19850021 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19851129

w,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV P"J"T C. 2D'
345 COURTLAND STREET '?
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365 Pi,!Jv ?j jJ '85
NOV 2 1 1985
4WMD-MEB/LP
Colonel Wayne A. Hanson
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
iZC iVty
W. M14
V
ATTENTION: Mr. Cliff Winefordner "'-'

A
Y
SUBJECT: Roosevelt Partnership, Inc.
(Public Notice No. SAWCO 84-N-016-0150)
Dear Colonel Hanson:
This pertains to the above referenced permit application
distributed on March 26, 1984, proposing the construction of,,
an access channel in Bogue Sound to an existing upland borrow
pit on Bogue Banks in Carteret.County, North Carolina. The.:_,
work would involve excavation of'approximately 10,004.;:squar
feet of eel grass (Zostera marina), 5900 square feet.-.f salt,,,
marsh (Spartina alterniflora), and 60,000 square fee "'of
shallow water habitat. The borrow pit would be conveFted
into a 77 slip marina for Beacon's Reach Development".
Our initial concerns, provided in our letter dated April 10,
1984, were over the potential degradation of water quality at
a location designed as State S.A. waters (open to shellfish
harvesting) and the quality and quantity of mitigation for
wetland losses.
Water quality degradation would occur as a result of the
conversion of a borrow pit to a marina. Although the appli-
cant has modified the seagrass mitigation aspects of his
project, the modifications do not eliminate the impacts
associated with marina construction and subsequent utilization.
On April 26, 1985, the State of North Carolina's Department of
Natural Resources issued their Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) General Permit over the objections of the State Shell-
fish Sanitation Office.
Recently, it has come to our attention that there are
significant shellfish resources harvested recreationally in
the immediate vicinity of the proposed marina. Both clams
(Mercenaria mercenaria) and bay scallops (Argopecten irradians)
are harvested.

-2-
Mr. Robert Benton of the North Carolina Shellfish Sanitation
office has informed us that the shellfish resources of the
area would be adversely impacted through the construction and
operation of a marina at this site, and he has determined that
the project would result in the closure of a portion of the
shellfish area currently being used.
This project will result in the degradation of water quality
of a portion of the New River, which may permanently preclude
the harvesting of shellfish present in the area. Activities
in and around the proposed marina, including waste disposal
and introduction of pollutants (fecal bacteria, gasoline and
oil) into the waters, will have an adverse effect on the
quality and quantity of shellfish through disturbance of
existing shellfish beds, the suitability of the shellfish to
be harvested, and larval settling and survival rates.
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,
ack ?E.R=-
Regional Administrator
cc: See attached
J?
j
C T
Z
,10 STgr?,
S
'J
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PRO, EC?`a REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
R EC
C i X985
0 ig8s
4WMD-MEB/LP
Colonel Wayne A. Hanson N't U, t?T,Iv ;
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
SUBJECT: Roosevelt Partnership, Inc.
(Public Notice No. 84-N-016-0150)
Dear Colonel Hanson:
This is in regards to our letter dated November 21, 1985,
recommending denial of the subject permit application based
on EPA's antidegradation policy (40 CFR Section 131.12).
It has come to my attention that a error was made in reference
to the water body that would be impacted by the proposed
project.
On page 2, paragraph 2, the 1st sentence should be corrected
as follow: "this project will result in the degradation of
water quality of a portion of Bogue Sound".
Sincerely yours,
William
L K u ynski, Chief
Wetlands Section
Marine and Estuarine Branch
cc: See attached

cc: Mike Gantt, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raliegh, NC
R. Paul Wilms, Director
NC Division of Environmental Management
Preston Pate, Chief
Field Supervisor
NC Office of Coastal Management
W. Donald Baker
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
John Parker, Permits Coordinator
NC Office of Coastal Management
Randy Cheek, Area Supervisor
National Marine Fisheries Service
Beaufort, NC
J.T. Brawner, Regional Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
St. Petersburg, FL
..
16
cry
TO BILL MILLS
THROUGH.DENNIS.RAMSEY
KKNNKTH M. KIRKMAN
JOHN Z. WAY. JR.
KENNETH M. KIRKMAN. P.A.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4UrM 101. PROP"GIONAL BUILDING
710 ARIINDLLL 6TRttT
MORCHKAD CITY. NORTH CAROLINA 16557
October 10, 1985
State of North Carolina
Department of Environmental Management
Attention: R. Paul Wilms, Director
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North
Dear Mr. Wilms:
Carolina 27611
I believe you are familiar with
Roosevelt Partnership Incorporated
the Beacon's Reach development,
Carolina. Recently the appeal
groups, including Carteret County
held before a designated hearing
several representatives of the
testified.

OCT 1 1 Im
PAL of Enviir/onMental 1joL
!!'!!ryy 6L IL
P. O. DRAWf.R 1847
[phone]
d
OCT -14 1985
WATER QUALITY ,
the pending application by
to construct a marina within
in Pine Knoll Shores, North
was challenged by several
Crossroads, and a hearing was
officer, and in that appeal
State of North Carolina
Based on information presented at that time, I would hereby
like to formally request of the Department of Environmental
Management that the.waters of the proposed marina, should the
marina be approved, be classified SC. In reading the
regulations relating to water classification, and combining
that with the recent decision of your department to recommend
closure of marinas to shellfishing, it would appear that SC is
a logical classification for the proposed marina. No existing
public trust waters are impacted; furthermore, there is no
existing use of the waters of the basin, which would support an
SA classification.
Clearly the existing best use for the basin, if constructed,
would be boat utilization, which would best be served by an SC
classification. An SA classification will be clearly
contradictory, and would impose a hardship on the operators of
the facility in utilizing the basin for its best purpose.
I am not aware of particular procedures that need following in
requesting a classification of newly opened waters. If there
are procedural guidelines that should be followed, I would
appreciate your informing me of the proper methodology, and I
will make every effort to conform with those guidelines. Any
information I can provide I will be glad so to do. Preston
Pate, of the local CAMA 'office, is quite familiar with the
project and the land, and I would suggest that you consult with
a.
P
- 2 -
him concerning additional information that may not be within my
ability to provide, to the extent you believe such information
desirable to procure.
I look forward to receiving your response.
Very tr y yours,
Ke et Kirkman
KMK/hgm
cc: Larry Zuchinno
Donald G. Brock
Preston Pate
Robin Smith
A
?tfo r
'4001 1 s ,?
??,r,( PAOICe
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
?V .D
-.,a
NOV 2 1 1985
4WMD-MEB/LP
NOV 27 1985
Colonel Wayne A. Hanson pip, of Environfental M&
District Engineer y„IL
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
r
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 r^;s
ATTENTION: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
SUBJECT: Roosevelt Partnership, Inc.
(Public Notice No. SAWCO 84-N-016-0150)
Dear Colonel Hanson: S?
This pertains to the above referenced permit application
distributed on March 26, 1984, proposing the construction of
an access channel in Bogue Sound to an existing upland borrow
pit on Bogue Banks in Carteret County, North Carolina. The
work would involve excavation of approximately 10,000 square
feet of eel grass (2ostera marina), 5900 square feet of salt
marsh (S a rtina alterniflora), and 60,000 square feet of
shallow water habitat. The borrow pit would be converted
into a 77 slip marina for Beacon's Reach Development.
Our initial concerns, provided in our letter dated April 10,
1984, were over the potential degradation of water quality at
a location designed as State S.A. waters, (open to shellfish
harvesting) and the quality and quantity of mitigation for
wetland losses.
Water quality degradation would occur as a result of the
conversion of a borrow pit to a marina. Although the appli-
cant has modified the seagrass mitigation aspects of his
project, the modifications do not eliminate the impacts
associated with marina construction and subsequent utilization.
On April 26, 1985, the State of North Carolina's Department of
Natural Resources issued their Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) General Permit over the objections of the State Shell-
fish Sanitation Office.
Recently, it has come to our attention that there are
significant shellfish resources harvested recreationally in
the immediate vicinity of the proposed marina. Both clams
(Mercenaria mercenaria) and bay scallops (Argopecten irradians)
are harvested.

-2-
Mr. Robert Benton of the North Carolina Shellfish Sanitation
office has informed us that the shellfish resources of the
area would be adversely impacted through the construction and
operation of a marina at this site, and he has determined that
the project would result in the closure of a portion of the
shellfish area currently being used.
This project will result in the degradation of water quality
of a portion of the New River, which may permanently preclude
the harvesting of shellfish present in the area. Activities
in and around the proposed marina, including waste disposal
and introduction of pollutants (fecal bacteria, gasoline and
oil) into the waters, will have an adverse effect on the
quality and quantity of shellfish through disturbance of
existing shellfish beds, the suitability of the shellfish to
be harvested, and larval settling and survival rates.
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,
ack E. la v an
Regional Administrator
cc: See attached

cc: Mike Gantt, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raliegh, NC
R. Paul Wilms, Director
NC Division of Environmental Management
Preston Pate, Chief
Field Supervisor
NC office of Coastal Management
W. Donald Baker
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
John Parker, Permits Coordinator
NC office of Coastal Management
Randy Cheek, Area Supervisor
National Marine Fisheries Service
Beaufort, NC
J.T. Brawner, Regional Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
St. Petersburg, FL

,M
4 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
County of Carteret
IN THE MATTER OF:
THE APPEAL OF CAMA MAJOR DEVELOPMENT/
-STATE DREDGE AND FILL PERMIT NO. 51-
-$5 (Roosevelt Partnership, Inc.)
SUBPOENA
GREETING:
TO: Bill mjjj?
name
Division of Environmental Management
512 N. Salisbury Street, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
a-ad ress
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear before the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission
in %forehead Citv , N. C. at Division of Marine Fisheries on the 10th and llt
(City--_ u 1 cling)
day of September 19 85-, at 10:00
to testify in the above entitled action.
This subpoena is issued upon application of
Issued this day of September
Henri Johnson
Applicant's Attorney
Boti 1005, New Bern, N.C. 28560
Address
633-4848
teiep one um er
Hearing Ref: CM-85-0124
NORTH CAROLINA
, lg 85
By.
o 17ss10 air ing er
At rney/Party
OFFICER'S RETURN
rel'<'fy that the above subpoena was received on the day of
=?w -,?Qld that on the ?'f -
?_ day of 19 cal .5? ,
` 'K NG MANNER:.
Sheriff or Qfher Officer
it:y: N. C. G. S.
Paid
113A-122(b)(5). 15 N. C. A. C. -?n .n.?».
o'clock a .m.,
Carteret County Crossroads, et al
DIVISION OF EIiV'1A? WANTAL MANAG T
IIATW QUALITY SECTION
April 16, 1985
K E M O A A N D U
TO: John Parker chrt od'
gina'i s?
Vi/. SEE FC.EM?N.
nox; W. Lea plat404, Jr.
$UB„IBCT: qANA Po "t Application
Rooteve lt' Partnerahfp - Boacon's Read
Carteret. County „
The proposed marina has been reviewed for impacts on-vater quality due to boats
and stormwatar in light of the information non available to vts The project, as pro-
posed, will ` be -to create a marina in a basin pitwv(oi y created as a borrow awes.
The existing borrow,asea.does not have an outlet to O=faae waters of the Mats pre-
watly. The proposal will involveE the excavation of as access abonisel to Sagus Soitand.,
bulkbasding of the basin, and eonsttuction of boat docks. Spoils will be discharged
:to can up- s*d diked dippoaal area.
of
a he big e?ff* 4 ?MV-plit ? ? comet t#anF mare eylra two or,"*
(1) Possible sewage, disc argea;from boats in the marina, and,-
(2)' Surfgee runoff from High density development into shellfish waters.
on the topic of sewage - d sposal fraea ; boats, It will; bo imperatiae that` iao over--
boar8sewage discharges be; alhor?ed In the basi?? or a2iannaI This "basin has extra": : y
and aaq di charge' from the boats will cause :fecal coliform :
low potential for ,flushing
violatimm.. This is a privates-uirina so that there is Marti ability,by the awaers'to
control the seut ' .41sposal and enforce A Locked-bead policy. Since any discharge
froot .tba boats wIU be unaceeptabls, + '`taa>r3ne pump-out should be pr vXdetd and a locked
head policy be', mposed. The..Applicant should-.provide Specific Information as t,6-: how
this provision, Vill, ,ba." mplemented and enfotcedf on an. ongoing basis.
With regard to stormwatter'runoff, we uaderstand,that the develepmeat of.high
density residential areias on the north elide of the basin , have 'been previously approved. 11 If drainage from these properties or. other adI Joiniag high density areas aischarg?ae to
the basis. or channel', t=ies
'likely to be fecal col forii contained in that runoff In
excess of the 'SA water atandarda. *4sfore, if ,the basin io to• be opened,to the sound
as proposed, it will be no teary that such ru etf not enter the basin or chewoi:
Otherwise. the bsaft should not be'op+eneo to ohs sounds
If you have-any questions aoncerniag these 40mments, please contilit Bill Bills at
-sos3.
CC: Sill Kills
.. Waldld _
1l"
j
Permit Class Permit Number
New STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 51-85
Department of Natural Resources.and Community Development
and`
Coastal Resources Commission
for
a Major Development in an 'Area of Environmental
Concern pursuant to NCGS 113A.h18
® Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to Roosevelt Partnership, Inc., P. 0. Box_8.39,_Atlantic Beach, NC28512
authorizing development in Carteret County at Bogue Sound (at Pine Knol 1 Shores
and Pelican Point) as requested in the permittee's application dated 10/14/84 including
attached plats, 3, dated 2/28/84.
This permit, issued on is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set iorth 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.
1. Mitigation
(a) Prior to any work authorized by this permit, impacts to coastal wetlands
and sea grass beds shall be mitigated in keeping with "Mitigation Plan,
Beacon's Reach Marina Basin and Channel, Final, February 20, 1985" as
amended by letter from L. R. Zucchino dated April 22, 1985.
2. Channel Excavation
(a) 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
surrounding waters.
(b) 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.
(c) 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
(See attached sheet for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the pemtittee
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.
AL' work must cease when the permit expires on
December 31, 1988
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. Owens, Director
btfice of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Permittee

Roosevelt Partnership, Inc.
Permit #51-85
Page 2 _
ADDITIONAL CONDITONS
allow settlement of suspended solids.
(d) A water control structure will be installed at the intake end of the effluent
pipe to assure compliance with water quality standards.
(e) The diked disposal area will be constructed a sufficient i l1 i t distance nce eo osi he
possibility dike on
mean high water level or any. marsh to eliminate the
into or upon any marsh and/or surrounding waters.
(f) The dike will be properly graded and provided a ground cover. sufficient to
restrain erosion within 30 days of project completion.
(g) All filling or excavation activities within the existing lagoon shall be
performed prior to the removal of the existing earthen plug.
3. Marina Operation
(a) Prior to any occupancy of the basin by boats, the permittee shall permanently
equip the marina with a sewage pumpout facility to service boats with holding
tanks.: -
(b) No overboard discharges of sewerage shall be allowed at any time from boats
within the basin.
(c) A locked-head policy must be posted and enforced at the marina.
(d) No person shall be allowed to live aboard vessels in the marina.
(e)' All floating structures,. other tha an conformanceh wbthalocal? egulateons
(as defined in 15 NCAC 7M.0602) shall be i
for onshore sewage treatment. „ . ... the (f) The marina shall only be used for docking of vesse1 sfuel i n associated ccmmerci al
adjacent residential development. No transient dockage, services shall be offered as part of this marina.
(g) 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 h ofDHealthnSerof Coasal Manaement and vicest Department of HumanhResources.
Sanitation Section, Division
(h) If, as a result of the water quality monitoring waters equireddby -thiedpermit such
otherwise, violations of the standards i and
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
Division
pending an investigation by the Division of Coastal Management,
of Health Services and the Division of Environmental Management to determine
if the continued operation.'of the marina would be detrimental to the shellfish
a

vwwwv-v-r ?-?-w
Roosevelt Partnership, Inc. Permit #51-85
Page 3
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
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.
4.. Storm Water Management
.(a) Future development of lands adjacent to the marina shall be carried out so
as to preclude direct runoff, either by natural drainways or culverts to
the basin. Any area development, including, but not limited to, grading,
road work, residential structures, and marina amenities such as fueling facili-
ties, requires a modification of this permit or a new permit.

3 -zo

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
March 20, 1985
MEMORANDUM
To: Bill Mills
Permits and Engineering
MAR 2 2 1985
SECTION
From: A. Preston Howard, Jr., Regional EngineeAd OPE? WATER ;?,C7f?S QUALITY
BRANCH
Wilmington Regional Office T
hru: Charles Wakild, Regional Supervisor Alprvo;
Wilmington Regional Office Subject: Regional Office Review & Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Roosevelt Partnership - Beacon's Reach Development
Carteret County
The applicant proposes to dredge a 1000 foot long access channel to
connect to an existing lagoon approximately 9,000 square feet in size, in
order to construct a 77 "wet" slip marina basin. A 750 linear foot wooden
bulkhead is proposed to encircle the basin. The proposed access channel
would connect to Bogue Sound, Classified SA.
The following comments are offered after review of the project application
to determine impacts upon water quality:
1. The project will not require 401 certification.
2. It is expected that fecal coliform standard violations
will occur as a result of the use of the marina basin, after
completion. The proposed basin and access channel would be
classified SA.
APH/MFW/sf
RECEIVED
cc: Wilmington Regional Office
Central Files

FRou'e , Box f,C? 'C.,eA'') m N'--:V%?'ORT. NORTt- _ . r 28-70 a 91'9-393-8-, SS
1 r
MAR S / 91!"1:5
WATER QUALITY
SECTION
!3
?.
y)a`. F e
s f uoas ..al Y1anagemen t
llEc _ _.V e.

k%^.!Ci iir.e `eque.st at roas h<rag2lient ask for cuGi t2D.1a
cc<<.m.ent such. as you have done ar Per.. j from rcm the Division
o. Envir DaMentaI %Ianagement concern_ Re Der:?lit ap IIza.,.ion
s b .1z eaco.n.' _ i e•ech They commented or t.1--a t roiect nearly seven months
e _... -- -ci..,.e t'fl new _r?OTTMat__n :)..L., ;iG3.1:1t_6:, c ali.,ed b'.
_tormwcuter an a marinas became avai.able.
It is our understanding that a permit for the project may be issued in
the next two weeks. In discussing the application with. federal and
state review agencies, we have found that there exist objections to
the project based upon public interest, water quality and mitigation
concerns.
Local citizens and groups are planning to appeal the permit if it is
issued. Since the Coastal Resources Commission would rule on an
aDDeal based on information currently available, we hope that you will
do-j„ e all aspects c_ the Droie_t ;:_..h the review aaencieS to be
s,.re tha t.: e permit decis -n is based the latest available
icncwied?g-e.
Sir:cereiv,
r'
Todd Mille.:
Executive Director
cc: Richard T. Barber, EMC
Secretary S. Thous Rhodes, DhRCD
Paul Wilms, DEM'
:l.Se Fish Tatra .1 I d I i f e S<e.rvic.e
National Marine "i i-, r.ies Service
Corps of Engineers
S. Fenri johnson, At-tor'ney at Law
John Runkle, Attorn-ey at Law
Monte Basg.:all, The News and Observer
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Comments concerning an application for State Federal CAMA Permit(s) from
T' ?. r Leo go v " o C a v co e? E?II1
l{1 Drs H x) iz C ) ? c_
?J LEA? 717 cnru S7-Z0(_-Z- X482 AGC-F__r7, 3A)l=" t f}?:1 ???= >"?? 1
A. PERMIT:
This office cannot comment on this project until after the close of the Section
401 Certification Public Comments Period.
This office has no objection to the issuance of the permit(s) for the proposed
project with the following conditions:
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 of 25 NTU's or less are not.considered
significant).
That the instream turbidity not be increased by more than 50 NTU's as a
result of the proposed activity after a reasonable opportunity for dilu-
tion and mixture.
That turbidity levels in shall not be increased
by more than 10 NTU's as a result of the proposed activity after a reason-
able opportunity for dilution and mixture.
B. CERTIFICATION STATUS:
Certification is not required
for this project.
Certification is required for
• this project. Such action to
process the certification has
been initiated. Proposed
Certification will be acted on
or after
The proposed project is certified
under General Certification-$ L34 c
A) No. 1179 issued on January 25,
1977, for sewer line construction
0
No. 1272 issued on November 10,
1978, for bulkhead construction.
No. 1273 issued on November 10,
1978, for discharges of liquid
effluent from diked upland disposal
areas.
D) No. 1431 issued on October 16,
1980, for boat ramp construction.
E) No. 1664 issued on September 8,
1983, for Rip-Rap Placement.
F) No. 1665 issued on September 19,
1983, for incidental bridge
construction.
t
WATER QUALITY SECTION
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
March 27, 1984
MEMORANDUM
To: Cecil Madden
Permits and Engineering
From: Michael F. Williams, Chemical Analyst I'1//
Wilmington Regional Office
Thru: A. Preston Howard, Jr., Regional Engineer_zm
Wilmington Regional Office
Subject: Regional Office Review & Recommendations
Application for Dredge and Fill Permit
Roosevelt Partnership Inc. - Beacon's Reach
Carteret County
A preliminary review of the proposed project indicates that: r
; E
A 401 Water Quality Certification will not be required. W."?
A 401 Water Quality Certification will be required, and will
require public notice advertisement.
A 401 Water Quality Certification will be required, but should
meet the conditions of the General Certification for
and therefore will not require public notice.
Final review and recommendations
March 27, 1984
A 401 Water Quality Certification will not be required, this office
has no objections to the proposed project.
It is recommended that a 401 Water Quality Certification be issued
containing a turbidity limit of 25 NTU. This office has no
objections to the proposed project.
X The proposed project appears to meet the conditions of the General
Certification for: bulkhead construction and discharge from upland
diked disposal area.
This office has no objections to the proposed project.
Additional Comments:
Proposed access channel to existing lagoon/boat basin.
cc: Office of Coastal Management- Charles Jones, Morehead City
Wilmington Regional Office
' OFFICE OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT-
l.- Applicant's name RnnseyPlt Partnership, Inc. (Beacon's Reach)
2. Location of project site Adjacent to Bokue Sound off NC Hwy. 58, Town of Pine Knoll
Shores; Carteret.County. Photo Index 29-987 F-0, G-10
3. Investigation type: Dredge & Fill X CAMA X
4. Investigative procedure: (A) Dates of site visit Oct. '83 Dec. '83 Feb.'84
(B) Was applicant present yes yes yes
5. Processing procedure: Application received 3-9-84 Office Morehead City
6. Site description: (A) Local Land Use Plan Pine Knoll Shores
Land classification from LUF Transition and Conservation
Development constraints identified in LUP
none identified
(B) AEC(s) involved: Ocean Hazard Estuarine shoreline X
Coastal wetlands X Public trust waters
Estuarine waters X Other
(C) Water dependent: Yes X No Other
(D) Intended use: Public Private X Commercial
(E) Type of waste water treatment: Existing
Planned
(F) Type of structures: Existing.'
Planned h,j1krPa? clacks -
(G) Estimated annual rate of erosion Source
7. Habitat description: AREA
(A) Vegetated wetlands: Dredged Filled Other
FF1grnsg (RnRtPrn Marina) ln,nan c= ft
Spar tins alterniflora 1,40n A_ft_
Suartina patens ,4 Di stich,l i S
spicata 4,500 sq.ft.
(B) Non-vegetated wetlands:
Rogue Sound hnttnm area 60,000 -,q-ft-
(C) Other:
High ground 9.900 sq.ft
(D) Total area disturbed:
8. Project summary The aj2nlicant propose,_to con trust an access channel in Boaue Sound anti
,into an existing hiahground land locked lagoon at their pro.TPrty located off NC Hwy. 58
in the Beacon's Reach development Pine Knoll Shores -

