20160663 Ver 2_CAMA Application_20240401

K, C. DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
£nvironmenraf FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
QGOflty
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: NC WRC (Hope Sutton)
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Lower Cape Fear River Kure Beach, North Carolina
28449
Longitude:-77.94173 Latitude: 33.97353
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE:
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE:
Date of Visit
Purpose of Visit
Applicant Present?
2/19/2024
Major Permit Site Visit
No
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE:
Application Received
Application Complete
I Regional Office
2/21/2024
3/20/2024
1 DCM - Wilmington Regional Office
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan: Brunswick County, New Hanover County
Land Classification from LUP: Land Classification From LUPs
(B) AEC(s) Involved: Estuarine Shoreline, Public Trust Areas, Estuarine Waters
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Public/Government
(E) Wastewater Treatment:
Existing: N/A
Planned: N/A
(F) Type of Structures:
Existing:
Planned: Other, Fill(general)
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion:
Erosion Information Source: Annual Erosion Source
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
DREDGED ft'
FILLED ft'
OTHER (ft)
A Open Water
988812
CW's above NHW`
C CW's below NHW
Shallow Bottom
High Ground
1886148
Non -Coastal WL
(E) Total Area Disturbed: 2874960 ff
(F) Primary Nursery Area: No
(G) Water Classification: SC: Aquatic Life, Secondary Contact Recreation, Tidal Salt
Water
Open to Shellfishing: No
Field Investigation Report: NC WRC (Hope Sutton)
Mod Request
Page I

8. PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes to deposit approximately 623,000 cubic yards of dredge spoils on two
(2) existing islands (Ferry Slip and South Pelican Island) in the Cape Fear River to maintain
and restore the nesting habitat for colonial water birds.
9. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION:
The two existing spoil islands are located in the southern portion of the Cape Fear River
between Snow's Cut and Zeke's Island, in Brunswick County (South Pelican Island) and New
Hanover County (Ferry Slip Island). State Permit 9126-91 was issued to the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission in September 1991, for the renourishment on these two particular
islands as part of an experimental habitat enhancement project to measure the nesting success
of colonial water birds. State Permit 945-03 was issued in April 2003, reauthorizing the
renourishment of the two islands to maintain suitable nesting habitat. State Permit 998-16 was
issued on September 8, 2016 to authorize the placement of 86,000 cubic yards of sandy
material onto the two existing islands to increase nesting habitat. State Permit 998-16 has been
renewed since issuance. State Permit 998-16 was set to expire on 12/31/2023 however
NCWRC currently has a renewal request submitted to DCM for an additional renewal for the
continued placement of material from the US Army Corps of Engineer's (USACE)
Wilmington Harbor Project when available.
South Pelican Island last received material in 2004 and Ferry Slip Island last received material
in 2022. Ferry Slip Island is approaching capacity under the current authorization. According
to the applicant's narrative, the USACE will only place sand on the islands if they are the most
cost-effective disposal option. Currently, the cost effectiveness of the islands to be used is
constrained by the authorized volumetric capacity, limiting the ability to receive additional
material.
Currently, Ferry Slip Island is approximately 4.1 acres above Mean High Water (MHW) in size
and has an existing grade of approximately 15' above Mean Low Water (MLW) at its tallest
point. Vegetation consists of sparse grass, however the island is mostly bare of vegetation. No
coastal wetland vegetation is present on the island. South Pelican Island is approximately 5.4
acres above MHW in size and has an existing grade of approximately 19' above MLW at its
tallest point. On the southwest side of the island, there is a slough that connects to a tidally
influenced pond. The high ground transitions to a lower high marsh area occupied by Common
Reed (Phragmites australis) and Salt Meadow Hay (Spartina patens) which transitions to low
marsh consisting primarily of Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). A Scoping Meeting
took place on 9/16/21.
In the project area, the adjacent waters are classified SC, by the NC Division of Water
Resources, and they are OPEN to the harvest of shellfish in the area around South Pelican
Island and CLOSED in the area around Ferry Slip Island. These adjacent waters are NOT
designated as Primary Nursery Area (PNA), by the NC Division of Marine Fisheries.
10. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant proposes to deposit approximately 623,000 cubic yards of dredge spoils on two
Field Investigation Report: NC WRC (Hope Sutton)
Mod Request
Page 12

(2) existing islands (Ferry Slip and South Pelican Island) in the Cape Fear River to maintain
and restore the nesting habitat for colonial water birds.
The applicant proposes to deposit approximately 336,000 cubic yards onto Ferry Slip Island.
The island would be expanded approximately I I acres above MHW to the southwest for a total
of 15 acres above MHW to a maximum elevation of approximately 17' above MLW. The
placement of the spoil would create a net change of approximately 3.7 acres of additional
intertidal area (between MHW and MLW) and a decrease in shallow subtidal (0 to -6' MLW)
of 7.6 acres and deep subtidal (below -6' MLW) of 7.3 acres. (See Audubon Bird Island Plan
Set)
The applicant proposes to deposit approximately 287,000 cubic yards onto South Pelican
Island. The island would be expanded approximately 11.8 acres above MHW in a northeast
direction for a total of 17.2 acres above MHW to a maximum elevation of approximately 19'
above MHW. The placement of the spoil would create a decrease of approximately 0.03 acres
of intertidal area, a decrease in 9.1 acres of subtidal area, and a decrease in 2.2 acres of deep
subtidal area. (See Audubon Bird Island Plan Set)
The application materials state that through the design process, the proposal was focused on a
design that would allow for more regular use of the islands to receive material, create suitable
habitat, retain sediment, and improve resilience of the islands from sea level rise and erosion.
The design process consisted of modeling analyses of wave effects and an Environmental
Assessment (See attached Basis of Design, Environmental Assessment, and Narrative)
Construction methodology would involve controlled effluent of "beach compatible" material
consisting of approximately 90% sand sandy material from the Wilmington Harbor Dredge
Project, specifically Horseshoe Shoal and Snow Marsh channel. A berm would be built using
existing material on the islands to control the placement of hydraulically pumped sand. Dikes
would be built as far in front of discharge material as possible; dozers and marsh buggies
would be used to contour material. The narrative states that on the navigation channel side of
the islands, the material would be shaped to MLW to create a slope that would protect against
wave action and erosion. On South Pelican, a containment berm would be built around the
existing wetlands prior to receiving material to prevent any material from running into the
wetland boundary. After placement of material is finished, the berm would be graded back to
proposed elevations. The narrative states that silt curtains and turbidity monitoring would take
place during spoil placement.
11. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS:
The proposed development would place approximately 623,000 cubic yards of sandy material
from the Wilmington Harbor Dredge Project, specifically Horseshoe Shoal and Snow Marsh
channel, onto the existing islands for creation of habitat and to increase allowable volume
capacity. Per application materials, approximately 988,812 sq. ft. of material would be placed
below MHW, thus expanding the islands. Temporary increase in turbidity should be expected,
however the applicant proposes to use silt curtains and to monitor turbidity throughout
construction. The coastal wetland boundary on South Pelican Island will be surrounded by a
Field Investigation Report: NC WRC (Hope Sutton)
Mod Request
Page 13

constructed berm to prevent material from entering coastal wetlands during construction.
Name: Bryan Hall Date: 03-28-2024 Office: DCM - Wilmington Regional Office
Field Investigation Report: NC WRC (Hope Sutton)
Mod Request
Page 14

Permit Application Report
Application ID
Application Type
Submitted
App Complete
Deadline
Decision
Expiration
PA-1100
Mod Request
02-21-2024
03-20-2024
Primary Applicant Information
Applicant Type
Title
Business Name
Name
Email
Business Phone
Mobile
Phone
Business/Company
NC WRC (Hope
Sutton)
NC WRC (Hope
Sutton)
[e-mail]
910-380-0295
Physical Address
Mailing Address
Street 1
City
State
Zip
Street 1
City
State
Zip
1751 Varsity Dr.
Raleigh
NC
27606
1751 Varsity Dr.
Raleigh
NC
27606
Registered Agent
Information
Agent Type
Title
Business Name
Name
Email
Business Phone
Mobile
Phone
Individual
Lindsay
Addison
[e-mail]
Physical Address
Mailing Address
Street 1
City
State
Zip
Street 1
City
State
Zip
5 Glen Arbor
rDr.
Wilmington
north
Carolina
28411
4105 Glen Arbor Dr.
Wilmington
north
carolina
28411
Project Information
Project Name
Project Type
Disturbed Land Area (Sq Ft/Acres)
Lower Cape Fear River Bird Islands - Ferry Slip
and South Pelican
Public/Government
413822 Sq. Ft. / 9.5 Acres
Is proposed project located in national registered historic district or national register listed/eligible: False
List of previous state or federal permits for work on project tract: 126-91 NCWRC September 19, 199145-03 NCWRC April 1,
2003 98-16 NCWRC Sept. 8, 2016; March 12, 2021 Additional earlier permits likely existed, as islands were created in late 1960s or
early 1970s. History of deposition pre-1990s not well documented.
Project Location Information
Address
County
River Basin
Subdivision
County Parcel ID
Latitude
Longitude
Lower Cape Fear River Kure
Beach, North Carolina 28449
Brunswick
Cape Fear
Not applicable
Not applicable
33.97353
-77.94173
Project Discharges to State Waters
Discharge Type
Surface
Runoff
Sanitary
Wastewater
Industry/Commercial
Effluent
Vessel
I Wash Down
Residential
Other
Wastewater/Stormwater Discharged Into Wetland?
Discharge Same Salinity as Receiving Waters
Is There Any Mitigation Proposed
True
False
False
Detailed Description of the Existing Development Located on the Property
Existing Man -Made Features:
There is no development on either Ferry Slip or South Pelican Island.
Existing Land Uses:
These islands are owned by the NCWRC and managed through a cooperative agreement with Audubon North Carolina for the
benefit of nesting coastal waterbirds. They are also dredged material placement sites for navigational dredging (operations and
management) by the USACE.
Existing Wastewater Treatment/Disposal:
No such facilities/use.
Solid Waste/Fish Offal/Trash Disposal:
No such facilities/use.

Use and Daily Operations of the Project When Complete
Proposed Development Purpose:
i ne isianus wiii rye used daily by breeding and non -breeding coastal birds. They will be visited regularly (2-3 times/week in the spring
and summer and monthly in the fall and winter) for bird monitoring and habitat purposes.
Buildings/Facilities/Units/Structures:
ivune
Use & Daily Operations:
Birds nest, roost, and preen on the islands. When humans visit the islands, they typically observe birds and their nests and record
relevant data about them and/or habitat conditions.
Construction Methodology & Equipment:
Construction equipment will only be present on site during the dredged material placement.
Development Activities Narrative Specifics:
Not applicable.
Application Narrative:
Note: I cannot upload jpgs so figures and tables are missing. A PDF of this
information will be uploaded separately.
Background, Purpose, and Need
Audubon North Carolina, the state office of the National Audubon Society,
manages, monitors, and protects approximately 40% of the state's nesting coastal
waterbirds from Ocracoke Inlet south to the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary. A
collection of 10 islands in the LCFR between Southport and Snow's Cut support
nesting by one of the largest concentrations of nesting coastal waterbirds in
North Carolina. These nesting islands are owned by the state of North Carolina
and managed by Audubon through leases or management agreements with the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission. Collectively, these islands provide a variety of
habitat types that support nesting by more than 20 species of waterbirds,
including a number of species that require bare or sparsely vegetated sandy
substrate for nesting: Royal Terns, Sandwich Terns, Gull -billed Terns, and
American Oystercatchers. All four of these species are identified by the North
Carolina Wildlife Action Plan as Species of Greatest Conservation Need that
require habitat management to maintain healthy populations in an increasingly
developed coastal landscape.
This project addresses habitat needs for two of these islands. Ferry Slip Island
and South Pelican Island (Figure 1) are dredged -material islands that were
created by open water or marsh disposal practices during the late 1960s to early
1970s. These islands support the largest breeding colonies of Royal Terns,
Sandwich Terns, and Brown Pelicans in southeastern NC, as well as significant
nesting by American Oystercatchers. They are particularly important to Royal and
Sandwich Terns, as these islands are the only sites on the Lower Cape Fear River
with large areas of open to sparsely vegetated sandy habitat that can support
large breeding colonies of these species.
Consequently, Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands are essential to the
maintenance of healthy regional coastal waterbird populations and the
achievement of population goals that were established for these species in 2001
by the North Carolina Waterbird Management Committee. The islands are positioned
along the federal navigation channel in the lowermost estuary where they are
exposed to the erosional effects of vessel wakes, high energy wind generated
waves, and tidal currents. Consequently, periodic placements of beach -quality
dredged material are required to maintain the islands and their associated
waterbird nesting habitats. In addition to maintaining a sufficiently large area
of suitable habitat, regular sand placement is essential to the maintenance of

early successional open habitat conditions that terns require for nesting.
Without dredged material placement, the islands will eventually erode to the
extent that their ability to function as nesting sites would be impaired or even
lost entirely.
In 1982, the Wilmington District initiated a program to maintain nesting habitat
on both islands via periodic placements of navigation dredged material from the
Wilmington Harbor project. The islands received sporadic placements of dredged
sand over the next two decades but South Pelican has not received material since
2004 and Ferry Slip received material in 2022, and is approaching capacity under
the current permit. Although volumetric yields of sand from the adjacent
Horseshoe Shoal and Snows Marsh channel reaches should allow for island
maintenance through regular navigation dredging disposal events, the USACE will
only place sand on Ferry Slip and South Pelican if they are the most
cost-effective disposal option. Currently, the cost effectiveness of the islands
as disposal sites is constrained by limited volumetric capacity. Should the
volumetric yield of dredged material exceed the capacity of the islands, the
USACE would be required to use the Wilmington Offshore Dredged Material Disposal
Site (ODMDS) for all material, as mobilizing two types of dredge, pipeline for
placement on the dredge islands, and mechanical or hopper dredge for offshore
disposal, would be cost -prohibitive.
Therefore, Audubon North Carolina and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission are
seeking authorization pursuant to the NC Coastal Area Management Act to expand
the subaerial footprints of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands to accommodate
larger volumes of dredged material from the Wilmington Harbor navigation
channel. The proposed action would allow the islands to accept the full volume
of material from foreseeable navigation dredging events, thereby facilitating
more regular placements of dredged material that would maintain the viability of
the islands as waterbird nesting sites. Regular sand placement would also help
to control vegetation succession, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for
herbicide treatments that are currently required to maintain suitable open
habitat conditions for nesting.
To develop a plan for expanding the currently permitted footprints of Ferry Slip
and South Pelican Islands from 7 acres above MHW each, Audubon North Carolina
received federal funding through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's
Atlantic Flyway Shorebird Initiative grants program to assess, design, and
permit such a project. Our approach to island design was based on the following
principals and assumptions: 1) erosion and change are inherent to the islands
and are not necessarily negative outcomes; 2) any engineered island design
elements should utilize nature -based designs; and 3) island designs should
incorporate scalability to accommodate variable and unpredictable USACE dredged
material disposal volumes. The project team of Audubon North Carolina, Dial
Cordy and Associates, and Moffatt and Nichol worked collaboratively to develop
expanded island designs and features (slope, elevation, shape, and orientation)
that will best meet the nesting habitat requirements of coastal waterbirds while
prolonging the lifespan of the placed material. In order to evaluate the
responses of alternative island designs to site -specific wave conditions and
vessel wake characteristics, the following physical surveys and numerical
modeling analyses were conducted:
* Topographic and bathymetric surveys of the islands and surrounding subtidal
bottom areas;
* Analysis of vessel generated wave effects on the islands using the XBeach
model; and
* Wave hindcasting using a modified existing Delft3D model of the Cape Fear
River Estuary to determine wind wave heights and periods for the islands
under wind and surge events at 1-, 10- and 25-year return periods.
The proposed island designs (Figures 2 and 3) would expand the currently

authorized 7-acre subaerial (above MHW) disposal footprints on Ferry Slip and
South Pelican Islands to approximately 15 and 17 acres, respectively. The
proposed designs for both Ferry Slip and South Pelican would provide sacrificial
protective berms along the navigation channel, while expanding the island
footprints over existing shallow bottom areas that face away from the channel.
The overall fill limits that would be required to achieve the proposed 15 to
17-acre subaerial footprints for Ferry Slip and South Pelican encompass areas of
approximately 31 acres and 35 acres, respectively. A Basis of Design report has
been prepared that describes the modeling analyses and design criteria in
detail.
Permitting Requirements
The proposed action to expand the authorized island disposal footprints requires
a new or modified CAMA Major Permit. Based on the selected designs and early
coordination with state regulatory agencies, the project team prepared a permit
application package that includes a project narrative, technical design
drawings, a Basis of Design report that describes the modeling analyses and
design criteria in detail, and an Environmental Assessment prepared in
accordance with the NC State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Construction Methods
USACE placements of navigation dredged material on Ferry Slip and South Pelican
Islands would be conducted by hydraulic pipeline (cutterhead) dredges using the
control of effluent method that has been used for these islands previously. The
control of effluent method (Figure 4) uses temporary berms to contain and
channel the slurry of water and dredged material to the desired locations;
providing an extended period for the settlement of solids. Temporary berm
construction and the redistribution and grading of the subaerial placed material
would be accomplished by heavy equipment such as bulldozers and front end
loaders. Material placed on islands would be "beach compatible," consisting of
approximately 90% sand and limited fines. The fill volumes required to achieve
the conceptual design elevations would include 336,000 CY and 287,000 CY for
Ferry Slip and South Pelican, respectively. It is assumed that full expansion of
both islands may be achieved through multiple USACE navigation disposal events
over many years.
Direct Effects of Island Expansion on Intertidal and Subtidal Habitats
The overall fill limits that would be required to achieve the proposed subaerial
(above MHW) footprints for Ferry Slip and South Pelican encompass areas of
approximately 31 acres and 35 acres, respectively. The proposed fill limits
currently contain a combination of upland, intertidal, shallow (<6 ft) subtidal,
and deep (>6) subtidal habitats (Figures 5 and 7). Fill placement would result
in conversions between the various habitat types (Figures 6 and 8). The net
effect of these conversions on intertidal and subtidal habitat acreages within
the proposed fill limits are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Net habitat changes
within the proposed Ferry Slip fill limits would include an intertidal habitat
increase of 3.7 acres, a shallow subtidal habitat decrease of 7.6 acres, and a
deep subtidal habitat decrease of 7.3 acres. Net habitat changes within the
South Pelican fill limits would include an intertidal habitat decrease of 0.3
acres, a shallow subtidal habitat decrease of 9.1 acres, and a deep subtidal
habitat decrease of 2.2 acres. Both islands would continue to experience high
rates of shoreline erosion, resulting in extensive habitat conversions and
fluctuations over time as slopes are flattened and sediments are redistributed.
Intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat acreages would be expected to increase
at the expense of subaerial island erosion.
Secondary Ecological Benefits through Estuarine Sediment Retention

The proposed action would provide secondary ecological benefits for the estuary
through the retention of sediments that would otherwise be transported offshore
for disposal in the Wilmington ODMDS. Island expansion would effectively provide
for the temporary storage and gradual return of this material to the estuary
through natural erosional processes, thereby increasing sediment availability
for the maintenance of shallow shoals and tidal marshes in the lowermost portion
of the estuary.
Boat Ramp Development Activity Included: False
Shoreline Stabilization Development Activity Included: False
Living Shoreline Development Activity Included: False
Piers & Docking Facilities Development Activity Included: False
Excavation Development Activity Included: False
Bridges & Culverts Development Activity Included: False
Oceanfront Erosion Control Development Activity Included: False
Temporary Structures Development Activity Included: False
Utility Crossings Development Activity Included: False
Freestanding Moorings, Buoys & Bird Nesting Poles Development Activity Included: False

Log Removal/Marine Debris Development Activity Included: Yes/No
Navigational Aids Development Activity Included: False
Other Fill Below Water Level Development Activity Included: True
Other Fill Below Water Level For Utility Crossing
Will Fill Material be Placed in Any Of The Following Areas
Area
Sq. Ft. Affected
Purpose of Fill in This Area
Coastal Wetland/Marsh (CW)
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
Shell Bottom (SB)
Other Non -Coastal Wetlands (WL)
Open Water (OW)
988812
To increase the islands' capacity for material placement and restore/improve
bird habitat.
How Will Fill Material be Kept
on Site and Erosion Controlled
Wetlands Crossed Transporting
Equipment to Project Site
Steps Taken to Avoid/Minimize Environmental Impact
False
Other Fill Dimensions
Length
Width
Type of Fill
"Other" Fill Type Describe
Purpose of Fill
900
1,300
Other
sand
Incease capacity for dredge material placement and
create/improve bird habitat.
Stormwater Structures Development Activity Included: False
"Upland Development" Development Activity Included: False
Energy Facilities Development Activity Included: False
Aquaculture Development Activity Included: False
Submerged Lands Mining Development Activity Included: False

General Development Activity Details Required
Marina Development Activity Details Required

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James G. Martin, Govemor
The HonorabT—e
Department of
Resources
Raleiqh, North
illiam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Environment, Health and Natural.
Janes S. Lofton, Secretary
Re: Allocation of Property of the Department of
Administration to the Department of Environment
Health and Natural Resources, Wildlife Resource
commission, Brunswick, Carteret, Dare, Hyde, Nei
Hanover, and Pender Counties
Pursuant to an agreement between the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources and the Departme
of Administration and pursuarit to the authority vested in
by the North Carolina General Statutes and by rules adopte
by the Governor with the approval of the Council of State,
the following described property is hereby allocated to th
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources f
I
colonial waterbird nesting sites.
Those certain islands located in the above -
mentioned counties as indicated in yellow on maps
which are herewith made a part of th 4S letter of L
allocation. This allocation is made subject to
the perpetual easement of the United States
Government for the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
and the perpetual easeiiient of the United States
Government to that area lying within the banks of
the Cape Fear River between Wilmington and
Southport which includes all of the bed of the
Cape Fear River and all, vacant and unappropriated
lands lying within the Cape Fear River.
116 West Jones Street* Raleigh, North Caro! ina 27603-8003 0 le'lephone 919-733-7 23 2
State Courier 5 1-01 -00
An Equal Opportunity / Affi, mative Action Employer

[r. William W. Cobey, Secretary
.ebruary 5, 1992
,age 2
'his allocation is made at no cost or consideration to the
epartmrent of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
Sincerely,
amen S. Lofton
Secretary, Department of
Health and Natural ResourprZ�defit
MOHM

MAP 1
N '
PAMLICO SOUND
i
Dn-006-10
r' DR-009-01
DR-009-03.
HY-010-02 • �o
llY-010-03--09
HATTERAS INLET
a
nC�AGp�
iY-009-02
:EAN

MAP J
P A M L I C 0
SOUND
1[Y-011-0? fly -01 0-1 0
IIY-011-06
IIY-011-05 ry
1
�G
Po• �11Y-011-04
"fi^ � IIY-010-7
tlY-011-O B IIY-010-0 l
CR-012-02
1 l Y- O 11- O 1
CR-012-23
�------T
� � b
' OCRACOKE -
INLET
O IIY-011-07 Orr,-c
tb CR-011-02
CR-012-03
v CR-012-24
CR-012-01
.0G
�Q.11. 0G�
5 KM
i
0

C0
1, it
SOUND
IIY-011-07
IIY-011-05
!lY-011-05
IIY-011-04
0 IIY-010-.1
CR-012-02
CR-012-23
MAP J
11Y-011-01
OCRACOKE
INLET
p IlY-011-07
CR-011-02
Qp CR-012-03
CR-012-24 0A1
CR-012-01
O
P 1
5 KM

o, MAP N
CR-Olq-14
CR-014-09
`\CR-014-29
CR-014-26 Q
CR-014-27\�
CR-014-28�
DACK SOUND
CR-olo-12
/ OR-013-11 0
Q 'CR-017-00 CR-017-.07 S•>hd'L�� rj;
� \ CR-017-01
CR-017-09
CJ2-014-22F
CR-013-22
CR-018-25
CR-010-20 CR-017-00
CR-014-25 cy
I CR-014-24
ATLANTIC OCDAN
I
CAPL' LOOKOUT
2 km

