20130500 Ver 2_401 Application_20150615

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF June 5, 2015
Environmental Resources Section
Ms. Karen Higgins
FJUN'l @IROWc
Division of Water Resources, NCDENR
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit 0 2015,
1617 Mail Service Center
DENR • WATER RESOURC
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1617 401 8 BUFFER PERMITTIt,
Dear Ms. Higgins:
The purpose of this letter is to re -apply to the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(DWR) for Section 401 water quality certification (WQC) regarding the construction of oyster
reefs within Pamlico Sound, Dare County, North Carolina under Section 204 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992. A Section 401 WQC application regarding this proposed
project had been previously provided to DWR (North Carolina Division of Water Quality at the
time) on April 23, 2013. An associated $570 application fee (check number 1388 dated May 7,
2013) had been provided as well. The April 2013 application was returned to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps) on May 13, 2013, citing inconsistency with
15A NCAC 01 C .0107 until a final decision could be made by the State Clearing House (State)
concerning the February 2014 Environmental Assessment (EA) describing this project. The
Corps received comments from the State concerning the EA which were addressed in a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) dated November 19, 2014. The FONSI is included as an
enclosure to this letter. The proposed project remains unchanged and is as it was described in the
EA. After speaking with Ms. Jennifer Burdette of DWR on May 27, 2015, it was agreed that the
previously provided $570 application fee would be applied to this current Section 401 WQC
application and that no additional fees would be required.
The proposed project includes construction of elevated oyster reefs by placing cultch on top
of material dredged from the federally authorized Manteo, Old House Channel (Range 2)
(Figures 1 and 2). The proposed project will provide benefits in terms of available oyster reef
habitat, larval migration and recruitment, and water quality improvements in Pamlico Sound,
Dare County, North Carolina. The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) also
requested that the Corps investigate opportunities for oyster restoration in the Pamlico Sound
estuary system, indicating willingness and financial capability to execute a project partnership
agreement (PPA) should a detailed project report be approved. The proposed project would
contribute to the DMF's oyster restoration goals in Pamlico Sound, and satisfy the Corps'
operational dredging and disposal needs for Old House Channel (Range 2).
Range 2 of Old House Channel nearly bisects the study area, which is located approximately
4.5 miles southwest of Oregon Inlet, in Pamlico Sound, Dare County, North Carolina. The study
area and location of proposed oyster reefs are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

-2-
The area proposed for oyster reef development is currently sandy estuarine bottom. Sandy
bottom, and absence of shell bottom, in the proposed project area has been confirmed by side
scan survey and geotechnical borings. Due to the relatively large grain size (sand) of material
proposed to be dredged, and the proposed project area's distance from population centers,
industrial sites, and shipping facilities, material contamination is very unlikely. As of the date of
this letter, no other plans exist to construct oyster reefs in the proposed project area. The
proposed project area is removed from known, existing oyster reefs and lacks hard structure and
substrate suitable for oyster recruitment. In the absence of the proposed project, the study area
has no potential to establish oyster reefs.
Three subtidal oyster reefs are proposed to be constructed in close proximity to each other
(spacing of approximately 100 yards), about 1.7 miles northwest of Old House Channel (Range
2) (Figure 2). Using a combination North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT)
Class B stone (5 -12in diameter) and NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 -23in diameter), three 5.07 -
acre containment areas would be constructed for Old House Channel (Range 2) dredged material
placement. These three containment areas would receive a total of approximately 135,000 cubic
yards of dredged material likely via hydraulic pipeline dredge; however, other dredge types may
be used. Oyster reefs would be constructed during a regularly scheduled maintenance dredging
cycle in the proposed project area. Dredged material would be covered with NCDOT Class A
stone (2 -6in diameter) and oyster shell to provide habitat for larval recruitment. In total, the
proposed project will create approximately 18 acres of new oyster reef habitat in Pamlico Sound.
The construction of the proposed project would be a one -time event and may serve as a template
for future oyster reef creation projects which employ beneficial use of dredged materials.
Work would be conducted within current established dredging windows, will not impact
submerged aquatic vegetation or other essential fish habitat, will not incorporate contaminated
sediments, and may affect but is not likely to adversely affect threatened and endangered species
including sea turtles or the West Indian manatee.
Enclosed are five copies of the Section 401 WQC application and five copies of the FONSI
associated with the proposed project described above. If you have any questions, please contact
Mr. Justin Bashaw of my staff at 910 - 251 -4581 or at Justin. P.Bashaw @usace. army. mi1.
Sincerely,
7"Jennifer L. Owens
Chief, Environmental Resources Section
Enclosures

