19970915 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19920101

September 18, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ed Buckner
FROM: Eric Fleek 7
'0? F?
THROUGH: John Dorn b)
SUBJECT: Draft EA-Waterborne Refueling Operations, New River (ONSLOW)
Based on a review of the draft EA for this project, the 401/Wetland Unit offers the following comments,
which should be addressed in any subsequent EA/FONSI.
As is stated in the EA these operations will take place within the New River from Ragged Point to the New
River Inlet. On Page 8 the EA notes that the waters of the New River are classified as SA and SC and all
operations will be restricted to areas with depths of at least 4' and will avoid areas within 100' of the river
bank. In addition and (as noted on Page 16) all operations will be conducted away from known (or visible)
SAV and would be conducted away from any Oyster management Areas. Additional restrictions (except as
noted below) which we believe should be administered are as follows:
1) Operations should be restricted from the following areas (a, d, and e) of the New River:
Index Number Description Class
a) New River; 19-(27) From a line extending across New River from SA
Grey point to a point of land approx. 2200 yds.
Downstream from mouth of Duck Creek to
Atlantic Ocean, including all unnamed bays,
Creeks, & other waters except for (b) and (c) below:
b) New River-Restricted 19-31 All waters within 1,000 yards of earthen dock SC
Area #1 at the U.S. Marine Corps Rifle Range
c) New River-Restricted 19-37 All waters witihin a line beginning at the Gov't SC
Area #2 Dock I from of U.S. Coast Guard Detachment
Barracks at Marines and running a SW course
1,000 yards to Channel Marker #13, thence a
SE course
d) New River 19-(11) From Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Trestle to SC HQW NSW
Mumford Point
e) New River 19-(10.5) From U.S. Hwy. 17 Bridge to Atlantic Coast SB HQW NSW
Line Railroad Trestle
If there are any questions or comments regarding this matter please feel free to call at [phone].
e Y

,? U r ? i
?so
r? ?'
-7
ER-97-171
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
WATERBORNE REFUELING OPERATIONS
ON THE NEW RIVER
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Responsible
Officer: Commanding General
Assistant Chief of Staff, Training, Education, and Operations
Marine Corps Base
PSC Box 20004
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 28542-0004
[phone]
Point of Contact: Major Johnny D. Borja
Training, Education and Operations
[phone]
AUGUST 1998

Enclosure (i
X
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
WATERBORNE REFUELING OPERATIONS ON THE NEW RIVER
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Summary
The Marine Corps is proposing to institute waterborne refueling training
operations on the New River, Onslow County, North Carolina. The purpose of
waterborne refueling training operations is to ensure that the boat crews and Marines
of the Bulk Fuel Company are proficient in refueling operations in riverine environments
and that the deployment concept for riverine craft and refueling platforms is refined and
integrated into the existing Marine Corps doctrine. The types of riverine craft that
would currently be involved in the waterborne refueling training operations include the
Riverine Assault Craft (RAC), Rigid Raiding Craft (RRC), and Combat Rubber
Reconnaissance Craft (CRRC). The RAC, RRC and CRRC provide the Marine Corps
with capabilities to conduct riverine operations in a low intensity conflict environment.
Real world contingency operations include, but are not limited to, illegal drug
interdiction.
It is anticipated that there would be no more than one riverine training operation,
involving waterborne refueling, per month. The waterborne refueling events would be
conducted during the daylighthours only and would not exceed one week in duration.
In addition, one major riverine exercise would be conducted during the spring or
summer months which would also include waterborne refueling during daylight hours.
The Marine Corps riverine craft must be able to operate at high speeds with
quick maneuverability so they can serve as command and control vessels, armed
escorts, troop transport, pursuit/intercept craft, scout and patrol craft, and provide direct
fire support. The RAC, RRC, and CRRC are used to perform these functions in
situations where they must be able to sustain operations indefinitely on the water. In
order to sustain. an operation indefinitely, waterborne refueling must be part of that
operation. As a result, training to conduct waterborne refueling is required. It is
essential for waterborne refueling training to be conducted in a geographical location
similar to the environment in which the craft and crew function during periods of
conflict.
This environmental assessment addresses impacts associated with conducting
waterborne refueling training operations on the New River. Conducting waterborne
refueling training operations on the New River is the Proposed Action and the preferred
alternative. One other alternative, the No Action Alternative, is discussed. The No
Action Alternative consists of continuing the status quo of refueling riverine craft from a
fixed tank on land or a pier.
Foreseeable adverse impacts that could result from waterborne refueling training
operations would be fuel spills on the water and the related impact to surface water and
water quality, air quality, submerged aquatic vegetation, fish and shellfish, wildlife,
coastal zone, and recreational and commercial fishing. However, the Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasures Plan has been developed to mitigate potential adverse
impacts from fuel spills.
I r

All participating units would be required to have spill response kits aboard each
floating platform and riverine craft with crews trained to respond properly should spills
or other emergencies occur. All refueling activities would be conducted and supervised
by Marines of the Bulk Fuel Company. Personnel assigned to this unit have received
significant training in the operation and maintenance of the fueling equipment, including
use of the fuel bladders and SIXCON fuel tank modules. Fuel containers onboard the
platform would be stored within a non-permeable containment berm.
? T
Y
CONTENTS
Chapter 1.0 Purpose of and Need For Action
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action
1.3 Need for the Proposed Action
1.4 Description of the Proposed Action
1.5 Environmental Review Process
Chapter 2.0 Alternatives
2.1 Description of Alternatives
2.1.1 No Action Alternative
2.1.2 Proposed Action Alternative
2.1.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed
2.2 Evaluation of Alternatives
Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment
3.1 Physical Environment
3.1.1 Surface Water and Water Quality
3.1.2 Air Quality
3.1.3 Hazardous Substances
3.1.4 Cultural Resources
3.2 Natural Resources
3.2.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
3.2.2 Fish and Shellfish
3.2.3 Wildlife
3.2.4 Protected Species
3.2.5 Coastal Zone
3.3 Socioeconomic Characteristics
3.3.1 Transportation and Navigation
3.3.2 Commercial Use
3.3.3 Recreation Resources
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences
4.1 Physical Environment
4. 1.1 Surface Water and Water Quality
4.1.2 Air Quality
4.1.3 Hazardous Substances
4.1.4 Cultural Resources
4.2 Natural Resources
4.2.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
4.2.2 Fish and Shellfish
4.2.3 Wildlife
4.2.4 Protected Species
4.2.5 Coastal Zone
1
1
1
3
5
5
5
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
? T
Y
4.3 Socioeconomic Characteristics 17
4.3.1 Transportation and Navigation 17
4.3.2 Commercial Use 17
4.3.3 Recreation Resources 17
4.4 Cumulative Impacts 18
Chapter 5.0 References 19
Chapter 6.0 List of Preparers 20
Chapter 7.0 List of Agencies and Persons Contacted 22
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Waterborne Refueling Standard Operating Procedures
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Characteristics of Riverine Craft 5
Table 2 - Characteristics of Floating Platforms 6
Table 3 - Capacity of Fuel Containers 6
LIST OF FIGURES Appendix A
Figure 1 - Project Region
Figure 2 - Project Area
Figure 3 - Riverine Assault Craft (RAC) and Rigid Raiding Craft (RRC)
Figure 4 - Combat Rubber Reconnaissance Craft (CRRC)
and Bridge Erection Boat (BEB)
Figure 5 - 6 Bay Ribbon Bridge and Landing Craft Mark 6 (LCM-6)
Figure 6 - Landing Craft Mark 8 (LCM-8) and Landing Craft Utility 1600 (LCU)
Figure 7 - Fuel Bladders and SIXCONs
Figure 8 - Typical Waterborne Refueling Setup
Figure 9 - Riverine Craft Secured to Floating Platform
Figure 10 - Waterborne Refueling Procedure
CHAPTER 1.0 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
During the Vietnam War, the United States developed a robust capability to
conduct operations in a riverine environment. Since then, this capability has notably
declined. The United States Marine Corps is the only service within the Department of
Defense pursuing and maintaining the capability to operate in the riverine environment.
The Second Marine Expeditionary Force (II MEF) pursues conventional riverine
operational capability through the Riverine Training Center located at Marine Corps
Base, Camp Lejeune.
Camp Lejeune is located in the southern coastal area of Onslow County, North
Carolina (Figure 1) and provides the necessary facilities for II MEF organizations to
maintain their combat readiness. Training is integral to the II MEF in maintaining
combat readiness.
The primary riverine environment at Camp Lejeune is the New River. The lower
portion of the New River bisects Camp Lejeune. The New River supports a wide
variety of activities including recreational and commercial fishing and shellfishing,
recreational and commercial boating, and military training.
r
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The Marine Corps is proposing to institute waterborne refueling training
operations on the New River from the New RIVer"?,I"r' t ' Ragged ,Point (Figure 2).
Training operations within the New River would occur in depths of at least "4 feet, but
would avoid areas''within 100 feet from the river..banks.f No waterborne refueling
training operations for riverine craft would be conducted in the Intracoastal Waterway
or the Atlantic Ocean.
The purpose of waterborne refueling training operations is to ensure that the
boat crews and Marines of the Bulk Fuel Company are proficient in refueling operations
in riverine environments and that the deployment concept for riverine craft and
refueling platforms is refined and integrated into the existing Marine Corps doctrine.
The types of riverine craft that would currently be involved in the waterborne refueling
training operations include the Riverine Assault Craft (RAC), Rigid Raiding Craft
(RRC), (Figure 3), and Combat Rubber Reconnaissance Craft (CRRC), (Figure 4). An
additional water craft which could be refueled on the water is the Bridge Erection Boat
(BEB), (Figure 4). Bridge Erection Boats are used to maneuver the individual Ribbon
Bridge sections and the 6 Bay Ribbon Bridge.
The RAC, RRC, and CRRC provide the Marine Corps with capabilities to
conduct riverine operations in a low intensity conflict environment. Real world
contingency operations include, but are not limited to, illegal drug interdiction.
1.3 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
The Marine Corps riverine craft must be able to operate at high speeds with
quick maneuverability so they can serve as command and control vessels, armed
escorts, troop transport, pursuit/intercept craft, scout and patrol craft, and provide direct
fire support. The RAC, RRC, and CRRC are used to perform these functions in
1

situations where they must be able to sustain operations indefinitely on the water. In
order to sustain an operation indefinitely, waterborne refueling must be a part of that
operation. As a result, training to conduct waterborne refueling is required to ensure
that Marines are ready to proficiently, safely, and correctly' conduct waterborne
refueling operations in a real world scenario when called upon.
It is essential for waterborne refueling training to be conducted in a geographical
location similar to the environment in which the craft and crew function during periods
of conflict. Conducting these training operations in the Camp Lejeune area will ensure
that training and tactics for deployment of the waterborne refueling platforms are fully
integrated and compatible with existing infantry tactical operational doctrine.
Scenarios frequently used for riverine operations involve South and Central
American coastline and river areas. Often, in these areas, there are no fixed piers or
built-up stable pier facilities which are available for riverine craft refueling operations.
Access to piers may be denied by hostile forces. In addition to the lack of roads
allowing access to the shoreline, rivers are often located in areas dominated by thick
foliage and jungle which make the use of surrounding land impossible for the buildup of
logistical re-supply and refueling sites. The use of riverine craft without waterborne
refueling capability in these scenarios is not tactically sound and would severely curtail
the capability, flexibility, and survivability of II MEF conventional riverine operations.
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The RAC, RRC, and CRRC can be refueled on the water from several different
floating platforms. These floating platforms include the 6 Bay Ribbon Bridge, Landing
Craft Mark 6 (LCM-6), (Figure 5), Landing Craft Mark 8 (LCM-8), or Landing Craft Utility
(LCU) 1600, (Figure 6). The floating platforms would hold bulk fuel, either unleaded
gasoline or diesel fuel, and fuel dispensing equipment. Fuel would be contained within
and dispensed from either fuel bladders, or the SIXCON fuel tank module (Figure 7).
SIXCON fuel tank modules are rigid storage containers that could be set up in various
configurations. The fuel bladders or SIXCONs may remain loaded on the tactical
vehicles used for transportation.
All fuel`' containers or tactical ° vehicles loaded with fuef containers would be
placed in non-permeable containment berms to prevent release of fuel into'. the water.
The maximum amount of bulk fuel available to dispense on a floating platform would.-be
?'.2700 gallons of fuel, by using (3) three SIXCON fuel tank modules, each with a 900
gallon fuel capacity. Only one floating platform at a time would be used for an
operation.
It is anticipated that there would be no more than one riverine training operation,
involving waterborne refueling, per month. The waterborne refueling events would be
conducted during the daylight hours only and would not exceed one week in duration.
In addition, one major riverine exercise would be conducted during the spring or
summer months which would also include waterborne refueling during daylight hours.
If changes to the frequency of waterborne refueling training operations are made, and
these changes have the potential to significantly impact the affected environment,
further analysis would be conducted in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 .(NEPA), 42 U.S.C 4321. et seq___
2
Participants in the waterborne refueling training operations would include active
duty and reserve units of the Marine Corps, other Department of Defense organizations
(such as the Army, Navy, and Coast Guard), and foreign military organizations.
Various small craft and floating platforms from other groups, which are similar to Marine
Corps riverine craft and floating platforms may be used in training operations.
However, no fuel containers or refueling equipment from other groups would be used.
All refueling activities would be conducted and supervised by Marines of the Bulk Fuel
Company. Personnel assigned to this unit have received significant training in the
operation and maintenance of the fueling equipment, including use of the fuel bladders
and SIXCON fuel tank modules.
As newer riverine craft, floating platforms, fuel containers, and refueling
equipment are introduced into the Marine Corps inventory, they will be included in
waterborne refueling training operations. If there is any substantial change in the way
the newer versions of craft, platforms, containers, and refueling equipment are used
from that which is documented in this EA, additional impact analysis will be performed
in accordance with the NEPA.
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
This Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses potential environmental
impacts associated with proposed waterborne refueling training operations on the New
River. It has been prepared in compliance with Section 102 of the NEPA; the Council
on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts
1500-1508); and Marine' Corps Order P5090.2, Environmental Compliance and
Protection Manual. The U.S. Marine Corps is the lead agency for the Proposed Action.
An EA is a concise public document for which a federal agency is responsible.
An EA briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or a Finding of No Significant Impact. This
Draft EA will be circulated to certain concerned local and state persons for their review
on the scope of the environmental impact analysis. A meeting will be held to discuss
comments from this initial review. Results of this meeting and pertinent comments will
be addressed and incorporated into a Final EA. The Final EA will be circulated to the
North Carolina Clearinghouse and a notice of availability will be published to inform the
public. A Federal Coastal Consistency Determination is required for the Proposed
Action.
For this Draft EA, it was determined that the scope of environmental resource
categories to be addressed should include: surface water and water quality, air quality,
hazardous substances, cultural resources, submerged aquatic vegetation, fish and
shellfish, wildlife, protected species, coastal zone, commercial use, transportation and
navigation, and recreation resources.
It was determined that the following environmental resources categories would
not be impacted by the Proposed Action: climate, geology, subsurface hydrology,
noise, utilities and infrastructure, population, and environmental justice. They were
excluded from further analysis for the following reasons:
• The Proposed Action would not cause any change to the climate, geology, or
subsurface hydrology.
3

*The Proposed Action would not generate any new noise activities.
*The Proposed Action does not include construction and would not require an
increase in utility usage.
*The Proposed Action would not require an increase in the current population of
Camp Lejeune or any surrounding municipalities.
*The Proposed Action would take place on the New River and its activities would
not affect any localized areas of minority or low-income populations.
4
CHAPTER 2.0 - ALTERNATIVES
This section presents the alternatives and the environmental impacts associated
with each alternative. The evaluation of environmental impacts associated with each
alternative is based on information from Section 3.0 - Affected Environment and
Section 4.0 - Environmental Consequences.
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
2.1.1 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the Marine Corps would not conduct
waterborne refueling training operations. The current situation of refueling riverine
craft from a fixed point on shore would continue. Riverine craft are presently refueled
from a tanker truck, SIXCON fuel tank modules on tractor trailers, or stationary fuel
tanks located on nearby Camp Lejeune piers. With the No Action Alternative, the need
for simulating tactical refueling operations from a waterborne platform could not be
fulfilled. Without this vital training, military personnel would not be ready to respond to
critical situations around the world in a safe and timely manner.
2.1.2 Proposed Action Alternative
The Proposed Action Alternative is instituting waterborne refueling training
operations on the New River. Figure 8 depicts a typical waterborne refueling setup. A
riverine craft to be refueled would first approach the side of a floating platform. The
craft would be secured to the floating platform, then enclosed within a containment
floating boom system (Figure 9). Either unleaded gasoline or diesel fuel would be
dispensed in accordance with standard operating procedures (SOP) for waterborne
refueling (Figure 10). The Waterborne Refueling SOP is located in Appendix B.
Refueling operations could also include refueling of the floating platform engines from
the fuel being carried aboard.
Characteristics of the riverine craft to be refueled on the water are shown in
Table 1 and characteristics of the floating platforms are in Table 2. Other types of
similar floating platforms may be used in future operations. Platform choice would be
limited to those with sufficiently shallow draft which allow access to shallow sections of
the New River.
Table 1 - Characteristics of Riverine Craft
CRAFT LENGTH WIDTH DRAFT FUEL
CAPACITY FUEL TYPE
RAC 34' 11 8' 10" 2' 180 Gallons Diesel
RRC 18' 6" 8' 2" 22" 56 Gallons Unleaded
CRRC 15' 6" 6' 8" 6 or 18 Gallons Unleaded
BEB 27' 8' 2' 75 Gallons Diesel
Table 2 - Characteristics of Floatina Platforms
FLOATING LENGTH WIDTH DRAFT FUEL FUEL TYPE
PLATFORM CAPACITY,
6 Bay Ribbon 133' 43' 2' N/A iesel
Bridge Note: (1)
LCM-6 56' 14' 4" 5' 768 Gallons Diesel
Note: (2)
LCM-8 73' 7" 21' 1" 4' 10" 1100 Gallons Diesel
Note: (3)
F LCU 1600 134' 9" 29' 9" 6' 10" 3288 Gallons Diesel
Note: (1) The 6 Bay Ribbon Bridge is maneuvered using Bridge Erection Boats.
Note: (2) The LCM-6 is organic to LHA, LKA, and LSD-36 ships.
Note: (3) LCM-8 aboard USS Charleston, LKA, length 74'6", width 21' 1",
draft 4' 3".

