19910341 Ver 1_Historical Files_19850601

OOEb-EE9 (6 L 6) 8VZ L-0998Z Bu110Je0 44JON 'uJa8 MON 817Z L xo8 0311;04sod 4GOJIS PeOJB E L Z
mooTeN Apng 'zQ
glauuag aTTzpgO
guTmaT3 aa"11 •
quapTsa d
C.a.a ?a qd r
?ATazaouTS
uagdzpjszpO •ys •r
Aaueg TTT9
pzeMOH uoIsaza
gauOf saTzpgO :OO
N01103S TOug
AlllVnO 831VM mm:um

•uoTgpzadooo znoA zo3 noA Nupgy
•MaTnaz znoA ,To uoTsnTouoo aqi jE aq TTTM noA -AuTg3
pup siTnsaz aqj giTM OT3spTsng3ua aze am •asTnpp 03 09AT T9a3 aspaTd 'puaigp
o3 saTouage 3uazajjTp aq3 zo; SuT399m uoTssnosTp Tezauag p pToq o3 paau zo
suOT3senb Aue anpq pTnogs noA JT pup upTd sTgq 3o Tenozdde 2uT3sanbaa aze am
•suoTgTpuoo juamdOTaaap-aid aq4 moz3 panozdmT ATIupOTJTu8Ts
azp sOTjsTzajopzpgo jjounz zaivmmzo3s-3u9mdoT9Aap-3sod aq2 3eg3 seansuT upTd
wamagpuem 192vmmz03s sTg3 'gzodea zno 3o 48 aged 6uOTsnTouo3 zapun paiv4s sy
•loaCoad peouazagaz anoge aq4 zo3 8 ggnozgq T supTd 3o
spas Z I Pup ?zoda uamagE zap _ a ..n Zi ;,pao.auu .
Ufi&
q
1098-IHJ
zajemmzo3s TZ# uoTgTPuOO
lTmzad TTT3 pup agpaz(I
mnzuTmopuOO 3Tutl OOT
•OUI 'saTgzadoaa TeoZ zponS :aouazajag
zaxzpd uuor •IY1 :uOTIu914y

su?J?fa,f?r?? - sAauueld - sJaaui6u3
lV-w?s j.L lvr 9 O s sv'-) Qnr v aso2t
/V • fqQ-& rwvo
V..1,4erwovoo) - k rr'rr?.P91 f lrr,?W-y
TT9LZ ON `ggT9Tp2T
L89LZ XO8 Od
luaM92VuvH Tv3seoO Jo uoTSTnTQ
quamdOTanaQ AlTunmmoo q saoznosag
TpznlvM jo wamizudea puTTozpO g2z0u
STORMWATER MANAGMENT PLAN
FOR
100 UNIT CONDOMINIUM
CARTERET COUNTY
ATLANTIC BEACH,
NORTH CAROLINA
PHI-8501

OWNER: SUGAR LOAF PROPERTIES, INC.
MR. CHARLES N. BENNETT, AGENT
BOX 787
ATLANTIC BEACH, NC 28512
[phone]
ENGINEER: ROSE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
213 BROAD STREET
PO BOX 1248
NEW BERN, NC 28560
[phone]
Aff
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to insure that the
development of the site proceeds in a manner that
approximately maintains the pre-development runoff
characteristics, and reduces local flooding, pollution,
siltation and sedimentation, and erosion'. This
will be accomplished by the detention and reduction
of surface runoff through a stormwater collection
system which utilizes the following three forms of
stormwater detention:
1. The storage of runoff in infiltration and retention
basin S2.
2. Using the paved areas to channel the runoff into
stormwater collection drains, where it is piped
into retention basins'.
3. Locating a vegetative filter strip at the outlet
of the stormwater structures to control overland
sheet flow to remove suspended sediment by
filtering, absorption, and gravity sedimentation
as the flow velocity is reduced3.
STORMWATER DESIGN
This report is based on the Soil Conservation Service
Soil-Cover Complex Method for flow estimates in a
small drainage area. The design storm for the
structures was based on the 100 year, 24 hour
rainfall event. A double ring infiltration test
was performed at the site and a permeability in
excess of 30 inches per hour was attained. (Refer
to the attached letter from Mr. Edwin Andrews, III,
geologist). For the purpose of this report, a
conservative factor of 20 inches per hour was used
for the design permeability of the soils.
TOTAL AREA
Lot 21
1,999,779 SF = 45.91 AC
-1-
Aff
EFFECTIVE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES6
Roadway
4,350 LF x 20'
Driveways
3480 LF x 10'
Parking (Turfstone)
87 Spaces
Roof Areas
100 Condominiums
Club House
85,000 SF x 1.0
34,800 SF x 1.0
17,400 SF x 0.7
214,151 SF x 1.0
85,000 SF
34,800 SF
12,180 SF
214,151 SF
346,131 SF
346,131 SF : 2,615,427 SF = 13.2% of Total Area
STORMWATER RUNOFF FOR DEVELOPED AREAS
Stormwater runoff was determined by the Soil Conservation
Service Soil-Cover Complex Method,
Q = (P - 0.25)2
P + 0.85
Where Q = Actual direct runoff (inches)
P = Total storm rainfall (inches)
S = Potential abstraction (inches)
Potential abstraction, S, is related to the soil and cover
conditions of a watershed by the equation, S = 1,000 - 10
where CN = the runoff curve number which is also related
to soil and cover conditions (Taken from Table
2-2, Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds,
TR55, Soil-Conservation Service, January 1975).
Stormwater drainage pipe sizes determined from Figures
29 and 32 from Concrete Pipe Design Manual,
American Concrete Pipe Association, 1974.
INFILTRATION AND DETENTION BASINS'
The required size of the basin was determined by the equation,
Vreq'd = AQuAu + PAb - f TAb
Where Vreq'd = Required basin size (cu. ft.)
OQu = Increased upland runoff depth (ft.)
-2-
Aff
Au = Upland runoff area (ft.2)
P = Design rainfall event (ft.)
Ab = Basin surface area (ft.2)
f = Infiltration rate of the basin area (m/HR)
T = Effective basin filling time (HRS)
INFILTRATION BASIN "A"
(Southern Portional of Drainage Area #2)
Roof Areas - 5,370 SF x 95 = 510,150
Grass Areas - 14,910 SF x 39 = 581,490
20,280 SF 1,091,60
Composite CN = 1,091,640
280
20 = 53.83
,
S = 1,000 - 10 = 8.58
Q = [11 - 0.2(8.58)12 = 4.83 in. of runoff
11 + .
Vr
' d = 0.40(20,280),+ 0.92( 4,840) - 1.67(1)(4,840)
eq = 4,426 cu. ft.
Vaval = 4,840 cu. ft. which is greater than the
'd = 4,426 cu.
Vre ft.
q
INFILTRATION BASIN "B"
(Portio n of the roof areas o f Drainage Area #2)
Roof Areas - 16,290
CN = 95
S = 1,000
- - 10 = 0.53
9
5
Q = [11 - 0.2(0.53) ]2 = 10.39 in. of runoff
11 + 0.80M)
-3-
AAF
Vreq'd = 0.87(16,290) + 0.92(16,150) - 1.67(0.5)(16,150)
= 15,545 cu. ft.
Vaval = 16,150 cu. ft. which is greater than the
Vreq'd of 15,545 cu. ft.
RETENTION BASIN "C"
(Drainage Area #1, Portions of Drainage Area
#2, #3, and Drainage Area #4)
DRAINAGE AREA #1
Clubhouse Area 7,468 SF x 95 709,460
Roadway 26,280 SF x 95 = 2,496,600
Paving (Turfstone) 17,400 SF x 72 = 1,252,800
Grass Areas 15,320 SF x 39 = 597,480
66,280 SF 3,056,340
Composite CN = 5,056,340 = 76.29
662FO-
S = 1,000 - 10 = 3.11
Q = [1
11 1 + 0:2(3:11;]2 = 7.99 in. of runoff
DRAINAGE AREA #2
Roof Areas 15,834 SF x 95 = 1,504,230
Road and Driveways 34,680 SF x 95 = 3,294,600
Grass Areas 829897 SF x 39 = 3,232,983
1 11 SF$ 031,E
= --1031-,1813 1 = 60.20
Composite CN 8
S = 1Z?b - 10 = 6.61
Q = [11 - 0.2(6.61)]2 = 5.75 in. of runoff
1 + 0.8(6.61)
-4-
Aff
DRAINAGE AREA #3
Roof Areas 21,841 SF x 95 =
Road and Driveways 23,720 SF x 95 =
Grass Areas 73,939 SF x 39 =
119,500 SF
Composite CN = 7,211,916 = 60.35
119 soo
S = 61,0 0 5 - 10 = 6.57
2,074,895
2,253,400
2,883,621
7,211,916
Q = [11 - 0.2(6.57) ]2 = 5.77 in. of runoff 11 + 0.8(6.57)
DRAINAGE AREA #4
Roof Area 26,573 SF x 95 = 2,524,435
Road and Driveway 12,720 SF x 95 = 1,208,400
Grass Area 45,867 SF x 39 = 1,788,813
85,160 SF 5,521,648
521,648
Composite CN = 5,521,648 =
n-ITO
S = 1,000
- 10 = 5.42
64.84
Q = [11 - 0.2(5.42)12 = 11 + 0.8(5.42)
64.84
6.41 in. of runoff
Vreq,d = AQuAu + PAb - f TAb
[(0.67+x 66,280) + (0.48 x 133,411)
+ (0.48 x 119,500) + (0.53 x 85,160)]
+ (0.92 x 58,822) - (1.67 x 2 x 58,822)
= 71,834 cu. ft.
WATER OVERFLOWING TOP OF RETAINING WALL
Vreq'd - Vaval = 71,834 - 58,822 = 12,952 cu. ft.
-5-
49F
12,952 CF x 431560 SF x 1-? = 3.6 CFS
HEIGHT OF WATER OVERFLOWING THE RETAINING WALL
Using the Weir Formula, Qw = CwLH3/2
Where Qw = Weir Overflow (CFS)
CW = Weir Coefficient
L = Length of weir (ft.)
H = Vertical distance from the water surface
to the top of,the weir (ft.)
Qw = CWLH 3/2
3.6 = 3x 130xH3/2
H = 0.04 ft. = 0.53 in.
DETENTION BASIN "D"
(Drainage Area #5)
Roof Area
Road and Driveway
Grass Areas
21,840 SF x 95 = 2,074,800
16,440 SF x 95 = 1,561,800
46,640 SF x 39 = 1,818,960
90,920 5,455,56-0
Composite CN 5,455,560 = $0,M ` = 67.42
S 1,CN0 - 10 = 4.83
Q [1
1 + 0:2(4:83)) ]2 = 6.77 in. of runoff
1 08483 -
Vreq,d = 'QuAu + PAb - f TAb
= 0.56(80,920) + 0.92(3,860) - 1.67(2)(3,860)
= 36,324 cu. ft.
-6-
Aff
WATER OVERFLOWING TOP OF RETAINING WALL
Vreq'd - Vaval = 36,324 - 3,860 = 32,464 cu. ft.
32,464 cu. ft. x 31 SF x lit' = 8.9 CFS
HEIGHT OF WATER OVER THE RETAINING WALL
QW = CWLH 3/2
8.9 = 3 x 115.x H 3/2
H = 0.09 ft. = 1.05 in.
DETENTION BASIN "E"
(Drainage Area #6)
Roof Area
Road and Parking
Grass Area
19,293 SF x 95 = 1,832,835
16,720 SF x 95 = 1,588,400
20,117 SF x 39 = 784,563
3b,330 SF 4,205,798
Composite SC 4P205,798 = --0- = 74.93
S = 1,000 - 10 = 3.35
Q = [11 - 0.2(3.35)]2 - 7.80 in. of runoff
1 + 0. ( )
Vreq'd = AQuAu + PAb - f TAb
= 0.65(56,130) + 0.92(4,650) - 1.67(2)(4,650)
= 25,248 cu. ft.
WATER OVERFLOWING TOP OF RETAINING WALL
Vreq'd - Vaval = 25,248 - 4,650 = 20,598 cu. ft. I AC 20,598 cu. ft. x
x 1- = 5.7 CFS
43,560 SF
1 ft.
-7-
Aff
HEIGHT OF WATER OVER THE RETAINING WALL
Qw = CWLH 3/2
5.7= 3x 115xH3/2
H = 0.06 ft. = 0.78 in.
STORMWATER RUNOFF UNDEVELOPED AREAS
Total Area = 1,040,801 SF
CN = 49
1,000
S = 9- - 10 = 10.41
Q = [11 -0.2(10.41)]2 = 4.12 in. of runoff 11 + 0.8( 10.41)
l ABC SF = 98.4 CFS
4.12 in. x 1,040,801 SF x
43,
TOTAL POST-DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF
Undeveloped Areas 98.4 CFS
Detention Basin ".C" 3.6 CFS
Detention Basin "D" .8.9 CFS
Detention Basin "E" 5.7 CFS
116.6CF S
TOTAL PRE-DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF
Total Area = 1,999,779 SF
CN = 45
1000
S = 5 - 10 12.22
Q [11 - 0.2(12.22)]2 = 3.52 in. of runoff
11 + . ( )
1 A5 C = 161.6 CFS
3.52 in. x 1,999,779 SF x
43,
CONCLUSION
In our opinion this stormwater management plan insures
that the post-development stormwater runoff charac-
teristics are significantly improved from the pre-
-8-
Adff
development conditions. The 100 year 24 hour event
runoff for the post-development was calculated to be
116.6 CFS, which is a 27.8% reduction from the pre-
development runoff of 161.6 CFS. This 116.6 CFS is
now being dispersed by sheetflow over a wide vegetative
buffer area into the Spartina alterniflora marsh to
the east.
-9-
Aff
'Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, PB84-185560,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September,
1982.
2Practices In Detention of Urban Stormwater Runoff, Special
Report No. 3, American Public Works Association,
1974.
'Standards and Specifications for Infiltration Practices,
Maryland Department o Natural Resources, February,
1984.
'Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Technical Release
No. 55, Soil Conservation Service, January, 1975.
'A Summary of the Best Professional Judgements of Stormwater
Impacts, CAMA Major Permits Near SA Waters, Coastal
Area Management Act, Revise April, 1985.
'Variations in Monthly Precipitation Over North Carolina,
by B. K. Eder..-
er, J. M. Davis an P. J. Robinson wit
the North Carolina Climate Program Office, North
Carolina State University.
A revised version of "Variations in Monthly Precipitation
Over North Carolina", by Waler J. Saucier, Professor
of Meterology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
AAW
RKA RUSSNOW, KANE & ANDREWS
Hydrogeology Post Office Box 33634
Geology Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Environmental Sciences [phone]
Soils
April 10, 1985
Mr. Joseph W. Rose, PE
Rose and Associates, PA
P. 0. Box 1248
New Bern, North Carolina 28560
Dear Mr. Rose:
Re: Storm Water - Sugar Loaf
W%*Ile %#
Offices:
Raleigh, North Carolina
Newport News, Virginia
Two water table observation wells were constructed at Sugarloaf
Properties, Atlantic Beach, North Carolina, in order to determine
if the water table aquifer is capable of absorbing, storing and trans-
mitting storm water off of the site. The depth to the top of
the water table was approximately three feet below land surface,
and the aquifer thickness was over twenty five feet thick.
The ability of the site to drain storm water recharge was
measured to be greater than 30 inches per hour at both 6 and
18 inches. Samples of the material throughout the water table
aquifer indicate that the infiltr ation capacity will increase with
depth. The runoff coefficient of the well sorted beach sand
deposits encountered on the site is extremely low. With adequate
exposure, storm water can be controlled by infiltration to the
water table.
Based on specific storm water loading characteristics under
design conditions, specific calculations can be performed to determine
the site assimilative capacity. Using contour and the high infiltra-
tion capacity of the sand deposits, storm water can be kept
at no discharge.
If you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
Edwin E. Andrews, I I
Consulting Geologist
Aff
2-5

Table 2-2.--Runoff curve numbers for selected agricultural, suburban, and
urban land use. (Antecedent moisture condition II, and Ia = 0.2S)
HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP
LAND USE DESCRIPTION A B C D
Cultivated land!/: without conservation treatment T2 81 88 91
: with conservation treatment 62 71 T8 81
Pasture or range land: poor condition 68 79 86 89
good condition 39 61 74 80
Meadow: good condition 30 58 71 T8
Wood or Forest land: thin stand, poor cover, no mulch 45 66 T7 83
good cover?/ 25 55 70 7T
Open Spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc.
good condition:. grass cover on 75% or more of the area 99 61 74 80
fair condition: grass cover on 50% to 75% of the area 49 69 79 84
Commercial and business areas (85% impervious) 89 92 94 95
Industrial districts (72% impervious). 81 88 91 93
Residential:!/
Average lot size Average % Impervious"-/
1/8 acre or less 65 77 85 90 92
1/4 acre 38 61 75 83 8T
1/3 acre 30 57 72 81 86
1/2 acre 25 54 70 80 85
1 acre 20 51 68 79 84
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways, etc.!/ 98 98 98 98
Streets and roads:
paved with curbs and etorm several/ 98 98 98 98
gravel 76 85 89 91
dirt 72 82 87 89
For a more detailed description of agricultural land use curve numbers refer to
National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology, Chapter 9, Aug. 1972.
Good cover is protected from grazing and litter and brush cover soil.
Curve numbers are computed assuming the runoff from the house and driveway
is directed towards the street with a minimum of roof water directed to lawns
where additional infiltration could occur.
The remaining pervious areas (lave) are considered to be in good pasture condition
for these curve numbers.
=/ In some varmer climates of the country a curve number of 95 may be used.
Aff

i
I
I,
C-5

r
H a
E-1 w
z
of
0 0
' .._.N..,__
O
U ?
Y

0.

s A

-- ? a
-- -_--- . G
l
e
r s•
z?
l

e _ s
y
7t
1 '
?
i
i
V I
--- ----•

,r
?I
it

A
C
Aff
FIGURES
FIGURE 29
HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CIRCULAR CONCRETE
PIPE CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL
180
168 10000 EXAMPLE (
8000 1) ( 2) ( 3)
156 6000 D = 36 inches (3.0 feet) 6 0 6.0
144 5000 Q = 66 cfs -5.0
4000 Hw• Hw 6.0 5.0
132 3000 D feet 5.0 4.0 4.0
120 (1) 1.8 5.4
2000
4
0
108 (2) 1.55 4.7 ' 3.0 0
3
102 (3) 1.6 4.8 .
96 1000 •D in feet 3.0
90
84 2 p
600 0 2.0
to 78 500
=
0
2
= 72 400 .
Z 66 ? 300 1.5 1.5
? N
60 Z ?E Cr
200
1.5
0 PMQ
?
-- 54 d E
100 / o
W 48 W 80--
>

v
<-
42
-60 Z
=

1.0

1.0
o v 50
40 To use scale (2) or (3)
w 1.0
9
36 ° 30 draw a straight line o 9
W through known values ' 9
33 of size and d
schar
e ,
?. g
i
W
20
W
M
30 to intersect scale (1). Q
F 8 8
rom point on scale (1) 3: ,$

0
27 project horizontally to 0
10 solution on ether scale
(2) or (3)
_ 7
.
8 .7
24 .7
6
21 5
4 HW/D ENTRANCE 6
3 SCALE TYPE - 6 6

-18
(1) Square edge .
--
2 r2) Groove end with
headwall
15 (3) Groove end
5
projectin
1.0 g -
-
5
-- 5
207
X12
BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS JAN. 1963 HEADWATER SCALES 2&3
REVISED MAY 1964
4r,
210 CONCRETE PIPE DESIGN MANUAL
FIGURE 32
HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CONCRETE ARCH
CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL
169 x 107
154x97
3,000
138 x 88 2,000 (1) (2) (3)
EXAMPLE 4'0-4.0
122 x 78 size. 44" x 27" 4.0 3.0
115 x 72 !-1,000 3.0
[800 Q = 30 cfs
S-3.0
102 x 62 500 HD • (f et) = 2.0 k2.0
}- 88 x 54 400 (1)1.02 2.30 N 2.0 1.5
300 2) 0.99 2.23 1.5
r LC xt:
?
w ' 200 (3)1.01 2.27 o r 1.5
Z I 'D in feet 0
Z 73 x 45 v ? 100 a
Z z
65 x 40 _ 80 1.0? F
.9 i-.9
w X60 50 f`XPMP?/ z ?g r
a 58 x 36
a, r =
LL. 40/ a 8 .8 .8.
O ¢ 30 To use scale (2) or (3) W
t. -
W 51 x 31// _ draw a straight line o r
W I U through known values Cr. 7 r-.7
0 20 of site and discharge w I .7
X to intersect scale (1) ¢ F-
4 x 27 From point on scale (1) 6 -.6-
Z ! - project horizontally to
8 solution on either scale W !!
(2)01(3).
=f
tw 36 x 22 6 5 .5 !--.5
to 4
HW/D ENTRANCE
3
SCALE TYPE
29 x 18 2 (1) Square edge _ ,Q .4 ?--.4
I (2) Groove end with
headwall _
(3) Groove end I
protecting
22 x 13

Thomas Hilliard, III
Yvonne C. Bailey
crlwin._,L£ Gavin, II
x tiles
eeter
Tonne C. Bailey ONIGINAL SIGNED BY
Inc Legal Special t
RE: Sugarloaf Properties, Inc.
Depositions Scheduled for May 29, 1986
Hearing Date July 8 - 9, 1986
Mr. Bill Raney, attorney for Sugarloaf, has requested
that all of your be available for depositions on May 29, 1986. I
have already asked that you keep your calendars open for that
day.
tl?
1

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Joseph E. Slate, Jr., Director
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary May 12 , 1986 Office of Legal Affairs
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: R. Paul Wilms
L. P. Benton
George Everett
Bill Mills?
-ecil Madden
So as not to inconvenience you, Mr. Raney has indicated
that he will try to work around your schedules, but you should be
prepared to be called at any time during the day. If you leave
your offices, leave word as to where you can be reached.
I told Mr. Raney that he would have our cooperation and
that subpoenas would not be necessary. Please see the attached
letter.
The hearing will be continued from June 5 to July 8 and 9,
1986.
YCB/kw c
attachments R ' E j?GD
MAY 13 1986
NikjEtj QUALITY 111T10""
OPE
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
L
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Joseph E. Slate, Jr., Director
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary May 12 , 1986 Office of Legal Affairs
Thomas Hilliard, III
Yvonne C. Bailey
Edwin L. Gavin, 11
Mr. W. A. Raney, Jr. Rebecca W. Giles
Attorney at Law David G. Heeter
240 Princess Street
Post Office Box 1049
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Re: In the Matter of Revocation of Section 401
Certification No. 1732 to Sugarloaf Properties, Inc.
Dear Mr. Raney:
This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of May
8, 1986. At that time, I informed you that the following people
would be available for depositions on May 29, 1986:
Paul Wilms (8:00 - 12:00 only)
L. P. Benton
George Everett
Bill Mills
Cecil Madden
I assured you that subpoenas would not be necessary for the above
individuals.
I have reserved the 9th Floor Conference room for the
depositions, so we can all meet there rather than our offices on
the 12th floor. You indicated that you would take care of
arranging for a court reporter.
If you need to discuss this matter any further, I will be
back at my office on May 27, 1986.
Sincerely,
.0_RIGINAL SIGNED BY
Yvonne C. Bailey
Agency Legal Specialist
YCB/kw
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer a
cc: R. Paul Wilms
L. P. Benton
George Everett
Chuck Wakild
Bill Mills ?
Cecil Madden
R. D. Darden, Jr.
Robert Bruce
John Runkle
Charles C. Meeker
Steven J. Levitas
-2-
STATE`OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CARTERET
IN THE MATTER OF THE REVOCATION)
OF SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION )
NO. 1732 TO SUGARLOAF )
PROPERTIES, INC. )

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
AH WQ 85-15
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS
TO: Yvonne Bailey, Office of Legal Affairs, Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, Post Office Box 27687,
Raleigh, NC 27611
I herewith serve upon you the following Request for
Production of Documents in the possession, custody or control of
the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. . You are
,
requested to . produce and permit the Petitioner, Sugarloaf Properties,
Inc., or someone acting in its behalf to inspect and copy the
documents hereinafter identified. The inspection and copying shall
be done at 10:00 o'clock a.m. on the 29th day of May, 1986, at the
offices of the Office of Legal Affairs, the Archdale Building,
Raleigh, North Carolina, or at such other time and place to which the
parties shall agree. If necessary, the documents shall be copied by
photocopier at such other location as the parties shall agree.
As used in this request, the term "document" means, without
limitation, the following items, whether printed or recorded or
reproduced by any other mechanical process, or written or produced by
hand: correspondence, memoranda, summaries or records of telephone
conversations, summaries or records of personal conversations or
interviews, handwritten notes, summaries or records of meetings or
conferences, letters, and all other writings.
WAR2:23

The documents covered by this request are as follows:
1. All documents relating to the original granting of 401
Certification No. 1732 to Sugarloaf Properties, Inc.
2. Any documents reviewed by, received by or generated by
Paul Wilms, George Everett, Bill Mills, Page Benton or Cecil
Madden which relate directly to the Sugarloaf Properties project
whether or not such documents were part of the consideration for
the 401 Certification or the 401 Certification revocation.
NOTE: You need not produce documents, copies of which have
already been provided to the Petitioner in the Answers to
Interrogatories.
This the day of Ka, , 1986.
0,
MARTIN, WESSELL & RANEY
By:
W. A. Raney, Jr.
Attorney for Sugar o f Properties,
Inc.
240 Princess Street
Post Office Box 1049
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Telephone: [phone]
2
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CARTERET
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
REVOCATION OF SECTION 401)
CERTIFICATION NO. 1732 TO)
SUGARLOAF PROPERTIES, )
INC. )
R??? " FORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL
MAY 1319II6 NAGEMENT COMMISSION
AH WQ 85-15
`'=?' ?`ih1RS 4J
I ?
It 0?
NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION
TO: Mr. John Runkle, Attorney for Intervenors, Post Office Box 4135,
Chapel Hill, NC 27515
Mr. Steven J. Levitas, Attorney for Intervenors, Post Office Box
389, Raleigh, NC 27602
Yvonne Bailey, Attorney for Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Office of Legal Affairs, Post Office
Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611.
You are hereby notified that on the 29th day of May, 1986,
beginning at 10:00 o'clock a.m., at the Archdale Building, 512 North
Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, in the Offices of Legal
Affairs, I will take the deposition of Paul Wilms, Page Benton,
George Everett and William Mills who reside in Wake County, North
Carolina, upon oral examination pursuant to Rules 26 and 30 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure. The deposition will be taken before a
Notary Public or some other officer duly authorized by law to
administer oaths. The oral examination will continue from day to day
until its completion.
The parties to be examined will be required by the request
for the production of documents to produce those documents in their
possession which are listed on the request for production.
WAR2:22
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the attached
Notice to Take Deposition and Subpoena Duces Tecum have been served,
either by hand-delivery or by United States Mail; postage prepaid,
pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, on the following:
John Runkle
Post Office Box 4135
Chapel Hill, NC 27515
Steven J. Levitas
Post Office Box 389
Raleigh, NC 27602
Yvonne Bailey
Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
Office of Legal Affairs
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
This 13th day of May, 1986.
?A) ik
W. A. Raney, Jr.
J
WAR2:33

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CARTERET
IN THE MATTER OF THE, )
REVOCATION OF SECTION 401)
CERTIFICATION NO. 1732 TO)
SUGARLOAF PROPERTIES, )
INC. )
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
AH WQ 85-15
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
Now comes Petitioner Sugarloaf Properties, Inc. in this
action and moves that the trial of this matter be continued until
July 8, 1986 in accordance with discussion with the office of Legal
Affairs.
This the day of 1986.
Respectfully submitted,
MARTIN, WESSELL & RANEY

W. A. Raney, Jr.
Attorney for Sugarloa roperties,
Inc.
Post Office Box 1049
240 Princess Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Telephone [phone]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the attached

Motion for Continuance, Request for Production of Documents and
Notice to Take Deposition have been served, either by hand-delivery
or by United States Mail, postage prepaid, pursuant to Rule 5 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure, on the following:
WAR2:24
f
John Runkle
Post Office Box 4135
Chapel Hill, NC 27515
Steven J. Levitas
Post Office Box 389
Raleigh, NC 27602
Yvonne Bailey
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
This day of , 1986.
0 - Q'ne:?" I,
W. A. Raney, Jr.
2•

„u S1ATf 4, U
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary April 18,
Mr. W. A. Raney, Jr.
Attorney at Law
240 Princess Street
Joseph E. Slate, Jr., Director
1986 Office of Legal Affairs
Thomas Hilliard, III
Yvonne C. Bailey
Edwin L. Gavin, If
Rebecca W. Giles
David G. Heeter
Post Office Box 1049 WATER •
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 Q?1AL1?/
sECrP.®N
Re: In the Matter of Revocation of Section 401
Certification No. 1732 to Sugarloaf Properties, Inc.
Dear Mr. Raney:
Enclosed are the answers to the interrogatories in
connection with the above matter. As we agreed over the telephone
today, I will send Mr. Darden a copy in Monday's mail. I am
sending all attorneys for the intervenors copies of the
interrogatories and answers.
Also enclosed are two documents mentioned in the answer to
Interrogatory No. 15. These attachments will be sent to all the
other attorneys. The "Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook" is
available at our offices in Raleigh for your review.
I discussed dates for a prehearing conference with Mr. John
Runkle, one of the attorneys for the intervenors, and we both
have conflicts during the period from May 12 to May 22, 1986.
If you have any questions or need further information,
please let me know. I look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
Yv nne C. Bailey
Agency Legal Specialist
YCB/kw
attachments

P.O Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Tdephone 919-733-7247
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
cc: R. Paul Wilms
George Everett
Chuck Wakild
John Runkle
R. D. Darden
Steven J. Levitas
Charles Meeker

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
COUNTY OF CARTERET
IN THE MATTER OF REVOCATION ) ANSWERS TO SUGARLOAF PROPERTIES'
OF SECTION 01 CERTIFICATION) FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO
NO. 1732 TO SUGARLOAF ) THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
PROPERTIES, INC. ) RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
TO: W. A. Raney, Jr.
Attorney at Law
240 Princess Street
Post Office Box 1049
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
[phone]
R. D. Darden, Jr.
Attorney at Law
1210 Arendell Street
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
[phone]
Attorneys of Record for Petitioner
Sugarloaf Properties, Inc.
I herewith serve upon you the following answers of the
Respondent, Division of Environmental Management (DEM) of the
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development (NRCD), to Sugarloaf Properties' First Set of
Interrogatories, heretofore served upon Respondent pursuant to
Rule 33 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
In the following answers to Interrogatories, each answer
correlates to the number of the appropriate Interrogatory.
1. Respondent objects in part to Interrogatory No. 1 in
that the request is so broad as to include privileged and

-2-
confidential communications between legal counsel and the
Respondent public agency made within the scope of the
attorney-client relationship.
However,;;•without waiving this objection, Respondent will
provide the information which is not privileged. Copies are
attached of written documents dealing with 401 Certification No.
1732 and its revocation with the exception of the following plans
or reports which were all received by DEM:
Date. Document Author Rec°d Date
8-25-83 Sugarloaf Properties Rose & Assoc. 3-30-84
Boundary & Topo. Survey
8-25-83 Drainage Plan for Rose & Assoc. 3-30-84
Sugarloaf Properties ,
1-84 Master Land Use Plan Rose & Assoc. 3-30-84
Sugarloaf Properties
4-85 Urban Storm Water Rose & Assoc. 4-15-85
Analysis for Sugarloaf
Properties
6-85 Stormwater Management Rose & Assoc. 6-26-85
Plan, 100 Unit Condo-
minium, Sugarloaf
Properties
5-85 Stormwater Management Rose & Assoc. 5-21-85
Report, Atlantic Station
Shopping Center
2. Departmental personnel who had a role in the review
and granti ng of 401 Certification No. 1732 are as follows
(positions indicated are those at the time of the granting):
Michael Williams DEM-Wilmington Regional Office
Chemical Analyst Water Quality Section
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
. V

-3-
A. Preston Howard, Jr. DEM-Wilmington Regional Office
Regional Engineer Water Quality Section
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
Cecil Madden DEM-Permits & Engineering Unit
Environmental Engineer Water Quality Section
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
William Mills DEM-Permits & Engineering Unit
Permits & Engineering Water Quality Section
Supervisor 512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 ,
Forrest R. Westall DEM-Permits & Engineering Unit
Operations Branch Head Water Quality Section
512 North Salisbury Street
(Now in Asheville Regional Office)
The roles of the above personnel in the process are
described as follows: Mr. Williams conducted the review of the
application in the field office and submitted his recommendation
to Mr. Howard, his supervisor. Mr. Howard submitted the regional
office comments and recommendations to the Water Quality staff in
Raleigh. Mr. Madden coordinated the processing of the 401
certification submittal. Mr. Madden reviewed the regional office
evaluation and recommendations, and prepared the appropriate
documentation for consideration by that person delegated by the
Division Director to issue 401 certifications. The certification
proposed to be issued was reviewed by Mr. Mills, Mr. Madden's
supervisor, and forwarded to Mr. Westall who had been delegated
to issue the 401 certification. Mr. Westall made the final
decision to issue the Certification.
3. Department personnel who had a role in the revocation
of 401 Certification No. 1732 are as follows:

Dr. George Everett DEM-Water Quality Section
Water Quality Chief 512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
-4-
William Mills DEM-Operations Branch
Environmental Engineer Water Quality Section
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
L. P. Benton, Jr. DEM
Assistant Director 512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
R. Paul Wilms DEM
Director 512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
The roles of the above personnel in the revocation process
are described as follows: Dr. Everett was asked by the
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on June 13, 1985, to
review the Certification and determine if the staff still had
the same opinion that they had a year earlier when the
Certification was issued. He discussed his review with Mr. Mills
(coordinator for the 401 Certification process), Mr. Benton and
Mr. Wilms. Dr. Everett drafted the revocation letter for Mr.
Wilms' consideration. Mr. Wilms revoked the Certification.
4. Dr. Barber, a member of the EMC, was the person who
first requested that 401 Certification be reconsidered. Dr.
Barber initiated a discussion on reconsideration of the 401
Certification at the June 13, 1985, EMC meeting. Dr. Barber made
a motion that the EMC ask the staff to review the Certification
and see if it still had the same opinion that they had a year
earlier when the Certification was issued. The EMC voted
unanimously to uphold the motion.
5. The request in No. 4 is reflected in the attached
excerpt from the official minutes of the EMC June 13, 1985
meeting.

-5-
6. The normal procedure for review of 401 Certifications
when Certification No. 1732 was issued for projects involving
fill in waters or wetlands of coastal North Carolina is as
follows: Applications are filed with the United States Corps of
Engineers, (COE) or the Division of Coastal Management (DCM). If
project is in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) jurisdiction,
the COE refers the application to DCM for processing under the
COE general permit that allows DCM to process for COE. DCM
transmits a copy of the application to a DEM Regional Engineer
and requests DEM comments on water quality impacts. The DEM
regional office makes an initial review to determine if a 401
Certification will be required for the project. If a 401
Certification is required, the DEM regional engineer advises a
DCM field consultant. DCM issues a joint public notice fora CAMA
major permit and 401 Certification (by agreement between DEM and
CAMA). The Regional Engineer reviews the specifics of the project
design and the anticipated effects on water quality and
furnishes comments and recommendations to the 401 Coordinator in
the Operations Branch of the Water Quality Section in Raleigh.
The 401 Coordinator reviews the regional office recommendation,
reviews any comments received during the public notice procedure,
and prepares a draft certification for consideration by the
Operations Branch Head. The Operations Branch Head reviews the
draft Certification and information contained in the file and
then issues the Certification. Denials of Certifications must be
referred to the Division Director for his decision.

A,
-6-
7. The normal process for review of 401 Certification
applications currently being used is the same as in No. 6 above.
8. No:
9. Not applicable.
10. No.
11. Not applicable.
12. No.
13. Not applicable.
14. Yes.
15. DEM contends that conditions under which the
certification was made have changed. DEM considered new
information received after the issuance of the certification
which substantially changed the conditions forming a basis for
the issuance of the certification. Based on the new information,
DEM found that the proposed marina will cause contraventions of
water quality standards and violate the antidegradation
regulation by removing the shellfish use of the area. The new
information forming the basis of the Division's revocation is
contained in a DEM Report No. 85-05 entitled "Coastal Development
and Shellfish Waters", dated April, 1985; the "Coastal Marinas
Assessment Handbook" prepared by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IV, Atlanta, dated April, 1985; a
document entitled "An Overview of Marinas in Coastal North
Carolina" prepared by the North Carolina Department of Human
Resources, Division of Health Services, Shellfish Sanitation
Program dated April, 1985; and testimony given at the December 12
and 13, 1984, administrative hearing of CAMA Major Development
-7-
Permit No. 177-84 to Sugarloaf Properties, Inc., indicating a use
of existing shellfishing resources in the area of the proposed
marina.
16. Copies are attached of the 401 Certification for each
project including a proposed boat dock or marina for which a 401
Certification has been issued since August 27, 1984.
17. Copies are attached of denials of 401 Certification for
each project including a proposed boat dock or marina for which
401 Certification has been denied since August 27, 1984.
18. Sugarloaf- Properties, Inc., Post Office Box 787,
Atlantic Beach, North Carolina, 401 Certification No. 1732, is
the only project including a proposed boat dock or marina for
which 401 Certification has been revoked since August 27, 1984..
This the day of 1986.
YVb#ne C. Bailey
Age cy Legal Specialist
Office of Legal Affairs
N.C. Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]

V i •
R. Pau Wilms, Director
Division of Environmental Management
Sworn to and subscribed before me this the day of
1986.
-8-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
Personally appeared before the undersigned, an officer duly
authorized by law to administer oaths, R. Paul Wilms, Director of
Respondent Division of Environmental Management herein, who being
duly sworn states under oath that the facts set forth in the
attached answers to the interrogatories served on him are true
and correct of his own knowledge, except as to the matters
therein stated upon information and belief, and as to those he
believes it to be true. i f!
.'(Notary Public) /
My commission expires:
_
"7- 41 41 /Z 9
-;?a1r

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have caused the attached ANSWERS TO
SUGARLOAF PROPERTIES' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT to be
served upon W. A. Raney, Jr., attorney of record for Sugarloaf
Properties, Inc., by depositing the same in a properly addressed
envelope, with proper postage prepaid, in an official depository
of the United States Mails to:
W. A. Raney, Jr.
Attorney at Law
240 Princess Street
Post Office Box 1049
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
This the day of April, 1986.
U VnVVLL C
Yvo?ne C. Bailey
Age cy Legal Specialist
Office of Legal Affairs
N.C. Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
-v

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have caused the attached ANSWERS TO
SUGARLOAF PROPERTIES' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT to be
served upon all parties of record by depositing the same in a
properly addressed envelope, with proper postage prepaid, in an
official depository of the United States Mails to:
R. D. Darden, Jr.
Attorney at Law
1210 Arendell Street
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Attorney for Sugarloaf Properties, Inc.
John Runkle
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 4135
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27515
Attorney for Petitioners
Charles C. Meeker
Steven J. Levitas
Sanford, Adams, McCullough & Beard
414 Fayetteville Street Mall
Post Office Box 389
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Attorneys for North Carolina Coastal Federation
This the ?-rday of April, 1986.

