20040712 Ver 4_More Info Received_20130416

v
//'yy'� j](� jar
WALL Y
Mr. Dave Tnnpy
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403 -1343
April 5, 2013
REQEIVE[)
APR 0 0 2013
O. WILM, PLO, QFg,
Re: Stanwick Shores, CAMA Permit No. 60 -05, Action ID No. SAW - 2004 - 00705, Paul and
Susan Magnabosco Applicants
Dear Dave,
This letter is in response to your letter dated December 12, 2012 regarding the application to
reconfigure existing permitted boat slips and dredge 100.8 cubic yards of sound bottom for the
existing permitted Common Area pier at Stanwick Shores Subdivision on Bridgers Avenue in
Topsail Beach, NC.
This letter will document our efforts over the past nine years to dredge at Stanwick Shores. it
will show the efforts made to avoid and minimize impacts to SAV and SAV habitat and will also
show that various alternatives have been considered to determine if they were viable. The
proposed plan is the only practicable alternative to improve the currently permitted Common
Area pier.
The second paragraph of your letter references recommended revisions to the application and
plans by the National Marine Fisheries Service (N1+.MS) and United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS). It also says that the location of the Federal Channel and Setback shown on the
permit application drawings are incorrect. This is a critical issue as it relates to the
recommended pier extension to avoid impacts to SAV habitat. Paul Magnabosco has recently
taken depth measurements and located Channel Marker 9A. Curiously, the channel and Channel
Marker 9A are not located as shown on the aerial photo overlay by the Navigation Branch that
was attached to your letter. The channel is shown on the wrong side of the marker in the
Navigation Branch overlay. The two aerial photo overlays on the following pages show Paul's
findings. Marker 9A is actually located on the southeast edge of the shoal as shown on the aerial
overlays. Boat traffic follows the deep water which is much closer to the existing pier line than
indicated by the Navigation. Branch. Boat traffic traverses very close to the existing pier lime to
avoid the large shoal area.. It would be a navigation hazard and liability to extend the pier
beyond the existing pier line. Any extension would put the pier in the path of boat traffic and
water skiers and thus create a very unsafe condition and potential serious liability. Also, NC
Division of Coastal Management (DCM) rules prohibit pier construction beyond the existing pier
lime.
Response Letter to Dave Timpy
Tel: [phone] Pt) Box 893, Burgaw, North (uroliila, 28425 Fax: [phone]

v J
Response better to Dave 1impY
EIE-
No, W&M, p � qpg�
Td. 41E1- 253 -4800 PO Soh 895, Burgaw, North Carolina, 28425 Fax: [phone]

ick
-00705
ores:.-8.D.
�fM � .
Rr } 0 Sme
spy / ♦¢
gh-WAOMOMI $n
Response Letter to Dave Timmy
Tel: [phone] PO Box 895, Burgaw, North Carolina, 28425 Fax: [phone]

Responses to the request for additional information in your letter are as follows.
a. Viable Alternatives: The plan as proposed has no impact on wetland areas. Also, the plan as
proposed minimizes impacts to water areas to the greatest extent possible to provide six boat
slips that are functional. The plan as currently approved has much more potential for impact to
SAV than the proposed plan. The proposed plan angles the boat slips at 30 degrees to the pier
for easier entry and exit from the slip, moving boat props closer to the pier into deeper water and
away from SAV compared to the approved plan where the slips are at a. 90 degree angle to the
pier. The approved plan has boat slips C5 and C6 located in water that is only a foot deep (or
less) at low tide. Dredging would deepen the water at these slips and still maintain a bottom
depth that remains SAV (eelgrass) habitat according to Table 4.1 of the North Carolina DMF
Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (see below). Also, the proposed plan eliminates wet slips as
currently approved and has only boat lit, This will reduce shading of the SAV habitat area and
eliminate the presence of anti - fouling boat hull paint near the habitat area. The boat slips cannot
be moved any farther water ward for the reasons discussed above. Also, the applicant and
Walton Engineering have made significant efforts to redesign the pier and /or boat slips to
minimize potential impacts. Multiple alternatives have been considered from the 2004 activity to
present and the proposed plan has been found to provide the minimum potential impact. The
Common Area pier initially had 8 boat slips that was eventually reduced to 6 slips. The number
of boat slips cannot be reduced below the six slips already permitted because there would not be
a boat slip for each of Mr. Magnabosco's 6 interior lots along Bridgers Avenue, which is crucial
to the economic viability of these interior lots. There is no land available for inland boat storage
at the site. Also, there is no way to provide water access for the purchasers of the interior lots
without the pier. A boat ramp would be a less valuable alternative if it was feasible, but it is not
because it would have impacted coastal wetlands and SAVA labitat. Boat slips at the end of the
pier are not feasible because they would extend beyond the existing pier line. Adding boat slips
to the end of the pier would require adding pilings and access structures beyond the existing pier
line and in the path of boat traffic.
There have been suggestions to remove the tee /pier --head at the end of the pier to facilitate
moving the boat slips waterward. This would ruin the function of the pier head. Any extensive
demolition and reconstruction work at the end of the pier would more than double the project
cost for currently proposed dredging and pier work. Thus the proposed pier layout is the only
remaining economically practicable alternative.
ltcsponse Letter to nave Timpy
T0: 910 -259 -4800 PO Box 895, Burgaw, North Carolina, 28425 Fax: [phone]

