Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout25-19 National Audubon SocietyPermit Number 2549 '"'. -NEW STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Department of Environmental Quality and. Coastal Resources Commission fit for ,RECEIVE[) MAY 0 7 2019 ')C�XMHD CITY X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern pursuant to NCGS 113A-118 X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229 Issued to National Audubon Society c/o Curtis Smalling, 807 E. Main St. Suite 2-22202 Durham, NC 27701 Authorizing development in Brunswick County at Lower Cape Fear Rive Shellbed & Striking Islands as requested in the permittee's application dated 11/14/18 (MP-1, MP-4), 11/6/18 (MP-2), inc. attached dwgs. (15), Sheet 1 of 15 dtd. 10/25/18, Sheets 2-5 of 15 dtd. 12/3/18, and Sheets 6-15 of 15 dtd. 12/4/18. This permit, issued on April 30, 2019 is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void. Offshore Si1VOvster Reefs 1) Unless specifically altered herein, this permit authorizes the offshore sills and oysters shell fill that are depicted on the attached workplan drawings. 2) The aligrinients of the approved offshore sills/oyster reefs shall adhere to the alignments depicted on the attached workplan drawings, including the location and design of the openings designed to allow for movement of aquatic organisms. 3) The ends of each of the offshore sills shall. be marked with a yellow reflector extending at least three feet above normal high water level. (See attached sheets for Additional Conditions) This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DEQ and the other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission. date. This permit must be accessible on -site to Department personnel when the project is inspected for compliance. Any maintenance work or project modification not covered hereunder requires further Division approval. All work must cease when the permit expires on December 31, 2022 in issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees that your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program. l k04P't° y Y 8. Braxton C. Davis,, Director ivision of Coastal Management This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Permittee National Audubon Society Permit No. 2549— Page 2 of 3 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 4) The permittee shall notify the Division of Marine Fisheries Shellfish Sanitation Section immediately upon completion of the authorized offshore sills so that closed shellfish harvesting signs can be posted and modified patrol plans can be developed by the NC Marine Patrol. NOTE: To establish these areas as research sanctuaries, please contact the Division of Marine Fisheries at (252) 808-8050. 5) No open water areas shall be filled outside the alignments depicted on the attached workplan drawings. 6) Appropriate sedimentation and erosion control devices, measures or structures shall be implemented to ensure that eroded materials from any portion of disturbed staging areas do not enter adjacent wetlands, watercourses and property. 7) Any staging areas shall be inspected and approved by a representative of the Division of Coastal Management prior to the initiation of any work under this permit 8) The permittee shall maintain the authorized work in good condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. The permittee is not relieved of this requirement if he abandons the permitted activity without having it transferred to a third party. 9) In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus, the applicant must implement the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's Guidelines, and strictly adhere to all requirements therein. The guidelines can be found at htti)://www.fws.gov/nc-es/manunal/manatee auidelines.pdf. Monitoring 10) Unless specifically altered her the monitoring and reporting requirements listed in the Environmental Assessment dated November 2018 shall be implemented. 11) The permittee shall provide a copy of the monitoring report to the Division of Coastal Management within 90 days of completion of the initial report and the three (3) subsequent annual reports. An as -built survey shall be performed on the sills, and copies of the survey provided to the Division of Coastal Management, within 90 days of completion of construction. General 12) No attempt shall be made by the permittee to prevent the free and full use by the public of all navigable waters adjacent to the authorized work. 13) The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the perrittee will be required, upon due notice from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States or the state of North Carolina. No claim shall be made against the United States or the state of North Carolina on account of any such removal or alteration. ational Audubon Society Permit No, 25-19 N Page 3 of 3 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 14) The permittee and/or his or her contractor shall meet with a representative of the Division prior to project initiation. 15) This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. 16) The permit shall not be assigned, transferred, sold, or otherwise disposed of to a third party without the written approval of the Division of Coastal Management. NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits, approvals or authorizations that may be required. NOTE: Future development at or adjacent to the project site may require a modification of this permit. Contact a representative of the Division at (910) 796-7215 prior to the commencement of any such activity for this determination. The permittee is further advised that many non -water dependent activities are not authorized within 30 feet of the normal high water level. NOTE: The N.C. Division of Water Resources has assigned the proposed project DWR Project No. 2019-0044, which was issued 2/19/19. NOTE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assigned the proposed project COE Action Id. No. SAW- 2017-02284. NOTE: An application processing fee of $475 was received by DCM for this project. This fee also satisfied the Section 401 application processing fee requirements of the Division of Water Resources. RECFI;/EC) Mki 0 7 2019 L�Cnii-i,ihD CITY RECEIVED MAY U 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY ROY COOPER Governor MICHAEL S. REGAN Secretary BRAXTON C. DAVIS Dbecrar National Audubon Society clo Lindsay Addison 807 East Main Street Suite 2-220 Durham, NC 27701 Dear Ms. Addison: NORTH CAROLINA Em a=mrar Qaarrry August 25, 2020 This correspondence is with reference to the request you submitted t0 modify State Permit No. 25-19, which was originally issued to the National Audubon on August 30, 2019 for the construction of offshore sills and oyster reefs within the Lower Cape Fear River Smith Island complex. State Permit No. 25-19 is due to expire on December 31, 2022. The action proposed in your submittal consists of a change in construction methodology forthe oyster reef base layers. The use of plastic mesh oyster bags is being proposed in place of the burlap woven bags to prevent deterioration of the reef base layer. The plastic mesh bags would be filled with granite ballast stone rather than crushed stone and would be utilized for the perimeter of each reef within the authorized footprint. The interior of the reefs would consist of 3' -V of authorized #4 crushed stone covered in loose oyster shell. No change in footprint for the previously authorized oyster reefs is proposed with this request. Upon review of the information provided, the Division of Coastal Management has determined that the proposed action continues to be consistent with existing State rules and regulations and is in keeping with the original purpose and intent of the permit. I hereby submit this Letter of Refinement authorizing the modification of State Permit #25-19, as described in your request dated August 12, 2020 and drawing dated received August 12, 2020. By copy of this letter we are notifying the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of Water Resources of our action. Please note this refinement does not alleviate the need to obtain any other local, state or federal permits. Sincerely, Tara MacPherson District Manager Enclosures cc: Wilmington Files USACE Robb Mairs, DWR North Carolina Department orEn&onmental Quality I DWMonofCoo= Managenrnt WWNngton Ofnce 1117Canlinal Drive Extension I Wloongtort NorthCarol1na28405 910.796.7215 MacPherson, Tara From: Addison, Lindsay <Lindsay.Addison@audubon.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 10:52 AM To: MacPherson, Tara Cc: Adam Knierim , Subject: [External] Oyster reefs - Audubon NC - permit # 25-19 Attachments: Base layer version 2.pdf Hi Tara, Another year, another hurricane. I'm sure you're swamped with assessments after Isaias, but we've got an update and what I hope is a pretty quick question about our oyster reefs under permit 25-19. First, we had thought we could get started earlier this year, but the pandemic came along, and everything got up -ended, so I need to let you know that we plan on starting in -water work no earlier than August 24 (probably a little later, depending on when we wrap up land -based work and transport). We have the corners of the reefs staked, so we can do a proper site visit before starting. We had planned not to do one earlier this year, so I don't know if you want to try for, one now, or if with Isaias -related work it's not practical. If not, I can send photos of the sites if you need a substitute. I just got the card to mail to you all in the mail from HQthis week, so I'm dropping it in the mail today. Second, Adam and I were working out the details of the deployment, and we'd like to use a slightly different construction method than is spec'ed out in the permit plans. The reefs were all designed with a sacrificial base layer of crushed stone bagged in industrial weave burlap bags. The idea is that because the substrate is somewhat soft at the sites, the base layer will settle into the mud. It wouldn't make sense to use bagged oyster shell for that reason because the shell wouldn't be available for spat to settle on if it's partly buried in the mud. However, we've noticed that the burlap bags start to deteriorate when they can't dry out, so they might not do well on the reefs. It also greatly increases the handling time to use bags for the entire base layer. So, we think a more durable, less labor-intensive method would be to fall back on the plastic oyster mesh bagging material that is already being used for the bagged oyster shell. We'd fill the plastic mesh with granite ballast stone large enough that it won't fall out of the gaps in the mesh to create a retaining wall perimeter around each sill or patch. Then we'd fill the interior with loose crushed stone to a depth of 3-6" inches, which was the originally spec'ed height of the gravel -filled burlap bags. The oyster shell intended to form the actual reefs would completely cover the loose stone in the middle of the sills and patches, and the bagged stone on the perimeter would form the outline of each reef. Since the bags are up to 12" tall when filled (depending on how the material inside is arranged), they could be somewhat taller than the base layer of loose stone, which would work to help stabilize and contain the reef in its footprint. Since that design isn't in the original drawings, Adam and I wanted to run that up the flagpole to see if it would be acceptable to use it. We think it will be a lot more efficient, cost-effective, and probably overall more effective because of our observations about the burlap. And, since most of the material is going to end up partially or completely embedded in the substrate below, it shouldn't be significantly different in how the reefs interact with their environment. I attached a drawing to try to illustrate what I've described, and if you have any questions, just let me know. Sacrificial base layer for 25-19 oyster reefs Retaining wall of bag to be 12" wide, 12" tall, made of plastic mesh oyster bags filled with Example sill pictured 23' long; sills up to 164' and all 5' wide; marl patches 1 0'x10' or 10'x5'. Sacrificial layer intended to sink into soft substrate, supporting oyster shell that will form the reef. Interior of retaining wall to be filled with loose crushed stone to depth of 3-6"; bagged oyster shell 1 4 ft. 1 Permitted existing size: 164'x5' sills (3) 148' x5' sills (3) 82' x5' sills (2) 10'x10' patches (18) 10'x6' patches (18) Total footprint: 8,380 fz Modification presented 12August2020 o RECEIVED AUG 12 2020 ACM WILMINGTON, NC 2.1.3 Location Map Ap�ant: Audubon NC i location Map Lower Cape Fear Rhrer, North Carolina 10/25/201a Drawing 1 of 15 /liuluhrm 0 2600 560 1.120 1.680 Alelers 1- C:_';111E: U'%fvi WILMINGTON, NC DEC (1 4 �ptp 11 Ar °n os"r7O lzfr`'y�O"�7 �M :1� Proposed Oyster ;VShellhag Reef 3 '1148ftx5ftx2ft ,S--t7r,i K-i MgI Island Cape FROM River O ,o°spv 0 7q8 Ysrer fr�s S7jei / `tk2�va�RO°r 2 / pr° ��� nOSDv O s Y 70 fe k6`rkbvyp 2/ a7 yA i,. � 400000 O Salt Marsh Applicant: Audubon NC Site: Striking Island B (Plan -View) Scale 1 Inch =100 ft 12/4/2018 Drawing 7 of 15 3" Audubon NORTH CAROLINA 4i%i 1 AND \EDIALE1h'iFTON, SSOCIA9'I-S INC' n.«�..,...a, IJCI. V 4 1910 0 40 80 160 240 Feet Applicant: Audubon NC Site: Shellbed Island A (Plan -View) Scale i Inch = 200 ft 10of1S Audubon � NORTH CAROL,INA , ®� :. �F. DIALCIA I C.iNc� non ,xsnr.inri:h���, 4 791� 1'��vn��i���/�JI •vud� 0 90 180 360 540 Feet Applicant: Audubon NC Site: Shellbed Island B (Plan -View) Scale 1 Inch =130 ft 12/4/2018 Drawing 13 of 1S Audubon .1 NORTH (,AROLINA .' � u�ryVJIl.A41 DIAL CORD .,��)(NA.M.4 � 4 2916 0 55 110 220 330 Feet ......n. ................................. Permit Class Permit Number NEW 25-19 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Department of Environmental Quality and Coastal Resources Commission for X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern pursuant to NCGS 113A-118 X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229 Issued to National Audubon Society c/o Curtis Smalling, 807 E. Main St. Suite 2-220, Durham, NC 27701 Authorizing development in Brunswick County at Lower Cape Fear Rive, Shellbed & Striking as requested in the permittee's application dated 11/14/18 (MP-1, MP-4), 1116118, (W-2), inc. attached dwgs. (15), Sheet 1 of 15 did. 125/18, Sheets 2-5 of 15 dtd. M3/18, and Sheets 6-15 of 15 did. 12/4/18. This permit, issued on April 30, 2019 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void. Offshore Sill/Oyster Reefs 1) Unless specifically altered herein, this permit authorizes the offshore sills and oysters shell fill that are depicted on the attached workplan drawings. 2) The alignments of the approved offshore sills/oyster reefs shall adhere to the alignments depicted on the attached workplan drawings, including the location and design of the openings designed to allow for movement of aquatic organisms. 3) The ends of each of the offshore sills shall be marked with a yellow reflector extending at least three feet above normal high water level. (See attached sheets for Additional Conditions) This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing date. This permit must be accessible on -site to Department .personnel when the project is inspected for compliance. Any maintenance work or project modification not covered hereunder requires further Division approval. All work must cease when the permit expires on December 31, 2022 In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees that your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DEQ and the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission. Braxton C. Davis, Director Division of Coastal Management This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Permittee National Audubon Society Permit No. 25-19 Page 2 of 3 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 4) The permittee shall notify the Division of Marine Fisheries Shellfish Sanitation Section immediately upon completion of the authorized offshore sills so that closed shellfish harvesting signs can be posted and modified patrol plans can be developed by the NC Marine Patrol. NOTE: To establish these areas as research sanctuaries, please contact the Division of Marine Fisheries at (252) 808-8050. 5) No open water areas shall be filled outside the alignments depicted on the attached workplan drawings. - 6) Appropriate sedimentation and erosion control devices, measures or structures shall be implemented to ensure that eroded materials from any portion of disturbed staging areas do not enter adjacent wetlands, watercourses and property. 7) Any staging areas shall be inspected and approved by a representative of the Division of Coastal Management prior to the initiation of any work under this permit 8) The permittee shall maintain the authorized work in good condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. The permittee is not relieved of this requirement if he abandons the permitted activity without having it transferred to a third party. 9) In order. to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trfchechus manatus, the applicant must implement the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's Guidelines, and strictly adhere to all requirements therein. The guidelines can be found at http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/niammal/manatee guidelines.pdf. Monitorine 10). Unless specifically altered herein, the monitoring and reporting requirements listed in the Environmental Assessment dated November 2018 shall be implemented. 11) The permittee shall provide a copy of the monitoring report to the Division of Coastal Management within 90 days of completion of the initial report and the three (3) subsequent annual reports. An as -built survey shall be performed on the sills, and copies of the survey provided to the Division of Coastal Management, within 90 days of completion of construction. General 12) No attempt shall be made by the permittee to prevent the free and full use by the public of all navigable waters adjacent to the authorized work. 13) The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or'work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the perinittee will be required, upon due notice from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States or the state of North Carolina. No claim shall be made against the United States or the state of North Carolina on account of any such removal or alteration. National Audubon Society Permit No. 25-19 Page 3 of 3 ADDMONAL CONDITIONS 14) The permittee and/or his or her contractor shall meet with a representative of the Division prior to project initiation. 15) This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. 16) The permit shall not be assigned, transferred, sold, or otherwise disposed of to a third party without the written approval of the Division of Coastal Management. NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits, approvals or authorizations that may be required. NOTE: Future development at or adjacent to the project site may require a modification of this permit. Contact a representative of the Division at (910) 796-7215 prior to the commencement of any such activity for this determination. The permittee is further advised that many non -water dependent activities are not authorized within 30 feet of the normal high water level. NOTE: The N.C. Division of Water Resources has assigned the proposed project DWR Project No. 2019-0044, which was issued 2/19/19. NOTE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assigned the proposed project COE Action Id. No. SAW- 2017-02284. NOTE: An application processing fee of $475 was received by DCM for this project. This fee also satisfied the Section 401 application processing fee requirements of the Division of Water Resources. WeVchert, Curtis R From: Currey, Gregory E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Gregory.E.Currey@usace.army.mil> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 2:25 PM To: Weychert, Curtis R Subject: [External] FW: SAW-2017-02284: CAMA Letter of Refinement: National Audubon Society Curt, I Corps permitting action is also not required for this change in construction method and materials. Greg Greg Currey Project Manager USACE, Wilmington 69 Darlington Ave. Wilmington, NC 28403 PH 910-251-4707 From: WilmingtonNCREG <WilmingtonNCREG@usace.army.mil> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2020 10:11 AM To: Pietila, Tanya K <tanya.pietila@ncdenr.gov> Cc: Currey, Gregory E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Gregory.E.Currey@usace.army.mil> Subject: SAW-2017-02284: CAMA Letter of Refinement: National Audubon Society Hi Tanya, We received the letter of refinement for SAW-2017-02284 and forwarded the information to Mr. Greg Currey. Thanks, Christy From: Pietila, Tanya K <tanva.pietila@ncdenr.gov> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 3:37 PM To: WilmingtonNCREG <WilmingtonNCREG@usace.army.mil>; Mairs, Robb L <robb.mairs ncdenr.gov>; Weychert, Curtis R <curt.wevchert@ncdenr.gov>; Cannon, Amanda 1 <Amanda.Cannononcdenr.gov> Cc: MacPherson, Tara <tara.macpherson@ncdenr.gov> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] CAMA Letter of Refinement: National Audubon Society Good Afternoon, Attached please find CAMA Letter of Refinement with associated documents for State Permit No. 25-19 in Lower Cape Fear River; Smith Island, Brunswick County. The original letter has been mailed to the applicant via USPS. Thank you! Tanya Tanya Pietila Permit Support Specialist NC Department of Environmental Quality NC Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext. Wilmington, NC 28405 Phone: (910)796-7226 Tanya.PletllaO ncdenr.gov 10 -�"Noth7ngCores-, E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. ROY COOPER Governor MICHAEL S. REGAN Seartary BRAXTON C. DAVIS Dirmtor National Audubon Society clo Lindsay Addison 807 East Main Street Suite 2.220 Durham, NC 27701 Dear Ms. Addison: NORTH CAROLINA Environmental Quality August 25, 2020 This correspondence is with reference to the request you submitted to modify State Permit No. 25-19, which was originally issued to the National Audubon on August 30, 2019 for the construction of offshore sills and oyster reefs within the Lower Cape Fear River Smith Island complex. State Permit No. 25-19 is due to expire on December 31, 2022. The action proposed in your submittal consists of a change in construction methodology forthe oyster reef base layers. The use of plastic mesh oyster bags is being proposed in place of the burlap woven bags to prevent deterioration of the reef base layer. The plastic mesh bags would be filled with granite ballast stone rather than crushed stone and would be utilized for the perimeter of each reef within the authorized footprint. The interior of the reefs would consist of 3' -8" of authorized #4 crushed stone covered in loose oyster shell. No change in footprint for the previously authorized oyster reefs is proposed with this request. Upon review of the information provided, the Division of Coastal Management has determined that the proposed action continues to be consistent with existing State rules and regulations and is in keeping with the original purpose and intent of the permit. I hereby submit this Letter of Refinement authorizing the modification of State Permit #25-19, as described in your request dated August 12, 2020 and drawing dated received August 12, 2020. By copy of this letter we are notifying the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of Water Resources of our action. Please note this refinement does not alleviate the need to obtain any other local, state or federal permits. Sincerely, Tara MacPherson District Manager Enclosures cc: Wilmington Files USACE Robb Mairs, DWR North Carolina Department of Envft m ntal Quality I Oivisionof Cooswi Planagrmrnt Wilmington Off -we 1127 Cardinal Drive EdlenSion I Wilmingmn, North Carolina 78405 910.N67215 MacPherson, Tara From: Addison, Lindsay <Lindsay.Addison@audubon.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 10:52 AM To: MacPherson, Tara Cc: Adam Knierim Subject: [External] Oyster reefs - Audubon NC - permit # 25-19 Attachments: Base layer version 2.pdf Hi Tara, Another year, another hurricane. I'm sure you're swamped with assessments after Isaias, but we've got an update and what I hope is a pretty quick question about our oyster reefs under permit 25-19. First, we had thought we could get started earlier this year, but the pandemic came along, and everything got up -ended, so I need to let you know that we plan on starting in -water work no earlier than August 24 (probably a little later, depending on when we wrap up land -based work and transport). We have the corners of the reefs staked, so we can do a proper site visit before starting. We had planned not to do one earlier this year, so I don't know if you want to try for one now, or if with Isaias -related work it's not practical. If not, I can send photos of the sites if you need a substitute. I just got the card to mail to you all in the mail from HQthis week, so I'm dropping it in the mail today. Second, Adam and I were working out the details of the deployment, and we'd like to use a slightly different construction method than is spec ed out in the permit plans. The reefs were all designed with a sacrificial base layer of crushed stone bagged in industrial weave burlap bags. The idea is that because the substrate is somewhat soft at the sites, the base layer will settle into the mud. It wouldn't make sense to use bagged oyster shell for that reason because the shell wouldn't be available for spat to settle on if it's partly buried in the mud. However, we've noticed that the burlap bags start to deteriorate when they can't dry out, so they might not do well on the reefs. It also greatly increases the handling time to use bags for the entire base layer. So, we think a more durable, less labor-intensive method would be to fall back on the plastic oyster mesh bagging material that is already being used for the bagged oyster shell. We'd fill the plastic mesh with granite ballast stone large enough that it won't fall out of the gaps in the mesh to create a retaining wall perimeter around each sill or patch. Then we'd fill the interior with loose crushed stone to a depth of 3-6" inches, which was the originally spec'ed height of the gravel -filled burlap bags. The oyster shell intended to form the actual reefs would completely cover the loose stone in the middle of the sills and patches, and the bagged stone on the perimeter would form the outline of each reef. Since the bags are up to 12" tall when filled (depending on how the material inside is arranged), they could be somewhat taller than the base layer of loose stone, which would work to help stabilize and contain the reef in its footprint. Since that design isn't in the original drawings, Adam and I wanted to run that up the flagpole to see if it would be acceptable to use it. We think it will be a lot more efficient, cost-effective, and probably overall more effective because of our observations about the burlap. And, since most of the material is going to end up partially or completely embedded in the substrate below, it shouldn't be significantly different in how the reefs interact with their environment. I attached a drawing to try to illustrate what I've described, and if you have any questions, just let me know. Sacrificial base layer for 25-19 oyster reefs Retaining wall of bag to be 12" wide, 12" tall, made of plastic mesh oyster bags filled with Example sill pictured 23' long; sills up to 164' and all 5' wide; marl patches 10'x10' or 10'x6'. Sacrificial layer intended to sink into soft substrate, supporting oyster shell that will form the reef. Interior of retaining wall to be filled with loose crushed stone to depth of 3-6"; bagged oyster shell �4ft. Permitted existing size: 164'x5' sills (3) 148' x5' sills (3) 82' x5' sills (2) 10'x10' patches (18) 10'x6' patches (18) Total footprint: 8,380 fR Modification presented 12Augusb2020 RECEIVED AUG 12 2020 DCM WILMINGTON, NC U) 2.1.3 Location Map t` S y%Stagiage ng Araa SMIIOstl Island Slto B Shgill had Island SOUthport l31to A St king Island Sites A an Shelibed ifland Battory Island Striking Island caps Foar River WIM Applicant: Audubon NC .,1 Il �l I� if 11 I Location Map r ' lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina Q 1012512018 AINQ <I Drawing I of 15 0 280 560 1,120 1680 hlelm WILMINGTON, NO DEC it 4 1018 Ar °p0 SQA, 7q8 fYs�Prs +S f( 6 r Proposed 196hellbag 148ftx5 - Iiking lslandllslandI Cape Fear River pr opoSQ ao 7yefy%. /+S fi hPflb . / +2 fta9RSPf� Ar °po SPQ Oys' P r 7 0/S/hPi °h RPefs O�0v O O O IKA rSalt Marsh A Applicant: Audubon NC Site: Striking Island B (Plan -View) Scale 1 Inch =100 ft 12/4/2018 Drawing 7 of 15 1 { Audubon 0,14�6 NORTH CAROLINA n1ALv I_W, I ON.0 ......... 4 9 918 0 40 80 160 240 Feet Applicant: Audubon NC Site: Shellbed Island A (Plan -View) Scale 1 Inch = 200 ft 10 of 15 Audubon NORTH CAROLINA a 5E DIAL d AM"" 90 180 360 540 Feet [Cape Fear River Proposed Reef Balls Front Row = Bay Ball Module 3 ft base x 2 ft height Back Row = Mini Bay Ball Module 2.5 ft base x 1.76 it height Approximate K4 � 1 r 1 1 1 / 1j 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 /1 1 r ; r, r1 rr lr 1 1 f Approximate 2L Salt Marsh Proposed Oyster Shelibag Reefs 1-3 164 ft x 5 ft x 2 it �$hellbed LIsland Salt Marsh Permit Class NEW STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Department of Environmental Quality and Coastal Resources Commission erMit for X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concem pursuant to NCGS 113A-118 X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229 Permit Number 25-19 Issued to National Audubon Society c/o Curtis Smalling, 807 E. Main St. Suite 2-220, Durham, NC 27701 Authorizing development in Brunswick County at Lower Cape Fear Rive, Shellbed & Striking Islands , as requested in the perrnittee's application dated 11/14/18 (MP-1, MP-4), 11/6/I8 (MP-2), me. attached dwgs. (15), Sheet 1 of 15 dtd. IW5/18, Sheets 2-5 of 15 dtd. 1213/18, and Sheets 6-15 of 15 did. 12/4/18. This permit, issued on Apri130, 2019 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void. Offshore SiWOvster Reefs 1) Unless specifically altered herein, this permit authorizes the offshore sills and oysters shell fill that are depicted on the attached workplan drawings. 2) The alignments of the approved offshore sills/oyster reefs shall adhere to the alignments depicted on the attached workplan drawings, including the location and design of the openings designed to allow for movement of aquatic organisms. 3) The ends of each of the offshore sills shall be marked with a yellow reflector extending at least three feet above normal high water level. (See attached sheets for Additional Conditions) This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DEQ and the other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission. date. This permit must be accessible on -site to Departmcnt personnel when the project is inspected for compliance. Any maintenance work or project modification not covered hereunder requires further Division approval. All work must cease when the permit expires on December 31, 2022 In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees that your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program. Braxton C. l5avisi Director Division of Coastal Management This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Pemiittee National Audubon Society ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Permit No. 25-19 Page 2 of 3 4) The permittee shall notify the Division of Marine Fisheries Shellfish Sanitation Section immediately upon completion of the authorized offshore sills so that closed shellfish harvesting signs can be posted and modified patrol plans can be developed by the NC Marine Patrol. NOTE: To establish these areas as research sanctuaries, please contact the Division of Marine Fisheries at (252) 808-8050. 5) No open water areas shall be filled outside the alignments depicted on the attached workplan drawings. 6) Appropriate sedimentation and erosion control devices, measures or structures shall be implemented to ensure that eroded materials from any portion of disturbed staging areas do not enter adjacent wetlands, watercourses and property. 'n Any staging areas shall be inspected and approved by a representative of the Division of Coastal Management prior to the initiation of any work under this permit 8) The permittee shall maintain the authorized work in good condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. The permittee is not relieved of this requirement if he abandons the permitted activity without having it transferred to a third party. 9) In order. to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus, the applicant must implement the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's Guidelines, and strictly adhere to all requirements therein. The guidelines can bd found at htto://www.fws.eov/nc-es/niammaVmanatee guidelines.pd£ Monitorine 10) Unless specifically altered herein, the monitoring and reporting requirements listed in the Environmental Assessment dated November 2018 shall be implemented. 11) The permittee shall provide a copy of the monitoring report to the Division of Coastal Management within 90 days of completion of the initial report and the three (3) subsequent annual reports. An a§ -built survey shall be performed on the sills, and copies of the survey provided to the Division of Coastal Management, within 90 days of completion of construction. General 12) No attempt shall be made by the permittee to prevent the free and full use by the public of all navigable waters adjacent to the authorized work. 13) The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized; or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States or the state of North Carolina. No claim shall be made against the United States or the state of North Carolina on account of any such removal or alteration. National Audubon Society ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Permit No. 25-19 Page 3 of 3 14) The permittee and/or his or her contractor shall meet with a representative of the Division prior to project initiation. 15) This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. 16) The permit shall not be assigned, transferred, sold, or otherwise disposed of to a third party without the written approval of the Division of Coastal Management. NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits, approvals or authorizations that may be required. NOTE: Future development at or adjacent to the project site may require a modification of this permit. Contact a representative of the Division at (910) 796-7215 prior to the commencement of any such activity for this determination. The permittee is further advised that many non -water dependent activities are not authorized within 30 feet of the normal high water level. NOTE: The N.C. Division of Water Resources has assigned the proposed project DWR Project No. 2019-0044, which was issued 2/19/19. NOTE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assigned the proposed project COE Action Id. No. SAW- 2017-02294. NOTE: An application processing fee of $475 was received by DCM for this project. This fee also satisfied the Section 401 application processing fee requirements of the Division of Water Resources. WOW - it Permit Class NEW Permit Number 25-19 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Department of Environmental Quality RECEIVED and Coastal Resources Commission ,Permit MAY 0 7 2019 for DCM-MHD CITY X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern pursuant to NCGS 113A-118 X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229 Issued to National Audubon Society c/o Curtis Smalling, 807 E. Main St. Suite 2-220, Durham, NC 27701 Authorizing development in Brunswick County at Lower Cape Fear Rive, Shellbed & Striking Islands , as requested in the permittee's application dated 11/14/18 (MP-1, MP-4), 11/6/18 (MP-2), inc. attached dwgs. (15), Sheet 1 of 15 dtd. 10/25/18, Sheets 2-5 of 15 dtd. 12/3/18, and Sheets 6-15 of 15 dtd. 12/4/18. This permit, issued on April 30, 2019 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void. Offshore Sill/Oyster Reefs 1) Unless specifically altered herein, this permit authorizes the offshore sills and oysters shell fill that are depicted on the attached workplan drawings. 2) The alignments of the approved offshore sills/oyster reefs shall adhere to the alignments depicted on the attached workplan drawings, including the location and design of the openings designed to allow for movement of aquatic organisms. 3) The ends of each of the offshore sills shall be marked with a yellow reflector extending at least three feet above normal high water level. (See attached sheets for Additional Conditions) This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing date. This permit must be accessible on -site to Department personnel when the project is inspected for compliance. Any maintenance work or project modification not covered hereunder requires further Division approval. All work must cease when the permit expires on December 31, 2022 in issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees that your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program. Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DEQ and the Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission. � 1V 14 Braxton C. Davis, Director ivision of Coastal Management This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Permittee National Audubon Society ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS w 'j Permit No. 2549 Page 2 of 3 4) The permittee shall notify the Division of Marine Fisheries Shellfish SanitationSection immediately upon completion of the authorized offshore sills so that closed shellfish harvesting signs can be posted and modified patrol plans can be developed by the NC Marine Patrol. NOTE: To establish these areas as research sanctuaries, please contact the Division of Marine Fisheries at (252) 808-8050. 5) No open water areas shall be filled outside the alignments depicted on the attached workplan drawings. 6) Appropriate sedimentation and erosion control devices, measures or structures shall be implemented to ensure that eroded materials from any portion of disturbed staging areas do not enter adjacent wetlands, watercourses and property. 7) Any staging areas shall be inspected and approved by a representative of the Division of Coastal Management prior to the initiation of any work under this permit 8) The permittee shall maintain the authorized work in good condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. The permittee is not relieved of this requirement if he abandons the permitted activity without having it transferred to a third party. 9) In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus, the applicant must implement the_U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's Guidelines, and strictly adhere to all requirements therein. The guidelines can be found at htti)://www.fws.gov/nc-es/nianliTial/n-ianatee ¢uidelines.pdf. Monitorine 10) Unless specifically altered herein, the monitoring and reporting requirements listed in the Environmental Assessment dated November 2018 shall be implemented. 11) The permittee shall provide a copy of the monitoring report to the Division of Coastal Management within 90 days of completion of the initial report and the three (3) subsequent annual reports. An as -built survey shall be performed on the sills, and copies of the survey provided to the Division of Coastal Management, within 90 days of completion of construction. General 12) No attempt shall be made by the permittee to prevent the free and full use by the public of all navigable waters adjacent to the authorized work. 13) The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States or the state of North Carolina. No claim shall be made against the United States or the state of North Carolina on account of any such removal or alteration. National Audubon Society Permit No. 25-19 Page 3 of 3 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 14) The permittee and/or his or her contractor shall meet with a representative of the Division prior to project initiation. 15) This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. 