20181527 Ver 1_DFM Comments_20180321

Strickland, Bev
From:
Spears, Courtney
Sent:
Thursday, March 21, 2019 8:41 AM
To:
Morrison, Stephen; Finch, Greg
Cc:
Mairs, Robb L
Subject:
FW: lea marina
FYI — Please see DMF's revised comments below on the Lea Marina project. Please give me a call with any
questions/concerns.
Courtney Spears
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
910 796 7426 office
[e-mail]
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Weychert, Curtis R
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 2:24 PM
To: Spears, Courtney <[e-mail]>
Cc: Deaton, Anne <[e-mail]>; Huggett, Doug <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: lea marina
Courtney, in response to the minimization and avoidance measures that LMG provided on February 19, 2019, DMF has
the following comments:
• DMF still requests that the proposed dredging of the "northern channel" be removed from the current proposed
project. The applicant has proposed to reduce the depth from -6' mlw to -4' mlw. The applicant also provided
recent depth profiles of the template area and the current depths already range from 4 to -3'. The applicant
states that the intent of the proposed dredging is to maintain the channel, however, DMF would argue that -3'
to 4 mlw is sufficient depth for the types of vessels that have historically used these waters.
Additionally, the applicant also stated that the reduction of the footprint and depth follows the previously
permitted dimensions. DMF would argue that the previously dredged area has not changed significantly since
the last maintenance dredging. If a navigation channel has not showed signs of significant shoaling and is still
able to maintain the intended navigation, the proposed dredging would be considered unnecessarily negatively
impactful to the soft bottom habitat. In response to the applicant's statement that aerial photographs show no
signs of shellfish or SAV in the area immediately adjacent to the dredge cut, DMF would argue that there is a
significant presence of oyster resource within the proposed dredge area of direct and indirect impact based on
site visits performed in the winter of 2018. Lastly, because there aren't currently any proposed boat -dependent

structures being developed within lots 41-49, preemptive dredging would also be viewed as unnecessarily
impactful.
• DMF has no objection to the proposed changes with the riprap slope.
• DMF maintains the recommendation to implement fixed platforms along lots 41-49, however does not see a
need to restrict deeds because DMF will likely have the opportunity to comment on future development. It
should be noted that the applicant states that "limitations on floating docks and the need for lift slip stops 18"
above the substrate are related to shallower waters that are classified as Primary Nursery Area (PNA)" is not a
policy that DMF is aware of at this time. Fixed structures and lift stops are ways of avoiding impacts to any
fisheries habitat, regardless of formal designation.
It should also be noted that the deed restrictions that were required by the shellfish sanitation section of DMF
are not viewed as a minimization effort, but rather a requirement to ensure that the proposed development
does not cause any additional closed areas in currently approved shellfish waters.
• DMF has no comment on the aesthetic detriment that would be caused by trailered boats.
• DMF still maintains the recommendation of an in -water work moratorium. The applicant proposed the use of
turbidity curtains if the work is to occur outside of the October -March dredge window. Turbidity curtains are a
measure for minimization of impacts. DMF prefers to first avoid impacts by use of moratoriums.