming. i will get the folder to
you this afternoon.
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
John,
The WaRO is still recommending denial of the dredging portion for the Touhey project. The WaRO
has consistently recommended denial of projects such as this in open shellfish waters and especially
with the presence of SAVs. Terry Moore spoke with Sara Winslow this morning and she has not
changed her recommendation of denial of the dredging portion of the project. There are active
shellfish leases immediately adjacent to the project. Sara also noted the presence of SAVs. It is DMF
who makes the call on the presence of shellfish. Shellfish Sanitation makes the call on the closure of
shellfish waters which would not be in the case of this project.
It should also be noted that the DMF Shallow Water Habitat Committee, called the "Habitat and
Water Quality advisory Committee", has reviewed this project and also recommends denial of the
dredging portion. Voting members present for this vote are as follows:
. Willie Phillips, DMF Commissioner
. Barbara Blake, DMF Commissioner
. Doug Rader
. Mark Brinson
. Terry Pratt
. Jim Stevenson
. Dick Briery
2 of 3 6/4/01 9:30 AM
[Fwd: [Fwd: I Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracokell]
. Pricey Harrison, CRC Commissioner
The WaRO is requesting that the decision be submitted for arbitration by Dennis and Coleen. It
would be inconsistent for the WaRO to recommend anything else but denial on this dredging
project. The reason there were no comments on the SEPA is that we never received it to comment
on. The first time we had the info. on this project was when the CAMA Major was received. The
Variance application was for the Zone 2 impacts not the open water impacts. I have been telling the
applicants consultants as well as you for months that the dredging is a 401 issue not a buffer issue
and will be addressed separately. I have always had concerns with this part of the project.
Thanks,
Deborah
Subject: Re: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 08:45:06 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <denni s. ramsey@ncmail. net>
References: <[e-mail]>
just talked to doug huggett (DCM) and he told me that he has discussed the
matter with sara winslow from DMF. the SAV's are widely scattered and can
be avoided by the dredging if done carefully. Shellfish Sanitation says
that the area is too sandy and actively shoaling to have significant
shellfish. also the area is not a PNA so new dredging is allowed. the
federal agencies are okay with the project as well. therefore i plan to
issue approval for this one with a condition that a SAV survey be done
before dredging and that dredging avoid all SAVs. our previous issuance of
the minor variance (which showed the dredging on the site plan) and the lack
of comment on the EA also weaken our case.
as you know if you object to this decision, you can "appeal" to dennis and
he can arbitrate. please respond by thursday may 31. also be aware that ms.
touhey has called again (and again) and i will call her back today. i wil
not tell her that you recommend denial unless she demands a copy of your
recommendation (it is a public record). please advise. thankx
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
> Cyndi,
> I have finished my review of the Claudia N. Touhey project in Ocracoke,
> Hyde County. I am recommending denial on the dredging portion of the
> project due to loss of use of the waters. There are some parts of the
> proposal; pier, breakwater, retaining wall,; which are OK. The CDF is OK
> if the dike wall is vegetated and a 2 ft. freeboard is maintained. I am
> sending a memo. to you via mail and FAX (just to make sure you get it)
> with reasons for the denial. Thanks.
> Deborah
3 of 3 6/4/01 9:30 AM
F WATF
? 19pG Michael F. Easley
Governor
f%J r William G. Ross, Jr. Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
May 30, 2001
MEMO
TO: Dennis Rams y
FROM: John Dorne
)X"J
RE: Claudia Touhey project
DWQ # 010521
Hyde County
Attached is a copy of the file for the abovementioned project. It is fairly self-explanatory. The
only thing I would add is that I discussed the SAV and shellfish resource issues with Doug Huggett
(DEM -733-2293) who told me that he had discussed the matter with Sara Winslow (DMF) and she
would not object to the CAMA Permit (and DWQ approval presumably) if there was a condition to
avoid all Submerged Aquatic Vegetation with the proposed dredging. According to the recent letter
from the consultant (Joe Lassiter) there are no SAV's in the proposed dredging area. Please call me
if you have questions. As we discussed, we need a decision fairly quickly. Ms. Touhey has been
calling (as has her consultant) and is aware of the internal dispute. Thankx
Cc: Deborah Sawyer, WaRO
Doug Huggett, DCM
r .
i`n
v
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
Division of Water Quality 1621 Mail Service Centel Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 [phone]
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracokejl
r
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:20:20 -0400
From: Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: Deborah Sawyer <Deborah. Sawyer@ncmail. net>,
Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
Dear Folks--The issue is not whether or not some transitory activity has impacted the waters somewhat
already, but is there a significant resource present that would be lost by conducting the project as
proposed? In my opinion there is a resource of high value here(the shellfish waters) that the project
would irretrievably impact. Jim Mulligan
John Dorney wrote:
just talked to doug huggett again. the area is closed to shellfishing according to shellfish sanitation's
comments to DCM. also according to the field report, aerial photos and consultant there are no
SAVs. dennis has the file for decision.
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
John,
I just called Sara Winslow of DMF to see what was going on with the
conflicting info. She said it has been a long time since she talked to
Doug Huggett, she has not talked to him recently. She told him that
avoiding the SAVs would lessen the impacts of the proposed project but
she did not tell him that the project would be OK with DMF if the SAVs
were avoided. Both Sara and I are well familiar with the area and the
SAVs were scattered over the area in March which means there are
potentially more now with the warmer waters. Besides the SAV issue there
is the bigger issue of the open shellfish waters. Sara says there is no
reason that oysters would not be in the area. There are active leases on
both sides of the project. She has not done a survey so she is not sure
how many are there. To continuously dredge this area would totally
remove this use for any resources there now or which may be present in
the future. Sara is aware, though, that this is a big clamming area so
this resource would definitely be there and would be removed by the
dredging project. I'm not sure what info. you have received on this
project but it seems to be in conflict with the info. that DMF has and I
have. Thanks.
Deborah
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:15:03 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Roger Thorpe <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>,
1 of 3 5/30/01 4:36 PM
Re: [Fwd: (Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracokell
Sara Winslow <[e-mail]>,
Terry Moore <[e-mail]>,
Doug Huggett <[e-mail]>,
Tom Steffens <Tom. Steffens@ncmail. net>
References: <3B 14F 1 FC.CC81 [e-mail]>
okay. i will package it up and send to dennis. i did brief dennis on the background yesterday.
dennis - as you know we need a decision asap since ms. touhey is screaming. i will get the folder to
you this afternoon.
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
John,
The WaRO is still recommending denial of the dredging portion for the Touhey project. The
WaRO has consistently recommended denial of projects such as this in open shellfish waters and
especially with the presence of SAVs. Terry Moore spoke with Sara Winslow this morning and
she has not changed her recommendation of denial of the dredging portion of the project. There
are active shellfish leases immediately adjacent to the project. Sara also noted the presence of
SAVs. It is DMF who makes the call on the presence of shellfish. Shellfish Sanitation makes the
call on the closure of shellfish waters which would not be in the case of this project.
It should also be noted that the DMF Shallow Water Habitat Committee, called the "Habitat and
Water Quality advisory Committee", has reviewed this project and also recommends denial of the
dredging portion. Voting members present for this vote are as follows:
Willie Phillips, DMF Commissioner
. Barbara Blake, DMF Commissioner
. Doug Rader
. Mark Brinson
. Terry Pratt
. Jim Stevenson
. Dick Briery
. Pricey Harrison, CRC Commissioner
The WaRO is requesting that the decision be submitted for arbitration by Dennis and Coleen. It
would be inconsistent for the WaRO to recommend anything else but denial on this dredging
project. The reason there were no comments on the SEPA is that we never received it to comment
on. The first time we had the info. on this project was when the CAMA Major was received. The
Variance application was for the Zone 2 impacts not the open water impacts. I have been telling
the applicants consultants as well as you for months that the dredging is a 401 issue not a buffer
issue and will be addressed separately. I have always had concerns with this part of the project.
Thanks,
Deborah
Subject: Re: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke
Date: Tue, 29 May 200108:45:06 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <Bob.Zarzecki @ncmail. net>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
just talked to doug huggett (DCM) and he told me that he has discussed the
matter with sara winslow from DMF. the SAV's are widely scattered and can
2 of 3 5/30/01 4:36 PM
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]
be avoided by the dredging if done carefully. Shellfish Sanitation says
that the area is too sandy and actively shoaling to have significant
shellfish. also the area is not a PNA so new dredging is allowed. the
federal agencies are okay with the project as well. therefore i plan to
issue approval for this one with a condition that a SAV survey be done
before dredging and that dredging avoid all SAVs. our previous issuance of
the minor variance (which showed the dredging on the site plan) and the lack
of comment on the EA also weaken our case.
as you know if you object to this decision, you can "appeal" to dennis and
he can arbitrate. please respond by thursday may 31. also be aware that ms.
touhey has called again (and again) and i will call her back today. i wil
not tell her that you recommend denial unless she demands a copy of your
recommendation (it is a public record). please advise. thankx
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
> Cyndi,
> I have finished my review of the Claudia N. Touhey project in Ocracoke,
> Hyde County. I am recommending denial on the dredging portion of the
> project due to loss of use of the waters. There are some parts of the
> proposal; pier, breakwater, retaining wall,; which are OK. The CDF is OK
> if the dike wall is vegetated and a 2 ft. freeboard is maintained. I am
> sending a memo. to you via mail and FAX (just to make sure you get it)
> with reasons for the denial. Thanks.
> Deborah
3 of 3 5/30/01 4:36 PM
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracokell
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:16:22 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail],
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>
thanks for your thoughts. we simply disagree. as i noted in my response to deborah, the project will be
in dennis' hands this afternoon for decision. please call him if you want to discuss it. thankx
Jim Mulligan wrote:
Dear John--I agree with Deborah to submit this one to Coleen and
Dennis. There is a clear elimination of use of waters that are a very
limited resource; this has always lead us to recommend denial of a 401
certification. Jim Mulligan
Subject: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 09:13:33 -0400
From: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
Organization: DENR
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Roger Thorpe <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>,
Sara Winslow <[e-mail]>,
Terry Moore <[e-mail]>,
Doug Huggett <Doug. Huggett@ncmail. net>,
Tom Steffens <[e-mail]>
John,
The WaRO is still recommending denial of the dredging portion for the Touhey project. The WaRO
has consistently recommended denial of projects such as this in open shellfish waters and especially
with the presence of SAVs. Terry Moore spoke with Sara Winslow this morning and she has not
changed her recommendation of denial of the dredging portion of the project. There are active
shellfish leases immediately adjacent to the project. Sara also noted the presence of SAVs. It is DMF
who makes the call on the presence of shellfish. Shellfish Sanitation makes the call on the closure of
shellfish waters which would not be in the case of this project.
It should also be noted that the DMF Shallow Water Habitat Committee, called the "Habitat and Water
Quality advisory Committee", has reviewed this project and also recommends denial of the dredging
portion. Voting members present for this vote are as follows:
Willie Phillips, DMF Commissioner
. Barbara Blake, DMF Commissioner
. Doug Rader
. Mark Brinson
. Terry Pratt
. Jim Stevenson
. Dick Briery
. Pricey Harrison, CRC Commissioner
1 of 2 5/30/01 1:29 PM
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracokell
The WaRO is requesting that the decision be submitted for arbitration by Dennis and Coleen. It would
be inconsistent for the WaRO to recommend anything else but denial on this dredging project. The
reason there were no comments on the SEPA is that we never received it to comment on. The first
time we had the info. on this project was when the CAMA Major was received. The Variance
application was for the Zone 2 impacts not the open water impacts. I have been telling the applicants
consultants as well as you for months that the dredging is a 401 issue not a buffer issue and will be
addressed separately. I have always had concerns with this part of the project.
Thanks,
Deborah
Subject: Re: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 08:45:06 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <Bob. Zarzecki @ncmail.net>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
just talked to doug huggett (DCM) and he told me that he has discussed the
matter with sara winslow from DMF. the SAV's are widely scattered and can
be avoided by the dredging if done carefully. Shellfish Sanitation says
that the area is too sandy and actively shoaling to have significant
shellfish. also the area is not a PNA so new dredging is allowed. the
federal agencies are okay with the project as well. therefore i plan to
issue approval for this one with a condition that a SAV survey be done
before dredging and that dredging avoid all SAVs. our previous issuance of
the minor variance (which showed the dredging on the site plan) and the lack
of comment on the EA also weaken our case.
as you know if you object to this decision, you can "appeal" to dennis and
he can arbitrate. please respond by thursday may 31. also be aware that ms.
touhey has called again (and again) and i will call her back today. i wil
not tell her that you recommend denial unless she demands a copy of your
recommendation (it is a public record). please advise. thankx
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
> Cyndi,
> I have finished my review of the Claudia N. Touhey project in Ocracoke,
> Hyde County. I am recommending denial on the dredging portion of the
> project due to loss of use of the waters. There are some parts of the
> proposal; pier, breakwater, retaining wall,; which are OK. The CDF is OK
> if the dike wall is vegetated and a 2 ft. freeboard is maintained. I am
> sending a memo. to you via mail and FAX (just to make sure you get it)
> with reasons for the denial. Thanks.
> Deborah
2 of 2 5/30/01 1:29 PM
Re_ [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracokefl
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracokell
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:14:52 -0400
From: Jim Mulligan <Jim. Mulligan@ncmail. net>
To: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
CC: John Dorney <John. Dorney@ncmail. net>, Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
Dear Folks--As was indicated in my earlier email to John, this resource is very limited and this proposal
to eliminate uses in waters of this type is recommended for a 401 denial. Since John disagrees, it should
be elevated to the Section Chief for a decision. Jim Mulligan
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
John,
I just called Sara Winslow of DMF to see what was going on with the
conflicting info. She said it has been a long time since she talked to
Doug Huggett, she has not talked to him recently. She told him that
avoiding the SAVs would lessen the impacts of the proposed project but
she did not tell him that the project would be OK with DMF if the SAVs
were avoided. Both Sara and I are well familiar with the area and the
SAVs were scattered over the area in March which means there are
potentially more now with the warmer waters. Besides the SAV issue there
is the bigger issue of the open shellfish waters. Sara says there is no
reason that oysters would not be in the area. There are active leases on
both sides of the project. She has not done a survey so she is not sure
how many are there. To continuously dredge this area would totally
remove this use for any resources there now or which may be present in
the future. Sara is aware, though, that this is a big clamming area so
this resource would definitely be there and would be removed by the
dredging project. I'm not sure what info. you have received on this
project but it seems to be in conflict with the info. that DMF has and I
have. Thanks.
Deborah
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:15:03 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <Dennis. Ramsey@ncmail. net>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Roger Thorpe <Roger. Thorpe@ncmail. net>,
Jimmie Overton <Jimmie. Overton@ncmail. net>,
Sara Winslow <[e-mail]>,
Terry Moore <[e-mail]>,
Doug Huggett <Doug. Huggett@ncmail. net>,
Tom Steffens <[e-mail]>
References: <3B 14F 1 FC.CC81 [e-mail]>
okay. i will package it up and send to dennis. i did brief dennis on the background yesterday.
dennis - as you know we need a decision asap since ms. touhey is screaming. i will get the folder to
1 of 3 5/30/01 4:36 PM
Re- [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracokejl
you this afternoon.
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
John,
The WaRO is still recommending denial of the dredging portion for the Touhey project. The WaRO
has consistently recommended denial of projects such as this in open shellfish waters and especially
with the presence of SAVs. Terry Moore spoke with Sara Winslow this morning and she has not
changed her recommendation of denial of the dredging portion of the project. There are active
shellfish leases immediately adjacent to the project. Sara also noted the presence of SAVs. It is DMF
who makes the call on the presence of shellfish. Shellfish Sanitation makes the call on the closure of
shellfish waters which would not be in the case of this project.
It should also be noted that the DMF Shallow Water Habitat Committee, called the "Habitat and
Water Quality advisory Committee", has reviewed this project and also recommends denial of the
dredging portion. Voting members present for this vote are as follows:
. Willie Phillips, DMF Commissioner
. Barbara Blake, DMF Commissioner
. Doug Rader
. Mark Brinson
. Terry Pratt
. Jim Stevenson
. Dick Briery
. Pricey Harrison, CRC Commissioner
The WaRO is requesting that the decision be submitted for arbitration by Dennis and Coleen. It
would be inconsistent for the WaRO to recommend anything else but denial on this dredging
project. The reason there were no comments on the SEPA is that we never received it to comment
on. The first time we had the info. on this project was when the CAMA Major was received. The
Variance application was for the Zone 2 impacts not the open water impacts. I have been telling the
applicants consultants as well as you for months that the dredging is a 401 issue not a buffer issue
and will be addressed separately. I have always had concerns with this part of the project.
Thanks,
Deborah
Subject: Re: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke
Date: Tue, 29 May 200108:45:06 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <Deborah. S awyer@ncmail. net>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <Bob.Zarzecki @ncmail. net>,
Jimmie Overton <Jimmie. Overton@ncmail. net>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
just talked to doug huggett (DCM) and he told me that he has discussed the
matter with sara winslow from DMF. the SAV's are widely scattered and can
be avoided by the dredging if done carefully. Shellfish Sanitation says
that the area is too sandy and actively shoaling to have significant
shellfish. also the area is not a PNA so new dredging is allowed. the
federal agencies are okay with the project as well. therefore i plan to
issue approval for this one with a condition that a SAV survey be done
before dredging and that dredging avoid all SAVs. our previous issuance of
the minor variance (which showed the dredging on the site plan) and the lack
of comment on the EA also weaken our case.
2 of 3 5/30/01 4:36 PM
Rg: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracokefl
as you know if you object to this decision, you can "appeal" to dennis and
he can arbitrate. please respond by thursday may 31. also be aware that ms.
touhey has called again (and again) and i will call her back today. i wil
not tell her that you recommend denial unless she demands a copy of your
recommendation (it is a public record). please advise. thankx
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
> Cyndi,
> I have finished my review of the Claudia N. Touhey project in Ocracoke,
> Hyde County. I am recommending denial on the dredging portion of the
> project due to loss of use of the waters. There are some parts of the
> proposal; pier, breakwater, retaining wall,; which are OK. The CDF is OK
> if the dike wall is vegetated and a 2 ft. freeboard is maintained. I am
> sending a memo. to you via mail and FAX (just to make sure you get it)
> with reasons for the denial. Thanks.
> Deborah
3 of 3 5/30/01 4:36 PM
[Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]
Sul)ject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 11:43:10 -0400
From: Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], deborah.sawyer@ncmai].net
Dear John--I agree with Deborah to submit this one to Coleen and
Dennis. There is a clear elimination of use of waters that are a very
limited resource; this has always lead us to recommend denial of a 401
certification. Jim Mulligan
Subject: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]
Date: Wed, 30 May 200109:13:33 -0400
From: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
Organization: DENR
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>, Roger Thorpe <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>,
Sara Winslow <[e-mail]>, Terry Moore <[e-mail]>,
Doug Huggett <[e-mail]>, Tom Steffens <Tom. Steffens@ ncmail.net>
John,
The WaRO is still recommending denial of the dredging portion for the Touhey project. The WaRO has
consistently recommended denial of projects such as this in open shellfish waters and especially with the
presence of SAVs. Terry Moore spoke with Sara Winslow this morning and she has not changed her
recommendation of denial of the dredging portion of the project. There are active shellfish leases
immediately adjacent to the project. Sara also noted the presence of SAVs. It is DMF who makes the call
on the presence of shellfish. Shellfish Sanitation makes the call on the closure of shellfish waters which
would not be in the case of this project.
It should also be noted that the DMF Shallow Water Habitat Committee, called the "Habitat and Water
Quality advisory Committee", has reviewed this project and also recommends denial of the dredging
portion. Voting members present for this vote are as follows:
• Willie Phillips, DMF Commissioner
• Barbara Blake, DMF Commissioner
• Doug Rader
• Mark Brinson
• Terry Pratt
• Jim Stevenson
• Dick Briery
• Pricey Harrison, CRC Commissioner
The WaRO is requesting that the decision be submitted for arbitration by Dennis and Coleen. It would be
inconsistent for the WaRO to recommend anything else but denial on this dredging project. The reason
there were no comments on the SEPA is that we never received it to comment on. The first time we had
I of 2 5/30/01 12:18 P
[Fwd: [Fwd: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke]]
the jafo. -on this project was when the CAMA Major was received. The Variance application was for the
Zone 2 impacts not the open water impacts. I have been telling the applicants consultants as well as you for
months that the dredging is a 401 issue not a buffer issue and will be addressed separately. I have always
had concerns with this part of the project.
Thanks,
Deborah
Subject: Re: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke
Date: Tue, 29 May 200108:45:06 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Deborah Sawyer <Deborah.Sawyer @ ncmai 1. net>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>, Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>, Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>
just talked to doug huggett (DCM) and he told me that he has discussed the
matter with sara winslow from DMF. the SAV's are widely scattered and can
be avoided by the dredging if done carefully. Shellfish Sanitation says
that the area is too sandy and actively shoaling to have significant
shellfish. also the area is not a PNA so new dredging is allowed. the
federal agencies are okay with the project as well. therefore i plan to
issue approval for this one with a condition that a SAV survey be done
before dredging and that dredging avoid all SAVs. our previous issuance of
the minor variance (which showed the dredging on the site plan) and the lack
of comment on the EA also weaken our case.
as you know if you object to this decision, you can "appeal" to dennis and
he can arbitrate. please respond by thursday may 31. also be aware that ms.
touhey has called again (and again) and i will call her back today. i wil
not tell her that you recommend denial unless she demands a copy of your
recommendation (it is a public record). please advise. thankx
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
> Cyndi,
> I have finished my review of the Claudia N. Touhey project in Ocracoke,
> Hyde County. I am recommending denial on the dredging portion of the
> project due to loss of use of the waters. There are some parts of the
> proposal; pier, breakwater, retaining wall,; which are OK. The CDF is OK
> if the dike wall is vegetated and a 2 ft. freeboard is maintained. I am
> sending a memo. to you via mail and FAX (just to make sure you get it)
> with reasons for the denial. Thanks.
> Deborah
! of 2 5/30/01 12:18 P'
5-30-01:10:41AM;QUIBLE AND ASSOC. ;1 252 261 1260 # 2/ 3
Quible
9u9b1e & Associates, P.C. P.O. Drawor 970
fifty Hawk NC 27749
ENGNEERW • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES • PLANNING Phone: [phone]
SINCE 1989 Fcw.252-261-1260
PRNCIPALS
Sean C. Boyce. P.E.
Joseph S. LaaRer. C,E.P.
Eduardo I Valdlvwo. RE
ASSOCIATES
May 29, 2001 DoMS. Neff
Mr. John Domey
NC Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit
Parkview Bldg, 2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re Touhey Project - Ocracoke - DWQ 401 Certification- Minor Variance
Dear John:
The purpose of this correspondence is for Quible & Associates, P.C (Quible) to respond on
behalf of Ms. Claudia N. Touhey, representing her parents, related to your verbal indication
during our telephone conversation on 5/29 that Ms. Deborah Sawyer of the NC Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) staff had recommended denial of the 401 certification for the Touhey
project. The basis for the recommendation, as I understand it, is related to concerns about
impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV's) in the alignment of the access channel that is
proposed to serve the Touhey property. I further reference the SEPA Environmental Assessment
(EA) and the Major LAMA Permit application that have been in process for this project for more
than a year. My response to the position Ms. Sawyer has taken is as follows:
First, let me say that I am absolutely amazed by a recommendation of denial from Ms. Sawyer
based on a concern that was not raised by DWQ during the permit review process. I rcfcrenee an
April 18`s letter to Ms. Touhey from DWQ that you signed on behalf of Kerr T. Stevens. In that
letter information was requested on four items, none of which were related to SAV's. Also,
please be advised that the referenced letter, which DWQ indicates was sent by certified mail, was
never received by Ms. Touhey or Quible by that method. The only way we found out about the
letter was by talking with Doug Huggett of DCM, and subsequently with you, after which you
fax'ed and mailed both of us a copy which I received on May 40', 2001. Following receipt of the
letter by that method we responded to those specific items and were advised by DWQ staff,
including Ms. Sawyer, that the concerns were resolved and that we were moving towards
issuance of the 401 and Minor Variance. No request for additional information concerning
SAV's has been received, and no documentation that there are SAV's in the channel alignment
has been presented.
5-30-01:10:41AM:QUIBLE AND ASSOC.
:1 252 261 1260 # 3/
page 2 - Touhey Project - Ocracoke - DWQ 401 Certification- Minor Variance
May 29, 2001
Secondly, this project has been through the SEPA EA process and received a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) from the State Clearinghouse on March 27, 2001 followed by a letter
on no further actions from Doug Huggett, Major Permits and Consistency Coordinator for the
DCM on April 3, 2001 on behalf of DENR. During the EA process a request was made in a Jan
27, 2000 letter from Mr. Huggett that Quible provide "in greater detail impacts to shellfish
resources and to SAV ad(sp) shallow bottom habitat". Based on that request, Quible expanded
the geographic area under review and provided additional narrative and a separate plat which was
included with an amended EA in May 2000. That plat indicated the location of SAV's and
shellfish leases in proximity to the project area.
In fact, the search for SAV's by Quible and DENR staff has been extensive in the project area,
and continued throughout calendar year 2000 as the EA and CAMA Permit application moved
through review. No rooted SAV's were found in the proposed project alignment and it was
generally agreed that the high energy, shallow water habitat in which the channel was proposed
was not supporting SAV's. Rather, the SAV's were found in deeper water where wave action
had less impact on the bottom contour. Given the scrutiny this project is receiving by DENR
staff, I think it is reasonable to conclude that if significant SAV's had been found in the channel
alignment no FONSI would have been issued.
In closing, I am at a loss to explain the position of certain DCM and DWQ staff on this project.
The Touhey's have been working with staff from both Divisions from day one in preparing the
EA, CAMA application and plats associated with this project. I reference the meeting that you,
Deborah Sawyer, Pete Petersen, Terry Moore, the Touhey's and their attorney, and I had on the
property during the implementation of the buffer rules on Ocracoke and our discussion that day
related to the proposed project and what DWQ and DCM would support. I ask that you review
this matter and consider whether the Touhey family is being treated fairly and equitably in this
matter. My conclusion is that they are not.
Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. Please contact me at 252-261-3300 if you
have questions and I would appreciate your letting me know when a decision is made regarding
this project. I would also like a copy of Ms. Sawyer's comments for our files.
Sincerely,
As iates
o esiter, CEP
resident
cc: Claudia Touhey
Doug Huggett
Charles Jones
Beth Atkins

