The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10153-AH-USACE_1976_Environmental_Statement-081976t; FINALS® ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT MAINTENANCE OF THE WATERWAY CONNECTING PAMLICO SOUND AND BEAUFORT HARBOR, NORTH CAROLINA U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT , WILMINGTON CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON , NORTH CAROLINA AUGUST, 1976 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT MAINTENANCE OF THE WATERWAY CONNECTING PAMLICO SOUND AND BEAUFORT HARBOR Prepared By U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA August 1976 SUMMARY SHEET Maintenance of the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington PO Box 1890 Wilmington, NC 28401 Telephone: (919) 763-9971 Extension 572 1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: The action involves maintenance dredging of the channel connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor and the associated side channels and harbors. Dredging activities are to be accomplished by hydraulic pipeline dredge and consist of maintaining the existing projects to their authorized dimensions. 3. a. Environmental Impacts: Maintenance activities will have impacts on the aquatic organisms in the dredging area, in the open water disposal areas, and impact terrestrial organisms in diked highland disposal areas. In addition to the above factors, the impacts on transportation, recreation, and other social and economic relationships are discussed. b. Adverse Environmental Effects: The removal of accumulated sediment has an adverse effect on aquatic life by creating turbidities and removing benthic organisms. Terrestrial flora and fauna will be buried in the upland diked disposal areas and primarily benthic organisms covered in overboard disposal sites. 4. Alternatives: Various dredging and disposal alternatives are discussed along with the alternative of no action. 5. Comments Received: Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV N. C. Department of Administration U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Commerce Department of Health, Education & Welfare USDA, SCS Department of Transportation, USCG USDA, Forest Service U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 6. Draft statement to CEQ 6 February 1976 Final statement to CEQ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 MAINTENANCE DREDGING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2.1 Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2.2 Future Maintenance Requirements . . . . . . 4 1.2.3 Terms of Local Cooperation . . . . . . . . 5 1.2.4 Disposal Area Volume Requirements . . . . . 5 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS (INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3.1 Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3.2 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge . . . . . 10 1.3.3 Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bav with Cedar Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.3.4 Atlantic Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . . . . 15 1.3.5 Atlantic Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1.3.6 Sealevel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1.3.7 Marshallberg Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1.3.8 Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . 26 1.3.9 Beaufort Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 1.3.9.1 Bulkhead Channel . . . . . . . . . 31 1.3.9.2 Gallants Channel . . . . . . . . . 33 1.3.9.3 Beaufort Turning Basin . . . . . . 33 1.3.9.4 Channel through the Turning Basin 35 1.3.9.5 Taylors Creek . . . . . . . . . . 35 1.3.9.6 Channel and Harbor at Town Creek . 36 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT . . . . . . . 37 2.1 GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF ENTIRE PROJECT AREA . . . 37 2.2.1 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.2.2 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.2.3 Bottom Sediment Composition . . . . . . . . 42 2.2.4 Ground Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Page No. 2.2.5 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.2.6 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.2.7 Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 2.2.8 Endangered Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 2.2.9 Areas of Historical Significance . . . . . . . 65 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 2.3.1 Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 2.3.2 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . . 71 2.3.3 Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay with 73 Cedar Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 2.3.4 Atlantic Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . 76 2.3.5 Atlantic Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 2.3.6 Sealevel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 2.3.7 Marshallberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 2.3.8 Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . . . 97 2.3.9 Beaufort Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 2.4 GENERAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROFILE . . . . . . . . . 108 2.4.1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 2.4.2 Population Change within Carteret County . . . 112 2.4.3 Population Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 2.4.4 Age Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 2.4.5 Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 2.4.6 Measures of Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 2.4.7 Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 2.4.8 Available Labor Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 2.4.9 Occupational Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 2.4.10 Labor Force Participation Rate . . . . . . . . 129 2.4.11 Dependency Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 2.4.12 Seasonality of Employment . . . . . . . . . . 131 2.4.13 Commuting Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 2.4.14 Military Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 2.4.15 Government Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 2.4.16 Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 2.4.17 Industry Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 2.4.18 Commercial Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 2.4.19 Employment in Fishery Product Processing . . . 139 2.4.20 Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 2.4.21 Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Page No. 2.5 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . 144 2.5.1 Population Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 2.5.2 Projected Per Capita Income Levels . . . . . . 145 2.6 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROFILE OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECT AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 2.6.1 Channel Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor . . 2.6.2 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . . 149 2.6.3 Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay and Cedar Island Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 2.6.4 Atlantic Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . 152 2.6.5 Atlantic Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 2.6.6 Sealevel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 2.6.7 Marshallberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 2.6.8 Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . . . 156 2.6.9 Beaufort Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 2.7 Other Federal Projects in Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 3.0 RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . 162 4.1 OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 4.1.1 Navigation and Waterborne Commerce . . . . . . 162 4.1.2 Commercial Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 4.1.3 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500), Section 404(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 4.2.1 Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 4.2.2 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . . 166 4.2.3 Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay with Cedar Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 4.2.4 Atlantic Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . 170 4.2.5 Atlantic Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 4.2.6 Sealevel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 4.2.7 Marshallberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 4.2.8 Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . . . 178 4.2.9 Beaufort Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) 4.3 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECT SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Social and Economic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Ecological . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED . . . . . . 5.1 WATERWAY CONNECTING PAMLICO SOUND AND BEAUFORT HARBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 CEDAR ISLAND BAY HARBOR OF REFUGE . . . . . . . . . 5.3 CHANNEL CONNECTING THOROUGHFARE BAY WITH CEDAR BAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 ATLANTIC HARBOR OF REFUGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 ATLANTIC HARBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 SEALEVEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 MARSHALLBERG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 HARKERS ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 BEAUFORT HARBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.1 Bulkhead Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.2 Gallants Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.3 Beaufort Turning Basin and Channel Through the Turning Basin . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.4 Taylors Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.5 Channel and Harbor at Town Creek . . . . . . 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 GENERAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NO -ACTION . . . . . . . . 6.2 INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . iv Page No. 184 185 187 195 195 195 196 197 197 198 199 199 199 200 200 201 201 201 203 203 204 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Page No 6.2.1 Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 6.2.2 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . . 206 6.2.3 Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay with Cedar Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 6.2.4 Atlantic Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . 210 6.2.5 Atlantic Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 6.2.6 Sealevel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 6.2.7 Marshallberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 6.2.8 Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . . . 218 6.2.9 Beaufort Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 7.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG- TERM PRODUCTIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 7.1 WATERWAY -CONNECTING PAMLICO SOUND AND BEAUFORT HARBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 7.2 CEDAR ISLAND BAY HARBOR OF REFUGE . . . . . . . . . . 224 7.3 CHANNEL CONNECTING THOROUGHFARE BAY WITH CEDAR BAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 7.4 ATLANTIC HARBOR OF REFUGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 7.5 ATLANTIC HARBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 7.6 SEALEVEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 7.7 MARSHALLBERG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 7.8 HARKERS ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE . . . . . . . . . . . 226 7.9 BEAUFORT HARBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 8.0 ANY IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22$3 8.1 WATERWAY CONNECTING PAMLICO SOUND AND BEAUFORT HARBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 v TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) 8.2 CEDAR ISLAND BAY HARBOR OF REFUGE . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 CHANNEL CONNECTING THOROUGHFARE BAY WITH CEDAR BAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 ATLANTIC HARBOR OF REFUGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 ATLANTIC HARBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 SEALEVEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 MARSHALLBERG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 HARKERS ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9 BEAUFORT HARBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 COORDINATION AND COMMENT AND RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 CITIZEN GROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES A• LETTERS OF COORDINATION B. GENERAL PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA C. NORTH CAROLINA CLASSIFICATION FOR TIDAL SALT WATERS AND APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS D. TABLES - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING E. PHOTOGRAPHS F. DREDGING AND DISPOSAL - CURRENT AND FUTURE PRACTICES vi Page No. 228 228 228 228 228 228 229 229 230 230 230 248 249 LIST OF TABLES Table Page No. 1 Historic Paid Cubic Yardage Dredged from Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound with Beaufort. . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 Historical and Projected Volume Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 Dredging History of Atlantic Harbor . . . . 18 4 Project Specifications and Authorization Dates for Beaufort Harbor, N. C. . . . . . 30 5 Present and Projected Frequency of Maintenance and Volume of Material Removed, Beaufort Harbor, N. C. . . . . . 32 6 Generalized Table of Deposits Underlying the Wilmington -New Bern Area . . . . . . 40 7 "Jensen Criteria" for the Determination of the Acceptability of Dredged Material to the Nation's Waters . . . . . . 42 8 Distribution of the Chemical Constituents of the Ground Waters in the Wilmington - New Bern Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 9 Chemical Analysis of Ground Water from Carteret County . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 10 Climatic Summary of Selected Stations in the Vicinity of North Carolina . . . . . . . 48 11 Monthly Distribution of Nth Century Hurricanes Affecting the Outer Banks of North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 vii LIST OF TABLES (Cont) Table Page No. 12 Sediment Analysis Data, Core Sound, Carteret County, N.C., 1975. . . . . . . . 70 13 Water Quality Data, Thoroughfare and Cedar Bays, Carteret County, N.C., 1972 -1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 14 Sediment Analysis Data, Atlantic Harbor of Refuge, Carteret County, N.C. , 1975 . . . . 81 15 Sediment Analysis Data, Atlantic Harbor and Vicinity, Carteret County, N. C. , 17 April 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 16 Sediment Analysis Data, Sealevel, Carteret County, N.C., 24 March 1975 . . . . . . . 90 17 Sediment Analysis Data, Marshallberg Harbor and Channel, Carteret County, N.C. , 24 March 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 18 Water Quality Data, Beaufort Harbor, Carteret County, N. C. . . . . . . . . . . 104 19 Bacteriological Water Quality Data, Coliforms MPN/100 ml, Beaufort and Vicinity . . . . . 105 20 Sediment Quality Data, Beaufort Harbor, N.C., 2 May 1975. . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 21 Population Data, 1940-1970 . . . . . . . . 113 22 Population Growth in Carteret County Towns, 1960-1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 23 Population Density, 1940-1970, Carteret County and State of North Carolina . . . . . 113 viii LIST OF TABLES (Cont) Table Page No. 24 Population Age Distribution, Carteret County, Region P and North Carolina. . . . 118 25 Measures of Income in Carteret County and North Carolina, 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . 122 26 Distribution of Family Income, 1969 . . • . 125 27 Occupational Groups, 1970 . . . . . . . . 126 28 Major Occupational Groups . . . . . . . . 129 29 Employment Characteristics: 1970 Civilian Employed Labor Force . . . . . . . . . . 130 30 Weeks Worked, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . 132 31 Commuting Patterns, 1970 . . . . . . . . 134 32 Principal Species Landed in Carteret C ounty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 33 Carteret County Landings --1963 -1973 . . . 140 34 North Carolina Landings, 1964-1974 140 35 Carteret County Menhaden Landings, 1965 -1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 36 North Carolina Menhaden Landings, 1964 -1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 37 Population Projections . . . . . . . . . . 145 38 Projected Per Capita Incomes . . . . . . . 147 39 Waterborne Commerce, 1960-1973: Waterway Connecting Beaufort Harbor and Pamlico Sound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 LIST OF TABLES (Cont) Table Page No. 40 Social and Economic Effect Summary Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 41 Employment Summary. . . . . . . . . . . 188 42 Environmental Effect Summary Matrix . . . 189 42a Environmental Effect Criteria . . . . . . 191 V.4 ,\ LIST OF PLATES Plate Page No. 1 Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina . . . . 2 2 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3 Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay and Cedar Bay, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . 14 4 Atlantic Harbor of Refuge, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5 Atlantic Harbor, North Carolina . . . . . . 19 6 Sealevel Harbor, North Carolina . . . . . . 21 7 Marshallberg Harbor, North Carolina . . . . 24 8 Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9 Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina . . . . . . 29 10 Disposal Sites, Beaufort, North Carolina. 34 11 Surface and Subsurface Distribution of Geologic Formations in the Wilmington - New Bern Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 12 & 13 General Soil Map and Project Sites, Carteret County, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 41 14 Classification of Waters, Carteret County, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 47 15 Wetland Areas, Carteret County, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 xi LIST OF PLATES (Cont) Plate Page No. 16 Natural Shellfish Areas, Carteret County, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 55 17 Nursery Areas for Fish, Crabs and Shrimp, Carteret County, North Carolina . . . . . . 56 18 Areas Closed to Shellfishing, Carteret County, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 57 19 Major Bird Nesting Areas, Selected Species, Carteret County, North Carolina . . . . . . 59 20 National Historic and Protected Land Use Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 21 Sediment Sampling Stations for Waterway, Core Sound, North Carolina . . . . . . . . 68 22 Bacteriological Sampling Stations for Waterway, Core Sounty, North Carolina. . . 69 23 Bacteriological Sampling Stations for Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay With Cedar Bay, North Carolina . . . . . . 75 24 Land Use Map of Atlantic Harbor of Refuge, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 77 25 Bacteriological Sampling Stations for Atlantic Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . . . . 79 26 Sediment Sampling Stations for Atlantic Harbor of Refuge, North Carolina. . . . . . 82 27 Sediment Sampling Stations for Atlantic Harbor, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 85 xii LIST OF PLATES (Cant.) Plate Page No. 28 Bacteriological Sampling Stations for Atlantic Harbor, North Carolina . . . . . . 87 29 Bacteriological Sampling Stations for Sealevel Harbor, North Carolina . . . . . . 89 30 Sediment Sampling Stations for Sealevel Harbor, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 91 31 Sediment Sampling Stations for Marshallberg Harbor, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 95 32 Bacteriological Sampling Stations for Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . 99 33 Water Quality Sampling Stations for Beaufort, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . 106 34 Bacteriological Sampling Stations for Beaufort, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . 107 35 Sediment Sampling Station for Beaufort, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page No. 1 Historic Population, 1940-1970 . . . . . . . . 114 2 Population of Towns in Carteret County, 1960 —1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 3 Carteret County and State of North Carolina Comparative Population Densities, 1940 —1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 4 Population: Age Distribution, 1970 . . . . . . 119 5 Educational Attainment. . . . . . . . . . . . 120 6 Distribution of Family Income in 1969 Dollars (Thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 7 1970 Occupational Distribution of Experienced Labor Force, Carteret County, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 8 North Carolina Commercial Fish Landings and Value, 1963 -1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 9 Carteret County Commercial Fish Landings and Value, 1963-1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 10 Projected Population —Carteret County and Region P, 1980-2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 11 Projected Per Capita Income, 1980-2030 . . . 148 xiv LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Follows Page No. 1 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge and Entrance Channel . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay with Cedar Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3 Atlantic Harbor, Atlantic Harbor of Refuge, and Entrance Channels, North Carolina 16 4 Sealevel Harbor and Entrance Channel, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5 Marshallberg Harbor and Entrance Channel, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . 25 6 Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7 Bulkhead Channel Beaufort Turning Basin, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 31 8 Gallants Channel and Town Creek Basin, Beaufort, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . 33 9 Access Channel in Taylors Creek, Beaufort, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . 35 xv 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION This EIS involves the maintenance dredging of the waterways and harbors between Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, Carteret County, North Carolina. The purpose of the maintenance dredging is to provide safe navigation for commercial and recreation boaters. The following specific projects (plate 1) are included in this composite EIS: a. Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor. b. Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge. C. Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay with Cedar Bay. d. Atlantic Harbor of Refuge. e. Atlantic Harbor. f. Sealevel Harbor. g. Marshallberg Harbor. h. Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge. i. Beaufort Harbor. A maintenance plan for each specific project has been determined which includes a 50-year projection of dredging frequency, means of dredging and disposal, and locations of disposal areas. The disposal areas have been determined based on existing knowledge of each area. If these areas are not available for such usage, alternative sites will need to be deter- mined according to, but not limited to, the following criteria and in coordination with county, State, and Federal agencies: The disposal site must be an upland area not inclusive of wetlands or forested land; well drained but not over- lying a watercourse; and within feasible pipeline distance from the dredge area. Suitable material must be available for dike construction. • Suitable measures must be instituted for control of vectors, odor, aesthetic impact, and safety hazards to local residents. A map of the overall project area is presented as Plate 1. R � N 1 � l I A. PROJECT •\ \l,` i� OCEpN N ; A A � LOCALITY MAP SCALE OF MILES 0 SO 60 P A M L/ C 0 S O O N O -. wESr BAY ��`a... INWRIch O MI ''�' SLCUGu . wA r Y roc[ A� s Y Y JB .. CEDAR 9 ISLAND i rlja�`L�\ a SMI. j/ �b !J 0 MI. r ATLANTIC ATLANIIC �HBR CF :.yi •.= REFJOE aq`y N / NC :-SE4LEVEL:�. '� � fr' l C A R T E R E T COUNTY 1 Roy a � o I DAVIS YO NI Ajo ►y �.f r 2 W l"" 0 ((( VVV SWiNI HWT BR G W ' {f ' HOR CL. i VERTCL 6'M.w III111 L DRAW_ GLOSEO h y�, ��; 25 M I, i l(J`f JDMI. MAR SHALLSERO � G ARXf9S 15r' <o - HAR80 OF EFUGE xs cx--..... 6:• "q WWfgS iQJ 'SLAMi. i'...' .'' SF 5MI •...... _ q P .... � •., NO Y •' M s " "`T •66�w Area to be maintained gCKLfa'0q��B4c,,, EMT♦Y• ` 6• s ` eq NWS\ GGN� 9 P � b E It t V P Mileage in the through waterway is measured Southward from the Loaaour \\ 4 North end of Wainwright Slough. e/adr lJ WATERWAY CONNECTING [PAMLICO SD. & BEAUFORT HARBOR, NORTH CAROLINA Underwater diked disposal areas: SCALE OF M,_ES 0 A 6 B • Proposed 2 -- • Under construction — �J PLATE 1 2 1.2 MAINTENANCE DREDGING Within the overall project, each specific project is discussed separately with regard to a 50-year maintenance plan, including dredging and disposal methods. A detailed discussion on dredging and disposal methods is pre- sented in Appendix F. 1.2.1 Classifications Estimations of dredging frequency and volumes to be dredged are based on the dredging history at each location. The maintenance requirement of each specific project is classified under one of the following categories: (1) Little or No Maintenance Dredging These areas have not required maintenance dredging since initial construction. It is assumed that, under existing environmental conditions, either the channel is non -depositional or that sedimentation is so slight as to require little or no dredging within the next 50 years. Changes in the surrounding environ- ment caused by storms, progressive geologic activity, or human action may drastically change the depositional histories of given channel sections, but it is impossible to predict their consequences. (2) Transitional Maintenance: Frequent in Past, Infrequent at Present This category includes areas that were unstable after construction, but which have achieved subsequent depositional stability. Changes in depositional histories usually reflect realignment of channels or alterations to adjacent sediment source areas (e.g. ocean inlet stabilization). Predictions of future maintenance requirements in such areas are based on an average of past requirements. (3) Transitional Maintenance: Minimal in Past, Frequent nt Pracant These are previously stable areas whose surrounding environment has been altered by natural or human causes. Hydrographic and depositional rate changes resulting from currents, storm waves, and increased surface water runoff are principal causes. Since it is impossible to evaluate either the feasibility or efficacy of future attempts at stabilization, maintenance predictions are based on current requirements. 3 (4) Continued Maintenance This category includes those areas which have required periodic dredging since their construction. Maintenance predictions are based on the overall historic frequency. 1.2.2 Future Maintenance Requirements Predictions of future maintenance requirements and expected volumes removed as presented in each individual project section were calculated as follows: (1) No history of maintenance: no predicted maintenance. (2) Transitional maintenance: infrequent at present. Prediction is based on linear extension of historic maintenance record using the following formulae: a. Next 50 years divided by (year of last maintenance - year of initial new work) X (number of maintenance dredgings since new work) equals the predicted number of maintenance dredgings in the next 50 years. b. Predicted number of maintenance dredgings times the average paid volume per maintenance dredging equals the total predicted paid volume in the next 50 years. C. Total predicted paid volume times 1.5 equals the total volume of dredged material. (Paid volume does not account for the removal of slumped material aligning channel walls. This material will be removed during project implementation so as to form channels of even depth for the duration of their width. The corrected volume of dredge material derived by equation (2)c will be incor- porated into all project discussions.) (3) Transitional maintenance: frequent at present. Prediction is based on continuation of present maintenance frequency. Future volume is calculated by formulas (2)b and (2)c. (4) Continued maintenance. Predictions treated as in formula (2). Dimensions of each specific project are accompanied by indivi- dual project maps and dates of authorizing documents. LA 1.2.3 Terms of Local Cooperation The status of each specific project has been indicated as being either active or inactive. The local sponsor for each specific project is Carteret County, which cooperates with the efforts of the federal project according to the classification of terms at each location. Terms of local cooperation are classified as follows: (1) a. The local sponsor provides, at no cost to the United States, all lands, easements, and rights -of -way for the proposed dredging; b. holds and saves the United States free from damages; C. furnishes suitable disposal areas. (2) Includes conditions of classification 1 and in addition provides an adequate public wharf. (3) Includes conditions of classification 2 plus provides for the diking of disposal areas or assumes the cost of such works. 1.2.4 Disposal Area Volume Reauirements The locations of disposal areas have been determined based on knowledge of each specific project area. Predictions of disposal area requirements as presented in each individual project section were calculated as follows: (1) Estimated total volume of material to be dredged times 3 if material is fine sediments, or times 2 if material is coarse sediments, equals gross volume of hydrauli- cally pumped product. (2) One acre of diked disposal area contains 4, 840 cubic yards of gross product to a depth of three feet; the product of number (1) divided by 4, 840 equals number of acres required to contain projected gross product to a depth of three feet. 5 (3) After the dredged material has dewatered, the resultant depth of finished product is: gross volume depth divided by 2 for coarse sediments or divided by 3 for fine sediments. The estimated dredging costs per cubic yard indicated in this statement includes all costs for the particular project such as surveying, diking, mobilization and of course dredging. 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS (INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS) 1.3.1 Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor Location The project involves the maintenance dredging of the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina. Phvsical Description The waterway extends for 38 miles (61 km) running southward from Pamlico Sound through Wainwright Slough, Wainwright Channel, Core Sound and Back Sound. Side channels connect with the waterway at Cedar Island Bay, Cedar Island, Atlantic, Sealevel, Davis, Marshallberg, and Beaufort to the west and north, and Harker's Island, Lookout Bight, and Drum Inlet to the south and east of the waterway. The project channel is seven feet (2. 1 m) deep and seventy-five feet (22. 9 m) wide for its duration (see Plate 1). Purpose The purpose of the project is maintenance of the channel to ensure navigation safety for commercial and sports fishermen and recreational boaters. Authorizing Document and Current Status The project channel was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 30 August 1935; project details are included in House Document 485/72/2. The current status of the project is "active"; the local project sponsor is Carteret County and the terms of local cooperation fall under category 1. Maintenance dredging classification is designated as category 3. ., Maintenance Plan The project channel was originally dredged in 1935. Since that time, portions of the waterway have undergone maintenance dredging 15 times, removing a total of 1, 142, 792 cubic yards (873, 779 cu m) over the 30-year period until 1968. In the future the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor will be maintained by dredging as needed to ensure safe passage to vessels. Portions of the waterway are naturally deep and do not require dredging; channels connecting the deeper parts of the waterway need periodic dredging. The historic maintenance schedule of the waterway is presented in Table 1. From this schedule it is predicted that, over the next 50 years, 1,906,625 cubic yards (1,457,805 cu m) of material will be dredged from project channels. Of this, 265, 250 cubic yards (202, 810 cu m) will be removed from Wainwright Slough, 181,446 cubic yards (138, 734 cu m) from the channels at the eastern and western ends and southern side of Harker's Island and 1, 458, 342 cubic yards (1,115,048 cu m) from the Core Sound channels between Harker's Island and Wainwright Slough. Table 2 presents the projected maintenance timetable for each project segment. Dredging costs are estimated at $2.50 per paid cubic yard. Dredging of the project channel will be done hydraulically with dredged material pumped via pipeline to underwater diked areas in shallow water on the sound side of the barrier islands, thereby creating islands (See Appendix F). The dredge material islands will be filled to a height of one to two feet above mean high water. At that time the islands will be available as upland diked areas. The maximum height of the islands will be limited to 6 to 8 feet above mean high tide. Location and Dimension of Disposal Areas The choice of location for the dredge islands is dependent upon several combined factors including depth, acquisition of land from the State of North Carolina, location of eelgrass beds, and utiliza- tion of the bottom habitat by shell- and finfish. These factors will have to be explored completely during the final stages of project engineering. It is probable that one auxiliary booster pump will be necessary to pump the material from the channel to the disposal sites. A determination of the exact acreage of estuarine bottomland that will be covered by the dredge material is not possible until specific site locations are determined. 7 Table 1. HISTORIC PAID CUBIC YARDAGE DREDGED FROM WATERWAY CONNECTING PAMLICO SOUND WITH BEAUFORT Year New Work Maintenance Location 1935 214,772 Wainwright Slough 1938 43,964 Back Sound 1938 3,371 W. end of Harker's Island 1940 138,558 Channel** 1940 26,829 Channel 1942 73,251 Channel 1945 22,250 Wainwright Slough 1947 71,911 Channel 1948 13,967 Channel 1949 8,709 W. end of Harker's Island 1949 23,980 Wainwright Slough 1952 43,388 Channel 1955 23,384 Wainwright Slough 1956 36,486 Wainwright Slough 1959 76, 757 Channel 1961 57, 053 Channel 1963 23,480 Channel 1965 58,025* Channel 1968 16,498 E. end of Harker's Island Total 214,772 761, 861 *** *Includes amount dredged in new work done on channels to Davis and Atlantic. =,-Recorded as such in files kept by Corps of Engineers; assumed to include dredging in all Core Sound Channels between Wainwright Slough and Harker's Island. *** See page 4, Section 2(c) for explanation in difference between Paid and Total Volume of dredged cubic yards. A W H U ti O a N 10 ct f ch Id N In dl dl Ir 10 N dl M N O 00 v Ln 0 0 00 In U a � - b N V., fl+ p o y ,� 7 CO In M 00 M O` r- N Cl a+ Id 0 10o � r a v W O u, y m o M .0 10 o LnA W w z d d b In N In N In M N N a y, M In .r M M 7 i U N d' O N 00 ,--1 00 In d W o H N � 00 'd' dl O z"A 00 .o C. o N w Q O 00 r 1 In N O 10 IO C. N r M 00 O Q N W +' O In a0+ C7. M M 1 1 A O U _ 1 b O' 0 O o � C -0 U � �n Id Id � `�, � N •� k ou ai s. rn cn ,L .� o e m Ga i r n G UWx cc O � j c5 � 9 N C O .,4 :J U y v ND cc U U In Initial island construction will include only about 10 acre tracts; however, a rough estimate of 300 to 400 acres (1.2 to 1.6 sq km) of estuarine bottomland may be required throughout the 50-year project life. Tentative and approved sites for these underwater diked disposal areas are shown on plate 1. 1.3.2 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge Location (see Exhibit 1) Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge is located on the mainland side of Core sound, on the eastern shoreline of Cedar Island immediately southeast of Roe, Carteret County, North Carolina. The project site is approximately three miles (4.8 km) northwest of Cedar Island Point and two miles (3.2 km) west of Hog Island. Physical Description The project involves maintenance dredging of an access channel 70 feet (21.3 m) wide and 7 feet (2.1 m) deep at mean low water from a basin at Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge to the Water- way Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort in Core Sound, including authorized passage and future maintenance of a channel through a private basin to an access channel, 6 feet (1.8 m) deep, 50 feet (15.2'm) wide, to a basin 60 feet (18.3 m) wide, 100 feet (30.5 m) long, at the inner end (see Plate 2). Although the entrance channel is 5.4 miles long, maintenance dredging is required in only two reaches, of about 2,200 feet each. One reach is located adjacent to the harbor and the other, about three miles easterly. Purpose The purpose of the project is to maintain continual commercial and recreational boat access from Core Sound to the Harbor. Authorizing Documents and Current Status The portion of the project involving dredging of the channel to the harbor was approved by Section 107 of the amended River and Harbor Act of 14 July 1960. Specifications of the project are presented in the Detailed Project Report of 12 December 1962. The current status is "active." The local project sponsor is Carteret County. Terms of local cooperation are designated as Category 3. Maintenance dredging classification is designated as Category 1. 10 0 O C£DA R 11 ISLAND BAY aRE sD•� 7 X 7 0 / N �0' / RGFUvc- ��c Plate 2. Cedar Island Bay Harbor I of Refuge, North Carolina Scalc in fcct 0 200 400 600 Maintenance Plan Maintenance dredging of the access channel and private basin has never occurred. An estimate, based on past history, of the number of maintenance dredgings required over the next 50 years and the amount to be dredged is not possible. This is due to the fact that the channel has only been in existence since 1965. Material dredged in the original formation of the channel totaled 150, 000 cubic yards (114, 690 cu m) in 1965 and 17, 527 cubic yards (13, 401 cu m) in 1966. It was placed on the upland area southeast of the harbor by hydraulic pipeline. It is recommended that hydraulic pipeline be utilized for future dredging. Location and Dimensions of Disposal Areas If maintenance dredging is determined to be necessary, the dredge material would be hydraulically piped and deposited at the previous upland disposal area available at the harbor. The previous disposal area on the southeastern shoreline of the harbor is approximately 10.6 acres (0. 04 sq km) in area. This area will hold 48,400 cubic yards of finished product to a depth of three feet. If additional disposal area is needed, suitable upland sites will need to be determined according to criteria mentioned in the Introduction of this report. If dredging is necessary in the channel to Core Sound, open water disposal at an underwater diked area will be implemented. Suitable disposal areas will be determined at the time of dredging. 1.3.3 Channel Connectin); Thoroughfare Bay with Cedar Bay. The project site is the Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay with Cedar Bay (West Thoroughfare Bay), North Carolina. Physical Description The project involves maintenance dredging of a 4.5 mile (7.2 km) long, 50-foot (15.2-m) wide channel, wider at bends, to a depth of 7 feet (2. 1 m) at mean low water. A portion of the channel approximately 2.0 miles (3.2 km) in length occurs within 12 Thoroughfare Bay; approximately 1.8 mile (2.9 km) occurs within the waterway; and approximately 0.7 mile (1. 1 km) of the channel lies within Cedar Bay. The controlling depth of the channel as of June 1968 was five feet (1. 5 m) (see Plate 3. & Exhibit 2) . Purpose The purpose of the project is to maintain commercial and recreational boat access between the bays. Authorizing Documents and Current Status The project, originally involving a channel 50 feet (15.2 m) wide and 5 feet (1. 5 m) deep at mean low water was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 2 March 1919; House Document 1125 /63 /2 provides specifications of the project. The project as presently described was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 2 March 1945; specifications of the project are stated in Senate Document 87/76/1. The current project status is "active. " Carteret County is the local sponsor; the terms of local cooperation are designated as category 1. Maintenance dredging classification is designated as category 1. Maintenance Plan No maintenance dredging has occurred within the channel. Dredging for new work to establish a 5-foot depth occurred in 1938 with a total volume of 53,343 cubic yards (40,786.1 cu m) of material removed, and to establish a 7-foot depth in 1960, with a total dredged volume of 125,786 cubic yards (96,176.0 cu m). Hydraulic pipeline was utilized in both operations. In the past, dredged material has been discharged in open water and placed on marsh areas adjacent to the channel. It is estimated that two dredgings will be required within the next 50 years to maintain a seven -foot depth at mean low water. Future dredging within the land cut and in open water areas will be done by hydraulic pipeline; each dredging will involve the removal of an estimated 89, 533 cubic yards (68, 456. 9 cu m) of material, with a projected total of approximately 179, 000 cubic yards (136, 863.4 cu m) removed during the 50-year period. Dredging costs are estimated at $2.50 per paid cubic yard. 13 TUM 4PT M£R KL £ BAY J I!i \ VA --- N L 1 4 Nc PROJECT OCEAN � piLp LOCALITY MAP SCALE OF MILES 0 30 60 i C E D A R I S L A N 0 / C A R T E R E T C 0 U N T Y / OL SMi. OMi. THOROUGH FAR £ I OMi. BAY ri SMi. r20 Mi. TAX SO - SWING BR, HOR CL 30' rfw w•rrOGN VERT CL.S.6" cK GREEN PT BARRY BAY N G" ✓ 4 Ti C` CHANNEL CONNECTING THOROUGHFARE BAY WITH CEDAR BAY, NORTH CAROLINA SCALE OF FEET 2001 0 2000 4000 6030 PLATE 3 Location and Dimensions of Disposal Area Dredging of the project channel will be by pipeline dredge with the dredged material pumped to a suitable underwater diked disposal area (See Appendix F) in Cedar Bay. A determination of the exact acreage of estuarine bottomland that will be covered by the dredged materials is not possible until specific site locations are determined. A rough estimate of 20 acres (o.08 sR km)of water area will he needed over the next 50 years. 1.3.4 Atlantic Harbor of Refuge Location The project site is located at Atlantic on the western shoreline of Core Sound in Carteret County, North Carolina, approximately three miles (4.8 km) south of Thoroughfare Bay and three miles west of Drum Inlet. Physical Description The project involves maintenance dredging of an access channel 7 feet (2. 1 m) deep at mean low water, 70 feet (21.3 m) wide and approximately 2, 000 feet (609.6 m) long. The access channel narrows down at the harbor entrance to a 50-foot (15.2-m) width for approximately 400 feet (121.9 m). The project also involves the maintenance dredging of the harbor basin, 7 feet deep at mean low water, 180 feet (54. 8 m) wide and 600 feet (182. 9 m) long. Purpose The purpose of the project is to provide a harbor of refuge for Core Sound fishing vessels. Authorizing Documents and Current Status The project was authorized under the authority of Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 14 July 1960, as amended on 17 February 1969. Project specifications are included in Detailed Project Report of 21 December 1967. The current status of the project is "active"; the local sponsor of the project is Carteret County and has a local cooperation rating of 3 • Main- tenance dredging classification is designated as category 3. 15 Maintenance Plan Maintenance dredging of the channel occurred once in 1974, with a volume of 37, 500 cubit yards (28, 672 cu m) of material removed by hydraulic pipeline. The dredged material was placed on the southward side of a sand breakwater immediately east of the harbor (see Plate 4). Maintenance dredging of the access channel and harbor basin in Atlantic Harbor of Refuge will be accomplished by hydraulic pipeline dredge. This project has required little maintenance since completion and thus, no maintenance schedule has been determined. Location and Dimensions of Disposal Area If maintenance dredging is determined to be necessary, the dredged material would be hydraulically piped and deposited in an approx;_mate 13-acre underwater diked disposal area located just east of the Atlantic Harbor. In addition, when needed, material will be pumped to an area adjacent to the entrance channel to the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge to maintain the existing protective breakwater. 1.3.5 Atlantic Harbor Location The project site is located at Atlantic Harbor on the western shoreline of Core Sound in Atlantic, Carteret County, North Carolina, approximately three miles (4. 8 km) south of Thoroughfare Bay and three miles west of Drum Inlet. Physical Description The project involves the dredging of a 75-foot wide channel, 7 feet (2. 1 m) deep at mean low water and extending a distance of approximately 2, 000 feet (609.6 m) from the mouth of Atlantic Harbor south into Core Sound. The project channel connects 16 N 5 :. h 50 ~ Disposal Area 00 �jo �<<� do ,�• • •�ttiti �bov Sandbag; groin Sond Breakwater C O RE 50UND Plate 4. Atlantic Harbor of Disposal area Refuge, North Carolina E1Project channel 0 100 300 600 Scale in tact 17 with the waterway running the length of Core Sound linking Pamlico Sound with Sack Sound and Beaufort (see Plate 5). Purpose The purpose of the project is to maintain continual boat access to Atlantic. Authorizing Document and Current Status The project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 26 August 1937. Specifications of the document are stated in River and Harbor Committee Document 92/74/2. Current pro- ject status is "active." The local project sponsor is Carteret County and the terms of local cooperation are designated as 1. Maintenance dredging classification is designated as category 3. Maintenance Plan Maintenance dredging within the channel commenced in 1945 and has occurred a total of six times from 1945 to the present with a total volume of 176, 421 cubic yards (134, 891 cu m) of dredged material removed (see Table 3). Hydraulic pipeline was utilized in all historic dredging operations. Dredged material has been either disposed of in open water or placed on a sand breakwater adjacent to the harbor. Based on past dredging history of the project site, it is projected that the harbor will need dredging 11 times over the next 50 years in order to maintain project depth. Future project dredging will be by hydraulic pipeline and will involve the removal of an estimated average volume of 29, 403 cubic yards (22, 481 cu m) of sediment with a total of 317, 557 cubic yards (242, 804 cu m) over the next 50 years. Dredging costs are estimated at $2.00 per paid cubic yard. Table 3 . DREDGING HISTORY OF ATLANTIC HARBOR j Year I Maintenance, cu yds 1948 10,058 1952 9, 692 1959 51,249 1963 6,919 1965 unknown 1968 20,354 ." li 50 u 0 R E G BSI i I' Plate 5. Atlam North Cai F- V ... •% rV�p O'eF.P Scalc in fl 200 400 6 19 Location and Dimensions of Disposal Area The dredged material will be piped to the approximate 13-acre under- water diked disposal area described for use in dredging the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge. Maximum height of the disposal area at the end of 50 years will be restricted to ten feet above mean low water. 1.3.6 Sealevel Location The project is located at Sealevel (340 51' N and 760 23' W) and extends to the navigation channel in Core Sound (see Exhibit 4). Physical Description The project entails the maintenance of a channel 7 feet (2. 1 m) deep, 75 feet (23 m) wide and approximately 950 feet (290 m) long to a basin 200 feet (61 m) wide and 500 feet (152.4 m) long at Sealevel (see Plate 6). Purpose The purpose of the project is to maintain navigable access to the harbor for both commercial and recreational vessels. Authorizing Document and Current Status The project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 2 March 1945; specifications were delineated in Senate Document 247/77/2. The current project status is active; the project is locally sponsored by Carteret County. The terms of local cooperation are designated as category 1. Maintenance dredging classification is designated as category 1. 20 STYRON BAY SCHII'VCI - i - 1 _ ♦ y y J _ 3 y y 4 ~ _ Jetty B A 1 ( Riprop) N Shoreline I Upland Disposal areas Alternate underwater disposal areas I Corc Sound Plate 6. Sealevel Harbor, Project channel and basin North Carolina Wetlands ® Upland s 0 1000 Scale in feet 21 Maintenance Plan In 1958 the side channel and basin at Sealevel were dredged for the first time and a navigable channel between Sealevel and the channel in Core Sound was established. During this new work, 37, 572 cubic yards (28, 727 cu m) of bottom materials were re- moved by hydraulic pipeline dredging and were disposed in an unconfined open water area of Core Sound. Official records dating to 1968 reveal that in 1963 and 1968, maintenance dredging of the side channel to Sealevel was carried out by pipe- line dredge and 13,677 and 12,303 cubic yards (10,457 and 9,407 cum) respectively, were removed. Therefore, the esti- mated average cubic yardage per maintenance operation is 12, 220 cubic yards (9, 932 cu m). Based on past dredging records, maintenance dredging will be performed every five years for the next 50 years to maintain a controlling depth of seven feet. This will necessitate ten dredging operations and will yield an esti- mated total 129, 900 cubic yards (99, 322 cu m) for the 50-year maintenance period. Dredging costs are estimated at $2.00 per paid cubic yard. Location and Dimensions of Disposal Areas Suitable disposal areas for the project are located along the spit and north of the beach. This upland area will provide approxi- mately four acres (16, 188 sq m) of land suitable for diked disposal. Area A (see Plate 6) encompasses 2.4 acres (9,713 sq m) and Area B comprises 1. 6 acres (6,475 sq m). An additional 0. 8 acre (3, 238 sq m) of disposal area (Area C) can be created by extending the spit eastward behind the 300-foot (91.4-m) long breakwater to a width of 125 feet (38. 1 m). Sandbag dikes will be implemented since this site is located below the water line. A sediment screen will be placed along the rip -rap breakwater to prevent the silty sediment from leaking through. Furthermore, additional disposal area behind the other rip -rap breakwater (Area D), can be created by the same diking technique. The dimensions of a disposal site at this location are more flexible, since this breakwater is not the extension of a point of land. An area 100 feet (30.5 m) wide along this 500-foot (152.4-m) long breakwater would yield another 1.2 acres (4, 856 sq m) of disposal area. In total, there are six acres (24, 284 sq m) of suitable disposal area. LZ The disposal sites will be expanded if necessary so as to include additional sound bottom area (Plate 6). Sandbag diking and silt screens will be implemented soundward of mean high water so as to control the escape of sediment into Core Sound. If these areas are not available for the receipt of dredged material at the time of dredging, a suitable upland site will need to be determined according to the criteria established in the introduction of this report. 1.3.7 Marshallberg Harbor Location The project site is located on the western shore of Core Sound at Marshallberg, North Carolina, approximately 3.5 miles (5.6 km) west of Core Banks and 4.0 miles (6.4 km) north of Back Sound. Physical Description The project involves maintenance dredging of a 60-foot (18.3-m) wide channel, 6 feet (1.8 m) deep at mean low water, to a basin, 100 feet (30.5 m) wide and 600 feet (183 m) long. Maintenance dredging will initially occur to a depth of 8 feet (2.4 m) in the channel (see Plate 7). Purpose The purpose of the project is to maintain continual commercial and recreational boat access to the harbor. Authorizing Document and Current Status The project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 17 May 1950. Specifications of the project are stated in House Document 68/81/1. The current status is "active." The local project sponsor is Carteret County; terms of local cooperation are designated as category 1. Maintenance dredging classification is designated as category 1. 23 IAARSHALLBERG +il (00 0 N p Cp�f SOO Plate 7. Marshallberg Harbor. North Carolina Scalc in Icc[ 0 200 490 600 890 -I..�.-� 24 Maintenance Plan In 1957, new work was performed in the side channel and basin at Marshallberg and 60,422 cubic yards (46, 199 cu m) of materia were removed. Maintenance dredging within the side channel occurred once in 1963, with a total of 8, 774 cubic yards (6, 709 cu m) removed. Hydraulic pipeline was utilized during both operations; open water disposal was practiced. Based on past dredging history of the project site, it is estimates that dredging will be necessary 4.5 times over the next 50 years in order to maintain the channel depth of six feet at mean low water. Future dredging within the channel will occur by hydrau- lic pipeline. Each dredging will involve removal of an approxi- mate average volume of 8, 823 cubic yards (6, 746 cu m) every 11. 1 years, with a total volume of 39, 391 cubic yards (30, 118 cu m) removed over the projected 50-year period. Dredgii costs are estimated at $2.00 per paid cubic yard. Location and Dimensions of Disposal Area The fine sand and mud material will be placed at a diked upland area near the harbor (see Exhibit 5). A vegetated upland area immediately south of the harbor provides approximately 2.8acres (11, 331 sq m) of area for placement of dredged material. The hydraulically pumped product produced during each dredging will total 21, 935 cubic yards (16, 771 cu m). This will blanket an area of 2.8 acres to a depth of approximately 4.5 to 5 feet (1.4 to 1. 5 m). The sediment will settle to a depth of 1.5 feet (0. 5 m) over this area after dewatering. The dried material can be bull- dozed into dike material and the site used repeatedly in the above manner. At the end of 50 years, a maximum of 6.75 feet (2. 1 m) of dredge material will be deposited. It should be noted that the projected frequency of dredging and the predicted amounts of dredge material removed may be under- estimations since they are based only on maintenance dredging of the side channel. According to dredging records, maintenance dredging of the basin has never been performed. If additional dispo area is needed or if the 2•8 acre area is not available at the time dredging, a suitable upland site will need to be determined accordin; to the criteria established in the introduction of this report. 25 1.3.8 Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge Location The project site is located in Brooks Creek at the western tip of Harker Island, just west of SR 1335, add some 2,000 feet (610 m), south of Hark Island Bridge. Pnysical Description The project involves the dredging of an access channel, 6 feet (1.8 m) deep at mean -low-water, 60 feet (18.3 m) wide, and approximately 2,800 feet (853.4 m) long from Back Sound into Brooks Creek. The project also involves the maintenance dredging of the harbor basin to 6 feet (1.8 m) deep, 120 feet (36.6 m) wide, and 250 feet (76.2 m) long. (See plate 8. Purpose The purpose of the project is to provide a harbor of refuge for local fishing vessels. Authorizing Documents and Current Status The project was authorized 18 September 1967 under authority of Section River and Harbor Act of July 14, 1960. Project specifications are incluc in the detailed project report 3 August 1967. The current status of the project is "active"; the local sponsor of the project is Carteret County, and it has a local cooperation rating of 3. Maintenance dredging classi- fication is designated as category 1. Maintenance Plan The project was completed in July of 1970 with 54,000 cubic yards of mate: being removed by pipeline dredge. The dredged material was placed in dik, disposal areas, both north and south of the basin. (See exhibit 6.) No maintenance dredging has been required since project completion; thus, no maintenance schedule has been determined. Location and Dimension of Disposal Area If maintenance of the project is required in the next 50-year period, excavation will be accomplished by pipeline dredge. Two suitable disposal areas that have been previously used are located adjacent to the harbor (see Exhibit 6). The approximate 18-acre disposal area will be diked with earth dikes to a required 50-year height of a maximum 10 feet above mean low water. If these areas are not accept- able at the time of maintenance dredging, a suitable upland disposal area will need to be determined according to the criteria established in the introduction of this report. The Corps has a permanent ease- ment in the area just west of the southern proposed disposal site; however, since this area supports a viable and healthy salt marsh, it is considered in the best National interest to preserve the area. Therefore, this wetland area will not be used for disposal of dredged material. 26 ' � \� w� � �� \ � » �� 7��.. . . z . \ \ � \ »Z/ ��\� THE STRAWS HARKERS ISLAND S CREEK J _ BRD K /oo 6`X 60' m O PLATE 8: HARKERS ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE SCALE IN FEET 0 200 400 27 1.3.9 Beaufort Harbor vocation The town of Beaufort is located two miles east of Morehead City, at the mouth of the Newport River, and at the southern extent of the overall project area. The Beaufort Harbor project is comprised of six separate locations within the Beaufort vicinity. For purposes of this report, each location within the Beaufort Harbor project will be treated separately; a projected maintenance plan covering the next 50 years is provided for each. Physical Description The six locations which will be discussed separately within the Beaufort Harbor project are Bulkhead Channel, Gallants Channel, the Turning Basin at Beaufort, the Channel through the Turning Basin, Taylors Creek, and the approach channel and harbor of refuge in Town Creek (see Plate 9). Purpose The proposed maintenance dredging operations are to provide navi- gable access for fishing, research, commercial, and recreation vessels to Beaufort Inlet from the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; and from Beaufort to the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor. Authorizing Document and Current Status Project specifications and dates of authorizing River and Harbor Act Documents are included in Table 4. The current status of the project is "active"; the local sponsor is Carteret County. The terms of local cooperation at each of the six locations within the project area are classified as category 3. Maintenance dredging classification is designated as category 4. 28 HARBOR, CAROLI NA P5654 01 z bU -4 O N U cl Cn 4U O N o O A �A O n o M N "' °� o ap :� --I N U O N A rn o N x N N U O A 0 O M , Ql U O A� O Lr) .o •N� .1-+ 0 QI o +� O O O �+ 4' 4' w o r 0 ai p cd O Fi w cd O � cd 4�O O O to O N F+ z � x ° (d .� Z '� 0 � x v PQ r, 4, o U bU —4N x m O 0 O — U �' w 0 cd pQ -0 � E-•i M Z w � U b0 4� U � U)L O y F 4 N Q) r4 •� O .4 .-a i-1 +1 O 0 •--1 N ca �'' •--i N�A •---I O w V v+ 'd U O 4 �+ U tq � cd U � l 4� O ' 4-1, O N O O O 7, O O 1 O cra w0 N w0 1' `H �4 't O , U O H U o m Pa bA cr, w O ~ `0 cd `++ r cd � N U ,a od rlj UPa H� �� 4-,�E�H� o�� 0 00 d+ O � O cd o a,- � 10 10 , M •--1 O1, O, O, U U O �U ti > M M N ^+ (q U) ^+ 3c Maintenance Plan Maintenance plans for each area within the Beaufort Harbor project are described separately in the following paragraphs. The recom- mended means of dredging and disposal locations, and the projected frequency and volume of dredged material over the next 50 years are included within each section. A synopsis of each project his - tory is also provided in Table 5. Average dredging costs per paid cubic yard for Beaufort Harbor is estimated at $2.00. 1.3.9.1 Bulkhead Channel Maintenance dredging occurred 32 times between 1918 and 1968 at Bulkhead Channel. In all historical operations the dredged material was hydraulically pumped and discharged at diked and undiked disposal areas on Town Marsh, located directly east of Radio Island. The disposal area ameasures 13.8 acres, and dumping has been authorized by private permits (see Exhibit 7). Future dredging within Bulkhead Channel will be conducted by hydraulic pipeline. Over the next 50 years, it is estimated that Bulkhead Channel will be maintenance dredged 25 times, or at a frequency of once every two years. Based on the dredging history, it is estimated that a volume of 34, 233 cubic yards of sand will be dredged each time, totaling an estimated volume of 855, 831 cubic yards over the next 50 years. The 13.8-acre private easement is a suitable disposal area for the estimated volume of material from one more dredging. Adequate diking for the containment of 68,466 cubic yards of hydraulically pumped sand material can be achieved by utilizing existing dredge material to form a five-foot high earthen dike. The finished product is estimated to comprise 34, 233 cubic yards, which, when settled will be 1.5 feet above the initial disposal area elevation. A second upland disposal area is available on from Beaufort. This area was used a disposal of the Beaufort Turning Basin and channel and 50 acres (0.2 sq km) of highland. 31 Town Marsh across area for the excavation; contains approximately! I i �J I LM \\�` \� _* ff I & - �-;q f�4l, t, , - 4t74 b � 4� b r+ M O 00 --i I- M Lr) O 00 O r .o N [- to m .o �o N tf1 O L- M l- W Q 00 C- N N d' Q) 0 a4 + O Ln M O Ln W�la N CD rn M to -+ 00 N O d M N N N 00 N N N M l- 5 c}+ O N N [� u cn L d+ M �b Z N d z M N Od Z 0 a, o U ao rn -, rn O .fl "�' rn rn rn rn mot+ rn .o rn cd N H 0 Q) A (dd o O 4 U rt ° '� Cd x U � U o m -� t),D ct 3 I". cA C7 E� 32 U) c� U U .b Cd fl. a� y 0 U C U U O LC, v w nn s rr� 1.3.9.2 Gallants Channel Maintenance dredging of Gallants Channel occurred 24 times between 1919 and 1968. Bottom sediment was hydraulically pumped and discharged in the Newport River at Newport Marshes. Future dredging w4thin Gallants Channel will be performed by hydraulic pipeline. Dredged material will be pumped to suitable highland disposal areas outside the Gallants Channel vicinity (See Plate 10). Over the next 50 years, it is estimated that Gallants Channel will be maintenance dredged 22. 5 times, a frequency of once every 2.2 years. Based on the dredging history of this section of the Beaufort Harbor project, it is estimated that a volume of 40, 225 cubic yards will be dredged each time, totaling 905,080 cubic yards. Tne disposal area is a previously diked island approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) north of the N.C. Port Authority and just west of Phillips Island (Plate 10). 1.3.9.3 Beaufort Turning; Basin Maintenance dredging occurred four times between 1931 and 1968 at the Turning Basin at Beaufort. The dredged material was hydraulically pumped and discharged at an undiked disposal area on Town Marsh, directly opposite Beaufort. The town of Beaufor has provided the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers a permanent easement for dumping at this location, which is approximately 50 acres (0.2 sq km) in area. It is estimated that over the ne%.t 50 years the Turning Basin will be dredged 5.3 times, or at a frequency of once every 9.4 years. Based on the dredging history, it is estimated that a volume of 52, 221 cubic yards will be dredged each time, totaling an esti- mated 276, 771 cubic yards over the next 50 years. Future maintenance dredging will be performed by hydraulic pipeline. Alternate disposal sites will be located on the Carrot Island. The recommended disposal site is on Town Marsh, located adjacent to the basin. A .10.8-acre (0.04 sq km area would receive the estimated volume of finished product per dredging resulting in a depth of three feet over the initial elevation (see Plate 10 and Exhibit 7). 33 Plate 10. Disposal Sites, Beaufort, North Carolina * Feasible site 13 Previous site 34 ' ""^'" Of ''"` 1.3.9.4 Channel through the Turning Basin Maintenance dredging occurred five times between 1919 and present in the Channel through the Turning Basin at Beaufort. The dredging and disposal methods used were the same as those described previously for the Turning Basin proper (see Exhibit 7). Over the next 50 years, it is estimated that the channel will be dredged five times, or at a frequency once every 10 years. Based on the dredging history, it is estimated that a volume of 47, 328 cubic yards will be dredged each time, totaling an esti- mated 216, 643 cubic yards. Recommended disposal is the same as that discussed for the Turning Basin. An area of 9. 8 acres would sufficiently contain the projected amount of material per dredging to a depth of three feet (see Plate 10) . 1.3.9.5 Taylors Creek Taylors Creek has been maintained under the authorization of two separate projects. Prior to 1950, Taylors Creek was dredged under the River and Harbor Act of 30 August 1935, with specifi- cations in House Document 485/72/2. On 17 May 1950, Taylors Creek was transferred to the Beaufort Harbor project and continued. Taylors Creek will be discussed entirely within the Beaufort Harbor project and future projections will be based on the dredging history from 1940 to 1968. Maintenance dredging in Taylors Creek was done seven times between 1940 and 1968. The material was hydraulically pumped to diked and undiked upland areas on Bird Shoal and Carr___ + rsJ,,and. A private easement has been obtained each time prior to disposal operations (see Exhibit 9 ). Over the next 50 years it is estimated that Taylors Creek will be maintenance dredged 12.5 times, or once every four years. Based on the complete dredging history, it is projected that 37, 782 cubic yards of material will be dredged each time, totaling 472, 275 cubic yards. 35 1 �' -, �, � The private easement presently being utilized for disposal will contain an estimated additional 100,000 cubic yards of finished product, assum- ing that the necessary permits can be acquired. Based on this projection, the eastern end of Carrot Island can be suitably diked to receive the estimated volume of material from three more dredgings over the next 12 years. This volume of material would elevate the island to approximately 14 feet mean low water. If any of the above areas are not available for the receipt of dredged material at the time of dredging, a suitable upland site will need to be determined according to the criteria established in the introduction of the report. 1.3.9.6 Channel and Harbor at Town Creek. There has been no maintenance dredging of the channel and harbor at Town Creek since completion in 1966. The dredged material was hydrauli- cally pumped and deposited at diked upland disposal areas. There is no anticipated need for dredging at this location. Therefore, frequency of dredging and amounts to be dredged have not been determined. Should a need for dredging occur in the next 50 years, it is recom- mended that the dredged material be placed at the areas designated in Exhibit 8. Local sponsor of the Town Creek Harbor of Refuge have to date not com- pletely fulfilled terms of local cooperation (i.e., provide public wharf). No maintenance of the harbor will be performed until all requirements have been met. 36 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT 2.1 GENERAL The project area is. located entirely within Carteret County and encom- passes wetlands and three estuarine sounds shoreward of a portion of the Outer Banks barrier islands. Access to offshore ocean is possible via six inlets which intermittently break up the barrier island system. Carteret County includes Cape Lookout, which is the first major cusp south of Cape Hatteras, separating Raleigh and Onslow Bays. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF ENTIRE PROJECT AREA A general physical and biological description of the area is presented in Appendix B. The following discussion is limited to the most relevant environmental characteristics of the project area. 2.2.1 Geology Tile Castle Hayne Formation (Upper Eocene), Yorktown Formation (Miocene) and surface deposits (undifferentiated Recent, Pleistocene, and Pliocene) are relevant in the project areas of Carteret County. The Castle Hayne Formation and the overlying Yorktown Formation have very similar lithologies and are referred to as the "limestone unit" by LeGrand (1960). The limestone unit is about 500 feet thick in Carteret County and is composed mainly of sandy shell limestone, marl and sand with varying amounts of clay. The limestone unit dips gently to the east and thickens toward the east. Surface deposits overlying the Yorktown Formation vary from about 50 feet thick to about 100 feet thick in the project areas. The lower portion of these deposits commonly contain shell fragments and calcareous material while the thicker upper portion is mainly sand with 'varying amounts of clay. 37 The surface and subsurface distribution of geologic formations in the Wilmington -New Bern area, in which Carteret County is included, is illustrated in Plate 11. Table 6 summarizes descriptions, distributions and waterbearing properties of the geologic formations. 2.2.2 Soils Six major soil associations are present within Carteret County. The association names and general descriptions of each are as follows: 41 Ponzer-Pamlico-Dorovan 42 Capers-Newhan 43 Chipley-Lynn Haven -Leon 46 Lakeland-Kenansville 60 Lenoir -Leaf 66 Portsmouth-Woodington Swamps and marshes. Marshes and associated dunes and beaches along coast Level wet uplands underlain mainly by medium sands Sloping coastal plain, duned in part, underlain mainly by medium and coarse sands Level, somewhat wet, uplands and terraces underlain by clayey sediments Level wet uplands and terraces underlain by loamy sediments The map illustrated on Plate 12 displays the extent and boundaries of the soil associations within the county. The locations of the various project sites are displayed on Plate 13. IR r �5"W -1 i. I" - 39 u 4J FBI .0 a) H ra Cd z �� V• � I N N N I Y 4^ N U O C "- I •a �• � 'r bD 0 _. OD w w u... `v •a�� c c' � '—_„- � s � a0. U' 3•-•m 3 t > � � •;mot? � •� N ... 7 C F j F R o F Q F, '-' 0 FF . � I 0 y E d-a ro V EI.: ti N °cm C .F+ O w O I L w g O •�a �Li+ ,�v, o,ua i tvUw u�a,,, r v 5 4•r C r. �� O D C p 0 owwE I � UEsc— uu O c I w U=°L° Va• =U y p 4 C C Id guR IiU o c:ccaew.=, °fur. .L cd fP1 01 F O y -• v^ U y• u- 'yO 7 0 o I C X -R� ❑ N •' C•p •p •� OCP C ��VC 0 'J•i' 4U�•4 .L i b � v U U cl or a«~" L"T•yue�' �EAuoAe`oc3 �V I O N 2 I ^ W �• � Cp C C VU— 'OUVF Inc •F, _.: C O u w L C I ou -F Rio c o E 0 wu w'au .•" ° L d`.aE � C ° 6 4 � = e0. Y 4 ate+ CW 7" 4Ci y . O •wR ror w O y I U^°w"h F E c O C 00 •O N 'o 1 I •a I 'v c I � '� J W C A' C^UO I I aim 40 4 ' G E ` C,c O O �o�rE3 - ^,..TN O O �d°uc E c Np o >,..• C •O D, C V C u F F C F' U �s•�Ama rH;a •.. l •p if O u -� u L s'2 v F •0 � C ° O " N c 7 V u v U q dL oU •� H,,,. R m v� sus a •� = a 'L3 d d y y ,O Z .Q " 0 1 = a � J QCk W � q? � m w O D � Q co LL- LU 0 O w p Q w CLI F Z u. m w Q== co Lei ;OvvLU Noy 11 oc0zZw=wLLO (n Q ce Q Q cC v O 00 J Q oc Q cc w_�—�—wQQw a Vt-QQ✓��=m * QmVpw►Lo_ W Ow OZ � V LLJ LLI Z W p 0 oC .0- CV) r-- Q 015 Z C'4Q a_ uj LLI a0 a_ V) N Z Z z 0 o O w aC J Z n O w J p o, OZ=Z O C.,v Q > =Zz Q <Wz>- t m O a Zip JO WNr Z w wWwQncN p ZC,aw0� v, Q= Y Z OvVal Qu,O W . _ c'4 c-) .o o •o v c v v v o .o oc n 2.2.3 Bottom Sediment Composition A. sediment survey of the project area was conducted on 24 and 25 March 1975. Sediment samples were taken at Bulkhead Channel and Taylors Creek near Beaufort, Marshallberg, Atlantic Harbor of Refuge and Sealevel, North Carolina. The samples were returned to the laboratory for analysis of particle size, percent volatile solids, percent chemical oxygen demand, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, oil and grease, lead, zinc, mercury and copper. Sediment quality data and sampling station locations are included within each individual project setting. The "Jensen Criteria, " (EPA, 1972) established limits for the determination of the acceptability of dredged material to the Nation's waters. These criteria (see Table 7) are the commonly accepted limits used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers in determining whether or not dredged material should be disposed of in open water. New criteria are presently being formulated and will supersede the "Jensen Criteria" within the next few months. Table 7. "JENSEN CRITERIA" FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE ACCEPTABILITY OF DREDGED MATERIAL TO THE NATION'S WATERS Parameter I Criteria Volatile solids, percent 6.0 Chemical oxygen demand, percent 5.0 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ppm 1, 000. 0 Oil and grease, ppm 1, 500. 0 Mercury, ppm 1.0 Lead, ppm 50.0 Zinc,_ ppm _ �w 50.0 42 2.2.4 Ground Water Two freshwater aquifers are present in the project areas. The deeper limestone unit composed of Castle Hayne and Yorktown sediments is an artesian aquifer; however, there appears to be some hydraulic connection with the overlying sands which are part of the surface deposits (undifferentiated). The limestone unit is generally a prolific water producer with the capability of yields of 500 gpm. The unconfined surface sand aquifer readily yields water of sufficient quantity for, and is, the main source for domestic water supply. Possible minor long term problems could happen in vicinity of residential or commercial development adjacent to upland diked disposal areas. The positive hydraulic head above ground water level could cause brackish water from the dredged material to infiltrate into the shallow unconfined water table. The potential size of the affected area would depend on the head and type of material present at the surface in the area immediately adjacent to the disposal area. The chance of brackish water pollution from diked disposal areas into the deeper artesian aquifer is even less than the shallow aquifer. Only a very unlikely combination of a continuous pumping cone of depression extending under a disposal area and the absence of a local confining aquifer at the well would cause pollution of the artesian aquifer. Table 8 indicates the distribution of chemical constituents of ground waters in the Wilmington -New Bern area. Table 9 indi- cates chemical analyses of ground water from selected wells in Carteret County. 2.2.5 Water Quality Appendix C presents North Carolina classifications for tidal salt waters and applicable water quality standards. The waters within the sounds of Carteret County are predominantly designated as Class SA or SA -Swamp: water suitable for shellfishing for market purposes and for any other usage requiring waters of lower quality. The waters in the Beaufort vicinity and at Atlantic Harbor are designated Class SC: waters suitable for fishing and any other usage except for bathing or shellfishing for market purposes. The waters of Raleigh and Onslow Bays at the Atlantic Ocean are designated Class SB: suitable for bathing and any other usage except shellfishing for market purposes. Water quality classifica- tions for Carteret County waters are shown in Plate 14. 43 {4 d � {li L d m a � _ T d Ep ^ N O G C N O �d dE R a c q ]G N M � d F N O O O L 6i .y p . 6 as m � M x z o E � N O U U E ❑y � Z v O U iE cL z A H o 44 Table 9. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF GROUND WATER FROM CARTERET COUNTY (Numbers at heads of columns correspond to well numbers in table of well data) (Parts per million) 6 14 36 39-43 44 56 69-70 1 80 83 Silica (510y) ....................... 22 .. 42 44 45 ......... Iron (Fe), total . .... ..... ........ ... .86 0.8 .. .. .. .05 .11 1 .... . . [ran (Mel, in solution . ................ 14 ...... ..... .. . ... .. 04 Calcium (Ca) .................................. 77 ... ..... y•1 .... 78 104 Slagnesium (Mg) .................... ......... 2.3 .... ..... 11 .......... ... 19 21 ....... . Sodium and Potassium (Na + K) ....... 1 7 13 2r, 19 I . . .... Iticarbonatc (HCOa .............. - 2.18 244 358 326 '2'Ji 365 37S 44J 458 Sulfate (SO,) ....................... 1 1.1 1 1.1 .. I i.ii 3.3 1 Chloride (CI) ........... ............ 0 9.1 17 9.5 43 8 9.5 13 10 Fluoride (F) .... ................... .6 .3 1.0 .5 Jj 3 Nitrate (NO.) ....................... 0 5 1 .1 .1 Dissolved solids ........ ....................... 250 ... ... 336 ... 371 434 Ilardness as CaCOa - . • . • . I .. • .... • • • • 206 202 276 255 154 306 273 346 2.85 PH ........ ....................... 7.5 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.4 6.9 I 7.1 Water -bearing material .................. Limestone Liwrstunc Limestnnu l.imrstone Limcstonv l.imrstwmr Lim, stow- 1 Lmwstunc Lim, edmr Date of collection .................... 10/21/41 1/4/50 9/3/41 4/3/37 7/23/39 9/3/41 4/3/47 10/RJS^_ 110/52 Analyzed by the Quality of Water Branch, Il. S. Geological Survey Source: LeGrand, 1960 45 J 5 v; o4J CC O U U w4J q y O ,r-i (V m N r m v o (11 N ro U cC U U . a.� [4 N a) z4-1 v m ro 4 �. O 0 Y 0 0 a ca f s 2.2.6 Climate The study area is located in a humid mesothermal maritime climate which is characterized by mild winters and hot moist summers. The climate is tempered by the effect of sea tempera- tures and breezes in areas within one to two miles of the Atlantic Ocean. Table 10 illustrates this moderating effect of the sea. Manteo, Beaufort, and Morehead City, lying near the immediate coast, have markedly fewer days when surface temperatures exceed 90 or fall below 32 degrees Fahrenheit (OF) than do Wilmington, New Bern and Elizabeth City which are located further inland. The average annual temperature is approximately 61 degrees Fahrenheit. July is the hottest month with a monthly average temperature of approximately 80 degrees. January is the coldest month with monthly means ranging from 44 to 45 degrees Fahren- heit in the northern coastal sections and from 46 to 48 degrees Fahrenheit in the southern coastal areas. Temperatures along the coast rarely exceed a maximum of 100 degrees Fahrenheit and virtually never fall below 0 degrees Fahrenheit. Relative humidities along the North Carolina coastal region are high with the annual average falling within 70 to 75 percent; rela- tive humidities tend to be -owest during winter and highest during spring. A distinct diurnal variation exists, with maximums generally being attained during the early morning and minimums usually occurring during late afternoon. The North Carolina coastal region receives an average of 45 to 50 inches of precipitation annually, most of which falls as rain. Precipitation in the summer is usually in the form of convectional thundershowers while in the winter it is principally cyclonic. Greatest monthly rainfall generally occurs during July, August, and September. Average rainfall for each of these months is 4 to 7 inches. Fall, particularly October, is the driest part of the year, even though monthly averages would not seem to indi- cate this. Precipitation during this period is often associated with tropical storms and falls primarily in intense bursts of short duration. Snowfall occurs one or two times a year with a mean annual accumulation of 1 to 2 inches near the immediate coast and 4 to 5 inches at northern inland locations. 47 4 O O O O O N .Q �O LO �O O O O 00 N cd N U N a` to a z H ►-7 ,N U p o 0 ct a)a) 4� ;�4 O O z c O O O O O O M --c N O, N M O O 10 N M O� 1 M M —1 d+ y b cd t f) O O O O 00 rn 1 �O O O O 1 1 O 1 r 1 O 00 O 00 di N N Lf) U U F-i U O O O O O O N •-+ M N N O O N ^c di 1 w O N � 1 M O 00 [1i i tf1 1 4- �o 00 di 10 Uf) M --+ Lf) �O+ G (d Q O O O O O -+ rn Q 00 O C� O O O N N 1 �O 00 di Lf) d M r-1 II) di `T F1 F•1 � 4 O O O N > • 4 O, 4� cd r cd O +� O O O cd � O U � � � � 'd 5 N �:s M P4 v O N r" O C14 Fa ti O O U M�~+ cd td U cd O cd U cd O O O +�-> N U DA to M Fi u p O O w N 0A —4 U •r+ rd U cd O cd O { 4, M (d , a' ld Z9 04 a +� .� In �+ u U In The prevailing wind direction along the coast is from the south- west except during the fall and winter months when northeasterlies caused by offshore storms may prevail. Surface wind speeds average 10 to 13 miles per hour with maximums commonly reached during mid -afternoon and minimums just before sunrise. The east coast of North Carolina is vulnerable to hurricanes; at least 43 such storms affected this region between 1910 and 1966 (Carney and Hardy, 1967). The hurricane season begins in June and often extends into November. The greatest threat of a hurri- cane event along the Outer Banks occurs from August through October with the largest number of hurricanes occurring in September. Table 11 lists the monthly distribution of hurricanes that affected the Outer Banks from 1900 through 1967. In contrast to Carney and Hardy's report of 43 hurricanes between 1910 and 1966, a 56-year period, the Corps of Engineers reports 35 storms between 1900 and 1967, a 67-year Period. From June to September the greatest number of storms originate over the Atlantic Ocean, frequently in the vicinity of the Bahama, Windward, or Leeward Islands. Usually, these storms either move inland well south of the state, thus bypassing the project area, or move northward paralleling the coast. The latter is the type that most frequently crosses the North Carolina coast. In most cases the storm centers pass well offshore and therefore damage is usually restricted to that associated with heavy rain, high tides and seas. As the hurricane season progresses into late September and October, the center of maximum activity shifts to the western Caribbean. Storms originating in this region frequently move inland over the Florida land mass and travel in a northerly to northeasterly arc. When they have reached North Carolina, they have lost most of their intensity because of their overland passage. Northeast storms, which strike with little warning once or twice a year, occur primarily in the fall and winter. These storms are perhaps a more significant cause of erosion along the coastal area than are hurricanes. Northeasters are created when low pressure areas move up the coastline causing a counter -clockwise flow of moisture -laden air. The storms are accompanied by heavy rain and strong northeast winds which may cause unusually high tides and seas. Duration of the storms is variable but they often persist for two to five days. 49 Table 11. MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF 20th CENTURY HURRICANES AFFECTING THE OUTER BANKS OF NORTH CAROLINA Month June (July j Aug ' Sept ( Oct jNovjDec(Total No. of hurricanes I 1 1 2 1 9 1 18 1 4 1 0 1 1 1 35 Source: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1965 50 2.2.7 Ecology The project area includes wetlands, sounds and bays, barrier islands with associated dune and ocean beach areas, and inland fresh waterways. Each of these areas is discussed as a distinct ecological system in Appendix B. This section provides a more specific description of areas of environmental concern with regard to zoological, botanical, historical, and land use considerations within Carteret County. Unless otherwise included, all tables referenced in this subsection can be found in Appendix D. Com- plete listings of mammals, amphibians and reptiles common to the project area are included as Tables D1 and D2. Transient and resident fish found within the sounds and those found offshore are listed in Tables D3 and D4. Birds of the mainland wetland areas and birds of the Outer Banks and inshore ocean regions are included in Table D5. Predominant species within the project area are referred to directly in the text. Carteret County encompasses 121,450 acres of coastal wetlands which are protected within a barrier island system. Bogue, Back and Core Sounds, located within the Outer Banks, provide excellent estuarine habitat for numerous shellfish and finfish species. Raleigh and Onslow Bays off the Outer Banks support sizeable sports and commercial fisheries which attract fishermen to Carteret County from many areas both in and outside North Carolina. Bogs constitute the predominant wetland type in Carteret County, comprising 82, 8104' acres or 68 percent of the total wetland acreage. Bog areas occur in large inland sections throughout the county (see Plate 15 ). Principal vegetative species of bogs include pond and loblolly pines, loblolly bay, black titi, red bay, gallberry, wax myrtle, switch cane, pitcherplant, toothache grass, and bamboo briar. Wildlife common to bog habitat includes deer, bear and wildcat. Wooded swamp lies primarily along watercourses west of Morehead City and accounts for 4,620 acres or 4 percent of the total county wetlands. *Revised figures based on Wilson (1962), and Engineer Agency for Resources Inventories (1973) calculations. 51 CV N � G O .-1 The principal vegetation in wooded swamps includes cypress, tupelo gum, black gum, red bay, sweet bay, lizardtail, bur -reed, pickerel weed, spatterdock, duckweed and smartweed. Wildlife common to the wooded swamps includes raccoon, opossum, rabbits gray squirrel, mink, otter, snakes; alligators frequent wooded swamps at the southernmost extent of the project area. Irregularly flooded saltmarsh occurs within the county primarily in the northeast sector. This wetland type accounts for 27, 020 acres or 22 percent of the total wetland acreage. Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge encompasses 12, 526 acres of irregularly flooded saltmarsh which is chiefly composed of black needlerush, sawgrass, saltmarsh bulrush, saltmeadow cordgrass, and big cordgrass. Black needlerush occurs in essentially monotypic stands throughout the main body of the marsh with the other mentioned species intermixed near the perimeter. Principal wildlife species common to the refuge and marsh areas include raccoon, mink, otter, and clapper rail. Regularly flooded marsh areas extend the entire length of Core Banks and Portsmouth Island on the sound side of the islands. This marsh type is predominant at Browns Island and partially covers Harkers and Carrot Islands as well as Middle Marsh, all near the town of Beaufort. Carteret County contains approximately 7, 000 acres of regularly flooded marsh which represent 6 percent of the total wetland acreage in the county. The predominant regularly flooded marsh vegetation consists of black needlerush, saltmarsh cordgrass, saltgrass and glasswort. Wildlife common to this habitat includes raccoon, egrets, otter, and mink. Carteret County contains 80 miles of Outer Banks which exhibit typical barrier island beach, dune, grassland, maritime shrub and forest habitats. Shackleford and Bogue Banks have developed mature stands of vegetation on the protected sound sides. Due to their east -west orientation, exposure to northeastern and eastern winds is minimal. Cape Lookout also serves as a protective break for these two islands. Shackleford Banks displays a natural barrier island progression from the active beach, inland to tidal marshes and the maritime forests. Vegetation of each biotic community is listed in Tables D6, D7 and D8. Fauna common to Shackleford Banks includes large populations of rabbits and a few wild ponies, goats, sheep, and cattle. 53 Bogue Banks is heavily developed and thus the natural succession of barrier island communities has been severely disrupted. Access to the island is possible via two bridges, one at each end of the island, A 265-acre mixed shrub thicket and maritime forest has been preserved as the Theodore Roosevelt Natural Area. In contrast to Bogue and Shackleford Banks Core Banks and Portsmouth Island typically display an attenuated barrier island progression, with no development of maritime shrubs and forest. Due to their north -south orientation, exposure to wind and wave stress is maximal resulting in active overwash of the island and continual migration towards the mainland. Plant species vege- tating these islands are more tolerant of salt spray and over - wash (see Table D6 ). The sound -side tidal flats provide excellent habitat for fish nursery and spawning activities. The Sounds of Carteret County provide valuable shellfish habitat wherein hard clams, bay scallops, oysters and peeler crabs are harvested. Eel grass beds measuring one kilometer wide in several places, have developed along the marsh shoreline in shallow water areas 1 to 1.5 feet (30 to 45 cm) deep. These beds support diverse benthic communities which serve as valuable food sources for fish, waterfowl and other wildlife species. Shrimp, crab and fish utilize this habitat as a nursery area in the spring and summer months (see Plates 16 and 17). State oyster management areas are near Cedar Island in Cedar Island Bay, West and Long Bays, and off Swan Islands in Pamlico Sound. The areas closed to shellfishing due to excessive bacterial pollution are indicated in Plate 18). The southfacing shore of Harkers Island was closed on 13 October 1972; the Beaufort area, including Taylor's Creek, Newport River and Turner's Creek were closed in November 1973; Williston Creek on Jarrett Bay and Core Sound off Atlantic were closed on 17 September 1974; the upper portion of Nelson Bay at Sealevel was closed on 27 October 1971. Core Sound is utilized as a migration route for finfish, blue crabs and shrimp. Many species of commercially harvested finfish spawn offshore in February and March; the larval forms then migrate into the estuaries to develop. Juveniles thus use the 54 4 - v U) -4 4-4 ;, -4 41 Jd 0 0 Al I 0* Ln Lr) A z ll El d d a�i 0 E N 41 r1 O F4 r-1 c _ U U f0-+ d C 0 4 z OD W N� N 7 td W O u • • • • J • • • • �i L • . D. s • z • • P• • • sound habitat as a nursery area through the summer and migrate offshore in October. According to Spitsbergen and Wolff (in press) there were 43 families comprising 101 species of finfish caught in a sampling survey in Core and Pamlico Sounds between June 1973 and December 1974. Spots pinfish, striped mullet, bay anchovies and Atlantic menhaden comprised 90 percent of the total catch. Shrimping is an important industry in Core Sound as well as in the Newport River and Raleigh Bay. Shrimp and crab nursery areas extend up into the coastal open fresh water- ways off the sounds. Carteret County encompasses suitable habitat for a wide variety of wintering waterfowl and resident bird populations (see Plate 19) . According to the Cedar Island Wildlife Refuge manager, the primary waterfowl utilizing the black needlerush marsh habitat include Canada goose, black duck, redhead, canvasback, scaup, bufflehead, ruddy duck and blue -winged teal. The Cape Lookout National Seashore is also a protected bird area and provides suitable cover for nesting terns and gulls. Large nesting colonies of royal terns, common terns and laughing gulls are found on the islands between Harkers Island and Cape Lookout Bight. There are several heron rookeries located within Carteret County. Heron populations nest on two islands located approximately one mile northeast of Morehead City and adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The combined population of herons and egrets on both islands is estimated at 1, 500 to 2, 000 nesting pairs (Donald McCrimmon, Jr., personal communication, March 1975). Among the bird species utilizing the islands are great egret (Casmerodius albus), snowy egret (Leucophoyx thula), cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), little blue heron (Florida caerula), and Louisiana heron (Hydranassa tricolor). Other heron rookeries in Carteret County are reportedly quite small. There are approximately 150 nesting pairs in the Middle Marshes, three miles east of Beaufort in Back Sound. The American osprey (Pandion haliaetus carolinensis) is consi- dered to be an endangered species of undetermined status by the North Carolina Endangered Species Committee and thus has received much study and documentation. According to Henry (in press), 561 + 34 pairs of osprey nested in the coastal 58 • •. Y • � o � a� ai z •� C O ro .� • • .R. y. u �—• UO'j — O ..0. � O - • H H • • 'v u O U a+ ro ro ,.vy H U e • — C a�CL)x U) Y + • o • .- E ii H Ai z O U o ai c :. H • � • cc • a R • a 6- • • J O • - J d • J . • !i .• qo dr A u pro ? • � a sl b R • c, Qj • • • • • — c :I • «� Z � E y S • 'r -� J oC m • O• W • • c° U u 3 • � cn � :J • C � C • N :J c • Carolinas in 1974, of which 31 pairs or 6 percent of the total were located in Carteret County at Ellis Lake in the Croatan National Forest. An additional osprey nesting site is indicated on the Intracoastal Waterway above Core Creek Bridge. Two or three pairs of osprey nest on Cedar Island Wildlife Refuge each year. The eastern brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), a species con- sidered endangered according to the Federal Code of Regulations, frequents the Cedar Island Refuge and a colony nest on Shellcastle Island, just south of Portsmouth Island within the Outer Banks. Brown pelicans are known to nest on the dredge islands behind Ocracoke Inlet as well. (Roberts, personal communication; North Carolina Endangered Species Committee, 1973). According to the Army Corps Environmental Reconnaissance Inventory of North Carolina, several colonies of black skimmers (Rynchops ni ra) nest on the low islands across Bulkhead Channel from Beaufort. The Carolina Bird Club conducts an annual bird count of the Morehead City -Beaufort vicinity. The area involved is com- prised of 31 percent estuary, 19 percent agricultural, 18 percent mixed woods, 11 percent freshwater pools and marshes, 7 per- cent ocean, 5 percent cypress and hardwood swamp, 5 percent residential and 4 percent miscellaneous habitats. The list is included in Table D5. With regard to environmental use and management areas, Carteret County encompasses two state parks, one national forest, a national seashore and three wildlife areas (see Plate 20). Fort Macon State Park is located at the eastern end of Bogue Island and is 385 acres in extent. The Theodore Roosevelt Station Natural Area comprises 265 acres of mature maritime forest on Bogue Island. The Croatan National Forest extends into Craven, Jones and Carteret Counties and is 151, 768 acres in size. The Cape Lookout National Seashore is entirely within Carteret County, comprising 23,500 acres of which 15, 000 acres are land. The Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge, established on 18 August 1964, includes 12,526 acres of black needlerush marshlands. Two smaller game lands, Jarrett Bay and Lukens Island Game Lands, are owned and managed by International Paper and Weyerhauser Companies, respectively. • p • U u • fl�0 • • C • o • o • • U • E • e0 N • • v • N • 7 • 0" • m • 7 • u • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • W CO V 2 Q U ^° L �° _ • y0 1 W F l..% �,J � • u w b Id u Z Q)i O O U) u c .ti u O rn U 3a 'l7 m aU, i I u O, 00 C r� Z � � W Cc U o o m U = 3 s 1 My W O ►V E-1 � r -a Z ti � u • • •00 10 2.2.8 Endangered Wildlife Animals which have been designated as endangered by the Code of Federal Regulations (17. 16C) and may be present in the vicinity of the project area are the shortnose sturgeon, American alligator, green turtle, eastern brown pelican, southern bald eagle, American peregrine falcon, and red -cockaded woodpecker. Additional species which are listed in the U.S. Department of the Interior's "Threatened Wildlife of the United States 1973" as having a threatened or undetermined status and may occur within the project vicinity are the peregrine falcon, merlin, Ipswich sparrow, and Eastern cougar, Abundance, seasonality of occurrence, biotic community preference, distribution in the project area, and life history information for each species are described briefly below. • Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). This species has possibly been extirpated from North Carolina. The most recent record was from Albemarle Sound (North Carolina Endangered Species Committee , 1973). Shortnose sturgeons prefer to inhabit fresh to brackish waters although they have been known to enter marine waters. Spawning occurs in late April (U.S. Department of Interior, 1973). • American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). These animals are uncommon permanent residents in coastal rivers, lakes, and estuaries of New Hanover, Brunswick, Carteret, Craven, and Onslow Counties (North Carolina Endangered Species Committee, 1973). Alligators can be expected to occur from the Neuse River southward. They inhabit fresh to brackish waters although they are occasionally found in waters having marine salinities. Alligators construct nests in marshlands adjacent to open water. Egg -laying (15 to 85 eggs) occurs in late spring or early summer; the young hatch during late summer or early fall (U.S. Department of Interior., J973). 0 Green turtle (Chelonia mydas). This reptilian species is present in the ocean waters off the North Carolina coast during the summer months. Its relative abundance along the coast is not known but is probably uncommon. 62 Green turtles occasionally stray into coastal inlets and sounds of the project area. The species is not known to nest on beaches in the project vicinity. • Eastern brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis carolinensis). This species is an uncommon, local, year-round resident along the North Carolina coast. Eastern brown pelicans feed and fly over brackish and saline waters. They are most frequently seen flying and feeding at the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge and in the vicinity of dredge islands behind the Outer Banks. North of this point, their occurrence along the waterway is less common due to the mildly brackish or freshwater conditions present. In North Carolina, eastern brown pelicans are known to nest on dredge islands behind Ocracoke Inlet and at Shellcastle Island on the Outer Banks (North Carolina Endangered Species Committee, 1973). • Southern bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus leucocephalus). Southern bald eagles are rare, local, year-round residents along the coast. They build large conspicuous nests (often in tall, isolated, living pines) during the winter months. The last known southern bald eagle nest site in North Carolina is now unproductive (North Carolina Endangered Species Committee, 1573). • American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). This avian species is an uncommon to rare winter resident along the North Carolina coast. American peregrine falcons fly and feed over all biotic communi- ties and may be encountered in wetland habitat of the project area. Smaller birds constitute their major food source. American peregrine falcons do not breed or nest in the project vicinity. • Merlin (Falco columbiarius). This small hawk is an uncommon to occasional winter visitor along the entire North Carolina coast. It prefers to inhabit open 63 areas such as old fields, dunes, dredge material islands, and roadsides where it feeds on small birds, mammals, and insects. Merlins breed in New England and Canada. • Red -cockaded woodpecker (Dendrocopos borealis). These birds are uncommon, local, year-round residents along the North Carolina coast. They prefer to inhabit mature stands of pines infected with red -heart disease. Red -cockaded woodpeckers nest in small colonies in Brunswick, New Hanover, Onslow, Carteret, Beaufort, Hyde, Tyrrell, and Currituck Counties. Small popu- lations of this species are known to occur near the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at Crab Point in Carteret County and on the Outer Banks side of Currituck County. Red -cockaded woodpecker nest cavities are easily recognized by the oozing resin and sap around their entrances. Resin and sap buildups provide protection against predators and are created by the woodpecker's flaking of pine bark and drilling into the pine sapwood. Nesting occurs in the spring with usually two to three eggs per nest (U. S. Army Engineer District, 1974). • Ipswich sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis princeps). This passerine bird species is an uncommon to rare winter visitor along the entire North Carolina coast. It inhabits sand dunes vegetated with grasses and may occasionally be found on dredge spoil islands. Ipswich sparrows nest only on Sable Island, Nova Scotia, and are now considered a subspecies of the Savannah Sparrow (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974). • Eastern cougar (Felis concolor cougar). Numerous sightings have been made of this species along the Atlantic coast and in coastal North Carolina. Its rapid decline is due in large part to over -hunting, and reduction of habitat. The Eastern cougar frequents swamp, pocosin and pine savanna habitats within the project area. The North Carolina Endangered Species Committee has classified this species as being endan- gered (1973). 64 Those additional vascular plant and animal species which have been determined as having; an endangered, rare, peripheral, or undetermined status by the North Carolina Endangered Species Committee (1973) and may be present in the project area are denoted in Table D9. Abundance, distribution in the project area, seasonality of occurrence, biotic community preference, and status are given where applicable. The list presented by the North Carolina Endangered Species Committee is only a preliminary one and, as such, is incomplete. The National Audubon Society annually publishes "The Blue List" of bird species which are determined to be threatened. Those species not included in the North Carolina Endangered Species Committee list or in the U.S. Department of Interior list are included in Table D 10. 2.2.9 Areas of Historical Significance According to the National Register of Historic Places (1975), there are six places in Carteret County of significant historical value warranting protection (see Plate 20) . Fort Macon on Bogue Island was built in 1834 and was subsequently garrisoned during the Civil and Spanish-American Wars. The Cape Lookout Light Station was built in 1857-1859 and is presently owned by the U.S. Coast Guard. Beaufort vicinity is of historical interest due to the many homes which date back to whaling days of the early 1800s. The Henry Jacob House is also located in Beaufort. The Gibbs House was built in 1851 and is believed to be the first Marine Biology Lab in the United States. The Old Burying Ground in Beaufort was deeded to the inhabitants of the town by the commissioners in 1731. Revolutionary and Civil War soldiers are buried there. The Beaufort Historic District is roughly bounded by Beaufort Channel, Pine, Craven, Broad, Gordon, Ann, and Fulford Streets and extends approximately 1 mile offshore of the waterfront. 65 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT AREAS During March and April of 1975, site visits were conducted to each of the project areas. Photographs of each of the project sites are presented in Appendix E. 2.3.1 Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor The project area, encompassing transects of Core and Back Sounds and those portions of bottomland soundward of the barrier islands designated for disposal, includes almost all ecological communities characteristic of Carteret County, North Carolina. The outer beach fronting the Atlantic Ocean is composed of wave- and wind -driven sand which is first stabilized in the foredune. The areas behind this become increasingly stabilized until, in the central portions of the islands, there are essentially level grassy saltmeadows. On the sound side of the islands are extensive tidal flats and, in the more protected areas, saltmarshes. Numerous small islands and shoal areas between the barrier islands and the mainland also support marshlands. Several of these islands are disposal islands, created from pre- vious dredgings of channels, which provide valuable nursery and nesting habitat for waterfowl. Mainland shores are bordered by saltmarshes in undeveloped areas. Upland areas are characterized by wood- and farmland interspersed with residential and business communities. Maritime forests occur on Shackleford Banks. A complete discussion of the overall ecology of natural habitats in Carteret County is presented in Appendix B. Because the proposed project covers such an extensive area, the whole of this discussion can be validly applied to the environmental setting of the project. Core and Back Sounds are relatively shallow bodies of water with non -channel low water depths ranging between 0. 25 and 9 feet (0. 1 and 2. 7 m); the average depth is 3 feet (0. 9 m). The waterway runs in a sinuous fashion through the sounds, incorporating all naturally deeper waters (7 to 38 feet (2. 1 to 11.6m ] (Department of Commerce, 1974). The project channels unite these deep water areas. Sediment analysis of the bottom material of Core Sound indicate that the bottom material ranges from silty sand to sandy in texture (see Plate 21 ). This data supports a statement by Seiwell (1927) that the sand constituency increases from the mainland across the sound, being nearly 100 percent at the inlets between barrier islands. The North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources collected bacteriological water quality data from Core and Back Sounds during the period from September 1972 through February 1975; the locations of sampling stations are indicated in Plate 22. With four exceptions the coliform bacteria populations in sampled waters were below measurable size. The exceptions, occurring at Stations 1 and 4 in September 1972, Station 9 in November 1972, and Station 11 in February 1975, recorded 23, 9. 1, 9. 1, and 9. 1 (MPN) organisms per 100 ml sample, respectively. The water quality standards for SA waters designated by the State of North Carolina for shell - fishing and market purposes stipulate a median of 70 MPN/ 100 ml with 230 MPN/ 100 ml as the maximum allowable level in ten percent of the samples. Comparison of state standards with water samples taken from the project area indicates that Core and Back Sound waters are of excellent quality with regard to bacteriological criteria. On 17 April 1975, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers collected sediment samples in five stations in Core Sound; the data are presented in Table 12. The locations of the sampling stations are indicated in Plate 21. The sediment data indicate that some of the parameters are in excess of "Jensen Criteria" for over- board disposal of dredge material. Mechanical analysis, performed by sieve, of the sediment samples in Core Sound shows most of the material to be poorly graded gray to dark gray silty sand with traces of shell fragments. Gfi lico Sound 4 ** CARTERET COUNTY Gray silty sand Dark gra}' sandysih Sound ATLANTIC OCEAN 3* C� 2* 1 Dark gray silty sand Back Sound Light gran poorly gradcd silts sand q Light gray poorly graded sand sith shell f'ragnunts 4 i Plate 21 . Sediment Sampling Stations for Waterway, Core Sound, North Carolina 17 April 1975 2 0 2__-- -- a s Sampling station Scale in mites M C# R T E R E T E P C 0 U N T Y s in 1 � 3 'ary 1 �y \MARSH ALLDERO DC ►UF oeT2 em NRDl - 1EFVG� 1Z ,ARCRl l` N F, /,I • Jp 1 a � r IOOMO\\C'. •IONi \Ci IN CAFE LOOKOUT j1E Sampling station _ y ! N C ` 9C \ \\ l Ir �f `PROJECT AIL ' N y� OCR LOCALITY MAP JC.L1 or r.5 o » ao R'L1�G� vAwEico sovNo `� V C{ JIOY.N f/ (� 1:�Fi +y �J J 4 CEDaF °° ISLAND yc3 �2 ll 7 _.QU6w'._ 7F ATLANTIC f AIL.NT�C � �HDR OF REFUO p L `Jr 6 7 p9v 1*4 6 S/ a 0 Plate 22. Bacteriological Sampling Stations for Waterway, Core Sound, North Carolina 1972 - 1975 SCALE OF MILES — ---, 69 N N Cd m CL ao 0 0 O O 0 O U U CO � d' 00 tIl N U O O O O O C o N d' ti 0 0 0 0 O ro an � a N M O O O O 0 N OD 0 oO M a` O U z0 O O o 0 O M Ito .r. Ca u N fl) .O c p o $4 U ar o o o a u O (L) O yL :d A V cr, O to $4 3i F, c- u o 0 0 0 O U a OM '0 U to Q` N o0 N O O y--� > En c d N Z M ti u r. o0 ono rn r O O $4 > U3 a Ln tf) Ln LI) 4Y v r r r r r � ^+ N M d' tf1 M � 70 2.3.2 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge This section of the project consists of a harbor located on the western shore of Core Sound, southeast of Roe, Carteret County, North Carolina (see Exhibits E1 -E6). The main portion of the harbor is oriented in a northeast -southwest direction, extending approximately 650 feet (198 m) inland with a width of approximately 400 feet (122 m). The harbor narrows to a width of 200 feet (61 m) at the mouth. Four private dead-end canals from 400 to 600 feet (122 to 183 m) long and 50 to 60 feet (15 to 18m) wide extend southeast from the main harbor. Several smaller dead-end canals, 120 to 200 feet (37 to 61 m) long and 25 to 80 feet (8 to 24 m) wide extend inland from the northwestern shore of the main harbor. The upland area of the harbor is characterized primarily by woodland, sparse residential development and agricultural land. Small fishing craft, ranging from 15 to 30 feet in length are docked along the harbor shores. Shacks, docks, piers, and unloading areas are present within the smaller channels along the northwestern shoreline. A marsh fringe, ranging from 5 to 30 feet (1.5 to 9 m) wide borders the southeastern shore of the harbor. The marsh consists primarily of needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) inter- spersed with baldrush (Fimbristylis castanea) grading into vegetation of upland fields including rattlebox (Crotalaria sp. ), broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), water-pennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellata), and dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). The marsh fringe continues along the northwestern shore of the harbor, extending 10 to 50 feet (3 to 15 m) inland and is vegetated primarily by saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens), salt grass (Distichlis spicata) and marsh elder (Iva frutescens). Other vegetation present is broom sedge, seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens), water -pennywort, glasswort (Salicornia europaea), sea ox-eye (Borrichia frutescens), neddlerush, baldrush, wax myrtle (Myrica cerifer.a), greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox), turkey -foot and morning glory (Ipomoea sp. ). 71 Previous disposal areas stretch over the entire eastern side of the harbor extending as far as 900 feet (275 m) inland. Diked fill areas also encircle the southern portion of the harbor and extend to the north as far as the second canal on the western harbor shore. The areas are vegetated primarily with an unidentified grass interspersed with water-pennywort and saltmeadow cordgrass. A pine woodline borders the upland extremities of the marshes and grasslands that is vegetated with loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), dog fennel, bramble (Rubus sp. ) and seaside goldenrod. Rattle - box, wax myrtle, wild cherry (Prunus serotina), groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia) and yaupon Ilex vomitoria) are present to a lesser extent. Wooden bulkheading, approximately three feet high, extends 250 to 350 feet (76 to 107 m) offshore from the harbor mouth. At right angles to this channel bulkhead are additional wooden bulk- heads which extend 300 to 350 feet (91 to 107 m) along the Cedar Bay shoreline. Parallel to the eastern bay shore is a 450-foot (137 m) long timber breakwater approximately 150 feet (46 m) bayward of the shore. A beach, consisting of grayish white to tan, fine to medium sand with quartz pebbles and shell fragments, lines the bay shore east of the channel on both sides of the shore bulkhead. State oyster management areas and natural populations of oysters (Crassostrea virginica), clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) and Atlantic bay scallops (Aequipecten irradians) are present in the bay immediately east of the project site (see Plate 16 )• Birds, mammals, and invertebrates common to coastal habitats of Carteret County, inclusive of the project area, are listed in Appendix D. No fecal coliform or sediment data within Cedar Island Bay is avail- able. Water within the bay is classified as SA, designated for shellfish harvesting. There are no known archaeological sites or historic landmarks within the project area. 72 2.3.3 Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay With Cedar Bay. The Cedar Bay -Thoroughfare Bay Channel (see Exhibits E7-E10), approximately 200 to 250 feet (61. 0 to 76. 2 m) wide and 4.5 miles long, cuts in an east -west direction across Cedar Island. The upland area is characterized by irregularly flooded marshland. U.S. Route 70 crosses the channel and marsh on a raised right- of-way near the eastern channel terminus. The road bridge swings open for boat passage. The marsh area, which is quite extensive (see Plate 15), is vegetated primarily with black needlerush and to a lesser degree by saltmeadow cordgrass, giant cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides), sea ox-eye and groundsel tree. A fringe of saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) intermixed with glasswort occurs channelward of the levee bordering the northern channel shoreline. Hummocks within the marsh are vegetated with upland maritime species including live oak (Quercus virginiana), bramble, yaupon, wax myrtle and turkey -foot. A large bed of eelgrass (Zostera marina) occurs off the northern shore at the western channel terminus. Several pied -billed grebes (Podilymbus podiceps) were observed during a site visit in March 1975. Listings of birds, mammals and invertebrates common to coastal marsh areas of Carteret County are provided in Appendix D. Endangered wildlife species which utilize habitats in the vicinity of Thoroughfare and Cedar Bays were discussed previously. There are no known archaeological sites or historic landmarks in the vicinity of the project. The North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources collected coliform data during 1972 and 1973 at stations in Thoroughfare Bay and Cedar Bay. The data are presented in Table 13. The locations of the sampling stations are indicated in Plate 23. The data indicate that the water quality of Thoroughfare Bay is slightly below that recommended for Class SA waters, designated by the State of North Carolina for shellfishing for market purposes. The level of coliform organisms at the channel mouth in Cedar Bay are generally within the prescribed criteria; however, one sampling exceeds 73 Table 13. WATER QUALITY DATA, THOROUGHFARE AND CEDAR BAYS, CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, 1972-1973 Station Number* Date Total Coliform, MPN / 100 ml Fecal Coliform, MPN/ 100 ml Thoroughfare Bay 1 2/20/73 93.0 -- 1 5/14/73 93.0 -- 2 2/20/73 93.0 -- 2 5/14/73 3.6 -- 3 2/20/73 39.0 -- 3 5/14/73 3.0 -- Cedar Bay 4 6/27/72 240.0 -- 4 10/08/73 9.1 <3 4 12/06/73 15.0 <3 5 6/27/72 3.0 -- 5 10/08/73 3.6 <3 5 12/06/73 3.0 <3 =--Refer to Plate 23 for sampling station locations. n' -Exceeds state water quality standards for SA waters. Source: North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources, 1973. 74 TUMP`I \ PT \� N C �,;'�-iPROJECT fA ] � \ OC ` N�iC � pfLt 3 MERKLf PAr LOCALITY MAP lc.'f 01 "Lis 0 $0 so N C E D A R. I SL A N D y� O O 1 a ? C A R T E R E T C O U N T Y 2.0 M, 02 f IA M.. I.OMI 07MI. OMI SWING 01 NOR CL SO VERT CL 9 6 * Sampling station 1972--1973 NOR O(/i f AR IOMI. ear r161111 r10 M" 7 k 6 0' rlrr OCr C, r 5 GREEN PT 75 e ARR r III r MALL PT Plate 23. Bacteriological Sampling Stations for Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay with Cedar Bay, North Carolina SCALE OF FEET 2000 0 2000 4nOO 6000 the highest maximum allowable level for SA waters. Thoroughfare Bay a known shrimp, crab, and fish nursery area. In addition, the bay nerves as an important migration route for these species, specifically shrimp, as they mature and move out of the nursery area. Water in both bay areas is classified SA; no condemned shellfish areas occur in the project vicinity. 2.3.4 Atlantic Harbor of Refuge The upland area at Atlantic Harbor of Refuge (see Exhibits Ell -E14) is characterized by medium residential development interspersed with woodland. U.S. Route 70 terminates abruptly against the northeastern and southwestern shorelines of the harbor inlet; culverts formerly connecting the highway have been removed. The road is four to five feet above the harbor water surface. The harbor basin trends in a northwest -southeast direction, measuring 600 feet long by 180 feet wide. The harbor mouth narrows to 50 feet for a distance of approximately 400 feet, then widens to a cove protected to the east by a sand breakwater. The channel in this area is 70 feet wide and continues for 2, 000 feet to merge with the access channel to Core Sound and Atlantic Harbor. A sandbag groin extends eastward into Core Sound from the sound side of the breakwater; sand accretion is occurring along the breakwater tip and the groin. An existing disposal area, consisting primarily of organic silt, is located between the soundward shore of the breakwater and the groin. Previously placed dredge material covers about 2. 3 acres of bottomland in this area. The harbor is partially bounded by wooden bulkheads and concrete seawalls; other shoreline segments are unprotected by artificial structures. Marsh areas abut the beach shorelines in these areas and are located landward of the wooden bulkheads near the harbor mouth (see Plate 24 for marsh location). The predominant vegetation present in the marsh along the north- western and southern harbor shorelines consists of needlerush and wax myrtle, saltmarsh cordgrass, and sea ox-eye. Other vegetation present includes turkey -foot, foxtail (Setaria geniculata), greenbrier, loblolly pine, yaupon, red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and bramble. Some needlerush and vetch (Vicia sp. ) are present along the dock. 76 .... ... ... ........ C Ak 1� I Marsh Mn Woodland E3Commercial and residential 77 Corc Sound Plate 24. Land Use Map of Atlantic Harbor of Refuge, North Carolina 0 400 800 Seale in feet the marshes southeast of Route 70 are characterized primarily by needlerush. Other vegetation present on the northeastern marsh includes saltmeadow cordgrass, panic grass (Panicum amarum), thistle (Cirsium sp. ), common catttail (Typha latifolia), yaupon, turkey -foot and bramble. Vegetation present on the inland edges of the marsh includes wax myrtle, pine (Pinus sp. ), dwarf sumac (Rhus copallina) and seaside goldenrod. The sand breakwater extending from the mainland toward the sound is sparsely vegetated. Breakwater vegetation includes saltmeadow cordgrass, water-pennywort and baldrush. The breakwater substrate is comprised of fine to coarse cream to white quartz sand with shell fragments and quartz pebbles. The general surface of the breakwater drops three to four feet to the west (harborward) side of the bar. On the east (soundward side) the surface drops approximately three feet to the level, unvege- tated surface of the dredged material flats. Brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis ), common terns (Sterna hirundo), ring -billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) and laughing gulls (L. atricilla were sited during a site visit in March 1975. Birds common to the coastal habitats of the project area are listed in Table D5. Shells present along the beaches indicate the presence of Virginia oyster, bay scallop, and razor clam (Ensis directus) in the general vicinity. Invertebrates common to the estuarine habitat of the project area are listed in Table Dll. Brown pelicans, an endangered species, were observed at open water areas of the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge during a site visit in March 1975. Other endangered species which may occur within the project area were discussed previously. There are no known archaeological sites or historic landmarks within the project area. The North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources collected coliform data during 1972 through 1974 at three stations in Core Sound midstream at Atlantic. The loca- tions of the sampling stations are indicated in Plate 25. All samples tested were below measurable levels (<3 MPN/100 ml) 78 N So' Disposal Area a NC ^a ittititttiti Sandbag groin .y Sand Breakwater CORE SOUND *3 2 ®Disposal area Plate 25. Bacteriological recommended for drying Sampling Stations for Atlantic Proicu cbam,cl Harbor of Refuge, North Carolina ajE o 100 600 Sampling station Scalc in fcc( 1972-1974 79 indicating that the bacteriological water quality is excellent. However, condemned shellfish beds are present at Atlantic Harbor of Refuge. No shellfish may be caught within 300 feet of the harbor. On 24 March 1975, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers collected sediment samples in two stations in the access channel and previous disposal sites adjacent to the breakwater in Atlantic Harbor of Refuge; the data are presented in Table 14. The locations of the sampling stations are indicated in Plate 26 . The sediment data indicate that none of the parameters are in excess of EPA criteria for overboard disposal of dredge material. Mechanical analysis, performed by sieve, of the sediment samples in the access channel and disposal site shows most of the material to be poorly graded gray silty sand with traces of organic fines. 2.3.5 Atlantic Harbor Atlantic Harbor (see Exhibits E15-E18) is located on the western shoreline of Core Sound in Carteret County, North Carolina. The town of Atlantic is located upland in the vicinity of the harbor. The harbor is about 300 feet by 400 feet in size. It is rectangular, bounded by corrugated metal and deteriorated wooden bulkheads on most of three sides and opens in a southeastern direction onto Core Sound. An unbulkheaded beach area is located at the south- west corner of the harbor. The harbor channel is protected by a corrugated metal jetty at its northern edge, extending approxi- mately 250 feet from the original shoreline. A 180-foot break- water consisting of junked automobiles partially protects the harbor channel on the south. Atlantic Harbor is used by commer- cial fishing trawlers which operate from a seafood packing plant located on the western shore. A pier extends 150 feet into the harbor from the packing plant. The northern jetty has been backfilled with dredged material to a height of five to six feet above mean high water. The material is fine to medium quartz sand intermixed with coarse sand and shell particles; any silt originally present has leached to lower layers or has run off into the water since deposition. The area is 0 W W W 0 o ti M —4 (n H 1-4 ;4 U O U z (H� Ei w z E-, wP� � U Q w ul 4 cd M is is n: bq o 0 o � ti ti U Fi n U bA N N � O V O V 'd ai o 0 � cd D cM N 00 0 N 0 .D d O V d� M 00 O U N M N �d 0 O O ' n in O CG U ° Ln M ~,+ co rll �� V Lf1 Q, _.__.._. in LO . r N d d+ :14 a, cd +' V1 � I h a N U O ul 81 r 2 Gra), silty sand with trace organic fines WAP 0 Q, ry '\)(4 ®Disposal area uSa recommended for drying Project diamicl Sampling station 24 March 1975 N 1 Gray silty sand with trace organic fines Sandbag grol'11- Sond Breokwoter C 0 R E S 0 U N D Plate 26. Sediment Sampling Stations for Atlantic Harbor of Refuge, North Carolina 0 100 600 SCJC III IL'L( 82 r partially vegetated with saltmeadow cordgrass, sea oats (Uniola paniculata), water-pennywort and sea rocket (Cakile edentula . A 15- to 20-foot wide beach aligns a spit along the southern part of the harbor, flanking the junked -car breakwater; the beach material is fine to coarse quartz sand with shell fragments and whole shells. A 0. 69-acre marsh is located along the landward side of the beach, merging into woodland as land elevation increases. The marsh area is vegetated predominantly by saltmeadow cordgrass. Other vegetation present includes turkey - foot, goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens), and bramble. Vegetation present along the woodline upland of the marsh includes wax myrtle, yaupon, groundsel tree and giant cordgrass. A live hermit crab (Pagurus pollicaris) was sighted. Dead blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) and unidentifiable fish were floating in the harbor. Shells observed on the beach include Atlantic bay scallop, common oyster, and northern quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria). Brown pelicans, an endangered species, were observed at water areas near Atlantic Harbor. Other endangered species which may occur within the project area were discussed previously. Birds, mammals, and invertebrates common to coastal habitats of Carteret County, inclusive of the project area, are listed in Appendix D. There are no known archaeological sites or historic landmarks within the project area. On 16 April 1975, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers collected sediment samples at the stations in the access channel south of Atlantic Harbor. The data are presented in Table 15. The locations of the sampling stations are indicated in Plate 27 The sediment data indicate that some of the parameters are in excess of EPA criteria for overboard disposal of dredge material. As would be expected, the higher concentrations of heavy metals and organic compounds are present in the sediments near the harbor. Mechanical analysis, performed by sieve, of the sediment samples in the access channel shows the material trending from clayey silt in the harbor to silty sand towards Core Sound (see Plate 27) . Sediments present in the basin have a high organic constituency, which decreases with the distance from land. Shell fragments are present in the sound sand. 83 2 O U V p O O O N 0 n on 0 0 , mot+ m C'J bt fl N 00 N i CD 0 0 O Cl N L N �t 0 0 Co ao H m 0 Cl) Q O l 1 � a M rn O r� +' v Ln ti er D a E+ H cd y O O U lJ � � U N d? M H 0 0 0 a� I U i+ y, N � U �O L) cll O O N �o 41 t U7 84 1 AT LANT'1 C °°• /N , I l 1 / 3•Dark grad organic clayey silt Aith a small sand component NO 2• Light gray poorly — —♦ fSo u graded sand / —LL i, "I , I G -- 1• Light gray silty sand 75' lI Plate 27. Sediment 1 !. Sampling Stations for t�•' Atlantic Harbor, North Carolina QPro 0oR 17 April 1975 P �l Sampling station /> Scale in feel CIO ..... Z _ 0 200 400 G00 s0o 13( Of 85 The North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources collected coliform data during 1972 through 1974 at stations in Core Sound midstream of Atlantic. The locations of the sampling stations are indicated in Plate 28. All samples tested were below measurable levels (<3 MPN/100 ml) indicating that the bacteriological water quality is excellent. However, closed shellfish beds are present at Atlantic Harbor. No shellfish may be caught within 300 feet of the harbor. Closing is probably due to the high concentration of heavy metal pollu- tants in the harbor sediments. 2.3.6 Sealevel The harbor extends in an east -west direction with a length of approximately 1, 000 feet (304. 8 m) and a width of 500 feet (152.4 m). (See Exhibits El9-E22), The upland area to the north consists of medium residential development of the town of Sealevel with fields and woodland interspersed. Fish packing and pro- cessing facilities front the western harbor shoreline. The northern and eastern harbor perimeter is formed by a granite rip -rap wall; the easternmost sector of the southern perimeter is also rip -rapped. The rip -rap breakwater is broken for a 150-foot distance along its southern section, through which the project channel enters the harbor. West of the packing and processing buildings, a sand spit trends south for a distance of approximately 300 feet (91. 4 m) and curves eastward for a distance of approximately 400 feet (122 m). The spit, which is vegetated, is approximately 125 feet (38. 1 m) wide. A steep beach, 15 to 25 feet (4. 6 to 7. 6 m) in width, is located on the harbor side of the spit. The beach consists of fine to coarse sand with numerous coarse shell fragments and whole shells lying on the surface. Vegetation present landward of the beach is predominantly saltmeadow cordgrass, marsh elder, and galingale (Gyperus sp. ). Other vegetation present includes baldrush, wax myrtle, white clover (Trifolium repens), red cedar, turkey -foot, sea ox-eye, seaside goldenrod, water- pennywort and rattlebox (Crotalaria sp. ). * 3 87 50 RE G0 *I Plate 28. Bacteriological Sampling Stations for Atlantic Harbor, North Carolina 1972 - 1974 * Sampling station 0 200 400 600 800 100 Scalc in fect the northern harbor shoreline supports an irregularly flooded marsh area; vegetation consists primarily of saltmeadow cordgrass and glasswort. Other vegetation includes sea ox-eye, saltgrass, saltmarsh cordgrass and baldrush. Clumps of sea lettuc (Ulva-sp. ) are present along the rip -rap. Beds of eelgrass (Zostera marina) occur throughout the harbor area. The harbor substrate consists of very fine to fine sand, overlain by mud with shell fragments. Shells present on the beach include oyster, northern quahog, Atlantic bay scallop, common Atlantic slipper shell (Crepidula sp.), cross -barred venus (Chione cancellata), cockle, Atlantic ribbed mussel (Modiolus demissus), and and dwarf surf clam (Mulinia lateralis). Numerous mud snails live on the harbor bottom at depths of 0.5 to 1.0 foot. Laughing gulls, brown pelicans and a dead common loon (Gavia immer were observed during a site visit in March 1975. A listing of all endangered fauna utilizing habitats in the vicinity of Sealevel is presented in Table D9. A discussion of the environ- mental requisites of these species is presented previously. Listings of birds, mammals, and invertebrates common to main- land coastal areas of Carteret County are presented in Appendix D. Bacteriological tests of water quality performed by the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources in 1974 revealed that fecal and total coliform levels were well below established standards. The sampling station is located west of the channel, offshore of the beach (see Plate 29). Sample collec- tion on 14 August and 16 December 1974 detected fecal coliform counts (MPN/100 ml) of <3 and total coliform counts (MPN/100 ml) of 7. 3 and 11, respectively, indicating good water quality in terms of bacteriological parameters. Sediment analysis was carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in March 1975, and the results are displayed in Table 16 and sample stations in Plate 30. The bottom material in the basin consists of dark gray organic silt with a little sand. In the side channel, it consists of dark gray silty sand with some organic fines. Chemical analysis of basin sediment shows that it is chemically polluted. Volatile solids, COD, TKN, oil and grease, and zinc exceed the maximum limits recommended by the EPA for acceptability of dredged material to the Nation's waters (EPA, 1972). Chemical analysis of bottom material in the side I� N SEALEVEL �3 IC I h CIE 7, GORE SOUND li �` .... j\-0. Sampling station Plate 29. Bacteriological Sampling Stations for Sealevel Harbor, North Carolina 0 1974 scale ill rccc 0 200 440 6 0 n. 0 U `tO N N N U V V V 5 C7 O CO d) M U o Ln J O O tf1 ryJ M Ca o o rn a O .D O U a } > f) Y +' 0 co .o rM M N O O N > U% fa N �a d' ➢ b � T Cl. .0 C, of 1-4 N M v� �n 90 SEALEVEL jaw", 1373 N ' ---� 18 0� 'y� A 1' r h IC 7s' +� CORE SOUND J. ! �-0 Sampling station 91 Plate 30. Sediment Sampling Stations for Sealevel Harbor, North Carolina 24 March 1975 Scaic i❑ Fccr 0 200 490 6 0 channel shows that only TKN exceeds the above -mentioned limits. The greater COD, amounts of volatile solids, TKN, and oil and grease in the basin is most likely due to heavy commercial boat traffic, In addition, the water mass in the basin probably has a very- slow turnover rate due to the confining spit and breakwaters and therefore the pollutants concentrate in this area. The side channel in the open waters of the sound would not have this problem. There are no known archaeological sites or historical landmarks within the project area. 2.3.7 Marshallberg The upland area north of the harbor is characterized by residential development with small houses on lots of one acre (4, 047 sq m) or less (see Exhibits E23-E26). Lots front the waters of Sleepy Creek and the harbor mouth. An unpaved road provides access to the harbor from Marshallberg Road on the east. The land area south of the harbor is a peninsula ranging from approximately 700 feet (2.13 m) in width at the eastern end of the harbor to 150 feet (45. 7 in) in width at the mouth of the harbor. The upland area of the peninsula is a flat, vegetated region underlain by fine to medium tan quartz sand. A wooden boat building is on the western portion of the peninsula. Two boat -launching ramps are on either side of the building. The harbor is oriented in an east -west direction for 450 feet (137 m) then curves to a northwest -southeast direction for the remaining 450 feet of its length. Docking space for 40 to 50 fishing boats, trawlers, and sport fishing cruisers is available at the harbor. Boats in the harbor range from 12 to 60 feet in length. The elevation at the northern, eastern, and southern banks of the harbor is approximately six feet (1. 8 m) above the harbor water level. The northern bank is unbulkheaded and sparsely vegetated. A timber bulkhead exists along the eastern bank of the harbor. Two wooden piers approximately three feet (0. 9 m) in width extend up to 50 feet (15. 3 m) from the bank into the harbor. The southern bank also unbulkheaded, is sparsely vegetated and is eroding. Approximately nine piers extend from this bank. A dock is at the western edge of the bank. The harbor substrate consists of fine sand and mud with shell fragments. The water surface was observed to be covered with oil slicks and floating debris. 92 The land areas on both sides of the harbor mouth consist of marsh with a substrate of fine sand with silt. Whelk shells, eelgrass, and trash are washed up on the marsh. Four wooden piers are along the southwestern shore of the peninsula adjacent to the wooden boat building. The piers extend from 90 to 120 feet (27.4 to 36.6 m) into the water. The shoreline along the south- western shore of the peninsula is bulkheaded with a combination of timber, concrete, and corrugated metal. The bulkhead is backfilled with fine to medium tan sand with coarse shell fragments. A beach from six to ten feet (1. 8 to 3. 0 m) in width extends southeast beyond the bulkhead terminus. The beach consists of fine to medium tan to brown quartz sand with shell fragments. Shells on the beach included Atlantic bay scallop, calico scallop, Virginia oyster, pieces of coral and worm tubes. Eelgrass was washed up on the shore. The narrow banks of vegetation present along the top portions of the harbor banks include vetch, cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), groundsel tree and water-pennywort . The predominant vegetation present for a distance of approxi- mately 250 feet (76 m) south of the harbor includes cocklebur and water-pennywort. Vegetation in an area extending an additional 90 feet (27.4 m) to the peninsula beach consists predominantly of saltmeadow cordgrass and water-pennywort. Also found in this area are needlerush, turkey -foot, narrowleaf-catttail (Typha augustifolia), and galingale. Vegetation present in the marsh areas at the harbor mouth consists primarily of saltmeadow cordgrass and saltmarsh cordgrass. Representative vegetation present includes glasswort (Salicornia europaca) and sea ox-eye. Additional vegetation present is water-pennywort, baldrush and seaside goldenrod. Wax myrtle, groundsel tree and marsh elder vegetate elevated areas in the marsh. State oyster management areas and natural populations of oysters, clams and scallops are less than one mile to the south of the harbor on the northern shore of Browns Island. Shrimp, crab and fish nursery areas are present within'31eepy Creek into which the harbor opens. 93 Laughing gulls, herring gulls (Larus argentatus) and mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) were observed in the harbor area during a site visit in March 1975. A listing of birds, mammals, and invertebrates present in coastal mainland areas are included in Appendix D. A discussion of the general ecology of Carteret County estuaries and land areas is presented in Appendix B. Endangered species which utilize habitat in the vicinity of the project area are listed in Table D9 and were discussed previously. There are no known archaeological sites or historic landmarks in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Monitoring of bacteriological water quality in the vicinity of Marshallberg is carried out by the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources. The sample station is located in the straits north of the easternmost edge of Browns Island. No data has been collected since 1973 but on 26 September 1972 the total coliform count (MPN/100 ml) was <3 and on 30 July 1973 the fecal coliform count (MPN/ 1 00 ml) and the total coliform count were both 3. 6. These counts were well below established standards and the water quality at that time was good. Analysis of bottom material in the basin and side channel at Marshallberg was carried out by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers in March 1975. Visual classification of bottom sediment from the mouth of the side channel (see Plate 31) reveals dark gray silty sand with little organic fines. Progressing up the side channel toward the basin (at Station 2), the sediment changes to dark gray inorganic silt with some organic fines. In the basin (Station 3) the sediment consists of gray inorganic silt, some sand and organic fines. Chemical analysis of the bottom samples shows that the sediment in the basin is polluted (see Table 17). This is due to the heavy boat traffic and boat repair facilities at the basin. The volatile solids, the COD, TKN, and zinc levels all exceed the maximum limits established by the EPA for acceptability of dredged material to the Nation's waters. Outside the mouth of the basin (at Station 2), the TKN exceeds the above -mentioned limits and zinc concentration equals the maximum acceptable level but at Station 1 all parameters are at acceptable levels. 94 FAARSHALLBERG +I \ � l 600, x 2. Dark gray inorganic- silt with some \ organic fines 'or 1• Dark gray silty sand with O =� a small amount of organic matter C p"?E * Sampling station W S 0UNO t Q 3, GraN inorganic with a small sand and organic component w � 0 0 12, O L o 00 0 t` W U z N N N U UhQ o O u v v v Q O x N o0 Cl Ln C U ro o 0 0 (yi N ,b .• W cn O O O � ,-. r— H rrr-1 U G n 00 Qi 00 Q Q U a` a` cd Ul ~ O N O [� Q` •O H N z y m A U O e0 3 k Ln N il1 O F, E s4 w m A Q U y on C z U �O > w f� _ .1 00 00 o �. O O m `� o W W o. H w � H Q N N C :� ile •� ro U 30 co M U H � a N Ln ,. a w � l� 0 m .� bD u •b _ (a 0 u M M x k w is [� u W. 2.3.8 Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge The project area consists of a harbor located in Brooks Creek, a tributary of Back Sound, at the western tip of Harkers Island some 2,000 feet (610 m) south of the Harkers Island Bridge and just west of SR 1335. The harbor proper is 120 feet wide, 250 feet long, oriented along a north -south direction and is parallel to and some 50 feet (15 m) from the right-of-way of SR 1335. From the southwest corner of the harbor, a 60-foot wide access channel extends roughly southwest for 1,500 feet (457 m) in Brooks Creek and then extends some 800 feet (24Q. m) into Back Sound. Scattered along the harbor shoreline are six crude docks and an additional 8 to 10 mooring pilings. During an onsite visit, four 20 to 35 foot long boats were moored in the harbor. Two additional boats, approximately 20 feet in length, were hauled up on shore, apparently for repairs. No boat ramp or public docking facilities were noted at the site. Between the harbor and the road, right -of -Tway is a 50-foot wide border of marsh, composed primarily of black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), and some marsh elder and sea oxeye. Along the remaining three sides of the harbor is a 5 to 10-foot wide discontinuous border of marsh containing black needlerush, marsh elder, and sea oxeye. The two previously used spoil areas are located north and south of the first 500 feet (150 m) of the channel extending west from the harbor. A 10 to 40- foot-wide border of salt marsh corgrass is present on both sides of this channel segment. However, some bare sandy beach is present along north side. Inshore of the cordgrass border, as the elevation grades up into the previously used spoil areas, is a 10 to 20-foot wide border of mixed high marsh containing dwarf salt marsh cordgrass, salt grass, marsh elder, glasswort, needlerush, sea lavendar (Limonium app.), salt meadow cordgrass, and sea oxeye. The highland portion of spoil area number one, north of the channel, is poorly vegetated, with large open sandy patches. However, some pennywort, salt meadow cordgrass, and broom sedge is present. Spoil area number two, south of the channel, is fairly well vegetated, but several open sandy patches were noted along with numerous fire ant nests. The vegetative cover consisted primarily of salt meadow cordgrass, saltgrass, pennywort, marsh elder, broom sedge, dog fennel, and a few wax myrtles. 97 ine remaining 1,000 foot length of the channel in Brooks Creek is bordered to the north by a shallow, open water bay, some 600 feet wide (180 m) by 600 feet long (180 m). The shoreline contains a 10-to 20-foot- wide discontinuous border of salt marsh cordgrass. The south side of this channel segment is bordered by a 700-foot-wide intertidal area containing mudflats, a natural shallow water bay connected to the channel, and mixed salt marsh cordgrass-black needlerush marsh. Spoil area number 3, a permanent disposal area (See exhibit 6.), is located in this area. Spoil area number 3 contains some 5 acres (0.02 km2), is triangular shaped, and is adjacent to and west of spoil area number two. Approxi- mately 2/3 of the permanent spoil area is a mixture of needlerush and salt marsh cordgrass, and the remaining third is open water. A 10 to 20-foot wide transitional border of mixed marsh, containing dwarf salt marsh cordgrass, salt grass, marsh elder, glasswort, needlerush, sea lavendar, salt meadow cordgrass, and sea oxeye, is present along the junction of spoil areas 2 and 3. Along the north side of the channel where it enters into Brooks Creek, the shoreline has been bulkheaded with treated timber inside the creek and northward along Back Sound up to the entrance of a man-made basin. The shoreline of Back Sound, south of the Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge entrance channel, is in its natural state. Natural populations of oysters (Crassostrea virginia), clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) and Atlantic bay scallops (Aequipecten irradians) are present in the project area (plate 16). Two people in separate boats were observed taking clams on sand shoals adjacent to the project channel during an onsite inspection. Birds, mammals, and invertebrates common to coastal habitats of Carteret County, inclusive of the project area, are listed in Appendix D. There are no known archaeological sites or historic landmarks within the project area. The North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources collected coliform data during 1974 and 1975 at three stations in and around the harbor of refuge. The locations of the sampling stations are indicated on plate 32. The median total coliform counts for the stations where ail, 12.05; #2, 6.35; and #3, 3.3, all of which are well within the limits established for "SA" waters. Therefore, the project area is open to the taking of shellfish. No sediment data is available for the project area. THE STRA17-s HARKERS ISLAND CREEK S 20 6'X 60 ' - m O 3* * SAMPLING STATION 99 PLATE 32: HARKERS ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLING STATIONS 1974-1975 SCALE IN FEET 0 200 400 11 2.3.9 Beaufort Harbor The Beaufort Harbor (see Exhibits E27-E59) project encompasses six distinct locations at which maintenance dredging occurs. Each location has been discussed separately in terms of projected maintenance for the next 50 years. Site visits were conducted at the Beaufort project area on 29 and 30 March 1975. A description of the environmental setting of each location to be dredged within the overall Beaufort Harbor project is presented in this section. Environmental descriptions of disposal areas are briefly discussed. Bulkhead Channel constitutes the southernmost portion of the Beaufort Harbor project area, and is located between Radio Island and Town Marsh. Bulkhead Channel is the major thorough- fare providing access to Beaufort Inlet from Taylors Creek and the Beaufort vicinity. Radio Island comprises approximately 230 acres of sandy area. The northwestern portion is industrially developed. The topography reaches a maximum elevation of 23 feet above mean sea level, on the western half of the island. A portion of the island is developed as a diked disposal area. The island is sparsely vegetated; however, areas which have been infrequently used for disposal have developed a cover of seaside goldenrod, groundsel tree, sea oats, saltmeadow cordgrass and turkey -foot. North of Radio Island is a diked and bulkheaded disposal area encompassing approximately 20 acres of sparsely vegetated sandy substrate. The elevation of this disposal area is approxi- mately eight feet above mean sea level. Town Marsh, another sparsely vegetated dredge island, across Bulkhead Channel from Radio Island, is located south of Pivers Island and Beaufort. The placement of dredged material from maintenance dredgings conducted at Bulkhead Channel, the Turning Basin, and Taylors Creek on Town Marsh has resulted in the creation of upland habitat. The topography is generally flat with a maximum elevation of 19 feet above mean sea level. Higher marsh areas are chiefly vegetated by saltmeadow cord - grass, groundsel tree, baldrush, turkey -foot grass, water- pennywort, wax myrtle and sea oats. Low marshy areas are 100 predominantly vegetated with saltmarsh cordgrass. Shallow ponds and channels at Town Marsh support several species of submerged algae. Carrot Island extends 1. 5 miles east of Town Marsh, the two being separated by a narrow channel. In combination with Town Marsh, Carrot Island constitutes the southern shore of Taylors Creek. Carrot Island grades from upland habitat on the northern shoreline to regularly flooded saltmarsh on the south. Undiked, upland disposal has created a gradually sloping topography with a maximum elevation of nine feet above mean sea level. During a site visit it was observed that there were four diked areas prepared to receive hydraulically pumped material. Upland vegetation rimming the disposal mounds includes red cedar, turkey -foot grass, wax myrtle, greenbrier, live oak, yaupon and groundsel tree. The higher elevations of the disposal mounds are unvegetated sand. South of the disposal areas, Carrot Island grades into marsh comprised chiefly of black needlerush and saltmarsh cordgrass. Mudflats are interspersed throughout the marsh and along tidal guts. Fauna observed during March, 1975 at the saltmarsh and mud - flats include mud snails (Nassarius obsoletus), oysters, and fiddler crabs (Uca spp). A complete listing of invertebrate fauna common to saltmarsh is presented in Table Dll. Birds observed at Carrot Island during the site visit included ring -billed gulls, common terns, snowy egrets (Leucophoyx thula) and laughing gulls. The town of Beaufort is located on the northern shore of Taylors Creek and supports heavy residential, commercial and shore- line development. Numerous piers extend channelward from the predominantly bulkheaded shoreline and commercial wharves 101 are located intermittently along the shoreline to Lenoxville Point. Common usage of Taylors Creek Channel and the Turning Basin includes vessel traffic comprising private, fishing, industrial and research boats. There are four places of historical signficance at Beaufort which are included in the Federal Register List of Historic Places. All four are located within 0. 5 mile (0. 8 km) from Taylors Creek. The project area north of the Beaufort residential district encom- passes Gallants Channel off the Newport River and a basin at Town Creek. Gallants Channel provides navigable access to Beaufort from the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Beaufort Marsh, a regularly flooded saltmarsh, forms the southwestern shore of Gallants Channel. The northeastern shore is developed with several active fish companies and the Beaufort -Morehead City Airport. The basin at Town Creek has been excavated from shallow water creekbottom south of the Beaufort -Morehead City Airport at the mouth of Town Creek. The Beaufort residential district bounds the basin to the south. Beaufort Marsh contains approximately 200 acres of regularly flooded saltmarsh cordgrass marsh. Other vegetative species represented in this area include saltmeadow cordgrass, glass - wort and saltgrass. The upland area east of Gallants Channel and north of Town Creek is fringed with saltmarsh cordgrass, varying from 75 to 100 feet wide. Inland vegetation consists of dogfennel., thistle, green - brier, panic grass, turkey grass, star of Bethlehem (Ornithogalum umbellatum), foxtail, horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). The basin at Town Creek is bounded to the east by a road, bridge and extensive marsh area. Town Creek east of the road and bridge has been heavily filled with spoil material. Saltmarsh cordgrass marsh has developed on the low level spoil and along the creek, comprising approximately 20 acres of wetland habitat. Oysters and small fish utilize the creek habitat. There are no known archaeological sites within the project vicinity. 102 Areas closed to shellfishing in the Beaufort project area are shown in Plate 18. These include Bulkhead Channel, portions of the Newport River, and areas east to Lenoxville Point, ' southern areas were closed in November 1973 and thenot h rn mcludin Ta lors Cr Carrot Island-,, �_ .-.-.Y.._.,_�,,,, ern , portion of Newport River was closed on 22 January 1975. Mammals common to the Beaufort vicinity are included in f Appendix D. Fish species of the :Newport River estuary are � listed in Table D3. The marsh and shallow water areas of the Newport River provide suitable habitat for fish nursery utilization. Numerous shellfish species are totally estuarine dependent and inhabit marsh, eelgrass, and mud flat habitat within the project area. Birds common to the Beaufort -Morehead City area are listed in Appendix D. Large heron rookeries are developed on dredge islands between Newport and Beaufort Marshes in Newport River. Black skimmers nest on Town Marsh south of Beaufort. Several species of terns utilize the unvegetated areas of Shacklefort Banks for nesting sites (see Appendix B for complete discussion of Carteret County fauna). There is an active disposal area located approximately 3. 2 miles southwest of Beaufort Inlet in Onslow Bay. According to surveys conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard between 1952 and 1969, the disposal area depth ranges from 32 to 52 feet (9. 8 to 18. 1 m) at mean low water. The area is approximately 460 acres in size and the substrate is shifting sand. Benthic invertebrate fauna common to Onslow Bay are listed in Table D13. Two commer- cially valuable species common to this area are the edible shrimp and blue crab. Fish species common to the area offshore at Beaufort Inlet are listed in Appendix D. Water quality data are presented in Tables 18 and 19 and water quality sampling station locations are indicated on Plates 33 and 34 . The waters of the Beaufort vicinity are classified as "SC", which denotes use for fishing or any other usage except bathing or shellfishing for market purposes. Waters of the Newport River, Back and Bogue Sound areas are classified as "SA" , which denotes use for shellfishing for market purposes and any other 103 Table 18. WATER QUALITY DATA, BEAUFORT HARBOR, CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Station Number--'-- Date Turbidity, F TU DO, mg /I BOD, mg/1 pH Total Alkalinity, mg & 1 9/12/72 --- 5.8 6.8 6.2 32 6/19/73 30.0 6.0 3.3 6.0 40 7/23/73 --- 5.2 1.7 6.0 27 2 9/12/72 --- 6.4 --- 6.6 56 6/19/73 12.0 8.2 6.6 36 7/23/73 13.0 7.0 --- 6.1 41 3 9/12/72 --- 6.7 --- 6.7 47 6/19/73 15.0 7.8 --- 6.7 37 7/23/73 13.0 7.4 --- 6.1 21 4 6/19/73 12.0 7.1 --- 6.0 41 10/8/74 --- 6.8 --- 6.8 40 5 6/19/73 11.0 8.0 --- 6.4 33 10/8/74 --- 8.8 --- 6.7 38 "'Refer to Plate 33 for station locations. NOTE: All parameters conform to state water quality standards; Station Numbers 1-4 are in Class SC waters, Station Number 5 is in Class SA waters. Source: North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources, 1974. 104 i Id O M M M M M M T O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I!1 U VI T T T .r p + --. O O O M O 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 1 T 10 N VI .0 0 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O VI N N N V' H ' r r_ y .r C 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 .o .o O O J 0 0 0 O M T V a 1(. . . . . 1 a, M. M. T M M. 11 M 1 1 t- - V V V V -r V N V .-. 1 V N I N 1 U .O O O .O .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 O O O— O .--� O O O d Q . . . . . . . . . . . 1 M M M M M M O M O M M M M 1 Ili M O` M T M 1 M I M 0 V V 10 N T 0 134 1 1 1 1 M 1 M M 1 M M M 11'1 1 M M O` In T t-- 1 M I 1 V V T N T r , M O .-y -. .o O O O O O Co .o O 0 -r M 'o 4 Cd 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 T 1 M M 1 O M M M 1 M M V 1 N N 0-v 1 N V O O 0 .0 M . . . 1 . . . . . T U 0 1 M I 111 M 1 1 M M 11'1 M 11'1 ..- I M M M M M M� M 1 T 1 �/ 1 y 1 1 O, .-� V 1 N 1 a1 V V V V r 1 v I -. a Cd O O O O O O O O .o O O N O p M 1 1 T O 1+1 M M O I O tf1 M r�1 M M t- M 1 M H 1 1 N N I I 'o N N VI v 1 -V -r v v V v I N N d N N O O O M O M O O .o O .o .--1 O O O M V O 1 M 1 1 1 I M 1 l` I O M M M T M M M 1 T 1 T 1 1 1 1 N 1 N V I v V N 1 V a, W,�-1 1 I l 1 1 I 1 N 1 G la '. O O O O O M 0 0 0 M -r O O 0 O hCd O 1 O 1 1 1 1 O 1 Ili M lft t` 1 O lfl M (� a, M M MI r^ II1 O �0 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 .., a,t` I -� v v d' v I N Cd Id 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 T Q7 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 O --. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .p 0 0 0 --. .0 0 0 �. 0 010 1 y0 O ISO V' M M M O O M f1 M O M M T M M Ili T M M M M N �o •D V o V a, r .o .o V N v It .o .. O CD 0 0 0 0 0 O M ,--1 0 0,00 --1 s>; Id M 1 M M 1+1 1 1 C` rl 14,46 M O O r M r- T M IA M M 17Z I N N 1 I N a, -P u'� 010 v I N N -ti N O p N M "r %n O t- CO a1 O .-1 ,V M V' In .0 h <O T O nO -r -r --. --1 — --. --. --. --. --1 N N N N N t 105 SA *t5 tft SA �N socuE `1 u- aAt(h! Plate 33. Water Quality Sampling Stations for jBeaufort, North Carolina 1972 - 1974 Sampling station n N' � A�.oro•r ////////////JJJJ N•oNr �\T � ERE T (3F4UFORT 0", S." 106 NC N of G PROJECT ��s_iJ �rNt % r r IOCAIITY MAP ft.l( Or rit [T n Do eo hVr4.�ti7 C O U N T Y 4 A? % - r Sc00000 0000 0010 0000 00.0 0000i �O 1 \ SA000, i M.C•�(IDNp �. /DIN( �N L AC04 ono SCALE or rEET t enp D t—o •roo (nnD 6 *5 3 *4 c snr[ ROGUE ce s N �7 �k 7 .,.r a.T A C/ A R T E R E T taco. P�14,S Plate 34. Bacteriological Sampling Stations for Beaufort, North Carolina 1972 - 1975 Sampling station BEAUFORT 3 107 C O U N T Y jk 19 Q # 20 aran[ro.o roi.T Eh,E °�o ••ht! SCALE OF FEET Ipno o [nnp .coo .nno usage requiring waters of low quality. The waters off Beaufort Inlet in the Atlantic Ocean are "SB", suitable for bathing and any other usage except shellfishing for market purposes (see Plate 33). The available water quality data indicate that water in the Beaufort vicinity generally conforms to state standards for "SC" water, however, all pH levels are low. There are three locations where total coliform counts have been in excess of state standards. These areas are at the mouth of Calico Creek, which receives effluent from the Morehead City waste treatment facility; at the basin of Town Creek; and at the point of discharge of Beaufort effluent at Taylors Creek (Stations 3, 9, 14, Plate 34). Sediment quality data was collected by the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers on 2 May 1975 at the Bulkhead Channel and Taylors Creek sections of Beaufort Harbor. The data is presented in Table 20; sediment sampling station locations are indicated in Plate 35. According to EPA criteria for the accep- tability of dredge material to the Nation's waters, the sediment is clean and well within the acceptable limits. 2.4 GENERAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROFILE The waterway between Beaufort Harbor and Pamlico Sound lies in the eastern coastal region of North Carolina and is located entirely within Carteret County. Carteret County is part of planning region "P", a nine -county organization and one of 17 planning regions in the State of North Carolina. Much of the statistical data presented in the social and economic profile is abstracted from an economic and social base line study of Region "P" completed in 1973. Additional sources utilized include U.S. Bureau of the Census, the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources and other state agencies and offices. As an overview, Carteret County will be the area of analysis for social and economic aspects of the project. In considering specific project areas, the political or geographic jurisdiction that most closely conforms will be utilized for analytical purposes. 108 x O a O O O O O O 0 U U v v v v v O O O O O O .�i ►+� CO �D � d' i11 �f1 N o 0 0 0 0 0 LO Ln LO Ln N v 4J fd .� N M Ln 0 .+ U ►n O O (0 a y41 .4 .+ N .4 �D O� i11 N •—� Cd U ul —4 O O N .: N O N >U) CL cd cd }+ a O O O O O O a L .0 o K1 M C, O C7 O O O O O O AJ + O O O O O O O m N M 01 00 ►rn O O O O O O O m Ln M ►) t— .o N z 00 N O r— �o [— Nd 00 �o en cn N O Cd u U N M i11 �D O a 109 e'^ Cd 1-4 r. O ro aU a U 'O O 0 cd U _O O cd 0 04 Cd tn 0 0 O U °oeur —� °A Yk3 [;fti4i� Plate 35. Sediment Sampling (Stations for Beaufort, North Carolina 2 May 1975 Sampling station 110 .1 IIInI11 1 OC `1 vPOJECT �S L Cl i � LOCALITY YAV Scel[ 0• rit[/ o io ee F'Li'L.rL� 1 N T Y .a f �o OV SCALE 0E EEET. e ono ��o �roo nnp Carteret County encompasses 1,064. 2 square miles (2756. 3 sq km) includes 534. 8 square miles (1385. 1 sq km) of water area. Urban and built-up land areas account for 32. 8 square miles (85 sq km) percent of all land areas within the county. The balance of the land areas within the county are either croplands or pastures, 31. 9 square miles (82.6 sq km) or 6.1 percent, or forestry lands. 225 square miles (64. 8 sq km) or 48.2 percent of all land area within the county. A social and economic profile of Carteret County, its people and economy is presented to gain insight into the general project area. Through a profile of the project area, a well-rounded picture of the area can be presented. Since economic and social parameters are dynamic variables, projections of demographic and economic parameters for the project life are also included. Specific parameters to be examined fall into two broad groups: demographic (social) and economic. Demographic Parameters • Population level • Age/sex distribution • Migratory patterns • Population density • Rural versus urban population distribution • Educational attainment • Infrastructure Economic • Measures of income • Employment —unemployment • Labor supply • Commuting patterns • Industrial development • Seasonality of employment • Labor mobility • Analysis of specific industries and sectors • Infrastructure 111 2.4.1 Population Table 21 and Figure 1 indicate the level of population in Carteret County for the period 1940- 1970. During this period, the over- all level of population has increased from 18, 284 in 1940 to 33, 600 in mid -1973. Between 1940 and 1973 there was an 83. 8 percent increase in the population of Carteret County. On a ten-year interval basis, most (70. 0 percent) of this population change occurred between 1950 and 1960. In 1970, the popu- lation of Carteret County represented 0.6 percent of the state. 2.4.2 Population Change Within Carteret County It is difficult to assign trends to units smaller than the county level just through presentation of demographic statistics. One or more unexplainable factors may account for dramatic changes in the level or direction of population change. Within Carteret County, the population of some of the incorporated towns has increased dramatically during the period 1960-1970. This growth can be attributed principally to both the growth of the area as a recreation area and the growth of industry and com- merce in the Morehead City -Beaufort area. Table 22 and Figure 2 indicate the growth of towns within Carteret County for the 10 year period ending in 1970. 2.4.3 Population Density Table 23 and Figure 3 indicate relative population density in Carteret County and the state for the period 1940-1970. The population density of Carteret County has been steadily increasing over the past 35 years. From a density of 34.2 persons per square mile in 1940, population density has almost doubled to a level of 59. 1 persons per square mile in 1970. These levels must be regarded as sparse when compared to statewide popu- lation densities. For the same period, statewide population densities increased from 73. 2 persons per square mile in 1940 to a level of 104 persons per square mile in 1970. Thus, the general trend in population density has been identical at both the state and county levels. 112 Table 21. POPULATION DATA, 1940-1970 Area 1940 1950 1960 1970 Carteret County 18,284 23,059 30,940 31,603 Region P 245,979 304,244 387,620 410,123 State 3,571,623 14,061,929 4, 556, 155 5, 082, 059 Table 22. POPULATION GROWTH IN CARTERET COUNTY TOWNS, 1960-1970 Town Population Percent Change 1 960-1970 1960 1970 Carteret County 27,438 31,603 15.2 Atlantic Beach 76 300 294.7 Beaufort 2,922 3,368 15.3 Cape Carteret 52 616 1,184.6 Emerald Isle 14 122 771.4 Morehead City 5,583 5,233 -6. 3 Newport 861 1,735 101.5 Table 23. POPULATION DENSITY, 1940-1970, CARTERET COUNTY AND STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Area Square Miles Population Density 1940 1950 1960 1970 Carteret County 534.8 34.2 43.3 51.3 59.1 State 48,798.0 73.2 83.2 93.4 104.1 113 10, 000, 000 North Carolina 1, 000, 000 r Region P I O O cd 100, 000 R. Q Carteret County 10, 000 1, 000 1940 1950 1960 1970 Source: Neuse River Council of Governments, 1973 Figure 1. Historic Population, 1940-1970 114 100, 00C 10, 00 0 W Cd � 1,00 a 0 Mp 10C 1C Carteret County Morehead City Beaufort Aww�� AowAWW r� Newport 1000, Cape Carteret // Atlantic Beach Emerald Isle 000, // 1 1 1960 1970 Source: Neuse River Council of Governments, 1973 Figure 2. Population of Towns in Carteret County, 1960-1970 115 120 90 a� 60 0 L 30 A 1940 1950 1960 1970 ® County 0 State Figure 3. Carteret County and State of North Carolina Comparative Population Densities, 1940-1970 116 2.4.4 Age Distribution Information concerning the age distribution of a population can be very useful. Much can be learned about the future population of an area by examining the age distribution of an existing population. Specifically, if the percent of population in the 5-19 age group is low relative to the entire population, then it is reasonable to assume a decline or decrease in population growth in future years. Conversely, if population in the 65+ years group is high, it is reasonable to assume a low natural replace- ment rate. Predominantly rural counties in North Carolina have, over the past 10-20 years, experienced relatively high out migration rates for the age group between 20 to 45. If this group is poorly represented in a population age group distribution, future declines in population are a reasonable assumption. Table 24 and Figure 4 indicate the 1970 age group distribution for Carteret County, Region "P" and the State of North Carolina. From Table 24, it can be seen that there are no highly significant differences in the age distribution of persons at the county and state level. On a percentage distribution basis, there are slightly fewer people over age 65 at the state level than at the county level. This is possibly attributable to retirees migrating from urban areas of the state to retirement homes located in coastal areas. 2.4.5 Educational Attainment In conjunction with the size of the labor force and the supply of available, unemployed labor, knowledge of the general level of educational attainment within the labor force is useful to both potential employers and political decision makers. For a prospective employer, knowledge of the level of general education achieved can indicate in particular what types of labor are most readily available within a given geographic area. Figure 5 indi- cates comparative levels of educational attainment in Carteret County and North Carolina. Educational attainment data for persons over age 25 in Carteret County contained in the 1970 census, indicates that 24. 3 percent 117 IT (1) an -4 a0 U N M � ~ 00 + Q\ O` N N ~ a 00 I O N Ln O N N rn � I Q rn M M Lf1 O It ro N N M O C � O O ~ 00 00 0 M M M u 00 N [- (71 N O 00 00 It y O Ln 00 00 N O N M M Lr1 M d� .NO O O M OD Lf) O N D d 00 00 00 M M O O od U U a a U R1 U) U a «i U) 118 Carteret County Age 0-4 years 5-19 years 20-44 years 45-64 years 65+ years Region P 0-4 years 5-19 years 20-44 years 45-64 years 65+ years North Carolina 0-4 years 5-19 years 20-44 years 45-64 years 65+ years Percent 8. 3 28. 8 32. 7 21.0 9.2 8.8 32. 8 36. 1 16.2 6. 1 8. 5 30.4 33. 2 19. 7 8.2 Figure 4. Population: Age Distribution, 1970 119 Carteret County Years Attained 0-4 5-7 8 9-11 12 13-15 16 or more North Carolina 0-4 5-7 8 9-11 12 13-15 16 or more Percent 6. 3 18.0 8.9 26.5 25. 3 8.8 6. 2 10.0 18. 3 8. 8 24.4 21.7 8.4 8. 5 Source: General Social and Economic Characteristics. North Carolina, 1970. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1972. Figure 5. Educational Attainment 120 of all persons over age 25 have less than eight years of education. This is slightly lower than the statewide level of 28. 3 percent. In Carteret County, 40. 3 percent of all persons over age 25 have attained at least a high school education. The statewide figure for this level of education is slightly lower, with 38.6 percent of the state's population over age 25 having at least a high school education. In summary, educational attainment of the population of Carteret County is quite comparable to statewide levels of educational attainment. The median years of education attained in the Carteret County population was 10. 9 in 1970, versus a statewide median of 10. 6 years. In short, there do not appear to be any highly significant differences between educational levels attained in Carteret County and the state as a whole. 2.4.6 Measures of Income Several measures of income can be utilized to illustrate, on a comparative basis, the relative levels of income in Carteret County and the State of North Carolina. The Bureau of the Census (1970), was utilized to develop the measures of income section. Specific measures of income considered include: • Percentage frequency distribution of family income • Mean income • Median income • Income below poverty level • Per capita income for individuals All dollar figures are reported in 1967 constant dollars unless otherwise noted. This removes any inflationary bias and allows for the inter -temporal comparision of dollar values. An examination of the percentage frequency distribution of income levels for families in Carteret County and the state indicates that the distribution of family incomes in the county closely parallels state income levels. This is shown in Table 25 and Figure 6. Both at low and high income levels, county and state figures are comparable. Families with incomes of 121 z 0 U s a� U V 00 O O N tf1 LC1 N U t!1 H M O l— 00 M U N Q 0 F1 00 M O O t— H O cd N 0o 00 H l— (� D [� O O D t11 N t11 D l— 00 H N N 0 z 0 N N H 00 H O, N in N O r+ Lr D N M N U r-, 'O y o •� U 'TS H U) O cd N O O O 0 'O O H O ,4 O ..4 U cn ..a U V od .� .� .� � •� •� � Q y •� � �Cd �TA �D a 122 f a, w 123 W W $10, 000 (family incomes in this section are reported in 1969 constant dollars) or less constitute 69. 8 percent of Carteret families and 66. 3 percent of North Carolina families. The $10, 000 to $25, 000 income range includes 28. 5 percent of the county families and 31.2 percent of state families, Families with incomes of $25, 000 and above again are similar, 1. 7 percent for Carteret and 2.5 percent for North Carolina. Table 26 indicates 1967 constant dollar equivalents for the other income measures listed. Carteret County income measures are higher than the state's for the category of all families and unrelated individuals. Income measures are higher in the state for families and per capita income. Perhaps the most signifi- cant continuing parallel between Carteret County and the state is in per capita income, with the state only 3. 5 percent higher than the county. Income statistics for 1969 indicate that 1,404 families or 16. 6 percent of all families in the county, reported incomes below federally defined poverty levels. This level was defined in 1969 as total family income of less than $3, 388 per year. In 1967 constant dollars, this would equal an income of $3, 086 year. The constant dollar median income of all families in the county below this level was $987. 00 in 1969. Of the 1, 404 families indicated, 891 (10.5 percent) reported annual incomes of less than 75 percent of the federally defined poverty level. These families reported total mean income deficits of $959. At the state level, there were 211, 222 families, representing 16. 3 percent of all families in the state, that reported poverty level incomes in 1969. Of these, 142, 146 (11. 0 percent) reported incomes of less than 75 percent of the poverty level. Of significance here is the difference in the percentage of all families at or below the poverty level. Carteret County still closely parallels the state with poverty and sub -poverty figures differing by a maximum of 1. 5 percent. 2.4.7 Employment Table 27 and Figure 7 indicate major employment sectors in both Carteret County and the state. In both Carteret County and 124 2 m a� Ln N cd Ucis O N N �I . n` W .0 .--c (13 of O �' �, O cd � U x O 4-1z O m 00 if) Lf) in w O` H I N M 00 in O` N ti M .--I A00 O 00 00 00 00 r-I c/1 � --� N M N rl z Q) cd V �O Oz O 00 Cd a O 1 U o Ei 4 O H O H cis ti i U ° N M O, 00 00 c 00 �a cal O + � :J Gti z to Q` O1 O. O. p% O 01 O` O, O, O% ap O, O, O, O, O% 0 cis N if1 O� � N I 1 I 1 I + O O O O O O CO G O O O O O O U O tf1 f." r-I 125 O N L/ a 0 0 a z 0 H a U U 0 c OmO.-gLnMo,Oo 0 a� N � C a O Cd �['t 0 N N l� l� di X M 00 O O 00 00 O� 00 l— O� 00 d t - 00 N O1 O` 00 N c N N Lo N CY, Cd 4 O H � O Lr, .--r 00 O O O U O �O N-4 Ln l-� N O i� N -i O � N � a O U ,b i O (1) O 00 Cl O� l� Cl l— m lfl �fl (IJ �[t �O N l� N l� N N l� M M l� a0 N lf1 N cd � O H U) H 'O O cd cd m V cd U Cd N x R. O -0 UO � U cd Cd U F 0 v x U) cd O 0 U) � 3 U)° .� � w (d U)' o y -� cd x 0 0-1 IZ+ 126 N N ON m $4 0 4 . U w to Agriculture CI'S .... truCtion Manufacturing -durable goods Manufacturing -nondurable goods Transportation Communications and utilities Wholesale trade Retail trade Banking and insurance S c r % i c c s Educational service Professional services Other 0 5 10 15 20 25 Percent Figure 7. 1970 Occupational Distribution of Experienced Labor Force, Carteret County, North Carolina 127 the state, three employment sectors account for over 50 percent of all employment. Employment in retail trade, professional services and manufacturing accounts for 53. 6 percent of all employment in Carteret County and 54. 5 percent of all employ- ment in the state. However, when the percentage distributions are examined on a category by category basis, striking differences appear. In Carteret County, manufacturing employment (both durable and non -durable) is equal to 14.4 percent of all county employment. In contrast, manufacturing employment at the state level is equal to 35.5 percent of all employment. From this, it is clear employment in the manufacture of either durable or non -durable goods in Carteret County is far less dominant than at the state level. Conversely, there is also a significant difference in the level of retail sales employment in Carteret County vis-a-vis the state. This sector employed 18. 9 percent of all employees in the county, but at the state level was equal to 13. 8 percent of all employment. These two sectoral differences indicate that employment in Carteret County is dominated by non -manufacturing employment, with high degree of reliance upon the retail sector. In short, Carteret County is basically a service oriented economy, producing little in the form of exportable goods. Carteret County is characteristic of sparsely populated, recreation oriented coastal counties in North Carolina and in that respect is highly representative of coastal counties. 2.4.8 Available Labor Force The 1970 available civilian labor force in Carteret County was estimated to be 11, 863 persons. Of this total, 638 were unemployed, resulting in an unemployment rate of 5. 4 percent. The available civilian labor force excludes all people in the following categories: • Those over age 65 • Those under age 16 • Inmates of institutions • Students • Military personnel 128 More recent unemployment data suggest a somewhat higher rate of unemployment. In September 1974, there were 510 unemployed persons actively seeking work within a 25-mile radius of Morehead City. At present (June 1975) the existing unemployment rate in Carteret County is approximately nine percent. 2.4.9 Occupational Groups Table 28 indicates the major occupational groupings of employed persons in Carteret County and the state. Several significant differences appear when state and county data are compared. At both the state and county levels, five occupational categories account for at least 70 percent of all employment. Table 28. MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL GROUPINGS Occupational Group Percent of all Occupations County State Craftsmen 21. 1 14.5 Operatives 15.4 26. 3 Clerical 12.1 14.1 Professionals 11. 1 11.0 Service workers 14.0 11. 0 Two occupational groups, craftsmen and operatives, have quite different percentage representation at the two levels. The difference in percentage distribution of operative is attributable to the relatively low level of factory employment in Carteret County as compared with the state. Similarly, there is a higher percentage distribution of craftsmen, predominantly in the construction industry, in Carteret County than at the state level. 2.4.10 Labor Force Participation Rate The labor force participation rate is the ratio of those employed to the total population over age 16. Table 29 presents the male, 129 female and combined labor force participation rates for Carteret County and the state. The participation rate for males is slightly higher at the state level, as compared with the county. The 2. 9 percent lower participation rate at the county level is not considered to be of major significance. The labor force participation rate for females is generally far lower than for males. This is borne out at both the county and state levels. Marriage is the most predominant factor in pro- ducing a lower labor force participation rate among women. However, there is a trend toward an increase in the female labor force participation rate, as more women return to work after marrying. Table 29. EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS: 1970 CIVILIAN EMPLOYED LABOR FORCE Employment Status Carteret County North Carolina Civilian Percent Civilian Percent Employed Total Employed Total Male, 16 years & over 7,063 66.7 1,176,912 69.6 Female, 16 years & over 4,162 36.0 807,490 44.2 Combined male and female 11, 225 51. 0 1,984,402 56.4 2.4.11 Dependency Ratio The dependency ratio is another means of examining the per- centage of those employed as compared with total population. This ratio is the ratio of non -workers to workers, and represents a measure of the level of demands placed upon the economic system. High dependency ratios would indicate a relatively large number of people dependent upon a small number of jobs for a livelihood. 130 In 1970, the dependency ratio in Carteret County was 1. 81. The corresponding ratio at the state level was 1. 56. From this it can be seen that there are proportionately more people in the county - relying on relatively fewer jobs than at the state level. 2.4.12 Seasonality of Employment Table 30 presents data on the number of weeks worked during 1970. The number of weeks worked indicates, in general, the degree of seasonal employment. In areas where the level of office and factory employment is high, high percentages of those employed would work 50-52 weeks per year. In areas where employment is highly dependent upon one or more seasonal factors, the percentage of workers who work 50-52 weeks per year will be lower. A principal explanation of relatively low numbers of weeks worked would be high levels of employment in tourism and recreational sector employment. In Table 30 there is a significant difference in the state versus county per- centage of workers who worked 50-52 weeks. In Carteret County, 51. 3 percent of all workers worked 50-52 weeks in 1970. In contrast, 57. 9 percent of all workers in the state worked for the entire year. The percentage of workers in Carteret County working less than 50 weeks as compared with those at the state level, teiids to further support the conclusions about the type of employment and industrial development in Carteret County versus the state. In Carteret County the seasonality of employment appears to be directly attributable to several factors: • Employment in the recreational sector • Employment in fisheries • Employment in agriculture These three sectors are all highly dependent upon weather and time, of year. Consequently, employment in the county is more sensitive to these factors than employment on a state-wide basis. 131 O M z tf1 N M Ln O U1 Q` Q` N U tti [— O" M It 00 r— Q` U .G N N Lf) N O H N cd r>1 10 It 10 O` O` M Ul M Q` s: O 00 N [— 00 4� r--4 p 04 O M 0� O ' 10 [— 00 U) 00 00 - U1 [— z W 0" N. i N N cf' Lf) d' cd O H N 00 l- Ln N O M M M di U O U o a U 10 M d' N 00 M 00 -A [- �' � 04 N N M -4 \0 00 M Q1 -A SCi O 00 N N M N-4 [- lx M N O H x � y � � o � o � ti U) x x o ° y. ° >, m ,o a� a� U) m U] `D N Q` p Lf) g a� Lf) g � Lf) o N ,o rd O N ,D O N ,o N O 132 2.4.13 Commuting Pattern, Commuting has become a growing factor in suburban living as suburbs sprawl further from central business areas and centers of employment. City limits expand toward county lines as more people desire rural life but are tied to cities for jobs. The result is an increase in movement across county lines to live, necessitating more inter -county commuting. Carteret County does not reflect the total state commuting pattern. North Carolina indicates a net gain of 1, 378 workers, the difference between 320, 493 out -commuters and 321, 871 in -commuters. Carteret County shows a 2,561 person increase in out -commuters over in -commuters (see Table 31). There are 11, 946 employed residents in the county but only 9, 385 persons work in the county. This represents a commuting ratio of 0. 786 compared to the state ratio of 1. 001. The principal explanation for the high level of out -commuting is the level of civilian employment at Marine Corps facilites located at Cherry Point in adjacent Craven County. 2.4.14 Military Employment Ft. Macon Coast Guard Station in Morehead City, with approxi- mately 1, 100 military personnel, is the only military installation in Carteret County. In Region "P", however, the largest single employment generating industry is the military. Marine Corps bases at Camp Lejeune and New River, both located in Jacksonville, employ 3, 874 and 201 civilians respectively. Cherry Point Marine Corps Base in Havelock employs 4, 325 civilians and Seymour -Johnson Air Force Base near Goldsboro employs 568 civilians. 2.4.15 Government Employment The government has become an increasingly important consumer for the county labor force. Work force estimates for 1971 con- sider 1,410 government employees in Carteret County, second only to employment in the trades. This represents 13. 8 percent of the total work force, constituting a rise from 12.4 percent in 1962. Of this government labor force, 41 persons were employed 133 Table 31, COMMUTING PATTERNS, 1970 Number of Commuters C o unty From Carteret To: To Carteret From: B eaufo rt 0 14 Craven 2,600 559 Duplin 5 --- Jones 13 0 Lenoir 0 16 New Hanover 30 0 Onslow 393 79 Pamlico 3 44 Pitt 8 --- Elsewhere 318 97 Total 3,370 809 Live and work in Carteret County 8,576 8,576 Employed residents 11,946 --- Persons working in Carteret County --- 9,385 Net commuting loss - 2,561 Source: Employment Security Commission of North Carolina, 1974. 134 by the federal government as of 1972. This represents 2. 9 per- cent of Carteret County's government employees and 0.4 percent of the total county labor force. 2.4.16 Agriculture Agriculture in Carteret County is decreasing in farms, acreage and employment. Factors affecting this decrease are: the Federal soil bank program, liberal crop rotation requiring extended fallow periods and cover crops, development of farm- land into residential subdivisions, commercial strip and clustered developments, industrial parks, etc. , and an increase in farm size due to more mechanized farming methods. The ten year period from 1959 to 1969 witnessed a 37.4 percent decrease in Carteret farms from 471 to 295. Total farm acreage decreased by 34 percent from 47, 008 acres to 31, 028 acres. Average farm size however, increased by 5. 3 percent, repre- senting a change from 99. 8 acres to 105. 1 acres. Despite dwindling land and individual farms, the 10-year period under consideration produced a 62. 9 percent increase in cash farm receipts. This represents 1969 total cash receipts of $3, 277, 941. Change in receipts from crops was responsible for a 36. 8 percent increase and livestock and poultry for a 21.6 percent increase. Employment has dwindled as farms and acreage have decreased. In 1971, 330 persons were employed in agriculture. This repre- sents 3. 2 percent of the total work force. Compared to 610 agricultural workers in 1962, this marks a 46 percent decrease in employment. 2.4.17 Industry Analysis Due to the water -oriented nature of the proposed projects, there will be special consideration of those economic activities that are directly related to or could be affected by the proposed projects. Specific industries or economic sectors to be con- sidered include: 135 • Commercial fisheries • Waterborne commerce • Water -oriented recreation 2.4.18 Commercial Fisheries Commercial fisheries, fishery product processing and secondary economic activity derived from commercial fishing activities are of major economic signficance in North Carolina and Carteret County. Approximately four percent of all domestic landings occur in North Carolina (1973). North Carolina also accounted for 6. 4 percent of U.S. menhaden (industrial fish) landings. Carteret County is a major fishery center in North Carolina, with 1973 county landings representing 45.2 percent of statewide landings and 41. 3 percent of statewide landed value. Figures 8 and 9 indicate the levels and values of landings for North Carolina and Carteret County. As would be expected, there is a relatively high correlation between the County and State data over the past ten years. Principal species landed in Carteret County are included in Table 32. Table 32. PRINCIPAL SPECIES LANDED IN CARTERET COUNTY Species Percent of 1974 Food Fish Landing Percent of 1973 Exvessel Value Croaker 9.9 4.7 Flounder 11.6 19. 7 Sea trout 14.7 8.4 Spot 14.3 10.0 Blue crab 7. 0 5.5 Shrimp 6.6 34.7 The six species accounted for 63. 5 percent of total food fish landings and 83 percent of food fish exvessel value in Carteret 136 �O N 00 O • 100;l00, / I •.• • \ �k S J • ,J V V C7 O N .tea O tf1 137 WE N W N o� i M O� N Cd Cd U) M Cd X U) GN Cd U i-1 O U d M O ;-I Cd U x �-I O z N OA W 00 �o V' 7 G _ O N J OL C R 3 > L N > y 1 � � 1Nk, � ; ■ •l % t / Iloo, •�. •� 4F i f I .qp �. /lool 1 O o O in N r+ L-) v O O Ln .4 138 J�J lV M cc N ' � cd N _ CD H U M F� I� � H M O � 0o U � � _ T �4Z _ `o O Hcd U � m U r Q; a� � _ M .D pp County. Tables 33 and 34 indicate food fish landings and values for the period 1963-1974 for Carteret County and the State of North Carolina. In addition to food fish landings, Carteret County is the base of operations for a sizeable menhaden fishery. The menhaden is an industrial fish, and when processed, yields fish meal, fish oil and soluble fish products. Due to population dynamics and conditions in estuarine nursery areas, catches of menhaden may vary widely from year to year. The dashed line in Figures 8 and 9 indicates the menhaden catch for North Carolina and Carteret County from 1965 to 1973. During that period, catches landed in Carteret County have been as high as 174. 7 million pounds in 1966 and as low as 31. 0 million pounds in 1973. In 1974 the National Marine Fisheries Service estimated there were approximately ten vessels in excess of 75 feet in length active in the menhaden fishery. Tables 35 and 36 indicate menhaden landings and exvessel values for the period 1966-1973 for Carteret County and the State of North Carolina. 2.4.19 Employment in Fishery Product Processing Approximately one-third of all seafood landings in North Carolina are processed within the state. Total employment in fishery product processing in 1972 averaged 1,227 employees at 81 plants. Peak seasonal employment was estimated to be 2, 068 persons. Data on seafood processing employment in Carteret County is not available due to disclosure of confidential information However, total 1972 employment in Carteret, Craven and Brunswick Counties was estimated to be 340 persons. The total value of processed products for the three counties was esti- mated to be $7. 4 million in 1972. Employment on an average monthly basis in menhaden processing facilities in Carteret County was approximately 36 persons in 1972. 2.4.20 Infrastructure There are numerous aspects of the social and economic infra- structure in Carteret County that merit consideration in this 139 Table 33. CARTERET COUNTY LANDINGS, 1963-1973 Year Thousands of Pounds and Dollars Pounds Value 1963 184,392 3,562 1964 146, 012 3, 600 1965 153,090 4,381 1966 194,957 4,915 1967 151,404 3,884 1968 151,742 4,243 1969 129,714 5,280 1970 89,856 3,534 1971 53, 980 3,945 1972 80,268 4,998 1973 62,349 6,639 Source: National Marine Fisheries Service, Beaufort, North Carolina, 1975 Table 34. NORTH CAROLINA LANDINGS, 1964-1974 Year Thousands of Pounds and Dollars Pounds Value 1962 182,384 6,755 1963 256,652 7,047 1964 238,579 8,023 1965 233, 961 9,241 1966 250,932 9,571 1967 225,088 8,328 1968 232,175 9,706 1969 219,034 12,525 1970 171,694 9,356 1971 143,475 11,227 1972 175,811 11,838 1973 1 37, 869 16,066 1974 196,040 17,389 Source: National Marine Fisheries Service, Beaufort, North Carolina, 1975 140 Table 35. CARTERET COUNTY MENHADEN LANDINGS, 1965-1973 Y ear Thousands of Pounds and Dollars Pounds Value 1965 128,719 1,661 1966 174,676 2,432 1967 129,489 1,458 1968 131,852 1,566 1969 111,125 1,705 1970 74, 6'51 1,083 1971 37,446 526 1972 41,408 596 1973 31,016 1,177 Source: National Marine Fisheries Service, Beaufort, North Carolina, 1975 Table 36. NORTH CAROLINA MENHADEN LANDINGS, 1964-1974 Y ear Thousands of Pounds and Dollars Pounds Value 1964 172,992 2,249 1965 160,595 2,072 1966 182,289 2,538 1967 150,481 1,694 1968 167,189 1,958 1969 145,235 2,228 1970 108,235 1,570 1971 79,488 1,116 1972 84,692 11219 1973 66,943 2,540 1974 121,201 2,968 Source: National Marine Fisheries Service, Beaufort, North Carolina, 1975 141 study. The existing infrastructure may be regarded as the framework within which economic and social institutions function. This framework has, over time, evolved to meet the needs of Carteret County's expanding population. The level of services and facilities available covers a broad range including but not limited to the following: • Public services • Public facilities • Public finances • Communications • Utilities Public facilities available in Carteret County include electric power supplied by the Carolina Power and Light Company, one of the four private electric utilities that produce most of the state's electric power. Natural gas is provided by the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation's main line extending across the state. This utility is regulated by the North Carolina Utilities Commission and serviced by the North Carolina Natural Gas Corporation. Public education needs in Carteret County are met by 12 elementary and secondary schools with a total 1972 enrollment of 7,435 pupils. Carteret Technical Institute in Morehead City is the county's only higher learning facility, with a 1972 enroll- ment of 398. The county utilizes two public library facilities, Carteret County Library in Beaufort and Webb Memorial Library in Morehead City. Primary health services are supplied by the Carteret County Health Department in Beaufort. Two hospitals administer county needs, Carteret General Hospital in Morehead City and Sealevel Hospital in Sealevel. Ambulance services are pro- vided by local rescue squads, fire departments and hospitals in five locations: Beaufort, Newport, Morehead City, Harker's Island and Sealevel. The closest public mental health facilities are at the Neuse Clinic in New Bern, Craven County, and the Onslow County Mental Health Clinic in Jacksonville, Onslow County. 142 Region P which includes Carteret County, is considered to be generally lacking in health care facilities. According to an inventory taken by the Comprehensive Health Planning Division of the Neuse River Council, there are 47 physicians per 100, 000 population in Region P compared to a state ratio of 96 physicians and a national ratio of 138 physicians. Fire protection is provided by facilities in Atlantic Beach and Mitchell Village —Crab Point as part of North Carolina's rural fire protection program. Police and sheriff's offices are located in Atlantic Beach, Beaufort, Cape Carteret, Emerald Isle, Morehead City, and Newport. A total of 90 persons, including full time , part-time and volunteer personnel, staff these departments. Transportation facilities available in Carteret County are diverse. The county needs are served by 81. 95 miles of primary rural roads and 8. 62 miles of primary municipal roads. Secondary roads add 259. 80 rural miles and 22. 44 municipal miles to the system. The New Bern— Beaufort Airport provides com- mercial air service to the county. Serviced by Piedmont Air- lines, the airport lists 38, 693 scheduled passenger emplanements for the 12 months ending December 31, 1972. Private aircraft needs are augmented by facilities at the Beaufort Airport. Rail service is provided by the Beaufort and Morehead Railroad. A total of 3. 3 miles of track connect the two cities. Service into Morehead City is via the Atlantic and East Carolina Railway Company, from Goldsboro, Kinston, and New Bern. The Beaufort and Morehead Railroad is the second smallest facility in the state, providing 0. 08 percent of North Carolina's total rail facilities. Through the Morehead City seaport, North Carolina and Carteret County enjoy modern, all weather terminal facilities. This port has 5,300 feet of continuous concrete wharf, including a 1,000-foot deepwater berth for bulk handling, and 1,200 feet of dock space that provides four 300-foot barge berths. Approximately 595,000 square feet of warehouse space and 220,000 square feet of transit shed are available in Morehead City. Accessible by rail and truck. 143 18 paved acres are available for open storage. The bulk handling facility has an annual capacity of 3 million tons, a storage capacity of 106, 000 tons and a loading capacity of 275, 000 tons. Lift requirements are met by two 115=ton cranes both with con- tainer capabilities. Fumigation facilities are also available in Morehead City, provided by two-9, 000 cubic foot steel chambers fully mechanized for vacuum cyanide and acritet fumigation. Phostoxin fumigation is also available for containers or space storage. Carteret County bonded indebtedness as of June 30, 1971 was $2, 356, 100 with a per capita debt (gross) of $74. 55. Total tax levy for 1970-71 was $689, 436. Total uncollected taxes for all prior years up to June 30, 1971 was $290, 276. The tax rate is based on 100 percent valuation with an effective tax rate of $. 80. Property valuation for 1971 -72 was $183 million with a per capita valuation of $5, 791, 2.4.21 Recreation Carteret County offers all the recreational opportunities asso- ciated with ocean and beach through federal, state, county and private efforts. State and federal recreational facilities include 385 historic acres at Ft. Macon State Park and the 23, 500-acre proposed facility of Cape Lookout National Seashore. Private facilities in Morehead City, Cedar Island and Salter Path offer approximately 54 acres with 711 tent and recreational vehicle sites plus disposal stations. Water -oriented recreation opportunities include marinas, fishing ramps and piers, fishing camps, charter facilities, and motels. These facilities offer approximately 853 slips, 1,680 feet of public dockage, 24 boat ramps, two marine railways and four travelifts. Carteret County boat registrations for 1975 listing "pleasure" as principal use account for 637 boats. 2.5 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS The two principal parameters to be projected for Carteret County are population and per capita income. Population estimates for 144 Carteret County produced by the North Carolina State Department of Planning are representative of several available projections. Table 37 and Figure 10. 2.5.1 Population Projections The population of Carteret County is projected to increase at an annual rate of approximately 1. 15 percent. These projections incorporate the trend toward lower birth rates first evidenced in the early 1970s. It is anticipated that this trend will continue. Table 37. POPULATION PROJECTIONS Year Carteret County Region P 1980 37,200 437,000 1990 43,200 460,000 2000 48,000 483,000 2010 52,900 510,000 2020 57,200 540,000 2030 63,200 570,000 Source: North Carolina State Department of Planning, 1975. 2.5.2 Projected Per Capita Income Levels Table 38 and Figure 11 present projected levels of per capita income for Carteret County and the state to the year 2030. Projected levels of per capita income in Carteret County are anticipated to rise, both absolutely and in relation to projected levels of per capita income for the State of North Carolina. Projected levels reflect the probability that Carteret County will remain a service -oriented econorliy. Further, there appears to be relatively little impetus to move towards a broad, well - diversified economy at the county level. 145 1, 000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 0 200, 000 0 .,A +� c� 0 �21 100,000 80,000 U N 0 60,000 P, 'alp 20,000 10, 000 W-IRcgion P 1'`Cartcrct County 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Source: North Carolina Advisory Council on the Social Sciences, 1972 Figure 10. Projected Population, Carteret County and Region P, 1980-2030 146 Table 38. PROJECTED PER CAPITA INCOMES1/ Year Carteret County State 1980 3,100 3,900 1990 4,500 5,100 2000 6,000 6,900 2010 8,000 2/ 8,800- 2020 10,500 11,500 2030 14,000 15,000-2-/ 1 / 1967 Constant Dollars 2/ Interpolated Source: Water Resources Council, 1974. 2.6 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROFILE OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECT AREAS The consideration of economic and social aspects of each indi- vidual project is somewhat limited vis-a-vis the profile gene- rated for Carteret County. Since, for the most part, the particular towns involved are quite small, social and economic data is lacking in many cases. Data on income, employment, and occupations are not available at any level of disaggregation below the county. The principal reason for withholding this data is to preclude disclosure of confidential information. For these reasons, the profile of each individual project area is in somewhat less detail as regards the social and economic profile of Carteret County. Specific geographic areas to be considered include: • Channel B etwecn Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor • Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge • Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay with Cedar Island Bay Atlantic Harbor of Refuge • Atlantic Harbor 147 100,000 80, 000 60,000 40, 000 20, 000 000-1 Ul North Carolina�Cd �� 10,000 n Q 8, 000 6, 000 / ,// / Carteret County 4, 0 0 0 �00 2, 000 1, 000 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Figure 11. Projected Per Capita Income, 1980-2030 148 • Sealevel -. • Marshallberg • Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge • Beaufort Harbor The waterway connecting Pamlico Sound with Beaufort Harbor will be considered in terms of economic activities dependent upon the channel. Specific areas of economic interest to be considered include: • Waterborne commerce • Commercial fishing • Recreational boating • Seafood processing and wholesaling On the basis of interviews and site visits, estimates of the number of vessels, vessel size, species sought, and employment will be presented. These data should be regarded as estimates only, since they are not available in published form. 2.6.1 Channel Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor The waterway connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor is used principally for waterborne commerce and recreational boating. The most recent data available for waterborne com- merce indicate that in 1973, commercial traffic consisted entirely of fishing vessels transporting their catch. Table 39 indicates the level and tonnage of waterborne commerce over this waterway for the period 1960-1973. From Table 39 it is apparent that for the period 1960-1973, the principal users of this waterway have been commercial fishermen and recreational boaters. 2.6.2 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge The population of Cedar Island township has varied between 250 and 300 over the past 25 years. The 1970 population was esti- mated to be 290 persons. Located in the extreme eastern end of Carteret County, the township is dominated by the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge. Commercial development in the Cedar Island area is limited. There are approximately 149 Table 39. WATERBORNE COMMERCE, 1960-1973: WATERWAY CONNECTING BEAUFORT HARBOR AND PAMLICO SOUND Year Vessel Trips'l= Total Tonnage Commodities Carried, tons Fresh Shellfish Menhaden Stone and Other Fish Gravel 1960 14,064 9,901 2,935 1,747 N/A` 0 5,218 1961 8,455 13,897 1,901 3,327 N/A 0 8,669 1962 5,557 27,218 1,437 2,087 N/A 0 23,694 1963 6,816 33,125 1,844 1,740 N/A 8,332 21,209 1964 6,422 11,997 1,768 2,353 N/A 0 7,876 1965 15,388 34,781 5,233 2,018 2,710 20,072 4,748 1966 24,434 6,817 2,561 2,057 299 0 1,900 1967 13,652 6,798 3,010 2,120 1,668 0 0 1968 10,942 73,212 1,556 1,959 697 0 69,000 1969 6,061 5,123 1,268 2,256 11599 0 0 1970 8,757 7,586 1,503 4,833 161 339 0 1971 7,034 9,902 1,475 5,524 2,903 0 0 1972 17,260 18,982 8,740 2,723 5,843 1,676 0 1973 13,912 17,860 2,499 3,019 12,342 0 0 Prior to 1968, no differentiation made as to direction of trips. Trips indicated subsequent to 1968 are for downbound direction. -`-Not available Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973. 150 32 commercial fishing boats that utilize the Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge as a base of operations. Of these, approxi- mately 28 are under 20 feet in length and are used in the harvest of shrimp and finfish. There are no menhaden vessels based at the Cedar Island Harbor of Refuge. There are approximately 35 full-time fishermen operating from the Harbor of Refuge. There is a seafood wholesaler with offloading facilities located adjacent to the harbor. Annual employment is estimated at five persons, with approximately ten additional persons employed on a part-time basis during peak harvest periods. Coupled with an estimated level of 35 fishermen, total employment in both commercial fisheries and shore -based operations is estimated to be approximately 40 persons on an annual basis and approxi- mately 50 persons during periods of peak landings. Recreational boating facilities are quite limited at the Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge. There is a ramp for launching boats trailered to the harbor. There are no other facilities or services for recreational boaters. 2.6.3 Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay and Cedar Island Bay The channel between Cedar Island Bay and Thoroughfare Bay is used principally by commercial fishermen. It is also utilized by seafood packing house "buy" or "run" boats, which transport fish from vessels fishing in Pamlico Sound to packing houses located on Core Sound. The principal docking area in the channel is located adjacent to the highway bridge. At this location, approximately eight to ten large (25- to 35-foot) vessels are moored. These vessels are used in the finfish, shrimp and crab fisheries. There are approximately 15 outboard powered skiffs, utilized in the blue crab fishery moored at this location. Total employ- ment generated by these boats is estimated to be approximately 40 jobs. This estimate is based on an average crew of three men on the larger vessels and a crew of one on the smaller crab boats. 151 There is no commercial development at the docking facilities. This is due to the presence of the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge, which restricts commercial development. Consequently, catches are either offloaded at other ports or are trucked to wholesalers and processors from the dock area at the channel. 2.6.4 Atlantic Harbor of Refuge The Atlantic Harbor of Refuge is principally utilized by com- mercial fishermen. There are approximately 35 to 40 boats based in the harbor. The size distribution of these boats is indicated below. Principal species sought are shrimp, crabs, and finfish. There are no menhaden vessels based in the harbor. Less than 20 feet 20-30 feet Greater than 30 feet 18 10 6 Approximately 45 jobs are created by the existence of the fishing fleet. There are no seafood processors or wholesalers located at the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge. Vessels based here generally offload their catch at facilities located in Atlantic, approximately one mile southwest of the Harbor of Refuge. There are limited facilities for recreational boating at the Harbor of Refuge. There are no marinas located at the harbor. 2.6.5 Atlantic Harbor The 1970 population of Atlantic was 814 persons. Since 1950, there has been a gradual and consistent decline in the level of population. Commercial fisheries and agriculture have been the major employment sectors in the area. During the peak shrimp fishing periods of July and August, Atlantic Harbor is utilized as a base of operations by up to 100 commercial fishing vessels. There are approximately 50 commercial fishing boats and vessels based at Atlantic. The size distribution of vessels utilizing Atlantic Harbor is indicated below. 152 Less than 20 feet 20-25 feet 25-35 feet 35-50 feet 50+ feet 20 29 10 13 10 Vessels utilizing Atlantic Harbor fish in both the sound and ocean areas. Principal species harvested include shrimp, flounder, trout, spot, croaker, and crab. Total employment aboard fishing vessels based at Atlantic is estimated to be at least 180 persons. There are three fish processors/wholesalers located at Atlantic. Average year-round employment is estimated to be 20 people. During peak fishing periods, the level of total employment increases to a level of approximately 40 people. Total employ- ment in commercial fisheries and fish processing is estimated to be 200 jobs on an annual basis and increases to approximately 220 jobs during peak harvest periods. There are no marinas or other recreational boating facilities available at Atlantic Harbor. 2.6.6 Sealevel The town of Sealevel, approximately 25 miles northeast of Beaufort, had a population of 347 persons in 1970. Located in a rural, relatively undeveloped portion of Carteret County, Sealevel is dependent upon agriculture and commercial fishing as a source of income and employment. Interviews and a site visit to the Sealevel harbor in May 1975 indicated that a total of 15 to 20 commercial fishing vessels utilized the harbor. The approximate size distribution of all vessels based in the harbor is shown below. Less than 25 feet 25 25 to 50 feet Greater than 50 feet 11 IC The smaller vessels are predominantly crabbers. The larger vessels are utilized for shrimping and finfishing. Present depth restrictions in the channel leading to Sealevel prevent utilization by vessels drawing more than four feet. One result 153 of the depth restriction has been a decrease in the level of usage of Sealevel harbor by larger vessels. There are no recreational boating facilities at the Sealevel harbor and no recreational boats were noted during the site visit. The harbor appears to be used exclusively by water -oriented commercial activities. Employment aboard fishing boats and vessels provides approxi- mately 30 jobs to residents of the Sealevel area. Year-round employment in the seafood packing and processing sector is estimated to be five to seven jobs. Total employment in commercial fishing and seafood processing is estimated to be approximately 40 full-time jobs plus 15-20 part-time jobs. There is a seafood packing and shipping plant located adjacent to the harbor at Sealevel. Approximately 15- 20 jobs are created on a piecework basis during peak months in the shrimp fishery. 2.6.7 Marshallberg Marshallberg is an incorporated township located east of the Morehead City -Beaufort area in Carteret County. The level of population in Marshallberg increased from 416 persons in 1960 to 525 persons in 1970. This represents a 26.2 percent increase in population. The area is predominantly rural in character, with government employment, agriculture, fisheries, and other water -oriented activity dominating total employment. The National Marine Fisheries Service estimated that in 1974, there were approximately 35 commercial fishing vessels being operated from Marshallberg. The size distribution below indi- cates the approximate distribution of these vessels. Less than 25 feet 25 to 50 feet 50+ feet 20 13 3 The vessels in the under 25-foot class are predominantly crabbers, gill netters and long netters. The larger vessels are utilized for both shrimp and finfish harvesting. There is a 154 marine railway and boatyard located in Marshallberg that provides overhaul services for vessels displacing 150 tons or approximately 60-70 feet in length. An interview with the owner of the marine railway indicated that approximately 75 trawlers per year are hauled out for service and repairs on the marine railway. He stated that the yard could accommodate more vessels, but due to depth restrictions and shoaling in the channel, many vessel owners owners were reluctant to attempt to get to the repair facilities at Marshallberg. Vessels with drafts in excess of approximately six feet do not have access to repair facilities at Marshallberg, and are forced to go either to the Beaufort -Morehead City area or to New Bern. At the time of the site visit (May 1975), there were approximately 40 recreational boats moored in Marshallberg harbor. Additionally, there were approximately 25-30 recreational ves- sels stored at the boatyard adjacent to the harbor. Of the 40 vessels in the water, approximately 25 percent were greater than 35 f eet long. Commercial fishing, marine repair facilities and recreational boating generate an estimated 85 jobs. Employment Commercial fishing 70 Marinas and marine repair facilities 15 Total 85 Based on 1970 population and an average ratio of employed to non -employed persons of 40 percent, employment in commercial fishing, recreational boating and marine repair services pro- duces approximately 40 percent of all employment in the Marshallberg area. As such, employment in these sectors is of major significance when compared with total employment and income in the local economy. 155 -.6.8 Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge The 1960 population of Harkers Island was 1362; 1970's population was 1639 - a 20.3% increase. Most of the island's economy is based on commercial fishing industry, boat building, and seafood processing. However, a large portion of the island's work force is employed with the Naval Air Rework Facility at Cherry Point, N.C. During recent years, a significant number of non -county residents have purchased summer and retirement homes on the island. This is probably one of the more notable reasons for the 20% increase in population from 1960-1970. There are generally six commercial fishing boats moored in the Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge. Of these, four are under 20 feet in length, and two are 30 to 50 feet long. The small boats are engaged in channel - netting for shrimp and harvesting shellfish. The larger boats are involved in shrimping, and one occasionally fishes pots for black sea bass (Centropristis striata). One commercial trawler, up to 70 feet long, has been seen moored in the harbor on several occasions. Approximately 10 to 12 full or part-time fishermen operate from the Harbor of Refuge. There are no seafood wholesalers, processing plants, or off-loading facilities at the harbor. In addition, no boat launching ramps, public docking areas, or other facilities for recreational users are located in the harbor. No major storms or hurricanes have hit the Harkers Island area since project completion. However, local opinion is that the harbor would be crowded with shallow and deep draft boats if a severe storm threatened the Carteret County area. 2.6.9 Beaufort Harbor Beaufort, combined with Morehead City, is the most densely populated area in Carteret County. The total 1970 population of Beaufort and Morehead City was 8, 594 persons. Beaufort is perhaps the most important fisheries center in the entire state. Further, since the Beaufort -Morehead City harbor is an international port, waterborne commerce is a major source of income and employment in western Carteret County. As dis- cussed previously, the menhaden industry in Carteret County is centered in Morehead City and Beaufort. Seven of the ten men- haden boats licensed in the state are based in the Beaufort - Morehead City area. In addition, there are active fisheries for species such as flounder, sea trout, croaker, spot, and shrimp. 156 The National Marine Fisheries Service estimates the total number of fishing boats in the Beaufort -Morehead City area to be in excess of 230 boats and vessels (exclusive of menhaden vessels). The following size distribution indicates the general size distribution of the fleet. There were eight active menhaden vessels in 1974. Under 25 feet 25 to 50 feet 50 to 75 feet 180 49 10 Most of the vessels in the commercial fleet range between 25 and 50 feet and are either shrimpers or finfish vessels. The smaller boats, those under 25 feet in length, are predominantly crabbers. Depending upon the season, vessels will switch to the most pro- ductive fishery. The shallow draft design of many of these vessels allows them to operate in relatively shallow (less than ten feet) water. In the Beaufort -Morehead City area, there are 13 seafood pro- cessors and at least six major wholesalers. It is estimated that total employment in the processing and wholesaling sectors is equal to approximately 250-300 persons in Carteret County, with a minimum of an additional 300 persons employed aboard fishing vessels. In 1972 there were seven menhaden vessels employing 120 persons in Carteret County. There were, in addition, an annual average of 36 persons employed ashore in menhaden processing plants. Estimates of 1972 total employ- ment in the seafood, and seafood processing, and industrial fishery products sector in Carteret County are shown below. Seafood —fishermen aboard vessels 300 Menhaden —fishermen aboard vessels 120 Seafood processors and wholesalers 250 Menhaden processors 361� Total 756 1 J average monthly level of employment for 1972. The civilian labor force in Beaufort and Morehead City was estimated to be 3,460 persons in 1970. While not strictly comparable with the 1975 labor force, this data is sufficiently accurate to produce estimates when compared with total fisheries 157 employment. With total fisheries employment equal to 756 persons, it is clear that employment in marine fisheries and related industries is a major employment sector in the Beaufort - Morehead City area. Recreational boating facilities in the Morehead City -Beaufort area include 16 marinas with 563 slips, 10 launching ramps, 6 marine railways and 920 feet of docking space. In the Beaufort area alone, approximately 50 people are employed in marine service anti repair facilities. The combined port facilities at Beaufort and Morehead City handled 1.2 million tons of cargo in 1973. This cargo entered the area through an improved channel in Beaufort Harbor. As mentioned previously, the State Port Administration has extensive facilities located in Morehead City. These facilities include 5,300 feet of concrete wharfage, four 300-foot barge berths and a 1,000-foot deep water berth for bulk cargo handling. There is at present, an active charter boat and "head boat" fishery located in the Beaufort -Morehead City area. Headboats provide recreational sports fishing opportunities on a daily, "for - hire" basis. National Marine Fisheries Service data indicates a total of four headboats operating in the Beaufort -Morehead City area in 1971. Of these boats, three were classified as offshore boats, fishing as far as 45-50 miles offshore. The fourth boat is utilized in inshore waters. In 1971, there were approximately 40-45 charter boats available in the Beaufort - Morehead City region. The economic impact in 1971 of the charter and headboat fleet in Carteret County was estimated in a 1972 study to be approxi- mately 1. 7 million dollars. This impact was derived through the generation of an input-output matrix of the local economy and represents both direct and indirect economic impacts. 2.7 Other Federal Proiects The existing Federal projects in the vicinity of the Channel from Pamlico Sound to Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina, include the following: 158 (1) Channel from Back Sound to Lookout Bight. The channel was completed in May 1956 and provides benefits to commercial and sports fishermen and to the operation of the Coast Guard Station at Cape Lookout. The project consists of a channel from Harkers Island through Core Sound and Bardens Inlet to the Atlantic Ocean. Channel dimensions are 7 feet deep and 100 feet wide. (2) Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The AIWW is an inland sea level navigation route that transverses the Atlantic Coast from Boston, Massachusetts, to the St. Johns River, Florida. The waterway channel in the project area has a depth of 12 feet below mean low water and a bottom width of 90 feet. The water- way provides a sheltered north -south navigation route for shallow -draft vessels. Its initial construction within the Morehead City -Beaufort area occurred about 1930 and maintenance operations continue. (3) Core Creek Bridge. This bridge is located in Carteret County, North Carolina, 8.3 miles northwest of Beaufort on N.C. Highway 101 at its crossing of the Atlantic Intracoastal Water- way. It provides access between Beaufort and areas to the north and west. The bridge was constructed in 1935. Presently, plans are being made for replacement of the existing bridge with a new, more efficient structure. (4) Fort Macon State Park Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane -Flood Protection Project. This project provides for the stabilization and nourishment of the beach adjacent to Fort Macon. At present, the project is approximately 90 percent complete. (5) Peltier Creek. A navigation project was authorized for Peltier Creek by Congress in 1954 for a channel 1,850 feet by 90 feet, 12 feet deep. In 1956, an interim project, providing a channel 6 feet deep and 50 feet wide with a basin 6 feet deep by 600 feet by 200 feet, was constructed. Maintenance of this project continues. (6) Atlantic Beach Channels. This navigation project was authorized by Congress in 1965. The project calls for a channel, 6 feet deep and 50 feet wide from the Intracoastal Waterway in Bogue Sound to the Marina east of Money Island, and a channel, 6 feet deep and 50 feet wide from the inter- section of Money Island and Causeway Channels in Bogue Sound to the southern end of Causeway Channel. The project is com- plete and requires infrequent maintenance. 159 (7) Drum Inlet. A navigation project for Drum Inlet v7as authorized by Congress in 1970. The project consists of a channel, 7 feet deep and 150 feet wide from the gorge in the inlet to the Federally improved channel in Core Sound, and a channel, 9 feet deep and 150 feet wide from the inlet gorge to deep water in the ocean. The project is presently inactive due to the excessive expenses realized during previous maintenance. (8) Morehead City Harbor. This project was authorized by Congress in Acts of 1910, 1930, 1937, 1958, and 1970. The project consists of a channel 42 feet deep and 450 feet wide from deep water in the Atlantic Ocean through the ocean bar at Beaufort Inlet; a cutoff channel 40 feet deep and 600 feet wide; an inner harbor channel 40 feet deep and 400 feet wide; and a depth of 40 feet in the east leg of the turning basin, including a 1,200-foot diameter turning area; construc- tion of jetties at the inlet; a channel, 12 feet deep, 100 feet wide, from the turning basin to Sixth Street, Morehead City, thence 12 feet deep, 200 to 400 feet wide to Tenth Street; thence 6 feet deep, 75 feet wide, to Bogue Sound. No work has been done on the 40- and 42-foot channels or the inlet jetties. The 40- and 42-foot channels are presently at 35 feet. 160 3.0 RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS Carteret County lies wittiin Planning Region P. There are, at present, no land use plans on either a county -wide or regional basis. The cities of Beaufort and Morehead City produced a land use plan during the early 1960s. A County planner stated that this plan is not currently in use. A. zoning ordinance governing residential subdivision was passed in 1963. At the present time, Carteret County is preparing a comprehensive land use plan in compliance with the North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act. This plan is to be completed by March 1976. The plan will, in addition to describing current land use patterns, attempt to identify those geographic areas within the County that are of special environmental concern. It is anticipated that the Land Use plan being generated will recognize the need for maintenance of the projects described in this assessment. 161 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 4.1 OVERVIEW A. general discussion of the environmental impacts associated with dredging and disposal is presented in Appendix F. Impacts specific to each individual project are presented later in this section. There are several categories of economic and social impacts associated with implementation of the project. These categories include: • Navigation —waterborne commerce • Commercial fishing • Recreational boating • Shore based employment dependent upon the preceding factors • Indirect employment affected by the general level of water -oriented economic activity in Carteret County These categories will be considered on a county -wide basis and also at the local level, where applicable, for each portion of the action. 4.1.1 Navigation and Waterborne Commerce Waterborne commerce represents a significant sector of econo- mic activity within Carteret County. As indicated in Table 39, a total of 13,912 downbound vessel trips were made from Pamlico Sound to Beaufort Harbor in 1973. These trips were made by commercial fishermen, with the menhaden harvest representing approximately 69.1 percent or.12,342 tons of the total tonnage carried. Shellfish and fresh finfish equalling 5,518 tons represented the balance of the cargo on these vessel trips. Implementation of the projects will result in a positive economic impact in the form of continued opportunities for waterborne commerce in the Carteret County area. 162 4.1.2 Commercial Fishing Data on the level of employment for commercial fishing based in Carteret County indicates a total of 1, 634 persons employed as fishermen. Of these, 218 were classified as "casual"; not totally dependent upon fishing for their income. Of the balance (1, 416 persons), 944 were employed on vessels larger than 5 gross registered tons (GRT). Vessels of this displacement are at least 30 feet long, with a crew of at least two persons. Maintenance of the projects will result in a positive, beneficial impact reflected by the continuance of access to harbors and offloading and resupply facilities by commercial fishing vessels. Access by commercial fishing vessels will ensure the continuation of employment opportunities in the seafood processing sector and in repair and resupply facilities for commercial fishing vessels and boats will be continued. While there is no certainty that employ- ment will remain at previously cited levels due to the variability of commercial fishing harvest, without adequate navigation channels and access to shore -based facilities commercial fishermen would be forced to relocate. The continuance of employment opportuni- ties must be considered a positive impact of the project. Maintenance of the project will have a positive impact upon recreational boating activities in the Carteret County area. This impact will be in the form of continued access to harbors, marinas and launching facilities. While not as significant as the comparable impact for the commercial fishing sector within the county, recreational boating does provide employment opportunities. Further, expenditures by recreational boaters provide an important economic input to dollar flows within the local economy. A final impact that will occur as a result of project maintenance will be the continuance of secondary employment opportunities. Employment of this type occurs in response to economic activity stimulated through the existing level of commercial fishing, sea- food processing, waterborne commerce and recreational boating Implementation of the project will result in the continuance and potential expansion of secondary employment opportunities and will constitute a positive impact due to the project. 163 4.1.3 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500), Section 404(b) Section 404(b) of P.L. 92-500 requires that disposal sites be specified through the application of guidelines developed by the Administrator (EPA), in conjunction with the Secretary of the Army. These guidelines are included in 40 C.F.R. 230, Navigable Waters, Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material, dated 5 September 1975. Information needed to make the informed judgments required under the guidelines will be developed prior to specific dredg- ing operations. This approach is preferred, in that timely data will be collected; therefore, judgments will not be based on outdated information. Technical evaluation procedures will address numerous concerns. These include physical effects, chemical biological interactive effects, comparison of sites, water quality, selection of disposal sites, municipal water supply, shellfish, fisheries, wildlife, recreation, threatened or endangered species, benthic life, wet- lands, submerged vegetation, size of disposal areas, contaminated fill and mixing zones. Not every parameter will be analyzed in every case. Each 404(b) analysis will be developed on a site specific basis. Technical reports will be prepared for each 404(b) analysis. Notice of this prepared report will be contained in public notices for proposed dredging in the Wilmington District. 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS 4.2.1 Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor Ecological Impacts Dredging operations will cause relatively local increases of turbidity due to escaped sediment near the dredging locations. This turbidity increase will reduce the phytoplankton productivity in the area, thus reducing the available food supply for aquatic fauna. The turbidity increase will be temporary, diminishing as the sediment resettles on the sound bottom; resettlement will occur within 24 hours in the sandy section, but not for several 164 days in places where the sediment composition is primarily silt. However, in the latter case, current action will disperse the suspended sediment over a wider area of the sound, thus effectively reducing the turbidity in any portion of the water column. Some pollutants will be reintroduced into the water column during dredging and disposal operations, although the expected quantities will be considerably below those values measured in the sediment. Present sediment analysis data of the proposed dredge material indicate that the concentrations of some metals and organic com- pounds are in excess of EPA standards for overboard disposal. overall impacts of assimilated resuspended metals and organic compounds on marine invertebrates and fish are unknown. Dredging of the project channels will destroy those benthic organisms in the dredge path. Benthic fauna in areas adjacent to the channel will be blanketed by resettled sediment, and those organisms which are buried under the thickest layer of sediment will be killed. If maintenance dredging is done during the months of September through November, those adult organisms present are functioning at a high metabolic rate, and thus will be most capable of relieving themselves of excess particulate matter, wiereas the juveniles of most species are either mature enough to do likewise or are not residing within the sound waters. Those benthic populations destroyed will repopulate within one year, but establishment of a mature, balanced community will not occur for several years (three to five years, depending on the species). The species constituency may be altered and the diversity index will be reduced if a channel area is significantly deepened from its present depth. The fish spawning and nursery activities in the spring and summer months are of equal importance and should, likewise, not be disrupted. Confining the dredging to the aforementioned months will reduce the negative impacts to the fish populations in the vicinity of the project. Since the disposal sites for the dredged material are not deter- mined, the exact impacts which will occur cannot be predicted. However, severe negative impacts could occur if the disposal sites are not properly located and engineered. Care must be taken to avoid site location that woula overtop eelgrass beds or areas inhabited by large populations of shrimp or bay scallop. 165 With a good choice of disposal site location, the resulting iisposal island would present a positive impact to the environment. The finished island would provide potential nesting habitat for many species of water -oriented birds, including some endemic species which are presently endangered or are becoming endangered, due to loss of nesting habitats caused by human development along the Outer Banks. Social and Economic Impacts Maintenance of the project in the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor has significant impact upon water- borne commerce, commercial fishing, recreational boating and employment and income in the seafood processing marine service and sectors ashore. Table 39 indicates historic data on commercial tonnage transported over this waterway. From the table, it is clear that the commercial fishing and processed seafood sectors rely heavily upon the existence of an improved navigation channel between Beaufort Harbor and Pamlico Sound. Recreational boating is somewhat less dependent upon the navi- gation channel so far as commercial traffic is concerned. This is due to the shallower depth requirements of many pleasure boats in relation to the commercial fishing vessels. However, continued existence of improved channels will be required by the rapidly growing recreational boating sector. Employment ashore in this sector is of significance in Marshallberg and Beaufort. Implementation of the project will have positive economic effects in the form of continued growth in this sector of the Carteret County economy. 4.2.2 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge Ecological Impacts Hydraulic pipeline dredging will result in destruction of benthic organisms within the dredged area; sediment released into the water column during dredging will blanket benthic organisms in areas surrounding the project site, resulting in their destruction or disturbance. Although benthic populations should repopulate within one year, establishment of a mature, balanced community will not occur for several years (three to five years, depending 166 upon the species). Should aquatic vegetation be present adjacent to the channel or develop in areas designated to be dredged, negative impacts to printary productivity of the beds will occur, and fauna associated witli the beds will also be negatively impacted. Sedimentation from dredging activities will disturb state oyster management areas located immediately outside of the harbor and all natural populations of oysters, clams and scallops in the vicinity of the project area. Sedimentation is most harmful to oysters and clams during the months of December to April and will interfere with fish spawning and nursery activities during the spring and summer months. A. temporary increase in turbidity will occur; however, turbidity will return to normal .leA els with termination of dredging activity. Sediment introduced intci the water column will result in a short- term decrease in dissol\,ed oxygen and a decrease in the activity of phytoplankton and macroscopic algae. Dissolved oxygen levels and activity of phytoplankton and macroscopic algae will return to predredging levels shortly after cessation of dredging activity. Dredging will not affect flood heights, drift or harbor lines at the project site. The deposition of dredged material on the upland area adjacent to the harbor will not result in any significant aesthetic degrada- tion of the area as the disposal site has been used previously. The dredged material will emit an odor due to the decomposition of organic matter within it; however, the odor will dissipate upon drying of the material. { The placement of the dredged material at the upland disposal site will result in temporary negative impacts to upland vegetation and wildlife common to the disposal area. The vege- tation at the disposal site is relatively sparse. Deposition of additional dredged material on the site will result in the deletion of the vegetation; however, the area will become revegetated within two years. Animals, such as muskrats and raccoons which forage on vegetation and clams at the site area and adjacent flats, will be deprived of this area as a habitat for a couple of years. Since the surrounding area provides suitable habitat, this impact is not considered to be significant. Burrowing fauna at the --te will be destroyed, butthe area should be repopulated within one to two years. 167 No historic landmarks, known archaeological sites or endangered species will be affected by the project.' Social and Economic Impacts Economic and social impacts associated with project implementation at the Cedar Island Harbor of Refuge are expected to occur primarily in the area of access by commercial fishing vessels, employment aboard fishing vessels and employment ashore in the seafood whole- saling sector. There are approximately 35 commercial fishermen who utilize the Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge for offloading and mooring purposes. Approximately 28 of the 32 vessels in the harbor are less than 20 feet long. Maintenance of the action will result in the continued existence of mooring facilities for these vessels, plus any transient commercial fishing or recreational vessels. Implementation of the project will result in the maintenance of approximately 40 full-time jobs in the local economy. This employment is shown below. Commercial fishermen 35 Year-round employment 5 Seasonal employment (seafood wholesaling) 10 Total 50 For a township the size of Cedar Island (approximately 290 persons), this employment represents a major source of income in the local economy. Implementation of the project will result in continued employment in this sector. This impact must be cate- gorized as highly positive both in an economic and a social sense. Existence of a harbor of refuge at this location will also have a positive impact, as many of the fishing vessels in the area are small (under 25 feet in length) and cannot operate under diverse weather conditions frequently encountered during summer months. Existence of the harbor of refuge will help to ensure the continu- ation of the commercial fishing industry as a major source of income and employment in the Cedar Island township. 168 There do not appear to be any locally -based economic impacts of significance in the recreational boating sector. 4.2.3 Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay with Cedar Bay Ecological Impacts Hydraulic dredging will result in destruction of benthic organisms within the dredged area; sediment released into the water column during dredging will blanket benthic organisms in areas surrounding the project site resulting in their destruction or disturbance. Although the benthos should become repopulated within one ye%tr, establishment of a mature, balanced community will not occur for several years (three to five years, depending upon the species). Also, species diversity will be reduced and species composition may be altered due to increased depths within the channel. Dredging will adversely affect known shrimp, crab and fish nursery habitats within Thoroughfare Bay by mechanical disruption in the channel and sedimentation in the surrounding areas. Dredging from September - November would have the least adverse effects on periods of spawning and nursery activities. A. temporary increase in turbidity will occur, however, this will cease with termination of dredging activity. Sediment introduced into the water column will result in a short-term decrease in dissolved oxygen and a decrease in the productivity of phytop.lankton and macroscopic algae. Dissolved oxygen levels will return to pre -dredging levels shortly following cessation of dredging activity. Dredging will not affect flood heights and drift of water in the channel area. No historic landmarks, known archaeological sites or endangered species will be affected by the project. Placement of dredged material at an upland diked disposal area will result in destruction of all vegetation and wildlife habitat beneath the area. 169 The presence of an upland disposal site will have a negative aesthetic impact. The material will emit an odor due to decom- position of organic matter within it; however, this negative impact will be short-term as the odor will cease upon drying of the dredged material. Social and Economic Impacts Implementation of the project in the channel between Cedar Island Bay and Thoroughfare Bay will result in significant positive economic impacts. These impacts will occur primarily in the areas of employment in the commercial fishing sector and in terms of navigation and access by commercial fishing boats and vessels. Approximately 40 jobs in the commercial fishing sector are created by vessels moored in the channel between Thoroughfare Bay and Cedar Island Bay. Implementation of the project will result in continued access for boats and vessels and consequently, continued employment opportunities. Due to the presence of the Cedar Island Wildlife Refuge, no other commer- cial development is contemplated in the area at the present time. Continued access and passage by boats transporting catches from Pamlico Sound to wholesalers and processors located on Core Sound represent an additional economic impact associated with project implementation. The annual number of vessel figures in this category is unknown; accordingly, quantitative estimates of steaming time savings are not available. 4.2.4 Atlantic Harbor of Refuge Ecological Impacts The proposed hydraulic dredging of the access channel and basin at Atlantic Harbor of Refuge will result in the destruction of any benthic communities in the dredge area. Even though the bottom will become repopulated within a relatively short period of time, species diversity will probably be reduced due to the increased depth. Benthic repopulation should occur within one year, although the establishment of a mature community will take a longer period, probably three to five years depending on the repopulating species. 170 Benthic organisms adjacent to the channel may also be blanketed by the sediment from the project dredging. However, these areas should also repopulate within a short period of time. If aquatic vegetation is present adjacent to the channel or develop in areas designated to be dredged, negative impacts to primary productivity and faunal communities of the beds will occur. An increase in sedimentation into Core Sound at Atlantic Harbor of Refuge during project dredging will decrease water quality. Any pollutants, such as metals resuspended along with escape sediment, will enter the waters, thus reducing quality. The decomposition of resuspended organic matter will reduce the dissolved oxygen level of the water. All of the above effects will be temporary. The pollutant level in the sediment is expected to be low,and all resuspended pollutant matter should oxidize within a short period of time (see page 84). The bacterial degradation of organic matter will occur rapidly. Phytoplankton will resume photosynthesis with the resettlement of sus- pended solids and the reinstatement of clearer waters. The most susceptible time: for damage from sediment to oysters and clams is during periods of low pumping rate, usually occurring from December to April. The fish spawning and nursery activities in the spring and summer months are also of equal importance and should not be disrupted. The negative impacts to shellfish and fish can be reduced by confining the dredging to the non -critical months of September through November. The waters at Atlantic Harbor of Refuge are presently closed to shellfish harvest and therefore this is not a critical area of concern with regard to impacts to shellfish industries. The project will have no effects on harbor lines and will not affect flood heights and drift in the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge. Impacts concomitant with the means of disposal would be the destruction of the vegetation at the disposal area. The vegetation loss is minimal; the disposal area can be replanted between usage to retard erosion. No historic landmarks, known archaeological sites or endangered species will be affected by the project. Social and Economic Impacts Economic and social impacts associated with implementation of the project at the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge are similar to those anticipated to occur at the Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge. The local economy is water -oriented, with approximately 35 commercial fishing boats utilizing the Harbor of Refuge. The majority of these vessels (18 of 35 vessels) are less than 20 feet in .length, and require sheltered mooring facilities. Implementa- tion of the project will result in the continued existence of the mooring facilities for all commercial fishing vessels currently moored in the Harbor of Refuge. Implementation of the project will also result in the continued existence of mooring facilities for transient vessels. Adverse weather, which occurs with little notice during summer months, could result in damage or loss of vessels or loss of life in the absence of refuge facilities. Accordingly, the existence of a harbor of refuge at this location results in a significant social and economic benefit. Other than harbor of refuge benefits, there do not appear to be any other major recreational boating impacts associated with project maintenance at the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge. 4.2.5 Atlantic Harbor Ecological Impacts The action will result in the destruction of any benthic communities in the channel and boat basin. Even though the bottom will become repopulated within a relatively short period of time, species diversity will probably be reduced due to the increased depth. Repopulation should occur within one year, with reestablishment of a mature community occurring within three to five years, depending or. the species which repopulate. Benthic organisms adjacent to the channel may also be blanketed by the sediment from the project dredging and some organisms in this area will also be killed. However, the area will repopulate within a short period of time. If aquatic vegetation is present adjacent to the channel or develops in areas designated to be dredged, negative impacts to primary productivity and faunal communities of the beds will occur. 172 An increase in sedimentation into Core Sound at Atlantic Harbor of Refuge during project dredging will decrease water quality. A.ny pollutants, such as metals resuspended with escaped sediment, will enter the water and reduce quality. The decomposition of resuspended organic matter will reduce the dissolved oxygen of the water. All of the above effects will be temporary. While the pollutant level in the sediment is unknown, it is expected to be low and all resuspended pollutant matter would oxidize within a short period of time. The bacterial degradation of organic matter will occur rapidly. The most susceptible time for damage from sediment to oysters and clams is during periods of low pumping rate, usually occurring from December to April. The fish spawning and nursery activities in the spring and summer months are also important and should not be disrupted. The negative impacts to shellfish and fish can be reduced by confining dredging to the non -critical months of September through November. The waters at Atlantic Harbor of Refuge are presently closed to shellfish harvest and therefore, this is not a critical area of con- cern with regard to impacts to shellfish industries. Some pollutants will be reintroduced into the water column during dredging and disposal operations, although the expected quantities will be considerably below those values measured in the sediment. Present sediment analysis data from the dredge material indicate that the concentration of some metals and organic compounds are in excess of EPA. standards for overboard disposal. However, marine invertebrates and fish common to the project area are expected to assimilate resuspended metals and organic compounds at concen- trations well below lethal levels. The project will have no effects on harbor lines and will not affect flood heights and drift in Atlantic Harbor. Impacts concomitant with the means of disposal would be the des- truction of the vegetation at the disposal site. The vegetation loss would be minimal and the disposal area can be replanted between usage to retard erosion. 173 No historic landmarks, known archaeological sites or endangered species will be affected by the project. Social and Economic Impacts Economic and social impacts associated with implementation of the project at Atlantic Harbor may be categorized to include employ- ment aboard commercial fishing vessels and shore -based processing of seafood landed at Atlantic. There are approximately 180 persons in the Atlantic area employed aboard boats and vessels in various commercial fisheries. Imple- mentation of the project will result in a positive economic impact in the form of continued existence of employment opportunities for commercial fishermen in the Atlantic area. Continued annual employment of approximately 20 persons in the seafood wholesaling and processing sector will result from project implementation. Further, continued seasonal employment of approximately 20 persons in this sector will result with project implementation. Based upon the population of Atlantic and the level of employment in the water - oriented sector, it is clear that project implementation will have significant beneficial impacts of a social and economic nature. Due to a lack of recreational boating facilities at Atlantic, there will be no significant economic or social impacts upon the recrea- tional boating sector in the Atlantic area. 4.2..6 Sealevel Ecological Impacts Dredging will result in the destruction of benthic organisms within the dredging area. The channel area will become repopulated within one year, but establishment of a mature, balanced community will not occur for several years (three to five years, depending on the species which repopulate the area). Dredging will also result in an increase in turbidity which will depress the dissolved oxygen con- centration in the water column. Photosynthesis of aquatic flora will also be temporarily depressed. Turbidity should return to predredging levels once dredging ceases and water quality and productivity charac- teristics will return to normal. 174 The harbor lines at Sealevel Harbor will not be adversely impacted since this project is designed to maintain them. In addition, flood heights and drift will not be adversely impacted since lunar tides are imperceptible in this region of Core Sound. Past flood height patterns will remain the same. The deposition of dredged material on the diked upland sites will not have a direct adverse effect on the mobile fauna, but it will temporarily reduce available habitat. All plants within the disposal site will be destroyed, but the area will revegetate between dredging operations. Disposal of dredged material on established marine bottom will negatively affect benthic populations and water quality. This area will become repopulated within several months of project completion. The disposal operations will not adversely impact upon historic places and landmarks, archaeological sites, or wildlife refuges since there are no areas of exceptional cultural or biological importance in the vicinity of the site. However, the disposal site will have a negative aesthetic impact on the immediate surroundings. This negative impact could be mitigated by land- scaping the disposal sites once they are fully utilized. Finally, the applicant will be faced with the additional cost of acquiring the four -acre upland disposal site if the project is implemented. The deposition of dredge material at the shallow water diked disposal site will result in the irretrievable loss of two acres of bottom habitat. All benthic organisms within the disposal site will be destroyed. Turbidity levels in the immediate vicinity of the site may be increased but this effect will be temporary and levels will return to normal with the cessation of dredging. Social and Economic Impacts Social and economic impacts associated with project implementation at Sealevel will include continued employment opportunities aboard commercial fishing boats and vessels and employment ashore in the eeafood wholesaling and processing sectors. 175 There are approximately 35 commercial fishing boats and vessels currently utilizing mooring factilities at Sealevel Harbor. These craft provide employment for approximately 40 commercial fishermen. Additionally, employment opportunities on an annual basis for approximately five to seven persons in the seafood pro- cessing sector will be continued with project implementation. There are no recreational boating facilities at Sealevel Harbor. Project implementation will not produce any significant positive economic or social impacts upon the recreational boating sector. 4.2.7 Marshallberg Ecological Impacts Destruction of all benthic organisms within the dredging area is unavoidable. The area will become repopulated within one year, but establishment of a mature, balanced community will not occur for several years (three to five years, depending on the species which repopulate the area). An increase in turbidity will occur during dredging operations. This increase will depress the dis- solved oxygen concentration in the water column and interfere with photosynthesis by aquatic flora. Turbidity should return to pre -dredging levels shortly following cessation of dredging. Shellfish areas along the northern shore of Browns Island should not be affected by this temporary increase in turbidity. However, if the area is impinged upon, the negative effect should be minimal. The harbor lines at Marshallberg will not be adversely impacted since this project is designed to maintain them. Flood heights and drift will not be adversely impacted since lunar tides are imperceptible in this region of Core Sound. Historical flood height patterns should remain the same. Deposition of dredge material at the diked disposal site will result in the temporary loss of approximately three acres (12, 141 sq m) of coastal upland habitat. There should be no direct adverse effect on mobile species of upland fauna since they can relocate, but available habitat will be reduced. All vegetation within the dis- posal site will be destroyed but revegetation will occur between 176 dredging operations. Species composition of invading vegetation will probably differ from that now present due to changes in hab itat. The creation of a diked disposal site adjacent to the basin at Marshallberg will not impact any historic places or landmarks, known archaeological sites or wildlife refuges. A negative aesthetic impact may be unavoidable; however, this impact can be mitigated by landscaping. Social and Economic Impacts Implementation of this project will have a positive impact on navi- gation and waterborne recreation. The basin at Marshallberg is utilized by fishing boats, trawlers, sport fishing cruisers, and pleasure craft ranging in size from 12 to 70 feet in length. Main- tenance of the navigation channel will ensure safe and facilitated ingress and egress of these vessels at Marshallberg and will result in significant positive social and economic impacts in the local economy. Major impacts will be created in the following sectors: • Commercial fishing • Recreational boating • Marine repair and resupply facilities Marshallberg Harbor is utilized by approximately 35 commercial fishing boats and vessels. These boats and vessels provide employment for approximately 70 persons in both shellfish and finfish harvesting. Implementation of the project will result in the continuation of access to harbor and facilities and the perpetuation of employment opportunities aboard fishing boats and vessels. These facilities routinely service commercial fishing craft and pleasure craft up to approximately 70 feet in length. Employment in the marine repair facilities and recreational boating marinas at Marshallberg is estimated to be 15 persons. Implementation of the project will ensure the continuation of this employment. With project implementation, it is conceivable that employment in both commercial fisheries and marine repair and service facilities would increase, due to im- proved (over present conditions) access to existing harbor and navigation facilities. 177 4.2.8 Harkers Island Harbor of Ref Ecological Impacts Dredging by hydraulic pipeline will result in the loss of the benthic organisms within the dredging area. In addition, sediment suspended into the water column during project activities will cover or disturb the benthic organisms in areas adjacent to dredging operations. The benthic organisms in the project area should repopulate within one year. However, the length of time required to reestablish a mature population will depend on the type of substrate and amount of area covered by sediments. Sedimentation from dredging activities will disturb the natural oyster, scallop or clam beds within the project area. Oyster beds will be impacted most due to oysters' lack of mobility. Sedimentation is most harmful to shellfish during the months of December to April due to their reduced metabolic rate. In addition, turbidities created during the spring and summer months can adversely affect the relatively immobile populations of juvenile shrimp and fish. Not only can sediment clog the gills of juvenile shrimp, but if the dissolved oxygen of the water drops drastically during dredging due to the organic content of the sediment, many juvenile shrimp and fish could perish due to lack of mobility to escape the area. However, this turbidity problem should only be evident during actual dredging operations, and predredging water quality should return shortly after cessation of dredging. Minimal impacts are expected within the diked disposal areas due to their previously disturbed condition. Efforts will be made to prevent any material from entering the adjacent marshes. No known historic landmarks, archaeological sites, or endangered species will be affected by the project. Social and Economic Impacts Economics and social impacts associated with project implementation at Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge are expected to occur primarily on the access by around six commercial fishing vessels. Approximately 10 to 12 full or part-time commercial fishermen utilize the harbor for mooring purposes. Maintenance of the action will result in a continuing mooring area for these fishermen and enable the area to be used for a harbor of refuge for both deep and shallow draft boats in time of severe storms. No fish houses, processing plants, or unloading facilities are located in the harbor. The project site is little utilized by recreational craft. 178 4.2.9 Beaufort Harbor Ecological Impacts Maintenance dredging and disposal at each location within the Beaufort Harbor project area will create short- and long-term effects on the environment. Each of the six areas will be dis- cussed separately with regard to impacts which will occur from dredging operations. Bulkhead Channel The dredging of an estimated 34, 233 cubic yards of material every two years from Bulkhead Channel is expected to result in the following impacts. Hydraulic pipeline dredging will resuspend bottom sediments which will result in increased water turbidity. Short-term impacts which occur because of turbidity involve reduced phytoplanktonic and algal productivity and depressed oxygen concentrations in the water column. However, the currents through Bulkhead Channel are sufficiently strong so as to flush suspended material from the project area and cause the rapid dispersal of escaped sediment in waters oceanward of Beaufort Inlet. Long-term significant impacts resulting from any turbidity increase are not expected. The frequency of dredging, in combination with the depth and high energy characteristics of the channel are expected to maintain a bottom habitat free of faunal community development. The unstable, sandy bottom presently supports sparse populations of invertebrates and algae; therefore, the direct loss of benthic sub- strate is not expected to result in an ecologically significant accompanying loss of benthic fauna. The disposal area is at ToitTn Marsh (see Plate in). At a 13.8 acre private easement and 50 acre permanent easement on Town Marsh, diking and discharging hydraulically pumped dredge material will destroy all existing vegetation. The area will remain exposed to erosive forces until it is naturally vegetated and stabilized. 179 All upland habitat at the disposal area will be unuseable by wildlife and birds for several months following project completion. Gallants Channel Dredging operations conducted every 2. 2 years and involving the removal of an estimated 40, 225 cubic yards of dredged material from Gallants Channel is expected to result in the following impacts. Increased turbidity levels will negatively impact on finfish and shellfish spawning and nursery activities. Larval migration through Gallants Channel to the Newport River estuary will be affected if dredging operations are implemented in the spring and summer months. A decrease in light penetration will cause a reduction in primary productivity in the water column. The negative impacts resulting from increased turbidity levels will be minimized if dredging is restricted to the period between September 1 and November 31 of the project year, thus avoiding spawning and nursery seasons and impacting benthic invertebrate organisms. Escaped sediment will blanket benthic organisms in areas immediately adjacent to the channel. The overall duration of the impact will be short-term, as the blanketed areas are expected to become repopulated within several months following project completion. The estimated frequency of dredging at Gallants Channel is expected to maintain high current flow and increased depths, which will inhibit bottom community development in the main course of the channel between dredgings. The disposal area is a previously used diked area just west of Phillips Island. Rediking and discharge of hydraulically pumped dredge material will destroy all the existing upland vegetation. All upland habitat at the disposal area will be unuseable by wildlife and birds for several mohths after project completions. Asthetic values should be little altered since the disposal area has been diked and used previously. Beaufort Turning Basin and Channel Through Turning Basin Dredging of the Beaufort Turning Basin and Turning Basin Channel is projected to occur every five years; an estimated 99,549 cubic yards of material will be removed from the combined areas over the next 50 years. The impacts resulting from dredging and disposal operations follow. 180 The disruption of estuarine bottomland in the project area will result in negative impacts to associated benthic fauna and flora. However, the high energy environment and large depths at this area effectively inhibit bottom community development. The shifting sandy bottom is not suitable for benthic organisms Therefore, the maintenance of the channel and basin, at 15- and 12-foot depths respectively, is not expected to have significant negative impacts on the benthic ecology at this location. Hydraulic pipeline dredging will result in increased water tur- bidity and the resuspension of settled organic and pollutant materials. Reduction of primary productivity and localized dis- solved oxygen levels will occur. These effects are expected to be of minor significance and of short-term duration. The sedi- ment analysis data indicates that the channel bottom is predomi- nately composed of fine sand with a low organic component. There are no constituents in excess of established criteria in the sediments of Taylors Creek. Increased sedimentation from the dredging operations will affect localized populations of oysters and other sessile fauna. No known established populations are expected to become com- pletely blanketed by the increase in sedimentation; however, dredging operations would be conducted during the ebb tide so that resuspended sediments will be flushed out of the estuary via Beaufort Inlet. If dredging occurs on the flood tide, resus- pended sediments will be carried north from Taylors Creek through the Newport River Estuary. Future dumping of material at Town Marsh will result in elevations in excess of ten feet above mean sea level. This arbi- trary elevation has been tentatively set as a maximum limit by the Army Corps of Engineers so that Town Marsh will not become an obstruction to the view of Beaufort residents. Therefore, additional disposal areas will be necessary. Taylors Creek The removal and disposal of 37,782 cubic yards of sandy bottom material every four years at Taylor Creek is expected to result in the following impacts. 181 Increased sedimentation is expected to occur over a large area as the suspended sands settle out. Localized shellfish beds and other sessile fauna are expected to be negatively affected at those areas where blanketing occurs. This impact will be of small magnitude due to sparse benthic colonies in the channel. Impacts will be reduced if dredging is conducted on the ebb tide so that any resuspended material will be flushed out of the vicinity via Bulkhead Channel and Beaufort Inlet. Resuspension of bottom sediments from dredging operations is not expected to significantly impact ambient dissolved oxygen levels or pollutant levels in the water column as the material is predominantly unpolluted, fine to medium sands with a small organic component. Based on calculations made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Carrot Island is a suitable disposal site (maximum of 14 feet above mean low water) for the future dumping of 100,000 cubic yards (76,460 cu m) of finished product. Based on the dredging history at Taylors Creek, Carrot Island can be estimated to contain material from dredgings conducted over the next 12 years, after which alternate disposal areas must be determined. Impacts to Carrot Island will include short-term loss of vege- tation and upland habitat. Diking will be necessary. Formation of dikes by bulldozing existing dredge material will cause the disruption of existing vegetation. Channel and Harbor at Town Creek Impacts associated with future maintenance dredging at Town Creek cannot be fully assessed since there is no projected dredging fre- quency. However, if dredging occurs, disruption and destruction of low energy bottom habitat can be expected. Bottom community redevelopment is expected to occur at this location due to infrequent dredging practices. Dredging operations will destroy all benthic organisms in the actual project area and increased sedimentation resulting from dredging operations will blanket benthic organisms in the immediate vicinity of Beaufort and Gallants Channels. The area will become repopulated within one year, but establishment of a mature, balanced community will not occur for three to five years, depending on the species involved in area repopulation. Town Creek provides suitable habitat for fish nursery activities. Turbidity and mechanical disturbance of the bottom is expected to impact negatively on these activities. 182 Impacts resulting from future dumping at the disposal site include short-term loss of vegetation and habitat provision in upland areas. The disposal area is expe,:ted to revegetate within two years. Social and Economic Imparts The social and economic impacts associated with project implementation at Beaufort Harbor will involve the following sectors: Commercial fishing -seafood processing Recreational fishing Waterborne commerce and navigation Recreational boating Commercial Fishing —Seafood Processing. Maintenance of the project in the Beaufort area will produce positive eco- nomic impacts in the commercial fishing sector. This impact will be reflected in the continuation of present operations so far as landings, employment, and income generated in the Beaufort area are concerned. Commercial fishing and related employment are of major impor- tance in the Beaufort -Morehead City area, since there are estimated to be 700 persons directly dependent upon commercial fishing as a source of employment . A positive impact associated with maintenance of the project is that it will allow access to docking and resupply facilities. This will result in the continued use of Beaufort and Morehead City as the major commercial fisheries ports in North Carolina. _Recreational Fishing. Recreational sportfishermen, charter boats and head boats rely upon the existence of sufficient water depths to navigate safely. As indicated in the general economic profile, the sportfishing sector of the Carteret County economy produced a total economic impact of $1. 7 million in 1971. A majority of this impact was located in the Beaufort -Morehead City area. Maintenance of the project in the Beaufort area will result in the con- tinued contribution -of this sector to the overall level of economic 183 activity in Carteret County. This contribution must be considered a positive impact associated with project maintenance. Further, oceanographic research vessels owned by the National Marine Fisheries Service, N.C. Marine Fisheries, Duke Univeristy Laboratory and others utilize the channel through Beaufort Inlet to ocean waters. Maintenance of the project will provide continued access to docking facilities needed by the relatively deep draft (minimum 12 feet) research vessels. Waterborne Commerce and Navigation. Maintenance of the project will result in a significant beneficial impact on waterborne commerce in the Beaufort Harbor and Taylors Creek area. Commercial fishing vessels, oceanographic research vessels and vessels engaged in waterborne commerce rely upon the existence of improved channels in those areas for safe navigation. During 1973, there were a total of 11, 146 vessel passages into Beaufort Harbor. Maintenance of the project will result in the continued use of Beaufort Inlet, channels in Beaufort Harbor, and/or Taylors Creek area for commercial purposes. Recreational Boating. :Maintenance of the project will result in beneficial impacts upon the recreational boating sector in the Beaufort area. While perhaps not as significant as impacts associated with waterborne commerce, recreational boating constitutes a major use of improved channel facilities in the Beaufort Harbor area. Positive impacts associated with continued existence of improved channels will directly affect the number of large recreational boats and vessels. Without project maintenance, the eventual deterioration of existing channels would force numerous pleasure boats, presently berthed in the Beaufort area, to move elsewhere. This would ultimately result in a loss of income and employment in the recreational boating service sector of the local economy. 4.3 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECT SUMMARY Section 122 of the River and Harbor and Flood Control Act of 1970 (PL 91 -611; 84 Stat. 1818) supplements the requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190) by specifi- cally mentioning effects that must be identified and evaluated. The following paragraphs present summary discussions on each of these effects. More detailed discussion of these as well as effects not included in this list have been presented elsewhere _n the report. 184 4.3.1 Social and Economic The following areas required for consideration have been deter- mined to have no .impacts associated with implementation of the project: • Displacement of people • Tax revenues • Property values • Public facilities • Public service • Displacement of farms • Community growth Other areas of potential social and economic impact that have to be examined include: • Community cohesion • Employment • Business and industrial activity Table 40 presents a matrix summary of the social and economic effects that are anticipated to result from implementing each individual project. Community Cohesion. Community cohesion attempts to delineate to what degree the institutions within a community react to exter- nal pressures. In this sense, "community" must be defined in other than a geo-political sense. The relative permanence of families, the relative degree of social mobility and the degree of acceptance of change partially delineate community cohesion. Using this definition, it is anticipated that project maintenance will have a long-term positive impact in that existing lifestyles and institutions will be reinforced with project maintenance. This effect will occur principally in those communities and groups within communities that have water -oriented employment as a major focus of their existence. Employment and Business Activity. The most significant social and economic impacts resulting from the project will occur in 185 O N cd As G EE v H b �m o 0 0 0 0 0 000 C w : O Q y �. Z' + + + + + + a s W uv .N o 0 0 0 0 o 000 a „ u� .n 0 0 0 o 0 0 000 .� a A Y H m V y o 0 0 o o 0 000 X C F v 0 0 o o 0 0 000 x C F o F � c U 0 0 0 0 0 0 o0o �o 14 c a a a a a a a r-o c U . V 2 c O a o 0 0 0 0 0 o0o G w v, O Q O H O O C N 00 r a w d x a t 6 x a a rl 4 Q N O v T c .. A W O cz ro D�0 y O O U)o U y ro 24 °, p Cl � ro C ° v b o 0 - o ro z ro x v id ;� Ux 0. 3° a be u ro 1+ M No r 'IC°. ro G . Z v c4 ro O ro A �41 cn U o U U Z Z ,� m 186 the business and employment areas. Table 41 summarizes the employment by business and the industrial sector which will be affected by the industrial projects. 4.3.2 Ecological Tables 42 and 42a present a summary of the possible environ- mental effects expected to result from the various projects. Dredging methods and disposal sites for each project are listed. Environmental factors have been subdivided into media, aesthetic and species affected. 187 U pl 'ti H ro � d H � N U fi r+ w O O O O O to O O N ro Y�0 •.�+ •O a.+ ,b '. O ro °) •O w N N O O O a0 N O O O O' a u, tp ,f] C N bD p 't7 Uy d ..Oi ti m +°+ `- w Co y U y O O (D O O O w M M Q d) 0 Q �a T o pa r 0. o .N o N u o 0 (D NLc) o O O r� W "" d d O O w O N C�7 H Q a °��-! A q u o u� o 0 o N O N E wcq co z0 U w d b O 'U O O H H 0 Y A ,coU N U1 tn N U1 tn \D 01 fT O M M M M N 00 �7 to zU O H O N .U. 4 H ro �:; a° 'i ~ U 0 ro ro 3 4-4 OU H N O T O 'b O I Q 1� cd u o o p cc � a) ,o A A a. ce d A b C d OU ro ro y°t U H p R+ 'C O H T 'O , d u "�' T ro � A U)� J••� p O 4A p a r q 5 d ~ 0 y u a� - ro N N ti-4 .—I •C O tl a ro o b ro ; ro ro co O Icr° It U o U H U 41) O cad 188 �,•,IYo�c„ry'iy _ lnir. ,umslll P,I,, I , nlll 1 , I I I I ,,Irnl,y f P. ] I n U) n n !1 W �Il4J I'F,1 II I_l iil llll:l / W ` W '111rld p"rid'l _ s�rwiuy I I p�nldll U � � I i I I v� V) V) spnN + v alrr� u,do I I J I I I I I I J tz m c -- .G Ilsir Nl I fi — + 1 1 I I purl to dru to unur-ily ^-� a a In •� ,� suly„ l l rool d _. p-11y snlrinllod I I I w f j � p,pcl,dsns,N �I�pl(IJII,I, I I 1 I I I I JSIUN I I 1 I 1 I I n In In In In In In In Jopo I I � � n ro ro ro •N q y v c c ro y � ccz cz 31 N O O O 3 a+ GD U O O O IC ,00 ro v ro 3 ro E 3 w + w ro c ro c v w Iu d) w w v x a v QuAu ztn z Z J a a n a a n v CL 7 0 n. _ a n. n. n. n. •� w O w .V+ O w � A C Y 3 p w o C F w u W w w -f v [ d A A ou 10 � p a ❑ w It w ro w m r ro �� _ o 3 ro mas u w m AI v C C y C ro o r �x C w ro ro, oc'o ro ro ?? ro �� I°n C; o U x U Q Q cn �•� Ina W+ I n. J IrilYoImr.gi)y puc luols!" in srajV pUrl(In P,)a:Jln•pUJ Cl. Cl. Cl. s.nrxlau,n ul 1 IIII]lU� in snlrld 1 1 1 ,i]rnbV In (n snlrld N u �ys�rly� )u.,Yl.uuq t%1 w nurld pur.ldl I 1 1 1 ilrllT!tly I I I 1 1 purl(I,I (n n to n to gsid I 1 1 1 ( (n (n m U) sprlfl 1 I 1 (n cn to cn w v,lr�A U.ido LUOIlOq 1"' � S molle1l$ .] S gs)r.W 1 � I I 1 I 1 purl )o � c uouc�)7 lgdrj8odo,l.. O U()Ilr)..iijv sILl""II poold p i.111 V s)uc)nllod °' wp.ipu.)dsns.)a c• Aliplq)nl I 1 1 �510� 1 1 I 1 I (n (n U] U^ (n )opo w p rd a O C v F m 7 CIS , u) G :n :n w� d a a m 3 z o z C C C C C z a a a a a V O 'iCi w .U+ 7 rl O •7 7 a Q i Id 1. n Id Id H Id IA It IH IA .d .b C N O y cd t F( O y N pU ro N u (d x o ItIt v p C m a C U d O C Oto y NCdO O w H (d �a Id �r~ m x a (nay W+ 1 n y U O ti O 0 Q) 14-4 a) Q) O co n LP O (1) d U U Q) w U x O �+ S .H 4� u c p bD 3 w Q) � o � r Fa O cd ;-, m 4 U ° o o H a U U .� u O-0 O w O � W O;-I U In Ei O C a w O r. C) O F 4-1 41 y� O a) 10 OU a .� ao • r o o .° ° o .m ° a rl� ro n ) gy m m Q) O W cd U y O �� • O p m — p u U cd 'U Url� y a) p � w O p a d �' 5 d C a) O Z cd 'U d d cd p 'U O 'U O p ti U U b0 U O y CO cd m (1) U a) cd _ O cd O O Q) LP LP mkt o oa� � I H C4 0 W cry a Z a O � � 0 U_O y J.J41 W cn fd i I d) U1 N S+ O O .i ,Q is m '� O� 4) M o 191 i b0 b0 i , N 4. UI Cd F 1 4- UI Cd W u m b 4� (� u bn + o u o Cd3 ct u Cd O 4..� > y '� u ii o u b 3 •-4 m Cd Cd Ul 3 o ro a� 3 ,� u cd ° �' u m cn +� cd 4� O r+ -' w y . o 41 '� 3 Q ul co u-4 Cd ct '- � cd a 4 Q u En 4' ° b °° ct r, ct u u y n a N 0 o 0 w � b '� nn a 3 a `� u °�' 1 .� W 3 rd cd 4 � "o a �, r 4+ ct U)� cd � ca u) ct P, 4; rd u • 4 4' N cd ao u u Cd a)� `� c u P4 rd 3 cd ° ^, cd �4 °- � on P, a a ° '�' a� Fi a) P, �' .4 � O P, N —4 N y cn N � tn It o u u ;-44 u n. 3 ° cd on cd cd an --4-, �' ro F , 1 a a .r� ,r.d y —4 (d '� (d >1 ,d • � 3 ;-, o 0 '� y d d � rd � 3 U) y 3 u d 3 a o- � b P, °i 41 '� Ll bD � —4 cd m N ;-, cd R1 m O O °LL x 5 FO, > FO, > ct Q w 'd CL O 04 N � cn .� cn 4- O ;-I y .'+ N (n H O 4.., ,..� ..may' v (d � � r. O on it O ° F-1 � cd ..y. `/ F-1 P, 4 � w � ° F-1 —4 � cd UJ ° ° `'' O nj 0)y •O 'd O O �' 3 �' 4- O � u a 3 0 3 b0 U) o 4� 3 En d ° 4, o ° y;1 one r ° cz � o`er 3 � ur' o a u on u °4 N� W ..4 rd ° G ra u � In a In u cd a� a� ,.., u n, H�� 0•4 n Q yrd Q> Ob O Q O 0 + , , , U a U) ° Q w o r. x ° aui 04 z+ Cd o � g Cd � bb (n O (L) � O a) �, —4° cd ° U [ 192 y .4 ° cd T ii �--� � i.n r•-1 Q% o m . �4 0 C cd N 4 w; a 3 rd C co O N r0 ro N bD O 3 m M F-: rd � w b ca a a w •� y � w C a � 00 '�, �� a N .r+ .r4 —4 b rd cd U 5 ,••i N m to r+ rd U cd �+ • r+ N U � � cd U rd m 'd I cd i+ O U m p pp 3 a�i w C i� 3 od W .ra —4U U).� � y+ m • 4 (v � rd a� o o rd N U)rd —4 rQ `''' .r w a)r0 Q O � m 04 U) a cn ra O 41 a � ra a U) O (n Ord r+ a a., � a) � 3 rd „� m to O 'ra .c. r- N w m rya m rd cd rd "� ^a cd . rr4 O ff+ bA ra cd bcn •4 b �.ra.r4 o ° o 0 0 � U)y ° O 4 cn 'b r. O U) rd O C U a U rd N N U � rd `''' cd °p U t" 3 d O vI .ri m tH r'' Fr —4 O td U a s O a O d U �41 ° �+ cd � �d cd E-+ �D d o d o o ro , v� a n cn cn cn rd n a) cn U O 4 4' a w cn �� cd C m cd F) m N U cn —4N cd Q O �D _J 193 m O ao y +' ° o to � 04 `� x v U) U) U r� Cd 0. ° 'b U •4 O. U) O O .+ 4 N :J U +� *' 3 , U) a O U') —4 In rd a� �d 3 ° ., od w M -� ° ri) ° +� m O U rd N tH U) 4 CS U 4 10 4-)bA - U td O P4 O U m N yNi •� 4 m cd N rd � '� > W � "y'' � N 4a O N � N rd41 U O 41 ° M O w —4 rd fl. 4J ° z O N d> DA U m to U41 rd m d Lti0 O ,4 rd '+ m 41 U N W 4 k �' 41fl. a� O 3 ° ° U) �, a 3 u rd1 U U) 'd O Q4 'd N d o Q) 'b Rj 0,- m N —4 k 41 k 'b O cd rd O U) z N U) '0 . N .,� N � CL a' u C) a) 3 3 on „ U) ° . ao '0 •Q C. acdi 4., U) cd 'ti '� u Pq u rd W 4° W A H O U) a r a s U) U rdrd b N rd N O Q. Fq F� 'd ai rd 1 rd +� N U cd > 84 o. 194 5.0 ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED 5.1 WATERWAY CONNECTING PANLICO SOUND AND BEAUFORT HARBOR Dredging operations in the project channels will cause increased water turbidity levels, resulting in decreased phytoplankton productivity and an added stress to the metabolism of finfish and invertebrate organisms. The turbidity increase will be temporary, diminishing rapidly with the resettlement of suspended sediment. Some pollution matter will be introduced into the water column due to sediment resuspension. The reintroduced pollutants will be in lower concentrations than that occurring in the bottom sediment. Marine invertebrates and fish common to the project area are expected to assimilate resuspended metals and organic compounds in sub -lethal amounts. Benthic organisms in the immediate vicinity of the project channel will be destroyed. Benthic populations will become reestablished Tr7ithin a few months to a few years following dredging. Negative environmental inapacts will result if eelgrass beds or bottomland used by invertebrate fauna such as shrimp or bay scallop are disturbed. 5.2 CEDAR ISLAND BAY HARBOR OF REFUGE Benthic organisms within the dredged area will be destroyed, while those in surrounding areas will be disturbed or destroyed by sedimentation. Benthic organisms will repopulate within one year; but establishment of a mature, balanced community will not occur for several years. Bottom habitat diversity and species diversity will be reduced due to increased depths. Sedimentation from the dredging operation will disturb state oyster management areas and natural populations of oysters, clams, and scallops immediately east of the harbor. Sedimentation is most 195 harmful to oysters and clams during the months of December to April and will interfere with fish spawning and nursery activities during the spring and summer months. Should aquatic vegetation be present adjacent to the channel or develop in areas designated to be dredged, negative impacts to primary productivity of the beds will occur; fauna associated with the beds will lose valuable habitat. Turbidity levels in the water column will increase temporarily, ceasing with termination of dredging activities. Dissolved oxygen levels and activity of phytoplankton and macroscopic algae will decrease temporarily due to the increased sedimentation. These levels will return to normal following completion of dredging. The placement of dredged material at the upland disposal site will result in temporary negative impacts to vegetation and wild- life common to the disposal area. The site will revegetate within two years. All burrowing fauna within the area will be destroyed, but repopulation will occur within one to two years. The area also will be unusable as a wildlife habitat for several years. A minor negative aesthetic impact will result from the presence of the dredged material adjacent to the harbor. The material will emit an odor due to decomposition of organic matter within it; however, the odor will dissipate upon drying of the material. 5,3 CHANNEL CONNECTING THOROUPIFARE RAY WITH CEDAR BAY Benthic organisms within the dredged area will be destroyed, while those in surrounding areas will be disturbed or destroyed by sedimentation. Benthic organisms will repopulate within one year, but establishment of a mature, balanced community will not occur for several years. Bottom habitat diversity and species diversity will be reduced due to increased depth in the channel. Shrimp, crab and fish nursery habitat within the channel and immediately surrounding areas will be destroyed. 196 Turbidity levels will increase temporarily, returning to normal following completion of dredging. A short-term decrease in dissolved oxygen and in productivity of phytoplankton and macro- scopic algae due to suspended sediment in the water column will occur. Dissolved oxygen and vegetative productivity will return to pre -dredging levels following cessation of dredging activity. All vegetation and wildlife habitats beneath the disposal area will be destroyed. The material also will emit an odor during decom- position of organic matter. 5.4 ATLANTIC HARBOR OF REFUGE Any benthic organisms within the dredged channel will be destroyed and those in the immediate channel vicinity will be blanketed by escaped sediment. The benthic population will reestablish within one growing season, but the formation of a mature population will be disrupted by maintenance dredging projected to recur every five years. Suspended sediment will cause a temporary increase in turbidity in the water column, causing a temporary reduction in phytoplankton productivity in the harbor area. The impact to the overall ecology of the area will be minimal as this effect will be small and of short duration. Should pollutant matter be present in the dredged sediment, some of it will be reintroduced into local waters with a resulting negative impact to water quality. Impact to faunal organisms would be least if dredging is performed in the months of September through November. Negative impacts due to disposal include a minimal loss of vege- tation in the disposal area. 5.5 ATLANTIC HARBOR Any benthic organisms within the dredged channel will be destroyed, and those in the immediate channel vicinity will be blanketed by escaped sediment. The benthic population will reestablish within one growing season, but the formation of a mature population will be disrupted by maintenance dredging projected to recur every five years. 197 Suspended sediment will cause a temporary increase in turbidity in the water column, causing a temporary reduction in primary productivity in the harbor area. The impact to the overall ecology of the area will be minimal, since this effect will be small and of short duration. Impact to faunal organisms would be least if dredging is performed during the months of September through November. Some pollutants will be introduced into the water column with the suspension of sediments during project dredging and disposal operations. Although the sediments contain heavy metals in excess of EPA criteria for overboard disposal, the effects on marine invertebrates and fish in the project area are unknown. Because the amount of toxins reintroduced into the biotic system is expected to be small, no discernible overall impact should occur due to this factor. Negative impacts due to disposal include loss of natural bottom habitat, some redistribution of sediments, and some short term elevated turbidity levels. 5.6 SEALEVEL All benthic organisms within the dredging limits will be destroyed. Bottom habitat diversity will be reduced due to dredging and as a result, species diversity will also be reduced. A notable increase in turbidity and an accompanying depression in dissolved oxygen levels will be unavoidable. This adverse effect will only be temporary, however, and turbidity and DO levels will return to pre -dredging levels once dredging ceases. Implementation of this project will result in the alteration of four acres of shoreline habitat and the deletion of two acres or more, as needed, of submerged bottom habitat. All coastal plants and benthic organisms within the disposal site will be destroyed. In addition, turbidity levels will be temporarily increased in the vicinity of the disposal site during the dredging operation. 198 5.7 MARSHALLBERG The destruction of all benthic organisms within the project channel will be unavoidable. Bentbic organisms will repopulate the area within a few years; however, species diversity may be reduced. Also, a marked increase in turbidity will occur. It will only be temporary, and all effects caused by excess sediment in the water column will diminish following project implementation until attaining their pre -project state. Implementation of the project will result in the temporary loss of approximately three acres of coastal upland habitat. All vege- tation within the site will be destroyed, and available habitat for fauna and flora will be reduced and/or changed. A negative aesthetic impact may be unavoidable due to the creation of a disposal mound. Landscaping of the site will mitigate this impact. 5.8 HARKERS ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE Benthic organisms within the project dredging area will be destroyed, and the benthic organisms in surrounding areas will be disturbed or destroyed by sediment. The benthic organisms in and adjacent to the project area should be reestablished within one year, and a balanced community should be evident within a few years. Turbidities associated with project activities will have an adverse effect on shellfish in the immediate area, especially if dredging is conducted during periods of low metabolic rate (December - April). In addition, turbidities and associated low dissolved oxygen valves can significantly harm juvenile populations of many marine fishes and crustacea, especially during the spring and summer months. However, these turbidity problems will only be prevalent during actual project activities. 3.9 BEAUFORT HARBOR Maintenance dredging at each location within the Beaufort Harbor project area and the disposal of dredged materials will result in the following negative impacts. 199 5.9.1 Bulkhead Channel Negative impacts to localized benthic fauna are expected to occur from hydraulic dredging procedures. In addition, the degree of bottom community development will be limited by the high energy, low light penetration characteristics of this channel. High energy conditions will be maintained by the project, thus, benthic repopulation of the dredged areas is not expected. All vegetation at the disposal areas on Town Marsh will be destroyed as a result of diking and disposal practices. A short-term negative impact to the utilization of upland habitat by wildlife will occur during and following project implementation. Negative impacts to bird nesting activities will be minimized if dredging is conducted from September 1 through December 31. 5.9.2 Gallants Channel Increased turbidity from dredging operations is expected to nega- tively impact finfish and shellfish spawning and nursery activities. Larval migration routes will be adversely affected, resulting in the death of large numbers of juvenile invertebrate organisms if turbidity conditions are prolonged during the nursery season. Increased sedimentation is expected to blanket areas adjacent to the channel. Negative impacts to benthic communities in these areas are expected to be short-term, as repopulation by similar species will rapidly occur. Continual maintenance of Gallants Channel is expected to cause a stressed bottom habitat in which only sparse community develop- ment will occur. Thus, the continued loss of bottom organisms in the channel itself is not expected to be great. Resuspension of organic hydrocarbons and inorganic metals will negatively affect localized dissolved oxygen levels. Organisms at the base of the food web are expected to assimilate these materials iti varying concentrations. There will be short-term negative impacts to offshore fish and benthic fauna resulting from open water discharge of dredged material. Increased sedimentation is expected to blanket por- tions of the disposal area and reduce primary productivity in the water column. Impacts to shrimp spawning activities and larval migrations into the estuary will be minimized if dredging is restricted to September through November. r 200 To determine possible up:.ake of pollutants from the dredged material, an analysis of sediment quality of Gallants Channel must be conducted. As of the date of this report, no sediment quality data has been made available; therefore, a determination of impacts from pollutants cannot be made. Sediment quality data will be collected prior to dredging activities. 5.9.3 Beaufort Turning Basin and Channel Thro,iob the Turning Basin There will be a direct loss of benthic fauna with the removal of 99, 549 cubic yards of bottom material. However, the high energy conditions at this location inhibit extensive benthic com- munity development, minimizing this impact on the area ecology. A localized, short-term negative impact to primary productivity and to finfish is expected to occur with increased water turbidity. Minor negative impacts to vegetation will occur from disposal practices at Town Marsh . The area will become revegetated after the water has leached from the material. 5.9.4 Taylors Creek Increased sedimentation is expected to negatively impact nearby shellfish beds which become blanketed. Negative impacts asso- ciated witn localized increased turbidity are expected to be short-term and terminate with project completion. Negative impacts to the upland habitat at Carrot Island will occur with the future deposition of 100, 000 cubic yards of dredged material at diked disposal sites. All vegetation will be destroyed at these sites. Increased elevations will have negative impacts on th(-- suitability of the area for bird nesting habitat. Drainage patterns over the remaining marsh areas at Carrot Island will be altered with the creation of higher elevations, involving a potential decrease in the productivity of island marshes. 5.9.5 Channel and Harbor of Refuge at Town Creek Significant negative impacts to biologically valuable bottom habitat will occur should future dredging be conducted at Town Creek. With infrequent dredging practices, extensive faunal and floral communities are expected to develop within the low energy harbor at Town Creek. 201 Increased sedimentation resulting from dredging operations is xpected to negatively impact valuable marsh and mud flat habitats. Negative impacts to vegetation at the upland disposal site will occur should disposal be conducted at this location. Upland habitat will be rendered unusable to wildlife until the area has become revegetated (which will take one growing season after dewatering occurs). Birds will discontinue feeding at nearby areas of Beaufort Marsh during disposal operations. 202 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION Several alternative actions to the project are possible, including that of no action. Within this section, alternatives are identified and evaluated in terms of resulting impacts on a general, county -wide basis and an individual project basis. 6.1 GENERAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NO -ACTION On a county -wide basis, the no -action alternative will have several significant adverse impacts. Economic and social impacts can be divided into several broad categories: • Commercial fishing 0 Seafood processing • Waterborne commerce • Recreational boating • Navigation 0 Secondary shore -based employment Approximately 58 percent or 483 commercial fishing vessels and fishing boats licensed in Carteret County are based in harbors considered in this report. Failure to implement maintenance dredging of the harbors and channels considered in this report will ultimately result in the shoaling and blockage of these harbors. Such shoaling will effectively deny access to harbors of refuge, mooring facilities, resupply bases, and marine service and repair facilities. The loss of such facilities would have a highly signifi- cant impact upon volumes of seafood and industrial fish landings in Carteret County. The loss of such landings would have a severe adverse effect upon employment in the seafood and menhaden processing industries ashore. In 1975, it was estimated that approximately 1, 150 people in Carteret County were directly dependent upon commercial fishing, seafood processing, seafood wholesaling, menhaden 203 fishing or menhaden processing for employment. If implemented, the no -action alternative would most likely result in an overall demise of these industries and result in significant increases in the unemployment rate in Carteret County. Loss of present levels of landings, both in terms of pounds landed and dollar value, would seriously affect the Carteret County economy. Secondary employment, i. e. that employment based upon meeting needs and demands of those employed in ocean - oriented employment will also suffer severe adverse economic impacts. 6.2 INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 6.2.1 Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor Alternative Dredging Methods Non -hydraulic Dredging Non -hydraulic dredging of the waterway provides no environmental or economic advantages over hydraulic dredging. Compared to pipeline dredging, non -hydraulic dredging causes a greater increase in water turbidity in the project vicinity resulting in more harm to aquatic organisms in adjacent areas. Furthermore, since the dredged material would have to be transported by barge rather than pipeline, access to the disposal areas would be restricted by extreme shallow water conditions in areas imme- diately west of the Outer Banks. Barge access channels to the disposal site would have to be dredged, greatly increasing both the project scope and the environmental damage attributable to the project. Underwater Diked Disposal Sites The first alternative would be open water disposal (diked) adjacent to the dredged channel. This would seem to be economically advantageous as no booster pump would be necessary to pipe the material to the disposal site. Diked open water disposal areas located adjacent to the channel would be more susceptible to storm damage than diked upland sites. This alternative would be detrimental to the environment requiring an area of sound bottom to be covered, 204 thus destroying benthic populations. If practical, attempts will be made to stabilize disposal area shorelines with vegetation. Upland Diked Disposal Sites Disposal of dredge material in upland diked areas is a feasible alternative for the segments of the Core Sound Channel which are in close proximity to the towns of Stacy and Marshallberg. Other sections of the channel are far enough removed from the mainland to require the addition of booster pumps to the hydraulic pipeline and this, in conjunction with land acquisition, would substantially increase the cost of the project. Site acquisition near Stacy and Marshallberg would be required if suitable upland sites are available. Outer Beach Nourishment Disposal along the outer shoreline as beach nourishment would not be acceptable because the material to be dredged is a gray silty sand. The No -Action Alternative If the project is not implemented, the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor will eventually become impassable to many boats because of shoaling, resulting in significant adverse impacts throughout the area. These impacts will occur principally in the areas of waterborne commerce, commercial fishing, and recreational boating. Waterborne Commerce. As seen in Table 39, waterborne com- merce on the Waterway Connecting Beaufort Harbor and Pamlico Sound consits of seafood, shellfish, and menhaden. During 1973, 17, 860 tons of seafood, shellfish, and menhaden were transported over this waterway. Were maintenance dredging not performed, extensive shoaling and silt deposition would occur in the existing channel. The result would be the cessation of waterborne com- merce over this route. Commercial fishing would be adversely affected in that, without a channel between Beaufort Harbor and Pamlico Sound, catches of fishery products from the Pamlico Sound area would have to be offloaded to other ports. Fishery products could either be transported to the Beaufort area at significant additional cost or processed at the landing port. The resulting loss of seafood and menhaden processing employ- ment in the Beaufort area is on the order of 250 to 300 jobs. This level of employment represents approximately 8.6 percent of total employment in the Beaufort -Morehead City area. 205 Commercial Fishing. Failure to implement maintenance dredging will ultimately result in a denial of access via Core Sound to the Pamlico Sound .rea by commercial fishing boats and vessels based in the Beaufort - Morehead City area. This, in turn, would restrict commercial fish landings and employment in the commercial fisheries' fleet. These adverse results must be categorized as adverse economic impacts associated with the no -action alternative. Recreational Boating. Recreational boating opportunities in the Core Sound area (that area including the waterway from Beaufort Harbor to Pamlico Sound) would be restricted by failure to imple- ment planned maintenance dredging. Shoaling and silt deposition in the waterway channel would impose draft restrictions on recreational craft. Limitations on larger recreational craft would be similar to restrictions imposed upon commercial fishing boats and vessels. Smaller, outboard -powered boats would ultimately be affected to the same degree. This would constitute a negative economic impact in terms of recreation —days lost. Further, decreases in the level of recreational boating expendi- tures at marinas and other boating facilities due to loss of the channel would be considered an adverse economic impact. 6.2.2 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge Alternative Dredging Methods Non -hydraulic Dredging Non -hydraulic dredging of the channel in Cedar Bay and Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge would be detrimental environmentally and would increase the cost of the project. Non -hydraulic dredging increases water turbidity in the vicinity of the dredging causing greater harm to adjacent benthic organisms and shellfish (specifically oysters, clams and scallops) than pipeline dredging. Underwater Diked Disposal Sites A possible alternative to upland disposal is the deposition of the dredge material in underwater diked areas in Cedar Bay; however, this method of disposal incurs several environmental economic disadvantages not present in the project. Construction of under- water diked disposal areas would be more expensive than upland diked construction. Underwater diked disposal sites would have to be located outside of the state oyster management areas and natural populations of oysters, clams and scallops which occur in Cedar Bay. Deposition of the dredge material would result in :he destruction of the benthic organisms in the disposal site. The 206 diked material will become populated with benthic organisms but not to the extent of the surrounding marine bottomlands. Furthermore, an increase in sedimentation into Cedar Bay will occur during dredge material dispersal operations as a significant portion of the finer grained suspended silt particles will not settle out in the underwater diked disposal sites. Damage to adjacent phytoplankton and benthic organisms would occur during disposal operations although turbidity conditions and phytoplankton popu- lations would return to normal shortly after completion of disposal operations. Benthic organisms and shellfish would repopulate in one year, but establishment of mature communities would take several years (three to five years depending upon the species). Beach Nourishment The nearest beach to Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge is six miles (9.6 km). Transporting of dredge material to the beach by barge would be necessary, increasing the cost of the project and requiring the utilization of non -hydraulic dredge equipment. The aforementioned negative environmental impacts associated with this means of dredging would occur. Furthermore, the dredged material is unsuitable for beach nourishment due to the fine grained nature of the material. Creation of Disposal Islands Creation of diked disposal islands is not considered practical. Construction of high dikes for the island would substantially increase the cost of the project. In addition, the silty compo- sition of the disposal islands would preclude their use by water- fowl for nesting areas. No -Action Alternative Failure to implement maintenance dredging plans for the Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge would result in significant adverse negative economic impacts. These impacts would be in the form of: • Loss of navigation facilities • Loss of harbor of refuge benefits • Loss of employment in commercial fishing • Loss of employment in the seafood wholesaling sector 207 Navigation. Small commercial fishing boats require at least three to four feet of water to safely navigate into the Harbor of Refuge. Failure to implement the maintenance dredging would result in shoaling and silt deposition in the existing channel. This in turn would result in inadequate water depths for boat and vessel operation and ultimately, in a denial of access to harbor of refuge facilities. This must be regarded as a severe adverse economic effect accompanying a decision not to dredge existing channels. Loss of Harbor of Refuge Facilities. As indicated in the specific economic profile of the Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge, a majority of the fishing boats based in the harbor are less than 20 feet long. Accordingly, these vessels are susceptible to weather -based damage that could be withstood by larger vessels. Such vulnerability is a basis for the existing Harbor of Refuge. Failure to continue the existence of and access to Harbor of Refuge facilities at this location will result in significant poten- tial economic impacts in the form of boat and vessel damage, gear losses and potential loss of life. Loss of Employment in the Commercial Fishing Sector. At the present time, there are approximately 35 persons employed as commercial fishermen with operations based at the Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge. Failure to implement maintenance dredging plans for the harbor and channels leading to Cedar Island Bay would force some fishermen to relocate to other facilities and others to seek employment in other industrial sectors. As previously discussed, the eastern portion of Carteret County is lacking in diverse economic and employment opportunities. A result of failure to implement maintenance dredging plans would be to increase levels of unemployment and underemployment in the existing labor force in the vicinity of the Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge. This must be categorized as an adverse economic impact occurring as a result of the no -action alternative. Loss of Employment in the Seafood Wholesaling Sector. Since seafood wholesaling employment and commercial fishing employ- ment are so closely related, many of the same arguments outlined above can also be applied to employment in the seafood wholesaling sector. Since the total employment in this sector (five year- round jobs, ten part-time jobs) is low, the overall adverse impact 208 will not be as significant as potential losses in employment in the commercial fishing sector. However, losses of employment in seafood wholesaling must be considered as an adverse economic impact. Potential total losses of employment in both sectors is estimated at 40 year-round jobs and 10 part-time jobs. These losses would, when coupled with other adverse economic impacts described, have a significant adverse effect upon overall employment levels and economic activity in the relatively small (1970 population was 290) township of Cedar Island. Accordingly, failure to implement maintenance dredging plans must be considered to be the most harmful course of action in this area. 6.2.3 Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay with Cedar Bay Alternative Dredging Methods Utilization of a hopper dredge is not possible due to the shallow depth of the channel. Non -hydraulic dredging of the channel connecting Thoroughfare Bay with Cedar Bay is not considered practical. Upland Diked Disposal Area No suitable upland area is available at the project site for disposal due to the presence of marsh throughout the entire project area. Barging of dredge material to underwater diked sites in Core Sound is possible; however, this would increase the cost of the project and would result in the destruction or alteration of benthic communities in the disposal area. Beach Nourishment Use of the dredged material for outer beach nourishment is unsuitable due to the silty organic nature of the sediment and distance of the beaches from the project site. Because the open beaches are 4.5 to 5 miles (7.2 to 8 km) east of the easternmost edge of the project site, several auxiliary booster pumps would be necessary for hydraulic pipeline transport, making this alternative economically unpractical. No -Action Alternative Failure to implement maintenance dredging; plans for the channel connecting Cedar Island B:ty and Thoroughfare Bay would result in serious adverse economic impacts. These impacts would 209 lirectly affect the navigability of the channel and also the level of employment among commercial fishermen whose boats and vessels are based along the channel. Navigation. Approximately 25 boats and vessels are moored in the channel. Shoaling and silt deposition in the channel would prevent passage of both boats moored in the channel and "run" boats traveling from Pamlico Sound to Core Sound. Shoaling and silt deposition resulting in closure of the channel would force either relocation or exit from commercial fishing for all boats and vessels based in the channel. Additional costs incurred by relocg.tion would constitute an adverse economic impact. Vessels forced out of commercial fishing operations due to higher costs incurred by channel closure would also constitute a severe adverse economic impact directly attributable to the no -action alternative. Employment. Closure of the channel connecting Cedar Island Bay and Thoroughfare Bay would result in the potential loss of approxi- mately 40 jobs. This loss of employment would occur in the commercial fishing sector on boats and vessels berthed in the channel. Similar to other projects described in this report, loss of employment in the commercial fisheries sector would con- stitute a severe adverse economic impact directly attributable to the no -action alternative. 6.2.4 Atlantic Harbor of Refuge Alternative Dredain2 Methods Non -hydraulic dredging would present no economic or ecological advantages over hydraulic dredging methods. However, non -hydraulic dredging with barges used for sediment transport would present a feasible alternative. Material barged north to Barry Bay could be deposited offshore for marsh creation. Impacts involved with this alternative would be: increased project expense, increased water turbidity, bottom disruption because of the non -hydraulic dredge, loss of shallow bottomland and associated flora and fauna in Barry Bay, and gain of highly inun- dated wetlands. A full discussion of impacts associated with marsh creation is found elsewhere in this report. 210 Upland Diked Disposal Sites Permanent disposal at the diked area on the harbor edge is not a feasible alternative. The previous site is too small to contain all material dredged over the projected 50-year period and is not sufficiently protected from the sound. Severe storm waves could undermine the disposal area and cause erosion of the stockpiled sediment. Permanent disposal at diked areas inland is not considered the best alternative due to potential groundwater problems and high economic costs. Beach Nourishment The dredged material is unsuitable for beach nourishment due to the fine grained (clay, silt and fine sands) nature of the material. No -Action Alternative Significant adverse econornic impacts accompanying the failure to perform maintenance dredging in the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge would include effects upon navigation and employment in commercial fishing. Navigation. Adverse economic effects in relation to navigation would be similar to navigation effects for Atlantic Harbor. However, they would be of somewhat greater significance due to the potential loss of a harbor of refuge for small craft and fishing boats. Approximately 18 fishing boats under 20 feet in length are based at the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge. Loss of this harbor would seriously affect the fishing effectiveness of these boats. It is most likely that some, if not all, of these boats and men would be forced out of commercial fishing activity. As such, failure to implement maintenance dredging plans would have serious adverse economic impacts. Employment. Approximately 45 persons are directly dependent upon commercial fisheries operations, leased at the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge, for employment and income. Failure to implement planned maintenance dredging at the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge would produce severe adverse economic impacts in the form of additional unemployment and stress upon the local economy. These impacts would be directly attributable to the no -action alternative. 211 6.2.5 Atlantic Harbor Alternative Dredging Methods Non -hydraulic dredging would present no economic or ecologic assets. However, non -hydraulic dredging with barges used for sediment transport would present a feasible alternative to hydrau- lic methods. Material barged north to Barry Bay could be depo- sited offshore for marsh creation. Impacts involved with this alternative would be increased project expense, increased water turbidity and bottom disruption because of the non -hydraulic dredge, loss of shallow bottomland and associated flora and fauna in Barry Bay, and gain of a highly productive wetlands area with fauna associated with a tidally inundated marsh. Elsewhere in the report is a full discussion of the impacts associated with marsh creation. Upland Diked Disposal Sites Permanent disposal at the diked area on the harbor edge is not a feasible alternative to inland disposal. The previous site is too small to contain all material dredged over the projected 50-year period and is not sufficiently protected from the sound. Severe storm waves could undermine the disposal area and cause erosion of the stockpiled sediment. Permanent disposal at diked areas inland is not considered the best alternative due to potential groundwater problems and high economic costs. Beach Nourishment The dredged material is unsuitable for beach nourishment due to the fine grained clay (silt and fine sands) nature of the material. No -Action Alternative As seen in the social and economic profile of Atlantic, there is a large commercial fishing fleet based in the harbor. Failure to implement maintenance dredging plans for the harbor ,and channel leading to Core Sound from the harbor would have a significant adverse economic impact upon the fishing fleet and its operators. These impacts would be best categorized in the following manner: 212 • Navigation • Employment a) Aboard fishi,lt; boats and vessels b) Ashore in the seafood processing and wholesaling sector Navigation. The commercial fishing fleet based in Atlantic relies upon the existence of maintained channels in the harbor and leading to Core Sound to safely travel to and from fishing areas. Should maintenance dredging plans not be implemented, shoaling and silt deposition in existing channels would force the fleet to relocate its operational port. Further, during peak harvest months in the shrimp fishery, transient vessels would also be foreclosed from using Atlantic as an offloading and resupply point. Increased travel time would produce additional operating costs, thus reducing the overall margin for profit in the fishery. The potential loss of existing ria,,igation facilities must be regarded as having significant adverse economic impacts. Employment. Failure to implement maintenance dredging in Atlantic Harbor and in the channel leading to Core Sound would generate serious adverse economic impacts in relation to pre- viously discussed levels of employment aboard boats and vessels and ashore in the seafood processing and wholesaling sectors. Approximately 200 persons in the Atlantic area are directly depen- dent upon commercial fishing or seafood processing/wholesaling for employment and income. Loss of this amount of employment would severely stress the local economy and accordingly, must be considered as an adverse economic impact accompanying the no -action alternative. 6.2.6 Sealevel Alternative Dredging Methods Dredging can be performed by non -hydraulic methods (i.e. , bucket dredge). Bucket dredging will have a distinct advantage over hydraulic dredging in that it will not generate as large a volume of material during each maintenance operation. However, bucket dredging will cost more due to increased time and trans- portation of the material by barge. It will also cause a greater increase in turbidity. In the long run, hydraulic dredging will be more efficient, both economically and environmentally. _a 213 Navigation. Failure to perform maintenance dredging will result in shoaling and deposition of silt in the harbor and channel. Such shoaling will impede safe navigation by commercial fishing craft and ultimately result in closure to navigation. This would con- stitute a significant adverse economic impact. Commercial Fishing. Commercial fishing boats and vessels presently utilizing Sealevel Harbor provide employment for approximately 40 persons. Closure to navigation by fishing ves- sels and boats would force these boats and vessels to relocate to other ports or cease fishing activities. The potential loss in employment would have a significant adverse effect upon both income and employment in the Sealevel area as well as placing additional stress on a local economy that is relatively undiversified. The loss of employment and income would constitute a significant adverse economic impact associated with the no -action alternative. Seafood Processing and Wholesaling. Adjacent to Sealevel Harbor is a seafood processing plant and wholesaling facility. This plant employs approximately five to seven people annually, with an additional 10 to 15 jobs being created during peak harvest periods. Closure of Sealevel Harbor to navigation would terminate the acti- vities of the processing and wholesaling plant; and accordingly, any employment created by the plant. In conjunction with the potential loss in income and employment described previously, severe adverse economic impacts would result from the no -action alternative. 6.2.7 Marshallberg Alternative Dred2inja Methods Dredging can be performed by bucket dredge (non -hydraulic). This type of dredging will not generate as large a volume of slurry and therefore will not necessitate as large a disposal area. However, bucket dredging is more expensive due to increased time and transportation costs of barging the material to the dis- posal site. It will also cause a greater increase in turbidity. In view of these facts, hydraulic dredging is more desirable, especially since available disposal area is not a limiting factor. 214 - Beach Nourishment The dark gray organic silt and dark gray silty sand substrate in the basin and side channel is unsuitable for beach nourishment. Not only is the grain size and texture unsuitable but the sediment is also polluted (see Table 16). Volatile solids, TKN, COD, oil and grease, and zinc levels all exceed the maximum limits estab- lished by the EPA for the acceptability of dredged material disposal to the Nation's waters. Diked Underwater Disposal The dredged material can be piped to a confined underwater dis - posal site. This site will have to be located in a shallow, low energy area of Core Sound and be of sufficient size to contain 360, 000 cubic yards (264, 348 cu m) of material. An estimated 72 acres (291, 384 sq m) will be necessary to contain this material at a depth of three feet. If implemented, this disposal technique will result in the irretrievable loss of 72 acres of bottom substrate and habitat. All benthic organisms within the disposal site will be destroyed and turbidity will be temporarily increased. Utilization of a sediment screen will minimize the spread of fine silt particles• The effect that changes in the bottom configuration would have on current, shore erosion, sedimentation, salinity and temperature patterns, estuarine fish species, and habitat diversity still remain to be determined. The site should not be located near or on valuable fishing or shellfishing grounds and should not obstruct commonly used waterways. A long-term benefit of this disposal method is that the site can be used repeatedly, even to the point of creating a dredge island. However, the benefits do not seem to outweigh the advantages of upland diked disposal. Underwater diked disposal irretrievably commits 72 acres of Core Sound bottom substrate and habitat com- pared to the four acres (16, 188 sq m) of upland and two acres (8, 094 sq m) of bottom substrate and habitat. The short- and long- term effects of a changed bottom configuration on the hydrography and biota of the region are not readily discernible. An under- water diked disposal site may become an obstruction to navigation and fishing grounds. 215 No -Action Alternative Failure to implement maintenance dredging in Sealevel Harbor and the channel leading to Core Sound will result in significant adverse economic impacts. These impacts will directly affect three areas: • Navigation • Commercial fisheries • Seafood processing and wholesaling Beach Nourishment The gray inorganic silts of the basin and side channel are unsui- table for beach nourishment as the grain size and texture will be incompatible with the sandy beach material. The sediment is also polluted (see Table 17). Volatile solids, COD, TKN, and zinc all exceed levels established by the EPA. Diked Underwater Disposal The dredge material could be disposed of in a confined, underwater disposal site. The site would have to be of sufficient size to con- tain at least 98, 708 cubic yards (75, 472 cu m) of spoil. An area of at least 20 acres (80, 940 sq m) located in a low energy, shallow area of Core Sound, would be required if the material was depo- sited to a depth of three feet (0.9 m). If implemented, this alternative will irreversibly commit 20 acres of Core Sound bottom habitat. All benthic organisms within the disposal site will be smothered and turbidity temporarily increased. However, a sedi- ment screen can be utilized to minimize the spread of fine silt particles. The effect that a changed bottom configuration will have on the hydrography and biota of the region depends on the specific bottomland utilized and still remains to be determined. The site should not be located on or near valuable fishing and shellfishing grounds and should not obstruct commonly used waterways. This disposal site can be used repeatedly, even to the point of creating a dredge island. 216 The benefits of this metLod of disposal do not outweigh the advan- tages of upland diked disposal. This alternative will irreversibly commit at least 20 acres (80, 940 sq m) of ecologically valuable estuarine bottom substrate as opposed to three acres (12, 141 sq m) of economically valuable coastal upland. The effects of an altered bottom configuration on the hydrography and biota of the region is undetermined. Such a diked mass may become an obstruction to navigation. In conclusion, this alternative is not better suited for the environment or economic situation at Marshallberg than the initial project. No -Action Alternative Failure to implement maintenance dredging in Marshallberg Harbor and the channel leading to Core Sound would result in significant adverse economic impacts in several sectors. These sectors would include: • Navigation • Commercial fishing (employment) • Recreational boating • Marine resupply and repair facilities Navigation. Failure to implement maintenance dredging in the harbor and channel would result in the eventual shoaling and depo- sition of silt in these areas. Insufficient water depths would pre- clude safe operations by fishing boats and vessels and recreational craft. The eventual result would be a cessation in the use of Marshallberg Harbor for recreational and commercial purposes. This would definitely constitute an adverse economic impact directly attributable to the no -action alternative. Commercial Fishing. As described in the economic profile of Marshallberg, there are approximately 35 commercial fishing boats and vessels utilizing Marshallberg Harbor as a base of operations. Approximately 70 persons have employment in commercial fishing aboard these vessels and boats. Closure of the harbor and channel would force these boats and vessels to relocate to other ports, resulting in either loss of employment or forced relocation for those employed. This would constitute a significant adverse economic impact associated with the no - action alternative. 217 Recreational Boating. Marshallberg Harbor is utilized exten- sively by recreational boaters. There are approximately 40 boats currently (May 1975) based in the harbor. Shoaling and deposi- tion of silt in the harbor and channel leading to Core Sound would ultimately preclude any recreational boating activity based at Marshallberg. The loss of existing recreational opportunities would constitute a definite adverse economic impact associated with the no -action alternative. Marine Resupply and Repair Employment. Failure to implement maintenance dredging at Marshallberg Harbor would result in the closing of the harbor as discussed previously. Adjacent to Marshallberg Harbor are extensive marine repair and resupply facilities that employ approximately 15 persons• This employment would be foregone if maintenance dredging is not accomplished. This loss of employment is an adverse economic impact directly attributable to the no -action alternative. 6.2.8 Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge ALTERNATIVE DREDGING TMETHODS Non -hydraulic Dredging - Maintenance dredging by bucket -dredge or dragline is a feasible alternative. However, these pieces of equipment would have to be mounted on barges for most of the maintenance work. In addition, the cost of barging or trucking the dredged material to a suitable disposal site would be prohibitive. These two types of equipment would also create greater turbidity problems than hydraulic dredging. Underwater Diked Disposal Area - Disposal of dredged material in an underwater diked area in Back Sound is feasible, but has significant disadvantages. Most of Back Sound is open to the taking of shellfish. Scallops are prevalent in the many eelgrass beds, and oysters and clams are plentiful. In addition, numerous channel nets and pound nets are set for shrimp and flounder, throughout Back Sound. There is also a small haul net fishery in the area. A large disposal area could severely alter the above fisheries. Fill placed in the water would destroy the benthic organisms in and surrounding the disposal area. In addition, some of the eelgrass beds in the sound could be covered by direct disposal or sedimentation. Finally, when sediment samples are taken in the harbor of refuge, the sediment may be determined unsuitable for in water disposal. 218 Creation of Disposal Islands - Creation of a diked disposal island is not practical fcr the same reasons as discussed in the preceding two paragraphs. Also, island creation would alter the current patterns and could possibly cause siltation of the existing navigation channels. The construction and maintenance of high dikes on the island would increase the cost of the project. Saltmarsh.Disposal Area.- Although the Corps went on a saltmarsh area at the harbor, the due to resultant significant degradation of resources. has a permanent ease - site will not be used valuable estuarine Beach Nourishment - When sediment samples are taken, the dredged material may not prove suitable for beach nourishment. In addition, the nearest beach area is some three miles (4.8 km) from Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge. No Action Alternative - Adverse economic impacts accompanying the failure to perform maintenance dredging in the Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge would include effects upon navigation and employment in commercial fishing. Failure to maintain the project would prevent its use as a refuge harbor, certainly for deep draft boats and probably for shallow draft boats. Lack of maintenance would also eventually prevent the use of the harbor by the 6 or so boats that regularly moor there. The 10 to 12 fishermen that depend upon these boats for part or all of their income would either have to seek other employment or find other docking facilities. 6.2.9 Beaufort Harbor The Beaufort Harbor project includes six locations. The alternative dredging methods for each location are discussed individually. Bulkhead Channel Alternative disposal areas within the range of a hydraulic pipeline include the outer beach of Bogue Banks and the upland disposal area at the sound side of Bogue Banks adjacent to Fort Macon State Park. In each case, additional booster pumps would be required. The distance to the outer beach varies from 6, 000 to 8, 500 feet. To the latter disposal site, the distance varies from 6, 000 to 8, 000 feet. 219 The sediment from Bulkhead Channel would be compatible with parent sediment of the active surf zone and thus, no long-term negative impacts would be expected. A positive benefit will occur to waterfront property owners west of the discharge point since the material would provide beach nourishment for the rapidly eroding beach zone of Bogue Banks. Should the disposal area north of Fort Macon State Park be utilized as a disposal site, negative impacts would include short-term loss of vegetation and upland habitat. The area is actively used as a disposal area and displays a high elevation (approximately 20 feet above mean sea level) and hilly topography. Additional dumping would create greater elevations and steeper slopes at the shoreline. With the steeper slopes, erosion susceptibility would be heightened. Gallants Channel The historic disposal area at Newport Marsh is not suitable as a future disposal site. Extensive saltmarsh cordgrass wetlands have developed on previous dredge material deposits, providing valuable waterfowl habitat and fish nursery areas. In view of the ecologically valuable habitat in the vicinity of Gallants Channel, it is recommended that all material be pumped to a nearby diked upland disposal area. An alternative means of disposal would be to transport the dredged material to the active disposal area off Beaufort Inlet. However, due to the trans- port distance involved, the cost of this alternative would be prohibitive. Beaufort Turning Basin and Channel Through Turning Basin The present elevation of Town Marsh and Carrot Island is 10 feet (3.0 m) above mean sea level at historic disposal areas. Future disposal at these sites will create greater elevations, thus obstructing the view of the ocean from Beaufort residents. The recommended disposal of material from future maintenance dredgings at Shackleford Banks would avoid further modifications to the elevation of Town Marsh. An alternate means of disposal would be to transport the dredged material to the active disposal area off Beaufort Inlet. Impacts to the disposal area were discussed previously. However, in view of the availability of upland sites within pumping distance of this location, the negative impacts associated with open water dumping render the alternate dredging and disposal practices undesirable. 220 Taylors Creek An alternate means of dredging and disposal at Taylors Creek would be to hydraulically pump the material to the outer beach of Shackleford Banks. The estimated pipeline length would be 12, 000 feet, thus, two booster pumps would be required for trans- port along the pipeline. The utilization of a hydraulic pipeline to Shackleford Banks would involve crossing over marsh and estuarine habitat, and tran- secting barrier island communities. Negative impacts to marsh substrate and flora would be expected during construction of the pipeline. The negative impacts would be short-term since the affected areas will revegetate within two years. However, all exposed areas would be subject to erosion prior to revegetation; severe erosion could cause the loss of large areas of marsh land should storm conditions prevail while the marsh substrate is exposed. Negative impacts to fauna and flora at Shackleford Banks would include the disruption of bird nesting activities in the grassland and dune regions and disturbance of vegetation in the pipeline pathway. The impacts to birds could be minimized if no hydrauiic dredging is done during nesting periods, from April through August. Negative impacts resulting from discharge of slurry at the active beach zone would not be significant as the predominant fauna are mobile and will temporarily vacate the area. The projected dredge material would be compatible with outer beach sediment and, hence, no aesthetic impact would result from open beach disposal. Another disposal option involves open water disposal offshore of Beaufort Inlet. The impacts resultant from this procedure have been discussed previously. Town Creek An alternative method of dredging and disposal at Town Creek would be to transport the material to the designated open water disposal area south of Beaufort Inlet. Turbidity and sedimentatJon with associated biological impacts would be expected to be greater 221 with this method than with hydraulic pipeline; however, the volume of slurry removed is significantly less when utilizing non -hydraulic methods. Prior to final disposal plan selection, sediment analysis will be conducted in order to determine potential impacts to fauna and flora from toxic components of the dredged material. If the material exceeds limits established for the acceptability of dredged material to the Nation's waters, this alternative would not be implemented. No -Action Alternative Failure to maintain Beaufort Harbor would have significant adverse economic effects. These effects would occur in the following areas: • Navigation • Commercial fishing • Seafood processing and wholesaling • Recreational boating • Waterborne commerce • Marine resupply and service facilities Navigation. Failure to perform maintenance dredging in Beaufort Harbor would result in significant adverse economic effects associated with loss of navigability. Since Beaufort has essen- tially a water -oriented economy, loss of the use of channel and harbor facilities due to shoaling would prove fatal to many eco- nomic activities. Specifically, all commercial fishermen, many recreational boaters, waterborne commerce and oceanographic research vessels rely upon the existence of safe, navigable waterways in Beaufort Harbor to safely accomplish their diverse goals. Loss of navigation facilities would curtail these activities and accordingly, would constitute a significant adverse economic impact. Commercial Fishing. There are approximately 239 fishing vessels and boats based in Beaufort and Morehead City Harbors employing approximately 420 commercial fishermen. Loss of the channels and harbor facilities in Beaufort Harbor due to shoaling would force the relocation of these vessels to other ports or their exit from commercial fishing. The potential loss of this employment 222 in the Beaufort -Morehead City economy would constitute a signi- ficant adverse effect accompanying the no -action alternative. Seafood Processing and Wholesaling. In the vicinity of Beaufort Harbor there are 6 seafood wholesalers and 13 processors employing a total of approximately 250 persons. In addition, there are approximately 35 to 40 persons employed at menhaden processing facilities in Carteret County. Loss of a total of approximately 300 full-time jobs in these areas plus the potential loss of 420 commercial fishing jobs represents a threat to econo- mic stability in the Beaufort area. As such, perhaps the most significant adverse economic effect of any of the projects con- sidered would occur with the no -action alternative in Beaufort Harbor. Recreational Boating. There are many recreational boating opportunities in the Beaufort Harbor area. In most instances, owners of pleasure boats rely upon adequate depth navigation channels to safetly operate their boats. Loss of these channels due to shoaling and silt deposition would seriously hinder their ability to operate safely and would represent a loss in existing recreational opportunities. Accordingly, such losses would constitute an adverse economic impact accompanying the no - action alternative. Waterborne Commerce. Waterborne commerce in Beaufort Harbor is of major significance in relation to the commercial seafood industry and the menhaden industry. Loss of navigation channels in Beaufort Harbor would seriously affect the capability to transport these products by water -based means. Accordingly, loss of waterborne commerce facilities would constitute a signi- ficant adverse economic impact. Marine Resupply and Service Facilities. Employment at marine service, resupply and marine facilities in the Beaufort area would be adversely affected by decline or end in commercial and recreational boating activity. As such, loss of such employment would constitute a significant adverse economic impact associated with the no -action alternative. 223 7.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 7.1 WATERWAY CONNECTING PAMLICO SOUND AND BEAUFORT HARBOR The maintenance of the waterway through Core and Back Sounds will result in several basic changes in short- and long-term use of the environment. The creation of disposal islands, which are a valuable nesting area for water birds, will enhance the environ- ment of the area. The number of disposal islands will incre- mentally increase over the next 50 years due to repeated maintenance dredgings. A. corresponding amount of estuarine bottom substrate will be deleted during this period. The long- term productivity of the environment associated with creation of disposal islands will more than compensate for short-term use of man's environment resulting in the deletion of estuarine bottomlands. Negative impacts to fauna and flora will occur with each maintenance dredging and disposal operation. Maintenance dredging will ensure continued and long-term pro- ductivity of man's environment of the area. Maintenance dredging of the channel is required for continued safe navigation for commercial fishing and recreational boats traversing Core and Back Sound. Furthermore, waterborne commerce is totally dependent upon existence of a navigable channel. Employment ashore in the seafood processing industry will continue to be dependent upon existence of a maintained navigation channel. Directly and indirectly, at least 1, 100 jobs, 24 seafood process- ing plants, 19 seafood wholesalers, 32 recreational boating service and repair facilities and approximately 483 commercial fishing vessel and boat owners in the Carteret County economy are dependent on the existence of the Waterway Connecting Beaufort Harbor and Pamlico Sound. 7.2 CEDAR ISLAND BAY HARBOR OF REFUGE Negative impacts to fauna and flora will occur with each main- tenance dredging and disposal operation. Maintenance dredging 224 of the access channels to the harbor and smaller basin will allow continued safe navigation for approximately 32 commercial fishing boats utilizing harbor facilities. The access channels are essential to the livelihood of 35 commercial fishermen presently based at the Cedar. Island Bay Harbor of Refuge. 7.3 CHANNEL CONNECTING THOROUGHFARE BAY WITH CEDAR BAY Short-term negative impacts to fauna and flora will occur with each maintenance dredging operation. Continual provision of safe navigation will contribute to maintaining the long-term productivity of the area. Maintenance dredging of the channel from Thoroughfare Bay to Cedar Bay is required for continued safe navigation for commercial fishing and recreational boats using the channel. The access channel is presently utilized by 25 fishing boats and vessels which provide employment for 40 persons. The channel is also utilized by vessels transporting seafood harvests from Pamlico Sound to Core Sound. 7.4 ATLANTIC HARBOR OF REFUGE While long-term productivity of the area will be maintained, negative impacts to fauna and flora will occur with each main- tenance dredging and disposal operation at Atlantic Harbor of Refuge. Maintenance dredging of the access channel is required for continued safe navigation for commercial fishing and recreational boats utilizing the harbor facilities. Atlantic Harbor of Refuge is presently utilized by approximately 35 fishing boats and vessels employing approximately 45 persons. Future maintenance of the harbor will generate continued benefits to those utilizing Atlantic Harbor of Refuge. 7.5 ATLANTIC HARBOR While long-term productivity of the area will be maintained, short- term negative impacts to fauna and flora in the vicinity of Atlantic Harbor will occur with each maintenance dredging and disposal operation. Maintenance dredging of the access channel is required for continued safe navigation for commercial fishermen who utilize the harbor facilities. There are approximately 80 commercial fishing boats and vessels requiring 180 persons who depend upon 225 the existence of adequate navigation channels into Atlantic Harbor. Further, approximately 20 persons are employed in the seafood processing and wholesaling sectors at Atlantic Harbor. 7.6 SEALEVEL The project will have a cumulative, positive long-term effect on navigation and local commerce. Maintenance of the side channel and basin will enable man, via his local and short-term use of the environment, to maintain and enhance his productivity from the sea on a long-term basis. Dredging of the harbor will continue to provide access needed by the approximately 35 com- mercial fishing boats and vessels using harbor facilities. Approximately 40 persons are employed in the commercial fishing sector. Ashore, five to seven people employed in the seafood processing and wholesaling sector rely upon continued fishery landings at Sealevel. 7.7 MARSHALLBERG Maintenance dredging of the basin and side channels in Marshall - berg Harbor will result in continued access by the approximately 35 commercial fishing boats and vessels presently based in Marshallberg, thereby contributing to the long-term productivity of the area. Approximately 70 persons are employed in the commercial fishing sectors. Ashore, approximately 15 persons are employed at marine repair and resupply facilities adjacent to Marshallberg Harbor. Continued navigational access is vital to the future existence of employment in this and the commercial fisheries sector. 7.8 HARKERS ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE Negative impacts to flora and fauna will occur with each maintenance dredging and disposal activity. Maintenance dredging will enable the continued use of the harbor for mooring by an average of six boats and allow 10 to 12 fishermen to continue commercial fishing. Also, harbor maintenance will enable the project area to be used as a safe refuge for boats during severe storms. 226 7.9 BEAUFORT HARBOR The maintenance project at Beaufort Harbor is expected to result in short- and long-term impacts to indigenous fauna and flora. Disposal at previously utilized areas and continued maintenance of channels are not expected to affect the long-term environmental productivity of the area. Maintenance dredging at the Beaufort Harbor project area is required for the continued safe navigation of commerical, industrial, fishing and oceanographic research boats which utilize the waterways and is required to maintain the long-term produc- tivity of the marine environment. The channels are presently used by approximately 239 boats and vessels. The commercial fisheries presently employ approximately 420 persons. 227 8.0 ANY IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Those irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which will occur are varied, according to each individual project. The resource commitments involved are discussed in the following paragraphs with regard to each individual project plan. 8.1 WATERWAY CONNECTING PAMLICO SOUND AND BEAUFORT HARBOR Approximately 300 to 400 acres of estuarine bottom substrate will be altered in Core Sound. The loss of this bottomland will be partially offset by the creation of disposal islands which are valuable nesting areas for shore birds. 8.2 CEDAR ISLAND BAY HARBOR OF REFUGE There will be no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources as a result of the project at Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge. 8.3 CHANNEL CONNECTING THOROUGHFARE BAY AND CEDAR BAY Approximately 20 acres of estuarine bottom substrate will be filled in Cedar Bay. The loss of the bottom land will be partially offset by the eventual creation of highland disposal areas which will be utilized by various wildlife species. 8.4 ATLANTIC HARBOR OF REFUGE The project at the Atlantic Harbor of Refuge will involve no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. 8.5 ATLANTIC HARBOR The project at Atlantic Harbor will involve no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources. 8.6 SEALEVEL If Sealevel Harbor is maintained by dredging, four acres of upland and two acres of bottom substrate will be irretrievably and irreversibly committed. In addition, 120,000 cubic yards of bottom substrate will be disturbed and removed from its present location. 8.7 MARSHALLBERG The maintenance of Marshallberg Harbor will irreversibly commit three acres of coastal upland to change. Also, 39,482 cubic yards of estuarine bottom substrate will be disturbed and converted into upland substrate. 228 8.8 HARKERS ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE Maintenance of the project at Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge, as planned, will involve no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources. 8.9 BEAUFORT HARBOR There are no expected irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources as a result of the maintenance dredging at the locations within the Beaufort Harbor project. 229 9.0 COORDINATION AND COMMENT AND RESPONSE 9.01 General. Coordination of maintenance dredging in the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor is in accordance with 33 CFR, Part 209, Federal Projects Involving the Disposal of Dredged Material in Navigable and Ocean Waters. That regulation requires that, prior to any dredging, the District Engineer will coordinate the dredg- ing and disposal with all interested parties, that he will issue a public notice of his plans to perform dredging and that he will hold a public meeting if one is indicated. In addition to the normal coordination as indicated above, the draft Environmental Statement was furnished to all known interested parties. Since this is an Environmental Statement on previously constructed projects in Operations and Maintenance status, a public meeting was not considered necessary. 9.02 Government Agencies. On 6 February 1976 the draft Environmental Statement was sent to Federal and State agencies for formal review and coordination. Their comments and responses follow: 230 COMMENT AND RESPONSE 1. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION a. COMMENT: Within sections on the environmental impacts of individual. 4rojects, the DEIS repeats that dredging during certain times of the year would lessen project impacts to various marine organisms and that benthic communities would reestablish after completion of work. We are unable to evaluate the above statements relative to resources under our purview since the DEIS does not specifically mention the times of year that dredging in the various harbors and channels will occur. RESPONSE: The District does not yet know when maintenance operations will be required in these areas. At such time as a need is realized, further coordination with appropriate Federal and State agencies will be made to assess probable impacts and develop suitable solutions. b. COMMENT: No data is provided to determine the validity of state- ments relative to repopulation of benthic communities. RESPONSE: These were generalized statements based on Pfitzenmeyer in a report entitled, "Gross Physical and Biological Effects of Overboard Spoil Disposal in Upper Chesapeake Bay," NRI Special Report No. 3, 1970. C. COMMENT: Several projects would involve use of diked underwater disposal areas, however, the exact locations of these areas are not specified. The DEIS should describe, in detail, the size, configuration, composition and loca- tion of these disposal areas. RESPONSE: Several underwater diked disposal areas have been selected since coordination of the Draft EIS (see Plate 1). Announcement of selection of these sites appeared in Public Notice SAWCO 76-16-19 of 5 April 1976. Each site will be assessed according to PL 92-500, Section 404(b), and must be approved by appropriate Federal and State agencies prior to construction. As stated in the EIS, sites must meet certain criteria before they can be judged acceptable. COMMENT: Ecological Impacts, Page 166, paragraph 2 - This paragraph states that marine invertebrates and fish are expected to assimilate resuspended metals and organic compounds at concentrations well below lethal levels. In our opinion this statement should be documented. In addition, the DEIS should provide information on accumulation of metals and compounds in animals within various levels of the food chain. �. 231 RESPONSE: Evaluation of the significance of chemical -biological interactive effects on benthic organisms resulting from the discharge of dredged or fill material is extremely complex and demands procedures which are at the forefront of the current state of the art. Although research has shown that benthic species can ingest contaminated sedi- ment particles, it has not been determined to what degree the contaminants are dissociated from the sediment and incorporated into benthic body tissues, thereby gaining entry to the food web. The EIS has been changed to reflect this. e. COMMENT: Ecological Impacts, page 173, paragraph 1 - This section should provide information on pollution levels in the sediments of the Atlantic Harbor. RESPONSE: Sediment analysis data for the entrance channel was presented on pages 84 and 85. However, pollution levels of the harbor proper are not known. f. COMMENT: Ecological Impacts, page 176, paragraph 5 - This para- graph states that photosynthesis of aquatic flora will be affected. The DEIS should describe how photosynthesis will be affected, and which organisms will be involved, and impacts associated with specific effects. RESPONSE: Due to elevated turbidity associated with dredging operations, photosynthesis of aquatic flora will probably be temporarily depressed. The statement in the DEIS has been amended to designate this effect. g. COMMENT: Page 230, paragraph 1 - This paragraph states that creation of disposal islands will enhance the long-term productivity of the associated environment and that the number of disposal islands will increase incrementally over the next 50 years. The DEIS should supply documen- tation to support the above conclusion and provide infor- mation relative to the expected number of spoil islands to be created, the approximate sizes, the types of environments to be affected by the islands, and the locations. RESPONSE: Although the long-term productivity of the associated environment probably will be increased, this may or may not be considered enhancement. This is purely a matter of judgment. Approximately seven disposal islands will need to be created (see plate 1), and each diked area will initially include approximately 10 acres. Environmental impacts associated with each site will be assessed according to PL 92-500, Section 404(b) to determine acceptability of location. 232 National Ocean Survey h. COMMENT: Geodetic control survey monuments and tidal bench marks are located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project areas. If there is any planned activity which will disturb or destroy these monu- ments or bench marks, NOS requires not less than 90 days notification in advance of such activity in order to plan for their relocation. NOS recommends that funding for this project includes the cost of any relocation required for these monuments. RESPONSE: The two offices in NOS that are responsible for the protection and maintenance of survey monuments, and bench marks have been placed on the mailing list to receive the public notice of proposed maintenance dredging within the Wilmington District. This pro- cedure will allow about 75 days for the identification and relocation of control structures. The cost of that relocation would be paid by the District, either directly or through the contractor selected to do the dredging. 2. UNITED STATES DEPARMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary a. COMMENT: The draft impact statement provides good general comments on impacts to fish and wildlife resources expected to result from the maintenance project described. However, since specific disposal sites have not been identified in several instances, most notably in areas which will require open water dis- posal, detailed impact analysis cannot be provided. Therefore, the need for additional evaluation and coordination with responsible State and Federal agencies cannot be overemphasized. RESPONSE: Final coordination with appropriate Federal and State agencies will be made during formulation of detailed plans. b. COMMENT: We believe that the proposal to place spoil on Shackleford Banks within the boundary of Cape Lookout National Seashore is associated with shoreline erosion control. This, therefore, falls within the scope of Section 6 of Public Law 89-366 authorizing establish- ment of the seashore which requires a plan mutually acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army. This plan has not yet been prepared. 233 RESPONSE: Shackleford Banks was included in the DEIS as an alternative disposal site. This area has been judged not feasible and, therefore, was deleted from further consideration. C. COMMENT: The statement does not satisfactorily consider cultural resources as required by Executive Order 11593 and 36 CFR 800 which contains directions for the treatment of such resources pursuant to the Historic Preservation Act of 1966. RESPONSE: It is recognized that the treatment of cultural resources in the document is inadequate under the provisions of the Executive Order and recent legislation on historic preservation. This situation is being corrected through survey of archaeological and historic resources in all areas potentially affected by the project. Underwater survey is not planned at this time, since the project involves maintenance only, with no new dredging. Copies of the cultural resources survey report will be furnished to the Secretary and to the SHPO, thus affording these agencies an oppor- tunity to comment on this area again at a later time. d. COMMENT: Summary Sheet, section 5, Comments Requested. Since there are sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places within the project area, comments should be requested from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1522 K Street, Washington, D.C. 20005. RESPONSE: Correspondence is being initiated between this District and the SHPO, in order to make a determina- tion of effect of the project on National Register Properties. According to 36 CFR 800, it is not necessary to request comments from the Advisory Council at this point. Such a request is to be made only if a determination of adverse effect is reached, in cooperation with the SHPO. e. COMMENT: Page 34, plate 10. This plate shows an alternative site for disposal on Shackleford Banks. It would appear from this plate that to place hydraulically dredged material on this site the pipe lines would 234 have to pass directly through an ecologically sensitive and valuable maritime forest. The equipment necessary to install the line, the line itself. and the fill on which to rest the line would create serious ecological damage to the forest. Should an accident occur, such as a blowout in the pipe, this damage would be magnified many times. This should be addressed in the final. statement. RESPONSE: Refer to response above relative to disposal on Shackleford Banks. f. COMMENT: Page 68, Section 2.2.9. The consideration of cultural resources requires three levels of treatment. The first requires the agency to check for sites which may be listed on the National Register of Historic Places within the vicinity of the project. This section covers this level of treatment in a fine manner. RESPONSE: Noted. g. COMMENT: The second level as specified in 36 CFR 800, as supplemented by Executive Order 11593, requires the agency to contact the State Historic Preser- vation Officer at the earliest stages of the project to determine whether there are any sites in the process of nomination to the National Register. A copy of his comments should be incor- porated in the draft statement. This treatment has apparently been omitted. These two steps then constitute the treatment of known historic and cultural resources. RESPONSE: The SHPO in North Carolina does not maintain a listing of sites in the process of nomination to the National Register which can be made available to outside agencies. Nonetheless, the necessary coordination between the SHPO and the Corps is accomplished through a close working relationship between personnel of the two agencies. Therefore, the second level of consideration mentioned in the comment has been accomplished; this step will be discussed more clearly in future EIS's. 235 h. COMMENT: Thirdly, it is incumbent upon the agency to make appropriate field studies to determine whether there are any unknown sites that have not yet been recognized and have not been nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. This may be done in one of two ways. If the State Historic Preservation Officer or your agency can ascertain and document that there have been recent historical and archeological field studies to determine the presence of cultural values within the area then it need only document these studies in the statement. However, this probably has not occurred. In that case, it is incumbent upon the Federal agency to hire professional archeologists and historians to make the proper studies required by 36 CFR 800. These studies must be documented in the statement and the effects of the various alternatives on the values found must be incorporated in the appropriate sections discussing impacts, miti- gating measures, and adverse effects. We can find no indication in the statement that such studies were made. RESPONSE: As noted above, the required field studies are being initiated and will be completed, with copies of the report(s) forwarded to the appropriate agencies for comment, prior to commencement of dredging activities. It has already been determined that no previous surveys have been made in the project area, which would provide adequate documentation for present requirements. i. COMMENT: Page 74, Section 2.3.2. This section states that "There are no known archaeological or historic landmarks within the project area." (Underlining supplied) This could mean that the studies mentioned above were carried out and there were no such archeo- logical or historic values found; or on the other hand, it could simply mean that no one has bothered to look for sites other than those that were found by a simple check of the National Register of Historic Places. This second meaning is not satisfactory, and the proper studies referred to under Section 2.2.9 must be carried out and the results documented in this location. 236 RESPONSE: The lack of an adequate site survey and discussion of necessary compliance procedures have been covered above. J. COMMENT: Section 2.3.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. These sections all contain identical comments to section 2.3.2 and must perforce be given the same treatment. RESPONSE: The inadequacies noted can only be addressed after the survey (above) has been completed. Appropriate agencies will have an opportunity to comment at that time. k. COMMENT: Page 166, Section 4.2.1. It is stated that "Since the disposal sites for the dredged material are not determined..." It is essential that cultural features be considered in identifying disposal sites. This would require either a documentary survey and if the search for a documented survey is negative, a field survey of these sites should be carried out by a professional historian or archeologist trained in identifying cultural features on the ground. Should such features be found, they must be considered in all sections of the environmental impact statement, i.e., adverse effects, mitigating measures, etc., and be given equal consideration with ecological impacts on endangered species, etc., in determining the final location of any previously undisturbed upland or submerged disposal site. Should cultural values referred to under section 2.3.2 be located, they should be treated at this point. RESPONSE: A documentary survey has been made and indicates that no data are available on archaeological/historic sites in most of the project area. Any cultural resources discovered in affected areas will be given the treat- ment outlined in the above comment. 1. COMMENT: Page 168, Section 4.2.2. It is stated that "No historic landmarks, known archaeological sites or endangered species will be affected by the project." (underlining supplied) The same thought process applied under section 2.3.2 needs to be applied here. If the documentary and/or field studies required to identify unknown historical values have been carried out and there are no values found, then this statement should be revised to reflect that fact. If, however, cultural values are found by these studies then they should be treated in detail in this location and in subsequent sections 4.2.3 through 9 and in section 4.3, Social., Economic, and Ecological Effect Summary. 237 RESPONSE: It is agreed that the treatment, outlined in this comment is required; documentation will be pro- vided on the basis of the previously discussed survey. M. COMMENT: Page 173, Section 4.2.4. The statement indicates that the disposal area "can be replanted between usage to retard erosion." The statement should reveal whether the Corps of Engineers intends to provide this service or if the replanting will be left to the discretion of the local sponsor. RESPONSE: If stabilization of disposal area shorelines is considered necessary and practical, the Corps will assume responsibility for providing this service. n. COMMENT: Page 198, Section 5.0. Should field studies reveal that there are cultural values within the proposed disposal and other areas which would be affected by the actions, these effects should be treated. Should any of these values be of such significance that they warrant listing on the National Register of Historic Places according to the criteria indicated in 36 CFR 60 and 36 CFR 800, then the criteria specified must be followed and these adverse effects indicated in this section. RESPONSE: This District routinely evaluates all archaeological/ historic sites in project areas on the basis of National Register eligibility criteria. Determina- tions of effect are based on this evaluation. o. COMMENT: Page 208, paragraph 2. Although the mitigating measure of preliminary drying is planned for spoil disposal in a borrow pit, we believe that the environmental statement should treat specifically the existing ground -water situation in the vicinity of the borrow pit and should indicate how resolution and migration of the dried pollutants will be avoided after disposal or what the potential for impact on ground water might be. RESPONSE: The initially proposed upland site at Atlantic has been deleted from consideration due to infeasible cost requirements. 238 P. COMMENT: Page 234, Section 8.1. It is stated that disposal islands are valuable nesting areas for waterfowl. The term waterfowl is generally understood to include ducks, geese., and swans, none of which utilize this habitat type for nesting. Terns and tern -like species whio..h utilize these islands, should be referred to as "sea birds." RESPONSE: This error has been corrected. 3. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Region IV a. COMMENT: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Maintenance of the Waterway connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina, and further coordination is needed between the Corps of Engineers and State and Federal conservation agencies with regard to the spoil site at Harkers Island, Harbor of Refuge, and some of the submerged sites in order to ascertain whether there are better alternatives. The proposed Harkers Island spoil site contains 3.5 acres of marsh and 1.5 acres of shallow water. The possibility of using alternative sites should be coordinated with the State and Federal conservation agencies. RESPONSE: Specific selection of disposal sites will be coordinated with appropriate State and Federal agencies during de- tailed plan formulation. Marsh and shallow water areas will not be selected if suitable upland disposal sites exist. b. COMMENT: There is a type of dredge now in use which causes less turbidity at the dredge head than the conventional hydraulic dredge. This operates with air pressure and delivers the spoil in a more concentrated form than the conventional hydraulic dredge. Materials dredged with this system can, therefore, be transported in a barge at a reduced cost. The pumps are rather small but should be ideal for use along with the AIWW. Its main advantage is that it acts similar to a vacuum sweeper and causes no dredging.plume. It would be of exceptional value for use next to oyster beds or grass flats. Because of the number of oyster beds in the Wilmington District, this system or similar systems should be investigated for possible use in the Wilmington District. 239 RESPONSE: Such equipment has been used extensively in Europe and Japan. Currently this equipment is apparently not available from commercial dredging operators in the United States. Should it become available and prove competitively economical, its use will be considered along with traditional hydraulic dredging equipment. In this regard, the Wilmington District is about to apply a year long test of a foreign pump which supposedly is designed to remove materials at a high solids ratio. It must be cautioned that use of this equipment will not necessarily mean a decrease in the numbers of impacts on the environment. The impacts due to use of this equipment need to be evaluated. C. COMMENT: Due to the foregoing, we have rated LO- (Lack of objection) to the action described and 2 (insufficient information) to the Impact Statement. RESPONSE: Noted. 4. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Region IV a. COMMENT: We have reviewed the subject draft Environmental Impact Statement. Based upon the data contained in the draft, it is our opinion that the proposed action will have only a minor impact upon the human environment within the scope of this Department's review. The impact statement has been adequately addressed for our comments. RESPONSE: Noted. 5. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Soil Conservation Service a. COMMENT: The proposed project will not affect any present or planned SCS financially assisted projects. RESPONSE: Noted. b. COMMENT: If a plan is developed for vegetating the disposal areas, you will find the publication, "Seacoast Plants of the Carolinas," by Karl. E. Graetz, a useful guide for selection of suitable plants. A copy is available from our office. 240 Ii I RESPONSE: Noted. Stabilization of islands will most likely ' involve onl,., Spartina sprigging and/or seeding. C. COMMENT: Some of the soils data on pages 38-45 is out of date. We can provide you a general soils map for Region P which contains current soils names of the associations. RESPONSE: These soils data have been updated. d. COMMENT: The Soil Conservation Service assists soil and water conservation districts in technical phases of their program. If desired, consultive services that are consistent with priorities for work estab- lished by the districts are available from the Service in reviewing or developing plans for con- trolling erosion during and after construction. RESPONSE: Noted. 6. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION United States Coast Guard a. COMMENT: We feel that the proposed maintenance projects will improve the access of our search -and -rescue boats from our Fort Macon and Cape Lookout Stations into Core Sound and its harbors. This improved access will have a beneficial impact on our search -and - rescue missions. RESPONSE: Noted. 7. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service a. COMMENT: The United States Forest Service, State and Private Forestry review of the draft EIS entitled, "Maintenance of the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina" reveals only minor project impacts on forest lands and resources in the area. Consequently, we have no comments on this proposal. RESPONSE: Noted. 241 8. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION a. COMMENT: The Department of Human Resources has requested that a statement be included in the final environmental statement that would reflect plans and procedures for the control of mosquito breeding in the dyked spoil areas. 'These areas have proven to be heavy mosquito breeders and the populated area around Beaufort would be subject to severe mosquito annoyance. RESPONSE: The District is aware of this problem. The problem of dewatering disposal areas and managing them to prevent them from becoming mosquito breeding locations is an area of active research by the Dredged Material Research Program. Currently, however, the District does not envision any District wide mosquito abatement program. It is possible for the District to reimburse counties on a prorated basis, if the county has an ongoing mosquito control program and part of that program includes dredged material disposal areas. b. COMMENT: The Department of Natural and Economic Resources has submitted the attached comments in response to this statement. The State Clearinghouse has no objection to the proposed activity. The Corps, however, should coordinate as much as possible with the Department of Natural and Economic Resources in further planning and implementation of this activity. RESPONSE: The recommendations and comments of State agencies are addressed below: The North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources has reviewed the subject document and offers the following comments: C. COMMENT: Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor - Page 7, paragraph 2, states that disposal of dredge material will be accomplished by inwater disposal into underwater diked areas. The alternative dredging methods discussed on pages 207-208 indicate that in some locations, upland diked disposal areas are feasible. DNER has consistently opposed inwater disposal of dredg- ing spoils over the past several years and still main- tains this position. We request that the Corps attempt to utilize upland disposal areas to the maximum extent possible in this project. 242 RESPONSE: Noted. Upland disposal will be used whenever practical. Final selection of all disposal areas will be coordinated with appropriate agencies prior to any action. d. COMMENT: In discussing adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented (page 198), the DEIS appears to be overly general with respect to the effects of inwater disposal resulting from the Pamlico Sound to Beaufort Harbor channel maintenance, i.e., the filling of some 300- 400 acres of open water. This is understandable, inasmuch as specific disposal areas have not yet been identified. However, we suggest that the Corps make some attempt to discuss the ramifications of such actions in quantitative terms, i.e., what is the significance of this with respect to estuarine bio- logical productivity in this area and commercial and/or sports fishing activities? RESPONSE: The amount of detail required is a matter of judgment. Admittedly, detailed knowledge of all aspects of each area and all impacts would be desirable. However, lack of such knowledge and uncertainty about some impacts is a fact. This EIS gives the best information available at this time. e. COMMENT: Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay with Cedar Bay - As stated above, DNER objects to inwater disposal of dredging spoil as proposed for this area. We request that specific plans for disposal in this area be coordinated with DNER prior to specific disposal site designation. RESPONSE: Specific dredging and disposal plans will be coordinated with appropriate State and Federal agencies during formulation. f. COMMENT: On page 79, the DEIS states that Thoroughfare Bay is a known shrimp, crab, and fish nursery area. A state- ment should be added which mentions the extreme impor- tance of Thoroughfare Bay as a shrimp migration route for mature species during fall migration. RESPONSE: The suggested addition has been made. 243 g. COMMENT: Sealevel - DNER concurs that the designated upland disposal sites shown on Plate 6, page 31, are more desirable than the alternate inwater disposal sites and that the alternate inwater sites should be avoided. RESPONSE: Noted. h. COMMENT: Harkers Island Harbor of Refuge - Disposal in the marshland area on the south side of the entrance channel should be avoided and an upland disposal site meeting the criteria on page 1 of this report should be utilized. RESPONSE: The District also objects to the use of marsh as a disposal area. Efforts will be made to locate suitable upland disposal sites. i. COMMENT: Beaufort Harbor - The Beaufort Turning Basin, the channel through the Basin, and Taylors Creek have all been maintained with the spoils being placed on diked and undiked areas. All disposal areas should be diked and all future maintenance spoils should be deposited in diked areas. RESPONSE: All disposal areas will be diked, and all future maintenance spoils will be deposited in diked areas. j. COMMENT: On page 36, the DEIS states that for any future maintenance occurring at the channel and harbor at Town Creek, dredge material will be placed at the previously utilized fill area just east of the Town Creek Harbor of Refuge. This area contains extensive mud flats and salt cordgrass marshes. It is our opinion that suitable upland disposal sites can be obtained just north of the Harbor of Refuge which will provide a more suitable disposal site. We would oppose use of the described disposal site. RESPONSE: Upland disposal sites do exist just north of the Harbor of Refuge. The District will utilize these upland areas during maintenance operations if suit- able arrangements can be made with the owners. 244 k. COMMENT: GENERAL REMARKS. Dredging operations must not violate water quality standards of the designated classification of the waters at each of the dredging locations. in order to insure that this does not occur, a water quality monitoring program should be established at all proposed dredging locations prior to initiation of work. We suggest that a representa- tive of the Corps contact the Division of Environmental Management, DNER, six weeks prior to the initiation of any project so that a monitoring program may be outlined jointly between the two agencies with respect to sampling locations, parameters to be sampled, and frequency of sampling. RESPONSE: Public Notices have been, and will continue to be, furnished prior to dredging. We will be happy to coordinate with the State on whatever monitoring efforts are deemed necessary. 1. COMMENT: We reiterate here again our opposition to disposal in "underwater diked areas." Such disposal is completely unacceptable as it only serves to increase the frequency of dredging operations and to destroy under- water plant and animal life, thus diminishing produc- tive bottoms and shallow water areas. RESPONSE: The purpose of diking under water with nylon bags is to confine material to one area. With subsequent disposal operations, the area becomes an island and is then available as an upland disposal area. Adjacent productive bottoms and shallow water areas are left undisturbed. This technique is only used where other feasible alternatives do not exist. It is also noted that State approval for such disposal has been granted. M. COMMENT: Although only mentioned on page 163, we wish to stress that the Carteret County Planning Department consider the benefits of continued maintenance of the waterways, and especially the positive benefits of spoil placement. In most cases the Corps has suggested adequate spoil placement alternatives. However, Carteret County may have certain long range needs, such as a recreational area that could be developed on spoil disposal sites. RESPONSE: The local sponsor (in this case probably Carteret County) is responsible for providing disposal areas due to the terms of local cooperation. The County's Planning Department will be encouraged to contribute to the designation and ultimate use of disposal areas. 245 n M m COMMENT: An analysis of commercial and recreational usage of the area is provided, but the question as to why a marina is not built or deep draft recreational vessels do not frequent a particular place should be addressed. The determining factor is the depth of access. No businessman would build a marina or fish processing house in an area where access does not already exist. This is especially important because growth of the North Carolina fishing industry has slowed while the recreational industry is growing in spite of present economic conditions. This statement ties in with a discussion of cost benefit relationships. The cost of dredging has increased due to inflation, increased technological requirements, and in particular additional environmental restraints. The fishing industries in small villages will not be able to balance this increased cost with increased values for the catch. Either the environmental cost increases should be figured separately, or recreational potential figured in the balance, or a recognition of the "fish to market" value of the small village projects which would lead to a subsidy situation. This trend should be recog- nized by those involved with computing cost benefit ratios. RESPONSE: Each project is economically justified on an individual basis. If at any time a project becomes unjustified, then Federal involvement in the project will be dis- continued. COMMENT: It would seem that over -cutting the desired depth in areas requiring frequent dredging would be cost bene- ficial in several ways. The initial use of the dredge and spoil areas would replace perhaps the second and third proposed uses under the more frequent maintenance plan. Inflation could cause a cost of $2.00 per cubic yard to rise to $4.00 per cubic yard in several years. Also, objects cleared after the first pass would allow deeper cuts to be made with less likelihood of damaging equipment. RESPONSE: Overdepth dredging is performed within specified limits. This tends to provide the benefits mentioned. COMMENT: The proposed depth at Marshallberg could warrant an increase to 10' in light of the marine railway capacity. 246 The statement on page 158 is most accurate. Marshall - berg Railway has lost much business to New Bern and Morehead City - Beaufort. This economically affects Marshallberg and many fishermen who must pay higher rates to get on the ship rails at New Bern and lose time and money in travelling that distance. RESPONSE: Any change in authorized depth would require formal study and separate authorization. authorized project depths. q. COMMENT: The area covered under this document is an extremely important part of North Carolina's coastal estuarine environment. DNER recognizes both the necessity for navigation throughout this estuary and the necessity for minimizing damage to the estuarine resources involved. To insure that individual dredging activi- ties are carried out in a manner which maximizes proj- ect benefits to the citizens of North Carolina, we request that the Corps coordinate with DNER on all of the specific dredging activities that are generally discussed in the subject document prior to any initia- tion of these activities. Our response to this DEIS should not be construed as replacing established procedures for coordinating maintenance dredging work. RESPONSE: Further coordination with all appropriate Federal and State agencies will be made prior to any maintenance operations. 9. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration a. COMMENT: Our review of the subject statement indicates that a few structures on the Federal -aid System may be affected by the proposed maintenance. Before dredging operations begin, this office would appreciate the opportunity to examine substructure plans and methods of dredging in the area of the structures. RESPONSE: Public notices will be furnished your office at least 15 days prior to advertisement for bids. Initiation of construction usually follows in about 60 days. The District will welcome your involvement in review processes. 247 9.03 Citizen Groups. At the same time the draft was coordinated with government agencies, it was also coordinated with all individuals and groups known to be interested in the projects. No comments were received. The following is a list of Government entities that were requested to review and comment on the draft Environmental Statement, but did not elect to do so: Federal Energy Administration Carteret County Planning Department HUD Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. Mayor, Morehead City Mayor, Pine Knoll Shores Carteret County Board of Commissioners Major, Indian Beach Mayor, Atlantic Beach Mayor, Cape Carteret Mayor, Newport Mayor, Beaufort Mayor, Emerald Isle Carteret County Environmental Resources Commission The following is a list of citizen groups and individuals who were requested to review and comment on the draft Environmental Statement, but did not elect to do so: ECOS, Inc. Clayton Fulcher, Jr. Conservation Council of N.C. M.M. Willis & Sons Boats Works National Audubon Society Monroe Gaskill Sierra Club William H. Potter Izaac Walton League David E. Yoemans League of Women Voters Elmer Dewey Willis N.C. Wildlife Federation John W. Lupton Mrs. E. S. Anger 248 REFERENCES (INCLUDING APPENDICES AND MAIN TEXT) Audubon Society. The blue list. American Birds, 1974, 28(6), 972-974. American Fisheries Society. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the U.S. and Canada. (Special Publication No. 6) Washington, 1).C.: Author, 1970. Brown, P.M., "Well Logs From the Coastal Plain of North Carolina," North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development, Division of Mineral Resources Bulletin No. 72, 1958. Buckley, P.A. & Buckley, E.G. The significance of dredge spoil islands to colonially nesting waterbirds in certain national parks. Proceedings of a conference on manage- ment of dredge islands in North Carolina estuaries, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, May 1974. Cammen, L. M. , Seneca, E.D. , & Copeland, B.J. Animal colonization of salt marshes artificially established on dredge spoil. Sea Grant Publication UNC-Sg-74-15, 1974. Carney, C.B. & Hardy, A. V. North Carolina hurricanes: A listing of tropical cyclones which have affected the state. Raleigh: U.S. Department of Commerce, ESSA, 1967. Carney, C. B. , Hardy, A. V. & van Bauch, C. H. M. Weather and climate in North Carolina. (North Carolina State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 396. ) Raleigh: North Carolina State University, 1964. Chapman, C. Channelization and spoiling in Gulf Coast and South Atlantic estuaries. Proceedings of the marsh and estuary management symposium, Louisiana State University, July 1967. Collins, HoH. , Jr. ComiDlete field guide to american wildlife. New York: Harper-brotriers, 1959. Conant, R.A. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of the United States and Canada east of the 100th meridian. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1958. 249 Cronin, L. E. , Gunter, G. & Sewell, H. H. Effects of engineering activities on coastal ecology. (Report to the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army.) Washington, D. C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971. Defant, A. Ebb and flow, the tides of earth. air and water. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1958. Depoe, C. E. , Funderburg,, J. B. , Jr., & Quay, T. L. The reptiles and amphibians of North Carolina. (A preliminary checklist and bibliography. ) Reprinted from Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society, 1961, 77(2). Dolan, R. , Hayden, B. , Riddel, P. & Ponton, J. 1973 Burton Beach nourishment project. Charlottesville, Virginia: Coastal Research Associates, 1974. Dudley, D.L. & Judy, M.H. Occurrence of larval, juvenile and mature crabs in the vicinity of Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina. (NOSS Technical Report NMFS SSRF-637.) 1971. Dudley, D. L. & Judy, M. H. Seasonal abundance and distribution of juvenile blue crabs in Core Sound, North Carolina, 1965-68. Chesapeake Science, 1973, 14(1), 48-69. Engineer Agency for Resources Inventories. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Reconnaissance of North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. Environmental Protection Agency. Jensen criteria for dredged spoil disposal in the nation's waters. (App. A, EC 116) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. EnviroPlan, Incorporated. Assessment of the social, economic and environmental effects, Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay Navigation Project, North Carolina, Vols . I & II. (Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Contract No. DACW54-74-C-0041.) Wilmington, North Carolina: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975. 250 Fussell, J. Christmas bird count: Morehead City, North Carolina. American Birds, 1973, 27(2), 282-283. Gleason, H.A. & Cronquist, A. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. New York: Von Nostrand Reinhold Co. , 1963. Haag, W. G. The archeology of coastal North Carolina. Louisiana State University Coastal Studies Series 2, 1958. Hardy, A. V. Climates of the states: Climate of North Carolina. Silver Spring, Md.: U.S. Department of Commerce, ESSA, 1970. Hassler, W.W. Pelagic fishes off North Carolina. North Carolina Marine Fishery Resources Conference, September 1974. Henny, C.J. & Noltemeier, A. P. Osprey nesting populations in the coastal Carolinas. Unpublished, 1975. Holland, B.E. , Jr. & Yelverton, G.F. Distribution and biological studies of anadromous fishes offshore North Carolina. Department of Natural and Economic Resources, Special Scientific Report No. 24, 1973. Hoss, D.E., Coston, L.C. & Schaaf, W.E. Effects of sea water extracts of sediments from Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, on larval estuarine fishes. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science, 1974, 2, 323 -328. Huston, J. Hydraulic dredging, theoretical and applied. Cambridge, Maryland: Maritime Press, 1970. Judy, M. H. & Dudley, D. L. Movements of tagged blue crabs in North Carolina waters. Commercial Fisheries Review, 1970, Reprint No. 892. King, P.B. Tectonic map of North America. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Geological Survey, 1969. 251 King, P.B. The tectonics of middle North America. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1951. Kirby -Smith, W. W. & Gray, I.E. (Eds.) A checklist of common marine animals of Beaufort, North Carolina. Beaufort, North Carolina: Duke University Marine Laboratory, 1973. Kroger, R. L. & Guthrie, J. F. Migrations of tagged juvenile atlantic menhaden. Transition of the American Fisheries Society, 1973, 102(2). Kuenen, P.H. Marine geology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1950. Lee, W.D. The soils of North Carolina: Their formation, identification, and use. (Technical Bulletin No. 115. ) Raleigh: Agricultural Experiment Station, North Carolina State College, 1955. Le Grand, H.E. Geology and ground -water resources of Wilmington -New Bern area. (Ground -Water Bulletin No. 1.) Raleigh: North Carolina Department of Water Resources, 1960. Lobeck, A.K. Things maps don't tell us. New York: MacMillan Co. , 1957. Marcellus, K.L. , Dawes, G.M. & Silberhorn, G.M. Local management of wetlands: Environmental considerations. (Special Report No. 35 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering.) Gloucester Point, Virginia: Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 1973. Metzgar, R.G. Wetlands in Maryland. (Publication No. 151.) Maryland Department of State Planning, 1973. Miner, R. W. Field book of seashore life. New York: G. P. Putnam's Son, 1950. Morris, P.A. A field wide to shells. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1973. 252 Natural Resources Institute. Special Report No. 3: Gross physical and biological effects of overboard spoil disposal in Upper Chesapeake Bay. Solomons, Md.: Natural Resources Institute, University of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, 1970. Newson, J.D. (Ed.) Proceedings of the marsh and estuary management symposium, Louisiana State University, 1968. North Carolina State Department of Conservation and Development. Geologic map of North Carolina 1:5, 000, 000 scale. Raleigh: Author, 1958. North Carolina State Department of Natural and Economic Resources. Maps of areas of environmental concern. Raleigh: Author, 1974. North Carolina State Department of Natural and Economic Resources, Board of Water and Air Resources. New classifications adopted and assigned to various waters in the Neuse, Pasquotank, Tar -Pamlico, and White Oak River Basins. Raleigh: Author, 1973. North Carolina State Department of Natural and Economic Resources, Endangered Species Committee. Preliminary list of endangered plant and animal species in North Carolina. Raleigh: Author, 1973. North Carolina State Department of Natural and Economic Resources, Office of Water and Air Resources. Rules, regulations, classifications and water quality standards applicable to the surface waters of North Carolina. Raleigh: Author, 1972. North Carolina State Department of Natural and Economic Resources, Wildlife Resources Commission. A checklist of North Carolina mammalian species. Raleigh: Author, 1974. Quay, T.L. The birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. (Report to the National Park Service.) Raleigh: National Park Service, 1959. 253 Rees, G.H. Edible crabs of the U.S. (Fisheries Leaflet 550.) Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, 1963. Riggs, S.R. & O'Connor, M.P. Relict sediment deposits in a major transgressive coastal system. (Publication No. UNC-SG-74-04.) Raleigh: Sea Grant Program, North Carolina State University, 1974. Ringer, D. The effects of management of dredge islands on the estuarine system. In J. F. Parnell & R. F. Soots (Eds. ), Proceedings of a conference on management of dredge islands in North Carolina estuaries. (Publication No. UNC-SG-75-01) Raleigh: North Carolina State University, 1975. Robbins, C.S., Bruun, B. & Zim, H.S. Birds of North America. New York: Golden Press, 1966. Saila, S. B. , Pratt, S.D. & Polgar, T. T. Dredge spoil disposal in Rhode Island Sound. (Marine Technical Report No. 2.) Kingston, Rhode Island: University of Rhode Island, 1973. Seiwell, H.R. A brief report on the physical hydrography of Pamlico Sound and its tributaries. (Report to the Department of Geology, University of North Carolina and U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. ) Unpublished, 1927. Shepard, F. P. Submarine geology. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948. Sholar, T.M. Anadromous Fisheries Survey of the New and White Oak River Systems. Morehead City, N.C.: N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, AFC-9 Completion Report, 1975. Silberhorn, G.M. , Dawes, G.M. & Barnard, T.A. , Jr. Coastal wetlands of Virginia, Interim Report No. 3: Guidelines for activities affecting Virginia wetlands. Gloucester Point, Virginia: Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 1974. Smith, D. D. & Brown, R. P. Ocean disposal of barge -delivered liquid and solid wastes from U.S. coastal cities. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. Soots, R.F. Introduction to the nature of dredge islands and their wildlife in North Carolina and recommendations for management. In J. F. Parnell & R. F. Soots (Eds. ), Proceedings of a conference on management of dredge islands in North Carolina estuaries. (Publication No. UNC-SG-75-01. ) Raleigh: North Carolina State University, 1975. 254 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. Project maps fiscal year 1974. Wilmington, North Carolina: Author, 1974. U.S. Geological Survey. Topographic map 1:24, 000 scale, Atlantic, North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1949. U.S. Geological Survey. Topographic map, 1:250, 000 scale, Beaufort, North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1953, revised 1971. U.S. Geological Survey. Topographic map, 1:24, 000 scale, Beaufort, North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1949, photorevised 1971. U. S. Geological Survey. Topographic map, 1 :24, 000 scale, Long Bay, North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1950. U.S. Geological Survey. Topographic map, 1:24, 000 scale, Styron Bay, North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1949, photo -inspected 1971. U.S. Geological Survey. Topographic map, 1:24, 000 scale, Wainwright Island, North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1950. U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. General soil map, Carteret County, North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1972. U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey Staff. Soil survey manual, U.S.D.A. handbook no. 18. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1951. U.S. Government, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Hydrographic charts 11550 and 420. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1974. U.S. Government, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report to the congress on ocean dumping and other man -induced changes to ocean ecosystems, October 1972 through December 1973. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1974. 255 ypitsbergen, D. L. & Wolff, M. Survey of nursery areas in western Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. Washington, D. C. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service (in press). Stuckey, J.C. North Carolina: Its geology and mineral resources. Raleigh: North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development, 1965. Taussig, J. K. , Jr. (Ed.) Pollution control in the marine industries. Washington, D.C.: International Association for Pollution Control, 1974. Thayer, G.W. , Ferguson, R.L. & Price, T.J. Some effects of maintenance dredging in the Newport River Estuary, North Carolina. National Marine Fisheries Service, unpublished, 1975. Thayer, G.W. , World, D.A. & Williams, R.B. Impact of man's activities on seagrass systems, with special reference to Zostera marina communities. Washington, D.C.: National Marine Fisheries Service, 1975 (in press). Turner, W.R., Johnson, G.N. Distribution and Relative Abundance of Fishes in Newport River, North Carolina. Seattle Washington: NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-666, 1973. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Disposal of dredge spoil: Problem identification and assessment and research program development. Washington, D.C.: National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 197Z. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District. Final environmental impact statement, James River Virginia (maintenance dredging). Norfolk, Virginia: Author, 1974. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. Environmental statement of maintenance of Atlantic Intra- coastal Waterway, North Carolina. Wilmington, North Carolina: Author, 1974. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. Interim survey report of hurricane protection. Wilmington, North Carolina: Author, 1965. 256 U.S. Government, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Tidal current tables. 1974: Atlantic coast of North America. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. U.S. Government, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Tide tables, 1975, east coast of North and South America. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. U.S. Government, Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau. Climatic summary- of the United States, supplement for 1951 through 1960: North Carolina. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965. U.S. Government, Department of the Interior. 1975 directory of national wildlife refuges. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1975. U.S. Government, Department of the Interior. National register of historic places. Federal Register, 1975, 40(24). U.S. Government, Department of the Interior. National registry of natural landmarks. Federal Register, 1974, 39(203). U.S. Government, Department of the Interior. Threatened wildlife of the United States. 1973 edition. (Resource Publication 114.) Washington, D.C.: Author, 1973. U.S. Government, Department of the Interior, Center for Natural Areas. Survey of natural areas of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, Vols. I & II. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1974. Williams, R.B. Nutrient levels and phytoplankton productivity in the estuary. In R.H. Chabreck (Ed.), Proceedings of the coastal marsh and estuary management symposium. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1973. Williams, R. B. & Murdock, M. B. Annual production of Spartina alterniflora and Juncus roemerianus in salt marshes near Beaufort, North Carolina. The ASB Bulletin, 1966, 13(2), 49. - 257 Wilson, K. A. North Carolina wetlands —Their distribution and management. Raleigh: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Corn -mission, 1962. Woodhouse, W.W. , Jr., Seneca, E.D. & Broome, S.W. Marsh building with dredge spoil in North Carolina. (Bulletin 445. ) Raleigh: Agricultural Experiment Station, North State University, 1972. 258 APPENDIX A Letters of Coordination i LETTERS RECEIVED i i 1. U.S. Department of Commerce a. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration b. National Ocean Survey 2. U.S. Department of the Interior Office of the Secretary 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV 4. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Region IV 5. U.S. Department of Agriculture a. Soil Conservation Service b. Forest Service 6. Department of Transportation a. U.S. Coast Guard b. Federal Highway Administration 7. N.C. Department of Administration f�4'AN7 01 C�4 I t a Is i March 19, 1976 UNITED STATES DEPAR' ENT OF COMMERCE The Assistant Secretary var Science and Technology Washington, D.C. 20230 Colonel Homer Johnstone District Engineer Wilmington District Corps of Engineers Department of the Army P. O. Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 Dear Colonel Johnstone: This is in reference to your draft environmental impact statement entitled "Maintenance of the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina. " The enclosed comments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are forwarded for your consideration. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide these comments, which we hope will be of assistance to you. We would appreciate receiving eight (8) copies of the final statement. Sincerely, Sidney�R, U Her Deputy Ash stant Secretary for Environmental Affairs Enclosures - 1. Memo from National Marine Fisheries Service, March 16, 1976 2. Memo from National Ocean Survey, March 16, 1976 m 6 2 ,"T o, C' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF, MMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE �a Q Duval Building 9450 Gandy Boulevard St. Petersburg, FL 33702 March 10, 1976 FSE2I/RS TO: Director Ofc of Ecoloqy & Environmental Conservation, EE THRU: Associate Director Resource Management, F3, i FROM: William H. Stevenson i Regional Director SUBJECT: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Maintenance of the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina, (COE) (DEIS #7602.47) The draft environmental impact statement for maintenance of the waterway connecting Pamlico and Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina, that accompanied your memorandum of February 20, 1976, has been received by the National Marine Fisheries Service for review and comment. The statement has been reviewed and the following comments are offered for your consideration. GENERAL COMMENTS: Within sections on the environmental impacts of individual pro- jects, the DEIS repeats that dredging during certain times of the year would lessen project impacts to various marine organisms and that benthic communities would reestablish after completion of work. We are unable to evaluate the above statements rela- tive to resources under our purview since the DEIS does not specifically mention the times of year that dredging in the var- ious harbors and channels will occur and no data is provided to determine the validity of statements relative to repopulation of benthic communities. Several projects would involve use of diked underwater disposal areas, however, the exact locations of these areas are not specified. The DEIS should describe, in detail, the size, con- figuration, composition and location of these disposal areas. �oUrIati y � 2 SPECIFIC COMMENTS: 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS 4.2.1 Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor Ecological Impacts Page 166, paragraph 2 - This paragraph states that marine inverte- brates and fish are expected to assimilate resuspended metals and organic compounds at concentrations well below lethal levels. In our opinion this statement should be documented. In addition, the DEIS should provide information on accumulation of metals and com- pounds in animals within various levels of the food chain. 4.2.4 Atlantic Harbor of Refuge Ecological Impacts Page 173, paragraph 1 - This section should provide information on pollution levels in the sediments of the Atlantic Harbor. 4.2.6 Sealevel Ecological Impacts Page 176, paragraph 5 - This paragraph states that photosynthesis of aquatic flora will be affected. The DEIS should describe how photosynthesis will be affected, and which organisms will be involved, and impacts associated with specific effects. 7.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 7.1 Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound Page 230, paragraph 1 - This paragraph states that creation of disposal islands will enhance the long-term productivity of the associated environment and that the number of disposal islands will increase incrementally over the next 50 years. The DEIS should supply documentation to support the above conclusion and provide information relative to the expected number of spoil islands to be created, the approximate sizes, the types of environ- ments to be affected by the islands, and the locations. It is requested that one copy of the Final EIS be sent our Area Supervisor, NMFS, Environmental Assessment Division, P.O. Box 570, Beaufort, North Carolina 28516 cc: F34, NMFS, Washington, D.C. (3) FSE211, Beaufort, NC 2 t' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF , MMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY ar4y 301' Rockville, Md. 20852 C52/JLR MAR 1 5 1976 TO: Dr. William Aron Director Office of Ecology and FROM: r. Gordon Lill Deputy Director National Ocean Survey Environmental Conservation SUBJECT: DEIS #7602.47 - Maintenance of the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, N.C. The subject statement has been reviewed within the areas of NOS responsibility and expertise, and in terms of the impact of the proposed action on NOS activities and projects. The following comment is offered for your consideration. Geodetic control survey monuments and tidal bench marks are located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project areas. If there is any planned activity which will disturb or destroy these monuments or bench marks, NOS requires not less than 90 days notification in advance of such activity in order to plan for their relocation. NOS recommends that funding for this project includes the cost of any relocation required for these monuments. United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Southeast Region / 148 Cain St., N.E. l Atlanta, Ga. 30303 ER-76/117 District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 Dear Sir: As requested in your February 6, 1976, letter to the Assistant Secretary, Program Policy, we have reviewed the draft environmental impact state- ment for the proposed Maintenance of the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor; Carteret County, North Carolina, project for its effects on outdoor recreation, geology, hydrology, fish and wildlife resources, mineral resources, and national parks, landmarks, and historic areas. We offer the following comments for your consideration: General Comments The draft impact statement provides good general comments on impacts to fish and wildlife resources expected to result from the maintenance project described. However, since specific disposal sites have not been identified in several instances, most notably in areas which will require open water disposal, detailed impact analysis cannot be provided. Therefore, the need for additional evaluation and coordination with responsible State and Federal agencies cannot be overemphasized. We believe that the proposal to place spoil on Shackleford Banks within the boundary of Cape Lookout National Seashore is associated with shoreline erosion control. This, therefore, falls within the scope of Section 6 of Public Law 89-366 authorizing establishment of the seashore which requires a plan mutually acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army. This plan has not yet been prepared. The statement does not satisfactorily consider cultural resources as required by Executive Order 11593 and 36 CFR 800 which contains directions for the treatment of such resources pursuant to the Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Specific Comments Summary Sheet, Section 5, Comments Requested Since there are sites listed on Places within the project area, the Advisory Council on Historic Washington, D.C. 20005. Page 34, Plate 10 the National Register of Historic comments should be requested from Preservation, 1522 K Street, This plate shows an alternative site for disposal on Shackleford Banks. It would appear from this plate that to place hydraulically dredged material on this site the pipe lines would have to pass directly through an ecologically sensitive and valuable maritime forest. The equipment necessary to install the line, the line itself, and the fill on which to rest the line would create serious ecological damage to the forest. Should an accident occur, such as a blowout in the pipe, this damage would be magnified many times. This should be addressed in the final statement. Page 68, Section 2.2.9 The consideration of cultural resources requires three levels of treatment. The first requires the agency to check for sites which may be listed on the National Register of Historic Places within the vicinity of the project. This section covers this level of treatment in a fine manner. The second level as specified in 36 CFR 800, as supplemented by Executive Order 11593, requires the agency to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer at the earliest stages of the project to determine whether there are any sites in the process of nomination to the National Register. A copy of his comments should be incorporated in the draft statement. This treatment has apparently been omitted. These two steps then constitute the treatment of known historic and cultural resources. 2 Thirdly, it is incumbent upon the agency to make appropriate field studies to determine whether there are any unknown sites that have not yet been recognized and have not been nominate to the National Register of Historic Places. This may be done in one of two ways. If the State Historic Preservation Officer or your agency can ascertain and document that there have been recent historical and archeological field studies to determine the presence of cultural values within the area then it need only document these studies in the statement. F However, this probably has not occurred. In that case, it is incumbent upon the Federal agency to hire professional archeologists and historians to make the proper studies required by 36 CFR 800. These studies must be documented in the statement and the effects of the various alternatives on the values found must be incorporated in the appropriate sections discussing impacts, mitigating measures, and adverse effects. We can find no indication in the statement that such studies were made. Page 74, Section 2.3.2 This section states that "There are no known archaeological or historic landmarks within the project area." (underlining supplied) This could mean that the studies mentioned above were carried out and there were no such archeological or historic values found; or on the other hand, it could simply mean that no one has bothered to look for sites other than those that were found by a simple check of the National Register of Historic Places. This second meaning is not satisfactory, and the proper studies referred to under section 2.2.9 must be carried out and the results documented in this location. Section 2.3.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 These sections all contain identical comments to section 2.3.2 and must perforce be given the same treatment. Page 166, Section 4.2.1 It is stated that "Since the disposal sites for the dredged material are not determined...." It is essential that cultural features be considered in identifying disposal sites. This would require either a documentary survey and if the search for a documented survey is negative, a field survey of these sites should be carried out by a professional historian or archeologist trained in identifying cultural features on the ground. Should such features be found, they must be considered in all sections of the environmental impact statement, i.e., adverse effects, mitigating measures, etc., and be given equal consideration with ecological impacts, impacts on endangered species, etc., in determining the final location of any previously undisturbed upland or submerged disposal site. Should cultural values referred to under section 2.3.2 be located, they should be treated at this point. Page 168, Section 4.2.2 It is stated that "No historic landmarks, known archaeological sites or endan ered species will be affected by the project." (underlining supplied The same thought process applied under section 2.3.2 needs to be applied here. If the documentary and/or field studies required to identify unknown historical values have been carried out and there are no values found, then this statement should be revised to reflect that fact. If, however, cultural values are found by these studies then they should be treated in detail in this location and in subsequent sections 4.2.3 through 9 and in section 4.3, Social, Economic, and Ecological Effect Summary. Page 173, section 4.2.4 The statement indicates that the disposal area "can be replanted between usage to retard erosion." The statement should reveal whether the Corps of Engineers intends to provide this service or if the replanting will be left to the discretion of the local sponsor. Pace 198. Section 5.0 Should field studies reveal that there are cultural values within the proposed disposal and other areas which would be affected by the actions, these effects should be treated. Should any of these values be of such significance that they warrant listing on the National Register of Historic Places according to the criteria indicated in 36 CFR 60 and 36 CFR 800, then the criteria specified must be followed and these adverse effects indicated in this section. 4 Page 208, paragraph 2 Although the mitigating measure of preliminary drying is planned for spoil disposal in a borrow pit, we believe that the environmental statement should treat specifically the existing ground -water situation in the vicinity of the borrow pit and should indicate how resolution and migration of the dried pollutants will be avoided after disposal or what the potential for impact on ground water might be. Page 234, Section 8.1 It is stated that disposal islands are valuable nesting areas for waterfowl. The term waterfowl is generally understood to include ducks, geese, and swans, none of which utilize this habitat type for nesting. Terns and tern -like species which utilize these islands, should be referred to as "sea birds." Sincerely yours, iss?une Whelan Special Assistant to the Secretary Southeast Region JN: E0 S Tq lFs 2 u o •1J1�` Q UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Zy 2 stir vRojE `� REGION IV Qt 1421 PEACHTREE ST., N. E. ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30309 April 27, 1976 Colonel Homer Johnstone, USA District Engineer Wilmington District, P. 0. Box 1890 Corps of Engineers Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 Dear Colonel Johnstone: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Maintenance of the Waterway connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina, and further coordination is needed between the Corps of Engineers and State and Federal conservation agencies with regard to the spoil site at Harkers Island, Harbor of Refuge, and some of the submerged sites in order to ascertain whether there are better alternatives. The proposed Harkers Island spoil site contains 3.5 acres of marsh and 1.5 acres of shallow water. The possibility of using alternative sites should be coordinated with the State and Federal conservation agencies. There is a type of dredge now in use which causes less turbidity at the dredge head than the conventional hydraulic dredge. This operates with air pressure and delivers the spoil in a more concen- trated form than the conventional hydraulic dredge. Materials dredged with this system can, therefore, be transported in a barge at a reduced cost. The pumps are rather small but should be ideal for use along with the AIWW. Its main advantage is that it acts similar to a vacuum sweeper and causes no dredging plume. It would be of exceptional value for use next to oyster beds or grass flats. Because of the number of oyster beds in the Wilmington District, this system or similar systems should be investigated for possible use in the Wilmington District. Due to the foregoing, we have rated LO- (lack of objection) to the action described and 2 (insufficient information) to the Impact Statement. Please furnish us with five copies of the final environmental impact statement, and if we can be of further assistance in any way, please let us know. S'ncerely you , John E. Haga III Chief, EIS Branch DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE REGION IV 50 77H STREET N.E. ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30323 March 26, 1976 Homer Johnstone, District Engineer Department of the Army Post Office Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 Subject: Maintenance of the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina Dear Mr. Johnstone: OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR HEW-623-2-76 We have reviewed the subject draft Environmental Impact Statement. Based upon the data contained in the draft, it is our opinion that the proposed action will have only a minor impact upon the human environment within the scope of this Department's review. The impact statement has been adequately addressed for our comments. Sincerely yours, 1% /99 I I Phili Sayre Regi 1 Environmental Officer DHEWRegion IV UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE P. 0. Box 27307, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Telephone 755-4375 March 12, 1976 Colonel Homer Johnstone District Engineer Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army P. 0. Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 Dear Colonel Johnstone: We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for Maintenance of the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina. We offer the following comments for your consideration: The proposed project will not affect any present or planned SCS financially assisted projects. If a plan is developed for vegetating the disposal areas, you will find the publication, "Seacoast Plants of the Carolinas," by Karl E. Graetz, a useful guide for selection of suitable plants. A copy is available from our office. Some of the soils data on pages 38-45 is out of date. We can provide you a general soils map for Region P which contains current soils names of the associations. The Soil Conservation Service assists soil and water conservation districts in technical phases of their program. If desired, consultive services that are consistent with priorities for work established by the districts are available from the Service in reviewing or developing plans for controlling erosion during and after construction. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the draft EIS and would like to receive a copy of your final statement. ( Sincerely, kZ ;Jesse L. Hicks ;State Conservationist cc: Council on Environmental Quality, 722 Jackson Place, N.W., Washington, D. C. (5 copies) USDA Coordinator of Environmental Activities, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 20250 R. M. Davis, Administrator, SCS, Washington, D. C. Grady Lane, Director, State Soil & Water Conserv. ConLnission, Ral C. R. E. Powell, Area Conservationist, SCS, Goldsboro, N.C. e A. Howard Garner, District Conservationist, SCS, Beaufort, N.C. t?, UNIT STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE Southeastern Area, State and Private Forestry 1720 Peachtree Road, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30309 8400 April 5, 1976 r Colonel Homer Johnstone, District Engineer Wilmington District Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 L Dear Colonel Johnstone: The United States Forest Service, State and Private Forestry review of the draft EIS entitled, "Maintenance of the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina" reveals only minor project impacts on forest lands and resources in the area. Consequently, we have no comments on this proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft statement, Sincere y,,/� ROBERT K. DODSON Area Environmental Coordinator Copy: State Forester, North Carolina 6200 - 1 Ib ( 4/74 ) �ti. 5 NO 0 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES COAST GUARD Department of the Army Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers Attention: Colonel Isomer Johnstone P. 0. Box 1890 Wilmington, NC 28401 Re: SAWEN-E Gentlemen: MAILING ADDRESS: COMMANDER (mep) FIFTH COAST GUARD DISTRICT FEDERAL BUILDING 431 CRAWFORD STREET PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA 23705 PHONE: (604) 393-9611 Ext . 315 5922 27 February 1976 The Fifth Coast Guard District has reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement for the Maintenance of the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina. The following comments are offered for your consideration: We feel that the proposed maintenance projects will improve the access of our search -and -rescue boats from our Fort Macon and Cape Lookout Stations into Core Sound and its harbors. This improved access will have a beneficial impact on our search -and -rescue missions. The opportunity to comment on this DES is appreciated. Sincerely, ' ERSEN Cap in U. S. Coast Guard Chie , 'nvironmental Protection Branch By direction of the Commander Fifth Coast Guard District b� U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION S FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Region Four Post Office Box 26806 ,`Of•�,,,o�'''� Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 February 20, 1976 In reply refer to: 04-37.3 Colonel Homer Johnstone District Engineer Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District Post Office Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 Dear Colonel Johnstone: Subject: Draft Environmental Statement, Maintenance of the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, North Carolina. Our review of the subject statement indicates that a few structures on the Federal -aid System may be affected by the proposed maintenance. Before dredging operations begin, this office would appreciate the opportunity to examine substructure plans and methods of dredging in the area of the structures. Sincerely yours, T. J. Morawski Division Administrator OFFICE OF North Carolina Department INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS EDWIN DECKARD of Administration DIRECTOR JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR., GOVERNOR • BRUCE A. LENTZ, SECRETARY March 30, 1976 Colonel Homer Johnstone U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 Dear Colonel Johnstone: Re: Draft Environmental Statement for the Maintenance of the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beau- fort Harbor, North Carolina; SCH No. 014-76 The State Clearinghouse has completed its review of the above referenced pro- ject. The Department of Human Resources has requested that a statement be included in the final environmental statement that would reflect plans and procedures for the control of mosquito breeding in the dyked spoil areas. These areas have proven to be heavy mosquito breeders and the populated area around Beaufort would be subject to severe mosquito annoyance. The Department of Natural and Economic Resources has submitted the attached comments in response to this statement. The State Clearinghouse has no ob- jection to the proposed activity. The Corps, however, should coordinate as much as possible with the Department of Natural and Economic Resources in further planning and implementation of this activity. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Q.ecc Jane Pettus (Miss) Clearinghouse Supervisor JP:mw Attachments cc: Region "P and R" 116 WEST JONES STREET RALEIGH 27603 (919) 829-2594 March 22, 1976 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Jane Pettus, Clearinghouse and Information Center RO�t: Art Cooper, Assistant Secretary For Resource Hanagc�rrent SUBJECT: SCH File M 4-76; DEIS, Maintenance of the Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, N. C.; U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources has reviewed the subject document and offers the following comments: INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS 1. Waterway Connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor - Page 7, paragraph 2, states that disposal of dredge material will be accomplished by inwater disposal into underwater diked areas. The alternative dredging methods discussed on pages 207-208 indicate that in some locations, upland diked disposal areas are feasible. DNER has consistently opposed inwater disposal of dredging spoils over the past several years and still maintains this position. We request that the Corps attempt to utilize upland disposal areas to the maximun extent possible in this project. In discussing adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented (page 198), the DEIS appears to be overly general with respect to the effects of inwater disposal resulting from the Pamlico Sound to Beaufort Harbor channel maintenance, i.e., the filling of some 300-400 acres of opan water. This is under- standable, inasmuch as specific disposal areas have not yet been identi- fied. However, we suggest that the Corps make some attempt to discuss the ramifications of such actions in quantitative terms, .e., is the significance of this with respect to estuarine biological produc- tivity in this area and commercial and/or sports fishing activities? 2. Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay with Cedar cB;av - As stated above, DNER objects to inwater disposal of dredging spoil as proposed for this area. We request that specific plans for disposal in this area be coordinated with DNER prior to specific disposal site designation. On page 79, the DEIS states that Thoroughfare Bay is a known shrimp, crab, and fish nursery area. A statement should F;a added which r,t�ntions the extreme importance of Thorough Fare Bay <is a shrimp migration route for mature species during fall migration. - 2 - 3. Sealevel - DNER concurs that the designated upland disposal sites shown on Plate 6, page 31, are more desirable than the alternate inwater dis- posal sites and that the alternate inwater sites should be avoided. Harkers Island_ Harbor of Refuge_ - Disposal in the marshland ar~>a _-,n the tn 'l i me, o ` %,1c'. ('n rranc8 I 'shout d he a`loi deal and %Jfl LI;J i u��1 disposal site meeting the criteria on page 1 of this report should be utilized. 5. Beaufort Harbor - The Beaufort Turning Basin, the channel through the Basin, and Taylors Creek have all been maintained with the spoils being placed on diked and undiked areas. All disposal areas should be diked and all future maintenance spoils should be deposited in diked areas. On page 36, the DEIS states that for any future maintenance occurring at the channel and harbor at Town Creek, dredge material will be placed at the previously utilized fill area just east of the Town Creek Harbor of Refuge. This area contains extensive mud flats and salt cord - grass marshes. It is our opinion that suitable upland disposal sites can be obtained just north of the Harbor of Refuge which will provide a more suitable disposal site. We would oppose use of the described disposal site. GENERAL REMARKS 1. Dredging operations must not violate water quality standards of the designated classification of the waters at each of the dredging locations. In order to insure that this does not occur, a water quality monitoring program should be established at all proposed dredging locations prior to initiation of work. We suggest that a representative of the Corps contact the Division of Environmental Management, DNER, six weeks prior to the initiation of any project so that a monitoring program may be outlined jointly between the two agencies with respect to sampling loca- tions, parameters to be.sampled, and frequency of sampling. 2. We reiterate here again our opposition to disposal in "underwater diked areas." Such disposal is completely unacceptable as it only serves to increase the frequency of dredging operations and to destroy underw at.cr plant and animal life thus diminishing productive bottoms and shallow water areas. 3. Although only mentioned on page 163, we wish to stress that the Carteret County Planning Department consider the benefits of continued maintenance of the waterways, and especially the positive benefits of spoil placement. In most cases the Corps has suggested adequate spoil placement alternatives. However, Carteret County may hav: certain lonq ranee needs, such as a recreational area that could be developed on spoil disposal sites. _ An analysis of commercial and recreational usage of the areas is provided, but the question as to 1;ahy a marina is not built or deep draft recreational vessels do not frequent a particular place should btt addressed. The determining factor is the depth of access. Plo husineSslan wouid b+ri1.1 a marina or fish process i n g horse in an Area where access does nut 1, I i-,�ady - 3 - exist. This is especially important because growth of the North Carolina fishing industry has slowed wh" e the recreational industry is growing in spite of present economic cc7ditions. This statement ties in with a discussion of cost benefit rela_ionships. The cost of dredging has in- ", rec1�G'ia due to inilatiorl, requl r�menCs, and to oarticular additional e-nviron61--._3i r:�traints. T:-ie ,-ishinq Indus r's.., in small villages will not be to balance this increased cost with increased values for the catch. Either the environmental cost increases should be figured separately, e- recreational potential figured in the balance, or a recognition of t'..= ''fish to market" value of the small village projects which would le to a subsidy situation. This trend should be recognized by those solved with computing cost benefit ratios. 4. It would seem that over-cutt i nc des, red depth in areas requiring fre- quent dredging would be cost be-e icial in several ways. The initial use of the dredge and spoil areas t,,.=-,ld replace perhaps the second and third proposed uses under the more fr cuent maintenance plan. Inflation could cause a cost of $2.00 per cubic :ard to rise to $4.00 per cubic yard in several years. Also, objects c eared after the first pass would allow deeper cuts to be made with les_ likelihood of damaging equipment. 5. The proposed depth at Marshall' -- could warrant an increast to 10' in light of the marine railway ca'D__ity. The statement on page 158 is most accurate. Marshallberg Railwa% -as lost much business to New Bern and Morehead City - Beaufort. This -cononically affects Marshallberg and many fishermen viho must pay hi--er rates to get on the ship rails at New Bern and lose time and money i,- that distance. 6. The area covered under this doc_-ent is an extremely important part of North Carolina's coastal estuar'-,a environment. DNER recognizes both the necessity for navigation t�-:ughout this estuary and the necessity for minimizing damage to the es ---,arise resources involved. To insure that individual dredging activi_e, are carried out in a manner rihich maximizes project benefits to t-e citizens of North Carolina, we request that the Corps coordinate with +ER on all of the specific dredging activities that are generally c'scussed in the subject document prior to any initiation of these activities. fur response to this DEIS should not be construed as replacing L�__ablished procedures for coordinating maintenance dredging work. CC, Thayer Broili J i m B cnwn Bole Hazel Srh Jamieson Dan NcDonal d APPENDIX B GENERAL PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA APPENDIX B GENERAL PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA TABLE. OF CONTENTS 2.2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY 2.2.1.1 Inland Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1.2 The Sounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1.3 The Barrier Beaches . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1.4 Inlets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.1 Coastal Plain - General . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.2 Continental Shelf . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.3 Continental Slope . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.4 Tectonics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 OCEANOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3.1 Tides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3.2 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3.3 Great Soil Groups of the North Carolina Coastal Plain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 WETLANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.5 ESTUARINE ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.6 ESTUARINE TROPHIC LEVELS . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.7 OUTER BANKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Page No. B-1 B-1 B-2 B-2 B-3 B-3 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-5 B-6 B-6 B-7 B-9 B-9 B-14 B-16 B-18 GENERAL PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA 2.2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY 2.2.1.1 Inland Coast Carteret County lies within the Atlantic Coastal Plain province, a partly submerged terraced surface representing former ocean floor which begins 80 to 100 miles inland and extends eastward to the Cur rituck-Albemarle -Pamlico -Co re Sound shorelines. The land surface west of the Outer Banks is a relatively flat plain which slopes gently eastward to the Atlantic Ocean at an overall rate of less than three feet. The coastal plain is sub - maturely dissected by many streams including Chowan and Roanoke Rivers ending in Albemarle Sound; Tar -Pamlico and Neuse Rivers ending in Pamlico Sound; and others of lesser discharge. Interstream divides are flat and broad, averaging less than 20 feet in elevation; the plain is broken by low escarp- ments adjacent to the stream valleys. Many of the rivers have built natural levees assuring that their flanks and bank areas rise high enough above the water to become dry land. Some streams have cut their channels as much as 40 feet below the level of the upland; a terrace commonly borders the streams at a level below the upland surface. In general, the progressive widening of the mouths of the major rivers where and as they debouch into the sounds confirms the submergence aspect of this coastline, i. e. , the sea has drowned much low ground in the coastal area and extends upstream to form bays and broad estuaries. Mainland shorelines fringing the big sounds tend to be very long, sinuous and in places, labyrinthine. In addition to the many roads and towns of the coastal mainland, networks of ditches and canals have been constructed for both drainage and navigation• Numerous ponds and lakes exist, including the northern scattering of the famous Carolina Bays whose origin in Georgia and the Carolinas has provoked inuch debate. B-1 2.2.1.2 The Sounds Core, Bogue, and Back Sounds are part of a single large lagoon created by the formation of the Outer Banks. The lagoon, several thousand square miles in total area, including the river estuaries, is the second largest estuarine system in the Eastern United States, extending 170 miles (213 km) in length and attaining widths of up to 30 miles (48. 3 km). It is extremely shallow. Core Sound ranges from six to ten feet in depth, along its main axis, but is shallower in the major part of the sound, there ranging from 0. 5 to 5 feet in depth. Depths within the major portion of Back Sound range from one to six feet; however, NOAA charts indicate deeper areas in the northern area of the sound, ranging from 7 to 20 feet in depth. 2.2.1.3 The Barrier Beaches The Outer Banks can be described as offshore bars whose subaerial portions are barrier beaches. These beaches are generally well developed from Oregon Inlet north into Virginia and from Beaufort Inlet south into South Carolina. However, a 120 mile stretch of essentially undeveloped beach (Cape Lookout and Hatteras National Seashore) exists between Oregon Inlet and Beaufort Inlet. The beaches and associated dunes generally do not achieve elevations exceeding 10 or 15 feet (3.1 or 4.6 m). The barrier beaches vary from many narrow segments only 200 to 300 yards (182. 9 to 274. 3 m) wide, to as much as 2. 75 miles (4. 4 km) in widely separated localities. Some tendency toward an increase in width is evident at existing inlets such as Oregon, Ocracoke and the capes, including Hatteras and Lookout. There are minor spits and bars on each .flank of the inlet which, together with abrupt variations in width, suggest former inlets which were later sealed. A. conspicuous morphological feature of the entire barrier beach system is the characteristically straight shoreline delineating the oceanfront beach zone. A contrasting feature is the B-2 crenulated backshore waterline which marks gentle backshore slopes into sand flats, mud bars, small islands, reentrant channels, and shoals. Whereas the oceanside sustains continuous wave attack and smoothing by littoral drift, the back - shore is subjected to occasional wave attack and surge of much lesser energy and total effect. Beachfront slopes range from approximately 7. 5 to 10 percent from the shoreline to the crest of the highest berm while backshore slopes approximate 0. 3 to 1 percent. From the barrier -beach shorelines seaward into Atlantic Ocean, the offshore slopes are relatively gradual. 2.2.1.4 Inlets Coastal inlets in the Outer Banks are natural openings which provide a connection between the Atlantic Ocean and the sounds. Their primary function is to drain the coastal lagoons of tidal and fresh waters, incidentally carrying the excess estuarine nutrients into the clearer waters of the Ocean where they are utilized in primary marine productivity. Migratory birds, including small land birds, must cross or pass by the inlets twice each year. Anadromous fish use these passageways to reach the fresh water in which they spawn, and the larvae and juvenile fish and other species which use the estuarine nursery grounds must pass through these inlets to reach the open sea. Inlets are dynamic features which open and close on an apparently random basis, exhibiting a tendency towards continuous southward migration. 2.2.2 GEOLOGY 2.2.2.1 Coastal Plain - general The Atlantic Coastal Plain, beginning at New Jersey and extending through all of the coastal states around through the Gulf states and southward into Mexico, includes all of Florida and a sweeping embayment up the Mississippi Valley as far as Illinois. As shown on the Geological Map of North Carolina (1958), it is a mantle of sedimentary rocks such as conglomerates, sands, shales, clays, B-3 marls and limestones that began to be deposited during the Cretaceous Period and continued after that through Eocene - Oligocene -Miocene -Pliocene -Pleistocene Epochs into the Recent, with some severe perturbations or. interruptions. Perhaps one of the most significant interruptions was the relatively abrupt lowering of sea level during the Pleistocene when the continental glaciers abstracted much water from the oceans for varying lengths of time. The extremely short period of time called the Recent extends back about 12, 000 years to the point at which the great glaciers melted and, so far as is known, sea level began to rise from an elevation several hundreds of feet below its present position. In general, this rise still seems to be occurring and the ocean is encroaching back upon the coastal plain. Although these coastal plain deposits thin westward like a knife edge where they overlie the much older metamorphic and crystalline rocks of the Piedmont Upland and the continental interior, they thicken eastward, extending far off the coast to form the continental shelf. A generalized geologic cross-section from Wilson to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, illustrates the general eastward - thickening wedge -like structure and thicknesses of geologic formations beneath the North Carolina coastal plain, sounds and Outer Banks. 2.2.2.2 Continental Shelf The long offshore slope from the Atlantic shoreline seaward to approximately 100 fathoms 1600 feet (182. 9 m) I is well -developed from Florida to Newfoundland. Beyond this depth the profile breaks conspicuously to form the continental slope, a much more steeply inclined margin flanking the gentle slope of the shelf. According to Shepard (1948), the shelf is only about 22 or 23 miles (35.4 or 37. 0 km) wide in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras, but elsewhere up and down the coast it broadens out to 85 miles (136. 8 km) or more in width. The shelf represents the continua- tion of the coastal plain deposits as they thicken to approximately 10, 500 feet (3, 200. 4 m) as demonstrated by a boring at Cape Hatteras in 1947, documented by Kuenen (1950), where the basement crystalline rocks were found to be far below the surface. Kuenen goes on to report that because the slope of the basement crystalline rocks is rougl;ly 3. 7 percent, much greater than the slope of the shelf, it is clear that the coastal plain deposits thicken greatly under the shelf. 2.2.2.3 Continental Slope Shepard (1948) reports that the continental slope extends from the edge of the continental shelf to the Atlantic abyssal plain, or from approximately 600 to 10, 000-12, 000 feet (182. 9 to 3, 048. 0- 3, 657. 6 m) in the 35 miles (56. 3 km) from the edge of the shelf southeast of Hatteras. This steeper slope is inclined sufficiently so that it truncates the coastal plain deposits, indicating that they have been, and probably are now, being eroded, 2.2.2.4 Tectonics Much study of the structure of the coastal plain deposits will be necessary before they are reasonably well understood. Such studies are being conducted seismically along the outer con- tinental shelf in an effort to locate petroleum deposits. It is a matter of some consequence to know what absolute or relative vertical movement is taking place in the great wedge of coastal plain sediments. According to King (1951), the so-called Cape Fear Arch, along a northwest by southeast axis through Cape Fear, North Carolina, brings the crystalline basement closer to the surface and with it the underlying Cretaceous coastal plain deposits. However, King suggests in a map published in 1969 that, from the conformation of these basement granites, the Cape Fear Arch may have predated the deposition of the coastal plain sediments, in that they may have simply draped themselves over this major structural feature. From the relatively new information depicted in King's 1969 study, it is not inconceivable that north of the Cape Fear Arch a second arch is beginning to form through Cape Hatteras on a northwest by south- east axis parallel to the pre-existing Cape Fear Arch. Very ' pronounced serrations in the bathymetric contours of the outer continental slope between the 1 , 000- and 5, 000-meter (3, 280 and 16,405-foot) depths contrast with the relatively smooth equivalent r-W bathymetry of the continental slope off Cape Fear. It can be argued that there is an old lineament approximately north- northwest through the Hatteras area straight up the axis of Chesapeake Bay into the Maryland -Pennsylvania Piedmont, possibly having caused the principal curve of the Appalachian Valley and Ridge structure, but this would require it to have been active as long ago as the Jurassic Period rather than any time since. Although the foregoing is conjecture, Lobeck (1957) notes that what he terms the Cape Hatteras Bulge is actually the beginning of another peninsula not unlike Florida. The important question is whether there is any current movement along a Hatteras axis that would lessen the slope of the continental shelf; if so, such a possibility cannot be ruled out. 2.2.3 OCEANOGRAPHY 2.2.3.1 Tides Normal ocean tides in the vicinity of the Outer Banks have a range of about one meter (3. 28 feet) according to cotidal and corange lines drawn by Defant (1958) from the North Atlantic node east of Newfoundland and south of Greenland. The tidal crest progresses in a more or less southwesterly direction; however, due to local discrepancies, the crest arrives at Hampton Roads, Virginia, at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, roughly 1.5 to 2 hours after encountering the Currituck- Kitty Hawk -Cape Hatteras locality and arrives at Hampton Roads roughly one hour after encountering the Beaufort -Morehead City area (U. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, 1975). This discrepancy is due to differing slopes of the continental shelf, causing differential wave speed offshore of the Atlantic coast. The mean tide range is 3. 6 feet (1. 1 m) in the Currituck- Kitty Hawk -Cape Hatteras vicinity and spring ranges are 3. 8 to 4. 3 feet (1. 2 to 1. 3 m). The mean tide range increases to as much as 3. 7 feet at Cape Lookout, and spring ranges are 4. 1 to 4. 4 feet. The increase in mean tide range is probably due to a slight "piling -up" effect across the continental shelf. The mean tide range in the Beaufort -Morehead City area is 3. 0 feet with spring tides approximately 3.6 feet. 2.2.3.2 soils General. Soil is the product of certain interdependent environ- mental factors acting upon geologic materials. It is defined as the collection of natural bodies occupying portions of the earth's surface that support plants and that have properties due to the integrated effect of climate and living matter, acting upon parent material, as conditioned by relief, over periods of time (USDA, 1951). The five major soil forming factors which may be extracted from this definition are parent material (rocks), climate (temperature and rainfall), organisms (mainly vegetation), relief (topography or slope), and time (age of soil). The differences in geologic parent materials as influenced by relief are the basis for the classification of soils in the Coastal Plain into units called soil series. Soils in a series are similar in all major charac- teristics except for texture of the surface soil and to a lesser degree, for the texture of the subsoil. Soils within a series have the same profile character; the same range in color, consistency, and structure, and in sequence of horizons; the same conditions of relief and drainage; and a common origin or parent material. Physiography and Coastal Plain Soils. In general, the soils of the northern half of the Coastal Plain contain a moderately high portion (more than 55 percent) of combined very fine sand, silt and clay; those of the southern half have a moderately low portion (le.ss than 40 percent) of very fine sand, silt and clay. The North Carolina Coastal Plain may be divided into three general units on the basis of relief, elevation, and soils —the Tidewater unit, the Middle Coastal Plain unit, and the Upper Coastal Plain unit (Lee, 1955). The Tidewater unit, which occurs below an elevation of 25 feet is nearly level with occa- sional low ridges and gentle slopes, particularly near streams. The land area is intersected by large sounds and wide streams near sea level. Interstream divides are broad and poorly drained. Unconsolidated Quarternary sands and clays, which are among the youngest soil forming materials in the state, occupy the unit. Soils of the Tidewater unit are not well developed due to the youth of the parent material and the nearly B-7 level relief. Soil series within this unit include Bladen, Dragston, Coxville, Fallsington, Klej, Rains, Plummer and Portsmouth. There are many large areas of muck and peat (Lee, 1955). The Middle Coastal Plain unit extends inland and terminates in areas of approximately 100 feet in elevation. The overall relief is undulating to gently rolling; streams penetrate most parts of the area, and drainage is poor to good. Tertiary clays, sands, and marls extend practically across the unit from north to south. Older deposits of Cretaceous sands and marls are exposed by erosion in the southwestern portion. Soils with better profile development have formed on these materials than on the younger Quarternary deposits. Soils of the Graven, Dunbar, Galestown, Goldsboro, Lakeland, Lenoir, Lynchburg, and Norfolk series are the most prominent in this unit. The Upper Coastal Plain unit lies between 130 to 250 feet above sea level. The overall relief is undulating to rolling, becoming strongly rolling along streams. Streams penetrate all parts and drainage is generally well established. Tertiary materials cover the northern half of the unit with older Cretaceous materials exposed by erosion in the southern half. Most soils are well developed except for those of very sandy character and about three -fourths of the entire unit is occupied by well -drained soils. Predominant soil series in the unit are the Caroline, Dunbar, E:istis, Goldsboro, Lakeland, Lynchburg, Norfolk, and Ruston series. Relief is a major factor in determining soil character in the Coastal Plain. In general, soils occupying undulating or sloping relief (gradients above three percent) are well drained and have coarse -textured surface soils and medium to fine -textured sub- soils which have yellowish, brownish, or reddish colors. These soils contain little organic matter, less than three percent in the surface four -inch layer. Soils on flat or nearly level relief are poorly drained, have medium to fine -textured surface soils and medium -to very fine -textured subsoils which are grayish to almost black. Variable amounts of organic matter are present; greater than eight percent organic matter is often present in the surface four -inch layer. Soils of intermediate slope are also intermediate in drainage and in content or organic matter; however, they are not always intermediate in texture. 2.2.3.3 Great Soil Groups of the North Carolina Coastal Plain Soils having common internal soil properties such as texture, consistency, structure, a similar drainage range and similar color are placed in a great soil group. Four great soil groups occur within Coastal Plain counties of North Carolina —the Red - Yellow Podzolic Great Soil Group, the Low Humic-Gley Great Soil Group, the Regosol Great Soil Group and the Muck Great Soil Group. The Red -Yellow Podzolic Great Soil group is comprised of rela- tively deep, well oxidized, moderately to well -drained soils. The soils are predominantly reddish, yellowish and brownish loams, loamy sands, sandy loams and sands. The Low Humic- Gley Great Soil Group is characterized by poorly or somewhat poorly drained soils with thin surface horizons (2 to 8 inches thick), moderately high in organic matter underlain by mineral horizons mottled gray and brown or yellow, and rarely, gray and red. Soils consisting of unconsolidated rock with few clearly expressed soil characteristics and largely "dry sand" soils, or soils mostly of slightly weathered clayey material comprise the Regosol Great Soil Group. The Muck Great Soil Group is composed of fairly well decomposed organic soil materials relatively high in mineral content (40 to 50 percent), dark in color- and which accumulated under conditions of very poor drainage. 2.2.4 WETLANDS According to Wilson (1962), North Carolina encompasses a total of 5, 885, 000 acres of wetlands, of which 95 percent are located in the coastal zone. A. more recent estimate of total wetland acreage indicates a reduction of the original figure by 30 percent, leaving 4, 054, 000 acres (Corps of Engineers, 1971). Carteret County wetlands account for three percent of the state total, or approxi- mately 121, 450 acres, based on the updated estimate. The B-9 susceptibility of wetlands to external influence, principally human activity, accounts for the significant decrease in wetland acreage. Recent trends in industry, agriculture, and forestry, combined with an expanding population and requirements for flood control and intracoastal canals have resulted in alterations of wetlands through drainage ditching, clearing, pollution, and conversion to uses incompatible with use by waterfowl and other wildlife. The project area comprises four major wetland types, which are wooded swamp, bog, and irregularly and regularly flooded salt marsh. Each wetland area can be evaluated in accordance with six general values. • Gross production and availability of resultant detritus to the estuarine food chain is an important function of wet- land habitat. If the products of plant productivity are readily available to the estuarine food web as detritus, a wetlands system is more important than one of equal productivity where little detritus results. Availability of detritus is generally a function of marsh elevation and degree of flushing, with the detrital contribution being greatest in the lower, well -flushed marshes, • Wetlands can also be evaluated in terms of utilization by waterfowl and wildlife. Some wetland types are more valuable resources than others because food and protec- tive cover provision differ according to the vegetation associations present. • Coastal marshes serve as an erosion buffer. The buffering quality is derived from the ability of the com- prising vegetation to absorb or dissipate wave energy or to establish a dense root system which stabilizes the soil. Vegetative species differ in their capacity to act as an erosion buffer. • A fourth value accorded to wetlands is the ability of some marshes to act as a filter and an assimilator of sub- stances in upland runoff. By filtering out sediments before they reach waterways, marshes act to protect shellfish beds acid navigation channels from siltation. Additionally, marshes can assimilate and chemically or bacteriologicZilly degrade pollutants, thus acting as a natural water treatment system. • A fifth value of \k etland areas is their ability to act as a flood buffer. The peat substrates of some marshes act as a sponge in receiving and releasing large quantities of water. This capability provides a buffer system against coastal flooding, the effectiveness of which is a function of marsh type and size. • Shallow water wetland areas often provide habitat for fish spawning and nursery activities. The four wetland types within the project area differ in relative importance in terms of the values described above. Wooded swamps are characterized by waterlogged soil in the growing season, with water depths of up to one foot during other times of the year. Wooded swamps in the project area are sufficiently inland so as to be of rninor importance with regard to detritus availability. The associated vegetation (see Table D7) provides excellent habitat for gray squirrel, marsh rabbit, raccoon, deer, black bear, mink, muskrat, otter and alligator. As an erosion buffer and filtration system, wooded swamps are not sufficiently close to open coastal water bodies in Carteret County to be of greater importance than marsh habitats in this regard. However, they do act as a sediment sink and energy dissipator for streams and waterways which course through the swamp areas. Wooded swamps are not valuable in terms of flood control, due to their inability to contain large volumes of upland water. Bogs in Carteret County are typically waterlogged and support spongy coverings of mosses. The ability to function as a flood buffer, detritus producer, and filtration system is similar to those abilities previously described for wooded swamps. Bogs within the project area support large populations of wildlife species including white-tailed deer, black bear, bobcat, gray fox, marsh rabbit, opossum, raccoon and mink. Their value to water- fowl is not as significant as that of marsh habitat available in the project area. Vegetation common to bogs in Carteret County is listed in Table D7. B-11 Irregularly flooded saltmarsh lies predominantly along the main- land on Core and Back Sounds. This marsh type is periodically flooded by wind -generated tides; flood depths range from two inches to two feet. Several vegetational communities comprise irregularly flooded saltmarsh and are represented in this area, including the saltmeadow cordgrass, black needlerush and marsh elder/groundsel tree communities. Each marsh community differs in its contribution to the coastal ecosystem. • The saltmeadow cordgrass community is predominantly vegetated with saltmeadow cordgrass and saltgrass, with smaller amounts of saltmarsh cordgrass, black needle - rush, marsh elder, groundsel tree, saltwort, and sea ox-eye. Annual production ranges from one to three tons per acre, with relatively small amounts of dead plant material being flushed into the estuary. Seeds of associated flora are eaten by birds and the marsh provides suitable nesting habitat. Marsh invertebrates (see Table D11) also serve as a food source for waterfowl and wildlife. Animals common to this community include raccoon, mink, otter and nutria. At higher elevations, the saltmeadow cordgrass com- munity acts as an effective erosion deterrent. Peat may accumulate, allowing this marsh type to act as a sponge when inundated with flood waters. The dense vegetation and peat deposits are effective sediment and pollutant filters. It is a better absorbent than regularly flooded marsh since it is not flooded daily by tides and its substrate is seldom saturated with water, • The black needlerush community is predominantly vegetated by black needlerush, with fringes of saltmarsh cordgrass, saltgrass and saltmeadow cordgrass. Its annual production is three to five tons per acre, although the dead plant material decomposes at a slower rate than most marsh grasses. This community is also not fluxed daily by tides. There is little evidence to show that waterfowl and wildlife utilize needlerush directly as a food source. Because of the dense, stiff habit of the needlerush plant, this community is considered to have B-12 minor wildlife value except for its provision of limited cover. However, the dense system of rhizomes and roots of black needlerush are highly resistant to wave stress, placing a high value on this marsh type in terms of its capacity to buffer erosion. This community serves as a trap for suspended sediments, but is less effective in this capacity than the densely matted saltmeadow cordgrass community. Black needlerush communities provide effective absorbent areas to buffer coastal flooding. Regularly flooded saltmarsh lies predominantly along the sound side of the Outer Banks and is the dominant marsh type within the Beaufort estuary area. This marsh type is characteristically inundated at average high tide with from six inches to three feet of water. The most common vegetational association found in regularly flooded saltmarsh areas is the saltmarsh cordgrass community. The dominant plant species in this community is saltmarsh cordgrass, with representatives of saltmeadow cord - grass, saltgrass, black needlerush, saltwort, sea lavender, and sea ox-eye also occurring. This particular community is extremely productive, on the average yielding four tons per acre per year, with yields under optimum conditions ranging as high as ten tons. Daily tides flux throughout this community making detritus readily available to the marine ecosystem. This type of marsh is recognized as an important spawning and nursery ground for fish. Roots of associated flora are eaten by waterfowl, whereas sterns are utilized in muskrat lodge con- struction. Foster's tern, clapper rail and willet utilize available vegetation for nesting materials. Invertebrates common to this habitat provide a valuable., food source for higher trophic level organisms. The saltmarsh cordgrass community is very resistant to wave energy due to a vast network of rhizomes and roots embedded in peat substrate. Marshes of this type also serve as traps for sediment that originate from upland runoff. Pollutants washed into the marsh are degraded by microbes living on the stems of saltmarsh cordgrass. Flood waters are also assimilated by the underlying peat substrate. B-13 2.2.5 ESTUARINE ENVIRONMENT Within Carteret County, estuarine waters account for approxi- mately 342, 272 acres of total coastal open waters. The project area encompasses Core and Back Sounds, within the barrier island system of the Cape Lookout National Seashore. Ocean water exchange occurs via Beaufort, Barden and Drum Inlets in the project area, and fresh water input is primarily introduced from the Newport, Neuse, and North Rivers. The salinity averages 30 ppt and seldom drops below 20 ppt within Core Sound. The mean tidal range is 30 centimeters. General estuarine habitats in the project area are the sounds, inlets, bays and tributary marsh creeks. The sounds and inlets generally have a hard, sandy bottom; the bay bottoms exhibit a mixture of sand and muck, and the marsh creeks have soft, muddy bottoms. Biotic communities common to each habitat type reflect differences in the interaction of environmental parameters present. Such parameters as salinity, water currents, bottom composition, and water depth act to govern which specific community will develop. The river -influenced, low salinity region of the Beaufort estuary is characterized by soft bottoms with large populations of organisms typical of mud flats (see Table DI I). Sea grasses are an integral part of the trophic system, providing the primary input of vegetable material to the detritus -based estuarine food chain. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds, in particular, are well documented as being highly productive areas in terms of associated animal assemblages (see Table D11). Large areas of shallow, shoreline benthos in the Beaufort vicinity support dense populations of invertebrates including such commercial shellfish species as the hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria), oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and the bay scallop (Argopecten irradians). The inlets and deep channels within the project area are charac- terized by high energy currents which maintain coarse sand and shell bottoms. The majority of organisms common to this B-14 habitat are suspension t'ceders; predators are also abundant. Species diversity and animal biomass are typically high in these areas (see Table D11). The sounds, bays, and open coastal fresh water areas in the project area are utilizes] for a variety of purposes by fauna common to the estuary. Organisms which utilize these waters in Carteret County can be classified as belonging to one of three major groups. The first group of organisms typically spend their entire lives within the estuary, and are thus, totally estuarine dependent. These organisms have adapted to the fluctuating conditions of the estuarine environment, including wide variations in salinity and temperature. Many herbivores, detritivores, and omnivores whic:i are benthic or closely associated with the bottom live entirely within the estuary. Within the project area, examples of this type of organism include the hard clam, oyster, and bay scallop. Oysters and clams spawn primarily from May through September whereas bay scallops spawn primarily from September through November. See plate 16 for shellfish distribution. Shellfish harvest usually begins in De December and continues through March. No higher carnivores are entirely estuarine dependent. A second group of organisms can be classified as those which utilize the estuary as a nursery and feeding ground, but which spawn in the marine environment offshore. Organisms of this type include such commercial species as the Atlantic croaker (Micropogon undulatus), Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), edible shrimps (Penaeus sp. ), and blue crab (Callinectes sapidus). Most pelagic larval forms enter the sounds of the project area from January through July and develop in suitable nursery habitat through the summer. First year juveniles and adults migrate offshore in October. The third group of organisms utilize the estuary only as a feeding ground with spawning and development occurring in B-15 offshore waters. The Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) and Atlantic bottle -nosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) are examples of organisms which utilize estuarine habitat for this purpose. Except for White Oak and Newport Rivers, there is little utilization of Carteret County estuarine waters by anadromous fishes migrating to spawn in upstream areas. Both adult and juvenile blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), alewife (Alosa pseudohorengus) and American Shad (Alosa sapidessima) have been captured in the Newport River (Turner, 1973). Also a significant run of blueback herring and some alewife, American shad and a few hickory shad are present in the White Oak River (Sholar, 1975). In conclusion, the estuarine environment of the project area, comprised of various 'subsystems, provides valuable habitat for a diversity of biotic uses. 2.2.6 ESTUARINE TROPHIC LEVELS The total input of primary production to an estuary originates from three basic sources: • Macrophytes (marsh grasses, sea grasses, macroalgae, terrestrial plants, etc.) • Benthic microalgae • Fhytoplankton According to Williams (1973), in the shallow estuarine system near Beaufort, North Carolina, eelgrass (occupying only 17 percent of the estuarine area) supplies 64 percent of the total primary production, with phytoplankton and saltmarsh cordgrass supplying 28 percent and 8 percent of the total, respectively. Thus, the decomposition and export of material from eelgrass beds appears to form the basis of primary production in the Beaufort estuarine complex. Direct grazing of living plants is low, usually less than five percent due to large amounts of unusable organic material (including cellulose, lignin, waxes, tannins and silica). Therefore, estuarine organisms must wait until microbial degradation has eliminated the unusable com- ponents before deriving energy and nutrients from decomposed plant matter. It has been found that particulate detritus contains considerably more protein than the vascular plant material from which it originated. It has been assumed that the increase in the I: • relative amount of proteii) in decaying detritus reflects both loss of carbohydrates and an increase in associated microbial biomass. Thus, the increased caloric value, high protein content, and microbial loads of the vascular plant detritus particles flowing out of terrestrial communities, marshes, swamps and eelgrass beds represent a rich food source for estuarine detritus consumers. The most predominant trophic pathway in the estuarine system is (1) conversion of light energy to chemical energy by eelgrass plus algae and Spartina, (2) conversion of plant matter to detritus (including associated microbial community), (3) detrital con- sumption by herbivores, and (4) herbivore consumption by one or more levels of carnivores. The principle of estuarine detritus consumption is that in most shallow estuaries there is a group of detritus consumers made up of few species but many individuals. These organisms derive a significant amount of energy from the ingestion of vascular plant detritus as well as from small amounts of intact micro -algae. These organisms are responsible for supplying the link between primary production and higher consumers. Included in this group of primary consumers are amphipods, mysids, ostracods, chironomid midge larvae, copepods, snapping shrimp, caridean shrimp, penaeid shrimp, crabs, filter feeding bivalves, and a few species of fish. Within the estuary, fish can be classified as to lower-, mid- and high-trophic levels, according to their food source. Lower trophic level fish include those which can be classified as herbivores, detritivores, omnivores, or primary carnivores (principally zooplankton feeders). Included in this group are killifish, herring, anchovy, menhaden, and mullet. These fish make up the greater portion of the fish biomass of estuarine areas and many are entirely estuarine. Mid -level carnivores include a relatively large number of fish and invertebrates. They feed mainly on macro- and micro-benthic organsisms and small fish. Organic detritus is not an important food item for these organisms. Higher trophic level fish feed mainly on lower trophic level fish and macro-benthic forms such as blue crabs and penaeid shrimp. High level carnivores other than fish include alligators, raccoons, porpoises, and many bird species. B-17 2.2.7 OUTER BANKS There are four major ecological zones on a typical barrier island within Carteret County. These include the active beach, dunes, grasslands, and regularly flooded saltmarshes. In addition, on Shackleford Banks and Bogue Island, shrub thickets and maritime forests are well developed. Each association with the dominant biotic species is discussed here. The regularly flooded saltmarsh association has been previously discussed in the section on wetlands. The active beach comprises the portion of the island between the low and high tide ranges. This area is characteristically devoid of vegetation due to the highly stressed nature of the environment. However, the intertidal zone provides suitable habitat for numerous species of crustaceans and molluscs as well as for the feeding and resting activities of shorebirds. (See Table D12 for invertebrates common to the outer beach. See Table D5 for birds. ) Extending inland from the active beach to the dune line is a ridge of sand deposition known as the berm, a zone continually worked by storm tides and wind. Dead seaweed, blown onto the berm by winds or deposited by overwashing waters, is important in forming a stabilized substrate for plant species such as sea rocket, seaside spurge, cordgrass, and sea oats which establish themselves on the berm. Bird species which utilize the berm zone for nesting sites include the nighthawk and least tern. Laughing gulls, herring gulls, common terns, and black skimmers often rest on the berm. The dune area extends inland from the beach zone, forming ridges which parallel the beach and protect the grasslands behind the dunes. This habitat serves as a nesting site for birds such as the seaside sparrow and mourning dove. Amphibians are scarce, in contrast to the thriving populations of insects, including ants, ant lions, and grasshoppers as well as spiders which are common to this habitat. The grasslands are located behind the dunes and lie at a lower elevation than either the dunes or beach areas. The vegetation consists primarily of grasses and sedges with occasional shrubs. The grasslands are only occasionally flooded. Either high spring tides or wind tides may flood from the sound side, while storm surge may cause flooding from the ocean side. The grasslands are bounded on the sound side by either shrub or fresh and high marsh vegetation, depen(ling upon the frequency of salt water flooding and elevation. Primary production in tlic grasslands is relatively high and is directly utilized by goats, horses, and small mammals on Shackleford Banks. Birds and some mammals such as muskrat and nutria are the major herbivorous animals on Core Banks. Sparrows, red -winged blackbirds and snow geese utilize the seeds of several grasses for food. In addition, barn swallows, marsh hawks, and nighthawks forage over this habitat for insects and small animals. Several species of reptiles and amphibians are occasionally found in the grasslands, feeding upon the insects which occur there. Numerous insect species, including ants, dragonflies, greenheads, deerflies, and crickets are common to this area. Several bird species also utilize this habitat for nesting. Meadowlarks, sparrows and mourning doves are common examples. Where the grasslands have become stabilized, shrub species usually invade. Eventually, these areas may form a dense thicket of shrubs, or, if the area colonized by the shrubs is more than one meter above sea level, a maritime forest may develop. The shrub thicket is a diversified environment within the barrier island system. Productivity is fairly high and biomass accumulates within the system. The role of decomposers is important in reducing forest litter into elemental substances. With the exception of leaf material and fruits and flowers, much of the annual productivity goes to detritus. This system has resulted in the formation of substrates which are high in organic matter. Grackles, red -winged blackbirds, mockingbirds, and warblers nest in the shrub thicket and usually feed in and around the thicket on insects and seeds. Insects are abundant in the shrub thicket and support populations of amphibians. Spiders are also common in this zone. On higher elevations, where salt water flooding is absent, and where salt spray is midi iiial due to the distance from the ocean or protection by high duiws, a maritime forest may occur. The forest represents a climax of the successional process and will occur following the development of the shrub thicket. The mari- time forest is comprised of tree species which are relatively resistant to salt spray. Live oak is the predominant species, it being exceptionally well adapted to the salt -spray environment. Other vegetative components of the maritime forest overstory include cedar, American holly, Hercules' club, and loblolly pine. Yaupon, myrtle and dogwood are common in the understory of the forest. Poison ivy, elephant's foot, seedling yaupon, and many grass species contribute signficantly to the herbaceous cover. Occasional spleenworts and cacti are found within the maritime forest. Spanish -moss and a variety of lichens cover the branches of the live oaks and other trees within the forest. Vines are an important component and are represented by Virginia creeper, grapes, cat briar and poison ivy. APPENDIX C NORTH CAROLINA CLASSIFICATIONS FOR TIDAL SALT WATERS AND APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS NORTH CAROLINA CLASSIFICATIONS FOR TIDAL SALT WATERS AND APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Class SA Waters: Best Usage of Waters: Shellfishing for market purposes and any other usage requiring waters of lower quality. Conditions Related to Best Usage: Waters will meet the sanitazy and bacteriological standards given in the 1965 re- vision of the "National Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual Of Operations: Part 1, Sa-nitation of Shellfish Growing Areas", recommended by the Public: Health Service and will be considered safe and suitable for shellfish culture. Quality Standards Applicable to Class SA Waters Items a. Floating solids; settle - solids; sludge deposits. b. Sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes. c. pH. d. Dissolved oxygen. e. Toxic wastes; oils; deleterious substances; colored or other wastes. C-1 Specifications None attributable to sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes. None which are not effectively treated to the satisfaction of the Board and in accordance with the requirements of the State Board of Health. Range between 6.8 and 8.5. Not less than 5.0 ma/l, except that swamp waters may have a minimum of 4.0 mg/l. Only such amounts, whether alone or in combination with other substances or wastes as will not make the waters unsafe or unsuitable fcr fish and shellfish or their pro- pagation, impair the palat- ability of same, or impair the waters for any other best usage established for this class. f. Organisms of coliform group. g. Temperature. Class SB Waters Total coliform group not to exceed a median MPN of 70/100 ml, and not more than 10% of 230/100 ml for a 5-tube deci- mal dilution test (or 330/100 ml where a 3-tube decimal dilution is used) in those areas most probably exposed to fecal contamination during the most unfavorable hydro - graphic and pollution con- ditions. Shall not be increased above the natural water temperature by more than 1.50F. during the months of June, Julyd and August nor more thar. 4.0 F. during other months and in no case to exceed 900F., due to the discharge of heated liquids. Best Usage of Waters: Bathing and any other usage except shellfishing for market purposes: Conditions Related to Best Usage: The waters, under proper sanitary supervision by the controlling health authorities, will meet accepted sanitary standards of water quality for outdoor bathing places and will be considered safe and satisfactory for bathing purposes. Quality Standards Applicable to Class SB Waters Items a. Floating solids; settle- able solids; sludge deposits. C-2 Specifications None attributable to sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes. b. Sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes. None which are not effectively treated to the satisfaction of the Board. In determining the degree of treatment required for such waters when discharged into waters to be used for bathing, the Board will take into consideration the quantity and quality of the sewage and wastes involved and the proxi- mity of such_discharges to the waters in this class. C. PH. Shall be normal for the waters in the area, which generally shall range between 6.0 and 8.5, except that swamp waters may have a low of 4.3. d. Dissolved oxygen. e. Toxic wastes; oils; deleterious substances; colored or other wastes. f. Organisms of coliform group. (Applicable only during months of May through September. During other months the coliform organism standard for glass "SC" waters shall apply.) C -3 Not less than 5.0 mg/l, except that swamp waters may have a minimum of 4.0 mg/l. Only such amounts, whether alone or in combination with other substances or wastes as will not make the waters un- safe or unsuitable for bathing, injurious to fish or shell- fish, or adversely affect the palatability of same, or impair the waters for any other best usage established for this class. Fecal coliforms not to exceed a log mean of 2001100 ml (either MPN or MF count) based on at least five consecutive samples examined during any 30- day period and not to exceed 400/100 ml in more than 200 of the samples examined during such period. (Not applicable during or immediately follow- ing periods of rainfall.) g. Temperature. Shall not be increased above the natural water tem_rerature by more than 1.50F. during the months of June, July, and August nor more than 4.O°F. during other months and in no case to exceed 900F., due to the discharge of heated liquids. Class SC Waters Best Usage of Waters: Fishing, and any other usage except bathing or shellfishing for mar ct purpcses. Conditions Related to Best Usage: The waters will be suitable for fishing and fish propagation. Also, suitable for other uses requiring waters of lower quality. Quality Standards Applicable to Class SC Waters Items a. Floating solids; settle- able solids; sludge deposits. Specifications Only such amounts attributable to sewage, industrial. waste or other wastes as will not, after reasonable opportunity for di- lution and mixture of same with the receiving waters, make the waters unsafe or unsuitable for fish, shellfish and wild- life, or impair the waters for any other best usage estab- lished for this class. b. pH. Shall be normal for the waters in the area, which generally shall range between 6.0 and 8.5, except that swamp waters may have a minimum of 4.3. c. Dissolved oxygen. Not less than 5.0 mg/l, except that swamp waters may have a minimum of 4.0 mg/l. C-4 d. Toxic wastes; oils; deleterious: substances; colored or ether wastes. e. Organisms of c014_form group. Only such amounts, whether alone or in combination with other substances or wastes as will not render the waters injurious to fish and shell- fish, adversely affect the palatability of same, or ira- pair the waters for any other best usage established for this class. Fecal coliforms not to exceed a log mean of 1,000/100 ml (MPN or IMF count) based upon at least five consecutive samples examined during any 30- day period; nor exceed 2,000/ 100 uil in more than 20% of the samples examined during such period. (Not applicable during or immediately following periods of rainfall.) f. Temperature. Shall not be increased above the natural water temperature by more than 1.5 F. during the months of June, July, and August nor more than 4.00F. during other months, and in no case to exceed 900F., due to the discharge of heated liquids. (From: N. C. Dept. of Natural and Economic Resources, Office of Water and Air Resources 1972). C-5 APPENDIX D TABLES -ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING APPENDIX D TABLES —ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Table Page No. D1 Mammals of the North Carolina D-1 Coastal Plain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D2 Reptiles and Amphibians Found in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project . . . . . . . . D-4 D3 Fish Species Found Offshore North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-11 D4 Fish Species Common to the Newport River Estuary, Beaufort, North Carolina . . . . D-15 D5 Birds Common to the Morehead City - Beaufort Vicinity, Carteret County, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-17 D6 Vegetation in Beach -Dune and Fresh Water Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-23 D7 Predominant Vegetation of Wetlands . . . . . . D-24 D8 Vegetation of Maritime Forest . . . . . . . . . D-26 D9 Endangered Vascular Plant and Animal Species in Carteret County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-27 D10 Audubon "Blue List" —Endangered Bird Species Common to Carteret County, North Carolina. . . D-29 i APPENDIX D TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) Table Page No. Dll Invertebrates Common to Estuarine and Wetland Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D - 3 0 D12 Marine Invertebrates Common to Outer Beaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-31 D13 Invertebrate Species Found at Onslow Bay, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-33 ii E z m m ro U " aV+ E m ' E .V+ m 2 E N N N e d x to Idy y y u a, a x m ' W Id :a ci ro m N w _ 10. 10 C m V �" ro ro tC. w V ro ° '% sC+ V7 'C M, (+. d « N �+ C: v v 0 O m m ro° m ro N " 0 o a o ;d o O o m ro .-. O o .r o c 7 ° ro o � N x 3 3 W 3 A W W 7 7 m 2 1. w < li z Q m v) U m V C C u o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 rd E E I o o ou' A O m O m O O C O O O C O C C O O a U U a U U U� U--3 u U U fU � C G= y I "° m U ro {{ I m c d v v v c � v -� � �o o v v v v v � v v _, •o in W U3 :a,, A c in (1 m m u) V) 0 m ro in ro v, M ro n p U ro m C R V m N C G O ro O o O1 c m u rD u U u N - �p N = u vcc 3 o e� u v N - ti y N .� '.. U .� E > Y O C ° 3 o u v �- " a " r- o " o " ro r. u° o c ° ; 10 O E O q U c = 3 U 3 m E G. (, 3 In E O c r, •c cc d m e v ; r. C > " O > m ^ ^ _ ItK . N ^ ° Cte A N V n 1 '> En r r ci It J w N IV. N a 4, w v � w 3 L f.' L• C •O v N ro A a. o O 4 A A u U E ro " N G N Ir y e� a+ �i tx ~ L: -- ° -- 7 - m° 0 ro w in « a j l en u G X a w 5 Ida W D-1 A N V O G H H H H L+� C v U) m m m N X C Y aHO.. O O O 0 ' U C C C ro A ro ro H w C au+ C X ro C u U C C G 0 ai w ° w ro w ro 7 o 7 0 y 0 O 0 O 0 H o N ro .ry ro o f ro ro v v W W W U) U)(n 0 En W d U m 2 H W d d W 3 a Z V C C C O O C C C O �.' O C £ O C C O O 0 � � O O O � 0 O i, 0 0 0 O O O 7 T ° ° Q S o a d u p > V O U O U C a C 5 O U O U O U D O U O C U O U O U O U O U U r. C A H N H U H 7 V) ro p O F O F .C. .ro Id rp+ ❑ C ro .w .m ro •ro Id .G ro A 0 0 0 0 'O y G C ^7. •O 'O 'O 'O rs t p 7 i i O N ro O N i 7 n n U V) v) O U U a V; in .�,� U q v) ° U A v0) 3 A VO) 3 v) n �C ' � T F O c C - yl U 0 ° 'O 0 ro O w ro O N r H H M w a o o _ _ N O a M.p 0 3 3 a a m 7 3 o 4H n 3 0 o U 0 U 0 = U 3 ° 3 0 cri U) 7 N d � N c o N O > U H c 0 c v N H F 0 0 u o H ° H 7 U O 0 H C O O O C , a U)l �i 0 4 a o I o al C F v O U 4 7 G � N n ro H d i d 4) t0 F J. N C H ti J H > ,y N H A O 0 O p iy O O H H N C a ^u. C ro � •°• 'O ° 0 � y a :� w � H w u u u e a U) z z w J • y G m U a V •�J• 0/ ° ro V.: n. 0 0 d 3 :: m ;? 3 « v w u 3 m G c c c c c ° a o E ° o ��G• o E ti 0 A E G V 4 m U U U 9 9 U 4 t• � m G h o o m m b b ro y G c 0 c 0 o c v v v a Nro, 3 3 3 ro E E ro ro 3 .G.. G N m •� m 'O m m .m. ro o 0 o y 0 o 0 0 0 m in v� in U 0. U 0. U U v� m m �^ ci V y O 'a m o 3 m Co V k o m G i m 7 C r y � � 7 C b 9 al cl 7 C c ro E > J 4I 4 u Ny� �. > C i V Y u V ro a ° 1> a a H o d v Z n ti b M ro u y U c O a a y d ro V V •.o Y V V A A d D-3 H U 0 M N x V , r Y Y R d •d O C N 'q C 'LI Y C b O • '�, u O 'M r Y O V •� C i9 d d w y O •� a _M � Y C �+ �4 u tl C V 4 � 1'•� N V Y ..] p � p G O A V A A A •G • vc to '« v v G w ^J C v ~O C '•• e o d x C U r o $. ` o; Z o . «u m u U w' 3 n 0 z O U x C C G AO � ... 9 V)LC. x O A A It nn a A O A O i7 O C z A W U W w U Z U U p Q c U¢ p c > Y L O u �+ p C C C C C V C I C (d .9 O A O O O O p EE IsO c E w r �O O O Y, p A L p c u ¢ V U V U w u a < v O c V] M Q y O d u u u a O OU 30 rn ii O C •O M M m V 4� c O •b r v 3 m 7 Q a a r En m O a V O a tl v u p v' •° _A O tl Elm E O c �' C N L E a a m O A m ,'r •N a � O> O •l7 o a q. .x m V a Y p ; .. 'm ° o C' n m tp O A 7 p C ? �' O ? V ; C 'm V) U) c a. V) o 'no a a o w m a s �+ m u O U u N m •^ a 1) [ � A •° e--/ O '�• V O of V V � .V-. • I C .". C •rl y h A t a d N c z A O o y K c a u u C W O c o E A.15 u O A p N O E O C G M M 0 V Y C p w ON V d O A 71 V to Y .4) .VQ . ? u (n w V) w 7 � Y w a o z D-4 ■ a - a « « a N P Y m Y _A M C A b ■ V y ■ N C O N a U 'V M k' W A y', G G V Y v 3 � A 'd [v a 'd a ~ a Y Y NO 'i M z O z« O W �+ « •M A.5 z M G ta O w M A O M : G « Ica « q O N a O .° A c a m L ° .°+ .7 O A " A M A > A AU A q b N A m H T �l 'O iCi .A. > C V J u m C n V; C O m p m C �, J N 7 N A N y 7 O A ,G O N IV, N m > O a^w A ww A O O O > p V3w V ° >H w z Y V C A p e e C e dV [ t e c e 'O C A O O O O O A O O O a O D �C{,3 ,O O 0 7 O O y O < U V U U U < U U U < U M 10. 0 r� o c e a o .Q q C u O u D ■ C O. .4-• C G C 9 C .0 ci .C. , C Y N O .0 A a M Q a x A A A Y A U O V d a a V v O to y u O toY O Y w A N N N, ma . a 3 a n m ; « ed u Id ci a U) u a u a L) L) a s 4 p o e be !d c Y a V�c1 c a 'a c a .y.. —. ■ O d ■ ,Q 7 M O to ■ a .fl 3 d b .G ■ « e ... Y p Y° a s o a w 3 e e •Y CL 3 ■ ■ Y A 'tJ O � ■ 'O � N � 00 ■ .' y N M A � C y p O y p 0 7 O O .A.. y V A a 3 .�. J a 3 q a A; Cl'w y 5■ O oo 7 y z m N ..A. ■ C O 0 A tt y C M w Id « CL p y E d 0 I e 0 - v e u Y h V O x E.S o ■ .C. q M O I a M N O ` i Y, O U a W WI WI O Oi z A Z) ZI in vif C C Y > M L. r C O q a x a � e ■ ■ v e L. 3 N Y v m x OTl e t 00 ■ q A Y .~Y. A A A C C C O CVC„ A 4 c c 3 3 ; o Cc 7 •1 M t 7 �.. V ■ 9 N .O N ^' C Y Y P Y 'O Y V 'IJ >. m U C 3 V 'q •� p U Y y� V Y O M I■ y O C N 7 Y C .V+ N A N .V. ■ N .IL p G JC q C .Y. t C m _Y O L. M O A in N U i., x Ri N O v1 A W r7 w eo M c] .. V C4 ■ A Ri ■ U q V 2 a D-5 CC ■ . w C ■ E A • E ■ ■ b C o .a o O o V X a U ro to t [+. " v 7 • 'O m " �''• 1. b 'l7 ■ .0 00 N A A C n c m S O V " 0 O J �, 'pp �. O O U z m rJ" C p (.a C " b C V ` p" r 0 vj to C-0 Z O A ■ m cO v m C p m m C N M p M b p A O 0 w wu > z zw a3i z J z O m O z V z n3i z 0 rw u V C A 'C C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O U U U cG U U U U U U v� tJ U 0 � O �yj w l] O Q' h I o p o C O A G e ds C o C p ■ b ■ 'O to O O V tt) .■. O V ■ V 0 0 'O v 'C 'G V Y r m .U+el ■ ■ 11 to p. a u to 1 < z 0 � V ■ M M ■ Y C y O r A C e e A ' 3. " ■ "' Y O C m> 0 e L. ~.V. L a a y v= m �. C b i0 O 3 p ^ v = 1 o0 c 3 F � n wv _ 7 c ° a O _ b e a3 w '« " y A b V C m C m V A V n :13 m A m > 0 m '1 O M N ■ O V G. a 4 EO A x m p 'V .0 A G C O b O1 V V y C t. ^7 m �C V a U C C V Y C V V 'O C j O m m � O N ., O ■ 7 .O+ E " .C. N V N V n A M nI 'C V rO " > U m Y U u h .b+ 't„ •M m I C V " a' m � �' u v)O q O j h X Is b � z a-.—. 0 < w U a W u�Ix V -Y Y u V x ID V O ■ ja V C Q Y v ■ 'b C 7 ro o c G c G C V C C U ro C N C O b C d C O G n G 7 A n O d C G V L: m W m C. W •a W m N m W n cK W 7--. i� C. U >' - M d i. 0 S w CS. A Y w iV A N ro k. •d G LV $ Y E 0 C O m > b o O 3 0 w� � -Y w U �.• V O .., h C C ... ro ro b U m A ^0 A ^' C O Y 7p O C O A ro d h O O O A O C to A 7 L.)Z O u C to W W> C C to m Z O to u. U U O u V y � v .: C o o 0 wE Ems+ a EO Q Q to u O U pG V to O d O C 'C7 O O M O .C. 00 c0 p! c c c oc u ° u d d d d . y c S ton -• A Q, d d A d A d d u Q d O ° O a C o, u6 a n. c a c M o a O d d V A O d ro a 3 d I to to c3 0 z a u ua v^ u u< a I O v d m N 1. a .- t� M o A °. C > A w .1 to 3 u A to A 3 a E d O d u w Y y C M Z O C d C O n u A u w w E 'O n O O VI p h J C E u n 4 ~O A A O y C iZ H j p O 1� 111 o C ti� 1 3 b o u o E .31 w u li H < <� , u 0 a C A C O z C O. OD w m C A O C Y .0 •O' Y C Y a O Y C m d 7 Y O Y d 1 O C �i A C . . c u h O d I'd C A A C A C Z% VO O LF A O 0 m A ro ro O A y 0 7 p. m ro o h L m t e W to U e u to o w to u o o to u W u U w U w W ro D-7 n 7 J Y A i' O A 0 y H A C .0 O 'a O m V V O C C e .5 A A 11 Y 1. A 7 C O � m A H T ee m O 1. S° 7 V -� z �, A vU o ° m C > M to 3 c b C A G H C M 0. a0, ro 4 0 p M V A A ;e AC m m Y 94 3¢ w we u ww v Lo z 5A 5 gnu u � C C C C C c C C u C C C C C 1 O O O O O O O E 0 O O O O QO O O O O O O X 0 O O O U U V U U U U W u U U U U r C C ro N A A h d d O + V A A e0 M p O O V u u Acd o O a 3 m A .� o V m A Ci m A ✓ V mtj u o � o � o O 4 ro ro C c u F O °c O w W m M u w A v H 0 X m e A 3 m v ro e m A ° G .Vi C O m {. C '0 ... 0 O V CCO w 3 o c u m cba O[ 7 C 4 tl Z u C O .V. V ro � m � V r =• C y ... ." A Vrc M O A � -1C V C r i V A r 'O ro N p 4 It4, d p ro ^ A N ro V ro 1 CC E C V O O. M d Q A y iE .d � A .� •.0 G C m �., m IPIMI.-I �a^wj V _ e 3 .y O .`a « -d • v Y H o 3 0 o w Y N N O A > O d C X o m o w m z w m w > z 0 0 O 0 • •O C O w ~ C K Y N C Y • n N C - M A C C� w C ro •O W M 7 m p m A ro O A W v d 4) m QCQ .o M; a oo $ T c.°Y o off' 0 mU > o a C •O w C w C C ro C (� C'. O C A w C Y A C C A y o O ro Y c G. d O CL w• V c C-' ro O C. CL a. O. ? Y L1. a ro ..A. a m •y m W � •M > �.J m•tr� nF� p m•�m Z b U> 0 0 U Z U° .m. U> i (++ q U n e e c e a e O O A O ro O O F f E 0 C a C y C C a E U U U Q C U Q U U 0 O • o A Sin C S S S 5 oa a w A a a o a a o c a Is yr °. V E �. 0 5 0 V O O Y u o:2 us o o ! a o n o ;? o a O (y C M 3 O C • O O Y p 0 0 � m O O 0. 'O Y p ° y N O .9 1 a • • z n w ro c pi 4 C ro m a •� w i q �« .•. Y W M o m : >•+ m d yY0 6 m CGCL. 3 N O a m e °co a o 0 E ro � d o �. • a OCG � M O 3 z O A O O � ro V ro n 7 w O ,•V, O w Y N y u p C y ° ° II I H I �Y _ W V W1y .� h A AI �I EI xt xl xl Y O w O a O O « m ° z b o dm v v s° a s w c o - r A i C m C M • 'O C r O w V cC; o ro M « Y NO y y Y w C 3 G' S o e O A 0 « C O O A d V H x v > • ° M C C ..A. x '~O •p0 r0.. •m Y 0 o U S � A � � i. o o A 0 _ `•� .O. A .�. •4 C w O. O. (y m n. Y m f�. :0, ro Z ° Ulf U cY+ > UU O u m 0 e Y o o y 0 e 0 a a 0 U v A � A y 0 0 GO A O O • a A M _A _A to a A A A 7 .A0 0 0.A O U v; V 'J U h v; O . C ~ a o ° >' o V C y � a a pgoo o C x w m 3 3 n x ^ � w S 3 O •� e e .a v a u w m O L. A 0 m m C 3 Y z o V p O Y m V > 7 ol u Oo to O L. O L. Z w Y > M C w w a O " eo A E o M CO C Y w U 7 m V p V v) W !: .1 . •O o. e Oh uxu m u - m V e Y O e O x m _, x m y 0 o w .o n 0 b m m E -0 o ^ E g m p A - O E `r_ } O R 0 3 Gi E < J m 0 'a u K O 0 � ro V b N w e e 7 � y M M O o s w t1 V M O m ? C O U 0 e0 m O O H O K O D-10 M C [cO� 'O a• S A C n. a A A A m M v 0 A A a 0 o O 0 o ..Oi e V r m a O o A Y a 3x, b m m w C V o n. E m ro m K u ,E �a m ro i 3 ro a .oi a a O V O Y C m a C A Y r G ° A V m A C w V V •a O Y I. A Abo z� b M w 0 6 �- eo O o O M Yr bo yy N O 2 m M K O ti O 0 N A w Table D3 . FISH SPECIES FOUND OFFSHORE NORTH CAROLINA Common Name I Scientific Name Chondr ichthye s Spotted eagle ray Aetobatus narinari Bullnose ray Myliobatis freminvillei Cownose ray Rhinoptera bonasus Southern stingray Dasyatis americana Roughtail stingray D. centroura Bluntnose stingray D. sayi Smooth butterfly ray Gymnura micrura Clearnose skate Raja eglanteria Little skate R. erinacea Rosette skate R. garmani Sand tiger Odontaspis taurus Sandbar shark Carcharhinus milberti Smooth dogfish Mustelus canis Chain dogfish Scyliorhinus retifer Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias Atlantic angel shark Squatina dumerili Atlantic guitarfish Rhinobatos lentiginosus Porbeagle shark Lamna nasus Shortfin mako Isurus oxyrihchus Blue shark Prionace lg auca Dusky shark Carcharhinus obscurus Hammerhead Sphyrna sp. Oste ichthye s Doctorfish Acanthurus chirurgus Blue tang A. coeruleus Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Atlantic sturgeon-:- A. oxyrhynchus Orange filefish Aluterus schoepfi Striped anchovy Anchoa hepsetus Ocellated flounder Ancylopsetta quadrocellata American eel Anguilla rostrata D-11 Table D3 (Cont) Common Name I Scientific Name Ocellated frogfish Antennarius ocellatus Southern stargazer Astroscopus y-graecum Bairdiella chrysura Silver perch Gray triggerfish Balistes capriscus Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus Blue runner Caranx crysos Black sea bass Centropristes striata Atlantic spadefish Chaetodipterus faber Striped burrfish Chilomycterus schoepfi Spotted whiff Citharichthys macrops C . s pilopte rus Bay whiff Conger eel Conger oceanicus Weakfish Cynoscion regalis Round scad Decapterus punctatus Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Fringed flounder Etropus crossotus Smallmouth flounder E. microstomus Sea catfish Arius felis Naked sole Gymnachirus melas Slippery dick Halichoeres bivittatus Smooth puffer Lagocephalus laevigatus Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides Banded drum Larimus fasciatus Spot Leiostomus xanthurus Tripletail Lobotes surinamensis Goosefish Lophius americanus Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia Southern kingfish Menticirrhus americanus Northern kingfish M. saxatilis Atlantic croaker Micropogon undulatus Planehead filefish Monacanthus his pidus Striped mullet Mugil cephalus Atlantic thread herring Opisthonema oglinum Oyster toadfish Opsanus tau Pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera Otophidium omostigmum Polka-dot cusk-eel Summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus D-12 fable D3 (Cont) Common Name I Scientific Name Harvestfish Peprilus alepidotus Armored searobin Peristedion miniatum Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix Atlantic midshipman Porichthys porosissimus Bigeye Priacanthus arenatus Northern searobin Prionotus carolinus Striped searobin P. evolans Striped cusk-eel Rissola marginata Windowpane Scophthalmus aquosus Scorpaena brasiliensis Barbfish Bigeye scad Selar crumenophthalmus Lookdown Selene vomer Northern puffer Sphoeroides maculatus Great barracuda Sphyraena barracuda Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina Blackcheek tonguefish Symphurus plagiusa Northern pipefish Syngnathus fuscus Inshore lizardfish Synodus foetens Florida pompano Trachinotus carolinus Rough scad Trachurus lathami Atlantic cutlassfish Trichiurus lepturus Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus Red hake Urophycis chuss Spotted hake U. re ius Atlantic moonfish Vomer setapinnis Swordfish Xiphias gladius Sailfish Istiophorus platypterus Longbill spearfish Tetrapturus pfluegeri White marlin T. albidus Blue marlin Makaira nigricans Frigate mackerel Auxis thazard Atlantic bonito Sarda sarda Bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus Oceanic bonito Katsuwonnus pelamis Blackfin tuna Thunnus atlanticus Yellowfin tuna T. albacares Albacore T. alalunga Bigeye tuna T. obesus D-13 Table D3 (Cont) Common Name I Scientific Name Little tunny Euthynnus alletteratus Dolphin Coryphaena hippurus Pompano dolphin C. equisetis Oilfish Ruvettus pretiosus Escolar Lepidocybium flavobrunneum Opah Lampris regius Ocean sunfish Mola mola Longnose lancetfish Alepisaurus ferox Shortnose lancetfish A. brevirostris Wahoo Acanthocybium solanderi *Anadromous Source: Kirby -Smith, "A Checklist of Common Marine Animals of Beaufort, North Carolina, " 1973. D-14 Table D4. FISH SPECIES COMMON TO THE NEWPORT RIVER ESTUARY, BEAUFORT, NORTH CAROLINA Common Name I Scientific Name C,hondrichthye s Southern stingray Dasyatis americana Bluntnose stingray D. sa i Smooth butterfly ray Gymnura micrura Clearnose skate Raja eglanteria Osteichthyes Flat needlefish Ablennes hians Orange filefish Aluterus shoepfi Striped anchovy Anchoa hepsetus Bay anchovy A. mitchilli Ocellated flounder Ancylopsetta quadrocellata Anguilla rostrata American eel Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus Silver perch Bairdiella chrysura Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus Rock sea bass Centropristes philadelphica Black sea bass C. striata Atlantic spadefish Chaetodipterus faber Striped burrfish Chilomycterus schoepfi Spotted whiff Citharichthys macrops Conger eel Conger oceanicus Weakfish Cynoscion re alis Round scad Decapterus punctatus Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Fringed flounder Etropus crossotus Smallmouth flounder. E. microstomus Bluespotted cornetfish Fistularia tabacaria Halfbeak Hyporhamphus unifasciatus Pinfish Lagodon rhomboide s Banded drum Larimus fasciatus Spot Leiostomus xanthurus Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia Northern kingfish Menticirrhus saxatilis Atlantic croaker Micropogon undulatus D-15 Table D4 (Cont) Common Name Planehead filefish Striped mullet White mullet Atlantic thread herring Oyster toadfish Pigfish Summer flounder Harvestfish Bluefish Atlantic midshipman Northern searobin Striped cusk-eel Windowpane Lookdown Northern puffer Atlantic needlefish Blackcheek tonguefish Atlantic cutlassfish Hogchoker Atlantic moonfish Scientific Name Monacanthus hispidus Mu it cephalus M. curema Opisthonema oglinum Opsanus tau Orthopristis chrysoptera Paralichthys dentatus Pe pr ilus ale pidotus Pomatomus saltatrix Porichthys poros is simus Prionotus carolinus Rissola marginata Scophthalmus aquosus Selene vomer Sphoeroides maculatus Strongylura marina Symphurus plagiusa Trichiurus lepturus Trinectes maculatus Vomer setapinnis Source: W. W. Kirby -Smith and T. E. Gray, 1973. D-16 �w O% U U z •_: U ul x a� o a � •° a o a o n. n, a. n, o ro ro ;; °j a n4 n. n. ,ti O O O w O D U N o O O w O it it it it O F+ i-i S2 -4 —4 •--4 cd O O O 4j 4j 4j 4 O 4j to cx O O O O w w m m m cd k O it O O O O cd UUU UO0wwwaww wUwUUU Ua U 04 u� U U cd td O.-Ul O ui O `,U o 04 x >� � U) ai M o w �' 0 0 U) y 04 �, -0ro x c 4 -4 o U o w-4 04 -4 :o � U 0't o r4 . 4 ... o -4o o �, d U �, 'd O b U 9 ro ro �' cd ro ++ O o ro aaact w�awa�axz c0w��l�l�l�ll O a� 41 � w o � .� z O .p U o o a O ro O O O ro O () ro •� a� o a� a� 3 O Z O t]0 �� U O n0 bA z p U o ro.n 4.1 a� o U .b 3 .d cd ai 3 se U ro o r o a� o� 4 o� tt O O O.+ it M O it it , M O O .4 U Pa x a a4 0 A t7 t7 U cn a aq D-17 o o O 4-1 ro ro 3 .� en v O U Q Cd ct 2 x U) u a� u a� ° O 4 � o 0 0 b 04 b 01 .,_, a a, C14 01 n. O o a, a o a o d O o 0 0 0 o ro o o -d -d U �•d�� o o U)� o� `d arc � U U) U) U) U) U) .� .� U) 'I) .� b b b b b� Cld 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ct 0 0 o o C C w •�' .�' U) U�UUUUUOOU WUOUf-Af-A 00f-Af-4M44 U . r+ r+ 4 i CL N U �O d fd 4' Cd U) ' U �i •i-4 N (d (d U) (d O (d • U .�-i (d rii w a o Q• -00 a °d C a. a (� 0 U 04 O o a) 'd0 ��I�I�I�Iar�I —4 0Oa O UU, (d UU�coawwlUxPlPl O U P (d O (d O En M x zx x b M 0 0 U dU�ct4LZ: x an 'o aa)i U)m u d�z�� b (d � � U) m a) (d av U) 5 a) a U � � � d m > , b b ' C;, x a ' o � 114 .� an w w m U 0 �, an 04 an (a °n L7W�UczU0.lcnU� x�OUHP�U) cnogx4u> m � m m U U w y y : rCd dcd ;d Cd Cd o o s 'o C b 3 0 a s x a�i 'tc �o n: w ao m cd cd b a) p m m m o o m o m k FU-4 tU-i a) d da a 4 U ft_4 rd d � d ft rd.) ;,;,��.�omocd��.mmo�odoo:JooO Cd ril (1) t m En o u a a� .� g En Cd Cd 0 Cd ft Ul 0 0� 1 4.4 C td 1-11 l> � .�nj a) d 1-4 4-) cd O ;, btd O w cd 10C a —4 —4 a) U � -4 a) cd 0 4 Q. ,.+ 4-1 —4 O aE O F-, wxcclE �06a,UUHNUww�wu��4 �4 o a;4i x u� �4 � o & x U> o U y I z� k o O o an �, -4 O •- C O O 4 O y a) �� bD �n 'd � N O O ,d ,d —+ fl. ii 0 ,d O >1 Encd r+ .b —+ :� U a� U o ;-4m -0 f o -0 4 u O a) Q. b a) ram-, O En ,d O p 0aIXMP4 w14Q � 0 x x D-19 M U) rd 4 m M 'd 0U) m ti m rd a —' 4 rd H 0 04 rL� U �� N cd to 'pp M rt: +' U�+, L: ii i7 0 b4 r-c =j N U rd U 04 rid m rd w m ro cn m ro 04 4• r • � U) t Nri 0 'i7 � rid cd 0 r-O rd rd -0 r1 CL � � U) ul 04 gym�-!! G O 0 N � Zrc N 'O rd r" m cn u) �' U)p U)rL3 cd �+ rd rd TS rd rd pp It M 0 O O O O 0 0 O ��wo�ww��wcncno��>aU4oaU�� O F :j 0 cd cd 04 �O p 04 N m O ct :J m Z 0 m w m cd o w � U) 4 • 4 4 d �« '4 `� u l a u rd y u y u —1 .Ul 4 U •4 ra N� r ra C U M (n04 u U� O U m �� O U Ul +, ti O `*i N O I'rn F n m .� 0 U m m +) •� ra m ^cd, cn 0 O � I •� cd > U N +' 0 P, cd 0 N Q U .� k U m U cd cd (d ol �' U P cd ,- ra "U) 5 'O 0ct s c O F aalU) xuNHI0Irn� UAUU QQIQ[mUUula x N is O u U u N 04 x U x 0 0_ 04 �' rd O � M - r' p w U rp � N 0 0 d p b4 F+ s' U 5 O rd O r0 N U N U Q N _S� u bic U)G gyp�±± 0 rd — rd N w bA �, cd 04 rd rd O 0 r rL) b0 bA ,4 0 s' O "4 U)rQ O 0 x �� U U U �' F U p r� 0 c rd -� c U y 0 O cd d U rd O U ap N 0 Sc �, U •4 F (d U N i i O, rd O rd � O rd O O O r-a 0 0 rd U T-i cd r O N —4 U N cd 0 0 cd .-4 0 •r+ cd a r�war�x�r��aar��aa�xQxwa��w� D-20 Li U En U) �uGO , w > C a�i U) d 'b U).O 'b O � U rn Enm 'b 'b Q. •" Co GO 0 bA cn 00ro cd O cd ro ro .0 � ro 'Lr3 0 U d O O Cd au G rd GO ro � -d oa� o x k � a a� °o 00 Cd •H •� 00 o 0 0 0 �aa��aa� �DnU) , 04C � aU3 GO U) U) U +' . r' 9 co 0> Fi GO.� cd � � k cad fd U � •� 4-j GO O G'+b' U) k �tcit .�U' O�>� U O U ++. 51O Fc�UU c"4 cd cd � cd d wO� O O —4 Xd+ cn i �nIUO a H�'�� ala� i�I U ytUi y7-i AF cal U .1 4� 4j 3 on a� Cd Cd �� 4 4 U) b 0 cn o 0o 'b a�i A X- A z 10 0 °r ai � a� a a� o a) a� � a� 3 ro 0 +' 'O O O � k U O U b rd i t"' U 74 k O "� cd J O cd is U cd O O U O }, ,O �' . Hxr�aax�U.��Uw�xwc�xU�w��o�a D-21 U) r4 U) +J (Ijrd �, 4J a)rd �-4 o m N m m x U) U ct�-4 cd rd rd cd O m rd m cd m 0 O m 0 m O Cd cad m rdEn r4 r �O o m m O cad O ccd m m rd m rd rd m r rd m m m m 'd m m O O cdd Ui cd O O O cd cd O 04 .�, " ►di cd .� � a)�+ .�4 O d �awwUww oawa wac�wr�aa a m U) U) •z m � 41 cd m m m 4 �,U —4 cd u s •� cd .� cd U cd X r r+ •4 U bic N cd O d cd d +� cd m H m U cd cd m 4 N a) � U O" cif d +� � N cd ( cd cd Cd EnU "- 04 ° m m m 'd U m d + +-', N cd �r ' cd rd d o m k N N cd O m .� O N O cd m m N O d �� m O d o m o cd d O cd �Q +, •r+ cd ~ O d Cr N Qoa��wU��xU��iaa��Iti��iNa��l rd O o o O 0 x� � O r 3 ?1 z 3 m a-+ U rd r, m �, 0 ° °+ O �N+ rd ° x U D 0 rd cd k 0 O N o o cd ? i S+ Fa S i N U bA S.+ 0° m 7 + ;q ;A LL ? O cti 0b�A ter+ w cd m cd m p bA Q i' m cd m i i .r+ o .Q a�-+ ° � � N '� � �n cd + a) U � m +� O. f2 W04 d m rd m cd o ;A k U N o cd k m 41 i2 r+ x cd bD d O o cd N cd d o o cd d d N ,� •r O aUxwPzP xwUwua4ta4 zu)cou)LoL) nUn D-22 Table D6. VEGETATION IN BEACH -DUNE AND r- FRESH WATER HABITATS Common Name Scientific Name Herbaceous Beaches and Dunes Sea oats Uniola paniculata Saltmeadow cordgrass Spartina patens Broom sedge Andropogon virginicus Sand rush Fimbristylis castanea Wild bean or pea Strophostyles helveola Seaside goldenrod Solidago sempervirens Fresh Water Ponds and Marshes Musk grass Characeae sp. Cattail Typha spp. Water nymph Najas spp. Pondweed Potamogeton spp. Widgeon grass Ruppia maritima Saltmeadow cordgrass Spartina patens Spike rush Eleocharis spp. Threesquare Scirpus americanus Saw grass Cladium jamaicens e Willow Salix spp. False loosestrife Ludwi is spp. Water -hyssop Bacopa spp. Source: Quay, Thomas L. The Birds, Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians of the Cape Walters National Seashore Recreational Area. Report to the National Park Service, Raleigh, N. C. 1959. Scientific nomenclature: Gleason, Henry A. , Ph. D. , and Arthur Cronquist, Ph. D. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. Von Nostrand Reinhold Co. , N.Y., N.Y. 1963. D-23 Table D7. PREDOMINANT VEGETATION OF WETLANDS Common Name Scientific Name Muskgras s Chara sp. Nitella sp. Shoal grass Halodule wrightii Cattail . Ty -ph a latifolia T. angustifolia T. domingensis T. lg auca Pondweed Potamogeton amplifolius P. pulcher P. epihyd rus P. crispus P. pusillus P. d ive r s ifolius P. spirillus Sago pondweed P. pectinatus Redhead grass P. perfoliatus Widgeon grass Ruppia marina Eelgrass Zostera marina Naiad Najas quadalupensis N. gracillima Horned pondweed Zannichellia palustris Waterweed Anacharis s'pp. Wild celery Vallisneria americana, var. spiralis Salt grass Distichlis spicata D-Z4 fable Lr tL,onz� Common Name I Scientific Name Saltmeadow cordgrass Spartina patens Saltmarsh Cordgrass Spartina alterniflora Spikerush Eleocharis equisetoides E. quadrangulata E. olivacea E. palustris Threesquare Scirpus olneyi Saw grass Cladium jamaicense Duckweed Lemna spp. Spirodela polvrhiza Wolffia spp. Wolffiella floridana Pickerel weed Pontederia cordata Needlerush Juncus roemerianus Smartweed Polygonum arifolium P. densiflorum P. hydropiperoides P. pensylvanicum P. persicaria P. sagittatum Glasswort Salicornia spp. Watershield Brasenia schreberi Spatterdock Nuphar advena Water lily Nymphaea odorata Rose -mallow Hibiscus moscheutos Water milfoil Myriophyllum spp. Source: Wilson, K. A. North Carolina Wetlands: Their Distribution and M.Lnageme-it. Fed- eral Aid in Wildlife Restoration Proje W-6-R, N. C. Wildlife Resources Comm. Raleigh, N. C. 1962. 169 p. Table D8. VEGETATION OF MARITIME FOREST Common Name I Scientific Name Muscadine grape Vitis rotundifolia Supple -jack Berchemia scandens Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia Ampelopsis arborea Pepper -vine Greenbrier Smilax bona-nox Poison ivy Rhus radicans Honeysuckle Lonicera spp. Wax myrtle Myrica cerifera Blue -jack Quercus cinerea Yaupon Ilex vomitoria American beautyberry Callicarpa americana Southern prickly ash Zanthoxylum clava-herculis Juniperus communis Juniper Red cedar J. virginiana Live oak Quercus virginiana Willow oak Q. phellos Laurel oak Q. laurifolia Flowering dogwood Cornus florida Ironwood Ostrya virginiana Devilwood Osmanthus americanus American holly Ilex opaca Loblolly pine Pinus taeda Star grass Hypoxis hirsuta Star -of -Bethlehem Ornithogalum umbellatum Sisyrinchium angustifolium Blue-eyed grass Erigeron annuus Daisy fleabane Brook lobelia Lobelia kalmii Red -seeded dandelion Taraxacum erythrospermum Evening primrose Oenothera spp. Bramble Rubus s pp. Thistle Cirsium horridulum Partridge berry Mitchella repens Croton Croton spp. Spanish moss Tillandsia usneoides Mullein Verbascum thapsis Ebony s pleenwort As plenium platyneuron Royal fern Osmunda re alis D-26 �D ao w U C p •C •O C C ' H Y! ro •'' H Cr 'G M Y C� E E E o ro v C e ro u e u ro ro e e e z a C e ro f •°: w3 ro ro ° m m ro M d �. d •.. e m Y m C5 'v ro d m u m m y r e~o O m 3 b 'C •- V ° e m m ro ro ro m 3 fl •• O m m L > O O O o I ro e .01 e 3 c c O 3 3 O y Y Go C V m d w Y .?: `a a u4 O a Ou cL w O O m m s g v C u p > Y 3 Q 41 U V ro e o E C o U E UL ` .0 V O > C Y Y= G 7 O] E O H O E E ^ C ` E V E Q ro u J « m E a z .° a v. c y u ] u Y ro r. ] o Y 0 Y 4 r. `o u Y u r. e � e o z U uc rau L� u o: C m cmi m" O ro m E q 0 u o m ] O Id z p « C r m m ] V ] ... V Y 4 u « n > .]+ b C C ro .-qi V C b Is ro) .ro Gft: O F y p O u ro 0I < <I 10 Y m E O p ro J a Y 3 p e u .d ro a c v Y O b Y to m m o u ro u C 3 Y > G. d D-27 CC m E E E iro. iro. �+ ro F F iro. iro. � 6l U U W U ro 'O L d N 0 �� C C G C C v m v C ro m C w d ro U G c � ti CL m m 'u m w -° C '° 'w y m et ro 'ti m 'c .U. C a 'b m .ty 7 0 d 'L7 C r. 7 C ro« b G E 7 C -° 7 b 'd A tU. m C .b O O E ro .O .° O 0 O m ° m d v-0 c _ m v fl m v " � c v b ro c '' � a' ro c c ro v u m e c ro F. 3 O IC 'y m 0 O o r. ro C 'ti F u ro y U ., r. u m« « w O m y 'a u 'O oo,C u F 1O u 0 .. v u m c U ._ u m e� r.. O v et 3 w a - -O °? mC m tiC c o ro` V o o o 0 ro u 0 o f C v d m 00 0 d b 2 'O U 3 ° o o .� a > v ro v m > U C > c c > ° m j •� o w o m o m o 't o m m u O m w G C1 .C-t u U T -° v m M« C m 7i m m y et Y b d o r0 c pp d u v al :e v .O+ m u C m u IV o o O O O O w O [., ro w m [� k 00 G m C 0 :cc � c v c o ,°, a eo m a' F O G C C �•' m U C U ... EF o O N �d U U 'C ro O C 0 F r ro C u E 7 o +. m L F U m L m N y G I o "u c o ° o w i T k CU k .'7 a! C u E Cc d C C4 U .'0 O 7 E '7 C Ou.�.T m O C. ° U O. 0O E O ~ � E 2 z 72 c° o � u, c c c u � a o ° ° it o` .?' O =s C C O" ro O C V U ro q �' O p IJ 0 O p o -O r. P4 w et .�, U u W'' u U u UZ) W i _a u � U m al E •° C C C w yu � •� w L •m � .4 .c r. .-• v > .. m jlo� I •7 U M v; I eo r. w C w u W u r ro G ^ > i ro v o c o u k A ° c o -p Ida o m ° c 0 « ,� i. « u A .-T Z m S x to ro ud ro u u u a Id; W cn ro 91 Ll o U u -a z l7 o c4 v) > (= o z 0 0 U Q A a) ro � Q) N +., O bD n m 4-) O UD a) to cn � cd Hw0 0 cd V. 0 cd z U L" .� cd �' - � > En :J H O U O U cd O U 0. F+' O U U ' cd U)O • U 'd m > cd CO) d . 4 cd O !mod r I O EP) �O > m OU O it 'd L" u > b U)U c� as z w¢ x H� A a o .C: -� cd �+ 0O ta0 H U k z U o O U O y0, cd O k a) a m y k U °4 p o A > O it U U m r' ya -le U rd .Q ct > cd U (1) O U O 3 o L. cd W -h4 a .b O O 3 i s cd x it d cd a) taD o a D-29 m on ai i r w 00 0� a 4J 0 cd 0 0 O O O O ,i", %i . w cd O O O cd � (d U) w ro •� •-� N (d cd . d x ct w w 4 cd 0 Z (d .� cad z w m m m (n td cd ++ cd U) m w m cd row d cd d rd �- cd �� ro ro U) �E+WWxWWU) tncncnU) cd Z� U) CjJ cd cad u � : ema H � U z a �A U(d Z 0 c d u+ y En �+ cd u� IL4o ., ;d cd u ° m " LH cd 0 ,0 > �, cd r 'd U ca m 0 rd rd 10 0 4. •� ca (d H En•4 +� ca b 4� 0 0 •�, �A :J n, 0� U) d r ° U) d y o 0 o U y �' o �' .� d 'ti o :d o �bZ dcd rd a o aa)i : O � �a o d N zlOxa,N4��l 0' 0 x 'D O ::$ d x ::s (n x H U � 0 .� 0 O 0 'd 0 0 L bA O ct C" 0 +� L1 O cd � U4-1 cd O 04 0 ' +� cd � ! bA , 'o g m d: .41 0 (n [n 0, � O rs; V] o •d 0 � on G '�-, O rd •r+ O r0 a, o o dd m •5..� X'�—� � O ?1 U' di U `d O N O cd >, cd O y 'Lj �! 'd cd (d ii c� fd U cd 0 it 0 .0 J 0 k � 0 � 'd .--� (d 0 .0 .r-1 �.' fd O O O � O 41 Cd ii H O H O k O cd rc+ O H +� O ii . 4 • 4 «i cd O cd �O �� xUa�aNaax aa�zaaEn D-30 cc m O O 4J I'll 4J I'll O O M m rdd it 4J I t o a� E 4 ° b 0 a) 0 En 4J 4J � a s�� s ° M M o o M ro ro ro� U b U)ro ro ro ro ro �' ° (n� En w 4-1ro F i ro Fa ro Fa ro Fa `' ro Fa (ISr+ Fa 4' (ISro O O i i G .— `-1 cd ro (Is U) cn W W W W W W H W En En cn m cn cn W W cn Cn W •4 •,4 rj) ro U -4 ro ro�4 ro b ro � > ro z ro � y � ;4 �� 4-1 �i ai ,� a � � n+ a� N U att u, o ro Cd 0 0 ro 0 s� a� 0 a' � 0 ro ro ro �; 0 U -4 od U)�' ro ro a� 0 ro :U a u ro o ro y a� ro '�' 0 ro o d a� w �(a� ��I U,qroro D4a4l .�UUro 4 roU� 0UU) D� Dlaachchaaaad U) .o ro 0♦ u U U O 0 cd rd z O U ro U �+ —4� U ro U + U U) Cd u U U 'd � cn � 41 �", U —4 +' � `+-1 'd ��++ 04 c U)O � � U ° ro t... 'd �+ t' +cu •.�" i-' ° + —1d b G A k �, L"+ mac! m O ro —'' a� ro t� 0 0 U b C4 a O O VO O b w U U U 4 O° —4 O ' k U C 'G tH cd O � k �0 ~ ro � 5 b cUd �, O� i O Uch()Uax>>A04M4u)x 0� k ro O k U .r .-+ ro U ro U P o UuMm k I.- ro o uP�mmE- k u o D-31 7 E U) x Lf) Q` —4 m O 'i' Table D12. MARINE INVERTEBRATES COMMON TO OUTER BEACHES Common Name Scientific Name Lettered olive Oliva sayana Lobed moon shell Polinices duplicatus Southern coquina Donax parvula Roemer's coquina D. roemeri Atlantic surf clam Spisula solidissima Polychaetes Lepidometria commensalis Nephthys iicta Scolepsis squamata Amphipods Haustorius sp. Orchestia platensis Talorchestia megalophthalma Speckled crab Arenaeus cribrarius Mole crab Emerita talpoida Ghost crab Ocypode quadratus Spotted lady crab Ovalipes ocellatus Small hermit crab Pagurus longicarpus Large hermit crab P. pollicaris Source: W. W. Kirby -Smith and T. E. Gray, 1973 D-32 Table D13. INVERTEBRATE SPECIES FOUND AT ONSLOW BAY, NORTH CAROLINA Common Name Greedy dove shell Willcox's sea hare Channeled whelk Knobbed whelk Lightning whelk Crescent mitrella Mottled dog whelk Miniature moon shell Lettered olive Scotch bonnet Lobed moon shell Channeled barrel bubble Ear shell Common auger Veiled clam Texas tellin Common squid Octopus Horseshoe crab Common blue crab Spider crab Calico crab Hermit crab Brown shrimp Pink shrimp White shrimp Common starfish Sea -star Sea -cucumber Scientific Name Anachis avara Aplysia willcoxi Busycon canaliculatum B. carica B. contrarium Mitrella lunata Nassarius vibex Natica u� silla Oliva sayana Phalium granulatum Polinices duplicatus Retusa canaliculata Sinum perspectivum Terebra dislocata Solemya velum Tellina texana Loligo pealii Octopus vulgaris Limulus polyphemus Callinectes sapidus Libinia s pp. Ovalipe s spp. Pagurus spp. Penaeus aztecus P. duorarum P. setiferus Asterias forbesi Astropecten spp. j Thione briareus ` h Source: W. W. Kirby -Smith and T.E. Gray, 1973. D-33 APPENDIX E EXHIBITS MARCH-APRIL, 1975 APPENDIX E TAI,LE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Page No. 1 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . . E -1 2 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge —Previous and Recommended Disposal Site, Northeast Sector of Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E -1 3 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge — Breakwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-2 4 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge —Needle rush Marsh Fringe Around Dead-end Canal. . . . . . E-2 5 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge — Entr anc e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E - 3 6 Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge — Private Boat Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-3 7 Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay With Cedar Bay —East Portion. . . . . . . . . . . . E -4 8 Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay With Cedar Bay —West Portion . . . . . . . . . . . E-4 9 Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay With Cedar Bay—Needlerush Marsh . . . . . . . . . E-5 10 Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay With Cedar Bay —Previous Disposal Site Along Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-5 i APPENDIX E TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) Exhibit Page No. 11 Atlantic Harbor of Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . E-6 12 Atlantic Harbor of Refuge —Previous Disposal Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-6 13 Atlantic Harbor of Refuge —Sand Breakwater at the Mouth of Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . E-7 14 Atlantic Harbor of Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . E - 7 15 Atlantic Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E -8 16 Atlantic Harbor —Disposal Area . . . . . . . . E-8 17 Atlantic Harbor —Corrugated Metal Bulkhead . . E-9 18 Atlantic Harbor —Breakwater . . . . . . . . . E-9 19 Sealevel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-10 20 Sealevel—Rock Jetty Along Shore . . . . . . . E-10 21 Sealevel—Peninsula Shore . . . . . . . . . . E-11 22 Sealevel—Peninsula Shore . . . . . . . . . . E-11 23 Marshallberg Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . E -12 24 Marshallberg Harbor —Entrance . . . . . . . . E-12 25 Marshallberg Harbor —Harbor Basin. . . . . . E-13 26 Marshallberg Harbor —Marsh Vegetation Adjacent to Disposal Site . . . . . . . . . . . E-13 APPENDIX E TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) Exhibit Page No. 27 Beaufort Harbor —Beaufort Vicinity. . . . . . . E -14 28 Beaufort Harbor —Town Marsh Disposal Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-14 29 Beaufort Harbor —Bulkhead Channel and Beaufort Vicinity • • . • • • • • • • . . . . . E-15 30 Beaufort Harbor —Bulkhead Channel . . . . . . E-15 31 Beaufort Harbor —Radio Island Disposal Area E-16 32 Beaufort Harbor —Radio Island Disposal Area E - 16 31 Beaufort Harbor —Taylors Creek . . . . . . . . E-16 32 Beaufort Harbor —East End of Taylors Creek E-16 33 Beaufort Harbor —Taylors Creek and Carrot Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-17 34 Beaufort Harbor —East End of Taylors Creek E-17 35 Beaufort Harbor —Bird Shoal. . . . . . . . . E-18 36 Beaufort Harbor —Carrot Island . . . . . . . . E-18 37 Beaufort Harbor —Diked Disposal Area at Carrot Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-19 38 Beaufort Harbor —Town Creek Basin and Eastern Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-19 39 Beaufort Harbor —Town Creek Basin . . • • . . E-20 1. Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge ` 2. Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge —Previous and Recommended Disposal Site, Northeast Sector of Harbor E-1 3. Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge —Breakwater 4. Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge —Needle rush Marsh Fringe Around Dead-end Canal E-2 5. Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge —Entrance 6. Cedar Island Bay Harbor of Refuge —Private Boat Basin E-3 7. Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay With Cedar Bay —East Portion 8. Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay With Cedar Bay —West Portion E-4 9. Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay With Cedar Bay—Needlerush Marsh 10. Channel Connecting Thoroughfare Bay With Cedar Bay —Previous Disposal Site Along Channel E-5 11. Atlantic Harbor of Refuge 12. Atlantic Harbor of Refuge —Previous Disposal Site E-6 13. Atlantic Harbor of Refuge• —Sand Breakwater at the Mouth of Harbor 14. Atlantic Harbor of Refuge —Entrance E - 7 15. Atlantic Harbor 16. Atlantic Harbor —Disposal Area E-8 IY. Atlantic Harbor —Corrugated Metal Bulkhead 18. Atlantic Harbor —Breakwater 19. Sealevel 20. Sealevel—Rock Jetty Along Shore E-10 21, Sealevel —Peninsula Shore 22. Sealevel —Peninsula Shore E-11 +.mow.. �. 4k.. a 25. Marshallberg Harbor —Harbor Basin 26. Marshallberg Harbor —Marsh Vegetation Adjacent To Disposal Site E-13 27_ Beaufort Harbor —Beaufort Vicinity 28. Beaufort Harbor —Town Marsh Disposal Area E-14 29. Beaufort Harbor —Bulkhead Channel and Beaufort Vicinity 30. Beaufort Harbor —Bulkhead Channel E-15 m 33. Beaufort Harbor —Taylors Creek and Carrot Island 34. Beaufort Harbor —East End of Taylors Creek E-17 35. Beaufort Harbor —Bird Shoal 36. Beaufort Harbor —Carrot Island E-13 37. Beaufort Harbor —Diked Disposal Area at Carrot Island 38. Beaufort Harbor —Town Creek Basin and Eastern Channel E-19 39.Beaufort Harbor- Town Creek Basin E-20 APPENDIX F DREDGING AND DISPOSAL: CURRENT AND FUTURE PRACTICES APPENDIX F DREDGING AND DISPOSAL: CURRENT AND FUTURE PRACTICES TABLE OF CONTENTS F_c_ 11.3 1.2.1 DREDGING EQUIPMENT USED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1 1 .2.2 METHODS OF DISPOSAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-3 1.2.2.1 Underwater Diked Disposal . . . . . . . . . . l_.!; 1.2.2.2 Undiked Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F--5 1.2.2.3 Toe of the Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F--5 1.2.2.4 Beach Nourishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F'._5 1.2.2.5 Disposal on Marshlands . . . . . . . . . . . . F-`> 1.2.2.6 Creation of Marshland . . . . . . . . . , . . F-6 1.2.2.7 Construction of Disposal Islands . . . . . . . F-6 1.:2.3 UPLAND DISPOSAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-7 1.2.3.1 Diked Disposal Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-7 1.2.3.2 Methods of Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-.7 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DREDGING . . . . . . . . . . . F-8 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DISPOSAL . . . . . . . . . . . F-11 4.2.1 Ocean Water Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-11 4.2.2 Ocean Dumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-12 4.2.3 Beach Nourishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F--17 4.2.4 Construction of Disposal Islands . . . . . . . . F-17 4.2.5 Marshland Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-19 4.2.6 Diked (Confined) Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . F-19 i APPENDIX F TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) LIST OF FIGURES Page No. a.l Environmental Cause and Effect Matrix of Dredging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-9 ii DREDGING AND DISPOSAL: CURRENT AND FUTURE PRACTICES Dredging is performed for many purposes, including the creation of navigation channels, harbors and canals. A. frequent function of dredging is to maintain existing channels which provide navigable access to land or other waterways. Currently, there are two basic types of dredging conducted in the United States; mechanical dredging, which utilizes a variety of types of bucket or grab dredges, and hydraulic dredging (Huston, 1970). The vast majority of work is done by hydraulic pipeline and hopper dredges (hydraulic dredge which can deposit the dredged material into its hold). Each type has advantages and disadvantages and various environmental impacts. 1.2.1 DREDGING EQUIPMENT USED There are basically three types of mechanical dredges. The first type is the "grab dredge, " which includes the "c]amshell, " used for mud or stiff mud, and the "orange peel, " used for loose rock and other hard material. The second type is the "dipper dredge, " which is a power shovel operated from a barge, and is used for hard materials such as till, soft and broken rock, and shales. The third type is the "ladder dredge, " which is used for mining and infrequently for excavation of sand and gravel bottoms. The "ladder dredge" is of low efficiency due to the extra power needed co drive the bucket chain; the cost of dredging via ".ladder dredge" is approximately twice that of other grab dredge methods (Huston, 1970). When used for new work, bucket dredges create comparatively few environmental impacts due to siltation. However, they are not .feasible in all situations. They must discharge alongside the excavation site, or into scows and barges which transport the material to off -site areas. Because of this, they are not practi- cal for large quantity, widely dispersed excavating projects (Marcellus, 1973). Bucket dredges resuspend larger amounts of sediment when used for maintenance dredging of previously dredged areas than do hydraulic dredges. The resettled sediment .in previously dredged areas is less compacted than F-]_ the natural bottom, thus requiring .less force to disturb and resuspend it. Hydraulic dredges use a centrifugal pump discharging either into the hold of the dredge itself (hopper dredge); into diked or undiked areas onshore (hydraulic pipeline); or returned to the adjacent waters or into adjoining barges (s.idecasting dredges). The centri- fugal pump is supplied with dredged material through a suction line. Hydraulically dredged material has a higher water component than bucket dredged material, thus more initial disposal area is needed for a given quantity of dredged bottom (Huston, 1970). In cases of open water disposal, hydraulic dredging puts a significantly greater load of suspended solids into the water column than does mechanical dredging (Marcellus, 1973). Dredge types differ primarily in the means of loosening and picking up the material. The plain suction dredge .is a hydraulic dredge that breaks up materials by means of water jets around the perimeter of the suction end, and discharges into hoppers or barges. The plant remains stationary and dredges a hole into which surrounding material can flow. It is not an effective means of dredging hard materials. A. plain suction dredge can use a special suction head called a draghead, or dustpan, attached to the end of the suction. Dredges using this attachment are generally hopper dredges, but they can discharge into adjacent barges. The draghead must be in contact with the bottom, and the plant must be moving during the duration of the dredging operation. The main disadvantage of using a hopper dredge in this or any other dredging operation is that dredging must be discontinued while material is transported to the disposal area. Suction dredging is usually used to remove light materials from previously dredged areas. This dredge, used under these condi- tions, is probably the least likely to cause significant direct or indirect biological effects (Huston, 1970). F-2 The cutterhead/pipeline dredge, in conjunction with its supporting equipment, is the most versatile and popular dredge, capable of hydraulically excavating and moving a wide variety of materials without rehandling (Huston, 1970). The type of dredge is basically the only type used in the maintenance activities of the Wilmington Corps District. It is generally described by the diameter of its floating discharge pipe, which may range from 6 to 36 inches (Corps of Engineers, 1974). Material, broken up and dislodged by a cutter - head, is picked up by the suction. A centrifugal pump is used to discharge materials either into open water, into the hold of the dredge, or ashore. Open water disposal may be accomplished by three methods: the dredged slurry may be discharged with no alterations from the end of a floating pipeline; a splash plate may be installed at the end of the pipe to deflect the slurry, causing a large spray; or elbows may be installed at the end of the discharge pipe in such a manner as to allow injection of the slurry beneath the water surface (Corps, 1974). Land disposal is accomplished by adding shore discharge pipes to the floating pipeline. The cutterhead/pipeline dredge is very sensitive to swells and waves, and is, therefore, most appropriate for projects in pro- tected waters (Corps, 1974). There is, however, one exception to this statement. The Corps does maintain a small number of sidecasting hydraulic dredges which are used almost exclusively for the maintenance of the constantly shifting, narrow, shallow inlets in the Outer Banks. The dredges used in this instance are regular boats with a long pipe extending 80 feet - and in the case of the newest hopper dredge acquired by the Corps, the McFarland, 160 feet - out to the side. Material is sucked up from the bottom and spewed via the pipe back into the water alongside the cut. Unless it is discharged at a point where strong currents will carry it immediately out to sea, the material will eventually run back into the channel. A cutter - head dredge (suction/mechanical) is usually used on new projects; thus, it has the greatest potential for creating direct and in- direct effects on biological communities. 1.2.2 METHODS OF DISPOSAL The method employed for the disposal of dredged material is dependent upon the character of the material to be dredged. Governing parameters include the rate of sediment settling and F-3 dewater.ing after disposal, and the physical and chemical composi- tion of the material. From this information, a determination as to the suitability of the material for reuse as fill, beach nourishment and marsh and island creation can be made. Other factors influencing disposal practices include the volume of dredged material, the availability of disposal sites, channel location relative to land masses, history of shoaling at the dredging site and current thinking and administrative acceptability by regula- tory agencies. Hopper dredges and scows may discharge by overflow, by bottom dump, and by pump -out. Overflow disposal is the least expensive method initially, but involves potential damage to the environment due to the uncontrolled release of sediment. Environmental damage is especially great when the project involves dredging very light materials. Bottom dumping is a long-established technique: most disposal areas are located close inshore in order to minimize turnabout time. Direct pump -out to confined disposal areas has received recent emphasis because of environmental concerns with the aforementioned disposal methods. A current practice involves sediment transport by a hopper dredge, dilution of the partially dried material in the hopper dredge hold, and the hydraulic piping of the slurry to an upland disposal site. Another frequent combination involves bottom dumping into a rehandling basin and hydraulic pipeline removal to a confined area (NTIS). If the disposal site is sufficiently close to shore, the material can be pumped via hydraulic pipeline directly to the site. 1.2.2.1 Underwater Diked Disposal This method of disposal involves the deposition of dredged material into a diked (sandbagged) shallow underwater area. Diking aids in the confinement of the suspended sediments, thereby greatly reducing water turbidity. The majority of the coarser grained material is retained within the site, whereas a greater percentage of the finer grained suspended silt and clay particles do not settle out in the underwater diked disposal site. Benthic organisms in the disposal area are destroyed during disposal operations. The diked material becomes repopulated with benthic organisms, but not to the extent of the surrounding marine bottomlands. Damage to adjacent phytoplankton and benthic organisms occurs during disposal operations; however, F-4 turbidity conditions and marine organism populations return to normal shortly after completion of disposal operations. 1.2.2.2 Undiked Disposal. Undiked disposal involves heightened impacts to the environment. The uncontained upland material is subject to erosive factors such as wind, rain and upland runoff, which serve to disperse the sediment over a wide area. In the case of under- water undiked disposal, the unstable dredged material will be dispersed by bottom currents and some sediments will reenter the recently dredged channel, necessitating more frequent dredging to maintain channel depths and, in the long run, raising the project cost. In both instances, more surface area, whether upland or bottomland, will be covered by material due to its escape from the original disposal site. Thus, a larger area will be impacted. Because disposal in undiked areas produces more negative environmental impacts than any other disposal option, and because it offers no major environmental or economic benefits, the undiked disposal alternative will not be discussed as a feasible option in other sections of this report. 1.2.2.3 Toe of the Bank This disposal method has been used in land cuts. Dredged material is placed in unconfined areas along the base of the cut bank on either side of the channel (Corps of Engineers, 1974). 1.2.2.4 Beach Nourishment Where feasible, dredged materials consisting of clean sands are added to beach deposits to replace sand lost by erosion. This is normally accomplished by pumping the material from the dredge area to the beachfront via underwater and overland hydraulic pipeline. 1.2.2.5 Disposal on Marshlands It has been common practice to use marshland for disposal. There are several reasons for this. One important factor is F-5 the cost/benefit ratio that must be applied to all Federally - sponsored engineering programs (NTIS). Marshes are usually fairly accessible to dredge sites and, traditionally, marshlands have been considered wastelands with very little economic value. Because of this, disposal easements for marshlands have been easily obtained. More recently, the environmental and economic values of marshlands and the ecological relationships of the marsh to the entire estuarine system have become better understood. These aspects are discussed in other portions of this report. 1.2.2.6 Creation of Marshland Overboard disposal of sand and silt can be used to create marsh- land, especialy in near -shore, shallow water areas (NTIS). Studies have shown that many substrate materials, from coarse natural aggregates to fine silts can provide satisfactory bottom habitats (Woodhouse et al, 1972). However, this will probably entail the planting or seeding of marsh vegetation under closely controlled conditions. Marshlands are highly important as nursery grounds and food sources for a high proportion of commercial and sport fishery species. Marsh vegetation is also valuable in its role as a buffer, protecting shoreline area' from erosion, and for its ability to filter water from upland runoff. 1.2.2.7 Construction of Disposal Islands The creation of disposal islands to serve as habitat for birds and small animals is a feasible alternative for disposal. As shallow water disposal has occurred over long periods of time, such habitats have been created by accident in many areas. Disposal islands are created by pumping dredged material to one point. If upland disposal occurs at an existing sand bar or island, the material is pumped to the highest point and becomes sorted as to particle size as it flows downslope, creating an island with a sandy dome, a gradual slope, and surrounded by shallow waters. The island areas of different substrate and elevation character will be differentially vegetated, thus creating a varied habitat. The creation of a disposal island within a diked shallow -water area is an unexplored alternative. This method would involve F-6 diking an area of shallow hottomland with sandbags and the filling of the contained area with material transported by hydraulic pipeline. Due to the nature of the filling operation, the material would not sort into distinct layers and the island substrate would be essentially consistent throughout. There is some evidence indicating that birds do not accept diked areas as potential resting grounds; therefore, it is recommended that following island completion, the surface area be landscaped to resemble natural islands, the upper dike layer be removed or camouflaged, and emergent vegetation be planted. Circular or elliptical islands constructed so as not to impede natural current patterns would be the most resistant to erosion. 1.2.3 UPLAND DISPOSAL 1.2.3.1 Diked Disposal Areas The use of dikes around dredged material was not widespread before 1970. Following the passage of the National Environ- mental Policy Act of 1969 and with increased public environ- mental awareness, dikes are increasingly being recommended and provided on above -water disposal sites. Diking involves the disposal of dredged materials in bounded areas. This may be on uplands or marshes. Confinement permits settlement of the solids and controls runoff of the water, thereby greatly reducing turbidity. As with all other methods of disposal, this method is not without environmental impacts. These impacts are discussed in the following section. 1.2.3.2 Methods of Disposal The method of disposal for the project varies with individual projects. The favored option, the area and life expectancy of disposal sites are discussed for each individual project in the section of the report devoted to the project maintenance plan. F-7 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DREDGING Figure F1 is a flow diagram depicting the various cause and effect relationships of dredging. Dredging can be harmful to productive fish and shellfish habitats, spawning and nursery areas, food supplies of marine organisms and valuable marsh and submerged vegetation. It usually takes several years for a bottom to regain productivity after a dredge has passed through it and there is some doubt if the original level of productivity can ever be regained (Marcellus, 1973). The effects of dredging on biological communities fall into two categories —direct and indirect. The direct effect of the dredging operation is the destruction of established marine 'bottoms, with the removal of the natural water -bottom interface which is frequently ar, area of high bio- logical activity. The removal of the deeper bottom substrate material results in the destruction of its associated fauna and of all epibenthic fauna and flora (Cronin et al, 1971). Generally, the potential for damage is greater in new projects than in maintenance projects, as maintenance areas have been previously disturbed resulting in an unstable substrate which is not conducive to extensive benthic repopulation. Fewer environmental impacts will occur during new work with utiliza- tion of a mechanical dredge. Cutterheads used by hydraulic dredges in dislocating solid substrate cause an extensive amount of siltation. Conversely, hydraulic dredges are less deleterious to the environment than mechanical dredges when used for maintenance of a previously dredged channel. In this instance, the bottom substrate is soft and easily suctioned, thus less siltation will occur during dredging with a vacuum pipeline. In either new or maintenance projects, the direct effects are usually confined to the project area and those bottomlands in the immediate vicinity. The indirect effects, while of no lesser significance, are more difficult to evaluate as they can be more extensive, both in F-8 range and magnitude, than the direct effects. The information needed for evaluation is limited, although it is known that changes in biotic development occur as a result of dredging operations. The .impact of indirect effects on biological communities is usually attributed to physical and chemical alterations of the environment due to resuspension of bottom sediments. A significant indirect effect is the resuspension of silt which drifts with the currents and impacts oysters, clams, fish eggs and larvae, and beds of marine vegetation in areas beyond the actual site of dredging (Marcellus, 1973). The settled sediments create a coating which interferes with the attachment of oyster spat and forms soft bottom layers which are uninhabitable for many benthic species (Cronin, 1971). In addition, light penetration and thus photosynthesis (primary production) are reduced, and flocculation. and the consequent settling of phytoplankton may occur. Biostimulatory and toxic materials (phosphates, nitrates, heavy metals and pesticides) may also be released into the water column. An associated increase in oxygen demand occurs as organic materials are resuspended and exposed to renewed microbial attack and breakdown. Siltation impacts are greatest with the resuspension of fine -particle sediment such as silt and fine clays; resuspended sand settles quickly and will affect only the immediate project area. The dredging of a channel .into a salt marsh alters the salinity regime by allowing a greater volume of higher salinity water to penetrate the marsh, often causing a change in vegetative cover and endangering public a. -id private water supplies. In addition, the dredging of a channel may alter the velocity of water flow in and out of the marsh, which may in time lead to sedimentation problems or may affect the rate at which beneficial marsh detritus is flushed into the marine environment. Dredging may also result .in a partial drying of the marsh which affects the type of vegetation growing there. Less productive plants generally replace more valuable species where this process occurs. Dredging causes changes in bottom topography by creating deep water areas. Light intensity at the sediment -water inter- face of a newly deepened channel will be decreased due to deeper F-10 water depth, thus reducing photosynthetic activity of recolonizing plants with an associated reduction of primary productivity in the area. Deep dredging ma,, also result in sediment and/or pollu- tion traps with associated anaerobic conditions. Creation of deep water areas is of positive benefit to young striped bass and croaker (Cronin, 1971) by providing escape routes from cold water during winter months. Removal of the original substrate may cause indirect changes in substrate composition and bottom habitat. These changes may be destructive, involving the deletion of valuable benthic communities Beneficial impacts may also occur. In some areas, polluted bottom sediments can be removed, resulting in a more favorable area for recolonization. Changes in the bottom topography may alter water velocity and current patterns and increase upstream saltwater intrusion, with associated physical, chemical and biological effects. This phenomenon could have beneficial influences, as on young fish and crab transport, and detrimental effects, such as greater penetration of oyster predators (Cronin, 1971) into upstream waters. In addition, dredging may cause changes in future sedi- ment distribution patterns. The determination of the impact of changes of this nature is dependent upon the environment in which the change will occur. 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DISPOSAL Dredging, for whatever purpose and by whatever means, creates a need to dispose of material. The impact of dredging on the disposal site and on adjacent areas appears to be of short-term duration and is of minor consequence when compared to the environmental effects associated with disposal of dredged materials (Corps, 1974). 4.2.1 Open Water Dis osal Most concern is generated over open water disposal. While open water disposal is popularly used to define operations that involve the discharge of dredged materials into the surrounding waters away from the channel, from the standpoint of water quality effects the definition must be expanded to include the placement of uncon- tained material on beaches, marshes, along rivers or any type F-11 of land disposal in which the placed materials are subject to the influence of tides or river stage fluctuations, or are readily washed back into the waters by rainfall (Taussig, 1974). Most of the following comments concern the direct overboard (open water) disposal of dredged material, either via pipeline, sidecasting, hopper dredge or barge dumping. The environmental effects of indirect open water disposal (undiked marshlands, disposal islands and beach nourishment) are similar, differing mainly in magnitude and duration, and will be discussed later. Open water disposal of dredged material has been common practice. During 1968, 52.2 million tons of dredged materials were disposed of at sea at an estimated cost to the United States of $23.3 million. Estimates by the Corps of Engineers indicate that nearly 34 percent of this amount of material is polluted (Smith, Brown, 1971). Dredged material accounts for 80 percent by weight of all ocean dumping. 4.2.2 Ocean Dumping This method, despite its frequent use, is generally undesirable unless the deposits are predominantly sand and free of pollutants. Other considerations are that the disposal area be devoid of commercially important bottom organisms and that the deposits have a beneficial effect on shoreline erosion problems (Silberhorn, 1974). The effects to fish, shellfish, and other benthic organisms as a result of disposal can include the destruction of spawning areas, smothering of benthic organisms, reduction in food supplies, habitat and vegetational cover, trapping of organic matter with resultant development of anaerobic bottom conditions, release of toxins and biostimulatory chemicals, and the absorption or adsorp- tion of organic matter, including oil. (Smith, Brown, 1971) (NTIS). The short-term effects associated with disposal can usually be detected during the disposal operation or shortly thereafter. The most common short-term effects are turbidity, sedimentation, and oxygen depletion in the water column. F-12 Turbidities. Increased turbidity resulting from disposal of dredged material can spread by currents to cause impacts to fish, shellfish and plant communities beyond the actual deposit site. The amount of area affected is dependent upon the means of disposal, the quantity disposed of, the bottom topography and water currents. Biggs (NRI, 1970) found that suspended sedi- ments from hydraulic dredging operations were carried by currents to a maximum distance of about 5, 000 meters from the disposal site and disappeared within two hours after pumping ceased. Depending on local currents and the type of material deposited, the resultant disposal pile can be a source of turbidity; in the afore- mentioned study, there was a 12 percent net loss of the deposited material from the site after 150 days (Biggs, 1970). The effect of turbidity on fish, shellfish and other benthic organisms can be either direct or indirect. Direct effects may cause an immediate response or even mortality by suffocation (Smith, Brown, 1971). Suspended sediments clog and damage the gills of fish and other marine animals. Several observers have reported physical damage to animal gill tissue attributable to high amounts of sus- pended sediment (Southgate, 1960, quoted by Ritchie, 1971). However, in other instances, no apparent gross adverse effects or gill damage occurs (Ritchie, 1971). Rogers (1969) as cited in Saila et al, found that mechanical damage was more a function of the presence of large angular particles rather than the degree of turbidity. Biological assays and field experiments by Saila et al (1972), showed that adult lobsters were able to tolerate turbidities as high or higher than those found in the disposal area for short periods of time, assuming that no toxic substances were present in the material. High turbidities can reduce the growth and survival rate of larval stages of fish and shellfish (NOAA). Resuspended sediments can reduce the buoyancy of eggs and larvae of marine animals causing them to settle to the bottom where they will suffocate or be buried (Cronin, et al, 1971). Fine sediments may settle to form a thin coating which will interfere with the attachment of young oysters or create soft bottom layers unhabitable for many benthic species (Cronin, et al). F--13 In addition, sediments can cause flocculation and subsequent settling of planktonic algae. Turbidity interferes with feeding habits by temporarily inhibiting a food source from entering an area or by impairing food locating capabilities. Experimental tests involving' oysters in waters with suspended material concentrations of up to 700 ppm showed little effect on mortality or feeding rates (NTIS). According to Saila et al (1972), the magnitude of the effect of sediments on filter feeders is a function of ambient turbidity levels prior to disposal operations. Filter feeders in a naturally turbid system, such as estuaries, are selective feeders and sort particles prior to ingestion. Species indigenous to less turbid environments are less tolerant of increased suspended sediment loadings. Increased turbidity reduces light penetration, thereby affecting the rate of photosynthesis. The magnitude of this effect is dependent on the ambient turbidity levels and the duration of the increase. The effects would be expected to be of greater signifi- cance in normally clear waters when the heightened turbidity is long-lasting in nature. Flemmer (1970) found that the disposal of fine-grained materials in a system of high natural turbidities will reduce light penetration for a limited time with no observable gross effects on phytoplankton. Sedimentation. Localized sedimentation resulting from disposal operations destroys the majority of benthic fauna in the affected area. This causes considerable detrimental impacts on higher trophic level organisms which feed upon the benthos. Blanketing often occurs over a larger area than expected depending on the method of discharge and material type. Other factors governing sedimentation include water depth, current velocities and patterns, bottom configurations in the disposal area and grain size of material. In a study conducted in the Chesapeake Bay, Biggs (NRI Report No. 3, 1970) found that pipeline - deposited material covered to a depth of one foot (0. 3 m) an area five times as large as that defined as the disposal site. Studies by Saila, Pratt and Polgar (1972) in Rhode Island Sound, found that materials deposited by hopper barge extended beyond the boundaries of the designated disposal site only because the center of dumping F-14 was near the corner of the site. The total area covered was no more than originally designated. Pfitzenmeyer (1970) found that following disposal, a 71 percent reduction in average numbers of benthic individuals and marked reduction in the species diversity index occurs. After 1. 5 years, recovery was reported in the area, but not within the dredged channel. Saila et al (1970), found that a few active organisms were able to reach the surface after deep (20 cm) burial. Attached sessile organisms and smaller animals of any type are killed. A buildup of sediment can also destroy spawning and nursery areas by changing the bottom substrate or by filling in shallow bottom areas preferred by many species. Anoxia. If the dredged sediments are highly organic or polluted with reduced chemical compounds, an increased oxygen demand will occur in the disposal area. Reduced chemical compounds assimilate oxygen immediately in the process of oxidation, whereas bacteria break down organic matter producing a bio- logical oxygen demand; the latter process occurs over a longer period of time. If material is placed in an area with restricted flushing, dangerously low oxygen levels result. Oxygen deple- tion at a dumpsite destroys the non -motile organisms and renders the water column in the vicinity of the site uninhabitable (NOAA) (Saila et al). When oxygen levels remain low, anaerobic condi- tions result with the coincident production of hydrogen sulfide and methane gas. Sediments with a high organic content will remain anaerobic beneath surface layers, negating the area as habitat for deeper infauna. Dredged materials containing in excess of three percent organic material may inhibit recolonization of non -tolerant species (Saila et al, 1970). Polluted Dredged Material. Concern exists over the open water disposal of sediments containing excess amounts of nutrients, organic toxins and heavy metals. Sediments composed of high percentages of clay, minerals, organic material and/or iron can absorb greater concentrations of pollutants than do clean quartz sediments. The degree to which adsorbed components are released during the dredging or disposal process is not fully determined. F-15 actors governing the release of adsorbed pollutants include pH, turbulence and the local water chemistry. Increased nutrient levels stimulate phytoplankton growth above natural levels. Primary productivity is temporarily enhanced yielding a temporary increase in the available food supply for heterotrophic species. However, as vegetal production increases and created food substances become available to microbial attack, an oxygen demand is created. In estuarine situations where flushing is restricted and nutrients are unlimited, eutrophic conditions occur. Increased concentrations of heavy metals and organic toxins are known to create detrimental effects in fauna and flora. Sublethal effects include reduced vitality or growth, reproductive failure and interference with sensory functions. Toxic substances are also assimilated by vegetation and filter feeders to the extent that the concentrating marine form is rendered unfit for human consumption as well as being toxic to higher marine predators in the food chain. Hydrocarbons, in concentrations below lethal levels, can inter- fere with the chemical senses of marine animals which mediate food location, escape from predators, selection of habitat and sex attraction (Saila et al, 1970). Direct contact with hydro- carbons of respiratory organs kills or weakens animals. Oils also clog the filtering mechanisms of benthic fauna such as oysters and clams. Non -polar chemicals (DDT, dieldrin, chlordane, polychlorinated biphenols, etc. ) are more soluble in oil than in water and will become concentrated .in sedimentary oils. Higher concentrations would be assimilated by detritus feeders and their predators than by filter feeders consuming phytoplankton from the rela- tively unpolluted water. Crustacea are particularly sensitive to pesticides and heavy metals (Saila, 1970). Dredged materials polluted with sewage sludge are a potential carrier of bacterial and viral pathogens from human and other animal intestinal tracts. Approximately 20 percent of the 10 million acres of U. S. shellfish -producing waters have been closed because of sewage pollution. In addition, large areas of F--16 coastal waters polluted with sewage have been placed off limits for certain public uses (NOAA). The placement of such polluted materials in areas that are not contaminated could cause the transmission of bacteria and viruses to the local fauna. Hepatitis virus is carried by shellfish. Shellfish have been collected with polio virus concen- trated to 60 times that of surrounding waters. It is obvious that most shellfish present a serious hazard to humans if consumed. What effect such pathogens may have on the majority of ocean species is not known. The magnitude and duration of these effects can vary significantly. In order to assess the possible effects of open water disposal, it is necessary to know, as a bare minimum, how much and what kinds of materials are being disposed of, in what kind of aquatic or marine ecosystems and by what method and over what period of time (NTIS Report, 1972). Generally speaking, hopper dredges and barges practicing dump disposal minimize the extent of dredged material -water contact while with pipeline and sidecaster disposal the contact is maximized (NTIS). 4.2.3 Beach Nourishment In some areas, dredged material consisting of clean sands can be deposited within the active beach zone to be distributed by wave action and longshore currents. Care must be taken to ascertain that the material is of a compatible grain size with existing beach material; the pollution potential of any clays or silts incorporated with the sand must be low as wave action will remove and pre- ferentially distribute light materials into shallow coastal waters (Dolan, 1974). The negative impacts associated with beach nourishment include a short-term increase in turbidity and disturbance of active beach zone habitat. Negative impacts on benthic organisms are minimal as those organisms common to the active beach zone are acclimated to the unstable conditions there. 4.2.4 Construction of Disposal Islands Many resources of an estuarine system can be adversely affected by the practice of open water disposal in the creation of disposal islands. These include factors mentioned earlier: the overt Fr-17 destruction of biotically valuable habitat, including eelgrass beds and marshes which serve as primary nursery areas for various aquatic species of sports and commercial value; the covering of existing oyster bars and sand flats containing clam populations; and the replacement of open water habitat with highlands (Ringer, 1974). Other effects that may occur include bay segmentation and alterations of water circulation with associated effects on salinity and flushing times. When the disposal island is first created, a high percentage of the sand material is subject to erosion by tides, waves and boat wake. These sediments become resuspended with concomitant impacts on shellfish populations and submerged grass beds. If large quantities of silt and clays are included in thematerial, the adverse effects are greater as these fine materials go into suspension more readily and are thus easily transported to environmentally sensitive areas (Ringer, 1974). If the island is diked, these impacts will be considerably reduced due to the containment of the unstable material. In many areas, the natural beach areas utilized as nesting sites by many species of birds are being destroyed and disrupted by development and recreational activities. If the birds are to survive, new habitats must be provided. Islands placed along the Fire Island National Seashore in New York following channel dredging were immediately colonized by various species of water birds. In New York's Jamaica Bay, islands were placed on marshes after channel dredging to provide bird habitat. Within the Outer Banks of North Carolina, large numbers of birds nest on the various dredge islands located behind the Outer Banks . Islands in the vicinity of Ocracoke Inlet are especially valuable for the preservation of many species. Water oriented birds are the major vertebrate users of disposal islands. It is known that each successive stage from bare beach to vegetated knoll provides suitable nesting habitat for a diversity of bird species. disposal should F--18 4.2.5 Marshland Disposal Uncontained deposition of material on marshland is also considered as a type of open water disposal since materials will reenter the waterway with the associated negative impacts previously mentioned. Other impacts associated with dumping dredge material on marshlands include the direct physical loss of habitat (Chapman, 1967). This loss of habitat includes both immediate direct, short-term marsh dysfunction caused by disposal and the land use changes associated with altered vegetation patterns which occur when the marsh environment is converted to upland. Other significant impacts which may occur are: alteration of water circulation by the creation of new current patterns; alternation of the rate of tidal cycling; disruption of the rate of flushing; disruption of the rate of nutrient generation and disrup- tion of nutrient storage within the estuarine zone. In addition, high turbidity flows into adjacent water bodies can occur, thus degrading these areas for the desired flora. and fauna. Dredged material disposal is not usually conducive to natural recolonization by desired marsh grasses because of increased elevations. There are areas where no economic alternative to marsh disposal exists. Channel construction of the intracoastal water, for example, cuts through vast expanses of marsh. Channel construc- tion through these areas may benefit fisheries by making previously inaccessible marsh available for spawning and nursery areas; however, these habitats will subsequently be destroyed by disposal. 4.2.6 Diked (Confined) Disposal Confined disposal is a method recently employed in the coastal zone which was formerly limited to inland disposal practices. The long-term effectiveness of present underwater containment areas have met with little success (NTIS), due to poor engineering and inadequate funding for more permanent facilities. The immediate effects of upland diking are essentially the same for upland or marsh disposal. There is the complete removal or eradication of all existing flora and fauna within the area. Nesting sites are eliminated, either temporarily or permanently, F-19 depending on the nature of the material. Drainage patterns are altered and there is the possibility of contamination of the water with pollutants and salt. If the disposal area is not properly constructed, negative impacts to aesthetics and health will occur. As the material dries, crevices in the surface provide an excellent mosquito breeding ground (Marcellus et al, 1973). High bacteria counts have been measured in the runoff especially after heavy rainfall during warm weather. Offensive odors result from anaerobic decom- position of trapped organic matter. The duration of these effects depends on the composition of the material. A clean sand material will drain rapidly and revegetation will begin within several months. In contrast, if the material comprises a high concen- tration of silt and clays, the dredged material will remain as a wet, plastic solid on which little, if any, vegetation will volunteer for years (Corps of Engineers, 1974). Diked areas do not undergo the vegetative succession typical of uncontained areas. With regard to diked disposal islands, little information is available concerning the normal sequence of colonizing species. Diked disposal islands are not exposed to tidal fluctuations and therefore cannot be colonized by waterborne seeds. In addition, shallow bottoms normally developed around undiked islands do not accumulate at diked areas. F-20