19890336 Ver 1_Complete File_19890101

01? 4.
t? ? 4
?d +,,,..o. of
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
December 21, 1989
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Col. Thomas C. Suermann
Lieutenant Colonel
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box.1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Col. Suermann:
R. Paul Wilms
Director
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal
Clean Water Act,
Amendment to Certification 1627
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
Cape Fear River
New Hanover and Brunswick Counties
Attached hereto are two (2) copies of Amended Certification
No. 1627R issued to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated
December 21, 1989.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Paul Wilms
Attachments
cc: Wilmington Regional Office
Mr. William Mills
Mr. Stephen Benton
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
-60, °
NORTH CAROLINA
New Hanover and Brunswick Counties
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the
requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to an application
filed on the 2nd day of November, 1989 to allow maintenance
dredging of Reaves Point, Horseshoe Shoal, Snows Marsh, and Lower
Swash Channels with effluent disposal to Old Royal Term and Ferry
Slip Islands.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the
discharge of fill material into the waters of the lower Cape Fear
River in conjunction with the proposed maintenance dredging in
New Hanover and Brunswick Counties will not result in a violation
of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines.
Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies that this
activity will not violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL
92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the
application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as
to prevent significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the
turbidity in the Stream is 25 NTU's or less are not
considered significant).
2. This Certification replaces the original Water
Quality Certification No. 1627 issued on February
24, 1983.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certification.
This Certification shall become null and void unless the
above conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
This the 21st day of December, 1989.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
R. Paul Wilms, Director
WQC# 1627R
lv?
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
Mr. R. Paul Wilms, Director
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Wilms:
V * ' ?.1
?r.
`9i'2
The purpose of this letter is to request amendment of Wa ls'Ci
Quality Certification No. 1627 dated February 24, 1983. This
certification allowed the restoration of the Old Royal Tern Island
with dredged material from the maintenance of Snows Marsh Channel
(Wilmington Harbor), in the lower Cape Fear River, New Hanover and
Brunswick Counties, North Carolina (figure 1). The purpose of
this restoration was to provide suitable nesting habitat for
colonial nesting waterbirds.
The requested amendment is to restore both Old Royal Tern
and Ferry Slip Islands for colonial nesting waterbirds with
dredged material from the maintenance of Reaves Point, Horseshoe
Shoal, Snows Marsh, and Lower Swash Channels (figure 1). The
restoration methods and impacts are discussed in the December 1982
Environmental Assessment for Restoration of the Cape Fear River
Pelican Islands (enclosure 1). The most recent grain size
information on the dredged material to be used is indicated in
enclosure 2, and an updated Section 404(b)(1) (P.L. 95-217)
evaluation is included in enclosure 3.
The frequency of restoration (depending on erosion rates)
is anticipated to be every 8 to 9 years for the Old Royal Tern
Island and once every 11 to 12 years for the Ferry Slip Island.
The maximum restored size of each island would be approximately
4 acres (land above mean high water), with a maximum of 30,000
cubic yards of dredged material disposed on each island during
each restoration event. The next restoration action is scheduled
for the winter of 1989/90 and will be completed by March 31, 1990.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
October 26, 1989
4
A01V
NOV %
1??V. ?F EN?IftONMENTA? ANA????
UI Raley --
F`
-2-
If you have any questions concerning this amendment, please
contact Mr. Frank Yelverton, Environmental Resources Branch, at
[phone].
Sincerely,
?Or Thomas C. Suermann
Lieutenant Colonel,
Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Enclosures
Copy Furnished (with enclosures):
Mr. Bill Mills
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
s M
=?>I ?
Lli
r tt:? w > p
•W Xu 0 - ?_
x z O.' Z
W
LLJ
i .` Cr LL N
i 1 •• Z _ W
1 y / O CU W
o- _j
Aj Y Z I- U
M Z Z
i - 1--
(? ~ 5- Z 0? N
W
_ O Z
u
li 3 O V
Q W
u ? li O
Y'$
•' 3
N
Z •?• ? W
!, W
Q W F L :'? N Z
r z - U
N z - z
a n° i?' W
W • ,?
CX.
Z In a? • Q' ?'? c d
Q 0
v' or
z
p IJ c°,:?a'
' o
rJV n ??•?
Y O
N ?
g'i E V
o O r
" C}, J
i '
r
A
.r?
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
RESTORATION OF THE CAPE FEAR RIVER
PELICAN ISLANDS
NEW HANOVER AND BRUNSWICK COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA

C
N
I?
Southport
ENV. RES. .
OFE gu'I
15 POT REI VE
I 7E;? C-- 1. --L
V
Q
a
FERRY SLIP ISLAND
OLD ROYAL TERN ISLAND
DECEMBER 1982
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District

Vvn? o
U Q' e
D
M
a
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
RESTORATION OF THE CAPE FEAR RIVER
PELICAN ISLANDS
NEW HANOVER AND BRUNSWICK COUNTIES, N.C.

r
Responsible lead agency is the U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington.
Abstract. Two islands in the lower Cape Fear River are utilized as nesting
areas by the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) and other species of
colonially nesting waterbirds. The islands were created over 10 years ago
with dredged material. Since their creation these islands have been
steadily eroding and one of them, the Old Royal Tern Island, has eroded to
the point where nests are threatened during storm events. The Wilmington
District, Corps of Engineers, proposes to restore these islands with dredged
material beginning with disposal on the Old Royal Tern island early in 1983.
Alternatives include different methods of disposal, different sources of
material, disposing on the Ferry Slip Island first, creating an entirely new
island, and no action.
SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO THE If you would like further
DISTRICT ENGINEER BY: information on this assessment
10 A N 1993 please contact:
Mr. William F. Adams
U.S. Army Engineer District,
Wilmington
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Commercial Telephone:
[phone]
FTS Telephone: [phone]
16
`s
1

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
RESTORATION OF THE CAPE FEAR RIVER
PELICAN ISLANDS
NEW HANOVER AND BRUNSWICK COUNTIES, N.C.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item Page No.
r
..