Statq of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
FROM: Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director
Division of Marine Fisheries
DATE: 4-16-01
? •
74
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
(7? F t.
P' -P T

SUBJ: CAMA/DREDGE AND FILL PERMIT
faudI .ouhey / Ocracoke Island / Hyde County
I have reviewed the comments provided by the District Manager and/or Bio-Supervisor
and concur with their recommendation (s).
G/C /
Director, Date
Preston P.Pate, Jr.
Deputy Director, Date
Mic?ael,G. Buhl
Habitat Proteetion Section Date
Section Chief,
Michael W. Street
P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

MAR222N
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary 13 March 2001
Donna D. Moffitt, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director
Division of Marine Fisheries
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge and Fill Permit Application Review
Applicant: Claudia N. Touhey
Project Location: Off SR 1357 in Hyde County, North Carolina
on Ocracoke Island near Horse Pen Point
on the Pamlico Sound

APR 8

Proposed Project: Dredge Access Channel, pier with 4 fixed slips plus platform along
with bulkhead.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
2 April 2001. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Steve
Trowel] at 252-946-6481. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is
requested.
REPLY This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended
changes are incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the
attached comments.
Sigh Date S--o/
e??
NCDENR
Washington District \ 943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina
n?nnn
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director
11 April 2001
A' LTT4 J. WA
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
TO: Doug Huggett, DCM Major Permits Processing Coordinator
THROUGH: Mike Street, Chief, Habitat Protection Sectle
FROM: Sara E. Winslow, Northern District Manager
SUBJECT: Claudia N. Touhey Proposal
DATE: April 11, 2001
The following comments by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries are provided
pursuant to General Statute 113-131. The Division objects to the project as proposed based on the
following reasons.
Pamlico Sound serves as a nursery area for spotted seatrout, red drum, weakfish, flounder, shrimp,
blue crabs and other commercially and recreationally important species. Viable oyster and clam resources
also exist throughout the project area.
The applicant proposes to dredge a 55' wide (average width) x 450' long access channel to a
proposed depth of 5', connecting the proposed channel with an existing dredged channel. The diked
disposal area is to be constructed on the neighboring propertyto the east. A total of 1,697 cubic yards of
sand is proposed to be dredged. A 6' x 200' long pier is proposed with a 12' x 18' platform and 4 slips
with associated finger piers. A 55' long breakwater is proposed to be constructed under the pier in the
vicinity of the slips. A 244' long bulkhead and 377' long retairibg wall between the upland and wetlands
are also proposed.
The Division noted in its comments on the EA that the plat showed the proposed channel width to
be 30'. However, in the CAMA application the proposed width varies from 42 - 70'. There is no
indication of the size vessels that would utilize the channel or the slips. Most vessels commonly used in
this area are fairly small, generally not exceeding 22 ft in length. If the boats to be used at this site are
similar, there is no need for the proposed channel depth and width. A depth of 3 ft and a width of 25 ft
would be sufficient. We urge that this specific issue be addressed.
On March 28, 2001,1 made an onsite visit. Areas of SAVs were observed throughout the shallow
water area. The adjacent property, Mr. John Geewax, was the site of a previous dredging project that
included a dredged access channel, which the Touhey channel would connect with-; that area has filled in.
The average depth of the existing access channel is less than 2.5. The existing water depths at the
proposed site are 2'. The existing basin has also shoaled in and has not been maintained since 1995. The
intent of the Geewax basin was to moor boats. A pier structure was also approved though never built.
Even if this project were approved the existing channel would require dredging to obtain a 5 ft depth.
This area is very dynamic due to the winds and fetch of the waves, resulting in significant sand
movement. Due to the high energy of the area, the proposed access channel would fill in and require
frequent maintenance. Frequent dredging could impact resources in the adjacent area. The associated
impacts would be unknown at this time.
In summary, the Division objects to the proposed access channel due to the loss and/or impacts to
24,750 sq ft of shallow water habitat, SAVs and SAV habitat, and probable excessive channel depth and
width. The importance of these areas as a nursery were previously stated. This agency would approve of
the other aspects of the project.
If this project is approved over this agency's objections, a dredging moratorium would be
requested. The moratorium time period would be February 15 - June 30 for the access channel. This
moratorium will ensure that the environmental integrity of the area will be protected during critical rimes
of usage. The Division would also request that the width of the access channel be reduced.
P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director
MEMORANDUM:
4 •
l A6:4 EFZZ?,
ujtNR
NCRTM CAROLINA DEPARTY.=NT OF
ENVIRONMENT ANo NATURAL RcsOURc=S
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
THROUGH: Mike Street, Chief Habitat Section
FROM: Sara E. Winslow, District Manager,
SUBJECT: Project No. 1089-EA Claudia N. Touhey Property, Ocracoke
DATE: January 2, 2001

The following comments by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries are
provided pursuant to General Statute 113-131..'.
The EA does not state what the length, width and-depth of the proposed access
channel will be. Based on DMF measurements the channel will be -450 feet long. The
cross section on the plat shows a channel width of 30 feet. However, the shaded area
on the plat is 50-65 feet in width. The Division assumes that the depth will be 6 feet,
yet this is not stated. These dimensions need to be included in the EA.
The Division will approve of the EA if this information is included., Specific
conditions will be included by the Division in the CAMA permit process. This agency will
request a dredging moratorium from February 15 - June 30 for the access channel.
This will ensure the environmental integrity of the area will be protected during critical
times of usage.
c,n,. _ 30-'A4--

P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Ecual Occcrtunity Affirmative Action Employer 50'o recycled? 10',o post-consumer paper

APR 1 8 200`1
COfsSTi?,L f,4ANh1=1 =fv
March 14, 2001
MEMORANDUM
Mike Street
Division of Marine Fisheries
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
D [7?? r;
if
6 2001
Qtr-HABITAT
ITAT
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW
APPLICANT: CLAUDIA N. TOUHEY
PROJECT LOCATION: Off SR 1357, in Hyde County, on Ocracoke Island
PROPOSED PROJECT: Dredge an Access Channel to Construct a Docking Facility
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this
form by April 3, 2001. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact
Doug Huggett at 733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data are
requested.
REPLY
There are no known public trust conflicts with the project location or design.
There appear to be public trust conflicts that require additional investigation.
Approximately days additional review time is needed.
It is recommended that changed to be made to the project to reduce or eliminate public trust
comments, as discussed in the attached memo.
be-ed skbMi-tftd was lle5,ble. Unable +a de+erM;ne
proper4y bou.--%olrj ?Q:par,an Rrsk 6 etr_SIGNED DATE 3-17-01

MEMORANDUM
May 24, 2001
To: John Dorney
To: Cyndi Karoly
Through: Jim Mulligan
From: Deborah Sawyer
Subject: Section 401 Recommendation for Denial
Claudia N. Touhey
Hyde County
The above subject project has been reviewed by this office. There are several proposals on the
project. Comments on the various proposals are as follows:
The proposal to construct 246 ft. of bulkhead along MHW is recommended for approval
The proposal to construct 377 ft. of retaining wall along the upland/coastal wetland
interface is recommended for approval. ?%

The proposal to construct a 6 ft. by 200 ft. pier with 4 fixed slips and a 12 ft. by 18 ft. ,
platform is recommended for approval.
4
4
d di
h
d
k
l
,
T
e proposal to construct a 2
91
i
e
sposa
area for the containment of dredged
material in Zone 2 of the Tar-Pamlico Buffer area is recommended for approval if a 2 ft.
freeboard is maintained and the dike wall is vegetated as required by the Minor Variance
issued by the DWQ. k
The proposal to dredge a 55 ft. wide by 450 ft. long access channel to a proposed depth of ?
\J
5 ft. which would connect the proposed channel at an approximate 90 degree angle to the
existing dredged channel located offshore of the neighboring property to the east for a
total of 24,750 sqft. of dredged shallow water habitat is recommended for denial. This or
portion of the proposed project is recommended for denial of the Section 401 due to loss
of use of the waters in the proposed dredging area. These waters are classified as SA
J?
Waters and are open to shellfishing. Dredging in this area would be a loss of shellfish
'
habitat. This area also contains submerged aquatic vegetated (SAV
s) as determined by
Sara Winslow of the Division of Marine Fisheries on March 28, 2001. The removal of the
SAV's is a loss of important aquatic habitat.
The applicant prepared a SEPA document in 2000 proposing the width of the channel to
be 30 ft. wide but the CAMA Permit applicationproposes a width of between 42 ft. and
70 ft. wide. There were objections to the narrower width proposed in the SEPA
document. The wider widths were never proposed for the environmental review.
This area of the Pamlico Sound is very dynamic due to the high winds and fetch of the

waves. This wave energy results in significant sand movement as has been experienced
on the adjacent property. Frequent dredging would be required to maintain the channel.
This could result in additional and continuous impacts and losses of use of the waters
over time.
This office recommends denial of the dredging portion of this application. This denial is
consistent with other denials for similar dredging projects with similar impacts to Waters
of the State.
cc: John Dorney / Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Bob Zarzecki, Wetlands/401 Unit
WaRO File

RECEIVFn
March 14, 2001
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Linda Sewall, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Doug Huagett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
1 u "?1
1.111 AMD , 6 1
2001
SHELLFISH SANIT
ATIpN
CAMA/DREDGE & FILL PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW
APPLICANT:
CLAUDIA N. TOUHEY
PROJECT LOCATION: Off SR 1357, in Hyde County on Ocracoke Island
PROPOSED PROJECT-. Dredge an Access Channel to Construct a Docking Facility
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this
form by April 3, 2001. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project. please contact
Doug Huguett at 733-2293. When appropriate. in-depth comments with supporting data are
requested.
REPLY
This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project. only if the recommended changes are incorporated.
This-agency oljects to the-project for reasons described in the attached comments.
X11- ? c?z.f?,J-.?-c? ?^?.'t ?C?r=c??'
SIGNED, DATE ii
'-pi Laf;-0- Ila-
C fLaL?__: rd- r ?