9. Narrative description
The Roosevelt Partnership, Inc. is requesting a permit to excavate
an•access channel through a wetland area and into Bogue Sound in or-
der to provide boating access from the deep waters of Bogue Sound into
an existing land-flocked lagoon system which is located in. the interior
of their property. This property is located in the Beacon's Reach
Development in Pine Knoll-Shores. The specific site is located at
the end of a paved, gravel driveway immediately north of the Ramada
Inn which is located on NC Hwy. 58.
The applicant's shoreline along Bogue Sound can be characterized
as having a border of marsh ranging from about 40-200' in width
and vegetated with a mixture of wetlands, including Sp,rtina alter-
niflora, Spartina patens, Distichlis spicata, and Juncus roemerianus.
The near and offshore area in Bogue Sound is typically very shallow,
with water depths ranging from approximately 0- -6' MLW for a dis-
tance of about 1,000' offshore. The bottom area (up to approximately
750' offshore) 'is vegetated primarily with eelgrass (Zostera marina).
The widths of the eelgrass varies from about 160' to 650'. Observed
in this area on a recent onsite investigation were bay scallops,
scattered amounts of clams and welks.
The plans included with the application indicate -that the applicants
propose to excavate an approximately 1,260' long by 60' wide x -6'
MLW deep access channel from Bogue Sound into the existing lagoon.
This lagoon system was excavated about 1-1/2 years ago, primarily
in order to obtain borrow material, and is presently at a depth of
approximately 6' below MLW. The proposed channel alignment would
result in the excavation of an approximately 80' long by 60' wide
by 3-9` high portion of highground property immediately adjacent to
the lagoon, and then it would go through an approximately 145' long
by 1-40' wide border of Spartina patens and Distichlis spicata marsh
which are separated from each other by a small hammock of high ground..
The channel alignment would then go through an approximately 60' wide
by 25-35' long border of Spartina alterniflora marsh before reaching
the surface waters of Bogue Sound. From there the proposed channel
would extend into Bogue Sound for a distance of about 1,000 lin.ft.
until reaching -6' MLW depth contour. This proposed channel align-
ment would also cause the excavation of about 10,000 sq.ft. of eel-
grass vegetation. The excavation of the access channel is proposed
to be accomplished by the use of a hydraulic dredge with the spoil
materials being pumped to an earthen dike system on adjacent high
ground areas.
The interior of the"proposed basin is to be bulkheaded with approxi-
mately 750 lin.ft. of material, and 77 boat slips are proposed to
be placed within the basin.
10. Anticipated impacts
The project as proposed will result in the excavation of approximately
9,900 sq.ft. of highground area; 5,900 sq.ft. of regularly and ir-
regularly flooded marsh; and approximately 60,000 sq. of Bogue Sound
bottom area. The excavation is to be accomplished.by hydraulic dredge,
with approximately 10,000 cu.yds. of primarily sand and shell material
being pumped to a highground disposal area. This disposal area is pro-
posed to be constructed in such a manner that its maximum spoil capacity
will be approximately 13,000 cu.yds. which may not be- sufficient to ade-
quately handle the expected volume. The excavation of the access chan-
nel would also remove about 10,000 sq.ft. of submerged wetland vegeta-
tion consisting of eelgrass (Zostra_Marina). These shallow water habi-
tat areas provide the nursery area for commercially important species
of shrimp, crab, mullet, flounder, clams, spot, scallops. The submerged
grass beds also provide detrital material which is the basic energy source
for major food chains, and the scallops are directly depended on these
beds' existance..
The applicant has modified this application proposal several times in an
attempt to select a channel alignment which would have the least impact
on marine resources. The applicant has also proposed to mitigate the re-
sources affected by establishing over 8,000 sq.ft. of marsh vegetation
at the uppermost end of the basin area, and along the proposed channel
side slope. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that the upper
end of the proposed basin isto be filled in from -4' MLW deep in order
to provide better flushing action. The applicant has also indicated
that approximately 20,000 sq.ft. of eelgrass beds would be established
in suitable shallow water areas which are presently void of this vegeta-
tion. The applicant has submitted with the.application a mitigation pro-
posal and information regarding the need for additional boating facilities
in the Carteret County area.
Charles Jones. March 15, 1984
Submitted by ----------------------- Dane ----------------
t
t
Paton
zucchino
associates
pa.

LAND PLANNING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
COOPER SQUARE 17 GLENWOOD AVE. RALEIGH, N.C. 919-834-8620
February 28, 1984
Mr. Charles Jones
North Carolina Office
P. 0. Box 769
Morehead City, North
of Coastal Management
Carolina 28557
Re: Beacon's Reach Marina Channel C.A.M.A. Permit
Dear Charles:
Based on our previous meetings and site conferences with your office and
other federal review agencies, we are submitting a revised channel alignment
and a mitigation plan for your reviw. We request that you reactivate the
permit application originally submitted October 14, 1983, and begin your
review based on the revised alignment and with consideration to mitigation.
Both documents are enclosed.
You should note that the marina is designated as a private marina only in
accordance with the Town of Pine Knoll Shores zoning ordinance which does
not allow "commercial public use" marinas to be constructed within the
town limits. The fact that the marina must be private is governed by
regulations and not necessarily by our preference. Please let this fact
be clearly understood by all review agencies.
If any further documentation is needed to reactivate the permit request,
please advise me immediately. Thank you for your cooperation with this
matter. .
Sincerely,
CAfal ?AUL; b
Lawrence R. Zucchino
Land Planner
Enclosures
LRZ/mem
cc: Mr. Don Brock
Mr. Bob Johnson
Mr. Ken Kirkman

INDEX FOR PERMIT APPLICATION
1. Application
2. Vicinity Map
3. Mitigation Proposal
4. Boat Registration Statistics
5. Project Plans and Details
6, Deed Description

APPLICATION
FOR
PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
EASEMENT IN LANDS COVERED BY WATER CAMA PERMIT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Department of Administration State of North Carolina Department of the Army
(GS 14612) Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Corps of Ensineers, WilmirliMm Dbttkt
(GS 113-229, 143.215.3(a)(1), 143.215.3(c), 113A-118 (33 CFR 209.320-329)
CONTACT:.
Please type or print and fill in all blanks. If information is not applicable, so indicate by placing N/A in blank. NTr Larry ZUCchi no
Paton-Zucchino & Assoc
17 Glenwood Ave.
Applicant Information Raleigh, NC 27603
A. Name R_nnSPVPIt Partnership, lacorgoratQd
Last First Middle
B. Address P. 0. Box 839
Street, P. 0. Box or Route
_At antic Beach. North Carolina 28512-0839 919/247-4269
City or Town State Zip Code Phone
II. Location of Proposed Project:
A. County Carteret
B. 1. City, town, community or landmark Pi ne Knol l Shores
2. Is proposed work within city limits? Yes X No
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project
Bogue Sound
111. Description of Project
A Maintenance of existing project 2. New work
1 Yes
. .
B. Purpose of excavation or fill
±1000
Yes
601
6.0'
width
length
1. Access channel?t-
N7 ~ depth
length width
2. Boat basin depth
3. Fill area N/A length width depth
4. Other N/A length width depth
C. 1. Bulkhead length 750' Average distance waterward of MHW (shoreline) 0 1
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material) Treated Wood
D. Excavated material (total for project) (Dredge spoil = 13,00 C.Y. only)
1. Cubic yards 15 , 650 C . Y . 2. Type of material Sand and-shell
E. Fill material to be placed below MFIW (see also VI. A)
1. Cubic yards None 2. Type of material
IV. Land Type,_Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment:
A. Does the area to be excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes X No
B. Does the disposal area include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes X._._ No _..?
C. Disposal Area
1. Location On-site upland east o
2. Do you claim title to disposal area? Yes
nnel
D. Fill material sou ice if fill is to be trucked in N/A
E. How Will CxlaVated material be entrapped and erosion conlrolled7 Earth dam stabilized with vegetation
F. Type of equipment to he used Drag 1 i ne an rotary-head dredge boat
G. Will marshland he crossed in transporting equipment to project site? If yes, explain Nn
D& F-61
Rev. 10/78

