19860153 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19850625

P 7
t? MEMORANDUM,
Bevi l l
T0: Vernon
Steve Conrad
Maurice Cook f ?`"? za
Boe Green
Jo" orris *aua u r>b
Helms
Bob Mahood
Ken Stewart
Jim Stevens
FROM: Earl Droessler
SUBJECT: DRAFT EIS - West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the.
Swan Quarter Watershed Plan
DATE: December 5, 1983
Rf.?,ai w?oC %?
Around mid-November many of you received a copy of the subject Draft EIS,??Q rni! is-?
also referred to as the Juniper Bay project, directly from the Soil fiorua.v ??•l *0
Conservation Service. Oferak,oas I/-Z9.4
Please be advised that this document is currently being.reviewed through
the State Clearinghouse process. The standard Departmental process
for responding to Clearinghouse review documents should be.,utilized.and
any comments on this document should be sent through Melba Strickland
McGee, the-Department's A-95/EIS Coordinator by January 12, 1984. This
assures that consistent Departmental comments will be properly coordinated.
into a single State's position.
As Juniper Bay is part of the recommendations from the.Coastal Water.
Management Task Force, the Department would like to see this.project.pro
ceed in an environmentally sound manner. Therefore, Lam asking Maurice
:
Cook, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, to chair a meeting of-the.,
Department's EIS reviewers at 10.00 a.m. on January 6, 1984 in the 5th
?X Floor Conference Room of the Archdale Building. If there are deficiencies
o
G04% in the project„ I will want them discussed at that time with positive K .
recommendations developed for overcoming them. k? ?"" N n h
ro" Ad
cc: Division EIS Reviewers L Odk
DEC 1983
?.t V .. /
WATLt: QUALITY w ,
.21 Planning Branch ?' = ?
OE R To;

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 4, 1984
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Bill Mills
THROUGH: Steve Tedder
FROM: Bob Holman 441
Dave Penrose PF 0
Jimmie Overton`i
SUBJECT: Comments on the EIS for Swan Quarter Watershed Plan
We support the recommendation of the Pamlico Soil and Water Conservation
District. If Alternative #4 could not be implemented, then Alternative
#3 would be our choice.
The review would have been easier if there were a more complete description
of wetland types and better alternative maps included in the EIS.
BH,DP,JO:ps
M C c. ' ?
1 ??> United States Soil
Department of Conservation
Agriculture Service
310 New Bern Ave., Rm. 535 Fed. Bldg.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
November 21, 1983
tyxit1tT/e"As
Robert F. Helms, Director
Division of Environmental Management
N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources and
Community Development
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Helms:
Enclosed is a copy of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan, North Carolina, prepared under authority
of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566) and
in accordance with Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190).
We are requesting that comments be received by this office on or before
January 19, 1983, or such later date as may be needed to total 45 days after
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes its notice of availabil-
ity in the Federal Register. If your comments are not received by the due
date, we will assume you do not wish to comment.
Sincerely,
elo-f A. 9A
State n
Enclosure
?_? R, CTiNO
rett
ervationist
?,? t? ?i ?a 91983
iY
OJ The Soil Conservation Service SCS-AS-1
` is an agency of the 10-79
Department of Agriculture
x:- Mo
?d ?eM
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
Ms. Sybil Swindell
Route #1, Box 97
Engelhard, N.C. 27834
Dear Ms. Swindell:
April 28, 1986
R. Paul Wilms
Director
Subject: Juniper Bay Project
Hyde County Board of
Commissioners
Hyde County
At the April meeting of the Environmental Management
Commission you requested that the Commission provide an
opportunity to discuss the Juniper Bay Project. A summary of the
Division of Environmental Management's comments and action on the
subject project had been provided to the Commission as an
informational item at the March meeting. Commission Chairman
Harrelson has considered your request but has determined that this
matter has been sufficiently evaluated by the staff and that it
will not be appropriate to place this project on the Commission's
agenda for further discussion.
Our staff has offered you ample opportunity to make your
concerns known about the water quality effects of the Project
during our consideration of the 401 Water Qualitv Certification.
Nevertheless, if you have other information or concerns that you
have not shared with us about the Project's impact on water
quality, I will be glad to meet with you to discuss them. Please
contact me if you feel that such a meeting would be appropriate
and we will work with you to
cc: George Everett
Jim Mulligan
establish a convenient date.
Si ,
R. ' aul Wilms
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
, --- X
STAZE
t.
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary January 30, 1986 Director
Mr. Alton Ballance, Vice Chairman
Hyde County Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 264
Swanquarter, NC 27885
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section
401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
Proposed Swanquarter Watershed
Project
Juniper Bay
Hyde County Board of Commissioners
Hyde County
Dear Mr. Ballance:
Attached hereto are two (2) copies of Certification No. 1876
issued to Hyde County Board of Commissioners dated January 30, 1986.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely yours,
R. Paul Wilms
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Washington Regional Office
Mr. William Mills
Mr. David Owens
Ms. Sybil Swindell
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
r It
NORTH CAROLINA
Hyde County
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of
Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United. States and
subject to the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to Hyde County Board of
Commissioners pursuant to an application filed on the 7th day of March,
1985 to construct a watershed project consisting of a dike and tide
gates.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of
fill material into a wetlands area adiacent to the waters of Juniper Bay
in conjunction with the proposed dike project in Hyde County will not
result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and
discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies
that this activity will not violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of
PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application
and conditions hereinafter set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner
as to prevent significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction-
related discharge (increases such that the
turbidity in the Stream is 25 NTU's or less
are not considered significant).
2. That the dike alignment be in keeping with the
revised alignment submitted on December 9', 1985
to this Division.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certification.
This Certification shall become null and void unless the above
conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
This the 30th day of January, 1986.
WOC# 1876
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
R. Paul Wilms, Director
4 r+-
?? - o'+ SrA7E o-
??Mw n. x'11! as
QINM
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary January 30, 1986 Director
Mr. Alton Ballance, Vice Chairman
Hyde County Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 264
Swanquarter, NC 27885
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section
401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
Proposed Swanquarter Watershed
Project
Juniper Bay
Hyde County Board of Commissioners
Hyde County
Dear Mr. Ballance:
Attached hereto are two (2) copies of Certification No. 1876
issued to Hyde County Board of Commissioners dated January 30, 1986.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely yours,
Rv a .. +
R. Paul Wilms
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Washington Regional Office
Mr. William Mills
Mr. David Owens
Ms. Sybil Swindell
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer sp

NORTH CAROLINA
Hyde County
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is.issued in conformity with the requirements of
Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United.States and
subject to the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to Hyde County Board of
Commissioners pursuant to an application filed on the 7th day of March,
1985 to construct a watershed project consisting of a dike and tide
gates.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of
fill material into a wetlands area adjacent to the waters of Juniper Bay
in conjunction with the proposed dike project in Hyde County will not
result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and
discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies
+ that this activity will not violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of
PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application
and conditions hereinafter set forth. -
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner
as to prevent significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction- -
related discharge (increases such that the
turbidity in the Stream is 25 NTU's or less
are not considered significant).
2. That the dike alignment be in keeping with the
revised alignment submitted on December 9', 1985
to this Division.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certification.
This Certification shall become null and void unless the above
conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
This the 30th day of January, 1986.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
R. Paul Wilms, Director
WQC# 1876
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
January 30, 1986
M E M O R A N D U M
T0: Dennis Ramsey FROM: Bill Mills /1W
SUBJECT: 401 Certification
Swanquarter. Watershed Project
Hyde County
On January 27, 1986, I met with Ms. Sybil Swindell concerning her
concerns on the Subject project. You will recall that Ms. Swindell had
headed the effort to get a public hearing on this project and we had
authorized a public hearing unless she was successful in getting a
hearing from the Corps of Engineers. The Corps held a hearing in
October and Jim Mulligan's summary and recommendations are attached.
My meeting with Ms. Swindell, was to find any additional concerns
she had related to water quality on this proposal. There is the concern
that the dike project will. collect runoff which enters Juniper Bay by
sheetflow and small tributaries and concentrate all of it at the
proposed tidegates (57 proposed tidegates). While this concern has some
validity, we have no reason to believe that this change in drainage will
violate water quality standards in Juniper Bay or cause.any loss of
existing uses. Another concern expressed was that if the dike is built
and a watershed district is established to construct and maintain this
system, it would be more likely that changes in drainage into this
watershed from other adjacent drainage areas, such as Boundary Canal,
could be made by the district. This especially concerns Ms. Swindell
since the Boundary Canal area adjoins White Tail Farms peat mine area
and First Colony Farms peat mine area. She is concerned that drainage
from these proposed mines could eventually be channeled into West Canal.
Further, Ms. Swindell is concerned that the drainage from behind the
dikes will not release into Juniper Bay quickly enough during high tide
periods resulting in flooding of many small farms along the southern
portion of the watershed.
Jim Mulligan and I have discussed these concerns and are of the
opinion that water quality standards are not expected to be violated by
the project as proposed. It is recommended that the Certification be
issued.
BM: dkb
Attachment
cc: Jim Mulligan
uu2TTTnK mTf :oo
quamgou44V
quip : Kq
•panssT
aq uoTg2oT3TjaaO aqq qug4 papuammooaa sT 41 •pasodoad su goaCoad aqq
Aq p94VTOTA aq oq pagoadxa qou eau spappuv4s &4TTpnb ae umquq4 uoTuTdo
ago go eau pup suaaouoo asag4 passnosTp anpg I pup uu2TTTnX mTf
•pagsa94vm aga go uoTjaod
uaaq nos ago 2uoTp smaug TTpms Xuum 90 $uTpooTJ uT BuTjTnsaa spoTaad
apTq g2Tq 2uTanp g8noua XTAOTnb Xug aadTunf o4uT asuaTaa lou TTTM saATp
agl puTgaq moaj a2vuTpap ago 4vtP pauaaouoo sT TTapu'mS •sY1 6aag4anj
•TpupO isaM ojuT paTauuugo aq XTTpnjuaAa pTnoo sauTm pasodoad asagq moat
aVuuTuap gpgj pauaaouoo sT agS •uaap auTm aped smap3 XuoToO 4saT3 pup
uaau auTm aped smuud TTpz 94TgM suToCpp paap Tpuvq Kjvpunoq aqq aouTs
TTapuTmS •sK suaaouoo KTTeioadsa sTgs •4oTa4sTp aqq 6q appm aq pTnoo
'TuuuO Aaupunog sp gons 'suaau 92puTuap quaouCpp aaggo moaj pagsaa4um
sTgl o4uT aBuuTuap uT sa8upga jugj XTa?ITT aaom aq pTnom 4T 'ma4sXs
sTgq uTu4uTum pup lonalsuoo oq pagsTTgpjsa sT 431alsTp pagsaalum u pup
ITTnq ST 9ATp ago JT 4ug4 sum passeadxa uaaouoo aaggouV •sasn fuTasTxe
3o ssoT Auu asnuo ao Xug aedTunf uT spappuuls XITTunb a94um aluToTA
TTTM 02uuTpap uT 98uuga sTgl 3ug4 anaTTaq oq uosuaa ou anpg are 'A4TpTTUA
amos sug uaaouoo s"ll aTTgM •(s94u39pT4 pasodoad LS) s94R2apT4 pasodoad
agl lu 4T 30 Up alpaluaouoo pup saTaugngTal TTums pup mOTIlaags
Xq Apg aadTunf saaiua gDigm jjouna 409TToo TTTm goaCoad aNTp aqq apgq
uaaouoo agl ST aaags •Tpsodoad sTg3 uo ?i4TTunb aaluri of pa4vT9a pug ags
suaaouoo TeuoT4Tppu Xup puTJ 04 sum TTapuTMS •sY1 glTm 2uT4eam X14
•pagoujju aap suoTlupuammooaa pup ?avmmns s,uu2TTTnY1 mTf pup aagojo0
UT BuTapag u pTag sdao0 agy •saaauT2ug go sdao0 aqq moaj BuTapag
u 2uT4492 uT Tnjssaoons sure ags ssaTun 2uTapag oTTgnd p pezTaoggnu
pug am pup goaCoad sTg4 uo SuTapaq oTTgnd u 498 oq gaoTja ags papuag
pug TTapuTMS •sId Iuga TTpoaa TTTM nol •4oaCoad goaCgnS agj uo suaaouoo
aag 2uTuaaouo3 ITapuTmS TTgAS •sW g4TM lam I '986T 'LZ Kapnuuf uO
Aquno0 apKH
joaCoaa pagsaa4uM aajapnbuvmS
uoTIpaTJT3a9O TO :IOHfgnS
-.*d sTTTK TTTS :KOjA
Aasmpg sTuuaa :0Z
ICI II Q N V 2T O ITT a ICI
986T IOC Aaunupf
uoT439S &4TTpnb aaquM
ZNRKaDVNVK 'IVZNSWNO2IIANa 30 NOISIAIQ
..,.w

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 9, 1985
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Mills
Permits and Planning
THROUGH: Jim Mulligan, Regional Supervisor
Washington - Northeastern Region C E IV E
FROM: Bill Moore, Environmental Technician
Water Quality Section, Washington rr? 1085
SUBJECT: Corps Public Hearing
Juniper Bay Project
Hyde County
.'',q L ()UW iTV ' EC, i &!
C ?.N .
This memo will confirm our attendance at the subject hearing on October 29, 1985.
The primary concerrsexpressed were:
1) That the proposed dike alignment would encroach on significant portions of
wetlands (greater than the 2 acres indicated in the FEIS);
2) That the dike (regardless of height) would not in itself protect against storm
surges and future salt intrusion on agricultural lands.
On December 9, 1985 Mr. Rufus Croom, SCS at Washington County delivered a copy of the
revised dike alignment dated 11-19-85 (see attachment). The revised dike alignment
will result in the placement of fill in approproximately 2 acres of wetlands as per
the FEIS. The proposed project should not increase the fresh water runoff to Juniper
Bay. The purpose of the dike is to prevent flooding of low lying agricultural land
and subsequent salt damage.
It is not anticipated that the proposed project will have any significant adverse im-
pacts on water quality.
It is recommended that a 401 water quality certification be issued.
WJM/cm - Attachment
cc: David Gossett

i

! 4d

d ;

1

aaw 'Muiw wwna At-C'
AWPONM
11

1
l'
.o
i ? ?i

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
October 4, 1985
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Jim Mulligan
Washington Regional Office
FROM: George Everett
GEORGE T. EVc"_RETT
SUBJECT: Swan Quarter Water Shed Project
(Juniper Bay Project)
Hyde County
The Subject project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification.
In response to the public notice by the Corps for the Corps permit and
the Certification, petitions were submitted requesting a public hearing.
The petitioners were successful in convincing the Corps to hold a public
meeting on the project. Attached is a copy of the Corp's notice for the
meeting to be conducted on October 29 at 7:00 PM in Swan Quarter. '
Please see that we are represented at the meeting and make note of
public concerns expressed regarding effects of the project on water
quality. Subsequent to the meeting it is requested that you advise me
as to the water quality issues raised and your recommendations regarding
final action on the Water Quality Certification.
GTE/BM:dkb
Attachment
cc: Dennis Ramsey
Bill Mills

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
SAWC085-N-048-0218
RECEI\J ED
vC 1 3 9A6
?; ? ? ? iTV cECT!n?!
September 19, 1985
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH
THE SWANQUARTER WATERSHED WORK PLAN
(JUNIPER BAY PROJECT)
COLONEL WAYNE A. HANSON will conduct a public meeting to provide a further
opportunity for Federal, State, and local agencies and the general public to
comment on the issuance or denial of a DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT to the HYDE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS for the
construction of DIKES AND ASSOCIATED TIDE GATES related to the WEST,
QUARTER, DOUBLE, AND BAY SUPPLEMENT TO THE SWANQUARTER WATERSHED WORK PLAN
(JUNIPER BAY PROJECT).
The public meeting will begin at 7:00 P.M. on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1985,
in the COURTROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE HYDE COUNTY COURTHOUSE IN
SWANQUARTER, NORTH CAROLINA, and continue until the concerns of all interested
parties have been presented either orally or in writing. Colonel Hanson will
serve as the Presiding Officer of the public meeting and will call upon a
member of his staff to present a brief explanation of the Corps of Engineers'
permit jurisdiction and authority as it relates to this project. Colonel
Hanson will then explain the manner in which the meeting will be conducted and
will set forth the ground rules and any time limits that may be necessary.
Representatives of the Hyde County Commissioners, the,.sponsors of the project,
wi11 then review the background of the project including a discussion of its
anticipated benefits and adverse impacts. Colonel Hanson will next ask for
statements from elected officials followed by statements from Federal, State,
and local agency representatives. The general public will then be asked for
their statements. COMMENTS OR STATEMENTS MADE ORALLY OR IN WRITING WILL
RECEIVE EQUAL CONSIDERATION. Written statements may be mailed to the Corps of
Engineers at the address above and will be accepted at any time through 4:30
p.m. November 12, 1985. Oral statements will be requested from the public at
the public meeting in random order based on "sign-up" cards to be distributed
at the courtroom entrance. There will be no cross-examination of participants
of the meeting, and all comments and questions will be directed to the
Presiding Officer. Participants shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity
for rebuttal. No decision on the Department of the Army permit will be made
at the meeting.
-2-
The request for the Department of the Army permit was announced by the
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers by public notice dated May 16, 1985.
Four hundred and eighty copies of the notice were distributed to Federal,
State, and local agencies and to the public, and a period of 30 days was
allowed for comments to be furnished to the Corps of Engineers. The public
notice was also reported in local newspapers. A petition containing
approximately 200 signatures was received which included a list of concerns
for the project and requested a public meeting be conducted at which these
concerns could be expressed. No objections to the project were received from
agencies or other sources.
Plans and a description of the work which were furnished by the
applicant are attached to this notice for reference.
Written comments or any question regarding this project or the public
meeting should be directed to this office, Attention: Mr. Ken Jolly.
Wayne Hanson
Colon 1, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
6

fill
a
P
84.
?jvm;.: Y'1 Ff i _,iii:r.. ..u -'"'?a4ac: .as *^°:?er^r+c wr

•t; I
if
'}I I
I
M
? 1
I?
IN

'
,;1: 1
I , it

••

I

t

il!
? I

ill .. Y

1
^.ill' t 1,
t 1 '}
'l :I•:II
.
.
.. i 11
1 I
11
I !{ .
,' 114J ! Hit < <•.. w
.
. 1 u

•
??}}

iii

;ii

:1:11 i.'; nlict l
i'
i
1'
1
I
ili'i
:I!i,l.
:I: '!•
;t1:li ' t

i
11; 1! I i
iti,,. ti 1

'
i
.

I
y13.
p
R , ti
??
:Ii:}i
il: I,
:!: ; t
.I
i?
• .II
•1 :1.,1:
';i ,, li;?( 111, •
;:., I!:
t , : 1:1 '
1 , i I I ll 11
i 1ii
ht
t ? S
<
;r F Y

:} i. it
}

'

1
I:ilt ii. '! l,' t:}
:! N a

;

t:

it •I,
:1
:I
:i
i
•111
11

.,
- •1•T: ''' , i t :i 1: ?+
:s

.

I

;l.

.I

:
1

i

1

.

I

,:
;t' il•

I

:

,
•I1.
,
11.
.

i
1

.
1

r.•
i
i:

I

4

,

I

.

•

Q

?

t?

f

s

i

il .

:
•
:
•

i
,a

:
1•
.i

t

.

•
?i 1i1,

' •

:,
:t• {
:I
I:
? i :i
t Q 1
: t
.I
1

1}

11
,i i:t
.t

r

?

1

.I

li

I
I
11.
l
,

'
,I

j

:t:
t:

!1 77 Tr. _-

1

i
s

ii:

I

t

I
•11'[.

.i

'
I1 i

t !?

t

dill

.

T

-
•
i
.I

i

t.

11
:
:
.
li

it

'i;

' 7' t L .tC
:1

t:
I it:
:I•

- .i; i

;
-

.
:1 a

'r -

I: t
:I

:

ti

1
a'

li

1 'I

1.

:i

t
1.

1

1

.=

t
1
-

it .

?i

1I:
. .

.
-
:

-

-

ii}

1' :t

?1

•t
ii.

li

f

i:

i
t:S

:

1

•_i

.
;?

s
il.•

-
_

- J I
1'

I;
;i;
.
:1
I :••
:ice

tr.

--
• •,j

i a
t
:

s

1

t

•

1

'

'

a
1.
M fi
t • . }
•
~

1

.

1.

i

1
1
1
1

i H rr

t

t -
-

-

'

.
1
'1

•1 I•
!

t

i

' .

.
I.
a

• iii ii
i
t

J

t.

rr'-:•
-

-

i

ii

1 ; 1J: .
,

!:
i

i:
,J

':3
.
I

it
.U. ':..1.1.•

-

--

-

- t
:i .

i'

. 1. lt:

i'

3

:
-

-
a

a

11i
i i:

1,

i

1

!

i
•i:
11

;
1.
I
1

i
i
;
i,
t

11
t

•, I

•

Ii

1 .
l.

ii?

•li

11i1 i

;'

I
4

li

I
i •

iJ1.

,,

: it t:

'

f ji
ili

'
t•-"

::i11
:1 -

-
.,1
.
:
.i
;t
I'

i :

!

•it

'J=
i.

Y:

it

-
• • .
' i •si

?•

•,; it

?

1

'I

1

I ii

,I;1

?
1
?
t
,:
,•I 1 i

1

? :?
=

-
:i.
itt
:I ,
f1
, •
---
-

ir

.23::: I:

t.

.
X11
41a,

;

i

•
!
I
1`
1•

•I

1

it

• I:

:s
I
:t:
?1.

. is

I

•1. (:

i

il

t
li

1
r

!. 'i• 1•
l'
li
llt?ll
:l

f

t''l
I:I 1

•
1

7 1t..
.

• ct.
1

I :

i ! ! t

t

3
H

-'.:
~

1
i:
;• 1:
.i:

!•

?
t
I,

1. Ili

1
i; :11

Il• .
--

-
^si
- ii
a:
u ii:

..

:
'1'
I: nli;
1 1
if

i?

.t:

} 111

;!

!I; 'I!

i:'I;

II t :I

I
lull t' ,H ';'i'

1!iiii

1

ii a:

%::

ii

•:-:•

.i

'7ii ,
I t.
i#1 t; 1 :r
ili
I
t
ti
1}
f it t.n;• f;}!
,,: t.l
It:
ia: iii:
.......

1
14
n
ii
. ' ' lil

-

?i-'J?:i
•
I
:1:
; t:
t• i ,: !
i ;1i
ii '1 1
;i. i

iii
tii

i•I
ili

'
;

il: 31:
•!:

1
;!; f !: t
I !' { } t !i
:I:i '
:fl
•
:,• li
4.
I
'1r
I
I
tz::
;t: . :
,. ,
i I .n.
li

il
1'
'

I

?

1
?
I

'
1:11 1111111 .
11{I,
i

4 ;!'
f

•

:
a
:1;tli i 1,
l
1
' 1 •! ,' :. " :.:.ti .
.!}' ;?? 1 ,11' :.(
, !1
,, I. :I lit 1!
1'i?l :, ;i:l;tlj i
:! lii i
:, i ,
; a• t

it
:=iRil
iii

•i:

•1
'I l:
'.
}
}},, i

flit
,

ii I:
I

}

il;
'!?

I:

1 IL
cti '1.
1i•
•

:

;t

't. _

-
s
1

ii'
1 I ,,

1'li

II:

1
!

?
; I:

1
it

1

-

•
1
:
•
'
I
!!
•1:
i,
• _

- .,..

a

• 1'
it:ti 1 .!

i
? •-1?
t,t

1 'It
t !; 1;
:!i . at
i
? ;1:

:t.
:1
;

.I.
, ,, :1"t:

: jl
1
'
1
'4

I

: t1

i1 ' ;'!1

I :I: !I:

it 11 ,j. ".'?1`"

I? :i? :' 'J :L.I:
;tl
11
i?l :1 a:
i
? .,

•J::.
ltd,
a tr.•
''

..:I.?s•

'
= :1=-

:-- t-.

-

--
....--. _ f

•
:1:1: 1 1:
'!
t •}::
,li
:!
Ili
' ,,
'
' .
I
'I t
111
11
.1
11 .
! I:lI
il :
i
l
'1:'11:1
;11 I
1 :cra.
fl {ii;
{
•• «. _
-----
3' •
•
';' :11: 111:71"
ii: is 1 1711 : 1J3 II
I
' ! : 1
' :I
f
1 :['! .
'Il
.1•.t: «+"7.

:

.,?:

iN

f
:!. " tit ,;
5t11i i
j: ;! ;I: 1

?1? 1
1
i
I
li
:il.i,
:I 'lt1
1.
II
iI: •I:
,,

I
ii
.i;ti1 ?
,

1:1
1 iiit;: 11' il:il 'l; t
:1 ,n .li I,
.t; a .rii ,

!? i
1 i
• 11;111•
1
•t'
?I

'
I;
i
?'i1 t?
.I'
,L.
-

.?=••

-.?
-
.} :I: ..
t 1
il'
14 .
i t
t
+
r. .
1
i
# ji
.

i
il
1 I
=

t,
! I
.i
.

i
?
i
a !
i R
1
A20
,
! W L4
_
i!: • - '
t

1111

M

:
a:
>tiLa: i
i{: '

:.:i tt tll,i 7 ;tt. t, ?} } #1.

1 i:. •

„ sll

.1? ..!:

.... S

11::.Ifl

?
? VI•.'i? ? ??' i
Ti

: ?

t

-

'-
WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT TO BE INSTALLED
This flood protection project in the West, Quarter, Double and Bay project
area, Hyde County, North Carolina consists of interdependent measures to
protect the area from wind tide generated flooding. The works of improvement
to be installed consist of a flood prevention dike with tide gates, interior
dikes along feeder channels to facilitate the delivery of excess rainfall
runoff to the tide gates, and land treatment measures which are to be in-
stalled and maintained under the on-going soil and water conservation
district program. The dikes and tide gates are to be installed by the projec
sponsors on a three year schedule. The 6.1 miles of dike construction will
be for single purpose flood prevention..
The nonstandard, special design, dike consists of a dike with a top width
of 14 feet, side slopes 3:1 and a shallow (3.5-4 feet deep) keyway. This
dike is to be constructed to an elevation of 5.7 feet NGVD with special
breach sections constructed to 5.0 ft. NGVD located between the outlet
gate locations. Foundation conditions of impermeable, horizontal clay lenses
throughout the area will make the keyway effective in controlling seepage
beneath the dike. Soil and water conditions make it impractical to compact
the dike with equipment. It will, therefore, be necessary to use dumped
fill. Allowance has been made in estimating volume of fill material to accou
of settling, and construction during the third year of installation to
restore sections of dike that have settled below elevation 5.7 feet NGVD.
The dike will be constructed with a "sand cap" or soil cover over organic
soil fill at least 2 feet deep. Material for dike construction and sand cap
will be taken from a borrow area beside the dike. Most of the material will
come from existing channels.
Dike and tide gate installation will be done in a manner that minimizes
the impact on welands. The dike is to be installed where possible on existin,
MI.
.y a
..;

spoil with borrow being obtained from existing channel adjacent to the dike.
A minimum of 20 foot berm will be established between borrow channel and dik(
Minimum clearing will be used in dike construction. The top of the dike wall
serve as a travelway for access and maintenance to minimize land area requir(
for installation. Disturbed areas, including the dike, will be established
with vegetation providing erosion control and wildlife food and habitat to
minimize adverse effects.
A total of 57 tide gates will be installed in the project area. Twenty-eight
(28) tide gates will be installed under the channel dikes along Honey, Double
Quarter, West, Hydeland and Berry Canals at locations where farm drainage
enters the canals These gates will remain open to discharge farm drainage
until water levels in the canals exceed the levels in the farm drainage
ditches and to allow water to flow to the outlet gates. Then, the gates
will close to prevent backflooding. Twenty-three (23) tide gates will be
installed under the flood prevention dike at existing canal locations. These
gates will remain open to discharge freshwater until water levels outside the
dike force the gates closed. Six (6) tide gates will be installed under US 2(
at locations of existing pipes, to prevent water from flowing into the
project area during high wind tides (see project map). Dikes located parallel
to Juniper, Honey, Double, Quarter, West, and Berry Canals will be installed
to increase the capacities of each channel and prevent flooding caused by
rainfall runoff from cropland above 2.5 feet (NGVD). These dikes will provic
sufficient elevations in the channels to deliver excessive runoff to the
outlet gates under the dike. All earth blockages or dividers that provide
direction to drainage will be retained and if affected by construction
activities, will be replaced.
The typical right-of-way for the project is shown on the attached drawing.

NORTH CAROLINA D AR ENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND C MU IT! DEVELOPMENT
Date 191E
To:
G6y-

? Note and file ? Note, initial and forward
? Note and return to me ? Your comments, please
? Note and see me about this ? For your information
? For your approval ? Prepare reply for my signature
? Per our conversation ? Prepare information for me to reply
? Per your request ? Please answer, with copy to me
97
t-
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
Division of Environmental Management
June 26, 1985
Sybil C. Swindell
Rt. 1, Box 97
Engelhard, NC 27824
Subject: Application for Water Quality
Certification
County of Hyde
Swanquarter Watershed Project
Hyde County
Dear Ms. Swindell:
This will acknowledge receipt of the petition which you submitted-
on June 11, 1985, requesting that the Subject application be denied and
that a public hearing be held. This petition does exhibit that there is
significant public interest in this application to warrant a public
hearing be held prior to any final action by this Division on the
application.
- - I understand that you are working to get local governments or
sponsors to have a hearing on this project. We will await further word
from you on whether a hearing on the Water Quality Certification is
1 need to hear from you on this natter no later
than eptember 15 so hat appropriate actions can be taken prior to our
dline for act on an application.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr.
William Mills with this Office at 733-5083.
Sincerel
SIGNED BY
R. PAUL WILMS
R. Paul Wilms
Director
cc: Dave-Owens
Jim Mulligan
Mary Lou Smith
-,. 1 qdN,??? ?y ? .
,
Po. Box 27687. Rakigh, Noah G,4w 276117687 'kkphone 919.733.4984
An Equgoppottuniry / Affi madve Action Employer

RECEIVED
JUN 2 01985
WATER QUALITY SECTION
OPERATIONS BRANCH
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 19, 1985
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Dennis Ramsey
FROM: George T. Everett Gr
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for 401 Certification
Swan Quarter Watershed Plan
Please have Bill Mills prepare a recommendation for a public hearing
on the Swan Quarter project. Also, have Bill contact Charlie Hollis with
the Corps of Engineers to explore their interest in a joint hearing. I
would like to have the recommendation for a 401 hearing approved by Paul
this week. If the Corps of Engineers wants to participate, we can finalize
the scheduling at a later date.
AL
M REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28x02.1890
June 20, 1985
SUBJECT: File No. SAWCO85-N-048-0218
J U N 2 4 1985
Hyde County Ccmmissioners
Post Office Box 264
Swanquarter, North Carolina 27885
Gentlemen:
RECEIVED
VLATER QUALITY SECTION
OPERATIONS BRANCH
On May 16, 1985, we announced by public notice your
application for a Department of the Army permit to discharge
excavated material into wetlands contiguous with Juniper Bay to
effect construction of an earthen dike and associated tide gates
in the Swanquarter Watershed near Swanquarter, Hyde County, North
Carolina.
In response to that notice, we have received a petition from
the "Concerned Citizens of Coastal Carolina" requesting that the
project be abandoned, no permits be issued, no Federal funds be
allocated, and a public hearing be conducted. It is our
understanding that you have also received the subject petition.
As that petition appears to reflect the views of a significant
segment of the population in the affected area, we would request
that you contact those dissenting parties with a view towards
resolving their concerns. Please advise us in writing of your
findings in this matter. We are temporarily abstaining from
further processing of your permit request pending your resolution
of this matter.
Should you have questions, please contact Mr. Ken Jolly,
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
. *11
r-t
-2-
Copies Furnished:
ti
Ms. Sybil C. Swindell
Route 1, Box 97
Englehard, North Carolina 27824
Mr. Rufus Croon
Soil Conservation Service
116 Adams Street
Plymouth, North Carolina 27962
4. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687<
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Developinent
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687<

RECEIVED
'1111 31 1985
Ju]s 29. 1985 Second of Letter with Attached Petition "A1E?'?1AL!?Y ?ECTie"J
• "HATIONS ISRANCH
June 11, 1985
TO: gyde County Board of County Commissioners
Pamlico Soil and Water Conservation District
NC Division of Environmental Management
US Army Corps of Ingineers, Wilxdngton District
FROM: Concerned Citizens of Coastal Carolina
RBs West, Quarter, Double and Bay Watershed Project-Swan
Quarter, Vyde County
DATE: June 11, 1985
Attention: J. B. Berry
Ruf a Croon
William Nips
Ben Jolly
We, the concerned citizens as landowners, interested parties, families,
fishermen, farmers and friends, as the petitioners (see attached signed
petitions as part of this letter) hereby request that you abandon this
said project and that so Federal funds be allocated and that no permits
be issued.
By way of this letter and attached petitions, we farther request that
all eoncerned and/or related agencies conduct a public hearing(by proper
notifioation)in We County so that all aspects of this project can be
discussed.
The above mentioned persons will be served a copy of this letter with
attached petitions by certified mail.
Thank you for your prompt attention.
Sincerelys
Sy C. 9Kindell
DO OCRATS FOR MARTIN
ac: Ron. Jesse Yelas
Yon. Jim Nartin
Sec. Rlizabeth Y. Dole
gee. Tom y Rhoades
Nr. Kenneth Roberson
Atty . Raymond N. Taylor
r .k J
70 8 RIDE COUNT DOIRD OF COUNTT WMISSIONIRS, -PAKLIOO SOIL .
AND WATSR ©ONSIZVATION DISTRUT AW SSATVYEDIRAL AG=CI35' ,.:,_
e , C, ?Vi to
.S - -
7- OZ 4-Y-
S cart/ L/ -
NAgAL
E30.u?2C6 S a4JL , S, g 4V7 rl(iTT?-
190111 a -'? iBNC TIZSNS OF COASTAL CAROLINA
Ilt WIRT, QUARTER, DGUKX and DAY WATERSHED PROJECT-SWAT QDAB?NB,
lima OOUNTT
HATS: NAT n, 1l85
INSOIUGH as the stated Sponsors thru its Committee on the Swan Quarter
Vatearshed Projest do not represent the viers of the majority of concerned
sitisens in that the said Committee did not advertise nor hold numerous
paMie hearings to got the citizens input out
1. sxact locations of addition ditches and location of dikes,
2, environmental impact of fresh water runoff as -it may relate---- - -
to peat mining and other industrial developments,
relationship to prpposed widening of US 264 fros Rose Day
to Dsgelhard,
k. misuses of Federal !awls,
5. assessment of property taxes,
6. relocation of persons within drainage district, and
7. Fey irregularities as they my relate to GAIU regulations
and to the Nyde County Land Use Plan;
ils, the undersigned eoncerned citizens as landowners, interested panties,
families, fishermen, farmers and friends, do
BERM PETITION the Sponsors of this Project to immediately alandon
sach and that the Federal Agencies ant all funding and that the Federal
wad State Agencies dour any permits for said project*
lospeotrany sari Ped, ,
4
Z4_? ,
C. Swindell
It. 1 DDX !7
UgaUwrd, VC 27124
rate Two
petition to we County DDAM of Oo issioaers at. alo re Swan Qsarter
xatersled pro3 eat
MW 29t IPIS
-10
]IAMB ' ? ? NA2?_
i?8t58 2 v AIMS

I

i
r8t n ji lot0
Pe to Hyde County ]bard of Comissioners et. al. re Swan Quarter
Wataraks , Pro j not
XV 29,p 1965
NAME 1 F'J?
ADDRESS /C-r-. r I!"'c _,j/-'
NOR
ADDRESS
7 Z?
NAM xAK
ADDRES,B ai?lllSiaSS
XAKS NAME
ADDRESS ADDRESS
NAME NM
ADDRESS ADDRESS
MAKE NAME
ADDRESS iDDRE?.?S
BAKE NAME
ADDRESS ADDRESS
h; j s wi ; not e., (1 ?a S- ? Ss ? -?
Y
cgal? , TKAto 1?<<q$S
t7 oo
e.., -?
# ?. An s ` D C.

??? ????
r
Bill Moore of the Washington- Regional Off.ce Called
you concerning what they knew about Ms. Swindell's
meeting with you°•concerninng'-Swan Quarter Watershed
Project.
-Bill contacted the COE.about this and learned
that Ms. Swindell had been?to see.them also-on
this. The main things she told the COE she was
upset about werev,
1. Noone in area is in,favor-of project.
2.• Ms.Swindell's claims there were no
public hearings. (Bill understands,
however,- that there were hearings and
the Soil Conservation Service sent
out proper notices.)
-The COE will be' sending a+,letter to the County
Commissioners asking them to review-the project
with the disturbed parties and giving them the
status - a copy of this letter will be sent:to
Bill Mills.
-The Washington Regional Office has no WQ data from
Juniper Bay - they feel this project will have little
WQ impact and have no objections to project as it
is currently.
'CALL BILL IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS: 8-919-946-6481
mbj
MEMO
DATE:
TO SUBJECT:
4-6
73 3 - a S' b
A.Ms

Yol -?
G?
c_ P
ID ? ?-
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources &Community Development
??QIlfA AY
I 1W.
"SAVE OUR HYDE"
4 . )&Bt
T0:
FROM: WEST CANAL ASSOCIATION
RE: WESTv QUARTBRv DOUBLE AND DAY CANAL WATERSHED PROJECT
DATE: OCMUR-; 49, 1985
You are invited to attend a gathering of concerned citizens to most
in HYDE county on October 29i 1985 in order to learn more about our
sad state of affairs with our once plentiful WETLAM and their re-
lationship to a proposed watershed project.
The ITINERt1RY is:
1 :00 PM Most at MATTAKUSE W INN AND RSSTAURUff
Fairfield NC
1:30 PM Iend/air/ssa tour of Watershed Pro3ect and the
surrounding Mattamnskeet Lake areas
4:00 PM Presentation: A CLOSER IAOK AT THE JUNIPER DAY
PROJECT (WATERSHED )
5:00 PM Seafood Dinner (JUNIPER X&Y-PAMLICO SOUND trout
and shrimp) at Mattamuskest Imm And RESTAURANT-
$5.00 per person; pay Sybil on arrival
7:00 PM ARMY CORPS OF ENGINIM PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
SWAN QUARTER WATERSHED PROJECT(404 PERMIT)-
SWAN QUARTER COURTHOUSE
Please respond by phone before October 29th who your personal
representative is and time of arrival if you cannot attend. Over-
night accommadations will be available at the MATTAWSKSBT INN
if needed (call Sybil). We are looking forward to seeing you on
the 29thb
*Dress accordingly.

p
(0
c
z
z?
?a?v?+tBiA

d
H
A
H
H
O
x
Lee r .V___,
June 4, 1985
JUN 1535
p?-}I'L-?' C?O'^". S e V J At' o w ? S ` + wrap i1t kA'akPY?`i6?ca%.?2n I?(?„
Rufus Groom
Pa&lieo Soil and Water Conservation District
116 Adams Street
Plymouth, NC 27962
Telephone No. 919-793-4561
Dear Mr. Croon:
It is my understanding that your office, as a Sponsor, has the final
plans for the Swan Quarter Watershed Project for the West, Quarter,
Double and fay Canals. It is my request that you send me a_copy of
this final draft,
In addition, by copy of this letter; the following persons will also
be expecting to receive a copy of the said project within ten days:
Ikon. Jesse Helms, Chairman
Senate AgricultureCommittee
Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20000
Hon. Jim Martin, Governor
Office of The Governor
116 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, KC 27611
Pat Dorsey, Secretary
KC Department of Cultural Resources
State Archives Building
Raleigh, HC 27611
Tommy Rhoades, Chairman
NC Department of Natural Resources
P. O. Box 27687
RaEleigh, NC 27611
Kenneth H. Roberson, Board Member
NC Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 27611
Raleigh, NC 27610
JUN 11985
WATER QUALITY
It, .
Page Two
Letter t0 ;'z-oon Re: Swan Quarter V.x ^?. A Prof Oct
.JL3?Z??L9? ?.? `>
Dill, Louis, A " , Iiiotrator of 101 Swindell 's -,ato
LEWIS, LEWIS cz JTBUT
P. 0. rox 4
F'armvil.le,dC 2"r'32$
Stephen Caa ? , ::.-,ornoy for Marjorie 24. N pi .'. ?1
HAUPINj, TAYLOR ' 7LT IS
P. 0o Drader /?64
Raleigh, NC 27612
Raymond X. Taylor
1ULL, HILL, 0 9 +'Z]E' `S LL & TAYIOR
P. Om Lax 19271
Raleigh, NC 2701:
Thank you for d o., at.nntion in this natt=o
Sincerely,
Sy? C,
HYDE COT TY D7a'C4 STS 'IFOR MARTIN-
Rt. 1 Eox )7
En-ell,,ard, NO 2V24
Cedes to : K n oUy
D " LL -wont of the Azmq
Y1ili :i n ;ton District, CoiTs of li73ineers
Po 0. .-.-ox 1390
Vi l ;-,i ngton, NC 28402
Paul Nilns., Director
Diviromental Management Co 3izoion
P. 0, Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Geore Kaneklides, Director
Office of Legal Affairs-Depar-Lmeat of Natural Resources
P. 0s Lox 27637
Raleigh, NC 27611
-u •.-.W?
TIIft6A8` kft f'hAft ig A , N A °Thu"Ay MayZS,.1 aS! Papa BB
Board A lies
pA
t For Permit
To Build Dike
I The Hyde County Board-of Commis-
sioners has made application to the
Department of the Army for permit to
discharge excavated material from.the, ,
"M Quarter watersikid dike and tide
:gates project into the :Juniper Bay
wetlands.
The announcement was made Thurs-
kc Aay-by. the Army Corps of Engineers'
Wilmington office: The tiurpo?e of the
'Swan Quarter Watershed project is to
. protect agricultural lahds ' from
flooding caused by high-wind tides.
Plans submitted with the application
{ show the proposed construction of ap_
proximately 6.1 miles of earthen dike
along the southern limits of Swan
- Quarter Watershed. The work will in-
volve the constructior. of a 14-foot wide ?1,
(it,-t60*r S.? fGot ?artbft i dike*Ith
atypical bottom width of-9 feet.
e Material for 'the.dike will he 'ex-
t cavated from adjaceflt burrow areas
f
alongside the dike. A total of -57 aide
gates are to be installed in the project
area.
Comments from any person regar-
ding the application and the proposed
work will be received no later than 4:15
p.m., dune 19, to the attention of Ken
Jolly, Department of ft-Army; jlViltn-
ington District, Corps of Engineers,
P.O. Box 1890,V ilnTicto, V.C. 28402.
An environment0,*pigct stAtement,
,: -prepared -'by -#ie, I.S. partaneBt' of
Agriculture, Soil Comervation Service,
is available 'for review in the
Regulatory Branch in the Wilmington'...
District Office of the Corps.
1
STA7Z ASSISTANT SECRETARY
North Carolina Department of Natural FRESO NATURAL
-6? Resources &Community Development Earl G.Droessler
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor James A. Summers, Secretary Telephone [phone]
February 6, 1984
.. .,. FEB I[) ,W `I
MEMORANDUM
FEB 5 1984
TO: Vernon Bevill WATER
Maurice G. Cook QUALITY
Robert Helms SECTION
Robert Mahood
Dave Owens
FROM: Earl G. Droessler 'G
SUBJECT: Swan Quarter Project EIS
I want to commend each of you for your agency's constructive input
into the discussion last Thursday of the Swan Quarter Project draft
EIS. It was encouraging to see the cooperative spirit displayed by
all of our Departmental people.
As we move into the development of the final EIS, I would appreciate
your continued input and assistance in making the document as strong
as possible. Mr. John Garrett of SCS will be contacting you in the
near future in regard to arranging a meeting with you and/or others
whom you may designate.
The Department appreciates the efforts you are putting forth in this
endeavor.
EGD:mw
cc: Mr. Coy Garrett
Mr. Richard Gallo
Mr. John Garrett

P. O. Box 27687 Raleigh, N. C. 27611-7687
MEMO
DATE: June 21, 1985
George
TO: SUBJECT:
FROM: Teresa-
asao- oor
Mary Lou Smith called about 4:55 p.m. today. She wants to know
if you got in touch with Sybil Swindall. If so, what transpired
and where does she stand. She wants to be copied on anything
going to Ms. Swindall.
If you are not going to be in Monday, please write what transpired
on this memo at the bottom. Ms. Smith wants me to call her on
Monday if you are not going to be here. 0- IAO-t 7
U
-D A4 - uA& can
a? North Carolina Department of Natural
. Resources &Community Development
Office, Soatd of Commtdonen
Michael t Sw hWdL Cunituck
J. B. Bevy. FaitW
J. B. Cahoaw. Lake L MWN
Allow M. Ballawoa„ Octac*A
Maeg? !?. IIaRM. $w?n Qtiarlw
F
COUNTY OF HYDE
SWAN QUARTER, NORTH CAROLINA 27885 JUL 9 1995
WATER QUALITY
SECTION
F ally C. Tbew w^ County Flnanm Offim
ClUload Swlwdall. County Manages
Dowel.. A. Gibbs. AW t County MeneW
July 3, 1985
SO%L & V! A. L ?.y
Mr. Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Hollis,
Enclosed is our response to the petition from the "Concerned
Citizens of Coastal Carolina." Mr. Hollis, we have found-that local
support for this project is a-s strong today as it was in 1979.
..We request that the Army Corps of Engineers issue a "4040 Permit.
The following is a list of some of the meetings and 'purposes
r pertaining. to West-Quarter/Double-Bay (SwanQuarter) Watershed
project.
August 1, 1979 -------- A public informational meeting was held
with 24 people attending.
August 6, 1979 -------- Hyde County Commissioners passed a
resolution to act as a sponsor of the
V 4- project.
June 1, 1980 --------- Public meeting was held in the Agricultur(
Building auditorium.
December 18,,1980 ------ Public meeting held with notices posted
in courthouse and other public.places.
Twenty people attended.
August 6, 1981 --------- Certified notices were mailed to all
property owners about establishing a

service district and about public
meeting to be held on September 8, 1981.
September 8, 1981 ----- Public meeting concerning a service
district. Public notice published in
Washington Daily News, posted in Hyde
County Courthouse..Approximately 25
people attended.
October 19, 1981 ----- Public meeting held for purpose of
establishment of a special service
district. Ballots were mailed to land-
owners to return or bring.back at meeting.
Ballots were counted with 53 voting for
and 34 against the establishment of the
service district. As a result of this
vote the county commissioners voted to
establish a special servict.district.
September 1., 1982 ----- Scoping meeting was held. Twenty five
attended which were mostly professional.
people. (Agency personnel)
January 20, 1983 ----- Scopi.ng meeting held with 36 people
attending. People present consisted of
agency representatives, committee members,
and property owners.
This project was discussed at a number of the-Gowe.rnor'tWater
Quality Task Force meetings.This task force-met for approximately 18`
months'and was open ta?the public.
Since 1979 the steering committees established by the county
commissioners have met several times each year.
Mr. Hollis, as you are aware the project was changed due to
the task force trying to work out a way to divert freshwater.out of
a primary nursery area. Because of the lack of state funding and
support the project reverted back to the original plan`. This plan
was to install -a dike and tidegates. No new channels, were"to be
constructed except the borrow channel. The spoil from this channel
would be used to ccnstruct the dike. Scoping meetings held in 1983•
and 1984 settled'on the dike alignment with the localicommittees

and various federal and state agencies. By installing tide gates
fresh water runoff may be reduced into the primary nursery area.
The open ditches behind the tide gates will become as storage
areas for the fresh water.
Mr. Hollis, we are an agricultural county and if cropland is
adversely affected we lose our tax base and we need to prevent this.
We have reviewed the petition and found that out of the 171
names that have signed only 43 of those are located within the
watershed area. The remaining 128 are located outside the watershed.
Only those.within the watershed will be assessed to maintain and pay
?r
for the project.
This project is being established under General Statue Chapter
153 A Article 16. Our county attorney has assured us that we met
the intent of the statue as it relates-to public meetings and
notices.
Sincerely,
i

r!
f)
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. Sox low
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA Z810Z-law
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
June 20, 1985
SUBJDCr: File No. SAW0085-N- 048-0218
J U N 2 4 1985
Hyde County Commissioners
Post Office Box 264
Swanquarter, North Carolina 27885
Gentlemen:
RECEIVED
WATER QUALITY SECTION
OPERATIONS BRANCH
On May 16, 1985, we announced by public notice your
application for a Department of the Army permit to discharge
excavated material into wetlands contiguous with juniper Bay to
effect constriction of an earthen dike and associated tide gates
in the Swanquarter Watershed near Swanquarter, Hyde County, North
Carolina.
In response to that notice, we have received a petition from
the 'Concerned Citizens of Coastal Carolina' requesting that the
project be abandoned, no permits be issued, no Federal funds be
allocated, and a public hearing be conducted. It is our
understanding that you have also received the subject petition.
As that petition appears to reflect the views of a significant
segment of the population in the affected area, we would request
that you contact those dissenting parties with a view towards
resolving their concerns. Please advise us in writing of your
findings in this matter. We are temporarily abstaining froa
further prooessing of your permit request pending. your resolution
of this smatter. ° -
Should You have questions, p1 ease contact Mr. Ken Jolly,
telephone [phone].
4 4
sincerely,
Charles W. Hollis
Chief, Regulatory Branch

June 11, 1985
R E C EIV ED
JUN 13 1985
WATER QUALITY SECTION
OPERATIONS BRANCH
TOt Hyde County Board of County Commissioners
Paslico Soil and Water Conservation District
NC Division of Environmental Management
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
FROM: Concerned Citizens of Coastal Carolina
Lis: West, Quarter, Double and Bay Watershed Project-Swan
Quarter, Hyde County
DATS: June 119 1995
Attention: J. B. Berry
Ruftits Croon
William Mills
Ken Jolly
We, the concerned citizens as landowners, interested parties, families,
fishermen, farmers and friends, as the petitioners (see attached signed
petitions as part of this letter) hereby request that you abandon this
said project and that no Federal funds be allocated and that no pezmits
be issued.
By way of this letter and attached petitions, we further request that
all eoncerned and/or related agencies conduct a public hearing(by proper
notification)in Hyde County so that all aspects of this project can be
discussed.
The above mentioned persons will be served a copy of this letter with
attached petitions by certified nail.
Thant: you for your prompt attention.
Sincerely,
DD OCBATS FOR MABTIK
cc: Yon. Jesse Nelms
Yon. Jim Martin
Sec. Elisabeth Y. Dole
Sec. Tommy Rhoades
Mr. Kenneth Roberson
Atty. Raymond M. Taylor
?r
TO I MZ COUNTY BOARD OF COUM =033SION03, PAKLIOD SOIL
LID WATT CONSRRVATION DISTRICT AND STATU/ MMAL AONCISS ",:_
e , C, iVI S o
s o cu/ Lt -
az=
017- 1 A 401
?v c
?o,uRCE3 ,5, ,q- ? Et1 .C(i7T??
1raOUi", -:_ C IZ?S OF COASTAL C RDLVI
nt NRiT, QUARTER, DOON A and NAT WATERMW lBOdBCT-SWAT QDARM#
NMI GOON r
PATS: NAT 2'9,1!115
IBSOIUCK as the stated Sponsors thrn its Committee on the Sean Quarter
Watershed Project do mot represent the vieve of the majority of concerned
sitisess is that the said Committee Aid not advertise nor hold asmsrow
pallie hearings to got the citizens input out
1. am@ t locations- of addition ditches and location of dikes,
2, enviroc+mental impact of fresh water runoff as it say relate
to peat pining and other industrial develo ent,
,,: relationship to prpposed widening of VS 26 trom Rose Ray
to Sdgelhard,
la. misuses of Federal Funds,
5. assesessat of property taxes,
6* relocation of persons within drainage district, and
7. mW irregularities as they may relate to CAXA segelations
end to the My" County Land Use Plan;
WS6 the undersigned concerned citizens as landowners, interested parties,
families, tishenaem, farmers and friends, do
KMW PITITIO! the Sponsors of this Project to Immediately abandon
such and that the Federal Agencies out all funding and that the Federal
and State Agencies doW mW posits for said project.
RespectAtlly sutimi ,
C. BMindell
St. 1 D= 97
Nogel ard, NC 27624
•r
Page Two
Petition to IWde Cowt, kurl of Qooiasi oners et. al. re 9raa Quarter
watersked Pro3eet
MW t!, 1965
45
?kbl

Pate Two
petition to Ride County lbard of Qomissi.oners et. al. re Swan Quarter
Wsters>hed Project
W 2!, 11$5
r
mm
MAU

NAME _
ADM
AADRSS.S
rti

c
.r
L.
7-777Z
?ia?irr 1 r r r??
I
Page Two
Petition to Hyde County lbard of Comissioners eto al* re Swan Quarter
Watershed Project
W 2!, 1985
Page Two
]Petition to i"s Comm, loard of Commissioners eto al. re Swam Quarter
watershed ]Projeot
W 2vf IPi5

NAME
an
IL
A I n
r
e f i
?tvzr? L)?r 1'1G Z7/YD-

rate Two
petition to Byde County bard of Cosai.esionera et, al, re Swan Quarter
Watershed Protect
MW 29, 19$5
-7ge
I/
Page TOO
Petition to 97de Counts lbard of Qorissioners et& al, " Swan quarter
Natersked P"Jeet
IW "s 1965 -
Page Two
petition to Byde County bard of Coanissioners et, al. re Swan Qaarter
Watershed Project
w 2!, 1965
f
Page Too
Tetition to Hyde cAmtr
Watersied Pro3eet
sw "so 1.965
bard of Oasatssioners et. al* re Swan Quarter
5
lase two
letition to 97" Qomtr krard of oomaissioners at, al. re Swan Quarter
Watershed hroQest
Sw 29, 1915
C.

