20040710 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20040430

Michael F. Easley, Governor

AWA
NCDENR

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Charles S, Jones, Director

()y- 0"710
I;~I

William G, Ross Jr" Secretary

August 23, 2004

WETLANDS /401 GROUP

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

SEP 0 '8 2004

Ross Lampe
P,O. Box 150
Smithfield, NC 27577

WATER QUALITY SECTION

Dear Mr. Lampe:

This letter is in regard to your application request under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) to construct a docking facility adj3cent to your property in the community of Gloucester,
Carteret County, Processing of the applic3tion, which was received as complete by the Division of
C03stal Management's Morehead City office on M3rch 31,2004, is now complete, Based on the state's
review, the Division ofCoast31 Man3gemcnt has made the following findings:

I) The proposed docking facility will extend approximately 330 feet into the waters of the Straits,

2) The longest existing pier along the shoreline in the project area extends into the \vaters of the
Straits approximately 270 feet.

3) A previously existing pier extended approximatcly 200 feet into the waters of the Straits at this
location, This pier was severely damaged by Hurricane Isabel.

4) The N,C. Division of Marine Fisheries (Di\tF) conducted a site visit to the area on May 13,2004,
and observed submerged aquatic vegetation (SA V) bed along the majority of the pier alignment.
The DMF further concluded that, as a result of shading by the docking facility, the proposed
project would have a "significant adverse impact" on the SA V bed in the project area,

5) Based upon the findings outlined above, the proposed project has been determined to be
inconsistent with the following Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission:

15A NCAC 07H,020S(a)(2)(G) \vhich states that "Before receiving approval for location of
a use or development within these AECs, the permit-letting authority shall find that no
suitable alternative site or location outside of the AEC exists for the use or development
and, further, that the applicant has selected a combination of sites and design that will have
a minimum adverse impact upon thc productivity and biologic integrity of coastal
marshland, shellfish bcds, beds of submerged aquatic vegetation, spawning and nursery
areas, important nesting and winkring sites for waterfowl and \vildlife, and important
natural erosion barriers (cypress fringes, marshes, clay soils)", and

1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net

An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action En~~lo)er - 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Cons~rr,er Paper

Ross Lampe
August 23, 2004
Page 2

15A NCAC 07H.0208(b)(6)(J)(i), which states "Pier length shall be limited by not
extending beyond the established pier length along the same shoreline for similar use."

Given the preceding findings, it is necessary that your request for issuance of a CAMA Major
Permit be denied, This denial is made pursuant to N,C.G.S, 113A-120 (a)(8), which requires denial for
projects inconsistent with the state guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern or local land use plans.

If you wish to appeal this denial, you are entitled to a hearing. The hearing will involve
appearing before an Administrative Law Judge who listens to evidence and arguments of both parties and
then makes a recommendation to the Coastal Resources Commission. Your request for a hearing must be
in the form of a written petition, complying with the requirements of 9150B of the General Statutes of
North Carolina, and must be filed with the office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714, [phone], within twenty (20) days from the date of this letter. A copy of
this petition should be filed with this office,

Also, you should be advised that as long as this state permit renewal denial stands, your project
must be deemed inconsistent with the N,C. Coastal Management Program, thereby precluding the
issuance of federal permits for this project. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) gives
you the right to appeal this finding to the U,S, Secretary of Commerce within thirty (30) days of receipt of
this letter. Your appeal must be on the grounds that the proposed activity is (I) consistent with the
objectives or purposes of the CZMA, or (2) is necessary in the interest of national security, and thus, may
be federally approved,

