19931024 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19931216

State of North Carolina
Department of Environme
Health and Natural Resour
S DECEIVED ??. 1 • •
Division of Coastal Managemen N
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
F, Roger N, Schecter, Director
cry
:i Jan
C? -
Mr. Donald E. Temple, Refuge Manager
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Route 1, Box N-2
Swan Quarter, NC 27885
JAN 25 1994 MXdr,+? ?trlF.laT E H N F?
@ N 9 T I
JAN {2 1994 p # _?' :`
REFERENCE: CD93-38, ACTID-94-0877 Excavation and Fill of Wetlands to Construct
Interconnected Ponds, Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge, Carteret County, NC
Dear Mr. Temple:
The State of North Carolina has completed its review pursuant to 15 CFR 930, of your
consistency determination, assigned the number CD93-38, and of Corps Public Notice number Action
ID-199303492, regarding the US Fish and Wildlife Service's proposal to excavate 12 ponds and place
fill in estuarine wetlands at Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge, North Carolina. Based upon our
review, we disagree with your determination that the proposed activity is consistent with the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program. Our disagreement stems from the findings listed below.
The proposed activity will affect up to 8 acres of irregularly flooded brackish marsh, a Coastal
Wetland Area of Environmental Concern pursuant to 15A NCAC 7H.0205. Approximately 1.2 acres
will be excavated to construct small shallow ponds, 540 square feet excavated to construct connecting
ditches, and an additional 3.25 to 6.5 acres filled with material excavated from the ponds and ditches.
The purpose of the proposed excavation and fill is to create waterfowl habitat. The proposed activity
is experimental and will include research study of habitat utilization. The first 12 ponds will be
monitored for water quality for one year. If water quality standards are met after one year,
authorization for an additional 42 ponds will be requested.
15A NCAC 7h.0205(d) states that the "second priority of coastal wetland use shall be given to
those types of development activities that require water access and cannot function elsewhere." While
the intent of the ponds is to provide water habitat, and while proposals such as this may be enhanced
by the presence of a high water table, it is not a requirement that waterfowl management activities
occur in coastal wetlands. Therefore we disagree with your determination that the proposed
excavation and fill are water dependant and find the proposed activity inconsistent with 15A NCAC
7h.0205(d).
The project as described in the consistency determination does not include any provisions for
mitigation of wetland losses nor does it provide for corrective action and or restoration of wetlands if
water quality parameters are in violation of water quality standards.
Finally, the impacts of the project in its proposed entirety have not been be considered. The
alterations to the natural Coastal Wetland Area of Environmental Concern which would result from
the construction of 42 additional ponds could have significant impacts which may be not adequately
be indicated or reflected by the changes induced by the first 12 ponds. The proposal in its entirety (54
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Fqual Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 509k recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
ponds) was reviewed in 1991 under the project number CD91-12 and found to be inconsistent with the
North Carolina Coastal Management Program. Approval of even the pilot stage of this project without
anticipating and considering the cumulative effects of future proposals would be inconsistent with
North Carolina's goal for rational and coordinated management of coastal resources as set forth in the
NC Coastal Area Management Act.
As an alternative to the proposed activity, we recommend that upland sites be considered for
necessary waterfowl habitat creation. The Fish and Wildlife Service could also consider offering
mitigation for coastal wetland proposal as provided for in 15A NCAC 7M.0700.
If you have a serious disagreement with our findings, you have the option to pursue Secretarial
Mediation procedures described in 15 CFR 930 Subpart G. If you have any questions about our
position, please contact Steve Benton or Caroline Bellis, Division of Coastal Management, at (919)733-
2293.
Sincerely,
Roge IV. chec
cc: Preston Pate, Assistant Director
NC Division of Coastal Management
Wayne Wright, Chief
Regulatory Branch
Wilmington District Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Jeff Benoit, Director
US Department of Commerce, OCRM
1305 East - West Highway
Room 11523
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Charles Jones, NC Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City
John Dorney, NC Division of Environmental Management
Carol Tingley, NC Division of Parks and Recreation
cir?t
DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY
80X90228
,Puke Vnibersitu
DURHAM. NORTH CAROLINA
27708.0228

January 17, 1994
Department of the Army
' Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890 Q
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
FAX: [phone]
ATTN.: Mr. Scott McLendon
Dear Mr. McLendon:
n 'rELEPHONE [phone]
?" FAX [phone]
a v `'
00
The following comments pertain to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(F&WS) application for a permit to dredge and fill wetlands at the Cedar Island
National Wildlife Refuge, Action ID Number 199400877.
We oppose this project on several bases and urge the Corps to deny the
permit for the project as proposed. Our reasons are outlined below.
• The proposed study period of one year is not long enough to recognize the effects
on the wetland, wildlife and water quality. The proposed burning, ponding and
ditching, combined with spreading dredge spoil across the marsh, will have a
profound effect on the wetland and the species it supports. For example, the
project, as proposed, will alter drainage and circulation patterns. The
combination of changed circulation and the exposure of a seed bank currently
contained within marsh substrate will change the vegetation zones of the
wetland. Furthermore, researchers have found that different thicknesses of spoil
have profound differences in effect on marsh recovery. The F&WS should
provide evidence that the proposed plan will adequately address the question of
spoil thickness.
The proposed project is modeled on methods used in Maryland, Delaware
and New Jersey in Spartina alterniflora dominated wetlands. But, the
comparison may not be valid. According to Brinson (1991), wetlands dominated
by Juncus roemarianus are "vulnerable to disturbance," and the persistence of
disturbance effects is measurable in decades. In S. alterniflora dominated
wetlands, the recovery time in on the order of 1 to 2 years.
At least two growing seasons of monitoring and a control area for comparison
are necessary to assess the impacts of the dredge and fill operation on wetland
Psos
PROGRAM FOR THE STUDY OF DEVELOPED SHORELINES
Printed on recycled paper
January 17, 1994
Page 2
vegetation alone. Refuge managers, however, have stated that if the 12 pond
experiment receives a favorable review at the end of only one-year, they will = c? e R"-
proceed with a plan for 54 similar ponds. Therefore if the permit is issued, we
urge that it be conditional on a study period of longer than the proposed one
ear.
• The proposed project will disturb one of the largest unaltered areas of black
needlerush (Juncus roemarianus) along the North Carolina coast. This concern
is more than aesthetic. According to Brinson (1991), the area is "especially
valuable because [freedom from intensive management and human impacts]
remove uncertainties about the potentially confounding effects that disturbance
by humans might have on the results of ecological studies."
Ecologists are intrigued by the complex, perhaps unique food web supported
by this brackish marsh. For instance, crayfish, not commonly found in other
similar brackish marshes, are found in significant numbers. The burrows created
by the crayfish may play an important role in the survival of the wetland's
resident estuarine fish species that follow water down the burrows during
periods of low water.
Researchers from the National Wetlands Research Center and Duke
University are using Cedar Island in long-term studies examining rates of
accretion and upland migration in marshes during a period of rising sea level.
• We question whether the project will have the desired effect of wildlife habitat
enhancement. The Cedar Island NWR's Juncus dominated marsh is one the
premiere areas in the Nation for rails. The proposed project could have a
detrimental effect on the black rail (Laterallus jamaiceiisis), a candidate species
for the Threatened and Endangered Species List. Ponding and ditching is more
likely to degrade black rail habitat, rather than enhance it. The F&WS should
provide detailed information concerning the potential impacts of the project on
black rail habitat.
Unfortunately, the drawbacks of the project and the potential permanent
alterations to the wetland ecosystem may very well outweigh even optimistic
estimates of benefits. Again, one year is an insufficient time period in which to
examine or address the extent of the proposed project's disturbance of the
physical integrity of the system.
• The proposed project sets a dangerous precedent. The issuance of permits to
severely disrupt wetland habitat is something that we know all of the agencies
involved, including the applicant, take quite seriously and would not grant
freely to a private landowner. Even recently, permit requests by private
January 17, 1994
Page 3
landowners for similar projects have been rejected. To grant such a permit to a
Federal agency is inequitable and undermines the ability of State and Federal
agencies in future permit review actions.
The F&WS argues that they should receive the permit in the name of wildlife
management. Until the F&WS can provide significant evidence that the proposed
project will have substantial benefits for management on an ecosystem level rather
Y than on a species level, the permit should be denied.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments, even though we were
unable to get this letter to you by the end of the comment period because of the
holiday. Please let us know if our comments will indeed be considered des ite their
tardy arrival. If we may provide further information that will assist the Corps in
making its determination, please do not hesitate to contact either of the undersigned
at the above address /telephone number.
Sincerely,

