19931024 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20090101

United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Sox 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
[phone] FAX [phone]
FTS 677-4520 FAX [phone]
FAX COLTER SHEET
TO:
der T?C. YY1

ATTN.-
DATE: --!) - a ,,'S --q -#?-L_
NUMBER Or PAGES (INCLUDES COVER SHEET): ,...
FROM:
?? ?YAGE, IF APPLICABLE:
3 --
C?
?? ? carte `? ?- ? `?- a?-.e..
7 (Y) WuLL r ?
t.56" a
(..?L_J? ?.W J t t ' ta"C5
\ t " 1VtiLk, Wq- 1 - _ l r v1t

MEMO

DATE: f y
TO: ? / 4/(f / SUBJECT:
LPL
i
v '/ t
r?O
srnrE 4 J U N .i
North CawlWa dDe tment of Environment,
Health r and Nffl Resources g? Printed on Recycled Paper
Qu?

Cedar Island NWR Section 401 Certification Monitoring Plan
`rhe Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will implement a pilot phase
of their proposed Integrated Marsh Management for Waterfowl and
Other Wildlife (IMM) as recommended by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) to assess the
proposal's impact. on water quality and existing uses. A minimum
one year monitoring effort will be completed on 12 ponds, 4 ponds
in each vegetation zone (Zone 1, ?, and 3). The following
parameters will be monitored.: 1) macr.oinvertebrates, 2) wildlife
(avian use), 3) vegetation, and 4) specific water quality
parameters. Data collected from the 12-pond pilot area ?or each
of the parameters will be compared to control sites and to
performance criteria specified in this plan. Control plots shall
be established and a minimum of two sampling events shall be
conducted prior to the excavation of ponds or other activities
that may impact the natural. functions of the marsh. Sampling
will occur at regular intervals agreed to by FWS and DEM, with
results submitted monthly or quarterly to DEM. After 1 year of
monitoring, DEM and FWS will assess impacts on water quality and
existing uses. If success criteria have not been met after one
year of monitoring FWS may continue monitoring unsuccessful
parameters until. they meet the success criteria. -44134n all
success criteria are met DEM will use this data for 401
certification for the entire IMM proposal.

I. Macroinvertehrates - Samples will be taken of
macroinvertebrates (includes berithics, e.g. crayfish, snails,
worms, insects, etc.) in the areas of spoil deposition as well as
control sites. Control sites will be established in each
vegetation zone and comparisons of findings made with project
area. Performance criteria for success: Not more than a 25%
reduction in number of species and in abundance per unit effort.
of individuals for each species in project affected area as
compared to control sites. Also, there will be no elimination of
species comprising 250 or greater of the total density.
2. Wildlife (avian use) - Bird use along established transects
or plots will be monitored by regularly scheduled inventories. A
list indicating number of species and abundance per unit effort
for before and after project implementation will be developed and
compared. Performance criteria for success: No significant.
decrease in number of species or abundance per unit effort of
commonly occurring species in comparison with the control.
3. Vegetation - Sample plots/tr.ansect.s will be established in
spoil deposition area as well as in control sites for each zone.
Sufficient samples will be taken to show percent cover by
species. Comparison of before and after project will be made.
Performance criteria for success: Not more than a 25% reduction
in number of species and in percent cover by species in project
,if.fected area, as, compared to control sites. Also, there will be
s. ,
no elimination c)f any species which comprises 25% or greater of
the percent cover.
4. Water Quality Parameters - The project area is located
adjacent to estuarine waters classified SA-tiQW (High Quality
Waters) by DEM and the State has set water quality standards for
such areas. The ponds, once created, will be subject to the
State's standards appropriate for their salinity (if salinity is
greater than 0.5 ppt [500 ppm], then they will be considered
subject to the saltwater. [Class SC] standards; if less than 0.5
ppt, then they will. be subject to the freshwater [Class C]
standards.) Water quality in tjie created ponds, existing
natural ponds of similar size and depth, or existing potholes
(blasted 1969 and 1970), and at the marsh-sound interface will be
monitored to ascertain if certain water quality standards are
being met. The following water quality parameters will be
monitored at each location as indicated in the following chart:

Parameter SC Pored FW Pond Marsh/ c,und _(SA)
`I'iirb:idi.ty (NTU) 25 NTU* 50 NTIJ* 10 NTU
p1l 6.8 - 8.5* 6.0 - 9.0* 6.8 - 8.5
To in hc?rature
C'ol i farm bacteria** 200* ',O0A 14 (medium)
(c,/1.00 ml)
D.0 (111g/1) 5.0* 5.0* 5.0
*values of these parameters will be acceptable if comparable to
existing ponds/potholes an refuge
**Tf monitoring indicates standardi.s being violated at
marsh/sound interface then more intense monitoring will be
required until the source/cause is determined. Marsh/Sound
interface fecal coli.f.orms shall not exceed a median of 14/100 ml
and not more than 20 percent of the samples shall exceed 43/100
ml, based on at least five consecutive samples.
Sampling frequency: (for above parameters)
A. Ponds (SC and FW) - Sample all. parameters once per month
R. Marsh/Sound Tnt.erfac.e - Sample all parameters daily for five
consecutive days, 4 times per year (two of the sampling events
should be conducted during the period of highest waterfowl
roncont ration utilizing the ponds).
JUN-16-1992 07:53 FROM REG SOL. ATLFNTA TO 89197330791 P.02
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CARTERET
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
91 ERR 0896
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR )
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE )
Petitioner ) SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT
)
V. }
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, )
HEALTH AND. NATURAL RESOURCES )
Respondent }
This Settlement Agreement is entered into by and between the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service* (Service) and the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(Department).
The above-captioned matter is an appeal by the Service from a
decision of the Department dated August 21, 1991, which denied the
Service's application for water quality certification under section
401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1341. The project for
which t.be Service seeks certification is the construction of 54
shallow waterfowl ponds on Federally-owned property within Cedar
Island National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).

JUN-16-1992 07:53 FROM REG 50L ATLANTA TO 89197330791 P.03
r 4 . ..
- 2 -
The parties to this agreement have negotiated this matter in good
faith and have reached the following agreement which disposes
entirely of the Service's appeal.
TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
1. The Department shall issue to the Service a decision document
which grants section 401 water quality certification for 12 ponds,
each approximately .1 acres in area, at cedar island MM.
2. The Service shall conduct a monitoring plan of the ponds in
accordance with the agreed-upon plan attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The Service and the Department shall at a later data decide upon
specific monitoring techniques to be employed in carrying out this
plan.
3. At the end of one year of monitoring, if the monitored
parameters satisfy the water quality standards set forth in the
plan, the Service shall file another application for section 401
water quality certification for an additional 42 ponds, which
certification shall be issued by the Department, provided that all
other pertinent requirements are satisfied.
4. At the end of one year of monitoring, if the monitored
parameters do not satisfy water quality standards set forth in the
JUN-16-1992 0?:53 FRO11 REG 9_9 ATLANTA
4P
TO 89197330-791 P.04
- 3 -
plan, the Service and the Department may mutually decide to
continue the monitoring plan for an extended period of time.
5. The Service hereby withdraws its appeal in the above-captioned
matter-
b. This writing, together with Exhibit A, constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
By:
Date
Kathryn J. Conpar
Attorney for the Respondent
UNITED STATES DEPAR WlENT
OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
By:-
-James W. Pulliam, Jr.
Regional Director
Date.
John H. Harrington
Attorney for the Petitioner
a m
LIlN_LTEU STATES DEPARTNIE[?Pr OF THETN`T`ER_T_C7R
FISH AND WT_LDLiTF' SF_2V1E
Mattamuskeet-Swan Quarter.-Cedar Island
National Wildlife Refuges
Route 1, Box N-2
Swan Quarter, North Carolina 27885
Mav 4, 1992
Mr. Ron Ferrell
P.O. Box 29535
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
Department of Health, Environment and Natural Resources
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Ferrell:
Attached is the proposed final version of the Cedar Island NWR
Section 401 Certification Monitoring Plan per our meeting on April
20, 1992. Please review and if acceptable process as appropriate.
I have forwarded a copy to the Regional Office of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for their review and consideration. If acceptable
at that level they will forward the plan to our Solicitor's office
who will then contact the State's legal council to develop a
settlement. agreement of our agency's appeal..
If there are any concerns or problems please contact me at 919/926-
4021.
Sincerely,
aDonald E. Temple
Refuge Manager.
DET:bk
APL
Cedar Island NWR Section 401 Certification Monitoring Plan
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will implement a pilot phase
of their proposed Integrated Marsh Management for Waterfowl and
Other Wildlife (IMM) as recommended by the North Carolina
Division of Envi.ronmenta7_ Maragement (DEM) to assess the
proposal's impact on water quality and existing uses. A minimum
one year monitoring effort will be completed on 12 ponds, 4 ponds
in each vegetation zone (Zone 1, 2 and 3). The following
parameters will be monitored: 1) macroinvertebrates, 2) wildlife
(avian use), 3) vegetation, and 4) specific_ water quality
parameters. Data collected from the 1.2-pond pilot area for each
of the parameters will be compared to control sites and to
performance criteria specified in this plan. Control plots shall
be established and a minimum of two sampling events shall be
conducted prior to the excavation of ponds or other activities
that may impact the natural functions of the marsh. Sampling
will. occur at regular.- intervals agreed to by FWS and DEM, with
results submitted monthly or quarterly to DEM. After 1. year of
monitoring, DEM and FWS will assess impacts on water_ quality and
existing uses. If success criteria have not been met after one
year of monitoring FWS may continue monitoring unsuccessful
parameters until- they meet the success criteria. W44-@wn all
success criteria are met DEM will use this data for 401
certification for the entire IMM proposal.