��f---� MAP S
ATLANTIC OCEAN
aw
1
a 1 1
ON-027-04
ON-027-03
ON-027-06
ON-027-07
2 ltm 1
'a V
o
NC 210,

A L�
wcrtiw BowvuArclEs. ur
To uf„ DArco /Z~ 0 N
5/ii/1130. 1 �\ Q
I o ...o �1�t5�84 r PS �v Ul
w
41
to
y�
�v b\
\ J
moo_
ul
o b
`�k4-1 AL
fin.
t
Jk
In
de
OVERLAY OF STATE - owNEO LAND IN
VIGfN1TY OF NEW RIVER ►NL6r0OIv3[.ow
/ CovNTy, NORTH CAROLINA
/ SGALE: I"-8o0' COMIPILSO By R.CARRAWAY
1<OM NO+ AgAIAL PROWS
/ \ OATS:'.q �9-f196 wORKSHUr OCA-8301A
f \a PRePARED QY NC- COASTAL MAtih66AlENT
0 SURVEY UNIT-R•CARRAwAy j I-. PRIDDly
U•S.G.S.TowER NINE" FOR 571ATE PRoPcRTy OFFrCF
f.
�OMPOStT6 FROM REWZ06- V07 A FAFLO.3000

,�. NH-037-18 w
NH-0�9-2� a
HH-039-25
Q CAR0LINA
• lil?AC1I
�*j D
'� DW�009-2G
��V o !1'W-02 9-22 U
t � Tltl-G09-2D
0
DDW-030-13
rr 4w P�
OUT11POR �{y NH-039-49
G ' NEW INLET
lu
J ATLANTIC 0 CL•'AN
CAPE FEAR
y

N.C. DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATIONIWAIVER FORM
CERTIFIED MAIL • RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED or HAND DELIVERY
(Top portion to be completed by owner or their agent)
Name of Property Owner: W 1uz;g-�� ec.'s sS . o-,,
Address of Property:jLslM S 1,b +sct,-.'�'L.. �G4CGu.�nS�ea-�3.
Mailing Address of OwnerL���,wt�n4C
Owner'semail:tf,SS�y.Lw�1���cOwner'sPhone#:
Agent's Name: Agent Phone#:
Agent's Email:
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER'S CERTIFICATION
(Bottom portion to be completed by the Adjacent Property Owner)
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to the above referenced property_ The individual applying for this
permit has described to me, as shown on the attached drawing, the development they are proposing_
A description or drawing, with dimensions, must be provided with this letter_
I DO NOT have objections to this proposal. I DO have objections to this proposal.
If you have objections to what is being proposed, you must notify the N.C. Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) in writing within 10 days of receipt of this notice_ Correspondence should be
mailed to 127 Cardinal Drive EXT, Wilmington, NC 28405. DCM representatives can also be contacted at
[phone]. No response is considered the same as no objection if you have been notified by
Certified Mail -
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that any proposed pier, dock, mooring pilings, boat ramp, breakwater, boathouse, lift, or groin
must be set back a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access unless waived by me (this
does not apply to bulkheads or riprap revetments). (If you wish to waive the setback, you must sign the
appropriate blank below.)
I DO wish to waive some/all of the 15' setback
Signature of Adjacent Riparian property Owner
-OR-
I do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement (initial the blank)
Signature of Adjacent Riparian Property Owner:
Typed/Printed name of ARPO:
Mailing Address of ARPO:
ARPO's email:
Date:
ARPO's Phone#:
*waiver is valid for up to one year from ARPO's Signature"
Revised May 2021

N.C. DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION/WAIVER FORM
CERTIFIED MAIL • RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED or HAND DELIVERY
(Top portion to be completed by owner or their agent)
Name of Property Owner: tQ L V `A i �_ n, , • s GSg1,,
Address of Property: F-C& S �,% o t' �a� N ? teAtc.,.,,, .�04 ..J,
Mailing Address of Owner. ab K4k S&m' t.& Cc I'v NL�7�15
Owner's email:Owner'sPhone#: L�1���-M.07 S-
Agent's Name: Agent Phone#: C2_39j 1%4' _ 2-7.4- 1
—T
Agent's Email: � LAkll av-� av� �v �n • �V S
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER'S CERTIFICATION
(Bottom portion to be completed by the Adjacent Property Owner)
hereby certify that I own property adjacent to the above referenced property. The individual applying for this
permit has described to me, as shown on the attached drawing, the development they are proposing.
A description or drawing, with dimensions, must be provided with this letter.
I DO NOT have objections to this proposal. I DO have objections to this proposal.
if you have objections to what is being proposed, you must notify the N.C. Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) in writing within 10 days of receipt of this notice. Correspondence should be
mailed to 127 Cardinal Drive EXT, Wilmington, NC 28405. DCM representatives can also be contacted at
[phone]. No response is considered the same as no objection if you have been notified by
Certified Mail.
WAIVER SECTION
understand that any proposed pier, dock, mooring pilings, boat ramp, breakwater, boathouse, lift, or groin
must be set back a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access unless waived by me (this
does not apply to bulkheads or riprap revetments). (If you wish to waive the setback, you must sign the
appropriate blank below.)
I DO wish to waive some/all of the 15' setback
Signature of Adjacent Riparian Property Owner
BUM
I do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement (initial the blank)
Signature of Adjacent Riparian Property Owner:
Typed/Printed name of ARPO:
Mailing Address of ARPO:
ARPO's email:
ARPO's Phone#:
Date: *waiver is valid for up to one year from ARPO's Signature"
Revised May 2021

r__
N.C. DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION/WAIVER FORM
CERTIFIED MAIL • RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED or HAND DELIVERY
(Top portion to be completed by owner or their agent)
Name of Property Owner: W A A Ae_ gCSix^rccs CDV.-- • +SS; 5 �
Address of Property: Fe'r, sk1a ��. ��i ��� Ss�.►� C Trwl `!L
Mailing Address of Owner: 001 Se^r ue � ceer, 1 14f hkn� NC-Z701
Owner's email: \nor►[t&Cy,�l��ii4__z5wner's Phone#:+!�b�� 3�'uZ`tJ
Agent's Name: �-Ivueapt f A'AA�s Agent Phone#:
Agent's Email: \ a a(y 0.7t
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER'S CERTIFICATION
(Bottom portion to be completed by the Adjacent Property Owner)
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to the above referenced property. The individual applying for this
permit has described to me, as shown on the attached drawing, the development they are proposing.
A description or drawing, with dimensions, must be provided with this letter.
I DO NOT have objections to this proposal. I DO have objections to this proposal.
If you have objections to what is being proposed, you must notify the N.C. Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) in writing within 10 days of receipt of this notice. Correspondence should be
mailed to 127 Cardinal Drive EXT, Wilmington, NC 28405. DCM representatives can also be contacted at
[phone]. No response is considered the same as no objection if you have been notified by
Certified Mail.
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that any proposed pier, dock, mooring pilings, boat ramp, breakwater, boathouse, lift, or groin
must be set back a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access unless waived by me (this
does not apply to bulkheads or riprap revetments). (If you wish to waive the setback, you must sign the
appropriate blank below.)
I DO wish to waive some/all of the 15' setback
Signature of Adjacent Riparian Property Owner
lR
I do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement (initial the blank)
Signature of Adjacent Riparian Property Owner:
Typed/Printed name of ARPO:
Mailing Address of ARPO:
ARPO's email:
ARPO's Phone#:
Date: *waiver is valid for up to one year from ARPO's Signature*
Revised May 2021

J Go
N w M
.. m *+' Lh
Go
Qt1 V > N
_ �= U � 0 �-
O^� N M0Z
0
�
0 cc
LU
LLd = R
dNoUs ���'�NE
13 d _ *1 CC Lu V- 3
O d oz
*1 i L
d O s
♦•' to
13 O -0 O L.a
.•' Cn a o m .0 0
_ w woa � = R cc
1 a .- �-
IZ
u u —
._ in _ •
W
d M.U.. °
N L�1J
Jc
H ) d R
d = '- 3 0
H• • _R OG
�
R y i R Cl)
3 y O
•_ R•-
W a� o f— as Io ti
a
>Z N
OOGa�`) =�ayz
L R dC� °ovc =>s
d 3 •- .�
0 U J
Z v OG

Cape Fear River Bird Islands — Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands Narrative
Introduction, Purpose, and Need
Audubon North Carolina, the state office of the National Audubon Society, manages, monitors, and
protects approximately 40% of the state's nesting coastal waterbirds from Ocracoke Inlet south to the
Lower Cape Fear River Estuary. A collection of 10 islands in the LCFR between Southport and Snow's Cut
support nesting by one of the largest concentrations of nesting coastal waterbirds in North Carolina.
These nesting islands are owned by the state of North Carolina and managed by Audubon through
leases or management agreements with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. Collectively, these
islands provide a variety of habitat types that support nesting by more than 20 species of waterbirds,
including a number of species that require bare or sparsely vegetated sandy substrate for nesting: Royal
Terns, Sandwich Terns, Gull -billed Terns, and American Oystercatchers. All four of these species are
identified by the North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan as Species of Greatest Conservation Need that
require habitat management to maintain healthy populations in an increasingly developed coastal
landscape.
This project addresses habitat needs for two of these islands. Ferry Slip Island and South Pelican Island
(Figure 1) are dredged -material islands that were created by open water or marsh disposal practices
during the late 1960s to early 1970s. Ferry Slip Island is a dome -shaped oval dominated by sand and
herbaceous vegetation, while on South Pelican Island a Spartina marsh evolved over time adjacent to
the sandy dome. The marsh connects to the river on the north or south side, and sometimes both,
depending on shaping by background erosion and storms. These islands support the largest breeding
colonies of Royal Terns, Sandwich Terns, and Brown Pelicans in southeastern NC, as well as significant
nesting by American Oystercatchers. They are particularly important to Royal and Sandwich Terns, as
these islands are the only sites on the Lower Cape Fear River with large areas of open to sparsely
vegetated sandy habitat that can support large breeding colonies of these species.

Figure 1. Ferry Slip Island and South Pelican Islands on the Lower Cape Fear River.
Consequently, Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands are essential to the maintenance of healthy regional
coastal waterbird populations and the achievement of population goals that were established for these
species in 2001 by the North Carolina Waterbird Management Committee. The islands are positioned
along the federal navigation channel in the lowermost estuary where they are exposed to the erosional
effects of vessel wakes, high energy wind generated waves, and tidal currents. Consequently, periodic
placements of beach -quality dredged material are required to maintain the islands and their associated
waterbird nesting habitats. In addition to maintaining a sufficiently large area of suitable habitat, regular
sand placement is essential to the maintenance of early successional open habitat conditions that terns
require for nesting. Without dredged material placement, the islands will eventually erode to the extent
that their ability to function as nesting sites would be impaired or even lost entirely.
In 1982, the Wilmington District initiated a program to maintain nesting habitat on both islands via
periodic placements of navigation dredged material from the Wilmington Harbor project. The islands
received sporadic placements of dredged sand over the next two decades but South Pelican has not
received material since 2004 and Ferry Slip received material in 2022 and is approaching capacity under
the current permit. Although volumetric yields of sand from the adjacent Horseshoe Shoal and Snows

Marsh channel reaches should allow for island maintenance through regular navigation dredging
disposal events, the USACE will only place sand on Ferry Slip and South Pelican if they are the most cost-
effective disposal option. Currently, the cost effectiveness of the islands as disposal sites is constrained
by limited volumetric capacity. Should the volumetric yield of dredged material exceed the capacity of
the islands, the USACE would be required to use the Wilmington Offshore Dredged Material Disposal
Site (ODMDS) for all material, as mobilizing two types of dredge, pipeline for placement on the dredge
islands, and mechanical or hopper dredge for offshore disposal, would be cost -prohibitive.
Therefore, Audubon North Carolina and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission are seeking
authorization pursuant to the NC Coastal Area Management Act to expand the subaerial footprints of
Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands to accommodate larger volumes of dredged material from the
Wilmington Harbor navigation channel. The proposed action would allow the islands to accept the full
volume of material from foreseeable navigation dredging events, thereby facilitating more regular
placements of dredged material that would maintain the viability of the islands as waterbird nesting
sites. Regular sand placement would also help to control vegetation succession, thereby reducing or
eliminating the need for herbicide treatments that are currently required to maintain suitable open
habitat conditions for nesting.
To develop a plan for expanding the currently permitted footprints of Ferry Slip and South Pelican
Islands from 7 acres above MHW each, Audubon North Carolina received federal funding through the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Atlantic Flyway Shorebird Initiative grants program to assess,
design, and permit such a project. Our approach to island design was based on the following principals
and assumptions: 1) erosion and change are inherent to the islands and are not necessarily negative
outcomes; 2) any engineered island design elements should utilize nature -based designs; and 3) island
designs should incorporate scalability to accommodate variable and unpredictable USACE dredged
material disposal volumes. The project team of Audubon North Carolina, Dial Cordy and Associates, and
Moffatt and Nichol worked collaboratively to develop expanded island designs and features (slope,
elevation, shape, and orientation) that will best meet the nesting habitat requirements of coastal
waterbirds while prolonging the lifespan of the placed material. In order to evaluate the responses of
alternative island designs to site -specific wave conditions and vessel wake characteristics, the following
physical surveys and numerical modeling analyses were conducted:
• Topographic and bathymetric surveys of the islands and surrounding subtidal bottom areas;
• Analysis of vessel generated wave effects on the islands using the XBeach model; and
• Wave hindcasting using a modified existing Delft3D model of the Cape Fear River Estuary to
determine wind wave heights and periods for the islands under wind and surge events at 1-, 10-
and 25-year return periods.
The proposed island designs (Figures 2 and 3) would expand the currently authorized 7-acre subaerial
(above MHW) disposal footprints on Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands to approximately 15 and 17
acres, respectively. The proposed designs for both Ferry Slip and South Pelican would provide sacrificial
protective berms along the navigation channel, while expanding the island footprints over existing
shallow bottom areas that face away from the channel. The overall fill limits that would be required to
achieve the proposed 15 to 17-acre subaerial footprints for Ferry Slip and South Pelican encompass
areas of approximately 31 acres and 35 acres, respectively. A Basis of Design report has been prepared
that describes the modeling analyses and design criteria in detail.

j
lo
i
•— _ j
e ,
n
c � r
d'
0,°
w i
P �
�y I
iL
.*-
F-�=,-_ J�
Figure 2. Proposed design for Ferry Slip Island.

Figure 3. Proposed design for South Pelican Island.
Permitting Requirements
The proposed action to expand the authorized island disposal footprints requires a new or modified
CAMA Major Permit. Based on the selected designs and early coordination with state regulatory
agencies, the project team prepared a permit application package that includes a project narrative,
technical design drawings, a Basis of Design report that describes the modeling analyses and design
criteria in detail, and an Environmental Assessment prepared in accordance with the NC State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Construction Methods
USACE placements of navigation dredged material on Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands would be
conducted by hydraulic pipeline (cutterhead) dredges using the control of effluent method that has
been used for these islands previously. The control of effluent method (Figure 4) uses temporary berms
to contain and channel the slurry of water and dredged material to the desired locations, providing an
extended period for the settlement of solids. Temporary berm construction and the redistribution and
grading of the subaerial placed material would be accomplished by heavy equipment such as bulldozers
and front end loaders.

Figure 4. Control of effluent in use on South Pelican Island in 2004.
Initial construction of the berm containment dikes would be performed using the existing material on
the island. As the berm expanded, the dredge fill would be used to extend the containment dikes
beyond the existing footprint of the island. This will allow for control and direction of the dredge fill
slurry. The dikes would be built as far as possible in front of the discharge of material. This would be
achieved by dozers pushing perpendicular to the flow in front of the discharge and/or marsh buggies
working in the water ahead of the dike. Water would return freely to the river at the end of the
containment dike. On the navigation channel side of the berm, the material will be shaped to the MLW
level using mechanical equipment and can therefore maintain a steeper slope into and below the water.
The landward side of the berm will allow flow of material into the open water, which creates a flatter
slope above and below the water. This material would be primarily placed hydraulically using the
controled effluent disposal method, with the slurry flowing beyond the water's edge with some minor
mechanical shaping with bulldozers above the MLW line.
On South Pelican Island, a containment berm will be also placed around the existing wetland to prevent
any slurry from running into it. After placement of all fill material, this containment berm will be

degraded, and the flushing channel will be shaped to the design limits. The fill sites would likely be
brought up to grade level in lifts. At the completion of each lift, the pipeline would be broken back to
the start of the fill, the containment dikes would be raised, and the next lift of fill would be hydraulically
placed. If required, siltation curtains could be deployed near the discharge area to further aid in the
control of suspended solids and turbidity in the water column. The curtains would be installed by the
work boats that would be on site. Daily turbidity monitoring during construction at the dredge and at
the fill sites could be accomplished as well to verify turbidity levels are within the project limits.
Material placed on islands would be "beach compatible," consisting of approximately 90% sand and
limited fines. The fill volumes required to achieve the conceptual design elevations would include
336,000 CY and 287,000 CY for Ferry Slip and South Pelican, respectively. It is assumed that full
expansion of both islands may be achieved through multiple USACE navigation disposal events over
many years.
Direct Effects of Island Expansion on Intertidal and Subtidal Habitats
The overall fill limits that would be required to achieve the proposed subaerial (above MHW) footprints
for Ferry Slip and South Pelican encompass areas of approximately 31 acres and 35 acres, respectively.
The proposed fill limits currently contain a combination of upland, intertidal, shallow (<6 ft) subtidal,
and deep (>6) subtidal habitats (Figures 5 and 7). Fill placement would result in conversions between the
various habitat types (Figures 6 and 8). The net effect of these conversions on intertidal and subtidal
habitat acreages within the proposed fill limits are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Net habitat changes
within the proposed Ferry Slip fill limits would include an intertidal habitat increase of 3.7 acres, a
shallow subtidal habitat decrease of 7.6 acres, and a deep subtidal habitat decrease of 7.3 acres. Net
habitat changes within the South Pelican fill limits would include an intertidal habitat decrease of 0.3
acres, a shallow subtidal habitat decrease of 9.1 acres, and a deep subtidal habitat decrease of 2.2 acres.
Both islands would continue to experience high rates of shoreline erosion, resulting in extensive habitat
conversions and fluctuations over time as slopes are flattened and sediments are redistributed.
Intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat acreages would be expected to increase at the expense of
subaerial island erosion.
Fq— ] f kgv 6. F*"Slip Pro""d Habllrti
Figures 5 and 6. Ferry Slip Island habitats before and after project.

Figures 7 and 8. South Pelican Island habitats before and after project.
Table 1. Ferry Slip Island habitat conversion summary.
Area (acres) within proposed fill limit
Existing
Proposed
Net change
Above MHW
4.1
15.0
+10.9
Intertidal (MHW to MLW)
3.0
6.7
+3.7
Shallow subtidal (0 to -6 ft)
13.8
6.2
-7.6
Deep subtidal (below -6 ft)
10.3
3.0
-7.3
Ferry Slip Island required fill = 336,000 CY
Datum = MLW
Table 2. South Pelican Island habitat conversion summa
Area (acres) within proposed fill limit
Existing
Proposed
Net change
Above MHW
5.4
17.2
+11.8
Intertidal (MHW to MLW)
9.1
8.8
-.03
Shallow subtidal (0 to -6 ft)
16.0
6.9
-9.1
Deep subtidal (below -6 ft)
4.6
2.4
-2.2
South Pelican Island required fill = 287,000 CY
Datum = MLW
Secondary Ecological Benefits through Estuarine Sediment Retention
The proposed action would provide secondary ecological benefits for the estuary through the retention
of sediments that would otherwise be transported offshore for disposal in the Wilmington ODMDS.
Island expansion would effectively provide for the temporary storage and gradual return of this material
to the estuary through natural erosional processes, thereby increasing sediment availability for the
maintenance of shallow shoals and tidal marshes in the lowermost portion of the estuary.

r�
AUCIUbOTI I NORTH CAROLINA
16 January 2024
4105 Glen Arbor Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28411
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Coastal Management
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 29405
Dear Sir or Madam,
Enclosed please find an application for the renewal and/or modification of major CAMA permit 98-16 to
place dredged sand on two dredged -material islands in the Lower Cape Fear River. The permit is being
applied for on behalf of the landowner, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, by Audubon North
Carolina, which manages the islands through a cooperative agreement with the Commission.
The modification being requested is for the expansion of the footprint of the islands to accommodate
sand dredged by operations and management dredging by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This
facilitates navigational dredging projects and supports important bird habitat at the same time. If the
modification is denied, we would like to renew the permit under the existing parameters.
Sincerely,
Lindsay Addison
coastal biologist
Audubon North Carolina
[phone]
[e-mail]

Major Permit Fee Schedule
Project Name: le) l ((p County:
(m�s� ' V
Check No & Amount: _� C4 7_5
NMI
Development Type
Fee
DCM %
DWQ %
(14300160143510009316256253)
(2430016024351000952341)
I. Private, non-commercial development
that does not involve the filling or
$250
100% ($250)
0% ($0)
excavation of any wetlands or
open water areas:
11. Public or commercial development that
does not involve the filling or excavation
$400
100% ($400)
0% ($0)
of any wetlands or open water areas:
III. For development that involves the
Ring and/or excavation of up to 1 acre
of wetlands and/or open water areas,
determine if AA C, or D below applies:
III(A). Private, non-commercial
development, if General Water Quality
$250
100% ($250)
0% ($0)
Certification No. 4175 can be applied:
III(B). Public or commercial development,
if General water Quality Certification
$400
100% ($400)
0% ($0)
No 4175 can be applied:
III(C). If General Water Quality
Certification No. 4175 could be applied,
but DCM staff determined that additional
$400
60% ($240)
40% ($160)
review and written DWQ concurrence is
needed because of concerns related to
water quality or aquatic life:
III(D). If General Water Quality
$400
u
60 /o ($240)
o
40 /o ($160)
Certification No. 4175 cannot be applied:
fl Development that involves the filling
and/or excavation of more than one acre
$475 ti
60% ($2$5)
40% ($190)
of wetlands and/or open water areas:
j

From: Rupkalvis, James A (Jim) CIV USARMY 596 TRANS BDE (USA)
To: Hall. Bryan L
Cc: CRAWFORD. Trent K (Kevin) CIV USARMY SDDC (USA); Rogers. Adrienne M (AD CIV USARMY 596 TRANS BDE
USA
Subject: RE: [External] RE: MOTSU Notification Required for a CAMA Major Permit
Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:15:52 PM
Attachments: imaae001.pna
Bryan,
MOTSU has no objections. I can fill out the form, if necessary, or you can use this email as our
response. Thanks!
Regards,
Jim
JAMES A. RUPKALVIS
Installation Manager
Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point
6280 Sunny Point Road SE
Southport, NC 28461
O: [phone]
C: [phone]
lames.a.rupkalvis.civ(@arm)l.mil
From: Hall, Bryan L <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 3:38 PM
To: Rupkalvis, James A (Jim) CIV USARMY 596 TRANS BDE (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: CRAWFORD, Trent K (Kevin) CIV USARMY SDDC (USA)<[e-mail]>; Rogers,
Adrienne M (AJ) CIV USARMY 596 TRANS BDE (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: MOTSU Notification Required for a CAMA Major Permit
Thanks Jim, that's good to know. Since the certified mail delivery shows it has been delivered and
DCM verified it was sent to the right address, a nonresponse would be viewed as no objection. If you
wish you can scan me a signed form back. However if MOTSU does not have any objections, then
DCM has the proof of delivery that is required for a CAMA Major Permit application.
Thanks,
Bryan Hall
Field Representative
NC Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
[phone] office
bryan.l.hall @deq.nc.Fov - Please note my new email address