Orrin H. Pilkey Katharine L. Dixon
James B. Duke Professor of Geology Research Assistant
c: John Dorney, North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
References
Brinson, M.M., editor, 1991. Ecology of a nontidal brackish marsh in coastal North
Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Research Center Open
File Report 91-03. 398 pp.
Brinson, M. Personal communication. January, 1994.
Fussel, John. Personal communication. January, 1994.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
01/05/94
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. John R. Dorney
NC DEN&NR
Div. Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
AIVIVA
44
C) EHNR
D
E.
WETEANDS GROUP
:?? waTER UI+LITY SECTION .
From: Steve Benton, Consistency Coordinator
Subject: Project Number ACTID-94-0877, Dated 12/16/93
Excavate Ponds and Connecting Ditches - Experimental Project
Proposed by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Carteret County
The above listed document is being circulated to you for review
and comment by 01/14/94.
Type of Review Requested:
8
x 93 -M
lam' General Comments FYI
_ Determination of Permits Needed / Local Land Use Plan Issues
_ NEPA / NCEPA Comments
Preliminary Federal / State Consistency Comments
Federal / State Consistency Comments
Please contact me before the response due date if additional
review time is needed. Thank you.
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office,supports,Pff e pr;oe jct proposal.
No Comment. (i
SigneC? - ' I
Date
R0, Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY
BOX 90228

Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina
FAX: [phone]
ATTN.: Mr. Scott McLendon
Dear Mr. McLendon:
,Bnke Nnibersitu
DURHAM. NORTH CAROLINA
27708-0228
January 17, 1994
'\TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX[phone]
Engineers
28402-1890
The following comments pertain to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(F&WS) application for a permit to dredge and fill wetlands at the Cedar Island
National Wildlife Refuge, Action ID Number 199400877.
We oppose this project on several bases and urge the Corps to deny the
permit for the project as proposed. Our reasons are outlined below.
The proposed study period of one year is not long enough to recognize the effects
on the wetland, wildlife and water quality. The proposed burning, ponding and
ditching, combined with spreading dredge spoil across the marsh, will have a
profound effect on the wetland and the species it supports. For example, the
project, as proposed, will alter drainage and circulation patterns. The
combination of changed circulation and the exposure of a seed bank currently
contained within marsh substrate will change the vegetation zones of the
wetland. Furthermore, researchers have found that different thicknesses of spoil
have profound differences in effect on marsh recovery. The F&WS should
provide evidence that the proposed plan will adequately address the question of
spoil thickness.
The proposed project is modeled on methods used in Maryland, Delaware
and New Jersey in Spartina alterniflora dominated wetlands. But, the
comparison may not be valid. According to Brinson (1991), wetlands dominated
by Juncus roemarianus are "vulnerable to disturbance," and the persistence of
disturbance effects is measurable in decades. In S. alterniflora dominated
wetlands, the recovery time in on the order of 1 to 2 years.
At least two growing seasons of monitoring and a control area for comparison
are necessary to assess the impacts of the dredge and fill operation on wetland
PSDS
PROGRAM FOR THE STUDY OF DEVELOPED SHORELINES
Printed on recycled paper
January 17, 1994
Page 2
vegetation alone. Refuge managers, however, have stated that if the 12 pond J'?,P
experiment receives a favorable review at the end of only one-year, they will Mor` v
proceed with a plan for 54 similar ponds. Therefore, if the permit is issued we
urge that it be conditional on a study period of longer than the proposed one
year.
• The proposed project will disturb one of the largest unaltered areas of black
needlerush (Juncus roemarianus) along the North Carolina coast. This concern
is more than aesthetic. According to Brinson (1991), the area is "especially
valuable because [freedom from intensive management and human impacts]
remove uncertainties about the potentially confounding effects that disturbance
by humans might have on the results of ecological studies."
Ecologists are intrigued by the complex, perhaps unique food web supported
by this brackish marsh. For instance, crayfish, not commonly found in other
similar brackish marshes, are found in significant numbers. The burrows created
by the crayfish may play an important role in the survival of the wetland's
resident estuarine fish species that follow water down the burrows during
periods of low water.
Researchers from the National Wetlands Research Center and Duke
University are using Cedar Island in long-term studies examining rates of
accretion and upland migration in marshes during a period of rising sea level.
• We question whether the project will have the desired effect of wildlife habitat
enhancement. The Cedar Island NWR's Juncus dominated marsh is one the
premiere areas in the Nation for rails. The proposed project could have a
detrimental effect on the black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis), a candidate species
for the Threatened and Endangered Species List. Ponding and ditching is more
likely to degrade black rail habitat, rather than enhance it. The F&WS should
provide detailed information concerning the potential impacts of the project on
black rail habitat.
Unfortunately, the drawbacks of the project and the potential permanent
alterations to the wetland ecosystem may very well outweigh even optimistic
estimates of benefits. Again, one year is an insufficient time period in which to
examine or address the extent of the proposed project's disturbance of the
physical integrity of the system.
• The proposed project sets a dangerous precedent. The issuance of permits to
severely disrupt wetland habitat is something that we know all of the agencies
involved, including the applicant, take quite seriously and would not grant
freely to a private landowner. Even recently, permit requests by private
January 17, 1994
Page 3
landowners for similar projects have been rejected. To grant such a permit to a
Federal agency is inequitable and undermines the ability of State and Federal
agencies in future permit review actions.
The F&WS argues that they should receive the permit in the name of wildlife
management. Until the F&WS can provide significant evidence that the proposed
project will have substantial benefits for management on an ecosystem level rather
than on a species level, the permit should be denied.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments, even though we were
unable to get this letter to you by the end of the comment period because of the
holiday. Please let us know if our comments will indeed be considered despite their
tardy arrival. If we may provide further information that will assist the Corps in
making its determination, please do not hesitate to contact either of the undersigned
at the above address/ telephone number.
Sincerely,

