20170116 Ver 1_More Info Letter_20170125

14'a ter Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL. QUALITY
January 26, 2017
NOAA
Attn: Carolyn Currin
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 2851.6
Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Thin -Layer Application of Dredged Material
Dear Ms. Currin:
ROY COOPER
(nrernor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Serretarj.
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
U,rerlor
DWR # 17-0116
Onslow County
On January 25, 2017, the Division of Water Resources (Division) received your
application requesting a 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division for the subject
project. The Division has determined that your application is incomplete and cannot be
processed. The application is on -hold until all of the following information is
received:
No Check Included
A review of the Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form indicates this
application is for _.04 acres of wetlands and _.05 acres of open water
impacts. Pursuant to 143-215.3D (e), a $240 permitting fee is required to
process this application. Please remit a check to DEQ-DWR, 1617 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617.
Pursuant to Title 15A NCAC 02H .0502(e) the applicant shall furnish all of the above
requested information for the proper consideration of the application. If all of the
requested information is not received in writing at the address below within 30 calendar
days of receipt of this letter, the Division will be unable to process the application and it
will be returned. The return of this project will necessitate reapplication to the Division
for approval, including a complete application package and the appropriate fee.
Please be aware that you have no authorization under Section 401 of the Clean Water
for this activity and any work done within waters of the state may be a violation of North
Carolina General Statutes and Administrative Code.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

Page 2 of 2
Please contact Sheri Montalvo at 919-807-6303 or Sheri. montalvo(aD-ncdenr.gov if you
have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
*�� V"I+
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
cc: USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
DWR WiRORO 401 files
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
Filename: 170116Th in-LayerApplicationofD redgeMaterial(Onslow)_H OLD

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Burdette, Jennifer a
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 10:09 AM
To: 'Carolyn Currin - NOAA Federal'
Subject: RE: Environmental Compliance for Thin -layer application project NOAA
Carolyn,
It was nice to see you too. The gate was closed to Pivers Island, but I did see living shorelines at Radio Island,
the community college and Hammocks Beach that were very helpful.
Your email is fine. I'll add it to our file.
If it works faster or better for you, here is the information for an electronic transfer.
Vendor ID # 566000372
Acct # 1602435100095
Center # 2341
Thanks,
Jennifer
Jennifer Burdette
401/Buffer Coordinator
Division of Water Resources - 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Department of Environmental Quality
919 807 6364 office
jennifer.burdette(a)ncdenr.gov
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
(Physical Address: 512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604 - 9m Flr Archdale Bldg — Room 942F)
NC_nothing Compares..--,
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Carolyn Currin - NOAA Federal [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 3:18 PM
To: Burdette, Jennifer a <Jennifer. Bu rdette@ ncdenr.gov>
Cc: Jenny Davis - NOAA Affiliate <[e-mail]>; Paula Whitfield <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Environmental Compliance for Thin -layer application project NOAA
Jennifer,

It was nice to see you today, and hope you enjoyed your afternoon tour of
marsh -sill Living Shoreline projects.
I wanted to update you on two things:
1. I have found someone in NCCOS HQ who can write a check, and have
submitted the paperwork for that. So hopefully you will receive soon... I11
shoot you and Karen an email when we mail it.
2. Below is email from Paula Whitfield, our Environmental Compliance
Coordinator, stating that the proposed thin layer project under NWP 18
does not require additional EA or FONSI, given the application's approval
under the NWP conditions. Please let me know if this email is sufficient,
or if you would like a letter or phone call followup.
Thanks so much for your help,
Carolyn.\
Carolyn A. Currin
NOAA NCCOS Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research
101 Pivers Island Rd.
Beaufort, NC 28516
252-728-8749
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paula Whitfield - NOAA Federal <paula.whitfield(anoaa.gov>
Date: Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:19 PM
Subject: Environmental Compliance for Thin -layer application project
To: "carolyn.currinknoaa.gov (Google Drive)" <carolyn.currin(d),noaa.gov>
Cc: Jenny Davis - NOAA Affiliate <jenn..d�ayis(anoaa.gov>
Hi Carolyn,
I am writing to let you know the approach that NOAA/NCCOS is taking with regards to the environmental
compliance for your proposed pilot project `Thin -layer application of dredged material on degraded marsh' to
be conducted in salt marsh on Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune.
First, based on the results of the pre -application meeting it is my understanding that there was general
agreement among the stakeholders that you would design the project to adhere to a USACE Nationwide Permit
(NWP) 18 - minor discharges. The process would require the following:
2

1. Submission of the pre -construction notification (PCN) application and supplemental information to
USACE-Wilmington District to ensure the project qualifies for the NWP 18 including regional and
general conditions of the permit - submission completed Jan 23, 2017
2. Consultation with the USFWS to ensure the project does not fall within the Coastal Barrier Resource
System - concurrence received Jan. 19, 2017
3. Consultation with USFWS to ensure no adverse impacts to threatened and endangered species and their
critical habitat or migratory birds - concurrence received Jan. 25, 2017
4. Consultation with NMFS that included development of an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment to
ensure no adverse effects to EFH - consultation in progress Final submitted Jan. 26, 2017
5. Examination of the project area (including websites) to ensure no Historic or Prehistoric Cultural
Resources are present - Analysis complete, NOAA determines none are present in the project area
6. Apply for a North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Certification - information submitted, Jan.
24, 2017
7. Conduct a Federal Consistency Review - in progress, submitted Jan. 23, 2017
In Summary:
Based on the project information you submitted within the PCN application and the supplemental document
(e.g. site diagram, project description, etc) NOAA/NCCOS determines that your project meets the criteria and is
appropriate for a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 18 - Minor Discharges. However, the determination to issue the
permit is only within the purview of USACE-Wilmington District.
In addition, NOAA will not require an additional Environmental Assessment (EA) and a signed Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for your project for the following reason: every NWP has an associated EA and
FONSI that describes the environmental review for the establishment of the NWP, including the
general conditions. It is worth noting that every five years, USACE NWPs undergo an extensive review and
comment period whereby Federal and State government entities as well as the public have a chance to review
and comment. The information derived from this comment period is also incorporated within the EA and is used
to guide the regional conditions for each permit. Therefore if USACE Wilmington District determines that your
project qualifies for a NWP 18 this means that you meet all the criteria, including the regional and general
conditions. Under these circumstances NOAA/NCCOS does not require an additional EA and FONSI for your
project. I have attached for your information the EA and signed FONSI (last page) for the 2017 NWP 18.
Let me know if you need any other information.
Paula
Paula E. Whitfield
NCCOS Environmental Compliance Coordinator
NOAA/NOS/NCCOS
1305 East West Highway
Silver Spring MD 20910
p11240-533-0304
paula. whitfieldAnoaa. gov