1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
INTRODUCTION I
SUMMARY I
1.01 Major Conclusions and Findings 1
1.02 Areas of Controversy 2
1.03 Unresolved Issues 2
1.04 Relationship of the Project to Environmental
Requirements 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4
AUTHORITY 5
ALTERNATIVES 6
4.01 Alternative Disposal Methods 6
4.02 Alternative Sources of Material 7
4.03 Timing of Depositions 7
4.04 Creation of New Islands 8
4.05 No Action 8
IMPACTS ON SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES 8
5.01 Fishery and Benthic Resources 8
5.02 Water Quality and Bottom Sediments 9
5.03 Cultural Resources 10
5.04 Endangered Species 10
5.05 Colonial Waterbirds It
COORDINATION 11
6.01 Coordination to Date 11
6.02 Required Coordination 11
6.03 Recipients of This Assessment 12
REFERENCES 13
ATTACHMENT A
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF BROWN PELICAN NESTING
IN NORTH CAROLINA FROM 1978 THROUGH 1981
404(b)(1) (PL 95-21'7) EVALUATION

INTRODUCTION
This project is being undertaken by the Wilmington District, Corps of
Engineers in response to the need for improved nesting conditions for the
brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), a federally listed endangered
species, and other colonially nesting waterbirds. The District is
undertaking this project under the directive issued in Section 7(a) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, which directs federal agencies
to "utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by
carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened
species..."
The brown pelican currently nests in two locations in North Carolina. One
colony, located on a small island behind Ocracoke Inlet, has been in
existence many years and appears to be fairly stable in its breeding
success. The Ocracoke colony represents the northernmost nesting site in
eastern North America. The other colony, located in the lower Cape Fear
River, became established in 19.78 and occupies two small dredged material
islands. These islands were created by the Corps of Engineers during
maintenance dredging of the Wilmington Harbor navigation channel in 1971.
Whi.le the nesting colony is relatively new, it has steadily increased in
numbers of birds and has become a stronghold for the species in the State.
It is the lower Cape Fear River colony that is the subject of the management
proposal contained in this document. Both of the islands being used by the
Cape Fear colony are eroding and the southernmost of the two, called the Old
Royal Tern Island, has eroded to the point where it is subject to overwash
when tides and weather conditions are right. The northern island, called
the Ferry Slip Island, is also eroding but the impact thus far has been far
less. The locations of the islands are shown on figure 1.
Other species which nest on these two islands include Royal terns, Sandwich
terns, Gull-billed terns, Black skimmers, and Laughing gulls. The nesting
situation for these species has also deteriorated in recent years. Four of
the island nesting sites in the lower Cape Fear River Identified by Parnell
and Soots (1979) have fallen into disuse due either to erosion or to
advanced vegetation succession. As these islands became unsuitable, the
displaced birds moved primarily to the Ferry Slip Island creating a
situation of intense competition for available nesting space. It is hoped
that implementing the actions proposed in this document will hold the line
against any further deterioration in the situation and that the maintenance
of stable populations of all colonially nesting waterbirds can be achieved.
10 1.00 SUMMARY

1.01 Major Conclusions and Findings. It has been concluded that the
restoration of the islands utilized for breeding by the brown pelican, a
federally listed endangered species, and other colonially nesting waterbirds
will be performed utilizing dredged material from the maintenance of the
F

'x
(>.?
o cV
? f
J C`
a:
N
VVV > C a r o I na
Beach
o -
M
M
U o sz-
2 j0
_ FERRY SLIP ISLAND
Proposed P
c Dred ing D 4,
?
ra
e
S o u t h p o r t Q OLD ROYAL TERN ISLAND
_ G P Proposed Disposal Area
L
CAPE FEAR
5 km
FIGURE 1
}
Wilmington Harbor ship channel. Work will begin on the Old Royal Tern
Island early in 1983 with dredged material being deposited by the control-
of-effluent method. Work on the Ferry Slip Island will occur at a future
date with the source of material and its method of deposition to be worked
out among concerned interests at that time. This project will benefit the
brown pelican and is consistent with the intent of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended. Impacts on aquatic resources of the area should be
minor due to the small size of the project and the short period of time
necessary for construction.
t'
1.02 Areas of Controversy. The only area of controversy associated with
this project concerns the control-of-effluent method of disposal which is
not normally permissible under State regulation. In this case it has been
determined that the benefits to endangered species outweigh the anticipated
adverse impacts to the aquatic system and that the project is therefore in
the public interest.
1.03 Unresolved Issues. There are no unresolved issues.

4
2
a
1.04 Relationship of the Project to Environmental Requirements.

Federal Policies Island Restoration No Action

National Historic Preservation Full compliance Not applicable
Act of 1966, as amended
National Environmental Policy Partial compliance 1/ Not applicable
Act of 1969
Clean Water Act of 1977 Partial compliance 2/ Not applicable
Coastal Zone Management Act Partial compliance 3/ Not applicable
of 1972, as amended
Endangered Species Act of 1973, Full compliance Non-compliance
as amended
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Full compliance Not applicable
Act
EO 11988, Flood Plain Management Full compliance Not applicable
EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands Full compliance Not applicable
State Policies
Coastal Area Management Act Partial Compliance 3/ Not applicable
of 1974
N.C. Dredge and Fill Law, N.C. Non-compliance Not applicable
Gen. Stat. 113-229
Local Policies Island Restoration No Action
New Hanover County Land Use Plan Partial compliance 3/ Not applicable
Brunswick County Land Use Plan Partial compliance 3/ Not applicable
1/ Full compliance when the Finding of No Significant Impact is signed.
2/ Full compliance when water quality certificate (PL 95-217 , Sec. 401)
is issued by the State of North Carolina.
3/ Full compliance when the N.C. Office of Coastal Managemen t concurs in
the Corps of Engineers consistency determination.
j
3
s