Orrin H. Pilkey Katharine L. Dixon
James B. Duke Professor of Geology Research Assistant
c: John Dorney, North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
References
Brinson, M.M., editor, 1991. Ecology of a nontidal brackish marsh in coastal North
Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Research Center Open
File Report 91-03. 398 pp.
Brinson, M. Personal communication. January, 1994.
Fussel, John. Personal communication. January, 1994.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N, Schecter, Director
January 6, 1994
Mr. Donald E. Temple, Refuge Manager
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Route 1, Box N-2
Swan Quarter, NC 27885
ALT 0
14
?EHNR
?I
JAN 1 2 1994
WETLANDS GROUP t
WATER QUALITY SECTION
REFERENCE: CD93-38, ACTID-94-0877 Excavation and Fill of Wetlands to Construct
Interconnected Ponds, Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge, Carteret County, NC
Dear Mr. Temple:
The State of North Carolina has completed its review pursuant to 15 CFR 930, of your
consistency determination, assigned the number CD93-38, and of Corps Public Notice number Action
ID-199303492, regarding the US Fish and Wildlife Service's proposal to excavate 12 ponds and place
fill in estuarine wetlands at Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge, North Carolina. Based upon our
review, we disagree with your determination that the proposed activity is consistent with the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program. Our disagreement stems from the findings listed below.
The proposed activity will affect up to 8 acres of irregularly flooded brackish marsh, a Coastal
Wetland Area of Environmental Concern pursuant to 15A NCAC 711.0205. Approximately 1.2 acres
will be excavated to construct small shallow ponds, 540 square feet excavated to construct connecting
ditches, and an additional 3.25 to 6.5 acres filled with material excavated from the ponds and ditches.
The purpose of the proposed excavation and fill is to create waterfowl habitat. The proposed activity
is experimental and will include research study of habitat utilization. The first 12 ponds will be
monitored for water quality for one year. If water quality standards are met after one year,
authorization for an additional 42 ponds will be requested.
15A NCAC 7h.0205(d) states that the "second priority of coastal wetland use shall be given to
those types of development activities that require water access and cannot function elsewhere." While
the intent of the ponds is to provide water habitat, and while proposals such as this may be enhanced
by the presence of a high water table, it is not a requirement that waterfowl management activities
occur in coastal wetlands. Therefore we disagree with your determination that the proposed
excavation and fill are water dependant and find the proposed activity inconsistent with 15A NCAC
7h.0205(d).
The project as described in the consistency determination does not include any provisions for
mitigation of wetland losses nor does it provide for corrective action and or restoration of wetlands if
water quality parameters are in violation of water quality standards.
Finally, the impacts of the project in its proposed entirety have not been be considered. The
alterations to the natural Coastal Wetland Area of Environmental Concern which would result from
the construction of 42 additional ponds could have significant impacts which may be not adequately .
be indicated or reflected by the changes induced by the first 12 ponds. The proposal in its entirety (54
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
ponds) was reviewed in 1991 under the project number CD91-12 and found to be inconsistent with the
North Carolina Coastal Management Program. Approval of even the pilot stage of this project without
anticipating and considering the cumulative effects of future proposals would be inconsistent with
North Carolina's goal for rational and coordinated management of coastal resources as set forth in the
NC Coastal Area Management Act.
As an alternative to the proposed activity, we recommend that upland sites be considered for
necessary waterfowl habitat creation. The Fish and Wildlife Service could also consider offering
mitigation for coastal wetland proposal as provided for in 15A NCAC 7M.0700.
If you have a serious disagreement with our findings, you have the option to pursue Secretarial
Mediation procedures described in 15 CFR 930 Subpart G. If you have any questions about our
position, please contact Steve Benton or Caroline Bellis, Division of Coastal Management, at (919)733-
2293.
Sincerely,
Roger. chec
cc: Preston Pate, Assistant Director
NC Division of Coastal Management
Wayne Wright, Chief
Regulatory Branch
Wilmington District Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Jeff Benoit, Director
US Department of Commerce, OCRM
1305 East - West Highway
Room 11523
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Charles Jones, NC Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City
John Dorney, NC Division of Environmental Management
Carol Tingley, NC Division of Parks and Recreation
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 r
December 16, 1993
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID Nos. 199102490 and 199400877
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Enclosed is the application of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cedar
Island National Wildlife Refuge, for Department of the Army authorization and
a State Water Quality Certification to discharge excavated material in
wetlands adjacent to West Bay and Pamlico Sound associated with excavation of
twelve (12) shallow ponds with six (6) connecting ditches, Cedar Island
National Wildlife Refuge, Carteret County, North Carolina. Your receipt of
this letter verifies your acceptance of a valid request for certification in
accordance with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our administrative regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality
certification is required under the provisions of Section 401 of the same law.
A Department of the Army permit will not be granted until the certification
has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, in most cases, 60 days
after receipt of a request for certification is a reasonable time for State
action. Therefore, if you have not acted on the request, or asked for an
extension of time, by February 16, 1994, the District Engineer will deem that
waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Scott McLendon, Wilmington
Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. ne Wrtv
Chie , ReguBran
ch
Enclosure
-2-
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
Mr. Charles Jones
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division
of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Please type or print. Carefully describe all anticipated
development activities, including construction, excava-
tion, filling, paving, land clearing, and stormwater con-
trol. If the requested information is not relevant to your If you plan to build a marina, alsd3t0Mp1e pq& ,,vC!1
project, write N/A (not applicable). Items 1-4 and 8-9 attach Form DCM-MP-2.
must be completed for all projects. b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an
1 APPLICANT
a. Name USFWS, Cedar Island NWR
Address Rt. 1 Box N-2
City Swan Quarter
State NC
Zip 27885 Dayphone 919/926-4021
Landowner or X Authorized agent
b. Project name (if any) Integrated Marsh Mgmt.
at Cedar Island NWR
existing project, new work, or both?
New work
c. Will the project be for community, private, or
commercial use?
Research project for public resources
on public land
d. Describe the planned use of the project.
Experimental research project to be conducted
to evaluate the benefits and impacts of
integrated marsh management on waterfowl
habitat, wetland wildlife, fisheries, and
marsh functions.
4 LAND AND WATER
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give the
' CHARACTERISTICS
owner
s name and address.
Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of the Interior
a. Refuge: 14,482 ac.
Size of entire tract

75 Spring St., SW
Atlanta
GA 30303

b. u y
site: J?U ac.
Size of individual lot(s) shallow ponds: 0.1 ac. ea.
'
, 130
x30'xl' avg.
c. Elevation of tract above mean sea level or
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED O.lm - 0.3m
PROJECT d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Lafitte muck and related inclusions/peat
a. Street address or secondary road number
West Bay Marsh - west of Hwy. 12 e. Vegetation on tract Black needlerush, saltmarsh
cordgrass, saltmeadow hay saltgrass
b. City, town, community, or landmark
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge f. Man-made features now on tract None
c. County Carteret g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classification of
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning the site? (Consult the local land use plan.)
jurisdiction? No X
Conservation Transitional
e. Name of body of water nearest project Developed Community
West Bay, southern portion of Pamlico Rural Other
Sound
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?

3
DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE Not zoned
OF PROPOSED PROJECT i. How are adjacent waters classified?
SA/NSW
a. Describe all development activities you propose (for j. Has a professional archaeological survey been
example, building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, carried ut for the tract? No If so, by whom?
or pier). Excavation of twelve (12) 0.1 Proposed project hasTeen reviewed by the N.C.
acre experimenta s ow pons in Dept. Of u ura esources see attac a etter
irregularly flooded brackish marsh for 1 dated ou cu ura resource
year or more eva uation. evi ence be encountered uring the project, the
Service will comply with the
provisions of the
12/89 National Historic Preservation Act.