?YYa?rY
Kka NAM
WE - l

Page Two
Petition to Hyde County Board of Commissioners eto al, re Swan Quarter
Watershed Pro3eat
W 29, 1985 ,-

AMR=
NAME
r1DDEBS3

.. .uC 7 N y ?p N C G p
W C) c?
?.w 5' O A e? .C y ..a? bD N re
v b11 0 A Rbp :wC y>' .CI?yO
N p O ro N
75, Ad
it °No aro? p:'3.0? u ??oo?a
V ro0 lW7
` ro
y y..++ w C ro27 0.._7 ...w tw`0
UJ ?,. N w w cpCG07Uy
ca. w
. :+ N" Q a A C 47 to 47. a
• -0-'0 d .+ V y 01 -' w 41 y++ 4•L?•' k k>?.a
-. ,.? .. N
?. S .d > L C p ti p w V 0 y o Ow >
;. CO w-1 b U w u N a C. V 41-. .. a k. a •R R C SC
C 0 `CO
W cu
m' u-, ?.I w d a,?A cx p ?W>
w FA
V-.- ' cis > O W. ,O 3 y ..FVi rob Cp ?+ ..i O •"' :3 U,
C
.. V i AG 7 -G+ O N . Ca t.., "T1. V.y V.Cw
13
0p ._ ? OOu.1 --Np..sO.M
' U `C
?
v p
r Q ,icy ..w co 14 3 o.NJ,0.-
?uu
E
ro o x.
? y ro ? ?yj
??u a oro -
.Q Q u • ?..,••.. O a 'm
m y
,7p,oy ?.'fl .. <.. V'•• O p'"? `
+'' 0 c a 3 k;
U` Q) N
I - Z-2 0-73
rr 0 acau 0.w co
a°?cN p 0)aL*
-. .CV N•C w'Vi 'd ....?A>, 03'O. bD S. +.. '.w yA.GG
_. ? ?.b?b?cro „??ro wA;;N°.x ^- ?,__,, ,. AAl1 ??o _ ?roa•?.
Poo
? N U?w uw,c a«.Y Vg t
0wW?w N
Ca
...., d:.p d : ,oyl 2
4V >° a. w..0 ca as 0 0 ar
s 33 ?ir0? 5 UW---9w,92 Oa?761°C--
^
7 41
.
w:.
W •.. K :. - S Y•
,
x.
:.ro b >, at U
4) y S. N u-N 4) V ?.4Q C SE p ro
'd C to " eC
? .,.v G1?gX,4 >d c omkrow0 R.kd o uA ,- 3 0
?
o ?*
w.o C co 'k,. A O
M1 iro ro RN '?! + M
O m 0:: r
R?wC?4? ° .Y OC27pCt1 y4
MS
W Vd 9? a, 3ro o C .v y "Yti 3 cti
a ro. ro > o
OIL ci ,•.' ?•»'" V C fr I.i C10- Rl ,A' .ir. 0.. u O +e .C. y tq 0 17 +i
U y ,N y 40 e0'+? ? C. . C q: k
Aft .r u.., u. ? p ! t, C a C N C a ca 3. u .2 S°"
. ? ?,
? . ? 40
d?ro ?u a. aroCa E ca c. 0+W
•:t 0 OF
O'?C7.'Cr C c6 co y 3`y C_ C 4V ,
?O', O • b y y d N._ -'? ray p=
G a 4
m mod., i•L ?d7V .: 41N w O: A OVp O C fr Gd rO Nay. +'w CA as k E?
.. _ .? i.•Mw 7 - .. 4Y > y u Ol J4
V
d'`r CCf dad`roCyC N ? i, C ?CCd V Uk:aiM.U"y p' ro ?. OdR p
R`i :, • •k: O w. « 8 O Q • V n0 0 C A °' v ?' a? _ a' awr o ca 3 cd
yN
x +o-, w?, N,. pa VI41'Cn.3 .C• O. N pC ?wC 0R7t' ?p umCCD+O 0 U' r
aQ?rC-Op++Q^a°mVC°^ .0 c0?]7u+?A,?ONA>??W r;suGOro7?$ ulI?
` ?x'ya3-,oac v o to ? mu a) E(V- NwR u to; 02 4)N?? C yy..W:
0. CZ
p co - a ro a? A ,.. bj g p
'"!•>
to y V U A
V w:OyO w
sP. q 'mr °a7?k??. CCAd '3' k V YC CCC V
a' R
,1°m Ro yQ..y b ud?:mw0 3??roro Y:0•iC 3b ca 0w mZ*"
8 a+ a ? b 1? '?:: _
•
0
_ B C C7AU.tia.?., 1.2 0 ,ro yo037CCm a.N:3, L -_ cz M 49 a.
3w w: u??,
TV
27 'y ^ T3"? V ?+ Sv ' >r'•'-u b0; r «. ?' ,0"C y..r N y •?
ca
•? S"y 0. ., ....R 3. 47 ??=yu? MY~b "iG.4 AroiiO Y?' 47Oro4?roS" -? A
ro W p ro
$eoRN?`axAh o Y«u3? lt?
?.... 1 :...-. ,. ... y1-+,w ? y W. td 'y? d a.'i p as p•pro..? wqt!(Yw: N'" ZT.
d y:ro•9-
94
u 9cvi Rb roc'"ACpEo
C30 l-w;?- -aRK.atnz= YaR Y?30 3 oNUroWuro I?1Y
_.o m d y vt O.C.US co -4u it ..N.•N... ?? N y N 0 ro C u V.4
o-ci
a 'k>,;.V k a@'k 2t^, Ab yrocAN NoRd?
C._ "ro OR Q ?003?, ?,
N.: 015 'ttl ee.u' .? ro ++? RCYY'1?'
1 G, d N V N»->a3 V
0 S.... .C F ,
O d ro,.. O Nu w a1 41 O NO
tO.roro uC? NU,? ro? ? N. Cro U V 4* > u. royuti wd
.d7rp.•.i41?0CfA07 N.??yyY?Yy.?R. d V.roLCy ti YOa.r ro4l?y of CO1 . N p:.
21 aaE hxbllkCO IIG aid?NR C >uroA O ad's, .kcA.,dwx..
a ^ k .. •, "' N V s;Cw COabDV u tiro roC0
y W k
c ?. A O "y, yn U x [r c G7. o N U U:Z i.
V Y R .. a .. c N ro b b "d • N x +?
a N N y 0 0 O '•'. u 7 ,'ty' V "" Z!' .. a E O tf0 a? -R?
F t? _ it Rig.; O ••, ,C w ci > O (D ON
[-Z+I/r1 p p i. ww d V >+ C.. O y to V ca w ,..,, C d •? *' ?+ ctl 'C ty `"' •.. '0 i?+ ,C 0 0 w. C ro y . . a .?. •• w C
V 3 y ro a A. ti t w O' . 27 - c U1 N,,C 0 ++ ++ C ro '? A O., .. 0 Aap
.,,0•N0 sw+'-a'o• p.CuyuU roro w y?,..'D Ca' ?3a mop Ov
•.N. p '? Y s) N .C C1`'' V y .0 Y N .? u a N A W "' 0 t1 3 27 >i r '
. .". _ 3277ro a E'3N•1>N co "NcC yCl Ay U'0>, t02. .`?'0 - 7 aN
p d" u?.w V,N ..a.dY C..3 u.'C . C.k Ey?E? A•0 S 0^'""C47 d VO
?? cRa33'•Swx ?ZU4maa3Eovo,°? °-3?WA°Nro3?acnw3
v o.,

t

.?trn ki r
w?
ro ? ,
;460 r

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
SAWC085-N-048-0218
May 16, 1985
PUBLIC NOTICE
HYDE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Post Office Box 264, Swanquarter, North
Carolina 27885, has applied for a Department of the Army permit TO DISCHARGE
EXCAVATED MATERIAL INTO WETLANDS CONTIGUOUS WITH JUNIPER BAY TO EFFECT
CONSTRUCTION OF AN EARTHEN DIKE AND ASSOCIATED TIDE GATES IN THE SWANQUARTER
WATERSHED NEAR SWANQUARTER, Hyde County, North Carolina.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the
applicant and from observations made during an onsite visit by a
representative of the Corps of Engineers. Plans submitted with the
application show the proposed construction of approximately 6.1 miles of
earthen dike along the southern limits of Swanquarter Watershed. The work
will involve construction of a 14-foot-wide (top width), 5.7-foot-high earthen
dike with 3:1 side slopes (typical bottom width of 38 feet). Material for the
dike will be excavated from adjacent borrow areas alongside the dike. A total
of 57 tide gates are to be installed in the project area. Typical excavation
and fill activities are to be restricted to an approximate 100-foot-wide
portion of a dedicated 150-foot-wide right-of-way.
The proposed dike alignment has been significantly modified from that
originally presented by the applicant as a result of coordination between the
applicant and interested Federal and State agencies. Construction of the dike
along this proposed alignment, utilizing existing dikes, canals, and disturbed
areas where possible, will impact approximately 2 acres of irregularly-flooded
wetlands. The purpose of the proposed work is to protect agricultural lands
from flooding caused by high wind tides. Plans showing the work are included
with this public notice. An Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by the
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, is available for
review in Regulatory Branch, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North
Carolina.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine
the need for the applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No
Department of the Army permit will be issued until the coordinated State
viewpoint on the proposal has been received and reviewed by this agency, nor
will a Department of the Army permit be issued until the N. C. Division of
Environmental Management has determined the applicability of a Water Quality
Certificate as required by PL 92-500.
a r
_2_
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404(b) of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within
the comment period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to
consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the
National Register of Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered
properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and
this worksite is not registered property or property listed as being eligible
for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register
constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District
Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the presence of such resources.
Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical
data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer has determined, based on a review of data furnished
by the applicant and onsite observations, that the activity will not affect
species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and, if so, the conditions under
which it will be allowed to occur, are, therefore, determined by the outcome
of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national
concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. All
factors which may be relevant to the proposal-must be considered including the
cumulative effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish
and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation,
shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water
quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare
of the people. For activities involving the placement of dredged or fill
materials in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied if the
discharge that would be authorized by such permit would not comply with the
Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the
preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit
will be granted unless the District Engineer determines that it would be
contrary to the public interest.

-3-
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army
permit will not be made until the N. C. Division of Environmental Management
(DEM), issues or denies State certification required by Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. The DEM considers whether or not the proposed activity will
comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act. The
application and this public notice for the Department of the Army permit
serve as application to the DEM for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, N. C.
Division of Environmental Management, Salisbury Street, Archdale Building,
Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished to any
person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The N. C. Division of Environmental Management plans to take final action
in the issuance of the Clean Water Act certification on or after June 25, 1985.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the N. C.
Division of Environmental Management, Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27611, on or before June 19, 1985, Attention: Mr. William Mills.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. Ken Jolly, until 4:15 p.m.,
June 17, 1985, or telephone [phone].
T. 6URCH
NE ASSISTANT
L. Warren
• Lieutenant Colonel,
Corps of Engineers
Deputy District Engineer
µ "
1 , " II ` }i '1' it t illii{ f
Ia +?
j;l!t1
111
} I
1
i?i
it}'
i} ;(
fi
i
1
t
t
Y
;_;
i
ii

4 , i
.
}+ i
{Iil I M1,

+ Fci+

r»t if

• titt }

'•t}r l r}?I

•
•
?: lt',k,I lift
??
'}t:i
f
i
:
t
i
1
f`}#
?
(
;`
k

i
i
,

'
f
If
Il
y
I
#

•

?
•
. 4 ;
I 1
t
;a n
If
I I
n i l rN
? qu jg?? r t }
`I 'i
1 I 11 'I I 1 ll I i 1 ?'{ f z a
' F
:itt:l. r 'fill i ! 1 1'}1 II ,! 11 ill ` } ' 1 i(1}I t 1 } 'It l a8 Z a
?ffi£

rs,
r t "?j t? s lfj ki
HI 11}1 1 ('a i II I lii }?, t :``fl 'li i 1 !I , ?!?
i ,
1 1 t!k 3 i s#? 1 '^ ^
l n
t;! t ,, .,
rt#, it ( t ii,,11 ? ;lil lil. I1. ;iii ilt'i 1;l i I jl 1 li l t I 1t : t,t 1 .; ?t r z
ti t

li

=
i

l

1.

l
f

tl

I
k

'

? !'

I

' k I I I

i k ' I I,

` ti

' t! t; t} , p U

old g;
I ;; F
: l t: 1 i
if t i
t I
I
' it ; !i f1 II 1 t{ ; 111 t i
If y?
:l ' ' ? itl E? 1
1 11 t ' f
tl
' t 1 1 ?1 I i 1 ?? { ?.lt 1 ? ? fi x i
:? t.,. ifi+ t
at } i,i If ;:
1
ii II! kj
j:: I 1
I I lil
„ '
;? ?, 1 i
i,
I}I , j
11
I 1
,}
k
{ i
r ?

I..

i ,

t
'Fl

l
il

i t.

P,

ttr:i

t r '
?f7i
l;t

f
2

r
if

t
#

i

I

kit

1

t

i

l

k

4

4-

!

F

'
I

- -
.
::;
f
il ,
. :
.
r,r k
; •1i,
r .
, I
I ,
} t:
1 ;,Illi t
f I;i: t
r 1(II !r,ii }
l 1
i !t l
f, 11
. } I j 1j t '
tL t r
r ' I{. }} t
?
k ? ,
'
:l , .
;, .t ,. : ?Il. :t
t t. ,l . ' 1. t , r ;:?, ?•

-

WE

,

j I
tl
tl

ltl

1

1

1

, Mi _

Fr

l

}{
#t +- l i i r k }
f ;

k
f.i

1.

!

fit, i
{
:t

;
+

4

$

-

«
++.

t ' 1 Y i

1 , II

}
47 I
Y'*

1

[
,,
'

i I
j
1
, t '
1
1
r
j 1
t
t

r
.
1
'
, II 2
}
:,
1
-
S
r
4=-...•,
_ _} {
ti 7 1
( }
} '
it ; II .1
1;j 1 t 1
I f I ,r
`
f t
2 *
l'i#1!
i
f
Y
t
t t : Il «
1}t .j" .r r }
M
N ,, ?, `
?
i
f i ?
I '
1 ` 1 l',
i?
1
'
Il
i i
1}?t
?
t
t r
r
a }
I j {: 1 1 ,
t li 1 ( li( f ;
k ;.
} ? i ; 1
: t l ! }
" I=

A

ii { t
1 1 } I.
t1 il
Il li'!
r r! ' It
f
?
I
:t
r
#
+
1
-4+
t I I I 1 ,t
t t
i 1 1 l
j? #
?
t i
1 t
?F
' ?
I ,k
,
ff f
i
t . t li
't :f: t .ft 1 .t
. it :YF!} t I t : .}.: !'t t t ,t .tl ; t+
,
?{ .r 1. ;?? " , f t 1,' I 1}i. k li?i ;li li •tu
oII ? ,i' 'j ,'
1; !1 ! '? ;I it, t l i?, 11 2 .I 1 I- -
: ,;. .i,: :;' i.}1 1 •I i
'.l 1? t I , ' i .ri t
1 t
t ' (
Ylf 11 LI
' # 1
1
2 t t
J
i '' I } ?
?
,, 1 1; !
kl ttt 11 {I? ' i li i jl + , f
t * i Ifi ,
Y r ' i }
t
l I f' r ill
L*

' '
i
k ;
1
I
'
"
'
!
r
?
Y 2 }
> r t i.
}}t
r
_
I
t
l
. i
t
, I
i
i:
: fl
1 .. 1
1 } !
II '
} iI }
1 1 I
11 f l ll} I `: r t
}:{j 'i (.t '} , t
li t! •,i? 1
i; 1 1
t'
f ri il} :IFF
2 t ''
; I iii
I
(
? ?.I:ii
?
y
I it
it ! '
I .
I1. ?r
1; ;If t
t YI
1 I i}
';I , 1{ t ?
r
` ;,.
r'' t
,
i
k(
tf
t
"
#-

44 t 1 , I I 1 ll II 1 1 , , l
3%
:! ?
?i 2 rt I
1
1 ; !
i}
( : ;?''
tj ?? 1
! • I
I 11l'
: tli

°
if '11

ill it

( li i

L1111t i l:

1 '

l 1

i!! ? I

i i i I '

i ? it

If ' „

t '

j ?'

I?t t},

1) i`;t }

fl

l . II? 1

1
I

i

t'

?

r
?: ? ,r
.1 1i
t 1 1 ; I t :i t } ?I j
1•' ili ,.I?i ill
? .1 I?' « k i
i Fi? ' i t- 't .r••-
...
t« ? .-.? +
1 r.
t. ,
t I I t' ,? f•1 i. };? i ' ii1;
t III : 1ai.1 .I. ? 1r ,,' #.: ;;} . t
If r - ( 1' ? 4 t t Y ? ;;
#} t2 i t
I11 ftt }I illr}j l i }lil 1
Iti1j !I'li lil '.I.: 1 1 ! { } }j '11 1 Hi ll 1 1} a I I? S
II ?
-• .l:
t ' t „
` ,I i. 11 t1 i

l I ?''I
• 1 111111 111
I 1 li I ' .. '
, Ill,jl ?f I
?1 l 1'
;} 1 '
', it i t I'j
I ?'
1 1 I`I
'1 1, 11 1!1 1 u ,r t }, .'? 12
? ir. tH
t :
2
t 1 tt t.
11 ? I t
,
!
i1 ,t
11,1 i1 I r tt i
jt •?
l .
I I i 1 ) 1 f
I ' • ,,?
1#
, :! i : 4 .. .
.1 , .
11. I ;ii ji ;i i 1 }
. ' ,
.. I T 1
1 I
. -

1 l ' II I

1

# f7 .r

t
^
t 1
t j t
I 1
r i}1'
J
I
1
II}
{ '
I
I
I
1
1
lilt
'j
I
?l
i:l
''
1
?
i
'
i
I
1i
;
k
;
r
,t 1 1 1 i i t I . IIII t: 'll IIII 1
1
I ( t I II
t I
:;I ? i. # . } t {t
'lii I't }i!' ili t '. ' ,I!I I I;' I 1 ii ' 'I. 1
1 1t 11 ,I 1 1 I;i ?I }
# } .. :$'
l
t }
f . 111 1 4; 111i i ' ' I . 11 1 l; i ; " rl
1 11i1i
I I I i 1 f 1
t
I
, I:
i k 1 r

a: . , 1 ( .:
1i.
li
I
i
}
II'
1
;
I r i 1 l ; ' li i,: I '
1' t I k ?
i tt z i , i Ill f i
t I f .I:' 1'I!t i,; } : li r
11 1 li t t ! I k ;! ' t
+ 1 1. i ' i i ll l « III } I ' 1 1i I 1, 11 1 1 } t { i f
1 t j ; }( 1 I r

*

.
'

r,

-

4,+ «3

1

t1

'l

i

l

I'

I,

:I

I

till

i
..
fill,

,

I

it

#
? . } l i
' I 1 i t I It 11} 111 :. 1 !I 1 J ? i ! '1 '

'

F

i
2 +
t ,
i

#

i
,
?1

it

(?ili
l
•

;? i
,
i1,

tl 11f

{1i
1
1 '
if
1
II i
I
il?

''

i.

I li

1??
,
;' ?;'

I1

it
1
1
I
1 #
- .12 z I Ii i. 1 t'
'ifii .!I t } , I, I I I it r ! ; ' ; ct f { iti 1 1 4
.x
11 t
11 , > It 1; 1 #, , ' ' (} 1
11
t
}
t 1 t
i i k? , i1 1 1 1 . i _
j t ii 1- ? j fl i }( I, 1. ; I i 1' ,iI 1 i t 1i '? 'll '' ii iii t (1f1 1 t} i 'tI I1 t t
4 1 ,; I111, i!11
?
i '
t, j 'I t' f' 1 I l ' 11 } 1 I `
r '
if t i } t
4 1 ;i t;1 t i'I ;, 1 I a il '
'1
1 #11
' 11 (i t. h 2
1 iik :} 1 x
} E
l t
1 I !' t t t
t
'
I
1 $ 11

, -.Ar •ft?

Of
y
a V•
e? ' I
? ? T
N
{
Y
i

Q rI V?
2
1 Vt
?
111 at
NC 9? roI0.1u
UU
? `? < W
8
lo w7 p
4
w
?
7 ?M
.
lg/ 1,1
u
N $ fl

/ vsi ? Q ?
au.? Malea ? 3 ? a
y

bZll tlS d

/
ISO
HI<M o
yu
u
y F
•
y
ty
9
P O
P
A 4

rv 1-3 If-M
4Nq /.j*G
/
?s
7

_1 N

'
a
b4 d S $ ? ? c
3 r ? e
e u H
- u 3 m z J m V
/ Z
W
U'

/
W I

•
31MO lOtl1N03 AtlrON/108 .62•I? J

I N Q
_ 01 N
? Z N

sn" -*"wO Alivo
m
`?? J
I

8 .9C•Q I
31" -MMINO J ANYONnoil

m7

Regulatory Branch
IN REPLY REFER TO
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
May 16, 1985
I;,1 AY 9, () 1985
WATER QUALITY SECTION
0PERAT?0f\±S RP,ANCH
SUBJECT: File No. SAWC085-N-048-0218
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Mills:
Enclosed is the application of the Hyde County Commissioners
for a Department of the Army permit and a State Water Quality
Certification. Your receipt of this letter verifies your
acceptance of a valid request for certification in accordance
with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our administrative regulations.
We are considering authorization of the proposed activity
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have
determined that a water quality certification may be required
under the provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A
Department of the Army permit will not be granted until the
certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, 60 days
after receipt of a request for certification is considered a
reasonable time for State action. Therefore, if your office has
not acted on the request by August 16, 1985, the District
Engineer will deem that waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Ken Jolly,
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
a W. Ho 1 s
ie , Regulat y Branch
RECEIVED
Enclosure

APPLICATION
FOR
Z-1 U
SAW CD85-r N - a '5l ?-o / ?'
0 7 MAR 1985
PERMIT TO EXCAVAT'-: POR FILL WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
EASEMENT IN LANDS ODVE BY WATER LAMA PERMIT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Oepartmont of Adrnlnlstrall n State of +;. M carollna Oepartnrent of IN Army
(GS 146.19) Oeparctnent of Nawrel Reaettncee tittd Community oevelopmem Corps C R ? i, Wi minlijb t Oborke
Ills 113-329.143P2115-31111)(1), 14)-213.3(c), I IIIA-11g
Please type or print and fill in all blanks. If information Is not applicable, so indicate by placinr NIA in blank.
1. Applicant Information Hyde County
A. Name
Last First Middle
0. Address P. 0. Box 264
Street, P O. Box or Route
SwanQuarter North Carolina 27885 919-926-4361
City or Town Stale Zip Code Phone
11. Location of Proposed Project.
A. County Hyde
8. 1. City, town, community or landmark 5 W a n H u a r t e r
2. Is proposed work within city limits? Yes - No X _
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project Ju n i D e r
Bay
111. Oeuription of Project
A. 1. Maintenance of existing project 2. New work X
6. Purpose of excavation or fill
1. Access channel length width depth
2. Boat basin
length width depth
3. Fill area length widthR depth
4. Other Di ka length6 • 1111 1. width 5-0-W t depth max 5 .7 f t,
C. 1. Bulkhead length N /A Average distance waierward of MHW (shoreline)
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material)
D. Excavated material (total for project)
1 Ukk ,jgjated 220,000 2, Typeofmattrial sandy clay loam; loam
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (see also VI A)
1. Cubic yards N/A 2. Type of maitnal
IV. Land Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment.
A. Does the area to be excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes ..I...? No
8. Does the disposal Area include any marshland, swamps or other wetland' Yes -L -N,
C. Disposal Area
1. Location Dike being constructed
2. Do you claim title to disposal area,
D. Fill material source of fill rs lu bt trucscd in N/A
E. Now will c><cavated material be entrapptd and erosion Lonlrolled'
F. Type of equipment to he used r a Q l i n e
G. Will marshland he crossed to transporting equipment to project sites If yes, explain NO
*See Narative
OAF-61
Rev. Ia1•
I y
V. 6*00d V a of f ? r e * 4 Am (Deessflle) from salt water i n t r u s i o n
AA 1. f 4 i v a a D i k e / T i d e gat - t- t tL.a CQ.. Q- i...4 n oa ..
2. Coam"1141
?. HouskV Oovewpertwtt or Indumial
4. Other
A 1. taut $14146) 2. Elevation of lot(s) above Man NO Water
3. Soil type and texture
4. Type of building{ facilities or structures - - -
S. Sewage disposal andlor waste water treatment A. kxwing ? Planned
a. Otscribe._ --_ ..__._. _Y ?.....?..?. - -
6. Land Classification (circle onrl 0EVF L0140 1"RA'vSi f ifiN.m. COMMUNITY RURAL
CONSE kVAT 1014 01 HL R - (See CAMA Local Land Ufa Plan Synopsis)
VI. remaining to Fill and N'ater Quality.
A. Ones the proposed projeu ;r.volve the placement of Fiji m tteria?s helow !ne.n 'Iiah wate(? Yrs__.-No „?.
6. 1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent milers as. result of project Activity or planned use of the
area following project completion) Yes_.......No
2. Type of discharge -~?-
2. Location of discharge
VII. plllee if rate of shoreline erosion (if known): ........).....--
VIII. Llet pamlt numbers and issue dales of previous Department of Army Corps of Eapiesers er State pwir4ts for
. wak In project area, if applicable: N i/ A -
K Look of time required to complete project. 3 years for r oiFn c t r u ri+.r'...r+t i n g, - ---
s«atr I.ii?i..r. i
X. M oddilien to the completed application form, the followirig Items must be provided:
A. Attach acopy of the deed (with State application only) or other instrument under which applicant
claims title to the affected property. OR If applicant is not claiming to be the owner of said Property,
Own forward a copy of the deed or other Instrument under which the owner claims title plus written
permission from the owner to carry out the project on his land.
fl. Attach an accurate work plat drawn to scale on B% X 11" white paper (sec instruction booklet for
details). Note: Original drawings preferred • only high quality copie+ Accepted.
C. A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by iegtisteted or
certified mail or by publication (o•S. 113.229 (d))Entet date served -
0. List names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with properly adjoining applicant's.
Such owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
See enclosed ma
X1. CerNfication requirement: 1 certify that to.the best of my krwwWlitc, the proposed activity corrtiues
with the State of North Cwolmah approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a
ttsanner consistent with such program.
X11. Any permit issued pursuant to this application will allow only the development described in this appli
cation and plat. Applicants should therefore describe in the application and plat all anticipated devei-
gpment activittss, including construction, excavation, filling, and land ng.
G? Or ?iaia)?
GATE ?3/
Applicant's Signature
"11,4112 SEE REVERE SIDE FOR MAILING INSTRUCTIONS
mew lees

WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT TO BE INSTALLED
This flood protection project in the test, Quarter, Double and Bay project
area, Hyde County, North Carolina consists of interdependent measures to
protect the area from wind tide generated flooding. The works of improvement
to be installed consist of a flood prevention dike with tide gates, interior
dikes along feeder channels to facilitate the delivery of excess rainfall
runoff to the tide gates, and land treatment measures which are to be in-
stalled and maintained under the on-going soil and water conservation
district program. The dikes and tide gates are to be installed by the project
sponsors on a three year schedule. The 6.1 miles of dike construction will
be for single purpose flood prevention.
The nonstandard, special design, dike consists of a dike with a top width
of 14 feet, side slopes 3:1 and a shallow (3.5-4 feet deep) keyway. This
dike is to be constructed to an elevation of 5.7 feet NGVD with special
breach sections constructed to 5.0 ft. NGVD located between the outlet
gate locations. Foundation conditions of impermeable, horizontal clay lenses
throughout the area will make the keyway effective in controlling seepage
beneath the dike. Soil and water conditions make it impractical to compact
the dike with equipment. It will, therefore, be necessary to use dumped
fill. Allowance has been made in estimating volume of fill material to account
of settling, and construction during the third year of installation to
restore sections of dike that have settled below elevation 5.7 feet NGVD.
The dike will be constructed with a "sand cap" or soil cover over organic
soil fill at least 2 feet deep. Material for dike construction and sand cap
will be taken from a borrow area beside the dike. Most of the material will
come from existing channels.
Dike and tide gate installation will be done in a manner that minimizes
the impact on welands. The dike is to be installed where possible on existing
spoil with borrow being obtained from existing channel adjacent to the dike.
A minimum of 20 foot berm will be established between borrow channel and dike.
Minimum clearing will be used in dike construction. The top of the dike wall
serve as a travelway for access and maintenance to minimize land area required
for installation. Disturbed areas, including the dike, will be established
with vegetation providing erosion control and wildlife food and habitat to
minimize adverse effects.
A total of 57 tide gates will be installed in the project area. Twenty-eight
(28) tide gates will be installed under the channel dikes along Honey, Double,
Quarter, West, Hydeland and Berry Canals at locations where farm drainage
enters the canals. These gates will remain open to discharge farm drainage
until water levels in the canals exceed the levels in the farm drainage
ditches and to allow water to flow to the outlet gates. Then, the gates
will close to prevent backflooding. Twenty-three (23) tide gates will be
installed under the flood prevention dike at existing canal locations. These
gates will remain open to discharge freshwater until water levels outside the
dike force the gates closed. Six (6) tide gates will be installed under US 264
at locations of existing pipes, to prevent water from flowing into the
project area during high wind tides (see project map). Dikes located parallel
to Juniper, Honey, Double, Quarter, West, and Berry Canals will be installed
to increase the capacities of each channel and prevent flooding caused by
rainfall runoff from cropland above 2.5 feet (NGVD). These dikes will provide
sufficient elevations in the channels to deliver excessive runoff to the
outlet gates under the dike. All earth blockages or dividers that provide
direction to drainage will be retained and if affected by construction
activities, will be replaced. .
The typical right-of-way for the project is shown on the attached drawing.
??? '' # ?? lr ! fl?ii ll ? ` i
' 'l! i) ? ? ` ? 1f ?'? ;"
? ; t?, ?f? i ? ?? ! ?f
' ?
?I 7
?
?
i 1i t' :!I
1 I , , I ,
I
I ! I
? fi Y
! x
!i ! j ?;i ! i?; i 5 I T

o

i F
t
'
?
'I
If
? f ,
ili j I { Ri
: i ,
i
? e
s 1
i
l I
• ,l
' ?
l
• °
_ ?i Y
j I
.; ! 1'
r.'1?
1 ij I? ,.
iit !! ?:
:I!
: if ;• i !i? ? i :I I! !II
I
I j I ' ? k ?j I
( , 1
?
' u,_ 1
ti :1 'II a
C
?; lti! i r, tii?
1. '?! l?
!
' ?? ! ' '!
fl' !
I I !fi !
fl ,! it
i ,? ,! ?1 11 I i
i !
i I
i
i
1 I I I 1 , ?
oa V;
I
I
?ljl
Ij ! C 1
1 ::
i!i ' ? !?:
if? i !
!1 ? :i
t W it
i I .
! I
ii . 1 ;
f
1
jj
l ^
!
!
I i
? i I
t
?
f
1 f
I i ;I
i
I I
I (
! t
! '
(
11'
' i f t'
t
i: '(I ;i •1
1 •
l I if if :1 I
I
(
l
?
? 1

t 7 !' '' '!,ili ?
I ?i
?
a :f,lt lli I! I ( ! I! j,
? ! ?I::f
i:jj'I jl I l li ! IiI I ?I: ? ?! ? 1 } ? •tC
I ,' !
, # '?
ii ( i '1
I i ;;
,
it ii I
I
. ? I i
? ?. ? II :i tt 1?;
? tt I
1
' ji, ll! :I !h' + I t' i? t `u
#
?
? I{1' i1
? tt f
j1 !; I ,
•1
I ??
!
I' ?
11: i ( 1!
} : I
'
a I
111
? I
f
, ,
} . t1? !clip
;
If Trv.
ii! i ? ?i ? f
?li'' I
?
?I j
i
` ' j j If 4 ' r '?
"? 'I
'
!!
??!
'
!
I
l
?l i'il ;
?
, I, II rl.
,
!,
E
I li i
1'
i
it
l f il
f i
(
'ti
kill j
N
l i , i?. I,?I
FiN W
? !
i;
? ,
!
f
l
i { 11
?7.wT
I
! Vill
ii ?
I
1!i !; ? i !i
'ii l!I jf?' I f
{
?I;
{
f ;; ? ?:ij I f f?fiil. t. i II: ; ii
1
' ,
ll ! !. ;! t' i li f ! 1
i
? ? ?l !
iji 111 f ? f
I ' If
t i!? j ij li ? I
i ? I ` ?
`' iijil' fli ? f I i? I
`I i X
I l
119 i llih
1
1
11
1 ?`?
k; ill I I 'l g ill I 11111illi I
1
1
,1
1 1
?1't,l?
?? f?! '!
!
? I
!
t ?'I I
tl
l 1
l 1 ! j !, L.
I I
'

}
1 ! l
. l
l
1
7
„
T1' H,
,
i
!
,
T
1 1
I?

MIN .11611.
I
1`1

I! ? { :{ 1 I i ' illliil !! ? ,I t I 1 r'?
?
?
l 1 I f! i
i•}? i ? 11 I l ! ? I I1
1? .i1; .r 1? , I?? f I? f f r

1 r i
I r

I k
I
f l i !,
M 1 1111 1111H

X..m M ®r :
?r
sop

FOR NATURAL
North Carolina Department of Natural _ ASSISTANTS
.. RESOURCES
Resources &Community Development Earl G. Oroessler
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
MF:MnR Al MTTM
/ja Y d
SAC
TO: Maurice,G. Cook
Stua 'Critcher
Helms
Bob Mahood
Dave Owens
FROM: Earl G. Droessler
J-' m 4 • Telephone [phone]
THOU
JAN,
Q%& 0
ii1 ?'1 iT ?.A G.6+
?Y
SUBJECT: Interagency Discussion of Swan Quarter (Juniper Bay)
Project ^
I have scheduled a meeting with Mr. Coy Garrett, SCS State Conservationist,
on Thursday, February 2, 9:00 A.M. in Room 539, Federal Building, to
discuss the Swan Quarter Project. I would like for you personally to
participate in this discussion with Mr. Garrett and his personnel.
We want this meeting to be a productive dialogue on how to move--ehe >.,
project forward in an environmentally sound manner. Comments of the
Divisions/Offices to the EIS have been forwarded to SCS along with a
statement of Departmental support for the project. I look forward to
seeing you on February 2.
EGD:mw
cc: Mr. Coy Garrett

P. 0. Box 27687 Raleigh, N. C. 27611-7687 '
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

DIVISIO'1 OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEME14T
January 11, 1984
SeP_3'A PS INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Milan -Muzinich
FROM: William J. Moore
SUBJECT -A-95 Review X84-5iiS
Draft EIS
Swan Quarter W&WAhad Plan
Hyde County
The Hyde County commissioners and the Pamlico Soil and Water Conservation District
are sponsoring a flood prevention project. The project area is located in the
central portion of Hyde County between US 264 and SR 1124. The size of the water-
shed is 8002 acres. Land uses within the watershed include 5150 acres of crop
land,'2718 acres of forest land and 134 acres miscellaneous. The watershed drains
through a system':of,ditches and canals into Juniper Bay which is tributary to the
Pamlico Sound. An1-pAik:7Bag .is classified- SA waters ,.and has 'been designated a Primary
Nursery Area by the Division of Marine Fisheries.
The proposed project includes the following: (Alternative 4)
(1) 6.3 miles of flood prevention dike
(2) 55 tide gates
(3) 762 acre conservation easement/water storage area
(4) channel.work.and,
(5) land treatment :seasures
The proposed dike.alignment.would permanently eliminate 20-acres of wetlands. In
order to obtain material for the dike, a borrow canal would be constructed adjacent
to the dike alignment. This would convert an additional 21 acres of wetlands to
open water. There are an additional 405 acres of wetlands, 86 acres of forest land
and one acre of cropland looted within the dike area. The draft EIS does not indi-
cate that the areas within the dike will be impacted.
the following comments are offered regarding Alternative #4:-
The proposed borrow canal might be placed on the inside of the dike alignment,
thereby eliminating adverse impacts on 21 acres of wetlands. The drainage
through the flap gates could then be dispersed over the adjacent wetlands.
(2) If for some reason(s) it became necessary to locate the borrow canal on the
outside of the dike alignment, the borrow canal should be stopped short of
the outfall canals. This would promote the idea of sheet flow through the
wetlands rather than direct discharge through the outfall canals.
F
` f
Milan Muzinich
000
Page 2
(3) There may be other ways to.raduce impacts to wetlands. For example, cutting
down the size of the dike and altering the side slopes would reduce the acres
of wetlands impacted.
If the above modifications were considered, there may be some positive,water quality
benefits realised in Juniper Bay. However, it,is difficult to weigh these positive
benefits,against;the negative benefits associated with wetland losses. Therefore,
alternative / 4'way not represent the beat alternative,
Alternative.No. 5 would involve the conetruction.of a diks'adjacent to crop land
areas. Approximately two.acres of wetlands would be permanently lost under the
dike.; The 762 acre conservation easement/storage area would be deleted from. the
project. Additional tide gates would be installed to direct runoff to existing
canals which discharge. directly to Juniper Bay. It is not anticipated that this
alternative would have any.:significant impacts on Water quality in Juniper Bay
(positive or negative). If the local sponsors choose this alternative,'serious
consideration should be given to the location of flap gates along the dike align-
ment. These flap gates would. allow runoff to be dispersed over vegetated wetland
areas rather than discharged directly to existing canals. Due to slight changes
in::elevation, pumping may be necessary to facilitate.aheet flow through the wetland
areas. 'Alternative No, g Indicates -that.there is no support among local sponsors
f for an alternative having pumps`as a project measure...
The final EIS should address the following items:
(1) A 401 water quality certification may be required due to the placement.of.
fill in wetlands.
(2) How would the proposed 762 acre conservation easement/storage area be
managed?
u;
(3) Regardless of which alternative is selected, the project design should
allow for sheet flow through,,vegetated buffers in order to reduce `impacts
associated with runoff.
I would recommend that the local sponsors and the review agencies meet and discuss
this project prior to submitting the Final EIS.
WJM/ekw
}

? V
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
August 17, 1984
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TOt Milan Musinich 1? -
FROM: William J. Moore tNC'F%---
SUBJECT: *69VW v"tii '''FIW ?i10`
#85-0084 - Swan Quarter Watershed
The subject document has been reviewed. It is not anticipated that
this Division Would object to the selected alternative (#5)0 A 401-
water quality certification will..be requited for the placement of
fill in wetlands.
WJM/ekw

1 4101'YeH?? (..lE S.gnc? ?oTT B-r? 1fH
??f #' s %n vo ?v e S ? /4 c C ryccn ? o / ? 6 .r? . ? 5 4"? Kt-- O'+._ /Y S Vo u„??
.S7 f `?e ?t/e S D?t/ S T? ! ! ' r Z ?LG ??e ?i a wG / ?s ,
..L 'ice YivIL 14aW &POICb1/?11 Ye-vie cc/ /Z1_ rlOS7 '
rec Cv ?-? nv T<<-e/ 6?t 6e?ye ,ss?.` ¢v/ u.? .?-e e?
C!, ?"C r? d ? / a.. lC ? /ir /c d+1 ?ocA../ ? R-? , d ? 6 ! Cam- DDYMuJ GttnaC? ????.[Z
0 ABC /; ?YD?i`$??»f 7a? d/`sue?G(iig y?v/'?O (1d"!?k u/?
C¢/ ?i?? ?YO?O Q? 3?iK ?7 r?Gq??ly .4 7'- W
/?
I ar i ?/ Gd'rt Tec t ?` CD? i Qa ? l Ge/2 d . s?0 t-n i "; e? ??VQ -00 Q44' rs e?r?
?y 7 :aV /?1h
C,

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
SAWC085-N-048-0218
1 "'411
May 16, 198
PUBLIC NOTICE
HYDE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Post Office Box 264, Swanquarter, North
Carolina 27885, has applied for a Department of the Army permit TO DISCHARGE
EXCAVATED MATERIAL INTO WETLANDS CONTIGUOUS WITH JUNIPER BAY TO EFFECT
CONSTRUCTION OF AN EARTHEN DIKE AND ASSOCIATED TIDE GATES IN THE SWANQUARTER
WATERSHED NEAR SWANQUARTER, Hyde County, North Carolina.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the
applicant and from observations made during an onsite visit by a
representative of the Corps of Engineers. Plans submitted with the
application show the proposed construction of approximately 6.1 miles of .
earthen dike along the southern limits of Swanquarter Watershed. The work
will involve construction of a 14-foot-wide (top width), 5.7-foot-high earthen
dike with 3:1 side slopes (typical bottom width of 38 feet). Material for the
dike will be excavated from adjacent borrow areas alongside the dike. A total
of 57 tide gates are to be installed in the project area. Typical excavation
and fill activities'are to be restricted to an approximate 100-foot-wide
portion of a dedicated 150-foot-wide right-of-way.
The proposed dike alignment has been significantly modified from that.
originally presented by the applicant as a result of coordination between the
applicant and interested Federal and State agencies. Construction of the dike
along this proposed alignment, utilizing existing dikes, canals, and disturbed
areas where possible, will impact approximately ,2 acres of irregularly-flooded
wetlands. The purpose of the proposed work is to protect agricultural lands
from flooding caused by high wind tides. Plans showing the work are included
with this public notice. An Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by the
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, is available for
review in Regulatory Branch, U. S. Army Corps of 'Engineers, Wilmington, North
Carolina.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine
the need for the applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No
Department of the Army permit will be issued until the coordinated State
viewpoint on the proposal has been received and reviewed by this agency, nor
will a Department of the Army permit be issued until the N. C. Division of
Environmental Management has determined the applicability of a Water Quality
Certificate as required by PL 92-500.

.
i
r ri *

-2-
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404(b) of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within
the comment period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to
consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the
National Register of Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered
properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and
this worksite is not registered property or property listed as being eligible
for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register
constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District
Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the presence of such resources.
Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical
data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer has determined, based on a review of data furnished
by the applicant and onsite observations, that the activity will not affect
species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant;in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected ;to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and, if so, the conditions under
which it"will be allowed to occur, are, therefore, determined by the outcome
of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national
concern for both protection and utilization of important resources.- All
factors which may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the
cumulative effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental.concerns,,wetlands, cultural values, fish
and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation,
shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water
quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare
of the people. For activities involving the placement of dredged-or fill
materials in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied if the
discharge that would be authorized by such permit would not comply with the
Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the
preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit
will be granted unless.the District Engineer determines that it would be
contrary to the public interest.
4

-3-
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army
permit will not be made until the N. C. Division of Environmental Management
(DEN), issues or denies State certification required by Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. The DEN considers whether or not the proposed activity will
comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act. The
application and this public notice for the Department of the Army permit
serve as application to the DEN for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, N. C.
Division of Environmental Management, Salisbury Street, Archdale Building,
Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished to any
person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs. _
The N. C. Division of Environmental Management plans to take final action
in the issuance of the Clean Water Act certification on or after June 25, 1985.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Oct certification should do so in writing delivered to the N. C. .
Division of Environmental Management, Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27611, on or before June 19, 1985, Attention: Mr. William Mills.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. Ken Jolly, until 4:15 p.m.,
June 17, 1985, or telephone [phone].
?. T. BURCH
? • IC A$$ISTMT
L. Warren
• Lieutenant Colonel,
Corps of Engineers
Deputy District Engineer
r •.

1
i

f
:ji !1::III
} :it! :1:::i ! tp:
i i''lilj

i'i
j;j lit
!
'j]l ' ?i ta ;

!' l

I

I !
i !!1! i 'iii il' :•jiu l !i •? ;; 11 1 J i
i4 4
•
t i:i
i1I ',j
!
f ;
'l. jjf
Ii ?
'il . { 'tI 1 ljj 1 I ! I
1
1
1
0
m Q °1
? T
t
1
!
,
llu ;if
1 til
l i i l ! " 1 : , ;
l
' 4
4 i'j ' . k' t;
1 i l1 }i
Ill is
1 I I! ' ` jijl H 1 1 11 11 LII ! f ! pz '"

:?:i; i
i :1 :;: :;
; t,? ?
1.i c t '
' t• r i! I :Ij i i 'i ' t' ???
> > -. R 4
;
i
u.7 ii .i
:R:: ii 1t1? ;
,a,.
Itj'I:
b t iii
ill :I 1
i }!:! I ;
;
•1. :t' ! i :i . r
! It! i
't f:t t
't ! i ! l
t' 1 4
t .i ,
x a
?

i 1 l d 1 IT j
1
1 1 1: Il
i 110 1 :
t i
i II I:
t

li

•
'
I

TS r'
. d t ?
I
.1 i

ji I

fll

i
!
i1

i
u :11

?
i 2
T (? .1
'
iit
'

It a ;
i 21
.
S
'

i
t LTO I
t . :f i. :ri
fifilli
ti:
tt
l.l !:
' i
:Ijj
:j

1

i

i
1
I!

I
i
1
1
!
i
I
'
}Et •'

I

• /
ice
{
, ; i j;1? t! „j 1 : .,. ! !t ,
rj
I c;tl . .l It I. .I .. l, t 17C"

s jt f Ijj a

?
tit:

'?

::

is c t,
.f

:!
iii

il

i t

:t
•?..!
•

:?
i
s
I
r.•
_ • : I: ii 1 .,J: . t -
"
?•
? ':7 •?

i It 1 :{•
i !1,.
•
i :! .t:l:
r .

ii i •t:
ij' .; I:1
jf :1
= ,
f ;:
jj
a
=
}T
1•
!
- r,
T:: 3;. ? ??T:
#
•, :t
l .J. i .
ii
.
. . ,!
i 1 ..
. 1 1r. !: i r
i
,: -
.J
.I:•
1. ?
;
: 1•
t
1! t•
jl. . 1 Lt :t,i ,
:1 , IIa tl ::
:1: i. ' ::I ti :!:'' '/l ':I: :I: it:.l•:1 t':1 1 ':jtCt: . t' TV
::;
.. .. •
Z... :,' ia :1
' 1. .jt ; : a
• 1'
l :
; I!
1 It fl?
1 1 ' :7 '}
i ' ' .1 1 '
: r? t '
ii
• jj lllii? iii jii jj i
jj ?:
;j ,, . '?
? ? *. ,. .. L
i.. i
? t
t: t ? ' t i
i}i ji
j • l
i 1 ij jjj Ti..j f?h. . :}: n :,. is i, : :
u: i
t y
j
' i : :
' ;,, t . : :1 .
•
...«' .I• ,y ? :
i ..: t :1 1_j,
1 . I ,j: :i ji : :; :1: {:!t. ! : !!: !#..:I:! iii: i! ' iii ii }... i, t

r } I? ? I..
:
Dil
) 'j;Ili iitiji111
{ fif !
4 1 4 t
!
t
it
7: i i:I: i t. ! is 1, i' 1 1
: 1' 1 t T 1
i
=i >
i I ' i .
i i::i • •1
?>r ?I
juj? `
?
fij
27
`
;
j
?
1
tfj
;
?'
il if
? i
lfl
'
j
1 l
i
j
j
l fi
1
fi
i},
?
ij'
!}
ti
i
I'
#
•
?
t
?-• :
iTj
'I :: ,{
; j !?:,
St :.
j: jj iii ti
1 t
j
il
i?• .
i? !ji i ? {{
i
f i
1
? t; i It i' 7 ?:7
.i
. ii .t• :,
t. . 1 I :.
! I' 1 .. ;
: :;l ?I?Ii-.t
rt• i!; ii f '?1; .l
i + ii
' t.
' '!' :i;
l i`•;' t: ., i;f f
2' 1111 i ? i: i?:'
T:
i
iiT.r. j
t; i;Ii:

:1
t
i
1 !
i
.,tj
l
jli
j
:
I
l
l
;
:
j
j ##
!?
:iij
:1.
(
?
;
:I
tf
f ,
f }•
is*i
cf : T1 lit. t iu !
'
l
i f
I .
?i fl? iij
14. lg?lljj! it, 1 1:; i;Il ! 1 ! ii;' ttr:i : i ;

, 71:4
•
:.Ii
:y
»'? '.-. t' iiii:
!
:j Ii
ll
r :1f i'
li

i aii:
iiii ',l:
(,: Ii :I:
i :l 'iI
Illjj, : I1:
:!? i;li
l..t f
. j. •l
?ii i,i'!
i
• s:il:il
I"ii fi I
?• 7
1
j 1. 11
il?
i
+' •!
:!
fi
t
, 1
• r'
ii='?ty.
;
1. :
??C??' ;?iit ?• :1 j i :;
ti :l t
.
111 . til: ijj }t :I;II' ii I' :1
} , 11 :I:i iii '
I
!1' I 1 fu '

7 tr•
h
l•
ll
ii
I
i.,
+ 1
1
:
'1•
'il
1. tt
't
.t-
I i::
it
'
3N :iii 'i}
:
l:t: :,.
N •
:,; ! ij
f
it
.1..1
,! !
::f
:i !.
I;II? i
,
,,
i:i
f
!
?? I
I :
t1
1 '
2,
!
i
i
}
1

f ?'

i 1 f ii''illl:
2.jj..iii I.

' 'ijlii' I

t
l II:

! fif

1

1
1

H !;
t.jl

I i
it !
'

I 1
1

! 1
1 .
i 1
j1 ji
t i
i ;•1
i:i

! i'
• .T; i ii ? ;.
is ?i1
-

W

A
i
I.

Ili
1'ji
jf.l.
il.
'

j
;
t: i

1
i d
i
l
l
i
,
i
ti

: i 'Mil 1 1if i f
.
ji i :
! ?li
t
I
i
(
11;
I
I
1
, .
1
!
.7
•1
1
t µ-

•
w iiii iiii 'Iii2 i lii'12 i i! j :ti ' iii iii
! :i;,: :!II I; :i: ''I
I
f li ' I; ' ij 1 ' ;1 :j 1 ; ? } t : pt;?
? 1'
;
if
Ii
'ii

t:t
H
i

?

i i
i
.l it'1ii
I jlti•i i i j 1 i il:l ? ? ii j 1
l l
(
T' ..?.
:i
' fi

•, f
I T
??
t
;
ji.
j
t j; i
!jjjj!j! if
1 i
i{illlii i tl.
i jji=
t
i
1 t
?)
'' 1 1
1l 1
t fi I f
;

': 1 :

f t;i, ; :ij
;;
t•; t'' 1 1t 21 1 •1. ;
;
;1
1

1

?
i
11
7 {{
l

1

f
2liij _ j
Ifi ]
i

i

?

7

;

fi

1

fi

I

'
l
t t ' 1 1

N ;1 i 1!
mp .
n; I
II'
ll
;
i fj
f
I:
t
i.
is
1
1
t
il,
'=
I
i,.
u
-
» ! i ;: .:::•r
f
i
t=f2 i: t ?i' ' I7f fi fi j fi' fil'' I ) f f ii ' 111!1 1 :iij jii} f i t r 2 i

= N t i
i ji

1
i!
jl
f
: t #t flff W.
i

11 I if
"' lil I i } 1
444 4 t ;

M i
L I 1 11 1 1
ii fi 1 !! f

i

e M M
? N

s
? F
$
aid r

Nc w

an w
M

s

a ?
Wft

« 3
?zn ys ? ?