Irmo
a oru�o�0a
Q Q b
I ,
t � t•� r
£l � N• n,r. c,w.rr
�• eo�nL.nQ R,�y. '
©
4 '
0
a- p
r.r
' n
1�
Disposal Area Project Study Area
Data source Manteo 204
BO"Map- o Beg Map:
Wv CMnnel• USACE Map Date. 20110330

.7
i
Figure 2. Location of proposed oyster reefs.

> O�aF W a rF9oc
y
O 'C
Office Use Only
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1 4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑X Section 10 Permit
1b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: or General Permit (GP) number.
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
NX 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit -
❑ Yes ❑X No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties If yes, answer 1 h
below.
Yes ❑ No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Manteo, Old House Channel, NC, Section 204 Beneficial Use of Dred Mat. Project
2b.
County:
Dare
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Manteo, NC
2d.
Subdivision name:
n/a
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
n/a
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
n/a JUN
3b.
Deed Book and Page No
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable).
DcEN89U FERpESOURCES
3d.
Street address:
3e.
City, state, zip:
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
Jennifer L. Owens
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
US Army Corps of Engineers
4d.
Street address:
69 Darlington Avenue
4e.
City, state, zip:
Wilmington, NC 28403
4f.
Telephone no.:
910 - 251 -4757
4g.
Fax no.:
910 - 251 -4744
4h.
Email address-
Jennifer L.Owens @usace. army. mi1
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
5c.
Street address:
5d.
City, state, zip:
5e
Telephone no.:
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID)-
n/a
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude. 35.441925 Longitude: - 75.383086
1c.
Property size,
18 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Pamlico Sound
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water
SA
2c.
River basin.
Pasq., Chowan, Roanoke, Tar -Pam., Neuse, White Oak
3.
Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The area proposed for oyster reef development is currently sandy estuarine bottom. Sandy bottom, and absence of shell bottom, in the proposed
project area has been confirmed by side scan survey and geotechnical borings Nearest land, discounting dredged material disposal islands in the
project vicinity, is approximately 5.5 miles east (Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge)
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property, 0
3d.
Creation
Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
of 18 acres of new oyster habitat in Pamlico Sound through beneficial use of material dredged from Old House Channel (Range 2)
3e.
Available
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
space does not allow for adequate description See attached 'Pre- Construction Notification (PCN) Form Supplement'.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
Comments:
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency /Consultant Company:
Other-
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5.
Project History
5a
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
M Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
5b.
Available
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
space does not allow for adequate description See attached 'Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form Supplement'.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ❑ Streams —tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑X Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
-
W2
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W3
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W4
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W5
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W6
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1
Choose one
S2
Choose one
S3
Choose one
S4
Choose one
S5 -
Choose one
S6
Choose one
3h Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivii ually list all open water impacts below
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 P
Pamlico Sound
Other
Estuary
18
O2
Choose one
Choose
03
Choose one
Choose
04 -
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
18
4g Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no-
51 Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number—
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c
Reason for impact
6d
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet )
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1
Yes /No
B2
Yes /No
B3
Yes /No
B4
Yes /No
B5 -
Yes /No
B6
Yes /No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5of10

