19980122 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19920101

July 7, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
THROUGH: John Dorney
FROM: Eric Fleek?
SUBJECT: Bay River Dredging-Comments on Rebuttal Document (DENR#901, DWQ#11962)
The following comments are offered in response to the applicants rebuttal to original comments on the Bay
River EA dated March 4, 1998.
1. Number 1 of the rebuttal document details that 7 of the 9 lots which encompass Cedar Creek have been
built out and that each homeowner (who also owns a boat) wants safe access to water and that they
have riparian rights. However, there is no answer (to #1 in the March 4, 1998 Memo) anywhere in the
rebuttal document which explains why now, after almost 60 years are the property owners requesting
dredging of Cedar Creek? DWQ is not necessarily against dredging but requires some explanation of
why there have been no earlier requests for dredging in this creek. As was stated in #1 of the March 4,
1998 Memo the EA notes that "the area has never required maintenance dredging", and that the shoal
at the mouth of Cedar Creek was caused by "sidecast" from the original Bay River Channel dredging
project (completed in 1939). As was requested in #1 of the March 4, 1998 Memo, more information is
needed.
2. Number 2 in the rebuttal document is a more reasonable width for any permitted access channel to
Cedar Creek (20' vs. 40'). As such it is a satisfactory answer to #2 of the March 4, 1998 Memo.
3. Number 3 of the rebuttal document does effectively answer concerns raised in #3 of the March 4, 1998
Memo regarding the possibility of increased boat traffic and public access. However, there may still be
the possibility that the 2 remaining lots could be used for a marina and or a boat ramp (which would
likely require additional permits or permit modifications). In addition, there will be an increase in
stormwater runoff from the development of the nearby Vandmere agricultural land.
4. The rebuttal document (No Number given) which discusses the applicability of the Neuse River Basin
Buffer Rules states: "The Neuse River Buffer rules requiring a 50-foot buffer of forest vegetation {sic}
on both sides of the banks of perennial streams is not applicable to the project. It is designed to be
applied to new building lots". This is incorrect. The Neuse River Buffer rules include perennial and
intermittent streams and also prohibits the placement of spoils in the buffer. Any spoil placement from
this project must be placed in a non-wetland area, and greater than 50' from any intermittent or
perennial stream (or any other water body) and must be properly stabilized according the the Sediment
and Erosion Control Act. Therefore, this un-numbered statement in the rebuttal document is
insufficient. An amendment to the original EA must include a detailed map showing where the spoils
will be placed, the location of wetlands, and the location of the 50' riparian buffer.
5. Number 4 of the rebuttal does adequately address the concerns originally expressed in #4 of the March
4, 1998 Memo.
6. There are no comments regarding Numbers 5, 6, and 7 of the rebuttal document.
If there are any further questions regarding this matter please feel free to call me at [phone] or e-
mail me at [e-mail]
3 5 3b
` JUN-1b-177b 46'J; 2,J FHUM UC.I"I I'IUKCr'1r-HU 717 G4(
_AO -a2>
