20001036 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20000808

2. Sediment monitoring will not be required for this research experiment because of the
location where the dredged material is being taken. Dredged material taken from any
other areas will require sediment monitoring and review of the monitoring data by the
DWQ prior to any disposal;
3. Estuarine sediments which may be dredged in the future will require review for
determination of whether sediment monitoring needs to be performed. Presently,
nearshore placement of dredged material is not an option which has been approved by
DWQ.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to
the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This
certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
Steve
Attachment
cc: Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Washington DWQ Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Hugh Heine, Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
001036

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
1 '
•
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
November 6, 2000
Dare County
DWQ Project No. 001036
Colonel James DeLony
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC, 28402-1890
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and Additional Conditions
Dear Colonel DeLony
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to conduct the Nearshore
Placement of Mixed Sediment Research Project in Duck, Dare County, North Carolina, as
described in your application dated 8 August 2000 and addition and in the Environmental
Assessment dated August 2000. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is
covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3290. This Certification allows you to use
Nationwide Permit Number 5 when the Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition, you should get
any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not
limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply
Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 Permit expires
unless otherwise specified in the General Certification. Please also note that this is strictly an
experimental research project, and this approval is not to be interpreted as a precedent for
other projects of this type.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application.
If you change your project, you must notify us and send us a new application. This approval shall
expire when the corresponding Nationwide Permit expires or as otherwise provided in the General
Certification. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre,
compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h). For this
approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and the
additional conditions listed below.
1. Hopper dredges dredging in estuarine waters must use permitted disposal sites only.
This nearshore disposal site for this research is not a permitted site for any dredged
material other than this one-time research experiment;
Division of Water Quality - Non-Discharge Branch
401Metlands Unit, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
NOU-06-2000 13:47
COMMANN
OFFICE
CESAW-TS-EE
FACSMKE TRANSMITTAL
Fa W a lhw bum, r &a ?I1; ft Wo
NAME/
OFFICE
SYMBOL
WWII SML7
910 251 4965 P.01i02
FAX NO.
(AMOVOaWC61m,)
CcNps iTih qlc- Zri
i qo 7v
T& OR
0- ?33- 1
!i i?
"M PMMWMA NO. PAGES DATE-TIME L-WTH YEAR IRELEAWASMIGNATURE
Header)
FIE& AEelcs
? IA`? j dakl 6 /?c}v 40,
Tk l 1 S ?t?t c (ue VkA f % !0l W cc ?X k cc p #oc Ems,
sea sofa. Fw calwllraaaN ' UIw Gw/y
_nn an -- - -
NOV-06-2000 13:47 CESAW-TS-EE 910 251 4965 P.02i02
a ?
North Carolina
Department of Aci?nin istration
James B. Hint, Jr., Govemor' Katie 0. Dorsett, Secretary
November 6, 4000
Mr: Hugh Heine
Dept. of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engine m
j
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Heine:
Re: SCH File # 01-U0000-0217; Finding ofNo Significant Impact Proposed Nearshme Placement
. of Mixed Sediment Research Project, Duck, NC; D;e County
The above rcf mood project has been reviewed through * 41'ate Clearinghouse Intargovernnlelltdl
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made 6y agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to calif me at [phone].
S4ncerell
Ms. s Bagp t
8nvirouiental Policy Act Coordinator
r
Attachments ?
r
cc: Region R
I 16 West Jones Street Raleiab, Nartb Carolina 27603 O03 Telephone [phone]
An ? 00d1a ft I Aairo,dx Aeyou ?
E •
TOTAL P.02
f
i
OCT-23-2000 10:48 CESAW-TS-EE 1 910 251 4965 P.02i02
i
North Carolina
Department of A 'stration,
James H. Hunt, Jr., Governor Katie d. Dorsett, Secretary
October 23, 2000
W. Hugh Heine
Dept. of the Away
'Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890 )
wllmington NC 28402-1890 )
Dear W. Hence:
4 '
Subject: Finding of No Significant Impact - Proposed N e Placement of mixed sediment
Research Prefect, Duch, NC; Dare County
The N. C. state clearinghouse has received the above psg] for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 01-AA 00-0217. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before l 1/5/2000 . Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
i
sincerely,
?& ??Baggea
En ntsl Policy Act Coordinator
N.C. STATE CI. GHOUSE
DEPARTMENT I 7AD STE tAT
1302 M M SERC CENTER
RALEIM N2 99-1302
116 Went Jones Stxeet' Raleigh, North C wm ina 27603 8003 • Tolsphms 919-107-2425
State/C?rrciar S 1-O1-
TOTAL P.02
OCT-23-2000 10:4? CESAW-TS-EE

North Caroni
Department of Adn
James H. Hunt, Jr., Governor
October 23, 2000
W. Hugh Heine
Dept of the Array
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
WilmWgton NC 28402-1890
Deer Mr. Heine:
Subject i~ baling of No Significant Impact - Proposed
Re wch Project, Duck, NC; Dare County
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above
project has been assigned State Application Number a
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
910 251 4965 P.02i02
Katie Cr. Dorsett, Secretary
Placement of Mixed Sediment
for intergovermaental review. This
)0-0217. Plem un this number with
Review of this project should be completed on or before 71-000 . Should you have any
questions, please 0011 [phone].
Sincerely,

Ms.
Policy Act Coordinates
N.C. STATE CL GHOUS1i
DEPARTMENT OF AD rRAI
1302 XAM SERVYC CENTER
RALEYCII, NC 21 9-1302
116 West Jones Bust • RAleigh, North Cwaw 276d3- 03 Telophom 919407-2425
Sues comes 51.01.00
TOTAL P.02
OCT-23-2000 10:48 CESAW-TS-EE 910 251 4965 P.01i02
FACSIMILE TRANSMfTTAL R SHEET
Fa uN d MY IGM m Aft M l l: We ?I a ODI9CA
ANW N FIB ICE 6P110f'lE ( FAX MD.
.)
OFFICE SYMNX ( 1
FPM Ly
Atak-4
(,??lu412 ?X73 3 9 9S9
PC 0
ci n yEAp pELEASFR- SKINATURE
(kesd
??1 Otis I
NO. PAGES pple"m
?IgEwu?pcs ?'; i,
G5 forr ?ir iv-5 yN ? f IkZ? d ?s C¢ C It r?yS ?f'ysQ
, y S
Ind -t. F-onsf 5-6)cf" v, ) ? ,
$p"* "ftw Fw Ca.?wl+re.ae?. {" Dfifl
qA saau 3mig-a, AM"$ 009OLM
OCT-23-2000 10:47 CESAW-TS-EE
910 251 4965 P.01i02
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL f"R SHEET
?a ? d tfw leflll, sr Aii n ? ?; IM a? ?y a GQ19Gr

COMM^W
OFFCE NA
A
SrNBM TD M"40 E FAX NO,

(AtROVVOMZMW.p
FWM
- qlo .71-/-- V 9cj-
gri o 4 ?e /1-1
P- I I
TQ Lae9c".4 qi - )J3- X73 3 - ??5;
-Ci n ria k a r l Pc L ?a uaai
NO. PAGES
(OldudkV Oft
NbA?sr OA •TIA* YEAR RELEASER'S SKINATURE
REruacs c (6t J / j c`7 "5 ? 4 ?,J eri? fS (.?Q ??t lys ?G y Q i
pl?
r ? -ti, F-on Sf 5-
c?l 0v, ,

li

a ? =1264 JUL = ti erium Iamb 'm ra "
COE/Duck Experimental Prgjcct
Subject: COE/Duck Experimental Project
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:36:57 -0400
From: Deborah Sawyer <[e-mail]>
Organization: DENR
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
Cyndi,
Here's some guidance for the COE Nearshore Dredging Project in Duck;
• This is an experimental project only and in no way sets a precedent for future projects.
• Hopper dredges dredging in estuarine waters must use permitted disposal sites only. This nearshore
disposal site for this research is not a permitted site for any dredged material other than this one-time
research experiment.
• Sediment monitoring will not be required for this research experiment because of the location where
the dredged material is being taken. Dredged material taken from any other areas will require
sediment monitoring and review of the monitoring data by the DWQ prior to any disposal.
• Estuarine sediments which may be dredged in the future will require review for determination of
whether sediment monitoring needs to be performed. Presently, nearshore placement of dredged
material is not an option which has been approved by the DWQ.
Cyndi, this is only a recommendation. WaRO wants to be real clear that consideration in the future for
estuarine sediments being disposed of on nearshore sites is probably not an option. We don't want this
experimental, research project to become "gospel" and set a precedent for later use.
Thanks,
Deborah
1 of 1 10/24/00 8:38 AM
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
T L11?W'A •
1
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
September 19, 2000
Dare County
DWQ Project No. 00-1036
Ben Wood
Chief, Tech Services Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
P.O. BOx 1890
Wilmington, NC, 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Wood
Reference is made to the Environmental Assessment for the proposed Nearshore Placement of Mixed
Sediment Research Project in Duck, Dare County, North Carolina. As stated in our August 14, 2000 letter to
you, this project will remain on hold until it has received a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSn or
Record of Decision (ROD) from the State Clearinghouse in accordance with NCAC 15A:O1C.0402. The
purpose of this correspondence is to notify you that the NC Division of Water Quality does not have
fundamental objections to the project. Therefore, it is likely that a 401 Water Quality Certification can be
issued for this project. You should note that the Certification will include numerous special conditions to be
recommended by the DWQ Washington Regional Office, as well as any other conditions suggested by
commenting agencies such as the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. Please also note that at this time we
have not received a valid application for a 401 Water Quality Certification. Our records indicate that a fee
payment was included with the EA sent to this office. When you are prepared to describe the final proposed
scope of work for this project, please provide seven copies of the Pre-Construction Notification application to
this office, along with other supporting material such as maps and narrative comments.
Thank you for your attention. Please visit our web site at httQ//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
for forms and information pertaining to the 401 Certification program. If you have any questions, I can be
reached at [phone].
Sincerely, ` /?
(?? ll
John Dorney
cc: Hugh Heine, Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Office
Tom Walker, Corps of Engineers Washington Regulatory Field Office
Deborah Sawyer, Washington DWQ Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
001036SEPA
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
401/Wetlands Unit, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Aff irmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Re: COE Duck Research Project; Dare Co.
Subject: Re: COE Duck Research Project; Dare Co.
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:29:37 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
CC: "deborah.sawyer" <[e-mail]>
gracias and good leg work. thankx
Cyndi Karoly wrote:
I dug up the file - the reason you don't have it is we don't have a valid application yet. What we did get
was seven copies of an EA. On 8/14/00, Dorney signed a letter to Ben Wood with the Corps explaining
the NEPA holdup of the 401 until the FONSI is signed. I just talked to Hugh, and their catch-22 is that
they can't sign the FONSI until they get some indication that the 401 will be forthcoming. So what I'll do
is, I'll fax the EA to you, then get your recommended conditions. Once we have your input, we'll explain
in a letter that we don't have fundamental objections to the project, that a 401 will be forthcoming (after
they send a real application), but it will be heavily conditioned. And we'll include your conditions in that
letter as well as the 401.
Of course they want this ASAP. Hugh asked if we could try to get this letter to him by Sep 7, 2000.
How's your calendar looking?
Deborah Sawyer wrote:
Cyndi and John,
Hugh Heine has called me about the COE Duck Research Project in Dare Co. To date I don't have
anything from C.O. Do not triage this project. I have been involved with the proapplication process on
this project for a while now. There will be heavy conditions on the approval. Please send this ASAP so
that it can be processed. Thanks.
Deborah
1 of 1 8/29/00 3:32 PM

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Environmental Resources Section
August 4, 2000
V? (r
Mr. John Dorney r,,`'.:_?
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Mail Service Center 1621
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 001036
Dear Mr. Dorney:
A
'? cF?FOr
Enclosed is an application for a 401 Water Quality Certification (with the required
application fee), pursuant to Section 401 of Public Law 95-217, for the Nearshore
Placement of Mixed Sediment Research Project, Duck, North Carolina. The
Environmental Assessment for this project is also enclosed.
Should you have any questions concerning the application, please contact
Mr. Hugh Heine, Environmental Resources Section, at [phone].
Sincerely,
7?
Ben F. Wood, P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosures (7 copies)

_2_
Copy Furnished:
Ms. Debra Sawyer
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO August 4, 2000
Environmental Resources Section
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Mail Service Center 1621
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Dear Mr. Dorney:

