20011550 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20011016

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HIGHWOODS TOWER ONE
SUITE 500
3200 BEECHLEAF COURT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27604-1064
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 919.981.4300
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE DRAWER 19764
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27619-9764
LANDFALL PARK NORTH
1985 EASTWOOD ROAD, SUITE 200
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
28403
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 910.256.6451
WWW.MAUPINTAYLOR.COM
KURT J. OLSON
X

480 BETA BUILDING
HEADQUARTERS PARK
2222 CHAPEL HILL-NELSON HWY.
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
27713
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 919.361.2262
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE BOX 13646.
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
NORTH CAROLINA
27709-3646
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
[phone]
[e-mail]
Apri18, 2002
John Dorney
Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Re: United States Coast Guard
Dredge/Disposal Activities - Banks Channel
Wrightsville Beach Station
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina
Action ID No. 200200015 -- Modification
Dear Mr.Dorney:

APR 1 1 70G2
U-?
The following comments are being submitted to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality ("DWQ") on behalf of a number
of property owners and citizens in connection with the above referenced action, Action ID No.
200200015.
The activity at issue is the U.S. Coast Guard's plan to dredge its boat basin in Banks
Channel, ostensibly to create sufficient depth to permit the mooring of the USCG's vessels in
front of the USCG facility. In its original application, the USCG proposed to deposit dredged
materials at a designated location on the ocean side of south Wrightsville Beach. The USCG has
APR
329803
John Dorney
Page 2
April 8, 2002
modified that plan and is now proposing to deposit the dredged materials on the sound side of
Wrightsville Beach north of the USCG facility along six privately owned properties.
The USCG's revised proposal is an apparent effort to mitigate the damage that will result
from the dredging. Although conceptually a step in the right direction, this approach falls short
in the following respects:
1. The proposed activity is the perpetuation of an activity that has a clear, demonstrated
potential to degrade or remove significant existing water quality uses.
2. The record created by the USCG is completely void of an analysis of alternatives.
No certification can be issued until practicable alternatives are given meaningful
consideration and if feasible, adopted instead of dredging. 15A NCAC 211.0506(b).
3. No water quality certification for the planned activity can be issued because the
USCG has failed to demonstrate that its activity incorporates efforts to minimize
impacts. 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b).
4. No water quality certification for the planned activity can be issued because the
mitigation proposed by the USCG is inadequate. 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b).
The erosion from the USCG's dredging has resulted in significant loss and removal of
existing water quality uses and the imposition of substantial costs, both economic and aesthetic.
Remarkably, the dredging has transformed an entire area that once was dry, white sand beach to
an area now considered "mud flats." If permitted to continue, the dredging will perpetuate this
cycle of destruction. Clearly, better ways to approach this matter exist.
For the reasons identified above, and discussed in greater detail herein, the DWQ can not
issue a water quality certification for this project as proposed.
329803
John Dorney
Page 3
April 8, 2002
COMMENTS
1. The Proposed activity is the perpetuation of an activity that has a clear,
demonstrated potential to degrade or remove significant existing uses.
The core objective of the USCG's project is to allow the mooring of a certain size
vessel(s) in close proximity to its Wilmington facility. To achieve this object, the USCG
proposes to dredge in Banks Channel. The record shows, however, that dredging has multiple,
adverse environmental impacts on the shoreline in front and north of the USCG's facility.
Studies prepared by Tom Jarrett, a coastal engineer and former head of the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Coastal, Hydrology & Hydraulics Section, demonstrate that the dredging is the cause
of the severe and unprecedented erosion occurring along Banks Channel north of the USCG's
installation. See Exhibits A & B, hereto. Among other things, Mr. Jarrett's reports show that the
USCG's dredged basin acts as a sediment trap, capturing and preventing suspended materials and
sand from moving north of the USCG facility and disrupting accretion and other natural
processes that add sand to the beaches north of the USCG's installation. The dredged basin thus
prevents the movement of sediment from the basin to the north and is "a major" source of
erosion to the beaches and properties located north of USCG facility. The attached photographs
(Exhibit C, hereto) show that at one time those beaches consisted of dry, white sand, some of
which was above the mean high tide. Today, the area and beaches are characterized as "mud
flats." See Public Notice, Modification, Department of the Army, Wilmington District, Corps of
Engineers at 1 (March 8, 2002) (Public Notice). This transformation is geologic in proportion
and substantially impacts the water quality uses in the area and the quality of the human
environment.
329803
John Dorney
Page 4
April 8, 2002
Mr. Jarrett's findings and conclusions were reviewed and critiqued by Dr. John T. Wells,
Director, Institute of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina. See Exhibit D, hereto. Among other things, Dr. Wells found unequivocally that:
a. Mr. Jarrett's conclusions were "based on the proper sources of available information
for making an informed determination of the causes for erosion ...." (Wells Report,
pg. 2).
b. Mr. Jarrett's conclusions are correct: (i) the transport of sediment along the shoreline
of Banks Channel runs from south to north; (ii) the natural transport of sediment in
the sound littoral system has been disrupted by the USCG's boat basin and bulkhead;
(iii) the basin acts as a sediment trap preventing the movement of sediment along the
shoreline north of the USCG facility; and (iv) the USCG's bulkhead precludes sand
which fronts the USCG facility from serving as a temporary source of sediment for
properties north of the USCG facility (Wells Report, pg. 3).
c. There are no viable alternative explanations for the severe erosion occurring north of
the USCG's facility, and proffered explanations such as the erosion is incident to the
littoral environment ignore important factors such as the temporal correlation of the
USCG's activities and the unprecedented erosion, the pattern of northerly transport
and the disruption caused by the bulkhead and basin and the infilling at the boat basin
(Wells Report, pgs. 3 and 4).
The impact from the USCG's dredging is further documented in a 1996 report prepared
by the USCG's own consultant, the relevant portions of which are attached. See Exhibit E,
hereto. This report entitled "United States Coast Guard, Station Wrightsville Beach, Waterfront
Structures Inspection, Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina" documents work commissioned by
the USCG and conducted by Moffat & Nichol Engineers. The purpose of this work was to
evaluate the structural integrity of the USCG's waterfront facilities. In pertinent part, Moffatt &
Nichol concluded that the concrete walls of the USCG's bulkhead were being undermined due to
the migration of passive side soils. The migration, according to Moffat & Nichol, was
attributable to the USCG's dredging of the boat basin. The dredging caused soil to slough into
329803
John Dorney
Page 5
April 8, 2002
the boat basin in an effort to return to the original angle of repose existing before the dredging
occurred. Moffatt & Nichol predicted that this phenomena would result in the failure of the
USCG's bulkhead and in fact, roughly six months later the bulkhead collapsed following
Hurricane Fran. While undoubtedly the hurricane contributed to the collapse, in essence it
merely accelerated an inevitable result.I
The Moffatt & Nichol study, coupled with the studies prepared by Tom Jarrett and Dr.
Wells, indisputably demonstrate that the USCG's dredging has devastating impacts on the
shoreline. The dredged basin traps migrating sand and sediment and deprives the areas around
the bulkhead and to the north of the USCG facility of the suspended, migrating material that is
needed to replenish the impacted beaches causing and exacerbating the severe erosion.
Significantly, the impacts are cumulative and long term. Indeed, the area north of the USCG's
bulkhead has been transformed from dry, white sand beaches to blighted "mud flats."
The impacts from dredging involve economic damage, the loss of beachfront property
(amounting to a taking without just compensation) and the substantial costs incurred by the
adversely affected residents who are required to take preventative measures to slow further loss.
The adverse impacts also are qualitative in nature, affecting primary and secondary water quality
uses and the vital quality of the human environment in the area. The on-going transformation is
cumulative and will continue and worsen if dredging is permitted.
The cost to repair the bulkhead was substantial, exceeding $300,000.00. Dredging now will recreate the precarious
conditions that last time resulted in the failure of the bulkhead, potentially resulting in the operational disruptions
associated with a collapse and the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to fix the damage that will occur.
329803
John Dorney
Page 6
April 8, 2002
2. Alternatives to dredging need to be considered and if feasible should be
adopted instead of dredging.
In contrast to the abundant information in the record showing the clear harm that will
arise from dredging, the record contains no information justifying the need for that action or
showing that any alternatives were considered and found to be infeasible. Indeed, the record
does not contain any information that would allow a meaningful evaluation of these matters.
There is nothing on the size of vessel(s) that the USCG wants to moor but ostensibly cannot
because the water is not deep enough. The record does not indicate how often that vessel(s) will
be at the USCG facility or the duration of its stay once it is there. The record does not
demonstrate why it would not be feasible to moor the vessel(s) on the Channel side of the
existing pier when it is at the USCG facility or why re-arranging the design of the dock and pier
would not be more cost effective and less environmentally harmful than dredging.
A practicable alternatives analysis is designed to force the agency proposing an action to
create a record on which it can determine, before any environmental damage occurs (including
cumulative effects), that the proposed activity is necessary and there are no less harmful means
of achieving the project's core objectives. The test is implemented in a systematic manner. The
proposed project's core objectives are identified. Thereafter, alternatives for reaching those
objectives (including the no action alternative) are given a hard look. Where it is determined that
the agency needs to proceed with the activity but the core objective can be served by one or more
practicable alternatives, the alternative with the least harmful impact to the environment best
329803
John Dorney
Page 7
April 8, 2002
represents the public's interest and should be the alternative selected, all other things being
equal.
The USCG apparently has not conducted an alternatives analysis concerning this project
and the record does not show that alternatives were considered. Notwithstanding the shortage of
information in the record, it is apparent that alternatives are available.
First, the USCG originally applied to perform this work in October 2001 but has yet to
receive the necessary authorizations to proceed. The USCG Wrightsville Beach facility has been
operating for roughly six (6) months, during a time of extreme national crisis, without dredging.
There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the USCG has not been able to carry out its
functions and operations during this time period. Thus, whatever the USCG currently is doing
represents an alternative to dredging that apparently is practicable.
Second, the diagrams the USCG submitted with its application to dredge show that the
water on the Channel side of the pier is naturally deeper than the water in the area where the
USCG proposes to dredge. The area of Banks Channel in front of the USCG facility is a no
wake zone and configuration of the USCG's pier does not provide greater protection to a vessel
moored on the shore side of the pier than it does to a vessel on the Channel side. Mooring the
vessel on the outside of the pier seemingly then would create no greater risk to the vessel(s) than
mooring in the area where the USCG wants to dredge. Based on this information then, it would
seem that the USCG's vessel(s) could be moored on the Channel side of the pier and dredging,
with the associated environmental impacts and costs, would not be necessary.
329803
John Dorney
Page 8
April 8, 2002
Third, as another alternative, it seems possible that the USCG's dock and pier could be
reconfigured to allow the mooring of the vessel(s) at issue while avoiding the need to
periodically dredge. While this action may require some immediate capital expenditure, in the
long run the cost may be less than the costs of maintenance dredging, the payment of reparations
for damage caused by the dredging and the constant dispute over the harms caused by dredging.
DWQ cannot issue a water quality certification to the USCG if practicable alternatives
exist. 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(1). Here it is obvious that the first necessary step, an alternatives
analysis, has not even been conducted, and for this reason alone a water quality certification
cannot be issued because alternatives in fact may exist. Moreover, we submit that if a
practicable alternatives analysis were performed, the USCG would find that practicable
alternatives exist and that these alternatives better represent the public's interest than the
dredging the USCG proposes. Dredging and the undeniable attendant long-term adverse impacts
cannot be the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. Clearly, given the cyclical
nature of the activity and the cumulative effect of the harm, there have to be changes in design,
configuration or operations that will allow the basic core objective of the project to be
accomplished without the devastation that presently is occurring. See 15A NCAC 2H.0506(f)
(practical alternatives include changes in design, configuration or density of the proposed
activity that will allow the project's basic purpose to be achieved). Accordingly, a proper
practicable alternative analysis is required. Until that analysis is performed and shows that
dredging is the least environmentally harmful practicable alternative, a water quality certification
cannot be issued.
329803
John Dorney
Page 9
April 8, 2002
3. 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(2) prevents the issuance of a water quality
certification for the planned activity because the USCG has failed to
demonstrate that its activity incorporates efforts to minimize impacts.
The brevity of the USCG's request for a water quality certification and lack of supporting
materials is truly astonishing. The USCG's submission, which was initially sent to Division of
Coastal Management and the Corps, consists of a completed form and three figures showing the
area for the proposed work and dredging profiles. See Exhibit F, hereto. It essentially provides
information on why the USCG wants to dredge but nothing more. The impacts of the proposed
activity have not been analyzed, studied or evaluated and alternatives have not been considered.
This lack of analysis and evaluation simply prevents a finding that the USCG's proposed activity
is being conducted in a way that will minimize impacts to surrounding waters.
An evaluation of methods to minimize impacts includes consideration of feasible ways to
lessen the effects of the planned activity in light of the project's core objective, the spatial and
dimensional requirements and the structural or natural features that affect the project's design.
15A NCAC 2H.0506(g). None of this information is in the record. Rather, the USCG simply
proposes to dredge -- a low-cost, blunt response for achieving its objective. The record does not
show that the USCG evaluated the characteristics of its project, the area affected or the impact of
the activity to arrive at the method of achieving its objective that will minimize the demonstrated
impacts that will occur. As such, DWQ cannot issue a water quality certification for the planned
activity. 15 NCAC 2H.0506(b)(2).
Particularly vexing in this instance is the cyclic nature of the proposed activity. If the
USCG is allowed to dredge, it will trigger another round of demonstrated impacts that are
329803
John Dorney
Page 10
April 8, 2002
substantial and transforming. There is no question that these impacts are cumulative and will
occur with increasing severity if the dredging is allowed. Eventually the USCG's boat basin will
trap sediment and sand and need to be dredged again starting the cycle all over again. Thus, the
USCG's activity and the severe impacts it causes are long-term and over the long run will have
increasingly severe impacts. Common sense and the law demand that the USCG be required to
come up with some better solution. While a change may require up front capital expenditures or
modifications in procedure, the benefits will be long-term and significant and clearly outweigh
any cost the USCG will be required to absorb.
4. 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) also prevents the issuance of a water quality
certification for the planned activity because the mitigation proposed by the
USCG is inadequate.
The decision to place the dredged materials on the beaches north of the USCG facility is
an important step towards mitigating the impact of the USCG's dredging on some water quality
uses. It is evident, however, that if the USCG proceeds with dredging, the adverse impacts
experienced in the past and identified in the studies referred above, will continue to occur.
Without more, the mitigation the USCG proposes falls very short of actual mitigation. The
deposited materials will erode, perhaps more quickly than the natural materials that were once in
the affected area. Ultimately, the affected area will return to the degraded mud flat that presently
exists. This erosion may in fact amplify the impact on some water quality uses due to increases
in sedimentation and suspended material. Thus, the proposed mitigation is temporary at best,
and in some respects, potentially damaging. The DWQ cannot issue the water quality
329803
John Dorney
Page II
April 8, 2002
certification without adequate compensatory mitigation and in this instance the proposed
mitigation falls short. 15 A NCAC 2H.0506((b)(6).
One possible way to provide actual mitigation would be to require the USCG to
periodically renourish the beaches north of its facility. While this does not stop the erosion, the
impact on uses such as recreation and aesthetics will be reduced. The period between
renourishment should be no more than that period before the damage becomes significant, e.g.,
bi-annual renourishment. The source of material for this purpose could be sediment trapped in
the USCG's basin at the time the renourishment occurs or materials previously deposited at some
upland location.
Another possible approach would be to require the USCG to take appropriate measures to
assure that once renourished, the beaches are stabilized so that to the extent erosion occurs, it is
consistent with the natural loss rate and impact in the area. If feasible, this requirement would
address all impacted uses.
If adequate mitigation is not possible, the USCG should not be permitted to dredge.
CONCLUSION. While we support the USCG's presence and activities in the
Wrightsville Beach area, we know that better, less damaging approaches to achieving the
objectives of the proposed project exit. Dredging in this instance is the equivalent of amputation
when physical therapy might also fix the problem. Alternatives must be considered, and
damage to the environment, water quality uses and the affected public minimized. If damage is
unavoidable, real and effective mitigation is required. Because none of these requirements have
329803
John Dorney
Page 12
April 8, 2002
been considered in a meaningful manner, we submit that a water quality certification cannot be
issued at this time.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on this proposal and look forward to working
with you, in the public interest, to resolve this matter in a way that best suits the interests of all
involved.
Very truly yours,
Kurt J. Olson
cc: Wm. Dean Lee, Commander, U. S. Coast Guard
Hon. William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary, DENR
Daniel C. Oakley, General Counsel, DENR
Donna D. Moffitt, Division of Coastal Management, DENR
Joanne Stennhuis
Caroline Bellis
P. Andrew Honeycutt, Town Manager, Town of Wrightsville Beach
Rhett Taber
Tom Jarrett
329803
a

Tom J? Coastal Phan [phone]
204 ??? ? Enencering Fax [phone]
ennii jpomptretx@aoLoom
Wilmhgwn, NC 28412
Report of Findings
Erosion of Taber Property,
C
N
c - `
Q g
.
.
h,
Wrightsville Bea
January 2001
APR 1 5 M ? '.

Introduction
W Lt;A11S &t§?U
1. General. On 12 January 2001, Mr. Rhett Taber contracted with the undersigned to
investigate the erosion problem that exists at his property located at 904 Schloss Street,
Wrightsville Beach, N.C. Mr. Taber contends that the erosion problem is directly related
to a bulkhead constructed by the U.S: Coast Guard to protect their installation. The Coast
Guard Station is located immediately south and adjacent to Mr. Taber's property (see
Photo No. 1).
2. The Wrightsville Beach U.S. Coast Guard Station was constructed in the late 1960'.s.
Conditions that existed on the south end of Wrightsville Beach prior to the construction
of the Coast Guard facility are represented on Photo. No. 2, dated 1 March 1966.
Construction of the north jetty at Masonboro Inlet by the Corps of Engineers was in
progress when this photo was taken. The jetty contractor's offloading facility is shown in
the general location where the Coast Guard Station was constructed. The north jetty was
completed in July 1966. Also shown on this photois a spiral shaped indenture in the
shoreline. This shoreline indenture has been a permanent feature of the Banks Channel
shoreline. As shown on Photo No. 1, the Taber property is located near the southern third
of this shoreline feature-
3 . Report Organization. In the following sections, background. information on tides
and currents in the Masonboro Inlet complex are reviewed and their importance on the
movement of sediment into and out of Banks Channel is discussed. This is followed by a
discussion of changes mi the shoreline in the vicinity of the Taber property and the Coast
Guard Station as observed from a comparison of historic aerial photographs maintained
by the U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Ground photos, provided by Mr.
Taber, were used to supplement the information interpreted from the aerial photos.
Finally, conclusions are drawn regarding the impact of the Coast Girard facility on the
subject property.
Background Information
3. Currents Tides, and Surface Current Patterns.. The Corps of Engineers
conducted physical model tests on Masonboro Inlet as part of the design process for the
south jetty (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1976). The model tests included replication
of tides and currents in the inlet and connecting channels and observations of surface
current patterns in the inlet and Banks Channel. Surface current patterns were simulat&
JVMN
for inlet conditions that existed in 1969 and 1973 as well as tests for the proposed south
jetty.
4. Tides and Currents. The phasing of tides and currents in Masonboro Inlet complex
are shown on Figure 1 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, June 1977). As the tide rises in
the bay, flood currents increase, reaching peak velocities when water levels are
approximately 1 foot above mean tide level and then decrease to zero near the time of
high water in the sound. On the falling tide, ebb velocities increase, peaking when water
levels fall to around mid tide. Current velocities decrease from this point reducing to
zero near the time of low water in the sound. Within Banks Channel, current velocities
do not achieve a distinct peak as maximum currents, on both flood and ebb, tend to
persist for approximately 3 hours. Peak velocities are generally in the range of 2 to 3 feet
per second. The significance of the tide and current phasing is; during flood, velocities
capable of transporting littoral sediment into the sound occur at higher levels on the bank;
whereas during ebb, most of the sediment transport occurs farther offshore.
5. Surface Current Patterns. Surface current patterns in the physical model for the
1969 inlet conditions during peak flood and peak ebb are shown on Figures 2 and 3
respectively. During peak flood (Figure 2), currents make a wide-sweeping turn into
Banks Channel, passing over the shoal area on the west side of the channel. Also, the.
flood current patterns show the existence of an eddy in the vicinity of the Taber property.
During peak ebb, currents move more-or-less uniformly through Banks Channel with
some apparent concentration of flow in the deep water channel located on the east side of
Banks Channel. Surface current patterns for the 1973 inlet condition are shown on
Figures 4 and 5 for peak flood and peak ebb respectively. The flood eddy in the vicinity
of the Taber property is more prominently displayed on Figure 4. Surface current patters
for peak ebb (Figure 5) are basically the same as for the 1969 inlet condition with flows
tending to concentrate along the east bank of Banks Channel. Peak flood and peak ebb
surface current patterns for Masonboro Inlet with the south jetty installed are shown on
Figures 6 and 7 respectively. Note that the south jetty was completed in 1980 generally
along the same alignment and in the same position as represented by the model tests.
While the south jetty obviously affected current patterns in the inlet entrance, the jetty
had essentially no impact on flood and current patterns. in Banks Channel. `- The flood
eddy in the vicinity of the Taber property is still present and ebb currents still tend to
concentrate on the east side of Banks Channel.
6. Summary of Tides and Current. The configuration of the Banks Channel shoreline
of Wrightsville Beach is a product of the prevailing tides and currents and their ability to
transport littoral sediment into and out of the area. The sand that composes the sound
shoreline is derived from the ocean side of the islands that is carried into the sound during
flood. The configuration that the sound shoreline assumes is basically a product of the
current patterns as the water moves in and out of the sound. In this regard, the flood eddy
observed in all surface current tests in the physical model is the mechanism responsible
for the formation of the permanent indenture in the vicinity of the Taber property
mentioned in the opening paragraph. The clockwise spiral of water associated with the
eddy results in sediment moving toward the south the near the shoreline during
2
essentially all phases of the tide. The predominant southward movement of sediment
along this portion of the sound was verified by the orientation of sand ripples on the
bottom observed by the writer on 12 January 2001. In its natural, or undisturbed state,
the indenture had apparently attained a state of dynamic equilibrium, that is, a balance
had been reached between the amount of sediment moving into and out of-the indenture
and the resulting configuration of the indenture.
Shoreline Changes
7. Review of Historic Aerial Photograph. Photo No. 3 shows the condition of the
Banks Channel shoreline in 1969, or shortly after construction of the Coast Guard
Station. The Coast Guard pier and mooring are in place as is the bulkhead, however, the
bulkhead is not exposed at this point (could not tell from photo if bulkhead was in place
at this time) as there is still a sandy beach fronting the Coast Guard Station. The pier and
mooring projected into the deepwater channel on the east side of Banks Channel. The
Coast Guard apparently did not perform any dredging during the initial construction of
the facility. The shoreline indenture along the Taber property is clearly displayed on this
photo.
8. By August 1971 (Photo No. 4), the Coast Guard bulkhead was clearly in place,
however, a sandy beach remained in front of the bulkhead and the shoreline to the north
appeared to be unchanged from the condition existing in 1969. A gazebo had been
constructed in front of the Taber property and was located close to the shoreline.
9. Between August 1971 and November 1974 (Photo No. 5) the Coast Guard bulkhead
had-become exposed and the shoreline immediately north of the bulkhead (Taber
property) had receded between 20 and 25 feet from the outer edge of the Coast Guard
bulkhead. As further evidence of the erosion, the gazebo shown in the August 1971
photo was clearly located over water in November 1974.
10. A November 1975 photograph (Photo No. 6) indicates additional shoreline erosion
along the Taber property. The shoreline immediately north of and adjacent to the Coast
Guard bulkhead' measured 40 to 45 feet from the outer edge of the bulkhead. The
shoreline north of the Taber property also seemed to be experiencing some erosion,
11. By April 1978 (Photo No. 7), the Taber property had receded, a total of
approximately 50 feet from the outer edge of the Coast Guard bulkhead. Also, properties
300, 500, 980, and 1450 feet north of the Taber property now have bulkheads. The
construction of these additional bulkheads supports the apparent erosion north of the
Taber property observed in the November 1975 photo.
12. Photo No. 8, dated June 1979 shows a new pier constructed off of the Taber property
and a contractor offloading facility just south of the Coast Guard Station. These features
are more clearly shown on Photo No. 9, dated August 1979. The offloading facility,
which consisted of a pier and rubble groin, was being used by a Corps of Engineers
contractor charged with the construction of the Nfasonboro Inlet south jetty. Littoral
3
sediment had accreted next to the south side of the rubble groin providing evidence that
substantial amounts of sand is transported into Banks Channel during the flood phase of
the tide. Also, Photo No. 9 clearly shows that there is essentially no dry beach fronting
the Coast Guard bulkhead.
13. The May 1980 photo (Photo No. 10) shows the condition in Banks Channel
following the removal of a substantial portion of the shoal in Banks Channel for
renourishment of the Wrightsville Beach storm damage reduction project. Also,
construction of the south jetty was completed at this time. Water depths in front of the
Coast Guard bulkhead appeared to be deeper than that shown in earlier photograph.. By
May 1981 (Photo No. 11), this apparent deepening appeared to be reversed as the high
water shoreline has shown some accretion in front of both the Coast Guard bulkhead and.
the Taber property. Note that the north end of Masonboro Island has been removed from
between the jetties as part of the channel realignment. Material removed to realign the
channel was pumped to Wrightsville Beach to complete the renourishment stated in 1980.
14. The January 1982 photo (Photo No. 12) indicates erosion of the high water beach,
however, shoals still extended out to the end of the pier on the Taber property. In 1986,
Mr. Robert Sawyer, the previous owner of the property, constructed a timber bulkhead to
protect the property against additional erosion. This bulkhead appears in Photo No. 13
dated 14 September 1986. This bulkhead eventually failed due to the loss of foundation
for the supporting 6" x 6 x 8' piles. Ground level photographs of the failed bulkhead
taken by Mr. Sawyer show that the lower portion of Some of the piles had slipped toward
the sound while the top of the bulkhead generally remained along the original alignment.
15. Photo No. 14, taken on 23 September 1996 following Hurricane Fran, shows the
absence of shoals in front of the Coast Guard Station. Finally, Photo No. 1, which was
taken on I 1 October 2000 shows a small beach in front of the Coast Guard bulkhead but
no dry beach in front of the Taber property. Also, there appears to be a rather deep hole
extending from the end of the Coast Guard bulkhead into the area fronting the Taber
property. This hole could be the result of recent maintenance dredging performed by the
Coast Guard. Obviously, with the construction of bulkheads along the Taber property, no
additional upland has been lost since 1986. However; the failure of Mr. Sawyer's
bulkhead due to the loss of pile foundation indicates that material is still being eroded
from the near shore bottom. Erosion of the near shore bottom is further supported by
ground level photos that show the undermining of steps that use to., lead from the Coast
Guard Station to the beach in front of the Taber property. Mr. Taber removed the steps
during the summer of 2000.
4
Summary
16. Erosion of the Taber property began sometime between.1971 and 1974. In 1971, a
dry beach was still in evidence in front of the Coast Guard bulkhead. However, by 1974,
this dry beach had all but disappeared, exposing the bulkhead to water and wave action
during essentially all phases of the tidal cycle. Prior to the construction of the bulkhead,
the position of the shoreline in the vicinity of both the Coast Guard property and the
Taber property experienced fluctuations due to the irregular impulses of sediment
transport into the sound. These sediment impulses would result in the shoreline
experiencing temporary accretion and erosion. Prior to the construction of the Coast .
Guard bulkhead, the shoreline from the Coast Guard Station north to a point past the
Taber property would essentially react in the same manner, thus maintaining the
equilibrium configuration (indenture) associated with the flood eddy and the sediment
transport characteristics dictated by the tide and current. phasing.. Once the bulkhead was
installed, the shoreline fronting the Coast Guard Station could no longer respond to the
absence of sediment. However, the properties to the north, including the Taber property,
were not so constrained and responded to the lack of sediment by eroding to a point well
landward of the end of the Coast Guard bulkhead. With the shoreline fronting the Coast
Guard Station now fixed, and dredging performed to maintain adequate depths for the
Coast Guard moorings, the shoreline to the north is apparently attempting to establi sh a
new equilibrium configuration consistent with the fixed boundary condition imposed by
the Coast Guard bulkhead and the change in sediment transport patterns associated with
both the bulkhead and basin dredging.
Conclusions .
17. Based on the information provided above, the writer concludes that the construction
of the Coast Guard bulkhead and subsequent maintenance dredging by the Coast Guard is
primarily responsible for the erosion of the Taber property. Construction of a
replacement bulkhead in January 2000 is presently preventing the loss of additional
upland from the Taber property. However, the sound bottom immediately fronting the
bulkhead continues to lose material and deepen. This continued loss of sound bottom
material will eventually create a condition that will threaten the stability of the bulkhead.
The continued erosion of the sound bottom will require additional remedial measures to
prevent the bulkhead from failing.
Possible Remedial Measures
18. The writer is not familiar with the frequency of dredging required to maintain the
Coast Guard moorings, the characteristics of the shoal material, or its quantity. However,
if the maintenance material is beach quality (i.e., contains less than 10 % silt and clay)
and totals 2,000 cubic yards or more, the material could possibly be placed along 400 to
600 feet of beach north of the Coast Guard Station to build a beach 15 to 20 feet wide.
This operation would not be without its environmental concerns. However, disposing of
the dredged material along the adjacent beach would greatly reduce the pumping distance
for disposal of the dredged material. The writer understands that the Coast Guard
currently deposits the material in an upland site adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway.
19. An alternative remedial measure would be the placement of a scour protection mat
along the entire length of the bulkhead fronting the Taber property. The mat could be
constructed of stone or other appropriate material.
JTZ;tt,PE.

References
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Hydraulics Laboratory,
"Improvements for Masonboro Inlet, North Carolina, Technical Report H-76-4,
Vicksburg, MS, April 1976.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center and Waterways
Experiment Station, "Comparison of Numerical and Physical Hydraulic Models,
Masonboro Inlet, North .Carolina, GITI Report 6, June 1977.

r--?
0
0
0
-1
"WAk
. ... . .... . .
..........
-1
"WAk

-
`
.
• , �f .,,.
Wig. �
'
14
i
�.j►s
� y •
CL
_
r
r♦ria` �+
� �
— , s � r
r'
. `4
-. i
E
•.�.1Js
iia:-�+�-f•
—-
s ;.

ZZ,

-:3
0 I
APRIL 22,19 78 13= 2§
i
OIL
�f s
(/�j/J
�/-
2,000 Mi N°

6L 6nV O-F
t�
04x -04d Ji
1
77
i
+ a . f r r' ' Y a •. if,
�12i4 t M
� .i �� � - •� »e+ ""'fid f• '..� f �:i.."f.r M-* >-�'..
.r�� n'-- i °.. `: ,�: 0.•S' � � s 1"s�Nt'�t
!OSx "� t; f r`'Y t .'L3r� r .v✓.::r f� 'r 1`s.
x iN. S ...3 � .tit s -..t - • - 0 41 -
Fill
Z. »�
f1�� i• y
fig- S � �•r. `'•�!M

OD
!!get: -ft
A
mss.
OD

r ice, Y
G:

14 -
AV
iV
co
Lw
14 -
iV
14 -
Lw

-00o
COAST
z I-.
ts
OD
0
0
,.WA
z
COAST
z I-.

2c

(s/gll#W)MOIJ o
O
O Q n I
v o c
?
N ?
O ?
m ?
V G
I ?
N
O
N
C m
W
? O
O _
? d O
U
C1 =
?. Q
C7
U
Q ti
n'
E 4
H
N
O
i
Figure 1 Tide and Current Curves for Masonboro Inlet
N O ?'
F-----
VELOCITY SCALE 69 Cond.-Flood
L 1 i 1
SURFACE CURRENTS
1959 CONDITIONS
MEAN TIDE
HOUR 8 -
SCALE 3 N FEET
400 0 JAN i2C0 ICCY?
PROTOTYPE
voCEL
VELOCITY $CALE
Q • • ???
1 > >
69 Cond.-Ebb
SURFACE CURRENTS
1969 CONDITIONS
MEAN TIDE
HOUR 10
SCALES IN FEET
sao a 400 1VCo am
PRQTOTT°= ; •
Z • 2
40O<L
VELOCITY SCALE Figure, 4
s o ? ?o
? r 1 1
FPS,PAOTOTYPE 1973 Cond.-Flood
SURFACE CURRENTS
SCALES IN FEET 1973 CONDITIONS
600 0 800 1200 r8o0 MEAN TIDE
PROTOTYPE
z a z a e HOUR 6
MODEL
VELOCITY SCALE
S 0 5 10 Figure 5
? l I I
FPS, PROTOTYPE 1973 Cond.-Ebb
SURFACE CURRENTS
SCALES IN FEET 1973 CONDITIONS
600 0 600 1240 1800
PROTOTYPE MEAN TIDE
z 0 z_ a 6 HOUR 10
MODEL
VELOCITY SCALE t- - g u re b
S p 5 ib
FPS, PROTOTYPE Jetty Plan-Flood
'
SURFACE CURRENTS
1973 CONDITIONS
SCALES ? FEET WITH SOUTH JETTY
Q 600 1200 180 PLAN B INSTALLED
MEAN TIDE
HOUR 6
I
VELOCITY SCALE ?a jetty Plan-Ebb
5 o
FPS. PROTOTYPE
SURFACE CURRENTS
1973 CONDITIONS
SCALES IN FEET WITH SOUTH JETTY
600 0 600 1200 18C0 PLAN B INSTALLED
PROTOTYPE MEAN TIDE
Z 0 2 a e -
MODEL ..?.- -_.-,_ HOUR 10
Tom Jarrett Coastal Engineering
)F91 204 Dorchester PL
Wilmington, NC 28412
Supplemental Report
Erosion of Taber Property
Wrightsville Beach, N.C.
September 2001
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
email [e-mail]
1. General. In January 2001, the undersigned submitted a report of findings to Mr. Rhett
Taber regarding the possible impacts that the U.S. Coast Guard Station at Wrightsville
Beach is having on his property, which is located immediately north of and adjacent to the
Coast Guard facility. That report concluded that the construction of the bulkhead and
subsequent maintenance dredging of its boat basin is primarily responsible for the erosion
of his property. In June 2001, the U.S. Coast Guard submitted an application for a
consistency determination to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management relating
to certain changes in the maintenance dredging of its boat basin. That permit application is
being circulated to State agencies for comments regarding the consistency of the proposed
action with the NC Coastal Management Program.
2. The January 2001 report focused on the impacts of the Coast Guard bulkhead. The
undersigned was asked to supplement this analysis to isolate the important role the Coast Guard
boat basin, particularly maintenance dredging of basin had on the erosion of the Taber property
and other properties to the north.
3. Basin Dredeina History. The Coast Guard boat basin, shown on Figure 1, was initially
dredged in 1973 (based on permit information). The basin measures 80 feet in width, 170 feet in
length and has a depth of 10 feet below mean low water. The slide slopes of the basin, shown on
the permit application, were 1 V:3H (one-foot vertical to 3 feet horizontal) for payment purposes.
That is, the dredging contractor would not be paid for any material removed outside the design
template. However, based on surveys accompanying Coast Guard permit application discussed
below, the side slopes of the basin appear to adjust to a slope approximating 1 V:5H following
dredging. The Coast Guard applied for a Department of the Army permit to dredge its basin in
June 1993. That permit was eventually granted and allowed the Coast Guard to maintain the
basin for a period of 10 years from the date of the permit. The permit application indicated that
approximately 2,000 cubic yards of material would be removed, however, estimates of the shoal
quantities represented by the survey accompanying the application (discussed later) indicated that
the shoal volume was probably of the order of 1,500 cubic yards. Sometime in late 1993 or early
1994, the Coast Guard removed the material and deposited it on an existing Corps of Engineers
confined dredged material disposal area located adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(AIWW) near Shinn Creek. Based on Corps of Engineers records, this was the only maintenance
dredging performed since the basin's initial construction. The current permit application calls for
the removal of approximately 2,100 cubic yards of sand with disposal of the dredged material on
the ocean beach of Wrightsville Beach. The change in the disposal location is the action that
prompted the State to review the proposed maintenance activity for its consistency.