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Health
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Linda C. Sewall, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Doug Huggett
FROM: Gina Brooks zu??
SUBJECT: Claudia N. Touhey, Hyde County
DATE: March 20, 2001
,?WA
Wft
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
From the maps attached in the permit application, it appears that the subject project is located in
an area which is closed to shellfish harvesting. It also appears that the dredge discharge pipe will
be located in a closed area. Please see the attached closure map. If dredging is to occur from a
closed area with disposal to a closed area, no comment would be necessary; however, if the
dredged area is closed with the disposal area open to shellfishina, this Section would need to be
contacted prior to dredging so that a temporary shellfish closure can be made. Should you have
any questions or concerns, please contact me at (2521726-6827.
SHELLFISH SANITATION SECTION, P. O. BOX 769, MOREHEAD CITY. NC 28557-0769
TELEPHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 50% RECYCLED / 10-10 POST-CONSUMER PAPER
PROHIBITED TERRITORY
SILVER LAKE - OCRACOKE AREA HYDE COUNTY
Area G-6 (Map 9) (Prohibited areas are shaded)
N
OCRACOKE AREA
In any of the waters of Silver Lake.
All waters bordered on the north by a straight line beginning at a point on Ocracoke Island at 35°
0708" N - 76° 57'54" W; thence in a westerly direction to a point on shore at 35° 07' 08" N - 76°
58'24" W
I l U rnx3Un 3 MALL 1 AX-t UK A tMY I 1 U TAKE ANY OYSTERS, CLAMS OR MUSSELS OR POSSESS, SELL, OR
OFFER FOR SALE ANY OYSTERS, CLAMS OR MUSSELS TAKEN FROM THE FOLLOWING AREAS, AT ANY TIME:
'ENERAL COMMn NTS Applicant:

_ The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system improvements must be
approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as
required by 15A NCAC 18C 0.0300 et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)733-
2460.
_ This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with state and federal
drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information, the applicant should contact the Public Water
Supply Section, [phone].
_ If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish.
For information regarding the shellfish sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation
Section, [phone].
_ Cumulative impacts from this type of project could cause deterioration in water quality. The proposed project
would increase impervious surfaces and alter natural drainage patterns. There would be a loss of natural
vegetation causing an increase in stormwater runoff which could jeopardize the open status of adjacent waters.
For more information, the applicant should contact the Shelfish Sanitation Section at [phone].
_ The subject project is located in an area open to shellfish harvesting. The 10-slip dock, as proposed, would not
cause closure in accordance with 15A NCAC 18A MARINAS: DOCKING FACILITIES: OTHER MOORING AREAS,
however, dockage at the facility could exceed 10 boats. If this was to occur, closure would be recommended in
accordance with DEH rules. For information regarding shellfish sanitation, the applicant should contact the Shellfisn
Sanitation Section at [phone].
_ Proliferation of these type facilities could cause deterioration in water quality and consequently odditicnal closures
of shellfishing waters. For more information, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at
[phone].
V The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem. For information
concerning appropriate mosquito breeding measure, the applicant tishould co ect the Flyblic Health Pest
Manaaement S lion at [phone]. The applicant should also contact 'yl with Mesouiic
Control in County at
V Tnis is a mosquito breeding area. Construction plans and operations should include awareness cr Tnis Tne
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management at 12,52)72t-8970 for c site visa cr intorma-11or is ne,c
prevent the creation of more mosquito habitat.
The coolicant should contact
County al
with Mosquito Controi r.
The applicant should be advised that this area is a mosquito infested habitat. Mosquito contra will be c zrocleF7
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated structures, on extensive
rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the migration of rodents to adjacent areas. For
information concerning rodent control, contact the local health department or the Public Health, Pest Manacerne-
Section, [phone].
_ The coolicant should be advised to contact the local health deparrnent regarding their requirements for s ac
tank installations (es required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.sea.). For information concertina sectic tang cr.c
orner on-site weste disposal methods. contact the On-Site Wastewater Seyrion aT !9191733-2E9`
The cooiiccnt should be advised to contact the local health aeccr,ment re--crclnc The sarocrv facilities reg re ice"
this croleci.
The copiicont should work with the local health department to assLire that plans tot Me
are approved prior to construction.
Review-r: Date: ? '_ /J?7
Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke
Subject: Claudia Touhey Project: Ocracoke
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:39:50 -0400
From: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
Organization: DENR
To: Cyndi Karoly <Cyndi. Karol y @ NCMai 1. Net>
CC: Rob Ridings <Rob.Ridings @ ncmail.net>, Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
John Dorney <[e-mail]>,
Jimmie Overton <[e-mail]>,
Jim Mulligan <[e-mail]>
Cyndi,
I have finished my review of the Claudia N. Touhey project in Ocracoke,
Hyde County. I am recommending denial on the dredging portion of the
project due to loss of use of the waters. There are some parts of the
proposal; pier, breakwater, retaining wall,; which are OK. The CDF is OK
if the dike wall is vegetated and a 2 ft. freeboard is maintained. I am
sending a memo. to you via mail and FAX (just to make sure you get it)
with reasons for the denial. Thanks.
Deborah

t

9?11?
1 of 1 5/24/01 11:44 A
OT
C W ATF9PG Michael F. Easley
Governor
r William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
May 21, 20C
DWQ # 01-052
Hyde Count
Page 1 of
Ms. Claudia Touhey
PO Box 9
Ocracoke, NC 27960
Cc: Quible & Associates, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Douglas Dorman
PO Drawer 870
Kitty Hawk, Nc 27949
252-261-1260 (fax)
RE: Lots 2, 3 and 4, Trent Woods Subdivision, Gaskin Drive, Ocracoke, Hyde County, NC
Pamlico Sound [03-03-07, 29-(40.5), SA HQW]
APPROVAL of Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Buffer Protection Rules MINOR VARIANCE [15A NCAC 2B
.0259(9)(b)] and Authorization Certificate with ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Dear Ms. Touhey,
You have our approval, in accordance with the conditions listed below, to impact 10,400 ft' of Zone 2 of the
protected riparian buffers for the purpose of constructing the proposed spoil containment area on the subject property. ThiE
letter shall act as your Minor Variance approval as described within 15A NCAC 2B .0259(9)(b). In addition, you have our
approval to construct the proposed bulkheads and pier on the subject property. This letter shall act as your Authorization
Certificate per 15A NCAC 2B .0259(8). Also, you should get any other required federal, state or local permits before you
proceed with your project including but not limited to CAMA Permits, 404 USACE Permits, 401 DWQ Water Quality
Certification and Sediment and Erosion Control Permit.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your Minor Variance Request and covet
letter dated 5/7/01 and "Base Map for Environmental Planning" revised 5/3/01 and initialed by Mr. Bob Zarzecki on
5/21/01. If you change your project, you must notify us and you maybe required to send us anew request for approval. Foy
this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed below.
1. No impacts shall occur to Zone 1 of the protected riparian buffers, except for those directly associated with
the proposed bulkheads.
2. Any vegetation removed to install the tie-rods and footings or any grading associated with the proposed
bulkheads must be restored immediately following installation.
3. Upon completion of all work approved within this authorization, and any subsequent modifications, the
applicant is required to return the attached Certificate of Completion to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
4. An approved CAMA Major Permit and its associated 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for
activities associated with this project prior to construction. The Division of Water Quality has received the
CAMA Major application and will provide its comments to you.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Quible
9uible & Associates, P.C, {??a
ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES • PLANNING
SINCE 1959
tl
May 7, 2001
Mr. John R. Dorney
NCDE&NR - Division of Water Quali y
2321 Crabtree Blvd
Raliegh, NC 27604-2260
5 [ --
r;
2001 ?.
Re: Revised Minor Variance Request for Claudia N. Touhey Property
Ocracoke Township, Hyde County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Sawyer:

This letter is regarding the recent Minor Variance Request submitted to the Division of Water
Quality on behalf Claudia N. Touhey for lots 2, 3, and 4, Trent Woods Subdivision.
© 10 Sa l 2o2 -
Enclosed are the revisions and in formation requested for the subject project.
•
1
The proposed detail of the dike around the spoil area indicated a 1:3 slope, however
the plan view and associated calculations for the spoil disposal area show the correct
3:1 slope for the dike. The dike detail has been corrected to show a 3:1 slope as well
as adding vegetation notes to stabilize the bank of the spoil disposal area.
•
•
2. The spoil containment area has been modified to increase the freeboard to 2 feet which
reduces the spoil containment area to 2,020 cubic yards and yields a 1.2:1 holding
capacity. The spoil material associated with the dredge project is sand with very little
silt associated with it, therefore the settlement of the material should be very rapid and
the holing capacity should be adequate. If neccessary the dredge project can be phased
to accomodate the amount of spoil material, but it is our feeling that this will not be
neccessary to complete the project as described.
3. The purpose of the bulkhead is to abate erosion along the shoreline. The subject
property has a northeast facing shoreline which is exposed to the wind and wave
energy associated with major storm events. The exposure of property along the
Pamlico Sound make it vulnerable to substantial erosion and put a permitted
wastewater system in jeopardy by decreasing the uplands available for the proposed
residence. The proposed retaining wall will control the placement of fill material
P.O. Drawer 870
IOtty Hawk, INC 27949
Phone: [phone]M
Fax: [phone]
PRINCIPALS
Sean C. Boyle, P.E.
Joseph S. Lassiter, C.E.P.
Eduardo J. Voldivleso. P.E.
ASSOCIATES
David S. Neff
` v
a
adjacent to coastal wetlands along the entrance to the subject property. The proposed
pier will provide access to deeper water for mooring facilities as well as provide
access to an existing channel.
• 4. A single family residence is proposed and the Hyde County Health Department has
approved and permitted a wastewater design for a 4 bedroom single family residence.
The proposed single family residence will be constructed within Zone 2 of the
protected buffer and a minor variance for the proposed residence will be applied for
upon approval of the CAMA Major and Minor Variance.
The following items have been revised and are included with this submittal package:
• A revised copy of the Minor Variance Application.
• A copy of the revised plan.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. If you have any question, or require any
additional information, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Quible & Associates, P.C.

Douglas A. Dorman
cc: Claudia N. Touhey
Deborah Sawyer, DWQ Washington Regional Office
r
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request #
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form - for Minor Variances
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rules
NOTE: This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Please identify which Riparian Area Protection Rule applies.
? Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC .0233)
6 Tar-Pamlico River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC.0259)
Part 1: General Information
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the property):
Claudi N. Touhey
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the property and its compliance)
T
i
Name: ou ey
a N.
Claud
Title:
Street address: P. 0. Box 9 _ _ _
City, State, Zip: Ocracoke, NC 27960
Telephone: (252)_928-4351
Fax: ( 252) 928-4352
3. Contact person who can answer questions about the proposed project:
Name: Joe Lassiter, Quible & Associates, P.C.
Telephone: ( 252 } 261-3300
Fax: f 252 ) 261-1260 _ --
Email: quible@mindspring. com__
4. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, OReration and maintenance agreements, etc.):
Tou ey Property
5. Project Location:
Sroecaskins Drive, Lots 2, 3, 4, Trent Woods Subdivision
address:
City, State, Zip: Ocracoke, NC 27960
County: Hyde----- --- --- -- --- ---
Latitude/longitude: 35 07 OON?75 58 12W
Version 1: February 2000
6. Directions to site from nearest major intersection (Also, attach an 8'/z x 11 copy of the USGS
topographic map indicating the location of the site):
Right off NC 12 on Backroad. Left at Back Porch Restaurant. Right at
Coffee Shop. Diagonal through next intersection onto Gaskins Drive.
Gravel drive on left with gate.
7. Stream to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Stream name (for unnamed streams label as "UT" to the nearest named stream):
Pamlico Sound
Stream classification [as identified within thAe Schedule of Classifications 15A NCAC 2B
.0315 (Neuse) or.0316 (Tar-Pamlico)].
8. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required or have been received already for
this project?
Required: Received: Date received: Permit Type:
X CAMA Major
CAMA Minor
401 Certification/404 Permit
X 3 16199 On-site Wastewater Permit
NPDES Permit (including stormwater)
Non-discharge Permit
Water Supply Watershed Variance
Others (specify)
Part 2: Proposed Activity
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Description of proposed activity [Also, please attach a map of sufficient detail (such as a plat
map or site plan) to accurately delineate the boundaries of the land to be utilized in carrying
out the activity, the location and dimension of any disturbance in the riparian buffers
associated with the activity, and the extent of riparian buffers on the land]:
SegL_a.t_t.ached narrative_gnd_s_Lte_p_1.an- _
2. State reasons why this plan for the proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished,
reduced or reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers:
See alternatives analysis in enclosed EA.
3. Description of any best management practices to be used to control impacts associated with
the proposed activity (i.e., control of runoff from impervious surfaces to provide diffuse flow,
re-planting vegetation or enhancement of existing vegetation, etc.):
The proposed dredge spoil area will be graded and vegetated per
approved seeding specifications. The proposed single family residence
will be low density for an approximate 1 acre parcel of land.
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 1: February 2000

