20070103 Ver 1_Draft MOTSU CenterWharfSuppEA_Page_01_20061101

AH Environmental Consultants
Draft
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR CENTER
WHARF EXPANSION AND SECURITY TOWERS
PARHING AREA AND FOOT BRIDGE
~+~...~
~:.'
M
Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point
Southport, N.C.
November 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE CENTER WHARF EXPANSION AND
SECURITY TOWERS
PARKING AREA AND FOOT BRIDGE
MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT
Prepared For:
MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT
SOUTHPORT, NORTH CAROLINA
November 2006
AH Environmental Consultants
804 Omni Blvd.
Suite 201
Newport News, Virginia 23606

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POIIVT~ NORTH CAROLINA TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OFACRONI'1145 ..................................................................................................i
1. PROPOSED ACTION ..................................................................................... i-1
1.1 $ACKGROUND AND ORIGINAL PROPOSED ACTION PURPOSE AND NEED..... I-I
1. Z SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED ACTION PROJECTAND TIIE PURPOSE
AND NEED ........................................................_....................._................. 1-1
1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIItONMENTAL I~OCUA4ENTATION .......................................... 1
2. ALTERNATIVES ............................................................... ..............................2-1
3. ENVIRONI4IENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................... .............................. ~1
3.1 EXISTING ENVIItONNIENT ............................................. ..............................3-1
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................... .............................. 3-3
3.3 CUMULATIVE IIVIPACTS ................................................. .............................. 3-9
4. OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS ............................... .............................. 4-1
5. SU11I11L~RYAND SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED
~1
6. REFERENCES .................................................................................................6-1
7. LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS AND PREPARERS ......................................... 7-1
8. DISTRIBUTION LIST .................................................................................... 8-1
A. REUSE AND RECYCLING OF DEIVIOLITION DEBRIS
FIGURES
LIST OF FIGURES
FOLLO\~'ING P.~GE
Fib ire 1 Location Map ......................................................................................... 2-1
Figure 2 A1telnatii~e A .......................................................................................... 2-1
Fib Ire 3 A1telnative B .......................................................................................... 2-1
F b~ure 4 Project Area and Surveyed «tetlands ..................................................... 3-2
091-14 i Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL ENb'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POIIVT~ NORTH CAROLINA TABLE OF CONTENTS
This page left blank intentionally
091-14 ii Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL ENb'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POIIVT~ NORTH CAROLINA LIST OF ACRONYMS
LIST OF~CRONYMS
AEC Area of em~ironmental concern
BMP Best management practice
LAMA North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Cocle ofFedercalRegulatlons
CZMA Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
DoD Department of Defense
EIS En~aronmental impact statement
ESOP Erosion and sediment control plan
FEA Final environmental assessment
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Administration
FNSI Finding of no significant impact
MOTSU Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point
NCDWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
SEA Supplemental environmental assessment
091-14 i Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL ENb'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POIIVT~ NORTH CAROLINA LIST OF ACRONYMS
This page left blank intentionally
091-14 ii Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION I
MrLITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA PROPOSED ACTION
1. PROPOSED ACTION
Pursuant to the National Envirolullental Policy Act (NEPA) this is a supplemental
environmental assessment (SEA} to the December 2004 Final Envirorzmerrtal Assess-
rraentfor Center WharfExpanston and Security TorversMtlttary Ocean Terminal Sunny
Point, North Carolina (FEA}. The FEA evaluated the impacts of a proposal to expand
the Center Wharf at the Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point (MOT SU) and to install
closed circuit tele~risian and security towers at the facility. The FEA concluded tl>xlt
none of the alternatives proposed, including the prefen~ed "New Construction Alterna-
tive," would Yrave a sigrlificant impact an the human emnronment.
1.1 BACKGROUND AND ORIGINAL PROPOSED ACTION PURPOSE AND NEED
MOTSU is the only Department of Defense (DoD) ammunition terminal specifically
designed to handle containerized and breakbulk ammunition shipments, and it is the
East Coast containerized ammunition terminal for the Sh~ategic Mobility Plan. The
purpose of the original proposed action was to upgrade the Center Wharf to handle the
simultaneous loading of two container ships per day in addition to handling breakbulk
cargo needs, and to provide adequate security measures for the Center and South
Wharf areas. The original project was needed to fully use the capacity of the Center
and South Wharves and to provide safer conditions for the current fleet of transport
slups using the MOTSU facilities.
1.2 SITPPLEA~NT.4L PROPOSED ACTION PROJECT ,AND THE PCTRPOSE AND NEED
This proposed action supplemental project work would involve the addition of an
employee parking lot with a connecting foot bridge to the Center tAllrarf area. This
work is needed in order to provide better and safer working and parking conditions for
the Center Wharf workers who clurently park on the Center Wharf. This clnrent park-
091-14 1-1 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONNrENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION I
MrLITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA PROPOSED ACTION
ing situation congests, and therefore compromises, both the safety and operational
efficiency of the wll~u•f. The new parking facility would provide safer and more con-
venient parking, and at the same time improving working conditions and the opera-
tional capacity of the Center V~Tharf.
1.~ PREVIOUSENtiIItON114ENT.4LDQCUMENTATIQN
All previous environmental infom7ation relevant to the Center bUllarf proposed action
was summarized and considered in the December 2004 FEA, and the FEA is hereby
incorporated into this document by reference. TMs SEA document provides the analy-
sis for the supplemental proposed project, and includes a review (see appendix} of
reuse and recycling options for the construction debris that may be created from the
overall Center Wharf project.
091-14 1-2 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA ALTERNATIVES
2. aLTERNaTI~%ES
The proposed new Center Wharf worker parking would be provided by an approxi-
mately 200 by 200-foot (61 by 61-meter} parking lot with approximately 40 parking
spaces. The proposed location for the parking lot is situated on an upland area adjacent
to an existing sewage lagoon that services the t1uee wharves (Figure 1}. A connecting
road approximately 650 feet (198 meters) long and 20 feet (6 meters} wide would
connect the parking lot ~2th the nearest road. A foot bridge approximately 700 feet
{214 meters) long and 10 feet (3 meters) v~ade, and elevated approximately 8 to10 feet
(2.4 to 3.0 meters) above groulld/~vater surface ~vorrld connect the parking lot to the-
Center Wharf (Lockwood 2006).
MOTSU considered the following alternatives for accomplishing this supplemental
parking plrrpose and need:
• Alternative A: Parking lot Frith 660-foot (201-meter) direct foot bridge align-
mentpassing over 155 feet (47 meters} of wetlands (see Figure 2)
• Alternative B: Parking lot vnth 730-foot (223-meter) dogleg foot bridge
alignment passing over 140 feet (43 meters) of wetlands (see Figure 3)
• Alternative C: Status quo or no action alternative that would continue worker
parking on the Center Wharf (the parking lot and foot bridge would not be con-
structed).
Alternatives A and B represent MOTSU's evaluation of the reasonable alternative
alignments for the proposed pedestrian access to the Center Wharf from the most fea-
sible location for the proposed parking lot, adjacent to the existing sewage lagoon.
These two action alternatives differ in the routing of the foot bridge across the area
between the uplands and the Center Wharf. Alternative A would proceed directly to
the Center t7dharf from the southeastern corner of the existing sevt~age lagoon and
follow along the route of the existing electrical ser~dce and sewage lagoon force main.
091-14 2-1 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