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Doug Huggett at (252) 808-

2808,

Sincerely,

U2(;0J2~) ~

Charles S, Jones

~~~

CJ/dvh

cc: Mr. Eldon Hout, Director - OCRM/NOAA, Silver Spring, MD
Colonel Charles R, Alexander - U.S, Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, NC

DL{- 0710

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726
June 18, 2004

WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
JUN 2 8 2004
WA TER QUALITY SECTION

Mr. Henry Wicker
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890

Subject: Action ID #200400722, R. W. Lampe, Carteret County, NC

Dear Mr. Wicker:

This letter provides the comments of the U S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the subject
Public Notice (PN), dated May 27, 2004. The applicant, Ross W. Lampe, has applied for a
Department of the Army (DA) permit to repair and extend a pier into a water body known as The
Straits. The proposed work is being considered under Regional General Permit # 198000291, a
permit/processing agreement for work that has been approved pursuant to the North Carolina
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). These comments are submitted in accordance with the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 US.c. 661-667d).
Comments related to the FWCA are to be used in your determination of compliance with
404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR 230) and in your public interest review (33 CFR 320.4) in relation
to the protection of fish and wildlife resources. Additional comments are provided regarding the
District Engineer's determination of project impacts pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 US.C. 1531-1543).

Proposed Action and the Project Area

The PN contains the Field Investigation Report (FIR), dated April 27, 2004, of the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM). The FIR states that a 180-foot pier on the
applicant's property was destroyed by Hurricane Isabel in September 2003. An existing 10-foot
by 10-foot gazebo and lO-foot by 10-foot platform survived the stom1. The applicant now seeks
to rebuild the former pier and extend it an additional 120 feet and add a 10-foot by 24-foot L-
Head. The pier would be 4.5 feet wide. The overall length on the proposed structure would be
330 feet from the shoreline. Other residential piers in the area range from 100 to 270 feet.

The FIR states that the pier location is southwest of the confluence of Sleepy Creek and The
Straits. Sleepy Creek is designated as a Primary Nursery Area (PNA), but The Straits is not. The
proposed structure would extend across beds of healthy eelgrass (Zostera marina), a species of
submerged aquatic vegetation (SA V), for approximately 200 feet. A project diagram indicates
that "submerged grass beds," or (SA V), extend from 100 feet to 290 feet from the shoreline. The
original pier ended in the SA V area, but the proposed extension would terminate beyond the area

2

indicated as seagrass beds. The sailboat docked at the original pier rested on the bottom at low
tide where the water depth is approximately eight inches at normal low water (NL W). The project
diagram indicates that the depth at the proposed extended pier (330 feet) is 27 inches at low tide.
The FIR notes that a "positive impact to be anticipated" from the extended pier would be reduced
stress on SA V, presumably by allowing the boat to moored in an area without SA V.

Anticipated Impacts

The proposed structure would shade 1,681 square feet (fe) of shallow bottoms and eelgrass and
incorporate an additional 2,000 ft2 of open water with the placement of mooring pilings. There
may be secondary environmental impacts associated with the pier extension. The FIR notes that
creating a longer pier would change the established pier length along the shoreline. Establishing a
longer standard for piers in the vicinity could lead to other property owners building longer piers
and thus producing more shading and incorporation of public trust areas.

The proposed pier extension would influence impacts to SA V. A project diagram shows that SA V
occurs in a band parallel to the shoreline. The original pier terminated at a water depth of
approximately eight inches and within the band of SA V. At this depth, a sailboat moored at the
pier rested on the bottom at low tide. The situation with the vessel resting on the bottom at low
tide is detrimental to SA V. The FIR states that the applicant wishes to extend the pier beyond the
area with SA V. The proposed plan would terminate the pier approximately 40 feet waterward of
the band of SA V.

Federally Protected Species

The Service has reviewed available information on federally-threatened or endangered species
known to occur in Carteret County, We have also reviewed information from the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database which contains excellent data on the special status
species, both federal and state. This database can be accessed by topographic quadrangle (quad)
of the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). Data from USGS quads provide the most project-specific
information on species which should be considered in permitting this project. The project area is
in the Harkers Island quad. The occurrence data of special status species within this quad can be
obtained on the internet at < http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/quad.html >.

The Service carefully considers potential impacts for all in-water construction on the West Indian
manatee (Trichechus manatus), a federally-endangered mammal. The species has been reported
from Carteret County and occurs as a current record in the Harkers island quad. Manatees move
along the Atlantic Coast during summer months and are seasonal transients in North Carolina,
primarily from June through October. Manatees may occupy waters one to two meters (3.3 -6.6
feet) deep. The species moves extensively when in North Carolina waters and past occurrence
records cannot be used to precisely determine the likelihood that it will be presence at a particular
construction site.

Based on information in the FIR, water depths at the construction site are too shallow (ranging
from 3 to 27 inches) for the manatee. Therefore, the Service would concur with a determination

3

by the District Engineer that the action is not likely to adversely affect species designated as
threatened, endangered, or their designated critical habitat. However, the requirement of section 7
would need to be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that
may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.

Service Concerns and Recommendations

The Service is concerned that the proposed pier may harm areas of SA V. The biological
productivity of SA V is very important to a diversity of fish and wildlife resources. Fish inhabiting
seagrass beds are abundant and diverse. The web page of the North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries ( < www.ncfisheries.net/habitat/chppI5.html> ) states that structures such as docks
reduces light availability to SA V and can cause mortality of SA V or prevent its expansion in
otherwise suitable areas. Burdick and Short (1999) found in Massachusetts that eelgrass
populations were impacted under and directly adjacent to docks as shown by depressed shoot
density and canopy structure. They noted that severe impacts can cause fragmentation of eelgrass
beds and contribute to large scale declines in estuaries. They concluded that docks should be
greater than three meters (slightly less than 10 feet) above the bottom in areas with tidal ranges
less than one meter (3.28 feet). This elevation was considered necessary to allow enough light to
sustain the eelgrass beds under the docks. We have attached an abstract of this paper.

While the Service shares the concern ofNCDCM for longer piers in the area, we believe on
balance that trust resources would be better served by extending the pier across the SA V rather
than terminating within the seagrass meadow. However, permits for the longer pier should require
adequate height to ensure sunlight for SA V covered by the structure. We do not recommend the
10 feet mentioned by Burdick and Short (1999), This figure may have been for piers much wider
than 4.5 feet proposed by the applicant. The diagram of the "construction details" shows that
section A-A would be elevated approximately five feet, based on the stated scale of a half inch
equals one foot. However, the exact location of the substrate is not given. Considering that the
proposed pier would have a north-south alignment which allows both morning and afternoon sun
