20191393 Ver 1_PCN Form Submission_20191011

DR
02*10n of Water R"Ourc"
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance into the review process?*
r Yes
r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned *
Version#*
20191393
1
Is a payment required for this project?*
* No payment required
What amout is owed?*
* Fee received
r $240.00
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
r $570.00
Reviewing Office* Select Project Reviewer*
Washington Regional Office - [phone] Robert Tankard:eads\rbtankard
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
Maintenance Dredging Wanchese Harbor Entrance Channel Range 14A
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Emily Hughes
1 b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
10/11/2019
Nearest Body of Water
Roanoke Sound
Basin
Pasquotank
Water Classification
SA, SC, HOW
Site Coordinates
Latitude: Longitude:
35.8434 75.6069
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Dare
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
F Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
rJ Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
1 b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
f- Nationwide Permit (NWP)
* Regional General Permit (RGP)
r- Standard (IP)
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]

1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
r Yes r No
Regional General Permit (RGP) Number:
RGP Numbers (for multiple RGPS):
4142
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
F Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
F Individual Permit
199602878 - Dredge and Discharge into Federally Authorized Navigation Channels
1e. Is this notification solelyfor the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
F 401 Water Quality Certification - E)press
F Riparian Buffer Authorization
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
19. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
r Yes r No
1i. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
G Yes r No r Unknown
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
r Yes r No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
W Owner r Applicant (other than owner)
1e. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?
r Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
U.S. Federal Government
2b. Deed book and page no.:
2c. Responsible party:
2d. Address
Street Address
69 Darlington Ave.
Address Line 2
aty
Wilmington
Postal / Zip Code
28403
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
State / Rovince / Region
NC
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
r Yes r No
rYes rNo

1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
1 c. Nearest municipality / town:
Wanchese
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
2c. Project Address
Street Address
Address Line 2
City
Pb tal / Zip ODde
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Roanoke Sound
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
SA, SC. HOW
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Pasquotank
3d. Please provide the 12 -digit HUC in which the project is located.
0301020515
4. Project Description and History
2b. Property size:
State / Rw roe / Region
CDuntry
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*
Area of Federal channel approved to -12 feet has shoaled to -5 feet due to Hurricane Dorian. This is a section of the entrance channel into Wanchese Harbor, home port to many
fishing vessels, private and commercial.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
4c. If yes, please give the DWR Certification number or the Corps Action ID (exp. SAW -0000-00000).
2016
Project History Upload
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
0
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
Purpose is to provide for safe navigation. If the shoal is not removed, larger fishing trawlers that sought safe harbor in Norfolk, VA will not be able to return.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
Taking the shoal down to -11' feet with the government-owned shallow draft hopper dredge, Currituck would result in -10,200 cys of dredged material. The Currituck could transport
about 4 loads per day to the 2016 open water placement area adjacent to the Basnight bridge, completing the bare minimum of dredging needed within approximately 10 days.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
Wanchese Dredging Supplements.pdf 4.09MB
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
Comments:
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*

r Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown r PVA
Corps AID Number:
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company:
Other:
Sd1. Jurisdictional determination upload
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes r No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any partof the proposed projector related activity?
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
r- Wetlands r Streams -tributaries r Buffers
17 Open Waters r Pond Construction
4. Open Water Impacts
4a. Site # 4a1. Impact Reason 4b. Impact type 4c. Name of waterbody 4d. Activity type 4e. Wate rbody type 4f. Impact area
001
Maintenance Dredging
T
Wanchese Harbor, Range 14A
Excavation
Estuary
0.33
002
Material Placement
T
Oregon Inlet West, Range -1
Fill
-Il
Estuary
0.33
4g. Total temporary open water Impacts: 4g. Total permanent open water impacts:
0.66 0.00
4g. Total open water impacts:
0.66
4h. Comments:
Temporary impacts to occur related to placement of dredged material in channel adjacent to Basnight Bridge. See map showing proposed placement
location.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
No new work is being proposed. Only the minimum amount of dredging needed to clear navigation for larger trawling vessels is proposed
(appro)imately 10 days of work). Placement of dredged material is within an open water channel that has been utilized for placement in the past
(2016).
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
All government dredges are required to operate under restrictions that result in the least adverse effects to the environment. Specific language
addressing air, water and land quality, disposal/rernoval of waste and debris, cleaning up of pollutants, erosion and sediments controls, etc. will govern
how construction takes place.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
r Yes r No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
No permanent impacts are proposed.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan

1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent toprotected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
f Yes r No
If no, explain why:
NA
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No
2c. Does this project have a stormwater management plan (SMP) reviewed and approved under a state stormwater program or state -approved local government stormwater
program?
r Yes r No
3. Stormwater Requirements
3a. Select whether a completed stormwater management plan (SMP) is included for review and approval or if calculations are provided to document the project will not cause
degradation of downstream surface waters.*
r Stormwater Management r Antidegradation
Plan Calculations
3b. Stormwater Management Plan
3c. Antidegradation Calculations:
Comments:
The project requires removal and placement of dredged material only. No permanent structures, infrastructure, or impervious surfaces will be constructed.
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (fe de rallstate/local) funds or the use of public (federallstate) land?*
r Yes r No
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State (North Carolina)
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? *
r Yes r No
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearing House?*
r Yes r No
NEPAor SEPAFinal Approval Letter
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15ANCAC 2B.0200)?*
r Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
r Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The project requires removal and placement of dredged material only. No permanent structures, infrastructure, or impervious surfaces will be
constructed.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
r Yes r Nor N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
r Yes r No

5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
r Yes r No
What Federal Agency is involved?
NMFS
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
r- Yes r No
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
r Yes r No
59. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
r Yes r No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
r Yes r No
r Unknown
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
r- Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
Previous interagency coordination and previous NEPA document preparations. Threatened or endangered sea turtle species may be present at the
time of construction however, the 1999 NMFS BO for government plant dredges determines that no adverse affects will result to sea turtles.
Consultation Documentation Upload
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r Yes r- No
Are there submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) around the project vicinity?*
r- Yes
r No
r Unknown
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
Fish and crustacean species which may occur in the vicinity of the project, and for which Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) have been developed by
the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), and NMFS.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?*
r- Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
NC Clearinghouse responses to EA/EISs; Department of Cultural Resources respond with no comment/objection. Since these are all maintenance
projects that are on-going, there are no anticipated impacts to historic or archaeological resources.
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?*
r Yes r No
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
North Carolina Flood Risk Information System (FRIS) at http://fris.nc.gov/fris/index.aspx?FIPS=129&ST=NC&user=General Public.
http://wm. n cflood maps. con/
Miscellaneous
Comments
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
Signature
R By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:

• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Emily Hughes
Signature
6 � i
Date
10/11/2019

7 `'
0
0
e�
N
MfM
0.5 0
US Army Corps
of Engineers �
Wilmington District
Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay,
North Carolina
Nags
Head
3
Mang
8 �
7- Q�
a
0 �✓°
' 0
0
9 a hese f land H 12
Channel to W nchese
urd
\Go S�
a'm�
Q
2 3
Map # sawgis-06-085
4
Niles
1 A
and G q °,
Iter:
land F °o On
l�� o
u k UUU0
n °
Islands
Islan C 3 0 2
7
Island M s 5 a Old House
Channel to
Hell's Gate Oregon Inlet
c°a
Parnell Island
a�
Vr y
ya
D o0
o� Wells Island
Slough
gon Inlet Fishing Center
Herbert C. Bonner Bridge
e\
r
)(:elet
Ga0`a
A

X
�?a ■ Cg 7 `SPP
.►
IfIGIlUtiV
ndF[J(J
SURVEYED
ON:
Al Irl
ICT II
IAIQ
wowry
0INT 5�
A
■
'� � � f►:►fir:+►n�
r
PP
a►TA a
1
x41
iAlAIJ17r11A1T 'J
J
�A IWOrYP�OI_IylT 2
'IN
F2�
n r r u 6 6 0 ti 0 v a I a v a 'd y y y Ill
7
7 7 7 8 8 8 8 S 8 8 8 9 1(
18+00 17+00 16+00 15+00 14+00 13+00 12+00 11+00 10+00 9+00 g+00 7+pp 6+pp 5+p0 4+00 3+00 2+00
i
I FrFNn
LwRip'l-DI.NTI,
I0±p0]

75°33'0"W 75°32'30"W 75032'0"W
US Array Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
.s.
0-RTH CAkbLlNA
Manteo
M
C)
S")
C*7
r�
0
M
zo
ul
n
tY3
Morehead
City
01
egon Inlet Spit
Manteo Q
C
t
9PRMLICO
*'SOUND
CSD
ul
M
r
W
♦♦��
CO Q _jJ
Z
�WQZ
V�
V
of z
Aw
W
0
ui3 E[
i
rY
ZUJ0
LLZ
H
4
w0za
'E
-�
0
I
Cl)
Lu
z
0
�0zz
<"�Q
C.}
0�
I
Ct]
N
O
LL
�_
N
V
0-
ml
o
Z
rl
0
I
OD
LLI
Ow
rb
w
Q
>-
0
U)
z
Lu
0
�
w
�
Q
Lu
0
�
cv
Z
w
w
2
J
w
v
w
r
X
(D
w
CN
W
�
Z
�S
0
rn
Q
T
U
o
f
o
M
L! i
J
wr
v
w
0
w
J
CD
w
wp
U)
M
f 11
r
LQ
N
CSD
ul
M
75033'0"W 75032'30"W 75032'0"W
r
uj
♦♦��
CO Q _jJ
Z
�WQZ
V�
V
of z
Aw
0
ui3 E[
i
V
ZUJ0
LLZ
H
4
w0za
'E
-�
0
>- ° LuC3
Lu
z
0
�0zz
<"�Q
0�
2
75033'0"W 75032'30"W 75032'0"W

<�ENT OF COy
W
0
tfC JTAi[s OF
Mr. C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Shuford:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
9721 Executive Center Drive North
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
[phone]; FAX [phone]
MAR 9 1999 F/SER3:EGH:ts
This letter responds to your letter to me dated July 1, 1998 and enclosed Biological Assessment
(BA). Your BA, submitted pursuant to Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 consultation
requirements, assesses the use of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) sidecast dredges
FRY, MERRITT and SCHWEIZER, and the split -hull hopper dredge CURRITUCK in United
States coastal waters. Additional, revised information was submitted to this office on March 2,
1999.
Proposed Action
This consultation addresses the use of the sidecast dredges FRY, MERRITT and SCHWEIZER
and the split -hull hopper dredge CURRITUCK, to maintain shallow, coastal inlet navigation
channels along the eastern seaboard of the United States. These specialized dredge plants are
currently used primarily by the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers at many locations in
North Carolina but also occasionally elsewhere along the eastern seaboard. Normally, they are
used in: 1) shallow coastal inlets which cannot be dredged safely or effectively with
commercially available dredges, 2) during emergencies, or 3) when an urgent and compelling
need exists for clearing out a navigation channel, such as periods when rapid shoaling has
occurred, a navigation hazard may exist, and there is insufficient time to contract commercial
dredges.
The sidecast dredges FRY and MERRITT each have two drag arms, one on each side, that
vacuum the sediment through 10 -inch intake pipes as the arms drag along the bottom. The
sediment is pumped through a combined 12 -inch discharge pipe that is above the water surface
and perpendicular to the dredge. The SCHWEIZER is laid out similarly but its dredge suction
pipes are 14 inches in diameter and combined discharge pipe is 16 inches in diameter. In all
three dredges the discharge pipe extends about 60 feet beyond the side of the dredge. This pipe
distance and force from the pumps generally results in the sediment being deposited 85 to 100
feet from the dredge. The sediment is discharged on the side of the channel where the
predominant currents would tend to move the sediment away from the channel.
�p ATMOSp�q
�AlMENTOF ��

The split -hull hopper dredge CURRITUCK has drag arms similar to a sidecast dredge, but the
sediment is pumped into the dredge's hopper. The water in the hopper is overflowed to provide
an economic load of sand, since the dredged slurry entering the hopper contains about 20% sand
and 80% water. Once the hopper is full of sand (about 300 cubic yards), the sediment is taken to
nearshore ocean waters (normally 6 to 10 below feet mean low water) where the split -hull hopper
is opened and the sediments are dumped.
These vessels operate year-round to dredge and maintain shallow navigation channels with
depths between 4 feet and 14 feet below mean low water. Vessels operate without sea turtle
deflectors on the dragheads, and have no screening or observers. Draghead suction is produced
by use of dredge pumps averaging 350 -horsepower, with a maximum horsepower of 400. The
draghead sizes range from approximately 2 feet by 2 feet to 2 feet by 3 feet. The draghead
openings are further subdivided on their undersides by gridded baffles, with openings ranging
from about 5 inches by 5 inches to 5 inches by 8 inches. These baffles restrict the size of objects
which can enter the dredge draghead.
Listed Species and Critical Habitat
Listed species under the jurisdiction of the NMFS that may occur in channels along the
southeastern United States and which may be affected by dredging include:
THREATENED:
(1) the loggerhead turtle - Caretta caretta
ENDANGERED:
(1) the right whale - Eubalaena glacialis
(2) the humpback whale - Megaptera novaeangliae
(3) the green turtle - Chelonia mydas
Note: green turtles in U.S. waters are listed as threatened, except for the Florida breeding
population which is listed as endangered.
(4) the Kemp's ridley turtle - Lepidochelys kempii
(5) the hawksbill turtle - Eretmochelys imbricata
(6) the shortnose sturgeon - Acipenser brevirostrum
Additional endangered species which are known to occur along the Atlantic coast include the
finback (Balaenoptera physalus), the sei (Balaenoptera borealis), and sperm (Physeter
macrocephalus) whales and the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). NMFS has
determined that these species are unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposed dredge vessel
activities because they are unlikely to be encountered in the shallow, coastal inlet waters that
typify the project areas.
2

Right whale critical habitat overlaps portions of the project area. There are five well-known
habitats used annually by right whales including: 1) coastal Florida and Georgia, 2) the Great
South Channel, east of Cape Cod, 3) Cape Cod and Massachusetts bays, 4) the Bay of Fundy, and
5) Browns and Baccaro Banks, south of Nova Scotia. The first three areas occur in U.S. waters
and have been designated by NMFS as critical habitat (59 FR, 28793, June 3, 1994).
Biological information on the right whale and humpback whale is included by reference to the
August 25, 1995 Biological Opinion on hopper dredging in the southeastern United States, and
the NMFS recovery plans for right whales and humpback whales (NMFS 1991a; 1991b). The
following discussions focus primarily on vessel interactions with whales.
Right Whales:
New information has recently become available on the right whale population. A progression of
discussions and analysis has occurred during ESA section 7 consultations conducted in 1995 and
1996 on vessel and aircraft operations of the U.S. Coast Guard, and the prosecution of northeast
Atlantic fisheries for American lobster and multi -species, concerning the population trend for
the northern right whale. The current conclusion is that it remains unknown whether or not the
population is showing a decline, or whether the population growth rate has remained at a
constant rate of 2.5% or at a constant, but lower rate. The 1996 NMFS draft stock assessment
report indicates that the size of this population may have been as low as 50 at the turn of the
century, which suggests that the species may be showing signs of a slow recovery to the current
estimate of 295. However, a recent statistical analysis based on current trends in right whale
mortality predicts that the northern right whale population is doomed to extinction and calculates
their extinction date as 2189 (Caswell et al. 1999 in press) . Other right whale researchers have
expressed their doubts as to the efficacy of current conservation measures to prevent extinction
of the northern right whale population (Slay 1999, personal communication). In any event, the
current small population size combined with their low reproductive rate suggest that
anthropogenic impacts may have a greater effect on this species than other endangered whales
subject to the same impacts.
Anthropogenic causes of right whale mortality are discussed in detail in Kraus (1990) as well as
in NMFS (1991 a). Ship collisions and entanglements are the most common direct causes of
mortality identified through right whale strandings. Twenty percent of all right whale mortalities
observed between 1970 and 1989 were caused by vessel collisions/interactions with right whales.
An additional 8% of these mortalities are suspected to have resulted from vessel collision.
As a result of the potential for interactions between vessels and right whales from December
through March in the calving area off Georgia and northern Florida, aerial surveys funded by the
COE, Navy and USCG have been implemented as the right whale early warning system. These
surveys are conducted to identify the occurrence and distribution of right whales in the vicinity of
ship channels in the winter breeding area, and to notify nearby vessel operators of whales in their
path. Data collected during these surveys indicate that right whales are observed off Savannah,
3

Georgia, in December and March, and are relatively abundant between Brunswick, Georgia,
south to Cape Canaveral from December through March. During early 1995, a right whale was
also observed by shipboard observers off Morehead City, North Carolina.
Humpback Whales:
The Humpback Whale Recovery Plan (NMFS 1991b) identifies entanglement and ship collisions
as potential sources of mortality, and disturbance, habitat degradation, and competition with
commercial fisheries as potential factors delaying recovery of the species.
Until recently, humpback whales in the mid- and south Atlantic were considered transients. Few
were seen during aerial surveys conducted over a decade ago (Shoop et al., 1982). However,
since 1989, sightings of feeding juvenile humpbacks have increased along the coasts of Virginia
and North Carolina, peaking during the months of January through March in 1991 and 1992
(Swingle et al., 1993). Shipboard observations conducted during daylight hours during dredging
activities in the Morehead City Harbor entrance channel during January and February 1995
documented sightings of young humpback whales on at least six days near the channel and
disposal area, through January 22, 1995. Three humpback strandings were documented in North
Carolina in that year, one each in February, March, and April, suggesting that humpback whales
remained within South Atlantic waters through April.
Swingle et al. (1993) identify a shift in distribution of juvenile humpback whales in the nearshore
waters of Virginia, primarily in winter months. Those whales using this mid-Atlantic area that
have been identified were found to be residents of the Gulf of Maine feeding group, suggesting a
shift in distribution that may be related to winter prey availability. In concert with the increase in
mid-Atlantic whale sightings, strandings of humpback whales have increased between New
Jersey and Florida since 1985. Strandings were most frequent during the months of September
through April in North Carolina and Virginia waters, and were composed primarily of juvenile
humpback whales of no more than 11 meters in length (Wiley et al., 1995). Six of 18
humpbacks (33 percent) for which the cause of mortality was determined were killed by vessel
strikes. An additional humpback had scars and bone fractures indicative of a previous vessel
strike that may have contributed to the whale's mortality. Sixty percent of those mortalities that
were closely investigated showed signs of entanglement or vessel collision (Wiley et al., 1993).
Sea Turtles:
Information on the biology and distribution of sea turtles can be found in the 1991 and 1995
Biological Opinions on hopper dredging in channels and borrow areas, which are incorporated by
reference. Channel specific information has been collected by the COE for channels at Morehead
City, Charleston, Savannah, Brunswick, Fernandina and Canaveral, and is presented in detail in
COE summary report entitled "Assessment of Sea Turtle Abundance in Six South Atlantic U.S.
Channels" (Dickerson et al. 1994) and in the COE's Biological Assessment. Information on the
4

biology and distribution of right whales and humpback whales can be found in the 1991 and
1995 Biological Opinions as well. There is no significant new information regarding the status
of sea turtle species that has not been discussed in the Biological Opinions that have been
incorporated by reference.
Sturgeons:
Shortnose sturgeon are found in rivers, estuaries, and the sea, but populations are confined
mostly to natal rivers and estuaries. The species appears to be estuarine anadromous in the
southern part of its range, but in some northern rivers it is "freshwater amphidromous," i.e.,
adults spawn in freshwater but regularly enter saltwater habitats during their life. Adults in
southern rivers forage at the interface of fresh tidal water and saline estuaries and enter the upper
reaches of rivers to spawn in early spring (NMFS 1998).
The use of saline habitat varies greatly among northern populations. In the Saint John and
Hudson rivers, adults occur in both freshwater and upper tidal saline areas all year. This
situation may also exist in the Kennebec River system where, during summer, some adults forage
in the saline estuary while others forage in freshwater reaches. In the Delaware, Merrimack_ and
Connecticut Rivers, adults remain in freshwater all year, but some adults briefly enter low
salinity river reaches in May -June then return upriver. Some adults have been captured in
nearshore marine habitat, but this is not well documented. Many tagging and telemetry studies in
rivers throughout the species' range indicate that these fish remain in their natal river or the
river's estuary (NMFS 1998).
The final recovery plan for the shortnose sturgeon (NMFS 1998b) gives the current, best
available information on the distribution and abundance of shortnose sturgeon, and is
incorporated herein by reference. However, in the project area, the Cape Fear River, North
Carolina, shortnose sturgeon population would be the most likely to be affected by the proposed
dredging activities. No other shortnose sturgeon populations are known from North Carolina,
which is where most of the maintenance dredging by the vessels considered in this consultation
has historically occurred and will continue.
Effects of the Proposed Action
Effects on Sea Turtles
The construction and maintenance of Federal navigation channels by hopper dredges have been
identified as a source of turtle mortality. NMFS has previously consulted on the use of hopper
dredges in southeastern United States channels and borrow areas, and Gulf of Mexico channels.
The November 25, 1991 biological opinion issued to the COE's South Atlantic Division (SAD)
found that continued hopper dredging activity was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the Kemp's ridley sea turtle. The reasonable and prudent alternative issued with the 1991

biological opinion included the prohibition of hopper dredging in the Canaveral channel
(Florida), seasonal restrictions which allowed hopper dredging from December through March in
channels from North Carolina through Canaveral, or use of alternative dredges in all southeastern
U.S. channels.
In addition to hopper dredges, clamshell, sidecast and pipeline dredges are all used to dredge and
maintain navigation channels. Pipeline and clamshell dredges are relatively stationary, and
therefore act on only small areas at any given time. Observer coverage was required at pipeline
outflows during several dredging projects deploying pipeline dredges along the Atlantic coast.
No turtles or turtle parts were observed. Additionally, the COE's SAD provided documentation
of hundreds of hours of informal observation by COE inspectors during which no takes of listed
species were observed. Additional monitoring by other agency personnel, conservation
organizations, and the general public has never resulted in reports of a turtle take by pipeline
dredges. In contrast, large capacity, oceangoing hopper dredges, which are frequently used in
ocean bar channels and sometimes in harbor channels and offshore borrow areas, move relatively
rapidly and can entrain and kill sea turtles, presumably as the drag arm of the moving dredge
overtakes the slower moving turtle. Brumation by sea turtles in southeastern channels, when they
bury themselves in the channel bottom mud and presumably slow their metabolic processes, is
also suspected in deaths of some sea turtles by hopper dredge. The reasons for this are that: 1)
the turtle deflector device on the leading edge of the draghead is probably less effective at
deflecting buried sea turtles than deflecting turtles which are simply resting or foraging on the
channel bottom, 2) the turtles' ability to move out of the way quickly may be compromised
because they are partially buried in sediment, and 3) their flight response time may be lengthened
due to their torpor or reduced metabolic rate during brumation.
The operation of sidecast dredges FRY, MERRITT and SCHWEIZER and the small capacity,
coastal hopper dredge CURRITUCK is not expected to adversely affect listed species of sea
turtles because of the slow speed of the vessels, the low suction levels inherent to these small
dredges, and the small size of the dragheads. These species should be able to get out of the way
of the slow moving dredges, which operate at speeds of 1 to 3 knots when working in inlet
channels. From sea turtle tests performed by the Corps of Engineers in New River Inlet in 1998,
it is known that the suction dragheads of these vessels exhibit very low suction forces. Further,
the dragheads have very small openings --3 inches by 5 inches for the CURRITUCK and 5.5
inches by 8 inches for the sidecast dredges. The results of the tests conducted by the Corps of
Engineers on a previously -dead, juvenile (13.5 -inch carapace length) green turtle demonstrated
that the low suction forces and small openings prevented the lifeless turtle from being entrained.
Further, the suction force was low enough that the turtle was easily prodded and moved with a
pole despite being held by the suction force against the draghead. If a small, live turtle did get
impinged by the pump suction against the draghead, the turtle would very likely soon be broken
free of the suction by the motion of the draghead along the irregular bottom and/or its own efforts
to free itself. Even if a turtle small enough to pass through the draghead were encountered, it
could pass through the dredge relatively unharmed due to the low pump pressures involved.
0

It is unlikely that turtles small enough to pass through the dragheads will be encountered in
significant numbers in the proposed operating area of the dredges. The smallest of three sea
turtles (all loggerheads) taken during hopper dredging operations in November -December 1998
at Beaufort Inlet Entrance Channel, North Carolina by the dredge SUGAR ISLAND measured 57
cm by 44 cm curved carapace length (CCL) by curved carapace width (CCW). During hopper
dredging operations in February of 1999 in Kings Bay Entrance Channel, Fernandina, Florida, a
total of 33 sea turtles (all juvenile loggerheads) were captured and relocated by a contract trawler
sweeping the area in front of the large capacity hopper dredge R.N. WEEKS. (The R.N. WEEKS
has a dredged material storage capacity approximately 10 times that of the CURRITUCK, and
significantly larger dragheads, pumps and suction). The smallest captured and relocated
loggerhead measured 54.5 cm CCL by 52.0 cm CCW. One Kemp's ridley that was lethally taken
by the R.N. WEEKS measured approximately 30 cm in carapace diameter. Neither of these
turtles would have been entrained by the smaller sized gridded dragheads of the vessels
considered in this consultation because of their small openings.
Sea turtle strandings were compiled by R. Boettcher of North Carolina Marine Fisheries
Commission for beaches within 3 miles (north, south, and inland) of Oregon Inlet, Drum Inlet,
New Topsail Inlet, and Lockwood Folly Inlet, North Carolina for all periods when dredging
operations occurred for 1994 - 1997 (ACOE, 1998) for the four vessels considered in this
consultation. A total of 19 loggerheads, one green and one Kemp's ridley were reported
stranded. The size of the stranded loggerheads would have precluded their entrainment by the
vessels considered in this consultation (the smallest loggerhead which stranded measured 23.5
inches by 22.5 inches (CCL by CCW). The rarest and smallest of the turtles which stranded
during the reporting period—the green and the Kemp's ridley — measured 12 inches by 10 inches
(CCL by CCW), and 15 inches by 15 inches, respectively, and were also too large to have been
entrained by the dragheads of the vessels considered in this consultation. Both of these turtles
stranded within three miles of Lockwood Folly Inlet.
Additional data was compiled and analyzed by Boettcher on the measurements of sea turtle
strandings and incidental captures in North Carolina from 1996-1998. Of 25 stranded green
turtles for which straight-line carapace widths (SCWs) were measured in 1996, roughly 95%
(mean plus or minus two standard deviations) ranged between 7.5-12.5 inches (mean SCW was
10.0 inches); in 1997, roughly 95% of 29 stranded green turtles had SCWs of 6.7-12.4 inches
(mean SCW was 9.5 inches); in 1998, roughly 95% of 43 stranded green turtles had SCWs of
3.8-16.4 inches (mean SCW was 10.1 inches), while roughly 68% (mean plus or minus one
standard deviation) had SCWs of 7.0-13.3 inches. In 1996 of 9 stranded Kemp's, roughly 95%
had SCWs of 7.5-17.4 inches (mean SCW was 12.6 inches); in 1997 of 34 stranded Kemp's,
roughly 95% had SCWs of 6.2-19.2 inches (mean SCW was 12.7 inches); in 1998 of 75 stranded
Kemp's, roughly 95% had SCWs of 4.6-19.5 inches (mean SCW was 12.0 inches). The
difference between the SCW and straight-line carapace length (SCL) measurements of the 212
stranded Kemp's and greens considered above ranged from 0.8 to 2.2 inches. It appears based on
these measurements and the size of the openings on the dragheads (the largest opening is 5 by 8
inches), that the vast majority of both greens and Kemp's ridleys considered here could not and
7

would not be entrained by the dragheads. Both species are considerably smaller than the
abundant loggerheads. While the possibility of entrainment of the smallest individuals of these
two species cannot be ruled out, it is unlikely to occur.
Effects on Sturgeon
Aside from seasonal migrations to estuarine waters, shortnose sturgeon rarely occur in the marine
environment. Shortnose sturgeon spawning habitat in the potential project areas should lie well
upstream of the ocean inlet environments typically dredged by the small capacity, coastal hopper
dredge CURRITUCK and the small sidecast dredges FRY, SCHWEIZER and MERRITT.
Juvenile shortnose usually remain upstream of saline water until they reach about 45 cm
(approximately 18 inches) in length.
Habitat conditions normally suitable for adults (shortnose greater than 45 cm in length) could
occur in estuarine areas where these vessels might be required to work. Sturgeon habitat within
the areas dredged would be temporarily disturbed during maintenance dredging. However, the
dredges considered in this consultation restore navigation channels to their authorized
dimensions to reestablish a previously existing condition (depth). Therefore, no new permanent
modification of habitat will occur.
Maintenance dredging of Federal navigational channels can adversely affect sturgeon by
entraining them in dredge dragarms and impeller pumps (NMFS 1998). Other dredging methods
may also adversely affect sturgeon. Hastings (1983) reported anecdotal accounts of adult
sturgeon being expelled from dredge spoil pipes while conducting a study on sturgeon on the
Atlantic coast. Atlantic sturgeon were killed in both hydraulic pipeline and bucket -and -barge
(clamshell dredge) operations in the Cape Fear River (M. Moser in NMFS 1998). NMFS
observers documented the take of one Atlantic sturgeon in a hopper dredge operating in King's
Bay, Georgia (C. Slay in NMFS 1998). Two shortnose sturgeon carcasses were discovered in a
dredge spoil near Tullytown, Pennsylvania and apparently killed by a hydraulic pipeline dredge
operating in the Delaware River in March 1996 (NMFS 1998). In early 1998, three shortnose
sturgeon were killed by a hydraulic pipeline dredge operating in the Florence to Trenton section
of the upper Delaware River (NMFS 1998).
Adult shortnose could occur in some of the areas that may be dredged by these vessels. Adults
would be most likely to be encountered in the winter and spring, after spawning and their
migrations to feeding areas in downstream and estuarine waters. However, because of their
mobility, adult shortnose sturgeon should be able to avoid the slow moving dredge equipment if
they move away when they detect the approaching draghead. Given their specialized sensory
apparatus, they should be able to detect the vibrations of a slow moving, approaching draghead.
Also, given the size of the shortnose sturgeon which would be expected to occupy the coastal
inlets being dredged, i.e. greater than 45 cm, it is unlikely that they would be entrained by the
slow moving, low suction dragheads. Entrained sturgeons passing through the suction pipelines
could pass through unharmed, or they could be killed. Though the possibility of injury or death
cannot be ruled out, as evidenced by the historic record, the likelihood is remote.
8

Effects on Whales
Right whales and humpback whales are vulnerable to small vessel and ship collisions when the
whales make their annual migrations along the eastern seaboard. The sidecast dredges FRY,
MERRITT and SCHWEIZER transit at approximately 7 to 10 knots from the inlet dredging sites
to adjacent beach sites to dispose of dredged materials. The CURRITUCK travels at speeds of 5
to 8 knots to adjacent beaches or offshore disposal sites. Because of these slow speeds, these
vessels should present a minimal threat to migrating whales — certainly less than that of normal,
faster -moving commercial ship traffic and recreational boating. Adverse impacts to right whales
and humpbacks from the dredges and dredging operations are not expected because 1) the
dredges work in the throats and interior portions of inlets which are not used by whales, 2) the
dredges travel at very low rates of speed during dredging operations, 3) the captains of the
dredges will be provided daily information on the positions of the migrating right whales, and 4)
the dredges will reduce their speed as necessary and maintain a proper lookout to avoid collisions
with whales when transiting to disposal sites and right whales are in the area.
Conclusion
Based on our consideration of the best available information, we believe that the year-round
operation of the hopper dredge CURRITUCK and the sidecast dredges FRY, MERRITT and
SCHWEIZER to maintain coastal inlets on the eastern seaboard of the United States may affect,
but is not likely to adversely affect the continued existence of listed species under NMFS
purview. This consultation is valid as well for the operation by Wilmington District Corps of
Engineers for channel maintenance dredging of up to 10 vessels of this or similar type and size
class (under 500 gross tons), with similar dragheads (Brunswick, Brunswick County Type,
Brunswick Adjustable, or equivalent), dredge pump horsepower (400 H.P. maximum), and
suction and discharge pipe specifications (dredge suction pipes 10-14 inches in diameter, and
combined discharge pipe 12-16 inches in diameter).
This concludes consultation responsibilities with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA.
Consultation should also be reinitiated pursuant to 50 CFR 402.16 if there is new information
that reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat (when
designated) in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, if the identified action is
subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed species or critical habitat that
has not been considered, or if a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be
affected by the identified action.
Please call Mr. Eric Hawk, Fishery Biologist, at 727/570-5312 if you have any questions
regarding this consultation or if further coordination is necessary.
Ceryl' : 3
7
Kemmerer
Regional Administrator

References
Caswell, H. et al. 1999. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. In press.
Dickerson, D.D., K.J. Reine, D.A. Nelson and C.E. Dickerson. 1994. Assessment of Sea Turtle
Abundance in Six South Atlantic U.S. Channels. Report for the US Army Corps of
Engineers, October, 1994.
Hastings, R.W. 1983. A study of the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, population in
the upper tidal Delaware River: assessment of impact of maintenance dredging. Final
Report. 81 5670 USACE Shortnose Sturgeon—Delaware River (Hastings) DACW 61-
81-C-0138. Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Philadelphia District. 117pp.
Kraus, S.D. 1990. Rates and potential causes of mortality in North Atlantic right whales
(Eubalaena glacialis). Marine Mammal Science. 6(4):278-291.
NMFS. 1991. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation with U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, South Atlantic Division on hopper dredging of channels in the southeastern
United States from North Carolina through Cape Canaveral, Florida. Biological
Opinion, November 25.
NMFS. 1991a. Recovery plan for the northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Prepared by
the Right Whale Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service,
Silver Spring, Maryland. 86 pp.
NMFS. 1991b. Recovery plan for the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Prepared
by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the NMFS, Silver Spring,
Maryland. 105 pp.
NMFS. 1995. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation with U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, South Atlantic Division on hopper dredging of channels and borrow areas in
the southeastern United States from North Carolina through Florida east coast.
Biological Opinion, August 25. 25 pp.
NMFS. 1997a. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation with U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, South Atlantic Division on the continued hopper dredging of two channels
and two borrow areas in the southeastern United States during 1997. Biological
Opinion, April 9. 16 pp.
NMFS. 1997b. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation with U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, South Atlantic Division on the continued hopper dredging of channels and
borrow areas in the southeastern United States. Biological Opinion, October 14. 16 pp.
10