19890308 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19890726

^?y;?;?a STATE ••_ .
%? .
-4
81
s??a
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Wilmington Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor Bob Jamieson
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 26, 1989
cam, ?? ?' 1989
©? k _
Mr. Peter Williamson
Patton/Zucchino and Associates, P.A.
17 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Subject: Additional Information,
Project # 890,,308,^
Broad Reach
Carteret County
Dear Mr. Williamson:
The Wilmington Regional office received the revised
stormwater submittal for Broad Reach on July 20, 1989. As you
discussed with Mark Hawes, the following information is needed to
complete your submittal.
1. The built upon area within 575 feet of ORW waters.
This will include all waters surrounding Broad Reach.
2. Delineate all wood decking used on the site map.
3. Typical street cross-sections.
4. Supporting calculations for retention basins.
5. Drainage patterns for areas served by retention.-basins.
This information should be. received by this office by
August 28, 1989 or your project will be returned as incomplete,
7225 Wrightsville Avenue, Wilmington, N.C. 28403-3696 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Mr. Peter Williamson
July 26, 1989
Page Two
Please find enclosed the stream classifications for the
water surrounding Broad Reach. If you have any questions
concerning this matter, please call Mark Hawes or myself at (919)
256-4161.
Sincerely,, j;
Donald Safrit-
Water Quality Regional
DS:MEH:trw
Supervisor
cc: Preston Pate, DCM
Bill Mills
WiRO, CF

PROPOSED AME1,MME NT '1'O 711K W1111TF 01".:. 1NcE:
SCHEDULE OF CLASSIFICATIONS AS RcE'EREi;CED IN ' :i ::.'` 'L ",I
1101'Mi CAROLINA AD?LT14.LSi'RA1'1VE CODE 2b .031:
Fx,is _
Name of Stream Description Class
-----------
--------------
SA
Intracoastal Water-,ay From northeastern boundary of Cape
Fear River Basin to New River including
all unnamed bays, guts, and channels
Rogers Eay Entire Bay SA
Goose Bav Entire Bay SA
Alligator Bay Entire Bay SA
Mill Creek From source to Alligator Bay SA
Descr UtiOl? Of Propose%
Pro,,-osed Secmi o t
------ Class
--------
----------
Fran northeastern boundary SA ORW
of Cape Fear River Basin
to Daybeacon # 17 includi-og
all unnamed bays, guts, and
channels
From Daybeacon # 17 to New SA
River including all unnamed
bays, guts, and channels
Same SA
Same SA ORW
Same SA ORW
Same SA
All waters within an area SA ORW
north of Bear Island and
south of Intracoastal Water-
way, between a line running
from the westernmost point
on Bear Island to the north-
east mouth of Sanders Creek
at the Intracoastal Water-
way and a line running from
the eastern tip of Bear
Island to the western mouth
of Foster Creek, including
Cow Channel
Cow Channel From Bogue Inlet to Intracoastal SA Same SA 0RW
Waterway r
rogue Sound:( including From Bogue Inlet to Beaufort Inlet 5A Frpm Bogue Inlet to a..line,_. S8..4RW
across Bogue Sound from the
Intracoastal Waterway
southwest-side of mouth of
from White Oak River
to Beaufort Iz et) Gales Creek .to,Rock Point
From a line across Bogue SA
Sound from the southwest
side of Gales Creek to
Rock Point to-Beaufort Inle t
Creek
Doer From source to Bogue Sound SA Same SA ORW
.
Hunting Island Creek From source to Bogue Sound SA Same. SA

Taylor Bay :
Entire Bay'. SA
Same
SA ORW,
Goose Creek From source to Bogue Sound SA Same SA
Sanders Creek From source to Goose Creek SA Same SA
Archer Creek (Piney Cr.) From source to Bogue Sound SA Same SA ORW
Sanders Creek
- rue Sound _
From source to .Boo
SA
Same
SA ORW
}

Easty:Prong,.Sanders Cr
From -source-toSanders Creek ',SA Same ..
W
SA OR
Sikes Branch Fran sourceto-East Prong Sanders?Creek SA: , t ;? , ,, A= SAORW?
Broad Creek Fran source to Bogue Sound SA Same SA
West Prong Broad Creek From source to Broad Creek SA Same
'r SA
Bear Island ORW ?sea
Permit Class
NEW STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Natural
?Rpso -? Community Development
ATl t»
h >
fobs
0 Major. Duel p ent- ins an'Area o vuonmental
Concern puii uiniko'W '!
? "?1C 1? t7 T" r
0 Excavation??nd?or A suant to NCGS 113 229
Permit Number
120-88
Issued to Broad Reach Investments, Inc., 1333 Fayetteville St., Raleigh, NC 27602
authorizing development in Carteret County at Bogue Sound and Sanders Bay,
near Ocean as requested in the permittee's application dated 4/25/87 (see Condition
No. 1) and letter appl. dated 2/19/88 including attached rev. plat set sheets 1-3 of 3 dated "2/16/88 Final".
This permit, issued on , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable relations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may subject
permittee to a fine, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Project Modifications
(1) The application dated 4/25/87 referenced above is included in order to
provide site information and to satisfy other procedural requirements.
The project has been significantly modified by the applicant and further
modified by this permit, therefore, references to Channel A, Basin A, develop-
ment of commercial marina facilities, etc., are hereby deleted (see also
Conditions No. 2-5).
(2) The Division of Coastal Management has determined that the excavation of
either Channel A or alternative Channel A would result in the loss of highly
productive shellfish beds. Therefore, Channel A and alternative Channel
A are hereby deleted from the permitted project. See 15 NCAC 7H.0208(b)
(1); 7H.0208(b)(5)(A)(ii).
(3) The Division of Coastal Management has determined that the construction
of Basin A as proposed has the substantial likelihood of causing pollution
of the waters of Bogue Sound to the extent that areas now open for shell-
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee
or other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the
issuing date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work
initiation or continuance, as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on-site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification
not covered hereunder requires further Departmental
approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
December 31. 1991
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. Owe , Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Permittee
Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit #120-88
Page 2
fishing and used for that purpose would be closed to the taking of shellfish.
Therefore Basin A is hereby deleted from the permitted project. See 15
NCAC 7H.0602; 7H.0208(b)(5)(, ).
(4) The Division of Coastal Management has determined that the inclusion of
the proposed dry stack boat storage facility and other commercial marina
operations are inconsistent with the approved Carteret County land use
plan. Therefore, the proposed dry stack and associated operations are
hereby deleted from the proposed project. See N.C.G.S. 113A-120(a)(8).
(5) The Division of Coastal Management has determined that a complete build-out
of all phases of the development at the densities proposed would be inconsis-
tent with the "community" classification in the approved Carteret County
land use plan. Therefore it is explicitly noted that this permit is only
for the basin development set out below and does not authorize complete
site development as depicted on the "Master Land Use Plan" (sheet 1 of
3, dated 2/16/88), but is limited to the area depicted as "Limit of CAMA
Permit Request" (sheet 2 of 3, dated 2/16/88). Further development on
the site will require a modification of this permit.
Channel Alignment
(6) Channel "B" alignment is approved subject to the following: a) the precise
channel alignment will be flagged and the DCM notified ten days prior to
excavation; b) if the DCM determines any significant areas of sea grass
are present in the flagged alignment, the actual channel alignment must
be shifted within the Channel "B" corridor so as to avoid sea grass as
much as is practical; c) the channel depth will not exceed six (6) feet
at mean low water (MLW; (d) the bottom width of the channel shall be reduced
from sixty (60) to forty (40) feet; (e) "over-dredging"of the channel width
or depth at the time of construction is not authorized.
Excavation
(7) In order to reduce impacts to estuarine resources, no excavation will take
place between April 1 and September 30 of any year without prior approval
of the DCM in consultation with the Division of Marine Fisheries.
(8) All high ground excavation associated with "Basin B" will be accomplished
landward of an earthen plug. To prevent unnecessary sediments from reaching
adjacent waters, at least 24 hours will elapse after all excavation prior
to removal of the plug. Plug removal will take place only after consultation
with a DCM field representative. Final water depth in the basin must not
exceed five (5) feet mean low water.
(9) No excavation or filling will take place in any coastal wetlands outside
the alignment indicated on the plat.
(10) All excavated materials will be confined landward of the mean high water
elevation contour within adjacent dikes or other retaining structures to
prevent spillover of solids into any marsh or surrounding waters.
4.
Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit #120-88
Page 3
(11) The diked disposal area will be constructed a sufficient distance from
the mean high water level or any marsh to eliminate the possibility of
dike erosion into or upon any marsh or surrounding waters.
(12) The terminal end of the pipeline from the dredge into the diked retention
area will be positioned at or greater than 50' from any part of the dike
and at a maximum distance from the spillways to prevent dike erosion and
to allow adequate settling of suspended solids.
(13) A water control structure will be installed at the intake end of the effluent
pipe leading from the retention area in order to ensure maximum settling
of suspended solids.
(14) Flow from the diked retention area will be confined by pipe, trough, or
similar device to a point at or below the mean low water elevation contour
to prevent gully erosion and unnecessary siltation.
(15) The diked excavation area, backfill material, spoil area, and all other
disturbed areas will be properly graded and provided with a ground cover
sufficient to restrain erosion within thirty (30) days of project completion.
(16) The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant
increases in turbidity outside the area of construction or construction-related
discharge (increases such that the turbidity in the stream is 25 NTUs or
less are not considered significant).
Marina Operation
(17) At no time shall the basin be used for commercial marina purposes, including
but not limited to fueling, ships stores, restaurants, boat repair and
maintenance, and similar uses. The application is for "residential dockage"
associated with the adjacent subdivision and that is the only use authorized
by this permit.
(18) Transient dockage and living aboard vessels docked in the marina is not
authorized.
(19) Prior to occupancy of any marina slips authorized by this permit, the permittee
will permanently equip the marina with a pumpout facility to service boats
with holding tanks.
(20) A "no sewage discharge policy" must be posted and enforced at the marina.
(21) Prior to marina occupancy, the permittee must construct restrooms at the
marina and operate same in compliance with standards and guidelines of
the Division of Health Services and/or Carteret County Health Department.
(22) Trash receptacles sufficient to provide easy access and adequate capacity
will be installed at the marina prior to occupancy.
(23) Marina operation rules detailing safety and clean boat handling practices
will be posted.

Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit #120-88
Page 4
(24) This permit authorizes only the docks, piers and other structures and uses
located in or over the water that are expressly and specifically set forth
in the permit application. No other structures, whether floating or stationary,
may become a permanent part of this marina without permit modification.
No non-water dependent uses or structures may be conducted on, in, or over
public trust waters without permit modification.
Stormwater Management
(25) The Division of Environmental Management has determined that the project
authorized herein is in compliance with stormwater rules as provided in
15 NCAC 2H.1000 applied to projects using density limitations as a means
to comply with this management practice. No increase in the density of
development within 575 feet of estuarine waters, including the upland basin,
may be permitted without modification of this permit.
Sedimentation and Erosion Control
(26) An Erosion and Sedimentation control plan is required for this project.
This plan must be filed at least thirty (30) days prior to beginning any
land disturbing activity. Submit this plan to the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, Land Quality Section, 7225 Wrightsville
Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403.
Sanitary Facilities
(27) The local health department must be contacted and an improvements permit
obtained prior to the initiation of construction.
NOTE: The applicant should contact the Vector Control Branch at [phone]
for information regarding appropriate mosquito control measures.
MOTE: Division of Health Services approval is not required for the well to
serve the marina. However, if the well eventually serves 25 or more
people for at least 60 days a year, the water system will be classified
as a non-community public water supply and will require monitoring in
accordance with the Rules Governing Public Water Supplies.
Cultural Resources
(28) The project is located in an area having a high probability of containing
cultural resources such as artifacts, human remains, etc. If such materials
are encountered, the permittee must immediately stop work and notify the
District Engineer, Wilmington Corps of Engineers at [phone] and
the N. C. Division of Coastal Management at [phone].
Federal Approval
NOTE: The permittee is advised that Federal approval is required prior to project
construction. Outstanding federal agency concerns, particularly regarding
dissolved oxygen levels in Basin B, must be resolved in order to secure
coverage under Corps General Permit No. SAWC080-N-00070291, or individual
project approval secured. Contact the District Engineer, Wilmington
Corps of Engineers for details of any additional information needed to
complete federal agency review. .
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT * Lat:34042122"N
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT Long:76058135"W
MODIFICATION - PERMIT #120-88
1. APPLICANT'S NAME Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE Hwy 24, west of Sanders Creek, east of
the community of Ocean, on Bogue Sound, Carteret County.
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: DREDGE & FILL CANA X (ONLY)
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE:
(A) DATES OF SITE VISIT 12-28-88
(B) WAS APPLICANT PRESENT NO
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: APPLICATION RECEIVED December 27, 1988
OFFICE Morehead City
(as amended 12/2/88)
6. SITE DESCRIPTION: (A) LOCAL LAND USE PLAN Carteret County
Transition/
LAND CLASSIFICATION FROM LUP Residential
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS IDENTIFIED IN LUP SEE
CAMA REVIEW SECTION
(B)' AEC(S) INVOLVED: OCEAN HAZARD ESTUARINE SHORELINE X
COASTAL WETLANDS PUBLIC TRUST WATERS
ESTUARINE WATERS OTHER
(C) WATER DEPENDENT: YES X NO
(RESIDENTIAL)
(D) INTENDED USE: PUBLIC PRIVATE X COMMERCIAL
(E) TYPE OF WASTE WATER TREATMENT: EXISTING N/A
PLANNED package lant
(F) TYPE OF
PLANNED
EXISTING N/A
Boat Basin B - 75 sl
stor
195 units
(G)
ANNUAL RATE OF EROSION N/A SOURCE bulkhead
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
(A) VEGETATED WETLANDS
NONE
AREA
DREDGED FILLED OTHER
(B) NON-VEGETATED WETLANDS:
NONE
landscape
(C) OTHER- etc.
HIGHGROUND 7.58 ac.
(D) TOTAL AREA DISTURBED: Approximate land disturbance 7.58 ac.
* U.S.G.S. 7.5 MIN. TOPO 'SALTER PATH' PR 1983
k
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT - BROAD REACH INVESTMENTS, INC.
CARTERET COUNTY
PAGE #2
8. PROJECT SL494ARY: The applicant proposes to modify Permit
#120-88-to allow construction of a drystack storage facility
measuring 350' x 135' on the highground adjacent to Basin B
in the Transition/Residential Land Classification.
9. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION: The project site is located off
Highway 24, just west of Sanders Creek, and east of the
community of ocean, on Bogue Sound, in Carteret County. The
developers of 'Broad Reach' were issued a State CANA/Dredge
and Fill Permit in June of 1988. Permit #120-88 authorizes
the development of a subdivision and the excavation of a 75
slip highground marina basin, known by its location as Basin
'B'. As part of the restrictive permit conditions, the
original commercial drystack storage marina located at Basin
'A' was found to be inconsistent with the Carteret County
Land Use Plan and was therefore deleted from the approved
project. The developers have worked since the permit was
issued with Carteret County and the Coastal Resources
Commission to have the Land Use Plan and the Land
Classification scheme changed to accommodate higher density
residential use and the development of a non-commercial type
marina. On November 21, 1988, Carteret County adopted the
Land Classification change from 'Community' to
'Transition/Residential'. The Coastal Resources Commission
certified the amendment changes on December 2, 1988.
Today, the developers of Broad Reach propose to modify
Permit #120-88 to allow the construction of a 'drystack
storage building' to be located adjacent to the 'SB' surface
waters of Basin B. This position will place the
non-commercial drystack building some 600' from the 'SA'
surface waters of Sanders Bay and Bogue Sound. The proposed
building will be setback 30' from the bulkheaded basin and
will measure 350' long x 135' wide. It will house on tiered
racks 195 boats in a class under 30' in length. The
drystack building will occupy 47,250 sq. ft. within the area
designated as 'Transition/Residential'. A 75' long concrete
driveway will connect the drystack building to the boat
ramp. The modification request involves a 7.58 ac. section
of land surrounding Basin B which was identified in the
original permit. As calculated by the developer, only 24.3%
of the CANA Estuarine Shoreline AEC will be rendered
impervious. Rainwater runoff will be collected from the
drystack building and the adjacent asphalt parking lot, and
directed to grassed swells and retention areas away from the
AEC. The applicant has provided, on the revised workplat
Sheet 2 of 2, a narrative
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT - BROAD REACH INVESTMENTS, INC.
CARTERET COUNTY
PAGE #3
description of the Stormwater Management Plan. Finally, the
proposed modification includes a parking lot of about 6,000
sq. ft. and necessary restrooms with septic tank and leech
fields.
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS: The proposed permit modification will
render about 27,000 sq. ft. of the total LAMA AEC (110,500
sq. ft.) as impervious. This includes the drystack storage
building and a portion of the parking lot and concrete ramp.
These figures, along with the proposed Stormwater Management
Plan, should control the runoff of pollutants into the 'SB'
surface waters of Basin B. The drystack storage facility
will allow an additional 195 boat owners within the 725 lot
subdivision to have water access available in a marina basin
without generating the potential long-term impacts due to
wetslip dockage. The applicable 28 permit conditions to the
Broad Reach development will continue to help safeguard the
local estuarine environment as construction begins and the
project grows to maturity around the permitted marina basin.
LAMA REVIEW SECTION: The non-commercial nature of the .
proposed drystack storage facility appears to be consistent
with the Land Use Plan where the unzoned area of Carteret
County has been reclassified as 'Transition/Residential'.
PREPARED BY: JAMES L. MERCER
DATE: DECEMBER 28, 1988
Please type or print. Carefully describe all an.
ticipated development activities, including construc
tion, excavation, filling, paving, land clearing, and
stormwater control. If the requested information is
not relevant to your project, write N/A (not ap-
plicable). Items 1-4 and 8.9 must be completed for
all projects.
w 1: APPLICANT ° „ ?'
, ?
71
a. Name Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
Address PO Box 1550
City, Raleigh State NC
in 27602 Day phone [phone]
X Landowner or Authorized agent
b. Project name (if any) Broad Reach
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give
the owner's name and address.
Land Planners Authorized.Apent
Paton/Zucchino & Associates, P.A.
Cooper Square, 17 Glenwood Ave..
Raleigh, NC 27603 919-834-8620
1a.. Street address or secondary road number _
Highway 24
b. City, town, community, or landmark
Ocean, NC
c. County Carteret
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? No/County Jurisdiction
e. Name of body of water nearest project
Bogue Sound west of Sanders Creek
ROJPCT
tJSE?OPr'R("?P?'?EI) Y'.
a. Describe all development activities you propose.
(for example, building a home, motel, marina,
bulkhead o ier).
ari.nil day stack, roadway, parking
an associa a support aci rtes.
If you plan to build a marina, also complete
and attach Form DCM-MP-2.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an ex-
is *
WeL pwor new work, or both? _-
ty, rivate, or,
c. Will the project be for commuf
commercial use? Y to
mmunit
8
d. Describe the planned use of the project.
])ry stack gtoragP and servir•P
fn1- imp by p nj*Prt ras; r1PntG _
4a,AIyAD ;WW1-TERM:
CHARACT'ERIS'Y'XCS yy ^ t
a. Size of entire tract 278 r s 77 V-
Elevation Size of individual lot(s) N/A
c. Elevation of tract above mean sea evel or Na-
tional Geodetic Vertical Datum 10 feet MSL
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tractWando s o i 1
ies. fine candy loam
e. Vegetation on tract old field
f. Man-made features now on tract NIA
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classifica-
tion of the site? (Consult the local land use
plan.)
Conservation X Transitional
Developed Community
Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
Unzonec1
i. How ate adjacent waters classified? _SA
j. Has a professional archaeological survey been
carried out for the tract? yes
If so, by whom? Carn1 i na Archaeological
Services
31.??VEE,C'1V'T?.
Complete this section if the project includes any
upland development.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, or ,
structures proposed . Dry storage facility
for 195 boats
b. Number of lots or parcels One
C. Density (Give the number of residential units
and the units per acre.) N /A
d. Size of ar tabe6,gr d eor disturbed
.
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than
one acre of land, the Division of Land
Resources must receive an erosion and sedimen.
tation control plan at least 30 days before land
disturbing activity begins. If applicable, has a
sedimentation and erosion control plan been
submitted to the Division of Land Resources?
ve.,
Give the percentage of the "tract within 75 feet
F of mean high water to be covered by ?m-
permeable surfaces, such as paXXement
p. buildings, or rooftops. 2# = 3% '
i?
w
g. List the materials, such as marl, paver stone,
asphalt, oIs lliaf? taride uconfc°r?ed
surfaces. p
h. If applicable, has a stormwater management
plan been submitted to the Division of En-
vironmental Management? yes
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste,
water treatment facilities. Conventional
septic tank, interim pac age
Tertiary Plant - uture
j. Have these facilities received state or local
approval? No
k. Describe existing treatment facilities.
None
.1. Describe location and type of discharges to
waters of the state (for example surface runoff,
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
effluent, or "wash down"). Minimal
stormwater discharg anticipated
m. Water supply source r ate well /water
n. If the project is oceanfront development, system
describe the steps that will be taken to main-
tain established putleach accessways or pro-
vide new access.
o. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will
be the elevation aboven sea level of the
first habitable floor?
9
6?`CAVATION ;ANDFIL. '
e c.d? N X Cr
' INFORMATION'
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed excava-
tion or fill activities (excluding bulkheads,
which are covered in Section 7).
Length Width Depth
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break-
water, pier,
boat ramp,
rock jetty)
Fill placed in
MHW 1!1111. 1Y 1 =. t `.`;
areas It b. Amount of material to be excavated from
Upland Pi1i D F 2 7
below water level in cubic yardsNJ -
c. Type of material N / A
d. Does the area to be excavated include marsh-
land, swamps, or other wetlands?--N JA
e. High ground excavation, in cubic yards N/A
f. Dimensions of spoil disposal area N/A
g. Location of spoil disposal area N/A
h. Do you claim title to the disposal area? NJA
i.
J.
k.
m.
n.
o.
P.
q•
r.
s.
If not, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance?/ N / A
If so, where?
Does the disposal area include any marshland,
swamplland,'or water areas? N./ A
Will the fill material be placed below mean
high water? N / A
Amount of fill in cubic yards _N / A
Type of fill material N/A
Source of fill material N /A
Will fill material be placed on marsh or other
wetlands? N /A
Dimensions of the wetland to be filled N / A
How will excavated or fill material be kept on
site and erosion controlled? N?LA
What type of construction equipment will be
used (for example, dragline, backhoe, or
hydraulic dredge)? N /A
Will wetlands be crossed transporting equip-
ment to the project site? A If yes, explain
the steps that will be take r lessen en-
vironmental impacts.
8HORELINd S'A'AB I IZ ?I'YUI _
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap N /A
b. Average distance waterward of mean high water
or normal water level N /A
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months,
in feet N / A
d. Type of bulkhead material NJA
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be placed
below mean high water N/A
f. Type of fill material Nf A
2
.8 ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONk
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
-DCt'Vt bPc% Need via Po,,-.4 I2v - n
A copy of the dee? (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims
title to the affected property. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then for-
ward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permis-
sion from the owner fo carry out the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and
cross sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on 8 1/2 x 11 white paper. (Refer to Coastal
Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a detailed
description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 16
high quality copies are provided by the applicant.
(Contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regard-
ing that agency's use of larger drawings.) A site or
location map is a part of plat requirements and it
must be sufficiently detailed to guide agency per-
sonnel unfamiliar with the area to the site. Include
county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and the like.
A stormwater management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in.consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
individuals have 30 days in which to submit com-
ments on the proposed project to the Division of
Coastal Management. The applicant must advise
the adjacent landowners of this opportunity by sen-
ding a copy of the permit application to them by
registered or certified mail. This notification is re- _
quired by G.S. 113-229(d).
Name Charles T. Shilstone
Address J . A. Bell Lane
Newport, N 28570
?Name W .B. Fowler & T.M. Singleton
Address5214 Bo ue Sound Drive
Emerald Isle, NC 28557
Name
Address
fib ?20ec.8%
A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers ermittee, and issuir}?,dat
LAMA' X1120-88/
Rroarl R,at-b ?T/ntTaatmcr?ta TnC
A check for $100 made payable to the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community
Development to cover a costs of processing the
application. VCS Wf
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in ocean-
front and inlet. areas.
A statement on the use of public funds. If the
project involves the expenditure of public funds, at-
tach a statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to 10).
E9ERTIF'CI"IU SAND PE?iISj
' SYON TO EN''ETt ON LAND }
Any permit issued in response to this application
will allow only the development described in the
application. The project will be subject to condi-
tions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the pro-
posed activity complies with the State of North
Carolina's approved Coastal Management Program
and will be conducted in a manner consistent with
such program.
I further certify that I am authorized to grant, and
do in fact, grant permission to representatives of
state and federal review agencies to enter on the
aforementioned lands in connection with
evaluating information related to this permit ap-
plication and follow-up monitoring of project.
the 22 day of December
Landowner or
a
Send the completed app? cation materials to the
Division of Coastal Management Office nearest you
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. See the
map on the inside front cover for the appropriate
DCM office and addresses and phone number.
LDEC 2 7198-8
r
uv' uu
_..---------- - -------------
3
Form DCM-MP-2
MARINA
DEVELOPMENT
Attach this form to the Application for Permits to
'
2
MARINA OPERATIONS
s Coastal Area. Be sure
Develop in North Carolina
to complete all other sections of that application
which relate to this proposed project, including a. Check each of the following sanitary facilities
upland areas, even if duplicative. All shore-based which will be included in the proposed project.
facilities must be included in application and work X Office toilets
plats. ?- Toilets for patrons
Z
Number
1 MARINA CHARACTERISTICS Location in aci qty
Showers
Boat holding tank pumpout
a. Check below the type of marina proposed. Type and location at marina
Commercial Public
-_ (previous permit)
?? Residential
l
bl
h b. Describe treatment type and location for all
i
l S
i
pu
ic?
e genera
b. Will ft marina be open to t ona
ept
c
sanitary wastewater. Convent
Tank
c. If there is residential development associated
with the rina },ow, man . or lots are
pl
des Nlaximu7`' c. Describe solid waste, fish offal,
anned?
Solid waste in dumpster
disposal.
d. Check all of the types of service to be
provided.
X Full service, including travel d. How will overboard discharge of sewage from
lift and/or rail boats be controlled? N /A
Dockage, fuel, and marine supplies
Dockage ("wet slips") only
X Number of slips
Dry storage
195
Number of boats e. Give the location and number of "No Sewage
Boat ramp(s) Discharge" signs proposed. N /A
Other (describe)
e. Check below the proposed type of siting.
- V Land cut and access channel f. Describe the special design, if applicable, for
4? Open water with dredging for basin containing industrial type pollutants, such as
and/or channel waste, and petroleum pro-
paint, sandblasting

Open water, no d?c?ging required
?/ A la
ducts.
Other (describe)
f. Describe the typical boats to be served (for ex-
ample, open runal?o, ut, charter boats, sail boats,
ypes
t
or mixed types). llixed g. Where will residue be disposed of? N/A
t
o
g. Typical boat length
h. Maximum boat length
i. Are any floating buildings planned? o h. Give the number of channel markers and "No
If so, describe. Wake" signs proposed. N/A
Note: Regulatory signs such as these require ad-
ditional approval by the N.C. Wildlife
DEC 2 7 1988 Resources Commission.
:
4
i
i. Give the location of fuel handling facilities and
describe the safety mRIMes planned to protect
area water quality.
J. Describe design measures that promote boat
basin flushing or suklation and reduce water
quality impacts.
k. What will be the marina pft on overnight
and live-board dockage?
1. Is the proposed marina located near any
shellfish leases? If so, g0kie name and
address of the leaseholder.
m. If this project is an expansion of an existing
marina, what types o services are currently
provided? we s ip s
n. How many slips are now available?
s
OEC 2 7 1988
1??t ?v Cif

5
0 -.- : do-
1
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
41
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 284021890
October 5, 1988
SUBJECT: File No. SAWC088-N-016-0191
Broad Reach Investments, Incorporated
1333 Fayetteville Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Gentlemen:
Reference your application for a Department of the Army permit
to excavate a channel and basin associated with commercial marina
facilities on Bogue Sound, the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(AIWW), near Ocean, in Carteret County, North Carolina.
Your proposal, as revised and permitted by the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management, has been reviewed and found to be
consistent with the provisions and objectives of general permit
No. SAWC080-N-000-0291. Therefore, you may commence construction
activity in strict accordance with State permit No. 120-88, the
enclosed plans and the following special conditions:
a. Prior to construction and at four consecutive 6 month
intervals after construction, the permittee will assess hard clam
abundance and distribution in both the authorized channel and at
unaltered locations parallel to the channel. The sampling scheme
will be developed by the applicant and approved by the North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The sample technique employed will closely
follow the suction technique utilized by Dr. Charles Peterson in
North Carolina.
b. The marina basin will be reduced to the minimal size
needed to reasonably accommodate seventy-five boat slips.
c. Dissolved oxygen, temperature and salinity will be
measured in the marina at surface and at a depth of approximately
1 foot above bottom. Measurements will be conducted monthly from
October through April and twice monthly from May through
w
-2-
September. The results will be reported regularly to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. This
sampling will occur for a minimum of 2 years following excavation
of the basin and construction of marina facilities.
d. Prior to excavation of the basin and channel, the
permittee will determine material retention needs associated with
initial excavation and periodic basin and channel maintenance.
Based on the results of these findings, an upland retention site
suitable to accommodate needs for 50 years (minimum) will be
identified and set aside for this purpose.
Failure to comply with the State authorization, conditions of
the general permit could result in a violation of Federal law.
If any change in your work is required because of unforeseen
or altered conditions or for any other reason, plans revised to
show the change must be sent promptly to this office and the North
Carolina Division of Coastal Management prior to performing any
such change or alteration. Such action is necessary as revised
plans must be reviewed and the authorization modified.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. David Baker,
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure

-3-
Copies Furnished (with enclosure):
Director, Atlantic Marine Center Mr. John Parker
National Ocean Service Division of Coastal Management
ATTN: MOA 232X1 North Carolina Department of
439 West York Street Natural Resources and
Norfolk, Virginia 23510-1114 Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Mr. William Mills Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
North Carolina Department of Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Natural Resources and Post Office Box 33726
Community Development Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Mr. Randy Cheek
National Marine Fisheries Service
Mr. Robert F. McGhee, Chief Habitat Conservation Division
Wetlands Section Pivers Island
Region IV Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Marine and Estuarine Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mr. Larry Zucchino
345 Courtland Street Paton/Zucchino
Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Cooper Square
17 Glenwood Avenue
Mr. Charles Jones Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
7 C/
J„
n _
r

11
, K.91
W

L
Z

V1
R
T

W R
?
C C

U I
''
W
Q
Ia
F-
w
Q a
CL
,A.
f ` ? f
t? tt
2
OF
f/.9l
i
!. I
r.
f' ?{
i
C s? .
Y S.?
? S '
• r, - ? v ( r ttX,,,?I?J1 ?? n ??a ? .
eti 11 17.. j4?,yq h
4 P,
Flo
cn •
N
0
Q
NOW
W
liz
l'
cf)
la
1I
4 W
W
`r
a .
W
Q
J
N
cn
0
v
Z?
I
Z
0
U)
0
0
ip
W...; -0.
Permit Class
NEW
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
rCommunity Development
Department of Natural
Y zn. 1'
C- a§6 rce'7s Sion
for '
Malobevelopmantin in Area izonmental
s
Concern pgtsuant-tol? G?,._1: 9
RE Excavation az d br{ftfl g picis nt to NCGS 113-229
>.?
Permit Number
120-88
Issued to Broad Reach Investments, Inc., 1333 Fayetteville St., Raleigh, NC 27602
authorizing development in Carteret County at Bogue Sound and Sanders Bay,
near Ocean as requested in the permittee's application dated 4/25/87 (see Condition
No. 1) and letter wol. dated 2/17/88, including attached rev. plat set, sheets 1-3 of 3 dated "2/16/88 Final".
This permit, issued on _ 6 ? r ? _ , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applica le re lations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may subject
permittee to a fine, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Project Modifications
(1) The application dated 4/25/87 referenced above is included in order to
provide site information and to satisfy other procedural requirements.
The project has been significantly modified by the applicant and further
modified by this permit, therefore, references to Channel A, Basin A, develop-
ment of commercial marina facilities, etc., are hereby deleted (see also
Conditions No. 2-5).
(2) The Division of Coastal Management has determined that the excavation of
either Channel A or alternative Channel A would result in the loss of highly
productive shellfish beds. Therefore, Channel A and alternative Channel
A are hereby deleted from the permitted project. See 15 NCAC 7H.0208(b)
(1); 7H.0208(b)(5)(A)(ii).
(3) The Division of Coastal Management has determined that the construction
of Basin A as proposed has the substantial likelihood of causing pollution
of the waters of Bogue Sound to the extent that areas now open for shell-
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee
or other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the
issuing date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work
initiation or continuance, as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on-site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification
not covered hereunder requires further Departmental
approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
December 31, 1991
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.
c
W ,.
David W. Owe , Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Permittee
Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit #120-88
Page 2
fishing and used for that purpose would be closed to the taking of shellfish.
Therefore Basin A is hereby deleted from the permitted project. See 15
NCAC 7H.0602; 7H.0208(b)(5)(E).
(4) The Division of Coastal Management has determined that the inclusion of
the proposed dry stack boat storage facility and other commercial marina
operations are inconsistent with the approved Carteret County land use
plan. Therefore, the proposed dry stack and associated operations are
hereby deleted from the proposed project. See N.C.G.S. 113A-120(a)(8).
(5) The Division of Coastal Management has determined that a complete build-out
of all phases of the development at the densities proposed would be inconsis-
tent with the "community" classification in the approved Carteret County
land use plan. Therefore it. is explicitly noted that this permit is only
for the basin development set out below and does not authorize complete
site development as depicted on the "Master. Land Use Plan" (sheet 1 of
3, dated 2/16/88), but is limited to the area depicted as "Limit of CAMA
Permit Request" (sheet 2 of 3, dated 2/16/88). Further development on
the site will require a modification of this permit.
Channel Alignment
(6) Channel "B" alignment is approved subject to the following: a) the precise
channel alignment will be flagged and the DCM notified ten days prior. to
excavation; b) if the DCM determines any significant areas of sea grass
are present in the flagged alignment, the actual channel alignment must
be shifted within the Channel "B" corridor so as to avoid sea grass as
much as is practical; c) the channel depth will not exceed six (6) feet
at mean low water (MLW; (d) the bottom width of the channel shall be reduced
from sixty (60) to forty (40) feet; (e) "over-dredging"of the channel width
or depth at the time of construction is not authorized.
Excavation
(7) In order to reduce impacts to estuarine resources, no excavation will take
place between April 1 and September 30 of any year without prior approval
of the DCM in consultation with the Division of Marine Fisheries.
(8) All high ground excavation associated with "Basin B" will be accomplished
landward of an earthen plug. To prevent unnecessary sediments from reaching
adjacent waters, at least 24 hours will elapse after all excavation prior
to removal of the plug. Plug removal will take place only after consultation
with a DCM field representative. Final water depth in the basin must not
exceed five (5) feet mean low water.
(9) No excavation or filling will take place in any coastal wetlands outside
the alignment indicated on the plat.
(10) All excavated materials will be confined landward of the mean high water
elevation contour within adjacent dikes or other retaining structures to
prevent spillover of solids into any marsh or surrounding waters.
Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
Permit #120-88
Page 3
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
(11) The diked disposal area will be constructed a sufficient distance from
the mean high water level or any marsh to eliminate the possibility of
dike erosion into or upon any marsh or surrounding waters.
(12) The terminal end of the pipeline from the dredge into the diked retention
area will be positioned at or greater than 50' from any part of the dike
and at a maximum distance from the spillways to prevent dike erosion and
to allow adequate settling of suspended solids.
(13) A water control structure will be installed at the intake end of the effluent
pipe leading from the retention area in order to ensure maximum settling
of suspended solids.
(14) Flow from the diked retention area will be confined by pipe, trough, or
similar device to a point at or below the mean low water elevation contour
to prevent gully erosion and unnecessary siltation.
(15) The diked excavation area, backfill material, spoil area, and all other
disturbed areas will be properly graded and provided with a ground cover
sufficient to restrain erosion within thirty (30) days of project completion.
(16) The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant
increases in turbidity outside the area of construction or construction-related
discharge (increases such that the turbidity in the stream is 25 NTUs. or
less are not considered significant).
Marina Operation
(17 ) At no time shall the basin be
but not limited to fueling,
maintenance, and similar uses.
associated with the adjacent s
by this permit.
(18) Transient dockage and living
authorized.
used for commercial marina purposes, including
ships stores, restaurants, boat repair and
The application is for "residential dockage"
ubdivision and that is the only use authorized
aboard vessels docked in the marina is not
(19) Prior to occupancy of any marina slips authorized by this permit, the permittee
will permanently equip the marina with a pumpout facility to service boats
with holding tanks.
(20) A "no sewage discharge policy" must be posted and enforced at the marina.
(21) Prior to marina occupancy, the permittee must construct restrooms at the
marina and operate same in compliance with standards and guidelines of
the Division of Health Services and/or Carteret County Health Department.
(22) Trash receptacles sufficient to provide easy access and adequate capacity
will be installed at the marina prior to occupancy.
(23) Marina operation rules detailing safety and clean boat handling practices
will be posted.
Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit #120-88
Page 4
(24) This permit authorizes only the docks, piers and other structures and uses
located in or over the water that are expressly and specifically set forth
in the permit application. No other structures, whether floating or stationary,
may become a permanent part of this marina without permit modification.
No non-water dependent uses or structures may be conducted on, in, or over
public trust waters without permit modification.
Stormwater Management
(25) The Division of Environmental Management has determined that the project
authorized herein is in compliance with stormwater rules as provided in
15 NCAC 2H.1000 applied to projects using density limitations as a means
to comply with this management practice. No increase in the density of
development within 575 feet of estuarine waters, including the upland basin,
may be permitted without modification of this permit.
Sedimentation and Erosion Control
(26) An Erosion and Sedimentation control plan is required for this project.
This plan must be filed at least thirty (30) days prior to beginning any
land disturbing activity. Submit this plan to the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, Land Quality Section, 7225 Wrightsville
Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403.
Sanitary Facilities
(27) The local health department must be contacted and an improvements permit
obtained prior to the initiation of construction.
NOTE: The applicant should contact the Vector Control Branch at [phone]
for information regarding appropriate mosquito control measures.
MOTE: Division of Health Services approval is not required for the well to
serve the marina. However, if the well eventually serves 25 or more
people for at least 60 days a year, the water system will be classified
as a non-community public water supply and will require monitoring in
accordance with the Rules Governing Public Water Supplies.
Cultural Resources
(28) The project is located in an area having a high probability of containing
cultural resources such as artifacts, human remains, etc. If such materials
are encountered, the permittee must immediately stop work and notify the
District Engineer, Wilmington Corps of Engineers at [phone] and
the N. C. Division of Coastal Management at [phone].
Federal Approval
NOTE: The permittee is advised that Federal approval is required prior to project
construction. Outstanding federal agency concerns, particularly regarding
dissolved oxygen levels in Basin B, must be resolved in order to secure
coverage under Corps General Permit No. SAWC080-N-000-0291, or individual
project approval secured. Contact the District Engineer, Wilmington
Corps of Engineers for details of any additional information needed to
complete federal agency review.
d „a•STA7Z
r J
r
J [ (t7 ppA
5' l C-
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: State Review Agencies and C.O.E.
FROM: John Parker, Chief:
Major Permits Proce ing Section
SUBJECT: Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
DATE: June 24, 1988
David VG Owens
Director
In early March, this office circulated a modified plan to agencies
with outstanding objections to earlier project design. This was catagorized,
for the DCM record, as a "third and limited circulation". The plans were
dated "2/16/88 Final". Due to continuing state and Federal objection
and in an effort to provide additional shellfish information the applicant,
on April 7th, requested that processing be placed in abeyance.
During the hold period there has been, as some of you know, an exchange
of considerable survey information and subsequent review on the state
of the project area shellfish resource. While it was implied that this
additional survey work might result in yet another modification, the applicant
has now requested that processing be completed based on the "2/16/88"
plat set.
With the brief update, it is now requested that if you have additional
comments on this important Bogue Sound project that notice be given to
this office immediately in order that action can be taken. Action is
scheduled for the week of June 27.
JP/aw
cc: N. C. Coastal Federation
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
ILL Ai'""y Yfl Y
yORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
832 J Belt Lane (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570 • [phone]
May 28, 1988
Dr. Bud Cross,
National Marine
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North
Dear Bud:
Director
Fisheries Service, Beaufort Lab
Carolina 28516

rin
9 Sfp???
MAY
01V. 0,F,ENV ROG ,'MrN'TA ;s?AIIAGEMi.E.NF
R-ateign, r
Many members of the Coastal Federation are gre cerned
about the potential impacts of the proposed ad Reach Mar by
Sanders Creek in western Bogue Sound. Theses-s cus on
shellfishing and impacts on submerged grasses in the area.
As shown in the attached diagram, obtained from the Division
of Marine Fisheries, channel B would pass between two identified
grass beds. The Coastal Federation is concerned that the site
of the channel may actually be valuable seagrass habitat. Our
initial look into the literature on seagrasses indicates that
grass beds can fluctuate dramatically over time within the area
of suitable habitat. Also, damaged grass beds apparently often
take many years to recover. We note Dr. Charles Peterson's study
that found a seagrass area exposed to moderate intensity of clam
kicking still had 35% less seagrass biomass than predicted from
controls after four years for recovery.
According to residents, the waters at the site were heavily
used by mechanical dredges around 1980 and by clam kickers about
five years ago. We are concerned that this may be a productive
area that is still recovering from that damage.
In talking with Dr. Gordon Thayer about seagrasses, he
indicated that NMFS staff may be able to evaluate sites to
determine if they are components of a productive grass bed
system, even though the standing grass may be low at the time of
observation. We request that, if possible, NMFS staff
investigate the Sanders Creek area to determine if the proposed
channel B would pass through potentially valuable seagrass
habitat.
Thank you for any help you can provide.
Sincerely,
Jim Kennedy
Environmental Scientist
cc: Bill Hogarth
Dave Owens ;
Paul Wilms
Gordon Thayer ?,
/? • RESIDENTIAC
TURF
fU U9E SANER Y L:
4
V
0 '
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
0
ABOGUE SOUND
ay,
Figure 1. Strata within the Broad Reach project site.

i
i
AIPJ > c-oIY -so?ff 6-1-6- SS
or-171 ",1 .4 4 Ae?l
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
1832 J Bell Lane (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570 • [phone]
June 14, 1988
Mr. Dave Owens
Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Re: Proposed Broad Reach Marina, Bogue Sound S TK) p
e
Dear Dave:
The report titled "Analysis of Clam Bed Density Data: DMF
Sampling Effort of 12 May 1988" prepared by Robert J. Goldstein
and Associates, May 23, 1988, for Paton-Zucchino Associates will
apparently be used to develop a new proposed marina channel
alignment for the Broad Reach project. The report attempts to
apply statistical computer analysis to shellfish data collected
by the Division of Marine Fisheries. Key pages of the report are
attached.
The Coastal Federation finds the analysis by Goldstein and
Associates to be inappropriate for the following reasons (in
order of priority):
1. It ignores harvested shellfish.
By considering only shellfish found in DMF samples, the
analysis ignores shellfish fishermen have collected. It
considers only the shellfish fishermen have missed.
The true productivity of an area includes the amount of
shellfish harvested as well as the amount missed by fishermen.
In simple terms,
P = H + M where P is total productivity,
H is amount harvested, and
M is amount missed in harvest.
The Goldstein report attempts to study M, shellfish missed by
fishermen, but fails to consider the total productivity. If the
state accepts this approach, every time a fisherman takes a
shellfish from the water, the fisherman increases the likelihood
that the state will allow development that will prevent or
damage shellfishing at the site.
Numerous comments from residents and observations by agency
staff establish in the CAMA permit file that the Broad Reach site
was heavily harvested last summer before the red tide.
Mr. Dave Owens
June 14, 19BB
Page 2.
Since clams take about three years to grow to commercial size
(which are collected by the DMF patent tong grabs), the recent
sampling is to a large extent measuring the residual shellfish
missed by fishermen. Any existing patterns in shellfish
distribution may reflect fishing patterns more than habitat
productivity. The petition signed by over 150 people who have
shellfished at the site indicates the high historical use for
shellfishing.
Utilizing information on previous harvesting and habitat
suitability as well as recent sampling, the Division of Marine
Fisheries has already concluded the Broad Reach site area has a
significant shellfish resource. This conclusion has been
independently confirmed by Dr. Charles Peterson and graduate
student Frank Wilson of the UNC Institute for Marine Sciences.
2. It ignores variability of resource.
The "trend surface analysis" used by Goldstein is based on
the assumption that the distribution of shellfish resource is
reasonably fixed in time. However, the distribution of shellfish
often varies greatly over time due to variability in the annual
settlement of clam larvae and due to predatory-prey relationships
(whelks, crabs, and some birds are predators of clams).
In more technical terms, the trend analysis assumes that the
samples were collected from a defined population. The analysis
characterizes differences in clam density at different locations,
but does not consider changes in the population over time.
Therefore, the analysis cannot be assumed to represent future or
past conditions and is of dubious value for designing a project
that protects the public resources.
Because of fluctuations over time, the historical harvest
and productivity must be considered if we are to maintain our
shellfish waters. A temporary natural downward fluctuation of
shellfish density should not be a basis for writing off an area
for shellfishing. In the long run, we will loose all our
shellfish waters if we abandon an area when density temporarily
fluctuates downward.
3. The trend analysis results are inconsistent with the data.
The trend surface model applied here is not valid as it
does not fit the raw data.
The analysis basically uses trial and error to select from a
large number of mathematical functions a combination of
functions that describe shellfish density throughout the sampling
area.
6
Mr. Dave Owens
June 14, 1988
Page 3.
The key result of the trend analysis is a path of expected
low productivity (shown by horizontal lines with no crosses in
attached Figure 6). As described in the Goldstein conclusions,
this path is about 80 to 140 feet from the previous proposed
channel centerline (see X axis of the figure). Figure 5
indicates this path has a mean productivity of less than .5 clams
per sample (i.e., per square meter). Figure 6 indicates the
upper 95 percent confidence interval for clam density in the path
is less than or equal to the cutoff criteria of one clam per
sample.
In the DMF samples used to generate the trend analysis,
there are two columns of samples directly in the reported trend
surface depression, 100 and 125 feet from the centerline (see
attached Figure 3). These eight samples yielded a total of eight
clams, for an average of one clam per sample. One of the
samples found four clams and another three. The upper 95
percent confidence interval should certainly be much higher than
one given the large standard deviation of the samples.
Thus, the data indicate that the purported path of low
shellfish density is an artifact of model selection rather than a
feature of the data.
The report's lack of explanation of the statistical
methodology makes it impossible to duplicate the analysis to
evaluate the cause of the modeling problems. Information on what
functions were fed into the model selection program would be
essential. Also, information on the use of transformations would
probably be important. With benthic invertebrates (including
clams) a larger variance than mean for counts, as occurred here,
can often be represented by a negative binomial distribution and
usually has an appropriate transformation for parametric
statistics. Basic residual analyses also would be needed.
4. Trend surface analysis are not appropriate for these data.
Trend analysis is appropriate for
continuous function without any sharp
sampling points. This is often a good
engineering statistical studies, as in
Smith (1981) and the work described in
statistical consultant.
data which follow a
peaks or valleys between
assumption for
the example in Draper and
the resume of Goldstein's
However, for biological data such as clam densities, large
variability with patches of high and low values must be expected
over distances shorter than the 25 and 50 foot sampling plan
used to collect data at Broad Reach. This makes any trend
analysis of minimal value.
Mr. Dave Owens
June 14, 1988
Page 4.
The limitations of trend analysis under these conditions
were well described by Keppel (Design and Analysis: A Researchers
Handbook, 1973, pp. 130-131):
... How do we know that the same underlying trend would be
suggested if other points had been selected for the
experiment? Is it accurate to draw a continuous function
between the points we do have -- would the values of the
independent variable falling between the ones included in
the experiment fall on the revised polynomial? ... The
point of this discussion is to stress the fundamental
limitation of trend analysis: any inferences concerning
underlying trend in the population are really based upon a
very limited number of data points. As Hays (1963) puts it,
"Inferences are to be made about a hypothetical population
in which [the] only possible values ... [of the independent
variable] ... are those actually represented in the
experiment" (p. 551).
5. The Goldstein report is apparently based on incorrect data.
The sampling data given in Figure 3 and presumably used for
the trend analysis have several apparently transposed columns. A
copy of the data provided to me by DMF is attached for
comparison. Although this problem probably significantly affects
the analysis, it is the least of the problems with the analysis.
Conclusion
After studying the report and the DMF data, we continue to
believe the data show the Broad Reach site is a productive
shellfish bed that is not suitable for a marina channel. The
Goldstein report provides no useful information to the contrary.
Please enter these comments into the permit file. Upon
request, I will be happy to provide more complete references for
any of the points made above.
Sincerely,
Jim Kennedy
Environmental Scientist
cc: Bill Hogarth
Lark Hayes
Ernie Carl
of 042 V71-
BROAD REACH CLAM BED STUDY
The data were then analyzed by a statistician (resume
appended), who recommended replotting (Figure 3) for trend
surface analysis (Draper and Smith, 1966, Applied
Regression Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, N.Y.) on a VAX
11-750 computer using a SAS package. Trend surface analysis
is a form of multiple regression, in which the values for
points between sampling points are predicted, based on the
values actually determined. A description of simple and
multiple regression theory upon which the trend surface
analysis is based is appended as an excerpt from Draper and
Smith (Appendix 1).
After entering the data (Figure 3), the computer was
programmed to generate and search for the best model-
(Appendix 2). A 9-variable model (Appendix 2, pg. 11, top),
modified, was determined to best describe the trend surface
predictions with the present set of data. The parameters
for that model are described in Figure 4.
The trend surface analysis of clam distribution is
illustrated in Figures 5 and 6. In the figures, a + sign
indicates clam densities of >1.0/meter square; a - sign
indicates densities of 0.5-1.0/meter square; and a I sign
indicates densities of <0.5/meter square.
Figure 5 illustrates the expected trend surface of
clam densities based only on the mean value of 1.0833/meter
square, and predicts areas encompassing all three density
categories programmed. The impact of high densities
associated with grassy shorelines is apparent. When the
data include the 95% upper confidence limit (Figure 6),
then no area is expected to have densities of <0.5
clams/meter square, large areas are expected to have >1.0
clams/meter square, and two areas appear where densities
are expected to lie betwe-en 0.5 and 1.0 clams/meter square.
BROAD REACH CLAM BED STUDY
Conclusions and recommendations
One of the areas of 0.5-1.0 clams/meter square
predicted by trend surface analysis at the 95% upper
confidence interval appears sufficiently large at 80-140
feet from the centerline (Figure 6) to contain a channel to
serve the proposed Broad Reach Marina.
An intensive clam density study might be conducted
within the confines of the predicted area to determine if
the analysis fairly predicts actual densities. If the model
is found to be a reliable indicator of actual densities
here, then consideration might be given to locating a
channel at 80 to 140 feet from the old centerline.
Alternatively, similar sampling data might be
collected along the entire perimeter of the proposed
project site, and those data used to generate a new trend
surface analysis.
A peculiarity of the technique is that the number of
samples and the number of parameters that affect clam
density will increase the reliability of the analysis, but
increasing only the density of sampling will not.
Consequently, the present density of sampling, if applied
to the entire perimeter, would not only generate a larger
trend surface map, but also a more reliable map with
smaller variation in the 95% upper confidence interval. In
addition, inclusion of other data that affect distribution,
such as the presence of grasses and the nature of the
bottom type, would improve the goodness of fit any
reliability of the model.
This report constitutes the professional opinion of
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates.

OD m m m m n m

O?
m

N
7
N
O
N
W
2
8 o
m m m + n
t
m

m m m m n

m n m m o
i

Y U
O W
Z
N
p
?
m
+ m h
^
J
Li
W J
Z
3? ^ W
U
U J
ppp p

N Ln W
W
4
X
? h

4 • ^ m m ? I?
? I
H

J
a
m
m + m ?o m
N
m m N m N
N
m
m m m h
N

•
O
? ? A r
f?
N
.n n
m
41 In
N
N m f`
N h N m f` h N
f a W W? t C o m V N Z o O r W
u
u
b
v- '
i. +-)
:3 U
V1 L O
CU n
Z7 a•-> O
C =3 S
L E cl ca.
+•? o n7
v C
L
4O. Q ?
r0
4J t
r0 .a u
ea
N 4J
4- •r 9X
O >,"a
i•-) r CO
O rts o
r C L
d b CO
M
W
V
C1._

ti
z
<
V)
N
z
O
U
J
H
` cz
f
Q? O
Z
t
t
N +}
}< _-_--___--_ -_-_-___-_-_---_---_-----------_-
< - ------- -- - --- -- ------ ----
------ ----- -- - I
N --- --------- ---- - I I
.. ------------------------
- -?'-
+ ---- - ---- -- ---_ _ -----__ __-_-_----
m -------------- -_----_-------- --------
--- -- ------ ---- - -- --
-------------
1 () -_-_--_----_--_---_-_--------------------_-- --_----
v a _---_--__-_--
17. y< -------------------------------------
N
X
Y
V
W Q
? H
Ir O
IX'
to
O d1 0 H O V1 m H O H O H O H B H m H m H O H O H O H B H O H O H m H O H O H• H m H 0 H O H?
h N N ? ? m m P P O 0 f` n b b H H?? I1 h N N .- ? O m P P O O N n b b H H? •f n h N N
W W WI- 1?d'Q$ NSOC W

4-
0.-
S-

4-
0 O
E
N
?

'? (J r0 V
i N t (1 Cf
'%-s 4J
_
r6 C O
O O to
rti O
L
O O m J
U N
r0 r0 N
14-- O N ti Z
L cv O
= r9 r
' u
N JCL
+
raEu t? Q
v 'a rp (V z
a N •''7 w
s-
Fco ? p? o
v a
F-o
\7?
Q

W
Sri ?
W y

.m
. N
1
. 1P0
. 0
1
. m
1
N
1
Z
r C
i z
v
b
1
H
W
W
O tr
O
1
N
1
41
N
1
v
N
O
r0
N
1
0
N
0
1
8

H
S
r
Z
S
C
a
h
m
10
a
m
0
N
W
N
r
yV ?aa
1ff X
W
O
V O
W
7
p J
W ?
0
J J
U
H
X
V W
W O
?. O
N ?
H
+i
it
t 1
J a .
T
22:

................................................
m N 0 h O h O V1 O h O h O h O h O 1R O h O h O h m 01 O h O H1 O Y1 O h On O of m 1/f o W 0 1n O N O
1'1NN•- 00 P01mmNN b101l11A• •I hO1N N.-.•OO PO,OOf?1? 1010 NOV •? N1hNN? .-
1. W W H 1. M O M N S O K W
O
m I
N
T
b
m
m
1
O
1
W
Z
O J
•_ C
W
I ?-
b
U
O
ID
W
W
O 1.
O
I
O
•m
N
m
. n
N
O
N
10
N
1
N
-0
N L
GJ C U
N •? b
/o fU
.a Q? rz
U
N C •?
- OJ ns
N 'd O
r 4•- cn
RS G
? Q
10 U /d
? 4-
GJ L b U
U C3 '17 ?
r0 a •r•)
4- a a) p
S- = L S.-
4->
a
N 32
I.f) 4- rJl
Q1 Q C
C
C1 QJ ,-- S_
L .C tv /C
F- +> >E
I?
U'
LL-
Z
Q
V ~
w ?
a o
U
J
t-
C
?p Z
w
b
S
N
8
in
2

• t.
+

.