C'0.C"I OF CO 4,
$_1 OF o]"
Ms. Karen Higgins
NC Division of Water Quality
401 & Buffer Permitting Office
1617 Mail Servicing Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Ms. Higgins,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516-Z.4:�ii tr->- Via 1,n
January 20, 2017
20170116
We are submitting a Pre -Construction Notification for a proposed pilot project `Thin -
layer application of dredged material on degraded marsh' to be conducted in salt marsh on
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (MCBCL). We request 401 Water Quality Certification from
your office. The primary purpose of the proposed project is to develop and test adaptive
management strategies to address the vulnerabilities that threaten the future viability of salt
marsh habitat located adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Water Way (AIWW). This project is
critical to confirming and validating modeling results that predict the marsh response to surface
elevation change, and to determine the amount of added sediment necessary to achieve the
optimal elevation for long-term marsh growth. The proposed project is a pilot -scale
demonstration project designed to facilitate marsh growth and long-term integrity in low-lying
Spartina alterniflora salt marshes by enhancing the elevation capital through the deposition of a
thin -layer of sediment.
A scoping meeting was held on December 2, 2016 at the NC DCM Morehead City
Office. Attending were representatives from state and federal resource agencies, and
representatives from MCBCL. This project and submission have been prepared as discussed at
that meeting. The proposed pilot is designed to adhere to all Nationwide Permit 18 (NWP18)
general and regional conditions and includes two -years of monitoring.
Pursuant to the applicable environmental statutes described in the NWP 18 general
conditions NCCOS has completed the following:
NCCOS has consulted with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to determine that the
proposed project does not fall within the Coastal Barrier Resource System (letter
attached). In addition, NCCOS has conducted an environmental review pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of all potential endangered species and critical habitat
and migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act. NCCOS has determined that project activities are not likely to
adversely affect these resources or adversely modify critical habitat (see PCN
supplemental, section F.5.D.).
NCCOS has determined there will be no Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources
adversely affected by project activities (see PCN supplemental, Section F.7.b)

• Finally, NCCOS has completed an EFH assessment (find attached) and is currently in
consultation with NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation.
The following documents are attached to this cover letter:
1. Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) form for a NWP 18 for the thin -layer deposition
project
2. PCN Supplemental Information that includes detailed project descriptions, site maps and
justification, ESA, EGH and NHPA reviews.
By separate mail you will receive a Letter of Support from MCBCL.
In addition, we are requesting a Federal Consistency determination from NC DCM, and approval
for a NWP 18 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers.
We understand that there is a permit fee of $240 required for 401 Water Quality certification.
We will send a U. S. Treasury check upon receipt of an invoice for this amount.
Please let us know if you require any additional information. We thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Currin
NOAA NCCOS Microbiologist, Project Applicant