Enclosed is an application for a 401 Water Quality Certification (with the required
application fee), pursuant to Section 401 of Public Law 95-217, for the Nearshore
Placement of Mixed Sediment Research Project, Duck, North Carolina. The
Environmental Assessment for this project is also enclosed.
Should you have any questions concerning the application, please contact
Mr. Hugh Heine, Environmental Resources Section, at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ben F. Wood, P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosures (7 copies)
-2-
Copy Furnished:
Ms. Debra Sawyer
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
V .
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
NEARSHORE PLACEMENT
OF MIXED SEDIMENT
RESEARCH PROJECT,
DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA
1. DATE: August 4, 2000
2. NAME/ADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: James W. DeLony
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Mr. Hugh Heine
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Proposed Placement of Mixed Sediment Research Project,
Duck, North Carolina
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The proposed action is described in detail
in the enclosed Environmental Assessment Nearshore Placement of Mixed Sediment
Research Project, Duck, North Carolina dated August 2000.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: This proposed research project is part of a
nationwide initiative under the USACE Dredging Operations and Environmental
Research (DOER) program. The objectives of the DOER program are to develop
technologies, methodologies and techniques to assure that the operational and
environmental issues of the USACE dredging program are adequately and efficiently
met.
Research on sand transport processes on the North Carolina coast has indicated
that sand in water depths 20 to 25 feet may move shoreward. The research suggests
that sand moves to the deeper portion of the nearshore profile as a result of strong,
sequential storms and then over a period of a few years migrates back toward the
shallower region of the profile. Additionally, research has identified the general trend of
finer sediment from the shallow to deeper portions of the nearshore profile. These
results suggest that placing sediment with a mixture of sands and silt/clay on the
nearshore profile will result in the sand component moving shoreward while the fine
component remains in deeper water. However, these hypotheses still require
verification.
The objectives of the proposed action are:
1. to test the hypothesis that over time the sand fraction will become part of the
nearshore littoral sediment transport system; potentially providing sand to nourish
beaches, while the fine fraction would disperse with resulting minor environmental
impact.
2. to accumulate data to verify the performance of several USACE numerical
models. The fate programs (STFATE, LDFATE, and MDFATE) would be verified to
predict the fate of dredge material (i.e., where the mixed sediments move) during
placement and during a given time period (up to years) after placement.
3. to minimize the adverse effects of both land and water placement and to
increase the beneficial uses of dredged material. By considering dredged material as a
resource, a duel objective can be attained, i.e., the dredged material can be placed with
minimal environmental damage and benefits can accrue from its use.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: One-time dredging and placement activities are
scheduled for 1 January to 31 March 2001. However, if a hopper dredge is unavailable
during this time period, the work will be done later in the year.
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: 12 months.
11. DISCHARGE OF:
X Dredged Material
Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: Duck, North Carolina
County: Dare
Drainage Basin: Atlantic Ocean
Receiving Waters: Atlantic Ocean
2
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Coastal Waters
Nature: Saltwater
Direction of Flow: Not applicable
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers standard tiered approach for analyzing the potential for
contaminants in the sediments to be discharged. According to this analysis, before any
chemical or physical testing of sediments is conducted, a reason to believe that the
sediments may be contaminated must be established. The sources of the sediments in
the selected borrow area are derived from sediment transport and deposition by ocean
currents. The probability of the sites being contaminated by pollutants is low since the
potential borrow and placement areas, have not been used as an industrial site, dump,
or disposal area.
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?
- YES (circle one) X NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: No wetlands will be filled.
Excavated: No wetlands will be excavated.
Total Impacted: See project description in the enclosed EA.
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY
MUST BE CARRIED OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO. NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO
MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS: The proposed action would address the gaps in the
existing state of knowledge on shoreline processes on mixed sediment in the nearshore
environment by properly designed field and laboratory studies. The proposed action
would provide findings that improve our understanding of the level of impacts of
nearshore placement on coastal ecology. Additionally, the USACE's numerical models
used in predicting the fate of dredged material in the aquatic environment would be
verified.
No impacts to any vegetated wetlands are anticipated.
3
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.
Ben F. Wood, P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
DATE: -? a
Enclosures
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 CERTIFICATION
NEARSHORE PLACEMENT
OF MIXED SEDIMENT
RESEARCH PROJECT,
DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA
1. DATE: August 4, 2000
2. NAME/ADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: James W. DeLony
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Mr. Hugh Heine
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Proposed Placement of Mixed Sediment Research Project,
Duck, North Carolina
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The proposed action is described in detail
in the enclosed Environmental Assessment. Nearshore Placement of Mixed Sediment
Research Project, Duck, North Carolina dated August 2000.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: This proposed research project is part of a
nationwide initiative under the USACE Dredging Operations and Environmental
Research (DOER) program. The objectives of the DOER program are to develop
technologies, methodologies and techniques to assure that the operational and
environmental issues of the USACE dredging program are adequately and efficiently
met.
Research on sand transport processes on the North Carolina coast has indicated
that sand in water depths 20 to 25 feet may move shoreward. The research suggests
that sand moves to the deeper portion of the nearshore profile as a result of strong,
sequential storms and then over a period of a few years migrates back toward the
shallower region of the profile. Additionally, research has identified the general trend of
finer sediment from the shallow to deeper portions of the nearshore profile. These
results suggest that placing sediment with a mixture of sands and silt/clay on the
nearshore profile will result in the sand component moving shoreward while the fine
component remains in deeper water. However, these hypotheses still require
verification.
The objectives of the proposed action are:
1. to test the hypothesis that over time the sand fraction will become part of the
nearshore littoral sediment transport system; potentially providing sand to nourish
beaches, while the fine fraction would disperse with resulting minor environmental
impact.
2. to accumulate data to verify the performance of several USACE numerical
models. The fate programs (STFATE, LDFATE, and MDFATE) would be verified to
predict the fate of dredge material (i.e., where the mixed sediments move) during
placement and during a given time period (up to years) after placement.
3. to minimize the adverse effects of both land and water placement and to
increase the beneficial uses of dredged material. By considering dredged material as a
resource, a duel objective can be attained, i.e., the dredged material can be placed with
minimal environmental damage and benefits can accrue from its use.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: One-time dredging and placement activities are
scheduled for 1 January to 31 March 2001. However, if a hopper dredge is unavailable
during this time period, the work will be done later in the year.
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: 12 months.
11. DISCHARGE OF:
X Dredged Material
Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: Duck, North Carolina
County: Dare
Drainage Basin: Atlantic Ocean
Receiving Waters: Atlantic Ocean
2
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Coastal Waters
Nature: Saltwater
Direction of Flow: Not applicable
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers standard tiered approach for analyzing the potential for
contaminants in the sediments to be discharged. According to this analysis, before any
chemical or physical testing of sediments is conducted, a reason to believe that the
sediments may be contaminated must be established. The sources of the sediments in
the selected borrow area are derived from sediment transport and deposition by ocean
currents. The probability of the sites being contaminated by pollutants is low since the
potential borrow and placement areas, have not been used as an industrial site, dump,
or disposal area.
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?
_ YES (circle one) X NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: No wetlands will be filled.
Excavated: No wetlands will be excavated.
Total Impacted: See project description in the enclosed EA.
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY
MUST BE CARRIED OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO
MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS: The proposed action would address the gaps in the
existing state of knowledge on shoreline processes on mixed sediment in the nearshore
environment by properly designed field and laboratory studies. The proposed action
would provide findings that improve our understanding of the level of impacts of
nearshore placement on coastal ecology. Additionally, the USACE's numerical models
used in predicting the fate of dredged material in the aquatic environment would be
verified.
No impacts to any vegetated wetlands are anticipated.
3
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.
Ben F. Wood, P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
DATE: 3 a
Enclosures
For prompt processing, submit:
* Seven (7) copies of completed application
* Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
* Copies of previous 401 Certifications
0
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
NEARSHORE PLACEMENT
OF MIXED SEDIMENT
RESEARCH PROJECT,
DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA
1. DATE: August 4, 2000
2. NAME/ADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: James W: DeLony
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Mr. Hugh Heine
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Proposed Placement of Mixed Sediment Research Project,
Duck, North Carolina
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The proposed action is described in detail
in the enclosed Environmental Assessment Nearshore Placement of Mixed Sediment
Research Project, Duck, North Carolina dated August 2000.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: This proposed research project is part of a
nationwide initiative under the USACE Dredging Operations and Environmental
Research (DOER) program. The objectives of the DOER program are to develop
technologies, methodologies and techniques to assure that the operational and
environmental issues of the USACE dredging program are adequately and efficiently
met.
Research on sand transport processes on the North Carolina coast has indicated
that sand in water depths 20 to 25 feet may move shoreward. The research suggests
that sand moves to the deeper portion of the nearshore profile as a result of strong,
1
sequential storms and then over a period of a few years migrates back toward the
shallower region of the profile. Additionally, research has identified the general trend of
finer sediment from the shallow to deeper portions of the nearshore profile. These
results suggest that placing sediment with a mixture of sands and silt/clay on the
nearshore profile will result in the sand component moving shoreward while the fine
component remains in deeper water. However, these hypotheses still require
verification.
The objectives of the proposed action are:
1. to test the hypothesis that over time the sand fraction will become part of the
nearshore littoral sediment transport system; potentially providing sand to nourish
beaches, while the fine fraction would disperse with resulting minor environmental
impact.
2. to accumulate data to verify the performance of several USACE numerical
models. The fate programs (STFATE, LDFATE, and MDFATE) would be verified to
predict the fate of dredge material (i.e., where the mixed sediments move) during
placement and during a given time period (up to years) after placement.
3. to minimize the adverse effects of both land and water placement and to
increase the beneficial uses of dredged material. By considering dredged material as a
resource, a duel objective can be attained, i.e., the dredged material can be placed with
minimal environmental damage and benefits can accrue from its use.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: One-time dredging and placement activities are
scheduled for 1 January to 31 March 2001. However, if a hopper dredge is unavailable
during this time period, the work will be done later in the year.
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: 12 months.
11. DISCHARGE OF:
X Dredged Material
Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: Duck, North Carolina
County: Dare
Drainage Basin: Atlantic Ocean
Receiving Waters: Atlantic Ocean
2
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Coastal Waters
Nature: Saltwater
Direction of Flow: Not applicable
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers standard tiered approach for analyzing the potential for
contaminants in the sediments to be discharged. According to this analysis, before any
chemical or physical testing of sediments is conducted, a reason to believe that the
sediments may be contaminated must be established. The sources of the sediments in
the selected borrow area are derived from sediment transport and deposition by ocean
currents. The probability of the sites being contaminated by pollutants is low since the
potential borrow and placement areas, have not been used as an industrial site, dump,
or disposal area.
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?
- YES (circle one) X NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: No wetlands will be filled.
Excavated: No wetlands will be excavated.
Total Impacted: See project description in the enclosed EA.
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY
MUST BE CARRIED OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO
MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS: The proposed action would address the gaps in the
existing state of knowledge on shoreline processes on mixed sediment in the nearshore
environment by properly designed field and laboratory studies. The proposed action
would provide findings that improve our understanding of the level of impacts of
nearshore placement on coastal ecology. Additionally, the USACE's numerical models
used in predicting the fate of dredged material in the aquatic environment would be
verified.
No impacts to any vegetated wetlands are anticipated.
3
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.
Ben F. Wood, P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
DATE: 3 a
Enclosures
For prompt processing, submit:
* Seven (7) copies of completed application
* Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
• Copies of previous 401 Certifications
V
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
NEARSHORE PLACEMENT
OF MIXED SEDIMENT
RESEARCH PROJECT,
DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA
1. DATE: August 4, 2000
2. NAME/ADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: James W: DeLony
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Mr. Hugh Heine
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Proposed Placement of Mixed Sediment Research Project,
Duck, North Carolina
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The proposed action is described in detail
in the enclosed Environmental Assessment Nearshore Placement of Mixed Sediment
Research Project, Duck. North Carolina dated August 2000.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: This proposed research project is part of a
nationwide initiative under the USACE Dredging Operations and Environmental
Research (DOER) program. The objectives of the DOER program are to develop
technologies, methodologies and techniques to assure that the operational and
environmental issues of the USACE dredging program are adequately and efficiently
met.
Research on sand transport processes on the North Carolina coast has indicated
that sand in water depths 20 to 25 feet may move shoreward. The research suggests
that sand moves to the deeper portion of the nearshore profile as a result of strong,
1
sequential storms and then over a period of a few years migrates back toward the
shallower region of the profile. Additionally, research has identified the general trend of
finer sediment from the shallow to deeper portions of the nearshore profile. These
results suggest that placing sediment with a mixture of sands and silt/clay on the
nearshore profile will result in the sand component moving shoreward while the fine
component remains in deeper water. However, these hypotheses still require
verification.
The objectives of the proposed action are:
1. to test the hypothesis that over time the sand fraction will become part of the
nearshore littoral sediment transport system; potentially providing sand to nourish
beaches, while the fine fraction would disperse with resulting minor environmental
impact.
2. to accumulate data to verify the performance of several USACE numerical
models. The fate programs (STFATE, LDFATE, and MDFATE) would be verified to
predict the fate of dredge material (i.e., where the mixed sediments move) during
placement and during a given time period (up to years) after placement.
3. to minimize the adverse effects of both land and water placement and to
increase the beneficial uses of dredged material. By considering dredged material as a
resource, a duel objective can be attained, i.e., the dredged material can be placed with
minimal environmental damage and benefits can accrue from its use.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: One-time dredging and placement activities are
scheduled for 1 January to 31 March 2001. However, if a hopper dredge is unavailable
during this time period, the work will be done later in the year.
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: 12 months.
11. DISCHARGE OF:
X Dredged Material
Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: Duck, North Carolina
County: Dare
Drainage Basin: Atlantic Ocean
Receiving Waters: Atlantic Ocean
2
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Coastal Waters
Nature: Saltwater
Direction of Flow: Not applicable
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers standard tiered approach for analyzing the potential for
contaminants in the sediments to be discharged. According to this analysis, before any
chemical or physical testing of sediments is conducted, a reason to believe that the
sediments may be contaminated must be established. The sources of the sediments in
the selected borrow area are derived from sediment transport and deposition by ocean
currents. The probability of the sites being contaminated by pollutants is low since the
potential borrow and placement areas, have not been used as an industrial site, dump,
or disposal area.
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?
- YES (circle one) X NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: No wetlands will be filled.
Excavated: No wetlands will be excavated.
Total Impacted: See project description in the enclosed EA.
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY
MUST BE CARRIED OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO
MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS: The proposed action would address the gaps in the
existing state of knowledge on shoreline processes on mixed sediment in the nearshore
environment by properly designed field and laboratory studies. The proposed action
would provide findings that improve our understanding of the level of impacts of
nearshore placement on coastal ecology. Additionally, the USACE's numerical models
used in predicting the fate of dredged material in the aquatic environment would be
verified.
No impacts to any vegetated wetlands are anticipated.
3
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.
Ben F. Wood, P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
DATE: -?
Enclosures
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 CERTIFICATION
NEARSHORE PLACEMENT
OF MIXED SEDIMENT
RESEARCH PROJECT,
DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA
1. DATE: August 4, 2001
2. NAME/ADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: James W. DeLony
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Mr. Hugh Heine
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Proposed Placement of Mixed Sediment Research Project,
Duck, North Carolina
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The proposed action is described in detail
in the enclosed Environmental Assessment. Nearshore Placement of Mixed Sediment
Research Project, Duck, North Carolina dated August 2000.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: This proposed research project is part of a
nationwide initiative under the USACE Dredging Operations and Environmental
Research (DOER) program. The objectives of the DOER program are to develop
technologies, methodologies and techniques to assure that the operational and
environmental issues of the USACE dredging program are adequately and efficiently
met.
Research on sand transport processes on the North Carolina coast has indicated
that sand in water depths 20 to 25 feet may move shoreward. The research suggests
that sand moves to the deeper portion of the nearshore profile as a result of strong,
1
sequential storms and then over a period of a few years migrates back toward the
shallower region of the profile. Additionally, research has identified the general trend of
finer sediment from the shallow to deeper portions of the nearshore profile. These
results suggest that placing sediment with a mixture of sands and silt/clay on the
nearshore profile will result in the sand component moving shoreward while the fine
component remains in deeper water. However, these hypotheses still require
verification.
The objectives of the proposed action are:
1. to test the hypothesis that over time the sand fraction will become part of the
nearshore littoral sediment transport system; potentially providing sand to nourish
beaches, while the fine fraction would disperse with resulting minor environmental
impact.
2. to accumulate data to verify the performance of several USACE numerical
models. The fate programs (STFATE, LDFATE, and MDFATE) would be verified to
predict the fate of dredge material (i.e., where the mixed sediments move) during
placement and during a given time period (up to years) after placement.
3. to minimize the adverse effects of both land and water placement and to
increase the beneficial uses of dredged material. By considering dredged material as a
resource, a duel objective can be attained, i.e., the dredged material can be placed with
minimal environmental damage and benefits can accrue from its use.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: One-time dredging and placement activities are
scheduled for 1 January to 31 March 2001. However, if a hopper dredge is unavailable
during this time period, the work will be done later in the year.
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: 12 months.
11. DISCHARGE OF:
X Dredged Material
Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: Duck, North Carolina
County: Dare
Drainage Basin: Atlantic Ocean
Receiving Waters: Atlantic Ocean
2
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Coastal Waters
Nature: Saltwater
Direction of Flow: Not applicable
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers standard tiered approach for analyzing the potential for
contaminants in the sediments to be discharged. According to this analysis, before any
chemical or physical testing of sediments is conducted, a reason to believe that the
sediments may be contaminated must be established. The sources of the sediments in
the selected borrow area are derived from sediment transport and deposition by ocean
currents. The probability of the sites being contaminated by pollutants is low since the
potential borrow and placement areas, have not been used as an industrial site, dump,
or disposal area.
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?
_ YES (circle one) X NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: No wetlands will be filled.
Excavated: No wetlands will be excavated.
Total Impacted: See project description in the enclosed EA.
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY
MUST BE CARRIED OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO
MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS: The proposed action would address the gaps in the
existing state of knowledge on shoreline processes on mixed sediment in the nearshore
environment by properly designed field and laboratory studies. The proposed action
would provide findings that improve our understanding of the level of impacts of
nearshore placement on coastal ecology. Additionally, the USACE's numerical models
used in predicting the fate of dredged material in the aquatic environment would be
verified.
No impacts to any vegetated wetlands are anticipated.
3
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.
Ben F. Wood, P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
DATE: -?
Enclosures
For prompt processing, submit:
* Seven (7) copies of completed application
* Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
* Copies of previous 401 Certifications
VA.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
NEARSHORE PLACEMENT
OF MIXED SEDIMENT
RESEARCH PROJECT,
DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA
1. DATE: August 4, 2000
2. NAME/ADDRESS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: James W. DeLony
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Mr. Hugh Heine
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Proposed Placement of Mixed Sediment Research Project,
Duck, North Carolina
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The proposed action is described in detail
in the enclosed Environmental Assessment Nearshore Placement of Mixed Sediment
Research Project, Duck, North Carolina dated August 2000.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: This proposed research project is part of a
nationwide initiative under the USACE Dredging Operations and Environmental
Research (DOER) program. The objectives of the DOER program are to develop
technologies, methodologies and techniques to assure that the operational and
environmental issues of the USACE dredging program are adequately and efficiently
met.
Research on sand transport processes on the North Carolina coast has indicated
that sand in water depths 20 to 25 feet may move shoreward. The research suggests
that sand moves to the deeper portion of the nearshore profile as a result of strong,
1

sequential storms and then over a period of a few years migrates back toward the
shallower region of the profile. Additionally, research has identified the general trend of
finer sediment from the shallow to deeper portions of the nearshore profile. These
results suggest that placing sediment with a mixture of sands and silt/clay on the
nearshore profile will result in the sand component moving shoreward while the fine
component remains in deeper water. However, these hypotheses still require
verification.
The objectives of the proposed action are:
1. to test the hypothesis that over time the sand fraction will become part of the
nearshore littoral sediment transport system; potentially providing sand to nourish
beaches, while the fine fraction would disperse with resulting minor environmental
impact.
2. to accumulate data to verify the performance of several USACE numerical
models. The fate programs (STFATE, LDFATE, and MDFATE) would be verified to
predict the fate of dredge material (i.e., where the mixed sediments move) during
placement and during a given time period (up to years) after placement.
3. to minimize the adverse effects of both land and water placement and to
increase the beneficial uses of dredged material. By considering dredged material as a
resource, a duel objective can be attained, i.e., the dredged material can be placed with
minimal environmental damage and benefits can accrue from its use.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: One-time dredging and placement activities are
scheduled for 1 January to 31 March 2001. However, if a hopper dredge is unavailable
during this time period, the work will be done later in the year.
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: 12 months.
11. DISCHARGE OF:
X Dredged Material
Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: Duck, North Carolina
County: Dare
Drainage Basin: Atlantic Ocean
Receiving Waters: Atlantic Ocean
2
w
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Coastal Waters
Nature: Saltwater
Direction of Flow: Not applicable
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers standard tiered approach for analyzing the potential for
contaminants in the sediments to be discharged. According to this analysis, before any
chemical or physical testing of sediments is conducted, a reason to believe that the
sediments may be contaminated must be established. The sources of the sediments in
the selected borrow area are derived from sediment transport and deposition by ocean
currents. The probability of the sites being contaminated by pollutants is low since the
potential borrow and placement areas, have not been used as an industrial site, dump,
or disposal area.
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?
- YES (circle one) X NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: No wetlands will be filled.
Excavated: No wetlands will be excavated.
Total Impacted: See project description in the enclosed EA.
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY
MUST BE CARRIED OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO
MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS: The proposed action would address the gaps in the
existing state of knowledge on shoreline processes on mixed sediment in the nearshore
environment by properly designed field and laboratory studies. The proposed action
would provide findings that improve our understanding of the level of impacts of
nearshore placement on coastal ecology. Additionally, the USACE's numerical models
used in predicting the fate of dredged material in the aquatic environment would be
verified.
No impacts to any vegetated wetlands are anticipated.
3

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.
Ben F. Wood, P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosures
DATE: -? czy
For prompt processing, submit:
* Seven (7) copies of completed application
* Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
* Copies of previous 401 Certifications
U.;3. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
NEARSHORE PLACEMENT
OF MIXED SEDIMENT
RESEARCH PROJECT,
DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA
1. DATE: August 4, 20(0
2. NAME/ADDRESS: L.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Vfilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
3. RESPONSIBLE INDI'?IDUAL: James W. DeLony
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
4. NAME OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTACT: Mr. Hugh Heine
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone]
5. TYPE OF APPLICAT ION: New Application
6. PROJECT NAME: Proposed Placement of Mixed Sediment Research Project,
Duck, North Carolina
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The proposed action is described in detail
in the enclosed Environmental Assessment Nearshore Placement of Mixed Sediment
Research Project, Duck, North Carolina dated August 2000.
8. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: This proposed research project is part of a
nationwide initiative under the USACE Dredging Operations and Environmental
Research (DOER) program. The objectives of the DOER program are to develop
technologies, methodologies and techniques to assure that the operational and
environmental issues of the USACE dredging program are adequately and efficiently
met.
Research on sand transport processes on the North Carolina coast has indicated
that sand in water depths 20 to 25 feet may move shoreward. The research suggests
that sand moves to the deeper portion of the nearshore profile as a result of strong,
1
sequential storms and then over a period of a few years migrates back toward the
shallower region of the profile. Additionally, research has identified the general trend of
finer sediment from the shallow to deeper portions of the nearshore profile. These
results suggest that placing sediment with a mixture of sands and silt/clay on the
nearshore profile will result in the sand component moving shoreward while the fine
component remains in deeper water. However, these hypotheses still require
verification.
The objectives of the proposed action are:
1. to test the hypothesis that over time the sand fraction will become part of the
nearshore littoral sediment transport system; potentially providing sand to nourish
beaches, while the fine fraction would disperse with resulting minor environmental
impact.
2. to accumulate data to verify the performance of several USACE numerical
models. The fate programs (STFATE, LDFATE, and MDFATE) would be verified to
predict the fate of dredge material (i.e., where the mixed sediments move) during
placement and during a given time period (up to years) after placement.
3. to minimize the adverse effects of both land and water placement and to
increase the beneficial uses of dredged material. By considering dredged material as a
resource, a duel objective can be attained, i.e., the dredged material can be placed with
minimal environmental damage and benefits can accrue from its use.
9. PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: One-time dredging and placement activities are
scheduled for 1 January to 31 March 2001. However, if a hopper dredge is unavailable
during this time period, the work will be done later in the year.
10. DURATION OF ACTIVITY: 12 months.
11. DISCHARGE OF:
X Dredged Material
Fill Material
12. LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: Duck, North Carolina
County: Dare
Drainage Basin: Atlantic Ocean
Receiving Waters: Atlantic Ocean
2
,
13. NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Coastal Waters
Nature: Saltwater
Direction of Flow: Not applicable
14. TYPE OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers standard tiered approach for analyzing the potential for
contaminants in the sediments to be discharged. According to this analysis, before any
chemical or physical testing of sediments is conducted, a reason to believe that the
sediments may be contaminated must be established. The sources of the sediments in
the selected borrow area are derived from sediment transport and deposition by ocean
currents. The probability of the sites being contaminated by pollutants is low since the
potential borrow and placement areas, have not been used as an industrial site, dump,
or disposal area.
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?
_ YES (circle one) X NO
17. NUMBER OF ACRES OR VOLUME OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Filled: No wetlands will be filled.
Excavated: No wetlands will be excavated.
Total Impacted: See project description in the enclosed EA.
18. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY
MUST BE CARRIED OUT AS PLANNED. ALSO. NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO
MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS: The proposed action would address the gaps in the
existing state of knowledge on shoreline processes on mixed sediment in the nearshore
environment by properly designed field and laboratory studies. The proposed action
would provide findings that improve our understanding of the level of impacts of
nearshore placement on coastal ecology. Additionally, the USACE's numerical models
used in predicting the fate of dredged material in the aquatic environment would be
verified.
No impacts to any vegetated wetlands are anticipated.
3