Z.
1r ?' 1 •.?? it
` r ?tt? • t
r

? ? ?
r+ --- --- -
, +r +
r t ?-
• 1

ttl_

i

?i
r•. .etc.
?n1 V
i Q I
W
Q
3
a
0
U
Q
Z
a
z
cn
D
a
O
f

(IN
S
o
d ?
J
f 0?,4rts co
:..JUN 15 1988
AT Ei?
SEC.°"t N
W czl ?
UNITED STATES DEPART-
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE _
Southeast Fisheries Center
Beaufort Laboratory
Beaufort, NC 28516-9722
June 7, 1988
Mr. Jim Kennedy
Environmental Scientist
North Carolina Coastal Federation
1832 J Bell Lane (OCEAN)
Newport, NC 28570
Dear Jim,
r-1
r , GO pi,
.?
4
JUN 13 1"?E6 U;
ANAGEMENT
Raleigh, PJC
Thank you for your letter of May 28 requesting our
assistance in identifying viable seagrass habitat in Bogue Sound,
and particularly the areas in the vicinity of the proposed Broad
Reach Marine Channels. As you heard from Dr. Gordon Thayer of my
staff, we have aerial photography (scale 1:12,000) for the Core
Sound/Bogue Sound area flown in 1985. The Core Sound area was
groundtruthed and photo-interpreted under APES funding during
1987/1988. To date, we have been unable to adequately
groundtruth the Bogue Sound area and couple this information with
photographic interpretation. We also photographed the area from
Cape Lookout to just south of Oregon Inlet under APES funding,
but interpretation of these photographs will not be done at this
time since the SAV mapping project was not refunded for the
second year by APES and we do not have the funding base for
interpretation and cartographic development. This situation is
unfortunate because we have had several requests such as yours
related to potential impacts of marina and/or channel siting
projects in the area APES covers.
Drs. Thayer and Randolph Ferguson, who have been responsible
for the APES project, will attempt to get down to the proposed
Channel B area to sample this month. It will be very important
if you or one of your staff would meet with them so that the
exact location and extent of the proposed Channel B can be
established for groundtruth sampling. We estimate that this will
take about 1/2 of a day for us. Analysis of these samples and
the interpretation of the aerial photographs will require an
additional 5-6 person days. Our time schedule is such that we
cannot get to this part of the analysis until after July 15. If
you have anyone available to process the samples (we can teach
the procedure), that phase could get done earlier. Photographic
interpretation and estimate of seagrass habitat that would be
lost by the proposed alignment of Channel B could be done soon
after July 15. Viewing the 1985 aerial photographs with
stereo-optics, however, strongly suggests that seagrasses are
.--
fc
??M d GAS
I
l
present in the vicinity if not within the proposed alignment for
both Channels A and B.
As Dr. Thayer discussed with you, we are developing a
description of the importance of light penetration and turbidity
on the distribution and abundance of seagrasses. Since the
research information available is largely on eelgrass, the
critical light attenuation level discussion will be pertinent to
the coast of North Carolina. We will make this available to you
when we complete the assessment, hopefully early this summer.
Please contact either Dr. Thayer (919/728-8747) or Dr.
Ferguson (919/728-8743) so that a mutually agreeable date to
evaluate the site can be established.
Sincerely /yours,
Ford A. Cross
Laboratory Director
cc:
William Hogarth
David Owens
Paul Wilms
Randolph Cheek

' x
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
March 30, 1988
SUBJECT: File No. SAWCO88-N-016-0191
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Parker:
MAR 31 1988
WSTAL RESOURCES COMM.
t
APR
Vy'n
SQ
ryL'i
Tior,
Reference the February 1988, revised application of Broad
Reach Investments, Incorporated, submitted by Paton, Zucchino and
Associates, for State/Federal authorization to construct
commercial marina facilities on Bogue Sound, near Ocean, in
Carteret County, North Carolina.
The Federal agencies have completed review of the revised
proposal. By letters of March 16, 18 and 28, 1988 (copies
enclosed), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) maintained their recommendations for
denial of authorization.
The NMFS expressed continued concerns regarding adverse
impacts on the "commercially important" hard clam (Merceneria
merceneria) and on seagrass beds. The USFWS reiterated concerns
regarding detrimental effects on shellfish, i.e., hard clams and
bay scallops, and other aquatic resources. The EPA, after
reviewing model predictions, concluded that the construction and
operation of the marina facilites would result in violations of
the State assigned dissolved oxygen, DO, standard. Additionally,
we have received numerous petitions and letters of objection from
the general public. Giving due consideration to the concerns of
these Federal review agencies, as well as the citizenry, we find
the proposal to be contrary to the public interest.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. David Baker,
telephone (919,) 343-4642.
Sincerely,
%Ctha s W. Hol is
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosures
R
L998Z BuTTo1BD 144JON 'X3T0 Pgagaaox
69L xog 90TJJO 2s0d
lU9mO2vUvK TUISBOD
;o UOTsTATQ BuTToaBO glI0N
aoT330 TBUOTSag XITO paagaJOR
sauor SOTJBgO -JH
99£0£ BT2ioaO 'BIuBT2y
49934S PuBTgano0 S7£
XDu92V uOT2091oid TBluamuOJTeug •S•A
gouvaq auTaun4ag pus oupeR
AI uOTSag
uOTIoaS spuBTlaM
39Tg0 '82PT.z9glg ATaanag -SW
9TS8Z BuTToaBO glJON 43aojnBag
PuBTsi sJaeTd
UOTsTnTQ uOT3Bniasuo0 jv3TgeH
90TA39S SaT391qsTd auTleW TBuOT3eX
xaag0 APugg -IH
6£09-TT9LZ VUTT02VO glJOM 'g4TaiBg
6£OSZ xog 90TJJO lsod
aoTniaS a3TTPTTM PUB gsTd 'S'II
43UB9 (OATH) 'x 'Z 'sal
L89L-TT9LZ VUTToz90 gIJON 'ggTOTVU
L89LZ BOB aoT330 isod
quamdoTaeaQ AiTunmmo0
PUB saosnosag?TBinjvX
;o :Iuamgjvdaa BuTToaBO 41JON
2UamgRvuvK
TBquamUOJTnug 3O UOTSTATQ
uoTZoaS AlTlunb j agvM
sTTTK mBTTTTM *JK
:(sainsoToue inog4TM) pagsTuand saTdoO
-Z-
w

i,. 4 i TLHPJTH TEL
•oTTgnd jtiaauaf aqq hq PazTITgn AIaATSUajxa ale geuq 0-41
posodoad oqq 30 KITUTOTA ajeTpO=T at.n UT (sT1euaa.zaw pT.2puaozaw) sare,?
suoTjPjjua3UO0 jUp-m TU61S OIL> aaat{4 apIP 6UTPLreas.zapun ano st 41 #qST
3o bUTgsaAaeq jpuojjQa;jaaz pue Iejoaautno 01 uado PLM VS SV paT?'
eae agTs goaCOJd pa"O ld aqj 30 41TUTOTA 9'4pjp6u1uT ata-4 uT sa:: -
•e?ep ?uatrtt?=
of pa uT sasL>aaoop pajajpaid japow atn buiXIMe uagm satnsaz uTseq Ot4-4
p Vpuejs pa paU6Tssp 0141 ;o suoTIPTOTA 4u»oT;Tu6ts ;o u01.10Tpaad v •r;
;o PaepUe46 pau6isse eqq Mojeq T1al UoTjvt o;qo auo ATuo ' pat.no au-4 .fit: ti
UOT4v4s quo ;e IS) 9u0TjeA3asgo Vol aqj 30 •sauTod 6utaolpow asagq -4e
•p•a p006 sajeojpUt Rjep esatn ;o MaTAOa V '986T aegwanoN gbnw? Z861 h-'-
;o poTaad atlg ao; pa ;o 9u0T-4eAZasgo Alt{quotu 3o -4sTsuoo pup alTs goaCo_ZC'
30 AITUTojA at.o UT suoT-4pas puns onbos oMa u:Da4 aap w4pp asetly • ju;.xi. ? i'
Ipjua=.ijAu3 jo quau-4jedoa vutjoaea' t74.xoN at.n ;o aoj3j0 IpuoT6aU UQ'46:;:
aqj woa; peujeggo aaah eiep 6ujaojTuow Altnuow fsaa-4eM :juatgwzt
SUOT11puoo Oa jjP3OA0 OLP pus souaaanooo sTtp ;o A?uanba .; at{j 96pn[ off,
8 • S mo1aq sTTe3 za4vA quatquie aLp uagm 1/6tu 09S 3o paepuejs pau6jss,..
941 mOlaq TTe3 TTTM ujsteq eqq uT suotle3quaoubo 0a aqj jeyj
suotIoTPaad TaPOW •saeleM IuaT(gW p0-4ejoosse atn ;o STanal Oa 041 se ;
uyseq aqj uTnTM (aps) pumap uaExAxo juawTpas uodn juapuadap AlgbTq s- r '
aua UT (Oa) ua£Axo paATosstp atn -4etf4 r,ot{s sL*T-4ojpead japow ay-4 jo
•puT.ivw goalgns aqq uo jaodaU XfoT0JPAH eUjateW at{J paMaTAaa seq
•sdtTs 4pcq SL am--q -11
g uzseg pup *sdiTs :1agq SZ1 eAetf II114 V UTSL$ •oma of eeagj upa; paonE,,,.:
eneq SUTSeq eUT.7vw ;o .z:aqumu atn 'uotptppa UT 'puts sassel6eas 0:1 -43edu,t
JCue aar?utw.1a o4 pa•T;Ypow ueaq siPy ;oaCoad aq4 jvgj Cujpuelsiopun a'
•sujaetu joaCgns atfj Uo (Kd3) Aoua6V uoj-400-40ad I1nuawu0atAU3 atll woz;
jvuoTgjppe fujisanbaa '886T 'b 401QW 3o aaaaaT InOA 04 esuodsea ut
:AjngpooM Tatlotc,
(EZCO-9I0--N-L8 'ON a0110N oTlgnd)
euT.1eW 140M PpWG % :..,.
.78%pG aAPa • -7W ! t?OI i ;
,Q
RUN AWYM
in 6 a Urw
CMA I 3H .
0681-T068Z ON 'U'4607'
0681 X09
saaauTbug ;o sdxoD fu
Aargpoct4 •M Invd
16tot vioN020'v•lNV"tly
137t11s ONvi.L lnoo svc
Al N0163M
A:ON30V N011031ONd '1d1N3WNOUTAN3 SUMS 0311Nn
cn/Eftlx)m-IMF ..
8861 9 .:.

EPH RE6- . 4 HT LHI,JTH TEL [phone]`164
1ar ={ 1 :

posoZaue ? .,,,
aOj1.AjSTU1WPV TQuot&_Z
III 'SUuTH-na
-..4ry ?, J
•patuop aq uoTjr ..
gptuod SNt IV41 puau=:)aj am saoaos3 asat(I 3o asnvoeq 'Aj pp E,-'
OSPUPW 041 1`
sj )Wm OLD oluj (TTo pus auTjoseb 'ppeloeq Tsoa3) sjuejnTTod 30 uoTV)r;
aua pus 'saIL ; buMlas Tsn.zsT 'p91sanast( ©q o•A usT3TTaus atR 30 Ali,
e44 'spaq gs1JT19t1s butjstxo 3o eoureq n?stp aLI? apnjout pjnov.: :
814, 't(si3TTOgs 3o A4T?USnb pus A-Menb atp uo :100339 asIanpe,UP er.r
'sauslsAs TpsodsTp alsvm buyPhTauT 'suTiew ayp puno.21P pue uj saT:jtnTgaP c

MAR 21 Ia38
DIV. 0-F 4,l.;:>ANr,GEMEiw
l; lip:ate 4`;i?
ti_ ?gi3`3 • W1Lm,,iC77oJ 04,6.. 1AJG ?%?CL
0-0 3117lee
c process*mg8ou
?' t
or (lis gh Puted
develop ment t
By John wood
Raleigh Bureau Chief
RALEIGH - S. Thomas Rhodes, The staffmakes the decisions
state secretary of Natural
sources and Community Develop. and the
m y re not l!n vol vedn2 the
ment, ade a telephone call to his
staff this week asking them to speed p??tieal prOCess. That S
UP the permitting process for troversial development on Bogue just not the case here. 9
from Sound. .
According S• Thomas Rhodes, Natural
. DavidOwto an ens, in-house memo
Divi secretary
of the
Sion of Coastal Management, possible. quick action, if that was mits had been under Resourcesconsiderati
Rhodes called wanted
Owens and "wants
issuance this week" of Ted Miller, executive director of said the , formal permitting more than a year. He
Reach o
marina project.
the Broad permits for the N.C. Coastal Federation and an over time was 60 days. "We've spent
Parts of Bogue Sound
of the Br
.as ve ject, Opponent
ha ' described in state reports been , . P more time on this than on a normal
having `uiterference"Rin an agency call sma matt atte pro_
exceptionally clean water , project," he said.
of H di
beds and bay Scall eel
o s, The The comment period on the' Pro- smi
P ssed suggestions
hi
was reco e sound jest ends today, is telephone call was that
s recommended by the Di e
vision decision isn't quiMiller red fort at least he said. ``The Prompted by
be considered Environmental l Manage
another two months. political pressure. " Of course not
"
r be
an ment Outstandin to ff makes the deci-
Resource Waters -
-designation. "It doesn't show ve sions and they're stanot involved in the
l[!' Owens' hand . for the public partici ati high regard political process
permit .... That's just not
day to John Parke rten the note divisionToes s - the program,'° Miller said. Part of the case here."
coordinator, went on to sa Fens said he does not normally Breaedsaid Miller wanted to
that, if custom say get phone calls about Reach marina
ary comments from
federal agencies were not available e Rh de stop the
s, but that the tw me
, fr n lives near thesite.
per m do ?? because he
anyway.Rhodes" said we should go forwa talk o rd equently about controversial the Coaeir stgoalp" er ads, headedg
its. Of the 300 or so
b
I "is to Owens asked Parker to prepare sesssu each year, Owens 'aid, the goale's? not the ache'project. Their
the file for Owens' desk by t he end ' a ed bout ry 10. and he converse in detail
of the week. As director Miller countered that the devel-
makes final Owens Rhodes said his hone call oPment should not be In a sub permit decisions. not meant to influence Owens. was cause it would disruptpshe,j sh ne manna
- Owens cautione
uent note d ParkerVednesday, "I didn't say `issuance,' " State law, he said, seeks to protegt aonvict?
make it clear to an one to "please said Wednesday . s Rhodes existing uses of coastal waters.
I don't inte ref Y s') c that ed a decision th s week, if him they could sli The project's plans call for a 200-
directing (Rhodees'). call as make it." Y
Particular l for a 200-want.
a particular result. He P marina with a dry-stack stor- D
Rhodes said the Broad Reach per- age area, club house and septic
tanks, Owens said.
Jurypondeir
By Dan Headrick
Staff Writer
Everyone agrees that Rayford
Clayton Piver killed Nick Harry
Patelos last October. Part of the
question a New Hanover County
jury must decide is why.
Jury deliberations began
Wednesday in the first-de2-reP n,,,,14- L.., r
-
's why Piver k.
ing. A witness in the Patelos trial
testified that Piver said he killed
Baker because he witnessed the Pa-
telos shooting.
Lawyers defending Piver in the
New Hanover County trial asked
the jury not to consider testimony
about events in Bru
,M- . nswick r„i, .,.
Wed Patelos
Assistant District Attorney John
Carriker said the third shot showed
premeditation to kill. Carriker also
attacked Piver's story of self-de-
fense. "If you've got a witness, and
you kill in self-defense, why would
You kill your witnPCQm, (,..--I_
Aseoelated I
CLINTC
nold was fo
second-deg,
acy to corm
of her husE
Mrs. Arnc
the verdict a
Sampson
strapped to ,
about 200 w
k m CS A O Q N Q m (O
m
ID 0 CL (A
`< <+ CAD e0
°° L7 o Fn e0+ ¢? fn T ¢
3
.'! O Al
0 n S W90
g ?.
9: *'4 aQ 0
z : ?
ED co 5 11 t=j 0+ '0, 'Z 01 M
g., ftA le 44 M4
Co ri `'
m 5 t ?'C ,.? O fy O ear P? M `" P? o cD 5;- Cr m 'C w ?M O ?w b -CO 0 c? O W 0o, ?b chi
m -t. A. 'D COD m M 0-
SD :s
a EA At c
(D 0. 0 M E5 ;5.
p? m
CM ? ...arq «..
:3 1. M Olt myo?A mC4O.OQCp
.«omtnr? g
. C Q. ' rOt? C. O m'O N?GLA u• w O O
i5 :3
dC 0'C'p?p ~O?cr 0 m ??d04'L??.3j m E cin
cD eD . (D tY Q eD 'C b'OC ? c0•r ' ? e?? A? 'i7• G. ? ? a? ? ?": tD ryry 'gyp A'+
Olt
?.' CL G. cD G
4. 8 9-
? b cpD•?a°g0`DC. b' °m:3 or-T
19 co0EJ
(ED M C03
•;r r_. ?xx#? kat1' Mo A °? m ?' m Q p- o m
'*s p
Go OQ
•7 AO e•t ?y Op 1r tOp ati• +•! .7 O `r' • M ?••• A ?' ,_, `? W er
t) O ... C fD ? VG' ' rr ry pm?? t? O P? ?" ? • ppOrr'? (?D
Oo in m ?••? .A...'y `pDp fD 6 O m iY '.1' fD p?
(IL. on CrQ
Cg tISD
CL co
0 2.
A.a c wco< ??mp?m C"'F' A o
OD (ti C+ M
00 e r qp A O O V , fD e? p° C3. ?r1G ID V O A A iT pl G.?
r .. i fD ?? O tb O. O y?? y M- "J' v+" cb Cl? c? O p 'Q? O OD p A
?y ?. ?*e•F A ra 0.?. p e?p. O ?pq y?eD r O er
< °y 00 W,
a
p? tT lD cD ?p ".T iti CC . oo ((bb m ,?q `J ?,<Q ?r p
C O p?o' 90 R. O e?• Oo aOr • O' C Q. "ry"e ?' O. G' '•? O "" «T pl
\ C\ O Oy fD ?G 'p"TD' ?•3 e•? ??. «.y (p A t3, Al fp fn C? Lpl?
-Mt
w :3
CL "m ID
an ca
w- -
IF
Z
CTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION /I
NORTH CAROLINA 28570 • (919) 3934M
Aft 4 JvtV8
WATER, QL??I ? .,.
Mr. Dave Owens LIT
Divisior'.of CodUct wpagement
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
30, 1988
5-n-I'V11 LUTZ. ?P'
o
MAR ? 1 i s 3
UIV. OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Raleigh, NC
Re: Proposed Broad Reach Marina on Bogue Sound,
Dear Dave:
These comments on the proposed Broad Reach marina address
two topics: the recent application modification and consistency
with the local land use plan.
Recent Application Modification
On March 28, the Coastal Water Quality Legislative Study
Committee and interested citizens met with Larry Zucchino and
Carlton Midyette at the site of the proposed marina to review
the proposal. At that meeting Larry Zucchino stated that the
plan had been scaled back to 75 residential slips in each
basin. He also indicated that the dry stack would be retained.
However, neither he nor Carlton knew the number of boats that
would be stored in the dry stack and I have been unable to find
that information in the application. Likewise, when asked if
the size of the basins would remain the same with the fewer
slips, Larry said the plans had not yet been developed.
Obviously, the proposed application modification has not
complied with rule 15 NCAC 7J .0203 which requires work plats
showing the exact location of excavation, bulkheads, etc. The
project cannot be fully evaluated until these and other basic
design parameters are provided.
closure outside the entrance canal will occur if there are more
than 50 slips. The proposed marina would be commercial as it
apparently still has the ships store, fuel, and dry stack
services.
Further, the reduction of the number of slips is
meaningless unless the size of the basin is also reduced.
Boats can easily be tied to bulk heads and to other b'oatd"'t® r ?h 4a
The sketchy available information indicates that the
proposed plan for 75 slips in each basin will cause closure of
shellfish waters in Bogue Sound and thus violate state
regulations. The closure policy of the Division of Health
Services clearly states that marinas with dry stack storage,
fuel, or transient dockage are commercial marinas and that

.,
r
Mr. Dave Owens
March 30, 1988
Page 2.
allow a large number of boats in the marina. The boat basins
will still hold over 100 boats unless the size is reduced.
The large access channels for the marina are proposed to
be 80 feet wide and deep enough to allow boats 60 feet or even
longer. These large boats have high threat of sewage discharge
from the many people often on board and the presence of heads.
In addition, the large wakes have the greatest adverse impact
on nearby submerged grass beds and fishery resources.
Since the area is basically unsuitable for very large
boats, except for those on the Intracoastal Water Way, the
facilities for large boats would primarily serve transient
traffic on the water way and are further indication that this
would be a commercial marina. The shallow water of Bogue Sound
in the area of the site only supports small, flat bottom boats.
Over 12 miles from inlets, the site provides little
recreational opportunity for very large boats owned by
residents of the project.
The proposed 80 foot wide channel for basin B appears to
be unnecessarily wide since, according to the plans we have,
the connecting channel for the Holliday Village project is only
60 feet wide. The connecting channel limits access and making
the Broad Reach channel larger would needlessly destroy public
bottoms.
When the work plats are
modification, please send. us
regulations require that the
11 inch paper.) We believe
public comment since so many
In particular, we would like
stack will hold and the size
submitted for the application
a. copy. (As you know, the
applicant provide copies on 8.5 by
the modified plan should have
basic questions are unresolved.
to know how many boats the dry
of the basins.
Consistency with the Land Use Plan
A summary of letters in the CAMA permit file as of
February 29, 1988 pertaining to the consistency of the Broad
Reach project with the local land use plan is attached.
These letters show that two different county planning
directors and a DCM staff person have found various versions of
the project to be inconsistent with the community land
classification. However, the Carteret County Manager has
attempted to override these technical evaluations. His only
justification appears to be some vague previous precedent set
by a temporary acting planning director for a project under
very different circumstances than the Broad Reach project.
r
Mr. Dave Owens
March 30, 1988
Page 3.
In making the CAMA permit decision for this application,
the Division of Coastal Management must determine whether the
project would comply with the land use plan. we hope you will
give great weight to the detailed technical evaluations by the
planning staff.
We have found no precedent that is applicable to the Broad
Reach project. In particular, the dry stack marina on Harkers
Island that was apparently the precedent for the county manager
was very different from the proposed Broad Reach marina:
(1) According to the DCM field investigation for the Harkers
Island dry stack (CAMA permit No. 24-86, 2/12/86 to Bill
Ellen), the marina would cater to small. boats that can
easily be lifted from the water. The access channel would
be only 30 feet wide and 4 feet deep. This situation is
not comparable to the Broad Reach marina which would cater
to very large vessels, has a much larger channel, and has
a. large number of wet slips. We are aware of no permits
for large marinas with both dry stack and wet slips
catering to large boats in the community classification in
Carteret County.
(2) Probably the most important factor is that the Harkers
Island marina was proposed for an area that already has a
cluster of development while the Broad Reach marina would
be a commercial operation in a rural area.. The community
classification is intended to have clustered development
with most of the area maintaining its rural
characteristics. These areas are clustered residential
and/or commercial land uses which provide low intensity
housing and shopping opportunities (15 NCAC 7B
.0204(d)(3)). The Harkers Island project added a marina
catering to small boats to an area that already had a
cluster of development in the community classification.
The Broad Reach project would create an entirely new
cluster of development centered around a new marina in a
rural area of the community classification. As noted in
John Crew's letter, the rural characteristic of the area
would be converted to urban -- in direct opposition to the
community classification.
If the rural areas of the community classification are
converted without restraint into urban/commercial areas, the
purpose of the community classification and the basic purpose
of CAMA are defeated. We are aware of no precedent in Carteret
County for allowing a marina project such as Broad Reach in the
rural areas of the community classification. If there is such
a precedent, DCM and the CRC should take firm action to get the
county back in line with the goals of the land use plan.

? Mr. Dave Owens
March 30, 1988
Page 4.
(It may also be of interest to note that the Harkers Island dry
stack has not been built and very possibly may never be built
now.)
We believe the issue of consistency with the land use plan
is critical for the Broad Reach application. This decision
could set a precedent that would undermine the land use
planning component of CAMA.
Sincerely,
Jim Kennedy
Environmental Scientist
cc: Pres Pate
Mary Joan Pugh
Paul Wilms
Bill Hogarth
Linda Sewell
r
r ?
W, PROPOSED 13ROAD REACH MARINA AND CARTERET COUNTY LAND USE PLA14
SEQUENCE OF LETTERS
(from CAMA permit file 2/29/88)
1 . July 21 , 1987 - from Gary Ferguson County Plarrni_ng Director,
to Jim Mercer, DCM
Proposed project is "stretching" the Communi_ l,y land class_ificati,gyn.
Scale down or eliminate sorrne components of the project.
2. Dec. 21, 1987 - from Lynn Phillips, County Planning Director,
to Dave Owens, DCM
Poor site for a marina.. Project appears to be inconsistent with
County and LAMA programs. Marina and dry stack:, proposed a.ro
ineorr:;i;;t,ent w..i.th t h o Cornrnun.ity Land u.. r, c.l.rxt;s;i fi.c;s,.l,1.on . ;Aiolrlcl
evaluate project on the basis of cumulative :impacts. Scale down
Of' project iS in order -- pousibly, cl_i.rninate 1,1`10 wet :slip:;.
3. Dec. 30, 1987 - from Jim Mercer, DCM
to Lynn Phillips, County Planning Director
Marinas and boat stacks have previously been approved in the
Community classification. What type of facilities are acceptable
for the Community classification? ,
4. Jan. 19, 1988 - from Lynn Phillips, County Planning Director
to Jim Mercer, W.IM
The Community classification for low d(,
, nr i ti of 640 peml>1 n or,
les:? per ,3quare mile. With 20,000 squire foot tots, Bro<.).d IZeaclr
would have 1300 persons per square mile. -0 wet slips and a dry
stack would represent a high-inter ,i t,y land u-e. Development ill
Community classification is for local resident, only. 1'ropo;;E,d
Broad Reach project would not be conuis tern t, wi t,h tfi e currca t 1.;ttid
use classification.
5. Jan. 22, 1988 - from John Crew, DCM (former land u::e plan staff pcr>on
to Lynn Phillips, County Plarln.ing Director
Community cla.;s.i f i cati on .i.:I de:, i lined to prov i do low den:-; i ty, rn i xc'd
land uses to help meet 1.oc?..l t,orrsinfr, -;hoppimr, employment rand c.,thor•
needs in rural. areas. 399 dwel l i_nfT unit::; on 1 ;3 acres (3 uni i;:; per.
acre) with closed water and sewer system and 250 wet boat slips ar),d
additional dry :;tacking is more urban in character than intended I'Or'
the Community land use classification. Project is not consistent;
within the community classification.
6. Feb. 2, 1988 - from Kenneth Windley, Jr., County Manager
- to Jim Mercer., DCM
The "Transition." land use classification world. fit more cornfortabiy
for this project, but a precedent has previ ou:,l y been set that I'
feel we must stand by. Therefore, the project will be considered
consistent with the Community land use classification.

,q Q.,LI M
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
Institute of Marine Sciences
919/726-6841 or 919/962-8330
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
AT
CHAPEL HILL
j?
Lp..7 19 March 1988
a LT 10?
SE
Mr. David Owens
Division of Coastal Management
P. O. Box 27687
Dear Mr. Owens:

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
3407 Arendell Street
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557

Div. £y. ,:r;s;e'a ?;.
f c..1'st;? i'i?1'?iTY..
` fvi'?,.
We are writing in reference to the call for public comments
in the Carteret County News-Times on 2 March 1988 concerning the
proposed development of Broad Reach Marina. One of us, Charles
Peterson, is a professor of marine sciences and biology at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His major research
interest is in shellfish and he has served on the North Carolina
Marine Fisheries Commission from 1985 to 1987. The other, Frank
Wilson, is a graduate student in marine sciences, conducting
research on the early life history of the hard clam, Mercenaria
mercenaria.
The proposed development of Broad Reach Marina defines two
channels, A and B, to be dredged, connecting the proposed basins
to the Intracoastal Waterway. Channel A would be dredged through
an area of shell, grading to hard muddy sand with depth. Channel
B, located in Sanders Bay, would be dredged through a hard sand
bottom, connecting with an existing channel. On l March 1988, we
sampled these two arer for the hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria,
dredging thirty 1/4 m samples in each area with a gasoline-
powered suction dredge. Past studies have shown this to be an
efficient method for sampling clams. Samples were collected in a
5-mm mesh bag and sorted to collect all live Mercenaria greater
than 7-mm in length. Samples were in a stratified haphazard
design, with 15 samples taken close to shore and 15 in deeper
water. All live Mercenaria were measured to the nearest 0.1 mm
with vernier calipers and classified as "adults" or "juveniles"
based on the 1-inch width criterion that defines a harvestable
clam in North Carolina.
our2sampling yielded densities of 4.53 clams/m2 (1.07 2
adults/m , 3.4z juveniles/m ) in 5hannel A and 0.67 clams/m
(0.27 adults/m , 0.40 juveniles/m ) in Channel B. In the Channel
A site, the greatest densities of clams were found in samples
where shell was also present. Using a conversion factor of 400
clams/bushel (used by DMF), these-values convert to 45.E r-?n
7 1E N1
;APR n 8 i 88

busliels/acre (10.8 bushels of adults/acre) for Channel A and 6.75
'bushels/acre (2.73 bushels of adults/acre) for Channel B. The
value of 45.8 bushels/acre for Channel A is well above the 10
bushels/acre criterion used to define a shellfish habitat area.
Previous sampling by the Division of Coastal Management
(DCM) and the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) has also been
done in this area. Sampling by DCM on 14 May 1987 found 57 clams
in the proposed Channel B in about two man-hours of raking. They
also noted that "commercial bull rakers and other clammers have
been observed along the project shoreline during the course of
other onsite visits." On 14 December 1987, DMF staff conducted a
rake survey of the proposed Channel A, finding only one live clam
in 1.5 hours of raking (the number of people raking is not
included in the report). These two surveys do not yield
quantitative results and therefore cannot be compared with our
density measurements. They do suggest, however, that there were
more clams in Channel B than in Channel A, the opposite of our
results. This is not surprising. Temporal variability in
shellfish density is common. Variability in predator activity or
history of harvest could easily lead to strong temporal
variability in standing stocks. Differences in methodology could
also explain the different clam densities found. Our method of
suction dredging is both more efficient and more quantitative
than is raking.
Another consideration is the potential use of an area for
shellfish production. The shellfish leasing program is designed
to allow habitats where shellfish are not found in naturally high
densities to be used in clam farming operations. An ideal site
for such activity would be a habitat with low standing stocks,
good water quality, accessible location, and a bottom type that
would allow for predator-exclusion devices to be easily installed
and maintained. The area of proposed Channel B fits all of these
criteria. Thus, even if this area is not deemed an existing
shellfish resource habitat, its attainable use as a shellfish
leasing area would still make it a valuable resource area.
The area around Sanders Bay is one of two areas in Bogue
Sound where abundant live scallops are still found after the
mortality due to the red tide. This alone would argue that this
is a unique and valuable resource area. The fact that seagrass
beds are located in Sanders Bay is another indication of the
importance of this area to scallops. The bay scallop, Argopecten
irradians,;has a life history strongly associated with seagrass.
The settling scallop spat require grass blades or other hard
substrate upon which to settle, and throughout their lives
scallops attain their highest densities in seagrass beds.
Unfortunately, grassbeds are one of the most sensitive parts of
the marine environment to increased turbidity levels. The effect
of channel dredging and constant boat traffic through Sanders Bay
would undoubtably increase the turbidity in this area, decreasing
light available to grassbeds and possibly decreasing the areal
coverage of the grassbeds.
Given the favorable qualities of this bay for shellfish and
the fact that there are living scallops in it after the red tide,
we feel that this is reason to question the propriety of any
degradation of the water quality in or near Sanders Bay. The
presence of seagrass beds further heightens our concern over this
proposal.
In light of the density of clams found in the proposed sites
and the past history of use by commercial clammers, we would
definitely classify Channel A as an existing shellfish resource
area. Channel B has a history of commercial harvest, and as
recently as May of last year was found by DCM to have notable
clam densities. The other issues of potential use and impacts to
scallops and seagrass beds add to the list of reasons to protect
this habitat from water quality degradation by dredging and boat
traffic.
We hope that our comments will be of use in considering this
proposed development plan.
Sincerely,
a &- f
Charles H. Peterson
Professor of Marine Sciences
and Biology

Frank S. Wilson
Graduate Research Assistant
cc: /Dr. Paul Wilms
Ms. Mary Joan Pugh
Mr. Lee Pelej
Mr. Mike Street
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
U ' v p4+`N?
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
s°•, ??
ns of NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
HU Southeast Regional Office
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
March 16, 1988 F/SER111/RSS
919/728-5090
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury fi,=
District Engineer, Wilmington District
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers:
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402 "
Attention_Dav_id Baker DIV OFENVIRONN,''14TAL?PI NAGEy`? ?T
Ral-66, NC
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
Please reference your March 4, 1988, letter requesting our
comments on the revised- plans submitted by Paton, Zucchino &
Associates whereby Broad Reach Investments, Incorporated proposes
to excavate two access channels and two marina basins as a part
of a commercial and recreational development adjacent to Bogue
Sound, Carteret County, North Carolina (88-N-016-0191).
The current proposal is the third revision of this project to
which we objected by letters dated July 16, 1987, and
December 14, 1987. Although the number of boats, configuration
of the basins, and alignment of Channel A has been revised, the
adverse impacts of locating two large marinas at this site remain
unchanged. In our opinion, the relocation of Channel A does not
alleviate our concerns since data exist to substantiate our
position that the access channels are located in or surrounded by
commercially important hard clam (Merceneria merceneria) habitat
(see attached letter from Dr. Peter Peterson with the UNC IMS to
Mr. David Owens with the NC DCM). Furthermore, we understand
that the Environmental Protection Agency has expressed concerns
regarding water quality in the proposed marinas. Regarding this
issue, the presence of a marina will certainly elevate turbidity
periodically either from run-off or boat traffic.. We can only
speculate, however, as to the severity and subsequent cumulative
adverse impact on seagrass beds that occur in close proximity to
the project channels.
10TH ANNIVERSARY 1970-1980
Hof"T'R 0* 5/ tradition of service to the Nation
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
A young agency with a historic
tradition of service to the Nation
-2-
In view of the above, the concerns outlined in our previous
letters remain unchanged and we continue to recommend against
permit issuance.
S7eo ely your
d
An dreas Mager, Jr.
Acting Assistant Regional
Director
Habitat Conservation Division
Attachment
r
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
AT
CHAPEL HILL
I
Institute of Marine Sciences
919A26.6841 or 919/962-8330
9 March 1988
Mr. David Owdns
Division of Coastal Management
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Owens:
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
3407 Arendell Street
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
We are writing in reference to the call for public comments
.in the Carteret County News-Times on 2 March 1988 concerning the
proposed development of Broad Reach Marina. One of us, Charles
Peterson, is a professor of marine sciences and biology at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His major research
interest is in shellfish and he has served on the North Carolina
Marine Fisheries Commission from 1985 to 1987. The other, Frank
Wilson, is a graduate student in marine sciences, conducting
research on the early life history of the hard clam, Mercenaria
mercenaria.
The proposed development of Broad Reach Marina defines two
channels, A and B, to be dredged, connecting the proposed basins
to the Intracoastal Waterway. Channel A would be dredged through
an area of shell, grading to hard muddy sand with depth. Channel
B, located in Sanders Bay, would be dredged through a hard sand
bottom, connecting with an existing channel. On 1-March 1988,-we
sampled these two are5s for the hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria,
dredging thirty 1/4 m samples in each area with a gasoline-
powered suction dredge. Past studies have shown this to be an
efficient method for sampling clams. Samples were collected in a
5-mm mesh bag and sorted to collect all live Mercenaria greater
than 7-mm in length. Samples were in a stratified haphazard
design, with 15 samples taken close to shore and 15 in deeper
water. All live Mercenaria were measured to the nearest 0.1 mm
with vernier calipers and classified as "adults" or "juveniles"
based on the 1-inch width criterion that defines a harvestable
clam in North Carolina.
Our2sampling yielded d nsities of 4.53 clams/m2 (1.07 2
adults/m , 3.47 juveniles/m ) in 5hannel A and 0.67 clams/m
(0.27 adults/m , 0.40 juveniles/m ) in Channel B. In the Channel
A site, the greatest densities of clams were found in samples
where shell was also present. Using a conversion factor of 400
clams/bushel (used by DMF), these values convert to 45.8
,.? bushels/acre (10.8 bushels of adults/acre) for Channel A and 6.75
bushels/acre (2.73 bushels of adults/acre) for Channel B. The
value of 45.8 bushels/acre for Channel A is well above the 10
bushels/acre criterion used to define a shellfish habitat area.
,Previous sampling by the Division of Coastal Management
(DCM) and the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) has also been
done in this area. Sampling by DCM on 14 May 1987 found 57 clams
in the proposed Channel B in about two man-hours of raking. They
also noted that "commercial bull rakers and other clammers have
been observed along the project shoreline during the course of
other onsite visits." On 14 December 1987, DMF staff conducted a
rake survey of the proposed Channel A, finding only one live clam
in 1.5 hours of raking (the number of people raking is not
included in the report). These two surveys do not yield
quantitative results and therefore cannot be compared with our
density measurements. They do suggest, however, that there were
more clams in Channel B than in Channel A, the opposite of our
results. This is not surprising. Temporal variability in
shellfish density is common. Variability in predator activity or
history of harvest could easily lead to strong temporal
variability in standing stocks. Differences in methodology could
also explain the different clam densities found. Our method of
11
suction dredging is both more efficient and more quantitative
than is raking. '
Another consideration is the potential use of an area for
shellfish production. The shellfish leasing program is designed
to allow habitats where shellfish are not found in naturally high
densities to be used in clam farming operations. An ideal site
for such activity would be a habitat.with low standing stocks,
good water quality, accessible location, and a bottom type that
would allow for predator-exclusion devices to be easily installed
and maintained. The area of proposed Channel B fits all of these
criteria. Thus, even if this area is not deemed an existing
shellfish resource habitat, its attainable use as a shellfish
leasing area would still make it a valuable resource area.
The area around Sanders Bay is one of two areas in Bogue-.
Sound where abundant live scallops are still found after the
mortality due to the red tide. This alone would argue that this
is a unique and valuable resource area. The-fact that seagrass
beds are located in Sanders Bay is another indication of the
importance of this area to scallops. The bay scallop, Argopecten
irradians, has a life history strongly associated with seagrass.
The settling scallop spat require grass blades or other hard
substrate upon which to settle, and throughout their lives
scallops attain their highest densities in seagrass beds.
Unfortunately, grassbeds are one of the most sensitive parts of
the marine environment to increased turbidity levels. The effect
of channel dredging and constant boat traffic through Sanders Bay
would undoubtably increase the turbidity in this area, decreasing
light available to grassbeds and possibly decreasing the areal
coverage of the grassbeds.

.
7

Given the favorable qualities of this bay for shellfish and
the fact that there are living scallops in it after the red tide,
we feel that this is reason to question the propriety of any
degradation of the water quality in or near Sanders Bay. The
presence of seagrass beds further heightens our concern over this
proposal.
In light of the density of clams found in the proposed sites
and the past history of use by commercial clammers, we would
definitely classify Channel A as an existing shellfish resource
area. Channel B has a history of commercial harvest, and as
recently as May of last-year was found by DCM to have notable
clam densities. The other issues of potential use and impacts to
scallops and seagrass beds add to the list of reasons to protect
this habitat 'from water quality degradation by dredging and boat
traffic.
We hope that our comments will be of use in considering this
proposed development plan.
`r Sincerely,
0. Pd• P-
Charles H. Peterson
Professor of Marine Sciences
and Biology

Frank S. Wilson
Graduate Research Assistant
cc: Dr. Paul Wilms
Ms. Mary Joan Pugh
Mr. Lee Pelej
Mr. Mike Street

Mr. David Owens, Director
Division of Coastal Management
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
s
506 W. Washington Ave.
Kinston, NC, 28501
11 March .1,9, 88 .v
LA'A
Dear Mr. Owens: ATEF: UTY
I am writing to express objection to the proposed development
of the 278 acre tract owned by Broad Reach Investments, Inc.,
including two marina basins and two channels. The project w
announced in the Carteret County News-Times on 29 June 1987.I
wrote you on 3 July objecting to the project. You announced a
revised project on 2 March, giving only until 17 March for
replies. That is not sufficient.
CEIVEE
Ar^Ro4 9..88
Man people own homes in the area but do not live there ear- WATER QUA R SVGTIO"•?
round. They do not regularly read the Carteret County paper
this time of year. I know that many people in Kinston are
interested in the area, and are unaware of your notice or of the
details of the revised project.
You did not even notify people who had objected to the first
version of the project in writing, such as me. Did you take the
comments in my first letter into account? How did you answer the
specific points raised in the letter?
The application is only available for review in Raleigh and
Morehead City. The two week comment period is inadequate for
those of us who work, to arrange a trip to either place during
business hours.
I expect to prepare detailed comments as soon as I get a chance
to review the application, and reserve the right to have them
considered. In the, meantime, please consider these comments:
1. The area along the shore in the vicinity of channel A has
been a source of clams for many years, both to my family and to
many others. I have often watched people rake for clams in that
vicinity.
2. The fact that a one-time rake survey found no adult clams is
not significant. A one-time effort at clarm-ning anywhere on good
clam bottom can yield the same results, as anyone who has dug
clams knows. You have to hunt around for them, but they occur in
batches wherever conditions are favorable. This is probably due
to previous rakings. If you find groups of clams within a wide
area of similar bottom, then it is a productive area. Logically,
one negative finding proves very little. On some of my fishing
trips, with negative results, I might have concluded that there
were no game fish in the ocean. Do you want to hang your case on
a logically indefensible premise?
3. Have you taken into account any statements from commercial
1
o ro ro a)
N
0 0 c N 0 N ?4 ?' N •? m 0
>1 ro c LW ro 4) 0 H 0 0Ic 41
0 m 0 0 >1 f`• m (a a) 3 m 04 0 0a E+ C rn 0
0 r-1 ro •r4 to m r1 N ra a a) -• C >r 0 ,a rO 0 • 0 C 7 rl 41
rJ a ri U N 4-1 m m (a a) C ro •-q 4-J M N C U) 0 u 41 0 C> N N •-i 0 A
m m 0 X000 w 0 W --IC41 L4 u (n -r-4 CO, 41m•ri • ro0 x>1ro 0
x C0 W410 roroN ro Nm Lam 0•rlN41 ?4 01N 01.1 m C -i
0 -c •ri MC N H 3 a m 14 r-1 r! 4-1 w 0 C 0 3 7 41 •ra 04 4) Ej 0 0 A
N N a) w 0 u ro c 0 Ar+ ro m ro 04 ro 00 41 00 0 c w m w m ro
?• (a .CUVa41a) (a 0,c ra a) a) x>1 3u N9 44 4>1410 c 0) 00wcas c
N Ca 41 a) w rIN N mc3 A CNmN (a E a) 0441e0roa)0
m w0 )-1 CU c0 ro cc N a)to a)U ro cra E! a) 4_4 NM
a) >4 wcu41 r1C41 •ri •ri(o 4-4 - u u > 0 x c0c0 A N4 a) u ro
w ro c 0410(n C a) En > w c 0 41•r•1 a)N41 0 ro mu C0AC0c0
ro 0 41 N N 1-1 C 0 (a u m 4a H
c 0 ra N 0 01 0 14 a) w
a, . •r1 a) A N rn w ro 0 c 0 u E- ro x 4a r?
rr
0 a v -C ro -1 N C • ?4 m 0 ri •r? 04
0 c >r N x m 0 c m r. A rt •ri 04 0 0 E-4 ro N 0> 41 0 C C >1 0 A S 1-1 -i 41 •-1 r:?
N ri rd .ri ro •r•I g 0 •r1 E4 41 rO c u 4 v •r1 ro -1 ri 0 04 r-i 0 0 0 ri m y m y
0 x C U 3 r-+ ri s4 O ro r-i C 0 (13 41 ?4 N .C C --4 -1 •r' a) ?-, A u> 3JE! -C rC
c ro 41 m a 3 m A)-4 0 0 c+• N 1'4 ro •r? N ra •ri a) u a) u .u 41 .u
.u 0• mro 0m •ro0 rZ - 4-J a) c 14 C >•1•J1 tori>1 44 3 N row ri 4)ra00 0
I
0 4 41 (D ri a) 01 C rO 41 m 14 ro C 0 •-+ N 4a CO a » x 4-4 41 r -
ra u N >1 (0 4) N 1.7 c r•+ a) w E? 0 m ro •ri (a 3 r? rC C, - ro v c a 3 0 a) 3 c m a)
a) r. 041 Cariro U, a) 0 c a)3tn N 1 ra041(o c 1-4 a)NC c4 •-1 CEn>
x 0 44 -ri M c 4) C .C W>).4 41 u ro •ra N 0 C u •ri (a 04 O N 41 W • N •u a) 41 (a •r1
w ra ra c ri 0 ro 41 N ro a) 44 ro G (1) 3 ro rO 14 0 U •ri U 04 --1 4-1 A a1
0 •i-t ro -4 •r•1 41 E? •ri r1 N 0 a1 0 •ri N U 41 41 -w r-1 O N N 41 0 0 ra ro 0+ C N
3> 0 A x C a) 3 ra wa Q C 3 N •ri 0 N C 0 4.1 C 04 14.1-1 •n 0 41 c C 0 0 C .u 4)
0 c ro m O N 1
.1 c 0 N ro -,1 4j mA C N 410 0•ri 0 u U 041 41 m ca 0•ri 0 0-H
N .u -4 ^
ri C W N m 3 •-1 44 44 41 A Ei a) C E: u !.1 •ri A ro
u ro 04 U •ri a)
N a)•-i N4) m 41 0 u 0 r-441 00 041 U ^1
04W040 E CC •r1>•nN
ro•ri E:ro0 r+cNa)to c0 0 41 1 (1)(o En m3 ro c u ? -P 00a)44 A0 m
c 'J 41 U 0 •ri ?4 rO E~ 0 N ra r. 0 C ra 3 44 CO 0 0 ra r In 0 a) a) •ra U N •r1 J1 C 4-I 0 >4
41 wro (1) E! (a a) 0-+ c c a)a)w c00 0cxAC 4uEiN41 a) •ri 4J 11 C 04
0 c sa ro N A W F1 m 0 a1 w a) ro 41 m 41 O ro .u a) •n m f•1 N a) w
A•u 41 a, 0 a) m a) 4-+ m4) u c m•u -C E 0X a m 304 4 0 4J U 00 Ara 0
3 u N •r1 dJ 0 a) > N W -4 dJ ?4 ro r-+ +1 U 0 (1) 0 3 4P A 0 3 41 M 4 •ri 4a 41 W a) c
0 a) ,C 14 c w w •ri N N a) ri c a) x 0 U a) •ri -i N 0 0 N 41 G' C 04 r- ?
i• LW a) ro (
N -i D 04 CO C m 41 CO a) Or•+ 0 41 0 4 0 C U )-1 41 ro M C U 41 0 0 0 •ri ?1.1.1 A -i •ri
41r-I roro 4.1.1.1 Uu NOUN c ro mm ro 41 a)x0 w 4-1 3c++C N •uCO U4-1a>a)
c0 4 N ?4 a)0a1 to mC •r1 >4 4ZDI •-+ A 0004 4 0 u 0m(a 0 •ri m 03a)(a 0vr1
0 U •• 41 0 w U ro r? a) 41 4a 0 rC N• U 0 3 r0 a1 0 0 41 4a a) c C C c •n a1 ,C W 04
ra r?
J U 04 0 w 0 a) u m 14 c :3:,-4 a •ri U C •rA r r••q - N a x ri ro 4) -1 >4 0 N 0
•ri0 0a)m. a 74 a) 410a)•r4 ro r-4$A 41•410 Nc 0C- N x rmC w 4040 a)0
N41 >14144 ri000a NAm> •ro N 0Au 00>044 ra a) >4 tn>(a C (0 0C04 414-)404
a) .U 3 N 0 1 u c C 3 0 7 0 3 A ro P 0 ro 44 c 0 a) a) r1 a) 0 41 H 41
W 41 .U m 0 c 41 a) 41 C r-I Ol (0 a) 41 0 41 A?l 44 41 r1 ro (a a >I.&'. •-1 c A 040 a) u ro
w m E' A ro w (n •-1 m -H -4 •r1 rl 0 44 (D > >141 0 r-1 EA U 0 0 a) C 0 w a)
ra 0 4 41 41 0 44 c A 0 3 44 rO tm 3 w rc C 4 0 N w r-f c 4) •ri c U ?1 ?141 • 0 41
c 4d 41 N rc r+ 01 E; 0 m A N ri 0 I'D U 0 41 W 4J C c 0 41 0 •r1 A C • C 4-I U
(a 44 •r1 11 U m c N •ri w 41 N w m a r- H •ri 4) N 0 LW • 01 >1 (a ro r•1 (0 44 41 0 a)
a) a) A a) a 3 •ri a) m 41 0 C ro 0 C 0 41 C 0 41 a) 3 •ri W N m 41 J? A ro 0 ri •ri ro ta
N > -P 4 N rO A A •r•i 44 U 44 c 41 •ri 3 41 m 0 3 m e 44 a) 0 H 4-) •r1 4 .u 7 (1) 0 N 0 4-I
?+ r 1 a) .1-1 0 C 4) ra 7 0 •r1 ro 4 •r+ A 4J A f ro •-1 •C U N c w 0 0 04 N 0 (n 3 ro
a) as •r1 1- (a M 41 ro 4-) rO a) N w m 4 -•1
3 N •F1 •G1 a) 41 • a) 0 0) 4-I C •ri N r-1 0 u 0 ra
01 "0 ri -H ? C 4-1 4.1 H m r1 ro m C
q u •11 C ?1 ro N ra N r4 (1) 1; (a w •r1 a) 14 0 c
a, ?4 a) •ri a N 0 A a1 1,1 E a) 4.1 ro 44 41 0 A ro - 0 C c 0 a) ? --+ v a) 41 m ro ra ri 4J 0
•r1 A a1 0 x 0 41 0 m c m r-i 0-14 c >1 0--1 u 0 3 rO m a) 4J N C 'J 10 41 0 41 0 0 04
ro ro c41 (13 •-10 a) . A4)•r4 0) 44 A3ra CO 4 3 •-+ro r-1a0 3 c0-4 ro 0 UCC41W4aON
1 -r1 X N 0 C 41 E •r-f'0 0 H m 41 3 A 41 0 O» 0 0 •r1 N 0) •c C m ra u 0 u 0
0 ra •ri O N 0-1 W 4•1 3 3 .U N 0 -r+ N ?4 0 N W a 0 4 0 a) 04 0 •ri 4
rora c0 Uw m N•riN -+>,00 ro rn CC - >1 a) rr - Ca)70 7 mrav4-4 0>+1
r-1 m • •r1 c • 0 0 N 0 • C C •ri • a C --1 r-1 r •ri C 0 41 0 0 w 3 u 0 c 0 a) ra 4 4-4 )4 m 0 0
0 E: --r 4•4 0 l!1 ra 44 •r! U l0 7 A ra r N 3 44 44 00 3 4) H rO N M 0 M ?
+
L 0 0a >1 a) >1 3 U 1•i 41 m 044 c 41
41
0
u
C7
U
a
0,
m
U
N
h
i c
0
41, o
ro
\
0 v a1
a)
?I\
ri

C
v
N
C
0 0)
N •ri ro
?mm

?4 41
0 •r1
,C c r?
Nmm
-ri to 4J
w
?c
CNEa
C •ri C
ra 44 0
4 r•I W
m ri -r1

A C 44
4.1 to w 0
0 U
LP 4.4
cn •00
tN 3 > cn a
(.t) •11 . . [ZI
wO>>z
?' •r1 •ri z N
a •AO
Wv1U
..r?O
•UU
tnMz
. • =) N
. • • z z •r1
A . ?
°
a) 4i .. ,x ra
•-•INCN00
nx m 0 a)x
0 U is 41 r-q 4
r I ro 0 C -H () (n
0
aax
03
•. O
>1 -
1
0 a) r1 r1 ro f4
4) C Dr-I A 0 c ro
a) ro •-+ 0 m (a •c
U) aOPQ co aau

.-1
a
0
U

Mr. Dave
Division
P. 0. Box
Raleigh,
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATI
1832 J Bell Lane (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570 • [phone]
March 15, 198 E111-11$ M?
Owens APR MARI 21 1988
??
of Coastal Management DIV.0FENVIf3ik, -K -;?p,,pNAGNEN7
27687 'QUALITY li.ttgl,iL
North Carolina 27611 SECTION
Re: Proposed Broad Reach Marina on Bogue Sound, CartereR- 6& ! V E D'
Dear Dave:
APR 0 4 M8
The N.C. Coastal Federation submits these additione,ATER OUA ITY SECTION
comments on the proposed marina project. There is clear pPRAft?`dS "'.A""
evidence from both scientists and fishermen that shellfish?ng
is an existing use for all waters adjacent to this site. It
would be an unconscionable error to allow a marina at this
heavily used shellfish site in class SA waters.
Issuing the permit without a full use attainability study
(including information on historical shellfishing use) would be
in direct violation of the intent of'the Clean Water Act and
the Coastal Zone Management Act. There is little question at
this point that shellfishing is an attainable use at this site.
Further, NRCD and EPA policy both require a use attainability
study for a marina in class SA waters. It appears to me that
approval of marinas in SA waters without justification of a use
attainability study could jeopardize EPA's approval of the N.C.
water quality standards program.
Submerged grass is a.lsc found adjacent to the site. As
has been shown in the Chesapeake Bay and Paml.i.co Sound, this
highly productive fishery habitat is very sensitive to
environmental stresses. Loss of submerged grasses is one of
the first and most significant impacts of pollution. Turbidity
which prevents light penetration to the vegetation is thought
to be one of the major factors causing vegatation loss. The
increased boat traffic from the marina will increase turbidity.
The cumulative impacts of increased boat traffic must be
considered if the DCM is to meet its legal goal of preserving
public trust resources. Unless marina projects such as this
are denied in western Bogue Sound, the state has little hope of
maintaining these submerged grass beds. Western Bogue Sound is
very unique with the regard to submerged vegetation. A
decision made on this case will not be a coast-wide precedent.
Please review the attached documents carefully and enter them
into the permit record:
r Mr. Dave Owens
March 15, 1988
Page 2.
(1) Memorandum of Agreement, June 2, 1986, signed by Dave
Owens, Paul Wilms, Bill Hogarth, and. S. Thomas Rhodes,
agreeing that a use attainability study will be done for
SA waters where there is a question about shellfish
resource. Point (B) states that to allow a marina in SA
waters, a lack of shellfish resource must be found due to
factors other than over harvesting and (p. 4):
"there may not be a shellfish resource according to MFC
regulations at a site but there may be some harvesting
occurring of the limited resource present. Again, the
area would not be appropriate for reclassification because
on an existing shellfishing use and a marina should not be
permitted."
(2) EPA "Marina Assessment Handbook," 1985, excerpt indicating
that a use attainability study should be done for a
proposed marina in waters classified for shellfishing and
that "if the use is found to be attainable, ... if the use
would be lost, ... certification would be denied."
(3) Letter from Jim Kennedy to Jack Ravan, June 12, 1986,
requesting clarification of the requirements for locating
marinas in class SA waters.
(4) Letter from Jack Ravan to Jim Kennedy, July 18, 1986,
stating that "in order to evaluate the existing uses of a
water body and the appropriateness of the designated use
of a water body, a use attainability analysis must be
conducted. ... EPA would object to any permit where the
use attainability analysis indicates that a propose marina
would preclude or impair the existing uses or attainment
of the designated uses. Letter also indicates that Ravan
believes the CAMA permit process allows an opportunity for
public hearing prior to decision.
(5) Letter from Jim Kennedy to E.T. Heinen (EPA), July 30,
1986, requesting clarification of the need for a public
hearing as part of a use attainability study.
(6) Letter from E.T. Heinen to Jim Kennedy, October 6, 1986,
stating that he understands the CAMA permit process
provides a mailing list to receive public notice and
allows anyone "to request a public hearing anytime during
the CAMA process."
(7) Letter from Jim Kennedy to Dave Owens, October 27, 1986,
requesting clarification of opportunity for public hearing
on CAMA permits.
(8) Letter from Ralph Cantrel to Jim Kennedy, February 13,
1987 stating "I do not know where EPA heard that we now
7
Mr. Dave Owens
March 15,• 1988
Page 3.
allowed information gathering hearings prior to issuing
permits, but it is incorrect."
(9) Letter from Charles Jeter (EPA) to Paul Wilms, February
15, 1985, approving N.C. water quality standards program
with the stipulation that the state's antidegradation
provisions "represent the same meaning and intent" as the
federal regulations.
(10) Letter from Paul Wilms to Bob Benton, September 4, 1985,
supporting the adoption of an automatic closure policy
near marinas. DEM concurs with the conclusion of an EPA
study that "all available information points to the
conclusion that shellfish harvesting from waters near
marinas is not desireable from a public health
perspective."
(11) DHS Marina Policy, October 15, 1987, specifying closure of
buffer zones around marinas.
(12) Memorandum, Ken More (South Carolina Dept. of Health and
Environmental Control) to marina workshop attends,
summarizing final draft methodology for Interstate
Shellfish Sanitation Conference marina closure policy.
(13) "Marinas in SA Waters,""undated summary by DEM that
closure of waters with existing use for shellfishinq
violates state and federal antidegradation policy.
(14) Letter from Paul Wilms to Jack Ravan, March 6, 1987,
asking how antidegradation applies to waters which
currently are only periodically or seasonally open to
shellfishing.
(15) Letter from Jack Rava.n to Paul Wilms, April 30, 1987,
stating "if a seasonal use were to be established it
should be applied to waters where only temporary or
seasonal uses were in existence after November 28, 1975,
and it should not result in a downgradi.nq of an existing
year-round use. Also, any activities deemed compatible
with a seasonal use must be controlled adequately to
prevent the loss of that temporary or seasonal use."
(16) Letter to John Harrelson (South Carolina) from Jack Ravan,
April 16, 1984, stating that the antidegradation policy
-applies to buffer zone closures around marinas.
(17) Letter to John Harrelson from Jack Ravan, MArch 25, 1985,
providing further clarification of the antidegradation
requirement.
I
Mr. Dave Owens
March 15, 1988
Page 4.
(18) Memorandum from Patrick Tobin (EPA) to James Kutzman
(EPA), February 21, 1985, stating that existing use for
antidegradation means that "water quality is suitable to
allow the use to be attained (unless of course there are
physical problems, such as substrate or flow, which
prevent the use regardless of water quality)."
(19) Letter from Jack Ravan to Todd Miller, August 14, 1984,
stating that antidegradation is part of the water quality
standards and "covers all actions that could impact
existing uses of the water and the quality of the waters."'
(20) EPA "Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook," 1985, excerpts
showing that marinas should not be located near shellfish
beds or submerged grass beds.
(21) Minutes CRC meeting, April 30, 1981, committee report that
marina operators stated that pump out facilities are not
used.
(22) "Availability and Use of Pumpout Facilities in North
Carolina: A Survey of Marinas," 1982, UNC Sea Grant, a
report which concluded "Boater compliance is generally
agreed to be relatively low. Little effort has been made
by the Coast Guard or others to enforce the (marine
sanitation device] regulations."
(23) "Coastal Development and Shellfish Waters," 1985, by DEM
summarizing the impacts of marinas on water resources.
(24) Newspaper articles for Virginia Pilot, March 13, 1988,
Carteret County News-Times, March 14, 1988, and Greensboro
News and Record, March 11, 1988, describing the political
influence behind the Broad Reach Marina project.
(25) Final order for the Beacons Reach marina appeal, 1985, in
denying a permit for a 77 slip upland basin marina located
at the end of a dredged canal planned to be located across
Bogue Sound from the proposed 200 slip Broad Reach marina,
the CRC found (page 9):
(A) "Flushing at the site would not be very good because
the site is midway between two inlets."
(B) "At this very fragile site there is very little tidal
movement. The chances of flushing or cleaning up any
pollution if it occurs would be very small."
(C) The proposed marina is located in the worse case
situation. Neither the proposed permit conditions
nor other remedial action can prevent the marina as
a
Mr. Dave Owens
March 15; 1988
Page 5.
proposed from eventually causing a violation of the
SA water quality standards in the adjacent waters of
Bogue Sound."
We also plan to evaluate the compliance of the proposed
project with the land use plan but have not had time to carry
out that analysis. In particular, we want to consider the
possible differences between this project and the other dry
stack marina projects that seem to be the precedent for
allowing commercial marinas in the community classification.
Also, the need for a central sewage system appears to be
inconsistent with the county land use plan requirement for the
community classification. We request that you provide more
time for comments on this application.
Thank you.
Sincerely,

Jim Kennedy
Environmental Scientist
cc: Paul Wilms
Bill Hogarth
Mary Joan Pugh
Lee Pelej
Mike McGee
0
COPY TO: Alan Klimek
Dennis Ramsey
Bill Mills
Chuck Wakild
Jim Mulligan
C F O S 13or -1,y
J?CG/ p0? ? ?G i iZ $SZ ?
State of North Caro:ina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 Noah Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
TITLE: BASIS FOR EVALUATING THE.IMPACTS OF PROPOSED MARINAS
IN CLASS SA WATERS BY DIVISIONS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCE; AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
PARTIES: This agreement is between the Directors of the
Divisions of Coastal Management, Environmental
Management and Marine Fisheries and is approved by
the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this-agreement is to develop-a basis
for consistent actions by Divisions in NRCD in regard
to permits or certifications for marinas in SA
waters. This will help to clear up confusion of the
general public and the regulated community while at
the same time protecting the valuable shellfishing
waters of North Carolina.
BACKGROUND: There has been considerable controversy recently in
regard to Departmental actions concerning the
permitting of marinas in classified shellfishing
waters (SA waters).- Much of this controversy is due
to the-fact that until one or two years ago, the
secondary impacts of stormwater discharges or
discharges of waste ..from bofLts in marinas for
projects-requiring a CAMA major-permit or 401
certification were not considered-in the permitting
decision. As the various agencies in NRCD, other
state departments and the federal government have
begun to consider these secondary impacts in
permitting decisions, each'agency has developed a-
slightly different perspective on dealing with these
permit issues: In particular, the-Division of Health
Services now has a policy.(since February 26 , 1986)
of recommending that the area of all marinas and a
minimum 100 ft buffer zone be closed to-shellfishing.
Other agencies have had to make adjustments since
this policy became effective.
Pp Box 27687. Rakish. North Carolina 27611.7687 Tekphone 919.733.4984
An Equal Opportunity Aff rnwtiw Action Employa