WilrninAtbn° o-ievvrt.ur rEF: ;a
..--agate' '~
s; i B
.n
' hass~inboro
Si
i
Sited?r
lake 13r21 -
N O. R T H - i rt4yrtle GroVe_
A R 0' T I N A
1r g
A l l a n
b F U N S ~N I C K
4_~~. livia O c e a
g7. '!P ~ 133r-
_arolina
~. baach
- - i _
J,` iirn Fird
- _ / ~\ _ t 51d5r can
T~rrrina+
n
v~'r~ -~~,_- _
l ~ +~
Brunswick Rd. ~
- - __ _.~V -~- i 1
r
f
+,
Sewage +
0
+,
~' i
T ...`.. ..... !._ ~~
•, ;:
~~ Center tR%harf
-o `1 )+
~ I
(!
.~ r
.~ 1
~°
Cape Fear
~' ~~
~~ River
I
o
~. N
_ - J~j~.~>=_- -_~ eau W --- ---- E
0 150 300 ~ 600 1900 1 ,200
Meters
LOCATION MAP
Supplemental Environmental Assessment Figure 1
P.H Exr:ix~ ~xun-nt,1:~~ ~xv-ultant
for Center t~[r'harf Expansion
Milit< ~ Ocean Terminal Sunn ~ Point NC

N
W E
S
r ti
ll~~~~~~l~It~~~i[Il~l~l M1`~f _ ~~~ti tr ~
~ k _. FL , i t }
w
T Z
~~_ tir~t~ ( ~
t~ ..
`'~
i ~ (~ ~~~{ ~ ~T~
~~: ~~
i~~~~
AI3 Encirer~m~,t:il Cm~, sultan[s
ALTERNATIVE A
Supplemental Environmental Assessment
for Center Wharf Expansion
Figure 2
Preliminar~~ drativing not to scale
Sotnce: URS ?OOf

N
W ~ E
S
I t -, - - - . {µ.
II i i it i
~II~~ 1 \~ J~Ittil `~ \\I+' ~*_` •\jt 'L~^ ll
... _.. l 1 l1 ~• .... __1f _ e .i K~~-'
- - - - r .. ... ~.. u. _ - -tom .r .. ,.. _~....- . ...... ~ ~ ....._ _. ~ .,.. y ~ 7f ,' 8
r a . -~ t. r
r i
=I ,yI~
` f
~~I~~
~.
f t 1F 1f ± ^ xF ~ ~ \ry\iy ~ ~ t i f +.
t\~iyy ~''•ij~ ... y\\~ti \~bJf l~1,~~'tt J~ x rJ.
\ ~"~.., l ~ ~ F tt .:i x~ ~\~~.\\,~ v J Fp'7. t I~ r J I.r x
'~''r ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ' - ~ ~ r fir.
In r 4
E~
i ~
f
~. ,
~ f J
t1 ~~l i I
:~ ;~t '' f
'~ d lj~~ ,~~ ~~ ~~I,~ JJfllllf /~ t ~ i ~lJr~l! t
I(I( 1t} 11 ((EE E { J!I )yI J 1l II I l i J ~ JJ 7 t 4 t f
~1~~1 ~~~{#] { ~~1 ~,I~~I~It~.~€I /f .,$ ^~ ; ~ J J., rli ,t~ J
AAA f ))) J~ ~ ! I}t ~ J i ytl tf qt ``\i
~I
HEIt 4' SS FC~RCE ~~11N ~ ~'•~ =..~ .f~~~ ~~~` ~ ~_ ~ ! il~ a'.'~"Rryl
~r~ ~' ~~ i Illil#II~~~
~ ~1E41 6'GFtAYITY SB {~~~~~1~~fff] ~~~~~~ll~l~l~~ll~I~
ATTACF#II TD ~1HARF j~lffff~jl. I! !!
.,..!~r.~y PIY, TYP
"~-.
~ A' -'' `~ _ 10' iIAYER M
2-Ii2' SWCP aATEi3
SERVICE, TYP. ~
~..
` ""- - -, Coastal Wetlands
S~TDFFTVaLVE
6ACKFLIIW ~Y]CE,
TYP, SHIP UTILITY
r
CCENNECTIQN
GR(3UP, TYP
Center Wharf Alternative B
Preliminaay drawing not to scale
Source: URS 200b
ALTERNATIVE B
Supplemental Enviroumental Assessment Figure 3
AH E~nmmrsr~~,tat Can,uttyits
for Center Wharf Expansion
1~-lilitary Ocean Terminal Sunny Point, NC