1. Macroinvertebrates - Samples will- be taken of
macroi.nvertebrates (includes bent.hics, e.g. crayfish; snails,
worms, insects: etc.) in the areas of spoil deposition as well as
control sites. Control. sites will be established in each
vegetation zone and comparisons of findings made with project.
area- Performance c.rit.er. i a for success: Not more than a 250-
reduction in number of species and in abundance per unit effort.
of individuals for each species in project affected area as
compared to control sites. Also, there will be no elimination of
species comprising 25% or greater of the total density.
2. Wildlife (avian use) - Bird use along established transects
or plots will be monitored by regularly scheduled inventories. A
list indicating number of species and abundance per unit effort
for before and after project implementation will be developed and
compared. Performance criteria for success: No significant
decrease in number of species or abundance per unit effort of
commonly occurring species in comparison with the control.
3. Vegetation - Sample plots/transects will be established in
spoil deposition area as well as in control sites for each zone.
Sufficient samples will. be taken to show percent cover by
species. Comparison of before and after project will be made.
Per_f_o?-mance criteria for success: Not more than a 259c, reduction
in number of species and in percent cover by species in project
affected area, as compared to control. sites. Also, there will be

y
no elimination of anv species which comprises 25° or greater of
the percent cover.
4. Water Quality Parameters - The project area is located.
adjacent to estuarine waters classified SA-HQW (High Quality
Waters) by DEM and the State has set. water- quality standards for
such areas. The ponds, once created, will be subject to the
State's standards appropriate for their_ salinity (if_ salinity is
greater than 0.5 ppt [500 ppm], then they will be considered
subject to the saltwater [Class SCI standards; if less than 0.5
ppt, then they will be subject to the freshwater [Class C]
standards.) Water quality in the created ponds, existing
natural ponds of similar size and depth, or existing potholes
(blasted 1969 and 1970), and at the marsh-sound interface will be
monitored to ascertain if certain water quality standards are
being met. The following water quality parameters will be
monitored at each location as indicated in the following chart:

Parameter SC Pond FW Pond Marsh/Sound (SA)
Turbidity (NTU) 25 NTU* 50 NTU* 10 NTU
pH 6.8 - 8.5* 6.0 - 9.01 6.8 - 8.5
Temperature
Col iform bacteria* A 200* ygbwk 14(medium)
(c/100 ml)
D.0 (mg/1) 5.0* 5.0* 5.0
*values of these parameters will be acceptable if comparable to
existing ponds/potholes on refuge
**If monitoring indicates stand
marsh/sound interface then more
required until the source/cause
interface fecal coliforms Nall
and is being violated at
intense monitoring will be
is determined. Marsh/Sound
(M6
not exceed a mediankof 14/100 ml
and not more than W0 percent of the samples shall exceed 43/100
ml based on at least five consecutive samples.
Sampling frequency: (for_ above parameters)
A. Ponds (SC and FW) - Sample all parameters once per month
A1
B. Marsh/Soun Interface - Sample all parameters daily for five
consecutive days, 4 times per year (two of the sampling events
should be conducted during the period of highest waterfowl
concentration utilizing the ponds).
4wj
e ?AnRn
State of North Carolina
LACY H. THORNBURG Department of Justice
ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. BOX 629
RALEIGH
27602-0629
July 13, 1992
John H. Harrington
Office of Regional Solicitor
U.S. Department of Interior
75 Spring Street, S.W., Suite 304
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
v North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, 91 EHR 0896, Carteret County
Dear John:
Attached is your file copy of the Settlement Agreement for the
above-referenced matter. I don't know if the Administrative Law Judge will
enter an order dismissing the case, however, I can find that out and advise your
of how he plans to proceed.
LACY H. THORNBURG
Attorney General
Kathryn Jones ooper
Special Deputy Attorney General
KJC/klj
Attachment
cc: Ron Ferrell
ep:usfwsltr2.kc
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
I , i
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CARTERET
FLED 0FFk`,F OF
AD1`1(i?. h' I 1 s -
THE OFFICE OF
JUL 2 20 Phi
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
1 91 EHR 0896
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Petitioner
V.
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT,
HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Respondent
SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement is entered into by and between the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(Department).
INTRODUCTION
The above-captioned matter is an appeal by the Service from a
decision of the Department dated August 21, 1991, which denied the
Service's application for water quality certification under section
401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1341. The project for
which the Service seeks certification is the construction of 54
shallow waterfowl ponds on Federally-owned property within Cedar
Island National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).
I f
- 2 -
The parties to this agreement have negotiated this matter in good
faith and have reached the following agreement which disposes
entirely of the Service's appeal.
TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
1. The Department shall issue to the Service a decision document
which grants section 401 water quality certification for 12 ponds,
each approximately .1 acres in area, at Cedar Island NWR.
2. The Service shall conduct a monitoring plan of the ponds in
accordance with the agreed-upon plan attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The Service and the Department shall at a later date decide upon
specific monitoring techniques to be employed in carrying out this
plan.
3. At the end of one year of monitoring, if the monitored
parameters satisfy the water quality standards set forth in the
plan, the Service shall file another application for section 401
water quality certification for an additional 42 ponds, which
certification shall be issued by the Department, provided that all
other pertinent requirements are satisfied.
4. At the end of one year of monitoring, if the monitored
parameters do not satisfy water quality standards set forth in the
I- V
- 3 -
plan, the Service and the Department may mutually decide to
continue the monitoring plan for an extended period of time.
5. The Service hereby withdraws its appeal in the above-captioned
matter.
6. This writing, together with Exhibit A, constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
By:
George T verett, Ph.D.
/ z Zj
Date
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
By:
J R. Eadie
A 'ng Regional Director
0MIUL, 1-6). 299-1
Dat
Ka h n J. pe ohn H. Harrington
Attorney f th Respondent Attorney for the Petitioner
1
CEDAR ISLAND
MONITORING PLAN
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will implement a pilot phase
of their proposed Integrated Marsh Management for Waterfowl and
Other Wildlife (IMM) as recommended by the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management (DEM) to assess the proposal's impact
on water quality and existing uses. A minimum one year monitoring
effort will be completed on 12 ponds, 4 ponds in each vegetation
zone (Zone 1, 2 and 3). The following parameters will be
monitored: 1) macroinvertebrates, 2) wildlife (avian use),
3) vegetation, and 4) specific water quality parameters. Data
collected from the 12-pond pilot area for each of the parameters
will be compared to control sites and to performance criteria
specified in this plan. Control plots shall be established and a
minimum of two sampling events shall be conducted prior to the
excavation of ponds or other activities that may impact the natural
functions of the marsh. Sampling will occur at regular intervals
agreed to by FWS and DEM, with results submitted monthly or
quarterly to DEM. After 1 year of monitoring, DEM and FWS will
assess impacts on water quality and existing uses. If success
criteria have not been met after one year of monitoring, FWS may
continue monitoring unsuccessful parameters until they meet the
success criteria. If all success criteria are met, DEM will use
this data for 401 certification for the entire IMM proposal.
EXHIBIT A
t. !
- 2 -
1. Macroinvertebrates - Samples will be taken of
macroinvertebrates (includes benthics, e.g. crayfish, snails,
worms, insects, etc.) in the areas of spoil deposition as well as
control sites. Control sites will be established in each
vegetation zone and comparisons of findings made with project area.
Performance criteria for success: Not more than a 25% reduction
in number of species and in abundance per unit effort of
individuals for each species in project affected area as compared
to control sites. Also, there will be no elimination of species
comprising 25% or greater of the total density.
2. Wildlife (avian use) - Bird use along established transects or
plots will be monitored by regularly scheduled inventories. A list
indicating number of species and abundance per unit effort for
before and after project implementation will be developed and
compared. Performance criteria for success: No significant
decrease in number of species or abundance per unit effort of
commonly occurring species in comparison with the control.
3. Vegetation - Sample plots/transects will be established in
spoil deposition area as well as in control sites for each zone.
Sufficient samples will be taken to show percent cover by species.
Comparison of before and after project will be made. Performance
criteria for success: Not more than a 25% reduction in number of
species and in percent cover by species in project affected area,
a-, •

e
?
' - 3 -
as compared to control sites. Also, there will be no elimination
of any species which comprises 25% or greater. of the percent cover.
4. Water Quality Parameters - The project area is located adjacent
to estuarine waters classified SA-HQW (High Quality Waters) by DEM
and the State has set water quality standards for such areas. The
ponds, once created, will be subject to the State's standards
appropriate for their salinity (if salinity is greater than 0.5 ppt
[500 ppm], then they will be considered subject to the saltwater
[Class SC] standards; if less than 0.5 ppt, then they will be
subject to the freshwater [Class Cl standards.) Water quality in
the created ponds, existing natural ponds of similar size and
depth, or existing potholes (blasted 1969 and 1970), and at the
marsh-sound interface will be monitored to ascertain if certain
water quality standards are being met. The following water quality
parameters will be monitored at each location as indicated in the
following chart:
., 4
Parameter SC Pond FW Pond Marsh/Sound (SA)
Turbiditv (NTU) 25 NTU* 50 NTU* 10 NTU
pH 6.8 - 8.5* 6.0 - 9.0* 6.8 - 8.5
Temperature
Coliform bacteria 200 200 14(median)**
(c/100 ml) (geometric (geometric
mean)* mean)*
D.O (mg/1) 5.0* 5.0* 5.0
*values of these parameters will be acceptable if comparable to
existing ponds/potholes on refuge
**If monitoring indicates standard is being violated at marsh/sound
interface then more intense monitoring will be required until the
source/cause is determined. Marsh/Sound interface fecal coliforms
shall not exceed a median MF of 14/100 ml and not more than 10
percent of the samples shall exceed 43/100 nil based on at least
five consecutive samples.
Sampling frequency: (for above parameters)
A. Ponds (SC and FW) - Sample all parameters once per month
B. Marsh/Sound Interface (SA) - Sample all parameters daily for
five consecutive days, 4 times per year (two of the sampling events
should be conducted during the period of highest waterfowl
concentration utilizing the ponds).
OFFICE OF
TIT RNEY GENERAL
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO: / R1141. O. OF 406m, BLDG.
FROM: REP. NO. OR ROOM. OLDO.
A ION
? NOTE AND PILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION-
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
?-RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL

? NOTE AND 8EE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURES
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
FILED
OFF ICE OF
ADMINISTPA?"'v=
STATE OF NORTH CAROW,1 8 47 AM 19Z ADMIIN THE OFF OF
NISTRATIVECHEARINGS
COUNTY OF CARTERET [[?? 91 EHR 0896
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE )
INTERIOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE )
SERVICE )
Petitioner, )
V. ) ORDER GRANTING
CONTINUANCE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF )
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL )
RESOURCES,
Respondent
By motion dated April 16, 1992, counsel for the Respondent
requested an order continuing the April 20, 1992 hearing in the
above-captioned matter on the ground that the parties are
attempting to reach a negotiated settlement of the case. Respon-
dent requested that this matter be continued for at least 60
days.
For good cause shown, and pursuant to G.S. 150B-33, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing in the above-captioned case is
continued until June 221 1992.
This the day of April, 19 2.
? 2aM 11114, 4
Beecher R. Gray
Administrative Law J dge
RECEIVED
APR 2 1 1992
N. C. ,?TTQRNEY GENERAL
Environmental Protection Section

-2-
A copy of the foregoing was mailed to:
John H. Harrington
Office of Regional Solicitor
U.S. Dept. of the Interior
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Suite 304
Atlanta, GA 30303
Kathryn Jones Cooper
Special Deputy Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 227602-0629
Attorney for Respondent
This the c day of April, 1992.
2s
Office of Adm'
P.O. Draw r 2
Raleigh, NC 2
[phone]
, A6?A
i.strative Hea ings
47
11-7447

FILED
ADWi1..
STATE OF, NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
COUNTY OF CARTERET APR I b 2 38 hi 'MMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
91 EHR 0896
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE )
INTERIOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE )
SERVICE )
Petitioner, )
)
V. ) SECOND MOTION
FOR CONTINUANCE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF )
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL )
RESOURCES, )
Respondent
Pursuant to G.S. 150B-33 and 26 NCAC 3.0018, the Respondent,
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, by and through the undersigned Special Deputy Attorney
General, respectfully moves for a continuance of the hearing
scheduled in this matter for April 20, 1992. In support of the
motion the Respondent shows the following:
1. The parties have agreed to settle this case, and are
working on the terms of the settlement agreement; however, the
parties will not have a final document by the April 20th hearing.
2. While the undersigned has not discussed this continu-
ance motion with counsel for the Petitioner today, since he is
out of his office, by letter dated March 18, 1992, Petitioner's
counsel expressed the hope that the parties would be close enough
to a settlement by the April 20th hearing that the Administrative
Law Judge would be able to give us more time to complete an
agreement.
*&. . ow.
--2-
3. The undersigned believes that we need an additional
sixty (60) days to complete our settlement negotiations and have
a final document prepared to file in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully prays that this
Administrative Law judge issue an Order continuing the hearing in
this matter for at least 60 days.
Respectfully submitted this the 16th day of April, 1992.
LACY H. THORNBURG
Attorney General
By 2-
Kathryn Jgnes Cooper
Special Depu?y Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
[phone]

-3-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing SECOND
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE was served on the attorney of record for
the Petitioner by depositing a copy in the United States Mail,
first class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
John H. Harrington
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of the Interior
75 Spring Street SW, Suite 304
Atlanta, GA 30303
This the 16th day of April, 1992.
LACY H. THORNBURG
Attorney General
By l t ?.--- .
Kathryn Jones Cooper
Special Deputy Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
[phone]
:usfwsmot.kc

eL--AN

• 0 . ?;. ?-C? 1 N V L ??C3 (??'c1'?S --- _ ? I (`?.- ?t?:. M ? n? co ??'Y°? ? t? 4

N(--( kt Z C?-.glLv ?k I NSA? -c P c t ES

t?.1 ?-y
5s?AS tAit

-LS
OAS &N r//- A<s i L- c T 7 s TA,

f YzAe'S
?? ? _ S? (??? ? _ ? e _ goo t; _ ??.?? ?-
j

&41 7Z /AWk??
_jW

a sA.,(Fs
- ' - seq.? 1..?S1 -
-51
- oc f?-? L t 5 c- C S _-J-A,4 e- A I-S t! _

- Af A-Z=
l
I

l ?N 3;
I
1
4? W1 C ?? Sr-\ N l `l",fLc A}Cs
+ A-0
i

FINAL DRAFT
Cedar Island NWR Section 401 Certification Monitoring Plan
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will implement a pilot phase
of their proposed Integrated Marsh Management for Waterfowl and
Other Wildlife (IMM) as recommended by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) to assess the
proposal's impact on water quality and existing uses. A minimum
one year monitoring effort will be completed on 12 ponds, 4 ponds
in each vegetation zone (Zone 1, 2 and 3). The following
parameters will be monitored: 1.) macr.oinvertebrates, 2) wildlife
(avian use), 3) vegetation, and 4) specific water quality
parameters. Data collected from the 12-pond pilot area for each
of the parameters will be compared to control sites and to
performance criteria specified in this plan. Control plots shall
be established and a minimum of two sampling events shall be
conducted prior to the excavation of ponds or other activities
that may impact the natural functions (--)f the war.sh. Sampling
will occur at regular intervals agreed to by FWS and DEM, with
results submitted monthly to DEM. After 1 year of monitoring,
DEM and FWS will assess impacts on water quality and existing
uses. If success criteria have not been met after one year of
monitoring FWS may continue monitoring unsuccessful parameters
until. they meet the success criteria. When all success criteria
are met DEM will use this data for 401 certification for the
entire IMM proposal.

1. Macroinvertebrates - Samples will be taken of
e O"A`( Ft-s t-?
macroinvertebrates (includes benthics, e.g. fid-d- er a aus,
&Lt" t eoof -h-t s
snails, worms, insects, etc.) in the areas of spoil deposition as
well as control sites. Control sites will be established in each
vegetation zone and comparisons of findings made with project

area. Performance criteria for success: Not more than a 25%
reduction in number of species and in 4etaqd-Q?-? of
DF ?a-??E SPA-`?5
individualsk n project affected area as compared to control
sites. Also, there will be no elimination of species comprising
25% or greater of the total density.
2. Wildlife (avian use) - Bird use along established transects
or plots will be monitored by regularly scheduled inventories. A
list indicating species y and r-e abundancel for
before and after project. implementation will be developed and
compared. Performance criteria for success: No significant
(vim N` S a? Q??? Uiue i G???2T
change (decrease) in (.species or of sP??N?
abundance of
commonly occurring species b=rare-aid afee panj.e-et.
3. Vegetation - Sample plots/transects will be established in
spoil deposition areaSas well as in control sites for each zone.
Sufficient samples will. be taken to show percent cover by
species. Comparison of before and after project will. be made.
Perfor?ance criteria for success: Not more than a 25% reduction
N?r^M?svt off'
in /species r ) and in -
of iTrd-i vi dwra+,E? percent cover/ fragrency of occurrences4, in

will be no elimination of any species which comprises 25% or
greater of tie ,t?? ?onci c-r) j Q-ItL? -
4. Water Quality Parameters - The project.area is located
adjacent to estuarine waters classified SA-HQW (High Quality
Waters) by DEM and the State has set water quality standards for
such areas. The ponds, once created, will be subject to the
State's standards appropriate for their salinity (if salinity is
greater than 0.5 ppt [500 ppm], then they will be considered
subject to the saltwater [Class SC] standards; if less than 0.5
ppt, then they will be subject to the freshwater [Class Cl
standards.) Water quality in the created ponds, existing
natural ponds of similar size and depth, or existing potholes
(blasted 1969 and 1970), and at the marsh-sound interface will be
monitored to ascertain if certain water quality standards are
being met. The following water quality parameters will be
monitored at each location as indicated in the following chart:

Parameter SC Pond FW Pond
Turbidity (NTU) 25 NTU* 50 NTU*
pH 6.8 - 8.5* 6.0 - 9.0*
Temperature
Coliform bacteria** 200* 400*
(c/100 ml)
D.O (mg/1) 5.0* 5.0*
10 NTU
6.8 - 8.5
14
5.0
*values of these parameters will be acceptable if comparable to
existing ponds/potholes on refuge
**If monthly monitoring indicates standard is being violated at
marsh/sound interface then more intense monitoring will be
required until the source/cause is determined.