4. Please provide an explanation of the following:
(1) The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from the strict application of this
Rule.
Owner would be unable to use entire property as 50' buffers off the
Pamlico Sound & Coastal wetlands overlap.
(2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
The proximity of coastal wetlands in parallel alignment with the
sound on back side of sandy overwash ridge aJd-f-r y rare
configuration but not unique.
(3) If economic hardship is the major consideration, then include a specific explanation of the
economic hardships and the proportion of the hardship to the entire valuy of the project.
The property has been owned by Ms. Touheys family for 5 years.
_ A strict interpretation of the buffer rules would make a historically
buildable property unbuildable.
Part 3: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 5 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 4: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm): Quible & Associates, P.C.
Mailing address: P. o. Drawer 870
City, State, Zip: Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: quible@mindspring . com
Part 5: Applicant's Certification
Joseph S. Lassiter (print or type name of person
listed in Part I, Item 2), certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date:
Title: resident
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 1: February 2000
o?oF W a rFq pG Michael GF. Easley
overnor
Uj William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
1 Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O `C Kerr T. Stevens
® Division of Water Quality
April 18, 2001
DWQ Project # 01-0521
Hyde County
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Claudia N. Touhey
PO Box 9
Ocracoke, NC 27960
Cc: Quible & Associates, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Douglas Dorman
PO Drawer 870
Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
252-261-1260 (fax)
Re: Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Buffer - Minor Variance Request & CAMA Major
Lots 2, 3 and 4, Trent Woods Subdivision, Gaskin Drive, Ocracoke, Hyde Co., NC
Pamlico Sound [03-03-07, 29-(40.5); SA HQW]
Dear Ms. Touhey,
Your application for a Minor Variance from the Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0259)
was received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) / 401 Wetlands Certification Unit on March 8, 2001. The activity for which
the Minor Variance is sought is to construct a dredge spoil containment area in a manner that would require impacts to Zone 2 of the
protective buffers. A Minor Variance Approval is a determination by the DWQ that the activity for which the approval is sought
meets all of the requirements per 15A NCAC 2B .0259(9)(a).
After a thorough review of your proposed activity, DWQ staff have determined that you have not demonstrated that your
proposed activity meets all of the requirements per 15A NCAC 2B .0259(9)(a). Please provide us with information supporting your
position that states your project must be constructed as planned and that you have no practicable alternative to placing fill in these
protected riparian buffers. Specifically;
1. The proposed dike around the spoil area is indicated as having a 1:3 (1 foot of length for every 3 feet of height) or 67%
slope. This is very steep dike and the DWQ believe that the health of the vegetation and the diffuse flow of stormwater
within Zone 1 would be compromised by placing this steep dike within Zone 2. Also, no vegetation is proposed on this
dike to provide soil stability. Please provide information as to why this dike needs to be as steep as proposed and can not
be constructed at a 2:1 (2 feet of length for every 1 foot of height) or 5090 or less, vegetated slope. -
2. The proposed spoil containment area and dredging project would yield a 1.5:1 holding capacity with only a 1-foot
'freeboard. The DWQ believe that this is inadequate. Please provide information as to why the holding capacity can not
be increased to 3:1 (or at least 2:1) and the freeboard increased to at least 2 feet. Phasing the dredging project may help
in achieving these goals.
3. A proposed pier, bulkhead and retaining wall is indicated on the "Base Map for Environmental Planning" provided with
the Minor Variance Request Form. These activities will require written authorization from the DWQ for impacts to the
protected buffers. Please include these with justification for the need for the structures within the narrative section of the
Minor Variance Request Form.
4. The Minor Variance Request Form indicates that, "The proposed single family residence will be low density for an
approximate 1 acre parcel of land." This is the only reference to a "proposed single family residence" indicated in the
information provided to this office. The "proposed single family residence" will require a Minor Variance approval if
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733.6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.uslncwetlands/
pF W A TEA
O? , IQ
>
O 'f
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
MEMORANDUM
March 8, 2001
To: Bob Zarzecki
From: Deborah Sawyer
Subject: Minor Variance Request
Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules
Claudia H. Touhey c =
Hyde Co. - Ocracoke
The Washington Regional Office has reviewed the above subject request. There are several
concerns with this project. They are as follows:
The outer edge of the 3:1 slope of the berm is immediately adjacent to the 30 ft. setback
required by the rules. Even if vegetation were to be proposed on the berm slope, it would
be difficult to establish due to the environment. Other projects which have proposed a 3:1
slope on the 30 ft. setback line have been determined potentially have an impact on Zone
1. A vegetated 2:1 slope is much more stable.
Historically the DWQ has required at least a 2:1 holding capacity for CDF's with a 2 ft.
freeboard. With hydraulic dredging a 3:1 holding capacity is preferred. We have allowed
a lesser ratio if the applicant proposes to phase the dredging so that there is a 3:1 holding
capacity in the diked area at the time of the dredging, allowed to settle and decanted water
discharged, then dredge again to a 3:1 holding capacity. This dredging project does not
propose phasing the dredging nor does it have a 2:1 holding capacity. The applicant only
proposes a 1.5:1 holding capacity with a 1 ft. freeboard which is inadequate.
This project was looked at by staff members, including the Director, Section Chief, and EMC
member at the time of the Public Meeting on Ocracoke. This solution was proposed at the time
but no specifics were discussed. The WaRO does not recommend issuance of this Minor Variance
as it is proposed. Modifications will need to be presented to the Division to address the above
concerns. It is the opinion of the WaRO that as the project is proposed, there will be impacts to
Zone 1 which would make it necessary for the applicant to apply for a Major Variance which
must be presented to the EMC for a decision.
943 Washington Square Mall Washington, NC 27889 252-946-6481 (Telephone) 252-946-9215 (Fax)
If you have any questions or comments, please call. Thank you.
cc: Terry Moore / Steve Trowell, DCM
WaRO File
Quible
Quible & Associates, P.C.
ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES • PLANNING
SINCE 1959
February 7, 2001
Ms. Deborah Sawyer
NCDE&NR - Division of Water Quality
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
' FEB G 8 2001
Re: Minor Variance Request for Claudia N. Touhey Property
Ocracoke Township, Hyde County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Sawyer:
P.O. Drawer 870
10fty Hawk, NC 27949
Phone: [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-rnall: quIlNe®mindsprlnp.com
PRINCIPALS
Sean C. Boyle, P.E.
Joseph S. Lasslier, C.E.P.
Eduardo J. Valdivlwo, P.E.
ASSOCIATES
David S. Neff
VL-tor E. White, P.E.
On behalf of Ms. Claudia N. Touhey, Quible & Associates, P.C. is submitting for your review
and approval a Minor Variance for the construction of a dredge spoil containment area within the
50' Tar-Pamlico Buffer for the proposed access channel dredge spoil. The subject property is
located on Gaskins Drive adjacent to the Pamlico Sound in the Trent Woods Subdivision,
Ocracoke, North Carolina.
Enclosed with the application are two copies of the site plan and Environmental Assessment that
explain in detail the extent of the project. The enclosed EA has been reviewed by the NC
Division of Coastal Management and other environmental regulatory agencies and has been sent
to the NC State Clearinghouse for final approval.
The proposed spoil will be placed within an upland containment area with a spoil capacity of
2,630 yds'. The spoil containment area will be constructed on both the Touhey property and the
adjacent property owned by Mr. John Geewax. The Geewax property was formerly permitted
for spoil placement under a Major CAMA permit issued on 8-28-87 for the creation of the
Cochran basin and channel. The proposed spoil placement area will be in the same general
location that was used for the previous dredge project.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. If you have any question, or require any
additional information, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Quible & Associates, P.C.
Douglas A. Dorman
cc: Claudia N. Touhey
OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received Request #
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form - for Minor Variances
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rules
NOTE. This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Please identify which Riparian Area Protection Rule applies.
o Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC.0233)
6 Tar-Pamlico River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A
NCAC.0259)
Part 1: General Information
(Please include attachments ?t the room provicrea Is ?nsuructent.)
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the property):
Claudi N. Touhev
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person lerlly responsible for the property and its compliance)
Name: Claudia N. Tou ey
Title:
Street address: P. 0. Box
City, State, Zip: Ocracoke, NC 27960 ----------------
Telephone: ( 252) 928-4351 _-
Fax: ( 252) 928-4352
3. Contact person who can answer questions about the proposed project:
Name: Joe Lassiter,Quible & Associates, P.C.
Telephone: ( 252) 261-3300 -- -
Fax: ( 252 ) 261-1260 -
Email. quible @interpath.com
4. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
5. Project Location:
SroeLocatio Gaskins Drive, Lots 2, 3, 4, Trent Woods Subdivision
address:
City, State, Zip: Ocracoke, NC 27960 - -- County: ---
Hyde Latitude/longitude: 35 07 OoNT75 5? 12w
Version 1: February 2000
6. Directions to site from nearest major intersection (Also, attach an 8'/2 x 11 copy of the USGS
topographic map indicating the location of the site):
Right off NC 12 on Backroad. Left at Back Porch Restaurant. Right at
Coffee Shop. Diagonal through next intersection onto Gaskins Drive.
Gravel drive on left with gate.
7. Stream to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Stream name (for unnamed streams, label as "UT' to the nearest named stream):
Pamlico Sound
Stream classification [as identified within Ae Schedule of Classifications 15A NCAC 2B
.0315 (Neuse) or.0316 (Tar-Pamlico)].
8. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required or have been received already for
this project?
Required: Received: Date received:
X
X 3/16799
Permit Type:
CAMA Major
CAMA Minor
401 Certification/404 Permit
On-site Wastewater Permit
NPDES Permit (including stormwater)
Non-discharge Permit
Water Supply Watershed Variance
Others (specify)
Part 2: Proposed Activity
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Description of proposed activity [Also, please attach a map of sufficient detail (such as a plat
map or site plan) to accurately delineate the boundaries of the land to be utilized in carrying
out the activity, the location and dimension of any disturbance in the riparian buffers
associated with the activity, and the extent of riparian buffers on the land]:
See attached Environmental Assessment & Drawings
2. State reasons why this plan for the proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished,
reduced or reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers:
See alternatives analysis in enclosed EA.
3. Description of any best management practices to be used to control impacts associated with
the proposed activity (i.e., control of runoff from impervious surfaces to provide diffuse flow,
re-planting vegetation or enhancement of existing vegetation, etc.):
The proposed dredge spoil area will be graded and vegetated per
approved seeding specs ications. The proposed single family residence
will be low density for an approximate 1 acre parcel of land.
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 1: February 2000
4. Please provide an explanation of the following:
(1) The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from the strict application of this
Rule.
Owner would be unable to use entire property as 50' buffers off the
Pamlico Sound & Coastal wetlands overlap.
(2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
The proximity of coastal wetlands in parallel alignment with the
sound an back side of sandy overwash ridge is:a .?a-yrare
configuration but not unique.
(3) If economic hardship is the major consideration, then include a specific explanation of the
economic hardships and the proportion of the hardship to the entire valugg of the project.
The property has been owned by Ms. Touheys family for Z5 years.
A strict interpretation of the buffer rules would make a historica y
buildable property unbuildable.
Part 3: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 5 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 4: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm): Quible & Associates, P.C.
Mailing address: P. 0. Drawer 870
City, State, Zip: Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]:
Part 5: Applicant's Certification
I, Douglas A. Dorman (print or type name of person
listed in Part I, Item 2), certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature: Date:
Title: Fnvi?nnmPntal Sriantict
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 1: February 2000
Subject: Touhey Variance
Date; Thur 08 Feb 2001 16:30:31 -0500
From: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
Organization: DENR
To: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>,
Terry Moore <[e-mail]>,
Steve Trowell <[e-mail]>
Bob,
I just got the Touhey variance request by FedEx today. After I review
and comment on it, I'll forward a copy to you. This is the one at
Ocracoke on the Sound to const.a CDF on the beach 30 ft. from NWL.
Deborah
P.S. Is this your 1st niece or nephew? Congratulations!!!
16 2,001
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources A741?
ivision of Coastal Management w__
D
Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary13 March 2001
Donna D. Moffitt, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. John R. Dorney, Environmental Biological Supervisor
Division of Water Quality
Q10521
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge and Fill Permit Application Review
Applicant: Claudia N. Touhey
Project Location: Off SR 1357 in Hyde County, North Carolina
on Ocracoke Island near Horse Pen Point
on the Pamlico Sound
Proposed Project: Dredge Access Channel, pier with 4 fixed slips plus platform along
with bulkhead.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
2 April 2001. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Steve
Trowell at 252-946-6481. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is
requested.
REPLY
This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended
changes are incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the
attached comments.
Signed
Date
Washington District \ 943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina
01'7oon
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: Claudia N. Touhey
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Off SR 1357, in Hyde County on Ocracoke Island near Horse Pen
Point on Pamlico Sound.
Photo Index - 2000: 90-1042;V-7 1995: 90-961; W-16 1989: 197-4; Q-17
State Plane Coordinates - X: 2,906,000 Y: 510,900
Ocracoke Quad. (upper left corner)
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA and D/F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Date of Site Visit - 16 August 2000
Was Applicant Present - No
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - 8 March 2001
Office - Washington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Hyde County
Land Classification From LUP - Community (Highground)/Conservation (Water)
(B) AEC(s) Involved: EW, PTA, ES
© Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Private
(E) Wastewater Treatment: None
7
Planned - Septic with drain field
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - None
Planned - Pier, mooring pilings, bulkhead, retaining wall, breakwater.
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: Unknown
HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
DREDGED FILLED OTHER
(A) Vegetated Wetlands
(B) Non-Vegetated Wetlands
Pamlico Sound Bottom 24,750ft2 1,440 ftz shaded
(Pier)
© Other 27,378 ftz
Upland Spoil Area I --J
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 53,568 ft'
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F) Water Classification: SA
1.23 ac.
????..,5 * lj
Open: Yes
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: Applicant proposes to dredge a 55'x 450' access channel to an existing dredged
basin and access channel to deeper water. A 6' x 200' pier with 4 fixed slips and a 12' x 18' platform are
proposed along with a 55' breakwater. A 246' long bulkhead is proposed along MHW and 377' of
retaining wall along the upland/coastal wetland interface.

Development Type FEE DCM % DWQ %
143001601435100093 1625 6253 243001602 435100095 2341
1. Private, non-commercial
development that does not Involve $250 100% ($250) 0%($0)
the filling or excavation'of any
wetlands or open water areas:
11. Public or commercial development
that does not involve the filling or $400 100%($400) 0%($0)
excavation of any wetlands or open
water areas:
III. For development that Involves the
filling and/or excavation of up to 1
acre of wetlands and/or open water
areas, determine If A. B. C, or D
below applies:
111(A). For Private, non-commercial
development, If General water Quality $250 100%(S250) 0%($0)
Certification No.3301 (see attached)
can be applied:
III(B): For public or commercial
development, If General water Quality $400 100%(S400) 0%($0)
Certification No.3301 (see attached)
can be applied:
III(C). If General Water Quality
Certification No. 3301 (see attached)
could be applied, but DCM staff
determined that additional review and $400 60%($240) 40%($160)
written DWQ concurrence is needed
because of concerns related to water
quality or aquatic life:
III(D). If General Water Quality
Certification No. 3301 (see attached) $400 60%($240) 40%($160)
can not be applied:
IV. For development that involves
the filling and/or excavation of more $475 60%($285) 40%($190)
than one acre of wetlands and/or
open water areas:

Claudia Touhey
Ocracoke/Pamlico Sound
Hyde County
Project Setting
The project site is located off SR 1357 (Gaskin Drive) on Ocracoke Island near Horse Pen
Point adjacent the Pamlico Sound in Hyde County North Carolina. The site is a sandy berm
bordered on the north side by the Pamlico Sound and to the south by a coastal marsh vegetated
primarily with Juncus roemeranus (Black Needlerush). The sandy berm ranges in width from ±70'
to ±200' (in the vicinity of an earlier spoil area) and has an elevation of approximately 4' above the
normal water level. Access to the sandy berm is by a ±20' wide x ±250' long filled road across the
coastal marsh. Vegetation on the north side of the berm consist of Spartina patens (Salt Meadow
Grass), Ammol2hila breviligulata (American beach grass), H ddroco1yle bonariensis (Pennywort) and
Uniola paniculata (Sea oats). There are three stands of S artina altemiflora marsh located along the
shoreline. The south side of the berm is vegetated with Myrica cerifera (Wax myrtle) and Juniperus
virginiana (Red cedar). Vegetation is sparse in the center of the property as a result of it serving as
a dredge spoil/borrow area during a previous dredging project. The elevation in the center of the
property is ±3' lower than the surrounding uplands due to the removal of the previously dredged sand
material.
The project area consist of two privately owned, undeveloped properties. The eastern half
is owned by Mr. John Geewax and the western half is owned by Mrs. Claudia Touhey. Mr. Geewax
property was the site of a previous dredging project that included a dredged access channel and
basin authorized by Major CAMA/Dredge and Fill permit No. 132-87. The existing access channel
has filled in along the dredged alignment. The existing basin has experienced some shoaling as
well. The channel has not been maintained since 1995 and the basin has not been utilized for the
stated purpose. The pier structure authorized by Major CAMA/Dredge and Fill permit No. 132-87
was never built.
The aquatic nearshore area is part of a shallow sandy shoal that extends some ±700' offshore.
Water depths are between F to 3' deep. There are some scattered beds of Halodule wri htii (shoal
grass) in the project vicinity. There are some opportunistic oyster clusters along the shoreline and
an active clam lease to the north of the project area. The Pamlico Sound in this area is classified
as SA by the Environmental Management Commission and is open to shellfishing.
Project Description
The applicant proposes to dredge a 55' wide (average width) x 450' long access channel to
a proposed depth of 5' connecting the proposed channel at a ±90° angle to the existing dredged
channel located offshore of the neighboring property to the east. A hydraulic dredge will pump the
spoil to a 24,491 ft2 diked disposal area to be constructed on the neighboring property to the east.
A total of 1,697 cubic yards of sand is proposed to be dredged. A 6' x 200' long pier is proposed
with a 12'x 18' platform and 4 fixed slips with associated Y x 8' finger piers. A 55' long breakwater
is proposed to be constructed under the pier in the vicinity of the proposed slips. The applicant
proposes to stabilize the shoreline with a 244' long bulkhead. A total of 377' of retaining wall is
proposed along the upland/wetland interface on the south side of the property.
Anticipated Impacts
The project as proposed will result in the excavation of 24,750 ft2 of shallow water habitat
and the removal of 1,697 cubic yards of sand. The pier will shade 1,440 ft2 of Pamlico Sound
bottom. The construction and use of the diked spoil area will result in the filling and grading of
±27,378 ft' of uplands. The bulkhead and dock installation will result in some localized short term
turbidity.
Steve Trowell - Washington Regional Office - 12 March 2001
Quible
9uible & Associates, P.C. P.O. Drawer 870
ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES • PLANNING
SINCE 1959
March 7, 2001
Mr. Steve Trowell
NC Division of Coastal Management
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Re: Major CAMA Permit Application - Claudia N. Touhey - Ocracoke, NC
Dear Mr. Trowell:
"Hawk, NC 27949
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
PRINCIPALS
Sean C. Boyle, P.E.
Joseph S. Lassiter, C.E.P.
Eduardo J. Voldlvieso, P.E.
ASSOCIATES
David S. Neff
Victor E. White, RE,
Enclosed please find a check for $400.00 made out to NCDENR for the application fee and a copy of the
deed for the Claudia Touhey property. The copy of the deed enclosed is not of the best quality and we
are in the process of obtaining a better copy for your office and ours. Until that time we request that you
continue the review process and we will forward the information to you when it has been received.
Thank you for your attention to this information. If you have questions or need additional information
please contact me at 252-261-3300.
Sincerely,
Quible and Associates, P.C.

Douglas A. Dorman
Form DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
Gaskins Drive
1. APPLICANT
a. Landowner:
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction?
X Yes No
Name Mrs. Claudia N. Touhey
Address PO Box 9
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g. river,
creek, sound, bay) Pamlico Sound
City Ocracoke State NC
Zip 27960 Day Phone [phone]
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
Fax [phone]
b. Authorized Agent:
Name Ouible & Associates, P.C.
Address PO Drawer 870
City Kitty Hawk State NC
Zip 27949 Day Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
c. Project name (if any) Touhey
NOTE: Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s), and/or
project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County Hyde
b. City, town, community or landmark
Ocracoke
c. . Street address or secondary road number
a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/or filling activities.
Construction of 200' foot pier,12'x12' platform, 55' wooden
breakwater, dredge access channel, 246 LF bulkhead,
377 LF retaining wall, on-site placement of dredge spoil
within a 27,378 SF bermed soil containment area.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work, or both? New work
c. Will the project be for public, private or commercial
use? Private
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed project.
If more space is needed, please attach additional
pages. The purpose of the proposed project is to abate
shoreline erosion and to provide boating access to the
Pamlico Sound. Construction of the proposed structures
will be through use of hand tools and small power tools.
Bulkhead and pier pilings will be installed by "ietting" using
a pump. Dredging will.be accomplished using a hydraulic
dredge.
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-1
a. Size of entire tract 40,644 sq.ft.
b. Size of individual lot(s) Lot 3 = 11,192 sf
Lot 4 = 12,876 sf, Lot 5 = 16,576 sf
c. . Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or NWL
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Corolla - Duckston Fine Sand
e. Vegetation on tract Juniverus virginiana, Myrica
cerifera., Juncus roemerianus. PhraQmites australias,
Spartina alternaflora
f. Man-made features now on tract Dirt and gravel
entrance road
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land classification
of the site? (Consult the local land use plan.)
Conservation Transitional
Developed X Community
Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
Within Ocracoke Development Ordinance
Jurisdiction
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable
zoning? X Yes No
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
Has a professional archaeological assessment been
done for the tract? X Yes No
If yes, by whom? See NCDCR Review (Attach. F)
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
Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes _ No
Coastal (marsh) X Other
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? Coastal
wetlands delineated by DCM on 1/27/99.
(Attach documentation, if available)
m. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
None
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.) Surface runoff
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
Central water from Ocracoke
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 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
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-1
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 Elizabeth Chamberlin
Address PO Box 90
Phone Amissville VA 20106
Name John J. Geewax
Address 99 Star St.
Phone Phoenixville, PA 19460
Name
Address
Phone
• A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and issuing dates.
None
• A check for $250 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR)
to cover the costs of processing the application.
i'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
f 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.
This is the 26th day of February , 2001_.
Print Name Joseph S. Lassiter. CEP acent for
?-- -
Si e-
_ ndowner or Authorized Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
X DCM MP-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 sign and date each attachment in the
space provided at the bottom of each form.
Revised 03/95
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 below the purpose of proposed excavation or fill
activities. All values to be given in feet.
Average Final
Existing Project
i.enoth width r)anth nnnth
Access
channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Canal
Boat
basin
Boat
ramp
Rock
groin
Rock
breakwater
Other
(Excluding
shoreline
stabilization)
450 55
Avg, 2.5' 5'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below
MHW or NWL in cubic yards 1,697 cubic yds_
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 None
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED
MATERIAL
a. Location of disposal area On-site and on adjacent
property to east.
b. Dimensions of disposal area 27,378 SF
c. Do you claim title to disposal area?
Yes X No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
d. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? X Yes _ No
If yes, where? In permitted location
Revised 03/95
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
X Bulkhead Riprap
(3) Purpose of fill
b. Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Dimensions of fill area NA
(2) Purpose of fill
b. Length 246 LF Bulkhead - 377 LF retaining wall 5. GENERAL
c. Average distance waterward of MHW or NWL
Aligned along MHW
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and
erosion controlled? Bermed spoil containment area
d. Maximum distance waterward of MHW or NWL
-0-
e. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months
5-10' during September storms
(source of information) on-site observation
b. What type of construction equipment will be used (for
example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
Hydraulic dredge
f. Type of bulkhead or riprap material wood
Amount of fill in cubic yards to be placed below
water level
(1) Riprap -0-
(2) Bulkhead backfill -0-
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. NA
h. Type of fill material Clean sand
i. Source of fill material Dredge spoil
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. Will fill material be brought to site?
Yes X No
If yes, NA
(1) Amount of material to be placed in the water
(2) Dimensions of fill area
Claudia N. Touhe
App ' a t of-P} oject Name
ature -Joseph S. Lassiter, CEP, agent for:
DDat?
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-4
STRUCTURES
(Construction within Public Trust Areas)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Fo rm 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 1
(3) Length 200'
(4) Width 6'
(5) Finger Piers X Yes No
(i) Number 4
(ii) Length 8'
(iii) Width 3' Avg.
(6) Platform(s) 1 Yes No
(i) Number 1
(ii) Length 12'
(iii) Width 12'
(7) Number of slips proposed 4
(8) Proximity of structure to adjacent riparian
property lines +/- 75'
(9) Width of water body Pamlico Sound- miles
(10) Water depth at waterward end of pier at MLW
or NWL 2'- 2.5' existing; 5' proposed
b. Boathouse (including covered lifts) NA
(1) Commercial Private
(2) Length
(3) Width
Groin (e.g. wood, sheetpile, etc.) NA
(1) Number
(2) Length(s)
d. Breakwater (e.g. wood, sheetpile, etc.)
(1) Length 55' constructed under end of pier
to protect slips
(2) Average distance from MHW, NWL or
wetlands 180.5'
(3) Maximum distance beyond MHW, NWL or
wetlands 200'
Mooring buoys NA
(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.)
(1) _ Commercial -Community X Private
(2) Number 5
(3) Length 16'
(4) Width 10"
g. Other (Give complete description)
Claudia N. Touhe
Applicanr ject Name
Sign -Joseph S. Lassiter, Agent for:
2 /-2L/ G
Date
Revised 03/95
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200110495
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Dear Mr. Huggett:

Reference the application of Claudia Touhey for a Department of the Army (DA) permit
to undertake maintenance dredging activities within an existing basin and access channel, and
construct a pier, a bulkhead, and a breakwater, on property located off State Road 1357, adjacent
to the Pamlico Sound, on Ocracoke Island, Hyde County, North Carolina.
The Federal agencies have completed review of the proposal as presented by the application
and your field investigation report.
We recommend that the following conditions be included in the State authorization:
1. All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance with the
permit plans, which are a part of this permit.
2. The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States
require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or
if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or
work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the
permittee will be required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or
alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No
claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration.
3. All excavated materials will be confined landward of the mean high water (MHW)
elevation contour within adequate dikes or other retaining structures to prevent spillover of solids
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
April 17, 2001
into any vegetated wetlands or surrounding waters.
-2-
4. No vegetated wetlands will be excavated or filled.
5. Excavation will not exceed the depth of adjacent connecting waters.
6. The temporary placement or double handling of excavated or fill materials within
waters or vegetated wetlands is not authorized.
7. The fill material will be clean and free of any pollutants except in trace quantities.
Metal products, organic materials, or unsightly debris will not be used.
8. No attempt will be made by the permittee to prevent the full and free use by the public
of all navigable waters at or adjacent to the authorized work. Use of the permitted activity must
not interfere with the public's right to free navigation on all navigable waters of the United States.
9. The permittee will maintain the authorized work in good condition and in conformance
with the terms and conditions of this permit. The permittee is not relieved of this requirement if
he abandons the permitted activity without having it transferred to a third party.
10. The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a significant increase in
turbidity outside the area of construction or construction-related discharge. Increases such that
the turbidity in the waterbody is 50 NTU's or less in all rivers not designated as trout waters by
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), 25 NTU's or less in all
saltwater classes and in all lakes and reservoirs, and 10 NTU's or less in trout waters, are not
considered significant.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Raleigh Bland, Washington Field Office,
Regulatory Division, telephone [phone], extension 23.
Sincerely,
0A
Raleigh Bland, P.W.S.
Regulatory Project Manager
40 / 9 , 00
-3-
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Mr. Garland B. Pardue
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
Habitat Conservation Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. David Rackley
NMFS, Habitat Conservation Division
219 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110
Mr. William L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Terry Moore, District Manager
Washington Regional Office
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889

0

? CEIN ?7 a 1
1
SINCE 1959 F E B U 8 26,
BY:-? 1??-l?Qe1
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CLAUDIA N. TOUHEY PROPERTY
OCRACOKE,
HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
NC Division of Coastal Management
NC State Clearinghouse
and
Ms. Claudia N. Touhey
PO Box 9
Ocracoke, NC 27960
Prepared by:
Quible & Associates, P.C.
Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Planning
PO Drawer 870
Kitty Hawk, North Carolina 27949
[phone] FAX [phone]
E-Mail - [e-mail]
Project Number 99034
May 25, 2000
Revised January 25, 2001

i
i
i
i
TOUHEY PROPERTY
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Purpose and Background
II. Existing Environment
III. Need
IV. Alternative Analysis
A. No Action
B. Construction of Project Without Dredging
C. Reduction in Proposed Project Scope
V. En
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
L.
N.
0.
vironmental Consequences
Changes in Land Use
Wetlands
Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
Public Lands
Scenic and Recreational Areas
Areas of Historic or Archeological Value
Air Quality
Groundwater Quality
Noise Levels
Water Supplies
Fish and Shellfish and Their Habitat
Wildlife and Their Habitat
(Endangered and Threatened Species Analysis)
Introduction of Toxic Substances
Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
Indirect Impacts
VI. Mitigative Measures
TOUHEY PROPERTY
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Site Location/Topographic Map
Attachment B - Base Plat
Attachment C - Aerial photograph
Attachment D - Site Photographs
Attachment E - Plat Showing Shellfish Leases and SAVs
Attachment F - Letter from NC Deptartment of Cultural Resources (July 29, 1999)
Attachment G - Letter from Division of Parks and Recreation (July 16, 1999)
Attachment H - Letter from Geewax authorizing placement of spoil on his property
(August 10, 2000)

l

NARRATIVE

I

I
TOUHEY PROPERTY
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to describe the potential impacts
associated with construction of an access channel and residential pile supported pier
system with moorings at the Claudia Touhey property in Ocracoke, Hyde County, North
Carolina (Attachment A, Figure 1). This EA is being prepared for review by the NC
Division of Coastal Management (DCM) and other environmental regulatory agencies.
Further, this EA is being prepared to comply with Chapter 25 of the NC Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) and has used guidelines found therein to determine the scope of this
report.
The proposed activity includes construction of bulkhead at the Mean High Water (MHW)
alignment of the Pamlico Sound and along coastal wetlands, construction of a retaining
wall along coastal marsh, dredging an access channel and construction of a pile supported
access pier with platform and mooring slips. A 55' breakwater is also proposed to be
constructed under the pier adjacent to the boat slips. A total of 246 feet of bulkhead and
377 feet of retaining wall is proposed. The purpose of the bulkhead is to abate erosion
along the shoreline. The subject property has a north/ northeast facing shoreline which
exposes the property to the full impact of nor'easters' and other major northern quadrant
storm events. The alignment coupled with the exposure of the property to the open
waters of the Pamlico Sound, with associated wave energy being delivered to the
shoreline, make it likely that substantial erosion will occur during major storm events
until stabilization is undertaken. Discussions with the DCM field staff in Washington
confirmed that they have seen the evidence within the past twelve months of overwash
conditions on the subject tract that are associated with storm events. Continued erosion
threatens a permitted wastewater treatment system with associated decreases in the
uplands available for residential development on the tract.
The retaining wall, which is in fact another type of vertical wooden bulkhead structure,
will control the placement of fill material adjacent to coastal wetlands during the fill and
grading of the uplands property and will allow for the improvement of the entrance road
that bisects the property and accesses the beach area.
Dredging within the Pamlico Sound, is proposed to increase water depth to 5.0 feet with
a channel that varies in width from 42 to 70 feet. As depicted on the plat, Sheet 1 of 2,
Attachment B, the alignment of the dredged channel constitutes the shortest distance to
an existing permitted and maintained channel (Cochran channel) which is oriented
generally in a north/south direction. The proposed channel alignment is also shown on
the aerial photograph in Attachment C. The area of the proposed access channel dredge
Toubey Property - Ocracoke January25, 2001
' Em romnental Assessment Page 1

is 24,491 ft' and the total volume of dredge material is 1,697 yds3 with an average depth
of excavation at 1.87'. The dredged material would be placed within an upland 27,378 ftz
bermed spoil containment area with a spoil capacity of 2,630 yds3. As shown on
Attachment B, this spoil containment area is to be constructed on both the Touhey
property and the adjacent property to the east owned by Mr. John Geewax. Mr. Geewax
' has authorized placement of dredge material on his property. A copy of his August 10,
2000 written authorization is included as Attachment H. The Geewax property was
formerly permitted for spoil placement when the existing Cochran basin and channel
(northwest of the Geewax property) were created. A CAMA Major permit was issued on
8-28-87 for that activity. The proposed spoil placement area for the Touhey project is in
the same general location as that used for the former dredge project. If future
' maintenance dredging is required for the proposed channel it can be accomplished using
a clam shell and barge to remove the spoil material to an offsite permitted location, or it
' may be placed onsite in the proposed location as shown on the Attachment B. The
potential also exists to use the spoil material for a future beach renourishment project.
This would require the dredge effort to be coordinated with Hyde County and the town of
' Ocracoke as well as determining if the material is suitable for the proposed project.
In addition, the project proposes a 6 foot wide, 200 foot long (1,200 sq. ft.) pier with a
' 12 ft by 12 ft (144 sq.ft.) platform at the waterward end. Four mooring slips are also
proposed on the west side of the pier with associated finger piers and five mooring
pilings. A 55 ft wooden breakwater is proposed beneath the pier to provide protection for
' moored vessels from wind generated waves.
' II. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
A. Project Area - The proposed project is located within an existing residential
' neighborhood with a mix of undeveloped and residentially developed properties.
The subject property is located at approximate latitude 35°07' 00"N and longitude
75°58' 12"W, on Gaskins Drive, adjacent to the Pamlico Sound, in Ocracoke,
Hyde County, North Carolina. The site location is shown on the topographic map
presented as Attachment A. The property is classified as Community in the
current Hyde County Land Use Plan and the .933 acre subject property consists of
' three individual lots (Lots 3, 4 and 5) within Trent Woods 2 subdivision and is
currently undeveloped. Photographs of the subject site and surrounding area are
presented in Attachment D. In general, the subject site contains a sandy upland
' ridge on the north side adjacent to Pamlico Sound, and coastal wetlands to the
south. The vegetative community within the coastal wetlands consists primarily
of Juncus roemeranus. Two monospecific stands of Spartina alterniflora are
' located along the shoreline of the subject site and additional areas of alterniflora
are found along the shoreline of the Geewax property. These areas have been
' digitized from aerial photography and are depicted on the plat included as
Attachment B and E. Vegetation within the sandy upland area of the subject
property consists of Juntperus virginana, Myrica cerifem, Hydrocotyle
' bonariensis, Yucca filamentosa and Ipomea stolonifem. A sand and gravel
TouheyPmperty- Ocracoke January25, 2001
' Environmental Assessment Page 2
1
roadbed provides access to the overwash ridge. Vegetation along this roadbed
consists of Phragmites australis, Myrica cerifera, Juncus roemeranus and
Borrichia frutescens. Adjacent properties to the east and west of the subject site
are undeveloped. The near shore aquatic environment in this vicinity is very
shallow and receives significant wind generated wave energy. This area of the
' Pamlico Sound is classified as SA waters.
B. Two clam leases are located in the public trust waters of the Pamlico Sound in the
1 vicinity of the subject site and are shown on Attachment E, sheet 2 of 2. These
leases are 1.34 and 3.20 acres in size and are located north/ northeast of the area
proposed for dredging and pier construction. Both leases are held by Mr. Robert
' Despo and open to shellfish harvest. There is an additional shellfish resource
represented by scattered opportunistic oyster clusters and, although no clams were
' found within the proposed area of excavation, it is likely that scattered clams can
be found in the general vicinity of the project.
C. Beds of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) are present offshore from the
project shoreline. These SAV beds are north and northeast of the proposed
dredge area and there are additional bed on the opposite side of the Cochran
t channel. The scattered beds in proximity to the project are depicted on
Attachment E and appear to be predominately Shoal Grass (Halodule wrightii).
Further removed from the project area and in deeper water there are more
' extensive beds of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) and shoal grass.
t III. NEED
The need for the proposed project lies in property protection (erosional forces) and water
' access. The proposed bulkhead alignment along the Pamlico Sound is designed to
protect the waterfront from continued erosion of the north facing beach. The exposure of
this property was exemplified during the numerous strong storms throughout the fall of
1999 when several feet of shoreline were lost. The erosion currently threatens a
permitted wastewater treatment system The proposed pier, breakwater and dredged
access channel would allow residential, private boating use of this waterfront property.
' Water depths out to the referenced Cochran channel range from approximately 1 to 2.5
feet and are insufficient to allow reliable and safe vessel passage.
' IV. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
' It is our perception that given the shallow water depths in proximity to the project limit
available alternatives. The options explored are as follows:
' A. No action - If the project is not constructed then boats accessing the Touhey
property will likely anchor or utilize a mooring buoy or piling placed directly
' offshore. Historically, this approach has been applied in similar settings on
Toubey Property - Ocracoke January 25, 2001
' Environmental Assessment Page 3

Ocracoke and is suitable for small vessels. A concern of the property owners is
that this approach does not provide protection from wind and wave forces and
reduces boat use to small skiffs which are not well suited for inclement weather in
the open waters of the Pamlico Sound.
' B. Construction of Project Without Dredging - Construction of the pier/mooring
system at the subject site, excluding the dredging component is an alternative to
the project as proposed. Current CAMA rules would not allow the pier system to
' be extended to the Cochran channel based on the distance to the deeper water.
The cost of construction a pier without accessing deeper water is difficult to
justify.
C. Amendment of proposed project scope- A decision can be made to reduce the
' length of the pier and propose more excavation or, conversely, to add more pier
length and reduce the channel excavation. The proposed project design attempts
to find a reasonable compromise between the two methodologies for providing
reliable access to navigable water.
' V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A. Changes in Land Use - Eventually, it is the intent of the property owner to
1 develop the property for residential use. Therefore, the property will change from
undeveloped to residentially developed waterfront property. This future use is
consistent with nearby properties and allowable within local and county land use
guidelines and ordinances. The subject property is classified as community
within the CAMA Land Use Plan and local permitting guidelines are provided in
the Ocracoke Development Ordinance as adopted by the Hyde County
' Commissioners on April 20, 1998.
B. Wetlands - Coastal Wetlands are located in approximately the southern third of
the property. The dominant wetland species is Juncus roemarianus. The
proposed dredge and fill activities do not impact these wetlands which have been
determined to be jurisdictional by the DCM. Some areas of coastal wetlands
' containing Spartina alterniflora are also located adjacent to the shoreline at
approximately the normal water level of the Pamlico Sound. These areas are
depicted on Attachment B. Impacts to these coastal wetlands have been avoided
' through project design.
C. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands - There is limited agriculture other than
' private gardens on Ocracoke and this project will not impact any prime or unique
agricultural land.
' D. Public Lands - The project will not impact public land above the Mean High
Water line of Pamlico Sound.
ToubeyProperty - Ocracoke January25, 2001
' Environmental Assessment Page 4

F

E. Scenic and Recreational Areas - Part of the project will be developed within the
Public Trust Waters of the Pamlico Sound. Although this area is scenic and used
for recreational purposes, the proposed project is analogous to other development
along this stretch of water and public access and use of the waters and shoreline
will not be restricted other than within the footprint of the proposed pier.
F. Areas of Historic or Archeological Value - A review of the subject property was
conducted by the Department of Cultural Resources at the Historic Preservation
Office in Raleigh, North Carolina. Correspondence addressing the Departments
findings is included as Attachment F and states that there is no evidence that
significant historic or archaeological resources would be adversely impacted by
the proposed activity.
G. Air Quality -Except for emissions from construction equipment and boat motor
exhaust, the proposed project will not negatively impact air quality.
H. Groundwater Quality - Eventually the subject site is expected to be developed
residentially. The current residential sewage waste disposal method for this area
is on-site septic. Impact to groundwater from this waste disposal method is not
expected to negatively impact the groundwater resource beyond what is
considered typical of such an application. The owner of the subject site has been
permitted to install a bio-filtration wastewater treatment and disposal system. No
other discharge/recharge to the groundwater resource is anticipated from the
proposed use of the subject property.
1. Noise Levels - Increased vessel use will produce additional noise in the
immediate proximity to the property. This area is used in a similar manner by
nearby waterfront property owners and the proposed project would not contribute
excessively to what is expected from private boat use.
Water Supplies - The subject area is supplied potable water from the Ocracoke
municipal system. This system is sufficient to supply the proposed residential use
of the subject property. No other water supply wells are anticipated on the
subject property.
K. Fish, Shellfish and their Habitat - 24,491 ft2 of benthic habitat is proposed to be
impacted by the dredge effort. In addition, 1,344 ft' of aquatic habitat is proposed
to be shaded by the pier and platform. Staff from Quible & Associates, P.C.
(Q&A) have visited the site in July 1999, and also in April, May, and August of
2000. During these site visits, by three separate individuals, the offshore aquatic
environment was evaluated for the presence of shellfish and other aquatic
resources. As previously discussed, there of two clam leases owned by Robert
Despo in the offshore waters of Pamlico Sound. These areas are 1.34 and 3.20
acres in area and are depicted on the plat included as Attachment E. In addition,
there is evidence of scattered opportunistic oyster clusters in the project area.
There is also an area posted as closed to shellfish harvest southeast of the subject
Toubey Property - Ocracoke