5 UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
Complete this section if the project includes any land
development.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, or m. Water supply source
structures proposed None
b. Number of lots or parcels None
c. Density (Give the number of residential units and the
units per acre.) N/A
d. Size of area to be graded or disturbed
NIA
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than one
acre of land, the Division of Land Resources must
receive an erosion and sedimentation control plan at
least 30 days before land disturbing activity begins.
If applicable, has a sedimentation and erosion
control plan been submitted to the Division of Land
Resources? N/A
f. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet of
mean high water to be covered by impermeable
surfaces, such as pavement, buildings, rooftops.
N/A
g. List the materials, such as marl, paver stone, asphalt,
or concrete, to be used for paved surfaces.
None
h. If applicable, has a stonnwater management plan
been submitted to the Division of Environmental
Management? N/A
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and./or waste
water treatment facilities.
None
j. Have these facilities received state or local approval?
N/A
k. Describe existing treatment facilities.
N/A
1. Describe location and type of discharges to waters of
the state (for example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/commercial effluent, "wash
down"). N/A
N/A
n. If the project is oceanfront development, describe
the steps that will be taken to maintain established
publi Nb/eeach accessways or provide new access.
o. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will be the
elevation above mean sea level of the first habitable
floor? N/A
6 EXCAVATION AND FILL
INFORMATION
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation
or fill activities (excluding bulkheads, which are
covered in Section 7).
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break-
water, pier,
boat ramp,
rock jetty)
Fill placed in
wetland or below
MHW
Upland fill
areas
Length Width Depth
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
6"-18"•
130 ft 30 ft.
av.
<
12"
Organic spoi
will be broadca
over 3.2 5-6.5 a
at 4" o less d
see ca u anon
N/A N/A
b. Amount of material to be excavated fro below
water level in cubic yards Approx. 1?+5 per pond;
total
c. Type of material Peat /root mat
d. Does the area to be excavated include marshland,
swamps, or other wetlands?
Yes
e. High ground excavation, in cubic yards
None
2 12/89
f. Dimensions of spoil disposal area c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months, in
Approx. 110' x 1101 per pond; 6.5 ac. maximumfect N/A
total
g. Location of spoil disposal area Marsh adjacent d. Type of bulkhead material N/A
to pond (see Attachment 2
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be placed below
h. Do you claim title to the disposal area? Yes mean high water N/A
If not, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner. f. Type of fill material N/A
i. Will a disposal area be,available for future
If o, where?Piarsn aajacent to ponds.
disposa is needed, its placement wilSi
j. Does the disposal area include any marshland,
swamps, or water areas?
Yes
k. Will the fill material be placed below mean high
water? No
1. Amount of fill in cubic yards N/A
m. Type of fill material
N/A
n. Source of fill material N/A
o. Will fill material be placed on marsh or other
wetlands? Yes
p. Dimensions of the wetland to be filled
Approx. 110'x110' per pond; 6.5 ac. max.
total
q. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled?
No modification needed. Site slope is
less than 1% with thick vegetation cover
and root mat. Spoil will be spread evenly
in thin layer (<4").
r. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example t, backhoe d her hydraulic
used
dredge)? )? rotary
to excavate ponds. LGP bulldozer will be used
to sprea spot to epth as needed.
s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? If yes, explain steps that will
be taken to lessen environmental impacts.
All equipment used will have low
ground pressure tracks.
7 SHORELINE STABILIZATION
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap N/A
b. Average distance waterward of mean high water or
normal water level N/A
needPrl
.8 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other
instrument under which the applicant claims title to the
affected property. If the 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 cant' out
the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and cross
sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black ink on an 8
1/2 x 11 white paper. (Refer to Coastal Resources
Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 18 high
quality copies are provided by applicant. (Contact the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding that agency's
use of larger drawings.) A site or location map is a part
of plat requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed
to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
site. Include county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and
the like.
A stormwater management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
individuals have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management and should be advised by the applicant of
that opportunity.
12/89
by studyIn addition to the completed application form, the follow-
results. ing items must be submitted:
Name Ethel Day Vanhorn
Address 1604 Evans t.
Morehead City,
Name Panilla Corporation
Address P. 0. Box 3460
Morehead City, NC 28557
Name C. C. Canada, Trustee
Address P. 0. Box 337
Camden, SC 29020
A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and issuing dates.
None
A check for $100 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health & Natural Resources to cover the
costs of processing the application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront
and inlet areas.
A statement on the use of public funds. If the project
involves the expenditure of public funds, attach a state-
ment documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to 10).
9 CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
Any permit issued in response to this application will
allow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to conditions and restrictions
contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's ap-
proved Coastal Management Program and will be con-
ducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I further certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in
fact, grant permission to representatives of state and
federal review agencies to enter on the aforementioned
lands in connection with evaluating information related
to this permit application and follow-up monitoring of
project.
th
This i G day of e , 1973
X
Landowner or Auhhoriz6d agen
12/89
CEDAR ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ATTACl1rnENT ?.
CAATCACT COUNTY, MOf TM GAFOtIMA
V•wMw V •./•W I.•• 4w • ../ .
ICGEnO ? rw
RErUCE
OOVNDA0.T
P A M C
C
VIC
O INITr MA1
-44
uw NWR
N D
f
XIL
r-' 6 ++rccs.
usm
p '0.s r'ATI024\ C 0 E ww
p -T s +. " P d
w
sR NC 673 407
Ntrllf
4r -
Ies1 1
faf 7
u
' CfAr World MM - Pw Cisftsr
On 1.R
}--}-rfwgetff t.sf s.r,w..?
u P"w pair
ftch P"41 170• f 70'
Ce setiRg Ditch! 70' f 7•

SNP i o F- 2
tons 7
=N"EGRATED MARSH
MAMACAVAeNT PLAN-
UDAf% S5LAND N W(t
CEDAiL lSLA+ID mu 3?,
CAtlKlT COU.NZy, N.C.
SaL`! 20, %q93
u.s• Fi514 M?o wlLou fr 59kV ICE
XT, %" Sox N .2
Sw 0"P-TS ,,NC. XMS
• Ac-r?,KmENr ?.
Spat L. BAo K ?- C'poutir) _ V
fY1Nu+-ZON6 1
rd 1i W -ZOPIK A

mw.?-zoNe 1 -
m I.w - -zoto E ? ?
-
RESERNO t R
r 30./ 4
T pI Cam GROSS -S4;-:c-T-1 0&-) pF ?0"D
N O'T D Rau.)N TO S GA Lr--

- 4- \

r

I Ati
t .4-
r •d•.

` - PRoPose'D SPo1L.- ? -
\ _ _ - - DISPOSAL. AREA
GpoI'-TO BE L9KAYEo By
ROTARY DITC11Et To A.
orPrK " T To IEMCED '
4
AZ'TEMOTS W1LC. 6E MkOE TO SUGKrL'f W5704T RECTAJr-ULAQ SNAPS Oq PO&JDS
AERIAL VIEW OF T`f PIC-AL I'?O ND pP•l R
SCALE: I~' 70?
#&Frr Z OF
Calculations for Spoil and Spoil Disposal Area:
i '
-LN`EGM?TEb MA R
St 1
ons:
6b. Pond Dimens -
43.3 yd x 10 yd x 0.33 yd - 143 cu yd NAGWE-Wr PLAN
Connecting Ditch: u• R
CMP?R ISLAND N
10 yd x 1 yd x 0.33 yd - 3.3 cu yd per pond pair f
3.3 cu yd/2 - 1.65 cu yd per pond
Total per pond:
143 cu yd + 1.65 cu yd - 145 cu yd (approx.)
CDA9,TSLAaD NUR.
Project Total: C AQ."MKET Co.
r4-C.
145 cu yd x 12 ponds - 1740 cu yd ,
.ru`i JJ 20, 1993
6f. Spoil Disposal Area:
Spoil for 12 ponds @ 3945 cu ft per pond with 4
connecting ditch - 47,340 cu ft. If spread 4" 1 1
C
?`?,C
W??4?E 5?,
?
1
deep, spoil will cover 3.25 acres; if spread 2" '
J•
K
•
•
RT
deep, spoil will cover 6.5 acres. . II N. 2
3.25 acres - 141,862 sq ft/12 ponds - 12,000 sq ft; SWAN qLLAAjM, KC, 279 85
Y=, sq ft - 110 sq ft - 110 ft x 110 ft per pond,
or 110 ft x 55 ft on long sides of each pond.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 ?-'
December 16, 1993
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID Nos. 199102490 and 199400877
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
Route 1, Box N-2
Swanquarter, North Carolina 27885
Gentlemen:
i I-
[ C? N V1l
(; ? 2 199,E
W
IA'F?iFIl Q;;;, ? r
Reference your application for Department of the Army (DA) authorization
to discharge excavated material in wetlands adjacent to West Bay and Pamlico
Sound associated with excavation of twelve (12) shallow ponds with six (6)
connecting ditches, Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge, Carteret 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 January 10, 1994. Also, a
copy of this information must be sent to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management to enable them to adequately evaluate your
application for a Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act.
r -
-2-
If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Scott
McLendon, Wilmington Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone (910) 251-
4725.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IV
Wetlands Regulatory Unit
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
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
MrIZJohn Dorney
ivision of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Mr. Charles Jones
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division
of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
N

