STAFF ASSESSMENT
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION, STANDARDS, AND WETLANDS PROGRAMS SECTION
I.Background Information
Applicant:Lighthouse Developments, Inc.P/N Number:2005-1E-229-W (Revised)
P/N Date:September 30, 2005Date Received:September 30, 2005P/N Close: October 17, 2005
Section of Applicable Federal Law:(x) Section 10(x) Section 404(x) Section 401
Section of Applicable State Law: ( ) Coastal Zone Consistency(x) Construction in Navigable Waters Permit
Brief explanation and purpose of activity:
The proposed work consists of constructing a 166’ x 255’ community docking facility that will provide 84 boat slips and includes a boat ramp. The purpose of this work is for the private recreational use of the future lot owners of the Paradise Cove Development.
To view a complete copy of the public notice, refer to the Army Corps of Engineers website:
Waterbody Name:Lake MurrayWater Classification:FW
Waterbody Location: Crystal Lake Drive, at the proposed Paradise Cove Development near Chapin, Lexington County, South Carolina (Latitude 34.11023, Longitude –81.39514)
Waterbody on 2004 303(d) List?
(x)Yes, the waterbody is impaired for aquatic life use due to pH excursions; however, the proposed project will not contribute to the impairment.
( )No
II.Project Description
The proposed work consists of constructing a 166’ x 255’ community docking facility. The floating docks will be connected to highland by a 5’ x 16’ fixed pier and a 5’ x16’ hinged ramp. The primary access floating docks will be 5’ wide and each floating finger will be 3’ wide. The community docking facility will be arranged in a manner that will provide 84 boat slips. The 6” x 15’ x 72’ reinforced concrete community boat ramp is to be constructed, essentially on grade, with little grading necessary. Because the structures will be located sufficiently close to private individual lots, parking will not be necessary. The purpose of this work is for the private recreational use of the future lot owners of the Paradise Cove Development.
A.Fill
1.Is fill required?(x) Yes( ) NoIf no, proceed to Section II. B.
Amount / cubic yards / acresTotal / 16 / 0.02
Wetlands / 0 / 0
Open Waters of U. S. / 16 / 0.02
2.Is the fill temporary?( ) Yes(x) No
- Excavation
1.Is excavation required?( ) Yes(x) NoIf no, proceed to Section II. C.
Amount / cubic yards / acresTotal
Wetlands
Open Waters of U. S.
- Is dredge spoil site adequately sized for the amount of material?
( ) Yes, see Section VI for specific detail
( ) No
C.Other Impacts:( ) Yes(x) No( ) Mechanically cleared wetlands
( ) Flooding wetlands
D.Project Modification
Was the project modified from the original public notice?
(x)Yes The project was originally placed on public notice July 29, 2005. The applicant revised plans to address concerns raised during the initial public notice. Revisions included reducing the number of slips from 104 to 84, prohibiting construction of additional private docks along the approximately 2,000 feet of shoreline within the subdivision, and maintaining PetroSorb hydrocarbon-absorbing floats at each slip. Due to significant revisions to the originally proposed plans, the revised project plans were placed on public notice on September 30, 2005.
The applicant responded to concerns raised during the public notice for these revised plans by proposing additional measures to protect water quality. In a letter dated December 9, 2005, the applicant proposes to place into restrictive covenants an average 25-foot vegetated buffer measured above the 360 foot contour along the property’s approximately 2,000 feet of shoreline, to maintain PetroSorb hydrocarbon-absorbing floats in the stormwater management system, and to prohibit the use of chemical fertilizers within the development. In an email dated May 25, 2006, the applicant proposes that boats exceeding 25 feet in length will not be allowed at the dock, and that preservative-treated lumber will not be used for dock construction. The dock will be constructed using concrete anchor weights and stainless steel mooring cables instead of pilings.
( )No
E.Compensatory Mitigation
Is compensation required by DHEC?
(x)Yes, a detailed description of the applicant’s compensation is located in Section VIII, Conditions.