127 Cardinal Drive Ext
Wilmington, NC 28405
Find a Field Rep (arcgis.com)
M
From: Rupkalvis, James A (Jim) CIV USARMY 596 TRANS BIDE (USA) <iames.a.rupkalvis.civ(@army.mil>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:47 PM
To: Hall, Bryan L<Bryan.L.Hall Pdeq.nc.gov>
Cc: CRAWFORD, Trent K (Kevin) CIV USARMY SDDC (USA)<trent.k.crawford.civparmy.mil>; Rogers,
Adrienne M (AJ) CIV USARMY 596 TRANS BIDE (USA)<adrienne.m.rogers.civparmy.mil>
Subject: [External] RE: MOTSU Notification Required for a CAMA Major Permit
Sir,
Thanks very much for the email. Interesting enough, today I received a mailed packet containing
the same information as attached to your email ... so I would definitely say we are properly notified!
I'm including Kevin Crawford, MOTSU's Natural Resources Manager, and AJ Rogers, MOTSU's
Environmental Compliance Manager on the this email. For future notifications, they will be the
primary contacts for MOTSU.
Since it appears we're well outside the 10-day response timeline (based on the original letter dated
6 February 2024), do you still require a signed form from MOTSU?
Regards,
Jim
IYA IIVVLM9 11IMe10N
Installation Manager
Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point
6280 Sunny Point Road SE
Southport, NC 28461
O: [phone]
C: [phone]
iames.a.rupkalvis.civ(@arm)l.mil
From: Hall, Bryan L<Bryan.L.Hall (@deq.nc.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 2:07 PM
To: Rupkalvis, James A (Jim) CIV USARMY 596 TRANS BIDE (USA) <iames.a.rupkalvis.civ(@army.mil>

Subject: MOTSU Notification Required for a CAMA Major Permit
Hi James,
My name is Bryan Hall and I am a field rep for the Division of Coastal Management (DCM). I have
been working with NC Wildlife Resource Commission and Audubon to process an application to
modify State Permit #98-16 which authorized the placement of spoil material to create bird habitat
on Ferry Slip and South Pelican Island in 2016 and has been kept active. NC WRC and Audubon are
proposing to expand the islands. Attached are the proposed site plans as well as an application
report detailing the proposal.
Audubon has attempted twice to send the application materials to MOTSU via certified mail for
proper notification, but both have been unsuccessful. I am hoping reaching out to you directly will
give MOTSU the proper ability to review the proposal and see if they have any objections. DCM
requires proper notification of adjacent riparian property owners to deem an application complete.
If you are able to review the site plans, confirm receipt of this email, and respond with any
objections; it will count as proper notification since certified mail seems to have been failing. If you
have any questions, don't hesitate to reach out.
Thanks,
Bryan Hall
Field Representative
NC Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
[phone] office
[e-mail] - Please note my new email address
127 Cardinal Drive Ext
Wilmington, NC 28405
Find a Field Rep (arcgis.com)
M
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties by an authorized state official.

moffatt & nichol
Basis of Design
Audubon Bird Islands —
Cape Fear River, NC
Project No. 202143
Location: Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands, Cape Fear River, NC
Client Name: Audubon North Carolina
Submittal Stage: Draft
Issue Date: 01 September 2021
Basis of Design I Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page i

h1kk1
Table of Contents
1. General.................................................................................................................................................1
1.1. Project Description........................................................................................................................1
1.2. Design Life & Service Life.............................................................................................................2
2. Design Disciplines.................................................................................................................................3
2.1. Civil................................................................................................................................................3
2.2. Coastal..........................................................................................................................................5
2.3. Dredging........................................................................................................................................6
2.4. Geotechnical.................................................................................................................................8
Appendix A: Ship Wake Evaluation..............................................................................................................9
Appendix B: Wind Wave Modeling..............................................................................................................18
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page ii

h1kk1
General
1.1. Project Description
From the Audubon North Carolina RFP:
The National Audubon Society protects birds and the places they need, today and tomorrow. A non-profit
conservation organization since 1905, Audubon works throughout the Americas using science, advocacy,
education, and on -the -ground conservation. Audubon North Carolina (ANC), a state office of the National
Audubon Society, manages, monitors, and protects about 40% of the state's nesting coastal waterbirds
from Ocracoke Inlet south to the Lower Cape Fear River (LCFR). On the LCFR, 10 islands located between
Southport and Carolina Beach State Park support one of the largest concentrations of nesting colonial
waterbirds and American Oystercatchers in North Carolina. These nesting islands are owned by the state
of North Carolina and managed by ANC through leases or a memorandum of understanding with the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission. Together, they provide a variety of habitat types to suit over 20 species
of nesting birds, including several that prefer bare of sparsely vegetated sandy substrate: Royal Terns,
Sandwich Terns, Gull -billed Terns, and American Oystercatchers. All four of these species are identified by
the North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan identifies as Species of Greatest Conservation Need and require
management to maintain healthy populations in an increasingly developed coastal landscape.
In particular, two dredged -material islands on the LCFR, Ferry Slip Island (33.973475/-77.941647) and
South Pelican Island (33.936001 /-77.973665), provide high -quality open, sandy habitat that supports
significant proportions of the state's population of Royal Terns (up to 26% of state population over the
past 10 years), Sandwich Terns (43%), Gull -billed Terns (12%), and American Oystercatchers (7%).
Therefore, Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands are essential to maintaining healthy regional populations
and meeting the population and site goals established in 2001 by the North Carolina Waterbird
Management Committee for these species.
High -quality nesting habitat on Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands had been maintained for many years
by deposits of dredge material by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) navigational channel
maintenance projects. However, the last time compatible material was able to be placed on the islands
was 2004. In the absence of fresh, sterile sand, vegetation becomes established, builds a seed bank, and
encroaches on open nesting habitat. The islands are also threatened by erosion from storms and ambient
conditions within the river, as well as from increased shipping traffic and navigational channel depths.
Although they are currently permitted to be a maximum of 7 acres above mhw each, they are both less
than 4 acres. As sea level rise continues to accelerate, along with these other factors, the islands will
require new sand to persist in the long-term. Enough sand exists within the river channel for regular
navigational dredging to sustain the islands indefinitely, but it is critical that they be able to receive it
when the USACE undertakes its channel maintenance projects. The USACE will place sand on the islands
if they are the most cost-effective
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 1

h1kk1
option. If the volume of dredged sand exceeds the islands' permitted capacity, barging the sand offshore
could become the USACE's least costly option.
Increasing the islands' permitted size to accommodate larger volumes of sand from navigational
dredging projects requires a new major CAMA permit. A new permit is also an opportunity to re -visit the
design of the islands and incorporate habitat features, such as expanded intertidal habitat, low energy
shorelines, and gradual shoreline slopes that would improve habitat for nesting as well as wintering
waterbirds, as well as other marine life. Positioning the islands to receive sand on a more regular basis
will also help to control encroaching vegetation, reduce grassy habitat for predatory gulls, maintain
habitat despite erosion, sustain the islands'size, and improve the resilience of the habitat to sea level rise
and storms.
1.2. Design Life & Service Life
Audubon NC is approaching this project with the following values and assumptions:
1. That erosion and change cannot be avoided and are not necessarily negative outcomes for the islands;
2. Any engineered elements should favor nature -based designs; and
3. Island designs should allow for scalability to accommodate future USACE dredge events of varying and
not precisely predicable quantities.
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 2

Whig
2. Design Disciplines
2.1. Civil
Criteria established for the design of the islands include the following.
• Datum — MLLW with relationships based on NOAA Station 8658741, Zekes Island
Datums for 8658741, ZEKES ISLAND, CAPE FEAR RIVER NC
NOTICE: All data values are relative to the MLLW.
Elevations on Mean Lower Low Water
far
Station: 8658741, ZEKES ISLAND.
TM. 75
Datums 8658741, ZEKES ISLAND
All figures in feet relative to MLLW
CAPE FEAR RIVER, NC
Epoch: 1983-2001
Status: Accepted (Jun 4 2004)
Datum: MLLW
5
Units: Feet
OMHHW4.56
Control Station: 8658120 Wilmington.
MHW: 4.24.
NC
4
Datum Value
Description
MHHW 4.56
Mean Higher -High Water
3
MHW 4.24
Mean High Water
AVD88: 2.69
MITI 2.20
Mean Tide Level
MSL 2.22
Mean Sea Level
DTL 2.28
Mean Dianna] Tide Level
MLW 0.15
Mean Low Water
MLLW 0.00
Mean Lower -Low Water
NAVD38 2.69
North American Vertical Datum of 1988
STND -2.34
State. Datum
GT 4.57
Great Diurnal Range
MN 4.00
Mean Range of Tide
DHQ 0.32
Mean Diurnal High Water Inequality
Showing datums for
DLQ 0.16
Mean Diurnal Low Water Inequality
l 8658741 ZEKES ISLAND, C...
HWI 1.18
Greenwich High Water Interval (in
hou )
Datum
LWl, 7.39
Greenwich Low Water interval in
hours)
MLLW
Max Title
Highest Observed Title
Data Units '•0 Feet
Max Tide Date R
Highest Observed Tide Date S Tme
Time
0 Meters
Min Tide
Lowest Obsevetl Title
Epoch O Present(1983-2001)
Min Tide Data & Time
Lowest Observed Tide Date & Time
0 Superseded (1960-1978)
HAT 5.78
Highest Astronomical Tide
HAT Date 8 Time 1011611993
HAT Data and Tme
13:36
LAT -0.73
Lowest Astronomical Tide
LAT Data & Time 1212311999
FAT Date and Time
0718
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 3

h1kk1
• Approximate Size: 15 acres above MHW
• Maximum elevation of Protective / Sacrificial Berm: +17 ft-MLLW
• Berm Width: 100 ft
• Maximum Slope above MLW to base of Berm: 30(h):1(v)
• Maximum Slope of Berm: 5(h):1(v)
• Toe of Berm Elevation: MHW on channel side and +12 ft-MLLW on island side
• Assumed Slope Below MLW for Unconfined Fill: 15(h):1(v)
• Channel Bottom Elevation to Existing Wetlands on Pelican Island: MSL (2.22 ft-MLLW)
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 4

h/11
2.2. Coastal
Storm Surge
Return Period (yrs) Surge (ft-NAVD) Surge (ft-MLLW)
Significant Wave Height & Periods
Return Period (yr
grn leant Heig t
Peak Period (sec)
Vessel Wakes
Primary Wave — Maximum Water Surface Elevation (WSE) 0.9 ft
Primary Wave — Maximum Bed Shear Stress (BSS) 0.1 psf
Secondary Wave - 0.5 ft, 3.2 sec
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 5

h1kk1
Dredging
Dredging would be performed with a small cutter suction dredge which would likely be in the range of a
16" to 24". The dredge would remove the material from within the limits of the river navigation channel,
and hydraulically pump the material through a series of pipelines directly to the island fill sites. The
material dredged and pumped to the islands would a mixture of sand and water in the 20% sand / 80%
water range. The pipeline composition would likely be floating at the water surface and connected to
the back of the dredge, although submerged pipeline laying on the river bottom outside of the
navigation channel may be connected to the floating pipeline. The pipe would come ashore at the fill
site and connect to pipeline on the shoreline. The shoreline length would then be extended as the fill
progresses down the islands.
At the fill sites, the contractor would employ various shoreside equipment. This would likely include
front end loaders, bulldozers, and marsh buggies. The Front End Loader (CAT 966 or similar) would
primarily be used to transport pipelines around the fill sites. Bulldozers (CAT D6 or similar) would be
used for spreading and leveling of the material at the discharge, and for the construction of containment
dikes. Amphibious Excavators (Marsh Buggies) could be used to assist in the containment of the fill. They
would also assist in the shaping and grading of the material in the tidal area, and below water as this
machinery can work on land or in water.
The dredge would be assisted in the water with a Crane Barge, Work Boats, Survey Boat, and a supply
barge. If pipelines were to be extended beyond approximately 6,000 ft., it is likely that Booster
Stations/pumps would be added into the pipeline alignment to maintain dredge productions.
Prior to maintenance and / or new construction dredging, a complete survey of the Island Fill Sites and
the applicable navigation channel reaches would be conducted to obtain volume of sand requirements.
The areas to be dredged should be designed / chosen to have suitable fill material at approximately 1.3
times the material that is required as neat line fill at the fill sites. This additional material is needed to
account for material losses, settlement, overbuild, and displacement that would occur during the
construction of the islands.
The shape of the islands were based upon the initial access for the contractor and the ability to place the
material in a controlled manner. On both islands, the expansion of the islands is such that the fill would
be placed over the shallowest of existing lands / shoals that faced away from the navigation channel. A
large berm would be constructed on the navigation channel side of each expanded island to protect the
islands from ship wakes.
The initial construction of the berm containment dikes would be performed using the existing material
on the island. As the berm expanded, the dredge fill would be used to extend the containment dikes
beyond the existing footprint of the island. This will allow for control of the dredge fill, and direction of
fill. The dikes would be built as far as possible in front of the discharge of material. This would be
achieved by dozers pushing perpendicular to the flow in front of the discharge and/or marsh buggies
working in the water ahead of the dike. Water would return freely to the river at the end of the
containment dike. On the navigation channel side of the berm, the material will be shaped to the MLW
level using mechanical equipment and can therefore maintain a steeper slope into and below the water.
The landward side of the berm will allow flow of material into the open water which creates a flatter
slope above and below the water. This material would be primarily placed hydraulically with the slurry
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 6

h1kk1
flowing beyond the water's edge with some minor mechanical shaping with bulldozers above the MLW
line. Also, on Pelican Island, a containment berm will be placed around the existing wetland to prevent
any slurry from running into the identified wetland area. After placement of all fill material, this
containment berm will be degraded, and the flushing channel will be shaped to the design limits. The fill
sites would likely be brought up to grade level in lifts. At the completion of each lift, the pipeline would
be broken back to the start of the fill, the containment dikes would be raised, and the next lift of fill
would be hydraulically placed. If required, siltation curtains could be deployed near the discharge area
to further aid in the control of suspended solids and turbidity in the water column. The curtains would
be installed by the work boats that would be on site. Daily turbidity monitoring during construction at
the dredge and at the fill sites could be accomplished as well to verify turbidity levels are within the
project limits.
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 7

h1kk1
2.4. Geotechnical
Material placed on island should be "beach compatible" with approximately 90% sand and limited fines.
Grab sample data from existing islands forthcoming.
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 8

hJhq
moff att & nichoI
Error! Unknown document property name., Error! Unknown document
property name.
Error! Unknown document property name.
Error! Unknown document property name. Fax: Error! Unknown
document property name.
www.moffattnichol.com
Appendix A: Ship Wake Evaluation
Basis of Design I Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 9

kkifill1
General
As part of ongoing works by Moffatt & Nichol (M&N) to support the North Carolina State Ports
Authority in the proposed deepening and widening of the Cape Fear River Navigation Channel
(CFRNC), the potential shoreline impact due to vessel generated waves (i.e., ship wake) was
previously evaluated [1]. This evaluation included using the numerical model XBeach to obtain
the vessel generated primary wave height and analytical methods to estimate the vessel
generated secondary wave height and period throughout all channel reaches of the CFRNC.
Since the time of the previous ship wake evaluation conducted by M&N, topographic and
bathymetric data were collected around two dredged material islands along the CFRNC (South
Pelican Island and Ferry Slip Island; Figure A-1. North Carolina Audubon is currently evaluating
these islands to expand the footprint for additional dredge material placement. As part of that
study the XBeach ship wake models were updated with the new topographic and bathymetry
data to evaluate vessel generated waves at these islands. For this project the XBeach model was
run with a 12,400 TEU container vessel transiting outbound with a 43 ft draft. The outbound
transit was found to be controlling since the outbound transiting speed is typically slightly higher
than the inbound transit.
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 10

kk1kk1
Figure A-1: Location of South Pelican Island and Ferry Slip Island
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 11

kk1kk1
Primary Wave
The primary vessel generated wave height and resulting bed shear stress experienced at the
shoreline was obtained using the numerical model XBeach. The bathymetry used in the XBeach
model domains that include South Pelican Island and Ferry Slip Island was updated with recently
collected topography and bathymetry data of the two islands. XBeach model simulations using
the updated topography and bathymetry data were run to obtain more accurate results of the
shoreline impact due to ship wake at the two islands of interest.
Independent model simulations to obtain results for South Pelican Island and Ferry Slip Island
were run for the outbound shallow draft (43 ft) design vessel (12,400 TEU) transiting scenario.
The vessel was simulated transiting a speed of 12 knots while the vessel track was determined
based on 2014 AIS traffic data, for both model simulations. The water surface elevation (WSE) is
relative to MLLW and is indicative of the primary wave height.
The ten greatest WSE and bed shear stress (BSS) values calculated throughout each model
domain for the duration of the simulation was time averaged to obtain the "maximum" WSE or
BSS values without incorporating potential outliers (Figure A-2 - Figure A-5). Model results
within the areas of interest (magenta box; Figure A-2 - Figure A-5) were used to summarize the
expected primary wave height and BSS at South Pelican Island and Ferry Slip Island. The
summarized model results within the areas of interest include the spatial average maximum
WSE and the spatial average of the ten greatest WSE values referred to hereafter as the "max"
WSE (Table A-1).
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 12

Outbound 12,400 TEU TransitiFIg the Desigrl Geometry
3, 7fi0, 500 i
—ff 3,760,000
z
11,
H
D
CD
ni
ry
O
O
C)
3,759,500
3,7597000
X-Coordinate [UTM 17N m]
1.2
0.8
0.43
0.4
_4
}
n�
w
Co
6
E
M
E
Figure A-2: Maximum Water Surface Elevation for the Design Vessel (12,400 TEU) for
Outbound South Pelican Island Simulations
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 13

kk1kk1
Outbound 12,400 TEU TrarrsitIFIg the Design Geometry
3, 7w, a0 C
-ff 3.7GC.uuu
r�
Design Channel Limits
Area of Interest
I
i
F`
3, 0 LF
-Coordinate [UTM 17N m]
w
0.4
nS
L
ff]
0.3
N
M
E
M
E
w
J.2
0.
0
Figure A-3: Maximum Bed Shear Stress for the Design Vessel (12,400 TEU) for
Outbound South Pelican Island Simulations
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 14

kk1kk1
3.7 C4.5C 0
-ff 3.7C-7.000
z
f-
D
>- 3.713,3.5C0
3.7C3.000
Outbound 12ADO TEU Transiting the design Geometry
Design Channel Limits -
Area of Interest
.1 vie° 0 1 - 1�1
X-Coordinate [UTM 1?N m]
1i
1.4
Figure A-4: Maximum Water Surface Elevation for the Design Vessel (12,400 TEU) for
Outbound Ferry Slip Island Simulations
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 15

kk1kk1
3,764, 500
E 3,764.0
Z
t<
m
0
0
U
�- 3,763.5G
Outbound 12,400 TEU Transiting the Design Geometry
Uesign Channel briiL
-Brea of Interest
5
lop
X-Coordinate [UTM 17N m]
M
J.5
N
0.4
r
0.3
E
n
E
m
0.2
0.1
0
Figure A-5: Maximum Bed Shear Stress for the Design Vessel (12,400 TEU) for
Outbound Ferry Slip Island Simulations
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 16

kk1kk1
Table A-1: Summary of primary wave model results within areas of interest
Physical Value
South Pelican Island
Ferry Slip Island
Average
Max*
Average
Max*
WSE [ft]
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.5
BSS [Ibf/ft2]
0.1
0.4
0.1
1.0
*Max value is taken as average of ten largest values within area of interest
Secondary Wave
The vessel generated secondary wave height and period was calculated using the updated track -
to -shoreline distances at each island and is reported in Table A-2. Two analytical methods were
used to calculate the secondary wave height, PIANC and K&S. The vessel speeds used in this
evaluation were 11.5 knots and 11.7 knots, for Snows Marsh Reach and Reaves Point Reach,
respectively.
Table A-2: Minimum track -to -shoreline distances with updated bathymetry
Secondary Wave
Island (Channel
Minimum Distance to
Hei ht [ft]
Secondary Wave
Reach)
Shoreline [ft]
PIANC
K&S
Period [s]
South Pelican Island
0.5
0.3
3.1
(Snows Marsh)
1,060
Ferry Slip Island
0.5
0.3
3.2
(Reaves Point)
1,530
References
[1] Moffatt & Nichol, "Port of Wilmington Ship Wake Analysis: Evaluation of Ship Wake," 2020.
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 17

Appendix B: Wind Wave Modeling
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 18

kkifill1
General
Wave hindcasting was performed using a modified existing Delft3D model of the Cape Fear
estuary under various wind and surge events to determine wind wave heights and periods for
two bird islands within the estuary as shown on Figure B-1. The wind and surge events
considered are 1-, 10- and 25-year return periods.
The 10- and 25-year return period surge levels were taken from NC's FEMA flood map update
study. The 1-year return period surge level was calculated from NOAA station 8658120
(Wilmington, NC). Wind records at the Wilmington International Airport (KILM) from periods of
1942 — 2021 were analyzed to determine the different return period winds as shown in Figure B-
2. Table B-1 presents the wind speed and surge values used in this study.
Table 8-1: Wind and surge events
Return Period
Surge level (m-N"D88)
Wind Speed (m/s)
1
1.27
15.89
10
1.79
23.64
25
2.29
27.26
For each event, the surge and wind were applied as spatially uniform. The wind directions were
in a 15-deg interval, thus there were 14 cases for each return period event.
Table B-2 and Table B-3 present the wind -generated significant wave heights and wave periods
under the 1-year return period events at selected locations around these two islands as shown
on Figure B-1.
Table B-4 and Table B-5 present the calculated significant wave heights and peak wave periods
under the 10-year return period events, respectively.
The significant wave heights and peak wave periods under the 25-year return period events are
presented in Table B-6 and Table B-7 respectively.
At both islands, the maximum wind -generated significant wave heights are about 0.6 m, 1.0 m
and 1.3 m under 1-, 10- and 25-year return period events, respectively. The corresponding peak
wave periods are about 3 — 4 seconds.
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 19