O�O�
1 1 i
0 <
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑X Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 18 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
NX Yes ❑ No
1d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
X❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes NX No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes X❑ No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
X❑ Yes ❑ No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Thin -Layer Application of Dredged Material on Degraded Salt Marsh
2b.
County:
Onslow
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Jacksonville
2d.
Subdivision name:
NA (Marine Corps Base Camp Lejuene)
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
N/A Project takes place in public trust waters near MCB Camp LeJeune
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
N/A Project Location in Salt Marsh - Please see Project Narrative
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
N/A
3d.
Street address:
3e.
City, state, zip:
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Camp LeJuene Contact [e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑X Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
Carolyn Currin and Jenny Davis
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, NCC,OS, NOAA
4d.
Street address:
101 Pivers Island Road
4e.
City, state, zip:
Beaufort, North Carolina
4f.
Telephone no.:
252-728-8749
4g.
Fax no.:
252-838-0809
4h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Same as above
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
5c.
Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e.
Telephone no.:
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
N/A Salt Marsh adjacent to Freeman Creek
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
ILatitude: 34.590241 Longitude: 77.242739
1 c.
Property size:
0.1 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Atlantic Intracoastal WaterWay / Freeman Creek
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
SAHQW
2c.
River basin:
White Oak River Basin
3.
Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Presently, the site exists as a salt marsh adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Water Way (AIWW), nearby Freeman Creek. The salt marsh is relatively
pristine with both low and high salt marsh habitat, and small low-lying areas that are void of vegetation. The marsh shoreline along the AIWW is
experiencing erosion, primarily due to boat wake wave energy. The surrounding land is used by the U. S. Marine Corps for training.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.1
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 0
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Please see the attached Project Description
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Please see the attached Project Description.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
roject includin all rior hases in the ast?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
Comments: All of the project area is in tidal salt marsh
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
El Preliminary Final
❑
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. If yes, explain.
Please see attached document.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X Wetlands ❑ Streams —tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑X Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
Area of
number
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 T
Fill
Tidal Freshwater Marsh
No
Corps
0.02
W2 T
Boardwalk and Bales
Tidal Freshwater Marsh
No
Corps
0.02
W3
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W4
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W5
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W6
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.04
2h. Comments:
The proposed project would place sediment onto degraded tidal saltmarsh. The proposed area of placement is 0.02 acre. In addition, an additional
0.02 acres would be temporarily impacted by the placement of hay bales, coir logs and boardwalks. We anticipate an enhancement of coastal wetland
biomass, and no permanent loss of coastal wetland area.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial (PER) or
Type of
Average
Impact
number
intermittent (INT)?
jurisdiction
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(feet)
feet)
S1
Choose one
S2
Choose one
S3
Choose one
S4
Choose one
S5
Choose one
S6
Choose one
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
N/A
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form —Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivii ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 T
Atlantic Intracoastal Water Way
Dredging
Estuary
0.05
O2
Choose one
Choose
03
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: n area equal o no more than um acre will e dredged. I arget se amens are sandy and Infle resuspension or tine particles wi
occur. Total volume dredged will be <25 cubic yards.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number -
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1 -
Yes/No
B2 -
Yes/No
B3 -
Yes/No
B4 -
Yes/No
B5 -
Yes/No
B6 -
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments. N/A
Page 5of10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed project will not result in a loss of salt marsh area. Rather, the proposed, pilot -scale project would result in the elevation of < 0.02 acre
of a salt marsh that is currently sparsely vegetated and low in the tidal frame. After this action, Spartina alterniflora will grow through the thin layer of
added sediment and after two growing seasons, is projected to have an equal or greater biomass than prior to the project. We will conduct vegetation
and elevation surveys before and after the project to assess plant response to the sediment application.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
The proposed project will require placement of a small dredge pipe (3-6 inch diameter) across approximately 300 linear feet of existing salt marsh.
The pipe will be moved by hand and placed over temporary boardwalks installed in the marsh. Dredging activities are expected to last for several
hours, during high tide, over 1-2 days before the pipe is removed. Sediments will be distributed across the 0.02 acre site by settling during high tide.
We anticipate that the surrounding salt marsh will quickly recover from boardwalks used for placement of the pipe and for entry/exit by NOAA staff.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6of10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes 0 No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
The proposed project would place sediment on less than 1/10 -acre of salt marsh. This project area will remain intertidal, and will allow for the
regrowth and recruitment of Spartina alterniflora from adjacent areas. There will be no impervious surface
coverage added to the project site and only
in situ sediment from an adjacent, estuarine river system will be added to the site.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
N/A
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
MCBCt-
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006-246
❑Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8of10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
n Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑X Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑X No
letter.) State has indicated they will review but do not require a SEPA as the NOAA
Comments: Environmental Compliance coordinator is completing a NEPA review.
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
El Yes ❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
El Yes ❑X No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
El Yes ❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑X Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑x Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Emily Wells, Raleigh
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
We examined US FWS Planning for Conservation (IPaC) website and reviewed endangered species lists for the area. USFWS determined the project
area is not within the Coastal Barrier Resource System (See Attached letter).
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑X Yes ❑ No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
We consulted with the NC Division of Marine Fisheries and NMFS and determined that the project area does fall within designated Primary Nursery
Area, and will impact Essential Fish Habitat. We are consulting with NMFS and have prepared an EFH assessment. (See Attached)
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
We consulted with MCBCL Environmental staff and the National Register of Historic Places website: hftps://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?
mapld=7ad17cc9-b808-4ff8-a2f9-a99909164466
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑X Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
The proposed project would place sediment on less than 1/10 acre of salt marsh. This project area would be elevated by approximately 10 inches,
which would allow for the regrowth and recruitment of Spartina alterniflora from adjacent areas. There will be no impervious surface coverage added
to the project site and only in situ materials will comprise the construction materials. All boardwalks to facilitate sediment application will be removed
upon project completion. The salt marsh area is adjacent to Freeman Creek, which is in the 100 -year flood plain.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Standard maps and 100 -yr flood plain overlay.
Digitally signed by
CURRIN.CAROLYN CDNRRIN DRA3872o--DOD.
AL1
Carolyn Currin.A.DR.1387250731
oAROLYN
S
cn=CURRINAAROLVNADR1387250731
Jan. 23, 2017
Date'. 2017.01.23 15'.50'.36 -05'00'
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant isprovided.)
Page 10 of 10

Proposed project: Thin -layer application of dredged material on degraded salt marsh
Supplemental Information to include with PCN Application:NWP18
Dr. Carolyn Currin and Dr. Jenny Davis NOAA NCCOS Beaufort Lab
January 20, 2017
1. Cover Letter (See Separate Attachment)
2. Project Vicinity Map
This single and complete project is located within the boundary of Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune (MCBCL), in the Freeman Creek salt marsh adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway
Inlet
Figure 1. Project vicinity on Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. Project area indicated by the
red rectangle.

3. Project Location Map
The precise location of the proposed project is indicated by the red box in the figure below. Control
and experimental plots will be located within the project location. All experimental plots will be
in low lying (0 to -20 cm) Spartina alterniora marsh.
Figure 2. Project location indicated by the red rectangle, within the Freeman Creek salt marsh,
located at 34.5902410 N, 77.242739° W. Marsh surface elevation in m NAVD88 is indicated by
the colors in the legend.

4. Design Drawings - illustrate the project area, area for sediment to be placed, include acreage
calculation on exhibit. If possible, illustrate placement of pipe (this intake and discharge) as
well.
�' -1� I I I I I_ Figure 3.
Figure 3. Project area and plot size are indicated by rectangles. Filled rectangles indicate plots
to receive dredged sediments to a depth of 15 - 25 cm. Sediment will be removed from the
channel near the location indicated, and applied to the plots by moving the pipe along a
fiberglass boardwalk.