/ M
4-ft '
e

a?
?
i

M 1M1 N

M

92

-
J f

u.. Ewa .r.a.,o..K.I- \ ? F i

UV@ 'MWINW AY?OMM .K-I

r
a

IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
May 16, 1985
SUBJECT: File No. SAWC085-N-048-0218
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Pear Mr. Mills:
RECEIVED
1 A" 9, 01985
WATER QUALITY SECTION
OPERA.T1101NIS BRANCH
Enclosed is the application of the Rijdtat7VCommissioners
rl
for a Department of the Army permit and a State Water Quality
Certification.' Your receipt of this letter verifies your
acceptance of a valid request for certification in accordance
with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our administrative regulations.
We are considering authorization of the proposed activity
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have
determined that a water quality certification may be required
under the provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A
Department of the Army permit will not be granted until the
certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, 60 days
after receipt of a request for certification is considered a
reasonable time for State action. Therefore, if your office has
not acted on the request by August 16, 1985, the District
Engineer will deem that waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Ken Jolly,
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
-16
a W. Ho 1 s
ie , Regulat y Branch
Enclosure
f ,
v?til. WOJy?v - Q yd`?' ??v
0 7 MAR 1985
AM WATION
FOR
PERMIT TO EXCAVAT OR FILL
WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
EASEMENT IN LANDS 0DVI . dY WATER CAMA PERMIT FOR MAIOR DEVELOPMENT
O.yeramas of Ailminktratlon Seta or i-Ah COWIN& eH?art+n•nt of dw Army
(GS 146-121 Dowin.nr of Natural Rofteurt a ers/ cornrnuolty Ge"Nepment CorM Of Ertglrsoars„ WNmbgW Okorkl
(GS 11312!. 14Y313.114111), 143.213.31c), I IIIA•11g (33 CFR 2".320.33!1
Plem type or swine and IIII in all blanks. If information is not applicable, so indicate by placing NIA in blank.
1. Applicant Information Hyde County
A. Name
Last first Middle
13. Address P. 0. Box 264
Street. P O. Box or Route
SwanQuarter North Carolina 27885 919-926-4361
Caw)( Town State Zip Code Phone
if. Location of Proposed Project.
A. County Hyde
S. 1. City. town, community or landmark SwanOuarter
2. Is proposed work within city limits! Yes No X_
C. Creek. river, sound or bay upon which protect is located or neatest named body of water to project Juniper
Bay
111. Ooscription of Project
A. 1. Maintenance of existent project ?.
8. Purpose of excavation a fill
1. Access channel length
2. Boat basin
New work x
width depth
length width depth
3. Fill area length width_*.depth
4. Other n i k P length6 - l In i- width 50f t depth-max 5.7f t.
C. 1. Bulkhead length N/A Average distance waterward of MHW (shorelinel
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material)
0. Excavated material (total for prolect
1 ?ktjejHated 220,00- 2. Type ofm„er,a, sandy clay loam; loam
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (see also VI A)
1. Cubic ya?ds N/A 2. Type of material
IV. Lard Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment
A. Does the area tube excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland' Yes ..I No
9. Does the drspoul arcs include any marshland, swamps or other wetland' Yes X No
C. Disposal Area
1. Location Dike being constructed
Oo you claim title to disposal area'
0. Fill material source of fill is to be Irucscd in N/A
E. How well excavated material be entrapped and erosrnn urntrolled'
F. Type of equipment sir he used D r a Q l in e
G. Will marshland he crossed to transport#ng equipment to project site' II yes, explain No
*See Narative
Oa1.41
Rov. 1*116

Y• &*"d Use of hayed Am (Oeetrf A f r m t water i n t r u s i o n
A. 1. hlvaw Dike / T i t a t a, t n QCa f t ar Q??.._ o--,.-5a
t C AAWWCw
& Ilrstfskrg o wlopttt.At or I Anerio
4. Odw
a 1. Lot asit,6) .? .
2 Ebvatlon of lot(s) above mean high wattrr - ----------
3. SON type and textims
4. Type of Ouilding facilities at Nructwes S. Sewage disposal andfor waste water treatment A. Existing Planned _?---•..
11. Ocscribe .
6. LandLlastiication (circleonei DEVELOPf0 TRANS?f10-iNti. COMMUNITY RURAL
CONSERVATION t7T HcR ---------- (See CAMA Local Land Use Wan Synapsis)
VI. htrtaining w Fill and Water Quality.
A. Does the proposed proltci :r.volve tht pl.cement of fiil materials helow mtill Sigh water? Yet.-...._No.r.._?
a 1. Will any runoff Jf d+scharge enter adjacent waters as a result at project activity or planned cast of the
area IoAQwing project completion, Yes...._ No
2. Type of discharge
I Location of discharge
A - -
VU. hum- face of shoreline erosion (if known): ,,. N a
VUL Wt penult n w6m and issue dates of previous Department of Army tarps of EApnnfa a Stall frefwtits lot
. work in project at". of applicable: N J A -
M jLag6 of date nquked iecompka project: 3. x e a r for C o g S t.r_llf'tJnn --
x. M eddltlah to the completed application form. the following lane wwst be pcavided:
A. Attach a copy of the dewed (with State application on:y) or other inslrument under which applicant
Halms title to the affected property. OR It applicant Is not claiming to be the owner of said property.
then forward a copy of the dsxid or other Instrup"t under which the owner claims title plus written
permission from the owner to carry out the project on his land.
IL Attach an accurate work plat drawn to scale on 8% X 11" white paper 1W inttfuclion booklet for
detadtt. Note: Original drawings preferred . only high Quality copiet accepted.
C. A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by sesistered of
eertifiedAWI-+r by publication(G.S. 113.329 (d))Enter date saved
0. List names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's.
Suds owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
See enclosed map ---
kl. P,atification requirenwal. 1 certify that to.tM best of my knowkdge. the pfopobed activity coaspries
with tM State of North Carolinass approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a
fnarmher consistent with such program.
XIL Any permit issued pursuant to this application will allow only the development described in this appli
cation and plat. Applicants should therefore describe in the application and plat an anticipated devel-
opwhent activities. including construction, excavation, filling, and land ng.
G 14. rL.?
OATS Applicant's Signatum
041114412 SEE REVERE SIDE FOR MAILING INSTRUCTIONS
am two

WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT TO BE INSTALLED
This flood protection project in the test, Quarter, Double and Bay project
area, Hyde County, North Carolina consists of interdependent measures to
protect the area from wind tide generated flooding. The works of improvement
to be installed consist of a flood prevention dike with tide gates, interior
dikes along feeder channels to facilitate the delivery of excess rainfall
runoff to the tide gates, and land treatment measures which are to be in-
stalled and maintained under the on-going soil and water conservation
district program. The dikes and tide gates are to be.installed by the project
sponsors on a three year schedule. The 6.1 miles of dike construction will
be for single purpose flood prevention.
The nonstandard, special design, dike consists of a dike with a top width
of 14 feet, side slopes 3:1 and a shallow (3.5-4 feet deep) keyway. This
dike is to be constructed to an elevation of 5.7 feet NGVD with special
breach sections constructed to 5.0 ft. NGVD located between the outlet
gate locations. Foundation conditions of impermeable, horizontal clay lenses
throughout the area will make the keyway effective in controlling seepage
beneath the dike. Soil and water conditions make it impractical to compact
the dike with equipment. It will, therefore, be necessary to use dumped
fill. Allowance has been made in estimating volume of fill material to account
of settling, and construction during the third year of installation to
restore sections of dike that have settled below elevation 5.7 feet NGVD.
The dike will be constructed with a "sand cap" or soil cover over organic
soil fill at least 2 feet deep. Material for dike construction and sand cap
will be taken from a borrow area beside the dike. Most of the material will
come from existing channels.
Dike and tide gate installation will be done in a manner that minimizes
the impact on welands. The dike is to be installed where possible on existing

spoil with borrow being obtained from existing channel adjacent to the dike.
A'minimum of 20 foot berm will be established between borrow channel and dike.
Minimum clearing will be used in dike construction. The top of the dike wall
serve as a travelway for access and maintenance to minimize land area required
for installation. Disturbed areas, including the dike, will be established
with vegetation providing erosion control and wildlife food and habitat to
minimize adverse effects.
A total of 57 tide gates will be installed in the project area. Twenty-eight
(28) tide gates will be installed under the channel dikes along Honey, Double,
Quarter, West, Hydeland and Berry Canals at locations where farm drainage
enters the canals. These gates will remain open to discharge farm drainage
until water levels in the canals exceed the levels in the farm.drainage
ditches ana"to allow water to flow to the outlet gates. Then, the gates
will close to prevent backflooding. Twenty-three (23) tide gates will be
installed under the flood prevention dike at existing canal locations. These
gates will remain open to discharge freshwater until water levels outside the
dike force the gates closed. Six (6) tide gates will be installed under US 264
at locations of existing pipes, to prevent water from flowing into the
project area during high wind tides (see project map). Dikes located parallel
to Juniper, Honey, Double, Quarter, West, and Berry Canals will be installed
to increase the. capacities of each channel and prevent flooding caused by
rainfall runoff from cropland above 2.5 feet (NGVD). These dikes will provide
sufficient elevatio-n-s in the channels to deliver excessive runoff to the
outlet gates under the dike. All earth blockages or dividers that provide
direction to drainage will be retained and if affected by construction
activities, will be replaced.
The typical right-of-way for the project is shown on the attached drawing.

! I =' '!il
pq :II : II ? W ? i Y I
IT

i ' !
i ul ! O ?, ? ? 1

,: :, 1
H; i
?

(

I
77 rr
1 !
?

1 i
^

t

!

i

y 1 i N a

?( 1
? :!I,? '?;'
ij+ i.'i•!i
ji.
i
;
.
'
'
!
i
.: ii
ll
1
,
I
I

I
l? I ?`? . l I{?
I
ill! T
I :;! (i
j
'i
I
' ? o !
I I I
I
, ?_ `? •:.,t! .I,li I:+ ? i• ? i ', atl
: 1?! I II ; ! ; '' I , ?' ? it
?
li 1
!!! I if

'
,
'= fit
I
'1 iii! jj;? :( :Li• I' iij .,. ! i, `'.' !!,
t? ; + 1 , , ! J • ti+
I 1
? l
•i ?
?
' ,+ ! ?! I ?? ! ?.
.
: i ij' '? :t:
!t I jl ,:
,
' I + ii 1 1 ' i
? t, ,
?
I I' ! Ti

l Iii 12•
:Al
III W.

a
' ? 1, ' ,!i?{?!+ ji ??il?' j tl ? j { I it . +Ii

t Ul

. I i!I f

1
4

' '
{ i ! .;?T I Ilia ' { I i ( I T

.! • ? { II
,

rl
103 it i6
i
'd
a

r
a
If fit
I:O.lS
ASS.
livs
-VKVJLU 1Y''t3.aut'Jueuj

Y

C
K ee
? r U -
IF

`
1
9
Q
s
gig
8
1
8
0

A

sa?

W NN+
• 6
as
m 's
A P 0
0
L'i ??' A° S S c
c
? O m O Y
05 0
T

r y

S ? ??
1 ? 2
? ``^ vCmi
?
t ? ^ SSS N? L

Y
z
a

CO)

?

d O
.< a
? ? z
21

N

O

H
o
'Tt
y
.:.„. ....,;..:. ZZ 171 ,. . ,• .w:•? ." c-:_., . ? Q 4
m a

o? > a
• - A y O -0 yO

m N
CT7
d
9 (?
0 9 Fin {; o°-i^ FQYL^.pp F c
yg X F g $. ? w N F' R
q r > £ f
E r i ? - C n.
F? ? _ ? fry cc
T T ? f
n 3 i ? r a ...
s c
? z .
• c
a ?
0 I
o-
i
lI ? ? ?I
ll I. Cf'??
w ?I? n
A? cI
Soil
Conservation
Service
310 New Bern Ave., Rm. 53 j?
Raleigh, North Carolina 27WEf V D
May 29, 1984
_ f lu , .
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse ,t.o?
Office of Budget and Management'`/i/„?
North Carolina Department of Admin?6 tration
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mrs. Baggett:
r- r;7
t7C.1
?I
,UV 6196
?11?1 oil
The Local Sponsors and SCS have been evaluating the comments received on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for West, Quarter, Double and
Bay Supplement to Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan.
The issue of benefits to be derived from the primary nursery area that you
raised in your letter is the major issue presented by most commenters in
DNRCD and others. Most believe it is essential to know the extent of these
benefits so trade-offs would be better recognized and evaluated throughAthe
presence of this information. This information is not available at this
time and apparently will not be available in the foreseeable future._
Confronted with the probability of this remaining unresolved issue and
thereby not permitting implementation for the reduction of floodwater
damages, the Sponsors and SCS mutually agreed to change the recommended plan
to alternative 5. The Final Environmental Impact Statement will reflect
this change.
Responses to comments made by the various divisions of the department are
designated and attached.
Thank you for your support and assistance in this effort.
Sincerely,
A Garrett
oy
State Conservat
Attachments
a
O The Soil Conservation Service
is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture
SCS-AS-1
10-79

-
r 1:

North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries.
A decision has been made to change the recommended plan to alternative 5.
The Final EIS will present the details of this change.
Responses to your specific comments are as follows:
1. Page 19 - Table B has been changed to included the wording you
suggested.
2. Page 23 - The boat docks will remain on Quarter Canal with access
provided over the dike.
3. Page 24 - Flash board riser and the conservation easement area are
no longer a part of the plan being recommended. This comment is now
moot.
4. Page 37 - This will be acknowledged.
5. Page B-2 - Number 3c - Changes will be noted in the FEIS as the
Selected Plan will display alternative 5.
6. Wetland Types Map - The downstream limit of the primary nursery
area will be changed at your suggestion.
Division of Environmental Management
f
1. Comments regarding alternative 4:
These comments have become moot with the decision to recommend
alternative 5 in the Final EIS.
2. Comments regarding alternative 5:
a. Discharge pipes with flap gates will be located at existing
canals and will need all the efficiency of design that can be
developed. It is our judgement also that to facilitate sheet flow
through the vegetated wetland areas, pumps would be needed.
b. Final EIS will address:
(1) The need for a 401 water quality certification permit.
(2) There will be no conservation easement developed with
alternative 5.
(3) There will be some sheet flow at most outlet canals due
to the canal not having enought capacity to discharge full
pipe flows. However, pumps needed to facilitate sheet flow
are not a viable option for any alternative.
0
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Comments state the Division would support alterations to alternative 3, 4,
or 5. However no alterations were suggested. With the decision made to
present alternative 5 as the recommended plan in the FEIS, alterations may
not be necessary since alternative 5 is a single purpose agricultural flood
water damage reduction objective.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1. The stated project purpose is limited process to that which cost-
sharing is identified. In this case it is floodwater damage reduction to
cropland. Through all the Task Force meetings the project was reiterated
several times. Water management was deleted as a project purpose when the
State said no cost-sharing would be done.
2. References to the 762 acres of conservation easement area are made moot
by the decision to develop alternative 5 as the recommended plan.
3. Alternative 5 is now the selected plan and details will be set forth in
the FEIS.
4. We are glad you have no objection to alternative 5. Alternative 4 was
presented as the best possible project design to demonstrate total water
management. We were looking for a project that would-demonstrate the..
concept at the least cost.
Office of Water Resources
1. The 56 acres of wetland mentioned will not be affected because of the
decision to recommend alternative 5. Effect of alternative 5 will be set
forth in the FEIS.
2. Alternative 3 was not the recommended plan due to many other consid-
erations. Coffee Bay was presented to SCS as a secondary.or at not as
important nursery area as Juniper Bay. The concept was to divert the
freshwater slug flow to areas where less impact would be made.
3. No response by SCS needed.
4. All comments about the conservation easement are made moot with the
decision to go to alternative 5.
5. Holding ponds will not be necessary with alternative 5 The system is
designed to remove 2 inches of freshwater runoff in 24 hours. Excess beyond
2 inches will be stored on cropland. -
0
to incorporate water management control into Juniper Bay. SCS was requested
to incorporate the purpose of providing benefits to the primary nursery area
by the Governor's Coastal Water Management Task Force.
The decision to present alternative 5 will make moot many of the comments
provided. The details of alternative 5 as the recommended plan will be
provided in the FEIS.
Specific comments:
1. The plan identified 175-200 acres as land being damaged by salt
intrusion. Flood damages to the 5150 acres are identified as crop
damage. Both types of damages and benefits were used to evaluate the
alternatives.
2. There will be less than two (2) acres of type 12 wetland
unavoidably affected by alternative 5.
3. No more information is available to support the demonstration, the
proposed project. The probability of this fact developing into an
unresolved conflict weighed heavily on the decision to change to
alternative 5.
s
4. The present dike alignment is consistent with existing (previously
disturbed) canals and spoil areas. Any change from this alignment.will
increase the number of acres of wetlands directly impacted by dike
construction. The wetland areas directly disturbed by this alignment
are in areas where the previously constructed canals and spoil areas
are not wide enough to facilitate the planned dike.
5. The conservation easement area no longer is under consideration.
6. With the decision to change to alternative 5, this comment is
moot.
7. Comment noted. The FEIS will so state.
8. See comment 6.
9. The only economic benefits used in both alternatives were the
flood water damage reduction benefits. As discussed on page 22, the
benefits to the primary nursery area were not evaluated, but could be
achieved with no additional cost. In other words, the omelet is the
primary nursery area, the cracked eggs are the wetlands involved.
.10. Water level control structures are no longer a part of the plan.
11. The need to obtain a stake dredge and fill permit and CAMA. Major
development permit will be spilled out in the FEIS.
a
12.` The conservation easement was to be signed by each landowner
involved. This easement restricted those acres from being changed by
them for the life of the easement. This was a condition imposed on and
accepted by the landowners at their costs. However, selecting
-alternative 5 has eliminated the need for the conservation easement.
13. Basically, the first one-half inch of rainfall will be handled by
the conservation easement area (762 acres). The discharge pipes will
be discharging also at a rate that is equivalent to 50% of the 25-year
storm. You may be confusing rate of flow with volume of flow. The
total volume of freshwater will eventually be discharged to Juniper
Bay. However, the slug flow (peak rate of flow) will be buffered by
the dike and conservation easement area storage.
14. Without the conservation easement area (storage) the number of
pipes discharging through the dike (alternative 5) must be increased to
remove 2 inches of runoff in 24 hours, the same design removal rate as
in alternative 4.
Your inclination to recommend alternative 5 has been accepted.

0

t
J

t

u

t

-.1

DRAFT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the
Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan
Hyde County, North Carolina
ABSTRACT
This document is the result of planning efforts by the West, Quarter,
Double, and Bay Supplement Sponsors, federal, and state agencies to provide
flood protection from high wind tides. Alternatives considered included no
action (without project) and four structural alternatives offering varying
levels of protection and causing varying levels of environmental impact.
These structural alternatives included pumps, dikes, and internal drainage
improvements; dike, diversion channel, conservation easement area, tide
gates, and sluice gates; dike and tide gates; dike, tide gates, and
conservation easement area (the selected plan). The selected alternative
will provide flood protection to the project area from the 25-year
frequency wind tide elevations plus required freeboard and remove 2 inches
of runoff from the project area in 24 hours. The economic benefits exceed
the costs of the project. Environmental impacts include reduced flooding,
benefits to primary fin- and shellfish nursery areas by reducing slug flows
of freshwater, improved water quality, the retention of 405 acres of
wetlands in conservation easement for 50 years, and the permanent loss of
20 acres of wetlands under the dike. An additional 21 acres of wetlands
will be converted to open water and 15 acres will be temporarily disturbed
during construction activities. This document is intended to fulfill the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and to be
considered for authorization of Public Law 566 funding.
Prepared under the authority of Public Law 83-566, the Watershed Protection
and Flood Prevention Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008) and in
accordance with Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, Public Law 91-190, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et se q.).
Prepared by: Pamlico Soil and Water Conservation District
Hyde County Commissioners
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
For additional information contact:
Coy A. Garrett, State Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box 27307
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27611

1
1

1
1

11,

a

TABLE OF CONTENTS
West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the
Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan
Hyde County, North Carolina
Abstract ....................................................
Contents ....................................................
Summary .....................................................
Introduction ................................................
Project Setting .............................................
Problem and Opportunity Identification ......................
Inventory and Forecasting ...................................
Scoping of Concerns ....................................
Existing Resources .....................................
Forecasted Conditions ..................................
Formulation of Alternatives .................................
Formulation Process ....................................
Evaluation of Alternatives ...........................
Comparison of Candidate Plans ..........................
Project Interaction ....................................
Risk and Uncertainty ...................................
Rationale for Plan Selection ...........................
Recommended Plan ............................................
Purpose and Summary ....................................
Plan Elements ..........................................
Permits and Compliance .................................
Costs ..................................................
Installation and Financing .............................
Operation and Maintenance ..............................
Tables .................................................
Effects of Recommended Plan .................................
Relationship to Land and Water Resource
Plans, Policies, and Controls .....................
Consultation and Public Participation .......................
List of Preparers ............................................
References ..................................................
Appendices
Appendix A - Comments on Draft Plan - EIS
Appendix B - Supporting Information
Appendix C - Wetlands Map
Appendix D - Project Map
ii
Page
i
ii
S1
1
1
3
4
5
7
7
9
16
17
17
18
22
22
23
24
24
26
27
29
37
43
43
48
49

1
t

t

n
t
a
t

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table Number Page
A Evaluation of Identified Concerns ............ 5
B Summary and Comparison of Candidate Plans .... 19
C Compliance of Recommended Plan with WRC -
Designated Environmental Statutes ............ 25
D Schedule of Obligations ...................... 27
E Effects of the Recommended Plan on Resources
of Principal National Recognition ............ 42
1 Estimated Installation Costs ................. 29
2 Estimated Cost Distribution .................. 30
3 Structure Data - Dike ........................ 31
3A Structure Date - Channels .................... 32
3B Sturcture Data - Tide Gate Drains ............ 33
4 Annual Cost .............. .................. 34
5 Estimated Average Annual Flood Damage
Reduction Benefits ........................... 35
6 Comparison of Benefits and Costs for
Structural Measures .......................... 36
Figure Number
1 Effect of Project on Peak Rate of Discharge .. 38
2 Cross-Section of Dike, Borrow Ditch, and
Flashboard Riser ............................. 40
iii

1

t

J
1

t

t
1
t

t
SUMMARY
Project Name: West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the Swan
Quarter Watershed Work Plan.
County: Hyde
State: North Carolina
Sponsors: Hyde County Commissioners
Pamlico Soil and Water Conservation District
Description of Recommended Plan: This plan is a flood prevention plan
to protect the 8,002 acre watershed from high wind tides in the
Pamlico Sound. Major project measures include a flood prevention
dike, tide gates, and a water storage area which will provide
protection from the 25-year frequency wind tide event in this area.
Alternatives Considered: Without project; pumps, tide gates, dike,
internal channels; dike, tide gates, diversion channel, conservation
easement area, sluice gates; dike, tide gates, conservation easement
area; dike and tide gates.
Resource Information
Size of Watershed (AC): 8,002
Land Use - Crop (AC): 5,150
Forestland (AC): 2,718
Miscellaneous (AC): 134
Land Ownership: 100% Private--"
Number of Farms: 76 Average Size (AC): 105
Important Farmland (AC): 4,900
Wetlands (AC by type): Type 7 144
Type 8 174
Type 12 87
TOTAL 405
Endangered Species: None
Cultural Resources: None
Problem Identifications: Flooding from high wind tides.
Candidate Plans Considered: Without project; non-structural (land use
conversion); dike, pumps, tide gates; dike, tide gates, sluice gates,
conservation easement area, diversion channel; dike, tide gates,
conservation easement area; dike and tide gates.
Project Purpose: Reduce economic losses from flood damages caused by
high wind tides.
Principal Project Measures:
Dike .............. 6.3 miles
Tide Gates ........ 55
Conservation
Easement Area 762 acres
I S-1
t
t
1
I
1
1
t
1
1
Project Costs:
PL 566 Other Funds
Land Treatment -- -- -- --
Measures .........
Structural Measures
for Flood
Prevention ....... 2,761,970 100 -- --
Project
Administration ... 169,800 34 333,710 66
Project Benefits: (Average Annual) $
Agricultural Acreage $263,260
Other $ 26,325
Total $289,585
Acres Benefited TOTAL 8,002
Impacts:
Land Use Changes (AC):
From: To:
Crop, 1 Acre Dike
Forest, 86 Acres Dike, open water
Natural Resources Changed or Lost:
Wetlands - 20 acres lost to dike
21 acres converted to open water
15 acres temporarily disturbed
s-2
Total Dollars
2,761,970
503,510

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WEST, QUARTER, DOUBLE, AND BAY SUPPLEMENT TO THE
SWAN QUARTER WATERSHED WORK PLAN
Hyde County, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION

J

A

f?

t
t
t
This environmental impact statement for the West, Quarter, Double, and Bay
Supplement to the Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan describes the plan
formulation, the environmental evaluation, and the results of these eval-
uations. The project action is proposed`in response to flood problems
caused by high wind tides from the Pamlico Sound, which can be addressed
under the provisions of Public Law 83-566.
The Local Sponsoring Organizations are:
Pamlico Soil and Water Conservation District
Hyde County Commissioners
The United State Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and
Forest Service; and the-North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development (NCDNR&CD), provided assistance to the sponsors in
the development of the plan. Other federal, state, and local agencies and
groups provided input into the planning process.
The Plan was prepared under the authority of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 83-566, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008)
and in accordance with Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.).
Responsibility for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act is
that of the Soil Conservation Service.
PROJECT SETTING
The West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the Swan Quarter Watershed
Work Plan is comprised of 8,002 acres in the central part of Hyde County.
It is bounded on the north by U.S. Highway 264. The southern boundary runs
approximately parallel to and south of County Road 1124. The watershed
drains into Pamlico Sound. (See project map)
Geology of the watershed dates to the Pleistocene Age. The watershed is
situated on the Pamlico Terrace which forms a low, nearly level plain
consisting of fine sands, silts, and clays of marine origin. The natural
drainage pattern is poorly developed because of its youthful age and low
topographic position. The stream system throughout the watershed consists ?
of constructed earthen canals, draining south into the Pamlico Sound or
into bays along the sound. Double, Quarter, Bay, West, and several smaller
canals empty into Juniper Bay near the southeastern corner of the
watershed. Numerous open field ditches throughout the watershed convey
surface and subsurface water into these canals.
P

There are 5,150 acres of cropland in the watershed. Most is row cropped in
corn and soybeans. Smaller acreages of small grains are planted in
rotation with the corn and soybeans. Fields are larger, nearly level, and
mostly rectangular in shape. Soils in the watershed area are predominantly
Weeksville. Smaller areas of Pungo, Doravan, Ponzer, and Lafitte soils are
also present. Most are high in organic matter content, fertile, and
produce high yields with adequate water management.
Elevations (NGVD) in the cropland areas range from a low of 1.5 feet above
sea level in the southeastern portion to 5 feet above sea level in the
vicinity of U.S. Highway 264. Elevation (NGVD) of U.S. Highway 264, which
forms the northern boundary of the watershed, is 4.8 feet above sea level.
' '
Climate in the watershed is favorable for growing the area
s main crops.
Average annual temperature is 63 degrees fahrenheit. The area has a
"freeze-free" period of 240 days which extends from late March to late
November
Avera
e annual rainfall is sli
htl
more than 53 inches
.
g
y
g
.
Visual resources in the project area are a composite of flat, broad
expanses of cropland at elevations ranging from 1.5 to 5.0 feet (NGVD),
sections of flat, wooded areas of pine and mixed deciduous trees and
shrubs, and irregular shaped marsh areas. The most obvious visual
characteristic of the area is the lack of topographical disruption by
natural or manmade features. These landscape features are typical along
eastern coastal areas of North Carolina.
There are no cultural resources of national significance within the project
area. The Lake Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge, an area of state and
national historical and natural significance is located north of the
project area.
The economy, land use, and population within the watershed is primarily
agricultural. There are approximately 76 farms in the watershed area, most
of which are owned by people living in the area. Many of these owners,
however, do not farm their land, but lease the acreage to other local
farmers. There are approximately 5,150 acres of cropland, and 2,718 acres
of woodland in the watershed. A small percentage of the cropland and
woodland acreage is taken up by individual residences, farm headquarters,
roads, canals, and other miscellaneous uses.
The population of the watershed is estimated to be 400, most of which live
on farms. Relatively little opportunity exists for attracting industry or
other non-agricultural interests into the immediate area as a means of
providing employment and improving the general economy. Any improvement
will most likely have to come about through maximum development of the
agricultural potential.
Hyde County has been designated as a depressed area by the Area Development
Administration. The 1977 per capita income in Hyde County was $3,901. An
overall economic development program has been developed for the county.
This program places agriculture in first place as a basis for economic
growth.

-2-

Deer, quail, rabbits, and doves are the primary resident game species found
in the watershed. Ducks and geese are abundant during fall and winter
months on nearby Lake Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge. The proximity
of the project area to the refuge encourages the use of agricultural fields
in the project area as feeding grounds by these waterfowl. Hunting
provides seasonal employment to many local residents and excellent
recreation for sportsmen from North Carolina and many other states
nationwide.
In addition to being an excellent hunting area, the Pamlico Sound, located
south of the project area, is an excellent fishing area. The numerous
inlet areas, including Juniper Bay, serve as primary fin- and shellfish
nursery areas. The sound and its nursery areas provide approximately 70
percent of the commercial fishery catch in North Carolina. Annual value of
this catch is $70,000,000. Flounder, croaker, trout, and spot are major
finf ish species of the area.
PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY IDENTIFICATION
There are two major water and related land resource problems in the area.
Within the watershed area, the major problem is the annual loss of agricul-
tural income due to flooding. In adjacent Juniper Bay fin- and shellfish
nursery area, the major problem is reduced nursery area production due to
fluctuating salinity levels during critical periods.
The annual loss of agricultural income from flooding is caused by high wind
tides from the Pamlico Sound. These wind tides force water from the sound,
into the canals, and over the cropland areas. Annual, direct flood damages
to 5,150 acres of cropland is approximately $310,000. These damages are
incurred as a result of crop losses, from delayed planting or replanting if
wind tides occur early in the growing season, actual crop production losses
if they occur in mid-season, and harvest losses due to late season
flooding.
Annual flood damages to roads and bridges in the watershed area are approx-
imately $4,500. Other water related problems include approximately $7,300
annual flood damages to woodland areas and $7,500 annual flood damages to
agricultural practices such as drainage mains and laterals.
A major fishery resource problem in waters affected by the project area is
freshwater discharge into saltwater nursery areas. The Governor's Coastal
Water Management Task Force, Final Report, best describes this problem.
Excerpts from this report follow:
"The upper reaches of the tributaries of Pamlico Sound function
naturally as nurseries. Nurseries are those areas where initial growth and
development take place due to favorable food, protection, bottom type, and
salinity. Unstable salinity conditions, resulting from a flux in
freshwater, place a physiological strain on marine organisms. This problem
is particularly acute because there is only a limited amount of nursery
areas available for estuarine production. As freshwater runoff reduces
salinity, less nursery area is available and therefore estuarine
productivity declines.
-3-
1
i

The acute effect, "little wedge", of pulses of freshwater directly into the
nursery areas is the result of activities in the twelve-county area itself.
One such activity is the artificial drainage of farm and forest land.
Because drainage systems speed the release of water from the land, those
systems adjacent to nursery areas release water directly into the nurseries
over a much shorter period of time than under natural conditions. The
resulting reduction in water retention time on the land causes unstable
salinity conditions in the estuaries. The problem is compounded by the
fact that removal of surface water from crop and forest land is most
critical in the spring and early summer. This is also the most critical
time for adequate salinity levels in the nursery areas.
Hyposalinity has an impact on both shell- and finfish. Shrimp production
in the nursery areas and their subsequent harvest are directly related to
salinity regimes. Oyster production has been affected by lowered
salinities in some areas. The effects on finfish are more subtle, but
there is a demonstrable effect. Studies done in Pamlico Sound indicate a
reduction in overall numbers of juvenile finfish produced in a nursery area
receiving drainage, compared to one with little or no drainage. As a
result, there is a measurable impact on quantity and value of seafood
production."
Under existing conditions, the seven canals which comprise the watershed
stream system discharge freshwater directly into the primary nursery areas
of Juniper Bay. Although several attempts have been made to quantify the
damages to the fishery resource, a concensus as to the annual damage has,
as yet, not been determined. However, the Pamlico Sound and its nursery
areas provides approximately 70 percen?/of the $70,000,000 annual commer-
cial fishery catch in North Carolina. - Therefore, harmful impacts to the
Juniper Bay area should prove to be significant in annual damages.
INVENTORY AND FORECASTING
I Scoping of Concerns
Environmental evaluations and consultations with federal, state, and local
agencies and groups were conducted early in the planning process to
identify significant issues and concerns related to project action in this
area. Eleven areas of concern were identified (See Table A) at these
scoping sessions. Eight of the eleven areas of concern were assessed as
having a high degree of significance to decision-making. These included
flooding, primary nursery areas, wetlands, land use, prime and important
farmlands, economics, cultural resources, and water quality. Early
investigations by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, indicated no cultural resources
within the watershed area. Two areas of concern, fish and wildlife habitat
and threatened and endangered species were assessed as having a medium
degree of significance in decision-making. Visual resources, using
procedures in TR-65, were assessed as having a low priority.
"
, North Carolina Department of Natural
1/ "Division of Marine Fisheries
Resources and Community Development.

-4-

,/"

Basic data, communications with responsible agency people, comments at the
several scoping meetings, and assessment team summaries were used in
determining the significance of and the magnitude of impacts in each area
of concern. Significant concerns were used to compare alternatives and to
design the selected alternative.
TABLE A - EVALUATION OF IDENTIFIED CONCERNS
West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the
Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan, North Carolina
Economic, Social, Degree of
Environmental, Significance
and Cultural to Deci9on
Concerns Making - Remarks
Flooding of Cropland High
Primary Nursery Areas High
Wetlands High
Fish & Wildlife Habitat Medium
Land Use High
Prime & Important Farmland High
Economics High
Threatened & Endangered Species Medium
Cultural Resources High None Identified
Visual Resources Low
Water Quality High
1/ High - Must be considered in the analysis of alternatives.
Medium - May be affected by same alternative solution.
Low - Consider, but not too significant.
None - Need not be considered in analysis.
Existing Resources
The total watershed area is 8,002 acres. There are 5,150 acres of
cropland, 2,718 acres of woodland, and 134 acres of roads, farm
headquarters, and canals. According to the North Carolina Prime Farmland
Map, there are no prime agricultural soils in the watershed, but most are
designated as being of state and local importance. Recent soil maps
indicate the predominant (approximately 95 percent) soil series in cropland
use is the Weeksville series, on nearly level slopes. These soils are high
producers with adequate water management. Corn, soybeans and small grain
are the principal crops grown in the watershed. Most of these are produced
for marketing, and are sold to buyers nearby. A relatively small amount of
livestock is produced.
The existing stream system is a network of farm mains and laterals and V
seven major dug canals. These canals dissect the woodland area between
major cropland areas and Juniper Bay. At places, cross canals intersect
with the major canals in the wooded area.
There are approximately 600 acres of wetland types 7, 8, and 12 (Circular tl/
39, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) in the project area. Four hundred and
-5-

five (405) acres are located in the planned 762 acre conservation easement
1 area. The remaining 195 acres are located north of SR 1124 in various
woodland areas and will not be impacted by project activities. Extensive
areas of irregular flooded salt marshes (type 17) are located south of and
outside the project area. (See wetlands map in Appendix C.) Existing main
and cross canals dissect these wetland areas in various locations.
Fish and wildlife resources in the project area are diversified. Major
game species include deer, quail, rabbit, and dove. Geese and ducks from
nearby Lake Mattamuskeet and the Pamlico Sound, are attracted by the large
agricultural feeding areas in the project area. Wood and field edges,
canal spoil areas, and planted wildlife strips, provide some "edge effect"
for native game and non-game species.
There is not a major fishery resource within the project area itself.
However, immediately adjacent to the project area, the Pamlico Sound
provides many major sport and commercial fin- and shellfish species includ-
ing trout, flounder, croaker, spot, crab, shrimp, and oysters.
National Heritage Program records indicate that two federally listed
endangered species, the American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) and
the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), are likely residents of the
watershed area, as well-as the osprey, a raptor of special concern.
Forecasted Conditions
Early agricultural development in the project area occurred predominantly
on lands higher than 1.5 feet (NGVD). Attempts to clear and cultivate
lower-lying areas were abandoned due to flooding and water management
problems. These have since reverted to woodland. Aerial photography of
the area in the 1930's and 1940's indicate essentially the same fields were
being cultivated then as under present conditions.
The Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan, which included the West, Quarter,
Double, and Bay project area, provided for pump stations to aid in flood
control, drainage, and water management. Division of support for the pumps
among the local people became the main obstacle to implementation. Support
for the West, Quarter, Double, and Bay project without pumps grew out of
the Swan Quarter organization.
Future land use is projected to remain the same in the project area. The
5,150 acres of cropland, due to the low elevations of non-cropland areas,
the lack of support for effective pumps, and costs of agricultural develop-
ment, is considered to be the feasible limit to cropland areas at this
time. The 2,718 acres, presently in woodland, are projected to remain in
woodland due to naturally low elevations, land ownership patterns, and
cost-return economics of converting these areas to other land uses.
Population in the project area is 400, most of whom live on farms and rural
residences. These residences are constructed on the highest available
sites along U.S. Highway 264 and secondary roads in the area. Maximum
known wind tide elevations pose no threat to human lives in these resi-
dences, but could cause water damage to the lower lying buildings.

-6-

Water resource problems, including agricultural land flooding, and fresh-
water intrusion into primary fin- and shellfish nursery areas will continu
to occur. These annual damage rates are estimated to be $310,290 to
cropland and $19,335 to roads, bridges, other agricultural property, and
woodland. Damage values to primary nursery areas in dollars or catch
resulting from freshwater intrusion have not been determined at the present
state-of-the-art, but are considered to be significant.
Cropland erosion is projected to remain at its present level, less than 4
tons per acre annually. Deterioration of the soil resource base and
off-site sediment problems are not expected to occur. The major emphasis
of the on-going district program is projected to be the installation of
water management practices, field borders, wildlife habitat management
practices, and wind breaks.
The approximately 600 acres of wetlands in the project area are projected
to remain undisturbed except for normal and routine woodland harvest,
reforestation, and management activities. The present mix of woodland and
cropland areas, areas providing wildlife "edge-effect", are expected to
remain the same.
Relatively little opportunity exists for attracting industry or other
non-agricultural interests into the immediate area as a means of providing
employment and improving the general economy. Any improvement will most
likely have to come about through development of the agricultural
potential, commercial fishing and recreational opportunities for hunting
waterfowl.
FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES
General

This part of the plan describes the plan formulation process including the
determination of project measures, effects of these measures on problems
and opportunities, and significant issues and concerns identified in the
scoping process, development and comparison of alternatives, and the
selection of the recommended plan.
Formulation Process
Local sponsors and landowners identified economic losses due to cropland
flooding as the major problem. These flood damages occur when high wind
tides push water from the Pamlico Sound up the drainage canals to cropland
areas. Other problems and opportunities are identified in the preceding
section.
Plan measures which would address the identified problems and opportunities
were determined. Effects of these measures on the problems and opportun-
ities and the environmental issues and concerns were analyzed and
evaluated.
1

Structural measures were considered, including pumps, dikes, tide gates
sluice gates, diversion channels, and water storage areas. Evaluation of
these measures and site conditions indicated the most effective approach to
flood_yX9JJgms_fxnm_.high a dike with tide gates at one
of severe a1 1osArtJ_Qn.9.. It was also determined that additional water manage-
ment measures such as pumps, diversion canals, sluice gates, and water
storage areas could be combined to address other problems and opportunities
in the project area, including environmental impacts to wetlands and
primary fin- and shellfish nursery areas.
Dike elevations were evaluated as to their protection from wind tide
events. Elevations ranging from the maximum known wind tide level plus
freeboard, to the 1-year wind tide elevation plus required freeboard were
considered. Protection from the 25-year wind tide event was determined to
best meet the needs of the project.
As discussed in the problems and opportunities section, the project area is
environmentally sensitive in many regards, including wetlands and primary
fin- and shellfish nursery areas. Dike location and water management
measures were determined to be the major project design features that would
affect significant environmental issues and concerns. Essentially two dike
locations were evaluated as to impact on wetland areas. Four combinations
of water control measures were evaluated as to effects on primary nursery
areas.
Mi, One dike location, basically adjacent to cropland, impacted less than 2
acres of Type 122 wetlands.(Circular 39, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
Water conride gates at each canal, including West, Quarter, Double,
2
Bay, Honey, and Berry Canals, would discharge directly into primary nursery
areas. Tide gates would be sized to carry 21? inches of runoff in 24 hours/
A second combination of water control measures were considered with essen-
tially the same dike location as cropland, but moved further into the
wooded areas to provide a pump sump area. Water control measures evaluated
with this dike location included a pump station at West Canal, tide gates,
and channel enlargements inside the dike to assure water delivery to the
pumps. Water would be discharged out of West Canal creating a "slug'
effect" on the primary nursery areas in Juniper Bay. This dike-pump
combination would impact 38.5 acres of type 8 and 12 wetlands to varying
degrees. Local sponsors do not support pumps as project measures due to
high operation and maintenance costs and ineffectiveness in solving their
major wind tide flood problem.
A second dike location, located away from cropland areas and using the
wooded areas as a water storage area, was evaluated using two combinations
of water control measures. One combination of water management measures
included a 762 acre conservation easement/water storage area, a diversion
canal, tide gates at each existing canal, and sluice gates for total water
control into primary nursery areas. Approximately 117 acres of wetland
types 7, 8, 12, and 17 would be impacted to varying degrees with this
combination of dike location and water management measures.
The same dike location with a second combination of water management
measures was also evaluated. These measures included a 762 acre
-8-
t
conservation easement/water storage area, and tide gates. This combination
of dike location and water management measures would reduce the wetland
acres impacted to 56 acres, only 20.6 acres of which would be permanently
lost.
Throughout the alternative formulation process, environmental impacts to
primary nursery areas and wetlands were paramount in and during the numer-
ous meetings with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Marine
Fisheries (NCDNR&CD), and other agencies with an interest in the project.
Dike locations, water management measures, and other aspects were closely
coordinated with these people and the Governor's Coastal Area Management
Task Force in an intensive effort to minimize impacts to this coastal area.
Land use conversion from cropland to woodland was considered during plan
formulation as a non-structural alternative. Both social and economic
evaluations indicated this alternative was not feasible or acceptable to
sponsors and local residents.
Evaluation of Alternative Plans
Displays of each alternative have been developed to show location of
structural measures, costs, benefits, effects, and a description of plan
components.
ALTERNATIVE 1 - Without Project

Components: There are no planned project actions in this alternative.
Present land uses including 5,150 acres of cropland, 2,718 acres of wood-
land, and 134 acres of miscellaneous land are projected to remain basically
unchanged.
`
Costs: There are no project costs associated with this alternative.

Effects: Annual flood damage of $310,290 to cropland and $19,335 to roads,
bridges, other agricultural property, and woodland will continue to occur.
Direct and unabated freshwater discharge from the project area into the
Juniper Bay primary fin- and shellfish nursery area will continue to occur.
The 600 acres of wetlands in the project area will not be affected by this
alternative.
t

u
1

t

t

ALTERNATIVE 2 - Pumps, Dike, Tide Gates, Channels
I.EGe?lD
r.? PROS?CT
,BaaNDwRY
DIKE
0 PW MP
W.
Y. -
wa.•n•
.r M.IrNNI. '
r' ••
1 ?
r

s
Components: This alternative consists of constructing approximately 8 -
miles of flood prevention dike, and a pump station at the intersection of
West Canal and the dike, with needed channel enlargement to assure
freshwater delivery to the"'pump sump area"and tide gates at existing canals
to prevent saltwater intrusion. The flood prevention dike would be
constructed to maximum known wind tide elevation plus freeboard for pro-
tection against wave action. The pump station would be comprised of four
pumps, capable of removing two inches of runoff from the project area in 24
hours. \kTide gates through the dike at each of the six existing canals
would be installed to remove 2 inches of runoff in twenty-four hours.1(
Costs: Installation costs of this alternative: Total Project Costs -
$9,143,875_;. Ph Share - $7,234,187; Other - $1,909,687; Average Annual
Cost ' 479 155. 1 -1

Effects: Installation of this as beaZpative will provide flood protection to
the 8,002 acre project area, including 150 acres of cropland. Flood
damages, resulting from wind tides at max m known elevations will be
eliminated. Annual flood damage reduction b' _•„ will amount to
$330,825. Total av?er
age annual enefits are 363,9 0 Pumps will provide
_
for water removal when the water surface eleva utside the dike (wind
tides) is of such height as to prevent gravity flow through channels and
tide gate drains. Primary fin- and shellfish nurseEy areas will be the -7
res-ip-i.eut o_f both_,•pla,iural_and pumped "slue owl" with this alternative.
Y
y
Approximately
14.5 acres of types
8 and 12 wetlands would be'"permanently
lost under the dike, 15 acres of types 8 and 12 would be converted to open
' water areas, and an additional 9 acres would be temporarily disturbed in
the berm acees. The annual cost of this alternative exceeds benefits by
$115,255
-10-

ALTERNATIVE 3 - Dike, Tide gates, Outlet Channel,
Conservation Easement Area

Sluice Gates,

ea?w.R??
+ W brKE %
--? DIViRfr??4! ??rs
SOW
(?j1AMniQ1.
CEA CenserM.l:?
1 ?M •MAf?w Mft?„t?
M1\fnf?t
Are &.
Components: This alternative consists of 6.3 miles of flood prevention
dike, tide gates under the dike at existing canals, 7 6 Ja"f AA*".sion
outl,b44T, and 7 sluice gates for complete control of freshwater
discharge into primary nursery areas, and a 762 acre conservation easement
area for water storage and water management purposes. Dike location
basically parallels cropland areas but 762 acres of woodland separates it
from cropland to provide freshwater storage. Twenty (20) tide gates will
be installed under the flood prevention dike at existing canal locations to
discharge freshwater. Twenty-eight (28) gates will be installed inside the
dike at farm drainage outlets and at conservation easement area locations.
These gates will remain open until water levels on the outside exceeds
inside levels at which time the gates will close to prevent backflooding.
The 762 acre water storage area will function as a reservoir for freshwater
discharge to help reduce peak discharge into primary nursery areas. The
tide gates are designed to carry existing canal capacity or 2 inches of
runoff in twenty-four hours. Sluice gates, located 100 feet downstream of
the dike at each canal, will provide almost complete control of freshwater
discharge into primary nursery areas. Volumes and rates exceeding desired
levels into the nursery areas through the sluice gates will be diverted by
the diversion outlet canal to Caffee Bay.
Costs: Total Project Cost - $3,890,150; PL 566 Share - $3,282,145, Other -
$608,005, Average Annual Cost - $206,800.
Effects: Installation of this alternative will provide flood protection
from the 25-year frequency wind tide to the 8,002 acre project area,
including 5,150 acres of cropland. Freshwater discharge into primary fin-
-11-
t
and shellfish nurser areas will
y be completely controlled by the sluice
gates, diversion outlet canal, and conservation easement/water storage
area. Controlled freshwater discharge will provide effective water
management capability for determining, through research and monitoring, the
optimum freshwater inflow in the Juniper Bay primary nursery area. Once
this optimum freshwater management level is determined, this alternative
provides the water management capability to maintain this level
permanently. Approximately 117 acres of wetlands would be impacted by this
1 alternative. Forty-one (41) acres of wetland types 7,8,12, and 17 would be
permanently lost, 44 acres would be converted to open water, and 32 acres
would be temporarily disturbed during project installation. The annualized
net return of this alternative is $114,765, not including benefits to the
primary nursery area in Juniper Bay which, at the present state-of-the-art,
have not been assigned a dollar value.

J
t
t
s
t
t

t

r
-12-
t
t
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
ALTERNATIVE 4 - Dike, Tide gates, Conservation Easement Area
LeGE N O
Ss r VRfLTr<GT
bsw?ay
4j/ 1"Ka
Con cm&eavolom
Ross am r
A REA
SWAM SWAY[O WAT906Mte
KJr. MAdorea. "VK[ Ar /AI
A11MLrawMr
DPW rrr, ~. &doom"
tom= w
Components: This alternative consists of 6.3 miles of flood prevention
dike, tide gates under the dike at existing canals, and a 762 acre
conservation easement/water storage area for water storage and management
purposes. Dike location basically parallels cropland areas but 762 acres
of woodland separate the dike and cropland to provide freshwater storage.
Twenty (20) tide gates will be installed under the flood prevention dike at
existing canals to discharge freshwater. Twenty-eight (28) gates will be
inside the dike along existing canals to facilitate existing farm drainage
outlets and water release into the conservation easement area. These gates
will remain open until water levels on the outside exceed the inside levels
at which time the gates will close to prevent backflooding. The tide gates
are designed to remove 2 inches of runoff from the project area in 24
hours, the present capacity of the existing canals. The conservation
easement/water storage area will function as a reservoir to store
freshwater discharge and reduce the rate of discharge into Juniper Bay.
Seven (7) 24-inch tide gates with flashboard risers will provide water
level control in the reservoir area.
Costs: Total Project Cost - $3,265,480; PL 566 Share - $2,931,770; Other -
$333,710; Average Annual Cost - $172,760.
Effects: Installation of this alternative will provide flood protection to
the 8,002 acre project area, including 5,150 acres of cropland, from the
25-year frequency wind tide. Freshwater discharge into primary fin- and
shellfish nursery areas will be partially controlled by the combined
effects of tide gates and the conservation easement area. The conservation
easement area will store up to one-half inch of runoff from the watershed
area, depending upon wind tides and rainfall. For example, the peak rate
of discharge into the primary nursery area from a 2 year, 24 hour frequency
1 -13-

rainfall, when wind tide elevation is at 1 foot (NGVD), will be reduced by
twenty percent (20%) by this alternative. Installation of this alternative
would also provide some research potential on the study of freshwater
influence on primary nursery areas. Approximately 56 acres of types 7, 8,
and 12 wetlands would be impacted by this alternative. Approximately
twenty (20) acres would be permanently lost under the dike, twenty-one (21)
acres would be changed to open water, and fifteen (15) acres would be
temporarily disturbed during project installation. The annualized net
benefit of this alternative is $116,915, not including benefits to primary 41?
nursery areas which at present state-of-the-art, have not been assigned a
dollar value.

1

1
t
1

t
it

-14-
[1
t
t
t
1
1
t
t
i
ALTERNATIVE 5 - Dike, Tide Gates
LEQE AID
?? Pg0.TttT
BouNa?RY
AA/ DIKE
i?R f
1
WAN QUANTEQ •ArEWS"Eo
I!l r, OVA* rd-0, OOUIa! r *Ar
swia[rrow?
.... MI., rII ty?.
Components: This alternative consists of 5.4 miles of flood prevention
dike located adjacent to cropland areas with tide gate outlets at each
existing canal. Tide gates are designed to remove 2.5 inches of runoff
from the project area in 24 hours.
Costs: Total Project Cost - $3,337,400; PL 566 Share - $3,192,514; Other -
$144,886; Average Annual Cost - $173,620.
Effects: Installation of this alternative will provide flood protection to
the 8,002 acre project area, including 5,150 acres of cropland, from the
25-year frequency wind tide. Fresh water runoff from the project area will
discharge directly into primary fin- and shellfish nursery areas. Less
than 2 acres of type 12 wetland will be impacted. These acres will be lost
under the dike. The annualized net benefit of this alternative is
$115,965.
-15-
.rr rrrrrrNr
?J

I Comparison of Candidate Plans
Alternative plans were compared in relation to various economic, social,
and environmental factors considered significant in the decision making
process. Either of these candidate plans could be selected as the recom-
mended plan, depending on project objectives, economics, environmental
impacts, social effects and other factors. The major project objective
identified by the sponsors is flood protection to cropland. Alternatives
2, 3, 4, and 5 accomplish this objective.
11

t

t

t
t

t

t
Economically, alternatives 3, 4, and 5 have positive annual benefits and
favorable benefit-cost ratios, computed at 3 1/4 percent interest rate.
Table B displays the adverse annualized cost of each candidate pl17,
computed at the current discount rate of 7 7/8 percent interest. The
recommended plan b:c ratio is 1:1 using 7 7/8 percent interest rate. At
the congressionally approved 3 1/4 percent interest rate, the b:c ratio is
1:7:1.
The scoping process identified two environmental factors as being paramount
in this area. They were impact to primary fin- and shellfish nursery areas
in Juniper Bay and the impact to wetland. Alternative 3 provides for total
control of freshwater into Juniper Bay nursery areas, using a 762 acre
storage area, sluice gates, and a diversion channel to Caffee Bay. Alter-
native 4 provides partial control of peak of slug flows, 3 to 50 percent
depending upon rainfall and wind tide conditions, by using a 762 acre
conservation easement or water storage area.
Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, impact wetlands, causing permanent losses to
14.5 acres, 41 acres, 20 acres, and 2 acres respectively. Approximately
405 acres of wetland types 7, 8, and 12 (Circular 39, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife) would be inside the dike with alternatives 3 and 4, as part of
the conservation easement area. These wetlands would be under legal
easement for a 50 year period with alternatives 3 and 4. Approximately 9
acres of wetland will be inside the dike in alternative 2 and less than 2
acres inside the dike in alternative 5. Wetlands inside the dike with
alternatives 2 and 5 would not be protected by conservation easements.
Fish and wildlife habitat would be improved by land treatment in
alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. In addition, alternatives 3 and 4 would
provide a 762 acre wetland wildlife habitat area consisting of wooded
swamps, bogs, and coastal shallow freshwater marshes.
Baseline data and on-site investigations by N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists indicate the two
suspected threatened and endangered species, the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) and the American Alligator (Al,Ugator mississippiensis)
woulc'not-be detrimentally affected by alternatives and 5. There
is concern that alternative 2, with pumping capability, could induce land
clearing and adversely affect available potential habitat of these two
species.
2/ Basis is Soil Conservation Service National Bulletin No. 390-3-24,
dated May 19, 1983.
-16-

t
A
Alternatives 3 and 4 improve the water quality of freshwater discharge into
the nursery area by using the 762 acre conservation easement area as a
natural filter and holding area. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 improve
saline water quality problems on cropland with the dike and tide gates.
Pumped discharge from cropland directly into Juniper Bay primary nursery
area in alternative 2, has adverse effects on water quality due to the
increase in delivery rate into the nursery area, causing disruption to
critical salinity levels. Alternative 5 does not significantly change
water quality of freshwater from existing conditions.
Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 benefit 175-200 acres of locally important
cropland by prevention salt water leach from existing canals into adjacent
cropland areas.
Existing land use would remain basically the same under alternatives 2, 3,
4, and 5, less acreages converted to project structures. Conversion to
structures in alternative 2 converts 103 acres of woodland and cropland to
dike, pump stations, and spoil areas. Alternative 3 converts 101 acres of
woods and cropland to dike and spoil areas. Approximately 82 acres and 69
acres of woods and cropland are converted to dikes and spoil areas in
alternatives 4 and 5 respectively. Only limited areas of cropland are
converted in alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, and those occur at the junction
of SR 1124 and the dike: Alternatives 3 and 4 provide stable land use for
762 acres of woodland in the conservation easement areas.
Visual resources in the project area are adversely affected by alternatives
2, 3, 4, and 5. Existing visual resources offer a variety of flat
relatively large areas of cropland, woodland, and marsh. Alternative 2
would introduce two medium visibility, man-made structures (dike and pump
station) as permanent landscape features. Both could be seen from SR 1124.
Alternative 3 introduces two low visibility man-made structures (dike and
diversion channel) as permanent landscape features. Alternative 4
introduces a single low visibility man-made feature (dike). Alternative 5
introduces a single medium visibility, man-made feature, a dike visible
from SR 1124.
Project Interaction
There are no presently known federal or non-federal projects in this area
with which the West, Quarter, Double, and Bay project would interact.
' Risk and Uncertainty
Risk affecting the realization of project benefits is associated with the
frequency of flooding method of hydrologic analysis which was based on
historical flooding events. All of the alternatives were evaluated by the
frequency method. Benefits are based on reduction of flood damages.
Uncertainty in realizing project benefits was limited by projecting present
land use and yields over the 50-year life of the project. Current
normalized prices published by the Water Resources for fiscal year 1983
were used in the evaluation of the alternatives. Costs were also based on
1983 prices.