Yvinne C. Bailey il
Agency Legal Specialist
Office of Legal Affairs
N.C. Department of Natural -'Resources
and Community Assistance
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CARTERET
BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF REVOCATION ) ANSWERS TO SUGARLOAF PROPERTIES'
OF SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION) FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO
NO. 1732 TO SUGARLOAF ) THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
PROPERTIES, INC. ) RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
TO: W. A. Raney, Jr.
Attorney at Law
240 Princess Street
Post Office Box 1049
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
[phone]
R. D. Darden, Jr.
Attorney at Law
1210 Arendell Street
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
[phone]
0
Attorneys of Record for Petitioner
Sugarloaf Properties, Inc.
I herewith serve upon you the following answers of the
Respondent, Division of Environmental Management (DEM) of the
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development (NRCD), to Sugarloaf Properties' First Set of
Interrogatories, heretofore served upon Respondent pursuant to
Rule 33 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
In the following answers to Interrogatories, each answer
correlates to the number of the appropriate Interrogatory.
MAW
19
-2-
1. Copies are attached of written documents dealing with
401 Certification No. 1732 and its revocation with the exception
of the following plans or reports which were all received by DEM:
Date Document Author Rec'd Date
8-25-83 Sugarloaf Properties Rose & Assoc. 3-30-84
Boundary & Topo. Survey
8-25-83 Drainage Plan for Rose & Assoc. 3-30-84
Sugarloaf Properties
1-84 Master Land Use Plan Rose & Assoc. 3-30-84
Sugarloaf Properties
4-85 Urban Storm Water Rose & Assoc. 4-15-85
Analysis for Sugarloaf
Properties
6-85 Stormwater Management Rose & Assoc. 6-26-85
Plan, 100 Unit Condo-
minium, Sugarloaf
Properties
5-85 Stormwater Management Rose & Assoc. 5-21-85
Report, Atlantic Station
Shopping Center
2. Departmental personnel who had a role in the review
and granting of 401 Certification No. 1732 are as follows
(positions indicated are those at the time of the granting):
Michael Williams DEM-Wilmington Regional Office
Chemical Analyst Water Quality Section
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
A. Preston Howard, Jr. DEM-Wilmington Regional Office
Regional Engineer Water Quality Section
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
Cecil Madden DEM-Permits & Engineering Unit
Environmental Engineer Water Quality Section
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
ti
-3-
William Mills DEM-Permits & Engineering Unit
Permits & Engineering Water Quality Section
Supervisor 512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Forrest R. Westall DEM-Permits & Engineering Unit
Operations Branch Head Water Quality Section
512 North Salisbury Street
(Now in Asheville Regional Office)
The roles of the above personnel in the process are
described as follows: Mr. Williams conducted the review of the
application in the field office and submitted his recommendation
to Mr. Howard, his supervisor. Mr. Howard submitted the regional
office comments and recommendations to the Water Quality staff in
Raleigh. Mr. Madden coordinated the processing of the 401
certification submittal. Mr. Madden reviewed the regional office
evaluation and recommendations, and prepared the appropriate
documentation for consideration by that person delegated by the
Division Director to issue 401 certifications. The certification
proposed to be issued was reviewed by Mr. Mills, Mr. Madden's
supervisor, and forwarded to Mr. Westall who had been delegated
to issue the 401 certification. Mr. Westall made the final
decision to issue the Certification.
3. Department personnel who had a role in the revocation
of 401 Certification No. 1732 are as follows:
Dr. George Everett
Water Quality Chief
William Mills
Environmental Engineer
DEM-Water Quality Section
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
DEM-Operations Branch
Water Quality Section
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
-o
r -
L. P. Benton, Jr.
Assistant Director
-4-
DEM
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
R. Paul Wilms DEM
Director 512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
The roles of the above personnel in the revocation process
are described as follows: Dr. Everett was asked by the
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on June 13, 1985, to
review the Certification and determine if the staff still had
the same opinion that they had a year earlier when the
Certification was issued. He discussed his review with Mr. Mills.
(coordinator for the 401 Certification process), Mr. Benton and
Mr. Wilms. Dr. Everett drafted the revocation letter for Mr.
Wilms' consideration. Mr. Wilms revoked the Certification.
4. Dr. Barber, a member of the EMC, was the person who
first requested that 401 Certification be reconsidered. Dr.
Barber initiated a discussion on reconsideration of the 401
Certification at the June 13, 1985, EMC meeting. Dr. Barber made
a motion that the EMC ask the staff to review the Certification
and see if it still had the same opinion that they had a year
earlier when the Certification was issued. The EMC voted
unanimously to uphold the motion.
5. The request in No. 4 is reflected in the attached
except from the official minutes of the EMC June 13, 1985
meeting.

-5-
6. The normal procedure for review of 401 Certifications
when Certification No. 1732 was issued for projects involving
fill in waters or wetlands of coastal North Carolina is as
follows: Applications are filed with the United States Corps of
Engineers, (COE) or the Division of Coastal Management (DCM). If
project is in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) jurisdiction,
the COE refers the application to DCM for processing under the
COE general permit to DCM that allows DCM to process for COE.
DCM transmits a copy of the application to a DEM Regional
Engineer and requests DEM comments on water quality impacts. The
DEM regional office makes an initial review to determine if a 401
Certification will be required for the project. If a 401
Certification is required, the DEM regional engineer advises a
DCM field consultant. DCM issues a joint public notice for a CAMA
major permit and 401 Certification (by agreement between DEM and
CAMA). The Regional Engineer reviews the specifics of the project
design and the anticipated effects on water quality and
furnishes comments and recommendations to the 401 Coordinator in
the Operations Branch of the Water Quality Section in Raleigh.
The 401 Coordinator reviews the regional office recommendation,
reviews any comments received during the public notice procedure,
and prepares a draft certification for consideration by the
Operations Branch Head. The Operations Branch Head reviews the
draft Certification and information contained in the file and
then issues the Certification. Denials of Certifications must be
referred to the Division Director for his decision.
lop
-6-
7. The normal process for review of 401 Certification
applications currently being used is the same as in No. 6 above.
8. No.
9. Not applicable.
10. No.
11. Not applicable.
12. No.
13. Not applicable.
14. Yes.
15. DEM contends that conditions under which the
certification was made have changed. DEM considered new
information received after the issuance of the certification
which substantially changed the conditions forming a basis for
the issuance of the certification. Based on the new information,
DEM found that the proposed marina will cause contraventions of
water quality standards and violate the antidegredation
regulation by removing the shellfish use of the area. The new
information forming the basis of the Division's revocation is
contained in a DEM Report No. 85-05 entitled "Coastal Development
and Shellfish Waters dated April, 1985; the "Coastal Marinas
Assessment Handbook" prepared by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IV, Atlanta, dated April, 1985; a
document entitled "An Overview of Marinas in Coastal North
Carolina" prepared by the North Carolina Department of Human
Resources, Division of Health Services, Shellfish Sanitation
v

-7-
Program dated April, 1985; and testimony given at the December 12
and 13, 1984, administrative hearing of CAMA Major Development
Permit No. 177-84 to Sugarloaf Properties, Inc., indicating a use
of existing shellfishing resources in the area of the proposed
marina.
16. Copies are attached of the 401 Certification for each
project including a proposed boat dock or marina for which a 401
Certification has been issued. since August 27, 1984.
17. Copies are attached of denials of 401 Certification for
each project including a proposed boat dock or marina for which
401 Certification has been denied since August 27, 1984.
18. Sugarloaf Properties, Inc., Post Office Box 787,
Atlantic Beach, North Carolina, 401 Certification No. 1732, is
the only project including a proposed boat dock or marina for
which 401 Certification has been revoked since August 27, 1984.
This the day of , 1986.
Yvonne C. Bailey
Agency Legal Specialist
Office of Legal Affairs
N.C. Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
Personally appeared before the undersigned, an officer duly
authorized by law to administer oaths, R. Paul Wilms, Director of
Respondent Division of Environmental Management herein, who being
duly sworn states under oath that the facts set `forth in the
attached answers to the interrogatories served on him are true
and correct and that said answers are given under oath.
R. Paul Wilms, Director
Division of Environmental Management
Sworn to and subscribed before me this the day of
1986.
(Notary Public)
My commission expires:

1 ?V„u
' APR
WATER QUALITY
SECTION
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Joseph E. Slate, Jr., Director
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary Office of Legal Affairs
April 15, 1986
Mr. W. A. Raney, Jr.
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 1049
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Re: Sugarloaf Properties, Inc.
Revocation of Section 401 Certification
Dear Mr. Raney:
Thomas Hilliard, III
Yvonne C. Bailey
Edwin L. Gavin, II
Rebecca W. Giles
David G. Heeter
This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation
of April 15, 1986. At that time you agreed to extend the time
for answering the Interrogatories from April 18 to April 20,
1986. I informed you that I would have the answers signed and
mailed on April 18, 1986, so you should receive them by the
21st.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
C-l
Y nne C. Bailey
Agency Legal Specialist
YCB/kw
cc: R. D. Darden, Jr.
R. Paul Wilms
George Everett
Chuck Wakild
PO Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
STATE OF NORTH CAROL r-t
COUNTY OF CARTERET IN THE MATTER OF REVOC
OF SECTION 401 CERTIFICA
NO. 1732 TO SUGARLOAF )
PROPERTIES, INC., )
BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA
RONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
SUGARLOAF PROPERTIES' FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
TO: Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
c/o Thomas Hilliard, Office of Legal Affairs
Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
NOW COMES Petitioner, Sugarloaf Properties, Inc., pursuant
to Rule 33 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, N.C.G.S.
and propounds the following interrogatories to be answered under oath
within thirty (30) days of the receipt of same in the above entitled
action.
In answering these Interrogatories, furnish such information
as is available to the Department, not merely such information as is
of your knowledge. This means you are to furnish information which
is known by or in the possession of any employees or agents of the
Department, including your attorneys or any agent or investigator for
you or your attorneys.
These Interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing so as
to require seasonable supplemental answers if the Department, its
agents, employees, representatives, or attorneys obtain further
information between the time your answers are served and the time of
the trial of this action.
For purposes of these Interrogatories the following
definitions shall apply:
INTERG:9

ow?
A. "Applicant" means Sugarloaf Properties, Inc.
B. "Department" or "DNRCD" mean the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development and all of its divisions and all
commissions within the Department.
INTERROGATORIES
1. Please identify by date, author, and (if transmitted)
recipient each document, memo, report, letter, note of telephone
conversation or other written document prepared by or received by
anyone within the Department which deals in any manner with the 401
Certification No. 1732 or the revocation of 401 Certification No.
1732. (In lieu of identifying these documents you may attach copies
pursuant to Rule 33(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.)
2. Please identify all Department personnel by name,
business address and position who had a role in the review and
granting of 401 Certification No. 1732 and indicate briefly the role
each person played in the review and granting process.
2
WO

3. Please identify all Department personnel by name,
business address and position who had a role in the revocation of 401
Certification No. 1732 and identify briefly the role each person
played in the revocation process.
4. Please-identify the person who first requepted that
the Department reconsider its position on 401 Certification No. 1732
and provide the date and means by which the request was made.
5. If the request in Question No. 4 above was in writing,
was reduced to writing or a summary of the request was reduced to
writing, please identify the writing or its custodian or attach a
copy of such writing.
6. P-lease outline the normal procedure used by the
Department for review of 401 Certification applications at the time
that Certification No. 1732 was being processed.
3
0 0.00

7. Please outline the normal process which is currently
being used.to process 401 Certification applications.
8. By yes or no answer please state whether the
Department contends that the applicant had caused a violation of
Section 301, 302, 306 or 307 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 at the time the certification was revoked.
9. If the answer to the preceding question is yes please
identify each alleged violation and indicate the factual basis upon
which the allegation of a violation is made.
10. Is it the Department's position that the 401
Certification No. 1732 was revoked because the applicant presented
incorrect information in its application or in support of its
application?
11. If the answer to the previous question is yes please
identify specifically the information presented by the applicant
which the Department contends was incorrect.
4
0 W-0
12. Does the Department contend that the applicant has
changed its plans since the certification was issued in such a way
that water pollution is likely to be increased compared to the
original plans?
13. If the answer to the above question is yes, please
identify precisely the changes which have occurred since the issuance
of the certification.
14. Does the Department contend that the conditions under
which the certification was made have changed?
15. If the answer to the preceding question is yes, please
indicate precisely the conditions which have changed.
16. Identify by name, address and certification number
each project which includes a proposed boat dock or marina for which
a 401 Certification has been issued by the Department since August
27, 1984. (You may attach copies of said certifcations in lieu of
answering this question).
17. Identify by name, address and certification number
each project which includes a proposed boat dock or-marina for which
5
Y
a 401 Certification has been denied since August 27, 1984. (You may
attach copies of said denial in lieu of answering this question).
18. Identify by name, address and certification number
each project which includes a proposed boat dock or marina for which
a 401 Certification has been revoked since August 27, 1984. (You may
attach copies of said revocation in lieu of answering this question).
This day of ACi Qf "' 1986.
MARTIN, WESSELL & RANEY
_ By Q. 1
W. A. Raney, Jr.
R. D. DARDEN, JR., ATTORNEY
By:
Rob rt Bruce
1210 Arendell Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
Telephone: [phone]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
240 Princess Street
Post Office Box 1049
Wilmington, North Carolina
Telephone [phone]
The undersigned hereby certifies that he has this date
served a copy of the foregoing on The North Carolina Department of
6
** ?0.

Natural Resources and Community Development by depositing a copy of
same in the U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to:
Thomas Hilliard
Office of Legal Affairs
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27602
f 1,
This day of '- 1986.
R bert A. Bruce
7
•
y r '+s
?` a w Ms•
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
August 27, 1985
R. Paul Wilms
Director
Mr. C. N. Bennett
Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc.,
P.O. Box 7 87
Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 28512
Dear Mr. Bennett:
On June 13, 1985, the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission instructed the Division of Environmental Management
staff to review 401 certification number 1732 for the proposed
boat basin and access channel for the Sugar Loaf Properties
Marina project on Bogue Sound. After reviewing the information
available on this project, consideration is" being given to
revocation of the certification.
However, before acting, the Division would like to give you
the opportunity to present information that would show why the
certification should not be revoked. Action will be taken on
this matter within the next three weeks and I am available to
meet with you prior to that time. I suggest we meet on September
18, 1985 at 1:30 PM in the ninth floor conference room of the
Archdale Building in Raleigh, if that time is acceptable to you.
To confirm a meeting time or to discuss this letter further,
please contact me at 733-7015.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
P. PAUL WILMS
R. Paul Wilms
RPW/JR/k1s
Bennett.ltr
cc: Thomas Hilliard
Tom Moffitt
George Everett
Charles Hollis Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
,. k Ai°F?re.?s
' = af? United States Department of the Interior
D.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
JLX
Division of Ecological Services
310 New Bern Avenue, Room 466
MAY 15 1984
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1470
1
,.. No Envuon;nertal Mi10•
May 11, C%'4 Raleigh. N? G-
Colonel Wayne A. Hanson
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890'??`+ LITY
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 '?. 8L:C., !ON
Dear Colonel Hanson:
The U.S..Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed Public Notice
SAWC084-N-016-0157. The applicant, Sugarloaf Properties, proposes to
perform dredging and place fill in wetlands adjacent to Bogue Sound,
Carteret County, North Carolina. This is the report of the Service
and the Department of the Interior and is submitted in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Sta t . 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and supplements our earlier letter
dated April 12, 1984.
Development plans contained in the Public Notice and submitted to the
Service by the applicant during preapplication consultation call for:
(1) excavation of an approximately 5,170-linear foot channel and dead
end canal with a top width of 70-feet and depth of six-feet below mean
low water (MLW); (2) enlargement of an existing basin at the canal
terminus to 180-feet by 250-feet; (3) construction of piers along
approximately one half of the perimeter of the canal; (4) construction
of a marine supply store with piers; (5) construction of roads
(6)
requiring deposition of fill on 2,400-square feet of wetland;
deposition of fill on approximately 1,100-square feet of wetland in
conjunction with construction of a shopping center; (7) construction
of a 10.0-unit condominium complex; and (8) establishment of
19,200-square feet of smooth cordgrass (? tina alterniflora)
along the canal and basin. The purpose of the proposed construction
is to provide a 100-unit condominium complex with various appurtenant
facilities including water access, boat service, and shopping
facilities.
A Service biologist met with representatives of the Corps of
one'
Engineers, Nationgl Marine Fisheries Service and the applicant
on November 29, 1983. On April 18, 1984 the site was revisited a,
limited qualitative benthic survey was performed. The tea8AU
potentially affected by the proposed project represent a d erse .?
arl}t.?`.? 4 r,
floral assemblage and support a variety of faunal species. Re
and irregularly flooded coastal wetlands, vegetated by Qrpot:
ia ,•?.°, k.o ???,
?..:•.
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), glasswort (Salicorn
??.
and black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) are highly pro uc a
and contribute high nutritional value detritus to consumers in ??'lsjv1. x

_J
estuarine food chain. Many species of commercially and recreationally
important fish and shellfish utilize these nutrients including blue
crab (Calinectes sapidus), penaeid shrimp (Panaeus spp.), oyster
(Crassotrea virginica), hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria),
bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis),
spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), croaker -(Micropogonias undulatus)
and striped mullet (Mugil cephalus). Marshes and associated tidal
creeks and flats may also serve as habitat for such wildlife species
as clapper rail (Rallus longirostris), seaside sparrow
(Ammospiza maritime), sharp-tailed sparrow (Ammospiza
caudacuta), long-billed marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris),
herons, egrets, ibises, ducks, shorebirds, raccoon (Procyon lotor)
and marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris).
Maritime forest and shrub thicket vegetation at the proposed
development site includes red cedar (Juniperus virginia), live oak
(Quercus virginiana), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), wax myrtle
(Myrica cerifera), grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy
(Rhus radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), peppervine (Ampelopsis arborea), and greenbrier
(Smilax bona-nox and S. auriculata). Animals common to shrub
thicket and maritime forest include the green anole (Aeolis
carolinensis), six-lined race-runner (Cremidophorus
sexlineatus), eastern glass lizard (Ophisaurus ventralis), black
racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor), rough green snake
(Opheodrys aestivas), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendrioca
coronata), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo
erythropthalmus), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), brown
thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia),
robin (Turdus migratorius), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla
cedrorum), tree swallow (Indoprocne bicolor), prairie warbler
(Dendroica discolor), boat-tailed grackle (Quiscalus major),
common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), painted bunting (Passerine
ciris), opossum (Didelphis virginana), raccoon and marsh rabbit.
Palustrine emergent freshwater wetlands vegetation at the site
includes spike rushes (Eleocharis spp.), sedges (Cyperus s pp.),
water hemlock (Cicuta maculata), Eryngium integrifolium,
miterwort (Cynoctonum mitreola), smartweed (Polygonum
punctatum) and Centella asiatica. Freshwater wetlands in the
project area are flooded temporarily as a result of rainfall. The
area may serve as a wildlife feeding site and, when flooded, as a
source of freshwater for resident wildlife. This type of wetland also
serves as a water storage area and serves to recharge the freshwater
aquifer.
The project, if constructed as planned, would result in
destruction and loss of the forementioned values of approximately
acres of regularly flooded marsh, 4.2 acres of irregularly fl
marsh, 0.06 acres of scrub-shrub wetland, 0.03 acres of palust
emergent wetland, and 23.5 acres of maritime forest. In addition,.'
acres of shallow water habitat would be converted to deep wa,
possibly resulting in: significantly reduced water quality; the 1
?d ?'Ci'
1e
F
r?^
n. Clef .. .

or existing benthic fauna; and, loss of the area as a relatively
unaltered nursery and forage site for juvenile finfish.
The area supports species considered by the Service to be National
Species of Special Emphasis (Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 237,
December 8, 1983). These species include members of the seabird
group, the surface feeding duck group, the bay duck group, the
shorebird group, the gull and tern group, the songbird group, and the
heron and allies group.
Guidelines regarding utilization of wetlands is provided by Review of
Fish and Wildlife Aspects of Proposals in Affecting Navigable Waters
(Federal Register, Volume 40, No. 231, December 1, 1975) which
state, in part, that the Service usually recommends denial for permits
for nonwater-dependent activities where biologically productive
wetlands are involved and discourages the occupation of wetlands and
shallows for water-dependent activities. These guidelines state
further that the Service will assess the total impact of the total
development including any part to be located on uplands. In addition,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) Guidelines for
Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material
(Federal Register, Volume 45, Nib. 249, December 24, 1980) state
that fill shall not be placed in wetlands when alternatives exist. An
acceptable alternative to the proposed filling of wetlands in
conjunction with the proposed shopping center would be its relocation
or redesign so as to avoid wetlands filling
The Service's Mitigation Policy addresses resources by category and
provides mitigation planning goals for each category. Maritime forest
is classified as Resource Category One, indicating habitat of high
value which is unique and irreplaceable on a national basis. The
planning goal for this category is no loss of existing habitat value.
Inasmuch as the loss of Bogue Banks maritime forests and their high
w i l d l i f e habitat value is considered irreplaceable, the loss of this
habitat type should be prevented. In those situations where the
maritime forest losses cannot be avoided then, at a minimum, one-half
of the impacted forest habitat should be set aside in perpetuity for
conservation purposes. Although the conservation tracts should be as
complete as possible, some fragmentation may be acceptable in
accordance with desired aesthetic and wildlife purposes.
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, it is the
responsibility of the appropriate Federal regulatory agency to review
its activities or programs and to identify any such activity or
program that may Iffect endangered or threatened species or their
habitat. If it is determined that this proposed activity may a f fe s '
any species listed as endangered or threatened, formal consult
with the Fish and Wildlife Service's Endangered Species Field 0`
in Asheville, North Carolina, must be initiated. If this pro' `c is AV(,
JS; `
determined to be a major Federal action, having significant imp )`Ct Ali_
the human environment and requiring an environmental impact sta ident
you should formally request from the Asheville North Carolina 0 i fiw "`' r
a list of endangered and threatened species which may occur withi athe ?u

impact area of this
project. Bequests for species consultation should
be directed to the Endangered Species Field Su
Species Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Room 224, Asheville, North Carolina Endangered
28801. ? 100 Otis Street,
In view of the high value fish and wildlife resources present
proposed project area and in accordance with the gidace Policies
previously mentioned, the Service recommends uthatnthe following
conditions be incorporated in any permit issued:
1. No vegetated wetlands shall be excavated;
2. No wetlands shall be filled with exception of the road
fill needed to provide access to the proposed marina
facilities;
3. The three proposed 15 inch diameter culverts shall be
enlarged to three 36 inch diameter culverts so as to reduce
possible blockage;
A. Channel excavation shall be
feet or less limited to a width of 50
(bottom width) from the northern terminus of
the proposed marina to its terminus in Bogue Sound;
5• All excavation within the adjacent wetlands shall be in ac ordanceswith exiting basheesitn eight and along
of
nine of the permit application which calls for a 6:1 s
between wetlands and the desired bottom depth of six feetloat
MLW;
6. Maritime forest clearing shall be minimized and not
than fifty percent of the existin less
retained in a natural and unaltered state time forest shall be
7. Parking facilities to be located behind the proposed
shopping center shall be eliminated and maritime forest
losses in that area shall be minimized.
8. All dredging shall occur
biological activit at the time of year when
1 to March 31 of anY Y is
yeasrrelatively low, that is, from October
year.
Finally, since the
continued proposed basin and access channel will requi
maintenance dredging, we strongly encourage the aPpl i
designate the proposed dredge `"
re pf ,.,..;
site
material disposal site as a `•`?'`^
purpose. If at some future date the designated:ua1
site i for is utilized that for other ,v>\
P?
environmentally sensitive and Pimportantnsitesweswillsr proposed sed a i
issuance of a Department of the Arm ?thin? ?a c
d?+sx'
activity. Y Permit which would autho rZe`
??at r
The Service is advising the N.C. Division of Environmental Manage''
by copy of this re ort
P , that we recommend that no g ? !
401 W a t e r Q u a 1 i"fp;-?-=-?

Certification be issued for the proposed project due to its adverse
impacts on water quality.
The Service will be willing to meet with you, members of your staff,
and/or the applicant to discuss our recommendations and to explore
potential alternatives that would reduced the impacts of this project
to fish and wildlife resources.
Sincerely yours,
V U.- co--
L.K. (Mike) Gantt
Field Supervisor
e
P,
t`

Addba
' 'wak
1
STATE OF NORTH CAROL `pg? N BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA
MAR l?3 A il E IRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
COUNTY OF CARTERET
p?1k1C6
CJ
IN THE MATTER OF REVOC '4 SUGARLOAF PROPERTIES' FIRST SET OF
OF SECTION 401 CERTIFICA INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEPARTMENT
NO. 1732 TO.SUGARLOAF ) OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY
PROPERTIES, INC., ) DEVELOPMENT
TO: Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
c/o Thomas Hilliard, Office of Legal Affairs
Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
NOW COMES Petitioner, Sugarloaf Properties, Inc., pursuant
to Rule 33 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, N.C.G.S.
and propounds the following Interrogatories to be answered under oath
within thirty (30) days of the receipt of same in the above entitled
- action.
In answering these Interrogatories, furnish such information
as is available to the Department, not merely such information as is
of your knowledge. This means you are to furnish information which
is known by or in the possession of any employees or agents of the
Department, including your attorneys or any agent or investigator for
you or your attorneys.
These Interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing so as
to require seasonable supplemental answers if the Department, its
agents, employees, representatives, or attorneys obtain further
information between the time your answers are served and the time of
the trial of this action.
For purposes of these Interrogatories the following
definitions shall apply:
INTERG:9

A. "Applicant" means Sugarloaf Properties, Inc.
B. "Department" or "DNRCD" mean the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development and all of its divisions and all
commissions within the Department.
INTERROGATORIES
1. Please identify by date, author, and (if transmitted)
recipient each document, memo, report, letter, note of telephone
conversation or other written document prepared by or received by
anyone within the Department which deals in any manner with the 401
Certification No. 1732 or the revocation of 401 Certification No.
1732. (In lieu of identifying these documents you may attach copies
pursuant to Rule 33(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.)
2. Please identify all Department personnel by name,
business address and position who had a role in the review and
granting of 401 Certification No. 1732 and indicate briefly the role
each person played in the review and granting process.
2
0. • r' -&
3. Please identify all Department personnel by name,
business address and position who had a role in the revocation of 401
Certification No. 1732 and identify briefly the role each person
played in the revocation process.
4.. Please.identify the person who first requested that
the Department reconsider its position on 401 Certification No. 1732
and provide the date and means by which the request was made.
5. If the request in Question No. 4 above was in writing,
was reduced to writing or a summary of the request was reduced to
writing, please identify the writing or its custodian or attach a
copy of such writing.
6. Please outline the normal procedure used by the
Department for review of 401 Certification applications at the time
that Certification No. 1732 was being processed.
3
# • OIP6
7. Please outline the normal process which is currently
being used to process 401 Certification applications.
8. By yes or no answer please state whether the
Department contends that the applicant had caused a violation of
Section 301, 302, 306-or 307 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 at the time the certification was revoked.
9. If the answer to the preceding question is yes please
identify each alleged violation and indicate the factual basis upon
which the allegation of a violation is made.
10. Is it the Department's position that the 401
Certification No. 1732 was revoked because the applicant presented
incorrect information in its application or in support of its
application?
11. If the answer to the previous question is yes please
identify specifically the information presented by the applicant
which the Department contends was incorrect.
4

12. Does the Department contend that the applicant has
changed its plans since the certification was issued in such a way
that water pollution is likely to be increased compared to the
original plans?
13. If the answer to the above question is yes, please
identify precisely the changes which have occurred since the issuance
of the certification.
14. Does the Department contend that the conditions under
which the certification was made have changed?
15. If the answer to the preceding question is yes, please
indicate precisely the conditions which have changed.
16. Identify by name, address and certification number
each project which includes a proposed boat dock or marina for which
a 401 Certification has been issued by the Department since August
27, 1984. (You may attach copies of said certifcations in lieu of
answering this question).
17. Identify by name, address and certification number
each project which includes a proposed boat dock or-marina for which
5

a 401 Certification has been denied since August 27, 1984. (You may
attach copies of said denial in lieu of answering this question).
18. Identify by name, address and certification number
each project which includes a proposed boat dock or marina for which
a 401 Certification has been revoked since August 27, 1984. (You may
attach copies of said revocation in lieu of answering this question).
This / 7'1 day of ur , 1986.
MARTIN, WESSELL & RANEY
_ . Q. 1
By:
W. A. Raney, Jr.
240 Princess Street
Post Office Box 1049
Wilmington, North Carolina
Telephone [phone]
R. D. DARDEN, JR., ATTORNEY
By: Rob rt Bruce
1210 Arendell Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
Telephone: [phone]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that he has this date
served a copy of the foregoing on The North Carolina Department of
6
or,

Natural Resources and Community Development by depositing a copy of
same in the U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to:
Thomas Hilliard
Office of Legal Affairs
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27602
This day of )IIk; 1986.
? Z?
R Bert A. Bruce
7
r
2ri
NORTH CAROLINA
OCT 2i 1985
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CARTERET COUNTY
0" of Environrner,_o M4v
Ralmat% N. C.
IN THE MATTER OF REVOCATION OF )
§401 CERTIFICATION NO. 1732 )
TO SUGARLOAF PROPERTIES, INC. )
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
REQUEST FOR HEARING
Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 150A-23 and/or 15 N.C.A.C. 2H.0503, as
applicable, Sugarloaf Properties, Inc. hereby requests a
hearing before the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission (hereinafter "EMC"). In support of this request,
Sugarloaf Properties, Inc. shows the following:
Box 787, Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 28512.
1. Sugarloaf Properties, Inc. (hereinafter "Sugarloaf") is a
North Carolina Corporation with the following mailing address: P.O.
2. On or about August 27, 1984, The North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management (hereinafter "DEM") issued Certifi-
cation No. 1732 (hereinafter "The Certification") to Sugarloaf
pursuant to §401 of The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33
U.S.C. §1341, for "the discharge of dredged material onto a
wetlands area adjacent to the waters of Bogue Sound in conjunc-
tion with the proposed marina construction in Carteret
County...". A copy of the certification is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by referenace.
3. By letter dated October 8, 1985, DEM revoked the Certifi-
cation stating that "it is the Division's position that the marina
will cause contraventions of water quality-standards and violates
the antidegradation regulation by removing-the shellfish use of the
area". A copy of this letter is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference.
4. The action of the DEM in revoking the Certification is
improper in that:
A. DEM has failed to provide adequate notice of the fac-
tual basis for this action or of the specific legal authority upon
which it rests in violation of Article I §19 of the North Carolina
Constitution and The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
B. Sugarloaf has not violated any of the express con-
ditions contained in the Certification.
C. None of the information provided in Sugarloaf's appli-
cation for the Certification is incorrect or inaccurate, and none of
the relevant circumstances or conditions under which the Certifi-
cation was issued have changed. One-or the other of the above
situations is required to justify revocation under 15 N.C.A.C.
2H.0504(d).

-2-
D. Upon information and belief, DEM has considered matters
outside the proper scope of activities for which Certification is
required as a basis for this revocation.
E. To the extent that the administrative regulations under
which DEM justifies its revocation of the Certification permit con-
sideration of matters outside the proper scope of activities for
which the Certification is required under 33 U.S.C. §1341, the regula-
tions are invalid in that they exceed the statutory authorization
granted to the EMC in N.C.G.S. §143-215.3 (14)(c).
F. To the extent that N.C.G.S. §143-215.3 (14)(c) is
construed to authorize the administrative regulations referred to in
subparagraph (E) above, such construction and/or statute constitutes
an unlawful delegation of legislative authority to the EMC under
Article II §1 of the North Carolina Constitution.
G. The activities to be undertaken by Sugarloaf as
detailed in its application for the Certification which are within
the proper scope of activities for which such Certification is
required will not result in a contravention of the water quality
standards enumerated in 33 U.S.C. §1341. Moreover, no planned
activities of Sugarloaf will result in any contravention of said
water quality standards.
WHEREFORE, Sugarloaf requests a hearing before the EMC and
further requests that the action of DEM in revoking Certification
No. 1732 be reversed and that said Certificate be reinstated in
full force and effect.
This the /4Zday of Odtober, 1985. - r
R. D. Darden, Jr.
1210 Arendell St.
Morehead City, NC 28557
[phone]
D. Darden, Jr.
Attorney for Sugarloa
Properties, Inc.
r?

