20131280 Ver 3_DCM Response to Consultant_20190114

From: Bodnar. Greaa
To: Scarbrauah. Anthony
Subject: FW: [External] FW: Additional Information Request for Minor Mod TA Newbold Miller Shoreline Stabilization Project
(DWR 13-1280 V3)
Date: Monday, January 14, 2019 2:12:22 PM
Attachments: mage002.g_na
FYI
From: Bodnar, Gregg
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 9:28 AM
To: tedsr <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mathis, Lynn <lynn.math [e-mail]>; Jennings, Frank <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Additional Information Request for Minor Mod TA Newbold Miller
Shoreline Stabilization Project (DWR 13-1280 V3)
Morning Mr. Sampson,
I will address your concerns regarding the decision to review this request via the modification
pathway vs. a general permit first. TA Newbold Miller has a current CAMA permit (No. 26-14) for the
property that includes docking facilities and shoreline stabilization. Permit No. 26-14 was issued on
3/24/18 and was modified on 11/13/17 to include rip rap as a shoreline stabilization method. CAMA
Permit No. 26-14 is still active and will expire on 12/31/2020. Due to an active CAMA Permit for the
property it is not applicable to issue a General Permit for a property that has an active CAMA permit.
Since the proposed activity is an extension of an existing activity, a Minor Modification is appropriate
and not atypical. In addition, the concerns raised by the resource agencies further validates the Minor
Modification vs. the General Permit. Please also note that the modification pathway is a Minor
Modification, not a Major Modification.
As for your second concern regarding the wetlands. During the Minor Modification review, which was
sent out to a limited number of agencies (USACE, DWR, WRC and DMF), a number of those agencies
(DMF, DWR, WRC) have raised questions regarding the potential for impact to the wetlands in close
proximity to the requested shoreline stabilization, most notably gum and cypress. I provided
additional information to those agencies provided by Lynn Mathis concerning the location of the
Coastal Wetlands in proximity to the proposal and your intent to stay clear of the more immediate
gum and cypress wetlands. Those agencies requested additional information concerning the location
of the gum and cypress wetlands in regard to the rip rap placement, most notably DWR placing the
project on hold (1/8/19). In that hold, DWR requested coordination with the USACE for wetland
verification and site plans detailing the wetlands. CRC rules state that a permit decision cannot
proceed without appropriate state and federal authorization. At that time further consultation
occurred with you in an attempt to satisfy those agency concerns. I attempted to coordinate an on-
site meeting in hopes that such a meeting would satisfy those agency concerns and the potential for a
DWR hold. Unfortunately that was not the case. At this point the need to identify those wetlands in
relation to the proposed rip rap proposal is needed.
As always I am available to assist the process to satisfy these agency requests,

Gregg
D E �
Gregg Bodnar
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
252 8d8 2808 ext 215 (Office)
G regjz.Bodnar0ncdenr.jzov
ErnoHrorrespnndence to ondfro mthis oddress is subject to the
Barth Corafrno Public Records low and moy be disclosed to third porties.
From: tedsr <tedsr(@sampsoncontracting.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 12:59 PM
To: Bodnar, Gregg <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mathis, Lynn <Iynn.math is(@ncdenr.gov>; Jennings, Frank <frank.jennings(@ncdenr.gov>
Subject: [External] FW: Additional Information Request for Minor Mod TA Newbold Miller Shoreline
Stabilization Project (DWR 13-1280 V3)
• nal email. Do not click links or open attachme
c mentto [e-mail]
G regg,
Attached is a copy of the letter response to DWR.
You have asked how I would like to proceed. I would like to proceed in a simple fashion that will put
on the table the concerns that review agencies may have with this application, and allow those
concerns to be addressed in a direct and straight -forward manner, rather than respond to nebulous
assertions that additional information is needed.
Asking a Permit applicant for a wetland delineation, when the applicant makes it clear to the State
that they are not asking for a Permit to develop within wetlands, is quite confounding. A wetland
delineation is not a trivial cost for an applicant to incur. I have seen many, many applications for
Permits where the Division of Coastal Management has had concerns for wetland impacts when an
applicant proposes development in what the applicant believes to be uplands. In such cases, the field
representative typically provides the applicant with information that certain identified areas are
believed to be wetlands and that no permit will be issued for development within those areas without
a wetland delineation being completed to prove that they are not wetlands. In such cases, if the
applicant does not wish to disturb any wetlands with his/her proposed development, a willingness to
move the development landward, back out of the questionable areas, is typically proposed, which the
field rep can choose to agree to, or indicate that the development must be moved even further
landward.
I must ask why this process is moving forward without this interchange between the applicant's agent
and representatives of the state. The area subject to this Permit modification request, is not one of
those areas of long, flat, slowly rising elevations where the presence of species, hydrology and hydric

soils might become the subject of debate among experts. This area is one where the topography
changes rapidly in elevation over the course of a few feet, and there should be ready agreement
between the applicant's agent and the representatives of the state as to what location is clearly
outside of any wetland area.
Under the General Permit provisions in 15A NCAC 07H .1102(c), this very give-and-take is
incorporated into a marking of the proposed alignment —a simple and straight -forward process. Just
because DCM's Major Permits Coordinator has chosen to turn this application for a General Permit
into a Major Permit modification does not mean that such common sense approaches to resolving
such issues should be abandoned. The current request for more information on wetland delineation,
when the applicant has made it clear that they do not wish to develop in or immediately adjacent to
wetlands appears more as an attempt by the state to impede the progress of permitting the
development, which the CRC has recognized as legitimate for shoreline stabilization, than to address
unresolved questions over the impact of the proposed development.
Given the guidance provided in 15A NCAC 07H .1104(d), it is difficult even to understand the decision
of Major Permits Coordinator to move the processing of this application to a Major Permit
modification. In the cited provisions of this General Permit, the CRC has laid out the instances where
the Division of Coastal Management may deem the General Permit not applicable to the proposed
construction. In light of the expressed desire of the applicant to have a Permit for development that
will not include any development within wetlands, can you please provide to me the specifics of how
this determination was made when the CRC has established the rationale for when this General
Permit shall not be applicable and limits these circumstances to when both the notice and review
pursuant to G.S. 113A-119 "...is necessary because there are unresolved questions concerning the
proposed activity's impact on adjoining properties or on water quality; air quality; coastal wetlands;
cultural or historic sites; wildlife; fisheries resources; or public trust rights."
As you pull this information together, please also identify for me how this would make sense for this
site and this proposed development, and would not be equally applicable to all development for
which authorization is sought under this General Permit.
With best regards,
Ted Sampson
(252 548-4292