2.00 Project Description. The Corps of Engineers _is proposing to take
immediate action torestore one of two islands in the lower Cape Fear River
critical to the North Carolina population of the endangered brown pelican
and other colonially nesting waterbirds and is proposing the concept of
undertaking similar actions to maintain both islands by similar methods as
nesting sites in future years. These islands are shown in figure 1.
The Old Royal Tern Island will be restored utilizing dredged material taken
from the Wilmington Harbor ship channel which lies immediately to its west.
All work will be done in conjunction with routine maintenance dredging.
Dredged material will be placed on the island by a pipeline dredge utilizing
the control-of-effluent method of disposal. This method entails the use of
a bulldozer to create a small berm thereby directing the flow of the dredged
effluent in a desired direction and allowing a greater period of time for
solids to settle out. On the Old Royal Tern Island this berm will be
created on its eastern shore in order that the effluent will be directed
back toward the channel. Approximately 30,000 cubic yards of material will
be placed on the island increasing its areal size from 1.5 acres to about 4
acres (all acreage figures are for land exposed above mean high water).
This increase in size will accrue on the islands western shore. The height
of the island will also be increased. Presently the highest elevation on
the island is about 1-foot MHW (mean high water). This will be increased to
about 6 feet MHW. Throughout the disposal operation the bulldozer will
remain on the island in order to maintain the berm and shape the material.
Once dredged material disposal has ceased, the bulldozer will shape the
islands topography so that it will have a generally flat crown with gently
sloping sides to the water line. The project is currently scheduled to take
place during February 1983 and will take less than a week for all
construction activities. Actual deposition of material will take only 2 or
3 days.
t
The Ferry Slip Island is also in need of material as it is now only about
2.5 acres in size and is undergoing rapid erosion; however, dredged material
will not be placed on this island for several years as care needs to be
taken to assure that both islands are not disturbed within too short a span
of time. Since different species of waterbirds require differing amounts of
vegetative cover for nesting purposes, the conversion of both islands to
bare sand through dredged material deposition would evict some species. The
source of dredged material and method of disposal to be used on the Ferry
Slip Island have not been worked out with concerned agencies and individuals
at this time. Details of the Ferry Slip Island restoration and all other
nourishment activities will be worked out through careful coordination in
the future.
Future restoration efforts have not been scheduled at this time. Deposits j
of material will be on an as needed basis currently projected to be
approximately once every 8 or 9 years for the Old Royal Tern Island and once
every 11 or 12 years for the Ferry Slip Island.
This project should not be construed as setting a precedent for the use of
control-of-effluent in other parts of the river or the State. Evidence
currently available indicates that the impacts normally associated with this
4
W
disposal method can be quite severe, and that its use should only be
undertaken if the sediments to be dredged are suitable and the concerns of
all interested resource management agencies can be adequately addressed.
This project is being undertaken solely for the benefit of the brown pelican
and other colonially nesting waterbirds and not for the purposes of
disposing of dredged material. As such, it is a special case, and it is
felt that use of control-of-effluent disposal is warranted.
It is felt by the Wilmington District that action on behalf of the brown
i pelican and other colonially nesting waterbirds in the region is justified
now for the following reasons:
a. The Old Royal Tern Island has eroded to the point that any nests
placed on it are subject to washing out during storm events.
b. There is still enough material left on the island to leave control-
of-effluent as a viable option. If delay is incurred then the only option
left may be open water disposal or expensive sandbag dikes as the island may
be completely gone before next dredging in the area takes place.
c. The brown pelican is a federally listed endangered species (Federal
Register 10/13/70; 12/2/70) which is recovering. In North Carolina its
numbers have increased substantially in recent years largely due to the
establishment of the lower Cape Fear River colony. Ultimate loss of this
colony due to island erosion would be a substantial setback for the species
in North Carolina.
d. All the facts necessary to make a decision are available now.
Nothing will be gained by waiting any longer while much will be lost.
3.00 AUTHORITY. The proposed project is being undertaken as a part of the
routine maintenance dredging of the Wilmington Harbor project. The project
has a long history of authorizations and modifications which are summarized
below.
-14

5

Acts
July 3, 1930
Work Authorized Documents
30' x 300' channel to Wilmington; anchorage R&H Com. Doc.
basin, 2,000' long; turning basin, 600' x 39/71/2
1,000'
Mar. 2, 1945 Increase width of existing channel to 400'; HD 131/76/1
increase width of turning basin to 800'; a
12' x 100' connecting channel with the
Intracoastal Waterway
Do Increase depth to 32'
Do 25' x 200' channel from Hilton Bridge
to a 600' wide basin, 1-1/4 miles above
May 17, 1950 Increase depth of bar channel to 35', river
channel t o 34' to Castle Street
Oct. 23, 1962 Increase width of bar channel to 500' and
depth of river channel to 38' up to Castle
Street
Mar. 10, 1964 Enlarge basin and extend channel above
Sec. 107 Hilton Bridge
July 14, 1960
SD 83/76/1
SD 170/76/3
HD 87/81/1
SD 114/87/2
Detailed Proj.
Rept., Feb 17,
1964
The current proposal is being undertaken under the directive given in
Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, which
directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to carry out programs
for the conservation of listed species.
4.00 ALTERNATIVES. Alternatives to the proposed project include different
methods of disposal, different sources of material, altered timing of
depositions, creation of entirely new islands, and no action. A discussion
of the components of these various alternatives follows.
4.01 Alternative Disposal Methods. Several methods of disposal were given
consideration. In selecting a disposal method, the goal was to achieve a
method which would: (1) protect estuarine resources, (2) provide the
desired nesting area, and was (3) implementable from an institutional stand-
point. The alternative of constructing dikes and grading them after comple-
tion of dredged material disposal met criteria 1 and 2 above but failed to
meet criteria 3. The State of North Carolina pays all diking costs
associated with the routine maintenance of the Wilmington Harbor project but
is unable to accommodate such additional costs as suitable disposal areas
are already available for retaining dredged material. In like manner, the
Corps of Engineers does not normally pay diking costs and does not have
r

