DEN 17-01 Fortescue

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Frank Fortescue
865 Sladesville Road
Scranton, NC 27875
Dear Mr. Fortescue:
September 19, 2017
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
This letter is in response to your application for a Major Permit under the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) and the State Dredge and Fill Law, in which authorization was
requested to perform maintenance excavation of the channelized headwaters of Smith Creek,
adjacent to the Pungo River, near Pudddin Hill Road in Hyde County. Processing of the
application, which was received as complete by the Division of Coastal Management's
Washington Office on April 19, 2017 is now complete. Based on the state's review, the Division
of Coastal Management has made the following findings:
1) The subject property is located off SR 1152, Puddin Hill Road near Scranton, in Hyde
County.
2) The proposed project would involve development within Public Trust, Public Trust
Shoreline, and Coastal Wetland Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC).
3) The proposed project is located within the Tar -Pamlico River Basin, and is therefore
subject to the buffer requirements of the N.C. Division of Water Resources.
4) The proposed project involves application under the Coastal Area Management Act and
the State Dredge and Fill Law requesting authorization to perform maintenance dredging
within the southern channel and the placement of spoil long the southern bank of the
channel. The resulting spoil deposition would result in the fill of approximately 16,668
ft2 of coastal wetlands and approximately 3,780 fO of §404 wetlands.
5) Coastal wetlands are described in 15A NCAC 07H.0205(a). The significance of coastal
wetlands is described in 15A NCAC 07H.0205(b), which states "The unique productivity
of the estuarine and ocean system is supported by detritus (decayed plant material) and
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 8082808

September 19, 2017
Page 2
nutrients that are exported from the coastal wetland. Without the wetlands, the high
productivity levels and complex food chains typically found in estuaries could not be
maintained. Additionally, coastal wetlands serve as barriers against food damage and
control erosion between the estuary and the uplands. "
6) DCM field staff recommended denial of the permit based upon several inconsistencies
with rules of the Coastal Resources Commission, as well as a determination that
alternatives may exist that could further reduce impacts to Coastal Wetlands.
7) The DCM Fisheries Resource Specialist objected to the proposal due to negative impacts
to downstream water quality, submerged aquatic vegetation and habitat for numerous
fisheries important species. The Wildlife Resources Commission also expressed
significant concerns over the permanent impact to wetlands and the loss of wildlife
habitat.
8) On August 24, 2017 N.C. Division of Water Resources (DWR) denied the 401 Water
Quality Certification and the Tar -Pamlico River Basin Buffer Aauthorization.
9) Based upon the above referenced findings, the Division has determined that the proposed
project, including the spoil deposition within Coastal Wetlands, is inconsistent with the
following Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission:
a) 15A NCAC 07H.0205(c) (Management Objectives for Coastal Wetlands), which
states "It is the objective of the Coastal Resources Commission to conserve and
manage coastal wetlands so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological,
social, economic and aesthetic values, and to coordinate and establish a
management system capable of conserving and utilizing coastal wetlands as a
natural resource necessary to the ftnctioning of the entire estuarine system."
b) 15A NCAC 07H.0208(a)(2)(A), and 15A NCAC 07H.0208(a)(2)(B) which states
that "before being granted a permit, a determination shall be made that the
applicant has complied with the following standards:
(A) The location, design, and need for development, as well as the construction
activities involved shall be consistent with the management objective of the
Estuarine and Ocean System AEC (Rule .0203 of this subchapter) and shall
be sited and designed to avoid significant adverse impacts upon the
productivity and biologic integrity of coastal wetlands, shellfish beds,
submerged aquatic vegetation as defined by the Marine Fisheries
Commission, and spawning and nursery areas; and
(B) Development shall comply with state and federal water and air quality
standards;
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808

September 19, 2017
Page 3
c) 15A NCAC 07H.0208(b)(1)(B) which states that "All dredged material shall be
confined landward of regularly and irregularly flooded coastal wetlands."
d) 15A NCAC 07H.0208(b)(1)(C) which states that "Dredged material from
maintenance of channels and canals through irregularly flooded wetlands shall
be placed on non -wetland areas, remnant spoil piles, or disposed of by a method
having no significant, long-term wetland impacts. Under no circumstances shall
dredged material be placed on regularly flooded wetlands."
e) 15A NCAC 07H.0601, which states that "No development shall be allowed in any
AEC which would result in a contravention or violation of any rules, regulations,
or laws of the State of North Carolina or of local government in which the
development takes place. "
Given the preceding findings, it is necessary that your request for issuance of a CAMA Major
Permit under the Coastal Area Management Act and State Dredge and Fill Law 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, and N.C.G.S. 113-229, which requires that a permit be denied for cases where a proposed
development will lead to a significant adverse impact to fisheries resources.
If you wish to appeal this denial, you are entitled to a contested case hearing. The hearing will
involve appearing before an Administrative Law Judge who listens to evidence and arguments of
both parties before making a final decision on the appeal. Your request for a hearing must be in
the form of a written petition, complying with the requirements of §150B 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, within twenty (20) days from the date of this denial
letter. A copy of this petition should be filed with this office.
Another response to a permit denial available to you is to petition the Coastal Resources
Commission for a variance to undertake a project that is prohibited by the Rules of the Coastal
Resources Commission. Applying for a variance requires that you first acknowledge and
recognize that the Division of Coastal Management applied the Rules of the Coastal Resources
Commission properly in processing and issuing this denial. You may then request an exception
to the Commission's Rules based on hardships to you resulting from unusual conditions of the
property. To apply for a variance, you must file a petition for a variance with the Director of the
Division of Coastal Management and the State Attorney General's Office on a standard form,
which must be accompanied by additional information on the nature of the project and the
reasons for requesting a variance. The variance request may be filed at any time, but must be
filed a minimum of six weeks before a scheduled Commission meeting for the variance request
to be eligible to be heard at that meeting. The standard variance forms may be obtained by
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality l Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead Gty,NC 28557
252 808 2808

September 19, 2017
Page 4
contacting a member of my staff, or by visiting the Division's web page at:
htti)s:Hdeq.ne.gov/about/divisions/coastal-management/coastal-management-permits/variances-
appeals.
Members of my staff are available to assist you should you desire to modify your proposal in the
future. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Gregg Bodnar at
[phone] extension 215.
Sincerely,
C� \�
Braxton C. Davis \\
cc: Col. Robert J. Clark -U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, NC
S. Jay Zimmerman - Director NC Division of Water Resources, Raleigh, NC
Roland Tooley - Tooley Farms Inc., 725 Lynnsburg Rd., Scranton, NC
Karen Higgins — NC Division of Water Resources, Raleigh, NC
Raleigh Bland — U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, NC
Anthony Scarbraugh — NC Division of Water Resources, Washington, NC
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Application Processing Notes
Applicant:
Type: (check all that apply)
New Major Mod_ Permit #_ Minor Mod_ Renewal_ Transfer_
Permit Coordinator:
Field Represe
Date Time Message
40( (lam) 11cI O �F��� it> $(24/n
D1p2 No
bcw Nolar jj� I r
i' q? cP fcttr- ?� at, look/ COia°- A"% d M4c 'VO k PaPO54'
bw� de --Cd J- P'� �rcA-
�(
�n'Q C�7u Ie

Regulatory Division
Action ID. SAW 2017-00959
Frank Fortescue
865 Sladesville Road
Scranton, North Carolina 27875
Dear Mr. Fortescue:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 W 5" Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
September 27, 2017 RECEIVED
C
flGdrE�VED
OCT 0 2 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
By copy of the enclosed North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality letter to you
dated September 19, 2017, we have learned that the North Carolina Coastal Management
Consistency Certification for your proposed plans to undertake maintenance excavation within
the channelized headwaters of Smith Creek and the sidecasting of resultant spoil material within
approximately 20,448 square feet (0.46-acre) of adjacent coastal and freshwater wetlands has
been denied. The project is located off State Road 1152, adjacent to Smith Creek and the Pungo
River, near the Community of Scranton, in. Hyde County, North Carolina. The Coastal Zone
Management Act provides that no Federal permit may be issued for an activity within the coastal
zone where the State has denied a consistency certification. Accordingly, your Department of the
Army application is hereby denied, without prejudice, and your file has been retired.
Should you obtain a consistency certification from the State for this activity, your file will be
reopened. While appealing the State permit is the next step in pursuing State authorization, you
should be aware that this issue must be resolved prior to issuance of a Department of the Army
permit. We strongly recommend that if you wish to pursue this matter, you give serious
consideration to revising your plans for this project.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. Mr. Raleigh Bland of my Washington Regulatory
Field Office staff is available to answer any questions you may have, or to assist you in
developing a revised plan. Mr. Bland may be reached at telephone [phone].
Sincerely, y�
FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEER
Robert J. Clark
Colonel, U.S. Army
Commanding
Enclosures

Copies Furnished (without enclosures):
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Mr. Pete Benjamin
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dr. Ken Riley
National Marine Fisheries, NOAA
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Chris Parker
Wetlands and Regulatory Section
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
Mr. Jonathan Howell, District Manager
Washington Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Robert Tankard
Division of Water Resources -Water Quality Regional Operations
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Mr. Roland Tooley
Tooley Farms, Incorporated
725 Lynnsburg Road
Scranton, North Carolina 27875

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Frank Fortescue
865 Sladesville Road
Scranton, NC 27875
Dear Mr. Fortescue:
September 19, 2017
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
FILE
This letter is in response to your application for a Major Permit under the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) and the State Dredge and Fill Law, in which authorization was
requested to perform maintenance excavation of the channelized headwaters of Smith Creek,
adjacent to the Pungo River, near Pudddin Hill Road in Hyde County. Processing of the
application, which was received as complete by the Division of Coastal Management's
Washington Office on April 19, 2017 is now complete. Based on the state's review, the Division
of Coastal Management has made the following findings:
1) The subject property is located off SR 1152, Puddin Hill Road near Scranton, in Hyde
County.
2) The proposed project would involve development within Public Trust, Public Trust
Shoreline, and Coastal Wetland Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC).
3) The proposed project is located within the Tar -Pamlico River Basin, and is therefore
subject to the buffer requirements of the N.C. Division of Water Resources.
4) The proposed project involves application under the Coastal Area Management Act and
the State Dredge and Fill Law requesting authorization to perform maintenance dredging
within the southern channel and the placement of spoil long the southern bank of the
channel. The resulting spoil deposition would result in the fill of approximately 16,668
ft' of coastal wetlands and approximately 3,780 fl of §404 wetlands.
5) Coastal wetlands are described in 15A NCAC 07H.0205(a). The significance of coastal
wetlands is described in 15A NCAC 07H.0205(b), which states "The unique productivity
of the estuarine and ocean system is supported by detritus (decayed plant material) and
State of North Carollm I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28SS7
2528082808

m
ru Csrtlfed Mail Fee
ru
m Extra rvices&Fees (r.Ire�Msc+c eddksu eppmP"ale)
m Receipt (nemcvPA f_ Postmark
N ❑RMum ne �pt lei le)
o ❑ USPSTRACKINGe 9488 8178 9820 3139 0106 07
13 FOR TRACKING GO TO USPS.COM
O Pos.
r- $
ri
q Total postage end Fees
R
-D Sent To ^
....+t_om ...............
a
■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
and address on the reverse
A. sure
X
❑ Agent
■ Print your name
Addresses
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the meilplece,
'vim �' "�) Name)
C. ate of Delivery
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Address�ed)to:
c7 ✓ F
D. If del L_ address differe t.
yes
I 1,2�0
r
SEP 27
2017
3 ioeft Type
❑ RtMau l
IIIllilll I'll IIIIIIIIIIIII II IIIII Il IIII II I I III
O nature
"it Sigit
❑ utt Signature Restricted DelNery
ered Mall
❑ Registered
❑Registered Mall Restricted
9590 9402 2060 6132 6966 65
ad Mal®
❑ certified Mail Restricted Delivery
ery
De a um Reeevpt for
Merchandise
2 Aftldis Number Rl✓9WW from aBIwOB'4*
❑ Collect on Delh;z
❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery O Signature Confirmation"
❑ Insured Mai ❑ Signature confirmation
L6 1370 0002 3225 3277
pinao d Mail Restncted Delivery
er $500
Res icted Delivery
Ps Form 3811, July 2016 P9N 7630-m-O Oim
Domestic Return Receipt

, a
September 19, 2017
Page 2
nutrients that are exported from the. coastal wetland. Without the wetlands, the high
productivity levels and complex food chains typically found in estuaries could not be
maintained. Additionally, coastal wetlands serve as barriers against f ood damage and
control erosion between the estuary and the uplands. "
6) DCM field staff recommended denial of the permit based upon several inconsistencies
with rules of the Coastal Resources Commission, as well as a determination that
alternatives may exist that could further reduce impacts to Coastal Wetlands.
7) The DCM Fisheries Resource Specialist objected to the proposal due to negative impacts
to downstream water quality, submerged aquatic vegetation and habitat for numerous
fisheries important species. The Wildlife Resources Commission also expressed
significant concerns over the permanent impact to wetlands and the loss of wildlife
habitat.
8) On August 24, 2017 N.C. Division of Water Resources (DWR) denied the 401 Water
Quality Certification and the Tar -Pamlico River Basin Buffer Aauthorization.
9) Based upon the above referenced findings, the Division has determined that the proposed
project, including the spoil deposition within Coastal Wetlands, is inconsistent with the
following Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission:
a) 15A NCAC 07H.0205(c) (Management Objectives for Coastal Wetlands), which
states "It is the objective of the Coastal Resources Commission to conserve and
manage coastal wetlands so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological,
social, economic and aesthetic values, and to coordinate and establish a
management system capable of conserving and utilizing coastal wetlands as a
natural resource necessary to the f mctioning of the entire estuarine system."
b) 15A NCAC 07H.0208(a)(2)(A), and 15A NCAC 07H.0208(a)(2)(B) which states
that "before being granted a permit, a determination shall be made that the
applicant has complied with the following standards:
(A) The location, design, and need for development, as well as the construction
activities involved shall be consistent with the management objective of the
Estuarine and Ocean System AEC (Rule. 0203 of this subchapter) and shall
be sited and designed to avoid significant adverse impacts upon the
productivity and biologic integrity of coastal wetlands, shellfish beds,
submerged aquatic vegetation as defined by the Marine Fisheries
Commission, and spawning and nursery areas; and
(B) Development shall comply with state and federal water and air quality
standards;
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
2528082808
9+a.91,�a;dG.'.Yudl`. Y7':..,.°'?d". `M•t.'. "':�. '.w: .:I. a s

