19910921 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19910202

Iks
W
m
m
0c
2
U
• • •n-0
o
?mmom >zO(D
O-P 1 m
am' oa? 7m0
°i) 0° °m3 Z
am » Qm to
n N ° .,SO -4
d m -h 0 n. 70
» m m m N .`L ?Qq' C
° e W 7?
xm m 0
3 ? o o a 0Z)
tr m
tII ?m C N
v
7
cND
a
N
d
3
m
CL
Q.
m
m
a
N'
v
0
0
Q.
CD
:r
o
n
m
Cr
0
c
z
m
v
D
m
m
CO)
0
D
r
N
m
0
m
0
D
r
c
N
z
m
r
m
z
a
o ;
m r
m D
rr-
a
mm
F
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources XF zwYA
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
D E H N R
A. Preston Howard, Jr.,.P.E., Director
July 8, 1994
FILE COPY
Ms. Elizabeth Souheaver
Refuge Manager
US'Fish and Wildlife Service
MacKay Island NWR
P.O. Box 39
Knotts Island, N.C.27950
Dear Ms. Souheaver:
DEM Project #91921, COE Project #199100045
Currituck County
On 22 October 1990, you requested a 401 Water Quality Certification from the
Division of Environmental Management for your project (dike reconstruction MacKay NWR)
located near Knotts Island in Currituck County. We wrote to you on 8 October 1993
discussing concerns that we have regarding the design of the project and placing it on hold
until those concerns are addressed. As of today, we have not received a response. to our
earlier letter. Unless we receive a response from you by 21 July 1994, we will consider that
you have withdrawn this application and are not interested in pursuing the project at this time.
Please call me at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions or would like to discuss this
matter.
Sincerely,
4Joh R. Dorney
Wetlands and Technical view Group
91921.clr
cc: Washington DEM Regional Office
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Central Files
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
. An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
Route 615, Box 39
Knotts, Island, North Carolina 27950-0039
October 19, 1993
Mr. John Dorney
Wetlands and Technical Review Group
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Dear Mr. Dorney:
This letter will serve as confirmation
the process of obtaining the necessary
necessary for DEM Project # 91921.
¦
TAKE?? •
PRIDE INS
AMERICA
©? i

rn
N
CL-3
0
0
of our intent to continue
permits and certifications
After receiving and evaluating comments from our original project
package we have incorporated many of the comments into a revised
proposal which is in its final stages. We hope to resubmit this
dike reconstruction package for 401 Water Quality Certification
within 60 days.
Sincerely,
Kenneth L. Merritt
Refuge Manager
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 • •
' I v
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ED E H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P,E., Director
October 8, 1993
Ms. Elizabeth Souheaver
Refuge Manager
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mackay Island NWR
P.O. Box 39
Knotts Island, N.C. 27950
Dear Ms. Souheaver:
DEM Project # 91921
Currituck County
On 22 October 1990, you requested a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the Division of Environmental Management for
your project (dike reconstruction, MacKay NWR)located at Knotts
Island in Currituck County. We wrote to you on 25 March 1991 and
23 June 1991 discussing concerns that we have regarding the
design of the project and placing it on hold until those concerns
are addressed. As of today, we have not received a response to
our earlier letter. Unless we receive a written response from
you by 29 October 1993, we will consider that you have withdrawn
this application and are not interested in pursuing the project
at this time.
Please call me at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions or
would like to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
Z &9 ",Lr
Joan R. Dorney V
Wetlands and Technical Review Group
91921.wtd
cc: Washington DEM Regional Office
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Central Files
RO. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
MACKAY ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
CURRITUCK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Post Office Box 39
State Route 615
Knotts Island, NC 27950
[phone]
Cu nk -Wj'(-
July 12, 1991
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
P. 0. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorney:
? Ve
v:; ;fir s
Recently, former acting manager Mr. James Munson received your
letter inquiring on the status of the Kitchen Impoundment
development project on Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. As
the new refuge manager, I am requesting the case to be placed in an
active file as revisions are planned for resubmission of the
project. I will notify you as soon as possible on the upcoming
actions on the permit process.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If I can provide you
with any other information, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth A. Souheaver
Refuge Manager
CC: D. Griffin
C'
+ STATE
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor June 23, 1991 George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
Mr. James R. Munson
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
Post Office Box 39
Knotts Island, North Carolina 27950
Dear Mr. Munson:
On 25 March 1991, I wrote you concerning your plans to fill 8.2
acres of wetlands for waterfowl impoundment dikes at the Refuge.
I have not yet received a response. I understand from Steve
Benton of the Division of Coastal Management that the project was
found to be inconsistent by his agency. Therefore, I plan to
make this project formally inactive unless that determination is
amended. The Division of Environmental Management will take no
401 Certification action until that time.
If any interagency meetings are held to discuss the project,
please notify Ms. Deborah Sawyer of our Washington Regional
office (919/946-6481) so she can attend.
Sincerely,
U'f
Jo n R. Dorney /
JRD/kls
Munson.ltr/401/D-5'
cc: Deborah Sawyer, WaRO
John Parker, Coastal Mgmt.
Army COE, Washington
Wilmington Office COE
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
o.5TA7? o
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, Govemor March 25, 1991 George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William V4 Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Mr. James R. Munson
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
P.O. Box 39
Knotts Island, N.C. 27950
Dear Mr. Munson:
The Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality
Section has reviewed your plans for wetland fill for 8.2 acres of
wetlands at Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge for waterfowl
impoundment dikes. Based on this review, we have identified sig-
nificant uses which would be removed by this project.
Furthermore,- insufficient evidence is present in our files to
conclude that your dikes must be built by excavating wetlands.
Therefore, we are moving toward denial of your 401 Certification.
Please provide us with information supporting your position
that your project must be constructed in wetlands. Specifically
can you construct your dikes with upland fill? Any documentation
such as maps and narrative which you can supply to address upland
alternatives may be helpful in our review of your 401 Certifica-
tion. Please respond within two weeks of the date of this let-
ter.
If you have any questions, please call me at 919/733-5083.
Sincerely,
Jo n R. Dorney,
JRD/kls
Wetfill.ltr
cc: Washington DEM Regional Office
John Parker, Coastal Management
Wilmington Office COE
John Dorney
Army Corps of Engineers Washington Regional Office
PolluBon Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
A., [-, 1lb,,,,,-;n A(Arm +hi Ar-tinn Fmnlr%vnr
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
U.S. ARMY COE 404 PUBLIC NOTICE OR NATIONWIDE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW
PROJECT NAME: &t S /f'?I ?2
COUNTY: PAR JECT # "d
STREAM OR ADJACENT WATER BODY: ` CLASS:_,4,<::.,
BASIN:
'404' PUBLIC NOTICE: ?(Y OR N)
NA IONWIDE. PEP.MIT: (Y OR N) #
PROJECT D3SCRIPWION: '
ASSIGNED TO:
DATE APP. REC'D.: / ?- _(YY/MM/DD)
INITIAL REPORT: D 0 (YY/MM/DD) RECOMMENDATION:
FINAL REPORT: I (YY//DD) (ISSUE/DENY/OTHER
WATER QUALITY CERT (401)
CERT. REQ'D: (Y OR N)
IF YES: GE ERAL CERT: /N/ (Y OR N)
TYPE GEN: INDIVIDUAL CERT :
(BULKHEAD, BOAT RAMP, ETC.)
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
TYPE OF DISPOSAL PROPOSED: -
(EXISTING, PROPOSED SEPTI ?IANK
TO BE PERMITTED BY: (Dal, DHSOUP
IF BY DEM, IS SITE AVAILABLE AND PERMIT ISSUANCE PROBAB ?
WATER/WETLAND FILL
AREA OF FILL: WATER: _
WETLAND : . oZ Q-C.e.?a
IS FILL ELIMINATING A SIGNIFICANT USE? (Y OR N)
?13
4
? $ranc?
DREDGING
IS DREDGING AC IVITY EXPECTED TO CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF
RESOURCE? Z (Y OR N)
IS SPOIL DISP SAL ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED? (Y OR N) SEQUENCING
IS SEQUENCING REQUIRED? ?(Y OR N)
PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE? (Y OR N)
MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS? (Y OR N)
MITIGATION PROPOSED? ?(Y OR N)

cc: WaRO - Mills - Central Files - COE
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OR PERMIT RESTRICTIONS:
J? ?'
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGF14ENT
U.S. ARMY COE 404 PUBLIC NOTICE OR NATIONWIDE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW
PROJECT NAME :
COUNTY: ??? PR EC
STREAM OR ADJACENT WATER BODY: CLASS:,
BASIN: _mf
'404' PUBLIC NOTICE:. (Y OR N)
N 50NWIDE PERMIT: (Y OR N) iE
PR JECT DESCRIPTION: 1
ASSIGNED TO:
DATE APP. REV-'D.: O //.a (YY/MM/DD) /
INITIAL REPORT: (YY/MM/DD) RECOMMENDATION: /V-t? FINAL REPORT: `71,610 3 (YY/MM/DD) (ISSUE/DENY/OTHER)
WATER QUALITY CER (401)
CERT. REQ'D: (Y OR N) ?!
IF YES: GENERAL CERT: IV (Y OR N)
TYPE GEN: INDIVIDUAL CERT:
(BULKHEAD, BOAT RAMP, ETC.)
SE14AGE DISPOSAL
TYPE OF DISPOSAL PROPOSED:
(EXISTING, PROPOSED SEPTIC TANK, ETC.)
TO BE PERMITTED BY: (DEM, DHS, COUNTY)
IF BY DEM, IS SITE AVAILABLE AND PERMIT ISSUANCE PROBABLE? (Y OR N)
WATER/WETLAND FILL
AREA OF FILL: WATER:
WETLAND :
IS FILL ELIMINATING A SIGNIFICANT USE? (Y OR N)
DREDGING
IS DREDGING AC IVITY EXPECTED TO CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS
RESOURCE? '\ (Y OR N)
IS SPOIL DISP SAL ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED? (Y OR N)
SEQUENCING
IS SEQUENCING REQUIRED? (Y OR N)
PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIV (Y OR N)
MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS? (Y OR N)
MITIGATION PROPOSED? (Y OR N)
oo,
dq
Q& cc: WaRO - Mills - Central Files - COE

w
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OR PERMIT RESTRICTIONS:

James G. Martin, Governor Roger N. Schecter
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
SrA
4.:
Olk
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
225 North McDowell Street • Raleigh North Carolina 27( 02
11/26/90
Ms. Deborah Sawyer
NC DEH&NR
Div. Environmental Management
P.O. Box 1507
Washington, NC 27889
REFERENCE: ACTID-91-0045
Applicant/Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Repair and Complete Dike & Water Contrl. System, Mackay Island NWR
Dear Ms. Sawyer:
The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice, dated
11/15/90 describing a federal project or permit is being circulated
to interested 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 12/17/90.
.,?
0
4esinerely,
n B. B W
Consistency Coordinator
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
V Comments on this project are attached.
This office supports the project proposal.
y
No Comment.
Signed
Date _ /Z3 Agency 224221- 0)
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
STA7p,,,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
225 North McDowell Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
James G. Martin, Governor December 28, 1990 Roger N. Schecter
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Lt. Colonel Thomas C. Suermann
District Engineer
Wilmington District Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Lt. Colonel Suermann:
The State of North Carolina has not completed its review of Corps
Public Notice ACTION ID 199100045 which describes a proposal by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge for
reconstruction of man-made impoundments in waters and wetlands to install
water control structures, etc. at North Landing River, Currituck Sound,
Mackay Island, Currituck County, North Carolina. We received the public
notice on 11/16/90 and provided you with an acknowledgement letter dated
11/26/90.
In our 11/26/90 letter, we indicated that we would furnish the State's
consistency position on or before 12/31/90. As of this date, however, we
have not received key comments from the NC Division of Environmental
Management concerning the status of the necessary 401 Water Quality
Certification. Therefore, we are requesting the minimum 15 day extension
provided for in 15 CPR 930.41(b). Under this extension, we will provide a
response on or before 1/15/90.
Should you have any questions about the status of our review or the
extension request, please call me at [phone]. Thank you for your
consideration in this matter.
Sin r y,
Step en B. Benton
Consistency Coordinator
cc: NC Division of Environmental Management
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
PO Box 39
Knotts Island, NC 27950
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
A. F„II.I (1.,.,r rft-ity AFfi-tivn A .:... C .,. , rr
. C r.sAaD-a0g1- ,A1- o.2'7- 004-5
?„q?Ozo
RECEIVED
U.S. Government Memorandum OCT 1 2 199n
REGULATORY BRANCH
Date:. October 9, 1990
From: Refuge Manager/Mackay Island NWR
Subject: Permit Application for Dike reconstruction at
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
To: District Engineer, Corps of Engineers
Wilmington, NC
A COE Permit Application and project Environmental Assessment
(EA) are enclosed. A copy of the Permit Application and EA have
been forwarded to Ralph Thompson at the Little Washington Field
Office. Please review the documents for consideration of
approval.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) gained control of the
proposed project area in 1989, via a conservation lease. A
previous landowner had constructed a dike and canal system on the
area in the 1960's. The dikes have been in disrepair for several
years, and the system is currently non-functional. The proposed
project would restore the deteriorated dikes and install a water
control system to facilitate managing the area to improve
vegetation for wintering waterfowl and other migratory birds.
The proposed project has been reviewed and approved by the FWS
Regional Directc-. Additionally, the project has received the
support of Ducks Unlimited (DU) and is funded by the FWS/DU
"MARSH" program.
Please feel free to contact the Refuge Manager for any questions
concerning the project, any recommendations you may have, or any
further documentation you need. We would be happy to have an
onsite review of the project area at your convenience.

APPLICATION
FOR
PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
EASEMENT IN LANDS COVERED BY WATER CAMA PERMIT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Department of Administration State of North Carolina Department of the Army
(GS 14612) Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(GS 113-229,143-215.3(a)(1). 143-215.3(c), 113A-118 (33 CFR 209.320.329)
RECEIVED
Please type or print and fill in all blanks. If information is not applicable, so indicate by placing N/A in blank.
OCT 1 2 1990
1. Applicant Information REGULATORY BRANCH
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE/MACKAY ISLAND NWR
A. Name
Last First Middle
B. Address P.O. BOX 39
Street, P. O. Box or Route
KNOTTS ISLAND, NC 27950 919-429-3100
City or Town State Zip Code Phone
II. Location of Proposed Project:
A. County CURRITUCK
B. 1. City, town, community or landmark KNOTTS ISLAND, NC
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
NORTH LANDING RIVER
111. Description of Project
A. 1. Maintenance of existing project X 2. New work X
B. Purpose of excavation or fill
ti
0
1. Access channel length width depth
2. Boat. basin length width depth
3. Fill area CONSERVATION length 10,000 width 6'-15' depth 2'-8'
4. Other length width depth
C. I. Bulkhead length N/A Average distance waterward of MHW (shoreline)
2. type of bulkhead construction (material)
D. Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards 75,000 (est) 2. Type of material ORGANIC AND MINERAL
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (sec also V1. A)
1. Cubic yards 3,000 - 5,000 2. Type of material ORGANIC AND MINERAL
IV. Land Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment:
A. Does the area to be excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes No X (existing borrow
B. Does the disposal area include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes X No ditches)
(Dike slopes only)
C. Disposal Area
1. Location CURRITUCK COUNTY - ON SITE, EXISTING FILLS/DIKES
2. Do you claim title to disposal area? NO (Leased to US Government, Fish and Wildlife Service)
D. Fill material source if fill is to be trucked in N/A
E. How will excavated material be entrapped and erosion controlled? RESTORED EMBANKMENTS WILL BE GRADED,
SEEDED, MULCHED AND HAVE AN UNDERLAYMENT OF WIRE FABRIC TO DETER NUTRIA, MUSKRAT
(. I ype of equipment to be used DRAGLINE AND EXCAVATOR -
G. Will marshland be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? If yes, explain NOT .TKF.T,Y. BUT IF NEEDED.
MATS WILL BE USED.
DI F.;% t
I To
. J
V. Intended Use of Project Area (Describe)
A.°1. Private
2. Commercial
3. Housing Development or Industrial
4. Other CONSERVATION, MIGRATORY BIRD HABITAT ENHANCEMENI: AND MANAUMMLINI
B. 1. Lot size(s)
VI.

2. Elevation of lot(s) above mean high water 11 - 6 T
3. Soil type and texture SANDY SILT
4. Type of building facilities or structures DETERIORATED CULVERTS
5. Sewage disposal and/or waste water treatment A. Existing N/A Planned N/A
B. Describe
6. 'Land Classification(circl? e_o_n,e DEVELOPED TRANSITIONAL
C-- NSERVATION OTHER
Pertaining to Fill and Water Quality:
COMMUNITY RURAL
-(See CAMA Local Land Use Plan Synopsis'
(dike slopes & culvert
A. Does the proposed project involve the placement of fill materials below mean high water? Yes X No oeations only)
B. 1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned use of the
area following project completion? Yes-No X
2. Type of discharge
3. Location of discharge
VII. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known): N/A
Vill. List permit numbers and issue dates of previous Department of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
work in project area, if applicable: N/A
IX. Length of time required to complete project: 2 - 3 YEARS
X. In addition to the completed application form, the following items must be provided:
A. Attach a copy 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,
then 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.
B. Attach an accurate work plat drawn to scale on 8%: X I I" white paper (see instruction booklet for
details). Note: Original drawings preferred - only high quality copies accepted.
C. A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by registered or
certified mail or by publication (G.S. 113-229 (d))Enter date served
Ogden Reid, Back Bay Station, Virginia Beach, VA 703-525-6300
John W. Brown, 1669 Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, VA 804-426-2801
D. List names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's.
Such owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
Waldon Ackiss, 480 Princess Anne Road, Virginia Beach, VA 804-426-2030
X1. Certification requirement: I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed activity complies
with the State of North Carolina's approved coastal management program and will be conducted-in a
manner consistent with such program.
XII. 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 devel-
opment activities, including construction, excavation, filling, and land clearWg.
DATE

7
Iican.t's Signa

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION MEMORANDUM
Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality's
regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and other statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and wildlife
resources, I have established -.the following administrati,.,e rcc oral Z..Ild
have determined that the action of:
Impoundment Rehabilitation Project for Mackay Island
National Wildlife Refuge
is a categorical exclusion as provided by 516 DM 6 Appendix 1.
No further documentation will be made.
X is found not to have significant environmental effects as
determined by the attached Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Impact.
is found to have special, environmental conditions as described in
the attached Environmental Assessment. The attached Finding of No
Significant Impact will not be final nor any actions taken pending
a 30-day period for public review (40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2)).
is found to have significant effects, and therefore a "Notice of
intent" will be published in the Federal Register to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement before the project is considered
further.
is denied because of environmental damage, Service policy, or
mandate.
is an emergency situation. Only those actions necessary to
control the immediate impacts of the emergency will be taken.
Other related actions remain subject to NEPA review.
Other supporting documents:
1. Environmental Assessment
2. Fonsi
i l?? rn e
k--it- iator Date
Date
Date
gional Dire for ate
ARD Refuges and Wildlife Date
REC Date
ARD/AWE ate
_..A

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based on a review and evaluation of the information contained in
the supporting reference enumerated below, I have determined that
the impoundment rehabilitation project described herein at Mackay
Island National Wildlife Refuge, Knotts Island, North Carolina is
not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the
quality of the human environment within the meaning of Section
102 (2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Accordingly, preparation of an environmental impact statement of
the proposed action is not required.
Supporting Reference
The environmental assessment is attached. It summarizes the
environmental impacts and the reason why a statement is not
required. The assessment is on file at this office and is
available for public inspection upon request.
Regional Director
0 q1 13?g°
Date
a ?
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
for
DIKE REHABILITATION
at
MACKAY ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Prepared by:
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
MACKAY ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
KNOTTS ISLAND, NORTH CAROLINA
May, 1990