lruc
o u,
¢( ?
a.v c`s _- NL q. wu_c ske,e f NWR °I 26 - 40 Z
1ariy C"?O. DE /A - L?Q 7 3 3 -?9y?
UNITED STATES DEPAR'IT 1FII.M ' OF THE TNTFJ2TOR
FISH AND ATTLDLTFE SERVICE
Mattamuskeet-Swan Quarter-Cedar Island
National Wildlife Refuges
Route 1, Box N-2
Swan Quarter, North Carolina 27885 fl t5
April- 8, 1992
WrAM I
Mr.. John Dorney viral crt {tUHli(Y SL
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorney:
This office has reviewed the draft Cedar Island 401 WQC Study
Parameters submitted by the USFWS, Raleigh Field Office on March
25, 1992 and your office's reply of March 27, 1992. We also have
discussed the proposal with Dr. Jim Fleming of N.C. State
University who will be conducting the monitoring activities, and
Dr. Mark Brinson of East Carolina University. We are proposing
some changes or clarifications to the plan as proposed. Our
comments on each parameter follow:
1_. Macrobenthos. Drs. Fleming and Brinson both indicated some
concern in designing a sampling scheme to sample benthic
invertebrates in the Cedar Island marsh due to the dense
rhizome/root svstem of the needlerush and because only Zone 1. is
flooded enough to support benthic organisms. We suggest this
parameter be dropped or changed to macroinvertebrates which could
include bottom dwelling species where they occur. We probably need
a meeting involving the potential researchers to determine the
appropriate way to monitor this parameter if we retain it. The
wording "Not less than 75% reduction" in the performance criteria
should be changed to "Not more than a 25% reduction".
2. Wildlife. Our monitoring effort will be conducted with plots
and/or transects rather than incidental observations to increase
reliability. According to Dr. Brinson's high marsh study, avian
species are the most prevalent vertebrates in the marsh thus we
suggest monitoring their occurrence for the most reliable data.
The performance criteria for success should be "No significant.
change (decrease) in species diversity or abundance of commonly-
occurring species before and after project".
3. Vegetation. As we understand from my phone conversation with
Ron Ferrell, DEM's expectations of the success criteria for
vegetation response to the proposed project is that 75% of the
species occurring prior to construction will be present in a
reasonable time period (one or more years) after_ construction with
no species previously comprising 25% or greater of the total
density being eliminated. You also expect total density of
individuals (frequency of occurrence and/or percentage of cover)
to return to 75% of the preconstruction level. As I discussed with
Ron Ferrell on April. 7, we have some question if vegetation will
respond to this level within one year. The disturbance factors of
fire, aeration, and spoil deposition may trigger germination of
some of the seed bank contained in the spoil material. This seed
bank response could result in a significant change in species
composition during the first. growing season after the spoil
deposition from pond construction. Thus, we have some uncertainty
about the vegetation response being able to meet. the 75% criteria
within one year following construction. If after one year, the
vegetation criteria have not been met we may request an on-site
visit with DEM to access the situation and reach a mutual agreement
whether to continue the vegetation monitoring. The wording or
success criteria "Not less than a 75% reduction" needs to be
changed to "Not more than a 25% reduction".
4. Water Quality. As I discussed with Ron Ferrell, in comparing
water quality parameters of the new ponds with existing ponds, we
will attempt to locate natural ponds of a similar depth and size
in the same marsh or nearby marsh on Cedar Island NWR. Comparisons
with potholes (blasted 20 years ago) will be our second option
because of their obvious difference in depth and size. Regarding
fecal colifo.rm bacteria standards and monitoring, we do not
anticipate any violation of these standards because wildlife
concentrations are not expected to be of a magnitude to elevate
coliform levels. However, we will monitor coliform at DEM's
discretion since it is a water quality parameter.
Please give the above comments due consideration and contact me at.
919/926-4021 with your responses. If we are near agreement I will
revise the draft monitoring plan for final review by both agencies.
I suggest we also meet with Drs. Fleming and Brinson to confirm
that the monitoring techniques and schemes they plan to use are
appropriate for DEM's criteria.
Donald E. emple
Refuge Manager
DET:bk
cc: Raleigh Field Office, FWS, FWS, Raleigh, NC
Dr. Jim Fleming, NC-CFWRU, NCSU, Raleigh, NC
Dr. Mark Brinson, ECU, Greenville, NC
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
MARCH 27, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: MIKE GANTT
FROM: RON FERRELL
JOHN DORNEY
SUBJECT: DRAFT CEDAR ISLAND 401 WQC STUDY PARAMETERS
Listed below are comments concerning the monitoring proposal
submitted by USF&WS on 3/25/92. Changes and/or modifications have
been underlined. Please note that the requirement for monitoring
of Carbon transport has been deleted.
Control plots shall be established and a minimum of two
sampling events shall be conducted prior to the excavation of ponds
or other activities that may impact the natural functioning of the
marsh.
1. Macrobenthos. Samples will be taken of benthic macro-
invertebrates (e.g. fiddler crabs, snails, oligochaetes, etc.) in
the areas of spoil deposition as well as in control sites. Control
sites will be established in each vegetational zone. Comparisons
of findingq,,will be made. Performance criteria for success: Not
less than -7°o reduction in numbers of species and in total density
of individuals in project-affected area, as compared to control
sites. Also, there will be no elimination of species which
comprise 250 or areater of the total densitv.
2. Wildlife. OK
3. Vegetati ..... Performance criteria for success: Not
less than a ? reduction in species composition and in total
density of individuals in project affected area, as compared to
control site. Also, there will be no elimination of species which
comprise 250 or greater of the total density.
4. Water Quality. ..... The ponds, once created, will be subject
to the State water quality standards appropriate for their salinity
(i.e. if salinity is greater than 0.5 ppt (500 ppm) , then they
will be considered subject to the saltwater (Class SC) standards;
if less than 0.5 ppt , then they will be subject to the freshwater
(Class C) standards.
The followin g parameters will be monitored at each location as
indicated in the following chart:

Parameter SC Pond FW Pond Marsh/sound
Turbidity 25* 50* 10 NTU
pH 6.8-8.5* 6.0-9.0* 6.8-8.5
Temperature
Coliform bacteria** 200*
D.O. 5.0*
*
400* 14c/1000ml
5.0* 5.0*
* values of these parameters will be acceptable if comparable
to existing ponds on Refuge
** if monthly monitoring indicates standard is being violated
at marsh/sound interface then more intense sampling will be
required until the source/cause is determined
cedarisl.fws
ref-2
Cedar. 4 d l

CEDAR ISLAND NWR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION STUDY PARAMETERS
A one-year pilot study will be completed on 12 ponds, 4 ponds in
each vegetational zone !Zones 1. 2 and 3). The following
parameters will be monitored: (1) macrobenthos; (2) wildlife; (3)
v egetation; and (4) water quality. Study data from the 12-pond
pilot study for each of the parameters will be compared to control
sites and to objective performance criteria specified in this plan.
Sampling will occur on a monthly basis. with results submitted
monthly to the N. C. Division of Environmental Management. Upon
completion of the 1-year study, the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management will make a prompt finding as to impacts on existing
uses.
1. Ma.crobenthos. Samples will be taken of benthic invertebrates
in the areas of spoil deposition as well as in control sites.
Comparisons of findings will be made. Performance criteria for
b
success; Not less that 7,Y% reduction in numbers of species and i-n A.'
density of individuals in project-affected area, as compared to CO
Dccwn?
control sites. Sfell'
2. Wildlife. Studies will consist of incidental observations of
wildlife by FW5 personnel and/or contractor. A list indicating
species diversity and abundance for before and after project
implementation will suffice. Performance r_riteria for success: No
change in species diversity or abundance of commonly-occurring
species before and after project..

3. Vegetation. Sufficient samples in the spoil deposition area as
well as in control sites will be taken to show percent cover by
species. Comparison of before and after project will be made.
Performance criteria for success: Not less than an 8' reduction
in species composition and density in project affec?-ed area, as
compared to control site. ll??
vl?
4. Water Quality. The project area is classified SA - HQW (High
Quality Waters) by the N.C. Division of Environmental Management,
and the State has set water quality atandards for such. areas. The
ponds, once created, will be subject to the State standards
appropriate for their salinity (i.e., if salinity is greater than
O,5 ppt, then they will be considered subject to the saltwater
standards; if less than4.5 ppt, then they will be subject to the
standards}. Water quality in the created ponds, the existing ponds
as well as at the marsh-sound interface will be monitored to
ascertain if the objective water quality standards are being met.
The following parameters will be monitored as followed and State
established criteria are shown:
Parameter SC Pond Standard FVJ SA-HQW Sound-Marsh
Qonj 0
Interface
Turbidity v 10 NTU's
* g -?.s 4.0--1,0
. s-ass
pH
Temperature * '""` -
Z) l L,'-.a
Coliform Bacteria bll ?JU 14c/1000ml
Salinity
DO $( O - -?? d
v e Compare to existing ponds on Refuge.
------- ;= No need to sample in this area.
Performance criteria for success will be that results meet the
State established criteria at the SA-HQW Sound harsh interface and
Ll.xae_r
that the created ponds meet the quality of the existing ponds at
Cedar Island National. Wildlife Refuge.
MAR-24-1992 15:19 FROM NCDOJ-ENUIRONMENTAL TO j155ti r.t71
?yw
State of North Carolina
t..&CYrt'mowNBURG Department of justice Phone: [phone]
..rro?xsr??Hr=r+++? P.o. Sox bad Fax: .
RAL.6tCH
27602.0620
TELECOPYER TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: O ?1? o ?N KT° /i
FAX NUMBER : 733- L 3 3 Y
FROM:
6
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING TRANSMITTAL SHEET):
CONFIRM RECEIPT OF DOCUMENT(S) IF MARKED HERE:
COMMENTS:
An nqual opponunily/Affifmatlvc Action rmptoyer
MAR-24-1992 15:19 FROM NCDOJ-ENUIRONMENTRL lU .s1151stj r.ele

United States Department of the Interior
IN RFPLY IIFFER TO:
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
SOUTHEAST REGIONAL. OFFICE
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
:,

JHH : f C
FWS.SE.0643
92-3-0840
LG-5-2
March 18, 1992
Katherine Cooper
Associate Attorney General
N. C. Department of Justice
P. O. Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 21602-0629
Re: USFWS V. NCDEHNR, 91 EHR 0896
Dear Ms. Cooper:
"zi
i am very pleased to report to you that the Fish and Wild-
life service has agreed that settlement of the above-
captioned matter is the preferred course of action at this
time.
My understanding of the very general outlines we agreed upon
on March 13 is as follows:
1. NCDEHNR will grant water quality
certification to FWS for 12 ponds
each approximately .1 acres in area
at Cedar island marsh.
2. A study plan will be prepared and
agreed upon as a part of the settle-
ment in which the FWS will be
required to conduct a number of
studies and samplings to test water
quality and wildlife effects in the
vicinity of the ponds.
3. Objective standards shall be
prepared and agreed upon as a part
of the settlement by which the ponds
shall be tested a year after
construction. Application of these
standards to the data shall yield a
yes or no answer for going forward
with the remaining 42 ponds.
MAR-24-1992 15:20 FROM NCDOJ-ENVIRONMENTAL TO 5155ti r.es

- 2 -
4. If the answer is yes, the Service
shall file another application for
water quality certification for 42
additional ponds. If the answer is
no due to the failure of wildlife to
rebound, the Service may, in.
conjunction with NCDEHNR,, retest
after the passage of additional
time.
It is my belief that Refuge and Enhancement personnel of the
Service should work directly with NCDEHNR staff in preparing
the study plan and objective standards. After agreement has
been reached on these substantive matters, we attorneys can
draw up a settlement agreement for submission to the office
of Administrative Hearings.
Today, I received a call from the OAH informing me that the
hearing was reset for April 20, 1992. Hopefully, we will be
close enough to a settlement at that time that the Judge
will be able to give us more time to complete an agreement.
Please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely yours,
John H. Harrington
Deputy Assistant Regional Solicitor
cc: Bill Grabill, F'WS1 Atlanta, GA
Linda K. Gantt, USFWS, P. O. Box 33726, Raleigh,
NC 27636-3726
MAR-24-1992 15:20 FROM NCDOJ-ENUIRONMENTAL TO s1ss? r.e4