' January 2S, 2001
Environmental Assessment Page 5

property. Hand raking for clams within the proposed dredge areas did not find a
hard clam resource, but it is likely that there are scattered clams in the project
area. No impacts are proposed in immediate proximity to these leased areas and
minimal direct impacts to shellfish areas are anticipated. The applicant
acknowledges the request by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries and
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and no dredging will be
performed between February 15 - June 30.
Q&A scientists also examined the benthos for the presence of submerged aquatic
vegetation during the above referenced site visits. On two occasions areas of eel
grass that had broken off was found lying on the bottom in the shallow water
' southeast of the existing channel. Our review found no evidence of rooted
submerged aquatic vegetation within the proposed footprint of the area to be
' disturbed. There are beds of rooted submerged aquatic vegetation in the project
area including Shoal Grass (Halodule wrightir) and Eel Grass (Zostera marina).
The approximate location of these beds is depicted on the plat included as
' Attachment E. The beds appear to be located in water depths of approximately
2.5' or greater. It appears that the wave energy along this particular portion of the
shoreline is sufficient to limit SAV growth at depths of less than 2.5'. Therefore,
' the alignment of the proposed channel tends to avoid the depths that are
conducive to SAV growth.
L. Wildlife and Their Habitat (Endangered and Threatened Species Analysis) - The
Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program was contacted to
examine whether threatened or endangered flora or fauna species exist at the
' project site. A response to our request is included as Attachment G. This
correspondence states that seven records of rare species exist within a 1.0 mile
radius of the proposed project. A review of the January 1999 list of Endangered
and Threatened Species that occur in Hyde County indicate that in the general
vicinity of the Property the following animal species may be present. They
include Manatee (Trichechus manatus), Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus),
Gull-billed Tern (Sterna nilotica), Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines). Of the species listed several could potential
use the subject property as a hunting area including Bald eagle and Peregrine
' Falcon. None of the rare plant or animal species or their specific habitat were
observed during a number of site visits conducted by Q&A. Cape Hatteras
National Seashore is listed as a Significant Natural Heritage Area within a 1.0
' mile radius of the subject site. As all proposed activities are to be performed
within the boundaries of the subject property and nearby adjacent water of the
Pamlico Sound, no impact to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore resource is
' expected. Secondary impacts associated with increased density of development
include loss of habitat and additional impervious surface within areas that are
' currently marginally developed.
M. Introduction of Toxic Substances - Construction of the proposed project will not
' introduce new toxic substances to the subject property. The increased number of
Touhey Property - Ocracoke January 2S, 2001
' Environmental Assessment Page 6

boats will expand the use of oils, gasoline, diesel fuel etc., on the subject property
and near vicinity. As with any increase in use, the potential for releases of those
materials increases.
N. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters - The increase in recreational boats mooring
in the subject property is not expected to increase the supply of nutrients to the
aquatic environment. Runoff from impervious surfaces and use of fertilizer
and/or chemical associated with residential development have the potential to
deliver additional nutrients to the public trust waters.
0. Indirect Impacts - The construction of the project, with eventual construction of
an associated single family residence, will bring additional requirements for trash
collection and disposal, fire and police protection, and additional ferry and
highway use. As building continues additional infrastructure will have to be
provided by units of state and local government to serve that development.
Additional residential growth will also stimulate an increase in commercial and
retail interests to provide needed goods and services to the residential
development. Increased vessel use will be associated with mooring an additional
boat(s) at the subject property. Indirect impacts from increased boating in the
vicinity of the subject site may include; noise, potential for fuel and outboard oils
to enter public trust waters, disturbance of shallow water bottom and habitat by
increased boat and foot traffic.
VI. MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Mitigative measures associated with the proposed project include extension of the
proposed pier rather than dredging additional benthic habitat to gain access closer to the
shore. In addition to these minimized resource impacts, all wetlands, SAV's and
shellfish resources have been avoided in the proposed plan and erosion control measures
will be used during the construction process to insure that sediments do not impact
wetlands or public waters. The applicant also supports a dredging moratorium request by
the review agencies. The bulkhead will be constructed with filter cloth to control
sediment movement and the residential development will have a minimum vegetative
buffer of 30' from public trust waters.
Touhey Property - Ocracoke January25, 2001
' Environmental Assessment Page 7

o - AW wmr .
A

fD 11.x,
L7 ?/
°
+
0 y
cn
?. 0
v
O ::3 S > ?..?
-
(D co a7 O
0Q
° o 0 CL
-u 0 a _; = l=f
uj 0 r-4- C.

•n
.-.

• :: ?' ? ? , • ' r Vic, ?o ?
)LE,
Z
' •.
o
it e+
'•
? #11.• ••, •••• ?'•
,
. - +
.--
T-u
;3 ;3 0 G)
•
•
•
•

// •t A
•• • •
•
r
• //
•?? X•
Y+ co

1 • h?/ - ? 0 ,
7

• '
I• O
Y
•
'/ •

O'V
V
,
•

z \

SCAM N•TS
Claudia N. Touhay Quible and Associates, P.C.
' LOTS 3, 4, and 5 - TRENT WOODS 2 - OCRACOKE
ENGINEERING 4 PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL SCISNCHS
OCRACOKE TOWNSHIP HYDE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
FILE: P99034 DATE: 7/9/1999 P.O. DRAWER 870, KrM HAWK, N.G 27949

J

1

*?V-
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL `??E? OF
. RESOURCES
DMSION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
JU1y 16,1999
Mr. Robert M. White
Quible & Associates, P.C.
P. O. Drawer 870
Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
SUBJECT: Rare Species, High Quality Natural Communities, and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas at the Proposed Bulkhead
and Dredging Project Site at Gaskins Drive, Ocracoke,
Hyde County, North Carolina. .
Dear Mr. White:
The NC Natural Heritage Program (NC BP) has . records of rare species and a
Significant Natur3l'Hesitage Area within a 1.0 mile radius of the proposed bulkhead
construction/dredging project site at the Touhey property, Gasldns.Drive, Ocracoke, County, North Carolina (Table 1 attached)...Permits and any other ovke,
.?equiremenis should be sought before beginning this land moving g ???
with'ctsi?sideration of wetlands. protect especially
Enclosed is a list of rare species known. to exist in Hyde County. If habitat for any of
these species exists at the site, they may be present there. Co
knowledge of the existing habitat should d nsultant acquired
etelmine if a survey is necessary.
'lease do'not hesitate to contact me at the address below or call me at (919) 715-
1703 if you have any questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Z? .. L'G?
Susan Reece Giles
Information Specialist
N. C. Natural Heritage Program
Enclosure '
27699-1615
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE A PHONIC 919-733-4181 FAX [phone]
-50%RLCVnl-14 nQe
1: Element Occurrences within 1.O mile of BulkheadlDredging Site, :TouheyProperty, Ocracokerd' e County, NC
&HA* Cape Hatteras National West and south of the site wfi a 1.0 mile..
'Seashore radius
' al Carolina salt marsh snake Nerodia sipedoyi williamengelsi; SC. -
Approximately 0.2 mi E in Horsepen Creek
Lmal Outer Banks Iangsnake Lampropehls.getula sdaiceag .SC -
Approximately 1.0 mi S Obscure record
lim-ai Northern harrier (bird) Circus eyaneus; S and SW near Silver Lake SR -
West Indies Manatee Trichechus manatus; reported in Silver Lake E E
t Moundiily yucca . Yucca glorlosa; CH National Seashore.. SR
t Georgia sunrose* Helianthemum georgiamtm; CH National C -
Seashore; obscure record
Mant Seaside heliotrope Heliotrapium curassavicum var C -
F curassavicum; CH National Seashore;
obscurerecord
,NHA = Significant Natural Heritage Area
1
I

1 GLO94L AND STATE RANKS
These ranks are determined by The Na' ure Coin ervancy's system of measuFm& rarity, and threat status ":Global" refers tp
' worldwide raulms and "Stpte" to statewide. ranks
STATE RA KK DF 'INIT Mg
Sl Critically imperiled in North Carolina because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extiipaton M the state.
' S2 Imperiled im North' Carolina .because of-.rarity. or otherwise .vulnerable to extirpation in the .state,
S3 Rare-or uncommoa.in North Carolina.
S4 Apparently secure in North Carolina, with many occurrences.
' S5 Demonstrably secure in North: Carolina; and essentially ineradicable under present- conditions.
SA Accidental or. castial; one to several records for North Carolina, but the state is outside the normal mange of the species.
SH Of historical -ooctnrence, in North Carolina; perhaps not having been verified in the past 25 years, and suspected to be • still
extant in the state.
SR Reported from North Carolina, but without persuasive documentation for either accepting or rejecting the report.
SX Believed to be. extirpated from North Carolina.
' SU Possibly in peril in North Carolina, but status uncertain; more information is needed.
S? Unranked; or rank uncertain.
B Rank of breeding population in the state. Used for migratory species only.
' N Rank of.non-breeding population in the state. Used- for migratory species only..
I Z_ Population is not of significant conservation ccinoern; applies to transitory,: migratory species.
GLODAL RANK DEFIHITIO.NS
Gl Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vuierable to extinction"throughout its range.
G2 Imperiled globally because of rarity or otherwise vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
.G3 Eiyier-yery rare and local: throughout its,.range, or. found: locally iwia restricted area.
APP y secure-globally,. although.iE maybe .qu to rare ui•parts of its range.( especially at the periphery
GS Detnonstcably ;secure globally,. although it may bequite rare- in parts of its,range (especially: at. the penpherY)...
GH Of 2iiuorcal occurrence throughout its range.
GX Believed to be extinct throughout its range.
GU Possibly in-peril, but status-uncertain; niore information is.neede i.
G? Vnranked,' or tank i!Mcertaim:
Q _Q Of questionable.-taxonomic. status..-.
T Status of subspecies or variety;=the Qr rank; refers to the species as.a whole,
ADDMONAL DEFINITIONS ,
' Elements following `co?Y names marked with. one: or two asterisks; indicate. obscure or•Aisto?a recor
. . ds.
* . Obscure record: the date .the.elemene was last observed in the; county is uncertain. .
** Historic record: -the element was..last observed in the county more than 26 years ago'.
Scientific and.common .names .listed in parentheses are synonyms listed in US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992, Endangered and
' Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book).
' NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DENR January 1999
STATE FED. STATE GLOBAL
SCIrfiTZFIC NAME CCUMON NAME STATUS STATUS RAMC. RAMC
Hyde
Vertebrate Animals
' Alligator mississippiensis American Alligator T• T(S/A) S3 G5.
Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle SR SXB,SZN G5
Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern SR - SlB,S3N G4
Canis rufus Red Wolf E LEXN S1 GI
' Caretta caretta Loggerhead T LT S2B,S2N G3
Charadrius melodus Piping Plover T LT S2B,S2N G3
Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier SR S1B,S4N G5.
Coturnicops noveboracensis Yellow Rail SR - S2N +, G4
' Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron SC. _ S3B,S3N G5
Egretta thula Snowy Egret SC S3B,S3N G5
Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron SC - S3B,S3N,G5
Haliaeetus.leucocephalus
Laterallus jamaicensis Bald Eagle
Black Rail E
SR IT
FSC S2B,S2N G4
S3B,S2N G4
Lepidochelys kempii Atlantic Ridley E LE SAB,SZN G1
Nerodia sipedon williamengelsi Carolina Salt Marsh Snake SC - S3 G5T3
Picoides borealis' Red-cockaded Woodpecker E LE S2 G3
.
' Plegadis falcinellus Glossy This SC _ S2B,S1N G5
Rynchops niger Black Skimmer .SC SIB,.S3N G5
Sorex sp 1 an undescribed shrew SR - S1S2 '.G1G2Q .
Sterna nilotica Gull-billed-Tern T - S3B,SZN G5
Trichechus manatus. Manatee E LE SiN. G2
Ursus americanus Black Bear- SR - S3 G5
Invertebrate Animals
Euphyes berryi Berry's Skipper SR _ Sl? G3G4
'
Papilio cresphohtes Giant Swallowtail SR S2 G5
Poanes aaroni aaroni .'Aaron's Skipper SR - S2?. G4T4 .
Vasculer Plants
'Aeschynomene virginica Sensitive Jointyetch E' LT S1 G2
Amaranthus pumilus Seabeach Amaranth T LT S2 G2
Eleocharis cellulosa Gulfcoast Spikerush SR - S1 G4.G5
Eleocharis rostellata Beaked Spikerush.
' SR - S2 G5
Eriocaulon parkeri
i &stuary:Pipewort
. C _ 81 G3..
Leptochloa fascicularis var Long-awned Spangl'etop SR 91 G5T3T4
maritima
Lilaeopsis carolinensis Carolina Grasswort T - S3 G3?
dwigia alata
E Winged Seedbox SR _ S2 G3G4
ynchospora odorata Fragrant Beaksedge SR Sl G4
Trichostema.sp 1 Dune Bluecurls C' FSC S2 G2
Yucca gloriosa Moundlily Yucca SR - S2? G4?

Common ties
k
?
h Marsh
= - - - S5 G5
Coastal Fringe Evergreen Forest S1 G3?
ypress--Gum Swamp (Blackwater - - - S5 G5T5
type)
WE
&
Grass

S3 G3G4:
Estuarine Fringe Loblolly Pine. S3? G3?
rest
F
gh Pocosin S4 G4
terdune Pond
n S1 G2?
Low -Pocosin - - - S3 G3
aritime Dry Grassland - - - S2 G3
aritime Evergreen Forest
F S1 G2G3
aritime Shrub S3 G4
Maritime Wet Grassland - - - S2? G3?
esic Pine Flatwoods - - - S3 G5
atural Lake Shoreline
E S2 G2
onriverine Swamp Forest S3 G2G3
Nonriverine Wet.Hardwood Forest - - - SI Gi
eatland Atlantic White Cedar S2 G2
oxest
K
ond Pine Woodland - - - S4 G4G5
Salt Flat - - - S4 G5
alt Marsh - - - S5 G5
alt Shrub
t S4 G5
idal Cypress--Gum Swamp S3 G4
Tidal Freshwater Marsh - - - S3 G4

C NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DENR January 1999
' SCIENTIFIC NATO COMMON NAIL STATE RED, STATE
STATUS STATUS RANK GLOBAL
RANK
Special Animal Habitats
.Gull*Tern*Skimmer Colony Colonial Waterbirds Nesting
-
Site'
Wading Bird Rookery
Hyde
vertebrate Animals
Derinochelys coriacea Leatherback E LE- SZN G3
Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon E LE S1B,S2 N G4
Lampropeltis getula sticticeps Outer Banks Kingsnake SC - .
S2 G5T2Q
Sterna caspia Caspian Tern SR - S1B,S2N G5
Invertebrate Animals
Chloroichroa dismalia Dismal Swamp Green Stink Bug SR ESC SU GH
Vascular Plants
.Eleocharis halophila Saltmarsh Spikerush T - S1 G4
Helianthemum.georgianum Georgia Sunrose C - S1 G4
Heliotropium•curassavicum var Seaside Heliotrope C - SH G5T5

curassavicum .
Polygonum glaucum Seabeach Knotweed C - S1 G3
Schoenoplectus acutus Hardstem Bulrush SR - SH G5
Schoenoplectus etuberculatus Canby's Bulrush SR - S3 G3G4
Nonvascular Plants
Cheilolejeunea rigidula a liverwort SR - S2 G5
Special Animal Habitats
Osprey Nesting Area
Hyde**
Vertebrate Animals
Chelonia mydas • Green Turtle T IT SiB,SZN G3
Malaclemys terrapin centrata, Carolina Diamondback' Terrapin SC - S3 G4T4
Invertebrate Animals
Fixsenia:favonius ontario Northern Hairstreak SR - S3? G4T4

' NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DENR January 1999

s? fTNf v?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
1
I
James B. Hunt Jr, Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
MAMING ADDRESS
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
July 29, 1999
Robert M. White
Senior Environmental Scientist
Quible & Associates
P.O. Drawer 870
Kitty Hawk NC 27949
Re: Touhey property, Ocracoke, Hyde County,
ER 00-7103
Dear„Mr. White:
Thank you for your letter of July 7, 1999, concerning the above project.
LOCATIC
507 North Blount Stre
N
State Courier
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of
architectural, historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the
project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as currently proposed:
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the NationalHistoric
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning
the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
?Cv
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB: slw
inn V-# innac Rtreet - Ralnich Nnrth Camlina 27601-2807
Division of Archives and Histoi
Jeffrey J. Crow, Directs

i
i
i
i
August 10, 2000
Mr. Doug Haggett ,
NC Division-Of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re. Toubey CAAfAProposal
O Non* CaroBua
Dear Mi. Hoggeet:
I have reviewed the application and plat far the Touhey proposal on Ocracoke Wand. North Carolina. I
stated in my May 17, 2000 letter to h& Bob White of Qw'ble &? Aasociatea, P.C. that r authorize the
placement of spoil materiel onto apland arems of my adjacemt property. In addition, I authorize the Toubey's
to dredge an ace= channel in'front of my pr+c wW. commec fm to the basin and chammel existing in front of
my property. I have no objection to any componeat'of the Toahey prged as proposed.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to cootscn me.
siocerel ,
I L Geewax
AG:Xmck
CC: Mr. Terry Moore

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CLAUDIA N. TOUHEY PROPERTY
OCRACOKE,
HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

E

F _
uuiblt?
.[. , , .. .?:?. ... « .. :'re'v? ..