Memorandum of Agreement (Con't.)
Page 2
All Department decisions relative to marinas in Class
SA waters (or other waters open to shellfishing) must
be based on the water quality standards regulations
of the EMC, applicable CRC regulations,.as well as
regulations and guidance from federal agencies such"
as EPA and PDA. In particular, state and federal
"antidegradation" regulations are a major
consideration in evaluating the impact of proposed
marinas. Simply stated, these rules require that
existing uses of waters, such as shellfishing, be
maintained and proteAted.
AGREEMENT: In making decisions on permits and water quality
certifications, or in commenting on projects, the
directors will consider the following paragraphs
which delineate several permitting situations,
information required for decision-making,-and
possible decisions based on current regulatory
requirements and federal guidance.
(A) Open Shellfishing Waters - Shellfish Resource
Present - Harvesting Occuring
This is probably the easiest situation for evaluating
potential marina projects: FDA and EPA clearly
indicate that marinas are not appropriate for
shellfishing and the waters around marinas should-be
closed for this purpose. The new.DHS policy-reflects
this guidance from-federal-agencies as-well as the
Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference.(ISSC):
The major-reasons for this conclusion are that 1)
there is a public health risk-from discharges of-
fresh fecal material in marinas, 2)•the-water quality
standards-for-shellfish waters are-not applicable-to
fresh fecal material, 3) there is no accepted-means
to appropriately sample water quality-relative to
discharges from-boats and-41 marinas are also sources
of other pollutants such-as,.hydrocarbons, heavy .
metals, etc. which-can adversely impact shellfish as
well as other marine resources.
OfF
Memorandum of Agreement (Con't.)
Page 3
With the DHS policy,-.any new marina will result in a
recommendation by the North Carolina public health
agency to close the waters for shellfish harvesting.
When the DMF acts on this recommendation, this
eliminates an existing use which is contrary to the
"antidegradation" requirements of state and federal
regulations. A marina cannot be permitted in this
situation.
(B) Open Shellfishiig (SA) waters - No Shellfish
Resource Present.
This situation would apply to areas where there is
not suitable substrate for clams-and-oysters to
propagate to levels which represent a shellfish
resource (10 bushels of oysters or clams per-acre
according to MFC regulations). In this situation,
•• information must be.collected to document the lack of
a resource in the vicinity of a proposed marina and •
to determine whether shellfish harvesting has been
occuring in the area. This-information in -
conjunction with the history of any opening and
closing of the waters to shellfishing-can be used by
DEM to develop a "use attainability" analysis for the
area under consideration.
If the use attainability analysis indicates that
there is no harvestable resource present (due to
factors other than over-harvesting), a marina is .
appropriate for these areas. The area should also be
considered for reclassification. However, permitting
of the marina does not have.-to await reclassification
if the technical analysis indicates that there is not
an existing shellfishing use and if the marina-is
permitted with-certain conditions to protect -water
quality. These conditions may include a locked head
policy, restrictions on boat size, no-live aboards,'
required pump-out -facilities, -etc. It should be
noted that these types of measures can only-provide
adequate water quality protection when there is not a
risk to public health because shellfish are not being
harvested in the immediate vicinity of the marina.
4 1. *
Memorandum of Agreement (Con't.)
Page 4 . .
If the use attainability analysis indicates there is
a harvestable shellfish resource present in open
waters (even if it is -not: being harvested) r the area
would not be considered appropriate for a
reclassification according to EPA regulations. Under
this situation, a marina should not be permitted.
Likewise, there may not be a shellfish resource
according to MFC regulations at a site but there may
be some harvesting occurring of the limited resource
present. Again, the irea would not be appropriate for
reclassification because of an existing shellfishing
use and a marina should not be permitted.
(C) Closed Shellfishing Waters - Shellfish Resource
Present.
This is probably the-most common permitting decision
relative to marinas-and one that is quite difficult:.
These are two key questions which must be-addressed
in-this situation. First, if the waters have been
open for shellfishing and harvesting has occurred
during the last decade (technically since 11/28/75),
EPA may consider these waters to have an existing
shellfishing use. The other question which must be
addressed is whether the waters can ever-be opened
for shellfishing (i.e. the use be attained) with a
reasonable level of pollution control.
In order to address these.issues, information is
required on the existing. shellfish-resource, the.
history of shellfishing closures, and an-assessment
of existing sources of pollution -to the waters. This
information can be used by DEM in developing a use
attainability analysis for-the waters-under -
consideration. If-the-use attainability analysis
indicates that there is nd't•an existing shellfishing
use-and this use is not-likely to be attained, the
area should be considered for reclassification.
A marina could be permitted based -on -the -technical
justification for reclassification as.-long as
conditions are included to protect water quality. If
the use attainability analysis indicates that-there
is. (or was) an existing shellfishing use but the use
is no longer attainable due to a source of pollution
which has occured since 1975, the area-may-also be -
appropriate for reclassification. A new marina or an

Memorandum of Agreement (Con't.)
Page 5
expansion of an existing marina can be permitted if
it will not expand the area of waters closed to
shellfishing. Arr increase in the closed waters would
be a violation of state and EPA antidegradation-
requirements. The use attainability analysis may
indicate that there is not an existing shellfishing
use but the source of pollution may be correctable
(i.e. a few failing septic systems). If there is a
good likelihood that these sources can be eliminated
(e.g. connections to a centralized sewer system), the
shellfishing use may be attainable. In this case, a
reclassification is not appropriate and a marina
should not be permitted.
(D) Closed Shellfishing Waters - No Shellfish
Resource.
This situation requires documentation through
attainability analysis like those discussed
previously. However, once the closure-status
resource are technically documented, the area
be considered for reclassification. A marina
acceptable use for these waters.
a use
and
a should
a is an
SUMMARY: The evaluation approach agreed upon-is to develop the
technical analysis (use attainability) necessary to
justify a reclassification from Class SA to some
other class-as part of-the permitting decision. It
is appropriate to place much of the responsibility
for obtaining information necessary for the-use
attainability analysis on the pewit applicant.--This
would put the agencies in a.position to review and-
verify submitted information rather than collecting
the information to support a permit application. DEM
can then use this information-in putting together a
use attainability analysis that other agencies can'
comment on and add to.,. This analysis would be the
basis for the permit decision and future
reclassification.
This approach will not necessitate the.
reclassification of-SA waters prior to the permitting
of a marina. If there is Do a public health threat
from-possible consumption of shellfish near marinas,
it'seems appropriate to rely on permit conditions to
protect water quality standards,. This, is appropriate

Memorandum of Agreement (Con't.)
Page 6
whether the area is eventually reclassified or not
because other factors such as the location of
adjacent shellfishing beds,-the fragmentation of
water classifications, or other polluting activities
which would be allowed with a different
classification are all considered in a
reclassification decision by the EMC.- If the permit
decision is supportt•d by a use attainability study
and there is opportunity for public comment through
the permitting process, this approach will be
consistent with the water quality regulations of the
EMC and EPA.
Agreed to on Jun 2 1986 by;
Dave Owens, Director
Di, ion. of Coa?ta,? Ma gement
f
Pt'`Wilms, Director
Division of Environmental Management
IJ.ciorw 47? '..??,tz`
William T. Hogarth, Director
Division of Marine Fisheries
Approved by: Cj G;;Z-.o ??Qa,,,
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
a

a
COASTAL MARINAS ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK
APRIL 1985
Prepared by
UNITED STATES ENV.RONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV - ATLANTA
With Assistance from
APPLIED BIOLOGY, INC.
GANNETT FLEMING CORDDRY AND CARPENTER, INC.
Plk
1 ADDENDUM 1 (5-85)
Water Quality Certification in Coastal Waters
Shellfish resources are an important consideration in the
water quality certification process for coastal marinas.
Simply stated, if a shellfish resource is present and the
water quality is suitable for shellfish harvesting, a proposed
marina development that would cause loss of the use of this
resource would be inconsistent with the antidegradation
requirements of the water quality standards regulations.
Figure 6A diagrams the progression of decisions (square
boxes) and actions (rounded boxes) relating to marina siting
in,coastal waters. The figure takes into account recent
interpretations by the EPA Office of Water of "existing uses"
related to antidegradation.
There are two determinations that must be made to complete
the water quality certification process. Water quality
standards criteria must be met and there must be compliance
with the state's policy on antidegradation. The major
controlling determination for coastal marinas is the antide-
gradation requirement.
The certification process begins with a determination of
the state water quality use designAtion for the waters at th4-?
proposed marina site. Such information is available from the
state water quality agency. For waters classified for shellfish
harvesting use, it is necessary to determine if water quality
criteria will be met during construction and following completion
of the project. A particularly important water quality
criteria for shellfish harvesting waters is the fecal coliform
requirement. The determination of compliance with such
criteria typically assumes pollution control devices are
operating properly.
If the state determines that water quality criteria will be
met, the state's antidegradation policy must be considered.
The antidegradation policy requires that existing uses be
maintained. Existing use has been defined as where a use has
been documented since November 28, 1975 or where the water
quality at the site is suitable to allow the use to be attained
and no physical problems exist to preclude its attainment.
The state shellfish harvesting agencies are a primary source
of information related to whether shellfish harvesting has
occurred at the site since 1975. This source can be supple-
mented by information from the state coastal zone management
agency, local shellfishermen or field survey data.
6-14A
ADDENDUM 1 (5-85)
If there.has been documented shellfish harvesting at the
proposed marina site, it is necessary to determine if the
proposed marina project would cause a loss of the shellfish
harvesting use. A requirement for a buffer zone or other
form of closure of the area for shellfish harvesting due to
the proposed project would constitute a loss of the use.
If the use would be lost, the 401 certification would be
denied, if not, the certification could be given.
If there is no documented shellfish harvesting at the pro-
posed marina site, the state should determine whether the
existing water quality is suitable for the use to be attained
and if physical conditions at the site allow its attainment.
The first step is to determine whether the water_ quality is
suitable or unsuitable. (For example, are the fecal coliform
concentrations at the site suitable for shellfish harvesting?)
Then an analysis should be made as to whether physical problems
(such as substrate or flow) prevent the attainment. One
means of determining the presence or absence of such physical
problems would be the existence or lack of a shellfish resource.
If the use is found to be attainable, the state water
quality agency must then determine whether the use would be
lost if the marina project proceeded. If the use would not
be lost, certification may be given. If the use would be
lost (for example, by establishing a buffer zone where shell-
fish harvesting is prohibited), certification would be denied.
If the use is found to'be unattainable by the water quality
agency, (for example, no shellfish are located at the site)
401 certification may be given.
For instances where shellfish harvesting is the designated
use and is not considered the existing use and water quality
criteria for this use can not be met, an applicant may wish
to investigate with the state water quality agency whether
this shellfish harvesting use is attainable. A use attain-
ability survey, as descrit'ed in the water quality standards
regulations, can be conducted to make this determination.
Such a survey may be performed by the applicant, the state
water quality agency, the state shellfish resource agency or
combinations of these groups. Rased on the results of this
study, if the state water quality agency determines that the
use is attainable, then the certification would be denied.
If the uses are determined to be unattainable, a water quality
standards (and use classification) change could be initiated.
Such a change would be necessary before certification could
be given. A change in water quality standard requires extensive
documentation and a public hearing. The state water quality
agency makes decisions on certification and standards changes.
If the shellfish resource is there and the water quality is
suitable to allow harvesting, a change in the use classification
is not allowable. If the shellfish are present, the water
quality is suitable and the designated use is not shellfish
harvesting, the shellfish resource is still protected under the
provisions of antidegradation.
10 6-14B
ADDENDUM 1 (5-85)
F?
Primary Contact Process
State Water Shellfish Harvesting Water
Quality Agency Quality Classification? no
yes
State Water Will Water Quality
Quality Agency Criteria Be Met? yes
no
State Shellfish
Harvesting Agency
State WO and
Shellfish Agencies
Is Shellfish Harvesting
Documented?
no
Is The Use Attainable?
yes no
is The Water
Quality Suitable?
no
yes
yes
I_
Are Physical
Conditions Suitable?
no yes
State Water
Quality Agency
State Water
Quality Agency
State Water
Quality Agency
Change
Given ?_no
Will The Use
Be Lost?
yes
Certificati
? Denied
Figure 6A. Water quality certification in coastal waters.
4 6-14C
sw
"Ito 9%"
FS,
0 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
"+T_I PROI*E?/' REGION 1V
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
JUL 18 1986
Mr. Jim Kennedy
Environmental Consultant
Route 5, Box 445
Newport, North Carolina 28570
Dear Mr. Kennedy:
This is in response to your letter of June 12, 1986, concerning
a policy under consideration by the North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development regarding pro-
posed marinas in waters assigned the SA designation. The SA
classification provides that waters are suitable for shell-
fishing for marketing purposes. We have only recently received
a copy of the policy and have not had ample opportunity to
fully evaluate the provisions therein; however, we will respond
to your comments based on our current understanding of this
policy.
The policy, which I understand has-no regulatory standing,
would allow the siting of a marina in SA waters where a use
attainability analysis indicates that there is no harvestable
resource present due to factors other than over-harvesting.
The policy further provides that the area should be considered
for reclassification but that permitting of the marina does
not have to await reclassification if the technical analysis
indicates that there is not an existing shellfishing use and
if the resource is permitted with conditions to protect water
quality.
You are concerned that North Carolina's proposed policy
effectively allows a downgrading of designated use without
following the federally mandated procedures for changing the
designated use. You suggest that the existing uses and the
desi at d h 1
gn a uses s ou d be treated uniformly and subjected to
the same public participation requirements, i.e., the procedures
outlined in EPA Water Quality Standards Regulations at 40 CFR
131 which address use modifications and provide for participation
by the public and review by EPA.

1
-2-
EPA's regulations provide that "existing instream water
uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the
existing uses shall be maintained and protected." To allow any
activity that would preclude an existing use would be inconsistent
with EPA's antidegradation policy.
If the State wishes to remove or modify a designated use, which
is not an existing use, the State must demonstrate that attaining
the designated use is not feasible because:
(1) Naturally occurring pollutant
concentrations prevent the attainment
of the use; or
(2) Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or
low flow conditions or water levels
prevent the attainment of the use,
unless these conditions may be
compensated for by the discharge of
sufficient volume of effluent discharges
without violating State water conservation
requirements to enable uses to be met; or
(3) Human caused conditions or sources of
pollution prevent.the attainment of the
use and cannot be remedied or would cause
more environmental damage to correct than
to leave in place; or
(4) Dams, diversions or other types of
hydrologic modifications preclude the
attainment of the use, and it is not
feasible to restore the water body to
its original condition or to operate
such modification in a way that would
result in the attainment of the use; or
(5) Physical conditions related to the
natural features of the water body, such
as the lack of a proper substrate, cover,
flow, depth,`pools, riffles, and the like,
unrelated to water quality, preclude
attainment of aquatic life protection
uses; or
(6) Controls more stringent than those
required by Sections 301(b) and 306 of
the Act would result in substantial and
widespread economic and social impact.
-3-
In order to evaluate the existing uses of a water body and the
appropriateness of the designated use of a water body, a use
attainability analysis must be conducted. A use attainability
analysis is a scientific assessment which identifies and
defines existing uses of a water body and determines whether
the designated uses are impaired and those factors affecting
attainment of the use, which include the physical, chemical,
biological and economic factors discussed above. All use
attainability analyses are subject to review by EPA. These
analyses may be submitted and reviewed either during the
permit process (i.e., 402, 404, Section 10, CAMA, etc.) or
during a standards revision process. In the past, analyses
related to proposed marina sites have been reviewed by EPA
during the permitting process. EPA would object to any permit
where the use attainability analysis indicates that a proposed
marina would preclude or impair the existing uses or attainment
of the designated uses.
If the use attainability analysis indicates that the existing
or attainable uses are not consistent with the designated
uses, the State may modify the use designation and assign
a designation that reflects the existing and attainable uses.
However, the State is not required to reclassify a waterbody
to a lower use designation and, in fact, may wish to retain
the more stringent designation in order to limit development
or other polluting activities to assure maintenance and
protection of the existing water quality. Furthermore, EPA
cannot under any circumstances require the State to reclassify
a water body to a lower designation since Section 510 of the
Clean Water Act prohibits any action by EPA that would deny a
state the right to adopt and enforce any standard that meets
the requirements of the Act.
We agree with you that the public hearing process generally
associated with a use reclassification affords an excellent
opportunity for public involvement. However, we believe that
the public still has a reasonable opportunity to provide
input into decisions regarding potential marina sites through
the applicable permit process. It is my understanding
that any proposed permits for such activities are subject to
public notice and a public hearing may be requested.
The public notice should clearly convey that a water quality
standards decision is being proposed concurrent with the
permitting activities so as to alert the public to all of the
issues under consideration. This should allow a reasonable
forum for the public to express their concerns and provide
documentation relevant to the existing and potential (attainable)
A
-4-
uses of the water body under consideration. However, if you
feel that the permit process does not adequately provide for
public involvement, you may want to petition the North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development to
expand the public participation process regarding proposed
marina projects. At minimum you may want to request that
circulation of the public notice be expanded to include all
persons/parties that may have a vested interest in such
activities.
I hope I have adequately responded to your concerns. Please
call E.T. Heinen, Chief of the Marine and Estuarine Branch
(404/347-3781) if you would like to further discuss the
issues presented in your letter.
Sincerely yours,
Jack E. R van
Regional Administrator
cc: Paul Wilms
I rJ
C? ? yZ
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
f
PRO, REGION IV
343 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
OCT 0 6 1986
41VNID/MEB/RMP
Mr. Jim Kennedy
Environmental Consultant
Route 5, Box 445
Newport, N.C. 28570
Dear Mr. Kennedy:
In response to your letter of July 30, 1986, provided below is further
clarification of our response to the issuer. raised in your previous
correspondence.
1. Does issuance of a permit for a marina in waters designated for
shellfishing (following the required use attainability analysis and
adequate public participation) constitute a change in the designated
use?
Issuance of a marina permit does not, in itself, change any designated
use. Therefore, the shellfish use designation and associated criteria
continue to be applicable as long as the State retains that use
designation for the waters in question.
2. Must a water quality standards decision comply with State administra-
tive procedures for changing water classifications and standards?
Your request for a determination as to whether State water quality
standards decisions concurrently proposed with permitting activities
must comply with the requirements of the State Administrative Pro-
cedures Act should more appropriately be addresed to a legal authority
in the State.
3. Does the CAMA hearing process afford the public adequate opportunity
for public participation in permitting decisions where water quality
standards decisions are being made concurrently?
We have been advised that the Corps of Engineers (ODE) has recently
modified the CAMA process to allow anyone interested in LAMA permit-
ting decisions to have their name put on a mailing list to receive
notices of all proposed permitting activities and to request a public
hearing at anytime during the CAMA process. Furthermore, all CAMA
J.
I..

-2-
public notices are transmitted to the COE and EPA for review and
concurrence. If these agencies object to a proposed permit, the
permit is automatically removed from the CAMA process and becomes
a joint permitting process which also provides an opportunity for a
public hearing. Accordingly, the CAMA process should provide adequate
opportunity for participation by the public consistent with the Clean
Water Act and implementing regulations.
We hope we have adequately responded to your concerns. Please let me
know if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely yours,
e ' t
E. T. einen, Chief
Marine and Estuarine Branch

f
B' . STAIF,
v ..
t
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor David W. Owens
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary February 13, 1987 Director
Mr. Jim Kennedy
Environmental Consultant
Route 5, Box 445
Newport, NC 28570
Dear Jim:
I am writing in response to your letter of October 27, 1986,
and the subsequent conversations we have had since then. You are
correct in assuming that public hearings are not a standard part
of the permit review process. The EPA is correct that we have
instituted a monthly permit progress report. While this provides
a more detailed notice to the public, it is to encourage comments
on projects rather than to encourage public hearings.
The CAMA hearing process, as you point out, is a
quasi-judicial process and appellants are often represented by
attorneys. They are held only on contested cases, and if a third
party appeals, the person mu3t show standing, allege a violation
of laws or standards, and dei,ionstrate a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits. I do not know where EPA heard that we now
allowed information gathering hearings prior to issuing permits,
but it is incorrect.
Should you have any other questions, please call on me at
your convenience.
erely,
Ralp D. Cantral
Assistant Director
RDC/pwr
M
P.U. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 -Iclephone 919-733-2293
An liqual Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
?)-? 31
M. 2 5 1980
i" ALITY
?. "J N
? A LL( W i I vnvs
ive c4or c,-b O i u i's)`o n o
de-1?ll , ?j ,0- . a-? &I 41 ,o X SS O
Enui ?'c o nv K*c`Q `ylar\a
P-0 , OX a7LC$q
t? Orr5 0oko, 1J,C r a?31a
ccrak-
?? `reJ`.dY? m. ?.3 kind"

?r 'M r. Lv,'lm6
act Ma(,i14, a. cj ?tt o? 3a o,4 Z6urd, .1 wtcL??.o?1?1 ?ItJ4-
0`f 1 Q.? -tie. `1 ntii ?o`Cf?? Ent hjoh a qe(eziii,/ ' -2?_
6D?1?`C O r?OC. U UV 5? Ic?S f971 7[? C ?Q /t4 5 LLi?d SCG?Q._%"' Lv?P o ?L G?'' `?'?Gtc
Lzo a.uc? Z-u- nu?m t&-co
P?a? am1.o?/jy ? / p OUOa - R(i o? 33, Ua, llIM U160 ono ?v a,c ec?
'V ?? ?// /yaW Vtu-k. .
G Vtm L,+ c.-+ w w a b &cJ '01- L'o 0-, (S C , 601 o( 6(CD racy, bvL
`1'lu nkau4teL, tie cook 4t?4 ?occ cc,,2ofj-uJ a /uzo Acs zZ Mp ??.
Q'P ZLW c a L(d mu-e? t.-(,tk a,,d I ?arz° cc"-7u yo
a
? ? (/gyp- 1 ' ' n ?- _?`.'Q` 1
CI J?'l t`7J?(Il.Y ?lX. v „?' , ` li1T'?? I / W ?! J//l C.C--'lX ?' `d C.?/ `-C/L.C
A-0 /AZ4,
n 4-s
Cc. ? ?1i,1 OC dl)W k,,
I LUA Cl) Q i J /?li d , a?1 0-) a p ui`l( c, /LQ4rl, ,
T\,6$ ?? rvu' `-l "o d a ?ec? 1)W 5 TC l e - Cr i 1't pa ra.?rG - 5 e7Le,
MAR P'E`3
tYATER QUALITY Sri HON'
0PER,r{;10NS SIR -k TI,1
Todd Miller
?1832 J. Bell Lane (Ocean)
Newport4 NC 28570
r (919) 393.-6-10.9- or 8185
Dave Owens
NC Division of Coastal Management 251988
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611 ,a9I-ryDIV.OFENVIRO,via ir!f`•Sl't;u;UENlEr'y'T
Dear Dave: Y? rr `+ Raisigia, NO
;^(
I am writing this letter in response to the public notice that
appeared in the Carteret County News-Times in regard to the
application by Broad Reach Investments to build marinas with
200 wet slips and a dry stack in the community of Ocean. This
letter is based upon my personal experiences growing up in the
area. The Coastal. Federation will be submitting a letter that
will deal with regulatory and technical issues associated with
evaluating the project.
My letter is to convey to you my knowledge of the use of the
waters adjacent to the site for snellfishing. I have clammed
extensively in the vicinity of the proposed marina having grown
up less than a half-mile from the site. It has been my
experience that you can catch more clams along the mainland
shoreline of Bogue Sound than you can out in the sound on the
other side of the dredge spoil island. In fact, my freezer
still. contains several hundred. clams that I caught in the area
last summer with my feet while swimming. I have,also observed
on numerous occasions (including last summer), people clamming
right in the path of the newly proposed channels including
within 100 feet of the shoreline. It is my opinion, based upon
nearly 30 years of observations, that this is one of the
heaviest used sections of Bogue Sound for clamming.
The waters adjacent to the proposed marina were used by
mechanical dredges around 1980 and clam kickers around 1982. I
saw on one day at least ten boat using mechanical harvesting
methods adjacent to the site. I expect that these harvest
methods had an adverse effect on the current population of
clams in the area. These waters were again heavily clammed by
hand methods in 1983 when on just about any day during the
summer there were several boats where the channels are now
proposed. The level of clamming in this area seemed to drop
off slightly after 1983 (with boats still being seen on
numerous occasions) until last summer, when I saw boats right
along the shoreline where Channel A is proposed just about
everyday. In fact, one boat seemed to be working the area
everyday.
Today, I took my boat and visited the site once again. In a
ten foot flat bottom skiff, Jim Kennedy and I rowed the area of
proposed Channel B. About 75 feet off the shore, there is a
line of submerged aquatic vegetation close to, if not extending
through the alignment of the proposed channel. There is-one
small area where there is not too much eelgrass, ve oes je%'

`MAI ER QUALITY :;I:.G 10N
OPE-RATIONS
F
1
due to some kind of physical disturbance. However, even in
this spot we saw many pockets of upcomming eelgrass shoots that
were becoming established. These new clumps of submerged
grass were fairly evenly distributed (about every 10 to 20
feet) throughout the entire area outside of the thick beds of
eelgrass.
In the sound next to my house, I have seen the eelgrass beds
grow and contract over the years. It would appear to me that
the site where Channel B is proposed is prime habitat for
eelgrass beds. It appears to me that the channel will cut
through some eelgrass that is actually growing there today and
destroy prime habitat for new grassbeds. I expect that in a
few months the amount of grassbeds along the proposed alignment
will increase if left undisturbed. Furthermore, there are
major beds of eelgrass within a few feet of the channel which
will probably be destroyed by turbidity caused by boat traffic.
Bogue Sound is an extremely shallow body of water that is not
suitable for large boats. We currently experience turbidity
problems from the wake caused by large boats using the
Intracoastal Waterway. Water access for small boats can easily
be provided for this property without the necessity of
constructing large marina basins designed for boats that can
only be used in the Intracoastal Waterway. Given the critical
habitat in the area, the prudent. course would be to develop
water access that does not involve extensive modifications to
the natural systems in the area.
While we were visiting the site today, we also saw the Division
of Marine Fisheries return to the area of proposed Channel A to
sample once again. They were at the site for just a little
over an hour. With the temperature at 42 degrees and with
small craft warnings, they appeared to be attempting to catch
clams with a rake along the shell shoreline and were taking
samples with the patent tongs offshore. This is the same
location where Frank Wilson conducted his sampling using a
suction pump in the letter that he and Pete Peterson sent to
you regarding clam populations in the area. We do not yet know
the result of this new sampling conducted by the Division of
Marine Fisheries.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions
about my letter.
Sincerely,
/ 4(---_
Todd Miller
t?r
r
. ?. i+tL B
N
Mr. David Owens
Division of Coastal
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Dear Mr. Owens:
1861 J. Bell Lane (Bogue und)
Newport, N.C.
March 16, 1988
r?4a ? t „g 4.1 ?
Management
I live on Bogue Sound a
proposed Broad Reach marina.
secondary location home here
permanently since July, 1986.
clams in the waters in front of
the area where the new canal
plentiful within 100 feet of
until a few years ago.
f?f V ?? Li'6'd i •, ,.
few hundred feet west of the
My wife and I have had a
since 1963 and have lived here
We have frequently obtained
the proposed marina, including
A is planned. Clams were
the shore throughout the area
We never had any trouble finding clams anywhere along the
shore until mechanical clam *harvesters were used about 4 or 5
years ago. Since then, the clams have been much less
plentiful. However, clams can still be obtained with some
effort. Last summer, when prices were high, the area was
heavily used. Commercial clammers worked virtually six days a
week, so clams are now less abundant than before. But, there
are still significant clams farther off the shore line.
Sea grass was also
mechanical harvesting. The
feet from shore through the
were found in the grass beds
through, we could see the g
The grass has not yet recov
re plentiful before the
ds were thickest about 60
pots of clams and scallops
he mechanical diggers came
was torn up floating away.
from that disturbance.
We have also floundered the entire shoreline up into
Sanders Creek.
Please deny the permit for the proposed marina. The
marina will close the areas to shellfishing that we have used
and want to continue using, along with our many friends and
other residents on or near the Sound. Also, we think the
marina will prevent the grass beds from returning and thus
prevent the clams and scallops from returning to their previous
levels. We expect the disturbance from the marina and influx
of boats will be harmful to the floundering and collect
other seafood in the area. qlt

MAP-, 3 %01
DATER Qt- JUN
OPERA]:'C; r,i?+r;l f
much mo
grass be
area. I
?. When t
rass that
ered fully
r`
We are not against any project, unless it is detrimental
to the water users in the vicinity. Without question, we feel
the Broad Reach marina and development would prevent
shellfishing in areas previously used for shellfishing.
Sincerely yours,
Robert L. Fry

1

DIV. C)f (.!4, ?t i'?I?i t71?:t;i 3s fYt¢!:?a
E= ini;?h, m G.
Mary Sue Roach
202 Nunn Lane
Chapel. Hill, NC 27516
Paul Welms
Director of the Division
of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27689
March 13, 1987
Dear Mr. Welms,
This letter is in reference to the proposed marina on channel
marker #32 at Bogue Sound.
My family has a cottage near channel marker #33. I have spent
most of my summers there. Since I can remember, I have filled my
freezer with the fish, clams, scallops, and crabs from the waters
in the immediate area around my house.
In recent years, we have had problems with people parking in
our yard to get to the water to catch clams to sell.
I understand that a survey was done to determine the
productivity of these waters, and that the survey showed a low
productivity. I am sure that the survey must be inaccurate. These
waters are the richest for seafood of any I know. It would be a
fatal mistake for the good of the fishery industry of North
Carolina to develop this area. A new survey is certainly needed.
Please allow a public hearing on this matter before making a
decision that could affect so many people and our rich natrual
resources in such a detrimental way.
Sincerely,
Mary Sue Roach
ED
MAR 24 1988
ot; iUT'Y SECTION
6PE-RATIONS BRANCH

Mr. Paul Welms
Director of the Division
of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27689
Raleigh, NC 27611

March 13, 1988
Dear Mr. Welms,

V
AMS
r4 C'
This letter concerns the proposal to build a marina at channel marker #32 on
the intercoastal waterway between Swansboro and Morehead City.
It seems the decision to permit this marina is based largely on a survey
which claimed the area is unproductive for commercial shellfishing.
I feel this survey must have been in error. I have been clamming, crabbing,
and fishing in this area for ten ,years. There has always been an abundance
of shellfish. Commercial fishermen frequent the area regularly. A
marina of the proposed magnitude would destroy the resources for this
industry in the area.
I do not dispute the right of a profit motivated corporation to realize a
return on its investment. However, it seems to me that this of development
should not be at the expense and detriment of the rest of a community.
I would like to request that another survey be taken to determine the
shellfish count. Also, that a public hearing be held -to better understand
the total impact, both economic and environmental, this project would have.
I appreciate your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
0" ??
Charles Roach
I V E
MAR 2 4 11988
?NFi ,bAU TY S£CT10 ,
OPFRAi7ONS ardCt
7
March 13, 1988 MAR
Chris Krueger
2025 Markham Drive f,;
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514?:rri,
Paul Welms
Director of the Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27611
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Dear Mr. Welms:
It is my understanding that a new marina is planned for
Bogue Sound near Bogue off highway 24. I have enjoyed
many pleasant days at an adjacent property and it is one
of the loveliest spots on the Carolina coast that I
know. I am told that a survey (State of N.C.?) has con-
cluded that the area is not productive in terms of natu-
ral resources thus opening the area to development. I
have personally gathered all the shellfish, and fish I
could eat from this area any time I tried. The area is
teaming with wildlife.
I understand that you are conscientious in your respon-
sibilities as Director of the Division of Environmental
Management. I hope you will use your office to see that
another survey of the area is conducted to include a
shellfish count. I also hope that a public hearing can
be scheduled before this area is irreparably altered.
In advance, I will appreciate your attention to these
concerns.
Sincerely,
Chri rue er
RECEI\1E
MAR 2 4 1988
1Nr it.l; QUALITY SLCMM'
OPERATIONS BRANi; I-?
NORTH CARJLI DEPARTF4ENT OF NATURAL
RESOURC?& IVD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Date 19Q!
To: Csu,C U/2 ?/ucx Q?WdLp
From: - (T ' v
R
Remarks:
r?
t t -
? Note and file ? Note, initial and forward
? Note and return to me ? Your comments, please
? Note and see me about this ? For your Information
? For your approval ? Prepare reply for my signature
?-Per our 'conversation - ? Prepare Information for me to reply
? Per your request ? Please answer, with copy to me
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
1832 J Bell Lane (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570 • [phone]
February 29, 1988
-7. X

Mr. Paul Wilms
Division of Environmental Management , J.'?
P.O. Box 27687 «Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Re: Proposed Broad Reach Marina in Bogue Sound, Carteret County
Dear Paul:
After reviewing the the recent (February, 1988) permit
application for this project, we request that that the 401
certification be denied and that the DEM comments recommend
denial of the CAMA permit. If DEM does not take a negative
position, we request that a public hearing be held on the 401
certification and that a full use attainability study be done to
determine if shellfishing is an attainable use for these class SA
waters.
The Division of Environmental Management has responsibility
for implementing the antidegradation requirement in North
Carolina and for protecting the classified uses of waters. A
full use attainability study is needed before a project is
approved that would permanently preclude a designated use of the
waters. Further explanation of our belief that DEM must carry
out the use attainability study is provided in the attached
letter to the Division of Coastal Management.
There is a tremendous amount of public interest in this
project, as evidenced the attached petition from over 150 people
who shellfish at the project site and oppose the proposed marina.
Given the legitimate public concern, a public hearing on any 401
certification seems warranted.
Thank you for considering these concerns.
SEC-
Sincerely,
J
Jim Kennedy
Environmental Scientist
cc: Relevant Agencies
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
1832 J Belt Lane (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570 • [phone]
February 29, 1988
Mr. Dave Owens
Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Re: Proposed Broad Reach Marina on Bogue Sound in Carteret County
Dear Dave:
Having reviewed the recent (February, 1988) application
modification, we request that the Division of Coastal Management
either deny this permit or ask DEM to do a full use attainability
study to justify that there is not an exiting use or attainable
use for shellfishing at this site on open class SA waters. We
also request that the public be given notice and an opportunity
to review and comment on the new proposed plan and any use
attainability study.
The existing permit file contains abundant evidence that
shellfishing is an existing use for all waters adjacent to this
site. In addition to the petitions signed by over 150 people who
have shellfished in this area, the DCM field review for the
initially proposed application stated:
The water quality of these waters. is conducive to natural
biological production of shellfish and their commerical and
recreational harvesting and consumption. ... two DCM
staffers hand raked 40 clams from channel alignment A in
about an hours time. Most of these clams were found within
100 feet of the shoreline ...
Rule 15 NCAC 7H .0602 indicates that a use attainability
study should be done when a project would affect closed shellfish
waters. Certainly a use attainability study should be done for ,a
proposed project that will cause closure of class SA waters which
are now open to shellfishing -- particularly when there is so
much evidence for heavy shellfishing use. In their most recent
comments (February 19, 1988) the Division of Health Services has
stated that this project "will require a large closure area in
Bogue Sound and Sanders Creek."
As is well recognized now, the typical shellfish sampling
done by the Division of Marine Fisheries is not adequate to
determine if there is an existing shellfish use, let alone
attainable use, at a site. Marine Fisheries looks at the
standing crop of commercial size shellfish on the day of
sampling. This methodology provides no information about past
qA
a
Mr. Dave Owens
February 29, 1988
Page 2.
use and errs on the side of allowing development in heavily used
areas that have been over harvested prior to sampling. Thus the
Marine Fisheries methodology is most deficient for those areas
that most deserve protection.
The DEM use attainability study is the appropriate
methodology to determine if there is an existing or attainable
use at the site. We request that the use attainability study be
implemented at this site if there is any question about the
shellfishing use. The opportunity for public comment is an
essential part of the use attainability determination.
This permit is a critical precident for North Carolina.
Many other projects will follow under similar circumstances if
this permit is issued. Tremendous amounts of productive
shellfish beds will be lost if the state allows projects which
cause closure of open class SA waters without a use attainability
determination. This loss of productive waters would be counter
to the fundamental goals of state and federal law.
Thank you for carefully considering this matter. Also,
please enter the attached letter to Paul Wilms into the CAMA
permit file.
Sincerely,
Jim Kennedy
Environmental Scientist
cc: Paul Wilms
Bill Hogarth
Mike Street
Mary Joan Pugh
Lee Pelej
Mike McGee
Lark Hayes
the undersigned, clam either>commercia-lly-`or
--reationally.in the waters of-Bbgue--Sound between- - =
annel marker 31 and 32. We ? object-- td,'the " lbextf Bn of=
Y marina in or adjacent to thisAi hl? - "-
? ? ?rotlu?tve'
imming area.
4E ADDRESS

Ll-

9 -- (-a

2
?S?{?
U.ZT1V' ti r '/ /I
X/T?f =ft''??

We# the undersigned, clam either co rcially or
racreationally in the seaters of aoque Bound between
channel arkor 31 and 32. We object to the location of
any marina in or adjacent to this highly productive
clm?ng area.
k
L
(/111,
f
e?
a?ara;^vr::s .??.,,°cclneu?zsir?,:etrx`?nsvx?,wx:.Y'?.'.c: xnsgazes?? ;F,?.d:..n+.9ct'?M-xsr.+o?maewxasPen9:?.?,q zzmrs?i?4.Y?.'.?+?"?v?' .e?v?1s_?*..:b+.r?'.?.,:-??N' _ • .

NAMZ ODR988

'I,
Weo tie undersigned, clam either comtercially or
recreationally in the waiters of Bogue Sound between
channel marker 31 and 32. We object to the location of
any marina in or adjacent to this highly productive
clamming area.
/ ADDRRSS
i ",tie
V
y ? 5-
o
1
C,
i

Wet the undersigx ed, clam eithor commercially or
recreationally in the waters of Bogus Sound between
channel marker 31 and 32. We object to the location of
any marina in or adjacent to this highly productive'
cI&=.tnq area.
WYE DS
K
11-1
V

fi

mu+?..n:,xvx:xs.?i?? ? . .:mv+?.. _-- - - _ ^_:?m+-,,Asa-oaw:.mxsxa?;.s-eu?s,?v.??evus??-,ua ?.z• . ,x ?. ..

r ,
We, the undersigned, clam either coumarcially or
recreationally in the waters of Rogue Sound between
channel marker 31 and 32. We object to the location of
any marina in or adjacent to this highly productive
claming area.
N ME I DD SS
drT<)

C

'kJ90.
.'? t-?-Aj

?s

w ;

We, the undersigned, clam either commercially or
recreationally in the waters of Bogue Sound between
channel marker 31 and 32. We object to the location of
any marina in or adjacent to this highly productive
claming area.

ADDRESS
c t-/_ _ 7•x j 7

'A tz-

?c ?
YxI (L

'Lo
?/-
???
0144- 1 v
glLo-t-? /?'- //Cf?l'`!'itet-,._ _ ?cs._ ,?Ct,C? %?? /? ?!, l?? ?'?-9??f `I •i .«C'.??
f, -- ^ -
`s
Gi
F;)E.TH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
h 2 J Bell Lane (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570 • [phone]
March 15, 1988
Mr. Dave Owens
Division of Coastal Management t?
` 'P.O. Box 27687 16
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 (' ATIR i
Re: Proposed Broad Reach Marina on Bogue Sound, Carteret County
Dear :Dave:
The N.C. Coastal Federation submits these additional
comments on the proposed marina project. There is clear
evidence from both scientists and-fishermen that shellfishing
is an existing use for all waters adjacent to this site. It
would be an unconscionable error to allow a marina at this
heavily used shellfish site in class SA waters.
Issuing the permit without a full use attainability study
(including information on historical shellfishing use) would be
in direct violation of the intent of'the Clean Water Act and
the Coastal Zone Management Act. There is little question at
this point that shellfishing is an attainable use at this site.
Further, NRCD and EPA policy both require a use attainability
study for a marina in class SA waters. It appears to me that
approval of marinas in SA waters without justification of a use
attainability study could jeopardize EPA's approval of the N.C.
water quality standards program.
Submerged grass is also found adjacent to the site. As
has been shown in the Chesapeake Bay and Pamlico Sound, this
highly proCluctive fishery habitat is very sensitive to
environmental stresses. Loss of submerged grasses is one of
the first and most significant impacts of pollution. Turbidity
which prevents light penetration to the vegetation is thought
to be one of the major factors causing vegatation loss. The
increased boat traffic from the marina will increase turbidity.
The cumulative impacts of increased boat traffic must he
considered if the DCM is to meet its legal goal of preserving
public trust resources. Unless marina projects such as this
are denied in western Bogue Sound, the state has little hope of
maintaining these submerged grass beds. Western Bogue Sound is
very unique with the regard to submerged vegetation. A
decision made on this case will not be a coast-wide precedent.
Please review the attached documents carefully and enter them
into the permit record:

Dave Owens
!,%arch 15, 1988
age 2.
(1) Memorandum of Agreement, June 2, 1986, Gigned by Dave
Owens, Paul Wilms, Bill Hogarth, and S. Thomas Rhodes,
agreeing that a use attainability study will be done for
SA waters where there is a question about shellfish
resource. Point (B) states that to allow a marina in SA
waters, a lack of shellfish resource must be found due to
factors other than over harvesting and (p. 4):
"there may not be a shellfish resource according to MFC
regulations at a site but there may be some harvesting
occurring of the limited resource present. Again, the
area would not be appropriate for reclassification because
on an existing shellfishing use and a marina should not be
permitted."-
(2) EPA "Marina Assessment Handbook," 1985, excerpt indicating
that a use attainability study should be done for a
proposed marina in waters classified for shellfishing and
that "if the use is found to be attainable, ... if the use
would be lost, ... certification would be denied."
(3) Letter from Jim Kennedy to Jack Ravan, June 12, 1986,
requesting clarification of the requirements for locating
marinas in class SA waters.
(4) Letter from Jack Ravan to Jim Kennedy, July 18, 1986,
stating that "in order to evaluate the existing uses of a
water body and the appropriateness of the designated use
of a water body, a use attainability analysis must be
conducted. ... EPA would object to any permit where the
use attainability analysis indicates that a propose marina
would preclude or impair the existing uses or attainment
of the designated uses." Letter also indicates that Rava.n
believes the CAMA permit process allows an opportunity for
public hearing prior to decision.
(5) Letter from Jim Kennedy to E.T. Heinen (EPA), July 30,
1986, requesting clarification of the need for a public
hearing as part of a use attainability study.
(6) Letter from E.T. Heinen to Jim Kennedy, October 6, 1986,
stating that he understands the CAMA permit process
provides a mailing list to receive public notice and
allows anyone "to request a public hearing anytime during
the CAMA process."
(7) Letter from Jim Kennedy to Dave Owens, October 27, 1986,
requesting clarification of opportunity for public hearing
on CAMA permits.
(8) Letter from Ralph Cantrel to Jim Kennedy, February 13,
1987 stating "I do not know where EPA heard that we now
R
q. , .' Dave Owens
March 15,-1988
Page 3.
allowed information gat'-ring hearings prior to issuing
permits, but it is incorrect."
(9) Letter from Charles Je-r_er (EPA) to Paul. Wilms, February
15, 1985, approving water quality standards program
with the stipulation that the state's antidegradation
provisions "represent the same meaninq_ and intent" as the
federal regulations.
(10) Letter from Paul Wilms to Bob Benton, September 4, 1985,
supporting the adoption of an automatic closure policy
near marinas. DEM concurs with the conclusion of an EPA
study that "all availahle information points to the
conclusion that shellfish harvesting from waters near
marinas is not desirea>le from a public health
perspective."
(11) DHS Marina Policy, October 15, 1987, specifying closure of
buffer zones around marinas.
(12) Memorandum, Ken More (South Carolina Dept. of Health and
Environmental Control) to marina workshop attends,
summarizing final draft methodology for Interstate
Shellfish Sanitation Conference,marina closure policy.
(13) "Marinas in SA Waters," undated summary by DEM that
closure of waters with existing use for shellfishing
violates state and federal antidegradation policy.
(14) Letter from Paul Wilms to Jack Ravan, March 6, 1987,
asking how antidegradation applies to waters which
currently are only periodically or seasonally open to
shellfishing.
(15) Letter from Jack Ravan to Paul Wilms, April 30, 1987,
stating "if a seasonal. use were to be established it
should be applied to waters where only temporary or
seasonal uses were in existence after Noveriiber 28, 1975,
and it should not result in a downgr_adir.q of an existing
year-round use. Also, any activities deemed compatible
with a seasonal use must be controlled adequately to
prevent the loss of that temporary or seasonal use."
(16) Letter to John Harrelson (South Carolina) from Jack Ravan,
April 16, 1984, stating that the antidegradation policy
applies to buffer zone closures around marinas.
(17) Letter to John Harrelson from Jack Ravan, MArch 25, 1985,
providing further clarification of the antidegradation
requirement.
Mr. Dave 0v. -s
March 15, 1988
Page 4.
(18) Memorandum film Patrick Tobin (EPA) to James Kutzman
(EPA), Febrt:? y 21, 1985, stating that existing use for
antidegraclat_:on means that "water quality is suitable to
allow the to be attained (unless of course there are
physical proY)lems, such as substrate or flow, which
prevent the use regardless of water quality)."
(19) Letter from Jack Ravan to Todd Miller, August 14, 1984,
stating that antidegradation is part of the water quality
standards and "covers all actions that could impact
existing uses of the water and the quality of the waters.
(20) EPA "Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook," 1985, excerpts
showing that marinas should not be located near shellfish
beds or submerged grass beds.
(21) Minutes CRC meeting, April 30, 1981, committee report that
marina operators stated that pump out facilities are not
used.
(22) "Availability and Use of Pumpout Facilities in North
Carolina: A Survey of Marinas," 1982, UNC Sea Grant, a
report which concluded "Boater compliance is generally
agreed to be relatively low. Little effort has been made
by the Coast Guard or others to enforce the [marine
sanitation device] regulations."
(23) "Coastal Development and Shellfish Waters," 1985, by DEM
summarizing the impacts of marinas on water resources.
(24) Newspaper articles for Virginia Pil-ot, March 13, 1988,
Carteret County News-Times, March 14, 1988, and Greensboro
News an( P(-cord, March 11, 1988, describing the political
influence behind the Broad Reach Marina project.
(25) Final order for the Beacons Reach marina appeal, 1985, in
denying a permit for a 77 slip upland basin marina located
at the end of a dredged canal planned to be located across
Bogue Sound from the proposed 200 slip Broad Reach marina,
the CRC found (page 9):
(A) "Flushing at the site would not be very good because
the site is midway between two inlets."
(B) "At this very fragile site there is very little tidal
movement. The chances of flushing or cleaning up any
pollution if it occurs would be very small."
(C) The proposed marina is located in the worse case
situation. Neither the proposed permit conditions
nor other remedial action can prevent the marina as
Mr.` Dave Owens
March 150. 1988
Page 5.
proposed from eventually causing a vli(,Jation of the
SA water quality standards in the ad_.::c:ent waters of
Bogue Sound."
We also plan to evaluate the compliance cr the proposed
project with the land use plan but have not had time to carry
out that analysis. In particular, we want to consider the
possible differences between this project and the other dry
stack marina projects that seem to be the precedent for
allowing commercial marinas in the community classification.
Also, the need for a central sewage system appears to be
inconsistent with the county land use plan requirement for the
community classification. We request that you Provide more
time for comments on this application.
Thank you.
Sincerely,

Jim Kennedy
Environmental Scientist
cc: Paul Wilms
Bill Hogarth
Mary Joan Pugh
Lee Pelej
Mike McGee
7
E

NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
1832 J Bell Lane (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570 • [phone]
Marc! 1 5 , 1988
I
Mr. Dave Owens
Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Re: Proposed Broad Reach Marina on Bogue Sound, Carteret -ounty
Dear Dave:
The N.C. Coastal Federation submits these additional
comments on the proposed marina project. There is clear
evidence from both scientists and fishermen that shellfishing
is an existing use for all waters adjacent to this site. It
would be an unconscionable error to allow a marina at this
heavily used shellfish site in class SA waters.
Issuing the permit without a full use attainability study
(including information on historical shellfishing use) would be
in direct violation of the intent of the Clean Water Act and
the Coastal Zone Management Act. There is little question at
this point that shellfishing is an attainable use at this site.
Further, NRCD and EPA policy both require a use attainability
study for a marina in class SA waters. It appears to me that
approval of marinas in SA waters without justification of a use
attainability study could jeopardize EPA's approval of the N.C.
water quality standards program.
Submerged grass is also found adjacent to the s? ±, As
has been shown in the Chesapeake Bay and Pamlico Sc?. this
highly productive fishery habitat is very sensitive
environmental stresses. Loss of submerged grasses i.c;one of
the first and most significant impacts of pollution. Turbidity
which prevents light penetration to the vegetation is thought
to be one of the major factors causing vegatation loss. The
increased boat traffic from the marina will i.ncrease turbidity.
The cumulative impacts of increased boat traffic must he
considered if the DCM is to meet its legal goal of preserving
public trust resources. Unless marina projects such as this
are denied in western Bogue Sound, the state has little hope of
maintaining these submerged grass beds. Western Aogue Sound is
very unique with the regard to submerged vegetation. A
decision made on this case will not be a coast-wide precedent.
Please review the attached documents carefully and enter them
into the permit record:
6
4 ?k

Mr. Dave Owens
March 15, 1988
Page 2.
(1) Memorandum of-Agreement, Juno ?, 1986, signed by Dave
Owens, Paul Wilms, Bill Hogar.t'--, and S. Thomas Rhodes,
agreeing that a use attainability study will be done for
SA waters where there is a qu-F-I `c•n about shellfish
resource. Point (B) states that. to allow a marina in SA
waters, a lack of shellfish resource must be found due to
factors other than over harvesting and (p. 4):
"there may not be a shellfish resource according to MFC
regulations at a site but there may be some harvesting
occurring of the limited resource present. Again, the
area would not be appropriate for reclassification becauso
on an existing shellfishing use and a marina should not be
permitted."
(2) EPA "Marina Assessment Handbook," 1985, excerpt indicating
that a use attainability study should be done for a
proposed marina in waters classified for shel.lfishing and
that "if the use is found to be attainable, ... if the use
would be lost, ... certification would be denied."
(3) Letter from Jim Kennedy to Jack Ravan, June 12, 1986,
requesting clarification of the requirements for locating
marinas in class SA waters.
(4) Letter from Jack Ravan to Jim Kennedy, July 18, 1986,
stating that "in order to evaluate the existing uses of a
water body and the appropriateness of the designated use
of a water body, a use attainability analysis must be
conducted. . EPA would object to any permit where the
use attainability analysis indicates that a propose marina
would preclude or impair the existing uses or attainment.
of the designated uses." Letter also indicates that R<?.:,r
believes the CAMA permit process allows an opportunit-, `c.
public hearing prior to decision.'
(5) Letter from Jim Kennedy to E.T. Heinen (EPA), July 30,
1986, requesting clarification of the need for a public
hearing as part of a use attainability study.
(6) Letter from E.T. Heinen to Jim Kennedy, October 6, 198G,
stating that he understands the LAMA permit process
provides a mailing list to receive public notice and
allows anyone "to request a public hearing anytime during
the CAMA process."
(7) Letter from Jim Kennedy to Dave Owens, October 27, 1986,
requesting clarification of opportunity for public hearing
on CAMA permits.
(8) Letter from Ralph Cantrel to Jim Kennedy, February 13,
1987 stating "I do not know where EPA heard that we now

Mr. Dave Owens
March 15,-1988
Page 3.
]lowed information gathering hearings ,r?cr to issuing
permits, but it is incorrect."
(9) better from Charles Jeter (EPA) to Pat: t•':?ms, February
15, 1985, approving N.C. water quali.t < andards program
with the stipulation that the state's antidegradation
provisions "represent the same meaning and intent" as the
federal regulations.
(10) Letter from Paul Wilms to Bob Benton, September 4, 1985,
supporting the adoption of an automatic closure policy
near marinas. DEM concurs with the conclusion of an EPA
study that "all available information points to the
conclusion that shellfish harvesting from waters near
marinas is not desireable from a public health
perspective."
(11) DHS Marina Policy, October 15, 1987,, specifying closure of
buffer zones around marinas.
(12) Memorandum, Ken More (South Carolina Dept. of Health and
Environmental Control) to marina workshop attends,
summarizing final draft methodology for Interstate
Shellfish Sanitation Conference.marina closure policy.
(13) "Marinas in SA Waters," undated summary by DEM that
closure of waters with existing use for shellfishing
violates state and federal. antidegradation policy.
(14) Letter from Paul Wilms to Jack Ravan, March 6, 1987,
asking how antidegradation applies to waters which
currently are only periodically or seasonally open to
shellfishing.
(15) Letter from Jack Ravan to Pau] Wilms, April 30, 1987,
stating "if a seasonal use were to be established it
should be applied to waters where only tenipOrary or
seasonal uses were in existence after Nover.her 28, 1975,
and it should not result in a downgradinq of an existinq
year-round use. Also, any activities deemed compatible
with a seasonal use must be controlled adequately to
prevent the loss of that temporary or seasonal use."
(16) Letter to John Harrelson (South Carolina) from Jack Ravan,
April 16, 1984, stating that the antidegradation policy
applies to buffer zone closures around marinas.
(17) Letter to John Harrelson from Jack Ravan, MArch 25, 1985,
providing further clarification of the antidegradation
requirement.,

V.
V,, . Dave Ow,,; s
March 15, 1988
Pack 4.
(18) Memorandum from Patrick Tobin (EPA) to James Kutz.r: I-:;;
(EPA), Fei;ruary 21, 1985, stating that existing use fc,r
antidegradaticn means that "water quality is suit: to
allow the usE- to be attained (unless of course t.l:._ r ; are
physical problems, such as substrate or flow, which
prevent the use regardless of water quality)."
(19) Letter from Jack Ravan to Todd Miller, August 14, 1984,
stating that antidegradation is part of the water quality
standards and "covers all actions that could impact
existing uses of the water and the quality of the waters."
(20) EPA "Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook," 1985, excerpts
showing t1sat marinas should not be located near shellfish
beds or submerged grass beds.
(21) Minutes CRC meeting, April 30, 1981, committee report that
marina operators stated that pump out facilities are not
used.
(22) "Availability and Use of Pumpout Facilities in North
Carolina: A Survey of Marinas," 1982, UNC Sea Grant, a
report which concluded "Boater compliance is generally
agreed to be relatively low. Little effort has been made
by the Coast Guard or others to enforce the [marine
sanitation device] regulations."
(23) "Coastal Development and Shellfish Waters," 1985, by DEM
summarizing the impacts of marinas on water resources.
(24) Newspaper articles for Virginia Pilot, March 13, 1988,
Carteret County News-Times, March 14, 1988, and Greensboro
News arid Record, March 11, 1988, describing the political
influence behind the Broad Reach Marina project.
(25) Final order for the Beacons Reach marina appeal, 1985, in
denying a permit for a 77 slip upland basin marina located
at the end of a dredged canal planned to be located across
Bogue Sound from the proposed 200 slip Broad Reach marina,
the CRC found (page 9):
(A) "Flushing at the site would not be very good because
the site is midway between two inlets."
(B) "At this very fragile site there is very little tidal
movement. The chances of flushing or cleaning up any
pollution if it occurs would be very small."
(C) The proposed marina is located in the worse case
situation. Neither the proposed permit conditions
nor other remedial action can prevent the marina as
V,
Mr. Dove ; , cns
March 15, 1988
Page 5.
proposed from eventually causing a violation of the
:'.A water quality standards in the adjacent waters of.
Bogue Sound."
we also plan to evaluate the compliance of the proposed
project with the land use plan but have not had time to carry
out that analysis. In particular, we want to consider the
possible differences between this project and the other dry
stack marina projects that seem to be the precedent for
allowing commercial marinas in the community classification.
Also, the need for a central sewage system appears to be
inconsistent with the county land use plan requirement for the
community classification. We request that you provide more
time for comments on this application.
Thank you.
Sincerely,

Jim Kennedy
Environmental Scientist
cc: Paul Wilms
Bill Hogarth
Mary Joan Pugh
Lee Pelej
Mike McGee

NORTH CAROLINA D ART NT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
e & 199'e
MAR 1-4- 3988
P? L
ACTION
? Note and file ?'Nae,. initial and forward
? Note and return to me ? Your comments, please
? Note and see me about this ? For your information
? For your approval ? Prepare reply for my signature
? Per our conversation ? Prepare information for me to reply
? Per your request ? Please answer, with copy to me
14. 1
Institute of Marine Sciences
919/726-6841 or 919/962-8330

THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
AT
CHAPEL HILL
29 February 1988
Mr. David Owens
Division of Coastal Management
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Owens:

ft MA%
tM
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
3407 Arendell Street
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
MAR 14 1988
''UITY
v L.:r Y d Y.? Y
I am writing because it is my understanding that your agency is currently
considering providing permits for construction of the Broad Reach Marina in
Western Bogue Sound. For several reasons, I think it necessary to submit the
proposals for this project to formal public (and scientific/professional) review
before deciding on permits.
My major concern is that the presently used technique for assessing the
importance of an area to shellfish production is badly flawed. The present
technique of sampling the abundance of harvestable shellfish ignores the effects
of recent past harvest in the area. Any knowledgeable applicant for development
permits can thereby, at little expense, alter the results of the DMF shellfish
survey to his own ends. Furthermore, the recent history of commercial and
recreational shellfishing in the area alters the catch in the DMF samples. I am
presently doing research on the appropriateness of an alternative technique for
assessing shellfish productivity, but until those results are available, the
best way to supplement the DMF survey data is to solicit open public commentary
on the importance of the area in question to commercial and recreational
shellfishing. If the plans are not circulated for public comment, this
opportu-zity to improve a badly flawed and scientifically indefensible technique
will be lost.
The Western Bogue Sound is a very important area to shellfish production,
including especially hard clams and bay scallops. This is the are of the mgst,
productive bay scallop bps in North Carolina. Bay scallops are quite sensitive
to environmental alteration, including water quality changes dispersed by water
R F-
r
121

M
1%
Page 2
Mr. David Owens
mass movements (salinity, turbidity, etc.). Consequently, there are legitimate
grounds for concern about the effects on shellfish production of any marina
development in Western Bogue Sound. The public deserves to have opportunity for
open comment on such issues.
Sincerely,
(merles H. Peterson
Professor of Marine Sciences
& Biology
CHP/j g
cc: v Dr. Paul Wilms
Ms. Mary Joan Pugh
Mr. Lee Pelej
Mr. Mike Street
,1 -?'F
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
March 17, 1988
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: John Parker
FROM: Bill Mills
4&
SUBJECT: Revised CAMA Permit Application
Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
Carteret County
Your memo dated March 8, 1988 requests comments on the
Subject revised application by March 17. The revised
application is the same submittal referred to in our February
25, 1988 comments to you on this project. Those comments
remain unchanged.
BM/dkb
cc: Preston Howard
-r.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
February 25, 1988
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: John Parker
FROM: Steve W. Tedder original signed by
Steve W. Tedder
- SUBJECT: Revised Application for CAMA Permit
Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
Carteret County
The Subject revised application has been reviewed for
water quality impacts and the following comments are
offered:
a. As-you are aware, this project design has been
revised several times since the original
circulation for comments in June,-1987. The
latest revision was submitted to our regional
office on February 17, 1988. The project as
revised, consists of two marina complexes
including_a dry stack storage building, 3 boat
- ramps, fueling facilities, -a ship's store,
bulkheads, walkways, docks, and 2 septic
tank/sub-surface disposal systems to provide
pumpout service at each marina basin.
_ b. Regarding stormwater rules as provided in 15 NCAC
2H .1000 we have determined that revised designs
conform to requirements for projects using density
limitations.in complying with the rule.
C. Regarding automatic closure of shellfishing waters
for proposed marinas, the extent of closure is
expected to cause closure:of--currently open
shellfish waters in the areas of the two marina
- - basins-. Should these closure areas have an
existing resource, such a closure would constitute
a violation of the EMC Antidegradation Policy as
specified in 15 NCAC 2B .0201 in that an existing
.-use of shellfishing would be removed by closure
-- of the waters.
` w c 1
r
- 2 -
d. The dissolved oxygen modeling of the marina basin
has been evaluated by our Planning Branch. Our
conclusion is that the proposed project meets our
criteria for protecting dissolved oxygen. Because
sediment oxygen demand appears to be such an
important parameter in this model, it is
recommended that the permit include a condition to
require periodic dissolved oxygen monitoring and
subsequent mitigative actions should violations be
documented.
e. In summary, we do not expect the proposed project,
as revised, to result in a violation of our
standards or other regulations, with the possible
exception of the. Antidegradation Policy explained
in c. above.
SWT/dkb
cc: Dennis Ramsey
Alan Klimek
Mill l s
Wilmington Regional Office
Departm
James G. Martin, C
S. Thomas Rhodes,
T0:
i
/ d „a STATE "'v..
A RE FA. `Q'ED
Pip . - w4M 11 1988
State o North Carolina
it of Natural Resources and Community 0a ffV ff
Division of Coastal Management
512 North Salisbury Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
'Hogarth
ge Everette
I/ J /
Dave Owens;..
RE:
ach Permit Application
DATE: March 9, 1988
As we discussed on this past Monday,
regarding the Broad Reach proposed project
your agencies.
David W. Owens
r Director
MAR 2,2 199e
SEC (-ioN
several questions have arisen
that require responses by
I have attached the letters we discussed regarding the implications
of determining "no resource present" at the site of the basin connecting
channel that would be closed to shellfishing if the project was built as
currently proposed (2/29/88 from J. Kennedy and 2/29/88 from P.
Peterson). It seems a key question is whether fisheries is technically
sure no shellfish are present in the potential closure area and, if so,
whether that is due to natural conditions (such as currents, bottom
surface, or other habitat features) or artificial ones (overfishing,
etc.) and whether it is a temporary phenomenon. I understand you both
intend to look into this question, both in terms of the policies and
procedures involved and the facts as they apply to this specific site.
The public notice period on this modified application runs through
3/17. We have asked state review agencies to respond to this revision
within the same time period. I understand the federal agency review may
take a few days longer, but in all fairness to those involved we need to
be prepared to reach a permit decision on this as soon as feasible.
Therefore I hope you will be able to provide us some comments on this
question as soon as you can.
Thanks for your help.
cc. Mary Joan Pugh
Permit file
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
I
MEMORANDUM
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DATE: March 15, 1988
TO: Bill Mills
FROM: A. Preston Howard, Jr. AJ
SUBJECT: Final Review Comments
Broad Reach Marina
Carteret County

As requested by memorandum dated March 8, 1988 from John Parker,
this office has reviewed the recent revisions for the proposed
Board Reach Marina Development. The proposed development consists
of 2 "high-ground" marina basins of 125 slip and a 75 slip design,
pump-out facilities, a dry stack boat storage building, ship's
store, parking areas and entrance road. The proposed marina
facilities are located adjacent to Sanders Bay in Bogue Sound,
classified SA, and currently open to shellfishing.
The project was reviewed to determine compliance with stormwater
regulations. The development of the marina areas were limited to
below 25% built upon surfaces, and no storm water collection system
is proposed. By letter dated February 18, 1988, to Larry Zucchino,
this office determined that the proposed marina met the
requirements for stormwater management pursuant to 15 NCAC 2H.1000.
It is anticipated that the proposed marinas will cause periodic
violations of dissolved oxygen standards within the marina basins,
due to inadequate flushing, particularly during summer months.
If the development of the marina(s) cause the closure of shellfish
areas near the canal entrance, in areas where a shellfishing
resource exists, violation of the antidegradation statement will
occur. If it is determined that the closure boundary overlaps SA
waters that have a shellfish resource,the permit should be denied.
If you have any
APH : MFW : k !,.
cc: WiRO, CF
questions, please advise.

i
rt
?R??rs? ? jra jss FROM ?-,eu?2
TO: Bill Mills DArW ?Z f 3p jg7
Operations Branch .5
Division of Environmental Management
Use Attainability Analysis for
Proposed Marina Projects in Class SA Waters
(Check all Appropriate Boxes or fill in Blanks)
Project Name &QAD !`f*tR Vd Rl d-4
Section I. Project Description
A. /New Marina Marina Expansion
B. New Basin (dug out of high ground)
(Include Specifications and Sketch)
Existing Basin Expansion
(Include Specifications and Sketch)
Natural Waters
Others (Please describe below)
It
i/
C. Proposed No. Slips -75
Existing No. Slips
D. Commercial Marina
8m/p/ 'A0
Private Marina 6 S/NS
Publicly Owned Marina
Other (Please describe below)
E. Description of Any Unique Characteristics or Operational
Proposals .
?.??-StJR C? I?tS?OSdL S?S?E?I?t Onl dDJA-e&Vf W1614604kV.
Section II. Existing Use Determination (for waters outside of marina basins)
A. Closure Status (Check One)
Open Waters
Closed Waters (By Data) Date Closed
Closed Waters (DHS Marina Policy)
l
T
B. Will the proposed project result in additional closed
acreage? (Please attached analysis showing calculations
for area of closure.)
__V/__Yes No Not Clear
C. Does the area to be effected by any closure have significant
shellfish resources?
,t Yes No Unknown
Briefly provide description of resource and any other
characteristics.
SN&ZP&# LF/dtfA WAI I GINAA SV AkV 14AS 1A 1P_1eA_ " X114-r-4
!00 AVE ARM AF TA Mod W Oi T HE ?/i74ANC? CAIVA L 0' PAC- 41-41RINA(S),
D. Has the area to be impacted by the proposed project been
available for shellfish harvesting and has shellfish harvesting
occurred since November 28, 1975?
--.,(-Yes No Unknown
E. Is the entire area to be impacted by the proposed project
currently unavailable for shellfishing because of the DHS
Marina policy or other irretrievable man induced impact?
Yes ? No
If yes, briefly describe below.
Section III. Attainable Use Determination (To be completed only if the answer
to ILA A is Closed Waters (by Data), and if the answers to I I . C and
II.D are No).
A. What are the major sources of pollution causing the closure?
B. What actions are required to reduce or eliminate these existing
sources of pollution?