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.
Ben F. Wood, P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosures
DATE: 3
For prompt processing, submit:
" Seven (7) copies of completed application
* Drawings of proposed dredge and disposal sites
* Copies of previous 401 Certifications
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Mr. Ben Wood
Chief, Tech Services Division
Dept of the Army
Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Wood:
IFTWA
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
August 14, 2000
Re: 401 Water Quality Certification
Nearshore Placement of Mixed Sediment Research Project
Dare County
DWQ # 001036
On August 8. 2000 this office received your proposal to construct a sediment research project near
Duck, NC for the subject project in Dare County. We understand that this project is being reviewed by the
State Clearinghouse under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). DWQ cannot issue the 401
Certification until the project has received a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of
Decision (ROD) from the State Clearinghouse in accordance with NCAC 15A: 01C .0402. Therefore, I
must hereby place this project on indefinite hold until the State Clearinghouse has issued the FONSI or
ROD. However we will continue to review the project and make you aware of any concerns. We
recommend that you notify us that the NEPA/SEPA process is complete so we can reactivate the project. In
addition, by copy of this letter, I am also notifying the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that this project
should be placed on hold. Please contact Mr. Mil Rhodes at 919-733-5083 for information regarding the
SEPA application process.
If you believe that this decision is in error, please call me at 919-733-1786 to discuss the matter.
Dorney
Quality Certift do Program
Cc: Washington DWQ Regional Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington District Office
Milt Rhodes
File Copy
Central Files
Wetlands/401 Unit • 1621 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, North Carolina 27669-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Wilmington District 001036
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NEARSHORE PLACEMENT OF MIXED
SEDIMENT RESEARCH PROJECT,
DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA
August 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NEARSHORE PLACEMENT OF MIXED
SEDIMENT RESEARCH PROJECT,
DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Item
Table of Contents
Page Number
1.00 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .............................................................................................1
1.01 Introduction and Location .................................................................................................... ..1
1.02 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................. ..1
1.03 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ........................................................................ .. 2
1.04 Environmental Issues Within Project Area ........................................................................... .. 3
1.05 Proposed Schedule ............................................................................................................. .. 4
1.06 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ ..4
2.00 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ............................................................................................... .. 5
3.00 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................... .. 6
3.01 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................................................... .. 6
3.02 Modification of the Proposed Action .................................................................................... .. 6
3.03 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................. .. 6
4.00 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................ .. 6
4.01 Geology and Sediments ...................................................................................................... .. 6
4.02 Water Resources ................................................................................................................. .. 7
4.03 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ .. 7
4.04 Marine Resources ............................................................................................................... .. 7
4.05 Essential Fish Habitat .......................................................................................................... 11
4.06 Terrestrial Resources .......................................................................................................... 15
4.07 Wetlands and Flood Plains .................................................................................................. 17
4.08 Threatened Species and Endangered Species ................................................................... 17
4.09 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 18
4.10 Esthetic and Recreational Resources .................................................................................. 18
4.11 Recreational and Commercial Fishing ................................................................................ 18
4.12 Socio-Economic Resources ................................................................................................. 18
4.13 Other Significant Resources (Section 122, P.L. 91-611) ..................................................... 20
5.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ......................................................................................................... 20
5.01 Geology and Sediments ...................................................................................................... 20
5.02 Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 20
5.03 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 21
5.04 Marine Resources ............................................................................................................... 21
5.05 Essential Fish Habitat .......................................................................................................... 23
5.06 Terrestrial Resources .......................................................................................................... 25
5.07 Wetlands and Flood Plains .................................................................................................. 26
5.08 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................. 26
5.09 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 26
Table of Contents
Item Page Number
5.10 Esthetic and Recreational Resources .................................................................................. 26
5.11 Recreational and Commercial Fishing ................................................................................. 26
5.12 Socio-Economic Resources ................................................................................................. 27
5.13 Other Significant Resources (Section 122, P.L. 91-611) ..................................................... 27
5.14 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................. 27
6.00 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS ........................................................... 27
6.01 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 27
6.02 Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................................................................. 27
6.03 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................................... 28
6.04 Executive Order 11988 (Flood Plain Management) ............................................................. 28
6.05 Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetland) .................................................................. 28
6.06 Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the .............................................. 28
Cultural Environment)
6.07 Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in .................. 28
Minority Populations and Low Income Communities and Low Income Populations)
6.08 Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks) ............. 28
6.09 North Carolina Coastal Management Program .................................................................... 28
6.09.1 Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) ............................................................................ 28
6.09.2 Other State Policies ............................................................................................................. 29
6.09.3 Local Land Use Plans .......................................................................................................... 29
6.10 Coastal Barrier Resources Act ............................................................................................ 29
6.11 Hazardous and Toxic Waste ................................................................................................ 29
6.12 Prime and Unique Agriculture Land ..................................................................................... 29
6.13 Environmental Commitments ............................................................................................... 30
7.00 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 30
7.01 Scoping ............................................................................................................................... 30
7.02 Coordination of this Document ............................................................................................ 30
7.03 Recipients of this Assessment ................................................................................................... 30
8.00 POINT OF CONTACT ....................................................................................................................... 33
9.00 DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................................................................ 33
10.00 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................... 34
List of Tables
Table Number Title Page Number
4-1 Abundant benthic species within the turbulent zone ......................................................................... 10
near Cape Lookout North Carolina.
4-2 Project Area Fish Managed under Magnuson-Stevens .................................................................... 12
Fishery Conservation and Management Act
4-3 Categories of Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas .................................................................. 15
of Particular Concern in Southeast States.
4-4 Colonial waterbirds that have been documented to nest ................................................................ 16
on the disposal islands or beaches in Dare County NC
4-5 Threatened and Endangered Species Potentially Present .............................................................. 17
in Dare County, NC.
4-6 Population Statistics, Dare County, North Carolina ........................................................................... 19
4-7 Population Projections, Dare County, North Carolina ........................................................................ 19
List of Figures
Figure Number Title Page Number
1 Vicinity Map Follows page 36
2 Project Area Follows page 36
Attachments
Attachments Title Page Number
A Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation Follows figures
B Correspondence Follows figures
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NEARSHORE PLACEMENT OF MIXED
SEDIMENT RESEARCH PROJECT,
DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA
1.00 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.01 Introduction and Location.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) mission is to provide quality, responsive engineering services
to the nation. To support the mission of the USACE, the Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC) is
the USACE research and development command. ERDC (formerly the Waterways Experiment Station) consists of
eight unique laboratories: five in Vicksburg, Mississippi, and one each in Hanover, New Hampshire, Champaign,
Illinois, and Alexandria, Virginia. The Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL) is one of the five laboratories located
in Vicksburg, Mississippi.
The 176 acre Field Research Facility (FRF) in Duck, North Carolina, is a branch of the CHL, which supports USACE
coastal engineering work by conducting research that provides a better understanding of the interactions between the
wind, waves, tides, currents, and sediments along the coastline. The 1,840 foot-long, 20 foot-wide concrete and
steel research pier is the centerpiece of the FRF.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has designated the Wilmington Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site (ODMDS) for placement of dredged material for the Wilmington Harbor and Military Ocean Terminal at
Sunny Point (MOTSU) projects. The Wilmington ODMDS is located about 3 nautical miles south of the mouth of the
Cape Fear River. The site encompasses 2.3 square nautical miles. Depths are from approximately 36 to 46 feet
below mean sea level.
The Wilmington District, in cooperation with the ERDC, has written this Environmental Assessment (EA) to address
impacts associated with: 1) the physical monitoring of dredged maintenance material placed within the USEPA
designated Wilmington ODMDS and 2) the one-time excavation of borrow material off the Kitty Hawk pier and its
placement near the FRF, Dare County. Both physical and biological monitoring of the mixed sediment feature will
take place within Dare County.
1.02 Proposed Action.
This proposed research project is part of a nationwide initiative under the USACE Dredging Operations and
Environmental Research (DOER) program. The objectives of the DOER program are to develop technologies,
methodologies and techniques to assure that the operational and environmental issues of the USACE dredging
program are adequately and efficiently met. The proposed action consists of two items:
1. Possible physical monitoring of dredged maintenance material taken from the Wilmington Harbor and/or
MOTSU projects and placed in the USEPA approved Wilmington ODMDS off Brunswick County. ERDC will not
excavate and/or place any dredged material in any other waters or wetlands. This portion of the proposed work
entails only the physical monitoring at the Wilmington ODMDS. A more detailed description of monitoring is
described in Section 1.06. The environmental impacts of the physical monitoring within the Wilmington ODMDS are
not significant and will not adversely impact the quality of the human environment for the following reasons:
a. Physical monitoring would involve in-situ geotechnical characterization (i.e., the geotechnical properties of
the sediment from the dredged maintenance material/borrow area would be fully characterized), sediment
characterization of the placement area (i.e., sediment cores of the placement area will be sampled, etc.), bathymetric
surveys of the placement area, and deployment of wave and current meters.
b. The transportation and disposal of dredged material in ocean waters, including the territorial sea, is
regulated under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA) (Public Law 92-532, 86
Stat.1052, 33 U.S.C. §§1041 et seq.) as amended by Title V of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(WRDA 92; Public Law 102-580). Section 102(a) of MPRSA authorizes the USEPA to establish and apply
regulations and criteria for ocean dumping activities. Consequently, the USEPA issued in October 1973, and revised
in January, 1977, Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR 220-229). These regulations establish control
of ocean dredged material disposal primarily by two activities, designation of sites for ocean dumping and the
issuance of permits for dumping.
c. MPRSA Section 102(c), authorizes USEPA to designate recommended sites for ocean dredged material
disposal sites. An ODMDS is a precise geographical area within which ocean disposal of dredged material is
permitted or authorized under conditions specified in MPRSA Sections 102 and 103. The existing Wilmington
ODMDS is approved for use by the USEPA.
d. The environmental impacts of the existing Wilmington ODMDS have been already documented in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Savannah, Georgia, Charleston, South Carolina, and Wilmington, North
Carolina Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites Designation, October 1983, (USEPA 1983) and have been found to
be environmentally acceptable.
Therefore, the environmental impacts of physical monitoring at the existing Wilmington ODMDS are considered minor
and will not be further discussed within this EA.
2. One-time excavation of borrow material off the Kitty Hawk pier and placement of the same southeast of
the FRF pier, Dare County (Figures 1 and 2). Both physical and biological monitoring of the mixed sediment feature
will take place within Dare County. A more detailed description of monitoring is described in Section 1.06.
Up to 50,000 cubic yards of debris free, mixed sediment (potentially less than 90 percent sand) would be excavated
by hopper dredge from an offshore borrow area near the Kitty Hawk pier and placed southeast of the FRF pier. The
mixed sediment would be placed in an approximately 6-acre area, at a depth of 26 foot below mean sea level (MSL).
The mixed sediment feature would be centered about 2,765 feet from the shoreline and approximately 1,000 feet
southeast of the FRF pier. After the mixed sediment feature has been constructed, the water depth at the top of the
feature would be about -20 feet MSL. In order to preclude any unwanted disturbance of the site by either commercial
or recreational fishing practices, the mixed sediment feature at the FRF will be visibly marked.
The selected borrow area off the Kitty Hawk pier is located in waters with depths between -30 and -60 feet MSL. The
average depth of dredging in the borrow area would be less than 2 foot below the existing bottom elevation.
1.03 Purpose and Need for the Proaosed Action.
Research on sand transport processes on the North Carolina coast has indicated that sand in water depths
20 to 25 feet may move shoreward. The research suggests that sand moves to the deeper portion of the nearshore
profile as a result of strong, sequential storms and then over a period of a few years migrates back toward the
2
shallower region of the profile. Additionally, research has identified the general trend of finer sediment from the
shallow to deeper portions of the nearshore profile. These results suggest that placing sediment with a mixture of
sands and silt/clay on the nearshore profile will result in the sand component moving shoreward while the fine
component remains in deeper water. However, these hypotheses still require verification.
The objectives of the proposed action are:
1. To test the hypothesis that over time the sand fraction will become part of the nearshore littoral sediment
transport system; potentially providing sand to nourish the nearshore profile and beaches, while the fine fraction
would disperse to areas already containing fine sediments with resulting minor environmental impact.
2. To accumulate data to verify the performance of several USACE numerical models. The fate programs
(STFATE, LDFATE, and MDFATE) would be verified to predict the fate of dredged material (i.e., where the mixed
sediments move) during placement and during a given time period (up to years) after placement. Ultimately
USACE's goal is to use computer simulations to support the analysis and determination of the fate of nearshore
mixed sediments and to identify optimal placement locations such that the sandy portion of the material can replenish
the littoral system without detrimental effects from the silts and clays.
3. To minimize the adverse effects of both land and water placement and to increase the beneficial uses of
dredged material. By considering dredged material as a resource, a duel objective can be attained, i.e., the dredged
material can be placed with minimal environmental damage and benefits can accrue from its use.
1.04 Environmental Issues Within the Prolect Area.
The potential impacts associated with the proposed action within the project area are primarily from the
excavation of material from the borrow area off the Kitty Hawk pier and its placement in the nearshore area off the
FRF. Impacts to threatened and endangered species; entrainment; essential fish habitat; hardbottoms; nearshore
ocean birds; marine, terrestrial, and socioeconomic resources; cultural resources are described in Sections 4.0 and
5.0 of the EA.
Impacts of the proposed action on the environment will be reduced or are considered minor for the following reasons:
1. Dredging and placement activities will comply with the South Atlantic dredging protocol for threatened
and endangered species (see Sections 1.05 and 5.08). The hopper dredge will use turtle deflecting dragheads and
all dredged material will be screened using inflow screens. Full (100%) observer coverage will also be required to
check the inflow screens and serve as whale observers.
2. A hopper dredge operating in the open ocean would pump such a small amount of water in proportion to
the surrounding water volume that any, entrainment impacts are expected to be insignificant (see Section 5.04).
3. The proposed action is not expected to cause any significant adverse impacts to Essential Fish Habitat
of EFH species. Moreover, we consider these impacts to be minimal on an individual and cumulative affects basis.
Because those impacts are minor, mitigation is not being proposed (see Section 5.05).
4. Based on magnetometer and side-scan sonar survey of the selected borrow and placement areas, there
was no indications of any hard bottoms or cultural resources within the areas surveyed (see Sections 5.04 and 5.09).
5. Congregation or rafting of sea ducks in the project area is primarily for loafing (Personal Communication,
Mr. Bob Noffzinger, USFWS, Alligator River Refuge). Additionally, it is expected that since the area of ocean
3
disturbed is small when compared to available adjacent areas that any impacts to rafting ducks would be minor (see
Section 5.04).
6. North Carolina to Cape Charles, Virginia is the wintering ground for the Atlantic Coast migratory striped
bass population. Impacts of the proposed action on the wintering grounds of striped bass are minor because of their
ability to avoid the disturbed areas (see Section 5.04).
1.05 Proposed Schedule.
One-time dredging and placement activities are scheduled for January 1 to March 31, 2001. However, if a
hopper dredge is unavailable during this time period, the work will be done later in the year. Should dredging
become necessary outside of this optimum dredging period (1 January to March 31), the Wilmington District and/or
ERDC would obtain a variance from the South Atlantic dredging protocol from LISACE, South Atlantic Division.
Additionally, National Marine Fisheries Service will be notified should such a schedule change become necessary.
The hopper dredge will use turtle deflecting dragheads and all dredged material will be screened using inflow
screens. Full (100%) observer coverage will also be required to check the inflow screens and serve as whale
observers.
1.06 Monitorina.
ERDC proposes to physically monitor the effects of dredged material placed at the Wilmington ODMDS and
near the FRF, Dare County. Physical monitoring may include the following:
A. Data will be collected before, during, and after dredging as listed below. The data to be collected prior to
dredging and placement may include: 1) an array of sediment grab samples over the placement and surrounding
areas, 2) undistributed gravity or diver push cores to evaluate foundation characteristics and erodability, and 3)
bathymetric survey of the placement and surrounding areas. The data to be collected during dredging may include:
1) sediment samples out of the hopper dredge and 2) hopper dredge dimensions load volume, draft, speed, heading,
and location at placement.
B. The data to be collected after dredging includes: 1) final and periodic (monthly to quarterly) bathymetric
survey, 2) continuous monitoring of off-site and within-site velocity profiles, wave conditions and turbidity, 3) sediment
grab samples over placement and surrounding areas, and 4) periodic sampling of the feature density.
The field data collection effort would continue for at least a one-year period and possibly longer; depending on the
changing characteristics of the feature through time and on long term funding levels.
At the FRF site, in Dare County, ERDC will also monitor the biological effects of the placement of mixed sediment on
the nearshore area. Because nearshore placement by definition involves placement of sediments into a high-energy
setting, field investigations are confronted by severe limitations. Quantifying the effects of a dynamic "plume" of
suspended sediments on mobile fishes in the field would be exceedingly difficult, particularly if concerns extend to
larval and juvenile life history stages of fishes that use nearshore as nurseries or corridors for movement along
shorelines. Field sampling sufficient to detect even dramatic effects on fishes would require an extraordinary amount
of effort. Consequently, the biological component will adopt an approach of laboratory experiments closely linked to
the results of physical monitoring efforts.
The biological component of the demonstration study will investigate potential environmental effects of nearshore
placement on fishery resources. Conceptually, the temporal and spatial scales of fine sediment resuspension will be
determined by instrumentation deployed in the field. These data will be used to design laboratory investigations of
effects of exposure to appropriate suspended sediment concentrations for duration's likely to be experienced by
4
organisms at the placement site. This approach employs standard bioassay methods in a manner similar to
sediment toxicity testing, although in this case for clean sediments. A laboratory study has a number of advantages.
Given the availability of target species of concern, experimental exposures can be conducted under controlled
conditions. Experimental design would allow for replication of treatments such that resulting data could be examined
statistically. Observation of experimental fishes during exposure testing would be facilitated, particularly for
manifestation of sublethal responses or behavioral indications of stress. Likewise, specimens experiencing sublethal
responses or mortality would be available for determination of causality, e.g., gill abrasion or clogging. It is
anticipated that early life history stages of target species will be most susceptible to effects of elevated turbidity and
suspended sediments. Handling effects as well as difficulties inherent in maintaining larvae and juveniles as test
organisms in the field would preclude field experiments, whereas these constraints can be greatly reduced in
laboratory settings.
The biological component will be fully coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service Beaufort Laboratory,
which has adequate facilities and personnel with relevant experience to execute these studies, and with all interested
Federal and State regulatory and resource management agencies. A collaborative effort is envisioned between the
Wilmington District, the ERDC, and the above agencies. Results of this demonstration study are intended to build a
base of knowledge upon which to evaluate future applications of nearshore placement. Therefore, it is important that
a rigorous, well-designed plan of study be prepared prior to initiation of placement operations.
The study plan will identify data requirements for the physical monitoring component, including characterization of
ambient and placement-induced turbidities/suspended sediment concentrations. Periodic water quality sampling will
also verify water temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen parameters at the field site. Specifically, sampling
should support determination of the test suspended sediment concentrations (e.g., 10, 100, 1,000 mgA) and
duration's (e.g., hour, day, week) that would simulate actual field conditions. Based on input from resource agency
personnel, appropriate target species and life history stages will be selected. Depending on specific requirements for
maintaining target fishes in the lab, an apparatus for maintaining sediments in suspension under constant
temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen conditions will be devised. Several suitable designs exist. A schedule for
execution of laboratory studies will be established.
Two types of end products are envisioned for the biological component. First, a technical note(s) summarizing the
efforts of the biological component will be prepared for posting on the U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center's Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program web site and/or other agency
