20160804 Ver 1 _FONSI & EA _20170405

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Hughes, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (US) < [e-mail] >
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 2:44 PM
Subject: Eagle Island Improvements EA/FONSI Dike Raise to Elev 50ft
Attachments: NOA for FINAL EA Apr 4 2017.pdf
Good Day:
I am pleased to announce that the Final Environmental Assessment for the Eagle Island Improvement Project,
Dike Raise to Elevation 50ft is complete. Please see the attached Notice of Availability announcement with
electronic link to the document:
http://www.saw.usace.army.miI/Missions/Navigation/Dredging/Wilmington-Harbor/Eagle-Island/
Included with the EA is the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) signed by Wilmington District Engineer,
Colonel Kevin Landers.
Thank you for your comments and feedback during the NEPA process. Much valuable information and input
went into this document and we appreciate your time reviewing it.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Emily Hughes
Environmental Resources Section, Wilmington District US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
[e-mail]

US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
CESAW-ECP-PE
April 5, 2017
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) AND
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
EAGLE ISLAND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, DIKE RAISE TO ELEVATION 50 FEET
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, Wilmington, North
Carolina, has prepared the Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact (Final EA/FONSI) for the Eagle Island Improvement Project, dated April 2017. An
electronic version of this document is available on the USACE, Wilmington District website at:
http://www. saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/Dredging/Wilmington-Harbor/Eagle-Island/.
The Final EA addresses the proposed construction of dike raises to elevation 50 feet for Cells 1-3
on Eagle Island in the Cape Fear River, New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina.
The project area is shown on Figure 1. The proposed improvement of Cells 1-3 are essential to
the ongoing maintenance dredging of the Upper Reaches of the Wilmington Harbor. Current
improvements of dikes to elevation 40' and 42' will only increase disposal capacity to last an
additional 5-6 years. With a dike raise to elevation 50', sections of the cells will require a
supportive outer toe berm. This toe berm has a proposed impact on 35.5 acres of Phragmites-
dominated coastal marsh. Impact areas are shown on Figure 2 in the Final EA/FONSI.
The EA has been prepared in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality and
USACE requirements for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
(33 CFR 230), as amended, and addresses the relationship of the proposed action to other
applicable Federal and State Laws and Executive Orders. The EA addresses the proposed
action's impacts on environmental resources, including: federally listed threatened and
endangered species, archaeological and historical resources, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat,
soils, and water and air quality. Based on the information contained in the EA and comments
received during the 30 -day public review period for the EA, we have determined that the
proposed action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment; therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. This Notice of Availability is being
distributed to notify all known interested persons of the availability of the Final EA/FONSI.
This completes the NEPA process for this action.

Should you have any questions concerning this project, please contact Ms. Emily Hughes, U.S.
Army Engineer District, Wilmington, CESAW-ECP-PE, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
NC 28403. Questions may also be emailed to Ms. Hughes at [e-mail].
Elden Gatwood
Chief, Planning and Environmental Branch
2

l t Ea• -i t
d" T
4
hyENe
I
CV, T. 7t R1' 11 13"mb
Cape Fear River
Miles
0 5 10 20 30 40
Figure 1— Geographical Location of Eagle Island
3
F il4igh
:'r71: rr1
/f
■
�
1:,5171
f eagle island
Y
-
`_
Cape Fedi Rmw
` D,
trOI�GnEO
r'
■
Bfurl3Wlck Riuef
Komt
■
'r• E
1Nli
B 4x3 05 S 1.5 2
•. ■f '.1 '•4 { ]
I I � 1. I i CIATErI i.l 7} ]li
�.IIT. ci1
1
-
N
Lieut, •�
h�f;k.��'1'i. �Irill•n1n
-- --
pa
li•L'l�IE.1.
11 1 rild W 11
Wilm
on
•
Eagle Island
u
r.
f.}�Lftitil:lty,
l t Ea• -i t
d" T
4
hyENe
I
CV, T. 7t R1' 11 13"mb
Cape Fear River
Miles
0 5 10 20 30 40
Figure 1— Geographical Location of Eagle Island
3

Figure 2 — Affected Environment

US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
EAGLE ISLAND IMPROVEMENTS
DIKE RAISE TO ELEVATION 50 FEET
Eagle Island Confined Disposal Facility,
Upper Wilmington Harbor, Cape Fear River
Brunswick and New Hanover Counties
North Carolina
APRIL 2017

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
EAGLE ISLAND IMPROVEMENTS, DIKE RAISE TO ELEVATION 50 FEET
Eagle Island Confined Disposal Facility,
Upper Wilmington Harbor, Cape Fear River
Brunswick and New Hanover Counties
North Carolina
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps), has conducted an
environmental analysis in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended. The Corps assessed the effects of the following actions in the Final Environmental
Assessment, Eagle Island Improvements, Dike Raise to Elevation 50 Feet, Brunswick and
New Hanover Counties, North Carolina, dated April 2017.
As District Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, it is my duty in the
role of responsible Federal official to review and evaluate, in light of public interest, the stated
views of other interested agencies and concerned public, the environmental effects of this
proposed action.
My evaluation and findings are as follows:
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The focus of the Environmental Assessment (EA), is the improvements to Eagle Island
Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) Cells 1, 2, and 3 to increase their capacity for future disposal.
Without the improvements, the Eagle Island CDF will reach its full capacity by 2024. Raising
the dikes to elevation 50 feet will provide adequate disposal capacity through 2032.
The project involves the construction of a "toe berm" around portions of the outer footprint of
each cell to ensure dike stability. These perimeter toe berms will serve as a buttressing -type
of support for the dike, allowing additional dike raises in increments of 3 to 5 feet, eventually
reaching a maximum elevation of 50 feet North Atlantic Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD 88). The
toe berms and dike raises will be constructed utilizing existing material in the cells.
The affected environment consists of resources in the vicinity of Eagle Island and the impacts
associated with implementation of the proposed action as compared to No Action. Project
construction will result in permanent impacts to 35.5 acres of tidal freshwater marsh and
approximately 3 acres of upland tree/shrub habitat, for a total of 38.5 acres of permanent
impacts. Temporary impacts related to toe berm construction may affect up to 6.3 acres of tidal
freshwater marsh within the proposed 10 -foot construction corridor.
Within the 35.5 acre footprint of impacts to tidal freshwater marsh, 2.85 acres are located
below the Mean High Water (MHW) line, and therefore are subject to the ebb and flow of daily
tides. Construction within these in -water areas is proposed to occur outside of the Primary
Nursery Area Moratorium dates of April 1 — July 31 to avoid death or harm to anadromous fish.
Mitigation proposed to offset the 35.5 acres of impacts will be through purchase of 35.5 credits
iiIPage

of riparian/tidal wetlands from the Lower Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank. This mitigation
will result in no net loss of wetlands.
Overall benefits of the dike improvements include long-term socio-economic benefits as a
result of providing a financially feasible dredged material disposal facility for the next 16 years.
If the planned improvements are not implemented, after 2024, all dredged material from the
Upper Harbor reaches of Wilmington Harbor will have to be transported approximately 38
miles, one way, to the Offshore Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS), which will greatly
increase the costs of maintaining the navigation channel.
2. COORDINATION
In July 2016, the Wilmington District coordinated the recommended proposed action with
Federal, state, and local agencies through circulation of the EA for a 30 -day review period. By
letter dated August 29, 2016, the State Historic Preservation Office of North Carolina indicated
that the Draft EA adequately addressed their concerns for historic resources. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service provided a "not likely to adversely affect" determination in a letter dated
August 30, 2016, satisfying requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (see
Appendix C).
Since the proposed project includes significant discharge of fill in tidal freshwater marsh, a
consistency concurrence is required from the North Carolina Coastal Management Program
(CMP). By letter dated February 24, 2017, the N.C. Division of Coastal Management found the
project consistent with the CMP (see Appendix F).
A Section 401 Water Quality Certificate under the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 (P.L. 95-
217), as amended, is required for the construction of the toe berms. The proposed action has
been coordinated with the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of Water
Resources (DWR) and there are no issues of concern. A 401 Pre -Construction Notice was
submitted to DWR in January 2017 and a 401 certification will be received prior to start of
construction. All conditions of the 401 will be met.
All comments received during public review of the Draft EA were considered during the
preparation of the Final EA. Appendix C includes all correspondence related to the Eagle
Island Improvements Project, and Appendix D includes the Corps' responses to comments
received on the Draft EA. The Final EA is available on the Wilmington District Website at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.miI/Missions/Navigation/Dredging/WiImington-Harbor/Eagle-
Island/.
3. DETERMINATION
Based on the EA prepared for this project, I have determined that this action does not
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, the action does not require the preparation of a detailed statement under Section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). My
determination was made considering the following factors discussed in the EA, to which this
document is attached:
iiiIPage

a. The proposed action would not significantly impact any threatened or endangered
species potentially occurring in the project area.
b. No significant cumulative or secondary impacts would result from implementation of
this action.
c. The proposed action would not significantly impact cultural resources.
d. The proposed action would result in no significant impacts to air or water quality.
e. The proposed action would result in no significant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources.
f. The proposed action would not cause any environmental health risks or safety risks
that may disproportionately affect children and complies with Executive Order 13045,
"Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks."
g. The proposed action will not cause any disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations and
complies with Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations."
4. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The proposed action to raise existing dikes at the Eagle Island CDF to elevation 50 feet,
construct supportive, perimeter toe berms, and mitigate accordingly would result in no
significant environmental impacts.
Date: 2 AP& zcil
ivIPage
-74 P.
Kevin P. Lan s Sr.
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Commander

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EAGLE ISLAND IMPROVEMENTS, DIKE RAISE TO 50 FEET
BRUNSWICK AND NEW HANOVER COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL 2017
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................
1
1.1 Incorporation by Reference.............................................................................................
3
1.2 Wilmington Harbor Project Background..........................................................................
4
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED.......................................................................................................
7
3.0 PROPOSED ACTION.........................................................................................................
7
4.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED.........................................................
9
4.1 NO ACTION - Disposal in the Wilmington Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
(ODMDS)...............................................................................................................................
9
4.2 Development of Cells 4 & 5............................................................................................
10
4.3 New Upland CDF..........................................................................................................
10
4.4 Raise Eagle Island Dikes to Elevation of 52 feet and 62 feet ........................................
11
5.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .........................
11
5.1 Geology and Sediments.................................................................................................
11
5.2 Water Resources..........................................................................................................
15
5.3 Air Quality.....................................................................................................................
16
5.4 Marine and Estuarine Resources..................................................................................
16
5.5 Fisheries and Essential Fish Habitat(EFH)..................................................................
19
5.7 Wetlands.......................................................................................................................
24
5.8 Floodplains....................................................................................................................24
5.9 Endangered and Threatened Species...........................................................................
25
5.10 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................
28
5.11 Aesthetic and Recreational Resources.......................................................................
29
5.12 Socio -Economic Resources........................................................................................
30
5.13 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste.................................................................
35
5.14 Noise...........................................................................................................................
35
5.15 Environmental Impact Comparison of Alternatives......................................................
36
5.16 Mitigation.....................................................................................................................38
5.17 Temporary Impacts.....................................................................................................
38
5.18 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................................
40
iii IHage

5.19 Public Laws and Executive Orders............................................................................... 41
5.20 Conclusion................................................................................................................... 44
6.0 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS .......................................... 44
7.0 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT......................................................................... 45
7.1 Agency and Public Coordination................................................................................... 45
7.2 North Carolina Coastal Management Program............................................................. 46
7.3 Clean Water Act (CWA)................................................................................................ 46
7.4 Coordination of this Document...................................................................................... 49
8.0 POINT OF CONTACT...................................................................................................... 49
9.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 50
Figures
Figure 1.
Geographical Location Of Eagle Island, Wilmington, North Carolina ...........................2
Figure 2.
Reaches Of The Wilmington Harbor Navigation Project..............................................5
Figure 3.
Eagle Island Cells 1 - 3................................................................................................6
Figure 4.
Typical Cross Section Of Proposed Dike Raise And Toe Berm..................................9
Figure 5.
Footprint Of The Toe Berm Required To Support Cell 1 Dikes At Elevation 50ft ......13
Figure 6.
Footprint Of The Toe Berm Required To Support Cell 2 & 3 Dikes At Elevation 50ft 14
Figure 7.
Identified PNA (Areas Within Red Lines) In The Project Area...................................18
Figure 8.
Eagle Island Toe Berm Impacts And 10 Foot Construction Corridor .........................39
Figure 9.
Wilmington Tidal Gauge Historic Sea Level Trend....................................................48
Figure 10.
Wilmington Tidal Gauge Location (Blue Pin)...........................................................48
Figure 11.
Relative Sea Level Rise Curves..............................................................................49
Tables
Table 1. Essential Fish Habitat species in the Eagle Island Improvements Project Area .........21
Table 2. Categories of EFH and HAPC identified in FMP Amendments affecting the South
Atlantic............................................................................................................................... 22
Table 3. Endangered and Threatened Species Potentially Impacted by the Eagle Island
Improvements Project (Brunswick and New Hanover Counties).......................................26
Table 4. New Hanover and Brunswick Counties Statistical Area - Total Population Data ........30
Table5. Population by Race.....................................................................................................31
Table 6. Civilian Labor Force by Occupation............................................................................32
iiiIHage

Table 7. Number of households and the percentage of their respective incomes ....................33
Table 8. Comparison of Impacts to Resources.........................................................................37
Table 9. Compliance of the proposed action with executive orders..........................................41
Table 10. Relationship of the proposed action to Federal Laws and Policies ...........................45
Appendices
Appendix A. Section 404 (b)(1) Analysis
Appendix B. List of Draft EA Recipients
Appendix C. Draft EA Comments and Agency Correspondence
Appendix D. Corps Responses to Comments
Appendix E. Revised Mitigation Plan and Supplemental Documents
Appendix F. N.C. Division of Coastal Management Consistency Concurrence
ivIPage

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Wilmington Harbor, located on North Carolina's southeast coast, is one of the state's two deep -
draft ports and a major contributor to its economy. The Wilmington Harbor navigation project
connects deep water of the Atlantic Ocean with North Carolina State Ports Authority facilities at
Wilmington, waterfront facilities in downtown Wilmington, and several businesses north of the
City of Wilmington, by way of a 38 -mile -long channel along the Cape Fear River. The U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, is responsible for maintaining the
federally authorized Wilmington Harbor navigation project. The primary disposal facility for
dredged material from the Upper Harbor reaches of the Wilmington Harbor is the Eagle Island
Confined Disposal Facility (CDF), which is located on the peninsula between the Cape Fear
and Brunswick Rivers, south of U.S. Highway 74/76 (Figure 1). Improvements to the Eagle
Island CDF are required to provide adequate dredged material disposal capacity for continued
maintenance dredging of the Wilmington Harbor navigation project. This Environmental
Assessment (EA) addresses the improvement of Cells 1, 2, and 3 of the Eagle Island CDF in
relation to other alternatives.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, requires
consideration of the environmental impacts for major federal actions. The purpose of this
EA is to ensure the environmental consequences of the proposed action are considered
and that environmental and project information are available to the public. This EA has
been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) parts 1500-1508), and Engineering Regulation (ER) 200-2-2.
1 1 Page

Figure 1. Geographical location of Eagle Island, Wilmington, North Carolina
21 Page

1.1 Incorporation by Reference
The USACE has produced a number of environmental and planning reports that describe the
Wilmington Harbor Federal navigation project, its ongoing and proposed improvements, the
details of dredging and disposal operations required for its construction and maintenance, and
the environmental aspects of the project. A number of these reports, which contain extensive
background information, are listed below and are incorporated by reference.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. October 1989. Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS). Lona -Term Maintenance of Wilminaton Harbor. North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. June 1996. Final Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement on Improvement of Navigation, Cape Fear - Northeast Cape
Fear Rivers Comprehensive Study, Wilmington, North Carolina, Volumes I, II, and III.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. June 1996. Final Supplement I to the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for Wilmington Harbor Channel Widening, New Hanover and
Brunswick Counties. North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 1996. Preliminary Assessment, Dredged
Material Management Plan (DMMP), Wilmington Harbor, NC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 1997. Dredged Material Management Plan,
Phase I Study, Wilmington Harbor, NC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. February 2000. Environmental Assessment
Preconstruction Modifications of Authorized Improvements, Wilmington Harbor, NC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. August 2000. Finding of No Significant
Impact, Preconstruction Modifications of Authorized Improvements, Wilmington Harbor, NC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 2001. Phase II Dredged Material
Management Plan Study, Volumes I-V, Upper Portion of Wilmington Harbor, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
November 2001. Final Environmental Impact Statement, New Wilmington Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Designation.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. June 2012. Environmental Assessment,
Continued Construction of Authorized Improvements, Wilmington Harbor 96 Act, Wilmington
Harbor, NC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. August 2012. Finding of No Significant
Impact, Continued Construction of Authorized Improvements, Wilmington Harbor 96 Act,
Wilmington Harbor, NC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. June 2014. Draft Integrated Feasibility
Report and Environmental Assessment, Wilmington Harbor Navigation Improvements,
Wilmington Harbor, NC.
31 age

1.2 Wilmington Harbor Project Background
The Wilmington Harbor Federal navigation project begins at the ocean bar at the entrance of
the Cape Fear River. It extends through the approximate center of the river, and small islands
border the channel for much of its length. These islands were created by disposal of dredged
material in open water prior to the early 1970s. The Wilmington Harbor navigation channel is
divided into "reaches" or segments of river, and dredging methods and disposal options vary
depending on the reach location and sediment type/ quality of material to be dredged (Figure
2).
The following are the authorized dimensions and approximate dredging intervals of the Upper
Harbor reaches that utilize Eagle Island for the disposal of dredged material:
• Lower Brunswick Channel through the Anchorage Basin channel to the Cape Fear River
Memorial Bridge, including the 1200 -foot wide turning basin that consists of an
authorized depth of -42 feet mlw with an allowable overdepth of 2 feet to -44 feet. This
portion is dredged every one to two years;
• From the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge up to 750 feet above the Hilton Railroad Bridge
on the Northeast Cape Fear River consists of an authorized width of 250 feet and a
depth of -38 feet (-39 feet required in areas containing rock) with allowable overdepth of
2 feet to -40 feet, to include the 800 -foot wide turning basin. The turning basin is
located at the northern end of downtown Wilmington. This portion is dredged every
three to four years;
• From 750 feet above the Hilton Railroad Bridge to the project's northern terminus, to
include the most northern 800 -foot wide turning basin, consists of an authorized depth
of -34 feet with an allowable overdepth of 2 feet to -36 feet. This portion is has not been
dredged since 1994.
41 Page

Wilmington Harbor Q
Snow's UE I.—
M.
. Corps
M O T S i] a srgreeera
Marsh - 8runswlck Count Eagle i7 maimin mn nialnct
Boundary Y� Upper Harbor Reaches s
�Island
Lower Fourth east Anchorage Railroad �
Horseshoe 1}rUnSWiC Jetty Basin Brid 25n.
hoal .Reaves INId
it
IY Reaches upper as,n proiect
Lower U rBi Brunswick Bun Stale
Point Midnight Upper Midnight Lower Honer Keg tsPend g _ . ' Channnel HQft H€ItoniBridge
MUTSUBwter znne / �✓ - W. _I fMdW.TON d
Sew_ New Hanover County
�CaralinaBeach '0e� 'r
® r�
Map Date. Seplember 7.1007
Map Map 0 sawgle-1007-09<
Location o 1 2 4 .. Mason
hor ,
Milos Island ---
Oak
Old 01Is Island Brunswick County
--- (No longer used
See sechon 3 1 5 1
Outer Bar f
Channel Inner Bar -
New ODGID5 Channel
Range 3 Ra°9a 2 island /
Sculhpod -
Baldhead ShoaT Ranges 1,1, 8 3 Law
Ranga.t Swash
.Smith Baldhead-
felantl Caswell MOT5U
Boundary
' - Snow's Marsh
_
e Bald Head Island Horseshoe Mid River Reaches
Map Date: Seplemder 1, 2007 Shoal Reaves
Map 0 aawgia-2007-Oar -'-'1 - Poinl .- `Upp
Mi
Map 0 1 2 4 ATLANTIC OCEAN lnidr:
Locat€On Miles
Figure 2. Reaches of the Wilmington Harbor Navigation Project
Eagle Island is divided into 5 cells, of which 3 cells are in active use. Measured from the top of
dike inward, from South to North, Cell 1 consists of approximately 230 acres, Cell 2 is
approximately 260 acres, and Cell 3 is approximately 265 acres. Each cell contains spillway
structures that allow for the discharge of effluent (water from dredged material) into either the
Brunswick River or the Cape Fear River (see Figure 3). For each dredging event, typically
only one cell is used. This allows for a revolving schedule of dewatering, ditching, drying,
maintenance, and dike -raising of the other two cells.
51 Page

Figure 3. Eagle Island Cells 1 - 3
In a typical dredging project, material is dredged by a hydraulic cutter suction dredge and
pumped into a disposal area cell. The calculated capacity of the receiving cell includes a
minimum of two feet of freeboard (the vertical distance between the maximum elevation of the
effluent inside the cell and the top of the dike). This freeboard allows safe inspection of the
dike, prevents overtopping and minimizes the chances of a dike breach. The effluent is
contained within the cell while suspended sediment settles. The "clear" effluent flows out of
the cell via one or more spillways, or by pumping. Turbidity, or cloudiness, of the receiving
water is analyzed in order to verify compliance with NC Department of Water Resources water
quality standards. The flow of effluent is manually controlled at the spillway riser and by the
rate of pumping of dredged material into the cell.
61 Page

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
Since the early 1900's, the Upper Harbor reaches of Wilmington Harbor have been dredged
using a hydraulic cutter suction dredge with disposal of the dredged material in designated
disposal areas located adjacent to the channel. The Eagle Island CDF, which has been the
primary disposal site for this dredged material, is rapidly filling up. Phase I of the Eagle Island
Dike Improvement Project is currently underway. Phase I includes the increase of the dike
heights at each of the 3 cells. The existing dikes at Cell 1 have been raised to elevation 40 feet
North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD 88), and Cells 2 and 3 are being raised to 42 feet
(NAVD 88). Cell 1 is complete and Cells 2 and 3 will be under construction through the
summer of 2018. These dike raises will not increase the footprint of the Eagle Island CDF;
rather, they will be done with dike step-ins and raises to the interior of the existing dikes.
Although these improvements will increase disposal capacity, the increased capacity will only
last approximately 5-6 years (allowing for another 6 dredging and disposal cycles, at most).
Therefore, the need remains for additional dredged material disposal capacity for the Upper
Harbor reaches, beyond the dike raises currently underway.
The purpose of this project is to ensure that adequate disposal capacity is available for
continued maintenance of the Upper Harbor reaches of the Wilmington Harbor navigation
project, and that dredged material disposal meets the federal standard. Pursuant to 33 C.F.R.
§ 335.7, the federal standard mandates that the dredged material disposal alternative(s)
identified by the USACE represent the least costly alternative(s), consistent with sound
engineering practices and meeting the environmental standards established by the Clean
Water Act, Section 404(b)(1) evaluation process or ocean dumping criteria.
3.0 PROPOSED ACTION
The Eagle Island CDF is located on a 1,473 -acre tract owned by the Department of the Army.
The original property boundary for the site was defined by a series of rivers and creeks, some
of which still exist and serve as property boundaries for the site. Eagle Island dikes were
initially constructed in the late 1970's and now encompass approximately 755 acres of diked
uplands, which were originally composed of uplands and tidal marsh, as well as, several tidal
creeks. Over successive years of dredged material disposal, the marsh and creeks were filled
and the CDF was created. Outside of the existing CDF dikes, the majority of acreage within
the 1,473 -acre tract is considered jurisdictional wetlands. Historically, the site was divided into
two cells, a north and a south cell. However, as part of the improvements to the CDF in 2000,
the north cell was subdivided into two cells of approximately equal size. As a result, material
dredged from the Upper Harbor reaches is disposed of in Eagle Island Cells 1, 2, and 3.
The most feasible alternative for providing future disposal capacity is to increase the capacity
of Cells 1, 2 and 3 at Eagle Island by raising the dikes to elevation 50 feet NAVD 88. To
ensure dike stability, this additional raise will require the construction of a "toe berm" around
portions of the outer footprint of each cell (Figure 4). These perimeter toe berms will serve as
a buttressing -type support for the dike, allowing additional dike raises in increments of 3 to 5
feet, eventually reaching a maximum elevation of 50 feet NAVD 88. The toe berms and dike
raises will be constructed utilizing existing material in the cells. Doing so will also increase the
capacity of each cell, providing additional storage space for future disposal.
71 Page

The construction of the toe berms would be accomplished in a phased approach that may
occur over a period of up to 5-6 years beginning in 2019, as Federal funding becomes
available for the Wilmington Harbor Navigation Construction project. The proposed dike raise
to elevation 50 feet NAVD 88 would provide disposal capacity for an additional 10-12 years
(until year 2032).
The affected environment consists of resources in the vicinity of Eagle Island and the impacts
associated with implementation of the proposed action as compared to No Action. Project
construction will result in permanent impacts to 35.5 acres of tidal freshwater marsh and
approximately 3 acres of upland tree/shrub habitat, for a total of 38.5 acres, and will result in
short-term impacts to water quality, air quality, and noise levels in the project area.
Within the 35.5 acre footprint of impacts to tidal freshwater marsh, 2.85 acres are located
below the Mean High Water (MHW) line, and therefore are subject to the ebb and flow of daily
tides (see colored areas identified below the 2 -foot contour elevation, Appendix E, Figure 1).
Construction within these in -water areas is proposed to occur outside of the Primary Nursery
Area Moratorium dates of April 1 — July 31 to avoid death or harm to anadromous fish.
Mitigation proposed to offset the 35.5 acres of impacts is discussed in Section 5.16 and
Appendix E, and will result in no net loss of wetlands.
Some temporary impacts are also anticipated with the construction of the toe berms, therefore,
a 10 -foot construction corridor has been identified to capture any additional disturbance in
jurisdictional areas: cutting back of Phragmites, silt fence installation, placement of coir
logs/hay bales, and use of logging mats if heavy equipment will be working within wetlands. To
address construction impacts within the 2.85 acres of vegetated and open water areas located
below MHW, coffer dams may be erected to isolate the area from tidal influence during toe
berm construction. Rock (rip -rap) may be used within the toe berm footprint to minimize
turbidity and provide long-term stabilization of the toe berm. Turbidity curtains may also be
erected and kept in place until construction areas are stabilized to prevent turbidity within the
receiving waters. Affected areas will be brought back to original grade and restored. Toe
berms will be layered with erosion control matting and seeded for stability. Once the toe berms
are stable, the silt fencing will be removed.
The proposed improvements to Eagle Island CDF fulfill the purpose and need described
above, as it ensures that adequate disposal capacity is available for continued maintenance of
the Upper Harbor reaches of the Wilmington Harbor navigation project, and that the dredged
material disposal meets the Federal standard.
81 Page