( )No
( )N/A
F.Remediation
Is remediation required?( ) Yes( ) No(x) N/A
G.Nonpoint Source Concerns
1.Are water quality impacts from nonpoint sources expected?
( )Yes
(x)Temporary
Areas disturbed during construction could erode during storm events resulting in sedimentation into adjacent waters. Post-construction runoff from impervious surfaces may increase levels of pollutants in water leaving the site. Studies have demonstrated increased concentrations of coliform bacteria at slips most frequently used by boats with marine sanitation devices (MSDs) (Cassin et al. 1971; Mack and D’Itri, 1973; Faust 1982). Water quality impacts from non-point sources will be minimized and should not contravene the water quality standards or existing and classified uses of the involved waterbody, if the applicant adheres to the conditions in Section VIII of this staff assessment during and after the project.
( )No
2.Has the applicant addressed nonpoint source concerns?(x) Yes( ) No( ) N/A
The applicant has proposed several best management practices (BMPs) to avoid and minimize nonpoint source pollution. These include a ban on the use of chemical fertilizers within the proposed development, the installation and maintenance of PetroSorb hydrocarbon-absorbing floats in each boat slip and in the stormwater system, a ban on the use of preservative-treated lumber for dock construction, and the preservation of an average 25-foot-wide vegetative buffer measured above the 360 foot contour along the approximately 2,000 feet of shoreline within the subdivision.
3.Are any enforceable nonpoint controls required by DHEC?
(x)Yes, water quality impacts from nonpoint sources will be minimized and should not contravene the water quality standards or existing and classified uses of the involved waterbody, if the applicant adheres to the conditions in Section VIII of this staff assessment during and after the project. Lake Murray is designated as a no-discharge zone. To protect water quality, the applicant will be required to maintain a wastewater pumpout and disposal system for boats with MSDs at the facility as a condition of this certification and permit. Additional conditions include requirements of sediment and erosion control measures, access to the project site, construction materials, litter receptacles, and signs. Conditions also include a ban on chemical fertilizers within the development, and a ban on future individual dock construction at the property.
( )No
III.Environmental Assessment
A.Is the proposed activity water dependent?(x) Yes( ) No
B.Are there feasible alternatives to the proposed activity?
The applicant submitted an alternatives analysis dated June 2, 2006, which demonstrated no other feasible alternatives for the proposed project. The following is a summary of that analysis.
An alternative plan of upland dry storage with a courtesy day dock and boat ramp would not accomplish the project purpose of providing safe and convenient access to boats. This alternative would increase personal hazards from the frequent launching and retrieval of boats. This alternative would substantially increase the applicant’s costs and require a re-design of the development. This re-design would likely result in increased building density from 92 homes to 125 homes and a decrease in the width of the proposed vegetative buffer along the shore. The addition of 33 homes would likely increase boating activity compared to the current proposal.
An alternative plan of twenty individual shared docks, four boats per dock, may be allowed under the general permit issued to South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) for Lake Murray. This alternative would have greater adverse impacts to shoreline vegetation and littoral fish habitat, compared to the proposed plan. This alternative would substantially increase the applicant’s costs by reducing the number of lots with docking space and require a re-design of the development. This re-design would likely result in increased building density from 92 homes to 125 homes and a decrease in the width of the proposed vegetative buffer along the shore.
C.Water Quality Assessment
Numeric Standards Contraventions?
( )Yes
(x)Temporary, the proposed work may cause a temporary increase in turbidity levels, but ambient conditions should resume once the work is completed. Water quality standards will not be contravened and designated uses will not be changed. Potential adverse impacts to water quality can be minimized through the use of best management practices, and the conditions described in Section VIII of this staff assessment.