sites. This type of product will ensure easy access to all interested parties. Second, a paper(s) will be submitted for
publication in the peer-reviewed literature. This will ensure that results are disseminated to the scientific community.
2.00 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Two reports which contain extensive background information are listed below and are incorporated by
reference:
a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Savannah,
GA, Charleston, SC, and Wilmington, NC, Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites Designation, October 1983.
b. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2000. Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement on
Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control. Dare County Beaches, North Carolina (Nags Head, Kill Devil Hills,
and Kitty Hawk). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Wilmington, North Carolina. June 2000.
This EA will provide information that is immediately pertinent to the proposed action and will not repeat the detailed
information incorporated by reference.
5
3.00 ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives located within the Dare County project area were reviewed (see Section 1.02):
3.01 No-Action Alternative. By not placing the mixed sediment in the nearshore environment, the proposed
research project would not be completed, the verification of the USACE predictive models would not take place, and
the possible beneficial uses of the placement of mixed sediment in the nearshore area would not be realized. The
No-Action Alternative would mean that no mixed sediment would be dredged or placed in the nearshore area. The
No Action Alternative would be maintaining the status quo. The No Action Alternative would not satisfy the project
purpose and need.
3.02 Modification of the Proposed Action: By reducing the amount of the mixed sediment excavated from the
proposed borrow area and placed off the FRF pier, impacts to the environment may be less. However, the mixed
sediment feature described in the proposed action has been designed to contain sufficient sediment to monitor, but
not too large as to create possible detrimental conditions for the environment. Reducing the overall size of the
feature at the FRF could mean that the effects of the feature might be lost in the ambient conditions of the adjacent
area. For example, one objective might be to show that the suspended sediment concentrations near the mixed
sediment feature do not exceed ambient conditions during normal weather conditions. If the feature was too small,
the suspended sediment concentrations near the mixed sediment site may not be able to be measured. The effects
of the mixed sediment feature would be lost in the noise of the surrounding area.
3.03 Proposed Action: The proposed action would address the gaps in the existing state of knowledge on
shoreline processes on mixed sediment in the nearshore environment by properly designed field and laboratory
studies. The proposed action would provide findings that improve our understanding of the level of impacts of
nearshore placement on coastal ecology. Additionally, the USACE numerical models used in predicting the fate of
dredged material in the aquatic environment would be verified. The Kitty Hawk borrow area was selected because
the mixed sediment (less than 90 percent sand) had been sampled as a result of the Hurricane Protection and Beach
Erosion Control, Dare County Beaches project and the placement area was selected because of its proximity to the
FRF research facility. When considering the satisfaction of the project purpose and need, the Proposed Action
Alternative is the preferred alternative.
4.00 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
1.02).
This portion of the EA deals with the affected environment within the Dare County project area (see Section
4.01 Geoloav and Sediments.
The following information was taken from Appendix I, Dare County Geotechnical Appendix, Draft Feasibility
Report and Environmental Impact Statement on Hurricane Protection and Beach Control, Dare County Beaches,
North Carolina:
The project area is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The geomorphology of the area is
characterized by landforms typical of a barrier island complex and includes beaches, berms, and dunes. Submerged
just offshore are ridges and shoals oriented subparallel to the coast, which appears to have formed at lower sea level
elevations. The Atlantic Coastal Plain in this region is underlain by relatively flat-lying sedimentary units which
thicken generally to the east-southeast. These sedimentary units overlie a crystalline basement rock.
6
In the shallow subsurface are Pleistocene and Holocene clastic sedimentary sequences which typically
unconformably overlie Pliocene units including the Yorktown Formation. Blanketing the Pleistocene and Holocene
sequences is a veneer of sand masses comprising the dunes, berms, and beaches on land and covering a significant
portion of the adjacent ocean bottom. The thickness of this blanket is variable and generally up to approximately 30
feet with the exception of dune areas.
Offshore, lateral and vertical facies changes can be complex. Paleofluvial channel fill sequences have been created
when river and stream channels of various sizes incised the Pleistocene and Holocene units and were in turn infilled
with sediments. Those beaches experiencing the highest rates of shoreline erosion in Dare County are underlain by
channels infilled with significant amount of unconsolidated fines (mud). Settlement due to the consolidation of this
paleochannel fill contributes to the accelerated rate of erosion in these areas.
The results of the 1998 vibacore subsurface survey indicates that the mixed sediments found within the borrow area
off the Kitty Hawk pier are post-Pleistocene and Holocene in age.
4.02 Water Resources.
Water Quality Classification. Coastal waters offshore of the project area are classified "SB" by the State of
North Carolina (NCDEM 1989). Best usage of class SB waters includes swimming, primary recreation, and all Class
SC uses including fishing, secondary recreation, fish and wildlife propagation, and other uses requiring lower water
quality (NCDEM 1991).
4.03 Air Quail .
The Washington Regional Office of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
has air quality jurisdiction for the project area. The ambient air quality for Dare County has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and this county is designated as an attainment area.
4.04 Marine Resources.
Nekton. Nekton collectively refers to aquatic organisms capable of controlling their location through active
movement rather than depending upon water currents or gravity for passive movement. Nekton of the nearshore
Atlantic Ocean along northeastern North Carolina can be grouped into three categories: estuarine dependent species;
permanent resident species; and seasonal migrant species. The most abundant nekton of these waters are the
estuarine dependent species which inhabit the estuary as larvae and the ocean as juveniles or adults. This group
includes species which spawn offshore, such as the Atlantic croaker (Micropogon undulatus), spot (Leiostomus
xanthurus), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), star drum (Stellifer lanceolatus), southern kingfish (Menticirrhus
americanus), flounders (Paralichthys spp.), mullets (Mugil spp.), anchovies (Anchoa spp.), blue crab (Callinectes
sapidus), and penaeid shrimp (Penaeus spp.), as well as species which spawn in the estuary, such as red drum
(Sciaenops ocellatus) and weakfish (Cynoscion regalis). Species which are permanent residents of the nearshore
marine waters include the black sea bass (Centropdstis stdata), longspine porgy (Stenotomus capinus), Atlantic
bumper (Chloroscombrus chrysurus), inshore lizardfish (Synodus foetens), and searobins (Prionotus spp.). Common
warm water migrant species include the bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus
maculatus), king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla), cobia (Rachycentron canadum), Florida pompano (Trachinotus
carolinus), and spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias).
The State of North Carolina Artificial Reef Program (NCARP) manages four reefs that are located off Dare County.
They are AR 130, AR 140, AR 145, and AR 160. The location of the closest sites are shown in Figure 2. None are in
proximity to the proposed work.
7
The surf zone along the area beaches provides important fishery habitat. Surf zone fisheries are typically diverse,
and 52 species have been identified from North Carolina (Ross 1996, Ross and Lancaster, 1996). Some species
may be dependent upon surf zone habitat. Recent studies indicate that juveniles of certain species may have high
site fidelity and extended residence time in the surf zone suggesting its function as a nursery area (Ross and
Lancaster, 1996). Two species in particular, the Florida pompano and gulf kingfish (Menticirrhus littoralis) seem to
use the surf zone exclusively as a juvenile nursery area.
The USFWS (1999) describes the importance on the project nearshore ocean as wintering habitat for migratory fish
as follows: "Nearshore waters off the northern portion of the North Carolina Outer Banks, north of Cape Hatteras,
have long been documented as an important wintering area for migratory fish populations, including Atlantic Coast
migratory Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxydnchus; USFWS et al., unpublished data), spiny dogfish
(Squalus acanthias) (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council et al. 1998), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and
weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) (Pearson 1942; Parr 1933; Taylor 1951; M. Street, NC Division of Marine Fisheries,
personal communication). Taylor (1951) reported that the Hatteras region "...is also a wintering area for migratory
populations, and even, to some extent, a center of dispersal [p. 21]." Parr (1933) theorized that regions with
moderate seasonal temperature change, which he termed "homothermous regions", serve as centers of
concentration and dispersal. Taylor (1951, p. 32) noted that some species using NC coastal waters "...thrive in the
extensive sounds during the long warm season, retreat to the warm offshore waters in the fall, and in part at least,
migrate elsewhere in spring and summer as mature or advanced immature fish." He cited weakfish (a.k.a. gray sea
trout) and striped bass (a.k.a. rock) as examples of species which exhibit this general life history pattern. "
Analysis of feeding habitats of striped bass captured within or near proposed borrow area by USFWS (1999), found
fish to be the dominant prey in terms of frequency of occurrence, number and volume. Overall, the consumption of
benthic invertebrates or benthic-consuming prey (sciaenids) was low. Fish prey were dominated by anchovies
(Anchoa sp.), Clupeids including American shad (Alosa sapidissima), Atlantic herring.(Clupea harengus), blueback
herring (Alosa aestivelis), and menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) ranked second. Sciaenids were also included in the
diet of striped bass during the years sampled. Species identified included: Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias
undulatus), black drum (Pogonias cromis), and spot (Leiostomus xanthurus). Invertebrates comprised only a small
fraction of the contents. Invertebrates which were identified included: bivalve and gastropod mollusks (ark shell,
Anadara brasiliana and dove shell, Anachis obesa), polychaete worms, portunid crab, sand shrimp (Crangon
septemspinosa), sea cucumber (Thyone briaereus), and squid.
Oregon Inlet is an important passageway for the larvae of many species of commercially or ecologically important
species of fish. These larvae, hatched in the open ocean, migrate inshore and enter into the sounds through Oregon
Inlet. The sounds, with their abundant marshes, creeks, and sheltered areas, serve as nursery habitat where the
young fish undergo rapid growth before returning to the ocean. There is recent evidence that fish larvae in the ocean
waters near Oregon Inlet generally travel westward until they encounter the shoreline then migrate along the
shoreline until they encounter the inlet (Personal Communication, Dr. John Miller, N.C. State University).
Larvae of 61 species of fish were recorded as using Oregon Inlet by Hettler and Barker (1993): Hettler and Barker
(1993) found that different species of larval fish are transported through the inlet at different times of year and that
there is no time of year in which there is no use by larval fish. The methods these fish larvae use to traverse large
distances over the open ocean and find inlets are uncertain. Both passive and active transport methods are likely
employed. Various environmental cues such as salinity, depth, temperature, swells, etc., may be important in
directing these movements. During the period from October 1994 to April 1995, Hettler (1998) examined winter-
immigrating larval fishes of Beaufort, Ocracoke, and Oregon Inlets. He found that these inlets were similar in
temperature except that Oregon Inlet was slower to warm in the spring. In addition, he frequently encountered low
temperatures in conjunction with salinities less than 10 ppt at Oregon Inlet. The consequences of such events on
larval fishes is unknown but may occasionally limit successful recruitment at Oregon Inlet to later in the season when
8
temperatures begin to rise. Heftier (1998) found that Oregon Inlet was heavily used by Atlantic croakers, with
number averaging 155.5 larvae per 100 cubic meters of water. This far exceeded the use by any other inlet during
his study period. Numbers of summer flounder were also significantly higher than at the other inlets examined.
Densities of three other winter-immigrating species (spot, pinfish, and southern flounder) were higher in more
southern inlets, a result which was anticipated given the more southern distributions of these species.
The State of North Carolina defines Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) as tidal saltwaters which provide essential habitat for
the early development of commercially important fish and shellfish. It is in these estuarine areas that many fish species
undergo initial post-larval development. PNAs are designated by the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission.
Neither the borrow area nor the placement site are located within a designated PNA (15 NC Administrative Code 313
.1405).
Marine mammals also occur in North Carolina's coastal waters. The Federally-endangered right whale (Eubaleana
glacialis) and humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) are spring and fall migrants off the coast; and the right whale
often occurs in shallow water. A number of other whale and dolphin species normally inhabit deeper waters offshore,
while the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and the harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) utilize nearshore
waters. The bottlenose dolphin is common in the project area. The Federally-endangered manatee (Trichechus
manatus) is a rare visitor in the project area.
Three species of sea turtles are known to nest on the beaches of North Carolina. These include the Federally-
endangered Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempit) and the Federally-threatened green (Chelonia mydas) and
loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtles. These are discussed in Sections 4.08 and 5.08.
Birds common to the nearshore ocean in the project area include loons, grebes, gannets, cormorants, scoters, red-
breasted mergansers, gulls, and terns. The USFWS indicates that sea ducks raft in large numbers in the nearshore
ocean waters of the project area during spring and fall migrations. Ducks, geese, and many kinds of shorebirds may
also be found here during the spring and fall.
Benthos. Aquatic organisms that live in close association with the bottom, or substrate, of a body of water, are
collectively called the benthos. Benthic communities of the project area exhibit a wide range of organism composition
and density, and community structure may vary considerably depending on substrate type and salinity regime. Benthic
surveys of three nearshore ocean sites located off nearby Virginia Beach (north of the project area) were conducted
for the USDO1 Minerals Management Service in 1996 and 1997 by Cutter and Diaz (1998). They collected a total of
119 taxa from 13 Smith-Maclntrye grabs in collected in 1996. Half of the top 14 taxa (occurrence and abundance)
were polychetes. The remainder included representatives from the amphiods, decapods, bivalves, nemerteans,
tanaids, echniderms, and chordates. They found the overall community composition to be typical for sandy shallow
continental shelf habitats and similar with species composition for similar depths and sediment types reported by Day
et al. (1971) for North Carolina. Benthic resources in the proposed borrow site is expected to also be similar to those
found during these studies. Day et al (1971) defines the nearshore ocean in an project area as the "turbulent zone".
The turbulent zone includes ocean waters from below low tide to a depth of about -60 feet.
The most abundant species (total number > 50) collected by Day (1971) in waters within the turbulent zone near
Cape Lookout North Carolina are shown in table 4-1. Polychaete species, are highly represented. Abundant species
also include, pelecypods, decapods, amphipods, echinoderms, and cephalochordates.
9
Table 4-1 Abundant benthic species within the turbulent zone near Cape Lookout North Carolina. (Day, 1971)
Group and Species Depth
3 Meters 5 meters 10 meters 20 Meters
Archiannelida
Polygordius sp. X X X X
Polychaeta
Palaenous heteroseta x X X
Pseudeurythoe ambigua x X
Exogone dispar x X
Goniadides n.sp x X
Magelona papillicomis x X X
Ophelia denticulata x X X
Macroclymene zonalis
Amphipoda
Platyischnopus n.sp x X X
Maera sp.1 X X X
Decapoda
Dissodactylus mellitae x X X
Pelecypoda
Spisula ravenelli x X X X
Gastropoda
Olivella adelae x X X
0. mutica X X X
Echinoidea
Mellita quinquiesperforata x X X X
Cephalochordata
Branchiostoma caribbaeum x X X
Hardbottoms. Of special concern in the offshore area are hardbottoms, which are localized areas not
covered by unconsolidated sediments and where the ocean floor is hard rock. Hardbottoms are also called "live
bottoms" because they support a rich diversity of invertebrates such as corals, anemones, and sponges which are
refuges for fish and other marine life. They provide valuable habitat for reef fish such as black seabass, red porgy,
and groupers. Hardbottoms are also attractive to pelagic species such as king mackerel, amberjack, and cobia.
Along the North Carolina coast, hardbottoms are most abundant in southern portion of the state. Review of data
provided by the Southeast Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) identified one area of hardbottom and
one area of potential hardbottom south of the project area as shown on Figure 2. There was no evidence of any hand
bottoms in the potential borrow area based on analyses of data from the vibracore borings and analysis of side scan
sonar records by Mid-Atlantic Technology and Environmental Research, Inc. made to assess the presence of cultural
resources and describe bottom types within the potential borrow area. Additionally, there is no evidence of any
hardbottoms off the FRF (Personal Communication, 13 June 2000, Mr. William Birkmeier, Chief, FRF, Duck, North
Carolina).
Intertidal Macrofauna. Intertidal portions of ocean beaches are inhabited by a number of invertebrate
species which are ecologically important. These include mole crabs (Emedta talpoida) and coquina clams (Donax
spp.), as well as various species of polychaete worms and amphipods. Mole crabs and coquinas represent the
largest component of the total macrofaunal biomass of North Carolina intertidal beaches, and they are consumed in
large numbers by important fish species such as flounders, pompanos, mullets, and kingfish (Reilly and Bellis,1978).
Beach intertidal macrofauna are also a seasonally important food source for numerous shorebird species.
10
4.05 Essential Fish Habitat.
The 1996 Congressional amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSFCMA) (PL 94-265) set forth new requirements for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), regional fishery
management councils (FMC), and other Federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish
habitat. These amendments established procedures for the identification of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and a
requirement for interagency coordination to further the conservation of Federally managed fisheries. The project area
may include species that are managed by, or are of particular interest to, the New England, Mid-Atlantic, and South
Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, as well as the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The NMFS
Southeast Region is the point of contact (POC) for EFH coordination for this project. This assessment will be
coordinated with the NMFS Southeast Region. Additional copies of the EA will be provided to the POC for distribution to
other fishery councils upon their request. Table 4-2 lists, by life stages, 77 fish species which may occur in the vicinity
of the project area and are managed under MSFCMA. Table 4-3 shows the categories of EFH and Habitat Areas of
Particular Concern (HAPC) for managed species which were identified in the Fishery Management Plan
Amendments of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and which may occur in southeastern states. These
fish species and habitats require special consideration to promote their viability and sustainability. The potential
impacts of the proposed action on these fish and habitats are discussed in Section 5.05 of this report.
11
Table 4-2 Project Area Fish Managed under Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Fish Species Oregon Inlet Atlantic Ocean North of Cape Atlantic Ocean Offshore North
Red drum ELJA A
Bluefish ELJA J A
Summer flounder LJA E L J A
Gag grouper J A E L J A
Gray snapper J A E L J A
Dolphin J A E L J A
Cobia ELJA J A
King mackerel LJA E L J A
Spanish mackerel LJA E L J A
Black sea bass LJA E L J A
Spiny dogfish ELJA E L J A
Brown shrimp ELJA E L J A
Pink shrimp ELJA E L J A
White shrimp ELJA E L J A
Atlantic bigeye tuna N/A E L J A
Atlantic bluefin tuna N/A E L J A
Shortfin mako shark N/A J A
Blue shark N/A J A
Spinner shark N/A N/A E L J A
Sword Fish N/A ELJA E L J A
Yellowfin tuna N/A ELJA E L J A
Skipjack tuna N/A E L J A
Longbill spearfish N/A E L J A
E - EGGS L - LARVAL J - JUVENILE
N/A-NOT FOUND
A-ADULT
12
Table 4-2, Cont.:
Fish Species Oregon Inlet Atlantic Ocean North of
Cape Hatteras Atlantic Ocean Offshore North Carolina
Blue marlin N/A E L J A E L J A
White marlin N/A E L J A E L J A
Sall fish NIA ELJA ELJA
Calico scallop N/A E L J A E L J A
Scalloped hammerhead shark A J A J A
Big nose shark A J A J A
Black tip shark A J A J A
Dusky shark A J A J A
Night shark A J A J A
Sandbar shark A J A J A
Silky shark A J A J A
Tiger shark A J A J A
Atlantic sharpnose shark A J A J A
Longfin mako shark A J A J A
Whitetip shark A J A J A
Yellow jack N/A N/A E L J A
Blue runner N/A N/A E L J A
Crevalle jack N/A N/A E L J A
Bar jack N/A N/A E L J A
Greater amberjack N/A N/A E L J A
Almaco jack N/A N/A E L J A
Banded rudderfish N/A N/A E L J A
Spade fish N/A N/A E L J A
White grunt N/A N/A E L J A
Hogfish N/A N/A E L J A
Puddingwife N/A N/A E L J A
Thresher shark A J A J A
Gray triggerfish N/A N/A E L J A
NOTES:
E - EGGS L - LARVAL J - JUVENILE A - ADULT
N/A - NOT FOUND
13
Table 4-2, Continued:
Fish Species I I Oregon Inlet Atlantic Ocean North of Cape Atlantic Ocean Offshore
Hatteras North Carolina
Blackfin snapper NIA N/A E L J A
Red snapper N/A N/A E L J A
Cubera snapper N/A N/A E L J A
Silk snapper N/A N/A E L J A
Vermillion snapper N/A N/A E L J A
Blueline tilefish N/A N/A E L J A
Sand tilefish NIA N/A E L J A
Bank sea bass N/A N/A E L J A
Rock sea bass N/A N/A E L J A
Graysby N/A N/A E L J A
Speckled hind N/A N/A E L J A
Yellowedge grouper N/A N/A E L J A
Coney N/A N/A E L J A
Red hind N/A NIA E L J A
Jewffsh N/A NIA E L J A
Red grouper N/A NIA E L J A
Misty grouper N/A N/A E L J A
Warsaw grouper N/A N/A E L J A
Snowy grouper N/A N/A E L J A
Yellowmouth grouper N/A N/A E L J A
Scamp N/A N/A E L J A
Sheepshead J A N/A E L J A
Red porgy N/A N/A E L J A
Longspine porgy N/A N/A E L J A
Scup N/A ELJA ELJA
Little tunny N/A N/A E L J A
NOTES:
E - EGGS L - LARVAL J - JUVENILE A - ADULT
N/A - NOT FOUND
14
Table 4-3 Categories of Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern in Southeast States.'
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
Estuarine Areas
Aquatic Beds
Estuarine Emergent Wetlands
Estuarine Scrub / Shrub Mangroves
Estuarine Water Column
Intertidal Flats
Oyster Reefs & Shell Banks
Palustrine Emergent & Forested Wetlands
Seagrass
GEOGRAPHICALLY DEFINED HABITAT AREAS
OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
Area - Wide
Council-designated Artificial Reef Special Management Zones
Hermatypic (reef-forming) Coral Habitat & Reefs
Hard Bottoms
Hoyt Hills
Sargassum Habitat
State-designated Areas of Importance of Managed Species
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
North Carolina
Marine Areas
Big Rock
Artificial / Manmade Reefs Bogue Sound
Coral & Coral Reefs Capes Fear, Lookout, & Hatteras (sandy shoals)
Live / Hard Bottoms New River
Sargassum The Ten Fathom Ledge
Water Column The Point
'Areas shown are identified in Fishery Management Plan Amendments of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and are included In
Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish Habitat Mandate for Federal Agencies. February 1999. (Tables 6 and 7)
4.06 Terrestrial Resources.
Beach and Dune. When compared to most of North Carolina's upland communities, the beach and dune
community in Dare County could be considered depauperate in both plants and animals. The environment on the
beach is severe because of constant exposure to salt spray, shifting sands, wind, and sterile soils with low water
retention capacity. Beach vegetation known from the area includes beach spurge (Euphorbia polygonifolia), sea
rocket (Cakile edentula) and pennywort (Hydrocotyle bonariensis). The dunes are more heavily vegetated with
American beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata), panic grass (Panicum amarum) sea oats (Uniola paniculata),
broom straw (Andropogon virginicus) and salt meadow hay (Spartina patens) being commonly observed.
The beaches of the project vicinity are heavily used by migrating shorebirds. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(1989) estimated that between 3,600 and 4,800 shorebirds may use the shoreline at the Pea Island National Wildlife
Refuge during migration peaks. Similar numbers would be expected to occur north of Oregon Inlet on the
undeveloped beaches of Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Although high shorebird use during migration also
occurs along project area beaches dense development and high public use of project area beaches may reduce its
value to shorebirds. The dunes of the project area support fewer numbers of birds but can be very important habitats
for resident species and for other species of songbirds during periods of migration.
Important invertebrates of the beach/dune community include the mole crab (Emerita talpoida), coquina clams
(Donax vadabilus), and ghost crabs (Ocypode quadrata). Through recent studies supported by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the USACE, the distributions and abundances of these animals on nearby beaches are fairly
well documented. Despite frequent beach disposal on nearby Pea Island during maintenance dredging events,
numbers of these animals remain high (Dolan and Donoghue 1996) and represent a significant food resource for the
shorebirds and fishes of the area.
15
Along the ocean beach, black-bellied plovers, ruddy tumstones, whimbrels, willets, knots, semi-palmated sandpipers,
and sanderlings may be found. Dinsmore et al (1998) determined that the Outer Banks, including the project area,
provide a critical link during the migrations of sanderlings and wimbrels and are of great importance to a host of other
shorebird species.
In the herbaceous dune areas, marsh hawks, kestrels, and other bird of prey forage and ring-necked pheasants feed
near denser cover. Other birds occurring in this area are mourning doves, swallows, fish crows, starlings,
meadowlarks, redwinged black-birds, boat tailed grackles, and savannah sparrows. Mammals occurring here are
opossums, cottontails, gray foxes, raccoons, feral house cats, shrews, moles, voles, and house mice.
Colonially nesting waterbirds (gulls, terns, and wading birds) are an important part of the project area ecosystem and
add a vital element to the overall aesthetic appeal of the area for the many tourists that visit it each year. These
species formerly nested primarily on the barrier islands of the region but have had most of these nesting sites