M
oiling Spri'ng,Lakes t°
y
I
'4
+ Southport
welh each
Google Earth
P20oG.,.Bald Head Islan
d nd
megaIP�• 2.1 MaYar =GhnnlnniPs
Data O, NOA.A, UZ Pia ^y, r. OA., r_-F13G:)
err%
�- Carolina Beach
ure Beach
stand
fsia2
fsiO3 °
fs",*F
ny Slop Island
cf:fsi07 O
fsl06
fsi05
spi01
spi02 °
spi06 °
spiO3 °
I Is
spi
�Q
spioE

h/11
65
60
55
l
E 45
v
a 40
N
35
25
20
15
Station KILM — Wilmington International Airport, NC
1 10 100 1000
Return period.. yr
Figure 8-2: Extreme wind speeds at Wilmington International Airport
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 21

h1kk1
Table 8-2: Wind -generated significant wave heights (m) under 1-year return period wind and
surge events
Wind
Direction
fsi0
1
fsi0
2
fsi0
3
fsi0
4
fsi0
5
fsi0
6
fsi0
7
spi0
1
spi0
2
spi0
3
spi0
4
spi0
5
spi0
6
spi0
7
0
0.60
0.62
0.61
0.53
0.49
0.41
0.55
0.58
0.56
0.57
0.59
0.51
0.39
0.38
15
0.59
0.62
0.61
0.54
0.49
0.39
0.53
0.60
0.58
0.58
0.61
0.54
0.40
0.38
30
0.57
0.60
0.58
0.54
0.49
0.37
0.50
0.60
0.59
0.60
0.63
0.57
0.43
0.38
45
0.51
0.55
0.54
0.51
0.48
0.35
0.45
0.57
0.58
0.60
0.61
0.57
0.45
0.38
60
0.47
0.52
0.51
0.50
0.48
0.35
0.41
0.56
0.58
0.61
0.62
0.59
0.47
0.39
75
0.42
0.48
0.47
0.47
0.46
0.36
0.38
0.53
0.57
0.61
0.60
0.59
0.50
0.40
90
0.38
0.43
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.37
0.36
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.58
0.57
0.51
0.42
105
0.35
0.40
0.41
0.42
0.42
0.39
0.37
0.46
0.50
0.57
0.55
0.55
0.52
0.45
120
0.37
0.38
0.38
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.40
0.43
0.43
0.52
0.52
0.54
0.53
0.48
135
0.42
0.37
0.35
0.43
0.43
0.45
0.44
0.42
0.36
0.47
0.51
0.54
0.55
0.52
150
0.47
0.37
0.32
0.46
0.48
0.50
0.49
0.44
0.30
0.44
0.50
0.55
0.56
0.55
165
0.50
0.39
0.30
0.47
0.50
0.52
0.51
0.47
0.26
0.41
0.49
0.56
0.59
0.58
180
0.52
0.41
0.29
0.48
0.52
0.54
0.52
0.49
0.25
0.39
0.48
0.58
0.61
0.61
195
0.54
0.45
0.29
0.48
0.54
0.56
0.54
0.51
0.26
0.36
0.47
0.59
0.62
0.61
210
0.55
0.48
0.30
0.48
0.56
0.58
0.54
0.52
0.29
0.35
0.45
0.57
0.61
0.59
225
0.55
0.51
0.32
0.46
0.56
0.57
0.54
0.52
0.31
0.34
0.43
0.56
0.60
0.56
240
0.56
0.53
0.35
0.45
0.58
0.58
0.55
0.52
0.34
0.35
0.41
0.54
0.59
0.55
255
0.54
0.52
0.37
0.43
0.56
0.56
0.54
0.49
0.36
0.35
0.40
0.51
0.56
0.51
270
0.51
0.51
0.40
0.40
0.53
0.52
0.51
0.47
0.37
0.37
0.38
0.47
0.52
0.48
285
0.50
0.50
0.45
0.38
0.49
0.48
0.50
0.44
0.39
0.39
0.37
0.42
0.47
0.45
300
0.51
0.52
0.49
0.39
0.46
0.46
0.51
0.43
0.41
0.41
0.38
0.38
0.41
0.42
315
0.53
0.54
0.52
0.42
0.45
0.45
0.53
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.42
0.38
0.38
0.40
330
0.56
0.57
0.56
0.46
0.46
0.43
0.54
0.50
0.49
0.49
0.48
0.42
0.38
0.38
345
0.58
0.60
0.60
0.50
0.47
0.42
0.55
0.56
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.47
0.38
0.38
Maximum
0.60
0.62
0.61
0.54
0.58
0.58
0.55
0.60
0.59
0.61
0.63
0.59
0.62
0.61
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 22

h1kk1
Table 8-3: Wind -generated peak wave periods under 1-year return period wind & surge events
wind
direction
fsi0
1
fsi0
2
fsi0
3
fsi0
4
fsi0
5
fsi0
6
fsi0
7
spi0
1
spi0
2
spi0
3
spi0
4
spi0
5
spi0
6
spi0
7
0
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
15
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
30
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.7
45
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
60
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
75
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
90
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.4
105
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
120
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
135
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
150
2.4
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
165
2.4
2.7
1.9
2.1
2.1
3.1
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.7
2.4
2.7
180
2.4
2.4
1.9
2.1
2.4
3.1
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.7
195
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
210
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
225
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
240
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.1
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
255
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
270
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
285
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.1
2.1
300
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
315
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.1
330
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.4
345
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.4
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 23

h1kk1
Table 8-4: Wind -generated significant wave heights (m) under 10-year return period wind &
surge events
Wind
Direction
fsi0
1
fsi0
2
fsi0
3
fsi0
4
fsi0
5
fsi0
6
fsi0
7
spi0
1
spi0
2
spi0
3
spi0
4
spi0
5
spi0
6
spi0
7
0
0.96
1.00
0.97
0.83
0.75
0.63
0.91
0.89
0.87
0.87
0.86
0.79
0.63
0.61
15
0.97
1.01
0.98
0.85
0.77
0.62
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.89
0.82
0.65
0.63
30
0.94
0.98
0.94
0.85
0.77
0.62
0.86
0.90
0.92
0.93
0.92
0.88
0.70
0.63
45
0.87
0.93
0.89
0.82
0.76
0.59
0.81
0.89
0.94
0.96
0.95
0.91
0.74
0.64
60
0.79
0.85
0.82
0.78
0.75
0.58
0.73
0.87
0.94
0.97
0.95
0.93
0.77
0.65
75
0.69
0.76
0.75
0.73
0.72
0.58
0.66
0.83
0.92
0.97
0.93
0.92
0.80
0.66
90
0.63
0.70
0.70
0.71
0.71
0.60
0.63
0.77
0.87
0.95
0.91
0.90
0.81
0.69
105
0.59
0.66
0.67
0.70
0.69
0.64
0.64
0.74
0.82
0.91
0.88
0.88
0.83
0.72
120
0.63
0.65
0.64
0.70
0.70
0.69
0.70
0.72
0.73
0.85
0.86
0.88
0.87
0.80
135
0.65
0.62
0.60
0.70
0.71
0.71
0.72
0.73
0.63
0.80
0.85
0.89
0.89
0.86
150
0.68
0.61
0.56
0.71
0.73
0.72
0.74
0.74
0.55
0.75
0.85
0.91
0.93
0.91
165
0.70
0.61
0.52
0.70
0.74
0.73
0.74
0.75
0.48
0.72
0.84
0.93
0.96
0.93
180
0.74
0.64
0.49
0.70
0.76
0.75
0.76
0.77
0.44
0.67
0.83
0.94
0.97
0.94
195
0.78
0.70
0.50
0.71
0.80
0.78
0.78
0.79
0.44
0.64
0.81
0.93
0.96
0.91
210
0.80
0.74
0.51
0.71
0.83
0.82
0.79
0.80
0.47
0.62
0.80
0.92
0.95
0.88
225
0.82
0.79
0.54
0.70
0.86
0.84
0.82
0.80
0.50
0.60
0.78
0.88
0.92
0.85
240
0.84
0.82
0.58
0.68
0.88
0.86
0.83
0.80
0.55
0.59
0.74
0.84
0.89
0.81
255
0.85
0.83
0.62
0.66
0.87
0.85
0.83
0.78
0.58
0.60
0.71
0.80
0.87
0.78
270
0.84
0.84
0.66
0.65
0.83
0.82
0.83
0.76
0.62
0.61
0.68
0.74
0.82
0.73
285
0.83
0.84
0.72
0.64
0.80
0.79
0.83
0.74
0.66
0.65
0.66
0.70
0.76
0.70
300
0.83
0.85
0.78
0.65
0.75
0.75
0.83
0.73
0.70
0.70
0.66
0.67
0.68
0.67
315
0.84
0.86
0.82
0.68
0.72
0.70
0.83
0.76
0.74
0.73
0.70
0.66
0.64
0.64
330
0.89
0.92
0.89
0.74
0.72
0.68
0.87
0.80
0.78
0.77
0.76
0.70
0.61
0.61
345
0.93
0.96
0.94
0.79
0.73
0.66
0.90
0.85
0.83
0.82
0.82
0.74
0.61
0.60
Maximum
0.97
1.01
0.98
0.85
0.88
0.86
0.91
0.90
0.94
0.97
0.95
0.94
0.97
0.94
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 24

h1kk1
Table 8-5: Wind -generated peak wave periods under 10-year return period wind & surge events
wind
direction
fsi0
1
fsi0
2
fsi0
3
fsi0
4
fsi0
5
fsi0
6
fsi0
7
spi0
1
spi0
2
spi0
3
spi0
4
spi0
5
spi0
6
spi0
7
0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.5
15
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
30
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
45
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.1
60
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
75
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.1
90
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
105
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
120
2.4
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
135
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
150
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.7
3.5
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.5
165
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
3.5
2.7
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
180
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
195
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.5
4.0
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
210
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
225
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.4
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
240
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
255
3.1
3.1
2.4
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.1
3.5
3.1
3.1
270
3.1
3.1
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.7
285
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
300
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.4
315
2.7
2.7
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.1
2.7
2.4
2.7
330
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.7
3.1
345
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 25

h1kk1
Table 8-6: Wind -generated significant wave heights (m) under 25-year return period wind &
surge events
Wind
Direction
fsi0
1
fsi0
2
fsi0
3
fsi0
4
fsi0
5
fsi0
6
fsi0
7
spi0
1
spi0
2
spi0
3
spi0
4
spi0
5
spi0
6
spi0
7
0
1.21
1.25
1.21
1.04
0.95
0.83
1.16
1.10
1.09
1.08
1.08
1.01
0.79
0.77
15
1.22
1.27
1.22
1.07
0.99
0.80
1.15
1.12
1.12
1.12
1.12
1.05
0.83
0.80
30
1.18
1.23
1.18
1.06
0.98
0.79
1.11
1.12
1.14
1.15
1.14
1.10
0.87
0.81
45
1.10
1.16
1.11
1.03
0.96
0.75
1.03
1.10
1.16
1.18
1.16
1.13
0.92
0.82
60
0.99
1.06
1.02
0.97
0.94
0.74
0.94
1.06
1.16
1.19
1.16
1.14
0.96
0.83
75
0.86
0.95
0.94
0.92
0.90
0.74
0.85
1.01
1.14
1.18
1.14
1.13
0.99
0.84
90
0.79
0.87
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.77
0.82
0.96
1.08
1.15
1.11
1.10
1.00
0.87
105
0.75
0.82
0.83
0.87
0.87
0.82
0.83
0.91
1.01
1.11
1.07
1.07
1.03
0.92
120
0.79
0.80
0.81
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.88
0.90
0.91
1.06
1.06
1.08
1.07
1.01
135
0.81
0.78
0.76
0.88
0.89
0.89
0.90
0.92
0.80
1.02
1.06
1.10
1.11
1.08
150
0.84
0.75
0.72
0.88
0.90
0.89
0.91
0.93
0.69
0.98
1.07
1.14
1.16
1.14
165
0.87
0.76
0.67
0.89
0.92
0.90
0.92
0.95
0.61
0.93
1.07
1.17
1.20
1.16
180
0.92
0.81
0.64
0.89
0.94
0.92
0.93
0.97
0.56
0.88
1.05
1.16
1.19
1.15
195
0.94
0.86
0.63
0.88
0.98
0.96
0.95
1.00
0.56
0.84
1.02
1.15
1.19
1.13
210
0.99
0.93
0.67
0.89
1.02
1.00
0.97
1.02
0.58
0.81
1.02
1.13
1.16
1.09
225
1.02
0.99
0.70
0.88
1.06
1.04
1.00
1.01
0.61
0.78
1.01
1.10
1.14
1.05
240
1.04
1.02
0.73
0.86
1.08
1.05
1.01
0.99
0.65
0.77
0.98
1.04
1.11
1.01
255
1.04
1.03
0.76
0.83
1.07
1.04
1.02
0.97
0.70
0.76
0.94
1.00
1.07
0.97
270
1.04
1.04
0.82
0.81
1.04
1.02
1.03
0.94
0.75
0.78
0.89
0.93
1.01
0.92
285
1.03
1.03
0.89
0.80
1.00
0.97
1.02
0.91
0.80
0.81
0.86
0.88
0.93
0.87
300
1.02
1.04
0.94
0.82
0.96
0.92
1.02
0.89
0.86
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.83
315
1.05
1.07
1.01
0.86
0.92
0.87
1.03
0.93
0.91
0.90
0.89
0.86
0.79
0.79
330
1.09
1.13
1.10
0.92
0.93
0.85
1.07
0.99
0.97
0.96
0.95
0.91
0.76
0.76
345
1.17
1.20
1.18
1.00
0.95
0.84
1.13
1.03
1.02
1.01
1.01
0.95
0.75
0.75
Maximum
1.22
1.27
1.22
1.07
1.08
1.05
1.16
1.12
1.16
1.19
1.16
1.17
1.20
1.16
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 26

h1kk1
Table 8-7: Wind -generated peak wave periods under 25-year return period wind & surge events
wind
direction
fsio
1
fsio
2
fsio
3
fsio
4
fsio
5
fsio
6
fsio
7
spin
1
spin
2
spin
3
spin
4
spin
5
spin
6
spin
7
0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
15
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
30
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
45
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
60
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
75
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
90
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
105
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
120
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.5
135
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.1
3.5
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
150
3.1
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.1
3.5
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
165
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
4.0
3.1
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.0
180
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
4.0
2.7
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
195
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.5
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
210
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
225
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.7
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
240
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.7
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
255
3.5
3.5
2.7
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.1
2.7
2.7
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
270
3.1
3.1
2.7
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.7
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.1
285
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.7
300
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.7
315
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.7
2.7
330
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.7
3.5
345
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Basis of Design) Project No. 202143 101 September 2021 1 Page 27

kliikkq
moffatt & nichol
Creative People, Practical Solutions.'"

ROY COOPER
Governor
NORTH CAROLINA
Ern iromncntal Onalitr
April 1, 2024
[e-mail]
2 Pages
Star News
Legal Advertisement Section
Re: Major Public Notice for:
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
TANCRED MILLER
Director, Division ofCoastal Management
• Donald & Connie Warren, William & Margaret Rawls, Charles & Elizabeth Gabriel
• Robert C G Exum Revocable Trust
Hello: Please publish the attached Notice in the Friday April 5, 2024 issue.
The State Office of Budget & Management requires an original Affidavit of Publication prior to payment
for newspaper advertising.
Please send the original affidavit and invoice for payment to Tanya Pietila at the NC Division of Coastal
Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405, 910-796-7226 (Customer No.
489895).
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you should have any questions, please contact me at our
Wilmington office.
Sincerely,
Tanya K. Pietila
Permitting Support & Customer Assistance
cc: MHC Files
Cameron Luck— MHC
USACE
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 919 796 7215

NOTICE OF FILING OF
APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The Department of Environmental Quality hereby gives public notice as required by NCGS 113A-
119(b) that the following applications were submitted for development permits in Areas of Environmental
Concern as designated under the LAMA: On March 28, 2024, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission proposed to deposit approximately 623,000 cubic yards of dredge spoils on two (2) existing islands
(Ferry Slip and South Pelican Island) in the Cape Fear River to maintain and restore the nesting habitat for
colonial water birds in and adjacent to the Lower Cape Fear River in Kure Beach, New Hanover & Brunswick
Counties; And on April 2, 2024, Oyster Point HOA proposed to replace the existing 57 slip community marina
by reducing the total amount of slips from the 57 to 51 total slips (44 assigned) with two (2) additional kayak
accesses and seven (7) common area dock spaces. The applicant is also proposing excavation, to a maximum
depth of -4.0' Mean Low Water (MLW9, that would begin 50' north of the proposed floating dock and would
end at the mouth of Everetts Creek at 842 Everetts Creek, adjacent to Everetts Creek, Wilmington, New
Hanover County. Copies of these applications can be examined or copied at the office of Kelsey Beachman
(Oyster Point) or Bryan Hall (NCWRC) N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality, Division of Coastal Management,
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405, [phone] (Kelsey Beachman) or [phone] (Bryan
Hall) during normal business hours.
Comments mailed to Tancred Miller, Director, Division of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce
Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557-3421, prior to April 26, 2024 will be considered in making the permit
decision. Later comments will be accepted and considered up to the time of permit decision. Project
modification may occur based on review & comment by the public and state and federal agencies. Notice of
the permit decision in these matters will be provided upon written request.

DCM Coordinator Cameron tuck County: Z P3 K
DYNAMICS DISTRIBUTI � ? 7Y,� N Permit 0:
RO E-MAIL & DYNAMICS DISTRIBUTION SHEET
Circle o e: Bio Re I Permit for IQ �`� V ( -11 p
Oversize Plans sent:
DCM Offices:
Morehead City: PT (if oversize) via USPS V
.cc Cam & Amanda on group email w1 bi .narr.app.drawings, deed, comment sheet Z
'MHC documents (Cam & Amanda)
Wilmington: Original hard -copy
ONLY USACE & DWR (mro) Split Sheet Fee Chart (No recommendations)
USACE Wilmington: ender & Carteret Co): PN, CL, Reports, Split Sheet _
use both [e-mail] (NH/BR) PN, CL, Reports, Split Sheet
eg Currey (NHIBR: PN, CL, Reports, Split Sheet
Div of Water Resources: olley Snider - 401 (BRINH): PN, CL, Reports, Split Sheet
401 (PN/ON — Surf City) PN, CL, Reports, Split Sheet
Div of Water Resources: reniMontalvo for Karen Higgins: PN, CL, Reports, Split Sheet
phanie Goss
chael Meilinger (training with Holley — send all until further notice)
e
larbara Dunn, Barbara.menefee-dunnOdeg.nc.gov
Marine Fisheries: �— 1 ii Harding
DCM PlannertWiRO: "Mike Christenbury
Cultural Resources: .Renee Gledhill -Earley Environmental. Review(c)ncrlenr.gov�
Natural Heritage Prog. *4a ural.Herita a email new
NC DOT: ayid Harris _
Wildlife Resources:
-Nl�ria Dunn w/Reports
State Property Office;
J/Pm Walton: DEED
e Moser
Tanda_
Hilliard, Real Property Agent (Bio Reports only)
Shellfish Sanitation:
I D'Angelis (Bio) /
ndrew Haines _
DEMLR:
ristine Hall - Stormwater Section
an Sams - Land Quality Section
Xeidi
Public Water Supply:
Cox
City of Wilmington: _
Enforcement: ✓ / Field : Rep
Co. LPO
Agent:
DISTRIBUTED:
Updated 11-2023
✓C, �72 wtfac� A-W G . NO Vl�
CAMAIShaun majors docs/e'Agency List

2h 60L 6260 OL25 OTLO 6996
99 6L9Z 6260 0Z29 OTZO 6936
r-
.n
m
r {
r
0-
+1
ca �
� C{
y
.,O
CO LPI 1 1 r -.

A
69 OZ52

N.C. DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION/WAIVER FORM
CERTIFIED MAIL • RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED or HAND DELIVERY
(Top portion to be completed by owner or their agent)
Name of Property Owner: J,,)L W",U;�- ot,vGmvS ~.:5V,4 21,,
Address of Property: Fd�"
Mailing Address of Owner: Q0 i`�,Aa l t,e- e% 4 h, PLI Z70-
Owner's email: Ia,JX-•SAKe-b!j Owner's Phone#:
Agent's Name: �� a� Agent Phone#: C239� 1%41- 2-1C %
Agent's Email: LAAiSav-� o.u�ww
ADJACENT RIPARIAN PROPERTY OWNER'S CERTIFICATION
(Bottom portion to be completed by the Adjacent Property Owner)
I hereby certify that I own property adjacent to the above referenced property. The individual applying for this
permit has described to me, as shown on the attached drawing, the development they are proposing.
A description or drawing, with dimensions, must be provided with this letter.
I DO NOT have objections to this proposal. I DO have objections to this proposal.
if you have objections to what is being proposed, you must notify the N.C. Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) in writing within 10 days of receipt of this notice. Correspondence should be
mailed to 127 Cardinal Drive EXT, Wilmington, NC 28405. DCM representatives can also be contacted at
[phone]. No response is considered the same as no objection if you have been notified by
Certified Mail.
WAIVER SECTION
I understand that any proposed pier, dock, mooring pilings, boat ramp, breakwater, boathouse, lift, or groin
must be set back a minimum distance of 15' from my area of riparian access unless waived by me (this
does not apply to bulkheads or riprap revetments). (If you wish to waive the setback, you must sign the
appropriate blank below.)
I DO wish to waive some/all of the 15' setback
Signature of Adjacent Riparian Property Owner
-O R-
I do not wish to waive the 15' setback requirement (initial the blank)
Signature of Adjacent Riparian Property Owner:
Typed/Printed name of ARPO:
Mailing Address
/o,.f.'ARPO: l
ARPO's email: `'�`11"�` A-KPO Phone#:
A ID. $3Z- Z�!,DD
Date: DZyZ-!Z z4 *waiver is valid for up to one year from ARPO's Signature*
r
Revised May 2021

NO Aq WdZE>tZCZ/445 P"s "3rl GON �q INdStZt tZOZi6/C P�JIOId"<0 1/N4b a/
133HS H3A00
I?r g ON'tl3AIU tltl3d 3dtlO tl3M01 m�osav¢orvrvaoi3�eauon lo4�lu B!!o!!ow
SONVWltlltl3ltlW-03003tl0 AO NOISNtld%3 o �wr—o 3iins as 3sn3ry ios�vi ooee „r,
w o Ua m Q
10
Wo
wNo
moo
o Q W ao
O01
uN m
ol
Z Z®
J �
Z W
a
0
� U
F-
Q a
N F
W � z o
o u!
z
- G v W Z
a LL z
oc N
a
U
J
' a a3n�a a y3 j 3dbo a a
� - a
NW
W W
U
w
0 rol I O
N
Q W W a
wa g
N a N
o�
LL oc
oW
z�
N O D N
J
Z
a
a
x
w
w o U m Q

NVId SNOIIIONO3 ONLLSIX3
ONVISI dllS AHH3d
ON'tl3Altl tltl3d 3dtlO tl3MOI
SONVISI ltlltl3ltlW-03O03tl0 d0 NOISNtld%
m�oi orv3srvnn wau�n I040lu 9!!o!!ow
3,iris aa3sn3rviornvi ooee „r,
I
aool�

NVId SNOIIIONOO
ONLLSIX3 ONVISI Ntl3I13d
ON'tl3Altl tltl3d 3dtlO tl3MOl
SONVISI ltlltl3ltlW-03O03tl0 d0 NOISNtld%
m�oi orv3srvnn wau�n I040lu 9!!o!!ow
3/iris aa3sn3rviornvi ooee „r,
I "°Y&kiltifA7RK'7�PA2L@'i RA _
vv v
/
AN
i I'll/��'
vvvice/vill/ w v/, v/nl v/Ilii i/ii i w
_ v )%'`I/ I I / I lI III I✓� � II I�/'/,/','///-4</�/';/// v� /, _�\ I,
ai�/ I'� I I v vLi II i II i i Ih`/��� i `( a
I����i
/ v r
�'I

NVId `JNIOVUE)
ONV SI dIIS AHH3d
ON'tlMW tltl3d 3dtlO tl3MOI
SONVISI ltlltl3ltlW-03O03tl0 d0 NOISNtld%
m�oi orv3srvnn wau�n I040lu 9!!o!!ow
3,iris aa3sn3rviornvi ooee „r,
aool�
—
i [

NVId `JNIOVUE)
ONVISI Ntl3I13d
ON'tlMW tltl3d 3dtlO tl3MOl
SONtlISI ltlltl3ltlW-03003tl0 d0 NOISNtld%
m�oi orv3srvnn wain" Ioy�lu g��o��ow xw. arrew :w wn :w Imo
�wrroaen rvx,,m�e I-, 1s 11-11 I'll 1—
z N o
p o
U "
� � n

NO Aq WdSOE tZCZ/lt5 Fe GON 1O WdCtZt tZCZ/6/C P 1/N4b al
SNOLLO3S It101dA-L aavzm <<
ONVISI dlIS AHH3d
O
M
g ON'UAAltl UVAA 3dVO BAMOl moos orvssrvnn waus" Ioy�lu g��o��ow U
SONVIS11VI ltlW-GADGAUOdONOISNVd%3 �eorroveo rvsa�su ssins as ssnsry so s�vs ooee „r,
w o Ua m Q
a
x �M
Wo
wN\
Ileoo
U w Ops
yw
o ¢
10
I
N i I N
1
I
� w I
�m I
A
Jnio
I
Vi