16) The permit shall not be assigned, transferred, sold, or otherwise disposed of to a third party without the written approval of the Division of Coastal Management. NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits, approvals or authorizations that may be required. NOTE: Future development at or adjacent to the project site may require a modification of this permit. Contact a representative of the Division at (910) 796-7215 prior to the commencement of any such activity for this determination. The permittee is further advised that many non -water dependent activities are not authorized within 30 feet of the normal high water level. NOTE: The N.C. Division of Water Resources has assigned the proposed project DWR Project No. 2019-0044, which was issued 2/19/19. NOTE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assigned the proposed project COE Action Id. No. SAW- 2017-02284. NOTE: An application processing fee of $475 was received by DCM for this project. This fee also satisfied the Section 401 application processing fee requirements of the Division of Water Resources. RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY 11 APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL AND PROCESSING RECORD APPLICANT: National Audubon Society COUNTY: Brunswick PROJECT NAME: Audubon Lower Cape Fear Oyster Restoration LOCATION OF PROJECT: 4 sites within the Smith Island Complex off of Carolina Beach State Park, within the Cape Fear River, in Brunswick County. DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED COMPLETE BY FIELD: 12-4-18 FIELD RECOMMENDATION: Attached: Yes FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Amico n /� DISTRICT MANAGER REVIEW: , JL B) DATE RECEIVED BY MAJOR PERMITS UNIT: APPLICATION ASSIGNED TO: Spears PUBLIC NOTICE REC'D: 1-5-19 ADJ. RIP. PROP NOTICES RECU: N/A C) 75 DAY DEADLINE: 2-17-19 MAIL OUT DATE: 1-3-19 PERMIT FINAL ACTION: ISSUE Z70/tq To Be Forwarded: No DISTRICT OFFICE: WILMINGTON FEE RECT: $475 (60140) # 1498 ON: END OF NOTICE DATE:1-26-19 DEED RECD: N/A 150 DAY DEADLINE: STATE DUE DATE: 1-26-19 DENY AGENCY DATE COMMENTS RETURNED OBJECTIONS: YES NO NOTES DCM-Field Rep IZ ( X -(AV DCM - LUP Consistency Determination Local Permit Officer Corps of Engineers - Regulatory Branch (-5Atv,zd I,4 -- ov-,Dq DWR-401 Section (� 20101-60 DWR— PublicWaterSupply DEMLR — Stormwater & Sed/Erosion Ili D DOA — State Property Office 3�2� Wildlife Resources Commission DMF — Shellfish Section 1 li X DMF — Habitat & Enhancement DNCR —Archives & History II DNCR—Natural Heritage Program i I` NCDOT Rural Development Division I ( i ROY COOPER Governor MICHAEL S. REGAN Secretary BRAXTON C. DAVIS Director SENT VIA EMAIL Dial Cordy & Associates, Inc. c/o Keith Walls kwalls(@dialcordy.com ' Dear Sir: NORTH CAROLINA Enybmur ntol Quality February 14, 2019 This letter is in reference to your application for a Coastal Area Management Act Major Permit on behalf of Audubon Lower Cape Fear to undertake development activities in the Lower Cape Fear River, in Brunswick County. Although processing of the application is nearing completion, additional time is needed for this office to complete the review and make a decision on your request. Therefore, it is necessary that the standard review time be extended. An additional 75 days is provided by G.S. 113A-12 2(c) which would make May 3, 2019, the new deadline for reaching a decision on your request. However, we expect to take action prior to that time and will do so as soon as possible. In the interim, should you have any question on the status of your application, do not hesitate to contact me by phone (910-796-7426) or e-mail (courtney.spears@ncdenr.gov). A. Spears Major Permits Coordinator cc: WiRO file MHC file Liz Hair, USACE, email cc Chad Coburn, DWR, email cc ODE � RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2019 North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Coastal Management DCM-MHD CITY Wilmington Office 1 127 Cardinal Drive Extension I Wilmington. North Carolina 28405 910.796.7215 Spears, Courtne From: Hair, Sarah E CIV CESAW CESAD (US) <Sarah.E.Hair@usace.army.mil> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 10:10 AM To: Huggett, Doug; kathryn_matthews@fws.gov; leigh mann; pace wilbur, pete benjamin; Owens, Jennifer L CIV USARMY CESAW (US); HORTON, J TODD CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Arnette, Justin R CIV USARMY CESAW (US); DCR - Environmental_Review, Bowers, Todd; ethan Coble; Ryan.L.Taylor@uscg.mil; Fritz Rohde - NOAA Federal; matt creelman; Chad Coburn; Spears, Courtney; Twyla Cheatwood; Amico, Patrick J Cc: Beecher, Gary H CIV USARMY CESAW (US) Subject: [External] CAMA MAJOR/PGP 291/SAW-2017-02284/LCFR Oyster Restoration/Audubon Attachments: SAW-2017-02284_LCF Oyster Restoration_Audubon_ePN-signed.pdf, Audubon.Bio.narr.app.pdf; Audubon.drawings.pdf, GoogleEarth_Placemark.kmz CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to report.spam@nc.gov<mailto:report.spam@nc.gov> All: Pursuant to the CAMA-Corps Programmatic Permit process, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) has forwarded to our office a copy of the CAMA permit modification request for the subject project. The attached notice requests federal agency comments on this project by March 12, 2019. The applicant proposes to construct a series of Oyster reefs in four locations, on Striking and Shellbed Islands, in order to restore oyster habitat, and create foraging habitat for the American Oystercatcher ( AMOY), in the Lower Cape Fear River estuary, in Brunswick County, North Carolina. Coordinates in Decimal Degrees are as follows: Striking Island Sites A and B: 33.911° N,-77.9970 W Shellbed Island Site A: 33.9130 N,-77.9850 W Shellbed Island Site B: 33.9200N,-77.979° W Specifically, the project would involve the construction of new oyster reefs by introducing suitable substrate in 4 strategic locations to capture passing larvae. According to the applicant, the site -specific features have been designed in accordance with NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office best management practices for oyster reef restoration and are intended 10 increase AMOY productivity by providing new foraging grounds near existing AMOY nesting sites. The proposed project would convert approximately 1.2 acres of soft bottom near Striking and Shellbed Islands to oyster habitat. A combination of bagged shell, crushed stone, limestone marl, and concrete reef balls would be used to construct the reefs, and all construction materials would be pollutant free with loose dirt removed prior to staging. All features would be positioned in the lower intertidal and be accessible to AMOY for approximately 4-6 hours per average tidal cycle. The proposed construction includes barge and tug services to transport and install design features at the various site locations. Specifically, materials will be stored at the Bald Head Island Deep Creek Marina, loaded onto 1 spud barge, and transported to a predetermined location adjacent to the work sites. From the spud barge, 2 work skiffs will alternate transporting the materials to the project tract(s), and materials will be lifted into place using a davit and a small field crew. One site will be completed at a time. Total fill material consists of approximately 92 cubic yards of crushed stone, approximately 71 cubic yards of oyster shell, and 145 concrete reef balls. The applicant is proposing to install PVC sign posts with reflector taPRESIERVED MAY 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY labeling the area as a "Designated Sanctuary" to mark the corners of each site, and supplemental posts to be evenly spaced across the entire length of each project area. According to the application water depths within the project areas are -1.0' at NLW. Please note that based on the plans provided, a portion of the Striking Island site B is located within a USACE ROW. Please see the attached request, plans, and location map for more detailed information concerning the proposed project. EFH: This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Corps' initial determination is that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect EFH or associated fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the National Marine Fisheries Service. The waters within the project area designated SA; HOW by the Division of Water Resources. Waters within the project area are NOT designated as PNA by the NC Division of Marine Fisheries and are CLOSED to the taking of shellfish. ESA: The Corps has reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the applicant and consulted the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on available information, the Corps has determined that the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the West Indian manatee. The use of the Manatee Guidelines may be required as a condition of this proposed action. The project will not affect any other species listed as threatened or endangered or their critical habitat formally designated pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) within the project area. NHPA 106: Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, Appendix C of 33 CFR Part 325, and the 2005 Revised Interim Guidance for Implementing Appendix C, the District Engineer consulted district files and records and the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places, the Corps has preliminarily determined that the proposed project will have no effect on cultural resources and requests concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Office. Please contact me if you have any questions. Please provide comments as soon as you can, or by March 12, 2019. *Also, please note that in case of a federal government shutdown, if necessary, the comment period will be extended in order to complete both ESA consultation and EFH consultation. Liz Hair Regulatory Project Manager Wilmington District US Army Corps of Engineers 69 Darlington Avenue Wilmington, NC 28403 Sarah.e.hair@usace.army.mil 910-251-4049 RECEIVED MAY U 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY Spears, Courtney From: Hair, Sarah E CN CESAW CESAD (US) <Sarah.E.Hair@usace.army.mil> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 12:20 PM To: Spears, Courtney; Amico, Patrick 1 Subject: [External] Corps conditions National Audubon Society/ Lower Cape Fear Attachments: CL 31_National Audubon Society -Lower Cape Fear_LETTERHEAD-signed.pdf; CL 31 National Audubon Society -Lower Cape Fear_LETTERHEAD.DOCX CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to report.spam@nc.gov<mailto:report.spam@nc.gov> Courtney and Patrick, Attached please find the Corps conditions for the following project: Corps Action ID: SAW-2017-02284 Project Name: National Audubon Society/Lower Cape Fear Oyster Restoration County: Brunswick Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanksl Liz Hair Regulatory Project Manager Wilmington District US Army Corps of Engineers 69 Darlington Avenue Wilmington, NC 28403 Sarah.e.hair@usace.army.mil 910-251-4049 RECEIVED MAY U 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY RECENE� pCM N`IILM)Nr'iON, NG DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343 March 21. 2019 Regulatory Division Action ID No. SAW-2017-02284/National Audubon Society/Lower Cape Fear Mr. Doug Huggett Division of Coastal Management North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 400 Commerce Avenue Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421 Dear Mr. Huggett: Reference the application of The National Audubon Society, c/o Mr. Curtis Smalling, to construct a series of Oyster reefs in four locations, on Striking and Shellbed Islands, in order to restore oyster habitat, and create foraging habitat for the American Oystercatcher (AMOY), in the Lower Cape Fear River estuary, in Brunswick County, North Carolina. Specifically, the project consists of the project would involve the construction of new oyster reefs by introducing suitable substrate in 4 strategic locations to capture passing larvae. According to the applicant, the site -specific features have been designed in accordance with NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office best management practices for oyster reef restoration and are intended to increase AMOY productivity by providing new foraging grounds near existing AMOY nesting sites. The proposed project would convert approximately 1.2 acres of soft bottom near Striking and Shellbed Islands to oyster habitat. A combination of bagged shell, crushed stone, limestone marl, and concrete reef balls would be used to construct the reefs, and all construction materials would be pollutant free with loose dirt removed prior to staging. All features would be positioned in the lower intertidal and be accessible to AMOY for approximately 4-6 hours per average tidal cycle. The proposed construction includes barge and tug services to transport and install design features at the various site locations. Specifically, materials will be stored at the Bald Head Island Deep Creek Marina, loaded onto 1 spud barge, and transported to a predeterminer*IP '�iWadjacent to the work sites. From the spud barge, 2 work skiffs will alternate transporting the materials to the RECEIVED oR 2 MAY U 7 2019 DCM WILMINGTON, NC DCM-MHD CITY -2- project tract(s), and materials will be lifted into place using a davit and a small field crew. One site will be completed at a time. Total fill material consists of approximately 92 cubic yards of crushed stone, approximately 71 cubic yards of oyster shell, and 145 concrete reef balls. The applicant is proposing to install. PVC sign posts with reflector tape and signs labeling the area as a "Designated Sanctuary" to mark the corners of each site, and supplemental posts to be evenly spaced across the entire length of each project area. The Federal agencies have completed review of the proposal as presented by the application and your field investigation report. We recommend that.the following conditions be included in the modification to the State authorization: 1. In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus, the applicant must implement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Manatee Guidelines, and strictly adhere to all requirements therein. The guidelines can be found at http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/mammal/manatee auidelines.odf. 2. The permittee must install and maintain, at his expense, any signal lights and signals prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through regulations or otherwise, on authorized facilities. For further information, the permittee should contact the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office at (910) 772-2191. 3. All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance with the submitted plans, which are a part of this permit. Any modification to these plans must be approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to implementation. 4. Except as specified in the plans attached to this permit, no excavation, fill or mechanized land -clearing activities shall take place at any time in the construction or maintenance of this project, in such a manner as to impair normal flows and circulation patterns within waters or wetlands or to reduce the reach of waters or wetlands. 5. Except as authorized by this permit or any USACE approved modification to this permit, no excavation, fill or mechanized land -clearing activities shall take place at any time in the construction or maintenance of this project, within waters or wetlands. This permit does not authorize temporary placement or double handling of excavated or fill material within waters or wetlands outside the permitted area. This prohibition applies to all borrow and fill activities connected with this project. 6. All mechanized equipment will be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic -3- materials. In the event of a spill of petroleum products or any other hazardous waste, the permittee shall immediately report it to the N.C. Division of Water Resources at (919) 733- 5083, Ext. 526 or (800) 662-7956 and provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substances Control Act will be followed. 7. Unless otherwise authorized by this permit, all fill material placed in waters or wetlands shall be generated from an upland source and will be clean and free of any pollutants except in trace quantities. Metal products, organic materials (including debris from land clearing activities), or unsightly debris will not be used. 8. If the permittee discovers any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the authorized work, he will immediately notify the Wilmington District Engineer who will initiate the required coordination procedures. 9. The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit in the construction and maintenance of this project, and shall provide each of its contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or maintenance of this project with a copy of this permit. A copy of this permit, including all conditions, shall be available at the project site during construction and maintenance of this project. 10. The permittee shall employ all sedimentation and erosion control measures necessary to prevent an increase in sedimentation or turbidity within waters and wetlands outside the permit area. This shall include, but is not limited to, the immediate installation of silt fencing or similar appropriate devices around all areas subject to soil disturbance or the movement of earthen fill, and the immediate stabilization of all disturbed areas. Additionally, the project must remain in full compliance with all aspects of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 113A Article 4). 11. The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a significant increase in turbidity outside the area of construction or construction -related discharge. Increases such that the turbidity in the waterbody is 50 NTU's or less in all rivers not designated as trout waters by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), 25 NTU's or less in all saltwater classes and in all lakes and reservoirs, and 10 NTU's or less in trout waters, are not considered significant. 12. The permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of this permit or upon its expiration before completion of the work will, without expense to the United States and in such time and manner as the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative may direct, restore the water or wetland to its pre -project condition. RECEIVED 13. Violations of these conditions or violations of Section 404 of t�e� ftpZ"ter Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act must be reported in writing to a ilmington District DCM WIL"lNGTON, NC RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2019 -4- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within 24 hours of the permittee's discovery of the violation. Questions or comments may be addressed to Ms. Liz Hair Wilmington Field Office, Regulatory Division, telephone (910) 251-4049 or email at sarah.e.hair@usace.army. mi1. Sincerely, Liz Hair, Project Manager Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Electronic copy furnished: Mr. Todd Allen Bowers US EPA Region 4 Life Scientist -Water Protection Division Ms. Courtney Spears/Mr. Patrick Amico North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality- Division of Coastal Management Ms. Karen Higgins/Mr. Chad Coburn North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality -Division of Water Resources Mr. Pete Benjamin/Mr. John Ellis U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Dr. Pace Wilber/Mr. Fritz Rohde/Ms. Twyla Cheatwood National Marine Fisheries Service -Habitat Conservation Division 4W( MEMORANDUM To: Courtney Spears From: Michael Christenbury, Wilmington District Planner Subject: Consistency Determination, Major Permit Application, — National Audubon Society, Brunswick County Date: March 27, 2019 The applicant is proposing to construct a living shoreline in four sites to restore oyster habitat and create foraging resources and increase productivity for the American Oystercatcher. The project is located on Shellbed Island and Striking Island in the lower Cape Fear River in Brunswick County. Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's) impacted by the proposal are Estuarine Waters and Public Trust areas. Waters at the project site are classified as SA; HQW and are not open to the harvesting of shellfish. The area is not a Primary Nursery Area. I have reviewed this proposal for consistency with the 2007 Brunswick County Land Use Plan and offer the following comments. The general area of the project is classified as Conservation. In general, Brunswick County allows development in conservation classified AECs which is consistent with the State's minimum use standards. The Brunswick County Land Use Plan contains some policies, which exceed the State's minimum use standards. However, none of these standards appear to be applicable to this proposal. This project is consistent with the Brunswick County Land Use Plan. Cc: File RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY DocuSign Envelope ID: A9DEIBEF-AF33-43A1-B6AC-476EC7DiB7CE ROY COOPER Governor MICHAEL S. REGAN Secretary BRAXTON DAVIS Director, Uivenon of Coastal Management January 3, 2019 MEMORANDUM: FROM: Courtney Spears, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 Fax: 910-395-3964 (Courier 04-16-33) courtnev. spears(ccDncdenr.gov SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Application Review Applicant: National Audubon Society (Audubon Lower Cape Fear) Project Location: Smith Island Complex, off Carolina Beach State Park, within the Cape Fear River, in Brunswick County Proposed Project: installation of four (4) Living Shorelines Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form to Courtney Spears at the address above by January 26, 2019. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Patrick Amico at (910) 796-7423 when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: _X_This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. **Additional comments may be attached** This agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. PRINT NAME Morella Sanchez -King AGENCY _Water Resources DocuSp,wA W. Cam. s 6.1 SIGNATURE DC434... DATE 2/20/2019 State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Dive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 919 796 7215 RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC FEB 2 0 2019 RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY DocuSign Envelope ID: A9DEIBEF-AF33-43A1-BBAC-476EC7D1B7C' ROY COOPER Governor MICHAEL S. REGAN Secretary LINDA CULPEPPER Director National Audubon Society Mr. Curtis Smalling 807 East Main Street, Suite 2-220 Durham NC 27701 NORTH CAROLINA Environmental Quality February 19, 2019 Brunswick County DWR Project: 2019-0024 Subject Property: Audubon Lower Cape Fear Oyster Restoration Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions Dear Mr. Smalling, You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to impact 0.23 acres of open waters in order to construct a living shoreline as described in the application received by the N.C. Division of Water Resources (DWR) on January 3, 2019. After reviewing your application, we have decided that the impacts are covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 4175 (GC4175). In addition, you should obtain or otherwise comply with any other required federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Erosion and Sediment Control, Non -discharge, and stormwater regulations. Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit. This Certification can also be found on line at: http://Vortal.ncdenr.org/web/wg/smT/ws/40 I/certsandpermits. This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of wetland or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions listed below. RECEIVED DCM Dill MINGTON, NC FEB 2 0 2019 RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2019 North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources DCM-M H D CITY Wilmington Regional Office 1127 Cardinal Drive Extension I Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 �owr\ r 910.7%.7215 DocuSign Envelope ID: AgDE1BEF-AF33-43A1-B6AC-476EC7D1B7CE The Additional Conditions of the Certification are: This approval is for the purpose and design described in your application. The plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference as part of the Certification. If you change your project, you must notify the Division and you may be required to submit a new application package with the appropriate fee. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this approval letter and General Certification and is responsible for complying with all conditions. Any new owner must notify the Division and request the Certification be issued in their name {I 5A NCAC 02H .0501 and .0502}. 2. Any final construction plans for this project must include or reference the application and plans approved by the Division under this authorization letter and certification. The applicant will also be required to evaluate all acquired permits to assure that they are consistent and all relative impacts are accounted for and shown on the construction plans. [15A NCAC 02H .0502 (b) and 15A NCAC 02H .0506 (4)] The applicant shall require his contractors (and/or agents) to comply with all of the terms of this Certification and shall provide each of its contractors (and/or agents) a copy of this Certification. 3. Turbidity Standard The turbidity standard of 25 NTUs (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) shall not be exceeded as described in 15 A NCAC 213 .0220. Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices must be used to meet this standard. Turbidity curtains shall be used as appropriate. Please notify this Office if any turbidity issues arise at 910.796.7215 4. This General Certification shall expire on the same day as the expiration date of the corresponding General Permit. The conditions in effect on the date of issuance of the Certification for a specific project shall remain in effect for the life of the project, regardless of the expiration of this Certification. 5. The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms of this permit in the construction and maintenance of this project and shall provide each of its contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or maintenance of this project a copy of this certification. A copy of this certification including all conditions shall be available at the project site during the construction and maintenance of this project. [15A NCAC 02H .0507 (c) and 15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(2) and (c)(2)] 6. Continuing Compliance: 7. The applicant/permittee and their authorized agents shall conduct all activities in a manner consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements resulting from compliance with 303(d) of the Clean Water Act), and any other appropriate requirements of State and Federal law. If the Division determines that such standards or laws are not RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC FEB 2 0 2019 RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY DocuSign Envelope ID: AgDE1BEF-AF33-43A1-BBAC-476EC7D1B7CE being met, including failure to sustain a designated or achieved use, or that State or Federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, than the Division may reevaluate and modify this General Water Quality Certification. [15A NCAC 02H .0507(d)] 8. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters or wetlands will be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids or other potential toxic chemicals. In the event of a hydrocarbon or chemical spill, the permittee/contractor shall immediately contact the Division of Water Quality, between the hours of 8 am to 5 pm at the Wilmington Regional Office at 910.796.7215 and after hours and on weekends call (800) 858-0368. Management of such spills shall comply with provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substances Control Act. [15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(3) and (c)(3), 15A NCAC 02B .0200 (3)(f), and GS 143 Article 21A]. 9. Fueling, lubrication and general equipment maintenance should not take place within 50 feet of a waterbody or wetlands to prevent contamination by fuel and oils. [15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(3) and (c)(3) and 15A NCAC 02B .0200 (3)(f)]. 10. This certification grants permission to the director, an authorized representative of the Director, or DEQ staff, upon the presentation of proper credentials, to enter the property during normal business hours 15A NCAC 02H.0502(e). 11. Certificate of Completion Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant and/or authorized agent is required to return a completed certificate of completion form to the NCDEQ DWR 401 and Buffers Unit North Carolina Division of Water Resources, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699 within ten days of project completion. The certification of completion is available at: htty://yortal.nedenr.or web/wq/swp/ws/401/certsandi)ermits/apply/forms). Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as authorized by this Certification shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit. This approval and its conditions are final and binding unless contested. This Certification can be contested as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of General Statute 150B by filing a written petition for an administrative hearing to the Office of Administrative Hearings (hereby known as OAH). A petition form may be obtained from the OAH at http://www.ncoah.com/ or by calling the OAH Clerk's Office at (919) 431-3000 for information. Within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of this notice, a petition must be filed with the OAH. A petition is considered filed when the original and one (1) coprLAAJ@*hVlEQ DCM WILMINGTON, NC FEB 2 0gJIVE.IVED MAY 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY DocuSign Envelope ID: AgDE1BEF-AF33-43A1-B6AC-476EC7D1B7CE applicable OAH filing fee is received in the OAH during normal office hours (Monday through Friday between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, excluding official state holidays). The petition may be faxed to the OAH at (919) 431-3100, provided the original and one copy of the petition along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received by the OAH within five (5) business days following the faxed transmission. Mailing address for the OAH: If sending via US Postal Service. Office of Administrative Hearings 6714 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-6714 If sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc): Office of Administrative Hearings 1711 New Hope Church Road Raleigh, NC 27609-6285 One (1) copy of the petition must also be served to DEQ: William F. Lane, General Counsel Department of Environmental Quality 1601 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Resources under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Chad Coburn in the DWR Wilmington Regional Office at (910)796-7379 or Chad.Coburnna.ncdenr. ov. Sincerely, DOCU819r" by' E lonlla Sit v) 64 Morella Sanchez -King, Assistant Regional Supervisor Water Quality Regional Operations Section Wihnington Regional Office Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ Enclosure: GC4175 cc: Keith B. Walls — Dial Cordy & Associates (via email) Liz Hair - USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office (via email) Courtney Spears — DCM Wilmington (via email) RECEIVED DO" WILMINGTON, NO FEB 2 0 2019 RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2019 0CM-MHD CITY e ROY COOPER MICHAEL. S. REGAN BRAXTON DAVIS l Zb4ih N4dE January 3,2019 MEMORANDUM' FROM Courtney Spears, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEO - Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 Fax: 910-395-3964 (Courier 04-16-33) courtney. soearsi.5ncdenr.gov SUBJECT: CAMA /Dredge & Fill Application Review Applicant: National Audubon Society (Audubon Lower Cape Fear) Project Location: Smith Island Complex, off Carolina Beach State Park, within the Cape Fear River, in Brunswick County Proposed Project: installation of four (4) Living Shorelines Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form to Courtney Spears at the address above by January 26, 2019. It you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Patrick Amico at (910) 796-7423 when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: �_ This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. "Additional comments may be attached" This agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. PRINT NAME M&I k �r UW I1 AGENCY /� RECEIVED SIGNATURE _ La�(Cwv` 4 NIS JAN 0 DATE _ I'y �q DCMWjI GTON* NC RECE.VED Some of Nonh Carolina I Eavaonmmoital Quality I Coastal ?danarnient 127 Cardiml Nvis Ext . Wilmington, NC 29405 919 796 7215 MAY 0 7 2019 A*Itic� ROY COOPER Onvemor MICHAEL S. REGAN Sucre/wy BRAXTON DAVIS 171rnclur, Divirinn nf('uovlal Munagenrrrrl January 3, 2019 MEMORANDUM: FROM: Courtney Spears, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 Fax: 910-395-3964 (Courier 04-16-33) courtnev.soears(rDncdenr.aov SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Application Review Applicant: National Audubon Society (Audubon Lower Cape Fear) Project Location: Smith Island Complex, off Carolina Beach State Park, within the Cape Fear River, in Brunswick County Proposed Project: installation of four (4) Living Shorelines Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form to Courtney Spears at the address above by January 26, 2019. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Patrick Amico at (910) 796-7423 when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. "Additional comments may be attached'" This agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. PRINT NAME 't)AateL SAfx% AGENCY ­OE!Ll SIGNATURE RECEIVED .-yotq JAN 10 201° DATE-Sf1rJ1.v.R`( Ib , 2 � c DCM WILMINGTON, rAZCE.IVED Stale of North Carolina Environmental Quality I Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Ddve En., Wilmington, NC 28405 919 796 7215 MAY ^ /il V O IYl7 2019 ROY COOPER MICHAEL S. REGAN BRAXTON DAVIS January 3, 2019 MEMORANDUM. FROM: Courtney Spears, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 Fax: 910-395-3964 (Courier 04.16.33) cou rtnev. spea rsanoden r. a ov SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Application Review Applicant: National Audubon Society (Audubon Lower Cape Fear) Project Location: Smith Island Complex, off Carolina Beach State Park, within the Cape Fear River, in Brunswick County Proposed Project: installation of tour (4) Living Shorelines Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form to Courtney Spears at the address above by January 26, 2019. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Patrick Amico at (910) 796-7423 when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: PRINT AGENCY This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. "Additional comments may be attached" _)!C This agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. b)amdti 14111 ar d 6-aTv PkJP-94'tq - ) SIGNATURE W a-'otk 416A DATE - a 01 t Stile ofNWh Carolina Environmental Qalily I Cw M Managm l 127 Cardinal Drive Ent., Wilmington, NC 29405 919 796 7215 RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2019 DCM WILMINGTON, INC RECEIVED MAY 01 2019 ROY COOPER M IXAKN' MICHAEL S. REGAN P vw BRAXTON DAVIS t6>,e;Samrarr January 3, 2019 FROM: Courtney Spears, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 Fax: 910-395-3964 (Courier 04-16-33) co u rtn ey. s pea rs0_ n cd e n r.g o v SUBJECT. CAMA/Dredge & Fill Application Review Applicant: National Audubon Society (Audubon Lower Cape Fear) Project Location: Smith Island Complex, off Carolina Beach State Park, within the Cape Fear River, in Brunswick County Proposed Project: installation of four (4) Living Shorelines Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form to Courtney Spears at the address above by January 26, 2019. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Patrick Amico at (910) 796-7423 when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. "Additional comments may be attached`' VThis agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. PRINT NAME aI t, . 14_ I I --]in ri AGENCY SIGNATURE r DATE d -ZJ-?_%lcl State ofNpnb Caralim [$mimnmental Quality I CoatW Man%emeot 1276aullnal Dave Exd. Wilmington NC 2W5 9197967215 RECEIVED MAR 2 2 2019 DCM WILMINGTON, NC RECEIVED ROY COOPER Gmen., M►CHAEL S. REGAN NORTH CAROLINA /an vwnnrmo! Quuigr January 3, 2019 MEMORANDUM: FROM; Courtney Spears, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 Fax:910-395-3964 (Courier04-16-33) Courtney spears(ancdenr.gov SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Application Review Applicant: National Audubon Society (Audubon Lower Cape Fear) BRAXTON DAVIS thavar, Own,m.fUma al dlmiak%arna Project Location: Smith Island Complex, off Carolina Beach State Park, within the Cape Fear River, in Brunswick County Proposed Project: installation of four (4) Living Shorelines Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form to Courtney Spears at the address above by If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Patrick Amico at (910) 796-7423 when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. "Additional comments may be attached" This agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. PRINT NAME_Sv-,, o Vk h cvx J Q ✓l k v1 S AUNCY N `�Q✓l. V SIGNATUR �u t S�1 Q v vt ovt DATE RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2019 DCM-fAHD CITY Je..,-, I-,; "S RECEIVED "AN 10 2019 State of North Carolina I Enviroamcntal Quality I Coastal Managt M WIL 127 Cardinal Drive Est., wilmiogtoo, NC 28405 919 796 Ib11NGTON, NC 0 January 3, 2019 MEMORANDUM: FROM: Courtney Spears, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 Fax: 910-395-3964 (Courier 04-16-33) courtnev.soearsancdenroov SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Application Review ROY COOPER ,.,. MICHAEL S. REGAN l Applicant: National Audubon Society (Audubon Lower Cape Fear) BRAXTON DAVIS /Ami'/u/', , N,'lylMl Ull'u✓Vnl 1Y' JAN 0 3 2019 U HABITAT &ENHANCEMENT Project Location: Smith Island Complex, off Carolina Beach State Park, within the Cape Fear River, in Brunswick County Proposed Project: installation of four (4) Living Shorelines Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form to Courtney Shears at the address above by January 26, 2019. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Patrick Amico at (910) 796-7423 when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. "Additional comments may be attached" This agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. PRINT NAME Jat W ( , RECEIVED AGENCY �Il MAY 0 7 2019 �/M DCM-MHD CITY SIGNATURE (ZL !: /' ��._C&aZ -vim -y� RECEIVED i,�CM WILMINGTON, NC DATE 2 1/ i FEB 2 0 2019 Slate of North Carolina I Elm mrmcntal Quality I Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Driw Ext., Wilmington, NC 29405 919 796 7215 ROY COOPER MICHAEL S. REGAN .Se, relulry STEPHEN W. MURPHEY Di, e, for MEMORANDUM: TO: Courtney Spears, DCM Assistant Major Permit Coordinator FROM: Curt Weychert, DMF Fisheries Resource Specialist SUBJECT: National Audubon Society Living Shoreline Project DATE: January 17, 2019 A North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) Fisheries Resource Specialist has reviewed the CAMA Major Permit application for proposed actions that impact fish and fish habitats. The National Audubon Society is seeking to construct 4 individual living shoreline projects in the Lower Cape Fear River, Brunswick County. The construction methods will include loose oyster shell, bagged shell, and prefabricated concrete structures. The project will also incorporate salt marsh plantings behind the shoreline structures. The intent and purpose of this project is to provide habitat and foraging area for the American Oystercatcher (AMOY) while having the secondary benefit of creating oyster habitat and restoring coastal marsh. Recognized as an ecosystem engineer, oysters play an important ecological role, delivering a variety of ecosystem services, such as improving water quality through water filtration, bottom consolidation, benthic-pelagic coupling, shoreline stabilization, and essential fish habitat. Fully developed coastal oyster reefs can support high oyster population density, mature size structure, and subsequently high reproductive output. DMF has made efforts for the last 100 years to enhance oyster habitat while maintaining a viable fishery. The DMF supports efforts to increase restoration efforts of oyster habitat To that end, DMF has procedures in place to help protect oyster restoration and research. DMF's Eastern Oyster Fishery Management Plan includes concerns about poaching of oysters from areas protected from harvest. For this reason, the DMF is requesting that the applicant be consult with the DMF in order to establish the research areas as a research sanctuary. This designation through proclamation of the Director of DMF will also allow the applicant to restrict certain fishing and bottom disturbing gears on the research sites. Contact Curt Weychert at (252) 808-8050 or t .W ychert0ncdenr gov with further questions or concerns. 1—�`hhig Compams.. Stare of North Carolina I oivisim ul Marine fisheries 'f441 A, rviddl 5t1 cet PO. Boa" i Nimbead City. N,xth Catnitna 28557 252 726 '1021 t-1ECEIVEL` DCM WILMINGTON, NC GCn 9 0 "19 RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY 114U yW W (bk, ROY COOPER Received: 01/03/2019MICHAEL S. REGAN State Historic Preservation Offi(f@,AXTON DAVIS January 3, 2019 ER 19-0012 MEMORANDUM Due -- 1/18/19 FROM Courtney Spears, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 A- Fax: 910-395-3964 (Courier 04-16-33) courtnev.soears0ncdenroov SUBJECT CAMA/Dredge & Fill Application Review / Applicant: National Audubon Society (Audubon Lower Cape Fear) Project Location: Smith Island Complex. off Carolina Beach State Park, within the Cape Fear River, in Brunswick County Proposed Project: installation of four (4) Living Shorelines Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form to Courtney Spears at the address above by January 26, 2019. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Patrick Amico at (910) 796-7423 when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. "Additional comments may be attached" This agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. PRINT NAME Renee Gledhill -Earley AGENCY State Historic Preservation Office QIGNATURE WM1449440 -1 DATE t a 1 D a I 1 Sw1,.fN—h('an,1.m Fn. nonvwnnl Qwhly ('oamal Nampc.wm 127 ('anhml D.,c Eu, NNmn.Emm, M 2M01 9197%72I1 RECEIVED JAN 11 DCM WILMINGTON, NC RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2019 JAN 0 4 2019 DCM-MHD CITY NC DEPARTMENT OF Susi Hamilton, Secretary NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES I Walter Clark, Director, Land and Water Stewardship NCNHDE-7947 January 15, 2019 Courtney Spears NC DEQ 127 Cardinal Drive Wilmington, NC 28405 RE: CAMA Application: Audubon of the Lower Cape Fear Dear Courtney Spears: The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above. A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. These results are presented in the attached 'Documented Occurrences' tables and map. The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report. If a Federally -listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one -mile radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here: httrZ//www.fws.aov/offices/Di rectory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37. Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission. Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water Management Trust Fund easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area. If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please contact Rodney A. Butler at rcdney.butler ncdcr.aov or 919-707-8603. Sincerely, NC Natural Heritage Program RECEIVED MAY U 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY RECEIVED JAN 2 2 [ACM WILMINGTON, NO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES IV 01 W. JONES STREET, RALEIGH. NC 27603 • W MAIL SERVICE CENTER. RALEIGH, NC 27699 ird Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area CAMA Application: Audubon of the Lower Cape Fear January 15, 2019 N C N H D E-7947 25976 Haematopus Oystercatcher Concern atural Areas Documented Within Project Area ,e 5wer:.