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mattamuskeet-Swanquarter-Cedar Island
National Wildlife Refuges
Route 1, Box N-2
Swan Quarter, North Carolina 27885
November 18, 1993
Steve Benton
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Benton,
19
f'[ ?, L
EIV ?r
Attached for your review is a Consistency Determination for the
construction of twelve shallow ponds with six interconnecting
ditches in a small portion of the irregularly flooded brackish
marsh at Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge in Carteret County,
North Carolina. A project summary statement and site plans are
included with the Determination.
I
research project.
The proposed research activity is the first phase of the original
54 pond project for which a Consistency Determination and Section
404 permit application were submitted in June, 1991. The original
project was developed as a joint venture between the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) and the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (Commission) and included research sites at Cedar Island
National Wildlife Refuge and Gull Rock Game Land. The current
proposal involves only the Cedar Island site and is detailed in
the attached Settlement Agreement, dated June 22, 1992, between the
Service and the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (Department). The Agreement was reached after the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) denied the Service a 401
Water Qualit Certification for its portion of the joint venture
DEM has agreed to issue a 401 certification for the twelve pond
project on the terms that the Service monitor the effects of the
project on the water quality and existing uses of West Bay Marsh
for one year. If, after one year of monitoring, the monitored
parameters meet the water quality standards set forth in the agreed
upon Monitoring Plan, the Service will apply for and be granted
certification for the additional 42 ponds. If the monitored
parameters do not meet the standards, the Service and the
Department may mutually decide to extend the monitoring process.
Thank you for your assistance. My staff and I are available to
meet with you if your Division has any questions regarding this
Determination.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Te ple
Refuge Manager
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
Proposed Action: Excavation of twelve experimental shallow ponds
with interconnecting ditches in an irregularly
flooded brackish marsh and evaluation of the
project's impacts on the existing uses and
water quality of the project site.
Location: West Bay Marsh, Cedar Island National
Wildlife Refuge, Carteret County, North
Carolina.
Proponent: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region IV,
Atlanta, Georgia
Proiect Description: The purpose of the proposed project is to
test the effects of an experimental management action on the
water quality and natural uses of an irregularly flooded
brackish marsh at Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR). The first phase of the project will involve the
construction and monitoring of twelve shallow water ponds as
described in the attached Settlement Agreement between the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the N.C.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(Department). If, after one year of monitoring, the success
criteria outlined in the Settlement Agreement Monitoring
Plan are met, the Service will apply for 401 and 404 permits
to construct an additional 42 ponds.
The proposed activity is the first phase of the original 54
pond project for which a Consistency Determination and
Section 404 permit application were submitted in June, 1991.
The original project was developed as a joint venture
between the Service and the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission and included research sites at Cedar Island NWR
and Gull Rock Game Land. The current proposal is a scaled
down version of the original, involves only the Cedar
Island site, and is detailed in the Settlement Agreement.
The Agreement was reached after the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) denied the Service a 401
Water Quality Certification for its portion of the joint
venture project. DEM has agreed to issue a 401
Certification for the twelve pond project on the terms that
the Service monitor the effects of the project on the water
quality and existing uses of West Bay Marsh for one year.
The research project, as detailed in the Agreement, involves
the conversion of 1.2 acres of estuarine emergent wetland in
West Bay Marsh to twelve one-tenth acre shallow ponds
designed to provide habitat for waterfowl and other
wildlife. Two pairs of ponds will be located in each of the
three marsh vegetation zones. Each pair will be connected
by a 30' long by 3' wide ditch.
Prior to excavation, each specific work site will be
prescribed burned to remove existing marsh vegetation.
Excavation of the ponds will be done with a hydraulic rotary
ditcher or excavator mounted on low-ground pressure tracks.
Spoil material will be sprayed in a shallow layer (211-411) on
the adjacent marsh. Deeper deposits will be hand-raked or,
if necessary, spread in a shallow layer with a small low-
ground-pressure crawler (D-3 or equivalent).
The Service and/or its designee will monitor the following
existing uses: macroinvertebrate abundance in control and
spoil sites; avian use of transects or designated plots
before and after the conversion; and vegetation community
structure in control and spoil sites.
The Service and/or its designee will also monitor the
following water quality parameters in the created ponds,
existing natural ponds or man-made potholes, and at the
marsh-sound interface: turbidity, pH, fecal coliform
bacteria, dissolved oxygen, and salinity. The created ponds
will be required to meet the State water quality standards
for SA or SC'waters, depending on the ponds' salinity.
Consistency Determination
In accordance with the Federal Consistency requirements of
Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended, the project has been reviewed for consistency with
the North Carolina Coastal Management Program. Based on
that review it has been determined that the project is
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the
program. The following information is provided to support
this determination.
Areas of Environmental Concern
The proposed project site is located in coastal wetlands
(irregularly flooded brackish marsh) associated with the
Pamlico Sound estuarine system and is classified as an area
of environmental concern (AEC). The nearest water body,
West Bay, is classified as High Quality Waters (SA). The
proposed project site is located on publicly owned lands
designated for wildlife management and conservation.
3
This project is consistent with the State's objectives to
protect and manage coastal wetlands. It will employ an
experimental management technique based on maintaining the
functions of a brackish marsh while complementing the
perpetuation of the biological and aesthetic values
intrinsic to that wetland.
The North Carolina guidelines for the protection and
management of coastal areas as outlined in 15AC NCAC 7H,7M
were developed to regulate uses and activities associated
with boating, transportation, access channels, drainage
ditches, and utilities. The guidelines do not address fish
and wildlife management projects thus their applicability
to the proposed project requires substantial interpretation
particularly with regards to the issue of water dependency.
The integrated marsh management technique developed for
the Cedar Island research project is a water dependent
activity that requires the presence of a high water table to
maintain pond reservoir depths during most growing seasons
when evapotranspiration exceeds rainfall. While uplands
can be used to create wildlife habitat, their suitability as
waterfowl habitat is often marginal or supplemental since
the physiological and behavioral needs of most waterfowl
species are associated with wetlands or aquatic
environments.
The State policy specifies that spoil from excavation in
irregularly flooded marshes be placed on non-wetlands
whenever possible. The proponents of the proposed project
recognize the wetland functions that this standard is meant
to protect, as well as the impracticality of hauling spoil
from a remote wetland to a suitable upland site.
Therefore, the spoil (1740 cubic yards) will be distributed
in a shallow layer (not greater than four inches in depth)
over a maximum of 6.5 acres adjacent to the ponds.
Based on the results of the recent Division of Environmental
Health research project in Pamlico and Onslow Counties, the
shallowly deposited spoil should have little permanent
effect on the vegetation community of the marsh if the spoil
disperses in a slurry rather than in clumps. This will be
enhanced by burning the project site prior to excavation and
by excavating the ponds during the dry season. Based on the
Pamlico County study site results, the spoil area is likely
to revegetate with existing plant species (predominately
black needlerush and saltmarsh cordgrass) within one or two
growing seasons.
The project is not expected to change the economic or social
values of the marsh. Neither is it expected to adversely
impact air quality, archaeological or cultural resources,
4
navigation, siltation to adjacent waters, or the life cycle
of estuarine resources. It is expected to complement the
Carteret County Land Use Plan which classifies the project
site for "conservation".
Summary
One of the basic purposes of the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act was "to establish a state management plan
that is capable of rational and coordinated management of
coastal resources". The proposed experimental action and
research evaluation are compatible with the state's stated
purpose for rational and coordinated management. Every
effort has been made to design a managment program that
will enhance waterfowl habitat and use of irregularly
flooded brackish marshes without adversely impacting the
water quality, functions, and other uses of the marsh. The
emphasis and guidance for the proposed action is stated in
the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan as described within the project
Environmental Assessment.
While the proposed activity is not a cultural amenity such
as a marina, highway bridge, or access channel, for which
the state water dependency guideline is targeted, the
experimental management technique is dependent on the
presence of water to meet the physiological and behavioral
needs of waterfowl and other wildlife.
The associated research will document the effects of the
project on the water quality and existing uses of the marsh.
Based on the results of the Division of Environmental Health
study and on the success of similar management projects in
Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey, the project proponents
do not anticipate the activity to have significant adverse
impacts on wildlife use, vegetative composition, or the
natural marsh functions.
Based on the information presented herein, I have determined
that the implementation of the experimental excavation and
research evaluation of twelve one-tenth acre shallow ponds
in West Bay Marsh at Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
is as consistent as practicable with the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program.
Donald E. Temp e
Refuge Manager
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Swan Quarter, North Carolina
- 2 -
The parties to this agreement have negotiated this matter in good
faith and have reached the following agreement which disposes
entirely of the Service's appeal.
TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
1. The Department shall issue to the Service a decision document
which grants section 401 water quality certification for 12 ponds,
each approximately .1 acres in area, at Cedar Island NWR.
2. The Service shall conduct a monitoring plan of-- the ponds in
accordance with the agreed-upon plan attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The Service and the Department shall at a later date decide upon
specific monitoring techniques to be employed in carrying out this
plan.
3. At the end of one year of monitoring, if the monitored
parameters satisfy the water quality standards set forth in the
plan, the Service shall file another application for section 401
water quality certification for an additional 42 ponds, which
certification shall be issued by the Department, provided that all
other pertinent requirements are satisfied.
4. At the end of one year of monitoring, if the monitored
parameters do not satisfy water quality standards set forth in the