4. Sediment Transport Regime. Littoral sediment is transported into Banks Channel through
Masonboro Inlet during the flood phase of the tidal cycle. While Masonboro Inlet has undergone
considerable modifications with the construction of the north jetty in 1966 and the south jetty in
1980, ocean sediments still freely enter the inlet by crossing over the weir section of the north
jetty. Some of the material is transported around the south tip of Wrightsville Beach and into
Banks Channel close to the shoreline predominantly by tidal currents while other sediments
become suspended or are carried toward the sound along the main channel bottom. The
sediments carried into the sound by suspension or in the main channel generally come to rest on
an extensive shoal located on the west side of Banks Channel that begins opposite the Coast
Guard Station and extends several thousand feet northward into Banks Channel. Material carried
by the main channel also deposits on shoals at the confluence of Masonboro Channel and in the
AIWW near its intersection with Shinn Creek. The material transported near the shoreline works
its way around the south tip of Wrightsville Beach and is carried north toward the Coast Guard
Station during the flood phase of the tidal cycle when maximum currents occur higher on the
bank. During ebb, the maximum currents occur lower on the near shore profile, therefore,
sediments transported along the shoreline during flood tend to remain in place during the falling
phase of the tidal cycle. While wave action plays a minor role in sediment transport in Banks
Channel, the predominant southwest winds in the area would only tend to enhance sediment
transport to the north near the shoreline.
5. The series of aerial photographs included in the January 2001 report, referenced above, were
reviewed to identify sediment transport pathways around the south tip of Wrightsville Beach and
into Banks Channel. Included in this review were observations of physical changes in the inlet
and surrounding area that could have influenced the transport of sediment into the sound. A
chronological analysis of the aerial photographs is provided in Appendix A. As mentioned
above, Masonboro Inlet has undergone extensive physical changes as a result of the construction
of the two jetties and dredging activities associated with sand bypassing and nourishment of the
Wrightsville Beach storm damage reduction project. However, the review of the aerial
photographs indicated that in spite of the physical changes, considerable quantities of littoral
sediment continue to be transported into the inlet and around the south tip of the island. One
feature of the inlet activities that may have impacted sediment transport into Banks Channel for a
short period of time was the construction of a rubble groin south of the Coast Guard Station. The
south jetty contractor constructed the groin in 1979 to protect his offloading and staging area.
The June 1979 photograph indicated that the south side of the groin was completed filled with
sand and a sand beach existed in front of the Coast Guard bulkhead. The sand beach fronting the
Coast Guard bulkhead was gone by August 1979 but returned by May 1980. By May 1981,
sediment appeared to be moving freely around the seaward end of the groin. While the
construction of the groin may have impacted sediment transport into Banks Channel for 2 years,
the build up of material on the south side of the groin confirms that considerable quantities of
littoral material are moved along the shoreline toward the Coast Guard Station.
2
6. Two additional sets of aerial photographs, taken by the Corps of Engineers in March 1999 and
March 2001, which were not included in the January 2001 report, are shown on photo No. 1 and
Photo No. 2 respectively. Both photographs show the groin to be completely covered with sand
and a sand beach existing seaward of the groin. Also, the 2001 photograph shows a rather
significant beach fronting the Coast Guard bulkhead but no dry beach fronting the Taber property.
These two photographs provide additional evidence that sediment moves around the south tip of
Wrightsville Beach and up the Banks Channel shoreline. The photographs also indicate that
sediment transport along the shoreline appears to stop in front of the Coast Guard Station.
7. Boat Basin Shoa ft Patterns. Before and after dredging surveys were not available for this
supplemental review, however, the 1993 and 2001 permit applications submitted by the Coast
Guard were accompanied by hydrographic surveys of the basin. These two surveys were used to
determine the distribution of shoal material in the basin, which was or is to be removed by
maintenance dredging. While no dates were given on the drawings for the two surveys„ they will
be referred to as the 1993 and 2001 surveys respectively. The 1993 survey, which is shown on
Figure 1, indicated the existence of a rather narrow beach at mean low water in front of the
bulkhead while the 2001 survey (shown on Figure 2) indicates a rather substantial beach at mean
low water with widths ranging from about 35 to 50 feet. Note that the mean low water beach
terminates about 20 feet from the north end of the bulkhead.
8. The apparent shoal depths (i.e. shoal thickness) for the 1993 survey and the 2001 survey are
shown as contours on Figures 3 and 4 respectively. The contours represent the vertical difference
between depths shown on the surveys and the dredging template for the basin. Cross-sectional
plots through the basin for both surveys are provided on Figures B-1 to B-9 in Appendix B. The
cross-sectional plots also show the dredging template for the boat basin. Note that the
sedimentation pattern in the basin would be different if actual post-dredging surveys were used
rather than the idealized dredging template due to probable differences in the final side slopes of
the basin. The shoal volumes indicated by these shoal pattern plots are approximately 1,500 cubic
yards for the 1993 survey and 2,100 cubic yards for the 2001 survey.
9. The shoaling patterns resulting from both surveys, particularly the 2001-shoaling pattern,
strongly demonstrate a south to north transport of material into the basin. The 1993-shoaling
pattern indicated the presence of what appeared to be a terminal lobe of sediment near profile
station 0+50 that had its origin south of the basin. North of this terminal lobe, the shoal pattern
seemed to support some influence of ebb tidal currents, i.e., transport from north to south.
However, if maintenance dredging was not performed in the basin between 1973 and 1993 (as
appears to be the case), the deposited material would have had ample time to be reworked by tidal
currents passing through the basin in both directions. The shoaling pattern indicated by the 2001
survey is rather clear, however, with material being deposited in the basin in a distinct south to
north pattern.
10. The cross-sectional plots for Stations 1+75 and 2+00 (Figures B-8 and B-9 in Appendix B),
which are located at the north end of the Coast Guard boat basin, show a rather significant amount
of deepening between 1993 and 2001. All of the other cross-sections south of these northern two
sections experienced significant shoaling. These depth changes in the basin provide additional
evidence that material moving northward into the basin is prevented from moving beyond the
basin resulting in shoaling of the basin and erosion of the near shore bottom and shoreline north of
the basin.
11. Conclusion. Based on the shoaling patterns and depths changes in the Coast Guard boat
basin between 1993 and 2001, it is apparent that the boast basin acts as a sediment trap,
preventing the transport of material northward along the sound side shoreline of Wrightsville
Beach. The entrapment of sediment by the basin and the fixation of the Coast Guard shoreline
by the steel bulkhead (which prevents the Coast Guard property from responding to variation in
sediment transport impulses and removes it as a source of sediment for shoreline to the north)
have combined to be a major cause of the erosion of the Taber property and properties located
north of the Taber property. The January 2001 report, referenced in paragraph 1, found that,
following the construction of the Coast Guard bulkhead and dredging of the boat basin, the
Taber property eroded about 50 feet. Also, the report found that shorelines at least 1,000 feet
north of the Taber property experienced some degree of erosion due to the Coast Guard facility.
While upland erosion of the Taber property has been prevented by the original construction of a
timber bulkhead along the property in 1986 (by the previous owner Robert Sawyer) and its
eventual replacement by Mr. Taber in January 2000, sediment continues to be eroded from the
area resulting in ever increasing depths in front of the properties north of the Coast Guard
facility. The private property owners are not the only ones being impacted by erosion caused by
the facility as the Coast Guard itself had to make extensive repairs to its bulkhead in 1996 due to
increased depths in the area that threatened to undermine the north tieback wall.
12. As an order of magnitude check of the significance of the volume of material trapped by the
Coast Guard boat basin, assume that the shoreline 1,000 feet north of the Coast Guard bulkhead
eroded an average of 25 feet (50-foot maximum at the bulkhead decreasing to zero 1,000 feet
north). The natural elevation of the dry sandy beach appears to be around +4 feet mean low
water (mlw). Depths in the eroded area (visual inspection) are around -2 feet mlw. Based on
these dimensions, i.e., a 6-foot vertical change in depths and an average of 25 feet of shoreline
recession over 1,000 feet of shoreline, the volume of material eroded from the area north of the
Coast Guard bulkhead would be around 5,500 cubic yards. The minimum volume of material
trapped by the boat basin, determined from the 1993 and 2001 surveys, totals 3,500 cubic yards.
Therefore, there appears to be a strong correlation between the volume of material trapped by the
boat basin and the volume of material eroded from the shorelines north of the Coast Guard
facility.
13. Recommendations. The primary recommendation is to request the Coast Guard to change its
disposal area from the ocean beach to the shoreline immediately north of its facility. This is an
equitable disposal alternative that would benefit both the Coast Guard and the adjacent property
owners. The boat basin acts as a sediment trap preventing the movement of littoral material to the
north past the Coast Guard facility. The impacts of the boat basin on the adjacent shorelines are
not unlike the impacts that navigation channels and inlet jetties impose on adjacent shorelines
along the ocean shoreline. In most instances, sediment removed to maintain the navigation
projects is bypassed to the adjacent shorelines. For example, sand is routinely bypassed around
Masonboro Inlet with material being placed both north and south of the inlet in order to keep the
material moving in the littoral system. At Oregon Inlet, material removed from the inlet
navigation channel is either deposited directly on Pea Island or immediately offshore within the
4
active littoral zone. The new sand management plan for Wilmington Harbor will also place beach
quality shoal material on the beaches of Bald Head Island and Oak Island. Placement of the boat
basin maintenance material north of the Coast Guard bulkhead would prevent additional
deepening (i.e., erosion) in the area, which in turn will prevent the need for future costly repairs to
private bulkheads and possibly prevent the need for additional repairs to the Coast Guard
bulkhead. Placement of the material immediately north of the Coast Guard facility should also
greatly reduce the cost of the maintenance operation by significantly shortening the length of the
disposal pipeline.
14. The suggested disposal location for the Coast Guard boat basin maintenance material simply
constitutes a form of sediment bypassing in order to keep the material in the natural sediment
transport system. The recommended disposal plan is not significantly different from that carried
out at the entrance to the Bald Head Island boat basin where a hydraulic dredge is used to bypass
material across the entrance to the basin with disposal north of the basin. The State of North
Carolina has a policy that requires littoral sediment to be deposited in the littoral system. In this
case, the littoral system is the sound side shoreline of Wrightsville Beach not the ocean shoreline.
The material that works its way through Masonboro Inlet and into Banks Channel and presently
deposits in the Coast Guard boat basin is material that would otherwise be permanently removed
from the ocean littoral transport zone if the boat basin did not exist. That is, the material would
continue to be transported northward along the west side, or sound shoreline of Wrightsville
Beach, and in so doing, the sediment would serve to maintain a higher degree of stability of that
shoreline. To require material removed from the Coast Guard boat basin to be returned to the
ocean transport zone would deprive the sound shoreline of material that would naturally be
transported to and deposited on the sound beach in the absence of the boat basin.
15. While the west side of Wrightsville Beach is technically classified as an estuarine
shoreline, the properties and immediate offshore bottom in question north of the Coast
Guard facility are not wetlands as the area does not contain any of marsh plant species
required for such a designation. Accordingly, shoal material removed from the Coast Guard
boat basin could be placed north of the facility and completely satisfy disposal requirements
specified in subchapter 7H, Section .0208(b)(1)(C) of the North Carolina Administrative
Code, which states:
"(C) Spoil from maintenance of channels and canals through irregularly flooded
wetlands shall be placed on non-wetland areas, remnant spoil piles, or disposed of by a
method having no significant, long term wetland impacts. Under no circumstances shall
spoil be placed on regularly flooded wetlands. "
Even though the Coast Guard boat basin is not situated in an irregularly flooded wetland,
disposal of the maintenance material on the beaches north of the basin would completely satisfy
the intent and purpose of the above referenced section, i.e., no wetlands would be directly or
indirectly impacted by such disposal.
16. Closure. In view of the obvious impacts that the Coast Guard boat basin and bulkhead is
having on normal sediment transport along the west side (sound shoreline) of Wrightsville
Beach and in view of the erosion of the shoreline and near shore bottom attributable to these
impacts, the State of North Carolina, acting through the Division of Coastal Management, and
the U.S. Coast Guard should agree to change the dredged material disposal location from that of
the Atlantic Ocean shoreline of Wrightsville Beach to the sound shoreline immediately north of
the Coast Guard facility. This change should be permanent in that subsequent maintenance
Tom rial north of th st Guard facility.
operations should also deposit the maintenance ma7--
J tt, P.E.
?- PROPERTY C
APPROX_ M.H.W. -_ -?J MR. SA°,wyE
`f04 SCHLO5,
SO }
1APPROX. M. L
r W B , NG
AY'
f------/ PROPERTY Li N E
Y_T b? A ? /
BULKHEAD
PP "47?, fie N
\0 // AREA BE DREDGED TO 10.0'
EMU
i 40 LI M IT 0 DREDGING, 0 10.0'
A
p? IL! SOUNDtN& try FE;:--'T
4 } _ BELOW LOCAL M. L.W. = 0.4
\? j <
rO DtSP OSPtL ?= P.REA \15N
U.S. GOAT GUARD STi°?Tl
W R iGHT5 V I LLE BEACH
F-
q 12 WATER ST
\?rx \?3 - ?°? VJRIGHTSViLLE BEAD:-!, N
;PIER 284SQ- 2099
J I ? ? i 11
N i 0. iPROPERT'f t 1?
I PROPERTY OF
C u1 APPROX.. M.H.W. -.mot M R, P=. R RY
PLR 1 .420 v,/ATER 57.
SL.LE IL_4%?' W B. , NG 28480
LOCAL M.L_W. = 0.0' i? ;?--- LIMIT OF DREDGING TO 10_0'
-'- ??EXtST. GRADE
OTES:
THE PURPOSE OF -TN-F- MOTECT
IS TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE
DEPTH OF WATER FOR MOOR-
ING -COAST.. GUARD . BOAT. _
SOUNUINGS_ TAKEN FEB. 1993.
MATERIAL TO BE PKEDGED
VE RO Y. _ 2,00© t..Y. OF SAND
RIAL TO BE REMOVED
YDRAULIC DREDGE..
s 3 if SIDE SLOPE
DREDGE DEPTH 10.0' (11.0" PERMIS:?I BLE)
SECTIOW PROPOSED DREDGING
SCAL1= I^= Zp' NEAR MASON SORQ INLET
NEW HANOVER COUtQTY, NC
U.S. COAST GUARD STAY 1011
W RIGHT5ViLLE BEACH
j 'U N E v91` -6
FIGURE 1.
T rix 2 _
it 1y+i I •;?
O iIANLW 0.D ERENCED
WITS OF
. u ARTICUTAM g 3+
' . W xk ? s.t UAT - IDEq AT -10'D
21 r= BEt >lT NEV SSP
DL1LKiiFJID
: ? ; !F L?;. ,a ryd ise' (,p qe e °o i/+ t o 30 9?' 907 SEwMINA St
4?? - t t r r FENCE L
! ''-x i? S t ,``fry. -----
- ?,'+) t l' ice/ r i t L `\?? `? `
?` , i t t \
^r} ? .r. 1 . i?I i r t t-
i - rf r ' t r r t t ?
jn2, a 1 ? t rI r t i ? ?
?Y i ? 1 p , , t
'ea
ft' ?t 1
11 f .°# PARKING AMA
s
TS
FUEL TANI(S
J
'y ?si•?• din
., d r
w-,ry 1 T? FENCE LINE
r ` I
:? t f ,rn f ( t `?. ` ; ( PRIME RESIDENCE
920 WATER ST.
up? aEaa?Nc pug,
$ `?L
SSE: r' 20'-0'
+a
s.. FIGURE 2
- Ylv! Wea ?r 5rM l?hc ?r.a?/
4 N t'1 x '1) h -0; (rj 01 1
• • .. ._ ? }_-..?? `ti?+ g?? hip.. LJ ..J
i
j
._ e
I
I i? 1. _.I4?,Q
i
i i
.G o47S

t4 ??
Contours are the difference between
depths shown on the 1993 survey and
the dredging template
p4SO
----US-Coast Guard Station
Wrightsville Beach
Figure 3
Wrightsville Beach Coast Guard Station
Apparent shoal depths based on 1993 basin survey
Wo) ?r.JN ttNc re ?
?}tJk ' YM
o. 01 7 9 p o' cl a? ps 01 1, O n 01
1 1 (
3
L
t
L y

Z+oo
1
f

?, spa il\y p+75

Ile
US Coast Guard Station
1 't sk
-
Wrightsville Beach

a"
F
Q0, A,
4 r
1f ? f J A € ) I

Contours are the difference between
depths shown on the 2001 survey and
the dredging template
Figure 4
Wrightsville Beach Coast Guard Station
Apparent shoal depths based on
L 2001 survey
--

PHOTO NO. 1 MARCH 1999
?tS
M ,
?J 9

•
PHOTO NO.2 MAR&C H 2001

t Y
APPENDIX A
Review of Aerial Photographs
March 1966 - The north jetty is under construction. Beaches along the west side of
Banks Channel including the Coast Guard Station, appear to be rather
wide and healthy. A large shoal exist on the west side of Banks Channel
near the confluence with Shinn Creek and Masonboro Inlet.
1969 The north jetty is complete. South tip of Wrightsville Beach facing
Masonboro Inlet has been reshaped into a triangular configuration. The
Coast Guard dock is in place and a sandy beach still is present in front of
the Coast Guard station and all along Banks Channel north of the facility.
May have been some slight amount of erosion north of the Coast Guard
station but difficult to tell due to quality of the photo and unknown tide
condition. Sediment pathway around the south tip of Wrightsville Beach
and into Banks Channel is unimpeded. Shoal in Banks Channel forces
currents close to the east side.
Aug. 1971 Material passing freely over the north jetty weir and into Banks Channel.
The Coast Guard facility appears complete but sediment pathway past the
facility still open, i.e., no evidence of bulkhead impacts. Boast basin has
not been dredged at this time. North end of Masonboro Island building
into inlet. Banks Channel shoal still present.
Nov. 1974 North end of Masonboro Island contiues to press northward with some
apparent erosion of the south tip of Wrightsville Beach. Sediment
pathway around tip of Wrightsville Beach into Banks Channel still open,
however, can begin to see the Coast Guard bulkhead with diminished
beach fronting the bulkhead. The Coast Guard apparently dredged its
basin in 1973 based on the permit application. Banks Channel shoal still
present.
Nov. 1975 South end of Wrightsville Beach continues to erode due to the
encroachment of Masonboro Island. Material still passing freely over the
north jetty weir. Begin to see evidence of erosion of the shoreline north of
the Coast Guard station as the Coast Guard bulkhead is clearly exposed.
Very little sand beach fronting the Coast Guard bulkhead.
April 1978 North end of Masonboro Island continuing to build but more in a seaward
direction. Some additional loss of the south tip of Wrightsville Beach.
There appears to be a sand beach fronting the Coast Guard bulkhead with
A-1
some sand evident (apparently below maw) in front of the properties north
of the Coast Guard station.
June 1979 Construction of the south jetty underway. Contractor has constructed an
offloading facility that includes a rubble groin south of the Coast Guard
station. Groin has completely filled on the south side. Still appears to be
a sand beach fronting the Coast Guard bulkhead. Banks Channel shoal
appears to have grown to the north with deepwater still hugging close to
the Wrightsville Beach shoreline.
Aug. 1979 South tip of Wrightsville Beach eroded almost to the parking lot. Old
groin on inlet shoulder exposed. Contractor's groin completely full. No
sand beach fronting the Coast Guard bulkhead and shoreline north of
bulkhead appears to have eroded.
May 1980 Construction of the south jetty complete. Shoal in Banks Channel
opposite the Coast Guard station has been removed for nourishment of
Wrightsville Beach. Contractor's groin full with sediment apparently
moving past and up Banks Channel as evidenced by small sand beach in
front of the Coast Guard bulkhead and shallow shoal off properties to the
north.
May 1981 Masonboro Island north tip has been removed to reposition the navigation
channel and nourish Wrightsville Beach. Sediment appears to be moving
around the contractor's groin with small sand beach apparent fronting
Coast Guard bulkhead.
Jan. 1982 No sand in front of the Coast Guard bulkhead. Sand still working its way
across the north jetty weir and around the south tip of Wrightsville Beach
into Banks Channel.
Sep. 1986 South tip of Wrightsville Beach begins to encroach into the inlet. Little or
no beach in front of the Coast Guard bulkhead. Some shallow shoals off
the properties to the north. Bulkhead built on Taber property (by previous
owner, Bob Sawyer).
Sep. 1996 Sediment movement in to Banks Channel from the inlet appears to be fully
restored as the contractor's groin is completely covered with material
flowing around its seaward end. Still no beach fronting the Coast Guard
station. Coast Guard apparently dredged its basin sometime in 1993 based
A-2
on the permit application. Based on survey, adjusted side slopes would
probably have reached the toe of the bulkhead and extended north beyond
the bulkhead north tieback. Due to continued loss of bottom in front of
the return wall, Coast Guard had to place rip-rap in 1996.
A-3
O
LO
T
0
v
T
V
M?
W
> N
U) >,
._ O
L
CO)
O U)
Rf gn
m +
y O
r
V ?
N
c?
O C
y M
r
r
m
L
LJ.
O LO O LCS 0 Lf) O
T T T N
O
M
T
O
N
V-
0
V-
T-
?
C
0)
O L
00 fl
N
3
O
1
4)
co
o
d0'
O
O
Q.
E
N
i
O
v
a>
CO
i
N
O
U
0
0
N
I
C
O
IL)
Cl?,
O
U
'M
d)
I
0
M
O
N
O
T
O
(nnlw 1001) UOIIBAG13
0
U)
T-
0
?r
s
V
M?
W
> U)
m CD
i
L ?
CO)
O N
m Co +
? O
°
?m
r
?OV)
N N
CIS
O C
V Cc
? M
CY)
r
N
m
d
L
LL
O O tp O LO 0
0
M
T-
O
N
r ?
O Q.
r E
N
O
? V
0 C %j
•y O
coo ?- U
fl.
? o
3 04
o I
E
O
m O
U)
W
L
U
M
O ?
r
O
M
O
N
O
r
O
(MIW 4001) u014eAeJ3
0
LO
T-
0
V
cc
M?
W
4)
0 N
O
Ct%
c W +
C
co .v-
? O ?
N N
to '?
? M
r
M
M1
W
L
O O O O Lf) N
r
O
M
r
O
N
r N
Q.
O
r
r N
d I
O
? U
4) (D
rn C W
E O
0L
co
O
H
0 O
N
3
0
w- c
o
co U
cl)
Ch
2
U
co
O O
?d O
r
O I
M
O
N
O
r
O
(Mlw JOGJ) U04BA013
O
O
T-

4)
> N
L ?
CO)
O N
c?
m +
O
MM _
W
N N
t6 ?
V ?
r
m
L
LL
i i O
O O O U? O W) N
M
r
O
N
r
O
r
r
O r
rn C
E
M
CO 'z.
a
3
O
O
d
c°o =
8
O
O
M
N
to
Q.
E
I
C
O
N
CO
Ch
N
O
U
0
0
N
I
c
0
Cl)
Ch
co
0
U
M
rn
r
O
N
O
r
O
(Miw 4091) U014BA013
[-?W-'
V
M?
W
4)
4
m 4)
L ?
O CO)
p
co c
cc O
? r to
O
N N
w
O C
V ?
y M
r
M)
W
L

O
LO
T-

0
M
V-
O
N
V-
O
r
r
O .r
rn C
N
co L
Q.
f+
H
a?
0 3
ti E
0
d
co
m
o
LO
O
It
O
M
O
N
O
r
O
O to O U? O N
(MIW 1801) UO}}ewa13
N
a.+
cQ.
C
I
O
U
N
Cl)
N
O
U
r
0
N
c
0
co
N
U
0
U
M
r
I
0
O
V-

> U)
L ?
0 ?
CC C4
c m
r 1? r ''CAA
w Q V,
N
CO)
V cc
? M
cr)
r
m
L
LL
O LO O iA O T N
i i i
(MILD 1801) u014ena13
0
M
r
O
N
r
O
r
r
O .+
d
rn C
E
O
co Q.
H
3
O
4)
t00 =
H
L

N
E
N
I
C
O
V
N
i
N
N
O
U
C)
0
N
I
C
U
N
U
N
N
0
U
M
r
I
O
M
O
N
O
r
O
s
V
M?
W
•>
CO)
1
O N O
Cc
m
r
co)
MM ?
W iO
c O
N N
O ?
V ?
? M
cr)
r
1
m
L
O
O
r
O
r
O
M
Tl-
O
N
O
r
r
O?
d
oi C
CJ)
E
N
co Q
as
3
O
n E
O
w d
C _
L
O
It
O
M
O
N
O
r
O
O O O In O N
O
O.
E
I
C
O
V
O
U)
O
U
0
0
N
I
C
O
m
CO
O
L
U
M
rn
rn
(MIWJGGJ) U01leAG13
s
V
M?
W
a)
L ?
ONtn
?m
? ? tQ
O ?
N N
m a
V
CO)
C)
r
co
m
L
.r.
V.
O
r
O
d'
r
O
M
r
a
N
V-
O
r
r
O?
w
C:) C
E
N
c ?CL
m
O 3
E
O
v..
as
co
N_
L
IT
O
M
O
N
O
r
O
O O O tC! O In N N
i i
(MIW 4001) u014enal3
Q.
E
N
I
C
O
V
N
CO
r
CD
O
U
0
0
N
I
c
O
v
C/)
N
cn
O
U
M
r
I
O
LC)
T-
O
d'
V
M?
W
L ?
CO)
co m O
N
m
? ?r c0
?oV)
N N
V ?
? M
C)
r
MI
W
L
LL
O O O l[7 O N N
i i
O
M
r
O
N
V-
O
r
r
O ?
d
w
rn C
E
N
co OL
Q.
d
0 3
E
0
9
d
cO0 =
N_
O 0
LO
O
el'
N
Q
E
N
I
C
U
N
co
N
N
O
L
U
0
0
N
C
U
N
N
N
O
U
M
r
I
O
M
O
N
O
r
O
(MAUI 1081) UOIIBAG13

(?
_ 1
t
i
--?
L-f?

:;,) C 0 6
?`;
-_ll---;
?= _?
?.
a
1?
Review of Report of Findings and Supplemental Report Erosion of Taber Property (Tom
Jarrett Coastal Engineering, January & September, 2001, respectively)
John T. Wells, Director and Professor
Institute of Marine Sciences University
of North Carolina-CH Morehead City,
NC 28557
December 2001
A review of two related documents that were prepared by Tom Jarrett Coastal Engineering is
presented in the following paragraphs. The purpose of the reports was to determine the cause for
erosion on the Taber property, located adjacent to the U.S. Coast Guard Station on Banks Channel at
the south end of Wrightsville Beach. The reports utilized aerial photographs, background data on
observed and modeled tides and currents from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and dredging
records associated with maintenance of a bulkhead and boat basin at the Coast Guard Station. The
photographs span a period from 1966 to 2001 and have been used to determine the correlation, or
lack thereof, between activities associated with construction and maintenance of the Coast Guard
Station and erosion of the Taber property. A rudimentary assessment was also made of the degree to
which construction of the south jetty at Masonboro Inlet may have impacted flow patterns and
sedimentation, thus indirectly impacting the Tabor property after it first began to erode.
The primary conclusions of the first report (Report of Findings) were that 1) erosion of the Taber
property began between 1971 and 1974,2) the Taber property experienced, even prior to 1971,
irregular pulses of sediments transported along the shoreline of the sound, 3) installation of the
bulkhead fronting the Coast Guard Station created a fixed boundary that disrupted the natural
equilibrium between sediment supply and morphologic response to the north, and 4) this change in
fixed boundary conditions, together with maintenance dredging at the station, was directly
responsible for erosion of the Taber property. The second report (Supplemental Report) examined
more closely the transport of sediments and the role of maintenance dredging at the Coast Guard
Station on the Taber property. Its main conclusions were that 1) the boat basin at the station served
as a trap for sediments being transported toward the Taber property from the south, 2) trapping of
sediments and hardening the shoreline with a bulkhead thus starved the downdrift shoreline of
sediments, and 3) the starved shoreline, i.e. the Taber property, responded by eroding. Both reports
recommended that disposal of sand from maintenance dredging at the Coast Guard Station be placed
north of the station to reduce or eliminate the erosion.
The approach in this review has been to answer four questions: First, have the correct tools for
determining erosion patterns been used? Second, are the interpretations valid and can the
conclusions be supported by application of these tools? Third, are there alternative explanations
that are equally justified, based on available data and within a reasonable margin of error? Fourth,
is the recommended solution for remedial work appropriate?
NCH 4-
w
R
Have the correct tools been used? The reports make extensive use of aerial photographs. Aside
from ground surveys or having access to other forms of digital data on shoreline position, there is no
tool more effective than aerial photographs for assessing shoreline change. In fact, aerial
photographs have been a standard tool, available for this purpose, for approximately 60 years.
Quality and scale of photographs can vary considerably; however, virtually every major shoreline
feature, and indeed many minor features, can be depicted and interpreted rapidly and definitively
using photographic techniques. In addition, aerial photographs can reveal location and extent of
submerged shoals, and a qualitative assessment of water depth near the shoreline is usually possible.
Interpretations based on aerial photographs are strengthened when they are combined with other
sources of data, e.g. flow patterns, tides, storms, land-use patterns, and siltation and dredging
records. It is my opinion that the reports were based on the proper sources of available information
for making an informed determination of the causes for erosion, and that the "time step" (average -2
years, 1966-2001) for photo-interpretation was sufficient to resolve the relationship between bulk
heading/dredging and subsequent erosion.
Are the interpretations valid and can the conclusions be supported from the data? The reports
have attempted to correlate erosion on the Taber property with bulkhead construction and dredging at
the Coast Guard Station. I concur that the erosion appears to have begun between 1971 and 1974.
Although this section of shoreline has undergone periodic fluctuations associated with sediment
pulses, it is clear that the indentation north of the Coast Guard Station is a persistent feature that
predates bulkhead construction at the station. The Report of Findings concludes that the indentation
is related to an eddy in current flow patterns. I concur on the grounds that the indentation in the
shoreline is a long-term feature that did not suddenly acquire its morphology from rapid local
erosion. Current vectors from Corps of Engineers' model results (Figures 2 7, Report of Findings)
indicate that the eddy lines up reasonably well with the indentation.
Potential impacts of the south jetty, installed in 1980, were also addressed insofar as possible by the
model results. Results did not show significant differences in magnitude or direction of currents in
Banks Channel when "jetty versus no jetty" model runs were made. It is worth noting that the
efficacy of the model could be questioned because observational data in Banks Channel were not
presented for comparison purposes once the j jetty was actually installed; however, I do not view this
as a significant shortcoming because the erosion of the Taber property clearly began prior to
construction of the south jetty. Moreover, Figure 1 in the Report of Findings shows an exceedingly
well-behaved relationship between tide elevation and current speeds in Masonboro Inlet. In fact, the
phase relationship is a textbook example of a progressive wave (peak flow at mid-tide; zero flow at
high and low tides), as would be expected in an inlet such as Masonboro, and there is simply no
evidence from the flow patterns that delivery of sediments to the sound should be interrupted due to
the south jetty construction. The report notes correctly that the sediment trapped by the rubble groin
constructed south of the Coast Guard Station in 1979 (Photo #9) verifies active transport of sand into
Banks Channel by flood currents.
2
The Report of Findings makes a cause-and-effect argument by concluding that construction of the
Coast Guard bulkhead effectively hardened the shoreline such that this area is no longer in a state of
equilibrium and cannot adjust to temporary changes in accretion and erosion. Specifically, it is
argued that the bulkhead fixed the shoreline thereby precluding sand which fronts the Coast Guard
Station from serving as a temporary source for the Taber property during periods of erosion. On the
basis of professional judgment, I concur with this conclusion. A temporal correlation has been
firmly established, and principles of sediment transport and shoreline response support the
connection between bulkhead construction and downdrift erosion. Further, it is well documented in
the scientific and engineering literature that bulkheads and seawalls can change local dynamics of
the shoreline and in some instances create "end effects" whereby erosion is exacerbated on adjacent
property to either side of these types of structures.
The cause-and-effect argument in the first report, based primarily on aerial photographs, is
strengthened tremendously by the Supplemental Report, which examines shoaling patterns in the
boat basin in front of the bulkhead at the Coast Guard Station. The interpretation from Figures 3 and
4, namely that infilling (siltation) in the boat basin has progressed from south to north is correct.
Whereas the 1993 infilling pattern indicates bi-directional transport (to the north as well as to the
south), the lobe extending from the south has a maximum thickness twice that of the lobe extending
from the north. It is therefore reasonable to conclude, as does the report, that sediments are reworked
by tidal currents but probably owe their origin to sources that are located to the south. As discussed
in the Report of Findings and reiterated in the Supplemental Report (Photo # 1 and #2), sediment
buildup at the rubble groin installed in 1979 irrefutably confirms transport of littoral sediment along
the shoreline (from the south) toward the Coast Guard Station.
The 2001 infilling pattern is especially impressive. The delta-like lobate morphology clearly
indicates infilling from south to north. As the report indicates, the fact that the lobe terminates at the
2+00 profile station and that the depths increase at this location provide evidence that transport in the
littoral system is disrupted. Sediment is prevented from moving to the north, and I concur that the
boat basin acts as a sediment trap. Although it was not possible for me to personally verify from
aerial photographs the reported erosion north of the Taber property, any erosion extending as far as
1000 ft to the north, as reported, would be a significant additional indicator of sediment trapping. I
was indeed surprised that the agreement between sediment loss along this 1000 ft corridor matched
so closely the amount of sediment trapped in the boat basin.
Are there alternate explanations for erosion of the Taber property? Several alternate
explanations for erosion of the Taber property could be put forth. 1) Erosion fortuitously
occurred at this particular location and was not connected to the Coast Guard Station. In other
words, because oceanfront and soundside erosion are common in North Carolina, they should be
expected to occur at many locations where there are no groins, jetties, boat basins, etc. It is certainly
true that erosion is pervasive, but the temporal correlation simply cannot be ignored, nor can the
clear pattern of northerly transport and the infilling
(trapping) within the boat basin. These connections are too convincing to be written off with a
"chance alone" argument. 2) Severe storms created erosion on the Taber property but spared the
Coast Guard Station because of the bulkhead. Intuitively, this is a reasonable argument. North
Carolina experienced two hurricanes in the timeframe during which erosion began on the Taber
property (Hurricane Ginger in 1971, Hurricane Agnes in 1972). However, both hurricanes produced
only minor damage along North Carolina's southern
coast and their occurrence does not negate the fact that dynamic equilibrium was disrupted by the
bulkhead in such a manner that response to virtually any physical forcing (including hurricanes)
would be unnatural. 3) Changes in transport along the ocean beaches, and thus into Masonboro
Inlet, reduced the availability of sediments and created the erosion. There
is no available evidence to support this contention (although sediment pulses in Banks Channel were
noted in the reports). Even if there were variations along the ocean shoreline, it could be argued that
the effects would have been temporary and not necessarily correlated with bulkhead construction and
dredging. Again, the issues are disruption of equilibrium and trapping in the boat basin. 4) Hard
structures and other human impacts along the sound to the north of the Taber property, rather than
the Coast Guard Station to the south, were responsible. Even without extensive knowledge of the
types of human activities to the north, this argument is not convincing because several lines of
evidence indicate that the sediment is derived predominantly from the south rather than the north.
Moreover, the erosion of other property north of the Taber property (as far north as 1000 it) is
evidence that progressive downdrift impacts have originated from a single point of origin.
In my opinion, there is no viable alternate explanation for the erosion of the Taber property and I
concur with the major findings in the reports.
Is the recommended solution for remedial work appropriate? Both reports recommend that
material from dredging the boat basin be used to build up the beach north of the Coast Guard
Station. I concur. The advantages of a more local disposal site are obvious. Not only would the
disposal site be closer to the dredging operations, thus resulting is less expensive disposal, but
downdrift disposal would provide the necessary sand for potentially
eliminating the erosion. An argument is made using the historic precedent of bypassing sand to keep
it in the littoral system. In this case, I agree that any sand which accumulates in the boat basin has
already been permanently lost from the ocean littoral system and is part of the sound littoral system.
Bypassing to the north along the sound is thus appropriate and in keeping with good practices of
sand management. The order-of-magnitude estimates of sediment volume lost to the boat basin and
lost in shoreline erosion indicate that bypassing has a good chance of success in stemming erosion.
The Supplemental Report makes a convincing case for approval of consistency of the proposed
action by State of North Carolina.
Submitted on Dec 4 2001 by John T. Wells

r
Prepared for.