if?M +?oQ 6utA?v,fI2..
I U 1-717- (.3.3-147) Y''. 61
SA*vL; Russponses to meniorandum dated March 4,1998-To Michelle Suverkrubbe through
John Dorney4tom Erick Fleet. RE; Bey giver Dredging (DENR # 941, DWQ # 11362.
1. At the time of the USACOE Bey River Dredging Project (1139) there were no homes
along Cedar Greek. $i= that f irne 7 t*Ms have 1 conetrWed on the 9 available lots-
Each homeowner is also a b6at owner with riparian rights and feel that they should be Witled
to .safe passage to deep water without bumping over the existing shoal, creating unn sr,
sediment and damage to their boats and motors, lid
2. The Propon is agreeable to cukting the pro1W width in half Oweby reducing the
width of the proposed channel from 40' to 29.
3. The rawem* to Vandamem being agricultural land, some skrMy tiding ivided was
a general observation and not speck to Cedar Creek. The agricultural land does not abut
the creek. The land abutting the creek is comprised of 9 lots, 7 cf which are built on, all in
private ovmership. One of the remaining tots is in an estate and subjeat to buck taxes. The
egell dW may want to ognsKW attiring it to insure A does .not get developed. There is rya
public access that wowId'enqourpge an increa in boat traffic. UeQln i + /Vt eldf xe-
k,C (6.10al(n?`x 2 (
?l g55JMi?9 ? ???? aF
The soope.of #Wpn ect is dredging of a narrow c t{ { Cedar Creek ywsth
the spoils being placed on are urive$fteted upland site evvay. from the shore. The Ntmme River
BufW iules requiring a 50-1oot buffer of forest vegitat3an on both sides of the banks of
perennial streams is not applicable to the project, It is designed to be applied to new building
lots, I'd
4. In the atted)ed memorandum from Katy West, Environmental Reviu r for Mer±ne
FiaherWa. she cesVums that ft ey No no objection to tft project and affirms that the ?
project falls outside of the enforced PNA area. Our surveys indicate that the dredging is
between 75 and 100 feet from the line. The corimms expressed by Marine Fiahe6es we ih s': r!0 ??
CAMA insure static use of the crack in the future by limiting multiple boat mooring facilities.
? F-k ?._
5. The Division of Water Quality, Zs rkV urn Regional Office, has determined O-W the
project will not. pose any surface water quality threats from sto m% er runoff.
z-- C
6_ The Array Cwp* tree dete mWied that the project is a candidate fOr Federal
Authot'imion under general permit # 195000291, "? T--c <,e 10d (o'/Wl en?-
7. Pteese note that the entire length of Cedar Creek is less that 2044', a dead end, with
no public access and completely visible from the project area. Therefore secondary impacts
fr4rn upstream should be negfglble.
-7 r 0
77
M
` NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL. RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
JAME6 B. HUNTJR.
== GOVERNOR
t ?F
MEMORANDUM
ii yWAYNE MCDEVITT
`i SECRETARY
a
tiff:
r
TO: John Dorney, DWQ
t Katy West, DMF
..ROGER N. SCHECTER
DIRECTOR
w '
FROM: John Parke
SUBJECT: Cedar Creek Channel Proposal by Wayne Harris
t r I t ?; Attach d, please fmd a response to your comments on the Cedar Creek channel proposal.
I ask that you comment on this addendum to the Environmental Assessment that was circulated to
':?:you by Melba McGee in April. Please forward a second response to Melba at your earliest
:convenience.
cc: Melba McGee
i l --_
Attachment

