25-19 National Audubon Society

Permit 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 [phone].
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 [phone] 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 <[e-mail]>
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 [phone].
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 [phone] 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) <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2020 10:11 AM
To: Pietila, Tanya K <[e-mail]>
Cc: Currey, Gregory E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 3:37 PM
To: WilmingtonNCREG <[e-mail]>; Mairs, Robb L <robb.mairs ncdenr.gov>; Weychert,
Curtis R <[e-mail]>; Cannon, Amanda 1 <Amanda.Cannononcdenr.gov>
Cc: MacPherson, Tara <[e-mail]>
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: [phone]
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 <[e-mail]>
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 [phone].
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 [phone] 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 [phone].
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 [phone] 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 [phone]) or e-mail
([e-mail]).
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) <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Wednesday, February 13, 2019 10:10 AM
To:
Huggett, Doug; [e-mail]; 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; [e-mail]; 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 [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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
[e-mail]
910-251-4049
RECEIVED
MAY U 7 2019
DCM-MHD CITY

Spears, Courtney
From:
Hair, Sarah E CN CESAW CESAD (US) <[e-mail]>
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 [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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
[e-mail]
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 [phone].
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 [phone] 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 [phone] or email at [e-mail]. 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: [phone] (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 [phone]
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 [phone].
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 [phone] 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 [phone], 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 [phone] 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: [phone] (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 [phone]
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: [phone] (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 [phone]
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: [phone] (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 [phone]
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: [phone] (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 [phone]
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:[phone] (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 [phone]
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: [phone] (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 [phone]
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 [phone] 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: [phone] (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 [phone]
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: [phone] (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 [phone]
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 [phone].
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
[e-mail]
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 [phone]
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
[e-mail]
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 [phone]

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
[e-mail]
Chad Coburn
DWR-401
Chad,[e-mail]
Liz Hair
USACE
[e-mail]
Ken Riley
NOAA-NMFS
[e-mail]
Kathy Matthews
USFWS
Kathryn_ [e-mail]
Curt Weychert
DCM-Fisheries
[e-mail]
Debbie Wilson
DCM
[e-mail]
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
[e-mail]
Ted Wilgus
NC Coastal Fed.
[e-mail]
Mike Giles
NC Coastal Fed.
[e-mail]
Joe Facendola
DMF
[e-mail]
Anne Deaton
DMF
[e-mail]
Jeremy Humphrey
DMF Shellfish
Jeremy. Hu [e-mail]
Dawn York
DCA
[e-mail]
Courtney Spears
DCM
[e-mail]
Troy Alphin
UNCW
[e-mail]
Curtis Smalling
Audubon
[e-mail]
Keith Walls
Dial Cordy
[e-mail]
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.