=Gape Eear:River`Bird Nestingxlslands R2`(Very,F PF/Lower Cape Fear River Aquatic Habitat R2 (Very H Areas Documented Within Project Area C4 S2S3B, S3N Aking Island Audubon Sanctuary National Audubon Society Private OTE: If the proposed project intersects with a conservation/managed area, please contact the landowner directly for additional information. If the project intersects with a Dedicated Nature Prese -NP). Registered Natural Heritage Area (RHA), or Federally -listed species, NCNHP staff may provide additional correspondence regarding the project. afinitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at ht //ncnhd na r rve oro/ ont nt/h lo. Data query generated on January 15, 2019; source: NCNHP, Q4 Oct 2C case resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database. Page 2 of 6 RECEIVED 0 2 tural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area �Ay CAMA Application: Audubon of the Lower Cape Fear January 15, 2019 D�F_pAHD CITY NCNHDE-7947 nimal 14175 Waterbird Colony --- LV14-vo-va ssemblage mblage nimal ssemblage 573 Eg ird 4729 Egre_ a caerulea Little Blue Heron 2014-05-08 29 5 Egretta thufd ird 12853 Egretta thula Snowy Egret 2014-05-08 ird 19002 Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron pus palliatus American Ovstercatcher palliatus egadis falcinellus 33738 So tochlor�3 A9, na Fish12176 Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose Sturgeon F7 H C 3-Medium 3u l --- 3-Medium --- Concern Concern Special Concern AB 3-Medium --- Special Concern AB 3-Medium --- Special Concern Concern B 5-Very Endangered Endangers Low GNR S3 53B,S3 N G5 S3_� Si 2S3B, 53N G5 S2S3B, S3N G5 S3B,S3 N G5 S2S3B, S3N Page 3 of 6 � ement Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area teshwater, a-isnSL4I7 '. it Actpenser oxynncnus Atlantic >i:urgeon to It-v4-U4 -- t 4 Low ' Cnt]ang reU Ciluanyer et]- u� i J oxynnchus=: rasshoppe'r or 35042 Mermiria bivittata Two -striped Mermiria 2007-08-17 E 4-Low Significantly G5 S2S3 atydid ? Rare mma,I' 17664 Trichec us nanatus West In ian.Manatee 018 0 3 `."' E" fireaten eatene G m� 5 .. atural %33 '_ Maritime Evergreen --- 1994-08-22 D 2-High -- -- G2 Sl ommunity`_ Forest (South Atlantic Subtype) tural 7:: 68 Maritime ub � n — Mom" 1994-0 =22 `D� 3 e um G 52" ., rnrnunity ", (Stunted Tree'' A' . yt Subtype) , ,. 5 = "r _� .r ^: ,. . , ;, .., yy _ k p ..::, .c .. .x v..�. Lam• t .k� atural _ 7096 Salt Marsh (Carolinian --- 1994-08-22 C .x 3-Medium --- --- G5 S4 ommunity Subtype) pole': " 19 . Mafaclemys terrapin " ' �antondback Terrapin 2475-1 91 "' E 2 Highpecia G51, Con ernes ascular Plant 7690 Amaranthus pumilus Seabeach Amaranth 1988? F 3-Medium Threatened Threatened G2 Sl scular Plant 214$6 . e renaria lanuginosa Sprea mg an' wort 19 9=0$-27 4 ow S gmicant y GST S1 var :Iartugmosa Rare " ascular Plant 8837 Crocanthemum Georgia Sunrose 1935-05-02 H 4-Low Endangered G4 Sl oeorgianum sd5larP ant 19629. ichant e ium Blue Witc Grass` " 1932=09-04 HYF 5 �lery : dangered G G3 caerulescens ascular Plant 33076 Ipomoea macrorhiza Manroot 1970-08-22 H 3-Medium . Significantly G3G5 SH Rare Peripheral scu ar Pa , 1 ane ana prae�ermFssaCarge see Pei(itory T965-07-2 m 5 ery' Spec aI = S1b . Low T7 H Concerns � ascular Plant 18755 Rhynchospora Coastal Beaksedge 1949-06 H 4-Low --- Threatened G2G3 S2 pleiantha scularPlarit, 17 _ Sabafr a(metio a age Palm ',. ' 994= 3-Medwm ascular Plant 35043 Sesuvium Shoreline Sea -purslane 2007-10-23 E 4-Low --- Significantly G5 Sl - portulacastrum Rare Peripheral - 'Page 4 of 6 ' ascular Flan[ Ioub/ Jporoii virglncus JdlLlnarsn urupseeU r6r7lant 6$68...... Trffhostema sp71 "`bane 6Tuecurls "" 1994-08-22 C? 3-Medium ascular Plant 16901 Yucca glonosa Moundlily Yucca 199Z-08-22 13 3-Medr„rn atural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area R1 (Exceptional) Cl (Exceptional) PF/Lower Cape Fear River Aquatic Habitat R2 (Very High) C4 (Moderate), Rare T -hreatened G5 S1 Sign --- Significantly 154? S2? Rare Peripheral ?finitionslad an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https,//n nhd nat it c ry .ora/ ontent/help. Data query generated on January 15, 2019; source: NCNHP, 04 Oct 2C ease resuit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database. � z L � m � o � n o 0 m ° N v Page 5 of 6 c je NOR I t' CAR CLINA liuw'nrAnpn011 1pN!!I[r January 3, 2019 MEMORANDUM FROM. Courtney Spears, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 Fax: 910-395-3964 (Courier 04-16-33) courtnev. spearsiCDncdenr.Qov SUBJECT: CAMA /Dredge & Fill Application Review ROY COOPER Governor MICHAEL S. REGAN Secretary BRAXTON DAVIS Dlreatap Dlvleion ojCoaa/al Management Applicant: National Audubon Society (Audubon Lower Cape Fear) Project Location: Smith Island Complex, off Carolina Beach State Park, within the Cape Fear River, in Brunswick County Proposed Project: installation of four (4) Living Shorelines Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form to Courtney Spears at the address above by January 26, 2019. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Patrick Amico at (910) 796-7423 when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. "Additional comments may be attached" This agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. PRINT NAME M a e k e-e t 5 I -e r AGENCY /'� (-,P, SIGNATURE Y V I �_ i DATE G ! 7 / I q State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ezt, Wilmington, NC 29405 919 796 7215 RECEIVED MAY 072i;9 RECEIVED -MHD CITY J;?N 0 7 2019 DCM WILMINGTON, NC Date Date Check From Name of Vendor Check Check Permit Rct. # Received Deposited Permit Holder 'Number amount Number/Comments 12/5/2018 Lindsey McLean National Audubon Suncoast 1498 $475.00 major fee, Lower Cape Fear PA rct. 6997 Addison Society Credit River, BRCo SPLIT60/40 Union � o H U LLI j LLf N O _CC G U.1 C L Y�1&1, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 68 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343 May 10, 2019 Regulatory Division Action ID No. SAW-2017-02284 National Audubon Society Attn: Mr. Curtis Smalling 807 E. Main Street, Suite 2-220 Durham, North Carolina 27701 Dear Mr. Smalling: Reference your application for a Department of the Army permit to construct a series of Oyster reefs in four locations, on Striking and Shellbed Islands, in order to restore oyster habitat, and create foraging habitat for the American Oystercatcher (AMOY), in the Lower Cape Fear River estuary, in Brunswick County, North Carolina. Your proposal has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the provisions and objectives of the CAMA-Corps Programmatic Permit process (copy attached) for construction activities that receive authorization from the State of North Carolina. Therefore, you may commence construction activity in strict accordance with applicable State authorization, attached Federal special conditions, and the approved plan. Failure to comply with the State authorization or conditions of the Federal permit could result in civil and/or administrative penalties. If any change in your work is required because of unforeseen or altered conditions or for any other reason, plans revised to show the change must be sent promptly to this office and the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management prior to performing any such change or alteration. Such action is necessary as revised plans must be reviewed and the authorization modified. Your Department of the Army permit will expire on December 31, 2021. Questions or comments may be addressed to Ms. Liz Hair, Wilmington Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone 910-251-4049. Sincerely, =I Liz Hair Regulatory Project Manager HE-0EIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC MAY 1 0 2019 RECEIVED MAY 14 2019 DCM-MHD CITY -2- Enclosures: CAMA permit GP 291 conditions Manatee Guidelines Electronic Copy Furnished (without enclosures): NOAA/NMFS; Mr. Fritz Rohde/Ms. Twyla Cheatwood/Dr. Pace Wilbur NCDEQ/DCM; Ms. Courtney Spears/Mr. Patrick Amico NCDEQ/DWR; Mr. Chad Coburn/Ms. Karen Higgins USFWS; Mr. Pete Benjamin USEPA; Mr. Todd Allen Bowers USCG; BOSN4 Ryan Taylor NORTH CAROLINA l'nnlronmenfal Uua(ir) January 8, 2019 Advertising@stamewsonline.com 2 Pages Star News Legal Advertisement Section Post Office Box 840 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 Re: Major Public Notice Combo: • National Audubon Society Hello Angie: Please publish the attached Notice in the Friday, January 11, 2019 issue. ROY COOPER Governor MICHAEL S. REGAN Secretary BRAXTON DAVIS Director, Division of Coastal Management The State Office of Budget & Management requires an original Affidavit of Publication prior to payment for newspaper advertising. Please send the original affidavit and invoice for payment to Shaun Simpson at the NC Division of Coastal Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405, 910-796-7226. Paying by credit card to the attention of Jarimy Springer, (Ref acct # 796-7215). Please email a copy of the credit card receipt to me. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you should have any questions, please contact me at our Wilmington office. Sincerely, I ¢� Shaun K. Simpson Permitting Support & Customer Assistance cc: MHC file Courtney Spears - W iRO Liz Hair - USACE RECEIVED MAY 0 7 Z019 State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management D C M-M H D CITY 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 919 796 7215 NOTICE OF FILING OF APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT The Department of Environmental Quality hereby gives public notice as required by NCGS 113A- 119(b) that the following application was submitted for a development permit in an Area of Environmental Concern as designated under the CAMA: On December 4, 2018, the National Audubon Society proposes to construct a living shoreline at four sites within the Smith Island Complex, off of Carolina Beach State Park, within the Cape Fear River, in Brunswick County. A copy of the application can be examined or copied at the office of Patrick Amico, N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality, Division of Coastal Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405, (910-796-7423) during normal business hours. Comments mailed to Braxton C. Davis, Director, Division of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557-3421, prior to February 1, 2019 will be considered in making the permit decision. Later comments will be accepted and considered up to the time of permit decision. Project modification may occur based on review and comment by the public and state and federal agencies. Notice of the permit decision in these matters will be provided upon written request. RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY NOT 1( 010 1 ZmA CAMA PERMIT' APPLIED FOR To install living shorelines at 4 sites within h S Brunswick ou COMMENTS ACCEPTED THROUGFebruary 1, 2019 APPLICANT: Natmonal Audubon n• :t Durham, NC 1 Agent: Keith Wells (910) 251-9790 FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT THE LOCAL PERMIT OFFICER BELOW: �.� NC Div. of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Dr. Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 Patrick Amico, Field Representative 910-796-7423 NC Division of Coastal Management Major Permit Application Computer Sheet AEC: Cape Fear River Fee: h= #1498 R V 71' I*Ak( CDAITS �/ MHCcc rTl C Applicant: National Audubon Society Agent/Contractor: Dial Cordy & Axxociates c% Keith Walls JIN O Project Site County: Brunswick C Staff: Patrick Am/co District: Wllmington Project Name:Audubon Lower Cape Fear Oyster Restoration Rover File: River Basin:la Fe Ir Initial date of application submittal: 11-19-18 Date application "received as complete" in the Field office Permit Authorization: CAMA redge & Fill ETBoth SITE DESCRIPTION/PERMIT INFORMATION ORW: ❑Yes KNo PNA: ❑Yes ONo Photos Taken: Yes R No❑ Setback Required (riparian): ❑Yes LjjNo Critical Habitat: ❑Yes ONo NNot Sure 15 foot waiver obtained: Yes RNo Hazard Notification Returned: IVIA ❑Yes []No N/14 SAV: ❑Yes [ONo ❑Not Sure Shell Bottom: ®Yes ❑No ❑ Not Temporary Impacts: WYes ONo Sure Sandbags: []Yes RNo ❑ Not Sure Did the land use classification come Mitigation Required (optional): from county LUP: RYes []No ❑Yes jRNo Moratorium Conditions: Environmental Assessment Done: Length of Shoreline: ❑Yes WNo ❑NA ZYes []No❑NA l9� FT. iAll zV�t ib&C �a Shellfish Area Designation: Project Description: (code) Development Area: (code) Open -or- ose A P, SECONDARY WATER CLASSIFICATION — OPTIONAL (choose MAX of 4) WETLANDSIMPACTED ❑ (404) Corp. of Engineers (Jurisdictional ❑ (LS) Sea lavender (Limonium sp.) (SS) Glasswort ( Salicornia sp.) wetlands) ❑ (CJ) Saw grass (Cladium jamaicense) ❑ (SA) Salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina ❑ (SY) Salt reed grass (Spartina alterniflora) cynosuroides) ❑ (DS) Salt or spike grass (Distichlis ❑ (SC) Bullrush or three square (Scirpus ❑ ( —Cattail (Typha sp.) spicata) sp.) ❑ (JR) Black needlerush (Juncus ❑ (SP) Salt/meadow grass (Spartina roemerianus) patens) APPLICATION FEE El No fee required - $0.00 ❑ III(A) Private w/ D&F up to 1 acre; 3490 ❑ III(D) Priv. public or comm w/ D&F to 1 can be applied - $250 acre; 4144 can't be applied - $400 Minor Modification to a CAMA Major ❑ Major Modification to a CAMA Major IV Any development involving D&F of permit - $100 permit - $250 more than 1 acre - $475 ❑ Permit Transfer - $100 ElIII(B) Public or commercial w/ D&F to 1 ❑ Express Permit - $2000 acre; 4144 can be applied - $400 ❑ Major development extension request - ❑ It. Public or commercial/no dredge $100 and/or fill - $400 I. Private no dredge and/or fill - $250 III(C) Priv. public or comm w /D&F to 1 acre; 4144 can be applied; DCM needs DWQ agreement - $400 National Audubon Society Date: 11-219-18 Describe below the ACTIVITIES that have been applied for. All values should match the dimension order, and units of measurement found in your Activities code sheet. TYPE REPLACE Activity Name Number Choose Choose Dimension 1 Dime@nsion 2 Dimension 3 Dimension 4 One One ;snJ1+ width i� �' K 3 Newwow-ffl Maint ❑ Replace ❑ Y i N p (�O t ANew �D Work ff Replace O t 61 Maint ❑ ❑ Y Q'N (% New rk o Replace 6Mat a / 5 11 Yrd Q New Work Replace h i Maint ❑ ❑ Y Q C[ New Work Maint ❑ Replace_, / ❑ Y L.y✓N �^ Maint ❑ New * ❑Yal-7N G� /i0 16 7 36 New Work Replace E�N / Maint ❑ ❑ Y A 'jam New Work Replace ° 5 0. P Maint ❑ [IY RN OV Describe below the HABITAT disturbances for the application. All values should match the name, and units of measurement found in your Habitat code sheet. TOTAL Sq. Ft. FINAL Sq. Ft. TOTAL Feet FINAL Feet (Applied for. (Anticipated final (Applied for. (Anticipated final DISTURB TYPE Disturbance total disturbance. Disturbance disturbance. Habitat Name Choose One includes any Excludes any total includes Excludes any anticipated restoration any anticipated restoration and/or restoration or and/or temp restoration or temp impact temp impacts) impactamount tempimpacts) amount Dredge El Fill ® Both [I Other ❑ y 736 /r rd� d3$5 Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑ Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑ Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑ Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑ Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑ Dredge [I Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑ Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑ 919.733-2293 :: 1.888.4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanapement.net revised: 10/12/06 Major Permit Fee Schedule RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY roject Name:I , / - County: —Check No & Amount: f Ka m�(w Y��ilorrnhrrv) � �' DCM % DWQ % Development Type Fee (14300160143510009316256253) (2430016024351000952341) f. Private, non-commercial development that does not involve the filling or excavation of any wetlands or open water areas: $250 100% ($250) 0% ($0) II. Public or commercial development that does not involve the filling or excavation of any wetlands or open water areas $400 100% ($400) 0% ($0) III. For development that involves the fling and/or excavation of up to i acre of wetlands and/or open water areas, determine if A.B. C, or D below applies: III(A). Private, non-commercial development, if General Water Quality Certification No. 4144 (See attached) can be applied: $250 100% ($250) 0% ($0) III(B). Public or commercial development, if General Water Quality Certification No. 144 (See attached) can be applied: $400 100% ($400) 0% ($0) III(C). If General Water Quality Certification No. 4144 (see attached) could be applied, but DCM staff determined that additional review and written DWQ concurrence is needed because of concerns related to water quality or aquatic life: $400 60% ($240) 40% ($160) III(D). If General Water Quality Certification No. 4144 (see attached) cannot be applied: $400 60% ($240) 40% ($160) �� IV. Development that involves the filling and/or excavation of more than one acre f wetlands and/or open water areas: $475 60% ($265) 40% ($190) Date Date Check From Name of Vendor Check Check Permit Rct. # Received Deposited Permit Holder Number amount Number/Comments 12/5/2018 Lindsey McLean National Audubon Suncoast 1498 $475.00 major fee, Lower Cape Fear PA rct. 6997 Addison Society Credit River, BRCo SPLIT 60/40 Union RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY RECOMMENDATIONS for Audubon Lower Cave Fear 12/13/2018 The success of American Oystercatcher hatchlings depends on adequate and accessible foraging habitat available to the parents during the post hatching time period when chicks are most vulnerable. As proposed, this project would create more AMOY food sources and enhance existing ones, in an area heavily used by this species. Access to close by food would decrease instances of predation on the chicks. In addition to providing foraging habitat for AMOY, this project would serve to provide a myriad of other ecosystem services, including foraging habitat for other shorebirds and wading buds, finfish and shellfish habitat, suitable substrate for benthic organisms, and foraging opportunities for protected marine mammals and reptiles. It would provide material in a substrate limited area and reduce erosion and may lead to accretion, potentially increasing wetland area. The oysters generated by this project would work to clean water in an area heavily impacted by local runoff and from the greater Cape Fear River Basin, draining a large portion of the entire piedmont region. The varied methodology and construction techniques provide a valuable experimental design to further understand what makes living shorelines successful and evaluate the effectiveness of different designs. This proposed project could provide research potential for agencies, academia, and non profit organizations. The applicant has consulted with contractors, The Division of Marine Fisheries, the Coastal Federation and UNCW researchers when determining the design for the project. It is the staff s recommendation that the proposed work is CONSISTENT with the Use Standards for Estuarine Waters and Public Trust Areas, as set forth in NCAC 07H .0206 & .0207. In the absence of any concerns from the commenting agencies, it is recommended that a permit be issued subject to the standard oyster sill as well as the following conditions: 1. In order to protect water quality, runoff from the construction must not visibly increase the amount of suspended sediments in adjacent waters. 2. The alignment of the permitted oyster sills shall be staked by the permittee and approved by a representative of the Division of Coastal Management within a maximum of 30 days prior to the start of construction. 3. The permittee and his contractor shall schedule a pre -construction conference with the Division of Coastal Management and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to the initiation of any work. 4. No filling of coastal wetland areas is authorized by this permit. 5. Appropriate sedimentation and erosion control devices, measures or structures must be implemented to ensure that eroded materials do not enter adjacent wetlands, watercourses and property. RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY ROY COOPER (n..Vnlal MICHAEL S. REGAN 0 Secrcruq, NORTH CAROLINA BRAXTON DAVIS Envimnmental Oualip, Dw. w.. Dwnum ofCrM mI Wo urgemenl January 3, 2019 Advertising@stamewsonline.com 2 Pages Star News Legal Advertisement Section RECEIVED Post Office Box 840 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 JAN 0 7 2019 Re: Major Public Notice Combo: DCM-MHD CITY • National Audubon Society Hello Angie: Please publish the attached Notice in the Saturday, January 5, 2019 issue. The State Office of Budget & Management requires an original Affidavit of Publication prior to payment for newspaper advertising. Please send the original affidavit and invoice for payment to Shaun Simpson at the NC Division of Coastal Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405, 910-796-7226. Paying by credit card to the attention of Jarimy Springer, (Ref acct # 796-7215). Please email a copy of the credit card receipt to me. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you should have any questions, please contact me at our Wilmington office. Sincerely, Shaun K. Simpson Permitting Support & Customer Assistance cc: MHC file Courtney Spears - WiRO Liz Hair - USACE State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Em., Wilmington, NC 29405 919 796 7215 NOTICE OF FILING OF RECEIVED APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR JAN 0 7 2019 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OCM-MHD CITY The Department of Environmental Quality hereby gives public notice as required by NCGS 113A- 119(b) that the following application was submitted for a development permit in an Area of Environmental Concern as designated under the CAMA: On December 4, 2019, The National Audubon Society proposes to construct a living shoreline at four sites within the Smith Island Complex, off of Carolina Beach State Park, within the Cape Fear River, in Brunswick County. A copy of the application can be examined or copied at the office of Patrick Amico, N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality, Division of Coastal Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405, (910-796-7423) during normal business hours. Comments mailed to Braxton C. Davis, Director, Division of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557-3421, prior to January 26, 2019 will be considered in making the permit decision. Later comments will be accepted and considered up to the time of permit decision. Project modification may occur based on review and comment by the public and state and federal agencies. Notice of the permit decision in these matters will be provided upon written request. DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT 1. APPLICANT'S NAME: The National Audubon Society c/o Dial Cordy and Associates — 2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Shellbed Island and Striking Island, Lower Cape Fear River, Brunswick County Photo Index — not recorded in aerial surveys Striking Island Sites A and B: Latitude: 33.911 ° N Longitude:-77.997' W Shellbed Island Site A: Latitude: 33.913° N Longitude:-77.985' W Shellbed Island Site B: Latitude: 33.920° N Longitude:-77.9790 W 3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/D&F 4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Date of Site Visit: December 6, 2018 Was Applicant Present: Yes 5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received: November 19, 2018 Application Completed: December 4, 2018 Office: Wilmington RECEIVED 6. SITE DESCRIPTION: (A) Local Land Use Plan: Brunswick County JAN 0 Land Classification From LUP: Conservation (Open Water) 2�19 (B) AEC(s) Involved: EW, PTA DCM-MID Water Dependent: Yes CITY (C) Intended Use: Public (D) Wastewater Treatment: Existing — None Planned — N/A (E) Type of Structures: Existing —None Planned — Living Shoreline features (F) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A Source: N/A 7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA] DREDGED FILLED OTHER (A) Uplands N/A N/A N/A (B) Vegetated Wetlands N/A N/A NA (C) Open Water N/A N/A 9,936 ft2 (A) Total Area Disturbed: 1.2 acres (B) Primary Nursery Area: No (C) Water Classification: SA; HQW (D) Shellfish Harvesting Open: NO 8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to construct a living shoreline in four sites to restore oyster habitat and create foraging resources and increase productivity for the American Oystercatcher, a species of special concern in North Carolina. RECEIVED Audubon Lower Cape Fear Page 2 0J 10. JAN 0 7 2019 0CA4-MHD CITY The applicant's project site is located in the Lower Cape Fear River, in Brunswick County. To locate the project site from the Wilmington Regional Office (WiRO), travel southwest from Wilmington to Carolina Beach State Park utilizing US 421 South. After crossing the bridge over Snow's Cut, take a right onto Dow Rd at the second light. Proceed south ''/, mile and then take a right State Park Rd, traveling one mile until you reach the State Park boat ramp. Travel by boat 9.5 miles to the south until you reach Shellbed Island. From there, travel approximately one mile to the southwest to reach Striking Island. The project sites are located approximately 1.5 miles east of the federal navigation channel and 2.0 miles north of the mouth of the Cape Fear River. The project sites, adjacent to islands owned by the State of North Carolina, are part of the larger Smith Island Complex, and have been researched and managed by the National Audubon Society and academia for decades. The islands adjacent to the project sites have been in various forms of conservation protection since 1980 and the Smith Island Complex is considered an Audubon "Important Bird Area" (IBA). Striking Island is an intertidal marsh island composed of coastal wetlands, intertidal flats and higher elevation shell rakes. Striking Island is an important shorebird and wading bird habitat that supports the nesting of American Oystercatchers (Haematopus palliates), Laughing Gulls (Leucophaeus atricilla), Willets (Tringa semipalmata), Clapper Rails (Rallus crepitans) and occasionally Gull -billed Terns (Gelochelidon nilotica). The island is composed of one parcel totaling approximately 43 acres. The Striking Island project area is comprised of two sites in public trust areas, Site A and Site B. There is no development currently existing on the site, and it is vegetated primarily with Coastal Wetland vegetation, consisting primarily of Smooth Cord Grass (Spartina alterni, flora) and Salt Meadow Hay (Spartina patens). Adjacent to the project site several other Coastal Wetland species can be found, including Black Needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), Glasswort (Salicornia spp.), Sea lavender (Limonium spp.), and Salt Grass (Distichlis spicata). Shellbed Island is approximately 180 acres, contains no development, and is vegetated with Coastal Wetlands, consisting primarily of Smooth Cord Grass (Spartina alterniora) and Salt Meadow Hay (Spartina patens). Shellbed Island is an important nesting area for American Oystercatchers (Haematopus palliates), as well as Laughing Gulls (Leucophaeus atricilla) and Clapper Rails (Rallus crepitans). The Shellbed Island project area is also comprised of two sites in public trust areas, Site A and Site B. The waters of this area are classified as SA-HQW by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources and are closed to the harvest of shellfish. This area is NOT designated as Primary Nursery Area (PNA). The applicant is proposing to construct a living shoreline in four sites to restore oyster habitat and create foraging resources and increase productivity for the American Oystercatcher (AMOY), a species of special concern in North Carolina. Secondary benefits could include improvements to water quality, enhancement of currently existing oyster reef, improvements to fish habitat and successional growth of saltmarsh. According to the applicant, the proposed living shoreline site would be located outside of existing navigation channels and would not encroach into coastal wetlands. On Striking Island, at Site A (located on the southwestern side of the island), the applicant is proposing to install three (3) curvilinear 148' long by 5' wide and approximately 2' high oyster shell and marl bag sill reefs in the intertidal areas running parallel to the shoreline (see Drawing 2 of 15). As a foundational RECEIVED Audubon Lower Cape Fear Page 3 JAN 0 7 2019 1)CM"N1HD CIrr layer intended to account for subsidence, the applicant is proposing to construct the first layer dfhe sill with crushed stone in organic industrial weave burlap bags. Over the top of the foundation layer, the applicant is proposing to fill traditional polypropylene mesh bags with clean oyster shell and build two additional layers to complete the structure (See Drawings 3 & 4 of 15). The bags would be secured by attaching rebar to the substrate. The applicant reports a water depth of -0.5 ft NLW at this site. Also on site A, to the immediate southeast of the three oyster sill reefs, the applicant is proposing to install a matrix of eighteen (18) bagged oyster patch reefs (See Drawing 5 of 15). Each patch reef would be 10 ft long by 6 ft wide by 2 ft high. The patch reefs would be constructed with a gap space of 10 feet between the reefs. Each patch would be constructed using the same methodology as the sills listed above, with a foundational layer of burlap bags filled with crushed stone, and two layers of polypropylene bags filled with crushed oyster shell (See Drawing 6 of 15). The applicant theorizes that this gapped patch reef construction approach may help reduce territoriality events between competing AMOY while the birds are foraging. The design would be triangular, with a row of seven patch reefs closest to Striking Island, six on the next row waterward, and 5 on the most waterward row. The bags would be secured by attaching rebar to the substrate. On Striking Island, at Site B (located to the northeast of Site A, See Drawing 1 of 15), the applicant is proposing to install two (2) 82 ft long by 5 ft wide by 2 ft high oyster reef sills, constructed using the same methodology as Striking Island site A, with a foundational burlap and crushed stone layer followed by two polypropylene and oyster shell layers. The two oyster reef sills would be oriented parallel to shore, in a north south direction, and utilizing a 5 foot gap in between the two structures for fish passage (See Drawings 7 and 8 of 15). The applicant is also proposing to place 850 bushels of oystershell backfill to reduce erosion of sediment, recruit additional larvae, and to create connections to the existing natural reef. The applicant reports a water depth of 0.0 ft @ NLW at this site. On Shellbed Island, which is located to the north of Striking Island, at Site A, the applicant proposes to install limestone marl and oyster shell patch reefs to improve existing natural oyster reefs at that location. The proposal design includes laying a foundational layer of burlap bags filled with crushed stone, and topped with a layer of #4 limestone marl, and then a final layer of loose oyster shell. The applicant hopes to mimic the existing patch oyster reef on site. There would be a total of eighteen (18) patches that are each 10 feet long by 10 feet wide and two feet in height. The patches would be spaced 10 feet from each other to retain passage areas for fish and hydrological connectivity. The applicant reports a water depth of 0.0 ft @ NLW at this site. For Shellbed Island- Site B, the applicant states this area observes much higher wave energy and therefore is proposing a more robust design, including reef balls in the structure to attenuate wave energy. The design includes two convex rows of reef balls. The seaward row would consist of 90 "Bay Balls", manufactured by Reef Innovations. Each Bay Ball is a spherical structure mounted on a pedestal, with a 3 foot base width and 2 foot height. The ball itself has a diameter of approximately 1.5 feet, and includes an average of 14 holes to be utilized by aquatic organisms. Immediately landward of the Bay Ball row, the applicant proposes a second convex row of 55 "Mini Bay Balls". The Mini Bay Balls each have a 3 foot base, 2.2 foot diameter, and height of 1.5 feet. Landward of the row of Mini Bay Balls, the applicant proposes a triplicate of three oyster reef sills, each measuring 164 feet long by 5 feet wide by 2 feet tall, to be installed. The construction methodology would mimic the sills at Striking Island Sites A & B, using a foundational burlap and crushed stone layer, followed by two additional rows of polypropylene mesh bags containing oyster shells. The structures would have a 5 foot Audubon Lower Cape Fear Page 4 separation to allow for fish passage. The applicant reports a water depth of -1.0 ft @ NLW at this site. Construction materials would be staged at the Bald Head Island Deep Creek Marina, loaded onto a spud barge, and transported to an area adjacent to the work sites. Materials would be transported from the barge utilizing two work skiffs, and the materials would be lifted into place using a davit and small field crew. The applicant is proposing to install PVC sign posts with reflector tape and signs labeling the area as a "Designated Sanctuary" to mark the corners of each site, and supplemental posts to be evenly spaced across the entire length of each project area. 11. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS The proposed living shorelines would incorporate approximately 9,936 ftZ (0.22 acres) of Estuarine Waters and Public Trust Areas within the Lower Cape Fear River. The proposed living shoreline would extend along shorelines of two riverine islands in four separate sites. The living shoreline structures would be located in water depths of approximately 0 to -1.0' @ NLW and would not result in any Coastal Wetland impacts. The proposed living shoreline would not encroach into the navigation channel of the AIW W. Minor increases in turbidity should be expected during construction. Submitted by: Patrick Amico Date: December 13, 2018 Office: Wilmington RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY RECEIVED 2.1 DCM MP-1 Additional Information JAN 0 7 2019 2.1.1 Project Narrative OCM-MHD CITY Audubon, North Carolina is seeking federal and state permits for an oyster restoration project located in the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary, specifically in the public trust waters adjacent to Striking and Shellbed Islands. Oysters are a keystone species and a dietary staple of the American Oystercatcher (AMOY). In the LCFR, productivity has met the target set by population models to sustain and grow a population in only one of the last five years. Creating oyster reefs near existing AMOY nesting sites restores foraging grounds and decreases the time AMOY chicks are left unattended. The proximity allows both parents to guard their nesting site and/or chicks can forage with parents, consequently reducing predation. Natural oyster reefs are present in the LCFR, yet lack of suitable substrate for larval attachment limits their expansion, and many reefs near existing AMOY nests are depleted. The purpose of the proposed restoration project is to reestablish oyster habitat adjacent to AMOY nests to improve AMOY productivity while also providing ecosystem services to a myriad of aquatic life. Within North Carolina, the Lower Cape Fear River (LCFR) has the greatest number of AMOY in all seasons and is home to 112 of the state's 439 nesting pairs. AMOY have been identified as an "extremely high priority" shorebird by the working group for the Southeastern Coastal Plain as part of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. This designation has been assigned because estimated AMOY numbers are less than 25,000 and there has been a substantial loss of suitable habitat in recent years. Where suitable habitat remains intact, degradation from increased predation, toxicants or anthropogenic disturbance can limit habitat value. Coastal development and human activities have increased in coastal zones, which negatively affects oystercatcher habitat, as well as water quality, shellfish populations, and overall ecosystem health. The proposed restoration project would involve the construction of new oyster reefs by introducing suitable substrate in 4 strategic locations to capture passing larvae. The site -specific features have been designed in accordance with NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office best management practices for oyster reef restoration and are intended to increase AMOY productivity by providing new foraging grounds near existing AMOY nesting sites. The proposed project would convert approximately 1.2 acres of soft bottom near Striking and Shellbed Islands to oyster habitat. Feature designs have been developed through a combination of geospatial modeling and field studies. These designs consider wave energy, shoreline erosion rates, bottom substrate, subbottom thickness, proximity to existing AMOY nests, larval recruitment, and baseline condition of the naturally occurring oyster reefs near the project sites. A combination of bagged shell, crushed stone, limestone marl, and concrete reef balls would be used to construct the reefs, and all construction materials would be pollutant free with loose dirt removed prior to staging. All features would be positioned in the lower intertidal and be accessible to AMOY for approximately 4-6 hours per average tidal cycle. This method was determined to be the most suitable and ecologically acceptable option that meets the overall objective of oyster restoration and the goals of the Audubon Society and its partners. The proposed construction includes barge and tug services to transport and install designed_reef features at the various site locations. Specifically, materials will be stored at the Bald Head Island' c Deep Creek Marina, loaded onto 1 spud barge, and transported to a predetermined'i6MWTON, NC NOV 1 9 2018 adjacent to the work sites. From the spud barge, 2 work skiffs will alternate transporting the materials to the project tract(s), and materials will be lifted into place using a davit and a small field crew. One site will be completed at a time. 2.1.2 NEPA Statement of Compliance The permitting application for this project includes an Environmental Assessment (EA) that has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as amended [42 United States Code (USC) 4321-4347] to address the environmental effects of proposed oyster habitat restoration on Striking and Shellbed Islands in the Lower Cape Fear River (LCFR), North Carolina. The Wilmington District United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is evaluating a request from Audubon North "Carolina (Applicant) (Audubon) for Department of the Army authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). The proposed action involves placement of substrate at strategic locations to capture passing larvae and establish a network of self- sustaining oyster reefs. The NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of their actions; including the issuance of federal permits, licenses, and other regulatory approvals for non-federal activities. In the case of the Applicant's proposed action to restore oyster habitat, the federal actions triggering NEPA include a decision by the USAGE Regulatory Division to issue or deny Section 404/Section 10 permits. The purpose of the EA is to support informed decision making by federal agencies based on an understanding of environmental consequences, and ultimately to assist federal agencies with making decisions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. RECEIVED ICU MP-1 APPLICATION for A" °' 2olq Major oeveiopment Permit DCM MHD CIr (last revised 1227106) North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT I. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information Business Name _ Project Name (if applicable) National Audubon Society Audubon Lower Cape Fear Oyster Restoration Applicant 1: First Name MI Lot Name Curtis G Smalling Applicant 2: First Name MI Lost Name d additional applicants, Please attach an 8081one1 ~(a) with names listed. Meiling Addwss PO Box City State 807 E. Main St. Suite 2-220 Durham NC Zip Country Phone No. FAX No. 27701 USA 828.406.16M ext Street Address (d ddferent from above) City Stag ZIP Email oamallingeaudubon.org 2. AQant/Contrector Information Business Name Dial Cordy And Associates, Inc. Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name MI Lot Name Keith B Walls ACOW Contractor 2: First Name MI Last Name WA WA N/A Meiling Address PO Box City Slats 201 N. Front Street, Suite 307 N/A Wilmington NC Zip Phone No. 1 Phone No 2 28401 WA 910.251.9790 ext. WA 301-536-0698 ext NIA FAX No. Contractor e N/A Street Address (if different from above) City State ZIP NIA N/A NIA WA - Email kwellal;�dialcordy.com Dorm continues on beco RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 5) APPLICATION for Major Development Permit 3. ProjectLocation County (ran be multiple) Street Address State Rd. 0 Brunswick WA NIA Subdivision Name City State Zip NIA N/A NC N/A - Phone No. Lot No.(s) (if many, attach additional page with lisp N/A - - ext. NIA NIA, I I, a. In which NC river basin Is the project located? b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project Cape Fear River Cape Fear River c. Is the water body Identified in (b) above, natural or manmade? d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site. ®Natural ❑Manmade ❑Unknown Cape Fear River e. Is proposed work within city limb or planning jurisdiction? I. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed []Yes ®No work falls within. N/A A Site DesedpUon a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (R) b. Size of entire tract (sq.fl.) Striking Island Site A (Sills and Patches) = 501 It Striking Island She A=17,311 sq. ft Striking Island Site B =118 It Striking Island Site B = 3,793 sq. It Shellbed Island Site A = WA Shellbed Island A = 5,723 sq. ft Shellbed Island Site B =329 It Shellbed Island Site B = 25.233 sq. ft c. Size of Individual lot(s) d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or NX (libmal WaPa/lava)) N/A (If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list) WA ❑NHW or ❑NWL e. Vegetation on tract Sparlina Alteml8ora and Juncus Romadanus I. Man-made features and uses now on tract The proposed project tract(s) are Intertidal areas within the public trust waters that are adjacent to Striking and Shellbed Islands in the Lower Cape Fear River. There are no man-made features at these locations, and uses are limited to recreational boating and fishing from shallow draft vessels. g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adleoent to the proposed project she. The project sites are located adjacent to natural, undeveloped, marsh Islands In the Lower Cape Fear River. The islands Audubon North are Important nesting and foraging sites for a variety of birds (IBAs). The islands are managed as part of the Carolina Coastal sanctuaries network. h. How does local government zone the tract? I. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning? Conservation (Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable) ®Yes []No ❑NA J. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? []Yes ®No k Hasa professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? Ifyes. attache copy. ®Yes []No ❑NA If yes, by whom? Will Wilson PanAmedcan Consultatns, Inc. 252-808-2008 :: 11-888-4RCOAST :: www.neeoastalmanagoment.not Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 5) APPLICATION for Major Development Permit ECEl VED I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does 4 involve a ❑Yes ®NO ❑NA National Register listed or eligible property? _ BAN o <Forn continues on next pal /�1t, 1t.r..r 220110 m. (i) Aro them watientls on the site? QYes ®No Dv,Y,-I r'nD y' I (in Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ❑Yea ®No (iiq If yes to either (j) or (li) above. has a delineation been conducted? QYes ®No (Attach documentation, it available) n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities. NIA o. Describe existing drinking water supply source. NIA p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems. WA 5. Activities and Impacts A. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private Ues7 OCommorcial MPublictGovernmerit ❑PrivotelCommunity b. Dive a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete. The projeIX will strategically place attachment substrate in the Lower Cape Fear River to capture passing oyster larvae. The area is larval limited and lacks sufficient shell bottom for larval settlement. The newly established reefs will provide foraging habitat near American Oystercatcher nests, consequently reducing predation and increasing productivity to a sustainable level. The project will create complex habitat and provide ecosystem services including water filtration, shoreline protection, nutrient removal, increased_ light penetration, and Increased fishing opportunities. c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type of equipment and where it is to be stored. The proposed work includes barge and tug services to transport and install designed reef features at the various site locations. Specifically, materials will be stored at the Bald Head Island Deep Creek Marina, loaded onto 1 spud barge, and transported to a location adjacent to the work sites. From the spud barge. 2 work skiffs will transport the materials to the project trect(s), and materials will be lifted into place using a davit and a small field crew. d. List all development activities you propose. N/A a. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, now work, or both? New Work 1. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? 1.2 ❑Sq.Ft or ®Acres g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public seoeasway or other area ®Yet []NO ❑NA that the public has established use of? h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the auto. The location is remotely located in the Lower Cape Fear River. The project will place fill (begs of stone and shell) in the public trust waters adjacent to Striking and Shellbed Islands. The islands are natural, undeveloped marsh islands that are part of the Audubon, NC sanctuary of bird islands. There are no existing or proposed discharges associated with the project. i. Will wastewater or stomnvater be discharged into a wetland? ❑Yes ®No ❑NA If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Yes ❑No ®NA RECEIV ON, NC 252.808.2808 .. 1.888-4RCOA5T . www.ncecastalmanagemunt.net `�`)�� j 9 2018 Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 5) APPLICATION for Major Development Permit J. Is there any mitigation proposed? OYes ONo ®NA If yes, attach a mitigation proposal. <Form continues on back> 6. Addidonallnfonnadon In addition to this completed application form, (MP-t) the following Items below, if applicable, must be submitted In order for the applicalion -package lobe complete. Items (a) — to are always applicable to any major development epplice ilon. Please consult the application Instnrction booldet on howto propedy propere the required items below, a. A project narrative. b. An accurate, dated work plat (Including plan view and cross -sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of the proposed project Is any portion already complete? If previously authorized work, clearly indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish between work completed and proposed. c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site. d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other Instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties. e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR. f. A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such owners have received a copy of the application and plats by dertified mall. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management. Name WA Phone No. INA Address WA Name WA Phone No. WA Address NIA Name WA Phone. No. WA Address WA g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project Traci. Include perm;( num6ers, permiHoe, and issuing dates. NIA NIA WA N/A h. Signed consultant or agent authorization forth, if applicable. 1. Welland delineation, If necessary. J. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects In oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by proparty owner) k. A statement of compliance with the N.C. Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A 1-10), If necessary. If the project Involves expenddure of public funds or use of public lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. I understand that any permit Issued in response to this application will avow omy ma ouverupmrnr .,os�„��., �„ .,,o err„w•.�.. The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained In the permit. I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review agencies to enter an the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up monitoring of the project. I further certify that the Information provided In this application Is truthful to the best of my knowledge. Date /i���/rY Print Name ���/Sc�nACCt ✓C Signature Please Indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project. ®DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information ❑DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts 252-808-2808 :: 1.888-4RCOAST :: www. nccoastaimonagement. net Form DCM MP-1 (Page 5 of 5) APPLICATION for ❑DCM MP-3 Upland Development ®DCM MP-4 Structures Information Major Development Permit RECEIVED JAN 0 9 2019 DCM-A4HD CITY RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC 252-608 2808 :: 1.888.4RCOAST :: www.nccosstalmansgsmsnt.nat Form DCM MP-2 EXCAVATION and FILL RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 (Except for bridges and culverts) E)CM-MI.11) Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint CITY Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information. Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet Access Other Channel Canal Boat Basin Boat Ramp Rock Groin Rock (excluding (NLW or Breakwater shoreline NWL stabilization Stoking Island A Sills = 441 ft Striking Island A Patches = 180 It Striking Island B Length N/A NIA WA N/A WA WA sills/cultch = 328 It Shellbed Island A Patches = 180 ft Shellbed Island B Reef bells and sills • 656 ft Striking Island A sills =15ft Striking Island A patches = 108 ft Striking Island B Width WA NIA N/A WA N/A WA sills/cuftch = 17It Shellbed Island A patches = 180 It Shellbed Island B Reef balls/sills 15.5 It AAvvg. Existing WA N/A n/A N/A NA NA N/A Final Project N/A N/A N/A N/A NA NA N/A Depth 1. EXCAVATION ®This section not spook4ble RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC 252-808.2808 1-8884RCOA5A .. www.nccaastatmanagement.net NOV 19 2018 revised: 12i26106 Form ®CM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 2 of 3) a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL In b. Typo of material to be excavated. cubic yards. (I) Does the area to be excavated include coastal we8andslmarsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet effected. ❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB _ OWL ❑None (11) Describe the purpose of the excavation In these areas: d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards. 2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL Whts,secdan not applicable a. Location of disposal area. b. Dimensions of disposal area. c (1) Do you claim title to disposal area? d. (1) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance? ❑Yes ONo ❑NA ❑Yes ONO ❑NA (it) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner. (11) If yes, where? e. (q Does the disposal area Include any coastal weliandslmersh f. (1) Does the disposal include any area In the water? (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), ❑Yea ONO ❑NA or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the (II) If yes, how much water area Is affected? number of square feel affected. ❑CW OSAV OSB _ ❑WL ❑None (h) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas: 3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION ®This section not applicable (it development is a wood groin,; use MP4 — Structures) a. Type of shoreline stabilization: b. Length: ❑Bulkhead ORlprap ❑BreakwalerlSill ❑Other: _ Width: c. Average distance waterwerd of NHW or NWL: 2011 d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL: e. Type of stabilization material: g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level. Bulkhead backfill _ Rlprep _ BreakwaledSill_ Other_ I. Source Of fill material. I. (p Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months? ❑Yes ONO ❑NA (it) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount Information. h. Type of fill material. 4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES ❑This section not applicable (Excluding shoreline. Stabilization) 252-808.2808 :: "88-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagemont.nat revised: 12/26106 Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 3 of 3) a. (p Will fill material be brought to the If yes, (u) Amount of material to be placed in the water 82.12 cubic yards of cashed atone 71.26 cubic yards of oyster shell 145 Concrete Reef Ball. (tin) Dimensions of fill area Striking Island A (Sill) a 147 8 x (iv) Purpose of fill The fill will be comprised of natural materials that will be positioned to capture passing oyster larvae and provide foraging habitat for American Oystercatchers while offering ecosystem services that benefit a variety of aquatic life and provide enhanced recreational and commercial fishing opportunities. & GENERAL a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion controlled? Materials will be staged at the Bald Head Island Deep Creek Manna Ferry Terminal where they will be bagged and palletized by Audubon and Coastal Federation volunteers. Once pall they will be loaded onto a shallow draft spud barge and pushed by a tug to a predetermined staging area that it adjacent to the work site. From the barge, material will be moved to their final location using smaller work skiffs equipped WIN Cavite. Matensl will remain on board a vessel at all times until a is placed in as final location by hand using a small fold crew or by a davit for rest ball. All features at one site will be completed before moving to the next location. c. (i) WIII navigational aide be required as a result of the protect? ®Yes ONO ❑NA (ii) If yes. explain what type and how they will be Implemented Each site will have proper signege with reflectors that mark each comer and supplemental posts at specified distances across the extent of the features. Signage WIII be Jetted Into the sediment using a semi -trash pump equipped with a water jet outlet. (1) WIII fill material be placed In coastal watlanda/mareh (Cyy), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands (WL)4 If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected. ❑CW ❑SAV _ 05B ❑WL ®None (It) Describe me purpose of the fill In these areas: "Cot:IVEJ) All 0 9 2019 DDM.MHD Ciry to, What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline. badkhoe, or hydraulic dredge)? Spud barge win davit, Tugboatwork skids with davlL email field crew d. (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to protect sae7 [Dyes ONO ❑NA (it) If yes, explain steps Mat will be taken to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. Date 11/8/2018 Project Name Audubon Lower Cape Fear River Oyster Restoration Applicant Name L is/5- `SnACC in�G RECEIVED Applicant DCM WILMINGTON, NC 252-608-2808 n 1.888-41RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12/26/06 RECEIVED Form DCM MP-4 BAN O 7 2019 STRUCTURES ocM.MH (Construction within Public Trust Areas) D C►rY Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-t. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information. 1. DOCKING FACILITY/MARINA CHARACTERISTICS a. (i) Is the docking fecilrly/manna. ❑Commercial ❑PubliclGovemment ❑Private/Cor ily ®This sechorl rat applicable o (i) Will the facility be open to the general public? Oyes ONO c. (i) Dock(s) and/or pier(s) d (i) Are Finger Piers included? ❑Yes ONO (ii) Number If yes (iii) Length oil Number (iv) Width (w) Length (v) Floating ❑Yes ONO Irv) Width _ (v) Floating ❑Yes ONO e. (i) Are Platforms included? ❑Yes ONO f. (1) Are Bostlifts included? ❑Yes ONO If yes'. If yes. (ii) Number _ (III Number (iii) Length (III) Length (iv) Width IN) Width (v) Floating ❑Yes ONO Note: Roofed areas are calculated from dnpline dimensions. g. (p Number of slips proposed (ii) Number of slips existing i Check the proposed type of siting. ❑ Land cut and access channel ❑Open water. dredging for basin and/or channel ❑Open water; no dredging required ❑Other, please describe. k. Typical boat length. m. (i) Will the facility have tie pilings? Oyes ONO (u) If yes number of tie pilings? h. Check all the types of services to be provided. ❑ Full service, including travel lift and/or rail, repair or maintenance service ❑ Dockage. fuel, and manna supplies ❑ Doclkege ('wet slips') only, number of slips: ❑ Dry storage, number of boats. _ ❑ Boat romp(s); number of boat ramps- ❑ Other, plesse describe ). Describe the typical boats to be served (e.g., open runabout charter boats. sell boats, mixed types), I, (1) WIII the fadil!� Yy be open to the general public? Oyes ONO RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC 252-808-2808 :: 1-8884RCOAST :: wvvw.necoastglmAp_fta qnt. net revised: 12'27106 Form DCM MP-4 (structures, Page 2 of 4) 2. DOCKING FACILITY/MARINA OPERATIONS ®This section not applicable a. Check each of the following sanitary facilities that will be included in the proposed project. ❑ Office Toilets ❑ Toilets for patrons: Number: _; Location: ❑ Showers ❑ Boatholding tank pumpout; Give type and location: b. Describe treatment type and disposal location for all sanitary wastewater. c. Describe the disposal of solid waste, fish offal and trash. d. How will overboard discharge of sewage from boats be controlled? e. (i) Give the location and number of'No Sewage Discharge' signs proposed. (11) Give the location and number of'Pumpout Available" signs proposed. f Describe the special design, if applicable, for containing Industrial type pollutants, such as paint, sandblasting waste and petroleum products. g. Where will residue from vessel maintenance be disposed of? h. Give the number of channel markers and 'No Wake' signs proposed. i. Give the location of fuel -handling facilities, and describe the safety measures planned to protect area water quality. J. What will be the marina policy on overnight and live -aboard dockage? k. Describe design measures that promote boat basin flushing? I. If this project is an expansion of an existing marina, what types of services are currently provided? m. Is the madnaldocidng facility proposed within a primary or secondary nursery area? ❑Yes ❑No 252-808-2808 :: t-888.4RCOAST :: w ,nccoastalmanagement.n©t revised: 12127/06 Form DCM MP-4 (Structures, Page 3 of 4) C r n. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to any shellfish harvesting arse? ❑Yea ❑No o. Is the marinaldocking facility proposed within or adjacent to coastal wetlandslmarsh (CW), submerged squatic vegetation (SAV), she I ?� 1g (SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected, D OCW ❑SAV ❑SB CM,MHD C'ITy OWL ONone p. Is the proposed madnaldodling facility located within or within dose proximity to any shellfish leases? ❑Yes ❑No If yes, give the name and address Df the Ieaeehoider(s), and give the proximity to the lease. 13. BOATHOUSE (including covered area) ®This section not applicable a. (1) Is the boathouse strudure(st ❑Commercial OPubliciGovemmenl ❑Private/Community, (ii) Number (Ill) Length (iv) Width Note. Roofed areas are cakuleled from driplim dimensions. 14. GROIN (e.g., wood, Shmoile, etc. 1l a rock groin, use MP-$ Excavation and FIN.) ®This section not applicable a. (i) Number (ii) Length lii8 Width 15. BREAKWATER (e.g., wood. Sheetpie, etc.) ❑This "Chon not applicable I a. Length Reef Balls = 360 fl c Maximum distance beyond NNW. NWL or wetlands N/A b. Average distance from NNW, NWL, or wetlands 3u 16. MOORING PILINGS and BUOYS ®This secOm not appicable I a. Is the structure(s) ❑Commercial ❑PublidGovernment ❑Private/Community c Distance to be placed beyond shoreline _ Note: This should be measured from marsh edge, it present. e. Arc of theswing _ 7. GENERAL b. Number d. Description of buoy (color, Inscription, aize, anchor, etc.) RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC 252-808.2808 :: 1.88"RCOAST :: wvvw. ncc oastalmanagement. not revised: 12127106 Form DCM MP-4 (Structures, Page 4 of 4) a. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent riparian property lines b. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent docking facilities. There are no adjacent riparian property lines. There are no adjacent docking facilities. Nole: Far buoy ormooring piling, use am of swing Including length of vessel. c. Width of water body Striking Island A =1800 ft. Striking Island B = 296 ft. Shellbed Island A =1130 ft and Shellbed Island B = 577 ft e. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project? ®Yes ONO [IRA (Ip If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented. PVC Sign posts with reflector tape and Designated Sanctuary Signs will be used to mark the comers of each site and supplemental posts will be spaced evenly along the waterward side of each structure. d. Water depth at waterward end of structure at NLW or NWL Striking Island A = 0.5 ft. Striking Island B = 0 ft. Shellbed Island A = 0 ft. and Shellbed Island B =1 ft & OTHER ®This section not applicable a. Give complete description: 11/14/2018 Date Audubon Lower Cape Fear River Oyster Restoration Project Name Curtis Smalling Applicant Applicant SlgnatW 252.808-2808 :: 1-868-4RCOAST :: www.neeoastalmanagement.not revised: 12/27106 2.1.3 Location Map Applicant: Audubon NC Location Map Lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina 10/25/2018 Drawing 1 of 15 RECE'VED JAN 0 7 2019 r r Audubon NORTH CAROLINA .L>IAL CORDlY 0 280 560 1,120 1,680 Meters RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 2.1.4 Work Plats (Plan -view and Cross -Sectional) Note: No portion of the proposed project has been completed. The applicant is waiting for authorization and permitting. Plans are to begin construction in winter 2019 and complete construction prior to the in -water moratorium. Ar �Aose ao �Ss>r ys/or t /'Srygne//6 .\ r0s„�Ree/ Ae Aes"a 0 /Smsne//6 Ao Aese a0 3 y,%I m+ / S6 Bit ,VA O �� �60 a/Ch Proposed Oysler O O O Rees Shollbag Reef 3 w \ 05mx 1.5m x 0.6m O O O O 0 O �• -• 111/9/2018 0 20 40 80 120 Applicant: Audubon NC Site: Striking Island A (Plan -view) Scale 1 Inch = 160 ft 12/3/2018 REc Drawing 2 of 15 'Audubon NORTH CAROLINA v DIAL CORDY �AN1) ASSOC I A'IFS IN NGTON'NC 0 80 160 320 480 Feet Applicant: Audubon NC Site: Striking Island A (Plan -View) Scale 1 Inch = 30 ft 3of15 33°, 54', 38.92" N -77°, 59', 50.89" W RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY 148 ft LIU DIAL CORDY ..0 nss OCIAIUS Irv( 148 ft t Audubon NORTH CAROLINA 5ft �► 5ft 5ft 33°, 54', 37.03" N -77°, 59', 47.77" W 148 ft 33-, 54', 38.70" N 33°, 54', 36.69" N -77°, 59', 51.14" W -77°, 59', 47.92" W MHW 0 10 20 40 60 80 Feet Note: Reef foundation layer will consist of industrial weave, biodegradable burlap bags filled with crushed stone. Top layers will utilize clean bagged oyster shell. Bags will be anchored using rebar stakes. Reef will follow the natural contours of the shoreline and be angled to minimize erosion behind structures. Reefs will be 148 ft x 5 ft x 2 ft each There will be a 5 ft spacing between reefs to allow fish passage. Applicant: Audubon NC Site: Striking Island A (Cross -Sectional) Sills Scale 1 Inch = 5 ft 12/3/2018 Drawing 4 of 15 RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY Striking Island TMHW (4 ft) MLW (0 ft) v n z o ~' 3 n o co 2M )< 0o O 0 z cZ N A 1 inch = 5 ft DIAL CORDY Proposed Fill Bagged Oyster Reefs (148 ft x 5 ft x 2 ft) 5ft 2ft Audubon NORTH CAROLINA Note: Reef foundation layer will consist of industrial weave, biodegradable burlap bags filled with crushed stone. Top layers will utilize clean bagged oyster shell. Bags will be anchored using rebar stakes. Reef will follow the natural contours of the shoreline and be angled to minimize erosion behind structures. Reefs will be 148 ft x 5 ft x 2 ft each There will be a 5 ft spacing between reefs to allow fish passage and hydrological connectivity. Applicant: Audubon NC Site: Striking Island A (Plan -view) Patches Scale 1 Inch = 10 ft 12/3/2018 Drawing 5 of 15 33°, 54', 35.94" N -77°, 59', 45.01" W Eft I loft DIAL CORDY \NU ASSOCIA'i'GS INC. .'L�`` �eemee�eeme, ..wweu. loft loft 0 6 ft I Height loft Height 1 2ft 2ft loft loft fi Height loft 2ft loft Height oft Height 6 ft I 2ft 2ft 33°, 54', 35.71" N -77-, 59', 45.28" W 0 0 N co Z s 00 w Z z 0 4.5 09 18 27 Feet MLW 'Audubon NORTH CAROLINA loft loft loft 4 -00. 4 loft Height loft Height 10 ft Height 1 2ft 2ft 2ft 1 loft loft loft loft Hight loft Height 1 2ft loft Height 2ft 1 2ft loft loft Height 2ft loft 1. loft Height2ft MHW 33°, 54', 35.23" N -77°, 59', 43.61" W W.- loft Height 10 ft Height 16 ft 2ft 2ft loft loft 10ft loft Height 4 111 4� loft Height 10 ft Height 1 6 ft 2ft 2ft 1 33°, 54', 34.93" N -77°, 59', 43.59" W Note: Reef foundation layer will consist of industrial weave, biodegradable burlap bags filled with crushed stone. RECEIVED Top layers will utilize clean bagged oyster shell. Bags will be anchored using rebar stakes. JAN 072019 Reefs will be 10 ft x 6 ft x 2 ft each There will be 10 ft spacing between reefs to preserve DCM-MHD CITY fish passage and hydrological connectivity. Applicant: Audubon NC Site: Striking Island A (Cross -Sectional) Patches Scale 1 Inch = 10 ft 12/4/2018 Drawing 6 of 15 Striking Island 0 c> z g KO G)m ro po z N A 1 inch = 10 ft MHW (4 ft) MLW (0 ft) DIAL CORDY Proposed Fill Bagged Patchr Reefs (10 ft x 6 ft x 2 ft) Eft I2ft RECEIVED Note: Reef foundation layer will consist of industrial weave, biodegradable burlap bags filled with crushed stone. Top layers will utilize clean bagged oyster shell. JAN 0 7 2019 Bags will be anchored using rebar stakes. DCM-MHD CITY Reefs will be 10 ft x 6 ft x 2 ft each (total 18) There will be a 10 ft spacing between reefs to allow fish passage and hydrological connectivity. Applicant: Audubon NC Site: Striking Island B (Plan -View) Scale 1 Inch = 100 ft 12/4/2018 DCM WILMINGTON Drawing 7 of 15 Audubon oNORTH CAROLINADIAL CORDY NC — `^^rvu nseoc.inrr: r vM vurxvyrN [:rywlMnrr. 0 40 80 160 240 Feet Applicant: Audubon NC Site: Striking Island B (Plan -View) Scale 1 Inch = 30 ft I 8of15 33°, 54', 36.48" N -77°, 59', 50.34" W 6 ft 33°, 54', 35.31" N -77°, 59', 50.39" W 'e DIAL CORDYAudubon DntiGUCIA O "f liti IN NORTH CAROLINA MLW 33°, 54', 36.43" N -77°, 59', 50.08" W 1.5 m 82 ft �� 82 ft I Eft 0 0 z � 10 Z< o -Im &Q 00 z 0 z 0 10 20 40 60 80 Feet 33°, 54', 35.20" N -77°, 59', 50.17" W MHW Note: Reef foundation will consist of industrial weave, biodegradable burlap bags filled with crushed stone. Top layers will utilize clean bagged oyster shell. Bags will be anchored using rebar stakes. RECEIVED Reef will follow the natural contours of the shoreline and be angled to minimize erosion behind structures. Reefs will be 82 ft x 5 ft x 2 ft each JAN 0 7 2019 There will be a 5 ft spacing between reefs to maintain fish passage and hydrological connectivity. DCM-MHD CITY A truckload (850 bushels) of clean oyster shell will be used to backfill the area behind the reefs for additional attachment substrate Applicant: Audubon NC Site: Striking Island B (Cross -Sectional) Scale 1 Inch = 5 ft 12/4/2018 Drawing 9 of 15 sew DIAL CORDY AND ASSOCIA'I I INC Audubon NORTH CAROLINA Striking Island — MHW (4 ft) Proposed Oyster Reefs 82ftx5ftx2ft Proposed Fill *.850 Bushels Oyster Shell 2ft MLW (0 ft) 4 1. 5ft 0 z � FM eNo G) < Note: Reef foundation layer will consist of industrial weave, o imp biodegradable burlap bags filled with crushed stone. o RECEIVED Top layers will utilize clean bagged oyster shell. z Bags will be anchored using rebar stakes. JAN 0 7 2019 Reef will follow the natural contours of the shoreline and be angled to minimize erosion behind structures. DCM-MHD CITY Reefs will be There will be a 5 ft spacing between reefs to allow 1 inch = 5ft fish passage and hydrological connectivity. JAN 0 7 2019 Applicant: Audubon NC kAUdubMM-MHD CITY Site: Shellbed Island A Plan -View NORTH CAROLINA Scale 1 Inch = 200 ft 12 4 2018 ,� DIAL CORDY DCMWILMINGTON (�C3� vu ASS,><:inrr.s i., Drawing 10 of 15 0 0 90 180 360 540 Feet Applicant: Audubon NC Site: Shellbed Island A (Plan -View) Scale 1 Inch = 25 ft 11 of 15 Marl and Cultch Patch Reefs 10 ft x 10 It x 2 ft 33°, 54', 48.89" N -77°, 59', 05.40" W In �•V �•UNS prom i, i.•.pp•; MIKKKI►. MLW jAudubon NORTH CAROLINA ►Ci'i�►i 90 ys Fe -roe S jt4Y4"•0 .?.rWS 99*195 �V`Oi0 33°, 54', 48.30" N 77°, 59', 04.53" W Salt Marsh •��i4�i�i ►O1'1• If DIAL CORDY �A,,> , Shellbed Island Salt Marsh 33°, 54', 50.55" N -77°, 59', 02.45" W L 0 10 20 40 60 Feet Note: Reef foundation will consist of organic industrial weave Burlap Bags filled with crushed stone. N Next layer will be comprised of clean #4 Limestone RECEIVED Marl. Top layer will utilize clean loose oyster shell. Reefs will be 10 ft x 10 ft and be 2 ft high. JAN 0 7 2019 There will be 10 ft spacing between reefs to retain fish passage and hydrological connectivity. DCM-MHD CITY Reefs will mimic the natural patch reefs already present in this area.. Applicant: Audubon NC Site: Shellbed Island A (Cross -Sectional) Scale 1 Inch = 10 ft 12/4/2018 Drawing 12 of 15 Striking Island DIAL CORDY MHW (4 ft) Proposed Fill Patch Reefs Marl and Oyster Shell (loft x10ftx2ft) MLW (0 ft) 2ft `Audubon NORTH CAROLINA t 1 z loft occ Em o __jM z Note: Reef foundation layer will consist of industrial weave, NZ RECEIVED organic burlap bags filled with # 4 crushed stone. Top layers will utilize marl top dressed with oyster shell. JAN 0 7 2019 Reefs will be 10 ft x 10 ft x 2 ft each and in groups of 3 (totall8) There will be 10 ft spacing between reefs to allow 1 inch = 10 ft DCM-MHD CITY fish passage and hydrological connectivity. Cape Fear River Proposed Reef Balls Front Row = Bay Ball Module 3 ft base x 2 ft height Back Row = Mini Bay Ball Module 2.5 ft base x 1.75 ft height /App�oxi7aat)MHVN� 1 1 II �� / I I I Proposed Oyster Shellbag Reefs 1-3 j 164 ft x 5 ft x 2 ft 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I 4^ I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I rxt CL'llSUlGl1`7U t Applicant: Audubon NC 33°, 55', 11.43" N 33°, 55', 11.65" N Site: Shellbed Island B (Plan -View) -77°, 58', 46.91" W -77°, 58', 47.71" W Scale 1 Inch = 100 ft 12/4/2018 / Drawing 14 of 15 Note: Reefs will be 164 ft x 5 ft x 2 ft and consist of a sacrificial layer of organic industrial weave burlap bags filled with crushed stone with top layers of bagged oyster shell. Audubon NORTH CAROLINA DIAL CORDY A Nil ANSI" 1 yl,., MLW �; v Note: Bay Balls will be spaced 1 ft apart. t n HW Mini Bay Balls will straddle the 1 ft gap t � I' 164 ft between Bay Balls as a seconde row. M 90 Bay Balls and 55 Mini Bay Balls Sides of Reef Ball features will curve back toward shore to reduce scour behind features. 33°, 55', 08.56" N / -77°, 58', 48.84" W Proposed Reef Balls Front Row = Bay Ball Module 3 ft base x 2 ft height Back Row = Mini Bay Ball Module 2.5 ft base x 1.75 ft height Shellbed Island RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 ' DCM-MHD CITY 33°, 55', 08.28" N -77°, 58', 47.98" W N RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 A* Scale 1 Inch = 100 ft Applicant: Audubon NC Site: Shellbed Island B (Cross -Sectional) Scale 1 Inch = 7 ft 12/4/2018 Drawing 15 of 15 Shellbed Island MHW (6 ft) 2ft MLW (0 ft) g Proposed Fill Bagged Oyster Reefs (164ftx7 0 �fr 5ft z n 3 o *A Fm K 0 eo Z m F. -4m Zv Z RECEIVED N IAN 0 7 2019 OCM-MHD CITY 1 inch = 7 ft DIAL C(DRDY AND ASSOCIAMS INC Audubon NORTH CAROLINA Proposed Fill Reef Balls Front Row Bay Balls 3 ft base x 2 ft height Back Row Mini Bay balls 2.5 ft base x 1.75 ft height) --► 5ft 5.5 ft 2ft Note: Reef foundation layer will consist of industrial weave, organic burlap bags filled with # 4 crushed stone. Top layers will utilize clean bagged oyster shell. Bags will be anchored using rebar stakes. Reef will follow the natural contours of the shoreline and be angled to minimize erosion behind structures. Reefs will be 164 ft x 5 ft x 2 ft each There will be a 5 ft spacing between reefs to allow fish passage and hydrological connectivity. Proposed Restoration Site Fill Material Fill Amount (ft2) Striking Island A (Sills) Oyster Shell and Crushed Stone 2220 ft2 Striking Island A (Patches) Oyster Shell and Crushed Stone 1080 ft2 Striking Island B Oyster Shell and Crushed Stone 1968 ft2 Shellbed Island A Limestone Marl and Oyster Shell 1800 ft2 Shellbed Island B Concrete Reef Balls and Oyster Shell 2868 ft2 Total 1 9936 ft2 RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC Ni"\/ 'w c; Qlr: ROY COOPER MICHAEL S. REGAN Seawary BRAXTON C. DAVIS Dfrec Dial Cordy & Associates, Inc. c/o Keith Walls 201 North Front Street Wilmington, NC 28401 Dear Mr. Walls: NORTH CAROLINA Envtromne dd Quaft January 2, 2019 The Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges receipt of your application, as acting agent for the National Audubon Society, for State approval for development of a living shoreline along public trust areas of Striking Island and Shellbed Island in the Lower Cape Fear River in Brunswick County. It was received as complete on December 4, 2018 and appears to be adequate for processing at this time. The projected deadline for making a decision is February 17, 2019. An additional 75-day review period is provided by law when such time is necessary to complete the review. If you have not been notified of a final action by the initial deadline stated above, you should consider the review period extended. Under those circumstances, this letter will serve as your notice of an extended review. However, an additional letter will be provided on or about the 75TH day. If this agency does not render a permit decision within 70 days from December 4, 2018, you may request a meeting with the Director of the Division of Coastal Management and permit staff to discuss the status of your project. Such a meeting will be held within five working days from the receipt of your written request and shall include the property owner, developer, and project designer/consultant. NCGS 113A-119(b) requires that Notice of an application be posted at the location of the proposed development. Enclosed you will find a 'Notice of Permit Filing" postcard which must be posted at the property of your proposed development. You should post this notice at a conspicuous point along your property where it can be observed from a public road. Some examples would be: Nailing the notice card to a telephone pole or tree along the road right-of- way fronting your property; or at a point along the road right-of-way where a private road would lead one into your property. Failure to post this notice could result in an incomplete application. An onsite inspection will be made, and if additional information is required, you will be contacted by the appropriate State or Federal agency. Please contact me if you have any questions and notify me in writing if you wish to receive a copy of my field report and/or comments from reviewing agencies. Since ely, Since Patrick Amico Environmental Specialist cc: Courtney Spears, DCM Doug Huggett, MHC Connie Marlowe, LPO Liz Hair, COE Chad Coburn, DWR National Audubon Society RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Coastal Management Wgmington Offke 1127 Cardinal Drive Extenslon I Wilmington North Carolina 28405 NoTI(01$1?j RECEIVED JAN A 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY CAMA PERMIT ATo instarivin PLIE lines at 4 ites within �1 Bruns COMMENTS ACCEPTED THROUG+nuary 26, 2019 APPLICANT: National Audubon Society c/o Curtis Smalling 8A7 E Main St., Suite 2-220 Durham NC 27701 FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT THE LOCAL PERMIT OFFICER BELOW: NC Div. of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Dr. Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 Patrick Amico, Field Representative 910-796-7423 Agent! Keith Wells (910) 251-9790 Name of Property Owner Requesting Permit: 4,< V^h& %f✓��'"� SJ C' 47y Mailing Address: SL) 7 4 in Ai.✓ 5 Sv 77t Z — Z Zo 0✓2vy4,r? n/ < ;z 7 7o / Phone Number: F z � - Sre)G /6 � 5 Email Address: P a✓wSo12.0�5 I certify that I have authorized D/Aifr 0 C/SJd c�/f �2"J , S�✓C , Agent I Contractor to act on my behalf, for the purpose of applying for and obtaining all CAMA permits necessary for the following proposed development: "c✓<f _ 0/ i r e D YlTu< fZn S7o/I� �i o.✓ at my property located at Cry c Qi ✓ �T2iK ✓G /b -Gcc Jt� in J�ix� CK County. I furthermore certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to Division of Coastal Management staff, the Local Permit OfBoer and their agents to enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application. Property owner Information: / c-Signature ✓/c PrI �rrA�c r ✓G RECEIVED Print or Type Name of c�i✓J�� ✓/tTio.✓ JAN 0 7 2019 Title DCM-MHD CITY i/ I /`/ I / 0_ Date This certification is valid through -Z 1 Z 6 I � ! c, DCivi WILMINGTON, NC NOV 1 9 9918 RE: INCOMPLETE APPLICATION —Dial Cordy c/o Keith Walls —ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED PROJECT ADDRESS —Audubon Sites on Lower Cape Fear River, Brunswick County, NC Good afternoon Mr. Walls: The Division of Coastal Management's Wilmington Regional office received a CAMA Major Permit application from Dial Cordy on November 19, 2018, requesting approval for development activities at the subject address. In reviewing your application, we have discovered that additional information is needed to complete the review process. Accordingly, I am requesting that you submit the following additional information to this office: 1) The drawings included with this project application are currently depicted in meters (Section 2.4.1, Work Plats, 15 drawings). Please update the drawings to reflect all dimensions in feet, square feet, and cubic yards where applicable. 2) This office is requesting a summary table to be included with the application that depicts all of the fill amounts/footprint per feature per site in square feet (or cubic yards), in an itemized format. 3)These items can be submitted to me, electronically via email, at patrick.amicoCancdenr.¢ov In accordance with the NC Department of Environment Quality regulations, we note that the application, as submitted on November 19, 2018, is incomplete for processing. If you have any questions, or need further assistance, please feel free to give me a call. Take care, Patrick Patrick Amico Environmental Specialist NC Division of Coastal Management Department of Environmental Quality 910 796-7423 office 910 395-3964 fax Patrick.amico0ncdenr.gov 127 Cardinal Drive Ext Wilmington, NC 28405 RECEIVED Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the JAN 0 7 2019 North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. DCM-MHD CITY r—==!VEP QCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 3C20l8 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OYSTER REEF RESTORATION CAPE FEAR RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA STRIKING AND SHELLBED ISLANDS November 2018 Prepared for: National Audubon Society, Inc. 225 Varick Street, 7th Floor RECEIVED New York, NY 10014 JAN 0 7 2019 Prepared by: Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. DCM-MHD CITY 201 North Front Street, Suite 307 Wilmington, NC 28401 RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOF TABLES......................................................................................................... LISTOF FIGURES...................................................................................................... LISTOF PHOTOS....................................................................................................... LIST OF ACRONYMS.................................................................................................. 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED..............................................................................1...... 3.0 ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................... 3.1 Preliminary Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration ................... 3.1.1 Rake Enhancement................................................................................ 3.1.2 Cultch Planting....................................................................................... 3.1.3 Oyster Restoration at South Pelican Island and Federal Point .............. 3.2 Alternatives Carried Forward for Full Evaluation ........................................... 3.2.1 No Action................................................................................................ 3.2.2 Restoration of Oyster Habitat Adjacent to Striking and Shellbed Island. 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT............................................................................ 4.1 Environmental Setting................................................................................... 4.2 Geology and Sediments................................................................................ 4.3 Water Resources........................................................................................... 4.3.1 Hydrology............................................................................................... 4.3.2 Water Quality.......................................................................................... 4.4 Estuarine Resources..................................................................................... 4.4.1 Benthic Communities............................................................................. 4.5 Fisheries........................................................................................................ 4.5.1 Managed Fisheries and Essential Fish Habitat ...................................... 4.6 Coastal Waterbirds........................................................................................ 4.7 Endangered and Threatened Species........................................................... 4.7.1 Atlantic Sturgeon.................................................................................... 4.7.2 Shortnose Sturgeon............................................................................... 4.7.3 Sea Turtles............................................................................................. 4.7.4 Florida Manatee..................................................................................... 4.8 Cultural Resources....................................................................................... 4.9 Socio-economic Resources........................................................................... 4.10 Navigation..................................................................................................... Page ........ IV ........ IV ........ IV ......... V ..........1 ..........1 ..........3 ..........3 ..........3 .......... 3 ..........4 ..........4 ..........4 ..........4 ........10 ........10 ........12 ........12 ........16 ........17 ........22 ........ 22 ........23 ........23 ........25 ........25 ........ 26 ........ 27 ........27 Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 4.12 Air Quality and Noise....................................................................................................28 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES...........................................................................28 5.1 Geology and Sediments...............................................................................................28 5.2 Hydrology.....................................................................................................................28 5.3 Water Quality................................................................................................................29 5.4 Aquatic Resources.......................................................................................................29 5.4.1 Fisheries................................................................................................................29 5.4.2 Benthic Communities............................................................................................30 5.4.3 PNAs/AFSAs.........................................................................................................30 5.4.4 Managed Fisheries and Essential Fish Habitat.....................................................31 5.5 Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................32 5.5.1 Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon...........................................................................32 5.5.2 Atlantic Sturgeon Critical Habitat...........................................................................33 5.5.3 Sea Turtles............................................................................................................33 5.5.4 Florida Manatee....................................................................................................34 5.6 Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................34 5.7 Socio-Economic Resources.........................................................................................34 5.8 Air Quality and Noise....................................................................................................35 5.9 Navigation.....................................................................................................................35 6.0 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................35 7.