Az -

,.A P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NC 2761 1-7667 / 2728 CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - SO% RECYCLED/1 0% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

March 4, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michelle Suverkrubbe
THROUGH: John Domap
FROM: Eric Fleec(-
SUBJECT: Bay River Dredging (DENR# 901, DWQ# 11962)
Based on a review of the EA for this project, the Wetlands/401 Unit has the following concerns regarding
this project:
1) As noted in several passages from the EA, the original dredging in Bay River was completed by
USACOE in 1939. As stated in the EA: "the area has never required maintenance dredging." Our
concerns are the lack of information in the EA justifying why an access channel to Cedar Creek is now
needed. If the dredging in Bay Channel has been completed now for almost 60 years, why is the
dredging of the shoal in front of Cedar Creek (which as the EA notes was caused by "sidecast" from
the original Bay River Channel dredging) now necessary? The Wetlands/401 Unit suggests that an
amendment to the EA addressing this matter be completed.
2) Assuming that the above concerns are addressed adequately, the Wetlands/401 Unit would condition
any necessary Certification for a CAMA permit to allow a channel width less than 40' in width. Since
Cedar Creek is a small "dead end" creek with only eight surrounding parcels and no commercial
traffic, we believe that a smaller channel width would be more appropriate for this setting and better
addresses the minimization requirement (as per NCAC 15A 2H.0506 (b)(2). In addition, as the EA
notes the Bay River Channel hasn't required any maintenance dredging since the project's completion
in 1939. As a result we believe that the concerns expressed in the EA regarding narrowing the channel
width from 40'will not likely increase the likelihood of maintenance dredging as contended in the EA.
The applicant should discuss the minimum channel width required for this project.
3) The EA notes that: "The majority of Vandemere is prime agricultural land although not particularly
unique. Some is slowly being divided into house lots. The proposed dredging project will have no
effect on these lands as it is not adjacent or related to them. Because of the isolated nature of Cedar
Creek and the fact that it is surrounded by only eight parcels, the project will do nothing to encourage
further subdivision of agricultural lands." Further the EA states: "There are only eight property owners
who border Cedar Creek. We do not believe that the project will increase boat traffic of shoreside
development to an unacceptable level." The Wetlands/401 Unit takes exception to these conclusions
and strongly believes that secondary impacts associated with this project will likely accelerate
development of the surrounding/adjacent land and will also result in an increase of boat traffic through
the PNA. The Wetlands/401 Unit suggests an additional amendment to the EA be prepared to address
any secondary impacts as they relate to wetland impacts (e.g., are there wetlands on portions of the
eight lots adjacent to Cedar Creek), water quality (e.g., will increased development be encouraged by
access to deepwater?, will there be a subsequent increase in boat traffic and the need for boat storage
(marinas, boat slips, etc.). Also, since your project is within the Neuse River Basin, information
regarding the presence of intermittent or permanent streams on the eight parcels is needed to address
the Neuse River Buffer Rules. These rules require an undisturbed 50-foot buffer of forest vegetation on
both sides of banks of perennial streams.
4) There is no information provided in the EA accurately detailing the distance of dredging from the
PNA in Cedar Creek. We believe that this information must also be included in the amended EA.
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWQ - Water Quality Section
Date:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Env. cience B
p Trish Macpherson (end. spsO Labl
p Kathy Herring (forest/0RW/14QW)
p Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
p matt Mathews (toxicology)
p Jay Sauber (intensive survey)
N n -Di h r Bran h (Ar hdale 9 h
O Kim Colson (Pe bitting)
Wetlands (WQ Lab)
0 John Dorney (Corps, 401)
p Cyndi Bell (DOT)
Eric Galamb
O Eric Fleek
P mt r Bran h (Archdale 9th
O Dave Goodrich (NPDES)
p Bradley Bennett (Stormwater)
T POe (Pretreatment) (Archdale 7th)
DENR # !-O t
DWQ #
Re . Pr M mt Coordination Branch
p Ed Buchen (Archdale 9th)
p Brent McDonald (Archdale 12th)
Rewonal yyii ter Quality SuRem ASors
p Asheville O Mooresville O Washmgton
C) Fayetteville O Raleigh O Wilmington
O Winston -Salem
planning Branch (Archdale 6th
p Alan Clark (basinwide planning)
p Boyd DeVane (classifications & standards)
O Beth McGee (management planning)
p Steve Zoufaly (reclassifications)
p Ruth Swanek (modeling) (Archdale 9th)
O
O
O om
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Regional / Program Management Coordination Branch
l n .. A
PROJE T: I- 11"'
of the above document. Subject to the requiremens oath N imprth acts t the env iron ent
Attached a copy ,
app p
policy Act, , you are being asked to review the document for potential b the date indicated.
Pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please check the ro riate
especially Pe our written comments, if any, by
box below and return this form to me along with y
RESPONSE DEADLINE: ?
I-I NO COMMENT ? COMI?'iENTS ATTACHED
Name:
Date:

you for our assistance. Suggestions for streamlining this process are greatly appreciated!
t -1 Thank y y 1 i n A. ll
Notes:
I can be reached at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
mis:\circ?nemo - mac version
WQ - Water Quality
Date:
!MEMORANDUM
Q