and be 4.5 feet wide, an elevation of five feet between the lowest part of the pier and substrate
may be sufficient. Furthermore, the FIR contains no information that the SA V had been
eliminated under the previous pier which crossed the seagrass bed from about 100 to 180 feet from
shore.

Therefore, with sufficient elevation of the pier to allow sunlight to support SA V under the
structure, the Service does not oppose issuance of the DA permit for the extended, 330-foot pier.
We recommend that this elevation be considered a minimum and that greater elevation would
benefit SA V which support important fisheries resources. As noted, we believe the proposed
work is not likely to adversely affect any federally protected species. The Service position is
based on potential impacts federally trust resources and does not address navigation issues or the
issue of exceeding the established pier length raised by the NCDCM.

4

The Service shares the concern of the NCDCM that the current proposal may set a precedent for
longer piers in the area. In this regard, it would be constructive to periodically review the
abundance of the SA V under and near the applicant's pier. If the SA V is adversely impacted by
the structure, it may be necessary to require a greater elevation for future pier construction. The
Service also encourages both the Corps and the NCDCM to coordinate with the Center for Coastal
Fisheries and Habitat Research of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in
Beaufort, the Beaufort Lab, to establish guidelines for dock and pier construction in the coastal
waters of the state.

The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this permit application. If you have
questions regarding these comments or wish to discuss the development of the coordinated federal
position, please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext. 27 or bye-mail at <
[e-mail] >. Please provide this office with a copy of the coordinated federal
position, if one is developed.

Sincerely,

~.L/ .6~

Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor

Attachment

Literature cited:

Burdick, D. M. and F. T. Short. 1999, The effects of boat docks on eelgrass beds in coastal
waters of Massachusetts. Environmental Management 23(2):231-240.

cc: (with attachment)

Ronald Mikulak, US EP A, Atlanta, GA
Ron Sechler, NOAA Fisheries, Beaufort, NC
Maria Tripp, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Washington, NC
John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
Ted Tyndall, NC Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City, NC
Mike Street, NC Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC

>:lpnngerLlllK - 1"1.1<1"1"

1 of 1

Articles

He:~')'.'T EFl..'II::E FHI":'RITEE ALEFT ('FDEFZ

> Home / Publication / Issue /

Article

Environmental Management
Publisher: Springer-Verlag New York, LLC
ISSN: 0364-152X (Paper) 1432-1009 (Online)
001: 10,1007/s002679900182
Issue: Volume 23, Number 2
Date: February 1999
Pages: 231 - 240

The Effects of Boat Docks on Eelgrass Beds in Coastal Waters of
Massachusetts

DAVID M, BURDICK A1 and FREDERICK T, SHORT A1

A1 Department of Natural Resources Jackson Estuarine Laboratory Center for
Marine Biology University of New Hampshire Durham, New Hampshire 03824, USA

Abstract:

ABSTRACT / The effects of docks on eelgrass beds were measured using plant
population characteristics (shoot density, canopy height, and growth rates), light
levels, and an assessment of eelgrass bed quality in Massachusetts estuaries,
Eelgrass populations were impacted under and directly adjacent to docks, as shown
by depressed shoot density and canopy structure, Severe impacts can cause
fragmentation of eelgrass beds, thus contributing to large-scale declines in estuaries
such as Waquoit Bay, Impacts were fewer under docks supported by piers than
under floating docks, and taller piers resulted in fewer impacts, Based on this
investigation, we conclude that docks should be greater than 3 m in height above the
bottom in areas with tidal ranges less than 1 m to allow enough light to sustain
eelgrass beds under the docks, In addition to dock height, orientation and width were
also found to be important factors affecting eelgrass, Narrow docks with a
north-south orientation can best ensure the long-term survival of eelgrass under and
near the dock,

Keywords:

KEY WORDS: Docks; Shade; Eelgrass beds; Zostera marina; Seagrass KEY
WORDS: Docks; Shade; Eelgrass beds: Zostera marina; Seagrass

The references of this article are secured to subscribers,

IIllllWiM

-

Previous article
Next article

Linking Options

You are not logged in.
The full text of this article is secured
to subscribers, You or your institution
may be subscribed to this publication,

If you are not subscribed, this
pUblisher offers secure article or
subscription sales from this site,

Please select 'Continue' to view your
options for obtaining the full text of
this article.

c;~ti~~~1

For assistance inside the Americas: springerlink@springer-ny,com , For assistance outside the Americas:
spri ngerl ink@springer,de

Springer-Verlag Heidelberg I Tiergartenstr. 17 I 0-69121 Heidelberg I Germany I Privacy, Disclaimer, Terms and
Conditions, @ Copyright Information

Remote Address: 24,199,203156. Server: MPWEB09
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5,O (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: 1,6) Geckol20040113

6/8/2004 11 :04 AM

~}J1111blO;lLllU\.. - .rlr..l...l1...........

1 of 1

liIIl.~i~.

HE~.,I..T EFo..'Il,;"E FHI '\.If;ITE'':- f1LEFT ('FC'EFE

> Home 1 Publication 1 Issue 1

Article

Environmental Management
Publisher: Springer-Verlag New York, LLC
ISSN: 0364-152X (Paper) 1432-1009 (Online)
001: 10,1007/5002679900182
Issue: Volume 23, Number 2
Date: February 1999
Pages: 231 - 240

The Effects of Boat Docks on Eelgrass Beds In Coastal Waters of
Massachusetts

DAVID M, BURDICK A1 and FREDERICK T, SHORT A1

A1 Department of Natural Resources Jackson Estuarine Laboratory Center for
Marine Biology University of New Hampshire Durham, New Hampshire 03824, USA

Abstract:

ABSTRACT 1 The effects of docks on eelgrass beds were measured using plant
population characteristics (shoot density, canopy height, and growth rates), light
levels, and an assessment of eelgrass bed quality in Massachusetts estuaries,
Eelgrass populations were impacted under and directly adjacent to docks, as shown
by depressed shoot density and canopy structure, Severe impacts can cause
fragmentation of eelgrass beds, thus contributing to large-scale declines in estuaries
such as Waquoit Bay. Impacts were fewer under docks supported by piers than
under floating docks, and taller piers resulted in fewer impacts, Based on this
investigation, we conclude that docks should be greater than 3 m in height above the
bottom in' areas with tidal ranges less than 1 m to allow enough light to sustain
eelgrass beds under the docks. In addition to dock height, orientation and width were
also found to be important factors affecting eelgrass. Narrow docks with a
north-south orientation can best ensure the long-term survival of eelgrass under and
near the dock,

Keywords:

KEY WORDS: Docks; Shade; Eelgrass beds; Zostera marina; Seagrass KEY
WORDS: Docks; Shade; Eelgrass beds; Zostera marina; Seagrass

The references of this article are secured to subscribers.

-

Previous article
Next article

Linking Options

You are not logged in.
The full text of this article is secured
to subscribers, You or your institution
may be subscribed to this publication.

If you are not subscribed, this
publisher offers secure article or
subscription sales from this site,

Please select 'Continue' to view your
options for obtaining the full text of
this article,

[<i~tf~~

For assistance inside the Americas: springerlink@springer-nycom , For assistance outside the Americas:
spri ngerli [e-mail]

Springer-Verlag Heidelberg I Tiergartenstr. 17 I 0-69121 Heidelberg I Germany I Privacy, Disclaimer, Terms and
Conditions, @ Copyright Information

Remote Address: 24.199,203,156' Server: MPWEB09
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5,O (Windows; U; Windows NT 51; en-US; rv:1,6) Gecko/20040113

6/8/2004 11 :04 AM

~pnIlgtaLllll\. - noH''''''

1 of 1

HE ,~,I.lT EF '~'II'::E FH' ":'F\ITE..:' hLEF T '.'F CeFS

> Home I Publication I Issue I

Article

Environmental Management
Publisher: Springer-Verlag New York, LLC
ISSN: 0364-152X (Paper) 1432-1009 (Online)
001: 10,1007/s002679900182
Issue: Volume 23, Number 2
Date: February 1999
Pages: 231 - 240

The Effects of Boat Docks on Eelgrass Beds In Coastal Waters of
Massachusetts

DAVID M, BURDICK A1 and FREDERICK T. SHORT A1