-17-

[1

1
1

t
A

t
Benefits and uncertainty would be increased by projecting continued
increase in acreages of truck crops.
Rationale for Plan Selection
Table B, Summary and Comparison of Candidate Plans, displays impacts of
each alternative plan. Evaluation of the table indicates that:
1. Alternative 1 does not address any of the project objectives or
concerns identified by the sponsors. Flood damages to cropland
caused by high wind tides will continue"to occur. Approximately
175-200 acres of locally important cropland adjacent to existing
canals will continue to be unproductive due to lateral salt leach
from the canals. Freshwater discharges and "slug flows" from
existing canals into the Juniper Bay primary fin and shellfish
nursery areas will continue, adversely effecting production in
these areas.
2. Alternative 2 makes significant contributions toward meeting the
concerns of project sponsors. The dike will provide protection
to 5,150 acres of cropland from flooding and restore production on
175-200 acres of important cropland that have been made unpro-
ductive by salt leach through channel banks. Dike elevations are
designed to protect these areas from the highest known wind tide
elevations. Pumps will increase water removal and management
opportunities on 5,150 acres of cropland. Freshwater "slug flow"
into primary fin- and shellfish nursery areas in Juniper Bay will
be more frequent with pump discharges. The discharge will be
direct with no storage or filtration. Approximately 39 acres of
wetland types 8 and 12 will be affected. Fifteen (15) acres will
be converted to open water, 9 acres will be temporarily disturbed
during construction, and approximately 15 acres will be
permanently lost under the dike. Two permanent man-made
structures, the pump station on West Canal and the dike would both
have low visibility from SR 1124 and will have a moderate impact
or disruption to existing visual resources consisting of
relatively large, flat areas of cropland, woodland, and marsh.
Project investment is $9,143,875 with an annualized net loss of
$115,255. There is no support among local sponsors for an
alternative having pumps as a project measure.
3. Alternative 3 makes significant contributions to sponsor object-
ives and multiple resource problems in the area. The dike will
provide flood protection to 5,150 acres of cropland and restore
production on 175-200 acres of important farmland that have been
made unproductive by salt leach from existing canals. Dike elev-
ations are designed to protect these areas from the 25-year freq-
uency wind tide event. Alternative 3 provides complete and
manageable protection to primary fin- and shellfish nursery areas
in Juniper Bay, using a 762 acre conservation easement area as
storage, a diversion channel to divert freshwater discharge away
from primary nursery areas, and sluice gates on each canal to
control the freshwater inflow into primary nursery areas. Unlim-
-18-

1
1
t
1
1
1
1
pq
6
H
?Ha7
60
O
gO
C
N
m d
C H M W O
u w u C o
? °
W y
C
ml ? q w O
°
3~
d .1
J

r•1
p
H u
t
m
q w u
H
m
d
H v N co -1
I
M p. w
Ig?
i
p
N p
C
M S

d O

.
o

M

a?
?
vi
p
o
u
1+
1
?
A N
y
M U C
N
n
V a ?
7
M v
v ,
o
1.
Q `•? M
N rH
N N N ••? N W w a
tl
W b m W tltl
w O W

pp
a
..??••?? O H 1
pd q
u
° 1 1
Ln {'H
r
W
W m
1
• N '0 3 H M
m F
a l
' B
?
.
3 .-1 A M M w m W O m
v u .a' o
q0 •
O
° m
m
m M 0
~
M C +
•1 d N 1
-1 1
•? >
M H
? al w •
O
? f
+
m
V v W
? ?? H C H Jdl C
d u H u 0 8 d
m u N N
N
qqg • H q O
44 C U M U u
C y
ca
q y y
.
H y •q

H
6
6 ..yl ?•' ° •O
V H 00 e
A 1J N A N ° M
- pm N 2?
C
° .
V M
m O O In t
Y U C C - ?
N n m N
N d w .4
W
m N C
ty p
e
1 y M
Dp
H H n .o O
ui T H 'aO v u {+ O q m
m
•o Y w M~ p
,
>
U
H
°
co .
w
H
G) H d C d u d d
C u .+ H H
m
1
+ S
m d d m U O V t
)
a m
x O y O n OD
.
.
1 n ?y
H v m M m
'to 1 G
H C d 0 9 m 'a d H
U p d
H u of m • u H
N q H 'O H u
O O G
pp
A U 6 N N N .
.
1
N 1-4 y
p. A 'd0 Ii Z 6 P• y
fOA? ••d•I U 3 S Y+ n U X > A {L N L
y
d
u0 1
+A
+ H 1
O
O 1 1
n H
m

d •• 6 N •?
a l+ d 00 ? y
.
I
6 m v H
p
w V 'O q
? i
a
N
D N q O m u m G

$ v g m d M 3 H
o
U C WO
H M m m a
p. g m
v u N O
q

°
..-,

y
O d +1 C H H
M
d w u .? d b g q u 3 d A M
g g
w o P.
u m g W o 0 •Oi ti 6y W W •.?1 d .~+ p•

fs1 a
?
m d v'
d u
m T
C°p m o .M•i V+ F
a u d d O •.u+ W 3 s+ u y H
W d m C d $ Wy mG o v
O m m m 0 o u
u 0
o U

?>
u M
W
m a
r•I
11L++. H m 8
O z m
H
d u H u O
G p U M V u
3 d 1+ d u •
d H m
m .
d b H
a

U W C

V7 O
Cr

•
v m
W u a 'O
d
d
m A
C
W C W U •O
.•1
H
w C O

m
L
' O N d w C W B
B
@
A 11 N A d d ° H C C
° N
P
G
{y
M m m

o

1

1

m v A m
i
W

N n
W

d
0 p

i H

H H
W
N s
D d ?.
M
u
H N d
C u o
w
~ W m m
P. V
U> +I d H

r d
d G m

l

.O

l

d
ri i
•.
e
M oD d m G d h
•1
C u .-? H N g
an d d m U 3 J U w
a m u

m
? r
?
o r
H •• g a m
d d
? m u
"? H o V m 'O d H
U G m >> u H C +-?
i ,C
+
O
GI A U e
+f
N
N M r
•1
N '
"'
o
?G
W p
N ° d u W
A N U
3 A N G H C H
o
n U O O G
k
m
N N .
J !
3 l
n > ? P l
N J
11. O
O

L
u
w
my °c n w v
m
m
C me 1+1 1 M
r•1 W
•?
d o u a ?.°i o c e
u

N
w o u u u p
, c .+ m
M e
W

H

H O

r-I a

d u m 0> P .+

d m O
m a G O V°
+
m .-
H
C
H m 1 d d •p
U N V O d U H w G U
6
$4
A
n 0 o
a O y
y o N 4)
v u
°
?
S
6 w H 3 r-I a` vi •I p
u oo
v r u o w
u 4 n w M•I %? o -a
m
g

P. tG•1
?aDi? .
v
u m ?
i
p W o co r
N o N
N
V] ••I P. o P. m .+ m Qt N u •p
oO
U
u
m
C
>• 1 M
N P2 E u u u ?
>, .
-1 N o. N N

'
' Q
°
o O
T m M
.--I M
O
d C A 0o N d O d U
A m M m d d
m H H J
.1
O
O u U .
H F a M m N OD
m m? m A u u N G
U h O O u N H
d o m m
®
G N
Oo •O A
p N N
m m
o
O 1 d m
v? u o 0
~ N
•.+
G •
i V
>. V •.
1 G M u
1 r
1 p 14 o
W M

P+ m d d m
+ p d d U P G G

P• m w m d 1
f M
• m W N H v M d
m u u m >. ? d d •.1

p d m a d 0
M H Z> J
1 H A
f3 m •o
d u . vl N
m b r-+ M d 00
d A m
w
-
w m .?+ N
7F1 ldl ,C d d
H i-1 m N (Y d 1 1
d N b b '-I y >. a
~ o
.
N
•
N
M A
N 1 + > d
6 .
m d d
ro ro
?
H
j, $
o N
m
w m
.-i
u
C N a N W
~ %' V 'G
o H H
8 t
S+
3 •
i d V N p, •
pO U o
H
H W N W W d m N m H O M p. W w m m y

O F4 G Fi x m u d .7 d U 3 F. d O .+ 3 d d
?I v y

? 1J L

N? U U
W V
v N I v d 1 G.
d 7+ u O \
H L1 d d .M-+ N I .~-1 w u n rl
U U M •.NI a ?dP H 1 0 1? t+t
O ~ ~ e•
9

z N e
p
ro C
d .+
m m ?
+ E C N m
O C •e
+ 7 3 u ra ?

W
G
N
M
NI
Z E
E v v
d d
m M d M N
T m
•.?d H d •° u
Iptl A d
",..1 G
m W a s
Sd+ Z m
N
•.°I
d
O
6
x

O $4 $4 ? co
P4 w 0 v
G
?
U U
w H > > C > o m ?
u u P. W l
.- M
d 6 Pi Z y
A W Yid -
-
I

-19-
-19-
1
1
1
1

1 O
+gy
b
? A
N d
H NN N
l Y •rl
d
?
N
b
E N
O N O
N
C q U
M Y
u1 d r y
d
L
G
3 d G 6 CCy
N
w ?
y
N •o
Ai
N p a Go u co
a°o
g
? y .
y
~ U M
U u1 u1 O ?
Y p
N p. D .
-
1
O
N
y0 H
?0 1
W 41 p,
L
N e
g
I
.
?
'
G p
co
a
+

p O
0.

b d
d

U M H b

W
O
itl 7 H
b y N 9 Y d A

Id
A
.-1 w

rl

t
1

d
y -D w
d u J
41 ?4
O A
u N
J N O
U U r?•I ~

TJ p

N

N N

N
p
L
'
O W W N YN b
L
W H Y •y
.
'
C
?N N C My
OG
' p
~ M O
ptl
p
p?? w p
o}
p
y
C
p. •rl N
N N M> N N P4 N N A N 9 m a d d
N
??yy d
y p •.C? 9 W I Y M ttl .?i .+ A O
O. at d a N N C d r?yl p N C vC
H W H °` oo O o M V 0 o a M w MCO u
C O N U N p H H O -,o a±
O • w Y .'A p. M N O C Co d W
S? H 0o W O n 9 •~.1 'H' 'g m C H d W YN G
a b r1 W ..p•1 •bii M N u HN d b d .-N+ L O 41 ~ 4 O
d W O •O Y •O H H p .-1 b1p u1 •O ?. F J In O O O
p? d
4*1 d O 6 C W a W 9 U d v01 N 1 1
H6> 'C G C ?qp tpy ?+
WK 'Cc: u a 4) 100
Z O W 0$ H O W U d 6 • vN p •tpyl F U • N 1 v?l N
PPLL yJ N al aeT -0C adl d N J J U d d N q N N .1 d M
rl PL d 3 1!1 W 10 H N N uN? 'O al 47 ? W H d d u d O C H of va Va Va
0 .4
d vy W v .r-1i N C N ri VA+ N 41 .~•? N YN 'ONy •.TJi 9 ~ v01 .?•1 •.JI
pG w wf w w 10i m 3 Y H AM NN w P4 A P4 +p+ N 3 ao u
d N •o
1
W
? 0
O u
0 O 0 ap+ 0 .-
+
.
N p
N

4) .0 1
1
W H
v co
M ro

op b G 'O .••? > L •O H N N Y A e

t+1 Y d 0
C H M N d 'O H Y
d Y d H C N C
3 Itl
0 N
O O O .+ C O
M G
O N 41 U Y N d O d . Y O Y L O
U b d H H C .-1 b v1 'O D.
?
? G U
o
d In
° O O
OD
N O

'

[
am 9 ? t BaB ? o e a
a) W a W
o
1yo
to
y u n 1 i
d O- M O O N d u C G N
N p
N
N
D.
.-1 1
Nf M
O
Z N 3
bO u Y CL 6 I
e
g
N A
•
Q
? N ?0
HG ?N,1 1 n? aP0
PP,_44 d
Y
W d
H 9 U V A U U
7 d d y
V
.?
y
N p a
I
.
-1cd
•. d N7
d
v N U F N N H N •O 'T p. H d d d O .
G H ?n va <n va
M bo 3
.7 p L N N H p
a d N Y rl O Y C
H M N Y U OU u .+ O
'.y 9 p AI u1 'O u p
.••? M Y

W of ^
1"1 N a
r! .••I 3 7 Y •-1 N
N A N W C N •O H
Wd' o " ua 7 H .+
3 Io U
O W 0
C

F
a)
N
0
1
1.
T I .
0

pN
O
N ~
M Jp•1 101,
N~ U N •
O
C
y
a.l co O V - > 0 co
i t'Od tMi N

• r e7
10
+
F
?
y
W -0
N
F ca
H
N H
d W d
,71 Y M C
N
1. F
N
d d .a O O O rl
Y O Y G
Y O
?z7
p NN Y N g
SN.a 3+ G N Y N v N F .?/ O d O P?'1 N n
k 6 N .+
d U D` N W
H
6 3.+ C
N O p F. P. d
3
Y p
p N 00 1
2 i
.- N w u w N 8 D. 9 F O N i .o 14 a
47
(a? N O Id•? U Y W U 7 A 7 M N
0 ~i u
N 1+f rl t+1 rl
?
r7 d U N W N U •O N T LL H
0 d d d
0 p H N to N N
d U
7 O W
N N V1 H N W
d A a O Y y
H M Itl Y U 00 U .-1 O
'.7 •O p ty 1!1 •O U 7
N M Y
b Y rl
N Y H ra
u Y N N
F 'O W b H
u
d F H rj
ca
a O n .
-1 3 1•
•i a m w h
a
' a 3
1
O N 1 N
V
1
0 d
bq
UO
W O 1
O m N H N
H H G N
a
+ O
• G H p
C d
G
M Y N O >.
Y 1. H d v
a N H
N M U
F
N V N G d W
N d 'O A d U ttQQ
M Q O • O Y
Y O L N N p
? Y
'
j
d F N O 'O w C N Y O H .

H .+ O d Y
A M
H p p w N J
N N N CC H M N O b
> C d In d
0
0 ?
0 'O Y p
O C u
? y? ?
By
g

Q H
P. >.+ O
3 N L C a
'i+ N T7 d
i
?
TJ N 9 N
a tlo
d ~g N
O
W
p. T C d •.a
Y M N N d d N
W N N A v d .+ N C
L N G
+
b 'O M td b T

H M H p
1 H C H N
r O d d O ,C
H ,c N O Y G Y .-1
d N •O O N O N
O d O e
to
° d d •+
H H '+
0 - I i
1 1 1 1
1 1 O
N
•7
O ?tl
7 Yd ° q a"i W itl H o 3 v 4) w °o w
w .a
o
x O' RI M H
3 N H Y W G
u u O N H $
^
P H t0 1!1
.+ H .+ H ^ Y N M
U M H
H
d N d 'O
?
N L 'O •O .
N 'O

N
J 7
Y

d
3 Y d
Y G
N H }+ a7 Itl o 0 d C p F
O H H O d N w d o C
H H N G b C .
•1
q G C p N + m
O Y
H p •`+
3 W W 3 r1 •O W N U A? d A .+ 6 tV 6 U •.+ p. Y A
v

6
H
o s N
f
w ?
y u z

I U U O
[s7l

!

N U W

O C
U
O C

U
d N

?
?j U W I
O u
I
d •.
W l
J
W L N .
N N
°
? '?+ N
z
z d
N a? w wx wi c

U7I
c 10
4

7
a)

N
N N Id
p
y
+u-4
m
Z
M •'I Y >
M M Y
U
Y
N H Y
d d N
M (.Y. W
d S.
d O
H Y Oo N
M d d Y Oo N
N d d d
a > > w cwW? 0aa ?a a °
d as d a4 A. z a,
-20-

u

1
0

ited research opportunities on effects of freshwater inflow to
primary nursery areas are available with this alternative. Tide
gates with flashboard risers provide water level control in the
762 acre easement area for wetland wildlife habitat management
and agricultural water management purposes. Easements will be
obtained to assure the use of this area for the 50 year life of
the project. This alternative would impact approximately 117
acres of wetland types 7, 8, 12, and 17, including the permanent
loss of 41 acres under the dike. Forty-four (44) acres would be
converted to open water and 32 acres temporarily disturbed during
construction activities. The diversion channel would empty into
Caffee Bay, a designated secondary, yet significant, fin- and
shellfish nursery area. There was a lot of adverse concern
expressed over the loss of wetlands and the impact to the Caffee
Bay nursery area associated with this alternative. Total project
investment in this alternative is $3,890,150 with net annualized
benefits of $114,765, excluding unquantifiable effects to primary
nursery areas. Local sponsors have indicated a willingness to
support this alternative and cooperate with state and federal
governments in efforts to benefit multiple resources of the area,
including agriculture and fishery resources. This alternative
was chosen over alternative 2 because of comparable net benefits
to agriculture; increased benefits to primary fin- and shellfish
nursery areas, and strong local support and cooperative attitudes
in benefitting multiple resources.
4. Alternative 4 provides the same benefits to project sponsors'
flood protection objectives as alternative 3. Flood protection to
5,150 acres of cropland from the 25-year frequency wind tide plus
restoration of 175-200 acres of important cropland is provided
for in this alternative. This alternative provides partial con-
trol of peak rates of freshwater runoff (slug flows) into the
Juniper Bay primary fin- and shellfish nursery area. Depending on
the rainfall event and wind tide conditions, this alternative with
the 762 acre water storage/conservation easement area would reduce
the peak rate of freshwater discharge (slug flow) by 3% for the
1 year, 24 hour frequency rainfall event to 50% for the 25 year,
24 hour rainfall event. Discussions with N.C. Division of Marine
Fisheries representatives indicate the partial control provided by
this alternative, though unquantifiable, "should have a positive
benefit for the downstream primary nursery area by reducing peak
freshwater inflows, especially during storm events." This alter-
native's impact to wetlands includes a permanent loss of 20 acres
of wetland types 7, 8, and 12 under the dike, 21 acres converted
to open water, and 15 acres temporarily disturbed during
construction activities. One man-made structure, the dike, would
have low visibility from area roads and a low impact to visual
resources of the area. Project investment for alternative 4 is
$3,265,480 with an annual net benefit of $116,915, excluding
unquantifiable benefits to primary fin- and shellfish nursery
areas. Local sponsors have indicated alternative 4 as their
preferred plan. Alternative 4 was selected over alternative 3 for
having higher net benefits, reduced impacts to existing wetlands
while retaining a beneficial effect on primary nursery areas, and
strong support from local sponsors.
-21-

1
r

5. Alternative 5 provides the same level of flood protection as
alternatives 3 and 4, in that the dike will provide protection
from the 25-year frequency wind tide event to 5,150 acres of crop-
land and restore production on 175-200 acres of locally important
cropland. This alternative would discharge freshwater directly
into the Juniper Bay primary nursery area through tide gates in-
stalled in existing canals. No water storage area for freshwater
runoff is provided due to the location of the dike adjacent to
cropland areas. Dike and tide gate installation will require
added design features including an increase in the number of tide
gates to compensate for lost water storage capacity (provided by
762 acres of conservation easement area in alternatives 3 and 4)
to assure adequate removal of agricultural runoff. A cut-off
trench under the dike will also be needed to prevent saltwater
leach into cropland areas from the dike's borrow channel. Approx-
imately 2 acres of type 12 wetland will be impacted with this
alternative, all of which will be permanently lost under the dike.
One man-made structure, the dike located adjacent to cropland,
will be highly visible from SR 1124. Project investment for
alternative 6 is $3,337,400 with a net annualized benefit of
$115,965. Local sponsors have indicated a general willingness to
support this alternative. A tremendous amount of time, consider-
ation, and discussion among scoping participants has been spent on
the trade-off of wetlands for benefits to primary fin and shell-
fish nursery areas on this project. Alternative 5 impacts only 2
acres of wetlands as a permanent resource loss. Alternative 4
impacts about 20 acres of wetlands as a permanent loss, but
includes significant benefits to primary nursery areas by reducing
the peak rates of discharge, "slug flow", from 3 to 50 percent
(depending on rainfall events and wind tide conditions) and induc-
ing natural filtration of runoff through the conservation ease-
ment area. Although monetary or other methods of determining the
value of nursery areas and wetland areas cannot be determined at
the present state-of-the-art, discussions with scoping partici-
pants indicate the trade-off of wetland losses in alternative 4
for primary nursery area benefits "appear equal". Alternative 4
was chosen over alternative 5 due to a greater annualized net
benefit and sponsor support.
Purpose and Summary
RECOMMENDED PLAN
This project is for flood protection in the West, Quarter, Double, and Bay
project area, Hyde County, North Carolina. The project will be implemented
under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act
(PL 566, 83rd Congress), as amended. Alternative 4 is the recommended plan
and will provide relief to 8,002 acres, including 5,150 acres of"cropland
from flooding associated with high wind tides from the Pamlico Sound. The
recommended plan consists of a flood prevention dike with tide gates, a 762
acre conservation easement/water storage area, channel work, and land
--22-

1

r

1

treatment measures to be installed and maintained under the on-going soil
and water district program. Dikes, tide gates, and conservation easement
area will be installed by project sponsors on a 3 year schedule.
Plan Elements
The 6.3 miles of dike construction will be for single purpose flood preven-
tion. It begins at the junction of SR 1122 and Hydeland Canal and follows
Hydeland Canal for 1.5 miles. The dike then turns west and crosses
Juniper, Honey, Double, Quarter, West, and Berry Canals for a distance of
approximately 2.6 miles, then parallels the National Wildlife Refuge
(Nebraska Tract) for a distance of approximately 1.3 miles, and turns north
and northwest for approximately 1 mile and junctions with SR 1124.
The dike will be constructed to an elevation of 5.7 feet (NGVD) with a top
width of 14 feet and 3:1 side slopes. Average height will be approximately
5 feet above the natural ground surface. Soil and water conditions make it
impractical to compact the dike with hauling or special equipment. It
will, therefore, be necessary to use dumped fill. Allowance has been made
in estimating the volume of fill mater"g1 to account for settling. Where
necessary, excessively organic material will be stripped from the dike
foundation and borrow area. The dike will be constructed with a "sand cap"
of at least 2 feet deep: Material for construction of the dike will be
taken from continuous borrow areas adjacent to the dike from Sta. 171+00 to
361+00. Borrow material for the dike from Sta. 91+10 to 171+00 will be
taken from the west bank of Hydeland Canal. Material for dike construction
from Sta. 361+00 to the dike's end at SR 1124 will be taken from inside
(east side) the dike. Cost data for the dike installation is contained in
Table 2.
Dike and tide gate installation will be done in such an manner as to
minimize adverse effects on wetlands. Minimum clearing will be used in
dike construction. The top of the dike will serve as a travelway for
access and maintenance to minimize land area required for installation.
Disturbed areas, including the dike, will be established with vegetation
providing erosion control and wildlife food and habitat to minimize adverse
effects. A total of 55 tide gates will be installed in the project area.
Twenty-eight (28) tide gates will be installed under the channel dikes
along Honey, Double, Quarter, West, and Berry Canals at locations where
farm drainage enters the canals and at conservation easement area
locations. These gates will remain open to discharge farm drainage until
water levels in the canals exceed the levels in the farm drainage ditches
and to allow water to flow into the conservation easement area. Then, the
gates will close to prevent backflooding. Twenty (20) tide gates will be
installed under the flood prevention dike at existing canal locations.
These gates will remain open to discharge freshwater until water levels
outside the dike force the gates closed. Seven (7), 24 inch diameter tide
gates with flashboard risers will be installed under the flood prevention
dike at conservation easement area locations. Flashboard risers will be
used to manage water levels inside the easement area. Tide gates on the
outlet end of the pipes will prevent salt water form entering the
conservation easement area under high wind tide conditions. Dikes located
parallel to Juniper, Honey, Double, Quarter, West, and Berry Canals will be
installed to increase the capacities of each canal and prevent flooding
-23-

I

caused by rainfall runoff from cropland above 2.5 feet (NGVD). These
channels and dikes will divert excessive runoff into a 762 acre
conservation area.
A 762 acre conservation easement/water storage area will be located between
the dike and cropland areas to store up to 0.5 inch of runoff from the
project area. This area is divided into smaller pool areas by the dis-
section of existing canals. Water will be transferred between pool areas
by the installation of corrugated pipes with risers. This installation
will permit balancing storage area to volume of discharge associated with
each canal to maximize water storage capacity of the 762 acre area. At
least one tide gate with flashboard riser will be installed under the flood
prevention dike in each of these pool areas to provide water level control
for the various water uses, including water management for agricultural
purposes and wildlife wetland habitat management purposes.
Area and field office records indicate needed land treatments, including
forestry measures, in the project area have been installed through the
on-going soil and water conservation district program and the N.C. Division
of Forestry. These applied land treatment measures include conservation
' cropping systems, crop residue management, cover crops, field borders, main
and lateral ditches, wildlife habitat management, and on-farm waterfowl
management measures. Operation and maintenance of these practices are
provided by local landusers with technical assistance from the local soil
and water conservation district.

I

fl

I
Permits and Compliance
Requirements for permits and other entitlements have been satisfied for the
current phase of planning, as indicated in Table C. Local sponsors, the
Hyde County Commissioners and Pamlico Soil and Water Conservation District
supervisors, will be responsible for securing a 404 dredge and fill permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to letting a contract for
structural measures. Sponsors will also be responsible for obtaining any
needed open burning permits and for filing an erosion and sedimentation
control plan 30 days prior to commencement of land disturbing activities as
per the N.C. Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act of 1973, as amended.
Easements on those properties required for the dike, other structural
placements, and the 762 acre water storage area will be obtained by the
project sponsors prior to signing the project agreement.
Costs
Total installation cost is estimated to be $3,265,480 (see Table 1). The
share of this cost to be provided by the PL 566 funds is $2,931,770, and
the share from other funds is $333,710.
Construction costs ($2,263,900), including an allowance for contingencies,
were estimated on the basis of prevailing costs in the area and information
obtained from manufacturers or suppliers of tide gates, and supplies that
will be needed in construction. Installation costs include: (1) an
allowance for installation services ($667,870) necessary for final design,
foundation investigations, layout, inspection, and all overhead costs for
-24-
1

t

t

x
H
3
U)
w
a H
W H
A vJ
z?
E-4
az
0
Nz>z
W W
0
A
U H
z Qr
H zo
a4
A
U
U
iS
w
a?q
E4
a cd
? U
a 1-r
-1 0
az
w
co
cda
PQ
x
d3
w •q
O 4)
A bJ
^3
? d
41
ce 1••r
d 0
0•
4; r.
U) cd
3 rn
\I
r-i
a
U
d
O
U
a
U
r-i
0
P4
cd
}4
a
•d
a
W
N d O N N N a a) N a s
U U U U U U a U a U U a U u a
Cod 91-01 d a d d 501
rl •rr •rl •rr •r•I "A c0 •r•I ca •rl •rl cd •r1 -r1 cd
r? r-I r -i rl r-•i r4 u "I U r-•I rl U ri r -I u
aroo 9 ra-i
0 10, 0 10, 0 ra-, r-Ia 000 gor
0 0 0 o o
U U U U U U U ?LLU U ?.U U dW
-4 r••I r-I r-1 rl r-I r-i 'A r-1 r-I r--1
r-4 ri r? r1 r-I ri 4J r-i 4J r-4 r-i 4J r-I r-I 4J
0 0 0:3 0 0 O 0 O:3 0 O:j :$ O
W W W W W W Z W Z W W Z W W Z
O
a
rn

cf1 v a a
N a y m
p' -r a7
41
03 v' +? N N
a a
yJ ? n w
a rn w rr rc

ra o
41
0

A .-?
a o
a I r-4 o' r-4
?O M ^ Q' \ C7• a
?t M y
a
u
i
U U
'T
1-4

U I., )?aJa
C rr a \ a)
Q) j 04 1
A
A
W C a w cd
.0 ^ ?O V'
O
`? 1*
IT
Cl) 1-4
?
i?rl M
N
?O ra a)
%?O a
H 4) a, v U U ^ ?t ^ 11
^ tJ 0) 4) aJ • G' ?+ a
^ ^ w CO) cn U W U U 4) u

U w
U 4 U cf) 4J 4J rn
rP- M .D r a
C,
a a ?
? ? -4 p a
'O ? '0 1-r O N
G+ 00 O w w r rr cd A •rl -+
O r-i •rl . r r rr ?O 0 ?O ^ ,.r
•rl 1J U M N ^ -4 ^ 4J N 1-1 M 0
4J • :J cf1 N 4J JJ U? o 4) U
CO U -j V) -4
? w
I:r
> -r-I - ? ??
d ^4J 4) M
? r" u0
r..ici
Q) Qr U
a?b 04 tZ)
?
A
a
i
1a rn rn >~ VJ
rrl q •d '0
1-r N N ?
" O W co D+ O O i
P-1 It a rl 4
d ? O
d c a • ^
r
U ^ 3 U ?O %0 1•r ca O U r-I cd M W LJ
•ri b <4 r-r -4 U r. •r-I P O> M u
6
O' O cd 1J w ^ W T1 cd a a ^ r4
41 W. p 1:+ iJ 41 p '> w r-i to 4-1 ca rA
M a a a U u a.J O is a CO a U H
•rl 0 b El Qi Qr U O a PG N P dr 0 a

Cd 4) Q)
x
0) ri)
0) W
U
?
r4
W W r) t~ N
n
G •
b to co a 0 0 a O 0 0 U 1-r 41 P4
p cd G rl •rl 14 44 U O I~ •ri O u
cd 41 cd u 4-1 P4 •rl •rl O $4 0 a U
Z (1)
u 0)
0
u
a o -
)
r? 4. 6
a. a 0
1
41 w
p 1
• r.
cd u a M v a r--1 4•J a D W x P a
u a 1-r G O +J •ri CO +J G rl p.r U
H
u 33 pW ]C O
s?+
+cv ?w
60 3 ro
O •rl cd N b 10 P4 r-i r-I rd a b
w
r1 3 r I a y, r-1 G q ca Z 0
O co 00 1•+ ?
r
rd rd cd a G rr rn m CO
a G p 1J G cd P o o 0 14 P
•
-
0
7 ?
U a) (1) Cd -d 4-) J
'0 U)
4 +
N J r-I
4-J
1•r r-I r--l O 0 W a •ri co ca cd ca •rl cd •H
4 0 0 0 W W W W a Z Z Z x 3 3
-25-
4.1
O
w
00
ca
iJ
u)
u
14
0
u
a
14
O
44
a
41
0
Cd
JJ
rn
a
41
41
o
to ?
-W 0
ri 1-I
:3 0
r-i U1
cd O
P4
iJ
a
00 ?
41
C N
ai 4
4-1
•rl a
r•i >`I
P4
U a
r i 41
r-I •rl
o a
W ..i
aJ
a? a
H -W
V ?
•ri
? W
? U
r. cd
a
a41i a
cd
a
cd a
O
;l-, 1•r
r-i 04
Cd cd
0 4
0
b
41
A
iJ ca
? a
41
d a
•rl 'b
$4?
w
aJ a
•rl
44 1•r
O 1J
Q)
O a
V) U
r--I r-i
O +J
rC cd
O p •r1
zw0
a f~
d •li LH
rid.. a
a P
CFFF0 a •o
U 44 d
•H a) 1?•r
p 0 a4
co 41 a
wrnP
a
.a
.d
O
ro
a
-H
F4
1•?
d
a
q ai
u 'o
1 ?
z°
b
? d
o a
-W $4
Cd a
yJ 44
rn ?
a
Cd
44
O p 41
-W 0
ID.
10+ N
? 41
1-r •?
co 4))
44 U
O cd
o Cl.
•r•I 4)
41 41
r? •,I
O p
> O
}4
a
G) d'
Cd •H
.r.i
o •H
r1
U ?
r. CIl
z
4-l
O
a
b0
Cd
41
iJ
d
$4
H
U
a
x
u
O
44
ai
u
d
.H
r?
O
U
b
a
$4
0
v
a
1-r
4)
41
41
Cd
4J
N
a
.C
41
1•r
O
44
N
4•J
G
a
a•+
•r•l
c
a
O
z
ci
r--I
c•Od
U
a a
?J d
z a
c? ,a u b
?I

installation of structural measures; (2) estimated local costs of adminis-
tering contracts ($47,750); and (3) estimated easement and right-of-way
costs ($285,960).
Easement and right-of-way costs include the estimated cost of land for the
762 acre water storage area, dike, and other structural placements. These
costs were based on recent land sales in the area.
The sharing of installation costs of structural measures is $2,931,770
(89.78%) from PL 566 funds and $333,710 (10.22%) from other funds.
Local sponsors will be responsible for contracting for the needed project
measures.
Installation and Financing
Area and field office records indicate the land treatment measures have
been applied in the project area. To assure effective operation and
maintenance of applied land treatment measures, field office personnel will
1 continue to assist project area landusers as part of the district's
on-going assistance program
.
Installation costs of structural measures to be borne by the Federal
' Government will be furnished by the Soil Conservation Service under pro-
visions of PL 566. Financial and technical assistance to be furnished by
the Soil Conservation Service in separate contract (or contracts)
negotiated for and administered by the project sponsors, in such manner as
to insure the proper functioning of structural measures as designed.
Engineering services necessary for installation of structural measures will
be furnished by the Soil Conservation Service under provisions of PL 566.
i
Funds necessary to cover organizational expenses and local sponsors share
of installation costs will be provided by the sponsoring organizations, and
the Hyde County Commissioners. The commissioners will use assessment
procedures to acquire funds for their costs. All necessary funds will be
on-hand and available by the time construction is started. It is antic-
ipated that easements can be purchased for reasonable prices or donated by
' individual landowners. Local sponsors will have power of eminent domain
sufficient to insure acquisition of 'necessary easements and rights-of-way.
Because of the interrelationship of structural measures in accomplishing
project objectives, all necessary easements and rights-of-way will be
acquired, or their acquisition assured by local sponsors, before starting
any construction.
r
- Installation of structural works of improvement will be performed under
contracts administered by the project sponsors. Alteration, reconstruction
or replacement of privately owned road crossings affected by proposed
structural measures will be performed under contract administered by
project sponsors. The project sponsors will negotiate with the North
Carolina State Highway Commission for changes to be made to public roads,
culverts or bridges.
-26-
t

1

Structural measures will be installed by the project sponsors within a
three-year period. The following sequence will be followed in installing
structural measures:
First Year -- Secure landrights and easements. Detail design and con-
struction drawing will be prepared for contract purposes.
Second Year -- Dike construction with needed tide gates (including those
needed for conservation easement area) and the borrow area
for dike construction.
Third Year -- Rebuild all settled portions of the dike.
The schedule of fund obligations is shown in Table D.
TABLE D
Schedule of Obligations
West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the
Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan, North Carolina
YEAR MEASURES PL 566 FUNDS OTHER FUNDS TOTAL FUNDS
1st Landrights - $285,960 $ 285,960
Design $ 226,400 - $ 226,400
2nd Structural $2,299,570 $ 40,590 $2,340,160
3rd Structural $ 405,800 $ 7,160 $ 412,960
$2,931,770 $333,710 $3,265,480
The Hyde County Commissioners will be responsible for securing all permits,
including the section 404 dredge and fill permit (Clean Water Act of 1977,
PL 95-217) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and'any needed permits
for open burning and water use.
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources indicated no signifi-
cant cultural resources existed in the project area. If cultural resources
are discovered during construction activities, the Secretary of the
Interior will be notified in accordance with Public Law 93-291.
Approximate action to protect and/or recover the resource will be taken by
the Soil Conservation Service in accordance with procedures described in 7
CFR 656.
j Operation and Maintenance
Land treatment measures will be maintained by landusers in accordance with
their individual conservation plans and agreements with the Pamlico Soil
and Water Conservation District. The N.C. Division of Forest Resources
t -27-

will furnish technical assistance for maintaining forestry measures. The
on-going Cooperative Forestry Assistance Program will provide this service.
Structural measures to be maintained by sponsors include 3.5 miles of
channel inside the flood prevention dike, 3.5 miles of channel dike (both
sides), 6.3 miles of flood prevention dike, 55 tide gates, and one boat
access area. Cost of operation and maintenance will be paid with funds
raised through assessment of landowners within the project area. Average
annual cost of operation and maintenance is estimated to be $39,670, which
includes replacement costs.
The dike will be mowed annually to maintain a good stand of vegetation and
to control weeds. Fertilization will be performed as necessary to maintain
a soil fertility level adequate for good plant growth. Special attention
will be given the vegetative cover and any erosion problems on the side of
the dike which is exposed to open water (Pamlico Sound side) and any
damages will be repaired immediately. Dikes will be maintained to design
elevation at all times.
Tide gates and tide gates with flashboard risers will be checked
periodically for debris which may block the intake end and for proper
functioning of the gates and risers to assure desired opening and closing
at appropriate times.
Annual interior channel maintenance will consist of controlling vegetative
growth along and adjacent to channel bottoms to assure channel carrying
capacity. It will be necessary to remove some debris from channels after
major storms. It is also likely that a dragline will be needed to dip-out
silt from all channels in the system on the average of once every 15 to 20
years.
Annual inspections of all structural works of improvement will be made by
the project sponsors. Additional inspections will be made by the sponsors
after each major storm to determine the condition of structural works and
to estimate immediate maintenance needs. The sponsors will prepare a
report for each inspection performed and furnish one copy to the Soil
Conservation Service. They will also maintain a record of all maintenance
work performed and make such records available for review by the Service.
The State Conservationist has designated an employee of the Service to
assist in the annual inspections and to see that maintenance is performed
according to agreements.
Specific operation and maintenance agreements, developed using the National
Operation and Maintenance Manual as a guide, will be executed between the
sponsors and the Soil Conservation Service prior to issuance of invitation
to bid for construction.

? a_

TABLE 1 - ESTIMATED PROJECT INSTALLATION COST
West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the
Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan, North Carolina
No. To Be Applied Estimated Cost (Dollars) 1/
P.L. 566 Funds Other
Non-Fed. Non-Fed. Non-Fed.
Installation Cost Item Unit Land Land Land Total
LAND TREATMENT
Soil Conservation Service
Cropland
Grassland
Technical Assistance
SCS Subtotal

Ac.
Ac.

1,225
50

8,254
18,254

54,270
1,200
2,316
57,786

54,270
1,200
20,570
76,040
Forest Service
Forest Land
Ac.
515
2,575
2,575
Technical Assistance 1,640 1,640
FS Subtotal 4,215 4,215
2/
TOTAL LAND TREATMENT 18,254 62,001 80,255
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Soil Conservation Service
Dike Mi. 6.3 1,082,080 0 1,082,080
Channel Improvement Mi. 4.7 164,700 0 164,700
Tide Gates No. 27 664,470 0 664,470
Gates No. 28 352,650 0 352,650
SCS Subtotal - Constr. 2,263,900 0 2,263,900
Installation Services
Soil Conservation Service
Engineering Services 498,070 0 498,070
Other 169,800 0 169,800
SCS Subtotal - Instal-
lation Services 667,870 0 667,870
Other Costs
Land, Easements & R/W, Conservation Area - 762 acres 285,960 285,960
Adm. of Contracts 47,750 47,750
SCS Subtotal - Other 333,710 333,710

TOTAL STRUCTURAL MEASURES 2,931,770 333,710 3,265,480
TOTAL PROJECT 2,931,770 333,710 3,265,480
1/ Price Base: 1983 November, 1983
Planned land treatment measures have been installed.

-29-

t
t
t
t
t
O
a) cd
rl
O O
V $4
cd
?+ U
?14
rl O
C6 z
a
cn i
Cd W
3 N
r-4
w •b ...I
N O1 O
A
A 4J
cd
w ?
41 N
P 4J
0 Cd
O O'
H
H
A
PQ
H
H
m
H
A
H
rn
0
U
H
U
H
W
H
W
I,
NI
W
H
3 3
-1
co IJ JJ
{W W to
H H U
4
O
H O
O I O 3
sN V01 ??. CYi
Gl w p a
I +?
1 O N
m a?
:J k7 G co
G 6 U ++
O
H
cd I
c
41 o $4O
m w •ri
G G 41
H U
'b
G
W
?O
Ln
a
a
1
L
O
U
G
O
.H
41
r -q
o a
Un
Hw r
m
G1 i?
•r u P3
H •O ?C
m P+
? G G
cd -H vi
G w awi
H
I
U
O
I4 G
IJ O
U1 •rl
O
U
N
Pz
4J I4
Q O
:j
nz°
0 C)
I'D
N
-4 N
N ON
M %.O
N
C> C)
ON N
Ln N
C) CD
%.C O
N w
C
O O
O o?
N 1?0
CN Ln
-4
O ?
C O?
A ON
N ?O
N
C) C)
C) C)
O 00
C
M M
.?
O O
Ln N
N 00
1t M
00 1-1
M 1-I
O O
Ln Un
ul M
1.0 n
-It .-4
n Ln
1-4
O
.o
Ln
N
O
Ln
N
O
O
00
N
N
O
%O
co
N
N
41
d 4
1

N cd
O W

?+ G

•° cd

? D 6
N F+

? G
x G a
i
•rj .0 O
A U U
-30-
O
00
Ln
%O
N
c
O
1-4
cal
M
M
O
o.
I
Ln
00
N
O
Ln
n
n
It
O
.-a
M
O?
N
O
O
00
O.
.c
O
n
O
00
-It
O
O
rn
M
N
N
r-I
C
N
O
H
'C3
p
c7
N
O
co
A
v
U
Sa
a
M
00
O?
dl
41
7
O
z

1
t
TABLE 3 - STRUCTURE DATA - DIKE
West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the
Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan, North Carolina

Station
From To

Length
Top
Width
Side
Slopes
Avg.
Height
Dike
Fill Volume
of
Fill
(feet) (feet) (H/V) (feet) (cu.yd.) (cu.yd.)
91+10 362+00 27,100 14 3 to 1 5.2 247,400 247,400
362+00 425+00 6,300 14 3 to 1 4.7 43,800 43,800
November, 1983
-31-
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CJ Oj
41 r4
r-I
O O
JJ $4
+1 U
iJ
01 F+
r-1 0
as z
a
cn
P4
CO co 3
O W
A co
^3
N ?
;j Cd
d O
d
rn cd
3 En
w O O O O O O 00
o ? oo
?0 ? 00 ? o o

U 41 O 00 00 1 M M 174
m co u .?
W > ..
ON

•rl -- W O? -t O O O M %0 O M
C.) ri1 0. 00
0 44

N

H
01
r-I
O1 01 n ?t ?O Ul v1 u1 u1 u'1 trl
q b 41 0 r+ O O O O 00
01
co -4 ci O O C O O O 00 0

U
n '
11 M1 v n h f` n n n n n

? 44 0
A
I

to

0 L' 41 ^
yJ 41 w %0 It 00 rn co N ?t r, to
_
41 10 0
M
0 .,j
r? I
4
W 3 o
,a

41 j
0
•
N -r
4 W .1
ci
CI '
CJ V "I 4a r- 00 Ln ?t ra L1 N •rl w co
co V I- M O 1-4 O -t •-? O? ,L 0.
\ v ?
-4 .-? r? M 41 0 co
-1 co -4 I •r
l T$ U
W U $ •?
r-I

•MO
_ U^
H y M r+ Ln O W1 M M N cd
w
b cd
d
00
%O
r-
u1
M
rn
00 N
co N
4-1 _
a) 0 -4 00 ON 00 ^
-41 u M $4 0 "
C 6 10
v O
0
d 0

p co
O O O O O O O O cd b li
O O O O O O O O ,G O G a
O t t t + t + ++ U" cd
H 00 O U') Ln O It ?0 O O
N M -4 M M 1-4 M LH 10 41
O .a N
O
O
.,I
p _
p
w
-W b b0 -W
co q •rl 44 CO
O)
0
c!1 O O O O O O O O 0
0
O O O O O O O O O p b w p
p + + + + + + + + cu O

? ri)
O
ON O O N r-1 cd $
.-? H 0 > O
4
O 1=i p to
4J 4J CO 0
0
r-l • cd w PN U Z

? -1 Ln 41
1r 03 N I 1 is PL H N P.
0 ? O
A
co UO 0. I 41 •

U O O O
N O O N
A ti x p A O' 3 as ,-a1 C-41 MI
-32-
1
TABLE 3B - STRUCTURE DATA - TIDE GATE DRAINS -/
West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the
Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan, North Carolina

1
Pipes

Station Drainage
Area
Number
Diameter
Length
(Feet) (Acres) (Each) (Inches) (Feet)
Flood Tide Gates
104+00 85 1 24 70
108+00 85 1 24 70
171+60
191+40 583
161 1
1 54
54 70
70
221+75 875 2 54 70
221+75 950 2 54 70
238+90 835 2 54 70
284+15 3,493 7 54 70
293+65 722 2 54 70
361+00
Conservation Area 381
Tide Gates 1 54 70
181+00 1 24 70
206+00 1 24 70
230+00 1 24 70
' 262+00 1 24 70
288+00 1 24 70
310+00
340+00 1
1 24
24 70
70
Water Management Tide Gates
Juniper Canal 2 24 60
Juniper Canal 3 36 60
Honey Canal 2 24 60
Honey Canal 4 36 60
East Double Canal
East Double Canal 2
1 24
36 60
60
West Double Canal 2 24 60
West Double Canal 1 36 60
Quarter Canal 2 24 60
Quarter Canal 2 36 60
West Canal 2 24 60
West Canal 3 36 60
Berry Canal 2 24 60

1/ Each installation shall consist of a corrugated metal pipe
which is fully asphalt coated and asbestos bonded, and a flap
gate with saltwater corrosion-resistant seating faces and
fittings.
November , 1983
t

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
TABLE 4 - ANNUAL COST
West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the
Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan, North Carolina
(Dollars) 1/

Evaluation
Unit
Amortization of 2/
Installation Cost
Operation and
Maintenace Cost Total
Annual
Cost
Dike, Interior Flood
Prevention $133,000 $39,670 $172,670
TOTAL $133,000 $39,670 $172,670
1/ Price Base 1983
Installation cost amortized for 50 years at 3k percent.
November, 1983
-34-
t
1
1
1
1
i
f
i
i
A
1
1
1
1
TABLE 5 - ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION BENEFITS
West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the
Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan, North Carolina
(Dollars) 1/
Estimated Average Annual Damage Damage
Without With Reduction
Item Project Project Benefit
Floodwater
Crop and Pasture $310,290 $63,835 $246,455
Other Agricultural $7,505 $1,420 $6,085
Forest Land $7,305 $1,230 $6.075
Non-Agricultural
Road and Bridge $4,525 $855 $3,670
Subtotal $329,625 $67,340 $262,285
Indirect $1,200 $225 $975
Total $330,825 $67,565 $263,260
1/ Price Base 1982 CNP for agricultural products and 1983 for
other values.
November, 1983
-35
t
i
t
1
1
1
i
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
rn
W
Qi
?II
H
U
A
E-4
a
0
w
H
O
U
H
H
W
W
w
PA
W
O
O
07
H
P?+
U
)
W
H
N N
41 H
41 F+ U
41
a? s~
r-4 O
as z
a
cd W ?-+
b H UJ
$4
r-I
41 N O
O N A
A +'
cd
>+ 41
:3 co
O. 0
O'
41 N 9
3 cn
U)
H
H
W
W
pq
A
z
W
W
Qi
•-I
w c
Q)) o Q
W U a
I
N)
b
00 r-1
cd 0 i
N c
A A C
1~
O
.H
{~ F
W 4.
p ca v c
:
W 0 `
o p a
O
r-i
W
Fa
O
.H
41 1
cd •r
? F
w
Fa
O
•rl
F+'
N
H
P4
b
O
O
-1
W
-36-
0
O
O
n
N
n
Ln
00
M
00
N
S!}
Ln
N
M
N
yr
0
N
M
N
P
O
CO a
? H
U W
O O
N
JJ O
En x
r-I O

0
r-;
O
a?
O
n
?O
N
n
.-a
Ln
00
in
rn
00
N
Ln
N
M
Cl)
00
C1?
O a 4J
ID Z CA
N U O M
U 00
cn as
%O ONO 0 r-+
N m O
vy -I rl 41
41 W
41 r 1 U
w Ca
41
FG H O
Q)
O
cd
Q PQ
H N
O v
H •ri
A a
?I
It
01
ri
co
H
O
p
w
?
N1
M
00
O?
p
v
10
N
O
z

t

t
I?

I
t

t
.1
t
t
t
it
EFFECTS OF RECOMMENDED PLAN
Throughout the planning process, a wide range of economic, environmental,
and social factors have been identified and evaluated as to their signifi-
cance in the decision making process. Table E, displays the effects of the
recommended plan on resources of principal national recognition.
Two major environmental concerns which surfaced at the numerous scoping
meetings are adverse impacts of freshwater discharge into primary fin- and
shellfish nursery areas of Juniper Bay and adverse impacts to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Circular 39 wetland types 7 (wooded swamps), 8 (bogs), and 12
(coastal shallow fresh marshes). After developing several alternative
approaches in an effort to minimize the adverse effects to nursery areas
and wetlands, it was apparent that either wetlands or primary nursery areas
would be adversely impacted by the project. Continuing consultations with
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, and
others verified the environmental impacts would be severe to wetlands if
water management measures were installed to protect primary nursery areas
and conversely, that in order to minimize impact to wetlands, primary
nursery areas would be adversely impacted by direct discharge of freshwater
into Juniper Bay nursery areas.
The issue was resolved by determining a reasonable tradeoff between wetland
losses and primary nursery area benefits. Attempts to quantify benefits to
primary nursery areas proved to be highly controversial and the decision
was made that this quantification could not be satisfactorily determined at
the present state-of-the-art. Attempts to quantify wetland values met with
similar demise. Through cooperation among interested agencies and groups,
the compromise to minimize impact to wetlands and provide partial benefits
to primary fin- and shellfish nursery areas was determined to be a reason-
able tradeoff between two critical environmental values.
The recommended plan provides partial control (reduces peak discharge rates
from 3 to 50 percent depending on rainfall and wind tide conditions) of
freshwater discharge into primary nursery areas, using the 762 acre conser-
vation easement area for water storage and filtration purposes. The impact
to wetlands will be a permanent loss of approximately 20 acres of wetland
types 7, 8, and 12. Twenty-one (21) acres will be converted from types 7,
8, and 12 to open waters and fifteen (15) acres will be temporarily
disturbed during construction.
In addition, the selected plan will assure that 762 acres, most of which
(405 acres) are wetland types 7, 8, and 12, will remain in their present
use for the life of the project (50 years). Water quality will be enhanced
by natural filtration in the easement area. Opportunities and potential to
create and manage wetland wildlife habitat and waterfowl management areas
are increased by water level control capabilities in the easement area.
Wetland types 7 (wooded swamps), 8 (bogs), and 12 (coastal shallow fresh
marshes) are described as "water logged at least to within a few inches of
the surface during the growing season, usually waterlogged and always
waterlogged" respectively in U. S. Fish and Wildlife Circular 39.
-37-
t
t
i
3000
0
U-
U
W
U
Q:
Q
2000
0
Y
Q
W
a-
1000
FIGURE 1
EFFECT OF PROJECT
ON
PEAK RATE OF DISCHARGE
2
5 10
RAINFALL FREQUENCY, Years
(Wind Tide Elevation at I Foot NGVD)
-38-
25 (Frequency)
1 2 5 10 25 50

d

t
1

t
t
u

Various tree species found in this area include red maple Acer rubrum,
eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana, sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua,
swamp tupelo Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora and blackgum Nyssa sylvatica,
baldcypress Taxodium distichum, and pond pine Pinus serotina. Impact of
Water Level Changes on Woody Riparian and Wetland Communities (U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1977) indicate the survival of these species would
not be significantly adversely impacted by innundation periods of ten days
during the growing season.
Installation elevations of the seven (7) tide gates with flashboard risers
will assure a water level at or near the surface during the growing season.
In addition, they provide the capability to remove maximum design storage
in the easement area within a 10 day "drawdown" period. This will prevent
adverse impact on species composition and growth within the area during the
growing season. Innundation of the area for periods greater than 10 days
will occur during the winter months when the areas are managed as waterfowl
areas.
During the scoping process, visual resources were evaluated using TR-65
procedures. Although not a major concern, impacts to the flat and rela-
tively broad cropland, woodland, and marsh landscapes were determined to be
less with the recommended plan due to location, visibility from public
places, and design.
Installation of the project will have an immediate beneficial impact on the
local economy. The project will raise the level of farm income and
decrease the commercial fishery losses in the area. Reduction of flooding
will not only reduce crop losses but also reduce the large cash outlays by
farmers to repair the land damages resulting from high wind tides in the
Pamlico Sound. The combined effects from the conservation easement water
storage area and tide gates will provide partial control of the freshwater
discharge into the Juniper Bay fin and shellfish primary nursery area.
This freshwater control will be beneficial to the productivity of Juniper
Bay. Though not quantifiable at the present state-of-the-art, these
fishery production benefits are thought to be significant.
The recommended plan will provide annual floodwater damage reduction
benefits of $289,585 on 8,002 acres of land in the project area. Approxi-
mately 5,150 acres of this will be cropland, 2,718 acres of woodland, and
134 acres in miscellaneous uses including roads, canals, farmsteads, and
single family houses. The dike will provide protection from the 25-year
frequency wind tides from the Pamlico Sound. Remaining flood damages from
wind tides exceeding the 25-year level and from rainfall within the dike
amount to $67,565 annually.
Approximately 175-200 acres of cropland have gone out of production due to
salt leaching from existing canals out onto and through adjacent cropland.
Annual wind tide events prohibit land reclamation efforts on these acres
due to the required long-term treatment period.
Tide gates installed through the dike at each canal outlet are sized to
handle the present channel capacity at each respective location. These
gates will provide for continuation of existing agricultural drainage from
the project area during normal or below normal water surface elevation
-39-

0

H W

Acn
H
?
O
O
H O
H Pq

?w

U
1
N

H
W

Q
a 3
Q o

Q
Z
Q
O
0 ?
-40-

outside the diked area. Tide gate installation will not improve water
removal capability from inside the diked area at above normal water surface
elevations outside the dike. At these times, cropland flooding from direct
precipitation can be expected to occur after the storage area of 762 acres
becomes full. Storage in these areas occur between elevations 0.5 and 1.5.
The long-range impact of the project will be greater than the immediate
effects. The Overall Economic Development Program from Hyde County recog-
nize the potential for "more diversification of crops and livestock so as
to consume the grain grown in the county." It also points up opportunities
for increased acreages of commercial vegetable crops. Both of these are
included in the long-range objectives of the Program. They would
contribute materially to a more stable local economy. The Program further
recognizes that a prerequisite to accomplishing these objectives is
improved water management and flood protection on a watershed-wide basis.
The following is quoted from the Overall Economic Development Program for
Hyde County:
"Two major phases of water management are of vital importance to the
agricultural economy of Hyde County. They are water table control
and flood prevention."
"There is a need for extensive studies and plans to be prepared for
the reduction of storm damages if any progress toward economic
improvement is expected."
Very little additional land in the watershed is suitable, or would be made
suitable for production of crops, by the project. Any improvement in farmt/'f
income will have to come from more efficient use of the existing cropland.
Soils of the watershed, when protected against hazards of too much water,
are well suited to production of vegetable crops on a commercial scale.
One of the more successful farmers in Hyde County has, for many years,
devoted a large portion of his farm to production of high quality vegetable
crops. In another nearby area of the county, large scale commercial truck
crop farming was in operation for several years. It was abandoned in 1963
because of repeated heavy losses from too much water which could not be
efficiently managed. Principal truck crops were corn and celery. This
operation demonstrated advantages to the local economy through
diversification and providing employment to local. low income families.
Many farmers in the watershed are aware of the potential advantages of
commercial vegetable production. However, because of the difficulty of
envisioning adequate protection against flooding caused by frequent high
wind tides, they were not willing to make commitments on changing farm
operations to expand this enterprise. At the same time, though, they
expressed the feeling that once adequate protection is demonstrated, there
will be a trend toward diversifying farm enterprises to include commercial
vegetable production on a significant scale.
Since farmers would not commit themselves at this time, no account was
taken of this potential in the economic appraisal of the project. Local
leaders, including professional agricultural workers, feel that installa-
tion of the project will ultimately result in significant acreage of land
-41-
?J

H

1
t

s
El
I

W
W O O
a +? Cd
zO O G 41 U
41
6 H N N
a o a z°
w w v?J G
as Cd a
oa
ccdd 3
W z
H a
0 Q)
o z n°
cli
U Y`. 4) $4
W r p 41 Q)
co ?-4
rX4 W O G co
??11
..
W +J G
O cd
«W-1 3 cn
PCI
H

°1 0) 0
• o
G b G • 0
1 1 co
? ca a Q) P4 r-
b a
i o 0 c
n w o •
4-1 bo
? H ? ,1
a
J w co O O •
u ?+ 'J a .C +-+ 41 N G