2
0^ .
Fuel would be dispensed from containers listed in Table 3. These containers
would be placed aboard the platform and operated by personnel from Bulk Fuel
Company. Marines serving in Bulk Fuel Company will have received extensive training
and must receive certification in the operation and handling of a large variety of fueling
equipment and fuels before being assigned to the Bulk Fuel Company. Each fuel
container would be enclosed in a non-permeable containment berm, which would be
required to contain the entire amount of fuel held by the container. Both SIXCON fuel
tank modules and fuel bladders could be loaded onto a combat vehicle, which would
then be driven onto the floating platform. In this situation, the containment berm would
be constructed to contain the vehicle carrying the fuel containers.
`?Sa
Table 3 - Capacity of Fuel Containers
FUEL CONTAINER CAPACITY
Fuel Bladder 500 Gallons
SIXCON 900 Gallons

Units wanting to conduct waterborne refueling activities would submit a request
to the Commanding General of II MEF. The .II MEF would forward the request to the
appropriate command element for the Bulk Fuel Company and, if needed, the request
would be forwarded to the command element of the Bridge Company, requesting
support for the training operation. If the request can be supported, the II MEF would
forward the request to Assistant Chief of Staff of the Training, Education and
Operations Department. Training, Education and Operations would reserve a range
sector on the river and conduct Range Safety Office functions. During this time period
the request would be reviewed by the Environmental Management Department for the
appropriate spill protection elements. After appropriate details are addressed
6

satisfactorily, Training, Education and Operations would return their concurrence to the
II MEF, who would then forward the approval to the requesting unit.
2.1.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed
Other military installations with coastal environments were considered for
waterborne refueling training operations. None of them currently conduct waterborne
refueling training operations. However, these other locations were dismissed for
several reasons. The units of Marines who conduct the training are stationed at Camp
Lejeune. The equipment is located at Camp Lejeune. There are established training
ranges for live fire at Camp Lejeune for which the waterborne refueling training
operations support as part of the overall training. Using another military installation to
conduct waterborne refueling training operations is not feasible when considering the
time required, coordination effort, and cost of transporting and housing troops and
equipment.
2.2 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The No Action Alternative does not meet the project purpose or need. The No
Action Alternative has the potential to impact the following resources due to the
possibility of a fuel spill from refueling operations: surface water and water quality, air
quality, submerged aquatic vegetation, fish and shellfish, wildlife, coastal zone, and
recreational and commercial fishing.
The Proposed Action does meet the project purpose and need. The Proposed
Action Alternative has the potential to impact the following resources due to the
possibility of a fuel spill from refueling operations: surface water and water quality, air
quality, submerged aquatic vegetation, fish and shellfish, wildlife, coastal zone, and
recreational and commercial fishing. The Proposed Action could also impact
commercial and recreational boat traffic on the New River.
The Proposed Action is the preferred alternative. The ability to refuel riverine
craft away from the main operating base greatly enhances the flexibility, capability, and
survivability of II MEF conventional riverine operations, all essential elements to the
successful accomplishment of their mission.
CHAPTER 3.0 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This section describes the environment of the area which would be affected by
the waterborne refueling training operations.
3.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
3.1.1 Surface Water and Water Quality
The New River is a "blackwater" river located within the White Oak River Basin
of the Coastal Plain. This watershed is entirely contained within Onslow County. The
upper reaches of the New River and its tributary streams are generally surrounded by
gum-cypress swamps, while the lower reaches are affected by tides. Most of the tidal
portion of the New River is contained within the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base. As
an estuarine environment, interacting with both the marine environment along the shore
and the network of non-tidal streams throughout the Base, the New River watershed
contains a wide variety of aquatic habitats for wildlife (Marine Corps Base, Camp
Lejeune, 1994).
The lower fifteen miles of the New River bisect Camp Lejeune. The width of this
portion of New River is highly variable, ranging from two hundred yards to two miles.
The depth of the New River is highly variable and tidal, ranging from two feet to twelve
feet or more at New River Inlet. The New River receives stormwater runoff from both
civilian and military roads,and facilities. Additionally, it receives the treated effluent
from wastewater treatment plants.
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources assigns
water quality classifications for all surface waters in the state. The New River waters
are classified by Title 15 of the North Carolina Administrative Code as %%, and SC. , .
Waters which are SA are those which_,produce marketable shellfish. Waters which are°` w -;
SC are suitable for fin fishing, but not for primary recreation or shell fishing Much of , ,
the New River shorelines have areas of wetland ecosystems classified as either t.
freshwater or saltwater marsh, depending on average salinity of the nearby waters.
Most streams that feed into the New River, including French Creek; "are classified as
High Quality Waters because they serve as nurseryareas for commercially,harvestable ,
fin fish.
Camp Lejeune's Environmental Management Department collects water quality h N
data at thirteen sampling stations on the New River and compiles the data in an annual
report. The data is collected to comply with the Stream Sampling Requirements of the
Special Order by Consent, North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
Water Quality Number 92-06. The sampling period is from April through October of
each year starting with 1992 and scheduled to end in 1999. Following expiration of the
Special Order by Consent, New River water quality data will be collected in accordance
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit N00063029.
The sampling stations are at the following locations: Wilson Bay, New River near
Paradise Point, New River near Hadnot Point, Farnell Bay (3 stations), Spring Point (3
stations), Grey Point (3 stations) and New River near Hines Point. The sampling
frequency is weekly for the environmental data parameters: dissolved oxygen, salinity,
8
conductivity, pH, temperature, tide, wind direction and secchi depth. The sampling
frequency is twice per month for total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia,
nitrate-nitrite, chlorophyll-a and phytoplankton (Marine Corps Base, 1995 & 1996).
The Environmental Management Department notifies the state when abnormal
readings are collected for pH, chlorophyll-a, or surface dissolved oxygen. An abnormal
reading for pH would be less than 5 units or greater than 8 units. An abnormal reading
for chlorophyll-a is greater than 30 parts per billion. Surface water dissolved oxygen
readings below 3 mg per liter (mg/L) or greater than 9 mg/L are considered abnormal.
Abnormal readings can be attributed to changes in temperature, tides, weather related
events or wastewater treatment plant discharges (Personal Communication, Pat Raper,
Camp Lejeune Environmental Management Department).
3.1.2 Air Quality
The ambient concentrations of pollutants in Onslow County are well below
national standards for the following: total suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide,
carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen oxides, and lead. Therefore, Camp Lejeune and the
New River area are in attainment with the Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for all criteria pollutants.
3.1.3 Hazardous Substances
Waterborne refueling training operations would involve the storage and transport
of both commercial grade unleaded gasoline and diesel grade fuel. The maximum
amount of fuel on a floating platform would be approximately 2700 gallons of fuel
during any one training scenario.
The Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into any navigable
surface waters from any point source including, but not limited to, stormwater drainage
systems, aircraft and vehicle wash racks, industrial facilities, sewage treatment facilities
and vessel operations on the water. The Clean Water Act contains specific provisions
that require the immediate reporting and cleanup of oil and hazardous substance spills.
Requirements of the Clean Water Act have been codified by the North Carolina Oil
Pollution and Hazardous Substance Control Act, which makes the discharge of oil and
other hazardous substance into the lands and into the waters of the State an illegal
action.
3.1.4 Cultural Resources
Research done for the Camp Lejeune Wastewater Treatment System Upgrade
Environmental Impact Study indicated two shipwrecks charted in the New River (Marine
Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, 1994). The New River has the potential for additional, yet
unknown, underwater archeological resources because of its active maritime history.
3.2 NATURAL RESOURCES
3.2.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Recent studies have identified the importance of submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) to the overall health of river and estuarine ecosystems. The SAV may provide
shelter, cover and food to a variety of aquatic life, including insects, invertebrates,
mollusks, fish, birds and sea mammals. The SAV is also responsible for the
development of a significant portion of the dissolved oxygen required by these water
ecosystems. Root systems of SAV provide a large amount of cleansing action to
waters having a high nutrient load.
The SAV usually occurs in fairly shallow waters, mostly 3 to 4 feet deep relative
mean low water (Personal Communication, Randy Ferguson, National Marine
Fisheries). They generally grow within 50 feet of the shoreline or near high terrain
features along the river bottom. One SAV, the species Zostera, commonly known as
eelgrass, has been seen in Traps Bay in the New River (Personal communication, Fritz
Rhode, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries).
3.2.2 Fish and Shellfish
Many fish species are dependent upon the estuarine environment of the New
River for such critical functions as spawning, feeding, migration and growth (Lucas et
al, 1996). Finfish most commonly present in the New River include: Croaker
(Micropogonias undulatus), gray trout (Cynoscion regalis), striped mullet (Mugil
cephalus), southern. kingfish (Menticirrhus americanus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus),
summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), and Virginia mullet (Menticirrhus littoralis).
Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) is one fish species that uses the New River as
a nursery area.
Shellfish commonly found in the New River include: blue crab (Callinectes
sapidus), eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica), hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria),
and shrimp (Paneaeus spp.). There are several Oyster Management Areas in the New
River (Figure 2).
3.2.3 Wildlife
Wildlife associated with the New River include: wood duck (Aix sponsa),
American osprey (Pandion haliaetus), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), piping
plover (Charadrius melodus), Wilson's plover (Charadrius wilsonia), Double-crested
cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), coot (Fulica americans), pied-billed grebe
(Podilymbus podiceps), horned grebe (Podiceps auritus), red-breasted merganser
(Merges serrtor), hooded. merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus), ring-necked duck
(Aythya affinis), and greater scaup (Aythya marila).
3.2.4 Protected Species
Threatened and endangered species are managed by the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, as required by Section Seven of the Endangered Species Act.
Endangered species of Marine Mammals are protected by the Marine Mammals
Protection Act and are managed by the U.S. Department- of Fisheries. The American
10
Alligator, which is classified as Threatened due to similarity of appearance to the
American Crocodile, is a permanent resident of the coastal marshes, brackish creeks,
and open water of the New River and its tributary system, including the Atlantic
Intracoastal waterway. Population levels are deemed stable. Preferred habitat for the
alligator is in water with a good ratio of open to dissected water courses. Areas with
heavy to moderate vegetative cover including cordgrass, and rushes"as found within
the coastal marshes and tidal creeks along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and
within the New River are considered prime habitat. Alligators are known to traverse the
New River at its widest expanse. While protected species of marine mammals occur in
the nearby Atlantic Ocean, none are known to occur within the confines of the New
River.
3.2.5 Coastal Zone
The New River is in the coastal zone. Federal activities that affect any water
use or natural resource of the coastal zone must be carried out in a manner which is
consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of
approved State management programs.
3.3 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
3.3.1 Transportation and Navigation
Boating on the New River can be divided into three user type categories:
commercial fishing vessels, pleasure vessels and military vessels. All river traffic is
controlled by the United States Coast Guard. Surface Water Restricted Areas (SWRA)
or Surface Water Prohibited Areas (SWPA) are established which restricts civilian
access to an area when military training creates dangerous situations. The
establishment of permanent SWRA and SWPA's are identified on nautical charts in
order to provides notice to mariners.
A Notice to Mariners is published via the Coast Guard when an area will be
temporarily used for military operations. Although this notice is published there are no
restrictions placed on use of these areas by the public during military boat operations.
3.3.2 Commercial Use
The New River is used for commercial fishing and boating. Commercial fishing
and boating are an important part of North Carolina's coastal economy (Lucas, et al,
1996). The water quality of the New River is important to commercial fishing and
boating.
3.3.3 Recreation Resources
The New River is used for recreational fishing and boating.
11
CHAPTER 4.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section discusses the environmental impacts of the alternatives. Direct and
indirect impacts, long-term and short-term effects, unavoidable effects, irreversible and el
irretrievable resource commitments are discussed with relation to pertinent resource
categories. Mitigative measures are documented where applicable. . .1, ell'c'
4.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
ic
4.1.1 Surface Water and Water Quality V /t
The No Action Alternative has the potential to adversely impact surface water '
and water quality because of the potential for a petroleum spill from a land based fuel
source when refueling a riverine craft. Standard operating procedures for refueling
riverme craft are followed to p re
res Dose rotes ent the possibility of a spill. ` 1f ac-spilt =occurs the
ri ri craft
pp p p p ' evn, and ° cleanup Protocols will e imlerrnfed ?
immediately to 'minimize'the mpact to., water quality.
The Proposed Action Alternative has the potential to adversely impact surface n
water and water quality because of the potential for a petroleum spill from a leaking fuel ?
container on a floating platform or a spill during a refueling procedure from a floating
platform to riverine craft. Because of the containment systems which would be in place,
it is less likely for a release to occur from a leaking fuel container.
The fate of a petroleum spill is determined by the following processes:
spreading, evaporation, emulsification, dispersion, dissolution, and sedimentation.
How rapidly a petroleum spill spreads is dependent on viscosity, pour point, and the
ambient air temperature. Evaporation processes begin immediately after a petroleum
spill and is controlled by the composition of the fuel, slick thickness, ambient air
temperature and solar radiation, windspeed, and wave height. Emulsification is the
process of water being incorporated into oil. Water turbulence causes the dispersion of
petroleum spills, the physical transport of oil droplets into the water column. Individual
compounds of the petroleum product can be lost to water through dissolution. '
Sedimentation occurs, in areas with high sediment loads in the water, when petroleum /
from a spill can be adsorbed to suspended sediments and then deposited at the bottom
of the water body. These processes are influenced by the physicochemical properties
of the spilled material, spill characteristics, and environmental conditions of the spill
area (Irwin et al. 1997).
Gasoline is categorized as a light hydrocarbon petroleum product and is highly
volatile and soluble in water. Given these properties gasoline is ranked as least
persistent in aquatic environments as compared with other petroleum products.
Gasoline evaporates quickly and often completely within one to two days after a spill.
Diesel fuel is categorized as a light, middle distillate and is moderately volatile and
soluble in Water. Up to two-thirds of a diesel spill amount could disappear from surface
waters after a few days (Irwin et al. 1997).
Temperature, wind speed, solar radiation, wave action, and biodegradation,
coupled with evaporation, speed up the break down process of gasoline and diesel fuel
12
on surface waters. A study of gentle aeration of the oil-in-water dispersion resulted in a
loss of total aqueous hydrocarbons of 80 to 90 percent in 24 hours (Irwin et al. 1997).
Standard operating procedures for refueling riverine craft (Appendix B) would be
followed to prevent the possibility of a spill -'If' a-spin uvere to occur, the appropriate
response, protection,., and. cleanup: protocols<-would be rmmlad'iately implemented to
minimize the impact,.to water-quality.
t -
4.1.2 Air Quality
There would be a release of volatile organic compounds when refueling riverine
craft for both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative. Any
emissions from refueling riverine craft would be the same whether refueling from a
land-based fuel source or from a waterborne refueling platform. Between the
alternatives, there is not a net increase in air emissions.
Because Camp Lejeune is in an attainment area and due to the nature of the
release, these releases of volatile oraanic compounds are exempt from rea?,?atnr? IimitG
and from inven.__ tory=r?.ttl sir. mr,ts. Neither the No Action Alternative nor the Proposed
Action A ternative is expected to have adverse impacts to air quality.
4.1.3 Hazardous Substances
There is a potential to spill unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel into the New River
tinn nit
wnnti
ed r
AI
na?i a
ti' o
d th
P
f
b
th th
No A
T
id
d ?1 t
l
1''
:
_
ve.
er
n
an
e
ropos
or
o
e
c
o avo
an ,
,
minimize this possibility for a petroleum spill, there is a Spill Prevention, Control, and jV
Countermeasures Plan (SPCC Plan). This plan addresses petroleum, oils, and y
lubricants (POL) management activities for all commands at the Base. The SPPC Plan
provides planning and contingency requirements necessary to prevent the discharge of
POLs into the navigable waters of the United States. The SPPC plan is currently used
for the refueling of riverine craft from land, the No Action Alternative, and would be
followed for the Proposed Action, waterborne refueling training operations.
Units participating in waterborne refueling training operations would be required
to, have a Spill Response K'it onboard.. each vessel and -ifloating platform. The,
Spill
Response Kit "includes- absorbent fhaterials to contain the spill and would be used for
immediate resolution of any release of fuels. Each' vessel commander would have a
complete spill contingency plan developed and posted which provides a plan of action
in the event of a spill.
All craft being refueled would be enclosed in a contain nt flna+inn boom LZd°?J
system which would contain any fuel which might be released during refueling. j
Refueling operations would be conducted only by trained and certified members of the ho?
Oil
Bulk Fuel Company. All vessel operators would be trained in the safe approach of the i
floating platform prior to any refueling activities.
The. Marine Corps Environmental Compliance and- Protection Manual (MCO C_
P5090.2) addresses the requirement to comply with environmental laws and .
regulations. It identifies the mechanism of achieving compliance by holding all
Commanding Officers accountable for spill notification. It ensures trained personnel
are available to respond and have appropriate equipment readily available.
In order to carry out the requirements in MCO P5090.2, the Commanding
General of Camp Lejeune has created Base Order 11090.113, Oil Pollution
Prevention/Abatement and Oil/Hazardous Substances Spill Contingency Plan, which
addresses the existing oil and hazardous material related pollution abatement and
prevention procedures for Camp Lejeune units, tenant commands, visiting units and the
Marine Corps Air Station. The order assigns the responsibility of preventing oil and
hazardous-material spills to all Commanding Officers, and department heads. It
provides the requirements and mechanism to identify, provide notification of spills and
assigns responsibilities for spill cleanup. It establishes the requirement to notify the
Camp Lejeune Fire Department by activating the 911 emergency response number. It
specifically identifies the On Scene Commander as being the Base Fire Chief or his
senior representative. It requires the On Scene Commander to provide initial response
and other assistance with any spill of oil or other hazardous material: Base Order
11090.113 stresses the requirement to report all oil spills discharging into the inland or
coastal waters to the U. S. Coast Guard and to other Environmental Regulatory
agencies as applicable.
Along with the SPPC Plan, Camp Lejeune has created a Federal Response Plan
for Oil/Hazardous Substances, which provides the emergency response plans, duties,
available equipment list and location for response to oils/hazardous substance spills
which exceed the normal response actions and capacity of the SPPC Plan or Base
Order 11090.1 B.
Emergency Response Teams are on 24 hour duty status and maintain response
equipment and boats for waterborne emergencies or releases. There are currently 12
such teams available and are listed as follows:
• Marine Corps Air Station, New River Fire Department
• Marine Corps Air Station, New River Crash Crew
• MWSS 272 Spill Response
• Camp Geiger Fire Department
• Hadnot Point Fire Department
• Midway Park Fire Department
• Base Industrial Area Fire Department
• Paradise Point Fire Department
• Courthouse Bay Fire Department
• Camp Johnson Fire Department
• Weapons Training Battalion (Rifle Range) Fire Department
• Greater Sandy Run Fire Department
In addition to the Emergency Response Teams, Camp Lejeune has created an
emergency call back procedure for Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill related
emergencies. Any or all of the following groups or individuals can be available to
assist in an emergency spill containment and cleanup procedure:
• Spill Response Team, Camp Lejeune Environmental Management Department
• Supervisory Chemist, Camp Lejeune Environmental Management Department
• Motor Vehicle Operators, Camp Lejeune Environmental Management
Department
14
• Director, Environmental Compliance Division, Camp Lejeune, Environmental
Management Department
• Deputy, Assistant Chief of Staff, Camp Lejeune Environmental Management
Department
In the event that the contained spill is too large to be cleaned up by local
personnel, the Marine Corps and the U.S. Coast Guard have signed a series of Basic
Ordering Agreements, which provide a mechanism for Camp Lejeune to activate and
utilize the services of 124 organizations which offer specialized oil and hazardous
substance response capabilities.
The Range Safety Officer assigned to the each waterborne refueling training
event will have in their possession a Sequence of Events for oil/hazardous substance
spill notification/response card which outlines the following procedures to be
implemented in the event a spill has occurred:
1. Spill has been identified - Call 911.
2. Unit personnel contain spreading POL/Hazardous substance.
3. Base Fire Department establishes the Incident Command Post, assumes the
position of On Scene Commander.
4. On Scene Commander assesses release and identifies additional resources
and personnel needed to contain and cleanup the release.
5. On Scene Commander activates SPCC Plan or FRP, as applicable.
Personnel, equipment, and support are provided contingent upon the level of
response needed. `
6. Position of On Scene Commander, Camp Lejeune On Scene Commander and
Coordinator will shift as various levels of response increase.
The plans and orders discussed in this section are available for review at Marine
Corps Base, Camp Lejeune. The Point of Contact listed on the title page may be
contacted for assistance.
4.1.4 Cultural Resources
Neither the No Action Alternative nor the Proposed Action Alternative involve
bottom disturbing activities such as new dredging, bulkheading, jetty or moorhead
construction, or subaqueous pipeline installation. Because the bottom of the New River
will not be disturbed, no impacts are anticipated for any known or undiscovered
archaeological resources from either alternative.
4.2 NATURAL RESOURCES NQ?
4.2.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation ,// ?R? W a
Both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative have`?he
potential to impact submerged aquatic vegetation due to the possibility of a fuel spill
from refueling operations. The No Action Alternative of refueling from a land based fuel ?fl
- - source would be more likely to- impact submerged aquatic vegetation since the
15
t1d
refueling takes place closer to waters 3 to 4 feet deep (relative mean low water). Fuel
spills on the shoreline are more difficult to cleanup than fuels spilled over open water.
Areas with, known''or visible submerged aquatic vegetation would be`'avoid'ed'for
impiementa'tlori of the' Propose" Action. Also, standard operating procedures for
refueling riverine craft would be" followed to prevent the possibility of a spill for both
alternatives. If a spill were to occur, the appropriate response, protection, and cleanup
protocols would be immediately 4, to minimize the impact to any submerged
aquatic vegetation.
4.2.2 Fish and Shellfish
The No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative have the
potential to impact fish and shellfish due to the possibility of a fuel spill from the
refueling operations. However, appropriate response, protection, and cleanup
protocols would be implemented immediately and are expected to mitigate for any
adverse impacts to fish or shellfish. Oyster Management Areas are clearly identified on
all =river: seetor, maps used -during waterborne refueling operations 'and would t ,e
avoidedfor, the,P.roposed"Action. n r?.
4.2.3 Wildlife
Both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative have the
potential to impact wildlife due to the possibility of a fuel spill from the refueling
operations. Standing Operating Procedures for Range Control, Base Order P3570.1,
which will control these exercises, specifically discusses the need to avoid and not
harass wildlife, including birds, fish and alligators. In addition, standard operating
procedures for refueling riverine craft would be followed to prevent the possibility of a
spill. If a spill were to occur, the appropriate response, protection, and cleanup
protocols would be immediately implemented to minimize the impact to wildlife.
4.2.4 Protected Species
Neither the No Action Alternative nor the Proposed Action Alternative are
expected to have any impacts to protected species.
4.2.5 Coastal Zone
Both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative have the
potential to impact the coastal zone due to the possibility of a fuel spill from refueling
operations. Standard operating procedures for refueling riverine craft would be
followed to prevent the possibility of a spill. If a spill were to occur, the appropriate
response, protection, and cleanup protocols would be immediately implemented to
minimize the impact to the coastal zone. The Proposed Action along with the Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan is consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable policies of North Carolina's approved coastal
management program.
4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
4.3.1 Transportation and Navigation ,
The No Action Alternative would not change the interaction between military,
commercial and recreational vessels on the New River. The Proposed Action could,
however, obstruct river traffic. In order to avoid this potential problem, waterborne
refueling training operations would be conducted in accordance with training plans,
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) regulations, and Camp Lejeune Range Control procedures.
A Notice to Mariners (NOTAMS) would be published, as well as other appropriate
warnings required by federal or state agencies.
Wakes may be produced by the Proposed Action and steps would be taken to
minimize wake action by reducing speeds when operating close to boats and crafts.
Hazards to boats would be eliminated by strict crew adherence to USCG regulations,
compliance with existing waterway traffic patterns and professional seamanship. In
accordance with navigation standards and as a safety measure, floating platforms
would be marked as refueling craft.
To ensure prompt medical attention, if necessary, at least one qualified medical
person would be available when transporting personnel or anytime two or more boats
are operated in close proximity. In addition to compliance with all applicable
regulations, crew members will receive sufficient training on the operational craft, fuel
containers and floating platforms to ensure safety features inherent in the waterborne
platforms are properly utilized and maintained.
N? AG
4.3.2 Commercial Use ,