September 19, 2017
Page 3
c) 15A NCAC 07H.0208(b)(1)(B) which states that "All dredged material shall be
confined landward of regularly and irregularly flooded coastal wetlands."
d) 15A NCAC 07H.0208(b)(1)(C) which states that "Dredged material from
maintenance of channels and canals through irregularly flooded wetlands shall
be placed on non -wetland areas, remnant spoil piles, or disposed of by a method
having no significant, long-term wetland impacts. Under no circumstances shall
dredged material be placed on regularly flooded wetlands."
e) 15A NCAC 07H.0601, which states that "No development shall be allowed in any
AEC which would result in a contravention or violation of any rules, regulations,
or laws of the State of North Carolina or oflocal government in which the
development takes place. "
Given the preceding findings, it is necessary that your request for issuance of a CAMA Major
Permit under the Coastal Area Management Act and State Dredge and Fill Law 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, and N.C.G.S. 113-229, which requires that a permit be denied for cases where a proposed
development will lead to a significant adverse impact to fisheries resources.
If you wish to appeal this denial, you are entitled to a contested case hearing. The hearing will
involve appearing before an Administrative Law Judge who listens to evidence and arguments of
both parties before making a final decision on the appeal. Your request for a hearing must be in
the form of a written petition, complying with the requirements of § 150B 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, within twenty (20) days from the date of this denial
letter. A copy of this petition should be filed with this office.
Another response to a permit denial available to you is to petition the Coastal Resources
Commission for a variance to undertake a project that is prohibited by the Rules of the Coastal
Resources Commission. Applying for a variance requires that you first acknowledge and
recognize that the Division of Coastal Management applied the Rules of the Coastal Resources
Commission properly in processing and issuing this denial. You may then request an exception
to the Commission's Rules based on hardships to you resulting from unusual conditions of the
property. To apply for a variance, you must file a petition for a variance with the Director of the
Division of Coastal Management and the State Attorney General's Office on a standard form,
which must be accompanied by additional information on the nature of the project and the
reasons for requesting a variance. The variance request may be filed at any time, but must be
filed a minimum of six weeks before a scheduled Commission meeting for the variance request
to be eligible to be heard at that meeting. The standard variance forms may be obtained by
State of North Carolina 1 Environmental Quality l Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I. Morehead City, NC 28557
252 8082808
Y *'i/3ma s4 &6.-,. •° :jla ..=EEv:*. ":A -�f _ z a 2+P *.tn `x - ..0 : —1, 4. -

September 19, 2017
Page 4
contacting a member of my staff, or by visiting the Division's web page at:
https://deq.ne.gov/about/divisions/coastal-management/coastal-mana ement-permits/variances-
appeals.
Members of my staff are available to assist you should you desire to modify your proposal in the
future. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Gregg Bodnar at
[phone] extension 215.
Sincerely,
G�
Braxton C. Davis
cc: Col. Robert J. Clark - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, NC
S. Jay Zimmerman - Director NC Division of Water Resources, Raleigh, NC
Roland Tooley - Tooley Farms Inc., 725 Lynnsburg Rd., Scranton, NC
Karen Higgins —NC Division of Water Resources, Raleigh, NC
Raleigh Bland — U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, NC
Anthony Scarbraugh — NC Division of Water Resources, Washington, NC
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality l Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 2BS57
2528082808

DCM Coordinator: Permit #• �%I►'�L—
. MAHJNG DISTRIBUTION SHEET--
DCM Field Offices
Elizabeth City
Morehead City
j,Washington
Wilmington
US ACOE Offices:
Washington:
2S
,l(t-PAt
(with revised work plan drawings)
27875
f Raleigh Bland (gort, Camden, Chowan, Craven, Hertford, Hyde, Perquimans,
Tyrrell)
Josh Peletier (Bertie, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Washington)
Tom Steffan (NC DOT- Beaufort, Carteret, Craven, Pamlico)
Bill Biddlecome (NC DOT -Remainder ECity/Washington District)
Wilmington:
Tyler Crumbley (Brunswick, New Hanover)
Liz Hair (Carteret, Onslow, Pender)
Brad Shaver (NCDOT-Brunswick, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender)
Cultural Resources:
Renee Gledhill -Earley
Public Water Supply:
Heidi Cox (WIRO)
#Vlif Whitfield (WARO)
Marine Fisheries:
Shane Staples
Curt Weychert
NC DOT: David Harris
Shellfish Sanitation: Shannon Jenkins
State Property: Tim Walton
DEMLW/DWR: Karen Higgins
Kristy Lynn Carpenter (NC DOT -All Projects)
Washington: Anthony Scarbraugh401
Roger Thorpe-Stormwater
Garcy Ward- (NCDOT-Beaufort, Bertie, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Craven, Currituck,
Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, Washington)
Wilmington: Robb Mairs — 401(Carteret, Onslow, Pender, New Hanover)
Chad Coburn — 401(Brunswick)
Georgette Scott - Stormwater
Joanne Steenhuis - 401(NCDOT-Brunswick, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender)
Wildlife Resources:
LPO:
Fax Distribution:
Maria Dunn (WARO) 7
Permittee #: Agent#

q_sLS �h �52

Which species are covered by the SPBO?
• Five species of nesting sea turtle - loggerhead, leatherback, green, hawksbill, and
Kemp's ridley, and loggerhead terrestrial (nesting) critical habitat
• Piping plover and piping plover wintering critical habitat
• Red knot
• Seabeach amaranth
West Indian manatee is not covered by the SPBO, because only beach sand placement activities are
considered. Manatees may be affected by dredging and other in -water activities, which are not covered
by this SPBO. Potential affects to manatees will be considered separately for each individual project.
Sea turtles, when in the water, are under the jurisdiction of National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
The SPBO only addresses activities that may impact nesting sea turtles, their nests and eggs, and
hatchlings as they emerge from the nest and crawl to the sea. NMFS will assess and consult with the
Corps concerning potential impacts to sea turtles in the marine environment.
How will the SPBO expedite the CWA Section 404 Permit process?
In most cases, for projects that properly fit within the SPBO approach, agreement that the Corps has met
its ESA Section 7 requirements can be achieved within the 30-day public notice comment period (for
individual permits) or the agency review period (for Regional or Programmatic General Permits). This
review period is much shorter than the current 135-day formal ESA Section 7 consultation period.
What is the new process for Service review and agreement with a proposal to use the SPBO
for a specific proiect?
Regulatory (permitted) projects: The Corps project manager for a specific proposed sand
placement project will evaluate the proposed project to determine if it properly fits within the
programmatic approach. If the Corps determines that the minimization measures, Reasonable
and Prudent Measures, and Terms and Conditions in the SPBO are applicable to the project, then
the Corps will notify the Service of its intent to cover the project using the SPBO, and request
agreement. This notice will typically be provided in the public notice (individual permits) or in. a
request for agency review and comment (RGPs and PGPs). The Service will review the
information and provide a concurrence decision within the timeframe of the respective review
period. If the Service concurs with the Corps that the SPBO will cover the project, then
consultation will be complete for that project. If the Service does not concur, the Corps will
initiate formal consultation for that project.
Civil Works Projects: The Corps will evaluate a specific proposed sand placement project to
determine if it properly fits within the programmatic approach. If the Corps determines that the
minimization measures, Reasonable and Prudent Measures, and Terms and Conditions in the
SPBO, are applicable to the proposed activity, then the Corps will notify the Service in writing
(by letter or email) of its intent to cover the project using the SPBO, and request agreement. The
Service will typically respond to such requests and provide an agreement decision within 30 days
of receipt of the request. If the Service concurs with the Corps that the SPBO will cover the
project, then consultation will be complete for that project. If the Service does not concur, the
Corps will initiate formal consultation for that project or activity.
August 28, 2017

V-"
Date: June 28, 2017 J10Z $ B Nnr
To : All agencies regarding Smith Creek Canal Maintenance Project Y tl ✓ G
Thank you for allowing us to respond to the comments in the letters received from each agency. We
would also like to thank Steve Trowell, Anthony Scarbraugh and Daniel Brinn for meeting onsite around
6/15/17 to discuss alternatives. During the April 2016 scoping meeting we proposed removing spoil to
achieve a 2.4 depth for the length of the drain way. This would bring flow back up to 7650 GPM (gallons
per minute).The original canal depth was 3.5 feet. At this depth the canal would flow 15,000 GPM. At
the end of the scoping meeting we were told to reduce the wet land impact and put breaks in the spoil.
No guidance was given as to how much the impact had to be reduced to receive the permit. All agencies
just said to reduce it. We reduced the width of the spoil to 18 feet by reducing the depth to 2.0 feet
which only gives us 4,500 GPM flow. We put 10 foot breaks in as requested on the 880 feet portion of
the project that does not already have continuous spoil. This reduces the impact from .72 acres to .38
acres. Further reducing spoil removal to reduce area impacted reduces flow to the point that gains
realized would be too small for the expenses incurred. There is only a small increase in expense, if spoil
is placed on site, to double flow because most of the expense incurred is for site prep for spoil removal.
Alternatives discussed 6/15/17 onsite are either unacceptable to the agencies or too expensive to
implement. Other concerns of the agencies are discussed below. We are not trying to pick on any one
agency in our response, it is just that the concerns from DCM covered most all of the other agency's
concern.
The following information addresses DCM agency concerns regarding Smith Creek Canal Maintenance
project:
DCM states that breaks are being proposed for the full 1480 feet, however the breaks are proposed for
the area where there is not a continuous spoil which would be 8 breaks in 880 feet.
DCM is now saying that breaks in the spoil will impact the hydrology of the wet lands, however the
breaks were added to the proposal as requested by Corp of Engineers, CAMA and DWR.
DCM states incorrect information about the amount of land that drains through Smith Creek. If you
include the canal beside Puddin Hill Road as part of the drainage you need to add about 200 acres of
farm land and 200 acres of wood land to the acreage already talked about in this project. Water from
proposed project area now tries to divert that way because that is the only other outlet for the whole
area.
The elevation is around 1' at the lowest area of farm land. Of the 175 acres about 50 to 60 acres are in
the 1' to 2' above range. The rest of the land is 2' to 3' above. Since there is not a lot of elevation
change, it makes the maintenance of this drain way even more critical.
DCM indicated that there are pumps on the property for drainage. There is one pump which flows about
2500 GPM (gallons per mjnute) built by Pungo Machine Shop with one 10 HP single phase electric

Am
motor. Ten HP is as much power as Tideland EMC will put on a circuit because of amperage draw down
on start up. Single phase service cost around $30/month when not in use. Three phase cost around
$100/month when not in use and would cost about $20,000 to get Tideland to run three phase current
to the area needed for hook up from the nearest 3 phase poles. Three phase current would allow a lot
bigger pump and a lot more horse power but it is cost prohibited and not needed if this drain way is
corrected. To put the proper pump sized by NRCS to remove 2" of water per acre In a 24 hour time span,
a pump that flows 15,000 GPM would need to be installed instead of the current pump that flows 2,500
GPM. Total cost of that size project would be in the 60,000 to $80,000 range and would be a lot more
expensive to operate. This only address the issue with the farm land and does nothing for the
homeowners.The current pump is installed to create back pressure on the flood gate to make sure that
it seals and to pull water levels down when tides remain high.
DCM states that gravity drainage is an issue. Gravity drainage is an issue because of the sediment and
debris in the drain way. Since there is only 3' to 4' of drop in the total area impacted, maintaining this
drain way is even more important.
DCM states that the applicant has not made an effort to clear the canal since 2012. Since there was
about $4,500 spent on it in 2012 and the clearing only lasted about 1 year or until the next high water
event. Cost share money is not always available and is used for storm events and not routine
maintenance. Allowing the clearing as proposed in the April 2016 scoping meeting would allow access
and minimize cost. You could do $4,000 of work for $500 or less because of the equipment available to
do the job.
DCM states that by allowing the drain way to be maintained it would allow more salt water on the farm
land. This is another false statement. When storm water inundates the area it can be as much as 2 feet
over the highway around this property and other areas in our community during a storm event or north
eastern. These areas fill up with water coming over the roads as much as 2 feet and when the tides
reverse the road then becomes a dike once the water subsides below the elevation of the road. Then
you are depending on the culverts under the road and the drain ways leading to them to carry the salt
water out. This was the case in Irene when the most damage occurred. When drain ways are not
maintained as this one has not been, the water has more opportunity to super saturate the subsoil, due
to the inability to drain away, which then sterilizes it. We started farming this area in 1996. At that time
there was about 5 acres that was not productive. We started asking for permits to clean this drain wa�
in 1997 when Mr. Terry Moore was working with CAMA. We were able to clean the area that has ! g
continuous spoil around 2005, the area between the Hood gate and the beginning of the proposed yN.lu 0
Had this area been maintained properly, when Irene came through, we could have reduced the �1
impacted area. Sub soils were very dry when Irene came in allowing more high saline water to be
absorbed.
The DCM talks about precedent setting permit for large fills of coastal wetlands, reducing hydraulic
connectivity and water quality issues. If the continuous spoil bank that is already present on the
opposite side of the drain way (and is 2 feet higher than our original proposal at the April 2016 scoping
meeting) were on the side of the ditch that we need to be on to work, we would not be having these
W-.
N X
j

meetings and going through this type of permit process at all. We would be able to purchase a general
permit, allowing 1,000 cubic yards of removal and do the work during the allotted Oct to March time
frame. So talking about the impacts downstream is a mute issue because the work could be done if the
continuous spoil pile that is on the other side of the ditch was 20 feet from where it now sits . The
hydraulic connectivity is not an issue if the original tidal flow ditch is installed via our April 2016 scoping
meeting proposal. That proposal mimics what Is already in place just moved to the south 20 feet across
the ditch.
As for impacting oyster habitat, the closest oyster beds that we know of are 14.8 nautical miles away in
the Sandy Point area. We currently have 20 plus drain ways that are very similar to this one. These 20
plus drain ways have continuous spoil bank that drain either to Smith Creek, Fortescue's Creek, Scranton
Creek, Germanton Bay and Rose Bay. Five of these are within one air mile of planted oyster beds in Rose
Bay, One of these is within 14 mile of planted beds in Germanton Bay. This does not include the drain
ways that other landowners use in the same area.
What should be addressed in this permit is if the economic benefit to the area Is worth the .38 acres of
wetlands disturbed. The 175 acres upstream can generate $175,000/year in gross revenue. Obviously
this varies from year to year and could even be more if someone planted a lot higher valued crop than
we do. This doesn't include the forestry and the home values. This is based on numbers that we have
accomplished in previous years, not exaggerated the way government would explain as 1.75 million
over 10 years to make it sound big. The actual profit to the tenant over a 10 year period is from 5 to
10%. Yes some years are great, but some may lose $20,000 on this same piece of land. In 1999 we lost
about $50,000 on this land. We did not have crop insurance to help out in this situation because at the
time it was more expensive than the potential profit made. Point being there is only $0 to $20,000/year
of potential money to spend on infrastructure, so spending upwards of $200,000 for this project would
be completely unreasonable.
If we do nothing drainage will continue to decline. The amount of land that is currently CRP of the 175
acres will increase. Instead of generating $1,000 plus per acre in the private sector income, it will be
generating about $120 per acre in CRP which Is tax payer money. Actually about $1,120 reverse in
economic growth. It goes from tax generating asset for the government to a liability in consuming tax
dollars that could be used for something else like oyster shell planting.
The DCM letter ends with moving the spoil to high ground and using state program money to do clearing
and snagging again. The $4,000 plus for snag and clear lasted about 1 year at best. The funds used for
snag and clear come from disaster funds so they are not always available and it is not ethical to use
disaster money for routine maintenance.
As for moving the spoil to higher grounds, it can be done if you spend enough money. You would have
to have continuous mats for the 1480 feet plus a good portion of the continuous spoil area between 4N �'IN
proposed site and the flood gate.The continuous spoil area has debris from the ditch under it. This
not make for a very good road bed for hauling. This debris creates channels for water to pass undue J�q�

spoil area creating holes that as soon as heavy vehicles travel across a few times will become impassable
without mats. If we use a conservative figure of 2,500 feet of mats, that equates to 250 mats at 10 feet
per mat and $300 each equals $75,000 plus a track truck that would have to be rented at about $1,000
per day. For estimated 1 week with moving costs of $250 each way totaling $5,500 before labor and fuel
costs. This just starts the process. It does not include additional labor and excavator costs that would at
best quadruple if you have to install and remove mats. We are already at a cost more than our profit for
10 years. Now you have to deal with the spoil In an unwanted area. We realize that by wanting to do this
project it seems we have no concern for the wet lands we are affecting. We feel that the positive effects
of this project far outweigh short term problems. Currently because the drain way is completely filled in
some areas fish and other marine invertebrates do not have access all the way down the drain way to
the flood gate. By clearing this drain way, fish and marine invertebrates will have more access to the
wetlands for spawning in this area. We have heard all of the "potential' impacts by covering the .38
acres of wet land, however, we have not heard the benefits from these agencies. Surely there are
benefits to the habitat when you restore water flow to an area that currently has very little.
In conclusion this farm land, forestry and homeowner area is worth saving. The agencies keep saying
that this a precedent setting permit. That there has not been .38 acres impacted in the whole state. If
this is the case you have done a remarkable job in protecting wetlands. There are hundreds of acres of
farm land lost every year to housing, roads, mitigation and salt water intrusion. The salt water intrusion'
can be reversed over time. That was proven since the 50s after hurricane Hazel which is a bench mark
for saltwater intrusion in this area. If for no other reason the homeowners in this area have a legal right
to drainage as per general statue 156. By not allowing maintenance or making maintenance so expense
that the area cannot afford it, you are saying that .38 acres of wetland are more important than all other
assets upstream.
We have quantified the benefits to the area upstream. Please do so for the .38 acres impacted. There
should be a number far the amount of fish, shrimp, crabs, oysters and wildlife that .38 acres will
support.
Thank you for your patience, time and effort in helping us with this project. We understand that all
points of view need to be considered for the best outcome. We look forward to your response.
Some project costs are estimated because project challenges cannot be truly quantified until work is
performed.
Signature Date �
R. 12rri %!(20