plan, the Service and the Department may mutually decide to
continue the monitoring plan for an extended period of time.
5. The Service hereby withdraws its appeal in the above-captioned
matter.
6. This writing, together with Exhibit A, constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
By. .
George T.? verett, Ph.D.
Kathp iW J.
Attorney f
j
Respondent
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE- SERVICE
By:
J R. Eadie
A ng Regional Director
I Ai t7 16
Dat
ohn H. Harrington
Attorney for the Petitioner
(; /--ZVI
Date
CEDAR ISLAND
MONITORING PLAN
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will implement a pilot phase
of their proposed Integrated Marsh Management for Waterfowl and
Other Wildlife (IMM) as recommended by the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management (DEM) to assess the proposal's impact
on water quality and existing uses. A minimum one year monitoring
effort will be completed on 12 ponds, 4 ponds in each vegetation
zone (Zone 1, 2 and 3). The following parameters will be
monitored: 1) macroinvertebrates, 2) wildlife (avian use),
3) vegetation, and 4) specific water quality parameters. Data
collected from the 12-pond pilot area for each of the parameters
will be compared to control sites and to performance criteria
specified in this plan. Control plots shall be established and a
minimum of.two sampling events shall be conducted prior to the
excavation of ponds or other activities that may impact the natural
functions of the marsh. Sampling will occur at regular intervals
agreed to by FWS and DEM, with results submitted monthly or
quarterly to DEM. After 1 year of monitoring, DEM and FWS will
assess impacts on water quality and existing uses. If success
criteria have not been met after one year of monitorir-g, FWS may
continue monitoring unsuccessful parameters until they meet the
success criteria. If all success criteria are met, DEM will use
this data for 401 certification for the entire IMM proposal.
EXHIBIT A

M &I;,. ! .
- 2 -
1. Macroinvertebrates - Samples will be taken of
macroinvertebrates (includes benthics, e.g. crayfish, snails,
worms, insects, etc.) in the areas of spoil deposition as well as
control sites. Control sites will be established in each
vegetation zone and comparisons of findings made with project area.
Performance criteria for success: Not more than a 25% reduction
in number of species and in abundance per unit effort of
individuals for each species in project affected area as compared
to control sites. Also, there will be no elimination of species
comprising 25% or greater of the total density.
2. Wildlife (avian use) - Bird use along established transacts or
plots will be monitored by regularly scheduled inventories. A list
indicating number of species and abundance per unit effort for
before and after project implementation will be developed and
compared. Performance criteria for success: No significant
decrease in number of species or abundance per unit effort of
commonly occurring species in comparison with the control.
3. Vegetation - Sample plots/transects will be established in
spoil deposition area as well as in control sites for each zone.
Sufficient samples will be taken to show percent cover by species.
Comparison of before and after project will be made. Performance
criteria for success: Not more than a 25% reduction in number of
species and in percent cover by species in project affected area,
- 3 -
as compared to control sites. Also, there will be no elimination
of any species which comprises 25% or greater of the percent cover.
4. Water Quality Parameters - The project area is located adjacent
to estuarine waters classified SA-HQW (High Quality Waters) by DEM
and the State has set water quality standards for such areas. The
ponds, once created, will be subject to the State's standards
appropriate for their salinity (if salinity is greater than 0.5 ppt
[500 ppm), then they will be considered subject to the saltwater
[Class SCI standards; if less than 0.5 ppt, then they will be
subject to the freshwater (Class C1 standards.) Water quality in
the created ponds, existing natural ponds of similar size and
depth, or existing potholes (blasted 1969 and 1970), and at the
marsh-sound interface will be monitored to ascertain if certain
water quality standards are being met. The following water quality
parameters will be monitored at each location as indicated in the
following chart:
ti
Parameter SC Pond
Turbidity (NTU) 25 NTU*
pH 6.8 - 8.5*
Temperature
Coliform bacteria 200
(c/100 ml) (geometric
mean) *
FW Pond Marsh/Sound (SA)
50 NTU* 10 NTU
6.0 - 9.0* 6.8 - 8.5
200 14(median)*y
(geometric
mean)'
D.O (mg/1) 5.0* 5.0t 5.0
*values of these parameters will be acceptable if comparable to
eNisting ponds/potholes on refuge
**If monitoring indicates standard is being violated at marsh/sound
interface then more intense monitoring will be required until the
source/cause is determined. Marsh/Sound interface fecal coliforms
shall not exceed a median MF of 11/100 ml and not more than 10
percent of the samples shall exceed 43/100 ml based on at least
five consecutive samples.
Samplina frequency-: (for above parameters)
A. Ponds (SC and FW) - Sample all parameters once per month
B. Marsh/Sound Interface (SA) - Sample all parameters daily for
five conseci.itive davs, 4 times per year (two of the sampling events
should be conducted during the period of highest waterfowl
concentration utilizing the ponds).