Both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative have the 9
potential to impact commercial fishing due to a possibility of a fuels ill from the
refueling operations. However, standard operating procedures for refueling nverine
craft would be followed to prevent the possibility of a spill. If a spill were to occur, the 6
appropriate response, protection, and cleanup protocols would be immediately
implemented to minimize the impact to commercial fishing.
The Proposed Action has the potential to impact commercial boating from
obstruction of river traffic. Measures described in the next Transportation and
Navigation section would be taken to avoid impacting commercial boating.
4.3.3 Recreation Resources
The No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative have the
potential to impact recreational fishing due to the possibility of a fuel spill from the
refueling operations. However, standard operating procedures for refueling riverine
craft would be followed to prevent the possibility of a spill. If a spill were to occur, the
appropriate response, protection,- Nand cleanup protocols would be immediately
implemented to minimize the impact to fish in the New River.
The Proposed Action Alternative has the potential to impact recreational boating
from obstruction of river traffic. Measures described in the Transportation and
Navigation section would be taken to avoid impacting recreational boating.
17
4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
This section addresses cumulative impacts which could result from waterborne
refueling training operations on the New River, the Proposed Action, and other related
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions . in , the project area.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant,
actions taking place over a period of time.
Other related projects or actions include: wastewater treatment facilities,
industrial stormwater discharges, agricultural and urban non-point source pollutant
inputs from runoff (Lucas, et al, 1996). These other related projects or actions can
cause estuarine sedimentation, nutrient enrichment, chemical input, and bacterial
contamination. The cumulative impacts of these projects or actions in conjunction with
the Proposed Action are described as follows.
• Estuarine sedimentation can adversely affect aquatic habitat. The
Proposed Action does not involve any land disturbing activities and would
not cause a cumulative impact to estuarine sedimentation.
• Chemical pollutants can adversely affect aquatic organisms and
humans. The Proposed Action could result in a petroleum spill on the
New River which could have a cumulative adverse impact.
Documentation of impacts from small spills are subject to much
speculation and continued research. The volatile nature of gasoline and
diesel causes the most toxic compounds to evaporate into the
a mosp ere rather than persist in su ace wa ers. The compounds which
dissolve into the water column do so in small amounts for a short period
of time. Many ecosystems have the capacity to assimilate chronic
low-level discharges, minimizing the effects and "resulting in little
detectable environmental harm" (Irwin et al. 1997). Standard operating
procedures for refueling riverine craft would be followed to prevent the
possibility of a spill. If a spill were to occur; the appropriate response,
protection; and cleanup protocols would be immediately implemented: to y'
minimize,the imp-act to aquatic organisms. ,
• Nutrient enrichment, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus can
contribute to algae blooms and subsequent fish kills. The Proposed
Action would not add nitrogen or phosphorus to the New River and would
not cause a cumulative impact to nutrient enrichment.
• Bacterial pollutants can contaminate shellfish which could cause
persons eating them to become ill. The Proposed Action would not add
bacterial pollutants to the New River and would not cause a cumulative
impact to the bacterial contamination.
- Given the current standard operating procedures for refueling riverine craft, the
spill response protocols, and bulk fuel handling training as mitigating measures, it is not
anticipated for any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in
conjunction with the No Action Alternative or Proposed Action to have any adverse
cumulative impacts to the New River.
18
CHAPTER 5.0 - REFERENCES
Irwin, R.J., M. VanMouwerik, L. Stevens, M.D. Seese, and W. Basham. 1997.
Environmental Contaminants Encyclopedia. National Park Service, Water
Resources Division, Fort Collins, Colorado. Distributed within the Federal
Government as an Electronic Document.
Lucas, Robert V, et al. 1996. Final Report of the Moratorium Steering Committee to
the Joint Legislative Commission on Seafood and Aquaculture of the North
Carolina General Assembly.
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune. 1994. Wastewater Treatment System Upgrade
Environmental Impact Statement. Department of the Navy, Atlantic Division,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, Virginia.
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune. 1995 & 1996. New River Sampling Data.
Environmental Quality Analysis Branch, Environmental Compliance Division,
Environmental Management Department.
_ 19
CHAPTER 6.0 - LIST OF PREPARERS
Principal Preparers:
Kathleen Riek-MillerEnvironmental Assessment Specialist, Environmental Planning
Division, Environmental Management Department, Camp Lejeune
Barbara Wilson Environmental Assessment Specialist, Environmental Planning
Division, Environmental Management Department, Camp Lejeune
Interdisciplinary Team:
Tom Barbee Head, NEPA Branch, Environmental Assessment Specialist,
Environmental Planning Division, Environmental Management
Department, Camp Lejeune
Maj Johnny Borja Deputy Director, Training Resource Management Division
Training, Education, and Operations Department, Camp Lejeune
Maj Harry Davis, Jr. S-4 Officer, Headquarters Battalion, 2D Marine Division
John Hammond Endangered Species Specialist, Fish and Wildlife Division,
Environmental Management Department, Camp Lejeune
La Rae Mishler Engineering Technician, Environmental Planning Division,
Environmental Management Department, Camp Lejeune
John Riggs Head, Resource Conservation & Recovery Branch,
Environmental Management Department, Camp Lejeune
Contributors:
1 st Lt Brad Aiello Bridge Company, 8th Engineer Support Battalion, 2D Force
Service Support Group
GySgt Irving Duffy 8th Engineer Support Battalion, 2D Force Service Support Group
Capt Dustin Eaton Headquarters & Support Company, 8th Engineer Support Battalion,
2D Force Service Support Group
1 st Lt Larry Eck Bridge Company, 8th Engineer Support Battalion, 2D Force
Service Support Group
GySgt Edward Small Craft Company, Headquarters Battallion, 2D Marine Division
Elmore
Maj Rich Grant Assistant Counsel, Eastern Area Counsel Office, Camp Lejeune
Capt Jeremy Gray Executive Officer, Small Craft Company, Headquarters Battalion,
2D Marine Division
CWO-3 Frank Bulk Fuel Company, 8th Engineer Support Battalion, 2D Force
Goertz, III Service Support Group
Don Hashagen Deputy Range Control Officer, Training Support Division, Training,
Education, and Operations Department, Camp Lejeune
GySgt Hoak Hazmat, Headquarters Battalion, 2D Marine Division
Maj John Horney Range Control Officer, Training Support Division, Training,
Education, and Operations Department, Camp Lejeune
1st Lt Dan Howard Bridge Company, 8th Engineer Support Battalion, 2D Force
Service Support Group
-Maj -Scott Jack _ Director;-Public Affairs Office
20
Maj William Perez Chief Civil Law, Staff Judge Advocate, Camp Lejeune
Doug Piner Director, Environmental Planning Division, Environmental.
Management Department, Camp Lejeune
2d Lt. Cheryl Porak Headquarters & Support Company, 8th Engineer Support Battalion,
2D Force Service Support Group
Pat Raper Chemist, Environmental Compliance Division, Environmental
Management Department, Camp Lejeune
Joe Ramirez Director, Training Resource Management Division, Training,
Education, and Operations Department, Camp Lejeune
Maj Mike Richards G3, Second Marine Expeditionary Force
Capt Rick Seagrist Division Environmental Compliance Officer, 2D Marine Division
Col Michael Swords Assistant Chief of Staff, Training, Education and Operations
Department, Camp Lejeune
CHAPTER 7.0 - LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONTACTED
Ms. Tere Barrett Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Mr. Steve Benton Consistency Program Coordinator, Division of Coastal
Management, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Mr. Jerry Bittner Jacksonville City Manager
Lt. Dave Brown United States Coast Guard, Marine Safety Office, Wilmington,
North Carolina
Mr. Charles Jones Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Mr. Camron Lanier Director, Onslow County Department of Environmental Health
Mr. Tom Mattison President, New River Foundation
Lt. Jeff Novotny United States Coast Guard, Port Operations Department, Marine
Safety Office, Wilmington, North Carolina
Mr. Fritz Rhode Division of Marine Fisheries, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Mr. Melvin Shepard President, Southeastern Waterman's Association and White Oak
Watershed Advisory Committee
Mr. Wojciechowski Director, Public Trust/ Submerged Lands Unit, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
APPENDIX A
Figures

MCB Camp Le eune

Pamlico r
-- - , r-r
Carteret
Atlantic Ocean
1 -
Pmpared2 June 1998by-
KAR,EMD
451-9454
10= 0 10000 Joao 30000 Meld
Map Ptojocd= UIM(NAM GRSI M)
nv =cF XMAMCnM REPCSrlatY
Moo-CapsBmc,CuWL =m,NC
Mwwdbythe GM mice -(910)451-5M
?M7MMAPmFitId+ a& lZc II.Y
- --'>bn?r?ba?eddrtmdtior?d?ly6ertaRa?LliyFa.- -
-? rn?dssafm?uuiw?It bp?bamS..a08mvlnwda`
??OG?eYdd?adalbimddm?pidobame?d? _
FIGURE 1 - PRQJECT REGION
Marine Corps Base Camp LgeLne
PrWW 27 July 1998 by.
KAP, EMD
451-9454
IOOD 0 ,ODD MW 300D MAtm
My Ptojearom UIM(NAD83, GRS1980)
DnFXMATMGEOG APMCIlMRMAMONREPOSnMY
"-Nbirine raps Base, Ca M I4ecme, NC
Mwmpdb3 t GS Office - [phone]
NOTE TMNMP MFCRIUMORM ONLY
'?era?er??t6ea?aeddmamd'?? adnhm+selyberra?h7Ayfa
tdho I a{deumof eaia iuthx?ed<ropmbleO-rm put-p-'K -
a?"??*tY??4 sdatl?amdmm?peaTicuomdnd? - -
FIGURE 2
OysWMmagcm=A Areas
water
Um Cmd Line
/V Hydrologic Ndwo&
cwd
ab+..,wa?.rmaw?o.rrsoo?no.iL.ca?r ?.

w.Y^.
:: •.

<
?M1
•:
: `:iii -
?f::i.fi:.')i}':ii;':;:;:.v

FIGURE 3
Pfgmed5 June 1998 by:
KAl, EMD
451-9454

Prgmrod 5 hme 1998by-
KAI, EMD
451-9454
II4MGRA'IED (EOGRAMC DMRMAnON REPOSTIORY
M- Cape Brig Camp Icjame, NC
Mai a 135t QS Offm- [phone]
FIGiJRE 4
NOW
1Waoapd byUm (M woe- [phone]

FIGURE 6
Pied 30 Jum 1998 by:
KAl, EMD
451-9454

Pq3artd 30 J m 1998 .by:
KAI, EMD
451-9454

TYPICAL WATERBORNE REFUELING SETUP
Fuel Lines
Fuel ContainerE
Fuel Bladder
Six-Con
Fuel B
Boat being refueled
RAC
RRC
CRRC
BEB
ant
om
Floating. Platform - 6 Bay Ribbon Bridge, LCM, LCU
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 9
FIGURE 10
Pared 1 July 1998 by.
KAR, END i
451-9454

APPENDIX B
Waterborne Refueling Standard Operating Procedures
4. 0
BASE ORDER P3570.1 RANGE CONTROL SOP
PARAGRAPH 3002
2. All Tactical Fuel Farms, Forward Area Refueling Points (FARPS), Bulk Fuel
Farms or Waterbome Refueling Platforms must receive approval from the
Commanding General, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune. Requests for
approval will be submitted via the Assistant Chief of Staff, Environmental
Management Department to the Commanding General Marine Corps Base,
Camp Lejeune (Assistant Chief of Staff, Training, Education, and Operations).
Requests must contain procedures to fight fire and contain spills or leaks.

SOP FOR WATERBORNE REFUELING
PURPOSE: To establish in writing the procedures, precautions, preparations and considerations
for all waterborne refueling operations.
1. Refueling Procedures. There is zero tolerance of fuel spillage. Safety is paramount! Every
step to increase awareness and reduce possibilities of spills is the responsibility of all personnel.
Accordingly, all of the following steps must be adhered to and enforced in order to ensure
maximum environmental protection.
- Refueling Platform gives next awaiting craft to be refueled clearance to approach.
- Craft Commander gives the command to approach the Refueling Platform.
- Designated personnel on the craft and Refueling Platform handle their respective
mooring lines.
- The craft is secured to the floating platform adjacent to the designated refueling point.
- The craft is then completely enclosed by a floating containment boom.
- The craft engines and electronics are shut down.
- Designated fire and safety personnel on the craft and refueling platform assume
positions and retrieve fire fighting and safety equipment-
- Craft Commander confirms that the smoking lamp is out in the vicinity of refueling
point.
- Overflow catch cans or absorbent material are placed under fuel vents. (if any)
- Bulk Fuel Man takes the nozzle from the refueling stand and hands it nozzle up to the
Craft Refueler.
- Craft Refueler takes nozzle and wraps the front end with a rag.
- Craft Refueler removes rag and inserts nozzle into fuel tank intake hole.
- Craft Commander determines that craft is ready to receive fuel and notifies the pump
operator.
- The Pump Operator activates the fuel pump. This allows fuel to flow from the fuel
containers through the hose.
- The Pump Operator must stay in direct eye contact with the Craft Refueler at all times
during refueling.
- The Craft Refueler depresses the nozzle handle. This allows the fuel to flow from
the hose through the nozzle into the fuel tank.
- The Craft Refueler starts filling the fuel tank, watching for fuel foam.
- Once fuel foam is sighted, filling will cease caused by the Craft Refueler releasing the
nozzle handle.
- Once fuel foam has settled and the determination is made that the desired amount is not
yet achieved, filling will resume.
- Continue this process until fuel tank is filled to the desired amount.
- The Craft Refueler releases the nozzle handle stopping the flow of fuel into the fuel
tank--
- The Craft Refueler will signal the Pump Operator to shut off the fuel pump, stopping
the flow of fuel from the fuel containers through the hose.

rag.
- The Craft Refueler will remove nozzle from fuel intake and immediately cover it with a
- The Craft Ref ieler will hand the nozzle back to the Bulk Fuel Man.
- The Bulk Fuel Man will return the nozzle to the nozzle stand. `
- Designated crew members of both the refueling platform and the craft check for spills
or leaks within the boom area.
- Upon determining that a spill has not occurred, the craft is allowed to leave the boom
area.
2. Eme bency Response Procedures . Hazardous material poses a threat to not only the
environment but also the personnel surrounding its use. It is often not the spill that causes the
greatest threat but the ensuing complications that occur afterwards such as fires, explosions and
the spread of contamination. Obviously, it is our first concern to prevent any and all spills no
matter how small, but we must always be prepared to react quickly and properly in case of any
spill.
Reference: Base Order 11090.1B, Oil Pollution Prevention and Abatement and Oil and Other
Hazardous Substances Spill Contingency Plan.
a. In case of a spill or leak, execute the following steps:
- Immediately give alarm to all personnel in surrounding area.
- Call 911, Base Fire Department, by the fastest means available.
- On Scene Commander must be prepared to provide a SitRep to the following:
Base Fire Department
Unit HazMat Representative
Higher Headquarters
- The On Scene Commander may be required to send boats to a designated pick
up point to bring Response Teams to the spill site.
- Eliminate all ignition sources.
- Do not touch, walk through or swim in spilled fuel.
- Stop leak if you can do it without risk.
- Prevent entry/spread into waterways, sewers, basements or confined areas.
- A vapor suppressing foam may be use to reduce vapors.
- Absorb with Sorbo matting.
- Use boat hooks to collect matting and transfer to plastic bags.
- Immediately following the clean up, obtain statements from all hands to ensure
accuracy and timeliness.
b. Report contents. Any SitRep of a spill during waterborne refueling must contain the
following information:
- Location of spill.
- Type of HazMat spilled.
- Amount of HazMat spilled.
neral direction and speed-of current.
. ? r
- Containment procedures being executed.
- Personnel injured and extent of injuries (if any)
3. Safety Materials Required. The following is a list of materials required to be on scene and
easily accessible during all waterborne refueling operations:
- Containment Buoy
- Fire Extinguishers
- Fuel rags/Sorbo matting
- SOP
- Personal Protection Equipment (safety gloves and goggles)
- Boat Hook
- Plastic bags for contaminated rags and matting

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management i ^ l
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary ID H M F,11
Roger N. Schecter, Director
ti
Ar 2 2 /998
05114198.
Mr. John R. Dorney
NC DEN&NR
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
REFERENCE: CD98-14 County: Brunswick
Applicant/Sponsor: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
EA Shoreline Protection and Enhancement of Battery Island
Dear Mr. Dorney:
The attached Consistency Determination, dated 05111198
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 06103198