Table 4, 1, Averago envirun ntetilal ctnaditions at Incatiuns where submerged aquntic vogetation oaurtrd
in coastal North Carolina, 1988 -1991. (SOMO' Ferguson and Waod 19941
b. There are no wetland losses in the proposed Plan or any previous plans. The only impact to
wetlands was the installation of pilings for the already completed pier construction under the
existing permit.
c. avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation (for Magnuson- Stevens Act .Response): Numerous
revisions to the plan have been made since the original application in April 2004 and since the
initial application for the plan currently proposed. The first plans submitted had 8 boat slips along
the Common Area pier with some of the slips located where beds of SAV existed. It also
proposed dredging and area of 0.090 acres (3,920 square Feet) and a volume of 268 cubic yards.
It was not realized at that time that SAV was going to be an issue. The original plan would have
had a direct impact to 273.5 square feet of SAV beds.
After meeting Fritz Rhode of NC DMF and Jason Dail of NC DCM on -site on July 21, 2004, Mr.
Rhode wrote a letter to Paul Magnabosco saying NC DMF would withdraw their objections to
the project if the inward most slips were moved out approximately 20 feet to avoid impacts to the
two large patches of SAV present and if the 5 -- 6 smaller clumps of SAV were moved laterally
to areas of similar depths outside the dredging footprint, with monitoring for 1 year after
relocation. A revised plan was prepared and submitted on July 26, 2004 with one boat slip
eliminated, and the (hedge area reduced to 0.071 acres (3,093 square feet) (approximately 212
cubic yards). A mitigation plan for relocating the smaller clumps of SAV was included with the
revised plan. The revised plan reduced proposed direct impacts to SAV from 273.5 square feet
to 55 square feet.
Response Letter to Dave `I'itnpy
Tel, 910 -259 -4800 P£? Boy 895, Burigaw, North Carolina, 2€1425 Fox, 910 - 259 -1779
ZIM0
IG
6717
gel Crass
I 10->36
26
63 --2.0
1.4
0.4 --t.7
1.2
(1.0 -6.6)
(3.3)
(1,3 -5.6)
(3.9)
Slwal C3rass
8 - >36
25
0.4 - 20
1.4
0.1 - 2,1
0.8
(1.3 - 6.6)
(33)
(0-3 .,6,9)
(2.6)
1�V[rlgCgn Grass
0 -36
1S
0.2 - 1.8
0.7
11 -2.5
0.8
(0.7 - 5.9)
(2.3)
(0.3.8.2)
(2.6)
Q W SALP,YlfYSG'Ar1ZASs
Redhead GraSS
0 -20
1
04 - 1.4
0.9
OA - 2.4
019
(1.3-4.6)
(3,0)
(13-7.9)
(3,0)
WildCelory
0 -10
2
0.2 -10
0A
0.2-2,3
1.0
(0.7-6.0)
(2.0)
(0.7.7.6 )
(3.3)
Fairaaian
0.10
2
0.2. 1.4
0,6
75 - 2.4
1.1
Watermilfoil
(0.7.4.6)
(2.0)
(1.6.7.9)
(3.6)
©ashy I'o�tdwaxd
0 -10
i
02 - 2.0
0.7
0.5 - 1.7
1.0
(0.7-6.6)
(13)
(1,6-5.6)
(3.3)
Sagas Panilweed
0.9
2
0.2 - 0.4
0.3
0.6 - 0.9
O.R
(0.7 - I.3)
(1.0)
(2.0 - 3.0)
(2.6)
b. There are no wetland losses in the proposed Plan or any previous plans. The only impact to
wetlands was the installation of pilings for the already completed pier construction under the
existing permit.
c. avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation (for Magnuson- Stevens Act .Response): Numerous
revisions to the plan have been made since the original application in April 2004 and since the
initial application for the plan currently proposed. The first plans submitted had 8 boat slips along
the Common Area pier with some of the slips located where beds of SAV existed. It also
proposed dredging and area of 0.090 acres (3,920 square Feet) and a volume of 268 cubic yards.
It was not realized at that time that SAV was going to be an issue. The original plan would have
had a direct impact to 273.5 square feet of SAV beds.
After meeting Fritz Rhode of NC DMF and Jason Dail of NC DCM on -site on July 21, 2004, Mr.
Rhode wrote a letter to Paul Magnabosco saying NC DMF would withdraw their objections to
the project if the inward most slips were moved out approximately 20 feet to avoid impacts to the
two large patches of SAV present and if the 5 -- 6 smaller clumps of SAV were moved laterally
to areas of similar depths outside the dredging footprint, with monitoring for 1 year after
relocation. A revised plan was prepared and submitted on July 26, 2004 with one boat slip
eliminated, and the (hedge area reduced to 0.071 acres (3,093 square feet) (approximately 212
cubic yards). A mitigation plan for relocating the smaller clumps of SAV was included with the
revised plan. The revised plan reduced proposed direct impacts to SAV from 273.5 square feet
to 55 square feet.
Response Letter to Dave `I'itnpy
Tel, 910 -259 -4800 P£? Boy 895, Burigaw, North Carolina, 2€1425 Fox, 910 - 259 -1779

W-1
On September 28, 2404, the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) issued a letter requesting
additional information justifying proposed impacts. 'Walton Engineering responded with a
resubmittal dated October 15, 2004, including a revised plan with reduced impacts. The dredge
area was reduced from 0.071 acres (3,093 square feet) to 0.468 acres (2,962 square feet). Direct
SAV impacts were reduced from 55 square feet to 4 square feet. Boat slips were reduced from a
width of 15 feet to 14 feet. This eliminated the possibility of installing 13,400 pound capacity
boat lifts. 10,004 pound maximum capacity boat lifts would have to be used, limiting boat
length. The pier design was modified to relocate the shoreward most finger piers outside of the
dredging area. The pier was moved out an additional 6 feet to the furthest existing pier line.
This movement, in addition to the width reduction of the boat slips and movement of the two
finger piers, allowed the shoreward dredging line to be moved out 14 feet, minimizing the
dredging area and impacts to SAV. In total, this line was moved out 18 feet since the first
submittal. In this modification, the number of boat slips was increased back to 8 slips.
On December 13, 2004, Mike Street of NC DMF wrote a memo to Alan Klimek and Doug
Huggett stating that DMF was opposed to the project because it would "likely cause significant
adverse impacts to SAV habitat at the project site." The memo included discussion of concerns
about direct and indirect impacts to SAV and SAV habitat as well as the proposed plan to
relocate smaller clumps of SAV (i.e. proposed mitigation). Although Fritz Rohde had earlier
indicated that DMF would allow mitigation by relocation, Mr. Street's memo said "there is no
reasonable chance for successful mitigation of the project's impacts."
On December 16, 2444, NC DWQ issued an approval of a 401 Water Quality Certification that
included dredging of 0.068 acres (2, 958 square feet) of Non - Vegetated Wetlands (open water.).
This approval excluded the proposed 4 square feet of SAV impacts by dredging.
As a result of objections to the project due to SAV, a meeting was held on February 2, 2005 at
the Morehead City office of NC DCM. in attendance were Paul Magnabosco, Mark Walton, and
representatives of NC DMF, DCM, DWQ, EFH, and NOAH. Subsequent to the meeting,
Walton Engineering submitted a revised application an February 24, 2005 with dredging
removed from the plan and the number of boat slips reduced from 8 to 6. This was done because
Mr. Magnabosco did not want to drag the project out any longer and because of the cost of
engineering and permitting. Mr. Magnabosco spent $29,548 ou engineering and permitting from
the beginning of the project to issuance of the CAMA Permit. This cost does not include
surveying; or permit fees. Mr. Magnabosco applied for and paid $4,044 for Express Permitting.
His loan interest payments for purchasing the property amounted to nearly $4,040 a month. By
the time of the DCM meeting on February 2, 2005, interest and costs due to permitting delays
had already reached almost $44,040. With permitting related costs already approaching $70,000,
Mr. Magnabosco could no longer afford further delays and had to remove dredging from the
CAMA Permit application..
Interestingly, by this point, the permitting related costs associated with avoidance and
minimization, and the search for the most practicable alternative had reached the estimated total
construction cost for all three of the piers for the project.
Response better to Davo Timpy
Tel: [phone] PO Box 895, Bargaw, North Carolina, 28425 Fax, 914-259 -1779