Sleight
200
160
120
�80
40
0
40
-80
-120
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
60 120 180 300 c 420 460 Length
Figure 4. Typical Cross Section of Proposed Dike Raise and Toe Berm
4.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED
4.1 NO ACTION - Disposal in the Wilmington Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
(ODMDS)
The No Action alternative would be the continuance of currently utilized disposal practices at
Eagle Island CDF and completion of the current dike raises at Cells 2 and 3 to elevation 42
feet NAVD 88. The Cell 1 dike cannot be raised above 40 feet without the construction of toe
berms. Dike raises at Cells 2 and 3 to 42 feet NAVD 88 are being done with step-ins to the
interior of the dike. Since toe berms are not required for this raise, the overall footprint would
not change. These improvements will add approximately 1 year of capacity for a total of six
years of volume life at Eagle Island CDF. Beyond that time, Eagle Island will no longer have
the capacity to accept dredged material. Therefore, maintenance dredging projects that have
historically disposed of dredged material at Eagle Island CDF will require transport to another
approved disposal location. Currently, the only disposal area suitable for this fine-grained
dredged material is the ODMDS. The ODMDS is located in the Atlantic Ocean, offshore of the
mouth of the Cape Fear River, approximately 38 miles from the upper reaches of the
Wilmington Harbor navigation project.
Once capacity at Eagle Island CDF is exhausted, the only other currently available disposal
method is to perform bucket and barge dredging and dispose of the material in the ODMDS.
The assumed dredge for this is a 21 cubic yard (CY) clamshell dredge and the barges are
assumed to be 3,000 CY dump scows. Environmental restrictions prohibit overflow from the
barges, which limits the amount of dredged material that can be placed in each scow. A 90%
capacity and 50% fill ratio are assumed as average. This would result in an additional 1.2
million cubic yards of material going to the ODMDS every year, and a rough order of
91 'age

magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for transporting material from the Anchorage Basin reach to
the ODMDS at $11.90/CY (unescalated), resulting in an annual cost of approximately
$14,280,000. Disposal of dredged material from the Anchorage Basin and upper reaches into
the ODMDS would cost significantly more than dike improvements and disposal in the Eagle
Island CDF. The estimated cost to dredge the Anchorage Basin and pump material to the
Eagle Island CDF is $3.25/CY (an annual cost of $3.9 million). Dike raises to 50 feet with
supportive toe berms are estimated to cost a total of $64,330,000 (unescalated, including the
cost of mitigation), resulting in average annual costs of $8,041,000 over a period of 8 years.
4.2 Development of Cells 4 & 5
This alternative would involve the development of two new cells (Cells 4 and 5) located just to
the north of Cell 3. Cells 4 and 5 would act as a direct dredged material disposal site or as
storage area for dry material from Cells 1, 2 and3. The former would require construction of
perimeter dikes and spillway structures to facilitate the disposal of excess water from the
dredged material slurry. Dike construction would likely require a minimum of 3 years and would
need to start within the next 4 years to be available for use before Cells 1, 2 and 3 are full.
Dikes at Cells 4 and 5 would have to be constructed to an approximate elevation of 40 feet
NAVD 88 to provide a 15 -year project life, and to elevation 60 feet NAVD 88 to provide
capacity for up to 20 years.
Cells 4 and 5 could also be developed as a dry storage area. This would be accomplished by
drying material in Cells 1-3 and dry hauling to Cells 4 and 5 to restore some capacity in Cells
1, 2 and 3. Material would be placed in small layers across the site, eliminating the need for
dikes and spillways. Erosion control would be provided as required.
Use of Cells 4 and 5 for disposal or storage will require upfront mitigation. It is estimated that
the majority of the footprint of the proposed cells (approximately 160 acres) contains intertidal
wetlands that are of relatively high function and value. The current cost to mitigate for one acre
is $175,147 according to the 2017 NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) In -Lieu Fee (ILF)
Program, resulting in a mitigation cost of roughly $28 million. This mitigation cost is
significantly higher than mitigation costs for Eagle Island dike raise to 50 feet, and for this
reason, construction of Cells 4 and 5 was eliminated from further consideration.
4.3 New Upland CDF
Another measure considered was the construction of a new upland disposal site. To be viable,
a new site would have to be at least 1,000 acres and similar in proximity to the harbor as the
Eagle Island disposal site. Aerial photography of the area was used to identify any potential
future sites 1,000 acres in size within a radius of 2 miles of the Harbor. Analysis revealed that
there are no undeveloped uplands of the size available to construct a new disposal site.
Undeveloped wetlands would require mitigation fees as stated above, that would render the
project impracticable.
Due to a lack of undeveloped uplands in the harbor vicinity, construction of a new disposal site
is not viable. Moreover, if directly pumping into the disposal area is not possible due to the
distance, material may have to be double -handled and trucked to the disposal area. Due to
the close proximity of Eagle Island, an upland alternative farther inland would be more costly to
construct and utilize than disposal in the Eagle Island CDF or the ODMDS. For these reasons,
construction of a new upland disposal site was eliminated from further consideration.
101 Page

4.4 Raise Eagle Island Dikes to Elevation of 52 feet and 62 feet
Raising the Eagle Island dikes to the elevation of either 52 feet or 62 feet was also analyzed.
These were the original elevations considered for the project; however, there were significant
stability and settlement issues with raising the Cell 1, 2 and 3 dikes above elevation 50 feet
NAVD 88. Raising the dikes to these elevations may result in stability issues or a breach of the
dikes, which would result in potential impacts to water quality and wetlands or impediments to
navigation in the river. Geotechnical evaluations indicate that neither of these heights are
economically feasible; therefore, this plan was eliminated from further consideration.
5.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The focus of this EA is the improvements to Eagle Island Cells 1, 2 and 3 to increase their
capacity for future disposal. Therefore, the affected environment consists of resources in the
vicinity of Eagle Island and the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed action
as compared to No Action. Impacts associated with continuing dredging and disposal
operations will not be addressed, as they have been addressed in previous NEPA documents.
Based on detailed vegetation analysis that was completed in 2015, the Eagle Island dike
improvements will result in permanent impacts to 35.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. The
vegetation mapping effort conducted in 2015 categorized the areas within the toe berm
impacts into five classes: "Native", "Majority Phrag", "Mix - Native/Phrag", "Tree/Shrub", and
"Water" (Appendix E, Figure 1). As demonstrated in this figure, the majority of impacts are to
Phragmites-dominated wetlands (34.79 ac). Areas identified in green as tree/shrub were
ground-truthed and determined to be uplands. Native, mixed, and open water impacts were
combined to equal 0.66 acre, and together, jurisdictional impacts total 35.5 acres.
5.1 Geology and Sediments.
Dredged material deposited in the Eagle Island CDF is from dredging work in the Anchorage
Basin and upper reaches of the Wilmington Harbor project. Sediments in the Wilmington
Harbor project area have been routinely tested and evaluated and grain -sizes have been, and
continue to be, periodically characterized throughout the life of the project. Sediments
previously deposited in Cells 1, 2 and 3 of Eagle Island will be used to construct the proposed
improvement project.
The physical and chemical character of Wilmington Harbor shoaled material was most recently
evaluated in 2016. Multiple composite samples, representing specific dredging units
throughout the Wilmington Harbor project, underwent physical and chemical testing where
applicable. For sediment originating in the project's upper reaches (near the NC State Ports
facilities and the Anchorage Basin), about 76% of material was organic silt and clay, about
23.7% was sand, and about 0.3% was gravel, by weight. Arsenic was the primary contaminant
of concern for this material, and was detected above both the threshold effect level (TEL) and
effects range -low (ERL) in at least one of the two composited samples.
Dike Raises to 50 Feet. The proposed dike raise would increase the footprint of Cells 1, 2 and
3 by approximately 80 acres (Figures 5 and 6). This will be due to the construction of a
necessary support berm at the toe of the existing dike. The toe berms will be at varying
elevations ranging from a top elevation of approximately 20-27 feet and surround portions of all 3
111 Page

cells, and will be constructed from existing material from the inside of the cells. Depending on
the condition of the existing dikes, the top surface width of the toe berm would vary from 25 to
120 feet. Sections of the dike around Cell 1 appear to be the most unstable, requiring the most
added width for support.
The proposed dike raise should have no impact on the project area's geology or sediments.
Once toe berms are in place and dike raises are achieved, disposal practices for the Wilmington
Harbor navigation project will continue as normal and dredged material composition is not
expected to change.
No Action. Continuing dredged material disposal with no dike raise will have no impact on the
project area's geology or sediments as the footprint of the cells and dikes on Eagle Island would
not change.
121 Page

Figure 5. Footprint of the Toe Berm Required to Support Cell 1 Dikes at Elevation 50ft
131 Page

Figure 6. Footprint of the Toe Berm Required to Support Cell 2 & 3 Dikes at Elevation 50ft
141 Page

5.2 Water Resources.
5.2.1 Water Quality. The Cape Fear River naturally carries a large amount of sediment from
inland to the Atlantic Ocean and drains broad areas of coastal plains. The relatively slow
moving water allows higher concentrations of tannins, essentially making the river a blackwater
system. These, combined with the relatively heavy marine industrial traffic and urban
development along both sides of the River and its tributaries, can affect the River's water
quality, including clarity. During times of poorer water quality due to high suspended sediment
loads, pollution, and runoff; submerged aquatic vegetation and associated fauna, marshes,
and nektonic communities (fish, shellfish, and marine reptiles and mammals) may be adversely
impacted.
The EPA has developed a system to identify drainage areas by assigning a Hydrologic Unit
Code (HUC) to watersheds. The Cape Fear River's HUC is 03030005. The NC Division of
Water Resources designates classifications for surface water bodies in the State. These
classifications define the best uses to be protected within each water body. The Cape Fear
River from the mouth of Toomers Creek to Federal Point is SC and HQW; and the Brunswick
River is SC.
The classification definitions are:
• Class SC = All tidal salt waters protected for secondary recreation such as fishing,
boating, and other activities involving minimal skin contact; fish and noncommercial shellfish
consumption, aquatic life propagation and survival, and wildlife.
• High Quality Waters (HQW) = Supplemental classification intended to protect waters
which are rated excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through
Division monitoring or special studies, primary and other functional nursery areas designated
by the Marine Fisheries Commission.
5.2.2 Hydrology. Tides in the project area are semidiurnal and the mean tidal range
(difference between mean high water and mean low water) at downtown Wilmington is
approximately 4.3 feet. The mean tidal range in the Atlantic Ocean near its confluence with
the Cape Fear River is between 5 and 6 feet.
The River's salinity is approximately 35 parts per thousand (ppt) at its confluence with the
Atlantic Ocean. Salinity decreases upstream and near downtown Wilmington fluctuates within
the brackish (0.5 — 30 ppt) range; the salinity dependent upon inflow from the upper Cape
Fear, the Brunswick River, and the Northeast Cape Fear River.
Dike Raises to 50 Feet. Elevating the dikes around Cells 1, 2 and 3 would require the
construction of a perimeter toe berm to support the structure. Estimated impacts of the toe berm
are approximately 35.5 acres of freshwater tidal marsh. Filling this low-lying area would convert
wetlands into uplands, displacing water and any potential habitat that exists. Adverse impacts to
water quality resulting from the toe berm construction would be short-lived and within levels
required by the water quality certification. All efforts to reduce sedimentation and turbidity and
151 Page

control erosion during construction will be implemented. The preferred alternative would have
no adverse effect on the project or surrounding area's hydrology.
No Action. Under the No Action alternative, no impacts will occur to wetlands or waters as the
footprint of the existing CDF will not change.
5.3 Air Quality. New Hanover and Brunswick Counties are currently listed as "attainment"
areas for all Criteria pollutants which have a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
published with the exception of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). Brunswick County is currently listed as
"unclassifiable" for SO2 by the EPA. The project area in New Hanover and Brunswick
Counties is considered as having a status of "attainment/unclassifiable". (Personal
communication, Mr. Brad Newland, Regional Supervisor, NC Department Environmental
Quality, Division of Air Quality, Wilmington Regional Office, February 10, 2017).
Dike Raises to 50 Feet. Temporary increases in exhaust emissions from construction
equipment are expected during construction of dike raises and toe berms. The State of North
Carolina has a State Implementation Plan ("SIP") approved or promulgated under Section 110
of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended. However, a conformity determination is not required
because Brunswick and New Hanover Counties have been designated by the State of North
Carolina as attainment/unclassifiable areas, and the direct and indirect emissions from the
project fall below the prescribed de minimus levels (58 Fed. Reg. 93.153(c)(1)). Therefore, no
conformity determination would be required. The preferred alternative is not anticipated to
result in any adverse effects on the air quality of Brunswick and New Hanover Counties'
attainment areas. The project would be in compliance with Section 176 (c) of the CAA, as
amended.
No Action. The No Action alternative would not result in any adverse effect on the air quality
in this two -county attainment/unclassifiable area other than an increase in fuel consumption
and the resultant exhaust emissions due to round trip travel to/from the ODMDS when disposal
in Eagle Island CDF is no longer viable. Even with this type of increase, the project would
remain in compliance with Section 176 (c) of the CAA, as amended.
5.4 Marine and Estuarine Resources
5.4.1 Nekton Nekton collectively refers to aquatic organisms capable of controlling their
location through active movement rather than depending upon water currents or gravity for
passive movement. In the project area, there are estuarine and fresh water species such as:
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), pickerel (Esox americanus), sunfish (Lepomis spp),
crappie (Pomoxis spp), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and speckled trout (Cynoscion
nebulosus).
The Cape Fear River is a passageway for the larvae of many species of commercially or
ecologically important fish. Spawning grounds for many marine fishes are believed to occur on
the continental shelf with immigration to estuaries during the juvenile stage. The shelter
provided by the marshes and shallow water habitats within the project area's estuarine waters
serves as nursery habitat where young fish undergo rapid growth before returning to the
offshore environment.
161 Page

The State of North Carolina defines Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) as tidal saltwater, which
provide essential habitat for the early development of commercially important fish and shellfish
(15 NCAC 3B .1405). It is in these estuarine areas that many fish species undergo initial post -
larval development. PNAs are designated by the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission.
The Cape Fear River PNAs are defined as follows: "all waters north of a line beginning on the
west shore at a point 340 10.4410' N - 770 57.7400'W-1 running easterly through Beacon "59" to
the east shore to a point 340 10.4050' N - 770 57.1310' W; with the exception of the maintained
channel, and all waters north of a line beginning on the west shore at a point 340 04.6040' N -
77° 56.4780'W-1 running easterly through Beacon "41" to the east shore to a point 340 04.7920'
N - 77055.4740'W-1 with the exception of 300 yards east and west of the main shipping channel
up to Beacon "59" (mouth of Brunswick River)". Map #27 from the NC Division of Marine
Fisheries' website, (http-//portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/primary-nursery-areas), depicts the PNAs
within the project area (Figure 6).
Secondary Nursery Areas (SNAs) are defined by rule 15 NCAC 3N .0102(c) as: ".... those
areas in the estuarine system where later juvenile development takes place. Populations are
usually composed of developing sub—adults of similar size which have migrated from an
upstream primary nursery area to the secondary nursery area located in the middle portion of
the estuarine system." These areas are located adjacent to PNAs, are generally deeper and
contain mixed populations of large juveniles, sub -adults, and adults.
171 Page

Figure 7. Identified PNA (areas within red lines) in the project area.
5.4.2 Benthos. Aquatic organisms that live in close association with the bottom, or substrate, of
a body of water are collectively called the benthos. Common benthic organisms in these
sediments would likely include polychaetes, amphipods, decapods, and mollusks. Given the
susceptibility of the project area to currents, water movement, water depths, and the amount of
suspended sediment, large benthic communities and large numbers of organisms are not
expected.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (1975) conducted a benthic investigation at six stations
ranging from near the mouth of the Cape Fear River up to the mouth of Smith Creek in the
Northeast Cape Fear River. Polychaetes dominated the benthic fauna below MOTSU. Of the
21 species collected, only five species occurred above Snows Cut and only one species at
Smith Creek. Species included (Scolecolepides virdis), (Capitella capitata), (Branchioasylis
americana), (Drilonereis longa) and (Nereis succinea). Oligochaetes were the most abundant
group in the entire river, comprising 35% of all collected fauna. They were most abundant
from Campbell Island to the Anchorage Basin. Amphipods (Gammarus spp.) occurred in all
samples but were most abundant near MOTSU, the Anchorage Basin and at Smith Creek.
Other common species collected were Cumaceans and Isopods.Woodward-Clyde Consultants
(1980) surveyed the benthos in the vicinity of the Anchorage Basin. Nematodes, the spionid
polychaete (S viridis), and the isopod (Chiridotera almyra) were dominant in the medium -fine
181 Page

sand. The silty clay substrate was dominated by the oligochaete (Pelosco/es benedeni) and
by an amphipod (Gammarus sp).
Shellfish beds are present in the Cape Fear Estuary; however, they are primarily south of
Snows Cut (Woodward -Clyde Consultants 1980) well south of the area of potential effect for
the proposed Eagle Island CDF improvements.
5.4.3 Intertidal Macrofauna. Intertidal portions along the fringes of Eagle Island are inhabited
by various species of polychaete worms and amphipods. These organisms are important food
sources for numerous bird species that may be present in the area.
5.4.4 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV). A category of Essential Fish Habitat (below),
SAV beds form a complex and important ecosystem. SAV are not prolific in the Cape Fear
River or adjacent waters and there are none in waters around Eagle Island. Although SAV can
quickly populate shallow bottom when conditions are conducive, the currents, deeper depths,
and amount of suspended sediments minimizing light penetration in the water column will limit
the likelihood that SAV will populate the majority of the project area.
Dike Raises to 50 Feet. Most free-swimming animals, including fish, shellfish, marine
mammals, sea turtles, and cephalopod mollusks, are not expected to experience any significant
direct effects from the proposed action. Likewise, benthos are not anticipated to be adversely
impacted by the proposed project as they are expected to move and avoid areas during
construction. Some mortality is inevitable; however, numbers would be negligible in relation to
overall populations. Impacts associated with construction are expected to be minimal, temporary,
and short-lived. Because SAV is not present in the marsh around Eagle Island, it would not be
impacted.
Overall impacts of the proposed action on PNAs are expected to be insignificant. PNA within the
project area has been identified by the Mean High Water (MHW) line, which is also the 2 -foot
elevation contour as shown in Appendix E, Figure 1. The construction of toe berms would
permanently impact approximately 2.85 acres of tidal area waterward of MHW surrounding
Eagle Island, the majority being adjacent to the Brunswick River (included as part of the total
35.5 acres). To avoid impacts to fisheries within the PNA areas, every effort will be made to
construct the toe berms within this 2.85 acres outside the window of April 1 to July 31. If
construction within these areas cannot avoid this timeframe, coordination with environmental
agencies will occur prior to work in these areas.
The impacted marsh is vegetated primarily with Phragmites australis, or common reed, a non-
native, aggressive wetland grass. There are benthos and intertidal macrofaunal organisms
present here, and those within the footprint of the toe berm would be buried. This impact is
unavoidable but is considered to be minimal in comparison to the area's overall populations.
No Action Alternative. The No Action alternative is not expected to adversely affect any
marine or estuarine resources.
5.5 Fisheries and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).
The 1996 Congressional amendments to the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSFCMA) (PL 94-265) set forth new requirements for the National Marine
19 1 Page

Fisheries Service (NMFS), regional fishery management councils (FMC), and other federal
agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat (those that
depend on both freshwater and saltwater). These amendments established procedures for the
identification of EFH and a requirement for interagency coordination to further the conservation
of federally managed fisheries.
Wilmington Harbor supports several popular recreational and commercial aquatic species.
Some species common to the area include: White shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus), blueback
herring (Alosa aestivalis), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris),
alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum) and Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus), and American eel
(Anguilla rostrate). Anadromous species (herring, shad, alewife, striped bass, and sturgeon)
pass through the Cape Fear estuary en route to upper river spawning and nursery areas
(Walburg and Nichols, 1967; Nichols and Louder, 1970). Anadromous fish use is highest from
mid -winter to mid -spring. The catadromous American eel (Anguilla rostrata), is widely
distributed in the Cape Fear River estuary (Schwartz et al, 1981).
Table 1 lists, by life stages, fish and crustacean species which may occur in the vicinity of
Wilmington Harbor, and for which Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) have been developed by
the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (MAFMC), and NMFS. These fish species and habitats require special consideration to
promote their viability and sustainability.
201 Page

Table 1. Essential Fish Habitat species in the Eagle Island Improvements Project Area
Common Name
INVERTEBRATES
Brown shrimp
White shrimp
Pink shrimp
COASTAL DEMERSALS
Red drum
Bluefish
Summerflounder
COASTAL PELAGICS
Spanish mackerel
King mackerel
Cobia
SNAPPERS/GROUPERS
Black sea bass
Rock sea bass
Gag grouper
Red grouper
Black grouper
Lane snapper
Mutton
snapper Gray
Yellowjack
Blue runner
Crevalle jack
Bar jack
Atlantic spadefish
Sheepshead
Scientific Name
Life
Stag
Farfantepenaeus aztecus
LJA
Litopenaeus setiferus
LJA
Farfantepenaeus
LJA
Sciaenops ocellatus ELJA
Pomatomus saltatrix JA
Paralichthys dentatus LJA
Scomberomorus
Scomberomorus cavalla
Rachycentron canadum
Centropristis striata
Centropristis philadelphica
Mycteroperca microlepis
Epinephelus morio
Mycteroperca bonaci
Lutjanus synagris
Lutjanus analis
Lutjanus
Carangoides bartholomaei
Caranx crysos
Caranx hippos
Caranx ruber
Chaetodipterus faber
Archosargus
probatocephalu
JA
JA
JA
Common Name
SHARKS
Smooth dogfish
SMALL COASTAL SHARKS
Atlantic sharpnose shark
Finetooth shark
Blacknose shark
Bonnethead shark
LARGE COASTAL SHARKS
Silky shark
Tiger shark
Blacktip shark
Spinner shark
Bull shark
Lemon shark
Nurse shark
Scalloped hammerhead
Great hammerhead
Smooth hammerhead
Scientific Name
Life
Stag
Mustelus canis
J
Rhizoprionodon
JA
Carcharhinus isodon
JA
Carcharhinus acronotus
JA
Sphyrna tiburo
JA
Carcharhinus falciformis
Galeocerdo cuvieri
Carcharhinus limbatus
Carcharhinus brevipinna
Carcharhinus leucas
Negaprion brevirostris
Ginglymostoma cirratum
Sphyrna lewini
Sphyrna mokarran
Sphyrna zygaena
Legend: E, Egg; L, Larval; J, Juvenile; A, Adult
Source: Habitat Protection Division, Pivers Island,
JA
JA
JA
JA
JA
JA
JA
JA
JA
JA
Table 2 lists categories of EFH and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) for managed
species that were identified in the FMP Amendments affecting the South Atlantic area. HAPC's
are subsets of EFH which are rare, particularly susceptible to human -induced degradation,
especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. The EFH
categories in Wilmington Harbor are indicated by an * in Table 2.
211 Page

Table 2. Categories of EFH and HAPC identified in FMP Amendments affecting the South Atlantic
Estuarine Areas
Estuarine Emergent Wetlands*
Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Mangroves
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Oyster Reefs & Shell Banks*
Intertidal Flats*
Palustrine Emergent &
Forested Wetlands
Aquatic Beds
Estuarine Water Column*
Seagrass
Creeks
Mud Bottom
Areas
Live/Hard Bottoms
Coral and Coral Reefs
Artificial/Man-made Reefs
Sargassum
Water Column`
GEOGRAPHICALLY DEFINED HAPC
Area -wide
Council -designated Artificial Reef
Hermatypic (reef -forming) Coral Habitat &
Hard Bottoms
Hoyt Hills
Sargassum Habitat
State -designated Areas of Importance for
Managed Species
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
North Carolina
Big Rock
Bogue Sound
Pamlico Sound at Hatteras/Ocracoke Islands
Capes Fear, Lookout, & Hatteras (sandy
New River
The Ten Fathom Ledge
The Point
In addition, the State of North Carolina has prepared FMPs for several fish species that utilize
resources within the project area. These species include striped mullet, spotted trout, southern
flounder, sea mullet (kingfish) (3 species), striped bass, and red drum. All of these species use
the project area during a portion of their life cycle.
According to the NOAA Habitat Conservation EFH Mapper
(http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/index.htm1), Coastal Migratory Pelagic
species make their way up the Cape Fear River and beyond the Eagle Island CDF. They utilize
areas within the Brunswick and Cape Fear Rivers just beyond the existing dikes at Eagle Island.
These areas are also Habitat Areas of Particular Concern.
Dike Raises to 50 Feet. The proposed improvements to Eagle Island CDF will result in filling
35.5 acres of Phragmites-dominated tidal marsh and permanently impact mixed estuarine -
freshwater emergent wetlands that include EFH and HAPC. Adverse impacts related to the toe
berm construction will be offset by purchase of tidal freshwater marsh mitigation credits as
described in Section 5.16 and Appendix E. Additional impacts from construction will be avoided
22 1 Page

by implementing a construction window of April 1 — July 31 within areas located below MHW (2ft
contour elevation), and utilizing best management practices to keep fill material contained. This
will aid in reducing turbidity in the surrounding waters and allow fisheries that visit these habitat
areas to utilize them unharmed.
No Action. The No Action alternative would not result in impacts to EFH or HAPC.
5.6 Terrestrial Resources. Terrestrial resources found at the Eagle Island CDF are the
result of frequent and recurring activities including maintenance and raising of dikes as well as
the disposal of dredged material. Dikes are vegetated primarily with various grass species and
Phragmites and some shrub thickets of wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), silverling (Baccharis
halimiflora), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), marsh elder (Iva frutescens), and Virginia red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana) are found on the outer portions of the marsh, away from the dikes.
Birds frequenting the Island include marsh hawks (Falco cyaneus), kestrels (Falco sparverius),
bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), fish crows
(Corvus ossifragus), starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), meadowlarks (Sturnella magna), boat tailed
grackles (Quiscalus major), and savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis). Migratory
birds include black -necked stilts (Himantopus mexicanus), red -winged blackbirds (Agelaius
phoeniceus), winter sparrows (Spizella arbores), common grackles (Quiscalus quiscula),
bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), anhinga (Anhinga anhinga), painted buntings (Passerina
ciris), and tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). A number of species of ducks, wading birds,
and other shore birds can be found at various times in the flooded cells and during times of
discharge of dredged material.
Gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), marsh rabbits (Sylvilagus palustris), white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), fox (Vulpes vulpes), nutria (Myocaster
coypus), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), coyotes (Canis latrans), and bobcats (Lynx rufus) are
present on or in the vicinity of Eagle Island.
Reptilian and amphibian species observed or likely present on Eagle Island include the
southern leopard frog (Lithobates sphenocephalus), green tree frog (Hyla cinerea), black rat
snake (Pantherophis obsoletus), eastern cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), copperhead
snake (Agkistrodon contortrix), yellow -bellied slider turtle (Trachemys scripts scripts), snapping
turtle (Chelydra serpentine), and the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis).
Dike Raises to 50 Feet. Construction of the toe berms will permanently impact approximately 3
acres of terrestrial habitat. During construction of the toe berms, temporary adverse impacts will
occur to land-based organisms that cannot move or burrow in the ground; however, most will
likely vacate the area and return when construction is complete. Following completion of
construction, the cells will be periodically filled with dredged material in addition to routine
maintenance (mowing, ditching, minor dike repair, travel -way repair, etc). These types of
impacts are routine on Eagle Island and have been for approximately the past 50 years. The
majority of the terrestrial resources are opportunistic and/or pioneering; therefore, impacts of
the proposed project, which are anticipated to be temporary, minimal, and short-lived, will allow
for new individuals to utilize the habitat following completion of construction or dredged
material disposal events.
231 Page