41

C. Can the areas be expected to be open for shellfishing given
reasonable efforts to control the existing sources of pollution?
Explain .
Section IV . Project Decision
A. Recommend Project Denial
q/There has been a recent shellfishing use (Answer to II. D
is Yes) and the area is not currently irretrievably closed
(answer to II. E is No).
OR
Shellfishing is a reasonably attainable use according to
Section III.
OR
Insufficient information (Answers to II. C and/or II. D are
Unknown)
B. Recommend Project Approval
There has not been a recent shellfishing use (Answer to
II. D is No) and shellfishing is not a reasonably attainable
use according to Section III.
OR
The entire area is irretrievably lost to shellfishing as a
result of the DHS policy or other irreversible man-inducted
impact (Answer to II. E is Yes)
C. Conditions to be included in permit (check appropriately)
Pump-out Facilities only boats w/o heads
Locked-head Policy
No Transient Docking
No Live-aboards
D. What additional information is required to make an informed
permit decision?
K
This analysis and recommendation has been prepared by the Wilmington Regional
office.
3 lQ Date
Thi evaluation of the attainability of shellfish uses in the waters in the vicinity
of ->D" _is approved by:
Water Quality Section
Date
Director's Office ' Date
R. Paul Wilms
Director

1
J
S ? ?J
,I
F
State of North Carolina iy ' tl'
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
February 26, 1988
Mr. Todd Miller, Executive Director
North Carolina Coastal Federation
1832 J Bell Lane (Ocean)
Newport, North Carolina 28570
Dear Todd:
R. Paul Wilms
Director
Your letter of February 17 was based on misinformation. I have been
working very closely with EPA Region IV on marina permitting. However, I
specifically have avoided centering the discussions on any one permit. Mike
McGhee with EPA agreed to meet with us to try and establish a modeling
framework for marinas, since EPA is requesting an evaluation of the impacts
from marinas on dissolved oxygen. At a January meeting in Atlanta, we
discussed 'possible assumptions to be used in establishing background
conditions, sediment oxygen demand, natural conditions, etc. We
purposefully did not discuss the Broad Reach project.
Based on our discussions with EPA, we both agreed that the current
North Carolina regulations will not allow dissolved oxygen levels in marinas
to go below 5.0 mg/l even though 5.0 mg/l is neither necessary nor
appropriate to provide protection for aquatic life in these basins. This
issue will be addressed in our triennial review of water quality standards.
As you are well aware, the Division will issue a certification only
after it has determined that water quality standards will be protected. Our
modeling effort has been completed and no dissolved oxygen impacts are
predicted. We will share our methodology with EPA, but a final
certification will not be issued until stormwater issues have also been
resolved.
Your request for a ublic hearing n the certification will be
considered by the Director. st that. if you have water quality
concerns that you include these as support ',for your request.
S i'ncerely,
9eorge T-/ Everett
Deputy Director
pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Fni,al nnnnrh,nity Affirmative Action Emolover
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
1832 J Bell Lane (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570 • [phone]
February 17, 1988
George Everett
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear George:
t _
FE

V
M
FEB 19 1368
1W. of Environmt;wal Mgt
Ralelgh, N. C.
I understand that you have been in consultations with the
developers of Broad Reach Marina including visiting Atlanta on
their behalf regarding new interpretations of the dissolved
oxygen standard and other water quality regulations so as to
allow their project. Please send me copies of any letters,
reports or other documents that they have provided to you to
justify the positions they are asking you to take as well as
your responses to them.
Before you make any final decisions in regard to this project,
I invite you to come down and look at the site. This is one of
the locations that is under review for Outstanding Resource
Waters. It has an environmental quality that far surpasses
most of locations where your Division has denied marina
projects. In short, if a project of this magnitude is approved
for this location there is little likelihood that you will be
able to protect estuarine resources elsewhere.
Please consider the precedent you will establish by giving this
project such special treatment.
the Certification.
I would also like to once again request a public hearing on the
401 Certification for this project. A petition signed by well
over 100 shellfishermen and numerous letters from the public
have been submitted. There is substantial public attention and
demand that a public hearing be held if you consider approving
Thank you for safeguarding the public interest in this matter.
Sincerely,
Todd Miller
Executive Director
cc: Lark Hayes, Southern Environmental Law Center
Steve Levitas, NC Environmental Defense Fund
S. Henri Johnson
Derb Carter

- r
March 4, 1988
Mr. Dave Baker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Re: Broad Reach Marina
Dear Dave:
PATON / ZUCCHINO
ASSt,CLUES. VA.
€ C, FIVE
MAP C ? i 88
Vftbi E4 U/Q{TY SE G!-iQ1!
OPERATIONS,
I would like to address a point of clarification in reference
to the wooded wetlands and the Broad Reach Marina permit
application. In previous discussions with the NCDEM, the
applicant has eliminated from the application any request for
filling in 404 wetlands along the project entrance roadway or
any other location on the property. At this time, the
roadway is suitable for access and no widening of the roadbed
is requested.
I have enclosed a plan depicting the location of the wetlands
which have been deleted from the permit application request.
Therefore, there is no current request for a 404 fill permit
for this project. Please make note of-this fact in your
files and notify the other agencies as you deem appropriate.
Please contact me if you require any further clarification.
Very Truly Yours,
Lawrence R. Zucchino
Paton/Zucchino & Associates, P.A.
cc: Mr. John Parker, NCDCM
Mr. Bill Mills, NCDEM
Mr. Carlton Midyette, Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
Land Plar?ning
Landscalw An-l?itecture
Cooler S(Inane
17 Glenwood Ave.
Kaleigl?, N.C. 27603
919-834-86211

M
i I

V

`
co

' f m
_
•
in,

%_1w f
P
s ?
• r
v
r
Q
1
W
N ?
W

Li
•

L

!r Lov.-
1
Ul
rt
fr.
t V
1 , t Q ?
?tt'i, t1i a ?.
Yom.,.
Q t{ l.4 lit
• { ?+
cc w
N ? t I?t
j'(t''•' tt'? 1 n?. t/ i r? l i i? . ::ic$:i'i
111<..', f t • .f •.
pr- / ?-
41,
\ n+. of
t
t 1f.i
' ? t
14
/
? : ?t.?.?`,;; t? t I'd !
t
t

?r a?:
• V W
Y T
?^
`¦ /
I
X-K
ts4i ? ,?tk .ft•Y
P/V1,()l \ /ZUla.l-111 0
February 19, 1988
Mr. Preston Pate
N.C. Division of Coastal Manaaeme CI'
P. O. Box 769 1q?;
Morehead City, N.C. 28557
5
Re: Broad Reach Marina ? All
Dear Preston:
In response to our meeting last week with the state review
agencies, the applicant has made several changes
to the marina development plans. I have summarized below the
changes which are depicted on the attached plans.
1. The number of wet slips in Basin B has been reduced
from 125 slips to 75 slips. Separation between the nearest
boat slip and SA waters there will be at least 325 feet.
2. The.channel alignment for Basin A has been moved
west to the alternate location shown in the October
resubmittal. There will be at least a 450 foot separation
between the nearest boat slip and SA waters.
3. The marina facility will be serviced by a private
well and a septic tank and gravity disposal system.
4. The project has been reviewed and meets the NCDEM
stormwater control regulations using the density limits
provision.
5. The applicant's interpretation of the County's
position is that the dry stack is a use consistent with the
Comunity classification. However, our understanding from
previous discussions with your office is that the permit
request as a whole will not be denied on the basis of a more
limited determination that the dry stack facility is not in
keeping with the Community classification.

-,ill ? ? .?;,
' -Vi
6. The applicant does not plan to restrict the future
provision of individual piers and boat slips along the
property's shoreline.
The attached plans reflect the changes and clarifications
described above. We request that your office review the
plans and take the application off administrative hold which
we requested on December 31, 1987.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any
additional information or clarification concerning any aspect
of this request. I would appreciate your notifying me of any
procedural matters we would need to be aware of prior to your
office making a permit decision.
Very Truly Yours,
Lawrence R. Zucchino
Paton/Zucchino & Associates
cc: Mr. John Parker
Mr. Carlton Midyette
Attachments: Marina Development Plans
"IT , I
...._,

I'AI'ON / ZUCCHINO
64v
`EI `
February 15, 1988
Mr. Mike Williams
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
Re: Broad Reach Marina
Stormwater/Density Limits
Dear Mr. Williams:
F EB 19 1968
0*. of tnvirorimG n¢al Mgt.
Raleigh, N. C.
As the authorized agent of the owner of the above mentioned
property in Carteret County, I am submitting this agreement
to restrict the maximum impervious built upon surfaces within
the property delineated in the permit request. Computations
determining the maximum allowable built-upon area for the
property are specified in the attached form entitled
"Submittal Form for Projects Using Density Limits for
Stormwater Control".
The total amount of impervious surfaces in the development
will not exceed the twenty-five percent impervious cover
limitation adjacent to SA waters (and maximum thirty percent
adjacent to other waters), now or in the future without
maximum direct authorization from NCDEM. Other than boat
ramps, walkways and other marina facilities, no structures
are planned within thirty feet of SA classified waters. No
storm drainage sytem is planned for the property and no
direct discharge of stormwater into SA classified waters is
planned.
l.aihl I'laiu in"
(.uu,l,c;il04. lrrliil, riot,
R

I; I, 1
Hal,•iLII. N.(.. 2-011)

.1..-!
tr
Please contact me if you require any additional information
or clarification concerning this request. Given the extended
period of review this project has received, we would greatly
appreciate your immediate attention in reviewing this
submittal. Two sets of drawings are attached for your use.
Very Truly Yours,
Lawren a RPaton/Zucchino & Associates, P.A.
cc: Mr. George Everett
Mr. John Parker
Mr. Carlton Midyette
Attachments: DEM Density Limits Form
Marina Development Plans (2)
A
i
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Submittal Form for Projects Using Density Limits for Stormwater
Control
PROJECT DATA
Name of Project: Broad Reach Marina
Location (County, Township/Municipality, Address):
NC Highway 24, Ocean Community, Carteret County
Applicant Name: Paton/Zucchino & Associates, P.A.
Mailing Address: 17 Glenwood Avenue, Cooper Square
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Phone No.: (919)- 834-8620
Submittal Date: February 15, 1988
Brief Description (include map and appropriate drawings):
Two marina basins and associated upland facilities.
Water Body Receiving Stormwater Runoff:
Name of Water Body: Bogue Sound and Sanders Bay
Classification of Water Body: SA
Total Area of Proposed Project (acres): 36 acres
State/Federal Permits and Approvals Required:
(Check Appropriate Blanks)
CAMA Major x Sedimendation and Erosion Control X
404 Permit x DEM/DHS Sewage Disposal
Other (specify):
CALCULATION OF BUILT-UPON AREA
'(Built-upon area means, that portion of an individual development
that is covered by impervious or partially pervious cover
including buildings, pavement, recreation facilities, etc. but
not including decking.)
a) Built-upon area: 184,400 s.f.
b) Total project area =,8,800 s.f. (excluding proposed basins & canals)
% built-upon = built-upon / total project area * 100
% built-upon area = 15.25 %
If the water body receiving stormwater runoff is classified as
SA, is the % built-upon area < 25%? Yes XX No
If the water body receiving stormwater runoff is classified other
than SA, is the % built-upon area < 30%? Yes X No
STORMWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
Is the only kind of stormwater collection system grass swales?
Yes x No
(Grassed-line swales should have a side slope of 3:1 (H:V) or
less.)

e
If no, please provide a detailed description.
N/A
BUFFER AREA
Is the built-upon area at least 30 feet from mean high water of
all surface waters? Yes No X
If no, please provide a detailed description.
Boat ramps and walkways only.
(Note: Only boat ramps, public roads, public bridges and
walkways to water related facilities are allowed within 30 feet
of mean high water if the project is intended to meet stormwater
control requirements through density limits.)
DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
Do the deed restrictions and protective covenants ensure that
subdivisions maintain the development consistent with the plans
and specifications approved by the division and include the State
as a beneficiary of the restrictions? Yes X No
(See attached letter of agreement
(Include a copy of the restrictions and covenants with this
form.)
CERTIFICATION
I Lawrence R. zucchino certify that the information
included on this submittal form is correct, that the project will
be constructed in conformance with this information, and that to
the best of my knowledge, the proposed project complies with the
requriement of 15 NCAC 2H.1003 (b).
If/ [8 i1el A
V. February 15, 1988
Si n ure Owner.or Agent Date
17 Glenwood Avenue., Raleigh, NC 27603
Address
If agent, please list owner's name and address below:
Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
Post Office Box 1550, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SIGN-OFF
Regional Office
Date
Date
Individual Evaluating Forms/Plant
Regional Water Quality Supervisor
cc: Applicant/Region/Mills/CF

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
February 25, 1988
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: John Parker
FROM: Steve W. Tedder original signed by
Steve W. Tedder
SUBJECT: Revised Application.for CAMA Permit
Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
Carteret County
The Subject revised application has been reviewed for
water quality impacts and the following comments are
offered:
a. -.As--you are aware, this project design has been
revised several times since the original
circulation for comments in June,-1987. The
-latest revision was submitted to our regional
office on February 17, 1988. The project as
revised, consists of two marina complexes
including_-a dry stack storage building, 3 boat
ramps, fueling facilities, a ship's store,
bulkheads, walkways, docks, and 2 septic
tank/sub-surface disposal systems to provide
pumpout service at each marina basin.
b. Regarding stormwater rules as provided in 15 NCAC
2H .1000 we have determined that revised designs
conform to requirements for projects using density
- limitations in complying with the rule.
C. Regarding automatic closure of shellfishing waters
for proposed marinas, the extent of closure is
expected to cause closure of-currently open
shellfish waters in the areas of the two marina
basins-. Should these closure areas have an
existing resource, such a closure would constitute
a violation of the EMC Antidegradation Policy as
specified in 15 NCAC 2B .0201 in that an existing
- -use of shellfishing would be removed by closure
- of the waters. _: __

Z -
d. The dissolved oxygen modeling of the marina basin
has been evaluated by our Planning Branch. Our
conclusion is that the proposed project meets our
criteria for protecting dissolved oxygen. Because
sediment oxygen demand appears to be such an
important parameter in this model, it is
recommended that the permit include a condition to
require periodic dissolved oxygen monitoring and
subsequent mitigative actions should violations be
documented.
e. In summary, we do not expect the proposed project,
as revised, to result in a violation of our
standards or other regulations, with the possible
exception of the Antidegradation Policy explained
in c. above.
SWT/dkb
CC: Dennis Ramsey
Alan Klimek
Bill-Mills
Wilmington Regional Office

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
February 11, 1988
MEMO 'YO:
FROM:
Steve Tedder
Alan Klimek
SUBJECT: Dissolved Oxygen Impacts of the Proposed
Broad Reach Marina - Carteret County
The dissolved oxygen (DO) impacts of the proposed Broad Reach
Marina in Carteret County were evaluated as part of the potential
water quality impacts of this project. The results of two
computer simulations were analyzed. The first simulation,
submitted by Patton/Zucchino and Associates (see Attachment 1),
was performed by Dr. Janowitz and others at North Carolina State
University. These computer runs were made over a range of
ambient DO conditions with all other variables held constant at
values representative of projected conditions.
The second simulation was performed by the Water Quality
Section (WQS). A+ter reviewing the EPA Marina Assessment
Handbook and discussing with Dr. Janowitz the methodology he
employed, we developed a simple computer model using the same
basic equations as used in Dr. Janowitz's model. This approach
was used to see if we would duplicate the results of Dr. Janowitz
and also to allow us to perform some sensitivity analyses. The
approach we used was based on the recently adopted Procedures to
Evaluate Dissolved Oxygen Impacts from Marinas (see Attachment
2).
The most representative ambient monitoring station to use for
this project is the recently discontinued station 0209270940 -
Bogue Sound at Emerald Isle. The ambient summer DO level for the
last 5 years worth of available data yields an average value of
6.2 mg/l (see Attachment 3). The Janowitz simulation projects a
steady state marina basin DO of 5.3 mq/1 for this ambient
condition. The WQS simulation using the same input values
resulted in a steady state marina basin DO of 5.4 mg/1.
B?q
1\

Steve Tedder
February 11, 1988
Page Two
Based upon the sensitivity runs, major parameters of concern
are the sediment oxygen demand and the tidal amplitude. The
tidal amplitude at Spooner Greek is 1.2' and at Bogue Inlet is
2.2'. This project is located between these two sites, and we
feel a tidal amplitude of 1.7' (average of the two values) would
be representative. The Janowitz simulation used 2.2'. The WQS
model was run using the lower tidal amplitude and resulted in a
steady state marina basin DO of 5.2 mg/1. Because the basin will
be dug out of high ground, the 1.0 gm/M"=-day for sediment oxygen
demand may be representative. We are currently designing a
marina study to better quantify this and other important
parameters. In the absence of this study, the proposed Broad
Reach Marina meets our criteria for protecing dissolved oxygen.
However, because sediment oxygen demand appears to be such an
important parameter, we recommend the permit include a condition
to require periodic dissolved oxygen monitoring and subsequent
mitigative actions should violations be documented.
Attachment 1
1'X 1'()N / /.U(;("I I I NO
November 28, 1987
BROAD REACH MARINA - CARTERET COUNTY, N.C.
Dissolved Oxygen Projections (mg/1)
Computer Run Summary
Steady State DO (c2)
Case CA Min. Max. Avg.

R-1 6.4 5.47
- 6.2 5. 4 5.28
- 6.0 5.09 5.22 D. J.0
R-4 5.8 4.98 5.09 5.04
R-5 5.6 4.86 4.97 4.94
R-6 5.4 4.75 4.84 4.80
R-7 5.2 4.64 4.71 4.68
Note (1) C2 MIN drops by 0.11 mg/1 for each 0.2 mg/1 drop in
ambient DO.
(2) CA is only parameter that varies from one run to
next.

R-1
C
November 28,1987
Broad Reach Marina
Dissolved Oxygen Projections (mg/1)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
T
R-2
0.4
6.2
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
b.
6.
C
5.
5.
5.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
T
' November 28, 1987
• Broad Reach Marina
Dissolved Oxygen Projections (mg/1)
aitttjt?ta**** 2 BASINS - RZ ******* *****************?t*
Changed vari es: _ . , Al=3730, A2=186509 CA=6.2
N N18 N2B
1960 25 50
DT CRA RB SOD AL CA CS TC
.10 2.03 37.00 '4.17 .80 6.20 6.18 12.40
A Al A2 HI H2 C1 C2
33.60 3730.00 18650.00 153.00 153.00 6.18 6.18
TP A21 RI R2
.5067 5.0000 .0074 .0030
T C1N C2N
1.0000 6.1609 6.1518
2.0000 6.1449 6.1266
3.0000 6.1228 6.1023
4.0000 6.0920 6.0778
5.0000 6.0591 6.0527
6.0000 6.0263 6.0260
7.0000 5.9937 5.9970
8.0000 5.9599 5.9654
9.0000 5.9239 5.9321
10.0000 5.9141 5.8989
11.0000 5.9752 5.8721
12.0000 6.0418 5.8594
13.0000 6.0811 5.8559
14.0000 6.0945 5.8517
15.0000 6.0872 5.8401
16.0000 6.0528 5.8197
17.0000 5.9755 5.7980
18.0000 5.8847 5.7752
19.0000 5.8086 5.7506
20.0000 5.7531 5.7238•
21.0000 5.7111 5.6952
22.0000 5.6867 5.6660
23.0000 5.7821 5.6421
24.0000 5.9198 5.6375
25.0000 6.0134 5.6503
26.0000 6.0574 5.6644
27.0000 6.0672 5.6677
28.0000 6.0484 5.6545
29.0000 5.9662 5.6348
30.0000 5.8382 5.6145
31.0000 5.7199 5.5929
32.0000 5.6360 5.5694
33.0000 5.5813 5.5440

i
34.0000 5.5436 5.5174
35.0000 5.6077 5.4933
36.0000 5.7886 5.4869
37.0000 5.9380 5.5057
38.0000 6.0183 5.5331
39.0000 6.0487 5.5507
40.0000 6.0446 5.5490
41.0000 5.9869 5.5313
42.0000 5.8483 5.5125
43.0000 5.6963 5.4928
44.0000 5.5810 5.4716
45.0000 5.5080 5.4485
46.0000 5.4626 5.4240
47.0000 5.4698 5.3998
48.0000 5.6515 5.3873
49.0000 5.8504 5.4034
50.0000 5.9728 5.4379
51.0000 6.0280 5.4677
52.0000 6.0398 5.4785
53.0000 6.0115 5.4663
54.0000 5.8883 5.4486
55.0000 5.7170 5.4302
56.0000 5.5707 5.4105
57.0000 5.4748 5.3892
58.0000 5.4175 5.3662
59.0000 5.3855 5.3426
60.0000 5.5184 5.3245
61.0000 5.7487 5.3320
62.0000 5.9168 5.3668
63.0000 6.0021 5.4056
64.0000 6.0322 5.4285
65.0000 6.0241 5.4264
66.0000 5.9380 5.4093
67.0000 5.7658 5.3918
68.0000 5.5936 5.3733
69.0000 5.4714 5.3532
70.0000 5.3981 5.3316
71.0000 5.3552 5.3088
72.0000 5.4056 5.2875
73.0000 5.6351 5.2841
74.0000 5.8471 5.3130
75.0000 5.9684 5.3565
76.0000 6.0201 5.3900
77.0000 6.0275 5.4000
78.0000 5.9822 5.3861
79.0000 5.8292 5.3692
80.0000, 5.6410 5.3515
81.0000 5.4915 5.3325
82.0000 5.3981 5.3118
83.0000 5.3443 5.2898
84.0000 5.3308 5.2676
85.0000 5.5171 5.2549
86.0000 5.7616 5.2729
87.0000 5.9238 5.3159
88.0000 6.0019 5.3577
89.0000 6.0262 5.3793
90.0000 6.0104 5.3733
91.0000 5.8951 5.3567
92.0000 5.7054 5.3396
93.0000 5.5313 5.3214
94.0000 5.4141 5.3017
95.0000 5.3460 5.2805
96.0000 5.3073 5.2584
.97.0000 5.4083 5.2397
98.0000 5.6611 5.2447
99.0000 5.865' 5.2818
100.0000 5.9757 5.3285
101.0000 6.0195 5.3605
102.0000 6.0202 5.3663
103.0000 5.9530 5.3508
104.0000 ,5.7791 5.3342
105.0000 5.5874 5.3166
106.0000 5.4445 5.2977
107.0000 5.3583 5.2773
108.0000 5.3096 5.2556
109.0000 5.3265 5.2344
110.0000 5.5506 5.2273
111.0000 5.7916 5.2538
112.0000 5.9392 5.3010
113.0000 6.0065 5.3417
114.0000 6.0233 5.3592
115.0000 5.9945 5.3493
116.0000 5.8539 5.3329
117.0000 5.6564 5.3158
118.0000 5.4885 5.2976
119.0000 5.3806 5.2779
120'.0000 5.3190 5.2567
121.000 5.2877 5.2349
122.000 5.4411 5.2194
123.000 5.7011 5.2323
124.000 5.8899 5.2751
125.0000 5.9859 5.3217
126.000 6.0207 5.3501
127.000 6.0140 5.3506
128.000 5.9216 5.3343
129.000 5.7335 5.3176
130.000 5.5454 5.300
131.000 5.4129 5.2810
132.000 5:3351 5.2604
133.000 5.2915 5.2388
134.000 5.3486 5.2189
135.0000 5.5970 5.2181
136.00 5.8253 5.2517
137.000 5.9558 5.3005
138..000 6.0118 5.3382
139.000 6.0208 5.3506
140.0000 5.9743 5.3374
141.000 5.8128 5.3210
142.0000 5.6137 5.3039
143.0000 5.4559 5.2855
144.0000 5.3582 5.2656
145.0000 5.3031 5.2443
146.0000 5.2909 5.2229
147.0000 5.4874 5.2114
148.0000 5.7439 5.2319
149.0000 5.9138 5.2784
150.0000 5.9957 5.3233
151.0000 6.0216 5.3469
152.0000 6.0062 5.3417
153.0000 5.8871 5.3255
154.0000 5.6905 5.3087
155.0000 5.5101 5.2909
156.0000 5.3892 5.2717
157.0000 5.3196 5.2509
158.0000 5.2808 5.2293
159.0000 5.3860 5.2112
160.0000 5.6468 5.2175
161.0000 5.8576 5.2567
162.0000 5.9710 5.3055
163.0000 6.0163 5.3392
164.0000 6.0175 5.3459
165.0000 5.9492 5.3306
166.0000 5.7713 5.3141
167.0000 5.5752 5.2968
168.0000 5.4292 5.2782
169.0000 5.3415 5.2580
170.0000 5.2924 5.2367
171.0000 5.3104 5.2158
172.0000 5.5393 5.2094
173.0000 5.7851. 5.2370
174.0000 5.9355 5.2856
175.0000 6.0041 5.3276
176.0000 6.0215 5.3459
177.0000 5.9926 5.3362
178.0000 5.8501 5.3199
179.0000 5.6495 5.3030
180.0000 5.4793 5.2850
181.0000 5.3700 5.2654
182.0000 5.3079 5.2445
183.0000 5.2767 5.2229
184.0000 5.4324 5.2076
185.0000 5.6958 5.2212
186.0000 5.8869 5.2649
187.0000 5.9841 5.3123
188.0000 6.0194 5.3413
189.0000 6.0129 5.3420
190.0000 5.9197 5.3259
191.0000 5.7298 5.3093
192.0000 5.5400 5.2918
193.0000 5.4063 5.2729
194.0000 5.3280 5.2524
195.0000 5.2843 5.2309
196.0000 5.3423 5.2111

PROCEDURES TO EVALUATE DISSOLVED OXYGEN IMPACTS
FROM MARINAS
Effective November 1, 1986, the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) determined that newly created areas of tidal
saltwater which are connected to Class SA waters by approved
dredging projects will be classified "SC" unless case-by-case
reclassification proceedings are conducted. The primary intent
of this action was to encourage the construction of marina basins
in dug-out areas of high ground as opposed to locating them in
areas of SA waters not having a shellfish resource The EMC felt
that the newly created dug-out marina basin would provide better
environmental protection than a marina located directly in SA
waters.
Initial evaluations of some proposed sites indicated the
possibility of dissolved oxygen problems, depending upon the
analysis techniques that were used. However, it was also
apparent that the overwhelming factor influencing dissolved
oxygen (besides tidal flushing) was the sediment oxygen demand.
The number of boats assumed to discharge in the basin was a minor
factor. Hence, the projected impact is actually caused by.the
hydrologic modification of the area (the basin construction) as
opposed to pollution from the operation of the facility. Afield
study is being initiated to better quantify the various factors
influencing dissolved oxygen in a marina. Un.til..thi.s:study is
completed, the following procedure will be utilized -to -evaluate
,marinas with respect to dissolved oxygen:
1. Ambient dissolved oxygen will be determined as an
average, over several years if availahl_e, of "summer
time" conditions (May through September) of the most
representative water quality monitoring station(s).
Attachment 3
Bogue Sound at Emerald Isle
Station 0209270940
. Dissolved
Date Time Oxygen (m g/1)
82/05/17 153.0 0 7.4
82/06/29 1150 0 6.3
82/07/20 1135 0 4.0 5.8
82/08/30 1300 0 6.1
82/09/27 1135 0 5.1
82/10/20 0900 0 6.6
82/11/17 0930 0 7.9
82/12/13 1030 0 9.0
83/01/18 0925 0 10.0
33/02/2'2 1000 0 9.0
83/03/28 1300 0 9.0
83/04/18 0945 0 6.4
83/05/26
' 0930 0 5.9
83/06/1
6 0930 0 5.8
83/07/18 1030 0 3.8 4.9
83/08/09 1155 0 5.2
83/09/0.7 1015 0 4.0
83/10/04 1300 0 5.6
33/11/16 1020 0 7.6
33/12/05 '1330 0 7.1
84/01/23 1130 0 10.6
84/02/27 1000 0 8.2
84/03/15 1135 0 8.3
84/04/26 1010 0 8.e
84/05/22 1545 0 9.4
34/06/28 1100 0 7.6
84/07/30 1445 0 5.5 7.4
84/0,8/30 1130 0 6.9
84/09/27 1445 0 7.6
84/12/03 1615 0 10.0
85/01/29 1430 0 10.5
85/02/14 1200 0 12.3
85/03/07 1210 0 10.2
85/04/04 1420 0 8.2
85/05/21 1250 0 6.8
85/06/25 1130 0 6.0
85/07/10 1230 0 6.7 6.4
85; 08/28 . 1240 0 5.8
85/09/25 1230 0 6.6
85/10/08 1450 0 7.7
85/11/13 1145 0 6.8
85/12/10 1500 0 8.4
86/01/39 1210 0 10.1
86/02/18 1156 Ci 9.1
86/03/26 1420 0 8.9
86/04/30 1410 0 6.9
86/05/21 1425 0 6.7
86/07/23 1235 0 5.4 '6.9
86;08/07 1430 0 7.0
86/09/18 1615 0 6.9
86/10/29 1410 0 7.0
Summer Average 6.2
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 22, 1988
TO: Bill Mills
FROM: Michael F. Williams
THROUGH: A. Preston Howard, Jr.
SUBJECT: Stormwater Review
Broad Reach Marina
Project #880208
Carteret County
OPT
This office has reviewed the proposed Broad Reach marina for
Stormwater control. The developers propose to construct 2-125
slip marina complexes including a dry stack storage building, 3
boat ramps, fueling facilities, a ship's store, bulkheads,
walkways, docks and 2 septic tank/sub-surface disposal systems to
provide pump-out service at each marina basin. The proposed
project is located along N.C. Highway 24, near the community of
Ocean, N.C. adjacent to Bogue Sound, classified SA, and currently
open to shellfish harvesting.
Mr. Larry Zucchino submitted revised plans received 2/17/88,
indicating that the proposed development would meet the density
limitations of less than 250. Our calculations indicate that the
built upon surface area will be approximately 150. Plans
indicate that roads will not have curb and gutter, and other than
boat ramps and wooden walkways, the built upon areas will be at
least 30 feet from mean high water. The proposed project
(Density Submittal Form and Site Development Plan attached) meets
the requirements of 15 NCAC 2H.1000.
This office no has objection to the stormwater management aspects
of the plan proposed.
If you have any questions, please advise.
MFW:kc
cc: WiRO, CF
? ?. STATE 4
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Wilmington Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MMAGII4ENT
February 18, 1988 IV
FER 2 2 1988
Mr. Larry Zucchino
Paton/Zucchino & Associates, Inc. .-.;
17 Glenwood Avenue RATl0 N S r,-
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Subject: Determination of Compliance
with Stormwater Regulations
Project # 880208
Broad Reach Marina
Carteret County
Dear Mr. Zucchino:
The Wilmington Regional office received your Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Plan (or Stormwater Management Plan) submittal
for the subject project on February 17, 1988. Based on our
review of the project documents, we have determined that the
project complies with the Stormwater Regulations set forth in
Title 15 NCAC 2H.1000.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
A. PRESTON HOWARD, A
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Regional Engineer
APH:kc
cc: Bill Mills
W? ,
7225 Wrightsville Avenue, Wilmington, N.C. 28403-3696 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
y a?STA7Zo
•C[o- auM VdN
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Wilmington Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MMAGF14ENT
February 18, 1988
Mr. Larry Zucchino
Paton/Zucchino & Associates, Inc.
17 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Subject: Determination of Compliance
with Stormwater Regulations
Project # 880208
Broad Reach Marina
Carteret County
Dear Mr. Zucchino:
The Wilmington Regional office received your Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Plan (or Stormwater Management Plan) submittal
for the subject project on February 17, 1988. Based on our
review of the project documents, we have determined that the
project complies with the Stormwater Regulations set forth in
Title 15 NCAC 2H.1000.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
me at [phone].
S' cerely,
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Regional Engineer
APH:kc
cc: Bill Mills
WiRO, CF
7225 Wrightsville Avenue, Wilmington, N.C. 28403-3696 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
t
5.14 T"
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATIO ``
1832 J Bell Lane (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570 • (919) 393-818504<'
C- V 6??
December 31, 1987
tIV
J61,?a.s? ' t 'r
Colonel Paul Woodbury
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ?.
P. O. Box 1890 FEB 2 1968
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
..;rsl e
Dear Colonel Woodbury: EIC°??` 1
Thank you for the letter sent by Charlie Hollis..on December 17
1987 in regard to our request that the Broad Reach project be
withdrawn for the CAMA General Permit and that a public hearing
be held on this project. I would like to reiterate that
request once again, and also ask that you require an
Environmental Impact Statement for this major federal action.
The proposed Broad Reach project involves 278 acres; the
dredging of two access channels; two marina basins containing
250 slips; a 340 slot dry stack marina; a clubhouse with pool
and sales; and multi-family and single family residential
units.
This is not the type of project that should be reviewed under a
general permit. The Corps is authorized to issue general
permits only for activities that: (a) are similar in nature;
(b) will cause minimal adverse environmental effects when
performed separately; and (c) will result in minimum cumulative
adverse effects on the environment. This proposed project does
not meet any of these criteria.
The Carteret County Planning Department and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service have both commented that this project should
not be evaluated solely on the basis of site-scale impacts, but
also with respect to the cumulative impacts of development on
Bogue Sound. The Fish and Wildlife Service stated in their
December 11, 1987 letter to you that "we are presently to the
point whereby additional habitat loss and disturbance of the
estuarine environment can no longer be tolerated if Bogue Sound
is to be spared the severe environmental problems that plague
Chesapeake Bay and Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds."
In commenting on this proposal, over 120 shellfishermen have
objected to this project stating that they use the waters
adjacent to this site for clamming. The Environmental
9
r
Protection Agency continues to have serious concerns about the
project's effect of water quality as well.
It is vital that you carefully evaluate whether or not this
proposed project is in the public interest. For a project that
is generating this much public and agency concern, we believe
that it is necessary for you to fully employ all opportunities
available to you to gather and analyze the information needed
to make permit decisions. This should include requiring an
Environmental Impact Statement so that cumulative impacts can
be thoroughly evaluated, and providing the public with hearings
to participate in that process.
We respectively request that you remove this project for the
CAMA General Permit Process and that you require that an EIS be
completed. We would appreciate a detailed response to our
request, including an explanation of why (or why not) this
project fits the criteria for activities that can be regulated
with a general permit.
Thank you for carefully considering this request.
Sincerely,.
T? At.,Y?
Todd Miller
Executive Director
cc: Federal and State Review Agencies
Attachments:
Letter from Carteret County Planning Department
Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Petition signed by Shellfishermen
Letters Submitted by Coastal Federation Commenting on Project

PLANNING COMMISSION
GO
, ? ;! 2. Z T rR E T C O m-mvY
P. O. DRAWER 630
BEAUFORT, N. C. 28516
21 December 1987
David Owens, Director
N.C. Division 'of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Owens:
The Carteret County Planning Department would like to briefly
comment on the Broad Reach Investments Company proposal to
develop a 278 acre site (133 acres covered in the current
application) off N.C. 24 near Ocean. This letter will to Tome
extent reiterate statements made by the department during eariier
stages of the planning/proposal process.
In short, there are positive aspects to this project related to
the organized, coordinated development of valuable residential
acreage, as opposed to incremental, piecemeal development. How-
ever, there are serious concerns as to the water quality impacts
of the proposed marina and inconsistency with the Carteret County
Land Use Plan.
Clearly the proposed 250-slip marinas pose a severe water quality
threat to valuable shellfish waters. This is of great concern to
Carteret County, given the number of shellfish closures we
already endure and the enormous stresses Bogue Sound is currently
under. I believe the Bogue Sound system--and the commercial and
recreational fishery it supports--is currently at a threshold. If
we do not soon begin to control the cumulative impacts of
nearshore development and halt the destruction and degradation of
aquatic and wetland habitats, Bogue Sound will soon begin to show
exponential declines (as opposed to the recent linear declines)
in productivity and resource value. While some graphic model
results provided by the applicant show favorable results with
regard to dissolved oxygen and flushing times, experience and
common sense make it clear that the proposed marinas are likely
to result in the closure of nearby shellfish waters.
Applicants do make allusions to stormwater control measures, but
these are unspecified and cannot be evaluated. Details of the
proposed pollution mitigation and stormwater control plan are
critical for evaluation of this application. There is no evidence
in the application that pollutants other than DO (especially
1
CARTERET COUNTY COURTHOUSE
fecal coliform bacteria) have been considered. Given the nature
of the proposed development and the nearshore environment, it is
also a virtual certainty that benthic sediments would accumulate
significant concentrations of heavy metals and synthetic organic
pollutants. This is also not addressed. Overboard waste disposal
from vessels, the major source of bacterial pollution associated
with marinas, is not and cannot be modeled.
Runoff and septic tank leachate from the residential areas also
pose a threat. For that reason adequate shoreline setbacks should
be instituted. While the applicant indicates no shoreline erosion
in the last 12 months, given the geomorphic setting of the
property and the current rise in sea level, it is unrealistic to
expect this non-erosion to continue. This should also be
considered.
In short, with regard to water quality impacts of the project,
the Planning Department feels that: (1) This is a poor site for a
marina;(2) applicants have not provided sufficient information
for evaluating water quality impacts; (3) the proposed marina
appears to be inconsistent with the goals of both Carteret County
and the CAMA program; and (4) with or without the marine
facilities, shoreline setbacks and stormwater management must be
carefully designed to minimize adverse impacts from storm runoff.
It is also my opinion that the marina and dry-stack aspects of
the project make it inconsistent with the "community"
classification which applies to this area under the Carteret
County CAMA Land Use Classification Map. The purpose of the
Community class is to provide "low intensity" residential and
commercial opportunities. Since the Community class does recog-
nize "clustered" land uses, the residential portion of the dev-
elopment is not inconsistent. However, the' marina and boat
storage facilities are clearly not low density uses. Therefore
the applicants should apply for a reclassification if they intend
to retain these intense land/water uses.
The proposed project does promote quality development which is,
in this unzoned area of the county, much preferable to many other
land use scenarios which could occur. There are many positive
aspects of the site planning, both in the original proposal and
in recent proposals to use restrictive covenants to protect
wetlands and forested areas. Retaining these positive aspects of
.the project while eliminating or reducing adverse environmental
impacts could result in the type of development Carteret County
welcomes.
In summary, the Carteret County Planning Department recommends
that:
(1) The wet boat slips should not be permitted if it is
determined that their construction will result in the closure of
shellfish waters.
(2) The project should be carefully evaluated with regard to
consistency with the "community" land use classification.
(3) Applicants should be required to provide further information
2
on water quality impacts and proposed mitigation procedures, and
should be encouraged to go to all reasonable lengths to control
adverse impacts on water and wetland resources.
(4) This application should not be evaluated solely on the basis
of site-scale impacts, but also with respect to the cumulative
impacts of development in the Bogue Sound watershed. We agree
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's assessment that
we are presently at the point whereby additional habitat loss and
disturbance of the estuarine environment can no longer be
tolerated if Bogue Sound is to be spared the severe environmental
problems that plague Chesapeake Bay and Pamlico and Albemarle
Sounds" (L.K. Gantt to USACOE, 11/12/87).
(5) In consideration of the comments above, some further scaling
down of the.project (possibly elimination of the wet boat slips)
seems in order. It appears possible in this case for a
substantial profit to be made without an unacceptable sacrifice
of natural resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me if
you require further information.
Sincerely,
4
Lynn R. Phillips
Planning Director
cc: Ken Windley, County Manager
Jim Mercer, Field Representative
3
United States Department of the Interior
aP~?` ?'/i l FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Division of Ecological Services
P. 0. Box 25039
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5039
December 11, 1987
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
This is the report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on Public
Notice SAWC088-N-016-0039 dated November 16, 1987 concerning a proposal by
Broad Reach Investments, Inc. to construct a residential development with
two marinas and other appurtenant facilities on land bordering Bogue Sound,
Sanders Bay and Sanders Creek near Ocean, Carteret County, North Carolina.
This is the report of the Service and the Department of the Interior and is
submitted in accordance with provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667e). It is to be used in your
determination of 404(b)(1) compliance (40 CFR 230) and your public interest
review (33 CFR 320.4) as they relate to protection of fish and wildlife
resources. This report supplements our previous report dated July 14, 1987
and addresses the modified work plan.
The project, as is presently proposed, will involve construction of two
marina basins with access channels; a dry stack boat storage facility; a
clubhouse, restaurant and inn; and 4 residential areas with single and
multi-family residences. Later phases of development call for additional
residential and commercial development on the 278 acre tract.
Direct habitat losses associated with the proposed plan include:
Excavation of estuarine, submerged, sand/mud bottom 89,600 sq. ft.
Excavation of regularly flooded (Spartina alterniflora) 1,050 sq. ft.
and irregularly flooded (Juncus roemerianus) wetlands
Excavation of palustrine forested wetlands undetermined
Filling of palustrine forested wetlands 3,000 sq. ft.
In addition to these direct wetland losses, the proposed project will
convert a large area, approximately 200 acres in size, of agricultural
fields and natural upland habitats to residential use. It may cause
shellfish harvest closure in an area of nearshore estuarine waters that
presently support shellfish harvest. A detailed description of the value of
the affected habitats is contained in our July 14, 1987 report.
Based on our review of the modified permit application, we recommend that
Department of the Army authorization not be granted in this case if EPA
determines that the proposed work will result in the closure of shellfish
harvest areas. We understand that studies to determine the extent of impact
in this regard have been performed by the applicant and that the study
results are being evaluated by the North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. In addition to this recommendation, we further recommend that any
Department of the Army permit issued in this matter be modified to contain
the following conditions:
1. No wetlands shall be filled;
2. The loss of vegetated wetlands through excavation shall be
offset through creation of similar replacement habitats;
3. Wetland creation shall be performed on a 2:1 replacement
basis and shall be approved, prior to construction, by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission;
4. An upland disposal site, adequate for containment of
dredged materials which will be removed from the access
channels and basins over the next 50 years, shall be
designated and set aside for this purpose; and
5. To offset forested wetland losses and other habitat losses
associated with encroachment into high quality wetland and
upland habitats, all forested wetlands shall be placed
within a permanent conservation easement. At a minimum,
this easement shall require that forested wetlands on the
applicant's property shall be maintained in their present
natural condition and shall not be cleared, harvested for
timber or otherwise altered in any manner which eliminates
or reduces the existing value of these wetlands to fish
and wildlife.
Finally, I wish to express our views concerning the need to address the
cumulative loss of habitat and degradation of water quality in Bogue Sound
in association with projects such as this. The Service is of the opinion
that we are presently at the point whereby additional habitat loss and
disturbance of the estuarine environment can no longer be tolerated if Bogue
Sound is to be spared the severe environmental problems that plague
Chesapeake Bay and Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds. Accordingly, we recommend
strongly that the Wilmington District and the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management begin to address the matter of cumulative impacts in
Bogue Sound and to investigate establishment of a long range plan of action
for authorization of future developmental activities in this area. In the
absence of such a plan, we seriously question the appropriateness of
authorization of any large scale development which may further degrade water
quality and eliminate public-owned fish and wildlife resources.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these recommendations. We would be
pleased to meet with you, your staff and the applicant if further discussion
of our recommendations is needed.
Sincerely yours,
rCi
L. K. (Mike) Gantt
Field Supervisor

We, the undersigned, clam either commercially or
recreationally in the waters of Bogus Sound between
channel marker 31 and 32. We object to the location of
any marina in or adjacent to this highly productive*
clamming area.
ADDRESS
a4
. 114 . I
70

??1??? --OK a,,5-,tA ///,? ?? P k
I
We, the undersigned, clam either commercially or
recreationally in the waters of Hogue Sound between
channel marker 31 and 32. We object to the location of
any marina in or adjacent to this highly productive'
clamming area.
n I DDREU
i
Iff3-'70

l

,P590*
.2 tC7d
c GPs
? ,4

Weikhe undersigned, clam either commercially or
recreationally in the waters of Bogue Sound between
channel marker 31 and 32. We object to the location of
any marina in or adjacent to this highly productive
clamming area.
,Oft
Z T S-9
A

r
b
C? It,
r
G
1?

We, the undersigned, clam either commercially or
recreationally in the waters of Bogus Sound between
channel marker 31 and 32. We object to the location of
any marina in or adjacent to this highly productive
clamming area.
DIANE ADDRESS
A -7 A J/-
K
iol-
11% --T

We, the undersigned, clam
recreationally in the watt
channel marker 31 and 32.
any marina in or adjacent
clamming area.
MAKE.
either commercially or
bra of Bogus Bound between
We object to the location of
to this highly productive'
ADDR8B8

?d
C.-I,

ti
We, the undersigned, clam
recreationally in the wati
channel marker 31 and 32.
any marina in or adjacent
clamming area.
x"S
V
y ,
either commercially or
its of Bogus Sound between
We object to the location of
to this highly productive'

... .:'4'67• . .•?•

CJF ?' ., .

NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
1932 J Bell L wo (ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570 • (919) W"185
1987
David W. Owens
Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
RE: Broad Reach,Marina Permit Application
Dear Dave:
In talking with Pres Pate last week at the CRC meeting he
informed me that the public notice on the Broad Reach project
was published a while back. It must had slipped by me. Please
consider these comments in response to the public notice for
the new application submitted by Broad Reach Investments.
The Coastal Federation supports the concept of using covenant
deed restrictions to allow for preservation of all of the 404
wetlands located on the property. Furthermore, it is vital to
preserve the 5,700 lineal feet of shoreline along Bogue Sound
and Sanders Creek by designing adequate setbacks from the
shoreline to assure that bulkheading will never be necessary in
the years ahead. The shoreline at this site is eroding, but
that should not result in a problem for development if sighted
properly. We would suggest that annual erosion rates be
determined, and that a formula similar to that used for
oceanfront setbacks be utilized. This section of Bogue Sound
is extremely productive for shrimping. Preservation of the
marsh in all the years ahead is vital to maintain this existing
use of the adjacent public trust waters.
While the measures listed above should be incorporated into any
development that occurs on this property, the current
development proposal is inconsistent with state regulations and
provide insufficient site design details and commitments to be
properly evaluated. Locations of all lots to be platted and
structures to be constructed should be shown. Furthermore, it
is vital that an erosion and sedimentation plan be developed
for the entire development including how the spoil material
from excavated areas will be graded. Fill from the proposed
basins will certainly not fit in the spoil retention basins
that are shown in the application. Since stormwater controls
are now triggered by the sedimentation and erosion control
plan, and since an adequate stormwater plan must be designed to
determine if a CAMA permit can be issued, it is vital that the
sedimentation and erosion control plan for the project be
review at the same time as the CAMA permit.
David W. Owens
December 8, 1987
Page 2.
Although the project's size has been reduced to a small degree,
it will still result in degradation of water quality in Bogue
Sound and violations of water quality standards. Please review
our earlier letter on this project and consider it as part of
our comments for your current permit review.
In addition, the current permit application is still
inconsistent with the Carteret County Land Use Plan. As stated
by the county in its July 21, 1987 letter in regard to the
earlier permit application, "the site plan should also be
evaluated in terms of consistency with the "Community"
classification.". A commercial marina and dry stack as well as
a centralized sewage treatment system should trigger a
reclassification request for this area as the county requested.
Given that the marina is obviously a integral component of a
much larger development plan, the permit should not be
considered adequate until a complete site design is provided.
The marina and dry. dock is still scaled to service much more
than the associated residential development currently proposed
for the site. A total of 590 boat slips are proposed for
"approximately 300 anticipated" residential units according to
the application. The application states that the typical boat
length will be under 25 feet. Why are wet slips necessary at
all given that such boats can easily be stored in a dry stack?
The Marina Policy of the North Carolina Division of Health
Services will result in the closure of open SA shellfish waters
outside the entrance canals which is a violation of water
quality standards.
We are still in the process of evaluating the marina modeling
study submitted with the permit application. The model does
not predict bacteria violations which is the most important
consideration in this location. Furthermore, as is stated in
EPA's marina assessment handbook and by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, intermittent sewage discharges from boats can
not be modeled or monitored with routine sampling. That is the
basis for the automatic closure policy instituted by Health
Services.
Previous letters and petitions that have been submitted in
response to the earlier public notice should continue to be
considered. In particular, the petition documents that the
waters immediately adjacent to this project site are prime
clamming waters. This is an unsuitable location for
development of a marina.
Sincerely,
70-cu kalle"
Todd Miller
Executive Director
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
1832 J Bell Lane (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570 • (919) =4185
December 8, 1987
Paul Wilms, Director
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Paul:
Please consider the enclosed comment to the NC Division of
Coastal Management as our comment to you on the 401
certification for the Broad Reach project. Given the high
level of public concern about this project, we request that you
hold a public hearing as part of your review.
Sincerely, ,
Todd Miller
Executive Director
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
1832 J Bell Lane (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570 • [phone]
December 8, 1987
David Baker
US Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Baker:
Please consider the enclosed letters as our comments to you in
regard to the permit application by BROAD REACH INVESTMENTS
(SAWC088-N-016-0039).
This project has generated considerable public concern and
comment as is evidenced by the attached petition. This permit
application is not consistent with the general permit and
should receive full permit review by the Corps. We request
that a public hearing be held to allow local clammers and other
interested parties to comment directly to the Corps about this
permit review.
Please notify me immediately of any actions taken by your
office in regard to this permit application.
Sincerely,
Todd Miller
Executive Director

P 1'0N / 7UCCI IINO
October 20, 1987

Mr. Preston Pate
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Re: Broad Reach Marina Permit Application Revision
Dear Mr. Pate:

Please find attached a revised permit application and
development plans for the Broad Reach Marina. As a result of
numerous discussions and negotiations with state and federal
permit review agencies, Broad Reach Investments, Inc. has
made significant modifications to the permit request
originally submitted April 25, 1987. The modifications were
agreed to by the applicant to bring forth a workable plan
which minimizes potential environmental impacts on wetland
and shellfish resources.
The major programmatic and site plan changes are summarized
below:
1. The applicant has reduced the number of wet boat slips
by one-third, from 394 slips to 250 total slips. Also,
the number of boat basins has been reduced from three
interconnected basins to two separate 125 slip basins
each with a separate access channel. Fourty-five
commercial slips and 205 slips for residential use are
planned.
An optional access channel alignment for Basin A is
depicted on the site development plans. This alignment
would minimize the loss of coastal fringe marsh.
2. The proposed restaurant and inn have been withdrawn from
the current development program and replaced with an
interim residential use designation. Any future
commercial use ?proposed for the site may require a
change in the CAMA land use classification.