Water Resources
EnvironmentalQuality
May'30, 2017
CERTIFIED MAIL:-7016 0750 006109017150
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Frank Fortescue,
865 Sladesville Road
Scranton, NC27875
Subject: REQUEST FOR,ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Smith Creek Canal Maintenance
Dear Mr. Fortescue:
ROY COOPER
'Governor"
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
DWR'# 17-0555
HYDE County
On May 5, 2017, the Division of Water Resources (Division) received your application dated May 2, 2017,
requesting a 401 Water Quality and Buffer Authorization Certification from the Division for the subject
project. The Division has determined that your application is incomplete and cannot be processed. The
application is on -hold until all of the following information is received:
1. Avoidance and,Minimization:
Please provide moredetails regarding.avoidance and minimization. of 0.38 acres,of coastal and
0.09_acres of 404 wetland impacts for this project. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(f) and (g)]
This Office believes that the proposed' impacts to coastal and 404 wetlands on the plans:as
described can be moved or reconfigured to minimize the impacts. Please revise the plans to
minimizethe impacts or provide a detailed explanation of why this plan forthe activity cannot
be practically accomplished, reduced or reconfigured to better minimize disturbance to the
coastal and 404 wetlands. As part of the narrative, please conduct an' alternative analysis
addressing why this is the preferred methodology compared to other dredging methods
2. Construction Details
Please provide a narrative describing measures (i.e. utilization of matting, silt fence and/or
turbidity curtain) that will be taken to minimize impacts to coastal wetlands, 404 wetlands and/or
waters during the subject project. [15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(6), and (5)(f),15A
NCAC,02B .0221(3), 15A NCAC 02B .0224 (1), and 15A NCAC 02B .0259(8)(b)(iv)]
S. Plan Details for Tar -Pamlico River Riparian Buffer
Please enumerate all riparian buffer impacts on.the site plan and clearly label impacts (Buffer
Impact:l, etc.). The Division recommends highlighting by hatching or shading all impacts areas for
temporary impact areas and permanent impact areas. [15A'NCAC 02B .0259(8)(b)(iv)]
-5>�Nothing Compares "�
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources -Water Quality Regional Opeiretions Section -Washington Regional.Oliice
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, Noah Carolina 27889
252-946-6481

SMITH CREEK CANAL MAINTENANCE
REQUEST FOR,ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Page 2 of 2
Pursuant to 1SA NCAC 02H .0506(f) and (g),15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(1),_(b)(2),, (b)(3), (b)(6), and (6)(0,15A
NCAC 02B .0221(3),15A NCAC 028..0224 (1), and 15A NCAC 025.0259(8)(b)(iv), the.applicant shall furnish
all of the above requested information 'for the: proper consideration of the application. If all of the
requested' information is not received in writing within 30 calendar days ofreceipt of this letter, the Division
will be unable to approve the application and it will be returned. The return of this project will necessitate
reapplication to the Division for approval, including a complete application package and the appropriate
flee.
Please.respond in writing within 30 calendar :days -of receipt of this letter by sending three copies;of.all of
the above requested information to the 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit,1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
NC 27699-1617.
Please be aware that you have no authorization under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act or Tar -Pamlico
Riparian Buffer Rules for this activity and any work: done. within waters of the state and buffer may be a
violation of North Carolina General Statutes. and Administrative Code.
Please contact Anthony Scarbraugh at 252-948-3924 or anthonv.scarbraush'[e-mail] if you have any
.questions or concerns:
Si
gh, Environmental Senior Specialist
Iional Operation Section
Resources, NCDEQ
.cc: Roland Tooley, Tooley Farms, Inc.,,725 Lynnsburg Rd, Scranton, NC 27875
Raleigh Bland, USACE Washington Regulatoryfield Office (via email)
Gregg Bodnar, DCIVI Morehead City
Steve Trowell, DCM WaRO
Samir Dumpor, DEMLR WaRO
DWR WaRO 461 flies
Laserfiche
Filename: 17-0555 Smith Creek Canal Maintenance

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregg Bodnar
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
FROM: David R. Cox '
Habitat Conservation Division ( 1
DATE: May 26, 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Dredge/Fill Permit Application for Frank Fortesque, Hyde County, North
Carolina.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) reviewed the permit
application with regard to impacts on fish and wildlife resources. The project site is located off Puddin
Hill Road (SR 1152) on the channelized headwaters of Smith Creek off the Pungo River near Scranton,
NC. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Coastal Area Management Act
(G.S. 113A-100 through 113A-128), as amended, Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, as
amended, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The applicant proposes to remove alligator weed, woody debris, and sediment by dredging 1480' of the
headwaters of Smith Creek. This area was channelized over 30 years ago and has received no
maintenance to improve water flow except for a 2012 Hyde County snagging event after Hurricane Irene
that was conducted by watercraft. Along 600' of the project area there is a contiguous remnant spoil area
where the excavator would sit and spoil would be placed. The remaining 880' has no spoil area. The
applicant is proposing to place material in a manner to create a spoil berm and equipment road with eight
10' breaks to allow flow. Final water depths within the system are proposed to be -2' NWL, removing
approximately 1098 CY of sediment from the system. Since a significant portion of the project is adjacent
coastal marsh and Section 404 wetlands, the applicant detailed that 816.5 CY of material, filling 0.38 acre
of coastal marsh and 0.09 acre of Section 404 wetlands, would be placed alongside the stream channel. A
state and federal agency scoping meeting was held on April 20, 2106 in the NC Department of
Environmental Quality Washington Regional Office. Since the time of the scoping meeting, the applicant
has reduced the amount of wetland area to be filled from 0.85 acre by narrowing the base of the spoil pile
through design and reduction of total material removed. This area of Smith Creek is classified SC NSW
by the Environmental Management Commission and is subject to the NC Division of Water Resource's
Tar / Pamlico Buffer Rules.
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

CMDF_Frank Fortesque Page 2 May 26, 2017
The NCWRC has reviewed the permit application and has significant concern with the project as
proposed due to the permanent impacts the project will have on wetlands and loss of wildlife habitat. A
variety of wildlife forage, nest, and roost in coastal marshes. Coastal wetland vegetation provides cover
for wildlife and serves as a buffer from the adjacent agricultural areas. Mammals such as the river otter
(Lutra canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor) use this area to forage and
as a protective corridor to traverse from one area to another. Great blue heron (Ardea herodias), black
duck (Anas rubripes), pintail (Anas acuta), and a variety of other wading birds and waterfowl forage on
and among coastal wetland vegetation while numerous song birds including marsh wren (Cistothorus
palustris) and hermit thrushes (Catharus guttatus) depend on these areas to forage, roost, and nest.
Alteration of this habitat would restrict use of this area to species tolerant of disturbance. While we
appreciate the applicant's consideration of agency concerns presented during the April 2016 scoping
meeting and the overall reduction of wetland impacts, we believe the project can further demonstrate
avoidance and minimization of coastal marsh impacts to avoid the significant coastal impacts as
proposed. Please note the following:
The project as proposed is a non -water dependent activity. Water dependent projects include
boating access area or shoreline stabilization, which typically have minimal impacts to coastal
marsh. Due to the importance and function of coastal marsh for fish and wildlife resources the
NCWRC considers the project as proposed to have a significant impact on a resource that can
take years to regenerate naturally. Mitigation for coastal marsh has been unsuccessful and
therefore not offered as an option for this loss per NC Division of Coastal Management rule.
Species currently utilizing this 0.38 -acre marsh will have to find other suitable habitat. Coastal
marshes filter runoff to improve water quality and aquatic habitats, improve shoreline stability,
and provide habitats for numerous terrestrial and avian species. These systems are viewed as
being valuable to a suite of environmental resources.
This proposed project requests to dredge sediment from the headwater system. Dredging will
increase turbidity during material removal and the placement of permanent fill on adjacent
wetlands. These actions directly impact aquatic species in the project area and downstream during
the dredging by impairing respiration as well as lengths of time afterward by removing water
filtering processes and wetland habitats. However, the process of removing woody debris and
alligator weed, like the techniques used in 2012 through a clearing and snagging event or by
spraying, would likely significantly improve flow within the system without the immediate and
long-term permanent impacts to aquatic wildlife species. Additionally, the proposal to dredge the
channel to increase flow should not be expected to be as effective due to the lack of slope and low
elevation of the system. This area has a highwater table, is affected by wind tides, and sits less
than 2' in elevation.
• Matting wetlands during the proposed project would reduce long-term impacts to fish and
wildlife resources. This alternative would allow heavy equipment access to the channel while
removing woody debris and alligator weed and would be considered a temporary impact to
wetland vegetation, hydrology, soil compaction, overall habitat quality.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this permit application and look forward to
further discussion or additional information as it becomes available. If you need further assistance or
additional information, please contact Maria Dunn at [phone] or at maria.dunnCancwildlife.org

entering the northern channel of Smith Creek. The farmland already has tide gates as well as pumps to
move water from the land, thus indicating gravity drainage is an issue that may not be fixed by deeper
canals. The applicant has made no effort to clear the canal via snagging trees and debris from the canal
since 2012. Deeper excavation alone will not address the alligator weed that has intruded the system
which is likely slowing the flow of water and trapping sediment, exacerbating the slow flow of water.
Finally, the natural state of the area may not lend itself to being "well drained" due to the very low
elevation relative to sea level. The wind driven tide in the area normally only ranges a few inches but can
move up to a foot or more depending on wind direction and velocity. During a high water event the water
may not drain no matter the depths of the canals. The project could also have the unintended consequence
of allowing salt water to have a more direct path to the farmed lands leading to crop damages.
Of particular concern with this project is the potential precedent to fill large portions of coastal wetlands
to drain farmlands, which may be marginal to start. In many eastern North Carolina counties, there are a
great deal of coastal and non -coastal wetlands that border the headwaters of streams that were
channelized decades ago before habitat protections were considered. These streams and canals along with
the bordering wetlands are still critical habitat to fisheries resources and critical to healthy waters in the
Pamlico Sound. Allowing this type of development which not only directly fills a large area of wetlands
but is also likely to significantly degrade the wetland habitat in the entire area by reducing hydraulic
connectivity could lead to significantly reduced habitat availability and water quality in the Sounds of
North Carolina. Just this spring many thousands more acres of open water were closed to shellfish
harvesting. The State Notch Carolina is advocating sustainable fisheries such oyster aquaculture which
requires clean waters and projects such as this threaten the quality of habitat and water.
Specifically, this office objects to the fill of 16,668 square feet of coastal wetlands and 3,780 square feet
of transitional 404 wetlands along the channelized headwaters of Smith Creek. If an area of high ground
were used as a spoil placement site, the objection would be withdrawn. In the interest of avoiding and
reducing impacts applicant should first take actions that have minimal negative environmental impact
such as clearing and snagging the canal as well as treating the alligator weed for which state programs
currently exist.
Contact Shane Staples at [phone] or [e-mail] with further questions or
concerns.
State ofNm1h Carolfm 1 rnNtn real Quality I Caestel Management
Washington Office 1943 Washngton Square Mall i Washington, Wrth Caalina 27889
2529466481

Coastal Management
9NV1R0NM9NTAC QUAUTV
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Gregg Bodnar, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
FROM: Shane Staples, DCM Fisheries Resource Specialist
SUBJECT: Frank Foretescue (Tooley Farm Drainage)
DATE: 5/19/17
ROY COOPER
cwffmr
MICHAEL S. REG'AN
5017v wv
BRAXTON Q DAVIS
Wrauar
A North Carolina. Division of Coastal Management (DCM) Fisheries Resource Specialist has reviewed
the subject permit application for proposed actions that impact fish and fish habitats. The proposed project
is to dredge the previously channelized headwaters of Smith Creek, a tributary to the Pungo River, and
place the spoil parallel to the channehzed stream resulting in 20,448 square feet of wetland fill. The
channelized stream is two parallel channels split by a spoil berm created when the original dredge event
occurred several decades ago. The proposed dredge and fill project is in the southern channel measuring
20' wide and 1,480' in length with depths ranging from 0.4' to 2.4'. Some small remnants of a spoil bank
are present in the area proposed to be filled but it has subsided and the area is dominated by coastal
wetlands as well as freshwater wetland species. The channelized stream is currently blocked by many
dead trees and alligator weed, a problem last addressed in 2012 after hurricane Irene. Dead trees continue
to be a problem due to inundation and high soil salinities. The canals drain approximately 175 acres of
farmland.
The project proposes to excavate the southern channel to a depth of -2' at NLW for the project length and
place the spoil on the banks adjacent to the canal in spoil piles 18' wide x 100' in length with 10' gaps
between each spoil pile. This will create a spoil bank or road with 10' breaks for the full 1,480' of the
project. The impacts of the project will include 26,640 square feet of dredge area and fill of 16,668 square
feet of coastal wetlands and 3,780 square feet of transitional 404 wetlands. No mitigation is proposed.
This project will significantly negatively impact habitat and wetlands critical to fisheries habitat in the
area. Therefore, this office objects to the project as proposed. The fill of nearly half an acre of wetlands
adjacent to this channelized headwater of Smith Creek could negatively impact water quality downstream
in the main stem of the creek. The relatively small breaks proposed in a very long spoil bank are likely to
significantly impact the hydrology of wetlands reducing their function and quality. The impacts to the
wetlands in the headwaters could reduce the water quality downstream in Smith Creek which supports a
great deal of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) which in turn provides habitat for blue crabs, speckled
trout, croaker, spot, and shrimp during all life stages.
The applicant has not demonstrated that excavation of the channelized stream will result in better
drainage for the 175 acres of land most of which sits below 2' in elevation. Only a portion of the land is
drained through the southern channel and another portion drains to a ditch along Puddin' Hill Road before
State of North Carolina I. ErndonmentalQuality I:CoastatManagenent
Washington Office 1943 Washington Squa tiMail I Washington;.Nanh:Carulh,a27889
252946.6481