usurped by development or recreational activities. With the loss of their traditional nesting areas, these species have
retreated to the relatively undisturbed dredged material disposal islands which border the navigation channels in the
area. These islands often offer ideal nesting areas as they are close to food sources, well removed from human
activities, and are isolated from mammalian egg and nestling predators.
Species of colonial waterbirds have been documented to nest on the disposal islands or beaches of the project area
are shown on Table 4-4. Other species also use the islands for loafing or roosting during migratory periods or the
winter months.
Table 4-4 Colonial waterbirds that have been documented to nest on the disposal islands or beaches in Dare
County, North Carolina.
least (little) tern (Stoma albifrons)
Caspian tern (Stema caspia)
common tern (Stoma hirundo)
gull-billed tern (Gelochelidon nilotica)
black skimmer (Rynchops niger)
royal tern (Sterna maxima)
sandwich tern (Stoma sandvicensis)
laughing gull (Lanus atricilla)
herring gull (Lanus argentatus)
great black-backed gull (Larus marinus)
brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis)
glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus)
white ibis (Eudocimus albus)
black-crowned night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax)
yellow-crowned night-heron (Nyctanassa violacea)
great egret (Casmerodius albus)
snowy egret (Egretta thula)
tricolored heron (Hydranassa tricolor)
little blue heron (Florida caerulea)
green-backed heron (Butorides striatus)
cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis)
16
4.07 Wetlands and Flood Plains.
Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (33 C.F.R. § 328.3). Wetlands possess three essential characteristics:
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology.
The 100-year flood plain is established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and is identified on
Federal Insurance Rate Maps. Base flood elevations for flood zones and velocity zones are also identified by FEMA,
as are designated floodways.
No wetlands or flood plains are found within the project area.
4.08 Threatened and Endangered Species.
Updated lists of threatened and endangered (T&E) species for the project area were obtained from NMFS
(Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, FL) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Field Office, Raleigh,
NC). These were combined to develop the composite list shown in Table 4-5, which includes T&E species that could be
present in the area based upon their historical occurrence or potential geographic range. However, the actual
occurrence of a species in the area depends upon the availability of suitable habitat, the season of the year relative to a
species' temperature tolerance, migratory habits, and other factors. By letter dated June 9, 2000 (see Attachment B),
we provided NMFS with our biological assessment of the proposed action on these species pursuant to Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The likelihood of occurrence and potential project impacts regarding
T&E species are summarized in Section 5.08.
Table 4-5 Threatened and Endangered Species Potentially Present in Dare County, NC.
Species Common Names Scientific Name
Federal Status
MAMMALS
Right whale (Eubaleana glacialis) Endangered
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Endangered
Sperm whale (Physetermacrocephalus) Endangered
Finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus) Endangered
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Endangered
Manatee (Trichechus manatus) Endangered
BIRDS
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Endangered
Bald eagle (Halieetus leucocephalus) Threatened
Piping plover (Charaddus melodus) Threatened
REPTILES
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) ThreatenedlSAI
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) Threatened2
Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Endangered
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) Endangered
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Endangered
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) Threatened
17
FISHES
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenserbrevirostrum) Endangered
PLANTS
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilis) Threatened
'The American alligator is listed as threatened only because of its similarity of appearance to crocodilians which are
endangered or threatened and which are tracked for illegal commercial trade in hides or other products. The status of
the American alligator is not actually threatened.
2Green turtles are listed as threatened, except for breeding populations in Florida and on the Pacific Coast of Mexico
which are listed as endangered.
4.09 Cultural Resources.
By letter dated May 26, 2000 (see Attachment B), we informed the NC State Historic Preservation Officer
that both the proposed borrow area and mixed sediment site will have no effect on historic properties.
4.10 Esthetic and Recreational Resources.
The Towns of Duck and Kitty Hawk (Dare County, 1994) are urbanized beach communities characterized by
paved streets, parking lots, hotels, single family dwellings, and condominiums. The esthetic values of these beach
communities are evidenced by the popularity of the area for family orientated use and tourism. The total environment
of barrier islands, oceans, estuaries, and inlets attract many residents and visitors to the area to enjoy the total
esthetic experience created by the sights, sounds, winds, and ocean sprays. One ocean fishing pier is located in the
study area and it is considered an important recreational facility.
4.11 Recreational and Commercial Fishing.
Commercial and recreational fishing are major industries along the Outer Banks. In Dare County there are
several major centers of fishing activity, recreational fishing centers at Manteo and the Oregon Inlet Fishing Center
and a commercial fishing port at Wanchese. The project area is heavily used by all fishing interests including; surf
and pier fishermen, charter boats, and commercial gill netters and trawlers. Important commercial species include
weakfish, dogfish sharks, and summer flounder. Total commercial landings through Oregon Inlet during 1993-1996
averaged about 29.5 million pounds.
The beaches of Duck and Kitty Hawk are used by off road vehicles (ORV'S) and surf fishermen. These two interests
constitute the major user groups of the project area and contribute to the local economy. ORV use on the beach is
generally restricted to the months of October-April; however numerous public beach access points are available for
foot travel year round. The Kitty Hawk pier is located within the proposed project limits. This ocean pier, private
recreational vessels, charter boats, and head boats that use the nearshore waters also contribute to the local
economy.
4.12 Socio-Economic Resources.
Dare County is located on the outer banks of North Carolina at the farthest eastern point of the coastal
plain. The county seat of Manteo lies 180 miles east of Raleigh and 75 miles south of Norfolk, Virginia. The principal
industries are tourism, construction, services, sports and commercial fisheries. The County is also home to a
18
growing retirement population attracted to the area by a mild climate and beautiful natural surroundings. Tourism is
generated by the Lost Colony, Wright Brothers Memorial, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, and the Pea Island
National Wildlife Refuge. Large numbers of vacation homes, motels, restaurants, and shopping centers have been
developed to serve the local, retirement, and tourist populations. Ten of the twenty largest employers are related to
the boating and fishing industries.
Base Socioeconomic Conditions. The population of Dare County grew at an annual rate of about six percent from
1980 to 1990, compared to the State of North Carolina's annual growth rate of 1.2 percent for the same period. The
population of Dare County was 22,746 persons according to the 1990 census, but in 1998 was estimated to be 24
percent higher at 28,140. About 50 percent of the residents live in one of the county's municipalities. With its
overwhelming economic emphasis on tourism, retail sales in Dare County comprise the most important source of
jobs and income for the county's economy. Interestingly, Dare County has the smallest agricultural base of any
North Carolina county, and its manufacturing sector is also one of the smallest of any county in the State.
The North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management estimates Dare County's 1998 employment at 15,925,
with about 36 percent in retail jobs and 20 percent in services. In 1997, per capita income in Dare County was
estimated at $21,624, somewhat higher than the North Carolina per capita income of $20,217.
The 1980's were a decade of rapid growth for the Dare County beaches. Table 4-6 shows the populations of the
towns and Dare County since 1980. The total permanent population for the three principal towns in 1998 is
estimated at 10,160. However, peak daily population in the summer can swell to more than 100,000 in these three
towns and 250,000 for the entire county.
TABLE 4-6
Population Statistics
Dare County, North Carolina
1998 1990 1980
Town/County Population Population Population
Nags Head 2,241 1,838 1,020
Kill Devil Hills 5,429 4,238 3,737
Kitty Hawk 2,490 1,937 N/A
Dare County 28,140 22,746 13,377
Projected Population Dare County population projections for 2000 - 2020 are shown in table 4-7.
TABLE 4-7
Population Proiections
Dare County, North Carolina
2000 2100 2020
County Population Population Population
Dare 29,569 36,674 43,765
Source: Office of State Planning, State of North Carolina.
19
4.13 Other Significant Resources (Section 122, P. L. 91.611).
Section 122 of P. L. 91-611 identifies other significant resources which must be considered during project
development. These resources, and their occurrence in the study area, are described below.
a. Noise and water pollution: Noise is a prominent feature in the study area due to the sound of the
breakers. These sounds are tranquil and add to the pleasure experienced by visitors. Water quality is discussed in
Section 4.02 and in the Section 404(b)(1) (P. L. 95-217) evaluation included with this document as Attachment A.
b. Man-made and natural resources, esthetic values, community cohesion, and the availability of public
facilities and services: The Kitty Hawk ocean pier is located within the project area. Esthetic values are discussed in
Section 4.10.
c. Employment, tax, and property value: The study area is a major resort area in Dare County. Property
values contribute to the tax base.
d. Displacement of people, businesses, and farms: No people, homes, or businesses will be displaced by
the proposed action. There will be no utility relocations and there are no existing Federal projects within the project
area. There are no farms in the project area which would be affected by the proposed action.
e. Community and regional growth: Project area beaches has undergone rapid population growth in recent
decades. This is expected to continue with or without the proposed project.
5.00 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section describes the probable consequences (impacts and effects) of the work within the Dare County
project area on significant environmental resources.
5.01 Geoloav and Sediments.
Removal of dredged sediments from the borrow area is not expected to produce any significant adverse
geologic impacts. Sediments of the nearshore ocean are continually subject to movement facilitated by strong currents.
Redistribution of sediments is, therefore, a natural and continuous phenomenon.
Impacts on hardbottoms and artificial reefs. Hardbottoms and artificial reefs are located south of the project area
(Figure 2). However the proposed action will not impact either hardbottoms or artificial reefs.
5.02 Water Resources.
Dredging in the selected borrow area would involve mechanical disturbance of the bottom substrate and
subsequently redeposition of suspended sediment and turbidity during dredging. Factors that are known to influence
sediment spread and turbidities are grain size, water currents and depths. Monitoring studies done on the impacts of
offshore dredging indicates that sediments suspended during offshore are generally localized and rapidly dissipate
when dredging ceases (Nagvi and Pullen. 1982, Bowen and Marsh.1988, and Van Dolah et al. 1992). Some infilling
of the borrow area after dredging is expected from side sloughing of native bottom sediments which consist of
predominately mixed sediments.
20
During placement of the mixed sediment at the FRF pier, there will be elevated turbidity and suspended solids in the
immediate area when compared to the existing non-storm conditions of the nearshore zone. Significant increases in
turbidity are not expected to occur outside the immediate construction area (turbidity increases of 25 NTU's or less
are not considered significant). Turbid waters (increased turbidity relative to background levels but not necessarily
above 25 NTU's) may hug the nearshore and be transported with waves either northeast or southwest depending on
wind conditions. Any increases in turbidity in the borrow area during project construction are expected to be
temporary and limited to the area surrounding the hopper dredging. Turbidity levels are expected to return to
background levels in the nearshore zone upon cessation of dredging and placement activities.
The proposed offshore dredging off the Kitty Hawk pier and placement of mixed sediment at the FRF pier will not
impact ground water resources in the study area.
A Section 401 (P.L. 92-500) Water Quality Certificate is being requested from the State Division of Environmental
Management since the discharge of dredged material will be into waters of the United States. The impacts
associated with the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States are discussed in the Section 404(b)(1)
(P.L. 95-217) evaluation (Attachment A). Discharges associated with dredging in the offshore borrow area are
considered incidental to the dredging operation, and therefore, are not being considered as being a discharge
addressed under the Section 404 (b)(1) evaluation.
5.03 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.
5.04 Marine Resources.
Impacts on Nekton. Most free-swimming animals, including fish, shellfish, marine mammals, sea turtles,
nearshore ocean birds, and cephalopod mollusks, are not expected to experience any significant direct effects from
the proposed action. However, dredging and the placement activities may result in minor and/or temporary impacts.
• DredQina and Placement Impacts. Hopper dredges do not pose a significant threat to most nekton because their
mobility can enable them to avoid or escape from a dredge's suction-velocity field, which extends over only a
small area in the vicinity of the operating draghead. Hopper dredges pose a particular threat to sea turtles and
whales and are addressed in that regard in Section 5.08.
21
Placement of mixed sediment on the nearshore area may affect fishery resources through increases in turbidity
and sedimentation which, in turn, may create localized stressful habitat conditions and may result in temporary
displacement of fish and other biota. However, since the hopper dredging and the placement operation would
be completed within 5 days, mobile biota, including juvenile and adult fish, should be able to relocate outside the
more stressful conditions of the proposed action. Cumulative effects of the proposed action would not be
potentially harmful to fishes of the surf zone; since the disposal area is about 2,765 feet from the shoreline and
the project will be completed within 5 days. The unknowns concerning the occurrence, distribution, and life
history aspects of fishes in the nearshore area and their sensitivity to the proposed action will be monitored (see
Section 1.06). It is expected that this effort will be sufficient to resolve unknowns regarding this issue.
• North Carolina to Cape Charles, Virginia is the wintering ground for the Atlantic Coast migratory striped bass
population. Impacts of the proposed action on the wintering grounds of striped bass are minor because of their
ability to avoid the disturbed areas (Personal Communication, Ms. Sara Winslow, NC Division of Marine
Fisheries).
Nearshore ocean birds (sea ducks, loons, grebes, gannets, cormorants, scoters, red-breasted mergansers,
gulls, terns, etc.) using the borrow or mixed sediment placement areas would be temporarily displaced during
dredging and placement operations. Congregation or rafting of sea ducks of in this area is primarily for loafing
and not feeding purposes (Personal Communication, Mr. Bob Noffzinger, USFWS, Alligator River Refuge). It is
expected that since the area of ocean disturbed is small when compared to adjacent available loafing areas that
any impacts would be minor. Additionally, the hopper dredge will only be working in the borrow and placement
areas for such a short period of time (within 5 days), that impacts to nearshore birds would be insignificant.
Entrainment Impacts. Larvae and early juvenile stages of many species pose a greater concern that adults
because their powers of mobility are either absent or poorly developed, leaving them subject to transport by tides
and currents. This physical limitation makes them potentially more susceptible to entrainment by an operating
hopper dredge. Organisms close to the hopper dredge draghead may be captured by the effects of its suction
and may be entrained in the flow of dredged sediment and water. As a worst-case, it may be assumed that
entrained animals experience 100 percent mortality, although some small number may survive. Susceptibility to
this effect depends upon avoidance reactions of the organism, the efficiency of its swimming ability, its proximity
to the draghead, the pumping rate of the dredge, and possibly other factors. Behavioral characteristics of
different species in response to factors such as salinity, current, and diurnal phase (daylight versus darkness)
are also believed to affect their concentrations in particular locations or strata of the water column. Any
organisms present near the nearshore bottom would be closer to the hopper dredge draghead and, therefore,
subject to higher risk of entrainment.
The biological effect of hydraulic entrainment has been a subject of concern for more than a decade, and
numerous studies have been conducted nationwide to assess its impact on early life stages of marine resources,
including larval oysters (Carriker et al., 1986), post-larval brown shrimp (Van Dolah et al., 1994), striped bass
eggs and larvae (Burton et al., 1992), juvenile salmonid fishes (Buell, 1992), and Dungeness crabs (Armstrong
et al., 1982). These studies indicate that the primary organisms subject to entrainment by hydraulic dredges are
bottom-oriented fishes and shellfishes. The significance of entrainment impact depends upon the species
present; the number of organisms entrained; the relationship of the number entrained to local, regional, and total
population numbers; and the natural mortality rate for the various life stages of a species. Assessment of the
significance of entrainment is difficult, but most studies indicate that the significance of impact is low. Reasons
for low levels of impact include: (1) the very small volumes of water pumped by dredges relative to the total
amount of water in the vicinity, thereby impacting only a small proportion of organisms, (2) the extremely large
numbers of larvae produced by most estuarine-dependent species, and (3) the extremely high natural mortality
rate for early life stages of many fish species. Since natural larval mortalities may approach 99 percent (Dew and
22
Hecht, 1994; Cushing, 1988), entrainment by a hydraulic dredge should not pose a significant additional risk in
most circumstances. Neither direct quantification studies nor modeling efforts have demonstrated population
level impacts due to larval entrainment by hydraulic dredges (memo of August 8, 1995 from Douglas Clarke,
PhD., Coastal Ecology Branch, Waterways Experiment Station, USACE, Vicksburg).
A hopper dredge operating off the Kitty Hawk pier would pump an even smaller amount of water than a hydraulic
dredge in proportion to the surrounding water volume. Additionally, the borrow area is located over 10 miles
away from Oregon Inlet where fish and larval migration are concentrated. Therefore, entrainment impacts of
dredging the borrow area are expected to be insignificant.
In summary, only a very small percentage of marine larvae are subject to entrainment, so dredging conducted as
part of the proposed action is not expected to create significant impacts on these life forms at local or regional
population levels.
Impacts on Benthos. Removal of benthos and benthic habitat within the borrow area by hopper dredging
represents a one-time temporary resource loss. Currents in the area are expected to contribute to some filling of the
borrow site with material from undisturbed areas adjacent to the construction sites, since the average depth of
dredging is only about 1 feet below the existing bottom elevation. The dredged borrow area bottom will become a
new area of benthic habitat and will be recolonized by benthic organisms. The new benthic community which develops
may be different in terms of species diversity, biomass, or other characteristics. The ecological significance of
temporary benthic losses is not well-understood but is considered minor since the affected area is very small relative
to the amount of benthic habitat present on the ocean bottom and the time span of loss is likely a period of months.
The construction of the mixed sediment feature off the FRF will result in the mortality of nearly all sedentary or slow-
moving benthic organisms within 6 acres of the nearshore area. As the new sediments stabilize, the placement area
is expected to repopulate with benthic organisms from nearby, and, over time, to exhibit a viable benthic community.
Since sediment characteristics in the placement area will not precisely match those of the surrounding ocean floor,
the new benthic community may exhibit somewhat different community structure.
Impacts on Hardbottoms. Hardbottoms have been documented in the nearshore areas off Dare County
(Figure 2). However, surveys in the vicinity of the borrow and placement areas have not indicated any hardbottoms
within the project area. Therefore, the proposed action will have no direct effect on hardbottoms.
Impacts on Intertidal Macrofauna. No mixed sediment will be placed on the beach. The mixed sediment
feature is located about 2,765 feet from the shoreline. Therefore, the proposed action will not adversely effect any
intertidal macrofauna.
5.05 Essential Fish Habitat.
The Fishery Management Plan Amendments of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council identify a
number of categories of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC), which are listed
in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. While all 26 of these habitat categories occur in waters of the southeastern United States, more
than one-third of them are absent from the project vicinity. Those absent include estuarine scrub/shrub mangroves
which require a more tropical environment and several areas that are geographically removed from the project area
including: Hoyt Hills located in the Blake Plateau area in water 450-600 meters deep, Cape Fear Sandy Shoals also
known as Frying Pan Shoals, Big Rock and Ten-Fathom Ledge located off Cape Lookout, New River, and Bogue
Sound. In addition, there are no Council-designated Artificial Reef Special Management Zones, Intertidal Flats, Oyster
Reefs and Shell Banks, Aquatic Beds, Wetlands or Seagrass beds in or near the potential project impact area. Impacts
on habitat categories potentially present in the project vicinity are discussed below.
23
Impacts on Cape Hatteras Sandy Shoal. In North Carolina, "Habitat Areas of Particular Concern" is Cape
Hatteras (sandy shoals). This site is located about 40 miles south of the project area and would not be affected by
the proposed action.
Impacts to The Point. The Point is located east of Cape Hatteras near the 200-meter (650-foot)contour, well
offshore of the proposed project and would not be affected.
Impacts on Sargassum. Sargassum is a pelagic brown algae which occurs in large floating mats on the
continental shelf, in the Sargasso Sea, and in the Gulf Stream. It is a major source of productivity in a nutrient-poor part
of the ocean. Masses of Sargassum provide extremely valuable habitat for a diverse assemblage of animal life,
including juvenile sea turtles, seabirds, and over 100 species offish. Unregulated commercial harvest of Sargassum
for fertilizer and livestock feed has prompted concerns over the potential loss of this important resource. While
smaller clumps of this seaweed may float into the project area, it typically occurs much further offshore. In any case,
since it occurs in the upper few feet of the water column, it is not subject to impacts from dredging or placement
activities associated with the proposed action,
Impacts on Reef-forming Corals. Hermatypic, or reef-forming, corals consist of anemone-like polyps occurring
in colonies united by calcium encrustations. Reef-forming corals are characterized by the presence of symbiotic,
unicellular algae called zooxanthellae, which impart a greenish or brown color. Since these corals derive a very large
percentage of their energy from these algae, they require strong sunlight and are, therefore, generally found in depths of
less than 150 feet. They require warm water temperatures (68 to 82 F) and generally occur between 30ON and 300S
latitudes. Off the east coast of the United States, this northern limit roughly coincides with northern Florida. Although
they occur off the North Carolina coast, they are not known from the immediate project vicinity, and they should not be
affected by the proposed action.
Impacts on Artificial Reefs. The NCDMF lists 4 artificial reefs in the project vicinity. They are AR 130, AR
140, AR 145, and AR 160. The location of the closest sites, AR 130 and AR 140 are shown in figure 2.
Dredging and placement of mixed sediment in the nearshore area will not be done in close proximity to any of these
artificial reefs, so no adverse impacts would occur. Turbidity plumes may be produced by placement of the mixed
sediment in the nearshore area as fine sediments are washed away by littoral processes. If such plumes are still
detectable as far offshore as the NCARP reefs, their effects should be minor, temporary, and should quickly dissipate.
The proposed action will not significantly impact any NCARP reefs.
Impacts on Hardbottoms. Sidescan sonar surveys of potential borrow areas did not identify hardbottom
within the potential borrow site. Collection of sediment core samples within borrow potential borrow areas confirm
absence of hard bottom within the borrow sites. Review of data provided by the Southeast Monitoring and
Assessment Program (SEAMAP) identified one area of hardbottom and one area of potential hardbottom in the
project vicinity as shown on Figure 2. SEAMAP transects include both positive and negative evidence of hardbottom
in subsequent years. The hardbottom point was identified in 1972. The point has been the subject of 5 prior and 13
post surveys that did not identify hardbottom. It is expected that if hardbottoms are present they are ephemeral in
nature or small in size. Dr. Steve Ross of the National Estuarine Research Reserve, (Personal Communication,
November 16, 1999) indicates that designation of a hard bottom or potential hard bottom may be based on the
presence of Black Sea Bass which occur on non-hard bottom, north of Cape Hatteras. Moreover, there is no
evidence of hardbottoms at the mixed sediment feature off the FRF (Personal Communication, 13 June 2000,
Mr. William Birkmeier, Chief, FRF, Duck, North Carolina).
The borrow materials are mixed sediment and any sedimentation due to dredging would be localize to the immediate
dredging area and would not be expected to impact adjacent areas. Any turbidity impacts would be minor and
temporary as described for artificial reefs above.
24
Impacts on State-designated Areas Important for Managed Species. Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) are
designated by the NC Marine Fisheries Commission and are defined by the State of North Carolina as tidal saltwaters
which provide essential habitat for the early development of commercially important fish and shellfish (15 NC
Administrative Code 3B .1405). Many fish species undergo initial post-larval development in these areas. This project
will not impact PNAs.
Impacts on the Marine Water Column. The potential water quality impacts of dredging and disposal are
addressed in Section 5.02. Dredging and disposal operations conducted during project construction may create
impacts in the marine water column in the immediate vicinity of the activity potentially affecting the nearshore area.
These impacts may include minor and short-term suspended sediment plumes and related turbidity, as well as the