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CARTERET
AE)
IN THE OFFICE OF
Aa { EC2 _DM1NISTRATIVE HEARINGS.
91 EHR 0896
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Petitioner
V.
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH
AND NATURAL'RESOURCES
Respondent
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF
HEARING DATE
-NOTICE I5 HEREBY GIVEN that the above--captioned contested case
presently scheduled fox hearing on April 17, 1992,. has been
rescheduled for April 20, 1992, at 9:00 a.m. in the'Lee'House, 422 N.
Blount Street,. Raleigh, North Carolina.
This the IV-day of March, 1992.
-Beecher R. Gray
Administrative La ?,3 dge

'_
MAR 1 '9
E u. C. , . TOR' N_y
GENERAL
sed
MAR-24-1992 15:21 FROM NCDOJ-ENVIRONMENTAL TO 31338 P.05
++:++yr.w -2-
A copy of the foregoing was wiled to:
John'H. Rarrington
..Office of Regional Solicitor
U.S. .Dept. of the Interior
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Suite 304.
Atlanta,.GA 30303-
Attorney for Petitioner
Kathryn Jones,Cooper
Special•Deputy Attorney Gen.
N. C. Department of.7usticc
P.O.. Box •629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0029
Attorney for .Respondent

This the ?D day of March, 1992.

Office 0 inist:ative He rings
P.O. Ura e .744;
zaleigh, N. . . 27511-7447
919/733-2698
TOTAL P.05
-L)F/7-1-
I??J?...-? l?r?l?-? f.+ h? ? 1. - ? ? .(`-? ^cLSd cs : °(??_ S?-•-.O `-? `??' ??U ???-.._c:E;?'<?
?? C u ??J C•}?.l ??c-c S ?L9i?) ?? d`'??p L. `?L1? ?; 1 ?', ?5?'"?-.l, C dom./

i m
_

?v1i ??_? l t> "7 ?1?9 S??l ??(? `-3 ?t?^, C?t.!°?,f` (1 ?/( ??,.ie?. f R•(?

i- - .,

j
-- - -- - ??--- - - - -- - - --------- - -
e

?. To"
1?c?(Z??cC?? - ?`vtC=Mcv? ?? S?Cc?U:?or`
W ? ?.x'? ? ?--•A?.-? Ste. c- ? t ?, rJ
cam, .:ra?`t 4N9. T c.i+.h1IC-Ar-??1/r?Z?1 c.?

lc/l5ka,--1 roj Ch?Vt(L:?rcMcNilrf? V?NPCyC-pt
. :. 1 ` EfG ?\ l?J R ? Pry r_ ?.? rnv ` o N Y16 ` A,= k
J /k s /N'1 E1?1 t? 3 ?(
SC
t?C?S X43 ( ) 1?3-ass. I ) 3(G)(1) j ??3-z?s.3(?)
P-4
[SA KCkC
> l
7 5 pr} W- AC d 4 . USOU
3,
( LS ?? l?lc/F?o?? of 0 - F1-?l?C?.ADA',?:,
Az)
i
0
JS A N c-- A ? ? 3 , O ? ? ? - 1 (? A ` S nL . W t?;? Cvt ss ? k ???5 ?iU
?• k5 -s D t0 -? b&- za elzt/4I -, sP?6`
C.-a)(I-Ns ,fa(ZE A Q eft c- ?tFE V-?h-ei l
?y ?? `C 4D i T1 f4 v- P kc. o N W A C? . ?? w (k'tC-,v?
1U, CisP?iy 1 JR?RN? ???T?'? -4NS?a(L\ Ar?? Nv ?YC?cv\T'
??y??-LNG
. ; ? l-?. ? ? oS ?? or..? o 'F ? ^ 4 r• O?C- SC.O t N`L N ? OGV ?? ?-cT?
F : aF 1 ?2 G c (Z ?Y J`' c) r?? c-? 61,.,s ^C+tc Q4 i E (\I- 11 7t?
?/ e i NAT r,h r ASP 7z',.#
s M a ?-(L E X S"Z7 ?V G i-L S mss,( 6 N N E` ` 05.
o F A.N ao ? ? ? Urr ?? ? . `? ??(?- <? sF ,raCrc...s ?r ? -R-? ? x ? s? ??c>
(L? S`?t! c Tu. (._ asp ttsS ot? ?! w R? Qc? /?? ?"`(
64 T?- ? ? ?? ?R ad s ?..
?o'l ,,fT 1l??vY
1..? . ?.,._ ? i2 e' / •_ e J c? ?tit? ?? ? S ? . PJ Cr ? 5 ?> b F Zy-?S Pd ?'?.rt.v 6 {- +??E
U

K%tr
?"C'EN' ?l ? L 1? G. 4u-S ? S l G N t ? ? ?..r4-N d. l??S O? lJ? ?'S
??• Tl-ft brt ?? i ?. ?„zE-mss vF 5 -45 INFF/OrP
?`"?'? ? S ?L C ? F ? ? (?1 v.ctif3?5 f?-lL.? .,?v? P?J ? ? ?- ?C? LL •. {? ?5 .4(Z?' ?'9??+?4'ti-,,q(3 ? ?'
*r?
1-4,- 1,-4
??- YES
c a r

??, YE-5
e

') ? '\(Cs). 4771' -Cdr ,
T& p 97MON s
•.', ? ? i??-CLO?::.ra ? ?{2-?? f ? S Pc-.?c,E? ors ? 5 -?PP?c cyt r?1T? %?1.9-i
EFF`KCN'? J?NO tnYf", 1 crf Qc?`-? ?`( S 1+1v?1'DPAS wlL` Na .
GLti??I?
c? a F
a(A, ' l?s l
C N\
es r? ?Lc ?;J Piero ccc 711
fl-?35,r,, :r
.?{ 7?

4'w f3 z c ;? -rte MvY P s2 n 3r cz
Lo CZ'E l NN )iZtZv c??.?.4r??=? F? ?z?v s? t-1kc, r N.tt (L? t ova
F? t ?? ? ??-('?. ?. -?-- F S v ? Q L? S'c ? ??``'? `? ? ? rc l? Co Q Y ? (_
Z'?E C-71 q"
i
W 5 ?C?? i? ?tE Pic<^c c^rv
o f J4 w Pr,"' (-c:) ? `- t Pow ti o M r ?T N ,? CLZ? Gk Z???
l .S . ?a?ti ? u c> Z Q As% F ? Yc-gut, _ 1 F
?t
?1? ? ? o ? 1? ca P `/ O? Lett o t3?? C-T"S " .
k
(fir
3 l-s U S, F? w S a ac t? -ta-c?-c ?v?. sv i
?F 1k w ?i?. Few ?.. ?r? P??NOM<:NT 1N w C'F'??K? ?
E
.r
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ? RC Lti-•,c? ?/? L- d F' /?-4-?5 i "rte- j c%?z-lC- ?? T?- y a ? ?- ! ?-a,u G.
r`
-0 A:
f
S ?:?" Gf-e?J'. h*?.?`?.Cl U"-- f`_'c `'i'/ C.tn'.'
,? 14,

???? 11. I S ?,,R2c D e) Gts Z c-T2.-N-5 o f _ 011 tzLVL Ac-z?w c-t e s
?T t W S ! S Co C-? C7z- ID ?v ?v w "tai j +-t t

. -Am

4

JiSp ,C

,t
uses-
?I.
74 ' la-) (-?f 1"'L SOV) -
rm - v1CQ"a14- rr? 614
OAA
b
s
h5?, t S Ss?vvtc??C _ qqN w+UA! ? hf
16-. P
I w?1c?„? ?
(?nt? ? Q?,?e5?i^^S l?(3t
,Y<uulu?W LtlNCN?
wpb

?'d ?"` sTATg o?
V ?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor November 7, 1989 R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Ms; Debbie Mignogno
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Ms. Mignogno:
As we discussed, Debra Sawyer and I (Washington Regional
office) have reviewed the September 28, 1989 revision to the
"Integrated Marsh Management Plan for Cedar Island and Gull
Rock." While the plan is dramatically improved from the earlier
version, we still believe that it's scope is much too large for
an "experimental" project. We believe that this is a worthwhile
experiment and that your proposed monitoring would be useful.
However, the design of 60 ponds and a ditch at Cedar Island and
68 ponds at Gull Rock is more on the scale of a demonstration
project rather than an experiment. Therefore, we urge you to
scale down the project in order to reduce its environmental
impact until sufficient data are available to determine the most
productive development plan.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].