V. Intsetled Use of Project Area (Describe)
A. 1. private Marina -(existing basin)
2. Commercial
3. Housing Development or Industrial
4. Other Boast channel to arrpcc Puictina ha cin -
B. 1. Lot size(s) N/A
2. Elevation of lot(s) above mean high water 71-121
3. Soil type and texture Medium to coarse sands
it. Type of building facilities or stiuctu4s Construction with F F E . greater than 7.0'-above
MSL in compliance with F.E.M.A. flood insurance standards
S. Sewage disposal and/or waste water treatment A. Existing Planned
B. Describe Tertiary package treatment plant with on-cite eithcurfar_P dicpng l_ _
6. Land Classification (circle one) DEVELOPED 7RANStTIU COMMUNITY RURAL
CONSERVATION OTHER (See CAMA Local Land Use Plan Synopsis)
VI. Pertaining to Fill and Water Quality:
A. Does the proposed project involve the placement of fill materials below mean high water? Yes X No 1,000 C . y. for
B. 1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned use of the Spartina habitat
restoration
area following project completion? Yes..._. No X
2. Type of discharge Effluent water from access channel
3. Location of discharge Spoil Area (see _plan)
VI 1. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known): Minimal
VIII. List permit numbers and issue dates of previous Department of Army Corps of Engineers or state permits for
. work in project area, if applicable: The Point Condominiums (Permit #115-83 )
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 the 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 Vi 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 publication (G.S. 113.229 (d))Enter date served C 0 er , 1983
D. List names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's.
Such owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
Roosevelt Partnership, Inc P 0 Box 839 Atlantic Beach. NC 28512-0839
State of North Carolina, Marine Resources Center, Bogue Banks, Atlantic Beach, NC 28512
XI. Certification requirement: I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed activity complies
with the State of North Carolina Is approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a
manner consistent with such program.
XII. Any permit issued pursuant 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 October 14, 1983 '
Applicant's Signature
Revised application date February 28, 1984 For Roosevelt Partnership, Inc.
D&F-02 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR MAILING INSTRUCTIONS
R*v. 10178

i

•. ¦.t

k:+
1
J?
?l
1
A.
'I ,

\t'
9A
M
0
O
a
R
:Y

x
s _s?A
d ?o

???'.? ?+S . ??iH.S 1 '? ?'?: ,F? 3X1• . ???? C QR
i
` ,? rik?? 'Fri ? ^tia.r,?S#'' ? ?
?° y y r
04
v
a `? 1 ? '

Paton
zu cchino &
associates L
ARCHITECTURE
L
P,
a, COOPER SQUARE 17 GLENWOOD AVE. RALEIGH, N.C. 919-834-8620
February 28, 1984
MITIGATION PROPOSAL - BEACON'S REACH MARINA BASIN AND CHANNEL
ooseve t Partnership, Incorporate
Pine Knoll Shores, North Carolina
The applicant fully recognizes the value of the wetland resources subject to
disruption as a result of the proposed channel dredging. Roosevelt
Partnership, Incorporated is committed to conserving these wetland resources
to their fullest extent and puts forth the following proposal to help
mitigate the impact of channel and basin dredging on the Spartina marsh
and submerged grass beds.
The proposed channel will be aligned to minimize the disruption of the
low marsh (Spartina alterniflora) and submerged grass beds (primarily
Zostera). The channel as proposed will disrupt approximately 1,400 square
feet of Spartina marsh and ±10,000 square feet of submerged grass beds.
Approximately 4,500 square feet of high marsh (S ap rtina patens and Distichlis
spicata) will be disturbed. These areas are shown in genera on the enclosed
project description map.
The applicant proposes the re-establishment of both the eelgrass beds and
the Spartina marsh on-site at a 2:1 ratio of planted area to disturbed
area. Spartina marsh will be replanted along portions of the entry channel
but primarily at the western end of the existing basin.
Approximately 20,000 square feet of eelgrass beds will be re-established in
suitable shallow benthic habitat in Bogue Sound about 3,000 feet west of the
existing marina. These re-establishment areas are shown on the enclosed map.
In an effort to keep the success rate high for the replanting, particularly
with regard to the submerged grass beds, we would employ a professional
wetland research biologist experienced with the restoration of wetlands
in Bogue Sound. All recommendations made by the consultant would be
implemented. Roosevelt Partnership, Incorporated would incur all cost
efforts. The applicant is willing to undertake a water quality and
sediment monitoring program to insure consistency with State Water quality
guidelines.
In addition, the applicant proposes to implement and complete the restoration
effort prior to any channel dredging activities where feasible or post a
bond with the N. C. Office of.Coastal Management to insure the successful
implementation of the restoration plan.
Roosevelt Partnership, Incorporated will give full consideration to any
other recommendations for mitigation which might be helpful in reducing
the impact of the channel construction on wetland resoureces.
1

.e a •la
4

t y .
i l •1
? y
Q chi o ? '.. ??. • • •• '?F'
qvi
t? ? N J ?. ? Q yyI,,t
o. ?•/ ? . ,, Kam.
41 ? • ? 'rI,t", ?
y:
''
1 _' _.
wtl A ? e o
"
•"
I
1
1
? ?!
1 1 I
/ 1 1
.0, 1

00
01
1 / I ? 1)
? ? r!r r I I ? ? _ ? ?? \ ? ! r 1 I

? j l?l?l//t/ /l;?t••-..?»_..??'11?1111 I Ir/ ?f Irll???

`
rill -=,••.- -- T-•- ---
_?...-
? \
;? L `\ ? I Q W
I w

hCl i
tkV ?`
?0
, .,
?
.

.14 ?t14 4`? \\ woti
It to cr?
Li ic,
??O 1??;'?:: ?•, ! ?? ? i,? ?, = `ptl/,,? n NJ1/p$/000 9.5 ON
'-

T?

4a.

0.

N
J., ct

v

•
yy o
:' V) l?
.:
. .. C) fl N

10 ,
?.

• Q v
tQ .
.0
' ' + . •? + Q V
. Q

• y
.?..,?
., Wr< m
1s??3d 000/ .,ic _ '. • : ?qc 1.

??„ 00, 20, /0 N
1N,?WNO/Tb T,?NN ,y'
3 Q i.
J {yT LC J.

Y
W W
??a LL
i

I i.
.i

a ?
x
,w
Z
i Ifi
4
c
a?
r?
I -Y
Lk-I.L] ?II ?=1
u-t:u
am
`x,11
\ ?1
c-n
4?RK ?4? - s
Po cio c'?. nc. of3 ?.

I

111 V-
r

W
i K
I?
I?
4
O

-ur -
W
CL
O 0
?-- ? W
?<Llj
-A ?0
-2 z
dvn
v?
U
I;

A&KhWAC2
r';C• 4. r' ii
pt/ .vvez sick SLOpE3 M.H.W. ± / 3
? LG D.2 .
EX/s?G G??E ToP w?v?'N Ga
M, N. W. /. 3, ri \ Alva4e
-Cfl,,41!I&

-- Ox G T&1 pM,4iu
?; I?'ZxG Tavtid?-/N

/3, Oov C s!
s?olG ?E?ttT/D,cr ?l ?lrCE ?,?eaU.vPS 2?95/.u
Iri ul a r,T
hpo/-
A
?' oega?/.4GE
??'cTiorta ,vTs

rr??(
,?Siv tdio/y ;:
Z5 J
S?rpreT`iv/r? 3pi4?.T7'.VA?
EallST/NC,
2g X73 8¢ JS/D ?CAL?

siy 6MO,e-::611V,5 ?ATIV6W '
36'6P4 1V
wEsj- v ?-,vv errs.
,!r
Ja?E0 ST,4T-S
'^Ay?
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2
14pAolte,1 REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
JAN 0 8 1985
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: Bob Johnson
SUBJECT: Roosevelt Partnership, Inc. (Beacon's Reach Marina)
Dear Colonel Hanson:
This is in response to your recent letter requesting comments
on the revision of the mitigation plan dated November 30, 1984,
for the Beacon's Reach Marina basin and channel, Roosevelt
Partnership Inc., Pine Knoll Shores, North Carolina.
The revised mitigation had been reviewed by this office. It is
encouraging to note that our recommendations on the Salt Marsh
mitigation plan and the faunal recruitment study has been
incorporated into the document. However, it appears that the
applicant still requests a conditioned permit be issued prior
to the determination that the seagrass mitigation is successful.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) once again states its
strong opposition to this approach. We request that final
action on the subject permit application be taken after the
seagrass mitigation plantings have been verified as successful
at a l to 1 ratio.
An additional point that has consistently not been addressed is
the loss of the 60,000 sq. ft. of unvegetated shallow water.
habitat that would be removed by dredging. It is questionable
if a relatively deep channel bottom would provide the same
opitimum habitat values for indigenous biota. Consequently,
although the mitigation plan ultimately results in a change from
a non-vegetated shallow water habitat to a vegetated shallow
water habitat, the intrinsic values of the shallow water habitat
loss have not been addressed or mitigated for.
,. <,MAO*
-2-
In conclusion, EPA continues to have reservations on the proposed
project as previously expressed in our letters of April 10 and
June 4, 1984.
Sincerely yours,
Shepp4rh N. Moore, Acting Chief
Wetlands Section
Environmental Assessment Branch
cc: See attached
o-+ikt or Ceti
o UMITED STATES DEPAnTNIEWT OF CO11fli IEPCE
Wational Oceania, and Atmospheric Administration
y
s?`'?nsm??Hp NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional office
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
March 7, 1985 F/SER111/RSS
919/728-5090
Mr. Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Dear Mr. Hollis:
Please reference your February 28, 1985, letter requesting
our comments concerning the final seagrass mitigation plan
submitted by Roosevelt Partnership, Incorporated (84-1\1-010-0150)
and your intent to concur in the issuance of a permit under the
general permit agreement with the-s,tate of North Carolina if the
mitigation plan is incorporated;as' a condition of the state
authorization.
In our previous comments on the public notice and the pro-
posed mitigation plan, we raised the following issues which have
not been resolved to our satisfaction:
1. By letter dated January 9, 1984, we questioned the
acceptability of this project as a candidate for mitigation. We
continue to feel that the decision to consider up-front mitigation
is questionable since this project's benefits to the public are not
clearly defined.
2. Regarding the mitigation plan., we have objected to the
selection of the proposed seagrass mitigation site in letters
dated September 18, 1984, November 5, 1984, and January 4, 1985.
Our concern with the proposed site is based on our research on
transplanting seagrasses which represents the best available
information on seagrass transplanting technology.
3. We have also repeatedly expressed our belief that the
concept of up-front mitigation when applied to a specific project
requires that the impacted resource be replaced prior to the
issuance of a permit.
In view of the above, our position on these matters has not
changed. We continue to recommend against issuance of a conditional
permit when up-front mitigation is involved and based on our
research to date continue to object to the site selected for
seagrass mitigation.
t? FnI.M
i
???Mf Ht V ?
'A 0"41 OF C
UMITED STATES DEPAF3TN1=_WT OF CO(1IIiSr'E
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
}?te'??4rt' Of r+`? NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
March 7, 1985 F/SER111/RSS
919/728-5090
Mr. Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Dear Mr. Hollis:
Please reference your February 28, 1985, letter requesting
our comments concerning the final seagrass mitigation plan
submitted by Roosevelt Partnership, Incorporated (84-N-010-0150)
and your intent to concur in the issuance of a permit under the
general permit agreement with the"-state of North Carolina if the
mitigation plan is incorporated;as a condition of the state
authorization.
In our previous comments on the public notice and the pro-
posed mitigation plan, we raised the following issues which have
not been resolved to our satisfaction
1. By letter dated January 9, 1984, we questioned the
acceptability of this project as a candidate for mitigation. We
continue to feel that the decision to consider up-front mitigation
is questionable since this project's benefits to the public are not
clearly defined.
2. Regarding the mitigation plan-, we have objected to the
selection of the proposed seagrass mitigation site in letters
dated September 18, 1984, November 5, 1984, and January 4, 1985.
Our concern with the proposed site is based on our research on
transplanting seagrasses which represents the best available
information on seagrass transplanting technology.
3. We have also repeatedly expressed our belief that the
concept of up-front mitigation when applied to a specific project
requires that the impacted resource be replaced prior to the
issuance of a permit.
In view of the above, our position on these matters has not
changed. We continue to recommend against issuance of a conditional
permit when up-front mitigation is involved and based on our
research to date continue to object to the site selected for
seagrass mitigation.
0
g' a
JG tj? ?r?: p
Jt