1 ?
TABLE OF CONTENTS,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MACKAY ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
DIKE REHABILITATION PROJECT
Page
1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ........................... 1
A. Introduction
B. Background
II. ALTERNATIVES .......................................... 3
A. Alternative 1 - "No Action" • .................. 3
B. Alternative 2 - "No Management " .................. 4
C. Alternative 3 - "Active Management for Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation" ............ • ............... 4
D. Alternative 4 - "Proposed Action" ............... 5
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................. 6
A. Physical Features ................................ 6
B. Biological Features .............................. 7
1. Vegetation .................................. 7
2. Wildlife ......... .................... 9
a. Waterfowl
b. Other Migratory Species
C. Mammals
d. Fish
e. Reptiles and Amphibians
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................:..... 10
A. Alternative 1 .................................... 10
B. Alternative 2 .................................... 12
C. Alternative 3 .................................... 13
D. Alternative 4 .................................... 14
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ......................... 16
VI. SUMMARY ............................................... 17
VII. APPENDICES ............................................ 18
A. Project Site - Map 1 ............................. 18
B. Project Site - Map 2 ............................. 19
C. Project Site - Map 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Do Plan View Map ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
E. Typical Section View ................••........... 22
F. Typical Plan View Detail ......................... 23
G. Alternatives Matrix ........................ :..... 25
r
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
A. Introduction
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposes to
rehabilitate a 200 acre man-made impoundment at the Kitchin
Tract of Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).
This action will enhance the capability to fulfill the
National Wildlife System mission and Mackay Island NWR
purpose and objectives of providing habitat for wintering
waterfowl. The project would be supported by the FWS-Ducks
Unlimited "MARSH" program in an attempt to improve habitat
for wintering waterfowl in North America.
The need for the action stems from the deteriorated
condition of the existing dike and drainage structures at
the site. The dikes have received no maintenance since
their construction in the early 1960's. Dikes and drain
pipes have collapsed in several areas rendering the entire
system incapable of serving as a shallow water reservoir
where interspersion between vegetation and open water can be
managed and maintained.
Vegetation succession has reduced the available waterfowl
habitat of the impoundment. Woody vegetation (wax myrtle
(Myrica cerifera) and willow (Salix spp.) have encroached
along the dikes while the impoundment area is mostly a
dense, black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) marsh since
there is no means of managing water at the site to encourage
desirable wetland vegetation. The water onsite is only
available as dictated by the wind tides of Back Bay and
Currituck Sound. Waterfowl use is limited to the borrow-
ditch canals and small ponds at the corners of the
impoundment. A small amount of submergent and emergent
waterfowl foods can be found there.
Improving the dikes and providing a water delivery system
would enable the Refuge to manage the impoundment for a
diversity of emergent and submergent vegetation that is
important to wintering waterfowl and other migratory
species.
B. Background
Mackay Island NWR is located at Knotts Island, NC. The
Refuge covers 8000 acres, of which approximately 6000 acres
are marshland and wetland reservoirs. The Refuge borders on
Back Bay and Currituck Sound, historically important bodies
of water for wintering waterfowl. The Refuge was
established in 1961 as a wintering area for greater snow
geese and to provide resting and feeding habitat for other
migratory birds, particularly waterfowl.
. + , 1 a
Project Location
MACKAY ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
vN17ED ST E5 %ORTH CAROLI.NA . VIRGINIA u-ITCD cTATCs
DEFARTVENT OF 716C INTERIOR • FISM &No WILDLIFE SERVICE
73' 37'30" ` 75.55.00- .
L-
.... A Y
r BACK BA Y
?A LF. RL O w•Ieew,• u. ?
< YAt\AGElCET7 ??•,L+a 'O-'+f? <? •? 7?`" n,w• s..c.., w
ABEL.. ?a •?' < • fe11. Bed
N•L G .N IA BEACH CI Y `t .. ':'-- -- ° •°
a f `0 I `? °?
QQQ
r •.1. Earle' s Bar C
MORE E r-. I 36•32•30-
ss•so•ao° _
y u,a: 1 a l 0
6 v• i. °s? /D
i.
=01 t!
m KNOTTS
C =
3=
13, R E A T M A W R H
<.Ier 1.
• .,..<
i r 5 ISLAND ...........
?..r . ., ..... :.
°II r.
:7 ter: MACKAY ?D #1 n
... ,<III?;,F
M1 ISLAND P - <r=
EAST
35.3oor J MIDDLE POOL • .6e = 35•30ro0-
r ?.
i
<'^ 5.
CST
e?. OL •.,....,..;x,• 1
e•
`Lee } $or 1 •IS ..,.,•
•\ 8°IUa?
dew 1•./ . `
% CCRRIMCK SOUND
Sf CRETARV Of THE INTERIOR I... -
FFCC??.. CLOSING ORDER 8OVNOARV I.r..w?
DATED 6/15/63
Project Location Map
COwt?4LD IN TI<C DIV1510N OF RCALTV 75.67'30° 75"65ro0-
FRON SvRVCYS SV v.5 6.5. AND V S.F JW.S. MICAN
O 2000 4000 6000 6000 FEET 5•yr DECLINATION
M T6TT
r
3
The Refuge currently manages approximately 800 acres of
impoundments for submerged aquatic and emergent waterfowl
foods. Those area receive over 80% of the wintering
waterfowl use at the Refuge.
The Kitchin Tract was acquired in 1988 by The Conservation
Fund and the Knapp Foundation and was subsequently leased to
the USFWS to manage as part of the Mackay Island NWR.Jack
Kitchin, former owner of the property, constructed an
impoundment by installing dikes and drain pipes around
approximately 200 acres of marshland in the early 1960's
(exact date - unknown). The dikes were constructed by
borrowing fill inside the reservoir with the use of a drag
line, thus creating the canal system at the site (Plan
View). The area was formerly a hunting club and the canals
were constructed to enhance waterfowl hunting opportunities
for club members.
The dikes were 8 to 20 feet wide at the top and 3 to 6 feet
higher than the existing marsh level. An inlet was dredged
to Corey's ditch to supply water to the system and concrete
drain pipes were installed at two locations. Small (less
than one acre) ponds were excavated at the corners of the
impoundment, presumably for waterfowl shooting areas. The
bottom elevations of these ponds are from 1 to 2 feet below
the existing marsh level. It appears that the dike system
around the "reservoir" was never connected, however, only
serving as a canal system to provide access to the small
ponds for waterfowl shooting. Cosequently, the area inside
the canals remains a free-flowing, system, subject to the
wind tides that affect the surrounding marshes.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1 - "No Action"
For the purposes of this EA, the "No Action" alternative
would entail no construction or improvements of existing
water control structures and dikes at the site. Since no
water level management would be available, levels would be
totally dependent upon tides, wind and precipitation. Fire
would be used to set back and sustain vegetation succession
over the entire marsh area as a management practice. It is
anticipated that the area would be burned once every three
years. Aerial or ground spraying of herbicides (Rodeo)
would be used to control phragmites and dense stands of
cattails (Typha spp.). Trapping for burrowing furbearers
(nutria and muskrats) would occur to discourage further
deterioration of the dikes.
Alternative 2 - "No Management"
? 1 1
4
This alternative would stop all marsh management practices
now employed by the refuge, including prescribed burning,
using herbicides and furbearer trapping. No water level
management or vegetation succession management would take
place. Existing dikes and water control structures would
not be maintained.
Alternative 3 - "Active Management for Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation"
Under this alternative, all dikes at the Kitchin Tract would
be restored and the reservoir would be made functional. A
pump station would be installed to maintain an adequate
water supply for the 200 acre impoundment. The unit would
be managed by maintaining water levels in the impoundment
year-round to encourage a variety ofsubmergent vegetation
species of high value to surface feeding ducks.
All dikes would be resloped to 3:1; after settling, the
final grade on the top of the dike would be six feet on
average (eight feet maximum) above mean low water (mlw).
The average width of the dike would be ten feet at the top.
Fill for the dike rehabilitation would be excavated from
inside the impoundment area (existing borrow ditches) with a
drag line or excavator. A maximum of 45,000 cubic yards of
fill would be required to rehabilitate' the dikes.
Additionally, 3000 to 5000 cubic yards of material would be
excavated to enclose the impoundment. This fill would be
placed below the mean water level at the mouth of the man-
made "shooting ponds." Alternatively, the new dike could
be constructed around the shooting ponds on the existing
levees
Two water control structures would be replaced at the
impoundment (Plan View). Aluminum flashboard type units or
their equivalents are proposed. The structures will permit
water control by gravity flow in the impoundment to meet the
waterfowl habitat management objectives.
A permanent pump would be installed (Plan View). The pump
would be used to add water to the impoundment during low
tides or drought conditions. It would also be used to drain
the reservoir quickly or during low tide conditions when
gravity flow is not possible. The water management scheme
for Alternative 3 would involve maintaining water levels
from 1.4 ft. to 2.25 ft. above msl.
Generally, management would focus on enhancing and
maintaining habitat that supports submerged aquatic
vegetation that is preferred by wintering dabbling ducks.

5
Sago pondweed (Potamegeton spp.), Southern naiad (NaJas
sp.), muskgrass (Nitellas nitella) and Bladderwort
(Utricularia spp.) would be expected in submergent habitats
by maintaining water levels 10 - 14 inches deep inside the
impoundment.
The refuge would install 10 to 20
impoundment. Presently, wood d'
over 50% of the 112 nest boxes
Similar success at the impoundment
Additionally, quality brood habitat
within the management framework.
wood duck boxes in the
scks successfully nest in
managed at the refuge.
boxes would be expected.
would be available
Burrowing furbearers (muskrats and nutria) would be trapped
as necessary to discourage deterioration of the dikes.
Alternative 4 - "Proposed Action"
The Refuge proposes to restore the Kitchin Tract dike
system, install new water control structures and construct a
pump station to maintain a permanent and adequate water
supply for the 200 acre impoundment. The reservoir would be
managed as a moist soil impoundment for wintering waterfowl.
All dikes would be resloped to 3:1; after initial settling,
the final grade on top of the dike would be six feet on
average (eight feet maximum) above mlw. The average width
of the dike would be ten feet at the top. Fill for the dike
rehabilitation would be excavated from inside the
impoundment area (existing borrow ditches) with a drag line
or excavator. A maximum 45,000 cubic yards of fill would be
usedto reconstruct the dikes, and 3000 to 5000 cubic yards
to enclose the system.
Two water control structures would be installed around the
impoundment (Plan View). Aluminum flashboard type units, or
their equivalent, are proposed. The structures will permit
draining or filling the impoundment by gravity to meet the
waterfowl habitat management objective.
A permanent pump would be installed. (Plan View). The pump
would be used to add water to the impoundment during low
tides or drought conditions. It would also be used to drain
the reservoir quickly or in conditions of high tides, when
gravity flow is not possible.
The entire 200 acre impoundment would be burned and/or
disked the first winter after construction to remove dense
stands of needlerush, cattail and phragmites. The unit
would be managed by the Refuge as a moist soil impoundment,

6
to encourage emergent vegetation of high value to wintering
waterfowl. Wild millet (Echinochloa spp.), panic grasses
(Panicum spp.), smartweeds (Polygonum spp.),bull rushes
(Scirpus spp.), spikerushes (Eleocharis spp.) sedges (Carex
spp.) and other waterfowl foods would be expected.
Furbearer trapping would be conducted, as necessary, as in
Alternative 3.
The water management scheme would involve raising the water
level of the impoundment from between 0.2.ft,to 2.25 ft.msl,
or 0.5 ft to 1.0 ft. above the marsh level during winter,
then lowering the water during the growing season (April
through September) to encourage moist soil plants. Water
would then be raised again in fall to make the foods in the
impoundment available to wintering waterfowl. It is
anticipated that the impoundment would be burned and/or
disked at three to five year intervals to set back
vegetation succession and maintain optimum conditions for
waterfowl foods.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
1. Physical Features
The project area is approximately 200 acres. It is
surrounded by 2.6 miles of dikes three to eight feet high
and eight to twenty feet across the top. Meterial to build
the dikes was excavated from the adjacent marsh resulting in
a 50 feet wide canal surrounding the proposed impoundment
area.
All dikes would be resloped to 3:1; after initial settling,
the final grade on top of the dike would be six feet on
average (eight feet maximum) above mlw. The average width
of the dike would be ten feet at the top. Fill for the dike
rehabilitation would be excavated from inside the
impoundment area (existing borrow ditches) with a drag line
or excavator. A maximum 45,000 cubic yards of fill would be
usedto reconstruct the dikes, and 3000 to 5000 cubic yards
to enclose the system.
Currituck Sound has been a fresh to brackish water system
since the 1830s. Prior to that time, a breach in the
outerbanks allowed ocean water into the Sound freely. After
sand dunes filled the inlet, the water salinity has most
commonly ranged from 2% to 10% sea strengh with occassional
increases to near 40% immediately following-hurricanes.
Water in the Back Bay\Currituck Sound system was essentually
fresh (less than 3% sea strength) in 1990 (Figure 2). As
recently as 1980, however, salinity was over 15% ss in the

NTITY
1988 - 1989
e SFd cfrr,Tr.g?h.
10.00
9.00 Salini
8.00
7.00
6.00
8.00
4.00
3 00
2.00
1.00
0.00

BACK BAY SALINITY
1988 - 1989
S.ez Strength

9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
6.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1988 Figure 2 1'989
1988 1989
7
system This was a result of drought, man-induced fresh water
demands, and intentional introduction of sea water in the
system.
Late in the 19th century, the Knotts Island Causeway was
constructed across the marsh that is now part of Mackay
Island NWR. This development totally restricted the natural
flow ofwater between Back Bay and the North Landing River
(north Currituck Sound). It was not until the construction
of Corey's Ditch in 1915 that water flow was restored. The
Causeway, however, has ultimately effected the marsh
ecosystem, including the proposed project area.
The previous landowner constructed a 50 feet wide canal system
in the marsh, apparently for hunting boat access.
When Mr. Kitchin constructed the dikes in the 1960's, he
linked the system to Corey's Ditch by digging a canal from
the Ditch to the eastern canal of the impoundment area.
This canal permitted water to free-flow into the canal
system. Several breaches in the dike system now permit
water to flow through the system in several areas.
2. Biological Features
A. Vegetation. The marsh vegetation within the project
area is a result of widely fluctuating, inconsistent water
1
8
levels (-2.00 msl to +3.00 msl) created by wind tides in
Currituck Sound and Back Bay. The entire area is dominated
by black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus). Phragmites spp.
stands are found around old dredge spoils and disturbed
sites. Cattails (Typha spp.) and Big cordgrass (Spartina
cynosuroides) are common on the high marsh; sedges (Carex
spp.), three square (Scirpus spp.) and smartweeds are common
on lower areas.