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID No. 199400877 December 16, 1993
PUBLIC NOTICE
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, CEDAR ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE, Route 1, Box N-2, Swanquarter, North Carolina 27885, has applied for
a Department of the Army (DA) permit TO DISCHARGE EXCAVATED MATERIAL IN
WETLANDS ADJACENT WEST BAY AND PAMLICO SOUND ASSOCIATED WITH EXCAVATION OF
TWELVE (12) SHALLOW PONDS WITH SIX (6) CONNECTING DITCHES, CEDAR ISLAND
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, Carteret County, North Carolina.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the
applicant and from observations made during an onsite visit by a
representative of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Plans submitted with the
application show the proposed experimental conversion of 1.2 acres of
estuarine emergent wetlands in West Bay Marsh to twelve 1/10-acre shallow
ponds suitable for waterfowl and other wildlife. Prior to excavation, the
project site is to be burned to remove vegetation. The project site is
divided into three vegetation zones that parallel the gradient of decreasing
hydroperiod and salinity toward the marsh interior. Zone 1, adjacent West
Bay, is dominated by black needlerush with saltgrass subdominant and
saltmeadow hay and fimbry occurring sporadically. This zone is frequently
flooded with an average salinity range of 5 to 25 parts per thousand (ppt).
Zone 2 is also dominated by black needlerush with open patches of saltmeadow
hay and fimbry; switchgrass and sawgrass occur within the interior portions.
This zone is intermittently flooded with an average salinity-range of 0 to 10
ppt. Zone 3, the interior marsh zone, contains a variety of species typical
of brackish to fresh marshes. It is flooded during heavy rains or extreme
wind tides and has an average salinity range of 0 to 5 ppt. Excavation of the
ponds and ditches is to be accomplished with a hydraulic rotary ditcher
mounted on low ground pressure tracks. Excavated material is to be sprayed on
the adjacent marsh in a shallow layer not to exceed 4 inches. Plans showing
the work are included with this public notice.
A 1-year research evaluation of this experimental project is to be
conducted by the North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research unit
and will focus on the existing uses of the marsh and vegetative community
structure in control and excavated sites. Water quality parameters in the
excavated ponds, existing natural ponds and at the marsh-sound interface are
to be monitored. After one year of monitoring, the effects are to be examined
to determine the need for further study and/or excavation of additional ponds.
-2-
The applicant has determined that the proposed work is consistent with
the North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Plan and has submitted this
determination to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) for
their review and concurrence. This proposal shall be reviewed for the
applicability of other actions by North Carolina agencies such as:
a. The issuance of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM).
b. The issuance of a permit to dredge and/or fill under North Carolina
General Statute 113-229 by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
( NCDCM) .
C. The issuance of a permit under the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act (LAMA) by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM) or their delegates.
d. The issuance of an easement to fill or otherwise occupy State-owned
submerged land under North Carolina General Statute 143-341(4), 146-6, 146-11,
and 146-12 by the North Carolina Department of Administration (NCDA) and the
North Carolina Council of State.
e. The approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Land
Quality Section, North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR), pursuant
to the State Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NC G.S. 113 A-50-
66).
The requested Department of the Army (DA) permit will be denied if any
required State or local authorization and/or certification is denied. No DA
permit will be ±ssued 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.
-3-
Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical
data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that
the proposed activity will affect species, or their critical habitat,
designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which
it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern
for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order
11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water
supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the
placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a
permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit
would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable
guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer
determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal,
State and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested
parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed
activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers
to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this
proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on
endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental
effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used
in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and
to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA)
permit will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDEM considers whether or not the
-4-
proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of
the Army (DA) permit serve as application to the NCDEM for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), Salisbury Street,
Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be
furnished to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) plans to
take final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act certification on or
after January 14, 1994.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), Post Office Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before January 10, 1994, Attention:
Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. Scott McLendon, until 4:15 p.m.,
January 17, 1994, or telephone [phone].

AZ'f ACHrnEN t 1
CEDAR ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
CAAT(ntT COUNTY. NOnTN CANOL-

`\I) '4R NC US 403
Merkla
bar -
Zon. 1
tor. 2
' Cedar Island NCR.. Pone Cluster
Oeslon
{-}-re"ta Non two boundary
,`J Pond Fair
Each Pond: 00' a 30'
ConneetinR Ditch 70' R 3'
N
l
.59CEY i OP- 2
eon. INM6RATEb MAgSH
MANA4EMENT ?LA4-
MAR 15LAND N W e
,? C?OAR.SSI.A*1? NWRt.
CA9-IXKtiT COUNTY.) N.C.
37ul`1 20,1 Q9 3
U.S. FISA Mjo WILMIF5 SMCCE
XT, %) lox N-2

spot(. GAw K
fri Hw- ZO N6 1
11x1 HW -ZONE A V S
MHW - zaw63 cxv
muu-zoroE 1
mua-zot,E ?
(Y1LW-ZONe 3
RESERvo 1 R
TYPI CAC. C-ROSS S4;-:C-1-1 oN OF 22"1)
NOT DRAI?JN TO SCA1_£
r '
r `
q"
- -PRoPOSEZ SPo1L.
DISPOSAL NRc-A
Spot,.-TO BE SPRAYEb BY
ROTp.0.4 DITCMrcv- 'To A
DEprH NOT To EkCOeb 4?•.
A'1'TEMpTS WIC- BE mAt)E To SUGKTUY D15•ToIZT RrccTANCULAR SHAPE oq POn)DS
AE1gIAL VIEW OF T14PIC41I" FOND PAIR
SGALE.: ?„ 7a ,
Calculations for Spoil and Spoil Disposal•Area:
6b. Pond Dimensions:
43.3 yd x 10 yd x 0.33 yd - 143 cu yd
Connecting Ditch:
10 yd x 1 yd x 0.33 yd - 3.3 cu yd per pond pair
3.3 cu yd/2 - 1.65 cu yd per pond
Total per pond:
143 cu yd + 1.65 cu yd - 145 cu yd (approx.)
Project Total:
145 cu yd x 12 ponds - 1740 cu yd
6f. Spoil Disposal Area:
Spoil for 12 ponds @ 3945 cu ft per pond with 3
connecting ditch - 47,340 cu ft. If spread 4"
deep, spoil will cover 3.25 acres; if spread 2"
deep, spoil will cover 6.5 acres.
3.25 acres - 141,862 sq ft/12 ponds - 12,000 sq ft;
qIT-,T0-0 sq ft - 110 sq ft - 110 ft x 110 ft per pond,
or 110 ft k 55 ft on long sides of each pond.