EXPANSION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL ISLANDS
IN THE LOWER CAPE FEAR RIVER
BRUNSWICK AND NEW HANOVER COUNTIES,
NORTH CAROLINA
4 October 2021
DIAL, CORDY �
AND ASSOCIATES INC
�, lufruj i, r re, rtul col i,sultur?ram Audubon

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EXPANSION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL ISLANDS
IN THE LOWER CAPE FEAR RIVER
BRUNSWICK AND NEW HANOVER COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
Final Report
4 October 2021
Prepared for:
Audubon NC
807 E Main St Suite 2-220
Durham, NC 27701
Prepared by:
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
201 North Front Street, Suite 307
Wilmington, NC 28401

Table of Contents
Page
LISTOF ACRONYMS................................................................................................................
V
1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................
1
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED...................................................................................................
3
3.0 ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................................................
4
3.1 No Action.....................................................................................................................
4
3.2 Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands ......................................................
4
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................
4
4.1 Environmental Setting..................................................................................................
4
4.2 Sediments....................................................................................................................5
4.3 Water Quality...............................................................................................................
6
4.4 Estuarine Benthic Communities...................................................................................
7
4.4.1 Estuarine Soft Bottom...........................................................................................
7
4.4.2 Shell Bottom.........................................................................................................
9
4.4.3 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation...........................................................................11
4.5 Tidal Marsh.................................................................................................................12
4.6 Fish and Fish Nursery Areas.......................................................................................14
4.7 Managed Fisheries and Essential Fish Habitat...........................................................16
4.8 Endangered and Threatened Species.........................................................................20
4.8.1 Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon..........................................................................20
4.8.2 Sea Turtles..........................................................................................................23
4.8.3 Piping Plover........................................................................................................24
4.8.4 Florida Manatee...................................................................................................25
4.9 Managed and Protected Areas....................................................................................26
4.10 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................28
4.11 Navigation...................................................................................................................28
5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS...............................................................................................31
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE................................................................................32
6.1 State Laws and Regulations.......................................................................................32
6.2 Federal Laws and Regulations....................................................................................33
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958............................................................................34
7.0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT........................................................................35
8.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................36
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021

APPENDIX A Basis of Design Report
APPENDIX B Island Design Review Set
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands........................................................ 2
Figure 2. Control of effluent dredged material disposal - South Pelican Island 2004 ................. 1
Figure 3. Proposed Design for Ferry Slip Island........................................................................ 2
Figure 4. Proposed Design for South Pelican Island................................................................. 3
Figure 5. Mapped Shell Bottom Habitats..................................................................................10
Figure 6. Delineated Wetlands on South Pelican Island...........................................................13
Figure 7. Atlantic Sturgeon Critical Habitat — Carolina Unit 4....................................................22
Figure 8. Location of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands in Relation to the Wilmington Harbor
NavigationChannel...................................................................................................................30
List of Tables
Table 1. Proposed Action - Ferry Slip Island habitat conversion summary ...................
Table 2. Proposed Action - South Pelican Island habitat conversion summary .............
Table 3. Pooled species abundances from sampling stations in the lower CFRE.........
Table 4. EFH and HPAC in the vicinity of the action area .............................................
Table 5. Managed and protected conservation areas in the CFRE below Snows Cut. .
Table 6. Agency Scoping Meeting List of Attendees.....................................................
Environmental Assessment
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
4 October 2021
iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS
Approximately
%
Percent
°C
Degree Centigrade
OF
Degree Fahrenheit
AFSA
Anadromous Fish Spawning Area
AEC
Areas of Environmental Concern
ANC
Audubon North Carolina
ASMFC
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
ASSRT
Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team
CAMA
Coastal Area Management Act
CFR
Code of Federal Register
CFRE
Cape Fear River Estuary
CMS
Center for Marine Science
CWA
Clean Water Act
CY
Cubic Yards
DPS
Distinct Population Segment
EA
Environmental Assessment
EFH
Essential Fish Habitat
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FMP
Fishery Management Plan
FR
Federal Register
FT
Feet
FWCA
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
HAPC
Habitat Area of Particular Concern
HQW
High Quality Waters
MAFMC
Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management Council
MBTA
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MHW
Mean High Water
MLLW
Mean Low Low Water
MMPA
Marine Mammal Protection Act
MSFCMA
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
NC
North Carolina
NCAC
North Carolina Administrative Code
NCDEMLR
North Carolina Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
NCDEQ
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NCDMF
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
NCMFC
North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission
NCNERR
North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve
NCWRC
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
NRHP
National Register of Historic Places
ODMDS
Offshore Dredged Material Disposal Site
PNA
Primary Nursery Area
PPT
Parts Per Thousand
RKM
River Kilometer
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
v

SAFMC
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
SAV
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
SEPA
State Environmental Policy Act
SNA
Secondary Nursery Areas
SPCA
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act
USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
USC
United States Code
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
YR
Year
Environmental Assessment
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
4 October 2021
vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with the North Carolina
(NC) State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to evaluate the environmental effects of the
proposed expansion of two state-owned dredged material disposal islands (Ferry Slip and South
Pelican Islands) in the Cape Fear River Estuary (CFRE) in Brunswick and New Hanover Counties,
NC (Figure 1). The islands are important coastal waterbird nesting sites that are currently
managed by Audubon North Carolina (ANC) through a Memorandum of Understanding with the
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). The ANC and the NCWRC are requesting
authorization pursuant to the NC Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) to expand the island
footprints to accommodate larger volumes of dredged material from the federal Wilmington Harbor
navigation project. SEPA requires state agencies to consider the environmental effects of their
actions, including the issuance of permits and other regulatory authorizations. This EA has been
prepared to support the state agency environmental review and permit decision process for the
proposed action.
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021

Figure 1. Location of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands.
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
2

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
Ferry Slip Island and South Pelican Islands are artificial, dredged material islands that were
created by open water disposal practices during the late 1960s to early 1970s. These islands
support the largest breeding colonies of royal terns, Sandwich terns, and brown pelicans in
southeastern NC, as well as significant nesting by gull -billed terns and American oystercatchers.
Ferry Slip and South Pelican are particularly important to terns and American oystercatchers, as
these islands are the only sites in the CFRE with large areas of early successional, open to
sparsely vegetated coarse sand habitat that these species require for nesting. Consequently,
Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands are essential to the maintenance of healthy regional coastal
waterbird populations and the achievement of population goals that were established for these
species in 2001 by the North Carolina Waterbird Management Committee. The islands are
positioned along the federal navigation channel in the lowermost estuary where they are exposed
to the erosional effects of vessel wakes, high energy wind generated waves, and tidal currents.
Consequently, periodic placements of beach quality dredged material are required to maintain
the islands and their associated waterbird nesting habitats. In addition to maintaining a sufficiently
large area of suitable habitat, regular sand placement is essential to the maintenance of early
successional open habitat conditions that terns require for nesting. Currently, due to a lack of
dredged material placement, the islands have eroded to the extent that their ability to function as
nesting sites is in danger of being lost.
In 1982 the Wilmington District initiated a program to maintain nesting habitat on both islands via
periodic placements of navigation dredged material from the Wilmington Harbor project (USACE
1982). The islands received sporadic placements of dredged sand over the next two decades
but have not received material since 2004. Although volumetric yields of sand from the adjacent
Horseshoe Shoal and Snows Marsh channel reaches should allow for island maintenance through
regular navigation dredging disposal events; the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
will only place sand on Ferry Slip and South Pelican if they are the most cost-effective disposal
option.
Currently, the cost effectiveness of the islands as disposal sites is constrained by limited
volumetric capacity. Should the volumetric yield of dredged material exceed the capacity of the
islands, the USACE would be required to place the balance of the material in the Wilmington
Offshore Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS). However, the combination of island and
offshore disposal would require the cost -prohibitive use of two separate dredging systems, a
pipeline dredge for the islands and a hopper dredge for the ODMDS. In such cases, island
disposal would not be cost-effective, and the entire volume of material would be placed offshore
in the ODMDS. ANC and the NCWRC are seeking authorization pursuant to the CAMA to expand
the subaerial footprints of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands to accommodate larger volumes
of dredged material from the Wilmington Harbor navigation channel. The proposed action would
allow the islands to accept the full volume of material from navigation dredging events, thereby
facilitating more regular placements of dredged material that would maintain the viability of the
islands as waterbird nesting sites. Regular placements of sterile sand would also help to control
vegetation succession, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for herbicide treatments that are
currently required to maintain suitable open habitat conditions for nesting.
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
3

3.0 ALTERNATIVES
3.1 No Action
Under the no action alternative, the authorized dredged material disposal footprints on Ferry Slip
and South Pelican Islands would remain at 7 acres above Mean High Water (MHW). USACE
navigation dredging events in the adjacent Horseshoe Shoals and Snows Marsh channel reaches
that do not exceed the volumetric disposal capacity of the islands would provide for restoration of
the subaerial island footprints up to the maximum allowable area of 7 acres. USACE navigation
dredging events that exceed the disposal capacity of the islands would utilize offshore disposal
at the Wilmington ODMDS for the entire volume of dredged material. ANC's management of the
islands as nesting sites for coastal waterbirds would continue in accordance with current
practices. The use of regular herbicide treatments to control vegetation succession and maintain
suitable open nesting habitat conditions would be expected to continue under the No Action
Alternative. USACE placements of navigation dredged material on Ferry Slip and South Pelican
Islands would be conducted by hydraulic pipeline (cutterhead) dredges using the control -of -
effluent method. The control -of -effluent method (Figure 2) uses temporary berms to contain and
channel the slurry of water and dredged material to the desired locations, providing an extended
period for the settlement of solids. Temporary berm construction and the redistribution and
grading of the subaerial placed material would be accomplished by heavy equipment such as
bulldozers and front-end loaders. Material placed on islands would consist of beach compatible
[>90 percent (%) sand] material from the adjacent Horseshoe Shoals and Snows Marsh channel
reaches. Disposal events would occur within the existing 1 September to 31 March environmental
window for dredged material placement on the islands.
3.2 Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands
The proposed action would expand the currently authorized subaerial disposal footprints on Ferry
Slip and South Pelican Islands to accommodate larger volumes of navigation dredged material
from the Wilmington Harbor navigation channel. Expansion would allow the islands to accept the
full volume of material from USACE navigation dredging events in the adjacent Horseshoe Shoals
and Snows Marsh channel reaches. The design of expanded island footprints was conducted in
accordance with the following principals and assumptions: 1) erosion and change are inherent to
the islands and are not necessarily negative outcomes; 2) any engineered island design elements
should utilize nature -based designs; and 3) island designs should incorporate scalability to
accommodate variable and unpredictable USACE dredged material disposal volumes. The
principal considerations in developing island designs included the nesting habitat requirements of
coastal waterbirds and the potential effects of ship wakes and natural erosional processes on
island function. ANC provided criteria for size, elevation, and slope that are based on the physical
nesting habitat characteristics that are preferred by coastal waterbirds. Volumetric capacity of
the islands was largely dictated by the habitat -based design criteria for island size and elevation.
The effects of ship wakes and wind -driven waves on island designs were evaluated through
numerical modeling. Analysis of vessel generated wave effects on the islands using the XBeach
model with new topographic and bathymetric data from recent surveys of the islands and
surrounding subtidal bottom areas. Wave hindcasting with a modified existing DeIft3D model of
the Cape Fear River Estuary was used to determine wind wave heights and periods for the islands
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
4

Figure 2. Control of effluent dredged material disposal - South Pelican Island 2004
under wind and surge events at 1-, 10-, and 25-year return periods. Additional modeling details
are provided in Appendix A (Basis of Design Report).
The proposed island designs (Figures 3 and 4, Appendix B) would expand the currently
authorized 7-acre subaerial (above MHW) disposal footprints on Ferry Slip and South Pelican
Islands to approximately 15 and 17 acres, respectively. The overall fill limits that would be
required to achieve the proposed 15- and 17-acre subaerial footprints on Ferry Slip and South
Pelican encompass areas of approximately 31 acres and 35 acres, respectively. Most of the
footprint expansion would occur in the direction away from the channel over existing shallow
bottom areas. The designs for both islands incorporate large sacrificial berms along the
navigation channel that are based on model -projected erosion potential. The berms are
multipurpose features that are intended to add volumetric capacity, provide a sacrificial buffer to
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021

ml�mm�m�l mm MINI@
NMIIIIIIIIIIII
�-�
woo
s
o �
woo
Qfto
=qw_
Y
cu
N
Q
L
L
LL
L
O
c
.N
d
O
Q
O
L-
a.
M
d
L
D
O
C �
O �
U
(n (/j
(n
un L
Q LL
O
(D C_-O
C
C-_ (n
O C
L
> Q
X
W w
m

MINIM
D
O
c �
E Q
U
U) C/)
(D
U)
U L
Q LL
^� O
W
E •O
O C
L
> Q
X
W w
co

protect against rapid habitat loss, and function as high -quality nesting habitat for ground -nesting
colonial waterbirds.
USACE placements of navigation dredged material on Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands would
be conducted by hydraulic pipeline (cutterhead) dredges using the control -of -effluent method.
The control -of -effluent method uses temporary berms to contain and channel the slurry of water
and dredged material to the desired locations, providing an extended period for the settlement of
solids. Temporary berm construction and the redistribution and grading of the subaerial placed
material would be accomplished by heavy equipment such as bulldozers and front-end loaders.
Construction would occur within the existing 1 September to 31 March environmental window for
dredged material placement on the islands. All equipment, pipe, and temporary silt fencing would
be removed from the islands by 31 March for the protection of nesting waterbirds and juvenile
fish. Material placed on islands would consist of beach compatible (>90% sand) from the adjacent
Horseshoe Shoals and Snows Marsh channel reaches. The fill volumes required to expand the
islands from their existing eroded condition to the proposed design footprints and elevations would
be 336,000 cubic yards (cy) for Ferry Slip and 287,000 cy for South Pelican. However, it is
assumed that full expansion of the islands may be achieved incrementally through multiple
USACE navigation disposal events over many years. The preferred sequence for incremental
island build -out would be to first establish a stable island platform that is at least several feet
above MHW, followed by lateral expansion, and lastly construction of the sacrificial berms.
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 Environmental Setting
Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands are located in the lowermost portion of the CFRE
approximately 4.7 and 7.8 miles above the estuary's confluence with the Atlantic Ocean,
respectively. The Cape Fear River has been modified for deep draft commercial vessel traffic
between the Atlantic Ocean and the Port of Wilmington. The Wilmington Harbor inner navigation
channel above Battery Island is maintained by the USACE at a depth of -42 feet (ft) Mean Low
Low Water (MLLW) and a width of 400 to 600 ft. The lower estuary in the vicinity of Ferry Slip
and South Pelican Islands averages approximately three miles in width and is generally less than
five ft (MLLW) deep except for areas along and within the navigation channel. The proximity of
the islands to the ocean is reflected in relatively high average salinities in the polyhaline range
[18 to 30 parts per thousand (ppt]. Mean tidal range in the lower estuary varies from 4.3 ft at the
river mouth to 5.1 ft at Wilmington. Low flow conditions dominate from mid -summer to mid -fall
and high flow conditions occur during winter and early spring. The diurnal tidal cycle drives regular
reversals of flow, except during periods of high freshwater discharge. Average daily discharge at
the estuary mouth is —9,500 cubic ft per second.
Environmental Assessment
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
4 October 2021
4

4.2 Sediments
The Cape Fear River is a major Piedmont -draining brownwater river that carries a relatively large
suspended sediment load consisting predominantly of Piedmont -derived silt and clay sized
particles. The average suspended sediment load at Lock and Dam #1 is approximately (—) 590
cy/day or—215,000 cy/year (yr), with silt and clay sized particles comprising more than 90% of
the average load (Giese et al. 1985). In contrast, the river's major blackwater tributaries, the
Black River and Northeast Cape Fear River, are characterized by relatively small suspended
sediment loads consisting almost entirely of eroded marine terrace sands. According to Benedetti
et al. (2006), the combined annual suspended sediment yield of the Black River and Northeast
Cape Fear River sub -basins probably does not exceed 22,500 cy. Sediment analyses indicate
that very little of the sand in the lower estuary is derived from the Piedmont via the mainstem
Cape Fear River. The mineralogy of sands in the lower estuary is characteristic of marine sands,
indicating that the material is derived from alternate sources such as the blackwater subbasins,
local estuarine sources, and/or littoral transport from the ocean. Similarly, Giese et al. (1985)
noted that the annual rate of sediment removal from the lower estuary via dredging (-2,238,000
cy/yr) greatly exceeds annual sediment input at Lock and Dam #1 (-215,000 cy/yr), indicating
that large volumes of sediment in the estuary must be derived from local estuarine sources such
as channel slumping, shoreline erosion, and/or the ocean via littoral transport. Sediment delivery
from the CFRE to the ocean is generally low (Benedetti et al. 2006), although plumes of organic -
rich mud are occasionally discharged from the Cape Fear River onto the inner continental shelf
following storms (Bales et al. 2000).
Annual shoaling rates in the adjoining Snows Marsh (Ferry Slip) and Horseshoe Shoals (South
Pelican) navigation channel reaches are 21,800 cy/yr and 45,900 cy/yr, respectively (USACE
2021). The dredged material from these reaches consists of beach quality sand with a fine
sediment fraction of less than ten percent. Multiple dredging and disposal methods are used to
maintain these reaches, including pipeline dredging with the material being pumped to an upland
disposal area called Disposal Area 4 or Ferry Slip/South Pelican Islands, bucket and barge
dredging with offshore disposal, and hopper dredging with offshore disposal. The reaches are
beyond the cost-effective range for beach placement on Bald Head Island and Oak Island. The
Wilmington District has recently replaced the hopper dredging environmental window with a risk -
based management approach that will potentially allow for expanded use of hopper dredges in
the Snows Marsh and Horseshoe Shoals reaches as well as other reaches in the lowermost
estuary.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, USACE navigation dredging events that exceed the disposal
capacity of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands would utilize offshore disposal at the Wilmington
ODMDS for the entire volume of dredged material. Given the lack of island disposal events since
2004, it is anticipated that most of the material from navigation dredging events in the Horseshoe
Shoals and Snows Marsh channel reaches would be removed from the estuary and placed in the
ODMDS. Based on the annual shoaling rates for these reaches, dredging and offshore disposal
over a 10-year period would remove —680,000 cy of beach quality sand from the estuary. As
described above, the recent USACE shift from the hopper dredge environmental window to a risk -
based management approach may increase the availability of hopper dredges for maintenance
events in the Snows Marsh and Horseshoe Shoals reaches. Given that a pipeline dredge is
required for disposal on Ferry Slip and South Pelican, an increase in the use of hopper dredges
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
5

for dredging events could reduce the likelihood that sediments from these reaches would be
retained in the estuary.
Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action, the expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican would allow the islands
to accept the full volume of material from USACE navigation dredging events in the adjacent
Horseshoe Shoals and Snows Marsh channel reaches, thereby making pipeline disposal on the
islands the most cost-effective disposal option for the USACE. As a result, most of the dredged
material from these reaches would be retained in the estuary through placement on the islands.
Island expansion would effectively provide for the temporary storage and gradual return of this
material to the estuary through natural erosional processes, thereby increasing sediment
availability for the maintenance of tidal marshes, intertidal and shallow subtidal flats and shoals,
and other important estuarine habitats.
4.3 Water Quality
All water bodies in NC are assigned a surface water classification that defines the best uses to
be protected (e.g., water supply, swimming, fishing). Each classification is subject to a specific
set of water quality standards that are designed to protect the designated uses. Waters that do
not meet state water quality standards are considered to be non -supporting of their designated
best uses and are listed as impaired on the state Section 303d list (Clean Water Act Section
303(d): Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads). The waters surrounding Ferry Slip
are Class SC tidal saltwaters that are protected for secondary recreation, fish and non-commercial
shellfish consumption, wildlife, and aquatic life propagation and survival. The waters below
Federal Point, including the waters surrounding South Pelican Island, are classified as SA waters
that are protected for commercial shellfishing along with all designated SC uses. SA waters are
assigned a supplemental classification of HQW (High Quality Waters) that is intended to protect
waters that are rated excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics. The
waters immediately surrounding Ferry Slip and South Pelican are not listed as impaired on the
2020 NCDEQ 303d list. However, waters of the CFRE opposite the islands along the west side
of the navigation channel are listed as impaired due to exceedances of the state standards for
Copper, Nickel, and Arsenic.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, USACE disposal events on Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands
would be conducted by hydraulic pipeline (cutterhead) dredges using the control -of -effluent
method. The control -of -effluent method uses temporary berms to contain and channel the slurry
of water and dredged material to the desired locations, providing an extended period for the
settlement of solids. Disposal operations would produce temporary increases in suspended
sediment concentrations and turbidity in the waters around the islands. However, based on the
composition of sediments that would be placed on the islands (>90% sand) and the use of control -
of -effluent disposal methods, it is expected that sediment suspension effects would be localized
and short-term under the No Action Alternative.
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
N

Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action, the effects of individual island events on water quality would be similar
to the effects of the No Action Alternative. Based on the composition of sediments that would be
placed on the islands (>90% sand) and the use of control -of -effluent disposal methods, it is
expected that sediment suspension effects would be localized and short-term under the Proposed
Action. However, the proposed action is designed to increase the frequency and extent of
dredged material placement on the islands. Although the effects of individual events would be
localized and principally confined to the period of active disposal, the frequency and duration of
these events would increase in relation to the No Action Alternative.
4.4 Estuarine Benthic Communities
4.4.1 Estuarine Soft Bottom
Estuarine soft bottom habitats consisting of unvegetated, unconsolidated sediments comprise the
vast majority of the subtidal benthic habitat in the CFRE. Estuarine intertidal flats and shallow
subtidal (0 to -6 ft depth) soft bottom habitats support a highly productive benthic microalgal
community. Benthic microalgae, along with imported primary production in the form of
phytoplankton and detritus, support a diverse community of benthic infaunal and epifaunal
invertebrates, including nematodes, copepods, polychaetes, amphipods, decapods, bivalves,
gastropods, and echinoderms [South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) 1998,
Peterson and Peterson 1979]. Large mobile invertebrates such as blue crabs and penaeid shrimp
move between intertidal and subtidal habitats with the changing tides. Mobile predatory
gastropods (e.g., whelks and moon snails) occur along the lower margins of submerged tidal flats,
and fiddler crabs (Uca spp.) are common on exposed flats during low tide (Peterson and Peterson
1979). Benthic invertebrates are an important food source for numerous predatory fishes that
move between intertidal and subtidal habitats, including spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), Atlantic
croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), flounders (Paralichthys albigutta, P. dentatus, and P.
lethostigma), inshore lizardfish (Synodus foetens), pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), red drum
(Sciaenops ocellatus), and southern kingfish (Menticirrhus americanus). Shallow unvegetated
flats provide an abundant food source and are relatively inaccessible to large predators (SAFMC
1998). Intertidal and subtidal flats function as an important nursery area for numerous benthic
oriented estuarine -dependent species, especially Atlantic croaker, flounder, spot, and penaeid
shrimp.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, USACE disposal events on Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands
would restore the subaerial footprint of each island to the currently authorized area of 7 acres
above MHW. Based on the current size of the islands above MHW, restoration of the subaerial
footprint on Ferry Slip would convert 2.9 acres of intertidal and shallow subtidal soft bottom habitat
to upland, whereas restoration of the subaerial footprint on South Pelican would convert 1.6 acres
of intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat to upland. Additional placement beyond the subaerial fill
limits would impact additional shallow subtidal soft bottom habitats, resulting in the temporary loss
of benthic infaunal invertebrates and converting a portion of the shallow subtidal habitat to
intertidal habitat. However, the existing CAMA Major Permit stipulates only that the subaerial
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
7

portion of the island not exceed seven acres. The permit does not address placement beyond
the subaerial footprints in shallow subtidal habitats. Thus, the full extent of direct impacts on
shallow subtidal habitats under the No Action Alternative cannot be precisely quantified.
However, based on the assumption that the overall fill to subaerial fill area ratios would be similar
to the design ratios under the Proposed Action, disposal impacts beyond the 7-acre subaerial
footprints would include approximately 8 acres of intertidal/subtidal habitat on each of the islands.
Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action, USACE disposal events would expand and periodically restore the
subaerial footprints of Ferry Slip and South Pelican to approximately 15 and 17 acres above
MHW. Based on the current size of the islands, full build -out of the Ferry Slip subaerial footprint
would convert 10.9 acres of intertidal and shallow subtidal soft bottom habitat to upland, whereas
full build -out of the subaerial footprint on South Pelican would convert 11.8 acres of intertidal and
shallow subtidal habitat to upland. Additional placement beyond the subaerial fill limits would
impact additional shallow subtidal and deep subtidal soft bottom habitats, resulting in the
temporary loss of benthic infaunal invertebrates and converting a portion of the subtidal habitat to
intertidal habitat. Net habitat changes within the proposed overall fill limits for Ferry Slip and
South Pelican are quantified in Tables 1 and 2. Pursuant to SEPA, the impacts of the No Action
Alternative comprise the baseline against which the impacts of the Proposed Action are
measured. However, as described above, a quantitative No Action baseline for placement below
MHW is lacking.
Table 1. Proposed Action - Ferry Slip Island habitat conversion summary.
Area (acres) within proposed fill limit
Existing
Proposed
Net Change
Above MHW
4.1
15.0
+10.9
Intertidal (MHW to MLW)
3.0
6.7
+3.7
Shallow Subtidal (0 to -6 ft)
13.8
6.2
-7.6
Deep Subtidal (Below -6 ft)
10.3
3.0
-7.3
Ferry Slip Island Required Fill = 336,000 CY
Datum — MLW
Table 2. Proposed Action - South Pelican Island habitat conversion summary.
Area (acres) within proposed fill limit
Existing
Proposed
Net Change
Above MHW
5.4
17.2
+11.8
Intertidal (MHW to MLW)
9.1
8.8
-0.3
Shallow Subtidal (0 to -6 ft)
16.0
6.9
-9.1
Deep Subtidal (Below -6 ft)
4.6
2.4
-2.2
South Pelican Island Required Fill = 287,000 CY
Datum — MLW
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
M