No Action. The No Action alternative involves continued use of Eagle Island CDF until no
capacity for dredged material remains. Impacts to terrestrial resources will continue as before
(periodic filling, ditching, maintenance activities, etc.) until the site can no longer be used. Until
then, these impacts are ongoing, and the majority of the terrestrial resources in the area have
either adapted or moved north of the cells where there is less disturbance.
5.7 Wetlands.
Eagle Island is fringed by marsh/wetlands suited to brackish water. Phragmites australis
predominates, while cattails (Typha latifolia, T angustifolia, and T domingensis) are
interspersed with Spartina alterniflora and patens, Scirpus spp, Juncus roermerianus and
various other species of reeds, rushes, and sedges. Areas dominated by Phragmites are
considered to be of lower quality (refer to Revised Mitigation Plan in Appendix E) and provide
less habitat for native species; however, they are still useful for flood protection, erosion control
and improving water quality.
Dike Raises to 50 Feet. In 2010 and again in 2015, the USACE conducted preliminary
wetland identification surveys around the Eagle Island CDF and determined that there is
extensive tidal freshwater marsh fringing the Island. The proposed toe berm construction will
fill approximately 35.5 acres of freshwater tidal marsh vegetated almost exclusively with
Phragmites which will be mitigated, so there is a no net loss of wetlands (refer to section 5.16
and Appendix E for details). Temporary impacts may occur to approximately 6.3 acres of
wetlands within a 10 -foot construction corridor (refer to section 5.17), however this area will be
fully restored once construction is complete.
No Action. The No Action alternative would not require impacts outside of the existing dikes,
therefore no impacts to wetlands would occur.
5.8 Floodplains.
A floodplain is an area of land adjacent to a body of water that is inundated during flood
events. The 100 -year flood is a flood event that has a 1 % probability of occurring in any given
year. The 100 -year flood plain is established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and is identified on Federal Insurance Rate Maps. Base flood elevations for flood
zones and velocity zones are also identified by FEMA, as are designated floodways.
Adverse impacts to floodplains occur when an activity removes an area that flood waters could
otherwise occupy, thereby raising the elevation of flood waters and possibly increasing
flooding at another location.
Dike Raises to 50 Feet. The proposed project involves the construction of a toe berm with a
footprint of approximately 80 acres. Approximately 35.5 acres of this impact are located in tidal
freshwater marsh around the base of the Eagle Island CDF. While this impact is unavoidable, it
may adversely impact the floodplain by slightly increasing the chance or severity of flooding at
nearby locations. Looking at a cross-sectional image of the river where it intersects with the
widest portion of the toe berm (on the southwest side of Cell 1 adjacent to the Brunswick River),
would give an approximate idea of volumes of material displacing tidal marsh and the affect it
would have on the river system in the event of a flood. Given the size of the Cape Fear,
Northeast Cape Fear, and Brunswick Rivers, and the acreage of tidal wetlands in the project
area, this impact is negligible.
241 Page

No Action. Under No Action, the Eagle Island dikes would not be expanded beyond 42 foot
elevation; therefore, toe berms would not be required and no changes to the floodplain would
occur.
5.9 Endangered and Threatened Species. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), provides a program for the conservation of threatened and
endangered (T&E) plants and animals and the habitats in which they are found. In accordance
with section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA, the USACE is initiating consultation with the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to ensure that
effects of the proposed project would not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such
species.
Updated lists of endangered and threatened species for the project area were obtained from
NMFS (Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, FL) and the USFWS (Field Office, Raleigh,
NC). These were combined to develop the composite list shown in Table 3, which includes T&E
species that could be present in the area based upon their historical occurrence or potential
geographic range. However, the actual occurrence of a species in the area depends upon the
availability of suitable habitat, the season of the year relative to a species' temperature tolerance,
migratory habits, and other factors.
For the upper Wilmington Harbor portion of the Cape Fear River, the only species that may
occur in the project area are two endangered sturgeon species: shortnose (Acipenser
brevirostrum) and Atlantic (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Whales, manatee, and sea turtles
species are not likely to occur in the project area or be affected by the proposed project.
Furthermore, the Eagle Island CDF does not provide habitat for any of the listed bird species in
the area: piping plovers and red knots prefer oceanfront beaches, red cockaded woodpeckers
are accustomed to long leaf forests, and the wood stork favors cypress trees and mangrove
swamps.
251 Page

Table 3. Endangered and Threatened Species Potentially Impacted by the Eagle Island Improvements Project
(Brunswick and New Hanover Counties)
Species Common Names
MAMMALS
Blue whale
Finback whale
Humpback whale
Right whale
Sei whale
Sperm whale
W Indian manatee
Scientific Name
(Balaenoptera musculus)
(Balaenoptera physalus)
(Megaptera novaeangliae)
(Eubaleana glacialis)
(Balaenoptera borealis)
(Physeter macrocephalus)
(Trichechus manatus)
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus)
Red cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Red knot (Calidris canutus rufa)
Wood stork (Mycteria Americana)
REPTILES
Green sea turtle
Hawksbill sea turtle
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
Leatherback sea turtle
Loggerhead sea turtle
FISHES
Atlantic sturgeon
Shortnose sturgeon
(Chelonia mydas)
(Eretmochelys imbricate)
(Lepidochelys kempii)
(Dermochelys coriacea)
(Caretta caretta)
(Acipenser oxyrinchus
oxyrinchus)
(Acipenser brevirostrum)
Federal Status
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened'
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
'Green turtles are listed as threatened, except for breeding populations in Florida and on the Pacific Coast of Mexico, which are
listed as endangered.
5.9.1 Status, Distribution, and Habitat
Shortnose Sturgeon
The shortnose sturgeon 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. Although the
shortnose sturgeon is anadromous, they 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. Spawning in southern
rivers begins in later winter or early spring and lasts from a few days to several weeks.
Juveniles occupy the freshwater -saltwater interface, moving back and forth with the low salinity
portion of the salt wedge during summer. Juveniles typically move upstream during the spring
and summer and 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
261 Page

randomly vacuum the bottom and consume mostly insect larvae and small crustaceans.
Adults are more selective feeders, feeding primarily on small mollusks (NMFS 1998).
Atlantic Sturgeon
The Atlantic sturgeon was listed as endangered under the ESA on February 6, 2012 (77 FR
5914, 77 FR 5880). The spawning population in the Cape Fear River system is thought to
number less than 300 adults [Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT) 2007]. Atlantic
sturgeon spawn in freshwater but spend most of their adult life in the marine environment.
Spawning adults generally migrate upriver in the spring/early summer (Smith and Clugston
1997). 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).
Sub -adult and adult Atlantic sturgeons emigrate from rivers into coastal waters where they may
undertake long range migrations. Migratory sub -adult and adult sturgeon are typically found in
shallow (10 to 50 m) nearshore waters with gravel and sand substrates (Collins and Smith
1997, Stein et al. 2004). Although extensive mixing occurs in coastal waters, Atlantic
sturgeons return to their natal river to spawn (ASSRT 2007).
5.9.2 Occurrence in the Action Area
Shortnose Sturgeon
The shortnose sturgeon was thought to be extirpated from NC waters until an individual was
captured in the Brunswick River in 1987 (Ross et al. 1988). Subsequent gill -net studies (1989-
1993) resulted in the capture of five shortnose sturgeon, thus confirming the presence of a
small population in the lower Cape Fear River (Moser and Ross 1995). The current
distribution of the shortnose sturgeon in NC is thought to include only the Cape Fear and Pee
Dee Rivers, and no reproducing populations have been documented in the state [Shortnose
Sturgeon Status Review Team (SSSRT) 2010].
Atlantic Sturgeon
The Atlantic sturgeon occurs in the Cape Fear River system adjacent to the action area.
Based on incidental capture data from tagging cruises, shallow nearshore ocean waters along
the NC coast may represent a winter (January -February) aggregation site for Atlantic sturgeon
(Laney et al. 2007). Incidental captures typically occurred over sand substrate in nearshore
waters that were less than 59 feet deep.
5.9.3 Threats
Potential effects include direct impacts on benthic habitats and food resources, hydrological
modifications, turbidity and siltation, and hopper dredge entrainment.
5.9.4 Project Effects
Toe berm construction would not have a direct impact, but could potentially impact Atlantic and
shortnose sturgeons indirectly through sediment suspension and soft bottom habitat
modification. The shortnose sturgeon is typically found in the upper portions of rivers above
the freshwater -saltwater interface; based on its low probability of occurrence in the action area,
impacts on shortnose sturgeon would not be expected under the proposed action.
271 Page

Two incidental takes of Atlantic sturgeon occurred at Wilmington Harbor: including one in the
upper Cape Fear River near the State Port in 1998, and one in the lower river near Horseshoe
Shoals in 2010, both by hopper dredge entrainment. The potential for impacts related to
discharge of material in lowland marsh would be minimal. Based on this, it is anticipated that
the risks to Atlantic sturgeon during toe berm construction would be very low.
5.9.5 Determination of Effect
Dike Raises to 50 Feet. Based on its low probability of occurrence in the action area, it is
determined that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the
shortnose sturgeon.
Although there is no critical habitat designated for the Atlantic sturgeon, it has been
documented to occur in the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers, indicating that it is
present within the action area. Considering the impacts associated with the proposed project
involve a discharge of fill material into tidal, brackish marsh, it is determined that the proposed
action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Atlantic sturgeon.
The proposed toe berm construction would not affect any other federally listed species.
No Action. The No Action alternative would result in no adverse impacts to threatened or
endangered species.
5.10 Cultural Resources.
The Cape Fear River has a long and active history as one of the earliest and most significant
waterways in North Carolina. Spanish explorers sighted the river in the early 16th century and
European settlement began in 1664 with the establishment of Charles Town near the mouth of
Town Creek. By 1733, the town of New Carthage, later renamed Wilmington, had been laid out,
and became the main cultural and maritime center. During the years leading up to the
Revolution, numerous confrontations took place between the American patriots and British
loyalists and troops, and Wilmington itself became occupied by the British in October of 1781.
During the 19th century, up to 40 ships per month were visiting Wilmington's harbor, and by the
mid -19th century there were over 140 named landings located along the 115 miles of river
between Wilmington and Fayetteville. The importance of Wilmington to the Confederacy is
reflected in the fortifications used to protect the city and her approaches. Fort Fisher, Fort
Holmes, Zekes Island Battery, Camp Wyatt, Fort Hendrick, Fort Campbell, Fort Johnston, Fort
Caswell, Battery Buchanan, Fort Anderson, Shaw Battery, Mound Battery, and Battery Lamb
were located on the Cape Fear River at and below Wilmington, or faced the ocean and river in
Brunswick County, and all were important elements in the coastal defenses. The defenses at
Wilmington were not defeated until late in the war when Fort Fisher finally fell in 1865;
Wilmington was occupied by Union troops soon afterward.
After the Civil War, Wilmington's major water courses began to reflect the transition from
plantation and agrarian economies to the commercial agriculture and industrial enterprises that
would dominate throughout the 20th century. By 1905, channel improvements made the
Northeast Cape Fear River navigable for pole boats all the way to Kornegays Bridge, 103 miles
above the river's mouth, and ship building, fertilizer and brick factories, shipping terminals, and
281 Page

other capital intensive industries began to replace commercial fishing, hunting, forestry, and
agriculture as the economically dominant businesses.
In the early days of World War II, the North Carolina Shipbuilding Company began building
Liberty ships in shipyards along the east bank of the Cape Fear River just south of Eagle Island.
By 1946 the company built 243 ships in all. By 1949, when the war was over, the returned ships
were stationed in the Brunswick River. A total of 648 ships were, at varying times, moored in the
reserve fleet, known as the "Mothball Fleet". Over the years many were scrapped, sold to private
concerns, sunk for artificial reefs, or recommissioned. The last ship to be removed from the
"graveyard" was the Liberty Ship "USS Dwight W. Morrow", which was scrapped in February
1970 (Memorieshop, 2013).
Archaeologically, the importance of the area as a maritime center is shown by the large number
of shipwrecks and abandoned shipyards. Thirty-seven historic shipwrecks are listed on the 1985
National Register of Historic Places Registration addendum for the Wilmington Historic District
prepared by the North Carolina Division of Archives and History (NCDAH). In addition, over 130
shipwrecks are known from the lower Cape Fear to the Northeast Cape Fear River vicinity, as
well as historic remains of numerous shipyards, Liberty Ships, marine railways, and dry docks.
Dike Raises to 50 Feet. No known adverse impacts to cultural or archaeological resources
would occur as a result of the toe berm construction. No previously identified shipwrecks or
other culturally significant remains are within the proposed project footprint. It is always possible
during the course of a project that vessel remains or other cultural resources could be
encountered. All USACE construction contracts would require that contractors and others
involved in the project be aware that the possibility exists that work may encounter cultural
materials. In the event that this occurs, work would be required to move to another area and the
USACE and the NCDCR Underwater Archaeology Unit (telephone number 910-458-9042) would
be contacted immediately to determine a course of action.
No Action. The No Action alternative would result in no change to the existing footprint of the
project and; therefore, result in no adverse impacts to cultural or archaeological resources.
5.11 Aesthetic and Recreational Resources.
While the Cape Fear River is, overall, a scenic setting, the Eagle Island CDF is a man-made
feature whose purpose is to receive dredged material. A substantial portion of the Eagle Island
CDF is located across the River from the NC State Ports facility, so commercial shipping,
channel maintenance, marine construction, and other activities, not commonly associated with
what many consider to be aesthetically pleasing vistas, frequently occur.
The Eagle Island CDF is considered an active construction site, so for safety and security
reasons, unauthorized persons are not allowed on the premises. Therefore, recreational
activities, aside from bird watching from afar, are not permitted.
Dike Raises to 50 Feet. Construction of the preferred alternative would result in an increase of
construction -related equipment and impacts. However, such activity is not uncommon to the
area. Raising the dikes to 50 feet would block the viewshed of approximately 15 homeowners
on the Brunswick River looking east, since they would no longer be able to see beyond Eagle
291 Page

Island to the NC State Ports facility, marine terminals, and other industrial sites. However, most
of this view beyond Eagle Island is already blocked by the existing dikes.
No Action. The No Action alternative would result in no additional adverse impacts to aesthetics
or recreation than already exist.
5.12 Socio -Economic Resources.
Demographic Profiles
New Hanover and Brunswick Counties are located at the Southeastern portion of the
state of North Carolina. The counties include 192 and 847 square miles, respectively, in
land and water area. Table 4 provides population data for the United States, North
Carolina, New Hanover and Brunswick Counties over the last 20 years for which data is
available.
Table 4. New Hanover and Brunswick Counties Statistical Area - Total Population Data
Area
% Change'90 -'12
2012
2000
1990
United States
25.76%
313,914,040
282,162,400
249,622,800
North Carolina
46.34%
9,752,073
8,081,600
6,664,000
New Hanover
72.72%
209,234
160,842
121,140
Brunswick County
118.95%
112,257
73,756
51,271
*population estimates provided by U.S. Census
An estimated 321,000 residents lived in New Hanover and Brunswick Counties in 2012.
This represents a population increase of 35 percent since 2000 and an increase of 86
percent since 1990.
The residents of New Hanover and Brunswick Counties contain a mix of races and
ethnicities. Based on 2012 census figures, 79.1 percent of New Hanover County
residents were white, 15.0 percent were black, 5.3 percent were Hispanic, 1.2 percent
Asian, and 0.6 percent identified as Native American. The census of Brunswick
County estimates that 85.4 percent of its residents were white, 11.6 percent were
black, 5.1 percent were Hispanic, 0.6 percent were Asian, and 0.8 percent identified as
Native American.
In the state of North Carolina, 72.1 percent of the population was white, 22.0
percent of the population was black, 8.6 percent Hispanic, 2.3 percent were Asian, and
1.5 percent were Native American. Table 6 displays racial demographics for the Nation,
State, New Hanover and Brunswick Counties.
301 Page

Table 5. Population by Race
*population estimates provided by U.S. Census
Approximately 48 percent of the population for New Hanover County was sixteen years
and over, with 53.2 percent of the population in the labor force. The unemployment rate
for the County was 10.4 percent. A total of 37.2 percent of Brunswick County's
population was sixteen or over, with 45.5 percent of the population in the labor
force, and unemployment rate of 11.0 percent. The unemployment rates for North
Carolina and the United states were 10.6 and 9.3 percent, respectively.
311 Page
New
Brunswick
North
United
Hanover
County
Carolina
States
County
Population, 2012
206,189
112,257
9,752,073
313,914,040
White persons,
79.1%
85.4%
72.10%
78.1%
percent
Black persons,
14.8%
11.6%
22.0%
13.1%
percent
Hispanic
5.3%
5.1%
8.6%
16.7%
Asian persons,
1.2%
0.6%
2.3%
5.0%
percent
Native (American
Indian, Alaska Native,
Hawaiian, etc)
0.6%
0.8%
1.5%
1.2%
Two or More Races
2.0%
1.5%
1.9%
2.3%
*population estimates provided by U.S. Census
Approximately 48 percent of the population for New Hanover County was sixteen years
and over, with 53.2 percent of the population in the labor force. The unemployment rate
for the County was 10.4 percent. A total of 37.2 percent of Brunswick County's
population was sixteen or over, with 45.5 percent of the population in the labor
force, and unemployment rate of 11.0 percent. The unemployment rates for North
Carolina and the United states were 10.6 and 9.3 percent, respectively.
311 Page

Table 6. Civilian Labor Force by Occupation
In 2010, the median household income of Brunswick County was $45,806. This is higher
than the State's average of $43,326, but lower than the national average of $50,046. The
mean household income was $57,088. The median household income of New Hanover
County was $46,130 and the mean household income was $63,093. Table 7 shows the
number of households in the New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina, and
the United States by the percentage of their respective incomes.
321 Page
New
Hanover
Brunswick
North
United
County
County
Carolina
States
Civilian employed population 16
98,896
41,791
4,128,576
139,033,928
years and over
OCCUPATION
Agriculture Forestry, Fishing,
0.18%
0.66%
1.37%
1.90%
Hunting, Mining
Construction
6.89%
12.89%
6.85%
6.25%
Manufacturing
6.28%
6.94%
12.41%
10.39%
Wholesale Trade
3.10%
1.78%
3.03%
2.83%
Retail Trade
12.54%
16.60%
11.99%
11.65%
Transportation, Warehousing,
3.80%
5.02%
4.25%
4.92%
Utilities
Information
3.15%
1.78%
1.69%
2.17%
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate,
5.43%
7.44%
6.35%
6.67%
Rental, Leasing
Professional, Scientific,
Management, Administrative,
10.84%
9.03%
9.51%
10.58%
Waste Management Services
Educational Services, Healthcare,
25.15%
18.25%
23.41%
23.24%
Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation,
13.54%
10.94%
9.25%
9.25%
Accommodation, Food Services
Public Administration
3.28%
4.41%
4.86%
5.17%
Other Services, Except Public
5.83%
4.26%
5.04%
4.97%
Administration
In 2010, the median household income of Brunswick County was $45,806. This is higher
than the State's average of $43,326, but lower than the national average of $50,046. The
mean household income was $57,088. The median household income of New Hanover
County was $46,130 and the mean household income was $63,093. Table 7 shows the
number of households in the New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina, and
the United States by the percentage of their respective incomes.
321 Page

Table 7. Number of households and the percentage of their respective incomes
Total Households
New Hanover
Brunswick
North Carolina
United
States
County
County
Less than
$10,000
10.47%
7.64%
8.97%
7.64%
$10,000 to
$14,999
9.98%
17.45%
13.01%
11.46%
$15,000 to
$24,999
12.07%
10.86%
12.47%
11.17%
$25,000 to
$34,999
10.85%
8.82%
11.59%
10.41%
$35,000 to
$49,999
9.90%
11.76%
10.20%
9.27%
$50,000 to
$74,999
17.91%
19.15%
18.39%
18.28%
$75,000 to
$99,999
11.35%
11.36%
10.79%
11.81%
$100,000 to
$149,999
11.15%
8.62%
9.05%
11.82%
$150,000 to
$199,999
3.12%
2.04%
2.88%
4.20%
$200,000 or more
3.21%
2.30%
2.66%
3.94%
Source: http://www.usa.com/brunswick-county-nc.htm
http://www.usa.com/new-hanover-county-nc.htm
Economic Characteristics of Wilmington Harbor
Navigation
A thorough analysis of the existing fleet data for vessels calling at Wilmington Harbor in 2009
revealed six typical vessel types: (1) Containerships, (2) Bulk Carriers, (3) General Cargo
Vessels, (4) Petroleum Tankers (5) Chemical Tankers, and (6) Ro-Ro Vessels (includes
Vehicle Carriers).
Containerships made up nearly 35% of the deep -draft vessels calls at Wilmington Harbor in
2009. The largest vessels that call at Wilmington Harbor at the present time are
containerships of 62,000 to 65,000 deadweight tons (DWT). They are between 950 and 965
feet long, 106 feet in beam, and have design drafts of between 42 and 44 feet. Their actual
sailing drafts were 38 feet or less when calling at Wilmington Harbor in 2009. Containerships
maintain an under keel clearance of at least 10 percent of sailing draft in the channel at all
times. They can carry between 4,400 and 4,800 Twenty Foot Equivalent Units (TEUs);
however, they generally transfer less than 1,500 TEUs at the port, which are split between
imports and exports. These larger ships typically travel between the Far East and East Coast
of the US. Since this time, Post-Panamax vessels (those larger than the original Panama
Canal locks can accommodate) have called in Wilmington, with the first arriving in July of
2016. At this time, current published Waterborne Commerce statistics do not reflect this, but
331 Page

should be modified in the next data update
Additional Container subclasses that call in Wilmington include smaller vessels in the 50,000
DWT class. These are generally about 850 feet long, have design drafts of about 41-42 feet,
and can carry up to about 4,000 TEU's. An even smaller sub -class of container vessel
typically service Europe and Central/South America. These vessels are generally between
20,000 DWT and 22,000 DWT. They are typically 525 to 550 feet in length, with beams
ranging from 82 to 93 feet, and design drafts between 32 and 35 feet. They can carry up to
approximately 1,300 TEUs.
The largest Bulk Carriers were rated at about 55,000 DWT with a length of 656 feet, a beam of
106 feet, and a design draft of 38 feet. The largest General Cargo vessels were rated at about
47,000 DWT with a length of 656, a beam of 102 feet and a design draft of 40.4 feet.
The largest non -container vessels that call at the port are Oil Tankers. These vessels are
range in size from 70,000 DWT to 76,000 DWT, a length of 700 to 750 feet, with beams of 106
to 131 feet, and design drafts ranging from 40 to 46 feet. The actual sailing drafts of these
vessels in Wilmington Harbor were 38 feet or less in 2009.
Hinterland
The Port of Wilmington's hinterland is primarily within the state of North Carolina. It includes
Raleigh, Durham, Greensboro, Fayetteville, and the Wilmington area. The port is
connected to the Raleigh-Durham area by Interstate 40 (I-40) and to Greensboro by I-74.
The primary Port facilities are approximately 75 miles from I-95 and 200 miles from I-85,
which are the primary north/south transportation corridors through North Carolina. These
highways connect the Port of Wilmington to Charlotte, Greensboro, and Raleigh/Durham.
Improvements to I-74 have added vehicle capacity between the port and I-85, which
connects to Charlotte, North Carolina.
Landside transportation to and from the Port of Wilmington is primarily by truck. Trucks must
pass through residential areas to reach the interstates. They must traverse Burnett
Boulevard (two-lane road) to reach I-74, or Shipyard Boulevard and College Road (four lane
bi-directional roads) with a series of stop lights to reach I-40. CSX provides daily rail
service to the port through one line connecting to the main line at Hamlet. The rail route
is through the City of Wilmington and crosses many of the city's major roads. Most
crossings within the city are "at -grade."
Port Facilities
Wilmington Harbor has a variety of marine facilities located on both the left and right banks
of the Cape Fear River between river miles 26 and 31. The marine facilities listed
below, beginning with the terminal located furthest upstream, include: Kinder Morgan,
Colonial Oil, Amerada Hess, , North Carolina State Port Authority berths one through nine,
Apex Oil, the Invista Terminal, Carolina Marine Terminal, South Wilmington Terminal,
National Gypsum Terminal, and the Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point, also known
as MOTSU, and Archers Daniels Midland.
Economic Impact of Proposed Action
Eagle Island is the least cost disposal option for dredged material from the upper reaches of the
341 Page

