19961054 Ver 2_Other Agency Comments_20111013

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
Beverly Eaves Perdue Dr. Louis B. Daniel III
Governor Director
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Dave Timpy, USACE Wilmington District
THROUGH: Anne Deaton, DMF Habitat Section Chief
FROM: Jessi Baker, DMF Habitat Alteration Permit Reviewer
SUBJECT: Bennett Brothers Yachts, Inc.
DATE: October 13, 2011
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) submits the following comments pursuant to North Carolina
General Statute 113-131. DMF has reviewed the Amended Mitigation Proposal provided by Mr. Bruce Marek for
Bennett Brothers Yachts, Inc. This proposal further describes their plan to mitigate for the impacts to Primary Nursery
Area due to proposed dredging at their open slip marina located just north of the Isabella Holmes Bridge on the
northeast Cape Fear River in a MFC designated Primary Nursery Area (PNA). The applicant is proposing to excavate
approximately 1.85 acres (80,586 sf) of shallow bottom habitat using hydraulic dredging. The area proposed for
dredging consists of shallow muddy substrate with woody debris and an adjacent wetland shoreline.
The Amended Mitigation Proposal describes the expansion of proposed wetland planting area and the removal of the
proposed riprap placement on the shoreline, both described in the original proposed mitigation.
As in our June 6th, 2011 letter, DMF continues to object to impacts to PNA and the proposal of mitigating for the loss of
PNA by planting wetland plants. In that letter, we explained how PNAs are defined and why they are important areas
for many fish species. We presented the PNA sampling data from a station nearby that shows how this part of the
river is being utilized by a great diversity of juvenile fish. We also discussed how traditional wetland mitigation is very
different than mitigation for PNA. In this letter, we will attempt to clarify this final point.
As stated in our June 6th, 2011 letter:
PNAs are defined by the abundance, life stage, and diversity of certain fishes. These areas
are not characterized by certain physical parameters that can be constructed or planted,
like wetlands, and therefore cannot be replaced through a traditional mitigation project.
Although most PNAs do occur in shallow areas and over certain bottom types, those are
certainly not the only necessary components for a PNA (which make up only 8% of North
Carolina estuarine waters). At this time DMF does not consider mitigation for PNA loss a
viable option because the costs and likelihood of failure are too great. The Division of
Marine Fisheries, therefore, recommends denial of this project.
5285 Hwy 70 West, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.ncdmf.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
One
NthCarolina
ltudif
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
DMF has concerns about mitigation for loss of PNA because by definition it is not a habitat designation but an area
defined by the species that utilize a particular location. PNA is scattered over various habitat types, which may be only
one in many reasons why fish utilize an area as nursery habitat. It is known that if an area is dredged, filled, or
otherwise significantly altered, it's value as a PNA is greatly diminished. Many PNAs do occur in shallow water, over
sandy mud substrate, often adjacent to wetlands. The only scale of mitigation that DMF would consider for impacts to
PNA would be the replacement of these characteristics to an area that no longer has them. This could include the
reestablishment of the natural grade, in PNA designated areas, that have been dredged/filled but have not naturalized.
This type of project would require the appropriate substrate for the area and approval of all applicable agencies.
Success would be measured only by the utilization by juvenile fish measured by the same protocols DMF uses to
establish PNA areas. Typical of other types of mitigation, DMF would require 2:1 mitigation ratio, meaning that for
every one acre impacted, two acres must be restored. Although many more stipulations are sure to accompany a
mitigation project such as this example, DMF felt that some concept of the scale of project that would be required to
mitigate for loss of PNA should be provided to the applicant.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on this project. Please feel free to contact Jessi Baker at (252)
808-8064 or [e-mail] if you have any further questions or concerns.