Control
Plots
Fill
Plots
Plot Top View
mail
Cross -Section
Hay Bale
{Temporary
Y 0.6
Coir Log + �� m
Marsh
Sediment
------
Dredged material TO.2 m
Marsh
Sediment
Figure 4. Schematic of Control and Filled experimental plots. Control plots will have a coir log
and temporary hay bale in order to test impact of those structures on the marsh. Dredged
sediment will be applied at high tide, and contained within the plot area by hay bales during the
initial application. After settling, coir logs will remain in place approx. 20 cm above the marsh
surface to prevent subsequent movement of sediment from the test plot.
5. Letter from Camp Lejeune POC advocating project and include contact information. (Sent by
separate mail)

PreConstruction Notification Supplemental Information
Section B. 3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
With the increasing risk of sea level rise, more frequent and/or severe storms, and a
decline in suspended sediment in coastal environments (Morris et al. 2002, Kirwan et al 2010,
Emanuel 2016, Weston 2014) there is a need to develop adaptive management strategies, such as
thin -layer placement, that allow marsh plants to maintain their natural coastal integrity and
`keep -up' with sea level rise, thereby enhancing the coastal resilience of these systems (Bridges
et al. 2016, Sutton -Grier et al. 2015). Recent events, including hurricanes Sandy and Matthew,
have led to an increased interest in both NOAA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
to utilize nature -based features, such as marshes, dunes, and oyster reefs, to provide shoreline
protection and coastal resilience. In addition, the Department of Defense (DoD) has identified
sea level rise as a risk to military installations, and recommends an adaptive management
approach to reduce that risk (SERDP 2013, Hall et al. 2016).
NOAA's long-term research on Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (MCBCL) has
identified three primary threats to the long-term integrity of salt -marshes; erosion, fragmentation
and drowning (Currin et al. 2015, DCERPI Final Research Report 2013). These threats are
exacerbated by the relatively low suspended sediment concentration found in the system (Ensign
et al. 2016, Ensign and Currin 2016). In addition, NOAA research has determined the marsh
plant biomass : surface elevation relationship crucial to modeling long-term marsh response to
sea level rise using the Marsh Equilibrium Model, or MEM (Morris et al. 2002;
http://129.252.139.114/model/marsh/mem2.asp). This data and model projections are the
foundation for understanding the impacts of a thin -layer sediment addition to marsh production
and long-term resiliency (Figure 5).
1200
1000
$00
600
400
200
0
2016 2036
Spartina atterniflora Biomass
2056 2076 2096
Year
Figure 5 A) Relationship between Spartina alterniflora aboveground biomass and marsh surface
elevation in the Freeman Creek marsh B) Marsh Equilibrium Model projections of Spartina
biomass at two initial surface elevations, -5 cm and -20 cm NAVD88. The model was run
A
Freeman Creek
900 _......
800
I
Loo
I
3
700.;
I+
`
600
500
m
400
o
CO
300
I
�
i
I
0200
`
T
0o
♦ i *
♦
100 {
i
0
a
o
-0.6
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Elevation (nn NAVD88)
1200
1000
$00
600
400
200
0
2016 2036
Spartina atterniflora Biomass
2056 2076 2096
Year
Figure 5 A) Relationship between Spartina alterniflora aboveground biomass and marsh surface
elevation in the Freeman Creek marsh B) Marsh Equilibrium Model projections of Spartina
biomass at two initial surface elevations, -5 cm and -20 cm NAVD88. The model was run

assuming a 100 cm rise in slr over the next century. Sediment and belowground production were
parameterized using data collected by DCERP researches in the Freeman Creek area.
The primary purpose of the proposed project is to develop and test adaptive management
strategies to address the vulnerabilities that threaten the future viability of salt marsh habitat
located adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Water Way (AIWW). This project is critical to
confirming and validating modeling results that predict the marsh response to surface elevation
change, and which are used to determine the amount of added sediment necessary to achieve the
optimal elevation for long-term marsh growth. The proposed project is a pilot -scale
demonstration project designed to facilitate marsh growth and long-term integrity in low-lying
Spartina alterniflora salt marshes by enhancing the elevation capital through the deposition of a
thin -layer of sediment. This project will help to meet a critical research need, which is to validate
marsh response modeling results and predictions of the amount of thin -layer sediment addition
necessary to achieve optimal marsh elevation. The project is built upon a decade of research on
MCBCL coastal wetlands and local scientific expertise, providing a unique opportunity to
scientifically test the thin -layer approach in a situation where the environmental and biological
variables are well -understood. One goal of the project is to provide the foundation for use of this
technique in similar locations, by developing a list of parameters and model predictions that are
necessary for thin -layer application of sediment into coastal wetlands. This project will further
enhance the partnership between NOAA, USACE and MCBCL, and further each organization's
goals and needs to promote coastal resiliency.
The ability of salt marshes to maintain ecosystem function after a thin layer (< 25 cm or
10 inches) application of dredged sediment has been demonstrated in both experimental and
project -scale applications in the coastal U. S. (Mendeslsohn and Kuhn 2003, Ray 2007).
However, the only published experimental results of the impact on Spartina altern flora in the
southeast U. S. are from a hand -delivered application of sandy sediment on reference and
deteriorated marsh on Masonboro Island, NC (Croft et al. 2006). The impact of sand application
to Spartina alterniora in small mesocosms has also demonstrated the benefit of this approach to
marsh sustainability (Walters and Kirwan 2016, Wigand et al. 2016). However, there has not
been a project in this area (Freeman Creek) that directly applied dredged material from a
navigation channel to the salt marsh surface.
There is a critical need to quantitatively measure the response of marsh plants to thin
layer placement with precise before and after elevation and plant biomass measurements, an
element that is lacking from previous thin -layer placement studies in the southeast and elsewhere
(C. Piercey USACE ERDC, personal communication). If successful, this project will fulfill the
need to demonstrate and quantify the response of marshes to thin layer placement, thereby
calibrating previous model results and supplying resource managers (i.e. MCBCL, USACE, etc.)
with a viable option for enhancing natural coastal resilience. This proposed pilot study is
designed to adhere to all Nationwide Permit 18 (NWP18) general and regional conditions and
includes two -years of post -construction monitoring. This project represents the first step to
developing, testing and implementing a strategy in the Southeast Atlantic that has been
successful in other regions (Ray 2007).