Wilmington Harbor project. It is important that the NC State Ports have feasible disposal options
in order to keep costs of maintaining the harbor down, which helps keep the costs of goods in
the Wilmington area affordable to the public. The Anchorage Basin reach of the project requires
maintenance every year, and costs roughly $4.5 million per dredge cycle (with disposal in Eagle
Island). The National ranking of State Ports determines the priority of funding from the Federal
Government. An increase in costs of dredging (transporting material to the ODMDS in lieu of
Eagle Island) would likely impact the Port of Wilmington's relative ranking, thus having the
potential to impact annual funding.
Dike Raises to 50 Feet. Increasing the dredged material capacity of Cells 1, 2 and 3 will
provide a feasible disposal site for Wilmington Harbor maintenance dredging for the next 16
years. It is important to continue using Eagle Island as a disposal facility as long as possible, as
its access and proximity make it the least cost option.
No Action. Without raising dike elevations beyond 42 feet, once Cells 1, 2 and 3 reach
capacity, there will be no other feasible alternative than to dispose of dredged material in the
ODMDS. The costs associated with transporting material approximately 70 miles round trip
would inevitably increase the costs to maintain the upper reach of the Wilmington Harbor. If
USACE contracts for maintenance become too costly to be awarded, dredging will happen less
frequently which would affect the draft of ships that can access the Port. Ultimately, this could
raise the cost of goods and have a widespread effect on the regional economy.
5.13 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Envirofacts website was queried to
identify the presence of EPA -regulated facilities within three miles of the proposed project area.
The Envirofacts website contains information collected from regulatory programs and other
data relating to environmental activities with the potential to affect air, water, and land
resources in surrounding areas. One site was reported within a three mile radius, and was
identified as the WWTP immediately adjacent to the proposed project area (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 2015).
Multiple on-site inspections of the project area and surroundings have been performed by
USACE, Wilmington District staff. Based on the site visit on March 18, 2015 and an
investigation of historic aerial photographs, no evidence of improperly -managed hazardous
and/or toxic materials or indicators of those materials were present in the proposed project
area. USACE construction specifications require contractors to provide a solid waste disposal
plan identifying methods and locations for solid waste disposal, clean and remove all
contaminants, and provide evidence of the disposal facility's acceptance of the solid waste.
Dike Raises to 50 Feet. Construction of the toe berm and dike raise would not impact nor
produce hazardous and toxic materials in the project area.
No Action. The No Action alternative would not directly result in any impacts to or produce any
hazardous and toxic materials.
5.14 Noise.
In the proposed project area vicinity, noise levels are typically dependent on activity occurring
at the State Ports or on Eagle Island itself. The cells are in a constant state of maintenance, as
they are ditched and drained on a rotating basis and material is used to raise the dikes. Large
351 Page

excavators, backhoes, dump trucks, utility trucks, and pumps are commonly found working on
Eagle Island. Noise levels are elevated during construction activities, as expected within
commercial/industrial areas.
According to Section 6-28 of the City of Wilmington Noise Ordinance Code: a sound or noise
shall be deemed a noise disturbance if, when measured as prescribed herein, it exceeds the
levels set forth below:
Commercial/industrial area: 75 decibels (daytime level) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m., or 70 decibels (nighttime level) between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. On
Friday and Saturday, the daytime level shall remain in effect until 12:00 midnight.
Similarly, in accordance with Section 23-33 of the New Hanover County code of ordinances, it
would be unlawful for sounds to exceed 75 decibels during the day and 70 decibels at night in
non -residentially zoned districts.
Dike Raises to 50 Feet. Construction activity associated with the recommended plan is
expected to comply with Section 6-28 and Section 22-33, NC code of ordinances.
No Action. The No Action alternative would comply with all published noise ordinances as
well.
5.15 Environmental Impact Comparison of Alternatives.
The table below provides a brief summary and comparison of impacts to the physical and
natural environment for the alternatives considered.
361 Page

Table B. Comparison of Impacts to Resources
371 Page
Alternatives
Resource
Proposed Action
No Action
(Dike Raises to 50 Ft)
Geology and
Disposal practices will continue as normal and dredged
No Impacts/status quo.
Sediments
material composition is not expected to change. No
significant adverse impacts.
Water
Impacts would be temporary due to minor increases in
No Impacts/status quo.
Resources
turbidity during construction; no significant adverse
impacts expected.
Air Quality
Temporary impacts during construction due to
Potential increase in fuel consumption
increases in emissions from heavy equipment. No
emissions due to round trip travel to/from
significant adverse impacts expected.
the ODMDS. No adverse impacts
expected.
Aquatic Resources
No significant adverse impacts expected as life forms
No impacts/status quo.
are anticipated to move and avoid areas during
construction (though some mortality is inevitable).
Construction in areas below the 2ft elevation contour
will take place outside the window of April 1 to July 31
to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic resources.
Essential Fish
Permanent impacts to estuarine emergent wetlands
No impacts/status quo.
Habitat
EFH due to filling of 2.85 acres below the MHW line.
Mitigation consists of 35.5 acres of riverine/tidal
freshwater marsh, and construction will occur outside
the April 1 — July 31 environmental window, therefore,
only temporary impacts are expected.
Terrestrial Resources
Temporary adverse impacts will occur to organisms
No impacts/status quo.
during construction however most will vacate the area.
Potential benefits to terrestrial resources in the long-
term.
Wetlands
Permanent impacts to 35.5 acres of tidal marsh.
No impacts/status quo.
Mitigation consists of purchasing 35.5 credits of
riverine/tidal freshwater marsh habitat resulting in a no
net loss of wetlands.
Floodplains
Placement of 35.5 acres of fill within tidal wetlands of
No impacts/status quo.
CFR floodplain. No significant adverse impacts to
floodplains expected.
E&T Species in
Potential indirect impacts through sediment suspension
No impacts to Atlantic or shortnose
Project Area
and soft bottom habitat modification. No significant
sturgeon expected.
adverse impacts to Atlantic or shortnose sturgeon
expected.
Cultural Resources
No known cultural resources present; no adverse
No impacts/status quo.
impacts expected.
Aesthetic and
Temporary impacts expected during construction,
No impacts/status quo.
Recreational
however no adverse impacts expected.
Resources
Socio-economic
Status quo (maintain access of ships to Wilmington
Potential negative impacts to local
Resources
Harbor Port). Positive impacts to the local economy.
economy.
Hazardous Waste
No known hazardous wastes in affected area; No
No impacts.
adverse impacts expected.
Noise
Minor increases in noise during construction. Impacts
No impacts/status quo.
temporary and not adverse.
371 Page

5.16 Mitigation.
Based on detailed vegetation analysis that was completed in 2015, the Eagle Island dike
improvements will result in permanent impacts to 35.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. The
vegetation mapping effort conducted in 2015 categorized the areas within the toe berm
impacts into five classes: "Native", "Majority Phrag", "Mix - Native/Phrag", "Tree/Shrub", and
"Water" (Appendix E, Figure 1). As demonstrated in this figure, the majority of impacts are to
Phragmites-dominated wetlands (34.79 ac). Areas identified in green as tree/shrub were
ground-truthed and determined to be uplands. Native, mixed, and open water impacts were
combined to equal 0.66 acre, and together, jurisdictional impacts total 35.5 acres.
The Corps plans to mitigate for the 35.5 acres of toe berm impacts by purchasing credits from
the Lower Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Sneeden Tract. The Sneeden Tract is in the
project's HUC, located directly adjacent to the Cape Fear River, 5 miles upstream of Eagle
Island (Appendix E, Figure 4). This site has tidal freshwater marsh incorporated into its credits;
as such, it is considered in-kind to the toe berm wetland impacts on Eagle Island. For this
reason and reasons further discussed in the Revised Mitigation Plan (Appendix E), impacts will
be mitigated for at a ratio of 1:1 (purchase of 35.5 mitigation credits) and would result in a no
net loss of wetlands.
5.17 Temporary Impacts
Construction of the proposed toe berms is anticipated to have 6.3 acres of temporary impacts
to aquatic resources in addition to the 35.5 acres of impacts being mitigated for. As mentioned,
a majority of the permanent impacts are to wetlands overgrown with Phragmites, and
temporary impacts related to construction will occur within a 10ft corridor of the footprint of the
toe berm (see Figure 8). It is within this 10ft construction buffer that disturbance is likely to
occur: cutting back of Phragmites, silt fence installation, placement of coir logs/hay bales, and
use of logging mats if heavy equipment will be working within wetlands. Affected areas will be
brought back to original grade and restored. Toe berms will be layered with erosion control
matting and seeded for stability. Once the toe berms are stable, the silt fencing will be
removed.
To address construction impacts within the 2.85 acres of vegetated and open water areas
located below MHW, coffer dams may be erected to isolate the area from tidal influence during
toe berm construction. Rock (rip -rap) may be used within the toe berm footprint to minimize
turbidity and provide long-term stabilization of the toe berm. Turbidity curtains may also be
erected to prevent turbidity within the receiving waters and kept in place until construction
areas are stabilized. As mentioned in Section 5.4.4, an environmental window of April 1 — July
31 will apply to these areas to avoid threat or harm to anadromous fish; this includes federally
listed sturgeon. The contractor may also wish to work only during low/out-going tide to
minimize impacts to water quality during construction.
381 Page

Figure 8. Eagle Island Toe Berm Impacts and 10 foot Construction Corridor.
39 1 Page

Some or all of these proactive measures will be taken and any materials/structures
used/installed will be removed upon stabilization of the toe berm. Temporary impacts during
construction will not permanently alter wetland functions and; therefore, will not be mitigated
for.
5.18 Cumulative Impacts.
The Federal Executive Branch's Council on Environmental Quality defines cumulative impact
as "the impact on the environment [that] results from the incremental impact of an action when
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what
agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 1508.7,
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended).
Cumulative impacts of implementing the no action alternative, over time, would have the
potential to cause significant adverse impacts to the local economy. Additionally, not
increasing the capacity of Eagle Island CDF would possibly increase levels of water and air
pollution due to the increased barge traffic that will result from transporting dredged material
from the Upper Harbor reaches to the ODMDS.
Eagle Island, originally composed of natural uplands, coastal marsh, and tidal creeks, was
used as a disposal area even before the USACE began disposing of dredged material from the
river in the early 1900s. On average, approximately 1.2 million cubic yards (CYs) of material
are dredged from the Anchorage Basin portion of the river and deposited in Eagle Island CDF
annually. The deepening of the river in 2002-2003 resulted in an additional 1.75 million CYs,
and again in 2012-2013 with approximately 800,000 CYs being placed in Cell 2.
The NC State Ports Authority (NCSPA) also utilizes Eagle Island CDF for the material dredged
from their berths (1-9) and the non -federally maintained portion of the 42' turning basin. These
areas are critical to ships turning and docking at the ports and require maintenance annually.
The new Post-Panamax ships, which outsize the existing cargo vessels that frequent the
Wilmington Harbor, will be calling on the port more frequently. In response to the widening of
the Panama Canal, the Port of Wilmington requested and received permits to widen the turning
basin at the former Vopak terminal just north of the Ports. Dredging an additional width of 200
feet to a depth of -42 +2 feet occurred during June 2016, and material was disposed of in Cell
1 of Eagle Island. The NCSPA was required to provide compensatory mitigation for this action
since the dredging occurred within Primary Nursery Area. Mitigation included the preservation
of 13.4 acres of coastal marsh property owned by NCSPA on the Brunswick River, located
directly across from the cross -dike between Cells 2 and 3.
A good percentage of the banks of the Cape Fear and Brunswick Rivers are undeveloped and
contain low-lying coastal marsh and wetlands. This pervious natural floodplain is essential for
allowing flood waters to flow over and slowly drain as sea levels recede after a storm. The
filling and heightening of the toe berms and dikes on Eagle Island CDF will take away
approximately 35.5 acres from this natural floodplain, but that is nominal in comparison to what
remains.
It is reasonably foreseeable that dredging of the past projects and ongoing maintenance of the
Federal project would be expected to continue. The use of the area for commercial and
recreational navigation is expected to continue and increase as the mariner population in the
area continues to grow. New marinas currently under construction include the 200 -slip Port
401 Page

City Marina on the upper Wilmington Harbor portion of the Cape Fear River, and the 64 -slip
Hawkeswater Marina on the Brunswick River.
The preferred alternative, in conjunction with any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable
future projects, is not expected to result in any significant adverse cumulative impacts to the
environment. Future dredging actions in the project area and the above-mentioned reasonably
foreseeable future projects would be subject to regulatory requirements and federal actions
would be evaluated in accordance with NEPA. The proposed action is expected to have
minimal impact on overall functionality and quality of coastal riparian vegetation and available
wildlife habitat in the proposed project area.
The components of the proposed action are expected to cause only very minor effects. The
proposed action will:
• not significantly impact water quality,
• not significantly impact marine or estuarine life,
• not significantly impact cultural resources, and
• not cause significant adverse impacts for any other aspects of the environment.
Cumulative impacts of the proposed action appear negligible. Furthermore, increased capacity
of the Eagle Island CDF will have a long term positive impact on the local economy.
5.19 Public Laws and Executive Orders.
Table 9 lists the compliance status of all executive orders considered for the proposed Eagle
Island CDF improvement project. Further descriptions of proposed project compliance with
executive orders are below.
Table 9. Compliance of the proposed action with executive orders.
Executive Orders
Number
Compliance
Status
Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality
11514
Full*
Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment
11593
Full"
Floodplain Management
11988
Full"
Protection of Wetlands
11990
Full*
Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards
12088
Full"
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income
Populations
12898
Full*
Protection Of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
13045
Full"
Invasive Species
13112
Full*
Protection of Migratory Birds
13186
Full"
"- Compliance Status shall be considered 'Full Compliance' following completion of the NEPA process.
5.19.1 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality
The Federal Government shall provide leadership in protecting and enhancing the quality of
the Nation's environment to sustain and enrich human life. Federal agencies shall initiate
measures needed to direct their policies, plans, and programs to meet national environmental
goals.
411 Page

The preferred alternative will not violate any provisions relating to the protection and
enhancement of environmental quality, and will be in full compliance with Executive Order
11514 following completion of the NEPA process.
5.19.2 Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment
The Federal Government shall provide leadership in preserving, restoring, and maintaining the
historic and cultural environment of the Nation. Federal agencies will administer the cultural
properties under their control in a spirit of stewardship and trusteeship for future generations.
Federal agencies will initiate measures necessary to direct their policies, plans, and programs
in such a way that federally owned sites, structures, and objects of historical, architectural or
archaeological significance are preserved, restored, and maintained for the inspiration and
benefit of the people. In consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (16
U.S.C. 4701), federal agencies will institute procedures to assure that federal plans and
programs contribute to the preservation and enhancement of non -federally owned sites,
structures, and objects of historical, architectural or archaeological significance.
The preferred alternative will not adversely affect cultural resources and will be in full
compliance with Executive Order 11593 following completion of the NEPA process.
5.19.3 Floodplain Management
In order to avoid, to the extent possible, the long and short term adverse impacts associated
with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of
floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative, federal agencies shall take
action to reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods on human safety,
health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by
floodplains. Since the project includes fill within the designated floodplain, the EO 11988 8 -step
process was used to evaluate compliance. The project has undergone public review,
alternatives to floodplain development were considered, and impacts have been minimized
and will be mitigated for accordingly.
It has been determined that the preferred alternative would not adversely affect floodplains or
alter their function, and will be in full compliance with Executive Order 11988 following
completion of the NEPA process.
5.19.4 Protection of Wetlands
In order to avoid, to the extent possible, the long and short term adverse impacts associated
with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new
construction in wetlands, wherever there is a practicable alternative, federal agencies will take
action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and
enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency's
responsibilities.
The preferred alternative will result in the discharge of fill that will cover 35.5 acres of
Phragmites-dominated tidal freshwater marsh. This loss will be mitigated through purchase of
35.5 credits of riparian/tidal freshwater wetlands, and will be in full compliance with Executive
Order 11990 following completion of the NEPA process.
421 Page

5.19.5 Pollution Control Standards
Federal agencies are responsible for ensuring that all necessary actions are taken for the
prevention, control, and abatement of environmental pollution with respect to federal facilities
and activities under the control of the agency.
The preferred alternative will not violate applicable pollution control standards and will be in full
compliance with Executive Order 12088 following completion of the NEPA process.
5.19.6 Environmental Justice in Minority and Low -Income Populations
Environmental justice is defined as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people,
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA further
defines fair treatment to mean that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of
the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, or commercial
operations or policies.
The preferred alternative will not have the potential for disproportionate health or
environmental effects on minorities or low-income populations or communities, and will be in
full compliance with Executive Order 12898 following completion of the NEPA process.
5.19.7 Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
Federal agencies identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may
disproportionately affect children as a result of the implementation of federal policies,
programs, activities, and standards.
The preferred alternative will not have the potential to disproportionately affect the safety or
health of children, and will be in full compliance with Executive Order 13045 following
completion of the NEPA process.
5.19.8 Invasive Species
Introduction of invasive species has the potential to affect the economic, ecological, and
human health of areas in which these species become established. The federal government,
by presidential authority and the authority of other pertinent statutes, is charged with controlling
and preventing introduction of harmful invasive species.
Planting of any potted or stem vegetation will not be a component of this project. For
stabilization purposes, the toe berms will be seeded with native grasses to prevent
sedimentation into the nearby waters. Seed species type will depend on the time of year to be
applied, and seed mixture will not include noxious or invasive species. Therefore, the preferred
alternative will not have the potential to introduce or otherwise promote invasive species, and
will be in full compliance with Executive Order 13112 following completion of the NEPA
process.
5.19.9 Protection of Migratory Birds
The Executive Order directs federal agencies that take actions that either directly or indirectly
effect on migratory birds to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and to work with
431 Page

the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and other federal agencies to promote the conservation of
migratory bird populations.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is a United States federal law, first enacted in 1916 to implement
the convention for the protection of migratory birds. The statute makes it illegal for anyone to
take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or
barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of
a valid permit issued pursuant to federal regulations. The statute does not discriminate
between live or dead birds and also grants full protection to any bird parts including feathers,
eggs, and nests.
Construction of the dike raise and toe berm will not result in any significant adverse impacts to
migratory bird species or their habitat. There may be some temporary displacement during
construction; however, there is no anticipated taking of birds. The preferred alternative will not
violate applicable migratory bird species, and will be in full compliance with Executive Order
13186 following completion of the NEPA process.
5.20 Conclusion.
Based on findings described in this report, it is in the Federal interest to implement the
preferred alternative of raising the existing dikes to an elevation of 50 feet NAVD 88 and
constructing supportive, perimeter toe berms. The proposed action will meet the purpose and
need by providing long-term dredge material disposal for the Upper Harbor reaches of
Wilmington Harbor, and the dredged material disposal meets the Federal standard.
Table 8 details significant environmental factors and impacts taken into consideration. Project
construction will result in permanent impacts to 35.5 acres of tidal freshwater marsh,
temporary impacts to benthic habitat and terrestrial vegetation and short-term impacts to water
quality, air quality, and noise levels in the project area. Overall benefits of the preferred
alternative include long-term regional socio-economic benefits by providing a financially
feasible dredged material disposal facility for the next 16 years.
6.0 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
Table 10 lists the compliance status of the major Federal Laws, policies, and Executive Orders
that were applicable or considered for the project. This project is considered in "Full
compliance" once all the requirements of the NEPA process are complete.
441 Page

Table 10. Relationship of the proposed action to Federal Laws and Policies
Title of Public Law
US Code
Compliance
Status*
Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987
43 USC 2101
Full
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965, As Amended
16 USC 757 a et seq.
Full
Antiquities Act of 1906, As Amended
16 USC 431
Full
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, As Amended
16 USC 469
Full
Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, As Amended
16 USC 470
Full
Clean Air Act of 1972, As Amended
42 USC 7401 et seq.
Full
Clean Water Act of 1972, As Amended
33 USC 1251 et seq.
Full
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, As Amended
16 USC 1451 et seq.
Full
Endangered Species Act of 1973
16 USC 1531
Full
Estuary Program Act of 1968
16 USC 1221 et seq.
Full
Equal Opportunity
42 USC 2000d
Full
Farmland Protection Policy Act
7 USC 4201 et seq.
Full
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, As Amended
16 USC 661
Full
Historic and Archeological Data Preservation
16 USC 469
Full
Historic Sites Act of 1935
16 USC 461
Full
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act — Essential Fish
Habitat
16 USC 1801
Full
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, As Amended
42 USC 4321 et seq.
Full
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, As Amended
16 USC 470
Full
National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980
16 USC 469a
Full
Native American Religious Freedom Act of 1978
42 USC 1996
Full
* Full compliance once the NEPA process is complete.
7.0 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
7.1 Agency and Public Coordination
A scoping meeting and site visit were held on March 4, 2015 with the NC Division of Coastal
Management, the NC Division of Water Resources, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, NC Division of Marine Fisheries, and the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission. The purpose was to discuss the proposed project and to assess the
potential impact areas for mitigation.
A scoping letter was sent on April 17, 2015 to representatives of the agencies above as well as
the NC Division of Cultural Resources. This allowed for a 30 day comment period soliciting
comments on the project and proposed mitigation. In addition, a teleconference was held on
April 20, 2015 with the NC Division of Mitigation Services and the USACE.
No comments were received on the project design or mitigation proposal during the scoping
process.
On July 28, 2016 the draft EA was made available to an extensive list of local, State and
federal regulatory agencies and the public for a 30 -day review and comment period. A list of
recipients has been included as Appendix B of this document. Comments received during the
30 -day Public Notice period are included as Appendix C. A table of comments and responses
451 Page

as well as email correspondence with the agencies have been included as Appendix D. All
comments received during public review of the Draft EA were considered during development
of this Final EA/FONSI as well as coordination with agencies that occurred throughout the
process.
7.2 North Carolina Coastal Management Program
The proposed project is in New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, which is part of the
designated coastal zone of the State of North Carolina. Since the proposed project includes
significant discharge of fill in tidal freshwater marsh, a consistency concurrence is required
from the North Carolina Coastal Management Program. A consistency determination was
submitted to the N.C. Division of Coastal Management on January 25, 2017, and concurrence
was received on February 24, 2017 (see Appendix F).
7.3 Clean Water Act (CWA)
7.3.1 Section 404. Due to the need to discharge dredged or fill material into Waters of the
U.S., a Section 404(b)(1) (P.L. 95-217) evaluation for the proposed project is required and
included in Appendix A.
7.3.2 Section 401. A Section 401 Water Quality Certificate under the CWA of 1977 (P.L. 95-
217), as amended, is required for the proposed disposal of material to construct the toe berms,
and would be obtained from the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of
Water Resources, before construction begins. A 401 Pre -Construction Notice was submitted
February 3, 2017 and is awaiting response from DEQ.
7.3.3 Sea Level Rise
In accordance with ER 1100-2-8162 dated 31 December 2013, potential relative sea level
change must be considered in every USACE coastal activity as far inland as the extent of
estimated tidal influence. The Eagle Island CDF in the Cape Fear River is at sea level and
water levels are subject to diurnal tidal fluctuations.
In an effort to conform to Engineering Technical Letter 1100-2-1, an analysis of the project
impacts relative to increased sea levels over the remaining project life of the Eagle Island
Improvements Project (2017-2100) was conducted. The analysis included development of
relative sea level rise projection curves, identification of potential impact areas and associated
risks, and establishing adaptive measures to adjust to future sea level rise. The recommended
plan for this project only includes localized changes to the dike elevation and toe berm with
limited exposure to sea level rise. Accordingly, a detailed evaluation of the potential effects,
both positive and negative, of sea level rise, on both the federal and non-federal project
features (port infrastructure, transportation, etc.) of the overall project is considered
inappropriate. Instead, only an abbreviated Tier 1 analysis was performed to help inform
project approval. The recommended plan will not meaningfully alter existing coastal
processes. So, the evaluation was limited to effects on project maintenance.
Using the methods published in ETL 1100-2-1, the relative sea level rise curves were
developed for "low," "intermediate," and "high" rates of future sea -level change. The "low" sea
level change curve is simply an extrapolation of the observed sea -level trend obtained at the
461 Page

Wilmington tide gauge station. The "intermediate" curve represents sea level rise using the
National Research Council (NRC) Curve I and the "high" curve represents NRC Curve III.
The Wilmington tide gauge used in this analysis is a long term gauge with data collection from
1935 through 2015. This long term gauge has collected greater than 80 years of data and is
the closest gauge to the project location, as seen in Figure 7. As shown in Figure 9, the gauge
is located within close proximity of the project area and should provide an ideal representation
of historic sea level rise affecting the project.
Figure 10 shows the sea level rise curves developed in response to ETL 1100-2-1 using the
sea level change curve calculator (v 2015.46) developed by the USACE. The curves cover a
100 year duration of the proposed improvements which are planned for implementation in
2017. The curves shown in Figure 10 include the global eustatic sea level rise, plus increases
due to isostatic changes. The trend established at the Wilmington gauge shows sea level
change on average is 0.00699 feet/year. Projecting the observed sea level rise rate over the
next 20, 50, and 100 years of the project life shows an increase of 0.14, 0.35, and 0.70 feet,
respectively, when looking at the historic curve extrapolation. The corresponding time period
increases found using the NRC Curve III projection are 0.66, 2.20, and 6.26.
In examining the applications and potential risks of sea level rise as it applies to the dike
improvements, the modifications proposed in this project are found to have limited exposure to
the effects of sea level rise and no associated risks. The project consists of increasing dike
elevation in two foot increments to a maximum elevation of 50 feet by year 2032. The areas of
the project exposed to the effects of sea level rise are limited to increased water levels outside
of the diked disposal area along the toe berm of the dike.
An increase in sea level would have limited negative impact over the life of the project. The
purpose of the dike raise is to increase upland disposal area for the dredging of the upper
Wilmington Harbor navigation channel. Increased sea level rise will not impact the available
disposal volume within the diked area. Water level increases would not impact dredging
quantities placed within the upland disposal area due to the fact that the same depths as
related to mean low water would be maintained. Even though water level heights would
increase over the life of the project, dredging depths would remain constant below the new
mean low water surface elevations. Sea level rise could potentially impact the toe berm
construction of the dike, which is used to stabilize the interior dike elevation increases. In the
event of extreme water level increases, the toe berm could be relatively easily modified by
adding additional material on the top portion of the proposed toe berm without any additional
environmental clearances.
471 Page

8658120 Wilmington, North Carolina
0.60
— Linear Mean Sea Level Trend
0.45
— Lipper 95% Confidence Inteival
Lower 95% Confidence Interval
_ Monthly mean sea level with the
0.30
average seasonal cycle removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
0.15.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
V
-0.45.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-0.60
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Figure 9. Wilmington Tidal Gauge Historic Sea Level Trend
Map Satellite '�aryril,
a
and OW Mill Rd NE
Navassa
74
1551
1524
1544
481 Page
Hightsville
i I �-
-__r,_ ti - YVilmington
- _ international Airport
ff
C74
74 is
r W �
? 0 GTaC2 $k
17
K
T Q.&Rdd11PWY
117'
�Cl'lington �nsl�.�,
cn
X14 d7i lt7
i
� s
r lap data --2016 Google Terms of Use Report a map error
Figure 10. Wilmington Tidal Gauge Location (Blue Pin)

u] 4
UJ
U 3
J
W
ry
2
1
0
Estimated Relative Sea Leel Change Projections From 2017 To 2117 -
Gauge: 8658120, Wilmington, NC (2.13 mm/yr)
2020 2030 204D 205D 2060 2070 2080 21394 2100 2110
Year
Figure 11. Relative Sea Level Rise Curves
— USAC E Low
— USACE lni
— USACE High
7.4 Coordination of this Document
The Final EA and signed FONSI will be distributed to resource agencies and the public and will
be placed on the Wilmington District Website at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.miI/Missions/Navigation/Dredging/WiImington-Harbor/Eagle-
Island/.
8.0 POINT OF CONTACT
Ms. Emily Hughes, CESAW-ECP-PE, U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, 69 Darlington
Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1343. Telephone [phone], email
Emily. b. hughes(o)usace.army.mil
491 Page