release of soluble trace constituents from the sediment. During dredging, turbidity increases outside the dredging area
should be less than 25 NTUs and are, therefore, considered insignificant. Overall water quality impacts of the proposed
action are expected to be short-term and minor. Living marine resources dependent upon good water quality are not
expected to experience significant adverse impacts due to water quality changes.
Scientific data are very limited with regard to the effects of placement of mixed sediment in the nearshore area on
fishery resources. These effects may be similar, on a smaller scale, to the effects of storms; storm effects may
include increased turbidity and sediment load in the water column and, in some cases, changes in fish community
structure (Hackney et al., 1996). Storms of great severity, such as hurricanes, have been documented to create
conditions resulting in fish kills, but such situations are not usually associated with placement of mixed sediment in
the nearshore area.
Placement of mixed sediment on the nearshore area may affect fishery resources and EFH through increases in
turbidity and sedimentation which, in turn, may create localized stressful habitat conditions and may result in
temporary displacement of fish and other biota. However, since the one-time dredging and the placement operation
would be completed within 5 days, mobile biota, including juvenile and adult fish, should be able to relocate outside
the more stressful conditions of the proposed action. Cumulative effects of the proposed action would not be
potentially harmful to fishes of the surf zone; since the disposal area is about 2,765 feet from the shoreline and the
project will be completed within 5 days. The unknowns concerning the occurrence, distribution, and life history
aspects of surf zone fishes and their sensitivity to the proposed action will be monitored (see Section 1.06). It is
expected that this effort will be sufficient to resolve unknowns regarding this issue.
Impacts of Larval Entrainment. Life forms that lack the ability to escape the suction field of an operating
hopper dredge are subject to entrainment in the flow of water and sediment passing through its pumping equipment,
and mortality is the likely result. However, only an extremely small percentage (a fraction of 1 %) of the marine larvae
in the Atlantic Ocean are realistically subject to entrainment based upon the amount of water that a hopper dredge
can pump. Overall, the dredging conducted as part of the proposed action is not expected to create significant
impacts on these life forms at local or regional population levels. Additionally, the borrow area is located over 10
miles away from Oregon Inlet where fish and larval migration are concentrated.
Impact Summary for Essential Fish Habitat. The proposed action is not expected to cause any significant
adverse impacts to Essential Fish Habitat of EFH species. We consider these impacts to be minimal on an individual
and cumulative affects basis. Because those impacts are minor, mitigation is not being proposed.
5.06 Terrestrial Resources.
The proposed action is not expected to adversely impact any wildlife or vegetation found along the beach or
the dune areas.
25
5.07 Wetlands and Flood Plains.
No wetlands or flood plains will be impacted by the proposed action.
5.08 Threatened and Endanaered Species.
Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Federal agencies have a
responsibility to assess the effects of their proposed actions on listed species. At the project site, ERDC will be using
a hopper dredge for the proposed action. The hopper dredge will use turtle deflecting dragheads and all dredged
material will be screened using inflow screens. Full (100%) observer coverage will also be required to check the
inflow screens and serve as whale observers. The proposed action is scheduled for 1 January to 31 March 2001.
However, if a hopper dredge is unavailable during this time period, the work will be done later in the year. Should
dredging become necessary outside of this optimum dredging period (1 January to March 31), the Wilmington District
and/or the ERDC would obtain a variance from the South Atlantic dredging protocol from USACE, South Atlantic
Division. Additionally, National Marine Fisheries Service will be notified should such a schedule change become
necessary.
While the Florida manatee has been reported from Dare County in prior years (Schwartz, 1995), there is no 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 (Clark, 1987). The proposed action should not significantly affect valuable food
resources for the species nor pose any direct threat to the species because hopper dredges are slow moving vessels
(2 to 3 miles per hour) which generate considerable noise. It would be expected that, should a manatee occur in a
borrow area being dredged by a hopper dredge, it would avoid the vicinity of its dragheads. Due to its rare
occurrence in the area and the slow moving nature of the hopper dredges which would be used in the proposed
action, it has been determined that the construction of the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the
manatee.
Given the season when the work is scheduled to be performed (1 January to 31 March 2001) and the short time
period required to perform the work, the risk of any sea turtle take or disturbance to passing whales should be small.
However, because the work may occur outside of the desired schedule and hopper dredges are known to take sea
turtles, we have determined that the proposed activity may effect sea turtles and whales (see letter dated June 9,
2000 to Dr. William Hogarth in Attachment B). By letter dated July 18, 2000 (see Attachment B), NMFS provided us
with their biological opinion for the proposed work. If the USACE abides by the precautionary measures outlined in
this letter dated July 18, 2000, NMFS believes the potential for take of listed marine species is sufficiently minimized
such that formal consultation is not necessary.
5.09 Cultural Resources.
No adverse impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. The NC State Historic Preservation Officer has
agreed that the proposed action would have no effect on historic properties.
5.10 Esthetic and Recreational Resources.
Overall, esthetic and recreational impacts of the proposed action are considered minor in nature. The one
recreational ocean fishing pier that is located in the study area would not be affected by the proposed action.
5.11 Recreational and Commercial Fishing.
Because the both the borrow area and the mixed sediment feature are so small and the work will be
completed within 5 days, no long term impacts are anticipated to either recreational or commercial fishing.
26
5.12 Socio-Economic Resources.
No adverse impacts are anticipated.
5.13 Other Signiflcant Resources (Section 122, P.L. 91.611).
a. Noise and water pollution: Noise from the hopper dredge is slightly out of character for some of the
project area; however, construction sounds will be readily attenuated by background sounds from wind and surf.
Water quality impacts are discussed in Section 5.02 and in the Section 404(b)(1) (P.L. 95-217) evaluation included
with this document as Attachment A.
b. Man-made and natural resources, aesthetic values, community cohesion, and the availability of public
facilities and services: No impacts are anticipated.
c. Employment, tax, and property value: No adverse effects on employment, tax, and property value are
expected as a result of implementation of the proposed action.
d. Displacement of people, businesses, and farms: There will be no displacement of people, businesses or
farms by the proposed project. There will be no utility relocations and there are no existing Federal projects within the
project area.
e. Community and regional growth: An increase in the growth rate of affected beach communities is not
expected as a result of the proposed action.
5.14 Cumulative Impacts.
The relatively small amount of mixed sediment excavated from the borrow area off the Kitty Hawk pier and
placed off the FRF will not adversely the nearshore environment. The proposed action will not adversely impact
hardbottoms, water quality, marine life, cultural resources, and not cause significant adverse impacts for any other
aspects of the environment.
Cumulative impacts of the proposed action appear negligible.
6.00 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
6.01 Water Quality. A Section 404(b)(1) evaluation and a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate under the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217), as amended, are required for specific aspects of the proposed action. The Section
404(b)(1) evaluation is included in Attachment A. The Wilmington District is applying for a Section 401 Water Quality
Certificate from the NC Division of Water Quality. Work will not proceed until the certificate is received.
6.02 Essential Fish Habitat. Potential project impacts on Essential Fish Habitat species and their habitats have been
evaluated. It has been determined that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse effect on these
resources. We consider these impacts to be minimal on an individual and cumulative affects basis. Because those
impacts are minor, mitigation is not being proposed. Compliance obligations related to Essential Fish Habitat
provisions of the 1996 Congressional amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (PL 94-265) will be fulfilled prior to initiation of the proposed action.
27
6.03 Threatened and Endangered Species. In our letter dated June 9, 2000 (see Attachment B), we informed
NMFS that the proposed action may effect sea turtles and whales listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended. By letter dated July 18, 2000 (see Attachment B), NMFS provided the USACE with a list of
precautionary measures. If these measures are incorporated into the proposed action, NMFS believes that the
potential for take of listed marine species is sufficiently minimized such that formal consultation is not necessary.
USACE will abide by the precautionary measures found in this letter dated July 18, 2000.
6.04 Executive Order 11988 (Flood Plain Management). No mixed sediment will be placed in the flood plain. The
proposed action is not anticipated to induce development of the floodplain, or to otherwise adversely affect any
floodplain. The proposed action is in compliance with the requirements of Executive Order 11988.
6.05 Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). The work will not require filling any wetlands. The proposed
work will not produce any significant hydrologic or salinity changes affecting any wetlands. The proposed action is in
compliance with Executive Order 11990.
6.06 Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment). Significant impacts to
known archaeological or historic resources are not anticipated due to the proposed work. The NC State Historic
Preservation Officer has agreed to our determination that the proposed action would have no effect on historic
properties. The proposed action is in compliance with Executive Order 11593.
6.07 Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice In Minority Populations and
Low Income Communities and Low Income Populations). The Proposed Action would not impact minority
communities or low income populations because no minority communities or low-income populations reside in the
project area.
6.08 Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks). This order mandates
Federal agencies identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect
children as a result of the implementation of Federal policies, programs, activities, and standards (63 Federal
Register 19883-19888). The Proposed Action would not impact schools, housing areas or gathering places of
children. Therefore, there would be no short- or long-term impacts on the health and safety of children.
6.09 North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
The project will take place in the designated coastal zone of the State of North Carolina. Pursuant to the
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended (P.L. 92-583), federal activities are required to
be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the federally approved coastal management program of the
state in which their activities would be occurring. Based on the information presented within this section, the
proposed project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program and the land use plan for Dare
County and the Towns of Duck and Kitty Hawk. This determination is being provided to the State for its review and
concurrence.
6.09.1 Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs).
The proposed action would take place in areas designated under the NC Coastal Management Program as
AECs. Specifically, the activities will only occur in a Public Trust Area. The following determination has been made
regarding the consistency of the proposed action with the State's management objective for the AEC that may be
affected:
Public Trust Areas. These areas include waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the lands thereunder from the mean high
water mark to the 3-mile limit of state jurisdiction. Acceptable uses include those that are consistent with protection
28
of the public rights for navigation and recreation, as well as conservation and management to safeguard and
perpetuate the biological, economic, and esthetic value of these areas. The activities that comprise the proposed
action are not intended to adversely impact the public' rights for navigation and recreation, and are consistent with
conservation of the biological, physical, and esthetic values of public trust areas.
6.09.2 Other State Policies.
The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with other state policies found in the State's
Coastal Management Program document that are applicable. These include:
(1) North Carolina Mining Act. The removal of dredged material from the offshore borrow area has been reviewed
by the North Carolina Division of Land Resources and a determination has been made that removal of mixed
sediment from the sea floor within the three miles territorial limits is not an activity that would be classified as mining
under the North Carolina Mining Act (15A North Carolina Administrative Code Subchapter 05A .0200).
(2) Shoreline Erosion Policies. The construction of a mixed sediment feature as a means of controlling erosion
along the ocean front is consistent with state regulations for development in Ocean Hazards Areas of Environmental
Concerns, and under 15 North Carolina Administrative Code 7M - Section .0200 - Shoreline Erosion Policies).
6.09.3 Local Land Use Plans.
This project is consistent with the policies addressed in the local Land Use Plans for the Dare County and the Towns
of Duck and Kitty Hawk. .
6.10 Coastal Barrier Resources Act.
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 (PL 97-348) and the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of
1990 (PL 101-591) restrict Federal expenditures in those areas comprising the Coastal Barrier Resources System
(CBRS). Designated maps showing all sites included in the system in North Carolina show Nags Head Woods (NC-
02) to be within the Coastal Barrier Resource System and protected under the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of
1990 (USFWS 1990). This site is located south of the study area (Figure 2) and would not be affected by the
recommended plan. Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with CBRA.
6.11 Hazardous and Toxic Waste IHTW1.
The USACE standard tiered approach for analyzing the potential for encountering contaminated sediments in
the potential borrow areas was used to assess the potential borrow area for HTW. According to this analysis, before
any chemical or physical testing of sediments is conducted, a reason to believe that the sediments may be
contaminated must be established. The sources of the sediments in the selected borrow area are derived from
sediment transport and deposition by ocean currents. The probability of the sites being contaminated by pollutants is
low since the potential borrow and placement areas, have not been used as an industrial site, dump, or disposal
area. An ocean outfall for a desalinization plant is located several miles south of the project area. This outfall should
not be affected by dredging or disposal operations.
6.12 Prime and Unique Agriculture Land.
According to the Soil Survey of Dare County, North Carolina, no prime or unique agriculture lands designated
by the Natural Resource Conservation Service are found within the project area.
29
6.13 Environmental Commitments.
Before any work is initiated, the precautionary measures found in NMFS letter dated July 18, 2000 (see
Attachment B) will be incorporated into the proposed action.
7.00 PUBLIC AND AGENCY COORDINATION
7.01 Scopinq
On May 9, 2000, a scoping meeting was held at USACE, Wilmington District, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Representatives from ERDC and the Wilmington District described the proposed action to the following State and
Federal agencies: USACE Regulatory Division, U.S. Department of Interior -USFWS, U.S. Department of
Commerce- NMFS, State of North Carolina (Division of Water Quality, Division of Marine Fisheries, and Division of
Coastal Management). Comments received addressed various aspects of the project. These comments generally
identified resource concerns needing to be addressed.
On June 21, 2000, a meeting was held between the State, Federal agencies, ERDC, and Wilmington District. The
objectives of the meeting was to reach a consensus on the major source(s) of concern for environmental effects
associated with this type of dredged material disposal and to scope out a study plan that would address the identified
concerns. Topics discussed were critical parameters to be measured in physical and biological monitoring efforts,
field and/or laboratory investigations, appropriate spatial and temporal scales to be considered, and experimental
design.
All comments generated from these meetings were considered during project planning and EA preparation.
7.02 Coordination of this Document.
This EA is being provided to a standard list of Federal, State, and local agencies; elected officials; environmental
groups; and known interested individuals for review and comment. After a 30-day review period, all input received will be
considered in preparation of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
We invite your comments and suggestions regarding the proposed action. In accordance with Council on
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), your comments should be as specific as possible and should be made with recognition that NEPA
documents must focus on the issues that are truly significant to the proposed action rather than amassing needless
detail. The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions based upon an understanding of
environmental consequences. NEPA directs that Federal activities be conducted so as to attain the widest range of
beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable or unintended
consequences. As individual resources and stakeholder interests increasingly compete for priority, public officials
are challenged to make management decisions that reflect a balance of the overall public interest. Please respond
with a focus on essential issues that will be useful in guiding our decisions and actions as the proposed action
proceeds.
7.03 Recioients of this Assessment.
Representatives
Honorable Walter B. Jones, Jr.
Honorable Jesse Helms
30
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
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
Town Manager, Kitty Hawk
Town Manager, Kill Devil Hills
Jesse Newman, Dare Soil and Water Conservation
Dare County Building Permit Inspector
Dare County Oregon Inlet and Waterways Commission
31
Independent Groups and Indlvlduals
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
Bateman Oil Co.
Davis Boat
Collington Harbor Association
Etheridge Fish Co.
Gilbert Tillett
Dr. Anne B. McCrary
Dr. Vince Bellis
Mr. Ray P. Brand!, Cape Fear Community College
Daniels Enterprise
Rondal K & Nelma R. Tillett
North Carolina Seafood Industrial Park Authority
Celeste Maus
Gwendelyn Wiscott
Edmund Welch
Paul Friesema, Northwestern University
Vincent Bellis
Dr. Robert Dolan, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Dr. Bill Cleary, University of North Carolina at Wilmington.
Dr. Mark Posey, University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Dr. Orrin Pilkey, Duke University
Postmasters
Avon
Manteo
Buxton
Hatteras
Stumpy Point
Wanchese
Nags Head
Kitty Hawk
Kill Devil Hills
32
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
Randall Library, UNC-Wilmington
State Library of North Carolina
Joyner Library, East Carolina University
8.0 POINT OF CONTACT
Written comments regarding this Environmental Assessment should be sent to Mr. Hugh Heine, CESAW-TS-PE,
U.S. Army Engineer District, PO Box 1890, Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890. Questions may be directed to Mr.
Heine by telephone [phone] or e-mail address hugh.heine(@,usace.army.mil.
9.0 DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The proposed action is not expected to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. If this
judgement is confirmed through coordination of this EA, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required, and
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be signed prior to the initiation of the proposed action. The signed
FONSI will be available to the public.
33
10.00 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Armstrong, D.A., B. C. Stevens, and J.C. Hoeman. 1982. Distribution and abundance of Dungeness Crab and
Crangon Shrimp and dredging-related mortality of invertebrates and fish in Gray's Harbor, Washington. Report No.
DA-80-86 Washington Department of Fisheries and US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.
Bowen, P.R. & G.A. Marsh. October 1988. Benthic Faunal Colonization of An Offshore Borrow Pit in Southeastern
Florida. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Dredging Operations Technical Support program. Misc. Rept. D-88-5.
Buell, J.W. 1992. Fish entrainment monitoring of the Western-Pacific dredge R. W. Lofgren during operations
outside the preferred work period. Buell and Associates. 38 pp. + appendices.
Burton, W.H., S.B. Weisberg, and P. Jacobson. 1992. Entrainment effects of maintenance hydraulic dredging in the
Delaware River estuary on striped bass ichthyoplankton. Report to the Delaware Basin Fish and Wildlife
Management Cooperative, West Trenton, New Jersey. 33 pp.
Carriker, M.R., LaSalle, M.W., Mann, R., and Pritchard, D.W. 1986. Entrainment of oyster larvae by hydraulic
cutterhead dredging operations: Workshop Conclusions and Recommendations. American Malacological Bulletin,
Special Edition No. 3. Pp. 5-10.
Clark, M. K. 1987. West Indian Manatee. Pages 18-21 in: Endangered, threatened and rare fauna of North Carolina
Part I. A re-evaluation of the mammals (M. K. Clark, editor). Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological
Survey 1987-3.
Cushing, D.H. 1988. The study of stock and recruitment. In: Fish population dynamics (Second Edition). Edited by
J. A. Gulland. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Cutter G.R. Jr. and R.J. Diaz, 1998. Part 1: Benthic Habitats and Biological Resources Off the Virginia Coast
1996 and 1997. In Final Report Environmental Studies Relative to Potential Sand Mining in the Vicinity of The
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Minerals Management Service. 26pp. + Figures and Tables.
Dare County. 1994. Dare County Land Use Plan. 1994 Update. Dare County, North Carolina. 120 pp. +
Appendices.
Day, J.H., J.G. Field, and M.P. Montgomery, 1971. The Use of numerical methods to determine the
distribution of benthic fauna across the continental shelf of North Carolina. Journal of Animal Ecology,
40;93-125
Dew, C.B. and J.H. Hecht. 1994. Recruitment, growth, mortality, and biomass production of larvel and early juvenile
Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River estuary. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Vol. 123, Number 5.
Pp.681-702.
Dinsmore, S. J., J. A. Collazo, and J. R. Walters. 1998. Seasonal numbers and distribution of shorebirds on North
Carolina's Outer Banks. Wilson Bulletin 110(2):171-181.
Dolan, R. and C. Donoghue. 1996. Results of monitoring dredged material placed on pea Island, North Carolina
(1995-1996). Unpublished m.s. to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge.12pp. +
attachments.
34
Hackney, C. T., M. H. Posey, S.W. Ross, and A. R. Norris. 1996. A Review and Synthesis of Data on Surf Zone
Fishes and Invertebrates in the South Atlantic Bight and the Potential Impacts from Beach Nourishment. Report to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington. 11Opp.
Heftier, W. F., Jr., and D. L. Barker. 1993. Distribution and abundance of larval fishes at two North Carolina inlets.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 37:161-179.
Heftier, W. F., Jr. 1998. Abundance and size of dominant winter-immigrating fish larvae at two inlets into Pamlico
Sound, North Carolina. Brimleyana 25:144-155.
Kitty Hawk. Land Use Plan - Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. 92 pp.
Naqvi, S.M. & C.H. Pullen. 1982. Effects of beach nourishment and borrowing on marine organisms. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Misc.. Rept. 82-14.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. March 1991. Division of Environmental
Management. Administrative Code 15 NCAC 2B .0200 - Classification and Water Quality Standards Applicable to
Surface Waters of North Carolina.
Pearson, Thomas G., C. S. Brimley, and H. H. Brimley.1942. Birds of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of
Agriculture, Raleigh. 416pp.
Reilly, F.J. Jr., and V.J. Bellis. 1978. A study of the ecological impact of beach nourishment with dredged materials
on the intertidal zone. Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources, Technical Report No. 4,107 pp.
Ross, S. W. 1996. Surf zone fishes of the South Atlantic Bight. Section III, pp. 42-107. In: Hackney, C. T., M. H.
Posey, S. W. Ross and A. R. Norris (Eds.). A Review and Synthesis of Data on Surf Zone Fishes and Invertebrates
in the South Atlantic Bight and the Potential Impacts from Beach Nourishment. Report to the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Wilmington, N.C.111 pp.
Ross, S. W. and J. E. Lancaster. 1996, Movements of juvenile fishes using surf zone nursery habitats and the
relationship of movements to beach nourishment along a North Carolina beach: pilot project. Report to NOAA Office
of Coastal Resource Management and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington, N.C. 31 pp.
Schwartz, F. J. 1995. Florida manatees, Trichecus manatus (Sirenia:Trichechidae) in North Carolina 1919-1994.
Brimleyana 22:53-60.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 1997. Environmental Assessment, Use of Hopper Dredge with
Overflow as an Additional Maintenance Dredging Method for Portions of Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina. (and
FONSI 1997).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. Draft Supplement III, Environmental Impact Statement, Manteo
(Shallowbag) Bay, Dare County, North Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District. Wilmington,
North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2000. Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement on Hurricane
Protection and Beach Erosion Control. Dane County Beaches, North Carolina (Nags Head, Kill Devil Hills, and Kitty
Hawk). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District. Wilmington, North Carolina. June 2000.
35
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Savannah, GA,
Charleston, SC, and Wilmington, NC, Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites Designation, October 1983
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. 1989 Status Update: U.S. Atlantic coast piping plover. Unpublished Report,
Newton Corner, MA. 34pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Area South of Dare County Beaches , draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act Report. Division of Ecological Services, Raleigh Field Office, Raleigh, North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Northern Dare County Storm Damage Reduction Project, Dare County North
Carolina. Raleigh Field Office, Raleigh, NC. 202 pp. + appendices.
Van Dolah, R.F. et al. 1992. A Physical and Biological Monitoring Study of the Hilton Head Beach Nourishment
Project. Marine Resources Division, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Charleston, South
Carolina. March 1992.
Van Dolah, R.F., R.M. Martore, A.E. Lynch, P.H. Wendt, M.V. Levisen, D.J. Whitaker, and W.D. Anderson. 1994.
Environmental evaluation of the Folly Beach project. Final report, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District
and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Division.
36
N