October 20, 1987
Broad Reach rarina
Page 2
Ni 3. The applicant has expressed a willingness to forego
the construction of individual piers or docks along
the shoreline of the property if the additional 100
private slips could be accommodated within the two
proposed marina basins. This would require the
permanent transfer of 100 slips, 50 slips to be
assigned to each basin for a total of 125 slips in
each basin.
4. The current DHS marina policy has a provision for
the consideration of design or technical proposals
to be approved in lieu of automatic closure. The
applicant proposes to accommodate the transfer of
100 allowable private dockage slips from the
shoreline into the two 125 `slip basins. The
proposed basins have been sited at a minimum
distance of 600 feet from SA waters, 175 feet
farther inland than the current policy might
otherwise require for this number of boat slips.
The extended physical separation will serve to
minimize the potential impact of the basins on the
adjacent SA waters.
5. Fourty-five commercial slips are planned for Basin A
in addition to the eighty private residential slips.
All 125 slips in basin B are for private residential
use. The commercial slips will be isolated and
managed in a separate area on the western section of
basin A. This area will be managed to allow only
the fourty-five designated slips to accommodate
transient use.
6. In summary, the applicant is proposing the
following: that an extended setback of both basins
to 600 feet from SA waters be allowed in lieu of the
automatic 100 foot closure for basins over 75 slips.
In this particular case, the permanent transfer of
100 individual piers from the shoreline to the
controlled upland basins would minimize long term
potential impact on shellfish resources. Fourty-
five commercial slips are planned for a controlled
section of Basin A.
r - PATON / ZUCCHINO
& ASSOCIATES, P.A.
I.*. (?I
6&vy- --
I?W5 03,4,t? aN.o( l?
'?-Owc N " fV4 &F
4D 44'?AJZ so WIOW""f- v 4ji(AA.
tV'f-
,,,(jtkAraW-,? 4
6M4-c gh 4co ?Uf
Mute poll?ai' t Will
avvr?,?, ? w?c ??
At(( A
Lan 2uu?'i.
Land Planning
Landscape Architecture
Cooper Square
17 Glenwood Ave.
Raleigh, N. C. 27603
919-834-8620

October 20, 1987
Broad Reach Marina
Page 3
The modified marina plans are attached for your review and
comment. We believe that the current proposal, with one-
third fewer slips than originally envisioned, isoreasonablt
in its layout, concept and program. Ultimately,
is for Division of Health Services to consider this marina
proposal on its own merits and to determine how best to
achieve a balance of providing reasonable boating access and
a prudent measure of protection for shellfish harvesting.
We look forward to your comments. einformat on too
contact me if you require any additional
clarification.
Sincerely,
Lawre ce R. Zucchino
Paton/Zucchino & Associates, P.A.
Attachment: Revised Broad Reach Marina Development Plans
cc: Carlton Midyette, Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
i

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
R EC E I V ED
DATE: December..30, 1987
TO: Bill Mills iAN 14 1988
operations Branch WATER QUALITY SECTION
OPERATIONS BRANCI-1
FROM: Chuck Wakil
Wilmington R gional Office
SUBJECT: Regional Office Review & Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Broad Reach Marina
Carteret County
The subject project has recently been amended to consist of two
high ground boat basins with 125 slips each, two access channels,
a dry stack storage facility, a clubhouse with pool and sales
office, and single and multi-family residential units.
Based on the Marina Policy of the Division of Health Services,
automatic closure of shellfish waters will occur in an area 100
feet outside the entrance canals. This area is presently open
for shellfishing and the general area, contains a significant
resource.
D.O. modeling submitted by the applicant predicts water quality
contraventions at some times of the year. This office feels that
the tidal amplitude used in the model may be unrealistic
resulting in values for flushing which may not be conservative
enough.
The project meets the current density guidelines for stormwater
control. Since new regulations go into effective January 1,
1988, it will be necessary to submit the form for projects using
density limits.
Since the subject project would result in violation of the
Antidegradation Statement, it is recommended that the project be
denied. If you have any questions, please so advise.
CW:EB:kc
cc: WiRO, CF
11
.4
TO: Bill Mills
Operations Branch
Division of Environmental Management
Use Attainability 'Analysis' or
Proposed Marina Projects in Class SA Waters
(Check all Appropriate Boxes or fill in Blanks)
Project Name C% C) Q '-t ap?2, r ?n Y--A? ctn "3ck 44
Section I. Project Description
A. ?New Marina Marina Expansion
B. ?New Basin (dug out of high ground)
(Include Specifications and Sketch)
Existing Basin Expansion
(Include Specifications and Sketch)
Natural Waters
Others (Please describe below)
C. Proposed No. Slips j /;z ps 2aGh
Existing No. Slips
D. ?Commercial Marina
Private Marina
Publicly Owned Marina
Other. ( Please describe below)
E. Description of Any Unique Characteristics or Operational
Proposals.
Section II. Existing Use Determination (for waters outside of marina basins)
A. Closure Status (Check One)
Open Waters
Closed Waters (By Data) Date Closed
Closed Waters (DHS Marina Policy)
i ?
I

B. Will the proposed project result in additional closed
acreage? (Please attached analysis showing calculations
for area of closure. )
?Yes No Not Clear
C. Does the area to be effected by any closure have significant
shellfish resources?
/Yes No Unknown
Briefly provide description of resource and any other
characteristics.
D. Has the area to be impacted by the proposed project been
available for shellfish harvesting and has shellfish harvesting
occurred since November 28, 1975?
Yes No Unknown
E. Is the entire area to be impacted by the proposed project
currently unavailable for shellfishing because of the DHS
Marina policy or other irretrievable man induced impact?
i
Yes No
If yes, briefly describe below.
Section Ill. Attainable Use Determination (To be completed only if the answer
to ILA A is Closed Waters (by Data), and if the answers to I I . C and
I I . D are N0-
A. What are the major sources of pollution causing the closure?
B. What actions are required to reduce or eliminate these existing
sources of pollution?

a

C. Can the areas be expected to be open for shellfishing given
reasonable efforts to control the existing sources of pollution?
Explain .
Section IV. Project Decision
A. Recommend Project Denial
There has been a recent shellfishing use (Answer to II. D
is Yes) and the area is not currently irretrievably closed
(answer to II. E is No).
OR
Shellfishing is a reasonably attainable use according to
Section III.
OR
Insufficient information (Answers to II. C and/or II. D are
Unknown)
B. Recommend Project Approval
There has not been a recent shellfishing use (Answer to
II. D is No) and shellfishing is not a reasonably attainable
use according to Section III.
OR
The entire area is irretrievably lost to shellfishing as a
result of the DHS policy or other irreversible man-inducted
impact (Answer to I I . E is Yes)
C. Conditions to be included in permit (check appropriately)
Pump-out Facilities Only boats w/o heads
Locked-head Policy
No Transient Docking
No Live-aboards
D. What additional information is required to make an informed
permit decision?

w
This analysis and recommendation has been prepared by the Wilmington Regional
office.
/a - 3° ' " Date
This evaluation of the attainability of shellfish uses in the waters in the vicinity
of g,J ao?rg so,? is approved by:
Water Quality Section Date
Director's Office Date
R. Paul Wilms
Director
4
-- ' OFFICE OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT Lat:76058144" N
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT Long:34042107"W
*REVISED APPLICATION PLANS:
1. Applicant's Name Broad Reach Investments, Inc./Broad Reach Marina
2. Location of project site Highway 24, West of Broad Creek, on
Bogue Sound, at red day beacon 32, at Sanders Creek, Carteret Co.
SEE AERIAL PHOTO 1984, STRIP #3. FRAME #1183 0 H-12
3. Investigation type: Dredge & Fill
X
CANA X
4. Investigative procedure:
(A) Dates of site visit 11-9-87
(B) Was applicant present NO
5. Processing procedure: Application received REVISED: 10-26-87
Office Morehead City
6. Site description: (A) Local Land Use Plan Carteret County
Land classification from LUP Community/Con'serv.
Development constraints identified in LUP NONE
(B) AEC(s) involved: Ocean Hazard Estuarine shoreline X
Coastal wetlands X Public trust waters X
Estuarine waters X Other
(C) Water dependent: Yes X No Other
(D) Intended use: Public X Private X Commercial X
(E) Type of waste water treatment: Existing NONE
Planned low pressure package plant
(F) Type of structures: Existing NONE
Planned
Personal
(G) Estimated annual rate of erosion 1-2 Source Observation
7. Habitat description:
AREA
(A) Vegetated Wetlands Dredged Filled Other
SEE ATTACHED
(B) Non-vegetated wetlands:
SEE ATTACHED
(C) Other:
(D) Total area disturbed:
8. Project summary: The applicant
tract of land near the Communi
Bog
mar
to develop a 278 acre
n, between Highway 24 and
cess channels; 2 separate
ity, a clubhouse with pool
ale and multi-familv use.
r
APPLICATION:
BROAD REACH INVESTMENTS, INC./BROAD REACH MARINA REVISED
(10/26/87)
(A) Vegetated Wetlands Dredged
Channel A
saltmarsh cordgrass (60x50) 3000 sq.ft. 0000 sq.ft.
threesquare bulrush
Channel B
saltmarsh cordgrass (70x15) 1050.sq.ft. 1050 sq.ft.
black needlerush
TOTAL 4050 sq.ft. 1050 sq.ft.
(B) Submerged Grass Beds Dredged
Channel A
eelgrass * 100 sq.ft. * 000 sq.ft.
shoalgrass
(C) Submerged Bottomland
Channel A
firm sand to soft mud 32000 sq.ft. **1600 sq.ft.
Channel B
firm sand to soft mud 88000 sq.ft. 88000 sq.ft.
(D) Highground Dredged
Basin #1 5.74 ac A - 3.41 ac
Basin #2 2.20 ac B - 2.75 ac
Basin #3 1.72 ac
Canal #1 .92 ac A - 1.10 ac
Canal #2 1.83 ac B - 1.10 ac
Canal #3 1.10 ac
13.51 ac
(E) Section 404 Wooded, Swamp, Filled
Sikes Branch (100x30) 3000 sq.ft. 3000 sq.ft.
* less than 20% bottom coverage
** an estimated based on Aerial Photos inspection and a shoreline survey.
9. STATEMENT: This report is an addendum to the DCM initial
bio-report distributed in June of 1987. Since that time,
processing of the original application has been on
administrative hold at the request of the applicant. This
has given the applicant time to develop alternative design
plans. Please review carefully the revised workplat
drawings and this report as it attempts to compare and
contrast the two different proposals and evaluate their
potential impacts on the environment.
The major site plan changes have eliminated one of the three
inter-connected boat basins and reduced the overall number
of wetslips from 394 to 250 slips. Each of the basins will
support 125 wetslips. The current proposal provides Basin A
with an alternative access channel alignment to be located
some 800' west of the original alignment. Item 7 of this
Field Report, under Habitat Description, lists the most
obvious changes and quickly shows the reviewer the reduction
in direct losses to the estuarine system by the newest
proposal.
For the purposes of this revised report, a
highground/shoreline site inspection was conducted on
November 9, 1987, and certain estimates were made. An
in-the-water, clam raking eelgrass field trip will be made
in the near future to confirm those estimates given in this
report. It would appear at this time that optional access
channel alignment to Basin A will eliminate the loss of some
3000 sq. ft. of saltmarsh cordgrass and threesquare. The
recent site visit revealed that the new shoreline location
to be void of coastal wetlands vegetation. It is a high
energy beach characterized by a 4' high bank of bleached
clam and oyster shell fragments. Deep water not requiring
dredging may come within 50' of this site and would
eliminate a large majority of those impacts associated with
the original alignment of Channel A where eelgrass beds and
clam habitat exists. Each of the new basins (A) and (B)
have been redesigned as to their size and shape to allow for
better flushing capabilities with Bogue Sound. Each of the
highground basins will be located 600' from the "SA" surface
waters of the sound. This increased separation may minimize
the potential impact.on water quality. Attached to this
Revised Field Report are copies of three different letters
written by the applicant's consultant, Mr. Larry Zucchino.
Although these letters are addressed to specific agency
representatives, it is believed that information in them
will facilitate the overall review of the revised project.
PREPARED BY: JAMES L. MERCER
DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1987
r
c?r?nn_a
r?
OCT 2 s s9s?
October 20, 1987 ----------------------
Mr. Preston Pate
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
PATON / ZUCCHINO
Re: Broad Reach Marina Permit Application Revision
Dear Mr. Pate:
Please find attached a revised permit application and
development plans for the Broad Reach Marina. As a result of
numerous discussions and negotiations with state and federal
permit review agencies, Broad Reach Investments, Inc. has
made significant modifications to the permit request
originally submitted April 25, 1987. The modifications were
agreed to by the applicant to bring forth a workable plan
which minimizes potential environmental impacts on wetland
and shellfish resources.
The major programmatic and site plan changes are summarized
below:
1. The applicant has reduced the number of wet boat slips
by one-third, from 394 slips to 250 total slips. Also,
the number of boat basins has been reduced from three
interconnected basins to two separate 125 slip basins
each with a separate access channel. Fourty-five
commercial slips and 205 slips for residential use are
planned.
An optional access channel alignment for Basin A is
depicted on the site development plans. This alignment
would minimize the loss of coastal fringe marsh.
2. The proposed restaurant and inn have been withdrawn from
the current development program and replaced with an
interim residential use designation. Any future.
commercial use proposed for the site may require a
change in the LAMA land use classification.
Laud I'lannin1r
Lmidwcalw Arc hilvom-11
C olovi. S(lu.u'l•
1 11?mru(, (l \N(•.
IIv Ii. N. C. :7003
OI1)-„31-1toD)
October 20, 1987
Broad Reach Marina
Permit Application Revision
Page 2
3. An amended water quality assessment has been prepared
for the new basin layout using a more sophisticated
modelling program recommended by EPA. The results for
projected dissolved oxygen concentrations and flushing
times are favorable.
4. The applicant has agreed to explore the use of covenant
deed restrictions to allow for future preservation of
large portions of the wooded wetlands located on the
property. There are on-going discussions with USFWS
concerning this issue.
As you are aware, the applicant has spent considerable time
producing technical reports, negotiating with agency
representatives and making significant revisions to the
project development plans over the past five months. Given
the time involved, it would be greatly appreciated if you
would make efforts to expedite the review process for this
new proposal. All of the agencies involved have been
contacted directly concerning the new proposal items and.
should be able to respond in a timely manner.
If you need any additional information or clarification
concerning the revised application, please do not hesitate to
contact me. I look forward to your comments.
Very Truly Yours,
L4vnl ?4&v(440
Lawrence R. Zucchino
Paton/Zucchino & Associates, P.A.
Attachments: Revised permit application
Revised development plans
Amended water quality assessment
cc: Mr. Carlton Midyette, Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
Mr. Steve Stroud, Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
Mr. John Parker, NCDCM
Mr. Dave Baker, USACOE
October 20, 1987
O CT 2 6 1987
----------------------
Mr. Robert Benton
NC Division of Health Services
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Dear Mr. Benton:
P;V1'ON/%UCCII[N0
As you are aware, Broad Reach Investments, Inc. has modified.
the size, layout and development program for the proposed
Broad Reach Marina in Carteret County. The modified plans are
attached for your review. The modifications were made as a
direct response to environmental studies and as ,a result of
comments and facts brought to our attention by state and
federal review agencies. The modified proposal is structured
to comply with the current Division of Health Services marina
policy.
There are, however, some extenuating circumstances associated
with this particular development proposal which you should
consider when preparing your review comments. I have
summarized the current development proposal below.
1. The applicant has reduced the number of wet boat
slips by one-third, from 394 slips in the initial
proposal to the current 250 slips. The development
program for Broad Reach will require 125 slips in
each basin. The number of boat basins has been
reduced from three interconnected basins to two
unconnected basins, each with a separate access
channel.
2. The Broad Reach property has over 5,500 feet of
waterfront which will support approximately 100
private piers on, individual lots. However, the
planning approach to the Broad Reach development is
to cluster and consolidate boat dockage in two well
designed and properly managed marina basins.
Clearly, the shellfish resources in Bogue Sound
would be better protected by eliminating the
prospect of 100 individual piers along this
extensive section of the soundfront. ! ! ?,, +
!L !rr li. \.1 IiI+.I
October 20, 1987
Broad Reach Marina
Page 2
3. The applicant has expressed a willingness to forego
the construction of individual piers or docks along
the shoreline of the property if the additional 100
private slips could be accommodated within the two
proposed marina basins. This would require the
permanent transfer of 100 slips, 50 slips to be
assigned to each basin for a total of 125 slips in
each basin.
4. The current DHS marina policy has a provision for
the consideration of design or technical proposals
to be approved in lieu of automatic closure. The
applicant proposes to accommodate the transfer of
100 allowable private dockage slips from the
shoreline into the two 125 slip basins. The
proposed basins have been sited at a minimum
distance of 600 feet from SA waters, 175 feet
farther inland than the current policy might
otherwise require for this number of boat slips.
The extended physical separation will serve to
minimize the potential impact of the basins on the
adjacent SA waters.
5. Fourty-five commercial slips are planned for Basin A
in addition to the eighty private residential slips.
All 125 slips in basin B are for private residential
use. The commercial slips will be isolated and
managed in a separate area on the western section of
basin A. This area will be managed to allow only
the fourty-five designated slips to accommodate
transient use.
6. In summary, the applicant is proposing the
following: that an extended setback of both basins
to 600 feet from SA waters be allowed in lieu of the
automatic 100 foot closure for basins over 75 slips.
In this particular case, the permanent transfer of
100 individual piers from the shoreline to the
controlled upland basins would minimize long term
potential impact on shellfish resources. Fourty-
five commercial slips are planned for a controlled
section of Basin A.
October 20, 1987
Broad Reach Marina
Page 3
The modified marina plans are attached for your review and
comment. We believe that the current proposal, with one-
third fewer slips than originally envisioned, is reasonable
in its layout, concept and program. Ultimately, our request
is for Division of Health Services to consider this marina
proposal on its own merits and to determine how best to
achieve a balance of providing reasonable boating access and
a prudent measure of protection for shellfish harvesting.
We look forward to your comments. Please feel free to
contact me if you require any additional information or
clarification.
Sincerely,
?0
L R. Zucchino
La
Paton/Zucchino & Associates, P.A.
Attachment: Revised Broad Reach Marina Development Plans
cc: Carlton Midyette, Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
Preston Pate, NCDCM
October 20, 1987
OCT 26 1987
0123- 101 Liu U I L-1 Mr. Dave Cotten

NC Division of Environmental Management
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Re: Amended Water Quality Assessment
for the Broad Reach Marina
Dear Dave:
I'Xt`0N / %UC(?I I NO
Broad Reach Investments, Inc. has made significant
modifications to the marina permit application initially
submitted April 25, 1987. These modifications (see attached
development plans) and a request by EPA to use a more
sophisticated water quality model ("WASP") necessitated an
amended water quality assessment. A narrative summary is
provided below and the input and output data for projected
dissolved oxygen (DO) levels is attached.
A time dependent model, described below, was utilized to
determine the effect of the Broad Reach marina basins on the
waters of Bogue Sound.
The development is considered to have two components, a
channel connecting the sound to the marina and the marina
proper. The net volume of fluid flowing into (or out of)
each section per unit time is simply the planer area of each
section times the rate at which sea level rises (or falls).
With the volume flow from the sound into the connecting
channel, and the channel into the marina, a known function of
DO is computed taking into account the net transport of DO
into or out of each section from adjacent sections and the
local processes of reaeration, sediment oxygen demand, and
boat use.
The time dependent model is based on the approach taken in
the WASP model developed -in EPA and takes into account the
particular geometry of the proposed marina basins. Since the
time it would take a long wave to travel from the channel
soundfront entrance to the most distant point in the marina
is only two thousandths of a tidal period, the water level in
the marina is nearly constant and rises and falls with the
tide.
I.,uul I'I:niniu"
I .unl-? al??• 1r? i?il?•? li?r?•

October 20, 1987
Amended Water Quality Assessment
Page 2
Two cases were examined, both of which apply equally to Basin
A and Basin B as depicted in the development proposal.
First, the initial value of DO assumed in the marina was
taken to be that in the sound proper (6.4 mg/1). The initial
effects of sediment oxygen demand and boat use degraded the
value to 5.63 mg/l in 48 hours. Through the remaining six
days the value of DO never fell below 5.46 mg/1. The effects
of flushing and reaeration work to balance the effects of DO
consumption.
Second, a low initial DO condition (4.5 mg/1) specified in
the marina was alleviated through the action of flushing and
reaeration overcoming the poor initial conditions as well as
the negative effects of sediment oxygen demand and boat use
in a matter of 25 hours, i.e., the DO level assumed initially
at 4.5 mg/l brought up to 5.04 mg/1 in 25 hours and reached a
level of 5.4 mg/1 in an additional fifty hours. The value of
DO never fell below 5.4 for the duration of the run.
The results show that the connecting channels in general has
higher DO (C1N) than does the marina proper, since it is
adjacent to higher DO sound waters which enter on a rising
tide. The marina basin values (C2N) are lower than the
channels but still lie within the acceptable range showing a
fluctuation range of 0.15 mg/1 in the "steady state" tidal
cycle.
In summary, the study reveals the following findings for
flushing and steady state dissolved oxygen levels in the
basins and connecting channels:
1. The average flushing time that is required to flush out
900 of any pollutant at any location in the proposed
Broad Reach marina system is 3.7 days or about seven
tidal cycles.
2. The average summer dissolved oxygen concentration in the
marina system will be in excess of 5.4 mg/1 (steady
state) even given hot, salty water and a heavily used
marina.
3. The results from the water quality assessment
demonstrates that there is sufficient flushing and
reaeration to prevent any long term water quality
degradation in the proposed Broad Reach Marina basins.
October 20, 1987
Amended Water Quality Assessment
Page 3
Please feel free to contact our office if you require any
further data or clarification during your review. We would
be receptive to scheduling a working session with you if it
would be helpful.
Sincerely,
Lawren a R. Zucchino
Paton/Zucchino & Assocation, P.A.
Attachments: Amended Water Quality Assessment
Site Development Plans
cc: Mr. Carlton Midyette, Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
Mr. Lee Pelej, EPA
Mr. Preston Pate, NCDCM
&top .
i`
s

W
C
m
e
i,

i
i
4
a
1 1
C°

o
f
I r IA
3 r 0
I =
Y I 1
---------------------- _
.1 ?
f) z ? /
a 1 f
i :.? I I 1
i 1
I 1 f
I ?? f
I
IL 1 ;
I ;
1O ? 1
1
%
I I ' n• n •• r\'f
2 n n '' ' n ? ? \ \?G? 1
I i I
m f?
%
? ? f
O CT 2 6 1987
wwwwwwwww?wwww?ww. ?r,?w?
Key to Input Data
Broad Reach Marina
APPENDIX A
N1B/N2B Number of Boat Hours
CRA Reareation Coefficient
SOD Sediment Oxygen Demand
CA Ambient Dissolved Oxygen
Concentration (mg/1)
CS Ambient Dissolved Oxygen
Concentration (mg/1)
TC Tidal Cycle in Hours
A Tidal Amplitude (1/2 of
tidal range) in CM
H1/H2 Basin Depth in CM
C1/C2 Initial Dissolved Oxygen
Concentration (mg/1)
BROAD REACH MARINA BASINS
Case 1 - Ambient Dissolved Oxygen at Initial 6.4 mg/1
6.4
CiN (Connecting Channels)
6.2
00
6
G 6.0
v
Oo
K
0
V 5.8
0
y
0
a
5:6
5.4
C2N
(Basins)
Study State Range
Dissolved Oxygen
5.5 to 5.65 mg/1
U zu 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time (hours)
BROAD REACH MARINA BASINS
Case 2 - Ambient Dissolved Oxygen at Initial 4.5 mg/l
6.4
CM (Connecting Channels)
6.2
.. 6.0
bo 5.8
w 5.6
00
0 5.4
b
> 5.2
r-q
0
5.0
ca
4.8
C2N (Basins)
4.6
4.4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Steady State Range
Dissolved Oxygen
5.4 to 5.55 mg/1
Time (hours)
z
H
Ri
x
U
a
d
a
Oa
rn
z
H
U3
PO
Qi
z
H
z
H
C7
z
H
x
co
x
a
w
H
z
H
H
z
0
U
J
dk'

a-
A
V
I
4
N
0
W
J
V

? p o O O O
/Yal11r??/1/Y?ONo? ?'i1 it d7?a/
October 20, 1987
Projected Dissolved Oxygen Data
Case 1 - Broad Rdach Marina
***+t********* 2 BASINS - J *************************
Changed variables: CA=CS=C1=C2=6.4, A=33.6
N NIB N2B
1960 15 30
DT CRA RB SOD AL CA CS TC
.1 2.03 37.0 4.17 .8 6.4 6.4 12.4
A Al A2 H1 H2 C1 C2
33.6 3730.0 18650.0 153.0 153.0 6.4 6.4
TP A21 R1 R2
.5067 5.0000 .0044 .0018
-----------
T ---- - -----
C1N
- -
C2N
------------

1.0000
6.3756 --
6.3727
2.0000 6.3581 6.3481
3.0000 6.3374 6.3248
4.0000 6.3103 6.3014
5.0000 6.2815 6.2774
6.0000 6.2522 6.2519
7.0000 6.2220 6.2239
8.0000 6.1902 6.1935
9.0000 6.1563 6.1612
10.0000 6.1460 6.1291
11.0000 6.1993 6.1031
12.0000 6.2582 6.0903
13.0000 6.2931 6.0860
14.0000 6.3051 6.0814
15.0000 :: 6.2987 6.0700
16.0000 6.2676 6.0506
17.0000 6.1965 6.0299
18.0000 6.1121 6.0081
19.0000 6.0409 5.9846
20.0000 5.9884 5.9588
21.0000 5.94B8 5.9311
22.0000 5.9261 5.9027
23.0000 6.0142 5.8797
24.0000 6.1415 5.8750
25.0000 6.2282 5.8866
26.0000 6.2692 5.8996
27.0000 6.2787 5.9024
28.0000 6.2621 5.8899
29.0000 6.1858 5.8713
30.0000 6.0656 5.8519
31.0000 5.9537 5.8312
32.0000 5.8742 5.8086
33.0000 5.8222 5.7841
34.0000 5.7869 5.7584
35.0000 5.8472 5.7351
36.0000 6.0165 5.7288
37.0000 6.1563 5.7465
38.0000 6.2317 5.7722
39.0000 6.2606 5.7888
40.0000 6.2576 5.7872
41.0000 6.2043 5.7704
42.0000 6.0737 5.7527
43.0000 5.9297 5.7339
44.0000 5.8201 5.7135
45.0000 5.7506 5.6913
46.0000 5.7076 5.6676
47.0000 5.7149 5.6442
48.0000 5.8860 5.6322
49.0000 6.0730 5.6474
50.0000 6.1883 5.6800
51.0000 6.2405 5.7084
52.0000 6.2523 5.7187
53.0000 6.2268 5.7072
54.0000 6.1109 5.6904
55.0000 5.9485 5.6729
56.0000 5.8093 5.6541
57.0000 5.7178 5.6336
58.0000 5.6633 5.6115
59.0000 5.6335 5.5886
60.0000 5.7593 5.5711
61.0000 5.9765 5.5783
62.0000 6.1350 5.6114
63.0000 6.2157 5.6483
64.0000 6.2446 5.6701
65.0000 6.2381 5.6683
66.0000 6.1575 5.6521
67.0000 5.9944 5.6355
68.0000 5.8306 5.6178
69.0000 5.7139 5.5986
70.0000 5.6440 5.5778
71.0000 5.6036 5.5557
72.0000 5.6518 5.5351
73.0000 5.8687 5.5319
74.0000 6.0689 5.5594
75.0000 6.1836 . 5.6009
76.0000 6.2329 5.6328
77.0000 6.2406 5.6424
78.0000 6.1990 5.6293
79.0000 6.0544 5.6133
80.0000 5.8754 5.5965
81.0000 5.7328 5.5783
82.0000 5.6436 5.5585
83.0000 5.5924 5.5373
84.0000 5.5803 5.5157
85.0000 5.7567 5.5035
86.0000 5.9879 5.5207
87.0000 6.1412 5.5618
88.0000 6.2154 5.6016
89.0000 6.2389 5.6223
90.0000 6.2252 5.6167
J
91.0000 6.1167 5.6011
92.0000 5.9365 5.5848
93.0000 5.7705 5.5675
94.0000 5.6586 5.5486
95.0000 5.5936 5.5281
96.0000 5.5573 5.5067
97.0000 5.6535 5.4888
98.0000 5.8927 5.4935
99.0000 6.0861 5.5290
100.0000 6.1903 5.5735
101.0000 6.2323 5.6041
102.0000 6.2339 5.6098
103.0000 6.1714 5.5952
104.0000 6.0065 5.5794
105.0000 5.8239 5.5627
106.0000 5.6875 5.5447
107.0000 5.6052 5.5250
108.0000 5.5589 5.5040
109.0000 5.5757 5.4835
110.0000 5.7880 5.4767
111.0000 6.0160 5.5021
112.0000 6.1557 5.5471
113.0000 6.2197 5.5860
114.0000 6.2363 5.6028
115.0000 6.2103 5.5935
116.0000 6.0775 5.5780
117.0000 5.8896 5.5618
118.0000 5.7295 5.5445
119.0000 5.6263 5.5255
120.0000 5.5676 5.5051
121.0000 5.5385 5.4840
122.0000 5.6842 5.4691
123.0000 5.9303 5.4815
124.0000 6.1089 5.5223
125.0000 6.2000 5.5668
126.0000 6.2334 5.5940
127.0000 6.2283 5.5945
128.0000 6.1416 5.5792
129.0000 5.9630 5.5634
130.0000 5.7837 5.5467
131.0000 5.6572 5.5284
132.0000 5.5828 5.5086
133.0000 5.5416 5.4877
134.0000 5.5965 5.4685
135.0000 5.8317 5.4678
136.0000 6.0477 5.4998
137.0000 6.1713 5.5464
138.0000 6.2248 5.5825
139.0000 6.2341 5.5944
140.0000 6.1913 5.5821
141.0000 6.0384 5.5666
142.0000 5.8488 5.5503
143.0000 5.6982 5.5328
144.0000 5.6048 5.5136
145.0000 5.5524 5.4931
146.0000 5.5415 5.4723
147.0000 5.7279 5.4613
148.0000 5.9707 5.4810
149.0000 6.1315 5.5253
150.0000 6.2093 5.5681
151.0000 6.2344 5.5908
152.0000 6.2211 5.5861
153.0000 6.1090 5.5707
154.0000 5.9220 5.5549
155.0000 5.7500 5.5379
156.0000 5.6344 5.5194
157.0000 5.5680 5.4994
158.0000 5.5316 5.4785
159.0000 5.6318 5.4611
160.0000 5.8788 5.4671
161.0000 6.0782 5.5046
162.0000 6.1857 5.5512
163.0000 6.2291 5.5834
164.0000 6.2312 5.5899
165.0000 6.1677 5.5755
166.0000 5.9990 5.5600
167.0000 5.8121 5.5435
168.0000 5.6726 5.5257
169.0000 5.5889 5.5063
170.0000 5.5422 5.4856
171.0000 5.5601 5.4655
172.0000 5.7770 5.4593
173.0000 6.0096 5.4858
174.0000 6.1520 5.5322
175.0000 6.2174 5.5722
176.0000 6.2345 5.5898
177.0000 6.2085 5.5807
178.0000 6.0738 5.5654
179.0000 5.8830 5.5494
180.0000 5.7205 5.5322.
181.0000 5.6160 5.5134
182.0000 5.5569 5.4932
183.0000 5.5278 5.4723
184.0000 5.6758 5.4576
185.0000 5.9251 5.4706
186.0000 6.1060 5.5123
187.0000 6.1982 5.5577
188.0000 6.2322 5.5854
189.0000 6.2272 5.5863
190.0000 6.1398 5.5710
191.0000 5.9595 5.5553
192.0000 5.7784 5.5387
193.0000 5.6508 5.5206
194.0000 5.5760 5.5009
195.0000 5.5347 5.4801
196.0000 5.5903 5.4610
October 20, 1987
Projected Dissolved Oxygen Date
Case 2 - Broad R6ach Marina
E#?F4x*4?F+F«?F*?FiF?F?f ?
BASINS -
6 *iFf*t'**Y*?}4?Kxx
*if?xlltt.*r.t+
Changed variables: CA=CS=6.4, C1=C2=4 .5, A=33.r
N NIB N'
1960 15 3l;
OT CRA RB SOD AL
lu 2.03 37.0 4.17 .8
A Al A2 HI H2
33.6 3730.0 18650.0 153.0 153.0
TP A21 R1 R2
.5067 5 .0000 .0044 .0018
T
-------------- C1N
--------- C2N
---

1.0000
5.2296 -------------
4.5313
2.0000 5.5445 4.5832
3.0000 5.6249 4.6:)36
4.0000 5.5070 4.5991
5.0000 5.2410 4.5944
6.0000 4.9746 4.5897
7.0000 4.7949 4.5846
8.0000 4.7018 4.5792
9.0000 4.6644 4.5737
10.0000 4.8125 4.5712
11.0000 5.3072 4.6025
12.0000 5.7473 4.6937
13.0000 5.9975 4.8087
14.0000 6.1101 4.9000
15.0000 6.1420 4.9436
16.0000 6.0834 4.9408
17.0000 5,8195 4.9325
18.0000 5.4868 4.9238
19.0000 5.2284 4.9145
20.0000 5.0794 4.9044
21.0000 5.0096 4.8937
22.0000 5.0149 4.8833
23.0000 5.3356 4.8887
24.0000 5.7366 4.9417
25.0000 5.9990 5.0309
26.0000 6.1272 5.1145
27.0000 6.1738 5.1643
28.0000 6.1649 5.1701
21.0000 6.0040 5.1594
30.0000 5.7257 5.1483
31.0000 5.4711 5.1364
32.0000 5.3063 5.1236
33.0000 5.2200 5.1098
;,A CS TO
6.4 6.4 12.4
C1 C2
4.5 4.5
34.0000 5.1822 5.uS53
35.00110 `_:.3368 ` . 06b 1
36.0001 5.5901 5.1089
37.0000 5.9713 5.1735
38.?0?)0 6.1227 5.2485
39.0000 6.1860 5.302'
40.0000 6.1951 C.s199
41.00010 _ 1.177 5.3067
42.0000 5.8968 5.2962
43.0000 5.6511 5.2829
44.0000 5.4708 5.2686
45.0000 5.3675 5.2531
46.0000 5.3159 5.2365
47.0000 5.3480 5.2209
48.0000 5.6277 `.2227
49.0000 5.9226 5.2645
50.0000 6.1024 5.33297
51.0000 6.1857 5.3859
52.0000 6.2101 5.4134
53.0000 6.1834 5.4077
54.700:: 6.0^231 5.3943
55.0000 5.7934 5.3803
56.0000 5.5990 5.3652
57.0000 5.4768 5.3489
58.0000 5.4112 5.3313
59.0000 5.3831 5.3131
60.0000 5.5612 5.3023
61.0000 5.8545 5.32342
62.0000 6.0661 5.3768
63.0000 6.1742 5.4336
64.0000 6.2151 5.4695
65.0000 6.2122 5.4741
66.0000 6.1155 5.4600
67.0000 5.9118 5.4456
68.0000 5.7072 5.4303
69.0000 5.5644 5.4137
70.0000 5.4829 5.3956
71.0000 5.4404 5.3766
72.0000 5.5059 5.3595
73.0000 5.7711 5.3630
74.0000 6.0130 5.4024
75.0000 6.1512 5.4574
76.0000 6.2115 5.5002
77.0000 6.2235 5.5160
78. C)000 6.1787 5.5048
79.0000 6.0124 5.4901
80.0000 5.8054 5.4748
81.0000 15.6417 5.45V-
82.0000 5.5416 5.4402
83.0000 5.4870 5.4208
84.00,00 5.4781 5.4013
85.0000 5.6806 5.3923
86.0000 5.9425 5.4160
87.0000 6.1155 5.4657
88.0100 6.1994 5.5135
89.1?000 6.2271 5.5394
90.0000 6.2143 5.5359
91.0000 6.0963 `.5212
92.0000 5.8984 5.5054
93.0000 5.7164 5.4895
94.1000 5.5949 5.4717
95.0001' 5.5260 5.4525
96 . 0000 5.4895 5.4 22
97.0000 5.5962 5.4159
98.0000 5.8560 5.4239
99.0000 6.0653 5.4647
100.0000 6.1781 5.5147
101.0000 6.2239 5.5495
102.0000 6.2269 5.5574
103.0000 6.1617 5.5434
104.0000 5.9867 5.5282
105.0000 5.7927 5.5121
106.0000 5.6483 5.4947
107.0000 5.5622 5.4758
108.0000 5.5150 5.4556
109.0000 5.5345 5.4360
110.0000 5.7590 5.4308
111.0000 5.9991 5.4591
112.00x) 6.1460 5.5078
113.0000 6.2136 5.5498
114.0000 6.2316 5.5686
115.0000 6.2054 5.5599
116.0000 6.0677 5.5448
117.0000 5.6722 5.5290
118.0000 5.7059 5.5120
119.0000 5.5993 5.4936
120.0000 5.5393 5.4736
121.0000 5.5104 5.4531
122.0000 5.6619 5.4389
123.0000 5.9166 5.4528
124.0000 6.1012 5.4960
125.00-00 6.1953 5.5427
126.0000 6.2301 5.57115
127.0000 6.2254 5.5727
128.0000 6.1369 5.5576
129.0000 5.9537 5.5421
130.0000 5.7699 5.5256
131.0000 5.6404 5.5077
132.0000 5.5647 5.4882
133.0000 5.5233 5.4676
134.0000 5.5801 5.4487
135.0000 5.8208 5.4488
136.0000 6.0414 5.4822
137.0000 6.1677 5.5303
138.0000 6.2224 5.5676
139.0000 6.2322 5.5802
140.0000 6.1890 5.5681
141.0000 6.0337 5.5527
142.0000 5.8410 5.5366
143.0000 5.6880 5.5193
144.0000 5.5934 5.5003
145.0000 5.5406 5.4800
146.0000 5.5301 5.4595
147.0000 5.7193 5.4488

148.0000 9.9656
11
5.4692
149.0000 6.1286 5.5146
150.Woo 6.207` ` 55183
151.0000 6.23 31 - < <
152.0000 6.2198 5.57-1)
153.0000 6.1067 5.5618
154.0000 5.9177 5.5460
5.529
156.0000 5.6273 5.5108
157.0000 5.5604 5.4909
158.001x0 5.5240 5.4701
159.0000 5.6254 5.4529
160.0000 5.8747 5.4593
161.0000 6.0759 5.4974
162.0000 6.1843 5.5446
163.0000 6.2281 5.5773
164.0000 6.2304 5.5840
165.0000 6.1666 5.5697
166.0000 5.9967 5.5542
167 . 0000 5.8085 5.5378
168.0000 5.6682 5.5201
169.0000 5.5840 5.5008
170.0000 5.5373 5.4802
171.0000 5.5554 5.4601
172.0000 5.7738 5.4541
173.0000 6.0077 5.4810
174.0000 6.1509 5.5278
175.0000 6.22167 5.5682
176.0000 6.2340 5.5860
177.0000 6.2079 5.5770
178.0000 6.0727 5.5617
179.0000 5.8810 5.5457
180.0000 5.7178 5.5285
181.0000 5.6130 5.5098
182.0000 5.5537 5.4896
183.0000 5.5247 5.4688
184.0000 5.6733 5.4542
185.0000 5.9236 5.4674
186.0000 6.1051 5.5094
187.0000 6.1977 5.5550
188.0000 6.2318 5.5829
189.000; 6.2268 5.5838
190.0000 6.1392 5.5686
191.0000 5.9584 5.5529
192.0000 5.7769 5.5363
193.0000 5.6489 5.5182
194.0000 5.5739 5.4986
195.001x0 5.5326 5.4778
196.0000 5.5885 5.4588
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
December 21, 1987
SUBJECT: File No. SAWC088-N-016-0039
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Parker:

RECEIV
DEC 2 9 1987
WA"EN QUALITY
OPERAT101VS t3RSECTION
Reference the application of Broad Reach Investments,
Incorporated, for Department of the Army authorization to excavate
2 access channels and 2 marina basins off Bogue Sound associated
with a private/commercial development in Ocean, Carteret County,
North Carolina,
The Federal agencies have completed review of the proposal as
presented by the application and your field investigation report.
By letter_ of December 14, 1987 (copy enclosed), the National
Marine Fisheries Service recommended that the application be
denied because of the projected loss of vegetated wetlands,
shallow water habitat and anticipated adverse impacts on
shellfish. By letter of December 11, 1987 (copy enclosed), the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed significant concern and
indicated they would support authorization only if plans were
revised to eliminate any placement of fill in wetlands and
compensatory mitigation was provided. Both agencies recommended
denial of the application if the work would result i.n degradation
of water quality and subsequent closure of any shellfish
harvesting areas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
asked the applicant to provide additional information to enable
them to evaluate whether adverse impacts on water quality would
occur.

1
a
w? J
-2--
Based on existing plans and information presently available,
we concur with the National Marine Fisheries Service and recommend
denial of authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. David Baker,
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Enclosures
Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Copies Furnished (without enmclosures):
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
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
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Ms. Beverly Etheridge, Chief
Wetlands Section
Region IV
Marine and Estuarine Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. Charles Jones
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Ol CO
r 4? V ~y-
- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratio
MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
"'?'Southeast Regional Of f ice
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
December 14, 1987 -'''1F/SER111/RSS
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
District Engineer, Wilmington District
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Attention David Baker
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
The National Marine Fisheries Service has reviewed Public Notice
88-N-016-0039(GP) dated November 16, 1987, whereby Broad Reach
Investments, Incorporated proposes to excavate two access
channels and two marina basins as a part of the recreational. and
commercial development of a 278 acre tract of land adjacent to
Bogue Sound, Carteret County, North Carolina.
The current proposal is a modification of Public Notice 87-N-016-
0323(GP) to which we objected by letter dated July 16, 1987,
(copy enclosed). Although the number of boat basins has been
reduced from three to two, the adverse impacts of locating a
large marina at this site remain unchanged. Accordingly, our
objections to this project are summarized below:
1. 2.05 acres of shallow subtidal benthic: habitat and 0.002 acre
of S>artina alterniflora. marsh would be lost due to dredging.
2. The dredged area and surrounding areas support commercial
quantities of hard clams Mereeneria merceneria.
3. The North Carolina Division of Shellfish Sanitation
guidelines will require a mandatory closure to shel.lfishing of SA
waters immediately adjacent to the mouth of the marina.
4. The canal/marina complex may have poor water quality which
could adversely impact water quality in surrounding SA waters,
ultimately resulting in further closure of shel.lfi.shing areas.
In view of the direct habitat losses and closure of productive
shellfish areas, we continue to recommend that this permit riot be
issued. We will defer to and support the Environmental.
Protection Agency on issues regarding water gua.li.ty.
1
'} o

-2-
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely yours,
Richard J. Hoogland
(( Assistant Regional Director
Habitat Conservation Division
Enclosure
United _States
^xs aP?T' 1 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
?'s:?,tru:
o! Division of Ecological Services
P. 0. Box 25039
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5039
December 11, 1987 D C C ` 1987,
is
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury.
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
This is the report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on Public
Notice SAWC088-N-016-0039 dated November 16, 1987 concerning a proposal by
Broad Reach Investments, Inc. to construct a residential development with
two marinas and other appurtenant facilities on land bordering Bogue Sound,
Sanders Bay and Sanders Creek near Ocean, Carteret County, North Carolina.
This is the report of the Service and the Department of the Interior and is
submitted in accordance with provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667e). It is.to be used in your
determination of 404(b)(1) compliance (40 CFR 230) and your public interest
review (33 CFR 320.4) as they relate to protection of fish and wildlife
resources. This report supplements our previous report dated July 14, 1987
and addresses the modified work plan.
The project, as is presently proposed, will involve construction of two
marina basins with access channels; a dry stack boat storage facility; a
clubhouse, restaurant and inn; and '4 residential areas with single and
multi-family residences. Later phases of development call for additional
residential and commercial development on the 278 acre tract.
Direct habitat losses associated with the proposed plan include:
Excavation of estuarine, submerged, sand/crud bottom 89,600 sq. ft.
Excavation of regularly flooded (Spartina alterniflora) 1,050 sq. ft.
and irregularly flooded (Juncus roemerianusj wetlands
Excavation of palustrine forested wetlands undeterarined
Filling of palustrine forested wetlands 3,000 sq. ft.
In addition to these direct wetland losses, the proposed project will
convert a large area, approximately 200 acres in size, of agricultural
fields and natural upland habitats to residential use. It may cause
shellfish harvest closure in an area of nearshore estuarine waters that
presently support shellfish hat-vest. A detailed description of the value of
the affected habitats is contained in our July 14, 1987 report.

Based on our review of the modified permit application, we recommend that
Department of the Army authorization not be granted in this case if E PA
determines that the proposed work will result in the closure of shellfish
harvest areas. We understand that studies to determine the extent of impact
in this regard have been performed by the applicant and that the study
results are being evaluated by the North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. In addition to this recommendation, we further recommend that any
Department of the Army permit issued in this matter be modified to contain
the following conditions:
No wetlands shall be filled;
2. The loss of vegetated wetlands through excavation shall be
offset through creation of similar replacement habitats;
3. Wetland creation shall be performed on a 2:1 replacement
basis and shall be approved, prior to construction, by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission;
An upland disposal site, adequate for containment of
dredged materials which will be removed from the access
channels and basins over the next 50 years, shall be
designated and set aside for this purpose; and
5. To offset forested wetland losses and other habitat losses
associated with encroachment into high quality wetland and
upland habitats, all forested wetlands shall be placed
within a permanent conservation easement. At a minimum,
this easement shall require that forested wetlands on the
applicant's property shall be maintained in their present
natural condition and shall not be cleared, harvested for
timber or otherwise altered in any manner which eliminates
or reduces the existing value of these wetlands to fish
and wildlife.
Finally, I wish to express our views concerning the need to address the
cumulative loss of habitat and degradation of water quality in Bogue Sound
in association with projects such as this. The Service is of the opinion
that we are presently at the point whereby additional habitat loss and
disturbance of the estuarine environment can no longer be tolerated if Bogue
Sound is to be spared the severe environmental problems that plague
Chesapeake Bay and Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds. Accordingly, we recommend
strongly that the Wilmington District and the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management begin to address the matter of cumulative impacts in
Bogue Sound and to investigate establishment of a long range plan of action
for authorization of future developmental activities in this area. In the
absence of such a plan, we seriously question the appropriateness of
authorization of any large scale development which may further degrade water
quality and eliminate public-owned fish and wildlife resources.
J

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these recommendations. We would be
pleased to meet with you, your staff and the applicant if further discussion
of our recommendations is needed.
Sincerely yours,
vc-ft?rk-
L. K. (Mike) Gantt
Field Supervisor
5U1£ o
1•4y Qw+vOV

?`O?? \ r,.l.. ???otS's;C 1:.? rv`?1V11Vh•
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
Novetnber 20, 1987
Mr. James F. Stamey, Chief
Environmental Health Section
Division of Health Services
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Stamey:
The attached copy of an application submitted by:
David W. Owens
Director
App scant s Name
Hwy. 24, AIWW Bogue Sound
Location of roject County
-X -- for a State permit to perform excavation and/or fill
work in coastal North Carolina and for a CAMA major
development permit...
for a CAMA major development permit (only) ...
... is being circulated to State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction
over the subject matter which might be affected by the project.
Please indicate on the reverse side of this form your viewpoint on
the proposed work and return it to me not later than 12,/11/87
Sincerely,
o R. Parker, Jr., Dhief
Major Permits Processing Section
JRP:ap:2480
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
? M
(A) phis agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
(B) This agency has no comment on the project as proposed.
(C) This agency approves of the project (or project concept) and/or recommends
these minor refinements for project management.
(D) This agency objects to the project and recommends permit denial based on a
finding of:
(1) adverse impacts under G.S. 113-229(e) 1-5 (the dredge and fill law)as
enumerated below:
(e) (1) ... that there will be significant (e)(2) ... that there will be signifi-
adverse effect of the proposed dred- cant adverse effect on the value
ging and filling on the use and enjoyment of the property of
of the water by the public; any riparian owners;
(e)(3) ... that there will be significant (e)(4) ... that there will be signifi-
adverse effect on public health, cant adverse effect on the con-
safety, and welfare; servation of public and private
water supplies;
(e)(5) that there will be significant
adverse effect on wildlife or
fresh water, estuarine.or marine
fisheries;
(1) Inconsistency with Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission
as enumerated in 15 NCAC 7H (or other). Please site
rule.
(3) Inconsistency with the local Land Use Plan (Please elaborate).
(4) Inconsistency with Rules, Guidelines or Standards of
this agency or a finding that the project'is in conflict
with other authority or interest as stipulated below.
X (E) Attachment. Include memorandum or other documentation that support
findings relating to D1-4 or provide general comments.
Q `i 13 /87 cams s I II ° Pf'11 / {
!Signature
_ ate
Y
n
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor David W. Owens
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary Director
June 26, 1987
SEP !'
Mr. James F. Stamey, Chief
Environmental Health Section
Division of Health Services C,n''S.'1?l
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Stamey:
The attached copy of an application submitted by:
-Broad Reach Investments. Inc /Broad Reach Marina
Applicant's Name
Hwy. 24, AIWW Bogue Sound
Sanders Creek Carteret
Location of Project County
X_ for a State permit to perform excavation and/or fill
work in coastal North Carolina and for a CAMA major
development permit...
for a CAMA major development permit (only) ...
... is being circulated to State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction
over the subject matter which might be affected by the project.
Please indicate on the reverse side of-this form your viewpoint on
the proposed work and return it to me not later than 7/17/87
Sincerely,
o R. Parker, Jr., Chief
Major Permits Processing Section
JRP:ap:2480
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
(A) This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
(B) This agency has no comment on the project as proposed.
(C) This agency approves of the project (or project concept:) and/or recommends
these minor refinements for project management.
(D) This agency objects to the project and recommends permit denial based on a
safety, and welfare; nervation of public and private
finding of:
(1) adverse impacts under G.S. 113-229(e) 1-5 (the dredge and fill law)as
enumerated below:
(e)(1) ... that there will be significant (e)(2) ... that there will be signifi-
adverse effect of the proposed dyed- cant adverse effect on the value
grog and filling on the use and enjoyment of the property of
of the water by the public; any riparian owners-,
(e)(3) ... that there will be significant (e)(4) ... that there will be signifi-
adverse effect on public health, cant adverse effect on the con
water supplies;
(e)(5) that there will be significant
adverse effect on wildlife or
fresh water, estuarine or marine
fisheries;
(1) Inconsistency with Rules:of the Coastal Resources Commission
as enumerated in 15 NCAC 7H (or other). Please site
rule. (3)
(4)
(E) Att3)achment.
Inconsistency with the local Land Use Plan (Please elaborate).
Inconsistency with Rules, Guidelines or Standards of
this agency or a finding that the project is in conflict
with other authority or interest as stipulated below.
Include memorandum or other documentation that support
findings relating to D1-4 or provide general comments.
Cs
)ignature
3 A,)
ate

Comments regarding Broad Reach Investments Inc. Project
Sanders Creek, Carteret County
1. This proposed marina will require a large closure area
in Bogue Sound and Sanders Creek. Both are now open SA
waters.
2. The Sanitation Branch, Division of Health Services must
review the proposed plans for sewage collection, treatment
and disposal prior to commenting on the wastewater portion
of this project. The applicant should contact the
Sanitation Branch at [phone] for more information.
3. A moderate increase in mosquito population levels can
be expected if this plan is followed. The applicant should
contact the Vector Control Branch at [phone] for
information regarding appropriate mosquito control measures.
4. Plans and specifications for the water system portion of
this project must be approved by the Division of Health
Services prior to construction. For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Branch at
[phone].
SSEO STET
J? FS
? ? ? 1rz
c w
O ?
z
02
;?~l-4[ PRol"G'
DEC 1 Q 198'
I J&,-, Z?o /-//?4 -?
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30355
4WMD-MEB/LP
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Dave Baker
SUBJECT: Broad Reach Marina
(Public Notice No. 88-N-016-0039)
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
This is in response to the subject public notice concerning a proposal to
construct two marina basins with access channels at Sanders Creek, on Bogue
Sound, Carteret County, North Carolina. At the present time, we are waiting
for additional data on the hydrological model prepared by the applicant for the
subject project. Consequently, we are requesting that this permit application
be held in abeyance until this agency receives and has the opportunity to
review this information.
Sincerely yours,
Bruce R. Barrett, Director
Water Management Division
cc: See enclosed :- -»
DEC 29 1987
SECTt JN

I i
cc: Mike Gantt, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raliegh, NC /
Robert F. Helms', Director V
NC Division of Environmental Management
W. Donald Raker
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Michael L. Davis
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Field office
Nashville District Eastern Field Group
Lenoir City, TN
DEC .? 3'!
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P-O. BOX 1890
VJUAiNGTON. NORTH CAROUNA 284,02-1,X90
October 28, 1987
) REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: File No. SAWC088-N-016-0039
Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
c/o Paton/Zucchino & Associates, P.A.
Attn: Mr. Larry Zucchino
17 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Dear Mr. Zucchino:
On February 6, 1986, we renewed general permit No. SAWCO80--N-
000-0291 (enclosed), which provides Federal authorization for
construction activities that receive authorization from the State
of North Carolina.
A review of your application received October 28, 1987, for a
Department of the Army permit to dredge access channels and
marina basins off of Bogue Sound in conjunction with a private/
commercial community development in Ocean, Carteret County, North
Carolina, indicates it to be a candidate for Federal authorization
under this general permit. Accordingly, the administrative
processing of your application will be accomplished by the north
Carolina Division of Coastal Management. Comments from Federal
review agencies will be furnished to the State.
If your application must be withdrawn from this general permit
process for any reason, you will be written and informed of its
further management. If there are no unresolved differences of
State-Federal positions or policy., the final action taken on your
application by the State will result in your receiving written
notice from us that your application has been successfully
processed under our general permit.. Only after receiving such
confirmation should you begin work.
Your application, pursuant to Section 10 of the River and
Harbor Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, has been
assigned No. SAWC088-N-016-0039 and will be coordinated by
Hr. Jeff Richter. He is available to address questioas or
comnents you may have at telephone .[phone].
Sincerely,
Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
-2-
Copies garnished (without enclosure):
Kr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Boa 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Kr. William Kills
Water Quality Section
Div ion of Environmental
ement
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Comity Development
Post Office Boa 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Boa 25039
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5039
Mr. Randy Cheek
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Ms. Beverly Etheridge, Chief
Wetlands Section
Marine and Estuarine Branch
Region Ili
U.S. Ea-vironmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. Dave Griffin
Elizabeth City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
108 South Water Street
Elizabeth City, "forth Carolina 27909
Mr. Ja- s Mercer
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division
of Coastal Xanagement
Post Office Bog 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
October 28, 1987
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: File No. SAWC088-N-016-0039
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Mills:

"T 3 0 1987
KO H
Enclosed is the application of Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
for a Department of the Army permit and a State Water Quality
Certification to place fill material in Bogue Sound in conjunction
with the construction of a marina facility in Ocean, Carteret
County, North Carolina. Your receipt of this letter verifies your
acceptance of a valid request for certification in accordance with
Section 325.2(b)(ii) 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 may be required
under the provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A Department
of the Army permit will not 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. Therefore, if your office has
not acted on the request by December 28, 1987, the District
Engineer will deem that waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. David Baker,
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
JCha es W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure

-2-
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. James Mercer
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division
of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Mr. Charles Jones
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division
of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
October 20, 1987
Mr. Preston Pate
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
P_V1'10 ? / Z"` CC111Nn

Wrr 2 s 1987
Re: Broad Reach Marina Permit Application Revision
Dear Mr. Pate:
Please find attached a revised permit application and
development plans for the Broad Reach Marina. As a result of
numerous discussions and negotiations with state and federal
permit review agencies, Broad Reach Investments, Inc. has
made significant modifications to the permit request
originally submitted April 25, 1987. The modifications were
agreed to by the applicant to bring forth a workable plan
which minimizes potential environmental impacts on wetland
and shellfish resources.
The major programmatic and site plan changes are summarized
below:
1.;
2
The applicant has reduced the number of wet boat--slips
by.'one-third, -from 394 slips to 250 total slips. Also,
the number of boat basins has been reduced from three
interconnected basins to two separate 125 slip basins
each with a separate access channel. Fourty-five
commercial slips and 205 slips for residential use are
planned.
An optional access channel alignment. for Basin A is
depicted on the site development plans. This alignment
would minimize the loss of coastal fringe marsh.
The proposed restaurant and inn have been withdrawn from
the current development program and replaced with an
interim residential use designation. Any future
commercial use oroposed for the site may require a
change in the CAMA land use classification.