4-4 U "Cl W P r4 ?
W 00 m o G
w G •d G O G O 41 co 0 a
Cd aJ O JJ •r1 p 4J 14 u
4.4 u rI
O U rl cd G cd Cd D a bO
LI-4 Q) co U O 0 O r4
41 G
4) O p 1J r 1 1a 0) 4-J
(.' N N co cd co 4-1 U u •r1 4J P G
4) 41 O )-I 4-; N 41 4.) J-r •rr 4J 0 41
u u a) 4.1 •r1 U U cd b0 W y V) U V) d y
4) d ^d N 4) p G ?a 4) N 4a G co N a) 0
4)
N
?I 4-1 G LJ 4-I U a) co 4-I 44 •rl CO p • p i•1 p '0 p
:' 4a CO •rl 44 Cd •C 4.1 w a) G r1 u )-1 u +J u a) f].
N a)
H aJ a1 4 r. u
co H N (0 w w JJ G 1-4
N O O 4) O ?O co O O O p rl O-4 ca O O Lr) O
z-+ z N •z. 1, a) 44 z z P4 a z N $ N U r? 4J z
n

r- U G r1 G co 'd
w
d cn .o •? P p 41
C O
a 4)
O V) ' b
0
>N 4-1 'J 41
•r1 00 r G ca r? v' r-I r-1 0 '-+ a)
41 1-4 co Q) I-D r. a) 0 0 W Lr) ?1:
co 44 !n G 0 N
al
G v r-A
6 p
° O 10
U M a.J
c
o
0 r, rj) 41 41 Q) bo r.
Q
U
y En O? cd u
a v •ri U • •
i O
cd O O H U G
O
co
a O U Q) 4-J
't rn
P M
4j
44 U
i M G ccdd
G
0 m
r1 cV O 1l O O r-4 v z 'a u Cd
•
r, 1J 4) 41 ? 4)
O iJ u ? M ?J
U cd O Cd a) •-+ .ti C M O 1J n
.rj 10 4-4 9: -4 > En ?4 r-
iJ 0) Lr) O V •rl W p N P P. 1, 44 cr
co •d d.J It a) 'd a) • N O 00 1- m 4)
z 0 G r4 4.1 4) P - O U G G r- w -4 W cn
4) Q) u O 00 v• bO 4) •rl m 0 p
4- 0 • Qi i-) 0 00 H cn p r 41 -4 M 44 (1) yJ
O cd U 4) U .. ON P4 •H 0 v ON 0 > 4)
?
U) a) 44
U) ED Cd a) -4 u 4-4 P., 0 --:4 0 04
4) co G •r1 M 4-1 (1) •rl ?O O Q) U r-
? ?' a u
6 -4
p Z a) r-4 r 1 Q) o o u W
G 1 1 .o G. •d JJ 't7 4J 0 •rl Q4 'd P
O U a) U) r1 4) F+ W 10 •d cn H r1 H a) 4)
w d' P: U •rl O •r1 4) G L O p O 41 U U
?-. O 'd 3 -? pC 'd cd U G N (1) ca En
rl H N 'tl a) (n 4) 0 ?4 Cd •H 41 (v 3 v]
cd •r1 V a) p Tf .0 > r1 Q) O a r--1 cd D 'd .
a <4 Q) r1 "d a) G •r1 co ?! 0 f5 ca W 3 •r1 G G O
•r1 cn cd G W CO bJ G co a) H '0 yJ N CO Cd
u G a.J 4) G 47 u G O z r. G G G (1) .o
G Cd {J V) rz ca . a ?. a) U •r1 cn 4a CO 4) CO U r-I -0 -
r1 u a) cd rob .. cn W Q) JJ (d a O a rr a) a) U •-1 ••
H 14 O G r1 54 co w 1-1 >4 rl
P. U U W W W z u U W 3
: G
H V)

rj u .?
JJ
• a ?4
W G w a)
v }4 P4
U (1) 'd J-+ O 107
f u (1) cd ?4 G
G G 41 a cd
:
U) : U 41 P rl S
N cd ca CO p v
P" 'z : ? a
: N a) N 4j U
4-4 g a ca 0) 4-1
° 0 4.J 4J Li-4
•rl •rl
U N U

41 r. co "0 H
p co
ca 'j= ? ?
4)
co
p G G G
[- . a'
co 3 co W a n
•
? N v 10 c
Ti
ri w 0 >4 U "d rl u G G U b
° u P+ ' co v q G
0 bbO ? W p c
d
v m 4) G •r1 •d O aJ p ca
CO 4 CO )a 4 O 1 J a) "1 'v
?4 4) J^l 'd U In O fn •ri +J JJ r1
3 3
w w w x P+ 3
-42-

i
being shifted from corn, soybeans and small grain to commercial vegetables.
This thesis is supported by an abundance of suitable land, available local
labor, and nearness to large markets. This change will make a major
contribution toward relieving local chronic unemployment problems as well
as increasing net farm income. Per capita income in Hyde County continues
to be behind North Carolina and the United States. In 1980, per capita
income for the United States was $9,480, North Carolina was $7,780, and for
Hyde County $5,256.
Total average annual benefits are estimated to be $289,585. Of this
' amount, $263,260 are flood prevention and $26,325 are secondary benefits.
Flood prevention benefits will accrue as a result of reduced flood damage
and more intensive land use. Secondary benefits will accrue to processors
and handlers as a result of increased income.
Flood prevention benefits ($263,260) include $3,670 flood damage reduction
benefits to roads and bridges, $6,075 to forestland, $246,455 to crop and
pasture, $6,085 to other agricultural property, and $975 indirect benefits.
Additional secondary benefits include benefits to the fishery resource
within the zone of influence of the project. Though not quantifiable at
the present state-of-the-art, these benefits are thought to be significant.
These will stem from increased income which, in turn, will place more
capital into circulation over a relatively large area. Since these are not
quantifiable at this time, they are considered to be benefits to the public
in general. These secondary benefits from a national view-point were not
considered pertinent to the economic evaluation.

t

The average annual cost of planned structural works of improvement, includ-
ing annual operation and maintenance cost, is estimated to be $172,670.
Estimated average annual benefits excluding secondary benefits are
$263,260. This gives a benefit-cost ratio of 1.5 to 1.0. Average annual
secondary benefits are $26,325, which gives an overall benefit cost ratio
of 1.7 to 1.0 (Table 6).
Relationship to Land and Water Resource Plans. Policies. and Controls
The West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement project area drains into
Juniper Bay. The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDNR&CD)
has designated Juniper Bay as a primary fin- and shellfish nursery area.
In addition, the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Land Use Update for
Hyde County, places high priority on the protection of estuarine waters,
coastal wetlands, and the reduction of direct freshwater discharge into
estuarine waters. The recommended plan is consistent with these
designations and priorities. The 762 acre conservation easement area
assures the 50 year protection of 405 acres of wetland types 7, 8, and 12.
The area functions as a water storage area to help reduce direct freshwater
discharge into Juniper Bay and as a natural wooded and marsh filter system
for significant amounts of freshwater runoff.
CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The initial scoping meeting for the West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supple-
ment was held on November 14, 1979. Alternative 5, the flood prevention
-43-

dike with tide gates, located adjacent to cropland was presented to the
scoping participants. Issues and concerns surfacing at this meeting
included the effects of the project on induced clearing, slug flows, and
wetlands. Considering the scope and environmental implications
it was
,
agreed that an environmental assessment in lieu of an environmental impact
statement would be sufficient if pumps were not involved. Those attending
at this meeting included representatives from:
U.S. Department of Agriculture (SCS)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Forest Service
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
Division of Environmental Management (NCDNR&CD)
Division of Soil and Water Conservation (NCDNR&CD)
Office of Coastal Management (NCDNR&CD)
consultations with U.S. Geological Survey in November, 1980 indicated salt
,./ damages to cropland was being caused by lateral seepage from existing
canals which are subject to saltwater intrusion. In March, 1981, consul-
tation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, indicated the two suspect
threatened and endangered species in the area did not exist in the project
area and that Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act had been satisfied.
Follow-up field examinations of the project site by N.C. Wildlife Resource
Commission biologists confirmed the project would have no effect on the
American Alligator and the Bald Eagle.
On Thursday, December 18, 1980, a public meeting with local landowners was
conducted to discuss various alternative approaches and to inform local
landowners of estimated protection levels, costs, and other project partic-
ulars. Local people reviewed legislation concerning the formation of a
special service district for purposes of obtaining needed local funding
through assessments.
During interim periods, engineering and design features were finalized for
current alternative 6 (dike and gates adjacent to cropland). A scoping
meeting was held July 29, 1981 to evaluate original concerns in relation to
' the more finalized stage of project development. Basic environmental
issues were resolved. The supplement was completed and in March 1982, the
West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Environment Assessment was completed with a
' recommendation for a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
In June, 1982, the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
indicated that no cultural resources were known to exist in the project
area and recommended that no archaeological investigation be conducted.
Due to developments during the spring and summer of 1982, involving the
Governor's Coastal Water Management Task Force, a different approach was
proposed. This approach was the displayed alternative 4, and was designed
' to provide flood protection and to protect primary fin- and shellfish
nursery areas in Juniper Bay. On September 1, 1982, a scoping session was

-44-
1

7

held in Swan Quarter, N.C. to display the new concept and to solicit issues
and concerns. Results of this meeting were as follows:
1. An Environmental Impact Statement would be necessary due to far-
reaching implications.
2. Serious concerns over wetland losses.
3. Serious concerns over the need for diversion canals.
Those attending this meeting included local landowners and representatives
from the following agencies and organizations:
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture (SCS)
National Marine Fisheries
Division of Soil and Water Conservation (NCDNR&CD)
Division of Environmental Management (NCDNR&CD)
Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDNR&CD)
Office of Coastal Management (NCDNR&CD)
N.C. State University
Hyde County Commissioners
Pamlico Soil and Water Conservation District
National Wildlife Federation
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
During the interim period, from September, 1982 to January 20, 1983,
various proposals were evaluated and steps taken to minimize major concerns
and evaluate benefits to primary fin and shellfish nursery areas. Close
coordination and cooperation among participating agencies and the local
residents led to the development of the displayed alternative 4 with a
single diversion canal, dike, tide gates, conservation easement area,
sluice gates and the water management capability to provide total fresh-
water management of inflow into primary nursery areas.
On January 20, 1983, a scoping meeting was conducted on this alternative
with joint sponsorship between the local organizations (Hyde County Commis-
sioners and Pamlico Soil and Water Conservation District) and the State of
North Carolina, Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
(NCDNR&CD). This meeting displayed exact locations, wetland acres, cost
allocations, effects of fishery nursery areas, wildlife habitat, and the
operation and maintenance of the project. General discussions among
participants ensued but no adverse comments were presented.
Those attending this meeting included local residents and representatives
of the following agencies and organizations:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture (SCS)
N.C. Department of Agriculture
' N.C. Farm Bureau Federation
National Wildlife Federation
N.C. State University
Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDNR&CD)
-45-
1

Division of Soil and water Conservation (NCDNR&CD)
Division of Forest Resources (NCDNR&CD)
Office of Coastal Management (NCDNR&CD)
Further consideration of this proposal and specific questions from partici-
pants indicated a need for a subsequent meeting. This was held on January
25, 1983 and the proposal to implement alternative 3 in "phases" was
suggested, allowing the diversion outlet into Caffee Bay to be the last
phase of construction to minimize wetland losses and to induce sheet flow.
It was explained that the landowners in the project area had to be assured
of a positive drainage outlet at least as efficient as their present
systems and that based on the proposed construction schedule of 3 years,
the land owners could be deprived of their positive outlet for up to 2
years. It was also pointed out that hydrologic data was not available to
assure that sheet flow would occur at required rates to provide
satisfactory removal of farm drainage.
Those attending this meeting included representatives from the following
agencies:
Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDNR&CD)
Office of Coastal Management (NCDNR&CD)
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture (SCS)
In April, 1983, pre-draft copies of the West, Quarter, Double, and Bay
Supplement to the Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan and the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) were completed and distributed for review. These
documents proposed alternative 3 (as displayed in current EIS) as the
recommended plan with joint sponsorship between the Hyde County
Commissioners, Pamlico Soil and Water Conservation District, and the State
of North Carolina (NCDNR&CD). Comments received indicated remaining
significant concerns over the loss of wetlands in general, and
specifically, the substantial losses due to the outfall or diversion canal.
Other comments questioned the project's economic benefits to primary fin-
and shellfish nursery areas. Due to the significance of these concerns,
the unavailability of funds from the State sponsors, and the sense of
urgency for flood protection from the local people, work was begun to
re-activate the original supplement (displayed in this document as
alternative 5) as the project action.
However, further consultation with participating agencies, local people,
and others indicated a strong desire to provide benefits to primary nursery
areas by utilizing the storage and filtration capabilities of the conserva-
tion easement area to reduce peak flow and improve water quality. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (May 24, 1983) indicated benefits to primary fin-
and and shellfish nursery areas appear equal to wetland losses since both are
unquantifiable in terms of anticipated benefits. On June 1, 1983 the
Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDNR&CD) stated "the current Juniper Bay
project design, which includes a conservation storage pool of about 750-800
acres, should have a positive benefit for the downstream primary nursery
area by reducing peak freshwater inflows, especially during storm events."
-46-

' A meeting with local sponsors was held on June 1, 1983 to consider which
alternative (alternative 4 or 5) would best suit their needs. After
' evaluation of both alternatives, the group agreed to support alternative 4
(recommended plan) to provide flood protection and partial benefits to
primary nursery areas through the use of the conservation easement area.
This alternative is the subject of this document.

11

1

1
t
-47-
1
E
H
z
,N,7 pWp,, ? r-1
6 y 3 V
pyoq? ? u
yC Z Z
W CC 3 '?.
a ? W o
(r? U
a ? ?, 'dO
O W Z x
a ? NC
py7
3
u
v
yy
U
H
a
0?1
O
$4
y
N ttl
v
W
U
Raat
pW(].
W
`J
ryS
P.
a
In
H
?W
yp
W
0
U
A
O
h m
z H
H y
N
v
W
HH
WW
a
zZ

? M n w
? M
I
+
? H ? H W
W
M% W
M O Y
44
O
?pp
H co
V ol
G r4 O Y
w
$4
d y M
O
d
(0
3!
N L
y •O JJ y d O
1
M W -
J-? '•d y
M
p
U Vy yy
14 ?
O ra H U A
U' -I
U 1 RL
Yl ?f1 N Ln r+ m U1 m t+) N to M

M
G
W

W 6

d W M M

M M
W C u y
u
y
P4 W U V)
N
t+1 t+1 rl ?O N •p d N
ai L O a u
H u •.G? p C
N 60 O O q F
G d p •
Oi p
p
0 i O O u u d
1 £ u
y
y ' ..
F+
® -
O M W
U b0 4
U ; H
41
G .
C7 M N ppy y
H O C V
W Z v
v
N u N
yp
> O U
00
o
W d
OD W y
G G Q d U
y
G y y
G ~ u
O
y

m y 00
00 G 4+
G M O 00 y y
G 00 G G G 00
W G 0 o O G F
u
w d U
y d
r
G
W W O

U O U

U M 'a
•, ••+
ab W •M

e W Y

C rl d W M U U W

L A y

5 u
o u
d
U M d
~ w
) w N v
~
H D>
•+ M y
o 00 O
a
DJ O
U w D G
r1 O u1 H p H y DO m OD D
00 M d N G" G M y M + w
+
O •.1
6 U U y c
m p W
C7 W D U U .. C U y W W w W U y W Vl f]
• u
G
H d G
y d O
H

d d o ?O •
Oi u
a l .
> Q
00 W O G >
M
d G
M
O
O o W
M O H G OD d d
M G U J?
-
T T
~ •1
?
•? •
p
y
4 ?
Q
N N 7 t
tl 7 O
. 8 ? E G
M
00
y N M
y 1J (a
G yJ
L
rn u G M
, d O
cn u u d lJ v M
W oo L G V1
6
$
w M
P
.
d d G d y y u o y c: bo r+ d .+
ep
B
i d O ?
N
'
H
I
W M
N a
O
H o O L+
t.
7? L
G
G 8 U

O
O (
U N C
7y
OD G. M u N
'C '^
O C
C
?-•?
y 'O M M T1 H N
?
$4 ,G G%
'p 7$4 C
W H d 7 y
y
' W U
) C i u Uu 7
l
' ? O N p. d
N •
LL a m
'
P•
W W C9 u
U
7 U
W 6 G• U
a•
V
G
O
Rl N Q G W txG1

U N o o N u o u
O ? H
W
d
U
o y
N u
W .'
j
V W
6 .1
a1 O
O
6
W 4 f° m a
ra M w 0.
1 a
r m i
rd N •O H Ol vt v1 ?"1
d H
G
v
l
G
y
N
a
y
y
L
y
0
o
d y E
0. d r
0
a G
U d lo

H
d l •'
1
V
Y?

W G

M

H
L
y
H
d
r d)
W
3 O C d 3y+ W •.G? O O
W U
w •.G+ F U ul u G W

74
V •rHi rl rO1 N
k
.~i
idJ
O N
VI O C O N DHO p. •a H N I M
, u W, U Q x U m ti G A
0 C ro
y W 3
P.
? H
ti u] W
v
u
u H C W
C d r H O

Ei Ldi W ?+ A W o {z? N W o
N A N U H b W U
i
U x f 3 U O W
y B H W
ti W
3
Y
rn h N ti W M T W A
6 G .a r A H 6 G d w
P "Oi 3 W '? x of P 'O a
-48-

1 N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. 1982.
Governor's Coastal Water Management Task Force - Final Report.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1956, reprinted 1971. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Circular 39.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1977. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Impact
of Water Level Changes on Woody Riparian and Wetland Communities.
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. 1981. CAMA
Land Use Plan Update for Hyde County.
1 U.S.Department of Agriculture. 1978. Soil Conservation Service. Procedure
to Establish Priorities in Landscape Architecture, Technical Release no.
65.
I N.C. Department of Administration. 1977. Office of State Budget and
Management. Profiles, North Carolina Counties.

t

t
t
-49-

APPENDIX A
Comments on Draft Plan- EIS

t

t
APPENDIX B

t

1?
Supporting Information

t
t
t
1
1
1
1
1
1

H
W
H
w
H
W
W
co
4
r--I
O
H
«1
V
}4
O
z
a
°Ua
o
? V
- b
? x
w
D W
4) 4)
A ?
a
o
0 co
u Ra
W
.b
c
r.
O
•rl 4)
1? r-I
co
O
A
H
4)
Ll
{4
ca
ce
4)
3
NI
?
v7
41
U -41
4)
44 1-.
44 4
W td
44
O ?r
4) ?i
H 4)
co
4) 4)
z
W
41
4)
G
O
0
V
\)
N
47
4
41
44
4-1 r-I
W ?
O q
4)
H 41
O b0
cd N
N 4)
u
47
JJ
0
N
Ir
O
H
O
V
b.)
L"+

°?
o
o cd
G w
?4

U co

.r a Q)
0 41 41
W ca co
4) 4) O 3
41 P4 4a
U w
ai 44 ro Ea
4a O 4) ISd 0
°
W W A u

W lb 4)
w > w
N

Lf)
CD
cn
rn
00
N
G
O
•r1
41

4) 4)
m u 7
O to 4)
u "d a) p
4) 4) w W

4-4
9 10
W 44 c
d O
O •d O
ra r?
o '
P?

4
W 4
-1
4)
G
4)
PQ Q
B-1
O O O
O r- n
?O
O 1.0
M C N
M M it
.a .-a
0
r W
41
? aui
H 4.1
ca W 4-4
v7
H 47
u ;>
n w' d
0 -a
a o cad
O
H
Ln tl1
CD . i
Lr) ON
C .O
00 N
t? cnW
41
U co
4) 1J
44 U
41 (2)
W 41
4-4
ri W
cd
•rl rl
U co
44
4) •rl
z P:
4)
r? C11
co
4
H z
M
00
ba
N
a?
O
z
i?
N
41
N
4)
.G
.U
G+'
4)
U
}4 Cl)
4) co
a
r?
XI
t?1
d-, 4J
wd
c
as
co
a) a1
u
o
to Pa

t
t

1

t

r

co
4
r-1
O
H
cd
a
41
H
O
z
41 0
? U
ou •b
Hd]C
d 4j G
H] CY ral
"` rl Pa.
A co C
W 11 W
H G
U a) r?,
PCI
W O
V) H
"I G
D N
G
W a
N
r-i
a
G
O
A
H
A
rJ
H
ca
a
41
U)
N
3
U)
u
a)
w
4a
w
W
a!
H
C
U)
cd
U)
11
G
Q)
G
O
a
O
U
0
1
v W o
H 1 a p U) bo bo
4) L1 p 0 r. q U.
4 1 a
i 0) Cd 4)i r-4 •H co 1. bo 1
cd U1 $ U1 H O v 4d a) cd 41 C C a) C
3 v C " cd C • o •r1 •r1 +J o bo 41
H 44 O %D 4) ca C 3 bo a) •r? 4) u
C u O c1 r- D, a) a. C C o u V. a) y) r7 aJ
a) co H bo a) O O •r1 H Cd ro 44 CO 44
a N H 'O •r-I •r1 41 co a) H D C 44
O Vl w bo z U1 co " 41 Cd N H cf1 H a)
p) -4 H C -W co p .c . M cd D (0 cd D, • 4) •r1
a) o u o a) 0 u 41 "o p H a) 1.1 -4 U) 3 41
H 11 4.1 CO H 44 H G w C C +1 a) H 4J •rl C bo r-?
u O 10 O Cd •r1 a) O r-I CO C r-I O O O 10 O
co ca 1n 4J ,d "d u U •r1 Gi H a) •r1 4-1 CJ .hG a) H
a, a) o 41 11 N H 4-1 O O 0 a r1 s 11
O H u n ?7 4) H C •r1 44 4) rl u 44 a) 1b a) a) •C C
.. cv u C N U) Cd a) 44 O a -1 14 bo a q 4 4) O
N Cd Cd r-4 44 :3 P. r-I cd Cd a) rl cd Cd rl " 44 10 u
-4 44 a O N rf U) O 44 H = co C u bo O •r1
O r4
00 N O 00 G C 0 0 r0 {-1 4J 41 Ii -I H -H W O O
rb 4J O N a) U) cd O co co Iz C O N H •ri
• CO 44 U) •rj CO 41 H 4J H G bQ a) r-I H N r--I rl a U)
0 0 •ri i- 41 W C C ro C 11 3" H a) rl 0
r-i "O G H a) O C ry4 cn 10 a) O O O C G D E7 0 H
a) C 01 v a F3 •r1 Cd co C E3 H a bo 4.1 O 41 a) 41 as
a + + o a, a 1-1 4) 4.1 /N a) >, co O 'r. cd r. H U CO rl cd c+1
D, C H H 4) C m cd 1 71 a s U) 4.1 N U) •r-I W r1 w • H "d
H a) U) cd Ec H •r1 cd 7 G ca N H w p 41 r1 O G H %.O a1 C
C H H a) H r-I as a) .. 'C (L) 44 cd 10 O cd N 0 O co > N
co N O r-•I CO a) W U U1 •ri U 4-1 •r1 41 $ > •11 N O
U)
?
^ D U) CO
o rL) rr CO
G
> H C 3 -W
v 10 o C
b O
C 4-1 D •r1
C o C v bo 41
a)
a C cd 1.1
C N U 0)
1 44
•
+
d
C Q) C
O E
N b b
C Q) C O
I 1r1 O 1
H .
P. 4) r-i r. C C Q) H O r
•d •ri 'O W r
r" I Q) •r1
cd (161 U H a r-I 4J a •r1 p4 44 O
r H H W F3 -H $4 4J C f?
r •r1 y r-I
0
-1
-
1
4 1-4
411 •i•1 . o 411 •r? U
i .
4
CO 4J r
i
Q) • a) • 14 1 7 • H CO M C 0 11 0 •r1
3 cd a u 3 ca P4 CO .a7 u a 3 a) •r1 a) W +? 3
-? CV 14 1n
rt7
u
a1
u
a
r-I
41
? m
)
L) Cd
i
U)
) u
r G
) O
> U)
I d
? H
ri W
? u
r1 J-1
00 U)
O U) U)
1 O O
1 •r1 U
a Gq CU
J
a ?
B-2

t
1
1
1
1
1
co
O
to
U
4
41
O
z
O
41 U
ov
H Q' x
d 1 G
4) Q)
H O -1
W N cn
U A
r-q ca
W 1~ ?
In O G
a `?
a
O
A
H
a)
?4
co
O
LJ
(1)
a?
3
v, o q NI
41
U 41 •H --
co 41
44 U CO -41
44 04
W ?
O 4O'
4) W
H O 4)
CO 4 U N
-W z
VJ d
v
yJ
W
Ir
O
O
v
4H N
1J O O ?.
u +J •r1
m to 1J
4-1 d cd ?-.
wxz co
o
U) 44 41
}4 O bo
cd " U 4)
4 z
N
?J
t~
N
t~
O
O
U

U) 41
U 0 O aJ U
P O •rl 1I ^ O U d)
:3 F4 bo 4) 4) iJ •rl G•+ F Gl 4 1
0 44 0) 0 4J 4J -r-I 0 4-4 4-4
to p 41 co 4) Cd H 44
W
to 4) 9 +J 41 W
0
U 41 C 9 bbo W 4) r
-1 (1) M
N 4-1 : 11 G) C) cd U) td r•1 ri P4 to •rl
44 O .a -H co P: 0 4) O cd ca )•+ U
44 r{ Q z JJ •r1 co O P is 11 4) -H
W P. A u CO a o U 4-4
0 41 x co •

v > U 3 Q O -4 PQ

iJ 41
z
E-4
•a O

V] U I
4J :3 U) 0)
U 10 Q) p
Q) ro w o
q
44
r -r-I
W 4-a cd O JJ
O 10 to O r.
-1 a)
O F+ W
•rj O
U r O 4)
•rl cd r-1 ,O
44 ,'> 4.4 4J ?
4)

p
B-4
r1
co
U
4a
N
>r
1?
r-I U
cd a)
" 4-I
H W 44

$4
D
O
z
a
Cd
as
aJ
v
s•+
v
u
G
a
u
v M
LL 00
OIN
-4
M
ca N
U)
cd
C) 4)
O 44
Ln Pa
?I N?
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
Social Well-Being Account
West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement
Hyde County, North Carolina
Components
Measures of Effects
Beneficial and Adverse Effects:
A. Community Life
Maintain community stability
as an agricultural community.
B. Health and Safety
B-4
Reduce flooding of roads,
damages to bridges, and other
public use areas.

t

1-1

APPENDIX C
Wetlands Map

L [if ND -
• w watershed goundry
Olke location
??? • 00t, 0 "" on"'
Pored Rood
?'?-- Canal
ltk?l.xl Typ.
(c?..39? usfWS?
' ? PaIM1?Ry Ny+etcRy ??
1 A'wc NaN- ?tuv? A4E?

1

264A
264
1264Ai
It# t.
?I

we
I
17
LDLWE
??u E
? pscw?
LAN[ &A7FAMOSA'ffT
lNa
Comfort
f
Y ' Y
Ift
I I
r Y
1
e
v r
I r ? •
r i f
i
GS
w e
u
0
•
f
M?
Oworter
e e e
12
I?
264
WfTL AND TYPES
SWAN QUARTER WATERSHED
WEST, QUARTER, DOUBLE and BAY
SUPPL EMfN T
Nr0[ CDunrr, womrv CAADIMrA
0 1/? 1 MAP
swlndsll
Fork
1
?J

t

1

t

APPENDIX D
Project Map
t
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
LEGEND
PAVED ROAD
IMPROVED
264A U.S. HIGHWAY
94 STATE HIGHWAY
DRAINAGE
01ft WATERSHED BOUNDARY
CHANNELIMPROVEMENT
DIKE
TTnTTTTIIF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
TIDE GATE
. FLAP GATEFLASHBOARD RISER
H BREACH PLUG
BORROW CHANNEL
BENEFITED AREA
35 ° 25'
C

0 1 MILE
JUNE 1963
USDAS -OST WO-H. T[%AS 1983
t i\V J 1 1V1Cf1
SWAN QUARTER WATERSHED
WEST, QUARTER, DOUBLE AND BAY
SUPPLEMENT
Portion of
HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
AUGUST 1983 4-R-38 369

FINAL - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the
' Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan
Hyde County, North Carolina
I ABSTRACT
' This document is the result of planning efforts by the West, Quarter,
Double, and Bay Supplement Sponsors, federal, and state agencies to provide
flood protection from high wind tides. Alternatives considered included no
action (without project) and four structural alternatives offering varying
' levels of protection and causing varying levels of environmental impact.
These structural alternatives included pumps, dikes, and internal drainage
improvements; dike, diversion channel, conservation easement area, tide
gates, and sluice gates; dike and tide gates; dike, tide gates, and conser-
' vation easement area. The selected alternative will provide flood pro-
tection to the project area from the 25-year frequency wind tide elevations
plus required freeboard and remove 2.5 inches of runoff from the project
area in 24 hours. The economic benefits exceed the costs of the project.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process has been utilized to
guide the plan selection process and resolve conflicts from the review of
the draft EIS. The selected plan is a result of this process. This
document is intended to fulfill the requirements of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 and to be considered for authorization of Public
Law 566 funding.
Prepared under the authority of Public Law 83-566, the Watershed Protection
and Flood Prevention Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008) and in accor-
dance with Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, Public Law 91-190, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et se q.).
Prepared by: Pamlico Soil and Water Conservation District
Hyde County Commissioners
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
For additional information contact:
Coy A. Garrett, State Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box 27307
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
P

LJ

t

11

1

t

TABLE OF CONTENTS
West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the
Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan
Hyde County, North Carolina
Abstract ....................................................
Contents ....................................................
Summary .....................................................
Introduction ................................................
Project Setting ..........................
Problem and Opportunity Identification ......................
Inventory and Forecasting ...................................
Scoping of Concerns ....................................
Existing Resources .....................................
Forecasted Conditions ..................................
Formulation of Alternatives .................................
Formulation Process ....................................
Evaluation of Alternatives .............................
Comparison of Candidate Plans ..........................
Project Interaction ....................................
Risk and Uncertainty ................................
Rationale for Plan Selection ...........................
Recommended Plan ............................................
Purpose and Summary ....................................
Plan Elements ..........................................
Permits and Compliance .................................
Costs ..................................................
Installation and Financing ..............
Operation and Maintenance ............
Effects of Recommended Plan .................................
Relationship to Land and Water Resource
Plans, Policies, and Controls ........................
Consultation and Public Participation .......................
List of Preparers ...........................................
References ..................................................
Appendices
Appendix A - Comments on Draft EIS
Appendix B - Supporting Information
Appendix C - Wetlands Map
Appendix D - Project Map
-ii-
Pa e
i
ii
Si
2
3
5
6
7
8
8
10
17
18
18
19
24
24
24
27
27
27
30
31
35
35
40
41
?i
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table Number
Page
A Evaluation of Identified Concerns ...... 6
B ......
Summary and Comparison of Candidate.Plans-. 20
C ...
Compliance of Recommended Plan with WRC -
Designated Environmental Statutes ....... 28
D .....
Schedule of Obligations ............ 30
E ...
Effects of the Recommended Plan on Resources..
of Principal National Recognition ...... 32
...
6 Comparison of Benefits and Costs for
Structural Measures .... ..... ..... . B-1
Figure Number
1 Cross-Section of Dike and Borrow Ditch ....... 26

-iii-

SUMMARY
Project Name: West, Quarter, Double,'and Bay Supplement to the Swan
Quarter Watershed Work Plan.
County: Hyde State: North Carolina
Sponsors: Hyde County Commissioners
Pamlico Soil and Water Conservation District-
Description of Recommended Plan: This plan is a flood prevention plan
to protect the 7,040 acre watershed from high wind tides in the
Pamlico Sound. Major project measures include a flood prevention dike
and tide gates which will provide protection from the 25-year
frequency wind tide event in this area.
Alternatives Considered: Without project; pumps, tide gates, dike,
internal channels; dike, tide gates, diversion channel, conservation
easement area, sluice gates; dike, tide gates, conservation easement
area; dike and tide gates.
Resource Information
Size of Watershed (AC): 7,040
Land Use - Crop (AC): 5,150
Forestland (AC): 1,756
Miscellaneous (AC): 134
Land Ownership: 100% Private
Number of Farms: 76 Average Size (AC): 95
Important Farmland (AC): 4,900
Wetlands (Acres in Watershed by Type): Type 12 = 2 acres previously
altered by canals, spoil
.areas, 4 land use changes.
Wetland Values Lost: None
Endangered Species: None.
Cultural Resources: None
Problem Identifications: Flooding from high wind tides.
Candidate Plans Considered: Without project; non-structural (land use
conversion); dike, pumps, tide gates; dike, tide gates, sluice gates,
conservation easement area, diversion channel; dike, tide gates,
conservation easement area; dike and tide gates.
Project Purpose: Reduce economic losses from flood damages caused by
high wind tides.
Principal Project Measures: Dike ............... 6.1 miles
Tide Gates 57
Interior Channels .. 2.9 miles

S-1

Project Costs:
PL 566 Other Funds
Total Dollars
$
Land Treatment -- -- -- -- --
Measures .........
Structural Measures
for Flood
Prevention ....... 2,281,650 100 --' -- 29281,650
Project
Administration ... 182,532 34 167,561 66 350,093
Project Benefits: (Average Annual) $
Agricultural Acreage $263,260
Other $ 26,325
Total $289,585
Acres Benefited TOTAL 7,240
Impacts:
Land Use Changes (AC):
From: To:
Forest, 30 Acres Dike, open water (Borrow Area)
Natural Resources Changed or Lost:
Wetlands - No wetland values lost.
Wooded Flood Plain - None present.
Cultural Resources - None present.
Wildlife Habitat - None affected.
Fisheries - No effect.
Important Farmland - Beneficial
Other Impacts:
Major Conclusions: Major are of concern centered around the tradeoff
of values between wetlands and fishery resources.
Comments to the Draft EIS indicated these issues
were not resolved. Responses indicated support for
and no unresolved issues for the selected plan in
the Final EIS. -
Areas of Controversy: None
Issues to be Resolved: None°

S-2
1

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WEST, QUARTER, DOUBLE, AND BAY SUPPLEMENT TO THE
SWAN QUARTER WATERSHED WORK PLAN
Hyde County, North Carolina

/ INTRODUCTION
This environmental impact statement for the West, Quarter, Double, and Bay
Supplement to the Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan describes the plan
formulation, the environmental evaluation, and the results of these eval-
uations. The project action is proposed in response to flood problems
caused by high wind tides from the Pamlico Sound, which can be addressed
under the provisions of Public Law 83-566.
The Local Sponsoring Organizations are:
Pamlico Soil and Water Conservation District
H
de Count
Commissioners
y
y
The United State Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.and
Forest Service; and the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development (NCDNR&CD), provided assistance to the sponsors in
the development of the plan. Other federal, state, and local agencies and
groups provided input into the planning process.
.The Plan was prepared under the authority of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 83-566, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008)
and in accordance with Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.).

A Draft EIS was developed to present Alternative 4, with multiple resource
objectives as the selected plan. Major resources benefitting included
agricultural lands from flood protection, primary fin- and shellfish
nursery areas from storage of freshwater discharge, and wetland wildlife
habitat from water control measures. Approximately 2 years-of evaluating
impacts and deriving comparable values pertaining to wetland losses and
benefits to primary fin- and shellf ish nursery areas, proved unsuccessful.
Comments received on the Draft EIS indicated these areas of concern were
not resolved. The local sponsors and SCS mutually decided that, since no
more evidence is available to justify the effort for protecting the primary
nursery areas, and that we would not be successful in achieving resolution
of the wetland - nursery area issue without greater support, the conclusion
is to develop Alternative 5 as the recommended plan in the Final EIS.
Responsibility for compliance with the National Environmental Policy. Act is
that of the Soil Conservation Service.

i

PROJECT SETTING
The West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the Swan Quarter Watershed
Work Plan is comprised of 7,240 acres' in the central part of Hyde County.
It is bounded on the north by U.S. Highway 264. The southern boundary runs
approximately parallel to and south of County Road 1124. The watershed
drains into Pamlico Sound. (See project map)
Geology of the watershed dates to the Pleistocene Age. The watershed is
situated on the Pamlico Terrace which forms a low, nearly level plain
consisting of fine sands, silts, and clays of marine origin. The natural
drainage pattern is poorly developed because of its youthful age and low
topographic position. The stream system throughout the watershed consists
of constructed earthen canals, draining south into the Pamlico Sound or
into bays along the sound. Double, Quarter, Bay, West, and several smaller
canals empty into Juniper Bay near the southeastern corner of the water-
shed. Numerous open field ditches throughout the watershed convey surface
and subsurface water into these canals.
There are 5,150 acres of cropland in the watershed. Most is row cropped in
corn and soybeans. Smaller acreages of small grains are planted in rota-
tion with the corn and soybeans. Fields are larger, nearly level, and
mostly rectangular in shape. Soils in the watershed area are predominantly
Weeksville. Smaller areas of Pungo, Doravan, Ponzer, and Lafitte soils are
also present. Most are high in organic matter content, fertile, and
produce high yields with adequate water management.
Elevations (NGVD) in the cropland areas range from a low of 1.5 feet above
sea level in the southeastern portion to 5 feet above sea level in the
vicinity of U.S. Highway 264. Elevation (NGVD) of U.S. Highway 264, which
forms the northern boundary of the watershed, is 4.8 feet above sea level.
Climate in the watershed is favorable for growing the area's main crops.
Average annual temperature is 63 degrees fahrenheit. The area has a
"freeze-free" period of 240 days which extends from late March to late
November. Average annual rainfall is slightly more than 53 inches.
Visual resources in the project area are a composite of flat, broad ex-
panses of cropland at elevations ranging from 1.5 to 5.0 feet (NGVD),
sections of flat, wooded areas of pine and mixed deciduous trees and
shrubs, and irregular shaped marsh areas. The most obvious visual charac-
teristic of the area is the lack of topographical disruption by natural or
manmade features. These landscape features are typical along eastern
coastal areas of North Carolina.
There are no cultural resources of national significance within the project
area. The Lake Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge, an area of state and
national historical and natural significance is located north of the
project area.
The economy, land use, and population within the watershed is primarily
agricultural. There are approximately 76 farms in the watershed area, most
of which are owned by people living in the area. Many of these owners,
however, do not farm their land, but lease the acreage to other local
-2- 1

1

t
farmers. There are approximately 5,150 acres of cropland, and 1,756 acres
of woodland in the watershed. A small percentage of the cropland and
woodland acreage is taken up by individual residences, farm headquarters,
roads, canals, and other miscellaneous uses.
The population of the watershed is estimated to be 400, most of which live
on farms. Relatively little opportunity exists for attracting industry or
other non-agricultural interests into the immediate area as a means of
providing employment and improving the general economy. Any improvement
will most likely have to come about through maximum development of the
agricultural potential.
There are 95 minority residents in the watershed areas. Of these, 31 are
landowners and 3 are farm operators that will be directly affected (bene-
fitted) by the project.
I
L.J

t

t

Hyde County has been designated as a depressed area by the Area Development
Administration. The 1977 per capita income in Hyde County was $3,901. An
overall economic development program has been developed for the county.
This program places agriculture in first place as a basis for economic
growth.
Deer, quail, rabbits, and doves are the primary resident game species found
in the watershed. Ducks and geese are abundant during fall and winter
months on nearby Lake Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge. The proximity
of the project area to the refuge encourages the use of agricultural fields
in the project area as feeding grounds by these waterfowl. Hunting pro-
vides seasonal employment to many local residents and excellent recreation
for sportsmen from North Carolina and many other states nationwide.
In addition to being an excellent hunting area, the Pamlico Sound, located
south of the project area, is an excellent fishing area. The numerous
inlet areas, including Juniper Bay, serve as primary fin- and shellfish
nursery areas. The sound and its nursery areas provide approximately 70
percent of the commercial fishery catch in North Carolina. Annual value of
this catch is $70,000,000. Flounder, croaker, trout, and spot are major
finfish species of the area.
There are no identified wetlands (Circular 39, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service) in the project area. Type 12 (coastal'shallow fresh marshes) are
located in isolated pockets along the southern boundary. Extensive areas
of types 7, 8, 12, and 17 (salt marsh) wetlands are located south of the
project area.
PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY IDENTIFICATION

t
There are two major water and related land resource problems in the area.
Within the watershed area, the major problem is the annual loss of agricul-
tural income due to flooding. In adjacent Juniper Bay fin- and shellfish
nursery area, the major problem is reduced nursery area production due to
fluctuating salinity levels during critical periods.
-3-

The annual loss of agricultural income from flooding is caused by high wind
tides from the Pamlico Sound. These.wind tides force water from the sound,
into the canals, and over the cropland areas. Annual, direct flood...damages
to crops on 5,150 acres is approximately $310,000. These damages are -
incurred as a result of crop losses, from delayed planting or replanting if
wind tides occur early in the growing season, actual crop production losses
if they occur in mid-season, and harvest losses due to lateseason
flooding.
Annual flood damages.to roads and bridges in the watershed area are approx-
imately $4,500. Other water related problems include approximately $7,300
annual flood damages to woodland areas and $7,500 annual flood damages to
agricultural practices such as drainage mains and laterals..
A major fishery resource problem in waters affected by the project area is
freshwater discharge into saltwater nursery areas. The Governor's Coastal
Water Management Task Force, Final Report, best describe.s.this problem.
Excerpts from this report follow:
"The upper reaches of the tributaries of Pamlico Sound function
naturally as nurseries. Nurseries are those areas where initial growth and
development take place due to favorable food, protection, bottom type, and
salinity. Unstable salinity conditions, resulting from a flux in fresh-
water, place a physiological strain on marine organisms. This problem is
particularly acute because there is only a limited amount of nursery areas
available for estuarine production. As freshwater runoff reduces.salinity,
less nursery area is available and therefore estuarine productivity
declines.
The acute effect, "little wedge", of pulses of freshwater directly into the
nursery areas is the result of activities in the twelve-county,area itself.
One such activity is the artificial drainage of farm and forest land.
Because drainage systems.speed the release of water from the land, those
systems adjacent to nursery areas release water directly into the nurseries
over a much shorter period of time than under natural conditions. The
resulting reduction in water retention time on the land causes unstable
salinity conditions in the estuaries. The problem is compounded by the
fact that removal of surface water from crop and forest land is most
critical in the spring and early summer. This is also the most critical
time for adequate salinity levels in the nursery areas.
Hyposalinity has an impact on both shell- and finfish. Shrimp production
in the nursery areas and their subsequent harvest are directly relatedto
salinity regimes. Oyster production has been affected by lowered
salinities in some areas. The effects on finfish are more subtle, but
there is a demonstrable effect. Studies done in Pamlico Sound indicate a
reduction in overall numbers of.juvenile finfish produced in a nursery area
receiving drainage, compared to one with little or no drainage. As.a
result, there is a measurable impact on quantity and value of seafood
production."
Under existing conditions, the seven canals which comprise the watershed
stream system discharge freshwater directly into the primary nursery areas
of Juniper Bay. Although several attempts have been made to quantify the
-4- 1

1
t
F_?

t

t
I

P
t
t

damages to the fishery resource, a.concensus as to the annual damage has,
as yet, not been determined. However, the Pamlico Sound and its nursery
areas provides approximately 70 percent of the $70,000,000 annual commer-
cial fishery catch in North Carolina. 1/ Therefore, harmful impacts to the
Juniper Bay area should prove to be significant in annual damages.
INVENTORY AND FORECASTING
Scoping of Concerns
Environmental evaluations and consultations with federal,, state, and local
agencies and groups were conducted early in the planning process to identi-
fy significant issues and concerns related to project action in this
area. Eleven areas of concern were identified (See Table A) at these
scoping sessions. Eight of the eleven areas of concern were assessed as
having a high degree of significance to decision-making. These included
flooding, primary nursery areas, wetlands, land use, prime and important
farmlands, economics, cultural resources, and water quality. Early inves-
tigations by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources, indicated no cultural resources within
the watershed area. Two areas of concern, fish and wildlife habitat and
threatened and endangered species were assessed as having a medium degree
of significance in decision-making. Visual resources, using procedures in
TR-65, were assessed as having a low priority.
Basic data, communications with responsible agency people, comments at the
several scoping meetings, and assessment team summaries were used in
determining the significance of and the magnitude of impacts in each area
of concern. Significant concerns were used to compare alternatives and to
design the selected alternative.
1/ "Division of Marine Fisheries", North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development.
-5-

TABLE A - EVALUATION OF IDENTIFIED CONCERNS

West, Quarter, Double and Bay Supplement .to the
Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan, North Carolina

Economic, Social, Degree of
Environmental, Significance
and Cultural to Deci0on
Concerns Making Remarks
Flooding of Cropland High
Primary Nursery Areas High
Wetlands High
Fish & Wildlife Habitat Medium
Land Use High
Prime & Important Farmland High
,Economics High
Threatened & Endangered Species Medium
Cultural Resources High None Identified
Visual Resources Low
Water Quality High
High - Must be considered in the analysis of alternatives.
Medium- May be affected by same alternative solution.
Low - Consider, but not too significant.
None - Need not be.considere d in analysis.

Existins Resources
The total watershed area is 7,040 acres. There are 5,150 acres of crop-
land, 1,756 acres of woodland, and 134 acres of roads, farm headquarters,
and canals. According to the North Carolina Prime Farmland Map, there are
no prime agricultural soils in the watershed, but most are designated as
being of state and local importance. Recent soil maps indicate the predom-
inant (approximately 95 percent) soil series in cropland use is the
Weeksville series, on nearly level slopes. These soils are high producers
with adequate water management. Corn, soybeans and small grain are the
principal crops grown in the watershed. Most of these are produced for
marketing, and are sold to buyers nearby. A relatively small amount of
livestock is produced.
The existing stream system is a network of farm mains and laterals and
seven major dug canals. These canals dissect the woodland area between
major cropland areas and Juniper Bay. At places, cross canals intersect
with the major canals in the wooded area.

-6-
1
f

Extensive wetland areas U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39),
consisting of irregular flooded salt marshes (type 17), wooded swamps (type
7), bogs (type 8), and coastal shallow fresh marshes (type 12) are located
generally east and south of the project area. Existing main and cross
canals dissect these wetland areas in various locations.
Fish and wildlife resources in the project area are diversified. Major
game.species include deer, quail, rabbit, and dove. Geese and ducks from
nearby Lake Mattamuskeet and the Pamlico Sound, are attracted by the large
agricultural feeding areas in the project area. Wood and field edges,
canal spoil areas, and planted wildlife strips, provide some "edge effect"
for native game and non-game species.

There is not a major fishery resource within the project area itself.
However, immediately adjacent to the project area, the Pamlico Sound
provides many major sport and commercial fin- and shellfish species includ-
ing trout, flounder, croaker, spot, crab, shrimp, and oysters.
National Heritage Program records indicate that two federally listed
endangered species, the American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) and
the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), are likely residents of the
watershed area, as well as the osprey, a raptor of special concern.
F
d C
di
i
s
orecaste
on
on
t
Early agricultural development in the project area occurred predominantly
on lands higher than 1.5 feet (NGVD). Attempts to clear and cultivate
lower-lying areas were abandoned due to flooding and water management
problems. These have since reverted to woodland. Aerial photography of
the area in the 1930's and 1940's indicate essentially the same field's were
being cultivated then as under present conditions.
The Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan, which included the West, Quarter,
Double, and Bay project area, provided for pump stations to aid in flood
control, drainage, and water management. Division of support for the pumps
among the local people became the main obstacle to implementation. Support
for the West, Quarter, Double, and Bay project without pumps grew out of
the Swan Quarter organization.
Future land use is projected to remain the same in the project area. The
5,150 acres of cropland, due to the low elevations of non-cropland areas,
the lack of support for effective pumps, and costs of agricultural develop-
ment, is considered to be the feasible limit to cropland areas at this
time. The 1,756 acres, presently in woodland, are projected to remain in
woodland due to naturally low elevations, land ownership patterns, and
cost-return economics of converting these areas to other land uses.
Population in the project area is 400, most of whom live on farms and rural
residences. These residences are constructed on the highest available
sites along U.S. Highway 264 and secondary roads in the area. Maximum
known wind tide elevations pose no threat to human lives in these resi-
dences, but could cause water damage to the lower lying buildings.

-7-

Water resource problems, including agricultural land flooding, and-fresh-
water intrusion into primary fin- and shellfish nursery areas will continue
to occur. These annual damage rates are estimated to be $310,290 to
cropland and $19,335 to roads., bridges, other agricultural property, and
woodland. Damage values to primary nursery areas in dollars or catch
resulting from freshwater intrusion have not been determined at the present
state-of-the-art, but are considered to be significant.
Cropland erosion is projected to remain at its present level, less than 4
tons per acre annually. Deterioration of the soil resource base and
off-site sediment problems are not expected to occur. The major emphasis
of the on-going district program is projected _to be the installation of
water management practices, field borders, wildlife habitat management
practices, and wind breaks.
Relatively little opportunity exists for attracting industry or other
non-agricultural interests into the immediate area as a means of providing
employment and improving the general economy. Any improvement will most
likely have to come about,through development of the agricultural poten-
tial,.commercial fishing and recreational opportunities for hunting
waterfowl.
FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES
General
This part of the
determination of
and opportunitie;
scoping process,
selection of the
plan describes the plan formulation process including the
project measures, effects of these measures on problems
s, and significant issues and concerns identified in the
development and comparison of alternatives, and the
recommended plan.
Formulation Process
Local sponsors and landowners identified economic losses due to.cropland
flooding as the major problem. These flood damages occur when high wind
tides push water from the Pamlico Sound up the drainage canals to cropland
areas. Other problems and opportunities are 'identified in the preceding
section.
Plan measures which would address the identified problems and opportunities
were determined. Effects of these measures on the problems and opportun-
ities and the environmental issues and concerns were analyzed and
evaluated.
-8-
J

Structural measures were considered including pumps, dikes, tide gates,
sluice gates, diversion channels, and water storage areas. Evaluation of
these measures and site conditions indicated the most effective approach to
flood problems from high wind tides would be a dike with tide gates at one
of several locations. It was also determined that additional water manage-
ment measures such as pumps, diversion canals, sluice gates, and water
storage areas could be combined to address other problems and opportunities
in the project area, including environmental impacts to wetlands and'
primary fin- and shellfish nursery areas.
Dike elevations were evaluated as to their Protection from wind tide
events. Elevations ranging from the maximum known wind tide level plus
freeboard, to the 1-year wind tide elevation plus required freeboard were
considered. Protection from the 25-year wind tide event was determined to
best meet the needs of the project.
As discussed in the problems and opportunities section, the project area is
environmentally sensitive in many regards, including wetlands and primary
fin- and shellfish nursery areas. Dike location and water management
measures were determined to be the major project design features that would
affect significant environmental issues and concerns. Essentially two dike
locations were evaluated as to impact on wetland areas. Four combinations
of water control measures were evaluated as to effects on primary nursery
areas.
One dike location, basically adjacent to cropland, and constructed on
existing channel spoil areas, would have minimal impact to wetland values,
since wetlands along this alignment have previously been disturbed. Water
control tide gates at each canal, including West, Quarter, Double, Bay,
Honey, and Berry Canals, would discharge directly into primary nursery
areas. Tide gates would be sized to carry 231 inches of runoff in 24 hours.
Interior channels would be improved to carry runoff to the tide gates under
the dike.
A second combination of water control measures were considered with essen-
tially the same dike location as cropland, but moved further into the
wooded areas to provide a pump sump area. Water control measures evaluated
with this dike location included a pump station at West Canal, tide gates,
and channel enlargements inside the dike to assure water delivery to the
pumps. Water would be discharged out of West Canal creating a "slug
effect" on the primary nursery areas in Juniper Bay. This dike-pump
combination would impact 38.5 acres of type 8 and 12 wetlands to varying
degrees. Local sponsors do not support pumps as project measures due to
high operation and maintenance costs and ineffectiveness in solving their
major wind tide flood problem.
A second dike location, located away from cropland areas and using the
wooded areas as a water storage area, was evaluated using two combinations
of water control measures. One combination of water management measures
included a 762 acre conservation easement/water storage area, a diversion
canal, tide gates at each existing canal, and sluice gates for total water
control into primary nursery areas. Approximately 117 acres of wetland
types 7, 8, 12, and 17 would be impacted to varying degrees with this
combination of dike location and water management measures.
1 -9-

The same dike location with a second combination of.water management
measures was also evaluated. ..These measures included a 762 acre conserva-
tion easement/water storage area,, an& tide gates. This combination of dike
location and water management measures would reduce the wetland acres
impacted to 56 acres, only 20.6 acres of which would be permanently lost.
Throughout the alternative formulation process, environmental impacts to
primary nursery areas and wetlands were paramount in and during the numer-
ous meetings with the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Division of Marine
Fisheries (NCDNR&CD), and other agencies with an interest in the project.
Dike locations, water management measures, and other aspects were closely
coordinated with these people and the Governor's Coastal Area Management
Task Force in an intensive effort to minimize, impacts to this coastal area.
Land use conversion from cropland to woodland was.considered during plan
formulation as a non-structural alternative. Both social and economic
evaluations indicated this alternative was not feasible or acceptable to
sponsors and local residents.
Evaluation of Alternative Plans
Displays of each alternative have been developed to show location of
structural measures, costs, benefits,-effects, and a description of plan
components.
ALTERNATIVE 1 - Without Project
Components: There are no planned project actions in this alternative.
Present land uses including 5,150 acres of cropland, 1,756 acres of wood-
land, and 134 acres of miscellaneous.land are projected to remain basically
unchanged.
Costs: There are no project costs associated with this alternative.
Effects: Annual-flood damage of $310,290 to cropland and $19,335 to roads,
bridges, other agricultural property, and woodland will continue to occur.
Direct and unabated freshwater discharge from the project area into the
Juniper Bay primary fin- and shellfish nursery area will continue to occur.
The 27 acres of wetlands.in the project area will not be affected by this
alternative.
-10-
5

t

J
F-i

1

J
11

ALTERNATIVE 2 - Pumps, Dike, Tide Gates, Channels
.... PRostcr' ?-
•8ou?wRy _
Pkmp
r
An, /1YAtp Nt?11Mrt? .., ?'
Components: This alternative consists of constructing approximately' 8.
miles of flood prevention dike, and a pump station at the intersection of
West Canal and the dike, with needed channel enlargement to assure fresh-
water delivery to the pump sump area and tide gates at existing canals to
prevent saltwater intrusion. The flood prevention dike would be construct-
ed to maximum known wind tide elevation plus freeboard for protection
against wave action. The pump station would be comprised of four pumps,
capable of removing two inches of runoff from the project area in 24 hours.
Tide gates through the dike at each of the six existing canals would'`be
installed to remove 2 inches of runoff in twenty-four hours.
Costs: Installation costs of this alternative: Total Project Costs -
$9,143,875; PL 566 Share - $7,234,187; Other - $1,909,687; Average Annual
Cost - $479,155.
Effects: Installation of this alternative will provide flood protection to
5,150 acres of cropland. Flood damages, resulting from wind tides at
maximum known elevations will be eliminated. Annual. flood damage reduction
benefits will amount to $330,825. Total average annual benefits are'
$363,900. Pumps will provide for water removal when the water surface
elevation outside the dike (wind tides) is of such height as to prevent
gravity flow through channels and tide gate drains. Primary fin- and
shellfish nursery areas will be the recipient of both natural and pumped
"slug flows" with this alternative. Approximately 14.5 acres of types 8
and 12 wetlands would be permanently lost under the dike, 15 acres of types
8 and 12 would be converted to open water areas, and an additional 9 acres
would be temporarily disturbed in the berm areas. The annual cost of this
alternative exceeds benefits by $115,255.
-11-

ALTERNATIVE 3 - Dike, Tide gates, Outlet Channel, Sluice Gates,
Conservation Easement Area
is I .. .l
W Su Ka
. ?.? DIVi?ft?4!
C?fI1N?isL A"
1C
?wr.ouss
1
CEA Coftserv%.%1&o% /
?OM.?bgT _ ? MMATtw Mftll"te
4"r. ~79R. My?f .n &W
A raft. aefte t
Components: This alternative consists of 6.3 miles-of flood prevention
dike, tide gates under the dike at existing canals, 7.6 miles of diversion
outlet channel, and 7 sluice gates for complete. control of freshwater
discharge into primary nursery areas, and a 762 acre conservation easement
area for water storage and water management purposes. Dike location
basically parallels cropland,areas but 762 acres of woodland separates it
from cropland to. provide freshwater storage. Twenty (20) tide gates will
be installed under the flood prevention dike at existing canal locations to
discharge. freshwater.. Twenty-eight (28) gates will be installed inside the
dike at farm drainage outlets and at conservation easement area locations.
These gates will remain open until water levels on the outside exceeds
inside levels at which time the gates will close to prevent backflooding.
The 762 acre water storage area will function as a reservoir for freshwater
discharge to help reduce peak discharge into primary nursery areas. The
tide gates are designed to carry existing canal capacity or 2 inches of
runoff in twenty-four hours. Sluice gates,.located'100 feet downstream of
the.dike at each canal, will provide almost complete control of freshwater
discharge into primary nursery areas. Volumes and rates exceeding desired
levels into the nursery areas through the sluice gates will be diverted by
the diversion outlet canal to Caffee Bay.
Costs: Total Project Cost - $3,890,150; PL 566 Share - $3,282,145, Other -
$608,005, Average Annual Cost - $206,800.
Effects: Installation of this alternative will provide flood protection
from the 25-year.frequency wind tide to the 8,002 acre project area,
including 5,150 acres of-cropland. Freshwater discharge into primary fin-
and shellfish nursery areas will be completely controlled by the sluice
gates, diversion outlet canal, and conservation easement/water storage
-12-
t
t
f
t
t
t
s
i
i
i
area. Controlled freshwater discharge will provide effective water manage-
ment capability for determining, through research and monitoring, the
optimum freshwater inflow in the Juniper Bay primary nursery area. Once
this optimum freshwater management level is determined, this alternative
provides the water management capability to maintain this level permanent-
ly. Approximately 117 acres of wetlands would be impacted by this alterna-
tive. Forty-one (41) acres of wetland types 7,8,12, and 17 would be
permanently lost, 44 acres would'be converted to open water, and 32 acres
would be temporarily disturbed during project installation. The annualized
net return of this alternative is $114,765, not including benefits to the
primary nursery area in Juniper Bay which, at the present state-of-the-art,
have not been assigned a dollar value.
-13-
ALTERNATIVE 4 - Dike, Tide gates., Conservation Easement Area
L? D
?... DRnecT
de?+ws?y
4-A./ p/'KE
1. --ft.,M /\ IF I

CEO QW&&*V*
izASso1E
A 1tEA
CFA
?r.es
fvw W&*T4Cw WATC01N[O
Wflr. ftwft/l*. "U&ff rr ear
IIMltlafNr
ww ...rr, Mows SAMELM,
Components: This alternative consists of 6.3 miles of flood prevention
dike, tide gates under the dike at existing canals, and a 762 acre
conservation easement/water storage area for water storage and management
purposes. Dike location basically parallels cropland areas but 762 acres
of woodland separate the dike and cropland to provide freshwater storage.
Twenty (20) tide gates will be installed under the flood prevention dike at
existing canals to discharge freshwater. Twenty-eight (28) gates will be
inside the dike along existing canals to facilitate existing farm drainage
outlets and water release into the conservation easement area. These gates
will remain open until water levels on the outside exceed the inside levels
at which time the gates will close to prevent backflooding. The tide gates
are designed to remove 2 inches of runoff from the project area in 24
hours, the present capacity of the existing canals. The conservation
easement/ wager storage area will function as a reservoir to store
freshwater discharge and reduce the rate of discharge into Juniper Bay.
Seven (7) 24-inch tide gates with flashboard risers will provide water
level control in the reservoir area..
Costs: Total Project Cost - $3,265,480; PL 566 Share - $2,931,770; Other -
$333,710; Average Annual Cost - $172,670.
Effects: Installation of this alternative will provide flood protection to
the 8,002 acre project area, including 5,150 acres of cropland, from the
25-year frequency wind tide. Freshwater discharge into primary fin- and
shellfish nursery areas will be partially controlled by the combined
effects of tide gates and the conservation easement area. The conservation
easement area will store up to one-half inch of runoff from the watershed
area, depending upon wind tides and rainfall. For example, the peak rate
of discharge into the primary nursery area from a 2 year, 24 hour frequency
1 14-

rainfall, when wind tide elevation is at 1 foot (NGVD), will be reduced by
twenty percent (20X) by this alternative. Installation of this alternative
would also provide some research potential on the study of freshwater
influence on primary nursery areas. Approximately 56 acres of types 7, 8,
and 12 wetlands would be impacted by this alternative. Approximately
twenty,(20) acres would be permanently lost under the dike, twenty-one (21)
acres would be changed to open water, and fifteen (15) acres would be
temporarily disturbed during project installation. The annualized net
benefit of this alternative is $116,915, not including benefits to primary
nursery areas which at present state-of-the-art, have not been assigned a
dollar value.