Consistency Coordinator
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Signed
Date
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% Recycled / 10% Post-consumer Paper
I
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
SHORELINE PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT
OF BATTERY ISLAND, IN THE CAPE FEAR RIVER
SOUTHPORT, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MAY 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM
PAGE No.
1.00 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................... 1
1.01 Introduction ............................................... 1
1.02 Need for Proposed Action .................................... 2
1.03 Proposed Action ........................................... 2
1.04 Proposed Construction Schedule ............................... 3
2.00 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ............................... 3
3.00 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ...................... 4
3.01 No-Action Alternative . ....................................... 4
3.02 Construction of a Sheet Pile Bulkhead .......................... 4
3.03 Placement of Rock Riprap .................................... 5
3.04 Placement of Unconfined Dredged Material ...................... 5
4.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .................................... 5
4.01 Water Quality .............................................. 5
4.02 Ground Water Quality ....................................... 6
4.03 Shoreline Processes ......................................... 6
4.04 Sediment Types ............................................ 7
4.05 Terrestrial Resources ....................................... 7
4.06 Threatened and Endangered. Species ........................... 9
4.07 Aquatic Resources ......................................... 10
4.08 Recreation and Aesthetic Resources .......................... 12
4.09 Primary Nursery Areas ..................................... 13
4.10 Archaeological/Historical Resources ........................... 13
4.11 Coastal Barrier Resources Act ............................... 14
4.12 Wetlands ................................................ 14
4.13 Executive Order 11988 (Flood Plain Management) ................ 14
4.14 Prime and Unique Agriculture Land ............................ 14
4.15 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Sites ............................. 14
4.16 Air Quality ............................................... 14
4.17 Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) .................. 15
4.18 Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment) ........................................... 15
4.19 Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Communities and
Low Income Populations) .................................. 15 R
4.20 North Carolina Coastal Management Program ................... 15
4.21 Other Environmental Factors ................................. 15
5.00 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT ........................... 16
5.01 Scoping ................................................. 16
5.02 Coordination of This Document ............................... 16
6.00 POINT OF CONTACT .......................................... 20
7.00 DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) ............. 20
8.00 REFERENCES ............................................... 20
TABLES
Table 1. Characteristics of Surface Sediments in the Channels ............... 7
Table 2. Number of Birds by Species Which Utilize Battery Island ............. 8
FIGURES
(Follows Page 23)
Figure 1. Site Location Map.
Figure 2. Proposed Sandbag/Geotube Bulkhead.
Figure 3. Sandbag/Geotube Placement (Plan View).
Figure 4. Sandbag/Geotube Placement. Typical Cross-Section (Northwest Beach
and Southwest Beach.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A. Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
I
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
SHORELINE PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT
OF BATTERY ISLAND, IN THE CAPE FEAR RIVER
SOUTHPORT, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MAY 1998
1.00 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.01 Introduction. Battery Island (see figure 1) is located in the Cape Fear River,
approximately 0.5 mile east of Southport and 24 miles south of Wilmington, North
Carolina. Battery Island is adjacent to the navigation channel and has less than 10
acres of upland habitat.
Battery Island is widely recognized as an avian landmark and is considered to be
the largest heronry in North Carolina. This island is a haven for birds throughout the
year, but it is most noted for the long-legged waders that occupy the island during the
spring and summer months. Each spring, thousands of wading birds (herons, egrets,
and ibises) gather on the island to nest and to raise their young. This annual rite of
spring has taken place since at least 1928, when wading birds were first reported
nesting on the island. Battery Island is the only nesting site within 100 miles (between
Bogue Sound, North Carolina, and the North Carolina/South Carolina State line) that is
capable of supporting such a large colony of wading birds. Moreover, the island
supports ten species of wading birds, four of which are state-listed as "species of
special concern." In addition, Battery Island supports over 90 percent of North
Carolina's nesting white ibises.
Battery Island is owned by the State of North Carolina and administered by the
North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation. Since 1992, the National Audubon
Society has held a long-term (50-year) lease on this site and maintains it for colonial
nesting waterbirds. Battery Island is a protected Colonial Waterbird Management Site.
The island is posted off-limits to all visitors from March 1 to September 1 and is
patrolled throughout the year. At other times of the year, activities that would
jeopardize the nesting habitat are prohibited (i.e., fires, camping, cutting or removal of
vegetation, etc.).
On January 23, 1998, the Wilmington District circulated a scoping letter for the
shoreline protection and enhancement of Battery Island. The purpose of the scoping
letter was to solicit comments from various private, local, State, and Federal agencies
on this proposal to ensure that the scope of the environmental assessment (EA) meets
the information needs of other agencies and the public, and to be sure that it includes
an assessment of impacts on all significant resources in the project area. In response
to the scoping letter, the public and review agencies expressed the following major
concerns: fishery resources and habitat, estuarine habitat, water quality, quality of the
dredge material, shallow water habitat, wetlands, and threatened and endangered
species.
1.02 Need for Proposed Action. In recent years, Battery Island's southern and
western shorelines have experienced severe erosion. It is estimated that up to 60 feet
of the southern and western shorelines of the island have been lost in the past 5 years
(since about 1993). This equates to an average rate of erosion of about 12 feet per
year. The erosion has already claimed red cedars and yaupons that once supported
nesting wading birds, and other areas are threatened. Moreover, erosion has also
claimed most of the beach where oystercatchers once nested. Stabilization of Battery
Island's shoreline is necessary to prevent the further loss of this valuable bird nesting
habitat.
With the cooperation of the National Audubon Society and the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, the
Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is planning to protect and enhance
the western and southern shorelines of Battery Island to its condition of 1993. This
project was conceived and recommended during a meeting on February 12, 1997 by
the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Work Group. Individuals from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. National Marine Fisheries, U.S. Corps of Engineers, NC Division
of Marine Fisheries, NC Division of Coastal Management, NC Division of Water
Resources, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, NC Division of Water Quality, and NC
Public Health, Pest Management are represented in this group and it is believed that
each agency represented supports this project.
1.03 Proposed Action. The proposed project consists of two items of work:
the installation of 5,400 linear feet of sandbags and/or geotubes which are 12 feet wide
and 6 feet high along the southern and western shoreline of Battery Island (see
figure 2). Approximately 11,000 cubic yards of dredged material will be used to fill the
sandbags and/or geotubes. The sandbags and/or geotubes are to be aligned along the
southern and western shorelines about 60 feet and 20 feet, respectively, waterward
from the mean sea level (see figures 3 and 4). About 24,000 cubic yards of dredged
material taken from routine maintenance dredging of the Wilmington Harbor navigation
channel will be used to backfill the 5.5-acre shallow water area landward of the
sandbags and/or geotubes.
At this time, the order of work has not been determined. However, these two work
items will be constructed within the same construction period. Before construction
takes place, the Wilmington District will coordinate this activity with both sponsors of the
project (i.e., the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Resource, and the National Audubon Society). In order to avoid the
2
bird nesting season, construction may take place from September 15 to February 28 of
any year. The National Audubon Society has asked that no vegetation be planted
between the sandbags and mean sea level, in order to provide nesting for the
oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus).
The National Audubon Society has monitored the bird population on Battery
Island. Future monitoring will involve assessment of the effectiveness and durability of
the project. The proposed protection and enhancement of Battery Island is a benefical
use of dredged material, since the overall effects of the project on the environment are
benefical it has been determined that it will not require mitigation.
Maintenance of the proposed project will be the responsibility of the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources.
1.04 Proposed Construction Schedule. Subject to the availability of funds,
project construction of the proposed work may be scheduled to be initiated by January
1999 and completed no later than January 2000.
2.00 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The following documents are incorporated by reference:
a. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 1996. Final Environmental
Impact Statement for Cape Fear - Northeast Cape Fear Rivers. Feasibility Study. New
Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina. June 1996.
b. U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Final Supplement I to the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for Wilmington Harbor Channel Widening. New
Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina. June 1996.
c. U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Draft Supplement I to the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for Wilmington Harbor Channel Widening. New
Hanover and Brunswick Counties. North Carolina. February 1996.
d. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 1996. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Cape Fear - Northeast Cape Fear Rivers. Feasibility Study. New
Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina. January 1996.
e. U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Final Interim Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement on Improvement of Navigation Wilmington Harbor
Channel Widening Wilmington North Carolina Volume I - Main Report. March 1994.
f. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. Environmental Assessment.
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Wilmington Offshore Fisheries Enhancement
3
Structure Wilmington Harbor Ocean Bar Channel Deepening Wilmington North
Carolina. May 1994.
g. U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Environmental Assessment and
Findina of No Significant Impact Wilmington Harbor Ocean Bar Channel Deepening.
Wilmington North Carolina. August 1993.
h. U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact Maintenance Dredging in Wilmington Harbor Ocean
Bar Channels by Ocean-Certified Pipeline or Bucket and Barge Dredge with Disposal
in the Wilmington Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site. August 1991.
i. U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Environmental Assessment and
Findina of No Significant Impact Excavation of Pits. Wilmington Harbor. Baldhead
Shoal Channel Brunswick County North Carolina. October 1991.
j. U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) Long Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor. North Carolina. October 1989.
k. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) Savannah GA: Charleston SC: and Wilmington NC Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Sites Designation. October 1983.
3.00 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
The following alternatives were considered:
3.01 No-Action Alternative. Failure to protect Battery Island will cause the
eventual destruction of the largest heronry in North Carolina. At current erosion rates,
the upland portion of Battery Island would be eroded away in about 40 years. The
island would lose its utility as a heronry before that time. This alternative is
unacceptable and will not be pursued. No agency supported this alternative.
3.02 Construction of a Sheet Pile Bulkhead. The construction of a sheet pile
bulkhead along the proposed alignment (i.e., 60 feet and 20 feet waterward of the
mean sea level along the southern and the western shorelines, respectively) was
considered. Because of the very shallow water near the island, an access channel
would have to be excavated to get the materials and equipment to the island. There
are a number of submerged cultural resource sites just offshore of the island and they
could be impacted by an access channel. Moreover, the type of equipment required to
install a bulkhead might also adversely impact the high ground portion of the island.
This alternative was not selected because of potential adverse impacts to submerged
cultural resources and the upland portion of the island.
4
3.03 Placement of Rock Riprap. This alternative would involve the placement of
rock riprap along the southern and western shorelines of Battery Island. Because of
the very shallow water near the island, an access channel would need to be excavated
in order to move materials and equipment to the island. Bulldozers and front-end
loaders would be required to place the rock riprap along the southern and western
shorelines. This heavy equipment would need to run back and forth along the high
ground portion of the island to pick up and place the rock riprap. Adverse impacts to
cultural resources and the high ground portion of the island were the reasons that this
alternative was not chosen.
3.04 Placement of Unconfined Dredged Material. The placement of
unconfined dredged material along the southern and western shorelines without
sandbags and/or geotubes, sheet pile bulkheading, or rock riprap would cause the
material to erode back into the adjacent navigational channel. This portion of the
navigational channel is maintained on a 2- to 3-year cycle. Given the annual erosion
rate of 12 feet per year, the unconfined material placed along the southern and western
shorelines would quickly erode away before the channel is maintained again.
Additional erosion could take place to the high ground portion of the island by removal
of rookery trees. This alternative was not chosen because the unconfined dredged
material would only be a short-term solution.
All of these alternatives could adversely impact submerged cultural resources and
the high ground portion of the island or could allow additional erosion between
maintenance events. Therefore, these alternatives have been deleted from further
consideration.
4.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
4.01 Water Quality. The State of North Carolina has placed the lower Cape Fear
River into two water classifications (North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, 1989). The Cape Fear River from a line across the river
between Snows and Federal Points to the Atlantic Ocean is "SA" (except for a segment
west of the Cape Fear River Channel that is classified "SC"). "SC" waters are suitable
for fishing, fish and wildlife propagation, secondary recreation, and other uses requiring
water of lower quality. "SA" means that in addition to the "SC" uses, the waters are
acceptable for shellfishing for market purposes and the water will meet accepted
sanitary standards of water quality for outdoor bathing. The waters west of the channel
between Snows Point and Southport are prohibited (closed) shellfish areas.
A Section 401 (P.L. 95-217) Water Quality Certificate is required for the proposed
project, since waters of the State of North Carolina will be filled. A Section 401 Water
Quality Certificate will be requested from the NC Division of Water Quality and will be
obtained prior to the start of work. An Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, 40
CFR 230 (see Attachment A) and a Section 404 Public Notice for the proposed work
will be required, since these tidal waters are subject to the Corps regulatory jurisdiction.
5
No anticipated impacts to water quality are anticipated.
4.02 Ground Water Quality. The project study area is situated in the Tidewater
region of the North Carolina Coastal Plain physiographic province. The region is
generally of low relief. Land surface elevations range from sea level to about 80 feet
above sea level. The region is characterized by a multiaquifer system of interbedded
sand, silt, and clays often overlying a fractured rock aquifer. The hydrogeologic units
between the top of the Black Creek aquifer and the water table include the surficial,
Castle Hayne, and Pee Dee aquifers and the Castle Hayne, Pee Dee, and Black Creek
confining units. The Castle Hayne and Pee Dee aquifers are semi-confined aquifers.
(Lautier, 1996) indicates that the surficial, Castle Hayne, and Pee Dee aquifers
exhibit primarily a discharge relationship to the Cape Fear River along the length of the
shipping channel as evidenced by the higher elevations of water level contours relative
to the elevations of the surface of the river. The flow trend may be interrupted locally by
streams, lakes, ponds, ground water withdrawal, and other natural and human
activities. Monitoring data along the Cape Fear River in Brunswick County indicates an
upward component of ground water flow from the Pee Dee aquifer to the Castle Hayne
aquifer. This is indicated by lower values of hydraulic head in the Castle Hayne than in
the Pee Dee aquifer. Head values along the river are generally higher in the surficial
aquifer than in the Castle Hayne aquifer, indicating downward leakage from the surficial
aquifer.
The recharge to the aquifers is primarily from precipitation, by lateral inflow from
areas adjacent to the study area, and from interaquifer leakage. Areas of highest
recharge are located in north central New Hanover County and eastern Brunswick
County.
No impacts are anticipated since no development exists within the area and
ground water wells are not located in or near Battery Island.
4.03 Shoreline Processes. The North Carolina Administrative Code
T15A:07H.0308 describes the Specific Use Standards for Ocean Shoreline Erosion
Control Activities. Section .0308 (a) (1) (B) of the Administrative Code states "Erosion
control structures which cause significant adverse impacts on the value and enjoyment
of adjacent properties or public access to and use of the ocean beach (emphasis
added by the writer) are prohibited. Such structures include, but are not limited to,
wooden bulkheads, seawalls, rock or rubble revetments, wooden, metal, concrete or
rock jetties, groins and breakwaters; concrete filled sandbags and tire structures."
Battery Island (see figure 1) is located in the Cape Fear River and is over 1 mile
from the Atlantic Ocean and Bald Head Island. The sandy, estuarine shoreline of
Battery Island is not considered oceanfront property. As indicated in Section 1.01, the
6
island is owned by the State of North Carolina and administered by the Division of
Parks and Recreation. The National Audubon Society has a long-term lease on the
island.
The proposed work will not cause adverse impacts to any adjacent ocean beaches
or Bald Head Island.
4.04 Sediment Types. The sediment types in the channels near Battery Island
are primarily sand and gravel. Table 1 lists river sediment characteristics by channel.
These sediment characteristics were determined by the South Atlantic Division
Laboratory in Marietta, Georgia, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory in Gulf Breeze, Florida. Sand is defined as grain
size between 0.07 and 5.0 mm while silt and clay measures less than 0.07 mm in
diameter.
TABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF SURFACE SEDIMENTS IN THE CHANNELS.
Channel % Gravel % Sand % Silt & Clay
Baldhead Shoal
Offshore Reaches 0.0 73.2 26.8
Inside Reaches 0.0 98.7 1.3
Smith Island 7.9 92.0 0.1
Bald head-Caswell 18.0 80.5 1.5
Southport 12.5 85.5 2.0
Battery Island 38.0 61.0 1.0
Lower Swash 27.0 70.0 3.0
Sediments found in the Battery Island area are continually subject to movement
facilitated by strong currents. Redistribution of sediment is a natural occurrence in the
lower Cape Fear River area; therefore, the removal of 35,000 cubic yards of
maintenance material from the existing ship channel is not expected to cause any
significant impacts to the adjacent areas. Sediment to be placed within and landward of
the sandbags and/or geotubes will be greater than 90 percent sand.
4.05 Terrestrial Resources. The Battery Island complex, including wetlands and
uplands areas, is approximately 100 acres in size (see figure 2). Two upland bird
nesting areas exist. The "North Colony" area, approximately 3 acres, is vegetated with
live oak (Quercus virginiana), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
and marsh elder (Iva frutescens). The "South Colony" area, approximately 7 acres, is
vegetated with red cedar, yaupon, marsh elder, Hercules' club (Xanthoxylum clava-
herculis), black cherry (Prunus serotina) and white mulberry (Morus alba). The
remainder of the island is saltmarsh dominated by cordgrass (Spartina altemiflora).
7
The "North Colony" is natural, but appears to have been modified in the past by
placement of dredged material. The "South Colony" was created by undiked deposition
of dredged material. The island has not received any dredged material in at least 25
years.
Battery Island is widely recognized as a avian landmark and is considered the
largest heronry in North Carolina (Parnell and Soots, 1979; Parnell and Shields, 1990).
Each spring thousands of wading birds - herons, egrets, and ibises - gather on the
island to nest and raise their young (see table 2). This annual rite of spring has taken
place since at least 1928, when wading birds were first reported nesting on the island
(Brimley, 1928). Battery Island is the only nesting site within 100 miles (between Bogue
Sound, North Carolina, and the North Carolina/South Carolina State line) which is
capable of supporting such a large colony of wading birds. Moreover, the island
supports ten species of wading birds, four of which are State-listed as "species of
special concern"-- little blue heron, tricolored heron, snowy egret, and glossy ibis. In
addition, Battery Island supports over 90 percent of North Carolina's nesting white
ibises.
TABLE 2. NUMBER OF BIRDS BY SPECIES WHICH UTILIZE BATTERY ISLAND.
Species 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1996 1997
Great Egret (Casmerodius albus) 271 164 121 266 221 190 239
Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) 128 101 97 201 129 349 153
Little Blue Heron (Florida caerulea) 163 40 65 52 90 69 149
Tricolored Heron (Hydranassa tricolor) 214 260 87 366 520 364 257
Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis) 111 309 137 660 62 211 97
White Ibis (Eudocimus albus) 3998 8886 5442 9690 8793 8155 8889
Glossy Ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) 10 12 3 13 6 4 0
Black-Crown Night-Heron
(Nycticorax nycticorax) 9 22 42 14 17 15 13
Yellow-Crown Night-Heron
1
(Nyctanassa violacea) 0 0 0 0 0 1
Green Heron (Butorides striatus) 3 2 0 1 1 1 0
8
It should be noted that even though the overall size of Battery Island has eroded
over the past 5 years, the number of birds using the island have increased. This
increase is due to several factors, such as Hurricane Hugo destroying habitat in South
Carolina, thereby causing some white ibis to relocate to Battery Island. Since 1992, the
National Audubon Society has optimized the nesting habitat by posting the island during
the nesting season and by curtailing activities that would jeopardize the nesting habitat
(i.e., fires, camping, cutting or removal of vegetation, etc.).
If the proposed project is constructed as stated, the upland portion of Battery
Island should be protected from further erosion and continue to function as North
Carolina's largest heronry.
4.06 Threatened and Endangered Species. An updated list of threatened or
endangered species was obtained from both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), Raleigh, North Carolina, Field Office, and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), Southeast Regional Office, on February 25, 1998. The species on this
list were considered in the development and documentation of the proposed project.
The lists provided by these agencies are indicated below:
Mammals
Eastern cougar
West Indian manatee
Blue whale
Finback whale
Humpback whale
Right whale
Sei whale
Sperm whale
(Fells concolor couguar)
(Trichechus manatus)
(Balaenoptera musculus)
(Balaenoptera physalus)
(Megaptera novaeangliae)
(Eubaleana glacialis)
(Balaenoptera borealis)
(Physeter catodon)
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Birds
Bald eagle
Piping plover
Wood stork
Peregrine falcon
Red-cockaded
woodpecker
Reptiles
American alligator
Loggerhead sea turtle
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Endangered
(Charadrius melodus) Threatened
(Mycteria americana) Endangered
(Falco peregrinus) Threatened
(Picoides borealis) Endangered
(Alligator mississippiensis) Threatened/SA*
(Caretta caretta) Threatened
(Lepidochelys kemph) Endangered
9
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) Threatened
Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Endangered
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Endangered
Fish
Shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum)
Endangered
Plants
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi)
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus)
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division
of Parks and Recreation indicated during the scoping process that the following State-
list species of special concern nest on the island: little blue heron (Egrette caerulea),
snowy egret (Egretta thula), glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), and tricolored heron
(Egretta tricolor). Rare plants present on Battery Island are the State Candidate
species dune bluecurls (Trichostema, sp.) and two Significantly Rare species cabbage
palm (Sabal palmetto) and moundlily yucca (Yucca gloriosa).
No adverse impacts to endangered or threatened or State-listed species are
anticipated, since all work will take place at or below the mean high water contour.
4.07 Aquatic Resources.
Nekton. Schwartz et al., (1981) reported the collection of 249 species of fish from
a 1973-1980 survey of the saline lower Cape Fear River watershed. The Cape Fear
estuary, including the adjacent Atlantic Ocean, is characterized by a few species which
occur very abundantly and others which occur only incidentally (CP&L, 1980). EA
Engineering (1991) has provided an excellent fisheries literature review for the Cape
Fear River basin.
The nekton of the Cape Fear River estuary are dominated by species residing in
the estuary as larvae or juveniles, using the estuary as nursery or feeding habitat, but
spawning offshore in the Atlantic Ocean (Birkhead et al., 1979). Abundant species in
the "nursery use" category include Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), Atlantic
croaker (Micropogon), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), star drum (Stellifer lanceolatus),
penaeid shrimp, mullet (Mugi1 spp.), and weakfish (Cynoscion regalis). Species that are
estuarine endemics or permanent residents are also abundant, namely, bay anchovies
(Anchoa mitchilli), killifishes (Fundulus spp.), and silversides (Menidia spp.) (Weinstein,
1979). Anadromous species such as blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), American
10
shad (Alosa sapidissima), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser
oxyrhynchus) use the Cape Fear River estuary as a transportation route to upper river
spawning and nursery areas (Walburg and Nichols, 1967; Nichols and Louder, 1970).
The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is also present in the harbor.
Anadromous fish use is highest from mid-winter to mid-spring. The catadromous
American eel (Anguilla rostrata) is widely distributed in the Cape Fear River estuary
(Schwartz et al., 1981).
Recently, studies of the shortnose sturgeon population in the Cape Fear River
system have been conducted by Moser and Ross (1993). This work consisted of a
fishery-independent gillnet survey and sonic tracking study, conducted from May 1990
to September 1992, to establish the distribution and movement patterns of shortnose
sturgeon and other anadromous fishes in the Cape Fear River estuary. Intensive gillnet
sampling (893 days) took place within the study area, but only seven shortnose
sturgeon were captured, three of the seven were recaptured. No juvenile shortnose
sturgeon have been caught in the Cape Fear River basin, which may mean that this
species may not be spawning successfully here (Moser and Ross, 1995).
Benthos. According to Birkhead et al. (1979), benthic density in the lower Cape
Fear region was highest in the ocean nearshore organic sediment and lowest in the
sandy estuarine areas. Downstream of the Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point
(MOTSU), the dominant organisms were polychaetes, especially a spionid polychaete
(Spiophanes bombyx). Other abundant organisms were the little surf clam (Mulinia
lateralis), sea pansy (Renilla reniformis), mud snails (Ilynassa obsoleta), and brittlestars
(subclass Ophiuroidea). Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (1975) conducted a
benthic investigation at six stations ranging from near the mouth of the Cape Fear River
up to the mouth of Smith Creek in the Northeast Cape Fear River. Polychaetes
dominated the benthic fauna below MOTSU. The North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (NCDEM) performed benthic sampling at Snows Marsh in
1985. Of the 38 species collected, polychaetes, molluscs, amphipods and decapods
dominated the site (NCDEM unpublished data). Sediments ranged from coarse sand to
fine silty clays. Common species collected were the polychaetes (Leitoscoloplos
variabilis) and (Paraprionospio pinnata) and the molluscs (llyanassa obsoleta) and
(Crassostrea virginica). Shellfish beds are also present in the Cape Fear River estuary,
primarily south of Snows Cut (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1980). All significant beds
are in shallow water east of the ship channel. The dominant species are the American
oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and the clam (Mercenaria). In this area, both species are
harvested for sale and personal consumption.
11
Plankton. Carpenter (1971) studied phytoplankton populations in the Cape Fear
River estuary and nearby ocean waters. Carpenter found the diversity to be greater at
the mouth of the estuary than in either the coastal waters or the up-river areas. The
dominant phytoplankton was the diatom Skeletonema costatum. Other common
species included the diatoms Asterionella japonica and Thalassionsina nana, the
dinoflagellate Katodinium rotundatum, and the loricate flagellate Calycomonas ovalis.
Birkhead et al. (1979) indicated that diatoms were more abundant in the ocean and
flagellates more abundant in the estuary.
According to Birkhead et al. (1979), the calanoid copepods (Acartia tonsa and
Paracalanus crassirostris) and barnacle nauplii were the dominant taxa comprising
zooplankton samples in the Cape Fear River estuary and nearshore ocean waters.
Other organisms consistently present were bivalve veligers, copepod nauplii, cyclopoid
copepods, crab zoea, gastropod veligers, and polychaete larvae.
No adverse impacts to aquatic resources are anticipated, since the shallow water
habitat to be filled is not a significant shellfish area.
4.08 Recreation and Aesthetic Resources. Battery Island has served as a
mecca for amateur bird watchers, which may approach the island by boat.
Representatives from the National Audubon Society and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission conduct tours of the island for various groups during the year.
Moreover, the diversity of wading birds from Battery Island (as well as the island) has
found its way to paintings of Southport to publications about Bald Head Island.
Wilmington Harbor has a large amount of recreational boating traffic in the area
below Snows Cut and a smaller amount above there. The Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway follows the Cape Fear River channel from Fort Caswell up to Snows Cut. It
carries a large amount of transient recreational boating, as well as local recreation in
the vicinity of Southport. On calm summer days the area from Southport to the mouth
of the river near Bald Head Island is heavily used by all types of recreational boating.
The lower Cape Fear River region is very scenic, with many miles of ocean beach,
historic homes and lighthouses, and large expanses of salt marsh bordering the river.
The proposed action will be low profile and should not adversely impact views from
either the river or the Southport waterfront. No adverse impacts to recreation or
aesthetics is anticipated.
Population. North Carolina had an estimated population of 7,069,836 on July 1,
1994, an increase of 6.6 percent since 1990. The population of 6,628,637 on April 1,
1990, was an increase of 12.7 percent since the 1980 census. North Carolina is
presently growing about 1.6 percent annually, and is one of the fastest growing States
in the nation.
12
The area including New Hanover, Brunswick, and Pender Counties, had an estimated
1994 population of 228,000; an increase of 14 percent since 1990. While the State was
growing at 1.6 percent a year, the three-county area was growing at 3.3 percent per
year. Pender and Brunswick Counties have been among the fastest growing counties
in the State over the last 4 years, growing at 3.6 percent per year.
With this growth, alternate sites for the heronry are not available nor will they be in
the future. Battery Island is the only site where this resource can be managed at such
a low cost. Moreover, protection and enhancement of Battery Island will have no effect
on income or employment.
4.09 Primary Nursery Areas. The most abundant nekton species in the Cape
Fear River estuary are those species residing in the estuary as larvae or juveniles and
using the estuary as nursery or feeding habitat. The Wilmington Harbor Channel
upstream of the intersection of the Upper and Lower Lilliput reaches extends through
areas designated by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries as "primary
nursery" areas. However, 300 yards east and west of the centerline of the main
shipping channel from the intersection of the Upper and Lower Lilliput reaches to the
mouth of the Brunswick River is excluded from the primary nursery area designation.
From the mouth of the Brunswick River upstream, the maintained channel, turning
basins, and side slopes are excluded from the primary nursery area designation. The
State of North Carolina defines primary nursery areas as those areas in the estuarine
system where initial post-larval development takes place.
The shallow water areas adjacent to Battery Island have not been designated as
primary nursery areas. No impacts to primary nursery areas are anticipated.
4.10 Archaeological/Historical Resources. The Cape Fear River has a long
and active history as one of the earliest and most significant waterways in North
Carolina. Several towns, plantations, and farmsteads flourished along the river, and by
the mid-19th century there were over 140 named landings located along the 115 miles
of river between Wilmington and Fayetteville. These landings were regularly visited by
pole and steam powered barges and steamships serving farms, mills, and small
industrial and commercial centers at and between-Smithville (Southport), Navassa,
Elizabethtown, Wilmington, and earlier Colonial towns of Brunswick Town and
Livingston.
Thirty-seven historic shipwrecks are listed on the 1985 National Register of
Historic Places Registration addendum for the Wilmington Historic District prepared by
the North Carolina Division of Archives and History (Pleasants, 1977; Lawrence, 1985).
In addition, over 130 shipwrecks are known from the lower Cape Fear - Northeast Cape
Fear River vicinity.
With the proposed action, no excavation is anticipated. All fill material is to be
placed and maintained at or landward of the proposed sandbags and/or geotubes
bulkhead. No impacts to submerged cultural resources are anticipated.
13
4.11 Coastal Barrier Resources Act. Review of the "Report to Congress:
Coastal Barrier Resources System," Volume 11, dated 1988, indicates that the
proposed project will not impact any Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) units.
4.12 Wetlands. As indicated in Section 4.04, the majority of the 100-acre Battery
island is a tidal wetland vegetated with smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora).
However, along the southern and western estaurine sandy beaches of Battery Island,
no marsh exists. The area to be backfilled (landward of the sandbags and/or geotubes)
is devoid of any marsh or submerged aquatics. During construction, care will be given
that no wetlands will be adversely effected. No impacts to any vegetated wetlands are
anticipated_
4.13 Executive Order 11988 (Flood Plain Management).. No practical
alternative exists to the proposed shoreline protection of Battery Island in the flood
plain. The proposed activity must be constructed at or below the mean high water
contour. Every effort will be taken to minimize. potential harm to or within the flood
plain. The action is in compliance with State/local flood plain protection standards.
4.14 Prime and Unique Agriculture Land. According to the Soil Survey of
Brunswick County, North Carolina, dated November 1986, the soils on Battery island
consists of Newhan fine sand and Yaupon silty clay loam. Neither of these soils are
designated by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as prime or unique
agriculture lands. No impacts to prime and unique agriculture lands are anticipated.
4.15 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Sites. Battery Island has no history of use as
industrial sites or dumps. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any hazardous and toxic
waste sites would be encountered during construction or maintenance. If any
hazardous and toxic waste sites are identified during the construction of the proposed
activity, response plans and remedial actions will be the responsibility of the District.
No impacts are anticipated.
4.16 Air Quality. The project is in compliance with Section 176 (c) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended. A conformity determination is not required for the following
reasons:
a. 40 CFR 93.153 (b), For Federal actions not covered by paragraph (a) of this
section, a conformity determination is required for each pollutant where the total of
direct and indirect emissions in a nonattainment or maintenance area caused by a
Federal action would equal or exceed any of the rates in paragraphs (b) (1) or (2) of this
section." Brunswick County has been designated by the State of North Carolina as an
attainment area.
b. No Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's) or Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) would be
produced by the proposed construction; therefore, a conformity determination would not
14
be required. Construction at the project site would take approximately 1 year and all
construction equipment would be removed from the project site following construction
completion.
No adverse impacts are anticipated.
4.17 Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). The recommended plan
has been evaluated under Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. The work
will not require the placement of dredged or fill material in any vegetated wetlands of
the Cape Fear River. No impacts to wetlands are anticipated.
4.18 Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment). The recommended plan has been evaluated under Executive Order
11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment. As indicated in
Section 4.09, the recommended plan will not effect cultural resources.
4.19 Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Communities and Low Income
Populations). No impacts to either minority/low income populations or low income
communities are anticipated as a result of this activity.
4.20 North Carolina Coastal Management Program. The proposed placement
of the 5,400-foot-long, 12-foot-wide, and 6-foot-high sandbags and/or geotubes along
the southern and western shorelines of Battery Island and the backfilling of the
bulkhead with about 24,000 cubic yards of dredged material taken from routine
maintenance dredging of the Wilmington Harbor navigation channel will not cause a
significant impact to the estuarine environment. No marsh or submerged aquatic
vegetation will be filled as a result of this action. Within the estuarine system, no
primary nursery or shellfish areas will be impacted by this proposed activity. Sediment
to be placed within and landward of the sandbags and/or geotubes will be greater than
90 percent sand. Moreover, submerged cultural resources will not be impacted, since
no excavation will take place. Therefore, the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, believes that the proposed action is consistent with the approved Coastal
Management Program of the State of North Carolina.
4.21 Other Environmental Factors. The following factors will not be significantly
affected by the proposed action: noise pollution, man-made resources, community
cohesion, public facilities and services, employment, tax value, property value,
community growth, regional growth, or displacement of people, and businesses or
farms.
15
5.00 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
5.01 Scopina. On January 23, 1998, the Wilmington District circulated a scoping
letter for the proposed shoreline protection and enhancement of Battery Island. The
purpose of the scoping letter was to solicit comments from various private, local, State,
and Federal agencies on this proposal to ensure that the development of a
recommended plan considers the concerns of other agencies and the public. In
response to the scoping letter, the public and review agencies expressed the following
major concerns: fishery resources and habitats, wetlands, short- and long-term impacts
of the proposed activity, endangered/threatened species, cultural resources, and other
natural resources. All concerns were considered and have been satisfied in the
recommended plan.
Letters were received or individuals were contacted from the agencies listed
below.
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
North Carolina Department of Administration
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Division of Water Quality
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
North Carolina Coastal Federation
National Audubon Society
The Village of Bald Head Island
Cape Fear Council of Governments
Mr. Charles D. Young
Mr. Jim Better
Mr. and Mrs. John and Onie Dennis
Mr. Ken Maus
Mr. Hal Sharpe
5.02 Coordination of This Document. This EA and unsigned FONSI is to be
furnished to the following list of concerned agencies and individuals:
Federal Agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Forest Service, USDA
Federal Emergency Management Administration
16
Regional Environmental Officer
HUD, Atlanta Regional Office
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Commander, Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point
Department of Health and Human Services
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fifth Coast Guard District
Federal Highway Administration
Postmasters
Conservation Groups
National Wildlife Federation
Capitol Group, Sierra Club
Conservation Council of North Carolina.
Izaac Walton League
National Audubon Society
North Carolina Coastal Federation
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
State Conservationist, Sierra Club
Cape Fear Group Sierra Club
Cape Fear Chapter Audubon Society
District Conservationist, Brunswick County
State Agencies and Officials
State Clearinghouse
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Mr. John N. Morris
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
17
Local Agencies
North Carolina Council of Governments, Region O
Brunswick County Emergency Management
Brunswick County Manager
CAMA Officer, Town of Southport
City Manager, Southport
CAMA Officer, Oak Island
Town Manager, Town of Southport
Village of Bald Head Island
Town of Caswell Beach
Town of Yaupon Beach
Town of Long Beach
Director of Public Works, City of Wilmington
Mayor, Town of Shallotte
Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Town of Sunset Beach
Elected Officials
Honorable Jesse Helms
Honorable Dewey L. Hill
Honorable Lauch Faircloth
Honorable Mike McIntyre
Honorable E. David Redwine
Honorable R.C. Soles, Jr.
Honorable Thomas E. Wright
Brunswick County Commissioners
Interested Groups and Individuals
Dr. Vince Bellis
Dr. Anne B. McCrary
Mr. Ray P. Brandi
Dr. Orrin Pilkey
Mr. James Ferger
Shallotte Broadcasting Co.
Stateport Pilot
Mr. Jerry Walters
Mr. Peter B. Ruffin
Mr. Paul Foster
Mr. John B. Harvey
Brunswick Beacon
18
Interested Groups and Individuals (cont'd)
Wilmington Shipyard, Inc.
Unocal Chemicals
Mr. John A. Potter
Mr. J W Willis
Mr. Dwight E. Carroll
Mr. Grover A. Gore
Mr. Alex Malpass
Mr. Odell Williamson
Wilmington Industrial Development Inc.
Wilmington-Cape Fear Pilots Association
Mr. Ed Flynn
Mr. Edward M Gore Sr.
Mr. Cecil Holden
Land Management Group Inc.
Mr. John Hoskins
Ms. Brenda R. Nichols
Stevens Towing Co.
Mr. John Hooten
Mr. Timothy Winstead
Mr. Julius C. Smith III
Mr. Charles D. Young
Mr. Jim Better
Mr. and Mrs. John and Onie Dennis
Mr. Ken Maus
Libraries
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Wilson Library
Library at Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
University of North Carolina-Wilmington, Randall Library
State Library of North Carolina
East Carolina University, Joyner Library
19
6.00 POINT OF CONTACT
Any comments or questions regarding this EA/FONSI should be sent to Mr. Hugh
Heine, CESAW-TS-PE, U.S. Army Engineer District, PO Box 1890, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28402-1890. Telephone contact is [phone] or e-mail address
[e-mail].
7.00 DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
No unacceptable adverse effects on water and aquatic resources, terrestrial
resources, wetlands and flood plains, threatened and endangered species, cultural
resources, recreational resources, recreational fishing, or socio-economic resources are
expected to occur as a result of the proposed shoreline protection and enhancement of
Battery Island. Based on the EA which precedes, the recommended plan will not
significantly affect the quality of the human environment; therefore, this action will not
be the subject of an environmental impact statement.
8.00 REFERENCES
Bildstein, K. L., W. Post, P. Frederick, and J. W. Johnston. 1990. Freshwater
wetlands, rainfall, and the breeding ecology of White Ibises in coastal South
Carolina. Wilson Bulletin 102: 84-98.
Birkhead, W.A., B.J. Copeland, and R.G. Hodson. 1979. Ecological Monitoring
in the Lower Cape Fear Estuary, 1971-1976. Report 79-1 to the Carolina Power
and Light Company, Raleigh, N.C.
Brimley, H. H. 1928. The Battery Island rookery near Southport, North Carolina.
Chat 2: 41-43.
Brunswick County. 1993. Brunswick County, North Carolina, Land Use Plan.
Prepared by Glen Harbeck Associates, Wilmington, NC, for the Brunswick County
Planning Board.
Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L). 1980. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,
Cape Fear Studies: Interpretive Report. Carolina Power and Light Company,
Raleigh, N.C.
Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L). 1994. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,
Cape Fear Studies: Interpretive Report. Carolina Power and Light Company,
Raleigh, N.C.
Carpenter, E.J. 1971. Annual phytoplankton cycle of the Cape Fear River Estuary,
North Carolina. Chesapeake Science 12:95-104.
20
EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc. 1991. Lower Cape Fear Water Quality
and Fisheries Literature Review, Volume 1, Final Report. Prepared for Wilmington
Industrial Development, Inc. Wimington, North Carolina. EA Report No. 11747.
Hackney, T.H. and S.G. Brady. 1996. Evaluation of Habitat Requirements of the
Greenfield Ramshorn in Town Creek, North Carolina, and a Search for Other
Populations. Report prepared for Wilmington District Corps of Engineers by the
Department of Biological Sciences, UNC-W, Wilmington, NC.
Johnston, J. W. and K. L. Bildstein. 1990. Dietary salt as a physiological constraint in
White Ibises in an estuary. Physiological Zoology 63: 190-207.
Kushlan, J. A. 1978. Feeding ecology of wading birds. Pp. 249-296 in Wading Birds
(A. Sprunt, IV, J. C. Ogden, and S. Winckler, Eds.) National Audubon Society,
Research Report No. 7. New York.
Lautier, Jeff C. 1996. Wilmington Harbor Groundwater Study. Draft Final Report.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Resources.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1975. Aquatic Ecology Studies, Cape Fear
River Estuary, North Carolina, September 1972 to August 1973. Appendix A of
Environmental Impact Assessment of Alternatives for the Maintenance of Wilmington
Harbor, North Carolina. Report for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District.
Lawrence, Richard W. 1985. Underwater Archaeological Sites in the Wilmington
Historical District. Addendum to the National Register of Historic Places Nomination -
Inventory Form, Wilmington Historical District. Manuscript on file North Carolina
Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Moser, M. L. and S. W. Ross. 1993. Distribution and Movements of Shortnose
Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and Other Anadromous Fishes of the Lower Cape
Fear River, North Carolina. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District. May 1993. 112 pp.
Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1994. Effects of Changing Current Regime and River
Discharge on the Estuarine Phase of Anadromous Fish Migration. Offprint from
Changes in Fluxes in Estuaries.
Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1995. Habitat Use and Movements of Shortnose and
Atlantic Sturgeons in the Lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 124:225-234. 1995. American Fisheries Society.
21
Nichols, P. and E. Louder. 1970. Upstream passage of anadromous fish through
navigation locks and use of stream for spawning habitat, Cape Fear River, North
Carolina. 1962-1966. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Circ. 252.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1990a.
Division of Environmental Management. Administrative Code 15 NCAC 2B .0200 -
Classification and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North
Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1990b.
Division of Marine Fisheries. Prohibited Area Map,_ Cape Fear Area. Areas B-1,
B-2, B-3, B-4, and A-3.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
1989. Division of Environmental Management. Administrative Code 15 NCAC 2B
.0311 - Classification and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the
Cape Fear River Basin.
Parnell, J. F. and D. A. McCrimmon, Jr. 1984. 1983 supplement to atlas of colonial
waterbirds of North Carolina estuaries. UNC Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-84-07.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Parnell, J. F. and M. A. Shields. 1990. Management of North Carolina's colonial
waterbirds. UNC Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-90-03. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Parnell, J. F. and R. F. Soots, Jr. 1979. Atlas of colonial waterbirds of North Carolina
estuaries. UNC Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-78-10. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Pleasants, James A., Jr. 1977. A Brief Survey of Archival References Relating to
Known Wrecks and Shipping Channel History from Wilmington to the Ocean Bar,
1624 - 1925. Manuscript on file, North Carolina Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
Ross, S.W., F.C. Rohde, and D.G. Lindquist. 1988. Endangered, Threatened, and
Rare Fauna of North Carolina. Part Il. A Re-evaluation of the Marine and Estuarine
Fishes. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey 1988-7, 20pp.
Schwartz, F.J., W.T. Hogarth, and M.P. Weinstein. 1981. Marine and Freshwater
Fishes of the Cape Fear Estuary, North Carolina and their Distribution in Relation to
Environmental Factors. Brimleyana No. 7:17-37. July 1981.
Walburg, C.H. and P.R. Nichols. 1967. Biology and Management of the American
Shad and Status of the Fisheries, Atlantic Coast of the United States. 1960. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Spec. Sci. Rpt. Fish. No. 550 p35-38.
22
Weinstein, M.P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nurseries for fish and
shellfish, Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Fisheries Bulletin 77(2)339-357.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1980. Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology. Prepared for
Brunswick Energy Company.
23
133
V /
87
SOUTHPORT