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS.................................................................................................36 8.0 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS.........................................37 8.1 Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Ad of 1899.......................................................37 8.2 Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1972.................................................37 8.3 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.......................................................37 8.4 Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996....................38 8.5 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958...................................................................38 8.6 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.......................................................................38 8.7 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.................................................................................39 8.8 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966...................................................................39 9.0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT.........................................................................40 9.1 Initial Coordination........................................................................................................40 9.2 Scoping.................................................................................................................. REP 10.0 AVOIDANCE, MITIGATION, AND MONITORING...........................................................41 11.0 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................IAN4 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 RECEIVED III DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 APPENDIXA PRE -CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT OYSTER REEFS ADJACENT TO TARGET SITES IN THE LOWER CAPE FEAR RIVER APPENDIX B SUBBOTTOM PROFILER DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS APPENDIX C GEOSPATIAL MODELING/SITE SELECTION LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Pooled species abundances from sampling stations in the LCFRE .............................17 Table 2. EFH and EFH-HPAC in the vicinity of the project area................................................18 Table 3. Environmental impacts summary for the alternatives considered................................35 Table 4. Federal laws and policies considered for the proposed and no action alternatives................................................................................................................... 39 Table 5. Attendees from the 13 December 2017 scoping meeting held in Wilmington, NorthCarolina..............................................................................................................40 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Location Map of Proposed Restoration Sites...............................................................2 Figure 2. Overview of Proposed Striking Island A Structures......................................................6 Figure 3. Proposed Striking Island B Reefs and Backfill..............................................................7 Figure 4. Proposed Shellbed Island A Marl and Cultch Patch Reefs...........................................8 Figure 5. Proposed Reef Balls and Bagged Reefs at Shellbed Island B Site ..............................9 Figure 6. Cape Fear Unit of Critical Habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon.............................................24 LIST OF PHOTOS Page Photo 1. Free-floating green (Ulva sp.) and red (Gracilaria vermiculophylla) macroalgae at the Shellbed Island A location..................................................................................14 Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands IV Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. November 2018 LIST OF ACRONYMS Approximately % Percent °C Degree Centigrade OF Degree Fahrenheit AFSA Anadromous Fish Spawning Area AMOY American Oystercatcher ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission ASSRT Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team BA Biological Assessment BIMS Basinwide Information Management System CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Register CFRE Cape Fear River Estuary CHPP Critical Habitat Protection Plan CMS Center for Marine Science CWA Clean Water Act DCA Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. dGPS Differential Global Positioning System DPS Distinct Population Segment EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EPA ESA FMC FR FWCA HAPC HMS HQW IBA LCFR LCFRE LCFWSA LD-1 MAFMC M BTA MHW MMPA MSFCMA NAAQS NCAC NCDENR NCDMF NCDWQ NCMFC NCWRC Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act Fisheries Management Council Federal Register Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Habitat Area of Particular Concern Highly Migratory Species High Quality Waters Important Bird Areas Lower Cape Fear River Lower Cape Fear River Estuary Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority Lock and Dam #1 Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management Council Migratory Bird Treaty Act Mean High Water Marine Mammal Protection Act Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act National Ambient Air Quality Standards North Carolina Administrative Code North Carolina Division of Environment and Natural Resources North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries North Carolina Division of Water Quality North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission DCM-MHD CITY Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. November 2018 RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 201E NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRHP National Register of Historic Places PNA Primary Nursery Area RHA Rivers and Harbors Act RKM River Kilometer SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation UNCW University of North Carolina Wilmington USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as amended [42 United States Code (USC) 4321- 4347] to address the environmental effects of proposed oyster habitat restoration on Striking and Shellbed Islands in the Lower Cape Fear River (LCFR), North Carolina (Figure 1). The Wilmington District United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is evaluating a request from Audubon North Carolina (Applicant) for Department of the Army authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). The proposed action involves placement of substrate at strategic locations to capture passing larvae and establish a network of self-sustaining oyster reefs. Federal agencies are required by NEPA to consider the environmental effects of their actions; including the issuance of federal permits, licenses, and other regulatory approvals for non-federal activities. In the case of the Applicant's proposed action to restore oyster habitat, the federal actions triggering NEPA include a decision by the USACE Regulatory Division to issue or deny Section 404/Section 10 permits. The purpose of this EA is to support informed decision making by federal agencies based on an understanding of environmental consequences, and ultimately to assist federal agencies with making decisions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED Oyster populations worldwide have declined, and an estimated 85 percent (%) of historic oyster reefs are functionally extinct (Beck at al. 2011). Fisheries monitoring records indicate North Carolina's oyster habitat has been reduced to ten percent of historic levels, primarily from overharvesting, habitat degradation and disease [Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) 2016]. Subtidal and intertidal oyster restoration are an important component for the recovery of North Carolina's declining fisheries and improving the health of North Carolina's coastal ecosystems through oyster restoration is a principle goal of federal, state, and non-profit organizations; such as, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) and the Coastal Federation. Oysters are a keystone species and a dietary staple of the American Oystercatcher (AMOY). These shorebirds are present in North Carolina year-round and approximately 6-7% of the total Western Atlantic population winters in the state (Hostetter at al. 2015). Within North Carolina, the LCFR has the greatest number of AMOY in all seasons and is home to 112 of the state's 439 nesting pairs [North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) unpublished data 2016]. American Oystercatchers have been identified as an "extremely high priority" shorebird by the working group for the Southeastern Coastal Plain as part of the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al. 2001). This designation has been assigned because estimated AMOY numbers are less than 25,000 and there has been a substantial loss of suitable habit RLMEIVED recent years (Sanders at al. 2004). Where suitable habitat remains intact, degradation from increased predation, toxicants or anthropogenic disturbance can limit habitat value. Coastal development and human activities have increased in coastal zones, which negatively affeu 0 7 2019 fInAA Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates nc. HD CITY Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 RECEIVED 1 DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 Figure 1. Location Map of Proposed Restoration Sites oystercatcher habitat, as well as water quality, shellfish populations, and overall ecosystem health. Furthermore, AMOYs have a relatively small population, making them more susceptible than species with similar threats but larger populations (Brown et al. 2001). In the LCFR, productivity has met the target set by population models to sustain and grow a population in only one of the last five years (Audubon North Carolina unpublished data). Creating oyster reefs near existing AMOY nesting sites restores foraging grounds and decreases the time AMOY chicks are left unattended. The proximity allows both parents to guard their nesting site and/or chicks can forage with parents, consequently reducing predation. Natural oyster reefs are present in the LCFR, yet lack of suitable substrate for larval attachment limits their expansion, and many reefs near existing AMOY nests are depleted (Appendix A). The purpose of the Applicant's proposed restoration is to reestablish oyster habitat adjacent to AMOY nests Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, INC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 to improve AMOY productivity while also providing ecosystem services to a myriad of aquatic life. 3.0 ALTERNATIVES NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA [40 Code of Federal Register (CFR) 1500 et. seq.] require the identification and evaluation of reasonable alternatives that meet the purpose and need and are practical or feasible from a technical and economic standpoint. This section describes the alternatives that were considered and evaluated during the NEPA process associated with this EA; including alternatives that were identified as reasonable and carried forward for full analysis, as well as those that were initially considered and eliminated from further consideration. Potential alternatives were identified and considered during the EA scoping process; including options identified by the Applicant as part of its effort to restore oyster habitat in the Cape Fear River, alternatives identified through coordination with the USACE and the NCWRC, and a no action alternative as required by CEQ regulations. A preferred alternative was determined to be "reasonable" on the basis of being "practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the Applicant," as defined by CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500 at. seq). 3.1 Preliminary Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration Based on an initial screening -level evaluation and the scoping process, the following alternatives were determined to be unreasonable and were excluded from further consideration in this EA. 3.1.1 Rake Enhancement Although AMOYs in the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary (LCFRE) utilize shell rakes for nesting habitat, rake enhancement would not increase foraging habitat for adult AMOYs, nor provide the ecosystem services associated with oyster reef restoration. Shell rakes exist above mean high water (MHW) and are not positioned to capture passing oyster larvae; whereas, placing attachment substrate in the intertidal or shallow subtidal allow for larval attachment and the potential establishment of natural oyster reefs. Given the goal of the project is to increase foraging habitat near AMOY nesting sites, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 3.1.2 Cultch Planting Planting cultch (loose shell) in subtidal and intertidal locations can provide valuable habitp(LOCEIVED marine organisms in areas otherwise void of structure. Conditions in the LCFRE; however, are not suitable for the deployment of loose shell alone, and geospatial modeling performed during the site selection process determined that loose material would likely be washed awz6ANr0 7 2019 Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands DCM-MHD CITY Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. November 20RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 buried. Moreover, placing cultch material in subtidal locations would not provide foraging habitat for AMOY. Therefore, cultch planting alone was eliminated from further consideration. 3.1.3 Oyster Restoration at South Pelican Island and Federal Point South Pelican Island and Federal Point were evaluated for site suitability using geophysical data, geospatial modeling, and field sampling (Appendices A-C). Geophysical data indicated suitable substrate conditions for oyster restoration at both locations; however, wave energy and oyster recruitment data were less favorable. Furthermore, possible expansion of South Pelican Island through the placement of dredge spoil material created uncertainty for restoration siting, and Federal Point presented challenges with permitting features adjacent to federally owned land. For these reasons, these sites were excluded from further consideration. 3.2 Alternatives Carried Forward for Full Evaluation 3.2.1 No Action Under the no action alternative, no federally permitted or authorized oyster restoration activities would take place adjacent to Striking or Shellbed Island in the LCFRE. Areas adjacent to the existing AMOY nesting sites would remain in their current state. 3.2.2 Restoration of Oyster Habitat Adjacent to Striking and Shellbed Island The Applicant's preferred alternative would involve the construction of new oyster reefs by introducing suitable attachment substrate at four strategic locations to capture passing larvae. The proposed reef structures were developed through consultation with staff members from the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW) Center for Marine Science (CMS), Audubon North Carolina, Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. (DCA), the Coastal Federation, Maritech LLC, and Atlantic Reefmakers. The structures have been designed in accordance with NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office best management practices for oyster reef restoration and are intended to increase AMOY productivity by providing new foraging grounds near existing AMOY nesting sites. The proposed structures would restore approximately 1.2 acres of oyster habitat adjacent to Striking and Shellbed Islands. Site -specific designs were developed through a combination of geospatial modeling and field studies. These designs consider wave energy, shoreline erosion rates, bottom substrate, subbottom thickness, proximity to existing AMOY nests, larval recruitment and baseline conditions of the naturally occurring oyster reefs near the project sites. A combination of bagged shell, crushed stone, limestone marl, oyster cultch and concrete reef balls would be used to construct a series of linear and/or patch oyster reefs at each of the four sites. All construction materials would be pollutant free with loose dirt removed prior to staging. All reef structures would be positioned in the lower intertidal zone, providing AMOYs with four to six hours of access to emergent oyster reef habitat during each tidal cycle. This method was determined to be the most suitable and ecologically acceptable option that meets the overall goal of oyster restoration and the coastal waterbird conservation objectives of Audubon North Carolina and its partners. Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 Striking Island — Site A Reefs/Sills Striking Island A would involve the construction of bagged oyster sills adjacent to the existing shell rake/nesting site on the island's northwest shoreline (Figure 2). The sills would be grouped in triplicate and would each be 45 meters long, 1.5 meters wide, and approximately 0.6 meters high. The foundation layer would utilize industrial -weave, organic burlap bags filled with crushed stone. This layer would function as a sacrificial layer should subsidence occur, and remaining layers would be constructed using traditional polypropylene mesh bags and clean oyster shells. Structures would be anchored to the riverbed using rebar J-stakes, and a void of 1.5 meters would be left between sills to allow fish passage around the features (Figure 2). Patch Reefs Flanking the sills to the southeast, along the same shoreline, would be a matrix of bagged reefs constructed using the same sacrificial burlap layer and bagged oyster shell design; however, these reefs would have a patchy distribution. According to Audubon North Carolina, the patchy distribution may reduce AMOY territoriality disputes, and utilizing a variety of designs would serve to further AMOY research. Each patch reef would be approximately three meters long, 1.8 meters wide, and 0.6 meters high. A void of three meters between rows and reefs would preserve fish passage. The outer row would consist of five patch reefs, the middle row six patch reefs, and the row closest to Striking Island would consist of seven patch reefs (Figure 3). This design is intended to deflect wave energy and minimize erosion behind the structures. Striking Island — Site B Reefs/Sills and Backfill Striking Island B (Figure 4) would involve the construction of two bagged oyster sills using the same materials mentioned above. Each structure would be 25 meters long x 1.5 meters wide x 0.6 meters high and anchored using rebar J-stakes. A 1.5-meter void between reefs would be maintained to preserve fish passage. In addition, 850 bushels of oyster shell backfill would be placed behind the sills to combat erosion, recruit oyster larvae, and reconnect the fragmented natural reef existing along the shoreline (Figure 5). The site would serve as an AMOY foraging area, targeting the same nesting sites as Striking Island A but also those further to the south. Shellbed Island — Site A Limestone Marl and Oyster Shell Patch Reefs Shellbed Island A would consist of constructing patch reefs to bolster an existing natural oyster reef and saltmarsh complex that exists in the western bay of the island (Figure 6). TJ!q_� /ED would be constructed using organic, industrial -weave burlap bags filled with crushed st base layer and topped with a mixture of limestone marl and clean oyster shell. Reefs would be JAN 0 7 2019 Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Ass CITY Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 RECEIVED 5 DCM WILMINGTON, NC Figure 2. Overview of Proposed Striking Island A Structures. Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 Figure 3. Proposed Striking Island B Reefs and Backfill RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands NovembWERAED 7 DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 Figure 4. Proposed Shellbed Island A Marl and Cultch Patch Reefs Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 Figure 5. Proposed Reef Balls and Bagged Reefs at Shellbed Island B Site grouped in triplicate and each reef would be approximately three meters in diameter and 0.6 meters high. This design is intended to mimic the natural reef dimensions found in t,t , rga ,,P�p void of three meters would be maintained around and between reefs to preserve fis (Figure 2). JAN 0 7 2919 Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and AdRd2d@IIeM CITY Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 Shellbed Island — Site B Reef Balls Shellbed Island B is located on the northwest shoreline of the island (Figure 1). Field observations and geospatial modeling determined that this location experiences the most wave energy of the four proposed restoration sites. To effectively attenuate wave energy at this location, two convex rows of concrete reef balls fronting a triplicate of bagged oyster sills would be employed. The design was determined through team discussions and consultation with Larry Beggs, the President of Reef Innovations. The seaward row of reef balls would consist of 90 "Bay Balls" spaced one foot apart. Each "Bay Ball" weighs 500 pounds, has a base diameter of 0.9 meters, a top diameter of 0.5 meters, and a height of 0.6 meters. Furthermore, each structure has an average of 14 holes that provide additional space that can be used by a variety of aquatic life. The landward row would be formed using 55 "Mini Bay Balls," which would straddle the one -foot gap behind two of the larger "Bay Balls (Figure 5). The "Mini Bay Balls" have a max diameter of 0.7 meters, a height of 0.5 meters, and weigh 230 pounds. Behind the reef balls, three oyster reefs/sills like those used at Striking Island A and Striking Island B would be utilized. A sacrificial foundation consisting of crushed stone held in biodegradable, industrial -weave burlap bags would be topped with two additional rows of polypropylene mesh bags containing clean oyster shells. Each reef/sill would be approximately 50 meters x 1.5 meters x 0.6 meters and would have a convex shape to reduce backside erosion. A void of 1.5 meters between all structures would be maintained to allow fish passage. 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.1 Environmental Setting The proposed oyster restoration sites are located in the LURE approximately (—) 1.5 miles east of the federal navigation channel and approximately two miles north of the river's confluence with the Atlantic Ocean. Shellbed and Striking Island are natural intertidal marsh islands that comprise part of an expansive estuarine complex of salt marshes, intertidal flats, shoals, and narrow tidal creeks that extends approximately eight river miles along the east side of the river between Bald Head Island and Federal Point. Shell rakes comprise narrow, linear supratidal shorelines along portions of the otherwise intertidal marsh islands. Shellbed and Striking Island are managed by Audubon North Carolina as components of the IBA (Important Bird Areas) program. The islands comprise high quality breeding and foraging habitats for AMOY and other coastal waterbirds. The LCFRE receives drainage from the largest river basin in the state, containing 27% of North Carolina's population. The 45 kilometer stretch of the lower river and estuary ranges from freshwater near Wilmington to polyhaline conditions (— 26 practical salinity units) at the river's mouth (Mallin et al. 1999). The Cape Fear River Estuary (CFRE) is approximately 1,800 meters wide at the mouth, narrowing to about 180 meters near Wilmington (Becker et al. 2009). Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 10 AGENT AUTHORIZATION FOR CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION Name of Property Owner Requesting Permit: kc Mailing Address: 8 7 Q i»/;i.✓ j% S✓ 1h 1— z zo y✓lC, >� 1v c 2 7 7o / Phone Number: F z i- tip 6 /6 ? r Email Address: C'J"mop//rnG a ✓ /✓5�n. o �4 I certify that I have authorized ,OrAL C'�20y �h�7 aSlo Ci/f elf , �.�i Agent / Contractor to act on my behalf, for the purpose of applying for and obtaining all CAMA permits necessary for the following proposed development: '4L' I' eal'l "4-'t.f Y1 7 0 To/'��i;.v at my property located at C''� J �i✓'� S'1/1rK ✓G �' ����� in gnaw CK County. I furthermore certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to Division of Coastal Management staff, the Local Permit Officer and their agents to enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application. Property Owner Information: Signature Print or Type Name / <. OF 6j'V fib ✓/y 7io ✓ Title /y 1L0P, Date This certification is valid through Z 1 L �5 1 Z•` % RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC 2.1 DCM MP-1 Additional Information 2.1.1 Project Narrative Audubon, North Carolina is seeking federal and state permits for an oyster restoration project located in the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary, specifically in the public trust waters adjacent to Striking and Shellbed Islands. Oysters are a keystone species and a dietary staple of the American Oystercatcher (AMOY). In the LCFR, productivity has met the target set by population models to sustain and grow a population in only one of the last five years. Creating oyster reefs near existing AMOY nesting sites restores foraging grounds and decreases the time AMOY chicks are left unattended. The proximity allows both parents to guard their nesting site and/or chicks can forage with parents, consequently reducing predation. Natural oyster reefs are present in the LCFR, yet lack of suitable substrate for larval attachment limits their expansion, and many reefs near existing AMOY nests are depleted. The purpose of the proposed restoration project is to reestablish oyster habitat adjacent to AMOY nests to improve AMOY productivity while also providing ecosystem services to a myriad of aquatic life. Within North Carolina, the Lower Cape Fear River (LCFR) has the greatest number of AMOY in all seasons and is home to 112 of the state's 439 nesting pairs. AMOY have been identified as an "extremely high priority" shorebird by the working group for the Southeastern Coastal Plain as part of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. This designation has been assigned because estimated AMOY numbers are less than 25,000 and there has been a substantial loss of suitable habitat in recent years. Where suitable habitat remains intact, degradation from increased predation, toxicants or anthropogenic disturbance can limit habitat value. Coastal development and human activities have increased in coastal zones, which negatively affects oystercatcher habitat, as well as water quality, shellfish populations, and overall ecosystem health. The proposed restoration project would involve the construction of new oyster reefs by introducing suitable substrate in 4 strategic locations to capture passing larvae. The site -specific features have been designed in accordance with NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office best management practices for oyster reef restoration and are intended to increase AMOY productivity by providing new foraging grounds near existing AMOY nesting sites. The proposed project would convert approximately 1.2 acres of soft bottom near Striking and Shellbed Islands to oyster habitat. Feature designs have been developed through a combination of geospatial modeling and field studies. These designs consider wave energy, shoreline erosion rates, bottom substrate, subbottom thickness, proximity to existing AMOY nests, larval recruitment, and baseline condition of the naturally occurring oyster reefs near the project sites. A combination of bagged shell, crushed stone, limestone marl, and concrete reef balls would be used to construct the reefs, and all construction materials would be pollutant free with loose dirt removed prior to staging. All features would be positioned in the lower intertidal and be accessible to AMOY for approximately 4-6 hours per average tidal cycle. This method was determined to be the most suit'AlELaOVED ecologically acceptable option that meets the overall objective of oyster restoration and the goals of the Audubon Society and its partners. JAN 0 7 2019 The proposed construction includes barge and tug services to transport and install designed reef features at the various site locations. Specifically, materials will be stored at the Bald I411lift CITY Deep Creek Marina, loaded onto 1 spud barge, and transported to a predetermined location RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 adjacent to the work sites. From the spud barge, 2 work skiffs will alternate transporting the materials to the project tract(s), and materials will be lifted into place using a davit and a small field crew. One site will be completed at a time. 2.1.2 NEPA Statement of Compliance The permitting application for this project includes an Environmental Assessment (EA) that has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as amended [42 United States Code (USC) 4321-4347] to address the environmental effects of proposed oyster habitat restoration on Striking and Shellbed Islands in the Lower Cape Fear River (LCFR), North Carolina. The Wilmington District United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is evaluating a request from Audubon North Carolina (Applicant) (Audubon) for Department of the Army authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). The proposed action involves placement of substrate at strategic locations to capture passing larvae and establish a network of self- sustaining oyster reefs. The NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of their actions; including the issuance of federal permits, licenses, and other regulatory approvals for non-federal activities. In the case of the Applicant's proposed action to restore oyster habitat, the federal actions triggering NEPA include a decision by the USACE Regulatory Division to issue or deny Section 404/Section 10 permits. The purpose of the EA is to support informed decision making by federal agencies based on an understanding of environmental consequences, and ultimately to assist federal agencies with making decisions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. 4.2 Geology and Sediments The CFRE extends south from Wilmington approximately 40 kilometers, and it's a major sink for fluvial sediments derived from the watershed (Benedetti at al. 2006). Furthermore, significant shoaling of the navigation channel requires frequent dredging because most of the fluvial sediment is naturally retained in the estuary and delivery to the ocean is relatively low (Benedetti at al. 2006). Following large storm events; however, plumes of organic -rich fluvial mud are discharged onto the continental shelf (Bales et al. 2000). Sediment particle size in the CFRE is highly variable, indicating multiple sources. Sand in the estuary displays a mature mineralogy dominated by well sorted quartz grains, suggesting that only a small amount of the estuarine sand is delivered from the main stem of the Cape Fear River. Rather, the source of estuarine sand is likely local and/or derived from blackwater rivers. Estuarine silt and clay; however, appear to be derived from brownwater Piedmont sources (Benedetti et al. 2006). Sediment samples collected from shoals along Shellbed and Battery Islands consisted of predominantly fine (69-93%) to medium sand (7-28%) with very small fine silt/clay fractions (1- 3%) and low organic content (1-2%) (Weinstein at al. 1980). 4.3 Water Resources 4.3.1 Hydrology The Cape Fear River is a major Piedmont -draining brownwater river that drains a watershed of -9,164 square miles between Greensboro and the Atlantic Ocean at Cape Fear. The LCFRE encompasses the -60-mile tidally influenced mainstem Cape Fear River below Lock and Dam #1 (LD-1) and two large (5'" order) tidally influenced Coastal Plain blackwater river systems (Black River and Northeast Cape Fear River) that discharge to the Cape Fear River near Wilmington. The mainstem Cape Fear River is directly connected to the Atlantic Ocean at the lower end of the estuary. The CFRE is a deep, narrow, fast flowing system with an estuarine surface area of 100 square kilometers and a relatively rapid median flushing time of approximately seven days (Mallin et al. 2016). Average daily discharge at the Cape Fear River mouth is -9,500 cubic feet per second. Low flow conditions dominate from mid -summer to mid - fall and high flow conditions occur during winter and early spring. The average tidal range inside the river mouth is -1.4 meters, and the diurnal tidal cycle drives regular reversals of flow except during periods of high freshwater discharge. The main river channel in the lower estuary has been modified for deep draft commercial vessel traffic between the Atlantic Ocean and the Port of Wilmington. The navigation channel is maintained at a minimum depth of 12 meters and a width of approximately 150 meters (McAdory 2000). 4.3.2 Water Quality The Cape Fear River receives considerable point and non -point source FCEIVED p p p pollution. e watershed contains 203 permitted wastewater discharge sites with a combined permitted flow of approximately 429 million gallons per day [North Carolina Department of Environment ,j*N 0 7 2019 Natural Resources (NCDENR) Basinwide Information Management System (BIMS) and 2010 Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands 11 DCM-MHD CITY Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. November 20ACEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 Census]. Agriculture and livestock production account for —23% of the land use in the watershed, with livestock production consisting predominantly of large-scale swine and poultry operations (Mallin et al. 2016). All water bodies in North Carolina are assigned a surface water classification by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) that defines the best uses to be protected (e.g., water supply, swimming, fishing), and each classification is subject to a specific set of water quality standards that are designed to protect the designated uses. The waters surrounding Shellbed Island and adjacent marsh islands to the east have been assigned a classification of SA (tidal salt waters that are used for market shellfishing) and a supplemental classification of HQW (High Quality Waters). The HQW classification is intended to protect waters that are rated excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics. The waters surrounding Striking Island and Battery Island are classified as SC (Saltwater; Aquatic Life Propagation and Secondary Recreation). Waters that are classified for market shellfishing (Class SA) are assessed using NCDMF Shellfish Sanitation growing area classifications, which are based on fecal coliform exceedances. SA waters with a Category 5 classification exceed fecal coliform standards and are not approved for shellfish harvest. Based on the 2016 303d list, all project area waters are currently meeting their established water quality standard criteria and are approved for shellfish harvest; however, the Cape Fear River north of The Basin is impaired based on exceedances of the standards for Copper, Nickel, and Arsenic. 4.4 Estuarine Resources 4.4.1 Benthic Communities Estuarine Soft Bottom Estuarine soft bottom habitats consisting of unvegetated, unconsolidated sediments comprise the vast majority of the subtidal benthic habitat in the LCFRE. The LCFRE contains—37,800 acres of soft bottom habitat in waters less than six feet deep and—188,549 acres in waters greater than six. feet (Deaton et.al. 2010). Estuarine intertidal flats and shallow subtidal soft bottom habitats support a highly productive benthic microalgal community. Benthic microalgae, along with imported primary production in the form of phytoplankton and detritus, support a diverse community of benthic infaunal and epifaunal invertebrates; including nematodes, copepods, polychaetes, amphipods, decapods, bivalves, gastropods, and echinoderms [South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) 1998, Peterson and Peterson 1979). Large mobile invertebrates that move between intertidal and subtidal habitats with the changing tides include blue crabs and penaeid shrimp. Mobile predatory gastropods (e.g., whelks and moon snails) occur along the lower margins of submerged tidal flats, and fiddler crabs (Uca spp.) are common on exposed flats during low tide (Peterson and Peterson 1979). Benthic invertebrates are an important food source for numerous predatory fishes that move between intertidal and subtidal habitats; including spot, Atlantic croaker, flounders, inshore lizardfish, pinfish, red drum, and southern kingfish. Planktivores [e.g., anchovies, killifish (Fundulus sp.), and menhaden] and detritivores [e.g., striped and white mullet (Mugil curema) and pinfish] also forage on tidal flats and shallow soft bottom areas. Shallow unvegetated flats provide an abundant food source and are relatively inaccessible to large predators (SAFMC 1998). Intertidal and subtidal flats function as an important nursery area for numerous benthic oriented estuarine -dependent species, especially Atlantic croaker, penaeid shrimp, flounder, and spot. A number of resident Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 12 estuarine fish and invertebrate species, as well as seasonal migratory fish species, spawn over estuarine soft bottom habitats during the spring and summer. Migratory estuarine and inlet spawning species include red drum, black drum, spotted seatrout, and weakfish (SAFMC 1998). Shell Bottom As defined by the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy, shell bottom habitats include oyster reefs, aggregations of non -reef -building shellfish species [e.g., clams and scallops (Argopecten irradians, A. gibbus)] and surface concentrations of broken shells (i.e., shell hash). The eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is the dominant and principal reef - building species of estuarine shell bottom habitats in North Carolina. Non -reef -building shellfish species that occur at densities sufficient to provide structural habitat for other organisms include scallops, pen shells (Atrina seratta and A. rigide) and rangia clams (Rangia cuneata) (SAFMC 2009). Shell bottom habitats perform a number of important ecological functions such as water filtration, benthic-pelagic coupling, sediment stabilization, and erosion reduction (Deaton et al. 2010, SAFMC 2009, and Coen at al. 2007). Oysters and other suspension -feeding bivalves reduce turbidity in the water column by filtering particulate matter, phytoplankton and microbes. The consumption of particulates also results in the transfer of material and energy from the water column to the benthic community (i.e., benthic-pelagic coupling). Shell bottom structural relief alters currents and traps and stabilizes suspended solids, thus further reducing turbidity. By moderating waves and currents, oyster reefs and other shell bottom habitats reduce shoreline erosion. The hard surfaces provided by existing oyster reefs and shell hash function as important larval settlement and accumulation sites for recruiting oysters, hard clams and other shellfish (NCDMF 2008). Studies summarized by Deaton at al. (2010) have documented the importance of shell bottom as foraging, spawning and nursery habitat for numerous species of invertebrates and fish. Shell bottom structure concentrates macroinvertebrates [e.g., grass shrimp and mud crabs (Scylla spp.)] and small forage fishes (pinfish and gobies) which, in turn, attract larger predatory fish such as Atlantic croaker, black drum (Pogonias cromis), pigfish, southern Flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma), summer Flounder (P. dentatus), and spotted seatrout. Shell bottom habitats are utilized as spawning areas by a number of finfish and decapod crustaceans, including anchovies, blennies (Blennidae), gobies, mummichog (F. heteroclitus), oyster toadfish (Opsanus tau), sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus), grass shrimp and blue crabs. Numerous finfish and decapod crustaceans including anchovies, black sea bass, blennies, gobies, oyster toadfish, pinfish, red drum, sheepshead, spot, weakfish, penaeid shrimp, blue crabs, and stone crabs (Menippe mercenaria) also utilize shell bottom habitats as nursery areas (Deaton at al. 2010). Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) encompasses several species of rooted aquatic vascular plants that occur in North Carolina estuaries; including eelgrass (Zostera marina), shoalgrass (Halodule wrighth), and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima). Submerged Aquatic Vegetation beds occur on subtidal and occasionally intertidal sediments in sheltered estuarine ANDEIVED Environmental requirements include unconsolidated sediments for root and rhizome development, adequate light reaching the bottom, and moderate to negligible current velocities (Thayer et al. 1984, Ferguson and Wood 1994). Submerged Aquatic Vegetation habitat l *4 7 2019 Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Asso HD CITY Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 13 RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON. NC NOV 19 2018 developed by the NCDMF show small scattered patches of SAV along Striking and Shellbed Islands and throughout the associated marsh -island complex along the east side of the Cape Fear River navigation channel, however, field surveys conducted by DCA during site visits found no SAV at mapped locations in the vicinity of the project area. Instead, the mapped locations along the marsh -island shorelines were found to contain abundant free-floating green (Ulva sp.) and red (Gracilaria vermiculophylla) macroalgae that become stranded on the exposed intertidal flats at low tide (Photo 1). Photo 1. Free-floating green (Ulva sp.) and red (Gracilaria vermiculophylla) macroalgae at the Shellbed Island A location. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation beds provide important structural fish habitat and perform important ecological functions in estuarine systems (i.e., primary production, structural complexity, modification of energy regimes, sediment and shoreline stabilization, and nutrient cycling). Submerged Aquatic Vegetation beds produce large quantities of detritus which is Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 14 broken down by invertebrates, zooplankton, and bacteria and transferred to higher trophic levels through the estuarine detrital food web. Water quality enhancement and fish utilization are especially important functions relevant to the enhancement of coastal fisheries (Deaton at al. 2010). Fish and invertebrates use SAV as nursery, refuge, foraging, and spawning habitat. Large predatory species such as Atlantic stingrays (Dasyatis sabina), bluefish, flounders, red drum, sharks, spotted seatrout, weakfish, and blue crabs are attracted to SAV beds for their concentrations of juvenile finfish and shellfish (Thayer at al. 1984). Important commercial and recreational fish that utilize SAV as juveniles during the spring and early summer include Atlantic croaker, black sea bass, bluefish, flounders, gag grouper, herrings, mullets, red drum, snappers, spot, spotted seatrout, weakfish, and southern kingfish. Bay scallops, hard clams, penaeid shrimp, and blue crabs are also strongly associated with SAV. Tidal Marsh Salt marshes consisting of nearly monospecific stands of smooth cordgrass (Spartina altemiflora) dominate the contiguous tidal floodplains along the LCFR main -stem from the river mouth up to approximately Bamards Creek (-21 river miles). Well-defined high marsh zones are generally absent along the LCFR mainstem. Typical high marsh species such as black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) and saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens) generally comprise only a narrow and discontinuous fringe along the upper edge of the salt marsh. Dense patches of the non-native common reed (Phragmites australis) occur on dredged material deposits and other fill that are slightly elevated above the natural tidal floodplain and somewhat removed from exposure to the high salinity waters. Common reed stands are relatively uncommon in the lowermost polyhaline portion of the estuary and are absent from the natural marsh islands in the vicinity of the project area. Salt and brackish marshes exhibit high primary productivity in the form of detritus, microalgae, and bacteria (Hackney at al. 2000). Tidal flooding connects the marsh with adjacent estuarine waters, allowing utilization by fish and other aquatic organisms. Slow -moving or sessile species residing in salt/brackish marsh and contributing to secondary production include fiddler crabs, mud snails, amphipods, oysters, clams, and Atlantic ribbed mussels (Geukensia demissa) (Wiegert and Freeman 1990). Marshes provide habitat for numerous species of decapods and fish. Resident marsh species such as grass shrimp, killifish, mummichogs, sheepshead minnows, gobies, bay anchovies, and silversides provide an important link between marsh primary production and transient predatory fish populations (Wiegert and Freeman 1990, SAFMC 1998). Tidal marshes are utilized as nursery and/or foraging areas by economically important species such as red drum, flounder, spotted seatrout, spot, Atlantic croaker, and blue crab. In North Carolina, penaeid shrimp and red drum are considered critically linked to marsh edge habitat (SAFMC 1998). Other species (e.g., Atlantic menhaden) that are not directly associated with marsh habitats derive substantial food resources from the marsh in the form of exported detritus and microalgae. Along with shallow soft bottom and shell bottom areas, the salt and brackish marshes along the North Carolina coast are an important nursery habitat for estuarine -dependent species. The majority of the Primary and Secondary Nursery Areas in North Carolina are located in soft bottom areas surrounded by salt/brackish marsh (Deaton at al. 2010). RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Assoc - HD CITY Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 15 RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 Primary and Secondary Nursery Areas State -identified nursery areas within the estuarine system are by definition Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and/or EFH-Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) for shrimp, red drum, coastal migratory pelagics, and estuarine -dependent species of the snapper -grouper complex. As defined by 15 North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 31 .0101(b)(20)(E), Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) are areas of initial post -larval development that support uniform populations of very early juveniles. For many estuarine -dependent species, larval settlement occurs in the uppermost reaches of shallow creek systems (Weinstein 1979, Ross and Epperly 1985). Secondary Nursery Areas (SNAs) are areas in the estuarine system that support later juvenile development of subadults that have moved from PNAs. The majority of the Primary and Secondary Nursery Areas in North Carolina are located in soft bottom areas surrounded by salt/brackish marshes (Deaton et al. 2010). The abundance of juveniles in estuarine nursery areas generally peaks between April and July (Ross and Epperly 1985). There are no PNAs or SNAs in the immediate vicinity of the project area. The nearest nursery areas are PNAs located approximately two miles southeast and southwest of the project area behind Bald Head Island and Oak Island. To the north, the nearest nursery area is a PNA located approximately four miles upriver in the northeast corner of The Basin just below Federal Point. 4.5 Fisheries The shallow, high salinity estuarine waters of the project area support a diverse assemblage of marine, ocean spawned estuarine -dependent, resident, and anadromous fish species. Weinstein et al (1980) described the structure of estuarine nekton communities in the LCFRE based on sampling of tidal creeks and shoals adjacent to the salt marsh fringe. Sampling stations were established at 17 sites between Bald Head Island and Barnards Creek; including sites within and adjacent to the proposed project area (Shellbed and Battery Islands). Sixteen taxa comprised over 96% of the total catch at all 17 stations during the September to August sampling period (Table 1). Ocean -spawned estuarine -dependent species comprised 70% of the community dominants. The species that dominated the overall catch were generally ubiquitous to the LCFRE but had centers of abundance related to salinity gradients. Many marine species were restricted to the high salinity (polyhaline) waters of the lowermost estuary in the vicinity of the Baldhead, Battery, and Shellbed Island sampling stations. Although not numerically dominant, the seasonal presence of marine species contributed to relatively high species richness at the lower polyhaline stations. Totals of 56, 63, and 44 species were collected at Baldhead, Battery, and Shellbed Islands, respectively. The LCFRE is an important nursery area for many estuarine -dependent fish and invertebrate species that spawn offshore and use estuarine habitats for juvenile development. Ocean- spwned larvae are transported shoreward by the prevailing currents and eventually pass through tidal inlets and settle in estuarine nursery habitats. Juveniles remain in the estuarine nursery areas one or more years before moving offshore and joining the adult spawning stock (Deaton et al. 2010). The results of a long-term larval fish sampling program at Beaufort Inlet indicate that the most abundant larval taxa passing through inlet are spot, pinfish, croaker, menhaden, speckled worm eel (Myrophis punctatus), flounders, pigfish, gobies (Gobiidae) and striped mullet (Taylor et al. 2009). Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 16 Table 1. Pooled species abundances from sampling stations in the LCFRE. Common Name Scientific Name Percent Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 39.3 Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 18.3 Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 10.8 Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia 7.6 Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 5.9 Striped mullet Mugil cephalus 3.3 White mullet Mugil curema 2.2 Brown shrimp Penaeus aztecus 1.9 Flounder Paralichthys spp. 1.7 Blue crab Callinectes sapidus 1.3 Striped killifish Fundulus majalis 1.0 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina 0.9 Silver perch Bairdiella chrysoure 0.6 Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 0.6 Eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki 0.5 Naked gobi Gobiosoma bosc 0.5 Total 96.2 Source: Weinstein at al. 1979 Anadromous species that undertake annual migrations from coastal waters to spawning grounds in the upper freshwater reaches of the Cape Fear River include Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, striped bass, American shad, hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), blueback herring (A. aestivalis), and alewife (A. pseudoharengus). The North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission (NCMFC) and the NCWRC have designated the middle to upper portions of the CFRE and the inland freshwater reaches above as Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas (AFSAs). Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas are defined in NCMFC rule 15A NCAC 03N .0106 and NCWRC rule 15A 10C .0602 as areas where evidence of spawning of anadromous fish have been documented through direct observation of spawning, capture of running ripe females, or capture of eggs or early larvae. There are no designated AFSAs below Lilliput Creek in the lowermost —11-mile reach of the Cape Fear River; however, the lower river functions as a critical spawning migration corridor for anadromous species. RECEIVED 4.5.1 Managed Fisheries and Essential Fish Habitat JAN 0 7 2019 The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA), as as(N"HD CITY by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, requires federal agencies to address the effects of Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands 17 Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. November 2018 RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 their actions on EFH and federally managed fisheries. The MSFCMA defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." Habitat Areas of Particular Concern comprise a more specific subset of EFH habitats that are considered to be especially critical due to factors such as rarity, susceptibility to human -induced degradation, and/or high ecological importance. Federally managed species that potentially occur in the LCFR up to US 421 are listed in Table 2. Table 2. EFH and EFH-HPAC in the vicinity of the project area. EFH/HAPC Fisheries Management Plan Management Authority EFH Estuarine Emergent Wetlands Shrimp, Red drum, Snapper -Grouper SAFMC (Intertidal Marshes) Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Shrimp, Red drum, Snapper -Grouper, Cobia SAFMC (Seagrasses) Subtidal and Intertidal Shrimp SAFMC Non -Vegetated Flats Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks Red drum, Snapper -Grouper SAFMC Unconsolidated Bottom Red drum, Snapper -Grouper SAFMC Hardbottom Snapper -Grouper SAFMC Artificial Reefs Snapper -Grouper SAFMC Ocean High Salinity Surf Zone Red drum, Coastal migratory pelagics SAFMC Coastal Inlets Coastal migratory pelagics SAFMC NC Primary/Secondary Nursery Areas Coastal migratory pelagics SAFMC High Salinity Estuaries Cobia SAFMC Continental Shelf Waters, Estuaries Bluefish, Summer flounder MAFMC Highly Migratory Species (Sharks) Great hammerhead Tiger Scalloped Sand tiger Continental Shelf Waters White Bonnethead NMFS Blacktip Atlantic sharpnose Dusky Blacknose Sandbar Finetooth Spinner Common thresher HAPC Coastal Inlets Shrimp, Red drum, Snapper -Grouper, SAFMC Coastal migratory pelagics High Salinity Estuaries (Bogue Sound) Spanish Mackerel SAFMC Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Cape,Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands 18 Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. November 2018 Table 2. (concluded). EFH/HAPC Fisheries Management Plan Management Authority NC Primary/Secondary Nursery Areas Shrimp, Red drum, Snapper-Grouper. SAFMC Coastal migratory pelagics Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Red drum, Snapper -Grouper SAFMC Summerflounder MAFMC (Seagrasses) Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks Snapper -Grouper SAFMC Hardbottom Snapper -Grouper SAFMC Penaeid Shrimp Federally managed penaeid shrimp in North Carolina include the brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum), and white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus). Adults spawn offshore in high salinity oceanic waters during the winter or spring (SAFMC 1981). Ocean -spawned planktonic larval and post -larval shrimp are transported by currents to inshore estuarine habitats where they maintain a benthic existence. Juveniles are most abundant in estuarine waters with intermediate salinities and mud -silt substrates, where they congregate at the highly productive marsh -water interface. As their size increases, shrimp move toward high -salinity oceanic waters, eventually migrating offshore in the fall. Essential Fish Habitat for peneaid shrimp includes important inshore estuarine nursery habitats, important offshore habitats for spawning and growth, and all interconnecting water bodies. Designated estuarine EFHs in the vicinity of the action area include tidal marshes, intertidal and subtidal flats, and SAV. Designated HAPCs in the LCFRE include all state - designated Primary and Secondary Nursery Areas, coastal inlets (i.e., Cape Fear River mouth between Bald Head and Oak Island). Red Drum Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) spawning areas include high salinity waters in the vicinity of major inlets and potentially high salinity waters inside estuaries. Eggs and larvae are transported throughout the inshore estuaries by tidal and wind driven currents, with the majority of the larvae being carried to the upper reaches of the estuaries where they settle in shallow, low -salinity nursery habitats. In North Carolina, juvenile one- and two -year -old red drums are distributed year-round over a wide range of salinities and habitats, but they generally prefer shallow shoreline waters in bays and rivers and shallow grass flats behind barrier islands (Ross and Stevens 1992). Some juveniles also migrate to the ocean after their first year, where they occur along beaches from late fall through early spring. Adult red drums spend less time in the estuaries and more time in the ocean; spending spring, early summer, and fall along the beaches and wintering offshore. In the fall and spring red drums congregate around inlets, shoals, capes, and along ocean beaches from the surf zone to several miles offshore. Designated estuarine EFH habitats for red drums in the vicinity of the action area inclur, gIVEIVED Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands 19 lAN 0 7 2M Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Novembga< MHD CITY RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 marshes, oyster reefs and shell banks, soft bottom habitats, and SAV. Designated HAPCs include all state -designated Primary and Secondary Nursery Areas, coastal inlets, and SAV. Snapper -Grouper Complex The snapper -grouper complex is an assemblage of 59 species that share a common association with hardbottom or reef habitats during part of their life cycle. Generally, snappers (Lutjanidae), groupers (Serranidae), porgies (Sparidae), and grunts (Haemulidae) inhabit offshore hardbottom habitats; whereas nearshore ocean hardbottoms at depths of —18 meters along North Carolina have cooler temperatures, less diverse invertebrate populations, and a fish community dominated primarily by black sea bass (Centropristis striata), scup, and associated temperate species (Sedberry and Van Dolah 1984). Most snapper -grouper species spawn in aggregations in the water column above offshore and shelf -edge reefs (Jaap 1984). Planktonic larval stages typically occur in the offshore water column, whereas juveniles and adults are typically demersal and associated with moderate to high relief hard structures on the outer continental shelf. However, the juveniles of some managed species such as black sea bass, gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus), and gag grouper (Mycteroperca microlepis) reside in estuarine nursery areas where they typically inhabit SAV or oyster reef habitats (SAFMC 1998, NCDMF 2006). Juveniles of these estuarine -dependent species emigrate from the estuary to near shore hardbottom habitats in the fall, and eventually move to offshore hard/live bottom habitats. Designated EFH for estuarine -dependent snapper -grouper species in the LCFRE includes SAV, attached macroalgae, tidal marshes and creeks, oyster reefs and shell banks, and unconsolidated bottom. Designated estuarine HAPCs include SAV, oyster reefs and shell banks, coastal inlets, and state -designated Primary and Secondary Nursery Areas. Coastal Migratory Pelagics The coastal migratory pelagics management unit includes king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla), Spanish mackerel (S. maculates), and cobia (Rachycentron canadum). Adult coastal pelagics occur in coastal waters from shore out to the edge of the continental shelf. The distribution of coastal pelagics on the shelf is governed by temperature and salinity, with all species generally occurring in high salinity waters with temperatures above 20 degrees Centigrade (°C). Coastal migratory pelagics are fast swimming, schooling, and piscivorous predators. Spanish mackerel spawn in groups over the inner continental shelf, beginning in April off the Carolinas. Larvae grow quickly and are most commonly found in nearshore ocean waters at shallow depths less than 30 feet. Most juveniles remain in nearshore ocean waters, but some use high salinity estuaries as nursery areas. Adult Spanish mackerel spend most of their lives in the open ocean but are also found in tidal estuaries and coastal waters [Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) 2011a and b, Mercer et a]. 1990]. King mackerel are primarily a coastal species, with smaller individuals of similar size forming significant schools over areas of bottom relief and reefs; while larger solitary individuals prefer anthropogenic structures and/or wrecks. Cobia are abundant in warm waters along the United States coast from Chesapeake Bay south through the Gulf of Mexico. Cobia are found over the continental shelf and in high salinity estuarine waters, preferring waters in the vicinity of reefs and around structures such as pilings, buoys, platforms, anchored boats, and flotsam. Spawning off the North Carolina coast occurs during May and June, primarily in offshore ocean waters; however, spawning has also been observed in estuaries and shallow bays with the young moving offshore soon after hatching (SAFMC 1983 and 2011). Essential Fish Habitat for Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 20 all coastal migratory pelagics in the vicinity of the project area includes the sandy shoals of capes and offshore bars and barrier island ocean -side waters. Essential Fish Habitat specifically for cobia also includes high salinity estuaries and SAV. Designated HAPCs for all coastal migratory pelagics include coastal inlets and state designated Primary and Secondary Nursery Areas. Highly Migratory Species The highly migratory species (HMS) complex encompasses tuna [albacore (Thunnus alalunga), bluefin (T. thynnus), bigeye (Tobesus), skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis), and yellowfin (T. albacres)], swordfish (Xiphias gladius), billfish [blue marlin (Mokaira nigricans), white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus), sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus), and longbill spearfish (T. ptluegen), and 39 species of sharks that are divided into three groups: large coastal sharks, small coastal sharks, and pelagic sharks. Of these species, 14 managed shark species have designated EFH consisting of nearshore continental shelf waters along the North Carolina coast. Sharks are found in a wide variety of coastal and ocean habitats; including estuaries, nearshore and continental shelf waters, and the open ocean. Although managed sharks move primarily through the open ocean, several species move to shallow coastal waters and estuaries to pup. These nearshore/estuarine habitats also function as nursery areas for the developing young, with neonates typically remaining in these areas throughout their early life stages [National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2009]. Subtidal bottom in nearshore waters along the southern North Carolina coast serve as pupping grounds for the Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae), bonnethead shark (Sphyma tiburo), blacknose shark (Carcharhinus acronotus), spinner shark (C. brevipinna), dusky shark (C. obscurus), blacktip shark (C. limbatus), sandbar shark (C. plumbeus), and scalloped hammerhead shark (S. lewim). Neonates from southern North Carolina waters are found primarily in June and July (Beresoff and Thorpe 1997, Thorpe et al. 2004). Bluefish Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) are a migratory, pelagic species found in temperate and semi- tropical continental shelf waters around the world with the exception of the north and central Pacific. In North America, bluefish range from Nova Scotia to Florida in the Atlantic Ocean and from Florida to Texas in the Gulf of Mexico [Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) 1990]. Spawning in the South Atlantic Bight occurs near the shoreward edge of the Gulf Stream primarily during April and May (Kendall and Walford 1979). Larval development takes place in outer continental shelf waters within six meters of the surface. Transitional pelagic juveniles eventually move to estuarine and nearshore oceanic waters, which serve as the principal nursery habitats for juvenile development (Kendall and Walford 1979). Estuarine juveniles are most commonly associated with sandy soft bottom habitats; but also use mud and silt soft bottom habitats, SAV, marine macroalgae, oyster reefs, and tidal marsh grass (Shepherd and Packer 2006). Juvenile bluefish are common in high salinity estuaries along the southern North Carolina coast during summer and fall and are common in the nearshore ocean from spring through mid -winter. Adults use both inshore estuarine and offshore oceanic habitats. Adults are common in the nearshore ocean along the North Carolina coast from spring through ovinrc� CEIVED winter (MAFMC 1990). Adults undertake seasonal migrations, generally mg northw�Ug during spring and summer and southward during fall and winter. Essential Fish Habitat for JAN 0 7 2019 Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates ngy]_MHD CITY Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 21 RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 juvenile and adult bluefish in the vicinity of the project area includes estuaries and pelagic ocean waters overlying the continental shelf. Flounder Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) are found in shallow estuarine and outer continental shelf waters along the Atlantic coast from Nova Scotia to Florida and along the northern Gulf coast of Mexico [Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) 1999]. Summer flounder are concentrated in estuaries and sounds from late spring through early fall, before migrating to offshore wintering spawning habitats on the outer continental shelf (NEFSC 1999, ASFMC 2011c). Offshore spawning occurs during fall and early winter, and the larvae are transported by wind -driven currents to coastal waters. Post -larval and juvenile development occurs primarily in estuaries (NEFSC 2011). Larvae recruit to inshore waters from October to May where they bury into the sediment and develop into juveniles. Late larval and juvenile flounder actively prey on crustaceans, copepods, and polychaetes (NEFSC 1999). Juveniles prefer sandy shell substrates; but also inhabit marsh creeks, mud flats, and seagrass beds. Juveniles often remain in North Carolina estuaries for 18 to 20 months (NEFSC 1999, ASFMC 2011d). Adults primarily inhabit sandy substrates, but have been documented in seagrass beds, tidal marsh creeks, and sand flats (ASFMC 2011c and d, NEFSC 1999). Adults inhabit estuarine waters before moving to offshore wintering grounds on the outer continental shelf. Essential Fish Habitat for all life stages of summer flounder includes ocean waters overlying the continental shelf. Inshore EFH for juvenile and adult summer flounder includes estuarine waters with salinities greater than 0.5 parts per thousand. All native species of SAV, marine macroalgae, and tidal/freshwater macrophytes are designated HAPC for summer flounder. 4.6 Coastal Waterbirds Striking and Shellbed Islands are natural tidal marsh islands with narrow supratidal shell rake shorelines. The islands are part of the Bald Head -Smith Island Important Bird Area (IBA), and comprise important nesting and wintering sites for AMOYs. The islands are used as an AMOY study site where banding, band re -sighting, and demographic studies are conducted. The islands also support nesting by laughing gulls, willets, and clapper rails; and function as important foraging sites for wading birds from the nearby Battery Island Audubon North Carolina Sanctuary. The islands are posted, patrolled, and off limits to visitors during the 1 April - 31 August nesting season. 4.7 Endangered and Threatened Species This section addresses federally listed threatened and endangered species that are known to occur or potentially occur in the LCFRE; including Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, sea turtles, and the Florida manatee. Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands 22 Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. November 2018 4.7.1 Atlantic Sturgeon Atlantic sturgeons are listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) as five Distinct Population Segments (DPSs); including four that are endangered (New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic) and one that is threatened (Gulf of Maine). The Carolina DPS encompasses subpopulations from the Roanoke, Tar/Pamlico, Cape Fear, Waccamaw, Pee Dee, and Santee -Cooper Rivers in North Carolina and South Carolina. The spawning population in each of the Carolina DPS river systems is thought to number less than 300 adults Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT) 2007]. Atlantic sturgeons spawn in freshwater but spend most of their adult life in the marine environment. Spawning adults generally migrate upriver in the spring/early summer (ASSRT 2007). Spawning is believed to occur in flowing water between the salt front and fall line of large rivers. Post -larval juveniles move downstream into brackish waters and eventually move to estuarine waters where they reside for a period of months or years (Moser and Ross 1995). Subadult and adult Atlantic sturgeons emigrate from rivers into coastal waters where they may undertake long range migrations; however, adults return to their natal river to spawn (ASSRT 2007). Atlantic sturgeons are benthic omnivores that filter quantities of mud along with their food. Adults consume mollusks, gastropods, amphipods, isopods, and fish; while juveniles feed on aquatic insects and other invertebrates (ASSRT 2007). According to the ASSRT (2007), projects that may adversely affect sturgeon include dredging; pollutant or thermal discharges; bridge construction/removal; dam construction, removal and relicensing; and power plant construction and operation. Other stressors on the populations are bycatch mortality, habitat impediments (e.g., Cape Fear and Santee -Cooper rivers), and apparent ship strikes (e.g., Delaware and James rivers). Gill net surveys in the Cape Fear River system have captured substantial numbers of Atlantic sturgeon in the Cape Fear River mainstem, Brunswick River, and Northeast Cape Fear River (Moser and Ross 1995, ASSRT 2007). Subadult Atlantic sturgeons in the Cape Fear River system exhibit seasonal movements and distribution patterns; moving upriver during the summer and migrating out of the river to estuarine or ocean waters during the coldest time of the year (Post et al. 2014). High inter -annual return rates of tagged fish demonstrate fidelity to the Cape Fear River system; indicating that the Cape Fear River system may be the natal river system for these individuals (Post at al. 2014). In 2017, portions of both rivers were designated as critical habitat for the Carolina DPS. Carolina Unit 4 encompasses the Cape Fear River main stem from river kilometer (rkm) 0 up to LD-2 and the Northeast Cape Fear River from its confluence with the Cape Fear River up to Rones Chapel Road Bridge (Figure 6). 4.7.2 Shortnose Sturgeon The shortnose sturgeon was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act in March 1967 [32 Federal Register (FR) 4001]. The species inhabits large Atlantic coast rivers from New Brunswick, Canada south to northeastern Florida. Adults in southern rivers are estuarine anadromous, foraging at the freshwater -saltwater interface and moving upstream to spawn in the early spring. Shortnose sturgeons spend most of their life in their natal river systems and rarely migrate to marine environments. Spawning habitats include river channels with gravel, gravel/boulder, rubble/boulder, and gravel/sand/log substrates. Juveniles onEIVED the freshwater -saltwater interface, moving back and forth with the low salinity portion of the wedge during summer. Juveniles typically move upstream during the spring and summer and Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands 23 JAN 0 7 2019 Dial Cordy and Associ Novembe� HD Crry RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 Carolina Unit 4 Cape Fear Unit Map 4 79•W 70°30'W ; Wayne 7e°W IVBUSe 77°30'W Mount Olive _ • 'Rones Chape Rd Bridge Fayetteville ' 35°N Clinton 35°N Duolin ® Northeast - - - __ - — - Cape Fear ® Jacksonville NORTHCAROLINA Bladen Lock And; Dam #2 f Elizabethtown Burgaw ?ender 34°30'N �''.. '30' Cape Fear Lock And Dam #1 '' ✓ Whiteville New Ilanove Columbus t Wilmthin �gton A. SOUTH CAROLINA t7 Brunswick 0 5 70 20 30 40.' Atlantic Ocean 34`N N Miles Kilometers ! 34°N - n wt7091 5 10 20 3- 40 � °W 7b`3U'W 7Mf-j 77'30'W NC SC GA Legend Area of Detail Critical Habitat Area FL This map illustrates Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat. Critical habitat Is all of the river within the Illustrated Critical Habitat Area from the ordinary high water mark on one riverbank to the ordinary high water mark of the opposing riverbank For clarification of the critical habitat definition, please refer to the narrative description. Figure 6. Cape Fear Unit of Critical Habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 24 downstream during the winter, with movements occurring above the freshwater -saltwater interface. In southern rivers, both adults and juveniles are known to congregate in cool, deep thermal refugia during the summer. The shortnose sturgeon is a benthic omnivore, feeding on crustaceans, insect larvae, worms, and mollusks. Juveniles randomly vacuum the bottom and consume mostly insect larvae and small crustaceans. Adults are more selective feeders, feeding primarily on small mollusks (NMFS 1998). The shortnose sturgeon was thought to be extirpated from North Carolina waters until an individual was captured in the Brunswick River in 1987 (Moser and Ross 1995). Subsequent gill -net studies (1989-1993) confirmed the presence of a small shortnose sturgeon population in the LCFR below LD-1. Tagged shortnose sturgeons were found to move throughout the entire lower river from rkm 16 up to LD-1 (rkm 96) (Moser and Ross 1995). Gravid females engaged in directed upstream migrations that suggested the possible existence of a reproducing population above LD-1 (Moser & Ross 1995). However, the current distribution, abundance, and reproductive status of shortnose sturgeon in the Cape Fear River are unknown (Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team 2010). 4.7.3 Sea Turtles North Carolina's sounds and estuaries provide important developmental and foraging habitats for post -pelagic juvenile loggerhead, green, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles. Most of the information regarding the inshore distribution of sea turtles in North Carolina has been generated by studies in the Pamlico -Albemarle estuarine complex. Large numbers of loggerhead, green, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles are incidentally captured each year during commercial fishing operations in the Pamlico -Albemarle estuarine complex. All three species are represented primarily by juveniles, with few reported captures of older juveniles and adults (Epperly at al. 2007). All three species move inshore during the spring and disperse throughout the sounds during the summer. All three species leave the sounds and move offshore during the late fall and early winter. Epperly at al. (1995) reported the presence of sea turtles in back - barrier estuaries along the North Carolina coast from April through December. Goodman at al. (2007) reported the presence of sea turtles in Core and Pamlico Sounds and the nearshore ocean waters of Raleigh Bay within 1 mile of shore from April through November. All but one of the 92 sea turtle observations reported by Goodman at al. (2007) occurred in waters where sea surface temperatures were above 11°C, and all sightings in the sounds occurring between 16 April and 20 November. 4.7.4 Florida Manatee The Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latitostris), a subspecies of the West Indian manatee, was originally listed as endangered in 1967 (32 FR 4001) under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (a predecessor to the ESA of 1973). In 1969, the endangered listing was expanded to encompass the species throughout its range, including the Antillean manatee (T. manatus manatus), a subspecies occurring in the Caribbean and South America. In April 2017, the West Indian manatee (both subspecies) was reclassified as threatened throughout its range (82 FR 16668). Manatees inhabit marine, brackish, and freshwater environments where they are found in seagrass beds, salt marshes, freshwater bottom areas, Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration RECEgVIIf dy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 25 RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM WILMINGTON, NC DCM-MHD CITY NOV 19 2018 and many other habitat types. Manatees feed on a wide variety of submerged, floating, and emergent vegetation. Seagrasses are a staple in coastal habitats, and preferred foraging habitats consist of shallow seagrass beds with access to deep water. Manatees are also known to feed on salt marsh vegetation (i.e., smooth cordgrass), which they access at high tide. Although manatees tolerate a wide range of salinities, they prefer areas where osmotic stress is minimal or areas that have a natural or artificial source of fresh water [United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2001]. The principal anthropogenic threats to manatees include watercraft strikes, entrapment and/or crushing in water control structures, entanglement in fishing gear, and ingestion of marine debris. A total of 1,877 deaths were attributed to anthropogenic causes between 1978 and 2007, Watercraft strikes accounted for 82% or 1,538 of these deaths. Water control structures killed 182 manatees, and the remaining 157 deaths were attributed to entanglement in and ingestion of marine debris (including fishing gear), entrapment in pipes and culverts, and other human causes. Dramatic rapid declines in water temperature during the early fall can be hazardous to manatees that have not departed North Carolina waters for Florida (Cummings at al. 2014). Manatees are intolerant of cold water temperatures; and consequently, are generally restricted to inland and coastal waters of peninsular Florida during the winter. In the spring, as water temperatures reach 68 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), manatees disperse from winter aggregation sites. Some remain near their aggregation sites, while others undertake extensive movements along the coast and up rivers and canals. Warm weather sightings are most common in Florida and Georgia. Summer sightings drop off rapidly north of Georgia, and sightings north of Cape Hatteras are rare (USFWS 2001). Of 99 opportunistic sightings and nine strandings that were reported in North Carolina between July 1991 and September 2012, nearly all (93%) occurred between June and October when water temperatures were above 68OF (Cummings et al. 2014). Although most of the strandings were recorded in southeastern North Carolina, sightings were widely distributed along the entire North Carolina coast. Sightings were most common in the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; however, manatees were also observed in sounds, bays, rivers, creeks, marinas, and the open ocean. Although no sightings were reported in the Cape Fear River above Wilmington, sightings were reported in the Northeast Cape Fear River up to the vicinity of the NC HWY 210 Bridge (-30 river miles above downtown Wilmington). 4.8 Cultural Resources The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the official list of buildings, structures, objects, sites and districts worthy of preservation for being a significant part of American History. Specific criteria have been designed to guide states, federal agencies, and the Secretary of the Interior in evaluating potential entries to the register and investigations conducted pursuant to Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to evaluate their properties and nominate those that are historically significant (USACE 2010). There are currently no NRHP listed or eligible historic sites in the vicinity of Striking or Shellbed Island. Abandoned shipwrecks and other cultural resources that occur on submerged lands of the state are protected under the Federal Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 and Chapter 121, Article 3 of the NC GSs (Salvage of Abandoned Shipwrecks and Other Underwater Archaeological Sites). Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, projects affecting submerged lands of the state must be evaluated for potential effects on underwater cultural resources that are listed or may be eligible for listing in Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 26 the NRHP. A remote sensing survey for potential cultural resources within the proposed reef construction areas was conducted by Panamerican Consultants in 2018 (Appendix B). The survey identified a single magnetic anomaly and no acoustic targets. Data analyses indicated that the magnetic anomaly was a single, isolated object most likely consisting of modern debris. The remote sensing survey was conducted using a survey vessel outfitted with a dual frequency (900-1800 kilohertz) side -scan sonar unit interfaced with a differential global positioning system (dGPS) with accuracy levels that determine position to within one meter. HYPACK navigation software was used to develop the survey transects and maintain vessel tracking during data collection. Side -scan sonar and subbottom records were used to identify the presence of any underwater archaeological resources, and a mosaic was prepared using ArcGIS software. The subbottom survey employed an Edgetech 424 XSE-500 Shallow Tow X-Star system of topside processor and towfish. This system included a Model 3100-G Topside Processor with DISCOVER Sub -Bottom Software and a 4 to 24 kilohertz SB-424 tow fish. 4.9 Socio-economic Resources Oyster reefs are valued for the numerous ecosystem services they provide. Wild caught oyster landings have been valued from $12.80-$32.00 per bushel, but evaluations of additional ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs are limited (Grabowski and Peterson 2007). Providing the only hard substrate in a predominantly soft sediment environment (Lenihan 1999), oyster reefs have a complex shell matrix that supports a myriad of species including polychaetes, crustaceans, and mollusks. Additionally, juvenile fish, shrimp and mobile crustaceans recruit to oyster reefs to seek refuge and foraging grounds, leading to increased fishing opportunities for recreational and commercial fishermen (Grabowski and Peterson 2007). The water quality improvement functions also provide substantial indirect benefits and economic value. For example, water quality improvements are valued by the general public who use the estuarine habitat for activities like swimming and boating (Grabowski and Peterson 2007). Ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs in North Carolina are valued at $40,200 per acre (CHPP 2016). 4.10 Navigation The main river channel in the lower estuary has been modified for deep draft commercial vessel traffic between the Atlantic Ocean and the Port of Wilmington. The federal Wilmington Harbor project authorizes a channel that is maintained at a minimum depth of 12 meters with a width of 150 meters from the river's mouth to Navassa (McAdory 2000). The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway enters the mainstem river at Snow's Cut and runs south through the federal Harbor channel to Southport where it branches off to the west behind Oak Island. The Southport - Fort Fisher Ferry is a vehicular and fee -based ferry that connects the Town of Southport with the barrier island town of Fort Fisher on the southern end of Pleasure Island. The ferry path follows the federal shipping channel from Southport before turning due east to Fort Fisher near Federal Point. Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands RECEIVED November 2018 RECEIVED 27 JAN 0 7 2019 DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 DCM-MHD CITY 4.12 Air Quality and Noise Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for commonly occurring 'criteria pollutants" that may harm public health or the environment. National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been established for seven criteria pollutants: nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter less than ten microns in diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and ozone (03). The EPA designates all counties as either "attainment," "maintenance," or "non -attainment" for each of the individual criteria pollutants. Attainment areas are those areas where concentrations of criteria pollutants are below the NAAQS; whereas, non -attainment areas are those where concentrations exceed the NAAQS. Maintenance areas are former non -attainment areas that have been re -designated as attainment. Brunswick County is designated as an attainment area for all criteria pollutants. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section compares the environmental impacts of the preferred alternative (oyster habitat restoration) and the no action alternative (no restoration). 5.1 Geology and Sediments Under the preferred alternative, construction would involve the use of a small shallow draft barge to stage materials near the project sites. Work skiffs would be used to transport materials from the staging barge to the final locations, and a small crew of workers would be required on the ground to ensure accuracy of materials placement. Disturbance would be limited to the immediate project area, and no effects on geological resources would be expected. Minor riverine sediment disturbance would be expected; however, given the high energy environment of the LCFRE and sediment grain size (fine to medium sand), it is anticipated that sediment disturbance and resuspension would be short-term and localized. Under the no action alternative, Audubon North Carolina would continue to manage the proposed project sites according to their management plan. No sediment disturbance from ongoing management activities would be expected. 