ROY COOPER
Governor
RECFIVE[T
MICHAEL S. REGAN
WY 02 261Y Secretary
Coastal Management
ENWRONMENTAL OUALrty DCM-Fisheries BRAXTON C. DAVIS
WARP Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Shane Staples
Division of Coastal Management
943 Washington Sq. Mall
FROM: Greg Bodnar Respond to Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator Morehead City Office
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE: 2 May 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
APPLICANT: Frank Fortesque
PROJECT LOCATION: Project site is located off SR 1152, Puddin Hill Road, on the channelized headwaters of
Smith Creek off the Pungo River near Scranton in Hyde County, North Carolina.
PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant proposes to undertake maintenance excavation of the channelized headwaters
of Smith Creek.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 22 May 2017.
Please contact Steve Trowell at 252-948-3854, if you have any questions regarding the proposed project. When
appropriate, in depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the attached
comme ts.
AY
Signed Date
Idot ing Compares'"
S as ol�aA.CrNim:Cmi,enwesa]Qaatip"Ceun]?fa,yS f
9J3tt'whie�ron Sewn \],a; R'a�AinSan,�C 27359
2529a661S1

PAT MCCRORY
Oo,a,.r
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretury
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregg Bodnar, Major Permits Processing Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
FROM: Rachel Love-Adrick, District Planner, -
Division of Coastal Management �( ��
SUBJECT: Major Permit Request by Frank Fortesque
DATE: May 5, 2017
BRAXTON DAVIS
Oircctor
Consistency Determination: The request is consistent with/not in conflict with the 2008 Hyde County
CAMA Core Land Use Plan certified by the CRC on March 28, 2008.
Project Overview: The applicant is proposing to undertake maintenance excavation of channelized
headwaters of Smith Creek off the Pungo River near Scranton in Hyde County, North Carolina. Spoil from
the dredging will be placed along the canal bank.
The canal subject to maintenance excavation is 20' wide and 1,480' long. Smith Creek is designated as
Inland Waters by the Wildlife Resource Commission and SC/NSW by the Environmental Management
Commission. There are coastal wetlands and 404 wetlands in the project area. A review of habitat, and
cultural or archaeological resources was not provided.
Anticipated impacts resulting from this project are expected to include some localized short term
turbidity. The total disturbed area is 51,768 ft2 (1.2 acres). Dredging activities will excavate 26,640 ft2 of
non -vegetated wetlands canal bottom, and fill 16,668 Coastal March and 3,780 ft2 transitional 404
wetlands, and 4,680 ft2 of other uplands.
Basis for Determination:
The project site is in Hyde County and is subject to the 2008 Hyde County CAMA Core Land Use Plan.
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates the project site as Vacant/Open Space and all AECs as
"Unbuildable Land", which limits development to 15A NCAC 7H use standards.
Economic Development:
1.122, pg. 216: "in order to support eco-tourism and provide a solid foundation for overall economic
development, Hyde County will":...
• "Request that all sand and dredge spoil materials be stockpiled".
-^-'"Nothing Gompares_-�_
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Managemeat
400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 908-28081252-247-3330 (fax)

CoastalMaiagement
{NVIROMMENTAL WAUTV
MEMORANDUM
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
TO: Racheal Love-Adrick
District Planner
Division of Coastal Management
FROM: Greg Bodnar Respond to Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator Morehead City Office
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE: 2 May 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
APPLICANT: Frank Fortesque
PROJECT LOCATION: Project site is located off SR 1152, Puddin Hill Road, on the channelized headwaters of
Smith Creek off the Pungo River near Scranton in Hyde County, North Carolina.
PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant proposes to undertake maintenance excavation of the channelized headwaters
of Smith Creek.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 22 May 2017.
Please contact Steve Trowell at 252-948-3854, if you have any questions regarding the proposed project. When
appropriate, in depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY —7)'— This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the attached
ts.
Signed
LQ Z�—
Date MAW S 2<91 9—
/'Nothing Compares'"
911Wnh" aSpun%1&0 %6bwjMANe2?SW
:32W6ri1
JU13 OHW -WOQ
[101 f 0 AVA
03AI303H

ROY COOPER
r�mrmm
CoastalManagement
GNVIRONMUNTAL GUALITY
To:
Doug Huggett
From:
Steve Trowe115�
Through:
Jonathan Howell "�-
Date:
8 September 2017
Subject:
Major. CAMA/Dredge
Tooley
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Stt,afnry'
BRAXTON DAVIS
Direrxnr
and Fill permit application for Frank Fortesque c/o Ray
The purpose of this memo is to provide comments and a recommendation concerning the Major
CAMA/Dredge and Fill permit application submitted on behalf of Mr. Frank Fortesque (property
owner) by a local farmer, Mr. Ray Tooley, for a proposed agricultural drainage project located off
SR 1152, Puddin Hill Road, on the channelized headwaters of Smith Creek off the Pungo River
near Scranton in Hyde County, North Carolina. Mr. Tooley rents the cropland (f175 acres) from
Mr. Fortesque.
A scoping meeting was held at the Washington Regional Office on 20 April 2017. The first
proposal was to undertake maintenance excavation with the resultant spoil material being placed
in'a continuous pile 'adjacent to the south side of the existing double channelization. All trees
growing on existing subsided remnant spoil would be cut and buried. A "tidal ditch" on the south
side of the spoil area was proposed to maintain "tidal flow" to the marsh, which would. be cut off
from the surface flow of the existing canal. The purpose of burying the trees was to prevent their
entry into drainage canal. Once excavated, the continuous spoil pile would be graded into a road
to be used for access during future maintenance events. Comments from the regulatory agencies
during the meeting focused primarily on reducing the wetland impacts by eliminating the "tidal
ditch" and putting breaks in the spoil, as well as avoidance of coastalwetland marsh fill. It was
stated during this meeting that although there was no square footage that could be stated that would
allow the project to be determined permittable, it was apparent the proposed square footage was
not permittable.
After the scoping meeting, the Major CAMA/Dredge and Fill application was submitted with a
reduction in the amount of material to be excavated from the canal and the width of area to contain
the spoil reduced. With these changes the project as proposed would fill 16,680 ftz of marsh and
another 3,780 ftz of transitional wooded 404 wetlands.
As part of the Major CAMA/Dredge and Fill review process, the Division of Water Resources
submitted comments stating wetland impacts needed to be further reduced for the issuance of a
401 Water Quality Certification. Another meeting was held on 7 June 2017 to address these
comments. At this meeting was me, Anthony Scarbraugh with the Division of Water Resources,
the applicant, and Mr. Daniel Brinn, former Hyde County Soil and Water technician now employed
by the county to work on drainage issues. Additional alternatives were discussed to achieve further
avoidance of coastal wetland marsh fill. These altematives included total removal of the trees to
State of North Carolina I Environmerual Quality I Coastal Management
943 Washington Square Mall I Washington, NC 27889
252-946-6491 T

Major CAMA/Dredge and Fill permit application for Frank Fortesque c/o Ray Tooley
8 September 2017
Page Two
prevent them from falling and blocking the canal, digging only the area where water depths had
shoaled to less than a foot and putting the resultant spoil in alternate piles, as well as hauling the
spoil to a highground location by setting up wooden equipment mats for temporary low impact
access. After this meeting, no additional information was discussed relating to this project. A letter
from the applicant dated 28 June 2017 was received in the Washington Regional Office in which
the applicant appears unwilling to undertake any additional further effort to reduce the filling of
wetlands. Therefore, Staff in the Washington Regional Office recommend denial of the requested
Major CAMA Dredge and Fill permit based on the following rules.
Coastal Wetland AEC 7H.0205(c) and (d) state:
(c)Management Objective. It is the objective of the Coastal Resources Commission to conserve
and manage coastal wetlands so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological, social,
economic and aesthetic values, and to coordinate and establish a management system capable
of conserving and utilizing coastal wetlands as a natural resource necessmy to the functioning
of the entire estuarine system.
(d) Use Standards. Suitable land uses are those consistent with the management objective in
this Rule. First priority of use shall be allocated to the conservation of existing coastal
wetlands. Secondary priority of coastal wetland use shall be given to those types of
development activities that require water access and cannot function elsewhere.
Unacceptable land uses include restaurants, businesses, residences, apartments, motels, hotels,
trailer parks, parking lots, private roads, highways, and factories. Acceptable land uses include
utility easements, fishing piers, docks, wildlife habitat management activities, and agricultural
uses such as farming and forestry drainage as permitted under North Carolina's Dredge and
Fill Law, G.S. 113-229, or applicable local, state, and federal laws.
In every instance, the particular location, use, and design characteristics shall be in accord
with the general use standards for coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, and public trust areas
described in Rule .0208 of this Section.
Although agricultural drainage ditches are mentioned specifically as an allowable development
activity in 7H.0205(d), alternatives exist to improve gravity flow drainage that will avoid or
significantly reduce the amount of coastal wetland fill. The channelization of a natural stream
through coastal wetlands marsh is not unique in Hyde County. The croplands adjacent to these
natural/modified streams are typically the lowest in elevation and have become increasingly more
difficult to drain by gravity flow which is evident from the number of meetings DCM staff has
attended in the last couple of years related to the pumping of agricultural drainage. To potentially
improve gravity flow by filling or excavating 16,680 R2 coastal wetland public trust resources
while avoiding other measures to reduce sediment inflow will contribute to a significant loss of
coastal wetlands marsh and primary productivity of "a natural resource necessary to the
functioning of the entire Estuarine System" as stated in 7H .0205(c).
Sine ofNonh Cuolim I Eov000memal Quality I CoaW Mmuge=t
963 Wmhngtm Squve Mdl I Wuhingion, NC 27U9
252-966-6481 T

Major CAMA/Dredge and Fill permit application for Frank Fortesque c/o Ray Tooley
8 September 2017
Page Three
Public Trust Areas AEC 7H.0207(c) and (d) state:
(c) Management Objective. To protect public rights for navigation and recreation and to
conserve and manage the public trust areas so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological,
economic and aesthetic value.
(d) Use Standards. Acceptable uses shall be those consistent with the management objectives in
Paragraph (c) of this Rule. In the absence of overridingpublic benefit, any use which
jeopardizes the capability of the waters to be used by the public for navigation or other public
trust rights which the public may be found to have in these areas shall not be allowed The
development of navigational channels or drainage ditches, the use of bulkheads to prevent
erosion, and the building of piers, wharfs, or marinas are examples of uses that may be
acceptable within public trust areas, provided that such uses shall not be detrimental to the
public trust rights and the biological and physical functions of the estuary. Projects which
would directly or indirectly block or impair existing navigation channels, increase shoreline
erosion, deposit spoils below normal high water, cause adverse water circulation patterns,
violate water quality standards, or cause degradation of shel ash waters are considered
incompatible with the management policies of public trust areas. In every instance, the
particular location, use, and design characteristics shall be in accord with the general use
standards for coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, andpublic trust areas.
The use standards for Public Trust Areas in 15A NCAC 07H .0207(d) states, "acceptable uses shall
be those consistent with the management objectives in in Paragraph (c) of this rule" which states
in part, "to conserve and manage the public trust areas so as to safeguard and perpetuate their
biological, economic and aesthetic value." This project design would result in the loss in primary
productivity from the filling of Coastal Wetlands in the Estuarine System and would be
"detrimental" to "the biological and physical functions of the estuary".
7H .0208(a)(2) states in part:
Before being granted a permit, the CRC or local permitting authority shall find that the
applicant has complied with the following standards:
(A)The location, design, and need for development, as well as the construction activities
involved shall be consistent with the management objective of the Estuarine and
Ocean System AEC (Rule .0203 of this subchapter) and shall be sited and designed to
avoid significant adverse impacts upon the productivity and biologic integrity of
coastal wetlands, shellfish beds, submerged aquatic vegetation as defined by the
Marine Fisheries Commission, and spawning and nursery areas, -
This project as designed will have significant adverse impacts upon the productivity and biologic
integrity of Coastal Wetlands.
State of North Casulme I Environmental Qoahly I Coastal MmWement
943 Wahington Sgma Mall I Washington, NC 27899
252-946-6431 T

Major CAMA/Dredge and Fill permit application for Frank Fortesque c/o Ray Tooley
8 September 2017
Page Four
7H .0208(b)(B) Specific Use Standards states:
All dredged material shall be confined landward of regularly and irregularly flooded coastal
wetlands and stabilized to prevent entry of sediments into the adjacent water bodies or coastal
wetlands.
The dredged material from this proposed project is to be placed on Coastal Wetlands and is
therefore inconsistent with this rule.
7H .0208(b)(C) states in part:
Dredged material from maintenance of channels and canals through irregularly flooded wetlands
shall be placed on non -wetland areas, remnant spoil piles, or disposed of by a -method having no
significant, long-term wetland impacts. Under no circumstances shall dredged material be placed
on regularly flooded wetlands.
The dredged material from this proposed project is to be placed on Coastal Wetlands and is
therefore inconsistent with this rule.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Qmliry I Coastal Management
943 Washington Square Mall I Washington, NC 27889
252-946-6481 T

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL AND PROCESSING RECORD
1) APPLICANT: FrankFortesgae County: Hyde
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Project site is located off SR 1152, Paddin Hill Road, on the channelized headwaters
of Smith Creek off the Pungo River near Scranton in Hyde County, North Carolina.
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED COMPLETE BY FIELD: 19 April 2017
FIELD RECOMMENDATION: Attached: NO To Be Forwarded: YES
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: Attached: NO To Be Forwarded: YES
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Steve Trowell/ DISTRICT OFFICE: Washington
DISTRICT MANAGER REVIEW:
B) DATE RECEIVED BY MAJOR PERMITS UNIT: FEE RECD: $ 400.00 (60/40)
PUBLIC NOTICE REC'D: END OF NOTICE DATE:
ADJ. RIP. PROP NOTICES RECD: DEED RECD:
APPLICATION ASSI�I�D TO: ON:
C) 75 DAY DEADLI11QE77 '11 50 DAY DEADLINE:
MAIL OUT DATE:
FEDERAL DUE DATE:
STATE DUE DATE:
FED COMMEN 'S RECD:
PERMIT FINAL ACTION: ISSUE DENY DRAFT
AGENCY
DATE
COMMENTS
RETURNED
OBJECTION
S:
YES NO
NOTES
Coastal Management - Regional Representative
&r7
%c
�5e e4q4q . r
Coastal Management - LUP Consistency
Division of Community Assistance
Land Quality Section
Division of Water Quality 401
n
tM4D
Storm Water Management (DWQ)
1 1
(r'-d
State Property Office
11111
Division of Archives & History
Division of Environmental Health
7 1-1h
Division of Highways
Wildlife Resources Commission
5 l4 1
('pMrw
Local Permit Office
Division of Marine Fisheries
Corps of Engineers
QNS 5Iz�1� �

WaterResourres
ENVIR04MENIAL OVAI.IIY
August 24, 2017
CERTIFIED MAIL: 7008 13000000 1124 4511
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Frank Fortescue
865 Sladesville Road
Scranton, NC 27875
ROY COOPER
MICHAEL S. RIiGAN
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
DWR N 17-0555
Hyde County
Subject: DENIAL OF 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION and BUFFER AUTHORIZATION
Smith Creek Canal Maintenance
Dear Mr. Fortesque:
On May 5, 2017, the Division of Water Resources (Division) received your application dated May
2, 2017, requesting a 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Authorization Certificate from the
Division for the subject project, with subsequent information received on June 28, 2017.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H .0506, a certification shall be issued when the Director determines that
water quality standards are met, including protection of existing uses. The project has not met
the following requirements:
• 15A NCAC O2H .0506(d)(1)(A)
"has no practical alternative as described in Paragraph (f) of this Rule"'
There are practical alternatives available utilizing other construction methodologies that
would avoid or result in less adverse impact to coastal wetlands (Class SWL).
15A NCAC 02H .0506(c)(2)
"does not result in the degradation of groundwater or surface waters"
There would be a degradation of surface waters as the wetland system proposed to be
impacted is a riparian wetland, which serves as a buffer to protect water quality of Smith
Creek.
1 15A NCAC 02H .0506(f) states "A lack of procticat alternotives maybe shown by demonstroting that considering
the potentiol for a reduction in size, configuration or density of the proposed activity and all alternative designs the
basic project purpose cannot be practically accomplished in o manner which would avoid or result in less adverse
impact to surface waters or wetlands."
Saaeot'Nonh Camlim I Fnviroarnendl Quality i Wata Resources
1617 Mail Semi" Center I Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300
ii.::.i1i:i:.._'::..•�:?S".i._I'Wi:"u�.iki�2r3�ne3fii:9PxdtF�;f�'�SwR9k13iN179!A7'r3A'6Jfra.�ITB r•