A1 Department of Natural Resources Jackson Estuarine Laboratory Center for
Marine Biology University of New Hampshire Durham, New Hampshire 03824, USA

Abstract:

II [.~i.

Articles

-

Previous article
Next article

Linking Options

You are not logged in.
The full text of this article is secured
to subscribers. You or your institution
may be subscribed to this publication,

If you are not subscribed, this
publisher offers secure article or
subscription sales from this site,

Please select 'Continue' to view your
options for obtaining the full text of
this article,

[~~~t~~~

ABSTRACT I The effects of docks on eelgrass beds were measured using plant
population characteristics (shoot density, canopy height, and growth rates), light
levels, and an assessment of eelgrass bed quality in Massachusetts estuaries,
Eelgrass populations were impacted under and directly adjacent to docks, as shown
by depressed shoot density and canopy structure, Severe impacts can cause
fragmentation of eelgrass beds, thus contributing to large-scale declines in estuaries
such as Waquoit Bay, Impacts were fewer under docks supported by piers than
under floating docks, and taller piers resulted in fewer impacts, Based on this
investigation, we conclude that docks should be greater than 3 m in height above the
bottom in areas with tidal ranges less than 1 m to allow enough light to sustain
eelgrass beds under the docks. In addition to dock height, orientation and width were
also found to be important factors affecting eelgrass, Narrow docks with a
north-south orientation can best ensure the long-term survival of eelgrass under and
near the dock,

Keywords:

KEY WORDS: Docks; Shade; Eelgrass beds; Zostera marina; Seagrass KEY
WORDS: Docks; Shade; Eelgrass beds; Zostera marina; Seagrass

The references of this article are secured to subscribers.

For assistance inside the Americas: springerlink@springer-ny,com , For assistance outside the Americas:
springerli [e-mail]

Springer-Verlag Heidelberg I Tiergartenstr. 17 I 0-69121 Heidelberg I Germany I Privacy, Disclaimer, Terms and
Conditions, @ Copyright Information

Remote Address: 24,199,203,156 . Server: MPWEB09
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5,1; en-US; rv:1.6) c;ecko/20040113

6/8/2004 11 :04 AM

;:.pnngt:ILllll\. - 1"\,1 Ll\.,lv

1 of 1

Articles

flEOI.'T EF\.III~E FH"(If;ITE.E ALEFT '.'f't::!EF~

> Home / Publication / Issue /

Article

Environmental Management
Publisher: Springer-Verlag New York, LLC
ISSN: 0364-152X (Paper) 1432-1009 (Online)
001: 10,1 007/s002679900182
Issue: Volume 23, Number 2
Date: February 1999
Pages: 231 - 240

The Effects of Boat Docks on Eelgrass Beds in Coastal Waters of
Massachusetts

DAVID M, BURDICK A1 and FREDERICK T, SHORT A1

A1 Department of Natural Resources Jackson Estuarine Laboratory Center for
Marine Biology University of New Hampshire Durham, New Hampshire 03824, USA

Abstract:

ABSTRACT / The effects of docks on eelgrass beds were measured using plant
population characteristics (shoot density, canopy height, and growth rates), light
levels, and an assessment of eelgrass bed quality in Massachusetts estuaries,
Eelgrass populations were impacted under and directly adjacent to docks, as shown
by depressed shoot density and canopy structure, Severe impacts can cause
fragmentation of eelgrass beds, thus contributing to large-scale declines in estuaries
such as Waquoit Bay, Impacts were fewer under docks supported by piers than
under floating docks, and taller piers resulted in fewer impacts, Based on this
investigation, we conclude that docks should be greater than 3 m in height above the
bottom in areas with tidal ranges less than 1 m to allow enough light to sustain
eelgrass beds under the docks. In addition to dock height, orientation and width were
also found to be important factors affecting eelgrass. Narrow docks with a
north-south orientation can best ensure the long-term survival of eelgrass under and
near the dock,

Keywords:

KEY WORDS: Docks; Shade; Eelgrass beds; Zostera marina; Seagrass KEY
WORDS: Docks; Shade; Eelgrass beds; Zostera marina; Seagrass

The references of this article are secured to subscribers.

II \.j~~

-

Previous article
Next article

Linking Options

You are not logged in.
The full text of this article is secured
to subscribers, You or your institution
may be subscribed to this publication.

If you are not subscribed, this
publisher offers secure article or
subscription sales from this site.

Please select 'Continue' to view your
options for obtaining the full text of
this article,

I n C~-~ti ~~~l

For assistance inside the Americas: springerlink@springer-ny,com , For assistance outside the Americas:
spri ngerl i [e-mail]

Springer-Verlag Heidelberg I Tiergartenstr. 17 I 0-69121 Heidelberg I Germany I Privacy, Disclaimer, Terms and
Conditions, @ Copyright Information

Remote Address: 24.199,203.156 . Server: MPWEB09
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5,O (Windows; U; Windows NT 5,1: en-US; rv:1,6) Gecko/20040113

6/8/2004 11 :04 AM

;:lpnngerLIIlK - .t\.lU~l<:;

1 of 1

Articles

FIE ..)I.lT E Fo....II.!E FH' '('RITE.E" HLEF T ('FC.EF Z

> Home I Publication I Issue I

Article

Environmental Management
Publisher: Springer-Verlag New York, LLC
ISSN: 0364-152X (Paper) 1432-1009 (Online)
001: 10,1007/s002679900182
Issue: Volume 23, Number 2
Date: February 1999
Pages: 231 - 240

The Effects of Boat Docks on Eelgrass Beds In Coastal Waters of
Massachusetts

DAVID M, BURDICK A1 and FREDERICK T, SHORT A1

A1 Department of Natural Resources Jackson Estuarine Laboratory Center for
Marine Biology University of New Hampshire Durham, New Hampshire 03824, USA

Abstract:

ABSTRACT I The effects of docks on eelgrass beds were measured using plant
population characteristics (shoot density, canopy height, and growth rates), light
levels, and an assessment of eelgrass bed quality in Massachusetts estuaries,
Eelgrass populations were impacted under and directly adjacent to docks, as shown
by depressed shoot density and canopy structure. Severe impacts can cause
fragmentation of eelgrass beds, thus contributing to large-scale declines in estuaries
such as Waquoit Bay, Impacts were fewer under docks supported by piers than
under floating docks, and taller piers resulted in fewer impacts. Based on this
investigation, we conclude that docks should be greater than 3 m in height above the
bottom in areas with tidal ranges less than 1 m to allow enough light to sustain
eelgrass beds under the docks. In addition to dock height, orientation and width were
also found to be important factors affecting eelgrass, Narrow docks with a
north-south orientation can best ensure the long-term survival of eelgrass under and
near the dock,

Keywords:

KEY WORDS: Docks; Shade; Eelgrass beds; Zostera marina; Seagrass KEY
WORDS: Docks: Shade; Eelgrass beds; Zostera marina; Seagrass

The references of this article are secured to subscribers,

~_.""M<"'"
lIfMI ,.'>it

-

Previous article
Next article

Linking Options

You are not logged In,
The full text of this article is secured
to subscribers, You or your institution
may be subscribed to this publication,

If you are not subscribed, this
publisher offers secure article or
subscription sales from this site,

Please select 'Continue' to view your
options for obtaining the full text of
this article,

[c~~ti~~

For assistance inside the Americas: springerlink@springer-ny,com , For assistance outside the Americas:
spri ngerli nk@springer,de

Springer-Verlag Heidelberg I Tiergartenstr. 17 I 0-69121 Heidelberg I Germany I Privacy, Disclaimer, Terms and
Conditions, @ Copyright Information

Remote Address: 24.199.203,156 ' Server: MPWEB09
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5,O (Windows; U; Windows NT 5,1; en-US; rv:1,6) Gecko/20040113

6/8/2004 11 ;04 AM

L)pl1l10~lLU1..l\. - .ru.I.J'-'.l\,.o

1 of 1

Articles

HE\:'l.1T EFI..'II?IE FHI',.'RITE': flLEFT ':'~t::'EF~

> Home I Publication I Issue I

Article

Environmental Management
Publisher: Springer-Verlag New York, LLC
ISSN: 0364-152X (Paper) 1432-1009 (Online)
DOl: 10,1 007/s002679900182
Issue: Volume 23, Number 2
Date: February 1999
Pages: 231 - 240

The Effects of Boat Docks on Eelgrass Beds In Coastal Waters of
Massachusetts

DAVID M, BURDICK A1 and FREDERICK T, SHORT A1

A1 Department of Natural Resources Jackson Estuarine Laboratory Center for
Marine Biology University of New Hampshire Durham, New Hampshire 03824, USA

Abstract:

ABSTRACT I The effects of docks on eelgrass beds were measured using plant
population characteristics (shoot density, canopy height, and growth rates), light
levels, and an assessment of eelgrass bed quality in Massachusetts estuaries,