COPY TO:
WQ PLANNING (ATTENTION JIM KENNEDY)
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PAGE BENTON
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEER?FAUL WILMS
P.O. BOX 1890 GEORGE EVERETT
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
October 15, 1985
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: File No. SAWC084-N-016-0157
Mr. C. N. Bennett
Sugar Loaf Properties, Incorporated
Post Office ox
Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 28512
Dear Mr. Bennett:
R E C E I iF- r)
OCT 2 ? 1985
WATER QUALITY SECTION
4RANCH
Ilmn"A
OCT 211985
WATER QUALITA I
By copy of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and`-&.-
Community Development letter to you of October 8, 1985, we have
been informed that your Water Quality Certification pursuant to
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act has been revoked. Under the
administrative rules of our regulatory program, this denial of a
required State authorization precludes favorable consideration of
a Federal permit. Accordingly, your Department of the Army
application is hereby denied, and your file has been retired.
Also, as you are aware, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency have serious concerns regarding
your proposed construction. While settling the matter of your
revoked Certification is paramount in regaining your State
authorization, you should be aware that the Federal agencies'
comments will be unchanged by the outcome of your appeal. Because
of these agencies' influence on Department of the Army permit
decisions, any Department of the Army permit would have to include
design and/or conditions necessary to lessen environmental
impacts.
Messrs. Bob Johnson or David Baker of my staff are available
to answer any questions you may have or to assist you in
developing a revised plan. They may be reached at telephone
[phone] or 343-4642.
BY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:
Wayne A. Hanson
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
F
-2-
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Preston Pate
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 25039
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5039
Mr. Randy Cheek
National Marine Fisheries Service,'
NOAA
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
DPision of Environmental Management
L,-'North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Charles Jones
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Pentagon Properties, Incorporated
Post Office Box 17285
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Joseph W. Rose
Rose and Associates, P. A.
Post Office Box 1248
New Bern, North Carolina 28560
Mr. William L. Kruczynski, Chief
Wetlands Section
Marine and Estuarine Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
apic
,-29
Mr. Wilms indicated its purpose and function was to decide
adjudicated permits. He noted that normally, in the past, it had
not acted in an advisory capacity.
III. 2. Update on Permitting Activities for Sugarloaf Properties
Chairman Harrelson called upon Dr. George Everett for this
agenda item.
Dr. Everett noted that on June 13, 1985, the Commission
asked the staff to go back and review a certification which had
been previously issued for Sugarloaf Properties' marina project.
He noted that he had reported to the Commission at its last
meeting that the Division was holding a meeting with
representatives of Sugarloaf Properties on September 18, 1985.
That meeting was held and representatives of Sugarloaf Properties
came to Raleigh and discussed possible revocation of that
certification. The Division did not find any indication from
that meeting that the revocation should be stopped. Dr. Everett
indicated that a letter had been mailed on October 9, 1985 to Mr.
C. N. Bennett, of Sugarloaf Properties, revoking the
certification. He noted that the last paragraph of the letter
stated that if the applicant objected to the revocation, he had
the right to notify the Commission within 10 days.
Mr. Wilms added that the Commission would then hear the
appeal on the revocation.
III. 3. By-Law and Operating Procedures
Chairman Harrelson referred the proposed by-laws and
operating procedures (Attachment 8) to the EMC Steering Committee
for consideration. The Chairman indicated that he would call a
meeting of the Steering Committee before the next meeting of the
Commission to consider the by-laws and operating procedures.
IV. Informational Items
IV. 1. 67(b) Special Orders by Consent Approved by the Director
Chairman Harrelson called on Mr. Wilms for the agenda item.
Mr. Wilms indicated that he would be glad to field any
questions.
IV. 2. Pending 67(b) Special Orders by Consent
Chairman Harrelson asked if there were any questions from
the Commission.
There were no questions.
?+ • SENDER:' Complat?ctakitems 1, 2, 3 and 4,
t Put your addnlcs in thfi .4. TURN TO";pace on the
reverts side. Faiiuti to da[his will present Mks Card fr6M
W being ri tuir to you. The'retu! receipt fse will Provide
unu N.. _.-- -4 ?k......n....W ta..A ?n .nA,H?a Arfn tat
??y<'e i,., p1Aff o
1iz&
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor" October 8, 1985 R. Paul Wilms
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary Director
CERTIFIED MAIL:RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. C.N. Bennett
Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc.
P.O. BOX 787
Atlantic Beach, N.C. 28512
Dear Mr. Bennett:
On June 13. 1985, the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission instructed the Division of Environmental Management staff
to review certification number 1732 for the proposed boat basin and
access channel for the Sugar Loaf Properties Marina project on Bogue
Sound. Preliminary review determined that the certification should be
revoked. However, before acting further, the Division met with your
representatives on September 18. 1985. to give them the opportunity to
present information that would show why the certification should not
be revoked.
A final review of all issues surrounding this certification.
including consideration of new information presented at the CAMA
permit appeal and discussions with your representatives on September
18. 1985. has been completed. Based on this review, it is the
Division's position that the marina will cause contraventions
of water quality standards and violate the antidegradation
regulation by removing the shellfish use of the area. Since the 401
certification for this project is counter to the intent of Section 401
of the Clean Water Act. the certification is hereby revoked
according to the provisions of 15NCAC 2H.0504(d).
If you object to this revocation, you have the right to a
review by the commission upon giving written notice. identifying
the specific issues to be contended to the Director within 10
days of your receipt of this revocation. Unless such notice is
given, this revocation shall be considered final and binding.
RPW/GTE:mr
cc: W.A. Raney, JrP'O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Sincgrely
r./?.µ
R. Paul Wilms
Pollution Prevention Pays
Telephone [phone]
Ch arses Hollis An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Joe Rose

RECEIVED
JUL 10 W5
WATER f UAIITY SECTION
OPERATIONS BRANCH
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
W..MnR ANDUM
TO: Dennis Ramsey, Head
Operations Branch
FROM: A. Preston Howard, Jr., Regional Engineer
Wilmington Regional Office
THROUGH: Charles Wakild, Regional Supervisor
Wilmington Regional Office
SUBJECT: Sugar Loaf Properties Summary
Sugar Loaf Properties
Carteret County
July 10, 1985
On April 2, 1984, this office received the initial application and CAMA Field
Investigation Report for Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc.. The application was for
the development of a 100 unit condominium complex, shopping center, 100 boat-
slip marina and fishing center, and club house located on approximately 55 acres
of land adjacent to Hoop Hole Creek, 1/2 mile west of Atlantic Beach, N. C. on
Bogue Banks.
Primary concerns at that time were the dredging of Hoop Hole Creek, a 5,170 foot
channel which dead ends at the marina area, and the secondary impacts associated
with the marina itself. On August 27th, 1984, a section 401 Certification was
issued for Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc. with the conditions that the turbidity
shall not be increased by more than 25 N.T.U., and that marine pump-out facilities
will be provided for the marina use.
The issue of stormwater was generally considered in the review of projects although
no criteria, guidelines, or standards were available at the time of the initial review.
The project application did contain a plat indicating the runoff pattern. Basic-
ally, all stormwater from the shopping center portion of the project was shown
to be directed to the west, off of the property, into a drainage ditch adjacent
to a marsh area along Bogue Sound. The runoff from the 100 unit condominium com-
plex portion of the development was directed to the east into a 22 acre marsh area
known as the Zachary Taylor Property. At the time of the initial review, it was
felt that the drainage plan was acceptable since the runoff was directed away from
the mile long, dead-ended Hoop Hole Creek. No calculations were made to determine
the amount of runoff discharged or the percentage of impervious surface area during
the initial review. At the time of this review, this office was not aware that
stormwater runoff from multi-family residential sources would violate coliform
standards for SA waters. (At the time of the initial review, the water quality
standard for SA waters was 70/100 ml total coliform, not to exceed an MPN of 330/100ml).
A review of the project using criteria available today indicates that of the 57.5
acres of land (the condominium portion of the project and the Zachary Taylor Property),
6.99 acres is 100 % impervious „ or 12.15% of the total site has impervious surface
11
01
Mr. Dennis Ramsey
Page Two
July 9, 1985
coverage. The shopping center portion of the development has since been sold, and
no longer requires a CAMA Major Development Permit. The shopping center portion does
require a storm water management plan as specified in the conditions of the non-
discharge permit. For purposes of this review, only the condominium portion of
the project is addressed.
The developers now propose to construct 5 stormwater retention basins to control
runoff. The five basins total 88,322 sq. ft. at an absorption rate of 20 in./hr.
or 4.63 x 10-4 ft./sec. Total absorption capacity = (88,322 sq. ft.) (4.63 x 10-4 ft.
/Sec.) = 40.89 cfs. The total runoff has been calculated using the rational method
Q=cia, Where c = coefficient of runoff = 0.12 for this site, i = intensity = 2 in/hr.
(based on latest stormwater management guidelines), and a = area of the site = 57.5
acres. The runoff calculated is (0.12) (2 in/hr.)(57.5) = 13.8 cfs. By these cal-
culations it is concluded that a 2 in./ hr. intensity rainfall would only utilize
approximately 1/3 of the total absorption capacity of the retention basins. Please
note that the calculations performed for the retention basins are expressed in square
feet. The basins vary from .5 feet to 1.0 feet deep, which actually increases the
retention basin capacity from the calculations above. (i.e., for every 0.5 feet of
basin depth, 44,000 ft3 of storage is provided). Design of the project as currently
proposed complies with the most recent criteria for evaluating stormwater impacts on
waters classified SA, and is expected to afford adequate protection for adjacent
waters which are classified SA.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please advise.
APH/CW/bcf
cc: Wilmington Regional Office
Central Files
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
September 30, 1985
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: John Parker
FROM: Dennis Ramsey (9
SUBJECT: Stormwater Management Plan
Sugarloaf Properties, Inc.
Carteret County
In response to your request we have evaluated the Subject plan
relative to condition No. 21 of the CAMA permit. A copy of, our
evaluation is attached.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
DRR/BM:dkb
Attachment
cc: Preston Howard
Bill Mills
Evaluation of the Stormwater Management Plan
. for Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc., prepared
by Rose and Associates, P.A., New Bern, N.C.
Dated June 1985
EVALUATION
Page 1 --The Total Area of the Sugar Loaf Property is given in
the report as 1,000,779 s.f. or 45.91 acres, including
Hoop Hole Creek. Hoop Hole Creek is classified waters of
the State and should not be included in the total site
acreage. The area of Hoop Hole Creek is approximately
6 acres and thereby, reduces the total site acreage to
39.91 acres or 1,738,480 s.f.
"Page 2 --Effective Impervious Surfaces
The report shows impervious surface areas as follows:
roadways and driveways = 119,800 s.f.
roof areas = 214,151 s.f.
turfstone parking = 17,400 s.f.
However, when actual square footages of these categories
are totaled (pages 3 thru 7) these areas are substantially
less, as follows:
roof areas = 134,509 s.f. (79,642 s.f. difference)
roadways and driveways = 130,560 s.f. (10,760 s.f. difference)
turfstone parking = 17,400 s.f. (0 s.f. difference)
The effective impervious surface area percentage of 13.2%
is incorrect since the total site acreage is less than
2,615,427 s.f.
Page 2 --Stormmwater Runoff for'Developed Areas
The SCS Soil-Cover Complex Method equation is listed.on
page 2 as Q (P-0.2S)?Z/p + 0.85. The equation should
be Q.= (p - 0.2S)2/p + 0.8S. The correct equation was
however used.in the calculations on pages 3 thru 8.
Page 2 --Infiltration and Detention'Basins
The equation Vreq+d= QuAu + PAb - f TAb.was used
to determine the required size of the detention basins.
From the equation, "T" = the amount of time during which
the basin fills with water. According to the listed
reference, Standards and Specifications'for'Infiltration
Practices, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the
"T" factor is based on SCS hydrograph analysis and is
generally less than 2 hours. In the five equations used to
determine the required basin size (pages 3 thru 7), a "T"
factor of 0.5 to 2 was used. A conversation with Joe Rose
of Rose and Associates Engineers on September 3, 1985,
revealed that a SCS hydrograph analysis was not performed.
An estimate of the "T" factor was used in the equation.
Example, Page 7, detention basin E: Given:
Vreq'd = QuAu + PAb - f TAb
= 0.65 (56,130) + 0.92 (4,650) - 1.67 (2)(4,650)
?= 25,248 ft3 required basin volume
if the "T',' factor were .5 instead of 2 the results would be
as follows:
Vreq'd = QuAu + PAb - f TAb
= 0.65 (56,130) + 0.92 (4,650) - 1.67 (.5)(4,650)
= 36,879.75 ft3 required basin volume
By changing the "T" factor from 2 to .5, the required basin
volume increases by 11,631.75 cubic feet, therefore, the
"T" factor is a significant figure in determining the required
basin volume. A SCS hydrograph analysis should have been
performed for each basin.
Page 3 --Infiltration and Detention Basins
The factor for "f", the infiltration rate of the basin area,
is noted as m/HR. According to the Maryland Report, the
"f" factor should be expressed as feet/hr.' It appears that
in the equations the "f" factor is 1.67 and is assumed to
be 1.67 feet/hour (or 20"/hr which is given as the
infiltration rate). The equations appear to be correct.
Pages 3 thru 7 --Infiltration Basins
The calculations for the square footage for roof areas,
grass areas, roadway and.parking areas within specific
drainage areas cannot be confirmed as being accurate since
these areas are not clearly indicated as being directed to
a particular infiltration basin, and due to the conflicting
variation between the sum total of these areas and the
combined total of these areas listed on page 2. The detention
basin required volume calculations are all based.on these
figures.
Pages 3 thru 7 --Infiltration Basins
The infiltration basin volumes (Vaval) were calculated by
using the square footage area of each basin multiplied by
a depth of 1 foot to establish a cubic foot volume equal
to the square footage area. However, according to the plans,
each basin contains a side slope which reduces the volume of
the basin. In order to calculate basin volumes in which the
report states, a 900 vertical wall would have to be constructed.
Infiltration basin"A" was conservatively estimated to have
the dimensions of 168 feet long, and 25 feet wide for a
total of 4,200 square feet, even assuming that the basin
walls are vertical (for which they are not according to the
plans), the volume would be 4,200 cubic feet assuming
that the overall depth of the basin is 1 foot. The
report states that the available detention basin capacity
of basin "A" is 4,840 cubic feet. The storage volumes for
basins "B", "C", "D", and "E" are questionable for the
same reasons.
Page 8 --Total Post-Development Runoff
The total post development runoff calculations cannot be,
confirmed as being accurate due to many of the reasons
discussed previously in this evaluation. Discrepancies
were found in summations of the impervious surface areas.
A hydrograph analysis was not performed to determine the
"T" factor (effective basin filling time), which ultimately
results in the probable miscalculation of the required
basin volume. Discrepancies were found in calculating
the storage volumes of each detention basin.
All of these factors are essential in determining the post
development runoff.
Page 8 --Total Pre-Development Runoff
Here again, the report states that the site contains 1,999,779
s.f. total site area. The figure should be approximately
1,738,480 s.f. (exclusive of Hoop Hole Creek).
In calculating runoff in CFS, the report shows the
calculation to be as follows:
3.52 in. x 1,999,779 s.f. x l'acre = 161.6 cfs
43,560 s.f.
total site runoff
This calculation appears to be erroneous by multiplying
inches x square feet x I acre/43,560 s.f. and arriving at
cubic feet per second.
Our calculation (assuming 3.52 inches of runoff/24 hours of
an 11 inch/24 hour storm) would be as follows:
3.52 in. _ .293 feet
.293 feet x 1,999,779 s.f. (assumed) = 585,935.25 cu. ft.
585,935.25 cu. ft. 585,935.25'eu. ft. = 6.78 cfs
24 hr. 86,400 sec.
6.78 cfs = total pre-development runoff
If the total 11" rainfall fell on the property and all of
the rainfall ranoff the property, the maximum cfs flow rate
would only total 21.22 cfs.
CONCLUSIONS
It appears that the Stormwater Management Plan for Sugar Loaf Properties
contains several technical errors and assumptions without a basis. The
plan-fails to insure that post-development runoff will not exceed pre-
development runoff.
If the CAMA permit condition does address both the quantity and
quality of stormwater runoff for pre-development and post-development,
then no data has been received by this office concerning the quality of
stormwater for post-development or pre-development. It is anticipated that
pre-development stormwater quality data would be difficult to obtain unless
a storm of the 100 year magnitude were to occur.
9??1?
MEMORANDUM
r
R-ECEIVED
H! ! ! 2 9 1,985
ITS ^FCT+. ??
v Y'fi?tlS 3kA }.`
TO: John Parker
FROM: Ed McCoy
DATE: July 26, 1985
SUBJECT: Stormwater Management Plan for Sugar Loaf Properties
Division of Marine Fisheries staff members have reviewed the proposed
Stormwater Management Plan submitted by Sugar Loaf .Properties in June 1985.
Although the Division of Marine Fisheries has little expertise in the area
of infiltration and retention basins, we would support a stormwater run-
off management system that protects SA waters and maintains environmental
quality.
It is recommended that Division of Environmental-Management engineers
verify the data that are presented in the Stormwater Management.Plan sub-
mitted by Sugar Loaf Properties and report their findings to review agencies.
dw
cc DEM
Street
Z11;1 A-1
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL%FEDERATIOAL
Route 5, Box 603 (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570.919-393-8185
bra ._a
14
Paul Wilms, Director JUL ,nos r
Division of Envitonmental Management ,
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611 ,
Dear Mr. Wilms:
k
We request a public hearing on your review of the 401 Certification
for the Sugarloaf project at Atlantic Beach. Recent work by your
Division and the Sugarloaf CAMA permit appeal hearing has provided
substantial new information that was not considered when the original
certification was issued. This fact was recognized by the EMC when it
voted to have you review the Certification.
In particular, the citizens involved in the CAMA hearing would like
present information in regard to the followings
1. EPA recommended denial of the federal permit for the project
stating. i it would violate water quality standards.
2. EPA's list of undesirable site characteristics for marinas.
Many characteristics on this list are found at the proposed
Sugarloaf marina site. These include: (a) project requires
extensive dredging; (b) low tidal range and low flushing
rates because the project is proposed for the upper end of a
tidal creek; (c) water quality at the site is marginally
meeting state water quality standards (data presented by
Sugarloaf at the hearing indicated violations of the SA
fecal coliform standard currently occur as a request of
drainage from the State highway); and (d) the project is
near (and in) shellfish beds.
3. Sugarloaf has submitted a proposed stormwater plan which
should receive public review particularly since it was not
considered when the original Certification was issued.
Please let usknow if a public hearing will be held. The shellfish
around this project are heavily harvested by the public. Therefore,
we would encourage a Carteret County site for the hearing so that
local residents can participate.
Sincerely,
Todd Miller ?.
Executive Director JUL,
.s 1-2QS
cc: S. Thomas Rhodes
John Costlow, MFC A T&p QUALITy
Dave Owens, DCM e7,101V
Interested Press
July 1, 1985
'VtA*O IrM.dk?N &?Zj.
I7/1,0
R
?.? ED
n 111A TER
Q ?r L f 1 !r
a SECTION
State of North Carolina opERA7-10 rj RA?
?
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development VCFI
Division of Coa 1 anagement
512 North Salisbury Street • le1jh,Qc& VVolEa FY"
James G. Martin, Governor
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary

David W. Owens
Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Charles Jones -
Mike Street - DIAF
FROM: John Park SS
SUBJECT: Sugar Loaf, Inc.
DATE: June 25, 1985
Cf=1R,? I C?''1: .'A NCH
DCM, Bill Mills/ DEM, Linda Sewell - DHS,
- Storm Water Management Plan
The attached stormwater management plan for Sugar Loaf Properties,
Inc. has been provided by Rose & Associates in order to respond to condition
#21 of CAMA permit 177-84. The plan must ultimately be approved by the
Coastal Resources Commission, however, your input is highly important
prior to Commission review.
Your comments on the Sugar Loaf stormwater management plan are requested
by July 15.
JP/aw
Attachment
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunitv ,Affirmative Action Employer
3-XS
31
A copy of the Executive Summary dated May 1985
concerning this matter is found beginning on page 35 of the
Explanation of Agenda Items.
There were no questions by Commission members.
V. Concluding Remarks by Commission Members and Chairman
Chairman Lewis called on Dr. Barber.
Dr. Barber stated he wanted to bring up a developing
matter that the Commission was interested in, but he would
not ask the Commission to consider anything under appeal to
the courts. Dan Oakley has given a ruling to the Coastal
Resources Commission and the CRC adopted his ruling on
Sugarloaf Properties regarding 401 certification.
A 401 certification was issued by DEM in the name of
the EMC concerning this matter. Under our rules, these
certifications can be reconsidered for various reasons. 15
NCAC 2H .055 states that one reason is if the conditions,
under which a certification was made, have changed. When
the Commission provided the certification, EPA had given
some approval and only quibbled slightly with this 401
certification. EPA did not indicate they liked it, but did
not object to it. In a letter received the latter part of
May 1985, EPA is now advising against this certification.
The things that have happened in the year since the
certification was given are EPA has firmed up their
position, and also the report the Commission refers to as
the "Everett Report", which is now part of DEM's working
document, was not considered by the DEM permit branch. They
were not aware that Special Projects was considering
stormwater issues when they issued a 401 certification.
Therefore, two things have substantially changed: EPA has
now advised against this certification and DEM has, in fact,
developed its position.
Dr. Barber moved that the Commission ask the Permits
Section of DEM to review this 401 certification and see if
they still have the same opinion they had a year ago on it.
Dr. Wallace seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
Mr. Johnson remarked that with the Chairman's
agreement, the Commission's Authority Subcommittee will meet
to evaluate the impact of new laws passed by the present
General Assembly and report back to the Commission 90 days
following adjournment of the General Assembly.
Chairman Lewis pointed out he feels this is a good
approach and he would strongly encourage that.
Chairman Lewis stated he believes the Commission and
everyone present for the meeting today recognizes the
32
tremendous challenge, not only to the Commission but to the
staff, that this coastal stormwater runoff issue has
presented. It is very complex technically and legally. He
encouraged the staff and the Department of Legal Affairs to
address those issues raised today as they are very
substantial and may take some good thinking. He has every
confidence that this can happen, and the Commission will
support the staff in this effort.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned
at 11:50 a.m.

AJ
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
Division of Environmental Management
June 11, 1985
Mr. Jack Ravan, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
Subject: Sugarloaf Properties
Carteret County
Dear Mr. Ravan:
In reading my copy of your May 28, 1985 letter to the Corps of
Engineers regarding the subject project, I noted a statement relative to
this Division's activity on the 401 Water Quality Certification which is
in error. The State Water Quality Certification was issued by the
Division of Environmental Management on August 27, 1984 and was not
challenged. The Certification is not the subject of any appeal in State
court. The North Carolina Coastal Federation, et al, has sought a
judicial review under our Administrative Procedures Act, of the decision
by the Coastal Resources Commission to issue a permit for the
development. The permit was issued under the Coastal Area Management
Act, N.C.G.S. 113A-100, et seq., and the judicial review is currently
pending in the Carteret County Superior Court.
I hope this information will clarify the status of the
Certification issued for this project. If you have any questions
concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Bill Mills of our staff at
919-733-5083.
Sing el ,
R. Paul Wilms
Director
cc: Col. Wayne Hanson
Lee Fleming
Bill Mills

P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
J?SED ST,?J?S
UNITED STATES ENVIR014MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
,?4 1PRiot?,,?/ REGION IV
845 GOURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 80865
MAY 2 81985
4PM-EA/LP
Colonel Wayne A. Hanson
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Mr. Bob Johnson
SUBJECT: Sugarloaf Properties
(Public Notice No. SAWC084-N-016-0157)
Dear Colonel Hanson:
This pertains to the above referenced public notice distributed
on March 15, 1984, proposing the construction of a 100 boat
slip marina in waters and wetlands of Hoop Hole Creek, Carteret
County, North Carolina. This marina would be a part of a large
real estate development on adjacent land. We recently received
information which prompts us to write at this time, even
though the permit application is deactivated, pending the
appeal of State water quality certification.
Our initial concerns, provided by a letter dated May 8, 1984,
were over the potential degradation of water quality at a
location designated as State S.A. Waters (open to shellfish
harvesting). This degradation would occur due to the conver-
sion of a tidal creek to a marina basin and from urban runoff
from the adjacent development. In addition, our comments
specifically requested that the Corps directly solicit and
give strong weight to any comments provided by the North
Carolina Shellfish Sanitation Office.
By letter dated July 12, 1984, the Corps notified this Agency
that the project had been modified to reduce the environmen-
tal damages. However, the modifications did not completely
eliminate the urban runoff or the impacts associated with
marina construction and subsequent utilization. On August 22,
1984, the State of North Carolina's Department of Environmental
Management issued their 401 certification of water quality
over the objections of the Shellfish Sanitation Office. This
decision is currently being appealed by the North Carolina
Coastal Federation in the State Supreme Court.
-2-
Recently, it has come to our attention that there are indeed
significant shellfish resources in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed marina. Both clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) and
oysters (Crassostrea virginica) are harvested commercially
and recreationally from Hoop Hole Creek and Bogue Sound near
the mouth of Hoop Hole Creek. Mr. Robert Benton of the North
Carolina Shellfish Sanitation Office has informed us that
approximately 75 acres of shellfish resources could be
adversely impacted through the construction and operation of
a marina at this site and he has great concern that the
project would result in the closure of these shellfish areas.
Activities in and around the marina, including waste disposal
systems, will have an adverse effect on the quality and
quantity of shellfish through disturbance to existing shell-
fish beds, larval settling and survival rates, and the intro-
duction of pollutants (fecal bacteria, gasoline and oil) into
the waters. Also, stormwater runoff from high density de-
velopment can contain high coliform levels. Recent studies
indicate that conventional stormwater management systems do
not eliminate contamination of receiving waters. This project
will result in the degradation of water quality of Hoop Hole
Creek which may permanently preclude the harvesting of shell-
fish present in the area.
Under this Agency's antidegradation policy (40 CFR Section
131.12), when water quality is suitable for shellfishing and
shellfish are propagating and surviving in a biologically
suitable habitat, the level of water quality necessary to
protect the shellfishing must not be degraded. Under the
provisions of 33 CFR Section 320.4(d), this aspect of water
quality must be considered in your permitting decision.
Consequently, because of these factors, we recommend that
this permit application be denied.
Sincerely yours,
VVkE.' Ravan
Regional Administrator
cc: See attached
cc: Ms. Mike Gantt, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh, North Carolina

Mr. R. Paul Wilms, Acting Director
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Mr. Preston Pate, Chief
Field Supervisor
North Carolina Office of Coastal Management
Mr. Stuart Critcher
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commissio
Mr. John Parker, Permits Coordinator IIECE/ V
North Carolina Office of Coastal Management n
Mr. Randy Cheek, Area Supervisor WATER 5 Ipg,5
National Marine Fisheries Service Q(/q?/?,
Beaufort, North Carolina 0 kRATioNS?ACC/0
N
Mr. J.T. Brawner, Regional Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
St. Petersburg, Florida
,RECEIVE
JIJN 4 I,-r:,mr.

41985
WATER QUAL1TV I.

Permit Class
M45 i f i ed by CRC STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
and
[?EC El Coastal Resources Commission
ED Vatuft
APR 10 1985 for
U{/qj X Major Development in an Area of Environmental
A' R QUACJTY SECTtOa Concern pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
IONS SRAlyOH 51 Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issuedto Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc., P 0. Box 787, Atlantic Beach, NC 28512
authorizing development in
Carteret
Permit Number
17784
Countyat Bogue Sound at Hoop Hole Creek
as requested in the permittee's application dated 1 /25/84 i ncl udi ng
attached rev. Tats: "Draina e Plan for Sugar Loaf Properties" dated rev. 8/3/84 and
sheets 1-4, 7, 9-13, 15, 15A & 16-24 of L6 dated rec. 7/19/84.
This permit, issued on 3'/;4'lq5 is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth. below. Any violation of these terms may subject
nermittee to a fine. imurisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Re: Excavation
(1) The excavation shall be limited to a depth of -4' MLW. This restriction
will allow no overdredging.
(2) The top width of the excavation shall not' exceed 50' except that the basin
may be excavated as platted beginning at that point where docking is depicted
on the west side.
(3) in order to prevent "sloughing off" of adjacent marsh areas during excavation,
an 8' undisturbed buffer area will be left intact between all marsh fringes
(not including the marsh excavation of the basin area as indicated on Sheet
7 of 26).
(4) No marsh grass will be excavated and/or filled outside of the basin excavation
as indicated on Sheet 7 of 26.
(5) No excavated or fill material will be placed at any time in any marsh or
surrounding waters.
(See attached sheet for Additional Conditions)
This pen-nit action may be appealed by the permittee
or other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the
issuing date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work
initiation or continuance, as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on-site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification
not covered hereunder requires further Departmental
approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
December 31, 1987
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina
agrees that your project is consistent with the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DNRCD and
the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
David W. ens, Director
Office of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Permittee
Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit #177-84
Page 2 of 4
(6) All excavated materials will be confined above mean high water and landward
of regularly or irregularly flooded marsh behind adequate dikes or other
retaining structures to prevent spillover of solids into any marsh or surroun-
ding waters.
(7) The disposal area effluent will be contained by pipe, trough or similar
device to a point at or below the mean low water level to prevent gully
erosion and unnecessary siltation.
(8) The terminal end of the pipeline will be positioned at or greater than
50' from any part of the dike and a maximum distance from spillways to
allow settlement of suspended solids.
(9) A water control structure will be installed at the intake end of the effluent
pipe to assure compliance with water quality standards.
(10) The diked disposal area will be constructed a sufficient distance from
the mean high water level or any marsh to eliminate the possibility of
dike erosion into or upon any marsh and/or surrounding waters.
(11) The diked and disturbed areas will be properly graded and provided a ground
cover sufficient to restrain erosion within 30 days of project completion.
(12) The two acre spoil disposal area shall be held in perpetuity by the Homeowners
Association and no development shall be allowed on that site which would
interfere with its primary use as a spoil disposal area for future maintenance
excavation.
Re: Marina Construction and Future Activity
(13) All walkways or docks over marsh areas shall be less than 6' in width.
(14) Prior to occupancy of any slips authorized under this permit, the permittee
will permanently equip the marina with a pumpout facility to service boats
with holding tanks.
(15) All floating structures, other than boats, used for habitation or commerce
(as defined in 15 NCAC 7M.0602) shall be in conformance with local regulations
for onshore sewage treatment.
(16) A locked-head policy must be posted and enforced at the marina.
(16) a At no time after construction shall the marina, bait house or other facility
associated with this development offer fueling, marine supplies, transient
dockage, or other commercial services. The marina shall only be used for
the docking of vessels associated with the adjacent residential property.
Re: Storm Drainage and Mitigation
(17) The existing shoreline on the western side of the canal shall remain intact
and will not be disturbed or used for any marsh creation areas.
(18) The 18,000 sq. ft. of Spartina alterniflora marsh, which is to be created
to offset wetland losses due to the excavation of the basin, shall be establi-
shed prior to beginning any excavation, and shall be located in areas approved
by representatives of the DCM.
Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc. Permit #177-84
Page 3 of 4
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
(19) The diked disposal area, roadway to the "fishing center", and the canal
and basin excavation shall be staked by a representative of the DCM prior
to beginning any filling or excavation activities.
(20).. The storm drainage system for the shopping center shall be constructed
in strict compl'i'ance with the suftitted plans (Sheet 3 of 4 of bluelines-"Revised
8/3/84.
(21) All stormwater runoff must b-e retained on site to the degree that post-
development runoff quantity and quality from the Sugar Loaf property into
the surface waters not exceed pre-development levels. No development of
the condominium or marina may be undertaken until a detailed stormwater
management plan to accomplish this is reviewed by the Division of Coastal
Management (after an opportunity for review and comment by the parties
herein and any interested state agencies) and approved by the Coastal Resources
Commission. Said management plan shall include the best available technology
to minimize stormwater runoff, including, but not limited to, onsite infiltra-
tion, retention ponds, grassed swales, and wetland filtration.
(22) In order to protect the public interest with respect to applicable factors
enumerated in G.S. 113A-120(a), and based upon the application and supporting
documents submitted, use of the development shall be restricted in the
following manner by duly recorded restrictive covenants contained in the
Declaration of Unit Ownership under Chapter 47A, North Carolina General
Statutes, or similar document:
1. No person shall be permitted to live aboard vessels in the docking
areas.
2. No vessel shall be permitted to dock within the development which
exceeds a waterline length of thirty (30) feet.
A copy of the recorded document, certified to be true and correct by the
Carteret County Register of Deeds, shall be filed with the Division of
Coastal Management prior to the initiation of construction. The restrictive
covenants shall not be subject to the expiration date otherwise applicable
to the development. This permit is expressly conditioned on implementation
of and compliance with the applicant's model condominium documentation
(the Declaration of Unit Ownership and Bylaws submitted on June 21, 1984).
Further, those provisions therein designated as Special Provisions of Waterways
shall remain unchanged (except that they may be made more restrictive)
and shall be incorporated in the final condominium documentation, and no
diluting, weakening or conflicting provisions shall be inserted at any
time.
(23) The permittee shall provide for an independent consultant to regularly
monitor the quality of water within the basin and connecting channel.
Such monitoring shall consist of water samples taken once a month and tested
for fecal coliform bacteria, pollutants, and other discharges which could
be harmful to the environment and/or shellfish. A copy of the monthly
sampling reports shall be promptly forwarded to the Division of Coastal
Management and the Shellfish Sanitation Section, Division of Health Services,
Department of Human Resources.
a R,.xo??o .`?
Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc.
Permit #177-84
Page 4 of 4
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
(24) If, as a result of the water quality monitoring required by this permit
or otherwise, violations of the standards for SA waters are discovered
and such violations are sufficient to require the closure of adjacent shellfish
waters, use of the marina shall be discontinued for a period not to exceed
90 days pending an investigation by the Division of Coastal Management,
Division of Health Services and the Division of Environmental Management
to determine if the continued operation of the marina would be detrimental
to the shellfish resources. If the investigation concludes that the operation
of the marina is the cause of the violations, the Coastal Resources Commission,
by Order, may close the basin to the use of vessels equipped with marine
sanitation devices capable of being discharged overboard.
NOTE: A'detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan will be required for
this project and must be filed at least 30 days prior to beginning any
land disturbing activity with the Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Land Quality Section, 7225 Wrightsville Ave.,
Wilmington, NC 28403. The plan must define what temporary and permanent
erosion and sedimentation control measures will be utilized. The location
of these weasures must be shown on a plat plan. The plat plan must include
existing and proposed topography of the site.
NOTE: Prior to construction or operation of the proposed treatment plant, permits
are required from the Division of Environmental Management.
C?v v,?Y , 1
U/? 1
APPLICATION
FOR
PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
EASEMENT IN LANDS COVERED BY WATER CAMA PERMIT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Departmatt of Administration SUN of North cavil" D*Pww emt of the Army
(GS 146-12) Department of Natural Ruourent uW Community Dewleprnemt Corps of E0810AWs, WVMtttgtort ObbW
(GS 113.22!, 143.21S.3(a)(1).143.21S.3(c), 1/3A•11E (33 CFR 209.320329)
Pleas type or print and fill in all blanks. If information Is not applicable, so indicate by placing N/A In blank.
1. Applicant Information
A. Name- Suaar Loaf Properties, Inc.
Last First Middle
B. Address P.O. ---Box 787, Atlantic Beach, NC 28512
Street, P. O. Box or Route
Atlantic Beach North Carolina 28512 (919 726-3905
City or Town State Zip Code Phone
11. Location of Proposed Project:
A: County Carteret
B. 1. City, town, community or landmark Atlantic Beach
2. Is proposed work within city limits? Yes ?...._ No X
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project Bogus
Sound to the North
111. Description of Project Canal
A. 1. Maintenance of existing project 2. New work Canal and Docks
-B. Purpose of excavation or fill Bottom
1. Access channel length width 0 1 depth 6 feet MLW
2. Boat basin length 250 1 width 80' depth --6 feet MLW
3. Fill area length 900 width-40' depth - 4.5 feet MLW
4. Other length-JMgr- width AW depth
C. 1. Bulkhead length N/A Average distance waterward of MHW (shoreline) N/A
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material) N /A
D. Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards 37,300 2. Type of material sand Sand
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (see also VI. A)
1. Cubic yards N/A 2. Type of material N/A
IV. Land Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment:
A. Does the area to be excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes -L-.- No o.._?
B. Does the disposal area include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes No X_
C. Disposal Area
1. Location Shnpping Center Area
2. Do you claim title to disposal area? Ye s
D. Fill material source if fill is to be trucked in --- N/A
E. How will excavated material be entrapped and erosion controlled? Diked Areas
F. Type of equipment to be used Hydraulic Dredge
G. Will marshland be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? If yes, explain No
DgF4111
Rev. 10178
V. Sided Un of p?e0d Ana (DeaaU)
A. 1. Private
2. Cmrnnwcial . Shopping CenterW and
3- Housing Development or Industrial . N/A
4. OtherN /A
®. 1. Lotsi:e(s)__ 19 acres with 7.1 acres of maritime forest.
Z. Elevation of lot(s) above mean high water.. 2.1; r to 6-no
3. Soil type and texture Refer to attached Soils-Map
.?? -_--
4, Typeofbuilding facilititsorstructures ,S.himp'.i^.B Center concrete And jteel
Built on grade at 7.0 elev. -.Condominium Wood Construction on p_iiing.
S. Sewage disposal and/or waste water treatment A. Existing NIA -..Planned Permit aonlied for
B Describe_J O ^n0 GPD extended aeration - tertiary treatment - subsurface
6. Land Classification fcireleone) DEVELOPED TRANSITIONAL COMMUNITY RURAL disposal
CONSERVATION OTHER (See CAMA Local Land Use Plan Synopsis)
VI. Pertaining to Fill and Water Quality:
A. Does the proposed project involve the pUcemer.t of fill materials below mean high water? Yes._,..,.NO X
B. 1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned use of the
area following proiect completion? Yes_No X
2. Type of discharge "
3. Location of discharge.,-..- N/A
VII. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known): N/A
VIII. List permit numbers and issue dates of previous N ep ment of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
work in project area, if applicable:
IX Length of time required to complete project. Five (5) years
X In addition to the completed application form, the following items must be provided:
A. Attach a copy of th deed with State application only) or other instrument under which applicant
claims title to the affected property. OR if applicant is not claiming to be the owner of said property,
'then forward a ropy of the deed or other instrument under which the owner claims title plus written
permission from the owner to carry out the project on his land.
B. Attach an accurate work plat drawn to scale on 8,a X 11" white paper (see instruction booklet for
details). Note: Original drawings preferred - only high quality copies accepted.
C. A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by registered or
certified mail or by puhl ration (GS. 113.229 (d))Enter date served February 2-- 1984
D. List names and complete 4ddresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's.
Such owners have 40 d,,ys in wh:(h to wbmit comments tc, agencies listed below.
Philip R Taylor, P'0 Box 645, Raleigh. NC 27602
Zachary Taylor - Trust 2.0. Box 1088, NPw Bern- NC 28s6n
XI. Certification requirement: i certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed activity complies
with the State of North Carolinats approved eoaital management program and will be conducted in a
manner consistent w;th such prograrn
X11. Any permit issued pursuint W this application will allow only the development described in this appli•
cation and plat. Applicants should therefore describe in the application and plat all anticipated devel-
opment activities, including construction, excavation, filling, and land clearing.
DATE /A_ 6-A 1?1
Applicant's Signat re
0042 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR MAILING INSTRUCTIONS
ttw. tali,
A
C.raa }an Ala?.-a,,ta1
l r
,
f
eta. -?'.
i ° ,rte
ff t
OA -11 K6
?- BEA e
Mm
L a- ?
?' `c ?o
L.E GE i?.l G
??i?- ?g 94fc,25' FROM I?..ITER
SsG--t•' c*j or MG 58 ct AMD
buaa-rLoa'P ?p MAT(O K3 -IA KFt.1 G ,OU!
Wai?Y?i n? tAS;2 .HAKjj- MAP' Lj-f?;?ET
L-+I??VE Aut imc>ex" IfOR
PN I • a QE ?.e,Rrf?FZ , r' t o u Krry
LC(A-T--SON MAP 1e,OSE AND cASSOCIATES, P. A.
New Bern, NC
;WGARL.OAF' PROP.
` SHEET of
?°
CNa,NNEL/
r f!
Fr/O?A? 3 ?
»c ?
\ +J AD .
WL t.L ti'L }l
_ fP1?J`tt t tI?
w ?.
Z in
/ /,?i`'',f' a S i.9 ;4? ??? 4 ;i, ?, L E G E ICJ P
f z _ Prop Lire.
Woodoi EASG
Ly/' 2" 3a ?9 t }? 77?? `V i
Wate-roi
Use,
Z. \ \ t.r I _ _ _ _ _ L1npaveA Road
1.! \bA LO&A-0 q'
p zoo 4C0 SCn ;nOb $On __!??,
GjLA L,a : t 500
r3oun lr-:. Y .
TODcav?.4F?HIG. 1?,®SE AND ce4SSQCIATES. P.A.
New Bern NC
v ?r?4..?. a ?? - -
120,OCaC) ?.?gpFt.
LLu5 HO- A64
c-;,Up5 --
ki or-l'S = 1nG
W
-:,,CA Le: . 1"0 500'
I(OSE AND c,4SSOCIATES, P. AA].
New Bern. NC

LEGEQD
Prop.Llr1G
-..-?.- Wood t, Edge
a- Its rs h
Z .: Wa?Crc, Edna
P?oppoo?e.cL
LAJ rn 5
rz F? r oY?cSed
Paved. Area

O loo 10o _iN 4.00 M. I0.0o?

a©??
?F
w
C.?a?nY-,?L Townham??s "row?nlloti'+???
I'.
S?L'f tioNJ G.+
l,Ev. Y, o
?Voac1?? - Gjho ppLw-n Gc -rte e.r

I
+:? IGdit1 ?tiA
I ?.Ia??r,?.L
GjCA1..E ', I + • 100'
11
r1ri
C L -- --#-PooL Nou?oe R??