--
l1w

� & 'CTS .
Claudia
y
AERIAL IN 2000
LOTS 3,
,:PHOTOGRAPH
- O RACOKE
OCRACCICE T£} ORTH CAROLINA
FILE: P 03434 DAM 7j
n.rn.ns... .sar
H"'N .nxu l fi] n n n2.n E -H Kx. �.r n
P.G. ...sN e. wro rr... �S...xy ...... �: . 3..YvN m... N

J~0
5' yo
~p SITE TOP OF BERM
/ QP 1
DIKE AROUND SPOIL AREA TO PREVENT \ \ 1.0' OF FREEBOARD TOP OF CONTAINMENT ®4.0' ~ WASHBACK OF SPOIL MATERIAL / - - - - - - - -
/ /~I~/ /
" " / 4x8 x10' WHALER a`a
FINAL FILL / / 1
3 4"X18' 11E RODS / k'
~ ' ON CENTER W/ / TURN BUCKLES 3
/ / GALVANIZED 5•(I' OCRACOKE
8.5' Z
FILTER CLOTH cv v / O
" / / U
5/B BOLT W WASHER G
GALVANIZED YPICAL / / EX, GRADE ~y
x ~ \ ~ W
\ \
SHEATHING LAPPED ~ ~ (1i1v N.T.S. .a~l~G
OR TONGUE AND GROOVE / ~ /
/ z of ° JIF-
/ ~ INWJ(9U
R / THIS CROSS SECTION IS TO BE USED FO / N.T.S. i ~ •~WO3-~ - WU NZ pp VI pZZNOZOUN
PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. / O Q<gVl Z IMDT}i VARIES a ~ a ~ w •WWo
/ w m- FROM 42' TO 70' ~ w ° o ~ ~ ° ~ Q~ Fa~'Nagz~<
N ~WI ~o3J = i < '^N~NW~oNgZC~
N.T.S. ~ Z Za~~K¢O~~
/ / > < ~°irza°sgo
/ / F5 ~ m ~ ~FO
THE EXISTING GHANNEL NA5 BEEN LG~GAYED EXI`,~TING BOTTOM 6 ~ • m ~_m \ \ ° N~~°3~z
/ / / BY AERIAL Pf~T05 AND FIELD h~EASUREh1ENT5 \ \ OEPTH OF MATERIAL TO B~ ' ' ~ 2 \ \ \ \ ~ o0 5 ~ = o ~ / \ REMgVED VARIES {1 TO 3"~ } / / ti ~ a °
/ AND NA5 MOT BEEN SURVEYED BY A REGISTERED \\i\\iU\\i a /\i\i\\i 5 AVQRAGE 1.87 //\/l\//\/
LAND SURVEYOR. \ DREDGED BOTTOM
/ TOTAL LINEAR FEET BULKHEAD = 246 / / ~ ~ 4D = 246 FT
~ TOTAL LINEAR FEET RETAINING WALL - / JG WALL = 377 FT
/ ~ TOTAL DREDGE VOLUME 1,697 CU.YD. 697 CU.YD. ' ' SECTION A-A
/ x~A' ~ TOTAL SPOIL AREA CAPACITY 2,630 2,630 CU.YD. N.T.S.
/ ~ ~ TOTAL SPOIL DISPOSAL AREA = 27,37f 1 = 27,378 SQ. FT.
/ ~ TOTAL AREA OF PROPOSED DREDGE _ DREDGE = 24,491 SQ. FT.
/ ~ LINEAR FEET OF PROPOSED DREDGE AF DREDGE AREA = 450 FT. 5.0 FT. " z
/ PROPOSED DREDGE DEPTH = 5.0 FT. / Exl5r~n~ aASiN S 45'12 00 W 1602.93' O
/ (DEPTH APPROXIhb4lELY b) ~ \ 1 ~ T ~ ~
alte~m4'bro ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ W
/ I t ~ - ~ x .a.a (493 SQfT.! \ ~ 7~1 / ~ r \ ~ a ~ d'
/ ~ ~ ~
,r,~?
/ ~
~ - 5 /
/ / ' ~ ~k
/ PROPOSED ~ 1 PROPOSED GREEN PVC `l. ' .,E7FA~1,~ 6fflw4X
/ RED PVC ~ MARKER ~ DRE 445rARIt 5T DREDGE DISCHARGE ` _ -
/ / MARKER PIPI / ~ PIPE ~ PI`kIENIXVILLE, PA 19460 _ - - - - - - W ~ - _ _ F- Q
~ it AIL - _ - ~ _ _ - O
X -1A~ X -~s X .gyp' 1 ~ ~ - - EXISn~ n _ _ ~ ~ _
A~A Vt' 1 ~n fi`~yc~ ~ ~ O ' Z
PR~O~.: ~IRL,u~': 1 / 1 ~_i ~ ~ ~ SPOIL CONTAINMENT AREA ~ _ _ _ _ _ _
1
/ CHANNEL AS SHOWN ON , b. \ BF eE' ~ ~ y ,
/ COCHRAN PLAT DATED 3/30/86. _ r '~V D ~ m C,OASTAI ~ ~ • x ~ ;nA~
X ,5' ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ' ~ t 0 m x~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
r \ \ 1 ~N \ i ~ ~ ~ U
\ . (P ~ ~ 1~ ' i ` ~i Z ~ L
ate ~ " ~ ~ <
~a9eo SafTJ r'' ~ S ~ ~ O =
s ~ ~ ~ 1 i ,.a ~ ~ \ PROPOSED APPROXIMATE AREA U 4
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ OF FUTURE MAINTANENCE ~ F~+N ~ ~ DREDGE DISPOSAL °
. " \ ~ ~ ~ W n
~ ~ ~~1, L~ a ~ DREDGE INLET \ ~ ~ I O 'F'~ 3
`l. ~ PIPE ~ ~ - - _ ` o
.V i' "
150.48' 220.21 ii N 45'12'00" E 1509.78' ~ ' ~ ~ ao' ~ 1 1 I
1 Q GAMA \ ii ~~L- i~ 2 , ~
STAKE I I a
1 I lY~ A~0 \ ~ _ PROPOSED oy ~ ~ w A \ i tJ. ~ ~ U
r Os~ , RETAINING WALL I, J o ~ w
(q t ss O a LOT 5 ~
S9 ~ LOT 6 tiF ~ , ; w Q
~ .<<~,~ ~ 90 , ~ , GOASrAt _ _ ~ U~ W N O \ l ~ ~ ,h MARSH ~
~ 55' BREAKWATER Q $ UNDER PIER WSJ ~PSJ , \ + ~ z

~ ~ ~ > alternlfbm _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _
~ \ -
~ x -15' x -15' x -iA' ~ Q STAKE ~ ~ \ tlOA' DITGN ~d'
BREAKWATER SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH AN EQUAL GAP 'sv , \ ~ \ ~ \ ~ 'o. _ a Z
200 PIER BETWEEN EACH SHEATHING BOARD TOTALING AT LEAST \ ` _ _ x Z 200' PIER \ \ _ z
ONE INCH OF OPEN AREA EVERY LINEAR FOOT OF WATER. v ~ + LOT 4
a \ \ ~ u.Aw1A r~ rGl~ PRG1°ER1Y - - - \ ~ EXlSrlF~G GRAVEL ROAD F,
iv 2X6 JOIST 0,4 CCA ~ ~ \
~ 2x8 GIRDER ~ ~ ~ ' 'T~' \ \ ~ , , . ~ z •m U
0 5 8" GALV. TIMBER 2X6 DECKING 0.40 CCA 2X6 JOIST 0.4 CCA ~ / 2SYPOR PROPOSED \ \ ~ o. ~ ~ ~ U w ULKHEAD \ ~ , ~ ~ d z
;n BOLT W/GALV. NUT do WASH ~ • a ~1 W/RADIUS EDGE - . r- - ~ ~ ~
~ 2X6 DECKING 0.40 CCA ~ WALES 2 SYP or a 4x6 TOP " 2x8 GIRDER ~ a LAMA \ \ U W \ ~ o STAKE V A ~ COASTAL
6x6 BOTTOM 2X4 R/S 2,5 CCA #t W/RADIUS EDGE ~ ~.J \ \ MARSH ~ ` \ ~ ' \ 1~I, ~ ~
"SEAWALL GRADE X-BRACE a_ 5 8" GALV. TIMBER ~ ~ / \ \ ~
~ N H T PI BOLT W GALV. NUT & WASH 2X4 R S 2.5 CCA ~ WOODE SEE LE / / \ ~ LOT 3 \ ~
BATTER PILE "SEAWALL GRADE" X-BRACE \ \ \ ~ PROPOSED ~ ? b LOT 2 COMMISSION N0.
o B"011P X 25' 2.5 CCA 7 TYP 8"mT1P X 25 2.5 CCA c°u INSTALL UT -END T6" OC TYP 1 ~ RETAINING WALL LEGEND alternlfbra \ ~ , P99034
m DOWN INSTALL UT -END , \ ~ (t1475Q.FTJ \ \ ` , ~ DESIGNED BY EX. PIPE \ ~ 0.42'
~ DOWN 200 LINEAR FT. PIER 0 - EX. REBAR ~ \ 15.72' 93' \ ~ ~ RMW
4 BOAT SLIPS - REBAR SET ~ ~ ~ 140.07 - O " ~ DRAWN BY
1200 SQ. FT. DOCK ~s ~ . FT. T-HEAD ~ - EX. CONC. MON. GAMa N 45'12 00 E ~ 1204.72' ' DAD, DSN
N 144 SQ r ? -CONC. MON. SET 't STAKE
n ~ o~ ' - P/K NAIL 1.., \ CHECKED BY Q - P/K NAIL SET ' ~ JSL/RMW
~ 8"0x 20' ILEE 2.5 CCA TYP c ~ ) ~(-SEWER SERVICE ISSUE DATE
0 f ®-WATER METER ~ ` ~ 5 22 2000 / /
m - PHONE PEDESTAL ;
D ~ GRAPHIC SCALE - C. A. T. V. ~ ~ X SHEET NO
a o ,s ~ ~ -UTILITY POLE fiIIABFTHGNAMBERLIN ~ ~ - GUY WIRE PA. BOX 90
a FIRE HYDRANT
U ww *w~w~ ~ ~ w~~ ~ *s~ ~ _ AM1~5VILLE ~A 2?Gb?
i Yrlc;~ nrcr~nA~~n ~ m z - ELECT. TRANS.
0 IN FEET ) x-so' - EXISTING DEPTH
0) CROSS SECTION TYPICAL PEER CROSS SECTION N.T.S. 1 inch = 30 ft
N.T.S. m 0 X -3.0'- PROPOSED DEPTH THIS PLAN IS TO BE USED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING
rn rn a PURPOSES ONLY. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
DRAWING FILE: BASE2 OF 1 SHEETS
PLOT SCALE: 1'=3G'

_...,_..~~~~.A.,~,.~s7..~.......4.._..~___....~.,.M~~...,._~..,.__a..w~. ~_.~,n_.b~..._....... - ---....~~...~..._.wm_,,_.....~...~...~_ ,af ~ ~~vas io~d
~ _ _ _ _ b35d8 3~1~ 9NIM'dMa
x,1,3 LI~~ ,~0 -
A I' i ~ i l i 1 i ~f 1 I L r . r I h ~ 1 r x ii i
2 Z) QE - ~J[II j _ _ _ _ k )E f~J[II i KOIZO~S SS0~0
xl ~ u0IZ0~S SS0~0 ~~Id 'I~OId~,~,
~~Z~~~~g 'T~~I
~~X,xi G,~ ors. oe oc o~ ~ _ , ~ ~ y;
~ JIHd ~ , ~ r~.
<<, ~;a L~J { F t. Vl
F 1 4 \ J C , Y a
~.-4.. Y
~t , , _ 1 ~ ~9` to J
r',i~;~~_ . ! Qb3N-1 ~13 OS L x~ ~ i ! ~ , F 44
70:~z a~ ~ ~ ~ I .,5~ ~ie+k.,. r ~~'n r ~ ~.t Div{ t 1. a
.~~b. ~ ~ SdI~1S 1b08 ~ ~ ~ ~-~+h ~
~ i d3i.d J.3 db3N(~l 0 i
I _ _ - --..-J ` l8 '~~NJiS3~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~~~ i
~ ~ ~ ~ y _ ~ i ~ h <
f,. 101 1\\ ~ r { ~ ~ r I' ~ •.E x~~ ~ ~ r .ef i~ ~ ~ I
' ~ i= ~ ~ ,
, ,
S~SI~S ,p , ~ i 1 ~ ~ s
~ ~ ~ 1~' , f ~ ~ , t'
~ L11 ,y
Q ~-f .ai~ ~ Q~ +--re f, ~ ~U, , ~ f ! • • 1 r .r~, _
^ Y , . ` ~ F.
1~ ~ ~ ' (1' a. ,Z
. ~ ~ . L r ~ 'C ~ v
, . i ~ ~
, ~ a
M - yr t s
, ~ ~F'~ ~ n, ~ V,~'~,'
MM ~ i V~ - l` a31~ ~i34Nf1
`L' ~ , t. f II ~ y31bM~d a~8 ,5s
, 1 ~ N- i4 ~
M~ ~ ~
\ \ ~
a ) r~ o , \ \
rn ~ ~ J .y ~ ~ ;~C132~CI fl3SQdQ~d ~
cn
~a , .
~ r~
~l ; ~ ~:,ti i - H(~(;('I,t- N ~ ~ ; ~ a~
M""3 ~ ,
s ~ ,c e ~ z;. . \
~ ~ , _ i ~ r ~
\ \ y \ ~ A V _
'•~t7 ~ ~ ~ ~ 'M` ~ ~~1~'iXi OB9~ ~ C` ~I
Fy ?,,`~i \ ' t7ul~A7G~i
Y i,
~ ~y,
FH t_ ti x
, ! ~ \ , ~ ~ ~.,G ,ca ~
' ~ ~ .fig ~ ~ ~
i ~S
~ ~ , ~~aaaa~~~~s~a~~~
Z ~p ~~I'd
~ ~ tiN'1`'IX-x r ~ ~ ~ ~ ,err a ~
U ~ \ ~ t\
~ ~ ~ ,
, ~ ~ ''ti; r°, . - t ~
, ~ ~.k., ~
_ _
_ ~ ~ - _ y~ ~ ~1
_ _ v_ - ~ s~
, , ~ ~ ~ :x - ~
r.-_ _ ~ i fr _
,,1:;.
t. ~ %n
a. , U i ,y,: ,r , ~ Y.-'.. , A
a
i3 0 S N1d3Q 30Q3dC Q3S cn ~
0~~ = b3db .y`!t,3bQ C3SOdOdd 30 1333 db3Nl~li
r ~ ~ F 'O,a l6~ ~Z = 3,)CI3dQ (]3SOdOdd 30 b3bb ~Ib101; t
'13 'OS 8~.~ L~ b3db 3bSOdSiQ liOdS ~bJ_Oll,
°C]~,'(la OZO`~ ~190bdbJ b32~b lIOdS ~b101
~ ~b101' ~~I~~~S al QO L69 l 3WIl ;0~ 39Q3~fQ i a
~ = ~i3bM ONINIb13h' 1333 db3Nll ~1b101 ,_3 LLB ~Q~~~~S ~~Q~~Q .s
1.J 9~bZ = Qb3f~~~i~1f18 133_J db3Nl~i ~1b101!
, ~ . I ~/l.~~~ii~ i',
n ~
_ ~ lr~, `-ir -
P;p~ ~ {
G - or', " f..,.
Z f 1
Y zr u~- ?
3 ~ Q~~HxI~1H ~OI~~~S SSO~
O ~ - fr i.)
~ C.. C
~~5~~ ~.~~~II~~~~IO~ 'ITOd 1~OI:~7~S ,
___.w__~___ _ _ _ - _...~_-.j ~ ~
, _ _
~c;a C 1~ i ~ ~ ~ r
r~, _ ~ ~ 1 `~_«r n~ .
-i , , ~ ; ~ . i ~i x ~ a
' ~A; 1 I ~ ,i ~
n 1 ~
r ~ ,
r j I ~ k * ' ~ .
3~G )h ~kJrl _ I II E- , ,r I o, , ,
~ ~ ; - - r, e ( ~ I ~ 1
k
. 'r ~
s IX V
VC, 8-1