SMITH CREEK CANAL MAINTENANCE
DWR# 17.0555
401 WQC Denial
Page 2 of 3
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0259(8), a buffer authorization certificate shall be granted upon a "no
practical alternatives' determination. The project has not met the following requirements:
15A NCAC 02B .0259(8)(a)(1)
"The basic project purpose cannot be practically accomplished in a manner that would
better minimize disturbance, preserve aquatic life and habitat, and protect water quality."
The basic project purpose can be practically accomplished by utilizing other construction
methodologies that would avoid or result in less adverse impact to the riparian buffer.
15A NCAC 02B .0259(8)(a)(11)
"The use cannot practically be reduced in size or density, reconfigured or redesigned to
better minimize disturbance, preserve aquatic life and habitat, and protect water quality."
The use can be practically reconfigured or redesigned by utilizing other construction
methodologies that would avoid or result in less adverse impact to the riparian buffer.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0507(e), your application for a 4D1 Water Quality Certification is
hereby denied. In accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0259(8)(b), your application for a Tar -Pamlico
Buffer Authorization Certificate is also hereby denied.
This decision can be contested as provided in General Statute 150B by filing a written petition for
an administrative hearing to the Office of Administrative Hearings (hereby known as OAH) within
sixty (60) calendar days.
A petition form may be obtained from the OAH at htto://www.ncoah.com/ or by calling the OAH
Clerk's Office at [phone] for information. A petition is considered filed when the original
and one (1) copy along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received in the OAH during normal
office hours (Monday through Friday between 8:00am and 5:00pm, excluding official state
holidays).
The petition may be faxed to the OAH at [phone], provided the original and one copy of
the petition along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received bythe OAH within five (5) business
days following the faxed transmission.
Mailing address for the OAH:
If sending via US Postal Service:
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
If sending via delivery service (UPS,
Fedfx, etc):
Office of Administrative Hearings
1711 New Hope Church Road
Raleigh, NC 27609-6285

SMITH CREEK CANAL MAINTENANCE
DW R# 17-0555
401 WQC Denial
Page 3 of 3
One (1) copy of the petition must also be served to DEQ:
William F. Lane, General Counsel
Department of Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
This completes the review of the Division under section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Please be
aware that you have no authorization under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for this activity
and any work done within waters of the state would be a violation of North Carolina General
Statutes and Administrative Code. Contact Anthony Scarbraugh at 252-948-3924 or
[e-mail] or Karen Higgins at 919-807-6360 or [e-mail]
if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
S. Jay Zimmerman, Director
Division of Water Resources
cc: Roland Tooley, Tooley Farms, Inc., 725 Lynnsburg Rd, Scranton, NC 27875
Raleigh Bland, USACE Washington Regulatory Field Office (via email)
Todd Bowers, EPA (via email)
Doug Huggett, DCM Morehead City (via email)
Steve Trowell, DCM WaRO
DWR WaRO 401 file
Laserfiche

HEM
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 5, 2017
Mr. Frank Fortescue
865 Sladesville Rd.
Scranton, NC 27875
ROY COOPER
Gommor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
ove
SUBJECT: Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Permit Application Submittal for Frank
Fortescue in Hyde County
Dear Mr. Fortescue:
This letter is in response to the above referenced CAMA permit application, which was accepted
as complete by the Division's Washington office on April 19, 2017. Processing of the application
is ongoing. However, it has been determined that additional information will be required prior to
the Division taking final action on your application. These required items are summarized below:
1) In accordance with 15A NCAC 07H.0208(a)(2)(B), it is the policy of this Division that,
prior to taking final action on a project of this nature, a Water Quality Certification for
the proposed development must first be approved by the Division of Water Resources
(DWR). Based upon the attached hold for additional information from the DWR dated
May 30, 2017, it appears as though additional information from the applicant will be
required before a final decision on issuance of a Water Quality Certification can be made.
2) NC Wildlife Resources Commission and Division of Coastal Management Fisheries
Resource Specialist have submitted concerns related to avoidance and minimization of
the proposed wetland fill.
Therefore, it is necessary that processing of your permit application be placed in abeyance until
such time as the resource concerns are satisfied, the required information is provided to the
DWR, a Water Quality Certification is issued for the project, and a copy of the approval supplied
to this office.
State of North Carolina I Environmettal Quality l Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28W
2528082808

If you have any questions concerning these matters, please feel free to contact me by telephone
at [phone] extension 215, or by email at sr'ee .bg odnarna,ncdenr.eov.
Sincerely,
Division of Coastal Management
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
CC:
Roland Tooley, Tooley Farms, Inc. (725 Lynnsburg Rd. Scranton, NC 27875)
Anthony Scarbraugh, DWR WaRO (via email)
Raleigh Bland, USACE Washington Regulatory Field Office (via email)
Samir Durnpor, DEMLR WaRO (via email)
Washington DCM
State ofNorthcarotna I Env1mwenta1Qua1*10oasta!Management
Morehead Crty Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
2528082808

�i
Coastal Management .
ENVIRONMENTAL OeALIYY
ROY'COOPER
Governor
MICEIAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
MEMORANDUM RECEIVED
MAY 0 2 2017
TO: Mr. Cliff Whitfield BY:
Public Water Supply Section
NCDENR WARO
FROM: Greg Bodnar Respond to Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator Morehead City Office
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE: 2 May 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
APPLICANT: Frank Fortesque
PROJECT LOCATION: Project site is located off SR 1152, Puddin Hill Road, on the channelized headwaters of
Smith Creek off the Pungo River near Scranton in Hyde County, North Carolina.
PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant proposes to undertake maintenance excavation of the channelized headwaters
of Smith Creek.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 22 May 2017.
Please oontact'Sieve Trowell at 252=949-3854, if you have any questions regarding the proposed project. When
appropriate; in depth comments with supporting data ere requested.
REPLY This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
7 This office has no comment on the proposed project..
This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated.. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
Signed C&'r
Date Ile z
/'Not ing Compares"
5 um oNarh Cuui" I Emir aal Q01uw Itmw\Arwj l
941 WuhiM"54=4 \ha! Whihinemn.Nc 37889
IJI9166181

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY
TO:
V� RAY
Shellfish
Sanitation i
Wata�Q�ali:YSo �`�eatione!
Mr. Shannon Jenkins
NCDENR
Division of Environmental Health
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
FROM: Greg Bodnar Respond to Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator Morehead City Office
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE: 2 May 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
APPLICANT: Frank Fortesque
PROJECT LOCATION: Project site is located off SR 1152, Puddin Hill Road, on the channelized headwaters of
Smith Creek off the Pungo River near Scranton in Hyde County, North Carolina.
PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant proposes to undertake maintenance excavation of the channelized headwaters
of Smith Creek.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 22 May 2017.
Please contact Steve Trowell at 252-948-3854, if you have any questions regarding the proposed project. When
appropriate, in depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
l l Signed ,:3ha "41 7 b Y lnu P A Date rj 15If
111
for : Skot.vinw'72nkIA5
RECEIVED
/•Nothing Compares'" MAY 10 2017
serorx�nc,.am, e.do®saQ.aso• co.olu,.Rs«*,.�I
ssla•„>,w,eesa...wp n•„n�nM+_�c:'i»
)59466431 DCM- MHD CITY

Coastal Management
[NVIRONNGNTAL QUALITY
MEMORANDUM
RECEIVED
MAY 0 4 2017
DOA
STATE PROPERTY
OFFICE
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
TO: Mr. Tim Walton
Director
State Property Office
FROM: Greg Bodnar Respond to Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator Morehead City Office
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE: 2 May 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
APPLICANT: Frank Fortesque
PROJECT LOCATION: Project site is located off SR 1152, Puddin Hill Road, on the channelized headwaters of
Smith Creek off the Pungo River near Scranton in Hyde County, North Carolina.
PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant proposes to undertake maintenance excavation of the channelized headwaters
of Smith Creek.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 22 May 2017.
Please contact Steve Trowell at 252-948-3854, if you have any questions regarding the proposed project. When
appropriate, in depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the attached
commet fs
Signed
Date =W—///�/
/'Nothing Compares"
f er e(\awcalaML: e...,oe..at 0+�r carm?41w.m.m
94SWuhn"Squ )bU RLIlryaL\C 2766
232 %66N1
RECEIVED
MAY 15 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

Coastal Management
AHVIRONwNTAL OUAurY
MEMORANDUM
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
TO: Jerry Hardison
Hyde County Building Inspector
FROM: Greg Bodnar Respond to Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator Morehead City Office
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE: 2 May 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
APPLICANT: Frank Fortesque
PROJECT LOCATION: Project site is located off SR 1152, Puddin Hill Road, on the channelized headwaters of
Smith Creek off the Pungo River near Scranton in Hyde County, North Carolina.
PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant proposes to undertake maintenance excavation of the channelized headwaters
of Smith Creek.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 22 May 2017.
Please contact Steve Trowell at 252-948-3854, if you have any questions regarding the proposed project. When
appropriate, in depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY � This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the attached
c mn ents.
Signed Date //
Nothing Compares. RECEIVED
S"*(NaaCrdea Zft%i mNalQaaliy cmulhuftl aaet MAY 0 8 2017
943 WubmMSgw Mao I i11h.XC 2780
252/6 H 9Il
DCM- MHD CITY

Bodnar, Gregg
From: Thorpe, Roger
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 3:53 PM
To: Bodnar, Gregg
Subject: CAMA Application - Frank Fortesque - Maintenance Excavation of Smith Creek Hyde
County
Gregg
The subject project will not require a State stormwater permit.
Roger
Roger K. Thorpe
Environmental Engineer
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
252-948-3923 office
[e-mail]
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
!-'�'Nothing Compares.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records taw and may be disclosed to third parties.

Coastal "anajemenr
{ W."PONMENTAL 011AU TY
MEMORANDUM
TOi Ms. Renee Gledhill -Early.
NC Department of Cultural Resources
Archives & History Building
FROM, ' Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator,-'
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE: 2 May 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Application: Review
Z017
IOU
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretory
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
, Director
Respond to Greg Bodnar
Morehead City Office
APPLICANT: Frank Fortesque�
PROJECT LOCATION: Project site is located off SR 1152, Puddin Hill Road, on the channelized headwaters of
Smith Creek off the Pungo River near Scranton in Hyde County; North Carolina. "
PROPOSED; PROJECT: Applicant proposes to undertake maintenance excavation, of the channelized headwaters
of Smith Creek.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 22 May 2017.
Please contact Steve Trowell at 252-948-3854, if you have any questions regarding the proposed project. When
appropriate, hi depth comments with supporting data are requested'.
REPLY This officebas no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed. project only -if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
Sighed Q i �� Q iy' L-'c, I Date
. V
Nothing Ct-tnpares"
sus of\.cfh cmai.4 tfnttrte tua: Q,u(y lew u:%Iaa .-w
94$lS"1=4t sgwartfaat WJth�.00.::e 21725
23291b 64<t
MAY��2617

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Lee Padrick
Division of Community Assistance
FROM: Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing C oordinator
Coastal Management Division
400 C A
ROY'COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
Respond to Greg Bodnar
Morehead City Office
ommerce venue
Morehead City NC 28557
V
DATE: 2 May 2017
t SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
'APPLICANT: Frank Fortesque
PROJECT LOCATION: Project site is located off SR 1152, Puddin Hill Road, on the channelized headwaters of
Smith Creek off the Pungo River near Scranton in Hyde County, North Carolina.
PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant proposes to undertake maintenance excavation of the channelized headwaters
of Smith Creek.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 22 May 2017.
Please contact Steve Trowell. at 252-948-3854, if you have any questions regarding the proposed project. When
appropriate,' in depth comments with supporting data are requested.
i
REPLY This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
xThis office approves.of the proposed project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the attached
t:
�//'; comments.
:-.Signed..�l Date S^
a � I
L
No Compares
t r' ti' I '' Sm¢o[\eIACuBiaalEmi�ormleal Q•»IiNICwIIi>lar�rnv.nl
971R'yLiatoeS¢w294664E1 Ian,\C:.SS9
y Y {A }i S• C 'r4 J Yi

Bodnar, Gregg
From:
Scarbraugh, Anthony
Sent:
Thursday, May 25, 2017 3:51 PM
To:
Bodnar, Gregg
Cc:
Trowell, Steve
Subject:
Frank Fortesque Project
Gregg,
I was unable to complete my review today and will be out of the office tomorrow. I will be issuing a project hold on
Tuesday for avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. In addition, there will be a request for an alternative
analysis.
Thanks,
Anthony Scarbraugh
Environmental Senior Specialist
Division of Water Resources — Water Quality Regional Operations
Department of Environmental Quality
252 948 3924 office
[e-mail]
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Coastal Managerimem
ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY
TO:
MEMORANDUM
Mr. Anthony Scarbraugh
DWR Water Quality Programs
943 Washington Regional Office
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
RECEIVEDINCDENRIDWR Director
MAY 0,2 2017 �01- OOyd
Water Quality Regional
operations Section
Washington Regional Office
FROM: Greg Bodnar Respond to Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator Morehead City Office
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE: 2 May 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
APPLICANT: Frank Fortesque
PROJECT LOCATION: Project site is located off SR 1152, Puddin Hill Road, on the channelized headwaters of
Smith Creek off the Forgo. River near Scranton in Hyde County, North Carolina.
PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant proposes to undertake maintenance excavation of the channe.lized headwaters
of Smith Creek.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 22 May 2017.
Please contact Steve Trowell at 252-948-3854, if you have any questions regarding the proposed project. When
appropriate, in depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
Signed
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
J This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the
comments.
proposed project for reasons described in the attached
Date_ t] —%
Nothing Compares'"
Suu of\odtCudw Irn�im d&I Qjj!iW I Cowl%IAN91mmi
9�91Vufivt tm9Qou� WU I%%' .4ins".\C 27S99
:S:9i66J91

i
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
APPLICANT'S NAME: Frank Fortesque
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Project site is located off SR 1152, Puddin Hill Road, on the channelized
headwaters of Smith Creek off the Pungo River near Scranton in Hyde County, North Carolina.
Photo Index - 2006:N/A 2000:N/A 1995:N/A
Lat Long Coordinates: 35°29'01.01" N, 76°28' 10.47 W
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/Dredge and Fill
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit — 28 February 2017
Was Applicant Present - Yes
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received — 19 April 2017
Office - Washington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Hyde County
Land Classification From LUP — Rural
(B) AEC(s) Involved: PTA, PTS, CW
(D) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Agriculture Drainage
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - None.
Planned -None
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - Drainage canal, culvert pipe with tide gate, two electric drainage
pumps
Planned — Maintenance excavation of drainage canal.
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: Unknown
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
DREDGED F11.1.F.11 nTUFu
8.
(A) Vegetated Wetlands
16,668ft2 Coastal Marsh
3,780ft2 transitional 404
wetland
(B) Non -Vegetated Wetlands
26,640 ft2
Canal bottom
(C) Other
4,680 ft2
Uplands
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 51,768 ft2 (1.2 acres)
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F) Water Classification: SC NSW
Open: NO
PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to undertake maintenance excavation of the channelized
headwaters of Smith Creek.
MAY 0 4 2017
DCAA- VHD CITY