Eelgrass populations were impacted under and directly adjacent to docks, as shown
by depressed shoot density and canopy structure, Severe impacts can cause
fragmentation of eelgrass beds, thus contributing to large-scale declines in estuaries
such as Waquoit Bay, Impacts were fewer under docks supported by piers than
under floating docks, and taller piers resulted in fewer impacts, Based on this
investigation, we conclude that docks should be greater than 3 m in height above the
bottom in areas with tidal ranges less than 1 m to allow enough light to sustain
eelgrass beds under the docks, In addition to dock height, orientation and width were
also found to be important factors affecting eelgrass. Narrow docks with a
north-south orientation can best ensure the long-term survival of eelgrass under and
near the dock,

Keywords:

KEY WORDS: Docks; Shade; Eelgrass beds; Zostera marina; Seagrass KEY
WORDS: Docks; Shade; Eelgrass beds; Zostera marina; Seagrass

The references of this article are secured to subscribers,

.....,'...... I_'.."P''''.,,,.'',...'..
, * '.':, )1'..' ,lie;'.'
...;;, :~;. ..~'"

-

Previous article
Next article

Linking Options

You are not logged in.
The full text of this article is secured
to subscribers, You or your institution
may be subscribed to this publication,

If you are not subscribed, this
publisher offers secure article or
subscription sales from this site.

Please select 'Continue' to view your
options for obtaining the full text of
this article,

Continuel

For assistance inside the Americas: springerlink@springer-ny,com , For assistance outside the Americas:
spri ngerl [e-mail]

Springer-Verlag Heidelberg I Tiergartenstr. 17 I D-69121 Heidelberg I Germany I Privacy, Disclaimer, Terms and
Conditions, @ Copyright Information

Remote Address: 24.199,203156 . Server: MPWEB09
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5,O (Windows: U; Windows NT 51; en-US; rv:1,6) Gecko/20040113

6/8/2004 11:04 AM

~plUlb~lLU1.h - .c-~J."J.,",J.,",

1 of 1

Articles

HE l..'tlT E F<'~'11E.E FH' "~'F<.lTE': f\LEF T ('F I:EF~

> Home / Publication / Issue /

Article

Environmental Management
Publisher: Springer-Verlag New York, LLC
ISSN: 0364-152X (Paper) 1432-1009 (Online)
DOl: 10,1007/s002679900182
Issue: Volume 23, Number 2
Date: February 1999
Pages: 231 - 240

The Effects of Boat Docks on Eelgrass Beds in Coastal Waters of
Massachusetts

DAVID M, BURDICK A1 and FREDERICK T, SHORT A1

A1 Department of Natural Resources Jackson Estuarine Laboratory Center for
Marine Biology University of New Hampshire Durham, New Hampshire 03824, USA

Abstract:

ABSTRACT / The effects of docks on eelgrass beds were measured using plant
population characteristics (shoot density, canopy height, and growth rates), light
levels, and an assessment of eelgrass bed quality in Massachusetts estuaries,
Eelgrass populations were impacted under and directly adjacent to docks, as shown
by depressed shoot density and canopy structure, Severe impacts can cause
fragmentation of eelgrass beds, thus contributing to large-scale declines in estuaries
such as Waquoit Bay, Impacts were fewer under docks supported by piers than
under floating docks, and taller piers resulted in fewer impacts, Based on this
investigation, we conclude that docks should be greater than 3 m in height above the
bottom in areas with tidal ranges less than 1 m to allow enough light to sustain
eelgrass beds under the docks. In addition to dock height, orientation and width were
aiso found to be important factors affecting eelgrass. Narrow docks with a
north-south orientation can best ensure the long-term survival of eelgrass under and
near the dock,

Keywords:

KEY WORDS: Docks; Shade; Eelgrass beds; Zostera marina; Seagrass KEY
WORDS: Docks; Shade; Eelgrass beds; Zostera marina; Seagrass

The references of this article are secured to subscribers,

1I1.1~"

-

Previous article
Next article

Linking Options

You are not logged in,
The full text of this article is secured
to subscribers, You or your institution
may be subscribed to this publication.

If you are not subscribed, this
publisher offers secure article or
subscription sales from this site,

Please select 'Continue' to view your
options for obtaining the full text of
this article,

[c.o~tjn~~1

For assistance inside the Americas: springerlink@springer-ny,com , For assistance outside the Americas:
spri ngerl i nk@springer,de

Springer-Verlag Heidelberg I Tiergartenstr. 17 I D-69121 Heidelberg I Germany I Privacy, Disclaimer, Terms and
Conditions, @ Copyright Information

Remote Address: 24,199,203.156 ' Server: MPWEB09
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5,O (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113

6/8/2004 11 :04 AM

MEMORANDUM

TO:

John Dorney
Non-Discharge Branch

Regional Contact:
WQ Supervisor:
Date:

J Steenhuis
R Shiver

SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Facility Name Ross W. Lampe
Project Number 04 0710
Recvd From DCM
Received Date 4/30/04 Recvd By Region
Project Type replace pier with longer pier dock

County Carteret
County2
Region Wilmington

Certificates

Permit Wetland Wetland
Type Type Impact

ICAMA 1 Waters 10 Y @)N

Wetland
Score

Stream
Index Prim. Supp. Basin

121-35-1-12 I"SAI HQW 130,503, 1

Stream
Class

Acres
Req.

0,081

Feet
Req.

Stream Impacts (ft.)

..
1 1
.
I I
.

Mitiaation
MitigationType

Wetland
Type Acres

Feet

Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? 0 YON Did you request more Info? 0 YON
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? 0 YON

Is Mitigation required? 0 YON

Recommendation: @ Issue 0 Issue/Cond 0 Deny

Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss)

Longitude (ddmmss)

Comments:
No 401 needed This Office would support the pier extension to get the slip out of the SA V's
thereby avoiding impacts JHS 5/10/04

Since, May 1 , the Division of Marine Fisheries did a AQautic vegetation survey and found that there
are SA Vs all the way to the proposed length, so the proposed extension will not get the slip out of
the potential impacts to SA Vs JHS 5/18/04

cc:

Regional Office
Central Office

Page Number 1

MEMORANDUM

TO:

John Dorney
Non-Discharge Branch

Regional Contact:
WQ Supervisor:
Date:

J.Steenhuis
R Shiver

SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Facility Name Ross W. Lampe
Project Number 04 0710
Recvd From DCM
Received Date 4/30/04

County Carteret
County2
Region Wilmington

Recvd By Region

Project Type replace pier with longer pier dock

Certificates Stream
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim, Supp. Basin Req. Req.
ICAMA 1 Waters IOY @IN 121-35-1-12 ~I HQW 130,503, I 0.081
IOY ON I r-I I I I

Stream Impacts (ft.)

..
1 1

..
I I

-

-

Mitiaation
MitigationType

Wetland
Type Acres

Feet

II

Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? 0 YON Old you request more info? 0 YON
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? 0 YON

Is Mitigation required? 0 YON

Recommendation: @Issue Olssue/Cond 0 Deny

Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss)

Longitude (ddmmss)

Comments:
~f}~Aeeded:; This Office would support the pier extension to get the slip out of the SAV's
thereby avoiding impacts JHS 5/10/04

cc:

Regional Office
Central Office

Page Number 1

l

A~A
, NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and N~I Resources
Division of Coastal Management ~~
Michael F, Easley, Governor Charles S, Jones, Director A. ~G. Ross Jr" Secretary
"')),.0. / G'~
~~ ' ?? /} ;> VV"c
DATE i9~ ,O(){(

MEMORANDUM: 04-07.1.6) ~ly~~'
701J1

TO:

John R. Dorney
Environmental Biological Supervisor
Division of Water Quality

FROM:

Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator

{;

SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review

Applicant: Ross W. Lampe

Project Location: Carteret County, adjacent to the Straits to the south and Sleepy Creek to the east, at
the end of Piper Lane (193 Piper Lane) off Sleepy Creek Rd., and Piggott Loop Rd.,
(SR 1343) in the Gloucester community of Carteret County.

Proposed Project: Proposes to remove the remnant pier that was destroyed by Hurricane Isabel and
replace with a longer pier and dock,

Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by May 18, 2004. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Tere Barrett
at [phone]. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.

REPLY:

_ This agency has no objection to the project as proposed,

_ This agency has no comment on the proposed project.

_ This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.

_ This agency objects to the pr9ject for reasons described in the attached comments,

SIGNED

DATE