6

sufficient funds available or the authority to construct the necessary dike.
At current construction costs it would cost approximately $114,000 to
construct a sandbag dike and $47,500 to construct a conventional dike (1,900
linear feet). When the costs of grading the conventional dike are added,
that alternative becomes even more cost prohibitive.
Open water disposal was given consideration as the gently sloping mounds
which result from that type of disposal are considered ideal for colonial
waterbird nesting. The adverse impacts of this alternative on the estuary
were considered unacceptable, however, as the dredged material, being
uncontrolled, can disperse into productive bottoms and sloughs and can
greatly effect the productivity of the aquatic system.
Control -of-effluent was selected as the disposal method to be used as it
satisfies, at least partially, all three of the above mentioned criteria.
Although the impacts of this disposal method are greater than those
associated with diked disposal, at least some measure of control is exerted
over its impacts. In this case the dredged material will be directed back
toward the ship channel and will be kept away from the productive slough and
bottoms which lie to the east. By keeping a bulldozer on the island during
disposal operations to maintain the effluent controlling berm, the island
can be properly shaped to provide suitable nesting topography for nesting
waterbirds. Institutionally, the project is implementable as no diking
costs are incurred and, while such disposal is normally forbidden by State
regulation, it is permissible in cases where the overriding public interest
is clear. For future depositions, all methods of disposal will again be
analyzed, and the method to be used will be determined through coordination
with resource management agencies on a case by case basis.
4.02 Alternative Sources of Material. The primary concern in obtaining
material for the project is in finding an area which needs to be dredged
which contains primarily coarse to medium grain sand. In this case this was
an easy requirement to satisfy as the ship channel immediately adjacent to
the Old Royal Tern Island contains shoal material composed of such sands.
As this requirement was so easily met, no alternative sources of dredged
material were seriously studied. For future depositions it is assumed that
this source will be used repeatedly for work on the Old Royal Tern Island.
The dredged material source(s) for future depositions on the Ferry Slip
Island have not been determined, however, possible areas include the ship
channel adjacent to the island and the lcwer reach of the south entrance
channel to the Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point (MOTSU).
4.03 Timing of Depositions. All deposition of dredged material will occur
during the established dredging window (1 October through 31 March). This
will serve a dual purpose in that it will avoid severe impacts on the
estuary and will assure that all construction work on the islands will be
completed prior to the colonial waterbird breeding season. Alternatives to
disposing during the dredging window offer no advantages and were therefore
not considered further.
7
Ai
Scheduling of future depositions on the Ferry Slip Island and on the Old
Royal Tern Island has not taken place. These future depositions are to be
on an as needed basis only in order to alleviate to the maximum extent
possible any impacts on the estuarine system and are, therefore, not
entirely predictable. Scheduling depositions offers the advantage of
enhancing the predictability of impacts but removes much of the beneficial
flexibility of the proposal. It is possible that dredged material will be
needed very infrequently and under these circumstances a scheduled
deposition could cause unnecessary impacts both on the aquatic system and on
the nesting birds. Based on the erosion which has occurred to date, it
would appear that disposal on the Old Royal Tern Island will probably be
necessary about once every 8 or 9 years, while disposal on the Ferry Slip
Island will be even less frequent, perhaps only once every 11 or 12 years.
4.04 Creation of New Islands. Consideration was given to creating new
islands in the lower Cape Fear River in areas less susceptible to erosion.
The advantage of such a plan would H4 in the reduction of the requirements
for future deposition of dredged material and, subsequently, a reduction in
future disturbance to the aquatic system. The disadvantages of such a plan
are, however, significant. In an area of the river which is sheltered and
would not offer an erosive climate to an island, the values to benthic
organisms and fishes is much greater due to the stability of the system.
The long-term impact of island construction on the aquatic system is
therefore much greater as high quality habitat would be permanently removed.
Also, by obviating the need for disposal on an island, vegetation succession
would go unchecked and the island would eventually become unsuitable to the
species it was designed to benefit. Due to these drawbacks, creation of a
new island(s) was dropped from further consideration at this time.
r''
4.05 No Action. Under this alternative the conditions which threaten the
future viability of the brown pelican colony in the lower Cape Fear River
would go unchecked. Under these circumstances it is projected that the Old
Royal Tern Island will have eroded away within the next 5 years and the
Ferry Slip Island within the next 10 years. These projections are estimates
only. The remaining useful life of these islands will be determined to a
large extent by the frequency and intensity of storm events. What will.
happen to the brown pelican and other colonially nesting waterbi.rds should
these islands erode away is not known. There are no other islands in the
lower Cape Fear River which offer suitable nesting habitat and good nesting
sites are not common elsewhere in southeastern North Carolina. The birds
will, however, be forced to move somewhere. This alternative is considered
unacceptable by the Corps as a lack of action will, in all probability,
adversely affect the species. r
5.00 IMPACTS ON SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES
5.01 Fishery and Benthic Resources. The waters of the lower Cape Fear
River support a -diverse and valuable fishery. While none of the area to be
affected by this project is classified as primary nursery area, it could be
considered to be a secondary nursery area as it supports large numbers of
juvenile shrimp, crabs, and finfish. This portion of the river is an
J
8