The proposed action is designed to increase the frequency and areal extent of dredged material
placement on the islands. Although the islands would remain highly erosional, the increase in
dredged material placement would effectively reduce the rate of subaerial to intertidal/subtidal
habitat reconversion in relation to the No Action Alternative. The relative frequency of recurring
impacts on soft bottom benthic infaunal invertebrates would also increase. Although the impacts
of individual disposal events would be temporary, cycles of infaunal depression and recovery
would occur more frequently in relation to the No Action Alternative. Conversely, the increase in
dredged material placement would have the potential for significant beneficial effects on soft
bottom benthic communities through the retention of estuarine sediments that would otherwise
be placed offshore in the Wilmington ODMDS. Island expansion would effectively provide for the
temporary storage and gradual return of this material to the estuary through natural erosional
processes, thereby increasing sediment availability for the maintenance of highly productive
intertidal and shallow subtidal soft bottom habitats.
4.4.2 Shell Bottom
Shell bottom habitats include oyster reefs, aggregations of non -reef -building shellfish species
[e.g., clams and scallops (Argopecten irradians, A. gibbus)], and surface concentrations of broken
shell (i.e., shell hash). The eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is the dominant and principal
reef -building species of estuarine shell bottom habitats in NC. Non -reef -building shellfish species
that occur at densities sufficient to provide structural habitat for other organisms include scallops,
pen shells [saw-toothed (Atrina seratta) and stiff (A. rigida)] and rangia clams (Rangia cuneata)
(SAFMC 2009). Shell bottom habitats perform important ecological functions such as water
filtration, benthic-pelagic coupling, sediment stabilization, and erosion reduction (NCDEQ 2016,
SAFMC 2009, and Coen et al. 2007). By filtering and consuming particulate matter,
phytoplankton and microbes, oysters and other suspension -feeding bivalves reduce turbidity and
transfer material and energy from the water column to the benthic community. Shell bottom
structural relief moderates waves and currents, traps sediments, and reduces shoreline erosion.
Existing shell bottom habitats function as important larval settlement and accumulation sites for
recruiting oysters and other shellfish [North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) 2008].
Shell bottom structure concentrates macroinvertebrates [e.g., grass shrimp (Palaemonetes spp.),
and mud crabs (Scylla spp.)] and small forage fishes (pinfish and gobies) that in turn attract larger
predatory fish such as Atlantic croaker, black drum (Pogonias cromis), pigfish, (Orthopristis
chrysoptera), southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma), summer flounder (P. dentatus), and
spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus). Numerous finfish and decapod crustaceans including
anchovies, black sea bass (Centropristis striata), blennies, gobies, oyster toadfish (Opsanus tau),
pinfish, red drum, sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus), spot, weakfish (C. regalis),
penaeid shrimp, blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), and stone crabs (Menippe mercenaria) utilize
shell bottom habitats as nursery areas (NCDEQ 2016).
The distribution of oyster reefs in the CFRE is limited by salinity and a lack of hard substrate for
larval settlement. Live oyster reefs that provide the structural functions described above are
confined to the lowermost —10-mile reach of the estuary from Peters Point to the river mouth
(Rodriguez 2009). Waters of the CFRE below Federal Point, including those around South
Pelican, are designated Class SA commercial shellfishing waters. Habitat maps from the NCDMF
depict two areas of shell bottom habitat in the estuary just above Federal Point, including one
area that is several hundred feet east of Ferry Slip Island (Figure 5). There are no mapped shell
bottom habitats in the vicinity of South Pelican Island. According to the NCDMF, there does not
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
9

North Carolina Shell Bottom Habitat
September 21, 2021
Shell Bottom
G - Subtidal Firm Hon -vegetated Shell
S - Intertidal Firm Hun-vegc?<<oted Shell
W - Intertidal Hard Hcn-vex.-;elated Shell
Figure 5. Mapped Shell Bottom Habitats
1:72, 224
i5 1 i mi
0..76 tE 3 k,r
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
10

appear to be any shell bottom habitat in the vicinity of the islands (NCDMF e-mail correspondence,
21 Sept 2021). Any oysters that may have been present in the vicinity of Ferry Slip are believed
to have died after Hurricane Florence.
No Action Alternative
As described above, the NCDMF has indicated that there do not appear to be any shell bottom
habitats in the vicinity of the islands (NCDMF e-mail correspondence, 21 Sept 2021). Any oysters
that may have been present in the vicinity of Ferry Slip are believed to have died after Hurricane
Florence. Based on sediment composition (>90% sand) in the Snows Marsh and Horseshoe
Shoals channel reaches and the use of control -of -effluent disposal methods on the islands,
adverse sediment suspension and redeposition effects on shell bottom habitats would not be
expected under the No Action Alternative.
Proposed Action
As described above, the NCDMF has indicated that there do not appear to be any shell bottom
habitats in the vicinity of the islands (NCDMF e-mail correspondence, 21 Sept 2021). Any oysters
that may have been present in the vicinity of Ferry Slip are believed to have died after Hurricane
Florence. However, the NCDMF has indicated that it will conduct a shellfish survey to confirm
that no shellfish resources will be impacted by island expansion. Based on sediment composition
(>90% sand) in the Snows Marsh and Horseshoe Shoals channel reaches and the use of control -
of -effluent disposal methods on the islands, adverse sediment suspension and redeposition
effects on shell bottom habitats would not be expected under the Proposed Action.
4.4.3 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) habitats that occur in North Carolina estuaries are formed
by a number of rooted aquatic vascular plant species such as eelgrass (Zostera marina),
shoalgrass (Halodule wrightii), and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima). Beds of SAV occur on
subtidal and occasionally intertidal sediments in sheltered estuarine waters. Environmental
requirements include unconsolidated sediments for root and rhizome development, adequate light
reaching the bottom, and moderate to negligible current velocities (Thayer et al. 1984, Ferguson
and Wood 1994). Submerged Aquatic Vegetation beds provide important structural fish habitat
and perform important ecological functions in estuarine systems, including primary production,
structural complexity, modification of energy regimes, sediment and shoreline stabilization, and
nutrient cycling. Older SAV habitat maps that were developed by the NCDMF showed small
scattered patches of SAV throughout the lower portion of the CFRE; however, the NCDMF has
determined that the mapped occurrences are actually aggregations of free floating marine
macroalgae (Personal communication, Ann Deaton, NCDMF Habitat Protection and
Enhancement Section, 19 Feb 2019). The NCDMF has since concluded that SAV are absent
from the lower CFRE.
No Action Alternative
Based on the reported absence of SAV in the lower CFRE, the No Action Alternative would not
be expected to affect SAV.
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
11

Proposed Action
The potential effects of the Proposed Action on SAV would be the same as those described for
the No Action Alternative.
4.5 Tidal Marsh
Emergent tidal marshes of the lower polyhaline CFRE are strongly dominated by zones of smooth
cordgrass and black needlerush. Salt and brackish marshes exhibit high primary productivity in
the form of detritus, microalgae, and bacteria (Hackney et al. 2000). Tidal flooding connects the
marsh with adjacent estuarine waters, allowing utilization by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Slow -moving or sessile species residing in salt and brackish marshes and contributing to
secondary production include fiddler crabs, mud snails, amphipods, oysters, clams, and Atlantic
ribbed mussels (Geukensia demissa) (Wiegert and Freeman 1990). Marshes provide habitat for
numerous species of decapods and fish. Resident marsh species such as grass shrimp, killifish,
mummichogs, sheepshead minnows, gobies, bay anchovies, and silversides provide an important
link between marsh primary production and transient predatory fish populations (Wiegert and
Freeman 1990, SAFMC 1998). Tidal marshes are utilized as nursery and/or foraging areas by
economically important species such as red drum, flounder, spotted seatrout, spot, Atlantic
croaker, and blue crab. In North Carolina, penaeid shrimp and red drum are considered critically
linked to marsh edge habitat (SAFMC 1998).
Ferry Slip Island is a uniform high upland dome of dredged material with an unstable escarped
shoreline that precludes the formation of fringing tidal marshes. The northwestern half of South
Pelican Island also consists of a high upland dome with an unstable escarped shoreline that
precludes fringing tidal marsh formation. In contrast, the southeastern half of South Pelican Island
is low and flat with maximum elevations that are approximately one foot above MHW. Interior
tidal pools at the center of the southeastern area are fringed by areas of smooth cordgrass-
dominated tidal saltmarsh. The tidal saltmarshes are in turn surrounded by intermittently flooded
high marsh/wet maritime grassland communities that are dominated by salt meadow cordgrass
(Spartina patens) and seaside oxeye (Borrichia frutescens). A jurisdictional wetland delineation
of South Pelican Island was conducted by Dial Cordy and Associates on 21 July 2021. The
surveyed wetland boundary on South Pelican (Figure 6) encompasses both the tidal saltmarsh
and high marsh/wet maritime grassland communities.
No Action Alternative
Past USACE disposal projects on South Pelican have implemented measures to protect the
southeastern jurisdictional wetland area, including marking the jurisdictional wetland boundary,
installing temporary silt fences between the wetlands and designated work areas, and
constructing a temporary protective sand berm between the wetlands and the discharge/disposal
area as part of the control -of -effluent disposal method. It is assumed that USACE disposal events
under the No Action Alternative would implement these same protective measures, thereby
avoiding any adverse effects on wetlands.
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
12

+ `♦ \ \ \ r o�,_1 � Cf ���/ �h\�'f F'_1�N�✓r� � o��� r—=,r11— — ✓r— f _l _ --
\ \` \ti.l `�!� �— 1 �e`r�.�/f✓irh\J1{%�✓✓ =, rjr /J {•`^, 1 �— Y i j/.��--�.✓'r_
♦..+ _ =..1 ✓—� .../ � .,''`� r i\ 1 r_��/\ ! � f/ram, _ ter._ �♦ \ � �_ ��.—�
� �\i,�ir'"l;✓iVC \`✓. !% �-f`=`-f {I��"i 1 1"� \\ �\ r � �;J—I Il _—� r�._a—_.^`♦♦`Jr""1 ^``♦!— \�-
---e---------.
\�\ ++ \ + + ++ {+ A {I} mil +\1 + r �—a a\�,.� �_ ♦� Surveyed Wetland Boundary /
1
so\u�ah\f?eFi�an \ \�l� �:1�+1 �`cJ�\ \ •/
\\\ } 11� \\ 11111 — �— —✓/r� 1l r�/ � J l / /r•y.�\�'y�y � \ + g✓/
I //N�
\\\V \ l + \\\\\ �II11�1111;�' t6 �!� 1'r`� ��--�� a` •�\ tj `\ ♦\ IL 9 ff ff
r
/�'L�. `�;.4i \++\.,\\ \\\�\ �\`a~�a,�.i �i \%/ a 1 " ,a♦ �\'\ \ 1 // iff ff iff—
:Jj
� � \ � /C � r r}i � \�!.\\♦`�-- �"�--'------- � I f l llr f f r �} ..-_--�♦ t
'� � \ \ f� --� ''- 1 + I I l ham' f'f"7 1r �!' Jr✓i\1 \ ! \
1\ __, ♦\\ ��` `\1 II � I II lltl {� �� !--_-J_rl 111 r l l f �\!)I1/� ! // � +
� jr;/r!
`\_/ � ♦ �� \� \fir—, ♦\ /s �(I! f ,-/ 1 � \i
I�fJ � G9 ff \\ `r ♦� ♦ r ��,� \\ ♦♦rrr rr / /� r� ! I
1` \\\ r♦ v. �`�\ r✓�
/ ,' ✓ �'" r J `\ r\. \ � �f lrr� ��� r� : r� c.
Figure 6. Delineated Wetlands on South Pelican Island
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
13

Proposed Action
As depicted on the proposed design plans for South Pelican, the jurisdictional wetland area was
excluded from the proposed fill limits. An existing non -vegetated shallow swale that connects the
interior wetland and the CFRE would be extended to the design shoreline to ensure that tidal
exchange is maintained. It is assumed that the USACE would implement the same protective
measures described above under the No Action Alternative, thereby avoiding any adverse
construction effects on wetlands.
4.6 Fish and Fish Nursery Areas
The CFRE is an important nursery area for many estuarine -dependent fish and invertebrate
species that spawn offshore and use estuarine habitats for juvenile development. Ocean -
spawned larvae are transported shoreward by the prevailing currents and eventually pass through
tidal inlets and settle in estuarine nursery habitats. Juveniles remain in the estuarine nursery
areas one or more years before moving offshore and joining the adult spawning stock (NCDEQ
2016). Larval settlement by many estuarine -dependent species occurs in the uppermost reaches
of shallow creek systems (Weinstein 1979, Ross and Epperly 1985). The abundance of juveniles
in estuarine nursery areas generally peaks between April and July (Ross and Epperly 1985).
Weinstein et al (1980) described the structure of estuarine nekton communities in the lower CFRE
based on sampling of shallow tidal creeks and shoals, including habitats associated with marsh
islands (Shellbed and Battery) in the lowermost high salinity estuary. Sixteen taxa comprised
over 96% of the total catch at all stations during the September to August sampling period (Table
3). Ocean -spawned estuarine -dependent species comprised 70% of the community dominants.
The species that dominated the overall catch were generally ubiquitous to the lower CFRE but
exhibited centers of abundance related to salinity gradients. Many marine species were restricted
to the high salinity (polyhaline) waters of the lowermost estuary. Although not numerically
dominant, the seasonal presence of marine species contributed to relatively high species richness
at the lower polyhaline stations.
State -designated fish nursery areas in the lower CFRE include Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs)
and Secondary Nursery Areas (SNAs). Primary Nursery Areas are areas of initial post -larval
development that support uniform populations of very early juveniles, whereas SNAs are areas in
the estuarine system that support later juvenile development of subadults [15 North Carolina
Administrative Code (NCAC) 31 .0101(b)(20)(E)]. The waters surrounding Ferry Slip Island are
part of a designated Permanent SNA that extends north along the east side of the navigation
channel from Federal Point to Carolina Beach State Park. Ferry Slip is approximately one mile
northwest of the nearest PNA, which is located in The Basin on the east side of the New Inlet
Dam (aka "The Rocks"). There are no designated PNAs or SNAs within a 2.5-mile radius of South
Pelican Island.
Anadromous species that undertake annual migrations from coastal waters to spawning grounds
in the upper freshwater reaches of the Cape Fear River include Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon,
striped bass, American shad, hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), blueback herring (A. aestivalis),
and alewife (A. pseudoharengus). The North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission (NCMFC)
and the NCWRC have designated the middle to upper portions of the CFRE and the inland
freshwater reaches of the Cape Fear River above as Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas (AFSAs).
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
14

These areas are defined as areas where evidence of spawning of anadromous fish have been
documented through direct observation of spawning, capture of running ripe females, or capture
of eggs or early larvae (15A NCAC 03N .0106 and 15A NCAC 10C .0602). There are no
designated AFSAs below Lilliput Creek in the lowermost —11-mile reach of the mainstem CFRE;
however, the lower river functions as a spawning migration corridor for anadromous species.
Table 3. Pooled species abundances from sampling stations in the lower CFRE.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Atlantic menhaden
Brevoortia tyrannus
39.3
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
18.3
Mummichog
Fundulus heteroclitus
10.8
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
7.6
Bay anchovy
Anchoa mitchilli
5.9
Striped mullet
Mugil cephalus
3.3
White mullet
Mugil curema
2.2
Brown shrimp
Penaeus aztecus
1.9
Flounder
Paralichthys spp.
1.7
Blue crab
Callinectes sapidus
1.3
Striped killifish
Fundulus majalis
1.0
Inland silverside
Menidia beryllina
0.9
Silver perch
Bairdiella chrysoura
0.6
Pinfish
Lagodon rhomboides
0.6
Eastern mosquitofish
Gambusia holbrooki
0.5
Naked gobi
Gobiosoma bosc
0.5
Total
96.2
Source: Weinstein et al. 1979
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, USACE disposal events on Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands
would affect estuarine fish and fish habitats through direct impacts on soft bottom habitats and
temporary losses of the associated benthic infaunal invertebrate communities that comprise the
prey base for estuarine -dependent soft bottom foraging fishes. Based on the current size of the
islands, restoration of the currently authorized 7-acre subaerial footprints on Ferry Slip would and
South Pelican would convert 2.9 acres 1.6 acres of intertidal/shallow subtidal soft bottom habitat
to upland, respectively. However, as previously described (Section 4.4.1), the extent of additional
subtidal placement beyond the subaerial footprints is not defined. Thus, the full extent of direct
impacts on intertidal and shallow subtidal soft bottom habitats under the No Action Alternative is
unknown. Although there is no pipeline dredging window for the Horseshoe Shoals and Snows
Marsh channel reaches, USACE disposal events on the islands are conducted within a 1
September to 31 March environmental window for the protection of nesting waterbirds and
juvenile fish. This window requires the removal of all equipment, pipe, and temporary silt fencing
from the islands by 31 March.
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
15

Proposed Action
As in the case of the No Action Alternative, USACE disposal events under the Proposed Action
would affect fish and fish habitats through direct impacts on soft bottom habitats and temporary
losses of the associated benthic infaunal communities that comprise the prey base for soft bottom
foraging fishes. However, full build -out of the expanded subaerial footprints would increase the
extent of intertidal/subtidal to upland habitat conversion on Ferry Slip and South Pelican to 10.9
acres and 11.8 acres, respectively. The extent of additional placement beyond the subaerial
footprints would also increase, thereby increasing the extent of shallow subtidal to intertidal habit
conversion and temporary impacts on intertidal and subtidal benthic infaunal prey communities in
relation to the No Action Alternative (see Section 4.4.1). However, as previously described, a
quantitative No Action baseline for comparison is lacking. Both islands would remain highly
erosional, resulting in relatively rapid upland to intertidal/subtidal habitat reconversion. However,
more frequent dredged material placement would effectively reduce the rate of habitat
reconversion in relation to the No Action Alternative. On average, the Proposed Action would
maintain a substantially larger proportion of the proposed 15- and 17-acre subaerial footprints as
upland over the long term. The relative frequency of recurring temporary impacts on soft bottom
benthic infaunal communities beyond the subaerial footprints would also increase. More frequent
cycles of infaunal depression and recovery would cause a reduction in total benthic infaunal
productivity over the long-term, thereby reducing the availability of prey for soft bottom foraging
fishes. Conversely, the increase in dredged material placement would have the potential for
significant beneficial effects on fish and fish habitats through the retention of estuarine sediments
that would otherwise be placed offshore in the Wilmington ODMDS. Island expansion would
effectively provide for the temporary storage and gradual return of this material to the estuary
through natural erosional processes, thereby increasing sediment availability for the maintenance
of highly productive intertidal and shallow subtidal soft bottom habitats, tidal marshes, and other
estuarine fish habitats.
4.7 Managed Fisheries and Essential Fish Habitat
The lower CFRE encompasses a number of estuarine habitats that are designated as Essential
Fish Habitat (EFH) and/or Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) in Fishery Management
Plans (FMPs) developed by the SAFMC, Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC),
and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Table 4). The Magnuson —Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) defines EFH as "those waters and substrate
necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." HAPCs comprise a
more specific subset of EFH that are considered especially critical due to factors such as rarity,
susceptibility to human -induced degradation, and/or high ecological importance. The following
sections describe the federally managed fisheries and associated EFH/HAPC habitats that occur
in the lower CFRE.
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
IN

Table 4. EFH and HPAC in the vicinity of the action area.
EFH/HAPC
Fisheries Management Plan(s)
Management
Authority
EFH
Estuarine Emergent Wetlands
Penaied shrimp, Snapper -Grouper
SAFMC
Subtidal and Intertidal
Penaied shrimp
SAFMC
Non -Vegetated Flats
Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks
Snapper -Grouper
SAFMC
Unconsolidated Bottom
Snapper -Grouper
SAFMC
Coastal Inlets
Coastal migratory pelagics
SAFMC
NC Primary/Secondary Nursery
Coastal migratory pelagics
SAFMC
Areas
Estuaries
Bluefish, Summer flounder
MAFMC
Estuaries/ Coastal Inlets
Highly Migratory Species (Smooth dogfish,
NMFS
Small coastal sharks, Large coastal sharks)
HAPC
Coastal Inlets
Penaied shrimp, Snapper -Grouper,
SAFMC
Coastal migratory pelagics
NC Primary and Secondary
Penaied shrimp, Snapper -Grouper,
SAFMC
Nursery Areas
Coastal migratory pelagics
Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks
Snapper -Grouper
SAFMC
Penaeid Shrimp
Federally managed penaeid shrimp in North Carolina include the brown shrimp, pink shrimp, and
white shrimp. Adults spawn offshore in high salinity oceanic waters during the winter or spring
(SAFMC 1981). Ocean -spawned planktonic larval and post -larval shrimp are transported by
currents to inshore estuarine habitats where they maintain a benthic existence. Juveniles are
most abundant in estuarine waters with intermediate salinities and mud -silt substrates, where they
congregate at the highly productive marsh -water interface. As their size increases, shrimp move
toward high -salinity oceanic waters, eventually migrating offshore in the fall. For penaeid shrimp,
EFH includes important inshore estuarine nursery habitats, important offshore habitats for
spawning and growth, and all interconnecting water bodies. Designated EFH and HPACs in the
lower CFRE include estuarine tidal marshes, subtidal and intertidal non -vegetated flats (soft
bottom), coastal inlets, and state -designated Primary and Secondary Nursery Areas.
Snapper -Grouper Complex
The snapper -grouper complex is an assemblage of 59 species that share a common association
with hardbottom or reef habitats during part of their life cycle. Generally, snappers, groupers
(Serranidae), porgies (Sparidae), and grunts inhabit offshore hardbottom habitats, whereas,
nearshore ocean hardbottoms at depths of —18 m along NC have cooler temperatures, less
diverse invertebrate populations, and a fish community dominated primarily by black sea bass
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
17