Vegetation inside the "impounded area" is mostly black
needlerush, similar to the vegetation outside the canals. Note
the pond, excavated for hunting, on the upper right.
Hardwood trees and shrubs have encroached upon the west
dikes; :.Tax myrtle is dominant, bayberry (Myrica
pensylvanica), willow (Salix spp.), red, maple (Acer
rubrum.) and gum (Nyssa spp) etc, are common. North, south
and east dikes have similar vegetation as the marsh
impoundment.
Vegetation in the marshes outside the canals and dikes is
identical to the proposed impoundment area since those areas
are affected by the same wind-tide water levels.
9
B. Wildlife
Waterfowl. The waters and surrounding marshlands of
Currituck Sound and Back Bay have historically been
some of the most important wintering and migratory
waterfowl areas of the Mid-Atlantic states. Thousands
of dabbling ducks, diving ducks, coots, geese and swans
depended on the vast "slicks" of grass (milfoil,
widgeongrass, etc.) that dominated the shallow waters
of the area. Recently, however, the change in water
quality has led to a decline in submerged aquatic
vegetation in Currituck Sound and Back Bay, and
waterfowl numbers have declined (Figure 1). Most
ducks and geese that now use the area depend upon the
Refuge for food and rest.
In addition to providing important wintering habitat
for waterfowl, wood ducks, black ducks and mallards
also nest at the Refuge. In 1988, wood ducks
successfully nested in 60 duck boxes that have been
installed at the Refuge. This very successful program
has been expanded intermittently since it was started
in 1967.
Other Migratory Species. The marshes and impoundments
at Mackay Island NWR also provide nesting and feeding
habitat for several species of wading birds. In 1989,
a new colony of great blue herons was observed nesting
at one of the refuge impoundments. In addition,
migratory flocks of shorebirds are commonly observed
feeding on the marsh flats and snow goose "eat-out"
areas during low tides.
The marshes are important nesting and feeding habitat
for ospreys (Panddion haliaetus), and feeding habitat
for many other raptors such as marsh hawks (Circus
cyaneus) and red-tailed hawks (Buteo iamaicensis).
Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) and bald eagles
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are seasonally observed
using the Refuge marshes.
Mammals. The marshes of Mackay Island provide
habitat needs for a variety of mammals including
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), gray fox (Urocvon cinereoargenteus),
otter (Lutra canadensis), mink (Mustela vison), muskrat
(Ondatra zibethicus) and nutria (Myocastor coypus).
Several of these species populations are in high enough
numbers for the Refuge to manage a sustained harvest by
hunting or trapping.
10
Fish. At one time, Currituck Sound and Back Bay
provided some of the finest warm, freshwater fishing in
America, particularly for largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides). Sport fishing has declined though with the
concurrent change in water conditions. White perch
(Morone americana) now dominate the catches, and,
occasionally flounder (Paralichthys spp.) are caught as
a result of higher salinity. Refuge impoundments and
canals still provide good habitat for warm water sport
fish since the water is subject to the same impacts as
in Back Bay and Currituck Sound. Bass, black crappie
(Pomoxis nigromaculatus) blue gills (Lepomis
machrochirus), and catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) are
common there.
Reptiles and Amphibians. As would be expected, a
variety of snakes frogs and turtles are found in the
marshes of Mackay Island Refuge. The eastern cotton-
mouth (A. piscivorus piscivorus) is the most obvious
snake of the marsh, but brown water snakes (Natrix
taxispilota), black snakes (E. obsoleta obsoleta) and
king snakes (L. getulus getulus) are also common.
Snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) and yellow-
bellied turtles (Trachemys scriptor scripta) are common
as are Bull frogs (R.catesbeiana) chorus frogs (P.
triseriata spp.) and tree frogs (Hyla spp.). A
complete listing of herptiles has been prepared by Mr.
Donald Schwab, Virginia Division of Game and Inland
Fisheries, and is listed in Appendix 1).
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Alternative 1 - "No Action"
A. Physical Resources
The existing dikes would continue to deteriorate.
Eventually, as a result of water erosion, woody plant
encroachment and the activity of muskrats and nutria, the
total dike and water control system would be lost.
B. Biological Resources
1. Vegetation
Refuge personnel would continue to burn the marsh on a three
to five year schedule to impede plant succession. Black
needle rush would continue to domintae the marsh.
Additionally, chemical control (Rodeo) of phragmites and
cattail would be used if necessary to prevent further
spreading.
11
2. Wildlife Resources
As a result of burning, snow geese would be expected to
feed in the area. In 1990, the area was burned by Refuge
personnel, and as anticipated, snow geese response was
immediate. Snow geese feeding habits at Mackay Island NWR
and other nearby marshes reslut in improved marsh conditions
for other wintering waterfowl. Their desire to eat the
roots of big cordgrass results in areas devoid of
vegetation, soil condition improved from digging and
generally lowering the marsh level allowing the areas to be.
flooded more often (tidally). This results in improved
marsh conditions for other emergent vegetation used by
waterfowl (smartweed, sedge, etc.). These areas are known
as snow goose "eat-outs" and are clearly evident on marshes
adjacent to the project area that have been burned routinely
by the Refuge for this purpose. Because of the snow goose
"eat-outs" an increase in waterfowl use of the project area
by wintering waterfowl would be anticipated after several
years of controlled burning. Additionally, shorebird and
wading bird use of the "eat-outs" would be expected during
low tides of migration. No significant changes are
anticiopated in numbers or diversity of other species.
The Kitchin Tract "impoundment area" was burned in 1990.
12
Alternative 2 - "No Management"
A. Physical Resources
The dike system would -continue to deteriorate as in
Alternative 1. The decline could occur sooner though, since
no burning or chemical control of woody vegetation would
result in more rapid encroachment of woody vegetation along
the dikes. Furthermore, without trapping furbearers, dike
failures would occur sooner.
B. Biological Resources
1. Vegetation
Without fire, we would expect the marsh to succeed to a
mostly homogeneous needlerush community, with several
"pockets" of dense cattails or phragmites. Dense stands of
needlerush lead to a "high marsh" community where other
aquatic plants do not compete well. This assumption is
based on the condition of marshes on areas adjacent to the
refuge where fire has not occurred regularly. Those areas
are nearly homogeneous stands of needlerush with few or no
open water areas.
Woody vegetation would continue to encroach on the dikes.
Wax myrtle would dominate the dike areas until those areas
totally failed. _.. _.__

Snow geese responded immediately to burned marsh on the tract.
13
2. Wildlife
Waterfowl use of the area would diminish rapidly as the
impoundment vegetation progressed to a homogeneous
needlerush community. Without burning, snow geese would not
use the marsh. Wildlife diversity may decrease as the plant
diversity diminished.
Nutria and muskrat populations would increase since no
trapping would occur.
Alternative 3 - "Active Management for Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation"
A. Physical Resources
All dikes at the Kitchin Tract impoundment would be restored
and maintained. Dikes would be raised an average of 2 feet
above the existing grade using fill from the existing canals
inside the reservoir. This would involve dredging a maximum
of 45,000 cu. yds. of meterial from the canals, increasing
the depth of the canals by one and one-half to three feet.
The additional depth of the canals would benefit maintenance
and inspection of the impoundment by providing access by
boat around the entire system.
The dike system would allow the refuge to flood
approximately 200 acres on a year-round basis. Water
structures would permit drainage of the area for waterfowl
management or to prevent damage to the dikes during high
water periods.
B. Biological Resources
1. Vegetation - Maintaining permanent water levels
approximately one to two feet over the impoundment will
dramatically change the vegetation of the area. Without
fluctuating water levels, needlerush and phragmites would
be stressed and controlled. The impoundment would be a more
suitable environment for submerged aquatic vegetation.
Milfoil, chara, southern naiad and other SAV would be
expected to dominate the marsh. Cattails, and big
cordgrass would be expected to thrive on higher ground
within the impoundment area and along the dikes.
2. Wildlife
Waterfowl. Under this alternative, the refuge would
provide 200 additional acres of submerged aquatic
14
vegetation for wintering waterfowl and nesting wood
ducks. Wintering waterfowl numbers at the refuge would
be expected to increase. The refuge currently manages
a 200 acre impoundment (the East Pool) under a similar
water regime (Figure -). This area receives the
majority of wintering dabbling duck use days for the
entire refuge.
Mammals. Water management in the impoundment may
encourage expanded use by nutria and muskrats. This
assumption is based on observed use by muskrats and
nutria at similar impoundments on the refuge. Trapping
along the dikes would be used to control the population
if necessary.
Fish. Maintaining water over the 200 acre
impoundment will increase habitat for fresh water fish.
High quality spawning and rearing areas would benefit
all fresh water species using the area. Vegetation
diversity should improve diversity and numbers of
invertebrates, thus providing more food for game fish.
Water management would annually allow for interchange
of fish stock between the impoundment and Currituck
Sound.
Reptiles and Amphibians. This alternative would have
no significant impact to herptiles.
Alternative 4 - "Proposed Action"
A. Physical Resources
Under this alternative all dikes and water control
structures would be restored and maintained. In addition, a
pump station would be constructed. (Plan View). Material
to restore the dikes would be dredged from the existing
canals, increasing the depth of the canals by one and one-
half to three feet. The restoration project would allow the
200 acre area to be operated as an impoundment capable of
holding water from 0.2 ft. to 2.25 ft. above mean sea
level. In addition, the water control structures and the
pump would permit drainage of the impoundment under any
conditions for waterfowl management or dike maintenance.
The Proposed Action would increase the Refuge's moist soil
management area from 25 acres to approximately 225 acres.
15
B. Biological Resources
1. Vegetation
Under this alternative, the entire 200 acre
impoundment would be managed as a moist soil unit for
emergent aquatic waterfowl foods. Soil and water
conditions would be optimized to grow wild millet,
fall panicum, smartweeds, and other emergent high
value waterfowl foods. This would be a radical change
from the current flora of needlerush, cordgrass,
cattail and phragmites. In addition, submerged
aquatic vegetation would be improved in deeper water
areas along the canals and low lying areas of the
impoundment.
2. Wildlife
Waterfowl. Wintering waterfowl use of the Kitchin
Tract impoundment would increase for all species.
By providing high quality foods for more wintering
waterfowl it is expected that healthier and more
ducks would return to the spring breeding grounds
every year.
As many as 5000 ducks use the 25 acre impoundment
currently managed by the Refuge as a moist soil
area from November through February. It is
anticipated that the Proposed Action impoundment
would similarly be used by wintering waterfowl.
In addition to wintering ducks and geese, the
impoundment canals and marsh fringes would be used
by nesting wood ducks, mallards and black ducks.
The Refuge would install 10 to 20 additional nest
boxes for wood ducks and the canal banks would be
suitable for nesting mallards and black ducks.
Other Migratory Species. The Proposed Action
would provide 200 additional acres of winter
foraging habitat for wading birds. In addition,
the water levels would be managed to encourage use
by migratory shorebirds. The proposed action
would probably not significantly impact other
migratory species, including occasional bald
eagles and Peregrine falcons.
Mammals. Nutria and muskrat populations would
probably decrease slightly as a result. of water
management, vegetation changes and trapping. This
would not significantly effect the mammal
population at the Refuge.
16
Fish. Managing the impoundment as a moist soil
unit would be less beneficial to fish than
Alternative 3 since the water would be removed
from the unit (except the canals) during growing
season. The Fish population would be similar to
the "No Action" Alternative.
Reptiles and Amphibians. The Proposed Action
would have no significant impact on herptiles.
Most likely, the Action would insure better winter
survival for many amphibian and reptile species.
Nesting areas for diamondback terrapins, if
present, and all other turtle species would
benefit from rehabilitation of the dikes (Schwab,
pers. com.)
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
During the early planning stages of the proposed dike
rehabilitation project, the Refuge was in contact with the U.S
Army Corps of Engineers, the North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
and the FWS Division of Ecological Services, Raleigh Field
Office. They have reviewed and commented on the proposal.
Their concerns and recommendations have been incorporated into
this document.
17
SUMMARY
The Service has chosen Alternative 4 as the Proposed Action.
This proposal would best meet the objectives of the Refuge's
marsh and water management program to achieve the goals and
mission of the Service and the Refuge.
Alternative 1 would continue current management of the area
(winter burning) and would not realize full potential of the
Kitchin Tract area. Existing dikes would eventually deteriorate.
Alternative 2 would be regressive.in that no management would
take place resulting in rapid vegetation succession and
deterioration of the existing dikes. The area would be of
marginal value to waterfowl.
Alternative 3 would increase the marsh and water management
potential of the Refuge by providing an additional 200 acres of
area managed for submerged aquatic vegetation.
ll i qt j v • ..
LL suijasC) ylnog-su'10leO 41JoN i CIVK
S311W NI 31d:)S
OZ OT 5 0 S
.00.9C
.s t.9F
.0C.91
.SV.2
.00.