-2-
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely yours,
Richard J.'Hoogland
Chief, Environmental Assessment
Branch
cc: FWS, ATLA, GA
FWS, Raleigh, NC
EPA, ATLA GA
NCDNRCD, Raleigh, NC
NCDNRCD, Morehead City, NC
F/SER11

May 13, 1985
-l?G? ?K I ?~Jt /NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
Route 5, Box 603 (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570.919-393-8185
Charles Wells, Chairman
Coastal Resources Commission
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
RE: APPEAL OF PERMIT NUMBER 51-85
Dear Mr. Wells:
RECEIVE
MAY 15 1985
OW d +cpv" 14,0)
0"Irt-k M M
Pursuant to NCAC T 15: 07J .0300, we hereby appeal the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management's decision to issue permit number 51-85
(Roosevelt Partnership, Inc.).
The petitioners will be represented by S. Henri.Johnson, 507 Pollock
Street, P.O. Drawer 947, New Bern, NC 28560 (919=633-4848) in this
matter. Please contact her if you have any questions regarding this
appeal and to schedule any conferences or a hearing.
Sincerely,
Todd Miller
Executive Director
cc: Bob Benton, Shellfish Sanitation
Bob Johnson, Corps of Engineers
Roosevelt Partnership, Inc.
Dave Owens, DCM
Preston Pate, DCM
Paul Wilms, DEM
John Costlow, MRC
Bob Mahood, DMF

PERMIT NUMBER 51-85
BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
In the Matter of
Application for Major Coastal Area Management )
Act Permit by Roosevelt Properties, Inc. )
(Permit Number 51-85), Authorizing the Excavation )
of some 10,000 Square Feet of Eel Grass, 5,900 )
Square Feet of Marsh, and 60,000 Square Feet of )
Shallow Water Habitate to Convert a Borrow Pit into )
a 77 Slip Marina to Provide an Amenity for Pelican )
Point Development in Pine Knoll Shores, N.C. )
APPEAL OF
PERMIT
Pursuant to NCAC T 15: 07J .0300, Carteret County Crossroads,
Inc., North Carolina Coastal Federation, Inc., and North Carolina
Fisheries Association, Inc., petitioners, petition the North Carolina
Coastal Resources Commission for an administrative hearing to review
the Division of Coastal Management's decision to issue permit number
51-85 (Roosevelt Properties, Inc.) In support of this petition,
petitioners allege as follows:
1. The petitioners in this matter are: Carteret County
Crossroads, Inc., Post Office Box 155, Beaufort, NC 28516, North
Carolina Coastal Federtion, Inc., Route 5, Box 603 (Ocean), Newport,
NC 28570, and North Carolina Fisheries Association, Post Office
Drawer 957, New Bern, NC 28560.
2. Carteret County Crossroads, Inc. is a not-for-profit
corporation with most of its members in Carteret County, some of whom
use the waters adjacent to Roosevelt Partnership property for
commercial or recreational purposes. The North Carolina Coastal
Federation, Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation with individual and
group members in Carteret County concerned about coastal water

quality. The North Carolina Fisheries Association, Inc. is a trade
association representing commercial users of fishery resources.
Petitioners represent individuals that currently use, or potentially
could use, the shellfish resources adjacent to the marina basin.
Carteret County Crossroads, Inc. and the North Carolina Coastal
Federation, Inc. have been given standing in the past to appeal
similar permit decisions made by the Division of Coastal Management.
The North Carolina Fisheries Association, Inc. has been given standing
in the past to appeal a permit decision made by the NC Division of
Environmental Management.
3. Roosevelt Partnership, Inc. was issued a Major CAMA
Development Permit on April 26, 1985
feet of eel grass, 5,900 square feet
of shallow water habitate to convert
marina to provide an amenity for the
Knoll Shores, N.C.
4. Petitioners take exception t
follows:
to excavate some 10,000 square
of marsh and 60,000 square feet
a borrow pit into a 77 slip
Pelican Point Development in Pine
D the Division's permit as
a. The Division's decision to grant a permit to Roosevelt
Properties was erroneous as a matter of law and is not supported by
technical comments made by state and federal agencies that reviewed
the project. Specifically, N.C.G.S. 113A-120(x)(8) requires the
Division to deny an application for a permit if "the development is
inconsistent with State guidelines..." The State guidelines in the
coastal area are in themselves to be consistent with the goals and
policies of CAMA which give the CRC authority to protect water
quality, among other matters. The State guidelines include:
(1.) 15 N.C.A.C. 7H .0601 which states that "no development shall

be allowed in any AEC (that is, area of environmental concern) which
would result in a contravention or violation of any rules,
regulations, or laws of the State of North Carolina..."
(2.) 15 N.C.A.C. 7H .0602 which states that "no development shall
be allowed in any AEC which would have a substandial likelihood of
causing pollution of the waters of the state to the extent that such
waters would be closed to the taking of shellfish..." (emphasis
added).
(3.) 15 N.C.A.C. 7B .0212(c)(3)(E) which sets a water quality
standard of 14 fecal organisms per 100 milliliters in SA (shellfish)
waters, with no mixing zones and in the worst hydrologic conditions.
(4.) 15 N.C.A.C. 7B .0201, known as the Antidegradation
Statement, states in part "the (Environmental Management) commission
shall consider the present and anticipated usage of said high quality
waters ...and will not allow degradation of the high quality waters
below the water quality necessary to maintain existing and anticipated
uses."
(5.) 15 N.C.A.C. 7H .0208(a)(2)(C) which requires that
"development shall not violate water and air quality standards."
(6.) 15 N.C.A.C. 7H .0209(e)(4) and (5) which require that
"development shall not have a significant adverse impact on estuarine
resources," or "interfere with existing public rights of...or use of,
navigable waters or public resources" (emphasis added).
There is not substantive evidence in the permit file to support
findings that these provisions will not be violated by the Roosevelt
Partnership development. Indeed, overwhelming evidence in the record
shows that water quality standards will be violated and that there is
a "substantial likelihood" that shellfish waters adjacent to the
k-*
marina basin will be closed if the project were to be constructed and
operated.
Contained in the permit file is an objection to the issuance of
the permit by the Division of Health Services which stated that "it is
our opinion that a basin with 77 boats will pollute the lagoon and
access channel eventually resulting in pollution in Bogue Sound which
would require closure to the harvest of shellfish." This
recommendation is supported by the Division of Shellfish Sanitation of
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in a 1972 report entitled
Classification of Areas Subject to Sanitary Waste Discharges From
Boats that states, "Because of the highly variable and unpredictable
contribution of fresh fecal material, it is necessary to close areas
subject to boat polluton in the vicinity of shellfish beds during the
boating season." In addition, the April 1985 Coastal Marina
Assessment Handbook published by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency states on page 5-52 that, "All available information points to
the conclusion that shellfish harvesting from waters near marinas is
not desirable from a public health perspective."
The Division of Environmental Management commented to DCM that if
drainage from previously permitted high density residential
development on the north side of the basin discharges to the basin or
channel, "there is likely to be fecal coliform contained in that
runoff in excess of the SA water quality standard." There is
stormwater from existing development now flowing to the borrow pit.
Furthermore, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommended to
the U.S. Corps of Engineers that the permit be denied.
This permit issuance is inconsistent with the Permuda Island
permit decision as described in the April 15, 1985 letter from David