STATES COAST GUARD
CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIT
CLEVELAND, OHIO
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
STATION WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
WATERFRONT STRUCTURES INSPECTION
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
(Volume 1)
DTCG83-95-C-30Z189
Task Order #006(a)
20 March 1996
L?OF CONTENTS
IAB
APPENDIX A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDIX B - WATERFRONT STRUCTURES INSPECTION REPORT
APPENDIX C - FIGURES
APPENDIX D - PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX E - PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST(S) "
Submitted by. CARO?
qq l °.......e, l o?
a 10
MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEERS =? pzF S$1047
3717 National Drive, Suite 107 C,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 13383
O r pO ? ti
EXHIBIT gq'
RO SS
°efea:?tiro4a
G'SCG Steltic)n Gl ritrru.? ville Beach
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
?lo#btt &Afichol Engineers
USCG Station Wrightsvilte Beach Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Moffatt & Nichol Engineers conducted a site investigation with topside and underwater
inspection of the waterfront facilities at the U.S. Coast Guard Station in Wrightsville Beach,
North Carolina. After reviewing available plans, discussing problem areas with Station
personnel, conducting the site investigation, and completing an analysis of the information, the
following findings and recommendations along with opinion of probable cost(s) are forwarded
concerning the facilities:
n The Fixed Concrete Pier is in fair condition. The precast prestressed double-tee
deck sections are spalled and the bearings are heavily corroded. The concrete
piles and beams are spalled and cracked. The original construction drawings
indicate that they were designed for 125 pounds per square foot of live load; the
pier has been restricted to pedestrian traffic by the Station. The material
condition of the double-tee sections is poor due to insufficient cover on the
reinforcing and corrosion of the bearings. It is our opinion that long term repair
and maintenance is not an economically feasible option. The 12 inch square
prestressed concrete piles and reinforced concrete beams supporting the deck
sections are spalled and need to be repaired in order to curtail the deterioration
that is taking place. It is recommended that the concrete piles and beams be
repaired and the double-tee sections be replaced with a precast composite
concrete deck, Alternative 2C, composed of precast panels and a topping slab.
The repaired structure will have a serviceable life of 15 to 20 years and provide
the Station with a very good structure for accessing the other berthing facilities
for the homeported and visiting vessels at the Station. The opinion of probable
cost for this alternative is $126,000.
b The concrete retaining walls on the north and south ends of the property are
being undermined and overstressed due to migration of passive side soils. The
retaining walls are in very poor condition. The base of the footing is undermined
on the North wall from STA 0+07 to STA 0+47 and from STA 0+07 to STA 0+16
on the South wall. The elevation of the soils during the original 1968
construction was EL +6.00 (MLW), while the present minimum elevation is EL -
Akffatt & Nichol Engineers 14 -1
USCG Station Wrightsville.Beach a ecrrtive Szrnzznrzzy
0.12 (MLW). The cause of this migration of the passive soils is attributed mainly
to the dredging of the boat basin causing the soil to "slough" and try to return to
its' original angle of repose 1:8 (V:H). If the existing condition is not mitigated
then both of the walls will eventually fail due to undermining of the footings and
overstressing of the wall itself. Concrete sheetpile bulkheads placed behind the
existing retaining walls appear to be in fair condition and are actually mitigating
the active side soil pressures on the two retaining walls. However, they will be
overstressed if the existing retaining walls fail and the passive side soils are
below EL+3.25 (MLW). The retaining walls on the north and south side are in
the process of failing and cannot be repaired. The passive side soils on the front
of the retaining structures should be increased to an EL +5.00 (MLW) to
satisfactorily provide passive resistance for the cantilevered sheetpile bulkhead.
The recommended alternative is to install a rip rap slope on the front of the
existing retaining walls, Alternative 1C. The opinion of probable cost for this
alternative is approximately $120,000. This alternative will require that the
adjacent property owners be contacted regarding infringing on their property for
the installation of the rip-rap slope.
The elevation of the soils on the front side of the Concrete/Steel Sheetpile
Bulkhead have decreased from a 1968 construction EL +7.00 (MLW) to a
present low point EL -8.00 (MLW). The bulkhead is being overstressed in the
sheetpiles and in the continuous deadman anchoring the bulkhead. At the
present time, there are no visible signs of overstressing in the bulkhead. The
cause of the soil migrating from the front side is attributed to dredging to EL -
10.00 (MLW) to close to the bulkhead. The remaining soils "sloughed" to their
natural angle of repose of 1:8 (V:H) reducing the passive side soil elevation. The
simplest solution to this problem is to install a rip rap slope protection from EL
+3.00 (MLW) to EL -10.0 (MLW) to protect the bulkhead. The opinion of
probable cost for this repair is $160,000.
? The Timber Deck Pier is in good condition with moderate deterioration of the
concrete piles and beams including spailing and cracking,. The timber deck
surface is relatively new and in good condition with some cupping of the decking
Moffatt & Nichol Engineers `f -
' USCG Station Wrightsville Beach E,CecUlive Sunnma"
surface is relatively new and in good condition with some cupping of the decking
noticeable. Repair of the concrete piles and beams is needed to curtail further
deterioration and will extend their life another 15 to 20 years. The recommended
alternative is to repair the concrete beams and piles and to retain the timber
decking, Alternative 3B. The repaired structure will have a serviceable life of 15
to 20 years. The timber decking will probably need to be replaced in 7 to 10
years. The opinion of probable cost for this alternative is $19,000. The timber
fender system on the west side of this structure is rotted and decayed from STA
0+00 to STA 0+20 and should be replaced. The opinion of probable cost for this
repair work is $6,000.
>> The Timber Floating Dock at the site is in good condition. Minor problems were
noted on the D-bore rubber fender around the perimeter and all of the northeast
pile guide rollers are excessively worn. Replacement of the deteriorated fender
and worn guide pile rollers is recommended; the other pile guide rollers should
be monitored for additional wear and replaced if necessary. The opinion of
probable cost for the recommended repairs is $7,000.
Part of the scope of work for this project requires a load rating of the pile
supported structures. An exact load rating could not be provided for either the
Fixed Concrete Pier nor the Timber Deck Pier because there is no information
provided for the driven capacity of the concrete piles on either structure,
reinforcement details are not available on the concrete beams for the Timber
Deck Pier, and the prestressing and conventional reinforcement details are not
available on the double-tee deck sections. Assumptions were made on the piles
and beams based on assumed penetration into the mudline and minimum
reinforcement in the beams. Based on the analysis and field observations, it is
our opinion that the Fixed Concrete Pier is capable of supporting 75 pounds per
square foot. This represents 60% of its' original load rating. An identical
analysis was conducted on the Timber Deck Pier which revealed that the
structure should be able to support up to 250 pounds per square foot.
tio .3
ffivt R Nichol En ineers

U.S. Department
of Transportation
United States
Coast Guard
JAN 9 2002
11014
Ms. Caroline Bellis
North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Dear Ms. Bellis,
Commanding Officer
United States Coast Guard
Civil Engineering Unit
1240 E. Ninth St.
Cleveland, Oh 44199-2060
Staff Symbol: DO
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

JAS 14 M2
1tE'1'l:??OkY
We are resubmitting the permit application for dredging work at our station in Wrightsville
Beach, North Carolina for your review and approval. Please note that departure from our
previous application involves the location of the dredge disposal area.
Our previous application, determined to be consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Zone
Management Program, designated the disposal site along the beach to the Ocean side of our
station;. However, we now intend to place the spoils on six properties immediately to the north of
our property. Spoils will be pumped by hydraulic means directly onto these properties. Since a'
majority of the new disposal area is below mean high water, we will install silt fencing along the
area to contain silts and control turbidity in the adjoining waters.
We greatly appreciate your attention to this matter since we would like work to begin by June
2002. Please call the Project Engineer, Mr. Doug Ward at [phone] should you have any
questions.
R. E. MOBL
Commander, nited States Coast Guard
Commanding Officer
Enclosure: Permit Application with revised drawings
copy'. Angie Pennock, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office

Please type or print. Carefully describe all an-
rieipated development activities, including construc-
tion, excavation, filling, paving, land clearing, and
szormwacer control. If the requested information is
not relevant to your project, write N/A (not ap.
plicable). Items 1-4 and 8-9 must be completed for
all projects.
b.
C.
C' p
1 -=APPLICANT
a. Name U.S. COAST GUARD CEU
Address 1240 fast Ninth Street
City Cleveland State Ohio
in 44141 JDay phone [phone]
X Landowner or Authorized agent
b. Pro'ect name (if any) DREDGE BOAT BASIN
- ?tation Wrightsville Beach
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give
the owner's name and address.
N/A
Z LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJEC'T'
a. Street address or secondary road number
912 Water Street
b. City, town, community, or landmark
Wrightsville Beach
c. County New Hanov _r
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? YPs
e. Name of bodyY of water nearest project
Mason Inlet
3 DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED,
USE OF PROPOSED U vJEOT
a. Describe all development activities you propose
(for example, building a home, motel, marina,
bulkhead, or pie;).
Maintenance Dredging
If you plan to build a marina, also complete
and attach Form DCM.MP-2.
Is the proposed activity maintenance of an ex-
isting project, new work, or both?
Maintenance
Will the project -be for community, private, or
commercial use?
d. Describe the planned use of the project.
Deration of vessels
•-LCurD Almi./ WATER 4~~,s
'^- CfIARACTERISTICS rr•- : =?r.<
a. Size of entire tract 1-4 acres
b. °Size of individual lot(s) Same
c. Elevation of tract above mean sea level or Na.
tional Geodetic Vertical Datum +7.0
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Sand
e. Vegetation on tract Grass
f. Man-made features now on tract
U.S.C.G. Station Building
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classifica-
tion of the site? (Consult the local land use
plan.`,
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
Rural X - Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
U.S.C.G. Station
i. How are adjacent waters classified? Tidal
j. Has a professional archaeological survey been
carried out for the tract? N/A
If so, by whom?
5 UPLAND DEVELOP:
Complete this section if the project includes any
upland development.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, or
. structures proposed Non i ncl uded_
b. Number of lots or parcels
c. Density (Give the number of residential units
and the units per acre.)
I Size of area to be graded or disturbed
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than
one acre of land, the Division of Land
Resources must receive an erosion and sedimen-
tation control plan at least 30 days before land
disturbing activity begins. If applicable, has a
sedimentation and erosion control plan been
submitted to the Division of Land Resources?
f. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet
of mean high water to be covered by im-
permeable surfaces, such as pavement,
buildings, or rooftops.
9-
h.
i.
7•
k.
1.
M.
n.
0.
. st the materials. such as marl' paver stone,
asphalt, or concrete. to be used for paved
surfaces.
If applicable, has a stormwater management
plan been submitted to the Division of En-
vironmental Management? * -
Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste
water treatment facilities. -
Have these facilities received state or local
approval?
Describe existing treatment facilities.
Describe location and type of discharges co
wacers of the state (for example;, surface runoff,
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
effluent, or "wash down").
Water supply source
If. the project is oceanfront development.
describe the steps chat will be taken co main-
tain established public beach accessways or pro-
vide new access.
If the project is on the oceanfront, what will
be the elevation above mean sea level of the
first habitable floor?
6 EXCAVATION AND FILL
INFORMATION
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed excava-
tion or fill activities (excluding bulkheads,
which are covered in Section 7).
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
other (break-
water,. Piet,
boat ramp,
rock jetty)
Fill placed in
wetland or below
MHW
Upland fill
arcs
b. Amount of material to be excavated 200
below water level in cubic yam - Sand
c. Type of material-
d. Does the area co be excavated include marsh-
land. swamps, or other wetlands? _Np----
e. High ground excavation, cubic yards XA40
f. Dimensions of spoil disposal area
g. Location of spoil disposal area
ies to the- n? of sta
h. Do you claim title to the disposal area? -- D-
If not, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
i. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance??
if so, where? Shinn Creek Disposal Site
j. Does the disposal area include any marshland,
swampland: or water areas? yes
k. Will the fill material be placed below mean .
high water? Yes 2,200
1. Amount of fill in cubic yards
m. Type of fill rpaceriai rid
n. Source of fill material U. S. C • oa a s n
o. Will fill material be placed on marsh or other
wetlands? No
p. Dimensions of the wetland to be filled
q. How will excavated or fill material be kept on
site and erosion controlled?
C; 1 + Fpnr
r. What type of construction equipment will be
used (for example, dragline, backhoe, or
hydraulic dredge)? h7 tira t 11 i C - _%W2 l "D_
hp pijmpPCi direct1V onto adjoining-
s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equip-
ment to the project site? l o If yes. explain
the steps that will be taken to lessen en-
vironmental impacts.
7 SHORELINE STABILIZATION
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap None
b. Average distance waterward of mean high water
or normal water level 12 months.
C. Shoreline erosion during preceding
in feet
d. Type of bulkhead material laced
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be P
below mean high water
f. Type of fill material
Z
Length Width Depth
r'
.7.
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
ocher instrument under which the applicant claims
title to the affected property. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said. property, then for-
ward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permis-
sion from the owner to carry out the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and
cross sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on 8 % x l I white paper. (Refer to Coastal
Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a detailed
descriptio:i.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will 'be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 16
high quality copies are provided by the applicant.
(Contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regard-
ing that agency's use of larger drawings.) A site or
location map is a part of plat requirements and. it
must be sufficiently detailed to guide agency per-
sonnel unfamiliar with the area to the site. Include
county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and the like.
A stormwater management plan, if. applicable, that
may have been developed in-consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
individuals have 30 days in which to submit com-
ments on the proposed project to the Division of
Coastal Management. The applicant trust advise
the adjacent landowners of this opportunity by sen-
ding a copy of the permit application to them by
registered or certified mail. This notification is re-
quired by G.S. 113-;229(d).
Name Mr. Fraser Perry
Address 920 Water Street
Wrightsville Beach. NC
Name._ Mr. Rhett Tabor
Address 907 Lumina Drive
Name
Address
C`OP`E
A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
A check for $100 made payable to the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community
Development to cover the costs of processing the
application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in ocean.
front and inlet areas.
A statement on the use of public funds. If the
project involves the expenditure of public funds, at-
tach a statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to 10).
9 LEniI` ICATION AND PAS"
SION TO ENTER ON LANI3''' ;may
Any permit issued in response to this application
will allow only the development described in the
application. The project will be subject to condi
tions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the pro-
posed activity complies with the State of North
Carolina's approved Coastal Management Program
and will be conducted in a manner consistent with
such program.
I further certify that I am authorized to grant, and
do in fact, grant permission to representatives of
state and federal review agencies to enter on the
aforementioned lands in connection with.
I . r_
?---
c'vaaaiatiiag iiaavaTaaui:ivia caattu, to C1490 p?.=.ait ap-
plication and follow-up monitoring of project.
This is the day of-??
X Robert E. Moble CDR USCG
Landowner or Authoriz agent
Send the completed application materials to the
Division of Coastal Management Office nearest you
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. See the
map on the inside front cover for the appropriate
DCM office and addresses and phone number-
3
? i1
R <
V n
C
LLJ
Nf
jig
4
--- - - - - - - - - -
o
m- I -
J . -jm/ rn
V m <
g
_qS aM.d 71
U m
A
is
r

Ila
Y d v
U Y
GGG
R?$
pQ?
n
T
-S F MT
S
e^
Y
Rh
s

q?
Y
1 1
I
A9 ?
A = t
b
niy
i ?
I NA TF9
O OG
d <
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
November 7, 2001
DWQ 01-1550
New Hanover County
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
US Coast Guard
Civil Engineering Unit
1240 East Ninth Street
Cleveland, OH 2060
Dear Sirs:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your plans for maintenance dredging and disposal on the ocean of Wrightsville Beach in
New Hanover County as part of your plans to conduct maintenance dredging on Banks Channel at the US Coast Guard station in
Wrightsville Beach, NC. Insufficient evidence is present in our files to conclude that your project must be built as planned in waters
and/or wetlands in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506. Therefore, unless modifications of the proposal are made as described
below, we will have to move toward denial of your 401 Certification as required by 15A NACA 2H .0507(e) and will place this project on
hold as incomplete until we receive this additional information, we are requesting (by copy of this letter) that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers place your project on administrative hold.
Please provide us with information supporting your position that states your project must be constructed as planned and that you
have no practicable alternative to impacting these waters. Specifically please address other disposal options in terms of their
practicality. Specially, can you dispose of the sand on the beaches north of the Coast Guard Facility? Any documentation such as
maps and narrative that you can supply to address alternative designs for your project may be helpful in our review of your 401
Certification.
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending a copy this information to me and one copy to
Wilmington Regional Office at 127 Cardinal Drive Extension; Wilmington, NC 28405-2004. If we do not hear from you in
three weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as withdrawn.
If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786 or Joanne Stennhuis at Wilmington Regional
Office at 910-395-3900.
cc:
Wilmington Regional Office
Wilmington Field Office Corps of Engineers
Central Files
File Copy
Doug Huggett, DCM
Rep. Lary Justus; NC General Assembly; State Legislative Building, Raleigh, NC
27601-1096
Wetlands/401 Unit 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 Ph: [phone] Fax: [phone]
?,'
ENR
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
s
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
(http://www.saw.usace.an-ny.mil/wetlands/regtour.litm)
NOTICE
COMMENT PERIOD FOR PUBLIC NOTICE
200200015 ISSUED OCTOBER 11, 20019 FOR THE
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD IS EXTENDED
UNTIL NOVEMBER 12, 2001
01 15 5 ® ,
' 6 20
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers ata?SGF?Oe
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
(http://www.saw.usace.anny.mil/wetlands/rec,tour.htm)
Action ID No. 200200015
PUBLIC NOTICE
October 11, 2001
THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG), CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIT, 1240
EAST NINTH STREET, CLEVELAND, OHIO 44199-2060, has applied for a Department of
the Army (DA) permit TO MAINTAIN A BASIN ON BANKS CHANNEL, UNITED STATES
COAST GUARD STATION, WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NEW HANOVER COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant. Plans
submitted with the application show the proposed maintenance of an 80-foot-wide, 170-foot-long
basin to a depth of 10 feet; mean low water (MLW). Approximately 2,100 cubic yards of sand is
to be excavated by hydraulic dredge and pumped on the ocean side of Wrightsville Beach in
accordance with the plans. A 500-foot-long sand dike will be constructed having an elevation of
4 feet at the pipe outfall, grading to 2 feet at the northernmost point to reduce turbidity. The
purpose of the work is to provide adequate depth for the moorage of USCG vessels. Plans
showing the work are included with this public notice.
An Individual Permit was issued on 1 December 1993 for dredging with material to be
pumped to an upland, diked retention area on an island adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway, north of Shinn Creek, in accordance with the original plans. Condition number 2 of
this permit authorized periodic maintenance for ten years from the date of issuance when the
District Engineer was advised of the work at least 2 weeks in advance and the method of
dredging and disposal were in strict accordance with the permit. The USCG is requesting a
modification of this permit to allow for the disposal of the dredged material (beach quality sand)
on the ocean side of Wrightsville Beach. The modification will bring the project into compliance
with state policies and guidelines for the disposal of dredged material enacted after the original
permit was issued.

The jurisdictional areas within the project site consist of open waters below mean high
water in Banks Channel. No wetlands will be impacted by this project.
0
The pplicant has determined that the proposed work is consistent with the North Carolina
Coastal ZoneManagement Plan and has submitted this determination to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM). By letter dated September 17, 2001, the NCDCM issued a consistency for a Federal
Project with the following conditions:
1. A 401 Water Certification is received from the Division of Water Quality.
2. Work will be conducted between November 15 and April 30 of any given year to avoid
impacts on nesting sea turtles.
3. The Division of Environmental Health, Shellfish Sanitation Section shall be notified
prior to the commencement of work (252/726-6827) to determine if a temporary
closure to open recreation waters is necessary.
4. Placement of dredged material on the ocean beach will be in accordance with the plan
set forth by Division of Coastal Management Staff (copy attached). To minimize
turbidity from the effluent pipe, a sand dike will be constructed having an elevation of
4 feet at the pipe outfall, grading to 2 feet at its northernmost point.
5. All local authorizations are received and their requirements are fulfilled.
The requested DA permit will be denied if any required State or local authorization and/or
certification are denied. No DA permit will be issued until a State coordinated viewpoint is
received and reviewed by this agency. Recipients of this notice are encouraged to furnish
comments on factors of concern represented by the above agencies directly to the respective
agency, with a copy furnished to the Corps of Engineers.
This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The District Engineer's initial
determination is that the proposed project would not adversely impact EFH or associated
fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the
National Marine Fisheries Service.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of
1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person
may request, in writing within the comment period specified in this notice, that a public hearing
be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with particularity,
the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein, and this site is not registered property or property listed as being
eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register is the extent of
cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the
2
presence of such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or
historical data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, has determined that the proposed
activity may result in adverse impacts to species, or their critical habitat, designated as
endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This includes the
federally threatened seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), and Federally threatened green
(Chelonia mydas) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtles. Seabeach amaranth is found on
barrier island beaches along overwash flats at accreting ends of islands and lower foredunes. It
is an annual plant that germinates between April and July, flowers from June, at the earliest, until
late fall, and produces seeds from July until its death. Seed production peaks in September. The
carapace of a green sea turtle is smooth and gray, green, brown, and black. The plastron is
yellowish white. They may reach a meter in length. Green sea turtles nest along Atlantic
beaches from Massachusetts to Florida and along the Gulf of Mexico. Loggerhead sea turtles of
the Northern Subpopulation nest from North Carolina to Northeast Florida. The carapace and
scales found on the dorsal side of the head and flippers are reddish-brown. The neck, limb bases,
and plastron are a medium yellow.
The decision, whether to issue a permit, will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the
public interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts that the proposed activity may have on the
public interest requires a careful weighing of all those factors that become relevant in each
particular case. The benefits that may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced
against its foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the
conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are therefore decided by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern for both protection
and use of important resources. All factors that may be relevant to the proposal must be
considered including the cumulative effects of it. Among those are conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards and flood plain values (according to Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation,
shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy
needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership,
and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the placement of
dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied if the discharge
that would be authorized would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's
404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines or
criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer decides that it would be contrary to
the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties to consider and evaluate the
impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of
Engineers to decide whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To
make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic
properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed
3
above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Comments are also used to decide the need for a public hearing and to decide the
public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this DA permit will not be made until the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification
required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers whether the proposed
activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act. The
application and this public notice for the DA permit serves as application to the NCDWQ for
certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the
offices of the Environmental Operations Section, NCDWQ, Salisbury Street, Archdale Building,
Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished to any person requesting
copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons wanting to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act
certification should do so in writing delivered to NCDWQ, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27699-1621, on or before October 22, 2001, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in
this office, Attention: Angie Pennock, until 4:15 p.m., October 26, 2001, or telephone (910) 251-
4611.
4

HARBOR z. ATL.ANT I C
U S T4 h
OCEAN
WRIGHTSVILLE? N ?i t?-
\, ,
I it
>o \?? `U WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NG
o _??? NN PROTECT LOCATION -
U5. COAST GUARD STATION
Z11
_ W R IG HTS V I L.LE BEACH roll
I ?
Jh \`1'lp? \O
aN.
PROTECT CR. MASONBORO INLET
DISPOSAL AREA
I ,
Q D11 R
11
, 1 1
1 MASONBORO NG
p J
rm-:<,;.I 541
TAKEN FRO AA
v d.. ys
VICINITY MAP
SCALE 1:40,000
.1000 0 1000 2000 3000. a
YARDS PROPOSED DREDGING
NEAR MASONBORO INLET
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
U.S. COAST GUARD STATION
WRIGHT5VILLE BEACK
JUNE 1993
SHEET I OF .?

l
Ln
1?
p' ±
Y
APPROX. M. H. W PROPERTY OF :
--?1 MR- SAW Y E: R
APPROX. M. L W. 1 904 SCH LO55 57
I W. B. , m c
284.80
oy
PROPERTY LINE

BULKHEA

0 D

O " ` tv c
Q AREA TO BE DREDGED TO 10.0"

I
lb
PK _
N/
n)
(j n LIMIT OF DREDGING TQ 10.0'
m
+1
`b"'
^? 0
;L
d
r \ _W Q ? SOUNDING IN FEET
IL 4 BELOW LOCAL M. L.W. = 0.0"
TO D15POSAL AREA ? $? U
S
C
.
.
OAST GUARD STATIOM
w WRIGHTSVILL.E BEACH
1 oc
IO' n?
?' ,? a q 12 WATER ST.
? C ? W1RIGH75VILLE BEACH, NC
o ; PIER 28480- 7-099

co
\b?
`y?
??
G7 Sh
\
Z
O i n o oy (PROPERTY LINE
±'

0 ul)
APPROX. I
M.H.W. ---7i PROPERTY OF :
MR. PERRY
PLAN I 920 WATER 5T.
SCALE r=-4 0" 1 w B.
, NG 284$0
LOCAL M.L.W: = 0.0"
7TES
THE PURPOSE OF THE PROTECT
IS TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE
?IE PTH OP WATER FOR MOOR -
N6 COAST-GUARD . BOATS.
SOU N DI NGS_ TAKEN FEB. 1993
"IATERIAL TO BE DREDGED
S APPROX. 2,000 C..Y. OF SAND.
1ATERIAL TO SE REMOVED
!Y. HYDRAULIC DREDGE.
?- LI M IT OF DREDGING TO 10.0"
EXIST. GRADE
1 3 I SIDE SLOPE
DREDGE DEPTH 10.0' (11.0' PERMISSIBLE
SECTION
SCALE l 20"
PROPOSED DREDGING
NEAR MASONBORO INLET
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
U.S. COAST GUARD 5TATION
WRIGHT5VILLE BEACH
JUNE 1993
5H EET Z 0F g
3oF3 _ ,,
RT
Plane [phone]
Tom J== coanal E ng Paz [phone]
204 Dm-cc PL cm a ieomju?Lmm
VVdminwn, Nc 28412
Report of Findings [ [
Erosion of Taber Property.
?htsviIle Beach N.C.
Wrightsville ,
L !MAY - 3 2002
January 2001
WETLANDS MUP
WATER QUALITY SECTID?_,
Introduction
1. General. On.12 January 2001, Mr. Rhett Taber contracted with the undersigned to
investigate the erosion problem that exists at his property located at 904 Schloss Street,
Wrightsville Beach, N.C. Mr. Taber contends that the erosion problem is directly related
to a bulkhead constructed by the U.S: Coast Guard to protect their installation. The Coast
Guard Station is located immediately south and adjacent to Mr. Taber's property (see
Photo No. 1).
2. The Wrightsville Beach U.S. Coast Guard Station was constructed in the late 1960's.
Conditions that existed on the south end of Wrightsville Beach prior to the construction
of the Coast Guard facility are represented on Photo No. 2, dated 1 March 1966.
Construction of the north jetty at Masonboro Inlet by.the Corps of Engineers was in
progress when this photo was taken. The jetty contractor's offloading facility is shown in
the general location where the Coast Guard Station was constructed. The. north jetty was
completed in July 1966. Also shown on this photois a spiral shaped indenture in the
shoreline. This shoreline indenture has been a permanent feature of the Banks Channel
shoreline. As shown on Photo No. 1, the Taber property is located near the southern third
of this shoreline feature.
3. Report Organization. In the following sections, background information on tides
and currents in the Masonboro Inlet complex are reviewed and their importance on the
movement 'f sediment into and out of Banks Channel is discussed. This is followed by a
discussion of changes in the shoreline in the vicinity of the Taber property`and the Coast
Guard Station as observed from a comparison of historic aerial photographs maintained
by the U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Ground photos, provided by Mr.
Taber, were used to supplement the information interpreted from the aerial photos.
Finally, conclusions are drawn regarding the impact of the Coast Guard facility on the
subject property.
Background Information
3. Currents Tides. and Surface Current Patterns.. The Corps of Engineers
conducted physical model tests on Masonboro Inlet as part of the design process for the
south jetty (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1976). The model tests included replication
of tides and currents in the inlet and connecting channels and observations of surface
current patterns in the inlet and Banks Channel. Surface current patterns were simulated
EXHIBIT
A

s
for inlet conditions that existed in 1969 and 1973 as well as tests for the proposed south
.lefty.
4. Tides and Currents. The phasing of tides and currents in Masonboro Inlet complex
are shown on Figure I (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, June 1977). As the tide rises in
the bay, flood currents increase, reaching peak velocities when water levels are
approximately 1 foot above mean tide level and then decrease to zero near the time of
high water in the sound. On the falling tide, ebb velocities increase, peaking when water
levels fall to around mid tide. Current velocities decrease from this point reducing to
zero near the time of low water in the sound. Within Banks Channel, current velocities
do not achieve a distinct peak as maximum currents, on both flood and ebb, tend to
persist for approximately 3 hours. Peak velocities are generally in the range of 2 to 3 feet
per second. The significance of the tide and current phasing is; during flood, velocities
capable of transporting littoral sediment into the sound occur at higher levels on the bank;
whereas during ebb, most of the sediment transport occurs farther offshore.
5. Surface Current Patterns. Surface current patterns in the physical model for the
1969 inlet conditions during peak flood and peak ebb are shown on Figures 2 and 3
respectively. During peak flood (Figure 2), currents make a wide-sweeping turn into
Banks Channel, passing over the shoal area on the west side of the channel. Also, the
flood current patterns show the existence of an eddy in the vicinity of the Taber property.
During peak ebb, currents move more-or-less uniformly through Banks Channel with
some apparent concentration of flow in the deep water channel located on the east side of
Banks Channel. Surface current patterns for the 1973 inlet condition are shown on
Figures 4 and 5 for peak flood and peak ebb respectively. The flood eddy in the vicinity
of the Taber property is more prominently displayed on Figure 4. Surface current patters
for peak ebb (Figure 5) are basically the same as for the 1969 inlet condition with flows
tending to concentrate along the east bank of Banks Channel. Peak flood and peak ebb
surface current patterns for Masonboro Inlet with the south jetty installed are shown on
Figures 6 and 7 respectively. Note that the south jetty was completed in 1980 generally
along the same alignment and in the same position as represented by the model tests.
While the south jetty obviously affected current patterns in the inlet entrance, the jetty
had essentially no impact on flood and current patterns in Banks Channel. °The flood
eddy in the vicinity of the Taber property is still present and ebb currents still tend to
concentrate on the east side of Banks. Channel.
6. Summary of Tides and Current. The configuration of the Banks Channel shoreline
of Wrightsville Beach is a product of the prevailing tides and currents and their ability to
transport littoral sediment into and out of the area. The sand that composes the sound
shoreline is derived from the ocean side of the islands that is carried into the sound during
flood. The configuration that the sound shoreline assumes is basically a product of the
current patterns as the water moves in and out of the sound. In this regard, the flood eddy
observed in all surface current tests in the physical model is the mechanism responsible
for the formation of the permanent indenture in the vicinity of the Taber property
mentioned in the opening paragraph. The clockwise spiral of water associated with the
eddy results in sediment moving toward the south the near the shoreline during
2
av
7
essentially all phases of the tide. The predominant southward movement of sediment
along this portion of the sound was verified by the orientation of sand ripples on the
bottom observed by the writer on 12 January 2001. In its natural, or undisturbed state,
the indenture had apparently attained a state of dynamic equilibrium, that is, a balance
had been reached between the amount of sediment moving into and out of-the indenture
and the resulting configuration of the indenture.
Shoreline Changes
7. Review of Historic Aerial Photograph. Photo No. 3 shows the condition of the
Banks Channel shoreline in 1969, or shortly after construction of the Coast Guard
Station. The Coast Guard pier and mooring are in place as is the bulkhead, however, the
bulkhead is not exposed at this point (could not tell from photo if bulkhead was in place
at this time) as there is still a sandy beach fronting the Coast Guard Station. The pier and
mooring projected into the deepwater channel on the east side of Banks Channel. The
Coast Guard apparently did not perform any dredging during the initial construction of
the facility. The shoreline indenture along the Taber property is clearly displayed on this
photo.
8. By August 1971 (Photo No. 4), the Coast Guard bulkhead was clearly in place,
however, a sandy beach remained in front of the bulkhead and the shoreline to the north
appeared to be unchanged from the condition existing in 1969. A gazebo had been
constructed in front of the Taber property and was located close to the shoreline.
9. Between August 1971 and November 1974 (Photo No. 5) the Coast Guard bulkhead
had-become exposed and the shoreline immediately north of the bulkhead (Taber
property) had receded between 20 and 25 feet from the outer edge of the Coast Guard
bulkhead. As further evidence of the erosion, the gazebo shown in the August 1971
photo was clearly located over water in November 1974.
0. A November 1975 photograph (Photo No. 6) indicates additional shoreline erosion
along the Taber property. The shoreline immediately north of and adjacent to the Coast
Guard bulkhead measured 40 to 45 feet from the outer edge of the bulkhead. The
shoreline north of the Taber property also seemed to be experiencing some erosion,
11. By April 1978 (Photo No. 7), the Taber property had receded. a total of
approximately 50 feet from the outer edge of the Coast Guard bulkhead. Also, properties
300, 500, 980, and 1450 feet north of the Taber property now have bulkheads. The
construction of these additional bulkheads supports the apparent erosion north of the
Taber property observed in the November 1975 photo.
12. Photo No. 8, dated June 1979 shows a new pier constructed off of the Taber property
and a contractor offloading facility just south of the Coast Guard Station. These features
are more clearly shown on Photo No. 9, dated August 1979. The offloading facility,
which consisted of a pier and rubble groin, was being used by a Corps of Engineers
contractor charged with the construction of the Masonboro Inlet south jetty. Littoral
3

sediment had accreted next to the south side of the rubble groin providing evidence that
substantial amounts of sand is transported into Banks Channel during the flood phase of
the tide. Also, Photo No. 9 clearly shows that there is essentially no dry beach fronting
the Coast Guard bulkhead.
13. The May 1980 photo (Photo No. 10) shows the condition in Banks Channel
following the removal of a substantial portion of the shoal in Banks Channel for
renourishment of the Wrightsville Beach storm damage reduction project. Also,
construction of the south jetty was completed at this time. Water depths in front of the
Coast Guard bulkhead appeared to be deeper than that shown in earlier photograph.. By.
May 1981 (Photo No. 11), this apparent deepening appeared to be reversed as the high
water shoreline has shown some accretion in front of both the Coast Guard bulkhead and.
the Taber property. Note that the north end of Masonboro Island has been removed from
between the jetties as part of the channel realignment. Material removed to realign the
channel was pumped to Wrightsville Beach to complete the renourishment stated in 1950.
14. The January 1982 photo (Photo No. 12) indicates erosion of the high water beach,
however, shoals still extended out to the end of the pier on the Taber property. In 1986,
Mr. Robert Sawyer, the previous owner of the property, constructed a timber bulkhead to
protect the property against additional erosion. This bulkhead appears in Photo No. 13
dated 14 September 1986. This bulkhead eventually failed due to the loss of foundation
for the supporting 6" x 6" x 8' piles. Ground level photographs of the failed bulkhead
taken by Mr. Sawyer show that the lower portion of Some of the piles had slipped toward
the sound while the top of the bulkhead generally remained along the original alignment.
15. Photo No. 14, taken on 23 September 1996 following Hurricane Fran, shows the
absence of shoals in front of the Coast Guard Station. Finally, Photo.No. 1, which was
taken on 11 October 2000 shows a small beach in front of the Coast Guard bulkhead but
no dry beach in front of the Taber property. Also, there appears to be a rather deep hole
extending from the end of the Coast Guard bulkhead into the area fronting the Taber
property. This hole could be the result of recent maintenance dredging performed by the
Coast Guard. Obviously, with the construction of bulkheads along the Taber property, no
additional upland has been lost since 1986. However, the failure of Mr. Sawyer's
bulkhead due to the loss of pile foundation indicates that material is still being eroded
from the near shore bottom. Erosion of the near shore bottom is further supported by
ground level photos that show the undermining of steps that use to-lead from the Coast
Guard Station to the beach in front of the Taber property. Mr. Taber removed the steps
during the summer of 2000.
4
i?