o ` ?y
? t
•,v? c I
w _t Z
?'• ?•?•?1 3St
O
C
? z
tl11o11OD .•.:
0
y
J
•: Q, ?'(id?
TIM JItl7M31
AIzuzozn
2 g c :;;.....
U 71YVd 31115
3.1113 35Ivd r y.•
'V'.V1'N Ar9 ."v3 :•:`• ar..a •.
v
t-
Z
C
r
Q
3idtlwtiaS 1tl ?., 'OO NVMOHO
ONTO5
•?
?d 61
Cl-
a
J
.?ybro?os ?tib? s~6?170
.? lnb• `gyp.
Auk uts7•zg3 ?.. ?,. w
00
? 0 r R- ?. z w '' ••w'
?yb R ?- ..~ k '00 SILYE)
OJT
.dew w w
. • ?. ? ? ..1??y,'?w• T-tV110?17 N1YOhw •.`^
77
i ONOWYMUC-
_,?
39 t 4r K.
a .. MR.? I 1r
? ?' R *. ?.
3NV3ddS3H3 J6 `' 1
6 •`
7 3i1?J:
\/fib •'
HO'738 `dINIOtltA
09
AYa1S Ivot - -10
AYS 3HY3dYS3HO
•C e,
t \ `S
OwSltiOd r?10??
r
r' is
1
a
aOld?d
1
G t
Od
SOd ? ?U-
bPAd
HOdA
.OC.9G
*.9C
21.0c
0C.9C
•s?.9C•
0010
.9t.9L .w.ac •
S '?'N '?'A 2iS
Z
{te{ ° .f
NO11?N11»O ?/
N?7w
..OO.LL.CL
..00.
..CC
:pusor
LYi1 ]w O11H L O'{ { O' O LOG{ AyvnYp]/ s&L2s 1w'>tlt%.n 'Y]NY 09 HOLMiN
lii/ 0000 0000 coop OOOL O
f n ONV 'f'D f'N AO fA]AYnf wOY/
..OC.LL.LL A11V']Y /O NOtslmc VMA NI 0711rw0n
DO.OC.OC
.OC.LC.OC
»OO.tt.ft ••OC.Lt.tt
]*IAYif ]/t1p11M ON• 1101/ YOIY]LNI iNl 10 1N]W1Y?ri0
fitYlf O]11Nn YINI981A' VNI'IOHY.') N.6NON f]lYlf O]LINn
3f)fl,43U 33I'I(I'lI/A rlV IOI.LVN UNIV ISI )LVX:)VW

Ilk
i
i•S•C' s ? r
r.
- t
- ''fir! ?' .. < .? ???_^ ,?? •. y`.
i
14
lot
w. '
z t i. r `.? I
AR
14
4 CAN;*
H
H
U
W ,
O
a
: w ^2?41;. .
?iF
acy. .-r-'-•r

6

•
? .•
- mss: ."'r.:
_
_61

- ? a ?
rr^?a• 1 • `r 1 -

T
?
4
,

`co>
V)
r4
H
O'
x

M .?
W
H
a
PL4
i W- 1 >--:7

.p 'mod ,-?? ?r t . ? > ` . ' ?? ? • U P-'.
fi.
r' - fs: L fix'. / ` k ;
If I.
r ,
Vq-

;LIZ 7;-7

Y : . .r?gt , 1 ,
-.'v. t ? .sue. • xt, .,
-a ? , r ra'?.?a
?yw n' . ?'7G
y,
:r
ttt

I

40

y

Ne
O

. f'
t ??•
_ t-a
H ? Qa
te
.. U r
-,

z

H H
a

O
I
I
F W
W C:]
W
W
H
z
H
Q
a
O
H O N O
CA ?
OH m
H 9C M hf C7
W x m
t-4 Li rd
a?oaaH -
z z z 7C
d d d rZI
z HEM
c7 ??y
r o
N H ?1
v Ky a
?o tri H
In H
Co °
m z
z
c
H
(7
ril
H
rC
.ty
H
f'1
r
H
H
O
z
c
H
ro
°
z
ro
0
r?
?[xin
°oa
?zH
C-j
Ha
?r?
y0
I
ti
0
O
k
r?
0
1
M
r
sZ
N

W ?
?.
k?
Z
R

J
1
1 f?

?e •ty'o z .??' ro
n 0
,..3 .
C x "d
H ?
n W ?! Cr7
C ?C

? 9
d
d d M
` E z z

n H H
. d
r. 0 0

r
0 1-4

ro
N
a
r
.d
a
z
c
H
C27
d
a
N
r
.d
ro
0
al"o
zap
IMM3
0 1-4
90
z
y
H
93 no
Z C?+'fOH II
H ?O
E
F
F
4
-E

f
?

J ?
3
I ? X •
N 1
:y
I Z J ?.
1 1 ?.
1?1 ? f
0
.A .
•
11 ?
1
? • E
• l

feats
4141.41•T
•41••!1
•*eas2
,4141•!2
,aerie
es,e9C
•41ee,f
•41ee9e
-j **sees
SAVa/3Sn 7Y12N. XMU X 3Y79
YX N QtV Y*YSI A FYJ YN

•
N••9
•$eset
,•s,9T
41sessa
,e„92
ee•91C

411,4191
SAYUIESn 7dn,VArv XJnQ DMIAIC
VAN aNV791 AVXDVI1l
ZE ,
.1e.n
asses
,414141.1
4141.419t
„41•,2
$*ea92
ase,•C
SAVL713Sn 7rilNh7b L7?1V77VN
Ymfir' UNF7SI AVXJ Y
•
$e,e•a

assess
••,sa41T
es„4121
,e„41fT
•eaee9T
••41•,91
sAralssn 7M MAW X317a DR799ra
YALN QNV7SI AVYJV1i'
1
.AL
25
MATRIX
g I Waterfowl
Wetland i I Wintering
Resource Waterfowl Potential Public Refuge Est.
Alternativebnet gain/loss Production (food & space) Use Goals Cost
No Action 0 0 0 0 + current
funding
No Mgmt r
Action -- - -- - - -0-
SAV I + + + 1 0 1 + g$ 75,000
Proposed ++ + ++ 1 0 ++ 1$100,000
Action 1$200,000
COMMENTS TO THE DIKE REHABILITATION PROPOSAL

U.S. Government Memorandum
Date: June 5, 1990
From: Refuge Manager/Mackay Island NWR
Subject: Environmental Assessment (EA) for Dike Rehabilitation
To: Habitat Enhancement Office, FWS, Raleigh, NC
Attn: Mike Gantt, Field Supervisor
Thank you for providing comments to the draft EA for the Kitchin
Tract dike rehabilitation project at Mackay Island NWR. Several
suggestions were incorporated in the document. The comments have
been numbered and will be responded to in the order they were
presented to us:
1. These comments are general,- and are discussed more
thoroughly in the specific comments. Therefore, they will
be responded to under the specific sections.
2. The information was included under subsection "A.
Introduction" as recommended. The Affected Environment
information was moved to "B. Background."
3. A figure has been added. Additional information
regarding FWS-DU "MARSH" joint project and it's relation to
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan has been added.
4. The sentence has been reworded. The desired wetland
habitat has been described.
5. "Unwanted species" has been changed to typha and
phragmites.
6. "Habitat diversity" has been eliminated. Management to
"encourage a variety of submergent vegetation species of
high value to surface feeding ducks" has been added.
7. The waterfowl foods listed have long been recognized by
waterfowl biologists as "important" foods for ducks and
geese. It is not necessary to belabor this ."fact" by citing
literature that dates from the turn of the century to
support this.
8. The estimated cubic yards of fill required has been
changed to a maximum of 45000 cu. yds.. As written, 3000 to
5000 cu. yds. would be placed below mean high water. The
additional 42000 yds. will be used to build up the existing
dikes. That material would be placed above the existing
mean water level. The impacts of the excavation is
discussed in the Environmental Consequences section.
9. "Unwanted, rank vegetation" has been omitted. The
fragmented sentence was corrected.
10. The marsh area inside the impoundment is currently a
"natural" marsh system. Water levels in the impoundment are
subject to wind tides and salinity levels identical to those
marshes adjacent to the proposed impoundment. Consequently,
vegetation inside the.dikes is similar to the vegetation
outside. The "natural function" of the Kitchin tract and
other Mackay Island NWR marshes was disrupted late in the
19th century, when the SR 615 Causeway was constructed.
Subsequently, water flow between Back Bay and the North
Landing River (north Currituck Sound) was totally restricted
until Corey's Ditch was constructed in 1915.
"Restoration of the marsh to its full natural function"
presumably would require filling the existing canals with
material currently forming the dikes around the area. This
would involve using a dragline to excavate hundreds of
thousands of cubic yards of material to fill approximately
fifteen acres of canal. The result would (eventually) be
fifteen additional acres of black needlerush marsh.
There are presently over 4000 acres of under-utilized black
needlerush marsh at Mackay Island NWR. Our only management
opportunity to increase waterfowl use of this resource is by
burning, to provide an opportunity for snow geese to gain
access to roots that grow in the marsh. Expanding this area
by 15 acres is not a valid alternative nor is it consistent
with the objectives of the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan.
It is highly unlikely that cooperative funding from Ducks
Unlimited would have been granted to restore 15 acres of
emergent marsh without substantial improvement of waterfowl
habitat. We were fortunate in acquiring a property that had
existing dikes built by the previous landowner.
Undoubtedly, we would not receive funding nor COE approval
for the project if new dikes had to be constructed. But by
repairing the existing dikes, we can improve 200 acres of
habitat for waterfowl at a reasonable expense.
11. The information has been moved to the "Background"
section.
12. The environment adjacent to the impoundment has been
discussed.
13. The Corey's ditch inlet has been discussed:
14. The effects of wind tides has been discussed.
15. A map of vegetation is not available. Aerial photos
depicting the vegetation of the area are included as part of