YVilmington
PhmmnM at MWW SWhvwM M"Ne shm
Area, off Dick, Owe County, North Carolina.
SITE LOCATION
FIGURE 1 j
FIELD RESEARCH FACILITY
Mixed Sediment Feature
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NEARSHORE PLACEMENT OF MIXED
SEDIMENT RESEARCH PROJECT,
DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA
EVALUATION OF SECTION 404(b)(1)
(PUBLIC LAW 95-217) GUIDELINES
40 CFR 230
An evaluation of the placement of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States
includes the standard form.
37
SECTION 404(B)(1) (PUBLIC LAW 95-217) EVALUATION
CESAW-TS-PE-00-28-0009 Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
40 CFR 230
1. Review of Compliance (230.10(a)-(d)) Preliminary 1/
Review of the NEPA Document indicates:
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);
b. The activity does not: 1) violate
applicable State water quality
standards or effluent standards
prohibited under Section 307 of the
CWA; 2) jeopardize the existence of
federally listed endangered or
threatened species or their habitat;
and 3) violate requirements of any
federally designated marine sanctuary
(if no, see section 2b and check
responses from resource and water
quality certifying agencies);
C. The activity will not cause or
contribute to significant degradation
of waters of the U.S. including adverse
effects on human health, life stages of
organisms dependent on the aquatic
ecosystem, ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability, and
recreational, aesthetic, and
economic values (if no, see section
2);
d. Appropriate and practicable steps have
been taken to minimize potential
adverse impacts of the discharge on the
aquatic ecosystem
(if no, see section 5).
Proceed to Section 2
*, 1, 2/ See page 6
Final 2/
YESIXI N0I_I* YESIXI NOI_
YESIXI N0I_I* YESIXI N0I_1
YESIXI NOI_I* YESIXI NOI_
YESIXI N0I_I* YESIXI N61_I
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.
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).
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
d. 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 impacts.
(5) Effects on parks, national and
historical monuments, national
seashores, wilderness areas,
research sites, and similar
preserves.
Remarks: Where a mark is placed under
the significant category, preparer add
explanation below.
Proceed to Section 3
*See page 6
Not Signifi- Signifi-
N/A cant cant*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G) 3/
a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the biological
availability of possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material. (Mark only
those appropriate.)
(1) Physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
(2) Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated _
sources of contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
(3) Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in _
the vicinity of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
I
(4) Known, significant sources of _
persistent pesticides from _
land runoff or percolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
(5) Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA) _
hazardous substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
(6) Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries,
municipalities, or other _
sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
(7) Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by _
man-induced discharge activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
(8) Other sources (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . I_i
List appropriate references.
Reference: Environment Assessment Placement of Mixed Sediment in the
Nearshore Area off Duck, Dare County, North Carolina
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and
not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site.
The material meets the testing exclusion criteria. YES III NO I J*
Proceed to Section 4
*, 3/, see page 6
3
4. Disposal Site Determinations (230.11(f)).
a. The fo llowing 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I X I
(4) Water column stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(5) Discharge vessel speed and _
direction . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . I X I
(6) Rate of discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I X I
(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: Environment Assessment Placement of Mixed Sediment in the
Nearshore Area off Duck, Dare County, North Carolina
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 application of recommendations of 230.70-230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed
discharge. List actions taken.
For water resources see Section 5.02 of the EA
For marine resources see Section 5.04 of the EA.
For Essential Fish Habitat see Section 5.05 of the EA.
For wetlands see Section 5.07 of the EA.
For threatened and endangered species see Section 5.08 of the EA.
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review. See also
note 3/, page 6.
*See page 6
4
YES IXI NO
YES IXI NO I_I*
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).
b. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5).
C. Suspended particulates/turbidity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5).
d. Contaminant availability
(review sections 2a, 3, and 4).
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function
(review sections 2b and c, 3, and 5).
f. Disposal site
(review sections 2, 4, and 5).
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic
ecosystem.
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic
ecosystem.
7. Findings.
a. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
YES IXI NO 1_1*
YES IX) NO
YES IXI NO
YES IXI NO (_?*
YES IXI NO
YES IXI NO
YES IXI NO
YES IXI NO (_?*
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
b. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines with the
inclusion of the following conditions:
*See page 6
5
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. . . . . (_
(2) The proposed discharge will result in significant _
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . . .
(3) The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize _
potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . .
8
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Planning and
Environmental Branch
Ben F. Wood, PE
Chief, Technical Services Division
C?v
Date:
u 3 ®?
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 cannot be excluded from individual testing, the
"short-form" evaluation process is inappropriate.
6
ATTACHMENT B
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NEARSHORE PLACEMENT OF MIXED
SEDIMENT RESEARCH PROJECT,
DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA
LIST OF CORRESPONDANCE
39
May 26, 2000
Environmental Resources Section
Dr. Jeffrey J. Crow
State Historic Preservation Officer
North Carolina Division of Archives and History
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Dear Dr. Crow:
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
provisions of the Abandoned Shipwreck Act, I request your review of the study
described below. I also request your comment on or concurrence with my
finding of no effect. This study is to be conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC, formerly
Waterways Experiment Station, WES). The purpose of the study is the
monitoring of excavated materials to be placed in an offshore mound adjacent to
the ERDC's Field Research Facility (FRF) near Duck, NC.
The proposed project will study the movement of up to 38,000 cubic meters
(50,000 cubic yards) of mixed sediment placed in a 150 X 150 X 3 meter mound
centered within a study area of 500 X 500 meters. Mixed sediment is defined as
less than 90 percent sand and is not suitable for beach nourishment. This study
will determine if debris-free mixed sediments can be placed in offshore
applications such as berms without undesirable portions being transported to the
beach. The mixed sediment will be excavated from the northernmost portion of
borrow area C identified in the report entitled A Phase I Upland and Underwater
Archaeological Survey of the Dare County Beaches and Borrow Areas, North
Carolina (Mid-Atlantic Technology and Environmental Research, 1999). The
material will be placed in a disposal mound located approximately 198 meters
south of the FRF pier. The deposition area will be no closer to shore than the 8
meter (26 foot) contour, which is about 795 meters (2,600 feet) eastward of the
beach. Dr. Bill Birkemeier, Director of the Field Research Facility, has stated in
conversation that the erosion rate in the vicinity of the proposed project is about 1
meter per year. ERDC studies show that the upland beach area is stable and
may be accreting rather than eroding. NAD83 Coordinates for the disposal area
are:
-2-
36° 10' 42.233" Lat 75°44' 32.032" Long
36° 10' 57.649" Lat 75° 44'38.263" Long
36° 11' 2.700" Lat 75° 44' 19.246" Long
36° 10'47.284" Lat 75° 44' 13.015 Long
The Field Research Facility has conducted bathymetric, sediment boring, and
other studies within the disposal area and these can be made available upon
request.
The Wilmington District has reviewed the project carefully and has determined
that it is an undertaking for purposes of 36 CFR 800, Protection of Historic
Properties. Our review indicates that whereas the borrow area has been
previously surveyed with negative findings, no historic properties will be affected.
Although the disposal site has not been surveyed, the placement of a limited
amount of sediment within the 150 meter-square area is judged to have a low
probability to impact historic properties, particularly those characteristics that
might make a property eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. For these reasons, I have determined that the placement of mixed
sediment will have no effect on historic properties.
If you have any questions on this project, or if you do not concur with my
finding, your point-of-contact is Richard H. Kimmel, Archaeologist, at commercial
phone number [phone]; fax [phone]; or e-mail
[e-mail]. I would like to receive written comments not
later than July 3, 2000.
Sincerely,
W. Coleman Long, Chief,
Planning and Environmental Branch
-3-
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Richard W. Lawrence, Chief
Underwater Archaeology Unit
North Carolina Division of Archives and History
Post Office Box 58
Kure Beach, North Carolina 28449-0058
Mr. Richard W. Lawrence
C/O Wilde-Ramsing,
Queen Anne's Revenge Project
Institute of Marine Sciences
3431 Arendell Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
Curator of Maritime Research
North Carolina Maritime Museum
315 Front Street
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Kevin J. Foster, Maritime Historian
National Maritime Initiative
National Park Service (418)
Post Office Box 37127
Washington, DC 20013
BCF:
CESAW-TS-PE/Heine
June 9, 2000
Environmental Resources Section
Dr. William Hogarth
Regional Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
Southeastern Region
9721 Executive Center Drive North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702-2449
Dear Dr. Hogarth:
The U.S. Army Engineer Research & Development Center (formerly the Waterways
Experiment Station) is proposing to monitor the effects of placing debris-free dredged material
that is not of beach quality (less than 90 percent sand) on the near shore environment. ERDC
plans to place approximately 50,000 cubic yards of dredged sediment within a 20-acre area, at a
minimum depth of -26 feet mean low water, near the Field Research Facility (FRF) at Duck,
Dare County, North Carolina. Once placed, they would monitor the effects of the dispersion of
fine-grained material on the surrounding ecosystem. Enclosed is a drawing that depicts the
proposed mound site. The 50,000 cubic yards of mixed sediment would be excavated by a
hopper dredge from an offshore borrow area that is located off of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.
Because the project area is used by sea turtles and whales listed under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended, the impacts of the proposed action on these species must be
assessed. My assessment of the proposed action is as follows.
Given the small amount of material being used in this study, all dredging work should be
accomplished within a few days. Because of budgetary concerns, ERDC desires to eliminate
mobilization costs by having the work performed by a hopper dredge that must pass through the
area en route to another work area. They will try to have the dredging performed sometime
between 1 January and 31 March; however, if a hopper dredge is not available during this time
period, the work would have to be accomplished later in the year. This optimum time period for
dredging was selected to minimize the potential adverse impacts of the project on sea turtles. By
starting dredging after December, adequate time is provided for the large number of sea turtles in
the Chesapeake Bay to exit that system, pass through the project area, and reach the Gulf Stream
before work commences. Should dredging become necessary outside of this optimum dredging
period, ERDC would need to obtain a variance from our South Atlantic dredging protocol from
our Division Office. Your office would also be notified should such a schedule change become
necessary.
2
Since this work would be performed in an area where we have no prior dredging
experience, we plan to monitor its effects very closely. For this reason, we are proposing that the
hopper dredge performing the work use turtle deflecting drag heads, and that all dredged material
be screened using inflow screens. Full (100%) observer coverage will also be required to check
the inflow screens and serve as whale observers. Both right whales and humpback whales are
known to occur within the near shore waters of the project area during the winter months. These
species should be easily avoided during dredging operations.
Given the season when the work is scheduled to be performed and the short time period
required to perform the work, the risk of any sea turtle take or disturbance to passing whales
should be very small. However, because the work may have to occur outside of the desired
schedule and hopper dredges are known to take sea turtles, we have determined that the proposed
activity may affect sea turtles.
We appreciate the assistance provided by Mr. Eric Hawk of your staff during the early
planning of this project. Please provide us with your Biological Opinion on the proposed activity
at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
Messrs. Hugh Heine or Bill Adams, Environmental Resources Section, at [phone] or
[phone], respectively.
Sincerely,
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Planning and
Environmental Branch
Enclosure
3
Copy Furnished:
U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
ATTN: CESAD-ET-PR/Mr.Dennis Barnett
Room 9M15, 60 Forsyth St., SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Mr. Jack Davis
Coastal Evaluation and Design Branch
Waterways Experiment Station
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180
Mr. Doug Clarke
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Wetlands and Coastal Ecology Branch
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
CESAW-TS/Jahnke
CESAW-TS-PE/Heine/4070
CESAW-TS-PE/Adams
CESAW-TS-PE/Griffin
CESAW-TS-P/Long
MAIL
CESAW-EP FILES
N:\k7eppwfa\worddoc\endspeci\hogarth
0
0