Section B 3e Describe the overall proiect in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
This single and complete project is located within the boundary of Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune, in the Freeman Creek salt marsh adjacent to the AIWW (Figure 1). We propose to lay
out 6 experimental plots in the Freeman Creek marsh, within 50 in of the AIWW. We have
selected a location (see Figure 2) where low-lying marsh and a surface elevation < 0 in
NAVD88, is located behind the AIWW shoreline and is adjacent to approximately x acres of
largely monotypic Spartina alterniora marsh habitat. The degraded area is large enough to
support six experimental 5 in x 5 in plots. Three of these plots will be used as controls, and will
only be treated with temporary hay bales and coir logs, as shown in Figure 4. The other three
plots will be filled with dredged sediment, so that a final elevation increase of 15 to 25 cm will
be achieved.
Sediment will be dredged from the AIWW shoreline, from a depth less than 3.0 in
(Figure 3). This area is routinely maintained as a navigable channel by USACE Wilmington
District and similar best management practices and protocols will be employed to obtain the
sediment. The total sediment volume to be deposited in the 3 Fill plots is 25 cubic yards, and
would be distributed over a project area of <0.02 acres. Another 0.02 acres of marsh would serve
as Control plots, for a total research area of 0.04 acres. In addition to the dredged material, the
plots will be bordered by 12" (0.304 m) diameter coir log. Hay bales of approx.18" (0.54 m)
width will be deployed during the sediment application, but removed within days, after
suspended sediment from the dredging operation has settled to the marsh surface.
For this pilot -scale operation, a small suction dredge with a flexible pipe of < 6"
diameter, also known as a mini -dredge, will be used. The applicant is investigating several
options, and may use a NOAA-purchased suction dredge, may rent a suction dredge, or may
contract with a local company with the proper equipment. In any event, the excavation rate will
be less than 40 cu yd/hr.
Figure 6. Boardwalk made of fiberglass grating allows for maximal light penerotion to marsh surface.

We will install 12" wide grated -fiberglass boardwalks over the marsh to accommodate
the dredge pipe, and to facilitate monitoring, with minimal damage to the marsh surface (Figure
6). We will use PVC supports, and attach the boardwalks to supports every 3 feet. These
boardwalks will be removed upon project completion. In addition, temporary boardwalks
consisting of planks attached to plastic crates, may be used during sediment application and
monitoring activities to minimize impact of `boots on the ground'. Boardwalks are used
extensively in marsh restoration and long-term monitoring studies to minimize foot traffic on the
marsh surface, thus avoiding any permanent adverse effects from monitoring activities to marsh
health and integrity.
Figure 7 Sampling location for collection of surface sediments in the AIWW by NOAA staff.
The sediment along the AIWW shoreline is predominantly sand -sized particles. In
addition to geotextile information provided by the USACE Wilmington District from prior
dredging operations, NOAA NCCOS sampled surface sediments in 2010 along the AIWW
shoreline within MCBCL. Surface sediments (top 5 cm) were sampled along a transect
perpendicular to the shoreline, at water depths of 0.25, 0.50 and 1.0 m (See Figure 7). Samples
were obtained from both marsh shorelines and adjacent to military splash points, where
amphibious vessels are launched during training missions. Average sand content (particle size >
63 µm) of surface sediment from marsh shorelines was 78%. Average organic matter content
was 3%.
Prior to deposition of the sediment, we will obtain a detailed elevation and vegetation
survey of the area within the red rectangle in Figure 2. We will utilize a SET benchmark
established approximately 500 m from the site as a vertical reference, and install a local
reference benchmark using threaded stainless steel rod, to provide a vertical resolution of < 2 cm.
Final plot locations will be selected from areas with similar elevations, of less than 0 m
NAVD88. Boardwalks will be constructed from the shore to plot edges as described above. After