the document.
16. Graphs representing the decline of waterfowl in the
area are included.
17. The name has been corrected and the suggestions
included.
18. All genera have been listed. The scientific name for
yellow-bellied turtle is Trachemys scriptor scripta and was
changed. The scientific name for snapping turtles was
corrected.
19. Agreed, but does not change the eventual outcome as
stated. Text will remain the same.
20. Changed to "chemical control (Rodeo) of phragmites and
cattail would be used if necessary to prevent further
spreading."
21. The marsh area inside the dikes has not been burned
regularly in the past. Results of 1990 burning are included
that support the expectation of snow geese use following
burning. Snow geese "eat-outs" have been clarified.
22. The assumption that the area will progress to a needle
rush environment is explained.
23. Wood duck box installation was moved to the
Alternatives section.
24. I am unable to competently determine the overall
impacts of managing water levels on a 200 acre marsh to
mammals, reptiles and amphibians. On areas at the Refuge
where water is under a similar management regime, no
differences have been observed. I do not believe there are
significant differences to warrant a study of this and
consider it a "non-issue," i.e., if there was a 25% to 50%
increase or decrease in use by any of the species found,
would that affect the decision to continue with the project?
I have contacted Mr. Donald Schwab, Virginia Game and
Inland Fisheries Biologist and posed the same question of
which he responded similarly.
According to Mr. Schwab, diamondback terrapins have never
been recorded in Northern Currituck Sound or Back Bay.
However, if there were, restoring the dikes would improve
nesting habitat for terrapins, according to Mr. Schwab. In
addition, Currituck Sound has been a fresh water system
since 1830. I do not believe the proposed action or any
other action in the area would positively or negatively
impact salt marsh snakes.
25. Potential increased use by shorebirds has been
.4 II
included. I do not agree that a small amount of shorebird
habitat will significantly nor measurably impact peregrine
falcons.
26. The last
population would
as suggested.
Thank you again for
this will assist us
proposal.
sentence of this was changed to "the fish
be similar to the "No Action Alternative"
your comments and suggestions. Hopefully,
in attaining the permits required for the

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
memorandum
DATE: February 8, 1990
REFLYTO
ATTNOF: Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, FWS, Raleigh, North Carolina
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Assessment for Dike Rehabilitation at Mackay Island
National Wildlife Refuge
To: Refuge Manager, Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge, Knotts Island,
North Carolina
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft environmental assessment
for the subject project. We offer the following comments for your
consideration:
General Comments
The document is well-organized and provides a good outline for a biological
assessment. However, the assessment needs additional information to
demonstrate that: 1) the project is needed; '2) the affected environment
is adequately described; 3) all possible alternatives are presented; and 4)
the environmental consequences of each alternative are evaluated. With
regard to #3 above, we suggest that an additional alternative be considered
in the assessment: restoration of the natural marsh system.
Although the Environmental Consequences section for each alternative often
assesses the impacts to waterfowl and some mammal species, it does not
consistently address impacts to other wildlife, including reptiles,
amphibians, fish and other avian species. Overall, we believe that the
Environmental Consequences section should provide more documentation for
its findings.
Specific Comments
Page 1, Purpose and Need for Action: The information provided under this
section should be included under subsection "A. Introduction". We suggest
that the background information on the establishment of the refuge and the
history of the Kitchin Tract, including impoundment construction, provided
on page 4 under Affected Environment, be moved to a new subsection titled
"B. Background."
3 Paragraph 1: A figure should be referenced that delineates the
project area. Additionally, the need for the action will be strengthened
if it can be demonstrated that the action complies with the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan.
Paragraph 3: We suggest that the second sentence be reworded so
?y that the presence of Juncus sp. does not suggest a degraded condition.
Additionally, the wetland vegetation desired to enhance waterfowl habitat
should be described.
OPTIONAL FORM NO. 10
(REV. 1.80)
."A .It
j Alternative 1: The "unwanted species" which will be controlled
with herbicides should be listed.
Page 2, Alternative 3, Paragraph The assessment should contain
adequate information to document that this alternative is a management tool
used to maintain habitat diversity. We suggest that either the term
from this sentence
"habitat dier e omitted
how this alternative or additional maintain
information b be provided
habitat diversity.
Paragraph 5: References should be cited which document vegetation
preferred by wintering dabbling ducks.
Page 3, Alternative 4, Paragraph 2: This paragraph states that
approximately 15,000 cubic yards of fill will be used for dike
rehabilitation, yet the Coastal Area Management Act permit application for
the project states that an estimated total of 3,000 to 5,000 cubic yards
of fill will be placed below mean high water. This discrepancy should be
corrected. Further, the permit application states that about 75,000 cubic
yards will be excavated for project construction. The purpose of the
excavation should be described here, and the impacts of this part of the
project should be included in the impacts section.
Paragraph 5: The term "unwanted, rank vegetation" should be
omitted and the target species listed. The last sentence of this paragraph
is a sentence fragment and should be completed.
Page 4: We suggest that an additional alternative be included:
D re- storation of the marsh to its full natural function.
Affected Environment: We suggest that the background information on
the establishment of the refuge and the history of the Kitchin Tract,
including impoundment construction be moved to a new subsection titled
"Background", to be included as "B." under Purpose and Need for Action.
The environment adjacent to the impoundments should be described so that
?Z the reviewer can relate the quality of wetlands within the impoundment to
that found in the adjacent unaltered marsh.
The document describes an artificial inlet connecting the impoundment to
l 3 Corey's ditch. Does this inlet play a role in the flooding regime of the
impoundment? Please clarify in the document.
2. Biological Features: The document states that the plant species
within the impoundment are a result of "tidal-fluctuating" water levels.
Page 1 of the document states that site water regimes are dictated by
wind-driven tides. This should be clarified.
f? A map of the vegetation areas within the impoundment would be useful. The

origin and location of the dredge spoils and disturbed sites should be
described in further detail.
Page 5, B. Wildlife, Paragraph 1: Literature should be cited to document
/
6 the information given on waterfow l declines in Currituck Sound and Back
Bay .
Page 6, Fish: The scientific name of white perch is Morone americana.
1;7 Suggest "higher water salinity" be changed to read "higher salinity".
Suggest that "since the water is not under the same" be changed to read
"since the water is not subject to the same."
Reptiles and Amphibians: All genera of the species listed in this
/ paragraph should be written out. The scientific name for snapping turtle
is Chelydra sepentina and for yellow-bellied turtle is Chrysemys scripta
scri pta .
Environmental Consequences - Alternative 1: Although the
activities of muskrat and nutria will aid in the ultimate destruction of
the dike and water control system, continued trapping of these animals
should slow the process.
Vegetation: The "No Action" alternative includes the use of
2,0 herbicides to control unwanted vegetation, including black needlerush. If
herbicides are used, what type(s) will be used? Additionally, further
description of how the area's vegetation is expected to change would be
beneficial.
v?2 Page 8, Wildlife Resources: If the marsh has been burned regularly in the
past and snow geese presently do not feed in the area, why would they be
expected to move into the area in the future? We suggest you clarify "eat
outs." We suggest adding more information about the wildlife benefits
associated with burning.
B. Biological Resources: Explain why the vegetation in a
alp- predominantly black needlerush marsh would continue to progress to a more
homogeneous needlerush community. Explain how wildlife diversity would
be impacted by a "No Management" alternative.
Page 9 and 10, Alternative 3: The proposed installation of wood duck boxes
should be relocated to the description for this alternative.
The impacts to mammals should be further described. Impacts to fisheries
a y should be more specific, including names of the species that would be
benefitted/impacted by impoundments. Further, the alteration of 200 acres
of marsh could adversely affect reptiles and amphibians, such as
diamondback terrapins and salt marsh snakes. Additional information may be
needed on this issue.
Page 11, Other Migratory Species: This alternative may beneficially affect
` '.4.
migrating shorebirds, and the peregrine falcons that feed on them, because
it will provide excellant. foraging and resting habitat for shorebirds
during migration.
Fish: We suggest that the last sentence reads "The fish
population would be similar to the No Action and the No Management
alternatives.
Summar
The present document provides a well-organized outline for an environmental
assessment. However, for the document to be complete, we believe that the
above--mentioned alternative and the additional information and
documentation, as outlined herein, should be incl.uded before the
Environmental Assessment is submitted for-public review.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and provide comments on this
document. We have included a copy of the Service's Final Environmental
Assessment for the creation of Roanoke River NWR. You may wish to use this
document as a guideline in the preparation of your Environmental
Assessment.
LP_ytZN_ Gf:?
41 .4

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
4010 WEST BROAD STREET
BOX 11104
RICHMOND. VA 23230
Post Office Box 847
Suffolk, VA 23434
9 April 1990
James R. Munson
Assistant Refuge Manager
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
Post Office Box 39
Knotts Island, NC 27950
I r ewed the draft EA you sent and this letter contains my
comments. Enclosed you will also find a list of amphibians and
reptiles of Mackay Island NWR (The annotated list/paper will be
along shortly).
Dear Ames
ha eviewed the draft EA you sent and this letter contains my
Over all I thought the document was well done. Comments are not
in any particular order, just jotted down as I was reading the
document. The following are my comments and thoughts:
- firstly, if you are going to be corrected by ES they should
get the correction, correct. Based on a Fish and Wildl. Serv.
Publ. (Checklist of Vertebrates of the United States, the U.S.
Territories, and Canada, Resourc. Publ. 166, by Banks et al., 1987)
the scientific name for the yellow-bellied slider is Trachemys
scripta scripta not Chrysemys s. s.. As of this moment this is the
correct form of the name, the genus has changed several times.
- I would never have used the words "wetland impoundment",
when man-made impoundment would have served the same purpose. In
the rehab. work that the Wildl. Div. did on Barbour's Hill WMA just
south of Back Bay NWR, the permit request was related to the rehab.
of a man-made impoundment. Vegetation and habitats were described
using appropriate common and scientific names, the word wetland
never appeared in the EA or the permit request.
- In the proposed alternative, I would make mention to the
fact that draw downs will be at appropriate times to insure feeding
and resting areas for spring and fall migrating shorebirds. The
no action alternative would make this habitat a variable occurrence
due to the influence of wind tides.

