20040712 Ver 4_Other Agency Comments_20130107

�466y&T OF 0,+
'r, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
o �� NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
4
TES OF 0
Southeast Regional Office
263 13`h Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 -5505
(727) 824 -5317; FAX [phone]
http: / /sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/
December 7, 2012 F /SER4: FR/pw
(Sent via electronic mail)
Colonel Steven A. Baker, Commander
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 -1398
Attention: David Timpy
Dear Colonel Baker:
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed Public Notice Action ID No. SAW -2004-
00705 dated November 20, 2012. Paul and Susan Magnabosco (Stanwick Shores) propose to reconfigure
their docking facility and incorporate new dredging in Topsail Sound, Pender County. The Wilmington
District's initial determination is the proposed project may adversely impact essential fish habitat (EFH)
or associated fisheries managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council ( SAFMC), Mid -
Atlantic Fishery Management Council ( MAFMC), or NMFS. The District indicates their determination is
based on the excavation of 3,024 square feet of shallow water /submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
habitat. As the nation's federal trustee for the conservation and management of marine, estuarine, and
diadromous fishery resources, the following comments and recommendations are provided pursuant to the
authorities of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson- Stevens Act).
Description of the Proposed Project
The applicants propose to reconfigure an existing docking facility, which was permitted in 2005, by
relocating the fixed finger piers associated with the community docking system. In addition, the applicant
is planning to incorporate new dredging around the footprint of the community dock (i.e., new boat
basin). The applicants had previously requested authorization for this new dredging, but based on
negative comments from several resource agencies, the applicant voluntarily withdrew their CAMA
permit application.
Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat
The project will impact 3,024 square feet of shallow bottom and SAV habitat. SAV beds exists
immediately adjacent to the proposed dredge footprint. Dredging next to SAV beds exposes the area to
erosion, slumping, and sedimentation from dredge activities. Damage from prop dredging is likely. The
SAFMC designates SAV as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) for estuarine members of the
snapper - grouper complex, such as gag grouper (Mycteroperca microlepis). HAPC's are subsets of EFH
that are rare, particularly susceptible to human - induced degradation, especially important ecologically, or
located in an environmentally stressed area. The SAFMC identifies shallow sub -tidal bottom in estuarine
waters as EFH for brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), pink shrimp (F. duorarum), and white
�p a.MO�,yFq.
a
i
s

shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus). SAFMC identifies these areas as EFH because fish and shrimp
concentrate in these habitats for feeding and refuge and experience high growth and survival rates when
located in these habitats. Detailed information on the EFH requirements of species managed by SAFMC
is provided in a comprehensive amendment to the fishery management plans that designated EFH and in
the Fishery Ecosystem Plan of the South Atlantic Region (which is available at www.safmc.net). The
project area also likely includes bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) and summer flounder (Paralichthys
dentatus). These species are managed by the MAFMC, and that council designates estuarine areas as
EFH for these species. Detailed information about the EFH requirements of species managed by
MAFMC are included in separate amendments to individual fishery management plans.
EFH Conservation Recommendations
Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson- Stevens Act requires NMFS to provide EFH conservation
recommendations when an activity is expected to adversely impact EFH. Based on this requirement,
NMFS provides the following:
EFH Conservation Recommendation
• The proposed dock shall be reconfigured so that all slips are moved closer to the channel and out of
SAV habitat. Alternatively, the impacts to SAV shall be eliminated by removing slips C5 and C6
from the plan and reducing the dredging footprint.
Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson- Stevens Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR
600.920(k) requires your office to provide a written response to our EFH recommendations within 30
days of receipt. If it is not possible to provide a substantive response within 30 days, in accordance with
our "findings" with your Regulatory Functions Branch, an interim response should be provided to NMFS.
A detailed response must then be provided prior to final approval of the action. Your detailed response
must include a description of measures proposed by your agency to avoid, mitigate, or offset the adverse
impacts of the activity. If your response is inconsistent with our EFH conservation recommendations, you
must provide a substantive discussion justifying the reasons for not following the recommendation. The
detailed response should be received by NMFS at least ten days prior to final approval of the action.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Related questions or comments should be
directed to the attention of Mr. Fritz Rohde at our Beaufort Field Office, 101 Pivers Island Road,
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516 -9722 or at (252) 838 -0828.
cc:
/ for
COE, [e-mail]
USFWS, [e-mail]
NCDCM, [e-mail]
NCDENR, [e-mail]
EPA, [e-mail]
SAFMC, [e-mail]
F /SER4, [e-mail], Fritz [e-mail]
-2-
Sincerely,
Virginia M. Fay
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division