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Placement of oyster reefs was designed to avoid existing submerged aquatic vegetation and shell bottoms. This proposed project will avoid expansion,
via dredged material placement, of nearby bird islands.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Work would be conducted within currently established dredging windows, will not impact submerged aquatic vegetation or other essential fish habitat,
and may affect but is not likely to adversely affect threatened and endangered species including sea turtles or the West Indian manatee Rock used in
construction would be free of contaminants.
2.
Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a
Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2b.
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑ Payment to In -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a.
Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b.
Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type. Choose one
Quantity.
Quantity -
Quantity.
3c.
Comments:
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a
Approval letter from In -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b.
Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d.
Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e.
Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f.
Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g.
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h.
Comments -
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a.
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
El Yes ❑X No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2c
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
All
construction will take place in- water.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
n/a
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other.
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a.
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other.
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8of10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
❑X Yes
❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑X Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA /SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes
❑X No
letter.)
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
El Yes
❑X No
2c
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑Yes
❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Construction
of the proposed project in Pamlico Sound is to be considered a one -time event and would not adversely affect water quality of any NC
river,
watershed, or the sound itself.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater
generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility
n/a
Page 9of10
PCN Form —Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
0 Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
USFWS and NMFS websites, informal coordination, and completion of the NEPA process FONSI regarding the proposed project was signed
November 19, 2014.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑X Yes ❑ No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NMFS website, informal coordination, and completion of the NEPA process. FONSI regarding the proposed project was signed November 19, 2014.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
0 Yes ❑ No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Coordination with NC State Historic Preservation Office, and completion of the NEPA process. FONSI regarding the proposed project was signed
November 19, 2014
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ❑X No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Jennifer L. Owens, Chief
Env. Res. Section, CESAW
Applicant /Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Ageno Sig ture
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form Supplement
Manteo, Old House Channel, NC
Section 204 Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Project
3. Project Description
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be
used:
Three submerged oyster reefs would be constructed within close proximity of each
other, approximately 1.7 miles from Old House Channel (Range 2). Stone sills made of
NCDOT Class 2 armor stone (9 " -23') would be constructed to create three 5.07 acre
containment areas for dredged material. The three 5.07 acre containment areas would
contain a total of approximately 135, 000 cubic yards of dredged material. The three
separate containment areas would be constructed in close proximity of each other with
spacing of approximately 100 yards. The core portion of the containment structures
would be constructed of NCDOT Class B Stone (5 "12'). Reefs would be constructed
during a regularly scheduled maintenance dredging cycle for the navigation channels.
Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel would
be pumped into the containment areas and would, most likely, utilize a hydraulic
pipeline dredge. However, other dredges could be used. The dredged material would be
covered with NCDOT Class A stone and oyster shell to provide habitat for
establishment of oysters. Stone placement would be accomplished either by a shallow
draft vessel with affixed crane or by a tug and barge from which an excavator would
place stone. Approximately 18 acres of new oyster reef habitat would be created, as
well as enhanced service area associated with the reefs. The construction of the
preferred oyster reef alternative would be a one -time event under the Section 204
Authority.
5. Project History
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
DWR Project Name. 130500
Original Application Date: April 23, 2013
Original Application Returned: May 17, 2013 (pending State Clearinghouse decision
regarding Environmental Assessment)
A Section 401 WQC application regarding this proposed project had been previously
provided to DWR (NC Division of Water Quality at the time) on April 23, 2013. An