ALMN
On April 28, 2005, LAMA Major Permit 5005 was issued for the project with no dredging and
6 boat slips.
The Common Area pier has been constructed as permitted with b wet slips perpendicular to the
pier. The water depth was surveyed at low tide and is shown on the current project plan. At
times, the depth is shallower than shown at low tide. The inland most boat slips are in less than
one foot of water at low tide. As currently permitted, the boat in slip CS would have to navigate
closer to SAV and in shallower water to enter and exit the slip than it would in the currently
proposed plan with dredging and angled boat slips.
In December of 2011, Mr. Magnabosco initiated a plan revision and renewed attempt to get
dredging permitted for the project via a permit modification, On February 13, 2012 a scoping
meeting was held at the NC DENR Wilmington Regional Office. Attendees are shown below.
,SIGN UP SHEET
ScopiNG MMUING
�... __.. • .......... ............ __ - - --- ---
k SJtorm
Topsoil Rauh
Pendcr County
7113!24!2
--- -- - - - -._�
Nnmt
i
Mono
40.i,anaroniYeavcr 74b•7 30
13123ii4l Li!�ci unv�eF l t
ncdmnr.p r
f
�OA
Ran fecrhlF - -
Lf
.252•i2S•503{J
l�entTSc�hlerl�nnue:ffc+v [
f' Jaxani)aii a
°°
ry, iJCly
410.74G•722i
Je}xoni7ail�i Ifj
I I7ca�lc wstson"�
17 J[asss ®kei -
uc:t�
17MI?
Flo- 7!rt; -•rxa6
9[Q7SKi•731i
�1calYllssll�l�sn€�
JeyaS:BnkerG4ncclenr.r y
�It�k�?- �1iSS711!�li�R.al'R
iclolly }•3larood
-_. �VRC µ�.
910.79b -742Y w.
t� ifevcTim}�y
tiSA�li
930-25t-dt434
�7aaid .i.?ynmy.�i'.�ii�.9J1AtY,JF7L
-
�.7oam'u:Stcenhula
I)WQ.R01
9.i4- ��JG•73U6
1.C+itIlEl i1.�4�91.!I:,FSI!ti�
i tnAa T.ewis
w
u�
i]WQ- �1onn�YalsxM
91E179& 720]
J Linda texry�tdnedenr.eov m
PalJeck+on
D •Shellt'inlr
}10- 746 -1210 Q( j1LiC3L Y6Y
v
�•- PaufhlaSrtabosso
Sranwidr3hnfr�
___. -_ _.-- rstutmakAecrrcolxt._
� t 9 8.881•;
Mark Watlurt
V
Walt nn
_
n} F C9..1Y irli€v�Slr3@11 it�i
'•—'-•'
�...._..- .- .__.__..._r.._.__.__ 1
rt l
xJ} C;unLCrarrcoCnll
I
VI II'4 INU TON MO1C7.VAr.OFMCF.
127 CARDINAL DINE
li'rr.i11FNGTON, NCU405
YlU- 7;Xa'Yd35, FAX 91OLMD -KiA
Response Letter to Dave'limpy
Tel: [phone] PID Box 895, Burgaw, NorLb Carolina, 28425 flux: 910 -259 -1779