important commercial fishing area for blue crabs and shrimp during certain
times of the year. Finfish which inhabit the estuary including spot,
flounder, bluefish, trout, sheepshead, pigfish, and croaker support both
commercial and recreational fisheries. Previous studies (COE, 1975)
indicate that polychaetes and oligochaetes dominate the benthic fauna of the
proposed project area. These benthic creatures constitute an important food
source for a variety of fish species at high tide and shore birds at low
tide.
Control-of-effluent disposal of dredged material can adversely affect fishes
and benthic organisms through various mechanisms such as gill clogging due
to turbidity, smothering and burial of immobile species and through the
direct conversion of estuarine bottom to high ground. Impacts of this
project, however, are expected to be minimal as: (a) the time required for
disposals will be very short, probably less than 3 days; (b) the materials
to be deposited will be composed primarily of medium to coarse grained sands
(thereby greatly reducing turbidity); (c) the increase in island dimensions
will be in the direction of the least productive bottoms, and; (d) only a
very small acreage of estuarine bottom will be affected. As the islands are
constantly eroding, none of the impacts associated with filling can be
considered permanent, however, the impacts will be recurring.
5.02 Water Quality and Bottom Sediments. The waters of the project area
lie In the portion of the river where the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management's water quality classification changes from SC - swamp water to
the north to SA - swamp water to the south. The best usage of SC waters is
for fishing and fish propagation. Bathing and shellfishing are not
recommended. SA waters are suitable for all of the above-mentioned purposes
except bathing and may be used for shellfishing for marketable purposes.
The bottom sediments to be dredged and utilized for the restoration projects
will be primarily medium to coarse grain sands. The following grain size
data comes from bottom samples taken during May 1976 with a Peterson dredge
in the ship channel opposite the Price's Creek ferry terminal (station 1)
and opposite Federal Point (station 2).
Sta. 1 Sta. 2 Sta. 1 Sta. 2
Granule (2.Omm) 1.11% 5.97% Very fine sand (0.62mm) 0.21 0.39
Very coarse (l.Omm) 0.64 14.91 Coar,,,e silt (.031mm) 0.00 0.00
Coarse sand (.5mm) 2.28 36.68 Medium silt (.0156mm) 0.00 0.00
Medium sand (.25mm) 77.55 37.52 Fine silt (.00781mm) 0.00 0.00
Fine sand (.125mm) 18.20 4.53 Very fine silt & clay 0.00 0.00
(.0039-.000061mm)
As the material to be dredged is of such a coarse nature, the impacts
normally associated with undiked disposal of dredged material such as
turbidity, resuspension of pollutants, etc., should be minimal.
9
f
5.03 Cultural Resources. The lower Cape Fear River valley is an area rich
i.n historic and archeological resources. The lower Cape Fear region was
explored by the French and Spanish in the 16th century and by the English in
the 17th century. The first permanent settlement of the area was made by
the English in 1664 on the west bank of the river near Town Creek. This
site was deserted 3 years later. In 1725 Brunswick Town was founded on the
west bank of the river, and in 1732 Wilmington was established. Wilmington
rapidly developed into a shipping center for lumber, naval stores, and rice.
By 1800 it was the largest city in North Carolina, and it soon became one of
the major world ports for shipping tar and turpentine.
The lower Cape Fear region played an active and important part in the Civil
War, primarily because of the strategic value to the Confederacy of the port
facilities at Wilmington. Fort Fisher, located at the southern tip of the
peninsula between the Atlantic Ocean and the Cape Fear River, was developed
beginning in 186.1 to fortify the approach to Wilmington for the Confederacy.
The fort was destroyed during battle on 15 January 1865.
Because of its rich cultural history, the lower Cape Fear region today holds
significant remnants of the past. Both Brunswick Town and Fort Fisher are
State Historic Sites and are listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
The proposed project should not impact upland or submerged cultural
resources as dredging will be performed within the limits of the ship
channel, an area which has already been dredged many times and dredged
material will be placed on manmade islands. Should submerged cultural
resources lie under the islands, they should not be impacted by the addition
of more material.
5.04 Endangered Species. The project will affect one listed species, the
brown pelican. Some temporary adverse impacts will occur to the brown
pelican as immediately after disposal the islands will probably not be suit-
able for pelican nesting. It is expected that at least I or 2 years will
have to pass before the islands stabilize and vegetate enough to become
suitable for pelican nesting; however, the net effect will be beneficial as
without the proposed disposals the islands will eventually erode entirely
away, and no nesting areas will be available in the region. Informal
consultation undertaken to date indicates that this project has the full
support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Other listed species which are known to occur in the lower Cape Fear River
are the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), American alligator
(Alligator mississippiensis), bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Florida
manatee Trichechus manatus), Arctic peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus
tundrius) and, possibly, the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum).
The impacts of dredging and disposal on these species was discussed in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Maintenance of Wilmington
Harbor, filed with the Council on Environmental Quality in April 1977. In
that report, it was determined that such activities would not affect these
species. The current proposal does not differ in scope or magnitude to a
degree that it would change those findings.
e
x
10
4
5.05 Colonial Waterbirds. The islands to be restored by the project are
the principle nesting sites in the area for most of the species of water-
birds which breed in southeastern North Carolina. The island nesting
situation for these species in the lower Cape Fear River has deteriorated
greatly in recent years as four of the island nesting sites identified by
Parnell and Soots (1979) have become unsuitable for nesting due to either
erosion or advanced vegetation succession. By restoring and maintaining
• these islands as nesting sites the following species will be benefited:
royal tern (Sterna maxima), sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis), gull-billed
tern (Gelochelidon nilotica), black skimmer (Rychops niger), and laughing
gull (Larus atricilla .
6.00 COORDINATION.
6.01 Coordination to Date. The needs of the nesting waterbirds in the
lower Cape Fear River are well known to the resource management agencies in
North Carolina. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor (July 76) proposed a dredged island manage-
ment plan designed to assure viable waterbird populations in the lower Cape
Fear River for the foreseeable future. (That plan was deferred pending its
incorporation into the long-term maintenance study being undertaken at that
time. Funding for the long-term study was discontinued the following year
therefore the dredge island management plan remains to be completed.)
Parnell and Soots (1979) refer to the area of the Old Royal Tern Island as
"very attractive" to nesting terns and report that islands in the area are
"eroding severely." More recently, feature news stories have appeared on
television and in newspapers depicting the seriousness of the situation.
In response to this continual expression of need, the District Engineer sent
out a letter on 19 October 1982 setting up a meeting in which the proposed
restoration plan was presented as a solution to the problem. Representa-
tives of the following agencies and organizations were in attendance: Corps
of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries
Service, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, N.C. Natural Heritage Program,
N.C. Division of Environmental Management, N.C. Division of Marine
Fisheries, N.C. Office of Coastal Management, and the University of North
Carolina at Wilmington. At that meeting, the details of the initial work to
be performed on the Old Royal Tern Island were worked out and the concept of
performing a similar restoration on the Ferry Slip Island gained acceptance.
6.02 Required Coordination. Concurrent with the circulation of this
environmental assessment, a Section 404(b) (PL 92-500) Public Notice and
evaluation have been circulated and a consistency determination has been
furnished to the N.C. Office of Coastal Management for concurrence/
nonconcurrence. A Section 401 (PL 92-500) certificate has been requested
from the N.C. Division of Environmental Management. A Biological Opinion on
Endangered Species has not been received yet from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Asheville Area Office. Informal consultation on this project is
ongoing and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approval is anticipated.
11
A
6.03 Recipients of This Assessment. This assessment is being circulated
for review and comment to the following concerned agencies and public for 30
days. After reviewing the comments received, the District Engineer may sign
the Finding of No Significant Impact and proceed with the initial stages of
the proposed restorations.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Area Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office
E
nvironmental Protection Agency
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
National Marine Fisheries Service
Federal Energy Administration
Fifth Coast Guard District
Soil Conservation Service, USDA
Forest Service, USDA
Department of Energy
Clearinghouse and Information Center of North
National Audubon Society
National Wildlife Federation
League of Women Voters
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
Cape Fear River Research Institute
Conservation Council of North Carolina
Sierra Club
Izaac Walton League
Federal Highway Administration
National Audubon Society, Southeast
N.C. Wildlife Federation
New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
Brunswick County Board of Commissioners
Dr. Donald McCrimmon
Dr. James Parnell
Dr. Michael Erwin
Greensboro Area Office 1.
Carolina

12
i
REFERENCES
Parnell, James F. and Robert F. Soots, Jr., 1979. Atlas of Colonial
Waterbirds of North Carolina Estuaries. UNC-Sea Grant Publication
UNC-SG-78-10, 269 pp.
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, 1976. Draft Environmental
Statement for the Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor.
II
f
13