final plot locations are selected we will lay out (6) experimental 5 m x 5 m plots (Figure 4).
Three (3) of these plots (total 0.02 acres) will be used as controls and treated only with
temporary hay bales and coir logs, as shown in Figure 4. The other three Fill (3) plots will be
filled with the dredged sediment and also have the temporary hay bales and coconut coir logs for
sediment containment to avoid and minimize effects to the adjacent marsh area. This method has
been used successful in previous thin -layer application studies to prevent sediment from draining
out of the location (M. Chasten, USACE, personal communication). Prior to sediment
application, data will be collected inside each Fill, and Test plot on vegetation (species % cover,
stem density, stem height) and sediment characteristics (grain size, organic matter content, bulk
density, porewater salinity and nutrients). Data will also be collected from Control plots (nearby
marsh without bales or logs) before and after the project.
We will obtain additional sediment grain size, bulk density and organic matter analyses
from the target area and conduct initial tests on settling rate. Prior to applying dredged material
to the marsh, we will install hay bales to height of at least 0.5 m above the marsh surface around
each plot. We will dredge sediment during high tide, and discharge the sediment into the three
(3) designated Fill Plots (Figure 3). Preliminary measures of sediment delivery rate and water
content will be made to determine the amount of time that dredged material should be added to
each plot. The time over which we will apply material will be calculated from bulk density data
of the sediment to be dredged, and water content of dredged material. We anticipate that smaller
applications over no more than a 2-3 day period may be made to minimize chance of overfilling
plots. The goal is to increase the marsh surface elevation within each Fill plot by 20 cm. This is
consistent with the results of a Marsh Equilibrium Model (Morris et al. 2002; Wigand et al
2016), which utilizes site-specific plant biomass -elevation relationships, annual marsh
production, suspended sediment concentrations, and tidal inundation to predict marsh biomass
over varying sea level rise scenarios. Model predictions for Freeman Creek are illustrated in
Figure 5.
Monitoring of surface elevations within Fill and Control plots will be conducted at two-
month intervals over the first six months post dredging, using a Trimble RTK VRS receiver. At
least 5 elevation points will be obtained within each plot. Vegetation, % cover, stem density and
stem height will be measured from (3) 0.5 m2 plots within each large experimental plot during
peak marsh biomass (Late July- early August). (Note that NOAA has an 8 year record of marsh
vegetation and surface elevation change from this area, providing longer-term context to
interpret experimental results and assess interannual variability). After the first 6 months,
elevation and vegetation measures within Fill and Control plots will be determined annually
through 2019. In addition, sediment cores will be obtained in 2018 to obtain depth profiles of
belowground marsh biomass, sediment grain size, and sediment organic matter content.
Porewater nutrients and salinity will be collected in conjunction with vegetation measures.
We anticipate that this site will continue to be monitored after 2019, as the data are
important to the NOAA mission of coastal resilience, and the site is readily accessible by NOAA
Beaufort lab personnel.

Section B 6b Future Project Plans
Upon successful completion of construction -related activities, NOAA's National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) would monitor the site for at least an additional 2 years, as detailed
above. No new dredging or application of sediment will be conducted at this location. This is a
single and complete project. NCCOS researchers will work with colleagues from academia and
other federal agencies (including ERDC) to obtain funding for longer-term monitoring and research
at this site. Results would be provided to the USACE's interagency review team (IRT) on a bi-annual
basis.
Upon demonstrating success with this pilot -scale project, NCCOS may pursue the identification of
a different location within the larger salt marsh area on the Camp Lejeune Base that is void of
vegetation. In turn, NCCOS would approach the USACE and IRT with a request for authorization to
perform the same type of activities within a different location on a larger scale. The applicant
recognizes that an individual (standard) permit maybe required if such an activity (on a larger scale)
is pursued in the future.
Section F.5.D. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat NOAA Assessment
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that each federal agency, ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
NOAA requested a species -list of potential endangered species and critical habitat that may be in
the project area from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Information and Planning for
Conservation (IPaQ website and reviewed endangered species lists from the following National
Marine Fisheries Service website. There are sixteen (16) endangered or threatened species
potentially found within the action area (Figure 1, Table 1).
NOAA determined that given the limited duration and area of dredging (< 48 hrs), the
limited area over which the dredged material will be applied (< 0.02 acres of low-lying salt
marsh), and the expectation that marsh production and biomass will be enhanced with this action,
there will be no significant adverse impact to any endangered species, critical habitat, or
migratory bird.
Details of this assessment follow.
There are three species of threatened and endangered birds potentially found in the proposed
project area: Piping plovers, red knots, and red -cockaded woodpeckers. However, none have
critical habitat within the project area, therefore no critical habitat will be jeopardized or
modified as a result of proposed project activities. Piping plovers are generally found in sound
(bay or bayshore) beaches and sound islands for foraging and ocean beaches for roosting
preening or being alert (Cohen et al. 2008). Thus interior areas of continuous marsh are not likely
to be an area where nesting or foraging piping plovers are found. If piping plovers are observed
in or near action area, sediments will not be applied until they have left the area. Similarly, it is
unlikely that a red knot will be present in the proposed action area and if so, project activities
will be suspended until the red knot has left the area. The red knot breeds in the arctic dry tundra

habitat (https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Red Knot/lifehistorv#at habitat) and would not be
present in the action area during the time period proposed for this project. The red -cockaded
woodpecker is found in mature pine forests and also would not be affected by project activities.
There are five (5) species of reptiles potentially found in the action area of dredging (Table 1).
The American alligator and four (4) marine turtle species. Thin -layer sediment application will
have no effect on any of these species. Dredging activities will occur from 1 to 2 days in an area
routinely maintained by USACE Wilmington District. Observers will be continuously
monitoring dredge activities to ensure no turtles are adversely affected as a result of dredging
activities. The AIWW channel where sediments will be obtained is routinely maintained using
similar methods by USACE Wilmington for safe navigation purposes. The suction dredge will
only be operated at the sediment interface and will not be operated within the water column.
Therefore, due to the small size of the pipe (<6"), relatively low suction rate (-40 yds/hour), the
short duration of dredging (several hours in each of 2-3 days), and small amount of sediment to
be obtained (<25 cu. yards), NOAA NCCOS determines that proposed activities are not likely to
adversely affect any of these species.
There are two (2) species of endangered fishes, the shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, potentially
found in the project area. Sediment application on to the degraded marsh would have no effect
on either species of sturgeon. Similarly, as both species of sturgeon are found in low numbers in
the project area and dredging activities are anticipated to occurwithinl to 3 days, the action is not
likely to adversely affect either species. Especially as the area where sediments will be obtained
(Figure 3) are located within a regularly maintained part of the AIWW by USACE using similar
methods. In addition, there is no proposed critical habitat in the project action area.
According to the USFWS IPaC website there are five (5) species of endangered flowering plants
potentially found in the project area. However, based on aerial imagerry and recent site visits the
sediment application area is known to be a degraded (sparse) monotypic Spartina alternaflora
marsh habitat that if left alone will continue to undergo fragmentation and conversion to bare or
open water. There are no endangered flowering plants found in the area where sediment will be
applied.
Marine Mammals — There is only (1) species of endangered marine mammal potentially found
within the project area, the West Indian Manatee. However, all marine mammals are protected
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Sections 101 (a)(5)(A) and (D) allow the
incidental take of marine mammals only under special circumstances, where "take" is defined as
"to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal"
(16 U.S.C. §§ 1361-1421h). Harassment includes any annoyance which has the potential to
injure a marine mammal or stock (Level A) or disrupt its behavioral patterns (Level B). In
addition to manatees, porpoises and dolphins may be found in the AIWW near the project area.
However, similar to the analysis for reptiles, NOAA NCCOS determines that no adverse affects
to marine mammals are likely given, the small size of the pipe (<6"), the relatively low suction
rate (-40 yds/hour), the short duration of dredging (2-3 days) and small amount of sediment to
be obtained (<25 cu. yards). In addition, the area to be dredged is a navigable water way
maintained by USACE Wilmington District.
Table 1. USFWS and NMFS threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat
(if any) in the proposed action area.
Species ESA Status Critical Habitat
Bird