WAHav EN
Y
The plan presented at the February 13 scoping meeting had six boat slips angled at 30 degrees to
the pier and a dredge area of .080 acres (3,498.5 square feet), a dredge volume of 237 cubic
yards, and a maxirmm dredge depth of 2 feet. Wet slips have been eliminated and replaced with
boat lifts, reducing shading and effects of bottom fouling paint. The average drudge depth in the
plan was 1 foot, starting at the 4 foot bottom contour with a 0 dredge depth and stopping at the 2
foot contour with a 2 foot dredge depth. Dredging is to be done by shovel and Barge (no prop
dredging) to eliminate concerns about SAV fouling from prop dredging. The purpose of angling
the boat slips was to facilitate navigation in and out of the .boat slips, but it also minimizes
impacts to SAV by keeping boat motors in deeper water and by reducing or eliminating
navigation over or near SAV beds. With the slips angled at 30 degrees to the pier, tho motor of
a 23 foot boat is located more than 11.5 feet waterward (into deeper water) than the motor of the
same boat docked perpendicular to the pier as currently permitted.
A second Scoping Meeting was held on May 21, 2012. Attendees are shown below. Based on
comments from the scoping meeting, the plan was further revised with a reduced dredge
footprint. The dredge area was moved waterward to reduce shallow water impacts. The revised
dredge volume was lowered to 162 cubic yards.
SIGN tP SIUMT
SCOPwo IAMETIrrc
pod comfy
KD"
\itFaN �II4IUNni.Oc1E
liY 4'JIFLiY7YAJ.. D.k4'�'
S�GTIIMUIYLY. t4C 2l4A0.3
910-70 211.FAXOH'330 -WS
Response [.ester to Dave Timpy
TeL [phone] PO Box 895, Rurgaw, North Carolhia, 28425 lax: 910 -259 -1779

I I KALTON T
Another revised plan was prepared on July 18, 2012. This plan had no direct SAV impacts, a
dredge area of 0.066 acres (2970.8 square feet), same maximum and average depth, and a dredge
volume lowered further to 106.3 cubic yards.
Another revised plan was prepared on July 30, 2012. This plan added a 45 degree slope at the
dredge perimeter to address concerns about sloughing. The dredge area was reduced to 0,063
acres (2723.5) square feet, with a dredge volume of 100.8 cubic yards, This plan is the current
plan proposed and has no dredging proposed in SAV beds. The proposed dredge depths do not
exceed 2 feet below existing bottom depths and do not result in bottom depths more than 4 feet
below actual low water depths. Therefore, the resulting depths after dredging are less than the
maximum depths considered SAV (eelgrass) habitat by the NC Coastal Habitat Protection Plan,
An application for modification of the CAMA Major Permit was submitted on July 31, 2012
with this plan included.
Similar to our experience with the initial p6rn3itting, permitting costs for the revised plan have
been extensive. These costs are associated with further progress toward avoidance and
minimization, and the continued search for the most practicable alternative. In this instance,
permitting related costs have totaled $15,995.40 from 2011 to date. Significantly, this amounts to
more than the expected construction cost for dredging and Common Area pier modifications
(less than $10,000).
The record shows that significant efforts have been made to avoid, minimize and mitigate
impacts to SAV in the history of this project. The current plan has no direct impacts to SAV
beds. The reconfigured boat slips and dredge depths greatly reduce potential impacts to SAV by
boating operations. Using boat lifts instead of the currently permitted wet slips will mitigate
potential impacts to SAV by shading and exposure to bottom fouling paint. Dredging is to be
done by shovel and barge to reduce or eliminate indirect effects to SAV by sediment. No
dredging is proposed in SAV beds. SAV habitat will be preserved in the dredge area by
maintaining depths that constitute SAV habitat. A 45 degree slope at the dredge perimeter will
prevent or minimize sloughing. And, to address the suggestions that the boat slips can be moved
20 feet waterward, it is not permitted to move the pier beyond the existing pier line by DCM
rules. Plus, it would be a safety hazard and liability issue to move the pier by any amount
waterward because it would encroach into the navigation channel actually being used. And, in
the event that those suggesting moving the slips 20 feet waterward are suggesting this be done
by removing the pier head, CAD analysis has shown that this modification would only result in
moving boat motors 8 feet waterward compared to the proposed. plan. This option would
eliminate any use of the existing pier head, which is an unacceptable alternative,
Summary: The information presented in this letter has shown that the project as proposed is the
best practicable alternative, especially compared to the project as currently permitted. It has
been shown that extending the pier is not an alternative due to regulatory restraints, safety issues
related to boat traffic and potential liability. This is exacerbated by shoaling that exists in the
boat channel that is causing boat traffic to travel close to the existing pier line established by 13
adjacent piers. The project history demonstrates that a tremendous amount of effort has been put
into avoidance, minimization and mitigation. it is especially important to note the miniscule
amount of material to be dredged (100.8 cubic yards). This equates to about 8.5 dump truck:
Response Laker to Dave "rinnpy
Tel: [phone] PO 7 Box $95. Burgaw, Forth Carohim, 29425 Fax: [phone]