Summary
16. Erosion of the Taber property began sometime between.1971 and 1974. In 1971, a
dry beach was still in evidence in front of the Coast Guard bulkhead. However, by 1974,
this dry beach had all but disappeared, exposing the bulkhead to water and wave action
during essentially all phases of the tidal cycle. Prior to the construction of the bulkhead,
the position of the shoreline in the vicinity of both the Coast Guard property and the
Taber property experienced fluctuations due to the irregular impulses of sediment
transport into the sound. These sediment impulses would result in the shoreline .
experiencing temporary accretion and erosion. Prior to the construction of the Coast
Guard bulkhead, the shoreline from the Coast Guard Station north to a point past the
Taber property would essentially react in the same manner, thus maintaining the
equilibrium configuration ('indenture) associated with the flood eddy and the sediment
transport characteristics dictated by the tide and current. phasing... Once the bulkhead was
installed, the shoreline. fronting the Coast Guard Station could no.longer respond to the
absence of sediment. However, the properties to the north, including the Taber property,
were not so constrained and responded to the lack of sediment by eroding to a point well
landward of the end of the Coast Guard bulkhead. With the shoreline fronting the Coast
Guard Station now fixed, and dredging performed to maintain adequate depths for the
Coast Guard moorings, the shoreline to the north is apparently attempting to establish a
new equilibrium configuration consistent with the fixed boundary condition imposed by
the Coast Guard bulkhead and the change in sediment transport patterns associated with
both the bulkhead and basin dredging.
Conclusions
17. Based on the information provided above, the writer concludes that the construction
of the Coast Guard bulkhead and subsequent maintenance dredging by the Coast Guard is
primarily responsible for the erosion of the Taber property. Construction of a
replacement bulkhead in January 2000 is presently.preventing the loss of additional
upland from the Taber property. However, the sound bottom immediately fronting the
bulkhead continues to lose material and deepen. This continued loss of sound bottom
material will eventually create a condition that will threaten the stability of the bulkhead.
The continued erosion of the sound bottom. will require additional remedial measures to
prevent the bulkhead from failing.
Possible Remedial Measures
18. The writer is riot familiar with the frequency of dredging required to maintain the
Coast Guard moorings, the characteristics of the shoal material, or its quantity. However,
if the maintenance material is beach quality (i.e., contains less than 10 % silt and clay)
and totals 2,000 cubic yards or more, the material could possibly be placed along 400 to
600 feet of beach north of the Coast Guard Station to build a beach 15 to 20 feet wide.
This operation would not be without its environmental concerns. However, disposing of
5

the dredged material along the adjacent beach would greatly reduce the pumping distance
for disposal of the dredged material. The writer understands that the Coast Guard
currently deposits the material in an upland site adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway.
13. An alternative remedial measure would be the placement of a scour protection mat
along the entire length of the bulkhead fronting the Taber property. The mat could be
constructed of stone or other appropriate material.
T arrett, P.E.
A
References
Waterways Experiment Station, Hydraulics Laboratory,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
"Improvements for Masonboro Inlet, North Carolina, Technical Report H-76-4,
Vicksburg, MS, April 1976.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center and Waterways
Experiment Station, "Comparison of Numerical and Physical Hydraulic Models,
Masonboro Inlet, North.Carolina, GITI Report 6, June 1977.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HIGHWOODS TOWER ONE
SUITE 500
3200 BEECHLEAF COURT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27604-1064
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 919.981.4300
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE DRAWER 19764
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27619-9764
LANDFALL PARK NORTH
1985 EASTWOOD ROAD, SUITE 200
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
28403
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 910.256.6451
WWW.MAUPINTAYLOR.COM
KURT J. OLSON
S
MAY- 3M

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
[phone]
[e-mail]
John Dorney, Supervisor
Wetlands Unit, Division of Water Quality
N. C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Parkview Bldg.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: REQUEST FOR RE
May 3, 2002

TION OR MODIFCATI
United States Coast
Dredge/Disposal A(
Wrightsville Beacty
Dear Mr. Dorney:
480 BETA BUILDING
HEADQUARTERS PARK
2222 CHAPEL HILL-NELSON HWY.
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
27713
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 919.361.2262
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE BOX 13646
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
NORTH CAROLINA
27709-3646
ities - Banks Channel
Station
North Carolina
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0507(d), we hereby request, on behalf of a number of
property owners and adversely affected citizens, including but not limited to W. Rhett Taber and
Robert Sawyer, that the Section 401 Certification issued in 1993 for the above referenced project
be revoked or modified.
The basis for this request is stated in our April 8, 2002 letter to you on this matter and we
respectfully refer you to that letter to provide context to our present request. (A copy is enclosed
for your convenience). In sum, the activity at issue is the U.S. Coast Guard's plan to dredge in
Banks Channel, ostensibly to create sufficient depth to permit the mooring of certain vessels in
329803

John Domey
May 3, 2002
Page 2
front of the USCG facility. New data and information show that the proposed dredging activity
results in direct and cumulative adverse impacts to water quality not considered in 1993 when
the USCG submitted its initial request. These impacts have degraded or removed water quality
uses and if permitted to continue, the dredging and disposal activity will perpetuate this cycle of
loss and harm. The new data and information demonstrate that without significant
modifications, the USCG's proposed dredging and disposal activities would not now qualify for
a 401 Certification authorizing the activities to proceed. See 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b). See also
your November 7, 2001 letter to U.S. Coast Guard, Civil Engineer Unit (copy attached).
Practicable alternatives are available and if none are feasible, substantial, effective mitigation is
required. See, 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(1), (2) and (6).
Thus, for these reasons, as discussed in greater detail in our April 8, 2002 letter to you,
the DWQ should revoke or modify the water quality certification for this project as proposed.
We look forward to working with you, in the public interest, to resolve this matter in a way that
best suits the interests of all involved.
Very truly yours,
Kurt J. Ols
Enclosures (2)
cc: Wm. Dean Lee, Commander, U. S. Coast Guard
Hon. William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary, DENR
Daniel C. Oakley, General Counsel, DENR
Donna D. Moffitt, Division of Coastal Management, DENR
Joanne Stennhuis
Caroline Bellis
P. Andrew Honeycutt, Town Manager, Town of Wrightsville Beach
Rhett Taber
Tom Jarrett
329803
0F W ATF9 Michael F. Easley, Governor
Q William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
y North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
November 7, 2001
DWQ 01-1550
New Hanover County
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED , y
:.-
J V
u? .
US Coast Guard
Civil Engineering Unit
1240 East Ninth Street i l,3ta a
Cleveland, OH 2060 ' Awf='fag`,
Dear Sirs:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your plans for maintenance dredging and disposal on the ocean of Wrightsville Beach in
New Hanover County as part of your plans to conduct maintenance dredging on Banks Channel at the US Coast Guard station in
Wrightsville Beach, NC. Insufficient evidence is present in our files to conclude that your project must be built as planned in waters
and/or wetlands in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506. Therefore, unless modifications of the proposal are made as described
below, we will have to move toward denial of your 401 Certification as required by 15A NACA 2H .0507(e) and will place this project on
hold as incomplete until we receive this additional information, we are requesting (by copy of this fetter) that the U:S. Army Corps of
Engineers place your project on administrative hold.
Please provide us with information supporting your position that states your project must be constructed as planned and that you
have no practicable alternative to impacting these waters. Specifically please address other disposal options in terms of their
practicality. Specially, can you dispose of the sand on the beaches north of the Coast Guard Facility? Any documentation such as
maps and narrative that you can supply to address altemative designs for your project may be helpful in our review of your 401
Certification.
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending a copy this information to me and one copy to
Wilmington Regional Office at 127 Cardinal Drive Extension; Wilmington, NC 28405-2004. If we do not hear from you in
three weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the project as withdrawn.
If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-73371786 or Joanne Stennhuis at Wilmington Regional
Office at 910-395-3900.
cc:
Wilmington Regional Office
Wilmington Field Office Corps of Engineers
Central Files
File Copy
Doug Huggett, DCM
Rep. Larry Justus; NC General Assembly; State Legislative Building, Raleigh, NC
27601-1096
Wetlands/401 Unit 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 Ph: [phone] Fax [phone]
AwA
AM
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
y
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HIGHWOODS TOWER ONE
SUITE 500
3200 BEECHLEAF COURT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27604-1064
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 919.981.4300
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE DRAWER 19764
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27619-9764
LANDFALL PARK NORTH
1985 EASTWOOD ROAD, SUITE 200
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
28403
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 910.256.6451
WWW.MAUPINTAYLOR.COM
KURT J. OLSON
John Dorney
Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
480 BETA BUILDING
HEADQUARTERS PARK
2222 CHAPEL HILL-NELSON HWY.
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
27713
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 919.36 1.2262
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE BOX 13646
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK.
NORTH CAROLINA
27709-3646
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
MAY - 3 2012
WETLANDS GMUP
WATER QUALITY SECTION
April 8, 2002
Re: United States Coast Guard
Dredge/Disposal Activities - Banks Channel
Wrightsville Beach Station
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina
Action ID No. 200200015 -- Modification
Dear Mr.Dorney:
[phone]
[e-mail]
The following comments are being submitted to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality ("DWQ") on behalf of a number
of property owners and citizens in connection with the above referenced action, Action ID No.
200200015.
The activity at issue is the U.S. Coast Guard's plan to dredge its boat basin in Banks
Channel, ostensibly to create sufficient depth to permit the mooring of the USCG's vessels in
front of the USCG facility. In its original application, the USCG proposed to deposit dredged
materials at a designated location on the ocean side of south Wrightsville Beach. The USCG has
329803

John Dorney
Page 2
April 8, 2002
modified that plan and is now proposing to deposit the dredged materials on the sound side of
Wrightsville Beach north of the USCG facility along six privately owned properties.
The USCG's revised proposal is an apparent effort to mitigate the damage that will result
from the dredging. Although conceptually a step in the right direction, this approach falls short
in the following respects:
1. The proposed activity is the perpetuation of an activity that has a clear, demonstrated
potential to degrade or remove significant existing water quality uses.
2. The record created by the USCG is completely void of an analysis of alternatives.
No certification can be issued until practicable alternatives are given meaningful
consideration and if feasible, adopted instead of dredging. 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b).
3. No water quality certification for the planned activity can be issued because the
USCG has failed to demonstrate that its activity incorporates efforts to minimize
impacts. 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b).
4. No water quality certification for the planned activity can be issued because the
mitigation proposed by the USCG is inadequate. 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b).
The erosion from the USCG's dredging has resulted in significant loss and removal of
existing water quality uses and the imposition of substantial costs, both economic and aesthetic.
Remarkably, the dredging has transformed an entire area that once was dry, white sand beach to
an area now considered "mud flats." If permitted to continue, the dredging will perpetuate this
cycle of destruction. Clearly, better ways to approach this matter exist.
For the reasons identified above, and discussed in greater detail herein, the DWQ can not
issue a water quality certification for this project as proposed.
329803
John Dorney
Page 3
April 8, 2002
COMMENTS
1. The proposed activity is the perpetuation of an activity that has a clear,
demonstrated potential to degrade or remove sienificant existing uses.
The core objective of the USCG's project is to allow the mooring of a certain size
vessel(s) in close proximity to its Wilmington facility. To achieve this object, the USCG
proposes to dredge in Banks Channel. The record shows, however, that dredging has multiple,
adverse environmental impacts on the shoreline in front and north of the USCG's facility.
Studies prepared by Tom Jarrett, a coastal engineer and former head of the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Coastal, Hydrology & Hydraulics Section, demonstrate that the dredging is the cause
of the severe and unprecedented erosion occurring along Banks Channel north of the USCG's
installation. See Exhibits A & B, hereto. Among other things, Mr. Jarrett's reports show that the
USCG's dredged basin acts as a sediment trap, capturing and preventing suspended materials and
sand from moving north of the USCG facility and disrupting accretion and other natural
processes that add sand to the beaches north of the USCG's installation. The dredged basin thus
prevents the movement of sediment from the basin to the north and is "a major" source of
erosion to the beaches and properties located north of USCG facility. The attached photographs
(Exhibit C, hereto) show that at one time those beaches consisted of dry, white sand, some of
which was above the mean high tide. Today, the area and beaches are characterized as "mud
flats." See Public Notice, Modification, Department of the Army, Wilmington District, Corps of
Engineers at 1 (March 8, 2002) (Public Notice). This transformation is geologic in proportion
and substantially impacts the water quality uses in the area and the quality of the human
environment.
329803
John Dorney
Page 4
April 8, 2002
Mr. Jarrett's findings and conclusions were reviewed and critiqued by Dr. John T. Wells,
Director, Institute of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina. See Exhibit D, hereto. Among other things, Dr. Wells found unequivocally that:
a. Mr. Jarrett's conclusions were "based on the proper sources of available information
for making an informed determination of the causes for erosion ...." (Wells Report,
pg. 2)•
b. Mr. Jarrett's conclusions are correct: (i) the transport of sediment along the shoreline
of Banks Channel runs from south to north; (ii) the natural transport of sediment in
the sound littoral system has been disrupted by the USCG's boat basin and bulkhead;
(iii) the basin acts as a sediment trap preventing the movement of sediment along the
shoreline north of the USCG facility; and (iv) the USCG's bulkhead precludes sand
which fronts the USCG facility from serving as a temporary source of sediment for
properties north of the USCG facility (Wells Report, pg. 3).
C. There are no viable alternative explanations for the severe erosion occurring north of
the USCG's facility, and proffered explanations such as the erosion is incident to the
littoral environment ignore important factors such as the temporal correlation of the
USCG's activities and the unprecedented erosion, the pattern of northerly transport
and the disruption caused by the bulkhead and basin and the infilling at the boat basin
(Wells Report, pgs. 3 and 4).
The impact from the USCG's dredging is further documented in a 1996 report prepared
by the USCG's own consultant, the relevant portions of which are attached. See Exhibit E,
hereto. This report entitled "United States Coast Guard, Station Wrightsville Beach, Waterfront
Structures Inspection, Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina" documents work commissioned by
the USCG and conducted by Moffat & Nichol Engineers. The purpose of this work was to
evaluate the structural integrity of the USCG's waterfront facilities. In pertinent part, Moffatt &
Nichol concluded that the concrete walls of the USCG's bulkhead were being undermined due to
the migration of passive side soils. The migration, according to Moffat & Nichol, was
attributable to the USCG's dredging of the boat basin. The dredging caused soil to slough into
329803
John Dorney
Page 5
April 8, 2002
the boat basin in an effort to return to the original angle of repose existing before the dredging
occurred. Moffatt & Nichol predicted that this phenomena would result in the failure of the
USCG's bulkhead and in fact, roughly six months later the bulkhead collapsed following
Hurricane Fran. While undoubtedly the hurricane contributed to the collapse, in essence it
merely accelerated an inevitable result.'
The Moffatt & Nichol study, coupled with the studies prepared by Tom Jarrett and Dr.
Wells, indisputably demonstrate that the USCG's dredging has devastating impacts on the
shoreline. The dredged basin traps migrating sand and sediment and deprives the areas around
the bulkhead and to the north of the USCG facility of the suspended, migrating material that is
needed to replenish the impacted beaches causing and exacerbating the severe erosion.
Significantly, the impacts are cumulative and long term. Indeed, the area north of the USCG's
bulkhead has been transformed from dry, white sand beaches to blighted "mud flats."
The impacts from dredging involve economic damage, the loss of beachfront property
(amounting to a taking without just compensation) and the substantial costs incurred by the
adversely affected residents who are required to take preventative measures to slow further loss.
The adverse impacts also are qualitative in nature, affecting primary and secondary water quality
uses and the vital quality of the human environment in the area. The on-going transformation is
cumulative and will continue and worsen if dredging is permitted.
' The cost to repair the bulkhead was substantial, exceeding $300,000.00. Dredging now will recreate the precarious
conditions that last time resulted in the failure of the bulkhead, potentially resulting in the operational disruptions
associated with a collapse and the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to fix the damage that will occur.
329803
John Dorney
Page 6
April 8, 2002
2. Alternatives to dredging need to be considered and if feasible should be
adopted instead of dredging.
In contrast to the abundant information in the record showing the clear harm that will
arise from dredging, the record contains no information justifying the need for that action or
showing that any alternatives were considered and found to be infeasible. Indeed, the record
does not contain any information that would allow a meaningful evaluation of these matters.
There is nothing on the size of vessel(s) that the USCG wants to moor but ostensibly cannot
because the water is not deep enough. The record does not indicate how often that vessel(s) will
be at the USCG facility or the duration of its stay once it is there. The record does not
demonstrate why it would not be feasible to moor the vessel(s) on the Channel side of the
existing pier when it is at the USCG facility or why re-arranging the design of the dock and pier
would not be more cost effective and less environmentally harmful than dredging.
A practicable alternatives analysis is designed to force the agency proposing an action to
create a record on which it can determine, before any environmental damage occurs (including
cumulative effects), that the proposed activity is necessary and there are no less harmful means
of achieving the project's core objectives. The test is implemented in a systematic manner. The
proposed project's core objectives are identified. Thereafter, alternatives for reaching those
objectives (including the no action alternative) are given a hard look. Where it is determined that
the agency needs to proceed with the activity but the core objective can be served by one or more
practicable alternatives, the alternative with the least harmful impact to the environment best
329803
John Dorney
Page 7
April 8, 2002
represents the public's interest and should be the alternative selected, all other things being
equal.
The USCG apparently has not conducted an alternatives analysis concerning this project
and the record does not show that alternatives were considered. Notwithstanding the shortage of
information in the record, it is apparent that alternatives are available.
First, the USCG originally applied to perform this work in October 2001 but has yet to
receive the necessary authorizations to proceed. The USCG Wrightsville Beach facility has been
operating for roughly six (6) months, during a time of extreme national crisis, without dredging.
There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the USCG has not been able to carry out its
functions and operations during this time period. Thus, whatever the USCG currently is doing
represents an alternative to dredging that apparently is practicable.
Second, the diagrams the USCG submitted with its application to dredge show that the
water on the Channel side of the pier is naturally deeper than the water in the area where the
USCG proposes to dredge. The area of Banks Channel in front of the USCG facility is a no
wake zone and configuration of the USCG's pier does not provide greater protection to a vessel
moored on the shore side of the pier than it does to a vessel on the Channel side. Mooring the
vessel on the outside of the pier seemingly then would create no greater risk to the vessel(s) than
mooring in the area where the USCG wants to dredge. Based on this information then, it would
seem that the USCG's vessel(s) could be moored on the Channel side of the pier and dredging,
with the associated environmental impacts .and costs, would not be necessary.
329803
John Dorney
Page 8
April 8, 2002
Third, as another alternative, it seems possible that the USCG's dock and pier could be
reconfigured to allow the mooring of the vessel(s) at issue while avoiding the need to
periodically dredge. While this action may require some immediate capital expenditure, in the
long run the cost may be less than the costs of maintenance dredging, the payment of reparations
for damage caused by the dredging and the constant dispute over the harms caused by dredging.
DWQ cannot issue a water quality certification to the USCG if practicable alternatives
exist. 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(1). Here it is obvious that the first necessary step, an alternatives
analysis, has not even been conducted, and for this reason alone a water quality certification
cannot be issued because alternatives in fact may exist. Moreover, we submit that if a
practicable alternatives analysis were performed, the USCG would find that practicable
alternatives exist and that these alternatives better represent the public's interest than the
dredging the USCG proposes. Dredging and the undeniable attendant long-term adverse impacts
cannot be the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. Clearly, given the cyclical
nature of the activity and the cumulative effect of the harm, there have to be changes in design,
configuration or operations that will allow the basic core objective of the project to be
accomplished without the devastation that presently is occurring. See 15A NCAC 2H.0506(f)
(practical alternatives include changes in design, configuration or density of the proposed
activity that will allow the project's basic purpose to be achieved). Accordingly, a proper
practicable alternative analysis is required. Until that analysis is performed and shows that
dredging is the least environmentally harmful practicable alternative, a water quality certification
cannot be issued.
329803
John Dorney
Page 9
April 8, 2002
3. 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(2) prevents the issuance of a water quality
certification for the planned activity because the USCG has failed to
demonstrate that its activity incorporates efforts to minimize impacts.
The brevity of the USCG's request for a water quality certification and lack of supporting
materials is truly astonishing. The USCG's submission, which was initially sent to Division of
Coastal Management and the Corps, consists of a completed form and three figures showing the
area for the proposed work and dredging profiles. See Exhibit F, hereto. It essentially provides
information on why the USCG wants to dredge but nothing more. The impacts of the proposed
activity have not been analyzed, studied or evaluated and alternatives have not been considered.
This lack of analysis and evaluation simply prevents a finding that the USCG's proposed activity
is being conducted in a way that will minimize impacts to surrounding waters.
An evaluation of methods to minimize impacts includes consideration of feasible ways to
lessen the effects of the planned activity in light of the project's core objective, the spatial and
dimensional requirements and. the structural or natural features that affect the project's design.
15A NCAC 2H.0506(g). None of this information is in the record. Rather, the USCG simply
proposes to dredge -- a low-cost, blunt response for achieving its objective. The record does not
show that the USCG evaluated the characteristics of its project, the area affected or the impact of
the activity to arrive at the method of achieving its objective that will minimize the demonstrated
impacts that will occur. As such, DWQ cannot issue a water quality certification for the planned
activity. 15 NCAC 2H.0506(b)(2).
Particularly vexing in this instance is the cyclic nature of the proposed activity. If the
USCG is allowed to dredge, it will trigger another round of demonstrated impacts that are
329803
John Dorney
Page 10
April 8, 2002
substantial and transforming. There is no question that these impacts are cumulative and will
occur with increasing severity if the dredging is allowed. Eventually the USCG's boat basin will
trap sediment and sand and need to be dredged again starting the cycle all over again. Thus, the
USCG's activity and the severe impacts it causes are long-term and over the long run will have
increasingly severe impacts. Common sense and the law demand that the USCG be required to
come up with some better solution. While a change may require up front capital expenditures or
modifications in procedure, the benefits will be long-term and significant and clearly outweigh
any cost the USCG will be required to absorb.
4. 15A NCAC 2H 0506(b)(6) also prevents the issuance of a water quality
certification for the planned activity because the mitigation proposed by the
USCG is inadequate.
The decision to place the dredged materials on the beaches north of the USCG facility is
an important step towards mitigating the impact of the USCG's dredging on some water quality
uses. It is evident, however, that if the USCG proceeds with dredging, the adverse impacts
experienced in the past and identified in the studies referred above, will continue to occur.
Without more, the mitigation the USCG proposes falls very short of actual mitigation. The
deposited materials will erode, perhaps more quickly than the natural materials that were once in
the affected area. Ultimately, the affected area will return to the degraded mud flat that presently
exists. This erosion may in fact amplify the impact on some water quality uses due to increases
in sedimentation and suspended material. Thus, the proposed mitigation is temporary at best,
and in some respects, potentially damaging. The DWQ cannot issue the water quality
329803
John Dorney
Page 11
April 8, 2002
certification without adequate compensatory mitigation and in this instance the proposed
mitigation falls short. 15 A NCAC 2H.0506((b)(6).
One possible way to provide actual mitigation would be to require the USCG to
periodically renourish the beaches north of its facility. While this does not stop the erosion, the
impact on uses such as recreation and aesthetics will be reduced. The period between
renourishment should be no more than that period before the damage becomes significant, e.g.,
bi-annual renourishment. The source of material for this purpose could be sediment trapped in
the USCG's basin at the time the renourishment occurs or materials previously deposited at some
upland location.
Another possible approach would be to require the USCG to take appropriate measures to
assure that once renourished, the beaches are stabilized so that to the extent erosion occurs, it is
consistent with the natural loss rate and impact in the area. If feasible, this requirement would
address all impacted uses.
If adequate mitigation is not possible, the USCG should not be permitted to dredge.
CONCLUSION. While we support the USCG's presence and activities in the
Wrightsville Beach area, we know that better, less damaging approaches to achieving the
objectives of the proposed project exit. Dredging in this instance is the equivalent of amputation
when physical therapy might also fix the problem. Alternatives must be considered, and
damage to the environment, water quality uses and the affected public minimized. If damage is
unavoidable, real and effective mitigation is required. Because none of these requirements have
329803

John Dorney
Page 12
April 8, 2002
been considered in a meaningful manner, we submit that a water quality certification cannot be
issued at this time.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on this proposal and look forward to working
with you, in the public interest, to resolve this matter in a way that best suits the interests of all
involved.
Very truly yours,
f j ? e C (?.-???
w V
Kurt J. Olson
cc: Wm. Dean Lee, Commander, U. S. Coast Guard
Hon. William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary, DENR
Daniel C. Oakley, General Counsel, DENR
Donna D. Moffitt, Division of Coastal Management, DENR
Joanne Stennhuis
Caroline Bellis
P. Andrew Honeycutt, Town Manager, Town of Wrightsville Beach
Rhett Taber
Tom Jarrett
329803
r--?

1Gy13 R II 3f
T
17
e �1
itoft
ir
41
+y J.. -�,-y.•.�: :� :may J
--� _.: fes. i_;.��- ..��+•«�9 � :; ;�
i V e

of
"OFF

� ..�.
_ -
�_�\\±\�
/`
•� .
•
-»,� \&\�; \
Ul
'
\,

1
--jet

:a ..j
! • '
h
r a
t r •ted; j t <� a� ��• i � � tj =�s•, _ !. .
phi t.�. ry sv. 7• `Y
(_jf1 •3 � } � v
rly`V�`7 - - - � .� � gig. ya �'.ar.�k.�4 �- 4,••'f � _ - $ �f �}�}'•. �T.+}��� .
', •r
1 _ r l -d'`'•-ds '<` 'i16�-�a�' vA 5t-�-a:rr •i":`:.:n „i.'P' - 'c _ �s7,•t N
ftp
"'�•�i"� ! �� t`, ♦���r'�i�zit lj �. 'y Vie.. L � '• � F.`i•G t �dq`fe. � s
``} � ' ~ N •rs; Y a {?r4ri1..1 lt"` �cy,'62 �.s � � ! t t �.- r �
.'�t'i3.. +y ; .� f, ••p-"'Y'�'L Rix rrhX '� i �♦�y L �3 � ti � c .n j 8 -
Sy' � f idt LAY t ?'a. mil i� � .f• � ' I �4 1 •_s
...a� h fo i c n � :�. f� y.♦iI � � -� �!� 'r _:. J' - - .: ,• �•�}�. t?s. s s'y t� cr
is syl L Sg ,..t � Z ♦ ) f ,i{�, i �$3�.
t L +moi
z
4 .
'r.

8

4F

L7
CD
M
M O
0
cD
1
2
m ?
Q1 r-y
C y
d L
m
U ?
Q N
co
w ?
N
O ~
`w
N
O •?
C3 "O
? a O
b ?
a. C
m
_ .y
a a
a ?
M +
m
E
N
?O
f
Figure 1 Tide and Current Caves for Ma5onboro Inlet
";-N O N
( s / 11 +11) sail»olOA `sWCIeH

VELOCITY 69 Cond.-Flood
a . ? t2 X03
SURFACE CURRENT-
1969 CONDITIONS
MEAN TIDE
HOUR S
SCALES IN FEET
PROTOTYPE ?? 0 boa ?
z o _ '
vaCEL roo?? - -

VVflOC1Tr -$CAL£
A /?!
69 Cond.-Ebb
SU.RFACE CURRENTS
1969 CONDITIONS
MEAN TIDE
HOUR 10
SCALES IN FEET
soo s ??
PROTOTf9E
z e z ;
UOML
VELOCITY SCALE Figure 4
S 0 5 10
? t t 1
FPS, PROTOTYPE 1973 Cond.-Flood
SURFACE CURRENTS
SCALES IN FEET
600 0 600 1200 1800
PROTOTYPE
z o z a
MODEL
1973 CONDITIONS
MEAN TIDE
HOUR 5
VELOCITY SCALE i figure o
5 4 S Ib
FPS7 PROTOTYPE Jetty Plan-Flood
,-'
SURFACE CURRENTS
1973 CONDITIONS
SCALES to FEET WITH SOUTH JETTY
goo o 600 1200, 1800 PLAN B INSTALLED
)T0TYP£ - MEAN TIDE
s 6
DAL Z HOUR 6

5 VELOCITY 00 SCALE
5 is Jetty Plcin-Ebb
FPS, PROTOTYPE
SURFACE CURRENTS
1973 CONDITIONS
SCALES IN FEET WITH SOUTH JETTY
500 o Roo _1200 laco PLAN B INSTALLED
PROTOTYPE MOAN TIDE
mODEL HOUR 10
MAY - 3
2002
Phone[phone]
Tom Jsrrctt Coastal Engineering Fax [phone]
204 Dorchester PL
Wilmington, NC 28412 email [e-mail]
Supplemental Report
Erosion of Taber Property
Wrightsville Beach, N.C.
September 2001
1. General. In January 2001, the undersigned submitted a report of findings to Mr. Rhett
Taber regarding the possible impacts that the U.S. Coast Guard Station at Wrightsville
Beach is having on his property, which is located immediately north of and adjacent to the
Coast Guard facility. That report concluded that the construction of the bulkhead and
subsequent maintenance dredging of its boat basin is primarily responsible for the erosion
of his property. In June 2001, the U.S. Coast Guard submitted an application for a
consistency determination to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management relating
to certain changes in the maintenance dredging of its boat basin. That permit application is
being circulated to State agencies for comments regarding the consistency of the proposed
action with the NC Coastal Management Program.
2. The January 2001 report focused on the impacts of the Coast Guard bulkhead. The
undersigned was asked to supplement this analysis to isolate the important role the Coast Guard
boat basin, particularly maintenance dredging of basin had on the crosion of the Taber property
and other properties to the north.
3. Basin Dredging HistoEy. The Coast Guard boat basin, shown on Figure 1, was initially
dredged in 1973 (based on permit information). The basin measures 80 feet in width, 170 feet in
length and has a depth of 10 feet below mean low water. The slide slopes of the basin, shown on
the permit application, were I V:3H (one-foot vertical to 3 feet horizontal) for payment purposes.
That is, the dredging contractor would not be paid for any material removed outside the design
template. However, based on surveys accompanying Coast Guard permit application discussed
below, the side slopes of the basin appear to adjust to a slope approximating I V:5H following
dredging. The Coast Guard applied for a Department of the Army permit to dredge its basin in
June 1993. That permit was eventually granted and allowed the Coast Guard to maintain the
basin for a period of 10 years from the date of the permit. The permit application indicated that
approximately 2,000 cubic yards of material would be removed, however, estimates of the shoal
quantities represented by the survey accompanying the application (discussed,later) indicated that
the shoal volume was probably of the order of 1,500 cubic yards. Sometime in late 1993 or early
1994, the Coast Guard removed the material and deposited it on an existing Corps of Engineers
confined dredged material disposal area located adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(AIWW) near Shinn Creek. Based on Corps of Engineers records, this was the only maintenance
dredging performed since the basin's initial construction. The current permit application calls for
the removal of approximately 2,100 cubic yards of sand with disposal of the dredged material on
the ocean beach of Wrightsville Beach. The change in the disposal location is the action that
prompted the State to review the proposed maintenance activity for its consistency. JV=
EXHIBIT
B

'me. Littoral sediment is transported into Banks Channel through
4. Sediment Transport R?_
Masonboro Inlet during the flood phase of the tidal cycle: While Masonboro Inlet has undergone
considerable modifications with the construction of the north jetty in 1966 and the south jetty in
1980, ocean sediments still freely enter the inlet by over he weir sectiBeach the nor to
jetty. Some of the material is transported around he south tip of Wrightsville and
while Banks Channel close to the shoreline predominantly
ound along them n eh nnel bottom?Thents
become suspended or are carried toward t come sediments carried into the sound by suspension or
opposite the Coarest st on
Cthe main hannel channel
an extensive shoal located on the west side of B
Guard Station and extends several thousand feet northward into Banks
of Masonboro nel. Mate dluc theed
by the main channel also deposits on shoals at the The confluence
AIWW near its intersection with Shinn Creek. material is carried north w rd the Coast Guard s
its way around the south tip of Wrightsville Beach higher st the
Station during the flood phase of the tidal cycle when maximum currents occur high
therefore,
ts occur lower on the near shore profile,
. During ebb, the maximum curren
bank.
sediments transported along the shoreline during flood minor tend role in sediment transport t Banks falling
phase of the tidal cycle. While wave action plays tend to enhance sediment
Channel, the predominant southwest winds in the area would only
transport to the north near the shoreline. 2001 report, referenced above, were
5. The series of aerial photographs included in the January
reviewed to identify sediment transport pathways around
observat ons of physical changes in the inlet and
into Banks Channel. Included in this review were
and surrounding area that could have influenced the transport of sediment
A. t t menu oned
chronological analysis of the aerial photographs is provided in Appendix as result of the construction
above, Masonboro Inlet has undergone extensive physical change and nourishment of the
of the two jetties and dredging activities associated with sand bypassing aeri Wrightsville Beach storm damage reduction project.
However,
considerable qua tlit es of littoral
photographs indicated that in spite of the physical of the isl
and. sediment continue to be transported into the] sediment transport iinto Banks Chan Onel for a
feature of the inlet activities that may have impacted
short period of time was the construction of a rubble groin o t of the Ci a and a staging Station. The
south jetty contractor constructed the groin to 1979 protect The June 1979 photograph indicated that the south oast Guard bulkhead. The sand bee h fronting the
sand and a sand beach existed in front of the C
Coast Guard bulkhead was gone by August 1979 but returned by May 1980. By May 1981,
freely around the seaward end of the groin. While the
sediment appeared to be moving ort into Banks Channel for 2 years,
construction of the groin may have impacted sediment transp
the build up of material on the south side of the groin
the Coast Guard i er nle quantities of confirms that littoral material are moved along the shoreline to
2

b. Two additional sets of aerial photographs, taken by the Corps of Engineers in March 1999 and
March 2001, which were not included in the January 2001 report, are shown on photo No. I and
Photo No. 2 respectively. Both photographs show the groin to be completely covered with sand
and a sand beach existing seaward of the groin. Also, the 2001 photograph shows a rather significant beach fronting the Coast Guard bulkhead but no dry beach fronting the Taber property.
These two photographs provide additional evidence that sediment moves around the south tip of
Wrightsville Beach and up the Banks Channel shoreline. The photographs also indicate that
sediment transport along the shoreline appears to stop in front of the Coast Guard Station.
7. Boat Basin Shoaling Patterns. Before and after dredging surveys were not available for this
supplemental review, however, the 1993 and 2001 permit applications submitted by the Coast
Guard were accompanied by hydrographic surveys of the basin. These two surveys were used to
determine the distribution of shoal material in the basin, which was or is to be removed b will
maintenance dredging. While no dates were given on the drawings for the two surveys„ they
be referred to as the 1993 and 2001 surveys respectively. The 1993 survey, which is shown on
Figure 1, indicated the existence of a rather narrow beach at mean low water in front of the
bulkhead while the 2001 survey (shown on Figure 2) indicates a rather substantial beach at mean
low water with widths ranging from about 35 to 50 feet. Note that the mean low water beach
terminates about 20 feet from the north end of the bulkhead.
8. The apparent shoal depths (i.e. shoal thickness) for the 1993 survey and the 2001 survey are
shown as contours on Figures 3 and 4 respectively. The contours represent the vertical difference
between depths shown on the surveys and the dredging template for the basin. Cross-sectional
plots through the basin for both surveys are provided on Figures B-1 to B-9 in Appendix B. The
cross-sectional plots also show the dredging template for the boat basin. Note that the
sedimentation pattern in the basin would be different if actual post-dredging surveys were used
rather than the idealized dredging template due to probable differences in the final side slopes o
ubic
the basin. The shoal volumes indicated by these shoal pattern lots are approximately 1,500 c
yards for the 1993 survey and 2,100 cubic yards for the 2001 survey.
9. The shoaling patterns resulting from both surveys, particularly the 2001-shoaling pattern,
strongly demonstrate a south to north transport of material into the basin. The 1993-shoaling
pattern indicated the presence of what appeared to be a terminal lobe of sediment near profile
the shoal pattern
station 0+50 that had its origin south of the basin. North of this terminal lobe,
seemed to support some influence of ebb tidal currents, i.e., transport from north to south.
However, if maintenance dredging was not performed in the basin between 1973 and 1993 (as
appears to be the case), the deposited material would have had ample time to be reworked by tidal
currents passing through the basin in both directions. The shoaling pattern indicated by the 2001
survey is rather clear, however, with material being deposited in the basin in a distinct south to
north pattern.
10. The cross-sectional plots for Stations 1+75 and 2+00 (Figures B-8 and B-9 in Appendix B),
which are located at the north end of the Coast Guard boat basin, show a rather significant amount
of deepening between 1993 and 2001. A1I of the other cross-sections south of these northern two
sections experienced significant shoaling. These depth changes in the basin provide additional
evidence that material moving northward into the basin is prevented from moving bey
basin resulting in shoaling of the basin and erosion of the near shore bottom and shoreline north of
the basin.