(Centropristis striata), scup, and associated temperate species (Sedberry and Van Dolah 1984).
Most snapper -grouper species spawn in aggregations in the water column above offshore and
shelf -edge reefs (Jaap 1984). Planktonic larval stages typically occur in the offshore water
column, whereas juveniles and adults are typically demersal and associated with moderate to
high relief hard structures on the outer continental shelf. However, the juveniles of some managed
species such as black sea bass, gray snapper (L. griseus), and gag grouper reside in estuarine
nursery areas where they typically inhabit SAV or oyster reef habitats (SAFMC 1998, NCDMF
2006). Juveniles of these estuarine -dependent species emigrate from the estuary to near shore
hardbottom habitats in the fall, and eventually move to offshore hard/live bottom habitats.
Designated EFH and HPACs for estuarine -dependent snapper -grouper species in the lower
CFRE include estuarine tidal marshes, subtidal and intertidal non -vegetated flats, oyster reefs
and shell banks, unconsolidated soft bottom habitats, coastal inlets, and state -designated Primary
and Secondary Nursery Areas.
Coastal Migratory Pelagics
Coastal migratory pelagics that have designated EFH and HPAC in the lower CFRE include king
mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) and Spanish mackerel (S. maculates). Spanish mackerel
spawn in groups over the inner continental shelf, beginning in April off the Carolinas. Larvae grow
quickly and are most commonly found in nearshore ocean waters at shallow depths less than 30
ft. Most juveniles remain in nearshore ocean waters, but some use high salinity estuaries as
nursery areas. Adult Spanish mackerel spend most of their lives in the open ocean but are also
found in tidal estuaries and coastal waters (ASMFC 2011a and b, Mercer et al. 1990]. King
mackerel are primarily a coastal species, with smaller individuals of similar size forming significant
schools over areas of bottom relief and reefs, while larger solitary individuals prefer anthropogenic
structures and/or wrecks. Larvae and juveniles have been observed from May to November off
the Carolinas, but a well-defined king mackerel spawning area has not been identified (SAFMC
1983). Designated EFH and HAPCs for coastal migratory pelagics in the lower CFRE include
coastal inlets and state -designated Primary and Secondary Nursery Areas.
Highly Migratory Species
The highly migratory species complex encompasses tuna, billfish, and 39 species of sharks that
are divided into three groups: large coastal sharks, small coastal sharks, and pelagic sharks.
The CFRE contains designated EFH for sharks, including smooth dogfish, small coastal sharks
and large coastal sharks. Sharks are found in a wide variety of coastal and ocean habitats,
including estuaries, nearshore and continental shelf waters, and the open ocean. Although
managed sharks move primarily through the open ocean, several species move to shallow coastal
waters and estuaries to pup. These nearshore/estuarine habitats also function as nursery areas
for the developing young, with neonates typically remaining in these areas throughout their early
life stages (NMFS 2009). Subtidal bottom in nearshore waters along the southern NC coast serve
as pupping grounds, with neonates occurring in southern NC waters primarily during June and
July (Beresoff and Thorpe 1997, Thorpe et al. 2004).
Bluefish
In North America, bluefish range from Nova Scotia to Florida in the Atlantic Ocean and from
Florida to Texas in the Gulf of Mexico (MAFMC 1990). Spawning in the South Atlantic Bight
occurs near the shoreward edge of the Gulf Stream primarily during April and May (Kendall and
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
18

Walford 1979). Larval development takes place in outer continental shelf waters within six meters
of the surface. Transitional pelagic juveniles eventually move to estuarine and nearshore oceanic
waters that serve as the principal nursery habitats forjuvenile development (Kendall and Walford
1979). Estuarine juveniles are most commonly associated with sandy soft bottom habitats but
also use mud and silt soft bottom habitats, SAV, marine macroalgae, oyster reefs, and tidal marsh
habitats (Shepherd and Packer 2006). Juvenile bluefish are common in high salinity estuaries
along the southern NC coast during summer and fall and are common in the nearshore ocean
from spring through mid -winter. Adults use both inshore estuarine and offshore oceanic habitats.
Adults are common in the nearshore ocean along the NC coast from spring through mid -winter
(MAFMC 1990). The CFRE comprises designated EFH for juvenile and adult bluefish.
Summer Flounder
Summer flounder are concentrated in estuaries and sounds from late spring through early fall,
before migrating to offshore wintering and spawning habitats on the outer continental shelf
(NEFSC 1999, ASFMC 2011c). Offshore spawning occurs during fall and early winter, and the
larvae are transported by wind -driven currents to coastal waters. Post -larval and juvenile
development occurs primarily in estuaries (NEFSC 2011). Larvae recruit to inshore waters from
October to May where they bury into the sediment and develop into juveniles. Late larval and
juvenile flounder actively prey on crustaceans, copepods, and polychaetes (NEFSC 1999).
Juveniles prefer sandy shell substrates but also inhabit marsh creeks, mud flats, and seagrass
beds. Juveniles often remain in North Carolina estuaries for 18 to 20 months (NEFSC 1999,
ASFMC 2011d). Adults primarily inhabit sandy substrates, but have been documented in
seagrass beds, tidal marsh creeks, and sand flats (ASFMC 2011c and d, NEFSC 1999).
Designated EFH and HPACs for juvenile and adult summer flounder in the lower CFRE include
estuarine waters with salinities >0.5 ppt, marine macroalgae, and tidal/freshwater macrophytes
(tidal marsh).
No Action Alternative
The potential effects of the No Action Alternative on estuarine habitats that comprise EFH and
HPAC have been detailed in the previous sections of this EA. The potential for adverse effects
on managed species and EFH/HPAC would be associated with direct impacts on soft bottom
habitats and associated benthic infaunal communities within the disposal footprints. These
impacts would reduce the availability of foraging habitat and benthic prey resources for federally
managed demersal species; however, the extent of these impacts would be minimal in relation to
the overall quantity of foraging habitat within the lower CFRE.
Proposed Action
The potential effects of the Proposed Action on estuarine habitats that comprise EFH and HPAC
have been detailed in the previous sections of this EA. As in the case of the No Action Alternative,
the potential for adverse effects on managed species and EFH/HPAC would occur through direct
impacts on soft bottom habitats and associated benthic infaunal prey resources within the
disposal footprints. However, as previously described, full build -out of the expanded island
footprints would increase the extent of intertidal/subtidal soft bottom to upland habitat conversions
and the extent of temporary impacts on shallow subtidal benthic infaunal communities (see
Sections 4.4.1 and 4.6). More frequent dredged material placements would effectively reduce
erosional habitat reconversions, thereby increasing the duration of habitat conversion effects.
The frequency of recurring temporary impacts on soft bottom benthic infaunal communities
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
19

beyond the subaerial footprints would also increase, thereby causing a reduction in total benthic
infaunal productivity over the long-term. Conversely, the increase in dredged material placement
would have the potential for significant beneficial effects on managed species and EFH/HPAC
habitats through the retention of estuarine sediments that would otherwise be removed from the
estuary. Island expansion would effectively provide for the temporary storage and gradual return
of this material to the estuary through natural erosional processes, thereby increasing sediment
availability for the maintenance of highly productive intertidal and shallow subtidal soft bottom
habitats, tidal marshes, and other estuarine EFH/HPAC habitats.
4.8 Endangered and Threatened Species
This section addresses federally listed threatened and endangered species that may occur in the
lower portion of the CFRE in the vicinity of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands, including Atlantic
sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, sea turtles, piping plover and the Florida manatee.
4.8.1 Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon
The Atlantic sturgeon is listed as five Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), including the endangered New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and
South Atlantic DPSs and the threatened Gulf of Maine DPS. The Carolina DPS encompasses
subpopulations from the Roanoke, Tar/Pamlico, Cape Fear, Waccamaw, Pee Dee, and Santee -
Cooper Rivers in North Carolina and South Carolina. The spawning population in each of the
Carolina DPS river systems is thought to number less than 300 adults (Atlantic Sturgeon Status
Review Team (ASSRT) 2007). Atlantic sturgeons spawn in freshwater but spend most of their
adult life in the marine environment. Spawning adults undertake annual migrations from coastal
waters to spawning grounds in the upper freshwater reaches of rivers in the spring/early summer
(ASSRT 2007). Post -larval juveniles move downstream into brackish waters and eventually move
to estuarine waters where they reside for a period of months or years (Moser and Ross 1995).
Subadult and adult Atlantic sturgeons emigrate from rivers into coastal waters where they may
undertake long range migrations, but adults return to their natal river to spawn (ASSRT 2007).
Atlantic sturgeons are benthic omnivores that filter quantities of mud along with their food. Adults
consume mollusks, gastropods, amphipods, isopods, and fish, while juveniles feed on aquatic
insects and other invertebrates (ASSRT 2007).
Gill net surveys in the Cape Fear River system have captured substantial numbers of Atlantic
sturgeon in the Cape Fear River mainstem, Brunswick River, and Northeast Cape Fear River
(Moser and Ross 1995, ASSRT 2007). Subadult Atlantic sturgeons in the Cape Fear River
system exhibit seasonal movements and distribution patterns, moving upriver during the summer
and migrating out of the river to estuarine or ocean waters during the coldest time of the year
(Post et al. 2014). High inter -annual return rates of tagged fish demonstrate fidelity to the Cape
Fear River system, indicating that the Cape Fear River system may be the natal river system for
these individuals (Post et al. 2014). In 2017, portions of both rivers were designated as critical
habitat for the Carolina DPS. Carolina Unit 4 encompasses the Cape Fear River main stem from
river kilometer (rkm) 0 up to Lock and Dam #2 and the Northeast Cape Fear River from its
confluence with the Cape Fear River up to Rones Chapel Road Bridge (Figure 7). The physical
or biological features of Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat that are essential to the conservation of
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
20

the species include hardbottom substrate in low salinity waters for egg settlement and early life
stage development; aquatic habitat encompassing a gradual salinity gradient (0.5-30 ppt) and soft
bottom (sand/mud) substrate for juvenile foraging and development; waters of sufficient depth
and absent physical barriers to passage to support unimpeded movements of adults, subadults,
and juveniles; and water quality conditions (temperature and oxygen) that support spawning,
survival, development, and/or recruitment of the various life stages [82 Federal Register (FR)
39160].
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. Shortnose
sturgeon spend most of their life in their natal river systems and rarely migrate to marine
environments. Juveniles inhabit 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
randomly vacuum the bottom and consume mostly insect larvae and small crustaceans. Adults
are more selective feeders, feeding primarily on small mollusks (NMFS 1998). The shortnose
sturgeon was thought to be extirpated from North Carolina waters until an individual was captured
in the Brunswick River in 1987 (Moser and Ross 1995). Subsequent gill -net studies (1989-1993)
confirmed the presence of a small shortnose sturgeon population in the Lower Cape Fear River
below Lock and Dam #1. Tagged shortnose sturgeon were found to move throughout the estuary
from river mile 10 up to Lock and Dam #1 (Moser and Ross 1995). Gravid females engaged in
directed upstream migrations that suggested the possible existence of a reproducing population
above Lock and Dam #1 (Moser & Ross 1995). However, the current distribution, abundance,
and reproductive status of the shortnose sturgeon in the Cape Fear River are unknown
(Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team 2010).
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, USACE dredged material disposal events on Ferry Slip and
South Pelican Islands would potentially affect Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon through temporary
sediment suspension and direct impacts on soft bottom foraging habitats within the fill limits. As
previously described, based on the composition of the dredged material (>90% sand) that would
be placed on the islands and the use of control -of -effluent disposal, it is expected that temporary
increases in suspended sediment concentrations would be highly localized and short-term.
Periodic impacts on soft bottom foraging habitats within the fill limits would reduce the availability
of benthic infaunal prey resources; however, the extent of these impacts would be minimal in
relation to the overall quantity of foraging habitat within the lower CFRE. Island disposal would
not impede upriver movements by migrating sturgeon, and based on the location of the islands in
the lowermost high -salinity estuary, disposal would not affect foraging or developmental habitats
for pre -migratory juvenile sturgeon. Therefore, disposal on Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands
would not be expected to adversely affect Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon or designated critical
habitat for the Atlantic Sturgeon Carolina DPS. USACE pipeline dredging in the adjacent
Horseshoe Shoals and Snows Marsh channel reaches would be conducted in accordance with
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
21

Carolina Unit 4
Cape Fear Unit
Map 4
73'W 78°301W Wavne 78'W 77'30'vv
Neuse ,�
Mount Olive ,�``'
'Bones Chape.
Rd badge
1 <
Fayetteville
35-N Clinton 7 35'N
70f Northeast
Cape Fear
1 Jacksonville
NORTH
Paden
r
" Lock And dam #2
Elizabethtown; -
Burgawl
f e`er der
-W30'E
t- 'Cape Fear lock Arid Dam #
�.
r 4 �
Whiteville
. .
Wiffingt`on
SOUTH
CAROLINA � t�
�ri;3iS'4i�4
Atlantic Ocean
L 0 5 10 20 30,E 40=
f WN mmiqmMornaters WN
� iVi�les
wv s y0 5 10 20 30-40,
s =i79`01w
Legend
Critical Habitat Area
\CSC L; m
GA � ,,,,y
-- ,. Area of Detail
FL
This map illustrates Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat. Critical habitat is all of the river within the illustrated
Critical Habitat Area from the ordinary high water mark on one riverbank to the ordinary high water mark of the
opposing riverbank. For clarification of the critical habitat definition, please refer to the narrative description.
Figure 7. Atlantic Sturgeon Critical Habitat — Carolina Unit 4
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
22

the NMFS South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion for Dredging and Material Placement
Activities in the Southeast United States (2020 SARBO). The 2020 SARBO established project
design criteria (PDCs) that dictate how pipeline dredging projects must be sited, constructed, and
carried out to be covered under the Opinion and to avoid and minimize adverse effects on Atlantic
and shortnose sturgeon and designated critical habitat.
Proposed Action
The effects of Proposed Action on Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon and designated critical habitat
for the Atlantic Sturgeon Carolina DPS would be similar to those of the No Action Alternative. As
previously described, the extent and frequency of direct impacts on subtidal soft bottom foraging
habitats and benthic infaunal prey resources would increase under the Proposed Action.
However, the increase would not be expected to generate any effects on sturgeon that would
differ significantly from those described above under the No Action Alternative.
4.8.2 Sea Turtles
North Carolina's sounds and estuaries provide important developmental and foraging habitats for
post -pelagic juvenile loggerhead, green, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles. Most of the information
regarding the inshore distribution of sea turtles in North Carolina has been generated by studies
in the Pamlico -Albemarle estuarine complex. Large numbers of loggerhead, green, and Kemp's
ridley sea turtles are incidentally captured each year during commercial fishing operations in the
Pamlico -Albemarle estuarine complex. All three species are represented primarily by juveniles,
with few reported captures of older juveniles and adults (Epperly et al. 2007). All three species
move inshore during the spring and disperse throughout the sounds during the summer. All three
species leave the sounds and move offshore during the late fall and early winter. Epperly et al.
(1995) reported the presence of sea turtles in back -barrier estuaries along the North Carolina
coast from April through December. Goodman et al. (2007) reported the presence of sea turtles
in Core and Pamlico Sounds and the nearshore ocean waters of Raleigh Bay within one mile of
shore from April through November. All but one of the 92 sea turtle observations reported by
Goodman et al. (2007) occurred in waters where sea surface temperatures were above 11
degrees Centigrade (°C), and all sightings in the sounds occurring between 16 April and 20
November. Although data on the distribution and movements of juvenile sea turtles in the CFRE
is extremely limited, during a tracking study of 18 gill -netted green and Kemps ridley juveniles in
the lower estuary, all but one individual (a presumed mortality) remained in the lower 13-mile
reach of the estuary below Snows Cut (Snoddy and Williard 2010). The juveniles were initially
captured along the New Inlet Dam (aka "the Rocks"), which extends south from Federal Point to
a point approximately one mile below South Pelican Island.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, USACE dredged material disposal events on Ferry Slip and
South Pelican Islands would potentially affect sea turtles through temporary sediment suspension
and direct impacts on soft bottom foraging habitats within the fill limits. As previously described,
based on the composition of the dredged material (>90% sand) that would be placed on the
islands and the use of control -of -effluent disposal, it is expected that temporary increases in
suspended sediment concentrations would be highly localized and short-term. Furthermore,
adherence to the 1 September to 31 March environmental window for disposal on the islands
would avoid much of the warm water period when juvenile sea turtles are most likely to be present
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
23

in the CFRE. Periodic impacts on soft bottom habitats within the fill limits would reduce the
availability of foraging habitat; however, the extent of these impacts would be minimal in relation
to the overall quantity of soft bottom foraging habitat within the lower CFRE. Therefore, disposal
on Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands would not be expected to adversely affect sea turtles.
Proposed Action
The effects of Proposed Action on sea turtles would be similar to those of the No Action
Alternative. As previously described, the extent and frequency of direct impacts on subtidal soft
bottom habitats would increase under the Proposed Action. However, the increase would not be
expected to generate any effects on sea turtles that would differ significantly from those described
above under the No Action Alternative.
4.8.3 Piping Plover
The piping plover is listed as endangered within the Great Lakes watershed and as threatened
throughout the remainder of its breeding, migratory, and wintering range (50 FR 50726 — 50734).
The breeding, migratory, and wintering ranges of the piping plover overlap in NC; and
consequently, piping plovers can be found in the state during every month of the year (Cameron
et al. 2006). Breeding and nesting sites in NC are principally confined to undeveloped and
unstabilized barrier islands along the northern NC coast. Breeding pair observations in the Cape
Fear region from 2000-2017 included just two pairs at Fort Fisher; one each during 2002 and
2005. The largest numbers of non -breeding plovers have been observed in NC during the fall
migration period, with peak numbers occurring during August and September. Observations
decline sharply during the months of October and November; and by December, the relatively
small numbers of plovers that remain in NC are presumed to be winter residents (Cohen 2005).
Spring migrants begin to arrive along the NC coast in late February, with numbers peaking in late
March. Migrating and wintering plovers are highly concentrated on inlet shoals and the adjoining
inlet -influenced ends of the barrier islands. Habitat use patterns are characterized by movements
between different inlet complex habitats, with some sites being used exclusively for foraging while
others are used for roosting (Cameron et al. 2006). Foraging habitat use at Oregon Inlet was
influenced by tidal stage, with plovers exhibiting a preference for the dredged material disposal
islands as the associated intertidal zones were exposed on the falling tide (Cohen et al. 2008).
Migrating piping plovers use stopover sites at most of the inlets along the NC coast (Cameron et
al. 2006). International Piping Plover Winter Census wintering plover observations in the vicinity
of the action area have been relatively sparse, with a total of four observations recorded from Fort
Fisher to Bald Head Island during the 2001, 2006, 2011, and 2016 censuses (NCWRC 2016).
Rare sightings of piping plovers on Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands indicate limited use of
intertidal foraging habitats on the islands (Personal Communication, Lindsay Addison, ANC, 1
October 2021).
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, USACE dredged material disposal events on Ferry Slip and
South Pelican Islands would potentially affect piping plovers through direct impacts on intertidal
soft bottom foraging habitats and associated benthic infaunal prey organisms. Disposal would
convert existing intertidal habitats within the fill limits to upland, while concurrently creating new
intertidal habitat along the margins of the subaerial footprints. Benthic infaunal recovery in the
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
24

new intertidal areas would eventually provide replacement prey resources; however, prey
availability would be temporarily reduced during the recovery period. Based on the temporary
nature of the effects and the rarity of piping plover sightings on the islands, no significant adverse
effects on piping plovers would be expected under the No Action Alternative.
Proposed Action
The effects of Proposed Action on the piping plover would be similar to those of the No Action
Alternative. As previously described, the frequency of direct impacts on intertidal soft bottom
foraging habitats would increase under the Proposed Action. However, the increase would not
be expected to generate any effects on piping plovers that would differ significantly from those
described above under the No Action Alternative.
4.8.4 Florida Manatee
In April 2017, the status of the Florida manatee under the ESA was down -listed from endangered
to threatened throughout its range (82 FR 16668). Manatees inhabit marine, brackish, and
freshwater environments where they are found in seagrass beds, salt marshes, freshwater bottom
areas, and other habitat types. Manatees feed on a wide variety of submerged, floating, and
emergent vegetation. Seagrasses are a staple in coastal habitats, with preferred foraging habitats
consisting of shallow seagrass beds that have access to deep water. Although manatees tolerate
a wide range of salinities, they prefer areas where osmotic stress is minimal or areas that have a
natural or artificial source of fresh water [United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The principal
anthropogenic threats to manatees include watercraft strikes, entrapment and/or crushing in water
control structures, entanglement in fishing gear, and ingestion of marine debris [United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2001]. Manatees are intolerant of cold water temperatures
and consequently are generally restricted to inland and coastal waters of peninsular Florida during
the winter. In the spring, as water temperatures reach 68 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), manatees
disperse from winter aggregation sites and may undertake extensive movements along the coast
and up rivers and canals. Warm weather sightings are most common in Florida and Georgia.
Sightings decline rapidly above Georgia and are rare north of Cape Hatteras (USFWS 2001).
Cummings et al. (2014) described the temporal and spatial distribution of manatees in NC based
on sighting and stranding records for the period of 1991-2012. Although sightings were reported
along the entire NC coast, most were concentrated around the densely populated areas of
Wilmington and Beaufort, NC. Sightings were most common in the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway; however, manatees were also observed in sounds, bays, rivers, creeks, marinas, and
the open ocean. Manatee occurrences in NC are primarily restricted to the months of June
through October. Nearly all (93%) of the NC sighting (n=99) and stranding (n=9) records that
were analyzed by Cummings et al. (2014) occurred between June and October when water
temperatures were above 68°F (20°C. Reported sightings in the mainstem CFRE were confined
to the lowermost estuary below Snows Cut.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the potential for effects on manatees would be associated with
the risk of vessel collisions. Pipeline dredges operate from anchored barges and would present
only a minimal collision risk during brief periods of barge repositioning. The principal collision risk
associated would occur from support vessel operations. As a measure to reduce the risk of vessel
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
25

strikes, the USACE would implement the Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian
Manatee: Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters (USFWS
2003) (Appendix TBD). Additionally, adherence to the 1 September to 31 March environmental
window for disposal on the islands would avoid much of the warm water period when manatees
are potentially present in the CFRE. Based on the implementation of these measures, it is
expected that the vessel strike risk would be negligible.
Proposed Action
The potential effects of Proposed Action on manatees would be similar to those of the No Action
Alternative. It is expected that implementation of the USFWS manatee guidelines and adherence
to the 1 September to 31 March environmental window would reduce the vessel strike risk to
negligible levels.
4.9 Managed and Protected Areas
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program maintains a database of managed conservation
areas in NC and serves as the state steward for the USGS Protected Areas Database of the
United States. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database records for the lower CFRE
are listed in Table 5. In addition to Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands, the identified sites include
those having shorelines, waters, and/or wetlands that are influenced by tides and currents in the
CFRE.
No Action Alternative
The managed and protected status of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands is related to their
function as waterbird nesting sites, which is dependent on dredged material placement. Thus,
the effects of USACE disposal events on the two islands would be beneficial. Ferry Slip and
South Pelican Islands are both located in the central portion of the CFR along the navigation
channel and are remote from other managed areas that occur in the lower estuary. Therefore,
no effects on other managed areas would be expected under the No Action Alternative.
Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action, due to more frequent dredged material placement, the beneficial
effects of USACE disposal events on Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands would be increased in
relation to the No Action Alternative. The potential effects of the Proposed Action on other
managed areas in the lower estuary would be the same as those described for the No Action
Alternative.
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
NET