loads of material. There is no dredging proposed in SAV locations. The dredging will be done
by shovel and barge to minimize or eliminate siltation of nearby beds of SAV as compared to
prop dredging. The dredge area will remain viable SAV habitat because the maximum water
depth alter dredging will be approximately 3 feet below actual low water level. Therefore, the
proposed dredging does constitute removal of SAV habitat. (It should be noted that the plan
shows bottom elevations relative to NAVD88 datum and water depths surveyed at low title.
Example: 210.8, with 2 being the NAVD elevation and 0.8 being the water depth at low tide.
The NAVD elevations do not represent water depths.) Where dredging starts .at the 4/2.8 contour,
the dredge out will be zero feet. Where dredging terminates at its most shoreward limit, the
dredge cut will be 2 feet where the water is currently less than 1 loot deep at low tide. It should
be noted that comments provided by Maria. Dunn of North Carolina 'Wildlife Resources
Commission stated that "The current proposal will directly impact a minimum of 3,024 ie area
of SAV by excavating the proposed area to --4' NLW:' This is incorrect. The excavation area
contains no SAV. And, as discussed above, the maximum water depth at low tide will be
approximately 3 feet.
It is very important to all concerned to consider the proposed plan as compared to the existing
permitted plan. The proposed plan is far superior to the existing plan in reducing, eliminating
and minimizing impacts and potential impacts to SAV and SAV habitat.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 910-259 -4800 or e-mail me at
mark @wultonengineering.net. By the way, we have not included copies of the numerous revised
plans because the plans are larger than i l x 17 and would require 27 copies of each plan for
distribution to NC Agencies. The last set of plans cost $400 to produce, We will gladly send pdf
copies of the plan iterations electronically if requested. They can be viewed with a regular pelf
viewer using the room tool to facilitate viewing on a regular size computer monitor.
Sincerely,
V,A-�,j ('
R. Mark Walton
N.C. Professional Engineer
Registration No. 16879
cc: Jonathan. Dowell
Paul Magnabosco
Attachments: NC Agency Comments
Response t.eftr to Dave Timpy
Tel: [phone] PO Box 895, Burgaw, North Carolina, 28425 Fax: [phone] to