-15-
1
LEGE MD
?? PRp.TtGT
BouNa4RY
4V M ics
twin QUARTER WA7ERSME0
Irf/, fvAArtA, 001/rat OW 0Ar
awiarr«r
orM fif?1/, fMII fffftM
Components: This alternative consists of approximately 6.1 miles of flood
prevention dike located adjacent to cropland areas. Twenty-three (23) tide
gates will be installed under the flood prevention dike at existing canals
to discharge freshwater. The gates are designed to remove 2.5 inches of
runoff from the watershed area in 24 hours. Existing interior channels
will be improved to safely carry the runoff to the gates under the flood
prevention dike. Twenty-eight (28) flap gates will be installed along
interior channels at existing farm outlets to discharge farm drainage into
major interior canals and to prevent backflooding into cropland when water
levels in the interior canals are higher than those in the farm ditches.
Costs: Total Project Costs - $3,151,960; PL-566 Share - $2,984,399; Other
- $167,561; Average Annual Cost - $164,780.
Effects: Installation of this alternative will provide flood protection to
the 7,040 acre project area, including 5,150 acres of cropland, from the
25-year frequency wind tide. Fresh water runoff from the project area will
discharge directly into primary fin- and shellfish nursery areas. No
wetland values will be lost with this alternative. The dike is aligned
with the spoil from existing canals which cross the project area. Approxi-
mately 27 acres of type 7, 8, and 12 wetlands will be inside the dike. The
annualized net 'benefit to this alternative is $124,805.
-16-

i
1
t
f
1
1

f

t
t

Comparison of Candidate Plans
Alternative plans were compared in relation to various economic, social,
and environmental factors considered significant in the decision making
process. Either of these candidate plans could be selected as the recom-
mended plan, depending on project objectives, economics, environmental
impacts, social effects and other factors. The major project objective
identified by the sponsors is flood protection to cropland. Alternatives
2, 3, 4, and 5 accomplish this objective.
Economically, alternatives 3, 4, and 5 have positive annual benefits and
favorable benefit-cost ratios, computed at 3 1/4 percent interest rate.
Table B displays the adverse annualized cost of each candidate plan,
computed at the current discount rate of 8 1/8 percent interest..2/ The
recommended plan b:c ratio is 1:1 using 8 1/8 percent interest rate. At
the congressionally approved 3 1/4 percent interest rate, the b:c ratio is
1:7:1.
The scoping process identified two environmental factors as being paramount
in this area. They were impact to primary fin- and shellfish nursery areas
in Juniper Bay and the impact to wetland. Alternative 3 provides for total
control of freshwater into Juniper Bay nursery areas, using a 762 acre
storage area, sluice gates, and a diversion channel to Caffee Bay. Alter-
native 4 provides partial control of peak of slug flows, 3 to 50 percent
depending upon rainfall and wind tide conditions, by using a 762 acre
conservation easement or water storage area. Alternative 5 does not impact
wetland values and freshwater discharge points into Juniper Bay nursery
areas are not effected by this alternative.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, impact wetlands,' causing permanent losses to 14.5
acres, 41 acres, and 20 acres respectively. Approximately 405 acres of
wetland types 7, 8, and 12 (Circular 39, U.S. Fish and Wildlife) would be
inside the dike with alternatives 3 and 4, as part of the conservation
easement area. These wetlands would be under legal easement for a 50 year
period with alternatives 3 and 4. Approximately 9 acres of wetland will be
inside the dike in alternative 2. Fish and wildlife habitat would be
improved by land treatment in alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. In addition,
alternatives 3 and 4 would provide a 762 acre wetland wildlife habitat area
consisting of wooded swamps, bogs, and coastal shallow freshwater marshes.
Baseline-data and on-site investigations by N.C. Wildlife Resources Commis-
sion and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists indicate the two sus-
pected threatened and endangered species, the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) and the American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)
would not be detrimentally affected by alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5. There
is concern that alternative 2, with pumping. capability, could induce land
clearing and adversely affect available potential habitat of these two
species.

2/ Basis is Soil Conservation Service National Bulletin No. 390-3-24,
dated May 19, 1983.

-17-

Alternatives 3 and 4 improve the water quality of freshwater discharge into
the nursery area by using the 762 acre conservation easement area as a
natural filter and holding area. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and;5 improve
saline water quality problems on cropland with the dike and tide gates.
Pumped discharge from cropland directly into Juniper Bay primary nursery
area in alternative 2, has adverse effects on water quality due to the
increase in delivery rate into the nursery area, causing disruption to
critical salinity levels. Alternative 5 does not significantly change
water quality of freshwater from existing conditions.
Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 benefit 175-200 acres of locally important
cropland by preventing salt water leach from existing canals into adjacent
cropland areas.
Existing land use would remain basically the same under alternatives 2, 3,
4, and 5, less acreages converted to project structures. Conversion to
structures in alternative 2 converts 103 acres of woodland and cropland to
dike, pump stations, and spoil areas. Alternative 3 converts 101 acres of
woods and cropland to dike and spoil areas. Approximately 82 acres and 30
acres of woods and cropland are converted to dikes and spoil areas in
alternatives 4 and 5 respectively. Only limited areas of cropland are
converted in alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, and those, occur at the junction
of SR 1124 and the dike. Alternatives 3 and 4 provide stable land use for
762 acres of woodland in the conservation easement areas.
Visual resources in the project area are affected by alternatives 2, 3, 4,
and 5. Existing visual resources offer a variety of flat relatively large
areas of cropland, woodland, and marsh. Alternative 2 would introduce two
medium visibility, man-made structures (dike and pump station) as permanent
landscape features. Both could be seen from SR 1124. Alternative 3
introduces two low visibility man-made structures (dike and diversion
channel) as permanent landscape features. Alternative 4 introduces a
single low visibility man-made feature (dike). Alternative 5. introduces a
single medium visibility, man-made feature, a dike visible from SR 1124.
The use of TR 65 Procedures to Establish Priorities in Landscape
Architecture indicated no significant changes in visual resource ratings in
alternatives 3, 4, and 5.
Project Interaction
There are no presently known federal or non-federal projects,in this area
with which the West, Quarter, Double, and Bay project would interact..
Risk and Uncertainty
Risk affecting the realization of.proj,ect benefits is associated with the
frequency of flooding method of hydrologic analysis which was based on
historical flooding events. All of the alternatives were evaluated by the
frequency method. Benefits are based on reduction of flood damages.
Uncertainty in realizing project benefits was limited by projecting present
land use and yields over the 50-year life of the project. Current nor-
malized prices published by the Water Resources for fiscal year 1983 were
-18-

used in the evaluation of the alternatives. Costs were also based on 1983
prices.
Benefits and uncertainty would be increased by projecting continued in-
crease in acreages of truck crops.
Rationale for Plan Selection
Table B, Summary and Comparison of Candidate Plans, displays impacts of
each alt ernative plan. Evaluation of the table indicates that:
1. Alternative 1 does not address any of the project objectives or
concerns identified by the sponsors. Flood damages to cropland
caused by high wind tides will continue to occur. Approximately
175-200 acres of locally important cropland adjacent to existing
canals will continue to be unproductive due to lateral salt leach
from the canals. Freshwater discharges and "slug flows" from
existing canals into the Juniper Bay primary fin and shellfish
nursery areas will continue, adversely effecting production in
these areas.
2. Alternative 2 makes significant contributions toward meeting the
concerns of project sponsors. The dike will provide protection
to 5,150 acres of cropland from flooding and restore production on
175-200 acres of important cropland that have been made unpro-
ductive by salt leach through channel banks. Dike elevations are
designed to protect these areas from the highest known wind tide
elevations. Pumps will increase water removal and management
opportunities on 5,150 acres of cropland. Freshwater "slug flow"
into primary fin- and shellfish nursery areas in Juniper Bay will
be more frequent with pump discharges. The discharge will be
direct with no storage or filtration. Approximately 39 acres of
wetland types 8 and 12 will be affected. Fifteen (15) acres will
be converted to open water, 9 acres will be temporarily disturbed
during construction, and approximately 15 acres will be
permanently lost under the dike. Two permanent man-made
structures, the pump station on West Canal and the dike would both
have low visibility from SR 1124 and will have a moderate impact
or disruption to existing visual resources consisting of
relatively large, flat 'areas of cropland, woodland, and marsh.
Project investment is $9;143,875 with an annualized net loss of
$115,255. There is no support among local sponsors for an
alternative having pumps.as a project measure.
3 Alternative 3 makes significant contributions to sponsor object-
ives and multiple resource problems in the area. The dike will
provide flood protection to 5,150 acres of cropland and restore
production on 175-200 acres of important farmland that have been
made unproductive by salt leach from existing canals. Dike elev-
ations are designed to protect these areas from.the 25-year freq-
uency wind tide event. Alternative 3 provides complete and
manageable protection to primary fin- and shellfish nursery areas
in Juniper Bay, using a 762 acre conservation easement area as
-19-

n Y M
? O W
D G Y? tp1
! ? C
Y O
u p M
?
}
}?? v
0 p
y
® y •
i v a~ p
.
hi O d e
O
{
66 ppp
H ?
^.
n
W 11??
4
O Q
" M C4 qu
_ t
N .hi
•
{ y
O f
1 N
O? CO.
Q « pY e
?
M ? d V Y oy
:
,,, v ?
{~? M
" v 4 N i
N g O
p
w a a ?i u e p
W O W
r 9 VJ
.
p

M
ypO
PN.
V
i
° o
S
o v v fi1
1, a. ?&

Y .~
5 g644
Mmp
?
5 a
w -w 1"?I G M M C. .r
w Y M ?C Y
C F JC o
. O M C GGG.1 Y N p
M M
Y M i q ¦
C w O
4 Y
•f
.pl
« p
C
f
• tl
M
O
upM
w tle
3R Y M yr Y
d
m

B w
w O G
B a
i ¦
p
-
1 `w p P
r M v r
O O q+
u
C ,. ,w,

O
?

d M
v p i
4
v
y .
N
y
C
1
41 1
1 1
0 W
te
q
0 41
C
e
G i
M > A
H 1fl O 111
N, 1?/{? u V C >
.
4 ?
Y
O
R M
P d d 1 m?
?ui
~
q
w d d g N
a.
u ? N ?
O M
! f.
Y w
u
11m?.
. ? I v 14 y
1, .
VCpp
n1
? i
p
yy
p 1
+ 1d?
4j
y ?
. $
idQp A N
'
'1 p
Y
Yp 6 : y~y
M
?
4
a F
L p
• M .~i Ym p~
N N V i 'J T O W ?p
O
1? d Y1 a Q C
M O O
CV N Y
Q CJ h 'N N N e Q
¦
7 .
? _ N ? ? p r d
.. . V w L. N CO
C
q 8 Y V J r ?
? W t
h
q e
Ci 4
Mfi C
l
Y Y Y v
1
i v O
? M M O m w 'C, Y .
a
C
? O O
C
y9 W M
.Ci ? O
w O G 6 Y w V w M' N?
m m y CI O .1 C
/ ? C
X
.? d w .+ v N
Y ••+ Q
r d e - r 0 .+ M .1 'CL Y Y
d r ym
? O? N
pppp
D Y a Pq 1.1 ? ?
M ? p
Q
V N y
•
C
R g
p
Y ? Y q•
Y
i ? .+ o. L.

?[
•
L r
41
Y
Y
y
Gb
a

pppyyy<???
Q W
14
?
d Y W i v r1
j
7
e
m F> Y
..
?
ri p b
Y
O
t
?B
O m

N
M q CI y
11 p
8
1
b
ri
u Y .
a d d
r w 41 W
o
M b
N N-
O O {
,
Y N m

Y
1
H H u N.
m a 1rL n .
_
+ u
M a M« 1 v u
W .1
d .
u 1
. m M u w
u u
?
4,

N

I pp
yy
?
4
m
if
b: m rN 64
y
pp
~
~
Y 0
p
1
Y G t p
8
..

q V
f
N N

N C
A
N

N

e'1 J
y
qq
P. F L g p M W
1
a .
C Y
N .•1 U z i >+
O O
n u N1 > al A
Y. O m
IL, N Y c
O.

u
Od0 O C 1111 It

O
O
mw g d M N O P. Y
•/ O
m O p,
H e
C .•1 r
y O u
W W . .
m
O
D
O
O h
rl

N y
U'
d W
v r1 ..

- u
4m1 1q.
M Q. M
0
- u u pp,,
Y w d G 9 m
.+
W O> r 7 o .+
W m
O U a
M

W
D

H C?

;;

C Q
Op
WW
10
' t?1 M Y q? Cul
`4

M w O
CC
? Dg ?

q?
N
Y1
yN
j
M N' 41
- m O C W O N
M Y f.
t?'1
p M
. N
- r M
M
v d 1n d O O M
a
C
Y Y N m
w 7
my M 04 O _ .
p g
r
l w We
F
m
C
O
?
b
pu d
O
. 9 N
A N C?p n b v u F
c o
+
p 1+ I
y
,
C
b
y O C C
N Y V
W N co a i
W
.
N M M
O
_ u
u
a
• w
F CO ? 1®0 O
Y F 1
Y
N .+ d 1 .i
g
M u
d
• M 1y+ 0 m
W
C
7 b
? p 1~0 r
ui m m
• u O
r
i
r t~/ O C M

. Y
.
+ 0.
• d u .
m d 1 d1.. $ u m
O a
y
F N b m CC
. b P b
W A V U
• b N C Y
1 10 m B .-1
0
W:1 v O Y M M.
M r'
00 9 O
" m
m
v1 Y
O O 4
'
p
A
~ ?-p1 Q
W
q
. ??F
b
r.

m W an d 1+1 M a.p'CCI

1 ?
d
wl?u
r
Y

C

d
h

a

+?

C d r.- 7 Y O
Y
z
r C 41
m V. h N
Q
1
pp
d F
V
h
W
O
w b h
Y
Y > F .
i d
0
•
N= M F
M+ ~+ b b l Y
V F m W CI
in 1..
L
14
me W 4 g m d F .
m
Y p F
C
p
q ? •
.? .per
OF u O
m .
O O H
d
W? F M M
vl M> O W an d
M? v .? ? a M e
M a
+
F
p i! d m O
Cp/ m 4 p ?1
- 4
+
W W m r Y Y
r m
O+ C 10 w r d w Qi m Y d al d C1 3T.. < O .+ $ d m
_ ?+i u u
?
N
< - .,
•1
t
y
3
?
C1 NI k 14
u

NI
v
d

y OD -t

m H
E W NI
?? w OD m
(
y
) : o b
W
. W
I q
? q W r1 ~ N 9
W q
< i .+ .01 NI
M N>? m

q M N vpN

• F d

D C M

m W aJ Y

?
q
d
~ CI d "-
u4 d '
u W
6
W F ?W ,O
.'
1 !`-?!
l M F? . fY M M
e
a r
h eC
a '?1 v
7C z i ? e?i z is i
?1 rll NI

?n
t
1
f
f
1
1
1
1
t
t
t
t

O
v
N
O
i
is
cq ? a ?1 51 ? ? ?
G 1 O A V ¦Y A }$?
N °y y ,aky O Ye q ? ? 1p?? MMa Y On 0 ?y yy? y .yi L N
O ? • .1 N u ? Y • a W m O ? • ¦ A ? ? ? ?
F y > p i O G e j yp
ap p C y? Qp q1p M O¦ v? ? 1
r+ p O y
O 11 ii Y O it y Y» •? Y Y P? rl W N
M ! N? N Y• N?» Y K? N?• a?? M Y
e R p ?.A 1? O
» m
O y p a/ O d .? +? H y
H o 1 C n e M y ..?/ r v x
,? 111y1y????? G d ppp s p M
41
l ? w M M M » ? » ? ? Y tai Y?" O A O Y
+egj pp1 yYpy? VV yp »p 1 Y» 5 .N+ Y ?
M iL Q O w Y Q L ?0 N 00 M - - 1
?i '? M Ys ? ? O? 1
Nm
! Y H O W M Y?? ? s? ? ?
yy + 8
?p ?? $ r 8 1? QQ 1? 1{/t M ?p ?p"1 S ,? ??p
lil /ryj W • 111 • N 7 N M A 1/ IM A K M N » ..
W
» a A 1 O O
g .. » o
Y a? ? p?» y?~ M N y
wZ? 03? w ? ??S o ? ??
s? • .? t01 Y ?
°s Appp gds?3? fn;
d a ¦ 0 ¦ M a p a Ui j M Y ?1 Y }?? g a Y ?n

oll
G O 1
H O
N N N
s§ 94 d
N
M
N N N
N S N
PI
N N N
w
a 1 r?i m .'H? Q~ y A
w m .? y Ii
p OD O C .Tj S U V 1111 M y
L y ? a ? pb • u
M
M a A Y
y ?. a ? atlp "" F .+ g M N n
b q W ?ppQ H P? 1 pWm qgW ?p. th pa e+ ssU Q. ?1Pp N OD
in
M ell
w u V ypd1p? ye p O ?a rl p ?, 1 rl 1??f
Y O a W a U O in V $. H Y m" 2 8 D {J ypd y N N N
u W? M M p CCC y y .yy ?1.?1 Y
'yb9 OCQ puppl M N M 0O4! MOp1 a. r O 00 7
P4 O O a w p4 A PL y N t a u ..
0. W rl
F +°+ w P' 1Hpy p a d y
» M m U » Yi o F F M ¦ Y 6 N a .? "i
g?8 9e?owoui O°e1 m? ?C
a?a$ d'e? a9
w 4 m? mp. N .? a G d m C m d B a
? ."°? ?? o d d p y 10 ? ~ N vd .A1 1 1 1 1 0
I+ H .-1 1 1 1 1 N
y 'Q 2S
p ?V' b C .? p. ym M N 1+ ao7 pp ppQQ i ?. W 8 D ? W d m
Wp p Y m M
y m,? N O ? r a? C D W m v ? ,0 a? N O N m
bwiL Swwg9? ?N9 99< a PH.'wAO ?I
as aaN a as uAA sA-+ OV
[?yy e
8 ? N rl n
8I p, ? U
A ? b ` O q
ij` H ? ZZ Y d YO d "N a+
I O w Z p7 v Z G
» d (p? .. W 97 p p
q Py4 N t?J Y_? i O O > O O y
N Y a - A M m ZZZ 0~0 m u to @m@ a
_71_
from primary nursery areas, and sluice gates on each canal'to'
control the freshwater inflow into primary nursery areas. Unlim
ited research opportunities on effects of freshwater inflow to
primary nursery areas are available with this alternative. Tide
gates with flashboard risers provide water level control in the
762 acre easement area for wetland wildlife habitat management
and agricultural water management purposes. Easements will be
obtained to assure the use of this area for the 50 year life of
the project. This alternative would impact approximately 117
acres of wetland types 7, 8, 12, and 17, including the permanent
loss of 41 acres under the dike. Forty-four (44) acres would be
converted to open water and 32 acres temporarily disturbed during
construction activities. The diversion channel would empty into
Caffee Bay, a designated secondary, yet significant, fin- and
shellfish nursery area. There was a lot of adverse concern
expressed over the loss of wetlands and the impact to the Caffee
Bay nursery area associated with this alternative. Total project
investment in this alternative is $3,890,150 with net annualized
benefits of $114,765, excluding unquantifiable effects to primary
nursery areas. Local sponsors have indicated a willingness to
support this alternative and cooperate with state and federal
governments in efforts to benefit multiple resources of the area,
including agriculture and fishery resources. This alternative
was chosen over alternative 2 because of comparable net benefits
to agriculture, increased benefits to primary fin- and shellfish
nursery areas, and strong local support and cooperative attitudes
in benefitting multiple resources.
4. Alternative 4 provides the same benefits to project sponsors'
flood protection objectives as alternative 3. Flood protection to
5,150 acres of cropland from the 25-year frequency wind tide plus.
restoration of 175-200 acres of important cropland is provided`
for in this alternative. This alternative provides -partial con-
trol of peak rates of freshwater runoff (slug flows) into the
Juniper Bay primary fin- and shellfish nursery area. Depending on
the rainfall event and wind tide conditions, this alternative with
the 762 acre water storage/conservation easement area would reduce
the peak rate of freshwater discharge (slug flow). by 3% for the
1 year, 24 hour frequency rainfall event to 50% for the 25 year,
24 hour rainfall event. Discussions with N.C. Division of Marine'
Fisheries representatives indicate the partial control provided by
this alternative,` though unquantifiable, "should have a positive
benefit for the downstream primary nursery area.by reducing peak
freshwater inflows, especially during storm events.", This alter-
native's impact to wetlands "includes a permanent loss of 20 acres
of wetland types 7, 8, and 12 under the dike, 21 acres converted
to open water, and 15 acres temporarily disturbed during
construction activities. One man-made structure, the dike, would
have low visibility from area roads and a low impact to visual
resources of the area. Project investment for alternative 4 is
$3,265,480 with an annual net benefit of $116,915, excluding
unquantifiable benefits to primary fin- and shellfish nursery
areas. Alternative 4 was selected over alternative 3 for
having higher net benefits, reduced impacts to existing wetlands
-22-

t

i
1

u
t
r

while retaining a beneficial effect on primary nursery areas.
Alternative 4 is no longer supported by the local sponsors due to
the seemingly insolvable wetland-nursery area issue.
5. Alternative 5 provides the
alternatives 3 and 4, in th
from the 25-year frequency
land and restore production
cropland. This alternative
into the Juniper Bay primary
stalled in existing canals.
same level of flood protection as
at the dike will provide protection
wind tide event to 5,150 acres of crop-
on 175-200 acres of locally important
would discharge freshwater directly
nursery area through tide gates in-
No-water storage area for freshwater
runoff is provided due to the location of the dike adjacent to
cropland areas. Dike and tide.gate installation will require
added design features including an increase in the number of tide
gates to compensate for lost water storage capacity (provided by
762 acres.of conservation easement area in alternatives 3 and 4)
to assure adequate removal of agricultural runoff. Three
additional tide gates under the dike will be needed to remove the
freshwater that would be stored in the conservation easement area
in Alternatives 3 and 4. One man-made structure, the dike located
adjacent to cropland, will be highly visible from SR 1124.
Project investment for Alternative 5, including land treatment
costs of $80,255, is $3,151,960 with a net annualized benefit of
$124-,805. Local sponsors have indicated strong support!of this
alternative.. A.tremendous-amount of time, consideration, and
discussion among scoping participants has been,,spent on the
trade-off of wetlands. for benefits to primary.fin.and shellfish
nursery areas on this project. Alternative 5 will not cause a
loss of wetland values since the dike will be constructed-adjacent
to existing canals. and areas which-have been disturbed by spoil
.piles. Less than 2 acres of "transitional" wetland type 12 will
be disturbed by this dike alignment. These areas of coastal
shallow fresh marshes have been disturbed by previous canal and
farm dike construction activity. Vegetation usually associated
with type 12 wetlands has been altered by these disturbances to
the extent that woody species including pond pine and loblolly
pine has encroached in.these areas. Alternative 4impacts about
20 acres of wetlands as a permanent loss, but includes significant
:benefits to primary nursery areas by reducing the peak rates of
discharge, "slug flow", from 3 to. 50 percent (depending on
rainfall events and wind tide conditions) and inducing natural
filtration of runoff through the conservation easement area.
However, pre-project beneficial evaluation of the primary nursery
area of Juniper Bay is not achievable and has been so stated by
the most knowledgeable agency people in North Carolina. They have
also state that with total freshwater control (Alternative 3),
that they could demonstrate these values good,...bad, or neutral.
With less than total water management and no intensified
monitoring (Alternative 4), they could not qualify the effects,
but in their best judgement, the effects would be positive. The
local sponsors and SCS have-decided that, whereas, no more facts
or evidence is available to justify the effort for protecting the
primary nursery areas, and that we would not be successful in
achieving resolution of the wetland-nursery area issue without
-23-

greater support,
the conclusion is to develop Alternative 5 as the
recommended alternative.
RECOMMENDED PLAN
Purpose and Summary
This project is for flood protection in the West, Quarter, Double, and Bay
project area, Hyde County, North Carolina. The project will be implemented
under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act
(PL 566, 83rd Congress), as amended. Alternative 5 is the recommended plan
and will provide relief to 7,040 acres, including 5,150 acres of cropland
from flooding associated with high wind tides from the Pamlico Sound. The
recommended plan consists of a flood prevention dike with tide gates,
interior channel work, and land treatment measures to be installed and
maintained under the on-going soil and water district program. Dikes, tide
gates, and interior channel work will be installed by project sponsors on a
3 year schedule.
Plan Elements

The 6.1 miles of.dike construction will be for single purpose flood preven-
tion. The dike begins on the east side of the project area at the junction
of SR 1122 and Hydeland Canal on the existing spoil pile on the west side
of Hydeland Canal. The dike runs south along this existing spoil on the
western edge of Hydeland Canal for about 1800 feet to the junction of a
spoil pile from an existing ditch It then continues westward along this
spoil pile for about 1100 feet, turns southwest about 800 feet along the
spoil, turns again to the south for :about 2000 feet, and continues again to
the southwest for about 1500 feet to the spoil from Juniper Canal. From
Juniper Canal the dike continues westward for about 2000 feet to Honey
Canal where it turns north along the spoil from Honey Canal for about 120
feet. At this point it turns westwardagain and continues about 2100 feet
to the east side of East Double Canal. The dike then turns south and runs
along the east side of East Double Canal for about 1200 feet then turns
west to the west side of West Double Canal. It then turns and runs
.southwest for about 170 feet then west 500 feet and then south for about
1000 feet then west for about 1250 feet to the east side of Quarter Canal.
The dike then continues south about 600 feet along the west side of Quarter
Canal, then runs west 1900 feet, then west southwest about 1950 feet along
the spoil of an existing ditch then west about 200 feet to the west side of.
West Canal. The dike goes north along the spoil on the west side of West
Canal for about 150 feet. The dike continues west northwest for about 800
feet to the spoil on the east side of Berry Canal-at the junction of Berry
Canal and Commissary Ditch. It then follows Commissary Ditch, for about
1500 feet. The dike then turns north for about 450 feet then runs west
northwest about 1200 feet then north 550 feet then continues west northwest
2200 feet to the spoil on the west side of Commissary Ditch. It then turns
south along thespoil of Commissary Ditch for about 500 feet. It then
turns west.for 3400 feet then northwest about 600 feet then north about 780
feet to the centerline of SR 1124. See Project Map for exact location.
-24-

The nonstandard special desi$n, dike is to be constructed to an elevation
of 5.7 feet NGVD with special breach sections constructed to 5.0 feet NGVD
located between the outlet gate locations (see project map). Soil and
water conditions make it impractical to compact the dike with equipment.
It will, therefore,,be necessary to use dumped fill. Allowance has been
made in estimating volume of fill material to account for settling, and
construction is planned to allow for settlement by scheduling construction
during the third year of installation to restore sections of dike that have
settled below elevation 5.7 feet NGVD. The dike will be constructed with a
"sand cap" at least 2 feet deep. Material for dike construction will be
taken from a continuous borrow area inside the dike. Most of the material
y will come from existing channels.
W Dike and tide gate installation will be done in a manner that minimizes the
impact on wetlands. The dike is to be installed where possible on existing
spoil with borrow being obtained from existing channel adjacent to the
dike. Minimum clearing will be used inn dike construction. The top of the
dike wall serves as a travelway for access and maintenance to minimize land
area required for installation. Disturbed areas, including the dike, will
be established with vegetation providing erosion control and wildlife food
and habitat to minimize adverse effects.
A total of 57 tide gates will be installed in the project area. Twenty-
eight (28) tide gates will be installed under the channel dikes along
Hydeland, Honey, Double, Quarter, West, and Berry Canals at locations where
farm drainage enters the canals. These gates will remain open to discharge
farm drainage until water levels in the canals exceed the levels in the
farm drainage ditches and to allow water to flow to the outlet gates.
Then, the gates will close to prevent backflooding. Twenty-three (23) tide
gates will be installed under the flood prevention dike at existing canal
locations. These gates will remain open to discharge freshwater until
water levels outside the dike force Ithe gates closed. Six (6) tide gates
will be installed under US 264, at locations of existing pipes, to prevent
water from flowing into the project area during high wind tides (see
project map). Dikes located parallel to Juniper, Honey, Double, Quarter,
West, and Berry Canals will be installed to increase the capacities of each
channel and prevent flooding caused by rainfall runoff from cropland above
2.5 feet (NGVD). These dikes will provide sufficient elevations in the
channels to deliver excessive runoff to the outlet gates under the dike.
The access road to the existing boat landing on Quarter Canal will be
ramped up across the dike and any necessary road crossings built across the
borrow ditch in order to maintain the existing boatlanding access.
Area and field office records indicated needed land treatments, including
forestry measures, in the project area have been installed through the
on-going soil and water conservation district program and the N.C. Division
of Forestry. These applied land treatment measures include conservation
cropping systems, crop residue management, cover crops, field borders, main
and lateral ditches, wildlife habitat management, and on-farm waterfowl
management measures. Operation and maintenance of these practices are
provided by local landusers with technical assistance from the local soil
and water conservation district.
-25-
v
4
44
3 0

U
H Q
H
Q
3
O
R'

? N

Q

d
Zi
w
x
m
Q
w
0
2
O
H _
H
U _
W

C?

U

w -

C.7
f-r
w
O

-26-
t
I Permits and Compliance
¦ Requirements for permits and other entitlements under federal policies have
s been satisfied for the current phase of planning, as indicated in Table<C.
Local sponsors, the Hyde County Commissioners` and Pamlico Soil and Wate=r
Conservation District supervisors, will be responsible for securing all
applicable permits from federal, state, and local permitting and regulatory
agencies. Local sponsors will also be responsible for filing an erosion
and sedimentation; control plan 30 days prior to commencement of land
disturbing activities as per the N.C. Sedimentation and Pollution Control
Act of 1973, as amended.
Easements on those properties required for the dike and other structural
placements will be obtained by the project sponsors prior to signing.the
project agreement.
Costs

Total installation cost is estimated to be $3,151,960. The share of this
cost to be provided by the PL 566 funds is $2,984,399 and the share from
other funds is $167,561.
Construction costs ($2,281,650), including an allowance for contingencies,
were estimated on the basis of prevailing costs in the area and information
obtained from manufacturers or suppliers of tide gates, and supplies that
will be needed in construction. Installation costs include: (1) an
allowance.for installation services ($684,495) necessary for final design,
foundation investigations, layout, inspection, and all overhead costs for
installation of structural measures; (2) estimated local costs of adminis-
tering contracts ($48,200); and (3) estimated easement and right-of-way
costs ($57,360).
Easement and right-of-way costs include the estimated cost of land-for the
dike, and other structural placements. These costs were based on recent
land sales. in the area.
The sharing of installation costs of structural measures is $2,966,145
(94.7%) from PL 566 funds and,$167,561.(5.3%) from other funds-.
Local sponsors will be responsible for contracting for the needed project
measures.
Installation and Financing
Area and field office records indicate the land treatment measures have
been applied in the project area. To assure effective operation and
maintenance of applied land treatment measures, field office personnel will
continue to assist project area landusers as part of the district's on-
going assistance program.

Installation costs of structural measures to be borne by the Federal
Government will be furnished by the Soil Conservation Service under pro-
visions of PL 566. Financial and technical assistance to be furnished by
the Soil Conservation Service in separate contract (or contracts) negoti-
-27-
4
J

3
r7 H
W :D
E+ 41
+O1 rd
41 U
?
z m
w

U W
P4 o
P• z
P.
w
cPd
CO W
O pq
H
w W

H ;H
cn

O A
U C+.
pq 3

6
H ,-i ..C
}4
?O

3
'. a H
1$4 4J
.?
O'
41
) P
3 m
0
i d'
a
a0 H .d.
"
aa?aaaa.. a as as a 0 .0 o
u u u u U :U a u a u u a u u 4) u G U it
*-? ? w co ? ds cd ? .n cd ? cd cd cd
o cd
a
4 cd a ? tw
.
•ri •ri •ri *H -H cd •r-i
cd "4 *H
0 ooH -H 44 ri C W p cd
W r 4 r-4- ra r-4 r-4 r-I a r-i u r-i r-l U r? ri' U r-I P. a 0 41
U P. a a a a P. ?+ a •ri a ?} •ri a s -H R.

1 u -.2
m

ca
o 0 0 0 0 o 7
6 10ao o w o o a o 4-1
•
?
-i

UUU PAUP.UU0.UU?U
4 -4 4 0 r
r
„P.
N 41
?

r-4 rl r-i ,r.i ri ri r-1 r-I r-I r-i r-i ri
Oo
a a a
i
•ri a
i
H
r-1 r-I r-i r-i r r-i " r i 4J rl r-I iJ r-j r-i JJ r-I cd iJ H H
o 0 P P P P P o P o P P o P 0 0 P 41 cd 41 P
U W W W W WP4Z44ZN4N,Zr74P4ZN m a N U
v i
-+ H
a P. a
p ° u
d
i +
?+ ?
H r?i P+ ? a

Cd r4
1-4 d
+J 4°
a •
v a

4-1 41 u r.,
a 41 41
H c
o
-r-4
° a
tr C • w 41 c
d z p,
N N
co R O
co c
o a W
. 10
r?
a U
i
a
iJ JJ 0 q N N u
v a
`? ti
?
N 41 4) 41 0
a
i
ccdd
0)
9
0
0) d
.. aJ .. .? w w 41 .0 iJ H H
w ca to p ca a •ri
0
° -H 10. 4J 44 0
w a .?
... • O a r-1 m a V
' rl Q. ?.
4) 1J a. O a H
-It ?'?` ^'a O a '0) H •C 4 10
a U CA
u 44 rn 41
1-4
4i 0 • a 9 41
U .. ?" a cn .. 1C r 44 P
.. u- 4j 4) CF) 4J W 0 41 4J
Cn rA ? w 0 ?
10. i
0 • r 4-4
H yJ O iJ

M C14 r- -4 to
?.O a O 1J ?O • M -It N a s H a
-? H a v+ W U U ^ ?t ^ 4J H -H' 0 a
^ aJ a s • • JJ • v 4 a -H H 0 a H a aJ
^ r` V. ^ c? CO) W U cn U• U a Q 0 o m ci
•ri

C?
Na
? 14
ra
uIULn aJ JJaO
'cn a J aJ a v' 0
a s ' cn 4J P H 0 a -H a a P w
..a
Ln r.. r.c .0 .7 '0 - $4 ' O a o cV cd 93 r-i r4 : H •ri
OC 0 w w ri -4 CO r`D •ri -4 r-I iJ P. .n to
0 -4 •r'i • rl r-1 %0 ;3 ? w -W - r? to ?n
w Cd O iJ
•ri iJ u M N ^ .-a w 41 CV rl M 0 • cd O 0 O 41 a r'
+J . P . to C14 +J iJ "U l'. O a u 'CL •ri U 4-4 U a
0U'iCn-4r1 u w U P• w? ?? • 41 'J a
% 0 cd ?
D . r-1 +J s? cd : w 1J a to a -H -ri J-
H cn o U cn " u • H
- E3 0 ro cd 14 i:." a ?+
.-
a W U U r. 4"0 ci U W FD •r I o •rl
cn %,0 • . O '0 '4 00 ?+ J}1 •rl a
a H 1-4 En cn -H p P b .o 0 O H •ri 4J 4J Q'
H N a +J O W cd 0 o r-? •rl •ri
4 41

U ^ 3 u %O \-O H CO o U r-I td M rq 4J x N •• U .1-1 P. O
4-1 10 Q. -4 r-r u 0 •H H O > M u •rl a • {".. > O z
p a r-i a •ri LJ W W H ro <C H u ?o a H
04 H
O
?
-
w
?
G 0 0 r. P.
s
J
i
"
r
l (A 1
a
;> N 4 N •H: N .. P
. ..
m a a a u u u o H a cd a u H O U iJ •rl
44 a CO
a
•rl p b 0 d C, u O a 04 41 H d G a m 0 E
r-i a U ri
x cd a s a U in P W O D m 9
cd cd a cd >`i t~ .G a
w G) U) 'ri M -4 •ri a ?i r-i cd 4 cd
10 U) CO 4)i o o N O r4 H U H aJ P4 - r H O P.10 •ri u
c!)
a or. CO 0 •ri Mi H 4-1 U 'O 9: •ri O U
iJ cd U ,J W •
0
i -H 0 H
U
H P.' P. U i~ ri b •ri

•ri r
.
,
a.
w 'U Z a U r+ H aJ H 0 sH iJ •A a
O 'H 4-1 CO
ri 0 P.
Q a
i~ r-i bo
P. G
U r_I iJ Qr p., a H -0 a U •rl +J cd O r. 10 U a cd J? 0 •ri a H
•ri a` u a cn iJ a r_i {J a> N W H a H 10 •ri a 'H U Cd Q G
r-i u <4 H G 0 LJ •ri cd iJ 0 •rl W u O r-i +J 41 bo O ? r-4 (:+
O -H a O b H co 3 3 0 w w b cn r-i •ri H CO P. b P• 1 N
W WH+JN a W 3 H G'0 a 0 a 0+J a O x or-I
0 -H CO H 10 b W r-i rl a s 10 J w ? W to p Z N z 'P
r-I rl C. 3 r-I a p, r-I i~ ?'.. cd cd C
•ri -
CO 9
o cd to HCO CO cd a i~ r.. W :v) cd iJ
H a q iJ g CO .y :H t. 0 0 H H P
a .0 cd cd V) cd P a .0`1b •rl "A "•H a s 'O U a u b
b u a a fd 10 dJ 10 cA H"
4
J D 41 r--I a
a

w ?w.
.. •d
H u
,-i r•I 0 ,0 to a •ri cd .. .V '•wr/i cd •ri m
?UUU W WP
Wra z
33w \

41
4
z W -
-28-
f

at.ed for and administered by the project sPonsors in such manner as to
insure the proper functioning of structural measures as designed. Engi-
neering services necessary for installation of structural measures will be
furnished by the Soil Conservation Service under provisions of PL 566.
Funds necessary to cover organizational expenses and local sponsors share
of installation costs will be provided by the sponsoring organizations, and
the Hyde County Commissioners. The commissioners will use assessment
procedures to acquire funds for their costs. All necessary funds will be
on-hand and available by the time construction is started. It is antic-
ipated that easements can be purchased for reasonable prices or donated by
individual landowners. Local sponsors will have power of eminent domain
sufficient to insure acquisition of necessary easements and rights-of-way.
Because of the interrelationship of structural measures in accomplishing
project objectives, all necessary easements and rights-of-way,will be
acquired, or their acquisition assured by local sponsors, before starting
any construction.
Installation of structural works of improvement will be performed under
coptracts.administered by the project sponsors. Alteration, reconstruction
or replacement of privately owned road crossings affected by proposed
structural measures will be performed under contract administered by
project sponsors. The project sponsors will negotiate with the North
:,Carolina State Highway Commission for changes to be made-to public roads,
culverts or bridges.
Structural measures will be installed by the.project sponsors within a
three-year period. The following sequence will be followed in installing
structural measures:
First Year -- Secure landrights and easements. Detail design and con-
struction drawing will be prepared for contract purposes.
Second Year -- Dike construction with needed tide gates.
Third Year -- Rebuild all settled portions of the dike.
The schedule of gations is shown in Table D.
fund obli
-29-

TABLE D
Schedule of Obligations
West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the
Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan, North Carolina
YEAR MEASURES PL
6
U
'
5
6 F
NDS OTHER
FUNDS TOTAL FUNDS
1st Landrights - $57,360 $ 57,360
Design $ 226,400
$ 226,400
2nd Structural $2,281,650 $-40,700 $2,322,350
3
d
r
Structural $ 458,095 $ 7,500 $ 465,595
$2,966,145 $105,560 $3,071,705
The Hyde County Commissioners will be responsible for securing all permits,
including the section 404 dredge and fill permit (Clean Water A ct of 1977,
PL 95-217) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and any other applicable
permits from state and local permit and regulatory agencies.
h
N
h C
l
T
e
ort
aro
ina Department of Cultural Resources indicated no signifi-
cant cultural resources existed in the project area. If cultur al resources
are discovered during construction activities, the Secretary'of the
Interior will be notified in accordance with Public Law 93-291.
Approximate action to protect and/or recover the resource will be taken by
the Soil Conservation Service in. accordance with procedures des cribed in 7
CFR 656.
Operation and Maintenance
Land treatment measures will be maintained by land users in accordance with
their individual conservation plans and agreements with the Pamlico Soil
and Water Conservation District. The N.C. Division of Forest Resources
will furnish technical assistance for maintaining forestry measures. The
on-going Cooperative Forestry Assistance Program will provide this service.
Structural measures to be maintained by sponsors include 2.9 miles of
channel inside the flood prevention dike, 2.9 miles of channel dike (both
sides), 6.1 miles of flood prevention dike, 57 tide gates, and one boat
access area. Cost of operation and maintenance will be paid with funds
raised through assessment of landowners within the project area. Average
annual cost of operation and maintenance is estimated to be $39,670, which
includes replacement costs.
The dike will be mowed annually to maintain a good stand of vegetation and
to control weeds. Fertilization will be performed as necessary to maintain
a soil fertility level adequate for good plant growth. Special attention
will be given the vegetative cover and any erosion problems on the side of
the dike which is exposed to open water (Pamlico Sound side) and any
damages will be repaired immediately. Dikes will be maintained to design
elevation at all times.
-30- . I

P
Tide gates will be checked periodically for debris which may block the
intake end and for proper functioning of the gates and risers to assure
desired opening and closing at appropriate times.
Annual interior channel maintenance will consist of controlling vegetative
growth along and adjacent to channel bottoms to assure channel carrying
capacity. It will be necessary to remove some debris from channels after
major storms. It is also likely that a dragline will be needed to dip-out
silt from all channels in the system on the average of once every 15 to 20
years.
Annual inspections of all structural works of improvement will be made by
the project sponsors. Additional inspections will be made by the sponsors
after each major storm to determine the condition of structural works and
to estimate immediate maintenance needs. The sponsors will prepare a
report for each inspection performed and furnish one copy to the Soil
Conservation Service. They will also maintain a record of all maintenance
work performed and make such records available for review by the Service.
The State Conservationist has designated an employee of the Service to
assist in the annual inspections and to see that maintenance is performed
according to agreements..
Specific operation and maintenance agreements, developed using the National
Operation and Maintenance Manual as a guide, will be executed between the
sponsors and the Soil Conservation Service prior to ;issuance of invitation
to bid for construction.
EFFECTS OF RECOMMENDED PLAN
Throughout the planning process, a wide range of economic, environmental,
and social factors have been identified and evaluated as to their signifi-
cance in the decision making process. Table E, displays the effects of the
recommended plan on resources of principal national recognition.
Two major environmental concerns which surfaced at the numerous scoping
?- meetings are adverse impacts of freshwater discharge into primary fin- and
shellfish nursery areas of Juniper Bay and adverse impactsto U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Circular 39 wetland types 7 (wooded swamps), 8 (bogs), and.12
(coastal shallow fresh marshes). After developing several alternative'
approaches in an effort to minimize the adverse effects to nursery areas
and wetlands, it was apparent that either wetlands or primary nursery areas
would be adversely impacted by the project. Continuing consultations with
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, and
others verified the environmental impacts would be severe to wetlands if
water management measures were installed to protect primary nursery areas
and conversely, that in order to minimize impact to wetlands, primary
nursery areas would be adversely impacted by direct discharge of freshwater
into Juniper Bay nursery areas.
The recommended plan will cause no loss of wetland values. The dike
alignment is such that dike construction will be on spoil or other
disturbed areas of existing canals which presently dissect the project
-31-
ao
w
o 41 •H
P4 4J )°d
41
U
O O 0
?H ?41
-F-I a) i•+
a z
o
?i w cn p
w? coa
pq
00 v ?
Ua, d cd
w z ai
H p
P I 1.1
0 a)
O A
, d
cn H w 3
`tea a?i +
41 4)
44 pr4 P 4J
W o co P
1 Off'
W «)
1-4
E-+
•
cd

.
• d
ar 41 W ai
3 60
W q 1J
o
u` 14 a. 10 o ?
u r-i
LW W w w aJ c
d
44 o p W r-1
o a) a

0 u
H ? r-I
•
` q Cd d co
?
.0 9 0) U :> .
0) a, Cd T--i 14 -H 41
to 0) 'o . g
cc 44 10
d lad '
;
ro d u u ca Oo c cd W
a) a) •b W a) a) a) v a) W p W H a!
H w 0" 44 u a W w Cd 41 14
:3 w c* -H w p 41 w w al p ,-? 4J p, ..
a! ar a a) ar p u 3
co ) c
d
ar O OWO F'. 14 00 $4r-4 00 0
z za+z w4+ zz a a zz z

aJ 1 d W
T-I 0 FA 10

H h C ° -I
-I
• O
o W ; Q' r
I ,-
i 0 -4 N
41
-4
Cd a) r
w
3
•H
r-i
9 CO
W
W p u
N
y
p ?
M o ? -4 u
?
H 1 o
0 .. W 11 p aJ a) Oo p
ci cn O. cd u -H u •• d ° v PI
-4 co
4 C) -H 0
P4 `r7 () •• r-I O Co a) " (n •rl
w W C?1 p P. p d m 0 Cd jJ N
H 0 -4
tr z Cd
ca -:t a+ ON . .b • •
.
0 iJ a) r-1 {J O 41 U w 0 a) M ?.r w
0 ? Cd O cd 0) -4 '...1' .= M O 4J i N
4 10 .-a W
r. r-4 rn
4+ " u
1 aJ cn O a - f H 4 H a ^ V'
Cd 10 LJ .t N 10 v • -W o bo i*_ O. a)
z 0 0- 4-3 (a >`+ w W U :J 0 r- 4
.- W W
u-r a) a) u 0
q . ? iJ O ao w
00 P bo a -H
iJ ON O
r-1 M 44 a) iJ
0 cd C.)
a) U -% ow '
0 o
. 0 a)
W ON U
? {
w
W W cd U) a) .-1 a) t .-r U w a 0 -94 O ;-, iJ 04 .-4
a) Cd p • •r1 M 4-4 a) -H .fl 0 a) u n
U ld ;D U Lrl •rl W p p H p H ;>% +J P C, U N

O U Q) --i Cn • H a) is W b b W H r-i . 14 a) al
c .94
o 3 a) p" O p p 41 i u
x Pa
u N
.-1 s + N b a) co .o
c a) 0 p c
d -H " a) 3 cn
co •ri ' a) > + b .O 'J r-I a 0 a r-I co
D
b
P6 4) r-i 10 a) ?3
g co 0 r:3
a
O 3
u U) a a b r
c
d 4)i f-q •U + 44 Cd cd
p d •o
ci
r d o C
z
d .y.a
U
u
c W Ig cd ,-? 4 a)
+- u •rl w
w
W r-
`V
I ro
•rl a) a) Cd Cd 10 •i W c» 0 +J 0 o' O r.a F3 a) a) U r-4 %-,?
1a r-i 0 p -H N cd w r-1 'n' rl
Pk Q U w- W w z u w 3

W •ri Ol
r4 rq
3 a! 4J

W W v

U a, •d +J. o v

o o 4) H ? w
:
W U 4J .0 r., p
(D ca Cd co a)
04 p z 4) 4 p co >
c
41 :J
44
H
44 r-i
4 CO
W
o
W
?'
O 4J
o
4J : a)
U N •r1 •ri O U
W •r1 b rn r-1 • U a, •ri
aJ •

q J+ Cd 41 i r. G ? • a u
El ? PA
H
3
W
d -H co W
• c
d
co ccdd ro Cd
r-1. 4-4, O W U •rJ H U p .'y W 10
co
p
-H
O U bo
p, •?
cd
cr
10
d
1 c
4 9
a p
=
p
c
d
4
Cd . o 4J ? N r? •0
it a) jJ b .U W O W •ri 4J iJ r-1
d w
w w w a 3 3 3

r

1
r
T
i
r
a
t
t
t
r
r
r
e

s
t

1
area. Less than 2 acres of transitional type 12 wetlands will be disturbed
by the dike alignment. These acres are "transitional" due to previous land
disturbing activities including canals, farm dikes, spoil 'areas, and
previous land use changes to pasture.
Freshwater runoff from the watershed area will continue to be discharged
into Juniper Bay at the same discharge points (existing canals),' and at
basically the same rate of discharge as existing conditions. Therefore,
installation of the recommended plan will not change impacts on primary
fin- and shellfish nursery areas in Juniper Bay from present conditions.
During the scoping process, visual resources were evaluated using TR-65
procedures. Although not a major concern, impacts to the flat and rela-
tively broad cropland,,-woodland, and marsh landscapes were determined to be
low with the recommended plan due to location, visibility from public
places, and design.
Installation of the project will have an immediate beneficial impact on the
local economy. The project will raise the level of farm income. Reduction
of flooding will not only reduce crop losses but also reduce the large cash
outlays by farmers to repair the land damages resulting from high wind
tides in the Pamlico Sound-
The recommended plan will provide annual floodwater damage reduction
benefits of $289,585 on 7,040 acres of land in the project area. Approxi-
mately 5,,150 acres of this will be cropland, 1,756 acres of woodland, and
134 -acres in miscellaneous uses including roads, canals, farmsteads`, and
single family houses. The dike will provide protection from the 25-year
frequency wind tides from the Pamlico Sound. Remaining flood damages from
..wind tides exceeding the 25-year level and from rainfall within the dike
amount to $67,565 annually.
Approximately 175-200 acres of cropland have gone out of production due to
salt leaching from existing canals out onto and through adjacent cropland.
Annual wind tide events prohibit land reclamation efforts on these acres
due to.the required long-term treatment period.
Approximately 30 acres of dike and disturbed areas will be re-established
with vegetative cover, providing erosion control and wildlife "edge effect"
habitat for various wildlife species including deer, rabbit, and bobwhite
quail.
Tide gates installed through the dike at each canal outlet are sized to
handle the present channel capacity at each respective location. These
,gates will provide for continuation of existing agricultural drainage from
the project area during normal or below normal water surface elevation
outside the diked area. Tide gate installation will not improve water
removal capability from inside the diked area at above normal water surface
elevations outside the dike. At these times, cropland flooding from direct
precipitation can be expected to occur.
The long-range impact of the project will be greater than the immediate
effects. The Overall Economic Development Program from Hyde County recog-
nize the potential for "more diversification of crops and livestock so as
1 -33-

to consume the grain grown in the county." It also points up opportunities
for increased acreages of commercial vegetable crops. Both of `these are
d
inclu
ed,in the,long-range.objectives,of the Program. They would-contrib?
ute materially to a more stable local economy. The Program further'recog-
nizes that a prerequisite to accomplishing these objectives is improved
water management and flood protection.on a watershed-wide basis. The
following is quoted from the Overall Economic Development Program for Hyde
County:
"Two.major phases of water management are of vital importance to the
agricultural economy of Hyde County. They are water table control
- and. flood prevention."
"
.There is a need for extensive studies and plans to be prepared for
the reduction:of storm damages if any progress toward economic
improvement is expected."
Very little additional land in the watershed is suitable, or would be made
suitable for production of crops, by the project. Any improvement in farm
income will have to come from more efficient use of the existing `cropland.
Soils of the watershed, when protected against hazards of too much water,
are well suited to production of vegetable crops on a commercial scale.
One of;the more successful farmers in Hyde County has, for many years,
devoted a large portion of.his farm to production of high quality vegetable
crops. In another nearby.area of the county, large scale commercial truck
crop farming was in operation for several years. It was abandoned in 1963
,,.because of repeated heavy losses from too much water which could not be
efficiently managed. Principal truck crops were corn and celery. This
operation demonstrated advantages to the local economy through diversifica-
tion and providing employment to local low income families.
Many farmers in the watershed are aware of the potential advantages of
commercial vegetable production. However,. because of the difficulty of
envisioning adequate protection against flooding caused by frequent high
wind tides, they were not willing to-make commitments on changing farm
operations to expand this enterprise. At the same time, though, they
expressed the feeling that once adequate protection is demonstrated, there
will be a trend.toward diversifying farm enterprises to include commercial
vegetable production on a significant scale. I 11 - Since farmers would not commit themselves at this time, no account was
taken of this potential in the economic.appraisal of the project. Local
leaders, including professional.agricultural workers, feel that installa-
tion of the,project,will ultimately result insignificant acreage of land
,being shifted from -corn, -soybeans and small grain to commercial vegetables.
This thesis is supported by-an abundance of suitable land, available local
labor, and nearness to large markets. This change will make a major
contribution toward relieving local chronic unemployment problems as well
as increasing net farm income. Per capita income in Hyde County continues
to be behind North Carolina and the United States. In 1980, per capita
income-for the United States was $9,480, North Carolina was $7,780, and for
Hyde County $5,256.
-34-