Table 5. Managed and protected conservation areas in the CFRE below Snows Cut.
Managed Area Name
Owner
Owner
Type
Acres
Bald Head Island Conservancy
Preserve
Bald Head Island Conservancy
Private
45
Bald Head Island State Natural Area
NC Division of Parks and Recreation
State
5,970
Battery Island Audubon Sanctuary
National Audubon Society
Private
92
Brunswick Town State Historic Site
NC Division of State Historic Sites and
Properties
State
129
Carolina Beach State Park
NC Division of Parks and Recreation
State
628
Ferry Slip Island Audubon Sanctuary
National Audubon Society
Private
7
Fort Fisher State Historic Site
NC Division of State Historic Sites and
Properties
State
38
Fort Fisher State Recreation Area
NC Division of Parks and Recreation
State
475
Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point
US Department of Defense
Federal
10,887
No Name Island Audubon Sanctuary
National Audubon Society
Private
7
Orton Creek Preserve
The Nature Conservancy
Private
1,233
Snows Marsh Island
National Audubon Society
Private
118
South Pelican Island Audubon
Sanctuary
National Audubon Society
Private
10
Striking Island Audubon Sanctuary
National Audubon Society
Private
43
Zekes Island NCNERR
NC Division of Coastal Management
State
1,472
NCNERR = North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve
Environmental Assessment
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
4 October 2021
27

4.10 Cultural Resources
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [16 United States Code (USC)
470 et seq.], federal agencies are required to consider the effects of actions they undertake, fund,
or authorize on historic properties that are listed or may be eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. Federal action agencies are required to consult with the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, either directly or through State Historic Preservation Offices for
the purpose of identifying historic properties potentially affected by the action, assessing the
effects, and mitigating adverse impacts. Historic sites that occur along the banks of the lower
CFRE and are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) include the Brunswick
Town/Fort Anderson State Historic Site, Orton Plantation, Fort Fisher State Historic Site,
Southport Historic District, Fort Caswell Historic District, and the Bald Head Island Lighthouse.
Abandoned shipwrecks and other cultural resources that occur on submerged lands of the state
are protected under the Federal Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 and Chapter 121, Article 3 of
the NC GSs (Salvage of Abandoned Shipwrecks and Other Underwater Archaeological Sites).
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, projects affecting
submerged lands of the state must be evaluated for potential effects on underwater cultural
resources that are listed or may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
No Action Alternative
Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands are both located in the central portion of the Cape Fear River
along the navigation channel and are remote from onshore NRHP-listed historic properties.
USACE disposal events on the islands would occur within the currently authorized footprints, and
thus would not be expected to affect any underwater archaeological resources. Therefore, no
effects on cultural resources would be expected under the No Action Alternative.
Proposed Action
Based on the remote location of the islands, the Proposed Action would not be expected to affect
onshore NRHP-listed historic properties. Coordination with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office and Underwater Archaeological Branch will be conducted through the
SEPA environmental review and CAMA permitting process to determine the need for
underwater archaeological resource surveys in the island footprint expansion areas.
4.11 Navigation
The main stem river channel in the lower estuary has been modified for deep draft commercial
vessel traffic between the Atlantic Ocean and the Port of Wilmington. The inner harbor navigation
channel above Battery Island is maintained by the USACE at a depth of -42 ft MLLW and a width
of 400 to 600 ft. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway enters the mainstem river at Snows Cut and
runs south through the federal Harbor channel to Southport where it branches off to the west
behind Oak Island. Additionally, the Southport -Fort Fisher ferry channel extends a short distance
from Federal Point to the Wilmington Harbor navigation channel, which it follows downriver to the
Town of Southport.
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
28

No Action Alternative
Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands are located approximately 0.20 to 0.25 mile east of the
Wilmington Harbor navigation channel (Figure 8). Based on past projects, USACE disposal
events under the no Action Alternative would restore the authorized island footprints through
eastward dredged material placement away from the navigation channel, thus avoiding impacts
on navigation.
Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action, construction and periodic restoration of the expanded island
footprints would occur through eastward dredged material placement away from the navigation
channel, thus avoiding impacts on navigation.
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
29

Figure 8. Location of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands in Relation to the Wilmington
Harbor Navigation Channel
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
30

5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The potential for cumulative effects is principally associated with modification of the estuarine
bottom environment via the Proposed Action in combination with other dredging and disposal
actions in the CFRE. Significant estuarine resources that are potentially susceptible to the
combined incremental effects of the Proposed Action and other actions include estuarine soft
bottom benthic communities and estuarine -dependent fish and invertebrate assemblages. The
existing Wilmington Harbor navigation channel and Port of Wilmington deep draft vessel berths
encompass —2,000 acres of modified estuarine soft bottom habitat that is subject to periodic
disturbance from maintenance dredging. Additional modified estuarine soft bottom areas that are
maintained by dredging include the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) Snows Cut and
Wilmington Harbor Connecting channels (-100 ac), deep draft vessel berths and connecting
channels at MOTSU (-350 ac), and various private vessel berths and marinas. In total, the CFRE
currently contains —2,600 acres of modified maintained soft bottom habitat. The only foreseeable
future separate action that would significantly increase the area of modified soft bottom habitat in
the CFRE is the Wilmington Harbor Navigation Improvements Project (WHNIP). Under the
WHNIP Recommended Plan, deepening of the navigation channel would increase the overall
area of modified estuarine soft bottom habitat that is subject to periodic maintenance dredging
disturbance from —2,600 acres to —3,100 acres (North Carolina State Ports Authority 2020).
Under the Proposed Action, an additional 18 acres of soft bottom habitat within the expanded
subaerial island footprints on Ferry Slip and South Pelican would experience recurring impacts in
the form of intertidal/subtidal to upland habitat conversion. The extent of disposal beyond the
subaerial footprints would also increase, thereby increasing the extent and frequency of recurring
temporary impacts on soft benthic infaunal communities. However, the mainstem estuary
between Wilmington the and the estuary mouth contains—25,000 acres of estuarine soft bottom
habitat. Therefore, significant adverse cumulative effects on soft bottom communities and
estuarine -dependent species would not be expected under the Proposed Action.
The increase in dredged material placement would have the potential for beneficial cumulative
effects on estuarine habitats and communities through the retention of estuarine sediments that
would otherwise be removed from the estuary. Island expansion would effectively provide for the
temporary storage and gradual return of this material to the estuary through natural erosional
processes. Other separate USACE actions that retain marine -derived sands in the lowermost
estuarine/littoral system include regular placements of dredged material on the beaches of Bald
Head and Oak Islands and potential beneficial use projects such as placement on Battery Island.
The Proposed Action in combination with these separate actions would increase sediment
availability for the maintenance of highly productive intertidal and shallow subtidal soft bottom
habitats, tidal marshes, and other important estuarine habitats.
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
31

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
6.1 State Laws and Regulations
The proposed action is also subject to the environmental review provisions of the NC SEPA and
a number of state regulatory authorizations, including a CAMA Major Permit Modification and a
Section 401 Water Quality Certification issued by the NCDWR under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), and an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan authorization issued by the
NC Division of Land Resources under the NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act. The following
state environmental laws that are relevant to the proposed action:
North Carolina State Environmental Policy Act of 1971
North Carolina's SEPA (GS 113A-1-13) requires state agencies to consider the environmental
effects of their actions through an environmental review process that modeled after the the federal
National Environmental Policy Act review process. State agency reviews of SEPA documents
are conducted through the State Clearinghouse process. The State Clearinghouse in the NC
Department of Administration is responsible for implementation and administration of the SEPA
review process. The Clearinghouse forwards SEPA documents to state/local agencies for review
and comment and publishes Notices of Availability (NOAs) in the NC Environmental Bulletin. The
Clearinghouse provides for a 30-45 day agency/public comment period, and is responsible for
compiling agency and public comments.
North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) of 1974
NC's coastal management program was established by the CAMA of 1974 (GS 133A-100 et seq.).
The coastal management program is implemented jointly by the state and local coastal county
governments. The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management implements state CAMA
responsibilities, including the designation of Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs), the
establishment of management objectives and use standards for development activities within
AECs, and the issuance of CAMA Major Permits for work in AECs and excavation and filling in
estuarine waters, tidelands, marshlands, and state-owned lakes pursuant to the NC Dredge and
Fill Law (GS 113-229). Areas of Environmental Concern are state -designated areas of natural
importance that fall under four broad categories: the estuarine and ocean system, ocean hazard
system, public water supplies, and natural and cultural resource areas. The Proposed Action
encompasses work in AECs associated with the estuarine system and will require a Major
Modification of the existing CAMA Major Permit.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1972
Section 401 of the CWA (33 USC 1341) delegates federal authority to the state to issue 401 Water
Quality Certifications for the discharge of dredged and fill material into Waters of the State. The
North Carolina Division of Water Resources is the state agency responsible for issuing 401 Water
Quality Certifications.
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
32

NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973
The NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (SPCA) authorizes the NC Division of Energy,
Mineral and Land Resources (NCDEMLR) to approve erosion and sedimentation control plans
for all land -disturbing activities other than agriculture and mining. The SPCA requires the
development and implementation of effective temporary and permanent control measures to
prevent accelerated erosion and off -site sedimentation. An erosion and sedimentation control
plan must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the NCDEMLR before any land
disturbance is initiated on sites one acre or larger.
6.2 Federal Laws and Regulations
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972
Section 404 of the CWA (33 USC 1344) authorizes the USACE to issue permits for the discharge
of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Federal projects
undertaken by the USACE Civil Works Program are not subject to the permitting requirements of
Section 404. Since the proposed expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands would be
undertaken by the USACE Civil Works Program as part of the federal Wilmington Harbor
Navigation Project, Section 404 is not applicable to the state environmental review and permitting
process for the proposed action to expand Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands.
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC 403) authorizes the USACE to issue permits
for work in navigable waters, including construction, excavation, and the deposition of material.
Navigable waters are those that are "subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently
used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible to use to transport interstate or foreign
commerce" [33 Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 329].
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
Pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA (16 USC 1536), federal agencies are required to consult with
the USFWS and the NMFS to ensure that actions they undertake, fund, or authorize are not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. The Section 7 consultation
provisions of the ESA apply only to actions undertaken by federal agencies and are not applicable
to the state environmental review and permitting process for the proposed action to expand Ferry
Slip and South Pelican Islands.
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996
The MSFCMA (16 USC 1801 et seq.) requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS to ensure
that actions they undertake, fund, or authorize incorporate EFH conservation into the planning
process. EFH habitats are defined as those "necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding,
or growth to maturity." The Fisheries Management Councils, with assistance from the NMFS, are
responsible for identifying and delineating EFH in Fishery Management Plans. The EFH
consultation provisions of the MSFCMA apply only to actions undertaken by federal agencies and
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
33

are not applicable to the state environmental review and permitting process for the proposed
action to expand Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 USC 661 et seq.), as amended, requires
federal agencies to incorporate fish and wildlife resource conservation into the planning process
for water resources development projects that they undertake, fund, or authorize. Section 2(b) of
the FWCA requires the federal action agencies for water resource projects to consult with the
USFWS and the state fish and wildlife agency (i.e., the NCWRC) to ensure that conservation is
fully incorporated. The USFWS and the NCWRC are responsible for identifying potential adverse
impacts on fish and wildlife resources and developing recommendations to avoid, minimize,
and/or compensate for impacts. The FWCA applies only to federal water resource projects
undertaken by the USACE Civil Works Program and is not applicable to the state environmental
review and permitting process for the proposed action to expand Ferry Slip and South Pelican
Islands.
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 USC 1361 et seq.) prohibits the take of marine
mammals in United States waters and authorizes programs to conserve, protect, and recover
declining marine mammal populations. Although take is generally prohibited, the MMPA makes
allowances for limited take through permits and incidental take authorizations. The
responsibilities for implementing the MMPA are divided between the NMFS (cetaceans and
pinnipeds) and the USFWS (manatees, dugongs, sea otters, walruses, and polar bears).
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC 703 et seq.) prohibits the take of migratory birds
and authorizes the USFWS to implement programs to conserve, protect, and recover declining
migratory bird populations. The MBTA does not make any allowances for incidental take;
however, incidental take for species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA may be
authorized through the ESA Section 7 consultation process.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 USC 470 et seq.),
federal agencies are required to consider the effects of actions they undertake, fund, or authorize
on historic properties that are listed or may be eligible for listing in the NRHP. Federal action
agencies are required to consult with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, either directly
or through State Historic Preservation Offices for the purpose of identifying historic properties
potentially affected by the action, assessing the effects, and mitigating adverse impacts. The
consultation provisions of Section 106 apply to state lands, including submerged lands underlying
state waters, as well as the Outer Continental Shelf. The USACE conducts Section 106
consultations in accordance with its own NHPA implementing regulations (33 CFR 325 - Appendix
A).
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
34

7.0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
An agency scoping meeting to discuss the Proposed Action and the content of the EA was
conducted via WebEx on 16 September 2021. A list of agency attendees is provided in Table 6.
Table 6. Agency Scoping Meeting List of Attendees.
Name
Agency
Tara MacPherson
NC Division of Coastal Management
Bryan Hall
NC Division of Coastal Management
Cameron Luck
NC Division of Coastal Management
Kim Harding
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
Jeremy Humphrey
NC Division of Marine Fisheries - Shellfish
Kelly Brannigan
NC Division of Marine Fisheries - Shellfish
Maria Dunn
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
David Allen
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Kelly Johnson
NC Division of Energy Minerals and Land Resources -
Stormwater Program
Emily Hughes
US Army Corps of Engineers
Greg Currey
US Army Corps of Engineers
Josh Mitchell
US Army Corps of Engineers
Jenny Owens
US Army Corps of Engineers
Kathy Matthews
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Environmental Assessment
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
4 October 2021
35

8.0 REFERENCES
Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team. 2007. Status Review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser
oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional
Office. February 23, 2007.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2011a. Managed Species Spanish
Mackerel, Species Profile. Washington, D.C. Accessed March 2011.
ASMFC. 2011 b. Managed Species Spanish Mackerel, Habitat Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C.
Accessed March 2011.
ASMFC. 2011 c. Managed Species Summer Flounder, Habitat Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C.
Accessed March 2009.
ASMFC. 2011d. Managed Species Summer Flounder, Species Profile. Washington, D.C.
Accessed March 2009.
Bales, J., Oblinger, C. J. and A. H. Sallenger.b Two months of flooding in eastern North Carolina,
September -October 1999: Hydrologic, water quality, and geologic effects of hurricanes
Dennis, Floyd, and Irene. No. 4093. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey,
2000.
Benedetti, M. M., M. J. Raber, M. S. Smith, and L. A. Leonard. 2006. Mineralogical indicators of
alluvial sediment sources in the Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina. Physical
Geography, 27(3), 258-281.
Beresoff, D. and T. Thorpe. 1997. Gill net selectivity for coastal shark species. NC Sea Grant,
FRG 97FEG-10.
Cameron, S., D.H. Allen, M.M. Lyons, J.R. Cordes, and S.B. Maddock. 2006. Compilation and
Assessment of Piping Plover Wintering and Migratory Staging Area Data in North
Carolina. In: Rabon, D.R. (compiler). Proceedings of the Symposium on the Wintering
Ecology and Conservation of Piping Plovers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh, NC.
Coen, L. D., R. D. Brumbaugh, D. Bushek, R. Grizzle, M. W. Luckenbach, M. H. Posey, and S.
G. Tolley. 2007. Ecosystem services related to oyster restoration. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 341, 303-307.
Cohen, J.B. 2005. Management and protection protocols for the threatened piping plover
(Charadrius melodus) on Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina. Virginia Tech
University, Blacksburg, Va.
Cohen, J.B., S.M. Karpanty, D.H. Catlin, J.D. Fraser, and R.A Fischer. 2008. Winter ecology of
Piping Plovers at Oregon Inlet, North Carolina. Waterbirds no. 31, pp. 472-479.
Cummings, E. W., D. A. Pabst, J. E. Blum, S. G. Barco, S. J. Davis, V. G. Thayer, and W. A.
McLellan. 2014. Spatial and temporal patterns of habitat use and mortality of the Florida
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
MET

manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) in the mid -Atlantic states of North Carolina and
Virginia from 1991 to 2012. Aquatic Mammals, 40(2), 126.
Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, A.J. Chester, E.A. Cross, J.V. Merriner, and P.A. Tester. 1995. Winter
distribution of sea turtles in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras and their interactions with the
summer flounder trawl fishery. Bull. Mar. Sci. 56: 547-568.
Epperly, S.P., J. Braun -McNeill, and P.M. Richards. 2007. Trends in catch rates of sea turtles in
North Carolina, USA. Endangered Species Research 3: 283-293.
Ferguson, R.L. and L.L. Wood. 1994. Rooted Vascular Aquatic Beds in the Albemarle -Pamlico
Estuarine System. NMFS, NOAA, Beaufort, NC, Project No. 94-02, 103 pp.
Giese, G. L., H. B. Wilder, and G. G. Parker, Jr. 1985. Hydrology of major estuaries and sounds
of North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 2221, pp.108.
Goodman, M.A., J.B. McNeill, E. Davenport, and A.A. Hohn. 2007. Protected species aerial
survey data collection and analysis in waters underlying the R-5306A Airspace: Final
report submitted to U.S. Marine Corps, MCAS Cherry Point. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-551.
Hackney, C.T., L.B. Cahoon, C. Preziosi, and A. Norris. 2000. Silicon is the Link Between Tidal
Marshes and Estuarine Fisheries: A New Paradigm. p. 543-552 in Weinstein, M.P. and
D.A. Kreeger eds. Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, The Netherlands, 875 pp.
Jaap, W.C. 1984. The ecology of the south Florida coral reefs: a community profile. U.S. Fish
Wildl. Serv., Office Biol. Serv., Washington, DC, FWS/OBS-82/08
Kendall, A.W.J. and L.A. Walford. 1979. Sources and distribution of bluefish, Pomatomus
saltatrix, larvae and juveniles off the east coast of the United States. Fishery Bulletin
77:213-227.
Mercer, L. P., L. R. Phalen, and J. R. Maiolo. 1990. Fishery Management Plan For Spanish
Mackerel, Fisheries Management Report No. 18 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission Washington, DC. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources Morehead City, NC, and East Carolina University Department of
Sociology and Anthropology, Greenville, NC. November 1990.
Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1990. Fishery Management Plan for the Bluefish
Fishery, Prepared by Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic State
Marine Fisheries Commission in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service,
the New England Fishery Management Council, and the South Atlantic Management
Council. Dover, Delaware. Updated February 2009; Accessed March 2011.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. Amendment 1 to the Consolidated Atlantic
Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 1
Environmental Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands 4 October 2021
37

to the Consolidated HMS FMP Chapter 5 June 2009 64 Essential Fish Habitat. Silver
Springs, MD. June 2009.
NMFS. 1998. Recovery Plan forthe Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenserbrevirostrum). Prepared by
the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver
Spring, MD.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. 2016. North Carolina Coastal Habitat
Protection Plan. Morehead City, NC. Division of Marine Fisheries; 2016.33p.
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF). 2008. North Carolina Oyster Fishery
Management Plan Amendment II. NC Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC,
282 pp.
NCDMF. 2006. Stock status of important coastal fisheries in North Carolina. NCDMF, Morehead
City, NC.
NCWRC. 2016. Status of Piping Plover in North Carolina: 2016 Breeding Season Census and
International Winter Census Results. Unpublished data provided by E. Kornega, A,
Andersson, and S. Schweitzer, NCWRC, Wildlife Diversity Program, Waterbird
Investigations and Management Project, New Bern, NC.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2011. 51 st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment
Workshop (51 st SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commerce, Northeast Fish Sci Cent
Ref Doc. 11-02, 856 pp.
NEFSC. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Summer Flounder, Paralichthys
dentatus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
September 1999.
Peterson, C.H. and N.M. Peterson. 1979. The Ecology of Intertidal Flats of North Carolina: A
Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, OBS-79/39, 73 p.
Post, W. C., T. Darden, D. L. Peterson, M. Loeffler, and C. Collier. 2014. Research and
management of endangered and threatened species in the southeast: riverine movements
of Shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources,
Project NA I ONMF4720036, Final Report, Charleston.
Rodriguez, K. A. 2009. Mapping Oyster Reefs Using Sidescan Sonar and Subbottom Profiling:
Cape Fear River, Southeastern North Carolina. Doctoral dissertation, University of North
Carolina Wilmington.
Ross, S. W. and S. P. Epperly. 1985. Chapter 10: Utilization of shallow estuarine nursery areas
by fishes in Pamlico Sound and adjacent tributaries, North Carolina. p. 207-232 in A.
YanezAranciba (ed.). Fish Community Ecology in Estuaries and Coastal Lagoons:
Towards and Ecosystem Integration. DR (R) UNAM Press, Mexico, 654 pp.
Environmental Assessment
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
4 October 2021
38

Ross, J.L. and T.M. Stevens. 1992. Life history and population dynamics of red drum (Sciaenops
ocellatus) in North Carolina waters. In Marine fisheries research. North Carolina Division
of Marine Fisheries. Completion Report. Project F-29, Morehead City.
Sedberry, G.R. and R.F. Van Dolah. 1984. Demersal fish assemblages associated with hard
bottom habitat in the South Atlantic Bight of the USA. Environ. Biol. Fish. 11(1).
Shepherd, G.R. and D.B. Packer. 2006. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:
Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, Life History and Habitat Characteristics 2nd edition. NOAA
Technical Memorandum, NMFS-NE-198:100.
Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team. 2010. A Biological Assessment of shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast
Regional Office. November 1, 2010. 417 pp.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 2009. Fishery Ecosystem Plan of the
South Atlantic Region. SAFMC, Charleston, SC.
SAFMC. 1998. Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat
Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council. SAFMC, Charleston, SC.
SAFMC. 1983. Fishery Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Regulatory
Impact Review Final Regulations for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerels) In
The Gulf of Mexico And South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council Charleston, SC; Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Tampa, FL.
February 1983.
SAFMC. 1981. Profile of the penaeid shrimp fishery in the South Atlantic. South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, 1 Southpark Cir., Ste 306, Charleston, S.C. 29407, 321 pp.
Thayer, G. W., W. J. Kenworthy, and M. S. Fonseca. 1984. The Ecology of Eelgrass Meadows
of the Atlantic coast: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-
84/02, 147p.
Thorpe, T., C. F. Jensen, and M. L. Moser. 2004. Relative abundance and reproductive
characteristics of sharks in southeastern North Carolina coastal waters. Bulletin of Marine
Science 74(1): 3-20, 2004.
USACE. 1982. Environmental Assessment for Restoration of the Cape F3ear River Pelican
Islands, New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, NC. US Army Engineer District,
Wilmington.
USACE. 2021. Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact -
Wilmington Harbor and Morehead City Harbor Maintenance Dredging and Bed Leveling,
Brunswick and Carteret Counties, North Carolina. US Army Engineer District, Wilmington.
Environmental Assessment
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
4 October 2021
39

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Florida Manatee Recovery Plan, (Trichechus
manatus latirostris), Third Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 144
pp. + appendices.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian
Manatee, Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters.
USFWS Raleigh Field Office.
Weinstein, M. P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nurseries for fishes and shellfish, Cape
Fear River, NC. Fisheries Bulletin 2: 339-357.
Wiegert, R. G. and B. J. Freeman. 1990. Tidal Salt Marshes of the Southeast Atlantic Coast: A
Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.29): 71.
Environmental Assessment
Expansion of Ferry Slip and South Pelican Islands
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
4 October 2021
40

III
rf
0
O
4D
J'i
D
4t
0
s
N
v
a
n
N
LL
7]
C'
(D
a
d)
m
Z,
'a
0
2
16,
7limm".
0
LO
c9
to
N
N
cc
W
i
Q�
E
3
Z
C
0
41
(a a)
E cD
Y
o a-
U