ATTACHMENT A
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The Corps of Engineers proposes to restore the breeding islands of the brown
pelican and other colonially nesting waterbirds in the lower Cape Fear River
through the controlled deposition of dredged material. The methods to be
used are outlined in Section 2.00, page 3. Alternatives to the project
include different methods of disposal, different sources of material,
{ altered timing of depositions, creation of entirely new islands, and no
action. The selected project is felt to represent the best choice as it
minimizes impacts to productive estuarine areas, provides for continual
maintenance of nesting areas for colonial waterbirds and, because of the
minor construction associated, is implementable at low cost to the
taxpayer.
Impacts on significant resources are discussed in this assessment as
follows:
a. Fishery and Benthic Resources, Section 5.01, page 7.
b. Water Quality and Bottom Sediments, Section 5.02, page 8.
C. Cultural Resources, Section 5.03, page 9.
d. Endangered Species, Section 5.04, page 9.
e. Colonial Waterbirds, Section 5.05, page 10.
I have determined, based on the information outlined in Section 5.00, page
7, that the adverse impacts to the aforementioned significant resources will
be minor and temporary in nature and that the preparation of an
environmental impact statement will not be required.
ROBERT K. HUGHES
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer

APPENDIX A
Reproductive Success of Brown Pelicans Nest}?g
in North Carolina From 1978 through 1981-

Number Number Number Number
Active Eggs y Eggs Young % Young Young
Year Nests Laid Hatched Produced Fledged Fledged

OCRACOKE COLONY
1978 106 419 33 138 85 118
1979 198 502 49 246 99 244
1980 226 534 59 316 95 304
1981 400* 1,469 46 680* 88 600*
CAPE FEAR COLONY
1978 66 123 41 51 12 15
1979 225 ?** ?** 215 98 210
1980 276 630 52 326 65 213
1981 411 1,018 52 529 88 467
NORTH CAROLINA TOTAL
1978 172 542 35 189 70 133
1979 423 ? ? 461 98 454
1980 502 1,164 55 642 80 517
1981 851*** 2,478*** 49 1,209*** 88 1,067
* Estimates, nests not indi vidual
** Egg counts not made
*** Based on a combination of data from marked nests on the Cape Fear
River and e stimates from unmarked nests at Ocracoke.
1/ Da ta from Pop ulations and B reeding Biology of the Eastern Brown Pelican
in North Carolina, by James F. Parnell and Robert F. Soots, Jr., in
pr eparation)
SECTION 404(b)(1) (PL 95-217) EVALUATION
CONTROL-OF-EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
WILMINGTON HARBOR (38-FOOT) PROJECT
BRUNSWICK, NEW HANOVER COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.
A. Location. The dredging and disposal sites are located in the
lower Cape Fear River east of Southport, North Carolina. See figure 1.
B. General Description. The project involves maintenance dredging of
the Wilmington Harbor 38-foot project in Snows March Channel to 40 feet
below mean low water (MLW) within the designated limits of the channel.
Approximately 30,000 cubic yards of medium to coarse sand will be disposed
of on a previously used disposal site (Old Royal. Tern Island) created
approximately 10 years ago during maintenance dredging. Old Royal Tern
Island is on the east side of Snows Marsh Channel. The proposed control-of-
effluent method of disposal will consist of the use of a bulldozer to
construct berms on the eastern shore of the island which will allow the
effluent to run westward back into the channel being dredged.
C. Authority and Purpose. The proposed dredging and disposal will be
performed as part of the routine maintenance dredging of the Wilmington
Harbor 38-foot project (FEIS Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor, North
Carolina, dated April 1977, authorized March 2, 1945, under House Document
HD 131/76/1).
The purpose of the proposed disposal is to enlarge critical habitat of the
endangered brown pelican in the lower Cape Fear River. The method and site
of disposal are being proposed under the directive given in Section 7(a) of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, which directs Federal
agencies to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the
conservation of listed species.
D. General Description. Approximately 30,000 cubic yards of medium
to coarse sand will be dredged from the Wilmington Harbor 38-foot project,
Snows Marsh Channel.
E. Description of the Proposed Discharge Site. The dredged material
will be discharged onto a previously used disposal island located adjacent
to and east of the ship channel. The control-of-effluent method of disposal
(unconfined) will be used to increase the areal size of the island from 1.5
acres to 4 acres (figured above MHW) and to increase the height of the
island. The disposal island is predominantly medium to coarse sand
substrate with low lying shrubs and vegetation. The adjacent open water
area on the west side of the island is predominantly medium to coarse sand
and shell.
The proposed dredging and disposal will take place in the fall or winter
months once every 8 to 9 years and will take approximately l week to
complete. The initial work will take place in February 1983.
F. Description of Disposal Method. Disposal will be performed by
hydraulic pipeline dredge.
II. FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS.
A. Physical Substrate Determinations.
1. Substrate Elevation and Slope. The proposed control-of-
effluent method of discharge of dredged material will increase the substrate
elevation in the open water area adjacent to the western side of the island.
The characteristics of the substrate at the disposal site and that of
material being dredged are the same. Minor changes in substrate elevation
and bottom contours may occur outside of the disposal area due to material
movement as a direct.effect of water circulation, winds, and wave action.
2. Sediment Type. The dredged material consists predominantly of
medium to coarse sand. The characteristics of the material being dredged
match those of the existing substrate.
3. Dredged Material Movement. Some movement of dredged material
will occur as a result of the combined effects of current patterns, water
circulation, wind, and wave action.
4. Physical Effects on Benthos. Discharge of material into open
water along the western shore of the island will adversely affect bottom
dwelling organisms by smothering immobile forms or by forcing mobile forms
to migrate. Since the material being dredged is similar to the existing
substrate, recolonization of benthic organisms will occur in the areas not
converted to high ground.
5. Other Effects. None.
6. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. The effects of the
discharge will be minimized by the construction of a berm along the eastern
shore of the island which will allow the effluent to run westward towards
the channel being dredged.
B. Water Circulation, Fluctuation, and Salinity Determinations.
1. Water.
a. Salinity. No effect.
b. Water Chemistry. No effect.
C. Clarity. Clarity will be reduced locally and temporarily
due to disposal.
d. Color. No effect.