October 20, 1987
Broad Reach Marina
Permit Application Revision
Page 2
3. An amended water quality assessment has been prepared
for the new basin layout using a more sophisticated
modelling program recommended by EPA. The results for
projected dissolved oxygen concentrations and flushing
times are favorable.
4. The applicant has agreed to explore the use of covenant
deed restrictions to allow for future preservation of
large portions of the wooded wetlands located on the
property. There are on-going discussions with USFWS
concerning this issue.
As you are aware, the applicant has spent considerable time
producing technical reports, negotiating with agency
representatives and making significant revisions to the
project development plans over the past five months. Given
the time involved, it would be greatly appreciated if you
would make efforts to expedite the review process for this
new proposal. All of the agencies involved have been
contacted directly concerning the new proposal items and
should be able to respond in a timely manner.
If you need any additional information or clarification
concerning the revised application, please do not hesitate to
contact me. I look forward to your comments.
Very Truly `ours,
LAFY?
Lawrence R. Zucchino
F ton/Zucchino & Assoi
A ztachmtents : Revised
Revised
Amended
::iates, P.A.
permit _pplicaticn
development plans
water quality assessment
cc Pair. Carlton Mi dyette , Broad Reach-Investments, Inc.
Mr. Steve Stroud, Broad Rea-c^. Investments, Inc.
M . ,Jain Parker, NCDCM
Mr. Dave Baker, USACOE
Pleas: type .-,r print- Carefully describe all an-
ricipated devcierme: t activities, including construc-
tion, excavation, filling, paving, land clearing, and
'stormwrrter control. If the requeNied information is
not relevant to your project, write N/A (not ap-
plicable). Items 1;-# and 8-9 must be completed for
all projects.
1 APPLICANT
a. Name Broad -Reach Investments, Inc.
Address 1333 :ayettville Street
City Raleigh . State -C
Zip 27602 Day phone [phone]
X Landowner or Authorized agent
b. Project name (if any)- Broad Reach Marina
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give
the owner's name and address.
Land Planners - Authorized Agent
Paton/Zucchino & Associates, P.A.
17 Glenwood Avenue-
Raleigh, !Zrth Carolina 27603
2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. Street address or secondary road number
HiQh::av 24
b. City, rowan, ccirnmunity, or landmark
Ocean, `fort Carolina
C. County Carteret
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? `_;o,JCount Jurisdiction
e. Name of body Cf mater nearest project
Boi;ue Sound 'e_t of Sanders Creek
3 DESCRIPTION? AND PLANKED
USE OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. Describe all de•je oprpei nt activities you propose
(for example, b-iol3in' a home, motel,' marina,
bulkhead, or F.t:&).
Marina, 3uL h: ad, Ramps, Drv Boat
Stora<e Sales Office
Clubl-cuse, _:?Ioe-, and Road:.Ya•: s.
d. Describe the planned use of the project.
Private marina serving the-development
residents and slip renters.
4 LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
See Note 1
278 ac (total ownership)
a. Size of entire tract 133 ac ( this request)
b. Size of indivi3aal lot(s) N/A EM g= 'm ?y Pv-!n
c. Elevation of a-act above meaIr yea-,del of Na
tional Geode-dr- Vertical Da +s lS # ?
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract Lando soil
series, fine sandy loam.
e. Vegetation on acct 15Z w±t- i-trees
WE" 16 W JI
f. Mari-made fearures now on s ,
residence and out. buildings,
g. What is the CiM.A Land Use Plan Classifica-
don of the site? (Consulr the local iand use
plan.) - ._- - - . - . - _..
Conservation Transitional
Develoced X Community
Rural Other
h. How is the r -act :oned by local .-overnrnenI?
Unz on ed
i. How.are a3jaoenr waters classified? SA
j. Has a professiccml archaeological surrey been
carried out f4. the tract? l es
If so,- by whom? Carolina Archaeological
Services,_Czlumbia, South Carolina
5 UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
Complete this' on if the project includes any
land development_
a. Type and nury.-'-,er of buildings, facilities, or
structures . rorc,se:j Dry storage facility,
Sales/Clu__ouse building.
b.
C.
d.
e.
If you plan to *tu-1j. a marina, also complete
and artach Fora:: DC ?4,AIP
b. Is the prc•pe:_e? iv?ity mamazenance of an ex-
i.,ting project, n_•x :pork, or both?
New work
c. ,:'ill the p rolec: s, For community, private, or
commercii.al use? f
Private/Cc-minerical - Community
Number of to or parcel-, One
Dens;ty (Give -he number of rtsid_rtial units
and the units per acre.) Overall 3 units/
acre antici_ated, parcels ., and H.
Size of area t-- =mded or di_rured
APPrc ,inat? acres upl anc-
If the ;prop-05e_ prcject will r :ire Ehan
one acre of 1.a, the Division of Land
Resources mis. receive an erc:sion anal 4-
men-cation contrct 7l3n at least 3'. davti 't fore lan;.t
disrurbin; ac: begin,. If ar p1: c, has a
sedi.mertanor. a l? eros:on coritr::c f '? l tccr.
submir*_ed to _..e Division of L.an,> R urcc_'
Not at -:nip -ine.
Give the pence^taJe of die tract .pit Fin 5 f,et
of mean high •water to be coverr-4, by im-•
pcime-an, su-.yes, such as pavernent,
buildmis, or r?:k frops. 7.37
?. Litt the materials, such as marl, paver stone, b. Amount of ma, enal to be excavated from
asphalt, or concrete, to be used for paved below water level. in cubic yards 94, 3$0 e.Y
surfaces. Asphalt and concrete c. Type of material Coarse and Fine Sand
d. Does the area to be excavated include marsh-
h. If applicable; has a storm water management land, swamps" or other wetlands? Ye s
plan been su"rm:tred m the Division of En, e. High ground exca,,ation, in cun:c yards ='-9,0 ? y
vironmewal Management? /a f. Dimensions of spoil disposal area
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste g. Location of srpcil disposal area Two. See
water treatment facilities. Tertiary treatment , Site Develc},melt Plans, Sheet 2-3.
plant, low pressure distribution lines. 'es
h. Do you claim title to the disposal area? . `
- j. Have these facilities received state or local
approval? 'Not at this time.
k. Describe existing treatment facilities. i.
`done
*L Describe location and n
-pe of discharges to ??
waters of the state (for example, surface runoff, k.
sanitary wastewater, industrialicommercial
effluent, or "wash down"). Minimal direct 1.
stormwater discharge into state m
waters is anticipated. (See Note ` 2) n.
m. Water suvply source Private well.' o.
n. If the project is oceanfront development,
describe the steps that will be taken to main- p_
tain established public beach accessways or pro- q•
vide new access. N/A
n. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will r.
be the elevation above mean sea level of the
first habitable floor.' N/
6 EXCAVATION ANNA FILL
II?TFORMATION
(See attached chart)
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed excava-
(ion or fill activities (excluding bulkheads,
which are covered in Secrion 1). (See attached
Length Width Depth sheet)
Access channel
or (\13?'L)
Soar basin
crher "break-
Aire,,, }pier,
;1c_).i, ram-
neck jetrV)
e11 placed in
•.kerland or bclo- -
`< H W'
Upland fill
arcac
If not, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
Witl a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? 'Yes.
If so, where? _ See Plans, Sheet 1.
Does the disp z al area include any marshland,
swamps, or water areas? No
Will the fill material be placed below mean
high water? NO -
Amount of finl in cubic yards
Type of fill maLLerial Fine and Coarse Sand.
Source of fill material Proposed basins b channels.
Will fill mater?al be placed on marsh or other
wetlands.' ? ° -
Dimensions of the wetland to be filled g /a
Howe will excavated or fill material be kert on
site and erosion controlled Standard
sedimentation and erosi-.:n control
mechanisms, i.e. silt feces,
stabilization, sediment traps, etc.
What type of c:orszrucrion equipment will be
used (for example, dragline, bac"oe, or
hydraulic dredge)' Dragline, back hoe and
hvdraulic 'd_ d-cre
s. Will wetlands ' e crossed in transporting equip
ment to the Fr ect`site? `'O l yes, 2Xp1aiI1
the. steps that will ' taken to lessen en-
vironmenta.l 6-npacts: N /A
7 SHORELINE STABILIZATION
a. Length of or rip.-2T- 1.20 fee:
b. Average distar:_: -x-arerward c: 4-ncan nigh water
or no,. al ;? -* :e el Vt nears r1gh mater
c. horeiine erc.'._a during F ece?.;r 12 rnec tis,
in feet
d: T,?'F•e of Z) L', :h d m. rerial C cret
e. Amount of fi n cubic Virds, to l?e rlace.a
below mean nc-: water
f. Type of fill material N/A

r
BASIN 1
Acceu channel
(ML.W).or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break-
water, pier.
lresvt ramp.
ruck jelly)
Fill placed in
elland or below
l.4HW
Upland fill
arcac
length Width Depth

450'
80' ? 4 .5'
verage_
450' 450' 4.5'

BASIN 2
Acceu channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break.
water. Pier.
hint ramp.
ruck jetty)
Fill placed in
Irx•+
w-ctland or
MHW
UplanJ fill
area'.
Lrngth Width Depth

1100'
80' 4.5'
average
600' 300' 4.5'

S ADDITIONAL INFOR..yiATION
In aJjitioan to thr compl,:ted application form, the
f:.:acwing items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
ocher instrument under which the applicant claims
title to the affected proptrry. If die applicant is not
claiming to be the okmer of said property, then for-.
ward a copy of the deed or other instrumient under
which the owner claims title, pleas written permis-
sion from the owner to carry out the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and
truss sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on 8 ?z x 11 white paper. (Refer to Coastal
Resources Commission Rule 7).0203 for a detailed
description.)
P9case' note that original drawings are preferred and
only high qualir; copies will be accei--ed. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 16
high quality copies are provided by the applicant.
(C,ntact rune U.S. Army Carps a Engineers regard-
ing that agency's use of larger drawings.) A site or
location map is a part of plat requirements and it
mini be s&iciently detailed m guide agency per-
s:..runel unfamiliar with the area to the site. Include
cc,-m, y road (SR) numbers. landmarks, and the like.
A stor-mwater management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in eorL-ultation with the
Division of Environmental Managemem.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adiacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
indivi.fuals have 30 days in which to submit com-
mertU on the propos?d p*ojec. io the Division of
C.-astal 1N4anagement and should be advised by the
applicant cif t11at Opportunity.
Name Charles T. Shi.lstone
Andres; A. Bell Lane
` e -_ort NC ?c57C.
Name M. 3. Fowler y T H. Singleton
A,, dress 5214 Bowe Sound Drive
-eralu Isle. NC 28557
N_.me _
?dt ess
K list of previous state or frderal permits issued
i0 acre; on the pr.jeer, ttract. lnclude permit
r.:,-hers, prnnittee, ar*.J a?umg ,:aces.
Ni"A
A check for $100 m.i ae poyable to the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community
Development to. cover_ the costs of processing the
application.
A signed AEC ha=.ard notice icr projects in ocean-
fronE and inlet areas.
A statement on the use of public funds. If the
project involves the experditure of public funds, at-
tach a statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(N.C.G-S. 113A-1 to 10)_
9 CERTIFICATION AND PERMIS-
SION TO ENTER ON LAND
Any permit issued in resptzanse to this application
will allow only the developmenr described in the
application. The project will be subject to condi-
tions and restricrions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the pro-
posed activity complies with the Stare of ;North
Carolina's approved Coastal h4anagement Program
and will be conducted in a manner consistent with
such program.
I further certify that I am authorized to grant, and
do iu, fact, grant permission to representatives of
state and federal review: agencies to enter on the
aforementioned lands in cz nnecrion with
evaluating information related to finis permi[ ap-
plicarion and follow--rap mcnitoring or project.
This is the 2-5th day as ,_:)ril
19
xjz /,w"
Landowner oI Authorized aeenc
Send the co :nplete-d application materials cc:
Division of C?•astal Mana,ement
N.C. DNRCD
Box 27697
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
3

MARINA
DEVELOPIVIIENT
Attach this form to the _>pplicarion for Permits to
Develop, in North Carolina's Coastal Area. Be sure
to comi-lete all other sectuons Of that application
which relate to this proposed project, including
upland areas, even if dup&cative. All shore-based
facilitie, must be included in application and worst
plats.
I MARINA CHARACTERISTICS
a. Check below the type of marina proposed.
X Commercial Public
X Residential
b. Will the marina be open to the general public?
A'o. Slip & dry slot ou-ners & renters only.
C. If there is resivential evelo.-meat associated J
with the rnarina, hour many units or lots are
planned? APprox a.ateiy 30 =anticipa?ed_
d• Check all of the rypes of service to be
provided.
Full service, i d-6.irg travel
-X lift and/or rail
Dockage, met, and marine supplies
---_?_ Dockage ("we: slips") only
Number cf s1-s 2_50 sli os
--= Dry scera;e
Number of boas 3-40 slots
2 Boat ramp(s)
Other (describe) =e:rage p=pout
facilities.
e. Chick below the Yracosed Type of siting.
- Lard cut and acre`s channel
Open water ?,?-c?l drelging for basin
and/or channe
Oren w-cruet, -:`? 2r_3^ir:g req::i-c,!
Outer (de?cn t
?. Descri'-,se rise typic.jl tc s to 1,,e serv ed Mfr ex-
ample, open runabov%, charter boars, sail boats,
or n>>xe-d r--pes)_ boats/Sail boats
Ty'pic rl beat length - ---Pr 25 feet
?. '.;atiinum `oat lrrt r^ -C =e't
z- Are -?o
if Cs_C%tie. z
2 MARINA OPERATIONS
a. Check each of the following sanitary facilities
which will be included in the proposed project.
X Office toilers
Toilets for patrons
Number 4
I,ocaiioti Ships Store/harbor 'Master BldG.
Showers
X Boar holding rank pun .pout
Type and location Pua-aout facilities at
non-bent nimR pier near Shi7 "s Store,
.
b. Describe treatment type and location for all
sanitary wastewater.:iertiar-a treatment plant
with subsurface disposal fields 1ccated
on the propertv.
c. Describe solid waste, f-sh offal, and trash
disposal. Solid waste containers provided
on each pier ant ac r=- Ds. Collecred
and taken to Count. lan>s'ill.
d. How will overboard d=_=cnaree or sewage from
boats be controlled' 'ccabined effort of
sit;nage, staff enforcement closed-head
policy and availability oi: -_unaout
facilities.
e. Give the location anal number of "No :.Cwage
Discharge" signs proposed. Seventeen, loco#see
at the entry to eaen crier, at eats:
boatramp and at ?ar3ior master bui ding3
ship's store and cry storage.
f. Describe the special design., if applicable, for
containing indusrria" rsp? p_1-1am , sL-ch as
paint, sandblasting wa=tt, and perrolet:.-n p'-.-
ducts. Petro_&Un 7, 7 0duct s -n :
special des gr. ccarr; i s. -
Where will residue be c resed o ? A?prc,. ee
g disposal site.
h. Give the nu:nbrr cr channel rnar;:ers ,.nJ '"No
Wake" signs prop zr.t.:
Note: Regulatet?, si=ns such as Lri-,]e rt sire ad-
ditional approval b the N.C. ! dIzIIlife
Resources Comm4ssloln.
4
i. Give the :?ocptlon of fuel hanJling facilities and
dcscrtbe .r safety measures planned to protect
area w•ai:ez gL:ality_ At harbor- master building.
Descr;:bc _esi n measures that promote boat
rS or Circulation and reduce water
qualiry iim;laccs_ 1'see Notes #2, *3 and `4)
sized basins with minimu_
lena:i _on ecting channels. winimuc direct storm-
'Water r_scn: rge from pavement and rooftop areas into
Marina ':asin. Central tertiary wastewater treatment and
best ma .:-ge:ment: practices used for czarina operations.
k_ What wild be the marina policy on overnight
and live= +,,aad dockage? No live aboards
d*ockaae and limited overnight dockage
space.
L Is the pragD-s-td marina located near any
shellfish -'''D . If so, give the name and
addre?: et the leaseholder. N/A
rn_ 1: this prcr.ecb is an expansion of an existing
marina, ra: ropes of services are current.Iy
?? fA
provi:c..'
n. rtow reran- slaps a--re now available! =i/A

J
• PATO /ZUCCfIIN
Oct;jbe- ='D , 98 -
Bxp_anat_ory Notes and Additional Comments
Bread ?each Marina CXHA Permit Application
1. The Broad Reach Marina project is planned as a part of a larger unified
development plan prepared for a 278 acre tract under singular
c?.-nership. Due to the size of the tract and the long term nature of
t -e development progr-- for the overall tract, this permit request
addresses in a specific manner the sixteen acres which encompass the
marina proper and associated upland development. The residential
development parcels which lie immediately adjacent to the marina and
canals (92 acres in parcels y, G and H) are described in general terms
of land use, acreage, general layout and are assigned an interim
density for residential use. The remainder of the property is
described in the Master Plan (Sheet 1) in terms of land use, acreage
and general layout.
A residential density assignment has been provided zo give some level
Of assurance that future development in the parcels near the marina
^.asins and the sound will not contribute to the degradation of water
quality as a result of storrr»ater runoff. A tensity of three units per
acre is generally regarded as a level of residential density at which
reasonable assurances can be made that current or future storrraater
maragement standards for water quality will 'be met. It is understood
hthe applicant that the future development of geese parcels at any
density higher than three units per acre will require the preparation
ci a stor=water management plan which asst be approved b the N.C.
Division of Environmental Management.
2. Although the development_ plans for the narina, channels and the upland
development associated with the marina complex wil_ not require an
approved stormwater management plan under current `.C. Division otir
.;anvirenmerntal Management regulations, stor=water runoff from the
proposed development will be controlled in such a way as to minimize
epotential water quality degradation in the sarina basins and canals.
_ngineering plans for the area immediately, surrounding the marina
onDlex will be designed to conr_rol the _ irst `n=- ar.. one-half (1-1/2',"
inctes of rainfall on all irpervious sur=ac_.s frcn directls enteric;
t:_he marina waters. In addition, best planning, design and engineer-:n
practices will be implemented where it is dete=irned that these will be
_efective in reducing the potential of stormswater generated pollutants
_rem entering the marina system. Informal review and comment will be
_.c is=red frcm the staff in the Water Q ali_ eerie^, tiCDFM concerning
_terrraater management in ParCel K and the i necia?a adjacent parcels
Et, Gam d'_H
Eyplanatorr Notes
L_cad Reac-_ ?Marina
Page 2
3. It is the intent of the development plan to provide centralized boat
docking facilities for the project residents. Centralized docking in
the proposed basin would eliminate the need for private piers for
individual homesites along the shoreline. The project acreage includes
a significant length of shoreline along Bogue Sound and Sanders Bay
totaling over 5,700 lineal feet which, without a centralized marina
facility, could support over one hundred private piers for individual
water front honesites.
With the approval of two 125 slip basins, the applicant will restrict
through deeded covenants the right of individual waterfront lot or unit
purchasers to construct any private pier or docking facility along thee
waterfront.
4. A hydrological study prepared by our consultant, Dr. Len Pietrafesa, s
appended to this application (Appendix A). The study describes the
hydrologic flushing characteristics of this general area and nodels-
flushing rates and dissolved oxygen levels in the proposed nari:na
basin: and canals. A model predicting sedi-nentation rates in th#--
proposed channels is included in the hydrological stud,-.
5. An archaeological study prepared by Carolina Archaeological Services Ts
appended to this application (Appendix B).
RESIDENTIAL S" U•?
?/ ? is u M[s©rrm ? -
1l.A[1?F
\ \?t ???y? .... a? ?? ?• ? maac ass wF ? ?
ri
v
"'-??am RESIDENTIAL
z
^, / r
/ RESK"TIAL a
?' / +???_ ? <• 7 " Y- ? ?`? +RRwe°`..r4tu.1 -mil ?;? P'r.? F ? _
_ `•
row- -clx-m
??4'-,V- _ _ _ _ o,uwE?? - _ ? ??•:?J /- ? i?j ?i xF.'zrneM GSM
- ?? 00
f i
' ? h 9?gg? j
• , ROGUE SOUND
} - n 1-7 ??
--------- 'I -`_ '?,-- ?vf \ .h„R(Mh•Ct -.6 SANDERS BAY
\ 9/ ? £d6l1Ni Lief Il1E ? .
r %
? d7E? 'y •?.
%
1 •? l?
9 l
e
BOGUE SOUND
1 c 1 j/W
/p
L•T•1[OASTIL WETEM-
° ?i cxhlwEl Y\R[EF f'
p
INTAJIh;OfaeAL'MkTEAItlkY `
5_ Ah'TEJC:ahcLL wi'E.aYax ? t
_ ?hM4111.1AEL4 v yx
' L.+l t u1 +'Efi
F!
ix
s?
CF
a6
C[U,?
or 11.)
V
1
z
GTO i
F_j
?z
i<
o
-t
TG o
1 ?
Q ?
g
~ Y
b
z
6
z
V?
J?
yQ
<W i
z
Ca i @
OO e
STS ( t
III ?
I ?
I)FI?`".I f
i
R
3
MS ~w
f
2
I
••vi ?khF
x?
L ?r
?y
WTRITY i
an.Y K
.uatrr•I?•

Y4iCML il-AMAGE %$E
.a.a - aESmorsasa
t U A YY SE9OElTF1G
u. K al®ropTUt
? \ s - ns a ?mptu?
? \ ?, t xs c aenoxxsase
'' ` ? r at1 Yc, a®maTSu
p ?E$4£IITERiL?7 s IIu c >?5m0YPU,t
sx a u ?''G' au < a®roEaTU,s
f 6. a v.?S?EAGS4L
•?K ,??? auata
0 ? L \ ? f \' Wr-.ewY? ana c.
6YY x.ya.. a:? ow -.?. .
Y i Pmt' ltR4RM ISMf WOEST'
RESIDEEKTL-1
EExTW 1\
?? • ? >... wrExE , ? ? s=.YCC-as a.ra
l ? mar/ -a? \ I ? ? r Y f , ;M1y`
- fU401C' i _;
I{ Q. yr•
Ir
I E ??
13

9tU:'P S_11rM
s=
3E
Ly
F?
?J
v?
z l?h?a
r
O r
as
r
{.
z
s
gz
_EE
Y
< C
F C ti
C=
f Qei
CQ; c:
Car
<cc pi
? E3.
III ? ? I i ail
i
I
164E a itF•
f I
F 506 W. Washington Ave.
Kinston, NC, 28501
22 July. 1987
Mr. David Baker VV, t ? RECEIVED
Wilmington District, E`kirgrmy Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890' JJJL 28 W
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Baker: M of Environmental Mat.
N. C.
I am writing to express our concern about the proposed man
and resulting dredging on the 278 acre tract owned by Broad Reach
Investments, Inc., on Bogue Sound, N. C.. My wife and I have
owned a summer home just a few hundred yards west of Sainders
Creek for nearly 20 years, and are quite familiar with the
surrounding environment and its marine and bird life.
This letter is supplemental to my letter of 3 July 87 to Mr.
David Owens, Director, N. C. Division of.Coastal Mangement, and
is directed specifically to the marina and channel projects under
your purview. The three marinas provide mooring for 394 boats up
to 40 ft. long. This is in an area of the sound which is very
shallow, and primarily suited to use by outboard boats and small
sailboats with centerboards and tip-up rudders. Larger craft
must use the channel to go to an inlet, or east about 8 miles
to deeper water. If these marinas are built, it will greatly
increase the boat traffic along the Intracoastal Waterway.
The application shows the same depth in channel "A" as in the
first marina basin. When towboats push barges along this part of
the IWW, the depth along the shore first drops by a foot or more.
Then a wave of double that amount sweeps ashore, and finally the
water level returns to normal. If a boat drawing 4' were in the
channel as a towboat came by-, it would go aground, then be
slammed by the approaching wave.
What the effect of this phenomena would be on the marina basins,
I do not know. I expect that it would cause severe currents near
the entrance of Channel "A." There might be strong currents in
the basins, as well, as the water tries to change depth rapidly.
The application which I have seen leaves blank the amount of
spoil material, so I will provide a rough estimate. This is
based on the stated area of the basins, the approximate height of
land, and the basin depth. It does not account for the''
difference between MLW, used to measure depths, and MHW, used to
measure land heights. I expect that this is about 1.2 ft, but
do not have accurate data for this location.
Channel A
Channel B
Marina 1
Marina 2
Marina 3
Connecting
channel (not in permit)
total
1

22,000 cubic yards
37,000
157,000 `/lam./?t
52,000
e,
4 0, 0 0 0 1L?C-
24,000
332,000
f_416?
The spoil retention basin shown for channel "A" is inadequate
even for that channel, and none is shown for channel "B" or the
marinas. There are over 10 acres of inland excavation required for the
marinas, in land varying from 5' to 15' in elevation. Thus 9 to
20 ft. of soil must be removed, and placed somewhere. Where?
Perhaps the most alarming item about the permit appears on one of
the small maps showing proposed development areas. You will note
that the "residential" areas extend out over the marsh to Sikes
Creek on either bank, and include a marsh near the entrance to
Sanders Bay..I have been up Sikes Creek and East Fork by boat,
and they are typical productive, relatively undisturbed marshes.
Birds and marine life abound; the creeks are teeming with small
fish. It is & quiet backwater which affords a haven to marine
life. The wide areas of spartina alterniflora marsh between the
creeks and the high banks are essential to the productivity of
the ecosystem.
There should not be any fill whatsoever in these marshes. The
residential areas should be set back far enough from the edge of
the marsh to minimize damage. This means that bulkheads should
not be employed, rather the natural shoreline should be
preserved. This is the only practical way to keep the Sanders
Creek/Sikes Creek area productive.
Last year, I retired from the U. S. Coast Guard after 30 years as
a commisioned officer. I have professional experience in
permitting and environmental matters; for a period of three years
I was in charge of the bridge permitting activity in the Seventh
District, which includes South Carolina, Georgia, most of
Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Until last July I
was Deputy Chief of office of Navigation in Headquarters, which
supervises such matters. The remainder of my experience lies in
operations and in aids to navigation, both having to do with
environmental matters. In addition, I hold a Master's Degree in
Marine Science from Long Island University; my area pf
concentration dealt with estuarine processes.
My wife and I, and many of our neighbors, are concerned that this
project might be Started without an assessment of its effects on
the environment. Does not such a project require either an
Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement?
Unless one of these is done, and provided for appropriate review,
none of us can know either the state of Sanders Creek now, or the
possible changes. We are not anti-development, but we do not
want development to create irreversible damage to the environment.
Sincerely,
AWIJ ogd on
C , USCG (ret.)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
";44 REGION IV
845 COURTLAND STREET
JUL 2 8 1987 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 80865
4WMD-MEB/LP
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
P.O. BDx 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Dave Baker
SUBJECT: Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
(Public Notice No. 87-N-016-0323)
Dear Colonel Woodbury:

VVA SEC QUALITY
TION

AUG 5 1987
0*6 Of Environmental M
Raleigh, N. G, 8L
This is in response to the subject public notice concerning a proposal to
construct a residential development including three marinas which provide
394 boat slips and 348 dry storage boat slots along with two access channels
on Bogue Sound, Carteret County, North Carolina.
As a result of this activity, approximately 100 sq. ft. of eelgrass (Zostera
marina) mixed with shoal grass (Halodule wrightii) will be removed by the
construction of the access channels. In addition, approximately 120,000
sq. ft. of productive shallow water habitat will also be eliminated by
dredging activities.
The waters in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site are
classified as S.A. and open to commercial and recreational harvesting of
shellfish. It is our understanding that there are significant concentrations
of hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed project site that are extensively utilized by the general public.
Data provided by the State of North Carolina Division of Shellfish Sanitation
indicates that the construction and operation of marinas at this site would
result in the closure of large portions of these shellfish areas.
Proposed activities in and around the marina, including waste disposal
systems, will have an adverse effect on the quality and quantity of shellfish.
The effects would include the disturbance of existing shellfish beds, the
suitability of the shellfish to be harvested, larval settling rates, and the
introduction of pollutants (fecal bacteria, gasoline and oil) into the
waters in and near the marinas. This Agency has recently reviewed the
Marina Hydrology study dated May 7, 1987, pertaining to the subject permit
application. It is our opinion that there is insufficient information in
this document to indicate the project will not be a chronic source of water
quality problems.
[^ 110
-2-
Consequently, because of these factors we reccmiend that this permit
application be denied.
Sincerely yours,
l
Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator
cc: See enclosed
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
..

J;
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
Route 5, Box 603 (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570.919-393-8185
.ECG ED'
Mr. Paul Wilms JUL 15 1937
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687 Diu. of ''nvironr:-ienrtai -Mgt.
Raleigh, NC 27611 Raieigh, N. G
Dear Paul:
Enclosed is a letter that the Coastal Federation has
submitted in response to the CAMA Public Notice on the
proposed Broad Reach project in Ocean, NC. In response to
your notice in the Carteret County News-Times published on
June 29, 1987, the Coastal Federation requests that you
consider this enclosed letter as our comment to DEM.
In addition, we request that a public hearing be held on
the 401 Certification for this project. It is my
understanding that a petition with over 120 signatures of
people that clam either for recreation or commerce in the
waters immediately adjacent to this project has been
submitted to the Division of Coastal Management objecting
to the proposal. We believe that a public hearing is
needed to allow these citizens the opportunity to more
adequately voice their concerns to you.
Given that the current proposal is obviously inappropriate
and we feel will be denied by the regulatory agencies, we
would expect the developers to make a series of major
modifications to their proposal. Therefore, we would ask
that you wait to schedule a hearing until a final plan is
submitted that the agencies can seriously consider
permitting. This would avoid the necessity of having to
conduct a series of hearings on this project.
Sincerely,
Todd Miller
Executive Director
V 20 W

July 14, 1987

NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
Route 5, Box 803 (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570 9 919--393-9185
July 9, 1987
Mr. Dave Owens
Division of Coastal Management
P.O Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Re: Proposed Broad Reach Marina, Carteret County
Dear Dave:
The Coastal Federation submits these initial comments
on the proposed marina. We expect to have additional.
comments after we have studied other aspects of the
project.
The proposed large commercial marina with 394 wet
slips and 340 dry slips is simply not appropriate for this
site adjacent to productive and heavily used shellfish
waters. The shellfish waters would be closed as a result
of this marina. The wet slips are designed for boats up
to 40 feet long and overnight dockage is provided.
Discharges of sewage must be expected.
Proposed-marina basin 1 has 194 wet slips and is
located less than 500 feet from the sound. According to
the March 20, 1987 DHS marina closure policy, 194 wet
slips on a closed system marina would have a closed area
of 1600 feet -- so closure would extend at least 1100 feet
into shellfish waters. Boat basin 3 has 94 slips and. in
about 600 feet from the sound. The closed area would
extend at least 200 feet into the. sound for this channel.
However, the closure areas would need to be much
larger to adjust for the 105 wet slips in basin 2 and the
340 dry slips in basin 1. A wide closure would be
necessary as there would be a tremendous potential for
pollution from this large operation.
This project also brings into focus the issue of
destruction of fishery resources due to boat traffic that
is excessive for the ecological conditions at the site.
The waters of Bogue Sound are shallow and highly
productive shellfish and primary nursery areas. At the
present time, these waters are increasingly stressed by
turbidity from boat traffic and development.
Mr. Dave Owens
July 9, 1987
Page 2.
Unless the turbidity issue is brought under control,
the valuable marine resources will be lost. The proposed
marina presents an extreme case which will cause greatly
increased turbidity in the part of the sound with the
lowest flushing rate. The issue of turbidity must be
considered in this project.
With available information, it appears that the
fishery resources would be significantly damaged by
increases in turbidity and boat wakes with this project.
The CAMA and DEM requirement to protect existing uses of
waters requires that the permit be denied unless the
applicant can show that the project will not damage public
marine resources due to the recognised problem of
increases in turbidity.
Thank you for considering these comments. As noted
above, we expect to submit additional comments on this
application.
Sincerely,
,J 60V-
Jim Kennedy
Resource Analyst
cc: Bill Mills
Dave Cotton
Bob Benton
Bill Hogarth
1 -17
n i
J F e - .:?.
ri r- }.,. ... nt;
T ` vl.i
ithreate ?
Ewa
. I, ` t r v. F
ByJei<Jaaee Farm land and
Sum swamp Fronk set aside for high
and r Highway 24 to Bogue Sound would use way ro> W.J. Br
l Susan SUVOW fall to extensive residential deveb f. _ R tired Con.
opment, a ; owned as
39!-sllP marina with dry What developers acquired the ' more r'
V J ' i stack storage, clubhouse, s6 s. - Elmo Smith farm, Ocean,, a quiet 'unincorporated ' ' store, a Mroom inn and a resta* project and one of the lar
community id western. Carteret rank gest prop. ' ` The mi
0 County, could become a good-slc'' erties in+ ocean, neighbors.
were us: -
o town virtually overnight, it a group ` A portion of the aptly named 27 - eager to know what was in store "It wool
of Raleigh developers has its way. acre Broad Reach project would be What they discovered dismayed beautiful s
e marry of them, said. "Besl
a is going
-100 L . r j "' 1 i`' + = c e the es
IA6 Bay, an
?i P' 6 C 1. C surroun
#w Y
- t - y ... Mr: B
C Ix o Comm
uni
Z + j, z -0
threat:
MC
r $ $ storage
V S. o`p '- channels
?` + m way, one
and the
w c u through
? ?= 3 n 0 nearby
Mr. Bro
ti C 3N
a « a prunary
z? u Z E othem e
?.'r F $!?. N L i I
apt
y 4q
Z U E? o
,_ O
W h.E
U)
: CL
CL
ay' i ? y?.?t P
y R
k r
?' } 1 1
yea
c
don Jr. Of.Hmstoq a
Guard captala who h .a
er home in Ocean f a,
Years, summed up ft
Is abet really both-
?+4
be hard to object to v
gte-family homes I he' Erw .
des, that kind of resident D
? ok.. after the sound and
0," specifically Sanders .i.
o
rs and Sikes creeim and -«
' Inar'Slle3
.don and others in the
see this as the real) ,
marina and dry' stack,. N
iness with two access; ?L
the Intracoastal Water, W
VCtly into Bogue Sound
ler- into Sanders Bay a
existing channel from ; ;C
ayViilageproperty.
>n describes the area as
ellflsh nursery. He and.0
ve the marina. would'[
o
aadReac6Pg.2A) , `rg

b?
\i
tv ) TSt
i
P ?A
uYr Y 30.fi ?` R
(TI
- t
? ? k 1
.... .

'
?. JW
N`

f?..S
1 ff

fA-%, `
- ,r
to A
s?
V }?k
. t V .rte

i
IM, SLUM VI-11
pu ,aauor saI1eg? °I SUIP V ?.; 'pUe srauUetd Peel
-BN,.V.d'iM3wV it ouW3onZ wl
-qSUffMFUoaATgPlnoAU04M1 lS ; -?-)edAgpalessluoum app
-UW. sit PUB eulleau M papa am of «'}damdolaeap P pueldn
r .:
d IPIM - IWOAel„ Se 2 ?
VIMOW ela PM adoad ee4lem aql
mo
smno sPu9 Sty! m ?lnsw Pag4 P alaa?tpilR
i
` sadmoam R? saran lit OM Jw
-nem a e m sassalppe panbaj
'salslsgo laglo aosl Arm Slado[aA lale
n •
a
npUOa g mlad stRl,, 'pa4wd agl 10 amisa 'I
?
ap'dwaauw 14?inee?pUB SUOR .
ae ? paToid
$aFta=12 auaOdoi WE a alp amriag
l°,
z

' aa[go SlOgQ%OU of UORTPPe Ul

-aopew>idza lagpty ?A?A+in9

pleS''aul slaamisaAUI gaeag Pews ;
.-
i
ado I
A IMN, loI aPlse ps Aladoid
ysn ... )UaP$azd VAaaPlYl I1e3 -PAaP 4WIR aql In uoAlod s
„
ppnutm oa deedg8lq to RJnos r
_" ? l° Ja lau Aluo lol sllmlad Qq pue a8palp pue
uamdopt ap brew VimVA lol pam
" Male ue seaogs pajoid llelano ag}
jo dew V Vawduid sl splaA 16S0d ?
aWm NaOJ3 sxvm -O ue lean )
-92%M]Klepso'JtoUol9tAlQ•O•Nag1
now
?.?
IlgLz
l

-W aaejmsgns gilm field laaaAsall

U
`

ApAAelW Pus A+ou aal suo4s

Rlim ears DS II1 paasld agPP eU11

f pagdde seq'3oaload greag pewg
aspop uong=Tnw sip to mwdoid
Uam
? I'`R8la1eH L89LZ =oS 0 d wperado sarlem am
l
61e1m a
.. .A d ?Pa;?I -M a jvM WapW aq pings iI„
' d.auI )ua I tpeag PsoiE
aBeuBiq IeMo3 to ?+la ?
d 4MJaq paAim

l Q fl lnf
=GqS" UOTIMU J le4M a Qq PlnoA1

sal
' Alois
•(onssl sM
uo3 )mod
paler 4") aedlmel

,
r. ,:IUamdolasaa
J
,Z ms aq )sn m paW ?d gasag p
l seaie ptpuapl
Passe 7nq
A
303 PanolslnUa sladolaAap aql f4m3 Vem as 8m
AO
e 03 PON ?
A&
a
k
q} guluia,UO, sluammoo i
• `: 'aQplnoa euµem aql
-el ?raugsaq a8ee+as lO W4 le" q
aA
o4 sleoq
> la?
.,- a ttox 'Peaq)In4 io iaa3 OOS`e womAip
ua
io ? o ?'N am >o aols
sa?
°g e
we
os
so wom alolaq UopeeeJYa gonomn
B to sate agl laaaoad
° aou seen ag 'J"eAl Buww lol
spa deep am pWm Algegwd sn& agJ q
VUe sPuaM Pali
a
w
?
s mpa awns
am °I warm
-JAI(I -3-K
p
o
j[
AMAOMJ AA
A% SladolaAaP sM'podai
of ae
PPro -laAaP vapor in of Rawomv eupmta pa
'*a18 am j
sW Inge paw l
SA to a? PUa MOM (J Pau
noe+ awl s'Uoluag '?
a
'
oloae
gue 0# ?aY
teJiBol
'SPO uoAnQ1A
}wmleail a8em pee ?allTp
-9
: q
Pl
aglo)SAvgsraglo
pafwd
l
a e
$
o
a
'
-Ijpd puelpoog .om rw Own agl .
.:-sw pug Aiddus salsas aAIoAU1 slUapl
l
oa la l
. '_Vw aq swp*go PaUe" Seq Vl
el>g ieaSeO3to Uois1A
;.T q
ms
l
I gs ioeoupffils jo
` Apu
oalaeieedl P@om AaEe2I Pig Lq
limp AIolslg leiglna Paeso9s `sell g
0
dal sale 6q paaloASwaw _ .
v
am of Jlal a ul W021010 'lAl Vasodoad ells aM to mtlnm a -ml .
4rm egl so) weld page PlMI+ipTgA%
14i
Ml8oloaegale tmm11d aqy
eoo
ABP lagloas se
se sdeglad'=wwd agl8uol
d aqy
'paUOS)oasl w I
aS RIIsaH to ,?is[A]Q '7K Imp
aaS aopellueS gslli[agS aaels ,
A
eld olslHlo alli
lok .:
iaq;lol a19?? Lem leq? `iaal
ag _wd pine gaWa ' OPW& a1 MA WA

L
z
oa 8U!P1oxrV
r . xA nl PQeIpMneaq ao IOW `?? qog
amos d laorpai ,: :
j? .., -. . •
paHAsnf slew1 llaQl WV
a
*c% [q OU ylis a81ei aUO 8ulPnla d a
el
= m1olal ppoAiPPe ?,iafo
.
o
*j m Ir_
`-4es;o laal OOS'6 R plnoes laamdo A
o sews
_ ~e4 'ie1a4 PoloaeRwe l

' r
x
; galA! ieQa Pam eau
'a,SBp SG o[

-PAaP aq,L 'asae ad slPm falsnog

•(amss[
VS
elgmnloo
aalu do Paulni ..
o erglole3 tq
Isa}?[ 1ae?uV
d
'
. *m wd an inn= s Tmrod aq,L

pvondde
eao
RaaaBe
fa
J?431o,4leuap ?qo Ue gIIA 41=

uu am Ruwanaum mn VAMP
`?Aal aleledas -sas) alagas

.:.,KUV seen SWenlsa., QAAxpwd II
o
"OAM agl=
"p lUam
`
PO?XWOO
P04DAM sasl8oloasgaie L
]K
VMlmgns &MbPAW aq1 yaawa8e
sal aasledas VoIa dolaAap 0?
o
A
en
? +?SOm aql to aao Uaaq sag )BqM >?j

p slslaeloq `ssa wd )uamdolaAap
pa
?eAi tei?3 Jo wpm am to WU
R
i
wd ipeag lpewS .
a
eaS Pews lol slUaB
_

l ' ;!
fi?I ?d?J paw
t
aV
W Pam
YIgVj
i0fam ' Ails iR o<A aol la8eaem
p pr s
?
s
lr _ ..

THI NEWS TIMES ».. Moroh*ad Citynooufort, N.C. Friday, July 10, 19$7
Neighbor
• F.
,.voices concerns.,..,.
The proposed Broad Reach development in r ;
Broad Reach Investments I
ld "

Ocean, off N.C. 24 between Morehead City and Cape
Carteret, has been drawing fire from more than one nc. wou
threaten one
of the remaining pristine parts of Bogue Sound."
adjacent property owner.
In a letter to Dave Owens, director of the N.C.
Di
i
io "My conversations with local fishermen indicate
that they are worried abou the eventual fate of an
v
s
n of Coastal Management, Charles Shilstone, :
Y Route 5, Box 607, Newport (Ocean)
said he was important fishing, shrimping, clamming and `
"
+•
,
worried that the marinas, boat storage facilities, '. " oystering area
,
Mr. Shilstone wrote. `They are .
also Aware that a lot of shellfishing area was lost
inn and condominiums proposed by Raleigh-based (See N04Wh rPQ JA)
bor -voices cone rn r T? -
,.,
(?t?ulpdQwistP?JA) opments have been
ham" by asked to provide a mor@ adequate -

when the Brandywine Bay and Gull :
not taking them into account. ; . basis for Judging his project and bow

Harbor developments were. cop- :
` ' Mr Sbilatone contended that ca it may adversely affect. adj
oip.
'
strutted.
`Along my shoreline and continu-
i pals
in the proposed development ing Properties and the .valiga . of '
would accelerate transfer of pests- ; Bogue Sound for the
ng westward ... the owners report
Increased turbidity, as much as six tides, sprayed to control insects, la public in general."
into the shellfish areas. Fish could
inches of muck over what used to be be contaminated as well, he said.
l'
a hard muddy' bottom, and washed "The possibility of accumulating .:
out eel grass, all attributed to high. pesticides, We chemicals from
speed boat traffic hi the ipWd wa-
; boat bottoms and bacteria as a part
tor+'aY.
. of stormwater runoff W o raises the 'r
"I need hardly remind you that the question of the flushing action (or%
underlying goal of the Coastal Area lack thereof) to be expected in, ba,'%
Management Act (enforced by the sins and channels dug in a part' of:'
Division of Coastal Management) I$ Bogue Sound that has tginigaJal tidhi
the protection of fragile coastal re- activity.??..
sources," Mr. Sbilstone continued.
"As a reflection of tbis
goal
your
In addl
W Shllstone wrote
.
,
regulations require that water ?.
q 64 marshes
? Marshes are essential to the too'.
sty standard* and existing,
uee?
h chain that supports fish and sbellf•.
1411, but the comfort of the
id
t
e waters be protected. res
ents.,
of Broad Reach may bring abolg ex, ;
Mr: Shilstone said he understood tensive spraying, wpicb cau.:,vir•
that ' the N.C. Shellfish Sanitation
Section had a policy that required tually eliminate fish, shellfish and
Important species of birds."
automatic prohibition of spoilt
ishiog Finally, he wrote, "It is obvious
'
in waters around marinas. from the
concerns' indicated in this : i
"Bad experiences have provident ?, . letter that the dev*PQ' should
;
Justification ... and the same reasons ° .

apply to the Proposed marina at r
Qwte,m
c.?"
NIWS. "'s
Broad Reach," he wrote. IUM L
no a
ar
nt w
f
' (Us" 70iw°«I,1"o
M+;
pp
e
ay
or a 700-bo4t ma.
ring to avoid bacteriological and ;"`;'"C "
'e'
chemical pollution of nearby shellf- "
AMrobod F:Nr• N.C. 34"? 1..:
Ish areas, or the destruction of their

babitat. These barsards are so well :«•^'??•• ?»I.p. yew •1 .
Mo?.Aod F:IIy, Noelh carollna r u..
*F Twnaa
•

ikr?n?om,wy?rt++?n,that tb?rVF IN no reason to list

0%.J4..Wl Jett?l1 'at other i19Y41' ,
,?
The Ass"Je W F"*914 oft#"W OXCIV61V r to
+6
oto For publkoNw of all IK.1 oowt po"1M . ,
?ow
ll
N91?(
«w
MI
?
.
.
l
,q
? ?? ?4Mo!CA'!•,
,

4m cc A 0 C. C13
um go 0
loom
ow > It >b
a Ira
?4jjjz 4
J, Lv
• ? ? ? w V ? ? .? ? d d ? y ?
Mai gagg
cc
ea
`a
p y ??$
R co 4m a
.. a ea
• • ? ,..? a W a, eUi i '?i' d U w
p?p•o H may., c N.
I is W?w to
ol•
ago'.
y ?

Mr. David Owens
Mr. Chf.rles Jones
Division of Coastal Management
P 0 Box 769
Morehead City NC 28557
Dear Mr. Owens and Mr. Jones:
i
P 0 Box 14.5
Swanshoro KC 28564
28 May 1967
?.Of frnviFOnmc3ntai'A?L a
On 2 May 1967 I was served with a copy of a CAMA Permit
Application by J 'W Rose, Rose and Associates in reference to
White Oak Township, Lot 30, Carteret County. As adjacent
landowner on both sides of proposed marina and boat storage
site, I am responding to the application.
?;nclosed is an itemized list of my comments on the
apt.)lication. Also enclosed is a copy of a petition signed(I
by property owners and renters in the vicinity of the proposed
water disposal site. Homeowners to the east of Lot 30, Mr.
Jerry Chessonj Mr. F.C. BarwicA and Mr. J.R.Riggs are much
opposed to the proposal boat facility. Local owners adjacent "
to Highway 24 between proposed boat facility and proposed waste
water site ?ire concerned about implied route of sewer pipe.
The land owners include J. R. Riggs, H. T. Herring, F. }i.nd J.
Rouse, W. and 11. Barbee, L. 'and J. Gore and those served by
two access paths.
I shall be sending to you additional material within
the next few days.
Please advise me immediately of any changes in the
standing of this appl.ication.
Thank you for information and assistance you have given
me and for your patience in reading through these documents.

y42 l?
a
::SUN .1 .1987
Very Truly Yours,
Harriet T. Herring
?W
-_...,,.-3'.4
r
COMMENTS ON CEDAR P01NT BOAT STORAGE PROPOSAL
1. APPLICATION IS INCOMPLETE: (A) No operation and maintenance
plan for proposed stormwater system; (B) No provisions for main-
tenance dredging of marina basin ( no consent from ;joint owner
and no areas to place spoils); (C) Inadequate details provide
on parking; (D) No details or agreements on how stormwater
will be pumped to disposal site are provided. (E) Property
owners adjacent to stormwater disposal site received no
official notification.
2. SHALLOW DRINKING WATFR WELLS COULD BE POLLUTED AROUND
DISPOSAL SITE: Runoff collected at the marina site will contain
bacteria, lead, zinc, copper and high levels of hydrocarbons
from fuel and oil spillage. A ree6nt report by the NC Division
of Environmental Management (portions attached) indicate that
coastal soils such as at the disposal site will not treads
hydrocarbons. Furthermore, as explained on page 8 of the
hydrologic survey submitted by the applicant, the soils
surrounding the site will be saturated. Saturated soils will
not remove bacteria. Combined with the septic tank at the site,
bacteria loadings will endanger shallow drinking water wells
that surround the disposal site and pose a thread to public
health.
3• LACK OF PARKING WILL THREATEN HIGHWAY TRAF~'IC SAFETY: If this
area were zoned by the county, a marina of this size could not
be constructed. CarterettCounty requires minimum lot side yard
of 30 feet, minimum front yard of 50 feet, maximum structure and
parking; area coverage of 65 percent. In addition, employee
parking, customer parking and storage areas is required. Using
the minimum county requirem6nts, over 250 parking spaces would
be required. Nineteen parking spaces are shown on the project
plans. Proposed parking on ground level of facility im}ractical.
Equipment would be unable to remove boats from storap?e racks.
4. BOATS USING FACILITY If ILL INTRRFERE WITIT ACC'?,.35 `. C R1:f'ARIAN
PROPERTY: There is a total of 1,224.53 square feet In th- ex-
isting basin that is available to the applicant for boats to tie
up. An average boat using this facility will need 160 square feet
(20 feet x 8 feet). Therefore, only 47 boats can fit within the
basin without interferring with the adjacent property owner's
riparian rights. Congestion in tho basin will be extreme during
busy weekends and riparian ri,hts of the adjacent property owner
will be violated.
5. THREAT TO ADJACENT PROPERTY CIVNER'S BULKHEAD: Corrugated
fiberglass is fairly impervious to marine boring organisms. It
is, however, brittle to impact. Large concentrations of boats
would endanger the fiberglass.bulkhead. Furthermore, the
increased wave action would cause increased leaching of soil
at joints between fiberglass panels.
6. SHSLLVISH HABITAT: Oysters grow on the fiberglass bulkhead,
are harvested by bulkhead owner. The Marina Policy, North
Carolina Division of Health Services, Shellfish Sanitation,
effective March 20, 1987 states : "In review of CAMA permit
a plications for construction of a marina the automatic
recommendation of a prohibited zone will apply. "
7. DAMAGE TO DOCK: A few boats have occupied Mr. Jones side
of the basin intermittently for soveral years. The boats are
primarily commercial boats with experienced boat handlers
at the helm. Nonetheless, within the past few weeks one of those
boats rammed my dock with enough fored to fracture two 2" x 6"
planks a ienSth of 10" from point of impact. It was an accidents
but my dock needs repair work. The attitudes and experience of
vacation boat handlers might well endanger my dock and seawall
even more.
8. ROOM FOR LARGE BOATS TO MANUEVER: At times my dock has been
used for mooring large boats. Use of existing basins as a
marina would interfere with my riparian rights to use the
water and waterbed.

LABORATORY STUDIES
Laboratory tests have been performed to compare the
effectiveness of different soil types in removing heavy metals
and petroleum residues from urban surface runoff (Owe, 1981).
Surface stormwater runoff from a heavily used shopping center
parking lot in Syracuse, New York, was percolated through
separate columns of Arkport sand and clayey Dunkirk. The columns
were 80 cm tall and treated with varying concentrations of the
runoff for a period of one hydrologic year. Soil samples
throughout the column were tested for zinc, lead, cadmium, copper
and petroleum residues. The concentration of contaminant in the
soil was positively correlated with percent organic matter,
runoff concentration, exchange capacity and final soil pH. A
negative relationship was found between contaminant concentration
and bulk density of the soil.
The link between percent organic matter and adsorption of
hydrocarbons is supported by another laboratory study performed
in Toronto, Canada (Nathwani and Phillips, 1977). Crude oil
spiked with benzene, toluene, o-xylene and n-hexadecane was
percolated through five different soil types with varying
percentages of organic matter. After adsorption readings were
taken, desorption of the hydrocarbons was measured by adding 10
ml of distilled water to each sample, equilibrating, centrifuging
and analyzing specific quantities of the supernatant.
Adsorption of the hydrocarbons was found to correlate
positively with organic matter content. In contrast desorption
varied inversely with organic matter. Desorption of the
hydrocarbons is shown in Table 1. Table 2 illustrates the amount
of hydrocarbons adsorbed by the organic matter in the soil
samples.
These two laboratory studies are important in relation to the
sands of coastal North Carolina. Porous pavement installations on
the coast will typically be underlain by sand with an organic
matter content of less than or equal to It By comparing this
sand with the Grimsby loam (organic matter la), one would
expect only a slight adsorption of hydrocarbons and heavy metals.
Furthermore up to 86% of these adsorbed hydrocarbons could be
desorbed by flushing with water. In effect there would be very
little removal of pollutants by the sand. Rain would continue to
wash down these soluble hydrocarbons (American Petroleum
Institue, 1080). Once in contact with the groundwater they would
be freely transported, possibly into an area sensitive to
degradation.
0 V I VV0 ".Xkl
lHhr. ? 1 ?? lit ?y
-7-
C. Area Requirements
(1) Minimum land area .........................30,000 sq. ft.
(2) Minimum lot width ......................... 300 feet
(3) Minimum lot depth ......................... 100 feet
(4) Minimum lot side yard ..................... 30 feet
(5) Minimum front yard ........................ 50 feet a
(6) Maximum building height ................... ? 3f ?--- '?'
(7) Maximum structure and parking area coverage 65 percent
D. Employee Parking, Custcmer Parking and St2 age Areas
(1) All parking areas shall be paved and each space for automobiles
shall he 10 feet by 20 feet
(2) Alin um number of employee a _?t?- nu res /
?- Via-- .."-.._loyee
?'(3) Minimum boat trailer spaces if launching
ramp is developed ........................... 25 spaces
(T Minimum automobile/boat trailer space
size if launching ramp is developed ......... 12 ft. by 40 ft.
(5) Minimum number of auto imbile parking
spaces exclusive of automobile/boat
trailer spaces 1h per_slin
(6) Minimum number of automobile parking spaces
if dry boat storage is developed, exclusive
of slip storage and autcmbile/boat trailer
puking spaces required ..................... 1 space per each boat
(7) All parking areas shall be a minimrn of 25 feet from any highway
right-of-way line and a minimum of 20 feet from any property line.
Such areas of setback shall be composed of natural vegetation and
planted vegetation and natural topography shall remain intact.
(8) All*parkinq areas shall be separated from any structure by a 15
foot buffer composed of natural vegetation and planted vegetation
and the buffer area shall emphasize preservation of natural
topography.
(9) Parking rows shall be limited to 25 spaces per row and each two
parkincy rows in a parking lot shall be separated by natural
vegetation and planted vegetation a minimum of four (4) feet
in width.
kt S-
f of Slips in Marina
10 - 25
26 - 50
51 - 75
76 - 100
Size of Prohibited Area (Feet)
Open System Closed System
100 200
200 400
300 600
400 800
Open system marinas exceeding 100 slips will require an additional 100
feet for each 25 slips or portion thereof over 100. A closed s),!item
marina will require 200 feet for each 25 slips or portion thereof over
100. The automatic prohibited area beyond the marina will not be
recommended for those marinas which do not contain boats with heads.
4. Water quality impacts of marina facilities may require an increase in
the size of the prohibited area. In determining if a larger prohibited
area is necessary, marina design, marina usage, dilution, dispersion,
bacteriological, hydrographic, meteorological, and chemical factors
will be considered.
5. In review of CAMA permit applications for construction of a marina the
automatic recommendation of a prohibited zone will apply.
6. Other areas where boats are moored and/or docked will be considered on
a case-by-case basis with respect to sanitary significance relative to
actual or potential contamination and prohibited areas will be
recommended as deemed necessary.
7. Best Professional Judgement of qualified shellfish sanitarians must be
applied to determining adequate restrictions on harvesting in and
around marinas.
This Policy supersedes the Marina Policy dated February 26, 1986.
Effective date:
March 20, 1987
pproved by
ald H. a ne, M.D., M.P.H.
State Health Director
FITZHUON E. WALLACE. JR.
TnowAs H. Monnis
P. C. BARWICK, JR.
VKnwoN H. RocnsLLX
RIcNAnD F. LANDIS, 11
PAULA. RODomAN
DAvID R. Duxt
EDWIN M. BRASWRLL. JR.
WALLACE, MORRIS, BARWICK & ROCHELLE, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST Osrlca BOX 3557
KINSTON, N.C. 28502-3557
May 28, 1987
Mr. David W. Owens
Division of Coastal Management
N. C. DNRCD
Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Re: Permit Application
White Oak Twp - Lot 30
Carteret County
BIB-8601
Dear Mr. Owens:
131 S. QUERN STRRKT
TKLKPHONK (DID) nW I.JIHI
TRwPonAn• Orrlc KR
116 S. QIIRIIN STRRRT
TRLUPHONK (ele) pee-444p
We are attaching; a copy of a letter to Ms. Harriet Herring regarding
a permit application identified therein.
This is to advise you that Jerry Chesson whoseaddress appears below
and I are both adjoining landowners of this project and we have
received no notice of the proposed project. We would like to have
copies of the filings.
Your prompt response to this request will beNVreatly appreciated.
nc y,
C. B i -k Jr.
PCB, Jr./sh
Mr. Jerry Chesson P. C, Barwick, Jr.
607 Ellis Road P. 0. Box 3557
Durham, N. C. 27703 Kinston, N. C. 28501
Route 2 Box 100
Swansboro NC
30 May 1987
Mr. Charles Jones
Division of Coastal Management
P 0 Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557
Dear Mr. Jones
I own and operate Riggs, Amoco which is east
of the site for the proposed dry stack and marina
on Highway 24. The site does not have the parking
space that would be needed for employees and boat
owners.
Vehicles parked on the side of the road and/or
on my property would be a hazard for my customers and would
deter the traveling public from turning into my station.
I would appreciate your considering this
hazardous situation when you evaluate the CAMA permit
application.
Very Truly Yours,
''' or; ? "
James R. Riggs

4 m
0 0
0
0 "?

40 0 02 cd 4) 0
cs '14 0;
9
m
A
bo 3 0 43
0
H
w
.r{
? ?3mm q ro
'd43 ,1 v
4 as

ad
?
? 0 0
002 02
W V-1? a
d. 00 43 43 m 0
r1 0-4
02 Cd 3 0
? 0
H ?$3 ? ? J-r4
T
U1 Sri 0? (D U) cd 11) 4-1
v
+3 W 7 43

02 0'd4-) ILI 4)

04
ri1 m'd ? cd 3 0 00 co 4) m 0 A
H 43 0 3w+ 0 0
0 0+2 tom, Fib W43 m 0
UJ ?m00 r?
ATi +>F,3
Q 0 O 'o ,i 'd b CO Pb m 43 cis 0
?r Fap,00 14000 000 0
P?, m 43
to W m
0
0
m qq
co
34 ? boid
3
3
A b F4 1H 0
F
, 0 4
A 4
4
H A 0 w w m a 0 m 0 ri ad r?
a4 0 06 0 0 'd 0:3 0 r-I Qi 'd m
H 4) 43 40 m
s 0 p m a3
l
G f
GOA wA , w
ri b 3 ro
>a 0 m
m
?
? °
m ?
?
0 '
d
0
? 1
n -'q 0 09m
A 0 w ri r-i F, ad H 4 r-i m m ,a 0 d
0) 0?? rA Cc > 43
? (
0 43 ILI 4-') r -I .0
0 0 34 4 ?
G cdcd 0 F,Wa) m003F,'d mF,
P4 r. E? rz -r-4 -,4 0 F4 040 0 4D
o
a -P 43 .4 H
F
F
p -P
m F, P4 s~ m a
0 d
o m

Pd , r4
,
0I3cda w
a
W 43 m0 ?
Sim w0
9 ?
r1'? ..
a+-I Z 0 wrl ,a m r-i 463 a m a ad rl

U'
0 x r-I
43 ad &
0 r? 0 r-f 0
t-- r-i _
?4 F,O Y ad 'dZ 0 add m40 W Cd m ad ad
ri a14 0 m 0r.1.4 0 om mr mrl '4

43
aa
' m as
? 4 0 ? x ? ?
b
d 0
w o m m 0 0 43 J "A -4 E-4 lz m a
m -,4 0 (D 10 as 4-3

G
a
0 43
VCd -,4 0 0
r
' ,Iri$4 4i0? F,43 4-3
•?+d
a
U mOQm 0 0 44 +3y mtwOCS AO m
F, r? ma30.1 43 ti4.1 ?Ft Fim
Z 0S~cd? rlmb[',m 064--l Ol~(a ' 0
G b,i -P CO F, J-) ri 3 0 0 +> d4t
H F, m 0 co

m a w F, r-I

p'dw
s~ 0
?
H F,00 •
m
0" 0X
0
mm •
S'
G
i
im
H
H -P
0 0 y
a
m +-1 (D CO • ,
r
r
0 43 -H vA 'd r-I 0
0 m
W w'd 43 0 *rl w r'l ,iii ad 43 w4 +3 144 0 rl H 4 d
0 0 0-H 'd r-I ^ A a) W X 0 0 0 P, 0 43 0
4.3 F'043 rlO'dF4 adX
E 0
C -3 cd m 0 0 F, r-I cd O 'd
dQ O F, ^ m
0+3 O,A F, 0 may A• 0 0 §4 a 0A
3r, HOO E W0 0bo&#0 4-F4 m ?lc
Oa 'd c00030 a 0 co 4) t-
o er4 ? 0`? 3 b
0 m -? m AU
m?D G

d Yl ad 0 W ;-1 •rl c a rl 0 +-) q m 1
am 0 m00m? 00" rl ad ?

?1 I FT-i - rfi

JT "IL

It

a
r

++0 a_
4
r-i
0
cal
-I-- I-
3
WHITE OAK ft IV ER
oe o ,.,
4
METES AND SOUNDS
TAKEN FROM A
SURVEY ENTITLED
"A SURVEY 'FOR

ROGER JONES'S B*(
DON A 1-D C . C LE MENT5
R,L.S L-240 p
/ 4l
FLOATING 00C4 Cal- ti \-S-
BREAKWATER OCRTAil-S ?
o?
??EFER TU PAGE 10 dF II k
tio„S
r
N /S •• /o • ty. ?a.J
s-Z
. z°y? ww
CORRUGATED
r2l ?toER G LASS
E h f N:b
SHEET :P1LE
EL)LKHEAZ
BREAKWATER---
C.ouN TY ??. •J Jam' fJti7 r-1 E7
TF1l?rJSI'r1Di JAL. C?,V, ,4rr`.•??
TRACT *i I
GAS--
PuM D

ITS
,0or s?
So
PRO FoSED
16UILDING OD ?+aco
seQVic!
T'%TipN
0
?? E•C
1

5• U.G. GASOLINE TANK
UV. STORMWATER
TANKS MAD PUMPS
r rG m i i6oAT Ho 15T ^R QA
? ?tTCH,
p?+c F-'•"" +-i,.,,: r qNt?
f PRO PCs e
OFF IGC
GAS SPILL CON-
TAINMENT AREA

F y ? GREEN ARE q
EXTEND NEW r6w-K-
?'o HEA 0 30'
MAk"t+ , M. FA•\n/. - 1.33
AREA ?..-M. L.y,/, a -O, i'1
VIC,IN i l y MA P AN D.
T E PLAN R' HOSE AND
V T i_ •r
?: EDAI? PG. ?
C-Af-kTC-RaT Cv, NI,C.
a SIC AL E CIA) io' :5 -2'6, -87
ASSOCIATES, P. A.
. Now 8*r,n, N C
PAGE 3oF I I

11 11
e X 41 477
a
M
A" &A
` ,dos, ? Ca ? 5 a
1
1 O p
?pg1R _ J W N
PSG M S 81° 3,a47
iN ??od w 1 ,
S-fo?MvJAf ER ANA - QaGQ4;eV,gCE
4E?;EWAGS )1S4-4>sAL. A;zze:A
TRAGT
oF'MWATER 45 V 0SU 9 FA C E
A.Rr.A ? 1v,OSE AND
1-6-" EDAR POINT D= AT
jTGRAc?L= xNC. cASSOCIATES, P. A.
'ARTEk •?
u?5700 ?., ,?IV.C•.?_.a' Now Seen NC

Vol-k
i`
O?A__
?O Q •__-----
MARINE CHEMURGICS
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ROUTE 5, BOX 603 (OCEAN) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570 • [phone]
'IF,
JUL
July 15, 1987
ppr
Mr. ?'a't'
. Paul Wilms . of Raleigh, Envirorl??
Division of Environmental Management
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Wilms:
Enclosed is our letter of July 13 to Mr. David Owens, and by
copies, to other persons who will be reviewing the impact of
the proposed Broad Reach project upon productive marshes,
shorelines and clean waters in the Ocean. NC area.
As evidenced by our comments, we consider it essential to
hold a public meeting to discuss what this developer plans to
do, and its impact. The suggestion that a large marina and
drystack be placed in this environmentally fragile area, and
that valuable fish and shellfish nursery and harvesting areas
be eliminated or endangered, seems outrageous. The developer
should be asked for assurances, supported by adequate data,
that public rights will be respected. To facilitate indepen-
dent review, technical data for presentation at this public
meeting should be available to the public a few weeks before
the meeting date.
We respectfully request that a public hearing be arranged.
Sincerely,
CL?
SyViia and Ted Miller
Distribution :
Bob Benton
Randy Cheek
Dave Cotton
Will Fowler
Bill Hogarth
Charlie Hollis
David Owens
Lee Pelej
Dave Rackley
i
: VUL 24 W
WATER QUA,L
SECTION
S' "
i.
k NE CHEMURCICS
MARINE
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (!
ROUTE 5. BOX 603 (Or-LAN) • NEWPORT. NORTH CAROLINA 28570 • (91 9) 383.2 t 98
YixY
July 13, 1987
Mr. David Owens, Director
Division of Coastal Management
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr, Owens:
A notice that appeared in the
County News Times, concerning
Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
0 n invites public comment,
, + x!41 ! , fl , f I {r ?,1 d. 4
i
v ?, ?, - c. yd t roc
June 29 issue of Carteret
permit applications filed by
regarding a 278 acre tract near
cea ,
We have lived on Bogus Sound since 1950'an4 own land with ?,•,
400 feet on the shoreline, north of Marker 33. We are deeply
concerned about long term effects that the proposed dry stack
and marina will have upon commercial and recreational ,
shellfishing and finfishing, swimming, water sports and other
uses which require clean water. it
We fully agree with the letters sent to you by Mr. Shilstone
and Captain Brogden. Their statements, and the concerns about
shellfish harvesting in a petition signed by 124 persons, ,
should help convince you that the primary question is the i
appropriateness of large scale marinas and drystacks far from
the inlets and rapidly flowing currents.
Announcements concerning the proposed development are so re-
cent that it would be inappropriate to permit access channels
to be dredged before the entire marina and drystack concept
receives public appraisal. The 6/29/87 public notice states
that "the Division of Environmental Management proposes to
take final action on this water quality certification on or
before July 26, 19870. Dredging presents its own unique
problems, but equally important are the effects of heavy boat
traffic, gasoline and oil, toxic chemicals in antifouling
paint, boat sewerage, and marine litter,
y I?
1
l , r N' 11 "q I
.w.w. .If..iY, N.n lf. , Y ...4..11.M Y. eYeb 4 ?.4M+ .
r
Lttr. to Mr. David Owens - Page 2 - July 13, 1987
"State Guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern, 6/9/87"
suggests many appropriate questions that must be answered in
connection with the proposed marina and drystack. We intend
to keep in touch with the developer's answers to key ques-
tions and their supporting data, to make sure that their
plans fully protect Bogue Sound, public rights, and nearby
property owners.
Sincerely,
SylWia and Ted Miller
Distribution s Bob Benton
Randy Cheek
Dave Cotton
Will Fowler
Bill Hogarth
Charlie Hollis
Lee Pelej
Dave Rackley
Paul Wilms
ti

. Et,,
'?
JUL 14 1987
MARINE CHEMURGICS 1)K Of Environmental t,
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ?Igt.
?- fi ')7PIC7h 11 i.
ROUTE 5, BOX 803 (OCEAN) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 26570 • [phone]
July 13, 1987
Mr. David.Owens, Director
Division of Coastal Management
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Owens:
"
JIB 20

A notice that appeared in the June 29 issue of Carteret
County News Times, concerning permit applications filed by
Broad Reach Investments, Inc. regarding a 278 acre tract near
Ocean, invites public comment.
We have lived on Bogue Sound since 1950 and own land with
400 feet on the shoreline, north of Marker 33. We are deeply
concerned about long term effects that the proposed dry stack
and marina will have upon commercial and recreational
shellfishing and finfishing, swimming, water sports and other
uses which require clean water.
We fully agree with the letters sent to you by Mr. Shilstone
and Captain Brogden. Their statements, and the concerns about
shellfish harvesting in a petition signed by 124 persons,
should help convince you that the primary question is the
appropriateness of large scale marinas and drystacks far from
the inlets and rapidly flowing currents,
Announcements concerning the proposed development are so re-
cent that it would be inappropriate to permit access channels
to be dredged before the entire marina and drystack concept
receives public appraisal. The 6/29/87 public notice states
that "the Division of Environmental Management proposes to
take final action on this water quality,certification on or
before July 26, 1987". Dredging presents its own unique
problems, but equally important are the effects of heavy boat
traffic, gasoline and oil, toxic chemicals in antifouling
paint, boat sewerage, and marine litter.