A .K
ISLAM
Norfolk
. Durham
QRALEIGH
d
N O R T H yd
C A R O L I N A e? Coca
n _ / NOMXa6
Ocean
S.
'c
-J VICINITY MAP r-
"G
It "P
T'-'9W4 r .
Y
1 {? °o G
5
11
Battery
Island
BUZZARD
BAY
art \
Caswell \ \\
D ?1 Ov
L
II
/j BALD HEAD
SMITH
ISLAND
i
\
0
-9-0
T
1 Q
Q
Battery Island, North Carolina
Bird Habitat Preservation
1 1/2 0 1 2
SCALE IN MILES
SITE LOCATION
'Y Atlantic
?
sautliport SITE 0 SO 100
Cape 5
Poor
x:\agn\nnc\bateryis.agn
/
ao
M.OT/
«..T /
7 /
f Lpf1N!•
Vi,
1y!/- rae -
i
TS • . -
N.0?1
.1C J
d.
d.f1
d.1p /
1
d•
43 't
.23
sT4
„1
/ O.DfT - ? III - /
/ `mhw ' - - -
• .u
.is
BATTERY
ISLAND
41
dN? • -
1
O
Y.
J ,. ?:.
n
ms, .c?f4
400 200 0 400 800
SCALE IN FEET _
Bat" Island, North Carolina
Bird Habitat Preservation
SANDBAG / GEOTUBE
PLACEMENT
(PLAN VIEW)
6
J 4
U)
SANDBAG /GEOTUBE
g MHW
........................
... ..........................
.. ................:_::..

MSL
Z ------------------
--------------=a --y
o ---
--- ----
=
?j DREDGED MATERIAL
DREDGED
MLW
:
:

J
W

2 ...

. •• ........................... ...
...
. . .... . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.....
..
EXISTING GROUND
-4
-6 SECTION A-A
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION
(NORTHWEST BEACH)
8
6
J
EXISTING GROUND
4 SANDBAG / GEOTUBE
..............................MHW.
..... ....................................
Z '7 MSL
------- --------
p ------ ------------------------
?................` ................................MLW...
W -2 ................ .............................DREDGED MATERIAL
-4
SECTION B-B
_6
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION
(SOUTHWEST BEACH)
Figure 4. Sandbag / Geotube Placement
ATTACHMENT A
SHORELINE PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF BATTERY ISLAND
EVALUATION OF SECTION 404 (b) (1) GUIDELINES
40 CFR 230
An evaluation of the placement of fill material into waters and wetlands of the
United States include the standard form.
ATTACHMENT A
SHORELINE PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF BATTERY ISLAND
EVALUATION OF SECTION 404 (b) (1) GUIDELINES
40 CFR 230
Section 404 Public Notice No. CESAW-TS-PE-98-10-0009 11 May 1998
1. Review of Compliance (230.10(a)-(d)) Preliminary 1/ Final 2/
A review of the NEPA Document
indicates that:
a. The discharge represents the least
environmentally damaging practicable
alternative and if in a special aquatic
site, the activity associated with the
discharge must have direct access or
proximity to, or be located in the aquatic
ecosystem to fulfill its basic purpose
(if no, see section 2 and NEPA document); YESIXI N01_1* YESIXI N01_1
b. The activity does not:
1) violate applicable State water quality
standards or effluent standards prohibited
under Section 307 of the CWA; 2) jeopardize
the existence of federally listed endangered
or threatened species or their habitat; and
3) violate requirements of any federally
designated marine sanctuary (if no, see section
2b and check responses from resource and
water quality certifying agencies); YESIXI N01_1* YESIXI N01_1
c. The activity will not cause or contribute
to significant degradation of waters of the
U.S. including adverse effects on human
health, life stages of organisms dependent
on the aquatic ecosystem, ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability, and recreational,
aesthetic, and economic values (if no,
see section 2); YESIXI N01_1* YESIXI N01_1
d. Appropriate and practicable steps have
been taken to minimize potential adverse
impacts of the discharge on the aquatic
ecosystem (if no, see section 5).
YESIXI N01_1* YESIXI N01_I
Proceed to Section 2
*, 1, 2/ See page 6.
2. Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C-F)
a. Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C)
(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Suspended particulates/turbidity
impacts.
(3) Water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns
and water circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water
fluctuations/hydroperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity
gradients.
b. Biological Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D)
Not Signifi- Signifi-
N/A cant cant*
I I X i I
I I
I I
I X I i
I X I I
I I
I I
I X I I
I I
I I
i X I I
I I
I I
NA I I I
(1) Effect on threatened/endangered I I i I
species and their habitat. I I X I I
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web. I I X I I
(3) Effect on other wildlife (mammals, I I I I
birds, reptiles, and amphibians). I I X I I
c. Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)
(1) Sanctuaries and refuges.
(2) Wetlands.
(3) Mud flats.
(4) Vegetated shallows.
(5) Coral reefs.
(6) Riffle and pool complexes.
d. Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F)
(1) Effects on municipal and private
water supplies.
(2) Recreational and commercial
fisheries impacts.
(3) Effects on water-related recreation
(4) Aesthetic impacts.
(5) Effects on parks, national and
historical monuments, national
seashores, wilderness areas,
research sites, and similar
preserves.
NA I I I
I X I I
I X I I
NA I I I
NA I I I
NA I I I
I I
NA 1 I I
I I
I I
I I
I X I I
NA I f
NA I I I
I I
I I I I
I I
I I
I I
NA I I I
I I
i
Remarks: Where a check is placed under
the significant category, preparer add explanation below.
Proceed to section 3
*See page 6.
A-2
3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G) 3/
a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the biological
availability of possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material. (Check only
those appropriate.)
(1) Physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(2) Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated _
sources of contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 X I
(3) Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in _
the vicinity of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1_1
(4) Known, significant sources of
persistent pesticides from _
land runoff or percolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1_1
(5) Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA) _
hazardous substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
(6) Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries,
municipalities, or other _
sources . . . . . . I_I
(7) Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by
man-induced discharge activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
(8) Other sources (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I _ I
List appropriate references.
Reference: Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Si gnificant
Impact, Shoreline Protection and Enhancement of Battery Island in the Cape
Fear River, Southport, Brunswick County, North Carolina, dated April 1998.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and
not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site.
The material meets the testing exclusion criteria. YES IXI NO 1_1*
Proceed to Section 4
*, 3/, see page 6.
A-3
4. Disposal Site Determinations (230.11(f)).
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the
disposal site.
(1) Depth of water at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(2) Current velocity, direction, and _
variability at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(3) Degree of turbulence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(4) Water column stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(5) Discharge vessel speed and direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(6) Rate of discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(7) Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type _
of material, settling velocities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(8) Number of discharges per unit of _
time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(9) Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
List appropriate references.
Reference: Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant
Impact, Shoreline Protection and Enhancement of Battery Island in the Cape
Fear River, Southport, Brunswick County, North Carolina, dated April 1998.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal site _ _
and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable. YES IXI NO 1_1-
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through application of recommendations of 230.70-230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed
discharge. List actions taken YES IXI NO I_I*
For water quality see Section 4.01 of the EA.
For benthos see Section 4.07 of the EA.
For fisheries see Section 4.07 of the EA.
For threatened and endangered species see Section 4.06 of the EA.
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review. See also
note 3/, page 3.
*See page 6.
A-4
6. Factual Determinations (230.11).
A review of appropriate information as identified in
items 2-5 above indicates that there is minimal
potential for short- or long-term environmental
effects of the proposed discharge as related to:
a. Physical substrate at the disposal site
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5) . . . . . . . . . . YES Ix_I NO 1_I*
b. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5) . . . . . . . . . . . YES IXI NO I_I*
C. Suspended particulates/turbidity _
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5) . . . . . . . . . . YES IXI NO I_I*
d. Contaminant availability _
(review sections 2a, 3, and 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES IXI NO 1_1-
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function
(review sections 2b and c, 3, and 5). . . . . . . . . . YES 1X1 NO I_I*
f. Disposal site - -
(review sections 2, 4, and 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES IXI NO 1_1*
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic _
ecosyem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES 1 X I NO I _
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic _
ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES 1 X 1 NO I _ I
7. Findings.
a. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the _
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 X
b. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines with the
inclusion of the following conditions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
*See page 6.
C. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material does not comply with
the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for the
following reasons(s):
(1) There is a less damaging practicable alternative
A
A-5
(2) The proposed discharge will result in significant
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(3) The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize _
potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
8.
C. E. SHUFORD, JR. Pi.tJ - TERR R. U BLUTH -
Chief, Technical Services Division COL, EN
f Comman ng
Date: Date:
*A negative, significant, or unknown response indicates that the permit
application may not be in compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
i/ Negative responses to three or more of the compliance criteria at this stage
indicate that the proposed projects may not be evaluated using this "short form
procedure." Care should be used in assessing pertinent portions of the
technical information of items 2 a-d, before completing the final review of
compliance.
2/ Negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates
that the proposed project does not comply with the guidelines. If the economics
of navigation and anchorage of Section 404(b)(2) are to be evaluated in the
decision-making process, the "short form evaluation process is inappropriate."
3/ If the dredged or fill material cannot be excluded from individual testing,
the "short-form" evaluation process is inappropriate.