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA ALTERNATIVES
In an attempt to reduce the extent of the crossing of wefland areas, Alternative B
wolrld take a dogleg route from the parking lotto the wharf. (Figure 3)
Both Alternatives A and B would involve rerouting of some existing infi~ashucture
associated Gvith the Center V~rharf. The proposed parking lot access road would follow
the route of a sewage force main between an existing MOTSU building and the sew-
age lagoon. To construct the parking lot access road, the force main would be relo-
cated to the side of the proposed new road (Lockwood 2006). The above-ground
electrical supply wolrlcl be attached to the underside of the proposed foot bridge. The
below ground sewage force main that clurenfly service the Center ~~lharf would re-
main along the bottom of the river and through the weflands under Alternative B. For
tlltemative A the line would be relocated by attaclunent to the underside of the pro-
posed foot bridge.
Alternative C, the no action alternative, is required by NEPA and provides the envi-
ronmental baseline for the analysis of the other alternatives; therefore it receives de-
tailed study in this SEA.
091-14 2-2 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION 3
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA ENVII2ONNIENTAL ANALYSIS
3. ENVIRONMENTALaNALi'SIS
The CEQ NEPA regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) require documentation that
succinctly describes the area potentially affected by the alternatives under considera-
tion and that analyzes the potential significance of the proposed action's environ-
mental impacts. This environmental analysis im7olves describil~ the existing
environment and considering the environmental consequences of the alternatives con-
siderecl for accomplishing the proposed action.
3.1 EtiISTINGENVII2QN117ENT
Discussion of the present environment existing in the overall Center V4'llarf area re-
mains as described in the December 2004 FEA, and covers the areas surrounding the
Center and South Wharves along the Cape Fear River, as shown in Figures 1-2 and 1-3
of that document. The area specifically Under consideration for the supplemental pro-
posed action (the parking lot and foot budge) is the area immediately adjacent to the
proposed project area as depicted in Figlue 4 in this document. The following provides
the environmental setting for the supplemental proposed project area.
MOTSU is located along the Lower Cape Fear River which flows southward and emp-
ties into the Atlantic Ocean. Near the IvIOTSU Main Terminal, the Lower Cape Fear
River is approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) v~ride and is classed a tidal salt water
protected: for seconduy recreation such as fishing, boating and other activities involy-
ing minimal skin contact; for aquatic life propagation and survival; and for wildlife
(NC-DWQ 2006). The MOTSU wharves, including Center V~T11arf, are within the 100-
091-14 3-1 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

E
Source: MOTSU Public Works GIS, 2004
WETLANDS
Supplemental Environmental Assessment
AH Evv¢cnmental Conmlfenfs
for Center Wharf Expansion
Figure 4