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)
Threatened
Outside of
project area
Red Knot (Calidris canutus Tufa)
Threatened
Outside of
project area
Red -Cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
Endangered
Outside of
borealis)
project area
Reptiles
American alligator (Alligator
Threatened
None
mississippiensis)
Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)
Endangered
Outside of
project area
Kemp's Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii)
Endangered
None Designated
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys
Endangered
Outside of
coriacea)
project area
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)
Threatened
Outside of
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS
project area
Fishes
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)
Endangered
None Designated
Atlantic sturgeon, (Acipenser oxyrinchus
Endangered
Proposed,
Outside of
oxyrinchus) — Carolina DPS
project area
Flowering Plants
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum
Endangered
None
cooleyi)
Golden sedge (Carex lutea)
Endangered
Outside of
project area
pondberry (Lindera melissifolia)
Endangered
None
rough -leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia
Endangered
None
asperulaefolia)
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus
Threatened
None
pumilus)
Mammals
West Indian Manatee (Trichechus
Endangered
Outside of
manatus)
project area
Migratory Birds - Birds are protected by the migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act. Any activity that results in the take of migratory birds or eagles is

prohibited unless authorized by the USFWS. There are no provisions for allowing the take of
migratory birds that are unintentionally killed or injured. There are thirty-five (35) species of
migratory birds potentially found in the project area (Table 2). Observers will ensure that no
birds are breeding, nesting or otherwise impacted by sediment application activities. No sediment
will be applied under these circumstances. Based on the analysis of project activities as stated
above, NOAA NCCOS determines that no activities conducted as part of this project will
result in the take of migratory birds or eagles.
Table 2. Species list of migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act that are potentially found in the project action area.
Bird Species
Season
American Bittern Bolaurus lenliginosus
Wintering
American Kestrel Falco sparverius paulus
Year-round
American Oystercatcher Haematopus palliates
Year-round
Bachman's Sparrow Aimophila aestivalis
Year-round
Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis
Breeding
Black Skimmer Rynchops niger
Year-round
Black -throated Green Warbler Dendroica
virens
Breeding
Brown -headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla
Year-round
Chuck -will's -widow Caprimulgus carolinensis
Breeding
Fox Sparrow Passerella diaca
Wintering
Gull -billed Tern Gelochelidon nilotica
Breeding
Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis
Breeding
Least Tern Sterna antillarum
Breeding
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes
Wintering
Marbled Godwit Limosafedoa
Wintering
Nelson's Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni
Wintering
Painted Bunting Pas.serina ciris
Breeding
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
Wintering
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor
Breeding
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea
Breeding
Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritima
Wintering
Red Knot Calidris canutus Tufa
Wintering Endangere
d

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes
erythrocephalus
Endangere
Year-round d
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus
Wintering
Saltmarsh Sparrow Ammodramus caudaculus
Wintering
Seaside Sparrow Ammodramus marilimus
Year-round
Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis
Wintering
Short -billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus
Wintering
Short -eared Owl Asio flammeus
Wintering
Swainson's Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii
Breeding
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus
Wintering
Wilson's Plover Charadrius wilsonia
Breeding
Wood Thrush Hylocichla muslelina
Breeding
Worm Eating Warbler Helmitheros
vermivorum
Breeding
Yellow Rail Colurnicops noveboracensis
Wintering
Section F.6.b. Essential Fish Habitat
The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires that federal
agencies consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service on actions that "may adversely
affect" essential fish habitat (EFH) (16 U.S.C. § 1855(b)(2)).
According to the NOAA Habitat Conservation EFH mapper, the following species groups/taxa
have designated EFH within the project action area: coastal migratory pelagics (king mackerel,
Spanish mackerel, cobia), snapper/grouper, and two (2) species of sharks; Atlantic sharpnose
shark and black tip shark,
In addition, there are two (2) Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) within the action area,
Penaeid Shrimp and Snapper -Grouper. There are no EFH areas protected from fishing within the
action area.
NOAA NCCOS determines that dredging activities would have no adverse effects on EFH
within the project area. The AIWW channel where sediments will be obtained is routinely
maintained using similar methods by USACE Wilmington for safe navigation purposes. The
suction dredge will only be operated at the sediment interface and will not be operated within the
water column. Only a small amount of sediment (<25 cu. yards) will be suctioned off the channel
using a pipe of small diameter (< 6") and relatively low suction rate (-40 yds/hour) over a short
time period (2-3 days). The dredged substrate is anticipated to have a high sand content and
therefore the activity is not expected to produce a plume of suspended fine particulates in the