RO"
r-
s
rg. Mgmf
O Ed Buchen ( ..._
p Brent McDonab'
Regional Water
O Asheville O
O Fayetteville O 1<., . .
0. Winston - Salem
O Trish MacPherson (end. sps)
O Kathy Herring (forest/ORW/HQ )
O Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
p Matt Mathews (toxicology)
O Jay Sauber (intensive survey)
Non-Discharge Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Kim Colson (Permitting)
Wetlands (WQ Lab)
O John Dorney (Corps, 401)
O Cyndi Bell (DOZ
Eric Fleek (dredging)
Eric Galamb (ocher)
Point Source Branch (A.rchdale 9th)
p Dave Goodrich (NPDES) -
p Bradley Bennett (Stormwater)
p Tom Poe (Pretreatment) (Archdale 7th)
ROM: Lisa YardR, Regional / ProgramANjl;?
ion Branc:;::._.
?R JECT:
kttached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the Noi ..: ??a Ta r_er? le rte.
Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant i)
;specially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Pl.:
)ox below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, h1

RE-S ONSE DEADL
.Tli
-ZA- 7-7
SNO COMMENT COi1'YiENTS ATTACs
_

.hank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining this process are greatly

Totes:
can be reached at:
hone: [phone], ext- 565 fax: [phone] e-mail: lisa_martinC h-:-, :-?t te. ic. s
Planning Branch _(/_
O Alan Clark (bassi,,
c:
O Boyd DeVane (c _
O Beth McGee (maia.p...
O Steve Zoufaly
O Ruth Swanek a; st :.
O
O --
cls-Acircmemo - mac version
+ ,.
lame
*p 9 VA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FINDING OF- NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
HATTERAS/SLASH DREDGING PROJECT
COUNTY OF DARE
HATTERAS, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR:
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
P.O. BOX 1367 U.S. 17 SOUTH
ELIZABETH CITY, NORTH CAROLINA 27909
,f.
PREPARED BY:
ROBERT T. BERRY, JR.
DONALD W. WRAY
RT.1 BOX 163
COINJOCK, N.C. 27923
MAY 299 1998
REVISED
AUGUST 31, 1998

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The project is located across NC 12 from the Hatterasman Drive Inn
Restaurant at the intersection of SR 1241, Hatteras Village, Dare County. It
borders NC 12 on the south, the Desmond Foster jr. et ux property on the
west, a manmade basin that opens into the Hatteras Slash on the rear of the
property, north side, and Sprint (Carolina Telephone) property on the east.
The slash runs across Hatteras Island under Highway 12 to a basin, from
Highway 12 to the Pamlico Sound. The proposed project does not include
that portion that is a side channel off of the Hatteras Estate channel, as
shown on the attached map, a total of 1,700 feet from the property described
above toward the sound. The slash is more thoroughly described on the next
page under Description Of Project.
Jackie Harrison acquired the property in 1980. It consists of
approximately 5.77 acres. The property is flat with sandy type soils. There
are live oaks (Quercus virginiana) and indigenous grasses on the site. The
site is mowed and well maintained, with the elevation of the site
approximately 3 to 4 feet above normal water level and on street grade.
There is a bulkheaded boat basin and a 110 feet X 120 feet X 6 feet deep
man-made pond located in the center of the property over 200 feet from the
nearest water-body. This pond will be used as the spoil area with an
additional (3) three-foot berm.
It is proposed that this property be developed as a residential low-
density,. six lot subdivision. Small personal pleasure boat docking will be
available to each property owner once the channel is dredged to allow access
to the Pamlico Sound.