9.0 REFERENCES
Birkhead, W.A., B.J. Copeland, and R.G. Hodson. 1979. Ecological Monitoring in
the Lower Cape Fear Estuary, 1971-1976. Report 79-1 to the Carolina Power and
Light Company, Raleigh, N.C.
Golder, Walker and Curtis Smalling. 2011. Important Bird Areas of North Carolina. Audubon
North Carolina.
Kocik, John, Christine Lipsky, Tim Miller, Paul Rago and Gary Shepherd, An Atlantic Sturgeon
Population Index for ESA Management Analysis, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, April 2013.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1975. Aquatic Ecology Studies, Cape Fear
River Estuary, North Carolina, September 1972 to August 1973. Appendix A of
Environmental Impact Assessment of Alternatives for the Maintenance of
Wilmington Harbor North Carolina. Report for the U.S Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District.
Memorieshop. (2013). Wilmington Reserve Fleet, Wilmington, NC. Retrieved 26 July, 2016,
from http://navy.memorieshop.com/Reserve-Fleets/Wilmington/index.html
Reilly, F.J. Jr., and V.J. Bellis. 1978. A study of the ecological impact of beach nourishment
with dredged materials on the intertidal zone. Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources,
Technical Report No. 4, 107 pp.
Woodward -Clyde Consultants. 1980. Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology. Prepared
for Brunswick Energy Company.
McAdory, Robert T. August 2000. Cape Fear -Northeast Cape Fear River, North Carolina,
Numerical Model Study.US Army Corps of Engineer Research and Development Center.
NMFS. September 2014 and April 2016. National Marine Fisheries Service,
(http-//sero. n mfs. noaa.gov/protected_resou rces/section_7/th reatened_endangered/Docu ments
/north_carolina_03052014.pdf)
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. 2014 and April 2016. Shellfish Sanitation Maps -
Southern Area. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/maps-south-shellfish.
USFWS. September 2014 and March 2016. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
(http-//www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/new_hanover.htm1).
501 Page

r—MijaWMIT M.,
EVALUATION OF SECTION 404(b)(1)
(PUBLIC LAW 95-217) GUIDELINES 40 CFR 230
An evaluation of the placement of dredge and/or fill material into waters of the United States
includes the standard form.
A-21 Page

EAGLE ISLAND DIKE RAISE TO 50FT
BRUNSWICK AND NEW HANOVER COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
Preliminary Evaluation of Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines 40 CFR 230
This evaluation covers the placement of all fill material into waters and wetlands of the United States
required for the improvements to Cells 1, 2, and 3 at Eagle Island Confined Disposal Facility (CDF),
Brunswick and New Hanover Counties, North Carolina. The proposed project includes incremental
dike raises to elevation 50 feet NAVD88 and requires the construction of a supportive toe berm. The
toe berm will require placement of material into approximately 35.5 acres of intertidal marsh. Please
note, prior to any construction, the required Section 401 Water Quality Certificates from the NC Division
of Water Resources will be obtained for the project and all 401 conditions/restrictions will be met.
Review of Compliance (230.10(a) -(d))
A review of the NEPA Document
indicates that:
The discharge represents the least
environmentally damaging practicable
alternative and if in a special aquatic
site, the activity associated with the
discharge must have direct access or
proximity to, or be located in the aquatic
ecosystem to fulfill its basic purpose
(if no, see section 2 and NEPA document);
The activity does not:
1) violate applicable State water quality
standards or effluent standards prohibited
under Section 307 of the CWA; 2) jeopardize
the existence of federally listed endangered
or threatened species or their habitat; and
3) violate requirements of any federally
designated marine sanctuary (if no, see section
2b and check responses from resource and
water quality certifying agencies);
The activity will not cause or contribute
to significant degradation of waters of the
U.S. including adverse effects on human
health, life stages of organisms dependent
on the aquatic ecosystem, ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability, and recreational,
aesthetic, and economic values (if no,
see section 2);
Appropriate and practicable steps have
been taken to minimize potential adverse
impacts of the discharge on the aquatic
ecosystem (if no, see section 5).
Proceed to Section 2
*, 1, 2
2. Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C -F)
a. Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C)
A-21 Page
Preliminary11 Final 21
YES E NO❑ YES ❑ NO❑
YES® NO❑* YES❑ NO❑
YES® NO❑ YES❑ NO❑
YESE NO❑* YES❑ NO❑
N/A Not Significant Significant

(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Suspended particulates/turbidity impacts
(3) Water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns
and water circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water
fluctuations/hyd roperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity gradients.
b. Biological Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D)
(1) Effect on threatened/endangered
species and their habitat.
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web.
(3) Effect on other wildlife (mammals
birds, reptiles, and amphibians).
c Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)
(1) Sanctuaries and refuges.
(2) Wetlands.
(3) Mud flats.
(4) Vegetated shallows.
(5) Coral reefs.
(6) Riffle and pool complexes.
d. Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F)
(1) Effects on municipal and private water supplies.
(2) Recreational and commercial fisheries impacts
(3) Effects on water -related recreation.
(4) Aesthetic impacts.
(5) Effects on parks, national and historical monuments,
national seashores, wilderness areas,
research sites, and similar preserves.
Remarks: Where a check is placed under the
Significant category, preparer add explanation below.
Proceed to Section 3
3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G) 3/
a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the biological
availability of possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material. (Check only
those appropriate.)
A-31 Page
X
X
X
NA
X
X
NA
X
NA
NA
X
NA
X
NA
X
X
X
X
NA
X
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
X
X_
X

(1) Physical characteristics
(2)Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated
sources of contaminants
(3)Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in
the vicinity of the project
(4)Known, significant sources of
persistent pesticides from
land runoff or percolation
(5)Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA)
hazardous substances
(6)Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries,
municipalities, or other sources
(7) Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by
man -induced discharge activities
(8) Other sources (specify). ❑
List appropriate references.
Reference: See Eagle Island Dike Raise to 50ft Final EA
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and
not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site. YES ® NO❑*
Proceed to Section 4
*, 3
4. Disposal Site Determinations (230.11(f)).
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the
disposal site.
(1) Depth of water at disposal site.
(2)Current velocity, direction, and
variability at disposal site
A-41 Page

(3) Degree of turbulence.
(4) Water column stratification
(5)Discharge vessel speed and direction
(6) Rate of discharge
(7) Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type
of material, settling velocities).
(8) Number of discharges per unit of
time.
(9)Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
List appropriate references.
Reference: See Eagle Island Dike Raise to 50ft Final EA
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal site
and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable. YES ® NO ❑*
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through application of recommendations of 230.70-230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed
discharge.
YES ® NO ❑*
Reference: See Eagle Island Dike Raise to 50ft Final EA
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review.
See also note 3/, page 3.
Proceed to Section 6
A-51 Page

6. Factual Determinations (230.11
A review of appropriate information as identified in
items 2-5 above indicates that there is minimal
potential for short- or long-term environmental
effects of the proposed discharge as related to:
a. Physical substrate at the disposal site
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES ® NO ❑*
b. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES ® NO ❑*
c. Suspended particulates/turbidity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES ® NO ❑*
d Contaminant availability
(review sections 2a, 3, and 4).
YES ®
NO ❑*
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function
(review sections 2b and c, 3, and 5).
YES ®
NO ❑*
f. Disposal site
(review sections 2, 4, and 5).
YES ®
NO ❑*
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic
ecosystem.
YES ®
NO ❑*
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic
ecosystem.
YES ®
NO ❑*
7. Findings.
a.The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .®
b.The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines with the
inclusion of the following conditions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EI
c.The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material does not comply with
the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for the
following reasons(s):
(1)There is a less damaging practicable alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑
(2)The proposed discharge will result in significant
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑
A-61 Page

91
(3) The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize
potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑
��p, /J 't
Kevin P. L ders Sr.
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
Date: Z AP/J- 201)
*A negative, significant, or unknown response indicates that the permit application may not be in compliance with the Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines.
11 Negative responses to three or more of the compliance criteria at this stage indicate that the proposed projects may not be
evaluated using this "short form procedure." Care should be used in assessing pertinent portions of the technical information
of items 2 a -d, before completing the final review of compliance.
21 Negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates that the proposed project does not comply with
the guidelines. If the economics of navigation and anchorage of Section 404(b)(2) are to be evaluated in the decision-making
process, the "short form evaluation process is inappropriate."
3/ If the dredged or fill material cannot be excluded from individual testing, the "short -form" evaluation process is inappropriate.
A-7IPage

APPENDIX B
LIST OF EA RECIPIENTS
B-1 I Page

Renee Gledhill -Earley Karen Higgins
NCDCR NCDEQ-DWR
4617 Mail Service Center 401 & Buffer Permitting
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
David Cox Ken Riley
NCWRC NMFS
1718 NC Hwy. 56 West 101 Pivers Island Road
Creedmoor, NC 27522 Beaufort, NC 28516
Fritz Rohde Kathy Matthews
NMFS USFWS
101 Pivers Island Road P.O. Box 33726
Beaufort, NC 28516 Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Pete Benjamin Curtis Weaver
USFWS USGS- NC Office
P.O. Box 33726 3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 Raleigh, NC 27607
Paul Cozza Doug Huggett
NC State Ports Authority Division of Coastal Management
PO Box 9002 400 Commerce Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28402 Morehead City, NC 28557
Debbie Wilson Debra Collins
NC Division of Coastal Management NC Department of Transportation
127 Cardinal Drive Ext. 1550 Mail Service Center
Wilmington, NC 28405 Raleigh, NC 27699
Chris O'Keefe Sterling Cheatham
New Hanover County City of Wilmington
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 100 PO Box 1810
Wilmington, NC 28403 Wilmington, NC 28402
B-2 I Page

David Hollis
Town of Leland
102 Town Hall Drive
Leland, NC 28451
Kemp Burdette
Cape Fear River Watch
617 Surry Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Lyn Hardison
SEPA Review Coordinator
NC Dept of Env Qulaity
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1601
Crystal Best
State Clearinghouse, NC Dept. of Admin
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301
Dan Holliman
USEPA Region 4
61 Forsyth St. SE
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Arthur Wendel
Center for Disease Control and Prevention
4770 Buford Hwy
Atlanta, GA 30341
US Coast Guard Marine Safety Office
721 Medical Center Dr., Ste 100
Wilmington, NC 28401
B-31 Page
Lee Taylor
Town of Belville
497 Olde Waterford Way, Suite 205
Belville, NC 28451
Scott Aldridge
Cape Fear Pilots Association
111 W. Bay Street, PO Box 10070
Southport, NC 28461
Roy Crabtree
NOAA Fisheries, Southeast Regional Office
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Daniel Govoni
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557
Walker Golder
National Audubon Society
7741 Market St., Unit D
Wilmington, NC 28411
Gregory Richardson
NC Commission of Indian Affairs
1317 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1317
Curtis Davis
US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
1500 Pinecroft Rd, Ste. 401
Greensboro, NC 27407

USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service
4407 Bland Rd., Ste 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
NC Collection- Joyner Library
East Carolina University
East 5th Street
Greenville, NC 27858-4353
1111OMELTAnirm
NC Coastal Federation
3609 NC 24.
Newport, NC 28570
B-4IPage
Orrin Pilkey
Duke University
103 Old Chem, Box 90227
Durham, NC 27708-0228
Joyce Stanley
U.S. Department of Interior
Env. Policy and Compliance
75 Spring St. SW, Ste 1144
Atlanta, GA 30303

APPENDIX C
DRAFT EA COMMENTS
AND AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
C-1 I Page

From: Holl man, Daniel
To: Huahes. Emily B SAW
Cc: Militscher, Chris; Bowers, Todd
Subject: [EXTERNAL] EPA Comments on Eagle Island Improvements EA
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 10:37:01 AM
Ms. Hughes,
Consistent with Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean
Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the
referenced project. It is our understanding that the above referenced draft Environmental Assessment (EA) was
submitted for a proposed project in North Carolina for raising a dike at the Eagle Island Confined Disposal Facility
(CDF). EPA understands that the CDF is being used for disposal of dredge material from Wilmington Harbor
dredging activities.
We also understand that the Eagle Island CDF is located on a 1,473 -acre tract owned by the Department of the
Army. The original property boundary for the site was defined by a series of rivers and creeks, some of which still
exist and serve as property boundaries for the site. Eagle Island dikes were initially constructed in the late 1970's
and now encompass approximately 755 acres of diked uplands, which was originally composed of uplands and tidal
marsh as well as several tidal creeks. Over successive years of dredged material disposal, the marsh and creeks were
filled and the CDF was created. Outside of the existing CDF dikes, the majority of acreage within the 1,473 -acre
tract is considered jurisdictional wetlands. Historically, the site was divided into two cells, a north and a south cell.
However, as part of the 2000 improvement to the CDF, the north cell was subdivided into two cells of
approximately equal size. As a result, material dredged from the Upper Harbor reaches is disposed of, on a rotating
basis, in Eagle Island Cells 1, 2, and 3. The most feasible alternative (identified by the Corps) for providing future
disposal capacity is to increase the capacity of Cells 1-3 at Eagle Island by raising the dikes to elevation 50 feet
NAVD 88. This is the proposed action identified in the EA.
EPA Comments on proposed project:
WQS — All project activities proposed under the EA should not cause or contribute to violations of State Water
Quality Standards (WQS). EPA recommends coordination with the State of NC to ensure compliance with WQS
during construction activities.
Construction BMPs — EPA recommends that the project engineer design and implement Best Management
Practices (BMPs) which will minimize stormwater impacts associated with this project. The
construction best management practices plan should include implementable measures to prevent erosion and
sediment runoff from the project.
NPDES Stormwater Permit Coverage - All development projects in North Carolina that disturb an acre or more of
land require permit coverage and an erosion and sedimentation control plan that has been approved by either the
state or a local government with delegated authority. The State of NC has a construction stormwater general permit
C-2 I Page

-NCGOl. See the following website for additional information: Blockedhttp://deq.no.gov/aboutidivisions/energy-
mineral-land-res ources/energy-mineral-land-permits/stormwater-permits/construction-sw
Wetlands Mitigation — EPA notes that 39 acres of impacts to Phragmites-dominated coastal marsh will be mitigated
with the purchase of 3.04 acres of coastal marsh "credits" for the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) In -
Lieu -Fee Program. These credits are associated with a coastal marsh restoration site in Jacksonville, Onslow
County known as Wilson Bay (Sturgeon City), which is in a different HUC than the proposed project. EPA is
concerned that the proposed mitigation for impacts to wetlands is not adequate. Since the proposed mitigation is not
functionally equivalent and out of watershed, it is unclear to EPA how proposed mitigation presented in the EA is
consistent with the 2008 Mitigation Rule. EPA request the Corps provide copies of the NC Wetland Assessment
method forms or equivalent for both the impact site (Eagle Island phragmites dominated marsh) and the mitigation
site.
Alternatives — When discussing Alternatives Considered But Eliminated, the language regarding cost of the
alternatives is very vague and non -informative. In most cases, cost is the reason for eliminating the alternative. If
this is the case, then cost should be more clearly described in this section of the EA.
EPA appreciates the opportunity to review the Eagle Island Improvements EA. If the you have any questions
related to our comments please give me a call.
Thanks,
Dan
Dan Holliman
USEPA Region 4 I NEPA Program Office
61 Forsyth Street SW I Atlanta, GA 30303
tel [phone] I [e-mail]
Region 4 NEPA: Blockedhttp://www.epa.gov/region4/opm/nepa/index.html
<Blockedhttp://www.epa.gov/region4/opm/nepa/index.html>
C-31 Page

W UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad ministration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Soulhoast Regional OOioe
25313th Avenue South
SI. Petersburg, Florida 33701.5505
httpJlsero.nmta.noaa.gor
(Sent via Electronic Mail) September 6, 2016 FISER47:KRIpw
Colonel Kevin P. Landers Sr_, Commander
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
fig Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1398
Attention: Emilv Huehes
Dear Colonel Landers
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the Draft Environmental
Assessment ,Eagle island Improvements Dike Raise to Elevation 50 Feel (EA), dated July 2016,
and the corresponding letter dated July 2=), 2016 'the Wilmington District proposes to raise the
dikes at the Eagle Island Confined I}isposal Facility (CDF) to provide sufficient dredged
material disposal capacity for the Wilmington Harbor Federal Navigation Project until 2032.
The new toe berm would vary in width from 54 to 120 feet and permanently impact
approximately 39 to 42 acres of emergent coastal wetland consisting primarily of the Common
reed Phragmile.s austrahs. As compensatory mitigation, the Wilmington District proposes to
purchase 3.04 acres of coastal marsh "credits" from a coa.5tal restaration site known as Wilson
Bay Phase I in Jacksonville, Onslow County. The District would purchase the credits through
the "In -Lieu -Fee Program" administered by the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services.
The Wilmington District's initial determination is the environmental effects associated with
raising the dikes would not have a substantial adverse impact on essential fish habitat (EHI) or
federally managed species within the Cape Fear River. As the nation's federal trustee for the
conservation and management of marine, estuarine, and anadromous fishery resources, the
NMFS provides the following comments pursuant to authorities of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act and the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson -Stevens Act).
Description of the Eagle Island CDIr
The Eagle Island CDF, located across the Cape Fear River from downtown Wilmington, is the
largest upland disposal site for Wilmington Harbor. The Eagle Island CDD has five cells, of
which three cells are in active use. The Wilmington District proposes to raise the dikes to
elevation 50 feet for the active cells (Cells 1, 2, and 3). Measured from the top of dike inward,
Cell 1 is approximately 230 acres, Cell 2 is approximately 260 acres, and Cell 3 is approximately
265 acres. Each cell contains a spillway allowing effluent discharges into either the Brunswick
River or the Cape Fear River. For each dredging event, typically only one cell is used. 'Phis
allows for an offset revolving schedule of dewatering ditching, drying, maintenance, and dike -
raising among the active cells. Raising the dike elevations to 50 feet would increase the disposal
capacity for approximately 16 years.
CAIPage

Consultation History
The Wilmington District initiated EFH consultation through a request for a scoping meeting and
site visit to Eagle Island on March 4, 2015. At the meeting, the Wilmington District proposed
raising the elevation of the dikes to 50 feet and to build a toe berm along the outer edge of the
finished dikes. Upon inspection of the site, it was determined the toe berm would vary in width
from 50 to 120 feet and would impact approximately 39 to 42 acres of emergent coastal
wetlands, which primarily consist of the common reed Phragmites australis. The NMFS also
participated in a meeting with the Wilmington District on June 14, 2016, to review construction
plans and mitigation options for the Eagle Island CDF improvements. The NMFS recommended
the Wilmington District provide compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts to
wetlands and EFH and for the mitigation to include projects identified for Eagle Island (e.g.,
Eagle Island Conservation Management Plan 2015-2025) or purchase of mitigation bank credits
within the Cape Fear watershed.
Impacts to Diadromous Fish Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat
The NMFS believes the proposed project would eliminate some nursery habitats used by
diadromous fishes. This portion of the Cape Fear River and its tributaries have nursery areas
used by diadromous fishes including American eel, American shad, Atlantic sturgeon, blueback
herring, shortnose sturgeon, and striped bass. Sediment and toxicant input into the river is a
major threat to diadromous fish and their habitats. This input can directly impact individuals
migrating to spawning grounds and permanently eliminate nursery habitat.
The new toe berm would vary in width from 50 to 120 feet and permanently impact
approximately 39 to 42 acres of emergent coastal wetland the South Atlantic Fisheries
Management Council (SAFMC) designates as EFH pursuant to the Magnuson -Stevens Act.
Further the project occurs within a state -designated Primary Nursery Area, which the SAFMC
designates a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) under the fishery management plans for
shrimp and the snapper/grouper complex. HAPCs are a subset of EFH that are rare, particularly
susceptible to human -induced degradation, especially important ecologically, or located in an
environmentally stressed area. The SAFMC identifies these areas as EFH and HAPCs because
fish and shrimp concentrate in these habitats for feeding and refuge and experience high growth
and survival rates when located in these habitats. The SAFMC provides detailed information on
the EFH requirements of federally managed species in amendments to the fishery management
plans and in Fishery Ecosystem Plan of the South Atlantic Region, which is available at
www.safmc.net.
The NMFS believes the draft EA minimally addresses EFH and HAPCs and the topic receives
no focused discussion. Substantial review of these considerations should be included in the final
EA. The ETH and HAPC characterizations should include a summary of designations for each
federally managed species in the project area, including habitats required during each life stage
(including egg, larval, postlarval, juvenile, and adult stages) and time of year of occurrence.
Many of the adverse environmental impacts associated with this project are related to
construction of toe berms burying approximately 39 to 42 acres ofPhragmites-dominated
intertidal marsh. The draft EA diminishes the value of Phragmites for fisheries habitat; however,
a Phragmi tes- dominated marsh provides many ecological services and functions as a nursery
C-51 Page

area for larval and juvenile finfish, crustaceans, and molluscs, and as a habitat for adult fishes.
As demonstrated in this draft EA, some coastal managers believe the shift from bpartina-
dominated to Phragm i les-dom i nated marshes cons islenlly results in a change from a bioil ivers e,
fisheries productive habitat to a less biodiverse, unproductive habitat. Contrary to this opinion,
Phragmites-dominated marshes can provide many of the same ecological functions as salt
marshes, including flood protection, erosion control, water quality, and detrital exchange, and
have similar levels of nekton abundance, biomass, and diversity'. More recent studies further
demonstrate the equivalency of these habitats to juvenile blue crabs. Case-by-case evaluations
are needed to assess the ecological services provided by a particular Phrogmifes-dominated
marsh.
The Wilmington District proposes to provide compensatory mitigation for the impacts to EFH
through the "In -Lieu -Fee Program" administered by the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services by purchasing 3.04 acres of coastal marsh "credits" from a coastal restoration site
known as Wilson Bay Phase I in Jacksonville, Onslow County. The NMFS recommends the
District revise the mitigation plan to focus on restoration projects underway on Eagle Island,
development of new restoration projects along the Cape Fear River, or purchase of mitigation
bank credits within the Cape Fear watershed (HUC 03030005). The amount of mitigation should
yield no net loss of coastal wetland function, as demonstrated by Ilabitat Equivalency Analysis
or a similar evaluation.
Recommended Recisions for the Final EA
• Section I.I should include reference to the Draft Integrated FeasibilftyReport and
E'nvironmentaiAsse-ssment, Wilmington Harbor Navigation Improvements, dated June
2014.
• Section 5.5, Tablc 2 incorrectly states that no IIAP Cs are located in the vicinity of
Wilmington I Iarbor. As noted above the project within a designated Primary Nursery
Area
• Section 5.7 and Section 5.18.4 should demonstrate quantitatively that the 39 to 42 acres
of Phragmiles-dominated coastal marsh is low quality_ Section 516 should substanlialc
that Phragmiles-dominalcd coastal marsh provides little habitat and food source for
native species.
EFH Conservation Recommendations
Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson -Stevens Act requires NMFS to provide EFII
Conservation Recommendations for any federal action or permit which may result in adverse
impacts to EFH. 'there fore, NMFS recommends the following to ensure the conservation of
1SFI1 and associalcd fishery resources -
1 Meyer, T). t.., Johnsen J. M., & Gill, J. W. (200 1) Comparison of nekton use of Phragmde4 auslralis and
Sparvna QIL¢mii pra marshes in the Chesapeake Say, []SX Manne Aeo&Sy l'rogresr Series, 209, 71-83.
2 Long, W. C., Grow, J. N., MKjorm J. E., & Hines, A. H. (2011) Effects of anthropogenic shoreline hardening and
invasion by Phragmiles australis on habitat quality for Juvenile blue crabs (Callmectes sapidus). Journal of
Experimental rUlarine Biology and Feology, 9179, 215-222.
C-61 Page

The Wilmington District should employ Best Management Practices to prevent discharge
of pollutants and to control turbidity throughout construction.
The Wilmington District should use vegetation to stabilize the toe berm and prevent its
erosion.
The Wilmington District should provide compensatory mitigation that offsets fully the
impacts to EFH as demonstrated by a functional assessment. Further, the mitigation
should focus on projects along Eagle Island and the Cape Fear watershed. The mitigation
plan should identify the specific wetland functions and values the compensatory
mitigation is intended to restore or replace. Compensation for interim losses of
ecological functions and values should be included if the compensatory mitigation project
requires several years to complete.
Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson -Stevens Act and implementing regulation at 50 CFR
Section 600.920(k) require the Wilmington District to provide a written response to this letter
within 30 days of its receipt. If it is not possible to provide a substantive response within 30
days, in accordance with the "findings" with the Wilmington District, an interim response should
be provided to the NMFS. A detailed response then must be provided prior to final approval of
the action. The detailed response must include a description of measures proposed by the
Wilmington District to avoid, mitigate, or offset the adverse impacts of the activity. If the
response is inconsistent with the EFH conservation recommendations, the Wilmington District
must provide a substantive discussion justifying the reasons for not following the
recommendations.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please direct related questions or
comments to the attention of Dr. Ken Riley at our Beaufort Field Offi cc, 101 Pi vers Island Road,
Beaufort, North Carolina 28 5 16-9722, or at (2 52) 728-8750.
cc: COE, [e-mail]
USFWS, [e-mail]
NCDCM, [e-mail]
NCDCM, [e-mail]
ASMFC, [e-mail]
EPA, [e-mail]
SAFMC, [e-mail]
FISER4, [e-mail]
FISER47, [e-mail]
C-71 Page
4
1 for
Sincerely, ,
/ GcP VA
Virginia M. Fay
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division