1;? EI'e--- P? -T-0 '6 H E r?'T -z-
0 4b P I C/?. ?.-
(--.) 0?j<; h . ROSE AND ASSOCIATES. P. A .
New Bern, NC
SNEET , •4 , of-??
.
J rr . l?
1
I f
- t?E?tit D
Aim.
_ _ ? -,_ _ r._.,._.?---- ? --- •_? `` ` ,sue. ?1??? o ?-
1-04 S15 t
kOSE AND c ASSOCIATES. P. A .
1?.1 G?CJ A??? ?.. New Bern, NC
lj HGET ? oy Z?
two
o,Q 3
Q W
-2f 1
> ?LQ?
a
3 3
o
W .?
W 0 W
Y: W
=Q Q?6
sz ??
?-
s s -o a ® S
2? Q N
3
J
f?
PN ?-S 3
ROSE AND C,4SSOCIATES, P. A.
9
PROP. New Bern, NC
RUC-?R LO.QF'
?NEET °-? o f ?t_
-?
A L
f PII.iQGS
• • f

'5LALE 01- 2O
WOTE: 5EE OF-c- oW 5
E-E I FF OM 6HF-F-T 12
PLAN! VIEW
T`(P 1 CAL. DOC.I?i K ROSE AND ASSOCIATES, P. A .
New Bern, NC
t)UGAM LOAF PROM I
`' 5 HEET O 0 {?&
45OF'T SHOULDER
_0
7w
lw
0?
?s
o I +.
>
v?
Q
-
a ?
o ?
J
O
i._L
I
? ul
? W
0 a
r ?-
3
:2 ?
W ,
zQ
=tV

I
Q pl
0 NI
-2i
0
N
Q
W
F?:? ROSE AND v4SSOCIATES. P. A .
New Bern, NC
p?P:
\y SHEET ? ?? .
? tll y
0
. 19
:2 J w
J Q? J
p W ?9
0 -?
9 0 ? cA ? =? v
d J
O
X
x X
K • A
NJ OJ
II=
III
f
OFF
„ - ?3iadlc-- ?I
i- 3a =
?Y pl C.e• 1... ®UL I?
IsScrI OljC-D ROSE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
!?), ICT4R L???F:0 PRIOR New Bern, NC
?, 5 H EET o,`
O o
Q 1
Z
Q ? ? W
J ? ?J
0
Q W
_ J
4 _
L L?
A
i
i
-830
Ro.?.Dv?AY
ROSE AND c,4SSOCIATES, P.A.
O &AF?LOAF:? PROP. New Bern, NC
r
Q
i ? GNt?.IJME, ?..
i
s
11 ?
i i LEGEQV
Propline
• .w-?- Woods Ed9t
w1ar5M
TEF'i AFIIE./t-
O loo M. so. toe
-ro w?../E IMpEFP?vl OUS e?ar7'0"
gC.A LE . " soo'
? PO 1 lr
LOC.AT I ON DOSE AND c, 4SSOC/ATES, P. A .
e=)UO AV? LO, PROP New Bern, NC
v SHEET 15 -0? P'b -

1

I w 2 P®(L G
'A"
0
/6, L FS)
/ I IMpR?/FtS _

[Ant

a

\ '
F? E59
i jai ? ="? .. ? , ,\ \\• ? i' r/ \ ,1 , \ ? ? \ ?i??^ ? ? ' / /"?} ?-
I
16 \. V/
2cao; " .1?.? BCo,
? I I I I I I ? ? ?
c- f...i i rj 4 ? 2 I f
.",Pot L L, OG.o:j"to?.!
DOSE AND c ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1 New Bern, NC
P?d
?IaEET' 15A o? 24

i ?

2 ?
.

-
L 0-,v ROSE AND DISSOCIATES, P.A.
+ New Bern, NC

YY ..,
4r,l
Y
OD N
ctw -- ~l
Y s
o ul . ? ? y
U) T ? I 4
?Q W
? L1 °
a 1: ? o
t-W - - wW
ul :2
?D o ? DA B
IL A a W w w .s
W\P> WI- -? ,? > Y
.. W W j :2
W o oT fl
x CC
G?-
TYPE G•o.L.
ROSE AND csISSOCIATBS, P.A.
?CaAt?' (_lC?•h'' PROF? New Bern, NC
\\, SNEET f
TOP OF (P?TGN t2WPE
BASE OF bl T'CN FOR
V DITCA
P PE
VARIES

BASE OF DITCH FOR VARIES
FLAT ESOTTOM
DITC. H
:POP OF DITCH SLOPE
N
PLAN
NOTE:
5 M ALL 51 LT... PSAS I N Tb 8E USED A9 WLE MD AT P 1 PC 1 NLET AN D OUT LETS)
PARALL.EIr. PQADWAY PITCU95 AND At OTIAM UXATIOW4b A5 D%RECTEo IN 'TNE
LENGTH- WIDTH AND DEPr4 46 VVgUIfKED TO CONTMOL 61LT INI FLOW t.IWE.
I'f/
IS' MW.
P__ I PE
V MIfj.
ELEVATION
TOP OR a
SLOPE
DETAIL OF 51L7 B A51N `TYPE B
1 l.?T' B??a t I?
C7G--f'"A I L-- R,.OSE AND c ASSOCIATES. P. A .
New Bern,. NC
8_. MIM.
\14 SHEET _0--
09 WOOD POET
S" UI
IIf - ISUPLAPI
j ? pP`? ilk
3: ?? f 111
4 +1 j
2G li ? ?' nnlu.
ti
,, . - r Il, y GRODUD LIWE
? s(f /rs iMls ? ? ?
24"
`11 "--ANCµbR BURLA9 tKIRT AS PIAS(.-MV
1 BY THE mkleilkiatm
WOOD PCXlf ^--J
DETAIL Or- 7E1vI F OM M Y Ib LT F'E N C. E
4A9. A6. PAV_- D 5N TUF_ eMCa?A)5E9 C 10' MAY)
Z z GA. 1KI7EfRMM0I ATE WIRE:
w
? I%
O
s • a4'' r 1
NOTES:
?t (1) Fence fabric shall be a minimum of 32 inches
's?« ) in width and shall have a minimum of 6 line
Ili wires with 12" stay spacing.
Q (2) Burlap shall be 7!1 oz. weight and a minimum of
32" in width. Burlap shall be fastened adequately
CY to the fabric as directed by the Engineer.
Q (3) Steel posts shall be 510" in height and be of
8 self-fastener angle steel type.
(4) Wood post shalt be 5 to 6 feet in height and 3 to
4 inches in diameter. Wire fabric shall be fastened
to wooden post with not less than #9 staples l'-I
u _ 3o inches long.
1:::_F1Q .E De_rAIL- K, POSE AND vlSSOCJATES, P.A.
?I?CaA I_?F? PRIOR New Been. NC

1`5' MIKI. UlnF_k4E.WT"b OF F'VN C4ml ..EASEMCNTS
H
Z
W
W
i
O?
EA?STN 171 KE
? F
O?,,rrr
fwfKo\!im OVE''KrLa1 SFALLWAy 10 NATUfAL-
Cw1KOUMD AT _jN F-LEVA110M EqUAL. lb TUC
I-op OF jUE OUTLET PIPE. PlROVIVS A
5E]GTt WAl. ARE?D? Ee!.lAL TO 1.6
I ?JI.E'T PIPE ? B r=L a+N THE EtS VA-
'91- TOW OF TI.IE Z7DP OF ?I KE.
F'. E.S.
PIPE PLOW
O
H
_K
31

MI&J. f E%UMEME" CF
PLAL
vAR. VAR. SL.opE
io$
M ?.-
G o\ LEVEL
\jrEW
FES
A
NOTE:
ALL DIMENSIONS OF BASIN AND DYKE A B C D E AREA
MILL NOT REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION TO SOB 18" 15' 15" 10' 4' 177
NEAT LINES. SOB 24" 20' 18" 10' 41 315
THE PLAN VIEW ABOVE INDICATES THE SOB 30" 25' 24" 10' 41 419
SILT BASIN IS ROUND. HOWEVER, IT SOB 36" 25' 24" 15' 5' 419
IS DRAWN IN THIS MANNER FOR ILLUS- SOB 42" 30' 30" 15' 5' 707
TRATION PURPOSES ONLY. AND MAY BE SOB 48" 40' 30" 20' 5' 1257
CONSTRUCTED IN ANY SHAPE THE CON- SOB 54" 50' 36" 20' 5' 1964
TRACTOR DESIRES AS LONG AS THE AREA SOB 60" 50' 36" 25' 5' 1964
AND DEPTH OF THE BASIN IS AT LEAST SOB 72" 50' 36" 25' 6' 1964
AS LARGE AS INDICATED.
DETAIL OF S1 L.T BA6W
TlypE A HOSE AND vI SSOCIATES, P.A.
Gjv ?? ?oA? Pf?oP. New Bern, NC
oR EohEMENTS
E
PWI-8303 ?, 514EET =4-zip-
FIt - ??FPE
a"to Ion
WAS,TE-
kTmmw NAnifti . cfRouwo
0, to P,
BASE
DATA i L_ OF TEM PO RAI:W 51L.T DITCH
EGYaE OG GUT1'LR
FA
G><1W I
i
TYPEII 1 {
C. >S. I I
r i TYPE T
Ipss
I
-- 15,
I MW.
- I
I
I
? I
? I
I I
I
I
EDGE OF
4 ui Tilip,
C.s.
FACE OF GURU--
4" DRAI#4 P IM OR NOLE 1N C.S.
PIPE
; NOTE:SMALL. 51LT 5Ab1N TO M UOILD AT
LcW PtylUT CATCH $A15IMS A5 NEEDED
AMP Ay DIRELTED BY 'T IE ENCa1NF-fA
I.EIJ4T44, wIDTN AND TAE A6 fS>:pu1'KED
W,a
MIS. -r?o CoNTF a- -,sLT FPSoM co??hTPuc-Tk J
AREA.
DETAIL OF TE.M PO R ARY 51L.T 5A51 AI
e---l l..T" C??-IrGt-I
DETAI 1... h ROSE AND vl SSOCIATES. P.A.
? .
r=)U6%AKL0AF' PROP New Bern, NC
.
\/ sH EET 21- 4 2 b.

'sc

1
?
- - ? t?
f
y
YL .
f

t
t
•
? t ..
a
y i ? •t

j !

LEGEQD
Propl ina
_ -.r-?.• - Wood a Edgt
Mars k
1 ? ? WA?C ? Gi E d ?o

t r O RecZ P?ouy
® ?icgula?LOr ?rv?b
?/?
// Prop • Lhar?.ne L
Q iW iN 40? ?M iO,ep
5GL11.?".500'
aUOY
L?-?? Q? ? ROSE AND ASSOCIATES. P. A .
New Bern, NC
V G L?r PROP.
P

4
t
e
U
o y i ?2i
N
3 j ° ----a
Q ? ' I O
t J
r
f
or Pry ,_a C. F'l r" t C '? k , JtOSE AND cA BSOCI ATES. P.A.
I.SC'?•F3? ! New own. NC

Rs D

-lot
FF Lao
,o?nc e
® '0
!5
? w?Yl PH
S?
f
O
0
EOUY L7?T. s t ?-?a r
ItOSB AND c.ASSOCIATBS. P.A.
:. , . Now own. NC
,? ?N'?ET ?q o? 2C.o
-,.BEM
DATE:
?. mc- knLiLA.l SUBJECT: JUG /!l1GOM/d
TO:
/?f'r?? D?K !?i T6, GU ? r? ?'a,c /?0,1 ? , 1 ?e,? T' t aroma
?/ d?t?G t ?l?(I?i 7//4 42--r1l-to, ?/f 4 10i?t ?t f f a ic'r3 ` I ? c +/a. j .7/r f.
4 VIC-1tad.., t v?r 7d 17i .j ! !/ ?r L.?+IIf
??lti,.is y 4 Sd?ilise ev}c?c•,r XTT• 7114e*t,0ei4P#4j
?l 4 t
.f ?? T /fits V ?I J / 17?+?0 / L C ?7`?sss.
/f-
C?33?
RECEIVED
MAR 2 01985
ER QUALITY SECWN
RAKIMMCarolina Department of Natural
. Resources &Community Development
.???
? 1 II ? I 1
I'1 .. - te. - v. BM ` hI I I J \I 1 71 ¢ •1 Vii-, ????
o w 29 T'? .1 1 ?µ:,??
., .....
111 10"_ ..
Bacon l LBI1
Sri
IN RACOAST - ? -
o Dayb WATERWAY (lace Icy - .J --
•???? m t - - •r
ay o i oLight t
Dolphins P ? Dolphins E
is. 1 1
1
v ,
y r 1
1
N` ti?? I'mo'
1 m ',
D '
IT
?
?t
1
1182
5 L: Q 0?47 ksle
°? - . -
?a.
/' r y
o Q?- © - x4 _ 58 6^- i
,,. -4-..
c
M,
- ;
I = f -------------- o f
Y

AND CASSOCIATES, P.A.
, ew'x To ?Nv?? t t?c,Gv
?'ict /aiccs
Od r •?N?c T4 ?it I[ ?* r Ts
Engineers - Planners - Surveyors
January 30, 1985
4Y
• s`IV ,.t
FFS 1 LOSS
NC Dept. of Natural Resources
& Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687

Attention: Mr. Robert Helms
Reference: Permit No. 10757
Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc.
Non-Discharge Wastewater
Treatment
Carteret County
PHI-8401
Dear Mr. Helms:
Reference is made to our letter dated December 10, 1984, regarding
the stormwater management program for the above referenced project.
This letter is to explain the plan and engineering report enclosed
with our letter dated December 10th and a phone call from Mr. Ted
Bush of your Wilmington office. The commitments made in our sub-
mission for the stormwater will be followed by the developer of
the shopping center. The final grading plan, detailed layout plan
and other final plan developments will impact this stormwater final
design retension basin size and location. The engineers report
and plans were based on preliminary information, N.C. Design
Approaches for Stormwater Management in Urban Areas and other good
civil engineering standards.
Final design is in progress on the shopping center, but several
factors may effect the completion date and final design of the
stormwater facilities. If additional information is necessary,
it will have to be developed at the time final plans are completed.
In our opinion, we have supplied the necessary information, placed
our professional stamp on the report as experts in the design
213 Broad Street Post Office Box 1248 New Bern, North Carolina 28560-1248 [phone]

Mr. Robert Helms
January 30, 1985
Page 2
of stormwater facilities and feel this should satisfy the require-
ments. As additional information and the final plans are developed
they will be sent to your office.
Sincerely,
Ab;!eph W. Rose, P.E.,
President
. JWR:ww
cc: Mr. Charles Bennett
Mr. Robert Shields
Mr. Ted Bush
. f
IAO
STMt,
North Carolina Department of Natural
e Resources &Community Development
Permit Class
New STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Natural Res6ix d Community Development
Coastal. e.4oyrQ?641ision
?r \
for ?l j ?
J
F1 Major Development in =" f EaiVironmental
Concern: Orsuant to. 3A%1-18
a Excavation and/or filling -&suant to NCGS 113-229
Permit Number
177-84
Page 1 of 3
Issued to Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc., P.O. Box 787, Atlantic Beach, NC 28512
authorizing development in
Carteret County at Bocrue Sound at Hoop Hole Creek
as requested in the permittee's application dated 1/25/84 including
attached rev, Plats: "Drainage P1 for " datt--d rev- 813.184 and
sheets 1-4, 7, 9-13, 15, 15A & 16-24 of 26 dated rec. 7/19/84.
This permit, issued on August 22, 1984 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may subject
permittee to a fine, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Re: Excavation
(1) The excavation shall be limited to a depth of,-4' NLW. This restriction will
allow no overdredging.
(2) The top width of the excavation shall not exceed 50' except that the basin
may be excavated as plattedbeginning at that point where docking is depicted
on the west side.
(3) In order to prevent "sloughing off" of adjacent marsh areas during excavation,
an 8' undisturbed buffer area will be left intact between all marsh fringes
(not including the marsh excavation of the basin area as indicated on Sheet
7 of 26).
(4) No marsh grass will be excavated and/or filled outside of the basin excavation
as indicated on Sheet 7 of 26.
(5) No excavated or fill material will be placed at any time in any marsh or sur-
rounding waters.
(See attached sheet for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee
or other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the
issuing date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work
initiation or continuance, as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on-site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification
not covered hereunder requires further Departmental
approval.
All work must 'cease when the permit expires on
December 31, 1987
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina
agrees that your project is consistent with the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DNRCD and
the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
.' - avid W. Owens, Director
Office of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Permittee
` Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc. Permit #177-84
Page 2 of 3
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
C6) All excavated materials will be confined above mean high water and landward
of regularly or irregularly flooded marsh behind adequate dikes or other
retaining structures to prevent spillover of solids into any marsh or surround-
ing waters.
(7) The disposal area effluent will be contained by pipe, trough or similar device
to a point at or below the mean low water level to prevent gully erosion and
unnecessary siltation.
(8) The terminal end of the pipeline will be positioned at or greater than 50' from
any part of the dike and a maximum distance from spillways to allow settlement
of suspended solids.
(9) A water control structure will be installed at the intake end of the effluent
pipe to assure compliance with water quality standards.
(10) The diked disposal area will be constructed a sufficient distance from the
mean high water level or any marsh to eliminate the possibility of dike erosion
into or upon any marsh and/or surrounding waters.
(11) The diked and disturbed areas will be properly graded and provided a ground
cover sufficient to restrain erosion within 30 days of project completion.
(12) The two acre spoil disposal area shall be held in perpetuity by the Homeowners
Association and no development shall be allowed on that site which would
interfere with its primary use as a spoil disposal area for future maintenance
excavation.
Re: Marina Construction and Future Activity
(13) All walkways or docks over marsh areas shall be less than 6' in width.
(14) Prior to occupancy of any slips authorized under this permit, the pen ittee will
permanently equip the marina with a pump-out facility to service boats with
holding tanks.
(15) All floating structures, other than boats, used for habitation or commerce
(as defined in 15 NCAC 7M.0602) shall be in conformance with local regulations
for on-shore sewage treatment.
(16) A locked head policy must be posted and enforced at the marina.
Re: Storm Drainage and Mitigation
(17) The existing shoreline on the western side of the canal shall remain intact
and will not be disturbed or used for any marsh creation areas.
(18) The 1.8,100 sq.ft. of Spartina alterniflora marsh which is to be created to offset
wetland losses due to the excavation of the basin, shall be established prior to
beginning any excavation, and shall be located in areas approved by representatives
of the OCM.
(19) The diked disposal area, roadway to the "fishing center", and the canal and basin
excavation shall be staked by a representative of the OCM prior to beginning any
filling or excavation activities.
(20) The storm drainage system for the shopping center shall be constructed in strict
compliance with the submitted plans (Sheet 3 of 4 of bluelines-"Revised 8/3/84.
Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc. Permit #177-84
Page 3 of 3
ADDITIONAL OCX01TIONS
(21) Before construction activities begin on the condcmi.nium site, a detailed storm
water drainage plan must be submitted and approved by the OCM.
(22) In order to protect the public interest with respect to applicable factors enum-
erated in G.S. 113A-120(a), and based upon the application and supporting
documents submitted, use of the development shall be restricted in the following
manner by duly recorded restrictive covenants contained in the Declaration of Unit
Ownership under Chapter 47A, North.Carolina General Statutes, or similar document
1. No person shall be permitted to live aboard vessels in the docking areas.
2. No vessel shall be permitted to dock within the development which exceeds
a waterline length of thirty (30) feet.
A copy of the recorded document, certified to be true and correct by the Carteret
County Register of Deeds, shall be filed with the Office of Coastal Management
prior to the initiation of construction. The restrictive covenants shall not be
subject to the expiration date otherwise applicable to the development.
This permit is expressly conditioned on implementation of and compliance with the
applicant's model condominium documentation (the Declaration of Unit Ownership
and Bylaws submitted on June 21, 1984). Further those provisions therein designated
as Special Provisions of Waterways shall remain unchanged (except that they may be
made more restrictive) and shall be incorporated in the final condominium documents-
tion, and no diluting, weakening or conflicting provisions shall be inserted at
any time.
NOTE: A detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan will be required for this project
and must be filed at least 30 days prior to beginning any land disturbing activity
with the Department of Natural Resources and qty Development, Land Quality
Section, 7225 Wrightsville Avenue, Wilmington, N.C. 28403. The plan must define
what temporary and pe.nnarient erosion and sedimentation control measures will be
utilized. The location of these measures must be shown on a plat plan. The plat
plan must include existing and proposed topography of the site.
NOTE: Prior to construction or operation of the proposed treatment plant permits are
required from the Division of Environmental Management.
&Tr-a I/ yl-"?
APPLICATION
-8 7
FOR
PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
EASEMENT IN LANDS COVERED BY WATER LAMA PERMIT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Departam a of Adminbtratlon State of North Carolina Department of the Army
(GS 14612) Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Corps of Engnroa, wiloboon D, - 1,t
(GS 113.2",143.21S.3(a)(1), 143.213.3(c), 113A•1IA (33 CFR 209.320.329)
Prase type or print and fill in all blanks. If information is not applicable, so indicate by placing N/A in Wank.
1. Applicant Information
A. Name Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc. _
Last First Middle
8. Address- P.O. Box 787, Atlantic Beach, NC 28512
Street, P. O. Box or Route
Atlantic Beach North Carolina 28512 (912)-726-3905
City or Town State Zip Code Phone
II. Location of Proposed Project:
A. County Carteret
B. 1. City, town, community or landmark Atlantic Beach
2. Is proposed work within city limits? Yes No X
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project - Bogue
Sound to the North
III. Description of Project Canal A. 1. Maintenance of existing project 2. New work Canal and Docks
B. Purpose of excavation or fill Bottom
1. Access channel length--51Z-0'width 501 depth 6 feet ML W
2. Boat basin length 250' width 80' depth 6 f eer t MLW
3. Fill area lengt900' width 450' depth- 4.5 feet MLW
4. Other ABM ANIM lengthAllit- width_+Ilr- depth
C. 1. Bulkhead length N/A Average distance waterward of MHW (shoreline) N/A
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material) ---N/A
D. Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards 37,300 2. Type of material sand Sand
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (see also VI. A)
1. Cubic yards N/A 2. Type of material - N/A
IV. Land Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment:
A. Does the area to be excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes -.L_. No
B. Does the disposal area include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes No - X
C. Disposal Area
1. Location
2, Do you claim title to disposal area? Ye c
D. Fill material sowce if fill is to be trucked in N/A
E. How will excavated material be entrapped and erosion controlled? Diked Areas
F. Type of equipment to be used _ Hydraulic Dredge
r
G. Will marshland be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? If yes, explain No
DAF4l1
Rev. 10178
V. honiiied Uee of he* Ana (Oeaafte)
LA
A. 1. Private ?... A 4A
2. Canwnerclal._ Shopping Center and
3. Housint Development or Industrial .. N/A
4. Other N/A
0. 1. Lotsi=e(s)_._ 19 acres with 7.1 acres of maritime forest.
2. Elevation of lot(s) above mean high water 2.s ' to . o t
3. Soil type and texture Refer to attached Soils Map
4. Type of building facilities or structures Shop ping C; n ter coticre to and steel Built on Grade at 7.0_elev. - Condominium Wood Construction on piiin(
S. Sewage disposal and/or waste water treatment A. Existing N/A __ Planned Permi t app I i ed for
S. Describe 100,Q00 GPD extended aeration - tertiary treatment - subsurface
6. Land Classification (circle one) DEVELOPED TRANSITIONAL COMMUNITY RURAL disposal
CONSERVATION OTHER (See CAMA Local Land Use Plan Synopsis)
VI. Pertaining to Fill and Mater Quality:
A. Does the proposed project involve the ptacemer.t of fill materials below mean high water? Yes No X
B. 1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned use of the
area following proiect completion? Yes-too X
2. Type of discharge N/A
3. Loeatiun of discharge N/A
VII. Present rate of shcreline erosion (if known): N/A
Vlll. List permit numbers and issue dates of previous Department of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
. work in project area, if applicable: N/A
IX. Length of time required to complete project. Five (5) years _
X. In addition to the completed a lication. form, the following items must be provide!:
A. Attach a copy of th deed with State application only) or other instrument under which applicant
claims title to the affected property. OR if 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 on his land.
B. Attach an accurate work plat drawn to scale on 8;2 X 11 " white paper (see instruction booklet for
details). Note: Original drawings preferred . only high quality copies accepted.
C. A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by registered or
_
certified mail or by puhh,:ation (GS. 113.229 (d))Lnter date served February 2, 1984
D. List names and u>mplete addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's.
Such owners hive 30 days in wh'.ch to submit comments tc, agencies listed below.
Philip R. Taylor, P.O. Box 645, Raleigh, NC 27602
Zachary Taylor - Trust. P.O. Box 1088. New Bern_ NC 28S6n
XI. Certification requirement. i certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed activity complies
with the State of North Carolindts approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a
manner consistent with such program.
X11. Any permit issued pursuont to this application will allow only the development described in this appli•
cation and plat. Applicants should therefore describe in the application and plat all anticipated devel-
opment activities, including construction, excavation, filling, and land clearing.
DATE
77- Applicant's Signal re
o4F-1112 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR MAILING INSTRUCTIONS
Rev. 10178
A

URBAN STORM WATER ANALYSIS
FOR THE
SUGARLOAF PROPERTIES
(ATLANTIC STATION SHOPPING CENTER)
AT
ATLANTIC BEACH,
NORTH CAROLINA
OWNER: SUGARLOAF PROPERTIES, INC.
7 MR. CHARLES N. BENNETT
BOX 787
ATLANTIC BEACH, NC 28512
919/726-3905
,,??pnrrrrgr??,
••,y
g?H CARp
??•?
?
?
?
,?• ?,,.b.,a_ /,?q.?;
` ,(
?
,''`
'
'•
ENGINEER: ROSE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
213 BROAD STREET
,
_
y
°
?
S?At P.O. BOX 1248
NEW BERN, NC 28560
6893 s e
???ti9'E?eS?,0,?? 919/633-4300
AUGUST 1984

SUGARLOAF PROPERTIES
ATLANTIC BEACH, N.C.
(ATLANTIC STATION SHOPPING CENTER)
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
Retain more stormwater on-site and reduce surface runoff.
REDUCE RUNOFF BY USING:
Turfstone parking areas
Grass swales
Detention basins
STORM WATER DESIGN
Rational Method
Area - 1050' x 550' ; 43560 = 13.3 Ac
Roof and Asphalt Pavement Areas
C composite = .80 I = 6.5 (one in 10 years)
Q = CIA = 0.80 (6.5) 13.3 = 69.2 cfs
Turf Stone & Grass Areas
2 x 50' x 170' = 17,000 sq.ft.
1 x 65' x 80' = 5,200 sq.ft.
1 x 50' x 170' = 8,500 sq.ft.
Grass Strip
1 x 50' x 140' = 7,000 sq.ft.
Grass Strip Buffer Area
35' x 800' = 28,000 sq.ft.
35' x 200' = 7,000 sq.ft.
72,700 ; 43560 = 1.67 Ac
or 12.67 of the area
-1-

BUILDING AND DRIVEWAY RUNOFF TO NORTH
Building Areas -
73,600/43560 x 6.5 x .90 = 9.9 cfs
Driveway -
1000 x 50/43560 x 6.5 x .80 = 6.0 cfs
BUILDING, DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREAS
Draining to the South -
13.3 - 1.7 - 1.1 = 10.5 Ac
Q = 10.5 x 6.5 x .80 = 54.6 cfs
30 min. rain would create:
54.6 cfs x 7.48 gals/cu.,ft. x 60 sec/min x 30 min
735,000 gals/30 min period
The type of soil and retention facilities will retain the following
calculated quantities:
Turfstone Areas ................ 30,000 gals.
Grass Swale Areas .............. 8,000 gals.
Retention Basins ...............120,000 gals.
158,000 gals.
158,000 gal 735,000 gals = .215
SUMMARY
- In our opinion, we project that 407 to 50% of the stormwater
will be retained on site. During large ten (10) year storms
this will be reduced to 207, but during small rainfall 1007
will be retained on site.
-2-
i V.
WATER QUALITY
AT
THE SUGARLOAF BOAT BASIN
by
Dr. Joe AA.. Edmi s n
Ecol47 a Consultant
891 N. 10th Avenue
Pensacola, Florida
June 15, 1984
i I ,nry
JUN L 8 M4
WATER QUALITY AT THE SUGARLOAF
BOAT BASIN IN ATLANTIC BEACH, N.C.
Some North Carolina governmental agencies have expressed
concern that the proposed boat basin at the Sugarloaf develop-
ment might result in contamination of the waters involved with
fecal bacteria. It was thought that there would be two sources
of these fecal coliform bacteria associated with human and
other mamal wastes. One usual source is from the runoff
and seepage from upland development. Some runoff from streets
and parking areas has been shown to be much like untreated
sewerage. This contamination is especially significant for
the first flush of runoff after a rain preceded with a dry
spell. Other bacterial contamination has been shown to be
associated with septic tanks in wet grounds and on small
lots.
The other major possible source of bacterial comtamination
of the boat docking facility at Sugarloaf is from the boats
that will be using the facility.
As the project ecologist, I can predict that neither of
these possible sources of bacterial contamination can, within
common sense reason, be expected to cause enough contamination
to close the area to shell fish harvesting.
The upland sources of bacterial contamination will produce
no pollution. There will be no septic tanks in the project area.
A modern sewerage treatment system will treat wastes to the
secondary level and the effluent will be disposed of in the
upland dune area via percolation. The housing planned for the
penisula along the existing canal will be separated from the
canal. The area between the housing and the canal is vegetated
with Spartina patens that will remain undisturbed. In addition.
to the extensive Spartina patens marshes left intact to take
up any nutrients and bacteria from pets and the parking areas,
there will be a 12 foot wide Spartina alterniflora marsh
created along the shore of the creeklike canal dug years ago
through the marsh.
For all the above reasons, the creeklike canal will get
no bacterial contamination from the housing component of the
Sugarloaf project.
The boats that will be using the docking facility will
be restricted to 30 feet and smaller sized by a home owners
agreement. There will be no boat rental spaces at the Sugarloaf
facility and the boats there will be associated with the houses.
r%
r
Because of the small size of the boats and the fact that
each boat owner will have his or her house within a short
walking distance, it is not reasonable to expect that these
people will dump any human wastes from their boats into the
canal.
The protection.of the water quality in the Sugarloaf project
creek will be further insured by the fact that the home owners
association will produce an educational booklet explaining
the overall ecological philosophy of the project. This policy
of absolutely no pumping out of holding tanks into the waters
of the project will be emphasized in this educational booklet.
The homeowners association will further consider the possibility
of imposing stiff fines on anyone pumping out holding tanks into
the creek.
There will be facilities at Sugarloaf for boatowners to
pump any sewerage from their boats into the sewerage treatment
facility that serves the houses of the project.
In summary, there will be no bacterial contamination of
the Sugarloaf Creek waters. This project is ecologically well
planned and should be permitted without further delay.

?,OSE AND ?4rSSOCIATES, P. A.
Engineers - Planners - Surveyors
August 3, 1984
NC Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Attention: Mr. John Parker
Reference: Sugarloaf Properties, Inc.
Atlantic Beach, NC
PHI-8303
Dear John:
The enclosed Drainage Plan prints have been revised to incorporate
additional storm water detention areas, as discussed with Mr.
Preston Pate and Mr. Charles Jones.
As you will note from the enclosed report, we have calculated that
during small rainfalls one hundred (100%) percent of the storm
water will be retained on the site and during heavier ten (10)
year storms, twenty (20%) percent will be retained. This revision
may be contributed to the developers concern for water quality.
Sincerely,
sW. Rose, PE-.,
President
JWR:rr
Encl.
cc: Charles Jones
Bob Johnson
Charles N. Bennett
Bob Shields
213 Broad Street Post Office Box 1248 New Bern, North Carolina 28560-1248 [phone]
? R'? Y E IV LC_? v ?l.t TY
O
?-roa ?a,z Ala?.i.rnLat 00rz4t,

av`?P Rev i
mot.` rt
X\S
-_.'-?-- •'?o... ti SORT \
SEA t.? f s
(?fo !
n
?- 2 E? EI?.JD `tea`' E??i?'-ts 94to.?5?rROM LATER-
SGC-rkc*1 Or ?uC 56 Ct- A"D
T?CV r CL H L3?-L u ci 1 CEDAR L..44j. R(1np Ct
SuSa:rLaaS-:
11.1FORAnA1'tc?tif 'fAKFt?i G?01J?
?:? V/?G:=7?l.rc. "M??G.HA?.??' l?lAr? ?"Re?'t'
&(flPS AMP IIJDF-X" VrOR
PHI-610:5 CARrMRE9r e,c u Krry
LOC.,A?"IOQ MAP
50 ? HOSE AND UlSSOCIATES, P.A.
SUGARL.OAF PROP. New Bern, NC
SHEET ? o.? ?..:(o,

,
4 .S J
7 ?A

I ?

i
uPROF?SEG /
G}e.NNEI,./
l!
.0 ?L

Y..'
C`
J)
?