151-8 Hwy, 24, Hestron Plaza II, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net

An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Actiqn ~f)1RIQYl3r, TJ?P% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

Development Type

1. Private, non-commercial
development that does not involve
the filling or excavation of any
wetlands or open water areas:

11. Public or commercial development
that does not involve the filling or
excavation of any wetlands or open
water areas:

111. For development that involves the
filling and/or excavation of up to 1
acre of wetlands and/or open water
areas, determine if A, B, C, or 0
below applies:

III(A). For Private, non-commercial
development, If General water Quality
Certification No.3301 (see attached)
can be applied:

III(B): For public or commercial
development, if General water Quality
CerJfication No.330 1 (see at:ached)
can be applied:

III(C). If General Water Quality
Certification No. 3301 (see attached)
could be applied, but OCM staff
determined that additional review and
written OWQ concurrence is needed
because of concems related to water
quali~j or aquatic life:

111(0). If General Water Qualirj
Certification No. 3301 (see ar.ached)
can not be applied:

IV. For development that involves
the filling and/or excavation of more
than one acre of wetlands and/or
open water areas:

DCM"!.
(143001601 43510009316256253)

100"10 ($250)

1 00"10 ($400)

100"10 (5250)

1 00"10 (5400)

60"10 (5240)

60"10 (5240)

60% (5265)

'1

DWQ"Io
(2430016024351000952341)

0"10 (SO)

0"10 (SO)

0% (SO)

0"10 (SO)

40% (5160)

40"10 (5160)

40"10 ($ 190)

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT

1. APPLICANT'S NAME: Mr. Ross W. Lampe

2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Adjacent to The Straits to the south and Sleepy Creek to the east,
at the end of Piper Lane (193 Piper Lane) off of Sleepy Creek Rd. and Piggott Loop Rd. (SR 1343) in
the Gloucester community of eastern Carteret County.

Photo Index - 2000: photo 535, grid 4-M,N
State Plane Coordinates - X: 2744400

1995: photo 499, grid 8-L,M
Y: 361500

3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA

4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - Aug. 30,01, Mar. 28,02, Mar. 19,04
Was Applicant Present - Yes

5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - cc: March 31, 2004
Office - Morehead City

6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Carteret County
Land Classification From LUP - Rural/Conservation
(B) AEC(s) Involved: EW, PT
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Private
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - Septic
Planned - None
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - Residence, pool, boat ramp, remains of pier
Planned - New pier, dock
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source - N/A

7. HABIT A T DESCRIPTION:

DREDGED

FILLED

OTHER

-- ..n -- -~ -- .-
(A) Vegetated Wetlands
(B) Non-Vegetated Wetlands
(C) Other - Open Water 1681 sf shaded
2000 sf incorp

(D) Total Area Disturbed: 3681 sf
(E) Primary Nursery Area: Sleepy Creek - Yes; Straits - No
(F) Water Classification: SA Open: Yes

8. PROJECT SUMMARY: Applicant proposes to remove the remnant pier structure that was destroyed
in Hurricane Isabel and replace with a longer pier and dock.

Field Investigation Report:
Ross W. Lampe
Page 02

9. Narrative Description:

The project site is located at the southwest conflux of Sleepy Creek and The Straits in the
Gloucester community of Carteret County. The tract is approximately 6.2 acres in size, and
is developed with a single-family residence in a residential community. Access to the site is
via Highway 70 East to Harker's Island Road, east on Straits Road to Piggott Loop Rd (SR
1343), east on Sleepy Creek Road, to Piper Lane. The property is the last tract on Piper
Lane.

There is an existing house, swimming pool, freestanding garage/workshop, and relic pier
onsite. The residence is served by a private well and septic system. Coastal marsh abuts the
eastern portion of the property along Sleepy Creek, while very little marsh fringe exists on
The Straits side of the property . Average elevation on the tract is + 5', and the vegetation is
predominantly lawn grasses and ornamentals. Submerged grassbeds are prominent within
the waters of The Straits at the project location.

Approximately 455' of this site's shoreline abuts Sleepy Creek, with another 515' abutting
The Straits. Sleepy Creek is designated as PNA by the Division of Marine Fisheries, while
The Straits is not. Both are open to shellfishing and carry a water quality classification of
SA. The Carteret County Land Use Plan classifies this area of the county as Rural, with all
AEC's classified as Conservation. The body of water at the project site is in excess of 1 mile
wide.

There is a natural channel extending through The Straits, with US Army Corps of Engineers
connector channels at each end. The Corps does not maintain any channel within The Straits
itself. The US Coast Guard maintains navigation markers along both sides of the natural
channel. The project site is east of Red Marker #44, where the channel extends closest to the
shoreline. This channel is not surveyed and carries no independent setback requirement.

Hurricane Isabel severely damaged Mr. Lampe's pier and dock. The two 10' x 10' structures
at the end still exist, but the L-Head is gone and the pier is unsound. Mr. Lampe wishes to
re-construct his pier, attach it to the existing gazebo and deck, and extend the pier another
120' into The Straits, constructing another L-Head with mooring pilings on the west side.

Specifically, the proposal is to construct 180' x 4.5' of pier to connect to the 10' x 10' gazebo
and the 10' x 10' deck. The pier will continue another 120'x 4.5" to a 10' x 24' L-Head.
There will be 2 mooring pilings placed 40' to the west, aligned 50' apart, north to south. The
pilings will not extend beyond the L-Head. The overall proposed project length is 330', and
is greater than 15' from either riparian corridor. The depth at the chosen distance into The
Straits is -27" nlw, with the applicant's intention being to dock a 31' sailboat.

The proposed structure will extend across healthy eelgrass beds for approximately 200'. The
previous structure extended into and terminated in these beds, with the sailboat sitting
aground at low tides. The applicant wishes to get across the grassbeds to deeper water,

Field Investigation Report:
Ross W. Lampe
Page 01

which places the dock approximately 40' waterward of the grasses. While the plats state that
the dock will terminate 100' shy of the channel, this has not been confirmed. It is clear from
aerial photography that the structure will stop at least 60' short of the channel. Soundings at
the end of the pre-existing dock system average -8" nlw. At 290' the soundings average 14",
at 300' -17", and at 350' -40". Other residential piers along this shoreline range from 100' to
270' in length.

10. Anticipated Impacts:

As proposed, the docking system will shade approximately 1681 sf of shallow bottom and
SA V habitat, and will incorporate another 2000 sf of open water with the placement of the
mooring pilings. Turbidity impacts should be temporary as pilings are being driven.
Exceeding the established pier length along the shoreline in an area where the channel
meanders closest to shore may pose navigation issues. Possibly the most sigpificant impact to
arise from issuance of a permit to extend this docking system by 130' would be the change in
established pier length along this shoreline, leading to a probability of longer structures in
the area in the future. The positive impact to be anticipated would be that the stress to the
grass beds in the location of the actual mooring space would be reduced. Reconstruction of
the pre-existing pier to the existing dock space would require that the vessel sit atop
submerged grass beds at normal low tides.

Tere Barrett

April 27, 2004

Morehead City

Form DCM-MP-l

APPLICATION

(To be completed by all appUcants)

1. APPLICANT

a. Landowner:
Name 'Ross LV. LAyY'pe
Address cJ? CJ. 710 ><. ISO
City ~ l'\1.i"I1-F, eo tDl State IV L .
Zip ?.. 7S 17. Day Phone 91' 9.$'1 61's-
Fax ?/? '1.5'1 /.s$~

b. Authorized Agent:

Name

~ A--I"J\ ~

Address

City

State

Zip

Day Phone

Fax

c. Project name (if any) _/Vec.v \V ~

NOTE: Permit wiU be imud in name oflandowner(sj. and/or
project name.

2. LOCATION OF' PROPOSED
PROJECT

a. County

C ~Tefl.e7!-:

v...,;uot! n~/~

b. City, town, community or landmark
GLcl.(c~.IteR.

c. Street address or secondary road number
_~ Le~ Lv C~ec./<:.. ~.
/

d. Is proposed work within city Iimi~ or planning