Cape Fear
Ricer Watch
617 Surry Street • Wilmington, NC • 28401 • 910.762.5606 • www.Ca eFearRiverWatch.or
OFFICERS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Doug Springer ATTN: Ms, Emily Hughes (CESAW-ECP-PE)
President 69 Darlington Ave.
Jeannie Lennon Wilmington, NC 28403
Vice President RE: Comments on: Draft Environmental Assessment — Eagle Island Improvements
Brent McAbee Dike Raise to Elevation 50 Feet Brunswick and New Hanover Counties, NC
Treasurer Dear Ms. Hughes.-
Dana
ughes:
Dana Sargent
Secretary
On behalf of the Cape Fear River Watch (CFRW), we are submitting the following
comments pursuant to the notice issued by your office July 29, 2016 regarding the
OF DIRECTORS
subject Draft EA. I just discovered that the subject draft EA was available for
ChaBOARD
y Allen
comments late last week, so our comments will be brief. Appendix B indicates that I
Julia
Julia BurgerB
was on the distribution list for the EA, but I did not receive it.
Larry Cahoon
Rich Carpenter
From the information provided in the EA, it appears that raising the Eagle Island dikes
Alan Cradick
to 50 feet in elevation is probably the best alternative, but I have several concerns with
Philip Gerard
the draft EA. My concerns are listed in bullet format below:
Gordon Johnson
There is no geotechnical
g appendix providing details for the proposed dike
Melissa Julian
raise.
Jot Owens
0Section 4.1 Alternatives: The section lacks detail. For example, the EA
Ted Poucher
indicates that disposal of dredged material in the ODMDS is more expensive
Roger Shew
than the dike raise. The cost analysis for this conclusion should be included in
Tom Tewey
the EA.
• Figures 5&6 should have a legend indicating what the various symbols and
STAFF
line colors designate.
Kemp Burdette
0 Sections 5.7 Wetlands: The EA states Phragmites is of lower quality and has
CAPE FEAR RIVERKEEPER®
less habitat for native species; however, no reference is provided for that
Frank
conclusion. Yet that conclusion appears to be the key factor for suggesting
Executive
Executive Director
minimal mitigation requirements.
• Section 5.16 Mitigation: See the comment above for Section 5.7. In previous
Jennifer Cole
Corps EAs on other projects, detailed analyses were provided determining the
Communications Coordinator
amount of mitigation acreage required for wetland impacts. The same needs
to be provided for this project. In other words, how was 3.04 acres of
Kay Lynn Plummer -Hernandez
mitigation needs determined?
Education Coordinator
Where is the documentation that the 3.04 acres of wetlands at Wilson Bay is a
Patrick Connell
high quality restoration area?
Greenfield Lake Manager
• Mitigation should be performed or credits received in the Cape Fear River
Watershed (HU Code 0303005) not another watershed over 50 air miles away
} Protecting and improving the water quality of the Lower Cape Fear River Basin
WATERKEEPER"ACLIAN C E through Education, Advocacy, and Action
MEMBER We are a 501(c)3 nonprofit. Tax ID#58-2121884.
C-81 Page

Page 2
According to the EA, the proposed project is much cheaper than other alternatives.
Therefore, if additional mitigation (beyond 3.04 acres in another watershed) and
associated funding is needed, the proposed project would not be replaced by another
cheaper alternative. Potential new mitigation options could include:
o Setting aside disposal cells 4 and 5 for conservation. The EA indicates that
construction of cells 4 and 5 was eliminated from further consideration.
o Improve striped bass passage at Lock and Dam #1.
o Restore Alligator Creek on Eagle Island.
Thank you for your consideration and let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kemp Burdette
CAPE FEAR RIVERKEEPERO
Cape Fear River Watch
C-91 Page

Coustal Management
ENVJRQNMFNTAL QUAUTV
August 31, 2016
Emily Hughes
Department of the Army,
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403
PAT MCCRORY
rlo errw
DONALD R. VAN DI}R V AART
Semeaq
13RAXTON DAVIS
Dfrerror
SUBJECT: Comments Concerning the Draft Environmental Assessment, Eagle Island
Improvements, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Dear Mrs. Hughes:
The Division of Coastal Management has completed our review of the Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed the Eagle Island Improvements, in Brunswick County,
North Carolina. Staff have reviewed the EA and ask that it clarify whether the project would
result in any Coastal Wetland impacts, and if it would, that it quantify the area of Coastal
Wetlands to be impacted by the project. Additionally, the location of the mean (or normal)
high water line should also be identified, and any proposed impacts to Public Trust Areas or
Estuarine Waters also quantified.
The Division of Coastal Management also recommends the submittal of a federal consistency
determination. If you have any questions, please contact Daniel Govoni at 252-808-2808 x233.
Thank you for your consideration of the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Sincerel
Daniel Gov
Policy Analyst
Stale of North Carolina I Eweiu mmtai Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive F=.. Wilmhgpn, IVC 29405
910-796-7215
C-101 Page

STA TE,,
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Rumonu M. Banos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
August 29, 2016
Emily Hughes
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Re: Draft Environmental Assessment, Eagle Island Improvements,
Brunswick and New Hanover Counties, ER 11-1391
Dear Ms. Hughes:
We have received a public notice concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
We believe the Draft Environmental Assessment adequately addresses our concerns for historic resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.reviewancdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
boll, Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 Last Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 46f7 Malt Seivice Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Yas: [phone].%807-6599
C-11 I Page

F
Stare Environmental
Review Clearinghouse
ADMINISTRATJON
September 8, 2016
Ms. Emily Hughes
Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Kathrynjohnston
Sec1omry
J. Brian Ratledge
Generalcowlsel
Re: SCH File # 17-E-0000-0056; EA; proposed project is for the Eagle Island Improvements,
Dike raise to Elevation 50 feet.
Dear Ms. Hughes:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S.
113A-10, when a state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the
provisions of federal law, the environmental document meets the provisions of the State
Environmental Polity Act. Attached to this letter for your consideration are comments made by
the agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be
forwarded to this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to Call.
Sincerely,
C�Best
State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region ❑
—Nothing Compares '--'--�-.
State of North Caroltna i Administration
116 West Jones St. 11301 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1301
state.clearinghnuse@dna_nc gov 1 914 $07 2414 T
C-12IPage

Environmental
Quality
MEMORANDUM
To: Crystal Best
State Clearinghouse Coordinator
Department of Administration
FROM: Lyn Hardison Lgf4l
Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service
Permit Assistance & Project Review Coordinator
PAT MCCRORY
Caveator
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
se�emir
RE: 17-01756
Environmental Assessment
Proposed project is for the Eagle island improvements, Dike raise to the elevation of 50 feet
Brunswick and New Hanover Counties
Date: August 29, 2016
The Department of Environmental Quality has reviewed the proposal for the referenced project. Based on the
information provided, several of our agencies have Identified permits that may be required and offered some
guidance. The comments are attached for the applicant's review.
The Department's agencies will continue to be available to assist the appk'rcant through the environmental
review processes.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachment
��Nothing Cornpares!�,.
State of North Carolina I Environmental qualfry
1(01 Mail Service Center i Ralmo. north Cas it" 77699.1eo1
919. 707 -8600
C-131 Page

From: Coats, Heather
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 8:53 AM
To: SVC—DE NR.SEPAP ncdenr.gov,'Hughes, Emily BSAW' (Emily. B.Hugh [e-mail]. mit)
Cc: Govoni, Daniel
Subject: Draft EA review of Eagle Island improvements, Brunswick Co
Hello Lyn and Emily,
The Division of Coastal Management has completed our review of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed the
Eagle isiand Improvements, in Brunswick County, North Carolina. Staff have reviewed the EA and ask that it clarify whether the
project would result in any Coastal Wetland impacts, and if it would, that it quantify the area of Coastal Wetlands to be
impacted by the project. Additionally, we ask that the location of the mean (or normal) high water line be identified, in order to
quantify any proposed impacts to Public Trust Areas or Estuarine Waters.
The Division of Coastal Management also recommends the submittal of a federal consistency determination. If you have any
questions, please contact me or Daniel Govoni at 252 808 2808 x233. Thank you For your consideration of the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Best regards,
Heather Coats
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910 795 7302 office
heatherv
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Email corrmspordence to arra fron,� this address is subject to the
North arohna T ablic Recoat Law and may be disefosod to thiW parties,
C-141 Page

From: Bodnar, Gregg
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 1:56 PM
To: SVC, <S PAtcDncdPnr.go >
Subject: #17-0056 Eagle island Improvements {Dike raise to 50 feet)
I would recomrnend USACE investigate the potential for coastal wetland planting along the toe of slope
and other areas where practical. Wetlands can enhance foraging functions of adjacent habitats, which is
why primary (PNA) and secondary (SNA) nursery habitats are closely linked with coastal wetlands. In
addition, these wetlands are important to waterfowl feeding and nesting activities. Plantings could be
supplemental on-site mitigation and may aid in the displacement of Phragmites. Potential partnerships
could be developed to offset investments.
The draft EA identifies an in water work environmental window (1 Oct -31 Jan) and is sufficient and
recommended.
regards,
Gregg Bodnar
Fisheries Resource Specialist
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
252 808 2808 ext 213 office
f�rc�gg"Bodn a re nncder; . ori,•
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, IVC 28557
'�l
;...
" i '. t.-is5�r' �.•i:fn'•n: G: CSr...;
Ern aY i-,,er nsponderres? Llo anri mm this address i sub act tc, .1be
North ::aroiira r%b!i& Records Law oad maks bc- disclosod to third vaP'tioz: -
C-151 Page

TO
From:
August 22, 2016
Michael Scott, Director
Division of Waste Management
Bill Hunneke, Eastern .Region Compliance Supervisor,
Compliance Branch, Hazardous Waste Section
PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN DER V AART
MICHAEL SCOTT
Subject: Hazardous Waste Section Comments on Eagle Island Improvements, Dike Raise
(Brunswick County)
Project Number: 17-0056
The Hazardous Waste Section (I-IWS) has reviewed the environmental assessment report for the Eagle
Island Improvements, Dike Raise to Elevation 50 feet project. (Brunswick County).
Any hazardous waste generated from the demolition, construction, operation, maintenance, and/or
remediation (e.g. excavated soil) from the proposed project must be managed in accordance with the North
Carolina Hazardous Waste Rules. The demolition, construction, operation, maintenance, and remediation
activities conducted will most likely generate a solid waste, and a determination must be made whether it
is a hazardous waste. If a project site generates more than 220 pounds of hazardous waste in a calendar
month, the HWS must be notified, and the site must comply with the small quantity generator requirements.
If a project site generates more than 2200 pounds of hazardous waste in a calendar month, the HWS tnust
be notified, and the facility roust comply with the large quantity generator requirements.
The proposed project site does not currently have an existing EPA identification numbers for the generation
of hazardous waste.
Should any questions arise, please contact me at 252-364-8977.
Kind regards,
4v
GiWN +✓
William I�lunneke
Eastern Region Compliance Supervisor
State o£Nonh Carolina 1 Fnvironin al Quality i Wasle Marmgs nt
1646..Vail Service Cerner1 2i7 WfttJwi Street i Raleigh, NC 27699-t 646
919 707 9200 F
s€M
C-161 Page

Date: August 22, 2016
To: Michael Scott, Director
Division of Waste Management
Through: Dave Lown, Head
Federal Remediation Branch
From: Doug Rumford, Federal Remediation Branch
PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
MICHAEL SCOTT
Subject: NEPA Project #17-0056, Eagle Island Improvements, Wilmington, Brunswick/New Hanover
Counties, North Carolina
The Superfund Section has reviewed the proximity of CERC LIS and other sites under their jurisdiction to
the improvements of the Eagle Island Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) located between the Cape Fear and
Brunswick Rivers, Wilmington, Brunswick/New Hanover Counties. The proposed project will consist of raising
the elevation of the dikes surrounding cells 2 and 3 to an elevation of 50 feet NAVD. An area of approximately
525 acres of the 1473 -acre Eagle Island CDF will he impacted.
Eight (8) sites were identified within one mile of the project as shown on the attached map and in the
table below. The 5uperfund Section recommends that site files be reviewed to ensure that appropriate
precautions are incorporated into any construction activities that encounter potentially contaminated soil or
groundwater. Superfund Section files can be viewed at: htt12s:Ldec1.nc. ov aboutidivisions/waste-
manage ment waste-management-rules-data/e-documents. -
Please contact me at 919.707.8334 if you have any questions.
1{3 #i
Site Name'...:.
Status
1 SOUTHERN WOOD
NCDO58517467
Open site an the Inactive Hazardous Sites inventory
PIEDMONT CO
NONCDO002194
NCSPA BLDG C-1
Open site on the Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
NCN000407584
SOUTHERN METALS
Open site on the Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
RECYCLING, INC
NCD996186518
OLD ATC REFINERY
Open site on the Inactive Hazardous Sites inventory
NONCD000283$
WACCAMAW TRANSPORT
Open site on the Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
(FORMER)
NONCD0001180
CTI OF NC, iNC
Open site on the Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
Open site on the Pre -Regulatory Landfill inventory
NONCDO000760
_
Optimist Ball Park
NCD986388910
WILMINGTON COAL GAS
Open site on the Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
PLANT
Scare of North Camlina i ianvirvr inial Quality i V'am hlamsami a
1646 Mail Sonic* Coater 1217 Won Ioucn Sacci I Raicigk NC 27699-1646
919707 8200 Tcicphnnc
C-171 Page

C-181 Page
r
.a
¢
4
-
V
¢
.
�
m
Y
N
m
N
N
U
�•:
Cil.
22
Yl
7
� •
--
- D :_
aE
c
G3
Si r
z
vi
bc
ji-
15 -
CCC.
fx
Ir
ur
c:
Sr
.:R
i•''
.
..rasa
l'
tan ..S' ,. _• C••
- -�
'
C-181 Page
r
4
V
¢
�
m
Y
N
m
N
N
U
Yl
7

MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael Scott, Division Director through Sharon Brinkley
PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN .DER VAART
FROM: Drew Hammonds, Eastern District Supervisor - Solid Waste Section
DATE: August 24, 2016
MICHAEL E. SCOTT
SUBJECT: Review: Project 417-0056 — Brunswick — New Hanover Counties (Department of
the Arany: Draft Environmental Assessment — Eagle Island Improvements, Dike Raise to
Elevation 50 Feet)
The Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section (Section) has reviewed the
Department of the Army/US Army Corps of Engineers' Draft Environmental Assessment, for
Eagle Island Improvements of dike raise elevation 50 feet, in Brunswick and New Hanover
County, North Carolina. Based on the information provided., the Section has seenno adverse
impact on the surrounding community and likewise knows of no situations in the community,
which would affect this project.
During the construction and maintenance of this project, the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or
its contractors should make every feasible effort to minimize the generation of waste, to recycle
materials for which ,viable markets exist, and to use recycled products and materials in the
development of this proiect where suitable. Any waste generated by this project that cannot be
beneficially reused or recycled must be disposed of at a solid waste management facility
permitted by the Division. The Section strongly recommends that the owner require all
contractors to provide proof of proper disposal for a33 waste generated.
Permitted Facilities are listed on the Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section portal
site at: httt�s:r'clect.nc.„ nr a.lrciutldsw°i.,insiwaste-rrlt�raerrrent�tvast�-rn.anacment-rules-
datafsc�fid-waste-ar�u�a�_cm�nt a�izuaf�repc�rtsi �lid-wa�tr ?er-mitted-#acilirw-fist
Questions regarding solid waste management for this project, should be directed to Mr. Wes
Hare, Environmental Senior Specialist, Solid Waste Section, at (91 d) 796-7405.
cc: Wes I Tare, Environmernta3 Senior Specialist
Jessica Montie, Compliance Officer
sate of North Cara Eula' 1nvworumntal Quality i Wamt Manegccmcnt
225 Gn= &meet I Saute 714 Fayene- Iie..'YC 28301
M431 3300
C-191 Page

State of North Carolina Reviewing Office: WiRO
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERINMENTAU REV)EW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project 'Number 17-0056 Due Date; 8/26/2016
County Brunswick
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be olnained in order for this project in comply with
North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional office indicated on the reverse of the farm. All applications, information
and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
C-201 Page
Normal Process Time
PERMITS
SPECIAL. APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQU 1REMENi'S
(statutory time limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment facilities
sewer system extensions do sewer systems not discharging
Applicat on 90 days before. he n construction or award of construction
30 days
into state surface waters.
cantra=. On-site inspection. Post -application technical conferencc usual.
(90 days)
NIMES - permit to discharge into surface wa:�r andior
Application 180 days before beLhn activity. On-site inspection. Pre-
❑
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
application conference usual. Add iii onalIV, obtain permit to construct
?o-124 days
discharging ince state surface waters
treatment Neility-grassed afterWDES. PWy rime, 30 clays atter
issue NPDES is later.
(NIA)
receipt of plans or permit -whichever
receipt of
Water Use permit
III e-almlic4lion technical conference usually necessary
0 daav(NIA)s
Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
7 days
installation of a we11.
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adiacemi riparian property owner.
Dredge and Fi11 Permit
On-site inspection. Pre -app hcalion conference usual. Filling may require
55 days
Easement to Fill from RC Department of Administration and
(90 days)
Federal Dredge and Pill Permit
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatemem
Applicaion mue,,t he submitted and pennit received prior to
nes and/or 0r1 $anICeS 85 per 15 A NCA[
construction and operation of the source. If a permit is required it an
90 days
Q.030ss
(2Q.ci
(2Q.OlUotluv 2Q. 0300)
area wi[boil local 2w1n^a, then there are additional requirements and
timelines (2[7.0113).
Permit to construct & operate Transportation Facility as per
Application must be submittM at least 90 days prior to conmuttion
90 days
15A NCAC (2D.08W. 2Q.0fit}l
or rnodifwation of the source.
Any Open burning associated with subject proposal must be
in umipliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.19W
Demolition or renovations of structures conmaining asbestos
❑material
mmtit he in coin nhance with 15 A NCA(` 20 1110
€ l fication
Ni4
60 days
(a) ( j which requires nob and removal prior to
demolition. Conmet. Asbestos Control Group 919-707.5450.
(90 days)
❑Complex
Sour" Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0200
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 mast be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
®
control plan wi11 be required if one or more acres to be disturbed- Plan fi 25d with proper Regional Office [Land Quality Section) At least M
20 may,
days before beginning activity. A fee of$65 for the first acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is available with addihtnal
(30 days)
fi;m
Sedimentation and erosion control mtW be addressed in accordance with NCDOT's approved program. Particularauention should begiven
(30 days)
to design and instal laiian of appropriate perimeter sedunent trapping devices as well as stable storm water conveyanccs and outlets.
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with HNR.Bond amount varies
Mining Permit
with type mine and number of acres of affeeied land. Any arc nutted greater
30 days
than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received
(fill daysy
before the Perm It can be issued.
On-site inspe Kion by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4
days
1 day
I day
®
- -�
North Carolina Burning it
Penn
[
❑Special
Ground Clcarancc Burning {'ertnit - 22
On-site inspection by N. C, Division Forest Resources required "if more than
five acres clearing irvo..lved. Inspections be
1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils
of wound activities are should
(N/A)
requested at least ten days before actual bin is planned.'
oil Refining F"aciIii Iies
NIA
90-120 days
(NIA)
Ifpennit required, appiication bo days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified enginear to- prepare plans, inspect construction.
certify wnstrucrion is according to ENR approved plans. May Wso require
Dam Safety Permit
permit undo mosquito control program. And a 404 permit from Corps of
30 days
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hn7A Classification.
l (60 days)
A ininimum fee of S200.90 must accompany the application. An additional
processing fee based on a percermage or Iba total project cost will be required
upon completion.
C-201 Page

County Brunswick Project Number: 17-0056 Due Date.: 8/26!2016
Initials
No
Normal Process Time
Date
(Statutory time limit)
PMMiTS
SPECIAL APPLICATION YROCEDURFS or REQLIIRFMENTS
Review
❑
Permit to drill exploratory oil or well
File surety bond of 55.000 with ENR running to Stale of NC conditional that any well
opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be to ENR
I6 da s
8/24/16
gas
plugged according rules
NIA
This project will require an Individual Permit Certification under Section
Geophysical Exploration Permit
and regulations.
❑
Application }f led with F1NR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application by letter.
10 days
DWR-PWS
HLC
No standard application form.
NIA
❑
State LAOS Construction Permit
Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include doscriptions Bc
15-20 days
be dredged that are owned by Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. Please
drawings of structure &. proof of ownership of riparian property.
WA
❑
401 Water Qualhy Certification
MA
60 days
des TO
new construction and earthwork will require DEMLR permits
(130 s)
❑
CAMA Perinit for %WOR development
5250 -DD fee must accompany application
55 days
(150 days)
❑
CAMA Permit Cor MINOR development
$50 OD fee must accompany application
22 days
(25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. Ir any monument niche to be moved or destroyed, please notify'
❑
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611
❑
Abairdonmcnt or any wells, iFmgaired must be in acerWanoe %eiih Title ISA. Subchapter 2C-4100.
❑
Notification ortbeproper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (U S75) are discovered during any excavation operation.
®
Compliance with 15A ;+ICAC 211 1 OW (Coasts! Stormwater Rules) is required.
43 days
(NIA)
❑
Catawba, Jordan Lake. Randalman. Tar Parnhco or Ncuse Riparian Buffer Rules required.
Pians and spoukatioas far the construction, expaiwon, or alteration of a public water system mutt be approved by the Division or Water
❑ResovrceslPubbc
Water Supply Section pnor to the award of a contract or the initiation or construetion as per 15A MCAC 18C .4300 et. seq. Places and
30 days
specifications should be submitted to 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-163d. All public water supply systems must comply
with state and federal drinking water moniwring regrrirei=ts. For more iformauon, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919) 707-91 W.
if existing water lures will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line relocation mus[ be submitted to the Division of Wates
I
❑
ResoureecPublic Water Supply Section a[ 1634 Mail Seevece Center. Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1634. For more information, corracl the Public
30 days
Water Supply Seelion. [phone]
Other comments to awb additional nattes as necesserv. being certain to cite comment authority)
Division
Initials
No
Comments
Date
comment
Review
DRQ
DAC
8/24/16
DWR-WQR05
CCC
This project will require an Individual Permit Certification under Section
8/17/16
(Aquifer & Surface)
❑
401
J
DWR-PWS
HLC
Be advised that there are water lines located under the river in the area to
8/24/16
be dredged that are owned by Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. Please
contact CFPUA Engineering Department at 910) 332-656-0.
DEMLR (LQ & SW)
des TO
new construction and earthwork will require DEMLR permits
8/19/16
DWM - UST
wet
I Z,
8/19/16
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these pennits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
❑ Asheville Regional Office
20961 I.JS highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 2$778
[phone]
❑ Fayetteville Regionsl Office
225 North Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville. NC 28 ,01-5043
[ 910)433.3300
February i 1.2015
C-21 I Page
❑ Mooresville Regional Office
610 Fast Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
❑ Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
❑ Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, AIC 27889
® Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
❑ Winston-Salem Regional Office
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
[phone]

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF AI]MINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY. BRUNSWICK H12: OTHER
NEW HANOVER
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCE
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
MSC 4617 - ARCHIVES BUILDING
RALEIGH NC
REVINK DISTRIBUTION
CAPE FEAR COG
DEPT OF ENVIR. QUALITY - COASTAL MG
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALI'T`Y
DEPT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCE
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNCR - DIV OF PARIS AND RECREATION
DPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PROaECT INPOP34 kTION
APPLICANT: Department of the Army
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Assessment
STATE NrsF=R: 17-E--0000-0056
DATE RECEIVED. 08/03/2016
AGENCY RESPONSE: 08/29/2016
REVIEW CLOSED: 09/02/2016
lk- i7ari
Il� �•� l�ia �llFi�4
DESC: Pz-oposed project is for the Eagle Island Improvements, Dike raise to Elevation 50
feet. - View documents at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/Dredging/Wilmington-Harbor/Ragl
e -island!
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date. to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh LSC 27699-1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: 0 NO CC=NT D CO -ANTS ATTACHED
C h �^ C'`
SIGNED BY: � i
C-22IPage
DATE

NORTH CAROLINA STA'L'E CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION 6�
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY2 BRUNSWICK H12. OTHER STATE NUMBER: 17-E-0000-0056
NEW HANOVER DATE RECEIVED: 08/03/2016
AGENCY RESPONSE: 08/29/2016
REVIEW CLOSED: 09/02/2016
MS CARRIE ATKINSON
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATEWIDE PLANNING - MSC 41554
RALEIGH NC
RXV13rw DISTRIBUTX01T �'� 34 is If fj �
CAPE FEAR COG �
DEPT OF ENVIR. QUALITY - COASTAL MG
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DEPT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCE rp Akr-
DEPT OF 'T'RANSPORTATION a-*QCi
DNCR-- DIV OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DPS DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT��
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT z Department of the Army
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Assessment
DESC. Proposed proyect is for the Eagle Island Improvements, Dike raise to Elevation 50
feet. - View documents at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/missions/Navigation/Dredging/wilmington-Harbor/Eagl
e -Island/
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 130? Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699rv1301.
if additional review time is needed, please contact this office at {919y807-2425.
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: ❑ NO COROIENT COMMRN'T'S ATTACHED
SIGNED BY:
C-231 Page

Transportation
August 19, 2016
Department of the Arany
State Number: 17-E-0000-0056
PAT MCCRORY
Couernor
NICHOLAS J. TENNYSON
stx,ei Rry
Project Title: National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Assessment
After reviewing your application it has been determined that tlee proposed Eagle Island
Improvements is located near a facility that is being widen. To avoid any potential conflicts to TIP
Project R-3601, please coordinate with Patrick Riddle who is the Division Planning Engineer in
Highway Division 3. Patrick Riddle can be reached by phone at [phone] or by email
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Nastasha Earle -Young
Transportation Planning Branch
Eastem Planning Team I
-5�'--Nnthing Compares-- ,..
stale or North Gam ina, Daparhnent o: VrariWortatiun, Transportation 1'tanuing Branch
1554 Mail Serrioe Centcr, 1 Soiith Wilmington Street, Ralciph, NC 27601
919-707-0900
C-24IPage

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION r'IW U 5 2416
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY, BRUNSWICK H12: OTHER STATE NUMBER : 17-E-0000-0056
NEW HANOVER DATE RECEIVED: 078/03/2016
AGENCY RESPONSE: 08/29/2015
REVIEW CLOSED: 09102/207.5
MS PAULA CUTTS
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
MSC # 4218
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CAPE FEAR COG
DEPT OF ENVIR. QUALITY - COASTAL MG
DEPT OF ENVITRONNENI`AL (,QUALITY
DEPT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCE
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNCR - DIV OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DPS - DIV OF EMER{,ETITCY MANAGEMENT
PROJECT IM"ORMATION
APPLICANT: Department of the. Army
TYPE: National Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Assessment
DESC: Proposed project is for the Eagle Island Improvements, Dike raise to Elevation 50
feet. - View documents at:
http://www.saw_usace_army.mil/Missions/Navigation/Dredging/Wilmington-Harbor/Eagl
e -Island/
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for-
intergovernmental
orintergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 rail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: ❑ NO COMMENTtg COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY: i
C-25IPage
DA'T'E : f k, ���� i � (e