A-6
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
DRAFT
wln cIr±A11C1t"'*AAIT 111ADAto%T
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
SHORELINE PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT
OF BATTERY ISLAND, IN THE CAPE FEAR RIVER
SOUTHPORT, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
If

MAY 1998
ITEM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE No.
1.00 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................... 1
1.01 Introduction ............................................... 1
1.02 Need for Proposed Action .................................... 2
1.03 Proposed Action ........................................... 2
1.04 Proposed Construction Schedule ............................... 3
2.00 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ............................... 3
3.00 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ...................... 4
3.01 No-Action Alternative . ....................................... 4
3.02 Construction of a Sheet Pile Bulkhead .......................... 4
3.03 Placement of Rock Riprap .................................... 5
3.04 Placement of Unconfined Dredged Material ...................... 5
4.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .................................... 5
4.01 Water Quality .............................................. 5
4.02 Ground Water Quality ....................................... 6
4.03 Shoreline Processes ......................................... 6
4.04 Sediment Types ............................................ 7
4.05 Terrestrial Resources ....................................... 7
4.06 Threatened and Endangered. Species ........................... 9
4.07 Aquatic Resources ......................................... 10
4.08 Recreation and Aesthetic Resources .......................... 12
4.09 Primary Nursery Areas ..................................... 13
4.10 Archaeological/Historical Resources ........................... 13
4.11 Coastal Barrier Resources Act ............................... 14
4.12 Wetlands ................................................ 14
4.13 Executive Order 11988 (Flood Plain Management) ................ 14
4.14 Prime and Unique Agriculture Land ............................ 14
4.15 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Sites ............................. 14
4.16 Air Quality ............................................... 14
4.17 Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) .................. 15
4.18 Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment) ........................................... 15
4.19 Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Communities and

Low Income Populations) .................................. a
15
4.20 North Carolina Coastal Management Program ................... 15
4.21 Other Environmental Factors ................................. 15
5.00 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT ........................... ...-.. 16
5.01 Scoping ................................................. 16
5.02 Coordination of This Document ............................... 16
6.00 POINT OF CONTACT .......................................... 20
7.00 DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) ............. 20
8.00 REFERENCES ............................................... 20
TABLES
Table 1. Characteristics of Surface Sediments in the Channels ............... 7
Table 2. Number of Birds by Species Which Utilize Battery Island ............. 8
FIGURES
(Follows Page 23)
Figure 1. Site Location Map.
Figure 2. Proposed Sandbag/Geotube Bulkhead.
Figure 3. Sandbag/Geotube Placement (Plan View).
Figure 4. Sandbag/Geotube Placement. Typical Cross-Section (Northwest Beach
and Southwest Beach.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A. Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
SHORELINE PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT
OF BATTERY ISLAND, IN THE CAPE FEAR RIVER
SOUTHPORT, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MAY 1998
1.00 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.01 Introduction. Battery Island (see figure 1) is located in the Cape Fear River,
approximately 0.5 mile east of Southport and 24 miles south of Wilmington, North
Carolina. Battery Island is adjacent to the navigation channel and has less than 10
acres of upland habitat.
Battery Island is widely recognized as an avian landmark and is considered to be
the largest heronry in North Carolina. This island is a haven for birds throughout the
year, but it is most noted for the long-legged waders that occupy the island during the
spring and summer months. Each spring, thousands of wading birds (herons, egrets,
and ibises) gather on the island to nest and to raise their young. This annual rite of
spring has taken place since at least 1928, when wading birds were first reported
nesting on the island. Battery Island is the only nesting site within 100 miles (between
Bogue Sound, North Carolina, and the North Carolina/South Carolina State line) that is
capable of supporting such a large colony of wading birds. Moreover, the island
supports ten species of wading birds, four of which are state-listed as "species of
special concern." In addition, Battery Island supports over 90 percent of North
Carolina's nesting white ibises.
Battery Island is owned by the State of North Carolina and administered by the
North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation. Since 1992, the National Audubon
Society has held a long-term (50-year) lease on this site and maintains it for colonial
nesting waterbirds. Battery Island is a protected Colonial Waterbird Management Site.
The island is posted off-limits to all visitors from March 1 to September 1 and is
patrolled throughout the year. At other times of the year, activities that would
jeopardize the nesting habitat are prohibited (i.e., fires, camping, cutting or removal of
vegetation, etc.).
On January 23, 1998, the Wilmington District circulated a scoping letter for the
shoreline protection and enhancement of Battery Island. The purpose of the scoping
letter was to solicit comments from various private, local, State, and Federal agencies
on this proposal to ensure that the scope of the environmental assessment (EA) meets
the information needs of other agencies and the public, and to be sure that it includes
an assessment of impacts on all significant resources in the project area. In response
to the scoping letter, the public and review agencies expressed the following major
concerns: fishery resources and habitat, estuarine habitat, water quality, quality of the
dredge material, shallow water habitat, wetlands, and threatened and endangered
species.
1.02 Need for Proposed Action. In recent years, Battery Island's southern and
western shorelines have experienced severe erosion. It is estimated that up to 60 feet
of the southern and western shorelines of the island have been lost in the past 5 years
(since about 1993). This equates to an average rate of erosion of about 12 feet per
year. The erosion has already claimed red cedars and yaupons that once supported
nesting wading birds, and other areas are threatened. Moreover, erosion has also
claimed most of the beach where oystercatchers once nested. Stabilization of Battery
Island's shoreline is necessary to prevent the further loss of this valuable bird nesting
habitat.
With the cooperation of the National Audubon Society and the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, the
Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is planning to protect and enhance
the western and southern shorelines of Battery Island to its condition of 1993. This
project was conceived and recommended during a meeting on February 12, 1997 by
the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Work Group. Individuals from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. National Marine Fisheries, U.S. Corps of Engineers, NC Division
of Marine Fisheries, NC Division of Coastal Management, NC Division of Water
Resources, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, NC Division of Water Quality, and NC
Public Health, Pest Management are represented in this group and it is believed that
each agency represented supports this project.
1.03 Proposed Action. The proposed project consists of two items of work:
the installation of 5,400 linear feet of sandbags and/or geotubes which are 12 feet wide
and 6 feet high along the southern and western shoreline of Battery Island (see
figure 2). Approximately 11,000 cubic yards of dredged material will be used to fill the
sandbags and/or geotubes. The sandbags and/or geotubes are to be aligned along the
southern and western shorelines about 60 feet and 20 feet, respectively, waterward
from the mean sea level (see figures 3 and 4). About 24,000 cubic yards of dredged
material taken from routine maintenance dredging of the Wilmington Harbor navigation
channel will be used to backfill the 5.5-acre shallow water area landward of the
sandbags and/or geotubes.
At this time, the order of work has not been determined. However, these two work
items will be constructed within the same construction period. Before construction
takes place, the Wilmington District will coordinate this activity with both sponsors of the
project (i.e., the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Resource, and the National Audubon Society). In order to avoid the
2
bird nesting season, construction may take place from September 15 to February 28 of
any year. The National Audubon Society has asked that no vegetation be planted
between the sandbags and mean sea level, in order to provide nesting for the
oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus).
The National Audubon Society has monitored the bird population on Battery
Island. Future monitoring will involve assessment of the effectiveness and durability of
the project. The proposed protection and enhancement of Battery Island is a benefical
use of dredged material, since the overall effects of the project on the environment are
benefical it has been determined that it will not require mitigation.
Maintenance of the proposed project will be the responsibility of the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources.
1.04 Proposed Construction Schedule. Subject to the availability of funds,
project construction of the proposed work may be scheduled to be initiated by January
1999 and completed no later than January 2000.
2.00 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The following documents are incorporated by reference:
a. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 1996. Final Environmental
Impact Statement for Cape Fear - Northeast Cape Fear Rivers. Feasibility Study. New
Hanover and Brunswick Counties. North Carolina. June 1996.
b. U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Final Supplement I to the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for Wilmington Harbor Channel Widening. New
Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina. June 1996.
c. U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Draft Supplement I to the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for Wilmington Harbor Channel Widening. New
Hanover and Brunswick Counties. North Carolina. February 1996.
d. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 1996. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Cape Fear - Northeast Cape Fear Rivers. Feasibility Study. New
Hanover and Brunswick Counties. North Carolina. January 1996.
e. U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Final Interim Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement on Improvement of Navigation. Wilmington Harbor
Channel Widening Wilmingtton North Carolina. Volume I - Main Report. March 1994.
f. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. Environmental Assessment.
Beneficial Use of Dredoed Material Wilmington Offshore Fisheries Enhancement
3
Structure Wilmington Harbor Ocean Bar Channel Deepenina Wilmington. North
Carolina. May 1994.
g. U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact Wilmington Harbor Ocean Bar Channel Deepening.
Wilmington North Carolina. August 1993.
h. U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Sianificant Impact Maintenance Dredging in Wilmington Harbor Ocean
Bar Channels by Ocean-Certified Pipeline, or Bucket and Barge Dredge with Disposal
in the Wilmington Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site. August 1991.
i. U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact Excavation of Pits. Wilmington Harbor. Baldhead
Shoal Channel Brunswick County. North Carolina. October 1991.
j. U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor. North Carolina. October 1989.
k. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIN Savannah GA: Charleston SC: and Wilmington. NC. Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Sites Designation. October 1983.
3.00 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
The following alternatives were considered:
3.01 No-Action Alternative. Failure to protect Battery Island will cause the
eventual destruction of the largest heronry in North Carolina. At current erosion rates,
the upland portion of Battery Island would be eroded away in about 40 years. The
island would lose its utility as a heronry before that time. This alternative is
unacceptable and will not be pursued. No agency supported this alternative.
3.02 Construction of a Sheet Pile Bulkhead. The construction of a sheet pile
bulkhead along the proposed alignment (i.e., 60 feet and 20 feet waterward of the
mean sea level along the southern and the western shorelines, respectively) was
considered. Because of the very shallow water near the island, an access channel
would have to be excavated to get the materials and equipment to the island. There
are a number of submerged cultural resource sites just offshore of the island and they
could be impacted by an access channel. Moreover, the type of equipment required to
install a bulkhead might also adversely impact the high ground portion of the island.
This alternative was not selected because of potential adverse impacts to submerged
cultural resources and the upland portion of the island.
4
3.03 Placement of Rock Riprap. This alternative would involve the placement of
rock riprap along the southern and western shorelines of Battery Island. Because of
the very shallow water near the island, an access channel would need to be excavated
in order to move materials and equipment to the island. Bulldozers and front-end
loaders would be required to place the rock riprap along the southern and western
shorelines. This heavy equipment would need to run back and forth along the high
ground portion of the island to pick up and place the rock riprap. Adverse impacts to
cultural resources and the high ground portion of the island were the reasons that this
alternative was not chosen.
3.04 Placement of Unconfined Dredged Material. The placement of
unconfined dredged material along the southern and western shorelines without
sandbags and/or geotubes, sheet pile bulkheading, or rock riprap would cause the
material to erode back into the adjacent navigational channel. This portion of the
navigational channel is maintained on a 2- to 3-year cycle. Given the annual erosion
rate of 12 feet per year, the unconfined material placed along the southern and western
shorelines would quickly erode away before the channel is maintained again.
Additional erosion could take place to the high ground portion of the island by removal
of rookery trees. This alternative was not chosen because the unconfined dredged
material would only be a short-term solution.
All of these alternatives could adversely impact submerged cultural resources and
the high ground portion of the island or could allow additional erosion between
maintenance events. Therefore, these alternatives have been deleted from further
consideration.
4.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
4.01 Water Qualitx. The State of North Carolina has placed the lower Cape Fear
River into two water classifications (North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, 1989). The Cape Fear River from a line across the river
between Snows and Federal Points to the Atlantic Ocean is "SA" (except for a segment
west of the Cape Fear River Channel that is classified "SC"). "SC" waters are suitable
for fishing, fish and wildlife propagation, secondary recreation, and other uses requiring
water of lower quality. "SA" means that in addition to the "SC" uses, the waters are
acceptable for shellfishing for market purposes and the water will meet accepted
sanitary standards of water quality for outdoor bathing. The waters west of the channel
between Snows Point and Southport are prohibited (closed) shellfish areas.
A Section 401 (P.L. 95-217) Water Quality Certificate is required for the proposed
project, since waters of the State of North Carolina will be filled. A Section 401 Water
Quality Certificate will be requested from the NC Division of Water Quality and will be
obtained prior to the start of work. An Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, 40
CFR 230 (see Attachment A) and a Section 404 Public Notice for the proposed work
will be required, since these tidal waters are subject to the Corps regulatory jurisdiction.
5
No anticipated impacts to water quality are anticipated.
4.02 Ground Water Quality. The project study area is situated in the Tidewater
region of the North Carolina Coastal Plain physiographic province. The region is
generally of low relief. Land surface elevations range from sea level to about 80 feet
above sea level. The region is characterized by a multiaquifer system of interbedded
sand, silt, and clays often overlying a fractured rock aquifer. The hydrogeologic units
between the top of the Black Creek aquifer and the water table include the surficial,
Castle Hayne, and Pee Dee aquifers and the Castle Hayne, Pee Dee, and Black Creek
confining units. The Castle-Hayne andPee Dee aquifers are semi-confined aquifers.
(Lautier, 1996) indicates that the surficial, Castle Hayne, and Pee Dee aquifers
exhibit primarily a discharge relationship to the Cape Fear River along the length of the
shipping channel as evidenced by the higher elevations of water level contours relative
to the elevations of the surface of the river. The flow trend may be interrupted locally by
streams, lakes, ponds, ground water withdrawal, and other natural and human
activities. Monitoring data along the Cape Fear River in Brunswick County indicates an
upward component of ground water flow from the Pee Dee aquifer to the Castle Hayne
aquifer. This is indicated by lower values of hydraulic head in the Castle Hayne than in
the Pee Dee aquifer. Head values along the river are generally higher in the surficial
aquifer than in the Castle Hayne aquifer, indicating downward leakage from the surficial
aquifer.
The recharge to the aquifers is primarily from precipitation, by lateral inflow from
areas adjacent to the study area, and from interaquifer leakage. Areas of highest
recharge are located in north central New Hanover County and eastern Brunswick
County.
No impacts are anticipated since no development exists within the area and
ground water wells are not located in or near Battery Island.
4.03 Shoreline Processes. The North Carolina Administrative Code
T15A:07H.0308 describes the Specific Use Standards for Ocean Shoreline Erosion
Control Activities. Section .0308 (a) (1) (B) of the Administrative Code states "Erosion
control structures which cause significant adverse impacts on the value and enjoyment
of adjacent properties or public access to and use of the ocean beach (emphasis
added by the writer) are prohibited. Such structures include, but are not limited to,
wooden bulkheads, seawalls, rock or rubble revetments, wooden, metal, concrete or
rock jetties, groins and breakwaters; concrete filled sandbags and tire structures."
Battery Island (see figure 1) is located in the Cape Fear River and is over 1 mile
from the Atlantic Ocean and Bald Head Island. The sandy, estuarine shoreline of
Battery Island is not considered oceanfront property. As indicated in Section 1.01, the
6
island is owned by the State of North Carolina and administered by the Division of
Parks and Recreation. The National Audubon Society has a long-term lease on the
island.
The proposed work will not cause adverse impacts to any adjacent ocean beaches
or Bald Head Island.
4.04 Sediment Types. The sediment types in the channels near Battery Island
are primarily sand and gravel. Table 1 lists river sediment characteristics by channel.
These sediment characteristics were determined by the South Atlantic Division
Laboratory in Marietta, Georgia, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory in Gulf Breeze, Florida. Sand is defined as grain
size between 0.07 and 5.0 mm while silt and clay measures less than 0.07 mm in
diameter.
TABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF SURFACE SEDIMENTS IN THE CHANNELS.
Channel % Gravel % Sand % Silt & Clax
Baldhead Shoal
Offshore Reaches 0.0 73.2 26.8
Inside Reaches 0.0 98.7 1.3
Smith Island 7.9 92.0 0.1
Bald head-Caswell 18.0 80.5 1.5
Southport 12.5 85.5 2.0
Battery Island 38.0 61.0 1.0
Lower Swash 27.0 70.0 3.0
Sediments found in the Battery Island area are continually subject to movement
facilitated by strong currents. Redistribution of sediment is a natural occurrence in the
lower Cape Fear River area; therefore, the removal of 35,000 cubic yards of
maintenance material from the existing ship channel is not expected to cause any
significant impacts to the adjacent areas. Sediment to be placed within and landward of
the sandbags and/or geotubes will be greater than 90 percent sand.
4.05 Terrestrial Resources. The Battery Island complex, including wetlands and
uplands areas, is approximately 100 acres in size (see figure 2). Two upland bird
nesting areas exist. The "North Colony" area, approximately 3 acres, is vegetated with
live oak (Quercus virginiana), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
and marsh elder (Iva frutescens). The South Colony area, approximately 7 acres, is
vegetated with red cedar, yaupon, marsh elder, Hercules' club (Xanthoxylum clava-
herculis), black cherry (Prunus serotina) and white mulberry (Morus alba). The
remainder of the island is saltmarsh dominated by cordgrass (Spartina altemiflora).
7
The "North Colony" is natural, but appears to have been modified in the past by
placement of dredged material. The "South Colony" was created by undiked deposition
of dredged material. The island has not received any dredged material in at least 25
years.
Battery Island is widely recognized as a avian landmark and is considered the
largest heronry in North Carolina (Parnell and Soots, 1979; Parnell and Shields, 1990).
Each spring thousands of wading birds - herons, egrets, and ibises - gather on the
island to nest and raise their young (see table 2). This annual rite of spring has taken
place since at least 1928, when wading birds were first reported nesting on the island__
(Brimley, 1928). Battery Island is the only nesting site within 100 miles (between Bogue
Sound, North Carolina, and the North Carolina/South Carolina State line) which is
capable of supporting such a large colony of wading birds. Moreover, the island
supports ten species of wading birds, four of which are State-listed as "species of
special concern"-- little blue heron, tricolored heron, snowy egret, and glossy ibis. In
addition, Battery Island supports over 90 percent of North Carolina's nesting white
ibises.
TABLE 2. NUMBER OF BIRDS BY SPECIES WHICH UTILIZE BATTERY ISLAND.
Species 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1996 1997
Great Egret (Casmerodius albus) 271 164 121 266 221 190 239
Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) 128 101 97 201 129 349 153
Little Blue Heron (Florida caerulea) 163 40 65 52 90 69 149
Tricolored Heron (Hydranassa tricolor) 214 260 87 366 520 364 257
Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis) 111 309 137 660 62 211 97
White Ibis (Eudocimus albus) 3998 8886 5442 9690 8793 8155 8889
Glossy Ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) 10 12 3 13 6 4 0
Black-Crown Night-Heron
(Nycticorax nycticorax) 9 22 42 14 17 15 13
Yellow-Crown Night-Heron
(Nyctanassa violacea) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Green Heron (Butorides striatus) 3 2 0 1 1 1 0

8
It should be noted that even though the overall size of Battery Island has eroded
over the past 5 years, the number of birds using the island have increased. This
increase is due to several factors, such as Hurricane Hugo destroying habitat in South
Carolina, thereby causing some white ibis to relocate to Battery Island. Since 1992, the
National Audubon Society has optimized the nesting habitat by posting the island during
the nesting season and by curtailing activities that would jeopardize the nesting habitat
(i.e., fires, camping, cutting or removal of vegetation, etc.).
If the proposed project is constructed as stated, the upland portion of Battery
Island should be protected from further erosion and continue to function as North
Carolina's largest heronry.
4.06 Threatened and Endangered Species. An updated list of threatened or
endangered species was obtained from both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), Raleigh, North Carolina, Field Office, and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), Southeast Regional Office, on February 25, 1998. The species on this
list were considered in the development and documentation of the proposed project.
The lists provided by these agencies are indicated below:
Mammals
Eastern cougar
West Indian manatee
Blue whale
Finback whale
Humpback whale
Right whale
Sei whale
Sperm whale
(Felis concolor couguar)
(Trichechus manatus)
(Balaenoptera musculus)
(Balaenoptera physalus)
(Megaptera novaeangliae)
(Eubaleana glacialis)
(Balaenoptera borealis)
(Physeter catodon)
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Birds
Bald eagle
Piping plover
Wood stork
Peregrine falcon
Red-cockaded
woodpecker
Reptiles
American alligator
Loggerhead sea turtle
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Endangered
(Charadrius melodus) Threatened
(Mycteria americana) Endangered
(Falco peregrinus) Threatened
(Picoides borealis) Endangered
(Alligator mississippiensis) Threatened/SA*
(Caretta caretta) Threatened
(Lepidochelys kempii) Endangered
9
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) Threatened
Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Endangered
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Endangered
Fish
Shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum)
Endangered
Plants
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi)
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus)
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division
of Parks and Recreation indicated during the scoping process that the following State-
list species of special concern nest on the island: little blue heron (Egrette caerulea),
snowy egret (Egretta thula), glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), and tricolored heron
(Egretta tricolor). Rare plants present on Battery Island are the State Candidate
species dune bluecurls (Trichostema, sp.) and two Significantly Rare species cabbage
palm (Sabal palmetto) and moundlily yucca (Yucca gloriosa).
No adverse impacts to endangered or threatened or State-listed species are
anticipated, since all work will take place at or below the mean high water contour.
4.07 Aquatic Resources.
Nekton. Schwartz et al., (1981) reported the collection of 249 species of fish from
a 1973-1980 survey of the saline lower Cape Fear River watershed. The Cape Fear
estuary, including the adjacent Atlantic Ocean, is characterized by a few species which
occur very abundantly and others which occur only incidentally (CP&L, 1980). EA
Engineering (1991) has provided an excellent fisheries literature review for the Cape
Fear River basin.
The nekton of the Cape Fear River estuary are dominated by species residing in
the estuary as larvae or juveniles, using the estuary as nursery or feeding habitat, but
spawning offshore in the Atlantic Ocean (Birkhead et al., 1979). Abundant species in
the "nursery use" category include Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), Atlantic
croaker (Micropogon), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), star drum (Stellifer lanceolatus),
penaeid shrimp, mullet (Mug?1 spp.), and weakfish (Cynoscion regalis). Species that are
estuarine endemics or permanent residents are also abundant, namely, bay anchovies
(Anchoa mitchilli), killifishes (Fundulus spp.), and silversides (Menidia spp.) (Weinstein,
1979). Anadromous species such as blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), American
10
shad (Alosa sapidissima), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser
oxyrhynchus) use the Cape Fear River estuary as a transportation route to upper river
spawning and nursery areas (Walburg and Nichols, 1967; Nichols and Louder, 1970).
The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is also present in the harbor.
Anadromous fish use is highest from mid-winter to mid-spring. The catadromous
American eel (Anguilla rostrata) is widely distributed in the Cape Fear River estuary
(Schwartz et al., 1981).
Recently, studies of the shortnose sturgeon population in the Cape Fear River
system have been conducted by Moser and Ross (1993). This work consisted of a
fishery-independent gillnet survey and sonic tracking study, conducted from May 1990
to September 1992, to establish the distribution and movement patterns of shortnose
sturgeon and other anadromous fishes in the Cape Fear River estuary. Intensive gillnet
sampling (893 days) took place within the study area, but only seven shortnose
sturgeon were captured, three of the seven were recaptured. No juvenile shortnose
sturgeon have been caught in the Cape Fear River basin, which may mean that this
species may not be spawning successfully here (Moser and Ross, 1995).
Benthos. According to Birkhead et al. (1979), benthic density in the lower Cape
Fear region was highest in the ocean nearshore organic sediment and lowest in the
sandy estuarine areas. Downstream of the Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point
(MOTSU), the dominant organisms were polychaetes, especially a spionid polychaete
(Spiophanes bombyx). Other abundant organisms were the little surf clam (Mulinia
lateralis), sea pansy (Renilla reniformis), mud snails (Ilynassa obsoleta), and brittlestars
(subclass Ophiuroidea). Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (1975) conducted a
benthic investigation at six stations ranging from near the mouth of the Cape Fear River
up to the mouth of Smith Creek in the Northeast Cape Fear River. Polychaetes
dominated the benthic fauna below MOTSU. The North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (NCDEM) performed benthic sampling at Snows Marsh in
1985. Of the 38 species collected, polychaetes, molluscs, amphipods and decapods
dominated the site (NCDEM unpublished data). Sediments ranged from coarse sand to
fine silty clays. Common species collected were the polychaetes (Leitoscoloplos
variabilis) and (Paraprionospio pinnata) and the molluscs (Ilyanassa obsoleta) and
(Crassostrea virginica). Shellfish beds are also present in the Cape Fear River estuary,
primarily south of Snows Cut (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1980). All significant beds
are in shallow water east of the ship channel. The dominant species are the American
oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and the clam (Mercenaria). In this area, both species are
harvested for sale and personal consumption.
11
Plankton. Carpenter (1971) studied phytoplankton populations in the Cape Fear
River estuary and nearby ocean waters. Carpenter found the diversity to be greater at
the mouth of the estuary than in either the coastal waters or the up-river areas. The
dominant phytoplankton was the diatom Skeletonema costatum. Other common
species included the diatoms Asterionella japonica and Thalassionsina nana, the
dinoflagellate Katodinium rotundatum, and the loricate flagellate Calycomonas ovalis.
Birkhead et al. (1979) indicated that diatoms were more abundant in the ocean and
flagellates more abundant in the estuary.
According to_Birkhead_et al, (1979), the calanoid copepods (Acartia tonsa and
Paracalanus crassirostris) and barnacle nauplii were the dominant taxa comprising
zooplankton samples in the Cape Fear River estuary and nearshore ocean waters.
Other organisms consistently present were bivalve veligers, copepod nauplii, cyclopoid
copepods, crab zoea, gastropod veligers, and polychaete larvae.
No adverse impacts to aquatic resources are anticipated, since the shallow water
habitat to be filled is not a significant shellfish area.
4.08 Recreation and Aesthetic Resources. Battery Island has served as a
mecca for amateur bird watchers, which may approach the island by boat.
Representatives from the National Audubon Society and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission conduct tours of the island for various groups during the year.
Moreover, the diversity of wading birds from Battery Island (as well as the island) has
found its way to paintings of Southport to publications about Bald Head Island.
Wilmington Harbor has a large amount of recreational boating traffic in the area
below Snows Cut and a smaller amount above there. The Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway follows the Cape Fear River channel from Fort Caswell up to Snows Cut. It
carries a large amount of transient recreational boating, as well as local recreation in
the vicinity of Southport. On calm summer days the area from Southport to the mouth
of the river near Bald Head Island is heavily used by all types of recreational boating.
The lower Cape Fear River region is very scenic, with many miles of ocean beach,
historic homes and lighthouses, and large expanses of salt marsh bordering the river.
The proposed action will be low profile and should not adversely impact views from
either the river or the Southport waterfront. No adverse impacts to recreation or
aesthetics is anticipated.
Population. North Carolina had an estimated population of 7,069,836 on July 1,
1994, an increase of 6.6 percent since 1990. The population of 6,628,637 on April 1,
1990, was an increase of 12.7 percent since the 1980 census. North Carolina is
presently growing about 1.6 percent annually, and is one of the fastest growing States
in the nation.
12
The area including New Hanover, Brunswick, and Pender Counties, had an estimated
1994 population of 228,000; an increase of 14 percent since 1990. While the State was
growing at 1.6 percent a year, the three-county area was growing at 3.3 percent per
year. Pender and Brunswick Counties have been among the fastest growing counties
in the State over the last 4 years, growing at 3.6 percent per year.
With this growth, alternate sites for the heronry are not available nor will they be in
the future. Battery Island is the only site where this resource can be managed at such
a low cost. Moreover, protection and enhancement of Battery Island will have no effect
on income or employment.
4.09 Primary Nursery Areas. The most abundant nekton species in the Cape
Fear River estuary are those species residing in the estuary as larvae or juveniles and
using the estuary as nursery or feeding habitat. The Wilmington Harbor Channel
upstream of the intersection of the Upper and Lower Lilliput reaches extends through
areas designated by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries as "primary
nursery" areas. However, 300 yards east and west of the centerline of the main
shipping channel from the intersection of the Upper and Lower Lilliput reaches to the
mouth of the Brunswick River is excluded from the primary nursery area designation.
From the mouth of the Brunswick River upstream, the maintained channel, turning
basins, and side slopes are excluded from the primary nursery area designation. The
State of North Carolina defines primary nursery areas as those areas in the estuarine
system where initial post-larval development takes place.
The shallow water areas adjacent to Battery Island have not been designated as
primary nursery areas. No impacts to primary nursery areas are anticipated.
4.10 Archaeological/Historical Resources. The Cape Fear River has a long
and active history as one of the earliest and most significant waterways in North
Carolina. Several towns, plantations, and farmsteads flourished along the river, and by
the mid-19th century there were over 140 named landings located along the 115 miles
of river between Wilmington and Fayetteville. These landings were regularly visited by
pole and steam powered barges and steamships serving farms, mills, and small
industrial and commercial centers at and between Smithville (Southport), Navassa,
Elizabethtown, Wilmington, and earlier Colonial towns of Brunswick Town and
Livingston.
Thirty-seven historic shipwrecks are listed on the 1985 National Register of
Historic Places Registration addendum for the Wilmington Historic District prepared by
the North Carolina Division of Archives and History (Pleasants, 1977; Lawrence, 1985).
In addition, over 130 shipwrecks are known from the lower Cape Fear - Northeast Cape
Fear River vicinity.
With the proposed action, no excavation is anticipated. All fill material is to be
placed and maintained at or landward of the proposed sandbags and/or geotubes
bulkhead. No impacts to submerged cultural resources are anticipated.
13
4.11 Coastal Barrier Resources Act. Review of the "Report to Congress:
Coastal Barrier Resources System," Volume 11, dated 1988, indicates that the
proposed project will not impact any Coastal Barrier Resources. System (CBRS) units.
4.12 Wetlands. As indicated in Section 4.04, the majority of the 100-acre Battery
Island is a tidal wetland vegetated with smooth cordgrass (Spartina alternif/ora).
However, along the southern and western estaurine sandy beaches of Battery Island,
no marsh exists. The area to be backfilled (landward of the sandbags and/or geotubes)
is devoid of any marsh or submerged aquatics. During construction, care will be given
that no wetlands will be adversely effected. No impacts to any vegetated wetlands are
anticipated.
4.13 Executive Order 11988 (Flood Plain Management). No practical
alternative exists to the proposed shoreline protection of Battery Island in the flood
plain. The proposed activity must be constructed at or below the mean high water
contour. Every effort will be taken to minimize potential harm to or within the flood
plain. The action is in compliance with State/local flood plain protection standards.
4.14 Prime and Unique Agriculture Land. According to the Soil Survey of
Brunswick County, North Carolina, dated November 1986, the soils on Battery Island
consists of Newhan fine sand and Yaupon silty clay loam. Neither of these soils are
designated by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as prime or unique
agriculture lands. No impacts to prime and unique agriculture lands are anticipated.
4.15 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Sites. Battery Island has no history of use as
industrial sites or dumps. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any hazardous and toxic
waste sites would be encountered during construction or maintenance. If any
hazardous and toxic waste sites are identified during the construction of the proposed
activity, response plans and remedial actions will be the responsibility of the District.
No impacts are anticipated.
4.16 Air Quality. The project is in compliance with Section 176 (c) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended. A conformity determination is not required for the following
reasons:
a. 40 CFR 93.153 (b), For Federal actions not covered by paragraph (a) of this
section, a conformity determination is required for each pollutant where the total of
direct and indirect emissions in a nonattainment or maintenance area caused by a
Federal action would equal or exceed any of the rates in paragraphs (b) (1) or (2) of this
section." Brunswick County has been designated by the State of North Carolina as an
attainment area.
b. No Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's) or Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) would be
produced by the proposed construction; therefore, a conformity determination would not
14
be required. Construction at the project site would take approximately 1 year and all
construction equipment would be removed from the project site following construction
completion.
No adverse impacts are anticipated.
4.17 Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). The recommended plan
has been evaluated under Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. The work
will not require the placement of dredged or fill material in any vegetated wetlands of
the Cape Fear River. No impacts to wetlands are anticipated.
4.18 Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment). The recommended plan has been evaluated under Executive Order
11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment. As indicated in
Section 4.09, the recommended plan will not effect cultural resources.
4.19 Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Communities and Low Income
Populations). No impacts to either minority/low income populations or low income
communities are anticipated as a result of this activity.
4.20 North Carolina Coastal Management Program. The proposed placement
of the 5,400-foot-long, 12-foot-wide, and 6-foot-high sandbags and/or geotubes along
the southern and western shorelines of Battery Island and the backfilling of the
bulkhead with about 24,000 cubic yards of dredged material taken from routine
maintenance dredging of the Wilmington Harbor navigation channel will not cause a
significant impact to the estuarine environment. No marsh or submerged aquatic
vegetation will be filled as a result of this action. Within the estuarine system, no
primary nursery or shellfish areas will be impacted by this proposed activity. Sediment
to be placed within and landward of the sandbags and/or geotubes will be greater than
90 percent sand. Moreover, submerged cultural resources will not be impacted, since
no excavation will take place. Therefore, the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, believes that the proposed action is consistent with the approved Coastal
Management Program of the State of North Carolina.
4.21 Other Environmental Factors. The following factors will not be significantly
affected by the proposed action: noise pollution, man-made resources, community
cohesion, public facilities and services, employment, tax value, property value,
community growth, regional growth, or displacement of people, and businesses or
farms.
15
5.00 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
5.01 Scoping. On January 23, 1998, the Wilmington District circulated a scoping
letter for the proposed shoreline protection and enhancement of Battery Island. The
purpose of the scoping letter was to solicit comments from various private, local, State,
and Federal agencies on this proposal to ensure that the development of a
recommended plan considers the concerns of other agencies and the public. In
response to the scoping letter, the public and review agencies expressed the following
major concerns: fishery resources and habitats, wetlands, short- and long-term impacts
of the proposed activity, endangered/threatened species, cultural resources, and other
natural resources. All concerns were considered and have been satisfied in the
recommended plan.
Letters were received or individuals were contacted from the agencies listed
below.
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
North Carolina Department of Administration
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Division of Water Quality
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
North Carolina Coastal Federation
National Audubon Society
The Village of Bald Head Island
Cape Fear Council of Governments
Mr. Charles D. Young
Mr. Jim Better
Mr. and Mrs. John and Onie Dennis
Mr. Ken Maus
Mr. Hal Sharpe
5.02 Coordination of This Document. This EA and unsigned FONSI is to be
furnished to the following list of concerned agencies and individuals:
Federal Agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Forest Service, USDA
Federal Emergency Management Administration
16
Regional Environmental Officer
HUD, Atlanta Regional Office
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Commander, Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point
Department of Health and Human Services
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fifth Coast Guard District
Federal Highway Administration
Postmasters
Conservation Groups
National Wildlife Federation
Capitol Group, Sierra Club
Conservation Council of North Carolina.
Izaac Walton League
National Audubon Society
North Carolina Coastal Federation
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
State Conservationist, Sierra Club
Cape Fear Group Sierra Club
Cape Fear Chapter Audubon Society
District Conservationist, Brunswick County
State Agencies and Officials
State Clearinghouse
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Mr. John N. Morris
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
17
Local Agencies
North Carolina Council of Governments, Region O
Brunswick County Emergency Management
Brunswick County Manager
CAMA Officer, Town of Southport
City Manager, Southport
CAMA Officer, Oak Island
Town Manager, Town of Southport
Village of-Bald Head Island
Town of Caswell Beach
Town of Yaupon Beach
Town of Long Beach
Director of Public Works, City of Wilmington
Mayor, Town of Shallotte
Town of Ocean Isle Beach
Town of Sunset Beach
Elected Officials
Honorable Jesse Helms
Honorable Dewey L. Hill
Honorable Lauch Faircloth
Honorable Mike McIntyre
Honorable E. David Redwine
Honorable R.C. Soles, Jr.
Honorable Thomas E. Wright
Brunswick County Commissioners
Interested Groups and Individuals
Dr. Vince Bellis
Dr. Anne B. McCrary
Mr. Ray P. Brandi
Dr. Orrin Pilkey
Mr. James Ferger
Shallotte Broadcasting Co.
Stateport Pilot
Mr. Jerry Walters
Mr. Peter B. Ruffin
Mr. Paul Foster
Mr. John B. Harvey
Brunswick Beacon
18
Interested Groups and Individuals (cont'd)
Wilmington Shipyard, Inc.
Unocal Chemicals
Mr. John A. Potter
Mr. J W Willis
Mr. Dwight E. Carroll
Mr. Grover A. Gore
Mr. Alex Malpass
Mr. Odell Williamson
Wilmington Industrial Development Inc.
Wilmington-Cape Fear Pilots Association
Mr. Ed Flynn
Mr. Edward M Gore Sr.
Mr. Cecil Holden
Land Management Group Inc.
Mr. John Hoskins
Ms. Brenda R. Nichols
Stevens Towing Co.
Mr. John Hooten
Mr. Timothy Winstead
Mr. Julius C. Smith III
Mr. Charles D. Young
Mr. Jim Better
Mr. and Mrs. John and Onie Dennis
Mr. Ken Maus
Libraries
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Wilson Library
Library at Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
University of North Carolina-Wilmington, Randall Library
State Library of North Carolina
East Carolina University, Joyner Library
19
6.00 POINT OF CONTACT
Any comments or questions regarding this EA/FONSI should be sent to Mr. Hugh
Heine, CESAW-TS-PE, U.S. Army Engineer District, PO Box 1890, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28402-1890. Telephone contact is [phone] or e-mail address
[e-mail]. mi1.
7.00 DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
No unacceptable adverse effects on water and aquatic resources, terrestrial
resources, wetlands and flood plains, threatened and endangered species, cultural
resources, recreational resources, recreational fishing, or socio-economic resources are
expected to occur as a result of the proposed shoreline protection and enhancement of
Battery Island. Based on the EA which precedes, the recommended plan will not
significantly affect the quality of the human environment; therefore, this action will not
be the subject of an environmental impact statement.
8.00 REFERENCES
Bildstein, K. L., W. Post, P. Frederick, and J. W. Johnston. 1990. Freshwater
wetlands, rainfall, and the breeding ecology of White Ibises in coastal South
Carolina. Wilson Bulletin 102: 84-98.
Birkhead, W.A., B.J. Copeland, and R.G. Hodson. 1979. Ecological Monitoring
in the Lower Cape Fear Estuary, 1971-1976. Report 79-1 to the Carolina Power
and Light Company, Raleigh, N.C.
Brimley, H. H. 1928. The Battery Island rookery near Southport, North Carolina.
Chat 2: 41-43.
Brunswick County. 1993. Brunswick County, North Carolina, Land Use Plan.
Prepared by Glen Harbeck Associates, Wilmington, NC, for the Brunswick County
Planning Board.
Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L). 1980. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,
Cape Fear Studies: Interpretive Report. Carolina Power and Light Company,
Raleigh, N.C.
Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L). 1994. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,
Cape Fear Studies: Interpretive Report. Carolina Power and Light Company,
Raleigh, N.C.
Carpenter, E.J. 1971. Annual phytoplankton cycle of the Cape Fear River Estuary,
North Carolina. Chesapeake Science 12:95-104.
20
EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc. 1991. Lower Cape Fear Water Quality
and Fisheries Literature Review, Volume 1, Final Report. Prepared for Wilmington
Industrial Development, Inc. Wimington, North Carolina. EA Report No. 11747.
Hackney, T.H. and S.G. Brady. 1996. Evaluation of Habitat Requirements of the
Greenfield Ramshorn in Town Creek, North Carolina, and a Search for Other
Populations. Report prepared for Wilmington District Corps of Engineers by the
Department of Biological Sciences, UNC-W, Wilmington, NC.
Johnston, J. W. and K. L. Bildstein. 1990. Dietary salt as a physiological constraint in
White Ibises in an estuary. Physiological Zoology 63: 190-207.
Kushlan, J. A. 1978. Feeding ecology of wading birds. Pp. 249-296 in Wading Birds
(A. Sprunt, IV, J. C. Ogden, and S. Winckler, Eds.) National Audubon Society,
Research Report No. 7. New York.
Lautier, Jeff C. 1996. Wilmington Harbor Groundwater Study. Draft Final Report.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Resources.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1975. Aquatic Ecology Studies, Cape Fear
River Estuary, North Carolina, September 1972 to August 1973. Appendix A of
Environmental Impact Assessment of Alternatives for the Maintenance of Wilmington
Harbor, North Carolina. Report for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District.
Lawrence, Richard W. 1985. Underwater Archaeological Sites in the Wilmington
Historical District. Addendum to the National Register of Historic Places Nomination -
Inventory Form, Wilmington Historical District. Manuscript on file North Carolina
Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Moser, M. L. and S. W. Ross. 1993. Distribution and Movements of Shortnose
Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and Other Anadromous Fishes of the Lower Cape
Fear River, North Carolina. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District. May 1993. 112 pp.
Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1994. Effects of Changing Current Regime and River
Discharge on the Estuarine Phase of Anadromous Fish Migration. Offprint from
Changes in Fluxes in Estuaries.
Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1995. Habitat Use and Movements of Shortnose and
Atlantic Sturgeons in the Lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 124:225-234. 1995. American Fisheries Society.
21
Nichols, P. and E. Louder. 1970. Upstream passage of anadromous fish through
navigation locks and use of stream for spawning habitat, Cape Fear River, North
Carolina. 1962-1966. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Circ. 252.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1990a.
Division of Environmental Management. Administrative Code 15 NCAC 2B .0200 -
Classification and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North
Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1990b.
Division of Marine Fisheries. Prohibited Area Map, Cape Fear Area. Areas B-1,
B-2, B-3, B-4, and A-3.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
1989. Division of Environmental Management. Administrative Code 15 NCAC 2B
.0311 - Classification and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the
Cape Fear River Basin.
Parnell, J. F. and D. A. McCrimmon, Jr. 1984. 1983 supplement to atlas of colonial
waterbirds of North Carolina estuaries. UNC Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-84-07.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Parnell, J. F. and M. A. Shields. 1990. Management of North Carolina's colonial
waterbirds. UNC Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-90-03. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Parnell, J. F. and R. F. Soots, Jr. 1979. Atlas of colonial waterbirds of North Carolina
estuaries. UNC Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-78-10. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Pleasants, James A., Jr. 1977. A Brief Survey of Archival References Relating to
Known Wrecks and Shipping Channel History from Wilmington to the Ocean Bar,
1624 - 1925. Manuscript on file, North Carolina Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
Ross, S.W., F.C. Rohde, and D.G. Lindquist. 1988. Endangered, Threatened, and
Rare Fauna of North Carolina. Part 11. A Re-evaluation of the Marine and Estuarine
Fishes. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey 1988-7, 20pp.
Schwartz, F.J., W.T. Hogarth, and M.P. Weinstein. 1981. Marine and Freshwater
Fishes of the Cape Fear Estuary, North Carolina and their Distribution in Relation to
Environmental Factors. Brimleyana No. 7:17-37. July 1981.
Walburg, C.H. and P.R. Nichols. 1967. Biology and Management of the American
Shad and Status of the Fisheries, Atlantic Coast of the United States. 1960. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Spec. Sci. Rpt. Fish. No. 550 p35-38.
22
Weinstein, M.P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nurseries for fish and
shellfish, Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Fisheries Bulletin 77(2)339-357.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1980. Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology. Prepared for
Brunswick Energy Company.
23
• Durham
Q RALEIGH
V/
N 0 R 7 H yd
A R O L N A r? Haw=
Uorehood City
• //? Atlantic
/ / taa?ovl
/ Ocean
Southport SITE
s
0 5D 100
Feo SC&E h MILES
87
VICINITY MAP
SOUTHPORT
'NTRACpp
?p
oAK ISL
"P
"P
"G
7ERlyA i i' o r r
e y
1?,5
1(
Battery ? ?--
Island
BUZZARD
AY
orty \\ •\
D amwell \) \ j /
v
Q)
1 I v ?? ?
/? cc )
BALD HEAD
SMITH Q
ISLAND
-9
_ T
9
Battery Island, North Carolina
Bird Habitat Preservation
1 1/2 0 1 2
SCALE IN MILES
SITE LOCATION
x:\dpn\nhc\bateryis.d®n
i
N.tlT/
D .n 1 _ r _
1 _ r _ r r
1 _ r _r
/ N.SI 1
M.l1 1
N.{T /
/ r
1 /
7s - r -
a3{:So 1
p•a{
p.1{
1n{
p?IT
/ -mhw r - r r ?-
• .u
BATTERY
ISLAND
a1
'o
i. _
r ? r
ayw r _
1; - i -
r _ r _r
r - r -
1
O