Sincerely,
John R. Dorney
JRD/kls
Mignognol-D-2
cc: Steve Tedder
Debra Sawyer
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF
COUNTY OF CARTERET ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
91 EHR 0896
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR, FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE,
Petitioner
v.
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRON-
MENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL
RESOURCES,
Respondent
PREHEARING STATEMENT
Comes Now the Petitioner in accordance with the Order of
September 27, 1991, and files this prehearing statement.
1. The issue to be resolved in this matter is the validity
of Respondent's decision of August 21, 1991, which denied
Petitioner's application for water quality certification.
The certification is required by section 401 of the Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. S 1341. Although the decision contained
no citation of authority, it is believed that the decision
was issued under GEN. STAT. N.C. S 143-215.1, which states:

Z - 2 -
'V
In any case where the Commission denies a permit, it
shall state in writing the reason for such denial and
shall also state the Commission's estimate of the
changes in the applicant's proposed activities or plans
which will be required in order that the applicant may
obtain a permit.
Id. S 143-215.1(a).
2. The decision of August 21, 1991, was defective in several
ways. The reasons for denial were stated as follows:
The project as proposed will remove aquatic life habitat
and affect water quality control.
At no place in the decision does the Respondent state the
water quality standards that Petitioner's proposed activity
will allegedly violate. Moreover, the issue of aquatic
habitat removal is not a proper basis for denial of a permit
because it is not an effluent standard. See GEN. STAT. N.C.
§ 143-215. Hence, the Clean Water Act's waiver of the United
States' sovereign immunity does not permit denial of water
quality certification on this basis. See 33 U.S.C. S 1341.
r
- 3 -
Second, the decision goes on to state:
we would not be opposed to a smaller scale project which
if carefully located, could be done without significant
loss of uses.
This statement does not satisfy Respondent's statutory
obligation to estimate the changes in the plan that would
enable the Petitioner to obtain a permit. The terms "smaller
scale project" and "carefully located" do not provide the
Petitioner with sufficient information to make an informed
decision about the proposed project. Moreover, the reference
to "loss of uses" is not understood by the Petitioner. This
appears to measure the permit application against a standard
that is not an effluent or water quality standard.
Third, the absence of specificity in the decision as to the
standards being applied and the manner in which the proposed
project allegedly violates them renders the decision as an
arbitrary and capricious act which may not stand.
3. Witnesses for the Petitioner shall include:
a. An undetermined number of employees of the Respondent
to be identified through the discovery process.

- 4 -
b. Donald E. Temple, Refuge Manager, Mattamuskeet
National Wildlife Refuge.
C. Ken Merritt, Assistant Refuge Manager, Mattamuskeet
National Wildlife Refuge.
d. Kelly Davis, Wildlife Biologist, Mattamuskeet
National Wildlife Refuge.
e. Linda Gantt, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
f. Debbie Scruggs, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
4. Petitioner wishes to pursue discovery on the following
matters:
a. Identity of Respondent's employees responsible for
the decision.
b. The basis of the decision.
C. The effluent limitations and water quality standards
against which the proposed project was measured.

- 5 -
d. The Respondent's treatment and ultimate disposition
of other similar marsh land permit applications.
5. A hearing is requested in Raleigh, North Carolina.
6. It is estimated that the hearing should take no longer
than two days.
7. N/A
8. Petitioner shall be ready for a hearing in this matter
after January 1, 1992.
9. Petitioner stands ready to engage in discussions with the
Respondent in order to avoid costly and time-consuming
litigation.
Respectfully submitted,
John H. Harrington
Attorney for the Petitioner
Office of the Regional Solicitor
U. S. Department of the Interior
75 Spring Street, S.W., Suite 304*
Atlanta, GA 30303
*Please note: Address change from Suite 1328, to Suite 304.
M a s" 4
- 6 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the foregoing was mailed this 025-7C day of
October, 1991, to:
George T. Everett
Dept. of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Elizabeth E. Rouse
Associate Attorney General
Department of Justice
State of North Carolina
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
7.?.c..?
John H. Harrington
MEMO
DATE:
TO: SUBJECT:
G?o
W<< i? ?' c'?s Cis
CCAII(
Sal& AaA?. bc)r ?R
/?p aa`--
0
Ltiln
s cam--- ? ?a ? ?-s. ?
F?k 4
LeAA
?s
14
wok /? ca?
e ??S
s l
From:
.MC STATE
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources Printed on Recycled Paper
a4? ?70.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor November 7, 1989 R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Ms. Debbie Mignogno
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Ms. Mignogno:
As we discussed, Debra Sawyer and I (Washington Regional
office) have reviewed the September 28, 1989 revision to the
"Integrated Marsh Management Plan for Cedar Island and Gull
Rock." While the plan is dramatically improved from the earlier
version, we still believe that it's scope is much too large for
an "experimental" project. We believe that this is a worthwhile
experiment and that your proposed monitoring would be useful.
However, the design of 60 ponds and a ditch at Cedar Island and
68 ponds at Gull Rock is more on the scale of a demonstration
project rather than an experiment. Therefore, we urge you to
scale down the project in order to reduce its environmental
impact until sufficient data are available to determine the most
productive development plan.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].

Sincerely,
ft
John R. Dorney
JRD/kls
Mignogno/-D-2
cc: Steve Tedder
Debra Sawyer
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Ecual Oooortunity Affirmative Action Employer
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Date:
To:
From:
Through:
Subject:
July 23, 1991
John Dorney
Planning Branch
James H. Gregson
Wilmington Regiona Office
Dave Adkins
Wilmington C& ional Office
9 ??-
`f,
N 'ra,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The
to construct 54 shallow
Island West Bay Marsh.
hydraulic rotary ditcher
cu. yds. will be sprayed
the adjacent marsh.
Project # 9107-1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
CD91-12 / Integrated Marsh Management Ponds
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Carteret County
Regional Office Review and Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Proposes
(18" deep) 0.1 acre ponds in the Cedar
The Ponds will be excavated with a
and spoil from the excavation (19,360
2"-4" thick over a total of 75 acres of
ADJACENT WATER BODY: Core Sound
CLASSIFICATION: SA ORW
STATUS: Open
The project has been reviewed to determine impacts to water
quality. The following comments have been provided.
1. The project will require an individual 401 Water Quality
Certification.
2. As proposed the project will impact 80.4 acres of
irregularly flooded brackish marsh. Such a proposal for an
experimental project seems excessive, especially in a
pristine marsh located near SA ORW waters. Although the
project may be creating waterfowl habitat, it will remove
the present functions and values of the wetlands in the area
of the ponds and in the areas of spoil disposal. Such a
proposal is inconsistent with the Antidegradation Policy.
JHG:9107-J.JUL
cc: Wilmington Regional Office Files
Central Files
DCM-Steve Benton
(- COI-P,
e +,a STATp o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division or Coastal Management
225 North McDowell Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
James G. Martin, Governor Roger N. Schecter
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary ?,?a ss Director
06/30/91
Iggy
Mr. Richard Rowe Director P ?n'KQUAGrY 'V
NC DEHNR C, "g B,.an fu
Division of Environmental Health
P.O. Box 27687 ????618L Lti9?'??
Raleigh, NC 27602
REFERENCE: CD91-12
Applicant/Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Experimental "Integrated Marsh Management" Ponds, Cedar Island NWR
Dear Mr. Rowe:
The attached Consistency Determination, dated 06/18/91
describing a proposed Federal Activity is being circulated to
State agencies for comments concerning the proposal's consistency
with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Please indicate your viewpoint on the proposal and return this
form to me before 07/19/91 7
Sin6?rely,
Stephen B. Benton
Consistency Coordinator
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.Cale4,J
Comments on this project are attached.-
This office supports
No Comment.
the project proposal.
Signed
Date z2z
Agency
P.O. Box.27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
.r.. srntF 0
r??GIUM ?r
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor June 2, 1989 R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMO TO: Steve Tedder
Don Saf rit
Roger Thorpe
FROM: John DorneyI3??
SUBJECT: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission plans to "enhance" wetlands at
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge and Gull Roch
Wildlife Area
On Friday, May 19, 1989, I attended the above-mentioned .
meeting in Morehead to discuss the WRC and Fish and Wildlife's
plans to convert about 17 acres of Spartina patens and black
needlerush marsh to open water for waterfowl. These agencies
proposes to dig a system of canals, ditches and ponds in the
marsh in order to enhance waterfowl habitat. The purpose of
the meeting was to get preliminary comments from agencies.
Besides DEM, other agencies present were Coastal Management,
Marine Fisheries, Corps of Engineers, and Health Services (vector
Control).
Considerable skepticism was expressed by all agencies
involved. The COE and myself expressed the need.to review the
project consistent with review of similar private projects (such
as widening of an existing mosquito ditch for marina access).
The COE stated that they had denied several similar private
projects. Considerable concern was expressed as to the extent
of ditching in these relatively pristine areas and its effect on
hydrology, fisheries and wetland ecology. Dr. Mark Brinson
(ECU) apparently expressed similar concerns. as well as the lack
of an experimented approach to the work in a letter to the Fish
and Wildlife Service. Several individuals wondered how success
or failure was to be measured and if the project .fails, who would
restore the site.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
June 2, 1989
Page Two
The Fish and Wildlife Service will be sending a revised plan
and evaluation proposal within 30 days. They would like comments
within 30 days after that time. The Raleigh Office of Fish and
Wildlife will prepare the Environmental Assessment.
It is likely that the project design will be substantially
altered as a result of this meeting. Once I get a copy of the
evaluation proposal, I'll send it to Bill Mills and the two
regions for review.
JD/jho
cc: Charles Wakild
Bill Mills
LTR.1/VOL.19