project area. Further, project activities will not result in a loss of marsh habitat. Rather, the
actions described here will transform very low lying Spartina alterniora marsh into a higher
elevation Spartina alterniora marsh.
In addition, NOAA NCCOS determines that sediment application activities in three (3), 5 X 5 m
plots would not adversely affect EFH outside of the project area as hay bales and coir logs will
be used to limit sediment run-off outside of the designated experimental plots.
A detailed EFH Assessment is being prepared in coordination with NFMS.
Section F.7.b. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take
into account the effects of their actions on historic resources (16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq).
Based on consultation with MCBCL staff, there are no historic resources in the project action
area, therefore project activities will not impact any historic resources. In addition, the site
location is well known to NOAA NCCOS participants from previous site visits and ongoing
research within the area. In addition, we consulted the following National Register of Historic
Places website: https://www.nps. og vamps/full.html?mapld=lad l 7cc9-b808-4ff8-a2f9-
a99909164466
Literature Cited
Bridges, T.S., Banks, C.J. and M.A. Chasten. 2016. Engineering with nature: Advancing system
resilience and sustainable development. The Military Engineer 699: 52-54.
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 31:472-479.
Craft, C., J. Clough, J. Ehman, S. Joye, R. Park and others. 2009. Forecasting the effects of
accelerated sea -level rise on tidal marsh ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment doi: 10.1890/070219.
Croft, A.L., L.A. Leonard, T. Alphin, B. Cahoon, and M. Posey. 2006. The effects of thin layer sand
re -nourishments on tidal marsh processes: Masonboro Island, North Carolina. Estuaries and Coasts.
29: 737-750.
Currin, C. A., Davis, J., Cowart, L., Malhotra, A., and M. Fonseca. 2015. Shoreline change in the
New River Estuary, North Carolina: Rates and Consequences. Journal of Coastal Research 31:1069-
1077
DCERP Coastal Wetlands Final Report 2013. Chapters CW -1 and CW -2.
https://dcerp.rti.org/DCERPPubl icSite/EcosystemModules/Coastal W etlands.aspx

Ensign, S.H.,and Currin, C. 2016. Geomorphic implications of particle movement by water surface
tension in a salt marsh. Wetlands, DOI 10.1007/s 13157-016-0862-4
Ensign, S.H., Currin, C., Piehler, M., and Tobias, C. 2016. A method for using shoreline morphology
to predict suspended sediment concentration in tidal creeks. Geomorphology 276: 280-288
Hall, J.A. S. Gill, J. Obeysekera, W. Sweet, K. Knuuti, and J. Marburger. 2016. Regional sea level
scenarios for coastal risk management. U. S. Department of Defense, Strategic Environmental
Research and Development Program. 224 pp.
Mendelssohn, I.A., and N. L. Kuhn. 2003. Sediment subsidy: effects on soil -plant responses in a
rapidly submerging coastal salt marsh. Ecological Engineering 21: 115-128.
Morris, J.T., P.V. Sundareshwar, C.T. Nietch, B. Kjerfve, and D.R. Cahoon. 2002. Responses of
coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology. 83: 2869-2877.
Ray, G.L. 2007. Thin layer placement of dredged material on coastal wetlands: a review of the
technical and scientific literature. ERDC.EL TN -07-1.
SERDP. 2013. Assessing impacts of climate change on coastal military installations: Policy
implications. Alexandria, VA. US DOD.
Sutton -Grier, A., Wowk, K., and H. Bamford. 2015. Future of our coasts: the potential for hybrid
infrastructure to enhance the resilience of our coastal communities, economies, and ecoystsems.
Environmental Science and Technology 51:137-148.
Walters, D.C. and M.L. Kirwan. 2016. Optimal hurricane overwash thickness for maximizing marsh
resilience to sea level. Ecology and Evolution. Doi: 10.1002/ece3.2024.
Wigand, C., K. Sundberg, A. Hanson, E. Davey, R. Johnson, E. Watson, and J. Morris. 2016.
Varying inundation regimes differentially affect natural and sand -amended marsh sediments. PLoS
ONE.I I(I0):e0164956, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0164956.

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MARINE CORPS INSTALLATIONS EAST -MARINE CORPS BASE
PSC BOX 20005
CAMP LEJEUNE NC 28542-0005
Dr. Carolyn Currin
NOAA NCCOS
101 Pivers Island Rd.
Beaufort, NC 28516
Dear Dr. Currin:
5090.11
J XND2 3 2017
Marine Corps Installations East -Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune (MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ), Environmental Management Division
has reviewed your thin -layer of dredged sediment project.
Your previous nine years of measured shoreline erosion rates,
marsh sediment accretion rates, and research on MCIEAST-MCB
CAMLEJ have identified the vulnerability of salt marshes located
adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.
MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ supports the proposed pilot project to
add a thin layer (< 25 cm) of dredged sediment to 5 x 5 m plots
of low-lying marsh in the Freeman Creek salt marsh, and NOAA's
continuing effort to monitor the response of the marsh to the
thin -layer addition. This pilot project will provide
information on adaptive management strategies to insure the
long-term sustainability of coastal wetlands on the Base. These
wetlands are important natural resources and provide crucial
protection to the barrier island and coastal ecosystem in
support of the Marine Corps' training mission.
Please be aware that access to MCIEAST-MCB CAMLEJ is subject
to mission needs and is subject to change on short notice.
Military or natural resources activities will not be altered to
facilitate your activities.
Mr. Martin Korenek is your main point of contact and can be
reached at [phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
i
OHN R. TOWNSON
Director, Environmental Management
By direction of the
Commanding General