400 200 0 400 800
SCALE IN FEET
Battery Island, North Carolina
Bird Habitat Preservation
SANDBAG / GEOTUBE
PLACEMENT
(PLAN VIEW)
&.M --rW -

6
SANDBAG /GEOTUBE

:
: MHW
... ..::
........
•:.. ,, ?, . ,
rys.
C; ................................................

MSL
Z --------------= ------------------
p ------ ----
DREDGED MATERIAL
MLW ...
:
•
:
J

W

-2
................ ;...
................
.
..
..... .........
EXISTING GROUND
-4
-6L SECTION A-A
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION
(NORTHWEST BEACH)
6
6
EXISTING GROUND
MHW
J
a SANDBAG /GEOTUBE
2 ............................................ ...... R ?s
p ------------------
W
J
-2 DREDGED MATERIAL
----------? MSL_.
..........
............................. MLW
-a
-6 SECTION B-B
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION
(SOUTHWEST BEACH)
Figure 4. Sandbag / Geotube Placement
ATTACHMENT A
SHORELINE PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF BATTERY ISLAND
EVALUATION OF SECTION 404 (b) (1) GUIDELINES
40 CFR 230
An evaluation of the placement of fill material into waters and wetlands of the
United States include the standard form.
ATTACHMENT A
SHORELINE PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF BATTERY ISLAND
EVALUATION OF SECTION 404 (b) (1) GUIDELINES
40 CFR 230

Section 404 Public Notice No. CESAW-TS-PE-98-10-0009 11 May 1998
1. Review of Compliance (230.10(a)-(d)) Preliminary 1/ Final 2/
A review of the NEPA Document
indicates that:
a. The discharge represents the least
environmentally damaging practicable
alternative and if in a special aquatic
site, the activity associated with the
discharge must have direct access or
proximity to, or be located in the aquatic
ecosystem to fulfill its basic purpose
(if no, see section 2 and NEPA document); YESIXI N01_1* YESIXI N01_1
b. The activity does not:
1) violate applicable State water quality
standards or effluent standards prohibited
under Section 307 of the CWA; 2) jeopardize
the existence of federally listed endangered
or threatened species or their habitat; and
3) violate requirements of any federally
designated marine sanctuary (if no, see section
2b and check responses from resource and
water quality certifying agencies); YESIXI N01_1* YESIXI N01_1
c. The activity will not cause or contribute
to significant degradation of waters of the
U.S. including adverse effects on human
health, life stages of organisms dependent
on the aquatic ecosystem, ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability, and recreational,
aesthetic, and economic values (if no,
see section 2); YESIXI N01_1* YESIXI N01_1
d. Appropriate and practicable steps have
been taken to minimize potential adverse
impacts of the discharge on the aquatic
ecosystem (if no, see section 5).
Proceed to Section 2
See page 6.
YESIXI N01_1* YESIXI N01_1

2. Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C-F) N/A
a. Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C)
(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Suspended particulates/turbidity
impacts.
(3) Water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns
and water circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water
fluctuations/hydroperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity
gradients.
b. Biological Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D)
(1) Effect on threatened/endangered
species and their habitat.
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web.
(3) Effect on other wildlife (mammals,
birds, reptiles, and amphibians).
c. Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)
(1) Sanctuaries and refuges.
(2) Wetlands.
(3) Mud flats.
(4) Vegetated shallows.
(5) Coral reefs.
(6) Riffle and pool complexes.
d. Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F)
Not Signifi- Signifi-
cant cant*
I I X I I
I
I I
I I I
X I I
I X I I
I
I I
I I I
X I i

I X I I
I I
I I
NA I I I
I I I I
I X I I
I i X I I
I I I I
I X I I
NA I I I
I X I I
i X I I
NA I I I
NA I I I
NA I I I
(1) Effects on municipal and private
water supplies.
(2) Recreational and commercial
fisheries impacts.
(3) Effects on water-related recreation
(4) Aesthetic impacts.
(5) Effects on parks, national and
historical monuments, national
seashores, wilderness areas,
research sites, and similar
preserves.
I I
NA 1 I I
I I
I I
I I
I X I I
NA I ( I
NA I I I
I I
I I I I
I i
I I
I I
NA I I I
I I
I I
Remarks: Where a check is placed under
the significant category, preparer add explanation below.
Proceed to Section 3
*See page 6.

A
A-2
3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G) 3/
a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the biological
availability of possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material. (Check only
those appropriate.)
(1) Physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(2) Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated _
sources of contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I X I
(3) Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in _
the vicinity of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
(4) Known, significant sources of
persistent pesticides from _
land runoff or percolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
(5) Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA) _
hazardous substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I _I
(6) Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries,
municipalities, or other
sources . . . . I_I
(7) Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by
man-induced discharge activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
(8) other sources (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
List appropriate references.
Reference: Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Si gnificant
Impact, Shoreline Protection and Enhancement of Battery Island in the Cape
Fear River, Southport, Brunswick County, North Carolina, dated April 1998.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and
not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site. _
The material meets the testing exclusion criteria. YES I}tl NO 1_1*
Proceed to Section 4
see page 6.

A-3
4. nDisposa Site Determinations (230.11(f)).
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the
disposal site.
(1) Depth of water at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ix_I
(2) Current velocity, direction, and
"
variability at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I X I
(3) Degree of turbulence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I X I
(4) Water column stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(5) Discharge vessel speed and direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(6) Rate of discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(7) Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type
of material, settling velocities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(8) Number of discharges per unit of
time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(9) Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
List appropriate references.
Reference: Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant
Impact, Shoreline Protection and Enhancement of Battery Island in the Cape
Fear River, Southport, Brunswick County, North Carolina, dated April 1998.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal site _
and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable. YES IXI NO I_I*
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through application of recommendations of 230.70-230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed
discharge. List actions taken YES IXI NO I_I*
For water quality see Section 4.01 of the EA.
For benthos see Section 4.07 of the EA.
For fisheries see Section 4.07 of the EA.
For threatened and endangered species see Section 4.06 of the EA.
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review._ See also
note 3/, page 3.
*See page 6.

A-4
6. Factual Determinations (230.11).
A review of appropriate information as identified in
items 2-5 above indicates that there is minimal
potential for short- or long-term environmental
effects of the proposed discharge as related to:
a. Physical substrate at the disposal site _
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5) . . . . . . . . . . YES IXI
b. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity _
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5) . . . . . . . . . . . YES IXI
C. Suspended particulates/turbidity _
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5) . . . . . . . . . . YES IXI
d. Contaminant availability _
(review sections 2a, 3, and 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES IXI
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function _
(review sections 2b and c, 3, and 5). . . . . . . . . . YES IXI
f. Disposal site
(review sections 2, 4, and 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES IXI
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic _
ecosyem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES I X I
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic _
ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES I X I
7. Findinas.
a. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines with the
inclusion of the following conditions: . . . . . . . . . . . .
*See page 6.
C. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material does not comply with
the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for the
following reasons(s):
(1) There is a less damaging practicable alternative.
I
NO I_I*
NO I_I*
NO I_I*
NO I_I*
NO I_f*
NO I_I*
NO I_I*
NO I_i*
. IXI
A-5
(2) The proposed discharge will result in significant _
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
(3) The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize _
potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.
1
v C. E. SHUFORD, JR _ P ?J TERR R. U BLUTH
` l Chief, Technical Services Division COL, EN
Q, Comman ngg?'
Date: Date:
*A negative, significant, or unknown response indicates that the permit
application may not be in compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
1/ Negative responses to three or more of the compliance criteria at this stage
indicate that the proposed projects may not be evaluated using this "short form
procedure." Care should be used in assessing pertinent portions of the
technical information of items 2 a-d, before completing the final review of
compliance.
2/ Negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates
that the proposed project does not comply with the guidelines. If the economics
of navigation and anchorage of Section 404(b)(2) are to be evaluated in the
decision-making process, the "short form evaluation process is inappropriate."
3/ If the dredged or fill material cannot be excluded from individual testing,
the "short-form" evaluation process is inappropriate.

1
A-6
February 9, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michelle Suverkrubbe
THROUGH: John Dome
FROM: Eric Fleet(
SUBJECT: Battery Island Bird Preserve Beach Restoration/Stabilization (Scoping Letter Comments)
(DENR# 98-0466, DWQ# 11941)
Based on a review of the January 23, 1998 scoping letter regarding the preservation and stabilization of
Battery Island the 401/Wetland Group offer the following comments:
1) The project (as detailed in the letter) proposes to install rock riprap, geo-tubes, treated wood, or sheet
piling bulkheads along the Battery Island shoreline and then backfill landward of these structures with
an estimated restored area of 5.7 acres. DWQ will require information regarding the current state of
these eroded areas (i.e., are they now coastal marsh?, are they SAVs?, are they shallow water?, are
there shellfish in these areas?, etc...). These qn stions must be addressed in future correspondences.
2) If there are habitat types as discussed above, then DWQ would likely require minimization/avoidance
measures to be taken. For instance is all 5.7 acres of nesting habitat to be restored necessary to
maintain current or past levels of birds? Would less than 5.7 acres of restoration still accomplish the
same goal? Would stabilizing the island at its current areal extent (without restoration) still support a
vigorous avian community similar to pre-erosion levels? Data demonstrating a decline in population
and/or recruitment of nesting (and non-nesting) birds related to the loss of the 60 feet of shoreline (and
- the corresponding loss of nest-supporting red cedars/ yaupons) would be extremely useful.
3) Since Battery Island is a Bird Preservation/Nature Reserve, DWQ would recommend the use of
bioengineering practices as much as possible for the stabilization/restoration efforts to maintain
continuity and consistency with the Island's natural heritage.
If there are any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call at [phone].
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWQ - Water Quality Section
Date: I / Z-
11-0-MEMORANDUM
TO: Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab)
O Trish MacPherson (end. sps)
O Kathy Herring (foresdORW/HQW)
O Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
O Matt Mathews (toxicology)
O Jay Sauber (intensive survey)
Non-Discharge Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Kim Colson (Permitting)
Wetlands (WQ Lab)
O John Dorney (Corps, 401)
O Cyndi Bell (DOT)
O Eric Galamb
RY'Fric Fleek
lw?
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O Fayetteville O Raleigh O Wilmington
O Winston -Salem
Plannine Branch (Archdale 6th)
O Alan Clark (basinwide planning)
O Boyd DeVane (classifications & standards)
O Beth McGee (management planning)
O Steve Zoufaly (reclassifications)
O Ruth Swanek (modeling) (Archdale 9th)
Point Source Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Dave Goodrich (NPDES) O
O Bradley Bennett (Stormwater) O
O Tom Poe (Pretreatment) (Archdale 7th) O
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Regional / Program Management Coordination Branch
GD
PROJECT:
DENR #
?& -0g6(
DWQ # ll g gl
r:qAL
Reg 1Vrg. gmt Coordination Branch
O Ed Buchen (Archdale 9th)
O Brent McDonald (Archdale 12th)
x
12eho"o
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts to the environment,
especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please check the appropriate
box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, by the date indicated.
RESPONSE DEADLINE:
NO COMMENT COMMENTS ATTACHED
Name:
Date: J I
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining this process are greatly appreciated!
Notes:
I can be reached at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
misAcircmemo - mac version
r f
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO January 23, 1998
Environmental Resources Section
RECEIVED'
AN 2 6 1998
N.O. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Dear Madam or Sir:
We are conducting studies for the preparation of an Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the proposed restoration and preservation of the bird habitat on Battery Island,
near Southport, Brunswick County, North Carolina.
Battery Island (see figure 1) is located in the Cape Fear River, approximately
0.5 mile east of Southport and 24 miles south of Wilmington, North Carolina. Battery
Island is adjacent to the navigation channel and is approximately 100 acres in total
area. Two upland bird nesting areas exist (see figure 2). The North Colony," area is
approximately 3 acres and is vegetatived with live oak (Quercus.virginiana), yaupon
(ilex vomitoria), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and marsh elder (Iva frutescens).
The "South Colony," area is approximately 7 acres and is vegetatived with red cedar,
yaupon, marsh elder, Hercules club (Xanthoxylum clava-herculis), black cherry (Prunus
serotina), and white mulberry (Morus alba). The remainder of the island is saltmarsh
dominated by cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). The North Colony is natural but
appears to have been modified in the past by placement of dredged material. The
South Colony was created by undiked deposition of dredged material. The island has
not received any dredged material in at least 25 years.
. Battery Island is widely recognized as an avian landmark and is considered to be
the largest heronry in North Carolina. Located in the lower Cape Fear River, east of
Southport, this island is a haven for birds throughout the year, but it is most noted for
the long-legged waders that occupy the island during the spring and summer months.
Each spring, thousands of wading birds (herons, egrets, and ibises) gather on the
island to nest and to raise their young. This annual rite of spring has taken place since
at least 1928, when wading birds were first reported nesting on the island. Battery
Island is the only nesting site within 100 miles (between Bogue Sound, North Carolina,
and the North Carolina/South Carolina State line) that is capable of supporting such a

e
-2-
large colony of wading birds. Moreover, the island supports ten species of wading
birds, three of which are state-listed as "species of special concern"-- little blue.heron,
snowy egret, and glossy ibis. In addition, Battery Island supports over 90 percent of
North Carolina's nesting white ibises.
Battery Island is owned by the State of North Carolina. Since 1992, the National
Audubon Society has a long-term (50-year) lease on this site and maintains it as a
sanctuary. Battery Island is a protected Colonial Waterbird Management Site. The
island is posted off-limits to all visitors from March 1 to September 1 and is patrolled
throughout the year. At other times of the year, activities that would jeopardize the
nesting habitat are prohibited (i.e., fires, camping, cutting or removal of vegetation,
etc.).
In recent years, Battery Island's southern and western shorelines have
experienced severe erosion. It is estimated that up to 60 feet of the southern and
western shorelines of the island have been lost in the past 5 years (since about 1993).
This equates to an average rate of erosion of about 12 feet per year. The erosion has
already claimed red cedars and yaupons that once supported nesting wading birds,
and other areas are threatened. Moreover, erosion has also claimed most of the beach
where oystercatchers once nested. Stabilization of Battery Island's shoreline is
necessary to prevent the further loss of this valuable bird nesting habitat.
With the cooperation of the National Audubon Society, the Wilmington District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, are planning to stabilize and to
restore the western and southern shorelines of Battery Island to its condition prior to
1993. Methods of stabilization may include (but not limited to) the construction and/or
installation of rock riprap, geo-tubes (large sand bags), treated wood, or sheet piling
bulkheads (see figure 2). Once the retaining wall has been constructed, the area
landward of the wall will be backfilled. The project may restore up to 5.7 acres of
valuable colonial bird nesting habitat. 00 ,C;. ??f("M r °
We are requesting comments from agencies, interest groups, and the public to
identif si nificant resources issues of concern and recommendations for studies
Y g ,
considered necessary. Comments received, as a result of this scoping letter, will be
considered as we conduct our studies and identify potential impacts on environmental
quality. These items will be addressed, as needed, in the EA.

-3-
Significant resources which may be affected by the proposed project may include
historic resources, recreational and esthetic resources, endangered and threatened
species, fish and wildlife resources, water quality, and estuarine and upland habitats.
These resources will be considered during the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process. No formal scoping meetings are planned at this time. However,
based on the responses received, scoping meetings may be held with specific agencies
or individuals as required.
We request that you provide written comments on any of these matters within
30 days from the date of this letter. Comments should be addressed to Mr. Hugh
Heine, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Post Office Box 1890,
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890. If you have any questions, please contact
Mr. Heine at [phone] or e-mail address [e-mail]. mi1.
Sincerely,
W. - &AA,
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Planning and
Environmental Branch
Enclosures
r

87 3 V
R
'J
87
SOUTHPORT
T?ANT/C /NTgACOq i i ? / ?
----Y.A' -----------
. ojt?
O RXM
d
N O R T H 910
A R O L I N A . r H=
Yordeoa city'
AElanEic
+ ocean
SITE a ao m
SCALE & 'aM
VICINITY MAP I--
?p
a r
a qW4 i
cr 1 1
it
Battery
Island
oAk
ISLANc .»an
11
II `
11
BALD HEAD
SMITH
ISLAND

Battery Island, North Carolina
Bird Habitat Preservation
1 I/2 0 1 2
SCALE IN MILES
ZARD
AY
v
0
U
LQ
Q
T?
?-v-A
SITE LOCATION
gn\nhc\Dateryia.dgn
F
?-r.. , ?

Q
z
Q
a
a
ca ,
F
a
as

W
a
w