_Aq
'`~ JNorth Carolina Department of Public Safety
Emergency Management
Pat McCrory, Governor Michael A. %prayberry, Director
Frank L. Perry, Secretary
August 16, 2016
State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Administration
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1301
Subject: Intergovernmental Review State Number: 17-E-0000-0055
Eagle Island Improvements, Raise Dike to 50', Brunswick and New Hanover Counties
As requested by the North Carolina State Clearinghouse, the North Carolina Department of
Public Safety Division of Emergency Management Risk Management National Flood Insurance
Program (NCNFIP) staff reviewed the proposed project to raise the Eagle Island perimeter dike
to 50'. The site is located alongside the Cape Fear River and Brunswick River near Wilmington.
NCNFIP offers the following comments:
Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977 (Floodplain Management) requires executive
departments and agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse
impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplain and to avoid direct or
indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. Executive
Order 11988 requires an eight -step review process that agencies should carry out as part of their
decision-making on projects that have potential impacts to or within the floodplain. Any work
within the SF14A of studied streams, based on the current Flood Insurance Rate Map, should
follow these guidelines in order to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse
impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. The eight steps are
summarized below. It is noted that several of these actions have already taken place with the
preparation of the Description of Proposed Action.
1) Determine if a proposed action is in the base floodplain (that area which has a one
percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year).
2) Conduct early public review, including public notice.
3) Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating in the base floodplain,
including alternative sites outside of the floodplain.
4) Identify impacts of the proposed action.
5) If impacts cannot be avoided, develop measures to minimize the impacts and restore
and preserve the floodplain, as appropriate.
6) Reevaluate alternatives.
MAILING ADDRESS:
4218 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-4218
www.ncem.org
C-261 Page
_...
rxaan rnRar:ffz�
GTM OFFICF LOCATION:
4105 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone. [phone]
Fax: [phone]

State Clearinghouse Page 2 of 2 August 16, 2016
17-E-0000-0056
7) Present the findings and a public explanation.
8) Implement the action.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have any questions concerning the
above comments, please contact me at [phone], by email at dan.brubaker@ncd ass.gov or
at the address shown on the footer of this document.
Sincerely,
John D. Brubaker, P.E., CFM
NFIP Engineer
Risk Management
cc: Tom Langan, Engineering Supervisor
John Gerber, NFIP State Coordinator
File
C-271 Page

EST OF.tyF/ • United States Department of the Interior
m ya
y s FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
4RCH 9 .s Raleigh, North Carolina 27536-3726
August 30, 2016
Elden J. Gatwood
Chief, Planning and Environmental Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28402
Re: Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) Eagle Island Improvements Dike Raise to Eievation 50 Feer
Dear Mr. Gatwood:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed you► July 29, 2016 letter and copy of the Draft
Environmental Assessment (DEA) for Eagle Island Improvements Dike Raise to Elevation 50 Feet. The
proposed project is to be constructed on Eagle Island in the Cape Fear River, New Hanover and Brunswick
Counties, North Carolina. The proposed project will raise the elevation of the dike to 50 feet and require
the construction of a supportive outer toe berm. This will provide a spoil disposal area until 2032. The toe
berm is projected to impact 39 acres of Phragmites-dominated coastal marsh. The Corps proposes. to
mitigate the loss of 39 acres of marsh by purchasing 3.04 acres of coastal t arsh credits fro►n the Wilson
Bay (Sturgeon City) Phase 1 bank which is locates{ in a different hydrologic unit (1-lUC). The Service does
not believe the proposed mitigation will offset the wetland impacts.
In Section 5.7 of the report the Corps states that Eagle Island is fringed by marsh/wetlands suited to
brackish water. Phragnrites australis predominates, while cat tails (Typho latifolia, T. cingustifolia, and T.
clondhr ensis) are interspersed with Spar•tina altel•nii lora and patens, Typho latifolia, Seh pus spp, Junaus
roermerianus and various other species of reeds, rushes, and sedges. The DEA goes on to state that areas
dominated by Phragmites are of lower duality and provide less habitat for native species; however they are
stili useful ror flood protection, erosion control and improving water quality. The waters surrounding
Eagle Island are designated Primary Nursery Area (PNA). The wetlands on Eagle Island play an important
part in the aquatic ecosystem making this a PNA. Although the large amount of Phragniites iu the
wetland areas does reduce the habitat value to terrestrial species it does provide some habitat and thus
appropriate mitigation should be provided.
To mitigate for the 39 acres of wetland impacts the Corps has proposed purchasing 3.04 acres of coastal
marsh credits from the Wilson Bay (Sturgeon City) Phase I bank. The Service does not believe the
proposed mitigation will offset tate impacts of the prgject. The Wilson Bay bank is not in the same
hydrologic unit as Eagle Island so any benefits provided by that bank will not be provided to the Cape Fear
or Brunswick Rivers. Furthermore the proposed acreage is well below a 1:1 ratio which would lead to a
net loss of wetland acreage not just the functions and values. The Service is very concerned about the
precedence this may set for mitigation of wetland impacts for other publ is or private projects.
The Corps should mitigate for these impacts at a ratio of at least 1:1. If mitigation credits are to be
purchased, tl►c hank should be in the saime HUC. You may wish to contact the Eagles Island Coalition to
see if their efforts could be furthered in a way that also mitigates for project impacts. Their Conservation
Management Plan can be viewed at http://eaglesisland.orgjeaklesisiaitciconservatioit. df In March 2016,
Dial Cordy and Associates, Inc prepared a "Prospective Resiliency Project List for the Cape Fear River
Basin" for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. This document identifies habitat restoration
projects in the Cape Fear Basin including some in close proximity to Eagle Island. Consulting the
C-281 Page

document and Dial Cordy may provide potential projects which may be undertaken for mitigation. During
the scoping meetings for this project, the Corps mentioned seeking to offset the impacts utilizing its dredge
spoil islands in the lower Cape Fear. Tire Service encourages you to revisit those investigations. Lastly,
the Corps could investigate a longterm Phragmites control on the remaining wetlands as that may be
acceptable to the resource agencies. In summary, the Service believes that there are marry options available
to the Corps to offset the 39 acres of wetland impacts within the HUC.
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (ESA) and based on the information
provided, and other available information, it appears the action is not likely to adversely affect federally
Iisted species or their critical habitat as defined by tile ESA. We believe that the requirements of section 7
(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this project. Please remember that obligations under the ESA
must be reconsidered if. (1) new information identifies impacts of this action that may affect listed species
or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is modified in a manner that was
not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be
affected by the identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed action. We look
forward to continuing to work with the Corps to develop appropriate mitigation for the wetland impacts of
this important project. Should you have any questions regarding the project, please contact John Ellis at
[phone], extension 26.
Sincerel
e Benjamin,
Field Supervisor
cc: NMFS, Beaufort, NC
EPA, Atlanta, GA
WRC, Raleigh
C-291 Page

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Emily,
Burdette, Jennifer a
Huahes. Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Higgins, Karen; Cobum, Chad
[EXTERNAL] RE: Eagle Island Revised Mitigation Proposal
Monday, November 14, 2016 3:49:21 PM
As we discussed via telephone today, the Division believes that the revised mitigation proposal complies with the
mitigation requirement of the 401 water quality certification. Please provide a statement of availability from the
mitigation provider to restart the certification process.
Thanks,
Jennifer
Jennifer Burdette
401 /Buffer Coordinator
Division of Water Resources - 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Department of Environmental Quality
919 807 6364 office
[e-mail]
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
(Physical Address: 512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604 - 9th Flr Archdale Bldg - Room 942F)
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
-----Original Message -----
From: Hughes, Emily B SAW[mailto:Emi1,�ughes&usace.army.mill
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 8:22 AM
To: Burdette, Jennifer a <[e-mail]>
Cc: Higgins, Karen <[e-mail]>; Coburn, Chad <[e-mail]>
Subject: Eagle Island Revised Mitigation Proposal
Jennifer,
Please see attached letter requesting approval for the revised mitigation proposal to offset impacts associated with
the Eagle Island toe berm construction. Deadline for your response is November 10, 2016. I will also be soon
providing you with an updated Pre -construction Notification Form to reflect these changes and the additional
information requested from the State on our Draft EA.
If you have any questions please let me know.
Thanks,
Emily
C-301 Page

From: Ken Riley - NOAA Federal
To: Hushes, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc: Burdette. Jennifer a: Pete BeniaminClfws.aov: Pace Wilber - NOAA Federal: Cobum, Chad: Ellis. John
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Eagle Island Dike Raise Revised Mitigation Plan
Date: Monday, November 14, 2016 8:57:56 AM
Dear Emily,
The N vWS has no objection to the compensatory mitigation proposed for the Eagle Island Improvements Dike Raise
to 50 Feet. Please let us know if you have questions or comments.
Sincerely,
-Ken Riley
Kenneth Riley, Ph.D.
Habitat Conservation Division
National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Region
101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, NC 28516
Office: 252-728-8750 <tel:[phone]> I Cell: 252-864-6193 <tel:[phone]> I Email: [e-mail]
<mailto: ken. rileyjct)noaa. gov>
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Hughes, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail] <ma i lto: Em i ly. B.Hugh es v usace. army. m il> > wrote:
Good Day All,
Just a reminder that we are soliciting a response from everybody on this. I meant to send out the reminder
yesterday, as today is the deadline. Since tomorrow is a holiday, we will not be here, so if I find your response in my
inbox Monday morning it will be accepted. If not, I'll assume you are in favor of the revised plan.:)
Thank you and have a good weekend!
Emily
Environmental Resources Section, Wilmington District
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone] <tel: %28910%29%20251-4635>
[e-mail] <mailto:Emily.b.hughesnusace.army.mil>
C-31 I Page

From:
Holloman. Daniel
To:
Gatwood, Elden SAW; Hughes, Emily B SAW
Cc:
Militscher, Chris; Bowers, Todd
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Eagle Island Improvement Dike Project
Date:
Tuesday, November 08, 2016 11:58:15 AM
Mr. Gatwood,
EPA appreciates the response provided by Wilmington District (letter dated October 26, 2016) regarding the
proposed mitigation for the Eagle Island Improvement Dike project. We appreciate the District conducting an
additional site assessment to verify wetland quality and the additional proposed wetland credits which will be
purchased from a mitigation bank located within watershed. EPA staff from our Water Protection Division has also
reviewed this revised mitigation proposal and concurs with the District's new conclusions. If you have any
additional questions, please give me a call.
Thanks,
Dan
Dan Holliman
USEPA Region 4 I NEPA Program Office
61 Forsyth Street SW I Atlanta, GA 30303
tel [phone] [e-mail]
Region 4 NEPA: Blookedhttp://www.epa.gov/reglon4/opm/nepa/'Mdex.html
<Blockedhttp://www.epa.gov/region4/opm/nepaVindex.html>
C-32IPage

From: Ellis. John
To: Huahes. Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc: Burdette. Jennifer a; Pete BeniaminOfvws.aov; Pace Wilber - NOAA Federal: Coburn, Chad; Ken Riley - NOAA
Federal
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Eagle Island Dike Raise Revised Mitigation Plan
Date: Monday, November 14, 2016 7:36:00 AM
The Service is ok with the revised plan.
John
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Hughes, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]<mailto:Emilv.B.Hughesnusace.army, mil> > wrote:
Good Day All,
Just a reminder that we are soliciting a response from everybody on this. I meant to send out the reminder
yesterday, as today is the deadline. Since tomorrow is a holiday, we will not be here, so if I find your response in my
inbox Monday morning it will be accepted. If not, I'll assume you are in favor of the revised plan.:)
Thank you and have a good weekend!
Emily
Environmental Resources Section, Wilmington District
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
[e-mail] <mailto:Emily.b."hes usace.army.mil>
C-331 Page

APPENDIX D
CORPS RESPONSES TO DRAFT EA COMMENTS
D-1 I Page

Item #
Comment Source
Comment
Response
1
Eagle Island Coalition, August 29, 2016
"more can be done to offset and mitigate the damage to 39 acres of tidal
Concur, the original mitigation plan has been discarded. After reevaluating, toe berm impacts resulted in 35.5 acres of tidal
Letter, Rob Moul, Chair
freshwater wetlands."
freshwater wetlands, of which 2.85 acres are considered Primary Nursery Area (PNA). The remainder is coastal marsh dominated
by Phragmrtes astralrs. The Corps is proposing to mitigate for the 35.5 acres by purchasing credits from the Lower Cape Fear
Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Sneeden Tract). The Sneeden Tract is within the project's Hydrologic Unit Code, located directly
adjacent to the Cape Fear River, 5 miles upstream of Eagle Island. This site has tidal freshwater marsh (both restoration and
preservation) incorporated into its credits; as such, it is considered in-kind to the toe berm wetland impacts on Eagle Island. For
this reason we are proposing to mitigate for impacts at a ratio of 1:1 (purchase of 35.5 mitigation credits) and strongly believe this
would result in no net loss of wetlands (REFERENCE APPENDIX E, MITIGATION PLAN).
2
Eagle Island Coalition, August 29, 2016
Request that we "continue the rotational use of the 3 dikes in such a way that
The intention is to continue disposal rotation in the cells every two years with one cell being disposed into, one cell drying, and
Letter, Rob Moul, Chair
continues the availability and supply of the varied bird habitats... Also desired
one cell being used for borrow. The management of the cells from a navigation process will take precedence over rotation of the
that "Chinese tallow, a known exotic invasive tree, be controlled within and
cells on a set schedule. The Corps maintains vegetation on the existing dikes as part of a separate contract, vegetation is mowed
along the dike edges... "
frequently to allow for regular safety inspections of the dikes. Control of non-native invasive vegetation is not included in the
budget of the project and future mowing contracts will not include areas beyond the toe of the toe berm.
3
Eagle Island Coalition, August 29, 2016
Suggest that the Corps "plant bald cypress trees along the outer edge of
To avoid any threats to the structural integrity of the toe berm and dike, no trees may be planted on or near the berm or dike
Letter, Rob Moul, Chair
[proposed] toe berm."
structure, therefore planting of bald cyprus trees on the outer edge of the toe would not be allowed. Although the berms/dikes on
Eagle Island do not act as flood control structures, they are designed to encapture millions of gallons of water that slowly
discharge to the river through spillways once material has settled out. Woody stems and root systems can compromise the
reliability of the structure and threaten overall water quality of the river. To avoid this, requirements for vegetation -free zones (with
the exception of grasses) surrounding the berms/dikes exist. Reference: EM 1110-2-301 Guidelines for Landscape and
Vegetation Management at Levees, Floodwalls, Embankment Dams, and Appurtement Structures.
4
EPA Region IV, August 30, 2016 Email,
"EPA recommends coordination with the State of NC to ensure compliance
The project has been coordinated with the NC Division of Water Resources. A 401 Water Quality Certification will be received
Daniel Holliman, NEPA Program Office
with WQS during construction activities."
prior to start of construction. All conditions of the certification will be met. See response below (to comment #5) for information
regarding sedimentation and erosion control.
5
EPA Region IV, August 30, 2016 Email,
"The construction [BMPs] plan should include implementable measures to
Approved erosion and sediment control measures will be included in the specifications and shown on the project drawings. The
Daniel Holliman, NEPA Program Office
prevent erosion and sediment runoff from the project."
Contractor shall comply with all plan requirements, and is reminded that he is responsible for providing erosion and sediment
control measures in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. The erosion and sediment controls selected
and maintained by the Contractor shall be such that water quality standards are not violated as a result of the Contractor's
construction activities. Non erosion and sediment control structures shall be constructed in waters or wetlands without prior
approval from the Contracting Officer or his/her designated representative. The area of bare soil exposed at any one time by
construction operations should be kept to a minimum. The Contractor shall construct or install temporary and permanent erosion
and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) as indicated on the drawings or as directed by the Contracting Officer
or his/her designated representative. BMPs may include, but not be limited to, vegetation cover, stream bank stabilization, slope
stabilization, silt fences, construction of terraces, interceptor channels, sediment traps, inlet and outfall protection, diversion
channels, and sedimentation basins. Any temporary measures shall be removed after the area has been stabilized.
6
EPA Region IV, August 30, 2016 Email,
All projects that disturb an acre or more of land require permit coverage and
See response above (to comment 95).
Daniel Holliman, NEPA Program Office
an S&EC plan, see info on NC stormwater permit NCG01...
7
EPA Region IV, August 30, 2016 Email,
"EPA is concerned that the proposed mitigation for impacts to wetlands is not
See response to comment #1. NC WAM forms have been inlcuded as part of Appendix E. By email dated 8 Nov 2016, EPA
Daniel Holliman, NEPA Program Office
adequate; unclear how it is consistent with the 2008 Mitigation Rile; request
concurred with the revised mitigation plan.
the Corps provide copies of the NC Wetland Assessment Method forms...for
both the impact site and the mitigation site."
8
EPA Region IV, August 30, 2016 Email,
'... language regarding cost of the alternatives is very vague and non-
Noted. Estimated costs for transporting dredged material from the Anchorage Basin to the ODMDS are approximately $11.90 per
Daniel Holliman, NEPA Program Office
informative; costs should be more clearly described in this section."
cubic yard (unescalated). Estimated costs for transporting dredged material from the Anchorage Basin to Eagle Island are
(Alternatives Considered But Eliminated)
approximately $3.25 per cubic yard. This information has been added to Section 4.1 of the Final EA.
D-2 I Page

Item #
Comment Source
Comment
Response
9
Cape Fear River Watch, Letter emailed
"There is no geo-technical appendix providing details for the proposed dike
No formal Geotechnical Appendix was prepared for the EA, although a design documentation report with a geotechnical section
August 31, 2016, Kemp Burdette
raise."
was prepared as part of the design and review process. A detailed geotechnical design of the dike was performed that shows
that a toe berm is required for the dike raise to elevation 50 NAVD88 to meet USACE engineering stability guidance. The toe
berm width was reduced as much as possible while still meeting stability requirements. Adequate information (i.e. cross-section
figure showing toe berm and step-ins) was included in the main text.
10
Cape Fear River Watch, Letter emailed
"The cost analysis for [disposal to the ODMDS] should be included in the EA."
Noted. Estimated costs for transporting dredged material from the Anchorage Basin to the ODMDS are approximately $11.90 per
August 31, 2016, Kemp Burdette
cubic yard (unescalated). Estimated costs for transporting dredged material from the Anchorage Basin to Eagle Island are
approximately $3.25 per cubic yard. This information has been added to Section 4.1 of the Final EA.
11
Cape Fear River Watch, Letter emailed
"Figs 5&6 should have a legend... "
A legend has been added to Figures 5 and 6.
Au ust 31 2016 Kemp Burdette
12
Cape Fear River Watch, Letter emailed
"The EA states Phrag is of lower quality and has less habitat for native
Ozbay et al, Journal of Ecosystems & Ecography, 2014. Land Use Impacts: The Effects of Non-Native Grasses on Marsh and
August 31, 2016, Kemp Burdette
species; however, no reference is provided for that conclusion."
Aquatic Ecosystems. Able et al, Estuaries (vol 6, no 1), 2003. Impact of Common Reed, Phragmites australis, on Essential Fish
Habitat: Influence on Reproduction, Embryological Development, and Larval Abundance of Mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus).
Weinstein et al, Estuaries (vol 22, no 3B), 1999. Does the Common Reed, Phragmites Australis, Affect Essential Fish Habitat?
See Appendix E, Revised Mitigation Plan
13
Cape Fear River Watch, Letter emailed
how was 3.04 acres of mitigation needs determined?"
See response to comment #1.
August 31, 2016, Kemp Burdette
14
Cape Fear River Watch, Letter emailed
Mitigation should be performed or credits received in the Cape Fear River
Concur. See response to comment #1.
August 31, 2016, Kemp Burdette
Watershed.
15
Cape Fear River Watch, Letter emailed
Suggestions for mitigation alternatives include: "setting aside cells 4&5 for
Other mitigation alternatives were ruled out based on cost and possible future need. See response to comment #1.
August 31, 2016, Kemp Burdette
conservation; improving L&D 1; restore Alligator Creek.
16
Division of Coastal Management, August 31
"Clarify wether the project would result in any Coastal Wetland impacts, and if
A vegetation map showing impacts to the toe berm areas is included in the Final EA as Figure 7 (verified during a site visit with
letter, Daniel Govoni, Policy Analyst
it would, that it quantify the area of Coastal Wetlands to be impacted by the
NCDCM 9/16/2016). The map also identifies the Mean High Water Line (2ft elevation contour).
project. Additionally, the location of mean (or normal) high water line should
be identified, and any proposed impacts to Public Trust Areas or Estuarine
Waters alsoquantified."
17
Division of Coastal Management, August 31
Recommend submittal of a federal consistency determination.
A Federal Consistency Determination was completed and submitted to Doug Huggett on 29 July 2016. NCDCM Consistency
letter, Daniel Govoni, Policy Analyst
Concurrence was received February 24, 2017.
18
Department of Natural and Cultural
"We believe the Draft EA adequately addresses our concerns for historic
Noted.
Resources, August 29 letter, Renee Gledhill-
resources."
Early,SHPO
19
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, August 30
"The Service does not believe the proposed mitigation will offset the wetland
Concur. See response to comment #1.
letter, John Ellis
impacts... areas dominated by Phragmites are ... still useful for flood
protection, erosion control and improving water quality. The waters
surrounding Eagle Island are designated PNA. The wetlands play an
important part in the aquatic ecosystem making this a PNA. Although the
amount of Phrag in the wetland areas does reduce the habitat value to
terrestrial species it does provide some habitat and thus appropriate mitigation
should be proy ded."
20
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, August 30
"The Wilson Bay bank is not in the same HUC as Eagle Island so any benefits
Concur. See response to comment #1.
letter, John Ellis
provided by the bank would not be provided to the CFR... the bank should be
in the same HUC."
21
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, August 30
'... the proposed acreage is well below 1:1 which would lead to a net loss of
Concur. See response to comment #1.
letter, John Ellis
wetland acreage, not just the function and values. The Service is very
concerned about the precedence this may set for mitigation of wetland
impacts for other public and private projects."
22
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, August 30
"During the scoping meetings for the project, the Corps mentioned seeking to
The Corps has eliminated the option to utilize alternate disposal areas (CDFs) in the Cape Fear River because the cost to create
letter, John Ellis
offset the impacts utilizing its dredge spoil islands in the lower Cape Fear. The
the capacity needed would not be practicable, and the environmental impacts would be just as much or greater than the 50ft Dike
Service encourages you to revisit those investigations. Lastly, the Corps could
Raise. Long term Phragmites control is not being considered due to need for additional time and funding to manage and monitor
investigate a long term Phrag control on the remianing wetlands as that may
this activity (see response to comment #1).
be acceptable to the resource agencies."
D-31 Page

Item #
Comment Source
Comment
Response
23
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service.
Recommends ''the mitigation include projects identified for Eagle Island (e.g.
Concur. See response to comment #1.
September 6, 2016 Letter, Pace Wilbur, for
Eagle Island Conservation Management Plan 2015-2025) or purchase of
the Southeast Regional Office
mitigation bank credits within the Cape Fear watershed... The amount of
mitigation should yield a no net loss of coastal wetland function"
24
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service.
"NMFS believes the proposed project would eliminate some nursery habitats
Concur. The construction of toe berms would impact approximately 2.85 acres of tidal area waterward of MHW surrounding Eagle
September 6, 2016 Letter, Pace Wilbur, for
used by diadromous fishes... including American eel, American shad, Atlantic
Island, the majority being adjacent to the Brunswick River. Impacts will be mitigated for through purchase of mitigation bank
the Southeast Regional Office
sturgeon, blueback herring, shortnose sturgeon, and striped bass."
credits (see response to comment 91). To avoid impacts to fisheries within the PNA areas during construction, every effort will be
made to construct the toe berms within the environmental window of April 1 - July 31. If construction within these areas cannot be
limited to this timeframe, coordination with environmental agencies will occur prior to impacts.
25
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service.
"NMFS believes the draft EA minimally addresses EFH and HAPCs and the
Additional information was added to Section 5.41 Nekton and Section 5.5 Fisheries and Essential Fish Habitat. Table 1 "Essential
September 6, 2016 Letter, Pace Wilbur, for
topic receives no focused discussion. Substantial review of these
Fish Habitat Species in the Eagle Island Improvements Project Area" lists, by life stages, fish and crustacean species which may
the Southeast Regional Office
considerations should be included in the final EA. The EFH and HAPC
occur in the vacinity of Wilmington Harbor. Table 3 lists Federally listed endangered and threatened species potentially impacted
characterizations should include a summary of designations for each federally
by the project; and Section 5.9 discusses the known occurence of listed sturgeon and habitats they utilize during their life stages,
managed species in the project area, including habitats required during each
and a determination of effect.
life stage (including egg, larval, postlarval, juvenile, and adult stages) and time
of year of occurrence."
26
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service.
"Phrag-dominated marsh provides many ecological services and functions as
Noted. Evidence of this is not yet found in published research. Literature from 2014 states that "increased levels of biomass
September 6, 2016 Letter, Pace Wilbur, for
a nursery area for larval and juvenile finfish, crustaceans, and mollluscs, and
[Phragmites] result in an altered soil chemistry, a shift in the availability of primary production, and elevated marsh surface,
the Southeast Regional Office
as a habitat for adult fishes... Phrag-dominated marsh can provide many of the
smoothed topography (i.e. the loss of rivulets), restricted flow to the marsh interior, an increase in shade and litter cover, and
same ecological functions as salt marshes, including flood protection, erosion
lowered or altered pathways for nutrient availability, especially nitrogen, for marsh nekton" (Ozbay, 2014). Regardless, mitigation
control, water quality, and detrital exchange, and have similar levels of nekton
to offset impacts has been revised (see response to comment #1).
abundance, biomass and diversity."
27
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service.
Section 1.1 should include reference to the Draft Integrated Feasibilty Report
The subject reference was added to Section 1.1.
September 6, 2016 Letter, Pace Wilbur, for
and Environmental Assessment, Wilmington Harbor Navigation
the Southeast Regional Office
Improvements, dated June 2014.
28
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service.
Section 5.5, Table 2 incorrectly states that no HAPCs are located in the
Corrections have been made to Table 2.
September 6, 2016 Letter, Pace Wilbur, for
vicinity of Wilmington Harbor.
the Southeast Regional Office
29
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service.
Section 5.7 and Section 5.18.4 should demonstrate quantitatively that the 39-
Section 5.7 was revised to state "considered to be'' of lower quality and makes reference to the Revised Mitigation Plan. "Low
September 6, 2016 Letter, Pace Wilbur, for
42 acres of Phrag-dominated coastal marsh is low quality. Section 5.16 should
quality" was removed from the description of toe berm impacts in Section 5.18.4.
the Southeast Regional Office
substantiate that Phrag-dominated coastal marsh provides little habitat and
food source for nativespecies.
30
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service.
SAW should employ BMPs to prevent discharge of pollutants and to control
BMPs to avoid turbidity will be exercised by the Contractor (and enforced by USACE) during construction.
September 6, 2016 Letter, Pace Wilbur, for
turbidity throughout construction.
the Southeast Regional Office
31
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service.
SAW should use vegetation to stabilize the toe berm and prevent its erosion.
Only grasses are considered safe vegetation to plant on berms/dikes (see comment response to #3 above), therefore potted
September 6, 2016 Letter, Pace Wilbur, for
vegetation will not be planted. Dikes and toe berms will be layered with erosion control matting and seeded with a native seed mix
the Southeast Regional Office
for stabilization.
32
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service.
....The mitigation plan should identify the specific wetland functions and
Noted. See response to comment W. Purchase of 35.5 credits of riverine/tidal freshwater marsh will occur prior to start of
September 6, 2016 Letter, Pace Wilbur, for
values the compensatory mitigation is intended to restore or replace.
construction.
the Southeast Regional Office
Compensation for interim losses of ecological functions and values should be
included if the compensatory mitigation project requires several years to
complete.''
33
NC Division of Coastal Management
DCM is processing this project through their federal consistency program.
Noted. The Federal Consistency Determination was revised and submitted to DCM July 29, 2016. NCDCM Consistency
(Heather Coats), Submitted through NC
Concurrence was received February 24, 2017.
Review Clearinghouse
34
NC Division of Environmental Assistance and
Several of our agencies have identified permits that may be required.
Noted. All required permits/approvals will be obtained prior to start of work.
Customer Service (Lyn Hardison), Submitted
through NC Review Clearinghouse
DAIPage