11. Conclusion. Based on the shoaling patterns and depths changes in the Coast Guard boat
basin between 1993 and 2001, it is apparent that the boast. basin acts as a sediment trap,
preventing the transport of material northward along the sound side shoreline of Wrightsville
Beach. The entrapment of sediment by the basin and the fixation of the Coast Guard shoreline
by the steel bulkhead (which prevents the Coast Guard property from responding to variation in
sediment transport impulses and removes it as a source of sediment for shoreline toties he located
have combined to be a major cause of the erosion of the Taber property proper
and found that,
north of the Taber property. The January 2001 report, referenced in paragraph 1,
following the construction of the Coast Guard bulkhead and dredging of the boat basin, the
Taber property eroded about 50 feet. Also, the report found that shorelines at least 1,000 feet
north of the Taber property experienced some degree of erosion due to the Coast Guard facility.
While upland erosion of the Taber property has been prevented by the original construction of a
timber bulkhead along the property in 1986 (by the previous owner Robert Sawyer) and its
eventual replacement by Mr. Taber in January 2000, sediment continues to be eroded from the
area resulting in ever increasing depths in front of the properties north of the Coast Guard
facility. The private property owners are not the only ones being impacted by erosion caused by repai the facility as the Coas aG?u t a threatened toaundermin the north tieback all ad in 1996 due to
increased depths in the
12. As an order of magnitude check of the significance of the volume of material trapped by the
Coast Guard boat basin, assume that the shoreline 1,000 feet north of the Coast Guard bulkhead
eroded an average of 25 feet (50-foot maximum at the bulkhead decreasing to zero 1,000 feet
north). The natural elevation of the dry sandy beach appears to be around +4 feet mean low
water (mlw). Depths in the eroded area (visual inspection) are around -2 feet miw. Based on
these dimensions, i.e., a 6-foot vertical change in depths and an average of 25 feet of shoreline
recession over 1,000 feet of shoreline, the volume of material eroded from the area north of the
Coast Guard bulkhead would be around 5,500 cubic yards. The minimum volume of material
trapped by the boat basin, determined from the 1993 and 2001 surveys, totals 3,500 cubic yards.
Therefore, there appears to be a strong correlation between the volume of material trapped by the
boat basin and the volume of material eroded from the shorelines north of the Coast Guard
facility.
13. Recommendations. The primary recommendation is to request the Coast Guard to change its
disposal area from the ocean beach to the shoreline immediately north of its facility. This is an
equitable disposal alternative that would benefit both the Coast Guard and the adjacent property
owners. The boat basin acts as a sediment trap preventing the movement of littoral material to the
north past the Coast Guard facility. The impacts of the boat basin on the adjacent shorelines are
not unlike the impacts that navigation channels and inlet jetties impose on adjacent shorelines
along the ocean shoreline. In most instances, sediment removed to maintain the navigation
projects is bypassed to the adjacent shorelines. For example, sand is routinely bypassed around
Masonboro Inlet with material being placed both north and south of the inlet in order to keep the
material moving in the littoral system. At Oregon Inlet, material removed from the inlet
navigation channel is either deposited directly on Pea Island or immediately offshore within the
4
L
active littoral zone. The new sand management plan for Wilmington Harbor will also place beach
quality shoal material on the beaches of Bald Head Island and Oak Island. Placement of the boat ditional basin maintenance material north of the Coast Guard bulkhead would
for future costly repairs to
deepening (i.e., erosion) in the area, which in turn prevent will private bulkheads and possibly prevent the need for additional repairs to the Coast Guard
bulkhead. Placement of the material immediately north of the Coast Guard facility should also
greatly reduce the cost of the maintenance operation by significantly shortening the length of the
disposal pipeline.
14. The suggested disposal location for the Coast Guard boa basin l ni the natural serial simply
constitutes a form of sediment bypassing in order to keep the
transport system. The recommended disposal plan is not significantly different from that carried
out at the entrance to the Bald Head Island boat basin where a hydraulic dredge is used to bypass
material across the entrance to the basin with disposal north of the basin. The State of North
Carolina has a policy,that requires littoral sediment to be deposited in the littoral system. In this
oreline.
case, the littoral system is the sound side shoreline
Inlet and into Banks Channel a d phesently
The material that works its way through Masonboo
deposits in the Coast Guard boat basin is material that would otherwise be permanently removed
from the ocean littoral transport zone if the boat basin did not exist. That is, the material would
continue to be transported northward along the west side, or sound shoreline of Wrightsville
Beach, and in so doing, the sediment would serve to maintain a higher degree of stability of that
shoreline. To require material removed from the Coast Guard boat basin to be returned to the
ocean transport zone would deprive the sound shoreline of material that would naturally be
transported to and deposited on the sound beach in the absence of the boat basin.
15. While the west side of Wrightsville Beach is technically classified as an estuarine
shoreline, the properties and immediate offshore bottom in question north of the Coast
Guard facility are not wetlands as the area does not contain any of marsh plant species
required for such a designation. Accordingly, shoal material removed from the Coast Guard
boat basin could be placed north of the facility and completely satisfy disposal requirements
specified in subchapter 7H, Section .0208(b)(1)(C) of the North Carolina Administrative
Code, which states:
"(C) Spoil from maintenance of channels and canals through irregularly flooded
wetlands shalt be placed on non-wetland areas, remnant spoil piles, or disposed of by a
method having no significant, long term wetland impacts. Under no circumstances shall
spoil be placed on regularlyflooded wetlands. "

Even though the Coast Guard boat basin is not situated in an irregularly flooded wetland,
disposal of the maintenance material on the beaches north of the basin would completely satisfy
the intent and purpose of the above referenced section, i.e., no wetlands would be directly or
indirectly impacted by such disposal.
16. Closure. In view of the obvious impacts that the Coast Guard boat basin and bulkhead is
having on normal sediment transport along the west side (sound shoreline) of Wrightsville
Beach and in view of the erosion of the shoreline and near shore bottom attributable to these
impacts, the State of North Carolina, acting through the Division of Coastal Management, and
the U.S. Coast Guard should agree to change the dredged material disposal location from that of
the Atlantic Ocean shoreline of Wrightsville. Beach to the sound shoreline immediately north of
the Coast Guard facility. This change should be permanent in that subsequent maintenance
operations should also deposit the maintenance material north of the Coast Guard facility.
z Tom J tt, P.E.
6

d
i
LL
+t
(!l)
-I \(p.
.}
g ?3
I
i
m
t1 `b? \^?
a
TO DISPOSAL P.REA ?`?
•E-- 1
r f
w I r7
G \bc
O ?
a L
I I PROPERTY C
APPROX. M.H.W_ --!? MR. SAW YE!
APPROX. M. L W___ 90, SCH L05;
W. 1B. } N IC
? r
PR OP=RT" Ll F-4E
o a
BULKHEAf>
a o
- AREA TO BE DREDGED TO 10.0'
- -- L M ITtOF/1 DREDGING T 10.0'
a.
e°C
I
E
i
!4PPROX. M_F-?.\n/. tea!
PLAN 1
SCP.LE I'=40_ I
-
f-PROPER-7Y OF:
KR. PER, RY
.
°t20 \/4^TER 57-
W. B. 1 NG 2£430
LpGf'\L M.LAd- = 0.O' ;?-- LIMIT OF DREDGING TO 10.0
a -EX15T. GRADE
s 3 SI DE 5LOPE
DRED:?E DEPTH 10.0' (11.0" PERMISS! BLE)
JOTES:
THE PURPOSE OF THE PRO.T EGT
IS TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE
PTH OF WATER FOR MDtDR -
4G -COAST.. GUARD . BOATS .
SOuNDiNGS.. TAKEN FEB. 1993.
I. M^'rER IA L TO BE PKED&F-D
1:5 A PPR OX . 2,000 Y. OF 5A4D
MATERIAL TO BE REMOVED
BY HYDRAULIC DREDGE..
AP
Gl
W Q
O
;PIER
.t ??f
SECTION
SCALE iry= ZO'
PROPOSED DREDGLNG
NEAR MASON BORD INLET
NEW HAWOVER COUWTY, NC
U.S. COAST GUARD STA T ION
W RIGHTSVILLE BEACH
,QUA
SOUNDING= t[-[ F=cT
BE'-OW LOCAL M. L.W. = 0
U.S. GDAST G_UF.RD STA
W R IGHTS V I LL.E BEACH
at t Z Wa T ER 5T
W R IGHT5V I LS SEP r_j it N
284Z30- 7-099
I /-PROPERTI L
4
r
C01110{1RS REfEREMCEO
r TO Uum (ao)
LWS OF ARMVLJM
:, 1fwAAt - TOE AT -100
146'-0' tTt11JCi NSF SKw x '?`., 70 10d ?s? k 60 e a oe 0 30 0 -_ , 907 SE?.Piria 4 ST
s+
t : , rr
' i t t r ? Frt31CE l
:F ? L D T
R ? t t i r T
Alf, , i _ , rjPtt
Akk
i/zF r?. ? R ' ?d? yr ,yj r ,s rT rr# i\ti?`??'? ?..
f° i i` / a? ? `'`mil T T t t ttY??
t s \
t , !r t r t \
bi ?. ! , r r f i t ?
r F t1 r r ? i \
€ rAimaes AREh.
- - ?? TrttiKS
g g fEMCE WE
T T # ? R
// t r 1 t PfUMIE IMSI EMCE
920 *ATEIt S1.
b#tEbGING pJ AN
i' • 2w-r
FIGURE 2
'1
' f
\" 4
Y i

4 ?` a .a e

;
0

i
?
i
.':.•s is ? .?
1? s
k
_s
U: S. _G ' t Guard Station
1' =f` Wrightsville Beach

Contours are the difference between
depths shown on the 1993 survey and
the dredging template
Figure 3
Wrightsville Beach Cast Guard .Station
Apparent shoal depths based on 1993 basin survey
T
( i ( ? l
01

F

d I
t
l?

x f
t ..
0A- f_?

a ?t s a :4e 1 '
?R +;d

Coast Guard Station
??
U
.
.
:
f
Wrightsville Beach

I
L
-^
dr
r ,? y
Contours are the difference between
depths shown on the 2001 survey and
the dredging template
Figure 4
Wrightsville Beach Coast Guard Station
Apparent shoal depths lased on 200survey
PHOrT-'O NO. 1 IVI ARCH 1999
lip
r'
r. '
'? .
G t

PHOTO NO. 2 MARCH 2001

4
APPENDIX A
Review of Aerial Photographs
March 1966 - The north jetty is under construction. Beaches along the west side of
Banks Channel including the Coast Guard Station, appear to be rather
wide and healthy. A large shoal exist on the west side of Banks Channel
near the confluence with Shinn Creek and Masonboro Inlet.
1969 The north jetty is complete. South tip of Wrightsville Beach facing
Masonboro Inlet has been reshaped into a triangular configuration. The
Coast Guard dock is in place and a sandy beach still is present in front of
the Coast Guard station and all along Banks Channel north of the facility.
May have been some slight amount of erosion north of the Coast Guard
station but difficult to tell due to quality of the photo and unknown tide
condition. Sediment pathway around the south tip of Wrightsville Beach
and into Banks Channel is unimpeded. Shoal in Banks Channel forces
currents close to the east side.
Aug. 1971 Material passing freely over the north jetty weir and into Banks Channel.
The Coast Guard facility appears complete but sediment pathway past the
facility still open, i.e., no evidence of bulkhead impacts. Boast basin has
not been dredged at this time. North end of Masonboro Island building
into inlet. Banks Channel shoal still present.
Nov. 1974 North end of Masonboro Island contiues to press northward with some
apparent erosion of the south tip of Wrightsville Beach. Sediment
pathway around tip of Wrightsville Beach into Banks Channel still open,
however, can begin to see the Coast Guard bulkhead with diminished
beach fronting the bulkhead. The Coast Guard apparently dredged its
basin in 1973 based on the permit application. Banks Channel shoal still
present.
Nov. 1975 South end of Wrightsville Beach continues to erode due to the
encroachment of Masonboro Island. Material still passing freely over the
north jetty weir. Begin to see evidence of erosion of the shoreline north of
the Coast Guard station as the Coast Guard bulkhead is clearly exposed.
Very little sand beach fronting the Coast Guard bulkhead.
April 1978 North end of Masonboro Island continuing to build but more in a seaward
direction. Some additional loss of the south tip of Wrightsville Beach.
There appears to be a sand beach fronting the Coast Guard bulkhead with
A-1

some sand evident (apparently below mlw) in front of the properties north
of the Coast Guard station.
June 1979 Construction of the south jetty underway. Contractor has constructed an
offloading facility that includes a rubble groin south of the Coast Guard
station. Groin has completely filled on the south side. Still appears to be
a sand beach fronting the Coast Guard bulkhead. Banks Channel shoal
appears to have grown to the north with deepwater still hugging close to
the Wrightsville Beach shoreline.
Aug. 1979 South tip of Wrightsville Beach eroded almost to the parking lot. Old
groin on inlet shoulder exposed. Contractor's groin completely M. No
sand beach fronting the Coast Guard bulkhead and shoreline north of
bulkhead appears to have eroded.
May 1980 Construction of the south jetty complete. Shoal in Banks Channel
opposite the Coast Guard station has been removed for nourishment of
Wrightsville Beach. Contractor's groin full with sediment apparently
moving past and up Banks Channel as evidenced by small sand beach in
front of the Coast Guard bulkhead and shallow shoal off properties to the
north.
May 1981 1Vlasonboro Island north tip has been removed to reposition the navigation
channel and nourish Wrightsville Beach. Sediment appears to be moving
around the contractor's groin with small sand beach apparent fronting
Coast Guard bulkhead.
Jan. 1982 No sand in front of the Coast Guard bulkhead. Sand still working its way
across the north jetty weir and around the south tip of Wrightsville Beach
into Banks Channel.
Sep. 1986 South tip of Wrightsville Beach begins to encroach into the inlet. Little or
no beach in front of the Coast Guard bulkhead. Some shallow shoals off
the properties to the north. Bulkhead built on Taber property (by previous
owner, Bob Sawyer).
Sep. 1996 Sediment movement in to Banks Channel from the inlet appears to be fully
restored as the contractor's groin is completely covered with material
flowing around its seaward end. Still no beach fronting the Coast Guard
station. Coast Guard apparently dredged its basin sometime in 1993 based
A-2
c
on the permit application. Based on survey, adjusted side slopes would
probably have reached the toe of the bulkhead and extended north beyond
the bulkhead north tieback. Due to continued loss of bottom in front of
the return wall, Coast Guard had to place rip-rap in 1996.
A-3

s
AW\\
>
N
W
O N at!
tts
m O
O
Cc c
cc m
N N
V cc
? M
CD
r
r
m
d
L
I.L.

i
t
1

ga
i
i
j
i

3 ? d
i '

i
I i
?
i
i
s ?

s
y ?

: 44
3

5
f
O
U')
T
O
T
O
M
T
O
T
O Q.
T E
T W
T F
rn Icr)
?E
O
co CL U
C)
C)
3 N
O
ti
O
c
d C
N_ CO
o
L
M
o CY)
v 0')
o
M
N
O
T
O
O LO O to N
V- i i ?
(nnlw Jaa;) UOIIBA013

rim-
/y?
W
•? N
W
L
t+ •? N
R? m
CO) #d
? m iO
O =
V ?
? M
Q?
r
N
m
L
L
I I ?
E
k
I

t

I

f
f
tq
5
E
P
F
f
d
I
? I I
9 ( 3
i
?
1 I
i

i
I 3

9
I
l
a
?
1
I 3

I r
i
s
O 6n O Lo O
? r
(MIw laal) uoj;enal3
O
r
O
r
O
M
r
O
N
r
tQ
O ?
r E
?- N
F-
O w
d O
CD = I U)
N
O
o L U
Q' T
wy, o
W O
3 N
O
r E
O
w ?
o
CO
U
4)
H ?
o
U
M
O 0)
v
T
o
M
O
N
O
T-
0
U') N
}
y^'
V
N
d
L ?
O N
Cl
?a OD +
? m
O c
V to
CO)
M CA
t?
M
m
L
LL
s

!?
f
s I
I
3
3
3
's I
l
F
9
t
r I ?
i
s

I
3 I ?
i
i
i
O Ln 4 In O
r ?
(Mµu 1001) U014eAG13
O
LO
T"
O
M
V-
0
r F2
cc
O Q
E
N
O
_ IU)
o
'Q I v
0
? o
3 N
O
ti E
O
? to
d o
t0 C U
O
U)
o
M
o c)
r
O
M
O
N
O
T-
O
r N

..-
cc
d
m
W
N A'
?? \rW
i
O N
of
c0 m +
C O
m
0 r
? Co
?
+r N
O C
V t0
? M
M? r
W
L
LL

E

2
s
A
3 t
1
s
1
x
i
I
t

s

d
I !
j
O LO O O
r ?
(ARIW 4001) uOIIOAOI3
O
LO
V-
C)
v
O
M
r
O
N
r ?
Q
O E??
a'LLW
r
O
W C
12- 0
U
rn C I (n
•E a
CO
Q. r.
? o
N C)
? N
C:, 3
y !o
N
H cn
w
to o
U
M
m
v V-
O -
M
O
N
O
r
O
LA O
V- N
I
401W
V
?
WM
.; y
U
O
O
cc CO O
co r? r ?
v O
AW N
O =
V to
M
r
Ch
d
L
i
I

t
f
i
?
z
i
I
s
i
I
i
i
?
F
I
P

I
?
i I

i
r
i r

i
i
9

?
i
?
r
I

's
1 P
O to O Lt7 O
(MIW 4001) UOI;BAG13
O
r
O
r
O
M
r
F u?
O
N
r ?
Q5
O_ Q
FN
O
aoi C
N O
L
U
S2.
V-
C)
C)
3 N
O
OL 11/
0 O
CO
U
N
o
U
M
rn
C) w
J
0
m
O
N
O
r
O
L d
? N
i

•> N
W
CO)
O N?
Cc e4
GO
C r
IM 0
r c
O
N N
O C
V
U M
Qom'
?M
W
L
_ .,
E
S M.._ .. .......... . ... . ....

?

s i

t F

x

i

I I

t
Z

5
1
S
2
k
1

i

i
4
7
3

i

i
1
j
i
O
Lf)
V-
0
r
O
M
T.-
0
N
r ^'
? Ci.i
O C
r ?
O ? I
r ..e O
C CO
'E O
co 'Q U
C)
d O
3 CN
O O
O
V
YI
o
U
co
O (D
r
O
M
O
N
O
r
O
O T_.._LO _ O O r `-
r O ?
(Mlw 1801) uOl eA913

t0
m
d
•' N
N 9+
? Aa
L ?
co
•U) Q
m
t?'0 m to
co -imp
v C:j
N N
cc
? M
D
r
m
L
LL.
i
i
i
E
5
I ig
}
i SSS
I
j I
f
I
I
? i
I
o LO o o
(MIW 4901) UOIIBA019
0
r
0
LO
V-

0
M
12
O
N
o C.
N
H
U
rn C %j
N
y
oco 'Q U
? o
3 NI
O
~ O
? O
to C U
cl)
A h
U O
M
o 0)
W
0
M
O
N
0
r
0
0
N

V
MM?
^W
W
•? N
V/
L ?
O N
cc
m +
Cc
Mo
W
cc
cr)
+-' N
O
V
co) M
?M
W
L
cm
U-
I
E i
1

4
I I 9
9
Fly{
ii
i

?
f 7
i
P
3
?
i I ?

I 3
S
i

3
?}f

1
3
4
7

i
i
o tQ o U)
P P P
0
N
0
LO
P
0
P
O
M
P
O
N ?-
P ^R`
W(V
O Q.
P E
P
I
O W C
v UO
0) G co
? tn
N
?U
co a
o
3 N
O
ti E
10
? O
y O
O C U
f?A ?
o
M
o 0)
CD
r
O
M
O
N
O
P
0
N
(MIW 1001) UOIIena13
i
V
M?
W
•>
O U)
tU
'c m +
C N
m
v ?
N N
V t0
co M
C
r
C
m
d
L
__-___ _---- ...__ .? - --
}

3
8
i
I

i

t

' I
I

a

? I

i
1
?
?
I

a

s
3
i

O O O to
r- P P
(MIW 4901) U014BA013
O
N
O
P
0
P
O
M
P
O
N
P
O
V_
. O
w
rn C
E
a a
r
3
O
W
U
O
O
M
O
N
O
P
O
N
t
N
t?
Q.
E
N
I
C
OI
NI
co
CD
w
O
0
0
N
AU`
W
U
0
U
M
d1
r
I

.'' ....?'J _.. LL
S
MAY -
WETLANDS W11W
WRTE„ OW'11TY SI 1
1969

5
• Y

E

f
EXHIBIT

c
r
w
1985

2001
J

2000
vk.",

S
Review of Report of Findings and Supplemental Report Erosion of Taber Property (Tom
Jarrett Coastal Engineering, January & September, 2001, respectively)
John T. Wells, Director and Professor r
Institute of Marine Sciences University
of North Carolina-CH Morehead City, r
NC 28557 MAY _ 3 G 'V
December 2001
A review of two related documents that were prepared by Tom Jarrett Coastal Engineering is
presented in the following paragraphs. The purpose of the reports was to determine the cause for
erosion on the Taber property, located adjacent to the U.S. Coast Guard Station on Banks Channel at
the south end of Wrightsville Beach. The reports utilized aerial photographs, background data on
observed and modeled tides and currents from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and dredging
records associated with maintenance of a bulkhead and boat basin at the Coast Guard Station. The
photographs span a period from 1966 to 2001 and have been used to determine the correlation, or
lack thereof, between activities associated with construction and maintenance of the Coast Guard
Station and erosion of the Taber property. A rudimentary assessment was also made of the degree to
which construction of the south jetty at Masonboro Inlet may have impacted flow patterns and
sedimentation, thus indirectly impacting the Tabor property after it first began to erode.
The primary conclusions of the first report (Report of Findings) were that 1) erosion of the Taber
property began between 1971 and 1974,2) the Taber property experienced, even prior to 1971,
irregular pulses of sediments transported along the shoreline of the sound, 3) installation of the
bulkhead fronting the Coast Guard Station created a fixed boundary that disrupted the natural
equilibrium between sediment supply and morphologic response to the north, and 4) this change in
fixed boundary conditions, together with maintenance dredging at the station, was directly
responsible for erosion of the Taber property. The second report (Supplemental Report) examined
more closely the transport of sediments and the role of maintenance dredging at the Coast Guard
Station on the Taber property. Its main conclusions were that 1) the boat basin at the station served
as a trap for sediments being transported toward the Taber property from the south, 2) trapping of
sediments and hardening the shoreline with a bulkhead thus starved the downdrift shoreline of
sediments, and 3) the starved shoreline, i.e. the Taber property, responded by eroding. Both reports
recommended that disposal of sand from maintenance dredging at the Coast Guard Station be placed
north of the station to reduce or eliminate the erosion.
The approach in this review has been to answer four questions: First, have the correct tools for
determining erosion patterns been used? Second, are the interpretations valid and can the
conclusions be supported by application of these tools? Third, are there alternative explanations
that are equally justified, based on available data and within a reasonable margin of error? Fourth,
is the recommended solution for remedial work appropriate?
EXHIBIT
D

Have the correct tools been used? The reports make extensive use of aerial photographs. Aside
from ground surveys or having access to other forms of digital data on shoreline position, there is no
tool more effective than aerial photographs for assessing shoreline change. In fact, aerial
photographs have been a standard tool, available for this purpose, for approximately 60 years.
Quality and scale of photographs can vary considerably; however, virtually every major shoreline
feature, and indeed many minor features, can be depicted and interpreted rapidly and definitively
using photographic techniques. In addition, aerial photographs can reveal location and extent of
submerged shoals, and a qualitative assessment of water depth near the shoreline is usually possible.
Interpretations based on aerial photographs are strengthened when they are combined with other
sources of data, e.g. flow patterns, tides, storms, land-use patterns, and siltation and dredging
records. It is my opinion that the reports were based on the proper sources of available information
for making an informed determination of the causes for erosion, and that the "time step" (average -2
years, 1966-2001) for photo-interpretation was sufficient to resolve the relationship between bulk
heading/dredging and subsequent erosion.
Are the interpretations valid and can the conclusions be supported from the data? The reports
have attempted to correlate erosion on the Taber property with bulkhead construction and dredging at
the Coast Guard Station. I concur that the erosion appears to have begun between 1971 and 1974.
Although this section of shoreline has undergone periodic fluctuations associated with sediment
pulses, it is clear that the indentation north of the Coast Guard Station is a persistent feature that
predates bulkhead construction at the station. The Report of Findings concludes that the indentation
is related to an eddy in current flow patterns. I concur on the grounds that the indentation in the
shoreline is a long-term feature that did not suddenly acquire its morphology from rapid local
erosion. Current vectors from Corps of Engineers' model results (Figures 2 7, Report of Findings)
indicate that the eddy lines up reasonably well with the indentation.
Potential impacts of the south jetty, installed in 1980, were also addressed insofar as possible by the
model results. Results did not show significant differences in magnitude or direction of currents in
Banks Channel when "jetty versus no jetty" model runs were made. It is worth noting that the
efficacy of the model could be questioned because observational data in Banks Channel were not
presented for comparison purposes once the j jetty was actually installed; however, I do not view this
as a significant shortcoming because the erosion of the Taber property clearly began prior to
construction of the south jetty. Moreover, Figure 1 in the Report of Findings shows an exceedingly
well-behaved relationship between tide elevation and current speeds in Masonboro Inlet. In fact, the
phase relationship is a textbook example of a progressive wave (peak flow at mid-tide; zero flow at
high and low tides), as would be expected in an inlet such as Masonboro, and there is simply no
evidence from the flow patterns that delivery of sediments to the sound should be interrupted due to
the south jetty construction. The report notes correctly that the sediment trapped by the rubble groin
constructed south of the Coast Guard Station in 1979 (Photo 99) verifies active transport of sand into
Banks Channel by flood currents.
2

The Report of Findings makes a cause-and-effect argument by concluding that construction of the
Coast Guard bulkhead effectively hardened the shoreline such that this area is no longer in a state of
equilibrium and cannot adjust to temporary changes in accretion and erosion. Specifically, it is
argued that the bulkhead fixed the shoreline thereby precluding sand which fronts the Coast Guard
Station from serving as a temporary source for the Taber property during periods of erosion. On the
basis of professional judgment, I concur with this conclusion. A temporal correlation has been
firmly established, and principles of sediment transport and shoreline response support the
connection between bulkhead construction and downdrift erosion. Further, it is well documented in
the scientific and engineering literature that bulkheads and seawalls can change local dynamics of
the shoreline and in some instances create "end effects" whereby erosion is exacerbated on adjacent
property to either side of these types of structures.
The cause-and-effect argument in the first report, based primarily on aerial photographs, is
strengthened tremendously by the Supplemental Report, which examines shoaling patterns in the
boat basin in front of the bulkhead at the Coast Guard Station. The interpretation from Figures 3 and
4, namely that infilling (siltation) in the boat basin has progressed from south to north is correct.
Whereas the 1993 infilling pattern indicates bi-directional transport (to the north as well as to the
south), the lobe extending from the south has a maximum thickness twice that of the lobe extending
from the north. It is therefore reasonable to conclude, as does the report, that sediments are reworked
by tidal currents but probably owe their origin to sources that are located to the south. As discussed
in the Report of Findings and reiterated in the Supplemental Report (Photo #1 and 42), sediment
buildup at the rubble groin installed in 1979 irrefutably confirms transport of littoral sediment along
the shoreline (from the south) toward the Coast Guard Station.
The 2001 infilling pattern is especially impressive. The delta-like lobate morphology clearly
indicates infilling from south to north. As the report indicates, the fact that the lobe terminates at the
2+00 profile station and that the depths increase at this location provide evidence that transport in the
littoral system is disrupted. Sediment is prevented from moving to the north, and I concur that the
boat basin acts as a sediment trap. Although it was not possible for me to personally verify from
aerial photographs the reported erosion north of the Taber property, any erosion extending as far as
1000 ft to the north, as reported, would be a significant additional indicator of sediment trapping. I
was indeed surprised that the agreement between sediment loss along this 1000 ft corridor matched
so closely the amount of sediment trapped in the boat basin.
Are there alternate explanations for erosion of the Taber property? Several alternate
explanations for erosion of the Taber property could be put forth. 1) Erosion fortuitously
occurred at this particular location and was not connected to the Coast Guard Station. In other
words, because oceanfront and soundside erosion are common in North Carolina, they should be
expected to occur at many locations where there are no groins, jetties, boat basins, etc. It is certainly
true that erosion is pervasive, but the temporal correlation simply cannot be ignored, nor can the
clear pattern of northerly transport and the infilling

(trapping) within the boat basin. These connections are too convincing to be written off with a
"chance alone" argument. 2) Severe storms created erosion on the Taber property but spared the
Coast Guard Station because of the bulkhead. Intuitively, this is a reasonable argument. North
Carolina experienced two hurricanes in the timeframe during which erosion began on the Taber
property (Hurricane Ginger in 1971, Hurricane Agnes in 1972). However, both hurricanes produced
only minor damage along North Carolina's southern
coast and their occurrence does not negate the fact that dynamic equilibrium was disrupted by the
bulkhead in such a manner that response to virtually any physical forcing (including hurricanes)
would be unnatural. 3) Changes in transport along the ocean beaches, and thus into Masonboro
Inlet, reduced the availability of sediments and created the erosion. There
is no available evidence to support this contention (although sediment pulses in Banks Channel were
noted in the reports). Even if there were variations along the ocean shoreline, it could be argued that
the effects would have been temporary and not necessarily correlated with bulkhead construction and
dredging. Again, the issues are disruption of equilibrium and trapping in the boat basin. 4) Hard
structures and other human impacts along the sound to the north of the Taber property, rather than
the Coast Guard Station to the south, were responsible. Even without extensive knowledge of the
types of human activities to the north, this argument is not convincing because several lines of
evidence indicate that the sediment is derived predominantly from the south rather than the north.
Moreover, the erosion of other property north of the Taber property (as far north as 1000 it) is
evidence that progressive downdrift impacts have originated from a single point of origin.
In my opinion, there is no viable alternate explanation for the erosion of the Taber property and I
concur with the major findings in the reports,
Is the recommended solution for remedial work appropriate? Both reports recommend that
material from dredging the boat basin be used to build up the beach north of the Coast Guard
Station. I concur. The advantages of a more local disposal site are obvious. Not only would the
disposal site be closer to the dredging operations, thus resulting is less expensive disposal, but
downdrift disposal would provide the necessary sand for potentially
eliminating the erosion. An argument is made using the historic precedent of bypassing sand to keep
it in the littoral system. In this case, I agree that any sand which accumulates in the boat basin has
already been permanently lost from the ocean littoral system and is part of the sound littoral system.
Bypassing to the north along the sound is thus appropriate and in keeping with good practices of
sand management. The order-of-magnitude estimates of sediment volume lost to the boat basin and
lost in shoreline erosion indicate that bypassing has a good chance of success in stemming erosion.
The Supplemental Report makes a convincing case for approval of consistency of the proposed
action by State of North Carolina.
Submitted on Dec 4.2001 by John T. Wells
4
Prepared for
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIT
CLEVELAND, OHIO
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD l'. MAY ` L
N
d
STATION WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
WATERFRONT STRUCTURES INSPECTION
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
(Volume 1)
OTCG83-95-C-30Z189
Task Order #006(a)
20 March 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDIX B - WATERFRONT STRUCTURES INSPECTION REPORT
APPENDIX C - FIGURES
APPENDIX D - PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX E - PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COST(S);
Submitted by. ARO" O?
MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEERS
3717 National Drive, Suite 107 ; / ?.:,2D aft
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612, ; 3 3 0 a
EXHIBIT
E
r USCG Stcttiun Wrig;ci.? ville Beach
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Nlo#f ttt &Nichot Engineers
USCG Station Wrightsville Beach Executive Sunanaiy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Moffatt & Nichol Engineers conducted a site investigation with topside and underwater
inspection of the waterfront facilities at the U.S. Coast Guard Station in Wrightsville Beach,
North Carolina. After reviewing available plans, discussing problem areas with Station
personnel, conducting the site investigation, and completing an analysis of the information, the
following findings and recommendations along with opinion of probable cost(s) are forwarded
concerning the facilities:
The Fixed Concrete Pier is in fair condition. The precast prestressed double-tee
deck sections are spalled and the bearings are heavily corroded. The concrete
piles and beams are spalled and cracked. The original construction drawings
indicate that they were designed for 125 pounds per square foot of live load; the
pier has been restricted to pedestrian traffic by the Station. The material
condition of the double-tee sections is poor due to insufficient cover on the
reinforcing and corrosion of the bearings. It is our opinion that long term repair
and maintenance is not an economically feasible option. The 12 inch square
prestressed concrete piles and reinforced concrete beams supporting the deck
sections are spalled and need to be repaired in order to curtail the deterioration
that is taking place. It is recommended that the concrete piles and beams be
repaired and the double-tee sections be replaced with a precast composite
concrete deck, Alternative 2C, composed of precast panels and a topping slab.
The repaired structure will have a serviceable life of 15 to 20 years and provide
the Station with a very good structure for accessing the other berthing facilities
for the homeported and visiting vessels at the Station. The opinion of probable
cost for this alternative is $126,000.
D The concrete retaining walls on the north and south ends of the property are
being undermined and overstressed due to migration of passive side soils. The
retaining walls are in very poor condition. The base of the footing is undermined
on the North wall from STA 0+07 to STA 0+47 and from STA 0+07 to STA 0+16
on the South wall. The elevation of the soils during the original 1968
construction was EL +6.00 (MLW), while the present minimum elevation is EL -
Alojirtt & Nichol Engineers 14 -1
USCG Station WrightsviUe Beach Fxecrr[ive Suncrnury
i
0.12 (MLW). The cause of this migration of the passive soils is attributed mainly
to the dredging of the boat basin causing the soil to "slough" and try to return to
its' original angle of repose 1:8 (V:H). If the existing condition is not mitigated
then both of the walls will eventually fail due to undermining of the footings and
overstressing of the wall itself. Concrete sheetpile bulkheads placed behind the
existing retaining walls appear to be in fair condition and are actually mitigating
the active side soil pressures on the two retaining walls. However, they will be
overstressed if the existing retaining walls fail and the passive side soils are
below EL+3.25 (MLW). The retaining walls on the north and south side are in
the process of failing and cannot be repaired. The passive side soils on the front
of the retaining structures should be increased to an EL +5.00 (MLW) to
satisfactorily provide passive resistance for the cantilevered sheetpile bulkhead.
The recommended alternative is to install a rip rap slope on the front of the
existing retaining walls, Alternative 1 C. The opinion of probable cost for this
alternative is approximately $120,000. This alternative will require that the
adjacent property owners be contacted regarding infringing on their property for
the installation of the rip-rap slope.
The elevation of the soils on the front side of the Concrete/Steel Sheetpile
Bulkhead have decreased from a 1968 construction EL +7.00 (MLW) to a
present low point EL -8.00 (MLW). The bulkhead is being overstressed in the
sheetpiles and in the continuous deadman anchoring the bulkhead. At the
present time, there are no visible signs of overstressing in the bulkhead. The
cause of the soil migrating from the front side is attributed to dredging to EL -
10.00 (MLW) to close to the bulkhead. The remaining soils "sloughed" to their
natural angle of repose of 1:8 (V:H) reducing the passive side soil elevation. The
simplest solution to this problem is to install a rip rap slope protection from EL
+3.00 (MLW) to EL -10.0 (MLW) to protect the bulkhead. The opinion of
probable cost for this repair is $160,000.
The Timber Deck Pier is in good condition with moderate deterioration of the
concrete piles and beams including spalling and cracking. The timber deck
surface is relatively new and in good condition with some cupping of the decking
Iloffutt & JVichol Engineers
USCG Station Wrightsville Beach acrrciva Suntrnury
surface is relatively new and in good condition with some cupping of the decking
noticeable. Repair of the concrete piles and beams is needed to curtail further
deterioration and will extend their life another 15 to 20 years. The recommended
alternative is to repair the concrete beams and piles and to retain the timber
decking, Alternative 3B. The repaired structure will have a serviceable life of 15
to 20 years. The timber decking will probably need to be replaced in 7 to 10
years. The opinion of probable cost for this alternative is $19,000. The timber
fender system on the west side of this structure is rotted and decayed from STA
0+00 to STA 0+20 and should be replaced. The opinion of probable cost for this
repair work is $6,000.
The Timber Floating Dock at the site is in good condition. Minor problems were
noted on the. D-bore rubber fender around the perimeter and all of the northeast
pile guide rollers are excessively worn. Replacement of the deteriorated fender
and worn guide pile rollers is recommended; the other pile guide rollers should
be monitored for additional wear and replaced if necessary. The opinion of
probable cost for the recommended repairs is $7,000.
Part of the scope of work for this project requires a load rating of the pile
supported structures. An exact load rating could not be provided for either the
Fixed Concrete Pier nor the Timber Deck Pier because there is no information
provided for the driven capacity of the concrete piles on either structure,
reinforcement details are not available on the concrete beams for the Timber
Deck Pier, and the prestressing and conventional reinforcement details are not
available on the double-tee deck sections. Assumptions were made on the piles
and beams based on assumed penetration into the mudline and minimum
reinforcement in the beams. Based on the analysis and field observations, it is
our opinion that the Fixed Concrete Pier is capable of supporting 75 pounds per
square foot. This represents 60% of its' original load rating. An identical
analysis was conducted on the Timber Deck Pier which revealed that the
structure should be able to support up to 250 pounds per square foot.
klOJJ tt & Nichol Engineers 14 -3
DENR Fax : [phone] May 3 2002 1137 P.01
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
lylic'bael F. Easley, Governor
Wlliam G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Dan Oakley
General Counsel
512 N_ Salisbury Street
1601 Mail service center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
phone, 919-715-4146
Fax: [phone]
FAX TRANSMISSION
To, J --D 0- - Date: 513)0-z-
pages: 3 including this cover letter
pram: Dan Oakley
Subject: to `1 J?45 114 G~
COMMENTS:
. 1601 Mail Service Center, Re ? • ?Anolina 276994601 t'C'uST-IT ?.?
Phone: 919 -? 733-4984 1 FAX- 919 715-3060 ViELt P?'°FR
Atli EQUAL OI?polIJUNrrY 1 APEIRMAI VE AC:'Cf0` r"PLOYER - 500/0 RECYCI,Y:D! 10°?o FC15'i" CO?iSLJ,
DENR
4
a
A iZ.KNEYS AT Li W
HIGHWOCOS TOWER ONE
SUITE 500
3200 82ECHLEAF COURT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27604-1064
TELEPHONE 919,981.4000
TELE,,FAX 9 i9.981.4300
MAILING A009LE9S
POST OFFICE DRAWER 19764
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27619-976;
LANDI`ALL PARK NORTH
1985 EASTWOOD ROAD, SUITE 200
WILMINOYON, NORTH CAROLINA
28403
TELEPHONE 910256,5135
TELEFAX 910.256.6451
490 BETA BUILDING
HEAOQUARTERS PARK
2222 CHAPEL HILL-NELSON HWY.
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
27713
TELEPHONE 919,361.4900
MEW< 919.361.2262
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE BOX 13646
NORTH TRIANGLE PARK
NORTH tARpL1NA
\Y\C ? 27709-3640
X) WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
W W W, MAU Pt NTAYLOR,COH
IGUPt1P I OI SON
V ?? pri 12 20
/?R?.ECE1=Np??E/a??yD???.p
OMM OF ^? %NEliNly COL*S&
7 =: r
4
tN?
20
ENVIRONMENT &
v'
X NATURAL RED
-?
[phone] • . -,_ ,• .
John Dort3ey
Regulatory Division
U.S. ,A.nnray Corgis of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Re.,
REOUEST FOR RWOCATION OR MODIFCATION
United States Coast Guard
Dredge/Disposal Activities - Banks Channel
Wrightsville Beach Station
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina
DWQ 01-1550
Dear Mr. Dorney:
[e-mail]