Lttr. to Mr. David Owens - Page 2 - July 13, 1987
"State Guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern, 6/9/87"
suggests many appropriate questions that must be answered in
connection with the proposed marina and drystack. We intend
to keep in touch with the developer's answers to key ques-
tions and their supporting data, to make sure that their
plans fully protect Bogue Sound, public rights, and nearby
property owners.
Sincerely,
Sy1Wia and Ted Miller
Distribution : Bob Benton
Randy Cheek
Dave Cotton
Will Fowler
Bill Hogarth
Charlie Hollis
Lee Pelej
Dave Rackley
Paul. Wilms
f ?
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL FEDERATION
Route 5, Box 603 (Ocean) • NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570.919-393-8185
July 9, 1987
Mr. Dave Owens
Division of Coastal Management
P.O Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Re: Proposed Broad Reach Marina, Carteret County
Dear Dave:
RECEIVED
JUL 131987
WATER QUALITY
OPERATIONS BRANC?N
The Coastal Federation submits these initial comments
on the proposed marina. We expect to have additional
comments after we have studied other aspects of the
project.
The proposed large commercial marina with 394 wet
slips and 340 dry slips is simply not appropriate for this
site adjacent to productive and heavily used shellfish
waters. The shellfish waters would be closed as a result
of this marina. The wet slips are designed for boats up
to 40 feet long and overnight dockage is provided.
Discharges of sewage must be expected.
Proposed marina basin 1 has 194 wet slips and is
located less than 500 feet from the sound. According to
the March 20, 1987 DHS marina closure policy, 194 wet
slips on a closed system marina would have a closed area
of 1600 feet -- so closure would extend at least 1100 feet
into shellfish waters. Boat basin 3 has 94 slips and is
about 600 feet from the sound. The closed area would
extend at least 200 feet into the sound for this channel.
However, the closure areas would need to be much
larger to adjust for the 105 wet slips in basin 2 and the
340 dry slips in basin 1. A wide closure would be
necessary as there would be a tremendous potential for
pollution from this large operation.
This project also brings into focus the issue of
destruction of fishery resources due to boat traffic that
is excessive for the ecological conditions at the site.
The waters of Bogue Sound are shallow and highly
productive shellfish and primary nursery areas. At the
present time, these waters are increasingly stressed by
turbidity from boat traffic and development.
r Ii
Mr. Dave Owens
July 9, 1987
Page 2.
Unless the turbidity issue is brought under control,
the valuable marine resources will be lost. The proposed
marina presents an extreme case which will cause greatly
increased turbidity in the part of the sound with the
lowest flushing rate. The issue of turbidity must be
considered in this project.
With available information, it appears that the
fishery resources would be significantly damaged by
increases in turbidity and boat wakes with this project.
The CAMA and DEM requirement to protect existing uses of
waters requires that the permit be denied unless the
applicant can show that the project will not damage public
marine resources due to the recognized problem of
increases in turbidity.
Thank you for considering these comments. As noted
above, we expect to submit additional comments on this
application.
Sincerely,
c
J w,.?
Jim Kennedy
Resource Analyst
cc: Bill Mills
Dave Cotton
Bob Benton
Bill Hogarth
y J??SED STgT?S.O
Z +?
N-14 pRoll \6
JUL 1 5 1987
4WMD-MEB/LP
L ` Q'r \M1,WIn?,{//?
JUL
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Dave Baker
SUBJECT: Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
(Public Notice No. 87-N-016-0323)
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
This is in response to the subject public notice concerning a proposal to
construct a residential development including three marina basins on the
Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway, Bogue Sound, Carteret County, North Carolina.
This Agency has recently received a copy of a marina hydrology study for
the proposed project. Due to constraints in manpower and excessive workload,
it will not be possible for a member of my staff to visit the project site
and review the hydrological study prior to the closing date of July 20,
1987. Consequently, I am requesting an additional 30-day time extension or
until August 19, 1987. This will allow able time for our evaluation and to
provide the appropriate comments to your project officer.
Sincerely yours,
cc
e R. Barrett
rector
Water Management Division
}

cc: See enclosed
cc: Mike Gantt, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raliegh, NC
R. Paul Wilms, Director
NC Division of Lnviron,-kuntal 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
.
Mr. David Owens, Director
Division of Coastal Management
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh N. C. 27611
Dear Mr. Owens:
2428 East Lake Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
July 15, 1987
RECE?VE.
JUL. 16 087
WATER QUALITY SECTION
OPERAT101VS SRANC8
The proposal of the hugh development known as Broad Reach near
Ocean is alarming to most people familiar with this territory.
The site contains an active salt marsh which is the breeding
place for many varieties of marine life. The dredging necessary
to build the number of boat slips proposed would undoubtedly
destroy this marsh by the disposal of the dirt dredged out or by
the use of the territory itself for boat slips.
Another serious concern is the probability of severe pollution of
the waters in this area. We believe that the tidal flow from
this area is small, being located as it is between Beaufort Inlet
and rogue Inlet. We are convinced that the rise and fall of
tides in this area is simply water being moved back: and forth in
the sounds and not flushed out into the ocean and that the
pollution from boats and sewage in this area would increasingly
destroy marine life.
We hope you will give serious consideration to these hazards
before approving this project.
Very truly Yours.
y?
Mr. & Mrs. W J. Drogdon
Cy: Mr. Bill Mills
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC '.::..'761 1

Route 5 Box 601A RECE W D
Newport, NC 28570
July 6, 1987 JUL
Mr. David Owens, Director
Division of Coastal Management pw, of .nviron t entat P+1
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611 Raae?gn.. PC O.
y
Dear Mr. Owens:
This letter has to do with a public notice which appeared in June 29, 1987
issue of Carteret County News Times concerning Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
of Raleigh.
The notice concerns their application which proposes to develop a 278 acre
tract of land near Ocean between Highway 24 and Bogue Sound, to include
2 access channels, 3 marine basins, an inn, a restaurant, a dry stack storage
facility, commercial sales, single and multifamily residential units.
As indicated by the enclosed petition, signed by over one hundred persons who
are through long association familiar with the area, there is a great deal
of concern over what the proposed access channels, marine basin and dry stack
will do to this environmentally sensituve shellfish area.
You will note that the statement on the petition is extremely conservative
as it applies to the waters on Bogue Sound between markers 31 and 32, since
the impact will adversely effect shorelines and shellfish areas for a consi-
derable distance on each side of the development, including my waterfront.
Sincerely,
, Ro er L. Fry
Enclosure: Petition expressing concern over marina development plans
REG+E / VjED
JUL 15 1987
WATER 4GA417y
OAEPArj()NS SI4ANCHN
w
We, the undersigned, clam either commercially or
recreationally in the waters of Bogus Sound between
channel marker 31 and 32. We object to the location of.
any marina in or adjacent to this highly productive'
clamming area.
ADD

w 5 7
.411
,
---®-,.?- D
?! s -Qb
M, 11?J z- 9z 6a N.

We, the undersigned, clam
recreationally in the wat+
channel marker 31 and 32.
any marina in or adjacent
clamming area.
NAND
either commercially or
are of Bogus sound between
We object to the location of
to this highly productive'
ADD so

70 ,
a 1?
U
We, the undersigned, clam
recreationally in the watt
channel marker 31 and 31.
any marina in or adjacent
clamming area.
SItIL ue
either commercially or
ors of Bogus Sound between
We object to the location of
to this highly productive" ,
?nnn4ca '

u
We, the undersigned, clam either commercially or
recreationally in the waters of Bogue Sound between
channel marker 31 and 32. We object to the location of
any marina in or adjacent to this highly productive
clamming area.
ADDRESS

1
We, the undersigned, clam either commercially or
recreationally in the waters of Hogue Sound between
channel marker 31 and 32. We object to the location of
any marina in or adjacent to this highly productive'
clamming area.
NAME. ADDRBS$

4
r

.
We JOO a undersigned, clam
recreationally in the wati
channel marker 31 and 32.
any marina in or adjacent
clamming area.

either commercially or
era of Hogue Sound between
We object to the location of
to this highly productive
..+,
r

State or North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and, Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor David W. Owens
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary Director
June 26, 1987
Mr. John Sutherland, Chief
Water Planning Section
Division of Water Resources
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Sutherland:
The attached copy of an application submitted by:
Broad Reach Investments, Inc./Broad Reach Marina
Applicant's Name
Hwy. 24, AIWW Bogue Sound
Sanders Creek Carteret
Location of Project County
X for a State permit to perform excavation and/or fill
work in coastal North Carolina and for a CAMA major
development permit...
... is being circulated to State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction
over the subject matter which might be affected by the project.
for a CAMA major development permit (only)
Please indicate on the reverse side of this form your viewpoint on
the proposed work and return it to me not later than 7/17/87
Sincerely,
oh R. Parker, Jr., thief
Major Permits Processing Section
JRP:ap:2480
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
vL L 1\.L Vlj l..V/-1J1t%" P A1.14m0r.1'1Ll?l LdL: /b' 58" -44"
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT Long: 340 42" 07"
1. Applicant's Name Broad Reach Investments, Inc./Broad Reach Mar na
2. Location of project site Hwy 24, 24 miles west of Broad Creek,AIWW
Bogue Sound at red triangle DAYBEACON "32" Sanders Creek
3. Investigation type: Dredge & Fill x CAMA x
4. Investigative procedure:
(A) Dates of site visit 11/24/86 03/31/87 05/14/87 05/26/8)
(B) Was applicant present yes yes no yes
5. Processing procedure: Application received 4/30/87 completed 5/12/87
Admin hold 26 May 87 Office Morehead City
6. Site description: (A) Local Land Use Plan Carteret Co. LUP 1985
Air Photo 1984 Land classification from LUP Community/ Conservation
Strip #31 Development constraints identified in LUP
Frame #1183 @ J-14 & M-21 See the CAMA Review Section
(B) AEC(s) involved: Ocean Hazard Estaurine shoreline x
Coastal wetlands X Public trust waters x
Estaurine waters X Other
(C) Water dependent: Yes XMaringo X Other residential development
(D) Intended use: Public X Rr.ivate X Commercial
X
(E) Type of waste water treatment: Existing None
Planned Tertiary treatment plant-low- gr ss Ire di st-ri hnt-i on l i nas
(F) Type of structures: Existing None
Planned Highground canals, 3 marinas, residential and commercial
(G) Estimated annual rate of erosion 1-2
7. Habitat description:
(A) Vegetated Wetlands
SEP.. ATTACHED
(B) Non-vegetated wetlands:
SEE ATTACHED
(C) Other:
Source personal observation
AREA
Dredqed Filled Other
r (D) Total area disturbed:
8.; Project summary To develop a 278 acre tract of land near Ocean
:between Hwy-24 and Boue Sound: 2 access channels, 3 marina basins,
,an Inn, a restaurant, a dry stack storage facility, commercial sales,
'single and multifamily residential units.
ti
App. Broad Reach Investments, Inc./Broad Reach Marina
(A) Vegetated Wetlands Dredged
Channel A
saltmarsh cordgrass (60 X 50) 3000 sq. ft.
threesquare bulrush
Channel B
saltmarsh cordgrass (70 x 15) 1050 sq. ft.
black needlerush
Total 4050 sq. ft.
(B) Submerged Grass Beds Dredged
Channel A
eelgrass *100 sq. ft.
shoalgrass
(C) Submerged Bottomland
Channel A
firm sand to soft mud 32000 sq. ft.
Channel B
firm sand to soft mud 88000 sq. ft.
(D) Highground Dredged
Basin #1 5.74 ac
Basin #2 2.20 ac
Basin #3 1.72 ac
Canal #1 .92 ac
Canal #2 1.83 ac
Canal #3 1.10 ac
13.51 ac
(E) Section 404 Wooded, Swamp Filled
Sikes Branch (100 x 30) 3000 sq. ft.
* less than 20% bottom coverage
9. Narrative description
THE PROJECT LOCATION
Locating the project site and understanding its orient-
ation to Hwy 24 on Bogue Sound is essential to the full review
of the project proposal. In that regard,the two most helpful
resources are the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic
map listed as the "SALTER PATH" quadrangle sheet photo revised
in 1983 and the color aerial photography taken by the Corps of
Engineers in December of 1984. The photo coordinates are
given on the cover sheet to this report. The one basic pre-
mise that holds for this section of Carteret County is that
the shoreline runs east to west between Morehead and Swansboro.
The project site is located about 11 miles west of Morehead
City off Hwy 24 just east of the community of Ocean. The
project site is a 278 acre tract of land west of Sanders Creek
and extending south some 4500 feet from the highway to Bogue
Sound. Two navigational aides also helped accurately position
the property along the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway (AIWW).
A red triangle daybeacon "32" is located near the western
property line and a green square daybeacon "31" is on the east
side near the mouth of Sanders Bay. The property is known
locally as the Elmo Smith Farm and, although the ownership has
recently changed, the land is still farmed. Both the topo-
graphic map and the aerial photos show the open cultivated
fields with tree covered perimeters. On the north side of the
property along Hwy 24 the entrance to the farm is marked by
a light duty sandy road which maybe easily passed by without
notice. However, on the opposite side of the highway is the
Croatan National Forest road #3126 which leads to the county's
new trash receptacle substation. This entrance is marked with
designated signs.
BASIC PROPOSAL
The applicant, known as Broad Reach Investments,Inc.,
proposes to develop the 278 acre tract of land as described
in the above section. It has been made clear through the
application process and workplat drawings that the permit
request is focusing in on the 41 acres of land which directly
ajoins Bogue Sound and Sanders Creek. This area and the pro-
posed development are referred to as Broad Reach Marina and
will encompass development of 3 marina basins, 2 access channels,
a dry storage facility, a clubhouse, and separate restaurant
and Inn accommodations. The surrounding 97 acres are divided
into four residential parcels with a density of three units
per acre. The dedicated land use and acreage for the remaining
property are also shown on the master plan sheet #1 of the
project drawings. The applicant has provided a breakdown of
each parcel as to its size and intended use. The asterisk(*)
indicates those residential parcels scheduled for a density
of 3 units per acre.
No.9 cont.
Page 2
PARCEL ACREAGE USE
A 60.3 ac RESIDENTIAL
B 13.4 ac RESIDENTIAL
C 32.4 ac RESIDENTIAL
D 31.1 ac RESIDENTIAL
*E 19.0 ac RESIDENTIAL
*F 26.3 ac RESIDENTIAL
*G 24.0 ac RESIDENTIAL
*H 28.5 ac RESIDENTIAL
I 6.4 ac COMMERCIAL
J 10.0 ac UTILITY
sub-total 251.4 ac
K 26.8 ac AREA OF CAMA
PERMIT REQUEST
total 278.19 ac
HIGHGROUND SETTING
The highground property varies in elevation from mean
sealevel along the shoreline to 20 feet high near Hwy.24.
The average elevation appears to be 10 to 15 feet above mean
sealevel. The contours are such that the land has a series of
gentle slopes and rolls. About halfway between the highway
and Bogue Sound at a distance of approximately 2,000 feet, the
property is bisected by the upper reaches of Sike's Branch, a
tributary of Sanders Creek. This section of Sike's Branch is
non-tidal and non-navigable. It acts as a drainage way collecting
waters from the northwest section of the property near Hwy. 24.
A band of wooded swamp or Section 404 wetlands follows the
natural run of Sike's Branch. This type of habitat is best
seen where the existing farm road crosses the branch. The
project plans call for the construction of a main entrance road,
60 feet wide, following the general alignment of the existing
farm road. The new construction will include a series of
culvert pipes which will adequately handle stormwater runoff.
It has been estimated that the proposed road crossing will result
in the "filling" of some 3,000 square feet of wooded swamp as
the roadway makes the actual crossing. The road crossing is
about 100 feet long and the expanded width of the roadway will
be approximately 30 feet wide. It has been pointed out that
such a crossing falls into the scope of work authorized by the
Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit. Another unusual physical
feature of this property is a four acre gum pond which stands
perched on top of a 15 foot high sand ridge near the center of
No.9 cont.
Page 3
the project. The applicant has designed the project so as to
preserve and protect the integrity of this wetland area.
According to a preliminary soil survey conducted by the Soil
Conservation Service for Carteret County in 1975 the project
site is dominated by Wando Soils which are characterized as
fine reddish brown sands. This soil type is most evident on the
entrance road to the farm and the fields closest to the Bogue
Sound shoreline. The Wando soils make for excellent crop
production and cultivation as well as providing excellent
drainage.
Also of importance to the review of this project is the
high probability of historic and/or prehistoric archaeological
sites left by the early American Indians. The liklihood is
enhanced by the close proximity of the Wando soils in high
elevation to Bogue Sound which provides a natural source of
food. Several small pieces of clay pots were picked up by the
representative from the Division of Cultural Resources that
the surface layers of artifacts had been well cut and mixed
by generations of cultivating the farm fields. A preliminary
archaeological survey has been conducted by the applicants
consulting firm Carolina Archaeological Services. That study
indicates the presence of significant archaeological resources
throughout the property. A detailed unearthing and inventory
will have to be accomplished prior to any development taking
place.
The proper disposal of hydraulic dredge material is
another key activity that involves the highground property.
The proposed project will excavate by the hydraulic method some
94,000 cubic yards of fine sand and silty mud from the open
water channel alignments. It is proposed that this material
will be pumped to two different highground spoil disposal sites
(see sheets 2&3). In each case the spoil sites will be located
close to the shoreline on highground soils and sized to
adequately handle the dredged material.
SHORELINE DESCRIPTION
This 278 acre tract of land is bounded by approximately
7,500 linear feet of shoreline the majority of which fronts tc
the south on Bogue Sound and Sanders Bay. Sanders Creek and
Sike's Branch complete the waterfront as they meander through
an extensive saltmarsh along the east side of the property.
Although saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) dominates
the Bogue Sound-Sanders Bay shoreline, erosion is active. The
forces of erosion appear to come from those times of the year
when large numbers of boats utilize the AIWW. Heavy boat wake
energy and wash constantly attack the shoreline during these
times. In addition, prevailing southwest winds can create a
No.9 cont.
Page 4
significant chop that constanly erodes the shoreline. There
is a 1 to 2 foot erosion scarp at the waterward edge of the
marsh fringe. A comparison of aerial photography from 1976 to
1978 shows that a 200 foot long island has eroded completely
away from its location on Bogue Sound near the point where
channel A will intersect the shoreline. The shoreline of Bogue
Sound and Sanders Bay is characterized by a fringing saltmarsh
varying in width from 10 to 50 feet wide. The dominate marsh
vegetation that occurs throughout the project shoreline is
saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). other significant
concentrations of threesquare bullrush (Scirpus robustus) and
black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) occur in different degrees
but in association with the saltmarsh cordgrass. In the area
of proposed access channel "A" the marsh is approximately 50
feet wide half of which is saltmarsh cordgrass and the other half
threesquare. The location of the access channel on the shoreline
has been positioned so that approximately one third of the total
area as it passes through the marsh is occupied by an area of
oyster shells and fill measuring 20 feet by 50 feet. Therefore,
a combined total of 3,000 square feet of saltmarsh cordgrass
and threesquare marsh vegetation will be displaced by the
proposed excavation. Access channel "B" will intersect the
shoreline about 2,100 feet to the east on Sanders Bay. The
intermittent saltmarsh fringe at this point is 10 to 20 feet wide.
The dominate vegetation is saltmarsh cordgrass and black needle-
rush. The forces of erosion along this stretch of shoreline
have in fact scalloped out areas of the marsh exposing the white
sand beneath. An estimated 1,050 square feet of coastal wetlands
will be directly removed by the installation of the proposed 80
foot wide channel.
ACCESS CHANNELS
Channel A
Channel "A" measures approximately 450 feet long from the
bottom edge of the AIWW at a water depth of minus 6 feet mean
low water to the intersection of the marsh fringe. The top
width of the proposed channel will vary from 80 feet wide near
the AIWW to 60 feet wide where it comes ashore. The water
depths in the area range from 1 foot to minus 4feet on mean
low tide. It has been estimated that some 6,000 cubic yards
of sand and silty mud will be removed from the alignment. The
finished profile of the channel should have a side slope of
5 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical. Spoil material from this
operation will be pumped to the designated diked area on high
ground just west of the channel alignment. The proposed align-
ment will directly impact 100 square feet of eelgrass (Zostera
marina) mixed with shoalgrass (Halodule wrightii). As indicated
No.9 cont.
Page 5
on the cover sheet to this report, the density of the vegetation
is equal to or less than 20 percent coverage.
Channel R
Channel "B" measures approximately 1,100 feet from the
green marker #3 on the Holiday Village entrance channel to the
intersection of the channel with the marsh fringe. This channel
alignment will be 80 feet wide and will vary in depth from
minus 6 feet to minus 4 feet on mean low water. Here again, the
side slopes of the channel will approximate a 5 to 1 slope. An
estimated 15,000 cubic yards of sand and silty mud will be
hydraulically removed from the open water alignment. This
channel has been strategically oriented along the eastern
shoreline as to bypass two major concentration of submerged
aquatic vegetation notably; eelgrass (Zostera marina) mixed with
shoalgrass (Halodule wrightii). The largest and most significant
bed occurs between the northeast side of the entrance channel
and Sanders Creek. The dredged material will be retained in a
1 1/3 acre diked disposal area separate from the site used in
dredging channel "A".
THE MARINA BASINS AND CANALS
Approximately 13Z acres of highground property will be
mechanically excavated to form the three proposed marina basins
and the associated canals. The topography of this area averages
10 feet above the mean sea level and the projected water depth
within the basin will be minus 4.5 feet on mean low water..
Approximately 317,000 cubic yards of material will be excavated
to create the waterway within the basins and canals. This
figure includes 94,000 cubic yards to be removed from below the
plain of the mean low water level. This dry earthen material will
be used throughout the development for landscaping and preconstruc-
tion site preparation in the residential areas. It is planned that
all highground excavation work etc. will be accomplished in the
dry and prior to the opening the system to the estuarine waters
of Bogue Sound. As well, the entire interior shoreline will be
stabilized with wooded bulkheads. A total of 8,500 linear feet
of bulkhead structure has been scheduled for construction.
The three basins and access channels have been engineered
and designed to provide a flow-through action of tidal waters
which have a range of 1.5 to 2 feet in the area of Bogue Sound.
This open ended design technique was used nearby Holiday Village
project of three years ago. Once into the highground property,
access channel "A" becomes a 400 foot long canal measuring 80
feet wide leading to basin #1. The shape of this basin is
basically square measuring 500 feet long by 500 feet wide. The
No.9 cont.
Page 6
projected water depth in the basin is minus 4.5 feet at mean
low water. This will be perhaps the most active basin on the
property and the focal point of all the various supportive
functions. Basin #1 will offer 194 boat slips for boats
typically in the 25 foot class. It is thought that the marina
will be able to accommodate boats with a maximum length of up
to 55 feet. Workplat sheet #2 shows the footprint of the
three major supportive activities near basin #1. A drystack
storage building is positioned on the northwest side of the
basin and measures 350 by 150 feet. It will house approxi-
mately 340 boats. A boat ramp or boat lift will be provided
in the upper corner of the boat basin about 100 feet from the
drystack building. At this point a sewage pumpout facility
will be provided next to the ramp for convenient service. A
ship's store and parking lot will also service the drystack
storage operation. The second major feature in association
with basin #1 is a clubhouse and sales area. This facility
will provide onshore recreational opportunities for visitors
as well as permanent residents. The footprint of a swimming
pool and buildings have been kept at least 50 to 100 feet
away from the bulkheaded basin. The third major activity
planned is a motel/Inn and restaurant complex. The Inn will
provide 125 motel rooms and service to the general public and
the restaurant will have the capability of handling an equal
number of guests. It appears that ample parking area has
been designed into the project. Everywhere along the basin a
50 to 75 foot wide vegetated buffer zone is maintained between
the actual hard surface areas of the development and the
open waters within the basin.
Basin #2 is connected to basin #1 by way of a 700 foot
long canal measuring 80 feet wide. This basin is 320 feet
long by 300 feet wide with a total area of about 2.2 acres.
The proposed water depth is scheduled to be minus 4 feet MLW.
A series of four main docks will accommodate 105 boat slips.
The predominate use of this basin will be by residents of
Broad Reach. Near the northeast corner of the basin, a cir-
culation pipe or culvert will be installed to connect the waters
of basin #2 with those of basin #3 at a distance of some 175
feet away. The circulation pipe will also allow for a solid
fill causeway to be constructed between the mainland side of
the development and the 28.5 acre residential parcel "H"
located along Bogue Sound and Sanders Bay. Basin #3 will have
direct access to Sanders Bay by way of access channel "B". An
upland canal some 600 feet long by 80 feet wide will connect
the access channel to the highground basin #3. The basin is
basically 500 feet long by 150 feet wide and the intended water
depth is minus 4 feet MLW. Basin #3 is the smallest of
all three basins and will house only 95 wet boatslips. It is
projected that this basin will provide direct water access
No.9 cont.
Page 7
for those residential units that will be constructed in
parcel "F". In addition to the wet slops a double boat ramp
will be constructed in basin #3 in the northwest corner.
SURFACE WATER CONSIDERATIONS AND SHELLFISH RESOURCES
The estuarine waters of Bogue Sound, Sanders Bay, its
tributaries Sanders Creek, Sike's Branch and East Prong are
all classified as "SA" waters by the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management. The water quality of these waters
is conducive to natural biological production of shellfish
and their commercial and recreational harvesting and con-
sumption. According to the Division of Health Services the
waters in and around the project site are open to the taking
of shellfish. Within the project area hard clams (Mercenaria
mercenaria) dominate the shellfish population. They occur in
significant concentrations along Bogue Sound and Sanders Bay.
On May 14th, two DCM staffers hand raked 40 clams from channel
alignment A in about an hours time. Most of these clams were
found within 100 feet of the shoreline in a firm sand bottom.
In access channel "B", 57 clams were raked in an hour at a
distance of about 150 feet from the shoreline. In addition,
commercial bull rakers and other clammers have been observed
along the project shoreline during the course of other onsite
visits. There are three general areas along the project
shoreline that the clammers seem to favor. The clammers work
in areas west of the red daymarker "32", near the center
portion of theproperty off the marsh point east of channel
"B". A quantitative estimate of the hard clam population is
being conducted by the Division of Marine Fisheries. That
information will be distributed for review as it is made
available.
The shallow water flats of Bogue Sound and Sanders Bay
provide excellent habitat for the bay scallop (Argopecton
irradians), particularly in the submerged grass beds, but few
scallops have been found along the project shoreline. Oysters
(Crassostrea virginica) do not occur in any significant
numbers throughout the project area. The upper reaches of
Sanders Creek are considered by Marine Fisheries as a secondary
nursery area.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND BASIN HYDROLOGY
The Division of Environmental Management has made an
early determination as to the requirements for a storm water
management program. This has given direction to the applicant
in the design of the marina project. Their determination in
part says that at such time as the interior marina basins
and canals are opened to the tidally influenced SA
No.9 cont.
Page 8
waters of Bogue Sound the surface waters within those
highground areas will automatically be classified "SC" waters.
New development ajoining SC waters will not be required to
have an approved stormwater management plan as would otherwise
be the case on SA waters. Nevertheless, the applicant has
provided strong assurances and design controls to properly
handle stormwater runoff from the marina complex and the
surrounding area. As shown on sheet #2, a vegetated buffer
zone will be maintained between the interior bulkheads and all
impervious surface areas or structures except where concrete
boat ramps and pedestrian access ways are required. In
addition, design controls are set to capture the first 12
inches of rainfall generated from any and all impervious surface
areas which could otherwise be directed into the marina
basins.
Sheet #2 shows clearly the CAMA 75 foot Estuarine Shoreline
Area of Environmental Concern as well as, the DEM 575 foot
stormwater jurisdictional line. Only a small fraction of
impervious surfaces (well less than the standard 30% figure) is
proposed along the natural and man-made shorelines. This office
has received a copy of Dr. Len Pietrafesa's hydrologic
study that was conducted on behalf of the applicant. That
report can be made available to respective agencies upon
request. The following is but a brief review of that work.
The study focuses on the interactions of the proposed channel
and marina basin systems with the flushing and circulation
characteristics of Bogue Sound. The study has mathematically
modeled specific flushing rates and projected dissolved oxygen
levels within the flow-through system. Another important
aspect of the long range planning is the potential accumulation
of sediments within the proposed access channels A & B. It
will be necessary to dedicate an area of highground property
for future maintenance dredging requirements.
CAMA REVIEW
The Carteret County land use classification map shows the
highground property involved with this project to be designated
as "Community". The surface waters and all Areas of Environ-
mental Cocncern are further classified as "Conservation". It
is worthwhile to reprint the community classification definition
as found in the 1985 land use plan for Carteret County found
on page 183 and 184.
"Community-The purpose of the community class is to provide
for clustered, mixed land uses at low densities to help
meet the housing, shopping, employment and other needs in
rural areas.
Areas meeting the intent of the community class are
presently developed at low densities which are suitable for
private septic use. These areas are clustered residential
and/or commerical land uses which provide both low in-
No.9 cont.
Page 9
tensity shopping and housing opportunities and provide a
local social sense of a "community". Very limited
municipal type services such as fire protection and com-
munity water may be available, but municipal sewer type
systems are not to be provided as a catalyst for future
development. In some unusual cases sewer systems may be
possible, but only to correct an existing or perjected
public health hazard. Areas developed at low density
in a cluster meet the intent of the community class if
they exhibit characteristics such as:
A. Where densities are less than or at 500 dwellings
per square mile, or
B. Where few residential development densities meet
or exceed three (3) dwellings per acre, or
C. Where most residential lot sizes are 15,000 square
feet or greater, and/or
D. Population densities will be low, such as 640
persons per square mile (one per acre).
It should be stressed that the community class
applies to clustered low intensity development in a rural
landscape. This development is usually associated with
crossroads in counties. Some "communities" may have or
may require municipal type services to avert an existing
or anticipated health problem. Even though limited ser-
vices may be available, these areas should not be shown
in the higher intensity land classes, as the major
characteristic which distinguishes community with limited
services from the developed and transition classes in that
services are not provided to stimulate intense development
in a rural setting, but rather to neutralize or avert
health problems. Due to the small size of most communities
they appear as small areas in a dispersed pattern on the
county land classification map. This class illustrates
small, dispersed groupings of housing and commercial
land uses in a rural landscape."
10. Anticipated Impacts and Project Concerns
The proposed project involves a large "marina" and
associated development ajoining sensitive shellfish waters of
Bogue Sound. This review has highlighted two key environ-
mental issues that stand out above the other resource elements
that the project will have to address. These issues deal with
the abundance and utilization of the hard clam (Mercenaria
mercenaria) resource and the automatic closure of the shellfish
waters. It has been calculated using the closure schedule as
provided by the Division of Health Services in their recent
marina memorandum that the effective closure zone for the
• No.10 cont.
i
Broad Reach project based on 400 wet boat slips would have a
radius of 2,640 feet on either side of channel "A" and 1,800
feet measured from the point where channel "B" intersects the
shoreline. The potential consequences of this marina project
would close an estimated 332 acres of open SA waters, thus
removing the traditional use of these waters from the public
domain.
The applicant has provided through their consultant Dr.
Len Pietrafesa a comprehensive mathematical model which
discusses the flushing capabilities of the proposed basins.*
Although no calculations were compiled by this office it is
beleived that the flushing and utilization can be further
enhanced by eliminating the circulation culvert pipe and
constructing in its place an 80 foot wide open pile bridge
between basin #2 and #3. This alternative would still allow
for vehicular to access residential area "H".
Other environmental factors such as, the direct loss of
some 4,050 square feet of coastal wetlands dominated.by salt-
marsh cordgrass can be offset by the applicant in developing
onsite restoration and enhancement programs for the wetlands
vegetation. The proposed access channels will eliminate
some 2.75 acres of shallow water bottomland presently used
as feeding grounds for estuarine fishes and crustaceans, as
well as shellfish habitat. The excavation of channel "A" will
displace 100 square feet of submerged aquatic vegetation. This
is a result of a realignment of the 80 foot wide channel width.
On the highground property, the project will require the close
coordination and approval of the Division of Land Resources,
the Land Quality Section, to obtain a sedimentation and erosion
plan. At least 13 acres of highground property will be excavated
to create the upland waterways and siltladen runoff can be a
potential problem, particularly during the construction phase.
*Copy available for review for those agencies not receiving one
as part of circulation of this application. Contact Jim Mercer
in Morehead City DCM office.
?i:case type or print. l-arefull `dc rite all an- d. Describe the planned use of the project.
'ticipated development activities, i cluding construe- Private marina serving the.development
tion, excavation, filling, pavi , land clearing, and residents and slip renters,
stormwater control. If the recl steel information is
not relevant to your project, ice N/A (not ap-
plicable). Items 1-4 and 8.9 must be competed for
all projects. 4 LAND AND WATER'
CHARACTERISTICS
•- See Note 161
1 APPLICANT 278 ac total ownersTj ip)
a. Size of entire tract 133 ac this request
a. Name Broad Reach Investments, Inc. b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
Address 1333 Fayettville Street c. Elevation of tract above mean sea level or Na-
City Raleij?h State NC tional Geodetic Vertical Datum 0-15 feet
27602 Day phone [phone] d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract Wando soil
Zip
X series, fine sandy loam.
Landowner or Authorized agent e 15% with trees
b. Project name (if any Broad Reach Marina . Vegetation on tract
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give f. Man--made features now on- tract Farm fields
the owner's name and address. I
Land Planners Authorized Agent g• What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classifica-
Paton/Zucchino & Associates, P.A. tion of the site? (Consult the local land use
17 Glenwood Avenue- plan.)
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Conservation Transitional
Developed X Community
2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED Rural Other
PROJECT h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
Unzoned
a. Street address or secondary road number i. How.are adjacent waters classified? SA
Highway 24 j. Has a professional archaeological survey been
carried out for 'the tract? Yes
b. City, town, community, or landmark if so,• by whom? Carolina Archaeological
-Ocean, North Carolina
Services, Columbia, South Carolina
c. County Carteret
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning 5 UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
jurisdiction? No/County Jurisdiction
e. Name of body of water nearest project Complete this section if the project includes any
Bogue Sound West of Sanders Creek
. land development.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, or
3 DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED structures proposed Dry storage facility,
USE OF PROPOSED PROJECT 125 Room Inn/Restaurant, Sales/
Clubhouse building.
b. Number of lots or parcels One
a. Describe all development activities you propose c. Density (Give the number of residential units
(for example, building a home, motel, marina, and the units per acre.) Overall 3 units/
bulkhead, or pier). acre anticipated.
Marina. Bulkhead Ramps Dry -Boat .:d, Size of area to be graded or disturbed
Storage, Parking Inn Restaurant Approximately 11 acres upland
Sales Office, Clubhouse Pool and e. If the proposed project will disturb more
Roadways. one acre of land, the Division of
If you plan co build a marina, also complete
Resources must receive an r ?toh?and sei
and attach Form. DCM-NIP-2. cation control plan aOca? q `days ?bs%re`'hrn
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an ea- disturbin activit • be a 16
g ) b + 'fir, ha
isting project, new work, or both? sedimentation and eros. irt., co 'rol `?-en.,
-New work submitted to the Divisio of esqun`es?
c. Will the project he for community, private, or Not at his time. commercial use? f. Give the percentage of the turf within 75 feet
Private/Commerical - Community of mean high water to be covered by im
pcrmeable surfaces, such as pavement,
buildings, or rooftops. 7 .3%
g. List the materials, such as marl, paver stone,
asphalt, or concrete, to be used for paved
surfaces. Asphalt and concrete
h. If applicable, has a stormwater management
plan been submitted to the Division of En-
vironmental Management? N/A
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste
water treatment facilities. Tertiary treatment
plant, low pressure distribution lines.
j. Have these facilities received state or local
approval? Not at this time.
k. Describe existing treatment facilities.
None
1. Describe location and type of discharges to
waters of the state (for example, surface runoff,
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
effluent, or "wash down"). Minimal direct
stormwater discharge into state
waters is anticipated. (See Dote _#2)
m. Water supply source Private well.'
n. If the project is oceanfront development,
describe the steps that will be taken to main-
tain established public beach accessways or pro-
vide new access. N/A
o. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will
be the elevation above mean sea level of the
first habitable floor? N/A
6 EXCAVATION AND FILL
INFORMATION
(See attached chart)
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed excava-
tion or fill activities (excluding bulkheads,
which are covered in Section 7). (See attached
Length Width Depthsheet)
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break.
water, pier,
boat ramp,
rock jetty)
Fill placed in
wetland or below
NIHW
Upland fill
areas
b. Amount of material to be excavated from
below water level in cubic yards 94,3 W c. V.
c. Type of material Coarse and Fine sand
d. Does the area to be excavated include marsh-
land. swamps, or other wetlands? Yes
e. High ground excavation, in cubic yards 219.0 2 c . y
f. Dimensions of spoil disposal area
g. Location of spoil disposal area Two. See
Site Development Plans, Sheet 2-3
h. Do you claim title to the disposal area? Yes
If not, attach a fetter granting permission from
the owner.
i. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? Yes .
If so, where? See Plans, Sheet 1.
j. Does the disposal area include any marshland,
swamps, or water areas? No.
k. Will the fill material be placed below mean
high water? No.
1. Amount of fill in cubic yards N/A
m. Type of fill material Fine and Coarse Sand.
n. Source of fill material Proposed basins & channels.
o. Will fill material be placed on marsh or other
wetlands? No.
p. Dimensions of the wetland to be filled N/A
q. How will excavated or fill material be kept on
site and erosion controlled? standard
sedimentation and erosion control
mechanisms, i.e. silt fences,
stabilization, sediment traps, etc.
r. What type of construction equipment will be
used (for example, dragline, backhoe, 'or
hydraulic dredge)? Dragline, back hoe and
hvdraulic'dredbe
s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equip-
ment to the project site? No If yes, explain
the steps that will be taken to lessen en-
vironmental impacts.- - N/A n?
V ,.
7 SHORELINE STA??J
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap I L500 feet
b. Average distance watem-ard of mean high water
or normal water level at mean high water
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months,
in feet 0
d. Type of bulkhead material Concrete
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be -laced
below mean high water N/A
f. Type of fill material N/A
CHANNEL A
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Length Width Depth
Other (break.
water. pier.
boat ramp.
ruck jetty,)
Fill placed in
w•crland or below-
MHW
Upland fill
arrn?
BASIN 1
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
50? 4.5'
80' -average
/d3•
Length Width Depth
1 500' 1500' 1 4.5'
Other (break- -
water. pier.
boat ramp.
ruck jetty)
Fill placed in
wetland or below-
MHW
Upland fill
arras
BASIN 3
Access channel
(1`iLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break.
.
Kim ramp.
ruck jetty)
Fill placed in
wetland or below,
MHW
Upland fill
arctic
CHANNEL B
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break-
w'nter, pier.
boat ramp.
ruck jetty.)
Fill placed in
wetland or below-
14HW
Upland fill
arena
BASIN 2
Access channel
(NiLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break-
water. pier.
boat ramp.
ruck jetty)
Fill placed in
w erland or below-
MHW
Upland fill
irons
Length Width Depth
I 4.5
1150' 80' average
Length Width Depth
320' 300' 4.0'

Length Width Depth
d ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims
title to the affected property. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then for
ward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permis-
sion from the owner to carry out the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and
cross sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on 8 V2 x 11 white paper. (Refer to Coastal
Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a detailed
description.)
Please ' note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accep: ed. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 16
high quality copies are provided by the applicant.
(Contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regard-
ing that agency's use of larger drawings.) A site or
location map is a part of plat requirements and it
must be sufficiently detailed to guide agency per-
sonnel unfamiliar with the area to the site. Include
county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and the like.
A stormwater management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
individuals have 30 days in which to submit com-
ments on the proposed project to the Division of
Coastal Management and should be advised by the
applicant of that opportunity.
Name Cha 1 PS T h;1 atone
Address J. A. B _1 1 Lane
Newport NC 28570
Name W. B. Fowler & T. M. Singleton
Address 5214 Bogue Sound Drive
Emerald Isle, NC 28557
Name
Address
A list of previous state
for work on the projecr
numbers, pennittee, anL
N/A
or federal permits issued
tract. Include permit
issuing Oates.
A check for Z)100 111ide payable to the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community
Development to cover. the costs of processing the
application.
A signed AEC hazard notice logy projects in ocean-
front and inlet areas.
A statement on the use of public funds. If the
project involves the expenditure of public funds, at-
tach a statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to 10).
9 CERTIFICATION AND PERMIS-
SION TO ENTER ON LAND
Any permit issued in response to this application
will allow only the development described in the
application. The project will be subject to condi-
tions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the pro-
posed activity complies with the State of North
Carolina's approved Coastal Management Program
and will be conducted in a manner consistent with
such program.
I further certify that f am authorized to grant, and
do in fact, grant permission to representatives of
state and federal review agencies to enter on the
aforementioned lands in connection with
evaluating information related to this permit ap-
plication and follow-up monitoring of project.
This is the 25th day of April
19V_.
XA zvlym &a"-
Landowner I Authorized agent
Send the completed application materials to:
Division of Coastal
N.C. DNRCD
Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Management
.? ? Zo ;
3
MARINA.
DEVEL0PTVflQ_.,,NT
Attach this form to the Application for Permits to
Develop, in North Carolina's Coastal Area. Be sure
to complete all other sections of that application
which relate to this proposed project, including
upland areas, even if duplicative. All shore-based
facilitieh must be included in application and work
plats.
1 MARINA CHARACTERISTICS
Check below the type of marina proposed.
X Commercial Public
X Residential -
Will the marina be open to the general public?
NQ, Slip & dry slot owners & renters only.
If there is residential development associated.
with the marina, how many units or lots are
planned? Approxiritat:eiy;_300::_ant-.icipated.-
Check all of the types of service to be
provided.
x Full service, including travel
. -- lift and/or rail
`lam Dockage, fuel, and marine supplies
--Z_ Dockage ("wet slips") only
Number of slips _ 394 slips
-- X_ Dry storage
Number of boats 340 slots
- 2 Boat ramp(s)
- Other (describe) sewage pumpout
facilities.
b.
C.
d.
Check below the proposed type of siting.
---_X Land cut and access channel
Open water with dredging for basin
and/or channel
Open water, no dredging required
- Other (describe)
Describe the typical boats to be served (for ex-
ample:, open runabout, charter boats, sail boats,
or mixed types). Power boats/Sail boats
Typical boar length Under 25 feet _
Maximum boat length -eet '
Are any floating buildings I.1nned' o
f.
h
i.
2 MARINA OPERATIONS
a. Check each of the following sanitary facilities
which will be included in the proposed project.
.x Office toilets
X Toilets for patrons
Number 4
Location Ships Store/Harbor Master Bldg
Showers
X Boat holding tank pumpout
Type and location Pumpout facilities at
non-berthing pier near Ship'•s Store.
b. Describe treatment type and location for all
sanitary wastewater. Tertiary treatment plant
with subsurface disposal fields located
on the property.
c. Describe solid waste, fish offal, and trash
disposal. Solid waste containers provided
on each pier and at ramps. Collected
and taken to County landfill
d. How will overboard discharge of sewage from
boats be controlled? Combined effort of
signage, staff enforcement, closed-head
policy and availability of pumpout
facilities.
e. Give the location and number of "No :;,:wage
Discharge" signs proposed. Seventeen, located
at the entry to each vier, at each
boatramp and at harbor master building,
ship's store and dry storage.
f. Describe the special design, if applicable, for
containing industrial type pollutants, such as
paint, sandblasting waste, and petroleum pro-
ducts. Petroleum products only.
Where will residue be disposed of? Approved
Z disposal site.
If s,., describe. N/A p r ;he number of channel markers and "No

akt'I signs proposed. 2
,?.Note: Regulator. signs such as these require ad-
ditiorhal approval by the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission.
4
i. Give the location of fuel handling facilities and
describe the safety measures planned to protect
area water quality. At harbor master building.
j. Describe design measures that promote boat
basin flushing or circulation and reduce water (See Notes ??2. #3 and #4)
quality impacts. A_ circulation pipe connects Channel A & 'B
to complete a -flushing loop Another circluation pipe
connects Basin 1 with Wasin 2. Minimum direct storm-
water discharge from pavement and rooftop areas into
Marina basin. Central tertiary wastewater treatment and-
best management practices used for marina operations.
k. • What will be the marina policy on overnight
and live-board dockage? No live aboardj_
dockage and limited overnight dockage
space.
1. Is the proposed marina located near any
shellfish leases? No • If so, give the name and
address of the leaseholder. N/A
m. If this project is an expansion of an existing
marina, what types of services are currently
provided? N/A
n. How many slips are now available?' N/A
i', 0
N
i
J(,V
S
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
EWGUE SOUND
* ?l11
1l
(D -
SCALE IN FEET
m w
SCALE 1"=900'
CREAGE USE
60.7 .e. RESIDENTIAL
17.4 me RESIDENTIAL
92.4 6c. RESIDENTIAL
71.16e RESIDENTIAL
10.0 w. RESIDENTIAL
26.7 6e. RESIDENTIAL
24.0 6e. RESIDENTIAL
28.6 6e. RESIDENTIAL
6.4 4e. COMMERCIAL
10.0 6e. UTILITY
261.4 60.
26.8 /e. AREA OF C.A.
PER IT REQUEST
total 278.19 6e.

I
1 /
??.1t ..• . ;^f.. ?1
%
- - `;
? P
`\ \ to A\ RESIDENTIAL 06
RESIDENTIAL
J / DUMPDND
UJI
DRYf AGE \ 1 I.`?, CIRCULATION
M
I' 1* IND TREE
f;- LI Z
N? \ \
/( T J
r ,? z
T1E9
- '
gT
0
f G
r 2
.
RESIT
NTIAL I RESIDENTIAL
9 ncc
9 unJ ? / _ _ ar wnu 91a >epw p
a cc
\/ l f \.. 910. IIETENfION WW +
_:z at
ROGUE SOUND
jam. i ICALf IM fg9?
SCALE 1"-300'

i

n
CHANNEL. MARKER
UPI

NTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
CHANNEL 111ININKIIIIII

ROGUE SOUND
BITRACO"TAL WATERWAY
1
i
-SANDERS BAY
\? ``. • f-- CHANNEL MANNER
r
® NTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
CHANNEL MARKER NO. 31
I'EIC?AIIlII!IN IIf[!T^II
1 ?
SCALE V=100'

Q
l N
cW
`c j1
.41 1 i
I
t
A
a?
i
/ J 1
\ r.
_L ,r w
r
`1N
r
J
__ ? ?( MW NW"LL WMu
lox
ANNEL 1 XIBN POINT / , ! L.i Ywn .o nan. oc..E
rwxvn rexuuunar BEGIN DREDOI NO HERE
e:ISTIXBIBEES d•j SANDERS BAY
CIRCULATION PIPE III \\\ t,a,aa a«xxxtL YY.xtx
1M `
SCALE I"=300'?.,?
Al INI T
^ t ? ?

KYE - ate.,". a
iR
E"
.I
06
o"
to C)
a
s

9'
\ °o
9
T'
ROGUE NO \

1

1- 1-A A I
i
1
CIRCULATION PIPE \

BASIN C
y9
ytiF
d
? To
SALE Vm 300'00''
fCALE IM FfET
o6
?0,
QU U
No
V)
4
F
Sal
( 51
FTi
?+ F
G `
§0
:mil(
A \
l01 I \\? °Z WQOtYS ?,70 33'14
t ` a ,r? r \ e2
L Are,
N20°.5 "W \l \\ \- ?/? M
`4\4/ 58'2 692.44¢ I /? r
14
141
woo
9 i
I ..? I I
? I I
4MAEr
1 i _?•^?? \ 1 i 5.8,
1136, 10
\ M \
- AMR "A"
7'11 5.3 5
38'• 16 N . 430.41 5523 .O221 W
g 60° 28l6
CHiGH 4. 2 8'
1 _ 2
WATER MARK 67
56
-SO 04.400
114.f. ?v I
3 . ZO 4 ilE (T? n I PAq,
p.
J U N ? 5 ;g$7
I.G.W.W. G?M1lJl?t-*,? 1 ? ---
µ WAq WhY
`C?rXf ro I?fcrlorts H , I 51 P4F_MiW 4 ED CG?'°F(brl
+rl P N?I,E,I?N, t? cNMA?T ?
?' ?
PlAT4M-r ? d•lo•$? GdJ?IEL 119 /}U
?n ?f t?t?+??--C,11/ld F?MIT./?t,IG?(I?t,l .
1 ?'ZL{lGEllllO As?xWp! -l pA. 10..IUUE'01
PATON / ZUCCHINO
Explanatory Notes and Additional Comments
Broad Reach Marina CAMA Permit Application
1. The Broad Reach Marina project is planned as a part of a larger
unified development plan prepared for ,°a*278 'acre',:tract:=under s ngluaV
`6 ershipt Due to the size of the tract and the long term nature of
the development, program for the.,overall tract, ?t .
WHOM
proper.:<and::associated upland:::commet v b The residential
development parcels which lie immediately adjacent to the marina and
canals (92 acres in parcels E, F, G and H) are described in general
terms of land use, acreage, general layout and are assigned a density
for residential use. The remainder of the property is described in
the Master Plan (Sheet 1) in terms of land use, acreage and general
layout.
A residential density assignment has been.provided to give some level
of assurance that future development in the parcels near the marina
basins and the sound will not contribute to.-the degradation of water
quality as a result of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces. A
density of three units per acre is generally regarded as a level of
residential density at which reasonable assurance could be made that
current or future stormwater management standards for water quality
could be met. The development of these parcels at any density higher
than three units per acre would require the preparation of a
stormwater management plan which must be approved by the N.C. Division
of Environmental Management prior to any development plan approval.
2. Although the development plans for the marina, channels and the upland
development associated with the marina complex will not require an
approved stormwater management plan under current N. C. Division of
Environmental Management regulations, r ?`
'"?stormwate runoff °`from they
proposed development wi11 be controlled-4A! `such ,a way sas :t to n?ize
potential. -water quality degradationw n..,the maruia °° canals: ?'
Engineering plans for the area imtnediateL surroundin
Y =..? ? g? the marina
complex will be desi ned ..t n o
the .first :one, and,,one halo /2)
inches "of rainal on al""s§urfaces::from:.drectly, entering
`the =marina' waters: In addition, best planning, design and
engineering practices will be implemented where it is determined that
they will be effective in reducing the potential for stormwater
generated pollutants from entering the marina system. Informal review
and comment will be solicited from the staff in the Water Quality
Section, NCDEM concerning stormwater management in this areas (Parcel
K).
v
Explanatory Notes
Broadreach Marina
Page 2
3. It is the intent of the development plan to provide centralized boat
docking facilities for the project residents. Ge?t?1edoekrigir
the proposed basin would eliminate theneed for •'private ,piers "fcw
individual homesites along the shorelin The project acreage
includes a 'g"r?ijxCafi'"engthhorene?tlbrfg?a^c5gteSouridi?i
Sanders Bay totaling over ???1'3ea feet. -which,* without a
centralized marina facility, could support over one hundred private
piers for individual waterfront homesites.
4. A hydrological study prepared by our consultant, Dr. Len Pietrafesa;
is appended to this application {Appendix A). The study describes the
hydrologic flushing characteristics of this general. area and models
flushing rates and disolved oxygen levels in the proposed marina
basins and canals. A model,predicting sedimentation rates in the
proposed channels included in the hydrological study.
5. An archaeological study prepared.by_Carolina Archaeological Services
is appended to this application (Appendix B).
-
-
-
-
NORTH CAROLINA
COASTAL FEDERATION
ROUTE 5, BOX 603 (OCEAN)
NEWPORT, NORTH CAROLINA 28570
[phone]
May 7, 1987
Larry Zucchino
Paton/Zucchino & Associates
Cooper Square
17 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
3 C?
MAY I
Dear Larry:
Thank you for the copy of the permit application on Broad
Reach. In order for us to thoroughly review the
application, I would appreciate a copy of the water
quality study on the marina you mentioned was being
conducted at NCSU.
Sincerely,
-14
Todd Miller
Executive Director
cc: Carlton Midyette
Pres Pate

PATON / ZUCCHINO
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
April 29, 1987
W. B. Fowler and T. M. Singleton
5214 Bogue Sound Drive
Emerald Isle, North Carolina 28557
Dear Gentlemen:
Broad Reach Investments, Inc. of Raleigh, N.C. has submitted a Coastal Area
Management Act permit application requesting approval of development plans
for property adjacent to yours near Sanders Bay in Carteret County.
Please be advised that you as an adjacent riparian landowner have thirty
days to comment on the proposed development project. The permit
application and development plans are on file with the N.C. Division of
Coastal Management offices in Morehead City (contact Mr. Charles Jones,
726-7021).
Feel free to contact me in Raleigh if you require any additional
information.
Sincerely,
LreftcZ6?
R. Zucchino
Enclosure: Permit Application

I.aml 1'I;uuiin??
I,:nul?r;il/?• ?r/•Iii11.1•Iurl•
1 .11,1111•I. ;11X11-1
PATON/ZUCCHINO
&ASS4 W1 NVES. 11 %.
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
April 29, 1987
Mr. Charles T. Shilstone
J. A. Bell Lane
Newport, North Carolina 28570
Dear Mr. Shilstone:
Broad Reach Investments, Inc. of Raleigh, N.C. has submitted a Coastal Area
Management Act permit application requesting approval of development plans
for property adjacent to yours near Sanders Bay in Carteret County.
Please be advised that you as an adjacent riparian landowner have thirty
days to comment on the proposed development project. The permit
application and development plans are on file with the N.C. Division of
Coastal Management offices in Morehead City (contact Mr. Charles Jones,
726-7021).
Feel free to contact me in Raleigh if you require any additional
information.
Sincerely,
Lawrence R. Zucchino
Enclosure: Permit Application
i
,

I.and I'I;uuiin ,
I.alld'vallf.
In liil? lure
1'A 4#104 S4III;Ir,
n
_Z
a
.i
m
r
m
(n
Ii\y_ ,
?s•ss• I
l:
1 i "t
la
1

I/
91
APPENDIX B
(Interim)
II??-1,; I?,S.III CAROLINA
III=III ORCHREOLOGICAL
V-11 ?I SERVICES
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS HISTORICAL RESEARCH CONSULTATION SERVICES REPORTING
17 April 1987
Hr. Larry Zucchino
Paton. Zucchino & Associates
17 Glenwood Court
Raleigh KC
APR 3 0 `;99?
Re: Broad Reach Tragt---------"
------
Carteret County. NC
Dear Mr. Zucchino:
This letter is in followup to an archaeological management summary
which I transmitted verbally to you yesterday. The highlights of.the
matters which we discussed are presented below for your internal planning
use. These and other topics will be discussed in depth in our final
document on the results of our inventory survey of the Broad Reach tract.
It is anticipated that two copies-of the final study will be submitted
to you on May 15: one of these copies should be forwarded to the State
for review and comment prior to initiation of land development on the
property.
Yesterday I reported to you that we identified nine archaeological
sites and three isolated finds within the designated project boundaries
for Phase 1 development (approximately 40 acres). All of the sites and
two of the isolated finds are associated with Native American use of
coastal resources during the Woodland period (ca. 1500 B.C. - 1400 A.0.)
in North Carolina. Historic eriod land use appears to have been liz.ted
largely to cultivation, and n? Eurc--American residential or other activity
areas were identified.
Our investigation indicates that only one of the archaeological
sites (31Cr218) is potentially eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places on the basis of its significance. This Woodland site is
quite large (approximately 2000000 feet, east-west x north-south) and
contains intact midden deposits (food trash and other living debris)
below the plowzone. The site can be demonstrated to contain intact
vertical and horizontal stratigraphy. Organic preservation is reasonably
good, and the artifacts and food remains in the midden offer excellent
data sources for examining on-cite patterning, aboriginal technology,
procurement practices, subsistence patterns, and culture history,
particularly during the Middle and Late Woodland periods. Although the
site is not unique to coastal North Carolina, the information which it
contains is significant from an historical and scientific perspective,
and therafore is likely to be considered significant by the State.
537 HARDEN STREET rnMneain snuTN renni we 10-nc
Because of the adverse effect which recreational development is
likely to have on 31Cr218, some method of protecting its significant
content will be necessary. The ones sanctioned by Federal and State
management procedures are a) avoidance (i.e., protection in place) or
b) archaeological data recovery through excavation and mapping. The
developer will want to compare the feasibility and cost of these two
options; data recovery costs at a site of this nature and size rarely
fall below $20,000 and can be two to three times that much. Still, these
costs are generally far less than those of commercially undeveloped
waterfront property. Since the site's primary value is in its research
potential, it is likely that the State will recommend the data recovery
option.
We have determined that the most concentrated site deposits at
31Cr218 occur in a "core" site area of about 600x500 feet (east-west x
north-south)., as shown on the attached rough sketch. This is the area
where we recommend that archaeological data recovery be conducted, if
this option is the one agreed on by the developer and the State. In
anticipation of State concurrence regarding the site's significance, we
would recommend that this area form the basis of your site management
planning.
. If you have any questions between now and May 15 regarding these
interim findings, please do not hesitate to contact me. We look forward
to completing your study by that time.
Sincerely,
CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES
Lesley M. Drucker, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator,
Broad Reach Archaeological Inventory Study
LKD/sat
Attachment

PAGE 2
SITE 131 CR..) / 15
ZIA. DRAM A SKETCH HAP OF SITE, SHOWING LOCAL LANDMARKS AND UTM READING POINT
SCALE 1 f? :0. w.4X-PcrN04 RECORDER 'b k 1M
0 13,
rA ee rs
sxow NORTH axxow V?ll? ? ? _ 313 1987

uul -1
- - - - - - - - -
M?
- - - - -

pDr+?o

?l'7 IK 6 t
pp
KY? WM}
I.Qb ?' 6
Mr
.w 0'04'9%`'A av .q
yluo 'F"3?e200 y
i
y Vl zowP
NY So?
• v Tyt 13- 0-^ 410%ict
Ct, - Yµ'r:Cl ';d '..,1
¦0 (x1r, e5'k u?•k
&,- b.&cceA M?ddP?,t?
\ s, 1,? grea tt?tcl?des SL'c-ko le Shell sc o'"er )
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2Z. TOPOGRAPHIC SITUATION (CIRCLE)
00 NOT RECORDED 06 1ST TERRACE
01 FLOODPLAIN 07 2X0 TERRACE
02 TERRACE REM ON FP 08 3RD TERRACE
03 LOW RISE ON FP 09 SAND DUNE
04 NAT. LEVEE 10 UPLAND SLOPE
05 LEVEE REM. 11 UPLAND FLAT
12 HILL/RIDGETOP 18 ROCKSHELTER 24 COVE
13 SADDLE 19 ISLAND 25 RIVERSHORE
14 STREAM CONFLUENCE 20 FAN 26 STREAMBANK
15 TERRACE EDGE 21 TOE SLOPE 27 BENCH
16 HAMMOCK 22 CAVE 99 THER
17 BEACH 23 BLUFF
23. DESCRIBE TOPOGRAPHY ??jy-TE/?j iv /%? Pe. '09 "/Y?
tiZvJ1t7 ?EA?N ? N V ESjM?'?
Beginning at a point in the southern right of way m Bargin of N.C.
Highway No. 24, said point being located from N.C.G.S. Monument
"Boundary" (coordinates of X = 2605529.10' and Y = 356942.291),
the following two courses and distances:
1. S 53-49-26 W 209.79 feet to a concrete monument;
2. S 21-51-33 E 0.84 feet to the point of beginning.
From the beginning point, so located, S 21-51-33 E 4570.83 feet
to a concrete monument (hereinafter, "Point A"); thence S
70-43-28 W 561.37 feet; thence S 86-58-24 W 448.93 feet; thence S
81-21-59 W 168.85 feet to a stake (hereinafter "Point B") ;
thence, N 11-06-04 W 1410.05 feet to an iron pipe in a fence
line; thence, with said fence line, N 27-31-04 W 875.47 feet to
an iron pipe; thence, with an old road, the following six (6)
courses and distances:
1. N 85-52-33 W 111.0 feet;
2. N 32-27-33 W 122.0 feet;
3. N 46-42-33 W 90.0 feet;
4. N 19-52-33 W 203.0 feet;
5. N 17-07-27 E 53.0 feet;
6. N 33-17-27 E 142.0 feet
line of Sanders Creek;
to a point in the center
Thence, with the center line of Sanders Creek; the following
sixteen (16) courses and distances:
1. N 78-12-33 W 91.0 feet;
2. S 58-47-27 W 155.0 feet;
3. N 63-52-33 W 208.0 feet;
4. N 38-07-27 E 94.0 feet;
5. N 37-22-33 W 111.0 feet;
6. S 87-02-27 W 250.0 feet;
7. N 83-27-33 W 257.0 feet;
8. N 20-52-33 W 105.0 feet;
a$?
9. N 5-07-27 E 53.0 feet;
10. N 41-02-27 E 55.0 feet;
11. N 10-02-27 E 250.60 feet;
12. N 17-57-33 W -152.0 feet;
13. N 50-42-33 W 167.0 feet;
14. N 39-02-33 W 75.0 feet;
15. N 14-27-27 E 89.0 feet;
16. N 38-37-27 E 138.0 feet to a point;
Thence, N 21-11-12 W•80.42 feet to a point in the southern right
66% W?