( )No
IV.Public Comments Received and Summary of Comments
A.S. C. Department of Natural Resources
In a letter dated August 18, 2005, the DNR stated that the proposed project could potentially have significant adverse impacts to aquatic resources, impede navigation, and may not be consistent with SCE&G’s Shoreline Management Program (SMP) and with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing requirements. The DNR recommended the applicant consider avoidance and minimization measures such as reducing the size of the proposed facilities, providing adequate shoreline buffering, and prohibiting individual docks and associated excavation to increase deep water access. After the applicant responded to DNR’s initial concerns, the DNR, in a letter dated October 17, 2006, amended their comments suggesting that the permit be held in abeyance until the project impacts had been minimized per their earlier recommendations. The DNR recommended the community docking facility be limited to a temporary day-use facility with no permanent mooring provided and stated that the reduction of slips from 104 to 84 did not adequately address their concerns. In a letter dated August 9, 2006, the DNR had no further objections provided the applicant adheres to the conditions described in Section VIII of this staff assessment.
B.U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
In a letter dated August 4, 2005, the FWS elected to take no position on the proposed project at that time. In a letter dated October 20, 2005, the FWS stated concerns with increasing and continual shoreline development on Lake Murray and with the cumulative effects the community docking facility might have on fish and wildlife resources, shoreline habitat, water quality, bank erosion, and overall congestion. The FWS stated concerns that the proposed project appeared to be inconsistent with the policies and intent of SCE&G’s SMP. The FWS recommended the applicant explore alternatives to reduce the amount of slips to comply with the policies for residential private docks listed in the SMP and recommended that authorization for the permit should be denied until their concerns have been adequately addressed. After receipt and review of additional information provided to FWS from the applicant, the FWS stated in correspondence dated May 24 and August 3, 2006, that the applicant sufficiently avoided and minimized adverse project impacts to riparian and aquatic resources to the extent practicable. The FWS then stated it would have no objections to the proposed project if SCDHEC included the following conditions in the permit: 1) The development must maintain a 75 foot setback from the 360 foot contour line inland along the entire length of the shoreline, consistent with the current SMP for Lake Murray. No clearing should occur in this setback except a foot path to the docking facility. 2) No additional individual docks shall be permitted along the remaining shoreline of the proposed project. 3) All effort must be made to avoid impacts to emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation during construction of the facility. 4) Any unavoidable impacts to shoreline vegetation and/or emergent or submergent vegetation associated with the construction of the community boat ramp should be mitigated by replanting indigenous vegetation along the adjacent shoreline or other proposed area along the project shoreline.
C.Public Comment Letters Received by DHEC
Public Hearing on November 29, 2005, at Crooked Creek Park, Chapin, South Carolina
The Department received comment letters from citizens in the area expressing concern about the proposed project, and many individuals requested a public hearing. The Department responded by conducting a public hearing on November 29, 2005, at Crooked Creek Park, 1098 Old Lexington Highway, Chapin, South Carolina. The list on the attached pages includes those who sent letters commenting on the proposed project and those who attended the public hearing. Comments were received from the general public, as well as Lee Barber (President, Lake Murray Association), Steve Bell (President, Lake Murray Watch), Jimmy Chandler (South Carolina Environmental Law Project), Tom Gleeson (President, Lake Point Homeowners Association), Larry Michaelec (Chairman of the Board, Lake Murray Homeowners Coalition), and Mike Sloan (Board of Directors, Lake Murray Homeowners Association). Senator Ronnie Cromer and Representative Chip Huggins attended the public hearing.
Individuals opposing the project expressed concern about navigability; aquatic ecosystem impacts, including shoreline erosion and a possible increase in Hydrilla; impacts to drinking water; fuel leaks; MSD leaks; litter; stormwater management; feasible alternatives, including reducing the number of slips or 20 shared docks; public interest, including property devaluation and recreational use; cumulative impacts, including state water quality standards, stagnation, noise pollution, light pollution, air pollution, safety, traffic, and shoreline development; compliance with SCE&G’s SMP; and compliance with DHEC regulations.