2

PURPOSE OF PROJECT
. The purpose of the Hatteras Slash Dredging Project is to improve
boating access from the area south of NC 12 that runs under bridge No. 8 on
NC 12 adjacent to the Channel Bass Restaurant and continues through most
of Hatteras Village. There are several small pleasure boats and commercial
boats that currently use this- channel that leads into the Pamlico Sound. This
channel has become almost non existent over the past. There is only a small
trace of an existing channel, which currently allows only small boats, up to
21 foot with a shallow draft to travel in and out only on normal to high tides.
Without this navigable channel it will continue to put a hardship on the users
of the Hatteras Slash. The current channel will allow only the local
experienced boater safe use of the channel/slash, precluding most of the
general public from use of these Public Trust waters. When the project is
completed safe access will be afforded the general public with more popular
style boats of approximately the same size. The estimated tidal range in the
Slash area is approximately 12 inches.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Hatteras Slash Dredging Project will utilize a hydraulic dredge to
remove sediment from the old existing channel. The slash is a side channel
to the Hatteras Estates channel that leads to the Pamlico Sound. This is a
natural waterway slash across Hatteras Island. It was rumored that this
channel was dug during the Civil War to facilitate the movement of supplies.
The slash starts at the Pamlico Sound and runs generally from west to east
with the most notable features of the water body being two large coastal
marsh islands. The islands and slash have a vegetated shoreline with Juncus
roemerianus and spartina alterniflora. The preferred channel for the slash
runs to the south of the two coastal marsh islands. The fairway is
approximately 80 feet wide at its narrowest part. The water depths vary from
(1) one foot upstream to (4) four feet near the Pamlico Sound. The waters of
the slash are designated SA by the Division of Environmental Management.
Dredging will start at a natural depth of four (4) feet. The beginning is
located is approximately 250 feet from the Pamlico Sound. The dredging
will follow Slash Creek in a southwest direction for approximately 1700
feet, the total length to be dredged, to the existing boat basin (see map A
dated 10-24-97). The entire length will be dredged to a depth of four (4) feet
at N.W.L. The proposed top width at N.W.L. is 30 feet, with a bottom width
of 20 feet (see map B dated 10-24-97).
3

Calculated yardage to be dredged is approximately 3,200 cubic yards. The
spoil site will be located on high ground. The spoil area will be
approximately 110 X 120 X 9 or 118,800 cubic feet or 4,400 cubic yards.
This includes the existing man made pond with a 2:1 wall slope for a three
(3) foot high berm will be built around the pond for spoil containment.
Dewatering will be handled by two 8" diameter PVC lines that will drain
back to the canal see cross section map C dated 10-24-97.
Upon completion of the project dredging, the spoil will be graded into
the existing landscape low spots and planted with grass. This will complete
the project.
No Action Alternative
This no action alternative would continue to render the existing boat basin
and Slash Creek almost useless, since there are only approximately twelve
(12) boats currently using the slash and this continues to put a hardship on
the waterman and pleasure boat owners along this portion of the creek.
FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Land Use- Anticipated use of the 5.77 acre parcel will be for a six (6)
lot, low-density residential subdivision. This will allow better use by the
property owners that adjoin the slash. The property owners have a varied
use, crabbing, fishing and pleasure boating. The subject abuts Highway
12 on the west boundary, the lands along the northern and eastern
boundary are wetlands, and the lands on the southern boundary are
owned by Sprint and there is a tower and switching station located on
the property. Since there will be no new development of the adjoining
lands only the existing properties will be affected, it is felt that more of
the existing property owners would take advantage of the deeper water.
This in turn will increase the boat traffic, but will also make the
waterway safer.
4
? s
B. Wetlands - There is a small area at the rear of the property on the back
side of the boat basin no other areas of wetlands on the subject property
or around the man made pond. These areas will not be disturbed and will
not be impaired in any way.
C. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands - There are none found on this
tract.
D. Public Use - This tract will be used for private development but the
public would have use of the dredged area described earlier.
E. Scenic and Recreational Areas -This entire channel would be used for
work and recreational activities as described earlier.
F. Historic Areas - There are no identified historic or archaeological sites
on the property.
G. Air Quality - This project will have no impact on the air quality in the
area.
H. Groundwater Quality - This project will have no impact on the ground
water in the area.
1. Noise Levels - Higher noise levels will only occur during the dredging
process and when the spoil is removed or graded on site. This dredge
itself and earth moving equipment will only increase everyday noise
levels very little
I Water Supplies - No surface or groundwater wells are in the immediate
area. No water supplies will be affected by this project.
K. Fish and Shellfish - Due to the nature of this project the fish habitat
will be disturbed only for`` a short period of time (2-3 weeks). This
project will take place during the months of October through February
when allowable by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and the Marine Fisheries. This is to prevent disturbing fish spawning
areas during the remainder of the year when fish spawning takes place.
After the project is completed the fish and shellfish habitat should
quickly return to normal and may even be improved due to deeper depth
of the proposed channel.
5