In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H,0507(d), we hereby request, on behalf of a number of
property owners and adversely affected citizens, including but not limited to W. Rhett Taber and
Robert Sawyer, that the Section 401 Certification issued in 1993 for the above referenced project
be revoked or modified.
The basis for this request is stated in our April 8, 2002 letter to you on this matter and we
respectfully refer you to that letter to provide context tO our present request- (A copy is enclosed
for your convenience). In sum, the activity at issue is the U.S. Coast Guard's plan to dredge in
Banks Channel, ostensibly to create sufficient depth to permit the mooring of certain vessels in
front of the USCG facility. New data and information show that the proposed dredging activity
results in direct and cumulative adverse impacts to water quality not considered in 1993 when
the USCG submitted its iT itial request. Thesc impacts have degraded or removc;d water quality
929803
3 2002 11:37 P.02
DENR Fax:[phone] May 3 2002 1137 P.03

John Dorney
April 22, 2002
Page 2
uses and if permitted to continue, the dredging and disposal aclivity will perpetuate this cycle of
loss and harm, The new data and information demonstrate that without significant
modifications, the USCG's proposed dredging and disposal activities would not now qualify for
a 401 Certification authorizing the activities to proceed. See 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b). See also
your November 7, 2001 letter to U. S. Coast Guard, Civil Engineer Uuit (copy attached).
Practicable alternatives are available and if none are feasible, substantial, effective mitigation is
required. See, 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(! ), (2) and (6).
Thus, for these reasons, as discussed in greater detail it) our. April 8, 2002 letter to you,
the DWQ should revoke or modify the water quality certification for this project as proposed.
We look forward to working with you, in the public: interest, to resolve this matter in a_wayc_that_......._?..___
best suits the interests of all involved.
Very tnily yours,
Kurt J. son
Enclosures (2)
cc: Wm. Deana Lee, Commander, U. S. Coast Guard
Hon. William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary, DE NR
Daniel C. Oakley, General Counsel, DENR
Donna D. Moffitt, Division of Coastal Management, DENR
Joanne Stennhuis
Caroline Bellis
P. Andrew Honeycutt, Town Manager, Town of Wrightsville Beach
Rhett Taber
Tom Jarrett
329903

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
(http://www.saw.usace.anny.mil/wetlands/regtour.htm)
Action ID No. 200200015 March 8, 2002
PUBLIC NOTICE
MODIFICATION
THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG), CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIT, 1240
EAST NINTH STREET, CLEVELAND, OHIO 44199-2060, has modified their application for a
Department of the Army (DA) permit TO MAINTAIN A BASIN ON BANKS CHANNEL,
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD STATION, WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NEW HANOVER
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant. Plans
submitted with the application show the proposed maintenance of an 80-foot-wide, 170-foot-long
basin to a depth of 10 feet, mean low water (MLW). Approximately 2,100 cubic yards of sand is
to be excavated by hydraulic dredge and pumped on the estuarine side of Wrightsville Beach
north of the Coast Guard Station along six privately owned properties. The dredge material will
be pumped behind a geo-tube containment dike. The geo-tubes will be constructed of 12-foot
wide filter fabric that is rolled and seamed together. Dredge material will be pumped into the
geo-tube to form the containment dike along the waterfront approximately 20 to 30 feet from the
existing beach or bulkhead as found on each property. Dredge material will be pumped behind
the containment dike and protected from wave action until drained and stabilized. Once the
dredge material has drained, the geo-tubes will be removed and the material uniformly graded.
An Individual Permit was issued on 1 December 1993 for dredging with material to be
pumped to an upland, diked retention area on an island adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway, north of Shinn Creek, in accordance with the original plans. Condition number 2 of
this permit authorized periodic maintenance for ten years from the date of issuance when the
District Engineer was advised of the work at least 2 weeks in advance and the method of
dredging and disposal were in strict accordance with the permit. The USCG requested a
modification of this permit on October 11, 2001, to allow for the disposal of the dredged material
(beach quality sand) on the ocean side of Wrightsville Beach. The modification was to bring the
project into compliance with state policies and guidelines for the disposal of dredged material
enacted after the original permit was issued. This second modification is requesting
authorization to place the fill material to the north of the Coast Guard Station on the estuarine
beach.
The jurisdictional areas within the project site consist of mud flats below mean high water
along the eastern side of Banks Channel at the disposal site and open water at the dredge site.
The entire disposal area is submerged during high tide.
r '
The applicant has determined that the proposed work is consistent with the North Carolina
Coastal Zone Management Plan and has submitted this determination to the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) for their review and concurrence. This proposal
shall be reviewed for the applicability of other actions by North Carolina agencies such as:
a. The issuance of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ).
b. The issuance of a permit to dredge and/or fill under North Carolina General Statute
113-229 by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM).
c. The issuance of a permit under the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) or their delegates.
d. The issuance of an easement to fill or otherwise occupy State-owned submerged land
under North Carolina General Statute 143-341(4), 146-6, 146-11, and 146-12 by the North
Carolina Department of Administration (NCDA) and the North Carolina Council of State.
e. The approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Land Quality
Section, North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR), pursuant to the State
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NC G.S. 113 A-50-66).
The requested Department of the Army (DA) permit will be denied if any required State or
local authorization and/or certification are denied. No DA permit will be issued until a State
coordinated viewpoint is received and reviewed by this agency. Recipients of this notice are
encouraged to furnish comments on factors of concern represented by the above agencies
directly to the respective agency, with a copy furnished to the Corps of Engineers.
This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The District Engineer's initial
determination is that the proposed project would not adversely impact EFH or associated
fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the
National Marine Fisheries Service.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of
1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1.344). Any person
may request, in writing within the comment period specified in this notice, that a public hearing
be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with particularity,
the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein, and this site is not registered property or property listed as being
eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register is the extent of
cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the
2
presence of such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or
historical data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, has determined that the proposed
activity may result in adverse impacts to species, or their critical habitat, designated as
endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This includes the
federally threatened green (Chelonia mydas) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtles. The
carapace of a green sea turtle is smooth and gray, green, brown, and black. The plastron is
yellowish white. They may reach a meter in length. Green sea turtles nest along Atlantic
beaches from Massachusetts to Florida and along the Gulf of Mexico. Loggerhead sea turtles of
the Northern Subpopulation nest from North Carolina to Northeast Florida. The carapace and
scales found on the dorsal side of the head and flippers are reddish-brown. The neck, limb bases,
and plastron are a medium yellow.
The decision, whether to issue a permit, will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the
public interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts that the proposed activity may have on the
public interest requires a careful weighing of all those factors that become relevant in each
particular case. The benefits that may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced
against its foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the
conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are therefore decided by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern for both protection
and use of important resources. All factors that may be relevant to the proposal must be
considered including the cumulative effects of it. Among those are conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards and flood plain values (according to Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation,
shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy
needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership,
and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the placement of
dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied if the discharge
that would be authorized would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's
404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines or
criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer decides that it would be contrary to
the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties to consider and evaluate the
impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of
Engineers to decide whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To
make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic
properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed
above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Comments are also used to decide the need for a public hearing and to decide the
public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this DA permit will not be made until the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification
required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers whether the proposed
activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act. The
application and this public notice for the DA permit serves as application to the NCDWQ for
certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the
offices of the Environmental Operations Section, NCDWQ, Salisbury Street, Archdale Building,
Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished to any person requesting
copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons wanting to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act
certification should do so in writing delivered to NCDWQ, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27699-1621, on or before March 25, 2002, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in
this office, Attention: Angie Pennock, until 4:15 p.m., March 25, 2002, or telephone (910) 251-
4611.
J.
4
(3Nbl3A3-1o n3o
LOFT14
1 /
I
I
II
II
II
II HARBOR I.
US 7+ /RIGHTSVILLE, N
?I
1
SO" J _`? vN
Oil
Z
A\
2,11
PROTECT/
DISPOSAL AREA-
ZZ
MASONBORO, NG
FIN?
31?
I
xt I
N I r")
?v 11
11
Q O II l
1
-PROTECT LOCATION -
US. COAST GUARD STATION
_WR1GHTSVIL.L-f-z BEACH
CR.
-\ MASON BORO INLET
i ?
/ .1) '1
1
1
\0
/ ?V
R
TAKEN FROM NOAA CHART 11541
VICINITY MAP
SCALE 1:4.0,0
1OC50 0 1000 2000 3000
YARDS
AT_A N T I C
I OCEAN
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC

PROPOSED DREDGING
NEAR MASONBORD INLET
NEW HANOVER .COUNTY, NC
U.S. COAST GUARD STATION
WRIGHT5VILLE BEACIf
JUNE 1993

Z

°

.o
Z_
C) J Q
>
M Y
° w ?

ww
o N
O

o
w
m
z

D
° i m \
n ° (l
? J ? O Z CD
-CD
O w
PS` GUgRO N w o N q
J J
m J p
Z J W , ° C?
U W v o o w m
rn Z rn
W z a Q
W
O F- m n u N
>

?^ W N
w g
?
`t
z
~
z o
a

" o

a S j
U
m
, vi
z m

7q., no ii
6 `r
r w
l?U,j
fs
a? o

u ?^

o 3
m w

° ,
n ?
V ?
° ?
° u
° C?? U(/
)
W
C
D
m

zZ
o
N
°

Z
!} v 031\
Z •J
--? =
N
N
-
O
Z -
}
Q J
> >>
W O
K
U
O
W
O Wc? U T ° 0 0 W Z W Q
W m a? N
a
N
o
A
n
a
°
?
Z
m
m
o
W
pZJ (n
o
5
Z
O 1
U J Uw o o ? o = w° m m o n I- O ?a L?U, ai
0 (7 ww>
d' W
(n J w
°
N

"'

O
Y
Q a

w ?.

°¢ u

W z
Q
K o
_
0 Y

2 a
w
4

S Q S Cn
H CD
N E 3

U V
w
O S

W
O
d

C?l N
U - < ¢ V w ° w u V 3 ?] a K
I U I m
pY v v
WWs
a =
E D Z
> W
? = ti m
W Z Z
om? O ww vrxxi
V J O U p W
QQ Y
W S U J O U Q
O N oo Q
3-iw Uw ."? Z?
s s < = ?. T
two a? m? rv W
V W nw
OO m
W dm <a WJO Cnm
?Qm W ° ?? wW Z t l ,?
o m ?- r- W A _J
O
-rZ
Q
W?Va am O?
mNmo N? °_ ?1yju1?
N H K 4.
ap as ow o i CO Cn
z°
J o
mo=w w m4 1 _W
a ?
°oim v°1 mJ NOW S3R1VA IJ It
wm w °o mom W
Q
?UU3 mw4 1 ?.:• U W
UmUZ <E oo=w
W p mZ -w
(/? S=?° J ryU Wo=
[Wjllll ?=.Q mU m°??'.1•
z?
a Qzo 3
Z
O w
U N
a I
`I s
n?
a
n N
m W
Oo
w o
a
zm
oD
ra
a
?
V
(A p
wm
oN
mw
w U
ao
o w
m m
a°
I
W
Y ?
m j
U Y
L W
Jm
o ap ?
O G w?z wi, (nom
m Q W
1 ? 0:2
N ?`??t 1! O
II - bl;'1 V) Cn
0
4 W
S Ol a F-
w Noa3 S318VA , J C
Q W
t< . 2
zI
w?
ZO
H z
p W
U N
?N
'•i,
a ?w
IY
1 :? o
O
J
Q
U
y
}
4
u
m
J
Cj
l?
? U
7m
J 3
Z
n
W
I--
c75
J
Q
Cn
O
a-
[n
O
O
00
I
w
J
U
N
`I
3
I a

115
Ie
n
N
?I

k
1
1 i

b I ? vT
I ?

a ?? Ola

U
a
h$
m
J?,:s
M
"s$
1 ?
?I
J
PI-
Oi-
PC-
Dr
?? It OY
\ 001 ?-
\OII-_
OTI
- Ptl-
V[4-
O
___

Z
a.
w?
V)

? x
U ? b

?A$
`?22
u

5
f.t
t F
t!?
? : ?! ?
1
?CT-22-01 04:48 PM REPSLARRYt-JUSTUS

'?'.? 4TAwF i.. 9
^p•• ••••• \1
lei
?? I.?N+NI1??:?15
919 733 5882 P.02
zrt•tll CntTrnJi'tTtT (???tt>t>rrty??,??trt?Y?t
«ttsr of 9ppreopittrttifles
tear ` -egi,slilmir AiitTiiirittq
Folrigil 27081-1090
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY THOMAS JUSTUS
BOTH DISTRICT
OFFICz ADD11C><01 ROOM 9294 LCOIRLATIVE 6UIL6114G
RALMrH, NC 27601 -1496
TxLKPHONQI [phone]
(VI I S) 7,13.4673 FAX
H046 ADDRESS: PO BOX 2386
MENOQRBDNVII,Li, NC 28793
(1120) 605.74*2
18291 68514707 FAx
)environmental Operations Section
NCDWQ
1621 Milli Service Center
Raleigh, NC 2.7699-1621
Attention: Mr. John Derney
October 22, zoo 1
COMMITTEES;
LESISLANyx REm SSTRIc TIND-9CNIDRI CHAIR
APPROPIk IAT19N8
5uec6aMITT9E [IN CAPITAL
SVVQQE-MiTTL^R 9N JUSTICC AND R RI IC SAFETY
CL CGYi4,i LAW & CAMPAIGN RCtORM
HEALYrI 1
INSURAhI=K
JUO1cIARj1Y It
II
RULE. CALENDAR & OPERATION4 Op THE HQulc
UNWERS IT BOARD OP 40YERNORS +MINATINO
I it
This is to notify you that we would like to comment on tiro Bank
project in Wilmington,
It is my understanding that the Coast Guard has never filed an impact'
NC Dcpartment of Environment, If this were the case, the project should not i
aCcomplished, I further understand that the City of Wrightsville Beach over""'
resolution to the U5 Coast Guard to evaluate its dredging actions before pros
damage to the shoreline is mitigated and repaired.
If dredging is necessary, the material dredged should be used to
public beaches north of Ilia USCG installation,
I would request before any further actions are taken, that a public
insure public input as necessary.
Thank you for your consideration in this tatter.
Sincerely,
Larry T, Justus
LTJlcj
1 Dredging
tte171CI]t with the
?ceed until this is
Imingly passed a
ing and that
rich the effected
be held to
i
08T-22-01 04:47 PM REPELARRYfJUSTUS 919 733 5882 P.01
0. 1 I
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
NORTH CAROLINA
TIME
DATE
NUMBER OF P
(including transi
TO:
FAX NUMBER
FROM:
COMMENTS: a
IF TFIERE HAN
CALL (919) 733
FACSIMTi,F. TRANCI4lfITTAI'. Curr r
4:45 P
/22/01
AGES SENT 2
rnittal sheet)
Coleep Sullins

9197336883
. Justus
we disc ed
'E BEEN ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANS
5956,
THIS IS THE FI5 T PAGE OF THIS TRANSMITTA
SSION P
ETZ
:EASE
U.S. Department
of Transportation
United States Aff
Coast Guard
Commanding Officer
Civil Engineering Unit
United States Coast Guard
??/ .?,
1240 East Ninth Street
Boom 2179
Clevoland Ohio 44119-2060
Staff Symbol:
Phono:[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email_ 'Qcouclova1and.usc9,m11
11014
APR 2 9 2n
MEMORANDUM 11.Y! 0`20'.:
REAL %T03t1
From: R. E. MOBLEY, CD ? NtiAOIC)tV;?(rLri(?1i fCeply to
CEU Cleveland Attn of
To: Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
Subj: MAINTENANCE DREDGING AT COAST GUARD STATION WRIGHTSVILLE
BEACH
1) The US Coast Guard wishes to withdraw our 11 October 2001 permit application for the
Army's authorization to modify the permit issued on 01 December 1993, for dredging of
2100 cubic yards of sand from the basin at Coast Guard Station Wrightsville Beach, on
Banks Channel, New Hanover County, North Carolina. We understand that the existing 01
December 1993 permit is valid until 07 December 2003.
2) We appreciate all of your assistance throughout this process and look forward to working
with you in the future. If you have any questions concerning this matter please contact my
executive officer, LCDR Michael Carosotto, at [phone].

jj?q) q

?Y
?Qfr

_.00/700'd 9?'9L# NOISNIMIM agvsn szotT93OT6 EZ:£T ZCOZ,TZ'71VK
7 all,
t
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan Klimek, Director
Division of Water Quality
Commander Andrew P. Kimos
U.S. Coast Guard Civil Engineering Unit
1240 East Ninth Street, Room 2179
Cleveland OH 44199
April 1, 2003
RE: Application for dredging of US Coast Guard Station - Wrightsville Beach
DWQ # 03-0177, New Hanover County
Commander Kimos:
The Division of Water Quality has decided to hold a public hearing on your application
- (DWQ project: #- 03-0177) to dredge 2,100 cu yds of material at your Wrightsville Beach
station and dispose of the spoil on an upland disposal site (see attachment).
The hearing, which will be held at 7:00 P.M. May 15th at the Wrightsville Beach Town
Hall, will seek to solicit comments about this project from interested parties. If you, or
another representative of the Coast Guard, would like to speak at this meeting or submit
written comments, you may want to review the project file, which is available at either
this office or our Wilmington Regional Office. Written comments will be accepted
between now and June 14th (30 days following the hearing). Please contact Mr.
Lawrence Eaton of my staff (at 919 733-9604) if you have any questions since he will be
coordinating this hearing.
Sincerely, ?`-
John R. Dorney
Supervisor, Wetlands/401 Unit
CC: Angie Pennock, US Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington Field Office
Debra Shulse, President WBCA, P.O. Box 546, Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Doug Huggett, NC Division of Coastal Management
Andrea Surratt, Town Manager, Town of Wrightsville Beach
Rick Carpenter, NC Division of Marine Fisheries - Wilmington Regional Office
David Cox, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Kurt Olson, Maupin Taylor and Ellis
Larry T. Justus - Representative 20th District
James R. Talbot, 2 Southridge Ln, Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
North Carolina Division of Water Quality; Wetlands/401 Unit
-iFA 3zb f= 1650 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands
all,
PUBLIC HEARING
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the United States Coast Guard (USCG) has applied to the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality for a Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section
401 of the Federal Clean Water Act and Water Quality Commission rules in 15A NCAC 2B
.0101, 15A NCAC 2B.0231 and 15A NCAC 2H.0500.
The activity for this Certification is sought to impact 2,100 cu yds of jurisdictional estuarine
bottom to maintain the depth of the USCG marina at Wrightsville Beach. Disposal of the dredge
spoil is proposed to be at an upland disposal site near Shinn Creek.
The public is hereby notified that the Division of Water Quality will hold a public hearing on
Thursday, May 15, 2003 starting at 7 p.m. at the Wrightsville Beach Town Hall, 321 Causeway
Dr., Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina.
The public is invited to comment in writing on the above-mentioned application as well as during
the Public Hearing. Speaking times will likely be limited to 5 minutes maximum per speaker,
with the final time limit to be determined on the day of the hearing depending upon the number of
speaking slots requested. Those wanting to speak, need to register at the hearing and speaking
sequence will be in order of registration. Written comments may be forwarded at any time before
or after the hearing provided they are received by the Division no later than June 14, 2003.
Comments should be sent to the N.C. Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetlands Unit, 1650 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650, Attn: Lawrence Eaton (919-733-9604, FAX: 919-733-
6893). The physical address of the 401/Wetlands Unit is 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC,
27604-2260.
Copies of the 401 application and the Sediment Analysis are on file at the DWQ Regional Office
at 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, North Carolina (Wilmington Regional Office phone
910-395-3900, FAX [phone]) as well as the Raleigh location listed above during normal
business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) and may be inspected by the public. Copies of all public
comments received are available for review at the Raleigh location only. File materials may not
be removed from any DWQ office, as copy machines are available.
Alan Klimek
Director
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Date: March 30, 2003
U.S. Depar'm nt Commanding Officer 1240 E. Ninth St.
of Transportation United States Coast Guard Cleveland, Oh 44199-2060
Q.€ Civil Engineering Unit Staff Symbol: DO
United States Phone: [phone]
Coast Guard FAX: [phone]
Mr. John Dorney
N.C. Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
NOV 2 5 2002
11014
)V
Dear Mr. Dorney, ' . W0100'= *.A s
?
.
Thank you for your letter of 29 October 2002 concerning maintenance dredging at Coast Guard
Station Wrightsville Beach, NC. As stated in your letter, in April 2002 the Coast Guard
withdrew its application to modify the December 1993 Army Corp of Engineers (ALOE) permit,
which suggested placing the dredged material on the beaches north of the Coast Guard's
property. To clarify matters, the Coast Guard has no intentions of disposing dredge material on
the beaches north of the Coast Guard facility.
In October 2002 the Coast Guard requested permission from the ACOE to perform maintenance
dredging at Coast Guard Station Wrightsville Beach under the 1993 permit. As requested in
your letter of October 29, 2002, we are forwarding a copy of the sediment analysis necessary to
process the 401 Water Quality Certification for our 1993 maintenance dredging permit. For your
records we have also enclosed a copy of the 1993 Corps of Engineers permit that authorizes
maintenance dredging through December 2003. Please note that to comply with the conditions
outlined in the 1993 permit, we intend to dispose of the dredge spoils at the Corps of Engineers
Shinn Creek disposal area located less than one mile from our station.
Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Please contact Mr. Doug Ward, at
[phone] if you have any questions or require additional information.

Commander, United States Coast Guard
Commanding Officer
Encl: (1) Sediment Analysis dated June 2001
(2) Department of Army Permit 199303594
Copy: Ms. Angie Pennock; Wilmington District US Army Corps of Engineers
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
Commander, U. S. Coast Guar
Civil Engineering Unit i '
Permittee 1240 East Ninth Street
Cleveland. Ohio -060.
Permit No.Action ID. 199303594
Issuing Office CESAW-CO-E
a ?
41009
NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee.
"this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the
activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer.
You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below.
Project Description:
Maintenance of an 80-foot-wide-by 170-foot-long basin to a depth of 10 feet mean sow
water. Approximately.2,000 cubic yards of material will be excavated by hydraulic
dredge and . pumped town upland, diked retention area on an island adjacent the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, north of Shinn. Creek, in accordance with enclosed
plans.
Project Location:
Existing mooring area at.the U.S. Coast. Guard Station, on Banks:Channel,..Wrightsville.
Beach, New Hanover County,: NC.
Permit Conditions:
General Conditions:
1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on 31 December-1996. . If you find that you need
more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least
one month before the above date is. reached.
2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and condi-
tions of-this-pcrmit?azrare r?ot?r sieved of-t is requiremen i£ you abandon-tlie perms activity, although ou may make-------
a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain
the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of
this permit from this office, which may require' restoration of the area.
3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by
this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordina-
tion required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places.
ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 is OBSOLETE. (33 CFR 325 (Appendix A))
1
e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit.
4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public
interest was made in reliance on the information you provided.
5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances
warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
b.. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or
inaccurate (See 4 above).
c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision.
Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation
procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The
referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms
and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any
corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations
(such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the
cost.
6. Extensions. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Unless
there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest
decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit.
Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
U.S. COAST GUARD, CDR'. R. A. KOEHLER
(PERMITTEE) (DATE)
This permit omes effe ' e when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below.
r
ISTRICT E GINEER) (DATE)
TEORGE.L. CAJIGAL, COz
When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and
conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit
and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below.
(TRANSFEREE)
(DATE)
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1986 - 717-425
'CIAL CONDITIONS
1. All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance
with the attached plans, which are a part of this permit.
2. The work authorized herein includes periodic maintenance which may be
performed for 10 years from the date of issuance of this permit provided:
a. The permittee will advise the District Engineer in writing at least 2
weeks before he intends to undertake any maintenance dredging.
b. The proposed area to be dredged, method of dredging and disposal of
dredged material will be in strict accordance with that authorized by this
permit.
3. Future maintenance dredging and disposal of the channel must be scheduled
to avoid periods of critical biological activity. Currently, this period
extends from March 1 to September 30.
4. All excavated materials will be confined landward of the *mean high water"
(MHW) elevation contour within adequate dikes or other retaining structures to
prevent spillover of solids into any vegetated wetlands or surrounding waters.
5. The terminal end of the pipeline from the dredge into the diked retention
area will be positioned at or greater than 50 feet from any part of the dike
and a maximum distance from spillways to prevent dike erosion and to allow
adequate settlement of suspended solids.
6. A water control structure will be installed at the intake end of the
effluent pipe leading from the retention area in order to ensure maximum
settlement of suspended solids.
7. Flow from the diked retention area will be confined by pipe, trough, or
similar device to a point at or below the *mean low water" (MLW) elevation
contour to prevent gully erosion and siltation.
8. No excavated or fill materials will be placed at any time in any vegetated
wetlands or waters.
9. No attempt will be made by the permittee to prevent the full and free use
by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent the authorized work. Use
of the permitted activity must not interfere with the public's right to free
navigation on all navigable waters of the United States.
10. Mr. Ken Sholar, New Hanover County Mosquito Control, [phone], will
be contacted prior to dredging to coordinate mosquito control efforts at the
-------------d?sposad.-si.te_ ----- -- --- -- - - ------ ------
11. A soil erosion and sedimentation plan under the authority of the N.C.
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 is required. This plan will be
submitted at least 30 days prior to the onset of work to the Land Quality
Section, Regional Engineer, Wilmington Regional Office, 127 Cardinal Drive
Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845.
SCALE 1:40,000
10(30 p I0pp 2O0p 3000
YARDS
PROPOSED DREDGING
NEAR MASONBORO INLET
NEW HANOVER COUNTY NC
U.5. COAST GUARD STATION
WRIGHT5VILLE BEACH'
JUNE 1993
SH E ET I OF Z

G;

Sediment Analysis MW
Characterization Study US Coast Guard
Wrightsville Beach
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina

HM. TCROWSME
Delivering smarter solutions
Prepared for
Commanding Officer
United States Coast Guard Rm. 2179
1240 East Ninth Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44199
June 2001
7593-00
?r
HARTCROWSL-R
Delivering smarter solutions
' Sediment Analysis and Characterization Study
US Coast Guard Wrightsville Beach
' Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina
Prepared for
Commanding Officer
United States Coast Guard
' Civil Engineering Unit Rm. 2179
1240 East Ninth Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44199
' June 2001
7593
Prepared by
Hart Crowser, Inc.
' Mohsen Hossein, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator
f:\data\jobs\U S C G 7593\report\SignaturePage. doc
75 Montgomery Street, Fifth Floor
Jersey City, New Jersey 07302-3726
J?? 1/&VA
Matthew Van Liew
Assistant
www. hartcrowser. com
Anchorage
Boston
Chicago
Denver
Fairbanks
Jersey City
Juneau
Long Beach
Portland
Seattle
' Fax [phone]
Tel [phone]

CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
1.2 Site Description
1.3 Report Organization
2.0 SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND HANDLING
2.1 Sampling Location and Methods
2.2 Data Presentation
2.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
3.0 SEDIMENT SAMPLE ANALYSES
3.1 Geotechnical Analysis
3.2 Chemical Analysis
4.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
5.0 LIMITATIONS
6.0 REFERENCES
TABLES
1 Sediment Samples Visual Description
2 Summary of Grain Size Characterization Results
3 Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory Analytical Data
4 Summary of Chemistry Laboratory Analytical Data
Page
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
6
6
7
7
Hart Crowser
7593-00 June 2001
Page i

CONTENTS(Continued)
FIGURES
1 Site Location Plan
2 Site Aerial Photo
3 Site Plot Plan
4 Sediment Sampling Locations
5 Sediment Sampling Equipment
6 Sediment Samples
7 Particle Size Distribution Curve, HC -1A and HC -16
8 Particle Size Distribution Curve, HC -2A and HC -213
9 Particle Size Distribution Curve, HC -3A and HC -313
APPENDIX A
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS DATA
APPENDIX B
COMPUCHEM CHEMICAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS DATA
Pa,e
Hart Crowser
7593-00 June 2001
Page ii

F1

SEDIMENT ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
U.S. COAST GUARD STATION WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
EXECUTIVE. SUMMARY
Sediment samples were collected from U.S. Coast Guard Station Wrightsville
Beach, North Carolina, for geotechnical and chemical analysis. Samples were
analyzed for Atterberg limits, grain size distribution, moisture content, density,
organic content, specific gravity, RCRA metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
and total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH).
The results of the geotechnical analyses indicate samples are poorly graded
' Sandy materials. The chemical analyses indicate extremely low RCRA metals
and undetected PCBs do not exceed sediment quality criteria. No sediment
' quality criterion was identified for TPH and this analyte was nondetect at or
above the Contract Required Quantitative Limit (CRQL).
' Based on the results of the geotechnical and chemical analysis performed on
sediment samples from the U.S. Coast Guard Station Wrightsville Beach, the
sediments are not considered contaminated.
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
' 1.1 Project Description
' Hart Crowser collected sediment samples from the boat basin at the U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG) Station Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, on June 6, 2001. The
' sediment sampling was performed in accordance with the scope of work dated
April 2001, USCG correspondence of May 1, 2001, Hart Crowser's proposal
dated May 16, 2001, and our memorandum of June 5, 2001.
' The sediment sampling was performed to gather geotechnical data as well as
environmental information about the sediments at the USCG Station,
' Wrightsville Beach. Hart Crowser personnel conducted the sampling activities
after coordination with the USCG Station Petty Officer.
Sediment samples were collected from three locations identified on plot plan
provided with the USCG scope of the work dated April 2001. These samples
were subsequently sent to two different laboratories for physical and chemical
Hart crowser Page 1
7593-00 June 2001

' analysis. The first sampling location was in the vicinity of the sea wall while the
other two sampling locations were along the floating and wooden pier.
The geotechnical analyses were conducted by Hart Crowser's geotechnical
laboratory in Seattle, Washington, and the chemical analyses were conducted by
CompuChem, a North Carolina-certified chemistry laboratory.
1.2 Site Description
' The USCG Station, Wrightsville Beach is located in New Hanover County along
the Atlantic Ocean in North Carolina. The site's geographic location, as shown
on Figure 1, a portion of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), 7.5-Minute
' Series Quadrangle Map, is at latitude north 34° 27' 25" longitude west 77° 48'
35". An aerial photograph of the site is shown on Figure 2.
' The Wrightsville Beach Station consists of two family quarters, a system station
building, and a garage area. A sea wall has been built at the northern edge of
' the Station to prevent the sea advancement into the USCG property. A
concrete pier connects a wooden dock and a floating dock to the northwestern
edge of the property.
' According to the Petty Officer in charge of coordinating the sampling activities,
the floating dock presently located at the site was constructed in 1998 and
replaced an older and smaller floating dock.
1.3 Report Organization
The main body of this report discusses the results of the sediment
' characterization study. Supporting discussions within the text include sediment
sampling locations, sampling method, samples handling, and quality
assurance/quality control.
' Tables 1 and 2 present the sediment samples visual description and grain size
characterization results, respectively. A summary of the geotechnical analysis is
presented in Table 3, and summary of laboratory analytical data is presented in
Table 4.
The attached appendices present supporting information including the results of
the geotechnical laboratory analysis (Appendix A) and chemistry laboratory
' analysis (Appendix B).
' Hart Crowser Page 2
7593-00 June 2001