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION 3
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POIIVT, NORTH CAROLINA ENVII2ONNIENTAL ANALYSIS
year flood zones AE and VE of the Cape Fear River, whereas the remaining parts of
the Main Terminal are 4ti7thin Zone C'.
The sewage lagoon for the Center ~t~harf is located on an area of high ground to the
landward side of the wharf. An open area adjacent to the north side of this sewage
lagoon has been identified as the most feasible site for the worker parking lot facility.
Soils on this upland area have been previously disturbed, but belong to the well-
drained, Baymeade Selies. Currently, the area is mostly cleared and maintained in
grass. The proposed parking lot project area is outside the FEMA 100- and 500-year
floodplains ~2th the exception of a small low spot along the proposed parking lot
entrance road and another at the landv~rard terminus of the foot budge. These low areas
total no more than several square feet or meters (von Kolnitz 2006).
The route of the proposed foot budge from the parking area would connect adjacent to
the administration building midway along Center Wharf. The area directly west and
landward of the middle section of the wharf is mainly open water with a fringe of
coastal marsh at the base of the upland area (Figure 4}. Vegetation in this fringe brack-
ish marsh is tall and short form smooth cordgrass (Spartlna alterniflorca) vsrith patches
of black needlerush (Juncos memerianus). On either side of the proposed foot bridge
route, the coastal marsh area is broader, and below the proposed route, it extends along
a tidal creek that chains a marsh and open water area. v~~est of Sunny Point Road.
The existing sewage force main that services the Center Wharf currently cross the
wetland and open water between the sewage lagoon and the wharf along an alignment
of the Alternative A proposed foot bridge.
~ Zone AE is within the 100-year flaalplain and is subject. to flooding during a 100-year storm with a
10-foot base flood elevation. Zane VE is also within the 100-year floodplain and is subject to coastal
flooding with velocity hazards due to wave action. Zone C is outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains
(FENIA 2004).
091-14 3-2 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION 3
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA ENVII2ONNIENTAL ANALYSIS
Jurisdictional wetlands in the immediate area were previously delineated for the Cen-
ter Wharf project and were subsequently verified by the U.S. Arley Corps of Engi-
neers, Wilmington District on 28 July 2404 (See Plate 1 from FEAAppendix C). No
rare, threatened, or endangered species are found in this area (see FEA Figure 3-5),
and no clllhlral resources are known to exist in this area
The FEA found the original proposed action to be consistent with the North Carolina
Coastal Area 144anagement Act (LAMA) and the federal Coastal Zone Nlanagement
Act (CZM). The Brunswick County area where MOTSU is located is in attainment for
all priority air pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. There are no noise "sensitive
receptors" (e.g., chlu~ches, hospitals, schools, endangered species) in the proposed
supplemental project area. Aside from the adjacent sewage system for the Center
Wharf and replacement of the existing electrical service and sewage force mains, no
other human health and safety or infrastructure factors have been identified in the
proposed project area.
3.2 ENT'iRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES
As with the environmental analysis in the FEA, this SEA considered potential impacts
to the following environmental resources: geology, topography, and soils; surface
water and groundwater; stormwater; floodplains; wetlands; coastal zone management;
biological resources; rare, threatened, and endangered species; air quality; noise; hu-
man health and safety; infrastructure; cultural resources; land use; and, socioeconomic
resources.
No impacts would be expected to occur to the majority of the environmental resources
considered in this SEA for either of the action altematives. Minor impacts may occur
for soils, surface water and groundwater, stormwater, wetlands, and infi~astructure as a
result of the proposed construction. The following discussion of environmental conse-
quences is relevant to both action alternatives as there are no differences between the
impacts for the two, except for wetlands, as discussed below.
091-14 3-3 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONNrENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION 3
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA ENVII2ONNIENTAL ANALYSIS
• Geology, topography and soils-Minor impact to soils would occlu due to
construction activities but no impacts to geology would be expected and topog-
raphy would not be altered. Land disturbance for the parking lot and access
road is 44,000 square feet (4,092 square meters) and 14,000 square feet (1,302
square meters), respectively. Potential adverse impacts to soils would be
avoided or reduced by implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan
(ESOP) that would include the following standard best management practices
(BI+~1Ps): use of erosion control mats to reduce soil erosion; construction of
drainage control devices to clirect slrrface water Iunoff away from slopes and
other graded areas; and revegetation of disturbed areas with native plants as
soon as possible after completion of grading.
• Slu~face water and groundwater-Short-term minor impacts doling construc-
tion activities may result in surface water impacts. No impacts would be ex-
pected to groundwater resources because construction activities would not
penetrate or distlu~b groundwater aquifers. Implementation of the ESOP dis-
cussed above would eliminate or reduce impacts to surface water doing con-
struction activities. In addition, all special conditions associated with any
permitting requirements would be fully implemented. The foot bridge would
cross a narrow area of fringe wetlands and open water, and would be con-
structed on pilings driven into the marsh and open writer between the highland
adjacent to the sewage lagoon and Center Wharf. This construction would in-
volve limited disturbance to soils or submerged bottom, and would be coordi-
nated with the relevant regulatory agencies prior to initiating any land
disturbance.
• Stormw•ater-The proposed parking area and access road that are to be con-
structed adjacent to the existing sewage lagoon would create approximately
0.71 acre (0.29 hectare) of additional, potentially impervious surface. Prior to
any ground-dishlrbing activity; IvIOTSU 4vould prepare a Stormwater Pollution
091-14 3~ Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION 3
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA ENVII2ONNIENTAL ANALYSIS
Prevention Plan and submit it to the North Carolina Division of ~~Tater Quality
(NCDWQ) for approval.
MOTSU proposes to reduce the peak operational stormwater runoff from the
parking lot through the use of low-impact development techniques such as po-
rous pavement and a rain garden (DoD 2004}. Depending on the system used,
it may be feasible to reduce direct runoff by up to 80 percent. MOTSU is cur-
rently studying the potential of available systems and would implement this
approach if it were found to be effective and feasible (von Kolnitz 2006).
• Floodplains-Construction of the proposed parking area and foot bridge would
not impact FEMA mapped floodplains. The proposed project area is outside of
the 100- and 500-year floodplain except for tvvo low spots that total no more
than several square feet rn• meters.
• Wetlands-This discussion includes wetland and other jurisdictional waters of
the United States that fall under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Sec-
tion 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. A nurow fringe of coastal
marsh wetland occurs along the base of the steep slope below the proposed up-
land parking lot area. This fringe wetland quickly grades to a jurisdictional
open water area over which the Center V4'harf is situated. No impacts to juris-
dictional wetlands or waters would be expected from construction of the park-
ing lot however, the proposed foot bridge would potentially have impacts
during construction. The foot Midge would be collshucted on pilings driven
into the marsh and open water between the sewage lagoon area and Center
Wharf. Long-term impacts to jmisclictional areas would be minimal and would
be limited to the combined footplints of the pilings. However, in time these pil-
ingswould become a suitable base habitat for the establishment of aquatic spe-
cies.
091-14 3-5 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION 3
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA ENVII2ONNIENTAL ANALYSIS
For construction access and to minimize impacts to the adjacent wetlands, the
foot bridge construction would be conducted from the Gvater fiom a temporary
trestle and would not proceed prior to coordination with and approval from the
regulatory agencies. The route of Alternative B would use a dogleg to reduce
impacts to the wetland area. Although Alternative B is considered a feasible al-
ternative, its overall additional cost far out weighs any potential environmental
benefit. Because the foot bridge would be elevated above the wetland and open
water, there is little to no difference between Alternatives A and B from an en-
viromnental standpoint. In fact, although Alternative B may cross a few feet
(meters) less of wetland area, it would require more pilings due to its addi-
tional dogleg route and additional length. The sewage force main would not be
attached beneath the Alternative B foot bridge, but would remain where it is
currently located below the water across the iluler-waterway. Under A1terllative
A the sewage force main would be attached beneath the foot bridge which
would subsequentl}r allow for easier inspection and repairs when needed.
• Biological resources-No impacts would be expected to biological resources.
The site for the proposed parking lot is currently maintained as grass, and the
foot bridge would be located above ground and over a narrow vegetated area
and open Gvater.
• Rare, threatened, and endangered species-No impacts because there are no
listed species within the project area.
• Air qualityThe proposed supplemental project will have no impact on air
quality other a potential for minor, short-term impacts from the use of con-
struchon eglupment.
• Noise-The proposed supplemental project will have no impact on noise gen-
eration other a potential for minor, short-term noise impacts from the use of
construction equipment. There are no sensitive receptors wnthin the project
area..
091-14 3-6 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONNrENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION 3
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA ENVII2ONNIENTAL ANALYSIS
• Human health and safety-The proposed supplemental project will have no
impact on human and safety because the project would not generate store or
involve lranclling haz~~s-dous materials.
• Infrastructure-Infrash~ucture impacts would be minor but there would be an
overall improvement of infrastructure writh either Alternative A or B. The exist-
ing above ground electrical service to the Center Wharf and the force main
fi•om the Center Wharf to the sewage lagoon would be relocated to the under-
side of the foot bridge. Also, the existing force main under the proposed right-
of=way for the parking lot access road would be moved to an area adjacent to
the road for easier filtlue access.
• Cultural resources-No cultural resolu~ces were identified for the project area
in the FEA.
• Land use-The proposed use is substantially the same as the existing infra-
structlu~e use in the area. No impacts to land use.
• Socioeconomic resources-Impacts would be minimal due to the relatively
small economic input of this project which is estimated to be $200,000 (von
Kolnitz 2006).
• Coastal Zone Management-There would be no significant impacts to coastal
resouurces or coastal uses. The shoreline of MOTSU meets the definition of a
coastal shoreline area of environmental concern (AEC) according to the
CAI44A Handbook, Section 2 (NC-DCM 2001). Implementation of the pro-
posed action would: not jeopardize threatened and endangered plants or ani-
mals; not impact archeological or historical resources; have no effect on the
erosion rate of coastal shoreline; require no grading or s banificant vegetation
removal; or result in degradation of coastal water quality. The project would
potentially require permitting under Sections 404 and 401 ~"~~-ater Quality Cer-
tification) of the CWA, and under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899. Any special conditions that may be required by permits will be imple-
091-14 3-7 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION 3
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA ENVII2ONNIENTAL ANALYSIS
mented. The proposed supplemental action is consistent, to the maximum ex-
tent practicable, with the enforceable policies of North Carolina's coastal man-
agement program and the original consistency determination discussed in the
FEA for the proposed v~~harf expansion.
Mitigation measures would be employed during the construction and operational
phases and could reduce potential impacts to a negligible level. Standard erosion con-
trol best management practices (BMPs) would include: (1) using erosion control mats
to reduce soil erosion; (2) constructing drainage control devices to direct surface water
runoff away from slopes and other graded areas; and (3) revegetating areas with native
plant materials as soon as possible after completion of grading.
To avoid and reduce potential impacts from storlnwater runoff, MOTSU proposes to
use low-impact development techniques (DoD ?004). If found to be feasible, MOTSU
would use porous pavement at the parlang lot area and construct a rain garden in an
effort to reduce du•ect runoff of stormtivater fi•om the site. NIOTSU is currently study-
ing the potential of available systems and would implement this approach if it were
found to be effective (von Kolnitz 2006).
An objective of the overall Center Wharf project is to identify and implement recy-
cling and reuse alternatives for the large amount of construction and demolition debris
that may be generated (see appendix). The MOTSU Pollution Prevention Plan and the
Inteb ated Solid Waste Management Plan will be followed regarding disposal of waste
material and opportunities for material substitution, recycling and reuse. The review
report pro~~ided in the appendix to this SEA outlines h10TSU's recycling and reuse
objectives for the Center Wharf project, and specifically examines options for reuse
and recycling of the demolition concrete that will be generated. The proposed supple-
mental action will not involve the generation of any additional concrete or other mate-
rials as it does not involve any demolition.
091-14 3-8 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION 3
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA ENVII2ONNIENTAL ANALYSIS
Implementation of either of the action alternatives, A or B, v~rould have very minor
du•ect adverse impacts to soils, surface and groundwater, stoIYllFVater, wetlands, and
infrastructure. Indirect adverse impacts would be unlikely because of the minor nature
of the direct impacts. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would result in no
additional environmental impacts over and above those summarized in the original
FEA. None of the impacts to any of the environmental resources would be significant
from a NEPA standpoint. Therefore, any of the altematives could be implemented
without the need to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS).
3.3 CuMULAT1v~ IMPacTs
Cumulative impacts are the effects on the environment that result from the impact of
an action when added to the impacts of other past, present or future projects. Cumula-
tive effects can include impacts from the Proposed Action, impacts fi~om other known
local actions, on- or off site impacts, incremental effects over time from several re-
lated actions on a specific resource, and additive effects on multiple projects occurring
simultaneously (see 40 CFR 150.7). Based on the cumulative impacts analysis per-
folmed for the FEA, the very minor direct adverse impacts of the supplemental pro-
posed action, and the likely absence of indirect impacts as a result of mitigation
measures proposed for the project, this SEA concludes that there would be no signifi-
cant cumulative impacts from a NEPA standpoint.
091-14 3-9 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION 3
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POIIVT~ NORTH CAROLINA ENVII2ONNIENTAL ANALYSIS
This page left Ulank intentionally
091-14 3-10 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION 4
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POIIVT~ NORTH CAROLINA OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS
4. OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS
There are no changes in the other NEPA considerations discussed in the FEA as a
resl~lt of the supplemental proposed action of adding a parking lot and foot Midge to
improve worker safety and improve work efficiency at the Iti10TSU Center V>>llarf.
091-14 4-1 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION 4
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POIIVT~ NORTH CAROLINA OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS
This page left Ulank intentionally
091-14 4-2 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONNrENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR SECTION $
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SUMNL9RY AND SELE CTZON OF TFIE
MrLITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
5. SUMMARY AND SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
Need for the supplemental proposed action resulted in the analysis of two reasonable
action alternatives to provide necessary improved parking facilities for workers at the
Center WYlarf and the No Action Alternative. Implementation of the No Action Alter-
native would result in the same baseline environmental conditions reported in the FEA
(see FEA Table 2-1 and discussion of environmental consequences for the No Action
Alternatives in FEA subsections 3.1 tluough 3.16).
Analysis of the potential environmental consequences of the two altematives consid-
ered the following environmental resources: geology, topography, and soils; surface
water and groundwater; stormwater; floodplains; wetlands; coastal zone management;
biological resources; rare, threatened, and endangered species; air quality; noise; hu-
man health and safety; infrastructure; cultural resources; land use; and, socioeconomic
resources.
The environmental analysis concluded that none of the alternatives would have a sig-
nificant impact on the human environment for any of the analyzed environmental
resources, either individually or cumulatively. The SEA therefore supports a finding of
no significant impact (FNSI}. As a result of this FN SI, an environmental impact state-
ment does not need to be prepared prior to undertaking any alternative. As a result of
its more direct routing to the wharf, its shorter overall length, and the fact that the
more direct routing across the wetlands would only shorten the wetland crossing by 15
feet (4.6 meters}, MOTSU has selected Alternative A as the Supplemental Preferred
A1terll~ative.
091-14 5-1 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR SECTION $
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SUMNL9RY AND SELE CTZON OF THE
MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
This page left Ulank intenCionally
091-14 5-2 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONNrENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION G
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA REFERENCES
b. REFERENCES
Department of Defense, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 2044. Uni~edFacfll-
ties Criteria (UFC) Low Impact Development. UFC 3-210-14, October 25, 2444.
Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point. 2444. Final Environmental Assessment for
Center Wharf Expansion and Security Towers, Southport, N.C., July 2044.
[NC-DCh1J North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. 2041. LAMA Hand-
book for development in coastal North Carolina. Available fi•om the Division of
Coastal h4alklgement ~Aleb site at httpaldcm2.eru.state.nc.us.
[NC-DttIQ] North Carolina Division of \ATater Quality. North Carolina YYater Bodies
Reports: C"ape Fear•River Basin. Internet:
Accessed on
[USEPA] United States Envirorunental Protection Agency October 2000. Field
Evaluation of Permeable Pavements for Stormwater Management Olympia,
tAlashington. Office of V~tater (4203) WasMngton, DC, EPA-841-B-00-005B, Oc-
tober 2004.
von Kolnitz, David, Environmental Specialist, MOTSU Public Works. 2046. Personal
communication, July 21.
Lockv~rood, Richard, Enrironmental Engineer, n10TSU Public V~TOrks. 2446. Personal
communication, July 20.
091-14 6-1 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION G
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POIIVT~ NORTH CAROLINA REFERENCES
This page left Ulank intentionally
091-14 6-2 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR SECTION ~
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS ISST OF CONTRIBUTORS
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA AND PREPARERS
7. LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS AND PREPARERS
Contributm•s:
• David von Kolnitz MOTSU Public Works
• Richard Lockwood MOTSU Public Works
• David Walker Savannah District U. S.1-lrmy
Corps of Engineers
Preparers: AH Enviromnental Consultants, Inc.
• Joseph Ferris, Ph.D. Project Director
• Jeter Watson, M.S., J.D. Senior Regulatory Compliance Specialist
• Keith Bulla, P.E. Engineer Support
• Dorothy Gibb, Ph.D. Technical Support
• Tony Gruber, M.S. Technical Support
091-r4 7-1 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR SECTION ~
CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS ISST OF CONTRIBUTORS
© MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POIIVT~ NORTH CAROLINA AND PREPARERS

This page left blank intentionally
091-14 7-2 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONNrENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION H
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA DISTRIBUTION LIST
8. DISTRIBUTION LIST
Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point
6280 Sunny Point Road SE
Southport, NC 28461
910-341-8425
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
1301 N1ai1 Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
919-807-2324
Nort11 Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
151B Highway 24
Hestron Plaza II
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
2.52-808-2808
Savannah Dishict Corps of Engineers
100 West Oglethorpe Avenue
Savannah, Georgia 313402
912-652-5327
091-14 8-1 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

SUPPLEMENTAL EN4'IRONNIENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
© CENTER I~rHARF EXPANSION AND SECURTTY TOV4~ERS SECTION 8
MII.ITARY OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA DISTRIBUTION LIST
This page left blank intentionally
091-14 8-2 Draft EA, Novembet~ 2006

APPENDIX A
REUSE AND RECYCLING OF DEMOLITION DEBRIS
AH Environmental Consultants 1 Draft SEA-Appendix A

REUSE AND RECYCLING OF DEMOLITION DEBRIS
1. INTRODUCTION
The Center Wharf replacement project requires much of the existing structure to be
demolished. The Center Wharf structure is primarily constructed of steel reinforced
concrete and the wharf buildings are constructed of concrete block. The volume of
concrete and concrete block to be removed is estimated to be 10,200 cubic yards or
20,400 tons. MOTSU is tasked with meeting Federal, State and local waste source
reduction, recycling, resource recovery and pollution prevention goals that require
disposal options/alternatives be evaluated to reduce landfilling of waste and to protect the
environment. By not disposing of demolition waste by landfilling, the life of existing
landfills may be extended, and reuse and recycling may reduce consumption of new
materials.
AH Environmental Consultants Z Draft SEA-Appendix A

2. SOLID WASTE PROGRAM INITIATIVES
MOTSU's solid waste program is applied to all activities at MOTSU and includes a full
range of environmental goals and objectives: leadership in environmental compliance,
protection and enhancement; implementation and maintenance of proactive
environmental programs to ensure compliance with all Federal, State and local laws and
rules; and integration of a pollution prevention ethic through materials substitution,
resource recovery and recycling.
The major directives that drive MOTSU's solid waste management include the following:
• Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1965, as amended in 1976 (42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq,) Federal facilities must comply with all federal, State and local
waste disposal and management requirements; may include permitting,
licensing and reporting; encourages the beneficial reuse of waste (recycling and
burning for energy recovery,
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq,) Defines solid hazardous wastes; sets handling requirements; encourages
conserving and recycling solid waste with residual value. Subtitle D establishes
standards for management and disposal ofnon-hazardous solid waste.
• Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.)
Establishes the national policy that pollution should be prevented at the source;
remaining pollution should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner
whenever feasible; and remaining pollution be treated in an environmentally
safe manner whenever feasible. Disposal or other release into the environment
should be employed only as a last resort.
• Executive Order (EO) 12873, Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste
Prevention, October 20, 1993 _Requires the federal government to make more
efficient use of natural resources by maximizing recycling and preventing
waste, in addition to using and procuring environmentally preferable products
and services.
• North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules, effective April 4, 1990 (Rules
.0101 - .0108 of Title 10 Subchapter lOG of the North Carolina Administrative
Code) North Carolina's solid waste management rules for the storage,
collection, transportation, separation, processing, recycling, recovering and
disposing of waste other than categorized as hazardous.
• Brunswick County Management Plan, 1997 _The State required Ten Year
Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan updated every three years that presents the
County's vision for managing solid waste that emphasizes waste diversion and
AH Environmental Consultants 3 Draft SEA-Appendix A

recycling, assesses existing programs, and presents goals and intended actions
for achieving these goals.
In response to these directives and in conjunction with State requirements, MOTSU
implements the following waste management plans.
• Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP), MOTSU, January
2001
The IS WMP documents MOTSU's solid waste management practices, sets forth
goals for improvements, and specifies the approach for achieving those goals.
MOTSU's objectives in managing non-hazardous solid waste are to: effectively
manage solid waste in a manner that protects human health and the
environment comply with applicable federal, State, and local solid waste
management regulations; reduce the volume of solid waste generated to meet
federal and State waste reduction goals; reuse or recycle materials in the solid
waste stream to the maximum extent possible; and, follow affirmative
procurement guidelines and maximize the purchasing of environmentally
preferable products. MOTSU's intention to avoid landfilling the construction
debris from the Center Wharf project is in compliance with the goals and
objectives of the ISWMP.
• Pollution Prevention Plan (P2 Plan), MOTSU, May 2004
The MOTSU P2 documents the pollution prevention program activities and
pollution reduction goals for the installation. The program's purpose is to
reduce pollution resulting from MOTSU's activities through a variety of
pollution prevention techniques such as source reduction, material substitution
and recycling. The proposed reuse and recycling of the construction debris from
the Center Wharf is one such project that would satisfy the goals and objectives
of the P2.
AH Environmental Consultants 4 Draft SEA-Appendix A

3. CONCRETE MATERIALS DISPOSAL, REUSE AND
RECYCLING OPTIONS
When structures made of concrete are demolished, recycling and beneficial use of the
concrete has become an increasingly common method of rubble disposal In the past
concrete debris was routinely shipped to landfills for disposal, but reuse has many
benefits and is an attractive option for meeting environmental goals and keeping
construction costs down. There are five potential options for the disposal, beneficial reuse
and recycling of the demolished concrete from Center Wharf The options are described
below, followed by a cost comparison.
Crushing to Aggregate
Crushed concrete aggregate could be stockpiled and recycled as gravel for upcoming
MOTSU construction or maintenance projects. Concrete aggregate can be used in many
situations foundation material for trenching operations, railroad ballast, erosion
control stone, or storm water runoff filter material It can also be used as a pavement
aggregate base course (ABC) or as a surface course for maintenance of existing unpaved
roads. An ABC is typically laid down as the lowest layer in a pavement structure with
fresh pavement poured or placed over it. Crushed concrete aggregate can be used as an
ABC as long as water drainage through the aggregate is not required (NDCEE, 2003).
To convert demolished Center Wharf concrete to aggregates, the concrete, free of trash,
wood, paper and other similar materials, would be collected from the demolition site and
put through a mobile crushing machine at a convenient location on MOTSU. Metal
reinforcement bars are acceptable and are typically removed with magnets or a sorting
device and are then recycled. The remaining aggregate chunks would be sorted by size
with larger chunks potentially going through the crusher again. The crushed aggregates
could then be stockpiled for future use.
In a study reported in the Corps of Engineers Public Works Technical Bulletin 200-1-27
(USAGE, 2004) on the environmental impact produced by the recycling of concrete
AH Environmental Consultants 5 Draft SEA-Appendix A

originating from demolition projects, recycling processes involving mobile crushing
plants were compared with the environmental impact produced during the extraction
process of natural resources. It was concluded that the processes of quarrying, crushing,
and grinding of natural aggregates produces a greater environmental burden than the
processes of crushing and recycling of concrete. This is due to the fact that, in producing
natural aggregates, the extraction process and their implicit wide-ranging consumption of
energy must also be considered.
According to the MOTSU Public Works, there are no projects, current or starting in the
near future that could beneficially use the crushed concrete. The Public Works staff stated
they would not want to stockpile the rock for an extended period of time because the
material would tend to develop vegetative growth that would render the crushed concrete
unacceptable for use as construction material.
Fill Material
Concrete can be beneficially reused as fill material on sites requiring strong foundation
materials. Building sites that need to be made level, that were previously excavated, or
where the ground elevation needs to be raised above flood zones are all candidates for
recycled concrete fill material. Transportation of the demolished concrete to the fill site is
a major consideration; however, the concrete chunks are generally accepted in any
transportable size with all free hanging reinforcement bar removed. No other
pretreatment of the concrete is required although it should be free of trash, wood, and
other similar non-fill materials.
There are no known sites currently accepting concrete as fill material at MOTSU or in the
general vicinity. However, a State-owned container shipping facility that is to be
constructed just south of MOTSU in the near future could potentially use the concrete as
fill material. This option would require evaluation to determine if the State's container
facility and MOTSU's Center Wharf construction schedules coincide.
AH Environmental Consultants 6 Draft SEA-Appendix A

Rip-rap
Demolished concrete can be used as rip-rap for erosion control on roads and on the banks
of water bodies such as ditches, streams, rivers and lakes. The demolished concrete is
broken into similar sized chunks, typically at 6-inch width or potentially larger depending
on the erosion control application. The chunks are either broken into the specified size
during demolition or are hauled to site where a crushing machine and/or
hydraulic/pneumatic equipment are used to continue to breakdown the concrete to a
useable form. Free hanging reinforcement bar is removed prior to placement asrip-rap.
Although this would be an acceptable reuse of the concrete debris, there are no known
sites currently accepting concrete asrip-rap at MOTSU or in the general vicinity of
MOTSU.
Artificial Offshore Fishing Reef
Demolished concrete is a suitable material for reuse as construction material for artificial
fishing reefs. The requirements for concrete use in anon-diving reef include trimming
steel reinforcement bars to between 2 and 6-foot long. The size of the concrete chunks is
not a concern but must be a size conducive for ocean barging to the site. The concrete
must be free of petroleum and other hydrocarbons (oil, grease, asphalt, and creosote)
toxic residues (mercury, cadmium and lead), any floating debris such as wood and other
deleterious substances. Painted concrete and concrete block materials, include lead paint,
are also acceptable as determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) currently has a General
Permit (Permit Number 198500194, issued 16 May 2005 by the Wilmington District,
USACE) authorizing the construction, maintenance and repair of artificial reefs and fish
attractors in navigable coastal and offshore waters. A permitted proposed non-diving
fishing reef (AR-420, Tom McGlammery Reef) is located just offshore of the Cape Fear
River in relatively close proximity to MOTSU, at a distance of approximately 19 nautical
miles. There is also a second permitted reef (AR-425, Yaupon Beach Reef) at
approximately the same distance from MOTSU.
AH Environmental Consultants ~~ Draft SEA-Appendix A

According to the NCDMF, the concrete debris from the Center Wharf construction
project could be used to supplement one of the existing permitted reefs as long as it was
placed on top of previously placed concrete (Francesconi, 2006). Areef-building
operation would require a contractor to load ocean barges, preferably with clamshell
bottoms, to carry the materials offshore to a reef site. The USACE. U.S. Coast Guard
and/or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would perform compliance inspections
of the demolition material prior to reefing. The NCDMF would monitor the height of the
material on the ocean floor to ensure compliance with height restriction requirements,
and would direct the location for the material to be offloaded. It is the responsibility of
the NCDMF for any materials that may move due to sea conditions or that could break
loose from reefs, and also for any damage that could be caused by the reef materials.
Landfill
MOTSU has set environmental goals for the recycling and reuse of waste materials and a
landfill option for the demolished concrete would only be selected as a last resort. A
further issue for a landfilling option is there is no active sanitary or construction and
demolition (C&D) landfill located on MOTSU. The closest public C&D landfill is the
Brunswick County Landfill located in Bolivia, approximately 20 miles from the Center
Wharf site. This option will involve costs associated with transportation to the C&D land
fill and also landfill tipping fees. In addition to being contrary to MOTSU's waste
management objectives, this option would be costly due to the large volume of concrete
and concrete block to be removed (estimated at 10,200 cubic yards or 20,400 tons).
AH Environmental Consultants x Draft SEA-Appendix A

4. COST CONSIDERATIONS FOR OPTIONS
The estimated costs associated with each option included operations, transportation, and
disposal charges. When applicable, potential financial savings that may result from an
option were used to offset the overall cost of that option.
Crushing to Aggregate
The costs associated with the option to recycle/reuse the concrete as an aggregate include
the haulage cost to the processing site, the crushing operation, and screening costs. For
the purpose of comparing the options, around-trip transportation distance of 6 miles was
assumed to cover the distance to the processing site and the return of the crushed
aggregate to MOTSU. If the crushed aggregate can be reused at MOTSU, the cost
estimate could be offset by the cost of providing virgin aggregate materials for the same
purpose. The removal and recycling cost of the steel reinforcement should also be
considered in the crushing cost but due to the complexity of estimating the amount of
steel bar in the concrete these costs are not included in the estimates provided below.
Based on these assumptions, the following cost range is estimated for crushing the
concrete to aggregate for future recycle and reuse.
Haulage cost to processing site: (Estimated range from $.25 to $.50/mile/ton)
20,400 tons x 6 miles x $.25 to $.50 = $30,600 to $61,200
Crushing and screening cost (Estimated range from $7.00 to $10.00/ton)
20,400 tons x $7.00 to $10.00 = $142,800 to $204,000
Total cost range for crushing to aggregate:
From $173,400 to $265,200
Offset (Supplying virgin aggregate material estimated at $35.00 to 45.00/ton)
AH Environmental Consultants y Draft SEA-Appendix A

20,400 tons x $35.00 to $45.00/ton = $714,000 to $918,000
The estimated overall cost to recycle the concrete as concrete aggregate is in the range of
$142,800 to $204,000. Assuming a total volume of 20,400 tons, it would cost in the range
of $714,000 to $918,000 to procure a supply of virgin aggregate material. Because of the
very high cost for new aggregate and the relatively low cost of producing the recycled
concrete aggregate, it would be far more cost efficient to recycle the concrete than
purchase new aggregate. Indeed, based on the above estimates, the cost to crush the
concrete debris would be recouped through the subsequent use of 6 tons of the recycled
aggregate (i.e., the cost for 6 tons of virgin aggregate would be equivalent to the cost to
crush the entire 20,400 tons of concrete debris). There would likely be some cost
associated with stockpiling the aggregate until such time that it is needed for construction
and maintenance projects. This cost, however, is considered to be minimal because
MOTSU would be able to provide a stockpiling area within the installation at little to no
cost.
Fill Material
Costs associated with using demolished concrete as a fill material are associated with
trimming of steel reinforcement bars from the concrete and with transporting the material
to a fill site. There is currently no known location at MOTSU or in the surrounding area
that requires the demolished concrete as fill material. However, for the purposes of
comparison, an estimated concrete hauling cost would range from $.25 to $.50 /mile/ton.
Rip-rap
The costs associated with using demolished concrete asrip-rap is the haulage cost to the
storage and processing site, breaking the concrete chunks to rip-rap size and haulage to
the site where it would be used as rip-rap. There is currently no known location at
MOTSU or in the surrounding area that requires demolished concrete for rip-rap. If a site
was found, the estimated concrete crushing cost would be approximately $120/cubic
yards and for haulage would range from $.25 to $.50/mile/ton.
AH Environmental Consultants 1 ~ Draft SEA-Appendix A

Artificial Offshore Fishing Reef
The costs for using the demolition concrete construction materials for an offshore fishing
reef at the sites identified in Section 3 would include the barging costs to the reef sites.
This would require the contract services of an ocean tug boat and barge(s). The estimated
barge capacity is estimated at approximately 1,200 tons/load for a total of 17 barge loads
required. There would be an indeterminate cost savings during the demolition phase over
other reuse/recycle options since ocean barges can accept larger concrete chunks than
land hauling vehicles and there would be not as much trimming of the steel reinforcement
bars required.
Based on the above-mentioned considerations and assumptions, the costs associated with
using the demolished concrete as construction materials for an offshore fishing reef are as
follows:
Tug Boat: $10,000 to $15,000 per day
Barge: $40,000 Mobilization/Demobilization, $24,000/three weeks
Currently, local marine contractors capable of doing this work are performing work in the
Gulf of Mexico for the Katrina Hurricane reconstruction work and oil production efforts
and have limited availability for this type of work aY this time. However, the longer time
period before the Center Wharf project is funded, the less may be the demand for these
contractors in the Gulf and it may become more favorable to obtain the services of these
marine contractors.
Landfill
The costs for hauling and disposing of the demolished concrete at the local public C&D
landfill should include the hauling cost and landfill tipping fees. The local landfill that
could accept C&D material is in Bolivia, North Carolina approximately 20 miles (40
miles roundtrip) from the Center Wharf. It is assumed that this landfill would be able to
accept the material (20,400 tons).
AH Environmental Consultants 1 1 Draft SEA-Appendix A

Based on the above-mentioned considerations and assumptions, the estimated range of
costs associated with disposing the demolished concrete in the Bolivia C&D landfill is as
follows.
Haulage to landfill (Estimated range from $.25 to $.50/mile/ton)
20,400 tons x 40 miles x $.25 to $.50 = $204,000 to $408,000
Landfill Tipping Fee: (Brunswick County Landfill $7.00/ton)
$7.00/ton x 20,400 tons = $142,800
Total Cost Range to Landfill :From $346,800 to $550,800
The overall estimated cost to landfill all of the concrete debris at the Bolivia landfill is in
the range of $346,800 to $550,800. There are no offsets available to this option.
AH Environmental Consultants 1 Z Draft SEA-Appendix A

5. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above review, some of the described disposal options are not feasible at this
time. For example, there is no current or future construction projects that could use the
crushed aggregate, and there is currently no market for its use as fill or rip-rap. The
feasible disposal options are hauling the material offshore to be used as a fishing reef and
hauling the material to a landfill. Using the material as a fishing reef is environmentally
beneficial and is potentially the most cost effective and preferred option if barges are
available for transport. By implementing this option, MOTSU would also be fulfilling its
waste management objectives related to reuse and recycling.
AH Environmental Consultants 13 Draft SEA-Appendix A

6. REFERENCES
Francesconi, James 2006. Personal telephone communication. Artificial Reef Head,
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF). June 15, 2006.
[NDCEE] National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence. 2003. Non-Hazardous
Solid Waste Project, Revised Final Summary Technical Report, Practices,
Opportunities, and Constraints of Construction & Demolition Debris, Disposal,
Reuse, and Recycling, August 1, 2003.
[USAGE] US Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Public Works Technical Bulliten 200-1-
27, Reuse of Concrete from Building Demolition, September 14, 2004.
AH Environmental Consultants 14 Draft SEA-Appendix A