Item #
Comment Source
Comment
Response
35
INC Division of Coastal Management (Gregg
Recommend USACE investigate the potential for coastal wetland planting
Noted. See response to comments #3 and #24. The environmental window for PNAs has been adjusted to April 1 - July 31. This
Bodnar), Submitted through INC Review
along the toe of slope and other areas where practical. The draft EA identifies
has been approved by the NMFS in an email dated 11/22/2016.
Clearinghouse
an in-water work environmental window (1 Oct - 31 Jan) and is sufficient and
recommended.
36
INC Department of Environmental Quality -
"The demolition, construction, operation, maintenance, and remediation
No hazardous material will be generated during the proposed construction of the toe berm and dike raise. The contractor will be
Waste Management, Hazardous Waste
activities conducted will most likely generate a soild waste, and a
required to provide a solid waste disposal plan identifying methods and locations for solid waste disposal. The contractor will also
Section (Bill Hunneke), Submitted through
determination must be made whether it is a hazardous waste... The proposed
be required to provide evidence of the disposal facility's acceptance of the solid waste. Revised language has been inlcuded in
INC Review Clearinghouse
project site does not currently have an existing EPA Identification number for
Section 5.13.
the generation of hazardous waste."
37
INC Division of Waste Management, Federal
"Eight sites were identified within one mile of the project as shown on the
Based on experience working at Eagle Island for the past several decades, no contaminated soil or groundwater is expected to
Remediation Branch (Doug Rumford),
attached map and in the table below. The Superfund Section recommends
be encountered at Eagle Island. Construction will be limited to Eagle Island and will result in fill beyond the footprint of the current
Submitted through NC Review
that site files be reviewed to ensure the appropriate precautions are
dikes. No excavation in surrounding lands will occur. Also, material used to construct the toe berm will be obtained from the
Clearinghouse
incorporated into any construction activities that encounter potentially
interior of the existing dike. That material has been tested for contaminants in accordance with EPA ocean disposal criteria and is
contaminated soil or groundwater.''
suitable for ocean disposal (no contaminants present).
38
INC Waste Management, Solid Waste
"See no adverse impact on the surrounding community... The Section strongly
The contractor will be required to provide a solid waste disposal plan identifying methods and locations for solid waste disposal.
Section (Drew Hammonds), Submitted
recommends that the owner require all contractors to provide proof of proper
The contractor will also be required to provide evidence of the disposal facility's acceptance of the solid waste.
through NC Review Clearinghouse
disposal for all waste generated."
39
NCDENR Wilmington Regional Office
An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more
Prior to construction, an erosion and sedimentation control plan will be prepared and submitted for review and approval along with
(WIRO), Submitted through NC Review
acres is to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Land Quality Section at least 30
an application fee based on the acreage to be disturbed to the NC Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources Land Quality
Clearinghouse
days prior to construction. A fee of $65 for the first acres or any part of an
Section.
acre.
40
NCDENR Wilmington Regional Office
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
Noted. An exemption from stormwater management permit regulations will be requested from the INC Division of Energy,
(WIRO), Submitted through NC Review
Mineral, and Land Resources since the proposed construction activity is not expected to be subject to stormwater requirements
Clearinghouse
as provided for in 15A NCAC 2H.1000.
41
NCDENR Wilmington Regional Office
This project will require an Individual Permit Certification under Section 401.
Noted. A 401 application has been submitted to NCDEQ. A 401 water quality certification will be obtained prior to start of work.
(WIRO), Submitted through NC Review
All conditions of the 401 will be met.
Clearin house
42
NCDENR Wilmington Regional Office
Be advised that there are water lines located under the river in the area to be
Construction of the toe berm and dike raises will not involve dredging, however, the USACE is aware of the location of water lines
(WIRO), Submitted through INC Review
dredged that are owned by CFPUA -- DWR-PWS
below the CFR.
Clearinghouse
43
NCDENR Wilmington Regional Office
New construction and earthwork will require Division of Energy, Mineral and
Prior to construction an erosion and sedimentation control plan will be prepared and submitted for review and approval to the INC
(WIRO), Submitted through NC Review
Land Resources (DEMLR) permits.
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources Land Quality Section. An exemption from stormwater management permit
Clearinghouse
regulations will be requested from the NC Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources since the proposed construction
activity is not expected to be subject to stormwater requirements as provided for in 15A NCAC 2H.1000.
44
INC State Historic Preservation Office,
No comment.
Noted.
Submitted through NC Review
Clearinghouse
45
INC Department of Transportation (Natasha
Project is located near a facility that is going to be widened. To avoid any
Concur. Email conversation with several NCDOT representatives resulted with no concerns, and concluded with an email
Earle-Young), Submitted through NC Review
potential conflicts to TIP Project R-3601, please coordinate with the Division
message from Ron Van Cleef, NCDOT Division Bridge Maintenance Engineer on February 9, 2017 stating no foreseeable
Clearinghouse
Planning Engineer in Hwy Div 3.
impacts with the project.
46
INC Department of Public Safety - Emergency
EO 11988 requires an eight-step review process that agencies should carry
Noted. Text has been added to Section 5.18.3 to better address the 8-step review process.
Mangement (John Brubaker), Submitted
out as part of their decision-making on projects that have potential impacts to
through NC Review Clearinghouse
or within the floodplain... It is noted that several of these actions have already
taken place with the preparation of the Description of Proposed Action.
D-5IPage

APPENDIX E
REVISED MITIGATION PLAN AND
SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS
E-1 I Page

Eagle Island Improvements Revised Mitigation Plan
The Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Eagle Island Improvements, Dike Raise to
50ft project was released for 30 -day public review on July 28, 2016. The majority of comments
received from the resource agencies and interest groups were related to the project's
mitigation proposal. The overall consensus was that the proposed purchase of 3.04 acres of
coastal wetland credits would not sufficiently mitigate for the toe berm impacts within the tidal
freshwater marsh surrounding Eagle Island.
Based on a detailed vegetation analysis completed in 2015, jurisdictional impacts have been
decreased from 39 acres to 35.5 acres. The vegetation mapping effort conducted in 2015
categorized the areas within the toe berm impacts into five classes: "Native", "Majority Phrag"
"Mix - Native/Phrag", "Tree/Shrub", and "Water" (Figure 1). As shown on the attached figure,
the majority of impacts are to Phragmites-dominated wetlands (34.79 ac). Areas identified in
green as tree/shrub were ground-truthed and determined to be uplands (non -jurisdictional).
Native, mixed and open water impacts were combined to equal 0.66 ac., and together,
jurisdictional impacts total 35.5 acres.
A site visit with the NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) on September 16, 2016
confirmed the mapping. Two open water areas were identified as being isolated and of little or
no importance to fisheries habitat. The Mean High Water (MHW) line (2 -feet elevation contour)
was added to Figure 1 to identify impact areas affected by daily tides during normal water
levels (2.85 acres total).
Comments on the Draft EA from federal and state agencies regarding the quality of wetlands in
the impact area requested additional information to support the basis for considering
Phragmites australis of "low" quality. Consequently, the North Carolina Wetland Assessment
Method (NC WAM) was conducted in two locations where toe berm impacts would occur: Site
1 on the north end of Cell 3, and Site 2 on the southwest side of Cell 1, adjacent to the
Brunswick River (Figure 2). A third location adjacent to the Cape Fear River was identified;
however, dense Phragmites prevented access to natural ground, which is required to
accurately apply the NC WAM.
The NC WAM assesses wetlands by their identified wetland type and applies 22 metrics that
rate the quality of the site's Hydrology, Water Quality, and Habitat. Field Assessment Forms
and Wetland Rating Sheets have been included as Figure 3, attached. Observations at Site 1
conclude that the assessment area is saturated; however, it is not subject to tidal influence.
Dense stands of Phragmites approximately 10-12 feet tall crowd out other native vegetation.
Results from NC WAM based on Hydrology, Water Quality, and Habitat were achieved and the
overall rating for Site 1 is "MEDIUM". Observations at Site 2 conclude that the area is
saturated; however, it is undetermined if infrequent flooding from tides occurs. Again, the
Phragmites made it difficult to observe beyond 4-5 feet within the assessment area, and lower
areas closer to the river could not be accessed. Despite the monoculture of Phragmites, the
overall result from NC WAM based on Hydrology, Water Quality, and Habitat is "HIGH"
(Hydrology and Water Quality rate "HIGH", whereas Habitat rates "LOW").
Research on Phragmites australis revealed that Phragmites could have an impact on
hydrology as well, and negatively affect fisheries habitat. According to Ozbay (2014),
E-21 age

"increased levels of biomass result in an altered soil chemistry, a shift in the availability of
primary production, and elevated marsh surface, smoothed topography (i.e. the loss of
rivulets), restricted flow to the marsh interior, an increase in shade and litter cover, and
lowered or altered pathways for nutrient availability, especially nitrogen, for marsh nekton."
Weinstein (1999) noted that Phragmites "influences hydrology and hydroperiod through its
effects on drainage density, and other geomorphic features", "demonstrated generally greater
tidal attenuation", and results in "reduction in biodiversity of macrophytes with concomitant
reduction in animal diversity." In a 2000 study, Able and Hagan found "that the larvae and
small juveniles use the Spartina-dominated marsh surface frequently and in large numbers,
while they are seldom found in Phragmites-dominated marshes."
The USACE is proposing to mitigate for the 35.5 acres of toe berm impacts by purchasing
credits from the Lower Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank (LCFUMB), Sneeden Tract. The
Sneeden Tract is within the project's Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC), located directly adjacent to
the Cape Fear River, 5 miles upstream of Eagle Island (Figure 4). This site has tidal freshwater
marsh incorporated into its credits; as such, it is considered in-kind to the toe berm wetland
impacts on Eagle Island. For this reason and reasons stated above, the USACE plans to
mitigate for impacts at a ratio of 1:1 (purchase of 35.5 mitigation credits from the Sneeden
Tract) and strongly believes this mitigation would result in a no net loss of wetlands. Mitigation
will be paid in -full prior to impacting jurisdictional areas.
The revised mitigation plan was proposed to the resource agencies in a letter dated October
26, 2016. Based on responses received, agencies agree with the USACE plan to purchase
35.5 credits from the LCFUMB. An acceptance letter from the Bank is attached (Figure 5).
References:
Ozbay et al, Journal of Ecosystems & Ecography, 2014. Land Use Impacts: The Effects of
Non -Native Grasses on Marsh and Aquatic Ecosystems.
Able et al, Estuaries (vol 6, no 1), 2003. Impact of Common Reed, Phragmites australis, on
Essential Fish Habitat: Influence on Reproduction, Embryological Development, and Larval
Abundance of Mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus).
Weinstein et al, Estuaries (vol 22, no 3B), 1999. Does the Common Reed, Phragmites
australis, Affect Essential Fish Habitat?
E-31 Page

fir.. - � ��..,�• n �:-
ep-
40
r
NMI•' I _ -.��"� .` a .. � l
y;taw •y �.��� `!�i .
`d 7. � { � �� � r P�I •� � s �.cr
_A
� �}. +• 'i � r �.`=�.`.'•'7.�, fir• �? ��
Legend
r ,
• R,.
■ ■ ■ r�
Bare soilldike •.•
f Majority Native
Majority Phrag
i ♦• -
TreeShrub
Water
i
_ C
,q o00 00 © 9 floo 000 noa ','ono �•

Figure 5. Footprintof the d9' Toe Berms for Cells 2 & 3
Appendix E, Figure 2a: Map of NCWAM Locations (Cells 2 & 3)
E-51 Page

112 1 P a g E
Figure 5. Footprint of the 50' 'foe Be�far Cell t
Appendix E, Figure 2b: Map of NCWAM Locations (Cell 1)
E-61 Pays

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
r
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
,. ..}J_
WT
❑A
A r e_ C. „� ._ Date
Wetland Site Name -Ad,
❑B
❑B
WetlandTy� tit`( ,Uc.�,�l S S e...� �1J sU[' _- Assessor Name/organization €
_5A 'C..
❑C
Level III Ecoregi �.-. Nearest Named Water Body �, �.
E'L
❑D
River Basin /,
e.iF -. c- r_- � USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03 6SL- ,u-1
3b. ❑A
❑ Yes to No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (dect-degrees} 7 - 74
❑B
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area) v' '�
❑C
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges Into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence
of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes V' No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, 4RW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community Y�P,
1
❑ Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed streamh �- t l
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)`� ` .'•+. +�' JX"'
Blackwater
1 Brownwater
Q� ❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
..tit\ •. ,.r
Is the assossmont area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes �\- No iLJ
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? �❑ Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? C7 Yes 5� No
1. Ground Surface ConditionNegotation Condition—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in
the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the
assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
®A ❑A Not severely altered
[18 X(B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
reduced diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration
(Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current MRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for North Carolina
hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zono of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch s 1 foot deep is considered
to affect surface water only, while a ditch a 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding
regime, if applicable. l
Surf Sub
A ,RIA Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B LJ13 Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration is substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, (illing, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief —assessment areafwetland type condition metric (evaluate for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA
3a. ❑A
WT
❑A
Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep�1
❑B
❑B
Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep `fes
❑C
❑C
Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D
❑D
Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A
Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B
Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
❑C
Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
Appendix E, Figure 3: NCWAM Forms ix
E-71 age

4. Soil TexturelStructure -- assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature,
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent guidance for National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
�B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosoi or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ? 'I inch
4c. No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — assessment area opportunity metric
Check a box in each column, Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic lank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
AA tittle or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
BB Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeabie evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6.
Land Use -- opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment
area
(5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
W5
5M 2M
QA
QA DA > 10% impervious surfaces
0
❑B ❑B < 10% impervious surfaces
❑C
❑C ❑C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
❑D
❑D ❑D 20% coverage of pasture
❑E
❑E ❑E z 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑F
❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑G
❑G ❑G 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑H
❑H ❑H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment arealwetland complex condition metric
7a.
Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes VJNo If Yes, continue to 7b. if No, skip to Metric B.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the open water. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b.
How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland?
❑A ' 50 feet
F1 From 30 to < 50 feel
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
}
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c.
Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channelslbraids for a total width.
❑s 15 -feel wide ❑> 15 -feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d.
Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributarylopen water?
❑Yes LINO
7e.
is the tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
El Sheltered —open water width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑ Exposed — open water width �: 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8.
Wetland Width at the Assessment Area —wetland typelwetiand complex condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (VITT) and the wetland complex at
the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for VVT and WC boundaries.
WT
WC
XA
ZJA 100 feet
❑B
❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C
❑C From 50 to <80 feet
❑D
❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑ E
M From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F
❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G
❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H
❑H < 5 feet
E-81 Page

9. Inundation Duration -assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
8 Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric
Cgnsider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
MA Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size -wetland typelwetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select °K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A ❑A 2 500 acres
B $ ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑ I- ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
OF OF OF From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G (]G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑ H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
El ❑I R From 0.1 to <0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosin only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (2 9i0%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size. `
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas -- landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with fluid adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water a 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A ❑A z 500 acres
:(B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E < 10 acres
El OF Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
9Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/tributary or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect --wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
N_ non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
!, the eight main points of the compass.
❑A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
❑B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
❑C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear-cut
15. Vegetative Composition - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area,
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
5 characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant In at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity - assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics),
U13 Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
'& Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50% cover of exotics).
xi
E-9IPage

17. Vegetative Structure —assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip tol7c for non -marsh wetlands,
NA ? 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
MA ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
o❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
`ry1( M C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
7
28 UA ❑A Dense mid-storylsapling layer
19❑13 ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
00C ❑C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
0 ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
W❑C ❑C Shrub layer sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense herb layer
m❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
=❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags —wetland type condition metric
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
'NIB NotA
19. Diameter Class Distribution --wetland type condition metric
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
RC Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20, Largo Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
5i8 Not A
21. VogotationlOpen Water Dispersion --wetland typelopen water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C fiJD
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channolization,
diyersion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
,7SA Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered In the. assessment area.
Notes
A!
E-10IPage

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Site 1
Date
919116
Wetland Type Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Assessor Name/Organization
Hughes/USACE
Notes on Field Assessment Farm (YIN)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (YIN)
YFS
Weiland is intensively managed (YIN)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (YIN)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (YIN)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (YIN)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (YIN)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
_
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y1N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
ConditionlOpportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y1N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
NO
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM
E-11 I Page

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies laser Manual Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name'.ti..Q._
_. `- `, ' E
date
Wetland T e
❑A
❑B
❑C
❑D
Assessor NamelOrganization-p
t -
Level III Ecoregion
Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
Nearest Named Water Body
ll
L< <� r Kill
River Basin
ar Ukw, 17" "
USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit
_
❑ Yes W No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latltude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitatlplant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
❑' Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
M' N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)"'
Blackwater L'
❑ Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind y Both
c
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface ConditionlVegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box In each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in
the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the
assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS V5
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
reduced diversity (if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration -- assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column, Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration
(Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for North Carolina
hydric soils (see USAGE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch < 1 foot deep is considered
to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surrace water, Consider tidal flooding
regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
�A 1AA Wafer storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑6 IIB Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration is substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief —assessment arealwotland type condition metric (evaluate for non -marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA
WT
3a.❑A
( ❑B
❑C
❑D
❑A
❑B
❑C
❑D
Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water a 1 foot deep
Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A
Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B
Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
❑C
Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than t foot
ix
E-121 Page
2

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil proffle in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent guidance for National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils regional
indicator
4a. rp Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. D<A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon ,-� 1 Inch
4c.A No peat or muck presence
i3 A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland -- assessment area opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf S b
�A 'A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
B. Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment
area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS511 2M
}' A �A > 14% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B < 10% impervious surfaces
❑C ❑C ❑C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
❑D ❑D ❑D ? 20% coverage of pasture
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑F ❑F ❑F 20% coverage of maintained grasslherb
❑G ❑G ❑G 7 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑H ❑H ❑H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment arealwetiand complex condition metric
7a. Is assessm nt area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑YesNo If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland bu er need only be present on one side of the open water. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank Is wetland?
❑A >: 50 feet
❑13 From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
❑:� 15 -feet wide ❑> 15 -feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributarylopen water?
❑Yes ❑No
7e. Is the tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
❑Sheltered — open water width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
[I Exposed — open water width ? 2500 feet or regular boat traffic,
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area— wetland typelwetland complex condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and the wetland complex at
the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WC
A A ? 100 feet
❑ B B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H <5feet
E-131 Page

9. Inundation Duration —assessment area condition metric
Apswer for assessment area dominant landform.
,gyp Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
F1 Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
}KA Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K' for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A z 500 acres
]$B ]�B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑F ❑E ❑E From 10 to <25 acres
LIF ❑F ❑ F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
01 01 ❑I From 0.1 to <0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
11 3a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the Welland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A ❑A ? 500 acres
❑B XB From 100 to 1500 acres
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E < 10 acres
❑F ❑F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open watersltributary or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect—wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas a 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
`rf the eight main points of the compass.
} ❑A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
Q No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
❑C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear-cut
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
+ ❑8 Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
r clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
n8Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50% cover of exotics).
A
E-141 Page

17. Vegetative Structure —assessment arealwetland type condition metric
172. Is vegetation present?
'Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 1$.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to17c for non -marsh wetlands.
j C i 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
'LOA ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
c❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
t c)❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
2"UA ❑A Dense mid-storylsapling layer
O❑B EIB Moderate density mid-storylsapling layer
VVV �❑C FIC Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
9[]A ❑A Dense shrub layer
n❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
60❑C ❑C Shrub layer sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense herb layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
T[jC ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags --wetland type condition metric
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
WB Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution --wetland type condition metric
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
RA
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris -- wetland type condition metric
Inciude both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
IAB Not A
21. VegetationlOpen Water Dispersion —wetland typelopen water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C D
11,'� � T � 1 '� it f r s S'y• ft'�y_]�: -.. ., � �� � t r' 'L
22. Hydrologic Connectivity— assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
iyersion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Natejl � h
�41
Ay r �
L . _.2 1i`
lE !E IE' �� : u �� _`� �{ +'✓.�Lt. l
C-4 v
r� k xv - =
E-151 Page

Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Site 2
Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Date 919!16
Assessor Name/Organization Hughes/USAGE
Notes on Field Assessment Form (YIN)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (YIN)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (YIN)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (YIN)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (YIN)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (YIN)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
_ Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Physical Change
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Hydrology
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
NA
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
NA
Vegetation Composition
Condition
NA
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
YES
]habitat
Condition
LOW �
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH
E-161 Page

LOWER CAPE FEAR UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
STATEMENT OF CREDIT AVAILIBILITY
March 3, 2017
(update of reservation letter dated November 16, 2016)
TO: Emily Hughes FROM: Lower Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank
USAGE — Wilmington District c/o Land Management Group, Inc.
Environmental Resources Section 3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15
69 Darlington Ave. Wilmington, NC 28403
Wilmington, NC 28403
Project: Eagle Island Dike Raise Project (Brunswick County, NC)
Dear Ms. Hughes:
Pursuant to your recent credit request, the Lower Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank (LCFUMB) is providing
confirmation of acceptance to supply riverine wetland credits for proposed impacts associated with the
Corps of Engineer's Eagle Island Dike Raise Project in Brunswick County, NC. This acceptance is conditional
upon receipt of payment as outlined below. Please refer to the table below depicting the type and quantity
of credits requested and reserved for your project.
Mitigation Type I Credits Reserved
Stream
Non -Riparian Wetland
E
LD
Riparian (Riverine) Wetland 1 35.5
Fee Per Unit
$390-00
$51,370.00
$71,273.00
Total Fee
Fee
$O.QO
$2,530,191.50
$2,538,191.50
Based upon receipt of your credit request transmitted by email on November 14, 2015 and your recent
request to extend the reservation, LCFUMB will reserve 35.5 riparian {riverine} wetland credits until
December 31, 2017.
Upon request for receipt of credit transfer, LCFUMB will issue an invoice in the amount of $2,530,191.50.
Upon receipt of payment, LCFUMB will provide an executed Transfer of Credit Certificate.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me by phone at [phone] or
by email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Land Management Group, Inc. (agent for LCFU MB)
C:vit lysq by Cbrktw
Christian ME-
ftm-Ch tG, '", wWnd
M.ieyciini! 4i wu.liri., vµ
Preziosi
Christian Preziosi�I AiA�
Section Manager
Appendix E, Figure 5: LCFUMB Signed Acceptance/Reservation Letter
E-18IPage

APPENDIX F
N.C. DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT CONSISTENCY
CONCURRENCE
F-1IPage

Coastat Mati ageni ent
E.N' iHONMEMAL QUAU]Y
February 24, 2017
Ms. Jennifer L. Owens
Chief, Environmental Resources Section
Wilmington District, US Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403-1343
ROY COOPER
Go Vet of
MICHAEL S. RECAN
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Dimchill
SUBJECT: CD17-0010 Consistency Concurrence concerning the proposed construction
of dike raises on Eagle Island, Cape Fear River, New Hanover and
Brunswick Counties, North Carolina (DCM#20170010)
Dear Ms. Owens:
We received your revised consistency submission on January 27, 2017, concerning the
proposed construction of dike raises on Eagle Island, Cape Fear River, New Hanover
and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina.
North Carolina's coastal zone management program consists of, but is not limited to,
the Coastal Area Management Act, the State's Dredge and Fill Law, Chapter 7 of Title
15A of North Carolina's Administrative Code, and the land use plan of the County
and/or local municipality in which the proposed project is located. It is the objective of
the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) to manage the State's coastal resources to
ensure that proposed Federal activities would be compatible with safeguarding and
perpetuating the biological, social, economic, and aesthetic values of the State's coastal
waters.
DCM has reviewed the submitted information pursuant to the management objectives
and enforceable policies of Subchapters 7H and 7M of Chapter 7 in Title 15A of the
North Carolina Administrative Code and concurs that the proposed Federal activity by
State o€North Carolina 1 Environmental Quality 1 Coastal Management
Morehead City office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City. NC 28557
252 8082808
F-2IPage

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable,
with North Carolina's certified coastal management program.
Prior to the initiation of the activities described, the applicant should obtain any required
State approvals or authorizations. In accordance with commitments made by USACE,
and in order to protect anadromous finfish resources, no construction of the toe berms
below MHW is authorized between April 1 -July 31 of any year without coordination with
DCM. Additionally, in order to compensate for the impacts associated with the proposed
project, mitigation shall be provided in accordance with the plan outlined in the
submitted revised consistency determination. Should the proposed action be modified, a
revised consistency determination could be necessary. This might take the form of either
a supplemental consistency determination pursuant to 15 CFR 930.46, or a new
consistency determination pursuant to 15 CFR 930.36. Likewise, if further project
assessments reveal environmental effects not previously considered by the proposed
development, a supplemental consistency certification may be required. If you have any
questions, please contact me at 252-808-2808 x215. Thank you for your consideration of
the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Sincere
i
'C � � G vim-✓
aniel ovoru
Policy Analyst
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality { Coastal Management
Morehead City Office f 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808
F-3IPage