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor July 20 , 1990 George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba
FROM: Steve
SUBJECT: Project No. 90-1019; Draft Environmental
Assessment for Proposed USFWS Integrated Marsh
Management Plan at Cedar Island and Gull Rock
The Division of Environmental Management has reviewed the
subject EA and found it nearly identical to the USFWS
proposal we commented on last November (comments attached). The
proposal consists of creating 60 and 68 ponds, respectively, in
irregularly flooded salt marsh at Cedar Island National Wildlife
Refuge in Carteret County, and Gull Rock Game Lands in Hyde
County. The Cedar Island project also includes excavation of a
long ditch, the purpose of which relative to the ponds, is
unclear.
DEM sees merit in the experimental aspects of this proposal.
if succesful, the ponds would create open water pockets that
would lend habitat diversity to the high marsh ecosystem without
significantly effecting its hydrology and nutrient export to
nearby estuarine waters. Some similar projects have apparently
been done successfully in Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey.
However, as stated in our previous comments, we continue to
believe that the scope of this project is excessive for an
experimental project and should be scaled down. We also question
the need for the ditch.
There are several unknowns associated with this project that
should be resolved prior to implementation of the full project.
These would include the affects of low-level military flights
over the Cedar Island area on waterfowl use, the ability to
establish submerged aquatic vegetation in the ponds, the affects,
if any, of distributing the excavated pond spoil on the adjoining
marsh, and the success in drawing waterfowl to these ponds. In
addition, it is DEM's understanding that the area in which the
Cedar Island ponds would be located may be the largest expanse of
Poiludon Prevendon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
Ms. Melba McGee
July 20, 1990
Page 2
undisturbed salt marsh left in the state (most have been altered
by mosquito ditches). DEM is therefore reluctant to approve a
large scale project in this marsh without some assurances that it
will aid waterfowl in the North Atlantic Flyway without
jeopordizing the integrity is this unique state resource.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the project be done in a
minimum of two phases. The first phase would be to construct a
limited number of ponds at each site. Six to eight ponds at
each site would be acceptable to DEM and should still be enough
to test several pond orientations in different vegetative types.
If after two growing (and fall migration?) seasons the
small-scale projects are successful, then implementation of the
full or an intermediate project could proceed. Success would be
measured by how well the project meets a set of criteria
developed and agreed upon by the various agencies associated with
its planning, permitting and implementation. It is also
recommended that the proposed ditch at Cedar Island not be
included in the first phase.
DEM would welcome an
go over our concerns and
there are any questions
contact Mr. John Dorney
cc: John Dorney
Deborah Sawyer
Jim Gregson
opportunity to meet with the Service to
recommendations in more detail. If
or if a meeting is desired, please
of DEM's Water Quality Planning Branch.
e "? SfATF °?
v ?
Y
kY QwM v?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor November 7, 1989 R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Ms. Debbie Mignogno
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Ms. Mignogno:
As we discussed, Debra Sawyer and I (Washington Regional
office) have reviewed the September 28, 1989 revision to the
"Integrated Marsh Management Plan for Cedar Island and Gull
Rock." While the plan is dramatically improved from the earlier
version, we still believe that it's scope is much too large for
an "experimental" project. We believe that this is a worthwhile
experiment and that your proposed monitoring would be useful.
However, the design of 60 ponds and a ditch at Cedar Island and
68 ponds at Gull Rock is more on the scale of a demonstration
project rather than an experiment. Therefore, we urge you to
scale down the project in order to reduce its environmental
impact until sufficient data are available to determine the most
productive development plan.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
ti.
Sincerely,
John R. Dorney
JRD/kls
Mignogno/-D-2
cc: Steve Tedder
Debra Sawyer
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
s. . -

B
klaIrl - cltltu TOCL
'A emL o-ou vvaJ " DM ?, /??w
0
s/r9/ 9
T4 _ no N" y?
?('E?OtDlril ae?eSs . 4-o t
0

S?
r
l
CAAJ?C.CM)?,*L jCOWj-04L4A4F- IA3)
v ?g.mss.
Pr

/6 use

UsP Li + wzC. {tk4
Cam) ? .

?4;+4J- 0-6?50.
• s_
cii DAP QA. CL

-- noy rnwa-
Ite V4 vt? 'rAm vu
a dire
U
97fcL-,Al 4 Covvw M • tom oatoCi fw
-b&A L ? Cil
CAL- h UAi ewl
s?? vs `? 1 uhP.
. , s.
qv y (6) Ct)
Aa?-Wj I §,M,741-
o? ~p"i

c?
M+ ojw?
w
ro_-V? re dzL

?N?lt ?Mw?, cL ' O f 2Cd J .
p UALz - ye
K9
?-"" v-Ka/*

Iss
SW4L? Jb -QalcL YQ-
will p„v? sri
athh"'o, rta,
WIw ? s.

ii
NN1?r ! cud ?,?.??.?' ( w5

4t;o? V-.4? "Ptr-+,
C uv') t
Ik
I?
R2 OA? ° vas G•.?
,?. ?? C( (a si?s VtO a
d;-?? VA?M L
okwj- } (a dk ctkcs -
&10k"AAZ?

o-Lc
®p
Q ?T?m

Aclc? 1 7ra4l1 w?t-
v ?' ss .

w
E
STATES 1:) P C F THE TNTF RTOR
7. FTSH AND WTLULTFE SERVICE
'Mattamuskeet-Swan Quarter-Cedar Island
National Wildlife Refuges
CEC 30 1991 Route 1, Box N-2
Swan Quarter, North Carolina 27885
?' Qk?Y
vti" December 18, 1991
3, Fy.
Mr. George T. Everett, Ph.D m?
Director
Division of Environmental Management DEC 1991
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 N. Salisbury St. )1V, QE E &'1 an,:o-'£?1F_NTAL NIC-01
Raleigh, NC 27604 DIRECTC.e S Os= :CE
Dear Mr. Everett:
This is a follow-up letter to my September 5, 1991 reply to your
agency's August 21 denial of Water Quality Certification for
proposed waterfowl pond construction on Cedar Island National
Wildlife Refuge. We refer to this proposal as Integrated Marsh
Management for Waterfowl and Other Wildlife.
As I stated in my September 5th reply, I referred the denial to
our Regional Director for a decision on the appeal process. The
Regional Director concurred with my recommendation of appeal and
the Office of the Regional Solicitor for the U.S. Department of the
Interior filed the appeal as stipulated in your August 21, 1991
letter. Our Solicitor's office has advised me that the N.C. Office
of Administrative Hearings has tentatively scheduled our appeal
hearing for sometime in March, 1992.
The August 21 denial left me no option but to recommend an appeal
of your agency's decision. We found the explanation for denial
vague and lacking in details. The explanation stated, "The
proposal will remove aquatic life habitat and affect water quality
control", as justification for the denial. We agree there will be
some alteration of aquatic life during the construction phase of
the proposal, but this impact is temporary and aquatic life
afterwards should be more diverse with the presence of shallow
ponds in the existing marsh. I found the reference to affecting
water quality control to be vague. We would like to know the
specific water quality parameters or the State Water Quality
Standards that your agency feels this proposal will affect.
During the scoping and review process of the Environmental
Assessment for this project no review agency, including the
Division of Environmental Management, expressed any concerns about
water quality. If there are concerns about water quality, we
should have a reasonable opportunity to discuss and/or address
them. I suggest representatives from your agency and the Fish and
Wildlife Service meet sometime in January, 1992 to discuss your

t
concerns. If you concur, please contact me at 919/926-4021 to
schedule a meeting. Our Regional Solicitor's office has advised us
they have been in contact with an attorney representing the State
of Nortf Carolina and both attorneys are in agreement that a
settlement of this matter is in the best interest of both parties.
I look forward to hearing from you on this matter.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Temple
Refuge Manager
DET:bk
4w -.O*

<v; 1991
gEP ?'
?b m
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mattamuskeet National Wildl' e
Route 1, Box N-q X.,
Swan Quarter, North Car na 277a,-80
?. ? ? tom?
e

5, 1991
Mr. George T. Everett` pv
Director, Division of Environmental Mana
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Mr. Everett:
A copy of this office's response to a letter of inquiry from
the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated July
5, 1991 concerning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's application
for a 404 Permit for integrated marsh management for waterfowl and
other wildlife on the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge in
Carteret County, North Carolina is attached as instructed by the
Corps of Engineers' letter.
We received your agency's August
Quality Certification under Section 401
Act on August 22. We are disappointed
on this matter and have referred thi
Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
the appeal process.
21 letter denying Water
of the Federal Clean Water
in your agency's position
s letter to the Regional
Service for a decision on
We will contact your agency on this matter at a later date.
Donald E. Temple
Refuge Manager
DET:bk
U?s?