t~
5 yc~
~p SITE TOP OF BERM ~J
QP 1 DIKE AROUND SPOIL AREA TO PREVENT \ \ 1.0' OF FREE~ARD TOP OF CONTAINMENT ®4.0' ~
WASHBACK OF SPOIL MATERIAL - - - - - - - -
/ , y\
4"x8"x10' WHALER ~ \,y\
FINAL FILL ~
3 4`X18' T1E RODS ' 1 ' ON CENTER W/ / ~ ~ ,
TURN BUCKLES / GALVANIZED / 3 _
5.0' OCRACOKE
/ 6.5' v FILTER SLOTH / . ' ~ / Y
0
/ / 5/B" BOLT W WASHER
GALVANIZED ICAL ~i U
EX, GRADE m ~ ' " x 6"Xg" / / / /
\ ~\r\\ \\j` W r rig,//~//~ i~ v
SHEATHING LOPED i~ ~
L~lv~ OR TONGUE AND GROOVE / ~ / l1aLGL ~ 1 l1a~G N. T, S.
~ ,
. . ~
? J t~ ~ ~ ~ N.T.S. .~~o#
THIS CROSS SECTION IS TO BE USED FOR , PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. w
, ~w _ WIDTH VARIES n ~
r~ / / FROM 42' TO 70' ~
~ , N.T.S. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 _ _ _ F ~ ~ r
, ~ c
i t3' _ ~ W o ~.o' ~
/ w ~ 5 F
/ EXI5,T7h~5 G ILL MA5 ~ N LGL~TED ' / ~ EXISTING BOTTOM `p ~ ~
B~'AfR1Al f'~MOT05 ~ MELD l~A NII~NTS ' / ~ / \/\\j\/\ 1 a / \ ~ , 1, / \ \ / y ~ ~
' / AND;Ni45 NOT Ely ~ HY ~4 R~6r5T~D ` ~ LAND 5f~1F1~1'`OR, "
DREDGED BOTTOM
/ ,
a ~ ~ TOTAL LINEAR FEET BULKHEAD = 2~ / / ~ ~ TOTAL LINEAR FEET RETAINING WALL - F HEAD - 246 T
o / ~ ! TOTAL DREDGE VOLUME 1,697 CU. INING WALL = 377 FT 1,697 CU.YD. ' '
TOTAL SP01L AREA CAPACITY 2,6. SECTION A-A vITY 2,630 CU.YD.
/ r ~ ~ ; ~ ; ~ ~ ; ~ TOTAL SPOIL DISPOSAL AREA = 27, REA = 27 378 SQ. FT. N.T.S. ~ m o
/ ~ - TOTAL AREA OF PROPOSED DREDGE :D DREDGE = 24 491 S . FT. ~ Q ~ ~ \
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , LINEAR FEET OF PROPOSED DREDGE :D DREDGE AREA = 450 FT. N ~ ~
PROP E R PTH = 5.0 1 OS D D EDGE DE F i=5.0fT. h . . ~ z
~ ~ ~ ~ Ex~srrr~ E~aS,X S 45'1200 W 1602.93 O O
~ara~eox~ri~tr~.Y 6l ~ -r ~ - ~ 1d d_ , z z z
' ~ crlterrNil~ia ~ \ / r I i ~ c- 1 ~ W W W
Y X rbd ~'~'.~GtfT ~ \ ~ ~R1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ O O ~ Q
~ y~ ~ ~ }lam li U U U t ~ ~ 2
- ~ fF ~a 6~ W! rS y~ - `1~ O ~ ~
j'"< Y Y 1 ~ t, i I . 8hi~ ~ _ - ~ , ~ - 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W W W
a a a
F~ ~'ROP~OSED F. , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a a
~ R EN' PUC f t
i Rib hC . ~ A ICE r ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ ~ , ~ tr~ARkER 1+ 44 5TARR 5T. i~ rn rn DREDGE DISCHARGE _ _ _
/ r" ~ ~ ~ ~ , PIPE P1,~1MLtE PA l44b~ _ _ - _ _ _ _ \ o ~ W
/ i , r'~ ~ r ~ } ~ ~ i~ S 1 i ~ _ _ - - \ j~ N ~ ~ 11Ll4. X14. N \ ~
~ ~ ~ r~ _ _ -
~ ~ ~ 0 ~ SPOIL CONTAINMENT AREA - - " " " z
J 1 f' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F, / 1 - ~ ~ ~ ~ 1
~ ,
- CHANNEL AS SHOWN pN ~ ~ ~ 1 / , ~ COCHRAN pLAT~~bAjED 3~30~~~86..,' ~~,p, a ~ ~ ~ 1~~ ~ rq~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
%A~ ~ k GOASrAL ~ ~ ~ MARSH , '4+iC•y~\ ~ ~ k
..a t ~ q- r. k ~{~1, ads uk , ` i I ~ ~
1 a . zrrt.9~'„I~jf~ hi ~.if~ q w 2r - ~ ~
S ' ~ .
I 7 1
r ~ `,:]F~~c ~ {g r is ~;7~ i~'~ ~ ~ ~c ''d,~ Yt.,_i F ~?x f ~F S ~ ~ 1
' ~ JAY d'kk tY,. ,'F7 7~`f ~ 1 ~ PROPOSED APPROXIMATE AREA 1
~ ~ OF FUTURE MAINTANENCE U y a ~ r? \ ~ DREDGE DISPOSAL x ~
~ r ~ r ~ k `~i ~ § t \ ' ~ 1'. ~i
f ` pi,i.' ~ ~r K ~'F~?~~ ~k~ . ~ ~ it r~. ; i , \ \ ~ slL~ ~ ~ti DREDGE INLET ~ i ' Q
u1 . ~ !F ~ F . 1?~i`~~. r s,~ ~ \ PIPE ~ ' ~ x
~ 4,, . c ~P, r.. F 220.27 ~ N 45'12'00" E f 509.78' ~ ' ~ ' ~ 150.48' ,
i , \ ~ i
~ ~ ~ ~ r r~ ~,a~ e - GAMA i
- • r ~ ~ ~ ~~~->r - r 5~ .K'.L ~6: ~'r~ t STAKE li ~ Z I ~ ~k a a ~ ~
p ,u ~ ~ r ~ r 4'~ h9 PROPOSED ~ , } i e~.
~ RETAINING WALL l:' ~ a ~ I p
aG LOT 5 ~ ~ a
y ~ LOT 6 Fqo t 'I'k ca~rAt ~ w
r.. ~ 9 , , >~.:~ti ~ ~ - ! ~5 BREAKWATER ~ V , 9~ \ ~ ` MAR~~ - d ; ~ ~
~ .-w~,,~~. ~ ~ x;: r U DER PI~R , cps ,4, r v.S. r ~ J z \ ~ ~
F , ,F -:r + ~ F, ~ alterxk'bm ~ ~ ` ~
n x ' ~50 FI ,i?~ ~ -t
w .Zp ~ z ` ~ r~ Gar+A \ \ ~ - -
~x-rs~ x -f5' , ;'X-111' ~ Q STAKE ' ~ ~ ~ \ \ \ \ tfOA' A7LN t1`
BREAKWATER SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH AN EQUAL GAP ,'200' P \ ~ ~ `b. ' ,'200' PIER. ~ \
BETWEEN EACH SHEATHING BOARD TOTALING AT LEAST IN AREA EVERY LINEAR FOOT OF WATER, ~ ; ONE CH OF OPEN ,.F,
' ~ 1 h ' \ ~ 1 \ + LOT 4 a
a 2X6 JOIST 0.4 CCA ~ ~ j ~ ~ A \ ClAtl71A x ra,~ parr i ~ ~i ex~snr~s ~+va SAO - - - • , ~ ~
t ' ~ u~ 2x8 GIRDER ' n~ ~ i ~ ~
k~lK ':F ~ 5/8° GALV. TIMBER 2X6 DECKING 0.40 CCA 2X6 JOIST 0.4 CCA \ ~ \ o W • ~ N ~4 ~ ~
~ BOLT W GALV. NUT ~ WASH ~'2 SYP OR , ~ \ ' ~ O U HE \ \ ' \ ~ ~1 U - ,
° / 1 W ADfUS EDGE ~ iy ~ , d 2X6 DECKING 0.40 CCA t I WAL S ~ W LAMA \ \ ~ U
4z6 TOP ~2 SYP or 2x8 GIRDER \a ~ , ~ , sTA?~ \ ~ GonsrAC ~
~ 6x6 BOTTOM 2X4 R/S 2.5 CCA ~t W/RADIUS EDGE t~ "SEAWALL GRADE X-BRACE ' \ \ ~ MARS M
_ 5 8" GALV. TIMBER y a ~ x~. \ ~ ~ s.k .~k
a WOODEN SHEET PILE BOLT W/GALV. NUT do WASH 2X4 R/S 2.5 CCA , r " AWA RA X- RA ~ ~ ! ~ ~ \ ~ ~ , LOT 3 , .
~ BATTER PILE SE LL G DE B CE 8"OTIP X 25' 2.5 CCA ~ i~ ~ i T6" OC TYP 8"~T1P X 25 2,5 CCA ~ \ ' ~ ~ LOT 2 PROPOSED ~ COMMISSION N0.
INSTALL -END 1'6° OC TYP ~'C~S'ND r~ \ ~ f ` RETAINING WALL ~ P99034
DOWN INSTALL UT -END Dom, 4 FT. I R (tI47 SQfTJ \ ~ ~ - EX. PIPE ~ DESIGNED BY
200 LINEAR P E b ~1, ~ \ 0.42' ~ ~ \ ~ - EX. REBAR ~ \ 15.72' 93. ~ t ~ RMW
4 BOAT SLIPS Q -REBAR SET •11 ~ 140.07
~ 1200 S . FT. DOCK Q 144 S . FT. T-HEAD - EX. CONC. MON. LAMA ~ ~ DRAWN 8Y ~ N 45'1200 E \ 1204.72
r Q , a ? -CONC. MON. SET , STAKE ~ DAD, OSN - P/K NAIL ~ ` CHECKED 8Y
M ~ gg 0x 20' LE Q - P/K NAIL SET ~ ~ ~ JSl/RMW
w 2.5 CCA TYP i ) -SEWER SERVICE ISSUE DATE
c / ®-WATER METER ` ~ 5 22 2000
CA - PH(1NF PFOFSTAI ~ -c / /
GRAPHIC SCALE n \ I SHEET NO. TIL,TY POLE 8.1ZAaElNG44MEMlN ~ - UTILITY-'POLE-
30 p 15 50 so 120 UI ~ ' - GUY WARE w P.O.&IX410 ~
tU t] q` V - FIRE HYDRANT ` ' AWS"svnIE, VA 22002
M O - ELECT. TRANS.
C 1 O1 CBQSS SECTION ~ N.T.S. 1 inch = 90 ft x ]n - EXISTING DEPTH
n, N.T.S. X -3,0'- PROPOSED DEPTH
THIS PLAN IS TO BE USED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING
rn a PURPOSES ONLY. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
r DRAWN!IG M f OF 2 SHEETS

_ _ _
5 ~p SITE
TOP OF BERM J I~
/ - DIKE AROUND SPOIL AREA TO PREVENT / ~ ~ ~ 1.0 OF FREEBOARD TOP OF CONTAINMENT ®4.0'
WASHBACK OF SPOIL MATERIAL / - - - - - - ~
i ~ / / / A~
4"x8"x1O' WHALER ~ , FINAL Flll / ~ 1
/ 3 4"Xt8' TiE RODS
1 ' ON CENTER W/ / / /'TURN BUCKLES - 3
/ / GALVANIZED / 5.0' OCRACOKE
' 6.5'
FILTER CLOTH v ~ / , Z 0
" / ,
5/8 BOLT W WASHER i c~
GALVANIZED ICAL CD , EX. GRADE
m CS 6X6 ~ - \ ~ ~ ~ ~~r
/ / / / /i /i /i / \\j\\ \\j\\j \j\\j\\j\\j ~ ~ ~
SHEATHING LAPPED ' ' \ , ~ ~ \j\~ ~ \ L! ~ N T . ~G S
OR TONGUE AND GROOVE / ~ r ~ ll~b r' ` ~ .
~ ~ ~
THIS CROSS SEC71~1 IS TO BE USED FOR / N.T.S. ~ ~
PLANNING PURPOSES. ONLY. , ~
WIDTH VARIES - r ~ ~ FROM 42' TO 70' ~j °
- w ~s&y S ~ ~
N.T.S. ,
J ~ ~ ~ s
~ , f3 ~ ~ o ~•0' ~
EXISTtNG BOTTOM 6 ~ '
. / ~ '~:EX/5T1hta GHANa~L NA5 BAN LG~tkTED / ~ ` er ~zra~ ~voro5 A1~ ~iEZ.n ~a~>rr5
~ NOT ~;6?Il~'E,D ~ REdl5TE~7ED, ~fN ,
5l~ZV><TOR. v ~ ~ DREDGED BOTTOM
~ ~ % ,
TOTAL LINEAR FEET BULKHEAD = 246 :AD = 246 FT
/ / ~ ~ TOTAL LINEAR FEET RETAINING WALL = LNG WALL = 377 FT
. / ~ , ~ TOTAL DREDGE VOLUME 1,697 CU.Y[ ,697 CU.YD. ' _ ' SECTION A A
x ~.a . ~ TOTAL SPOIL AREA CAPACITY 2,630 ~ 2,630 CU.YD.
/ r~~ ~ ~ ~ TOTAL SPOIL DISPOSAL AREA = 27,37 A = 27 378 SQ. FT. N.T.S. rn °o
/ ~ T OTAL AREA OF PROPOSED DREDGE DREDGE = 24,491 SQ. FT. ~ ; ~
~ LINEAR FEET OF PROPOSED DREDGE A - DREDGE AREA = 450 FT. N ~ ~
PROPOSED DREDGE DEPTH - 5.0 FT. S 45'12'00" W (602.93' ~ o ~ Z
' / ~ ~ ' ~ FXlsrrt+~ dasrn~ rb>~i,aF~oxrr~Ara r 6'J -r T- ~ N
~ / bhp ~ ~ \ ~ . ~ , ~ ~ to _ ~ w w w
ti' x ~trr ~ :~tF7 \ \ ~1 1 Z S~
,r ~ ~ ~ ~ `ti ~ ~ V `I4~_ 1~_ U U U
r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` U U U
~ j, a a a
~ ) 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a a
r` 1
~ ~ . \ PROPOSED , PR OsED r ~ ~ CSR ELI' PV~~ ~ ; ~ l~ d Q Q
y Ri~4 PVC . u, a ~
/ 6 ~ 'MARh~ER;~ k~AR6fER F ~ ~ ~ PII PREDGE DISCHARGE _ _ \ o . IPE ~ ~ R~H'~^'1MLLE PA 14460 _ _ _ - g ~ W r N
/ ~ ,1 f~~ ~ , 4 i ~ , \ ~ I I _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - ~ r N
7 ~ l fi y~ ~r A r i. ( 1 ~ ~ _ { ~ ' ~ ~'I i ~ ~ X ~ X -dry. _ - TGN _
~ i' ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ / r' ~ . . ~ ~ , ~ _ ~STINb ~ _ _ ~ ' I ~ 3~,
~ SPOIL CONTAINMENT AREA _ _ - ~ 1 N ~
, ~ ~ I' ; ~ ~ f j 1 5 , 1
~ r' ~ ~ CHANNEL AS `SH WN F i r' / r 1
COCNR~4N PLAT,; AjE 3'~30;~86., r~, ~ ~ ~ \ ~ k GOASTAI 1 1 ~
I ~ , J "~A~ ~ E 1 ` ~ - ' ~ \ ~ ~ a.
~1 ~ i ~ } . ~ 4 ~ . x ~ 1
y_ r P' _ - ~ ~ ~ ~ r \ ` I 1
1 }1~ 1
` ! ~ ~ l i GIfEIT~~~OIq.` ~ ~t i s \ ~ti ~ ~ ~
r~ ~ r ~ S ~ i
~ • ~ ~ 1Y~ l- ~ 11~ ~ ~ i ~ PROP A PROXI AR A ~ ~ F OSED T M NTE E ~ U Y OF UTURE MAIN ANE CE py
~ > ~ i' ~ DREDGE DISPOSAL n
F' i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ ,
t. , ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ DREDGE INLET ~ O ~ ~ 1
a ~ ~ , ~ ~ r PIPE ~ x _ o
i 150.48' 220.27 ~ N 45'12'00" E 1509.78' ~ ' o ~ ~ a
` m 1 Fti~'. ( r~ tt Y7 . .Y GAP1A ii
~ ~ Q STAKE ~ 11L4 ti 1' Z
.k~i" ~ i ' ~ y~~, r ~ a~ ` PRP ~
r;r ~ r. ~ k ~ r Cbo \ +yU ~ 0 OSED a SF ~ ~ RETAINING WALL I ~
.4;~" i ~ eG LOT 5 ~ °
~ .'°,'k' a i' j I; a ti ~ LOT 6
~ , r „JJ 9 F~0 \ ~ ~ ~ w coASrac ,
r~ ;~,k ~t~,~ ,r ~5' BR~AKWAT~R t~` t1 , ~ t , ~ UJ4DER PIER ~S \ ~ MARSH
7 ~ J " J ~ ~ , \ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~Itlrnlil~a r? \ ~
4 } j 4 ~~~9 , - ~ X50 .FT r. "t t ~t
~ ~ . ~ Xi-,~.~ ~ GAMA \
BREAKWATER SHALL BE CON TRUCTE WITH AN A A ~ a ~ x-~5' , ~ S D EQULGP . x -i5' - , x -~.a ~ d STAKE ' ~ ~ ~ ~ \ \ \ 310A'DITGN 0`
BETWEEN EACH SHEATHING BOARD TOTALING AT LEAST ,%'200 PIER. ' r, ~ \ ~ 200 PIER \ \ ~ o. _ _ F ~
ONE INCH OF OPEN AREA EVERY LINEAR FOOT OF WATER. ~ a: , m ~ ,
\ + , \ \ GIALDIA ~ ro!NtY rr LOT 4 \ PROPER O
2X6 JOIST 0.4 CCA ~ ~ ' ~ 2x8 GIRDER , \ ~ Exrsnlr~ 6wavEC RDAD - - - - \ \ H •
m
5 B" GALV. TIMBER 2X6 DECKING 0.40 CCA ~ j` / 2X6 JOIST 0.4 CCA BOLT W/GALV. NUT ~ WASH /2 SYP OR P OPOSEp \ \ ~ \ ~ ~41t ~ ` tr O o:
o /1 W/RADIUS EDGE N I , ULKHEAF7 \ ~ \ ~ ~ ~
a WALES 2xs DECKING o.4o cca ~ a~` 4x6 TOP ~2 SYP ar a \ 4 cnr+A \ ~ \ y ~
'd 6x6 BOTTOf~ 2X4 R/S 2.5 CCA 2x8 GIRDER ~ W/RADIUS EDGE STAKE \ \ ~ coASTAt O \ \ \ ,
"SEAWALL GRADE" X-BRACE - ` _v ~ 5/8" GALV. TIMBER ° \ ~ ~ MARSH
WOODEN SHEET PILE BOLT W/GALV, NUT do WASH 2X4 R S 2.5 C A / C - A A A~ lil ~ ~ - -
"SEAWALL GRADE X-BRACE r' i t ~ b~ BATTER P1LE ' 8r OTIP X 25' 2.5 CCA _ i` l: ~ , } \ \ 1 , LOT 3 , \ , w
7 s OC TYr 8"TIP X 2~' 2.5 CCA I A NST LL -END 7's" OC TYP 1; \ \ ~ LOT 2
~ DOWN INSTALL UT -END L G ND \ ~ PROPOSED ~I $ , COMMISSION N0. E B ~ ~ `9. a,~ \ \ + , RETAINING WALL a P99034 (x147 5G'Fr~ \ ~ ~ ~
DOWN ' 0 200 LINEAR FT. PIER ~ - EX. PIPE ~ ~ ~ ~ DESIGNED BY
1 m 4 BOAT SLIPS - \ \ 0.42' , EX. REBAR ~ \ 15.72' \ ~ ~ ~ RMW
1200 S . FT. Q DOCK -REBAR SET ~ ~ 93 ~ 140.01 / ~ - EX. CONC. MON. , N 45'12'00' E 1204.72' DRAWN 8Y
144 - ~ SQ. FT. T HEAD ? -CONC. MON. 5ET STAKE ~ DAD, DSN

c g A - P/K NAIL L... CHECKED BY
*Ox 20' PILE t° 2.5 CCA TYP - P/K NAIL SET rn FIVE, JSL/RMW
- SEWER SERVICE 780182001 C°D E ®-WATER METER ISSUE DAT
r i PHONE PEDESTAL 5/22/2000
GRAPHIC SCALE - C.A. T. V. ~ ~ BY- A-"3 Cl -
30 0 15 30 00 120 - UTILITY POLE SHEET NO.
N r tb V% 6m - GUY WIRE
TYPICAL tY'! - - FIRE HYDRANT P.O. BOX 40 AM--6V"& VA 22002
- ELECT. TRANS.
askow 41 v N.T.S. 1 imh = 90 ft x-2& - EXISTING DEPTH
N.T.S. X -3.O'- PROPOSED DEPTH THIS PLAN IS TO BE USED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING
I
PURPOSES ONLY. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF 2 SHEETS