Total average,annual benefits are estimated to be $289,585. Of this
amount, $263,260 are flood prevention and $26,325 are secondary benefits.
Flood prevention benefits will accrue as a result of reduced flood damage
and more intensive land use. Secondary benefits will accrue to processors
and handlers as a result of increased income.
Flood Prevention.benefits ($263,260) include $3,670 flood damage reduction
benefits to roads and bridges, $6,075 to forestland,,$246,455 to crop and
pasture, $6,085 to other agricultural property, and $975 indirect benefits.
The. average annual cost of,planned structural works of improvement, includ-
ing.annual operation and maintenance cost, is estimated to be $164.780.
average annual benefits excluding secondary benefits are
Estimated
,
$263,260. This gives a benefit-cost ratio of 1.5 to 1.0. Average.annual
secondary benefits are $26,325, which gives an overall benefit cost ratio
of 1.8 to 1.0 (Table 6).
Relationship to Land and Water Resource Plans, Policies,- and Controls
a drains into
t
l
r
are
ement projec
ter, Double, and. Bay Supp
The West, Qua
Juniper. Bay. The North CarolinaDivision of Marine Fisheries (NCDNR&CD)
has designated Juniper Bay as a primary fin- and shellfish nursery.area.
In addition, the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Land Use Update for
Hyde County, places high priority on the protection of estuarine waters,
coastal wetlands. The recommended plan is, consistent with these desig-
nations and priorities in that no wetland values will be lost.,
CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The initial scoping meeting for the West, Quarter, Double, and Bay-Supple-
ment was held on November 14,1979. Alternative 5, the flood prevention
dike with tide gates, located adjacent to cropland was presented to the
scoping participants. Issues and concerns surfacing at this meeting
included the effects of the project on induced clearing, slug flows, and
wetlands.. Considering the scope and environmental implications, it was
act
l im
t
i
p
a
ronmen
agreed that an environmental assessment in lieu of an env
statement would be sufficient if pumps were not involved.. Those attending
at this meeting included representatives from:
U.S. Department of Agriculture (SCS)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Forest Service
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
Division of Environmental Management (NCDNR&CD)
Division of Soil and Water Conservation (NCDNR&CD)
Office of Coastal Management (NCDNR&CD)

-35-

Consultations with U.S. Geological Survey in November, 1980 indicated salt
damages to 'cropland was being caused by lateral seepage from existing
canals which are subject to saltwater intrusion. In March, 1981, consul-
tation with'U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, indicated the two suspect
threatened and endangered species in the area did not exist in the project
area and that Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act had been satisfied.
Follow-up field examinations of the project site by N.C. Wildlife Resource
Commission biologists confirmed the project would have no effect on the
American Alligator and the Bald Eagle.
On Thursday, December 18, 1980, a public meeting with local landowners was
conducted to discuss various alternative approaches and to inform local
landowners of estimated protection levels, costs, and other project partic-
ulars. Local people reviewed legislation concerning the formation of a
special service district for purposes of obtaining needed local funding
through assessments.
1
1
5

During interim periods, engineering and design features were finalized for
.current alternative 6 (dike and-gates adjacent to cropland). A scoping
meeting was held July 29, 1981 to evaluate original concerns in relation to
the more finalized stage of project development. Basic environmental
issues were resolved. The supplement was completed and in March, 1982, the
West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Environment Assessment was completed with a
recommendation for .a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
In June, 1982, the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
indicated that nocultural resources were known to exist in the project
area and recommended that no archaeological investigation be conducted.
Due to developments during the spring and summer of 1982, involving the
Governor's Coastal Water Management Task Force, a different approach was
proposed. This approach was the displayed alternative 3, and was designed
to provide flood protection and to protect primary fin- and shellfish
nursery Areas in Juniper Bay. On September 1, 1982, a scoping session was
held in Swan Quarter, N.C. to display the new concept and to `solicit issues
.and concerns. Results of this meeting were as follows:
1. An Environmental Impact Statement would be necessary due to far-
reaching implications
2. Serious concerns over wetland losses.
3. Serious concerns over the need for diversion canals.
Those attending this meeting included local landowners and representatives
from the following agencies and organizations:
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture (SCS)
National Marine Fisheries
Division of Soil and Water Conservation (NCDNR&CD)
Division of Environmental Management (NCDNR&CD)-
Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDNR&CD)
Office of Coastal Management (NCDNR&CD)
I

r
t
r
e
_36-

N.C. State University
Hyde County Commissioners
Pamlico Soil and Water Conservation District
National Wildlife Federation
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
During the interim period, from September, 1982 to January 20, 1983,
various proposals were evaluated and steps taken to minimize major concerns
,and evaluate benefits? to .primary fin and shellfish nursery areas. Close
coordination and cooperation "among participating agencies and the local
residents led to the development of the displayed alternative 4: with a
`'single diversion canal, dike, tide gates, conservation easement'area,
sluice gates and:the water management capability to provide total fresh-
water management of inflow into primary nursery areas.
On January 20,11983, a scoping meeting was conducted on this alternative
with joint sponsorship between the local organizations (Hyde County.Commis-
sioners.and Pamlico Soil and Water Conservation District) and the State of
North Carolina; Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
(NCDNR&CD). This-meeting displayed exact locations, wetland acres,'cost
allocations, effects of fishery nursery areas, wildlife habitat, and the
operation and maintenance of the project. General discussions among
participants,.ensued but no adverse comments were presented.
Those attending this meeting included local residents and representatives
of the following-agencies and organizations:
U.S,.-:=Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture (SCS)
N..C: Department of`Agriculture
N.C Farm?Bureau Federation
National Wildlife Federation'
N,C. State University
Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDNR&CD)
Division of Soil and eater Conservation '(NCDNR&CD)
Division of Forest Resources (NCDNR&CD)
Office of Coastal Management (NCDNR&CD)
Further consideration of this proposal'"and specific questions from partici-
pants indicated a need for a subsequent 'meeting. This was held on January
25,,1983 and the proposal to implement alternative 3-in "phases" was
suggested, allowing the diversion outlet into'Ciffee Bay to'be the last
phase of construction to minimize wetland losses and to induce sheet flow.
It was explained tnat?the landowners in the project area had to'be assured
of a positive drainage outlet at least as efficient as their present
systems and that based on the proposed construction schedule of 3 years,
the land owners. could be deprived of,their positive outlet for up to 2
years. It was also pointed out that:hydrologic data was not available to
assure that sheet,flow would occur at required rates to provide satisfac-
tory removal of farm drainage.
Those attending this'meeting`included representatives from the following
agencies:
-37-

Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDNR&CD)
Office of Coastal Management (NCDNR&CD)
N.C. Wildlife Resources.Commission
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
.U.S. Department of Agriculture (SCS)

In..April, 1983, pre-draft cops-es..of the West, Quarter, Double, and Bay
Supplement to.the Swan.,.Quarter Watershed Work.Paan and the Environmental
Impact Statement ,(EIS) were completed and distributed for review. These
documents.proposed.alter.native;3 (as displayed in.current EIS).a`s..the
recommended plan with.joint sponsorship between.the.,;Hyde_County
Commissioners, Pamlico,'Soil and-Water;Conservation District, and the State
of North-Carolina (NCDNR&CD). Comments received indicated remaining
significant concerns over the loss of wetlands in general,. and
specifically, the substantial losses due to the outfall or diversion canal.
,Other, comments questioned the.project's economic benefits to primary fin-
and shellfish nursery areas. Due,to the significance of.these concerns,
the unavailability of funds from the State sponsors, and' the sense-of
urgency for flood protection from.the,local people,, work.was.begun<to
re-activate the original supplement (displayed in this document'as
alternative 5)-as the project action.
However, further, consultation with participating agencies, local people,
and others indicated a strong desire to provide benefits to primary nursery
areas,by utilizing the storage and filtration capabilities of the conserva-
tion easement area to reduce peak flow.and improve water quality. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (May 24, 1983) indicated benefits to primary fin-
and shellfish nursery areas appear equal to wetland: losses since both are
unquantifiable in terms of anticipated benefits. On June 1, 1983 the
Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDNR&CD) stated,"the current Juniper Bay
project design, which includes a conservation storage pool of about 750-800
acres, should have a positive benefit for the downstream primary, nursery
area by reducing peak freshwater inflows, especially during storm events."
A meeting with local sponsors was held on June_1, 1983 to consider which
alternative (alternative 4.or 5) would best. suit their needs. After
evaluation of both alternatives, the group agreed to-support alternative 4
(dike and conservation easement area) to provide flood protection and
.partial benefits: to primary nursery;are'as through the:use.;,of the conserva-
tion;easement area. In November 1983, a Draft Environmental;Impact.State-
ment on this alternative was developed_and.distributed for review among
scoping agencies and groups., Generally comments received (Appendix A)
indicated basicunce.rtaint.y as to he value of protecting primary fin- and
shellfish nursery areas at the.expens,e of.impacting wetland.areas.
In February 19,84,: the :local sponsors met with SCS;,officials-. to review
,project progress.and comments received from participating scoping agencies.
The decision to support alternative 5 was made, due to the lack of:definite
support toward resolving the,wetland-s/primary fin- and shellfish-nursery
area issue associated with their previously..recommended plan:(alternative
4). Alternative 5, consists of a flood prevention dike and tide gates and
has no impact to primary. fin- and, shellfish. nursery areas and no:-signifi-
cant impact to wetland types 7, 8, 12, or 17 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Circular 39) which are located adjacent to the project area.
-38-

Reviewing agencies and groups have essentially supported the installation
'
Environmental Impact
of alternative 5 in their comments on the Draft
Statement and subsequent meetings.
On May 29, 1984, representatives from the U,S. Corps of Engineers,,the N.C.
Office of Coastal Management (OCM) and SCS, USDA met on-site to discuss
permit requirements from these two agencies since two areas of
tlands would be directly involved at two locations
12
" t
"
we
ype
transitional
in the dike alignment. It was determined that a 404 permit would be
The concern'that 27
d
d
.
e
but that a CAMA permit would not be nee
'needed
,
:acres.of wetlands inside the dike area would be potentially discussed at
this meeting.
On June 11, 1984, after discussions with representatives from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission, a meeting
with the local project sponsors was held in Swan Quarter, North Carolina.
id
av
d t
h
o
o
war
The local sponsors requested that the dike be realigned, nort
the inclusion of any of the 27 acres of wetlands inside the dike. The
meeting included the local sponsors, representatives from.:the U.S. Fish and,
Wildlife Service, the Soil.Conservation Service, and the N.C. Agricultural
Extension Service.- The realignment of;'the dike northward (west of the
point where the proposed dike would intercept'Berry Canal) left no
unresolved wetland,-,issues among the people present. This Final EIS
27
,
reflects the subjeet dike alignment that:avoids the inclusion of the
acres of wetlands.

1 -39-
^ _ M~

V PPi W N
1? W a,
M G
M
Y

W
H a
W ??-1 44
M N 'j+j
00
?
?
W
, _
.N
_ w
? a a` y
v
a?
fop v v
p
_ F+ W
o a .r W
.d O H
w a~ W
O u. M
N pYp w
• w
44

10 10 • q q R
? ? ? ::
. Ci-: ,
' •? ? O rl
.. PG "Pr V V rl R _. W Ci N

` }? p
• N :; : U1 N' N N - rl 40 N a ,.. - M N 'O M M M , r1 ?O N ?O 1 N
C a -?
O
Y y
M
N
Fpp
y F
G
O
y U
A
u
o
3
U
p?. ? oA
iC
a
H

8

9:
.04
41 Is

?

.5 q -

' a c? Psi ?,

1

-M
{y?
.rA M N'
.P{ P M

N
.
'N Y
M m
N: •?
00 41
rls.? rr
N P Y

v
r1. M>> Y Y Y
P. 1Y+. r- 00 r Op P W

?
N
~
V
tt
b
N L C'1
Mp tl v
14
? i .
.
?G7 U fA Ci. . ,'O.:q G7 --.;Ip C? UG7 P7 4
f ?
Oq
U. q W N Ci
41
N M M

PO
U cc ?¦+ ;pp ?
'
Y O S- C9 O ?pi .yv{` vtli
N y? Y..rua+ "S}/..? Y
I
r.
.+ Y Q
as :

a+ p
N ' +i

W Y Y .a L v

t0 a0'? . Y. a VY
i
N g
a
?
:O .:M
a ~ C... gJg
3mp? Ir+
c?a'?a 4 Y O.f?,
c?co 'A M O H ?
wr`? `? M > O _g5 a ?. ,
c?7ia
3? a ......
?
?
g
FA WF yypp
p? M - w w
v{Mu.?l p
'i
' r? {M{?•
o M
U C?
J W U <
a ?
w S
w

O
m
F+
6f
I
N
1 1 ++
?i
Q!
6
u 41
F Y
v }?
? 'UMf
M P
W
m
N
u
N
a m
O O
A N G9
M
ti
yyM
?ggg
Wg 4
4I Y
N
3 W
s N
m
Me
O

M
m
w
yri to
? d
M
r~i
M ?
M w
M
e w v
M
W
A
A
3 U C
W M
a H

-40-
4
u
m
.a
0
M
on
m
aH y
6
M
U
m
WF M
4
H
a
y
1
O
V
s
a
REFERENCES

N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. 1982.
Governor's Coastal Water Management Task Force - Final Report.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1956, reprinted 1971. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Circular 39.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1977. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Impact
of Water Level Changes on Woody Riparian and Wetland Communities.
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. 1981. LAMA
Land Use Plan Update for Hyde County.
U.S.Department of Agriculture. 1978. Soul Conservation Service. Procedure
to Establish Priorities in Landscape Architecture, Technical Release no.
65.
N.C. Department of Administration. 1977. Office of State Budget and
Management. Profiles, North Carolina Counties.
1
11
fl
s
t
u
t
-41-
11

t

t
s
t

I
I
t

1
v
APPENDIX A
Comments on Draft EIS

?,?ao t???f .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COYRTLA"D •TRt[T
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30305
An 19 1984
4PM-EA/GM
Mr. Coy A. Garrett
State Conservationist
310 New Bern Avenue.
Room 535 Federal Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Mr. Garrett:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for
Swan Quarter Watershed Plan (West, Quarter & Bay Supplement)
in Hyde County, North Carolina. This facility is much more
wetland intensive than the original concept we evaluated. In
our initial involvement with this project the design merely
encompassed a relatively minor dike and tide gate system with
minimal environmental impacts. However, as a result of
Governor Hunt's desire to have a demonstration facility which
could mitigate slugs of fresh water being discharged from
agricultural lands on the Albemarle-Pamlico peninsula into
the fishery nursery areas in Pamlico Sound, additional structural
measures became necessary. Because the more elaborate facility
1 adversely impacted considerably more wetlands than the original
plan, both the Federal and State review agencies found this
formulation unacceptable. In an effort to reach a mutually
acceptable compromise, a number of technical sessions were
held between the involved parties to reevaluate project design.
Notwithstanding the wetland losses, the recommended plan (4) is
generally responsive to the interests this Agency espoused
during these meetings. In view of the attendant fisheries
benefits associated with the total plan, we are disinclined
to belabor the wetlands issue at this time.
We do, however, offer that the Final EIS could be improved by:
1) providing more details regarding the effects, both
1 direct and indirect, of these wetland losses.
2) detailing what measures will be taken to avoid any more
wetlands losses (during construction and subsequent
?. maintenance) than are purported in this DEIS.
3) exploring the option of siting the "demonstration
elements" of the facility at another point of the
Albermarle-Pamlico peninsula which would have less
extensive wetland involvement.
1
I A-1

-2-

On,the basis of our review a rating of LO-2 was assigned.
That is, for the reasons noted above, we are willing to concede
the environment losses as being in the overall public interest,
but request some additional information regarding our three
suggestions.
It should be noted that this proposal will require a'Department
of the Army permit for discharge of dredged or fill material in
wetlands. At the time we comment on this permit application
we may request mitigation for wetlands lost through filling.
If we can be of further assistance, please.do not hesitate to
call us.
Sincerely yours,"
mom-
5hepp N. Moore, Chief
Environmental Review Section
Environmental Assessment Branch

A-2

r United States Soil
??' Department of Conservation
Agriculture Service
310 New Bern Avenue, Rm. 535 Fed. Bldg.
Raleigh., North Carolina 27601
May 29, 1984
Sheppard N. Moore, Chief
Environmental Review Section
Environmental Assessment Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Mr. Moore:
Your letter of January 19, 1984, set forth comments and a request for
further information of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
West, Quarter, Double and Bay Supplement to the Swan Quarter Watershed Work
Plan.
The original concept, you referred to, is presented in the DEIS as
alternative 5. This concept was changed to include provisions for total
freshwater management control for the Juniper Bay primary nursery area to
demonstrate the value to fin- and shellfish production and protection.
From the comments received on the DEIS, there appears to be a conflict in
being able to provide adequate data on the attendant nursery area benefits
and the involved wetland values. The Local Sponsors and SCS believe this to
be an issue not soon to be resolved and would make the recommended plan not
implementable. Therefore a decision has been reached to recommend
alternative 5. This action will be addressed in the FEIS.
The decision to recommend alternative 5 will moot the need for some of the
additional information you requested. This alternative will unavoidably
affect less than 2 acres of type 12 wetland. We will address in detail
measures that will be taken during construction to protect wetlands in the
Final EIS.
Additional information you requested regarding three suggestions are as
follows:
1. By changing the recommended plan to alternative 5 and eliminating
the conservation easement area, the wetland directly affected is reduced to
2 acres of type 12. The new dike centerline is located on old spoil areas
(from previous activities). Moving in a direction to avoid these two (2)
acres of type 12 will involve more than 2 acres of identified wetland.
A- 3
O The Soil Conservation Service
is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture
SCS-AS-1
.G-19
J
2. The project area will be staked in the field and all efforts will
be made to operate within the identified area to minimize effects on
adjoining wetland. Subsequent dike maintenance will be done from the dike
construction area. This includes travelways needed for repair and mowing.
3. The option of exploring the "demonstration elements" at another
location is being considered by the Coastal Water Management Implementation
Committee. All demonstration elements have been removed from this plan.
Thank you for your comments on the DEIS. We are enclosing one (1) copy of
the proposed Final EIS for your information.
Sincerely,
A.A ?rrett c
State Conservation st
Enclosure.. (1)
A-4

11

i

t

f
Ja?tEO a rqr?
s
A 'Z
o Q UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
4PM-EA/GM
Mr. Coy A. Garrett
State Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
310 New Bern Avenue
R535 Federal Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Mr. Garrett:
Pursuant to your letter of 29 May 1984 and subsequent
discussions with members of your staff, it appears that our
initial concerns to certain elements of the West Quarter,
Double, and Bay Supplement to the Swan Quarter Watershed Work
have been resolved. In this regard, we await with interest
the Final Environmental Impact Statement on this facility.
If we can be of further service please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely yours,
Sheppa d N. Moore, Chief
Environmental Review Section
Environmental Assessment Branch
A-5
Y
tt?41 Of
rtment of the Interior
De
t
i
d S
pa
es
ta
te
Un
V _- O
' A OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
JAN 2 7 `?R4
In Reply Refer To:
ER-83/1496
Mr. Coy A. Garrett
Soil Conservation Service
310 New Bern Avenue
Room 535, Federal Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Mr. Garrett:
,
Thank you for the letter of November 21, 1983, requesting our views and comments on
the draft environmental statement, West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to Swan
Quarter Watershed Plan, Hyde County, North Carolina. In conducting our review, we
have noted some serious omissions and deficiencies which we feel merit reexamination.
Where applicable, our comments have been organized into'general and specific concerns.
General Comments
Although our comments on the preliminary EIS stated that the FWS has replaced Circular
e
.
d
39 with the publication, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the Unit
Fishand Wildlife
1979.
LaRoe
T
t and E
l
G
.
,
.
.
e
o
States (Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C.
Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp.), the draft EIS continues
Service
,
to rely on Circular 39 for wetlands classification purposes. Because the : newer
and
classification is updated, more precise, and in widespread use, we encourage
SCS modify the wetland classification in the final EIS. Also, our
th
e
recommend that
previous review expressed < concerns over the lack of a comprehensive fishery
un
ff
o
investigation of post-project impacts resulting from surges of freshwater r
ncern has not been resolved.
Thi
s co
associated with agricultural drainage.
Several project maps, used to illustrate the location and design of the various
t the selected alternative is in close proximity to National
th
a
alternatives, indicate
Wildlife Refuge lands administered by the. FWS. The only scale drawing provided in the
document does not show the spatial relationship between the selected alternative and
FWS lands. An example of this relationship, along with a complete description of all
significant impacts to FWS lands and their management, is needed.
Because of the importance of non-game species which inhabit the project area, and
conservation easement, the final EIS must
of th
l
e
ue
because of the size and resource va
cies and anticipated changes in the hydrology,
p
e
e
s
address project impacts to non-gam
d-use of the conservation easement area. Without an adequate description
vegetation, an
of these impacts and a determination that potential adverse impacts are at an acceptable
level, the DEIS is incomplete.

A-6 f
r

Coy A. Garrett
Speelflie Comments
Page 4• a h 4 and e 5 Table A: The draft EIS implies that the FWS assisted in
determining that fish and wildlife habitat and endangered species are of "medium
significance" in project decisionmaking. Fish and wildlife habitat and endangered species
are of the highest significance to us. As we view it, fish and wildlife habitat with the
exception of wetlands and endangered species were not discussed substantially during
project. planning since the project's impacts to those species are understood and are
readily identifiable. The distinction between overall significance and significance to the
planning process must be made.
' Page 4; paragraph 4: If TR-65 is a document, then appropriate reference information is
needed.
Page 5; last paragraph: This paragraph should be modified to describe wetland
vegetation using the FWS publication, Classification of Wetlands and Dee water Habitats
of the United States. (See related comments in "General Comments" section.
Page 6; paragra h 2: We note that this is essentially the only description of wildlife
resources in the?t EIS. These resources should be quantified and information should
' be provided about non-game species.
Pages 10, 11, 13, 15; unnumbered figures: The illustration provided is :of such poor
quality that it cannot be determined where the various project features are located in
relation to existing landmarks, features, and habitats. This should be corrected in the
final EIS.
Page 16; paragraph 4: This section should be expanded to describe potential impacts
associated with diverting agricultural drainage into Caffee Bay.
Page 19-20; Table B: Significant impacts to fish and water quality could be associated
with Alternative Sand the diversion of agricultural drainage into Caffee Bay. This
should be' noted, where appropriate, in the summary and comparison table.
Page 21• ara raph 1: This section should be modified to note that there was concern
over anticipate adverse impacts associated with diverting agricultural drainage into
Caffee Bay. To our knowledge, there was no "adverse concern."
Page 25; Table C: Compliance with Executive Order 11990 regarding the protection of
wetlands must be addressed.
Page 27. Operation and Maintenance: This section must be expanded to include the
proposed future use, operation, and maintenance of the 762-acre conservation easement
area. Since the conservation easement involves publicly owned resources and a public
works project, use of the area should not be limited to or -totally controlled by private
landowners. Accordingly, public use, access, and management of the conservation
easement area, during the project life, should be addressed in the final EIS.
Page 37; paragraph 3: We disagree with the statement that the quantification of wetland
values could not be determined. Those values are well documented and quantification,

Coy A. Garrett 3
i
n the
based on the literature, is possible. Also, wetland losses, in acres, are provided
draft EIS.
Pae 37; paragraph 4: The "temporary disturbance" of 15 acres of wetlands needs further
description. Where are these wetlands located? What kind of wetlands are they? How
will they be disturbed? How long will they be affected? Also, how will wetland losses,
both temporary.and permanent, be. mitigated?
PM e 37• paragraph 5: The final EIS should identify all of the vegetative communities
found in the 62-aere conservation area. Of the 405 acres accounted for, quantification

of the various wetland types is needed. Also, it.is extremely important that the final EIS '
state the proposed and anticipated uses of the conservation area during the project life
and that anticipated changes in vegetation be clearly identified.
'
Page 39• ara a hs 1-2: This section fails to demonstrate that water levels capable of
causing changes in plant and animal populations will not exist during the growing
season. For example, while acknowledging that certain tree species are not
"significantly adversely impacted by inundation periods of 10 days. during the growing
season," the document does not state how long the area will be inundated during the
growing season. Although the next paragraph states that project design allows drawdown

of maximum storage in 10 days, the document does not address the effect of repeated ,
flooding which could extend floodwater retention beyond the 10-day limit. Also, if water
is to be "held" during the waterfowl- season, who will assure that 'releases will occur
during the growing season? What is the schedule for holding and releasing water?
Page 39; paragraph 3: Visual impacts, although relatively less than with the other
alternatives, need to be described. ,
Pa Le 46; last paragraph: The statement, "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (May 24,.
1983) .indicated benefits to primary fin- and shell-fish nursery areas appear to be equal to
wetland losses since: both are :unaquantifiable in terms of anticipated benefits:', (emphasis
is added) is completely inaccurate. The FWS's position is one of impartiality since the
fishery benefits cannot be quantified but they appear to offset known wetland losses. It
is not that the losses and benefits appear to be equal since they cannot be quantified, as
stated in the draft EIS. This misinterpretation of the FWS's May 24, 1983, letter must be
corrected. It should be noted, also that the May 24 1983, letter states that, in the FWS's
opinion, the selected alternative "would be difficult to justify in view of known wetland
losses and unquantifiable benefits to, fishery resources." These. views are also important
and are worthy of inclusion in the final EIS.
Section 404 Comments
,Because of proposed wetland fills, Section 404 permits will be needed for this project.
The FWS will comment on this proposed work during the public interest review of the
public notices. The FWS notes, however, that more` specifie design information will be
required than what is currently presented in the draft document. If there are negative
impacts to fish and wildlife resources, mitigation will be required.
A-8 I
r
i
Coy A. Garrett 4
' Summary Comments
In summary, we believe the draft document, as written, does not adequately describe
1 either the fish and wildlife resources found in the project area or anticipated impacts of
the various alternatives. Substantial modification to the final statement will be required
to avoid our referral of this project, either through the Resolution of Issues Process of
1 the Channel Modification Guidelines or to the Council on Environmental Quality pursuant
to 40 CF R 1504.
Sincerely,
L?il?iTr Kz.c?
1 f - Bruce Blanchard, Director
Environmental Project Review
1
1
1
!
1
1
1
i
1
A- 9
United States soil
Department of Conservation
...Agriculture Service - -
310 New Bern Ave., Rm. 535.:. Fed. Bldg...
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
May 31, 1984
Bruce Blanchard, Director.
Environmental Project Review '
United States Department of the Interior
Office of the Secretary.:
Washington, D.C'. 20240' '
Dear Mr. Blanchard:„ '
Your comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for West, Quarter,
Double and Bay Supplement to Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan have been
received and considered. Since the DEIS was published, the Sponsors and the
Soil Conservation Service have made decisions that will affect your concerns
and we can respond to your comments now in a positive way.
Response to General Comments: ,
1. The Soil Conservation Service is presently cooperating in an '
evaluation of the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is current SCS
policy to use Circular. 39 until the results of this cooperative evaluation
are available and.a decision as to the use of the system being evaluated can
be made.
Draft EIS) negates concern over impacts to FWS lands.
3. The cropland dike alignment alternative does not include a conser-
vation easement area nor a change in area hydrology. Therefore, this
comment is no longer relevant.
Response to Specific Comments: '
Page 4, paragraph 4 and page 5, Table A: These paragraphs refer to
"Scoping of.Concerns".section of the Draft.Plan/EIS and to Table A. The
"Scoping of Concerns section discusses significance:of issues and concerns
as related to project actions. It was not the intent of this section to
discuss general significance of any resource to any specific group or to
society as a whole,-- only to discuss the specific issue as it affects the '
decisionmaking process for this specific project action. Table A is a
listing of concerns and the degree of significance to the decisionmaking
process for this specific project action. Again, it was not the intent to
imply the relative significance of any resource or concern to society as a
whole.
O The Soil Conservation Service A-10
SCS-AS-1
is an agency of the 10_79
Department of Agriculture
2. Dike realignment to the cropland location (Alternative 5 in the I
Page 4, paragraph 4: TR 65 is a document entitled Procedures to Estab-
lish*Priorities in Landscape Architecture, and is so identified on page 18
and is listed as an entry in the reference'section.
Page 5, last paragraph: Refer to response to general comments..
Page 6, paragraph 2: The major wildlife species, their relative'
abundance, waterfowl, general excellence of wildlife habitat including
agricultural feeding areas were discussed on pages 3 and 6 of the Draft
Plan/EIS. These discussions resulted from conversation with various agency
people familiar with the wildlife resources in the area and were assessed to
be an accurate description of wildlife resources. Specific studies such as
the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) would have been desirable, but
workloads of biologists familiar with the area did not permit these more
detailed studies.
Pages 10, 11, 13, and 15: These unnumbered figures were intended to'
provide a general perspective of project features along with a summary
narrative of each alternative. A project map in addition to a wetland map
of much greater clarity are in the Appendix C and D, respectively.
Page 16, paragraph 4: The alternative which included diverting
,_..
,
'Agricultural-'drainage into Caffee Bay (Alternative 3) was not the recommended
plan is the Draft Plan/-EIS'and is'nbt in the Final Plan/EIS." Selection of

j the <cropland alternativ6 ' (Alternative 5) wbuld' have no impacts to' Caffee
Bay.

`Pages 19720, Table B:' Refer to.preceding response concerningCaffee
Bay.`
Page 21, paragraph 1.: Selection of Alternative5 as the recommended
plan negates concerns associated with Caff-6`Bay..
Page 25, Table C. Due to oversight, the reference to E.O.: 11990 was
not listed on Table C, page 25. This will be corrected in the Final Table
C. We are in compliance of this Executive Order by applying'Section 2 and
Section 6. SCS published amended procedures in the Federal Register, August
6, 1982, 7CFR-650.
Page 27 - Operation and Maintenance: Alternative 5 does not included
the conservation easement area.

t
Page 37, paragraph 3: Numerous attempts were made to obtain from
experts in the fields of wetlands and fin- and shellfish nursery areas a
quantification of values for both these resources. Although wetland values
may be quantifiable based.on literature, the relative comparison of these
values in common value units such as in dollars, with dollar values of
nursery areas was not possible with the data available. However, the
selection of Alternative 5 makes the comparative quantification of these
values unnecessary for the planned project action.
Page 37, paragraph 4: This comment refers to Alternative 4, the
selected plan in the Draft Plan/EIS. Alternative 5, the cropland alternative
will not entail the temporary disturbance of 15 acres of wetlands.
A-11
Page 37.,.paragraph 5: Any reference to the conservation easement area
and the'405 acres of wetlands included in the area is.not.relevant to
Alternative 5 in the Final Plan/EIS. '
Page 39, paragraphs l and 2:. Alternative 5,, the.selected:plan in the
Final Plan/EIS does not include a conservation easement area; therefore,
management of water levels in.the area is.not.relevant with this alternative. ,
Page.39, paragraph 3: Visual impacts for Alternatives 2, 3, 4,,and 5
are discussed on page 18.
Page 46, last paragraph: The subject letter is included in its entirety
in the comment section.
Section 404 Comments:
SCS is aware that the project sponsors will need a 404.permit for this
project action and that specific design information for project measures is
a part of the 404 permit requirements.
Summary Comments: '
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife.Service has been intricately; involved in the
formulation, planning, and development of this project plan from its incep-.
ton, along with numerous other resource and regulatory agency people. It
became apparent to the SCS and local sponsors that the major issues and
concerns associated with the Draft (Alternative 4) could not be resolved by
participating resource people in the foreseeable future. For this reason,
SCS and the local sponsors mutually agreed to select Alternative 5 as the
recommended plan in the Final Plan/EIS. This decision made moot the need
for response to many of the comments received from-your,agency. Reference
to the "Resolution of Issues Process." or to the Council on Environmental
Quality pursuant to 40CFR1504, is a prerogative that is yours for this
project or any other project involving these concerns and issues.
Sincerely,
o A. Yrrett a,
State Conservation st
A-12

North Carolina ,,i?/?
Department of Administration
116 West Jones Street Raleigh 27611
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jane Smith Patterson, Secretary
January 19, 1984
• Mr. Coy A. Garrett, State Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service, USDA
Post Office Box 27307
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
Margaret C. Riddle
Coordinator
Office of Policy and Planning
(919) 7334131-
Re: SCH File Number 84-E-0000-5118; Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, West, Quarter, Double, and Bay
Supplement to the Swan Quarter Watershed Plan; Hyde County
The State Clearinghouse has received and reviewed the above
' referenced project. As a result of this review, the State
Clearinghouse has received the attached comments from the
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced
document.
Sincerely,
C4, ?vw-
Chrys Baggett (Mrs.)
Clearinghouse Director
CB/mew
' Attachments
cc: Regional Clearinghouse "R"

A-13
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
- Ad,.4- - North Carolina Department of Natural
?, Resources &Community Development
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Joseph W. Grimsley, Secretary
January 17, 1984
MF:MnRAWnlTM
TO: Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse \
FROM: Anne Taylor r'
"SUBJECT: West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the
Swan Quarter Watershed Plan (#84-5118)
NATURAL RESOURCES
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Telephone [phone]
Anne Taylor
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Telephone [phone]
The Department of Natural Resources and Community Development has
reviewed the draft supplement to the Swan Quarter Watershed Plan.
The following attachments represent the specific comments of the
Divisions within this Department. It is felt that work should continue on
this EIS process so the appropriate project can be begun in the near
future. A number of weaknesses in the draft EIS have been identified and
their correction will improve the document and decision-making processes.
Generally, it is felt that more attention should be given to the
benefits to be derived from each alternative in addition to agricultural
protection, and that the included trade-offs would be better recognized
and evaluated through the presence of this information. Several minor
adjustments to the alternatives are offered for consideration. More
detailed information is also requested about the long-term management
plans and responsibilities for the alternatives.
The Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
continues to support the concept of protecting our fisheries resources
through better management of agricultural run-off, wetland protection,
and cooperative project planning. If any of our Divisions can be of
further assistance in completing the EIS process, then please call upon
them. If you have any questions about these specific comments, please
notify Melba McGee at 733-6376.
AT:kh:7968
Attachments
A-14
P U. Box 27681 iialoiyh, N. (12,'61 1 Xli,*
;h`\

MBAO To: Bob Mahood
OM Sholar
rr
T
:
FR y
e
SUBJECT: Draft EIS, Juniper Bay Project
DATE: S January 1984

I have reviewed the draft EIS on the Juniper Bay project:. In general,
it appears that our comments on the preliminary draft EIS have been taken
,into account. The following is a list of specific comments:
1) Page 19 - Table B - "Primary Nursery Areas" Without Project -
The statement about organisms suffering mortality every 2 1/2 to
3 years is not accurate. Generally, it appears that a "good" .
shrimp crop is produced one year out of every two to three years
for various reasons. This is a general trend and in no way can it
be stated as a rule. Other "organisms" are effected to a more or
less extent. Since this statement is not accurate and misleading,
it should be omitted. Alternative 4 - The nursery area research
potential with this project is, extremely limited. I would anti-
cipate little or no active research with this alternative, al-
though some monitoring will continue basically as is currently
being conducted.
2) Page 23 - What will happen to the boat docks on Quarter Canal?
Will these fishermen retain access to their docking facilities?
Are plans made to relocate the docks and proviJe road access over
the dike?
3) Page 24 - First Paragraph - The use and control of the flashboard
i
ves,
risers need to be made very clear. The various management object
uses, and priorities should be clearly outlinel. The potential exists
for various management objectives of the flashboard risers to be in
the storage
di
i
fl
n
oo
ng
conflict. For example, maintaining maximum
pools for waterfowl may conflict with the management objective of
reducing peak discharges in the nursery area. Also, who will establish
the priorities and have final control of the flashboard risers? These
should be very clearly stated to prevent future conflicts.
4) Page 37 - First Paragraph - The last sentence in the paragraph is
somewhat misleading. In this instance, it apP?,ars to be an either/or
issue of wetlands or nursery areas. It shoulc be pointed out that
wetlands are essential for nursery area production.
S) Page B-2 - Number 3C - Alternative four provices virtually no potential
d as we have in the past.
it
i
b
ore
e mon
ll
for earth but w
I A-15

- 2 -
I
6) Wetland Types Map - The downstream limit of the primary nursery
area is in the wrong location. See attached for the proper location.
Considering the anticipated benefits to the Juniper Bay nursery.area, the
Division of Marine Fisheries supports the preferred alternative. Our position
was outlined in a letter to Mr. Coy-Garrett (SCS) from Mr. Ed McCoy (Division
of Marine Fisheries) as follows:
"The Division of Marine Fisheries feels that the current Juniper Bay
project design (Alternative 4) which includes a conservation storage
pool of about 750-800 acres, should have a positive benefit for the
downstream primary nursery area by reducing peak freshwater inflows,
especially during storm events. Because the project design does not
provide any capability to manipulate freshwater flow so that effects
of increased or decreased freshwater flow on the downstream primary
nursery areas can be evaluated experimentally, benefits cannot be
documented. Further, the project design does not provide for active
water management for either agricultural or fisheries benefits. Un-
fortunately, the Division does not have the resources necessary to
monitor this project; thus, benefits cannot be quantified.
In the absence of such documentation, we believe that the project may
not completely fulfill the need for a full scale demonstration project
outlined in the report of the Governor's Coastal Water Management Task
Force. In spite of these reservations, however, we do think that such
a project is of potential benefit to our marine resources...."
However, it should be pointed out that if serious objections arise concerning
Alternative 4, the local sponsor's original project (Alternative 5) should be
implemented as soon as possible. We wish to delay their project no longer .
than it already has.
If I can provide further assistance or clarify any points, please let me know.
cc: Ed McCoy
Mike Street
A-16

r
I ANZ MA7 rAmusXFE r
s
Fee&
?
s•f ?
lw• =•1
t
Y • ?
YI
1 Y
1
1
r• ?
Y
1 ? r •
• " Q r I
•+ Y
O
f
•
AfWL
• f OI.01f01
•
e 7 8 B 8
12
Wltpli E 17
Rs ru E
Q ?tSFws, •
Wl r i A? N 0 TYPES
n SWAN QUARTER WATERSHED
wEs r, QUA R 1•ER, DOUBLE one BAY
Svl'PL £i1I£IV T
NYVE couiv r r • MONT M cA*oL INA
O ?/! ? ally
a_17
?FikNYlufhe.;t:;?Y
- DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 11, 1984
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Milan Muzinich
FROM: William J. Moore GC?'
SUBJECT: A-95 Review 484-5118
Draft EIS
Swan Quarter Watershed Plan
Hyde County
The H'de County.commissioners and the Pamlico Soil and Water Conservation District
are sponsoring a flood prevention project. The project area is located in the
central portion of Hyde County between US 264 and SR 1124. The size of -the water;
shed is 8002 acres. Land uses within the watershed include 5150 acres of crop
land, 2718 acres of forest land and 134 acres miscellaneous. The watershed drains
through a system of ditches and canals into Juniper Bay which is tributary to the
Pamlico. Sound. Juniper Bay. is classified SA waters and has been designated a Primary
Nursery Area by the Division of Marine Fisheries.
The proposed project includes the following: (Alternative 4)
(1) 6.3 miles of flood prevention dike
(2) 55 tide gates
(3) 762 acre conservation easement/water storage area
(4) channel work and,
(5) land treatment measures

The proposed dike alignment would permanently eliminate 20 acres of wetlands. In
order to obtain material for the dike, a borrow canal would be constructed adjacent
to'the dike alignment. This would convert an additional 21 acres of wetlands to
open water. There are an additional 405 acres of wetlands, 86 acres of forest land
and one acre of crop land-located within the dike area. The draft EIS does not indi-
cate that the areas within the dike will be impacted.
The following comments are offered regarding Alternative #4:
(1) The proposed borrow canal might be placed on the inside of the dike alignment,
thereby eliminating adverse impacts on 21 acres of wetlands. The drainage
through the flap gates could then be dispersed over the adjacent wetlands.
(2) If for some reason(s) it became-necessary to locate the borrow canal on the
outside of the dike alignment, the borrow canal should be stopped short of
the outfall canals. * This would promote the idea of sheet flow through the
wetlands rather than direct discharge through the outfall canals.
A-18
IJ

o
Milan Muzinich
Page 2
(3) There maybe other ways to reduce impacts to wetlands. For example, cutting
down the size of the dike and altering the side slopes would reduce the acres
of wetlands impacted.
If the above modifications were considered, there may be some positive water quality
benefits realized in Juniper Bay. However, it is difficult to weigh these positive
benefits against the negative benefits associated with wetland losses. Therefore,
alternative # 4 may not represent the best alternative.
Alternative No. 5 would involve the construction of a dike adjacent to crop land
areas. Approximately two acres of wetlands would be permanently lost under the
dike. The 762 acre conservation easement/storage area would be deleted from the
project. Additional tide gates would be installed to direct runoff to existing
canals-which discharge directly to Juniper Bay. It is not anticipated that this
alternative would have any significant impacts on water quality in Juniper Bay
(positive•or negative). If the local sponsors choose this alternative, serious
consideration should be given to the location of flap gates along the dike align-
ment.. These flap gates would allow runoff to be dispersed over vegetated wetland
areas•rather than-discharged directly to existing canals. Due to slight changes
in elevation, pumping may be necessary to facilitate sheet flow through the wetland
areas.. Alternative No. 2 indicates that there-is no support among local sponsors
for an alternative having pumps as a project measure.
The final EIS should address the following items:
(1) A 401 water quality certification may be required due to the placement of
fill in wetlands.
(2) How would the proposed 762 acre conservation easement/storage area be
managed?
(3) Regardless of which alternative is selected, the project design should
allow for sheet flow through vegetated buffers in order to reduce impacts
associated with runoff.
I would recommend that the local sponsors and the review agencies meet and discuss
this project prior to submitting the Final EIS.
WJM/ekw
I A-19
t '
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 16, 1983
MEMORANDUM
TO: Milan Muzinich, Regional Office Manager
Washington Regional Office
A%A
FROM: Richard Powers, Hydrologic Technician R
Washington Regional Office
SUBJECT: A-95 Review #84-5118 Hyde County
This project may require the issuance of a Capacity Use Area water use
permit. It is highly recommended that this project be reviewed by our
Permits and Compliance Unit to determine if said permit is needed.
RRP/cm
cc: Arthur Mouberry
A-20
• State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
A95/EIS REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS

ing Office: '
Due Date:
fter review of this project it has been determined that the NRCD permit(s) indicated most be obtained in order for this project to comply
ith North Carolina Law.
- -- -- I— '1L-- ---''- '-L---u t- „ ¦ . _ '. Art.- i...ti...._d - .L- .e..a..? ..r ,Lt. G.....
?..?aa..,..o ...e_._...e .....?. . .............•...,_._ _., .........coca .., ...., ••-e•----_ -
11 applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
Normal Pre
Time
statutory
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction ex award of construction contracts 30 day!
cilitles, sews system extensions, & sewer systems On-site Inspection. Post-application technical conference usual
t discharging into state surface waters. (90 days)
NPDES- permit to discharge Into surface.waters and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. Pre-application 90420 day-
it to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment
ischarging Into state surface waters. facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue (NIA)
of NPDES permit whichever is later.
30 days
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary (N/A)
7 days
11 Construction Permit N/A (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner. On-site 55 days
edge and Fill Permit inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling may require Easement to
Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill (90 days)
Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
lities and/or Emission Sources N/A (90 days)
J&ny open burning associated with subject proposal must
M In coo. Hance with 15 NCAC 20.0520.
0
Demolition of structures containing asbestos material must 6
s
in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0525 which prohibits N/A
ing of such materials. (90 days)
47 lox Source Permit required under 15 NCAC 20.0800.
rbe e Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbingE activity. An erosion & sedimentation control plan wi
required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) atleast30 days before begin activity.
-Affhe Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 rust be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with N RCD as shown:
AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Less than 5 acres $ 2.500
fining Permit 5 but less than 10 acres 5.000
10 but less than 25 acres 12.500 (60 days)
25 or more acres 25.000
_ I day
ina Burning Permit On-site inspectio n by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days (N/A)
und Clearance 8uming Pernie 1 day
e. Washington. Tyrell counties) On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required. (N/A)
r 90.120 day
g Facilities N/A (N/A)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant must

l hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify 30 days
Permit
Da construction is according to NRCD approved plans. May also require Department
of Human Resources permit under mosquito control program. (N/N
File surety bond of $5,000 with NRCD running to State of N.C. conditional that 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well any well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged
according to NRCD rules and regulations. (WA)
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with NRCD at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form (NSA)
Continued on reverse
A-21
State Lakes Construction Permit
401 Water Quality Certification
LAMA Permit for MAJOR development
statuoory u
SPECIAL APPLICATION - P- O - -
Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must Include descriptions & IS20 d?
drawings of structure & proof of ownership ofuiparian property (N/A)
60 day'
N/A 130 0 days:
$10.00 fee must accompany application (180 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development ' $10.00 fee must accompany application
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
A full E I S must be required under the provisions of N E PA and SE PA
Other oorrxrhents (attach additional pages as necessary. being certain to cite comment authority):

reviewer signature
agency
22 day!
0 t
(60 days)
Asheville Reatonal Office
159 Woodfin Street
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
a Mooresville Regional Office
1119 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
Washington Regional Office
1502 North Market Street
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
Raleigh Regional Office
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
[phone]
Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
Winston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winton-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
A 7 7
REGIONAL OFFICES
Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
Division of
Soil arid Water Conservation
11 North Carolina Department of Natural Maurice G. Cook
Resources &Community Development Director
James B. Hunt, Jr.. Governor Jus? tilt W. Gtims1ey, So( t? tary telephone [phone]
January 12, 1984
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba Strickland ?II
l t?,w•?ilGti
FROM: Carroll Pierce
SUBJECT: SWAN QUARTER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Specific comments are listed by alternative:
Alternative II - This alternative-is not economically feasible and
cannot be supported by Soil Conservation Service.
Alternative III - The fishery needs are best met in this alternative and
adequate agricultural benefits are provided. This project is attractive
for research into fresh water intrusion. The adverse impacts of the
loss of forty-one acres of wetlands and the conversion of forty-four
acres to open water should be stated.
Alternative IV -.This project would.provide benefits to agriculture
and fisheries. The effect of losing twenty acres of wetland under the
dike and the transition of twenty-one acres to open water needs evaluation.
Alternative V - The agricultural needs.of the watershed are provided
for and no other benefits are achieved.
Alternatives III and IV address the multi-purpose objective:. set by the
Governor's Coastal Water Management Task Force (GCWMTF) as outlined in
objectives 3 and S. These alternatives allow for flood protection while
also incurring positive effects for a primary saline nursery area. The
concepts of using a diversion or storage are the only feasible means of
accomplishing the water management strategy recommended by the GCWMTF.
The maintenance of the existing drainage capabilities is essential for
agricultural production. The Division would support alterations to
either alternative III, IV or V, which would better meet the environmental
concerns and maintain the multi-purpose objectives.
CP:km
A-23
F. 0. Box 2/687 Ha !iqh. N. C. ? 611 'lutil
Sec!ions: District Prv,irums 208 Agri. N.P.S. Wutershed Plunning Soil Survey
January 12, 1984
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba Strickland
FROM: John Sutherlan
SUBJECT: Draft EIS Review for West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to
the Swan Quarter Watershed Plan
We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement concern-
ing West, Qua rter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the Swan Quarter Watershed
Plan for Hyde County and have the following comments;
1. Page 14, line '4 describes the impacts of the project on 56 acres
of wetlands. We-have the following questions concerning wetland
conversion:
(a) What ecosystem impacts would the conversion of wetlands' to
open waters produce?
(b) Would there be long-term detriments, to ecosystem equilbrium
in Juniper Bay?
(c) What impacts would be expected on the ecosystem by the per-
manent loss of wetland acreage?
2. Page 21, line 11 describes a diversion channel in alternative 3
that would empty freshwater into Caffee Bay which is a designated
nursery.area by Marine Fisheries. This alternative only trans-.
drainage problem from one nursery habitat
fers the freshwater
.
area (Juniper Bay) to another area.(Caffee Bay).
3. Page 37, 3rd paragraph states that a reasonable tradeoff between
wetland losses and.primary nursery area benefits was determined.
We would favor a reduced impact upon wetlands, even if some
benefits to nursery areas have to be sacrificed. Wetlands are
critical to a healthy, functioning ecosystem.
4. Page 37, line 28 states that "762 acres, most of which (405 acres)
are wetland types 7, 8, and 12, will remain in their present use
for the life of the project (50 years)." We have the following
concerns about easement termination after the 50 year period:
A-24
x
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
o .
Memo to Melba Strickand
January 12; 1984
Page Two
(a) What will become of the 405 acres of wetlands once owner-
ship is reliquished from the State?
(b) Who will acquire ownship. and easement rights?
(c) Will the conservation area be managed in an environmental-
ly sound and productive manner in balancing agricultural
and fishery interests?
5. Rather than just using wetlands for excess water storage, we
suggest a possible sixth alternative where flood storage is
done on a combination of wetlands and agricultural lands, e.g.
digging some holding ponds.
dls
A-25
CD
?. .. DNR
- - 19$4-
JAW
I
Field Services. Section
ENVIp.0NMENTAL OCM - Morehead City NC
ASSESSMENT SECTI04: January 6, 1984
MEMORANDUM TO - Melba Strickland
From Preston P. Pate, Jr.
Subject Swan Quarter Watershed Plan, Hyde County
Proj. No. 84-5118
This office has reviewed the subject document and would like to of-
fer the following comments.
We first became involved with this project several years ago when
David'Gossett-'was.ask.ed by the Soil Conservation Service to inspect
an alignment along which a flood protection dike was being consi-
dered for construction. The plans also contained the installation
of flood gates on existing ditches. The project.was being proposed
to eliminate an apparent saltwater intrusion problem on certain
agricultural fields in the project area. The alignment was never
finalized even though it appeared that the project would not require
permits from the OCM. There was no further contact between this of-
fice and the Soil Conservation Service until they decided to change
the original project to incorporate some measures for controlling
water flow into the headwaters of Juniper Bay.
Many meetings have been held with the sponsoring agency and the va-
rious state and federal review agencies to discuss various alterna-
tives which would give the needed saltwater intrusion protection
and the additional element of water control. Personnel from this
section expressed at each of these meetings our concerns about the
loss of large areas of wetlands associated with some of the alterna-
tives which included the design for water control. These concerns,
which were supported by representatives from other agencies, were in-
strumental in the development of the document that is being reviewed.
The document explains that the objectives of the proposed project are .
to reduce the annual loss of agricultural production due to flooding
of cropland with salt water, and to reduce the rate of freshwater .
discharge into saline nursery areas. The primary objective is iden-
tified as the flood protection to cropland. Five alternatives are
considered, four of which will meet the primary objective, and two
of which will provide the benefits to the primary. nursery areas.
Alternative No. 4 is identified as the preferred alternative. It has
the basic features of 6.3 miles of flood prevention dike, and 762
acres of water storage area. The EIS states that this alternative
will provide the cropland protection, and will reduce the peak rate
of discharge into the primary nursery area, thus providing a benefit
.to fisheries resources. This alternative will also involve the
loss of significant areas of wetland resources. Twenty acres of
wooded swamps, pocosins and coastal shallow fresh marshes will be
covered by the dike. An additional 21 acres of the same type of
habitat will be converted to open water by the excavation of a borrow
A-26
-2-
canal to obtain material for dike construction. Fifteen acres
of the same type of habitat will be temporarily disturbed during
the project construction. Four hundred and five arses of the same
type of vegetation will be impounded within the conservation pool.
The description of Alternative No. 5 on Page 15 of the EI,S, indi-
cates that the major objective identified by the project sponsors
(control of saltwater intrusion) can he met while avoiding the wet-
land losses.
The N. C. Division of Marine Fisheries has taken the position that
Alternative No. 4 will provide a positive benefit to fishery re-
sources within the primary nursery areas of Juniper Bay, if the
water control elements of the preferred alternative function as
proposed. These benefits may be so small and subtle that it.will
be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to be quantified.
Furthermore, researchers from. N. C. State University and the UNC
Sea Grant program which have been involved in the discussion of the
project design have stated that they could not design a research
project to prove or disprove the positive benefits resulting from
Alternative No. 4. Consequently, any evaluation of the success of
the proposed project would be documented only through the sampling
programs implemented by the Division of Marine Fisheries.
We would like to offer the following comments and raise the follow-
ing questions concerning specific aspects of the Draft EIS.
1. Office personnel were shown during onsite visits of the pro-
ject area the worst damaged sites resulting from saltwater
intrusion. There appeared to have been no.more than 100
acres damaged. We do not understand the statement within
the EIS that the annual direct flood damage-is to 5,150
acres of cropland and approximately $310,000, considering
what was observed and explained during the onsite inspec-
tions.
2._ The wetland types involved in the project are identified ac-
cording to the US F&WL classification scheme. A more detailed
description of the wetlands impact, based on the amount of
losses per species, would be helpful to determine the degree
of wetland loss in areas under state jurisdiction.
3. The statement on Page 14 that installation of Alternative
No. 4 would provide some research potential on the study of
freshwater influence on primary nursery ares, appears to be
contradictory of the position taken by University researchers
who have been evaluating this project. If more informa-
tion is available to support the feasibility of future re-
search, this should be included in the document.
4. A further explanation of the necessity to incorporate two
A-27

-3-

acres of Type 12 wetland into the dike alignment of Alterna-
tive No. .5 should,be provided,
5. An explanation should be.provided as to why the subject 762
acre conservation easement could not be provided to some de-
gree, if not completely, outside of any wetland areas.
6. A more detailed description and discussion of the con,serva-
tion easement must be provided. A further description
should address what rights would be retained by the pro-
perty owners, what rights for public use and access would
be.provided, who will be responsible for management of the
area to enhance wildlife production,. and what will be the,
fate of this area once the initial 50 year lease agreement
expires?
7., The document.should.clearly state that the alternatives
which do not provide the element of water management will.
not increase the amount nor rate of freshwater inflow into
the nursery areas of Juniper Bay. None of the alternatives
appear to have the potential.of making the freshwater intru-
sion problem into Juniper Bay any worse than the existing
problem.
8. The statement on Page.22 that Alternate No. 4 will create
significant benefits to the primary nursery areas by reduc-
ing peak rates of freshwater discharge is an assumption which
has not been substantiated by the researchers or fishery
management people. Reducing the rate of.freshwater inflow
during certain rainfall events will most probably benefit the
fishery, but the indication that these benefits will be sig•-
nificant is probably not an accurate statement.
9. The document.states that Alternative No. 4'was chosen over
Alternative No. 5 Jue to a greater annualized net benefit
and sponsor support. These statements should be expanded
to point out that.the greater annualized net benefit is only
.8%. Furthermore, the document includes a statement on Page
22 that local sponsors have indicated a general willingness
to support Alternative No. 5. Therefore, it appears that the
economic benefits are extremely marginal considering the wet-
land losses associated with the project.
10. A further explanation should be given on who will be respon-
sible for managing the water level control structures within
the conservation pool.
11. The requirement to obtain state dredge and fill anal CAMA Major
Development permit should be included in the list of necessary
forms of authorization on.Page 27.