of way margin of N.C. Highway No.924; thence continuing N
21-11-12 W 50.8 feet to a nail and cap in the center line of the
right of way of N.C. Highway No. 24; thence with the center line
of said right of way N 65-32-38 E 810.42 feet to a point; thence
N 62-51-19 E 476.59 feet to an iron pipe.in the northern right of
way margin of N.C. Highway No. 24; thence N 7-51-15 W 3818.58
feet to a stake; thence N 76-52-45 E 209.99 feet to a stake;
thence N 83-23-45 E 211.0 feet to a point; thence S 03-26-15 E
1450.37 feet to a point; thence S 08-49 E 2333.16 feet to a
concrete monument in the northern right of way margin of N.C.
Highway No. 24; thence S 41-20-14 W 188.82 feet to a point in the
southern right of way margin of N.C. Highway No. 24, the point or
place of beginning.
Included in this conveyance is all property, if any, lying south
of the line, described above, as running from Point A to Point B,
being between said line and the mean high water mark of Bogue
Sound.
This conveyance is subject to rights of others, specifically
including, but not limited to, the State to North Carolina, in
and to so much of the above descr.ibed,property.as lies within the
right of way of N. C. Highway No. 24.'
?gq
sa/ !p ?l71
r:k, t3
ELMO SMITH PROPERTY
EXHIBIT A
Beginning at an iron pipe in the southern right of way margin of
N.C. Highway # 24 (100 foot right of way), said iron pipe being
located N 78-14-33 E 812.33 feet from NCGS Monument "Boundary"
(said monument having coordinates of X=2605529.10' and Y=356942.29,');
from said beginning point, S 16-44-40 E 521.56 feet to an iron pipe;
thence N 87-47-13 E 219.32 feet to an iron pipe; thence, with the
centerline of an old road, the following three (3) courses and
distances:
1) S 05-03-43 W 103.99 feet to an iron pipe;
2) S 19-22-05 W 191.61 feet to an iron pipe;
3) S 28-09-48 W 431.41 feet to an iron pipe in a Branch;
thence, with the center of the Branch, the following seven (7)
courses and distances:
1) N 87-16-28 E 236.24 feet;
2) S 68-58-38 E 187.95 feet;
3) S 54-50-07 E 128.22 feet;
4) S 76-31-33 E 193.91 feet;
5) S 44-43-36 E-90.-45 feet;
6) S 14-10-40 E 95.67 feet;
7) S 47-48-53 E 207.90 feet;
thence, S 23-22-42 E 630.25 feet to a stake; thence; S 53-33-14 E
70.82 feet to a point; thence, S 24-15-32 E 389.91 feet to a point;
thence, S 74-41-58 W 692.44 feet to a point; thence, N 89-14-56 W
63.19 feet to a point; thence,S 20-51-31 E 5.0 feet to a concrete
monument; thence, continuing S 20-51-31 E 1472.30 feet to a concrete
monument (hereinafter, "Point A"); thence, continuing S 20-51-31 E
to the highwater mark of Bogue Sound; thence, with the highwater
mark of Bogue Sound in a westerly direction approximately 672 feet
to a point which lies the following two (2) courses and distances
from Point A:
1) S 56-58-15 W 672.28 feet to a concrete monument (hereinafter,
"Point B");
2) S 21-51-33 E to a point in the highwater mark of Bogue Sound;
thence, N 21-51-33 W to a concrete monument (Point B); thence,
continuing N 21-51-33 W 3090.83 feet to a point; thence N 68-08-27 E
250.0 feet to a point; thence, N 19-56-08 W 1454.07 feet to a point
in the southern right of way margin of N.C. Highway # 24; thence,
with said right of way margin, N 73-15-20 E 706.94 feet to an iron
pipe; the point or place of beginning.
"L 4?- / 3

,PROPERTY _
Schedule A, Item 4 _,.
EXHIBIT A
Beginning at a concrete monument in the east line of Stroud et al as
described in that deed recorded in Book 513, page 241, Carteret
County Registry, said beginning point being designated as "Point A"
in the above referenced description; from said beginning point, so
located with the east line of Stroud, as aforesaid, the following
seven courses and distances:
1. N 20-51-31 W 1,472.30 feet to a concrete monument;
2. N 20-51-31 W 5.00 feet to a point;
3. S 89-14-56 E 63.19 feet to a point;
4. N 74-41-58 E 692.44 feet to a point;
5. N 24-15-32 W 389.91 feet to a point;
6. N 53-33-14 W 70.82 feet to a point;
7. N 23-22-42 W.47.7.72 feet to a point in the center of
the west prong of Sanders Creek;
thence, with the center of the West Prong of Sanders Creek to a
point in said center which lies N 81-57-29'E 247.09 feet from the
previous point; thence continuing with the center of said creek to a
point which lies S 47-50-20 E 171.33 feet from the previous point;
thence continuing with the center of said creek to a point which
lies N 30-15-23 E 236.17 feet from the previous point; thence,
continuing with the center of said creek to a point which lies S
60-24-03 E 605.04 feet from the previous point; thence continuing
with the center of said creek to a point which lies N 45-33-52 E
287.10 feet from the previous point; thence continuing with the
center of said creek to a point which lies S 64-04-52 E 356.90 feet
from the previous point; thence N 83-26-21 E 219.10 feet to a point,
at the mean high water mark which is at the intersection of the
mouth of Sanders Creek with the waters of Bogue Sound; thence, with
the mean high water mark of Bogue Sound, the following six courses
and distances:
1. S 18-45-05 W 163.47 feet;
2. S 08-29-08Y 358.34 feet;
3. S 35-58-49 W 1,274.24 feet;
4. S 17-29-47 W 441.09 feet;
5. S 58-44-42 W 231.02 feet;
v
6. S 60-28-16 W 430.41 feet to a concrete monument, the
point or place of beginning.
June 11, 1987
Mr. Lee Pelej
Region IV, Wetlands Section
Marine and Estuarine Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
RE: Rouse-Watson, Inc.
(Public Norice No. 87-N-016-0147)
Dear Mr. Pelej:
PX1'O N/ZVC(a11.1N`J
?? ?? 1 11 1 ? 1' 1
U ? U??._t11t_
.JUN 11 X98?
Please find attached two (2) copies of the report titled
Marina Hydrology Study prepared by Dr. Len Pietrafesa and Dr.
Jerry Janowitz. Model projections of flushing rates,
dissolved oxygen levels and sedimentation rates are described
in the report as requested in your review letter dated
February 27, 1987. The results in the report reveal very
reasonable projections for these parameters within the
proposed marina system.
Please have your review scientists contact our office during
the course of their review so we might assist is clarifying
any questions which might arise concerning the study. We
would greatly appreciate the timely completion of your review
effort.
Sincerely,
ZW6.0
Lawren e R. Zucchino
cc: Rouse-Watson, Inc.
Preston Pate, NCDCM
Dave Baker, USACOE
Enclosure: Two copies, Marina Hydrology Report
1 :-,4111,•I. Nlu;ir?
1 1:It •In%,.4"
11:111.1211. N.C. 27(03)
919,11 .3 14;110241

i
June 10, 1987
Mr. Jim Mercer
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 769
Morehead City, N.C. 28557
Dear Jim:
PATON / MCCHINO
\Ssf ll A 11 V
15
I have enclosed a plan depicting the alignment of channel "A"
in relation to the distribution of the submerged seagrass
beds for the Broad Reach Marina. The seagrass information is
taken from the June 10, 1987 plat delivered to your office by
John McLean.
The alignment has been adjusted slightly to the southeast to
avoid the largest concentration of seagrasses. Our estimate
is that less than one hundred square feet of seagrass will be
impacted with the channel alignment depicted on the attached
plan dated June 10, 1987.
Please contact me if you need any clarification.
Sincerely,
Lawren a R. Zucchino
"
cc: Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
Enclosure: Plan dated June 10, 1987
I,and I'lannins
LcIlld;valo rchilvvlIIn.
(;???il?rr ti?luar?•
I, (:I(.Iwo, od \(-.
{alp i??li. N.C. 27(03
919-8)3 1-8020
I It
00
506 W. Wash ?
Kinston, NCi? ?T
31?1;- F .? 3 July 19 8 7?
Mr. David Owens, Director
Division of Coastal Mana ement AL
P. 0. Box 27687 JUL' 9
Raleigh, NC 27611
l3jV. of rivironmentai ev1ga..
Dear Mr. Owens: VV i 'LIE RA QUALITY
S-nTION
I am writing to express our concern about the proposed development
of the 278 acre tract owned by Broad Reach Investments, Inc.,
including three marina basins and two channels. The project was
announced in the Carteret County News-Times on 29 June 1987. My
wife and I have owned a summer home just a few hundred yards west
of Saunders Creek for over 20 years, and are quite familiar with
the surrounding environment and its marine and bird life.
I have recently retired from the U..S. Coast Guard after 30
years as a commisioned officer. I have professionsl experience in
permitting and environmental matters; for a period of three years
I was in charge of the bridge permitting activity in the Seventh
District, which includes South Carolina, Georgia, most of
Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Until last July I
was Deputy Chief of Office of Navigation in Headquarters, which
supervises such matters. The remainder of my experience lies in
operations and in aids to navigation, both having to do with
environmental matters. In addition, I hold a Master's Degree in
Marine Science from Long Island University; my area of
concentration dealt with estuarine processes.
This part of Bogue Sound is characterized by weak tidal currents
and little fresh-water influx. The tide lags about two hours
behind the tide at the inlets, and tidal height and current flow
are strongly affected by the wind. The current in the channel
at a certain stage of the tide also varies due to the wind
direction. A southwest wind decreases the water level and seems
to move the point of null flow to the east, while a northeast
wind increases the water level and shifts the current to the west.
In short, Sanders Creek is near the point in the sound where
currents from the east and west meet, although that point varies
due to wind direction and speed. There is little flushing as
occurs near inlets or at a major creek. This is evident to
anyone who will observe the water; suspended solids settle very
slowly, and cleaner water does not come in significantly on the
flood tide.
It is, however, a relatively undisturbed nursery area. Depths
are shallow, denying boat access to much of the creek. The wide
and gradually shallowing bay and marsh grasses provide haven to
juvenile finfish and shellfish. I have dragged for shrimp in the
channel along this shore, and found large numbers of juvenile
fish and crabs which were returned to the water. Floundering
with a light has revealed much of the same life, along with the
glowing eyes of numerous shrimp.

I
Unfortunately, turbidity has increased to the point where
''floundering is seldom possible. This year the turbidity is worse
than ever before, as evidenced by the difficulty in seeing bottom
in just a few feet of water. Spartina alterniflora marsh is
spreading along the adjacent shores, which helps to trap
suspended solids and improve water clarity. In spite of the
additional marsh, the water is becoming murkier. It is likely
that increased boat traffic, which is quite evident, has
contributed to the water turbidity. The small islands shown near
the western side of Sanders Creek on Chart 11541 have washed away.
There are clams, scallops, and oysters in this vicinity. They
are harvested in season by commercial and recreational fishermen,
and provide food and sport. Since these shellfish are filter
feeders, they concentrate pollutants in their tissues very low
levels of concentration in the water column. Thus shellfish will
be affected by any increase in pollutants in this area; the
slight currents will do little to dilute pollution.
We are very concerned about the effects of the three proposed
marina basins, the associated channels, and 8500 feet of
bulkhead. You cannot have 394 boats in wet slips without having
sewage, oil, and leaching bottom paint contaminants. Extensive
experience in Florida has shown that channels and basins with
bulkheads and little water flow become silted and even anaerobic.
Chemicals used to fertilize and treat weeds in residential lawns
quickly enter the water at a bulkhead, far more quickly than if a
sloping swale is used. This leads to algal blooms due to over-
fertilization of the water, as well as to contamination.
The permit application gives no insight as to how "the first 1-
1/2 inches of rainfall" will be prevented from entering the
marina. Where will it go? Given the torrential nature of summer
rains and fall storms in this area, this (and subsequent
rainfall) is an important concern. What about storm water runoff
into the sound and Sykes Branch? The proposed residential areas
seem to abut these sensitive areas, yet the permit application is
silent about this discharge.
In addition, there is little for a big boat to do in this part of
Bogue Sound except start a trip to somewhere else. It is too
shallow for travel except in the channel. So where will large
boats go? To Bogue Inlet, or to Morehead. This means a lot of
travel to and from the places where the boats will be used. More
travel leads to more turbidity and more pollution. It should be
evident that a marina should be placed in an area with strong
water flow, and relatively near an inlet. Sanders Creek meets
neither of these requirements.
The proposed dry storage of 340 boats seems to exceed the needs
of the residential population, even if you assume that 100% of
the projected 300 residential units will have two boats, one
large and one small. Therefore Broad Reach Investments intends
to attract renters from other areas. Even small boats frequently
run to the inlet, and locating such a facility here will add
greatly to the traffic in the channel, as well as the inevitable`
beer cans, outboard oil containers and picnic leavings which
2

accompany these boats. We object strongly to a marina and a dry
storage facility which even exceeds the needs of the projected
residents, and to its inappropriate location. There are numerous
boat ramps and several marinas within a few miles.
Sanders is the least developed creek in Bogue Sound. Marine and
bird life thrive in its marsh and little bay. The local
population is increasing rapidly, as is the stress on the marine
resources. Damaging this nursery and sanctuary area at a time
when fishing, shrimping, and clamming is increasing due to the
increased population is foolish. The creek's marshy area also
supports a thriving population of salt-marsh mosquitos; the new
residents will in all liklehood demand control spraying. This
leads to further environmental damage. How much of the sound
will be closed to shellfishing due to this project, and how much
of the creek and its bay will become unproductive?
This spring we have had a big die-off of eelgrass. It has washed
ashore in quantities more appropriate to the natural cycle in the
fall. I do not know what caused this, but I do know that grass
beds are vital to production of marine organisms which make the
sound a productive, clean one. If, as I suspect, it is due to
increased silting and turbidity, the proposed project will
exacerbate a bad situation.
When I was a boy, we seined mullet in Spooner's Creek, and
wondered at its unspoiled beauty. It was a productive
environment which contributed to the sound's marine life
population. Using the cut-up mullet for bait, we caught large
croakers, trout, and flounder in the sound. Now Spooner's Creek
is dredged and unproductive, and large croaker and trout are but
a memory. Broad Creek, Gales Creek, and Goose Creek have some
development, but still are productive. I believe that Sanders
Creek should remain productive, as well.
The permit application raises the specter of 100 private piers.
The character of the marsh area and the distance to deep water
effectively limit the number of piers. Even 100 piers aren't as
damaging as 394 boat slips and the associated dredging. It is
ludicrous to expect that two 80' channels totalling over 1/2 mile
can be marked adequately for navigation with two channel markers.
I am concerned that this project might be started without an
assessment of its effects on the environment. I saw no mention
of either an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact
Statement. Unless one of these is done, and provided for
appropriate review, we cannot know either the state of Sanders
Creek now, or the possible changes. How do you propose to make
this assessment? I would like the opportunity to review it.
Sincer ly,
J. B ogdon Jr
apt., USCG (ret.)
3
Iy
copies to:
Lee Pelej, U. S. EPA
Dave Rackley, U. S. F&WS
Bill Hogarth, N. C. Div.
Bob Benton, N. C. Div. of
Paul Wilms, N. C. Div. of
Randy Cheek, U. S. MNFS
Charlie Hollis, U. S. A.
of Marine Fisheries
Shellfish Sanitation
Environmental Management
CofE
4
gsnut saaeutbug ;o sdaoO AutaV •S •n aq4 4gg4 pue4saepun I
'OTdmvxs aOa LpeaTnbea se '840gdmT eq4 auTmexa of paXsg uaaq
89TOU86V Tgaepa; pUR 04248 aq4 aAgq 4u94X9 4ggM Oy ZspuLT49M
asag4 punoag peogds aq 4u9tud0T9n9p TTTM Moq pug saTagpunoq
PUPT49M aa}gMgsaa; aq4 eae aaagm •gogaq aa:g V•TSZ 9aT4u9
9q4 aano 4u9utd0T9n8p aOJ.POZTS 6uTaq ST OUTaRM 9q4 'OS uang
•autoo4no TRUT; aq4 uo 4ogdmT o4 ?TaXTT aag sash pugT aaagM
409101d anTsus4xa ug ;O 4agd TTgute g ST ag; os aas 14Vg4
TTV •8u0T4gugTdxa ugg4 a9g4ga SuOTssTMO 84T aO; OTgv4ou sT
4u9uid0T9n9p sTg4 6uTua90u00 ag; os pantaoas UOT-VgutaWUT agy
•punoS anbog ;o Sgaag 6uTgSTJTTags OMTad aq4 30 auo 30 990TO
pug saoinosea TV48VOO apgabap TTTM 409Coad sTgq ggg4 uaaouoo
4g9a5 ST 91ag4 'p949 48 ApgaaTQ Sl* •p9409403d aq sa94gM
aq4 ;o seen ONIISIXS Pug 9paePUR48 A4TTgnb aagem gggq aaTnbaa
suOT49Tn6ea anoA 'Tg06 stg4 ;o UOT40aT99a g sy •saoanosaa
Tv4sgoO 9TT6ga; ;o uoT4oo4oad aq4 sT 40V quaiuabgugW TR49POO
9q4 30 Tgob buTATaapun eq4 ggg4 noA puTuiaa ATpagq paau I
•Avmaagvm pugTUT aq4
uT OT;;gaq 4goq peads g6Tq 04 p9gngTa44g TTg 'ssgab Taa ono
pagsvm pug 'uto44oq Appnut pagq g aq oq peon gggM aano Xonut ;o
sagouT xTs sg gonut se 'A4TpTgan4 paseaaouT 4aodea saauMo aqq
1s4uoa;a9gem aeg4o 6uoTg papmgsaM buTnuT4uoO pug auTTaaogs
Auz buoTV •pagona4suoo aaaM squautdojanap aogagH TTnO PUP Age
auTMApugag 9q4 uagM 480T svm e9ae 6uTgeTJTT9g8 ;o 401 g 4gg4
eaQmv oeTV eats Aagy •0T;;ga4 4goq pasgaaOuT utoa; 6uT4Tnsaa
u0Tls4uautTP9e 04 enP siveddu 4T 'euTToep 4T pagD4vm engq Aeg4
'2944gT aq} 04 stet •geag 6uTa948Ao pug buTmmvTO '6UTduiTags
'6uTgsT; 4ug4aodutT up 3o 9499 Tgnquana aqq 4noge paTaaoM
eag Aag4 4gg4 894VOTPUT ueucaagsT; TgooT g4TM SUOT4gsa9nu80 AN
'(Age saapugS pug) punos anbog ;o 94agd
euT49Tad 6uTuTautea eq4 ;o auo U84eeag4 Agut wautdOTanap STg4
gOTgM 04 4u9qx8 aq4 4eg4 BOTOU969 4uaUlua9n06 a9g4O autos pug
'uoTSTnTa anoA 4aaTg o4 papua4UT ST 'APM ;o 4aOS AaguTtUTTaad
g UT 'a9449T sTgy •aouapTna 4Uu pungg uo paseq saaMsug ;o
paau uT pug Tle9a aag suaaOUOO AM 4gg4 aut 99OUTAUOD SOTOU96P
Teaepe; pug 94e4s aq4 ;o autos ggTM sgag-4uoo Atu 'ag; os •su'eTd
aTag4 ;o pasTnPQ We4x8 p94TutTT g 04 egM 14oe?oad guTagW
gogau pgoag pesodoad agq o4 aeuMo A4aedoad 4uaov?pg up sV
:suaMO •aW agaa
40 'M ?Srajea
hint teluawuOPAb ;o 'Vo
L86T
1861 r N OL98Z ON
(uga00) L09 xog
?? euo?sTTLLS
xti+setlb;:ti:tY?9B'N1Lel?
TT9LZ ON 'g6T9TVH
L89LZ xOS 'O 'd
4UOIu9612UQW TVIGROO ;O UOTSTATQ
SUOMO •by pTnga . aW
'6Z ARN
' -4aodMOi1 J
saTavgO
L961 ?

A _ Y
? 4
-111? ?- 7?7v
uO4sTTgS saTavgD
'dTOaSOUTS
sTTToH aTTIegD
xaagD Apueg
g4JPBoH TTTS
SMTTM Tned
uo4uag qog
A8TxoeH aneQ
CeTed 8911 soo
• TvA9ua6 UT oTTgnd eqq pue uatuaagsT;
20; punoS an6og ;o anTen aqq pue saT4aadojd 6uTuTocpv aq4
a.oa;;a AT9Sa9Ape ARM qT Moq puE 4oaload sTq 6uT6pnC a*o; sTseq
agenbape eaom a 9PTAOad o4 paxse aq pTnogs aadoTanaP aq4 49gl
'aO449T SN4 UT PaIeoTpuT „suaQOUOo„ eq-4 mox; snoTngo ST 41
• ,,puodmn6,, 'POmIO , PugT49M VOV aq4 04 s9TTdde APT Tv29Pa;
4ou ao aog4agM 4noge uoT49anb a osTe sT 9.zag4 'Pavs9a 4R6
uI •SpaTq ;o saToads 4ue4aodMT pue qsT;TTags 'qsT; 94VUTIUTTO
ATTengaTn ueo gaTgm 6uTAe.ads 9ntsue4xa 4noge 6uTaq Meat goeag
peo.ag ;o 84u9PTeea aq4 ;o 4ao;moo ago 4nq 'gsT;TTags pue

gsT; slaoddne Iegl uTaga Poo; Qql OI TpTluassa aae eagsaew
'aOlOp;
6uTTToaluoo aqI ST '.aPTl upgl aaglea 'aalpM gsaa; 30 MOT;
aqq Iegl saeadde IT 'gsaeui p samooaq pup papMglaou spualxa
A28 saspueS BY •aTgpaOTlou IOU ATTensn ST sauTTaaogs 6uOTe
asleM ;o Iuamanow •94e4OTP suoTlTpuoo aaglo pup SpuTM Be
'Iajul Iao;neag ao IaTuj an6og spaeMol 'Iuauxdojanap sTg4 WOa;
ae; IOU Iutod buTpTnTp agl OI asOTO ST MOT; luaaano 44TnTI0e
TePTl Tvm u-rm "q Iegl punoS an6og ;o laed p uT.bnp sTeuuega
pup suTseq uT paloadxa aq of (;oeaagl XOQT ao) UOTlop
buTgsnT; agl ;o uoTleanb agI sasTpa OsTe ';;ouna aslvmmI ols
;0 Iaed Be eTaaloeq pup 'SM0440q Ieoq MOI; STeaTWOW OTXOI
'sapTOTlsad 6UTIeTnwnooe ;0 A4TTTgTssod aqs •aanouanl TRMTUTm
gITM aalpMgeaa; uT Panaasgo ATluanbaa; ST Be 'paleuTMRluoo
ag OsTV Aem geT3 •sTanaT UOTlop XQ3 04 gleam eql UT STanaT
apTOTlsad 6uTaq ?Ceut pup seaap qsT;TTags oq4 oluT ($IoasuT
Toaluoo oI peAvads) SapTOTlsad ;o a9;8upa4 aleaaTaoae
ATpalgnopun TTTM IuewdoTanap posodoad aq4 uT sTwURO aqy
•Seaae Aansanu agl Ioaload oI aapao
UT 'auTTaaOgs aql pup Tauupga agl uaaMlaq buTdmTags MOTTV
IOU Saop SOTa9gsT3 OUTaew ;0 uOTSTnTG •0 'N Inq '6UTdtUTags
aO; U MaagsT; TeTOaauauoo ?q pasn ATTnpaq ST MMIV aqy
•paXOOT.zeno aasM suOTleaapTSUOO asagl ;o autos asnpoaq aanTa
aqI OI sTauuegO anpq of paMOTTe uaaq aanau 9AVq gDTgM spuod
AT4800 OmOs spq aanTH IaodMaH aqI uO sXoelsAeH •lunoooe 04UT
magi buTXpl IOU Aq bunalsmeq uaaq anpq sluamdOTanap aaglO
Inq 'aallaT sTgl uT M9g4 48TT oI paau Ou eT aaagl Ipgl uMOuX
TTOA Os ace spaezeq asags •IelTgeq aTagl ;O UOTlonalsap
aqI aO 'space geT;TTags Agaeou ;o UOTInTTOd TeOTuiagO Pup
TeOTboTOTaaloeq pTOnp OI euTaem leoq OOL a a0; AeM 4u9aedde
ou sT aaags •IuauzdOTanaQ goeag ppoag le puTaeuz pasodoad
aql OI ATdde suoseea acres aq4 pup 'seaap qsT;TTags ;O buTsOTO
OTIeuIolne oql ao; UOTIeOT;TIsn[ papTnoad anpg saouaTaedxa peg
•seuTaum aeau space qeT;TTage oI saTTddp gDTgM AOTTod eansoTo
OTlemolne ue seq UOT494TURS qST;TTagS ;o uoTSTnTQ •0 'H agl
Iegl puplsaepun I 'UOTITppe UI •eaae OTTbpa; STgI uo loa;;a
asaanpe ATpuno;oad a anpg TTTM slpoq TeuOTlTppe peapunq uanas
aano ;o saXeM aql pup 'abpdaas aaleMpunoab ';;ouna a9leMg99a3
•IuemsaTnbaa sTgl IoaT;aa suOT4eTn69a RITTpnb aalpM
•, •H eqI pue 'pauTeluTRM aq seen 6uT49Tx9 Iegl esaTnbaa Iov
aalpM UeaTD aqy •aXTTV BJ04TOTA pue.sluapTsaa oI eouplaodmT
TeuOTleaaoaa ;0 pue uauiaagsT; TeT0a9MM00 20; 9MO0UT
;o aoanos a pue anTlonpoad ST AaagsT; mvTa TTagspaeq aq4 Inq
'UOTIOUTIxa gITM paualpaagl 4P02TV BT UOTlpTndod aalsAo age
'buTgeT;TTags JO; puTTOJQD g4JOH ;0 slelS aqI Aq paloaload
aq oI pesoddns sae Ioe?oad sTgl oI Iusow?pp sasleM aqy
•seaap VUTaeui posodoad aq4 oI
peon 889002 up apTnoad oI spupTlaM TTT; of paau aq4 alenTpna
1-1
h` ?

IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
May 6, 1987
SUBJECT: File No. SAWC087-N-016-0323
Broad Reach Investments, Inc.
1333 Fayetteville Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Gentlemen:
F -ECE9%V'E???
MAY 1 1 1981
WATER
OPEPATIONS
On February 6, 1986, we renewed general permit No. SAWC080-N-
000-0291 (enclosed), which provides Federal authorization for
construction activities that receive authorization from the State
of North Carolina.
A review of your application received April 30, 1987, for a
Department of the Army permit to dredge two access channels, three
high ground marina basins and bulkhead and backfill in conjunction
with the development of a 394 wetslip marina facility on Bogue
Sound near Ocean, Carteret County, North Carolina, indicates it to
be a candidate for Federal authorization under this general
permit. Accordingly, the administrative processing of your
application will be accomplished by the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management. Comments from Federal review agencies will be
furnished to the State.
If your application must be withdrawn from this general permit
process for any reason, you will be written and informed of its
further management. If there are no unresolved differences of
State-Federal positions or policy, the final action taken on your
application by the State will result in your receiving written
notice from us that your application has been successfully
processed under our general permit. Only after receiving such
confirmation should you begin work.
Your application, pursuant to Section 10 of the River and
Harbor Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, has been
assigned No. SAWC087-N-016-0323 and will be coordinated by
Mr. David Baker. He is available to address questions or comments
you may have at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
-o.
Enclosure
-2-

Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Charles Jones
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City,'North Carolina
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Post Office Box 25039
Raleigh, North Carolina
Service
Mr. Randy Cheek
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. William L. Kruczynski, Chief
Wetlands Section
Marine and Estuarine Branch
Region IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. James Mercer
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Patton/Zucchino and Associates
17 Glenwood Avenue
28557 Raleigh, North Caroliina 27603
27611-5039

01
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
May 6, 1987
SUBJECT: File No. SAWC087-N-016-0323
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
Post Office Box 2,7687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Mills:
g
y 4n y"?
r
i; jV}?SiJ ?3y^ rn , nl
Enclosed is the application of Briad Reach Investments, Inc.,
for a Department of the Army permit and a State Water Quality
Certification to place fill material in Bogue Sound to construct a
394 slip marina facility near Ocean, Carteret County, North
Carolina. Your receipt of this letter verifies your acceptance of
a valid request for certification in accordance with Section
325.2(b)(ii) 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 may be required
under the provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A Department
of the Army permit will not 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. Therefore, if your office has
not acted on the request by July 6, 1987, the District Engineer
will deem that waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. David Baker,
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
e W. Ho is
M a
hief Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
-2-
?_ s
r
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. James Mercer
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557

Please type or print. Carefully describe all an- uvy
d. Describe the planned use of the project
ticipated development activities, including ?onstrstr . uc marina serving the•develo6ment
-
tion, excavation, filling, paving, land clearing, and residents and slip renters,
stormwatrr eonteol. If the requested informatio We
I
'
t
not relevant to your project, write N/A (ntiit ap r ,. ;
plicable). Items 1-4 and 8.9 must be compbMq fmt..}i_, ::>>?w i .+,.- LAND AND WATER'
all projects.
CHARACTERISTICS
_ See Note //1
1 APPLICANT
:?, 278 ac total ownership)
3' ( aloe of entire tract 133 ac (this request)
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
a. Name Broad Reach Investments, In?r c! -Elevation of tract above mean sea level or Na-
Address 1333 Fayettville Street' tional `Geodetic Vertical Datum 0-15 feet
tty 27602 Raleigh Da State NC -0594
8;32
y Phone (919)
ZiP d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract Wando soil
i
-,, ser
es, fine sandy loam.
X
Landowner or Authorised agent' " e. Vegetation on tract 15% with trees
b. Project name (if any) Broad Reach Marina -
F
n
- f. arm fields
Ma
made features now on-tract
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give
the owner's name and address. g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classifica-
Land Planners- Authorized Agent
Paton/Zucchino & Associates
P.A. tion of the site? (Consult the local land use
,
17 Glenwood Avenue- plan.)
Conservation Transitional
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 X
Developed
Community
2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED Rural Other
PROJECT h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
Unzoned
i. How -are adjacent waters classified? SA
a. Street address or secondary road number
Hghwav 24 j. Has a professional archaeological survey been

b. _
'City, town, community, or landmark carried out for .the tract? Yes
if so,• by whom? Carolina Archaeological
Ocean, North Carolina Services, Columbia, South Carolina
c. County Carteret
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning 5 UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
? No/C
J
ti
t
i
i
di
i
di
oun
jur
y
ur
s
ct
on
s
c
on
e. Name of body of water nearest project Complete this section if the project includes any
Bogue Sound West of Sanders Creek l
l
d d
an
eve
opment.
T
d
b
f b
ildi
f
il
a. ype an
num
er o
u
ngs,
ac
ities, or
3 DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED structures proposed Dry storage facility,
USE OF PROPOS
D 125 Room Inn/Restaurant, Sales/
E
PROJECT
Clubhouse building.
b. Number of lots or parcels One
a. Describe all development activities you propose c. Density (Give the number of residential units
(for example, building a home, motel, marina, and the units per acre.) overall 3 units/
bulkhead, or pier). acre anticipated.
Marina, Bulkhead, Ramps, Dry Boat d Si
f
b
d
d o
di
b
d
. ze o
area to
e gra
e
r
stur
e
_ Storage, Parking, Inn, Restaurant, Approximately 11 acres upland
Sales Office, Clubhouse, Pool and e. If the proposed project will disturb more than
Roadways. one acre of land, the Division of Land
If you plan to build a marina, also complete Resources must receive an erosion and sedimen-
and attach Form. DCM-MP-2. cation control plan at least 30 days before land
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an ex- disturbing activity begins. If applicable, has a
isting project, new work, or both? sedimentation and erosion control plan been
.New work submitted to the Division of Land Resources?
c. Will the project he for community, private, or Not at this time.
commercial use? f. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet
Private/Commerical - Community f
hi
h
b
d b
i
•
mean
o
g
e covere
water to
y
m-
bl
f
h
.permea
e sur
aces, suc
as pavement,
buildings, or rooftops. 7.37

g. List the materials, such as marl, paver stone, b. Amount of material to be excavated from
asphalt, or concrete, to be used for paved below water level in cubic yards 94.380 c . y .
surfaces. Asphalt and concrete c. Type of material Coarse and Fine Sand
-,. d. Does the area to be excavated include marsh-
h. If applicable, has a stormwater management land, swamps, or other wetlands? Yes
plan been submitted to the Division of En- e. High ground excavation, in cubic yards 219,0 2 c . y
vironmental Management? N/A f. Dimensions of spoil disposal area
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste g. Location of spoil disposal area Two. See
water treatment facilities. Tertiary treatment , Site Development Plans, Sheet 2-3.
plant, low pressure distribution lines. h. Do you claim title to the disposal area? Yes
j. Have these facilities received state or local If not, attach a fetter granting permission from
approval? Not, at this time. the owner.
k. Describe existing treatment facilities. i. Will a disposal area be available for future
None
maintenance? Yes.
If so, where? See Plans. Sheet 1.
j. Does the disposal area include any marshland,
I. Describe location and type of discharges to swamps, or water areas? No.
waters of the state (for example, surface runoff, k. Will the fill material be placed below mean
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial high water? No
effluent, or "wash down"). Minimal direct 1. Amount of fill in cubic yards N/A
. stormwater discharge into state m. Type of fill material Fine and Coarse Sand.
waters is anticipated. (See Note # 2) n. Source of fill material Proposed basins & channels.
m. Water supply source Private well.' o. Will fill material be placed on marsh or other
n. If the project is oceanfront development, wetlands? No.
describe the steps that will be taken to main- p. Dimensions of the wetland to be filled N/A
tain established public beach accessways or pro- q. How will excavated or fill material be kept on
vide new access. N/A site and erosion controlled? Standard
sedimentation and erosion control
mechanisms, i.e. silt fences,
stabilization, sediment traps, etc.
o. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will r. What type of construction equipment
will be
be the elevation above mean sea level of the _
used (for example, dragline, backhoe, or
first habitable floor? N/A hydraulic dredge)? Dragline, back hoe and
hydraulic'dredge
6 EXCAVATION AND FILL

INFORMATION s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equip-
ment to the project site? NO If yes, explain
(See attached chart) the steps that will be taken to lessen en-
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed excava- vironmental impacts. N/A
tion or fill activities (excluding bulkheads
,
which are covered in Section 7). (See attached
Length Width Depth sheet)
Access channel
(NILW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break-
wirer, pier,
boat ramp,
rack jetty)
Fill placed in
wetland or below
MHW
7 SHORELINE STABILIZATION
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap 8,500 feet
b. Average distance watem-ard of mean high water
or normal eater level at mean high water
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months,
in feet 0
d. Type of bulkhead material Concrete
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be p laced'
below mean high water N/A
f. Type of fill material N/A
Upland fill
arc as
f
diANNEL A
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
r
Boat basin
Other (break-
w.-iter. pier.
boat ramp.
ruck jetty)
Fill placed in
%Vctland or below
MHW
Upland fill
arca5
Length Width Depth
4.5'
1600' 80' average
BASIN 1
Access channel
041-W) or (NWQ
Boat basin
Other (break.
Boater. pier.
hunt ramp.
ruck jetty)
Fill placed in
%%Icrland or below
1?HW
Upland (ill
arctic
BASIN 3
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break.
Boater. pier.
bait ramp.
ruck jetty)
Fill placed in
Welland or below
MHW
Upland (ill
arcac
Length Width Depth
500' 1500' 1 4.5'
Length Width Depth
500' 1 150' 1 4.0'
CHANNEL B
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break.
witer. Piet.
hunt ramp.
ruck jetty.)
Fill placed in
wetland or below
MHW
Upland fill
arctic
Length Width Deptt
4.5'
1150' 80' average
BASIN 2
Access channel
041-W) or (NWQ
Boat basin
Other (break.
Boater, pier,
bait ramp.
ruck jetty)
Fill placed in
werland or below
MHW
Upland fill
ircac
Length Width Deptt
1 320' 1 300' 1 4.0' 1
8 ADDIT140NAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims
title to the affected property. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then for-.
ward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permis-
sion from the owner to carry out the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and
cross sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on 8 V2 x 11 white paper. (Refer to Coastal
Resources Commission Rule 7).0203 for a detailed
description.)
Please * note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accep: ed. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 16
high quality copies are provided by the applicant.
(Contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regard-
ing that agency's use of larger drawings.) A site or
location map is a part of plat requirements and it
must be sufficiently detailed to guide agency per-
sonnel unfamiliar with the area to the site. Include
county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and the like.
A stormwater management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
individuals have 30 days in which to submit com-
ments on the proposed project to the Division of
Coastal Management and should be advised by the
applicant of that opportunity.
Name Char'eG T. Shilstone
Address J. A. Bell Lane
Newport. NC 28570
Name W. B. Fowler & T. M. Singleton
Address 5214 Bogue Sound Drive
Emerald Isle, NC 28557
Name
Address
A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. Include Permit
numbers, pennittee, and issuing dates.
N/A
A check for $100 made payable to the Depart.
ment of Natural Resources and Community
Development to cover. the costs of processing the
application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in ocean-
front and inlet areas.
A statement on the use of public funds. If the
project involves the expenditure of public funds, at-
tach a statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to 10).
9 CERTIFICATION AND PERMIS.
SION TO ENTER ON LAND
Any permit issued in response to this application
will allow only the development described in the
application. The project will be subject to condi-
tions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the pro-
posed activity complies with the State of North
Carolina's approved Coastal Management Program
and will be conducted in a manner consistent with
such program.
I further certify that I am authorized to grant, and
do in fact, grant permission to representatives of
state and federal review agencies to enter on the
aforementioned lands in connection with
evaluating information related to this permit ap-
plication and follow-up monitoring of project.
This is the 25th day of April
19.-_.
X (A"
-
Landowner ot{ Authorized agent
Send the completed application materials to:
Division of Coastal Management
N.C. DNRCD
Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611

Farm Ck.M.MP-2
MARINA.
DEVELOPMENT
Attach this form to the Application for Permits to
Develop, in North Carolina's Coastal Area. Be sure
to complete all other sections of that application
which relate to this proposed project, including
upland areas, even if duplicative. All shore-based
facilitie„ must be included in application and work
plats.
1 MARINA CHARACTERISTICS
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
•f.
h.
i.
Check below the type of marina proposed.
X Commercial Public
X Residential '
Will the marina be open to the general public?
Ng. Slip & dry slot owners & renters only.
If there is residential development associated.
with the marina, how many units or lots are
plat tied? ?Approxitiiat:ely:-310:_antic ipated.-"
Check all of the types of service to be
provided.
Full service, including travel
--_X , lift and/or rail
Dockage, fuel, and marine supplies
•-_2L_ Dockage ("wet slips") only
Number of slips 394 slips
- X _ Dry storage
Number of boats 340 slots
--2 Boat ramp(s)
Other (describe) sewage pumpout
facilities.
Check below the proposed type of siting.
-- X _ Land cut and access channel
Open water with dredging for basin
and/or channel
Open water, no dredging required
Other (describe)
Describe the typical boats to be served (for ex-
ample, open runabout, charter boats, sail boats,
or mixed types). Power boats/Sail boats
Typical boat lengrh Under 25 f eet
Maximum boar length 40 feet
Are any floating buildings planned? No
if so, describe. N/A -
2 MARINA OPERATIONS
a. Check each of the following sanitary facilities
which will be included in the proposed project.
•X Office toilets
X Toilets for patrons
Number 4
Locahoft Ships Store/Harbor Master Bldg.
Showers
X Boat holding tank pumpout
Type and location Pumpout facilities at
non-berthing pier near Ship's Store.
b. Describe treatment type and location for all
sanitary wastewater. Tertiary treatment plant
with subsurface disposal fields located
on the property.
c. Describe solid waste, fish offal, and trash
disposal. Solid waste containers provided
.on each pier and at ramps. Collected
and taken to County landfill.
d. How will overboard discharge of sewage from
boats be controlled? Combined effort of
signage, staff enforcement, closed-head
policy and availability of pumpout
facilities.
e. Give the location and number of "No :;swage
Discharge" signs proposed. Seventeen, located
at the entry to eac;i pier, at each
boatramp and at harbor master building,
ship's store and dry storage.
f. Describe the special design, if applicable, for
containing industrial type pollutants, such as
paint, sandblasting waste, and petroleum pro-
ducts. Petroleum products only.
g. Where will residue be disposed of? Approved
disposal site.
h. Give the number of channel markers and "No
Wake" signs proposed. 2 .
Note: Regulatory: signs such as these require ad-
ditional approval by the N.C. Wildlife
+ Resources Commission.
i. Give the location of fuel handling facilities and
describe the safety measures planned to protect
area water quality. At harbor master building.
j. Describe design measures that promote boat
basin flushing or circulation and reduce water (see Notes #2 , 43 and #4)
quality impacts. A circulation pipe connects Channel A & 'B
to domplete a flushing loop. Another circluation pipe
connects Basin 1 with Wasin 2. Minimum•direct storm-
water discharge from pavement and rooftop areas into
Marina basin. Central tertiary wastewater treatment and,
best management practices used for marina operations.
k. What will be the marina policy on overnight
and live-board dockage? No live aboard
dockage and limited overnight dockage
space.
1. Is the proposed marina located near any
shellfish leases? No • If so, give the name and
address of the leaseholder. .N/A
m. If this project is an expansion of an existing
marina, what types of services are currently
provided? N A
n. How many slips are now available?'_ N/A

M
0
Explanatory Notes and Additional Comments
Broad Reach Marina CAMA Permit Application
PATON / ZUCCHINO
& `?" II WI.` I I'..'?. V `.
1. The Broad Reach Marina project is.planned as a part of a larger
unified development plan prepared for a 278 acre tract under singluar
ownership. Due to the size of the tract and the long term nature of
the development program for the overall tract, this permit request
addresses in a specific manner the 41 acres which encompass the marina
proper and associated upland commercial development. The residential
development parcels which lie immediately adjacent to the marina and
canals (92 acres in parcels E, F, G and H) are described in general
terms of land use, acreage, general layout and are assigned a density
for residential use. The remainder of the property is described in
the Master Plan (Sheet 1) in terms of land use, acreage and general
layout.
A residential density assignment has been provided to give some level
of assurance that future development in the parcels near the marina
basins and the sound will not contribute to the degradation of water
quality as a result of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces. A
density of three units per acre is generally regarded as a level of
residential density at which reasonable assurance could be made that
current or future stormwater management standards for water quality
could be met. The development of these parcels at any density higher
than three units per acre would require the preparation of a
stormwater management plan which must be approved by the N.C. Division
of Environmental Management prior to any development plan approval.
2. Although the development plans for the marina, channels and the upland
development associated with the marina complex will not require an
approved stormwater management plan under current N. C. Division of
Environmental Management regulations, stormwater runoff from the
proposed development will be controlled in such a way as to minimize
potential water quality degradation in the marina basins and canals.
Engineering plans for the area immediately surrounding the marina
complex will be designed to control the first one and one-half (1-1/2)
inches of rainfall on all impervious surfaces from directly entering
the marina waters. In addition, best planning, design and
engineering practices will be implemented where it is determined that
they will be effective in reducing the potential for stormwater
generated pollutants from entering the marina system. Informal review
and comment will be solicited from the staff in the Water Quality
Section, NCDEM concerning stormwater management in this areas (Parcel
K).

a
Explanatory Notes
Brgadreach Marina
Page 2
3. It is the intent of the development plan to provide centralized boat
docking facilities for the project residents. Centralized docking in
the proposed basin would eliminate the need for private piers for
individual homesites along the shoreline. The project acreage
includes a significant length of shoreline along Bogue Sound and
Sanders Bay totaling over 5,700 lineal feet which, without a
centralized marina facility, could support over one hundred private
piers for individual waterfront homesites.
4. A hydrological study prepared by our consultant, Dr. Len Pietrafesa,
is appended to this application (Appendix A). The study describes the
hydrologic flushing characteristics of this general area and models
flushing rates and disolved oxygen levels in the proposed marina
basins and canals. A model predicting sedimentation rates in the
proposed channels included in the hydrological study.
5. An archaeological study prepared by Carolina Archaeological Services
is appended to this application (Appendix B).

APPENDIX B
(Interim)
CAROLINA
?U=1? ARCHAEOLOGICAL
Cpl-l?) ?p?-???? SERVICES
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS HISTORICAL RESEARCH CONSULTATION SERVICES REPORTING
17 April 1987
Mr. Larry Zucchino
Paton. Zucchino & Associates
17 Glenwood Court
Raleigh NC
Re: Broad Reach Tract
Carteret County. NC
Dear Hr. Zucchino:
This letter is in iollowup to an archaeological management summary
which I transmitted verbally to you yesterday. The highlights of the
matters which we discussed are presented below for your internal planning
use. These and other topics will be discussed in depth in our final
document on the results of our inventory survey of the Broad Reach tract.
It is anticipated that two copies of the final study will be submitted
to you on May 15; one of these copies should be forwarded to the State
for review and comment prior to initiation of land development on the
property.
Yesterday I reported to you that we identified nine archaeological
sites and three isolated finds within the designated project boundaries
for Phase 1 development (approximately 40 acres). All of the sites and
two of the isolated finds are associated with Native American use of
coastal resources during the Woodland period (ca. 1500 B.C. - 1400 A.D.)
in North Carolina. Historic eriod land use appears to have been limited
largely to cultivation, and nc Eurc-•American residential or other activity
areas were identified.
Our investigation indicated that only one of the archaeological
sites (31Cr218) is potentially eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places on the basis of its significance. This Woodland site is
quite large (approximately 2000000 feet, east-west x north--south) and
contains intact midden deposits (food trash and other living debris)
below the plowzone. The site can be demonstrated to contain intact
vertical and horizontal stratigraphy. Organic preservation is reasonably
good, and the artifacts and food remains in the midden offer excellent
data sources for examining on-site patterning, aboriginal technology,
procurement practices, subsistence patterns, and culture history,
particularly during the Middle and Late Woodland periods. Although the
site is not unique to coastal North Carolina, the information which it
contains is significant from an historical and scientific perspective,
and therefore is likely to be considered significant by the Stara.
0
Because of the adverse effect which recreational development is
likely to have on 31Cr218, some method of protecting its significant
content will be necessary. The ones sanctioned by Federal and State
management procedures are a) avoidance (i.e., protection in place) or
b) archaeological data recovery through excavation and mapping. The
developer will want to compare the feasibility and cost of these two
options; data recovery costs at a site of this nature and size rarely
fall below $20,000 and can be two to three times that much. Still, these
costs are generally far less than those of commercially undeveloped
waterfront property. Since the site's primary value is in its research
potential, it is likely that the State will recommend the data recovery
option.
We have determined that the most concentrated site deposits at
31Cr218 occur in a "core" site area of about 600x500 feet (east-west x
north-south)., as shown on the attached rough sketch. This is the area
where we recommend that archaeological data recovery be conducted, if
this option is the one agreed on by the developer and the State. In
anticipation of State concurrence regarding the site's significance, we
would recommend that this area form the basis of your site management
planning.
If you have any questions between now and May 15 regarding these
interim findings, please do not hesitate to contact me. We look forward
to completing your study by that time.
Sincerely,
CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES
Lesley M. Drucker, Ph.D
Principal Investigator,
Broad Reach Archaeological Inventory Study
LMD/sst
Attachment

a
PAGE 2
SITE 131 CR..) /
91A. DRAW A SKETCH MAP OF SITE, SHOWING LOCAL LANDMARKS AND UTH READING POINT
SCALE ?s 1127- wee ?pt (NO -4 e e'?'? RECORDER -V k M-
0 11L
yh CA-e I-
SHOW NORTH ARROW
i

0T In 10

pp 'Pro. 5
3
KV? M} 1
?b M6
Mr
..w "07""' o° w

vp 0,?0 ?4 ,zo,
e?¦ 89M3 o
A9m z 0
• i- l ly y

y y So
,?(?ovcl le }
.o yL $',?? ar eo?(??clwdes sc,.r-Pxe shell cc*,-\Aer
-
1
¦ ?? r^ ?PSk U'?'k ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
(4-0 b
22. TOPOGRAPHIC SITUATION (CIRCLE)
00 NOT RECORDED 06 1ST TERRACE 12 HILL/RIDGETOP 18 ROCKSHELTER 24 COVE
01 FLOODPLAIN 07 2ND TERRACE 13 SADDLE 19 ISLAND 25 RIVERSHORE
02 TERRACE REM ON FP 08 3RD TERRACE 14 STREAM CONFLUEN CE 20 FAN 26 STREAMBANK
03 LOW RISE ON FP 09 SAND DUNE 15 TERRACE EDGE 21 TOE SLOPE 27 BENCH
04 NAT. LEVEE 10 UPLAND SLOPE 16 HAMMOCK 22 CAVE 99 THER
05 LEVEE REM. 11 UPLAND FLAT 17 BEACH 23 BLUFF
23. DESCRIBE T0P0GRAPHY?'/y-!'-E?j pe-//
•a'
RALPH HUTTON PROPWRTY ''? ? NDIX G
g?vJ?p ?,ggGN I NV ESTM?V? ?
Beginning at a point in the southern right of way margin of N.C.
Highway No. 24, said point being located from N.C.G.S. Monument
"aoundary" (coordinates of X = 2605529.10' and Y = 356942.291),
the following two courses and distances:
1. S 53-49-26 W 209.79 feet to a concrete monument;
2. S 21-51-33 E 0.84 feet to the point of beginning.
From the beginning point, so located, S 21-51-33 E 4570.83 feet
to a concrete monument (hereinafter, "Point A"); thence S
70-43-28 W 561.37 feet; thence S 86-58-24 W 448.93 feet; thence S
81-21-59 W 168.85 feet to a stake (hereinafter "Point B");
thence, N 11-06-04 W 1410.05 feet to an iron pipe in a fence
line; thence, with said fence line, N 27-31-04 W 875.47 feet to
an iron pipe; thence, with an old road, the following six (6)
courses and distances:
1. N 85-52-33 W 111.0 feet;
2. N 32-27-33 W 122.0 feet;
3. N 46-42-33 W 90.0 feet;
4. N 19-52-33 W 203.0 feet;
5. N 17-07-27 E 53.0 feet;
6. N 33-17-27 E 142.0 feet
line of Sanders Cr eek;
to a point in the center
Thence, with the center line of Sanders Creek; the following
sixteen (16) courses and distances:
1. N 78-12-33 W 91.0 feet;
2. S 58-47-27 W 155.0 feet;
3. N 63-52-33 W 208.0 feet;
4. N 38-07-27 E 94.0 feet;
5. N 37-22-33 W 111.0 feet;
6. S 87-02-27 W 250.0 feet;
7. N 83-27-33 W 257.0 feet;
8. N 20-52-33 W 105.0 feet;
9. N 5-07-27 E 53.0 feet;
10. N 41-02-27 E 55.0 feet;
11. N 10-02-27 E 250.60 feet;
12. N 17-57-33 W 152.0 feet-;
13. N 50-42-33 W 167.0 feet;
14. N 39-02-33 W 75.0 feet;
15. N 14-27-27 E 89.0 feet;
16. N 38-37-27 E 138.0 feet to a point;
Thence, N 21-11-12 W 80.42 feet to a point in the southern right
?.1?l
Atb

of way margin of N.C. Highway No.924; thence continuing N
21-11-12 W 50.8 feet to a nail and cap in the center line of the
right of way of N.C. Highway No. 24; thence with the center line
Qf said right of way. N 65-32-38 E 810.42 feet to a point; thence
N 62-51-19 E 476.59 feet to an iron pipe in the northern right of
way margin of N.C. Highway No. 24; thence N 7-51-15 W 3818.58
feet to a stake; thence N 76-52-45 E 209.99 feet to a stake;
thence N 83-23-45 E 211.0 feet to a point; thence S 03-26-15 E
1450.37 feet to a point; thence S 08-49 E 2333.16 feet to a
concrete monument in the northern right of way margin of N.C.
Highway No. 24; thence S 41-20-14 W 188.82 feet to a point in the
southern right of way margin of N.C. Highway No. 24, the point or
place of beginning.
Included in this conveyance is all property, if any, lying south
of the line, described above, as running from Point A to Point B,
being between said line and the mean high water mark of Bogue
Sound.
This conveyance is subject to rights of others, specifically
including, but not limited to, the State to North Carolina, in
and to so much of the above descr.ibed.property.as lies within the
right of way of N. C. Highway No. 24.
?oK
..19 ?e, ill
5CV

a
ELMO SMITH PROPERTY
EXHIBIT A

Beginning at an iron pipe in the southern right of way margin of
N.C. Highway # 24 (100 foot right of way), said iron pipe being
located N 78-14-33 E 812.33 feet from NCGS Monument "Boundary"
(said monument having coordinates of X=2605529.10' and Y=356942.291);
from said beginning point, S 16-44-40 E 521.56 feet to an iron pipe;
thence N 87-47-13 E 219.32 feet to an iron pipe; thence, with the
centerline of an old road, the following three (3) courses and
distances:
1) S 05-03-43 W 103.99 feet to an iron pipe;
2) S 19-22-05- W 191.61 feet to an iron pipe;
3) S 28-09-48 W 431.41 feet to an iron pipe in a Branch,
thence, with the center of the Branch, the following seven (7)
courses and distances:
1) N 87-16-28 E 236.24 feet;
2) S 68-58-38 E 187.95 feet;
3) S 54-50-07 E 128.22 feet;
4) S 76-31-33 E 193.91 feet;
5) S 44-43-36 E-90.45 feet;
6) S 14-10-40 E 95.67 feet;
7) S 47-48-53 E 207.90 feet;
thence, S 23-22-42 E 630.25 feet to a stake; thence, S 53-33-14 E
70.82 feet to a point; thence, S 24-15-32 E 389.91 feet to a point;
thence, S 74-41-58 W 692.44 feet to a point; thence, N 89-14-56 W
63.19 feet to a point; thence,S 20-51-31 E 5.0 feet to a concrete,
monument; thence, continuing S 20-51-31 E 1472.30 feet to a concrete
monument (hereinafter, "Point A"); thence, continuing S 20-51-31 E
to the highwater mark of Bogue Sound; thence, with the highwater
mark of Bogue Sound in a westerly direction approximately 672 feet
to a point which lies the following two (2) courses and distances
from Point A:
1) S 56-58-15 W 672.28 feet to a concrete monument (hereinafter,
"Point B");
2) S 21-51-33 E to a point in the highwater mark of Bogue Sound;
thence, N 21-51-33 W to a concrete monument (Point B); thence,
continuing N 21-51-33 W 3090.83 feet to a point; thence N 68-08-27 E
250.0 feet to a point; thence, N 19-56-08 W 1454.07 feet to a point
in the southern right of way margin of N.C. Highway # 24; thence,
with said right of way margin, N 73-15-20 E 706.94 feet to an iron
pipe; the point or place of beginning.
&U S-13 * C?t11

'..-.-...COMER PROPERTY
EXHIBIT A
Schedule A. Item 4
Beginning at a concrete monument in the east line of Stroud et al as
described in that deed recorded in Book 513, page 241, Carteret
County Registry, said beginning point being designated as "Point A"
in the above referenced description; from said beginning point, so
located with the east line of Stroud, as aforesaid, the following
seven courses and distances:
1. N 20-51-31 W 1,472.30 feet to a concrete monument;
2. N 20-51-31 W 5:00 feet to a point;
3. S 89-14-56 E 63.19 feet to a point;
4. N 74-41-58 E 692.44 feet to a point;
5. N 24-15-32 W 389.91 feet to a point;
6. N 53-33-14 W 70.82 feet to a point;
7. N 23-22-42 W.477.72 feet to a point in the center of
the west prong of Sanders Creek;
thence, with the center of the West Prong of Sanders Creek to a
point in said center which lies N 81-57=29*E 247.09 feet from the
previous point; thence continuing with the center of said creek to a
point which lies S 47-50-20 E 171.33 feet from the previous point;
thence continuing with the center of said creek to a point which
lies N 30-15-23.E 236.17 feet from the previous point; thence,
continuing with the center of said creek to a point which lies S
60-24-03 E 605.04 feet from the previous point; thence continuing
with the center of said creek to a point which lies N 45-33-52 E
287.10 feet from the previous point; thence continuing with the
center of said creek to a point which lies S 64-04-52 E 356.90 feet
from the previous point; thence N 83-26-21 E 219.10 feet to a point,
at the mean high water mark which is at the intersection of the
mouth of Sanders Creek with the waters of Bogue Sound; thence, with
the mean high water mark of Bogue Sound, the following six courses
and distances:
1. S 18-45-05 W 163.47 feet;
2. S 08-29-08 W 358.34 feet;
3. S 35-58-49 W 1,274.24 feet;
4. S 17-29-47 W 441.09 feet;
5. S 58-44-42 W 231.02 feet;
6. S 60-28-16 W 430.41 feet to a concrete monument, the
point or place of beginning.

11%0,

f
l
C.
n
Z
-1
a
-v

44k
r
r
m
ch
o
0
1
76'33' ? i
g1
1

9i
L

1/
I

8 s
)p
r '
r * ?>
p
p ?w
as• :??x:rSL
a= p? e s e a a z= e T

y
m
1, 11 I o m /
e .i m
150
m
IR - 1 \:
J MAJOR C.A.M.A.PERMIT APPLICATION paton
Zucchina
=3E= BROAD REACH MARINA SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - MARINA AREA
:.o:o::.?? ?........? iC. associates ..? _ .. • , •...w...

-- ---------------
IzM ?'?
r

re
O
K
E
K
S
0
C
m
9
Z
0

M
s?
I
I
F
o ?
0
MAJOR C.A.M.A.P61MIT APPLICATION SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - paton
--5- BROAD REACH MARINA ACCESS CHANNELS ZUCCf11C10 &
?. associates ?. - •• .- .•-. - --
MMO/i0 MKM MM.iY.Mi., IMO.
W.,,... p.a.
;<`
4
----- -- -- - -----=- -.
i

I I
I

'i '. I t I I = t

i :

i
I I I \ ; ? \

1

.I \

I I pp ?

I
i
I ?»

f
I I

m l
I ? m

i I 1
I 1

I
I ?
I

M
f _
1

:m -
? - -
!I TV
-
- 1iOLL10?Y YKI.W[ p1.NNtt
I I
o

_ ? E
w

paton
MAJOR C.A.M.A. PERMR APPLICATION zucchino &
?- BROAD REACH MARINA associafes» • 4- - - •- -^
?!' F
.y
a
puIVI I
MAJOR C.A.M.A. MMMR A ftCATION zucchino &
-?-- BROAD REACH MARINA associates - ?•-• <•- - "" "