. . Al
- No adverse impacts to any wildlife species would be expected
from any of the alternatives initially. Over time the second
alternative would dry out and wildlife species would change
accordingly. The third alternative, I feel, would require higher
costs (then the proposed alternative) to maintain, and wildlife
impacts would be severe on a flora and fauna that was oriented to
an almost totally aquatic ccndition? (i.e. mgnmt would require
periodic drawdowns and scarification to set back succession).
- The proposed action would basically manage for the community
profile that presently exists. The mgnmt of water levels would
insure proper conditions for breeding, wintering and migrating
species. Impacts on resident species would not be great and most
likely insure better winter survival for many of the amphibian and
reptile species. Diamondback terrapins*(Malaclemys terrapin) if
present, would not be adversely impacted, with the rehabilitation
of the dikes nesting areas for this and all turtle species would
be increased. In 10 -15 years of collecting on Back Bay and Knotts
Island, I have not encountered a specimen of the terrapin.
Specimens have been found on the ocean beaches east of Mackay
Island NWR, but to my knowledge no terrapins have been taken from
Back Bay or northern Currituck Sound.
That is about it, if I can be of further assistance let me know.
Sin rely;
Don S wab
Wil ife Biologist
cc: files
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: File No. CESAW-C091-N-027-0045
Mr. William Mills
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Mills:
S: December 26, 191
a;. OCT 1990
`
?jc'?
Z. 3ra,7c:4 CA
Enclosed is the application of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MacK.
Island National Wildlife Refuge, for Department of the Army authorization a
a State Water Quality Certification to place excavated/fill material in
wetlands adjacent to the North Landing River associated with reconstruction
dikes, Knotts Island, Currituck County, North Carolina. Your receipt of th
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 authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Sectio
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 sa
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 receip
of a request for certification is a reasonable time for State action.
Therefore, if you have not acted on the request by December 26, 1990, the
District Engineer will deem that waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Ralph Thompson, telephone
[phone].
Sincerely,
tG
Te, e Wr Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
October 22, 1990
Mr. David Griffin
Elizabeth City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Route 6, Box 203
Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
i
OCT 1590 ?s??
n n`.` ?/ c
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERI ?'VATrr
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE p Q(JALITy CIO
MACKAY ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE RE E
POST OFFICE BOX 39 ley` ???Qb
KNOTTS ISLAND, NORTH CAROLINA 2795 Slvl?l2
919-429-3100
October 25, 1990
Mr. William Mills
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Re: Mackay Island NWR Application for COE Permit - File No.
CESAW-C091-N-027-0045
Dear Mr. Mills;
Enclosed is additional information regarding our permit
application to restore the dikes at the Refuge. As required by
the Corps, the information has been forwarded to you for your
review and consideration. Please feel free to contact me at
[phone] regarding this or any other questions about our
permit application.
Sincerely yours,
James R. Munson
Assistant Refuge Manager
U.S. Government Memorandum
Date: October 25, 1990
From: Refuge Manager/Mackay Island NWR
Subject: Mackay Island NWR Permit Application (File No. CESAW-
C091-N-027-0045
To: G. Wayne Wright, Chief, Regulatory Branch
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
The following information is provided in reference to your
memorandum of November 22, 1990. A copy of the information has
been forwarded to the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management, as instructed.
According to the procedural guidelines for compliance with the
Clean Water Act, we will (a) demonstrate that the site selected
is the least environmentally damaging and that no reasonable
upland alternatives exist, (b) explain how the construction
techniques used are designed to minimize wetland losses and
specify where plans have been modified to minimize adverse
impacts, and (c) present mitigating measures to offset the
unavoidable loss of wetlands that will occur.
(a) Site Selection and Alternatives. The Kitchin Tract site was
selected because the canal and dike system has been in place
since the early 1960's. No other (wetland or upland) in the
Currituck Sound/Back Bay area of the Refuge has been developed in
this manner. Although the dikes are in poor condition, their
foundation exists, and repairing them, in comparison to
constructing a new dike and canal system in an undisturbed
wetland, would be far less costly and less damaging to wetlands.
When the 2.6 miles of dikes were constructed in the 1960's,
approximately 19 acres of wetlands were disturbed (12.7 acres of
canal and 6.3 acres of dikes) Rebuilding the dikes would result
in an additional 8.2 acres of wetland disturbance. Mitigating
measures for this loss is discussed in section (c).
A possible alternative to the impoundment plan would be to build
a 200 acre impoundment at an upland site. This would require
purchasing lands outside the current Refuge acquisition boundary,
since the Refuge does not own nor lease a contiguous 200 acres
upland area. Even if lands could be purchased, any other
location would not be as important to the migratory bird
management program at the Refuge since the proposed site is
adjacent to upland agricultural fields and wetlands managed by
the Refuge for the purpose of providing winter habitat for
migratory birds.
(b) Plan modification and Construction Techniques. When the
project was proposed, it was our original intent to reconstruct
the entire Kitchin Tract dike system, including the dikes around
three man-made ponds (Figure 1). However, after some review,
the plan was modified to construct new dikes across the mouth of
the ponds (Figure 2). This would result in 2.7 fewer acres of
wetland disturbance. It requires, however, permission to place
approximately 5,000 cu. yds. of material below mean water level
(across the mouths of the ponds). We believe this would result
in less wetland disturbance than reconstructing the entire
dike system around the ponds.
Refacing the existing dikes at 3:1 slope will result in
significantly lower siltation from erosion. The dikes are
presently in poor condition, and eroding rapidly. Our plans
would include reconstructing the dikes at 3:1 slope, maintaining
the dikes and seeding them to prevent erosion. In addition, the
non-functioning water control structures would be replaced with
new ones that would permit us to control water flow.
Additional material for the dikes would be excavated with a
dragline or track-excavator. The contractor would be required to
use mats when operating in wetlands. In addition a siltation
fence would be constructed on the outboard side of the dike, to
mitigate siltation during construction. Dikes would be seeded
and mulched following final grading to prevent erosion.
(c) Mitigating Measures. The proposed Kitchin Tract Dike
Reconstruction Project would result in a loss of approximately
8.2 acres of wetlands. The impoundment project would result in
an opportunity for the Refuge to manage the 200 acres of wetland
for high quality migratory bird wintering habitat.
Adjacent to the proposed project, a 30 acre impoundment is
currently under construction at the Refuge. This project
involves converting a 30 acre upland agricultural field to a
moist soil impoundment by leveling the area and constructing a
dike. Water will be pumped to the impoundment from Currituck
Sound.
The projects described above are part of the Fish and Wildlife
Service/Ducks Unlimited "Matching Aid to Restore State's Habitat
("MARSH") program at Mackay Island NWR. The "MARSH" program
developed from a recognized need for cooperation between private
groups and government agencies in the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan.
It is our goal to complete this project in compliance with the
Clean Water Act. Mackay Island NWR and the FWS are committed to
protecting and restoring wetlands to a productive state. We
believe this goal can best be achieved at the Kitchin Tract site
be reconstructing the existing dikes and controlling water levels
in the impoundment to encourage wetland plants important to
migratory birds that use the Refuge.
If any further information is needed to comply with Section 401
regulations, please do not hesitate to contact James R. Munson,
Assistant Refuge Manager at [phone]. Thank you for your
cooperation.
James R. Munson
Assistant Refuge Manager
FIGURE 1
MORSE ••~ir.KNTL
615
C; re e cis
to
Existing Man-made Ponds •:..•..
............
?o
0
Existing Water Control Structure
Existing Dikes and Canal
11
Existing Water Control Structure
J
O
STEEP NCO
r POIN
................
............
.... . . ...........
MINGER
• POINT
?.
11
tl
11
tl
11
1
R
FIGURE 2
MORSE
615
creeds
Miles to
POINT
Proposed Dike Rehab.
II '
I1 \
II
11
Proposed Water Control Structure
®
P m in9 Station
?... i cP%r6cLt/
C!!?•I?.Q N T /
D
?+'?
Proposed Water Control Structure
Proposed Fill Areas ('est. 5,000 cu.yd•)
Proposed u r •
......
X X.
r'
b
......
%
STEEP
PO!N ,•
.............. ......
/MINGER
POINT
R
C

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ACTION ID. 199100045
November 15, 1990
PUBLIC NOTICE
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, MACKAY ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE, Post Office Box 39,'Knotts Island, North Carolina, 27950, has
applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit TO EXCAVATE MATERIAL
WATERWARD OF THE MEAN HIGH WATER (MHW) ELEVATION CONTOUR; DISCHARGE
EXCAVATED MATERIAL BELOW MHW AND WITHIN WETLANDS TO REHABILITATE MANMADE
IMPOUNDMENTS; AND INSTALL WATER CONTROL STRUCTURES AND A PUMP, NORTH
LANDING RIVER, CURRITUCK SOUND, MACKAY ISLAND, Currituck County, North
Carolina.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by
the applicant. The plans and application indicate that the applicant
proposes to excavate approximately 75,000 cubic yards (CY) of bottom
material below mean high water from existing canals, which would provide
material to (1), reconstruct existing manmade dikes; and (2), to enclose the
existing dike system. Material would be excavated with a dragline or track
excavator, and the contractor would use mats when operating-in wetlands, and
would install a silt fence along the outboard side of the dike to reduce
siltation during construction. The existing dike system, which was
constructed in the early 1960's, extends approximately 2.6 miles,
encompassing approximately 200 acres of wetlands. The dikes have received
no maintenance since their construction, and the applicant states that dikes
and drainpipes have collapsed in several areas rendering the system
incapable of serving as a shallow water reservoir for waterfowl management
purposes. The applicant also indicates that the dike system was not
previously connected (closed), and served as a canal system to provide
-access to small ponds for waterfowl hunting. The existing impoundment dikes
would be resloped to 3:1, with a top elevation of +6 feet to +8 feet MLW.
The average top width of the dike would be 10 feet, with a bottom width of
20 feet - 30 feet. The applicant also proposes to install two water control
structures (aluminum flashboard or equivalent) to permit draining or filling
the impoundment by gravity to meet waterfowl management objectives. A
permanent pump would also be.lnstalled which would be used to add water to
the impoundment during low tides or drought conditions. The pump would-also
be used to drain the reservoir quickly or in conditions of high tides, when
gravity flow is not possible. Disturbance associated with the pump would
involve installing a 30-36 inch pipe below MHW from the canal to an existing
boat basin (approximately 40 feet). The pump would be either a portable
pump that would be attached to the pipe at the boat basin when pumping is
required, or a permanent vertical pump that would be lowered into the pipe
,al }
-3-
Land Quality Section, North Carolina Division of Land Resources, pursuant to
the State Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NC G.S. 113 A-50-66).
The requested DA permit will be denied if any required State or local
authorization and/or certification is denied. No DA permit will be issued
until a State coordinated viewpoint is received and reviewed by this agency.
Recipients of this notice are encouraged to furnish comments on factors of
concern represented by the above agencies directly to the respective agency,
with a copy furnished to the Corps of Engineers.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 10 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the
comment period specified in this 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 archaeological, 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, 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
tllti r
8
r f>k RMi1
f
• 5Y!! 4
tT
J
Il4-M
. I;
3A
N \

car

w !i
T fl?
Whit

A •le 1• ??

O L Y W.:
e ba

Rtli?? ?
K to
`•
23
S.?
tl
• w
Y
•
lr/I
[
?