Proposed Project: reconfigure docking facility and incorporate new dredging
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and pgtqLn t is
form to go_yg Bu y ei`i at the address above by November 26, 2012. If you have any questions
regarding the proposed project, contact Jason Dail at (9 10) 796 -7215, when appropriate, in -depth
comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY., - This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
SIGNED _t. DATE
I?7 Mardif}al Drive EKL, Wilmington, NC 284115
Now 910-7M-721 5 \ FAX: [phone]%4 internal; nma181managgr !A -net
An rnuua10M1udt4 i Affirmalive &[W tr Wooer
One
N %Caxal�ia
ArA jjj
. l a, rl . C>9. 014,
Noah Carolina Department of �nvlronment and Natural Ae8ou ces
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Pardue
Braxton Q Davis
Governor
Director Dee f=reeman
November 2, 2012
t� Secretary
�1d �y tf nqr� x
'-ry �VOkY, kVI�C �
p Arty
Mp � Al!JIDU
TO:
Maria Dunn
' t
For W I RC?�>
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
FROM:
Doug Huggett, NC DENR -DCM Major Permits Coordinator ON- 10tinexTy.
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 26557 (Courier 11- 12 -09)
SUBJECT:
LAMA 1 D &F Major Permit Application Review
Applicant:
PA A".: qkltl� {�
Project Location:
far nWhern end of Bridgers Ave,, adjacent to Banks Channel and Topsail Sound,
in Topsail Beach, Ponder County.
Proposed Project: reconfigure docking facility and incorporate new dredging
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and pgtqLn t is
form to go_yg Bu y ei`i at the address above by November 26, 2012. If you have any questions
regarding the proposed project, contact Jason Dail at (9 10) 796 -7215, when appropriate, in -depth
comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY., - This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
SIGNED _t. DATE
I?7 Mardif}al Drive EKL, Wilmington, NC 284115
Now 910-7M-721 5 \ FAX: [phone]%4 internal; nma181managgr !A -net
An rnuua10M1udt4 i Affirmalive &[W tr Wooer
One
N %Caxal�ia

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Cordon S. Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM lit��k3l�f�3Y�
0I.0 10 ?11112
T4: Doug Huggett, Major permits Processing Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management ^a " o" "Y
North Carolina. Department of Environment and Natural Reso"i
FROM. Maria T. Dunn, Northeast Coastal Region Coordinator `
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: 13=mber 7, 2012
SUBJECT: CAMA Dredge/ ill pc n4 Application 'for Paul and Susan Magnabosco for
Sitanwick Shores SD, Pender County, North Caroliva.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) reviewed
the peen it application with regard to impacts on fish and wildlife resources_ The project site is
located at the far end of Bridgers Ave. adjacent to Banks Channel and Topsail Sound in Topsail
Beach, NC, our comments are provided in amot'dance with provisions of the Coastal Area
Management Act (G.S. 113A.100 through 113A -128), as amended, Sections 401 and 404 oftho
Clean Water Act, as amended, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Slat. 401, as
am n*d;161J'.S.C. 661 of scq.).
The applicant proposes to reconfigure the existing docking facility by relocating the fixed
fingeir piers and by excavating the area around the footprint Of the community dock. A previous
request for dredge in this aroa was received in 2004. Numerous statenlOnts of concern and
objections were received during the application review process from state agencies regarding the
impact dredging had on existing submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). As a restult_of these
concerns, the ro sed excavation was removed fro the ra "Oct description fm
by excavati an the proposed area
pr
1is area of Backs Clxantsel and Topsail Somul are classified SA by the
l?nvirnixtental Management Co:xrax�ission and is open to sltellfxsh harvesting.
iYlaitln% Address: Uivisio:: oflnland 17islteries • 1721 Mail Serviec Cc aicr • Raleigh, NC 2769 »I721
Telephone: [phone] ® Fax: (9x 9) 707 -0028

CMDV_MagaabWOu ] Stanwick Sh M 2 l oaraber 7, 2oi2
The NCWRC has reviewed the permit application and-is concerned with the project
Proposal, As stated during earlier reviews of the previous project, we believe the ptojeat should
be designed to avoid disturbance of SAV due-to important habitat and water quality functions it
provides for numerous aquatic resources. it cannot be seen ftom this proposal that avOidarYce or
even minimimion has been demonstrated, Therefore, we request the applicant modify the
structures design and project proposal to avoid SAV disturbance,
We appreciate the opportwtity. to review and comment on this permit application. If you
need further assistance or additional infarmation, please contact ine at (252) 948 -3916.
E(, Xtr
o lfv