jurisdiction? Yes """'--No

e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g. river,
creek, sound, bay) $'T /24/ r s

3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT

a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/or filling activities.

piE: R.....

b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work, or both? /y e w

c. Will the project be for public, private or commercial
use? P R I V/4-T e-

d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed
project. If more space is needed, please attach
additional pages.
/ - 3 / I '!R/- AllAN C:JN.UJlR
SAIL bon.7 wi" bf'" \"l1.00R4l4l..
he-r~ 3cn' to .:r:So' I~ ..rAOKC.
tip E"X'I.d/IIIJ GA*et.o I~ 'mol.4-fl'H'~
5/1l1n~ 7i... ,I?;IItl./j w(!!>ll.e ~o'.,.t~ ;4~
WI U 01" IIlJCO(ftPl1fl.~.cl ,;.,fQ ~ N4J
(plef(.. 71tfi"rt.. lJ,), lL '-lo7 (pf' .4Nv
f
J+Nc.Jrorz"r' Oven.. eLL, Il'IU.S;;.

Form DCM-MP-l

4. LAND AA"D WATER
CHARACTERISTICS

a. Size of entire tract 6' ~

b. Size of individuallot(s) -1/~#e

c. Approximate' elevation of tract above MHW or
NWL 5'

d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
6" BlAcK To;p~o"L Dl'etl CLA}' ~,... .N-r

e. Vegetation on tract ~ I< ASs. J, T !lee.$

f. Man-made features now on tract ~c.c..s Co.
Sept,c. ilf-NJe.. G14IU?e, 1'00'-'

..-
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (ConsulJ the 1oca1/and use plan.)

~ Conservation
_ Developed
~ Rural

Transitional
_ Community
Other

h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
.~~T :ZON~t:1l

1.

Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable
zoning? _ Yes _No Hh
(A/Inch zoning compliance certificale, if appliCXJhlef ,//1'

j.

Has a professional archaeological assess~t been
done for the tract? _ Y es ~ No
If yes, by whom?

k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
_ Yes ~o

1.

Are there wetlands on the site? ~ es _ No
Coastal (marsh) V Other
If yes, has a delineation been conducted?
(Attach doc:umnuarion, if available)

m. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
:5etP.."hc... 1A-Nll-

n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters
of the state. (For example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/commercial effluent, .wash
down" and r~idential discharges.)
A/p .#e.
.

o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
. w~i.L

5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

In addition to the completed application fonn, the
following items must be submitted:

· A copy or the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.

· An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources C{\rnmission Rule 71.0203 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 an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding 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 personnel unfamil iar with the area to the

FOf1Il DCM-MP-l

site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.

· A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.

· A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.

Name DR. 1?, c,J, Irp. t1l.. B ~ f!( t> e It..
Address 1'.tJ. BOK 131
Phone G-Lol.(('~$iefl.. NC ~g s;il8
7""" :I-P:I' "
Name -A Ll JJ1trv Pc:> weLL
Add ress "P.t> J go)C. , (.
Phone G~~cesT~1f. Nc.. ~8 J;:2.8
721-&/'4'/

Name
Address
Phone

· A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and issuing dates.
:Ir :2. 3S()S'-C (if) '7- Pt,)

:IF 1?-2 -'13 ("3 .-ZO' D2.)

· A check for $250 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.

· A . signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.

· A statement of compliance with the N.C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A - 1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of public
funds or use of public lands, attach a statement
documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act.

6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND

I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application will allow only the development described in
the application. The project will be subject to conditions
and restrictions contained in the permit.

I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of .North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a mariner consistent with such program.

I 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 application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.

I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.

This is the :2.3 day of ~ , 19.i2.!:i.

Print Name K"o.s..s. w. LA rn~

Signature
. Landowner or Awhorized AgrnJ .....

Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.

DeM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
DCM MP-3 Upland Development
-.X. DCM MP-4 Structures Information
_ DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
_ DCM MP-6 Marina Development

NOTE: Please sign and date each attachment in the
space provided at the bottom of each form.

.
'Form DCM-MP-4

STRUCTURES

(Construction within Public Trust Areas)

Attach this fonn to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Fonn DCM-MP-l. , Be sure to complete all
other se:::tions of the Joint Application which relate to
this proposed project.

a. Dock(s) and/or Pier(s) '"
(1) _ Commercial _Community J/Private
(2) Number I
(3) Length 330 Fe.. 1-
(4) Width S' 6 "
(5) Finger Piers Yes ~o
(i) Number
(ii) Length
(iii) Width
(6) Plarronn(s) V--Yes No
(i) Number -;t.
(ii) Length Ith(/()' <<..w( /o'x 2"1
(iii) Width /p'
(7) Number of slips proposed I
(8) Proximity of srru::ure to adjacent riparian
property lines 7.3' 7 II
(9) Width of water body / Ihi/~
(10) Water depth at wa:e:v.tard end of pier at
ML W or NWL ~ 7 "

b. Boathouse (including covered lifts)
(1) Commer::al
(2) Length
(3) Width

/yON~
Private

'-. Groin (e.g. wood, sheerpiie, etc.) ,1yo~
(1) Number
(2) Length(s)

d. Breakwater (e.g. wood, she;;:pile, etc.) /'JIb"ye.
(1) Length
(2) Average distance from MHW, NWL or
we:lands
(3) Maximum distan:e beyond MHW, N\VL or
we:! ands

~h'e.

e. Mooring buoys
(1) _ Commercial_Community _ Private
(2) Number .
(3) Desc:-iption of buoy
(Color, inscription, size, anchor, e::.)

(4) Width of water body
(5) Distance buoy(s) t9 be placed beyond
shoreline I

f. Mooring strJ:rure ~, mooring i1in2:s etc.)
(1) Commercial ommuniry _~ivate
(2) Number ?--
(3) Lengr.h 1+ (fi' /,-tI flQ~
(4) Width th'l i.JtI~ <!!IJ'II{ .

g. Other (Giv~ corr.plLu cUscriprion)
GA :zczbo /0 XIO

~f!~ ;2.e,;I/~ftZt~~:%eb.

Fn~,... 1.."../tId....

72 O.sS w. L,q.n, {?e...
cz;:=~,

S~ture
~ 30-0'f

Date

rn.,4~cA. 21 z~

,

:>1::"--
.....1 . I
::1. i
~"._--t-_....- ._:..~.....
" I' ,

.--l--.

!. i

.---.--
,
i
___ L._. ._
I
!

1<.
\-::;
f'.' .t.."....i..... _:...T=:~-' -"-":-'-:li.~-

: -;,,' --f .. ;.:. -::.:.-
:::.: ,-!" ----:,.~.: - ,----- -
..... _ _., . I 1 -.
-,," T . " i
:, I
. . I ;---.---- I'" .' -
i --.:: ..: :.. 330',,, . L_
ITH::. '. 1_.___L_._.__._'..: · L
". i ---I --
. - I . .

I'~~___'_:I:;' .. .: .._\i_..

.~ ! .-.

~:::~. ;-. ;-=-1-----~_.-=1.-.... .
~:--~-'I: .,
I:::' :.; i i

t. ._U_~L__. ! ,I
i~ .. I i I' '--'::--'''I-~--
!~:_..:;, I +--. 'I

LI':;~' :..i ~: - .! . ~~~:~.;:.~ll-:'

, -I '

. 1 I
: ~ i.: .- .----.-. .-- --f.-
j I
, I .

",.-.-- . "::i-' ~':--:':..-_. .__. .
j...- ..- .- .-- ':- ''-' -.. .-. - .-.
."""._,_, ...._,.... 0- ___h' 1_' ~

SOV,rud!.'NCf s.
" ;;, TeA-ITS \\

rn A12cA
LA- rn pe..

2.cP - z-co Lf
PllopeRiy

.

Low
.1IE
. .

r4 :<:;;l.<.ifll....~;t WINO ~LL Lol.;X"1~ L'-'J)-~~'
. ..~ ---~--~-_--.-._----
L- I'M":" , '
. .'.~... -- '----. ",--

9 :/011-111
!#IIWI

/fde-
/0./.> K~~

r------. -
ll" . : :
. , ,
':'_:~:-.- -. :--
l: ' :
~_..-

.-'

" ..t-- ., . .
-_._._----~-~ .._-_.-..._-~_.__. .._-".'

,
_ _ __:_______4_____._~---- _~__

. ,
. !

. ..

, .

--:--~-.-7---:_____T------r----.-.---.---.---.-.-...
i '

I..

r- ----.- -...~.-~-. - - - ----.-----...--... ------ ~-_.
I
I:, _

Sc4e... ){,-I~--.J I~~:C:~~~:.___

_. --.-- ..-...,...

--------~-

-~-
I

-.....----,.----..----

i:- -
,
1
I------~--.----. -
,

~ Ia?~:-.

'f~

EXI st ~9
r-----.E-;<IJrn;'1

I

, /<,1..; :
G-Az~bo E:11 .. . '
.,. 10
Plftir;~;11 ~ ~~l~:t-~--

Il--fJ f j20x
-<;i{ b /Jler.. F

ItREH
0-(2,4-$)

l5 f:t/ .s

___._______.__.n.~____ _
f--'

G"
qll

loll

- 7..'UJ -:.

- +- I 0.---- -.--~.-- --...--------.

. . I .
_;,.I.. 'Yl-:-----:---n-----

6" -:}..1J] ,--

If "-- . - ;1SO..-----,-----..:. -----.----

1"k.Mt/t . .... 3" -~-~:
.~ ..,; 1
:. ' : .:-.. -i:-.------.----.-~-- l.f " ---.;q~~---.-~------
~. :':: : 0 J ' .. .
i-----:-'yiJtt-TEfZ. 7';, ~Z~___-U:-~. '.. ,.....

= . .~-~_==-I :::~i:~r-"-.~~n:.m.__-..- .......~........_.~~.n

. ," -. - --'-- ----- ~-~- ---------- --
. I
"

';1. '!. '\.;. 'l.i.o

.------.----..,..---
..- -

{',
. . ..- --~ l