5.2 Hydrology Under the preferred alternative, it is expected that the constructed oyster reefs would reduce wave and current energy, thereby stabilizing the adjacent island shorelines. Near -bed velocities are reduced over shell bottom habitat and turbulence parameters increase, resulting from roughness elements associated with shell morphology. Likewise, drag coefficient is greater over oyster reefs than over sand banks (Styles 2015). Shell bottom structural relief alters currents and traps and stabilizes suspended solids, thus further reducing turbidity. By moderating waves and currents, oyster reefs and other shell bottom habitats reduce shoreline Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 28 erosion. When submerged during flood tidal cycles, the reefs would be expected to produce negligible turbulence in the overlying waters. Under the no action alternative, hydrological and erosional conditions in the vicinity of Striking and Shellbed Islands would be expected to remain similar to current conditions. 5.3 Water Quality Under the preferred alternative, pre -filled shell/rock bags and loose shell would be transferred directly from barges to the construction footprints, thus minimizing the extent of sediment disturbance. Sediments resuspended by the placement of bags and loose shell would cause temporary increases in turbidity; however, sediments in the project area are comprised predominantly of sands that would rapidly resettle to the bottom. Therefore, it is anticipated that any adverse effects on water quality would be short-term and localized. Oysters and other suspension -feeding bivalves reduce turbidity in the water column by filtering particulate matter, phytoplankton and microbes. It is expected that the water filtration and pollutant removal functions of the constructed oyster reefs would have long-term beneficial effects on water quality. Under the no action alternative, it is expected that water quality in the vicinity of the project area would remain similar to current conditions. 5.4 Aquatic Resources 5.4.1 Fisheries Under the preferred alternative, adherence to the proposed environmental construction window would avoid peak periods of larval recruitment to the estuary [May -early June (Heftier and Chester 1990)] ocean, thus minimizing the potential for adverse effects on estuarine -dependent species. Construction activities may affect resident fisheries through sediment resuspension and turbidity increases; however, given the composition of sediments in the project area (predominantly medium to fine sand), it is expected that sediments would rapidly resettle. Furthermore, based on the high energy environment of the LCFRE, it is expected that any suspended fine sediments would be rapidly dispersed. Thus, it is anticipated that any sediment suspension effects on fisheries would be short-term, localized, and minor. The newly created reefs would provide additional valuable nursery habitat for many recreationally and commercially important species; including red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma), and Atlantic blue crab (Callinectes sapidus). Moreover, the reefs would enhance benthic-pelagic coupling potentially benefiting a wide range of higher trophic level fisheries (Coen et al. 2007, Peterson and Lipcius 2003). Juvenile fish and mobile crustaceans would likely utilize the restored reefs as refuge and foraging grounds, augmenting the tertiary productivity of the estuary (Grabowski and Peterson 2007). Although a loss of soft bottom habitat may displace some individuals that use the project area, expansive areas of alternative undisturbed soft bottom habitat would be available immediately adjacent to the disturbed areas. Therefore, under the preferred alternative, adverse impacts to estuarine Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands 29 D' IVQrdy ED and Associates Inc. RE November 2018 RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC ,JAN 0 7 2019 NOV 19 2018 DCM-MHD CITY dependent, resident, or anadromous species are not expected. Rather, the numerous benefits associated with shell bottom habitat will serve to enhance the aquatic resources of the LCFRE. Under the no action alternative, it is expected that estuarine habitat conditions and the status of fisheries in the vicinity of the project area would remain similar to current conditions. 5.4.2 Benthic Communities Estuarine Soft Bottom Under the preferred alternative, construction activities would directly impact 1.2 acres of estuarine soft bottom habitat. The placement of bags and loose shell on the existing soft bottom substrate would result in the permanent loss of the associated benthic infaunal invertebrates. Sediment suspension and redeposition may affect additional benthic invertebrate communities adjacent to the project footprint; however, as previously described, the addition of oyster habitat would provide numerous ecosystem services and habitat for a diverse assemblage of species. As described above, based on the predominance of coarse sediments and high energy flow conditions with the project area, it is expected that any sediment suspension and redeposition effects would be localized and short-term. Under the no action alternative, ongoing waterbird management activities would not be expected to have any effect on soft bottom habitats and communities. Shell Bottom The reef structures would be placed on soft bottom habitat that are currently devoid of existing natural oyster reefs or other shell bottom habitat. Furthermore, the high energy of the LCFRE indicates that any turbidity effects would not persist. The biogenic structure formed by the newly created oyster reefs would provide habitat for dense assemblages of mollusks other than oysters, polychaetes, crustaceans, and other resident invertebrates (Bahr and Lanier 1981, Lenihan et al. 2001, Rothschild et al. 1994, Wells 1961). Under the no action alternative, ongoing waterbird management activities would not be expected to have any effect on shell bottom habitats and communities. Soft bottom habitat would continue to dominate the benthic environment of the project area. 5.4.3 PNAs/AFSAs The nearest PNAs to the proposed project sites are located approximately two miles southeast and southwest behind Bald Head Island and Oak Island. To the north, the nearest nursery area is a PNA located approximately four miles upriver in the northeast corner of The Basin just below Federal Point. The nearest AFSA is located near Town Creek, —14 miles north. Therefore, the preferred alternative is not expected to impact PNAs or ASFAs. Under the no action alternative, PNAs and ASFAs would not be impacted. Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 30 5.4.4 Managed Fisheries and Essential Fish Habitat Estuarine Water Column Construction activities may indirectly impact pelagic organisms via temporary sediment suspension and associated increases in turbidity. Increased sedimentation and turbidity can potentially affect the behavior (e.g., feeding, predator avoidance, habitat selection) and physiological functions (e.g., photosynthesis, gill -breathing, filter -feeding) of pelagic marine organisms. Fine sediments that are temporarily suspended may be dispersed and redeposited outside of the active construction area, potentially impacting adjacent communities through burial and/or adverse effects on the gill -breathing and filter -feeding functions of benthic organisms (Michel at al. 2013). However, it is anticipated that minimally invasive construction techniques and the composition of sediments at the restoration sites would minimize the extent and duration of sediment suspension. Pre -filled shell/rock bags and loose shell would be transferred directly from barges to the construction footprints, thus minimizing the extent of sediment disturbance. Sediments in the project area are comprised predominantly of sands that would rapidly resettle to the bottom. Prolonged sediment suspension and extensive turbidity plumes are primarily associated with the suspension of fine silt/clay particles that have relatively slow settling velocities, whereas the sands and gravels that make up the coarse -grained sediment fraction resettle rapidly (Schroeder 2009). Therefore, it is anticipated that any adverse effects on water quality would be short-term and localized. Oysters and other suspension - feeding bivalves reduce turbidity in the water column by filtering particulate matter, phytoplankton and microbes. It is expected that the water filtration and pollutant removal functions of the constructed oyster reefs would have long-term beneficial effects on the water column and associated managed fisheries. Under the no action alternative, there would be no effects on the estuarine water column and no construction -related sediment disturbance would occur. Estuarine Soft Bottom Reef construction would directly impact -1.2 acres of estuarine intertidal/subtidal soft bottom habitat, resulting in the permanent loss of the associated soft bottom benthic infaunal/epifaunal communities. Direct impacts on soft bottom benthic invertebrates may temporarily reduce the availability of prey for demersal fishes, including federally managed species such as red drum and summer flounder. However, project -related impacts would constitute a small fraction of the available soft bottom foraging habitat within the LCFRE. Therefore, it is anticipated that effects of habitat loss on federally managed species would be minor and localized. Fine sediments suspended by the construction process may be transported outside of the project area, potentially affecting soft bottom communities in adjacent areas through increases in turbidity and/or sediment redeposition. However, as described above, it is expected that the extent of project -related sediment suspension and redeposition would be minimal. Therefore, it is anticipated that any adverse effects on soft bottom communities and associated federally managed species would be short-term and localized. Under the no action alternative, there would be no changes to the soft bottom habitat within the project footprints. Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration REG�IVED and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 201 S RECEIVED 31 JAN 0 7 2019 DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 DGM-MHD CITY Shell Bottom Reef construction would be confined to existing unvegetated soft bottom areas; therel avoiding direct impacts on existing shell bottom habitats. Fine sediments suspended by construction process may be transported outside of the project area, potentially affecting bottom communities in adjacent areas through increases in turbidity and/or sedir redeposition. However, as described above, it is expected that the extent of construc related sediment suspension and redeposition would be minimal. Therefore, it is anticip; that any adverse sediment suspension effects on existing shell bottom habitats and associ; federally managed species would be short-term and localized. The addition of restored oy reef habitat would be expected to have beneficial effects on associated managed species drum and snapper -grouper complex). Under the no action alternative, there would be no construction -related effects on shell habitat adjacent to the project sites, and managed species in the project area would not benefits associated with shell bottom restoration. SAV Although NCDMF habitat maps show small scattered patches of SAV along Striking and Shellbed Islands, field surveys conducted by DCA found no SAV at mapped locations in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, reef construction would not be expected to have any direct impacts on SAV. Fine sediments suspended by the construction process may fie transported outside of the project area, potentially affecting SAV in adjacent areas through increases in turbidity and/or sediment redeposition. However, as described above, it is expected that the extent of construction -related sediment suspension and redeposition would tie minimal. Furthermore, oysters filter particulate matter from the water column reducing turbidit and increasing light penetration, consequently enhancing SAV growth. Therefore, long-term indirect water quality benefits associated with the restoration effort would likely enhance the growth of any adjacent SAV. Tidal Marsh Reef construction would be confined to existing unvegetated soft bottom areas; therefore, avoiding direct impacts on existing tidal marshes. It is expected that the constructed oyster reefs would provide some attention of waves and currents along the shorelines of Striking and Shellbed Islands. Attenuation may have indirect beneficial effects on the associated tidal marshes through enhanced stability and sediment capture. Enhanced marsh resiliency would in turn have indirect beneficial effects on associated managed species (Shrimp, Red drum, Snapper -Grouper). 5.5 Endangered and Threatened Species 5.5.1 Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon Under the preferred alternative, the construction dates would avoid the typical anadromous fish migration and spawning period in the LCFR. Thus, direct construction -related effects on Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 32 sturgeon spawning and/or reproductive success would not be expected. Construction may affect adjacent softbottom benthic foraging habitats through sediment suspension and turbidity increases. However, given the high energy environment of the CFRE, it is expected that sediment suspension would be limited to relatively small quantities that would rapidly resettle. Thus, it is anticipated that any sediment suspension/redeposition effects on sturgeon would be short-term, localized, and minor. Under the no action alternative, no construction -related sediment suspension/redeposition effects to sturgeon would be expected. 5.5.2 Atlantic Sturgeon Critical Habitat The physical or biological features of Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat that are essential to the conservation of the species include hardbottom substrate in low salinity waters for egg settlement and early life stage development; aquatic habitat encompassing a gradual salinity gradient (0.5-30 parts per thousand) and softbottom (sand/mud) substrate for juvenile foraging and development; waters of sufficient depth and absent physical barriers to passage to support unimpeded movements of adults, subadults, and juveniles; and water quality conditions (temperature and oxygen) that support spawning, survival, development, and/or recruitment of the various life stages (82 FIR 39160). Under the preferred alternative, benthic habitat disturbance would be limited to temporary sediment suspension and minor turbidity. Conditions would be expected to quickly return to normal following construction. Under the preferred alternative, construction may affect softbottom benthic foraging habitats through sediment suspension and turbidity increases and conversion to shell bottom. However, as described above, it is anticipated that any sediment suspension/redeposition effects on adjacent benthic habitats would be short-term, localized, and minor. The proposed February construction would avoid the sturgeon spawning migration period in the LCFR. Thus, construction would not be expected to impede the spawning movements of adult sturgeon. The preferred alternative would not be expected to have any effect on salinity, temperature, or dissolved oxygen concentrations. Under the no action alternative, there would be no anticipated effects on critical habitat. 5.5.3 Sea Turtles Construction would occur during periods of cooler water temperatures when most sea turtles are confined to warmer offshore waters. Furthermore, based on the mobility and avoidance behavior of sea turtles and the relatively slow speed of the barges during transit, it is expected that the vessel collision risk to sea turtles would be negligible. Therefore, no adverse effects on sea turtles would be expected. Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration REGIRWEAnd Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 RECEIVED 33 JAN 0 7 2019 DCM WILMINGTON, NC DCM-MHD CITY NOV 19 2018 5.5.4 Florida Manatee Under the preferred alternative, the construction would not encompass periods of warm wal temperatures when most manatee sightings have been reported in southeastern North Carolir The principal project -related threat to manatees would be the potential for vessel strikes duri the transport of equipment to the project area via barges. The contractor would be required follow USFWS's Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee: Precaution, Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters.: Precautionary Measures Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters. Based on adherence to the USFV guidelines and given the water temperatures during time of construction, it is expected that t collision risk would be negligible. Under the no action alternative, there would be no use of heavy equipment and no operations, thus presenting no collision risk to manatees. 5.6 Cultural Resources Under the preferred alternative, materials would be transported to a location adjacent to site(s) via a shallow draft barge. Smaller work skiffs would be utilized to move staged mater from the barge to the proposed location(s) for placement. Mechanical river bottom disturbai would be limited to the placement of reef materials on the surface of the existing substrate cranes mounted on smaller shallow draft vessels. Based on the limited extent of bott disturbance and the negative results of the Panamerican remote sensing survey, no effects underwater archaeological resources would be expected. The no action alternative would not affect any underwater archaeological resources, as waterbird management activities would not result in any river bottom disturbance. 5.7 Socio-Economic Resources Under the preferred alternative, no adverse socio-economic impacts would be expect Rather, commercial and recreational fishing opportunities near the restored oyster reefs we be expected to increase, benefiting the local and regional economy. In addition, the resto reefs would serve as a fishery commodity once oysters reached the legal harvest size of th inches. Ecosystem services; such as, water filtration and shoreline stabilization provided restored oyster habitat are conservatively valued at $40,200 (2012 dollars) per acre/per y (CHPP 2016) with nitrogen removal services valued at $3,167 (2014 dollars) per acre/per ye< Under the no action alternative, the proposed project location(s) would remain soft bot habitat and commercial and recreational fishing opportunities would be unaffected and additional ecosystem services or economic enhancement would be experienced. Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands 34 Dial Cordy and Associates li November 20 5.8 Air Quality and Noise Brunswick County is designated as an attainment area for all criteria pollutants, and emissions related to construction would fall below the minimum threshold for which a conformity determination must be performed. Elevated noise levels would occur during construction, but the remote location of the project site would limit impacts to the island's resident birds and nearby boaters. Furthermore, construction would take place in late winter when bird disturbance and boating activity will be minimal. Therefore, it is expected that the effects to air quality and sensitive noise receptors would be negligible. Under the no action alternative, it is expected that air quality in the vicinity of the project area would remain similar to current conditions. 5.9 Navigation Under the preferred alternative, impacts to navigation would be limited to recreational boaters and fishermen who utilize the waters around Striking and Shellbed Islands. However, given the shallow waters of the proposed locations, it is expected that these areas experience limited boating traffic comprised of small vessels. Restoration features would be visible for four to six hours per tidal cycle and clearly marked with signage and reflectors. The federal shipping channel and the ferry channel are not located near the proposed project sites therefore, no adverse impacts to commercial navigation are anticipated from the preferred alternative. Under the no action alternative, there would be no changes to the shoreline of Striking or Shellbed Islands and no effects on navigation. 6.0 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES A summary is provided in Table 3 below to compare the environmental impacts associated with each alternative. Table 3. Environmental impacts summary for the alternatives considered. Alternatives Resource Preferred Alternative No Action Geology and Sedimentation impacts that would be short term Sediments and temporary No impacts. Minor impacts during construction to water quality Water resulting from slightly elevated temporary Resources turbidity. Water filtration provided by restored No impacts. o ster reefs. Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands FMIBC."Uid Associates Inc. November 2018 RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM WILMINGTON, NC DCM-MHD CITY NOV 19 2018 Table 3. (concluded). Alternatives Resource Preferred Alternative No Action Air Quality and Minor impacts to noise during construction that Noise will return to natural soundscape upon No impacts. completion. Provide habitat for numerous species of fish and Aquatic invertebrates. Loss of soft bottom habitat Status quo aquatic Resources through conversion to less common shell bottom resources. habitat. Terrestrial Resources No impacts to terrestrial resources. No impacts. Tidal Marsh No impacts to either floodplains or wetlands. No impacts to either flood lains or wetlands. Threatened and No negative impacts to manatees or shortnose No impacts to threatened Endangered sturgeon during construction are anticipated. or endangered species. Species Cultural No impacts expected. No impacts expected. Resources Potential increases in fisheries resources, Socio-economic recreational fishing activities, and spending Status quo in fishery Resources activity. Ecosystem services provided by resources. restored oyster habitat. Local navigation impacts to small recreational Navigation vessels will occur, yet sites will be clearly marked No impacts. and immediately adjacent to shore in shallow subtidal/intertidal areas. 7.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS No adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated from the preferred alternative, but several benefits are foreseeable. For example, implementing the preferred alternative would provide novel foraging areas near AMOY nesting sites, likely increasing productivity to a sustainable level. Furthermore, the preferred alternative would create EFH for the snapper -grouper complex and provide critical fish habitat for many ecologically and economically important finfish, mollusks, and crustaceans. In North Carolina, over 40 species of fish and crustaceans have been documented to use natural and restored oyster reefs (CHPP 2016). Therefore, the preferred alternative would result in enhanced recreational and commercial fishing opportunities for anglers, and the local economy would benefit from expenditures associated with the increase in fishing activity. Oysters are ecosystem engineers that attenuate waves, protect shorelines, and trap suspended solids, reducing turbidity and increasing light penetration, and Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2 36 their shell matrix provides refuge for numerous species including worms, crabs, and clams. Shell bottom is a valuable nursery habitat for juveniles of commercially and recreationally important species. Lastly, the resulting oyster reefs would serve as a demonstration of ongoing restoration efforts in the Cape Fear River. The no action alternative would result in perpetuating the status quo with no improvement to AMOY productivity in the CFRE. The proposed project location(s) would continue to be substrate limited and natural oyster reef expansion would remain unlikely. Ecological and economic benefits associated with oyster restoration would not be recognized. 8.0 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 8.1 Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Section 10 of the RHA (33 USC 403) authorizes the USACE to issue permits for work in navigable waters; including construction, excavation, and the deposition of material. Navigable waters are those that are "subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible to use to transport interstate or foreign commerce" (33 CFR Part 329). As previously described, the issuance of Section 10 permits by the USACE is a federal action requiring environmental review pursuant to the NEPA. 8.2 Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 Section 404 of the CWA (33 USC 1344) authorizes the USACE to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. As previously described, the issuance of Section 404 permits by the USACE is a federal action requiring environmental review pursuant to the NEPA. Section 401 of the CWA (33 USC 1341) delegates federal authority to the state to issue 401 Water Quality Certifications for the discharge of dredged and fill material into Waters of the State. All projects that require a federal Section 404 permit for the discharge of dredged and fill material also require a corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Division of Water Resources. 8.3 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 Pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA (16 USC 1536), federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS and the NMFS to ensure that actions they undertake, fund, or authorize are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. As in the case of the NEPA, the issuance of Section 404/10 permits by the USACE are federal actions that trigger Section 7 consultation. The USACE is the lead federal action agency responsible for consulting with the USFWS and NMFS on the Applicant's proposed action. To facilitate the consultation process, the USACE is responsible for preparing a Biological Assessment (BA) that will describe the status of listed species within the action area and present their determinations as Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration REM401aQand Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 37 JAN 0 7 2019 RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC DCM-MHD CITY , 1" to whether or not the proposed action is likely to adversely affect each listed species. Submittal of the BA will initiate formal Section 7 consultation. The Section 7 process will conclude with the issuance of separate Biological Opinions by the USFWS and NMFS. 8.4 Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 The MSFCMA (16 USC 1801 at seq.) requires federal agencies to consult with the NMFS to ensure that actions they undertake, fund, or authorize incorporate EFH conservation into the planning process. Essential Fish Habitats are defined as those "necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." The Fisheries Management Councils, with assistance from the NMFS, are responsible for identifying and delineating EFH in Fishery Management Plans. The USACE is responsible for assessing the effects of their actions and preparing an EFH Assessment report that describes the affected resources, anticipated impacts, and any measures that were incorporated to mitigate EFH impacts. Submittal of the EFH Assessment will initiate formal consultation, and the process will conclude with the issuance of an EFH concurrence statement by the NMFS. 8.6 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 USC 661 at seq.), as amended, requires federal agencies to incorporate fish and wildlife resource conservation into the planning process for water resources development projects that they undertake, fund, or authorize. Section 2(b) of the FWCA requires the federal action agencies for water resource projects to consult with the USFWS and the state fish and wildlife agency (i.e., the NCWRC) to ensure that conservation is fully incorporated. The USFWS and the NCWRC are responsible for identifying potential adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources and developing recommendations to avoid, minimize, and/or compensate for impacts. The USFWS and the NCWRC are responsible for presenting their findings and recommendations to the action agencies in an FWCA report that describes the affected resources, anticipated impacts, and recommended mitigation measures. 8.6 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 USC 1361 at seq.) prohibits the take of marine mammals in United States waters and authorizes programs to conserve, protect, and recover declining marine mammal populations. Although take is generally prohibited, the MMPAimakes allowances for limited take through permits and incidental take authorizations. i The responsibilities for implementing the MMPA are divided between the NMFS (cetaceahs and pinnipeds) and the USFWS (manatees, dugongs, sea otters, walruses, and polar bears). In regard to the Applicant's proposed action, the MMPA does not impose any specific consultation requirements on the federal action agencies; however, the USFWS comments on federal actions potentially affecting marine mammals under its jurisdiction through the FWCA consultation process, and both the NMFS and the USFWS may provide comments pursuant to the MMPA through the NEPA review process. Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 4.1 8.7 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC 703 et seq.) prohibits the take of migratory birds and authorizes the USFWS to implement programs to conserve, protect, and recover declining migratory bird populations. The MBTA does not make any allowances for incidental take; however, incidental take for species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA may be authorized through the ESA Section 7 consultation process. In regard to the Applicant's proposed action, the MBTA does not impose any specific consultation requirements on the federal action agencies; however, the USFWS comments on federal actions potentially affecting migratory birds through the FWCA consultation process. 8.8 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA (16 USC 470 et seq.), federal agencies are required to consider the effects of actions they undertake, fund, or authorize on historic properties that are listed or may be eligible for listing in the NRHP. Federal action agencies are required to consult with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, either directly or through State Historic Preservation Offices for the purpose of identifying historic properties potentially affected by the action, assessing the effects, and mitigating adverse impacts. The consultation provisions of Section 106 apply to state lands, including submerged lands underlying state waters, as well as the Outer Continental Shelf. The USACE conducts Section 106 consultations in accordance with its own NHPA implementing regulations (33 CFR 325 - Appendix A). Table 4. Federal laws and policies considered for the proposed and no action alternatives. Title of Public Law US CODE Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 43 USC 2101 Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965, As Amended 16 USC 757a at seq. Clean Water Act of 1972, As Amended 33 USC 1251 et seq. Endangered Species Act of 1973 16 USC 1531 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, As Amended 16 USC 661 Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 16 USC 1801 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, As Amended 16 USC 1361 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 33 USC 1401 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, As Amended 16 USC 703 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, As Amended 42 USC 4321 et seq. Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands RECEIVED November 2018 39 RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 DCM-MHD CITY Tnhlnd 1r^nAiirinrll Title of Public Law US CODE National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, As Amended 16 USC 470 National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 16 USC 469a Noise Control Act of 1972, As Amended 42 USC 4901 et seq. River and Harbor Act of 1899, Sections 9, 10, 13 33 USC 401-413 Executive Orders Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality 11514/11991 Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 11593 Protection of Wetlands 11990 Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards 12088 9.0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 9.1 Initial Coordination An extensive stakeholder list was compiled and used for the coordination of this proposed project. The list is comprised of federal, state, and local agencies in addition to other interested parties. 9.2 Scoping A scoping meeting was held in Wilmington on 13 December 2017 to discuss the status of AMOYs in the LCFR and the proposed oyster restoration project. A full list of meeting attendees can be found in Table 5. Table 5. Attendees from the 13 December 2017 scoping meeting held in Wilmington, North Carolina. Name Organization Email Cameron Weaver NCDEQ-DEACS Cameron.Weaver@ncdenr.gov Chad Coburn DWR-401 Chad,Coburn@ncdenr.gov Liz Hair USACE Sarah.E.Hair@usace.army.mil Ken Riley NOAA-NMFS Ken.Riley@noaa.gov Kathy Matthews USFWS Kathryn_ Matthews@fws.gov Curt Weychert DCM-Fisheries Curt.Weychert@ncdenr.gov Debbie Wilson DCM Debra.Wilson@ncdenr.gov Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 40 Table 5. (concluded). Name Organization Email Maria Dunn NC Wildlife Mada.Dunn@ncwildlife.org Ted Wilgus NC Coastal Fed. tedw@nccoast.org Mike Giles NC Coastal Fed. mikeg@nccoast.org Joe Facendola DMF Joe.Facendola@ncdenr.gov Anne Deaton DMF Anne.Deaton@ncdenr.gov Jeremy Humphrey DMF Shellfish Jeremy. Hu mphrey@ncdenr.gov Dawn York DCA dyork@dialcordy.com Courtney Spears DCM Courtney.Spears@ncdenr.gov Troy Alphin UNCW alphint@uncw.edu Curtis Smalling Audubon CSmalling@audubon.org Keith Walls Dial Cordy kwalls@dialcordy.com 10.0 AVOIDANCE, MITIGATION, AND MONITORING Pursuant to the CEQ regulations for implementing the NEPA, environmental analyses must consider all relevant and reasonable measures to mitigate the potential adverse effects of proposed actions. The CEQ regulations define mitigation as the incorporation of measures through which the impacts of a proposed action are avoided, minimized, rectified, reduced/eliminated over time, or compensated for through resource replacement. This section describes conservation measures that would be implemented to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce and compensate for the impacts of the proposed action; including measures incorporated into the project design, measures to mitigate potential impacts during project construction, and measures to detect and rectify potential post -construction project impacts. The preferred alternative would employ the avoidance, minimization, and mitigative measures as outlined below. Environmental Window To protect anadromous species that use the river during spawning season, no in -water work would take place during the in -water moratorium between March and June. Avoidance of Endangered Species Transporting materials on the Cape Fear River mainstem from the Deep Point Ferry Terminal to the proposed project sites on Striking and Shellbed Islands would not occur when West Indian Manatees may be present; however, the contractor would follow the USFWS's Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee: Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters. Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands 41 Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. RECEIVED November 2018 RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC JAN 0 7 2019 NOV 19 2018 DCM-MHD CITY Water Quality Before construction, the Applicant would obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the NCDWQ for the proposed project. The Applicant would comply with the requirements of the Water Quality Certification. Monitoring Post -construction monitoring would be conducted to determine that the project is serving its intended purpose of providing foraging areas for AMOYs and ecosystem services to a myriad of aquatic species. Should findings indicate the need for a modification, all appropriate permitting will be sought and the modification will be implemented according to conditions set forth by regulatory agencies. 11.0 REFERENCES Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team. 2007. Status Review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. February 23, 2007. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2011a. Managed Species Spanish Mackerel, Species Profile. Washington, D.C. Accessed March 2011. ASMFC. 2011 b. Managed Species Spanish Mackerel, Habitat Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C. Accessed March 2011. ASMFC. 2011c. Managed Species Summer Flounder, Habitat Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C. Accessed March 2009. ASMFC. 2011d. Managed Species Summer Flounder, Species Profile. Washington, D.C. Accessed March 2009. Bahr, L. M. and W. P. Lanier. 1981. The ecology of intertidal oyster reefs of the South Atlantic coast: a community profile (No. 81/15). US Fish and Wildlife Service. Bales, J., Oblinger, C. J. and A. H. Sallenger. Two months of flooding in eastern North Carolina, September -October 1999: Hydrologic, water quality, and geologic effects of hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, and Irene. No. 4093. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, 2000. Beck, M. W., R. D. Brumbaugh, L. Airoldi, A. Carranza, L. D. Coen, C. Crawford, and H. S. Lenihan. 2011. Oyster reefs at risk and recommendations for conservation, restoration, and management. Bioscience, 61(2), 107-116. Becker, M. L., Luettich, R. A., and H. Seim. 2009. "Effects of intratidal and tidal range variability on circulation and salinity structure in the Cape Fear River Estuaryll North Carolina." Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 114.C4 (2009). Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 42 Benedetti, M. M., M. J. Raber, M. S. Smith, and L. A. Leonard. 2006. Mineralogical indicators of alluvial sediment sources in the Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina. Physical Geography, 27(3), 258-281. Beresoff, D. and T. Thorpe. 1997. Gill net selectivity for coastal shark species. NC Sea Grant, FRG 97FEG-10. Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, eds. 2001. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2nd ad. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. Coen, L. D., R. D. Brumbaugh, D. Bushek, R. Grizzle, M. W. Luckenbach, M. H. Posey, and S. G. Tolley. 2007. Ecosystem services related to oyster restoration. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 341, 303-307. Cummings, E. W., D. A. Pabst, J. E. Blum, S. G. Barco, S. J. Davis, V. G. Thayer, and W. A. McLellan. 2014. Spatial and temporal patterns of habitat use and mortality of the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) in the mid -Atlantic states of North Carolina and Virginia from 1991 to 2012. Aquatic Mammals, 40(2), 126. Deaton, A.S., W.S. Chappell, K. Hart, J. O'Neal, and B. Boutin. 2010. North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Marine Fisheries, NC. 639 pp. Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, A.J. Chester, E.A. Cross, J.V. Merriner, and P.A. Tester. 1995. Winter distribution of sea turtles in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras and their interactions with the summer flounder trawl fishery. Bull. Mar. Sci. 56: 547-568. Epperly, S.P., J. Braun -McNeill, and P.M. Richards. 2007. Trends in catch rates of sea turtles in North Carolina, USA. Endangered Species Research 3: 283-293. Ferguson, R.L. and L.L. Wood. 1994. Rooted Vascular Aquatic Beds in the Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine System. NMFS, NOAA, Beaufort, NC, Project No. 94-02, 103 pp. Goodman, M.A., J.B. McNeill, E. Davenport, and A.A. Hohn. 2007. Protected species aerial survey data collection and analysis in waters underlying the R-5306A Airspace: Final report submitted to U.S. Marine Corps, MCAS Cherry Point. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-551. Grabowski, J. H., and C. H. Peterson. 2007. "Restoring oyster reefs to recover ecosystem services." Ecosystem engineers: plants to protists 4 (2007): 281-298. Hackney, C.T., L.B. Cahoon, C. Preziosi, and A. Norris. 2000. Silicon is the Link Between Tidal Marshes and Estuarine Fisheries: A New Paradigm. p. 543-552 in Weinstein, M.P. and D.A. Kreeger eds. Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 875 pp. Hostetter, N. J., B. Gardner, S. H. Schweitzer, R. Boettcher, A. L. Wilke, L. Addison, and T. R. Simons. 2015. Repeated count surveys help standardize multi -agency estimates of Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands RECEIVED November 2018 43 RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM WILMINGTON, NC DCM-MHD CITY NOV 19 2018 American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) abundance. The Condor, 117(3), 354- 363. Jaap, W. C. 1984. The ecology of the south Florida coral reefs: a community profile. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Office Biol. Serv., Washington, DC, FWS/OBS-82/08. Kendall, A.W.J. and L.A. Walford. 1979. Sources and distribution of bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, larvae and juveniles off the east coast of the United States. Fishery Bulletin 77:213-227. Lenihan, H. S. 1999. 'Physical —biological coupling on oyster reefs: how habitat structure influences individual performance." Ecological Monographs 69.3 (1999): 251-275. Lenihan, H. S., C. H. Peterson, J. E. Byers, J. H. Grabowski, G. W. Thayer, and D. R. Colby. 2001. Cascading of habitat degradation: oyster reefs invaded by refugee fishes escaping stress. Ecological Applications, 11(3), 764-782. McAdory Jr, R. T. 2000. Cape Fear -Northeast Cape Fear River, North Carolina; Numerical Model Study. No. ERDC/CHL-TR-00-18. ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER VICKSBURG MS COASTAL AND HYDRAULICSLAB, 2000. Mallin, M. A., L. B. Cahoon, M. R. McIver, D. C. Parsons, and G. C. Shank. 1999. Alternation of factors limiting phytoplankton production in the Cape Fear River Estuary. Estuaries, 22(4), 825-836. Mallin, M. A., M. R. McIver, and J. F. Merritt. 2016. "Environmental Assessment of the Lower Cape Fear River System, 2015." CMS Report No. 16-02., November 2016. Mercer, L. P., L. R. Phalan, and J. R. Maiolo. 