2.0 SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND HANDLING
Sediment sampling and handling activities were performed in accordance with
the EPA Soil Sampling Protocols, Sampling Techniques and Strategies, (EPA
1992), and Hart Crowser's proposal dated May 16, 2001.
2.1 Sampling Location and Methods
' The sediment sampling locations were chosen by the Commanding Officer of
the USCG Civil Engineering Unit and were marked on the Site Plot Plan
provided to Hart Crowser with the scope of work dated April 2001. A Plot Plan
and photograph of sampling locations are shown on Figures 3 and 4,
respectively.
Location HCA was sampled along the sea wall, 51.4 feet from the concrete
dock and 14.6 feet from the sea wall.
Location HC-2 was sampled 34.7 feet from the concrete dock along the floating
' dock. Depth of the water to the top of the sediment at this location was
measured at 13.6 feet. Note that the existing floating dock at the site is longer
than the one depicted on the Site Plot Plan. According to the officer in-charge,
petty officer Milligan, the older floating dock is replaced by the longer one in
1998.
Location HC-3 was sampled 94 feet from the concrete dock at the edge of the
wooden dock. Depth of the water to the top of the sediment was measured at
19.5 feet at this location.
' The sediment samples were collected with a Petit Ponar grab sampler, a
clamshell scoop sampling device. The sediment samples were collected to a
depth of approximately 6 inches into the sediment. Each sample consisted of a
' composite of four grab samples collected from each location depicted on the
Site Plot Plan (Figure 3). The Petit Ponar sampling device was lowered to the
designated area, and its content were emptied into a plastic bucket. Sediments
' in the plastic bucket were thoroughly mixed to create a homogeneous mixture
before a sample for analysis was placed into a sampling jar. The Petit Ponar
sampling device is shown on Figure 5.
' Samples were collected in containers provided by the respective laboratories.
' Immediately upon collection of the samples, they were placed in temperature
controlled coolers and were sent to the designated laboratories for analysis
(Figure 6) under chain of custody protocols. As part of the QA/QC program,
Hart Crowser Page 3
' 7593-00 June 2001
C

L
field blanks were also collected at the site to assist in the review, interpretation,
and validation of the generated data.
2.2 Data Presentation

2.3

The sediment samples were analyzed by CompuChem, a North Carolina-
certified laboratory. The chemical analytical test results were compared to
Sediment Quality Guidelines Effects Range Low (EFL) and Effects Range Median
(ERM) published by Long etas. (1995). Hart Crowser Geotechnical Laboratory
in Seattle, Washington, analyzed the geotechnical samples.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
The primary objective of the analytical quality assurance/quality control program
is to assess the integrity of analytical results. As part of the QA/QC program,
several QA/QC samples were prepared to assist in the review, interpretation,
and validation of the generated data. QA/QC procedures included the
preparation and analysis of field blanks. Field blanks were collected by pouring
laboratory-supplied deionized/distilled water over the groundwater sampling
devices and collecting the water in sample containers for analyses. In addition,
1 the laboratory prepared and analyzed method blanks as part of its internal
QA/QC program. A summary of field blank chemical analyses results is included
in Table 4.
3.0 SEDIMENT SAMPLE ANALYSES
Sediment samples were collected from three locations at the USCG Station
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. The samples were analyzed for chemical
' and geotechnical parameters. The chemical analysis was performed to
determine whether the sediments are contaminated. The geotechnical analysis
was performed to draw conclusions about the physical characteristics of the
material at the site.
' The geotechnical analyses requested by the Commanding Officer of the USCG
Civil Engineering Unit included Atterberg limits, grain size analysis, moisture
content, in situ water content and density, organic content, and specific gravity.
The chemical analyses included Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) RCRA metals, PCBs, and TPH.
Hart Crowser Page 4
7593-00 June 2001

' 3.1 Geotechnical Analysis
Sediment samples from the USCG Station Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina
were analyzed for geotechnical parameters. The geochemical analyses were
conducted based on American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) standards.
The results of geotechnical analyses are presented in Tables 1 through 3.
Sediment samples visual descriptions are presented in Table 1. The samples
collected at the site were characterized as sandy material with no or trace fines.
The geotechnical laboratory analytical test results are included in Appendix A.
3.1.1 Grain Size Analysis
The results of the grain size analyses conducted on the sediment samples are
presented in Table 2. The sediments grain size descriptions are based on
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and are presented in Table 3. The
grain size analyses test was performed based on the ASTM D 422 procedure.
i The grain size distribution curve for sample HC-1 is shown on Figure 7. Sample
HC-1 is poorly graded and is characterized as fine sand (more than 97 percent
1 fine sand). The USCS notation for this sample is SP, poorly graded sands,
gravelly sands, and little or no fine.
The grain size distribution curve for sample HC-2 is shown on Figure 8. Sample
HC-2 is also poorly graded sand and is characterized as slightly silty, fine sand
with (more than 91 percent fine sand). The USCS notation for this sample is
SP - SM, poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, and little or no fine to silty sands
and poorly graded sand-clay mixture.
The grain size distribution curve for sample HC-3 is shown on Figure 9. Sample
HC-3 is a well-graded silty sand with gravel and is characterized as slightly
gravelly, silty sand (more than 82 percent as sandy material). The USCS notation
for this sample is SM, silty sand, poorly graded sand-silt mixture.
3.1.2 Atterberg Limits, Moisture Content, In Situ Density, Organic
Content, and Specific Gravity
' Table 3 presents the results of the geotechnical testing. The Atterberg limits on
the samples indicate that they are Non-Plastic Soil (sandy material).
' The in situ density and water content can only be accurately measured when
core samples are collected. Grab sediment sampling technique was used at the
Hart Crowser Page 5
' 7593-00 June 2001

USCG Station Wrightsville Beach and therefore only the natural density and
water content of the samples are reported.
The moisture content of HC-1 was 23 percent and no organic content. The
specific gravity of HC-1 ranged from 2.63 to 2.67, and its density ranged from
98.7 to 101.4 pcf.
The moisture content of HC-2 was at 44 to 47 percent, and it contained 1
percent organic material. The specific gravity of this sample ranged from 2.65 to
2.68, and its density ranged from 73.1 to 77.2 pcf.
The moisture content of HC-3 was more than 100 percent, which is indication of
overlying water in the samples collected. Samples organic content was
measured between 2 to 3 percent. The specific gravity of this sample ranged
from 2.62 to 2.70, and its density ranged from 24.8 to 43.2 pcf.
3.2 Chemical Analysis
Sediment samples from the USCG Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina were
analyzed for RCRA metals (listed in Table 4), PCBs, and TPH. The chemical
analyses were performed by CompuChem, a North Carolina-certified laboratory.
Table 4 presents the chemical analytical results. These analytical results are
compared to the Sediment Quality Guidelines, Effects Range Low (ERL) and
Effects Range Median (ERM) published by Long et al (1995).
Chemical analyses of metals indicate that the detected concentrations were
below the ERL and ERM.levels. Furthermore, PCBs were undetected in the
samples, and therefore also below ERL and ERM limits. TPH was nondetect at or
above the CRQL, and there are no sediment quality criteria for TPH. The
laboratory contract deliverable presented in Appendix B contains the laboratory
certified analytical results and the chain of custody form.
' 4.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Sediment samples from the USCG Station Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina
were analyzed for geotechnical and chemical analyses. The geotechnical
analysis indicated:
¦ The sediment samples are typically poorly graded;
¦ The sediment samples are sandy and sandy silty material with decomposed
organic material and occasional fine gravel and shell; and
Hart Crowser Page 6
7593-00 June 2001

¦ The decomposed organic material in the sediment ranged between 0 to 3
percent.
The chemical analysis indicate:
¦ The extremely low RCRA metal concentrations detected and undetected
PCB Aroclor concentrations did not exceed the ERL and ERM sediment
quality guidelines published by Long et al (1995)• and
¦ TPH was nondetect at or above the CRQL in the sediment samples with no
sediment quality criteria to compare with.
Based on the results of the geotechnical and chemical analysis performed on the
USCG Station Wrightsville Beach, the sediments are not considered
contaminated.
1 5.0 LIMITATIONS
Work for this project was performed, and this report prepared, in accordance
with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of
the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the same time the work
was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of the U.S. Coast Guard for
specific application to the referenced property. This report is not meant to
represent a legal opinion. No other warrant, express or implied, is made. Any
question regarding our work and this report, the presentation of the information,
and the interpretation of the data are welcome and should be referred to the
principal investigator. We trust that this report meets your standards.
6.0 REFERENCES
ASTM, 1998-2000. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
Long, E. R., D.D. Macdonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder, 1995. "Incidence of
Adverse Biological Effects Within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine
and Estuarine Sediments." Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 19,
Number 1, Jan/Feb 1995. pp. 81-98.
fAdata\jobs\U S C G 7593\report\Tab1es.x1s

Hart Crowser Page 7
7593-00 June 2001

u

L

Hart Crowser
J-7593
Table 1 - Sediment Samples Visual Description
Sample ID Visual Sediment Description
HC-1 Gray to olive gray, fine to medium SAND
HC-2 Olive gray, fine to medium SAND with decomposed organic material
HC-3 Olive gray, fine to medium SAND, trace Silt with occasional fine gravel and decomposed
organic materials
f:\data\jobs\U S C G 7593\report\Tables.xls

L M
O O
N U-)
O
U
ca
IV
2

r
7
N

C
O

r
N

U
R

V

N

L

O

E
7
cn

N
d
_
B
R
o
co O

0 o N
L
7 T
L
O
C
+p = N

D N
j
N ,n
O Mn
O
O O m ca
Q
N 0-
M
N
M
N

fa

f6

Z

Z
?
'L

0) N
=

+'
2
(a

03 N

2

"

7
co
co

Z
Z
co

CD
C
co

Z
Z
?

CD
C

Z

U
W

1

0
Z
U

y

>+
Z Z

Z
U Z
Cl) N N

>+

?+
C a
LL 1L U U U U

O O N O (q V
T T co LCj N
C
LL
C 00 1- M ?n M N
I? T T M 00
LL rn rn m m cn m
OR
C E
O
N
M
00
N
O
'IT
C a T T T N 6 I-?
ca
Cl)

O O co M M O
0 O O O O t0 I?
U
N O O Nt It N O

0-0 LL O O O O T LO
C

0)
co N
CD O O O O O O
0 O O O O ?t O
U
D
0)
n m
N .0
N

M
M
cu U U U U U U
U 2 2 2 2 2 2
N
X
N
a
r
0
a
M
C9
C7
U
0
O
m
v
w:
11

M
CO ' F-
O
U
f6
2

r

R

a+
A

C

O
0
L

O

J
R
V
C

V
a+
.
O

G

E

7
co

M

73

I--

(p N O
Z € O € M € N :
Z € ?€ a N

CO
M

2 C0

co € N
O Z
N M
-
_ N N

co
Q z O € M€ s
N I? € € N

N

` :
O
O

"'t € CO
O Z € ti € r
N
CL -

N ? O _
Z CO

p
' N
O -
_
E2 '

- L =

co Z N ?

€ O
- €
€
N
a
r

C
co
N
e co e
l- e
0
CY) 04
N

€

C €
04 € N

?
€ H
€ VJ U)
Q Q = Q Q o a

o ? -
10
'
p
,
0
U) 0
(n
C cn
fn

U U
0) E
N

D

CD
_ ?-
m
0
L
?
fA €
7 €
N
U

Q
C? co
z
0 CL
cn
N
(0
0 T
C !n
y C
0 0
O U O
LL
N U
.LD o
cn C) U
<n a) U
0
o m
Q = d ZO
o U) U U a
z Q D a z
y
x
N
H
0
0
a
M
rn
(7
U
U)
a
0
io
v
w

M
y CA
p
O
U

N
O
C
N
U
m
.w
m
V
C
O
L
O
m
m
J
d
t
O
2-11
m
E
d'
A?
A
c?
H
CO 0 co r I,- O W

W ti (A ?

M r

N ti

p Ch CO
Z
r

co
Q)
CD
O N N r r-.: LO O ~ W
J W co r CO co co O r N
N z

CO r
N O
CV
M
O
M
O
r
0
0
0
CD
O
m N , N r M r r N 0
0' ? r 0 0 0 r
LL ' O O O O 0 0 0 0 0
N E
C
O
W m D
? j
LO -
C? N 0 Il- N p 00 m 0 0 'IT O 00 O N N N O O
U r N C70 CO r M M CO r co r- Co N' d d Co

= r ? CO r O r C? O O

N C) O

W m D ? ? D D D D D D D -?

N N O
C CO r CO ? CO r CO r f? N I- M co co I*- M
U `- C`l N M Co Cfl r N N r d 0 d M M M d' to

= r Co O O O O O
N 2 O O

M W D D ?
?
N
0
r 04 C)
c O Cfl O CO N N CO r co "1- 0 0 0 'd' co
U r N r r CV f? N N r rt' LO ? co M M Z M

= r Co CJ O 0 0 - O
N O O
CO
t0
.19
N CD
C O.
76 co
C
N N Y co N O F- ? O CO r N N O d O

~ r N CO ?t t LO CO 0I
°- a? U o a ° r Y
p . = ' = '_
~
O
'
-
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
E
Q Q O ? E i a
E E t3
O

Co
O

Ci

O

O

O

O

O

N
--
CQ c
C6 c
a co C > i+ O O
L j cn cn ? ¢ co U U - ? co ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a °
0
? a t-
0
D)
m
IL
X
N
2) Z
z° v)
w
x
vi
M
H
0
0
a
d
M
C9
U
y
0
co
m
v
w
FIGURES

Hart Crowser
7593-00 June 2001

O
L
V
N
m
CL
O W
•>
J t
(D 4m
t+ 7
FD ?:

i s
I

47
C
111
4
o
01
? 1 % ,? y U
? Q
r 3-,`-
O
0
O r
C? M
?LL_
i
C
O

CL
mU
O v
O
t m
a a,
M
a?
Q?
c .?
?5 3:
V)
-
N
E
0
n.

ti
to
0
0

t3
o
O N
O ?
M i-
i
w
4-1
M
L
V
4.0
U)
m
O
U
t
V
C m
M
a N
O
EL

r '
'i'> SS??I?i'JS x?---? ...?_?.-._? _ .. ra - L S.O a•?7S
o ?
I? Z 1 ?l ' j
a
f?
VA
a .?
-i ` d,
e E I ?
Z a
11 U)
_ L $ u Y .i
zI? - z
b LJ ?x
1'i U _ t
_-
TP-
- -- r r
d`rC
r, _ Z
.-4rR Tti 1
cl.
® f
o
o ?
Ca
r-,
?

i
N
0
v ?
0 O
ca
co
C
E mm
ca
Cf)
C N
d ?
EU
c
'0 OD
0
s m
CL
cLa >
t
o IM
0.C
a?:
0
C? `t
a?
rn ?
Ln

i
Sediment Sampling Equipment
Wrightsville Beach Coast Guard Station

A
u
W?
7593-00 6/01
Figure 5
Lowering Sampling Equipment (Petit Ponar) at Sampling Location 2
Emptying Sampling Equipment (Petit Ponar) into Plastic Bucket
i
i
Sediment Samples
Wrightsville Beach Coast Guard Station

wk.
a
Sediment Sample Jars

A
u
WSM
7593-00 6/01
Figure 6

%'GRAVEL % SAND
+ CRS. FINE. CRS. MEDIUM FINE
0.o t):tt (1,0 (0 1.2 97:8
0.0 0.0 0:0' (10 1.3 11:7
LL. PI X85 DR 1354. D36
01817 0.2221 0,207 0.181
0.268 0.218 0.245 0: 180
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
I o- Fine SANM
o Fine SAN
Plucks:
0 +40 material is shells
b +40 matc<riat is sheflzi
7593-t)0 6 jtlI
Figme lTb..7

REPORT
W FINES
SILT CLAY
1.0
1.0
0.163 0.156
0.163 0.157
US..
SP
SP
0.95 1,4`?
0.95 1.39
MAT. MOIST.
23%a
2311`4
CH O&. United states Coast Guard
* Source: Szatmple Rio.: HC-IA
Source: Sampte No.: RC-113

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT

60
UJ
i7L

w
u

W
0-

10

0.1 0.01 0-001
G RAIN SIZE - mm
%+3.1 °1 GRAVEL o SAND - % FINES:
CRS. FINE CRS. MEC31t1M
FINE
SILT
CLAY
Cl.#3 0,0 flat 0.3 .13 91.3 6,2
i t I
Q U
# 0
, a .
: .3 2.2 :. 91_ 5.6

LL PI p85 D{} 0 O30 O f 5 d4II 4~c Cu
0.268 0.214 0.200 0.174 O154 0.114 L24 1.88
t7 0.331 0.240 0.212 0,1" 0.159 0.148 0,96 1.63

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 11SCS NAT. MOIST,

' k, Slightly Silty, t SAND
Cj Jul gIttl1' Silt, fine SAND S1'-SNI 4%

Re,"arks.
0 +40 material is shells Project
M +40 material is shells Client. United Stast&s Co "t Costa
a Source: S plo I46-- RC-2.4
' 0 Source: Samp#e No.: HC-2H

' 7593-0() €/01
ure (a. 8

t
GRAIN' SIZE-- mm
% GRAVEL % SAND
CRS. FINE CRS. MEDIUM FINE
0 t),U 4.0 l: 6.3 6.6 33.3
0 0.0 ():0 5.0 7.0 7.4 68.2
Lt,.. t•? I "85 u60 U50 tJ30 U15 U ? ?%u
1.02 0.161 0.127 0.0777
U - 113 01192 0.165 'x,114 0.0800

_ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USES NAT. MOIST.
0 Slightly gravelly, silty SAND SIVI 208%
o, Slightly gravelly, silty SAM-) SM 1f16%
Remarks: _ Project:
o 4.60 matt:rial is shells & organics,
til} 2nut?ricri is shcils & urganica (teat: T Tnit rl S#tite Cast Qaarc3
Source: Sample No. : HC-3A
Source: nple No. . HC-3B

7593-00 6/01
Figaw No, 9
PARTICLE. SIZE I TRI BUTION TEST SPORT

Ic

L

r

CONTENTS
Organic Content
Specific Gravity
Bulk Sample Data
Grain Size Distribution
Chain of Custody Record
Hart Crowser
7593-00 June 2001
APPENDIX A
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS DATA
Page
1
3
4
10
i
Organic Content
Job Name..: Job No- 7593-00
Boriri Ntrmbar
Sample Number HC-1 A HC-1 B HC-2A HC=2B HC-3A HC-3B
Qe[ th (feet)
Remarks
Tare ID `Jill 1V 24 B V Vill
Tars Wt 125.74 128,04 129.50 131.17 139:46 130.87 -
Wet + Tare 310.30 241,25 337,30 292.91 279:60 336.97
Dry + Tare 275.79 219.71 273,50 241.20 184.98 230,92
Dry + Tare, After Ashing 275.60 219.52 271.72 240,02 183.66 228.68
Moisture ContentM 23 23 44 47 208 106
Organic Content M) 0 0 1 1 3 2
Ash content (%) 100 100 99 99 97 98
Test By;...
Chk By:

/'/
HARTOWWWA
7593-0 6/01
Appendix A p. 1

Specific Gravity
Date: 619/01
Job Nantes Job Na 7593-00
Boring ;Number ---- ----
Sample ID HC-IA HC-1B HC-2A HC2M IIC-3A HC-31i
De th (feet)
Flask :Number cl. C2 V1 B-2 V2 V3
Tx- (C"entl de) 20 20 20 20 20 20
Tare ID K14 GW1 GW-5 GW-10 X13 SA27
Tare Wt 385.83 382.02 385.82 383.94 379.99 377.30
Wit + Tare 426.84 43193 455.77 478.45 431.81 411.50
Wei (gin) 41.01. 51.91 69.95 94.52 51.82 34.20
Wa (gill) 662.16 656.25 657.70 561.47 65910 664:62
WO + Wa 703.17 708.16 727.65 755.99 71.1:02 698.82
Wb (m) 687.56 688.71 701.58 720:28 59111 686.16
WO + Wa - WI) 15.611 19.45 26.07 35.71 19.81 12.66
K 1.4000 1.0000 1.000b 1.0000 1.0004 1:0000 -
GS 2.63 2.67 2.68 2.65 2.62 2.71
Gs = Wo I(Wo+Wa-Wb) * K
Gs = Specific gravity of oil
Tx = Temperature of contents of Volumetric Flask when Wh was determined
W o = Weight of oven dry sample
Wa = Weight of Volumetric Flask filled with water at'l'x
Wb = Weight of Volumetric Flask tilled with water and soil at Tx
K = Correction coefficient for density of water at Tx
'rtstt4i rty; G. Kntahtci
iisri?+ru?;xt,s
A
ALM
1 SII. R VIVSIVSC- i
7593-0 6/01
Appendix A p. 2

7893-00 Hulk Sample Data
Sample Moisture Wet Dry Dry
No. (ah) Density Density Density
(9/CC) (g/cc) (Po
HC-1A 23 1.994 1.625 1011.4
HC-18 23 1.937 1.580 98.7
HC-2A 44 1.783 1137 77.2
HC-28 47 1.717; 1;172 73.1
HC-3A 208 1.222 0.396 24.3
HC-38 1.06 1.427 0.691 43.2
Note: data are as delivered cond ition
A
H wOwwwR
7593-0 6/01
Appendix A p. 3
L

GRAIN SIZE: DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA
Client: United States Coast Guard
Project;
Project Number: 7593-00
Sample Data
Source:
Sample No.: HC-1A
Elev. or Depth: Sample Length (in./em.):
Location:
Description; Fine SA YD
Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index:
Natural Moisture: 23?, USCS Classification: SP
Testing Remarks: +40 material is shells
Mechanical Analysis Data
Initial After wash
Dry sample and tare= 685.31 678.80
Tare = 101.15 101.15
Dry sample weight 584.1:6 577.65
Minus #200 from wash= 1.1 %
Tare for cumil.al.ive weight re tained= .00
Sieve Cumul. Wt. Percent
retained finer
.:375 inch 0.00 100.0
# 4 0.12 100.0
0 0.27 10.0
# ='- 7 1.35 99.8
# 6.88 98.8
# 146.48 74.9
# 100 549.11 6.0
# 200 578.19 1.0
Fractional Components
Gravel./Sand based on #4
Sand/Fines based on #200
+ 3" = % GRAVEL =
SAND = 99.0 (* coarse = 0. 0 ? medium = i.,2 ? fine - 97.8)
FINES = 1.0
D85= 0.28 D60'= 0.22 DBO= 0. 21
D3fl= 8.18 D15= 0.16 D10= 0. 16
Cc= 0.9502 Cu= 1.425
tt
?r
HARTOWWWA
7593-0 6/01
Appendix A p. 4

J

n

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA
Client: Unj,. ed States, Ci:)s:it: t Guzln,xd
Project:
Prolect Number: "'593-00
........... _..........._ .................... ___.._............. _......._...,..........., .._....,........
Sample Data
Source:
Sample No.: H C; °_ I B
Elev. or Depth: Sample Length (in./cm.):
Location;
Description. Fine
Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index:
Natural Moisture: 23= USCS Classification: SP
'.C"eSt3.XIg Remarks, 1-40, S.tlc"1teY'icll is stY(';...:S
...................... _..........._.. ______........
_..
Mechanical Analysis Data
Initial.
Dry sample: and tare= 5
Tare 15
Dry sample weight 625.10
Tare for cumulative weight retained= OC'
Sieve Cumul. Wt. Percent
retained finer
.375 " ncli tit . )C) 100.0
4 z 0,()", .1,00.0
ff 10 0.-27 i00.0
# 0 8.39 98.'7
fir 60 1.36 . 13" '78.2
4' 100 93.9() 5.
200 619 . 12 1.0
Fractional Components
Gravel/Sand based on q";
Sand/Pines based on 4200
% + 31, = % GRAVEL
=
SAND = 993 O (% coarse = 0,0 -% medium = 7_ , 3 ? fine = 97.7)
k FINES = 1-0
D85= 0.2-1 D60= 0.22 }D«`jy5 /0= 0.20
D30=
Cc= 0? 9:528 Cu- 1.:39,15
AM
as
/71I.Y1/ WW/I..raE
7593-0 6/01
Appendix A p. 5

11

n
1
t

ii
? J 17
L

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TESL" DATA
C l,ient: t.Srri;,,ed Stater Coast- G uard
Project:
Project Number: 7593-0e
........... _
_.......
.. __....... ......-------- ..............
Sample Data
Sources
Sample No.. HC--2J---
Elev. or .Depth: Sample Length (in./cm.):
Location
Description; Sligh-ly silt v, fine SAf,,'F'
Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index:
Natural Moisture: 44; USCS Classification: SP-SIB
Testing remarks. iA0 mate-rial.
_...... __........ ........_................_. _ is shells
......... _............
. .._............... ___......
_
.
Mechanical Analysis Data
Initial After Wash
Dry sample and tare= 10('8.80 7Ell9.20

.. 7z
Tare
- 31 5

1.08.5
1.
y,,
?
Dry sample weight. .... 693.05 Vw.fl 69
Minus #200 from wash= .,. '.
Tare for cumulative weight retained= .00
Sieve Cumul. Wt. Percent
retained finer
.5 :inch 0 . 0 1. ( ) . C)
. ?gg f 5' 1 n, Chi, V . .1. ,..? 99.9
X3.
' 62 99.6
f?
y
7i 10 4.:.1- 0-9Y3
4 20 t.?'0 (
?9.0
110 1.'11.38 97„5
-# 60 14'. 13 79.0
1.00 606.1:1. 1.2.
43 200 649.94
................. ...... ..........._ .2
. _._
__.
.
,
....
.........
Fractional Components
Gravel/Sand based on 04
Sand/Fines based on ,i#200
% + 31° = % GRAVEL 0.4 (S coarse = fine = 0.4)
SAND = 93.4 (% coarse O. 3 ? medium = 1 . 8 ? fine = u = 3)
$s FINES = E . 2
D85= 0.42V D60L.21 D50= 0. 20
0! D 15 'a , Vii, W' D10= al .. :
Cc= .i .2368 Cu= 1.8792

HM1 OW WS
7593-0 6/01
Appendix A p. 6
11,

1

1

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA
Client: United States Coast: Guard
Projecr :
Project. Number. 7W93-00
_ Sample Data
Source:
Sample No. ; FS .. 2Il
Elev. or Depth: Sample Length (in,/cm.):
Location :
Description': Slightly silty, fine SAND
Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index:
Natural Moisture: 47% USCS Classification: SP-Sm
Testing Remarks: 440 material
..._.__... ....................... ' is shells
...m
.
..
..._._. ,, ........_______?.._.._............
....... ..,...;,.
Mechanical Analysis Data
Initial After wash
sample and tare= 1300 „` 1218.60
.re = 382.. 82.00
Uy sample weight = 918.0x: 866.60
P_? nas -4200 from gash= 5. ?, t
'.t=are fcsr c:umul.ati ve weight re tained= .00
Sieve Uumul. wt. Percent
retained fin"--?r
-15 i,: i ,li 0. 00 101,111.0
`J inch 22.00 9 9. 8
s l5 i,s'?c 2 ? 00 3^. 8
xj 4 3,-15 99.6
6 99. 3
1G. 3 98.x;
_ -i 97.1
4 60 :5?19 F4.w
82 io-
9 2 8 6
._... 5.6
_..._...
....,..««.... _.....__ ......
........
Fractional: Components
Gravel,/Sand based on 4
Sand/Fines based on 11200
+ 34, _= % GRAVEL ? 0.4 (W coarse i fine = 0.4)
SAND = 94>0 (% coarse. = 0. 3 96 medium = 2,2 % fine = 91.5)
FINE'S ? 5,6
D85= 0.33 D60= 0.24 D50= 0. 22
D30= D1S= 0, 16 X310= 0. 1 S
,.. C= Cu= 1,625

HA.WOWVJ. 1
7593-0 6/01
Appendix A p. 7

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA
Client- Un.i. ec! States Coast ward
Project:
Project Number: -1593-00
_........
.
...
.
.._,..._.......____.
.
._...
.
....-..
........
Sample Data
Source:
Sample No.: HC-3A
Elev. or Depth: Sample Length (in,/cm.):
Location:
Description: 31 }cihtly frr u?1_? v, si.t.t y rIAND
Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index:
Natural Moisture: 2C_, USCS Classification: SM
Testing Remarks: i,al
__.. ........... ............_................. ...._.._....._................._.? J's shells & organics
_....__...._............
._.._
Mechanical Analysis Data
Initial After gash
Dry sample and tare= 638,43 237.06
Tare - :3,_3 .11 0.00
Dry sample weight - 315.22 2"3°.r.Cst:
minus 200 from wash= 24.8 4,
Tare for cumulative weight re tained= .00
S3:eve Cumul. Wt. Percent
retained finer
1 0 0 01 100. G
_ 1.2.61 96.0
12.61 96.0
12 ? 61 96,0
YI 1 1 i3 ...; Y 94. 8
is0 36,23 88,5
GCs 50.28 c4..1.
if 40 81.9

100 1 3 , . X31. 56,9
Zit 225.00
_ ...................... _"'___.__.............. _____....... _............... 28.6
...........
...
.
_...
.._.
.
.
..
,,.
,.
,,
,
...
.
,
, ?.r......a......._..,..w____.....
Fractional Components
Gravel/Sand based can
Sand/Pines based on
% + 31, = % GRAVEL = .5.2 {$ coarse = 4.0 ? fine 1.2)
$ SAND = 66" 2 (% coarse = 6. 3 ? medium = 6.6 % fine = 53.3)
% FINES = 28.6

D30= 0.'08
A
HAM"WSM
7593-0 6/01
Appendix A p. 8

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA
Client: United States Coast Guard
Project:
Project Number: 7593-0.0
Sample Data
Source:
Sample No.: HC-3B
Elev. or Depth: Sample Length (in./em.):
Location:
Description: Slightly gravell y, silty SAND
'Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index:
Natural Moisture: 1061 USCS Classification: 5M
Testing Remarks: +60 material
---- is shells & organics
m _...__
'Mechanical Analysis Data
Initial. After wash
Dry sample and tare= 657.20 795.01
Tare - 319.42 31.9.42
Dry sample weight = 537.78 475.59
Minus #200 from wash= 11.6
Tare for cumulative :weight re tained= .00
Sieve Cumu7. Wt. Percent
retained finer
.5 inch 0.00 100.0
.37L"' i :c:t7 11 . 2 7 97.9
# 4 27.02 95.0
#f 10 64.70 88.0
if 20 92.76 82.8
# 40 104.45 80.6
60 11'1.72 78.1
# 100 299.49 44.3
# 200 471.25 12.4
Fractional Components
Gravel/Sand based on #4
Sand/Fines based on #200
+ 3" = % GRAVEL = 5.0 coarse fine ? 5.0)
SAND = 82.6 (% coarse = 7. 0 % medium :'7.4 fine = 68.2)
FINES = 12.4
D85= 1.23 D60= 0.19 D50= 0- 16
Dap= 0.11 D15= 8.08

HA.WOWWS ME
7593-0 6/01
Appendix A p. 9

N-a ^ak13Mlb'1R1+33 `{3A1
60 5
yy.i
m
fl
^?9
41 ° OWWSCR
n
ALM
H/.
7593-0 6/01
Appendix A p. 10

? ?
..x.;1'7 a•''?`s?-`?,? 'S{ °?5 "? ??74 .. ? :? ? 1 ? ? .? x ?
? ?
• ?. ?
X t
xT ? ?". ? ¢ ? fY
dl 7 ?Z
S C7
_ .rgy?p .. £

E

n

APPENDIX B
COMPUCHEM CHEMICAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS DATA
' CONTENTS Page
Sample ID-Lab ID Identification i
Metals 1
Extractable Organics 4
Field Blank Results 10
Data Reporting Qualifiers 13
Chain of Custody Record 15
11

L
[I
Hart Crowser
7593-00 June 2001

7

11

7

CompuChem Laboratory Identification
Sample ID Lab ID
HC-1 2011220
HC-2 2011222
HC-3 2011225
Field Blank 2011226
Hart Crowser i
' 7593-00 June 2001

SW-846 METALS
Y
MRGANTC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
EPA SAMPLE NO.
-?
Lab Name: CO#iP1:tCRM Contract: 2011220
Lab Code: .LrBRTY Case No.: SAS No.: SDG No.. Q2091
Matrix (soil/water) : SOIL Lab Sample ID: Q2091-1
Level (locojmed): LOW Date Received; 06/12/01
8 Solids: 73.9
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kgdry weight): MG /KG
1 CAS No. Analyte Coucentrau.. C I Q ( M 1
17440-38-2- Arsenic 1 1.0(B ( I P
7440-39--3 Barium 1 1.6 1 1 E I "P
f7440-43-9 Cadmium 1 0.040 ( U I { P 1
17440-47-3 IChromium 1 2.8 1( 1 P 1
17439-92-1 1Lead 1 0.721 1 ( P
17439-97-6 Mercury 1 0.022 1 U 1.... ?- 1
7782-49-2 S.lenium 0.28 1U 1 N ( P 1
17440-22-4 1 Silver.. 0.11 1 U 1 N.. P 1
Color Before: GREY Clarity Before: Texture. b=ITR3
Color After: YELLOW Clarity After: Artifacts:
Commments :
W ()2223..5 - IN 9 S'4](7-841

HA. ff C"WS ME
7593-0 6/01
Appendix B p. 1

SW-846 IMETALS
t
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
EPA SAMPLE w0.
2011222
Laub N?ae: COMPUCHEM Contr act:
Lab Code: LSBR2Y Case No.:
?- SAS No.: SDO NO.: Q2091
Matrix (soil/water); SOIL Lab Sample ID: Q2091-2
Level (low/mad): LOW Date Received: 06/12/01
t solids; 66.6
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kq dry weight): MG XG
I CAS No. ( Analyte Concentration C Q M
17440-38-2 i Arsenic 1 2.6 1 1 I P
17440-39-3 18arium ( 3.1 E I P
1'7440-43-9 I cadmium I 0.068 I B I P 1
17440-47-3 1Chromum 1 6.41 1 1 P 1
17439-92-1 1 Least 1 1.8 1 1 1 P 1
17439-97-6 I Mercury I 0.021 j u I I CV 1
17782-49-2 1 Selenium 1 0.28 j u 1 N 1 P 1
..
..
17.440-22-4 1531oer 1 0.111ff ( I
P I
N
Color Before: BROWN Cl arity Beforea Texturft MEAZI)M
Color After': YLLOWcl arity After: Artifacts:
Comments;

1iosm I - IN 10 ;W-34+

! m"C" S
7593-0 6/01
Appendix B p. 2

SW-846 MET
I
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
EPA SAMLE NO.
2011225
Lab xane: COMPUCF1EM Contract: Lab Carlo': L1I,a'V'Z Case No., SAS No. SDG uoy {2091
Matrix (soil/wac-r) SOIL Lab Sample ID: Q2091-3
Level (law/mod),: LOW Date Received: 06/12/01
% Solids,. 54.0
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight) : MG KG
C,AS: No. Analyte Concentration I C i2 6S
1 7 9 90-38-2 Arsenic ( 4.7 ( 1 j P
1 7440--39-3 1 Barium 1 18.2 1 1 E { P 1
1744?-43-9 ) Cadmium I o.oas I B 1 G P]
11940-47-3 ?hxomznm I 11.0 P j
1 ?:139-92-1 z?ead. 3,9 P ?.
1742D-97-6 1 Mercury 1 0.030 1.17 I ? CV
11762-49-2 selenium { 0.36 j u 3 N { P ;{
749Q-22-4 1 Sd.lver 6.14 j, U I N I P I.
Color Before: BROWN Clarity Before: Texture., MEDIUM
Color After: YELLOW Clarity After; Artifacts;
Comments:
FORM I - IN SW-344
A
as
HAW OVOWS ME
7593-0 6/01
Appendix B p. 3

ID ERA SAMPLE NO.
GC EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS -UTALYSIS DATA SHEET
2011220
Lab Name: COKPUCHDM Contract:
Lab Code: LIBRTY Case No.: SAS No.: SDC No.. Q2091
Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: Q2091-1
Sample wt/vol: 30.0 (g/mm C- Lab File ID:
Moisture: 26 decanted: (Y/N) N Date Received: 06/12/:1
&-Ktraction: (Se F/Cant/Sons) SON- Da e Sxtracted:06/13/01
Concentrated Extract Volume: 5000(U -T) Date Analyzed: 06/15/01
In;jectior< volume: 2.0(uL) Dilution Factor: 1.0
--PC Cleanup: (Z/ N) N PH Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CONCENTRATION UNITS :
CAS No. COMPt ND (ug/L or ug/tg) Ur,1xc Q
12674-11-2------ Aroc or-1016 44 U
11104-28-2------ Aroclor-1221 58 U
11141-16-5------ Aroclor-1232 44 U
53469-21 9-- --Aroclor-1242 30 U
12672-29-6------ Aroclor-1248 30 U
11097-459-1-- -_-.-roclor-',.254 30 U
11096-82-5------ Aroclor-3260 44 U