~~~=.-.-..=--::~ i :~.'fce~~2i-i.... '=~.~..
: . ... . . . ... L ..... ',; ..... . .~.~.~t-11.~.ii;~~}it."n.. n . ....e. .

. It:

, :: tJ

: ~., : ti
__ _ ____~:~~;.i
1 1

(Oll~ [gitc1tQJJL___J2e""7A-lls ~ ._7?D.~~S L8111(!~-=_J0lct,~J; _~o__-_~c~ t

ALL I'IA/L5 ..s;;rl1lJ.!LES5 .srE"EL P/LI;1/G5 ;;'.S-c'C"'i 1b/'n-3
")...xb cRC's.5 I1Rms ".,8> CC~ /b/i=r> ?-.xb 'D<?c/:.. - 4 CC",.rf /b/Fr~
;).;<..8 5O/~t.$ .:f'C~.4 /P/Fr~

.5CA-L!: Yz. \1 =::. / ( .
'SJf"-
z.. X ~ ])::-.:

~-. =3"1 ........~/-Ic4.

~!/

._____ ________.n ____._..__ _.~__

L4N.:-L

;:;z I ;r-
'f!.c,ftt
.St d e.s
_ .. C:'.:!::.______ ._
Pi l.t f

-L
6'

r .f u,
Pie<!. J..f (; I).' iC( ~

b W(
- Po r'- ----- -
If! U or

~

. : l

----.---,--...--- -----.-. j..tI1----

/(bd., >;;
1IA-'tLs

. 'I AJ /
(, (j/'/ "-'ILl ~'ey
e fC.:.r:r
A

~e.: //\ = 4-1
Gt'DE IIIFU< 11[3/1.

-: 611

t
It"

j~1
- L -.
~

Ex/shlllJ (+-9~1
~ ~AZ~O Piirl'Y
Vc/ ... cx/:thr;j
PLntiO r:.J'f

-5~C.1iCfv' : ,4:'A

ONL)' / - ICe{ !l/41L l!?~,:rc,sF =~
---------~ -- ~_.-
~. : -.. . -.. . - ~- -. ...
. I I r I I ' I I r J I I' , I ~___ _
e

.

~u.b

L-
e'

...".- .

. - ..-
Z-1(.&C[Zo>>
r; f?FtCe>

~- ----~-~.-
b If - .- ----
()i' L;--- -
, r' . ,'1- -P'
: I ';2.."-' n
: 7-.,1;; cq4...
Iblcr~'~ .

fWiCR ''1

Jpf
L._______

---.-.-
~

~4.--"

SClNe.

I ,1 ~;Ll-f'

- "?I
-.:?

-14

.tuc

""
9
Z~CA
'"~
..II......' 0"''''(
.to . ,.,..
II a
'.
M II .
18
Hi<
r;. l~~,'.l
I'"
'~
- 6

l'-l At:
8

19

"'At.
A, rOk~lL.

'-ITAC.

EOS5
LAM re.

It "
Ifr ·

~"

. ~"'-<-- -....-.

, --CPf<<Jf1O.1e.(
::r .'fO · p;e(l.

THE

STRAITS

o "',14.., II,

~
25

I
- cO""l.!D .., ....AL.LUJL
u. NO COLE, u.nA. TRUt,l8L! COMPANY CARTERET- Co. N
.... tAU_ ....,..,. "'~QIII. eM'..~ DAn ~
".'I.co..wn U'I --- - tNtlD .., -D.lL-
~."""VIiI' -.- Ut. ......,,... "M. OAn ~ -MAP NO-
-JTAl. t1TT u., "'Nt ----- .".a"'.,I'. ....
'1tOPt1'" "..... . . 1 _21 9-15A
u.... LIT L'.' . .. ______11" ACV"ro
Lila. k.OCII ... ,.. IUX._ NOn' '1-10-,. ,..
I~' 2 ......... .-"'.,... - ...... ~ I....." ...
....... ...... 'u ___u._, .. 200'1
......-,.. ....-.".............
........l."._........_.._.. SCALf:' I . . S T -15t
"..-..............

. . . 1
, iil,,'t

Looking south, with Lampe dock on left and Lewis dock on right.

Looking southwest, with Lewis dock on the right.

...;'.....,M',c_-,.":'j.,,:t.~",.,i,..,

-

Looking southeast, with Lampe dock on left.

w
<l) t
0.. ~
E u
co a
--I l:J

(J)
"~
<l)
--I

~
()
a
l:J

~
S

co
Q)
Q)
-r-
~ ~
U
co a
:::l l:J
C <l)
co 0..
-, E
L() co
N --I
C l:J
a c
~ co
<l) ~
'S; u
a
<l) l:J
:=: (J)
<l) .~
+-'
co <l)
(J) --I
E c
a <l)
L- <l)
I+- ~
(J) +-'
~ <l)
U .D
a (J)
l:J
C) >-
c t
";:: <l)
a 0..
.D a
..c L-
C) 0..
<l) L-
<l)
C .D
I+- L-
a co
<l) a:l
C)
co
E