Frank Fortesque
Smith Creek
Hyde County
Project Setting
The project site is located off SR 1152, Puddin Hill Road, at the channelized head waters
of Smith Creek off the Pungo River near Scranton, in Hyde County, North Carolina. This project
is requested by the farmer that tends the t 175 acres of land that drains through this channelization,
Mr. Ray Tooley of Tooley Farms Inc. Frank Fortesque is the landowner of the channelized section
where Mr. Tooley wishes to undertake maintenance excavation. Mr. Tooley presented this
maintenance excavation project at a scoping meeting held in the Washington Regional Office on
20 April 2016.
The project site is at the head of Smith Creek where the double canals are located. The
project area is the southern canal. The southern canal is 20' wide and 1,480' long. The double
canals were excavated beginning on the upstream end in transitional wetlands from a wetland
characterized by scrub shrub woody vegetation like wax myrtle, salt fedder bush, red cedar and
scattered pine to a wetland characterized as a high marsh vegetated with salt grass, salt meadow
hay, giant cordgrass, black needlerush and three square. Phragmites is dense in this area on the
landward end of this transitional wetland scrub shrub wetland. Most of the spoil from the double
canals was placed between them although there is evidence that spoil was also placed adjacent the
southern canal. This evidence is supported by scattered pine trees and red cedar growing on the
remnant spoil. The remnant spoil on the south side of the channel has an elevation that varies due
to subsidence, the volume that was originally placed there and the length of time since the last
spoil deposition event. Judging from the diameter of some of the pine trees, it has been decades
since maintenance excavation has been undertaken and spoil placed on the south side of the
southern canal. A lot of the pine trees on this remnant spoil have died most likely due to the low
ground surface elevation soil hydrology from repeated inundation of the area by wind tides and
the resultant elevated soil salinities. The spoil bank on the southern canal at the downstream end
of the double canal where the Smith Creek channelization starts t3 tall for a distance of ±250'
upstream. There is a culvert with a tide gate at the landward end of this drainage canal as well as
drainage pump. Drainage of the 175 acres is also routed North to a roadside drainage canal
adjacent Puddin Hill Road then back south to the double channelization. There is also a drainage
pump in the drainage canal that leads north before it's intersection with the roadside canal. This
aforementioned pump discharges into a wooded 404 wetland.
Hurricane Irene in fall 2011 toppled dead and living trees into the double canals. There
was a clearing and snagging project that was performed in October 2012 to clear the blockages.
The trees were winched out of the canals onto highground spoil areas were feasible. Since this
work was completed more trees have rotted and collapsed into the canal as well as alligator weed
has pioneered into the canal, solid in some areas bank to bank.
Water depths in the southern canal in the project area are f2.4' below normal water level
(NWL) at the downstream end and shallow up as you move upstream. Water depths i� al,e
MAY 0 4 2017
CUNT- P."HD CITY

Frank Fortesque
Smith Creek
Hyde County
Page Two
range from 2.4' to 0.4' and average f1'. The canal subject of this proposed project is 20.' wide
and the project area is 1,480' long. Smith Creek is designated as Inland Waters by the Wildlife
Resource Commission, and SC NSW by the Environmental Management Commission.
Project Description
Mr. Ray Tooley proposes to undertake maintenance excavation of the southern canal on
Mr. Frank Fortesque's property at the head of Smith Creek. The proposal is to walk an excavator
down the remnant spoil bank adjacent the southern canal supported by wooden equipment mats
and trees cut from the bank. Trees cut from the bank are to be placed parallel to the canal off 18'
from the edge of the bank to assist in containing the spoil. Trees cut from the bank that are not
needed to contain spoil will be placed perpendicular to the canal to help support the excavator.
Once the excavator reaches the downstream end completing preparation of the canal bank for spoil
placement, the excavator will began removing a foot of material from the canal bottom placing the
material on the canal bank working and moving back upstream. The spoil material will be placed
mainly in Coastal Wetland marsh with a 10' wide break in the spoil pile every 100'. The final
project depth in the southern canal will be minus 2' below NWL.
Anticipated Impacts
The project as proposed will result in the filling of 16,668 ftz (0.38 acres) of Coastal
Wetland marsh and 3,780 ftz scrub shrub wetlands for a total of 20,448 (0.47 acres) of wetland fill.
Phragmites sp. encroach into the Coastal Wetland marsh from the disturb areas filled with spoil
from the maintenance excavation. There will be some localized short term turbidity during
excavation activities.
Steve Trowell — Washington Regional Office — 25 April 2017
RECEIVED
MAY 0 4 2017
DUA- C.'.�-i°'fC,iy

IL
Smith Creek Project
Problem
Drain way for approximately 175 acres of farmland, 14 homes and approximately 180 acres of woodland
is restricted by falling dead trees, alligator weed and sediment. Significant crop damage is occurring
during average rain fall because of the restricted drain way. No maintenance has been done on the area
in 30 plus years other than Hyde County Soil and Water Conservation District snag and clear in 2012.
Objective
To remove restrictions from the drain way so that profitable forestry and agricultural practices can be
sustained, as well as helping 14 personal residences.
Narrative of Proiect History
Hyde County Soil and Water Conservation funded snag and clearing on the proposed drain way in
October of 2012 after hurricane Irene. Dead trees that occupy both sides of the drain way had fallen
across the drain way which restricted flow. Work was accomplished around December of 2012. Since
then high water events, fallen trees and alligator weed have this area in worse condition than in 2012.
Snag and clearing operations help but are not always available. When the original ditches were installed,
the work was accomplished by hand labor. The spoil was stacked on each side of the ditch. Over time
the spoil area has eroded away. Hyde County Soil and Water Conservation snag and clearing operation is
the only maintenance that has been performed in the past 30 years or longer. Sediment has filled the
drain way so that average water depth is less than 1 foot deep on normal tide. Since 1995 salt water
intrusion has increased dramatically on this farm land. Restricted drain ways keep tidal waters from
exiting farmland which gives dry sub soils more time to absorb high sodium water which sterilizes soils
making them unprofitable and highly erodible.
Descriotion of Proiect
Approximately 18 feet parallel to the drain way will be needed for a spoil area to house the fallen debris,
alligator weed and sediment. Currently different species of trees and shrubs occupy this spoil area. To
contain spoil to this 18 foot area, the occupying trees will be cut and aligned parallel to the drain way on
the landward side of the spoil area. The spoil will be placed between the drain way and containment
trees. Trees that are not needed to contain spoil will be cut and placed perpendicular to drain way
between drain way and parallel containment trees so that the excavator can use them to walk on. No
wetland will have to be crossed for equipment to access except the containment area. Tree alignment
will be accomplished with the excavator on the way in. Debris, alligator weed and sediment removal will
be accomplished on the way out. When finished a broken spoil area will occupy the south side of the
drain way. RCCEIy;D
MAY 0 4 2017
®C,14- �.� F ri C _-,-y

a
Approximately 880 feet of the 1480 feet of total project area will have eight 30 foot tidal flow breaks in
the spoil bank. Six hundred feet of the containment area doesn't require breaks because the spoil bank
is continuous at the present time. This puts a tidal break every 100 feet. The trees that will be placed
perpendicular to the drain way will also provide flow under the spoil bank. As they decay they will
provide a channel for water to penetrate.
On April 20, 2016 a scoping meeting was held with the following agencies: National Marine Fisheries, US
Fish and Wildlife Service, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, NC Division of Coastal Management, US
Army Corp of Engineers, Hyde County Soil and Water, NC Department of Water Resources and NC
Division of Coastal Management.
During this meeting all agencies listed above provided input on the project. This input was used to
modify the project plan from .72 acres of impact to .38 acres of impact. This impact reduction was
accomplished by reducing depth of spoil removal, narrowing the spoil containment area, discarding tidal
flow ditch and adding eight 10 foot spoil breaks. Overall wetland impact has been reduced by 47.3% as a
result of these changes.
RCCEWED
MAY 0 4 2017
©Cr�1- n?FC, 7-y

BON MF-1
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
(last revised 12127/06)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant(Landowner Information
Business Name
Project Name (if applicable)
Smith Creek Canal Maintenance
Applicant 1: First Name
Frank
MI
Last Name
Fortescue
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address
865 Sladesville Rd
PO Box
City
Scranton
State
NC
ZIP
27875
Country
USA
Phone No.
252 - 926 - 5171 ext.
FAX No.
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
Z Agent/Contractor Information
Business Name
Tooley Farms, Inc
Agentl Contractor 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Roland
R
Tooley
Agent! Contractor 2: First Name
MI
Last Name'
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
State
725 Lynnsburg Rd
Scranton
NC
ZIP
Phone No. 1
Phone No. 2
27875
252 - 943 - 5756 ext.
ext.
FAX No.
Contractor #
252 926-6976
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
RLCEML
<Form continues on back>
MAY 0 4 2017
252-808.2808 .. 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoastaimanagement.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple)
Street Address
State Rd. #
Hyde
Sladesville Rd
1152
Subdivision Name
City
State
zip
Scranton
INC
27875 -
Phone No.
Lot No-(s) (if many, affach additional page with list)
- - ext.
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Pungo
Smith Creek
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
❑Natural ®Manmade ❑Unknown
Pamlico Sound
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
❑Yes SNo
work falls within.
4. Site Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
1480
122 acres
c. Size of individual lolls)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
38 acres, 84 acres,
NWL (normal water level)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
1 foot or less ❑NHW or SNWL
e. Vegetation on trait
Pine Tress, Salt grass, Salt fedor bush, Red Cedar, Wax Myrtle,Salt Meadow Hay, Black Needle Rush
f. Manmade features and uses now on tract
Channelized head waters of Smith Creek. Parallel drainage canals aproximately 20 feet wide with an elevated spoil bank
between them aproximately 20 feet wide and a maximum elevation of 3 feet.
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adiacent to the proposed project site.
Forestry, Agriculture and Residential
h. How does local government zone the tract?
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
No zone
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
❑Yes []No SNA
j. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes SNo
k. Hasa professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. []Yes SNo ❑NA
If yes, by whom?
I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a ❑Yes SNo ❑NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
f%�-V`I V Lv
<Form continues on next page> MAY 0 4 2017
nrml- r o,_1D CITY
252.808.2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site? ®Yes ❑No
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ®Yes []No
(iii) If yes to either (i) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted? ®Yes []No
(Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
None
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
None
p. Describe existing stone water management or treatment systems.
None
5. Activities and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commercial ❑PublictGovernment
®Private/Community
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
The project will provide a drainage ditch for farm land and residential properties within in the watershed.
c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type
of equipment and where it is to be stored.
1 excavator operating on mats to support the excavator
d. List all development activities you propose.
Remove trees from spoil area so that equipment can access drainway for excavation. Remove spoil from canal and place
adjacent to canal. Breaks in spoil 10 feet wide every 100 feet and where there is concentrated neutral drainage. Undertake
maintenance excavation on 1,440 feet of chanelized stream.
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? Both - New work on an existing canal
I. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? 25,020 sq ft or .57 acres
Sq.Ft or ®Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area ❑Yes ®No []NA
that the public has established use of?
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
No new discharge is being proposed. No more or less water would be coming or leaving. The width of the canal is 25 feet,
The existing discharge serves 355 acres, including 14 homes and 175 acres of crop land.
I. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? []Yes []No [®'eNA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal. f % Z C E P,,' �:
<Form continues on back> MAY 0 4 2017
252-808-2808 .- 1-888-4RCOA- .. www.nccoastalmanagement.net -`

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
<Form continues on back>
6. Additional lnfonnat fon
In addition to this completed application form, (MP-1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application
package to be complete. Items (a) — (0 are always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application
instruction booklet on how to properly prepare the required items below.
a. A project narrative.
b. An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view and cross -sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of the
proposed project. Is any portion already complete? If previously authorized work, clearly indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish
between work completed and proposed.
c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site.
d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties.
e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR.
f. 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.
Name Phone No.
Address
Name Phone No.
Address
Name Phone No.
Address
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, N applicable.
I. Welland delineation, N necessary.
J. A signed AEC hazard notice for pmjects in oceanf 0l. and inlet areas. (Must be signed by property owner)
k. A statement of compliance with the N.C. Environmental Policy Ad (N.C.G.S. 113A 1-10), N necessary. N the project invotm expenditure
of public funds or use of public lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Ad.
1 7. Certification and Permission to Enter on Land 1
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 the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fad 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 my �my knowledge.
Date � 1,21117 Print Name Fir-AiiK k1 Fogm5wt
Signature
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project. I ; r
®DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information ❑DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts I��
❑DCM MP-3 Upland Development MAY 0 4 2017
❑DCM MP-4 Structures Information
"� r ,• CITY
252-808.2808 :: 11-888-411COAST :: www.nccpastaimanagement.net

Form DCM MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet
Access
Other
Channel
Canal
Boat Basin
Boat Ramp
Rock Groin
Rock
(excluding
(NLW or
Breakwater
shoreline
NWL)
stabilization
Length
1,480'
Width
18,
Avg. Existing
1'
NA
NA
Depth
Final Project
2'
NA
NA
Depth
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in
cubic yards.
1098
c. (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SS),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
OWL ®None
(h) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
❑This section not applicable
Organic muck, sediment
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
N/A
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL ❑This section not applicable
a. Location of disposal area. b. Dimensions of disposal area.
Canal bank adjacent to canal. 1,480 x 18' minus ten 10 foot breaks in spoil
c. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
®Yes []No ❑NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner.
d. (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
®Yes []No ❑NA
(ti) If yes, where?
Same foot print
e. (I) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh f.
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
®CW 1666 ❑SAV ❑SB _
OWL 3.780 ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
(i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
[--]Yes ®No []NA
III) If yes, how much water area is affected?
rr 'I LD
MAY 0 4 2017
CITY
252.808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimananement.net revised: 12/26/06

Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 2 of 2)
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION EThis section not applicable
(If development is a wood groin, use MP-4 - Structures)
a. Tvoe of shoreline stabilization: b. Length:
[]Bulkhead ❑Riprap ❑Breakwater/Sill ❑Other: _ Width: _
c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL: d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL:
e. Type of stabilization material:
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
Bulkhead backfill _ Riprap _
Breakwater/Sill Other
I. Source of fill material.
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. (i) Will fill material be brought to the site? ❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
If yes,
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water _
(ill) Dimensions of fill area _
(iv) Purpose of fill
f. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.
h. Type of fill material.
b.
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion b.
controlled?
Using existing trees to the landward side of the proposed spoil
area to help contain the toe of the spoil.
C. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project? d.
[]Yes ENo ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
3/31/2017
Date
Smith Creek Canal Maintenance
Project Name
EThis section not applicable
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV _ ❑SB
OWL ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline,
backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
excavator
(i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
she? EYes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
Use existing trees onsite and mats to support equipment
Applicant Name
K
Applicant ignaure-�r%-
252.808-2808::1.888-4RCOAST:: www.necoastalmana ement.n_et revised: 12/26/06

r. q'
r
P' ,oaf '•x s
s Project Area j
Sample 6
Sample 12",Sample 11 ySample 9 1Sample 7
Sample 10 7-.Sample S Sample 5
Sa ple,4..
w.
A � I r
Sample 3
xye d Ni
f .
Sample 2
p Samplel
V7 /51
K
L ay

|'
Depth to
*Depth to
Sample Site Width FT.
Sediment level Fr.
Hard Bottom FT. Distance tonext Sample Pt. LF Volume toberemoved @Z.ft
1
18
2.9
3.9 365
Z
18
23
4 325
3
16
Z
4 300
4
18
2.2
4.6 480
5
19
1.6
3.8 I10
59.ICU/YD
6
18
0.8
3.6 I10
168CU/YD
7
18
0.7
3.5 170
1473CU/YD
8
18
0.4
43 175
186.6[U/YD
9
20
1.1
4.1 170
16I7CU/YD
10
21
1.2
3.8 210
11I3CU/YD
11
23
1.1
3.6 340
26037CU/YD
12
25
2.4
3.9 na
2955
1098.37[U/YD
Spoil Placed onhigh ground
223[U/YD
Spoil Placed onRemnant Spoil
59CU/YD
Spoil Placed inWetland
816.5[U/YD
Spoil Placement Area
Length
1006|f
�� �
^e./, -tBreaks Y*'
'80|f
Length Breaks
928
Width
is if
Area
16688sqft
O38Acre
Depth Readings Reference Average Tide

r^• _ 'i f' _rr p `T
•1
.��•T:1.�. ;..1J_.v.t.'.r:., ..� _.-�..{_i_F..i_"u- � i_'.' 1 !_... �.t-F-�,--5`•t1f'.:.. j_, (. �._
_i-1=7:Tl-,_�•-i '.:'''c•j' i _rT1_.r. I_:y'.}- -.� .
i +.,.A••...A.r F e
r•
y i r
l. •F•�
•�,� j .TF.+_r.d i. .. ["� i...r;.l �'r, f�L:-{..� i.�•r..• ''., ...
A_.r_r r� .. ,.. "�'i T i ��''f ii :.-'••�:. j. 1-' ,. F)-.)-i. :. .L;_•.
..-�.}..r-4-:4- A";
i—•�1-=-rr d 1_h -' -L k"..A. !._ 1 �_1� --• f-, '�i-' •.-�.+..o _c
..p.•.M.1"'w't• {` 4~ }' N Y .n.yY,�.+q.. 11,�, 1'_„ ' ��, _
r -:r .5: !`-,_ r..:.?+: r-yr°..:.,_: i_
.+a_._r..;.l_,_ �J^Y -ls l: a..._r.i K•. j.. C. i-.; :
:d=1 1 ,J i "1 t ; { �..' •'r.i. ce A y, t-i'-` •:i; i i ._iT?4,t-1
F�7_t' ^'I•-t'•''+-i-_L, r_ i�...i'"---: •"�..��i .� .I.-(. +.,. �..Yy,.,-` .-.,�.. � r. j-.. ;' .
�_,t,
:'f r t
Z
r _
.
ITy �:. 1, ,�,, �_ �.f ;.i_,_.:__., �. f.i—r J•.ir .1..._y..IJ_y!..�.:. — ..r,.�i-'. .! .
' i r'a' ■�� '.k.. __ -� �} 1,� �_�'_.._,,�.' I lip.:{. `jJ7

ig
I� I� t �, r
r
i {--
�''-`-^ � i'YI"; Jam. , � I� r � I '� Y {�' C s•
I
i-
Major CAAQA�1
scaler 1 .I
Location
a
Date 3
L
+
By: 'DaniJiAro
,

r..;—,r:}}r—. �:-�.'� r r (� l--i i—* r � '�. r , 3• �. t �,
I.1 y 1 1 14
tJ4��
1 1 1� I-rl :)•:...i —(,may{F- IA }-, t—y-} A -1'� r S 1 i S t I 1
rt
I� -I-1 1'.i
� 1 i` , fi L�� i �� � � + s { J-.� I J � i—^ I * } r , {7 j_�y + t•J I 4
4A
T{44 i�I,� Lei-7�J,s ♦•-H ,_�- f ' l.. t_"''-
a �.
1.7
tt
I
t
{
14
SMITH CREEK CA INTENANCE.-
mJ4
Major A PerSO
Location
¢..-

C It Cr _
i t
-
.
Ji-
-
r. ,-1 I I

r 1 f
r I 1 J ti-<. -' I 1 y t ' A. t 1. 1 1 I
�j j.
j-i' '..J
'` J,r o-
�..1_L�'(.� I �_..-� Lr_Ld_: 't- 'J' y} �' 1 s
H,
Z: 74- 1 T_r-{.I i I_ I t 1! J-. r ""t' 1 �" f I ._. I I i y i i� 1 t r. i ' .r'• -r
l_� 4-!-.�1
. . L �'-.-F+-� li- j l.. i-`'t IT 1 + l'/*�,..-.�,��.,NI 1. �+. 3-h. ,c
C - �r r_ yap t- b q-*'-- Y!^
�t x t
r 1 -��II�fT� T r 3�tJj�
'S -'L�,r-j1}}j I -� I` �-t--t
�y—r-�.J�l��—� ' j_z .� }--#—�-.� { r .-4-i( r^ , # �'- 2 1 1 I,. I� §J 4. l '. 1 \.
i.+� I_d�1.1. L s I�: I I �J
-iT"i
,
1 F i-'1
I
-
IV
4Y
I'
t. rr
}
FI-r r I _r , y. j.,..�.,{_ -r .# 7l1 iT'. sr I�, 1-i _ LF I I f
r
A i � .!_�T. {
-
tr
� � t ' �... *" ' �.
fj-: ;_ •_l_L_�i.l_,.a_ I I.i...' l.;"i_''� L
17
-I I ti -�" j I L_'#• j I '�� I Y' I'Vi t(!'�'
C T' ir��rLJ
�}-'�-I-l-_ Irr^�� r-� . T+-t-f' L �.�.1._�{{ - ,
DI- A NCE
I ' y IgaE#rcrAl Ipb 3C��#
} .t } l a I *1 ! CANiA Rermrt
�`II�i1t6, p
Locatrori a
hl 4.
t__LI
T Date' "t ZY'-Lal %
_4y,}
By:.Da*f'

f j I 1
Il
I111
I
� 1
L
L I
-I
I i
SMITH CREEK CANAL MAINTENANCE
Major CAMA Permit
Scale- 1 10"= 6"
Location 5 4tiMaIQ l0
Date '2-29- 2ot�
By: Daniel Brinn

14
I r _
i Y
a
_ 23
_ 23
tt�
J_ �t ,
SMITH CREEK CANAL MAINTENANCE
Major CAMA Permit
Scale- 1 10"= 6"
Location SO'nole 14
Date-24 - 2-0/7
By: Daniel Brinn
S

l_1 i 1J r �_
L
Y
r
WL
f 1 I
;T-
I�
,
y J
I L
SMITH CREEKCANALMAINTENANCE
Major CAMA Permit
Scale 1 10.,_ 6„
r a Location M.,ple l2
1 - _
= Date 3 29 ?mil?
! { 1 Y;
B Daniel Brinn

Y s wr- y
142
*44
v
I.. 1
i6
�t�s•O>'`. x 1`0�1,-� �~ e k t
.K�+�• w.' �,-ry a � .f
1 �

T
> 1 it
y�, ti � ' I ''1-J•� �•
r.
�k
Ai.
of
cly
As
T
1
p` •fir .4 t,;
AA
.!

kL
Picture 2
April 2016

I l
k
s
\
4
y9
f
6
{
h
,n
t
fi
m
.AF[
—tx
IT
-
ti
2
14
.t�
�
IG`;:
It
..J✓/Lx 11�t
'�Y-.t ,
-I,'-

Picture 4 N "Al.
I In
4z
ulp
12
5K4 iit

l���if, f i : IDS'• i-,r.
!
I
f {.
TMjf
ml..
1 •i t + � .*M I�
g4

"a
3� .ems c�'�`
g,� q {
�t4
- I
A
i .

,m

Picture 9

t„ Ii
��\ 1 All
1 /��•.
♦1 • � P
�•�� � < N. r�k ♦ i .t'� "E ( L,L'i: l I
jVtil
-it
1r i WWWW 1 / TR"..
,
Al ,, 4 i y,
14,
a gil,
F ,ri ,
t
„s �cy1a a .'g1r� j`� i•;.- I�l.>(� � * i' �%y/E�/ � .1� � � y- � : �Y � �;` - � � �e �ry�,,,_�/�Y`��:j`,$ J .
ail°�1'. /• � AJ x••a
p4M� •�: Is :.% fd J'J 4 ..lf �.s��.� +Y{1tpV"�w' ,yy(.�r "\ .! ✓ \iy .
' :, _ /! /(-,/ �.. ^� ✓( fir I �(,}:ti, �' I ,Lev

[ © 4 2017
�` - Cjr'y

w - _ ,c
CO IN
i�
Area
a
10
- -
Sam (eY6
mF,e 5a . H a e 9 S le
as—� _ �." ��Sample,
Sample` r
Sample 3 T.
� � r 1. �],-�`�y�,6�,� iq. C•� c J? y..r }
Z
✓ 4 X.3+ s •.�a' �, Sample 1
c. ,r.Y�4TT�

Smith Creek Canal Maintenance Project
This packet includes the following information
• Application for Major Development Permit DCM MP-1
• Excavation and Fill Form DCM MP-2
• Authorized Agent Consent Agreement
• Adjacent Riparian Property Owner Statements (5)
• Deed for Property
• Project Narrative
• Site Map of Project Area
• Work Plat including Plan View and Cross -Sectional Drawings
• Pictures of Project Site
RECEIVED
MAY 0 4 2017
DCtA- NIND CITY

MAJGR PERMIT FEE MA1fMX
Selection
Development Type
E�08LS
DCAA % DWQ °k
(14300 16014351000931625 6253) ' (243001602 435100095 2341)
I. Private, non-commercial
development that does not
$250
100% ($250)
0% ($0)
involve the filling or
.I
excavation of any wetlands
or open water areas:
1
_
II. Public or commercial
development that does not
1$4.00
j 100% ($400)
0% ($0)
involve the filling or
excavation of any wetlands
or o n water areas:
Major Modification to a
$250
100% ($250)
0% ($0)
CAMA Major permit
III. 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 D below a lies:
III(A). Private, non-
commercial development, if
5250
100% ($250)
0% ($0)
General Water Quality
Certification No. 3490 (See
attached) can be applied:
III(B). Public or commercial
development, if General
$400r600%/oo($240)
400)
00/0 ($0)
Water Quality Certification
No. 3490 (See attached)
can be applied:
III(C). If General Water
Quality Certification No.
$400
40% ($160)
3900 (see attached) could
be applied, but DCM staff
determined that additional
REC�+�
review and written DWQ
v
concurrence is needed
because of concerns
MAY 0 4 pp��
related to water quality or
aquatic life:
Ili(D). If General Water
Quality Certification No.
$400
60% ($240)
40% ($160)
3900 (see attached) cannot
be applied:
IV. For development that
involves the filling and/or
$475
60% ($285)
40% ($190)
excavation of more than
one acre of wetlands and/or
open water areas:

ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to tM/JK ha iir 's
(Name of Property Owner)
property located at o2 (10 011000in/ 14)L, i&t
(Address, Lot, Block, Road, etc.)
on SmrrH �-76k in .S,- f�tor� , N.C.
(Waterbody) (City/Town and/or County)
The applicant has described to me, as shown below, the development proposed at the above
location.
✓ I have no objection to this proposal.
I have objections to this proposal.
DESCRIPTION AND/OR DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(Individual proposing development must fill in description below or attach a site drawing)
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boathouse, lift, or groin must be set
back a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access unless waived by me. (If you
wish to waive the setback, you must initial the appropriate blank below.)
I do wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
I do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
(Property Owner Information)
Signature
Print or Type Name
Mailing Address
City/State/Zip
Telephone Number
Date
(Adjacent Property Owner Information)
> WA C44/
Signature
Print or Type Name -
Telephone Number MAY 0 4 2017
J ` o2q
Date
(Revised 611812012)

ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT
hereby certify that I own property adjacent to GxK _JW t.oC%A- s
(Name of Property Owner)
property located at
(Address, Lot Block, Road, etc.)
on a( in nc rN.C.
(Waterbody) (City/Town and/or County)
The applicant has described to me, as shown below, the development proposed at the above
location.
I have no objection to this proposal.
I have objections to this proposal.
DESCRIPTION AND/OR DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(Individual proposing development must fill in description below or attach a site drawing)
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boathouse, lift, or groin must be set
back a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access unless waived by me. (If you
wish to waive the setback, you must initial the appropriate blank below.)
_\ (� I do wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
\v� I do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
(Property Owner Information)
Signature
Print or Type Name
Mailing Address
City/State2ip
Telephone Number
Date
Owner
u No,JACO (Z.
Pnnt or 7 yp�, Name
iLAoiA) Nic.L 2r1
Mailing Address
zi.RA ✓nA/ NC .2787,) ,�,Ir-
City/State/Zip ' C E i 1r Y_
aSa 97 G 0 0 0 y.
Teleph ne Number mAY 0 4 Z017
Date
CCTii 1"
(Revised &182012)

I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to �)TA J", .JW l e iGnl-- s
(Name of Property Owner)
property located at U RAA__ _
1' (Address, Lot, Block, oad, etc.)
on � Z (' (t in pua aA:%rn N.C.
(Waterbody) (City/Town and/or County)
The applicant has described to me, as shown below, the development proposed at the above
location.
✓ I have no objection to this proposal.
I have objections to this proposal.
DESCRIPTION AND/OR DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(Individual proposing development must fill in description below or attach a site drawing)
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boathouse, lift, or groin must be set
back a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access unless waived by me. (If you
wish to waive the setback, you must initial the appropriate blank below.)
I do wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
II do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
(Property Owner Information)
Signature
Print or Type Name
Mailing Address
City/State2ip
Telephone Number
Date
(Adjacent Property Owner Information) �1
Suture
IHC-Z.MA NOWHKD
Print or Type Name
a a3 �uoa,a/ N«c ,Pg°
M iling Address
9CcrArrW aJ(- a 7821
City/State/Zip
Telephone Number
`f / 6
Date
(Revised 611812012)

ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to 9414 TAIALYa.. JOL44eJ cwA.s
Name! f r p rtY Owner) .
property located at r G
L (Address, Lot, Block, Road, etc.)
on 7wti �1 �1 in CfsA-VoQ N.C.
(Waterbody) (City/Town and/or County)
The applicant has described to me, as shown below, the development proposed at the above
location.
I have no objection to this proposal.
I have objections to this proposal.
DESCRIPTION AND/OR DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(individual proposing development must till in description below or attach a site drawing)
v-.
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier, dock, mooring pilings, breakwater, boathouse, lift, or groin must be set
back a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access unless waived by me. (If you
wish to waive the setback, you must initial the appropriate blank below.)
I do wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
I do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
(Property Owner Information)
Signature
Print or Type Name
Mailing Address
City/StateQip
Telephone Number
Date
m)
GKv. iZA44) d
(Revised 61182012)

ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER STATEMENT
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to
property located at
n (Address,
on Sm� C'(Q�V in.
(Waterbody)
(Name of Property Owner)
Lot, Block,
etc.)
(CitylTown and/or County)
I
N.C.
The applicant has described to me, as shown below, the development proposed at the above
location.
I have no objection to this proposal.
I have objections to this proposal
DESCRIPTION AND/OR DRAWING OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(individual proposing development must fill in description below or attach a site drawing)
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that a pier. dock, mooring pilings, breakwater. boathouse, lift, or groin must be set
back a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access unless waived by me (if you
wish to waive the setback, you must initial the appropriate blank below.)
i do wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
I do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement.
(Property ' Own r Inforon)
SiJ�j�J(llure j
' 4
Print or Tye N e
�;
Ma ing Address'
_G
Ci!ylstate Zip
Tele hone Number
!lure
(Adjacent Property Owner Information)
Signature
Print or Tvoe Name
Mailing Address rt- t 'cl
f 1r
CitylStatelzip t!,pY 0 4 Z017
Telephone Number V
D!:(l
(Revised 611812012)