?
t.L v:L y:

19
3
8 -
t r i 2 V
L E G E KJ P
-n e.
?rap Li
o• `
,.g "' ft -?f Woody Edgy
at , ?: - - - - U-npaveA Ro6Ci
ContoL.f Lc,-ne+6
\15A LoeA.cb
r
O 20o 4n0 5co :noo 000' L -0Q0
,,5 GAtrE 5o0'
-r'OppC?R,e, NIG 1 ?/?Y R, kOSE AND ASSOCIATES, P. A .
Now Bern. NC
\, 514EE-T Z o-C M
1 - £3
5>ao?? ? J CcNT??
1Z.O,GYx? ?Prt,
T"C P
LLuB t-tC????
O

C,D?i tQ--'S = \ 00
gGA LE I% C coy
DOSE AND vl SSOCI ATES, P. A.
New Bern, NC
Lra?r-+-?-,e L
LEGEND
P,rop.?,?nG
-.?-? Woodg Edge.
yc. ??1ar51,
j Qeoppoo?l
C?mL-rn Wrn 5
PaveGl. sArec3,
O roe ?o0 i.. 400 S" 10. Opp

Se,LrjoKj o. - A.
a
(i..rcrLe.
C??_T`r?GZ. 'TOwn?tOmG? Tv,..r-n?ome?
5e L-f t o nJ
t?
ELI] l
?Voo?.? GjM1o? Gc-n?e.tir-

h; Ifg,yi d -W. -
4 4! 4*j of
Qa.tori L
?V c s
Y 00 DELI ' w
nnn
G..Lv b ?Uer'
C ha,-?.,?..c.L - Pool N ou tee. Rand ?h
4j'e .L, F- \,.:Io0'

?Y P i L..,
?""1Q;`,? C?:D h. kOSE AND C,4SSOCIATES. P.A.
New Bern, NC

ILN
???// • F\ Y
o
•a
o
F '
J
i
1
LO!bT
i I 1-0,700 POSE AND C_9SSOCIATES, P. A.
New Bern, NC
t

U
$9 ; Q cc
s> ?0>
v '
U) 3
77
o ?? ? o F
?.. a n u
w ?
v Ul LL 0
.3
?
a 2?
s? U
:2 tc --
s w o 0
' ? w N
IL -
3
)
PN ? -8 3
C???S SE.GT1 ot`.1
(OSE AND ASSOCIATES, P. A.
4 New Bern, NC
?UC?•?? LO?.F" PF?pP
.,l 2
Ll Fr g7-f-
_____-
Q A L
FiL.i lGS
26? J i
N
W,
a „

•
W OO DEAI 5U RF ACE
W W 41V MW W
Yl ?MAR5 N AREA pi E
VII
50FT 5wc)ul.DE:R
'5(..ALS C- 20'

WcrrE: 5EE 7EC.Tl®w!b
F N 1- 83W E:-E: , FF ON SHEET 12.
PLAM VIEW
`TY P ? CA L. [DO R 1Z0SB AND cASSOCIAT'ES, P. A .
4 New Bern, NC
t)UGAK LDA?F FR®PSTATI
10 g::? IIa'C"T° 10 pj ab
-04

.. . ......................... ?? (f,,A, Q A L
;-- P I t- I Q Gt7
®
.moo
T
A
? zu
F
N
rn
E
o o F
WOODSM huRFAC.E
w yr v? ,? ,? ? w? ?a
Yj ?MARsN ARSA of E
Vh ' w. L ?l W1 \jh
SOFT 5NOUL DER
'5LALE I"- a0'

WoTE: 5EE !:5EGTIDtiIS
(??-11- $30.? E-E ?F ON 514 EET 12
FLAK] VIEW
P' CAL DO k ROSE ?l111D vlSSOCIarES. P. A .
9 New Bern, NC
j' LI AK LOAF PRO?*'1

?s
?0
29 i W>
3 w ;? >
n
o ?
o z
o
o o
^ N
z LL s ?N
W ? I
`I CC N ?
Z o 3w ?
tj1
117! v ' }
l ? yI?
LP,4?ra ?F-C.--r'1 ot..l
3' - S x K., ROSE AND c,4SSOCIATES, P. A.
New Bern, NC

IW }
lei ?
u
? a.
:2 J
J
W o ?9
o o cos ? u
'? x X X r Q
p
N N iU N J 0 J
,tl Il
ft=
VIII
LL
i- 3a
-l"y PI C-.6' L- Doc.. ?
SF-GTICah1<;f ROSE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
r;
T:::- P { New Bern, NC
\, ?NEET le- or _a&,
e
W 0
ru `
Q 1
V W
a ? w
m a ? zo
Q _ -- i-
?
a
a
;J
d?
S
a ?
i
-830
P? OA D WAY
C P:R0 C-> C_-:> C--' ' "a pti,J ROSE AND cASSOCIATES. P. A.
` &A? L? r New Bern, NC
?
PROP
'=? LJ =1 FT 1 3 11 r
/ i
Y
-ro w-LAVE M pER-/I CXJS 00'rT'01-A
LEGEND
Prop.l,InG
- -- WoocdS Edge
MIar5 h
/-/- Wa+C•h/?E dtG
5po'-t 0.TG5t_
O toe Aw iN too aM io.aioo
gGALIE ".Soo'
5 PO 1 U
LQG-,ra T 10 tJ r? ROSE AND C ASSOCIATES. P.A.
. p 1[ New Bern, NC
;lRo
U(?A ;:? L06,5

N SHEET _o?-

w Pot L
i A),
o

1

/ ELF-/. g•o I

I - - '? 4F3
1W. o W,
I I ? i
_-
?? r ft POSE AND CASSOCIATES, P. A.
Cj,[?.R ? = Ple,o : • New Bern, NC
V ENEeT-15161 0? 2CG
M"
l,o?? cjZO ?? ?t

4L)

r
Y \?
Y"a,1 1
L ow ROSE AND vt SSOCIRTES, P.A.
7? e
New Bern. NC

Y
2 _
?- dU N
? ? I g
Q
12
d) 0 = tr Q 4
gi
?Q Z z a ( o'
?W
0'1 tc o `p s ors
Do W
1L a W ?i1 w s
wo' w?w jo 1 1 >
Qtc - til.2
O a tiw
L
--r-YP1 CAL,
DIKE CEDF'c "'1o R,.,1 - ft, DOSE AND cASSOCIATES, P.A.
?Fop New Bern, NC
r..-T- 17 r '? dt
w TOP_OF, P-I"%;4 !6wpe
u 13ASE OF M TCN FOR
?? V D! TCH VARIED
!O
-PIPE -- - - ' f M1?-
A13ASE OF DITCH FoR
FLAT OT-TOMAR I E5
DITCH
TOP OF DITCH SLOPE
NOTE:: PLAN
5 M ALL 5I LT_. BA511J Tb BE USED AB, 1JeE pEp A. P 1 PE INLET Au D OUT t.ETS?
PARALLEL._ O-ADWAY PtTC.uES "o q-r pTU? t,pCAT101.15 A5 cxr%ecrED W THE
???G t?1?ER .
t-aUTN, wiDTH AND DEPTH 46 p%piIREp Tp ComTr%u_ SNL.T tN FLOW LINE.
IS' mW.
Pl PE
_.MIN,
TOP of or
SLOPE
Z' MIN.
ELEVATIOKI
DETAIL OF 51 LT $,qa IN TYP'E
F ,DET? `-" DOSE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
New Bern, NC

WIRE FA9bR I C, 5TEEL C!.R WOOO POEM
TI Y(
Ih BURLAP
1 Jlf =
3Ca I? Y 0 r'
3:
w t j s??r $
2G 1 o' MIQ.
,, - - f 1 - ft Irs GROUQD LIWE
? ? Pt7?T J A004C49 BURLAP SKIRT A5 DIRECTED
BY -NF 'Ls AIC?iUE?PS
wooD >? -?-?'
DETAIL OF -MM ROM A?W 4b LT FE N CE
vAR. Ar D1RV_Tsb er ( -r4E F-jKaiwseg ( Ip' MAX)
i?z CAA. TZ1;;tvMO1 ATM WIRE:
bi y
K
w
O
NOTES:
(1) Fence fabric shall be a minimum of 32 inches
in width and shall have a minimum of 6 line
wires with 12" stay spacing. `
F l1 (2) Burlap shall be 711 oz. weight and a minimum of
32" in width. Burlap shall be fastened adequately
to the fabric as directed by the Engineer.
C1 (3) Steel posts shall be 5'0" in height and be of
8 self-fastener angle steel type.
(4) Wood post shall be 5 to 6 feet in height and 3 to
4 inches in diameter. Wire fabric shall be fastened
to wooden post with not less than #9 staples 11-?
Pu _. 30 inches long.
TEF-_ M PORAFY 51 L7
kOSE AND c,ISSOCIATES, P.A.
a New Bern, NC
?POP.
- ___ :'1Oi _r 'J/n
15? .?/.i1t+.I...???CJ111?M'I.uTS OF ?1AI C?R_.?A?EMCNT?j
H
W
W
I?
Or
EAgiIN 1711'?E

PIPE FLoVV
O
H
_Ic
I
?i
5
1'Ro\j im oVE'R crW 6P4LLWAy III t4ATUfA l-
4ROUND AT _AKI ELEVA110N ECjUAL "Fb TOZ
? t.oW TbP OF Tgm b'uTLzT PIPE. PROVIDE A
0 6 T?OK AL aR1=a EepuA%_ TO Av
INLET r-11M AREA PEL17w4 114E r=L:EVA-
'9? 'now Ot: _ -rge .TOP . PF 0 ?SE.
M4J. f9EQUI
FL-At\J
-VAR. 51-OP5
oR EASEMENTS
NOTE:
ALL DIMENSIONS OF BASIN AND DYKE A B C D E AREA"
ILL NOT REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION TO SOB 18" 15' 15" 10' 4" 177
NEAT. LINES. SOB 24" 20' 18" 10' 4t 315
THE PLAN VIEW ABOVE INDICATES THE SOB 30" 25' 24" 10' 4' , 419
SILT BASIN IS ROUND. HOWEVER, IT SOB 36" 25' 24" 15' 5' 419
IS DRAWN IN THIS MANNER FOR ILLUS- SDB 42" 30' 30" 15' 5' 707
TRATION PURPOSES ONLY. AND MAY BE SOB 48" 40' 30" 20' 5' 1257
CONSTRUCTED IN ANY SHAPE THE CON- SOB 54" 50' 36" 20' 5' 1964
TRACTOR DESIRES AS LONG AS THE AREA SDB 60" 50' 36" 25' 5' 1964
AND DEPTH OF THE BASIN IS AT LEAST SOB 72" 50' 36" 25' 61 1964
S LARGE AS INDICATED.
pE TA1 L. OF SI cr aAsi tJ
71` PE 4 ROSE AND C,A SSOCIATES. P.A.
'?_.)vCa-?R 1. OAIP PROR New Bern, NC
PHI-a303 -u%:-;r -r 2n r) r
G.jEC_rloNj V EW
FILL 5(. PE
-._+6 lo'
?sc?STE'
mv7m- NA,TUPAL. UFiOUIJD
0, to z'
BASE
PtTA I L. OF TEM Po RARY 5 iL.T DITCH
FACC OF GUR6--?? 1E OF GuTTER
I
TYIVsII - I
C.
6. rte--` I-1 i Tflvlr T
IPE
I
- - 15,
I MW.
- I
I
I
I
? I
I I
i ?
t
I
I
Et>GE OF
4 UTTtF%
C.B.
PIPE
t
I I
I
I I
I I
I T
I
I 5'
I MIN.
-- I I
i
I
1
I
i
I
FACE OF CUB---?i
4" DRA".PtM OR HOLE 1N C.B.
{PIPE
-. r MIS. N _ DTE-
rr,,,y SM ALL SILT 5Ag1 tJ TO ZE USED AT
V, LOW Pb I AIT CATCH SA-t N 5p A5 NEEDED
T igNO A9 D 1 R EL`TED BY -MS E ENCq1 NELFi
ss ? LE:WrATW, wIATN AND vepn? nS R>rqu1?1=D
MIfJ. TO COWTV%D- --;IL.T FROM GOUt 7TRUICTbnI
AREA.
DETAIL OF TEM PO RARY 15I LT i3Al5i KJ
)?,OSE AND v1 SSOCIATES, P. A.
StJCUA,K L A F PROP. New Bern, NC
,WFrET 2 - r>I'

I

o
x

V ®
Y

f

" LEGEND

r 1
1
Prop.LinO

?
? -•r--+ - - Wood a Edge.
?
? mac.. Na r5 F,

i
BLa,L.k Buoz?
O Rect. P?ov?

- f/? Prc.?rp • Lhar?.Tt ? L
O ?? tOe 6w GOO O, p/0
gLLa LIE Soo'
auoy
L,OCA1`1 QKJ HOSE AND vISSOCIArES. P. A .
New Bern. NC
5H5V-T Z Z 0? Z,
4
i
?J
!
N , o
W
J-9
r?
Or prc?po:-C i n"- , k a JtOSE AND C.ASSOC/ATES. P. A.
New own, NC
S ME-?--T Irl:? °? G==

5 Lr.A C... K

LHAIU DEL

I®

0
>ouY C>? ?--?. 4 Sol-
RS D
,®
i
MPH
? o
ROSE AND ASSOCIATES. P.A.
New Own. NC
T
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
Route 5, Box 603 (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570.919-393-8185
VC7?T0
Wv,k *, LA
0 P4.f'rx0A S
September 6, 1984 P tCLAA i /I
Parker Chesson, Chairman
Coastal Resources Commission
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
RE: APPEAL OF PERMIT NUMBER 177-84
Dear Dr. Chesson:
von' } j 3st' t
rx ? ,
p- 6 19184
)NAT ER, IT Y

Pursuant to NCAC T 15: 07J .0300, we hereby appeal the North Carolina
Office of Coastal Management's decision to issue permit number 177-84
(Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc.).
The petitioners are prepared to present detailed evidence that will
prove that water quality will be degraded by the permitted action.
They also will present information to show that federal and state laws
and regulations were improperly administered in granting the permit.
Sincer ly,
'hn Runkle
Counsel for Petitioners
cc: Bob Benton, Shellfish Sanitation
Bob Johnson, Corps of Engineers
Charlie Bennett, Sugar Loaf Properties
Dave Owens, OCM
Preston Pate, OCM
Lee Fleming, DEM
RECEIVED
SE P ? '41 i
984
WATER QUALITY SECTION
?5EP 10 123
d7
WATER QUALITY

PERMIT NUMBER 177-84
BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
In the Matter of
Application for Major Coastal Area Management )
Act Permit by Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc. )
(Permit Number 177-84), Authorizing Construction ) APPEAL OF
of a Marina, Access Channel, Shopping Center and ) PERMIT
Multi-Family Housing Units at Atlantic Beach, )
North Carolina )
1. Pursuant to NCAC T 15: 07J .0300, we hereby appeal the North Carolina
Office of Coastal Management's decision to issue permit number 177-84
(Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc.)
2. The full name and address of each petitioner are as follows:
a. John 0. Fussell, III.
1412 Shepard Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
b. Kenneth Russell Kramer
P.O. Box 264
Morehead City, NC 28557
c. Clark Callaway
Clark's Seafood
Beaufort, NC 28516
d. North Carolina Coastal Federation, Inc.
Route 5, Box 603 (Ocean)
Newport, NC 28570
e. Carteret County Crossroads, Inc.
P.O. Box 155
Beaufort, NC 28516
3. The petitioners are directly affected by the permit decision because
they or members of their organizations have a history of substantial
use of the public resources to be impacted. In specific, the
petitioners are impacted by the project because:
a. JOHN FUSSELL - Fussell is a Carteret County
native. He is a commercial clammer. He estimates
that he has caught approximately 15,000 clams from
the waters in close proximity to Hoop Hole Creek
from 1982 to 1984.
b. KENNETH KRAMER - Kramer is a native of Carteret
County who with his family has a history of
recreational boating, oystering, and clamming in
Hoop Hole Creek over the last ten years.
c. CLARK CALLAWAY - Callaway is owner and operator of
Clark's Seafood in Beaufort and Vice-President of
the North Carolina Fisheries Association. From
time to time he buys and sells fishery resources
that were caught or grew up in the waters of Hoop
Hole Creek.
d. NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION - The Federation
provides technical assistance to 30 public
interest groups as well as to individuals
requesting help on coastal management issues. It
has an easily documented history of working on
coastal water quality issues. Three of its member
groups and a number of its individual members are
located in Carteret County. Five of its
individual members use of the resources provided
by Hoop Hole Creek or adjacent waters at least
monthly.
e. CARTERET COUNTY CROSSROADS - Crossroads is a
concerned citizens group that works to represent
the people interested in wise management of
coastal resources. Most of its members are
residents of Carteret County. A substantial
number of its members use Hoop Hole Creek and
adjacent waters for commercial or recreational
purposes.
4. Moreover, the petitioners contend that the waters of Hoop Hole Creek
are used recreationally and commercially by large numbers of local
county residents and visitors. In addition to the shellfishing, the
creek and its adjacent waters provide fertile areas for crabbing,
scalloping, channel netting for shrimp, and bird watching. Once the
area has been dredged and boats start utilizing the creek, these uses
will be permanently lost. Furthermore, the petitioners are concerned
that water quality degradation in the creek will effect the overall
productivity of adjacent Bogue Sound waters.
5. The petitioners contend that the department's decision to issue a
permit was erroneous because the permitted project will result ins
a. The violation of state water quality standards for
shellfish waters. The waters surrounding the
project site are currently open to shellfishing.
The Clean Water Act and the regulations adopted
for administering the Coastal Area Management Act
do not allow approval of projects that will result
in the violation of existing water quality
1 . a
standards.
b. The violation of the State's Antidegradation
policy. As required by the federal Clean Water
Act, the State of North Carolina has adopted an
Antidegradation Statement which prohibits the
approval of projects that will preclude existing
uses of water bodies unless strict economic
criteria are satisfied. The permitted project
will result in the lose of existing uses of the
waters of Hoop Hole Creek without complying with
the strict economic criteria for allowing
degradation as outlined by federal and state laws
and regulations.
c. The violation of 401 Certification requirements.
The federal Clean Water Act requires that any
applicant for a ermit to con uct an activity
including but not imited to, the construction or
operation of faciliti may-result in any
sc arge into Iav gabl ters hall obtain a
certi c e State ?t?hat water qua i y
?dwil_1 not be vio a The Env ronmental
Protection Agency has specified steps to conduct
401 certifications of marinas. -These procedures
xere not followed in t this permit.
d. The inability to achieve the goal of the Coastal
Area Management Act stated in legislative findings
and goals which reads, "water resources shall be
managed in order to preserve and enhance water
quality."
6. Additional support for this appeal is contained in the permit record
which includes extensive comments by several of the petitioners along
with state and federal agencies.
7. WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that:
a. The permit be revoked,
b. A hearing pursuant to
soon as possible, and
c. Any other relief which
granted.
or
07J.0301(b) be scheduled as
is right and proper be
Respectfully submitted,
't-'&WJ
ohn Runkle
54 V
Attorney at Law
Counsel for Petitioners
Post Office Box.4135
Chapel Hill, NC 27515
919/942-7935, 942-0600
This is the ? " th day of September, 1984

James E. Hum. Governor James i-,. Summers. Secretary
August 27, 1984
Mr. C. N. Bennett
Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc.
P. 0. Box 787
Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 28512

Teleonone 91a 73?5-7U1.°,
SUBJECT: Certification Pursuant to Section
401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
Proposed Boat Basin and Access Channel
Bogue Sound
Sugar Loaf Properties
Carteret County
Dear Mr. Bennett:
Attached hereto are two (2) copies of Certification No. 1732 issued to
Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc. dated August 27, 1984.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hestitate to

Sincerely yours,
Original Signed By
FORREST R. WESTAIL
Robert F Aelms
cc: Wilmington District Corps f Engineers
Wilmington Regional Offic
Mr. Cecil G. Madden, Jr.
Mr. David Owens
Attachments
CGM/cgc
n 0 Box 27667 Raieic*- R C
?' cOuo':JpDO...lr?;'.-Frf:'roL' v-. ;.::O VF
NORTE CARO .IN1.
CARTERET COUNTY
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section
401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North
Carclina Divisior o- Fnvironmenta Management Regulations is 15 NCAC 2E, Section
.0500 tc Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc. pursuant to an application filed on the
25th day of January, 1984 to construct Marina Facilites including a boat basin
and access channel.
The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of dredged
material onto a wetlands area adjacent to the waters of Bogue Sound in conjunction
with the proposed Marina construction in Carteret County will not result in a violation
of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the
State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate Sections
301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance
with the application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant
increases in turbidity outside the area of construction or construction-
related discharge (increases such that the turbidity in the stream is
25 NTU's or less are not considered significant).
2. That adequate marine pump-out facilities will be provided for the boat
slips.
Volation$..of at?q :coAd7ton.l?ex.in r;,ot..forth.-sball-xesul.L__in?evor.,ation.of_
this Certification.
This Certification shall become null and void unless the above conditions
are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
This the 27th day of August, 1984.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Original Signed By
FORREST R. WESTALL
FOR
Robert F. Helms, Director
WQC#1732
C
REC LIVFD
(.1 7 '984
WATER f?.,'j!qIT" ` rjjoM

THE CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA
307 Granville Road, Chap*l Hill, N.C. 27514
[phone] or 942-1080 (24 hours)
April 26, 1984
Bob Johnson
Wilminton District, Army Corps
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Re: SAWC084-N-016-0157 (Sugar Loaf Properties)
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Pursuant to our phone conversation of last week, I am filing
these comments after the deadline in the public notice. We
appreciate you allowing us the opportunity to comment.
We are concerned about the advisability of granting a permit
for this project for the following reasons:
1. There will be no public benefits to the project. The
access channel, boat basin, and docks will only benefit a few
condominium owners. There are no public boat slips, rental
spaces, or boat ramps in the plans.
2. The proposed shopping center will not have a beneficial
economic benefit to the area. On Atlantic Beach there are
ample opportunities for shopping and the proposed services
can be provided at these other locations.
3. Besides the wetland areas permanently altered by the
dredging, another 12.6 acres of irreplaceable wetlands will be
permanently taken out of production by filling the land with
dredge spoils. Sound fishing, shell fishing, and shrimping will
be affected; both commercial and recreation fishermen will $293
harmed. hti62 O,?I
4. The mitigation proposed, i.e. planting S artin Monb(/G19
the sides of the canal and basin, will not compensate r SO- 84
loss of the 12-plus acres of wetlands. A thin strip o gt
along the canal is not the equivalent to a rich field I c?
production, especially with the negative pressures of 0
traffic, minor oil spills, and other pollution.
5. Maintenance dredging will increase the amount of sp<
which will need to be disposed of over the years. Will the!
also be place on private lands or will they be placed on pul
beaches?
6. The cumulative effects of this project needs to be
reviewed in light of similar projects proposed for the Bogue
Banks. For example, a new bridge will be built close by, alc
with another major development at Beacon's Reach.
7. The area w the reatest impact, the H
Pool Marshes, and the surrounding maritime or
thickets, are unique communities on the Banks. They are some,
of the remnants of the original vegetation; the area should b'
made one of environmental concern rather than the site of
development.
8. There are existing channels in the immediate vicinity
which might be used for access to this area. These might cau
less damage to the public wetlands.
As a result of the above, the Conservation Council is
recommending that this project should not be granted a 404
or other permit by the Army Corps of Engineers. We are convi°
that an environmental impact analysis of the alternatives and
damages of the proposed project would only confirm our fears.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, y
hn Runkle
General Counsel
Conservation Council of NC
cc /Cecil Madden, Jr.--NC Division of Environmental Management
Dave Owens--Office of Coastal Management
Irving Hooper--Carteret County Crossroads
Q1iG
P
DIVISION OF
ji ENVIRONMENTAL
North 1 Carolina Department OI Natural MANAGEMENT
" Resources & Co 111 1 unity Development Robert F. Helms
Director
>? . James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor James A. Summers, Secretary Telephone [phone]
April 16, 1984
MEMORANDUM TO-. Mr. John Parker
Coastal Management
FROM: Forrest R. Westall,
Operations Branch
Water Quality Sectio
SUBJECT: Sugarloaf Properties
Atlantic Beach
Carteret County
The subject project has been reviewed by the Wilmington Regional Office. A
401 Water Quality Certification is required for this project. The proposed certi-
fication will be acted on or after the date as published in the CAMA joint Public
Notice. Additionally the applicant needs to make an application for a permit for
wastewater treatment either through NRCD-DEM or through the local health department
pending the type of treatment to be used.
CGM/mcb
14
P. O. Box 27687 Raleigh, N. C. 27611-7687
" An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

TD:
From:
Thru:
r
95
?err?, 1 ..._, and C.;ir'neer lrc
eie: iCai --%na1,vs' 77
?-
i'il rintgton Reg ion al Office V
A. Preston Howar r aegiorna.l Engineer
i!i;,- r .e-;r
ri
Subject: Regional Office r:c`•ii?ti ? Recommendations
ri. 47 r!?e rrGpcseL pro4eCt indicates that:
y
APR 5 '984
prFRQJ,yLIlr,
.? aN?ON
i "ter Qual i t;' Ctrv- fi ?ti Dn wi 11 not be required.
:rater r'(.'a tY Cert 41 fi cati ol^; will be required, and will
require !u?l f c noti ce advertisement C4m?7aEM5 4WWW
4C' Later Quality Certification will be required, but should
meet the conditions of the General Certification for
and therefore will not require public notice.
f'I nal r , ev art . end- _ s` s
+ rvaTer :'ua l i ty i . i c? i on VE-1 . not be r6cu' red, tFi s
. G 0v eIc_.-icr ..u t h e Proposed Project.
_ 2CDri' cn iej that a ! later Qua1 i ty Certi f i ca t- on be i s; ued
conta i r;i ng a 1--urbi di t, l ir,.i t cf 25 NTU. This office has no
objections to the proposed project.
Thr proposed project appears to meet the conditions of the General
Ceru
i I I rat i v)I -I`J?':
T s of ,ce las no objections to the proposed prD eCt.
Additional ;o meats.
TAA?- A-PPGlG,41Y'7_ dt111 /41' TO E?? ?dP'??/C°?,?te?r Ai5)R dr
CC. C. _.. 'i .`an a E,-ent tc-S 11;010VI
VC-g r
APPLKATION
FOR
PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
EASEMENT IN LANDS COVERED BY WATER . CAMA PERMIT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Departramt of AdminbUatlon state or North Carolina Depat"nent of tho Army
(GS 146-12) Department of Natural Resounces and Community Development Carps of Emomem wumfirwtoo obtrist
(GS 113-229,143-215.3(a)(1), 143.215.3(c), 113A•113 (33 CFR 209.920.329)
Flom type or print and fill in all blanks. If information is not applicable, so indicate by placing N/A in blank.
1. Applicant Information
A. None Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc.
Last First Middle
S. Address P.O. Box 787, Atlantic Beach, NC 28512
Street, P. O. Box or Route
---Atlantic Beach North Carolina 28512 [phone]
City or Town State Zip Code Phone
IL Location of Proposed Project:
A. County C a r t e r e t
9. 1 . City, town, community or landmark A t l a n t i c Beach

2. Is proposed work within city limits? Yes No X _
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project Bogue
Sound to-the North
?v.
1IL Dwription of Project Canal
A. 1. Maintenance of existing project 2. New work Canal and Docks
B. Purpose of excavation or fill Bottom
1. Access channel length 1 0' width ---.LO-' depth 6 feet MLW
2. Boat basin length 2501 width 180 r depth 6 feet MLW
3. Fill area length 200' width 450' depth 4.5 feet MLW
4. Other ' length - ? width-,;` '??' depth
C. 1. Bulkhead length Average distance waterward of MHW (shoreline) - - N/A
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material) N/A
D. Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards 37,300 2. Type of material sand Sand
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (see also V1. A)
1. Cubic yards N /A 2. Type of material N/A
1V. Land Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment:
A. Does the area to be excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes -.L- No..?
6. Does the disposal area include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes No .mss
C. Disposal Area
1. Location -' I',onnina Cent®r Area
.-?-
2, [)o you claim title to disposal area%_ y -?- 5
D. Fill material source if (ill is to be trucked in -N //A
-?
E. How will excavated material be entrapped and erosion controlled? Diked Areas
F. Type of equipment to be used Hydraulic Dredge
G. Will marshland he crossed in transporting equipment to project site? It yes, explain No
04 F491
Rev. 1017/
~ V. p fd L W of Prefect Am (Deicrfb+) N
A. 1. Pjrwata._.
?nercial Sho i n Center and 00 Unit Condom'
2,
N A
•wlopment or industrial
3. 1?using p N/A
4. Other
19 acres with 7.1 acres of maritime forest.
. 1. Los sloe(s)....-- Z. -5 t i
2. Ewvatlon of lot(s) above mean high water
3. Soil type and texture Refer to attached Soi 1 s Ma
4. Type of building facilitics or structures S hon i n a n r ?
Built on grade at .0 elev. - Condominium Wood Couta°pioedP?orngl
S. Sewage disposal andlut wastewater treatment A. Existing N A Planned Permit -p
B Describe .r.LQO 000 GPD extended aeration tertiary treatment- - disposal RURAL subsurface
6. Land Classifls.atton Icirele one) DLVE LOPED TRANSITIONAL COMMUNITY c ^ Local Land Use Plan Synopsis)
CC)NSERVATION OTHER •.----
Vi. Pertaining to Fill and Water Quality: ?
A. Does the proposed Grosectnvolve the ptaumcr.t of fill materials below mean high water? Yes-No _X,
B, 1, Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned use of the
area following pfui"t completion? N'es_No X
/
2. Type of iii.:harge N/A
3. Location of discharge A
N/A
VII.. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known):
Vill. List permit numbers and issue dates of previous Department eppartment of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
work In project area, if applicable: _
Five year
IX. Length of time required to complete project:
X In addition to the completed Application form, the following items must be provided:
A, Attach a COPY of Ut deed (with State application only) or other instrument under which applicant
-claims title to the affected property. OR if 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 on his land.
B, Attach an accurate wort, plat drawn to scale on $;5 X 1 1" white paper (see instruction booklet for
details). Note: Or.ginal drawings preferred - Orly high quality copies accepted.
C. A copy of the apphcattnn and plat must he served upon adjacent riparian landowners by registered or
Enter date served February 2 i 984
,
Certified mail or by puhli.atnon (G.S. 113.2..9 (d )
D. List names and o)Mj)lelr addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's.
Such ownerk have 30 devs n wh ch to submit comments u. agencies listed below.
Philip R. Taylor P.O. Box 645, Ralei h NC 27_602
Zachary Taylor - Trust P 0 B
X1. Certification requi(ement. i r:ertify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed activity etMrtplies
with the State ul f.uith C Afol;nak app•Jved coastal management program and will t)e conducted in &
manner consistent w-th such program
X11. Any permit Issued pursuant to this appluatiun will allow only the development described in this appli•
cation and plat. a:pphcants should therefore describe in the application and plat all anticipated devel-
eipment activities, including Construction, txcavat;on, filling, and land clearing.
Z /4:
.:-
DATE
®.? - -- Applicant's Signat6re
Dar-63 SEE 'REVI RSE SIDE FOR MAILING INSTRUCTIONS
Rat, 10176

' r
?QQ_ Y
Y-
c-

1

Y 1 ?+ ?

Y

_ '?j!! ..?•-?? Woods, Ed9G
9 ? J ? lrl? rs h
t

Rea G-OuL?

Pry . L..- i:arLn e- 'L
? a oo ®oq . J, wo
.eye. a o. ? OO
.. LL
?a...A Le: JC?r
5 U t/?/?jy
..????,_/ ROSE AND ?9SS®CIATES. P A.
. New Byrn. PVC
L-'A LK

I
i
51
I WAY: I
PH f
i ;
0 0
J3.0 SE AND c ASSOCIATES, P.A.
New ern, PVC
?? G
i ?
i
4
O
1
i i't
4 ;
r
OFF-ICE OF
COAS i Al. MANAGEMENT
North Carolina Department of Natural Kenn,.th D. Stewart
Resources &Community Development Direct
James B. Hunt, Jr , Go.:ernor !asepl, W. Grimsley, Secretary Teiephune9191733-2293
March 29, 1984
` ft
rJr. Robert Helms, Chief
Environmental Operations Section.
Division of Environmental Management APR 19
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Helms: "LMINGTON REGIONAL QFFiQE
DE
The attached copy of an applic.-tion submitted by:
Sugar Loaf Properties, Tnc.
Applicant's Name
Loop Hole Crk., Atlantic Beach Carteret
Location of Project County
X for a State permit to perform excavation and/or fill
work in coastal North Carolina and for a CA."IA major
development permit...
for a CAMA major development permit (only)
... is being circulated to State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction
over the subject matter which might 1- affected by the project.
Please indicate on the reverse ide of this form your viewpoint on
the proposed -ork -trid return it to ::.c not later than
April 13, 1984
ucerely,
R. Par r, .3r
1'ecmi_ts Coordinator
JKP:kh: '480
.. •• f q'iul OC??rr!u wit} i `hrm afn s Arfion t mployer
A.. Applicant's name
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
Sugar Loaf Properties, Inc..
Photo Index 36-1692 B-10
2. Location of project site in the western .end of the town of Atlantic Beach, north of NC
Hwy. 58, adjacent and within Hoop Hole Creek, Bogue Sound, Carteret County.
3. Investigation type: Dredge & Fill . X LAMA X
4. Investigative procedure: (A) Dates of site visit numerous
(B) Was applicant present yes
5. Processing procedure: Application received 3-14-84 Office Morehead City
6. Site description: (A) Local Land Use Plan Atlantic Beach
Land classification from LUP Transition/Fragile & Conservation
Development constraints identified in LUP
Development near or in this area is encouraged to utilize planned unit development
an will not exceed that o the ow density rest entia transition area approxi.-
e„ mates density 6 to 6 units ;ter acre)
X
(B) AEC(s) involved: Ocean Hazard Estuarine shoreline
Coastal wetlands X Public trust waters X
Estuarine waters X Other
(C) Water dependent: Yes X No X Other
(D) Intended use: Public Private Commercial X
(E) Type of waste water treatment: Existing
Planned 100,000 gal.wastewater treatment plant/rotary distribution system
(F) Type of structures: Existing.
Planned condos, docks, shopping center, club house, fishing center, paved drives &

areas
parking
(G) Estimated annual rate of erosion Source
7. Habi tat description: AREA
(A) Vegetated wetlands: Dredged Filled Other
Spartina alterniflora 4,960 sq.ft. Replanted 19,200 sq.ft
Iva frutescens & Baccharis
& Juncus roemerianus 3,500 sq.ft.
.r -

(B) Non-vegetated wetlands:
bottom area of Hoop Hole Creek 14 acres
an ogue oun
(C) Other:
spoil area, Maritime forrest 12.6 acres
(D) Total area disturbed:
8. Project summary The app. proposes to excavate an access channel & boat basin area, constr
100 condo. units and boat slips, shopping center, club house & fishing center at a site lo-
cated on the north side of NC Hwy 58 in the western end of the Town of Atlantic Beach, adja-
cent and within tioop to .e Creek, ogue oun , ar_er.e_ ..oun Y.
9. Project Description
The applicant's property consists of an approximately 51 acre tract
of land located at the western end of the Town of Atlantic Beach,
Carteret County. This property is bordered on the south by NC Hwy.
58 and to the north by the waters of Bogue Sound. A substantial amount
of the applicant's property consists of the diversified mixture of
marshe species which include: Spartina alterniflora, Juncus roemeria-
nus, Salicornia, Distichlis spicata, Spartina Patens, Cladium.gamai
censis. Hoop Hole Creek (a man-altered canal) basically bisects this
property, The highground property to the west of Hoop Hole Creek
is vegetated primarily by a:maritime forest system consisting of red
cedar, live oak, red bay and wax myrtle, with the understory consist-
ing primarily of a "wet meadow" type vegetation with scattered pockets
of saw grass. The highground property immediately to the east of Hoop
Hole Creek consists of a previously filled area which was altered dur-
ing the initial excavation of Hoop Hole Creek many years ago. This
area is sandy with elevations of approximately 3-6' above mean sea
level, and supports scattered amounts of Spartina patens vegetation.
Immediately to the east of this is a peninsula of high ground which
consists of the maritime forest, primarily vegetated by red cedar,
live oak, red bay and wax myrtle. A majority, of this peninsula of
maritime forest is bordered on the east by a substantial expanse of
Juncus roemerianus marsh.
As previously mentioned, Hoop Hole Creek was excavated many years ago
and is characterized by irregular channel depths ranging from -0 to
-6.7' MLW deep. The bottom area is characterized as being sandy ex-
cept at the very head of the canal where the bottom is silty. This-
can be attributed to the discharge of water from a highway culvert
pipe which directly enters the head of the canal. There is also a
varying border of Spartina alterniflora marsh which abuts the shore-
line of the canal and highground. This border varies from 0 to 10'
in width.
The applicant is proposing to develop this tract of land into a shopping
center and condominium complex, with boat mooring areas in the canal
system. Plans included with the application indicate that approximately
5,420' long by 70-122' wide (top width) by -6' MLW access channel and
mooring area is proposed to be excavated by hydraulic dredge within
the existing canal system of Hoop Hole Creek and within Bogue Sound.
This channel will connect on the eastern end to an existing channel
which provides access to a number of residents which are located on a
series of finger canals. The proposed channel, for the most part,
will follow the existing deeper water; however, in one location the
desired minimum width of 70' cannot be met without the excavation of
marsh (see Line No. 6).
Channel markers in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard regulations are
also proposed to be installed along the channel alignment.-
At the h.ead of the existing canal the applicant is proposing to ex-
cavate a boat basin (turning) area which will be up to 200' in length
by up to 110' wide by -6'MLW deep. This proposed expansion will re-
sult in the removal of about 8,540 sq.ft. of highground area and ap-
proximately 4,Q60 sq.ft. of Spartina alterniflora marsh vegetation.
-2-
The applicant has indicated that the shoreline of the newly e'x-
panded basin will be replanted with Spartina alterniflora marsh
and will be at a minimum width of 12'. The applicant has also in-
dicated that approximately 19,200 sq.ft. of Spartina alterniflora
marsh will be planted along the basin and canal shoreline to com-
pensate for the amount excavated.
Approximately 37,300 cu.yds. of primarily sand and shell materials,
which will be excavated by the proposed project, are to be pumped
to an approximately 550' wide by 980' long diked disposal area.
The disposal area is to be located in such a manner that the head
of the wetlands slough would be diked and filled. This area is
about 1,100 sq.ft. in size and is vegetated primarily with Iva
frutescens and Baccharis, with scattered amounts of Juncus roemeri-
anus marsh. After spoil disposal, additional comptacted fill ma-
terial will be brought in order to construct the shopping center
at a grade level of +7' above mean sea level. Vehicular access
to the shopping center will be gained directly from NC Hwy. 58.
At the head of the proposed basin a club house (elevated on pilings),
swimmip_g pool and parking area is proposed. On the northwest side
of the basin a "fishing center" is also proposed with adjacent
parking and dock facilities. The access to this complex will be..
gained by a paved roadway which-will cross another wetland slough
whi'? cfi?is vege?tated_primarily by Iva frutescens Baccharis, and Jun-
c9 roemerianus marsh. The proposed ioa through this wetland area
.,_ ?_
will fill approximately 2,400 sq.ft. of vegetated 'wetlands, but will
be cu verted in three locations.
-On the east side of Hoop Hole Creek a 100 unit condominium complex
is proposed which will include single and multi-family units. Ac-
cess to these units will be from NC Hwy. 58'and will involve the
clustering of dwellings along circular paved driveways. Most of
the units will be constructed within the existing maritime forest
complex, with the remainder bordering the canal on preiously
filled areas. The proposed condominium units will be constructed
on pilings and elevated above the 100-year storm level. In order
to provide boat mooring areas for each unit, 100 boat slips are
proposed to be constructed within the existing canal. The proposed
docks will be approximately 9' in width with waterward finger piers
and mooring pilings. Access to this dock system"over marsh areas
will be accomplished by the construction of 6' wide access piers.
Sewage treatment for the proposed shopping center and condominium
units is proposed to be a 100,000 gallon-per-day wastewater treat-
ment plant/rotary distributor disposal system which will be located
upon a six-acre tract of land that is located south of NC Hwy. 58
and across from the proposed development. Domestic water will be
available from the Town of Atlantic Beach municipal water system.
Additionally, a Lwo-acre tract of land on the south side of NC Hwy.
58 has been.reserved for future maintenance spoil disposal.
?.
-3-
10. Anticipated impacts
The project as proposed-will result in the excavation of an approxi-
mately 5,420' long access channel and canal system within Hoop Hole
Creek and Bogue Sound. Approximately 14 acres of bottom area will be
disturbed by the proposed project with the excavation of about 37,300
cu.yds. of primarily sand and shell materials. Biologists with the
NC Div. of Marine Fisheries have made an onsite inspection of the
proposed dredging and found no significant amount of oyster and clam.
resources which would be affected. The proposed width of the channel
in one location would, however, result in the excavation of a border
of Spartina alterni_flora marsh and should be limited in that location.
The proposed basin expansion will result in the excavation of approxi-
mately 4,960 sq.ft. of Spartina alterniflora marsh. The applicant has
indicated that approximately 19,200 sq.ft. of Spartina alterriiflora
marsh would be planted to compensate for this loss.
The proposed- diked dispos.Z?_area will be about 12.6 acres in size_ and
wi°T1"""result in th_e filling in of a maritime forest ?complexY, -and?an
approximately 1,100 sq ft. area _of?ve? et_a,,__ ted? w? ? ,._. x? ? ?,_ _.g.__,.__ etlands. itio on na
ally,
an appr_oimately 2+60 sq.ft. area of wetlands would be culverted and
filled in conjunction with a paved roadway which will provide access
to a piece of isolated high ground where a proposed "fishing center"
is to be located. On the east side of Hoop Hole Creek 100 condominium
units with adjacent drives and parking areas are proposed to be con-
structed on previously filled areas and within a maritime forest com-
plex. 100 boat slips are also proposed to be constructed within Hoop
Hole Creek which could increase impacts to water quality. The pro-
posed construction activities will increase surface water runoff as
a result of impermeable surfaces. These impermeable areas, however,
will be less than 30% within the estuarine shoreline AEC, and the ap-
plicant has submitted a drainage plan which shows the drainage away
from the waters of Hoop Hole Creek.
Sewage treatment is to be accomplished by the use of a 100,000 gallons-
per-day wastewater treatment plant/rotary distributor disposal system
which is to be located on the south side of NC Hwy. 58. The applicant
has also dedicated a two-acre spoil disposal site on the south side
of NC Hwy. 58 to accommodate future maintenance needs.
Submitted by _ Charles Jones Date March 29, 1984
• ' 4
?. b
.. _?:
?N
Y:
F EICME EON FT
North Carolina Department of Natural c"'-'-" MANOAGF
Resources &Community Development Kenneth D. Stewart
Director
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Joseph W. Grimsley, Secretary Telephone [phone]
Field Services Section
PO Box 769
Morehead City, N C28557
919 726-7021
April 9, 1984
Carteret News Times
Morehead City, NC 28557
Gentlemen:
Please publish the attached Notice in
your April 11, 1984, issue of the News Times, Send
us bill in duplicate and Affidavit of Publication as.
soon as possible.
CJ/rt
encl.
Sugar Loaf Properties
(C.N.Bennett)
Cordially yours,
a
Charles Jo es
Field Consultant
f;r R 01984
6'VATEE'QUALITY LCfION
r?G{`P. O. Box 27687 Raleigh, N. C. 27611-7637
An Equal Opportunity Affirtnative Action Employer
NOTICE 017 FILING OF
APPLICATION FO?t CA:IA NA JOK DE V1:L.01':IL NT `
PEP-1-11T AIND DATER QUALITY CEEITIFICATION
Pursuant to NCGS 113A-119(b) and 143-215 3(a)(1)(c.), the Department of
Natural Resources and Community Developrz nt hereby gives Publ?r Notice that
C.N.Bennett, Sugar Loaf Propgfx•ties, Inc
Atlantic Beach filed an appli-
cation on March 14, 1984 for a permit from the Office of Coastal
Management to develop in an Area of Environri-nntal Concern and for Certification
from the Division of Environmental Managerrtcnt that a discharge of fill material
in project wetlands will not violate applicable Water Quality Standards.
According to said application, the applicant proposes to excavate an
access channel and boat basin area, construct 100 condominium units and boat
sl" b h se d fishing center at a site located on
thp--norf-? side of NC Hwy. 58 adjacent and within Hoop Hol 'Creek and Bo?ue
Soi,nd in_ -the Town_ of Atlantic Beach Carteret County. The proposed project
wou_l-d,,._-L;1 in approximately 3,500. sg.ft. of vegetated wetlands in conjunction
.wi d diked disposal area.
A copy of the entire application and additional information may, be examined
(or copies furnished, upon paym^_nt of reproduction costs) during,normal business
hours at the Office of Coastal M'anangcment, Charles Jones, Div. Marine Fisheries
Bldg., Morehead City and/or the. Division of Enviro:ua--ntal
Management, Ed Beck, PO Box 15.07, Washington, .NC 27889
The Division of :nviron rr ntal Iianagement proposes to take final action on tli,
Water Quality Certification on or after May 21, 1984
The issuance of the CA.111A Major Developrn-pent.Permit and the Section 401 Certification
may deviate from this projected date depending upon the nature of the comnnnts
submitted and subseauent hearings that may result.
All persons desiring to make comments s-hould do so in writing to Mr.
Dave Owens, Director, Office of Coastal Management, P. O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N. C. 27611 prior to April 26, 1984 for consideration
under the CAMA Permit decision, and to Mr. Cecil G. Madden, Jr., Divi-
sion of Environmental Management, PO Box 27687, Raleigh, N. C. 27611
prior to May_ 11, 1984??r_ for consideration under the Water
Quality Certification decision.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONAENTAL MANAGEMEY''
April 4, 1984
??rlrrfs;-? _ <tti.vl b_;
To: Cecil Madden
Permits and Engineering
From: Michael F. Williams, Chemical Analyst 11
Wilmington Regional Office Thro: A. Preston Howard. jr., Regional Engineer Bq,
Regional ??
J ,? 7 .. on Office HOe4a{fi,Rk is
Subject: Regi:`nLl Office Review & Keco.mpendat';ons
F;
Anp 1 ^ c a t i on for Dredge C : r i l l Permit
Sugarloaf Prooerti es - Atlantic Beach
A pr` "r review of the proposed project indicates that:
401 Water Quality Certification will,--hyt be required.
X A 01 Water Quality Certification will be required and w'};'
r Qu re public notice advertisement.* See Comments' Below
AM Water Quality Cert'i fi cati on- wi 3`1 be rep tai rte; but should
meet the conditions df the General Certification fcr
and therefore will not require public notice.
Final review and recommendations May 06, 138
01 mater Quality Certification All not be required, this office
has no objections to the roposed :pro ecte
X it is recommended that a 401 Water Quality Certification he issued
containing a turbidity limit of 25 _itTU. this office has no
objections to the proposed project..
The proposed project-Appears to meet the condition of W -General
Certification for-
This office ' has. no objections to the proposed pr ohect.
Note attached Gro _C.dwater a ecti fo#"t y#?41e31i
K
The proposed project will. according to V 0'-req0re, fil Y riaterill to
placed in w.e tl'ands leas ,
w
'tea a ti , t ,
The applicant gill need to We apoli'cation Ar a p?rrnit` fhwast 'Le treatment ei ther° through M :may- EM or the Ideal hea.l de0art?nerit, d?nen? g d Ch `
?
e f d ,"sposa??l Asked.
cc: f^i c0o tr Crsctst. s'iG, t%CF[1e7 t - Chaf l es tif'?tes fi .4
t'ut F
t #{;:'s qgt ab Regi-ors?l Pffice -