W. Owens to Mr. Jack Oliver. The major basis for denial of the
Permuda Island permit was that stormwater runoff would violate the SA
water quality standard for fecal coliform.
5. The Division exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a
permit conditioned upon its subsequent approval of a detailed
stormwater management plan to be submitted for development that has
already received a CAMA permit. It also exceeded its statutory
authority by issuing a permit conditioned upon the Division's eventual
"acceptance" of a mitigation effort to replace eel grass that will be
destroyed by the proposed project. While the Division has authority
to condition permits upon the Applicant's adoption of specific
measures that will protect the public interest in respect to
preserving coastal resources, here in regard to stormwater no such
measure has been proposed, or considered by the Division, or shown to
adequately protect public interest. Indeed, substantial comments in
the permit file and previous permit actions by the Division, show that
without a stormwater management plan water quality standards will be
violated. Additionally, CRC regulations at 15 N.C.A.C. 7J .0802(d)
and .0806(b) allow DCM to return an application or to terminate
processing of an accepted application if it is incomplete.
This type of conditioned permit is not only unauthorized by
statute, it is also made upon unlawful procedure which prejudices the
substantive rights of the petitioners. Conditions 1.(a) and 4.(a)
prevents the petitioners from reviewing and commenting on the quality
of mitigation or the stormwater management plan. This substantially
interferes with petitioners' right to due process under N.C.G.S.
113A-121.1 which states that "any person directly affected by the
decision ...may request in writing within 20 days of such action, a

hearing before the Commission," and N.C.G.S. 150A-23 which states that
"the parties in a contested case shall be given an opportunity for a
hearing without undue delay."
The proper procedure to follow was to have declared the permit
application incomplete or deny the permit and allow Roosevelt
Partnership the opportunity to reapply when it had a stormwater
management plan and had completed "up front" mitigation.
6. By virtue of the foregoing, substantive rights of the
petitioners have been prejudiced and the policies of CAMA to protect
water quality and uses of public waters have been undermined.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that:
1. The permit be revoked, or
2. A hearing pursuant to 07J.0301(b) be scheduled as soon as
possible, and
3. Any other relief which is right and proper be granted.
S. Henri Johnson
Richardson and Johnson
Attorneys and Counsellors at Law
507 Pollock Street
Post Office Drawer 947
New Bern, NC 28560-0947
919-633-4848
e
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
November 29, 1984
IN ntrLr ntrtn Iv
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: File No. SAWC084-N-016-0150
Mr. John"Parker
Office of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Parker:
R E C
i j
PATER -?
I Ale y
Reference the application of the Roosevelt Partnership,
Incorporated, for a Department of the Army permit to accomplish
work required to establish Beacon's Reach Marina on Bogue Sound,
near Pine Knoll Shores, in Carteret County, North Carolina and the
mitigation plan dated September 28, 1984.
The comments of the Federal review agencies, regarding the
mitigation plan are enclosed. Their consensus is that various
aspects of the plan are unacceptable and the plan does not provide
adequate assurance that a net loss of submerged vegetation will
not occur. At present, we concur with the agencies and recommend
against issuance of the authorization. We remain open to revision
of the mitigation plan and further consideration of the
application.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Bob Johnson,
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Enclosure
Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
I^

-2-
Copies Furnished with enclosures:
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
Management
Nort Carolina Department of
atural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Charles Jones
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Office 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
Post Office Box 570
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr, Sheppard N. Moore
Environmental Review Section
Environmental Assessment Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
p NuV '984
g
•,? COW
e UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICET
+r""'a? Southeast Regional Office
9450 Koger Boulevard
o?
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
November 5, 1984 F/SER111/RSS
919/728-5090
Mr. Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Dear Mr. Hollis:
Please reference your October 31, 1984, letter requesting our comments
and recommendations concerning Roosevelt Partnership, Incorporated's
mitigation plan for work at the Beacons Reach project site, Pine Knoll Shores
Carteret County, North Carolina (SAWC084-N-016-0150).
We have reviewed the subject document and offer the following comments
for your consideration.
General Comments
We are concerned that the mitigation plan requests that a conditioned
permit be issued based on projected results rather than actual replacement
of habitat to be destroyed. This is unacceptable to the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the following reasons:
1. In our opinion, the acceptability of up-front mitigation for this
project is based on the premise that potential habitat losses would be replaced
prior to the issuance of a permit.
2. As indicated in previous discussions, the proposed mitigation site
does not comply with the site selection criteria advocated by the service and
has in fact been largely devoid of seagrass since 1971. Based on the experimental
nature of the proposed work and our concerns regarding the mitigation site,
we have concluded that there is limited assurance of success.
.3. Seagrass meadows in Bogue Sound are extremely important fishery
habitat areas with a limited distribution. Some natural meadows have
persisted for years, however, we have no guarantee that transplanted meadows
will demonstrate the same persistance.
4. Mitigation work of this type should not be routinely accepted for private
projects until it is clearly documented that the fishery habitat values of
meadows are replaceable. Therefore, we believe that this mitigation plan is
precedent setting and if misapplied could result in a cumulative loss of fishery
habitat.
?E
F q;'-W pF C&

-2-
In our opinion, the mitigation plan should be modified so that it is
clearly understood that no permit will be issued until an area equivalent to
the seagrass habitat to be lost has been replaced. Only long-term monitoring
will determine if and when the 2:1 replacement ratio required in the mitigation
plan is achieved.
Since the long-term survival/persistance of the transplanted seagrasses
is a key issue concerning the acceptability of this plan, we recommend that
contractual agreements between the applicant, planting contractor, and monitoring
contractor be provided for our review to assure compliance with the requirements
of the plan in the years following the issuance of a permit.
Another aspect of the proposed mitigation plan which must be clarified is
the proposed faunal studies. In our opinion, the mitigation plan will not be
accepted until these studies are reviewed by NMFS personnel and found to be
satisfactory.
Specific Comments
Introduction
Page 1, ara ra h 2, line 5. "...permit issued by the review agencies."
should be changed to read '...permit issued by the Corps."
Page 2, paragraph 1, line 2. This sentence should be modified as follows:
"The reestablishment of submerged seagrass beds and marsh restoration work
must be considered successful in accordance with approved standards prior
to receiving a state and COE permit.
Project Description
Page 5, paragraph 2, line 3. This paragraph is technically incorrect. The
author proposes to replant 6,618 planting units (not 30,000 sq. ft.) of the
two species and projects that under optimum conditions 13,168 sq. ft. will
be covered after one growing season for each species. The plan should be
modified to state that they propose to replant 3,309 planting units of each
species over an area of 15,000 sq. ft. of bottom.
Page 5, paragraph 5. The "specific sections" of the entrance channel and
western end of the basin where marsh plants are proposed should be identified.
Mitigation Site
Page 7, paragraph 3. We continue to have reservations regarding the capacity
of the proposed site to sustain a seagrass meadow: In our opinion, the
selection of a marginal site and the highly experimental nature of the proposed
work more than justifies denying the issuance of a permit until successful
up-front mitigation is demonstrated.
Page 8, Figure 3. The mitigation site control grid (12,000 sq. ft.) does not
depict the proposed planting area.
A.
-3-
Page 9, paragraph 1, line 5. We strongly disagree with the statement
regarding the likelihood of a successful planting of seagrasses at this site.
There has been no seagrass cover as compared to contiguous areas since 1971.
This suggests that this site has been chronically unsuitable for colonization
and therefore, does not comply with NMFS' and the Corps' site selection
criteria.
Page 9, paragraph 2, line 3. In our opinion, it is unlikely that wave energy
has been responsible for the lack of recruitment at this site over the last
decade.
Page-9, paragraph 2, line 9. We disagree with the author's statement that
this site is an appropriate place for testing recently developed techniques.
Our position is based on our belief that unvegetated benthic areas such as the
proposed mitigation site currently provides habitat that is valuable to fisheries.
Seagrass Monitoring and Transplant Monitoring
Page 10, paragraph 4, line 1. The proposed faunal studies should be submitted
for our review prior to approval of the mitigation plan. These studies must
be proceeding in an acceptable manner, and contractural agreements assuring
the continuation of these studies for the period of time (a minimum of
3 years) must be in place prior.to permit issuance.
Sampling Periods
Page 11. We are concerned that the proposed sampling period may not extend
beyond the initial.36 weeks. We stated in our September 18, 1984, letter that the
applicant should be responsible for the unassisted survival of the transplants
for 3 calendar years. Therefore, we recommend that the mitigation plan be
modified to clearly demonstrate a commitment to maintaining the mitigation site
during the 2nd and 3rd year after successful planting. The long-term monitoring
of the site should be closely coordinated with the faunal studies and include
the following:
1. An assessment of areal coverage, density, and biomass on a quarterly
basis for two years following the initial one-year period.
2. Replanting during the 2-year monitoring period as necessary to assure
maintenance of the 2:1 replacement of seagrass destroyed.
Performance Standards
Page 13-17. This section does not clearly commit the applicant to replacing
an area of seagrass equivalent to that destroyed prior to the issuance of a
permit.
Performance Ranges
Page 15, paragraph 3, lines 6-9. The relationships between planting a
30,000 sq. ft. area to replace 18,000 sq. ft. of seagrass (2:1 ratio) is
unclear. What is the origin of the 30,000 sq. ft. value?
-4-
Page 16-17, paragraphs 1 and 2. There appears to be some confusion on these
pages regarding the selection of criteria for survival rate options and
computations on the area covered. The author computes the potential area
covered based on a 50% survival and provides a slowest and fastest growth
rate scenario for both Zosteria and Halodule. On page 17 the author computes
the potential coverage using a 75% su v va-T-rate but shows the same results as
on page 16 for a 50% survival rate. We recommend that the author explain
the source of figures used in the slowest growth scenario and the conclusion
reached in the 75% survival calculations.
Page 16, paragraph 2, lines 11-12. In our opinion, it is unlikely that
maximum growth performance will be obtained at this site. If minimal growth
occurs with a 50% survival of the initial planting, a projected total of
4,689 sq. ft. of seagrass will be replaced at the end of the 36 week monitoring
period. The NMFS will not accept this level of performance as satisfactory
for the issuance of a permit since it falls far short of replacing the
habitat proposed for destruction.
Performance Standards Recommendations
Page 17, paragraph 2. The performance standards proposed in this section are
on the low end of the range of results observed in previous studies. This
level of performance is acceptable only if it is clearly understood that no
permit will be issued until a minimum of 1:1 replacement is obtained and that
the applicant is responsible for maintaining the predicted 2:1 mitigation level
over the three years he is responsible for the site.
Page 18, paragraph 2, line 6. The "monitoring period" referred to in this
paragraph should be defined.
Follow-up Replanting
Page 18, paragraph 3, line S. Any secondary site considered for planting
must be reviewed and approved by state and federal review agencies..
Page 18, paragraph 3, line 11. If the initial planting shows less than 50%
survival, we would approve of 1 replanting of this site. If the second
attempt were unsuccessful in obtaining 50% survival, we would consider further
attempts only at a new site.
Page 19, paragraph 1. The amount to be replanted should be based on the
original 100%, not the difference between what survived and the projected
50% survival rate.
Page 19, paragraph 2. The applicant's obligation to maintain a minimum of
18,000 sq. ft. of seagrass over the 3-year period should be clarified. It
should also be clearly stated that the unassisted persistence of 18,000 sq. ft.
of seagrass over a 3-year period is the key criteria in determining when and
if any replanting is required.
Modifications
Page 19, paragraph 4, line 5. Thirty (30) days should be allowed for the
review of any plan modification.