NI _ A
u
MAP 1 North Carolina-South Carolina 77
Z I 10 1 TT
3s . rd.aw? • FFOL,C:f
rT.nu•d .J Id, • ® 'BEACH
17 GINIA .
2v 35
•a . it nYln ,,, . €??j' AP I .Hf EYo'.=S .
613
x?w 4.u. d 5 / y' Project
Ir?«/ 1? ve n - •Lrtrf _- ril .. t ?•L;4•:fi.- . :h CAR ?r.. Area
etr ?vl'IC.+• ?( :701 r?iSfs?..[ ?1 ? Mc11.•1 (n+) raSHillf "r•i ??"? • •s• ?qr`+ .
N O T N A Y? T O •• I•r• r[ S trY IU
.
ROANOK't' on ''tom - .f.•TS T,t !Y Of ~ rrd
?sntar > n 5 ,,, S ISt (? rr.. 11 , [ %ABET h t.OtI _
rY '? I wf . t[fYIYY B N A, [ O ).fr CI1:Y0 , :D `I .
t 0! , •pIt
s• .s ' r r Stu. ws ,s • . • O`' ? ,r ? ln?A.
f,? ErLU.r. Yr 11 •TRI t AD nd? 11 13. , r r • n ,? 0r ? <,' ?r M.+ •• rTf ?.*y ;i .ik:L
' f.6ft.t S..PI/ wll ? ••r s•' ss0 s ~tp Wwd •\ A;;. .:.,.
r? (+ t•D^!/x?us sr pH1s` ord ... ' ww-si \?7.]
' • • IYW s SNNprt a• ?• G• «Y / Rac? rnY .r •-. ^ ISt ' `C \ rDl Asd
.?.1 lol rand M ? ?f" '" f p,y . by •. ^ ^ •
MAS 4'.
F'M . .l w M.II UN:Di ,- fr Y ?.. 47.E }
a X
.teLp
J ' 4)c I.1« ^ 's««.?t. Jw a , fl „Yn?rrr? ds« T . f [ r • IiiY« J
W?
17 '•'"'•r?,.•: '
tsh sr .n •s 1r. i ??lK?t• s ?? pis t'_ ?w YwmE' ?, `).NS.rr,'pL Sv A. me4 ,??? ,ci ' L' i.D..;.•.
`f(? . 1 ?, i .f a i s? .r I7' • f ? s '?wE - EL M. pil.su• ..doww.
Isms
YhG .! ARBOR •11 '•^ ?•• - rl
t "t D G ? " 1Ydli?msl rl«. %tmoulY Or ?? ? o-;-I
. I
StsJM- /
I
o ?-' ` ^W • tdlt i tr r A E N I M G T TY R 1 L 1. [\ :;, •? Z.
? b' , ? t'.~r r ,. ? _ 13 u 1 rtl?Y 17 _ ? - •. _ _ (
r n
,wd
G ILSON tfn --.. ,? ?''` ??' _ -_ _ W. Sr1 s .wr•••? A .i ?- - ,^ ?s......
71?? Q Yii
22
< ? I s M E.rU!f? E(.wli V I se r? a IA r rrYw 77 ,? i o i ..s""' ^ .. ?p W-6
L
t.?li76t t3 C« '¢,. • s •WASMIN
tR ?' rr •I G r = x l,Tp. ,rr / O „ •?l Sf Y Y YF •'
?„ Kr tal. ? ... r+.ra», f
I lx Y lsv I Yrb WA p.cw s lr •r to
M L?. p r? ..
MYt7 "•^Lr•Mudoa.6 Er YYr•v Atd??? / • 9.? fn 1/O !t • ? ,? S«frs•
fm
? .r Yr 11 ?? ?, rl • rns w P°•"VNi r t ' } rW wW w'r+s,v )a
yy M«
r tr • fr Sr ,(?' .I •.. • •? .?t?' !. i??VVVJJ I..: w?irC?: ?7:?'.
eo s r . u • - w- w•r f tq . taus
caw- 9
? 17 ', ..' •r.tt 7
lAdl '' St: iN$ » wY[sit .M7. _. .. ••Sl,. ? ?„;.,. . N.rr... s_...
31iw S '(t "?•? Ww C ? vE M p•,_ '?.. s„ ,`!Ay-'+.•..:^, {
., t E I A?t?A Grwir?tt w rspfW?, . s` N??a
! '1.1• :•?- • ' NA ': ?• .: `(
K [ Cw, •/o.• .ta M p is ?'? ,.•
r . 0•t •bb r ..
Y
Yl.rt ? n Y ii NCW •;RN YafiE SS yy r O':w GyIA•.v':•i:? p^!;y 1W .' ?•
f?rrMrr '? ° hRSN .? ? M•irw :•o:. 7, 17 Y)irr ':X sre.L. a: ,
T?A.t 'W'tpl[ '• , t[ rte •r ?` ? Z1 : r '?+'.?rY1s? fit"" ?`? •r. .:: l.et::rti' •,
N«T :.
? rll L T4 ..It. „ `wsr; ,• 11ti4?, ?r i O .. ...'`'... :-•?Y.-
w MtE^N . I~ [?• 7 ... .? _ t < fNtl .1' .Sw•Wi'i:.*V.' =ii:..?•"j. ,
11 ? ?O«Sii. fwrl? 1 s•~ , R .S? ?(hW'a: l!-^•`.
h K r , •?r: i
t?ttli r s0?? o M W wfyP ?tt46Y•yIt = 1 a 1 '2 ?F .?x..:"k;_..:`_,.b..•.:tt,E?:. .
s( t U _ rri
f lsfiti? aS My ? Y,i T• •.S Y N ftk is?..:: ?,•.2_..:.r
IS X ' fr..r t T- f •r••• tLJt no, ss?'?' l? N76•°d°wjym? .wE _•r ,':. ^' RAND USUALLY
? 1 s 177 4OBsr l.+r , ,.
so tEo? r/,w... l.r. : t' _ Y . =?:? .: NORTH CAROL I N
ss A
urp It.D. ss+fr r , dw : ?
""? ? n ?j.? SOUTH CAROLINA
>w ? s Sf • III It (loft Rid[[ ? (' N. )4: l.lr • 8 .,.:.; .. :? "? ?.'? a... •I.. w4k.Y. wY?w r.?v48.w7
E L B tk••+r?• tlo ..? y Y t. t .. •. S . r fiAtYl ^ WI LSO N
??R+••t d sw. •'-wi._.' _:. , . •: z: ?.c:.:c?•:i ?.;:y?'?'+? +?"•.. NYMw /N I 1
:.•..: °1 O r?U1pJ11 111 DURHAM
D R » :ro _s; .4fi • .. Cnhtm
RV I
WINSTON
• :. ''•e,?a :ct •^_1O: .a. ll•.A..a1?... "y4:..+w?? y NICKO
vi I'. 1? R tt nrip. •
N w ,N,ws7'!IrY.J,h(.:.. ,:l.r.'+ •.r' +.• fcWl [ E
W 1 r f .• AY Md ?. O:r ... •.?
rJ X ?. ?a t? L Q.rr J.sf • - rc00' i
Mom raft Goo-Sohi 1:42
IC] [ u emu. . p _.
low.
?? .I___•_ +t arc"...-+:s•F? .r•4
mrs
46
4
Car
a 1 or
r t ..
E S-
' ?'?• R?

66•]4'301'
06.00.0E
COMIIlEO IN THE OIV1610N or RCAITV T6.07100"
/ROM SURVEYS OV U.S O.S. ANO U S./ I•N. S. O 4000 4000 0000 6000 /ELT
NEWTON CORNER. MASSACNUOCTTS /EORUAAV 1006 . 0 .0 • 116 ? KIIOMETER6
POSTED,

.Oe..
Ts•ssroo-
YCAN
6• S OECUNATION
i •671
SR VA. N.C. 5
MACKAY ISLAND NATIONAL WILPLIFE REFUGE
UNITED STATES NORTH CAROLINA . VIRGINIA UNITCO 6TATC6
OE/ARTMCNT OF T1.E INTERIOR /16N ANO WILOII/C SERVICE
"!•
O
r
a
z
d
H
z
c?
H
C
C7
? a
z z
r x
y a
;o t7l
O
r
? ra
O H H
-3 -3
(J7 H H
o C)
ro ? o
C C1 H
b U7 7,
H
H
O
z
H
H
0
? C
P
N ?
[rJ
v 9
o z

?
y y
A
?}/? •
- `-ICY..

rt C7 >C .?_i1?i >
m
z
t
d
r
a x Mme-'" s o
M Hd?Y':• ?~? Z
o :h cn rx>-.?
cD r
`lk s+,.!"• 9 i ? III +I ? ? t7 ? • t ! ,
a? n
tT3
try ?, ?• .,'+ - ? 7C -, ?-i.• _? 1 . ?`'> • r'?_,o.? ? - ? _ :? t
i•i ?` r 'ird I +
3 Y
3., e
lip.
t7l
41
x r-1 ? s

- J
ro
r
H

•
I f
f
I
.
1 y. ? .
Al
f •
l
•
1 ? X31
1 0
f 4( •
J ?)
l '
k
VU
•
Ir
3 =
'? 1 F

i

3
3 '

3
o E+
x w z
H O W
zzx
O U
do?
'n' H fOz+
0W3
w
N
0
w
a .
N
H
W
A
3
W
H
d
a
a
d
U
N
a
>•
H
W
A
a
O C y C
5 w roll
N
O O
z 'rl
3 z
? w

H
A
q

H ?
x cn N
NDCH
y y?+
? W W 00 N
0
O c
j t%?0
9
4
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
October 22, 1990
SUBJECT: File No. CESAW-C091-N-027-0045
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
MacKay Island National Wildlife Refuge
Post Office Box 39
Knotts Island, North Carolina 27950
Gentlemen:
S: November 22, 1990
Reference your application for Department of the Army (DA) authorization
to place excavated/fill material in wetlands adjacent to the North Landing
River associated with reconstruction of dikes, Knotts Island, Currituck
County, North Carolina.
On February 6, 1990, the DA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to
determine the type and level of mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean
`Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This MOA provides for first, avoiding
impacts to waters and wetlands through the selection of the least damaging,
practical alternative; second, taking appropriate and practical steps to
minimize impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally, compensating for any
remaining unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and practical. To
enable us to process your application in full compliance with this MOA, we
request that you provide the following additional information:
a. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are
available only if the proposed work is the least environmentally damaging,
practicable alternative. Please furnish information regarding any other
alternatives, including upland alternatives, to the work for which you have
applied and provide justification that your selected plan is the least
damaging to water or wetland areas.
b. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practical
steps to minimize wetland losses. Please indicate all that you have done,
especially regarding development and modification of plans and proposed
construction techniques, to minimize adverse impacts.
C. The MOA requires that appropriate and practical mitigation will be
required for all unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after all appropriate
and practical minimization has been employed. Please indicate your plan to
mitigate for the.projected, unavoidable loss of waters or wetlands or provide
information as to the absence of any such appropriate and practical measures.
This information is essential to our expeditious processing of your
application and it should be forwarded to us by November 23, 1990. Also, a
copy of this information must be sent to the North Carolina Division of
•1
-2-
Environmental Management to enable them to adequately evaluate your
application for a Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act.
If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Ralph
Thompson, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Copies Furnished:
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Mr. David Griffin
Agency - Region IV Elizabeth City Regional Office
Wetlands Section - Water Quality Branch North Carolina Division of
345 Courtland Street, N.E. Coastal Management
Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Route 6, Box 203
Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. William Mills
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
% Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687