L. Wildlife - There are no threatened or endangered species in the area.
Habitat for the existing wildlife will not be disturbed by this project,
therefore, there will be no negative impacts.
M. Toxic Substances - No toxic substances will be introduced to the area.
N. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters - No eutrophication of the
receiving waters will occur due to this project. The time frame from start
to finish will be 30 to 45 days. Turbidity will increase in the immediate
area during the dredging and dewatering but should subside soon after
the project is completed.
0. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation - No submerged aquatic vegetation
was found. A boat with two Coastal Management personnel from the
Elizabeth City office, an engineer from Robey Associates Engineering
in Elizabeth City, and three of the project personnel were in the party.
The survey method was by a boat, the length of the project 1,700 feet
was raked approximately every 150 feet and an assessment was made at
each rake site.
CONCLUSION
The environment is always of concern and will be carefully
monitored during the construction of this project. The non-complexity and
the short time frame of this project lends itself to minimal impacts on the
above-mentioned items; therefore, this project should have no significant
detrimental impact on the environment. It is recognized that the boat traffic
will increase in the slash with the deeper water and the use of more
conventional boats. This in turn will also make the public waters more
accessible for the general public. Since the proposed channel will be
approximately four (4) foot deep it is felt that only small pleasure craft and
small crabbing and sound boats will still use the slash. At the current time
there does not appear to be any additional land that can be developed by an
adjoining property owner. From an informal survey, the project will be well
received by the property owners that adjoin the slash. It is also felt that there
would not be any additional commercial use of the slash.
6
wC: \DNGN\664001 Fri Oct 24 15: 27: 04 1997 , }.
?v •!'.. 5 t
OES4QVO ,V
i CrUv it
C", W5
Noy ? ?? •
y 5.
`O .???Lkyy. ; J
O ;i;iKE t• X15.
}s :`''? . 115
••\, ' j yyy,'a ?z
m w-,
041
•\ /: .. ?. j?;?,i x,111!
oo=Z ? ,
M? 0
N t
z 0-1
00
Air l "t ?r
21:1 00
m
? ?yc`' 'fir ''•??`'?
r ,
t r f c f= ,???:?
y t. .
0
I::?,
C: \UMGN\664001 Fri Oct 24 15. 26. 43 N97
m ,,,o (3
i;
at
0 i'
._ ? r.
i_
':- g
-
CO)
CZ)
ri)
O ?j u N yN?
N P ?1 14
x + x +
1(1 V Q 4
N 4
' EN aIR
?`
j G 4
r ? P
S S

M D
Y r?i
t
V CD
i
-4
Y N

ki. N
0

a
®
?g
Ch
m
I? CA
®
z
Cl
4 P
C ?
?a
x ?
8 N
a°
p
a?
w
x?
=s
O
?P

m ?-

N
yQI my
Z A
? v Y
M
z

664002
C
O
G 56 1997
i Oct 24 15:48
F
H
N\
: \ .
r

2,

Rh g
o

g ?
€ 1
8
n
8? 8
t= t)
_ D
4 m
8
6
°?Xwo m
M
0 §MC Y
0

C? :i m
0®
C
z
CD
F m
F-
CO)

e N
Sl
Q
g6
?q
N
Um
r
c

®
CD' a
r
>

N
N n
O
VJ
CD
. 0
z N
r• h?
C

J
7,\
f"
_°
. 1?S t
` • nip:
{fit r•'
:l .
t
'`? f''j
11 . i 1
s;Y.
t.iR
I (>