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
Route 1, Box N-2
Swan Quarter, North Carolina 27885
September 3, 1991
Mr. G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Dear Mr. Wright,
In reference to _vour July 5, 1991 request for further information
regarding the proposed construction of fifty-four, experimental,
0.1-acre, shallow ponds with connecting ditches at Cedar Island NWR
adjacent to West Bay, the following details are provided:
a. General description of proposed project
The application you received was for a permit to construct fifty-
four 0.1 acre shallow ponds, not 1.0 acre ponds as stated in your
letter. The project is experimental in design and will be
evaluated by the N. C. Cooperative Fisheries and Wildlife Research
Unit. The governments of the United States and Canada have
identified through the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
(Plan) 34 major habitat areas to develop and enhance waterfowl
habitat, including the middle and upper Atlantic coast of the
eastern United States. This project proposal responds to specific
guidance for the Atlantic coast area provided in the Atlantic Coast
Joint Venture Plan. The primary focus of this research project will
be to access the effects of integrated marsh management in an
irregularly flooded brackish marsh on marsh hydrology, waterfowl
use and distribution, use by other marsh dwelling wildlife, fish
movements, use, and colonization, submerged plant productivity, and
vegetation changes in and adjacent to the project site. The main
value of the project is to test the effects of integrated marsh
management for waterfowl on the normal functions of an irregularly
flooded marsh, thus the project site must be in such a wetland and
not in an upland as queried in your letter.
b. Alternative actions considered and justification that the
selected plan is least damaging to water or wetland areas.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) drafted an
Environmental Assessment (EA) entitled "Integrated Marsh Management
at Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge, Carteret County and Gull
Rock Game Land, Hyde County, North Carolina" for the proposed
L
action in June 1990 and forwarded it to approximately 30 federal
and state regulatory and review offices and conservation
organizations. Twelve government agencies provided comments on the
five alternatives described in the EA. In response to reviewers
concerns and in order to select a plan least damaging to water_ or
wetland areas, a final EA was submitted in March 1991 that
contained several plan modifications including a change of the
preferred alternative. A list of the alternatives follows.
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: Integrated Marsh Management for Waterfowl and Other
Wildlife - Pond Clusters and Estuarine Connected Ditch
Alternative 3• Integrated Marsh Management for Waterfowl and Other
Wildlife - Pond Clusters (Final EA Preferred Alternative)
Alternative 4: Construction of Impoundments
Alternative 5: Construction of Potholes Through Blasting
Alternative 3 was selected as the preferred alternative because it
has the least potential for adverse impacts on marsh functions,
fisheries and wildlife and will help meet the research needs
outlined in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Plan. This alternative would result
in the conversion of 5.45 acres of Cedar Island NWR wetlands
dominated by black needlerush, saltmeadow hav and swi.tchgrass to
shallow ponds (130 ft.. x 30 ft. x 6 in. to 18 in.) with short
connecting ditches (30 f t. x 3 f t. x 1 f t. ) . The ponds and ditches
are likely to support wigeon grass, algae and invertebrate
populations. Predicted beneficial effects include: increased
habitat for wading birds, shorebirds and rails, increased waterfowl
use and diversity within the project area, increased reproductive
success in waterfowl using the areas due to improved physical
conditions in the pre-breeding period, and increased black duck
brood habitat. Due to the ponds' small. size, closed hydrologic
system and relative isolation, they are unlikely to cause
significant changes in marsh hydrology, vegetation patterns,
salinity gradients and effects from sea level rise within the marsh
system at large according to Dr. Mark Brinson, East Carolina
Universitv.
From 1.989-1991, Service personnel and representatives from the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) held several meetings to
discuss waterfowl management alternatives at Cedar Island NWR.
Additionally, Service personnel conferred with representatives of
several. regulatory and review agencies to discuss the draft EA and
the effects of the proposed actions on marsh functions, fisheries
and wildlife.
The final. EA addresses many of the reviewers comments and includes
several revisions that lessened the proposed action's impacts and
scale such as: the preferred alternative was changed from
1ti
ft 4
Alternative 2 (Pond Clusters and Estuarine Connected Ditch) to
Alternative 3 (Pond Clusters - No Estuarine Connected Ditch) and
the project size was decreased 17% from 6.54 acres in Alternative
2 to 5.45 acres in Alternative 3. The proposed site and number of
ponds is considered to be the minimum needed for the project
research and evaluation to be conducted by the North Carolina
Cooperative Fisheries and Wildlife Research Unit.
C. Steps taken in plan development, modification, and proposed
construction technique to minimize wetland losses and other adverse
impacts.
The proposed action was developed in an effort to meet the needs
of a national and international waterfowl resource while
recognizing the values of the irregularly flooded brackish marsh
in the estuarine ecosystem and its benefits to other life forms.
From 1985-1988 the Service funded a $300,000, three year study of
the ecology of the irregularly flooded brackish marsh habitats on
Cedar Island NWR in order to better acquire sufficient knowledge
of marsh functions to accurately predict the impacts that various
management actions would have on such functions.
In developing the proposed action the Service and NCWRC, have
considered various concerns associated with altering irregularly
flooded brackish marshes. The proposed action was designed with
extensive input from researchers and representatives of regulatory
and review agencies so that it would meet research needs with
minimum effect on the ecological functions of the marsh. The
techniques and pond specifications to be used in Alternative 3 are
fully described in the final EA and according to the principal
investigator of the three year study, Dr. Mark Brinson, the project
is unlikely to cause significant changes in marsh hydrology,
vegetation patterns or salinity gradients in the project area.
The construction methods will minimize ecological impacts of spoil
deposition by use of a low-ground pressure rotary ditcher that will
spray the spoil from the 0.1 acre units in a shallow layer. (2-4
inches) over approximately 14-29 acres. Spoil deposition of less
than four inches is not expected to cause significant changes in
vegetation. If deposition exceeds four inches, the spoil will be
spread by hand raking and/or low ground pressure equipment. The
size and number of ponds is the minimum needed for the research to
be statistically and scientifically valid. Other concerns and
comments regarding the potential adverse impacts of the proposed
action are addressed in the final EA Section V.
d. Mitigation Plan
Using the Service's Mitigation Policy (Federal. Register 46(15):
7656-7663, Januarv 23, 1981), Service biologists have determined
that the irregularly flooded brackish marsh is a habitat of high
value for certain evaluation species. The Service's Mitigation
Policy for such habitats calls for no net loss of in-kind habitat

value. In general, the Service also places similar or greater
habitat value on estuarine, aquatic beds with submerged aquatic
vegetation.
The values of submerged aquatic vegetation have been documented for
this eco.regi.on. Along the Atlantic coast, wigeon grass and other
submerged aquatic vegetation provides food for many species of
ducks, coots, geese, grebes, swans, marsh and shorebirds
(Sculthorpe 1967). Wi.geon grass beds also are used by fish as
nursery grounds, a source of food and ;hade ( Scul.thor-pe 1967) .and
a spawning media Wet-w.i_n, Nunr.o and Peterson 1975). Additionally,
they provide cover other estuarine organisms (Kerwin et at.
1.975).
Considerable effort was devoted to the design of this experimental
project to lessen the potential for impacts to marsh functions and
its fish and wildlife resources. Due to the measures that will. be
implemented to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands or
waters, there are no unavoidable losses of waters or wetlands
projected for this project. The proposed conversion of 5.45 acres
of irregularly flooded brackish marsh to shallow water habitat
supporting submerged aquatic vegetation, such as wigeon grass, does
not necessarily decrease the overall. Habitat value of these
particular wetlands. Additionally, this proposed experimental
project will provide information needed to assess the effectiveness
and impacts to fish and wildlife resources from the proposed
waterfowl management technique.
Should unexpected adverse environmental. impacts resulting directly
from this project occur, the Service is committed to develop and
implement a mitigation plan in cooperation with State and Federal
agencies having jurisdiction over development activities in coastal
wetlands. If data from the research evaluation demonstrate
unacceptable impacts from the ponds, the ponds will not be
restored, since such reclamation activities would be expected to
result in additional adverse impacts to the marsh. Similarly, the
ponds would not be maintained and would be allowed to succeed
naturally. The mitigation activities would occur on lands adjacent
to North Carolina coastal National Wildlife Refuges and/or the Gull
Rock Game Land.
m t ??

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the final EA and
proposed evaluation. A copy of this letter has been sent to the
North Carolina Division of Environment Management as you directed.
If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact
me at 919/926-4021.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Temple
Refuge Manager
cc: Div. of Env. Mgmt.
RF-III, FWS
Dennis Stewart
Y

North Carolina Department of Environment,
*? Health and Natural Resources

IMPORTANT
To
Date V Time
WHILE YOU\ V)IERE OUT
M
O
nn? qa?®/
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
Message
8 ne
TELEPHONED tooo .01 PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
471,

r`
w
a
CO U)
?c?i>wc?nc?nwm
a
Cl)
mmcncnCnmCnmmcnCnCncnmmCncnmCnmmmcnCnmmmmm
z Qz w
o
O_ z0_ C\j
J J J Jz J_J,JJ¢QZ '-NLO00OJ_JJJUJ?JJ¢?
Cr m m mC) cc cccrrs0¢0 NF-NNmmmm0mNmm0N C\l
OZ Z Z Z? ZZZZ? ?F- UwUdZZZZ?ZC-)ZZ?V
Qw w w w- wwwwZZ- 0cn?wwwwzw?wwz0
c7 CD O 0 J(,}C7OOWW3: 3:x0 ? C3 C3(7(DED0000ED?
J w w w w w w w w ¢ w w w w 2 M W Q w w w w w w w w w w w w w
Q ? "??) -,i?) ::) ::, ::, ::) :::) z = _ D = g :?j = Z = F- =) =) Z) Z) :D = =) =) =) ::) -)
Z Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn w Cn Cn Cn Cn p p Cn w Cn W U) U) Cn U) C/) Cn p Cn U) U) U) p U)
?Cn u) u) u)u)u)CnCn oT) LL2 C.>ULoLJTu-)T )cDu-) ) LT) LO DUT)
LL-
Lij o ?
Z J
m
LLF Cl)
U - Cn
p w
w > } Q Cl)
Y W m ww m CO z
U w w C7U Z (-)s2 a
F-? m> U O¢ gO 0
< co cc F- O W CA Z CO C/) F
mLU 0 cc U ?LL fr F- LLOQ? O
F- ?- m w z w w p Cn CO z CL
zQm wuj?w o ?C`3w0'0 a M ?0 J.00 Z
a?F-J Q¢ CO Z L1JwQONwmZm
W 0Upa-c)C0 U' QN??Z Cc
ZZCnCO w?w -LL -j jcc z ?=) - --i>JQZLLCr U J0z??0pl-
QO-¢z?zwD`tw=pmm0 Cn2omw0wwmzpQ¢cn?zaw
w??C??, ==>'°ozOf`z-CF-i)CncnU?ow<<0 <<w?0~w`?2p
aCmi)-iZ n <0F-: °- 0CnW<F-F--=wz0=c?-jQC>= cc?<=)0 Zpa
Zw¢Opz0Z-=oLli az0000 I Jz Cn ¢QUF-w}wo00J0 -w
agwCC< ZJF-mrsQC?ooo?m?FLoOJOCaCLrGjUm??2Lu
aQOQw00LU 00mcn000Q¢0 (n??y 0¢000Cnm00<00
a W --zY?J00mmzzz20 -mJCnJaUC7=0DwZZZ
W Y W W W
F- U F- F- F- F- F- F- F- O ¢ F- F- 0 F- O O F- U
m- w w w w w w w Z F- w w Z w z Z m
>- p?mmmmmm m ¢0 m cc ¢m Q Q? p
F- LLCnwwwwww w =:D w w=w = =0 LL GO
ZMZF- F- F- F- F-F- wwF- OwwwF- wwF- F- w w Jwoo=) w zww
=¢mm=== mmmm?CnoommEr Er m3: mo3: m3: CnmNQmw=) mm
Owcc ¢Q¢¢¢¢¢QQwQ?>-¢¢¢Q¢w¢}wQwzQ°wQmm¢¢
UmmUUUUUUOOUZ[L==oUOOUZU=zr?zOoCS) -Moo
O
Z
f?rlC)C70CD1? TCOqOO?rrNC?T?OMCOrNlnf?rOl[?COCDCOI??M00
F-NMMLOr-- f`W M NMCC)N MM CC) ONN"tN CD M N (0CpNrM
f? OOOCD OOOCD rT r r NNN N N ?MMMM It I 000 WCD 0IS
M O)
C T r T T T r r r T T T TT T T r T T T T T r r T T T r r T T T rr T r r r
li T m d) C) F CA (3) C) 0) CA m 0') m m T V! 0) m "" M Cn CA C)
w
a