BOOK271 PAGE
p 323(3)
405373 1/111111ant'11
This document preaented and filed.
122112016 02:38:46 PM
certify that no delinquent :s d \ —tem taxes or othet taxes
With which this off," is ,h: r aed ate a lien on the property
Ascribed in this deed.
E MERITA LEW1S-SPENCER, HYDE COUNTY, NC
Excise Tax. 5180.W . „ n7 7/
Prepared by and return to: 1//, ryhax_da00ii/ciil (JLij/�(�
MISA B. RAYNOR, Attorney at Law
PO Box 9, Belhaven, NC 27810
TAX ACCOUNT / RECORD: 202581 / 4154
202589/4203
REVENUE STAMPS: $ 9.B0.06
The property herein conveyed is not the primary residence of a Grantor.
No title search requested nor title opinion given by the drafting attorney.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF HYDE
WARRANTY DEED
ILA
THIS DEED made and entered into this 114 day of December, 2016, by and between
ELLIOTT FORTESCUE, single, 8 Worthington Drive, South Hadley, MA, 01075: and
MARGARET F. ZIRCHER, single, 330 Carolina Meadows Villa, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
27517, hereinafter referred to as GRANTORS; to FRANK FORTESCUE and wife, EDNA P.
FORTESCUE, 865 Sladesville Road, Scranton, North Carolina 27875, hereinafter referred to as
GRANTEES.
WITNESSETH:
That the said Grantors in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other
good and valuable consideration to them in hand paid by said Grantees, the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, have bargained and sold, and by these presents, do bargain, sell and
convey unto the said Grantees, their heirs and assigns, the following parcel or tract of land in the
State of North Carolina, County of Hyde, Currimck Township and more particularly described as
follows:
All our rights, title and interest in the property devised to John Elliott Fortescue under the
Last Will and Testament of Z.T. Forteseue of record in Will Book N Page 56 in the
Office of the Hyde County Clerk of Court. The devise to John Elliott Fortescue reads as
follows:
MAY 0 4 2017
.,
t ,. 6� ` .Y

BK 271 PG 324 DOC#405373
"John Elliott Fortescue receive the Sarah Russell Field and '/2 of woods, his
woods tract is bounded on North by Public Road leading from Sladesville to
Scranton N.C. on East by small ditch that divides the woods about'fi way, on
South by Sarah Russell field on West by Mrs. E. Allen Jones' Farm."
John Elliott Fortescue died in 1981 in Blount County, Tennessee, survived by his wife
(Louise Floyd Fortescue) and two children (Elliott Fortescue and Margaret F. Zircher).
Louise Floyd Fortescue died about 1991 or 1992 and was survived by her two children
named above who are the Grantors herein.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid tract or parcel of land and all privileges and
appurtenances thereunto belonging unto the said Grantees, their heirs and assigns forever.
The Grantors covenant with the Grantees that they are seized in fee simple of the land
above described and have good right and title to convey the same; that the same is free and clear
of all liens and encumbrances, except ad valorem taxes for the current year, and they will forever
warrant and defend the title to the same against all lawful claims and demands whatsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors have hereunto set their hands and affixed their
seals this the day and year first above written.
' `'4c (SEAL)
MARGARET F. ZIRCHE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ChWhiotrn
I, 3� C 4'rairy , a Notary Public, of the aforesaid County and State, do
hereby certify t tat MARGARET F. ZIRCHER, personally appeared before me this day and
acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing Deed.
WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal, this 1'4 M day of December, 2016.
?aC a (I jG r)CCUt
NOTARV PUBLIC
My Commission Expires: r=.4tii 19. A6 /g
PATSY C. HANCOCK
NOTARY PUSUC
Chath.m County
Nora: Carolina
MvCamission Expires`.[ n i 9.at
MAY 0 4 Z017

BK 271 PG 325 DOC#405373
, WW
(QW�—(e--s .. (SEAL)
ELLIOTT FORTESCUE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CtD-4no rn
I, IZ r C. Ant Cl a Notary Public, of the aforesaid County and State, do
hereby certify th t ELLIOTT FORTESCUE, personally appeared before me this day and
acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing Deed.
WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal, this i t : day of December, 2016.
My Commission Expires: apti I C) x 6 n
r
NOTAR PUBLIC
PATSY C. HANCOCK
NOTARY°USUC
Chatham County
North Carolina
My Commission Expires:A" r9.xr4
ri
�CEWED
MAY 0 4 2017
LCtvl- MHO CBTY

—This is a word processing form to be completed in Microsoft Word —
NC Division of Coastal Management
Major Permit Application Computer Sheet
(02/152010)
Applicant: t % Date:4272017
Project Site County /
Staff: District: ❑Elizabeth City Washington
!�L / ❑Morehead City Wilmington
Project Name: / Rover File:
L t_
Date application "received as complete" in the Field office (EX: 1/82007): `
Permit Authorization: XCAMA aDredge & Fill *oth
SITE DESCRIPTION/PERMIT INFORMATION
PNA: ❑Yes No
Photos Taken: YeYT NOD
Setback Required (riparian): ❑Yes 2NO
Critical Habitat: ❑Yes ❑No ❑Not Sure
15 foot waiver obtained: []YesONo
Hazard Notification Returned:
❑Yes ONO
SAV: ❑Yes No ❑Not Sure
Shell Bottom: ❑Yes o ❑ Not Sure
Temporary Impacts: ❑Yes No
Sandbags: ❑Yes Ao ❑ Not Sure
Did the land u e classification come from
county LUPA. yes ONO
Mitigation Required (optional):
❑Yes Oo
Moratorium Conditions: ❑Yes ❑No
❑NA
Environmental A sessment Done:
❑Yes ❑NoKNA
SECONDARY WATER CLASSIFICATION — OPTIONAL (choose MAX of 4)
Future Water Supply (FWS)
utrient Sensitive Waters (NSW)
❑ Swamp Waters (SW)
❑ High Quality Waters (HQW)
❑ Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
WETLANDSIMPACTED
(404) Corp. of Engineers (Jurisdictional
❑ (LS) Sea lavender (Limonium sp.)
❑ (SS) Glasswort(Salicomia sp.)
4idtlands)
❑ (CJ) Saw grass (Cladium jamaicense)
❑ (SA) Salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina
SY) Salt reed grass (Spartina
alterniflora)
cynosuroides)
(DS) Salt or spike grass (Distichlis
SC) Bullrush or three square (Scirpus
U (TY) Cattail (fypha sp.)
spicata)
sp.)
tR) Black needlerush (Juncos
SP) Salt/meadow grass (Spartina
emerianus)
patens)
APPLICATION FEE
Ll No fee required - $0.00
❑ III(A) Private w/ D&F up to 1 acre; 3490
III(D) Priv. public or Comm w/ D&F to 1
can be applied - $250
a e; 3490 can't be applied - $400
Minor Modification to a CAMA Major
❑ Major Modification to a CAMA Major
❑ IV Any development involving D&F of
permit - $100
permit -$250
more than 1 acre - $475
❑ Permit Transfer - $100
❑ III(B) Public or commercial w/ D&F to 1
❑ Express Permit - $2000
acre; 3490 can be applied - $400
Major development extension request -
Public or commercial/no dredge
$100
a d/or fill-$400
Lr+�l \/` P
ll�i Y
I. Private no dredge and/or fill - $250
III(C) Priv. public or Comm w /D&F to 1
acre; 3490 can be applied; DCM needs
MAY 0 4 2017
DWQ agreement - $400
DCNI- e." -;-
252-808-2808 :: 1-8884RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanaaemenl net revised: 02115/10

.NO -Division of Coastal Mgt. Application Computer Sheet, Page 2 of 3)
Applicant: &tfx h;/41 ALL
Date: 427/2017
Describe below the ACTIVITIES that have been applied for. All values should match the dimension order, and units of
measurement found in your Activities code sheet.
TYPE
REPLACE
Activity Name
Number
Choose
Choose
Dimension 1
Dimension 2
Dimension 3
Dimension 4
One
One
New Work El
Replace
C
Maint
❑ Y ❑ N
/y
�C
New Work El
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work ❑
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work El
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work ❑
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work ❑
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work ❑
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work ❑
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work ❑
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work 0
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work 0
Replace
.
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work 0
Replace
Maint ❑
❑ Y ❑ N
New Wo k=
Replace
[[++ ,r- C/'+
f t l�
- !, /
i Y E
Maint ❑
❑ Y❑ N
`...
MAY 0 4 2017
revised 02I15/10

N6 Dwisbn of Coast/al Mgt. Application Computer Sheet, Page 3 of 3)
Applicant: ��� '6 T 7 G1L
Date: 4/27/2017
Describe below the HABITAT disturbances for the application. All values should match the name, and units of measurement
found in your Habitat code sheet.
TOTAL Sq. Ft
FINAL Sq. Ft,
TOTAL Feet
FINAL Feet
(Applied for.
(Anticipated final
(Applied for.
(Anticipated final
Habitat Name
DISTURB TYPE
Disturbance total
disturbance.
Disturbance
disturbance.
Choose One
includes any
Excludes any
total includes
Excludes any
anticipated
restoration
any anticipated
restoration and/or
restoration or
and/ortemp
restoration or
temp impact
tamp impacts)
impact amount)
temp impacts)
amount
Qr
Dredge Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
r
Dredge ❑ Fill 66 Both ❑ Other ❑
t_
f�j n
edge ❑ Fill Both ❑ Other ❑
r f�1i/
Dredge ❑ Fill,& Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
RECEIVED
MAY 0 4 2017
252-808-2808 :: 1.888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanaaement.net revised: 02/15/10

Authorized Agent Consent Agreement
I Q �-a4c4se,,-a hereby authorize '-'P, c, ,6" r,a ke to act on
(Property Owner) (Authorized Agent)
my behalf in obtaining CAIvIA permits for the location listed below. This agency
authorization is limited to the specific activities described above.
Property Address:
S cc a-rr!-or. 1-1C� a -7 S
Property Owner's Mailing Address and Phone Number_
Can\ma c n S C-ukt
�C(e� 5Lac1�y; 1Ly lZci
SC c4-cct-o r, 02 '78 7,S
Property Owner's Signature:
Authorized Agent Signature:
Date: 3&Z2
RECEIVED
Form: Authorized Agent Agreement as developed by NCDCVI revised 729/09 MAY 0 4 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

�i
Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Coastland Times
PO Box 400
Manteo, NC 27954
2 May 2017
Attention: Legal Advertising Department
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
Please include the enclosed Notice of Filing in the Public Notice section of the 7 May 2017 edition of your
newspaper. If it will not be possible to include this notice in that edition, or if you should have any questions about
this notice, please call me as soon as possible at 948-3920.
The State Office of Budget and Management requires an original Affidavit of Publication
prior to payment for newspaper advertising. Please send the affidavit, an original copy of the
published notice, and an original invoice to:
Thank you.
ATTACHMENT
Cc: File
Melissa Sebastian
NCDENR
COASTAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION
400 COMMERCE AVENUE
MOREIMAD NC 28557
252-808-2808 ext. 229
Sincerely,
Della Robbins, Administrative Assistant
Division of Coastal Management
RECEIVED
MAY 0 4 2017
---'Nod*v Compares-
DCM- Il" r,
S uu oc.T� C,mim, Eaai,waml Qu�ity cm,m,lam){.rnm, • � L" C d Y
943Wuhug nSq=.MaU a„h.W„bvC.7s89
.529466481

i
NOTICE OF FILING
OF APPLICATION FOR
CAMA MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources hereby gives public notice as required by N.C.G.S.
113A-119(b) that an application for a development permit in an Area of Environmental Concern as designated under
the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) was received on 19 April 2017. According to the said application
submitted by Frank Fortesque, applicant proposes to undertake maintenance excavation ofthe channelized headwaters
of Smith Creek, near Scranton in Hyde County, North Carolina
A copy of the entire application maybe examined or copied at the office of Jonathan R. Howell, District
Manager, Washington Regional Office, 943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC, during normal business hours.
Public comments received by 26 May 2017 will be considered. Later comments will be accepted and considered up
to the time of permit decision. Project modifications may occur based on finther review and comments. Notice of the
permit decision in this matter will be provided upon written request.
Please publish on: 7 May 2017
Steve Trowell, Field Representative
Coastal Management Representative
NC Division of Coastal Management
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
[phone]
RECEIVED
MAY 0 4 2017
DCM- NIND Y

M
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
2 May 2017
Frank Fortescue
c/o Tooley Farms, Inc.
Attn: Roland Tooley
725 Lynnsburg Rd
Scranton, NC 27875
Dear Mr. Tooley:
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
The NC Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges receipt of your application for
State approval for development of your property located off SR 1152, Puddin Hill Road, on the
channelized headwaters of Smith Creek off the Pungo River near Scranton in Hyde County, North
Carolina. It was received on 19 April 2017, and appears to be adequate for processing at this time.
The projected deadline for making a decision is 3 July 2017. An additional 75-day review period
is provided by law when such time is necessary to complete the review. If you have not been
notified of a final action by the initial deadline stated above, you should consider the review period
extended. Under those circumstances, this letter will serve as your notice of an extended review.
However, an additional letter will be provided on or about the 75th day. Steve Trowell, Field
Representative for the Division of Coastal Management is responsible for processing your permit
and he can be reached at 252-948-3854 or via email at Steve.Trowellamcdem.gov if you have any
questions.
If this agency does not render a permit decision within 70 days from 19 April 2017, you may
request a meeting with the Director of the Division of Coastal Management and permit staff to
discuss the status of your project. Such a meeting will be held within five working days from the
receipt of your written request and shall include the property owner, developer, and project
designer/consultant.
NCGS 113A-119(b) requires that Notice of an application be posted at the location of the
proposed development. Enclosed you will find a "Notice of Permit Filing" postcard which must
be posted at the property of your proposed development. You should post this notice at a
conspicuous point along your property where it can be observed from a public road. Some
examples would be: Nailing the notice card to a telephone pole or tree along the road right-of-way
fronting your property, or at a point along the road right-of-way where a private road would lead
one into your property. Failure to post this notice could result in an incomplete application.
RECEIVED
�Nothinq Compares MAY 0 4 2017
6 d Rf24a6 CYI%Ni I En%i a mxl Quality; CmOi hiA�t
943 WnhigiIImSq .hallIW dii pagNC 27859 DCM- MI -ID CITY
2529466491

i • ~.

Mr. Roland Tooley
2 May 2017
Page 2 of 2
An onsite inspection will be made, and if additional information is required, you will be
contacted by the appropriate State or Federal agency. Please contact me if you have any questions
and notify me in writing if you wish to receive a copy of my field report and/or comments from
reviewing agencies.
Sincerely,
Steve Trowell
Coastal Management Representative
Division of Coastal Management
Washington Regional Office
Enclosure
Cc: Greg Bodnar - Assistant Major Permit Coordinator
Frank Fortesque - Applicant
WARO
RECE V'
MAY 0 4 21` I
DCM-

NoTl(0'$l7j
CAMA PERMIT
APPLIED FOR
PROJECT:
COMMENTS ACCEPTED THROUGH _�een Mav 9017
APPLICANT:
. . a•
I ♦ �♦
.- .