Sanford Koon had no objection to the proposed project because the applicant had revised plans to reduce the size of the facility and proposed the use of PetroSorb hydrocarbon-absorbing floats to protect water quality. Mr. Koon also noted that the project will bring public access to water and sewer in the area.
V.Consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program, R. 48-39-10 et seq.
Did the staff of the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) find the project consistent with the S.C. Coastal Zone Management Program? ( ) Yes ( ) No (x) N/A Date:
( ) Per revisions
( ) Per conditions included in Section VIII.
( ) If no, provide Sections of Coastal Zone Management Program cited.
VI.Conclusion on Water Quality Impacts and Classified Uses
When evaluating the proposed work, the Department followed procedures for implementing State 401 Water Quality Certification regulations pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1341, and the requirements of Regulation 61-101, Water Quality Certification, and Regulation 19-450 et seq., 1976 Codes of Laws, Construction in Navigable Waters Permitting Program.
The proposed project consists of constructing a 166’ x 255’ community docking facility that will provide 84 boat slips and includes a boat ramp. The purpose of this work is for the private recreational use of the future lot owners of the Paradise Cove Development. The project was originally placed on public notice July 29, 2005. The applicant revised plans to address concerns raised during the initial public notice. The applicant responded to concerns raised during the public notice for these revised plans by proposing additional measures to protect water quality. All revisions are summarized in Section II.D. Modification.
On June 9, 2006, the applicant submitted a bathymetric map of the project area indicating depths at typical low winter levels (358 feet above mean sea level (MSL)) and high summer levels (354 feet above MSL). This information indicates the proposed facility will not obstruct navigation at typical summer and winter water levels.
Construction and use of the facility is not expected to cause a significant increase in shoreline erosion. The proposed community dock access gangway and boat ramp will impact approximately 20 feet of the approximately 2,000 feet shoreline of the development. The alternative plan of twenty separate shared docks, would have greater adverse shoreline impacts thereby a greater potential for erosion, compared to the proposed plan. More detail on feasible alternatives is included in Section III.B. Feasible Alternatives. Both alternative plans would potentially increase boat activity in the cove by increasing the size of the development by 33 homes, compared to the proposed plan. The applicant has proposed that boats exceeding 25 feet in length will not be allowed at the facility. This will minimize erosion, as large boats create large wakes that contribute to erosion. The proposed project minimizes effects of erosion to the extent feasible. A designated no wake zone around the facility would further minimize shoreline erosion.
Concerns were raised that the proposed community docking facility will accelerate Hydrilla growth in the cove. A 2005 SCE&G report states that the 64,500 grass carp stocked in Lake Murray in 2003 have achieved the goal of controlling Hydrilla. The applicant has proposed a ban on chemical fertilizers throughout all areas of the development. This will minimize the potential for fertilizer runoff to accelerate Hydrilla or algae growth in the area. Shading from the proposed docking facility may inhibit Hydrilla growth and provide cover habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms. The proposed project is not expected to accelerate Hydrilla or algae growth.
Concerns were raised regarding ecological and water quality impacts from the proposed facility. In their August 4, and October 20, 2005, letters, the FWS concurred that this project will have no effect on federally protected species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. An assessment of water quality monitoring data collected at South Carolina marinas indicated several water quality standards violations at open water marinas (SCDHEC, 1985). These contraventions included pH and coliform bacteria; however, these contraventions were not attributed to the marina or an activity at the marina. This assessment indicated the mean concentrations for total suspended solids, oil and grease, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, total phosphorus, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, and nickel compared well with the mean concentration at marine monitoring stations in DHEC’s trend network. The assessment showed little differences between water quality in the open water marinas and water in adjacent waterbodies. At the request of DHEC, SCE&G provided water quality monitoring data measured at two different marinas on Lake Murray. This limited water quality data showed no contraventions of state water quality standards at existing facilities. Staff found no studies in support of objectors’ claims that the project will cause significant adverse impacts to water quality or natural resources in the area, provided the applicant adheres to all proposed modifications and conditions listed in this staff assessment.