20170555 Ver 1_More Info Received_20170628

dr Vis'.,.
Date: June 28, 2017 ZIOZ Z B O
To: All agencies regarding Smith Creek Canal Maintenance Project o
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 agencies
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 minute) built by Pungo Machine Shop with one 10 HP single phase electric

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
continuous spoil around 2005, the area between the flood gate and the beginning of the proposed O"tev
Had this area been maintained properly, when Irene came through, we could have reduced the
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
N

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 % 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
proposed site and the flood gate.The continuous spoil area has debris from the ditch under it. This
\Q
not make for a very good road bed for hauling. This debris creates channels for water to pass unde

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 overtime. 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 for 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.
v a
I Ll
Signature
R. 4A, Tom'
Date
0