DEPARTMENT OF THE.ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
SAWCO84-N-016-0157
PI IRI I r: MOT I r:F
March 15, 1984
SUGAR LOAF PROPERTIES, represented by MR. CHARLES N. BENNETT, Post Office Box 787, Atlantic Beach, North
Carolina 28512, has applied for a Department of the Army permit TO MAINTAIN AN ACCESS CHANNEL/CANAL, ENLARGE A
BOAT BASIN, CONSTRUCT DOCKS, AND PLACE FILL MATERIAL IN WETLANDS ON BOGUE SOUND AT ATLANTIC BEACH, Carteret
County, North Carolina.
The following descript Ion of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant and from obser vat Ions
made during an onsite visit by a representative of the Corps of Engineers. Plans submitted with the
application show proposed maintenance excavation by hydraulic dredge of an approximate 5,170-foot-long access
channel/canal on Bogue Sound. The channel/canal is to have a top width of 70 feet and a bottom width of 50 feet.
Channel markers, in accordance with U. S. Coast Guard requirements, are to be installed. At the canal's landward
end, an existing basin is to be maintained and enlarged to 180 feet wide and 250 feet long. Both the channel/
canal and basin are to have a depth of 6 feet, mean low water (MLW). The resulting 37,300 cubic yards of
excavated material, primarily sand, is to be placed and retained on a 12.6-acre area approximately 300 feet west
of the basin (see sheet 4 of 9). The construction of a shopping center is proposed at this site. Enlargement of
the basin area requires the excavation of approximately 5,000 square feet of Spartina alterniflora marsh. The
applicant proposes to mitigate this loss by establishing approximately 19,200 square feet of Spartina
alterniflora marsh along the sides of the canal and basin. Docks having boat slips delineated by mooring piles
are to be constructed along the perimeter of the canal and basin. A marine supply store with docks is to be
constructed on the east side of the boat basin. The total development of property also includes the placement of
fIf l material in two weti and areas, an 1,100-square-foot area on the west side of the shopping center and a
2,400-square-foot area to provide road access (sheet 5 of 9). The purpose of the work is to provide marina
facilities and navigational access for residents of a proposed 100-unit condominium. Plans showing the work are
included with this public notice.
The applicant has determined that the proposed work is consistent with the N.C. Coastal Zone Management
Plan and has submitted this determination to the N. C. Office of Coastal Management for their review and
concurrence. This proposal shall be reviewed for the applicability of other actions by North Carolina
agencies such as:
a. The Issuance of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act by the N. C.
Division of Environmental Management.
b. The issuance of a permit to dredge and/or fill under N. C. General Statute 113-229 by the N. C.
Office of Coastal Management.
c. The issuance of a permit under the N. C. Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) by the N. C. Office of
Coastal Management or their delegates.
d. The issuance of an easement to fill or otherwise occupy State-owned submerged land under N. C.
General Statute 143-341(4), 146-6, 146-11, and 146-12 by the N.C. Department of Administration and the N. C.
Council of State.

•.1.S9 J94-U I
oilgnd a4+ ui aq o+ puno; sI aouenssI s4.1 ssaIun pa4.ueJ6 aq IIim +lwJad ON '(OZ5 4.Jed 8j0 Ot,) 4.oV Je+eM
ue910 a4+ ;o (q)tot, uol.?oaS ;o A4.1Jo4.Ine a44. Japun 'Aoua6V uol+Oa-?oJd Ie?u9wUOJtnu3 •S 'q 'JO+eJ4.slulwPV 944.
Aq p94.e6 lnwo.ad soul leplnb a4? ;o uol+eol Idde apn loin os le I IlM Is9j94.uI of Ignd 944. uo ALIn14.0e 944. ;o 4.oedwi 94+
;o uol4.en Iena 941 •a Idoad 944. ;o aJe; lam pup spaau 94+ ' leJeua6 uj pue 'uol.onpoJd poo; 'A}a;es 'spesu A6Jaue
'A?l lenb Ja.?eM 1uol4.eAJasuoo pue Alddns Ja+eM 1uol4.e9-oaJ 'uol.I.eJooe pue uolsoja oul IeJo4s 'uol;.ebineu 'asn pueI
lejau96 'sot-a4.sa 'solwouooe 'uol.I.eAJasuoo 9Je aso4+ buowe :peJaplsuoo aq IIIM IesodoJd e44. o.I_ 4.uenalej aq Aew
4o14M sJo.Ioe; I IV 's4.u9wlJ?9p algeeesaJo; AlgeuoseeJ s.{.1 4.sulebe paoueieq eq +snw lesodoJd 94+ woJ; onJOoe o;.
p9+09dxe aq Aew AlgeuoseeJ 4ol4m +l;auaq a41 •saoJnosej +ue4.Jodwl ;o uol4.eZ1I1+n pue uol4.o9-ojd 4.Ioq JO; ujaouoo
leuo1.4eu a4.I_ +oa l;aJ IIIM uolsloop 4.e41 •.Isaja4ul of Ignd a4+ uo A4.lAl4.oe pasodoJd e44. ;o s}oedwl 9Al4.e lnwno
944. bulpn join +oedwl elgegoJd a4.1. ;o uol+en Iena up uo paseq eq I IlM +lwJed a enssl o+ J L4,94M uolsl09p 941
'£L61 ;o 4-oV saloadS paJ96uepu3 944. o+ 4.uensJnd peua4eaJ4+
Jo pajobuepue se pa-eu6lsep 14.e+lge4 Ieol.;lm Jla4.; Jo 'saloads ;oa;;e +ou IIIM A.I.IAI.I.oe 94+;.244. 'suol+enJasgo
94.1suo pup +ueolldde a4.I_ Aq p94sluJn; a+ep ;o MaIA9J a uo paseq 'paulwje+ap se4 J9aul6u3 +3lJ4-sla 941
•.I.lwJad pe.senbeJ 944. Japun
A-joM Aq paAoJa.sep Jo ;.so l aq Aew e.ep IeOI -p4.s! 4 jo ` IeoI Jo4-s 149Jd `o! f I+uglos ' Ieol6o loe4oJe uMoui{un 'A l+uesa.ad
•saoJnosei 4ons ;o aouesaJd e44. ;o aJeMeurr eslMJa4.?O sl a4 Pup 'J99u16u3 +01- SIG 94+ Aq suol+e6l4.s8nul
aoJnosaJ IeJn+ino ;o a.uo.Ixe a4a. sa.In4.I4.suo3 J9+sl69a leuol+eN 944. ;O uol4.e*lnsuo0 •Je?sl6aa GU ul,uolsnlout
Jo; algl6l le bulaq se pa+sl I A.I.JadoJd Jo A4.JadoJd paJa+sl6aJ -ou si e4.1siIJoM s!4+ pue 'uleJe4? uolsnloul
Jo; elgibl la 6uieq se po.Ist 1 sat+JedoJd Jo 'sat?JedoJd paJa+sl69J ;o eouesge Jo 90u9saJd 944. Jo; s93eld
OIJO+sIH ;o J9.Isl6ad Ieuol4-eN 944. ;o uolsJaA pays) Iqnd 4.sa+el a44. Pa+Insuoo se4 J99UI5u3 4.01J+sld 841
•6UIJea4
Di Ignd a buIplo4 Jo; suoseaJ a44. IA+lJeInc) l.IJed 4.E1M 1e4.e4.s 1le4s 6ulJee4 0I Ignd Jo; s4.sanba?j •uol+eol Idde
sI4.I. Japlsuoo o+ play 9q 6ulJeeq of Ignd a 4.eg4. 'aol+ou siy;. u1, pal;loads po1Jed 4.U9wwoO 944. ul4.?IM
6ul+IJM ui 1+sonb9i Aew uosJad AuV '(t?V£t '31ST) ££) +oV J94.eM ue910 84? do 40h uOI+08S Pup (50h '0'S'fl
50 6681 ;o +oV JogJeH Pup JaAId 94? ;o of uol4.oaS o.4 4.uensJnd peJaplsuoo 6uleq sl uol+eOlldde sI41
•u9)le.I.Japun s l 9oueu9+u I ew a4+ ewl+ 84+
a.e s91?lA14-Oe 4ons bulujano6 suol?elnbaJ pup s+lwJ9d leool pue '94-e-?S 'jejaPej 4-?IM eouepjoooe ul pawJo;Jad eq
p room eoueua+u t ew I IV •){JoM aoueue.I u t ew 4ons ;o 4.uawaouewwo0 o4. Jol Jd s-499M Z ;o wnwl u 1,w a Jaau 16u3 +0I -4S I p
aye o.. sue Id ?uasa jd o.} paJlnbaJ aq I IIM 9a*4.IwJ9d 941 •aouenss) ?IwJad ;o a.I.ep a4+ woJ; sJeoA 01 poeoxe o?
a.ou ow 14. ;o poIJad e Jo; 6u16paJp aoueua+uIew JO; uo1?ezIJo4.Ine 12Japaj an 16 1I1M 4.lwjod s!44. ;o IenoJddV
•sJeaul6u3 ;o sdjoO 944. o4- po4sluJn; Adoo
e g4.IA 'A0ua6e aAl-aadsaJ 944- o4. Al;.oaJlp selou96e 9Aoge a4? Aq po.IuasajdeJ uj9ouo0 ;o,sjo.0e; uo s.uawwo0
4sluJn; o+ pa6e-moue a.ae aola.ou s144. ;o s4moldloe?j •Aoue6e sI4+ Aq p9MeIAeJ Pup paAlaOaJ sI 4.ulodMaln
pa+eu 1 p Jooo 94.e4.S e 11 a.un penss I aq I I IM +lwJad AwJV, 9q4. ;o 4.u9wa.Jed9l) ON •pal uep s I uol I-e31; 14-J90 Jo/pue
uol4.ezlJoga.ne leool Jo a;e{_S paJlnbeJ Aue 11 poluop eq IIIM a.IwJad AwJV 944. ;o +uew4.JedaO p9+senbeJ o41
'(99-05-V £1,l 'S'O ON) 5161, 40 +0V 10J+uo0 uol;.nI10d uo14e+u9wlPeS 94.e4.S 944. o4. ..uensJnd 'sooJnosaa
PUR-I ;o UolslAla 'uol+ooS A4.1 len6 pue-t 944. o4. ueld IoJ4-uO0 uol4.e4.uewlpeS pue uo1sOJ3 up ;o le.41wgns a41 •a
-Z-

3 =
-3-
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army permit will not be made until the
N. C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM), issues or denies State certification required by Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act. The DEM considers whether or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302,
306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of the Army
permit serves as application to the DEM for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the offices of the
Environmental Operations Section, N. C. Division of Environmental Management, Salisbury Street, Archdale
Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished to any person requesting copies
upon payment of reproduction costs.
The N. C. Division of Environmental Management plans to take final action in the issuance of the Clean Water
Act certification on or after April 24, 1984.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act certification 'should do
so in writing delivered to the N. C. Division of Environmental Management, Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27611, on or before April 18, 1984, Attention: Mr. Cecil Madden, Jr.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in this office,
Attention: Mr. Bob Johnson, until 4:15 p.m., April 16, 1984, or telephone [phone].
L. Warren
Lieutenant Colonel,
Corps of Engineers
Deputy District Engineer

?-'.r
Lraa?ari ?la??rn4{? ?"'Crz?ot
1
I
ed'JF „-:
1.
l

O
S, A

?9?C ?d•rKb
BEALh
f ?
7 0
R
FOR r

6?;
O
L.F-6F-m
--- 2 Le:r-,G W?ah:.- , EASTf? 15 94to.25' FROM 1?.iTER'
SecTlO?J OF K4e- 58 4. AND
t7tvi.d-ed 1-+i ?• ti C6c?.R L.4,LJ . rkoaU Ct-
rau'3&TLoaS
11.1FORMAtld?.1 '1'AkFti ?R,01./?
WAcc-rCurie. "ME?+CF?AfsI MAri ?j'? 2r?T
LA PS A??t iNV?k" COr?
LOC./-??' 101.1 1u4 ` P DOSE AND C ASSOCIATES. P.A.
?Q F? New Bern, NC
)U6ARLOAF' PROP.
SHEET I of

6 jo Z .133H5

v.d •saivoossr QNV 3so?r ' 1?101J-`v?Q?l
kon,2
cos 3311 V 75
ens of "0 p1 .? .e?
?auu?t{-7 ' dca? d 001
At O

p
1
tons h-1°1g 0 K
oG p ?, • --)4 -- -+??
y z? ? W -sr ' ?, S

%

\ 1

? t i Tn

r
. ©

1
?? o
ZT,
A

155 FRoM 7D? 40 IZZ'
M Hw = ?-..45,
MLW = 0.00
E X 1 5 T I tJ G 130T TOM VA
l- --- _ - _-_: ___-_ - 6
d
TY PIC.A\- C N AKJKAE l_.
OKI

PH?-
C,PAQM EL-
?G??? - ?ELTI O
ES
HOSE AND C ASSOCIATES, P.A.
New Bern, NC
SHEET Of
V 'd S3j vl3OSS ?2 (7Al Y 3S0?! I N C) ? J.•d7 ?1
,mss'„t ? 3? vas
oft-oi sso e0! •.a "? ooi O
AV
y 5? eye -? lr s -
oui^?•do?d n ?'?,•, '
I. F
I
OR
r
V
" rnR : Ir
i
?- l
/
i /

Low AREA

r

n /
-411
,A% L
/ / • ' V 001*1
O •
1
RCP
\4/me) N r

1 • ? 1
11 1 J ? 1 -
•
f• ' Rrg?ti,
ExG3 atioT, 3, Soo
ROSE AND cASSOCIATES, P.A.
???}C?•Q ?.,:::? ++-',[??'• New Bern, NC
SCALE ? r ?? = I OG

6 NE ET _ A o? -44-
}a `' 1B3H5 + + •
6 u
ON 'wa8 nnaN b r/V\31f\ 1.?3do2?Ct ?do1
Y'd 'S3.LYI3OSSin QNY 3SOZl `H
N` Ial
Zt 13? H 5 rvo ? ?' 3-? ?OlcB - t h ci
Sr'V0Il.'73G 93S :M-LON
7

3
VA I
Z
N
'25 a
i
S5) rll-11g: _

;?sel
W ?; -9 I
1
SJ
N\
N ?
J
I o ?
.? J
t O ,rs' 0
?l ? I n
LL
K
Q w 21
:2 I
LRO?? ?1=C:T1 o?._.I
17 - S f? ROSE AND cifSSOCIRTES, P. A.
??- VUAG? (_O?.t= pFi!'?F=? New Bern. NC
7
sNEE r 2 9
6 s
109
ON 'uJag MON
'V 'd-' QNY 3S0?i
FSS Yl
r
o
N 3 m= z
Cn D ,?. 3 c
rn? D?
0? ?m v
M o ?'
m
a o ? ?? ? A
A
?t IV
V1 .p -
T-
?0A ?n t
<4 ? a i o C
,; u aW
ROSE AND C ASSOCIATES, P.A.
CA Engineers - Planners - Surveyors
May 17, 1985
R??Er
NC Dept. of Natural Resources M4Y
and Community Development Wqj
7225 ilmington, NC1128403Avenue OpF AT p '0 acrl0
W
lvc?
Attention: Mr. Preston Howard
Regional Coordinator
Reference: Sugarloaf Properties
Atlantic Station, Atlantic Beach, NC
WWT System Permit #10757
Stormwater Management Plan
PHI-8401
Dear Mr. Howard:
Please find enclosed two (2) copies of our stormwater management plan
and engineering report for the above referenced project.
In our opinion, we have complied with Condition No. 16 of our wastewater
treatment plant permit no. 10757 and request your concurrence. If we
may be of any assistance in your review, please feel free to request
a meeting and we will be happy to discuss in detail.
Sincerely,
oseph W. Rose, P.E.,
President
JWR:rr
Encl.: 2 copies ea. - engineer reports & plans
cc: Lee Fleming
Charles N. Bennett
Dr. H. R. Malcom, NCSU
Robert Shields
213 Broad Street Post Office Box 1248 New Bern, North Carolina 28560-1248 [phone]

.1 6 1
vool
v I
ENGINEER'S REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT
FOR
RECE/V
D
II,A p y ? , ??
1._5
WATER QUALITY SECTION
OPF2gT'0'?4E URgNCH
ATLANTIC STATION
SHOPPING CENTER
ATLANTIC BEACH,
NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT NO. PHI-8501
Y 1985
r&ZM CAR4jj''l
SEAL
6893
OWNER: SUGAR LOAF PROPERTIES, INC.
MR. CHARLES N. BENNETT
BOX 787
ATLANTIC BEACH, NC 28512
[phone]
?.?G'INE`???••'t?, ENGINEER: ROSE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Fp •••••?S ee' 213 BROAD STREET
,file# ee PO BOX 1248
?5 NEW BERN, NC 28560
i
[phone]
Ilk ?vMw:
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to insure that the
development of the site proceeds in a manner that
approximately maintains the pre-development runoff
characteristics, and reduces local flooding, pollution,
siltation and sedimentation, and erosion'. This
will be accomplished by the detention and reduction
of surface runoff through a stormwater collection
system which utilizes the following three forms of
stormwater detention:
1. The storage of runoff in depressions constructed
at drain location S2.
2. Using the paved areas to channel the runoff
to grassed areas. The flow then infiltrates
into the ground2.
3. Locating a vegetative filter strip at the
outlet of the stormwater structures to control
overland sheet flow to remove suspended sediment
by filtering, absorption, and gravity sedimentation
as the flow velocity is reduced3.
STORMWATER DESIGN
This report is based on the Rational Method for flow
estimates in a small drainage area. The design storm
for the structures was based on 10 year storm, with
a time of concentration of 5 minutes, a rainfall
intensity of 6.5 inches per hour, a runoff coefficient
of 0.85 for the impervious areas and 0.30 for the
pervious area S4,1. The overall design for the total
stormwater flow off the property is based on 100
year storm with 24 hour event. A double ring infil-
tration test was performed at the site and a permea-
bility in excess of 30 inches per hour was attained.
(Refer to the attached letter from Mr. Edwin Andrews,
III, geologist). For the purpose of this report,
a conservative factor of 20 inches per hour was used
for the design permeability of the soils.
-1-
,y
TOTAL AREA
Shopping Center Area
60' Access Easement
STORMWATER TENTION
J
582,182 SF
28,800 SF
010, 98 SF - 14.02 Acres
Stormwater runoff determined by the Rational Formula,
Q =CIA
where Q = peak discharge of drainage area in cubic
feet per second (CFS)
C = coefficient of runoff (taken from Table 1,
Design Approaches for Stormwater Management
in Urban Areas, H. Rooney Malcom, Jr., NCSU,
May, 1975).
I = rainfall intensity in inches per hour based
on the time of concentration (taken from
Chart 1B, Design Approaches for Stormwater
Mana ement in Urban Areas, H. Rooney
Ma com, Jr., NCSU, May, 975.)
A =drainage area in acres
Stormwater drainage pipe sizes determined from Figure
29 and 32 from Concrete Pipe Design Manual, American
Concrete Pipe Association, 1974.
STORMWATER RUNOFF TO THE NORTH
(Drainage areas # 1-5, 7-10, and Shopping Center)
DRAINAGE AREA #1
Driveway & Parking - 0.56 AC x 0.85 = 0.48
Grass - 0.10 AC x 0.20 = 0.02
AC -075-u
500 = 0.76
Composite C 0.
T.- ZT
Q = CIA = 0.76 x 6.5 x 0.66 = 3.3 CFS
-2-
c
DRAINAGE AREA #2
Driveway & Parking - 0.81 AC x 0.85 = 0.69
Turfstone - 0.10 AC x 0.30 = 0.03
Grass - 0.02 AC x 0.20 0.004
0.93 AC 0.72
Composite C = ?? = 0.78
Q2 = CIA = 0.78 x 6.5 x 0.93 = 4.7 CFS
DRAINAGE AREA #3
Driveway & Parking - 0.90 AC x 0.85 = 0.77
Turfstone - 0.11 AC x 0.30 = 0.03
Grass - 0.03 AC x 0.20 = 0.006
- 1.04 AC 0.806
Composite C = 0T 6? = 0.78
Q3 = CIA = 0.78 x 6.5 x 1.04 = 5.3 CFS
DRAINAGE AREA #4
Driveway & Parking - 0.89 AC x 0.85 = 0.76
Turfstone - 0.17 AC x 0.30 = 0.05
Grass - 0.04 AC x 0.20 = 0.008
1.10 AC 0.818
Composite C = 01-8I"68 = 0.74
Q4 =CIA = 0.74 x 6.5 x 1.10 = 5.3 CFS
DRAINAGE AREA #5
Driveway & Parking - 1.04 AC x 0.85 = 0.88
Turfstone - 0.15 AC x 0.30 0.05
3.19 AC, TTT3
Composite C =0_.9933 = 0.78
-3-
ti
Q5 = CIA = 0.78 x 6.5 x 1.19 = 6.0 CFS
DRAINAGE AREA #7
Driveway & Parking - 0.35 AC x 0.85 = 0.30
Grass - 0.03 AC x 0.20 = 0.006
.3M AC 0.306
Composite C = 07$ = 0.81
Q7 = CIA = 0.81 x 6.5 x 0.38 = 2.0 CFS
DRAINAGE AREA #8
Driveway & Parking - 0.38 AC x 0.85 = 0.32
Composite C = 00.3322 = 0.85
Q8 = CIA = 0.85 x 6.5 x 0.38 = 2.1 CFS
DRAINAGE AREA #9
Driveway & Parking - 1.29 AC x 0.85 = 1.10
Composite C = 3?j = 0.85
Q9 = C9IA9 = 0.85 x 6.5 x 1.29 = 7.1 CFS
DRAINAGE AREA #10
Driveway & Parking - 0.41 AC x 0.41 = 2.3 CFS
Composite C = 0.35 = 0.85
Q10 = C10I1A10 = 0.85 x 6.5 x 0.41 = 2.3 CFS
-4-
4 0,
SHOPPING CENTER
Roof Areas - 3.28 AC x 0.85 = 2.79
Composite C = 22.79 = 0.85
QROOF = CIA = 0.85 x 6.5 x 3.28 = 18.1 CFS
TOTAL STORMWATER RUNOFF (TO NORTH)
QTOTAL
= E Drainage Areas 1-5, 7-10 + Shopping Center
= 56.2 CFS at the peak of the storm
56.2 CFS x 7.48 GAL x 6RINC x 5 MIN (PEAK)
= 126,113 GALS
126,113 GALS 525' (Length of Trough)
= 240.2 GALS/LIN. FT.
HEIGHT OF WATER OVER THE TROUGH
Using the Weir Formula; Qw = CwLH 3/2
Where Qw = Weir Overflow (CFS)
Cw = Weir Coefficient, usually near 3.0
L = Length of Weir (FT.)
H = Vertical distance from the water surface
to the top of the Weir.
H 3/2 Qw/CwL
H = [56.2/(3)(525)] 2/3
H = 0.11' = 1.3"
STORMWATER RETENTION
(Drainage Area #6 to the South)
-5-
4 0'
DRAINAGE AREA #6
Driveway & Parking -
Turfstone -
Grass -
2.33 AC x 0.85 = 1.98
0.15 AC x 0.30 = 0.05
0.88 AC x 0.20 = 0.18
3.36 AC S
Composite C = 01 = 0.66
Q6 = CIA = 0.66 x 6.5 x 3.36 = 14.4 CFS
RETENTION AVAILABLE
20 IN. HR. x 0.88 AC. = 17.6 ACRE IN/HR
14.4 ACRE IN/HR = 81.8% of Available Retention Used.
7. ACRE IN HR
STORMWATER RUNOFF - 100 YEAR STORM, 24 HOUR EVENT
Drainage Areas to the North
Driveways & Parking - 6.63 AC x 0.85 = 5.64
Roof Areas - 3.28 AC x 0.85 = 2.79
Turfstone - .0.53 AC x 0.30 = 0.16
Grass = 0.22 AC x 0.20 = 0.04
10.66 AC $i7
Q = CIA = 0.81 x 11 x 10.66 = 94.9 CFS
Drainage Areas to the South
Driveways & Parking - 2.33 AC x 0.85 = 1.98
Turfstone - 0.15 AC x 0.30 0.05
Grass - 0.88 AC x 0.20 = 0.18
3.36 AC
Composite C = 2.21 = 0.66
Q = CIA = 0.66 x 11 x 3.36 = 24.4 CFS
-6-
N
CONCLUSION
In our opinion, this stormwater management plan satisfies
the requirements as outlined in condition #6 of Permit
#10757 for the wastewater treatment facilities for
Sugarloaf Properties, Inc.
The stormwater structures as outlined in this report
were designed for the 10 year storm. During the 100
year storm, with a time of concentration of 5 minutes
and a intensity of 11 inches per hour, temporary ponding
will occur from the sheetflow of surface runoff of
the driveway and parking areas for the areas #6 into
the grass swales, until the surface runoff infiltrates
into the ground.
Excessive ponding in the detention areas 1-5 and 7-10
with stormwater runoff overflowing the roof areas will
occur in the drainage areas to the north. The stormwater
runoff will flow across the driveway and parking areas
into the concrete trough and sheetflow out across the
vegetative buffer areas.
-7-
0 10
'Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, PB84-185560,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September, 1982.
2Practices In Detention of Urban Stormwater Runoff, Special
Report No. 3, American Public Works Association, 1974.
'Standards and Specifications for Infiltration Practices,
Maryland Department o Natura Resources, February, 1984.
'Design Approaches for Stormwater Mana ement in Urban Areas,
H. Rooney Malcom, Jr., NCSU, May, 1975.
'Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Technical Release
No. 55, Soil Conservation Service, January, 1975.
6A Summary of the Best Professional Judgements of Stormwater
Impacts, CAMA Major Permits Near SA Waters, Coastal Area
Management Act, Revise April, 1985.
'Variations in Monthly Precipitation Over North Carolina,
by B. K. Eder, J. M. Davis an P. J. Robinson with t e
North Carolina Climate Program Office, North Carolina
State University.
A revised version of "Variations in Monthly Precipitation
Over North Carolina", by Walter J. Saucier, Professor
of Meteorology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
M Iwo
APPENDIX C
Tables acid Charts
Table 1
Runoff Coefficients for Use in Rational Formula

T e of Land Use C
(slopes flatter
than 7%) C
(slopes steeper
than 7%)
Commercial 0.85 -
Industrial 0.60-0.85 -
Apartments, schools, churches 0.60 0.70
Residences, duplexes 0.45 0.55
Residences, 5000-7000 sq ft lots 0.40 0.50
Residences, 1/4-acre lots 0.38 0.48
Residences, 1/2-acre lots 0.35 0.45
Park 0.3 0.4
Woodland 0.2 0.2
Tab le 2
Selected Values for Manning n (See also Chart 6)
Channel
Earth Channels, straight and bare
Earth Channels, grass lined, mown
Earth Channels, weeded sides
Pipe, concrete
Pipe, corrugated metal
Pipe, clay
Concrete-lined Channels, troweled
Concrete-lined Channels, float finish
n
0.022
0.030
0.050
0.013
0.024
0.013
0,013
0.015

C-2
1
N
;4 4
r pt- `'?
w ?
Z rY I ?
w 1Ac - -- - -----+. s
Ir i D F ? ? ?
r? w-
a
e
u
H
41
L
l0
N
3
a
b
C!
H
a
d
H
a
0
I
C-5

_ .°
I L1q
• J4
Ol

v

° I
r
O

4

?? :: •- ? '?" X11 1- ?? ? ?C ??
i r' ?v?

-'
f `
t A
w

I 1 11. • ?'? ? r • ` 7

1 Cr? ? ?L, , r l /
`/
!` 1; r,

{
too
,so
10 0
•0
to
•0
•
y? t 0
i 10
s 0 0
t
0{
+O•
:Ot
i
¦
01
O{
O{
O•
Ot
f
104
roc
roc
{e
{a
.a
?tD
Y
x
i 1{
?Of
1
•01
0.
0!
Oi
0•
0•
0.
of
{
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

ICI •Vltrllf N:(Omar
I.I.7JfY( VI
I/r(J •Y:If$
(
Uff
I
,
L

}
J ip
r

\ 1
i ?
llll

10 If 90 00 00 9000 It / • f 0 • 10 It N 2•
"liuT[f •OUff
qNI f 1N
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
1903.1•!,

4 - more -
rJfOUfm(r /M/LrflS or :e rmOD of
rwere
•/rrR cu:{ft
:
urf
[
Z: e
= :
t ,

'ey
i
I b
J
r

\

1

r0 Is to SO NO 9090 1 ) . f • • m 1. ?. ..
LOOT t{ Ou••f.0• mOu N{
1
I
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
)•
l0
sort
/J[0?[mCr /N.LrStf Or :f fmOO O!
Jrre• cY:Jet
(+r01.rf YJ
Y[S
10 L ,
10

10

10
L
J
t 0 'O
J
r
10
1•

1•

i. {
D.1
OD
Of

1 1
M -

Ot
•
10 11 00 90 •O 9090 t ! • f •

........ 11
0

ouNs

M b
.012
20.0
.90
100
•o
•o
.0
•
! 0
f
r
i 10
s 0 •
r { {
r 0.
? o l
i
0
of
0•
0•
of
{
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

- Nror( -
fJ(DU(mCl •mAirS/S or we rooo or
I/rf• •Y:•ft
[/rlrf:e WALVIS
,
F R I

'p p pp

r rj

10 r! 20 >D W sow t 3 • • • • to It M +.
CHART 1b
OF

I-1(0 t RI.S
FIGURE 29
HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CIRCULAR CONCRETE
PIPE CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL
180 10000
168 8000 EXAMPLE (1) (2) ( 3)
156 6000 D 36 mr r.e . ' "s tr•et• 6 0 6.0
144 -5000 Q 66 cfs -- 5.0 -
132 4000 HN' HW 6.0 5.0
3000 D fee' 5.0 4.0 4.0
120

2000 (1) 16 54
4
0
108 (2) 155 4.7 . 3
0 --
102 (3) : 6 48 . 3.0
96 1000 'D In lee! 3.0
90 800
84 600 0 - 2.0 2.0
W 78 500
= 72 400 = 2.0
Z 66 ? 300 1.5 1.5
Z 60 Z 200 /
P W 1.5 -
54 ?y.PM
% W

~
-100

/

Q
> 48 :80-
----
-
1
42 < 60 z- 1.0
1
0
U v 50
40 =
1.0 .

36 Q use sca,e r2. or 3;
draw a
tr
rt w 9
9
30 a,g
s
,r,? Q .
W

3 through o-own values F- 9
Q'
r -

-

-
w 20 of <,Ze d, cnarKp W

Q
30 1G nfersprl Sr a"? 111 f- O
.8
.8
From AO,nt jr, SC are (I) <
.8
27 protect hon ZGntd,,y to 0
10 solutron On ether s, ate Q
24 8 12) Or (31 = 7 ---- =.7 7
6 F
2 5
4 HW/D ENTRANCE
i
6

3 SCALE TYPE
'6
- .6
--
18 f11 SO,Lg:•e edge
2 Groc.F end w,M
hr'a,7wa,

15
' L

5

1.0 . .5
1 -12
B!JREA U OF f?Hrf i '.'DA DS 1.1/v HEADWATER SCALE S 2&3
REVISED MAY 1964
III
FF
('O\(' R1:11 1'11'1 I) I IS RIN \ I,AN'I AI
FIGURE 32
HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CONCRETE ARCH
CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL
169 x 107
154x97
3,000
138 x 88 2,000 (1) (2) (3)
EXAMPLE -- -f 4.0 -4.0
122 x 78 r4.0 i 3.0 r F
-115 x 72 L1 000 S ze: 44 27 r 1 3.0
k Q 30cf_
`800 * H,N o 3.0
HW
?102 x 62 k 600
500 p ; ?eeU ? C 2.0- r-2.0
k =
o-400 -
88 x 54 300 (1)1.02230 w k2.0 = 1.5 ` 1.5
(2)0.99223 (n I '200 (3)1.01 2.27 u- r 1.5
w! E O"
(n 'D in feet
Z r 73 x 45
-? '-100 Z?- 65 x 40 Z"gp -1.01.G =1.0
L1 i PEE Z --.9 -
a~ a-60 .9 .9
58x36 wk50 _
w x:40 CL 8- =.8 -.8.
O Q `3 Tow" w - -
w?- 51 x 'j- /•f,?n, o_ - -.7
?/?
V/ (? 111/r)l,Rr rIl(1W/'. /y,/I•c 7 .7
20 uj
Z 4 x 27 -.6-- _ .6-
Q -10 !vn/N( / ngnzowdoiy /r, Q `.6
or, (n r8 I-
w 36 x 6 -.5 -.5
N, r .5
Z n-
?4 ..
HW/D ENTRANCE
-3 SCALE TYPE
29x 18
C 2 r sgtt"'F• -,k". -.4 - .4 -.4
C nnrs. ,.., l w.,
hf•.frlwa _. B _- 1
22 x 13 Q

•
RKA RUSSNOW, KANE & ANDREWS
Hydrogeology Post Office Box 33634
Geology Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Environmental Sciences [phone]
Soils
April 10, 1985
Mr. Joseph W. Rose, PE
Rose and Associates, PA
P. 0. Box 1248
New Bern, North Carolina 28560
Dear Mr. Rose:
Re: Storm Water - Sugar Loaf
.u l% L .L wuj
Offices:
Raleigh, North Carolina
Newport News, Virginia
Two water table observation wells were constructed at Sugarloaf
Properties, Atlantic Beach, North Carolina, in order to determine
if the water table aquifer is capable of absorbing, storing and trans-
mitting storm water off of the site. The depth to the top of
the water table was approximately three feet below land surface,
and the aquifer thickness was over twenty five feet thick.
The ability of the site to drain storm water recharge was
measured to be greater than 30 inches per hour at both 6 and
18 inches. Samples of the material throughout the water table
aquifer indicate that the infiltr ation capacity will increase with
depth. The runoff coefficient of the well sorted beach sand
deposits encountered on the site is extremely low. With adequate
exposure, storm water can be controlled by infiltration to the
water table.
Based on specific storm water loading characteristics under
design conditions, specific calculations can be performed to determine
the site assimilative capacity. Using contour and the high infiltra-
tion capacity of the sand deposits, storm water can be kept
at no discharge.
If you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,

Edwin E. Andrews, III
Consulting Geologist
Aar
FOR
100 UNIT CONDOMINIUM
CARTERET COUNTY
ATLANTIC BEACH,
NORTH CAROLINA
f, .