-5-
In view of the above, this mitigation plan as proposed is unacceptable
to the National Marine Fisheries Service. A representative of our Beaufort
field office is available for further consultation.
Sincerely yours, /
jdf,
Richard J. Hoogland
Chief, Environmental Assessment
Branch
s
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
o Division of Ecological Services
„ P.O.. Box 25039
M„,,,,.•o Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5039
November 8, 1984
Colonel Wayne A. Hanson
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Dear Colonel Hanson:
1 Nov 19
This responds to Mr. Charles Hollis' letter dated-October. 31., 1984
concerning SAWC084-N-016-0150 and the Mitigation Plan submitted on
behalf of Roosevelt Partnership, applicant. 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 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and supplements our
previous reports of May 11, 1984 and May 31, 1984.
We understand that the National Marine Service has prepared detailed
technical comments on the mitigation methodology and suitability of
the proposed mitigation site. Based on their extensive technical
expertise and research concerning establishment of submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) beds, we defer to that agency for technical comments
regarding the proposed SAV mitigation.
We recommend that the following modifications be contained in the
final mitigation plan:
Pages 5 and 6: This section must be modified to establish a date by
which verified mitigation on a 1:1 replacement scale shall be attained
for marsh losses. The plan should also identify what action shall be
taken to guarantee that the applicant's proposed 2:1 marsh replacement
will be provided.
Page 10: In order to evaluate faunal recruitment into the
mitigation site and in order to assess its present value,
pre-transplant sampling of the mitigation site benthos is needed.
That sampling also is needed to insure that the mitigation site does
not presently support a productive and valuable benthos which maybe
adversely affected by SAV planting. Also, the faunal recruitment
study must be approved by a recognized expert in estuarine benthic
ecology and by all appropriate review agencies.
Page 17: We also believe the mitigation plan must be modified to
clearly delineate performance standards which specify attainment of
1:1 minimum compliance before channel excavation may begin.
Therefore, we do not accept the "satisfactory progress" criteria
described in this section since "satisfactory progress" is less than
w y
total SAV replacement. Channel excavation should be permitted only
upon successful establishment of equal quantity and quality SAV
replacement habitat.
With the above changes, the mitigation plan will be acceptable with
exception of the faunal studies which are not yet developed. As
stated in our previous Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act reports, we
continue to recommend that the permit should not be issued for this
project until it has been demonstrated that equal SAV mitigation
(habitat creation) has been attained and has been determined
acceptable by the regulatory review agencies and your office.
Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment on this matter.
Sincerely yours,
L C -'U
L r
L.K. Mike) Gant
Field Supervisor

= _19 NOV 1984
Ja?tEOST,?T?S
2?Ay?
2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
?11? r
vaoIEO`\o REGION I V
345 COURTLAND STREET
NOV 16 1984 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
4PM-EA/LOP
Mr. Bob Johnson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
SUBJECT: Roosevelt Partnership Inc.
(Public Notice No. SAWCO 84-N-016-0150)
Dear Mr. Johnson:
This is in response to your letter dated October 31, 1984,
requesting the Environmental Protection. Agency's comments on
the mitigation plan for Beacon's Reach Marina on Bogue Sound,
in Carteret County, North Carolina.
The mitigation plan has been reviewed and found to be
unacceptable to this office for the following reasons:
a). Salt marsh mitigation
It is acknowledged that Saltmarsh planting techniques
are well developed compared to seagrass transplanting.
However, the mitigation proposal should include the
specific techniques to be utilized as well as survival
standards and follow-up replanting if required.
b). Faunal recruitment and repopulation study of the
mitigation Area
There is no specific information on this aspect fo the
mitigation plan. The faunal recruitment and repopulation
study should be described in detail, and the independent
contractor identified and accepted as an expert in this
field of research. It is also recommended that the study
be initiated well in advance of actual seagrass plantings
to provide base line data. Adequate time should be
allowed for commenting agencies to review the plan of
study before a final scope of work is agreed upon.
c). Determination of seagrass planting survival success
There is insufficient time allowed to determine if the
seagreass plantings have been successful. The mitigation
report states that survival would be measured after a
90 day period following transplanting and be considered
successful if a 50% - 75% of the planting units
independently establish themselves. This time factor
is not sufficient to draw realistic opinions on survival
accomplishments. At a minimum, 260 days should be
monitored to draw even tentative conclusions.
4
-2-
d). Survival rates for up-front mitigation
The utilization of the survival criteria-and success
ratio (50% - 75%) specified at the bottom of page 14
of the mitigation report has the potential for allowing
less than a 1 to 1 mitigation replacement to occur
prior to a determination of a successful mitigation
program. Mitigation must be at least a 1 to 1 ratio
at the time that final action on the subject permit
application is considered, and of course, a 2 to 1 by
the end of the mitigation commitment.
e). Mitigation for unvegetated shallow water habitat
On at least two seperate occasions, EPA has commented
on the lack of mitigation for the 60,000 square feet
of unvegetative shallow water habitat that would be
eliminated from the system by dredging. It is disturbing
that the revised mitigation plan continues to be
deficient in this respect. We again request that
mitigation for this habitat loss be addressed.
In conclusion, EPA continues to have serious reservations
on the proposed project as previously expressed in our
letters of April 10 and June 4, 1984. It appears that the
mitigation plan requests that a conditioned permit be issued
based on hypothetical mitigation results rather than a
demonstrated success. EPA will not agree to this approach.
However, we will be agreeable to review any revisions on the
Beacon's Reach Marina that the applicant wishes to present.
Sincerely yours,
Sheppard N. Moore, Acting Chief
Wetlands Section
Environmental Assessment Branch
cc: ;Ms. Mike Gantt, 'Field Supervisor.
• J.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh, North Carolina
'Ir. Robert F. Helms, Director
North Carolina Division or =nvironmental management
1r. Preston Pate, Chief,-Field Services
North Carotina ut`ice of Coastal management
Mr. S tuart-.C ri tctier
North. Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
'fir. -,ohn P?ri<er, ?ernits Coorcinaccr
iort7 Caro i i na C f - i ca of ..:.as cc i '?anacen ent
,r. anay :hoer, rea ?ucervisor
National i'lari ne i sneri es Service
Beaufort, Vo •th Carolina
Mr. J. T. Br;iwner, Regional Director
`lati onaI Marine Fisheries Service
St. -Petersburg, Florida

F
k
Y'JUL 15 1-%S
,ASTAL RESat WU t DMK
i
j
JUL 19 1985
WATER QUALITY
SECTION
S. HENRI JOHNSON
ATTORNEY ANU COUNSELLOR AT LAW
S07 POLLOCK STREET
POST OFFICE BOX ZOOS
NEW BERN, NORTH CAROLINA
2SS60
July 11, 1985
Mr. David Owens, Director
Division of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
COPY TO:
BILL MILLS
BILL KREUTZBURGER
TELEPHONE
[phone]
RECEIVED
.1111 2 31985
WATER ?Q'JUAU'rY SECTION
OPILRAPONS BR,iNCF
RE: Our Client: N.C. Coastal Federation
Matter: Roosevelt Partnership, Inc. (Beacon's Reach Marina)
Our File No. 85CL354
Dear Mr..Owens:
We plan to call the following persons as witnesses at the
Roosevelt Properties CAMA permit appeal hearing scheduled for
August 13:
/ 1. Secretary S. Thomas Rhodes, DNRCD
2. David Owens, DCM
n G/ n 3. Paul Wilms, DEM
4. George Everett, DEM
5. Pres Pate, DCM
y 6. John Parker, DCM
0 7. Bob Benton or Patty Fowler, DBS
,?i?-• ?b 8. Bill Mills, DEM.
9. Bill Kreutzberger, D EM
Please inform me if it will be necessary for me to subpoena
an of the any people listed above.
SHJ:dlh
Ver sincerel ours,
S. r3 Jo ns n
cc: Mr. Todd Miller
Mr. Irv Hooper