,•
,.
2
e.
f.
g•
reduction in the
concentrations w
work.
a h.
i.
Odor. No effect.
Taste. Not applicable.
Dissolved gas levels. A minor, local, and temporary
dissolved oxygen levels may occur. Dissolved oxygen
ill quickly return to ambient levels upon completion of the
Nutrients. No significant impact.
Eutrophication. No effect.
j. Others as appropriate. Not applicable.
2. Current Patterns and Circulation.
a. Current patterns and flow. Current patterns and flow will
be affected in the vicinity of the open water disposal on the west side of
the disposal island.
b. Velocity. No effect.
C. Stratification. No effect.
d. Hydrologic Regime. See a. above. No other change in the
hydrologic regime should occur.
3. Normal Water Level Fluctuations. No effect.
4. Salinity Gradient. No effect.
5. Actions That Will be Taken to Minimize Impacts. See A.6
above.
C. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determinations.
1. Expected Changes in Suspended Particulates and Turbidity
Levels in Vicinity-Of-Disposal Site. A local and temporary increase in
turbidity and particulates will occur due to the proposed disposal. No
violation of applicable water quality standards will occur.
r
2. Effects (Degree and Duration) on Chemical and Physical
Properties of the Water Column.
a. Light penetration. A slight reduction in light
penetration will occur due to the turbidity increase associated with the
proposed disposal.
3
b. Dissolved oxygen. A decrease in dissolved oxygen
concentrations may be associated with the disposal resulting in a minor,
local, and temporary effect. Levels of dissolved oxygen should return to
ambient soon after completion of the work.
c. Toxic metals and organics. No significant effect.
d. Pathogens. No significant effect.
e. Esthetics. No significant effect.
f. Others as appropriate. None.
3. Effects on Biota.
a. Primary production, photosynthesis. A slight reduction in
primary production may occur due to minor turbidity.
b. Suspension/filter feeders. No significant effect.
C. Sight feeders. A temporary effect will occur due to minor
turbidity.
4. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. See II.A.6. above.
D. Contaminant Determinations. Deposition of dredged material will
not introduce, relocate, or increase contaminants.
E. Aquatic Ecosystem and Organism Determination.
1. Effects on Plankton. Turbidity associated with dredging and
deposition of material may have a slight effect on plankton; however, the
effect is not considered significant.
2. Effects on Benthos. No significant effect. See II.A.4 above.
3. Effects on Nekton. No significant effect.
4. Effects on Aquatic Food Web. No significant effect.
5. Effects on Special Aquatic Sites.
a. Sanctuaries and refuges. Not applicable.
b. Wetlands. Not applicable.
c. Mudflats. No effect.
d. Vegetated Shallows. No effect.

4

It e. Coral Reefs. Not applicable.
f. Riffle and Pool Complexes. Not applicable.
6. Threatened and Endangered Species No effect.
7. Other Wildlife. No effect.
8. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. See II.A.6. above.
F. Proposed Disposal Site Determinations.
1. Mixing Zone Determination. The mixing zone at the disposal
site will be minimal and restricted to the western side of the island by the
use of the sand berms on the east side.
2. Determination of Compliance with Applicable Water Quality
Standards. A Section 401 (PL 95-217) Water Quality Certificate has been
requested concurrent with the Section 404(b)(1) (PL 95-217) Evaluation.
3. Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics.
a. Municipal and private water supply. No effect.
b. Recreational and commercial fisheries. No significant
effect.
c. Water related recreation. No effect.
d. Esthetics. No effect.
e. Parks, national and historic monuments, national
seashores, wilderness areas, research sites, and similar preserves. Not
applicable.
G. Determination of Cumulative Effects on Aquatic Ecosystem. No
significant cumulative effects are expected due to the proposed activity.
H. Determinations of Secondary Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem. No
significant secondary effects will occur.
III. FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE RESTRICTIONS ON DISCHARGE.
A. No significant adaptations of the Section 404(b)(1) (PL 95-217)
guidelines were made relative to this evaluation.
B. Although other alternatives exist such as toe-of-the-bank or
upland diked disposal or the use of another previously used disposal site,
none of these will provide the proposed nesting site area for the endangered
5
brown pelican. Therefore, no other feasible alternative exists for this
project which would have less adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem.
C. A Section 401 Water Quality Certificate has been requested from
the State of North Carolina concurrent with this Section 404(b)(1) (PL
95-217) evaluation. The proposed activity is in compliance with the Toxic
Effluent Standards of Section 307 of the Clean Water Act.
D. The proposed discharge will not harm any endangered species or
their critical habitat or violate the protective measures for marine
sanctuaries. The purpose of the proposed project is to enhance the critical
habitat necessary for the survival of the endangered brown pelican in the
lower Cape Fear River area.
E. The proposed disposal of dredged material will not result in
significant adverse effects on human health and welfare, including municipal
and private water supplies, recreation, and commercail fishing, plankton,
fish, shellfish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites. The life stages of
aquatic life and other wildlife will not be adversely affected. Significant
adverse effects on aquatic ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability,
and recreational, esthetic and economic values will not occur.
F. Appropriate steps and measures will be taken to minimize potential
adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem.
G. On the basis of these guidelines, the proposed disposal site for
the discharge of dredged material is specified as complying with the Section
404(b)(1) guidelines with the inclusion of appropriate and practical
conditions to minimize pollution or adverse effects to the affected aquatic
ecosystem.
DATE : l Z?C-r- a C2,
ROBERT K. HUGHES
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
6

i*

-ENCLOSURE 2
Characteristics of the Lower Cape Fear River Channel Sediments
% By Weight
Station No. - Channel I % Gravel' I % Sand I % Silt & Clay
1'- Caswell-Southport 18.0` 80.5 1.5
2 - South Southport 16.0 82.0 2.0
3 - North Southport 9.0 89.0 2.0
4 - Battery Island 38.0 61.0 1.0
5 - Lower Swash 27.0 7Q•0 3.0
6 - Horseshoe Shoal 0.0 98.0 2.0
7 - Reaves Point 0.0 99.Q 1.0
8 - bower Midnight 0.0 76.0 24.0
9 - Upper `Midnight 0.0 82.5 17.5
10 - Lower Lilliput' 0.0 53.5 46.5
11 - Upper Lilliput 0.0 98.0 2.0
12 - Keg Island and Lower 0.0 63.0 37.0
Big Island
Note: Gravel - grain size larger than 5.0 mm
Sand - grain size between .07 & 5.0 mm
Silt and clay -.grain size smaller than .07 mm
All samples were collected using a Petersen grab sampler from within the

channel limits. Samples 1-5 above were taken
March .
20', 1986, and samples 6-12
'
were taken July 2, 1"986. Snows Marsh Channel sediments were sampled May 3,
1976, and are indicated on page 9 of enclosure 1.
See figure 1 for channel locations.

