20020875 Ver 1_More Info Received_20020919

,4 --

C.D. Marks
5212 Bucco Reef Road
New Bern, NC 28560
September 8, 02
North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (NCDWD)
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
AT Mr. John Dorney
Re: Comments and Strong Protest on Fairfield Harbour D e r
Project Permit Applications
Dear Mr. Dorney:
I am in receipt of a Public Notice issued by the US Corps of Engineers, Action
Number 200210940, regarding an application by the Fairfield Harbour Property
Owners Association (FHPOA) for a permit for dredging existing wetlands as part
of proposed stormwater management system (authorized by permit number SW
7000518).
As I understand it this permit from the Corps of Engineers will not be issued until
the NCDWD acts on certifying or denying certification required by Section 401
of the Clean Water Act.
My wife and I reside at Lot 257 adjacent to Outfall C. We have previously made
comments on the CAMA permit request made by the FHPOA in protest of the
plan. We protested this permit request in the strongest possible terms in a letter
to CAMA dated April 14, 2002. A copy of this letter is attached and made a part
of this letter of protest.
We were very disappointed to learn that our comments were totally
disregarded by CAMA and the permit to dam up the last fifty feet of
the outfall was granted. We received no comment from CAMA and
were not consulted at all after our comments were submitted.
As you know, the Fairfield Harbour (FH) Drainage Projects have
been carried out by the FHPOA in disregard for Federal and State
environmental regulations, and the projects still stand In violation
of a number of regulations years after the FHPOA was cited and
told to correct the violations.
We cannot understand why the FHPOA has been allowed to evade
the law by continually applying for retroactive permits that would, If
applied for before hand, never have been granted.
1f
I think the attached comments, previously made to CAMA, summarize our
concerns. By what right does the FHPOA illegally build useless drainage
ditches, manipulate the permitting process to dam up the ditches and use my
property as the primary draining point for Outfall C?
As an example of the tactics being employed by the FHPOA, the CAMA permit
request to "restore" the buffer zone specifically stated that the buffer would be
restored to original grade and vegetation. When affected property
owners questioned this and pointed out that this would result in the
flooding of the adjacent properties the POA told us not to worry
about it - "there will be a lower grade swale left that will continue
to drain the ditch". This Is in direct contradiction to the conditions of
the permit.
There have been statements made by the FHPOA maintaining that
the work done on the ditches was simply a clearing and slight
deepening of existing ditches. I can attest that in the case of Outfall
C this is simply not true. Outfall C was illegally created by digging
a ditch where none of any kind existed before. There was no
depression, swale or drainage channel of any kind before the
construction of the outfall. There is no justification for the argument
that a permit was not required because the new work was an
"enhancement" of existing conditions; its simply not true. The
discharge pipe installed under Bucco Reef Road and the entire
ditch were put in to create a new outfall where no natural or
constructed drainage existed before.
To allow the destruction of existing wetlands, as in the proposed work in area D,
in order to build larger settling ponds that will be drained through dammed
Outfalls that should never have been built and in the process essentially
expropriate adjacent properties for drainage is unacceptable.
The area in which the proposed ponds would be built is a long term wetland
which is already doing its job of filtration and return of water to the water table.
There is no justification for dredging up the existing area in order to "improve"
what is already working well.
In addition the proposal to block Outfalls D and B during the construction of the
proposed ponds will triple the flow of water and sediment across my property.
Another example of arbitrary and damaging action taken without
thought or concern of the consequences to the rights of residents.
The actions of the FHPOA since the start of these projects has been one of
obstruction, delay, and solicitation of political interference with the regulatory
process by members of the legislature. All in lieu of responsible action to admit
a mistake and start over again.

It would be a mistake to assume that the FHPOA is accurately reflecting the
wishes of FH residents. My interaction with a number of residents indicate to
me that the FHPOA has it own agenda that does not match that of the residents
most effected by these projects.
The best possible action to end this charade is for the State of
North Carolina to require that all of the previous illegal work be
undone and the properties returned to their original state.
My wife and 1 request that the State of North Carolina refuse any
further permits or certifications and move to require tota I
restoration.
Should you wish to discuss any of this with me, I can be reached at 252-636-
9nAl
sideration of these comments.
cc: Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Washington Regulatory Field Office
AT Mr. Scott Jones
PO Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889
cc: Collens Sullins
Section Chief
Water Quality Section
NCDENR
512 North Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
cc: Donna Moffett
Director of Department
of Coastal Management
NC Dept. of Coastal Mangt.
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1638
cc: Ted Tyndall
District Manager
NCDCM
151-B Highway 24
Hestron Plaza II
Morehead City, NC 28577
cc: Jim Mulligan
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Washington Regional Office
NCDENR
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 2788
cc: Robert Brown
Fairfield Harbour POA
902 Coral Reef Drive
New Bern, NC 28560
ewe "
SE f W p'..P ?,. 1" e
3L`...r L .J111