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 1 Boo
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402
IN REPLY REFER TO October 25, 1983
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: File No. SAWC084-N-016-0013
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Gentlemen:
{ r'?~ 2 X31983
Enclosed is a copy of the application of Roosevelt.
?acorporated, for Department of the Army permit
a a" a ??later Quality Certification. Your receipt of this
letter verifies -your acceptance of A valid request for
certification in accordance with Section 325.2(b)(:L) of our
administrative regulations.
We are considering authorization of the proposed activity
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have
determined that a water quality certification maybe required
under the provisions of Section 401 of the same law. No
Department of the Army permit will be granted until the
certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, 60 days
after receipt of a request for certification is considered a
reasonable time for State action. In accordance with our .
regulations, if your agency has not acted on the, request by
December 26-, 1983, the District Engineer will deem that waiver
has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Bob Johnson,
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Ch s W. tH
is
hief, Regry Branch
C
Enclosures
10
ti APPLICATION (?
FORED
'PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION ``JJ?
.n ,
EASEMENT IN LANDS COVERED BY WATER LAMA PERMIT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPME44, i 2 8 1983
?R',.?TY SECTION
DaWnwnt of Admialstratlon State of North Carolina Department y
(GS 146121 Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Corps of
EMIn It „V1 f1ri1lrt01po-D(t ?H
(GS 113-229.143-215.3(a)(1), 143.215.3(c), 113A•118 (33 CIF It 209.310319) )
Please type or print and fill in all blanks. If information is not applicable, so indicate by placinj N/A in blank.
Contact: Paton, Z,ucchino & Associate
17 Glenwood Ave.
I. Applicant Information Raleigh, NC 27603
A. Name ._.r._.r Roosevelt Partnership. Inc.
Last First Middle
8. Address P, 0. Box 839
Street, P. 0. Box or Route
Atlantic Beach,_ North Carolina 28512-0839 919/247-4269
0tvor (own State Zip Code Phone
11. Location of Proposed Project:
A. County Carteret
8. 1. City, town, community or landmark Pine Knoll. Shores
2. Is proposed work within city limits? Yes X No
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located,or nearest named body of water to project
Bogue Sound
111. Description of Project
?..? A. 1. Maintenance of existing project 2. New work -Yes
B. Purpose of excavation or fill c
1. Access channel Yes length. 1000 wtdthl 45 depth 6.0'
2. Boat basin N/A length_._____width -depth
3. Fill area N/A length widthdepth
4. Other N A length width_ depth
C. 1. Bulkhead length 750' Average distance waterward of MHW (shoreline) o t
2. Type of bulkhead construction (mate(ial) Treated Wood
D. Excavated material (total for project) (Dredge spoil'- 7300 C.Y. only)
1, Cubic yards 15,650 C.Y. 2. Typeol material Sand & Shell
E. Fill material to be pl.ced below MIIW (see also VI. A)
1. Cubit yards Nam- 2. Type of material
IV. Land Type, Dislosal Area, and Construction Lqutpment:
A. Does the area to be excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? - Yes _X No
8. Does the disposal area include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes _No ,,..X
C. Disposal Area
1. Location On-site upland east of channel
2. Do you cl-atm tttle'tn disposal area! Yes
D. Fill material 1nuii.c it lill is to be Irnrlked in N/A
E. How will excavated material be cnlrapped and erosion umtruiledr _-Earth dam stabilized with vepetat ion
F. Type of equipmcnl ur be used Drae line alld rotary-head dredgeboat
G. Will marshland he crossed in dinspurling equipment to project site? It yes, explain No
??
D&F•ei
Rev. 10/711
v?
r
V. InWWed Use of Project Area (Deraibr)
f..? A. 1, private Marina (existing basin)
rr?
' 2. Commercial
3. Housing Development or Industrial
4. We-, Boat channel to access exis ina.hnQin
B. 1. Lot size(s) NIA --
2. Elevation of lot(s) above mean high water P-12'
3. Soil type and texture Medium to coarse sands
4. Type of building facilities or structures Constructipn with F.F.E. PreatPr rhan 7-n'
above MSL in compliance with F.E.M.A_ finrid insurance S,Landards
S. Sewage disposal and/or waste water treatment A. Existing X Planned
8. Describe Tertiary package treatment P! ant with on-site subsurface disposal
6. Land Classification (circle one) DEVELOPED CTRANSITIONAL COMMUNITY RURAL
CONSERVATION . OTHER (See CAMA Local Land Use Plan Synopsis)
VI. Pertaining to Fill and Water Quality:
A. Does the proposed project involve the placement 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 project completion? _ Yes-No
2.. Type of discharge Effluent water from access channel
3. Location of discharge Spoil Area (Spn plan)
VII. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known): Minimal
VIII. List permit numbers and issue dates of previous Department of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
work In project area, if applicable: The Point Condominiums (Permit #119-91)
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 the deed (with State application only) or othrlr 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% 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 publicztion (G.S. 113-129 (d))Enter date served --Ortoher 20 _ 1981
D. List names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's.
Such owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
Roosevelt Partnership. Inc. P. 0. Box 839 Atlantic Beach_ NC 28512-0839
State of North Carolina. Mariug R,gsourg s n r, Bogtre Ranks.gtl"?t?jr Dgn hy,NC 2851
XI. Certification requirement: I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed activity complies
with the State of North Carolina Is approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a
manner consistent with such program.
XII. Any permit issued pursuant 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 October. 14, 1983
Applicant's Signature
04F-82 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR MAILING INSTRUCTIONS
Rev. 10178

Y S3 nY?'f ?'ri

No .
LAI
y A:

"I Jill
.
?
`
Mo W N ?
??}l,? 'tlff
>>?
y
G
1-u

U J.

r p, 1 w ?
b St?p S t
p f
b ?t?1 r
h
Q
? 4• w
1 ``
? `? t ? s r
I
y I 'r
? V
M
,r t ? n
r?
t 4
O
?? y
t 0

rp v
r'y. L c
t,

•
F'

Y v^'?
t? l
r 1
r,
,
. r r

r,t
y 1 i ri
.
} pp

s
It .. N?4 .1 .

V
A;
f
r..r
r..n
i
r?
?i
1
i
n, f
y
r
.? J

t

r
• r.
r .
? i
1
rye;,
{r
j'
1 jj

1
•
I
' k
r 1 r.

? i
t P: ?R r
t s.

4
r
t tti.
i
ERA
1 f: f
.

r 1
1 •• - IA ----- -. ;.. lyl j y}y?f\ .rwi?/dKI Ji1'+ arc? b
F • ,O QI„ '/s'1 V j /I I I'I l?/ \\+??? \ \?'/ ?r 1 I'll I
% It
\r +, I Il,,?/ 11/rl (?I ; \d.l,l 11I//r-? . 1
-. d ? i I?i III I / 1 l+. -^---111'1 1 'll Ill ?? 1
' tJ h 1 ( ? 1 1
/ R 1
Q r l7l>rp 1 I \, It
14 v SA
zi It IV_
0 l r.q \ i5 -j ". ` • NNZ NQYp/d2+ 8S ON Ol 00$ .7
000
V - 1
11 Al
I It
C) 0 vi
V. k 14
- ? •t ? W ?1? ?. ? 1 1?
' V! i I p 4 ? 1. 11 ?
.,1 O
,rl?? ? J m I I 1
"'rr 1'1 I .1 1
\ 1 / /
tt
'/ 0 1 1 1 r r t?.
J ? L? ? I O / 1' _ 1 1
caw
40
r ? ? ? /•? ? ' ` ? \ 1 ' Ill 1/ ? 1 1 1 1 '.
. ? •: ••: •;' .• ' I , ??'\?? 1 Ill ?? ? `.
1 1\ ,
Its
,.. , . e' ? ? ;. ,? •,: 1.;11, J,t 1 \, PIC
'1
Q 1 1 1 ? ti ?. \ \?
• .. (' Q
;; 1?::;; •.: tv ? ' i ,\11'-1 Ii' 1 1 /-`, 1 \1, .
1
it
o . I / . I , / I4s
111 \
?. IiII ''+?
?... 1 1 1 I, / , 1
f `• \

' .n
- AMl
?NyNN <G??
0l
I I` •
' JU

h. i

U

U
0
?
y
10

•?• •?;? -2.0 ?MLW
_

' ? •
?
' ?
: •_?•
t • ?
?
, ors

• •
• ?
,
.
'
• DEL BRASS 8•EDS• • ,^ ; •
f
J . •

MATCy L /NE ??

•?OGlJG SOUND - ?•O Hcw ? x
?

g
SCALE' ?`I=
oo'

4- L's I
'' - I MLw - " ?--
IIIIIIIItUIIIIIIIIIiilllllllillllll Illgdflllpllpllllillplllnllln?Idl IIdI?I
IIIIill?llll l II IIII III?IIIII IIII?IIII IIIIIII I?II IIIII I III III?
sot. wlw?+ zl'
'rop wip" 415;
'
A &'
C {-IaN 1J?. L. ? D1:PT1+ ?
fJzv?-S?l-YIoN I??Zo
Su+?xvu1.11n SIN
tmIKE5
7,330 C..Y.
12! MSL
SPalI- ' Od?'•Rr-W"W f'IM
RAT); NTI pti
II P19:15- III
. II
Illiilllllllllllllllllll?IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIInlmllue? uunm umlmunuR?uuu
SPOIL K6T1f t T 1OQ 13A-'SW
M l.ni 1.'S'
ML'?? o. o?
4M5
L III
Illlllllplllllll
6ULKHEAD,
EX1"w-" 4POM
Sul Ipllllllplllglfll I II4IIIIdIIIIIIIIIIi NI Ipllllll I
?,G?QUCUo? GABLE;
vtzAltJA4E ±4l MSL
x VEAMIA u
I3uLKPE:Ay
10'
Pr-TAI1_ I".
b.
DETla/L SHEET
CHAN,Y L CoAtsneucr/oAt
BEACON 'S REACH .
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 1890.
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402
In nnr&.r KCrCn Jv
Regulatory Branch
October 25, 1983
SUBJECT: File No. SAWC084-N-016-0013
Roosevelt Partnership, Incorporated
c/o Mr. Lawrence R. Zucchino
Paton, Zucchino and Associates
17 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Gentlemen:
%Vi O y P?yC\A
:ASR
Cr???f
On January 27, 1981, after extensive coordination between
State and Federal agencies, we issued general permit No.
SAWC080-N-000-0291 (enclosed), which provides Federal
authorization for those construction activities that require and '
receive authorization from the State of North Carolina in the form
of a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit for major
development, and/or a permit to excavate/fill, and/or a Water
Quality Certification.
A review of your application received October 17, 1983, for a
Department of the Army permit to excavate a channel, canal, and
basin and construct docks and a bulkhead on Bogue Sound at Pine
Knoll Shores in Carteret County, North Carolina, indicates that
your proposal is a candidate for Federal authorization under this
general permit. Accordingly, the processing of your application
will be accomplished by the N. C. Office of Coastal Management.
You should be responsive to any requests they should make
regarding improved plans or additional information to facilitate
the handling of your application. The N. C. Division of
Environmental Management will review your proposal, and a
determination will be made as to the need for a State Water
Quality Certification. Comments from Federal review agencies will
be furnished to the State. If there are no unresolved differences
of State-Federal positions or policy, the final action taken on
your application by the State will satisfy the terms of our
general permit. The terms of the general permit will not be
satisfied if any of the following situations exist:
a. There is an unresolved objection from any Federal
agency.

-2-
b. A State Water Quality Certification has not been issued
` (if required). Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that
prior to the issuance of any Federal permit that may result in a
discharge into waters or wetlands, the State agency responsible
for water pollution control (N. C. Division of Environmental
Management)' must` certify `tha't the dischal ge will not' violate
applicable Water Quality Standards.
c. The proposed work would have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. The District Engineer will make
this determination prior to the conclusion of the State process.
d. There is a significant and substantive unresolved
objection from any individual, group, or agency.
If your application is withdrawn from this general permit
process, you will be so notified and informed of its further
management in writing. When your application is successfully
processed to conclusion under this general permit, you will
receive written notice from the District Engineer. Only after
receiving such confirmation should you begin work. i
Your application has been assigned application No.
SAWC084-N-016-0013 and will be coordinated by Mr. Bob Johnson,
telephone [phone]. He is available to address questions or
comments you may have.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
?. a
y r,
-3-
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Parker
Office of Coastal Management
?'or. th Carol.,i np. ,,. 'eoart- -It. of
Natural !lose; ; c.cs.sxi
Community Developme,44-
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Dave Rackley
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
'21 ? New Rpr A:vent.e
North Carolina 27601
Mr. Randy Cheek
National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA
Post Office Box 570
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Brad Nicolajsen
Ecological Review Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. Preston Pate
Office of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Mr. Charles Jones
Office of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Mr. Roy A. Stevens
Carteret County Economic
Development Council
Post Office Box 825
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Roosevelt Partnership, Incorporated
Post Office Box 839
Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 28512