ENCLOSURE 3 October 1989 @
Restoration of the Cape Fear River Pelican Islands
(Old Royal Tern and Ferry Slip Islands)
New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina
Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
40 CFR 230
Section 404 Public Notice No. CESAW-PD-89-N-10-65-****
1. Review of Compliance (230.10(a)-(d))
A review of the NEPA Document
indicates that:
a. The discharge represents the least
environmentally damaging
practicable alternative and if in
a special aquatic site, the
activity associated with the
discharge must have direct access
or proximity to, or be located in
the aquatic ecosystem to fulfill
its basic purpose (if no, see
section 2 and information
gathered in the NEPA document);
b. The activity does not:
1) violate applicable State water
quality standards or effluent
standards prohibited under Section
307 of the CWA; 2) jeopardize the
existence of federally listed
endangered or threatened species
or their habitat; and 3) violate
requirements of any federally
designated marine sanctuary (if
no, see section 2b and check
responses from resource and water
quality certifying agencies);
c. The activity will not cause or
contribute to significant
degradation of waters of the U.S.
including adverse effects on human
health, life stages of organisms
dependent on the aquatic
ecosystem, ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability, and
recreational, esthetic, and economic
values (if no, see section 2);
d. Appropriate and practicable steps
have been taken to minimize
potential adverse impacts of the
discharge on the aquatic
ecosystem (if no, see section 5).
Preliminary 1/ Final 2/
YESIXI N01 1* YESIXI N01-1
YESIXI NOI 1* YESIXI NOI I
YESIXI NOJ 1* YESIXI N01-1
YESIXI N01 I* YESIXI N011
Proceed to Section 2
@ Original 404(b)(1) evaluation signed December 1, 1982, enclosure 1.
*, 1 , 21 See page E-7

,t Restoration of the Cape Fear River Pelican Islands (con't) October 1989
2. Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C-F)
a. Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C)
(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Suspended particulates/turbidity
impacts.
(3) Water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns
and water circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water
fluctuations/hydroperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity
gradients.
Biological Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D)
Not Signifi- Signifi-
N/A cant cant*
I I X @ I I

I I
I I
X I I
@ I I
I I X @ I I
I I
I I
i I X I I
I I
I I
I I X I
I I
I I
IXI I I
(1) Effect on threatened/endangered I
species and their habitat. I I X I
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web. I I X
(3) Effect on other wildlife (mammals,
birds, reptiles, and amphibians). I I X
c. Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)
(1) Sanctuaries and refuges.
(2) Wetlands.
(3) Mud flats.
(4) Vegetated shallows.
(5) Coral reefs. I
(6) Riffle and pool complexes. i
d. Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F)
(1) Effects on municipal and private I X
water supplies. I I I I
(2) Recreational and commercial
fisheries impacts. I I X@ i I
(3) Effects on water-related recreation.) I X
(4) Esthetic impacts. I I X
(5) Effects on parks, national and
historical monuments, national I I I I
seashores, wilderness areas, I I I I
research sites, and similar I I I I
preserves. I X I I I
Remarks: Where a check is placed under
the significant category, preparer add
explanation below.
@ See enclosure 1, Environmental Assessment for Restoration of the Cape Fear
River Pelican Islands, December 1982 (Pelican EA).
Proceed to Section
*See page E-7
J.
Restoration of the Cape Fear River Pelican Islands (con't) October 1989
3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G) 3/
a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the biological
availability of possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material. (Check only
those appropriate.)
(1) Physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
(2) Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated _
sources of contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I X I
(3) Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in _
the vicinity of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
(4) Known, significant sources of
persistent pesticides from _
land runoff or percolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
(5) Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA) _
hazardous substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
(6) Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries,
municipalities, or other _
sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
(7) Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by _
man-induced discharge activities . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
(8) Other sources (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
List appropriate references
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Long-Term Maintenance of
Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina, March 1988 (DEIS, LTMWH).
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and
not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site. _
The material meets the testing exclusion criteria. YES IXI
Proceed to Section 4
*, 3/ See page E-7
NO 1-1*
3
Restoration of the Cape Fear River Pelican Islands (con't) October 1989
4. Disposal Site Determinations (230.11(f)).
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the
disposal site.
(1) Depth of water at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(2) Current velocity, direction, and _
variability at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(3) Degree of turbulence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 X
(4) Water column stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(5) Discharge vessel speed and
direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I X I
(6) Rate of discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 X
(7) Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type _
of material, settling velocities). . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
(8) Number of discharges per unit of
time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I X I
(9) Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
List appropriate references.
Pelican EA; DEIS,LTMWH
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal site
and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable . . . .YES IXI NO I_I*
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through application of recommendations of 230.70-230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed
discharge. List actions taken. YES IXI NO 1_1*
See Pelican EA.
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review. See also
note 3/, page E-7
* See page E-7
4
s Restoration of the Cape Fear River Pelican Islands (con't) October 1989
6. Factual Determinations (230.11).
A review of appropriate information as identified in
items 2-5 above indicates that there is minimal
potential for short- or long-term environmental
effects of the proposed discharge as related to:
a. Physical substrate at the disposal site
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5)• YES IXI NO 1_1*
b. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5)• YES IXI NO 1_1*
c. Suspended particulates/turbidity _ _
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5)• YES IXI NO 1_1*
d. Contaminant availability
(review sections 2a, 3, and 4). YES IXI NO 1_1*
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function YES IXI NO 1_1*
(review sections 2b and c, 3, and 5).
f. Disposal site
(review sections 2, 4, and 5)• YES IXI NO 1_1*
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic _
ecosystem. YES IXI NO 1_1*
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic _ _
ecosystem. YES IXI NO 1_1*
7. Findings.
a. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the _
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
b. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines with the
inclusion of the following conditions:
* See page E-7
5
r
.' t Restoration of the Cape Fear River Pelican Islands (con't) October 1989
c. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material does riot comply with
the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for the
following reasons(s):
(1) There is a less damaging practicable alternative. . . . . I_I
(2) The proposed discharge will result in significant _
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . I_I
(3) The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize _
potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . . I_)
8.
Lf??6<21 awre ce W. Sa rs
Chief, Planning Division
Date: -777 _% yj,t,g).

Thomas C. Suermann
Lieutenant Colonel,
Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Date. 30 0c t ?9 -
x A negative, significant, or unknown response indicates that the permit
application may not be incompliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
1/ Negative responses to three or more of the compliance criteria at this stage
indicate that the proposed projects may not be evaluated using this "short form
procedure." Care should be used in assessing pertinent portions of the
technical information of items 2 a-d, before completing the final review of
compliance.
2/ Negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates
that the proposed project does no"t comply with the guidelines. If the
economics of navigation and anchorage of Section 404(b)(2) are to be evaluated
in the decision-making process, the "short form evaluation process is
inappropriate."
3/ If the dredged or fill material cannot be excluded from individual testing,
the "short-form" evaluation process is inappropriate.
6