JUNE 1985
STORMWATER MANAGMENT PLAN
PHI-8501
OWNER: SUGAR LOAF PROPERTIES, INC.
MR. CHARLES N. BENNETT, AGENT
BOX 787
ATLANTIC BEACH, NC 28512
[phone]
ENGINEER:
ROSE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
213 BROAD STREET
PO BOX 1248
NEW BERN, NC 28560
[phone]
s
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to insure that the
development of the site proceeds in a manner that
approximately maintains the pre-development runoff
characteristics, and reduces local flooding, pollution,
siltation and sedimentation, and erosions. This
will be accomplished by the detention and reduction
of surface runoff through a stormwater collection
system which utilizes the following three forms of
stormwater detention:
1. The storage of runoff in infiltration and retention
basin S2.
2. Using the paved areas to channel the runoff into
stormwater collection drains, where it is piped
into retention basins2.
3. Locating a vegetative filter strip at the outlet
of the stormwater structures to control overland
sheet flow to remove suspended sediment by
filtering, absorption, and gravity sedimentation
as the flow velocity is reduced3.
STORMWATER DESIGN
This report is based on the Soil Conservation Service
Soil-Cover Complex Method for flow estimates in a
small drainage area. The design storm for the
structures was based on the 100 year, 24 hour
rainfall event. A double ring infiltration test
was performed at the site and a permeability in
excess of 30 inches per hour was attained. (Refer
to the attached letter from Mr. Edwin Andrews, III,
geologist). For the purpose of this report, a
conservative factor of 20 inches per hour was used
for the design permeability of the soils.
TOTAL AREA
Lot 21
1,999,779 SF = 45.91 AC
-1-
*(014

EFFECTIVE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES6
Roadway
4,350 LF x 20'
Driveways
3480 LF x 10'
Parking (Turfstone)
87 Spaces
Roof Areas
100 Condominiums
Club House
85,000 SF x 1.0
34,800 SF x 1.0
17,400 SF x 0.7
214,151 SF x 1.0
85,000 SF
34,800 SF
= 12,180 SF
= 214,151 SF
3+6,131 SF
346,131 SF : 2,615,427 SF = 13.2% of Total Area
STORMWATER RUNOFF FOR DEVELOPED AREAS
Stormwater runoff was determined by the Soil Conservation
Service Soil-Cover Complex Method,
Q = (P - 0.25)2
P + 0.83
Where Q = Actual direct runoff (inches)
P = Total storm rainfall (inches)
S = Potential abstraction (inches)
Potential abstraction, S, is related to the soil and cover
conditions of a watershed by the equation, S = 1,000 - 10
where CN = the runoff curve number which is also related
to soil and cover conditions (Taken from Table
2-2, Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds,
TR55, Soil Conservation Service, January 1975).
Stormwater drainage pipe sizes determined from Figures
29 and 32 from Concrete Pipe Design Manual,
American Concrete Pipe Association, 1974.
INFILTRATION AND DETENTION BASINS'
The required size of the basin was determined by the equation,
Vreq'd = AQuAu + PAb - f TAb
Where Vreq'd - Required basin size (cu. ft.)
AQu Increased upland runoff depth (ft.)
-2-
0? ?
Au = Upland runoff area (ft.2)
P = Design rainfall event (ft.)
Ab = Basin surface area (ft.2)
f = Infiltration rate of the basin area (m/HR)
T = Effective basin filling time (HRS)
INFILTRATION BASIN "A"
(Southern Portional of Drainage Area #2)
Roof Areas - 5,370 SF x 95 = 510,150
Grass Areas - 14,910 SF x 39 = 581,490
20,280 SF 1,091,64
Composite CN 1,091,640 = 53.83 20,280 1,000
S = 3= 10 = 8.58
Q = [11 - 0.2(8.58) ]2 = 4.83 in. of runoff 11 + 0.8(8.58)
Vreq'd = 0.40(20,280),+ 0.92(4,840) - 1.67(1)(4,840)
4,426 cu. ft.
Vaval 4,840 cu. ft. which is greater than the
Vreq'd = 4,426 cu. ft.
INFILTRATION BASIN "B"
(Portion of the roof areas of Drainage Area #2)
Roof Areas - 16,290
CN = 95
S = 1,000 - 10 = 0.53
? 95
Q = (11 - 0.2(0.53)]2 = 10.39 in. of runoff
11 + 0.8(0.53)
-3-

Vreq'd = 0.87(16,290) + 0.92(16,150) - 1.67(0.5)(16,150)
= 15,545 cu. ft.
Vaval = 16,150 cu. ft. which is greater than the
Vreq'd of 15,545 cu. ft.
RETENTION BASIN "C"
(Drainage.Area #1, Portions of Drainage Area
#2, #3, and Drainage Area #4)
DRAINAGE AREA #1
Clubhouse Area 7,468 SF x 95 = 709,460
Roadway 26,280 SF x 95 = 2,496,600
Paving (Turfstone) 17,400 SF x 72 = 1,252,800
Grass Areas 15,320 SF x 39 = 597,480
280 SF 3,056, 40
056,340 = 76.29
Composite CN = 5,
66,280
S = 17TT - 10 = 3.11
__ [11 - 0.2(3.11)]2
Q
+ 0. ( ) - = 7.99 in. of runoff
11 83.11
DRAINAGE AREA #2
Roof Areas 15,834 SF x 95 = 1,504,230
Road and Driveways 34,680 SF x 95 = 3,294,600
Grass Areas 82,897 SF x 39 = 3,232,983
1'3 x+11 SF 8,031,813
031'813 = 60.20
Composite CN = 81
133,411
S 1,000
- 10 = 6.61
Q = [11 - 0.2(6.61)12 = 5.75 in. of runoff
+ 0.8(6.61)
-4-

DRAINAGE AREA #3
Roof Areas 21,841 SF x 95 =
Road and Driveways 23,720 SF x 95 =
Grass Areas 73,939 SF x 39 =
119,500 SF
211,9_1 = 60.35
Composite CN = -7,
119,500
1,000
S = 5 - 10 = 6.57
2,074,895
2,253,400
2,883,621
7,211,916
Q = [11 - 0.2(6'.57)]2 = 5.77 in. of runoff
11 + 0.8(6.57)
DRAINAGE AREA #4
Roof Area 26,573 SF x 95 = 2,524,435
Road and Driveway 12,720 SF x 95 = 1,208,400
Grass Area 45,867 SF x 39 = 1,788 813
5 , 0 SF??
Composite CN = 5,521,648 =
85,160
S = 100 - 10 = 5.42
Q = [11 - 0.2(5.42)12
11 =
+ 0.8(5.42)
64.84
6.41 in. of runoff
Vreq,d = AQuAu + PAb - f TAb
[(0.67+x 66,280) + (0.48 x 133,411)
+ (0.48 x 119,500) + (0.53 x 85,160)]
+ (0.92 x 58,822) - (1.67 x 2 x 58,822)
71,834 cu. ft.
WATER OVERFLOWING TOP OF RETAINING WALL
Vreq'd - Vaval = 71,834 - 58,822 = 12,952 cu. ft.
-5-

12,952 CF x
43,560 A0 SF x 1--I in. = 3.6 CFS
HEIGHT OF WATER OVERFLOWING THE RETAINING WALL
Using the Weir Formula, QW = CwLH3/2
Where Qw = Weir Overflow (CFS)
Cw = Weir Coefficient
L = Length of weir (ft.)
H = Vertical distance from the water surface
to the top of the weir (ft.)
Qw = CWLH 3/2
3.6 = 3x 130xH3/2
H = 0.04 ft. = 0.53 in.
DETENTION BASIN "D"
(Drainage Area #5)
Roof Area
Road and Driveway
Grass Areas
21,840 SF x 95 = 2,074,800
16,440 SF x 95 = 1,561,800
46,640 SF x 39 = 1,818,960
0,920 SF 5,455,560
Composite CN = 5,45
50 = 67.42
80
S 1,000 - 10 = 4.83
Q = [1
11 1 + 0:2(4'83,]2 = 6.77 in. of runoff
Vreq'd = AQuAu + PAb - f TAb
= 0.56(80,920) + 0.92(3,860) - 1.67(2)(3,860)
= 36,324 cu. ft.
-6-
H I ,w.
WATER OVERFLOWING TOP OF RETAINING WALL
Vreq'd - Vaval = 36,324 - 3,860 = 32,464 cu. ft. in. 32,464 cu. ft. x 3? SF x 11 ?? = 8.9 CFS
HEIGHT OF WATER OVER THE RETAINING WALL
QW = CWLH 3/2
8.9 = 3 x 115 x H 3/2
H = 0.09 ft. = 1.05 in.
DETENTION BASIN "E"
(Drainage Area #6)
Roof Area 19,293 SF x 95 = 1,832,835
Road and Parking 16,720 SF x 95 = 1,588,400
Grass Area 20,117 SF x 39 = 784,563
'56,130 SF 4,205,798
Composite SC = 4-,079 = 74.93

S = 1?+? - 10 = 3.35

0:2(3
1
35
Q = [1
]2 = 7.80
in. of
runoff
+
11
: ;
Vreq'd = AQuAu + PAb - f TAb
= 0.65(56,130) + 0.92(4,650) - 1.67(2)(4,650)
= 25,248 cu. ft.
WATER OVERFLOWING TOP OF RETAINING WALL
Vreq'd - Vaval = 25,248 - 4,650 = 20,598 cu. ft.
- = 5.7 CFS
20,598 cu, ft, x 360 SF x 11 ft.
-7-

HEIGHT OF WATER OVER THE RETAINING WALL
Qw = CWLH 3/2
5.7 = 3 x 115 x H 3/2
H = 0.06 ft. = 0.78 in.
STORMWATER RUNOFF UNDEVELOPED AREAS
Total Area = 1,040,801 SF
CN = 49
1,000
S = -49 - 10 = 10.41
Q = [1
11 + 1 - 0.2(10.41 12 = 4.12 in. of runoff
1 AC 98.4 CFS
4.12 in. x 1,040,801 SF x
43,560
TOTAL POST-DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF
Undeveloped Areas 98.4 CFS
Detention Basin "C" 3.6 CFS
Detention Basin "D" 8.9 CFS
Detention Basin "E" 5.7 CFS
116.6 CFS
TOTAL PRE_DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF
Total Area = 1,999,779 SF
CN = 45
S = 1-?? - 10 = 12.22
Q _ [1
11 1 - 0.2(12.22) ]2
+ 0.8( 12.22) = 3.52 in, of runoff
3.52 in. x 1,999,779 SF x 4315AC SF = 161.6 CFS
CONCLUSION
In our opinion this stormwater management plan insures
that the post-development stormwater runoff charac-
teristics are significantly improved from the pre-
-8-
IIII ?
development conditions. The 100 year 24 hour event
runoff for the post-development was calculated to be
116.6 CFS, which is a 27.8% reduction from the pre-
development runoff of 161.6 CFS. This 116.6 CFS is
now being dispersed by sheetflow over a wide vegetative
buffer area into the Spartina alterniflora marsh to
the east.
-9-
A -4
'Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, PB84-185560,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September,
1982.
2Practices In Detention of Urban Stormwater Runoff, Special
Report No. 3, American Public Works Association,
1974.
'Standards and Specifications for Infiltration Practices,
Maryland Department o Natural Resources, February,
1984.
'Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Technical Release
No. 55, Soil Conservation Service, January, 1975.
'A Summa
Area Management
Stormwater
A revised version of "Variations in Monthly Precipitation
Over North Carolina", by Waler J. Saucier, Professor
of Meterology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
'Variations in Monthly Precipitation Over North Carolina,
by B. K. Eder, J. M. Davis an P. J. Robinson -wll"t
the North Carolina. Climate Program Office, North
Carolina State University.

RKA RUSSNOW, KANE & ANDREWS
Hydrogeology Post Office Box 33634
Geology Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Environmental Sciences [phone]
Soils
April 10, 1985
Mr. Joseph W. Rose, PE
Rose and Associates, PA
P. 0. Box 1248
New Bern, North Carolina 28560
Dear Mr. Rose:
Re: Storm Water - Sugar Loaf
0%0140%0
Offices:
Raleigh, North Carolina
Newport News, Virginia
Two water table observation wells were constructed at Sugarloaf
Properties, Atlantic Beach, North Carolina, in order to determine
if the water table aquifer is capable of absorbing, storing and trans-
mitting storm water off of the site. The depth to the top of
the water table was approximately three feet below land surface,
and the aquifer thickness was over twenty five feet thick.
The ability of the site to drain storm water recharge was
measured to be greater than 30 inches per hour at both 6 and
18 inches. Samples of the material throughout the water table
aquifer indicate that the infiltr ation capacity will increase with
depth. The runoff coefficient of the well sorted beach sand
deposits encountered on the site is extremely low. With adequate
exposure, storm water can be controlled by infiltration to the
water table.
Based on specific storm water loading characteristics under
design conditions, specific calculations can be performed to determine
the site assimilative capacity. Using contour and the high infiltra-
tion capacity of the sand deposits, storm water can be kept
at no discharge.
If you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
Edwin E. Andrews, III
Consulting Geologist

2-5
Table 2-2.--Runoff curve numbers for selected agricultural, suburban, and
urban land use. (Antecedent moisture condition II, and Ia = 0.2S)
HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP
LAND USE DESCRIPTION A 8 C D
Cultivated landl/: without conservation treatment 72 81 88 91
: with conservation treatment 62 71 T8 81
Pasture or range land: poor condition 68 79 86 89
good condition 39 61 74 80
Meadow: good condition 30
I 58
_ 71
I 78
Wood or Forest land: thin stand, poor cover, no mulch 45 66 77 83
good cover=/ 25 55 70 77
Open Spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries. etc.
good condition:. grass cover on 755 or more of the area 39 61 74 SO
fair condition: grass cover on 505 to 755 of the area 49 69 T9 84
Commercial and business areas (85% impervious) 89 92 94 95
Industrial districts (725 impervious). 81 88 91 93
Residential:/
Average lot size Average 5 Impervious``-/
1/8 acre or less 65 77 85 90 92
1/4 acre 38 61 75 83 8T
1/3 acre 30 5T 72 81 86
1/2 acre 25 54 70 80 85
1 acre 20 51 68 79 84
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways, etc.!/ 98 98 98 98
Streets and roads:
paved with curbs and storm severs/ 98 98 98 98
gravel 76 85 89 91
dirt 72 82 87 89
i/ For a more detailed description of agricultural land we curve numbers refer to
National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology, Chapter 9, Aug. 1972.
Good cover is protected from grazing and litter and brush cover soil.
Curve numbers are computed assuming the runoff from the house and driveway
is directed towards the street with a minimum of roof water directed to lawns
where additional infiltration could occur.
The remaining pervious areas (lawn) are considered to be in good pasture condition
for these curve numbers.
=/ In some warmer climates of the country a curve number of 95 may be used.
r

I '
?
W ' i 1 'rte.
fn f

H

N: -=
_
w ?

0

I

c-5

i v

c, 3

s'

- b
N

Y

i
?
i

I
1 ?? I

K
b J l?
440. *
FIGURES 207
FIGURE 29
HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CIRCULAR CONCRETE
PIPE CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL
180
168 10000 EXAMPLE (
8000 1) ( 2) ( 3)
156 6000 D -= 36 inches (3.0 feet) 6.0 6.0
144 5000 Q = ss cfs
50
4000 Hw• Hw 6.0 5.0
132 3000 D feet 5.0 4 0 4.0
120 (1) 1.8 5.4
2000
4
0
108 (2) 1.55 4.7 . 3'0 0
3
102 (3) 1.6 4.8 .
96 1000 •D in feet 3.0
90 800
84 0
2
600
C . 2.0
cn 78 500
y
2
0
= 72 400 .
Z 66 300 1.5 1
5
U-
V ? .
60 Z 200
E / w 1.5
G MQ?
*N /
-- 54 C
w 100 / Q
w 48 Z 80 - o
Q
42 60 z 1.0 1.0
U
U- / T 50 ?-
40 To use scale (2) or (3) n. 1.0
0 36 30 draw a straight line o 9 9
x through known values 9
33 f s
h
r
nd d
W ize a
a
isc
ge w
20 o

30 to intersect scale (1) ~¢ .8 8
From point on scale (1) 8

27 project horizontally to p
10 solution on either scale Q
(2) or (3)
_ 7
.
8 . 7
24 .7
6
21 5
4 HW/D ENTRANCE 6
3 SCALE TYPE 6
18 0) Square edge
2 (2) Groove end with
headwall
15 (3) Groove end
5
1.0 projecting
- • 5- .
-
- .5
L- 12
BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS JAN. 1963 HEADWATER SCALES 2&3
REVISED MAY 1964

210 CONCRETE PIPE DESIGN MANUAL
FIGURE 32
HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CONCRETE ARCH
CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL
169 x 107
154 x 97
3,000
138 x 88 2,000 (1) (2) (3)
EXAMPLE 4.0 ?4.0
122 x 78 Size: 44" x 27" 4.0 3.0
115 x 72 1,0 000 3.0
80 Q = 30 cfs
600 Hw• Hw 3 0 2.0-
102 x 62 500 0 (feet) 3: 2,0
400 w 2.0
(1)1.02 2.30
88 x 54 300 (2) 0.99 2.23 ? 1'S 1.5
N 200 (3)1.01 2.27 u.1.5
W Or
2 N 'D in feet W
Z 73x45 v?l ??
Z 65 x 40 Z -800 1.G =1.0
a 58 x 36 60 ?XPMe?? ? .9 9 i-.9
W -50
LL I (5-40 Q. 8 .8 .8,
O f Q 30 To use scale (2) or (3) w
{- 51 x 3l = draw a straight line Q r
N I / through known values Cr .7 .7
0 20 of sue and discharge LU .7
X to intersect scale (1) Q I-
4 x 27 From point on scale (1) 6 4-.6-
z project horizontally to .6
0 solution on either scale W'
o (2) or (3). _
tw 36 x 22 6 5 .5 --.5
N I 5
4 HW/D ENTRANCE
3 SCALE TYPE
29 x 18 2 (1) Square edge -.4 .4 L-.4
(2) Groove end with
headwall
(3) Groove end
22 X 13 projecting GJ
I 4.
W A
SUGAR LOAF PROPERTIES
ATLANTIC BEACH, NC
CONDOMINIUM AND CLUB HOUSE AREA
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to insure that the
development of the site proceeds in a manner to
minimize damages from storm water runoff to the natural
environment. This will be accomplished by the retention
of storm water on-site and a reduction of surface runoff
through a storm water collection system which temporarily
holds the storm water for gradual release to the sound,
such that overall damages and degredation is held to
a minimum. The storm water collection system consists
of grass swales, depressed street and yard inlets,
turfstone parking areas, roof drains, and artificial
retention ponds.
STORM WATER DESIGN
This report is based on the 100 year design storm
of 102 inches of rain in a 24 hour period. A double
ring infiltration test was performed at the site
and a permeability in excess of 30 in./hr. was
attained. (Refer to the attached letter from Mr.
Edwin Andrews, III, Geologist). For the purpose
of this report 20 in./hr. was used for the design
permeability of the soils.
TOTAL AREA
Lot 21
Lot 22
Slough
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
Roadway
4,350 LF x 20'
1,951,317 SF
+ 999,867 SF
- 307,757 SF
2,643,427 SF
- 60.68 acres
87,000 SF
-1-

Roof Areas
64 - 3 bedroom @ 1,273.8 SF
36 - 2 bedroom @ 1,092.5 SF
Club House
TURFSTONE AREAS
Condominiums
200 parking spaces
Club House
78 parking spaces
GRASS SWALES
360 LF x 10'
RETENTION PONDS
"All
"Bit
ttcit
ttDtt.
"Ell
"Fi t
"Gil
"Hit
STORM WATER RETENTION
SURFACE RUNOFF
81,523 SF
39,328 SF
6,300 SF
214, 5 SF
8.1% of Area
40,000 SF
15,600 SF
55, 00 SF
2.1% of Area
3,600 SF
- 13,710 SF
- 16,145 SF
- 17,155 SF
- 10,320 SF
- 8,110 SF
- 8,470 SF
- 2,200 SF
- 1,370 SF
77- , W SF
102"/Day x 1 Ft./12 in. x 7.48 Gals/CF =
6.5450 Gals/Day-SF
214,151 SF x .901 x 6.545 Gals/SF = 1,261,456 Gals/Day
55,600 SF x .302 x 6.545 Gals/SF = 109,171 Gals/Da
1,370,627 Gals Day
-2-

RETENTION AVAILABLE
20"/Hr. x 1 Ft./12 in. x 24 Hrs./Day x 7.48 Gals/SF =
299.20 Gals
Day-SF
81,080 SF x 299.200 Gals/Day-SF = 24,259,136 Gals/Day
1,370,627 Gals/Da _ 5.6% of Available Retention
24,259,136 Gals/Day Used
1. Values attained from Design Approaches For Storm Water
Management In Urban Areas, H. Rooney Malcom, Jr. NCSU,
May 1975.
2. Values attained from Pat McDowell, Engineer for the
Town of Nags Head, NC.
-3-
xwfft
RKA RUSSNOW, KANE & ANDREWS
Hydrogeology Post Office Box 33634
Geology Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Environmental Sciences [phone]
Solls
April 10, 1985
Mr. Joseph W. Rose, PE
Rose and Associates, PA
P.0. Box 1248
New Bern, North Carolina 28560
Dear Mr. Rose:
Re: Storm Water - Sugar Loaf
NNK i 1 1yd5
Offices:
Raleigh, North Carolina
Newport News, Virginia
Two water table observation wells were constructed at Sugarloaf
Properties, Atlantic Beach, North Carolina, in order to determine
if the water table aquifer is capable of absorbing, storing and trans-
mitting storm water off of the site. The depth to the top of
the water table was approximately three feet below land surface,
and the aquifer thickness was over twenty five feet thick.
The ability of the site to drain storm water recharge was
measured to be greater than 30 inches per hour at both 6 and
18 inches. Samples of the material throughout the water table
aquifer indicate that the infiltr ation capacity will increase with
depth. The runoff coefficient of the well sorted beach sand
deposits encountered on the site is extremely low. With adequate
exposure, storm water can be controlled by infiltration to the
water table.
Based on specific storm water loading characteristics under
design conditions, specific calculations can be performed to determine
the site assimilative capacity. Using contour and the high infiltra-
tion capacity of the sand deposits, storm water can be kept
at no discharge.
If you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
Edwin E. Andrews, III
Consulting Geologist
HOSE AND C4 SSOCIATES, P. A.
k ee Engineers - Planners - Surveyors
6e Zse, LZ'S 46
e+ tj Am W41-h
S `week 4o Wi6cwS5 1h2?
aT aAe; re wes-" or
I I S S?rtM ?cf.?,er?
QVJse,
Attention: Mr. Lee Fleming
Reference: Sugar Loaf Properties
Dredge and Fill Permit,,.,-
PHI-8501
April 12, 1985

`x
WATER QLJALITY
SECT10/a1
Dear Lee:
Reference is made to the Sugar Loaf dredge and fill permit regarding
the storm water condition therein.
We are enclosing for your review and approval and Engineering Report
and one copy each of the plans.
It is extremely important we expedite this approval for the May 2nd CRC
meeting. We suggest that a meeting be held the week of April 15th to
discuss our proposed plans in detail.
Please advise a time, date, and place for this meeting.
Sincerely,
J eph W. ose, ?PE.,
President
JWR:ww
cc: John Parker - 4 copies prints each & Engineers Report
Preston Howard - 1 copy prints each & Engineers Report
Charlie Bennett - 1 copy prints each & Engineers Report
213 Broad Street Post Office Box 1248 New Bern, North Carolina 28560-1248 [phone]
MASTER LAND USE PLAN
FOR
DREDGE AND FILL PERMIT
S
SUGAR LOAF PROPERTIES
AT
ATLANTIC BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
ENGINEER'S PROJECT N0.#PHI-8303 -?'"??
CORPS OF ENGINEERS NO.#
REC EIV
iIP94 t(?nt
C}E 4 ..
CAR >? r
P
??? L?*,-.eC? •u°°?M./r('.??'eQ$??^?? ,rte
SEA! r
a
6893
r, ?t??/Cl ??,(t
- FPH W.
V
OWNER: SUGAR LOAF PROPERTIES, INC.
BOX 787
ATLANTIC BEACH, NC 28512
919/726-3905
ENGINEER: ROSE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
213 BROAD STREET
P.O. BOX 1248
NEW BERN, NC 28560
919/633-4300

JANUARY 1984
ANNOAM&AL. - 'I
145ww- I- �,
FAA-

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT DATA
OBJECTIVES OF THE DEVELOPMENT
CONSTRUCTION PHASING
CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
MAINTENANCE DREDGING (FUTURE)
EDMISTEN AND HARRIS REPORT
LOCATION MAP
BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
SITE PLAN
DEVELOPMENT SECTIONAL ELEVATIONS
CONSTRUCTION PHASES
PROPOSED CHANNEL
NEW MARSH AREA
DRAINAGE PLAN
TYPICAL DOCK
ROADWAY SECTION
CHANNEL SECTIONS
TIDAL CREEK
SPOIL LOCATION
LOW LANDS
DIKE SECTION
SI-LT BASIN
1
3
4
5
5
5
6
1 of 24
2 of 24
3 of 24 .
4 of 24
5 of 24
6 of 24
7 of 24
8 of 24
10 of 24
13 of 24
14 of 24
15 of 24
16 of 24
17 of 24
18 of 24
19 of 24
Y
??
?. r
SILT FENCE
BOGUESOUND PROPOSED CHANNEL
SOILS MAP
20 of 24
23 of 24
24 of 24
T t
`.
t ip , 'W •
The Town Planning Board and Commissioners have informally
endorsed a properly designed shopping center for this location.
Property is zoned Resort Residental (RR), but in Atlantic
Beach the Planned Unit Development (PUD) was established
August 23, 1983 under Special'Uses, Section 203.43 which
requires Commissioners approval for the shopping center use.
Domestic water and fire protection are available from the
Town of Atlantic Beach. The sewage treatment site has been
reviewed by Natural Resources and Community Development
Agency from the Wilmington office and they concur with our
site location and proposed plans for development.
The application has been filed for a 100,000 GPD wastewater
treatment plant with extended aeration, tertiary filters
and rotary distributor disposal system to be located on six
(6) acres of land located on the south side of NC State 58
across from the proposed development.
We expect speedy approval for this system, after the com-
pletion of a geological test procedure approved by the State
Agency to determine the transmissivity'"T" of the sands in
the area of the rotary distributors.
-2-

PROJECT DATA
y Canal length
(incl. turning basin)
5,426
feet
Proposed Existing
Minimum canal top width 70 70
Average canal top width 122 235
Canal depth 6 feet M.L.W.
Canal bottom width 50 feet
Canal surface area 14 } a cres 29
Canal dredging 37,300 cu.yds.
Low land 1 .65 acres
Available spoil areas
Shopping Center 12 .6 acres
Project fill required
Shopping Center
(compacted fill) 51,000 cu.yds.
Development type commercial/single family/multi-family
Marsh area removal 4,960 sq.ft.
New marsh area 19,200 sq.ft.
Boat basin excavation 13,500 sq.ft.

OBJECTIVES OF THE DEVELOPMENT
In developing the Masttr Plan the following were among the
objectives set forth:
1. Minimum destruction of wetland areas.
2. Creation of inner tidal creek and additional
marsh areas providing valuable and productive
Sa rtina alter_niflora marsh and improve water
quality in the dead end canal by adding cir-
culation and flushing.
3. Design the drainage of the developed areas so
that the maximum possible filtration and re-
tention can be achieved. Drainage directed
away from the canal system to grassed swales,
will tr.ap nutrients and sediment, which would
prevent degradation of water quality in the
canal.
4. Design the canal system to insure maintenance
of good water quality.
5. Mitigation of wetland grasses to more than off-
set wetland losses by establishing new and im-
proved marsh areas.
6. Control of potential erosion of the canal banks
and adjacent properties.
-4-
?# x ??. rr
CONSTRUCTION PHASING
It is projected the canal's maintenance dredging will be ac-
complished within the first year, after the permits are
secured. This material will be used to raise the shopping
center buildings to elevation seven (7') feet. The shopping
center construction will follow with completion scheduled
within three (3) years. Walkways and slips along the canal
will be phased with the condominium construction, which is
projected to be complete in five (5) years.
CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
The proposed construction.procedures are as follows:
1. Clear project site of all vegetation and
dispose of by hauling to approved disposal
areas.
2. Dredge the canal system complete and pump the
material into diked disposable area.
3. Drainage to be through grassed swales, reten-
tion basins and existing drainage ditches.
MAINTENANCE DREDGING (FUTURE)
Spoil area A (2 acre) will be reserved for disposal of material
generated by future maintenance dredging.
-5-
1
EDMISTEN AND HARRIS
ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS
891 NORTH TENTH AVENUE
PENSACOLA. FLORIDA 32501
904/433-1580
December 23, 1983
Mr. Joseph W. Rose, P.C.
President
Rose and Associates, P.A.
P.O. Box 1248
New.Be,rn, NC 28560
Dear Joe:
Thank you for the excellent logistic support during
my study of the Sugarloaf site at Atlantic Beach on Fri-
day, December 16. This letter summarizes my findings and
recommendations for the site.
The vast majority of the land with soils mapped as Duck
ston fine sand (12 on the enclosed soils map) should not
be classed as wetlands, and, in my opinion, should not be
within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredge and fill
jurisdiction. This area is dominated by red cedar, red
bay, wax myrtle, and live oak. The understory in most
areas includes wild olive, Virginia creeper and greenbriar.
I did find a few scattered and small patches of sawgrass
- as understory where to Corps of Engineers might be tempted
to exert jurisdiction. Despite these small inclusions of
sawgrass,_the entire forested area should be excluded from
designation as a wetland under Corps of Engineers dredge
and fill jurisdiction.
I find that the basic plan presented to me is ecologi-
cally sound, but I have some suggestions for revision.
The boat storage facility to the west of the channel should
be deleted from this area. It is located in a marsh which
has been somewhat drained. To take the place of the boat
storage facility, I would suggest high quality-houses on
pilings with balconies looking into the marsh zone. if
houses on pilings are not feasible from the marketing point
of view, you should consider small, high quality shops and/
or restaurants with views to the marsh. I'm suggesting the
elimination of the boat storage facility because represen-
tatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service rightfully
feel that, this facility would diminish the estuarine resources
of the site.
-6-

1r ?, x
Page Two
December 23, 1983
Mr. Post!
The low, treeless area of marsh -where the heat storage
area is proposed could be, improved by dredging it slightly
to about one foot below mean sea level. This would restore
it to a functional salt marsh, eliminating the woody shrub,
Iva, which has invaded, it. The central area of the marsh
could be made somewhat deeper than the shoulders and the
intertidal zone could be sprigged with Spartina al terni. flora
to rapidly establish this as a productive salt marsh.
I can find nothing wrong with the plans to expand the
southern end of the channel into a turning basin since the
expansion would be entirely into uplands. Such an expanded
end to the channel should have the shore provided with a
man-made salt marsh that is at least ten feet wide as miti-
gation for the loss of the thin (4-6 foot wide) edge of marsh
that exists along the present channel.
Finally, since there are a few lower, wetter areas in-
side the cedar forest that have sawgrass and might cause
the Fish and Wildlife Service to express concern, I suggest
that we offer to.create a Spartina alterniflora marsh along
the northern edge of the cedar forest as depicted on the
enclosed soils map. The eastern end of the new marsh could
be constructed in the Juncus marsh zone so as to preserve
the 'forested area around the existing.marsh in the forest.
The remainder of the linear Spartina marsh I am proposing
could be built largely in the upland, forested area. The
center of this linear marsh should have a tidal creek which
connects to the flood control ditch on the western boundary
of the Sugarloaf site.
The creation of this marsh and its inner tidal creek
would not only result in more valuable and productive
Spartina alterniflora marsh, but would also help keep water
quality good in the existing dead end channel by aiding
circulation and flushing.
I enjoyed seeing this site and working with you. Please
feel free to call if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
i
Joe A. Edmiston, Ph.D.
JAE:ah
Encl: soils map sheet 410 with notations
t? . Mrs,` r. r ' J ,i ! • ?. .? tl ,, ti . r1 i
;f -1
3 + Ir ?. sJ. +r
1
ryi?„ ii•.,?d .= ° ) 1•. I` JI ?. 1.?T1 9, (.. 1'`?" j M ,•? ? it.y'.t•,? 11G?i ?}„'
v 4, or
i `• f ? ?T' t J J , C !? .1 y y 'r 1? < •AI 1 t' t, `' ? t '•? i •• v4'. t; !r ? -
? ? .1; i.? (? '?•• I • /s?•. t, l trti ,3'J>.Z .FrPy,?x
1 1 r ? .?y r'S ., ',,1 '.?• # ? ?. ? / ?,. • r' ' •? 1 ? ' , ? r , . • .A . ?t ? ? + t, r ' • (' ,? ?? ?' tYf '••ai.i ry-*'I
.) .? r• • 1 j ?. ,• t , !?. aa,1 •a? •'J / ?.' ,• J.JS ,.?t.,.S.„?. Aft t?
?I ?• •• , , 1 -? ' ` / t •rb' ?? j_`j •" I ti , • ! .} 1 dtr .!'i ?f..•2}; /fs?
?L : • ?, ;:.. ? SS ? ?? 1 '7 Sri o . ,? .c ? a ....? ?'' +? , ,
A, V
.y i. r ?' t .V•• •• a.t ,'•? i ?.,4 * a?• + •?` ??. • I??" , ?! ?.. ? ?' ' ?t fj4 r / ?'F''•:-,?` ?? ? ? ?:r'? ./
t -Y'01 . 66 4
1 ? •.? i• ... ? +, ? ?/ , 1. ?I, • ?? ` ,D Y?r ? ? ? ! r •/ ..t/ f!'.ll ?Ji?1't•,r .?,?• J .`

{ /.r 1 et ?. !p t! •?.ir°" ?S` / r r ?b? Jar 4. r
22 46

10
+ i

1 . a ? / f ? y.. J•r? ? /y,?
eXI st'Y. ; , t t l s ., drained salt- /ldar4 '
6 1.proposed Sra] tqrni"flora marsh and'velry,
. a a' ?.• ' 4 t{ q. ?a v' /? ?r 1 fr 'rrr. ,f
It:It JA'
12
r?
f. a
4a,L .. .?. Ir ..•yai??. rOtFt?,Mt 4?rS al ../'^. .a`... ..? •I-? a a .. a'-. .. ._.. .. ... •b s
r't•fa ndvnrce copy: of tho Outer P,iv: it Survey l:.ls ii,- tit n crrre' tee an;t is subj c: r [o ft:tt:r
It:f in,'metit. Kinped aarvn!, of Ghout I airy-; or larg.a'• art' , c l-iable for n-t lan,! n1r.1wir't•Ilt tisch.
SCALE INCH FEET
`lbe 1>1:hllcaticn cf the text :.iterial ::d :;nil rni s, of the Cuter Batr:ks was }partially funded !,v '!:'
Dtf it a of Cod;:tal %OnE` *K^.nat't't'nt , N,:=:C1n<F1 nC('An4v an.: Atl onpheric Ad:ninistrzt ion through tht'
Coas-tr:l. Resources Ct?ral:ission, North Carulinn rivi•artmtnt of N.ittlral and Frononic Rt:sourres anti 1. ;r
tic united Stares *:atioraj Park. Servll. , rlepstrtrlent of interior.
C,7 D ?" G lob.
7
to
Kati-.
r "
???G 6P r,K.g ? ? r J
\ 5h
(tp
a
?--- 2 Lae, H? w??v F?A??i?-16 941a.25'?ROM 1?.iTER-
g SEG'f1o?.J or NC 58 1:t AMC)
Dtvi dzd- Hi c?hw:i 1 CE?R L.A jE'-- RCA[;) Ct
Su'awrLoa.f tIJ ORMAtIb?! TAKNhI G"P,o1?
WsZe?r 1.? rie
? MEP.C,HAfv i ?AAP' ?'FtiZET
L-???DE Amp imuEx-
' PHI-e?,oE c•o,Rr??r t.?uti--Y
LOCAT"ioQ MAP
??? ROSE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
e?UGARL,.OAF PROP. New Bern, NC
23
SHEET of
+U -r
?-r'oa }a n
tLcrrt;,??, orttot
tt ?, .ice O.-may`'
O tit Y1.
BAyii,s? t J
;5'"4
?.Ca
a ,-t 4, i
2 Ea E !-+?i?hwak FAA 15 94fn.Z5'?ROM 1?1TEf?-
9 SCGT?o?J or ?• e- 58 C t-
17CvEd.od Hic?hu?;? 1 CE?R t.A?.?E Rip
/III 'Su3aa:rLoa.Fll'.?1 ORMAT-lgt!! "TAKEN .G?G
C-+IJ?PE AMP INVEx" ??7R
PNI-BOO'S GARt?E-r' (.?uti''Y
LOCAT"ioQ MAP
ROSE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
?ofp\
5UGARl..OAr PROP. New Bern, NC
.
SHEET 1 of

r

- ; ?3 p Zoo arc g°^ ax-??,
?jGALE ? /, 500' % TODOVR.4FaH?C. ?UR`iGY K, P,.OSE AND C.,,4SSOCIATES. P.A.
New Bern. NC
5v ?-,,c.??o,a. r pro ? + •
/.
-PRL
t" s \

All
Y`
wt
r? ire + ???
1 V r i?„?. .s?a?>+
? ,1l;Ir ur ?,
AAS;,
Yea "? `+t
I ,'ai,'?: ,.s ? ?•1 dl???? a ? H? 7 1??;/r ? ;\`? L E G E I?.I p
_ ?,ss",.?_ 1(j •?,' _J?.. .-? y?-?, ,,?• „ ? ?..• Woods Ed9G
1? t 4 `? ?t-: ?_- _ _. ?• J'-l??_ ? /?/J'?+• !t (;??s+! ?"' - ? WdtGTa7 EaL'L
UT VCA Road
liir ? ??-. y.qp , s.r,+•? _?y.? ??:o?_-/? ? 1! ?! cl? . 5i', -\ :f , _ _ ._._ ?07L"?our' L?:inGh
call 05, IE
i-1 \3., tom _ 9'
Z•`M 3
r
Hc-C 1 v?
I
40
i / •? ? ..d?+N_I?? F? ?? ?r•t?r 4.J1 ?
AW ?JEL °
z.
Ar
1011
ylr
/ YL ???4n"a - ? 1 ilt
At, .?
Y
4
G,jLIPco - 100
,? ? - LEC? Et?.1
>
(Oil
i
e 'Prop. Line.
_ AA
L_ ?jWOOPt1JC? G?tiTER ? G?U6 HOUSE
t?2,2oo 'bQ, t=T.
--------------
71-11-c
PI..At..l
t~ nR ?? fZQSE AND C.4SSnCJATES, P.A.
ibu&AFRI.oA? PROP. New Bern, NC

00 1.=Jr- 711
44?
1 t' It i;
Cl©Cl 1(r ?I i? r,?y'i,f?' OT' ?1CJ ?J1,E?,?1 ¢.? ',?? ??? ?lin3•
f
Gha?mr,aL Townhome?o?ad? To.?•?- r,l?ome? -*- WoodFO Ma-rm7L,.
SCALE : I " +? 100'
5?L-rtorJ [3 - ? ;
7tlN`.h.1.??1.?.•:. =-i ? at
--L-
?" ?0?? Gjl-t.o u Gcn?.er ' -ark' woocLt?
it, Po n
rT-1 Do
i
+ J.
L1.?+b ?Utr
Gha.,1,,n.cL PboL Nou?E. Rat i?a?l,

-TrYPtC/-* L.
Fr;OSE AND C ASSOCIATES. P.A.
New Bern. NC
rte. NE.?.T' ?_ o? .