?" 1 1
, t ?
=?w: I + 1
!
I I I I
?
t
..
I r
1 r ) r I r 1 ?1
?
C 1 i I , i ?
1 ' r t i r/ A
I
? s=. 1 I ; i 1 1 1
t 1 r 1
iEz= 1 1
.. 1
1 r
1 ? ?
i I
1 1
1 1
1 %

?:::: I I 1
1
, ,
r t

1
1
1
I /
f
_ /
?
1 t
+
i
i I
? ! t r
? r
`
I 1 I1 v i

?' 1+ 1 ( ? 1 t ' ? ? 1 1 t I
=?" i+ 1 I t 1 1 t ? t ? 1 1 /
1 1 +
ti 1
I 1
? t ? 1 /
t !
O - ? 1
?'• I r
?:• ? I
1 1
1 j
r •? ?

t / j

/ ?
401 j
? I I
1 I 1 /
1 ?
+ ? ? ?
% ?
' ?
?
- t 1 1 /
r
r 1 1
f \ 1
I I
/
j ?
? +
? - 1 1 r
1 t
I 1
1 r 1
01? ? ? 1 I
1 f 1
! /
r
i ••i . I t + 1 r 1 - f ' 1 r + ?
d O ? rl ? f 1
l l
i 1? ? 1
? I
1 ?? A
1 1 ? , 1
1 i 1
1
r
O
t? t l 1 1 ! I r I ? 1 I
I ? 1
1 r
? i? i i ? i i i i ;i ; i
!` I r l t r / r I 1 r I ' r 1

:fir. I t ? ? 1` ? ? , ? ' / + ,
17

is

R
i
/
1 1 1 urge
y eg
on ,
• 1 1
' . I , 1 + r 1
O :
l+ j
? ?
t l j 1 1
l a ? t
1 t
/ t
1 /
1
?
?
I r
r1 r

1

1 1
' 1
/

1
1
/
?
r .
I ?
/ 1 (? 1 1 I ' 1 1

O
i;: 1 1 '
1 1
r +
i
. I r 1 1 1 ? • \
? t 1 1
50 250 450 650 _ 850. - 9-1
1250
1450
.
1650 _j
1850
Cross-shore, rn
0
E -5
C
O
-10
W
-15
av tivv wv div 1000 1200. 1400 1600 1800
Cross-shore, m
Draft Location for the Experimental Mixed-Sediment Mound at the
Field Research Facility, Duck, NC
t
l
FRF Mound Corners
FRF Coordinates (m) Latituc
Alongshore Cross-shore Latitude
Center
125 915 3610' 52.466"
Survey Region (500 X 500 m)
-125 665 3610' 42.233"
375 665 36 10'57.649"
375 1165 36 11' 2.700"
-125 1165 36 10'47.284"
Mound (150 X 150 m)
50 840 3610' 49.396"
200 840 3610' 54.021"
200 9903 6 10'55.536"
50 990 36 10'50.912"
le/Longitude
Longitude
75 44'25.639"
75 44'32.032"
75 44'38.263"
75 44' 19.246"
75 44' 13.015"
75 44'27.557"
75 44' 29.426"
75 44'23.721 "
75 44'21.852"
?,v,l OF c0
rfo
sPA, S Of P
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
9721 Executive Center Drive North
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
[phone]; FAX [phone]
JUL 18 ^';o
F/SER3:EGH
Mr. W. Coleman Long
Chief, Planning and Environmental Branch
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Long:
This responds to your June 9, 2000 letter, received June 13, 2000, and request for consultation
pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with reference to proposed U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Research and Development Center monitoring of the effects
of placing debris-free dredged material that is not of beach quality (less than 90 percent sand) in
the near shore environment. The dredging method will be a hopper dredge and dredging will
most likely occur between January 1 and March 31, 2001; however, if a hopper dredge is not
available during this time period, the work may be accomplished later in the year.
Approximately 50,000 cubic yards of mixed sediment will be excavated by hopper dredge from
an offshore borrow area located off Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. The material will be placed
within a 20-acre area, at a minimum depth of -26 feet mean low water, near the USACE Field
Research Facility at Duck, Dare County, North Carolina. Sea turtle deflecting dragheads will be
required on the hopper dredge dragarms, and full (100%) observer coverage will be required to
check the inflow screens and serve as whale observers. You concluded that the proposed activity
may affect sea turtles because the work may have to occur outside of the desired schedule (winter
window) and hopper dredgeds are known to take sea turtles.
This consultation addresses the potential effects to endangered or threatened species (Kemp's
ridley, green, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles; right and humpback whales) under
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) purview from the use of a hopper dredge. NMFS has
previously determined that use of pipeline or clam shell type dredges is unlikely to adversely
affected the above-listed species. If USACE elects to use the latter type of dredges to conduct
this activity, no reinitiation of consultation with this office is required.
The potential for take of sea turtles by hopper dredges is well documented. Hopper dredges
routinely take sea turtles during maintenance dredging activities in federal navigation channels
on the Atlantic Seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico. As well, along the southeastern United States
coast, there has been increasing concern regarding the effects of hopper dredging of offshore
`PNp PTA?09gyfgc
g
?rMENt OF ??
borrow areas for beach nourishment activities. Anecdotal accounts from divers and biologists
suggest that sea turtles may use offshore fine sediment bottoms, as well as areas adjacent to hard
bottom reefs, as internesting habitat.
The high probability that sea turtles may be found year-round at the project site led the USACE
to select January 1 - March 31 as the optimum time period for dredging to occur to minimize
potential adverse impacts to sea turtles. NMFS believes that it is unlikely that sea turtles will be
found in the project area in densities that could lead to a take by the proposed hopper dredging
activity and nearshore disposal of dredged materials. Nevertheless, to support and document this
conclusion, the USCOE has agreed to abide by the following precautionary measures as part of
the proposed action; therefore, NMFS believes the potential for take of listed marine species is
sufficiently minimized such that formal consultation is not necessary.
1. The potential exists for interactions with a hopper dredge (i.e. collisions) and migrating
humpback and right whales which may come into shallow coastal waters. Ship strikes are one of
the primary human-caused sources of mortality for endangered right and humpback whales. To
minimize this potential during hopper dredging activity, during daylight hours dredge operators
must take necessary precautions to avoid whales. During evening hours or when there is limited
visibility due to fog or sea states of greater than Beaufort 3, the dredge must slow down to 5
knots or less when transiting between areas if whales have been spotted within 15 nautical miles
of the vessel's path within the previous 24 hours.
2. 100% coverage of hopper dredging operations by qualified endangered species observers
should be conducted during dredging operations to document the absence or presence of sea
turtle and any takes. 100% inflow screening of dredged material is required, and 100% overflow
screening is recommended. If conditions disallow one hundred percent inflow screening, inflow
screening can be reduced but 100% overflow screening is required, and an explanation must be
included in the dredging report.
3. Use of the sea turtle deflecting draghead is required for all hopper dredging.
4. To prevent impingement of sea turtles within the water column, every effort should be made
to keep the dredge pumps disengaged when the dragheads are not firmly on the bottom.
5. A report summarizing the results of the dredging and any sea turtle take must be submitted to
the COE and NMFS within 60 working days of completion of the dredging project, documenting
sea turtle takes and whale sightings, proximity to the dredge, weather and sea conditions, and
time of day.
6. Any take shall result in immediate cessation of hopper dredging activity and require
reinitiation of section 7 consultation with NMFS SERO.
2
7. Any take shall be counted against the annual incidental take level anticipated by the .
September 25, 1997 NMFS Regional Biological Opinion to the USACE South Atlantic Division
on continued hopper dredging of channels and borrows areas in the southeastern United States.
8. The endangered species observer, sea turtle deflecting draghead, and reporting requirements
do not extend to non-hopper type dredges or hopper dredges in the same size class as the USACE
Dredge CURRITUCK, which are exempted. These type dredges, however, must maintain an
adequate watch (as described in number 1, above) to prevent possible collisions with humpback
whales and right whales.
9. USACE shall provide NMFS a copy of the report detailing the results of the experiment as
soon as it is available.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project and work with the USACE to ensure
the protection of threatened and endangered species under NMFS purview, and to help the
USACE fulfill its mandate under the ESA. Please contact Mr. Eric Hawk at the telephone
number listed above if you have any questions or if we may be of assistance.
Sincerely,
C.R•-+-?? Q . Ct2?- -?
Charles A. Oravetz
Assistant Regional Administrator
for Protected Resources
cc: F/SER4 -A. Mager
F/PR3 - D. Brewer
o:\section7\informal\sand-exp.wil
File: 1514-22 f.l. NC