A-28

-4-
12. We do not agree with the statement on Page 43 that the
recommended alternative is consistent with the land classi-
fications and stated priority uses of the Hyde County Land
Use Plan. Their plan classifies the coastal wetlands as
conservation, and states that they should remain essentially
in their natural state. The scale of the land classification
map would indicate that the entire project area has been desig-
nated as rural; however, a more detailed review of the narra-
tive portion of the Land Use Plan will show that the coastal
wetlands are classified as conservation.
The document implies, through a statement on Page 43, that
the conservation easement over a 762 acre area would pro-
vide protection for 405 acres of wetland types 7, 8 and 12.
It should be pointed out that these areas are presently
protected by very strict regulations through Section 404
of the Clean Water Act.
13. A clearer discussion of how the conservation pool will func-
tion to reduce the rate of discharge into Juniper Bay must
be provided. It is difficult to understand how the pool can
be designed to retain only one-half inch rainfall, yet can
reduce the rate of discharge during a 25-year storm by 50%.
14. 'It is not clear in the discussion of Alternative No. 5 why
this alternative is more expensive when it involves approxi-
mately one mile less dike construction.
It appears from the information included in the Draft EIS that the
justification for implementing Alternative No. 4, and altering such
a large area of wetlands, is extremely weak. Without further sup-
port of clearer benefits to the fishery resources, or any other
type of offsetting public benefits, we would be inclined to recom-
mend Alternative No. 5 as the most acceptable project design. The
permanent loss of 41 acres of coastal wetlands is a very serious con-
sideration we will have to make in our final comments on the fi-
nal draft of this document, and also evaluate applications for
State permits which must be submitted for authorization to imple-
ment this project. This will include a statement regarding the
consistency of this project with the N.C. Coastal Management Program.
We wholeheartedly support efforts by the SCS and the Department to
strive toward implementing water management plans to effect exist-
ing and future drainage into coastal waters. We recognize that it
is inevitable that trade-offs must be made to effect the benefits
of these water management plans, and these trade-offs will charac-
teristically be in the form of permanent alteration of coastal
wetlands. It will be impossible to legitimately justify these
losses without the evaluation of benefits based on existing infor-
mation, or the potential to evaluate potential benefit based on
future monitoring and research projects. Coastal wetlands are a
A-29

-5-

valuable component of the coastal ecosystem, and are stringently
protected through state and federal laws. The balanc e of overall
benefits to the coastal ecosystem must be determined as.aecurately
as possible before the decision to allow their conver sion to other
land uses is made.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this document and.will pro-
vide any clarification of any of the comments for the project's spon-
sor if necessary.
Preston P. Pate, Jr.
CC: Milan Muzinich, Wash. Fld. Ofc.
Dave Gossett, OCM, Mashington
Mike Street, DMF, Morehead City

A-30

1

January 6, 1984
I MEMORANDUM
I TO: Melba McGee

t
1
t
1

P_J

11
SUBJECT: Project 84-5118, Swan Quarter Watershed Project,
Hyde County, North Carolina
We find the document inadequate to support the selected Alternative 4,
which advocates a salt water intrusion dike and a water storage or conserva-
tion impoundment.
Generally, the document'is poorly prepared and fails to support by data
or discussion the project being advocated. As an example, the purpose state-
ment only mentions the protection of cropland losses from salt water intrusion;
the basic concept of water management was omitted as a project: purpose. (See
Summary.)
The water storage,or conservation area, 780 + acres, is.discussed briefly
in Alternative 4, however the specific management and functional details are
not addressed sufficiently to clearly show that benefits to fish and wildlife
and to marine fishery resources are adequate to justify the losses to wetlands
which occur.
The document, as now prepared, appears-to justify only Alternative 5, a
saltwater intrusion dike located northward and away from the coastal wetlands.
We would offer no objection to Alternative 5, however we cannot support
Alternative 4 as we are of the opinion that it does not represent the best
possible project design to demonstrate a total water management concept for
eastern North Carolina.
TSC/lp
Enclosure
Robert Gordon, Laurinburg
..hairman
2 "Stuart Crifcher, Coordinittor
Habitat Conservation Section
W. Vernon Bevill, Raleigh
Executive Director
M. Woodrow Price, Gloucester
Vier-Chairman
:tichard W. Adams, M.D., Statesville Joe Carpenter, Jr., Fayetteville Dan Robinson, Cullowhee
David L. Allsbrook, Scotland Neck Polie Q. Cloninger, Jr., Dallas Do-iald Allen Thompson, Mount Gilead
N W. Brame, Jr., Nor.fi ` esboro Dr. John C. Hamrick, Jr., Shelby Jerry W. Wright, Jarvisburg
,k*c q`-. 1 fKtles, Ole, Henry (Buck) Kitchin, Rockingham
A-31
North Carolina
Wildlife
Resources Commission
Archdale Building, 5is N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Mrs. Chrys Baggetts Director
State Clearinghouse
Office of Budget and Management
North Carolina Department of Administration
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mrs. Baggett:

The Local Sponsors and SCS have been evaluating the comments received on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for West, Quarter, Double and
Bay Supplement to Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan.
The issue of benefits to be derived from the primary nursery area that you
raised in your letter isthe major issue presented by most commenters in
DNRCD and others. Most believe it is essential to know the extent of these
benefits so trade-offs would be better recognized and evaluated through the
presence of this information. This information is not available at this
time and apparently will not be available in the foreseeable future.
Confronted with the probability of this remaining unresolved issue and
thereby not permitting implementation for the reduction of floodwater
damages, the Sponsors and SCS mutually agreed to change the recommended plan
to alternative 5. The Final Environmental Impact Statement will reflect
this change. ,
Responses to comments made by the various divisions of the department are
designated and attached.
Thank you for your support and assistance in this effort.
Sincerely,
C
o re
tt
State Conserva
Attachments
VO The Sol Conservation Service SCS-AS-1
is an agency of the A-32 10-79
Department of Agriculture
O
f Marine Fisheries
Di
i
i
h C
li
on o
na
v
s
aro
Nort
A decision has been made;to change the recommended plan to alternative 5.
The Final EIS will present the details of this change.
Responses to your specific comments are as follows:
1. Page 19 - Table B has been changed to included the wording you
suggested.
2. Page 23 -.The boat docks will remain on Quarter Canal with access
provided over the dike.
3. Page 24 - Flash board riser and the conservation easement area are
no longer a part of the plan being recommended. This comment is now
moot.'
4. Page 37 - This will be acknowledged.
5. Page B-2 - Number 3c - Changes will be noted in the FEIS as the
Selected Plan will display alternative 5.
6. Wetland Types Map - The downstream limit of the primary nutsery
area will be changed at your suggestion.
Division of Environmental Management
1. Comments regarding alternative 4:
d
These comments have become moot with the decision to recommen
alternative 5 in the Final EIS.
2. Comments regarding. alternative 5:
a. Discharge pipes with flap gates will be located at existing
canals and will need all the efficiency of design that can be
developed. It is our judgement.also that to facilitate sheet flow
through thevegetated wetland areas, pumps would be needed.
l EIS will address:
Fi
b
na
.
(1) The need for a 401 water quality certification permit.
(2) There will be no conservation easement developed with
alternative 5.
(3) There will be some sheet flow.at most outlet canals due
to the canal not having enought capacity to discharge full
pipe flows. However, pumps needed to facilitate sheet flow
are not a viable option for any alternative.

A-33
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Comments state the Division would support alterations to alternative 3, 4,
or 5. However no alterations were suggested. With the decision made to
present alternative 5 as the recommended plan in the FEIS, alterations may
not be necessary since alternative 5 is a single purpose agricultural flood
water damage reduction objective.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1. The stated project purpose is limited process to that which cost-
sharing is identified. In this case it is floodwater damage reduction to
cropland. Through .all the.Task Force meetings the project was reiterated
several times. Water management was deleted as a project purpose when the
State said no cost-sharing would be done.
2. References to the 762 acres.of conservation easement area are made moot
by the decision to develop alternative 5 as the recommended plan.
3. Alternative 5 is now the selected plan and details will be set forth in
the FEIS.
4. We are glad you have no objection to alternative 5. Alternative 4 was
presented as the best possible project design to demonstrate total water
management. We were looking for a project that would demonstrate the
concept at the least cost.
Office of Water Resources
1. The 56 acres of wetland mentioned will not be affected because of the
decision to recommend alternative 5. Effect of alternative 5 will be set
forth in the FEIS.
2. Alternative 3 was not the recommended plan due to many other consid-
erations. Coffee Bay was presented to SCS as a secondary-or at not as
important nursery area as Juniper Bay. The concept was to divert the
freshwater slug flow to areas where less impact would be made.
3. No response by SCS needed.
4. All comments about the conservation easement are made moot with the
decision to go to-alternative 5.
5. Holding ponds will not be necessary with alternative 5. The system is
designed to, remove 2 inches of freshwater runoff in 24 hours. Excess beyond
2 inches will be stored on cropland.
A-34
Office of Coastal Management.
A comment infers.that SCS made the decision to change the original project
to incorporate water management control into Juniper Bay. SCS was requested
to incorporate the purpose of providing benefits to the primary nursery area
by the Governor's Coastal Water Management Task Force.
The decision to present alternative 5 will make moot many of the comments
provided. The details of alternative 5 as the recommended plan will be
provided in the FEIS.
Specific comments:
1. The plan identified 175-200 acres as land being damaged by salt
intrusion. Flood damages to the 5150 acres are identified as crop
damage. Both types of damages and benefits were used to evaluate the
alternatives.
2. There will be less than two (2) acres of type 12 wetland
unavoidably affected by alternative 5.
3. No more information is available to support the demonstration, the
proposed project. The probability of this fact developing into an
unresolved conflict weighed heavily on the decision to change to
alternative 5.
4. The present dike alignment is consistent with existing (previously
disturbed) canals and spoil areas. Any change from this alignment will
increase the number of acres of wetlands directly impacted by dike
construction. The wetland areas directly disturbed by this alignment
are in areas where the previously constructed canals and spoil areas
are not wide enough to facilitate the planned dike.

5. The conservation easement area no longer is under consideration.
6. With the decision to change to alternative 5, this comment is
moot.
7. Comment noted. The FEIS will so state.
8. See comment 6.
9. The only economic benefits used in both alternatives were the
flood water damage reduction benefits. As discussed on page 22, the
benefits to the primary nursery area were not evaluated, but could be
achieved with no additional cost. In other words, the omelet is the
primary nursery area, the cracked eggs are the wetlands involved.
10. Water level control structures are no longer a part of the plan.
11. The need to obtain a stake dredge and fill permit and CAMA. Major
development permit will be spilled out in the FEIS.
A-35
12. The conservation easement was to be signed by each landowner
involved. This easement restricted those acres from being changed by
them for the life of the easement. This was a condition imposed on and
accepted by the landowners at their costs. However, selecting
alternative 5 has eliminated the need for the conservation easement.
13. Basically, the first one-half inch of rainfall will be handled by
the conservation easement area (762 acres). The discharge pipes will
be discharging also at a rate that is equivalent to 50% of the 25-year
storm. You may be confusing rate of flow with volume of flow. The
total volume of freshwater will eventually be discharged to Juniper
Bay. However, the slug flow (peak rate of flow) will be buffered by
the dike and conservation easement area storage.
14. Without the conservation easement area (storage) the number of
pipes discharging through the dike (alternative 5) must be increased to
remove 2 inches of runoff in 24 hours, the same design removal rate as
in alternative 4.
Your inclination to recommend alternative 5 has been accepted.
A-36
i
United States Office of office of Wggi i , D•G•
Department of the Secretary Equal 20260
Agricu re OPP"hx*
DEC 1 :? 03
SUBJECT: West, Quarter, Double, and Bay,Supplement to the
Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan, Hyde County,
North Carolina
TO: Coy A. Garrett
State Conservationist
THRU: Peter Myers, Chief
Soil Conservation Service
We.have reviewed the Soil Conservation Service's Impact
Statement for West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to
the Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan of Hyde County, North
Carolina. Our review focused on the probable impacts the
proposed actions will have upon minorities, women, the aged
and handicapped persons in or near the project area.
You point out in'thestatement that there are approximately
76 farms and a population of 400 in the watershed area, but
you failed to enumerate the racial composition of the
population, including landowners who will be directly
affected by the proposed action.
It appears from the information provided in your draft plan
that both minority and nonminority residents and landowners
will benefit from the project through improved drainage of
their properties. However, for the draft plan to fully.
comply with SCS Guidelines for preparing Environmental Impact
Statements, we suggest that the final plan identify the
racial composition of the population in the project area,
including the number of minority operating units that will-be
directly affected by the project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft
statement.
a?w ALMA R. ESPARZA
Director
t
A-37
United States _Soil
Department of Conservation
Agriculture Service
310 New Bern Avenue, Rm. 535 Fed.`Bldg,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
5ublect= Comments- Draft Environmental Impact State- May 29, 1984
meat - West, Quarter, Double and Bay'Supplemen?'t"
to Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan, Hyde County,
North Carolina
To: Fite Codes
Alma R. Esparza, Director 390-11-13-27
Office of Equal Opportunity
Office of the Secretary
USDA
Washington, DC 20250
Your review comments of the Draft' Environmental Impact Statement for the
subject watershed pointed out that information on racial composition of the
population, including landowners who will be directly affected by the
proposed action was insufficient. `
Further analysis of the population reveal the following facts. The minority
(black) population of the watershed is about 95 in number. There are 31
minority landowners and I minority farm operators that will be directly
affected (benefited) by the project. This information will be added to the
Project Setting and Effects of Recommended Plan sections of the final EIS.
Thank you for your review and these comments.
Sincerely, i
Coy A. r ett
State Conservationis d
cc: Peter Myers, Chief
SCS,
Washington, DC
t
1
`i0 The Sol Conservation Service A-38
is an agency of the
Dep partment of Agriculture
t
i
t
s

t
r

r

1
I
t
TM
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
SOUTHEASTERN NATURAL RESOURCES CENTER
1033 Wade Avenue, Suite 207
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
January._23, 1984
Mr. Coy A. Garrett, State Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
P. O. Box 27307
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Garrett:
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) has reviewed the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) concerning the-
Swan Quarter Watershed Plan for Hyde County, North Carolina,
and offers the following comments. NWF 'is the nation's
largest conservation organization with over 4.5 million mem-
bers nationwide.
This office has been closely following the development
of the Swan Quarter/Juniper Bay proposal and has previously
participated in scoping and other meetings and provided
written comments on the proposal. Additionally, our parti-
cipation on the Governor's Coastal Water Management Task
Force has increased our level of involvement. On December 16,
1984, through the assistance of local sponsors Mr. Gratz
Spencer and Mr. W. F. Williams, I visited the project site
and affected area.
Before stating our specific comments on the DEIS, we ,.
have the following general comments. The proposed project
is located in a region undergoing accelerated land use changes
which are affecting the water quality and productivity of the
surrounding coastal waters. Most of the major changes and
adverse impacts result from the large-scale conversion of
forested wetlands to agriculture, peat mining, or other uses.
The DEIS aptly summarizes the concerns and problems associated
with the large-scale drainage and conversion of wetlands and
effects on receiving waters, fishery resources, and the
commercial fishing industry. We believe it is important to
maintain economic diversity in the coastal region and to
encourage resource intensive development compatible.with
existing resources, land-use patterns, and industries. The
more prudent course is to maintain and enhance the productivity
of existing largely family-held agricultural lands rather than
encourage large-scale conversion of wetlands to agricultural
uses.
A-39
The selected alternative addresses to a larger extent
our concerns over induced land clearing resulting from the
project. We still question the assertion that the dike and
floodgates will not engender further land clearing. A
comparison of the land use statistics of-the environmental
assessment dated.May 1982 and the DEIS of November 1983
reveals a loss during that 18-month period of 188 acres of
woodland and a gain of 216 acres of cropland. Clearly, land
use changes are ongoing, even without the proposed project.
lying wetlands
of low
h
-
e expense
An increase in cropland at t
will limit the water purifying function of the wetlands and
augment the level of agricultural run-off draining into
Pamlico Sound, negating any benefits, as yet unquantified,
that may result from reduced freshwater surges. The proposed
762 acre conservation (water storage area in the selected,
alternative) addresses a significant part, but not all, of
our concerns relating to induced land clearing.
We have several questions about assumptions and calcu-
lations relating to the economic justification for the project.
It is not clear from the DEIS that the recommended plan will
benefit the entire watershed. Clearly, as the elevation of
the cultivated land climbs from 1.5 to 4.8 feet above sea
level, the benefits of high tide protection decrease.
According to the DEIS, a maximum of 200 acres of the 5,510
acres of cropland have been taken out of production due to
saltwater leaching. Thus, calculation of project benefits
should consider that a large proportion of the project benefits
accrue to a small percentage of the watershed.
We also question the.use of a 3 1/4% discount rate in
calculating project benefits. Under the Principles and Guide-
lines in effect since July 1983, this discount rate applies
rmulation
f
i
"
o
s no re
there
to projects authorized before 1967 if
of the plan". (Subs. 1.1:3(c).. In 1965, SCS administratively
authorized a plan for 19.1 miles of channel work in an 11,440
acre watershed at a cost of under $l million. The current
DEIS calls for a 6.3 mile dike and 55 floodgates in an 8,002
acre watershed at a cost of $3.3 million. Reformulated pro-
jects require calculation of the benefits and costs using the
fiscal year 1984 discount rate of 8 1/8% so that decision-
makers can accurately compare the merits of this plan with
others.

I
A-40 I

Mr. Coy A. Garrett
Page 3
January 23, 1984
Although it discusses other laws and federal policies,
the DEIS does not address compliance with Executive Order
11990. We also recommend that more detailed maps of alternatives
be prepared and incorporated and that theUSFWS dated circular
39 classification scheme be abandoned for the current Cowardin,
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States.
From the information presented in the DEIS, we definitely
question the viability of the selected alternative as a
demonstration project for the recommendations of the Governor's
Coastal Water Management Task Force. It is our understanding
that the original SCS proposal has been substantially altered
with theprincipal objective of reducing project impacts on the
adjacent estuary and the fishery resource. The assertion
that project wetland losses will be offset by benefits to pri-
mary nursery areas is, as acknowledged in the,DEIS, unquantified
and hence to a large extent unfounded. The.baseline data €or
the receiving waters appears to be inadequate and there.-is no
proposal for post-project monitoring. The assertion that the
principal environmental impacts of wetland loss and increased
-estuarine productivity have been ".balanced" appears to arise
from the often conflicting opinions of the various resource::.
agencies and has no quantified basis. The use of this "balance"
as a justification for the selected alternative is thus highly
questionable.
In sum, I want to re-emphasize that we consider it impor-
tant to maintain the productivity of existing agricultural lands
in the Swan Quarter Watershed. The approximately 76 largely
family-owned farms in the area contribute greatly to the local
economy.. This is particularly true when.alternatives include
on-going and proposed projects involving the conversion of
thousands of acres of forested wetlands to agriculture and
other uses with externalized costs on public resources and
other segments of the regional economy. The DEIS, nevertheless,
has not convinced us that a "balance" between wetland loss and
increased fishery resources has been achieved. We do commend
the SCS for its direction and the..local sponsors for their con-
cern and willingness to support multi-objective project modifi-
cations. We make the general recommendations that the original
project proposal not affecting wetlands be fully explored or a
more convincing"case forwarded on project off-site benefits.
We appreciate the opportunity to present these comments.
r Sin rely,
erb S. Carter, Jr.
A-41

6•. United States Soil
Department of Conservation
Agriculture -- -- _ - Service
310 New Bern Avenue, Rm. 535 Fed. Bldg.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
May 29, 1984
Derb S. Carter, Jr.
National Wildlife Federation
Southeastern Natural Resource Center.
1033 Wade Avenue, Suite 207
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Dear Mr. Carter:
Your letter of January 23, 1984 set forth comments on a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement on West, Quarter, Double and Bay Supplement to the Swan
Quarter.Watershed Plan.
We have been considering comments .received from Federal and State.agencies,
organizations and individuals on the proposed alternative numbered ,4 as the
recommended plan.
From your early participation in the scoping and other meetings you are
knowledgeable of the concepts and objectives that all interests were striv-
ing to obtain. In summary the concepts.and conceptual changes were made as
follows:
1. SCS was actively preparing a supplement for single purpose
floodwater damage reduction to agricultural land (cropland,-
Alternative 5).
2. The Governor's Coastal Water Management Task Force suggested that
an additional purpose be added io demonstrate protection and
enhancement values of the primary fin- and shellfish nursery area of
Juniper Bay. This was done (Alternative 3) by adding the State of
North Carolina as a sponsor to provide financial assistance needed to
implement the plan. A'pre-draft EIS was prepared and submitted to the
State for consideration. Their concern for financing and the need for
the outlet channel caused 'a change to be made.that deleted the
freshwater control devices and the outlet channel (Alternative 4).
These features could be added at a later date if desired by.the State.
3. SCS prepared a Draft EIS recommending Alternative 4 at the urging
of DNRCD and other agency comments and suggestions. Comments have now
been received from circulating this Draft EIS.
Your comments have been considered, both general and specific, along with
all other comments received on the Draft EIS. We believe the major comment
submitted in your letter to be the Draft EIS has not convinced you that a
balance between wetland loss and increased fishery resources has been
h The Soil Conservation Service
`.J is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture
SCS-AS-1
10-79
A-42

achieved. This comment has been made almost.in concert with most commenters
and has caused the local people and SCS to be concerned about theii*plemen-
tation possibilities of the. recommended alternative (Alternative 4)'
Pre-project beneficial evaluation of the primary nursery area of-;Juniper Bay
is not achievable and has been so stated by the most knowledgeable agency
people in North Carolina. They have stated that with total freshwater,,
management they could demonstrate those values good, bad, or indifferent
(Alternative 3). With less than total water management and no intensified
monitoring they could not qualify the effects of the recommended plan
(Alternative 4), but from their best judgement the effects would be
positive.
The Local Sponsors and the SCS, in consultation, have decided that, whereas,,
no more facts or evidence is available to justify the effort for protecting
the primary nursery area, and that we would not be successful in achieving
resolution of this issue without greater support, we therefore conclude the
best course of action is.to pursue Alternative 5 as the recommended alterna-
tive. This alternative will be addressed in the final impact statement.
By this decision, some of your specific comments will be made moot.
However, some will be appropriate to any alternative selected for
implementation. We will respond to those appropriate comments.
1. Your concern is that a large proportion of the project benefits
seem to accrue to 200 acres in the watershed.
The Draft EIS clearly states that floodwater damage reduction benefits
are to crops grown on 5,150 acres of cropland. Approximately 175-200
acres is land damage due to salt leaching from existing canals. Both
types of benefits are used in the evaluation of benefits.
2. You questioned the use of 314 percent discount rate in calculating,
project benefits, and the magnitude of reformulation.
The Supplement for West, Quarter, Double and Bay Canals has scaled down
the original project size and structural features. The supplemental
changes have been re-evaluated using current normalized prices and
discount rate of 3 1/4 percent and 7 7/8 percent (P&G Sections 1.4.10
and 1.4.11) were displayed in the comparison table (page 19) of the
Draft EIS.
3. The Draft EIS does not address compliance with Executive Order
11990.

Due to oversight, the reference to 11990 was not listed on Table C,
page 25. This will be corrected in the Final Table C. We are in
compliance of this Executive Order by applying Section 2 and Section 6.
SCS published amended procedures in the Federal Register, August 6,
1982, 7 CFR-650.

s
A-43
4. SCS and.USFWS.are currently working on conflicts with Cowardin,
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.
They have developed a resolution and currently are'testing for results.
Until these conflicts can be resolved, SCS will continue to use the
Circular 39 classification scheme.
Thank you for your comments.
Sincerely,
Co A. Gjett
State Conservation
A-44
t
s
I
1
1
L
1
r
IJ
1
i
1
1
t
t
t
t
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMME`ACE
' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Washington, D.C. 20230
ISO
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
December 27, 1983
Mr. Coy A. Garrett,
State Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service.
P.O. Box 27307
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Sir/Madam:
This is in reference to your draft environmental impact statementon`the
West, Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the Swan Quarter Watershed Plan -
(Department of Agriculture). Enclosed are comments from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide comments which we hope
will be of assistance to you. We would appreciate receiving four copies of
the final environmental impact statement.
Sincerely,
`,Jo ce M. Wood
Chief
Ecology and Conservation Division
Enclosure
A'V
o
-
A-45
. I?
' UNITED. STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Nstioral Oceanic-and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
ham. Southeast Region
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
December 20, 1983 F/SERll/RSS
813-893-3503
TO": PP2 - Joyce M. Wood
FROM: F/SER11 - Richard J. Hoogland f u
SUBJECT:. DEIS# 8311.19 - West, Quarter, Double, and Bay
Supplement to the Swan Quarter Watershed Plan -
(Department of Agriculture)
As requested in your November 29, 1983, memo, we have
reviewed the subject DEIS. Our comments are attached.
Attachment
cc:
F/M42
F/SER111~
A-46
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Region
9450 Roger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
December 20, 1983 F/5ER11/RSS
813-89.3-3503
Mr. Coy A. Garrett, State Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box 27307
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Garrett:
The Draft Environmental . Impact Statement (DEIS) for West,
Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the Swan Quarter Water-
shed Work Plan has been received by the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) for review. 'The following comments are offered
for your consideration:
General Comments
Approximately 400 acres of wetlands will be impounded in the
proposed conservation area. However, the extent to which these
areas currently contribute to marine fishery production is not
addressed. Also, the DEIS makes several references to the nursery
area values provided by Juniper Bay, however, the estuarine
dependent species potentially affected by this project, i.e.,
spot, menhaden, croaker, and shrimp, are not discussed. This
information is important in evaluating the trade-offs involved in
this project and should be included in the FEIS.
The DEIS notes that the conservation area would be under a
50-year easement. However, little information regarding how this
area may be modified during this 50-year period is provided. For
example, would the applicants propose cross-dikes to create
subimpoundments? Any anticipated modifications in the conser-
vation area that would impact wetlands should be addressed in the
FEIS. To assure the long-tear effectiveness of this project,
these wetlands should be permanently committed to water storage
and fish and wildlife habitat. This sort of commitment should
be addressed in the FEIS.
Specific Comments
RECOMMENDED PLAN
Plan Elements
Page 23, paragraph 3. According to the DEIS, "excessively organic
material -wibe stripped from the dike foundation and borrow area".
t

A-47

2
No indication is given regarding the. disposal site for this
material. A high ground disposal site for excess borrow
material should be identified in the FEIS.
EFFECTS OF RECOMMENDED PLAN
Page 37, ara ra h, 4. The project impacts addressed in this
section should include the potential long-term loss of 405 acres
of mixed wetlands.
P! 2e 4e 40, Figure 2. This figure should include the dimensions of
the di e, o rrow. ditch, berm, and width of right-of-way required
for the project.
Sincerely yours,
Richard J. Ho and
Chief, Env nmental Assessment
iro
Branch
A-48
I i ,
f• United States Son
Department of Conservation
Agriculture Service
s
310 New Bern Avenue, Rm.
Raleigh, North Carolina
May 29, 1984
535 Fed, Bldg.
27601`

Richard I. Hoogland, Chief
Environmental Assessment Branch
United States Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Southeast Region
9450 Roger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, n 33702

Dear Mr. Hoogland:
We are responding to your letter of comment on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) for West, Quarter, Double and Bay Supplement to the
Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan.
Your comments have been considered along with all other comments on the
DEIS. WE believe the most serious comment submitted in your letter to be
the DEIS has not convinced you that a balance between wetland lose and
increased fishery resources have been achieved. Pre-project evaluation of
the primary nursery area of Juniper Bay is not achievable and has been so
stated by the most knowledgeable agenc
le in North Carolina
eo
p
.
y p
The Local Sponsors and the SCS, in consultation, have decided that no more
facts or evidence is available to justify the effort of protecting the
primary nursery area, and that we would not be successful in achieving
resolution of this issue without greater support, we therefore conclude the
best course of action is to pursue alternative 5 as the recommended alterna-
tive. This alternative will be addressed in the final impact statement.
The decision to pursue alternative 5 will remove your concern for the 400
acres of wetlands located in the conservation easement area. These acres
will be outside the project area now.
Excessive organic matter, referred to on page 23, to be stripped is the
surface growth material. This material will be disposed of by controlled
burning, burial or chipped and hauled away from the site.
t
A-49
oo Tne Sod Conservation Service
is en agency of the
lsil Department of Agriculture
SCS-AS-1
10-79
Page 40, Figure 2 will be removed from the FEIS. However, the dimensions
you requested.are located on page 23 of the DEIS.
Thank.you for providing comments on the DEIS. We will provide you with the
requested number of copies of the Final 'Environmental Impact Statement.
Sincerely,
A. Q rrett
oai State Conservati t

t
t
ti
s
t
s
i
1
t
t
t
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric'Administration
Washington, D.C. 20230
?.n. d
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
December 30, 1983
Mr. George C. Norris
Acting State Conservationist
310 New Bern Avenue, Room 535 Fed. Bldg.
P. 0. Box 27307
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Sir/Madam:
This is in reference to your draft environmental impact statement on the
West, Quarter, Double and,Bay Supplement to the Swan Quarter Watershed Plan. .
Enclosed are comments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide comments which we hope
will be of assistance to you. We would appreciate receiving four copies of
the final environmental impact statement.
Sincerely,
/1'1. Gvsa•P
yce Wood
Chief
Ecology and Conservation Division
Enclosure
r 7-d.,
A-51

• a?* ae
TO: PP2 -Joyce
FROM: N Paul M.
SUBJECT: DEIS 8311.19
Swan Quarter

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospherid Administration
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
Washington, D.C. 20030
December 29, 1983 N/MB2x5:VLS
!carter, Double, and Bay Supplement to.the
Plan (Department of Agriculture)
The subject DEIS has been reviewed within the areas of the National Ocean
Service's (NOS) responsibility and expertise, and in terms of the impact of
the proposed action on NOS activities and projects.
Geodetic control survey monuments may be located in the proposed project
area. If there is any planned activity which will disturb or destroy these
monuments, NOS requires not less than 90 days' notification in advance of such
activity in order to plan,for their relocation. We recommend that funding for
this project include the cost.of.any relocation required for NOS monuments.
For further information about these monuments, please contact Mr. 'John Spencer,
Chief, National Geodetic Information Branch (N/CG17), or Mr. Charles Novak,
Chief, Network Maintenance Section (N/CG162), at 6001 Executive Boulevard,
Rockville, Maryland "20852.,.
In consultation with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program
(NCCMP), the NOS Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource.Management (OCRM) has
been informed that the State is conducting a detailed technical review of
the proposed project and upon completion comments will be forwarded to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)'.
In terms of the impact of the proposed action on the North Carolina
Coastal Zone, USDA has not'determined the consistency of the project in
accordance with Section 307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act as
amended. The rules under which such a determination should be made are
listed at 15 C.F.R. 930.30-44. OCRM recommends that the USDA contact the
NCCMP for further guidance in'preparing the consistency determination:
Mr. Kenneth D. Stewart, Director
Office of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
[phone]
A-52
11

r?
y
f
r"

?i

s F
o
y.?. United States Soil
Department of Conaervetian
Agriculture Service
310 New Bern Ave., Rm. 535 Fed. Bldg.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
May 31, 1984

Joyce M. Wood, Chief
Ecology and Conservation Division
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Washington, DC 20230
Dear Ms. Wood:
Thank you for your comments and suggestions on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement on the West, Quarter, Double and Bay Supplement to the Swan
Quarter Watershed•_Plan.
You suggested the possibility of Geodetic control survey monuments may be
located in the proposed project area. The North Carolina Geodetic Survey
Section, Division of Land Resources was consulted and they assisted SCS in
locating known monuments or points where meets and bounds survey description
could be prepared for the project. Should an unknown monument be found in
the project area, notice will be made.
The North Carolina Office of Coastal Management (NCOCM) has been contacted
with regard to consistency of this project with the land classifications and
stated priority uses of the Hyde County land use plan. NCOCM concerns about
Alternative 4,, as expressed in the Draft EIS, has been a factor in the
decision to recommend Alternative 5. Alternative 5 has been determined to
be consistent with the land use classification.

s
LI
Sincerely,
Coq A. Garrett r
State Conservationi
O The Soil Conservation Service
`J is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture
A-53
SCS-AS-1
10-79
t
O
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION. CORK OF ENGINUM-- ' -
• '? , w `10 TITLE BUILDING. 30 PIIYOR STREET. &%%t
ATLANTA. OEO1101A W=
nEPLY To .: January 23, 1984
ATTENTION OP:
Environmental Resources Branch
Mr. Coy A. Garrett
State Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
310 New Bern Avenue
Room 535, Federal Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Mr. Garrett:

f
0
I am writing in response to your letter with enclosures to the Office
of the Chief of Engineers requesting comments on the Draft EIS for the West,
Quarter, Double, and Bay Supplement to the Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan,.
Hyde County, North Carolina. This document has been reviewed by our Wilming-
ton District and South Atlantic Division offices. This project will have no
impact on existing or proposed Corps of Engineers projects.
An itemized list of concerns and questions raised by our review is
enclosed for your consideration. Our major concern is the apparent position
that the 405 acres of wetland included in the conservation easement area will
not be altered or impacted by,this project. It is our feeling that diking
this'.acreage and utfi izing,it_for water storage and management, as well as
waterfowl management, would generate impacts to .those areas and constitute a
natural resource change. We believe those impacts must be addressed in reater
detail. On the evidence presented, we are concerned that Alternative 4 the
Preferred Alternative) may not be the least wetland damaging alternative since
Alternative 5 would provide the same level of flood protection at nearly the
same cost and with less impact on wetlands. Since the Section 404 permit
process will require the Wilmington District to review closely these wetland
impacts, we would urge you to give serious consideration to the points raised
by our review and the selection of a final alternative.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this document and apologize for
being somewhat tardy in,our response. The Wilmington District is available
to discuss these comments in greater detail or to assist you in the prepara-
tion of your 404 permit application package. Questions should be directed
to Mr. Bill Adams of Wilmington's Environmental Resources Branch at telephone
[phone] or Mr. Steve Brown of the Regulatory Branch at [phone].
Sincerely,
DaR M. Mauldin
Chief,'Planning Division
Enclosure
A-54
i
r
r
DI
r
D

r
a
t

t
t
23 January 1984
SI(DPD-R
SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION/WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON
DRAFTJIS, WEST, QUARTER, DOUBLE, AND BAY SUPPLEMENT TO
THE SWAN QUARTER WATERSHED WORK PLAN, -HYDE COUNTY, NC
1. Page S-2. The 762 acre easement/conservation area should be listed as a
Natura Resource Changed. The impoundment of water and its subsequent manage-
ment will undoubtedly alter the nature of the area. Such impacts should be
addressed in greater detail.
2. Pages The document contains very little specific discussion of the
primary nursery area in Juniper Bay or the magnitude of the fresh water inflow
problem. It is very difficult to assess the propriety of trading off wetlands to.
protect a nursery area when the threat to its values have not been established.
It is suggested that salinity data be incorporated, a discussion of the impacts
of fresh water pulses be added, and a projection of post-project salinity files
be made.
3. Pages 5-6. Although the different types of wetlands in the project area are
ident , there is no discussion of their values to fish and wildlife, nor is
there. any discussion of how the proposed project will impact those values. Such
a discussion` is' critical' to making an informed decision on the trade-offs proposed
for the project.
4. Page 6. The 'document indicates that 195 acres of wetland north of S.R. 1124
will ne impacted by project activities. Improved storm protection and drainage
might'induce conversion to agricultural land. Reduced flooding of wetlands could
also be considered an impact.
5. Pa a 7. It appears misleading to assert that the.600 acres of wetlands in
the pro ect area will remain undisturbed since 405 acres will,be within the con-
servation easement area and will, therefore, be altered. Also, the-document
fails to discuss anywhere the "normal and routine" management activities projected
to occur in these wetlands.
6. Pages 13-14. Under the proposed project, it is not clear who will operate/
regu ate water storage and use within the conservation easement area, and at what
cost.
7. Page 16. The terms of the conservation easement should be discussed. A draft
or proposed management plan spelling out operations details would be helpful.
Advantages over the present situation that would accrue from the conservation
easement should be noted. How would the assumed benefits be assured?
8. Page 17. Clarification is needed on whether the 175-200 acres affected by
salt water leaching is included in the 5150 acres of cropland discussed earlier,
or is additional acreage.
9. Pa a 17. This page indicates a stable land use for 762 acres of "woodland"
when 405 acres are, in fact, wetlands. In addition, it is strongly questioned
whether the post-project character of those lands will remain "stable" or unchanged,
Enclosure A-55

O

SADPD-R 23 January 1984
SUBJECT: Swan Quarter Watershed
4
Al
rn
tiv
f
d
"
e
te
a
or
s
under wetlan
10 Page a 20. The column for "adverse effects
does not include the 405 acres that will be affected-by conservation easement use
and management.
11. Page21. The entire statement of the NC Division of Marine Fisheries should
be given.
12. Page 22. "Added design features" that will be required under Alternative.5
shoul a noted. Additionally, the assertion that, under Alternative 4, benefits
to primary nursery areas appear equal to wetland losses requires documentation.
'If it is'necessary to strip excessively organic overburden from the
13. Page 23
.
dike foundation and borrow area, where will this material be disposed? What is
f
di
e
o
k
the minimum clearing distance referenced for dike construction? Would a
smaller dimensions (and less impact) be feasible or adequate?

Page 24. Discussion of the flashboard risers and water level management again
14.
ement plan detailing the opera-
ana
a
i
-
g
m
ew
s tFe question of providing for rev
raise
tional objectives and priorities.
15. Page 37. Once again,'there is no discussion of the effects of prolonged seasonal
inundation on the 405 acres of wetlands.
16. Page 39. Discussion of l.4day drawdown periods during the growing season,
agement of waterfowl areas point to fairly
and ma
i
t
i
n
er,
n
ng the w
inundation dur
intensive management goals which may conflict with one another. These management
goals and priorities should be clarified. In addition, there is no discussion of
the potential impacts of.temporary or prolonged flooding of the conservation easement
er?) could severely'
n
r l
ys (
TO d
s f
g
o
o
a
or
area on wildlife. The flooding of 762 acre
stress wildlife populations which inhabit the area, with impacts varying in severity
depending on the time of year in.which the flooding occurs.
A-56
United States soil
Department of Conservation
Agriculture Service
310 New Bern Ave., Rm. 535 Fed. Bldg.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
May 31, 1984
Dan M. Mauldin
Chief, Planning Division
Department of the Army
South Atlantic Division
Corps of Engineers
510 Title Building, 30 Pryor St. S.W..
Atlanta, GA 30303
Dear.Mr. Mauldin:
Your comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for West, Quarter,
Double and Bay Supplement to Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan have been
received and considered, Since the DEIS was.published, the Sponsors and the
Soil Conservation Service have made decisions that will affect your concerns
and we can respond to your comments now in A positive way.

z
1

t
I
The conservation easement area became a major issue with many commenters as
well as the Corps of Engineers. We have concluded that benefits to the
primary fin- and shellfish nursery area of Juniper Bay cannot be adequately
determined in enough detail for comparison with possible wetland changes.
This will continue to be an unresolved conflict and would delay implementa-
tion of the flood protection purpose of the project beyond a reasonable
time. Therefore, the Sponsors and SCS concluded the most reasonable ap-
proach is to eliminate all efforts to assist in protecting the Juniper Bay
primary nursery area and concentrate on single purpose flood prevention from
wind tides. Alternative 5 ,has been selected as the recommended plan and
will be reflected in the Final EIS.
The decision .to recommend Alternative 5 will eliminate your general concern
for the 405 acres of wetland affected by the conservation easement area.
The need for many of your specific comments have been eliminated also with
this decision. Responses will be made to those that still apply.
Comments
1. The conservation easement area of 762 acres has been eliminated
from the plan.
2. The value of regulating slug flows in the primary nursery area was
to be demonstrated and the benefits were to be measured. These benefits are
not now quantifiable according to Marine Fishery Agencies.
3. Affected wetlands have been reduced to about 2 acres of type 12
wetlands by construction of the dike. These 2 acres have been previously
O The Soil Conservation Service
`J is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture
SCS-AS-1
10-79
I A-57
n
effected by land disturbances. Field review was made with Steve Brown of
the Regulatory Branch, COE, Wilmington District and a representative of the
Coastal Area Management Agency on May 26, 1984.
4. The 195 acres of wetland north of SR 1124 are type 7 and 8.
Construction of a downstream dike will not affect these wetlands. Fresh-
water drainage from this area is not improved or impeded by the proposed
project.
5. The conservation easement area has been eliminated; therefore, the
need for a management plan has been eliminated.
6. See response number 5.
7. See response number 5.
8. The 175-200 acres affected by saltwater leaching is included in the
5,150 acres of cropland discussed, but it is affected to 'a different degree
of damage.
9. _The proposed conservation easement restricted the landowner to
existing land_use of,his privately owned land' Since the easement area has
been eliminated and,,the 762 acres are now outside the project area, the land
may well be changed by the land owner.
l0. The concerne4.40.5 acres of wetland is now located' outside the
proposed project area..
11. Vie N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries entire statement can be found
in Appendix A Final.EIS,.
12. Added design features required for Alternative'5 included_addi-
tional discharge pipe and tide gates,with the. attendant, changes in head
walls and support., Primary nursery area benefits are no.longer.an objective
of the proposed plan.
13. The excess organic material mentioned s.the.woody material now
growing-on.the construction site.. This.material will be cut and windrowed
on the construction right-of-way on-the outside of.,the dike and borrow area.
14. See response number 5.
15. See response number 5.
16. See response number 5.
Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Since ely,
Coy A. arrett c?
State Conservationist
A-58
J

r
f
r
r
I
i
LF]

t
t

'Lee
v G. PARHAM. AL
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
JAMES A. GRAHAM
COMM SIONER OF AGMCULTM
December 21, 1983
Mr. Coy A. Garrett, State Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service, USDA
PO Box 27307
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Coy:
Thankyou"for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement for the West, Quarter, Double and Bay Sup-
' plement',to'the Swan Quarter watershed plan. The 'work accomplished``
by your staff on this effort exemplifies the dedication and versa
tility necessary to-meet the needs of our state's people.,
Our preferred alternative is number 3, the full water manage-
ment?1approach-including the diversion canal. It is felt that this
alternative would-accomplish the goals set forth by the Governor's
Coastal Water,, Management Task Force.. Knowing of the impending dif-
ficultd:es and: delays t&'be expe'cted,. -if ;number 3 were selected, we
commend your decision to choose number A. Alternative- 4 is an ex-
cellent step towards implementing the Task Force recommedations
and will both serve the.I.andowner's.needs and provide some degree.
of.protection to the estuarine system.
Again, let me express my support for your ongoing efforts and
this specific project. If I can be of any assistance to you, please
let me know.
With best wishes always.
Sincere ,
Tom Ellis
Environmental Programs
Coordinator
TE/jp
cc: Ms. Chrys Baggett
A-59
P. O. Box 27647, Raleigh, N. C. 27611 (919) 7336248
0
t
Raleigh.
North Carolina
27611
Division, of
Archives aril Hiskry
ffilliam S. Price,Jc, Director
Sara W. Hodgkins,
Secretary
James B. Hunt, Jr.,
Governor

December 20, 1983
Mr. Coy A. Garrett
State Conservationist U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
310 New-Bern Avenue, Room 535
Raleigh, N.C.' 27611
Re: Swan Quarter Watershed Work Plan, Hyde County
CH 84-E-0000-5118 DER 84-7430)
Dear Mr. Garrett:
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project, as well as your letter of November 21,1983.
We have conducted,.a review of the project and are aware of, no properties
of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance which would
be affected by the project. Therefore we have no comment on the project
as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of.the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section.106, codified at
36?CFR Part 800,-and to Executive Order 11593, "Protection-and Enhance-
ment of the Cultural Environment."
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Na. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
• 49--, p?
William S. Price, Jr
State Historic Preservation Officer
WSP:slw
cc: Clearinghouse
I
I
t
r
a

r
r
t

I
a
t

t
t

Supporting Information
F.Y«_?.?a ylY wr?rr w ? { .? sr+.?"b ;7 r r,"rv rr' ,?

-
I

ww' •Y t '• M Y l ?
dl
0 ? C...
'. h P
? Y
"

1
1
-N'ti.?,. L4 .,1ti' ar, i, V . -. A
Y
?° 5
14,
F ..c• l fr'Twl

.96

I
llti?+*+?:. vr.'•Si4-r .I,a. "'
t'f 4
y{V
t µ ? ?
I :. ?
'
„
,
?rffr+?-r f}' .(. l ?'a '? v , t'' '. w+ Z? ,t;i
-, v?
f 'g??4'R' J, oa-1 }fit .,1- Y-? ?.
.P M?.• (..; µ ..:i f
:l

' a<. "' r .,_ ya- t ?,
.., -?°Af 3^ twnr-->7'w --?siw-r'>!a'r?'-±c ?.?Sa+. ..?1•-x? ...u. ,.. .,?".. '?„ ` - ...
_

I

a
t
i
1

Q
HI

A
P4
H

O
P4
H

O
U

cn
H
H

W
W

P?1
W
O
O

H

O
U
1
?O
W
a

H
d
i
t
t
N co
u ?
r-i
O O
4J $4
41 U
11
d) $4
az
rn _
a .41
co
x ..
cad 0 'cad
e-1
w b rl
r? .C A
O dl v
co
w ?
H
41 v
p 41
O co
a&
-W r.
w cd
H
H
PLO,
W
W
W
d
,H
w O
rA 41
Gl o ca
PQ U P4
W
c Hcd 41
p O w
d 6 U
cad
41
O
H
R1
O
V
W
O
-r1
dl O
a) bo -W
Cd u
OAPOG
O
r-I
W
G
O
.rq
iJ }J
co -rl
O {?
co
D
W
B-1
0
O
O
00
r-?
Le)
00
Lr)
rn
00
N
Ln
N
M
%O
N
O
N
M
N
G ?
O O
N $4 H
D 41
44
$4 U O
4J w
?x
O H 0
° . 3
r
FT4
00
a\
cd
cn
co
O?
M4 -W
u 0`00
IO q ra
.°r1 4J
41 w
w Cd O
N r-1 U
r1 r1
~
4) to a
?q H O
M
cd
W
U
ri
p

O
}.,
ca
U

14
O
z

J

u 0

uu v

a?
4J rO
?
w a
i x
H a

0 -W

ar u
0

A ?

qq 0 cn
H
0 >%
p
W u C1
W

Cd ca
G
0
• ai
iJ r-q
cd a
z o

Q
w

co

co

3
N
W
_
41
Gl
w ..
w r•1
W cqd
w Qi
O
a)
v
41
a,
O
0
U
-4
O
-W \
ar
w ..
44 r•I
W cd
w
o
al
$4 al
N co
0 $4
Q) Q)
Qi
al
0
O
U
O O O
.-c n co

w w w
N
M ?.o

cn• cn. t!}

O
-H to

W 41 H 44
I ? .
V I
d bo w
T-4
a) ? a?

to
44 -W 4j a)
41

o
x
0
4
4 0) . o
44 p
a O co

? H
.

? d
Ln
00,
w
Cr
00
N
0
O
•,a
41

N aJ
(a u >
u ? in a?
N U
44) C
O a
4-4 p (d
44
9
W' W O
O T1 O
ri r•1
0 Lz+
• p
U e-I O
•rl cd ri
w 44
.-?
a,
a
a?
Fa
B-2
Ln Ln
00 O
Ln 00
ON --t
N
co
N .-t
N
a! 4J
w U
w aI
W w
w
ri W
cd
w U
? N
Pq t'+
r-q N
cd Pal
41 41
O N
H z

cn
O

ar

U.

O
z

41
W
41
U
1+ cn
a) o0
M
41 N
cd Cd
p fq
cd
.ri
O p
Ln PW

t
t
s
i
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
cd
O
H
co
u
H
0
z
4
41
? U
0 a)
010
Ddx
H 0 N
r•I a
A cd O
W iJ M
H
,W.7 G Cd
W 0
? •r1 C?i
G cd
W ai
r-I
0
A
H
a)
H
cd
O'
O
(D
3
O
-W
u
a)
4-1
44
W
a)
H
ca
O
G
a)
0
0
O
U
H

41 44
O
co b
o 41 U) o 44
4) Q

H
u
S O

d
?i
u 44
o
o
u
o v
i 41 4) H
-H
3
°) C)
O
N
ED p d
0 r i C14 w a)

? a! b o
? i H
H
r
1 N L? r1 4J n cd •
O
r-4 Q M
00

'b ° '? " O co a co
^
p
'-I cA O
z a fro $4 0. w O u co
b rl O O 0 7 H b 41 ?
$ 1
u
41 N u u A
•rl 0
z 14 '0
'.°
4) 0

a

A H
0 4J z
>
N o
I~
O co T-I
41 cd cii
cd a)
O 44
H a) O
N u a) .,i 99 0 r-I •n
? ? ,cd0 ? .s
c '? a
r•1 co -H
F3 • 4 'd
44 .0 41 i
'd •
H
?' rn 4) 0
3 .
w. Cn u 3 W; 4J
P4 v4+
r-1 N M r-i N '"?
O
w - ,

td
'Q) r I
0
Q) u
u v
4J a)
{,d. r-I
a
ri) )
?
y
u b 44
O u
•?
a) H
44 cd V.
44
W r $4
H
r4
ri) H
0) 4) H
'cl O
'7 N N O
H

ril o N
G u
c
d •r1 ?+ H
r-I 00 Ea
co
H r°
-I w r-I a)
H
H
44 PQ Q) p H
a)

W Fn U
B-3
cd
O
H
td
U
,.O
4J
lH
0
z
a.?
W U
0 b
H u x
Q 4J 4J
a a0i
rO-I A+
a a
A > O
W a ?
A ?
W CO AQ
cn o b
N td
0
A
>a
a
Cd
O
t7
41
w
a)
3
44
w O 0 N)
41 O
U 41 •r1
4) rj) 41 ?4
W a CO I
44 04 z ?
cd
41
0 G
W
tD W
O O 0
Cd ? U H
0) co - z>
U) d'
w
O .
al
R
O
r
0
U
I-4-4 C'41
41 o O?
V 11 -H -41
44 awl cad n
w04z cd
4a
o
w
W W a
p O to
to w u H
+ -W
? u
W
0
0
U
00
.. 00

Cd
O -W
U
to -W U

O W
b
w H 0
l 4
a • 44 444 a

in W is LI •ra vd 44 W
a) 10 41 a+ 41 w
41 $4 V 0) 4) u co

u w
41 J.- d
-
n
a
4a
N r
l P4 t
A H O
44 O A -H C403 "A O Cd .t1 `
'
14 t, z
44 rl 0 C .41 ml. H 41 a) -A
W ar H-H u :q w wo a 44
q ?
2
a 4 4 A
(A Cd u
0 a
3 41
? a C4

> c
d
41
41
0 4)
H z
I

a

l?
w
a

a
41
rj
•
41
N

U

0, 00
to
41
U

u b v 0) cn
rl
a a oo P4 G cd +?
44 p co
o
°
.
td
r
44 0 b • U

•
4-1 Cd ri 0 41 to co
w
o b O v w
r 4) Cd
? ? o p w V.
.. >, u
Q r-A O tD pq to
•,?
.rq co
44 ? a 41 C) $4
44 - r-I U LLr) PL4

o 4J
44
0 44
_
fA H w -1 C-41
t
s
t

I

I
r
v
t

APPENDIX C
Wetlands Map
s
a
ti
f
f
ti
a
i
i
s
e
N
Swindell
Fork
1
1
t
LEGEND -
-? Watershed Boundry
Dike Location
Pared Road
w Canal
7 WNland Type (Cir. 39)
NWL Non-wetland Areas
26NA
?
SWAN 264A
OUARTE
OG
7
9L
Oyster Creek
ending
OYSTER CREEK NWL NWL $
_ Pa 17

LAKE mATrAmusKfET
Lake
Comfort
J
Z
u ?
v
W
? W
0 0O
0
t
W
of
r
a ?@
J
Judges
quarter
11
17
e lu 8 \11 8
WETLAND TYPES
SWAN QUARTER WATERSHED
WEST, QUARTER, DOUBLE and BAY
SUPP- EVENT
HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
0 I/? 1 Milo

t
1
r

APPENDIX D
Project Map
I
a

I

I