W .C p
s
,t
1
f
X111 ? Jam. ? !! /f`?+?)`i
1111 p ;rl v
1
X11
DOSE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
?• ?. ,, New Bern. NC
SMEET 5 o f

9b ? ?
- I
yc O 1`i
1`.
?_ < < LEGE?
ProptinG
1 -ter- Woode) Eci5e
it/ ?- Mar5i1
%, ?? prop. C.NC.a?w?El-
Q QOO 40. inn OOJ EOO IJ,q?o
5EE F'ACaE I-AA- I41 Fam
r
?? CORRE?PoNr?+.?G GNAAI?,?EI. GROh-SEGTIc??I gLALE ".Sao
NI-?3 •
OITE PLA KI
dor ROSE AND c -ASSOCIATES. P. A .
New Bern, NC
? God.bt.? CLrcc+??
5 HE'ET (o o??

)Ul
1. •
-
AREA
Low
ti
•
3 (i5") RCP .
/ ? " •r ?lllll boat ?c?i.,n
EXflivoltinr 13, Wo
H 5 T"
I?IEv?/ h?l/? ?.?1-i .Q?"i1?=-• ROSE AND -ASSOCIATES. P.A..
New (Bern. NC
SNEET 7 0
1
at fANB?r??
? r" ??...?ROAD /'.
C;ksrv?EL

S.
L 1
L
1 114
N'1
1 k
F?.
ow-
v, ?1 JA3
v YG ??}'.? ,f?3i ?
VIM
20
.`\•A tip ?t i r •. ,, . tJ °D1• "'?' -- - - Ceritcwr LL-ntAo
t, ? and aoo 500 f?oo H9Q.?,?°
gL.4L.a 1 "• 500'
k,OSE AND C,,4SSOCIATES. P.A.
Ntrw Bern. NC
E7 Tr 'T

_Jul
spi
W >
, 41
;.
o ?,
r o
c? N 1 0
oc ? ?
d ? ? o
> 13
Q o1
us LL 0
o?
1l3 S ? . .
d ?< :2 w
:r
SZ
?? g Q w
s+ w - o
? _W N
-? 3
P4-11-5303
C,S Se-G' ©r?.1
K _ V-1 ROSE AND v!-SSOCIATES. P.A.
?
1-C,6 r PROP New Bern. NC
SHEET°> o f ?.

C-., A, Q A L -?

PII.ItJGS
N
m

I

E
WOODEN 5UMFALIE
j, YV Vag
Yo Y/MAR514 AREA m1
i+ror W l -- Wi \41
50F T 5HOUL.,DEF
'jLAL,E Iof - E O'
NOTE: SEE ?EGTIONS
PI-11- 8303 E-E FF c2m 5NEF-T 12
FLAM VIEW
K ROSE AND C, 4SSOCIATES, P.A.
TYPICAL ?)0C,h { New Bern, NC
U5UGAK LOA= PROPSFTiE-c
SHEET 10 of 23
+CN'
I A. IF
?
>
.' i
N - ?
9 ?
w 2
?4 0
\ J
1
0
M
Q ,.
LL S s . #
? Q p ?? NI
?- 4 21
0 3W
:2 :2
?Vj OQ
HOSE AND ASSOCIATES, P. A.
?U(>AR LO/r-- PROP New Bern. NC
SNE?'T t ? o.??

? --
r
J ? ? J 9
i
?_ ? a0 s [L J
?( x X X O J
N N N N J _ 4. ?= ?(I
o
a? II_ o ?
Fil
_'?_ ?_ ICI s
-3'YPI c,o. ? DoL??
? GT'1Ot?S?? ROSE AND CASSOCIATES, P.A.
New Bern. NC
C.7wLc?•T= QP.
Lt1 y
?I
z
-°.
I 1
`' ? III??
o =(i?ll
5HEE'S" 1 e' 'O .

W
Q
0
O 0
Q ?

Q O ? l1?

IJ m 1 20
`9 0 x

0
w
J
d , .
2 ?.
.9
l9 ??
.a
-g3o3
C.,F?G7 ?ac> HOSE AND CASSOCIATES. P.A.
66 &AF j LCIA F:? PROP I I ?j New Bern. NC
,..G 2
SHEET.

VARIES FROM 7D' -a•o 12 z?
old-
4 5 ------- -
M , ?V = 0.00
EX i5T IO G SOTTO M VA IE.S
TYPICAL 0AAKINEL-
oil
a
PN 1- f33o3
ROSE AND CASSOCIATES. P.A.
)ELTJ OKI I. New Bern. NC
SHEET ?`? o{-

O.O
0.3?
1O•
100-
141
6' 0
Tr
H.ORIZ. SLALE ?•?= :30
LINE. ) VERT. caC,AL-E I' = 3?
D M Hv?/ Z• 5
+o,
MLW ELEV 0.0' 17
100
O o
_ oZ -------- LO'a
_I9
4.4
' 40 -
VOL- P-O(aO Z:LCU-Yd5 _ -
_ o
HORtZ,. SLALE C' r- 30
L i t?1E Z \/EMT. 5 L A.L5- = 3
PH I - 8303
SEE-- PA E Co FOR l,lt\IE G O -SEGTt0?1 Lc'L?4 I©a1
(f.HANNEI:._.
/Q 1111 ROSE AND rASSOCIATES. P.A.
New Bern, NC
23
SHEET 14A of
? • s
+o. z
0
_ V MOW Z.45'
+o.z
n 195
M LLW ELEV 0.0'
4a ?
.5
?55
12.4
vol. _ , 16o s, o (,u. yas
,? NOR Iz.? SC.Af_..E I ?= 30'
L1QE 3 \J-RT. SLAI-E V=
v MHW Z. '
C
o.Q M L W EL:EV 0.0'-- Q -
-o.4
Ipo
. / 43
77, 4.
4¢ ,?i'o?/?{23
70 ' =(0.0 ??+?
YoL = 253.23 c.u. yds.. 7`
NORIZ. SCALE C- 30'
PN 1- 83 LIQ E * 4 vSF,T. SLAL- E 1" = 3'
SEE P E 0 LIAI>c GR0-s;,5 - 55c- 10 GAT
GE-11a1J t`J? l._
Q K, JZOSE AND C ASSOCIATES, P. A.
Gf 1? - ???TIO?? New Bern, NC
SHEET. 14e, C )f
p M N W Z•.45'
380
AALw r? 0-- 0' S7
0 z-_- ?d
d. Z
-L z?? : 8
1 1- -2.4
. z8
VoL- i3(v8. 44
2?3 ,la 3p5
33Z
? 5 vERT SCALE 1' = 3'
LIME
p wt N VJ 2.45
Zia
M LW ELEV. 0.0' V
-1.4
0 70
2.4
10 58
? ?7DL? 12gg .12 w.
4Z
HORiz. e)L- .L.E t = 3a
L?1JE O VEFRT. 5(?ALE I' = 3PN? -?33°3 SEGT•iGnl LO?TeON
SEE PACE E ? ??I..IrlE
C,1--IAQ Q E L ROSE AND cASSOCIATES. P.A.
6 51CIT 10 &42 New Bern, NC
SHEET 14c ?
of

_p M Nv? 2.4-5'

6 Ito

"
4.s I!m i1 (-U. de4,

ZS

?
' 1-10RtZ. SCALE 130'
,
'
`
?
ir.,.. I Tel E = 3
V E RT. SC.A L.E 1
V M N w 2. 4 5,

M LvJ ImLEV o-o' p
0.0 -
1.10
330
-I. _e. e_
o z7
X38
1/0?= 3? 3D.o cu .06
5 s? 75
HORIZ, SLAt_E 1 _ ??1..? t - f33o3
- EE PA GE (0 I: og tllQc GF?Ql7sG?!ON L.OLATIO?4
GN AN QI:l_
Q r ?? - I?p$E AND ASSOCIATES, P. A .
t?f l? -~ GJ?GT IOO ? 4 New Bern, NC
?,)HE:E:T ICIa of _z

-I?
I
• r ?
om l
% Q
%j
T ? Q
c0Qj jS
(ulf)
O ZQ
to
0W
p nil s >
0
> .Q
in .
I W
N ? _W
J
? Colt-
+10 lot
Icu
Y
{o
0
QN 1-8303
5EE FAGS (-0 FOF? LI kiE l?R p?h - hE C ,'f'10?J LrUC_AT 1 Dt?!
CHAQ UELt
GR %?" ??Ce??OIJCJ kDSE AND C.ASSOCIA'"ES, P.A.
New Bern, NC
f -
514E1=r 144 0

dM I
1 O
-I.co
0
- (--
o?o
Z.8
. VoL.= 281?.?3 C,u.?d?•
HoFSrz. SCALE 1''= moo'
LINe 9 5 \/F-NT. S5(.ALF- 1 3'
S3o3
SEE PAGE 0 P'OR L-IKIIE_ LRC>C:7S-5EC.-TlDQ LaC..A.-rl0O
G H A 1`11J ? L. ?....
G?5 O?J?1 g'-:-) EC,TI O N DOSE AND C ASSOCIATES, P.A.
New Bern, NC
SHEET i4 -F:
p?_

? i IW

>111
0
0
N
.0
i?
\ - N y M
J -1
? QQ
?j
T
- 6)
psi
M
Q
11°
0
SEE. P/?GE Cv ?oR t._.t?l? [fR?? _SE?T?o tiJ L.OC.A.T 1C71?
C 1--1AIJ N E L..
?r ?t 6 r, ROSE AND cAssoCIATES, F. A
C l?? -Co5L-T 10022 New Barn, NC
SHEET 1-4 v .0. 2
O M 14 W *e 4-B'
MLW E:LE V. 0.0'
0
o. o
_LCo ?
0 132
g5
-3.
7
-43
-?,0 z59
W ?.o
Vol. I°>4o1.9 c.u:y
HORIZ, 5GALE 1 CoO'
LI t?1E l? vERT': SCALE 1"_ 3'
0 m"W .415
o.o -. MLw??ECEV. O.fl^ ? .. --
_?
'?. IZ4 Zlo
3_7 ,? - 3 77
i/
_I
340
-15
340
_0
78
?-1C7RIZ. -?C.ALE 1 ??= Co0
LINE I3 A VEFiT. ?c?ALE 1"= 3'
PHI - 8?3
5EE P,e,G E ? 'FOR t?I E CROSS-SEC."1'IOt? LOC.AT 10
CPA:NKI SL
/,, ROSE AND vlSSOCIATES, P. A.
GRQ?6' eEUT l0Q5 K, New Bern, NC
SHEET N f 23
o

r r
V MNW P-. AS'

o. o ---h4-LW. ELF-V...00 0'
?? a 54

? '' ` ? zoo
?I
c
-6.=? o
_ IC 137 F6
VO
HOFi1Z. C-J ALE I"? roO'
LWE 15 VEFtT. C-D C.ALE !' - 3'
P141-55o3
eEE PAGE Co 1-of:, c-IKJIS LRohS-SE?T?0?1 LOCQTIO1?l
CPAKJKIF-L GF?D?J - SEL?'"IU?.l? rZosE AND v1SSOCIATfiS, P.A.
New Bern, NC
23
G HEFT 140 ' Of

c--
1 ? •l
t .. ?_ ys

LEGE???n
Prop.?,inG
Woods Edge.
?ft. ma, rs k
O rce 4OS Cb too Ono I0,900
gCA LE 1". SOOl
5PCI l?
L..OC.AT 0?J ROSE AND CASSOC/ATES, P.A.
New Bern, NC
y
SHEET I?o? ?'=

t,., ECG: E tU D
EYi.?ti,n9 l.ow?.,,cls (o8,5ao '54.?'z.
?? La?.,la? Lo6L I
J
RoacL C L- L 2, 400 -A. PA,
?hptOCvl'L.A G-GT'L3L.Y t ( 00 en'. N.
i
i t
/ 3 t ..ti'I.7
11 1

4 t
•? r +
RCAt L
,
i
-J? .
f?
I?
.1

L0 L A Q DS x ROSE AND vISSOCIATES. P. A.
.'? New Bern, NC

111 ;t?,. 1
r ?r
A ?
4OD N
Z }
77,
? Z
U) m? QY
'3 s ,? 4
?'
W ? a '? ( Yf ?t a
z ?
w > o
Q ? NDa
o W
' Q X 00
, N 3
Q W
w w 50 ILtil it,
1
o?
0111 .
m
o?
WQ
Z3?
?pJ
u
r Q 0
QQ? F
.j
I
W?>
Z
D K ? ?.?1 P 4 DOSE AND vl SSOCIATES, P. A.
????L?? pRQp New Bern, NC
5 NEETA f - ?. ek
.
J
S TOP OF D ITCH SLOPE -
BASE OF DITCH FOR
V DITCH VARIES
' MtN.
PIPE
BASE OF DITCH FOR VARIES
FLAT BOTTOM
DITGH
TOP OF DITCH SLOPE
PLAN
NOTE:
SMALL SILT. BASIN To Ce USED AS NEEDED AT PIPE INLET AMD OuTLETS,
PARALLEL 8bkowAY AITCUE5 AND 4T QTtIvlN w ATI01.15 A5 DIRECTED PJf ?NE
LAICq tt?ICER.
LENGTH) WIDTH AND DEPrN 46 iV.QU^F-P TO WWMOL 61LT ICI FLOW L WC.
IS' mW. -I_ 8-. MIAI.
A PE
Tor of DITCH
SLOPE
MOW
ELEVATION
DETAIL OF 5I LT BA5 N TYPE B
I - 6 ?3 0-3
.
ROSE AND v1 SSOCIATES. P. A I
cJI..?U??iL?,?-?•? ???? c,,t New Bern. NC
SHEET ?1$ p_

K S
?
I?

K

d ti?l
1
O
" '' WIRE FABRiC. 5TEEL Chi WOOD PoI
IS? 5URI..AP _ rl
3to" } z ?? p?rJrl?
ZG I? ? ro' M?1.1.
- GRODUD l.IWE
.lll;,ti ? Js
36" 1 AJCNbK BURN' tktIRT A6 PIRSCTSD
gTE^El. ppy? -1 i?, -13Y THE EqCGUIECR.
woo0 RVT - DETA IL OF 7EMR0F A W eo1LT PENCE
Vim'. AO D1RECTeV 8K T 14F- E^ICGUkII_ER C ID' MAY)
Ir_ZUA• 1K1TEFtMr_D1A'rr_ WIRE
T_ 1 7-
S l 24''
NOTES:
M11
Fence fabric shall be a minimum of 32 inches 3(a in width and shall have a minimum of 6 line t
Its s wires with 12" stay spacing.
Q (2) Burlap shall be 7'z oz. weight and a minimum of
J 32" in width. Burlap shall be fastened adequately
to the fabric as directed by the Engineer.
0 (3) Steel posts shall be 5'0" in height and be of
self-fastener angle steel type.
3 (4) Wood post shall be 5 to 6 feet in height and 3 to
4 inches in diameter . Wire fabric shall be fastened
-Ao wooden post with not less than #9 staples 11-2
Pu _ j inches long.
T"? M PoR/?F?Y 511rT' .
F"?t`1LE DETAIL x , ROSE AND c_ASSOCI RTES. P.A.
New Bern, NC
??C.??A?l?c?•F' PF?C»
SNEET ?i? °T.?
a 10 4
H
2
W
5
W
i
t
t
IC I
f
PfI
EAPM V1 KE
? 15, mlo. 1.0 ap
2
?'.E.s.
PIPE =Lo vY
Mlk l AEQUIREMEkh-r, of 14A oR EA4slEMEN` e5
PLAt?I
V, 4-1 R- VAR. 15L.OPE:
2 col $
M
LEVEL-
sc-n0 J _V 1EW
F_
FES
A
NOTE:
ALL DIMENSIONS OF BASIN AND DYKE
A
"
B
'
C
11
D
10'
E
4" •
AREA
177
ILL NOT REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION TO SOB 18
" 15
' 15
18" .
101 41' 315
NEAT LINES.
THE PLAN VIEW ABOVE INDICATES THE SOB
SOB 24
30" 20
25' 24" 10' 4' 419
SILT BASIN IS ROUND. HOWEVER, IT SOB 36" 25' 24"
" 15'
' 5'
' 419
707
IS DRAWN IN THIS MANNER FOR ILLUS- SOB
B 42"
48" 30'
40' 30
30" 15
20' 5
5' 1257
TRATION PURPOSES ONLY. AND MAY BE SO
B 54" 50' 36" 20' 5' 1964
CONSTRUCTED IN ANY SHAPE THE CON-
REA SD
SOB 60" 50' 36" 25' 5' 1964
TRACTOR DESIRES AS LONG AS THE A
IS AT LEAST SOB 72" 50' 36" 25' 6' 1964
AND DEPTH OF THE BASIN
S LARGE AS INDICATED.

DETNL OF !!?4LT F:?A51?d
kOSE AND C ASSOCIA T ES, P.A.
Tlypg 4 New Bern, NC
?UC?.R?oA?' PRop
F' N I- g ?0 3 5 14E1~ T ? oT-
IS MIU. Equ1?E.M?urS OF ?N ? EA5ENICNT'?j
f"RROVICE OvEFtFLo1n1 5P?LLWA`f Iti, NA'tUf5A1.
CSOUMD nT ?N ELEVA?l0?a EquAL `M TuE
p,FLoW rr OF T>`IE Ot1T.-ET PIPE. PPSOViD? Q
(_go. 5FGT:o?- EQf`!Ai TO 1•S
O /// 4? I N lE'f PIPE AAA BEL-Dw _ W E C L? V A
`? -7 T1oN OF T1-M- TOP QF 0 KE.

* Flu.. SL PE
Z. to 10?
10, LOP,
BASE
WAS) I
NATURAL C-Roumo
_. DATA 1 L.. OF TEM PO RARY S.iL.T DITCH
cmiz or GuTrevi
FAGS Q>c GUR6-??? 1 1
! I 1 11
TYPEa
G d. I TYPE Z
1
i G.B.
T
i?tpE I
I
1 s
I I
1 '
j I
j FACE OF Gu>$---?-j I
EDGE OF
4 uTTr-m
4" DRA14>PIM OR POLE 104 C--5-
--77 - NOTE:
A SMALL 51?T 5At4M TO M ugt=Q AT
L.OW Poo-M-r CATCH BA-151N5 P? WEEDED
_ >- AN9 Ay D iR E:L-rW BY -n4 F- ENCgI t4Es-:i
a L.ENGiTIA, WLD'rR AAD -DEPTA L'S ?%sQL11FWED
?JIII.I. -ro C0IJTVt,0- 51L_T FF50NA GONhTRUCTI[?nl
AREA.
DCTAIL?:OF TEMPDRARY ?5ILr 13A51N
pET?I ?? 1 J+ .OSE AND cASSOCIATES. P. A.
New Bern, NC
St,CTAF2,l.G?.F' PROP.
SHEET 2? o?

i ^ -
e

Cal
SA_
tQ
t/1 ti? y '

,•
Toaiiii
• 1
O
F
r? U N 3
?' .rf b j, s G .bF ? i.
t I
?? r r??;+ • ? ?At1 O
• Mr, W • -_
f O
r"; ' ? ,(mss .,•? '4;:e« ?-
??• ` ? Q ;t. t
/ J
to
.41111-
r'? C jt X71 V = u
ii-5 ui
V) -i co 0
p t .t Y tl U `, ? ? C?
;; .,. W a
cn In
;,?.•? t 1 t I t 0 O
/ ?t0 O N
d Q
ir
v ti ?•..
V
40
r
8

z C
ty-
_ )- Q ?-
W

Z LL.
w Z c
m z t
L

z `? -
z °6 z

J
O
Q ? 0

_Z_
~?T
y

i ? 114h. ''•y t? ~
fj ? M
.1?'?' ?? t'r ,ql
• 7 , r f _Tt r-?qy-? y ?: t +r r ar wy ' l J r v '4
.! t ?i . i? ' Sn1 r .? a e t axt . . + a f J 1
wq,
II ?. ? a ?+ a , / ? t7 .a ? r '? ?- ;4+ f . 7r IPf • s• J i tiE
frr •K + f Jr3.?_s. .tvr ;r`??..•r°?,i`?LI.nA?' !hi'!
ai.-• r/1'.1 ifti ? Z r .: +.- •?F R ? . ai :Lt hid
` 'a7 '+} J.• },1,.c, +f if ir, i .frl.y ?*u . i`?:?,?,
.74
-r •i'r' '?t:b?j}'d ? r •1? _ '?•yJ?, '?•j ?V? ? ? xr '..?YFy„i?
I 1 t' 4"..i } 1 :? t• K r w .. : i {.' r F } J ? /' ?. t3
?? i
t. r r}?`1??r ? •^ r• %'' f ••?:.? ', rr.,. fir'
({Q .? ?t?()r'+1?::OVta? :vt?y
401-
tai+t'a? ?.tas- n'i+w+. r~x. y iy Ol(1S itlEf ,.
' Kr
V •T •'?77.? R?' JIr Yj• Jirt.r} "g.?-
tot
.
? r !i. . ,.1'rl?r• ' ta• ? Gam/ .??''/.
Y? ? ' . { ??+Y :•.'Yr'?"rLyX ? ? '?'Ff f'? ,'t'i $7r? .
41,
• { .•.' ?-?> sue. .?;i ?,s , ? r.•. ,
: op
9
# • fir r ' • l? J '• .` rV . _•
i 6
?a i j 1 r. J, r 4
.(. ? r 4v .X f,.4 ?f• y/
?* ?¢ 'W "" dl. Y r r, /• ? i rl,a .!1 ,ar f ` r. ?.,'.I r ? C i
f. A S> fly .i ?.? ;. ? 'tr•? ?T'. ?... :aY,•
r • . rv
410
twFORMATION TAKEN FROM U.5. DEPARTMENT OF
AGF3IGULTURAL 5011 LOW5ERVATION SE.RVIGE
501L SURVEY Or THE CUTER eANt',5 1 NORTH C.AFiOLINA
SCALE: 1 INCH = 1000 FEET

.
6) Carteret soils, low
This .mapping consists of very poorly drained, -sandy, marsh
soils: 'They occur from the South Carolina line to the Roanoke
Sound but are more extensive in the southern part of the survey
area. These Carteret soils have formed on the sound side of
the barrier islands. They are flooded daily by ocean tides and
are vegetated mainly with pure stands of smooth cordgrass.
O to 4"; dark grayish brown loamy sand
4 to 10"; dark gray loamy sand
10 to 34"; gray loamy sand
34 to 80"; greenish gray sand
Soil Horizons. A C
Fig. 17
Soil profile drawing of Carteret soils, low.
Salt contents that range from about 20 to 35 parts per
thousand were measured in typical areas of this soil. Sulfur
odor was also evident when the soil material was exposed to the
air. Laboratory data of several samples showed a sulfur con-
tent of 0.01 percent or less in these sandy marsh soils.

t(.'?,,{';? rr, ??.? •711,x' f 4,•;.?.iF?i?t ?`? {/?
+': ?..?, :4 ? ire/ r:" ,. ? ;?••, jQ 1?,.?
Fig. 18
Low-lyir. Carteret soils are flooded daily
Ly c c•:?an tides. 'r,,,ese area n of smooth cord-
grass an. /Jthor marsh. species contribute to
the prod .:?7tivit-! of the estuarine system.-
In many places small
nglt(:* with areas of open
butes substantially to the
system in relation to all
reason for separating this
units
10) "Dredge Spoil
areas of this mapping unit are inter-
water. The smooth cordgrass contri-
primary productivity of the estuarine
other marsh species. This was the main
maapina unit from the other Carteret
These areas are along the Intracoastal-Taterway and are the
result of dredging maintenance of the waterway. Most areas are
composed primarily of sand and shells. Many have a "chocolate
drop or cone shape; others are somewhat flatter. They have been
deposited on the surrounding soil which, for the most part, is
marsh.
Most areas were not shaped and seeded after the dredging
operation; thus, areas bare of vegetation or only sparsely covered
with vegetation are common. A few of the older established areas
are covered with trees and shrubs.. These spoil areas range in
height from 4 to 15 feet but most are less than 10 feet. The
areas that are large enough to be of value as building sites or
similar uses generally are filled and leveled to 6 to.8 feet above
the original ground level.
These areas generally are droughty because of the sandy tex-
ture and the amount of shell fragments. They have poor filtering
capacity for septic tank effluent, and there is a hazard of
poll-ution in the underlying ground water and marshes.
A good choice of plants for stabilizing this soil is Coastal
bermudagrass since it can be established and maintained with con-
ventional methods. At any rate the acidity of these soils should

?r .
Fig. 24
Spoil piles along the Intracoastal Waterway
in the.southern portion of the Outer Banks.
Most of these soils have severe limitations
for development.

be checked by laboratory testing methods and lime should be added
according to the results of the tests. In areas where there is
blowing sand, American beachgrass or bitter panicum are preferred
over Coastal berrudagrass for stabilization.
If this soil occurs 'along a channel-with brackish water,
smooth cordgrass can be used to stabilize the toe of the bank.
Coastal bermudagrass (assuming it is not directly exposed to salt
spray from the ocean) can also be used on the upper part of the
slope.
12) Duckston fine sand
This mapping unit consists of poorly drained soils. They
occupy the nearly level to slightly depressional flats that
extend inland from the frontal dunes. Also, they are in the
small, irregularly-shaped depressions between the Corolla and
Newhan soils. The soils are sandy throughout. They contain a
high percent of coarse sand, few to many fragments of shells, and
a buried surface layer within 80 inches of the surface.
Native vegetation is dependent on proximity to the ocean.
Areas affected by salt spray are dominantly vegetated by dense
stands of saltmeadow cordgrass and scattered waxmyrtle. As the
distance from the ocean spray increases, less salt-tolerant grasses
and sedges occur along with greenbrier, eastern baccharis, black
willow, redbay, three-square, scattered cattails, blueberry, wild
olive, and Virginia creeper.
0 to 3"; very dark grayish brown fine sand
3 to 8"; dark grayish brown fine sand
8 to 13"; light brownish gray sand
13 to 17"; dark gray sand
17 to 60"; gray sand
Sos1 Horizons: A C
Fig. 27
Soil profile drawing of Duckston fine sand.

1
.i."' I Jig pI .??f? 9?1{. ti•' r ? ? •
.?t 9i i.!!e l?t'rr•- 1•s?i..??`a`'?,.?„'?.??+,tstf/It `t}•?rty~'??tr?' ti:.?
"Of Al
r t _
r r , ?' -«. tic-.•,}•: i? ?' - y ,y?
?.lr •4?/1 t i? tw??f?. JM'. ? ?? ? ?K?I'?I ?, i,x?"?1' ?:,A .?y?7 ?i1
.?f ,,OJJ.If?,i'fS( rl '.QG? I..Sa?l?glr?.r? t,• X+ i q.
.? ,i 4r •Y ?.? , ?t? l• • ? Ir7, f b ?t?„y ?{. r.i,?st f ,? I
f pt is t bt, s rwt 1 ,.:1?411?f't?k It ':. ? x 1 R,?. {r. t. t ? ,, , ? !C`{t r,•? ? ?f t i, •,.3,? I p./ t p?A.
1`?r,fFYiv
X h:t. t 'r?• ?t/ {??'?r ?+?;??? s >u,s? xir?'$
;,?r1; ;r • 'i ??, ? -tr?a,. !.A/, a? !24w???jl%?k?s?*?4"~
Fig. 28
Poorly drained Duckston soils in low areas.
Beach cottages in the background are typical
for many areas on the Outer Banks.
Water :-.:D%ros ; -'.V!, :.' thro::riil this sandy soil . Depth to the
seasonal high wa_ar ta:.le is variable. During wet seasons, water
is at or near'th? surface, as compared to depths of 2 to 5 feet
when rainfall is limited.
A few of the lower-lying areas may have water standing on
the surface after high-intensity rains. Areas of this soil that
are behind breaches in the for.edunes are flooded by salt water
during storms. In addition, areas adjacent to the sound are
occasicnall. 1:- hi-:;h wind tides.
18) Carteret soils, high
This mapping unit consists of irregularly flooded salt
marshes. They have been formed in sandy marine sediments, and
the soils have variables amounts of shells. The largest areas of
this soil start near Boat:e Inlet and extend north to the Roanoke
Sound. Most areas lie about 1 to 1? feet abo,?,c, sea level. They
flood at least. monthl%, and in some areas May flood weekly with
storm or wind tides. Galt: contents that rango from about 15 to
'30 parts per thousand "were measured in typical areas of this unit.
The surface layer comr,cnly contains a thick root mat. Where the
soil material is exposed to the air, it gives off a sulfur odor.
+, a

5" to 0; black live and dead roots
0 to 5"; dark gray loamy sand
5 to 24"; gray sand
24 to 55"; dark gray sand
Organic Materials Soil Horizons. A C
Fig. 37
Soil profile drawing of Carteret soils, high.
. 'yM4 i
•?ff j4
.r 4f ? I •, ?' ?r( ?l?y pfl lJ!lll?wy/I tlf,? i4'
ti 1 ?. !l/f d r! 'ail'{}? r S i
J???J T h j. f,??ryra
•t•,,?.5 s r ?.I 1 t: 1. 'r?J ?1? f tx?i .?•Fr???r'?rtJ? , t? ?? `' ?r•Q I
?'.. ? I It.?? ???• ? ri IJr y!(fr itY? =? t• I?' ??rrfy it ?? r1 ,,? }?,'? !. ?t? R t f ?
;a' ?l?'?? li};«•?? `1? J? ?•??Jl .???;'>ti/, fit` ', 7 i? ?, "??
`1. j?f t11 y?. 1 r t >Jf }?/ J?/ ,. yl?r ?yi?• r/`? ;, t ?}jt ., ? JI ?. ` Iii ,? ti:a
.Jt ! 1..1?, 4??f t ? ?,/7 J ?•??? ?'y?Y;t'? ?? ! I ??I i•?)/? e?.: _?z?,rt ?? .??r?I?r
, .•S ? r!?•f f ? aJ ! .? ??it ,. ? f .{(, 1? 'r !i r 1),?r?! j f ? '? ti d
Gf?r. ` ?.?. 4 Mril ,. 11 ?! .yl a J t 1 frifY%:f ..rf?'?i?ts s+110''I¢
:,. r rt .t 1y , /? .? I f t ltr ' n
.?.?tr.'.Jvirr 1,}? ??.'J(•,?f,f- ?f?;?rr?' + rtfi ?y? fl'(+ 1 P!Ii"
Fig. 38
Black needlerush commonly occurs on soils such
as Carteret soils, high. These soils are occa-
sionally flooded by wind-driven tides.
The dominant vegetation is black needlerush; but some
areas have scattered patches of saltmeadow cordgrass-, bulrush,
sea oxeye, marshelder, saltgrass, eastern baccharis, and three-
square.
These areas are significant in the life cycler, of some forms
of marine life. They have a low support capacity for structures.
AL.g
w?
22_) Newhan-Corolla complex
This soil, the:c?riinant Newhan
mapping unit consists of two
'I'}lE'V o(-•?•'',i• j j-. such an intri-
s soils and the minor corolla soils.
cate pattern on the landscape that it was not'1f asibly touseparate
them at the scale used in mapping?. rn mayly ?'
actually occupies the transitional zone between the higher-lying
dunes to the east and the broad flats to the weat• it level, of
low short, complcx sl.opt,s and tho noarl
dunes with s .?
vening basins that separate tho dunes.
.• s, • . i " • ??
r -hr 4 r:.
Fig. 44
Sparcely vegetated Corolla soils interspersed
between 'nigher-lying dunes and Newhan soils.
the Newhan soils are cn the low dunes. They are well-drained
to excessively drained, droughty, and have low natural fertility.
They have a thin surface layer that is `ow in organic matter con-
tent and plant fibers. The soils have formed in stratified sandy
deposits that contain mostly coarse sand and varying amounts of
shell fragments. The water table is more than 7 feet below the
surface. Vegetation corm-,ion to the :Newhan soils includes American
beachgrass, seacoast bluestem, coastal panicgrass, bitter panicum,
largeleaf pennywort, and ragweed.
The Corolla soils occao_? the irreclularly-shaped basins. They
are moderately wall-drainer: and sandy thrc,_::.hout and generally
contain an older buried surface layer within 80 inches of the
surface. The sandy material contains a high percent of coarse
sand, along with varying amounts of, shells or fragments of shells.
During the winter, the Corolla soils typically have water within
15 to 20 inches of their s•.:rface. llowover, small areas where the
seasonal high water table is at oz- near the surface are included
iii the mapping units. Tho common voctr_tation include.-, saltmoadow
cordgrass, live oak, waxpivrtle, soashore elder, searocket, even-
ingprimrose, and lar.jcl.ea: pennywor`.. The soils that lack suffi-
To stabilize
ciunt vegetcitivc covoy* ;_Irc subjoct to sail b1m.,.ind
:and prevent the soils frni :?1owj nC , a veklorati` o cavc;r must be
''?`?'
22) ?Newhan Corolla complex
This mapping unit consists of two soil, the' dominant Newhan
'I'hev or.-:.•?r jr: such an intri-
soils and the: minor Corolla soils.
cate pattern on the landscape that it was not foasi'bly to separate
them at the scale used in mappino• Tn many lac?'s, this unit
actually occupies the transitional zone between the higher-lying
dunes to the east and the broad flats to tile. WeStIt consists of
low dunes with short, complex sl.op?,s and tho nearly inter-
vening basins that separate' tho dukes.
Mabu
` • 1? mil, yy,K»?.I??. _ Sv?.
E'l 1P
war
1'? , - 1/ T ?.?A]p1 S,1 ?'Y?`t7v k?pOf
d1i
AftA
Fig. 44
Sparcely vegetated Corolla soils interspersed
between higher-lying dunes and Newhan soils.
the Newhan soils are on the low dunes. They are well-drained
to excessively drained, droughty, and have low natural' fertility.
They have a thin surface layer that is low in organic matter con-
tent and plant fibers. The soils have formed in stratified sandy
deposits that contain mostly coarse sand and varying amounts of
shell fragments. The water table is more than 7 feet below the
surface. Vegetation common to the Newhan soils includes American
beachgrass, seacoast bluestem, coastal panicgrass, bitter panicum,
largeleaf pennywort, and ragweed.
The Corolla soils occ :py the irrecpul arly-s}taped basins. They
are moderately well-drained and sandy thro•.:g.hout and generally
contain an older buried surface layer within 80 inches of the
surface. The sandy material contains a hiah percent of coarse
sand, along with varying amounts of shells or fragments of shells.
During the winter, the Corolla soils typically have water within
15 to 20 inches of their s•_:rface. - tiowover, small areas where the
seasonal high water table is at or near the surface are included
The common vocletation incl.u0c.- saltmeadow
iii the mapping units. searocket, even-
corcigrass, live oak, w._1Xmyrr.le, soa?shor.e elder,
in•,-jprimrose, and lzr,,jol.oaf pc?nay??nr`_. T ho that lack suffi-
To :stabilize
client vegetative covol, :Z r• subjoc-t to soil. h1nv,.inc{.
and prevent the soils i roe' 'Olowi nc: , a ve,ier 1ti` o cover must be
,?"?

established and maintained. American beachgrass and bitter-
panicum are suitable for this purpose. After stabilization has
been accomplished, shrubs can be planted in areas protected from
salt spray. Suitable species are waxmyrtle, northern bayberry,
yaupon holly, ragweed, flameleaf sumac, and seacoast bluestem.
The shrubs will provide not only a more permanent cover than the
grass but also an environment within which other native plants
can become established.
'??