1990. Fishery Management Plan For Spanish Mackerel, Fisheries Management Report No. 18 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Washington, DC. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Morehead City, NC, and East Carolina University Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Greenville, NC. November 1990. Michel, J., A.C. Bejarano, C.H. Peterson, and C. Voss. 2013. Review of biological and biophysical impacts from dredging and handling of offshore sand. OCS Study BOEM 2013-0119 Herndon, Virginia: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1990. Fishery Management Plan for the Bluefish Fishery, Prepared by Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the New England Fishery Management Council, and the South Atlantic Management Council. Dover, Delaware. Updated February 2009; Accessed March 2011. 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. Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands November 2018 44 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. Amendment 1 to the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 1 to the Consolidated HMS FMP Chapter 5 June 2009 64 Essential Fish Habitat. Silver Springs, MD. June 2009. NMFS. 1998. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. 2016. North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. Morehead City, NC. Division of Marine Fisheries; 2016.33p. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF). 2008. North Carolina Oyster Fishery Management Plan Amendment II. NC Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, INC, 282 pp. NCDMF. 2006. Stock status of important coastal fisheries in North Carolina. NCDMF, Morehead City, INC. Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2011. 51st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (51st SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commerce, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 11-02, 856 pp. NEFSC. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Summer Flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. Woods Hole, Massachusetts. September 1999. Peterson, C. H. and R. N. Lipcius. 2003. "Conceptual progress towards predicting quantitative ecosystem benefits of ecological restorations." Marine Ecology Progress Series 264 (2003): 297-307. Peterson, C.H. and N.M. Peterson. 1979. The Ecology of Intertidal Flats of North Carolina: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, OBS-79/39, 73 p. Post, W. C., T. Darden, D. L. Peterson, M. Loeffler, and C. Collier. 2014. Research and management of endangered and threatened species in the southeast: riverine movements of Shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Project NA10NMF4720036, Final Report, Charleston. Ross, S. W. and S. P. Epperly. 1985. Chapter 10: Utilization of shallow estuarine nursery areas by fishes in Pamlico Sound and adjacent tributaries, North Carolina. p. 207-232 in A. YanezAranciba (ed.). Fish Community Ecology in Estuaries and Coastal Lagoons: Towards and Ecosystem Integration. DR (R) UNAM Press, Mexico, 654 pp. Ross, J.L. and T.M. Stevens. 1992. Life history and population dynamics of red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) in North Carolina waters. In Marine fisheries research. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. Completion Report. Project F-29, Morehead City. Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Cape Fear River, INC Striking and Shellbed Islands 45 JAN 0 7 2019 RE aRoreband Associates Inc. November 2018 RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 DCM-MHO CITY Rothschild, B. J., J. S. Ault, P. Goulletquer, and M. Hera]. 1994. Decline of the Chesapeake Bay oyster population: a century of habitat destruction and overfishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 29-39. Sanders, F. J., T. M. Murphy, and M. D. Spinks. 2004. "Winter abundance of the American oystercatcher in South Carolina." Waterbirds 27.1 (2004): 83-88. Schroeder, P.R. 2009. USACE Technical Guidelines for Practicing the 3R's of Environmental Dredging. Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association Twenty-ninth Technical Conference and 40th Annual Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, Tempe, AZ, June 2009. Sedberry, G.R. and R.F. Van Dolah. 1984. Demersal fish assemblages associated with hard bottom habitat in the South Atlantic Bight of the USA. Environ. Biol. Fish. 11(1). Shepherd, G.R. and D.B. Packer. 2006. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, Life History and Habitat Characteristics 2nd edition. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-NE-198:100. Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team. 2010. A Biological Assessment of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. November 1, 2010.417 pp. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 2011. Regulations by Species, Cobia. Accessed March 2011. SAFMC. 2009. Fishery Ecosystem Plan of the South Atlantic Region. SAFMC, Charleston, SC. SAFMC. 1998. Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. SAFMC, Charleston, SC. SAFMC. 1983. Fishery Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Regulatory Impact Review Final Regulations for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerels) In The Gulf of Mexico And South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Charleston, SC; Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Tampa, FL. February 1983. SAFMC. 1981. Profile of the penaeid shrimp fishery in the South Atlantic. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1 Southpark Cir., Ste 306, Charleston, S.C. 29407, 321 PP. Styles, R. 2015. Flow and Turbulence over an Oyster Reef. Journal of Coastal Research: Volume 31, Issue 4: pp. 978 — 985. Thayer, G. W., W. J. Kenworthy, and M. S. Fonseca. 1984. The Ecology of Eelgrass Meadows of the Atlantic coast: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS- 84/02, 147p. Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands 46 Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. November 2018 Thorpe, T., C. F. Jensen, and M. L. Moser. 2004. Relative abundance and reproductive characteristics of sharks in southeastern North Carolina coastal waters. Bulletin of Marine Science 74(1): 3-20, 2004. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Florida Manatee Recovery Plan, (Trichechus manatus latirostris), Third Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 144 pp. + appendices. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Wilmington District. Environmental Assessment, Rock Arch Rapids Fish Passage Cape Fear River Above Wilmington, North Carolina Lock and Dam No. 1. March 2010. Weinstein, M. P., S. L. Weiss, and M. F. Walters. 1980. Multiple Determinants of Community Structure in Shallow Marsh Habitats, Cape Fear River Estuary, North Carolina, USA. Marine Biology 58: 227-243. Weinstein, M. P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nurseries for fishes and shellfish, Cape Fear River, NC. Fisheries Bulletin 2: 339-357. Wells, H. W. 1961. The fauna of oyster beds, with special reference to the salinity factor. Ecological Monographs, 31(3), 239-266. Wiegert, R. G. and B. J. Freeman. 1990. Tidal Salt Marshes of the Southeast Atlantic Coast: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.29): 71. Environmental Assessment Oyster Reef Restoration Cape Fear River, NC Striking and Shellbed Islands 47 CIRBORWAIDAssociates Inc. November 2018 RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM WILMINGTON, NC DCM-MHD CITY APPENDIX A PRE -CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT OYSTER REEFS ADJACENT TO TARGET SITES IN THE LOWER CAPE FEAR RIVER Pre -construction assessment oyster reefs adjacent to target sites in the Lower Cape Fear River UNCW Benthic Ecology Lab Troy Alphin and Martin Posey Report Prepared by Alexis Marti RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC DCM-MHD CITY NOV 19 2018 Oyster reef pre -construction assessment Summary Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) habitat in the lower Cape Fear River occurs largely along intertidal marsh channels and on the periphery of spoil islands. The Audubon Society targeted several sites that are critical to nesting populations of the American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates). Oyster reefs adjacent to these sites were evaluated to determine existing density, conditions, and associated fauna (for existing reefs) and potential spat settlement. There were five sites where pre -construction assessment was completed, including Striking Island (Figure 1), Shell -bed Island (Figure 2), Pelican, Island (Figure 3), and Federal Point (Figure 4). This project was initiated in late fall 2017 and early winter 2018. Oyster populations were assessed for density, condition index (a measure of soft tissue biomass to internal shell volume), associated fauna, growth, and spat settlement. Only spat settlement data;was collected for Pelican Island and Federal point sites since oyster resources were not initially noted at these sites (Table 1). Condition index is a measure of health that incorporates both soft tissues biomass and internal shell volume. Condition recorded here are within the range of measurements recorded for other estuarine systems in the region (Figure 5). It should be noted that condition among smaller oysters tends to be higher, due to the smaller available internal shell volume. Oyster density of established reefs were derived from the excavation assessments. This showed a high density at South Shellbed Island and West Striking Island when compared with North Shellbed Island (Table 3) although oyster density at all sites was within the range of measurements expected. It should be noted that the majority of the oysters along these reefs tended to be small (<50mm shell height). The reef on North Shellbed Island has the marsh grass growing through portions of the reef. Measures of associated fauna represent habitat function of the oyster resource. In this case the target sites support a large number of mussels that would serve as a potential food source for the American Oyster Catchers, above and beyond the oysters themselves (Table 4). While other fauna that Oyster Catchers might consume, were present in the samples, mussels dominated the samples. Clearly one of the most important factors determining the feasibility of the oyster habitat restoraltion or enhance is the availability of larvae to populate the reefs. Newly settled oysters or spat were measure in the summer months of 2018. The assessment of total density per site give strong indication tl lat there are sufficient larvae to support the establishment of additional settlement substrate among the sites (Figure 6). April represents a pre -settlement period. Settlement in May was low and does nl t display on the figure. However, Table 6 shows the actual set as well the number of other organisms that were collected on the settlement tiles. Methods Excavation and condition Excavations on North Shellbed, South Shellbed, and Striking Islands were completed during December 2017 and January 2018. Three 0.25 meter x 0.25 meter quadrats were thrown haphazardly on each reef to ensure random sampling, and all measuring and counting was completed in the field. At least thirty oysters were measured for each quadrat sampled, and total number of oysters and spat were recorded along with associated fauna. Oysters were placed back in the field upon completion of the excavation process. Thirty separate oysters were brought back from each reef to determine a condition index for each site. If the condition assessment was not started immediately, they were placed in a cold room for no longer than 48 hours before total weight was taken and condition assessment began. Total weight, length (mm) and width (mm) was recorded for each oyster. The oysters were then shucked, and the meat was placed in a pre -weighed weigh boat. Wet weight of the meat was recorded, then meat was dried in a drying oven at 70°C for 72 hours, and dry weight was taken. Shells were air dried and final shell weight was taken. The condition index of each oyster was determined by the equation: Condition Index= Net dry weight (g) • 100/Shell volume (g) where net dry weight refers to the dry weight of the oyster meat, and shell volume is the total weight of the oyster minus the dried shell weight. Average condition index of all oysters was taken for each reef. Mortality and growth Sixty oysters were taken from each reef at South Shellbed, North Shellbed, and Striking Islands in February 2018. Oysters were brought back to the lab, were given a bead dot and had length and width measured. Oysters were then taken back out into the field and placed in open metal deployment trays randomly throughout each reef. The trays were secured in the reef through partial burial and were made to be flush with the reef to fit back in with the natural community. Oysters from the deployment trays were retrieved in May 2018. Length and width were recorded for the oysters that were alive, and RECEIVED RECEIVED JAN 0 i 2019 DCM WILMINGTON, INC DCM-MHD CITY NOV 19 2018 mortality was recorded for those that were not. The same oysters were then deployed a second time and will be retrieved by the end of October. Spat monitoring Spat racks were deployed beginning March 2018. Racks are on a rotation schedule, with 6 weeks being in the water, two weeks being out of the water, and a four -week period in between the first rack deployment and the second rack deployment. Spat has been continuously monitored up to the landing of Hurricane Florence, where all racks that were in the water are thought to have been lost. Eight -racks were deployed each time: two on Striking Island (Figure 1), one on each North and South Shellbed Island (Figure 2), three on South Pelican Island (Figure 3), and one at Federal Point (Figure 4). Spat racks were constructed out of PVC material and held in place with U-shaped rebar hammered into the ground. Six ceramic tiles are placed on the rack in pairs of two, with the rough side of the tiles facing in toward each other and the smooth side of the tiles facing away from one another. After the six -week period was over and tiles were brought back to the lab; spat and other, associated fauna were counted for abundance and spat were measured to the hundredth millimeter. For tiles that were heavily covered with spat or associated fauna, a randomized grid system was used to count one -quarter of the tile and numbers were extrapolated out to give an estimate of the abundance for the entire tile. When spat density was high and this grid system was used, a fraction of spat were measured on each side of the tiles to give an estimate for spat length. Average spat size was calculated for each rack, as well as the total count of associated fauna. ASSESSMENT METHODS SITE Condition Excavation Mortality and Growth Spat monitoring WESTSTRIKING X X X X EAST STRIKING X I NORTH SHELLBED X X X X SOUTH SHELLBED X X X X I SOUTH PELICAN X FEDERAL POINT X Table 1: Assessment methods completed at each site. An 'X' indicates sampling was completed. Condition, excavation, and mortality and growth assessments not completed at East Striking and South Pelican due to lack of oyster reefs. Those three assessments not completed at Federal Point was due to lack of knowledge about the oyster reef. RECEIVED RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM WILMINGTON, NC DCM-MHD CITY NOV 19 2018 Site locations of pre -construction field assessments completed by the Benthic Ecology Lab Figure 1: Striking Island with assessment sites (white balloons). West Striking Island has a well - established reef that gently slopes into marsh grass. This portion of the island does see heavy wave action depending on the weather and direction of the wind. East Striking Island has no established reef, and cliffs can be seen as you move farther south on this side of the island. Figure 2: North and South Shellbed Islands with assessment sites (white balloons). North Shellbed has an established reef that is located within the marsh grass. South Shellbed has several well -established reefs in a soft -bottom area. Figure 3: South Pelican Island with assessment sites (white balloons). South Pelican Island contains no established reefs, and is heavily affected by high wave energy and intense fetch from the channel. Figure 4: Federal Point, near Fort Fisher Ferry, with assessment sites (white balloon). Federal Point has a well -established reef in a shallow bay area. RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON. NC DCM-MHD CITY NMI/ ; ) )!jl" Results Health of oysters based off Condition Index (CI) Average Condition Index for all sites 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 South Shellbed West Striking North Shellbed - North Shellbed - North Shellbed metal reef overall Figure 5: Average condition index for each site, completed during the winter sampling season. Standard error bars are shown. SITE AVERAGE CI 7.49 ST. ERROR 0.248 N 30 SOUTH SHELLBED WESTSTRIKING 7.42 0.271 30 NORTH SHELLBED - METAL 9.96 0.498 11 NORTH SHELLBED - REEF 6.63 0.621 11 NORTH SHELLBED OVERALL 8.30 0.532 22 Table 2: Values for condition index, with standard error and N shown Tor eacn site. Note: 'North Shellbed — metal' refers to a lone piece of metal bar that was found on the island approximately 50 meters from the oyster reef. This bar was completely covered with both oysters and spat, indicating that with the appropriate substrate settlement could occur. Density of reefs based off excavation assessment SOUTH SHELLBED WEST STRIKING NORTH SHELLBED AVERAGE DENSITY/SITE/MZ 530.7 665.3 273.3 MEASURED DIMENSIONS OF 24mx23.5m 43.4mx8.4m 9.5mx7.8m REEF SURFACE AREA OF REEF 564 m2 364.6 m2 74.1 mz Table 3: Average density of oysters per reef per square meter, based off triplicate quadrat sampling. Associated fauna based off excavation assessment Amphipod Barnacle Boonea Tritia Mussel Polychaete Porcelain Xanthid SITE Crab NORTH 0 1 155 29 383 Present Present 1 SHELLBED 2 17 76 0 104 0 0 2 SOUTH SHELLBED STRIKING Present 16 113 0 240 8 10 8 ISLAND able 4: Associated fauna densities from excavations completed on each reef. RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 Spot abundance per site 10000 9000 ■ West Striking 8000 ■ East Striking ;; 7000 ■ Federal Point N y 6000 ■North Shellbed a u 5000 0South Shellbed m ■ South Pelican A v 4000 3 ■ South Pelican B a 3000 South Pelican C 2000 1000 0 April Spat abundance per site May July Figure 6: Shows total spat fall per rack at each site throughout the spring and summer sampling period. Associated fauna recorded on spat tiles Site Date retrieved Atlantic oyster drill Barnacle scar Boonea Dead barnacle Live barnacle Live spat Mussel Slipper shell Spat scar. East 4/25/18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Striking 5/24/18 0 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 7/6/18 0 60 88 108 2236 5508 0 0 432 8/3/18 0 4 404 56 200 3788 0 0 308 West 4/25/18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Striking 7/6/18 0 12 244 0 72 9004 0 0 104 8/3/18 0 24 12 52 196 1648 0 12 116 Federal 4/25/18 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Point 5/24/18 0 428 0 1525 525 15 0 0 1 7/6/18 0 152 0 268 1208 4676 0 0 244 8/3/18 0 48 0 496 2764 2196 0 0 332 North 4/25/18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shellbed 5/24/18 0 1 0 2 30 0 2 0 0' 7/6/18 0 20 4 40 428 0 0 0 844 8/3/18 0 0 16 72 148 3632 0 0 468 South 4/25/18 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 Shellbed 5/24/18 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 7/6/18 0 8 0 32 36 8032 0 0 908 8/3/18 0 0 0 0 68 1772 0 0 592 South 4/25/18 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pelican 5/24/18 0 72 0 28 29768 0 276 0 0 A 7/6/18 0 116 0 48 12684 916 0 0 112 8/3/18 0 184 0 812 9080 2236 0 0 748 South 7/6/18 0 52 0 272 27048 84 0 0 8 Pelican 8/3/18 0 156 0 400 14728 2608 0 0 72 B South 7/6/18 0 56 0 164 5228 8932 4 0 556 Pelican 8/3/18 0 496 0 932 4220 2488 28 12 724 C Table 5: Sum of associated fauna recorded per spat rack. Sites with missing dates (West Striking — 5/24/18, and South Pelican B and C-4/25/18 and 5/24/18) indicate that the rack was missing upon retrieval. This is most likely due to high wave energy or tampering by outside persons. RECEIVED JAN 01 2019 DCM-MHD CITY RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 Average spat sire Average spat size (mm) 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 E. Striking Federal North South Pei, South Pei. South Pei. South West Point Shellbed A B C Sheilbed Striking ■ 7/6/2018 ■ 8/3/2018 Figure 7: Average spat size in millimeters for the two summer sampling periods. Averages are taken per rack, each of which contains 6 tiles. Note: South Pelican A, retrieval date 7/6/18 — only 4 tiles were retrieved, due to the loss of the other two, either by high wave energy or tampering by outside persons. APPENDIX B SUBBOTTOM PROFILER DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS RECEIVED RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM WILMINGTON, NC DCM-MHD CITY SUBBOTTOM PROFILER DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS SUBBOTTOM PROFILER Subbottom profilers generate low frequency acoustic waves that penetrate the seabed and reflect off boundaries or objects located in the subsurface. The data are then processed and reproduced as a cross section using two-way travel time to determine depth (the time taken for the pulse to travel from the source to the reflector and back to the receiver by a constant). The shapes, relationships, and extents of reflectors are used to infer bottom and subbottom geomorphological characteristics. There are several types of subbottom profilers: sparkers; pingers; boomers; and chirp systems. Sparkers operate at the lowest frequencies and afford deep penetration but low resolution. Boomers operate from 0.5 to 5 kilohertz and they can penetrate to between 30 and 100 meters with resolution of 0.3 to 1.0 meters. Pingers operate from 3.5 to 7 kilohertz and penetrate seabeds from a few meters to more than 50 meters depending on sediment consolidation, with resolution to about 0.3 meters. CHIRP systems operate around a central frequency that is swept electronically across a range of frequencies between 3 and 40 kilohertz; the resolution can be on the order of 0.1 meters in suitable near -seabed sediments. This survey employed an Edgetech 424 XSE-500 Shallow Tow X-Star System of topside processor and towfish. This system included a Model 3100-G Topside Processor with DISCOVER Sub -Bottom Software and a 4 to 24 kilohertz SB-424 tow fish (Figure 1). In general, high and low amplitude linear reflectors (light and dark lines) distinguish between sediment beds; parabolic reflectors indicate point -source objects with sound propagating out from them; and erosional or non -depositional contacts can be identified by discontinuities in extent, slope angle, and the shape of the reflector morphology. This latter fact is important when identifying buried and drowned channel systems and other relict and buried fluvial system features (e.g., estuarine, tidal, lowland, and upland areas around drainage features). Figure 1. Edgetech 424 XSE-500 Shallow Tow X-Star System subbottom profiler employed during the investigation. In caution, there are five spurious signals that may cause confusion in the two-dimensional records that specialists recognize: direct arrival from the sound source, reflection multiples, water surface reflection, side echoes, and point -source reflections. Precise inference of a sediment bed or other anomaly from the subbottom profiler data would necessitate coring or excavation. Post processing of subbottom profiler data, like the sidescan data, is done with SonarWiz.6, which in this case enables the user to view the subbottom data in a planar, trackline format. The user may view the data in a digitizer window as a profile format, allowing the digitizing of subbottom features of interest, linear extent, depth, and type (Figures 2 and 3). SonarWiz 6 batch processes waterfall images to *.JPG formats in order to generate figures. C+ c 'e C '.., i"' .' Fa tll d i 0 0 �o .,. ,>... >..�R. s.emn•.., ear+ .aua,�, RI n:. I" 1'I N R + + .3hz j ; f 2 .�'... 19 t l Striking • •••u,ti L Figure 2. Traekline configuration and various "reflector" features digitized. RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY 51 7 4 5 5 .1 e 1}� 3 11� RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 ems' °r r PoF0.eu„Np M4, Fob Q+ 49I 19 JK O 0 C C) K! ■ M rad dM © 0 x.,,« s°°.. y..e.°e^ [.ma^m<, m.n.,°.n., ..»,... uu. erno�.r toe .�., u., sm,•, ewa .w w,.om. *°a, e.,°r°. 9w,. «.,„° e..°re r,� ...,. w•.m. m.nw« ne.r..°.. sw•,F°... y°nF. e•.m tim .ee mgr.er.. ,,.,..: ,n•,.. n,rm, u.e.,.. snm... Fe»� e k J,ltlgOeGowaa1ryTJpu,++ C. ❑ no 22 r -Z---�•—• ... -r r 'a ! 1 Wk >e - 2 �•• 1 ....� . t • .a a°. man- oin..,, �. �l]� % 1 Striking i` 7y • .,,. I 4 « 5 J rJ II lf~•_ J J� _ tRSuoQaR �.ee, `.. Figure 3. SonarWiz.MAP Subbottom waterfall image showing the seismic profile -digitizing window. The blue cross hairs in the background chart show the location of the cursor, which at the time of the image was directly over the paleo-channel feature shown. INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS FEDERAL POINT This example profile (Figure 4) comes from the southern portion of the Federal Point area (Figure 5). The top reflector is quite thin, with a thicker peak towards the center of the profile. This likely represents depositional material on an older erosional surface. Note the reflection nunve at approximately - / n. Figure 4. Example profile from Federal Point. Legend 0 250 500 1,000 Feet ENE Isopach • 1.5 - 2 • 4. 4.5 Potential Oyster Habitat Thickness • 2-2.5 • 4.5-5 N • 0.2-0.5 R 2.5-3 • 5.5.5 • 0.5.1 3.3.5 • 5.5-6 • 1-1.5 3.5-4 • 6.6.5 e � I 41 ISo 6s 5 Da Io 6s 55f (dig 40 2 FI 4s 1 :fit 5 Pile iar. SS 4 _17it4.. *Xtf`ti, bm 6fle Figure 5. Federal Point isopach map. RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY DCM WECEIVED ILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 SOUTH PELICANISLAND This profile from the northeast portion of South Pelican Island shows several horizontal reflectors representing multiple episodes of deposition and erosion, although the exact composition of each is unknown. The first reflector is roughly 2 ft. thick. Subsequent facies may >e similar in ion, but would require testing to contirm. Figure 6. South Pelican Island profile. This profile, from the southwestern side of Pelican Island, shows similar stratigraphy. Note the presence of similar parallel bedding. Also note the strong reflection multiples on the right side of the profile, which indicate highly reflective materials such as coarse sand and shell hash. Figure 7. Second South Pelican Island profile. 2311000 2312M Legend 0 125 250 500 Feet '" Iscipach + 1.5-2 • 4-4.5 Potential Oyster Habitat Thickness 2.2.5 • 4.5-5 i N • 0.2.0.5 o 2.5.3 + 5-5.5 • 0.6.1 3.3.5 + 5.5-6 t + 1 - 1.5 3.5 - 4 + 6 - 6.5 _.. 8 ■ i 91ik ._. E ■ lsb6s- I so' 6 ■ N 2311000 2312000 Figure S. South Pelican Island isopach map. RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 RECEIVED DCM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 SHELL BED ISLAND This profile, from the west portion of Shellbed Island, has an acoustic profile similar to South 'elican Island. Note parallel horizontal retlectors and toreset beds (mdlcative of paleocnannels). " Figure 9. Shell Bed Island profile. Unlike the previous profile, this section from the western side of Shell Bed Island exhibits a more homogenous composition. Note the vertically -elongated first reflector and strong reflection multiples. The thickness for this reflector has been given a conservative estimate, and likely continues deeper. Subsurface testing would be required to confirm exact depths. w'!Si o,'7 1 � a'' Figure 10. Second Shell [led Island profile. w ,•w �... ...w .., 4„ Uvv 0 260500 1,000 Feet E Legend I � Isopach • 1.5-2 • 4-4.5 Potential Oyster Habitat Thickness • 2.2.5 • 4.5 - 5 N • 0.2-0.5 • 2.5.3 • 5-5.6 E• 0.5.1 3-3.5 • 5.5-6 • 1-1.5 3.5-4 a 6-6.5. a. d E f j 3 2. r T � v IS t fAp t g h rr 2 to IR 4;i 2 `4 Figure 11. Shell Bed Island isopach map. RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM—MHD CITY RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 STRIKING ISLAND This profile from Striking Island shows varied thickness of the first reflector due to shoaling. Strong reflection multiples demonstrate highly reflective material at the surface. Subsequent lorizontal rerlectors ;�taYt•Iit:1�.y11�etK�� Y 0 �MM•YY-r'nYSN�/wYy1\ U '.i YMYI' '�r'4 M4.,... T elry'\/�1d1'�'01MY� �Y•� A Figure 12. Striking Island profile. This profile is from north of Striking Island, and is outside of the potential oyster habitat. Note the acoustically transparent facies, weak first reflection and reflection multiples, and well - resolved foreset bedding. The center of the profile is clearly an in -filled paleochannel. The surrounding sediment matrix is likely composed of fine-grained material. Ktt Figure 13. Second Striking Island profile. Legend 0 250 500 1,000 Feet !yI'►#* i + Isopach • 1.5 - 2 4 - 4.5 Potential Oyster Habitat i� f Thickness • 2-2.5 • 4.5-5 # ■ ii ' �F • 0.2-0.5 • 2.5-3 • 5-5.5 • 0.5-1 3-3.5 • 5.5.8 i • 1-1.5 - 3.5-4 • 5-5.5 1 I # *'f" i ■ Ike pleettle i 4b 1 1 tr Ii n g i■, AN Figure 14. Striking Island isopach map. RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM.MHD CITY RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 APPENDIX C GEOSPATIAL MODELING/SITE SELECTION Lower Cape Fear River Oyster Reef Enhancement Project General Modeling Approach: To determine habitat suitability for the Eastern Oyster in the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary, numerous environmental and regulatory criteria must be considered. Geographical information systems and marine remote sensing offer a way to evaluate existing conditions and assist with site selection to reveal potential, site specific risks in advance of substrate deployment. Moreover, using geospatial techniques early in the restoration siting process can improve project success. The Lower Cape Fear River Oyster Reef Enhancement Project required a unique modeling approach because we evaluated locations to support oyster growth and survival; as well as, provide a nearby food source for the American Oystercatcher (AMOY). Therefore, it was important to consider both species as we developed our suitability model. Constraints: Prior to identifying suitable restoration sites, it's important to consider locations which must be excluded from the evaluation. For instance, many locations are not legally permissible or represent ecologically sensitive areas restricting them from consideration. For this modeling effort, individual shapefiles containing polygon vectors and representing navigation channels, military danger zones, submerged aquatic vegetation, existing shell rakes and a 30m buffer around known AMOY nesting sites were acquired from the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, North Carolina Audubon Society, and North Carolina Center for Geographical Information and analysis. Shapefiles were uploaded into a single document using ArcMap 10.4 software and each dataset was converted into a raster (grid). Next, each raster was resampled to a 25.5m x 25.5m spatial resolution and built on a WGS 84 UTM Zone 18 North coordinate system. Finally, each raster was reclassified and given a value of zero then integrated using the spatial analyst overlay function in ArcMap. This created a composite map showing all restricted areas. Benthic Surveys: After constraining the model to exclude areas from consideration, we evaluated remaining locations for attributes that support oyster restoration and ultimately provide a food source for AMOY. This was accomplished through a combination of fieldwork and geospatial analysis. Datasets representing substrate type, sub -bottom thickness, and AMOY optimum foraging distance were created using marine remote sensing technology and a geographical information system; whereas, recruitment, condition index, and density of existing oyster resource was determined in the field. A remote sensing survey was conducted for the potential restoration areas using a survey vessel outfitted with a dual frequency (900-1800 kHz) side -scan sonar unit interfaced with a RECEIVED RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC JAN 0 7 2019 NOV 19 2018 DCM-MHD CITY differential global positioning system (dGPS) with accuracy levels that determine position to within one meter. HYPACK navigation software was used to develop the survey transects and maintain vessel tracking during data collection. The side -scan sonar records were interpreted for presence of any shell -bottom resource, and a mosaic was prepared using ArcGIS software. The survey also employed an Edgetech 424 XSE-500 Shallow Tow X-Star system of topside processor and towfish. This system included a Model 3100-G Topside Processor with DISCOVER Sub -Bottom Software and a 4 to 24 kilohertz SB-424 tow fish. Data Integration: After collecting and processing the geophysical data, we uploaded the shapefiles representing shell bottom and sub -bottom thickness into our existing ArcMap document. Once uploaded, the data were converted into raster (grid) format, georeferenced to the WGS 84 LITM Zone 18 North coordinate system and resampled to a 25.5m spatial resolution. Additionally, a distance layer representing optimum AMOY foraging distance was generated from data containing known AMOY nesting locations. This task was accomplished using the geoprocessing tools in ArcMap to create distance buffers (500m, 1000m and 1500m) around nesting sites. Prior to integration, the AMOY foraging distance layer was converted to raster, georeferenced and resampled to match the geophysical data. Next, all datasets were reclassified and given suitability values using the Spatial Analyst reclassify function in ArcGIS. The chosen suitability scale from 0-3 can be seen in Figure 1. Following reclassification into individual suitability layers, all layers were combined using the Raster Calculator function in ArcGIS. The result is a final composite map which identifies areas and ranks them according to how likely they are to support an oyster restoration project that benefits AMOY populations in the Lower Cape Fear River. Notably, results from the model are being ground-truthed and combined with additional field data to make final site selections. Risk Scale Value Suitability Low 3 Suitable Moderate 2 Moderately Suitable High 1 Unsuitable Restricted 0 Restricted Figure 1. Suitability scale chosen for this modeling application. SUBBOTTOM PROFILER DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS SUBBOTTOM PROFILER Subbottom profilers generate low frequency acoustic waves that penetrate the seabed and reflect off boundaries or objects located in the subsurface. The data are then processed and reproduced as a cross section using two-way travel time to determine depth (the time taken for the pulse to travel from the source to the reflector and back to the receiver by a constant). The shapes, relationships, and extents of reflectors are used to infer bottom and subbottom geomorphological characteristics. There are several types of subbottom profilers: sparkers; pingers; boomers; and chirp systems. Sparkers operate at the lowest frequencies and afford deep penetration but low resolution. Boomers operate from 0.5 to 5 kilohertz and they can penetrate to between 30 and 100 meters with resolution of 0.3 to 1.0 meters. Pingers operate from 3.5 to 7 kilohertz and penetrate seabeds from a few meters to more than 50 meters depending on sediment consolidation, with resolution to about 0.3 meters. CHIRP systems operate around a central frequency that is swept electronically across a range of frequencies between 3 and 40 kilohertz; the resolution can be on the order of 0.1 meters in suitable near -seabed sediments. This survey employed an Edgetech 424 XSE-500 Shallow Tow X-Star System of topside processor and towfish. This system included a Model 3100-G Topside Processor with DISCOVER Sub -Bottom Software and a 4 to 24 kilohertz SB-424 tow fish (Figure 1). In general, high and low amplitude linear reflectors (light and dark lines) distinguish between sediment beds; parabolic reflectors indicate point -source objects with sound propagating out from them; and erosional or non -depositional contacts can be identified by discontinuities in extent, slope angle, and the shape of the reflector morphology. This latter fact is important when identifying buried and drowned channel systems and other relict and buried fluvial system features (e.g., estuarine, tidal, lowland, and upland areas around drainage features). Figure 1. Edgeteeh 424 XSE-500 Shallow Tow X-Star System subbottom profiler employed during the investigation. RECEIVED RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM WILMINGTON, NC DCM-MHD CITY NOV 19 2018 In caution, there are five spurious signals that may cause confusion in the two-dimensional records that specialists recognize: direct arrival from the sound source, reflection multiples, water surface reflection, side echoes, and point -source reflections. Precise inference of a sediment bed or other anomaly from the subbottom profiler data would necessitate coring or excavation. Post processing of subbottom profiler data, like the sidescan data, is done with SonarWiz.6, which in this case enables the user to view the subbottom data in a planar, trackline format. The user may view the data in a digitizer window as a profile format, allowing the digitizing of subbottom features of interest, linear extent, depth, and type (Figures 2 and 3). SonarWiz 6 batch processes waterfall images to *.JPG formats in order to generate figures. �0 G f �" l a c + o 0e %- m gd 00 � _e �.ei lmw WiVniee E.menw.r p.M»annr t i r"'r. i...n nrn,n ,. �....n.. pn.. x.ror x... n. ercwa I rn .miw Rrrr .nrrren. rieann.n.. Emus ry.m ..erepeeo. Ems`" uuvr fmy.. a rvan pq P.wiW�O iemrex gcM0 "OTP,Vr7 . + + G7 ra �irt t� 2 a ••..., .....emu.• �; � P ' h da t 5 5 S r' '4 n3 t Striking 7 4 S 5 w.. f.I... . 1 3 fr . fAswart l.wrM. 4 ., .. Figure 2. Trackline configuration and various "renector" features digitized. f o f .c +taV* 91ILA. M oaC0W■ ■ Vxo0 v/ . sa., tlµw�.. a+�mmnr m...!,.`� I .«e•^ u�o•N, am yn. e.,u wn ......^ , INS-i�// t_ S =31 1 i + ---^ 1 Striking 7 4 i ... 5 tl �Yx•.r._.� � 33 !Oi0'MM>iVK".1 r. sluL4 S..t Figure 3. SonarWiz.MAP Subbottom waterfall image showing the seismic profile -digitizing window. The blue cross hairs in the background chart show the location of the cursor, which at the time of the image was directly over the paleo-channel feature shown. INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS FEDERAL POINT This example profile (Figure 4) comes from the southern portion of the Federal Point area (Figure 5). The top reflector is quite thin, with a thicker peak towards the center of the profile. This likely represents depositional material on an older erosional surface. Note the reflection nultlple at approximately -7 it w tip „a , r iol 1.� Figure 4. Example profile from Federal Point. RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 RECEIVED DCM-MHD CITY DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Legend ISOpach • 1.5-2 - 4.4.5 Potential Oyster Habitat Thickness 2.2.5 - 4.5 - 5 w • 0.2-0.5 • 2.5-3 • 5-5.5 • 0.5-1 3-3.5 • 5.5-5 • 1-1.5 3.5-4 - 6-6.5 I S 5 Da 6s 55f Nic 4s 1 Rt 5m 2 42ft U Figure 5. Federal Point isopach map. ~` -" '000' Mar SOUTHPELICANISLAND This profile from the northeast portion of South Pelican Island shows several horizontal reflectors representing multiple episodes of deposition and erosion, although the exact composition of each is unknown. The first reflector is roughly 2 ft. thick. Subsequent facies may )e similar in composition, nut woula require testing to connrm. Figure 6. South Pelican Island profile. This profile, from the southwestern side of Pelican Island, shows similar stratigraphy. Note the presence of similar parallel bedding. Also note the strong reflection multiples on the right side of the profile, which indicate highly reflective materials such as coarse sand and shell hash. M Py. ... M 0 ...... t y Figure 7. Second South Pelican Island profile. RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 Legend 0 125 250 500 FeetONE 11� - IsOpach • 1.5 - 2 • 4 - 4.5 Potential Oyster Habitat Thickness • 2 - 2.5 4.5 - 5 w • 0.2-0.5 • 2.5-3 • 5.5.5 • 0.5-1 3-3.5 • 5.5-5 • 1-1.5 3.5-4 • 5.5.5 I 1. Ian Figure 8. South Pelican Island isopach map. SHELL BED ISLAND This profile, from the west portion of Shellbed Island, has an acoustic profile similar to South 'elican Island. Note parallel horizontal reflectors and toreset beds (Indicative or paleocnanm MIT I MT I MISER i Figure 9. Shell Bed Island profile. Unlike the previous profile, this section from the western side of Shell Bed Island exhibits a more homogenous composition. Note the vertically -elongated first reflector and strong reflection multiples. The thickness for this reflector has been given a conservative estimate, and likely continues deeper. Subsurface testing would be required to confirm exact depths. A R 71 IM ,. ."'Ywtt. '�ftw ...:.ai. M.n. _. ... ... Figure 10. Second Shell Bed Island profile. RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 DCM-MHD CITY RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC NOV 19 2018 {JVIYW LJYOWII LJVOINV LJIWVV <J1l VVV [JILVVV 0 250500 1,000 Feet Legend ME 11 Isopach 1.5-2 • 4-4.5 Potential Oyster Habitat Thickness • 2.2.5 • 4.5. 5 N • 0.2-0.5 • 2.5-3 • 5-5.5 • 0.5-1 3.3.5 • 5.5-6 • 1-1.5 3.5-4 • 6-6.5 •• r -- r E j} n + •v 2 �J Rr vmnm n3nnnnn 23nonm 131011,111) 231ID00 2312soo Figure 11. Shell Bed Island isopach map. STRIKING ISLAND This profile from Striking Island shows varied thickness of the first reflector due to shoaling. Strong reflection multiples demonstrate highly reflective material at the surface. Subsequent horizontal reflectors represent previous erosional surfaces � ■■rr ■ Figure 12. Striking Island profile. This profile is from north of Striking Island, and is outside of the potential oyster habitat. Note the acoustically transparent facies, weak first reflection and reflection multiples, and well - resolved foreset bedding. The center of the profile is clearly an in -filled paleochannel. The surrounding sediment matrix is likely composed of fine-grained material. P l 1 Figure 13. Second Striking Island profile. RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2019 RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC DCM-MHD CITY NOV 19 2018 0 260 500 1,000 Fee Legend keopsch • 1.5 - 2 • 4 - 4.5 Potential Oyster Habitat Thickness • 2.2.5 • 4.5. 5 N • 0.2 - 0.5 • 2.5 - 3 • 8 - 5.5 • 0.5-1 3.3.5 • 5.5.6 • 1-1.5 3.5-4 • 6.6.5 i! \ 'to ia_ Striking Figure 14. Striking Island isopach map.