associated $570 application fee (check number 1388 dated May 7, 2013) had been
provided as well. The April 2013 application was returned to the US Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps) on May 13, 2013 citing inconsistency with 15A
NCAC 01C.0107 until a final decision could be made by the State Clearing House
(State) concerning the Environmental Assessment (EA) describing this project. The
Corps received comments from the State concerning the EA which were addressed in a
Finding of No Significant Impact ( FONSI) dated November 19, 2014. The FONSI is
included as an attachment to this letter. The proposed project remains unchanged and
is as it was described in the February 2014 EA. After speaking with Ms. Jennifer
Burdette of DWR on May 27, 2015, it was agreed that the previously provided $570
application would be applied to this current Section 401 WQC application and that no
additional fees would be required.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT INIPACT
IDEIM Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment JUN 1 0 2015 Manteo, Old House Channel, NC, - WATER REso Section 204 Project 1 8 Ri trrc� URCES
The EA documents the environmental considerations, alternatives considered, and the
FONSI documents the decision that no significant impacts to the human environment
would occur if the proposal is implemented. The EA and FONSI have been prepared
pursuant to NEPA in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations as contained in 40 CFR Parts 1500 to 1508, which directs federal agencies on
how to implement the provisions of NEPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers
Department of the Army procedures for implementing NEPA (33 CFR Part 230).
Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative:
The Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment (DPR/EA) „dated February
2014, describes the proposed action as the Recommended Plan that best meets the
planning objectives of oyster habitat restoration and beneficial uses of dredged material
within the study area. The proposed action (Recommended Plan) (oyster reef
construction) involves use of dredged material from maintenance dredging of Old House
Channel to restore habitat by building submerged sand islands to be topped with cultch
for oyster reef restoration. Containment of sand for the submerged islands would be
accomplished using stone. A complex of three stone containment structures, each
enclosing a 5.07 -acre reef would be constructed. This plan reasonably maximizes
ecosystem restoration benefits and is acceptable to the USACE and local sponsor. The
alternative action would be the No Action Alternative: wherein no oyster restoration
efforts in the project area would be implemented under this authority.
Public and Agency Coordination:
On April 23, 2013, the DPR/EA, dated March 2013 was mailed to federal and state
agencies, local communities, and the interested public for a 30 -day review and comment
period. Comments received during the review period were reviewed and considered in
making the decision to sign the FONSI. Reviewer comments and Corps responses are
attached to this FONSI at attachment 1.
a. Summary of Environmental Resources and Impacts:
Section 7.0 of the DPR/EA provides information on the affected environment present in
the Manteo, Old House Channel area. The probable consequences (impacts and effects)
of the No Action Alternative and the proposed action on the environmental resources in
the study area were evaluated. In the long -term, implementation of the Proposed Action
will result in positive effects for the Pamlico Sound project area natural resources. No
adverse long -term effects would be expected. For the No Action Alternative no project
impacts would occur; however, the overall long -term restoration and dredged material
placement benefits of the proposed action would be forgone.

Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment
Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project
b. Facts and Conclusions Leading to the Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI):
Based on the results of the impact analyses, it has been determined that no significant
impacts would occur as a result of implementing the Proposed Action. The Proposed
,Action'would not have any unavoidable adverse effects, nor would it- result in the
irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. Proceeding with the Proposed
Action would not significantly or adversely impact the affected environment.
Additionally, no significant cumulative effects would be expected.
c. Finding of No Significant Impact:
I have reviewed the Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment for Manteo,
Old House Channel, NC, Section 204 Project dated February 2014, the information
provided by interested patties, and the information contained in this Finding of No
Significant Impact, and I find that the proposed action will not significantly affect the
quality of the human environment. Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended, is not required. !
Date: i4 �1u,r Zu
Z"P�
Kevin P. Lancers St.
Colonel, U.S. Amy
District Commander

Attachment 1
Comments Received on
Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project
March 2013

Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment
Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
Comment 1: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) and shellfish, critical habitat for
fishes and invertebrates, are present in the project vicinity. The USACE performed a
side scan survey to ensure that no fill will be placed on either SAV or shellfish. Due
to the depth and clearance requirements of the reef, SAV habitat will be avoided.
However within the northern portion of the identified area, there is an existing
shellfish resource and areas that are permitted for shellfish enhancement by DMF
(cultch planting). The DMF cultch planting areas should be avoided.
Planting Site Latitude Longitude
13 - ? ?? 35 45.026 75 38.597
35 44.984 75 38.597
35 44.984 75 38.542
35 45.026 75 38.542
12 -002 35 45.075
35 45.075
35 45.020
35 45.020
11 -003 35 45.090
35 45.090
35 45.044
35 45.044
10 -003 35 45.378
35 45.412
35 45.409
35 45.385
75 38.470
75 38.415
75 38.470
75 38.415
75 38.650
75 38.587
75 38.650
75 38.587
75 38.581
75 38.569
75 38.601
75 38.6 60
Loran
84 -381 C 26972.9 40544
Loran
82 -308 C 26974.8 40545.3
Loran
81 -286 C 26972.9 40540.5
Loran
81 -275 C 26972.9 40544.2
Response 1: These planting areas have been identified by NCDMF as prior cultch
1

Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment
Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project
planting areas. Those with Lat /long were plotted and hard bottom is evident on the
sidescan survey in the vicinity of these points. All backscatter associated with the
cultch areas is located about '/2 mile from the proposed reef location. A general map
of proposed future cultch placement area was also provided and it appears that the
Corps proposed site may encroach into the mapped area proposed by NCDMF,
precluding future cultch planting on a small portion of the potential area. The
Corps would sidescan the reef area during detailed design and avoid any previously
placed shell. It appears that the proximity of the proposed sanctuary would
facilitate the sustainability of the cultch planting sited by providing a protected
larval supply and be beneficial to this operation, not a detriment.
Comment 2: The NCDMF has concerns that the proposed reefs will impact known
fishing areas. The proposed site is a commercial crab pot area, crab dredge area; crab
trawl area and oyster dredge area. The area to the north and west of Old House
Channel contains a commercially viable oyster resource that has been historically
utilized by commercial oystermen. This area was' very productive during last year's
season. The oyster rocks are also used by recreational fishermen and head boats as
they hold recreational finfish species. The USACE should continue to work with
NCDMF staff and fishermen in the project area to avoid impacts to known fishing
areas. The NCDMF avoids and minimizes these impacts by hosting public meetings
when sitting oyster sanctuaries as to avoid any potential conflicts. The USACE
should follow similar procedures to ensure no adverse impacts to current fishing
areas.
Response 2: In addition to ongoing communication via phone and e -mail, an agency
coordination meeting was held in Manteo, NC on January 10, 2012 with
representatives from the following agencies and stakeholders: National Marine
Fisheries, NC Division of Marine Fisheries, NC Division of Water Resources, NC
Shellfish Sanitation, NC Ferry Division, NCDCM, and The Nature Conservancy. We
will continue to coordinate with the NCDMF and the fishing community. The site
will avoid existing shellfish and should therefore not adversely impact oyster
dredging. A protected larval supply provided by the sanctuary should contribute to
adjacent oyster areas. It is my understanding that crab pots are not restricted on
sanctuary sites. Hard structure provided by this reef would provide improved
recreational fishing relative to the existing sand bottom.
Comment 3: The NCDMF supports oyster restoration in the region but this project
should be a onetime project. It should not be designed as a continual project unless
monitoring concludes that it was a biological and structural success.
Response 3: This section 204 Project is a one -time project. These methods once
demonstrated to be successful could provide a future disposal option pending additional
coordination and approvals.
Comment 4: The NCDMF has concerns that in this high energy environment it is
possible that the "cap" layer of Class B stone may not stay in the designed location
2

Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment
Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project
leaving the material uncontained. If the material is not contained it may have adverse
impacts on nearby SAV and shellfish through sedimentation. Has this method been
successful in other areas or is this the first design? If it has been constructed
successfully in the past please provide additional information from that project. The
USACE should include surveys yearly and after large storm event if oysters have not
formed a more stable cap layer. If the cap layer has not stayed in place the USACE
should place more material to prevent sediment movement to avoid impacts to other
nearby resources. The NCDMF requests that the USACE provides reports as to the
progress and success of the project.
Response 4: In the Chesapeake Bay unconfined dredged material has been capped
with cultch providing reef habitat. This design is more conservative providing
submerged containment. The proposed dredged materials are sandy and the
containment structures provide substantial toe protection. It is not anticipated that
capstone or dredged material will leave the site; however, undeveloped buffers will be
provided between the proposed site and existing shellfish resources and SAVs are
upslope and well away from the reef site.
Comment 5: All previous conditions required for the dredging of Old House
Channel should remain. The moratorium requested for the channel dredging should
also apply to the placement of the rip rap and piles as well as the filling of the "reef'.
The purpose of the moratorium is to avoid and minimize impacts from turbidity and
sedimentation to fish.
Response 5: Dredging and disposal moratoriums would apply. However, the
placement of rock on generally sandy bottoms in the open sound should not
generate a significant turbidity risk and the seasonal restriction would increase
construction cost and may extend the construction period. Therefore we do not
plan to apply a moratorium on the construction of the containment structure.
NC CC & PS — Division of Emergency Management — Floodplain Management
Program
Comment 1: Explicitly avoiding vegetation. No SFHA impacts. No comment.
Response 1: Noted.
NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources — Division of Energy,
Mineral, and Land Resources — Land Quality Section
Comment 1: The Land Quality Section has no permitting authority on this project unless
more than one acre ( in total) of the "reefs" become exposed ( above the water surface)
during normal tidal action. An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be required if
there is at least one acre of exposed "reef'.

Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment
Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project
Response 1: Noted.
NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources — Division of Water
Quality
Comment 1: The proposed project should account for possible contaminated sediments
that will be dredged and relocated to establish oyster reefs. This office encourages the
established oyster beds not to be for human consumption until it can be determined that
the oysters are not contaminated from the dredged material.
Response 1: Materials are sandy and are not expected to be contaminated. Constructed reefs will
be oyster sanctuaries and not used for harvest.
Comment 2: This office is concerned on the potential for structural failure of the
"Preferred Alternative" due to the proximity of Oregon Inlet and potential impact on
submerged aquatic vegetation within the project area.
Response 2: Containment structures were designed to withstand environmental conditions so that
materials would be contained onsite. Site surveys indicated that no SAV were present within the
immediate proposed construction area. In addition, known SAV beds in the area are located at
elevations above the reef construction area. This protects the SAV from burial from sloughing as
sediment would be unlikely to move upslope.
NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources — Division of Waste
Management
Comment 1: The concerns for the UST Section are the staging areas for the dredge
material. The proposal has been reviewed and determined that this project should not
have any adverse impact upon groundwater.
Response 1: Noted.
Comment 2: The Washington Regional Office recommends removal of any abandoned
or out -of -use petroleum USTs or petroleum above ground storage tanks within the project
area.
Response 2: If petroleum tanks are encountered at the staging area the UST section will be
contacted. However, it is outside of the scope of this project to remove any existing petroleum
USTs or above ground tanks,
Comment 3: Any petroleum USTs or ASTs must be installed and maintained in
accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
Response 3: No storage tanks are associated with this project.
0

Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment
Manteo, Old House Channel, NC Section 204 Project
Comment 4: Any petroleum spills must be contained and the area of impact must be
properly restored.
Response 4: Concur.
Comment 5: Any soils excavated during demolition or construction that show evidence
of petroleum contamination, such as stained soil, odors, or free product must be reported
immediately to the local Fire Marshall to determine whether explosion or inhalation
hazards exist.
Response 5: Concur.
NC Department of Transportation
Comment 1: There are TIP projects that may be located within the aforementioned
project limits: B -2500 and R -3116. Please coordinate with NCDOT Division 1 Engineer
before beginning any work associated with the subject proposal.
Response 1: NCDOT will be contacted prior to construction of the proposed project.