INTEG9A TED MA R5?A
MANAGEMENT PLAN
CEDAR :MA ND Nw R
CzT*R TSLMZ NU9-
G,IO1RNERIET CO., N.G.
SUL`J 2.0, 19"13
U.S. Fts?k Mb m AUFE SVC.
RT. It 1-4" N- z
SWAA 4uARTM, NC 2717 85

r
t
vvi
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY I _'J
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineer
Post Office Box 1890 WETLANDS Uoi{;'
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 WATER UALITYSECsF
Action ID No. 199400877 December 16, 1993
PUBLIC NOTICE
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, CEDAR ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE, Route 1, Box N-2, Swanquarter, North Carolina 27885, has applied for
a Department of the Army (DA) permit TO DISCHARGE EXCAVATED MATERIAL IN
WETLANDS ADJACENT WEST BAY AND PAMLICO SOUND ASSOCIATED WITH EXCAVATION OF
TWELVE (12) SHALLOW PONDS WITH SIX (6) CONNECTING DITCHES, CEDAR ISLAND
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, Carteret County, North Carolina.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the
applicant and from observations made during an onsite visit by a
representative of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Plans submitted with the
application show the proposed experimental conversion of 1.2 acres of
estuarine emergent wetlands in West Bay Marsh to twelve 1/10-acre shallow
ponds suitable for waterfowl and other wildlife. Prior to excavation, the
project site is to be burned to remove vegetation. The project site is
divided into three vegetation zones that parallel the gradient of decreasing
hydroperiod and salinity toward the marsh interior. Zone 1, adjacent West
Bay, is dominated by black needlerush with saltgrass subdominant and
saltmeadow hay and fimbry occurring sporadically. This zone is frequently
flooded with an average salinity range of 5 to 25 parts per thousand (ppt).
Zone 2 is also dominated by black needlerush with open patches of saltmeadow
hay and fimbry; switchgrass and sawgrass occur within the interior portions.
This zone is intermittently flooded with an average salinity range of 0 to 10
ppt. Zone 3, the interior marsh zone, contains a variety of species typical
of brackish to fresh marshes. It is flooded during heavy rains or extreme
wind tides and has an average salinity range of 0 to 5 ppt. Excavation of the
ponds and ditches is to be accomplished with a hydraulic rotary ditcher
mounted on low ground pressure tracks. Excavated material is to be sprayed on
the adjacent marsh in a shallow layer not to exceed 4 inches. Plans showing
the work are included with this public notice.
A 1-year research evaluation of this experimental project is to be
conducted by the North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research unit
and will focus on the existing uses of the marsh and vegetative community
structure in control and excavated sites. Water quality parameters in the
excavated ponds, existing natural ponds and at the marsh-sound interface are
to be monitored. After one year of monitoring, the effects are to be examined
to determine the need for further study and/or excavation of additional ponds.
t
-2-
The applicant has determined that the proposed work is consistent with
the North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Plan and has submitted this
determination to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) for
their review and concurrence. This proposal shall be reviewed for the
applicability of other actions by North Carolina agencies such as:
a. The issuance of a Water Quality Certification under section 401 of
the Clean Water Act by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM).
b. The issuance of a permit to dredge and/or fill under North Carolina
General Statute 113-229 by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM).
C. The issuance of a permit under the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act (LAMA) by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM) or their delegates.
d. The issuance of an easement to fill or otherwise occupy State-owned
submerged land under North Carolina General Statute 143-341(4), 146-6, 146-11,
and 146-12 by the North Carolina Department of Administration (NCDA) and the
North Carolina Council of State.
e. The approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Land
Quality Section, North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR), pursuant
to the State Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NC G.S. 113 A-50-
66).
The requested Department of the Army (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.
i
-3-
Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical
data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that
the proposed activity will affect species, or their critical habitat,
designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which
it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern
for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive order
11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water
supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the
placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a
permit will be denied if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit
would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable
guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer
determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal,
state and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested
parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed
activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers
to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this
proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on
endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental
effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used
in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and
to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA)
permit will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDEM considers whether or not the
-4-
proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of
the Army (DA) permit serve as application to the NCDEM for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), Salisbury Street,
Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be
furnished to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) plans to
take final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act certification on or
after January 14, 1994.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), Post Office Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before January 10, 1994, Attention:
Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Mr. Scott McLendon, until 4:15 p.m.,
January 17, 1994, or telephone [phone].
AZT ACNrnEN T 1.
CEDAR ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
CAnTtncT COVNTT, NonTN CArel1NA rrr• ...
Y•YA?y Mr r11rY Ir r •?N.1' NI/..
r-
r?[CEnO ? ww
RL?UCL
P A
c
[ice
VICINITY MN
S 0 CM /?
v Ir«r NWn
N ?
IL.
a 1'.. '? Y Y Y Y
yL 1L. Y
1 Y ? ?
r« r:..al. Yt
Sr /
%
r-
?'• USHC
rr o ?C ATI011;
l ?-
?? ' - • W. . •oJU. I•f
r,N 0 J P
S
L e•' Y
P r?r r
0 e
C,
(
e P t•
O _? 4
_ ( G
0
u«.• rr I«• • «. v. . I •+I?• \II 4n NC 675405
Peril*
Bay -
tone 1
tore 2
Ceder Island Ina . Pond Cluster
Della.
}-{-re4et•nen tone boundary
LJ Pond rote
dtb Pond: U0' a 50'
Connecting Ditch: 30' a 5'
CSA
'PLAN-
C?EDAR aND NwQ
' EDAM SUP44D
C S N W Rte
CAStTaUT COUNTY, N.C.
S"1-`l 20, %q93
1 U.S. FiaA ?b w?LoL?M 69kvME
IZTP %, 'a x N - 2
S*iw Q"P-T?,NG X74YS
N
l
_ SFl?7 i of 2
oM 5 =?GR??TED M?+
- MANA6EMEN-t
PrrT Ac. H CYO E W T Z
spot- (BAN K
f4l HW'• Z,ON6 1
MHW - zoar. Exp
mWJ-zoroe 1
MLW-ZONE
MLW••ZON?¢ 3
?- RESERvo I R
-rPI CAL GROSS SECTI av OF ?on?D
NOT DRAUJN_ TO SCALD
1- 4'
i
I
1 Ati
i
V I ? d. 1 .
'PROPOSE'D SPo1l. '
DISPOSAL AREA
SPo1,T0 139- tPRn4E.o BY
R0TAR4 DITCN9-t To A.
DEorM NWT To EMCED 4 ".
ACTEMOTS WILL BC- vnA0E To SU6HTLf wvroRT RECTANGULAR SNAPS o4 PO/vDS.
AEP,IA,L vlE.w OF TYPICPL I?OtvD ?1?.1R
SGA?E : I" 7°

Calculations for Spoil and Spoil Disposal Area:
6b. Pond Dimensions:
43.3 yd x 10 yd x 0.33 yd - 143 cu yd
Connecting Ditch:
10 yd x 1 yd x 0.33 yd 3.3 cu yd per pond pair
3.3 cu yd/2 1.65 cu yd per pond
Total per pond:
143 cu yd + 1.65 cu yd - 145 cu yd (approx.)
Project Total:
145 cu yd x 12 ponds - 1740 cu yd
6f. Spoil Disposal Area:
Spoil for 12 ponds @ 3945 cu ft per pond with
connecting ditch - 47,340 cu ft. if spread 4"
deep, spoil will cover 3.25 acres; if spread 2"
deep, spoil will cover 6.5 acres.
3.25 acres - 141,862 sq ft/12 ponds - 12,000 sq ft;
41T-,00- sq ft - 110 sq ft - 110 ft x 110 ft per pond,
or 110 fl x 55 ft on long sides of each pond.
G . I
oa
"INTEGWD MARSVI
MANAC,EME,N T PLAN
CEDAR zSLA ND NYV R
Czr.AR ISLAND NUR.
C.ARTERET CO., N.G.
SUL'( 2.0, 199:3
U.S. FMA"wAWuFE SYC,
RT. 18 -a" N- 2
SWAB QuRRTM I KG 27995
f
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
Mr. John R. Dorney
NC DEN&NR
Div. Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
?FE HNR
11/23/93
REFERENCE: CD93-38 County: Carteret
Applicant/Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Construct Twelve Interconnected Ponds for Waterfowl, Cedar Isl NWR
Dear Mr. Dorney:
The attached Consistency Determination, dated 11/18/93
describing a proposed Federal Activity is being circulated to
State agencies for comments concerning the proposal's consistency
with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Please indicate your viewpoint on the proposal and return this
form to me before 12/13/93
jCSi, ;eenn y,
B. e nton
Consistency Coordinator
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
_I This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
(I V Signed
Date
Agency
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper