19990494 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19990517

11 di?
W
JAMES 13, HUNT JR:
GOYMNOR
W?R;?r74DIRYITT,?;H
54CRWrARY '
;s
4' :v7
•t r 7
n
:r
e .•?5??4u'ii la.Y?
'.r.
Zl
? +h ^'5
.." 444111 A_

919 733 5321

FAIVX OVER
05/04 '99 10:53 N0.494 01/03
NowrH CARcwKA DcrAR'rmENT or
ENVFRoNmF_r4'T AND NATURAL 'REsouRcmq
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
TO: tf
Fax number
FROM: '' ve,,?
?'kton? number 7, 9 - t c.
SUBJECT:, +n
q- t j'"r
ek S
DATE: c f 471
Total of
pages
Message., c Or ,$
DWQ/Wetlands Restoration Proms
Phone Number 919-733-5208
Fax Number 919-733-5321
PP.4. 8QR 29535. RALR.IOx. NORTH CAROLINA 27626.05
P14ONC 919-7$a.7019 C"Ax 019-79i S-2A"o
Aft L'QUAI. CPPORTV NITY / AFFIRMATIVE AICTTON £MPLOYER - 79O% RECYCLEC/t OIA POST-CON71V MER PAPRR
r?.•n7:. •?rxp.,ty,
DWQ NCWRP
919 733 5321 05/04 '99 10:54 N0.494 02/03
MQRTI-i CAR4' LjmA DEPAWrMEN`I'' OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WA'YM QUALITY
Memorandum
To: Pave Lekson, Wasbington Office Mmi4ger,, USACOE
From: Jvf#' Jurek, DWQ
Date: May 4,1999
Subject: Mitigation; Bank site visit trlW mum criteria
With tho inoreasing domand for Private.ZV,fitigatiQn 13w*s to assist in handiiutg mitigation
needs in North Carolina, standardization ofthe Mitigation Ranking process has became
more ethical. The agencies involved in the Mitigation Banking Review Team (MBRI")
do not have the time to address each issue in detail for each Mitigation Bank. Where the
MBRT has reeentiv met to discuss issues such as service area, credit ratios, and credit
teiease schedule, the issue of site visits must be addressed.
k recent site visits. DWQ has felt Od the MBRT is being used as a. sounding board for
whether the situ would quality as part ofa Bank. We feel that the purp w 9f: tbv site
visits should serve as a. supplement to the restoration plat, which would provide the
MBRT essential information; to review the Banker's proposals.
DWQ proposes below the mimmutm criteria that a Mitigadon Danker must provide the
MBRT before a site visit will occur,
River Basin
USGS 8.&Vt Cataloging Unit
County/City
owner(s) of property
Topo Map (7.5 min_ Quad) showing site boundaries
Locator Map (Roads, Municipalities, dirrevtions to site)
Air photos of site
Soil Survey map showing site boumdaries and indicatious ofhyddc soils
Delineation of site indicating jurisdictional wetlands
Narrative describing current conditions of site
-Community types (Cowardiu)
Hydrology/H,vdrography (water control structures, charnnellmtion)
-Soil information
-include any available pre-momwring data
Brief narrative describing implementation of prvjcct (target conditions)
-Include a=v2geAi.*cw feet of each type mitigation
-Reference sites (one per community type)
-Functions this Bank will re- store, enhance, or preserve
How furxcdons address needs ofv atetshed
-Impacts upsuea nfidownstream. adjacent lands
"*Now*-Nod** of impending site visit should be delivored by tlae rgn=nWve
USCOE field office, not Banker,
P.p, BOX 29595, RA6519M, NORTM GAROLFNA "6243.9535
Pnonc4t'-730-7075 FAXB19-733-2499
AN EQUAL OPPORTUtOITY /AFriMMAT1VEAWUQN 1;MPLOYER- 50J(r RSCYCLEO/TO% P08T-CON6VMQR RAPER
DWQ NCWRP
DWQ NCWRP 919 733 5321 05/04 199 10:54 N0.494 03/03

cc_ John Domey, DWQ
K= Jolly; Office Mwagor, M*fi offim USACOE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
April 20, 1999 Az? ?7
IN REPLY REFER TO
0
e- 71,1 A-'
o -e
Environmental Resources Section
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Enclosed is an application for water quality certification, pursuant to Section 401
of Public Law 95-217, for the construction of the Wanchese Marsh Creation and
Protection project, under the authority of Section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992, as amended. The Section 204 Draft Feasibility Report and
Environmental Assessment for this project is also enclosed.
Should you have any questions concerning the application, please contact
Mr. Chuck Wilson, Environmental Resources Section, at [phone].
Sincerely,
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosures (7 copies)

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
FOR
WANCHESE MARSH CREATION AND PROTECTION PROJECT, NC
1. DATE: April 9, 1999 4#'
2. NAME/ADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fi`t'
Wilmington District F
`r ?s c
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: Terry R. Youngbluth
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Mr. Chuck Wilson
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection Project, NC.
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The proposed action is described in detail
in the enclosed Section 204 Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment,
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection Proiect, NC, dated March 1999.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: The marshes of Roanoke Sound are important
habitat for fish and wildlife resources and support recreational and commercial activities
that rely on these resources. These marshes are eroding at an accelerated rate.
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection, North Carolina, is proposed for construction
under the authority of Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, as
amended. The proposed plan involves the construction of estuarine creek and marsh
habitat using dredged material from maintenance of the Manteo-Oregon Inlet Channel and
Side Channel to Wanchese, a portion of the Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay project and
enhancing the area by the application of. oyster cultch. This project will restore or enhance
about 8 acres of estuarine creek and marsh habitat and protect 2 acres of adjacent marsh
currently threatened by erosion providing a total of 10 acres of valuable estuarine marsh
habitat that will be either enhanced, restored, or protected by this project. About 1 acre
of existing aquatic habitat will be converted to upland for construction of a protective dike,
required for the long-term protection of the constructed habitat. This action is considered
IL
a beneficial use of dredged material. The proposed project would be located in Roanoke
Sound at Wanchese Harbor adjacent to the channel from Oregon Inlet, Dare County, North
Carolina. The project site is north of and adjacent to the entrance of Wanchese Harbor,
located on the southeastern corner of Roanoke Island, North Carolina.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: July 2000, depending on funding.
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: Subject to the availability of funds, project construction
activities are proposed to be initiated by July 2000 and be completed in or about May
2002. The construction period will also include annual monitoring and potential
remediation that will occur during the 3-year establishment period ending in October 2004.
Placement and excavation for filling of the geo-tube and other activities associated with
construction of the containment structure are expected to take about 6 months to complete
and will begin prior to the October 1 - March 31 dredging window. Dredging and material
disposal will occur within the existing dredging window to the degree practical. Grading
will be conducted within a containment structure and seasonal restrictions for this activity
are not proposed. Planting will be conducted during the months of March - May.
11. DISCHARGE OF:
X Dredged Material
X Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: Wanchese, North Carolina
County: Dare
Drainage Basin: Roanoke Sound
Receiving Waters: Roanoke Sound
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Coastal
Nature: Estuarine
Direction of Flow: Variable (tidal sound)
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: Temporary and
permanent sand dikes will be constructed from sandy material from the interior of the
construction site, island H or an appropriate upland source. Permanent dikes construction
will require placement of a geo-tube and/or sandbags and armor stone and bedding stone.
Materials proposed for marsh/creek construction include Wanchese Harbor Channel
sediments which are predominantly (85 - 90 percent) highly organic, black, silts and clays
and sediments of adjacent reaches (Tangent 14) of the Oregon Inlet to Manteo Channel
L
which contain higher percentages of sand (50 - 75 percent). Sediment sampling is
described in the environmental assessment, section 3.03 and Attachment C.
15. PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE:
None.
16. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS SA, HQW, OR
ORW?
X YES (circle one) _ NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: About 9 acres of primarily unvegetated, estuarine waters with a remnant
marsh fringe. About 0.5 acres of marsh would be filled to tie in the dike and
constructed marsh to the existing shoreline. Net increase in vegetated wetlands
of about 4 acres is expected.
Excavated: None.
Total Impacted: 9 acres.
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST
BE CARRIED OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE
WETLAND IMPACTS: This action is considered a beneficial use of dredged material.
The Wanchese marsh project was recommended as a pilot site for wetland restoration by
the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Work Group (an interagency committee of State
and Federal resource agencies) at a December 5, 1996, meeting hosted by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Individuals from the USFWS, National Marine Fisheries,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF),
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, North Carolina Division of Water
Resources, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, and North Carolina Public Health, Pest Management, are represented in
this group.
• A temporary sand dike or sandbags will be used to temporarily increase the
height of the containment structure as needed to assure the initial containment of
dredged materials during construction.
;ermanent The project design was modified in response to agency requests to reduce the
dike height and improve tidal circulation within the site. The addition of
oyster shell was incorporated into the proposed plan and a central creek was added
to the constructed marsh to increase the length of marsh/water interface.
3
r! t ,L
19. HAVE ANY SECTION 401 CERTIFICATES BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR
USE ON THIS PROPERTY?
YES X NO IF YES. EXPLAIN:
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true and correct
to the best of my knowledge.
W -1?-
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Technical Services Division
DATE: lze
Attachments
For prompt processing, submit:
* Seven (7) copies of completed application
* Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
* Copies of previous 401 Certifications
V ',_ 'IV
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
FOR ?J v
WANCHESE MARSH CREATION AND PROTECTION PROJECT, NC
DATE: April 9, 1999
2. NAME/ADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: Terry R. Youngbluth
Colonel, U. S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Mr. Chuck Wilson
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
1
6. PROJECT NAME: Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection Project, NC.
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The proposed action is described in detail
in the enclosed Section 204 Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment,
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection Proiect, NC, dated March 1999.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: The marshes of Roanoke Sound are important
habitat for fish and wildlife resources and support recreational and commercial activities
that rely on these resources. These marshes are eroding at an accelerated rate.
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection, North Carolina, is proposed for construction
under the authority of Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, as
amended. The proposed plan involves the construction of estuarine creek and marsh
habitat using dredged material from maintenance of the Manteo-Oregon Inlet Channel and
Side Channel to Wanchese, a portion of the Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay project and
enhancing the area by the application of oyster cultch. This project will restore or enhance
about 8 acres of estuarine creek and marsh habitat and protect 2 acres of adjacent marsh
currently threatened by erosion providing a total of 10 acres of valuable estuarine marsh
habitat that will be either enhanced, restored, or protected by this project. About 1 acre
of existing aquatic habitat will be converted to upland for construction of a protective dike,
required for the long-term protection of the constructed habitat. This action is considered
a beneficial use of dredged material. The proposed project would be located in Roanoke
Sound at Wanchese Harbor adjacent to the channel from Oregon Inlet, Dare County, North
Carolina. The project site is north of and adjacent to the entrance of Wanchese Harbor,
located on the southeastern corner of Roanoke Island, North Carolina.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: July 2000, depending on funding.
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: Subject to the availability of funds, project construction
activities are proposed to be initiated by July 2000 and be completed in or about May
2002. The construction period will also include annual monitoring and potential
remediation that will occur during the 3-year establishment period ending in October 2004.
Placement and excavation for filling of the geo-tube and other activities associated with
construction of the containment structure are expected to take about 6 months to complete
and will begin prior to the October 1 - March 31 dredging window. Dredging and material
disposal will occur within the existing dredging window to the degree practical. Grading
will be conducted within a containment structure and seasonal restrictions for this activity
are not proposed. Planting will be conducted during the months of March - May.
11. DISCHARGE OF:
X Dredged Material
X Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: Wanchese, North Carolina
County: Dare
Drainage Basin: Roanoke Sound
Receiving Waters: Roanoke Sound
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Coastal
Nature: Estuarine
Direction of Flow: Variable (tidal sound)
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: Temporary and
permanent sand dikes will be constructed from sandy material from the interior of the
construction site, island H or an appropriate upland source. Permanent dikes construction
will require placement of a geo-tube and/or sandbags and armor stone and bedding stone.
Materials proposed for marsh/creek construction include Wanchese Harbor Channel
sediments which are predominantly (85 - 90 percent) highly organic, black, silts and clays
and sediments of adjacent reaches (Tangent 14) of the Oregon Inlet to Manteo Channel
t° .
which contain higher percentages of sand (50 - 75 percent). Sediment sampling is
described in the environmental assessment, section 3.03 and Attachment C.
15. PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE:
None.
16. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS SA, HQW, OR
ORW?
X YES (circle one) _ NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: About 9 acres of primarily unvegetated, estuarine waters with a remnant
marsh fringe. About 0.5 acres of marsh would be filled to tie in the dike and
constructed marsh to the existing shoreline. Net increase in vegetated wetlands
of about 4 acres is expected.
Excavated: None.
Total Impacted: 9 acres.
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST
BE CARRIED OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE
WETLAND IMPACTS: This action is considered a beneficial use of dredged material.
The Wanchese marsh project was recommended as a pilot site for wetland restoration by
the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Work Group (an interagency committee of State
and Federal resource agencies) at a December 5, 1996, meeting hosted by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Individuals from the USFWS, National Marine Fisheries,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF),
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, North Carolina Division of Water
Resources, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, and North Carolina Public Health, Pest Management, are represented in
this group.
A temporary sand dike or sandbags will be used to temporarily increase the
height of the containment structure as needed to assure the initial containment of
dredged materials during construction.
. The project design was modified in response to agency requests to reduce the
permanent dike height and improve tidal circulation within the site. The addition of
oyster shell was incorporated into the proposed plan and a central creek was added
to the constructed marsh to increase the length of marsh/water interface.
'{ . - .
19. HAVE ANY SECTION 401 CERTIFICATES BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR
USE ON THIS PROPERTY?
YES X NO IF YES. EXPLAIN:
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true and correct
to the best of my knowledge.
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Technical Services Division
DATE: 10v 61
Attachments
For prompt processing, submit:
* Seven (7) copies of completed application
* Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
* Copies of previous 401 Certifications

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATIOFOR
WANCHESE MARSH CREATION AND PROTECTION PROJECT,
1. DATE: April 9, 1999
2. NAME/ADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: Terry R. Youngbluth
Colonel, U. S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Mr. Chuck Wilson
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection Project, NC.
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The proposed action is described in detail
in the enclosed Section 204 Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment,
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection Project. NC, dated March 1999.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: The marshes of Roanoke Sound are important
habitat for fish and wildlife resources and support recreational and commercial activities
that rely on these resources. These marshes are eroding at an accelerated rate.
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection, North Carolina, is proposed for construction
under the authority of Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, as
amended. The proposed plan involves the construction of estuarine creek and marsh
habitat using dredged material from maintenance of the Manteo-Oregon Inlet Channel and
Side Channel to Wanchese, a portion of the Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay project and
enhancing the area by the application of oyster cultch. This project will restore or enhance
about 8 acres of estuarine creek and marsh habitat and protect 2 acres of adjacent marsh
currently threatened by erosion providing a total of 10 acres of valuable estuarine marsh
habitat that will be either enhanced, restored, or protected by this project. About 1 acre
of existing aquatic habitat will be converted to upland for construction of a protective dike,
required for the long-term protection of the constructed habitat. This action is considered
-1 ? 'n.

a beneficial use of dredged material. The proposed project would be located in Roanoke
Sound at Wanchese Harbor adjacent to the channel from Oregon Inlet, Dare County, North
Carolina. The project site is north of and adjacent to the entrance of Wanchese Harbor,
located on the southeastern corner of Roanoke Island, North Carolina.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: July 2000, depending on funding.
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: Subject to the availability of funds, project construction
activities are proposed to be initiated by July 2000 and be completed in or about May
2002. The construction period will also include annual monitoring and potential
remediation that will occur during the 3-year establishment period ending in October 2004.
Placement and excavation for filling of the geo-tube and other activities associated with
construction of the containment structure are expected to take about 6 months to complete
and will begin prior to the October 1 - March 31 dredging window. Dredging and material
disposal will occur within the existing dredging window to the degree practical. Grading
will be conducted within a containment structure and seasonal restrictions for this activity
are not proposed. Planting will be conducted during the months of March - May.
11. DISCHARGE OF:
X Dredged Material
X Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: Wanchese, North Carolina
County: Dare
Drainage Basin: Roanoke Sound
Receiving Waters: Roanoke Sound
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Coastal
Nature: Estuarine
Direction of Flow: Variable (tidal sound)
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: Temporary and
permanent sand dikes will be constructed from sandy material from the interior of the
construction site, island H or an appropriate upland source. Permanent dikes construction
will require placement of a geo-tube and/or sandbags and armor stone and bedding stone.
Materials proposed for marsh/creek construction include Wanchese Harbor Channel
sediments which are predominantly (85 - 90 percent) highly organic, black, silts and clays
and sediments of adjacent reaches (Tangent 14) of the Oregon Inlet to Manteo Channel
. .
which contain higher percentages of sand (50 - 75 percent). Sediment sampling is
described in the environmental assessment, section 3.03 and Attachment C.
15. PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE:
None.
16. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS SA, HQW, OR
ORW?
X YES (circle one) _ NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: About 9 acres of primarily unvegetated, estuarine waters with a remnant
marsh fringe. About 0.5 acres of marsh would be filled to tie in the dike and
constructed marsh to the existing shoreline. Net increase in vegetated wetlands
of about 4 acres is expected.
Excavated: None.
Total Impacted: 9 acres.
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST
BE CARRIED OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE
WETLAND IMPACTS: This action is considered a beneficial use of dredged material.
The Wanchese marsh project was recommended as a pilot site for wetland restoration by
the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Work Group (an interagency committee of State
and Federal resource agencies) at a December 5, 1996, meeting hosted by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Individuals from the USFWS, National Marine Fisheries,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF),
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, North Carolina Division of Water
Resources, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, and North Carolina Public Health, Pest Management, are represented in
this group.
A temporary sand dike or sandbags will be used to temporarily increase the
height of the containment structure as needed to assure the initial containment of
dredged materials during construction.
. The project design was modified in response to agency requests to reduce the
permanent dike height and improve tidal circulation within the site. The addition of
oyster shell was incorporated into the proposed plan and a central creek was added
to the constructed marsh to increase the length of marsh/water interface.

19. HAVE ANY SECTION 401 CERTIFICATES BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR
USE ON THIS PROPERTY?
YES X NO IF YES. EXPLAIN:
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true and correct
to the best of my knowledge.
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Technical Services Division
DATE: 4 X.D
./T1
Attachments
For prompt processing, submit:
* Seven (7) copies of completed application
* Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
* Copies of previous 401 Certifications
.a? . , ,?.
?? qpR 2?a-_..
? l ?j
rrgT?-,f ? ?
? ? ?',
?°? ?
? ?" ??
2i?, ? ??
?- `? ? ?
?.
?? ??
?? ? ??
??
?,
SECTION 204 DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WANCHESE MARSH CREATION AND PROTECTION PROJECT, NC

?U\?
'? t
d7
.01
MARCH 1999
SECTION 204 DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WANCHESE MARSH CREATION AND PROTECTION PROJECT, NC

MARCH 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM
PAGE No.
1.0 PROJECT ....................................................................................................1

.............................:................................................
2.0 AUTHORITY........:.:.....:.
. 1
3:0 LOCATION ........................................................ ........................................... . 1
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ..............................................................::.................... . 1
5.0 FORMULATION OF THE RECOMMENDED ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION PROJECT ...................................................................... . 1
6.0 REAL ESTATE REQUIREMENTS ................................................................ . 4
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN .............................................. . 4
8.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ..........:............................................::......,......... .7

..................:...........:......:...........`.........
9.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ...:.:..........:.
. 7
10.0 VIEWS OF FEDERAL, STATE,-AND REGIONAL AGENCIES...............::.. ,. 7
11.0 STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ...................................... . 7

...............::........:.................... 8
12.0 BENEFITS AND COSTS:....: ..........:.........:..

.: :..........................:............................ 8
13.0 SCHEDULE:........... :...........::...........

.::...................:::......................:..........
r- 14:0 FINANCIAL DATA ..........:...........
10

..............::: ................
15.0 FEDERAL ALLOCATIONS TO DATE.......::...........
11

................:........
16:0 SUMMARY...........:: :....:.:.........:.....:..:.........,........:......:
11
LIST OF. FIGURES
Figure. 1. Wanchese Marsh at Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay,
North Carolina ....... ....................::................. ......:................... .. 2
Figure 2. Wanchese Marsh Creation Plan View .......

..:
Figure 3. Typical Section, Geo-tube Core Alternative .................................
. 5
.. Figure 4.' Typical Section, Rock Core Alternative............ ..........::.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Wanchese Marsh Creation, Total Project Cost Summary ............... .. 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
ITEM . PAGE No.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1. Minutes, Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Work Group,
Morehead City Civic Center, dated February 12, 1997 ........... 12
Attachment 2. Letter, State of North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources,
dated March 17, 1997 .............................................................. 15
Attachment 3. Resolution from,the North Carolina Seafood Industrial Park
Authority...... ...........................................................................16
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Engineering Evaluations
Appendix B MCACES Cost Estimate.
Appendix C Geotech Summary
Appendix D Real Estate Plan
Appendix E Environmental Assessment (EA)

ii
SECTION 204 DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WANCHESE MARSH CREATION AND PROTECTION PROJECT, NC

1.0 PROJECT: Wanchese Marsh Construction and Protection, North Carolina.
(CWIS: N/A)
Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina, is the source of material.
State: North Carolina.
Congressional District: North Carolina, No. 1.
2.0 AUTHORITY: Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, as
amended.
3.0 LOCATION: The Wanchese Marsh will be constructed in Roanoke Sound at
Wanchese Harbor adjacent to the channel from Oregon Inlet, Dare County, North Carolina.
The project site is north of the entrance of Wanchese Harbor, located on the southeastern
corner of Roanoke Island, North Carolina (Figure 1).
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION: The marshes of Roanoke Sound are important habitat for fish and
wildlife resources and support recreational and commercial activities that rely on these
resources. The marshes are eroding at an accelerated rate. These marshes provide an
important function as nursery habitat for estuarine fish and shellfish and support a rich and
diverse benthic fauna. The fish, invertebrates, and plant detritus produced within the
marsh are important components of the food web, essential for the production of seafood
which helps support recreational and commercial marine activities in the area. Studies in
Louisiana have shown that the area of intertidal wetland is directly proportional to the
commercial shrimp harvest (Turner, 1979). Many species of birds and mammals are also
supported by the marshes of Roanoke Sound. The construction of shallow water marsh
habitat will significantly enhance feeding opportunities for migrant waterfowl, shorebirds,
wading birds, and mammals.
In addition to the environmental benefits provided by creating marshland, the
construction of the proposed marsh will protect existing marsh from continuing erosion and
overwash from boat wakes and help stabilize the Wanchese Harbor entrance. The
Wanchese Seafood Industrial Park depends upon the ability of fishing and recreational
vessels to navigate the channel leading into Wanchese Harbor.
FIGURE 1
5.0 FORMULATION OF THE RECOMMENDED ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT: Several marsh
creation alternatives were evaluated to determine the best solution. The six alternatives
evaluated were: no action; creation of marsh only; marsh protected by geo-tube and sand
dike; marsh protected by stone and sand dike with sandbags for core; marsh protected by
stone and sand dike with geo-tubes for core; and marsh protected by stone and sand dike
with stone core. Figure 2 shows a plan view of the project site. Durability and cost were
the primary factors used to screen the alternatives. The six alternatives were considered
and reduced to two alternatives to be evaluated in detail. The two alternatives selected
for additional evaluation were: a marsh protected by stone and sand dike with geo-tubes
for core; and a marsh protected by stone and sand dike with stone for core. Typical
sections of the geo-tube core and rock core alternatives are displayed on Figures 3 and
4, respectively. The stone and sand dike with geo-tubes for a core was selected as the
recommended plan after evaluating cost, durability, and maintenance resulting in the
lowest life cycle cost. Appendix A contains descriptions of the alternatives, the
recommended plan, construction information, maintenance data, and why the other plans
were eliminated from consideration. Appendix B contains cost estimates for the two
alternatives studied in detail as computed by the Micro-Computer Aided Cost Estimating
System (M-CACES).
6.0 REAL ESTATE REQUIREMENTS: All lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for the
project will be the responsibility of the project sponsor. A marsh will be created using
dredged material obtained during the regularly scheduled maintenance dredging of
Wanchese Harbor Channel. The location of the dike and the placement of the dredged
material is within the Roanoke Sound at Wanchese. All construction work for the project
will be conducted below the existing mean sea level (m.s.l.) and will be subject to
navigational servitude. Therefore, no real estate interest will be required for this portion
of the project. There will be no requirements for additional disposal areas for this project.
There will be a staging area consisting of 1 acre which will be located on the property
owned by the project sponsor. This tract is owned by the State of North Carolina Seafood
Industrial Park Authority. The Park Authority Director has stated that no permit would be
required. A value has been provided for crediting purposes for this area under temporary
work area easement. Additional details regarding the real estate plan are contained in
Appendix D.
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN: The proposed project consists of creating
approximately 8 acres of estuarine creek and marsh area and constructing a dike
immediately north of the harbor entrance. The marsh area will be graded, planted with
marsh grasses, and monitored for 3 years to determine appropriate functioning of the
habitat. Dredged material from the maintenance dredging of the navigation channel would
be pumped behind the dike to create the marsh. Appendix A contains additional
engineering details about the plans evaluated and the recommended plan.

11
t?`\n J . ? ' } ? 1 \ S
,,sssn I \
,
l
l ? ®,? q,
n +
I
4 ?I N
r
u i
{nf
l
Ill ? ?
r,
11
V cR ' ,j I

t ???

y
e 2.6 f'

I. p +t

,.
O F '; .^

1? 4

I

s

?

\
,
LL,
1 e
A-
r
r f
a.s s ?
EDGE OF'TE"IST jNG LL : ' e ?i
r p / + s '+
SHORELrEI
-o
1
i
1 1
I' f
?itli t > , m i
-n
' `
'
EXISTING FENCEUINE y, t„ '
f
t 1 1 to ?-? 9
? ?9' r
t"
x Rt
? vI
?? r+
? ?
r + ^
+ 11
11 ?,1

I°N-? llt
LL
1
? ?
?',

,?
?
r ? ++11
t ,},
19 ? icy
,
I. v 1
`
t
} 1
, r > ?k
1
y
+

i NS E
QOE
1 t
? 1 s
1
\ ss ?,
?O!) LL I
I\I 11 W3?\ \\

r
i R4

\
CU.,
j t S
/ Y ! ?.
h
Y
i
`
.?t}?
? \
1

•
k
° a
sll '?
r
l t
,
? l1 i
111 .?? 1?
1 t
p a s?t
s
l
M r y
4
o
• r }
o
ett * ?
! `l
? J
t
+
? ? +
1 s
1
+111 1
l
l

1
.?
-./
V%
t
?
1
\
rA?
e
r

1
§

i
yl?
11 t`1`1 s
1
,
/ 1

LL 1 i+a.

t
cl)

+t

??
'1\

e
?
?r

+
+ 1

i r 1
1
1 1
cl)
-03
1 t + 1
?
s ? s -n

?p
r
11 ???
i
1
' ?
?
1
1 ?
1 y 11
a
?11
tR`?111 I
i
r
t 1 1,\ ?
h ?
1 sv,
1 1 rl
?? 1 ?I r i
?? 1} +;r u
1 111

? i? l
?}` `\
?i 1
r\l?t 1111 \r
+?
f 1
? 1 1 lS 111 11
Y l ?
1
I
I i L
LL .
.V'41
V
LL ? f`'1
1 •1
`
`1 K
J
EDGE OK EXISTING ; CV, d r
` 1 1 ?
SHORELIN Y
t + ily
Art I
a F 1
a 1
\
p \ 11
e 11
.
1 t} a; I lr 1 ?; s1 \ 1
{ 4? . ?; J 1 t 11 1+ t
t
1
" S1L' 'r
j Y-
l
® ? { D?1"
1? r I
1
+ 1 + 11 { Af, r?
\ ?
.. c 1 I I?? .+
I w
EXISTING MARSH s I t '? \1\.0.,15 FT % r
+
Y ?t,: .? ?1 ?'?! ARMOR STONE
t0 dr ?
1
.
Y
*
`
I a
?.eFT GRASS
t
'k
'C
1
l
?
1
l r 1 11 1 Ill
? If1 ???
?
1^?i?

?
;
t r
¢ EXISTING MARSH 1 i?°
?Vr
g?

F;l.f' r v rI i / r

31
.? /

-. - •. - •-2.0 FT_ _ _ - - EXISTING CONTOUR
I.aFT FINAL CONTOUR
0 YM•I APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
lee 50 0 100 0
FEET
SCALE
VANCHESE* NC
WANCHESE MARSH CREATION AND PROTECTION PROJECT
PLAN VIEW
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON
FEBRURRY 1999
4
FIGURE 2

NEW MARSH HABITAT
DREDGED MATERIAL ----------
--------
)O? I [
EXISTING BOTTOM
+1.5 FT. MSL
0 FT. MSL
SLOPED DRAINAGE CHANNEL
SOUTH DIKE
0
EXISTING SHORELINE NEW MARSH HABITAT ± 50 FT.
t 1.4 FT. MSL
SLOPE- 0.0 FT. MSL
11/. ,r "jG .4 SIG .SIG SIG a I iv
REDGED MATERIAL
DEPTH VARIES FROM 0.0 FT. MSL
EXISTING BOTTOM CHANNEL SLOPES TO OUTLET
EAST DIKE
3
GRASS r GRASS
8.3 MSL - 50 YR STORM SURGE
5.0' ARMOR STONE
SAND 3.2' 636 LB GRANITE
+ 1.5 FT. MS ??MSL
± -4.0 FT. MSL
21
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC UNDER DIKE-1
OvEREXI&?ggUBEBR E PpOTECTION D GE0-TUBE 1-50 l8 MARINE LIMESTONE
ARMOR STONE
636 LB GRANITE
L5 +4.7 FT. MSL
+ 1.5 FT. MSL 1 3
IG SIG T MSL
± -4.0 FT. MSL
0 -2.5 FT. MSL EOTEXTILE FABRIC UNDER DIKE
(gy gg ''CC pp gggg BEDDING STONE
OYpp EAEGE LL FUBE ASFOR PROTECTION 0 1-50 LB MARINE LIMESTONE

5
rivurxr o
-
NEW MARSH HABITAT
.Lb
DREDGED MATERIAL
r rrrrrrrrrrrrr-r-rrrr
EXISTING BOTTOM
SOUTH DIKE
EXISTING SHORELINE
± 1.4 FT. MSL
SLOPE
_ MATERIAL
NEW MARSH HABITAT
EXISTING BOTTOM
3
6' 11
GRASS GRASS
GRASS 8.3 '. MSL - 50 YR STORM SURGE
5.0' •-- ARMR STONE
+1.?FT. MSL 1 SANG 6361 LB GRANITE
0.0 FT, 3-2-
+ 1.5 F.T. MSL 7MSL
SLOPED DRAINAGE CHANNEL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC UNDER DI
50 FT.
i0.0 FT. MSL
+ 1.5 FT. MSL
DEPTH VARIES FROM 0.0 FT. MSL TO -2.5 FT. MSL
CHANNEL SLOPES TO OUTLET
EAST DIKE
CORE STONE
1-50 LB MARINE LIMESTONE
+ -4.0 FT. MSL
/-ARMOR STONE
636 LB GRANITE
± 4.7 FT. MSL
jL3 MSL
-4.0 FT. MSL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC UNDER DIKE
CORE STONE
1-50 LB MARINE LIMESTONE
6 FIGURE 4
The new marsh will be established by sprigging with at least three varieties of native
marsh grasses including smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), black needlerush
(Juncus roemerianus) and saltmeadow hay (Spartina patens). The use of additional
species to increase habitat diversity will be considered during final design. The zone from
about 0 to +1-foot m.s.l. will be planted with S. alterniflora on 3-foot centers, resulting in
a planting density of about 4,840 plants per acre. From 1 foot m.s.l. to estimated highest
tide, S. patens will be planted in rows placed 1.5 feet apart and plants 3 feet apart. About
1,000 black needlerush plugs (4 to 5 inches in diameter) will be planted in the transition
from S. alterniflora to S. patens. Upland portions of the sand dike will be stabilized with
native dune grasses. Vegetation will be monitored for survival and establishment at the
end of the first three growing seasons.
The dike will protect the new marsh area and approximately 2 acres of existing marsh
from erosion. The dike will be parallel to the existing harbor entrance channel for
approximately 500 feet and then turn in a northerly direction and parallel the shoreline for
approximately 700 feet. The core portion of the dike would be constructed using geo-
tubes, covered with sand and grassed. Armor stone would be placed on the outside of the
dike to protect against wave action.
8.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: The State of North Carolina has expressed strong support for
the recommended plan (see Attachment 1, Minutes of the Beneficial Use of Dredged
Material Work Group, dated February 12, 1997) and intends to sponsor the project as
stated in Attachment 2 (letter from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, dated March 17, 1997).
Construction will be accomplished by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The sponsor will
be responsible for the operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of the project
during the 25-year project life. The Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) explains the
Federal and non-Federal responsibilities and liabilities. Section 14, Financial Data,
provides the Federal and non-Federal share of project costs, information on the required
funding stream, and a breakdown of the non-Federal requirements.
9.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS: The State of North Carolina is the project sponsor and will
provide the required non-Federal share of project costs through appropriations by the
North Carolina legislature for the non-Federal share of project costs.
10.0 VIEWS OF FEDERAL, STATE. AND REGIONAL AGENCIES: Support among resource
agencies exists for marsh construction within the Wilmington District boundaries. The
Wanchese Marsh project was recommended as a pilot site for wetland restoration by the
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Work Group (an interagency committee of State and
Federal resource agencies) at a December 5, 1996, meeting hosted by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). Attachment 3 is a copy of a Resolution provided by the North
Carolina Seafood Industrial Park Authority requesting the project. Appendix E,
Environmental Assessment (EA), Section 4.00 - Public and Agency Involvement, contains
additional information.
11.0 STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE: This project is not expected to result in
significant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife (including threatened or endangered
species) or other significant resources in the project area. An EA, Appendix E, has been
prepared and will be circulated for agency and public review during March 1999. It is
anticipated that the EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) will be sufficient
to fully address any public and agency concerns regarding environmental impacts.
12.0 BENEFITS AND COSTS: In addition to the restoration of 8 acres of marsh habitat,
2 acres of adjacent marsh currently threatened by erosion will be protected, giving a total
of 10 acres of valuable marsh habitat that will be either restored or protected by this
project. The benefits associated with this project are not monetary in nature. The material
to construct the project and create the marsh will come from regularly scheduled
maintenance dredging of the navigation channel associated with Wanchese Harbor. The
material is normally placed on Island H at a cost of $71,000. There is no additional cost
or savings associated with using the material to create the Wanchese Marsh.
The Wanchese Seafood Industrial Park depends upon the ability of fishing vessels
to navigate the channel leading into the Wanchese Harbor. The existing marsh protecting
the entrance to the harbor is being eroded by wind and waves and the entrance is
becoming more difficult to navigate. By resolution dated January 9, 1995 (Attachment 3),
the North Carolina Seafood Industrial Park Authority has requested that the State of North
Carolina investigate means to alleviate this condition. Construction of the proposed marsh
will replace marsh lost to erosion and protect the remaining marsh, thereby, improving the
stability of the Wanchese Harbor entrance.
The construction cost of the project is $1,523,000 as presented in Table 1. Other
costs associated with the project are: $168,000 for the. Feasibility Study; $137,000 for
Plans and Specifications; $3,100 for lands and damages; and $243,600 for various
engineering and management activities. The total project cost amounts to $1,828,000 or
$182,800 per acre created and protected. The life expectancy of the project is estimated
to be 25 years. Amortizing $1,828,000 over 25 years at 6.875 percent results in an annual
value of $163,400 which includes $8,300 for annual operation and maintenance. The
annual cost per acre is $16,300.
TABLE 1
WANCHESE MARSH CREATION
TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY
SECTION 204 PROJECT

F.
Cost Cost
Acct Estimate Contingency Total
22 Feasibility Study
Total - Feasibility Phase
$ 168,000 $0
168,000 0
01 Federal Real Estate Costs 7,200
30 Plans & Specifications 102.000
Total - Plans and Specs Phase $ 109,200
01 Lands & Damages - Non-Federal
06 Construction Contract
30 0 & M Manual
30 Engineering and Design During
Construction
31 Construction Management
31 Project Coordination Team -
Federal
31 Project Coordination Team -
Non-Federal
31 Programs Management
31 Environmental Monitoring
Total - Construction Phase .
Total Project Cost
$ 2,500
$1,130,600
5,000
6,000
86,450
5,000
5,000
55,000
33.000
$1,217.750
$1,494,950
2,400
25.400
$27,800
$ 600
$282,700
1,200
1,500
21,450
1,300
1,300
14,400
7.000
$305,250
$333,050
$168,000
168,000
9,600
127.000
$137,000
$ 3,100
$1,413,300
6,200
7,500
107,900
6,300
6,300
69,400
40.000
.$1,523,000
$1,828,000
Note: Dredging cost for without or with project is $71,100. This is not included in the total
project cost presented on this table.
s
13.0 SCHEDULE: The estimate of the amount of study and construction time required is 25
months for the feasibility phase studies and report; 3 months for report processing and
project approval; 6 months for plans and specifications; 3 months to advertise and award;
and 18 months for construction and acceptance by the project sponsor. The construction
schedule is timed to coordinate with the dredging of Wanchese Harbor and connecting
channels. Additional schedule details follow:
The proposed schedule is:
Submit IA for approval: March 1997
IA Approval and Funding by CECW: July 1, 1997
Submit Draft Feasibility Report for NEPA, Public Review: March 19, 1999
Submit Final Report to CESAD: May 31, 1999
Approval of Report, Project and PCA by CESAD: June 6, 1999
Provide Funds to Initiate Plans and Specifications Phase: July 1, 1999
Advertise: February 1, 2000
Award (Construction Phase Funding IWA): May 1, 2000
Begin Construction of Dikes and Structures: July 1, 2000
Begin Construction Dredging: January 1, 2001
Substantially Complete Construction: January 1, 2002
Complete Monitoring: January 1, 2005
14.0 FINANCIAL DATA:
a. Project Cost Sharing
Federal Non-Federal Total
Shared as Navigation (Base Cost) $ 71,000 $ 0 $ 71,000
Section 204 Project Features $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Annual Material Placement $ 71,000 $ 0 $ 71,000
Annual LERR $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Shared as Ecosystem Restoration $1,371,000 $457,000 $1,828,000
Section 204 Project Features $1,371,000 $453,900 $1,824,900
Material Placement, First Cost $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
LERR $ 0 $ 3,100 $ 3,100
Total Project Cost $1,442,000 $457,000 $1,899,000
Section 204 Project Features $1,371,000 $453,900 $1,827,900
Material Placement $ 71,000 $ 0 $ 71,000
LERR $ 0 $ 3,100 $ 3,100

10
b. Ecosystem Restoration Costs ($1,000)
Phase Totals Non-Fed Fed
Feasibility $ 168 $ 0 $ 168
P&S $ 137 $ 0 $ 137
Construction 1523 $ 457 1066
Total $1,828 $ 457 $1,371
Federal Funding Needs
FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY01 FY02 BTC
$140 $28 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
$ 0 $50 $ 87 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
$ 0 400 400 250 16
$140 $78 $487 $400 $250 $16
Note: The feasibility phase and plans and specifications are initially federally financed,
and costs are distributed as part of the non-Federal share of project costs during
implementation.
c. Non-Federal Requirements:
(Ecosystem Restoration)
LERRD $ 3,100
Cash $453,900
Work-in-Kind $ 0
AnnualOMRR&R $ 8,300
15.0 FEDERAL ALLOCATIONS TO DATE:
Initial Appraisal: $ 10,000
Feasibility Phase: $ 168,000
Plans and Specifications:
Construction:
16.0 SUMMARY: The benefits associated with the ecosystem restoration project have been
thoroughly reviewed by the Wilmington District and weighed against the project costs. We
believe the importance of this habitat to the aquatic community is greater than the cost to
create and protect the marsh and creek habitat. The recommended plan is the appropriate
size in that it creates valuable marsh and creek habitat within the area available and
protects this area from future erosion for the life of the project. The sponsor concurs with
our recommendation. Therefore, we recommend that the project be constructed as
presented herein.
11
MINUTES
BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL WORK GROUP
MOREHEAD CITY CIVIC CENTER
FEBRUARY 12,1997
John Sutherland called the meeting to order at approximately 10:40 a.m. Persons in
attendance introduced themselves. See fist of attendees below.
John Sutherland reviewed the purposes of the meeting. to describe and discuss the pilot
sites in more detail; and to decide what steps need to be taken to use dredged material at each of
the pilot sites.
Chuck Wilson described the first of the five pilot sites the Wanchese Marsh Creation*and
Protection Project. As set forth in the preliminary Section 204 initial appraisal report attached to
these minutes, this project consists of a sand-bagged containment dike behind which a sand dike
would be built and on top of which ar nior stone would be placed. This dike would protect a six-
acre marsh habitat that would be made by pumping 50,000 cubic yards of material from the
Wanchese Channel into the site and spriging it with marsh plants. Ski Wojciechowski asked about
ownership of the marsh area next to the site. Tom Henson saidit was in private ownership. Ski
said that permission would need to be obtained from the private d*ner to construct the marsh and
that ownership of the new marsh would be with the State of North Carolina.
Ron Sechler noted that some marsh plantings have failed because the substrate was almost
entirely sand. Howard Varnam said that the channel to be dredged was only about 50 percent
sand so that there would plenty of organic material for the marsh grass to utilize. Chuck' noted
that the drawing is incorrect in that the creek behind the area is open from the Wanchese Harbor
to the sound. He said that temporary sand dikes would probably be placed at the ends of this
creek to contain the material being placed in the marsh creation area during dredging and marsh
planting. The sand dikes would be removed afterwards. Chuck said that other changes may be
made during the feasibility study phase of this project. He will consult with all agencies and
interested parties on the best approach.
The non-federal sponsor of the Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection project would
be the State of North Carolina. The State will need to send the Wilmington District a letter
approving the project and agreeing to pay 25 percent of the total project cost increment above the
base plan and assume operation and maintenance cost of the project.
Trudy Wilder next described a new pilot project - Alainwright Island Colonial NVaterbird
Habitat Restoration. Wainwright Island is a national bird sanctuary owned by the National
Audubon Society and is one of North Carolina's most important nesting sites for colonial water-
birds. The once thriving 16-acre nesting island has been reduced to about 7 acres due to wind and
12
ATTACHMENT 1
Minutes of the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Work Group
February 12, 1997
Page 2
wave erosion. The proposed project includes the construction of a 9 -acre sandbag confinement
area within shallow water along the northeastern perimeter of the island. Approximately 60,000
cubic yards of fine to medium sand dredged from Wainwright Slough during routine maintenance
(every three to four years) would be placed in the containment area to create additional hiuh
ground habitat. The only cost to the non-federal sponsor, the State of North Carolina, is that of
the sandbags. Because of the small cost, no feasibility study should be necessary for this project.
A Section 204 Initial Appraisal Report is in the process of being prepared.
Trudy also described a preliminary proposal for the beneficial use of dredged material to
create additional colonial waterbird and marsh habitat at New Dump Island in Core Sound near
Drum Inlet, Carteret County: This Island is.managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. The project entails the use of sandy material dredged from the Atlantic Harbor of
Refuge and connecting channels to create up to 5 acres of new high ground land on the west side
of New Dump Island or in the immediate vicinity. The muddy material from those same channels
would be disposed of in the existing diked disposal area located on New Dump Island. A wetland
fringe would be planted around the newly created island to protect it from wave action. The only
cost of this project is the planting of the wetland fringe. This project would probably be funded
through the Section 204 Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Program The proposed non-federal
sponsor for this 204 project would be the State of North Carolina.
Alice Anderson then described a project to fill old mosquito ditches along Highway 210
just before it crosses the Intracoastal Waterway in Pender-County. The fill material will be old
dredged material sitting in disposal areas along the ICWW. In addition to the filling. at least one
low area on each side of the road will be excavated to create ponds, which will provide habitat for
:.grading birds, juvenile fishes, crustaceans, and mosquitofish. Then some planting of marsh grass
may be done in the wetlands created by the filling of the ditches,-.although . natural revegetation is
expected to occur on most of the areas. Ron Sechler stated that his agency would have a problem
with the filling of these mosquito ditches because they provide great habitat for fisheries. Chuck
Wilson said that he could investigate this proposal to see if a more environmentally acceptable
plan could be developed, including creation of additional fisheries habitat at the site from which
the dredged material is taken. Note: Alice said that she used an incorrect map scale so that her ,
calculations shown in the attachment are incorrect.
Tom Henson presented the final pilot site which is located at Battery Island in the Lower
Cape Fear River near Southport. Battery Island is a widely recognized bird island known for the
long-legged waders (herons, egrets and ibises) that nest and raise their young in the spring of
each year. 'In recent years the island's southern and western shores have experienced severe
erosion. From 20 to 60 feet of the shoreline has been lost in the last five years. . Stabilization of
Battery Island is necessary to prevent further loss of habitat. Two options are proposed: the first
is to protect both the southern and western shorelines with sandbags or rock, while the second
13
Minutes of the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Work Group
February 12, 1997
Page 3
includes all of the southern shoreline and only part of the western. The use of rock for a
breakwater would create good oyster habitat as well. The Wilmington District will investigate
this site further under Section 204 or Section 1135.
Meeting Attendees:
Ski Wojciechowski, Marine Fisheries
Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries
Howard Varnam, Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Trudy Wilder, Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Chuck Wilson, Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Alice Anderson, Coastal Mosquito Management, Environmental Health
Steve Benton, Coastal Management
Tom Henson, Wildlife Resources Commission
Tun Earp, Public Works, Carteret County
John Sutherland, Water Resources
14
state of North Carolina IT
Department of Environment, Y10*A
Health and Natural Resources A 4 • •
Division of Water Resources James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary pEHN R
John N. Morris, Director
March 17, 1997
r.
Colonel Terry R Youngbluth
District Engineer, Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Dear Colonel Youngbluth:
In 1995 the North Carolina General Assembly requested our Department to investigate the
use of dredged material for restoration and creation of wetlands. The Divisions of Coastal
Management, Marine Fisheries, Water Quality and Water Resources. created a task force to study
this subject and this task force issued a favorable report in March of 1996 that recommended the
implementation of two or three pilot wetland restoration projects using dredged material. As a
follow up to that report, a committee of State and Federal agencies identified and selected several
sites along the coast of North Carolina to be pilot restoration sites. The first of these is at the
entrance to Wanchese Harbor.
Therefore the State of North Carolina supports the modification of the Manteo
(Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina Project to include the Section 204 Project entitled Wanchese
Marsh Construction and Protection, North Carolina. The State also intends to sponsor the
project and pay for 25 percent of projects costs.
We look forward to working with the Wilmington District on this project.
Sincerely,
ohn N. Morris
15
t?l ir?va?rui. i ?
P.O. Box 27687 Voice 919-733-4064
Raleigh, North Carolina N'ww CAn Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
27611-7687 50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
Rsotox
baustad -
MM AS, ft w s
navigde ftcbsnud ;do*wsnd
?,e ?oe?o?WaaobeseE'srbociabeiagtiY?aa?3?r?ca? sad
REASs
Hof ?e cbs?l?ear?c ? ?iTaac?Easbor u
bemmofdiscoodA*;
BErr MMMVM eaftj;o&Cuc&a 564ood Auffio&yb=&yxeVeSW Oz
arock
and bhp ofe S6a oflsoc oocd.
b??karaterit?e m?mxtowam?e
Ac'vat? fgRS_
ILTM4
XoaCazoEna SmfoodlPadcAuffioritY
16
ATTACHMENT 3

` j„
ro+

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A
ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM

INTRODUCTION
PAGE No.
Study Authority .................................................................................................. A-1
Study Description ..............................................................................................A-1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Location .............................................................................................................A-1
Description ........................................................................................................A-1
Tide Data ...........................................................................................................A-2
PROJECT DESIGN
Alternatives ........................................................................................................ A-2
Alternatives Eliminated ......................................................................................A-3
Alternatives Studied in Detail ............................................................................A-4
Dike Design .......................................................................................................A-4
Dike Alignment ..........................................................................................A-4
Dike Tie-In .................................................................................................A-4
Armor Stone Size ......................................................................................A-4
Dike Height ................................................................................................A-5
Dike Construction ..............................................................................................A-5
Alternative 5 - With Geo-tube Core
Alternative 6 - With Rock Core .............................................................:...A-5
Containment Dike ......................................................................................A-6
Estuarine Habitat Design ...................................................................................A-6
Dredged Material .......................................................................................A-6
Volumes .....................................................................................................A-6
A-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
ITEM PAGE No.
Construction Sequence .....................................................................................A-7
Maintenance Cost ..............................................................................................A-7
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE No. TITLE
A-1 Pertinent Tide Data
A-2 Armor Stone Size
A-3 Volume of Material Required
LIST OF FIGURES
(Follows Page A-7)
Figure A-1. Wanchese Marsh at Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina.
Figure A-2. Wanchese Marsh Creation Plan View.
Figure A-3. Typical Section, Geo-tube Core Alternative.
Figure A-4. Typical Section, Rock Core Alternative.
Figure A-5. Temporary Containment Dike, Plan View.
Figure A-6. Typical Sections, Temporary Containment Dike.
PAGE No.
A-2
A-5
A-6
I
M1
A-i i
APPENDIX A
ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS
INTRODUCTION
Study Authority. This study is authorized under Section 204 of the Water Resources
Act of 1992, as amended.
Study Description. This appendix presents the results of the engineering evaluations
supporting studies aimed at creating a man-made estuarine habitat north of the
entrance to the Wanchese Harbor area. The study involved evaluation of the feasibility
of creating an estuarine habitat and alternatives to protect existing marsh from future
erosion.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Location. The community of Wanchese, North Carolina, is located on the
southeastern corner of Roanoke Island in Dare County, North Carolina, as shown in
Figure A-1. The estuarine creek and marsh area will be immediately north of the
entrance to the Wanchese Harbor. The harbor is very important to the economy of the
area since much of the industrial and commercial base of the community is fisheries
related.
Description. The proposed project consists of creating approximately 8 acres of
estuarine habitat and constructing a dike immediately north of the harbor entrance as
shown in Figure A-2 to protect the new habitat area and approximately 2.0 acres of
existing marsh from erosion. The dike will be parallel to the existing harbor entrance
channel for approximately 500 feet and then turn in a north direction and parallel the
shoreline for approximately 700 feet. The top of dike will be at elevation 8.3 feet mean
sea level (m.s.l.) on the south dike and 4.7 feet m.s.l. on the east dike. As shown in
Figure A-2 the dike will tie into the existing marsh on the southwest end. An opening
will be left between the tie-in and the existing high ground to aid exchange of water
within the marsh area. The northern end of the dike area will be opened to allow
circulation of water and tidal exchange with Roanoke Sound. The area will be
designed so that it will be intertidal. This will allow the marsh to be flooded and drained
on a cyclical timeframe. The elevation of the fill material will be at elevation 1.5 feet
m.s.l. along the edge of the dike and slope toward the middle of the marsh at a
constant slope to allow proper flooding and drainage.
A-1
Tide Data. There is no tide gage at Wanchese. Therefore, tide data at a nearby gage
was used for his study. The tide gage at the Old House Channel near Oregon Inlet that
is approximately 5 miles south of the project area was used as a reference for the
project. Table A-1 gives pertinent tide range data for the area.
Table A-1
Pertinent Tide Data
Mean Higher High Tide m.h.h.w. .46 ft, m.s.l.
Mean High Tide m.h.w. .36 ft, m.s.l.
Mean Low Tide m.l.w. -.37 ft, m.s.l.
Mean Lower Low Tide m.1.l.w. -.48 ft, m.s.l.
The normal tidal range as seen in the table is not as great in the Pamlico Sound
as in some other coastal areas. Due to the width and long fetch lengths in the Pamlico
Sound, the wind has a greater impact on tide levels than normal tide cycles.
Depending on the wind direction, the tides can be considerably higher than normal or
considerably lower.
PROJECT DESIGN
Alternatives. Several alternatives were evaluated to determine the best project
design.
Alternative 1: No Action. The alternative would allow the area to remain
unprotected. Also, no additional habitat would be created. Erosion due to wave action
during storms and boat wakes would continue to attack the shoreline and contribute to
further loss of marsh area.
Alternative 2: Creation of Estuarine Habitat Only. This alternative involved
placing dredged material in front of the existing shoreline to create a sand base for
creation of approximately 8 acres of estuarine habitat. Dredged material from
maintenance dredging would be pumped and spread in the area. Appropriate grasses
would then be planted in the area.
Alternative 3• Creation of Estuarine Habitat Protected by Geo-tube and Sand
Dike. This alternative would involve creating an estuarine area of approximately 8
acres protected from erosion by a sand dike with a geo-tube on the outside to protect
the sand dike from erosion due to wave action. The top portion of the dike would be
A-2
constructed of sand and then grassed to prevent erosion. Dredge material would be
pumped behind the dike to create the estuarine area.
Altemative 4• Creation of Estuarine Habitat Protected by Stone and Sand
Dike With Sandbags for Core. Armor stone would be placed on the outside of the
dike for protection against wave action. The core portion would be constructed using
sandbags. The top portion of the dike would be constructed using sand and then
grassed to prevent erosion. Dredged material from maintenance dredging of the
entrance channel would be pumped behind the dike to create the estuarine habitat
area.
Altemative 5• Creation of Estuarine Habitat Protected by Stone and Sand
Dike With Geo-tubes for Core. This alternative would involve creation of
approximately 8 acres of estuarine habitat protected by a dike. This alternative would
use armor stone on the outside of the dike for protection against wave action. The core
portion would be constructed using geo-tubes. The top portion of the dike would be
constructed with sand and then grassed to prevent erosion. Dredged material from
maintenance dredging of the entrance channel would be pumped behind the dike to
create the estuarine area.
Alternative 6• Creation of Estuarine Habitat Protected by Stone and Sand
Dike With Stone for Core. This alternative would involve creation of approximately 8
acres of estuarine habitat protected by a dike. This alternative would use armor stone
on the outside of the dike for protection against wave action. The core portion would
be constructed using marine limestone. The top portion of the dike would be
constructed with sand and grassed to prevent erosion. Dredged material from
maintenance dredging of the entrance channel would be pumped behind the dike to
create the estuarine area.
Alternatives Eliminated. Several of the alternatives were eliminated from
consideration after a preliminary evaluation.
Alternative 1: No Action. This alternative is not feasible. Currently, the
shoreline is eroding due to wave action from storms and from boat traffic in the area.
No action to protect the area will allow the erosion to continue, which will result in the
loss of additional shoreline and the estuarine habitat associated with it.
Altemative 2• Creation of Estuarine Habitat Onlv. This was not a viable
alternative, since with no protection, the area created will continue to be attacked by
waves produced by storms and boats. This will allow erosion to continue and result in
the loss of the estuarine and marsh area.
A-3
Alternative 3• Creation of Estuarine Habitat Protected by Geo-tube and Sand
Dike. This alternative would use geo-tubes on the outside of the dike for protection
against wave action. If the geo-tubes were placed with no armor protection they would
be subjected to constant wave action from boats. This would shorten the life of the
tubes significantly. The effects of ultra-violet light and vandalism would further shorten
the expected life of the tubes.
Alternative 4• Creation of Estuarine Habitat Protected by Stone and Sand
Dike With Sandbags for Core. The use of sandbags as a core for the dike was
considered to be infeasible because of the difficulty of construction. Placement of the
sandbags would be difficult since the depth of water where the dike will be placed will
be as much as 4 to 5 feet in depth.
Alternatives Studied in Detail. The two remaining alternatives for creating the
estuarine habitat were studied in detail to determine the most economical method of
constructing the dike. Both alternatives were considered to be feasible to construct.
Alternative 5• Creation of Estuarine Habitat Protected by Stone and Sand
Dike With Geo-tubes for Core. This alternative would use armor stone on the outside
of the dike for protection against wave action. The core portion would be constructed
using geo-tubes. The top portion of the south dike would be constructed with sand and
then grassed to prevent erosion. Dredge material would be pumped behind the dike to
create the estuarine area. A typical cross section is shown in Figure A-3
Alternative 6• Creation of Estuarine Habitat Protected by Stone and Sand
Dike With Stone for Core. This alternative would use armor stone on the outside of
the dike for protection against wave action. The core portion would be constructed
using marine limestone. The top portion of the south dike would be constructed with
sand and grassed to prevent erosion. Dredge material would be pumped behind the
dike to create the estuarine area. A typical cross section is shown in Figure A-4.
Dike Design
Dike Alignment. As indicated above, the dike alignment will be parallel to the
harbor entrance for a distance of 500 feet and then run north parallel to the shoreline
for 700 feet. The bottom depth is fairly constant along the alignment averaging
approximately - 4.0 feet m.s.I. along the alignment.
Dike Tie-In. The south dike will tie in to the existing marsh at the entrance to the
harbor area as shown on figure A-2. The northeast end of the dike will be open to
allow tidal action within the marsh area.
Armor Stone Size. The size of the armor stone for the dike was based on the
predicted wind speed for a 50-year recurrence storm. The predicted wave height
A-4
necessary for determining the size armor stone required was calculated using the
"Wind Speed and Growth Option" in the Automated Coastal Engineering System
(ACES). The armor stone layer was sized using the "Breakwater Design using Hudson
and Related Equations" methodology included in the ACES computer model. Pertinent
information for the armor stone layer is given below in Table A-2.
Table A-2
Armor Stone Size
Stone Unit Weight (lb/cu. Ft. 165
Wave Height feet 4.5
Average Stone Weight Ib 635
Number of Layers 2
Thickness of Armor Layer feet 3.2
Dike Height. The top elevation of the core of the dike was set at 1.5 feet m.s.l.
This will provide a stable base for the armor layer. The top elevation of the armor
stone was determined based on the required layer thickness being 3.2 feet. This
elevation of the top of the sand portion of the south dike was set at the 50-year surge
elevation for the area. The 50-year storm surge for the area has been developed
previously for a FEMA Flood Insurance Study. The elevation determined in that study
was 8.3 feet m.s.l.
Dike construction.
Alternative 5 - With Geo-tube Core. The geo-tubes will be placed and filled to
create the core and also establish the alignment for the dike. The geo-tubes will be
made from high strength polyester fabric. The tubes are oval in shape and
approximately 6 feet high and 12 feet wide when filled. The length along the south dike
will be approximately 500 feet and the east dike will be approximately 700 feet.
Approximately 3,500 cubic yards of sand will be required to fill the geo-tubes. Based
on geotechnical evaluations of bottom samples, the material in the area where the
estuarine habitat will be created is suitable to use in filling the tubes. Once the tube is
in place, the armor stone will be placed on the outside. The sand portion of the south
dike will be placed on the geo-tube and grassed for protection against erosion. This
material will also come from within the area where the estuarine habitat will be created.
Alternative 6 - With Rock Core. The rock base or core will first be placed and
shaped along the alignment of the dike. Once it is in place, the armor layer will be
placed and the sand portion of the dike will be placed on top in a manner similar to
alternative 5.
A-5
Containment Dike. It will be necessary to construct a temporary sand dike
around the interior perimeter of the permanent dike to contain the dredged material
until it can dry and also to prevent sediment from being discharged into adjacent waters
during the dredging process. The preliminary alignment of this dike is shown in Figure
A-5. Typical sections are shown in Figure A-6. The dike will be constructed so as to
avoid destroying existing marsh habitat along the shoreline. The dike will tie into the
permanent sand dike on the south end of the project. The cross section and alignment
of the dike may vary and will be refined during the design phase of the project. The
method used to construct the dike will be left to the discretion of the contractor, since it
may also serve as a platform to work from as the permanent dike is being constructed.
Estuarine Habitat Design.
Dredged Material. The estuarine habitat area will be created using material from
maintenance dredging of the channel into the Wanchese Harbor. Approximately
37,000 cubic yards of dredged material will be required to create the estuarine habitat
area. Approximately 6,700 or 7,700 cubic yards of material will be required to replace
the material used to build the sand portion of the south dike. Also, approximately 3,500
cubic yards of material will be required to replace the sand used to fill the geo-tubes.
Based on dredging records, an average of 250,000 cubic yards of material are dredged
from the interior channels in the Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay area.
Volumes. The volume of stone and sand required is shown in Table A-3.
Table A-3
Volume of Material Required
Item Alternative 5 Alternative 6
(using Geo-tube core) (using rock core)
Base Stone tons 1,900 8,000
Armor Stone tons 4,400 5,000
Sand for South Dike c 6,700 7,700
Sand for Geo-Tubes c 3,500
Sand for temporary 11,000 11,000
containment dike c
Dredged material for 37,000 37,000
estuarine habitat
creation c
Total Dredged material 48,000 45,000
c
A-6
Construction Sequence. The dike to protect the estuarine habitat area will be
constructed before the dredged material is placed. The core, which will be rock or geo-
tubes, will be placed first. Once the core is in place, the protective armor layer will be
placed on top of the core. The sand will be placed on the backside of the south dike
and grassed to protect against erosion and failure. Based on geotechnical evaluations
of the material in the proposed construction site, it has been determined that suitable
material for the construction of the sand portion of the dike can be excavated from the
inside of the diked area.
Maintenance Cost. Once the project is constructed, there will be a cost associated
with the annual maintenance of the project. The expected life of the project will be 25
years. In order for the project to function as designed, the opening to the estuarine
habitat area will need to be maintained. It is estimated that the entrance will need to be
cleared approximately every 10 years. Also, the dike will need to be repaired. It is
expected that minor repairs (estimated at $5,000) will be necessary on an annual basis.
Approximately every 10 years more extensive repairs will be necessary. The 10-year
repairs and entrance cleaning are estimated to cost $50,000 per occurrence.
A-7
AKA
s
ALBEMARLE SOUND \
ICS
?? Ls
............_:...
TORN /N6 EASIN °
°.
soa mrt 9 ......
? ro0•rror ?? "
$ O
MAN r + O
'•XED If Y. SRID4E C?
)RI E. CI $D'
eft T. CL. 4V.XM. -
Z
;i
•N
O
4 ? r, Z
I I
I I
1? 7tlRN/N6 1
1 13 ACRES
?I
II
1
ROANOKE
NAGS
AHEAD
X.T .
2_ a

a

Q
o CIS
H

STUDY AREA

' ..,
a
ISLAND 6HT
o• D
^ O
`mow
(p
O r
3?3 ?o
t, c
r0
Q B E IS.
LIGHTQ SE
'AT COAST GUARD
7
STA.
DARE COUNTY r ro 400, WIVE x
u C]`
L' C O SOUND p p
t)0.1
,? • G C ,i'?ot +
y?
?Ml AOTX.
JETTIES

??
? •
?
z
IMl

Fx/? CF TERMINAL
FI i ,? Goal"
Sr Ir'
FIXED N.Y. 30104E
NORIE. CL. 30;
VENT. CL. i3.0 N.W.
VENT. CL. GS.S' w.L.w.
A9 .
Ir
7
110
In Oiwbl Pornan net ro pajAU 0cplir
DIY
MANTEO (SHALLOW BAG) BAY,
NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE OF MILES
0 2 4 6
CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON, N.C.
MAP REVISED SEPT. 19E5
FIGURE A-1
EX1ST1
"----2.0 FT_-___ EXISTING CONTOUR
1.8 FT FINAL CONTOUR
0 YM-I APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
Q52!625252 1
50 0 100 0
FEET
SCALE
EOOE i
SHORE
\
WANCHESEs NC
ANCHESE MARSH CREATION AND PROTECTION PROJECT
PLAN VIEW
\
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON FEBRUARY 1999
FIGURE A-2

3
-?t
MSL - 50 YR STORM SURGE
MOR STONE
AR
636 LB GRANITE
-4.0 FT. MSL
IE0 GEO-TUBE 6 OOILB M RINE LIMESTONE
ARMOR STONE
,EXISTI 636 LB GRANITE
± 1.4 _+ 4.7 FT. MSL
-: -4.0 FT. MSL
EOTEXTILE FABRIC UNDER DIKE
3EDD I NG STONE
1-50 LB MARINE LIMESTONE
WANCHESE. NC
WANCHESE MARSH CREATION AND PROTECTION PROJECT
TYPICAL SECTIONS
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT. WILMINGTON FEBRUARY 1999
FIGURE A-3
1?\\YI j r \
{
M
,flit F r j m, y I ,, t

A'
EOGE 0F1ISTJNG LL
i t'e ?? 9:5 F.

; t

t\
\

SHORELViq
r 1 \\ s
s i t

r ?t a 1
1
\ 1 1
{
it r ; 1 1\
C9i
r 7 r• y1 {
j
r ?° d
A' tV { ' + Im
1 I
! 1
t i -
ra
10.
EXISTING fENC4UINEry?
tfn
ti + it\
la i?/:) \
r
,,
f ql i \ to u. ? ?
1 Ao: ?
\
'+ ( `
t
{ 11
11 I.L LL
t
'
Y
1•
'
\
''
?) .
lild'? !
i N'
I
t
\ , +' 1

1
r a
11 \
to • \
l
' y \ s
+
\ t+
I
O
r
?
t
\
,rte, G LL
\ µ
1
U. 1
t\i Q1S y
V
E
E F

} ??y{ 1 1 ?\ \l
! S ?aY

4 ??1t+\ 1T , . ,
k y \

S,t\ r 1 t
46
AN

\ ?
M
\ rA
8 \ '" 1
(n r1 \
LL
1 irf v
r S

{ E
? \?

\

1\ 1

.e r i\ 1
°{{ [t J t ? N ?S1 1`
t

UL

EDGE 0P EXISTING rc i
\ _
SHORELINE

1{ at 0.0 F \
\

t`\i ? \

r t 1
\\ \1
y
r
,?
1 1, i
I?
b ? t `\
4 < 1 \ 11 \
1
Lt 1
Y
i s ?} \ 1 ! \
\ r
EXISTIN
R 1 \ \
G MA
SH \\\ 0>S FT
\ \,

Fly { \y L e \ \t t.8 FT
i L
h it
IN
11 t
11
t Nl I N
1 \ V ai 1
Cu.)
It \
1\ t
IN I Ir y 11
111 k {\ t\
11 \`1`\ I I?R1 \
1 \? i\\
?0(`
\11 1111 TV
IN ON\
Mr 1 {\w1\
\
?` \ FT \ \
t 1u. \
cr. `;y
1
r?
ARMOR STONE
GRASS.
- IF
1.6
$ EXISTING MARSH \??rb0.1??? d
i i 1 \I t1
+1 a ?J i
All
r dr_ ?/
\ \ 45 All C C VjN +, r,..
31
t\
\ Lr`?
----••2.0 FT-----EXISTING CONTOUR
1.0 FT FINAL CONTOUR
0 wM•I APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
100 59 0 190 0
FEET
SCALE
YANCMESE, NC
YANCHESE MARSH CREATION AND PROTECTION PROJECT
PLAN VIEW
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. YILMINOTON
FEBRUARY 1999
FIGURE A-2
NEW MARSH HABITAT
alp ?/- .AL a-
DREDGED MATERIAL ----------
----------------------
5336ex\ IOWA\ I [
EXISTING BOTTOM
+1.5 FT. MSL
0.0 FT. MSL
SLOPED DRAINAGE CHANNEL
SOUTH DIKE
EXISTING SHORELINE NEW MARSH HABITAT + 50 FT.
± 1.4 FT. MSL
-SLOPE - F-1 0.0 F T4 MSL
. ?: ? rI * ?G ,. .\1 J/, SIG
REDGEO MATERIAL
DEPTH VARIES FROM 0.0 FT. MSL
EXISTING BOTTOM CHANNEL SLOPES TO OUTLET
EAST DIKE
3
6' 11
GRASS r GRASS
S. 3 ' . MSL - 50 1fR STORM SURGE
5.0' ?--
SAND ARMOR STONE
3.2 636 LB GRANITE
+ 1.5 FT. MS ?MMSL
-? ± -4.0 FT. MSL
lo? GEOTEXTIL?gE?? FABRICSg UNDER DIKE-3
L
S1-50 L8 MARINE LIMESTONE
VEREXTJLT BEBRA PROTECTION D GEO-TUBE REDOING STONE
ARMOR STONE
54 636 LB GRANITE
L15 _+ 4.7 FT. MSL
+ 1.5 FT. MSL 1 3
.SIG 7 MSL
± -4.0 FT. MSL
)OWX\ )000m, D -2.5 FT. MSL REDOING STONE OTEXTIIE FABRIC UNDER DIKE
''CC BBg ??,,
TION D 1-50 LB MARINE LIMESTONE
NVFREXXTTJ?j F BRA Poo ROTECpp
GE UBF FIVUKt H-3

NEW MARSH HABITAT
DREDGED MATERIAL -------
--------------- ----
EXISTING BOTTOM
EXISTING SHORELINE
± 1.4 FT. MSL
NEW MARSH HABITAT
3
6` ?1
GRASS GRASS
GRASS B.3 MSL - 50 YR STORM SURGE
+1.5 FT. MSL tr" SA7FT.MSL 636 ARMOR STONE
LB GRANITE
0.0 FT. MSL .2'
+ 1.5 ?Z.M SL
?aoar? -
SLOPED DRAINAGE CHANNEL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC UNDER DIKE
7CORE STONE
1-50 LB MARINE LIMESTONE
SOUTH DIKE
± 50 FT.
SLOPEi
MATERIAL
.0 F Ti MSL
+ 1.5 FT. MSL
± -4.0 FT. MSL
ARMOR STONE
636 LB GRANITE
h--
± 4.7 FT. MSL
-: -4.0 FT. MSL

1 DEPTH VARIES FROM 0.0 FT. 1 MSLTO I -2.5 fT. MSL `-GEOTEXTILE FABRIC UNDER DIKE
EXISTING BOTTOM CHANNEL SLOPES TO OUTLET CORE NONE MARINE LIMESTONE
EAST DIKE
FIGURE A-4
t?Jfit 4 1
EDGE?OFi`?IST?NG LL?
FR
I? ;
I
W,ltU. 1
?It !
tt ?
F
t ,
EXISTING FENCK kNE'__j
)ie!
Ito-I> t..
t
11tL LL
I N
",.r 4n I
f f SPILLWAY L,RQATIO?i
5IV 1
INi k
r ? ?
?t¦ ilt?????? ?'i
ii if ::raft*?l? ,jam
fit
' i ? i ?, 1 l? 1
i
1
1) 1)tNi
1
!tt ?!1 ! >ti? i
rr
i?
?(r LL
K r?? Y
U• ?t t
»J ? /
EDGE OP EXISTING
SHORELINE 1
l i
w ? ?t
EXISTING MARSH ?!rr?tu
Y r•??F ??? ?+
}
? J
!i
r ?J
f
K
'k
?
f
wi
ei
?+1
ti
' ?a
t
f
t?1
??L?t
t
.tt
I
t
t
t t
?INN tt \J 13-
i
f S
I
l t t,
1 1 I1
1 1 ?I
t t
-41
? .04
J
1
1?
?
1 It
?
t
\iJl
?
t 1? ,
?
y ?,\ 11?
r+ y, I
?\ \? 1 fie.
\t
1 V
1
l<
i4
>l??h
?i
t
IV1
t t IN
i\l??
i??!
?V
I
t, it
N%
tj
t1 ? t
11
t` rll +kLL
t?1u ?t .
t?-b C, `?
61 ,N
le
}
4 tl ?
t1 1?"i t? tv ? it
?11
tt`??.
IN
?ti 1 ? t ?
?i iy,`` i ?,4 .i
I?? +?
t t i '`At
? , ?? tt t ''t1
t itt ?`11
l 1 ? ' ,i tt t ,IR
? ,
P11,1 i •?' +1
r 1` Ii
.
ARMOR STONE
GRASS
+ EXISTING MARSH t ° S
1`? . ?:
r /
\\ ,/t JJ? 4 ti ''???
\ J r ? .?
----: 2.0 Fr ----- EXISTING CONTOUR
-----APPROXIMATE TEMPORARY DIKE ALIGNMENT
0 WM•1 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
100 50 0 100 200
SET
SCALE
WANCHESE, NC
WANCHESE MARSH CREATION AND PROTECTION PROJECT
TEMPORARY CONTAINMENT DIKE
PLAN VIEW
U,5: ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILKING70N
FEBRUARY 1999
1 `I
K EG
t
r'
t
1
rt,
?t ?
tt tLn
ti
?? 't`? a
t,?tt?? 11
,t4 ??il
11 ?iti
LL
FIGURE A-5
r
3
6' ?1
15.0 FT RASS GRASS
GRASS 8.3 '. MSL - 50 YR STORM SURGE
± 4.7 FT. MSL 11 SAND STONE
3.2'
TEMPORARY SAND DIKE 7 SL
.1
EXISTING BOTTOM
EXISTING SHORELINE
± 1.4 FT. MSL
io -tt 15.0 FT-
SOUTH DIKE
± 4.7 FT. MSL ± 4.7 FT. MSL
TEMPORARY SAND DIKE
EXISTING 80TTOM
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC UNDER DIKE--J
O? YE poREGEtI-TUSEBFOR PROTECTIML
15.0 F
TEMPORARY SAND DIKE
5'
?-± -4.0 FT. MSL
BEDDING STONE
1-50 LB MARINE LIMESTONE
ARMOR STONE
676 LB GRANITE
- - + 4.7 FT. MSL
Ww?l 1Z ± -4.0 FT. MSL
oEOTEXTILE FABRIC UNDER DIKE
BEDDING STONE
1-50 L8 MARINE LIMESTONE
EAST DIKE

FIGURE A-6
��:
..
t�,
- - ... -
�;
'.��..-

i
46
N N

U
? a h
W
a
°
F F r
F ?
D
a
r
m
U
U
h
°
M

a
(1

F
O
W
C7
w
a
0
0
N
N
x
°
3 G
O
T

a N
ro ? ?
z
x°
w u
o c
z
a -" O

0 E. C4 H
W O 3 2° ? F u
G U C
9 .7
p] F a a YS W G i
a
m N G
rn W w F a D Z x ro w u m m w 7 u ° F -.+
G a w O a H in a u O T m m o .0
•"
m u!

.
W O O
u w o F C7 a
O \\ G \\ o w W •" v .]
w
a N Z W£ Q a a N rn O V O ?ri O
O W O
W x .1 O a
E U° W W
W w a
O \\
.+ o N
u N a N
° O E N °
ur N X U U U 3 0 ." C! O U w G
N FO
O W 3i ° O C WT
x S H O Q
.. ..
•. .. m W
74 N a al N N
O H •"
U U' N ° N a' ?. ?. T N O1 1C 7. •M N VI Ol
' V
W
x F a- C7
a
o U W Rl W w G
A V ro
F a
u r U
L N
M
E
N N ti
N
£ O aa O V V
N a) 'O
a)
-ri
N
a) w G a
O -" N
SI
£
Q Z W X N Q o G u H G H al a.? N w W b U
F UI £ N 01 ro ro O a rl O a)
• 5 Vi
W W W W F F
x 0 U x 8
N •M a
v •"
W w ro
W G 4 W°
a
a U x 0 U w u N ro 0 v b U O W

-C E. fl?
W a/ . ro S4 ro U w

w a ° w C £ o
v a) o a
s u
2
O
?
a
"
N
N O
U
3 O
al '"
t
w
w F
W

F
O
W
O
F
U
W
h
O
a
a
N
01
Q
z
O
N

H
d

ao W
o`
\
.+

Q
N

? o E
z
A
al al
W w ••
°
ro
N ?
?.

W
}? W O
w W ?
N N
C
C
W
v C7
H Q
w
W
E W
H ,.7
F F
H
F
u
F
O
W
O
w
a
0
O
N
r1
O
N >.
" z
x O
5 a
N
v ? a
w H
c ? u
M H
b W w
c a w
W O O
w U W
o (w O
W ?
pN,
0 O
O W
U C7
E ? F
Q 3 N
m x W
P f z
W
W E
N z
W a
14
o
3 r,
z
0
O
L)
h
O
a
a
O?
N
O? m
O? \
Qi O W
H H W
F
A O
v w z
W L
ro F
m Q U
H W
? w O
h
Y w a
w w a
N
w
O u
H ri
W 0
a
u w
W F v
m N F
m O H ,-I
O 5 3
>. U b
h H ? ro
y r
W m
y? w
4 e
3
O
U
a
O
O
u
ti
w
m
w
u
a
14
z m
O H
El u w
a ro U
W l4 14
O E N
a z° H A A u
W Y vC 3 7 A
F m o u C
q zqO 3 N N E
Z U) N 7 u X
O F o-.? Rf
+ A
ro a „ ° u .wc
ro ro L •
w c v C
ro a w o
o ° m u ° u
N u N o
o O ra
H w m
W ro N O V ro
a E o 4) > rn w N
0 o a u ro H •,Ci
z W w C w
X U) 2o 4, m L) x I
H w' b •.? b b 'o m
X tx m tia -.Ci w o
14
o W O O w m o
W Ca u W m U U ro
u > W .1 W o °
w •N U .i N w
W r b .tai a O C X.I
C1 N° m w x ro
A w e O W b
a zd ° m m w m
Hy roro•? N > m
X T w m w w W O
W F .c It W .c •.I W
O m E. A C F w H
CWI u b E o
3 m u o.
w
w 'Q ro
° u C
0 c ° To
o .
w Ot b w a1 w
•° •.Ci o E b
.tl bl 3 O •.+ A
'o w x o
E b E a a b
w z m ro 1
W O m w w C
N 0 W U N
° 0 .M C b F
4) 0 0) 4) Id
u r w C b d
m r ro m w
vw.w c E ? ?
c+ ro wza v w
M m w w a w
W U V
rn •M c ro o
ro N w YI U
u .c o o C
U L W •N
l1 .C U
a m w w° C
H b o r u
N 16
.? E v a b 3
w ro X A T
OU L C E U
Q W ..I ..I
w o E vwi o m
O W w w W
?4 .C m m
o a v C x N
u aF s >
0, 4)
C Oro x ti N
M W U A
'G W N w U u
H w ° w o
O o C H a o
°v ro a o 0
n u m o N
w
•.Ci 'O
ro w ro
o O. o m
O .C w w
'O - m N 'O
m > E 3 7
A b H N oti
14
O 3 C d r U
> O V r L U
v °c z N M
W v
N e c o m N
v u .-? u
3 O u E >1
w W O w
u ti a 0 w
m m u x w E
C W W U +i
m ro o .Ta Swi w
C U W w
m d,
> O u N U
w A m b
C 7 S° ro u t
u o° x m a
m H H w w
o a a o
m H m w u r
U •.i W .->I b U
P W 3 W d 0
N N V A u
•.roi E N ro w+ E
N O N C 3
i w c° ro a
m o u w H
£ u w aw p, U
O 7 m O E w
tr .0 G u L
x ar
w r O m v
° H ro 0 L U
•A O w m N o O
O a, .a •.I o w w
,o> m o i, w
.1 o
'a o
Ord N wA ° NE
a u E b >
I w c xa m" w b y
.v H o c v ., v
a N 'O 1 b W W w W
ro N 4) E m ra rd o 3 UQ
C o •° O °i u u n E
o o r a, N u w w
u o v C ,C
U O W ,[ •.? N w O L
7 N H u X •a A m
m w a o •° o k N~
G A m ti O N C
u o •H t4 m u w w
u .0 w o o roa o ff w o a
Ad S, m
M
w w w r m N U
b A o A L o m c: •.Ci
w W E •.i O W } U O
C O 3 o dr U w
Sa ro M O > r N W w
x w W V N a ro H V w o
F m m s •• E W w U a
H ro H C m r. or
H c H C W H •N W •.1 W ro
w w C w a r C m W
m u m u o m ro o o W C
ro U ro U •N ro N •'I U m w
a Al N a c N a E) U° aE
W W ., .C .-I w ty
m m u m ro ro
o o m m w N N
U V w r v a E
Q
U
h
A
a
0
a
h
0
H
w
u
a
a
C
.T
u
C
w
N
U

Q

a
z
0
M
W
Q
A
a
z
Q
H
O

r
!.
N H F
N V
(t
a u
W F
p U' N
H Q 2
a P
W
£ N F
H a m
F Q O
g£ U
N Q
F
O
F
z
C7
z
MF
Z
UO
U
W
E
W Z
t7 O
W V
a
0
o £
N O
x r
F
(] H
3 FF ?
Q
N ? P
.+ a a
x z
o
F W
C7 m u
5 p O
N 10
1' a F1
d ?O Q L
O H C
C i U O
•M M U
r W w
F a w
w O O
U aNa
0 W O Q
w W £
N a
a
0 o
W
U U' a
W W
ET s E z
N H £ O
Q 3 H
F F
x N U
vl cvc??7 W W
5 Q E.
O
£ z a
w a
N
w a
m w
zU 0
Q 0
(gypp
P
F
O
W
0
F
U
W
h
O
a.
a
m
N \
T O
.-1 H
A
U1 N
w ?
m
01 (a
H
.1 W
M W
a w ?
N O VI
r n p
N O? O
?n m ?c
?0 m p
? N. O r 0 i m
N M N m O? ?
H N r ?O p
p N N N O
N N
U N 0 0 0 0 I r
M ?n M .n o i ?v
V O N r O H
N N p r H
m N N M i!1
N M
O M m 0 0 0 N
N N p
m H ? o
p p O?
m e
o ui o 0 0 0 ?n
p m 0 0 0 0 N
H D m 0 0 0 m
O 1!1 N m M 0 O?
O .-? H N lD
.+ H
a a a
a a a
0 0 0
0 0 0
m m m
b1
N
N U1
W A
a? w u
•N f.
u C E
U .i a)
w N W m
m v 0) A
W „ F •t £
Q ti N a
b F W O
A 'M H 3?
.a 3 C N C 7
W •N 0.1 .N N
ZQ N W Q N C
Q •.a H W ti O
a w g w a u
.-1 ?0 N N O ri
O O ?-1 N
1
Q
U
h
A
H
7
a
u
H
w
u
H
a
A
A
T
c
N
7
U
Q
F
z
ii
H
H
d
W
Q
01
Q
z
A
H
O
w
m
M

N N F
O
a U
v
W F
a U' yHH
~ d a
w
E N F
H a WO
? U
a
W Q
F
O
F
z
OZ
H
F
z
O
U
U
N
W
W F
F
W Z
(? O
U
W
a
0
o ?
N O
'I p
H
p H
3 I gF ?
Q
N >. p
.+ a a
z
x o
F F4
O n w
x O u
N ro
?+ a N
N H C
C I U O
U
bl W W
? a w I
w o 0
U
w a w
O W O a
W E
N
a F
H O m
O W
u o a
W W
ET x F 5
1? H ? O
Q 3 H
F F
5 m U
W m W W
p F O
x z a
w a
N E
W W'
5 W
'yU
Q U'
3
F
O
W
U'
F
U
W
h
O
a.
C4
H
a
A
UI d
ro
m p
H
•M W
N W
W W I I
c
0
C
? ?n v o In o .n
N H o r o m
N In H m o ti e
H H r ?c m r? rl
p N N N O
H N
In N o 0 0 0 l r
?n m In o I e
?(1 ?O N r O I H
N N ?r r .a
m rl N rn of
N n
O M m 0 0 0 I N
N H I C
w o
C m 0 0 0 0 1 N
O 1!1 N ? ? O T
H lp N O O
O H H N I 1p
u u u
as a
0 0 0
0 0 0
m m m
m
N
N 01
W p
ti C E
u 4)
w a ? m
m N C N
W w F .+ E
Q .-I N C q
O F w O
? H •
C a t, u
.a S l-I 7
.M •.I {G •.I N
? L O N a N
N M W % O
w ? w a u
H O N N O N
O O ri N M In
1
Q
U
h
0
a
u
I'J
O
H
w
U
r7
O
p
•ri
T
c
N
7
U
a
a
z
a
M
H
d
W
a
a
z
ca
a
0
N
N
p
W
p C7
H Q
W a
a
F £
W
O
C7
a
0
rN-1
x
q
3
N ?
H 2
X O
? 5 v
v lu r,
? I U v
• M w
W O O
U >.
O w 0
a0 w
0 O I W
u 0 m w
a S £ O
F F
W y fU+l 114
a h
=?za
W
U , x
3
P
E.
U
0
oa
a
a
m \
m o
A
w awl
Ol ?
H
M W
H w
w w
I p. I
I w 1
I ? I
I (/ I
F
F
O
U
Q
F
O
F
2
O
z
H
F
z
I U I
w
w
F
U
Q
a
z
0
5
r
F
H
yF
Q
O
d
N p m O p p 0 lD p l0 lp N N N
O m tll m N p IA r Ol H p p p
r m ID O? H Vl m p p m r N N r
III
tll
O
l m
l N .r
m
m
IO m
H r p H m m
m
N lO
?
m
N ?
0 o In In m o m vl o ul n m N m In m m o
? In N
N N r
l0 ? p In ? m m w n uri m? m ? N
O OI p
r N m N O l0 p N H p IO N m m r lD lD
H O N N m t(l H Ul N m H H H
N N p H H H H p
O O m N m m N N m r N p p 0 Vl m p N
l0 U1 N T O T m Ill N n IO H Ol N W Ifl ll1
p p lp Ul O N 01 tl1 m Ol m p r r I+l N m l0
N N O 111 p l0 O N H O p r m m H N
p N m N m H N N
N
O O O O r p p b N Ill N H IO N IO O m
N m O p O m r Ol p r r Ill IO N
Ol OI m N 0 t(1 N p N N H IO N Ol
r p IO 1(1 Ip m m Ol H p
H ?
0 0 0 O p m N p O p O m N r p N m Ill
p O O
m m 1l1 p
N p p IO OI m p m IO rl m N O p m
p m H m p N N m b m 01 Ifl H Ip
Ul H N O
N N Ill m O Ill H Yl m O H N N Ill 111
Yl Ol N O H H m OI O ei H
H m H H H O
H
z z a a s a
a°e°.uF?i W auu?uc6wv?i 4
o o 0 o o o o o o o 0 o 0 0
o o 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o
0 0
O O o 0 o H N O o w l0 0 0 m
o
o o o o o o o o
m
? m p r In o o m
H p IO m N Uf l0 N
H H N

Q
w w o a 0) C
W
Q O a •A C d O
-- N °' b •ol o m
w 9. ? N Wl 3 ro L N
N
N N N
u v C O •M
0) U ?. rl H C
N C U Nrl q .ti YI N ?+
C o o
E N N N 3 a ro v s. .?
al '+ bl v v C
•.+

N N N
Id o
9 :1
.-1 a x a •.1 W b
w
1.) u
N
a
W 7 C
ra m N N
U x
U g
m c ° Q ++ v
x V U W w u ro N 7 g N C A A w
m o a v o ro•.+ as+ix ww .H
W
U' 3 C1 G1
L aA w W 41 lA m a ro E v C u ro
•rl W N C C O/ J-I " O O U
N N al ro H o +? x i. N £ a •.+.+ 3

? ro m N
W W W N 11 Vl .? m ro of v a) u u

Itl
•./ % V1 g M C C1 .C Ol x a)

.a o
o
a N
q o
S W O o T3 N u w N
F N o O o ro a a V O E lo u w al u A
m
v v v N+
m ?
m v v v a E o v v •
°
y
q Faa ? .
i
w
.e c?wawFFW ?u w
U ? w m p ul to n m m o
a a W ????? F
H
O H H H
O O O F to to w In In In lc to to w . e lv e E
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m
C p
H H
.? N
r ? r
0 0
m m
N I N
p p
H H
H H
H H
p I p
N I N
w u
a a
0 0
o o
N
O
W
q
IL
E
w
a
.N
P. 0,
r v v
O v v
v n" o
o
H
q O
F
N N E.
H H
0 0
0 0
O C
m
? m
H H
0 0
o I o
0 0
O O
0 0
m
b ?
H H
P P
i F F.
PP vl VI
m E. E.
H H
M W w
a H H
H W W
Q E. w
w a
N N F
N N
0 0 0 0
o In o
O N of r
r a r ? o
0 0 0 0
o In o In
O N Ilt I r
ul H .+ n
N I N
O O O O
N Itl Ip
O H
I H
o m
a)
N ?
? N C
W o U C
e m C v
- u ..i v
p 14 c
v a O 0)
•.Ci N of W
W w ?p H b
W Z N C
a y •M
o N £ C C
•Ci m £ dt b
c a o w a
ro
d ?' H h
F
m c; o o F
m m m
Q
U
h
q
a
Q
m
U
h
M
3
W
U
r7
O
q
c
u
C
N
U
a
a
z
ca
H
H
a
w
a
N
Oi
a
z
q
H
O
if
?f
r
'I
1
N m
a
a W
a U'
? a
w
H pTp??
F Q
w
O
a
0
N
.a
X
A
3
N >?
.+ a
x o
F W «
x 5 w
N H
w b ?
w H ro
C ? U w
H [L
w 0 0
u
w a Pd
O W 0 ?Q
N aW
H O i w
O w i
uaww
T x E. z
H E O
Q S E.
F
x w u
w aw w w
a Q H O
E z a
w a
w
w
w a .
ZU 7
a O
3

F
O
W
C7
w
0
a
a
F
O
F
H
7
F
w
10,
F
z
O
Z
H
U
U
W
F
V
FQ
?i
U
O
a
T
Q
A
a
N
0
a
N
0 0 0 0 0 0
O N N N N O
O N N N N O
? m O b b .? b
b w m
H N O
N
0 0 0 0 0? o r
o N N N N o b
O N N N N O
?? ao u? .1 ? .+ co
0 0 0 0 0 O N
a
0
b
0 0 0 0 0 o N
0 0 0 0 0? 0' N
0 0 0 0 0 O b
O N N N N O T
O N m O O
..i N b
H
a
Q
0
0
A
A z
W 0
0 m z
a O C F E
a ro O w
E u C C 0 am p
m c m E A M m
m e m ro ro ro C
0 C O 00 °
C E w u u i
O u E u
u u C u u
u ro u 0 u u p
u H w H w w u
y L •M w
H C O> 0 0 C
N 0 P W W a 0
0 a
U Q R U A W F
0
.a .i ,-? N H ti F
m m m m m m
Q
U
h
A
Q
m
U
h
A
3
W
U

O
A
r
T
u
N
a)
7
U
Q
F
Q
2
A
H
a
H
a
w
m
A
w w
W u
ro
a? A
w
C. OWi]
a
N
O?
Q
z
A
H
a
R
m
N
W
w
W ?
a
a
W
£ w
a
F F
M
F
c
w O
W
o N ?
W a
m

z o
u
w u H
o C
z
O W
94 N
z fY.?
W H w O
C
O
`J
N x
W E y
U
F m
w' N W W
Ti N .i Ul
N H u
H H
O rz
y q
v 3
C u u F .]
ti a o 3
w. to Z
w o ro H G
xH
mmw u
u zc?
ozx
ro o
w,,
mm
.w W•
v u m

q,c•,.
F w
w?do O
a V H m
c?a
w .] U
\\ O tP
c m m
\\ o
o A •+
w b? y
w•.+ v
£

w W

x x
U W q
£
3 3
a s
W •N
cw E
m H
N ri

0
w
b o
H p n
?.
O W O
m w F
H O W
fY p .M m m
w w W '+
O •.+ \\
H O v
W H a m
'm O E ?n
W w 3
? U U U m 0 .y A O U N
ax
H U
x
y .a
w
O G{ mw
•M
? a „v
Ul N N
A
O

3 W t
?
W ?4 N W
H ? ?
m m ?
m UI OI
a? C 1C
ro ?. ro f
4l
C7 3
?F
E a
E £ q x
U N
b ro
ro .6 •.i
q u F o O G
U ?.i a.i b? W
w q a
£
a •• M w
m O
o OG O W N
O W N
H •N
ff N
O U)
ff O .N
N y b
N F
•om W
x o£ N
o b 16
.? E ro
a o O a
•.+
ro o O N
c.c
w?
m z w
o Uy
z? N x
u m?
Ol a? v
H W w
o
Id y

ro
u o co

o m
p 2
w 3 x
U R
O £ ? w w N N
a u •? C
u •.i R O >.
H A
F
U w ro
N Q H ro
O u U N
w
w a a a c £ o
O H U o
C O
O
a u i m u
U
N •M
.
C
w
w F
W
\
M
01 \
m o
H H
A
w u
a
m ?
N w
H w
w w. ?
a
U
h
0
H
a
a
or
u ?
7
q
W
U

c
u
r
N
H
U
r
a
a
z
a
H
H
a
w
a
N
F
R
Z
?
H
a
0

N
H ?
W
E SI
F Q
E
m
Oa U I E I
w
o a
z
x o
o W x
a a u
m m ro
7•I F .] N
O/ H a JJ
v 3 H 0
C I U O
•M x H U
c a w
w ?Q o ?
O W O a
? w f
w y?
U a i a
>. S F 2
lE S O
a •• H
z w W
O h
o 0 z m
w w
F
V
w a
O >
I to I
O I
I U I
yF
b
F
W
O
U
F
O
E
z
OZ
z
H
z
O
I U I
I U I
I w .
I w I
F I
I U I
I a .
. a .
F I
I z I
I O I
I U I
F.
O
5
r
F
H
zF
Q
O
a
uoi In 'I
o rl r
r m .a
H m .+
m m r
o m
N N
In m m o 0 0 ?
r w a o In o I
?n ni o 0 0 o r
M r r? In o m
In w N r o I !I
N ? ? r m O
N
m I C
O m m 0 0 0 I w
r
a w o 0 0 0 0
N N m 0 0 0 I Itl
H w m w H o 0
N H N m
H H
U U U
a Q a
m m m
m
a
N Cl
N A
N b r
0 E
N m
T. N W 0
m N ? C m
W w F ? f
Q i W C C
b F W O
d H • w
W 3 C a G 7
m .ri ? w ? a,
Q m w m c
.I M W W H O
a w o w a u
N w N N O N
O O H N M to
Q
U
h
A
H
a
D
Q
U
n
W
a
u
Q
a
G
1roi
7
U
a
m
F
Q
2
4
H
a
H
a
w
m
m
O? O
? H
W N
w ?
a
•? w
H w
w W
a
N
Q
z
0
a
0
m N
N
W
a
W a
E >I
F Q
N
a
uu a
X O
U
r L) w 3 H 11
~ x H W
m {wL.
w Q O
o w w
N W
ax
w U I m
O 14
A S N Z
Qw H O
N F F
m z w w
n u z K
w a
E
W w «
O >
a 0
m
m rHll
A
G/ N
w w
ro
m q
.i W
w W
W W
I E I
O
U
F
H
F
O
u
a
FO
z
I
I ZO
z
O I
I U I
W
F
U
F
Z
O
U
E
O
5
N
F
'yF
a
O
a
W N m C m H .-1 o r In o 0
r n b H VI m r Ol C N T Ill
I!1 Ill ? H m r C C H H N O
b m H H In o In ti
b w r
.+
er m N N
H N 01
O
N
0 o in in m n b b m b H m m r N a
o In N
m N H r
b m H m ul b o Io m
A m H C b m C r C N Io
r N m N
H Ill m H O W b H N r r b
H ul
N r
m H
+ m
n
?
??
.
Ill C H b
0 o In vl N m m n H m o m N m m
r
b in N .+ N m m b r m m m In
a w b ul .? n N o m m m a in C N b
N N Ul ttl O O N H O C r m m
O OI m m H N N
H C

m
O o o o m b b Ol Ol O O N Ol b C m
Ol N r VI n n b r m b C N
r O1 01 T Ill N VI H H H ID H
O m ill m m m Ol N
N H II1
n
0 0 0 o m N r o m m .i m m o m
m o o a b m .+ o w m N o r o m to
m m ul H m m m a .+ .+ o m m m m in
In N N o m v a .+ In m m o N N M
H Ol lp H H .-1 m m O H H
m m H H .? N
H
c4 w.
Z
O >I >I Q U >I >I U U >I
F F U U w Q U U Q Q m
O
Q
U
o a a o o o o 0 o o a o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 N N O O b b O m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 o r in o o m
m in r m H In b
H H N
I
?
Q
C w o of of
Q z w a >. •.?1 C
w z u m w 3 b o N
m
N N
u r z C U U lo N w C
N C U ro .N Q .N w ti
u
r o o v ro
t a a ro v .,
W gH
w 4) 4)
r
M N
N N N •N W N N C W w N
.? a x a •? w V
ro

a m ro r w H -w m w v
.X Uu U
w Q Q w
C7 w al T1 q b r A
C o N f .' ro W
•.I
N
w o
3 N v Q v o o ro a w u w
w W
lA
m
a b r w C U
'O
C7
S w10 wro
T
q .N C N z o N a11-6 N aO I-1N
.4
>.
.i
o
F r-1

Q{
w a.+ u
ro N N

W k
'O O 'm X w w f w •.1
m N ro ro Ol N w a!
I
3
Cl w w W w
g w
w r W A N X W

w O
a .-1 I-1 m
q m
$ 'M o 0 N al 41
w
0 0
N O a a E M w N I
A

w
E ro ro
v v v 0
W N C E E W v N w ro >,O
ro ro v v v ao v
N
•.1
q F (Y IY a w Q w F F w L, w

a Q OO U Q l
w
OI O H N m d
F . . .
.
.
.+ H .+ H H F
F
H
0 .+ H H
0 0 0 F b b b b b b b b b b b b
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o 0
0
C Ilt
N Ol
m
m i m
? a
H
H H
r n
o I o
m m
N I N
C C
I m
H H
H I H
C I C
o I o
o I O
N I N
W U
a Q
0 0
O m
N
w
O
a
m
0
W
CL
a,
rn
a
b O
C ti ro N
b q q
W
w
q o F
N N F
.y H
o I o
0 0
0 0
m m
? b
I H
o i o
O I O
0 0
o i o
o I o
m
b b
H H
u ?a
>I F F
p w w
ti F F
H H
H H a
H Rl w
a H H
M W W
a w w
w Q µ
O
N N F
N N
0 0 0 0
O N In
r b r O
N I p
o m o In
o N In I r
In Iy .. I r
1 C C l C
N ill b
O H
.+ H
a r
1J M
w q
N a!
q N C ?
Is o uo r
C b C w
?4 u. e
v u a 0
M v I.? bl W
C W Q .1
w I??w
C r C I
C W O w W
ro
m x H ,
E.
0 0 0 o E.
C
v
v
G
E
M
w
u
sot
ai
N
O
u
m
Q
u
q
q
Q
r
U
h
q
w
U

O
q
u
C
G)
w
U
Q
m
Q
z
N
M
a
w
Q
N
m
a
z
q
M
O

1~
'I

ao m F
N
.. UI
O
?
N
a
C7
? a
w m
N U
n
w
E N
I F I
o l o l r
o 0 o
••
H I !7 I N
O Ill N Ilf I O I A
F x O O N N N N O I"I
I(1 m O b ID ? lp W
V! Q H N N .7
F
°
N
E I a
r
Z 0 0 0 0 0 o r ?
I H I O N N N N I O I N U'
E
Z Ill m Yf ei e1 ? O
.I ..
O c O
U
I I H
3
I U 0 0 0 0 0 0 l ?o w
rn
W w
N
m
r P:
U
E 0 0 0 0 0 0
U
r1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 o In
F o N N In ul o r
Z o In m o 0
O
U H N m

H
E w'
5 Q
>. o
F
H 0
W (-I m

L) a
z a
k o
L)
o w
ca
a m
o v w
w w
m x w
N F 7 7 a
Z o

W H Q u
v 3 H A w
W O U
w Z
Ci 5 H W C C E E +l U W
bl y W
C K I o •.I F m r o
H v v a
w E 0 ° O E.
m
°
>. ,
,
w 5
H .7
O W O Q N C C u u b A
m w w E ti r E C C N S

r
E w
?
C
•?
o,
o ro
O IyyyIQQ
U E rt N N N C
u
3 W W Q m C O O
3 E
U U
E 4
11 E O +l
u w
E
u u r +.l u 7 ul ?+
?+
a H N U
N E+ F
O N U S4 w v u x
+ m

w Z w w
m
O `
C O 7 0 0 C "?Qy
U G
C
d a U
b
F
O
ww W 4
]
3
.? .?
g
V Z• Q W U A W F F
W 0.
W O O
H H H H .i F F
0
p>
IY O m m m m m
W U'
a

4
z
0
H
W
M

m d
w
Ol
?
m m
a
N
m \
m o ?
E.,
z
A
v v
W u ..
G
N H
01 Q
?
H °
•M W
H w
E, W I I
'r
M...,.:�.,,e�.�. w.. ,.� �.�_«�. �,,..�,..M , ��.4..:' � ..��aa ._.�,b� � s .,....� �.�. ,.n'

WANCHESE MARSH CREATION
Subsurface Investigations. In April of 1998, three holes
were drilled along the proposed dike alignment. All three
holes had a water depth of six to seven feet. The sampling
was accomplished using a 14-foot-long flat-bottom boat with
a well in the center. A tripod with a 140-pound hammer and
a five foot long splitspoon sampling tube were used to
c retrieve the samples. The three samples obtained were sent
to a local soils laboratory for sieve (gradation) testing.
The results were that the soils were classified, according
to the Unified Soil Classification System, as poorly graded
and/or silty sands. The amount of silt contained in each
sample varied. The boring logs and the sieve gradations are
included in Appendix
Engineering Considerations. The soils were predominantly a
firm to dense, poorly graded, fine to medium grained sand
with some silt. The nature of these materials encountered
generally leads to an adequate bearing capacity for the type
of proposed dike structure. Some settlement should be
expected during and for a short time after construction.
The amount of settlement should be small and the time to
reach all settlement should be soon after construction.
There should be no long-term settlement because no soft soil
layers were encountered during sampling. The stability of
the dike system is dependent on the material used for fill
and the foundation. The foundation stability should be
adequate for the dike. The fill material will come from
either the site or a nearby disposal island and should be
predominantly a sand. Compaction of the fill material is
assumed to be done by construction equipment or by
wave/water action. Stability of the dike slope will be
dependent upon the material and the side slope.

Hole No. WH-1
DRILLING LOG DNISION
SOUTH ATLANTIC NSTALLATION
WILMINGTON DISTRIC SHEET 1
OF 1 SHEETS
1. PROJECT 10. SIZE AND TYPE OF 8115 FT. SPLITSPOON
wANCHESE MARSH CREATION It DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOWWBM rYSU
2. LOCATION ICvwWr*sT or SMNOW MSL
N753703 E355026 12, MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL
3. DRILLING AGENCY TRIPOD AND JOHN BOAT
MOBILE DISTRICT T
T

4. HOLE NO. (As gown on drawing IBN
ab ru
le
a
r) 13.
O
AL NO.OF OVER- OtSTURBED UNDISTURBED
BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 1 0
e
M
e
, WH-1

3
NAME OF DRILLER H. TOTAL NUMBER CORE BOXES NA
.
JAMES WILLIAMS 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER NA
6. DIRECTION OF HOLE 16. DATE HOLE STARTED COMPLETED

? VERTICAL E3 INCLINED DEG
FROM VERT /8
.
.
17
ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE UNKNOWN
7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN NA .
16
TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING NA X
8. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK NA ,
19. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR
9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 11,0 J. E D TURNER

ELEVATION
DEPTH
LEGEND CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS

/QMalptl I X CORE
RECOV• BOX OR
SAMPLE REMAWCS
(rimnptime. -clr"Ldrnnof

e ERY NO.
1 I WIsri* elo., If $f9wrhall
WATER DEPTH - 6.0'
STICK UP = 0.4
6
.
SM- Dark groy-block. silty
fine 9roined sand with
trace of shell.
1 BLOWS/5 FEET = 97
Visual Lob CIOss (SP-SMI
11
.
BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 11.0' BLOWS/ 5 FEET:
SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY NUMBER REOU61E0 TO
CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE DRIVE 1%" ID
WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL SPLITSPOON WITH 140
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM LB. HAMMER FALLING
30 INCHES
ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT HOLE NO.
Hole No. WH-2
DRILLING LOG DIVISION
SOUTH ATLANTIC NSTALLATION
WILMINGTON DISTRIC SHEET 1
GF 1 SHEETS
1. PROJECT 1D. SIZE AND TYPE OF 815 FT, SPLITSPOON
WANCHESE MARSH CREATION It. OATUM FOR ELEVATION SHDWWSV orWSU
2. LOCATION (CmVla ss or SW W MSL
N753659 E355027 12. MMUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF DRILL
3. DRILLING AGENCY TRIPOD AND JOHN BOAT
MOBILE DISTRICT
T
T
13
F
R
IST
NDIST
RBED
RBE
4. HOLE NO. (At tfo•.H On *w,*p NM
*
d
Ill
) AL NO. O
OVE
- D
U
.
O
D U
U
BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 11 I 0
a
I AM
V
d
WH-2
14
TOTA
N
MBER CORE 80xE5

F
R
R ,
L
U
NA
D
5. NAME O
ILLE
JAMES WILL JAMS 15. ELEVATION GROUND WATER NA
6. DIRECTION OF "ME COMPLETED
DATE HOLE
16
ED

FROM VERT
O VERTICAL ? INCLINED DEC .
.4/29/98
8
1
.
.
17, ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE UNKNOWN
7, THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN NA 16. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING NA r
8. DEPTH DRILLED INTO ROCK NA Ka. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR
9. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 12.1 J. E D TURNER

ELEVATION
DEPTH
LEGEND CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS 7 CORE
RECOV• BOX OR
SAMPLE REMARKS
(dNlrq ans worsr 10S&dom Of

•
s
s f0•tveyrpu
• ERY NO.
? wevrerinp• WC, IT $10"C")
WATER DEPTH = 7.1'
Stick UD w 1.3'

•?•• SP- Gray. fine to medium
. grained. Dourly graded sand
• With trace of silt.
••• i BLOWS/5 FEET w 192
• Visual Lab Class (SP-SM)
12.1
BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 12.1' BLOWS/ 5 FEET:
SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY NUMBER REOUZED TO
CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE DRIVE 1%" ID
WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL SPLITSPOON WITH 140
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM LB. HAMMER FALLING
30 INCHES
ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT HOLE NO.
MAR 71
Hole No. WH-3
I DIVISION INSTALLATION SHEET 1

1. PROJECT 10. SIZE AND TYPE OF 6115 FT. SPLJTSPOON

ENG FORM1836 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. PROJECT HOLE NO,
MAR 71
DRILLING LOG
SOUTH ATLANTIC
WILMINGTON DISTRIC
OF 1 SHEETS

WANCHESE MARSH CREATION 11. DATUM FOR ELEVATION SHOwK&I aYSU
2. LOCATION (CaorWnoNS or Stolbnl MSL
N753701 E355030 u. MANUFACTLr:Eas DESIGNATION of DRILL
3. ORtLNG AGENCY TRIPOD AND JOHN BOAT
MOBILE DISTRICT OF OVER- olsTUrlefo Ilnasruaefo
TOTAL No
U
4. HOLE NO. (As aAprll on ~V 0b .
.
BURDEN SAMPLES TAKEN 11 ? Q
one aN A~) . WH-3
x
TOTAL NWBER CORE BOXES
.
NA
S. NA1E OF pR4LER
JAMES WILLIAMS 15. ELEVATION CROUrIO WATER NA
6. DIRECTION OF HOLE
FROM VERT
? VERTICAL E3 INCLINED DEC 16. OAtf HOLE ISTARTED COMPLETED
4/29/9$ 14/29/9$
.
. 17, ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE UNKNOWN
7. THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN NA ta. TOTAL CORE RECOVERY FOR BORING NA ?
8. DEPTH DRLLEO INTO ROCK NA M. SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR
9, TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 12.0 J. E D TURNER
ELEVATION DEPTH LEGEND CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS RECOV?- SMIPLE (p'llllnq nAr.Ewnr ost. Wpm of
(Dsxrlp/au ERY NO. •OpInKUp, r(C.l/dlgN/kpY)
WATER DEPTH = 7.0'
SfiiCk Up = 1.4'
7
.
SM/CH- BrOwn• bIOCk• Silty
fine-medium Sond d
high liquid limit cloy.
1 BLOWS/5 FEET ? 70
Vi3U01 Lob CI033 15M)
12
.
BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 12.0' BLOWS/ 5 FEET
SOILS ARE FIELD VISUALLY NUMBER REOUIREO TO
CLASSIFIED W ACCORDANCE DRIVE I%" ID
WITH THE UNIFIED SOIL SPLITSPOON WITH 140
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM LB. HAMMER FALLING
30 INCHES
x
(
TABLE 1
Grain Size Analysis
Wanchese Harbor,
Job No. 1063-98-717
Sample #: WH-1 WH-2 WH-3
Depth: 0-5' 0-5' 0-5'
Description: Brown fine to medium
SAND, a little silt
with shell fragments
(Sp-SN I) Brown fine to
medium SAND, a
little silt with shell
fragments (SP-SM Brown fine to medium
SAND, some clay
(S1Vl)
Sieve Size Percent Passing, By Weight
3/833 100.0 100.0 100.0
#4 99.6 99.6 99.8
#10 99.0 99.0 94.4
#20 93.3 92.6 72.1
##40 80.3 73.0 47.9
#60 72.0 52.3 36.7
#100 31.7 18.4 22.7
#200 9.9 .6.5 18.0
i H913M AS N3SS V00• iN33 a3d
o

W C 6 d
I
v
1
?i I
? I
c 0 ? I
N

C
2
i O O v r o
o a` ? ? o

a
e I c

z
W C? ?
i I

m y

W
2 ? N? J
W ? ? O J

O =
?R ? x

O
..N
v
; 1

Z ?
(!1
i
a 1
O O

VV Ill N
10 I ? ,
I
Y i i ? ? U
1 =
8
Z
W

W
O
v 0

=
Z

! C
1
d S _
(?
Z

N i
Ca
l

O I 1

O
O y y
m ? `?

i O
U I

d
Q
c _
8
.. $ n

iH $

913M

AS 8

3NU iN30 g

83d e9i Pi o o
E
171 1
rl?
co
C
N
I
¢ >
O <
U. I
0
7-
w
A
y
C
i

I
1
1
1
I
I
i
1H913M AS U3SITY03•iN33a3d
U
O '
J ?iJ
V1
E
J
CL
n
r
J
J
? J
J ? J
V
h I e
L Z
t

fI:
O A
T
m W O
O]
II Io
C ^I
1 =
V
1
E
I
N
N
W
U
Z
O
Q
Q
O
f\
co
C
N
A
O
C Y
LL ?
V
Z
W
1HO13M A8 83NU 1N3383d
1 N913 M AS k13S HV00. 1N3 083d
° ° R R 3 ? ? R 8 ? g
8
d lI
?I
I

?
?I
t I S i
? v
? ? ?
& 8 0 j i
11
y I Y f?
i
\v
7
0
?
I Y t O
° a` < c°

0 a
c
g 1
W 1 I
Z
r
A J
y
C d I

W

Z °v w
?
j 0 O J
N ?
Z
<R x

N .~r Z Z
z

b I r
±
a

b I I 1 ?

1 i ? .? I U

y i Z
uwi O
I i V ?
Z
C7
I I yJ
> Q

cy
o I ? 1 S (9

N
O , t

? I
F 8 y L
N • G
O y
y ?
m W
O
I
i V O

d
g R s a 9 8 5 t $ R R °. E ?

1NS 13M AS a 3NU LN30 83d
O
N
f
O<
4 ?
c?
z
W
r
REAL ESTATE PLAN
FOR
WANCHESE MARSH CREATION & PROTECTION
SECTION 204
FEASIBILITY STUDY
WANCHESE HARBOR, NC
PREPARED BY:
STUDY MANAGER:
ITR:
DATE:
ITR REVISION:
Sandi Rinehart, CESAS-RE-RP, [phone]
Bill Neisen, CESAW-TS-PS, [phone]
Bruce Bringman, CESAS-RE-RM, [phone]
13 July 1998
26 February 1999
WANCHESE MARSH CREATION & PROTECTION
SECTION 204
FEASIBILITY STUDY
REAL ESTATE PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Y
1. THE REAL ESTATE PLAN.
2. PROJECT PURPOSE.
3. REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION.
4. PROPOSED ESTATES.
5. EXISTING FEDERAL PROJECT.
6. GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROPERTY.
7. TAKINGS ANALYSIS.
8. REAL ESTATE ESTIMATE.
9. P. L. 91-646 RELOCATION.
10. MINERAL RIGHTS.
11. PROJECT SPONSOR (PS) CAPABILITIES/RESPONSIBILITIES.
12. ZONING ORDINANCES.
13. ACQUISITION SCHEDULE.
14. UTILITY RELOCATION.
15. ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS.
16. ATTITUDE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
`
6
1. THE REAL ESTATE PLAN.
1.1. This real estate document is prepared to supersede all other real estate
data previously furnished pertaining to this Project. The plan is tentative
in nature and is to be used for planning purposes only. A Savannah
District Real Estate employee inspected the Project area. The real
property requirements and the estimate of value are subject to change if
changes in design occur during the Preliminary Engineering and Design
Phase (PED).
2. PROJECT PURPOSE.
2.1. The purpose of the Project is to create approximately 8 acres of marsh
habitat and to protect approximately 2 acres of existing marshland using
dredged material from maintenance of the Wanchese Harbor Channel.
The marsh will be protected from wave action by a sand and stone dike
along its exposed southern and eastern sides. The core portion of the
dike will be constructed using geo-tubes covered with sand and grassed.
Armor stone will be placed on the outside of the dike to protect against
wave action. Dredged material from the maintenance dredging of the
navigation channel will be pumped behind the dike to create the marsh.
The structure will ring the entire open water area and serve to contain and
protect the primary sand dike during construction. Exhibit A is a vicinity
map showing subject project area.
2.2. The Feasibility Study for this Project has been initiated under the authority
of Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, which
provides for the protection, restoration, and creating of aquatic and
ecologically related habitats, including wetlands, in connection with
dredging for construction, operation, or maintenance.
2.3. The Project Sponsor (PS) is the State of North Carolina.
3. REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION.
3.1. All lands, easements, and rights-of-way (LER) required for the Project will
be the responsibility of the PS. There will be approximately 8 acres of
marsh created. Approximately 50,000 cubic yards of dredged material will
be required for the construction of the dike. Material from the
maintenance dredging of the entrance channel to Wanchese Harbor will
be used for the Project. Based on historical records 250,000 cubic yards
of material are dredged from this channel, therefore, this will cover the
amount of dredged material required for the Project. The location of the
levee and the placement of the dredge material are within the Roanoke
Sound at Wanchese. All construction work for the project will be
conducted below the existing MHW level and will be subject to
navigational servitude. Therefore, no real estate interest will be required
for this portion of the project. See exhibit B.
3.2. The 8 acres of marshland habitat that will be formed as a result of the
project will replace the existing water fronting the east side of the four
tracts bordering the project. A Takings Analysis for the Project was
conducted and it was determined that the Project will not involve a taking
of land other than the required temporary easement for the staging area.
The Project area is subject to navigational servitude and there will be no
flooding of adjacent private lands. There will be no requirements for
additional disposal areas for this Project.
3.3. There will be a staging area consisting of 1 acre that will be located on the
property owned by the PS. A value has been provided for crediting
purposes for this area under a temporary work area easement. The State
of North Carolina Seafood Industrial Park Authority that is another state
agency owns this tract. The Director of the Seafood Industrial Park
Authority stated that no permit would be required. Since the PS is the
State of North Carolina, the Park Authority would only require a written
request with a scope of the requirements for the staging area and he will
present the request before the park authority board for approval. He
stated that there would be no fee for this because this project is being
done in part as a request by the Seafood Industrial Park Authority. The
project construction period is estimated to be approximately 3 months.
See Exhibit B indicating the staging area.
3.4. There will be no requirement for an access road. The materials will be
barged from the staging area for the whole project.
4. PROPOSED ESTATES.
4.1. The proposed estate to be used for this project will be a temporary work
area easement for the 1-acre staging area that will be required for one
year.
4.2. TEMPORARY WORK AREA EASEMENT. A temporary easement and
right-of-way in, on, over and across (the land described in Schedule A)
(Tracts Nos. and _ ), for a period not to exceed twelve (12)
months, beginning with date possession of the land is granted to the
United States, for use by the United States, its representatives, agents,
and contractors as a work area, including the right to (deposit fill, spoil and
waste material thereon) (move, store and remove equipment and
supplies, and erect and remove temporary structures on the land and to
perform any other work necessary and incident to the construction of the
2
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection Project, together with the right
to trim, cut, fell and remove therefrom all trees, underbrush, obstructions,
and any other vegetation, structures or obstacles within the limits of the
right-of-way; reserving, however, to the landowners, their heirs and
assigns, all such rights and privileges as may be used without interfering
with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired; subject,
however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public
utilities, railroads and pipelines.

5. EXISTING FEDERAL PROJECT.
5.1. There is no known existing Federal project in the limits of the project area.
6. GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROPERTY.
7.
8.
6.1. There are no Government owned properties within the scope of the
Project area.
TAKINGS ANALYSIS.
7.1. A Takings Analysis was considered. It was determined that it is not
necessary to pursue based upon the fact that the project limits will be
entirely within the limits of the navigational servitude.
REAL ESTATE ESTIMATE.
8.1. The estimated real estate costs include land and improvement values,
damages, mineral rights, relocation cost and federal as well as non-federal
administrative costs. A 25% contingency is applied to the estimated total
of these items. A Code of Accounts is included as Exhibit D.
8.2. Lands
8.2.1. Temporary Work Area Easement $ 5,840
8.3. Improvements $ 0
8.4. Mineral Rights $ 0
8.5. Damages $ 0
8.6. Relocations $ 0
8.7. P. L. 91-646 Relocation Costs $ 0
3
8.8. Acquisition Costs - Admin (1 parcel/1 owner) $4,300
8.8.1. (Federal $1,800)
8.8.2. (Non-Federal $2,500)
8.9. Project Cooperation Agreement $ 0

8.10. Contingencies (25%) $2,535
8.11. Total Estimated Real Estate Costs $12,675
8.12. ROUNDED TO $12,700
9. P. L. 91-646 RELOCATION.
9.1. There are no known P. L. 91-646 relocations within the scope of the
proposed Project area.
10. MINERAL RIGHTS.
10.1. There are no known mineral activities within the scope of the proposed
Project area.
11. PROJECT SPONSOR (PS) CAPABILITIES/RESPONSIBILITIES.
11.1. The PS, the State of North Carolina, has the responsibility to provide all
real estate interest (LER) required for the Project.
11.2. Prior to certifying that lands are available for construction, the chief of
Real Estate shall obtain from the PS and Authorization for Entry onto
Project lands. The Authorization for Entry must include an Attorney's
Certificate executed by the attorney for the PS. See Exhibit C.
11.3. Prior to advertisement of any construction contract, the PS shall furnish to
the Government certification that all necessary real estate interests have
been acquired.
11.4. The Project sponsor will be responsible for the operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) of the Project during
the 25-year life of the Project.
12. ZONING ORDINANCES.
4
12.1. There are no known zoning ordinances within the scope of the proposed
Project area.
13. ACQUISITION SCHEDULE.
13.1. The real estate acquisition schedule is to begin immediately after the PCA
is signed and will allow 4 months for completion of all real estate
requirements.
w
14. UTILITY RELOCATION.
14.1. There are no known utility relocations within the scope of the proposed
Project area.
15. ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS.
15.1. There are no known environmental impacts within the scope of the
proposed Project area.
16. ATTITUDE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
16.1. There is no known opposition to the Project.
5

ALBEMARLE SOUND
?r NAGS
READ
• 4orrRa .. •`

MAN ?s :mot` 41 M watooa' ?i
Ili{a hwr.aRltNe ? ? ? „ K/R0.11.O'K!
YeRT. CL. 4SKLAL '
VC,
.
". *p
Q
a 9y `, O

.? N
;; O 9,A ah le
0
340

1; &ASIR
ru
'
13 ACACS

? ANGHESE
,.
r
a
2
O n
? N •-
Ow
O
O ?.
SA tl tS
ROANOKE. sTA6 sum
MARSHES ?6 Z d _
? ` ?• `roa•aat
204 PROJECT LOCATION?
-? ° ?7••
•" agum
? Q tr; {L
ow .y Et
. v -0 ;o
S O V N 1v -Il ,iii `r'•tixrn Raap e. ar
?. e
PAN L co + /1e{t r.e. 3o.
ROM=. it. 134•
4 KRL M. ea.0• N.w.
. 64.4, r.l.M.
KM Cl
OJS `ht
• j ro ?,.y` ?i ?
{.
.?? 4r
WANCHESE
NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE OF MILES
0 2 4 6
Ulm*" is tha Ore{aR In1N_MOOtae Chat" it •aaaetae haw a {siRt hatwaeR CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON, H.C.
Gallia 4 L4Mhmaa 4841 01000 {Rlat Cheat Guard GlatMe. AtINR• mim" a Ma
R1tAaerM has, Iusag"m with this eReRRaL MAP REVISED SEPT. 19
C..1.:1..:? A
Jke
#19-3408
'17
'fk'
iNA
f -:,ate
2_5 -
r
r
'tar
All
P
IVA
027-IM2

T Ty
ARE Dc Y
3. 6 O.al?
Exhibit B

?17
AUTHORIZATION FOR ENTRY FOR CONSTRUCTION
I for the
(Name o accoun e o icia i e
State of North Carolina, do hereby certify that the State of
North Carolina has acquired the real property interest required
by the Department of the Army, and otherwise is vested with
sufficient title and interest in lands to support construction
for Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection Project. Further, I
hereby authorize the Department of the Army, its agents,
employees and contractors, to enter upon to
(imentity res
construct Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection Project as set
forth in the plans and specifications held in the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Wilmington District, Wilmington, NC.
WITNESS my signature as for the-
mine)
State of North Carolina this _ day of 19
BY:
I, for the
(Name) (Ti tie o ega o icer
(Title
ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY
State of North Carolina, certify that
(Name o accoun a e o icia
has authority to grant Authorization for Entry; that said
Authorization for Entry is executed by the proper duly authorized
officer; and that the Authorization for Entry is in sufficient
form to grant the authorization therein stated.
WITNESS my signature as
State of North Carolina, this
BY:
(Name)
for the
day of , 19_
(Name)
(Title)
i e
Exhibit C
AUTHORIZATION FOR ENTRY FOR CONSTRUCTION
I for the
(Name o accoun e o icia 3 e
State of North Carolina, do hereby certify that the State of
North Carolina has acquired the real property interest required
by the Department of the Army, and otherwise is vested with
sufficient title and interest in lands to support construction
for Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection Project. Further, I
r hereby authorize the Department of the Army, its agents,
employees and contractors, to enter upon to
ieniy tracts)
construct Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection Project as set
forth in the plans and specifications held in the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Wilmington District, Wilmington, NC.
WITNESS my signature as for the-
State of North Carolina this _ day of 19
BY:
(Name)
(Title
ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY
I, for the
(Name (Tine o ega o icer
State of North Carolina, certify that
(Name o accoun a e o icia
has authority to grant Authorization for Entry; that said
Authorization for Entry is executed by the proper duly authorized
officer; and that the Authorization for Entry is in sufficient
form to grant the authorization therein stated.
WITNESS my signature as for the
i e
State of North Carolina, this
BY:
(Name)
i e
day of , 19_
Exhibit C
CODE OF ACCOUNTS
01.0
i
FEDERAL NON-FEDERAL CONTINGENCIES TOTALS
01A PROJECT PLANNING
Other - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Project Cooperation Agreement
01AX Contingencies (25%) $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ -
0113 LANDS AND DAMAGES
011340 Acq/Review of PS $ 1,800.00 $ - $ 450.00 $ 2,250.00
01620 Acquisition by PS $ - $ 2,500.00 $ 625.00 $ 3,125.00
01 BX Contingencies (25%) $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal $ 1,800.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 1,075.00 $ 5,375.00
01H AUDIT
011-110 Real Estate Audit $ - $ - $ - $ -
01 BX Contingencies (25%) $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ -
01R REAL ESTATE LAND PAYMENTS
01 R1 B Land Payments by PS $ - $ 5,840.00 $ 1,460.00 $ 7,300.00
01R2B PL91-646 Asst Payment by PS $ - $ - $ - $ -
01 R2D Review of PS $ - $ - $ - $ -
01 RX Contingencies (25%) $ - $ - $ - $ -
Subtotal $ - $ 5,840.00 $ 1,460.00 $ 7,300.00
TOTALS $1,800.00 $ 8,340.00 $ 2,535.00 $ 12,675.00
ROUNDED TO $ 12,700.00
Exhibit D
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection
North Carolina
March 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WANCHESE MARSH CREATION AND PROTECTION
NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HEADING PAGE NO.

1.00 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...................................................... ..1
1.01 Introduction ................................................................................... ..1
1.02 Incorporation by Reference ............................................................. .. 1
1.03 Need for Proposed Action .............. :................................................. .. 3
1.04 Proposed Action ............................................................................... .. 3
1.05 Project Construction ..:...................................................................... .. 4
1.06 Phragmites Control .......................................................................... .. 7
1.07 Proposed Construction Schedule ..................................................... .. 7
1.08 Monitoring ....................................................................................... ..8
2.00 ALTERNATIVES .....................................................................:.............:. :`.8
2.01 No-Action Alternative ......................................................... .............. .. 8
2.02 Habitat Construction With No Containment or Protective Structure .. 8
2.03 Habitat Construction With Containment and Protection by Geo-tube.9
2.04 Proposed Action-Habitat Construction With Geo-tube Containment
and Stone Armor Protection ......................................................... .. 9
2.05 Habitat Construction With Stone Core and Stone Armor................. .. 9
3.00 ENVI RONMENTAL EFFECTS ................................................................... 10
3.01 Tides and Currents .......................................................................... 10
3.02 Water Quality ................................................................................... 11
3.03 Sediment Quality ................................................... 11
3.04 Shoreline Processes ........................................................................ 12
3.05 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................. 12
3.06 Aquatic Resources ........................................................................... 16
3.07 Wildlife Resources ........................................................................... 18
3.08 Recreation, Navigation, and Aesthetic Resources ........................... 19
3.09 Archaeological/Historical Resources ............................................... 19
3.10 Coastal Barrier Resources Act... ...................................................... 20
3.11 Wetlands .......................................................................................... 20
3.12 Executive Order 11988 (Flood Plain Management) ......................... 20
3.13 Prime and Unique Agriculture Land.... ............................................. 20
3.14 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Sites ................................................... 21
3.15 Air Quality ........................................................................................ 21

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
HEADING PAGE No.
3.16 Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address
_.--Environmental-Justice-in Minority-Populations- and- ow
Income Communities and Low Income Populations) ................... 21
3.17 North Carolina Coastal Management Program ................................ 21
3.18 Other Environmental Factors .......................................................... 22
4.00 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT .................................................... 22
4.01 Scoping,............................................................................................ 22
4.02 Response to USFWS and Other Agency Recommendations .......... 22
4.03 Coordination of This Document ........................................................ 23
5.00 POINT OF CONTACT ...................................................:........................... 26
6.00 DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .................................... 26
7.00 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................26
FIGURES
FIGURE 1. Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina, Location Map ................ 2
FIGURE 2. Wanchese, North Carolina, Plan View .............................................. 5
FIGURE 3. Wanchese, North Carolina, Typical Sections ..................................... 6
TABLES
TABLE 1. Pertinent Tide Data (Lunar Tide) .......................................... * 10
TABLE 2. Aquatic Habitat - Existing and With Project Condition .....................17
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: Qualitative Functional Analysis of Relative Estuarine Value.
ATTACHMENT B: Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines 40 CFR 230.
ATTACHMENT C: Field Survey of Sediment Contaminants, August 1998.
f,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection
North Carolina
1.00 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.01 Introduction. Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection, North Carolina, is
proposed for construction under the authority of Section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992. The proposed plan involves the construction of estuarine
creek and marsh habitat using dredged material from maintenance of the Manteo-
Oregon Inlet Channel and Side Channel to Wanchese, a portion of the Manteo
(Shallowbag) Bay project and enhancing the area by the application of oyster cultch.
This project will restore or enhance about 8 acres of estuarine creek and marsh habitat
and protect 2 acres of adjacent marsh currently threatened by erosion providing a total
of 10 acres of valuable estuarine marsh habitat that will be either enhanced, restored,
or protected by this project. About 1 acre of existing aquatic habitat will be converted to
upland for construction of a protective dike, required for the long-term protection of the
constructed habitat. This action is considered a beneficial use of dredged material.
The Wanchese marsh project was recommended as a pilot site for wetland restoration
by the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Work Group (an interagency committee of
State and Federal resource agencies) at a December 5, 1996, meeting hosted by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Individuals from the USFWS, National
Marine Fisheries, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries (NCDMF), North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, North Carolina
'Division of Water Resources, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, and North Carolina Public Health, Pest
Management, are represented in this group. The proposed project would be located in
Roanoke Sound at Wanchese Harbor adjacent to the channel from Oregon Inlet, Dare
County, North Carolina. The project site is north of and adjacent to the entrance of
Wanchese Harbor, located on the southeastern corner of Roanoke Island, North
Carolina (figure 1).
1.02 Incorporation by Reference. This project modifies the Manteo
(Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina, project that was constructed in 1960. It will
specifically alter disposal practices for one dredging cycle along a portion of the
Manteo-Oregon Inlet Channel and Side Channel to Wanchese. Continued
maintenance dredging of these channels will occur with or without the proposed project
modification. The impacts of this dredging were addressed in the Manteo
(Shallowbag) Bay, North Carolina, Final
FIGURE 1
Environmental Statement, dated July 1977, and the more recent Manteo (Shallowbag)
Bay North Carolina Supplement No. 2 General Design Memorandum, Supplement No.
III Environmental Impact Statement, dated January 1999 and will not be discussed
further in this report.
1.03 Need for Proposed Action. The marshes of Roanoke Sound are important
habitat for fish and wildlife resources and support recreational and commercial
activities that rely on these resources. These marshes are eroding at an accelerated
rate.
The marshes of Roanoke Sound provide an important function as nursery habitat
for estuarine fish and shellfish and support a rich and diverse benthic fauna. The fish,
invertebrates, and plant detritus produced in the marsh are important components of
the food web, essential for the production of economically important seafood. Studies
in Louisiana have shown the area of intertidal wetland is directly proportional to
commercial inshore shrimp harvest (Turner, 1979). Phytoplankton is the primary
carbon producer available under the without-project condition in the open water area
proposed for marsh construction. Under the with-project condition, about 6 acres of
open water would be converted to marsh habitat. In North Carolina, primary
productivity (measured in grams of carbon produced) of S.alternifiora falls in the range
of 329 to 1296 g dry wt/m2/yr and J. romerianus production lies between 560 and 1960
g dry wt/m2/yr (Peterson and Peterson, 1979). This is about 3 to 18 times higher than
the productivity (110g carbon/m2/yr) reported by Peterson and Peterson (1979) for
North Carolina phytoplankton. Many species of birds and mammals are also supported
by North Carolina marshes. The construction of shallow water marsh habitat will
significantly enhance feeding opportunities for migrant waterfowl, shorebirds, wading
birds, and mammals.
In addition to the environmental benefits provided, construction of the proposed
marsh will replace marsh lost to erosion and protect the remaining marsh, thereby, also
stabilizing the Wanchese Harbor entrance. The Wanchese Seafood Industrial Park
depends upon the ability of fishing vessels to navigate the channel leading into the
Wanchese Harbor. The existing marsh protecting the entrance to the harbor is being
eroded by wind and waves and the entrance is becoming more difficult to navigate. By
resolution dated January 9, 1995, the North Carolina Seafood Industrial Park Authority
has requested that the State of North Carolina investigate means to alleviate this
condition.
1.04 Proposed Action. The proposed project consists of construction of
t approximately 8 acres of estuarine creek and marsh habitat with a protective dike
immediately north of the harbor entrance as shown in figure 2. The dike will be parallel
to the existing harbor entrance channel for approximately 500 feet and then turn in a
north direction and parallel the shoreline for approximately 700 feet. The top of dike will
be at elevation 8.3 feet mean sea level (m.s.l.) on the south dike and 4.7 feet m.s.l. on
3
the east dike. As shown in figure 2, the dike will tie into the existing marsh on the
southwest end. The northern end of the east dike area will be open to allow circulation
of water and tidal exchange with Roanoke Sound. The east dike will be pervious to
wind tides above elevation 1.5 m.s.l. to allow for additional site flushing during high
wind tides. The marsh area will be designed to allow the marsh to be flooded and
drained regularly by lunar and wind tides. The elevation of the fill material will be at
elevation 1.5 feet m.s.l. along the edge of the dike and existing marsh shoreline and
slope toward the middle of the marsh at a constant slope to allow proper flooding and
drainage.
t
1.05 Proiect Construction. A typical cross-section of the marsh habitat and
protective dike is shown in figure 3. The dike consists of three structural components:
(1) a geo-tube with temporary sand containment dike; (2) a primary permanent sand
dike (south dike only); and (3) a stone protection feature consisting of a cap along the
east dike and toe protection along the south dike. The containment dike will be
constructed by placing geo-tube along the existing bottom to an approximate elevation
of +1.5 feet m.s.l. A sand dike or sandbags will be used to temporarily increase the
height of the containment structure as needed to assure the initial containment of
dredged materials during construction. The northernmost 75 feet of the containment
dike will be constructed of sandbags (or other nonpermanent means). As described
below, the sandbags in this reach will be removed after the final grade is complete to
allow for water exchange following grading. The geo-tube will be protected with stone
riprap. The stone will be placed to a crest elevation of +3 feet m.s.l. to provide
protection against normal wave and boat wake activity. Granite armor, having
individual stones weighing 680 pounds will be placed in two layers with a total minimum
thickness of 3.2 feet.
About 50,000 cubic yards of fill will be required to construct the base marsh
elevations. This fill material will be placed hydraulically within a temporary containment
dike constructed inside the geo-tube. The dredged material will be discharged into the
southern portion of the containment area during the annual maintenance dredging
activity of the nearby navigation channels and allowed to consolidate prior to grading.
After the material has settled and dewatered the temporary containment dike will be
removed and the dredged material will be graded so that it slopes and drains toward a
central creek exiting at the northern end of the site. After the final grade is complete,
the plug in the north end of the containment dike will be removed to open the creek
mouth and allow tidal flushing.
About 4 acres of new marsh will be established by sprigging with three varieties of
native marsh grasses. These include salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina alternif/ora), fi
saltmeadow hay (Spartina patens), and black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus). These
species will be planted in the general respective zones occupied by these species in
adjacent marshes. The zone that would be expected to support low marsh vegetation
will be planted with S. alterniflora. The zone expected to support high marsh vegetation
4

EXISTING MARSH ARMOR STONE
iL \1 "\" ?`i 1t, t \
FT t \ *-i.1 GRASS

2
9 F
.
'
•1EXISTING
EDGE OF
SHORELIIq-;
till
1
.lit}} /01 {
W B I
O }
{ ,e `p Jf t
it, I ?'
11
f
{ I
t T !
e 1 1
i it I /!
J" ; a
fr
t`
NE? it
' t •
B, k"
1 ?J 1\?
* j

\1 h 1

1t
?
1
EXISTING FENC?
-
1.3. ? \
I?1
1N
/ {iEi It t\il? a

«'+?} / V

1?I 1 A\

\?\\

1t

i 1?3 t:
\
1I! 1
t ` i t INS V
r REVE EN F\\
. ; a \ \ 1
t
1
?!/
i t S to )4 n?
i
yr «
w V 4
re ` y1'd,1i \1
it1 11V ??{? 1111\\
!
;1?4 Q {
a \ t :
{ s f , \V 6
1 V^• )1t \\ 1t\
I
t
w r •
` \
t
00
• t
??%
\ st
`

.
?
'B
?
`1

i
\
4
?
\" V
l
1
iff
1
y" 1 ?
,?
) \ 1
\ 1 ;
)
1
i ``
1
I ?) a)\ V ? ^? t1 1j ,\ '
? \ ` i1
?
u
?
' 1
1
1
A
A l
1)
1
1 1 t
?
\`'
t
'
f 1 hl
l
1t
\ St A
1 ?
y\T
) /
/ yi 1
y 1
`y11) 11 1
?
{ //
°
! 1 l 1 1

EDGE 0P EXISTING i ? ' t ? 1? \ s 11
SHORELIN ?
,i o•o F \
at

S`• f ' q'<
1
1
' `\ 1
t ? `/
` I\
111 t \
\
<
I1 ?;\
I 11 ?? a

!? t 1 ?? 1? t 11 0 FT ?1 A b
1 ... ?. ,}I , l?l i?~T•5 FT t yh N1 t4 \i ??. P.
EXISTING MARSH
!` ? r Y?, i 1
P w?
-?j T0
\ w. .?•, NFN A,,,.. ?r .,,7 .X ?',l
. Ix
\ i -
\\ - ice" __
„___.•2.0rT...__.._EXISTING CONTOUR
I.6 FT FINAL CONTOUR
YANCHESE/ NC
WANCHESE MARSH CREATION AND PROTECTION PROJECT
PLAN VIEW
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON AUG'US'T 1998
FIGURE 2
5

3
6'
GRASS r GRASS
NEW MARSH HABITAT GRASS - 8.3 '. MSL - 50 YR STORM SURGE
+1.5 FT. MSL 1f" SAND ARMOR STONE
??/? aIG 0.0 fT. MSL 3.2` 636 LB GRANITE
+ 1.5 f T. MS ? ;2
DREDGED MATERIAL -------------------
-4.0 FT. MSL
I Q lome^ I [ I ' ""wA\ i
SLOPED DRAINAGE CHANNEL
EXISTING BOTTOM GEO-TUBE 1-50 L8 MA INE LIMESTONE
SOUTH REVETMENT
EXISTING SHORELINE NEW MARSH HABITAT ARMOR STONE
±
t 1.4 FT. MSL 50 FT. 5` 636 LB GRANITE
-jLQPE' + 1.5 FT. MSL 1 3 - + 4.7 FT. MSL
\I/, , 0.0 F Ts MSL
o sj .\J/, •J/• ,? J1G T MSL
REDGED MATERIAL
± -4.0 FT. MSL
DEPTH VARIES FROM 0.0 FT. MSL TO -2.5 FT. MSL
EXISTING BOTTOM CHANNEL SLOPES TO OUTLET BEDDING STONE
1-50 LB MARINE LIMESTONE
EAST REVETMENT
6 FIGURE
will be planted with S. patens. Juncus roemerianus will be interspersed along the
transition between these two species. Grasses will be sprigged on a maximum of about
3-foot centers resulting in a planting density of about 4,840 plants per acre. In addition,
the upland portions of the sand dike will be stabilized with native grasses.
Oyster cultch will be planted among the submerged stone riprap along the dike
perimeter and within the constructed marsh as needed to provide added structural
habitat and improve conditions for establishment of oysters within the site.
~ 1.06 Phragmites Control. An area of about 3 acres located north and adjacent
to the proposed site is dominated by phragmites (designated by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) as a noxious aquatic
weed species in North Carolina). This area is targeted for chemical control.
Phragmites generally occurs in the project vicinity at wetland elevations above normal
high water and may potentially invade a portion of the constructed marsh. Efforts to
discourage the growth of this species are proposed; however, its eventual presence in
the constructed marsh is likely. Proposed chemical control of up to 3 acres of
phragmites growing adjacent to the site during construction and spot control within the
construction area as needed during the 3-year establishment period and establishment
of native grasses is expected to discourage the spread of phragmites into the
constructed marsh. No phragmites control efforts are proposed beyond the 3-year
establishment period.
We anticipate no significant adverse impacts as a result of chemical control of
phragmites. Control would be limited to herbicides and spreaders formulated for use in
the aquatic environment and widely used for this purpose. Herbicides proposed for use
would be registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Application would
be made in accordance with label restrictions by a licensed applicator.
1.07 Proposed Construction Schedule. Subject to the availability of funds,
project construction activities are proposed to be initiated by July 2000 and be
completed in or about May 2002. The construction period will also include annual
monitoring and potential remediation that will occur during the 3-year establishment
period ending in October 2004. Placement and excavation for filling of the geo-tube
and other activities associated with construction of the containment structure are
expected to take about 6 months to complete, and will begin prior to the October 1 -
= March 31 dredging window. Dredging and material disposal will occur within the
existing dredging window to the degree practical. Grading will be conducted within a
containment structure and seasonal restrictions for this activity are not proposed.
Planting will be conducted during the months of March - May.
7
1.08 Monitoring. A topographic survey of the restoration site identifying
significant project features will be made upon completion of final grade and planting to
document base conditions. The extent of marsh grasses and other site features will be
surveyed and mapped and marsh conditions assessed applying techniques described
in Braun-Blanquet J., 1965, Plant Sociology: The Study of Plant Communities. The
information obtained will be compared to the previous year's plot sampling results from
the restoration site and other constructed marshes as available. If plant survival is
found to be low, remediation requirements will be determined and coordinated with the
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Work Group.
Faunal utilization of the site will be assessed by annual trawl sampling consistent
with techniques used by the NCDMF for primary nursery sampling. Qualitative
comparison with an onsite preconstruction trawl and other comparable reference
locations will be made. Oyster cultch will be inspected for spatset and growth
consistent with techniques used by the NCDMF for assessment of planted oyster reefs.
Qualitative comparison with other comparable reference locations will be made.
An annual monitoring report will be prepared and coordinated with the Beneficial
Use of Dredged Material Work Group. An as-built survey plot will be included in the
first annual report.
2.00 ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives include: (1) no action; (2) construction of the marsh with no
containment or protection features; (3) marsh construction and containment with a geo-
tube and no stone armor; (4) the proposed action habitat construction using a geo-tube
with stone armor as described above; and (5) habitat construction using a stone core
with stone armor.
2.01 No-Action Alternative. If no action is taken to construct the proposed
marsh restoration, any environmental benefits associated with this action will be
foregone. Continued erosion would result in the eventual loss of an additional 2 acres
of tidal marsh and a loss of protection to the Wanchese Harbor. This alternative does
not meet the objectives of the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Work Group and will
not be pursued. No agency recommended this alternative in their scoping comments.
I

2.02 Habitat Construction With No Containment or Protective Structure. This
alternative would involve placing dredged material in front of the existing shoreline to
create a sand base for construction of approximately 8 acres of estuarine habitat.
Dredged material from maintenance dredging would be pumped and spread in the
area. Appropriate marsh grasses would then be planted in the marsh area.
8
Proper placement of the proposed dredged materials will require containment for
consolidation and to control the effluent and, therefore, this is not a feasible alternative.
Without protection, the project would be a temporary feature. Continued erosion would
result in the eventual loss of the constructed and adjacent marsh and a loss of
protection to the Wanchese Harbor. This alternative is infeasible and will not be
pursued.
2.03 Habitat Construction With Containment and Protection by Geo-tube.
This alternative would involve construction of approximately 8 acres of estuarine
habitat protected from erosion by a sand dike with sandbags or a geo-tube on the
outside to protect the sand dike from erosion due to wave action. The top portion of the
dike would be constructed with sand and then grassed to prevent erosion. Dredged
material would be pumped behind the dike to create the marsh area. Sandbags or geo-
tubes considered equal in their ability to initially contain dredged materials would
provide similar short-term protection and are considered to have similar environmental
consequences. However, the use of sandbags as a core for the dike was considered to
be infeasible because of the difficulty of construction over much of the dike length.
While sandbags are proposed to temporarily close the northernmost 75 feet of the east
dike during construction, placement of the sandbags would be difficult along the
remainder of the east dike where water depths may be as much as 4 to 5 feet and is not
proposed.
If the geo-tubes were placed with no armor protection they would be subjected to
wave action from boats and storms and marine growth which would shorten the life of
the tubes significantly. Considering the additional effects of ultra-violet light and
vandalism, the expected life of the tubes could be only 5 years. This would not provide
adequate long-term protection for the constructed marsh and, therefore, armor stone is
needed.
2.04 Proposed Action-Habitat Construction With Geo-tube Containment and
Stone Armor Protection. This plan is the same as the previous plan; however, stone
armor is included to extend the project life to at least 25 years.
2.05 Habitat Construction With Stone Core and Stone Armor. This plan is the
same as the previous plan; however, the geo-tube is replaced with core stone. The
materials are considered equal in their ability to initially contain dredged materials,
would provide similar protection, and are considered to have similar environmental
consequences and outputs. The geo-tube plan was found to be less costly and,
therefore, the use of core stone is not proposed at this time. If economic conditions or
further evaluation finds the core stone to be less costly, it may replace the geo-tube in
the final plan.
9
3.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A qualitative analysis of estuarine functional values enhanced by the Wanchese
Marsh Construction and Protection project is included as Attachment A. This
evaluation identifies and assigns a relative value for important functional values for
estuarine habitat under the existing and "with-project" conditions. Estuarine functions
considered important in the project area include: fish spawning and nursery; wildlife
(including waterfowl) feeding and cover; shellfish habitat; wave and erosion protection;
recreation; water quality; education and research; and aesthetics. A general increase
in functional values over time is expected as benthic organisms colonize and new
aquatic bottom and newly planted marsh grasses mature. The increased area of
intertidal marsh and the protected nature of the site are expected to increase primary
productivity and improve site conditions for growth of juvenile estuarine organisms. A
reduced overall depth is expected to improve feeding conditions for birds and other
wildlife and monitoring of the site will contribute to the education and research value
that is not available without this project. Output, measured in Habitat Units (HUs), was
calculated based on a modified Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) where Habitat
Units = Relative Functional Value X Area. This evaluation identified a "with-project"
habitat value of 38 HUs, about 2 times that of the existing or no action condition (about
17 HUs). A net increase of about 22 HUs is expected for the proposed plan.
3.01 Tides and Currents. There is no tide gage at Wanchese. Therefore, tide
data at a nearby gage was used for this study. The tide gage at the Old House
Channel near Oregon Inlet that is approximately 5 miles south of the project area was
used as a reference for the project. Table 1 gives pertinent tide range data for the
area.
Table 1. Pertinent Tide Data (Lunar Tide).
Tide Level M.I.I.W. m.s.l.*
Mean Higher High Water m.h.h.w. +1.0 feet +0.5 feet
Mean High Water m.h.w. +0.9 feet +0.4 feet
Mean Low Water m.l.w. +0.1 feet - 0.4 feet
Mean Lower Low Water m.1.1.w. 0.0 feet - 0.5 feet
*m.s.l. - Mean Sea Level
The normal tidal range as seen in the table is not as great in the Pamlico Sound
as in some other coastal areas. Due to the width and long fetch lengths in the Pamlico
Sound, the wind has a greater impact on tide levels than normal tide cycles.

10
Depending on the wind direction, on any given day the tides can be a foot higher or
lower than normal. The project was designed to tie into the natural shoreline with a
smooth transition to adjacent areas and, therefore, no significant alteration in local
currents or tides is expected.
3.02 Water Quality. The waters of Roanoke Sound from Albemarle Sound to
Pamlico Sound are classified SA. SA waters are generally acceptable for shellfishing
for market purposes and the water will meet accepted sanitary standards of water
quality for outdoor bathing. The waters in the immediate project vicinity are currently
posted as closed to shellfishing.
Temporary turbidity increases are expected in the project area during project
construction activities. The geo-tube will be placed first and provide initial containment
of the sandy materials to be used for construction of a temporary sand containment
dike. This dike will be constructed from sandy materials excavated from Island H or the
project interior and will be fitted with a water control structure. The dredged material to
be used for project construction, which contains higher quantities of fine material, will
be confined and allowed to dewater and consolidate within this diked area. Significant
increases in turbidity are not expected to occur beyond a reasonable mixing zone from
the discharge point (turbidity increases of 25 NTU's or less are not considered
significant). Minor increased turbidity levels (increased turbidity relative to background
levels but not necessarily above 25 NTU's) will return to background conditions once
construction is completed. No violation of State Water Quality Standards or significant
impacts to water quality are expected.
A Section 401 (Public Law 95-217) Water Quality Certificate is required for the
proposed project, since waters of the State of North Carolina will be filled. A Section
401 Water Quality Certificate will be requested from the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality and will be obtained prior to the start of work. An Evaluation of Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines, 40 CFR 230 (see Attachment B), and a Section 404 Public Notice
for the proposed work will be required, since these tidal waters are subject to the Corps
regulatory jurisdiction.
3.03 Sediment Quality. Sediment samples from the Wanchese Harbor Channel
and shallow areas adjacent to the channel (within the Wanchese Harbor Marsh
Creation and Protection project area) were evaluated for selected physical and
chemical characteristics; including heavy metals, pesticides, organotins, and petroleum
hydrocarbons as summarized below. A detailed evaluation is included in Attachment 3.
Sediments from within Wanchese Harbor were not sampled since they are not
t proposed for use in this project.
The sampling and analysis indicated a dichotomy of sediments between the
Wanchese Harbor Channel sediments proposed for marsh construction and the
sediments of the proposed construction area. The sediments collected within the
11
Wanchese Harbor Channel were predominantly (85 - 90 percent) highly organic, black,
silts and clays. The sediments collected in the proposed construction area were
predominantly fine sands. The sediments of adjacent reaches (Tangent 14) of the
Oregon Inlet to Manteo Channel contain higher percentages of sand (50 - 75 percent)
than Wanchese Harbor Channel and will be included as a material source as needed to
improve the quality of these dredged materials for marsh construction.
The fine-grained materials in Wanchese Harbor Channel generally had higher
concentrations of sediment contaminants than the coarser grained materials in the -
proposed construction areas. The concentrations of metals in the tested sediments
appeared to be related to the physical characteristics of the sediments. Except for
mercury in the Wanchese Harbor Channel sediments, concentrations of metals in
sediments did not exceed threshold levels (TEL and ER-L) for the weight-of-evidence
sediment quality guidelines of MacDonald et al. 1996 and Long et al. 1995. The
threshold levels are those below which no biological effects would be expected. The
mercury threshold level sediment quality guidelines are 0.13 mg/kg and 0.15 mg/kg for
MacDonald et al. 1996 and Long et al. 1995, respectively. Maximum concentration of
Mercury in tested sediments was 0.46 mg/kg. This does not exceed the probable
effects level screening guidelines (0.70 mg/kg and 0.71 mg/kg for PEL and ER-M,
respectively). Pesticides, PCBs, organotins, TBT, and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) were not found in concentrations above the detection limits.
Based on a review of the sediment constituents inventoried, contaminants of
concern are either not present in the sediments or not present in environmentally
significant concentrations. The tested sediments are acceptable for the proposed
marsh construction project. Sediment contaminants will not be introduced in new areas
where those contaminants are currently not present.
3.04 Shoreline Processes. The proposed project includes an erosion control
structure expected to stop erosion along about 850 feet of marsh shoreline. Although
the North Carolina Administrative Code T15A:07H.0308 may prohibit such a structure
on an ocean beach, the proposed Wanchese marsh construction is located in the
Roanoke Sound and is over 1 mile from the Atlantic Ocean. The estuarine shoreline
near Wanchese Harbor is not oceanfront property and the proposed work will not
cause adverse impacts to any adjacent ocean beach. Therefore, this prohibition does
not apply to this project.
3.05 Threatened and Endangered Species. Many threatened and endangered
species of plants and animals occur in Dare County. The species listed on the next
page have been noted from the project vicinity in the past.
12
SPECIES SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Mammals
Finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus) Endangered
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Endangered
Right whale (Eubaleana glacialis) Endangered
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Endangered
Sperm whale (Physeter catodon) Endangered
Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus) Endangered
Birds
Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius) Threatened
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Endangered
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) Threatened
Roseate Tern (Sterna dougalli?) Endangered
Reptiles
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) Threatened/SA*
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) Threatened
Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) Endangered
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kemp?) Endangered
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Endangered
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) Threatened
Fishes
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) Endangered
Plants
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilis) Threatened
* The American alligator is listed as threatened only under si milarity of appearance.
Section 7 consultation is not re quired.
13
Whales. These species all occur in the ocean off the coast of North
Carolina, they are not expected to occur in the Roanoke Sound and, therefore, would
not be affected by. this project.
Florida manatee. The manatee is only an "occasional seasonal visitor to
North Carolina waters," with populations which are "presumed to be low" (Clark, 1987).
Schwartz (1995) gives nine Dare County records of the manatee: from the Atlantic
Ocean, Collington Bay, Roanoke Island (2); Wanchese, Rodanthe (2); Stumpy Point;
and the sound near Hatteras. All of these records fall between late June and the end of
October. There is no information available which would allow the prediction of its
occurrence at any given site at any given time. Therefore, while it has been reported
from Dare County within the project area before, there is no attainable probability or
reliable way of predicting its occurrence there again during any given time period. It
can only be assumed that the likelihood of it occurring in the area is very low.
Due to its rare occurrence in the area and the nature of the proposed
construction activities, it has been determined that the construction and maintenance of
proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the manatee.
Arctic peregrine falcon. The Arctic peregrine falcon is a regular fall
migrant in the project area. They usually move through the project area in greatest
numbers during late September and early October and have been known to overwinter
in the area. An average of 2 peregrine falcons have overwintered in the project region
over the past 20 years. The primary habitat for this species is the beach and dune and
primary prey is shorebirds.
This project will not affect ocean beaches or dunes and will not reduce
numbers of prey for this species. No affect on Arctic peregrine falcon is anticipated as
a result of this project.
Bald eagle. The bald eagle ranges throughout eastern North Carolina.
While it is known that the species occasionally uses the project area, there are no
known roosting or nesting areas within the project limits. The species feeds principally
on fish. This project should not affect fish stocks; therefore, the availability of prey
fishes should not be significantly affected. For these reasons, it has been determined
that constructing, operating, and maintaining the project as currently proposed is not
likely to adversely affect the bald eagle.
Piping plover. The piping plover is a fairly common winter resident along
the beaches of North Carolina (Potter, et al., 1980). The species is known to nest in
low numbers in widely scattered localities on North Carolina's beaches. This project
wll not affect ocean beaches and is not expected to affect the piping plover.
14
Roseate tern. In North Carolina, the roseate tern is most frequently found
as a transient between late March and mid-May in the spring and late-July to October
in the fall (Potter, et al., 1980).
Construction, operation, and maintenance of the project will not affect any
nesting areas for this species and will not significantly affect the fishery resources upon
which it depends during migratory periods. For these reasons, it has been determined
that the project will not affect the roseate tern. This project is not expected to affect the
roseate tern.
Hawksbill, leatherback, Kemp's ridley, loggerhead, and green sea
turtles. In North Carolina, the leatherback and hawksbill are normally associated with
oceanic waters (Schwartz, 1977; Lee and Palmer, 1981). However, both species have
been documented to come through Oregon Inlet into Pamlico Sound. The other
species are found in both estuarine and oceanic waters of North Carolina. The
hawksbill, loggerhead, green, and leatherback sea turtles are considered to be
residents of North Carolina waters from the spring through the fall (Schwartz, 1977; Lee
and -Palmer, 1981). Epperly and Veishlow (1989) report Kemp's ridley sea turtles from
the sounds of North Carolina from October through December, while Schwartz (1977)
.reports estuarine records from as early as July. Lee and Palmer (1981) reported a
"'stranded Kemp's ridley from Pea Island in April 1975. The loggerhead and green sea
turtles are considered to be the only species likely to nest on ocean beaches in the
project vicinity. These species of sea turtles feed on a wide variety of invertebrates
"and occasionally some plant material.
This project will not affect ocean beaches and. will not affect nesting
"`'seaturtles. Although these species may occur in the project area, pipeline dredging
"`has not been found to affect this species. It is expected that seaturtles would be mobile
enough to escape harm during construction of project features, therefore, no affect on
this species is anticipated.
Shortnose sturgeon. The shortnose sturgeon ranges along the Atlantic
seaboard from the Saint John River in New Brunswick, Canada, to the Saint Johns
River, Florida. It is apparent from historical accounts that this species may have once
been fairly abundant throughout North Carolina's waters. There are historical records
of the shortnose sturgeon in the vicinity of the project, both in Albemarle Sound and the
nearshore ocean (Dadswell, et al., 1984). However, in the recent past, this species
was thought to be extirpated from North Carolina (Schwartz, et al., 1977). During the
winter of 1986-87, the shortnose sturgeon was taken from the Brunswick River, a
component of the Cape Fear River basin. With this discovery, the species was once
again considered to be a part of the State's fauna. On April 18, 1998, the
NCDMF
15
captured an adult shortnose sturgeon in Bachelors Bay in western Albemarle Sound.
Since this capture is within the 30-year generation time of the species it provides
evidence for the existence of a shortnose sturgeon population in the region
(Department of Commerce, 1998).
The shortnose sturgeon is principally a riverine species. There is no
breeding habitat available for the species in the project area; however, adults of the '
species from a population in the Roanoke/Chowan River basin could overwinter in the
area.
The shortnose sturgeon is a bottom feeder, consuming various
invertebrates and, occasionally, plant material. Adults are found in shallow-to-deep
water (6 to 30 feet) and would be expected to occupy deep water areas during the day
and the more shallow adjacent areas during nighttime foraging periods (Dadswell, et
al., 1984). Pollution, dam building, and over fishing are generally considered to. have
been the principal causes of the decline of this species.
Although these species may occur in the project area, pipeline dredging
has not been found to affect this species. Is expected that sturgeon would be mobile
enough to escape harm during construction of project features; therefore, no affect on
this species is anticipated.
Seabeach amaranth. Seabeach amaranth is an annual or sometimes
perennial plant that usually grows between the seaward toe of the dune and the limit of
the wave uprush zone. These habitats will not be impacted by this project and no affect
on this speces is anticipated.
3.06 Aquatic Resources. Existing habitats within the proposed construction
area are aquatic and include about 2 acres of high marsh (elevations +1 feet m.s.l. to
+2 feet m.s.l.) dominated by black needle rush, (Juncus romarianus) with limited areas
of Phragmites australus and about 6 acres of subtidal estuarine bottom ranging in
depth from about -0.5 m.s.l. to -5.0 m.s.l. The zone from about -0.5 - +1 feet m.s.l. is
highly eroded and generally absent with only remnant quantities (less than 1 acre) of
Spartina alterniflora present on erosion scarps.

16
Table 2. Aquatic Habitat - Existing and With Project Condition.

Habitat Type
Vegetation Existing
Conditions Proposed
Conditions Elevation
feet m.s.l.)
UPLAND
Grassed Dike with Panic Grass & 0 Acres 1 Acre +2.0 to +8.3
Stone Riprap American Beach
Grass
ESTUARINE
Permanent to frequent
flooding
High Marsh Spartina sp. & 2 Acres 3 Acres +1.0 to +2.0
Juncus romarianus
Low Marsh Spartina alterniflora 0 Acres 3 Acres 0.0 to +1.0
Tidal Flat None 0 Acres 2 Acres -0.5 to 0.0
Tidal Creek None 9 Acres 1 Acres -5.0 to -0.5
Rock w/O sters None 0 Acres 1 Acres -5.0 to -0.0
Total i ll Acres 11 Acres -5.0 to+8.3
Benthic resources in the Roanoke Sound are variable, from limited resources
'occurring in frequently dredged channel bottoms to complex and diverse assemblages
`occurring in more stable grass bed areas. Various segmented and unsegmented
'worms are numerically the most abundant species in the channels and shallow water
areas of the project area with Scolecolepides viridis and Drilonereis longa being the
most common polychaetes.
Review of aerial photographs did not identify submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
in the proposed construction area. Limited grab and bucket auger sampling (10) did
not collect SAV and only 2 out of 6 sieved samples contained low numbers (1 to 2) of
segmented worms. Other ecologically and economically important benthic species
known from the project area include blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), shrimps
(Panaeus spp.), clams (Rangia cuneata, Macoma tenta and Mercinaria mercinaria), and
oysters (Crassostrea virginica). The oyster is a particularly important species in the
area. Live oysters were collected in 3 out of 10 samples and a local oysterman
interviewed onsite indicated that although the area was presently closed to shellfishing
he had harvested oysters from the site in the past.
Y
The State of North Carolina defines primary nursery areas as those areas in the
estuarine system where initial post-larval development takes place. These areas are
identified and monitored by annual trawl sampling by the NCDMF. The shallow water
17
areas within the proposed construction limits have not been designated as primary
nursery area. The closest designated primary nursery is the headwater portions of
Broad Creek located about 2 miles upstream from the project.
Project construction will result in the temporary loss of all aquatic organisms
located within the 9-acre construction site. It is expected that primarily sessile or slow
moving forms would be affected. The NCDMF would be provided the opportunity to r
harvest oysters and clams from the site prior to construction, if deemed necessary.
With the exception of the limited area (1-acre) of aquatic habitat converted to upland,
rapid recolonization of the site by aquatic organisms is expected. However, changes in
depth tidal cycle and substrate will likely result in new and different inhabitants.
Marine rock habitat (about 1 acre) presents an attachment substrate new to the
project area. Hard structure habitats typically develop a unique community assemblage
of plants and animals, adding to the species diversity in an area. The area of open
water will be reduced and be replaced by an increased area of tidal flat and marsh
providing expected improved conditions for aquatic resources. As shown on table 2
under existing conditions, the shoreline in eroded high marsh is limited and low marsh
and tidal flats are generally absent. About 1 acre of high marsh, 3 acres of low marsh,
and 2 acres of tidal flat would be provided by project construction. While reduced in
area and depth, open water (1 acre at low tide) within the constructed marsh would be
expected to be quiescent compared to existing high energy environment and have an
increased marsh/water interface. This should improve the site's value for initial post-
larval.development of estuarine animals. No adverse impacts to primary nursery areas
are anticipated
3.07 Wildlife Resources. Animals associated with the tidal marshes at high tide
levels are the herons, egrets, geese, ducks, shorebirds, gulls, and terns. At low tide
levels, the tidal marshes are temporarily invaded by animals from adjoining habitats;
including muskrats, nutrias, minks, otters, diamondback terrapins, and banded water
snakes.
The sound is an important feeding and resting area for geese, swans, and surface
feeding ducks. The sand bars and disposal islands within the sound are the principal
locations of many large nesting colonies of colonial waterbirds. Tidal flats, the
expanses of wet bare sand and mud exposed at low tide, support an abundant supply
of invertebrates and abound with a high diversity of shorebirds, especially during
migrations. The semi-palmated plover, black-bellied plover, ruddy turnstone, greater
yellowlegs, pectoral sandpiper, dunlin, and semi-palmated sandpiper are all seasonally
common in this habitat. Terns, gulls, skimmers, pelicans, and snow geese also use
these areas for resting. Ospreys are also present in the project vicinity. An active
osprey nest is located on a channel marker near the proposed confluence of the south
and east dike.
It

18
The NCDENR, Division of Parks and Recreation, indicates that the marshlands in
the vicinity of the proposed project support a year-round population of black rail
(Laterallus jamaicensis), a Federal species of concern. This species is a potential
resident of the black needlerush marsh adjacent to the project. Concern was raised
that the original project design may reduce flushing in the adjacent marsh and
potentially impact this and other wildlife species.
The adjacent marsh is located on a peninsula. The western side of the shoreline
will not be modified by this project. The project design was modified to minimize impact
to water circulation in the adjacent marsh and generally improve circulation and
flushing within the constructed portion of the site. The east dike elevation was lowered
by 3.6 feet and it was redesigned to be permeable to wind tides above +1.5 feet m.s.l.
A central creek was added to the constructed marsh to increase the length of
marsh/water interface.
Wildlife may be temporarily displaced from construction areas. However, the
proposed project is expected to improve long-term habitat conditions for wildlife. About
1 acre of aquatic habitat converted to upland may be lost for aquatic forage, but may
provide upland nesting area or refuge during high tide. The area of open water will be
reduced and replaced by an increased area of tidal flat and marsh providing expected
improved conditions for wildlife.
3.08 Recreation, Navigation, and Aesthetic Resources. The proposed project
site is located along a naturally deep slough about 2 feet deeper than adjacent waters.
This slough is likely the shortest route from Wanchese Harbor to Broad Creek, a
popular fishing and boating location, which does not have a maintained navigation
"channel. The proposed project will block this natural slough causing boaters to take an
alternative and potentially shallower route. The proposed action will be low profile and
should not adversely impact views from either the sound or the Wanchese Industrial
Park. No significant adverse impacts to navigation, recreation, or aesthetics is
anticipated.
3.09 Archaeological/Historical Resources. On September 1, 1998, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers met with the North Carolina Division of Archives and History
(NCDAH), Underwater Archaeology Unit (UAU), to review the proposed Wanchese
marsh restoration project. This coordination was conducted in accordance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended through 1992, and
the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987.
Historic maps and documents and NCDAH files relating to the area of Wanchese
Harbor and vicinity were examined. This review indicates that the project has a
moderate probability for containing underwater resources and that the proposed work is
of moderate intensity. Under a standing agreement with the NCDAH, survey would
normally be required for this area. However, due to the small project area and limited
19
bottom disturbance, NCDAH is not requesting a survey prior to project construction.
Should historic or archaeological resources be discovered during construction, work
will cease until a qualified underwater archaeologist or maritime historian has been
notified and given an opportunity to inspect the site and record pertinent details.
Based on these conditions, no further documentation or survey will be undertaken
and no effects to archaeological or historic resources area expected. This project is in
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended through 1992, and the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987.
3.10 Coastal Barrier Resources Act. Review of the "Report to Congress:
Coastal Barrier Resources System," Volume 11, dated 1988, indicates that the
proposed project will not impact any Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) units.
3.11 Wetlands. As indicated in Section 3.06, the area adjacent to the marsh
restoration is a wetland vegetated primarily with black needle rush (Juncus
romareanus) with an eroded remnant smooth cord grass (Spartina alternif/ora) fringe.
The area to be backfilled for marsh and creek construction (landward of the sandbags
and/or geo-tubes) is primarily devoid of any marsh or submerged aquatic vegetation.
However, up to about 0.5 acre of marsh may be filled during construction to tie in the
dike and the constructed marsh to the existing shoreline. Care will be given that no
other wetlands will be adversely affected. The project purpose is habitat restoration
and it is expected that this project will result in a net increase in vegetated wetlands of
about 4 acres.
The recommended plan has been evaluated under Executive Order 11990,
Protection of Wetlands, and was found to be in compliance. There is no alternative to
the limited placement of dredged or fill material in vegetated wetlands for the
costruction of this project. The project design minimizes impacts to wetland to the
degree practical and will result in a net increase in the area of vegetated wetlands.
3.12 Executive Order 11988 (Flood Plain Management). No practical
alternative exists to locating the proposed project in the flood plain. Every effort will be
taken to minimize potential harm to or within the flood plain. The action is in
compliance with State/local flood plain protection standards.
3.13 Prime and Unique Agriculture Land. According to the Soil Survey of Dare
County, North Carolina, the soils in the marshes of Roanoke Island that may be
impacted by the proposed project consists of Hobonny muck or pasamments (areas
disturbed by filling or dredging). Hobonny muck is not designated by the Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as prime or unique agriculture lands. No
impacts to prime and unique agriculture lands will occur.
20
3.14 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Sites. The project is not located in an
industrial site or dump. Sediment testing indicates that it is unlikely that significant
quantities of any hazardous and toxic materials would be encountered during
construction or maintenance and no impacts are anticipated. If hazardous and toxic
waste sites are identified during the construction of the proposed activity, response
plans and remedial actions will be the responsibility of the District.
3.15 Air Quality. Temporary increases in exhaust emissions from construction
equipment are expected during the construction period. The project is in compliance
with Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA). The air quality in Dare
County, North Carolina, is designated as an attainment area. The State of North
Carolina does have a State Implementation Plan ("SIP") approved or promulgated
under Section 110 of the CAA. However, for the following reasons, a conformity
determination is not required:
a. 40 CFR 93.153 (b), "For Federal actions not covered by paragraph (a) of this
section, a conformity determination is required for each pollutant where the total of
direct and indirect emissions in a nonattainment or maintenance area caused by a
Federal action would equal or exceed any of the rates in paragraphs (b) (1) or (2) of
this section." Dare County has been designated by the State of North Carolina as an
`attainment area.
b. The direct and indirect emissions from the project fall below the prescribed
-deminimus levels (58 Fed. Reg. 93.153(c)(1)) and, therefore, no conformity
determination would be required.
c. The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the Washington
'Regional Office of the NCDENR. The ambient air quality for Dare County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this
attainment area.
3.16 Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Communities and Low Income
Populations). No impacts to either minority/low income populations or low-income
communities are anticipated as a result of this activity.
3.17 North Carolina Coastal Management Program. The proposed will not
cause significant adverse impacts to the estuarine environment. This project will result
in a net increase in vegetated wetlands and no submerged aquatic vegetation will be
filled as a result of this action. Within the estuarine system, no primary nursery will be
impacted by this proposed activity and any losses of potential oyster bottom can be
offset by harvest of existing shellfish in the project area and placement of oyster cultch
in the restored area to improve conditions for spatset. Therefore, the U.S. Army Corps
21
of Engineers, Wilmington District, believes that the proposed action is consistent with
the approved Coastal Management Program of the State of North Carolina.
3.18 Other Environmental Factors. The following factors will not be significantly
affected by the proposed action: noise pollution, man-made resources, community
cohesion, public facilities and services, employment, tax value, property value,
community growth, regional growth, or displacement of people, and businesses or
farms.
4.00 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
4.01 Sco in . On February 13, 1998, the Wilmington District circulated a
scoping letter for this project. The purpose of the scoping letter was to solicit
comments from various private, local, State, and Federal agencies on this proposal to
ensure that the scope of the environmental assessment (EA) meets the information
needs of other agencies and the public, and to be sure that it includes an assessment
of impacts on all significant resources in the project area. Scoping comments were
considered in the preparation of this EA. In response to the scoping letter, the public
and review agencies expressed concerns regarding protection of fish and wildlife
resources and habitats, wetlands, endangered/threatened species, cultural resources,
and other natural resources. These concerns were addressed in the recommended
plan.
4.02 Response to USFWS and Other Agency Recommendations. Letters
were received or individuals were contacted from the agencies listed below.
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
U.S Department of Agriculture
North Carolina Department of Administration
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
Division of Coastal Management
Division of Parks and Recreation
Division of Water Quality
Division of Water Resources
Division of Land Quality
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

22
The project design was modified in response to agency requests to reduce the
dike height and improve tidal circulation within the site. The USFWS recommended
replacement of granite armor with marl to speed colonization by aquatic organisms and
the addition of oyster shell to the armor to add surface for oyster spat attachment. Marl
was found to be too light to provide suitable protection under the expected wave
conditions and was rejected; however, the addition of oyster shell was incorporated into
the proposed plan.
4.03 Coordination of This Document. This EA and unsigned Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) is to be furnished to the following list of concerned agencies
and individuals.
Representatives
Honorable Walter B. Jones, Jr.
Honorable Jesse Helms
Honorable John Edwards
Honorable Marc Basnight
Honorable William T. Culpepper III
Federal Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection. Agency, Office of Federal Activities
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Forest Service, USDA
HUD, Atlanta Regional Office
Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Environmental Conservation Office, Department of Commerce, NOAA
Center of Disease Control
Beaufort Marine Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service
Director, Office of Environmental Affairs, Department of the Interior
Raleigh Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District
Federal Highway Administration
Office of the Solicitor, Energy and Resources, U.S. Department of the Interior
Director, Office of Environmental Compliance, Department of Energy
Superintendent, Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Regional Director, National Park Service
National Park Service, Washington, DC
USAF Seymour Johnson AFB
Refuge Manager, Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
23
State Agencies
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
Billy Gray, CAMA Officer, Kill Devil Hills
Daniel Smith, CAMA Officer, Kitty Hawk
Elizabeth II State Historic Site
Local Government
Dare County Board of Commissioners
Mayor, Town of Manteo
Dare County Register of Deeds
Town Manager, Nags Head
Jesse Newman, Dare Soil and Water Conservation
Dare County Building Permit Inspector
Dare County Oregon Inlet and Waterways Commission
Independent Groups and Individuals
Conservation Council of North Carolina
Cape Fear Group Sierra Club
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
Defenders of Wildlife
Fund for Animals
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Audubon Society, Southeastern Regional Office
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
National Wildlife Federation
North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund
North Carolina Coastal Federation
North Carolina Fisheries Association
National Wildlife Refuge Association
Wilderness Society
Frisco Civic League
Daniel E. McDonald
D. S. Oden, Jr
Bateman Oil Co.
Davis Boat
Collington Harbor Association
Michael Halminski
Etheridge Fish Co.
Dick Farrow

24
Independent Groups and Individuals (cont'd)
_I
sv?
Jerry Dowdy
Hiram Gallop
Karen Merritt
Orman Mann
Stroud Engineering
Wentworth Pierce
John Phelan
Robert Dolan
Ken Hunter
Gilbert Tillett
Dr. Anne B. McCrary
Dr. Vince Bellis
Mr. Ray P. Brandi, Cape Fear Community College
Orrin Pilkey Ph.D.
Billy Edge
Robert Dean
John Babicz
Daniels Enterprise
Rondal K & Nelma R. Tillett
Willie Jr., & Elizabeth Etheridge
North Carolina Seafood Industrial Park Authority
Postmasters
Avon
Manteo
Buxton
Hatteras
Stumpy Point
Wanchese
Nags Head
Newspapers
The Coastland Times, Manteo
The Outer Banks Current, Accomac, VA
Virginian Pilot
Libraries
N.C. Collection, Wilson Library, UNC-Chapel Hill
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Library
25
Lee, D. S. and W. M. Palmer. 1981. Records of leatherback turtles, Dermochelys
coriacea (Linnaeus), and other marine turtles in North Carolina waters. Brimleyana
5:95-106.
Peterson,C. H. and N.M. Peterson. 1979. The Ecology of Intertidal Flats of North
Carolina: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services. FWS/OBS-79/39.73 pp.
Potter, Eloise F., J. F. Parnell, and R. P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas.
00-1 University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 408pp.
Turner, R.E. 1979. Louisiana's Coastal Fisheries and Changing Environmental
Conditions. Pages 363-370. In J.W. Day, Jr., R.E. Turner, and A.J. Mumphrey, Jr.
eds. Proceedings of the Third coastal marsh and Estuary management Symposium.
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
Schwartz, F. J. 1995. Florida manatees, Trichecus manatus (Sirenia:Trichechidae) in
North Carolina 1919-1994. Brimleyana 22:53-60.
Schwartz, Frank J. 1977. Caretta caretta (Linnaeus), Atlantic loggerhead;
Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus), Atlantic green turtle; Eretmochelys imbricata imbricata
(Linnaeus), Atlantic hawksbill; Lepidochelys kempi (Garman), Atlantic ridley;
Dermochelys coriacea coriacea (Linnaeus), Atlantic leatherback; P. 303-308, In:
Cooper, J. E., S. S. Robinson, and J. B. Funderburg (Eds.). 1977. Endangered and
threatened plants and animals of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History. Raleigh, North Carolina. 444 pages + i-xvi.

27
ATTACHMENT A
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection
North Carolina
Qualitative Functional Analysis of Relative Estuarine Value
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection
North Carolina
Qualitative Functional Analysis of Relative Estuarine Value
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection, North Carolina, is proposed for
construction under the authority of Section 204 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1992. The proposed plan involves the construction of about 8 acres of estuarine
creek and marsh habitat with a protective dike using dredged material from
maintenance of the Manteo-Oregon Inlet Channel and Side Channel to Wanchese, a
portion of the Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay project.
The proposed project will be located in Roanoke Sound immediately north of the
Wanchese Harbor entrance. Existing and expected "with-project" habitat conditions are
shown on table 1. This project will restore or enhance about 8 acres of estuarine
habitat and protect 2 acres of adjacent marsh currently threatened by erosion,
providing a total of 10 acres of valuable estuarine habitat that will be either restored or
protected by this project. About 1 acre of existing aquatic habitat will be converted to
upland for construction of the protective dike. This action is considered a beneficial
use of dredged material.
A qualitative analysis comparing existing estuarine functional values of the
potential project area to alternative marsh construction plans is described below. This
analysis was based on evidence gained during the field surveys, literature review, and
discussions with State and Federal resource agencies.
Existing Conditions. An assessment of relative functional' values of existing
habitat types (subtidal, low marsh, tidal flat, and high marsh) in the proposed project
area is shown on table 2. Existing estuarine habitats in the vicinity of Wanchese
Harbor and channels are degraded as a result of impacts due to erosive waves, harbor
related activities, and commercial and industrial development; however, these habitats
still support important estuarine functions. Estuarine functions considered to have a
moderate-to-high relative importance in the project area include fish spawning and
nursery, wildlife (including waterfowl) feeding and cover, shellfish habitat, wave and
erosion protection, recreation, water quality, and aesthetic value. As shown on table 2,
existing values for these functions under existing conditions were found to be generally
low-to-moderate with a relative value of 1.5 on a 0 to 5 scale where 0 = No Value and
5 = High Value. Habitat Units (HUs), based on a modified Habitat Evaluation Procedure
(HEP) where Habitat Units = Relative Value X Area were calculated for the existing
condition as shown on table 2. This analysis indicates a relative habitat output for the
project area under existing conditions of 16.5 HUs.

Table 3, Restored Marsh
RELATIVE ESTUARINE VALUES
Project Name: Wanchese Marsh Restoration
Habitat Restoration Site Low Marsh and Intertidal Flat
Location: Roanoke Sound
Evaluator: Corps of Engineers -Wilmington
# Estuarine Functions Relative
Import.
0-6
Year 0
Rating Weighted
Year 5
Rating V
1 Flood Conveyence 0 0 0 0
2 Waves and Erosion 5 3 15 4
3 Flood Storage 0 0 0 0
4 Sediment Control 4 3 12 4
5 Fish Habitat
a. Spawning 5 2 10 3
b. Nursery 5 3 15 4
6 Shellfish Habitat 4 0 0 2
7 Waterfowl Habitat
Year 10 - 20
0 0 0
20 5 25
0 0 0
16 5 20
15 4 20
20 5 25
8 3 12
a. Nesting 0 0 0 0
3 0
12 0
4
b. Feeding 4 2 8
8 3 12 4
c. Cover 4 2 0
8 Wildlife Habitat 8 3 12 4
a. Nesting/Breeding 4 2 15 4
b. Feeding 5
5 2
3 10
15 3
4 20 5
c. Cover 4 2 8 3 12 3
9 Recreation 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 Water Supply 0 0 0 0 0
11 Food Production 0 0 0 0 0
12 Timber Production 0 0 0 0 0
13 Historical Values 0 0 0
15 4 20 5
14 Education & Research 5 3 8 4
15 Aesthetic Values 4 1 4 2
3 15 4
16 Water Quality 5 2 10
Total 63 138 205
Wetland Value = 2.2 3.3
Alternative Plans Habitat Units /Acre* Restored Condi%ioii
Year 0 Year 5 Yr 10-25 Rel. Value Ac. HUs
No Action ** 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 11.0 16.5
Construct Habitat No Protection*** 2.2 1.5 1.5 1.6 11.0 17.6
Geotube Protection Only***** 2.2 3.3 1.5 1.9 11.0 20.9
Proposed Geotube+Stone ***** 2.2 3.3 4.3 3.9 10.0 39.
Stone Core +Stone Armor***** 2.2 3.3 4.3 3.9 10.0 39.0
NOTES: Relative Wetland Values: High =5, Moderate=3, Low=1, No Value =0
Relative Importance: Hi gh =5, M oderate=3, Low = 1, Not Applicable =0
HUs = Habitat Units
Assumptions: * Annualized over a 25 year project life
** Assumes status quo year 0-25
***Assumes "with project" conditions at year 0 return to exi sting condition by year 5
"***Assumes "with project" conditions at year 0 - 5 return to existing conditions by year 10
*****Assumes "with project" conditions years 0-25
0
16
16
0
16
20
25
12
0
0
0
0
25
16
20
268
4.3
r
ATTCH. A
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection
North Carolina
Qualitative Functional Analysis of Relative Estuarine Value
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection, North Carolina, is proposed for
r construction under the authority of Section 204 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1992. The proposed plan involves the construction of about 8 acres of estuarine
creek and marsh habitat with a protective dike using dredged material from
maintenance of the Manteo-Oregon Inlet Channel and Side Channel to Wanchese, a
portion of the Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay project.
The proposed project will be located in Roanoke Sound immediately north of the
Wanchese Harbor entrance. Existing and expected "with-project" habitat conditions are
shown on table 1. This project will restore or enhance about 8 acres of estuarine
habitat and protect 2 acres of adjacent marsh currently threatened by erosion,
providing a total of 10 acres of valuable estuarine habitat that will be either restored or
protected by this project. About 1 acre of existing aquatic habitat will be converted to
upland for construction of the protective dike. This action is considered a beneficial
use of dredged material.
A qualitative analysis comparing existing estuarine functional values of the
potential project area to alternative marsh construction plans is described below. This
analysis was based on evidence gained during the field surveys, literature review, and
discussions with State and Federal resource agencies.
Existing Conditions. An assessment of relative functional' values of existing
habitat types (subtidal, low marsh, tidal flat, and high marsh) in the proposed project
area is shown on table 2. Existing estuarine habitats in the vicinity of Wanchese
Harbor and channels are degraded as a result of impacts due to erosive waves, harbor
related activities, and commercial and industrial development; however, these habitats
still support important estuarine functions. Estuarine functions considered to have a
moderate-to-high relative importance in the project area include fish spawning and
nursery, wildlife (including waterfowl) feeding and cover, shellfish habitat, wave and
erosion protection, recreation, water quality, and aesthetic value. As shown on table 2,
existing values for these functions under existing conditions were found to be generally
low-to-moderate with a relative value of 1.5 on a 0 to 5 scale where 0 = No Value and
5 = High Value. Habitat Units (HUs), based on a modified Habitat Evaluation Procedure
(HEP) where Habitat Units = Relative Value X Area were calculated for the existing
condition as shown on table 2. This analysis indicates a relative habitat output for the
project area under existing conditions of 16.5 HUs.
With Project Conditions. An evaluation of relative estuarine values of the same
area under "with-project" conditions is shown on table 3. A general increase in
functional values over time is expected as benthic organisms colonize and new aquatic
bottom and newly planted marsh grasses mature. The increased area of intertidal
marsh and the protected nature of the site are expected to increase primary productivity
and improve site conditions for growth of juvenile estuarine organisms. A reduced
overall depth is expected to improve feeding conditions for birds and other wildlife and
monitoring of the site will contribute to the education and research value that is not
available without this project. Placement of oyster cultch is expected to offset any
losses of shellfish due to site construction. As shown on table 3, habitat values for
these functions were projected to be generally moderate-to-high (4.3 on a scale of 0 to
5) for a mature site (10 years +).
Habitat Units (HUs) were calculated for the "with project" condition under a no-
action plan and four alternative construction plans including: (1) habitat restoration
with no protection; (2) habitat restoration with geo-tube protection only; (3) proposed
plan which includes habitat restoration protected by a geo-tube and stone armor; and
(4) habitat restoration with core stone and stone armor protection (table 2).
If no action is taken to construct the proposed estuarine habitat at Wanchese, it
was assumed that habitat value would remain the same as the existing condition for the
next 25 years. This is a conservative estimate since continued erosion is expected to
further degrade the site. This analysis indicates a relative habitat output for the no
action of 16.5 HUs. Under all alternative construction plans, constructed habitats
would be the same; however, project life would be lessened or extended depending on
the presence or type of protective structure.
With no protection (Alternative 1), the habitat restoration would be constructed,
but would be expected to begin to erode upon construction without significant
maturation and return to the preproject conditions by year 5. Preproject conditions are
assumed to persist for the next 20 years. This analysis indicates a relative habitat
output for Alternative 2 of 16 HUs. This is only slightly greater than the no-action plan.
The short-term life of the project does not allow time for the site to reach its potential
/]1110
V QI\.1 V.
r^

With geo-tube protection only (Alternative 2), the habitat restoration would be
constructed and expected to mature for 5 years. Upon expected failure of the geo-tube
at year 5, the site would begin to erode and return to preproject conditions by year 10.
Preproject conditions are assumed to persist for the next 15 years. This analysis
indicates a relative habitat output for Alternative 3 of 20 HUs. {
For the proposed plan (Alternative 3) and the stone core (Alternative 4), it was
assumed that distribution of constructed habitats would remain constant throughout the
expected 25-year project life. It is expected that the habitat would generally reach their
2
maximum value at year 10 and that these values would continue to persist for the
remaining 15 years of project life. This analysis indicates a relative habitat output for
the proposed plan and Alternative 4 of 38.0 HUs.
Findings. Findings are summarized in table 4. This evaluation identified a "with-
project" habitat value, for the proposed plan, of 39.0 HUs over two times that of the
existing or No Action condition (16.5 HUs). A net increase of 22.5 HUs is expected for
both the proposed plan and Alternative 4. This is over five times greater than
;. Alternative 3 (4 HUs) that does not provide for long-term site protection. The proposed
plan, Alternative 3, has the lowest cost per HUs ($87,333), about 10 percent less than
the closest alternative (Alternative 4) ($98,933).
.?
3
Table 1. Aquatic Habitat - Existing and With Project Condition.

Habitat Type
Vegetation Existing
Conditions Proposed
Conditions Elevation
(feet m.s.l.
UPLAND
Grassed Dike with Panic Grass & 0 Acres 1 Acre +2.0 to +8.3
Stone Riprap American Beach
Grass
ESTUARINE
Permanent to frequent
flooding
High Marsh Spartina sp. & 2 Acres 3 Acres +1.0 to +2.0
Juncus romarianus
Low Marsh Spartina alternif/ora 0 Acres 3 Acres 0.0 to +1.0
Tidal Flat None 0 Acres 2 Acres -0.5 to 0.0
Tidal Creek None 9 Acres 1 Acres -5.0 to -0.5
Rock w/ Oysters None 0 Acres 1 Acres -5.0 to -0.0
Total 11 Acres 11 Acres -5.0 to+8.3
rl?
Table 2, Existing Conditions
RELATIVE ESTUARINE VALUES

}
V

8 Wildlife Habitat
a. Nesting/Breeding 4 1 4
b. Feeding 5 2 10
c. Cover 5 2 10
9 Recreation 4 2 8
10 Water Supply 0 0 0
11 Food Production 0 0 0
12 Timber Production 0 0 0
13 Historical Values 0 0 0
14 Education & Research 5 0 0
15 Aesthetic Values 4 2 8
16 Water Quality 5 2 10
Total 63 95
Habitat Value 1.5
Project Name: Wanchese Marsh Restoration
Habitat Type Existing Conditions
Location: Project Impact Area
Evaluator: Corps of Engineers -Wilmington
# Estuarine Functions Relative Existing Condition
Import.
0-5 Rating Weighted
1 Flood Conveyence 0 0 0
2 Waves and Erosion 5 1 5
3 Flood Storage 0 0 0
4 Sediment Control 4 1 4
5 Fish Habitat
a. Spawning 5 2 10
b. Nursery 5 2 10
6 Shellfish Habitat 4 2 8
7 Waterfowl Habitat
a. Nesting 0 1 0
b. Feeding 4 1 4
c. Cover 4 1 4
Existinq Subtidal
Existing Condition
. Value Ac.*
1.5 1 11.0 1 16.5
NOTES: Relative Wetland Values: High =5, Moderate=3, Low=1, No Value =0
Relative Importance: High =5, Moderate=3, Low = 1, Not Applicable =0
Habitat Units (HUs)
ATTCH. A
Table 3, Restored Marsh
RELATIVE ESTUARINE VALUES
Project Name: Wanchese Marsh Restoration
Habitat Restoration Site Low Marsh and Intertidal Flat
Location: Roanoke Sound
Evaluator: Corps of Engineers -Wilmington
# Estuarine Functions Relative
Import. Year 0 Yea r 5 Yea r 10 - 20
0-5 Rating Weighted Rating Weighted Rating Weighted
1 Flood Conveyence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 Waves and Erosion 5 3 15 4 20 5 25
3 Flood Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 Sediment Control 4 3 12 4 16 5 20
5 Fish Habitat
a. Spawning 5 2 10 3 15 4 20
b. Nursery 5 3 15 4 20 5 25
6 Shellfish Habitat 4 0 0 2 8 3 12
7 Waterfowl Habitat
a. Nesting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
b. Feeding 4 2 8 3 12 4 16
c. Cover 4 2 8 3 12 4 16
8 Wildlife Habitat 0 0
a. Nesting/Breeding 4 2 8 3 12 4 16
b. Feeding 5 2 10 3 15 4 20
c. Cover 5 3 15 4 20 5 25
9 Recreation 4 2 8 3 12 3 12
10 Water Supply 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 Food Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 Timber Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 Historical Values 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 Education & Research 5 3 15 4 20 5 25
15 Aesthetic Values 4 1 4 2 8 4 16
16 Water Quality 5 2 10 3 15 4 20
Total 63 138 205 268
Wetland Value = 2.2 3.3 4.3
Alternative Plans Habitat Units /Acre* Restored Condition
Year 0 Year 5 Yr 10-25 Rel. Value Ac. HUs
No Action ** 1,5 1 5 1 5 c
I.J A A^
I I.V
16.5
Construct Habitat No Protection*** 2.2 1.5 1.5 1.6 11.0 17.6
Geotube Protection Only***** 2.2 3.3 1.5 1.9 11.0 20.9
Proposed Geotube+Stone***** 2.2 3.3 4.3 3.9 10.0 39.0
Sto ne Core +Stone Armor***** 2.2 3.3 4.3 3.9 10.0 39.0
NO TES: Relative Wetland Valu es: High =5, Moderate=3, Low=1, No Value =0
Relative Importance: High =5, Moderate=3, Low = 1, Not Applicable =0
HUs = Habitat Units
Assumptions: * Annualized over a 25 year project life
** Assumes status quo year 0-25
***Assumes "with project" conditions at year 0 return to existing conditio n by year 5.
*'***Assumes "with project" conditions at year 0 - 5 return to existing cond itions by year 10
*****Assumes "with project" conditions years 0-25
ATTCH. A
Table 4, Incremental Analysis
Existing Condition
Rel. Value Ac. HUs
1.5 11.0 16.5

1
Alternative Plans Restored Condit ions
Rel. Value Ac. HUs
No Action - Status quo is mantained 1.5 11.0 16.5
No Protection - Constructed habitat erodes 1.6 11.0 17.6
returns to pre project conditions by Year 5
Geotube Only - Habitat erodes 1.9 11.0 20.9
at year 5 and returns to preproject conditions
b year 10
Proposed Plan -Geotube core with stone 3.9 10.0 39.0
armor. 25 year project life.
Stone Core - Stone core with stone 3.9 10.0 39.0
armor. 25 year project life.

Alternative Plans Const.
Cost Acres Existing
HU's New
HU's 1 Cost/
HLl
No Action 11.0 16.5 0.0
Marsh with No Protection $986,000 11.0 16.5 1.1 $ 896,364
Geotube Only $1,540,000 11.0 16.5 4.4 $ 350,000
Geotube Core with Stone Armor $1,965,000 10.0 16.5 22.5 $ 87,333
Stone Core with Stone Armor Protection $2,226,000 10.0 16.5 22.5 $ 98,933
Incremental Cost per Habit Unit (HU)
•
14,
$1,000,000.00
$900,000.00
$800,000.00
$700,000.00
$600,000.00
4- $500,000.00
O
U $400,000.00
$300,000.00
$200,000.00
$100,000.00
$0.00
$87
Stone Core w/Armor Geotube Core w/ Marsh with No Geotube Only
Stone Armor Stone Protection
Project Alternatives
ATTCH. A
ATTACHMENT B
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection
North Carolina
Evaluation of Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines 40 CFR 230
.

..
4. Dis osal Site Determinations (230.11(f -
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the
disposal site.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Depth of water at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IN
Current velocity, direction, and IXI
variability at disposal site . . • . • . • • • • . . ' . ' '
.....IXI
' . . .
Degree of turbulence. . . . . . . . . • . . . . . ' ' ' _
....IXI
. . .
Water column stratification . . • • • • • • • . . . ' . .
_
Discharge vessel speed and direction . . . . . . . . .
........IXI
.

.......IXI
.
Rate of discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type . IN
of material, settling velocities). . . . . . . . . .
Number of discharges per unit of IXI
time ......................
Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
List appropriate references.
Reference: tnvironmC???c+?
dated March 1999.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal site
and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable.
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart Hl.
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through application of recommendations of 230.70-230-77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed
discharge. List actions taken.
See Section 3.02 of the EA for water quality.
See Section 3.06 of the EA for benthos.
See Section 3.06 of the EA for fisheries.
See Section 3.05 of the EA for threatened and endangered species.
Return to section 1 for final stage of com liance review. See also
note 3/ oaoe 3.
*See page 6.
YES IXI NO I-I*
YES IXI NO I _i*
V
4
ATTACHMENT B
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection
North Carolina
Evaluation of Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines 40 CFR 230
All,
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection
North Carolina
Evaluation of Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines 40 CFR 230
This evaluation of the placement of any and all fill material into waters and wetlands of
the United States required for construction of the Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection,
North Carolina project.
Section 404 Public Notice No. CESAW-TS-PE-99-28-0004
1. Review of Compliance (230.10(a)-(d)) Preliminary 1/ Final 2/
A review of the NEPA Document
indicates that:
a. The discharge represents the least
environmentally damaging practicable
alternative and if in a special aquatic
site, the activity associated with the
discharge must have direct access or
proximity to, or be located in the aquatic
ecosystem to fulfill its basic purpose
(if no, see section 2 and NEPA document); YESIXI NOI_I* YESJ_J NOI_I
b. The activity does not:
1) violate applicable State water quality
standards or effluent standards prohibited
under Section 307 of the CWA; 2) jeopardize
the existence of federally listed endangered
or threatened species or their habitat; and
3) violate requirements of any federally
designated marine sanctuary (if no, see section
2b and check responses from resource and
water quality certifying agencies); YESIXI NOI_I* YESIXI NOI_I
C. The activity will not cause or contribute
to significant degradation of waters of the
U.S. including adverse effects on human
health, life stages of organisms dependent
on the aquatic ecosystem, ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability, and recreational,
aesthetic, and economic values (if no,
see section 2); YESJXJ NOI_J* YESIXI NOI_I
d. Appropriate and practicable steps have
been taken to minimize potential adverse
impacts of the discharge on the aquatic
ecosystem (if no, see section 5). YESIXI NOI_I* YESIXI NOI_l
Proceed to Section 2
*, 1, 2/ See page 6.
4. Disposal Site Determinations (230.11(f)).
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the
disposal site.
(1) Depth of water at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
(2) Current velocity, direction, and _
variability at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(3) Degree of turbulence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN
(4) Water column stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN
(5) Discharge vessel speed and direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN
(6) Rate of discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN
(7) Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type
of material, settling velocities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
(8) Number of discharges per unit of _
time ........................ ...........IXI
(9) Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
List appropriate references.
Reference: Environmental Assessment Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection, North Carolina,
dated March 1999.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal site
and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable.
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
?rr•-r
through application of recommendations of 230.70-23"v.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed
discharge. List actions taken.
See Section 3.02 of the EA for water quality.
See Section 3.06 of the EA for benthos.
See Section 3.06 of the EA for fisheries.
See Section 3.05 of the EA for threatened and endangered species.
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review. See also
note 3/, page 3.
"See page 6.
YES IXI NO 1-1-
YES IXI NO 1-1-

4
Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection
North Carolina
Evaluation of Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines 40 CFR 230
This evaluation of the placement of any and all fill material into waters and wetlands of
the United States required for construction of the Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection,
North Carolina project.
Section 404 Public Notice No. CESAW-TS-PE-99-28-0004
Review of Compliance (230.10(a)-(d)) Preliminary 1/ Final 2/
A review of the NEPA Document
indicates that:
a. The discharge represents the least
environmentally damaging practicable
alternative and if in a special aquatic
site, the activity associated with the
discharge must have direct access or
proximity to, or be located in the aquatic
ecosystem to fulfill its basic purpose
(if no, see section 2 and NEPA document); YESIXI NOI_I* YESJ_I NOI_I
b. The activity does not:
1) violate applicable State water quality
standards or effluent standards prohibited
under Section 307 of the CWA; 2) jeopardize
the existence of federally listed endangered
or threatened species or their habitat; and
3) violate requirements of any federally
designated marine sanctuary (if no, see section
2b and check responses from resource and
water quality certifying agencies); YESIXI NOI_I* YESI_I NOI_I
C. The activity will not cause or contribute
to significant degradation of waters of the
U.S. including adverse effects on human
health, life stages of organisms dependent
on the aquatic ecosystem, ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability, and recreational,
aesthetic, and economic values (if no,
see section 2); YES1XI NOI_I* YESi_I NOI_I
d. Appropriate and practicable steps have
been taken to minimize potential adverse
impacts of the discharge on the aquatic
ecosystem (if no, see section 5). YESIXI NOI_I* YESi_i NOI_I
Proceed to Section 2
*, 1, 2/ See page 6.
1
2. Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C-F)
a. Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C)
(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Suspended particulates/turbidity
impacts.
(3) Water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns
and water circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water
fluctuations/hydroperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity
gradients.
Not Signifi- Signifi-
N/A cant cant*
I I X I I

I I
I I I I
X I I
I I X I I

I I
I L I I
X 1 I

I I
I I I I
X I I

I I
I NA I I I
I I
b. Biological Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D)
(1) Effect on threatened/endangered
species and their habitat.
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web.
(3) Effect on other wildlife (mammals,
birds, reptiles, and amphibians).
I I I I
I I X I I
I I X I I
I I I I
I I X I I
C. Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)
(1) Sanctuaries and refuges.
(2) Wetlands.
(3) Mud flats.
(4) Vegetated shallows.
(5) Coral reefs.
(6) Riffle and pool complexes.
I NA I I I
I 1 X I I
I I X I I
I NA I I I
I NA I I I
I NA I I I
Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F)
(1) Effects on municipal and private
water supplies.
(2) Recreational and commercial
fisheries impacts.
(3) Effects on water-related recreation
(4) Aesthetic lrnpactz.
(5) Effects on parks, national and
historical monuments, national
seashores, wilderness areas,
research sites, and similar
preserves.
I I
NA I I I
I I

I I
I I I I
X I I
I L X I I
I I X I I
I I
I I I i
I I
I I
I I
I NA I I I
I I
I I
Remarks: Where a check is placed under
the significant category, preparer add explanation below.

Proceed to Section 3
*See page 6.
3. Evaluation of Dredoed or Fill Material (Subpart G) 3/
a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the biological
availability of possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material. (Check only
those appropriate.)
(1) Physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
(2) Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated
sources of contaminants . ... .... .. .... ......... .. . .... .. IN
(3) Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in
the vicinity of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN
(4) Known, significant sources of
persistent pesticides from
land runoff or percolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
(5) Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA)
hazardous substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
(6) Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries, _
municipalities, or other sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
(7) Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by _
man-induced discharge activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1
(8) Other sources (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-I
List appropriate references.
Reference: Environmental Assessment Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection, North Carolina,
dated March 1999,
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and _
not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site.** YES IXI NO 1_1*

K
** This conclusion based on sediment testing. See Section 3.03 in the EA and Attachment C.
Proceed to Section 4
*, 3/, see page 6.
3
4. Disposal Site Determinations (230.11(f)).
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the
disposal site.
(1) Depth of water at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN
(2) Current velocity, direction, and _
variability at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(3) Degree of turbulence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
(4) Water column stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN
(5) Discharge vessel speed and direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
(6) Rate of discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN
(7) Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type
of material, settling velocities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
(8) Number of discharges per unit of _
time ........................ ...........IXI
(9) Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
List appropriate references.
Reference: Environmental Assessment Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection, North Carolina,
dated March 1999.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal site
and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable.
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through annOiration of recommendations of 230.70-230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed
discharge. List actions taken.
See Section 3.02 of the EA for water quality.
See Section 3.06 of the EA for benthos.
See Section 3.06 of the EA for fisheries.
See Section 3.05 of the EA for threatened and endangered species.
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review. See also
note 3/, page 3.
`See page 6.
YES IXI NO 1-1-
YES IXI NO 1_1`
,^
4

6. Factual Determinations (230.11).
A review of appropriate information as identified in
items 2-5 above indicates that there is minimal
potential for short- or long-term environmental
effects of the proposed discharge as related to:
a. Physical substrate at the disposal site _
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES IXI NO 1_I*
b. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES IXI NO I_I*
c. Suspended particulates/turbidity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES IXI NO I_I*
d. Contaminant availability _
(review sections 2a, 3, and 4). YES IXI NO I_I*
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function
(review sections-2b and c, 3, and 5). YES IXI NO 1_1-
f. Disposal site
(review sections 2, 4, and 5). YES 1XI NO
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic _
ecosystem. YES 1X1 NO
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic
ecosystem. YES 1X1 NO I_I*
7. Findings.
a. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
b. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines with the _
inclusion of the following conditions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
c. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material does not comply with
the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for the
following reasons(s):
(1) There is a less damaging practicable alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
(2) The proposed discharge will result in significant _
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
*See page 6.
5
(3) The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize _
potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.

Terr)/ R. din
ColonelDistrict Date:

*A negative, significant, or unknown response indicates that the permit application may not be in compliance with
the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
1/ Negative responses to three or more of the compliance criteria at this stage indicate that the proposed projects
may not be evaluated using this "short form procedure." Care should be used in assessing pertinent portions of the
technical information of items 2 a-d, before completing the final review of compliance.
2/ Negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates that the proposed project does not
comply with the guidelines. If the economics of navigation and anchorage of Section 404(b)(2) are to be evaluated
in the decision-making process, the "short form evaluation process is inappropriate."
3/ If the dredged or fill material cannotbe excluded from individual testing, the "short-form" evaluation process is
inappropriate.
A'
6
FIELD SURVEY OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINANTS
WANCHESE HARBOR MARSH CREATION AND PROTECTION PROJECT
WANCHESE, NORTH CAROLINA
August 1998

1. INTRODUCTION
The Wanchese Marsh will be constructed in Roanoke Sound at Wanchese Harbor adjacent to the
channel from Oregon Inlet, Dare County, North Carolina. The project site is north of the entrance of
Wanchese Harbor. The proposed plan involves the construction of 8 acres of marsh habitat using
dredged material from maintenance of the Wanchese Harbor Channel. A containment dike will be
constructed into which approximately 50,000 cubic yards of dredged material will be discharged and
retained. Following the placement of dredged material, the marsh will be established by sprigging
with at least three varieties of native marsh grasses.
The purpose of this sediment evaluation is to provide basic physical and chemical inventories of the
dredged materials to be used for the marsh construction. Evaluations of sediments, elutriates, and
water in Wanchese Boat Harbor by the NC Division of Environmental Management in 1985 indicated
that human activities in the Wanchese Harbor area have contributed heavy metals to the sediments.
However, the State concluded from elutriate tests that the dredging of these materials would not
likely contravene water quality standards for heavy metals if best management practices are used.
These sediment evaluations will provide current data with which to evaluate the contaminant status
of the sediments to be dredged as well as those in the marsh site.
2. OBJECTIVES OF THE WORK
The objectives of this sampling and testing work are:
• Collect sediment samples which are representative of the Wanchese Harbor channel
sediments to be dredged and the sediments at the marsh construction site.
• Analyze the sediment samples chemically and physically to provide information for/regarding
contaminants of concern.
• Document the field sampling, results physical chemical analysis of sediments, and quality
control measures.
3. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLANS AND PROCEDURES
3.1 General Methodology. The proposed experimental design to accomplish the objectives is
presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.2 provides the specific methods for chemical analyses.
Table 3.1 . Experimental design for the evaluation of Wanchese March project sediments.
FIELD COLLECTIONS: 4 samples - 2 Wanchese Channel sediments and 2 marsh creation
site (shallows adjacent to the channel)
SAMPLE TYPE: Grab samples (ponar)
SAMPLE VESSEL: Skiff
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL ANALYSES: See Table 3.2 for specific methods
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
ANALYSES: Grain Size
Specific Gravity
Total Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Pesticides
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Metals
Butyltins
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Volatile and Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (MADEP)
3.2 Sample Locations and Sample Collections. Sediment samples from stations WHM98-
1, WHM98-2, WHM98-3, and WHM98-4 were collected in Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection
project area as indicated (Figure 3.1) on April 29, 1998. Stations WHM98-1, WHM98-3, and
WHM98-4 were re-sampled on August 14, 1998, to obtain samples solely for total petroleum
hydrocarbon (EPA Method 9071) and MADEP volatile petroleum hydrocarbon / extractable petroleum
hydrocarbon analyses. The total petroleum hydrocarbon analyses performed on the April 29, 1998,
data were rejected due to apparent errors in those analyses. Sample information recorded in the field
and station location is provided in Table 3.3. Sediment samples were collected using a small ponar
grab. Multiple grabs were taken and composited until sufficient sample was obtained for the various
analyses. The sample locations in North Carolina State Plane coordinates were determined by
differential global positioning system.
Prior to collection the sample handling equipment, the sample scoops, spoons, mixing bowls were
cleaned with a laboratory detergent (Liquinox) thoroughly rinsed with de-ionized water, rinsed with
methanol. and air-dried. The equipment was rinsed with site water between stations and cleaned
again as described above.
4. RESULTS
r
Sediment samples from the Wanchese Harbor Marsh Creation and Protection project area were
evaluated for selPrted physicai and chemical characteristics including heavy metals, priority
pollutants, and pesticides. The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 4.1 through 4.6.
Appendix A compares the Wanchese Harbor Marsh Creation and Protection project sediments to
analyses previously conducted in the same area and selected sediment evaluation guidelines. North -
Carolina has not adopted standards for sediments.
Sediment samples from the Wanchese Harbor channel and shallow areas adjacent to the channel
(within the Wanchese Harbor Marsh Creation and Protection project area) were evaluated for selected
physical and chemical characteristics, including heavy metals, pesticides, organotins, and petroleum
FIELD SURVEY OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINANTS
WANCHESE HARBOR MARSH CREATION AND PROTECTION PROJECT
WANCHESE, NORTH CAROLINA
August 1998
A
1. INTRODUCTION
The Wanchese Marsh will be constructed in Roanoke Sound at Wanchese Harbor adjacent to the
channel from Oregon Inlet, Dare County, North Carolina. The project site is north of the entrance of
Wanchese Harbor. The proposed plan involves the construction of 8 acres of marsh habitat using
dredged material from maintenance of the Wanchese Harbor Channel. A containment dike will be
constructed into which approximately 50,000 cubic yards of dredged material will be discharged and
retained. Following the placement of dredged material, the marsh will be established by sprigging
with at least three varieties of native marsh grasses.
The purpose of this sediment evaluation is to provide basic physical and chemical inventories of the
dredged materials to be used for the marsh construction. Evaluations of sediments, elutriates, and
water in Wanchese Boat Harbor by the NC Division of Environmental Management in 1985 indicated
that human activities in the Wanchese Harbor area have contributed heavy metals to the sediments.
However, the State concluded from elutriate tests that the dredging of these materials would not
likely contravene water quality standards for heavy metals if best management practices are used.
These sediment evaluations will provide current data with which to evaluate the contaminant status
of the sediments to be dredged as well as those in the marsh site.
2. OBJECTIVES OF THE WORK
The objectives of this sampling and testing work are:
• Collect sediment samples which are representative of the Wanchese Harbor channel
sediments to be dredged and the sediments at the marsh construction site.
• Analyze the sediment samples chemically and physically to provide information for/regarding
contaminants of concern.
• Document the field sampling, results physical chemical analysis of sediments, and quality
control measures.

3. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLANS AND PROCEDURES
3.1 General Methodology. The proposed experimental design to accomplish the objectives is
presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.2 provides the specific methods for chemical analyses.
Table 3.1 . Experimental design for the evaluation of Wanchese March project sediments.
FIELD COLLECTIONS: 4 samples - 2 Wanchese Channel sediments and 2 marsh creation
site (shallows adjacent to the channel)
SAMPLE TYPE: Grab samples (ponar)
SAMPLE VESSEL: Skiff
PHYSICAUCHEMICAL ANALYSES: See Table 3.2 for specific methods
r
PHYSICAUCHEMICAL
ANALYSES: Grain Size
Specific Gravity
Total Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Pesticides
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Metals
Butyltins
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Volatile and Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (MADEP)
3.2 Sample Locations and Sample Collections. Sediment samples from stations WHM98-
1, WHM98-2, WHM98-3, and WHM98-4 were collected in Wanchese Marsh Creation and Protection
project area as indicated (Figure 3.1) on April 29, 1998. Stations WHM98-1, WHM98-3, and
WHM98-4 were re-sampled on August 14, 1998, to obtain samples solely for total petroleum
hydrocarbon (EPA Method 9071) and MADEP volatile petroleum hydrocarbon / extractable petroleum
hydrocarbon analyses. The total petroleum hydrocarbon analyses performed on the April 29, 1998,
data were rejected due to apparent errors in those analyses. Sample information recorded in the field
and station location is provided in Table 3.3. Sediment samples were collected using a small ponar
grab. Multiple grabs were taken and composited until sufficient sample was obtained for the various
analyses. The sample locations in North Carolina State Plane coordinates were determined by
differential global positioning system.
Prior to collection the sample handling equipment, the sample scoops, spoons, mixing bowls were
cleaned with a laboratory detergent (Liquinox) thoroughly rinsed with de-ionized water, rinsed with
methanol.and air-dried. The equipment was rinsed with site water between stations and cleaned
again as described above.
4. RESULTS
Sediment samples from the Wanchese Harbor Marsh creation and Protection NrV,ect .......
evaluated for selected physical and chemical characteristics including heavy metals, priority
pollutants, and pesticides. The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 4.1 through 4.6.
Appendix A compares the Wanchese Harbor Marsh Creation and Protection project sediments to
analyses previously conducted in the same area and selected sediment evaluation guidelines. North
Carolina has not adopted standards for sediments.
Sediment samples from the Wanchese Harbor channel and shallow areas adjacent to the channel
(within the Wanchese Harbor Marsh Creation and Protection project area) were evaluated for selected
physical and chemical characteristics, including heavy metals, pesticides, organotins, and petroleum
2
hydrocarbons. The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 4.1 through 4.5. The results are
summarized in the following paragraphs.

The sampling and analysis indicated a dichotomy of sediments between the Wanchese Harbor channel
sediments and the sediments of the adjacent shallows. The sediments collected within the Wanchese
Harbor channel (samples WHM98-1 and WHM98-2) were predominately highly organic, black, silts
and clays. The sediments collected in the shallows adjacent to the channel were predominately fine
sands (Table 4.1).
Metals - The fine grained WHM98-1 and WHM98-2 generally had higher concentrations of sediment
contaminants than the coarser grained WHM98-3 and WHM98-4 (Table 4.2). The concentrations of
metals in the tested sediments appeared to be related to the physical characteristics of the sediments.
Except for mercury in the Wanchese Harbor Channel sediments, concentrations of metals in sediments
did not exceed threshold levels (TEL and ER-L) for the weight- of- evidence sediment quality guidelines
of MacDonald et al. 1996 and Long et al. 1995. The threshold levels are those below which no
biological effects would be expected. The mercury threshold level sediment quality guidelines are
0.13 mg/kg and 0.15 mg/kg for MacDonald et al. 1996 and Long et al. 1995, respectively.
Maximum concentration of As in tested sediments was 0.46 mg/kg. The higher probable effects level
screening guidelines (0.70 mg/kg and 0.71 mg/kg for PEL and ER-M, respectively) were not
exceeded.
Pesticides and PCBs - not found in concentrations above the detection limits (Table 4.3).
Organotins - TBT - not found in concentrations above the detection limits (Table 4.4).
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were found in Wanchese sediments -,- both those of the
channel and the adjacent shallows (Table 4.5). These hydrocarbons tend to accumulate in marine
sediments and remain localized around sources. The concentrations of PAH compounds in the
sediments did not follow the same pattern of relation to sediment physical characteristics as the
metals concentrations. PAHs werq present in both the fine-grained channel sediments as well as the
shallows sediments. The sample that was the greatest distance from the Wanchese Harbor entrance,
WHM98-2, had the lowest concentrations of PAH compounds.
Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (oil and grease -- EPA method 9071) ranged from 160
mg/kg at WHM98-3 to less than detection limits for WHM98-4 and WHM98-1 (Table 4.6). Using the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) volatile petroleum hydrocarbon /
extractable hydrocarbon analytical method low concentrations (< 1 mg/kg or part per million (ppm))
were found in the sediments tested.
Appendix A provides a comparison of recent Wanchese Harbor Area sediment analyses.
5.0 DISCUSSION
Based on a review of the sediment constituents inventoried, the Wanchese Harbor area sediments do
reflect the human activities which take place in that area. As a general rule, the closer to the harbor,
the higher concentrations of some contaminants are evident. With the exception of mercury, the
sediments do not exceed weight-of-evidence effects range-low (ER-L) or threshold effects level (TEL)
sediment screening guidelines (Long et al., 1995, an MacDonald et al., 1996). The ER-L and TEL are
reported to represent lower threshold levels below which bioeffects are rarely expected. The
3
Table 3.2. (cont'd). List of Analytes, methods, and target detection limits for Wanchese Harbor
Marsh Creation and Protection project sediment chemical analyses.
Test Target Detection
Analyte Methods Limit (all are dry wt)
PAHs
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 3540/8310 30.0 pg/kg
Chrysene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Fluoranthene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Fluorene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Napthalene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Methlynapthalene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Phenanthrene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Pyrene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Test Target Detection
Analyte Methods Limit (all are dry wt)
PCB Scan 3540/8080A
Arochlor 1016 20 ug/kg
Arochlor 1221 50 ug/kg
Arochlor 1232 20 ug/kg
Arochlor 1242 20 ug/kg
Arochlor 1248 10 ug/kg
Arochlor 1254 15 ug/kg
Arochlor 1260 10 ug/kg
Test Target Detection
Analyte Methods Limit (dry wt)
Organotins NOAA 1993 25.0 ug/kg
Test Target Detection
Analyte Methods Limit (dry wt)
Total Organic Carbon 9060 4000 mg/kg
Total Petroleum Hydroc arbon 9071 25 mg/kg
Volatile Petro. Hydrocarbons Massachusetts Department of Envrionmental Protection (MADEP) 1998
Extractable Petro. Hydrocarbons Detection limit varies with specific
hydrocarbon.
Physical Test
Determination Methods
Specific Gravity APHA 1992 2710F
Grain Size Sieve and hydrometer (ASTM)
hydrocarbons. The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 4.1 through 4.5. The results are
summarized in the following paragraphs.
The sampling and analysis indicated a dichotomy of sediments between the Wanchese Harbor channel
sediments and the sediments of the adjacent shallows. The sediments collected within the Wanchese
Harbor channel (samples WHM98-1 and WHM98-2) were predominately highly organic, black, silts
and clays. The sediments collected in the shallows adjacent to the channel were predominately fine
sands (Table 4.1).
Metals - The fine grained WHM98-1 and WHM98-2 generally had higher concentrations of sediment
contaminants than the coarser grained WHM98-3 and WHM98-4 (Table 4.2). The concentrations of
metals in the tested sediments appeared to be related to the physical characteristics of the sediments.
Except for mercury in the Wanchese Harbor Channel sediments, concentrations of metals in sediments
did not exceed threshold levels (TEL and ER-L) for the weight- of- evidence sediment quality guidelines
of MacDonald et al. 1996 and Long et al. 1995. The threshold levels are those below which no
biological effects would be expected. The mercury threshold level sediment quality guidelines are
0.13 mg/kg and 0.15 mg/kg for MacDonald et al. 1996 and Long et al. 1995, respectively.
Maximum concentration of As in tested sediments was 0.46 mg/kg. The higher probable effects level
screening guidelines (0.70 mg/kg and 0.71 mg/kg for PEL and ER-M, respectively) were not
exceeded.
Pesticides and PCBs - not found in concentrations above the detection limits (Table 4.3).
Organotins - TBT - not found in concentrations above the detection limits (Table 4.4).
IV
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were found in Wanchese sediments -,- both those of the
channel and the adjacent shallows (Table 4.5). These hydrocarbons tend to accumulate in marine
sediments and remain localized around sources. The concentrations of PAH compounds in the
'sediments did not follow the same pattern of relation to sediment physical characteristics as the
metals concentrations. PAHs were, present in both the fine-grained channel sediments as well as the
-shallows sediments. The sample that was the greatest distance from the Wanchese Harbor entrance,
WHM98-2, had;the lowest concentrations of PAH compounds.
Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (oil and grease -- EPA method 9071) ranged from 160
mg/kg at WHM98-3 to less than detection limits for WHM98-4 and WHM98-1 (Table 4.6). Using the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) volatile petroleum hydrocarbon /
extractable hydrocarbon analytical method low concentrations (< 1 mg/kg or part per million (ppm))
were found in the sediments tested.
Appendix A provides a comparison of recent Wanchese Harbor Area sediment analyses.
5.0 DISCUSSION
Based on a review of the sediment constituents inventoried, the Wanchese Harbor area sediments do
reflect the human activities which take place in that area. As a general rule, the closer to the harbor,
the higher concentrations of some contaminants are evident. With the exception of mercury, the
sediments do not exceed weight-of-evidence effects range-low (ER-L) or threshold effects level (TEL)
sediment screening guidelines (Long et al., 1995, an MacDonald et al., 1996). The ER-L and TEL are
reported to represent lower threshold levels below which bioeffects are rarely expected. The
3
mercury concentration in the sediments tested did not exceed the higher probable effects ER-M or PEL
guidelines.
The sediment contaminants appear to decrease in concentration with distance from the harbor. The
location of the marsh creation project adjacent to the Wanchese Harbor will mean that harbor
influence sediment contaminants are not introduced to new areas where those contaminants are not
present.
Based on the review of the sediment constituents inventoried, the sediments tested should be
acceptable for the proposed marsh creation project. Management actions such as placement of the
near-harbor material to reduce the contact or availability of those materials to marsh organisms may
be beneficial in reducing bioavailablity of contaminants in harbor channel sediments.
6.0 REFERENCES
Long, E., MacDonald, D., Smith, S., Calder, F. 1995. Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects Within
Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments. Environmental Management
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp81-97.
MacDonald, D., Carr, S., Calder, F., Long, E., Ingersoll, C. 1996. Development and Evaluation of
Sediment Quality Guidelines for Florida Coastal Waters. Ecotoxicology 5, 253-278.
W
4
Table 3.2. List of Analytes, methods, and target detection limits for Wanchese Harbor Marsh
Creation and Protection project sediment chemical analyses.
Test Target Detection
Analyte Method Limit (all are dry wt)
1
V
Metals
Antimony 3050/6010 0.1 mg/kg
Arsenic 3050/6010 0.1 mg/kg
Beryllium 3050/6010 0.1 mg/kg
Cadmium 3050/6010 0.1 mg/kg
Chromium 3050/6010 0.1 mg/kg
Copper 3050/6010 0.1 mg/kg
Lead 3050/6010 0.1 mg/kg
Mercury 7471 A 0.05 mg/kg
Nickel 3050/6010 0.3 mg/kg
Selenium 3050/6010 0.2 mg/kg
Silver 3050/6010 0.4 mg/kg
Thallium 7841 0.2 mg/kg
Zinc 3050/6010 1.1 mg/kg
Note: ICP/MS is EPA Method 6010 / GFAA methods are EPA Method series 7000s
Test Target Detection
Analyte Method Limit (all are dry wt)
Pesticides
Aldrin 3540/8080A 10.0 Q/kg
a-BHC 3540/8080A 10.0 gg/kg
R-BHC 3540/8080A 10.0 µg/kg
y-BHC 3540/8080A 10.0 gg/kg
5-BHC 3540/8080A 10.0 Q/kg
Chlordane 3540/8080A 10.0 Q/kg
4,4'-DDD 3540/8080A 10.0 Q/kg
4,4'-DDE 3540/8080A 10.0 Q/kg
4,4'-DDT 3540/8080A 10.0 Q/kg
Dieldrin 3540/8080A 10.0 µg/kg
Endosulfan & derivatives 3540/8080A 10.0 gg/kg
Endrin & derivatives 3540/8080A 10.0 µg/kg
Heptachlor & derivatives 3540/8080A 10.0 q/kg
Methoxychlor 3540/8080A 20.0 µg/kg
Toxaphene 3540/8080A 30.0 gg/kg
Test Target Detection
Analyte Methods Limit (all are dry wt)
PAH
Acenapthene 3540/8310 30.0 Q/kg
Acenaphthylene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Anthracene 3540/8310 30.0 Q/kg
Benzo(a)anthracene 3540/8310 30.0 gg/kg
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Benzo(a)pyrene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Table 3.2. (cont'd). List of Analytes, methods, and target detection limits for Wanchese Harbor
Marsh Creation and Protection project sediment chemical analyses.
Test Target Detection
Analyte Methods Limit (all are dry wt)
PAHs
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Chrysene 3540/8310 30.0 A/kg
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Fluoranthene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Fluorene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Napthalene 3540/8310 30.0 µg/kg
Methlynapthalene 3540/8310 30.0 Q/kg
Phenanthrene 3540/8310 30.0 Q/kg
Pyrene 3540/8310 30.0 Q/kg
Test Target Detection
Analyte Methods Limit (all are dry wt)
PCB Scan 3540/8080A
Arochlor 1016 20 ug/kg
Arochlor 1221 50 ug/kg
Arochlor 1232 20 ug/kg
Arochlor 1242 20 ug/kg
Arochlor 1248 10 ug/kg
Arochlor 1254 15 ug/kg
Arochlor 1260 10 ug/kg
Test Target Detection
Analyte Methods Limit (dry wt)
Organotins NOAA 1993 25.0 ug/kg
Test Target Detection
Analyte Methods Limit (dry wt)
Total Organic Carbon 9060 4000 mg/kg
Total Petroleum Hydro carbon 9071 25 mg/kg
Volatile Petro. Hydrocarbons Massachusetts Department of Envrionmental Protection (MADEP) 1998
Extractable Petro. Hydrocarbons Detection limit varies with specific
hydrocarbon.
Physical Test
Determination Methods
Specific Gravity APHA 1992 271 OF
Grain Size Sieve and hydrometer (ASTM)
f
v
_J)
Table 3.3. Summary of sampling information for sediments collected from Wanchese Harbor Marsh Creation and Protection project area. Samples were collected 29 April
and 14 August 1998. Samples were taken with a small ponar grab. See Figure 4.1 for locations.
NC STATE PLANE

Sample Identification COORDINATES DEPTH (ft) NOTES
WHM98-4 3002362 778570 3.6 4129/98 - mostly sand - required 10 grabs (3 with nothing) to obtain sample
few large shell debris, site was about 60 yards from shore, no distinct odor.
8/14/98 - medium and fine sand - no hydrocarbon odor - no sheen or residue
on sampler, 1 grab taken
WHM98-3 3002422 778129 4.3 4/29/98 - very sandy - required 12 grabs for sufficient sample volume
approximately 85 yards from shore, no distinct odor
8/14/98 - medium and fine sand - no hydrocarbon odor - no sheen or residue
on sampler - poylchaetes and live oyster in grab, 1 grab taken
WHM98-2 3004463 778566 >10.0 4/29/98 - fine silt - 1 grab produced sufficient sample, sample collected
(note: this station not sampled about 90 yds from ch mrk 3, no distinct odor
on 14 August 1998)
WHM98-1 3002677 777754 NR 4/29/98 fine silt - 2 grabs taken, no distinct odor
8/14198 - fine black silt and clay,no hydrocarbon odor, no residues or sheens
Note: Depth is uncorrected depth - NR indicates not recorded
6--
C6
c
0)
E
O)
O
U
N
.O
a
c
0
U
O
c
m
c
0
cu
N
U
L
m
0
m vi
2 a
N -
U
L U
U 0
>C N
EL
E
m
tll N
O O
N
E '-
m CO
(0 N
O. ?
.U LL
T N
L N
CL
V 00
C Q1
03 O)
N r
O)
fp .-
T p.
c Q
OS N
o c
N O
N ?
c o
CU U
O
? U
N
7 O
O) CL
E
Fm U)
0
0
U?co-00
0 of cd r r
W ?-
of z
F- CO 00 VO)
W
O ? n N r- (0
N V
OU
U
U > O N (O q*
W . r r r
a0
E
o n n
V O M m M 00
O
O
v
E E
E E
J O n I- I- 'Lo N -4' r
n
(n O O V Cl)
00
A V
o E E
Z? nnconoo
n r v v n
W O V' r CO ? CO
Z O O
L1 A V
(< E E
v t
ncon
O O O CO N
? O O
W A V
2
E
LLI 0 p E
N O LO 'IT.
Er Z r
QO<c?oo rr
U A
Z r
W N M
O OD ca 00 co
O O O 0)
Q 2 n 2
U = = 2 2
O0 7 > >
3 N r- 't O ti
U O - 4 cn v 06
•T
y
C
a)
a)
N
C
O
U
O
O
a
C
ca
c
O
as
N
U c
O
Rf U
g o
L
Q
m ?
2 O
o
U ?
C M
> a)
C .?
O LL
0) N
N U)
T
co 6
C O7
as O)
_N
CU
N Q
E Q
O O
N
w 'o
75 2)
in
U
O
U
N O
m a
ca
c?a c
H U
N (O M

0-00
r o - .-
O O O
0 r N ?- (O N
Q (O N ao N

co
O)
O)
r
I- t- O N r N
4. (O N m (6 O
N
Cl) ca

<o
C
O
c Un Lo co CO O O
N C6 r- ov co
(O 't LO N
.- r
C
co
c

(n O M O N (o
O N O
C
O O 0)
U O)
(D
,p r CO N IT N
(q ?OOtt z
W O O a) O)
?
..
. C
o J

Vr 'O ca
Y ?n m LO LO m m 'a O
(? Z `O N Cl) O U) O O
O)
N !
CL
H aa) aS
Z
1T
M IT - N

'
c0 M '-
o
.fl
M V
M 0 '7 7 -O
0 0 0 0 0 v
o c
3 co
at
C
'a N 00 U
N a)
U 0000 m
O O O O U
O
c a)
O 00)
' m
o ? a

L
V co cM N
O M ? O M
? N O y
C U to
c6
n
N N r' co LO U ) p
O
O
L (D
3 )
3
m 00 ce) :D LO 0 CU
Q a)
>

o o O .
CL 0
M
O 0
> M f?6
1 cu N
Cl) Z) ? O M 0 m T
Q d
o M CD O a) O
O O CD c w C

L O O
U J 3

0
N M ?t
- O
W
? H CD
j
+
N I
a0 co co
co
m O W O) M
0) Q1 F- w o
N
Z (6

(A 1
J J i
a)
J J

Q
2 M 2= w o w
?: i>> ?: 3 w?- ZF-w.. ?
ui
C
N
In 06
m
U (A
N ?
O N
a?
o
U ?
Y
O O
0.. O
Od
C E
(0 Co
(//
C
O N c M
u 3
? U
U
t
0) 3
O 2
CL
p O
(0 a
2 N
cn X
N 0)
L 00
U O)
>c 0)
O Q
Q
w N
C N
O U
N
O.p U
(6 N
U N
O a
a m
2 cn
O U
N c
O
O ;_
? U
Q O
m N
O Q
E
N
c y
ca o
2
Q
Q o'i
N
O 7
(D LL
a)
i
m )
H (n
Lo 0000000000 o ' o o O '
0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N
,24 (54 0 0 0 O O O O O 1-
0 0 l0 O - - (O O M (O N (O m
t-
E N O N r- N 't
w
Z O O O O O O M 0 0 0 0 O',' ' O ' ' O '
O m
O ?7 O m O w O 0
(D M O
N
0 w
r-
(N O
O N (0
O
1 04
4 m
C
O C
r C)
Z W
W
U
Z
O
-6- 0 o m 0 a 3 o o o o " 0 O " (D
Z
J m N m ? 4"t m 0 M"r co
(A N 00 d- 4 "t (A m CA "t CO O
O
W uJ M ?- LO N ,I- M (O M r N ti
~
O W (
O

c?
c?
Z O
Z O O S- 0 0 0 0 0 0 O' ' O O
O w ti N Ih m 0 0 w O co N N ' ' O
O '
w w O CD 66 M M v m 00 (O O v
? W M N 00 v Lo r- O co N
- co
o
0 I-
cn
O D O o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0-0 m
L M r? 0 0 ?t O O O O O M O O M O o O M? tt
-
mgt 'a' M N M v ti (0 ti 0 r- c0 O ?- 0 t0 w O m

00 M 14, 't N- m 00

N E
3 f--
M
v

2
v
m
Y _
m
?? O? O O O O O O O O O O O O?? M M CD m
Z •" O O h 0 0 0 O N 0 w r .- O O
- CO
i0
r' V'
- N r-
M
O M LO
N O N N N- m-
r
O m ?

- 00 N N E
m 0
Q (0
r
2 r

Z
W
U
Z ? ? ? M ? ? M O ?t t0 O N O CA ? ? ? ? M m N (n
O r m m e- O m N 0 0 O M 0 M L O O o M O O Z
UN a N v? cnrOD) LO (D
N N
Z.rn
W 2
2
2
_ >
E5 >
W
Cn
D M M V N O O O o o O o O O D O D O ,TO v m
r 0"t r- O M O O O O N N r- L? N O- 6 v M
M 0 O O ? M t- M O N 0 M O r- M m
'
0) r N N O 00 E
O

>2 y
fU CU
C C `_'
r
V1 d (D 0) (D N
T c
C N
E
0 C)
"
N
a
? a?
0)
'O ?` L r
N C
0 O
0
* i c c N
m
c
L ,p w
a?
°
c. 0 L o o c?
a a
c
>
O
L- , 2
`
a) 0) c
7 7 T
m m
c -E L
c N c6
c Q N c6 L C c
2 2 2
Q
#
N
N L L p N L N C .? Y f6 p m >+ >
Q Q c C U C N
L
O . Q Q Q a
W
N
N w
. C C N c fi c N N N N N c c N 0 (U
L m
2
Q .,
_
0 0 0 0 0 °` c E c c c o 0 c E E
0 0
o a
4. co U U5 L c-->0 0 0 0
c m m(-- ataC-- 0- .D U.n.n?OL?N JSF- F-
a
0)
0)
r
m 0
(6
N
D >
m
(0 r
?
N
o E
Q
? O
U O
ca ?
o
_ O
f6 O
>
N
a
i E
L
j O
U
to O

CA
ca 0 E c m 0
0
U N N > n
E

a C: m N
T-
Q N
2 °
IL _
N N
E O
=

v
a
N N
'
W L Jtt- C
o N c
O
L _m W a)
N Q 'r- -
a) -0
V
O
4) Z!
3, mom - C
co
°
i > W m
Co (D ? c

Cc
'

3? >
=1 U co
U U Co
L)
N
O C

2
E
O N N _I
E a) U O 7
3 rn 0 W ° v° (D
_ p= m o
r a) 0

a0
E
' cn N W
= N p
i
L 6
C (6 (
o
QLw-
O , -
C
p f
0
h
Z
LU
< ? cu Z
3
0
0? . d (n
Z _I 2 F- W ?. :3: F Z
cr
i
Table 4.6. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon and MADEP volatile petroleum hydrocarbon / extractable petroleum
hydrocarbon analyses of Wanchese Harbor Marsh Creation and Protection project sediments. See
Figure 3.1 for sample locations. Samples collected 14 August 1998. Note the changes in concentration
units.
SED IMENT CONCENTRATION (dry weight)
Analyte WHM98-1 WHM98-2 WHM98-3 WHM98-4
TPH mg/kg < 140 NS 160 < 37
VPH ug/kg
C5 - C8 Aliphatics <500 NS <500 8500
Cg - C12 Aliphatics <500 NS <500 <500
Cg - C10 Aromatics 920.0 NS <500 <500
EPH mg/kg
C9 - C18 Aliphatics <10 NS <10 <10
C19 - C36 Aliphatics <10 NS <10 <10
C11 - C22 Aromatics <10 NS <10 <10
Notes:
TPH - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons by EPA Method 9071
VPH - Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbon - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
A measure of the collective concentration of extractable alliphatic and aromatic petroleum hydrocarbons in sediment
EPH - Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
A measure of the collective concentration of volatile alliphatic and aromatic petroleum hydrocarbons in sediment
NS - Not sampled
IF

V
.0I
a
N
=I
Q
CO)
V)
C
O
H
E a
O W
N
c
O
U
N
0
O Ve
W Y Z
? C7
co
c
o Cl)
1
is Z_

L o
` is
ca U
? O
L a)
-0 -a a

U
m Co
= N
O
U ?
M
O ,7 N f- -t
U C) 4 Sri
N (0
0-00
r 0--
0 O O
U) h N T- (0
Q (0 U) N
h O N
CD N co
N
X) LO co C.0
b ti ? r
LO N
OO N
O
0 (V O
O
00 N
r O O
O O
U') co In to
0 (V CO
(fl r N
? M 0
0 0 0
?
r0rrr
o O o 0
00 _00=

? L
U M M N

I? O M ?
m
N N 17
O
O LL

cn U)
T
a)
00 M ? to
m
c 0) C? I'- (R 00
0 0 0 0
O O O
N ?
N
N Q
E Q
0
) Cl) S
0) < to Lo co
O N
O M O

« O O
0
U) U
a) N
O
U
(V C ?- N M t
i
U)
N CC) w 00 co
Q) O) O rn
CD CL
E 2 2 2
CD S S >S S

r-
06
r
i i
N It
06 N
0
0
O)
r
co M N
M
c
O
00 0
U
O st w
In N
r r
C
O
c
i i E
ca
,5-
0 Q1
O)
a)
i i CY)
U)
a) m
w
C
O
J
a) ?
7 C
'O N
rnrn a°)rn
o ?n
N (3)
x
a) Co
a) 0)
Lr) Cl) M 0
17 7 -, :E
0 0 5 v
O c
3 cu
N (3)
U C
00
.J. 7
r (fl
CD
° -o >
U O O
M .C a)
O N (0
O O
Q co
O M O U) v,
1- N c U M
00 to U O
L W N
3 aa)) W
o (o (D
Q O
O (0 a) (L6
> (6 ca
d ? O N
O r U p
O J CL
O (D
N C LI ) LW C
'0 ca
V)
L O 3
cn J
T
L ~
(p W O (m
O V) i Z c
J y J Q
W W W i
WF- ZI-W??
E
a)
U
a)
O
a
c
0
U
a)
O
v
c
m
C
O
m
a)
U
L
ul
m
O
.fl N
m c
2 O
N U
a)
L O
U N
C a
E
m
O N
N O
(n
T Ch
c a)
m
U) °-)
co ii
T N
c (n
m
a) co
0)
U
m -
a) 'C
O. Q
m °)
? N
C ?
O m
L D
U o
U
M (?
a) a
co Co
z
O
Q Y
7
a
W m
Z
Z W
W W
2 U
O co
w
U)
Y
Z
O
Q
G_
H
Z
W
U
Z
O
U
z
w
0
W
O O O O N i i. N
O1 (n N 0 0 0 O
J O N N O O

W
(0 N i (0 th N m N
Cl) N O N r- f-
W O N N r- O
F

0
O1 V V O M O I.- M
N V `- M I? M ' O 0 N M O N N O M N O V
N (0 V N 0 M M (rj N O- r V N 00 V V M O
N 0 to M r N (n
O O O O 000 O

V V O M O r- M
M
N V ' O) (n N O O N N O CO N O V
M N p 1`
N (O V N V N O V V M O
N 0 (n M A N (n
O
O O
O O O O

m V V O M O 1- M
N V T 6- O ' O 0 N O O N N O (O N O V
N O V N 0 M M (rj ? N ? O ? r V N w V V O O
N U) (C) M A N (n
O O 00 000 0
D Z) D Z) :D Z
m V V O M O r- ' O O N O) O N N O O N O V N V N aD V V 0 O
0 N V M r 0 N O V N O M M (`'> N O `- r N to (n M N LO
O O O O O O O O
C
U
O O
a) m a)

m 0

T Q
a)
0 U p
-=
m O N N OD V O Lr)
ce)
L L a)
c C C N O
C\l CN N ? N
_O N_
U m o o o
X
3 3 O
U U U
L
c 2 2 S
E U O
L
w
Q Q
ro s
0 0 0 ` 0
` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 U U U U
Q m
.
mmma o
c
o
io -o -o -a -ov a n m
a) x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Q c m
m< co =<C9 s m c c C c C C a) m
Uvv V-a 0 0 o w m a)LL E° 2 2
QQQQQQQ
m
O
O)
y
C ? L
0 m C
U ?
rn a
C
O C
N zz? C
> a) a)
E>'-
N)
? m
p w
00
a)
a? E E
a) m w c
c 0 o
a CU 0
o m
d U ? ?
J C O
W N ? N
4 O CM
O C
? m
> W m
a) -
'm
U M N
CY) J N
a) C Q)
O co W "O
O 0) O O
a a) W a)
L W ~ 7
f- O c
' Z
O w ¢
R '
ZH W.!
r
a,

I
Table 4.4. Organotins in Wanchese Harbor Marsh Creation and Protection project sediments.
Samples collected 29 April 1998. See Figure 3.1 for sample locations.
SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION (UG/KG DRY WEIGHT)
ANALYTE WHM98-1 WHM98-2 WHM98-3 WHM98-4
monobutyltin -- 27 U 22 U 27 U 27 U
dibutyltin 24 U 20 U 24 U 24 U
tributyltin 19 U 16 U 19 U 19 U
tetrabutyltin 19 U 16 U 19 U 19 U
Notes:
U - Analyte not detected. Detection limit shown.
19
1.
N
C
a)
a
M
m
U O)
N ?
0 N
CL 3
C m
3
wO . Q
U
a) ?
O O
CL
c a
E
m ?
c
o N
io 3
? U
U
r
3
m 2
? a.
H
0
O O
(a Q
2 a)
N N
L 00
U m
>c m
cmu
o °-
N (A
? N
C N
(6 U
C
0 U
OS O
N
O Q.
ca
2 (n
E to
CD C
O
O C
CL O
0
6 a)
O O_
? (4
C N
wO
2
Q
CL M
a)
ui 3
? m
a) LL
F? (n
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o '
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N
0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CO h
- 0 0 0 In - CO 0 M co N (D 0)
h•
Y N - (O N - N ItV
W
z
LO O C D O O O M O O O O 0' 't O '
O
CA
CO ?t CO m O In O to O
w (0 M

N
0
CO ?t N O
M N
n
O
O O
F C
O C
O
O V'
z W
w
0
z
O
0 CD o O m O O O O O o o O ' ' ' ' O ' ' 0 '
W O -00wIt v (O40oM(O M 0
z J
W W 0) N 00 -t v 'd• m a) 0) W CO O
C) LO N rt cl) O co r` N (D
r-
0 CO

0
(7
z CO ot-- - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' N O ' ' O '
z CA O co r N h m O o M O co N N O
W J
? t r) CO ?- CO o M M v w 00 o O
N
l V
00
W ) N M v r- 0 00
C
- (D
()

:- M D O o o 0 0 0 o O O o O O 0 O D O o r- O m
. M - 0 0 v O O O O O m O 6 M O O O M N 4
M V Cl) c- N 0't ti 0 f- CD 1- 0 0 r ? (fl LO 0 O
00 0 m
•? Cl) r1' v .- r r N r 00
CA N E
3 M
v

2
v
m
Y
m
v D D CD D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M co m
z
r - co (D co f-- 0 0 0 0 N O w 0 0
r tt
- i0 (n T ? 00
(
'4
M N t- M
M
? .`Y
0)
(
)
O r
C) N
1 W
(V
N N ?-
N N ?
00
1- CA O
< O
2

Z
W
U
Z M M O (n O N 0 O 5 co O N (n
0 ti r O M Lo o N 0 0 0 M O cM (O 00C M 66 Z
U N ,It N r L (D CD CC) co
00 N N

W
:R 2

W

00 00 't N O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 't (D "t m
r LO 'It LO M O O O O N N to N 0 O IT (ry Y
Cl) CD (O o r M I- M LO N (D M 0 h ao m

N r r r N N (D 00 E

0
2 v
N a)

0 N `-
ti
N C C (Oj O W
'
C: (D
O L L Q. - _N d N

U
10
L

O
C3
0

L

.
C C (D
a)
?
N
N L (? (
6 U fC6 fl
t
N
,
L
.
(D r
a) j, (D CL CL
C

co ca
CLL
c ac) N C1C'C-
iL C c

222

Q
*
(2 C1 C U "Lfv C v .C.. T o L L
¢
<
W
b c o N N
N N C C
C
N C- f >
>
S

Q N
i
w
n a) a) `o a) :E O c Z c c C 0 °) c E E
C
0 0
fl 0
> m
a
2
a.

d 1
:
N U U 3 L C 3 T a) L 0
C (a O? CL Co rte. a .o U L L .0 C "O L N
{-
a
0
CA
r
N CJa

O >
Co - ?
()
C
0
E
0
U
CU
o
O
.0 75
C
O >
a) N
E
r.
y E
D
O
O
U
d 4-
a) N

D
O
(m a) E
a) a) C O
> it 0
L

M C N N
N
N
co 2 o N O N
E

? o
=

a 4 a)

C J a) to
c
O N

O
L cn W a)
0).-
0) CL 0

O

Q) ID N -0 C
N O
0 00
`

W > m
w
-
3 (o

v
i

2
O 0 -0 C
O c
O E
3
a) a) J
E ate) cw QJ
m 0
(
6 a) a)
O '
-0 W
3 CM - " ` o
U •.`-' a)
J S L(n 0 C y ..0. a L1
N

2 2 N W (D (D
f;% -0 CO
a o 0
Q Q H W N-

3 F-
p
Z
P+> J C
Q? (0 ' Z
32
L
2
w aZ
U
1
-
Z-i l
r
w
'i
Table 4.6. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon and MADEP volatile petroleum hydrocarbon / extractable petroleum
hydrocarbon analyses of Wanchese Harbor Marsh Creation and Protection project sediments. See
Figure 3.1 for sample locations. Samples collected 14 August 1998. Note the changes in concentration
units.
SED IMENT CONCENTRATION (dry weight)
Analyte WHM98-1 WHM98-2 WHM98-3 WHM98-4
TPH mg/kg < 140 NS 160 < 37
VPH ug/kg
C5 - C8 Aliphatics <500 NS <500 8500
Cg - C12 Aliphatics <500 NS <500 <500
Cg - C10 Aromatics 920.0 NS <500 <500
EPH mg/kg
C9 - C18 Aliphatics <10 NS <10 <10
C19 - C36 Aliphatics <10 NS <10 <10
C11 - C22.Aromatics <10 NS <10 <10
Notes:
TPH - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons by EPA Method 9071
VPH - Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbon - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
A measure of the collective concentration of extractable alliphatic and aromatic petroleum hydrocarbons in sediment
EPH - Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
A measure of the collective concentration of volatile alliphatic and aromatic petroleum hydrocarbons in sediment
NS - Not sampled
yr