FORM I PES'1'
45
?A
MWOWWWR
7593-0 6/01
Appendix B p. 4

1D EPA SAMPLE NO.
GC EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SKEET
1 2011222
Lab Name. COMPUCHEM Contract;
Lab Code. LIERTY Case No.- SAS No.: SDG 'No.: Q2091
Matrix:'(soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: Q2091-2
Sample wt/vol: 30.0 (:g/mL) G Lab File ID:
k Moisture: 31 decanted: (Y/N) N Date Receivec. 06/12/01
Extraction: (SepF;Cont/Sonc) SOXC Date Extracted!06/13/01
Concentrated Extract Volume: 5',00(uL) Date Analyzed; 06/17/01
Injection Vo.I;xrre! 2.0 (ul,) Dilution '''actor: 1.0
GPC CleaniuD: (YID,) N PH. ? Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) Y
CONCENTRATION UNIT'S
CAS NO. COMPOUND (urn/L or ug/Kg) UGIXG Q
12674-11-2 ------ Aoclo.r..,.1016 47 LT
?1104_28-2---- Aroclor-12'21 62 U
11141-16-5-__-_,•.Aro for-1232 47 U
534.69-21-9------- ror-,lor-1242 33 U
12672-.29 b.. - Aroc-lor-:124$ 33.U
11,097--69-1 ------ Aroelor ... 1.254 33 U
4 'jU
i
FOR' I PEST
53
Ai
7593-0 6/01
Appendix B p. 5

ID EPA. SAMPLE NO.
GC EXTRACTABLE ORGA NT ICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
201 225
Lab Name COMPUC14EM Contract:
Lab Coda: LIBRTY Case No.: SAS Yo.: SbG No.: Q2091
Ma rix: (soil/wat'er) SOIL Lab Sample ID: Q2091-3
Sample wt/vol: 30:0 (g/mL) G Lab Tile ID:
Moisture: 46 decanted: (Y/N) N Date Received: 06/?2/01
Extract.ioR.. (Se F/cont/San:) SONC Date Extracted-06/13/01
Concentrated Extract Volume: 5000(uL) bate Analyzed: 06/15/01
Ixjec tion t plume: 2. D (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N PH: Sulfur Cleanup- (Y/ZIT) Y
CONCENTRATION UNITS :
CAS NO. COMPOUND (rig/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q
126°74-11-2------ Aeocior-1-1.6 60 iU
11104.28_2_._____ATOC=or-1221- 78ju
11141-16-5-- _ -Araclor-1232 601U
53 9 21-9 --Arroc'!or 1242 42 U
1 2 20.6_ ---.Aroclor 1248..... -_---- 42 U
131`97-69-1 -A--oclor 1254? 42 U
11046 E32..5.,._____AroC_or-1260 60 t?
FORM I PEST
1
t?
MUMMER
7593-0 6/01
Appendix B p. 6

iD EPA SAMPLE NO.
CC EXTRACTABLE ORGAN ICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
2011220
Lab Name COMPUCHEM Contrac :
Lab Code LIER:TY Case No.: SAS No,: SDC No.: Q2091
Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample !D: Q2391.-1
Sample wt/vol. 20.0 (g/mL•) G Lab File ID:
Mo.istzre; 26 decanted: (X/N) N Date Received, 06/12/01
Extraction; (SepF'/wont/Sons) SDNC Date Extracted:06/13/01
Concentrated Extract. Volume: 1000 WL) Date ,Analyzed: 06/15/01
Injection Volume.: I..0 (uL) Dilutio.n. Factor: 7...0
G"PC Cleanup; (Y/N) N pH: Sulfur Cleanup-. (s(/N') N
CONCENTRATION 17N ITS :
CAS NO. COMPOUND (uq"/L or ug/Kcr) MG/KG Q
_..__......._....__. ._.....__..__....._.._ ..................._
9999 9 .-- ----- _ ...._ w - ?.esel ............ .................. ........ _.... r
FORM LEST
1
H. RTOWWSCR
7593-0 6/01
Appendix B p. 7

ID EPA SIMPLE NO.
GC EXUPAC 11BLE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
20:11222
Lab Name. COMPUCHEM Contract.:
Lab Code: LI3RTY Case No.': SAS No.: SDG No.: Q2091
matrix (soi-/water) SOIL Lab Sample 1D: Q2091-2
Sample ut /vol; 20.0 (g/mL) G Lab File ID:
W :Moisture: 3' decanted (Y/N) N Date Received 06/12/03,
Extraction: (SepF/^ont/Sons) SONG Fate Extracted:06/13/01
Concentrated Extract. Volume: 1000 (UL) Date Analyzed: 06/1.5/01
Injection Volume: 1.0(uL) Dilution Factor: 1.0
GPC Cleanup.: (YjN) N pH : ............ Sulfur Clean--,,,: (Y/N) N
CAS NO COMPOUND (ug/L or uq ', MG K§:
9999-99- -__-__ D.i.esel._._._......_........ ................. 0.531
PGpa- I FIEST
..
11
tj
HARWiE1
7593-0 6/01
Appendix B p. 8

I E) EPA SAMPLE NO
GC EKTRACi.`ABLE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHRET
2ollazs
a.b R3ame COMPUCHEv Ccyntsact :
Lab Code: LIBRTY Cave Nu.: SAS No.- SiDG No.: Q2091
Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: Q2091-3
Sample wt/vol: 20.0 (g/mL) > Lair File ID:
Moisture: 46 decanted: (YIN) N Date. Received-. 0e%12/01
Extraction; (SeDF'/Coat/ Sons) SONC IDate Extc ac::ed:C6/13/01
€onceDtrated Extract Volume: 110(10WL) rate Analyzed: 06/16/01
Ialiection -Volume: I.0(uL) Dilution Factor: 1.9
GPC Cleanup- (YIN) N PH: ? Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CONCENTRA L I ON UNITS.
CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/l., or ;?c1J!c?) MG/KG Q
_.
ryyc _.g?y._.5 ................-Diesel 4.0 7
.... _ .... ................
FORM I PEST
1
ow
as
HI. R OVWSr- 1
7593-0 6/01
Appendix B p. 9

SW-846 METALS
9
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
ERA SAMPLE No,
2011225
Lab Name: CLMFUCHEM Contr act:
Za2> Code: LIHRTY Case No.: SAS 17a.:
SDG 270.: 82091
Matrix ('sollywater): WATER Lab :Sample Sb.: R2091-1.

Level (lowlmed) :
LOW .
Date Received: 06/12/01
Solids: 0.0
Concentration Units (uq/L or mg/k,; dry weight): uG-L
1 CAB No. Analyte IConcentration C Q I" 1
1-7440-338-2 ? Arsenic 1 2.2 J U 1 ? 8 1
17440-39-3 I Barium 1 1.9 Is 1 P
17440-43-9 (Cadmium 1 0.30 IV (, I P
17440-47-3 l Chromium I 1,0 j u I' I P 1
17439-92-1 I Lead 1 1.3 J U I I P 1
17439-97-6 I Mercury 1 0.10 j u I I M, 1
7782-49-2 1 selenium 2.1 l u I I P 1
F440-22-4 ( silver ( 0.80 1 tr 1 P 1
Color Before: COLORLESS Clarity Before: CLEAR Texture:
Color After: COLORLESS Cl arity After: CLEAR Ar tJ-facts:
Comments:

?'OlZ29f 1 - 127 8 SW-844

Mmc"Ws M-
7593-0 6/01
Appendix B p. 10

1D EPA SAMPLE NO.
GC EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
2011226
Lab Name : C:OMPUC?IEM Contract:
Lab Code: LIBRTY Case No.: SAS No SDG No.: R2091
Matrix: (soil/water) WATER Lab Sample ID: 82091-1
Sample wt/vol: 530.0 (g/mL) ML Lab File ID:
!k moisture: decanted- (YIN) Date Received 06/12/01
Extraction: (SepF/Cost/Sons) SEPF Date Extracted.-06/13/n
Concentrated Extract Volume,: 2500 fuL) Date Ar_alyzed: 06/1411'01
Injection Volume- 2.0(;uL) DilutiOli Factor: 1.0
GPC C.weanup: {Yid:, N p14: Sul-fur Cleanup: (Y/N' N
CONCENTRATION LTIVTTS:
CAS NO3 COMPO WD (ug/L or ug/Rg) LTG/L Q
12674-11-2------ Arco lor-1.01 ft.50?TI
11104-2b-2------ Aroclor-1221____.. 1.0it1
:..
_____-Arpclor-1222 _-_ 0.50iU
53469-21-9------ Aroclor-1242 0.517 U
12672-29,6 -_----Araclor-124£ X3.50 U
11097-69•? ------ Araclor-125 0.50
11096-E2- - ._ r rt c l
5 _ 0.5 [t
FORM I PEST
10 .
HA. RTOWWSER
7593-0 6/01
Appendix B p. 11

1D EPA SAMPLE NO.
GC EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA. SFERT.
._.Y
Lab Name: COMP"UCHEM Contract: 1 2013226
Lab Code: L BR:'IY Case No.: SAS No.; SDG No.: 82091
Matrix: (sail/water) WA'T'ER Lab Sample 1D: R2091-1
Sample wt/vo,l: 500.0 (cg/mL) ML Lab Pile "D;
k moisture; decanted: (YIN) Date Received: 06/12,/01
Extraction: (SepF,lCont/Sonc) SEPF Date Extracted:06/13/01
Concentrated Extract Vn.ume: 2500 uL) Date Analyzed: 06/13/01
In,ection volume. 1.0OIL) Dilution Factor.: 1.0
GPC Cleanup: (Y./ N) N PH- _ Su'. fu-- Cleanxip, iY/N) N
CGNC.EN'P127 TTON UNITS
CAS NO, COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) MG /L Q
9999-95_g------- Diesel 10 U
FOFJ4 PEST
10
t?
MISY i I OROMME
7593-0 6/01
Appendix B p. 12

r

0

F

u

CuxulpuChem
a division of Liberty Analytical Corporation
DATA REPORTING QUALIFIERS
on the Form 1, under the column labeled "Q" for qualifier, each result is flagged with the specific data
reporting qualifiers listed below, as appropriate. Up to five qualifiers may be reported on Form I for each
compound. The qualifiers used are:
tt : nis flag indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected. The Contract Required
Quaitt°rtation Limit (CRQL), or reporting limit, will be adjusted to reflect any dilution and, for'
Soils, the percent moisture.
J t"Iris flag indicates an estimated value. The flag is used as detailed below:
I. When estimating a concentration fir tentatively identified compounds (TICS) where a
response factor of 1.0 is assumed for the TIC analyte,
2. When the mass spectral and retention time data indicate the presence of a compound that
meets the volatile and semivolatile GC/ MS identification criteria, and the •result is less than the
CRQL (or Reporting Limit) but greater than zero, and
3. When the retention time data indicate th.; presence" of a compound that meets the
pesticfdelAroclor or other GC or HPLC identification criteria, and the result is less than the
CRQL,(or Reporting Limit) but greater than zero. For example, if the CRQL (or Reporting Limit)
is 10 p*L, but a concentration of3 jie. is calculated, it is reported as 3J.
N This flag indicates presumptive evidence ofa compound. This flag is only used for'lIcs, where
the identification is based on a mass spectral library search. For generic characterization of a TIC
such as `chlorinated hydrocarbon', the N flag is not used.
P : In the GPI's Contract Laboratory Program (CUP), this flag is used for a pest cidelAroclor target
amtlyte, when there is greater than 2:5% difference for detected concentrations between the two
GC columns. The lower of the two values is reported on Form I and flagged with a P.
For SW 846 GC and HPLC analyses, when the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) is greater than
40% and there is no evidence of chromatographic anomalies or interferences, then the higher of
the two values is reported and flagged with a P. When the RPu is equal to or less than 4011%, our
policy is to also report the hi her of the two values, although the choice could be a project
specific issue.
a
MrN
I1/.Ytl VWwSC-R
7593-0 6/01
Appendix B p. 13

i

J

?I
u
0

n

DATA REPORTING QUALIFIERS (continued)
C This flag applies to GC or HPLC results where the identification has been confirmed by GUMS.
IfGC/M; S confirmation was attempted but was.unsuccessful, this flag is not applied; a laboratory-
defined flag is used instead (see the X/YPZ qualifier.)
l3 : This flat; is used when the analyte is tbund in the associated blank as well as in the sample. It
indicates probable blank contamination and warns the data user to take appropriate action. This
flag is used for a TIC as well as for a positively identified target compound. The combination of
flag's BU or UB is not an allowable policy. Blank contaminants are flagged 3 only when they are
detected in the sample.
B : This flag identities compounds whose concentrations exceed the upper level of the calibration
range of the instrument for that specific analysis. If one or more compounds have a response
greater than the upper level of the calibration range, the sample or extract will be diluted and
reanalyzed. All such compounds with a response greater thaat the upper level of the calibration
range will have the concentration fagged with an E on Form I for die original analysis.
D If a sample or extract is reanalyzed at a higher dilution factor, for example when the
concentration of an analytic exceeds the upper calibration range, the ILL suffix is appended to the
sample number an Form I for the more diluted sample, and all reported concentrations on that
Form I are flagged with the D flag. This flag alerts data users that any discrepancies between the
reported concentrations may be due to dilution of the sample or extract.
NOTE l: The D flag is not applied to compounds which are not detected in the sample analysis Le.
compounds reported with the C:RQL, (or Reporting Limit) and the U flag.
NOTE 2: Separate Form Is are used for reporting the original analysis (Client Sample No. XXKXX) and
the more diluted sample analysis (Client Sample No. XX?CXXDL) i.e. the results from both
analyses are not combined on a single Form T.
A _ This flag indicates that a TIC is a suspectesf aldol-condensation product.
,c!yj,Z :Other specific flays may be required to properly define the results. If used, the flags will be fully
described in the SDG Nartative. "(lie laboratory-defined flags are limited to X; Y and Z.
Revision 5
ON
AM
L.Vt/ OTOWS 1
7593-0 6/01
Appendix B p. 14

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
c t ' a."2
z00i .: SURY.! aIL "A:. -, 70 U73'.':71.65
? . ? ?. zap
3 L w
s iC t T fY£iC ' 3Pts lmmw OF mapxma
SAMMIC ;?xSE AEs3t, Ez
II ES FT? w " I SOT -D COOT A R,St UIPMED
140,1 A --k"'

Soo'

A
SA 3ga? 'S D Zn { ?a7a Ig3 :[O NI
' >YQp ZED ?3 z SAT?SPY a E.'J WD EY : T {3i
$Mptz TY tY S t3 EY ®
_ I
i S "LE' CE178D BY, DATffi T
SAMPLE LINQUIs ED By. S CRIVBD By- DATE TIME
? ? L t t3 6$ D Y , SABLE EECEMD BY: DATE Vom
ESIAX???IU n-L=,*U:r.SRED Sa"LZ RZCZI"2 32i
DATE Tna
QUIL wuR , zxc.
i9as) 788-8700
Fiq
HA. WC"WSW
7593-0 6/01
Appendix B p. 15

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HIGHWOODS TOWER ONE
SUITE 500
3200 BEECHLEAF COURT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27604-1064
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 919.981.4300
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE DRAWER 19764
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27619-9764
LANDFALL PARK NORTH
1985 EASTWOOD ROAD, SUITE 200
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
28403
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 910.256.6451
WWW.MAUPINTAYLOR.COM
KURT J. OLSON
480 BETA BUILDING
HEADQUARTERS PARK
2222 CHAPEL HILL-NELSON HWY.
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
27713
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 919.361.2262
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE BOX 13646
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
NORTH CAROLINA
27709-3646
WRITER'S DJ.EC ?'IAI, NUMBER
MAY 2 1 2002

[phone]
[e-mail]
May 20, 2002
John Dorney, Supervisor
Wetlands Unit, Division of Water Quality
N. C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Parkview Bldg.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re:
?P`? ?1? Maur

REOUEST FOR REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION
United States Coast Guard
Dredge/Disposal Activities - Banks Channel
Wrightsville Beach Station
Wrightsville Beach. North Carolina
DWQ 01-1550
Dear Mr. Dorney:
V
On May 3, 2001 we submitted a petition pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0507(d), requesting
on behalf of a number of interested citizens, that the Section 401 Certification issued in 1993 for
the above referenced project be revoked or modified. The basis for that request was explained in
detail in a April 8, 2002 letter to you and centered on new data and information showing that the
activities authorized by the 1993 permit (dredging in Banks Channel) had direct and cumulative
adverse impacts to water quality not considered in 1993 when the initial 401 certification was
requested and issued. These impacts have degraded or removed water quality uses and if
permitted to continue, will perpetuate the cycle of loss and harm.
329803
John Dorney
May 3, 2002
Page 2
The USCG has recently informed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that it does not
intend to proceed with dredging at this time. Nevertheless the USCG also suggested that it might
in the future seek to dredge under the 1993 permit and stated its belief that the permit remained
in effect until December 2003. Accordingly, the issue remains viable and we request that you
proceed to revoke or modify the water quality certification for this project we proposed.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly your
4 Kurt J. _ lson
Enclosures (2)
cc: Wm. Dean Lee, Commander, U. S. Coast Guard
Hon. William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary, DENR
Daniel C. Oakley, General Counsel, DENR
Donna D. Moffitt, Division of Coastal Management, DENR
Joanne Stennhuis
Caroline Bellis
P. Andrew Honeycutt, Town Manager, Town of Wrightsville Beach
Tom Jarrett
Rhett Taber
329803
\N A TF Michael F. Easley, Governor
\O?? RpG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r?'-- Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
October 29, 2002
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
R.E. Mobley, CDR
CEU Cleveland
US Coast Guard
1240 East Ninth Street
Room 2179
Cleveland, Ohio 44119-2060
Dear Mr. Mobley:
RE; 401 Water Quality Certification
Maintenance dredging and disposal
Coast Guard Station - Wrightsville Beach, NC
DWQ # 01.1550
New Hanover County
On November 7, 2001 we wrote you a letter concerning your application to conduct maintenance
dredging and disposal at the Coast Guard Station - Wrightsville Beach, NC. This letter (attached) placed the
project on hold due to incomplete information. Specifically we asked whether the sand could be disposed of on
the beaches north of the Coast Guard facility. To date we have not received an answer to our November 7,
2001 letter.
However we have received a copy of a letter from yourself to the US Army Corps of Engineers dated
April 29, 2002. This memo requested that the October 11, 2001 application be withdrawn and went on to say
that your understanding is that the December 1, 1999 permit is still valid. We have no record of a 401 Water
Quality Certification issued for this older permit and therefore have (tentatively) concluded that the December
1, 1999 permit also needs a 401 Water Quality Certification. Please either provide a copy of a 401 Water
Quality Certification for that project or provide an answer to our November 7, 2001 letter so we can then
process the 401 Certification for this project.
I can be reached at 919-733-9646 if you have any questions. Until we receive an answer to this letter,
this project will remain on hold and cannot proceed.
Cc:
Doug Huggett, DCM
File copy
Central files
Kurt Olson; Maupin, Taylor and Ellis
Noelle. Luthern, DWQ Wilmington Regional Office
Tom Garrett; Wilmington District US Army Corps of Engineers

N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone] Customer Service
AWA
wom
1 800 623-7748
t
WQC #3368
GENERAL CERTIFICATION FOR THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS DREDGING ACTIVITIES
INVOLVING CONTROL OF EFFLUENT DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL IN EXISTING
DREDGE MAINTENANCE SITES WITHIN NORTH CAROLINA
This General Certification is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401,
Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 and 15 NCAC 2B .0200 for the
discharge of fill material to waters and wetland areas which are waters of the United States as
described in 33 CFR 325 Appendix A of the Corps of Engineers regulations. This Certification is
issued for existing dredge sites at Manteo (Shallowbag Bay), Wilmington Harbor (bird islands),
Big Foot Slough and Wainwright Slough. This Certification replaces Certification Number 3122
issued on February 11, 1997. This WQC is rescinded when deemed appropriate by the Director
of the Division of Water Quality.
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified category of activity will not violate
applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217
if conducted in accordance with the conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Proposed fill or substantial modification of wetlands or waters (including streams) under
this General Certification requires application to and prior written concurrence from the
Division of Water Quality;
2. Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those outlined
in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning
and Design Manual" or the "North Carolina Surface Mining Manual" whichever is more
appropriate (available from the Division of Land Resources (DLR) in the DENR Regional
or Central Offices) shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper
design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices
in order to assure compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard;
3. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be removed
and the original grade restored within two months after the Division of Land Resources
has released the project;
4. If an environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid until a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD) is issued by the State
Clearinghouse;
5. The terminal end of the pipeline from the dredge shall be positioned at the highest point
possible on the dredge disposal site to allow maximum distance for settling of suspended
solids;
6. The flow of discharge shall be directed away from any emergent vegetation along the
shoreline unless it can be clearly shown by the applicant that a different design will
result in less environmental impact (i.e. berm at Wainwright Slough disposal site);
7. If such activities should take place during periods of high biological activity (i.e. bird
nesting), biological monitoring may be required at the request of other state or
federal agencies and coordinated with these dredging activities;
8. In accordance with North Carolina General Statute Section 143-215.3D(e), any request
for written concurrence for a 401 Water Quality Certification must include the
appropriate fee. If a project also requires a CAMA Permit, one payment to both
agencies shall be submitted and will be the higher of the two fees;
J0'
WQC #3368
9. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact
with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
10. Additional site-specific conditions may be added to projects for which written concurrence
is required or requested under this Certification in order to ensure compliance with all
applicable water quality and effluent standards;
11. That appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those
outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual" or the "North Carolina Surface Mining Manual" whichever
is more appropriate (available from the Division of Land Resources (DLR) in the DENR
Regional or Central Offices) shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing
the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management
Practices in order to assure compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality
standard;
12. Concurrence from DWQ that this Certification applies to an individual project shall expire
three years from the date of the cover letter from DWQ or on the same day as the
expiration date of these corresponding Nationwide and Regional General Permits,
whichever is sooner;
13. When written concurrence is required, the applicant is required to use the most recent
version of the Certification of Completion form to notify DWQ when all work included in
the 401 Certification has been completed.
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set forth by a specific fill project shall
result in revocation of this Certification for the project and may result in criminal and/or civil
penalties.
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality may require submission of a
formal application for individual certification for any project in this category of activity that requires
written concurrence under this certification, if it is determined that the project is likely to have a
significant adverse effect upon water quality or degrade the waters so that existing uses of the
wetland, stream or downstream waters are precluded.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or group of applications prior to a
Certification decision if deemed in the public°s best interest by the Director of the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality.
Effective date: 18 March 2002
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
WQC # 3368
iF
WQC #3349
MAINTENANCE DREDGING CERTIFICATION
GENERAL CERTIFICATION FOR PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR CORPS
OF ENGINEERS NATIONWIDE PERMIT 35 (MAINTENANCE DREDGING
OF EXISTING BASINS) AND REGIONAL (GENERAL) PERMIT
NUMBER 198200277 (CANALS AND BOAT BASINS IN HIGH GROUND
AND MAINTENANCE DREDGING IN OPEN WATERS)
AND RIPARIAN AREA PROTECTION RULES (BUFFER RULES)
This General Certification is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section
401, Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality Regulations in 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500 and 15A
NCAC 2B .0201 for the discharge of fill material to waters and wetland areas as
described in the Wilmington District's Nationwide Permit 35 (Maintenance Dredging of
Existing Basins) or Regional (General) Permit Number 198200277 (Canals and Boat
Basins in High Ground and Maintenance Dredging in Open Water) and for the Riparian
Area Protection Rules (Buffer Rules) in 15A NCAC 2B .0200. This Certification replaces
Water Quality Certification (WQC) Number 2676 issued on January 21, 1992 and Water
Quality Certification Number 3110 issued on February 11, 1997, and Water Quality
Certification Number 3279 issued on June 1, 2000. This WQC is rescinded when the
Corps of Engineers re-authorizes this Regional (General) Permit or when deemed
appropriate by the Director of the DWQ.
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified category of activity will not
violate applicable portions of Sections 301,302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws
92-500 and 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Proposed fill or substantial modification of waters or wetlands for this
General Certification requires written concurrence from the Division of Water
Quality;
2. In accordance with North Carolina General Statute Section 143-215.3D(e),
any request for written concurrence for a 401 Water Quality Certification
must include the appropriate fee. If a project also requires a CAMA Permit,
one payment to both agencies shall be submitted and will be the higher of
the two fees. The fee shall be collected and distributed between the two
agencies in accordance with agreements reached between the Division of
Water Quality and the Division of Coastal Management;
3. The canal or boat basin shall be permitted to be dredged to its original depth
and width. The applicant is required to supply information regarding the
original depth and width of the site. The area shall not be dredged to a depth
deeper than the receiving water;
4. Impacts to any stream length in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River Basins (or
any other river basins with Riparian Area Protection Rules [Buffer Rules] in
effect at the time of application) requires written concurrence from DWQ in
accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0200. Activities listed as "exempt" from
these rules do not need to apply for written concurrence under this
WQC #3349
Certification. New development activities located in the protected 50-foot
wide riparian areas (whether jurisdictional wetlands or not) within the Neuse,
Tar-Pamlico, Randleman and Catawba River Basins shall be limited to
"uses" identified within and constructed in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B
.0200. All new development shall be located, designed, constructed, and
maintained to have minimal disturbance to protect water quality to the
maximum extent practicable through the use of best management practices;
5. That appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or
exceed hose outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual" or the "North
Carolina Surface Mining Manual" whichever is more appropriate (available
from the Division of Land Resources (DLR) in the DENR Regional or Central
Offices) shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing the
proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to assure compliance with the appropriate
turbidity water quality standard;
6. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters
shall be removed and the original grade restored after the Division of Land
Resources has released the project;
7. Excavation and filling of wetlands is not authorized by this Certification. All
fill material shall be placed on high ground and be from an upland source,
and excavation shall not occur in Primary Nursery Areas;
8. If an environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid until a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD) is
issued by the State Clearinghouse;
9. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into
contact with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
10. Additional site-specific conditions may be added to projects proposed under
this Certification in order to ensure compliance with all applicable water
quality and effluent standards;
11. Concurrence from DWQ that this Certification applies to an individual project
shall expire three years from the date of the cover letter from DWQ or on the
same day as the expiration date of the corresponding Nationwide Permit 35
or Regional Permit 198200277, whichever is sooner;
12. When written concurrence is required, the applicant is required to use the
most recent version of the Certification of Completion form to notify DWQ
when all work included in the 401 Certification has been completed.
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set forth by a specific fill
project shall result in revocation of this Certification for the project and may result in
criminal and/or civil penalties.

WQC #3349
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality may require
submission of a formal application for individual certification for any project in this
category of activity that requires written concurrence under this certification, if it is
determined that the project is likely to have a significant adverse effect upon water
quality or degrade the waters so that existing uses of the wetland or downstream waters
are precluded.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or group of applications
prior to a Certification decision if deemed in the public's best interest by the Director of
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
Effective date: 18 March 2002
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
WQC # 3349

1.
WQC #3372
OCEAN DREDGE MATERIAL DISPOSAL CERTIFICATION
GENERAL CERTIFICATION FOR PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS
REGIONAL PERMIT 198000048 INVOLVING DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON
OCEAN BEACHES WITHIN NORTH CAROLINA
AND RIPARIAN AREA PROTECTION RULES (BUFFER RULES)
This General Certification is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401,
Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 and 15 NCAC 2B .0200 for the
discharge of fill material to waters and wetland areas which are waters of the United States as
described in the Wilmington District's Regional (General) Permit Number 198000048 and for the
Riparian Area Protection Rules (Buffer Rules) in 15A NCAC 213 .0200. This Certification replaces
Water Quality Certification Number 3120 issued on February 11, 1997 and Water Quality
Certification Number 3275 issued on June 1, 2000. This WQC is rescinded when the Regional
Permit is re-authorized or when deemed appropriate by the Director of the Division of Water
Quality.
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified category of activity will not violate
applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217
if conducted in accordance with the conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Proposed fill, dredging, excavation or other substantial modification of waters or
wetlands or this General Certification requires written concurrence from the Division
of Water Quality;
2. In accordance with North Carolina General Statute Section 143-215.3D(e), any
request for written concurrence for a 401 Water Quality Certification must include the
appropriate fee. If a project also requires a CAMA Permit, one payment to both
agencies shall be submitted and will be the higher of the two fees. The fee shall be
collected and distributed between the two agencies in accordance with agreements
reached between the Division of Water Quality and the Division of Coastal
Management;
3. Impacts to any stream length in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River Basins (or any
other river basins with Riparian Area Protection Rules [Buffer Rules] in effect at the
time of application) requires written concurrence from DWQ in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2B.0200. Activities listed as "exempt" from these rules do not need to apply
for written concurrence under this Certification. New development activities located
in the protected 50-foot wide riparian areas (whether jurisdictional wetlands or not)
within the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River Basins shall be limited to "uses" identified
within and constructed in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0200. All new
development shall be located, designed, constructed, and maintained to have
minimal disturbance to protect water quality to the maximum extent practicable
through the use of best management practices;
4. If such activities should take place during periods of high biological activity (i.e. sea
turtle nesting), biological monitoring may be required at the request of other state or
federal agencies and coordinated with these dredging activities;
5. The discharge shall be free of toxic substances in violation of state water quality
standards;

WQC #3372
6. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact
with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
7. That appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those
outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual" or the "North Carolina Surface Mining Manual"
whichever is more appropriate (available from the Division of Land Resources (DLR)
in the DENR Regional or Central Offices) shall be in full compliance with all
specifications governing the proper design, installation and operation and
maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to assure compliance with
the appropriate turbidity water quality standard;
8. If an environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid until a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD) is issued by the State
Clearinghouse;
9. Concurrence from DWQ that this Certification applies to an individual project shall
expire three years from the date of the cover letter from DWQ or on the same day as
the expiration date of the corresponding Regional Permit 198000048, whichever is
sooner;
10. When written concurrence is required, the applicant is required to use the most
recent version of the Certification of Completion form to notify DWQ when all work
included in the 401 Certification has been completed.
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set forth by a specific fill project
shall result in revocation of this Certification for the project and may result in criminal and/or civil
penalties.
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality may require submission of a
formal application for individual certification for any project in this category of activity that requires
written concurrence under this certification, if it is determined that the project is likely to have a
significant adverse effect upon water quality or degrade the waters so that existing uses of the
wetland or downstream waters are precluded.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or group of applications prior to a
Certification decision if deemed in the public's best interest by the Director of the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality.
Effective date: 18 March 2002
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
WQC # 3372
2
If
f
WQC #3363
GENERAL CERTIFICATION FOR PROJECTS ELIGIBLE
FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBER 16
(RETURN WATER FROM UPLAND CONTAINED DISPOSAL AREAS)
This General Certification is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401, Public
Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality Regulations in 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500 and 15A NCAC 2B .0200 for the discharge
of fill material to waters and wetlands as described in 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B) (16) of the
Corps of Engineers regulations (i.e., Nationwide Permit No. 16). The category of activities shall
include the discharge of return water from an upland, contained dredge disposal area. This
certification replaces Water Quality Certification Number 1273 issued in November 10, 1978,
Certification Number 2668 issued on January 21, 1992and Certification Number 3105 issued on
February 11, 1997. This WQC is rescinded when the Corps of Engineers reauthorize Nationwide
Permit 16 or when deemed appropriate by the Director of the DWQ.
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified category of activity will not violate
applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217
if conducted in accordance with the conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Proposed fill or substantial modification of wetlands or waters (including streams) under
this General Certification requires application to and prior written concurrence from the
Division of Water Quality;
2. That the discharge will be free from toxic pollutants in violation of state water quality
standards;
3. That the terminal end of the pipeline from the dredge into the retention area be positioned
at a maximum distance from spillways to allow adequate settling of suspended solids and
a sufficient distance from any part of the dike so as to preclude dike erosion by the pipeline
discharge. Effluent shall be released waterward of emergent marsh or tidal flats when
located within these systems;
4. That a water control structure be installed at the intake end of the effluent leading from the
retention area in order to insure maximum settling of suspended solids and control of
discharge volumes;
5. That the flow from the diked retention area be contained by pipe, metal or wooden trough,
or similar device to a point waterward of any emergent vegetation along the shoreline
unless it can be clearly shown by the applicant that a different design will result in less
environmental impact;
6. That sufficient freeboard be maintained within the diked disposal area during the dredging
operation to assure the integrity of the dike structure and the containment of the
dredged material;
7. Native forested vegetation shall be re-established in any construction access or other
temporary impact area within the next growing season following construction of a project;
8. Hydraulic dredging in piedmont and mountain lakes (as well as some locations in the
coastal plain when specified by DWQ) which utilize an upland diked disposal basin with a
return pipe for the return water shall utilize the "two basin" design as shown on the
attached sketch or have written approval from DWQ to vary from this design. The
applicant shall contact DWQ for specifications regarding this design;

WQC #3363
9. That the concentration of settleable solids in the effluent being discharged from the diked
disposal area be no greater than 0.1 ml/I;
10. The appropriate turbidity water quality standard shall not be exceeded or be above
ambient background levels (whichever is more stringent) beyond an appropriate mixing
zone if one is established for a project by DWQ (50 NTUs in streams and rivers not
designated as trout waters by DEM; 25 NTUs in all saltwater classes, and all lakes and
reservoirs; and 10 NTUs in trout waters);
11. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be removed
and the original grade restored within two months after the Division of Land Resources has
released the project;
12. If an environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid until a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD) is issued by the State
Clearinghouse;
13. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact with
waters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
14. In accordance with North Carolina General Statute Section 143-215.3D(e), any request for
written concurrence for a 401 Water Quality Certification must include the appropriate fee.
If a project also requires a CAMA Permit, one payment to both agencies shall be submitted
and will be the higher of the two fees;
15. That the disposal area dikes be stabilized with vegetative cover within seven days after
construction to minimize erosion;
16. That the timing of the dredging and discharge shall be addressed by the applicant in order
to lessen impact on aquatic organisms and their reproduction. This timing shall comply
with dredging windows established by the "Corps-State Interagency Seasonal Work Group
on Seasonal Dredging Periods" where applicable;
17. Additional site-specific conditions may be added to projects for which written concurrence
is required or requested under this Certification in order to ensure compliance with all
applicable water quality and effluent standards;
18. Concurrence from DWQ that this Certification applies to an individual project shall expire
three years from the date of the cover letter from DWQ or on the same day as the
expiration date of these corresponding Nationwide and Regional General Permits,
whichever is sooner;
19. When written concurrence is required, the applicant is required to use the most recent
version of the Certification of Completion form to notify DWQ when all work included in the
401 Certification has been completed.
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set forth by a specific fill project shall
result in revocation of this Certification for the project and may result in criminal and/or civil
penalties.
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality may require submission of a
formal application for individual certification for any project in this category of activity that requires
written concurrence under this certification, if it is determined that the project is likely to have a
significant adverse effect upon water quality or degrade the waters so that existing uses of the
wetland, stream or downstream waters are precluded.
jr
WQC #3363
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or group of applications prior to a
Certification decision if deemed in the public's best interest by the Director of the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality.
Effective date: 18 March 2002
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
WQC # 3363
Mit-Aiands Tracking ails
Facility Name COE -BRACH EROS. CONT. ON WRIGHTSVILLE B
Project Number 93 0&1-1
Project Type Imipose of BEACH RENOURISHNIENT County NEW HANOVER
Location I County2
Received From COE COE ID # I Region Wilmington
Received Date September 27. 19931 COE Susp Date I Reg. Contact
Sent to Region Date 10/4/1993 DCM Susp Date APPLICATION FEE INFO
Rcvd Region Date 10/21/1993 I TIP Number I Payment Date
Last Action Date November 5. 1993 I More Info Requested I Amount Paid
Last Action ISSUE WQC # I More Info Received I Payor I .}
Latitude (ddmmss) Mitigation ? N Check # ?.
Longitude (ddmmss) COC Received Date
i
Certificates Stream Area
acres Area Length Length
Req. ) (acres) (feet) (feet)
Permit Cert # Wetland Wetland Score Stream Class Subbasin Wetland (acres)
Type Type Impact Index Prim. Supp. Class Appr. Req. Appr.
I
C IND 2856 O Y @N 0 99-(2) SB 030624 0.0 0.0
l I O) 0..\ I j I I I f i I I I? ?
Total for 401: 0.00
Stream Impacts (ft.)-
? WRP Mitigation
:Mitigation Project Wetland Wetland Area Length Completion Peren- Inter-
gationType Number Type Class (acres) (feet) Date Subbasin
Miti nial mittent
Total Mitigation:
lookupWRP
Total for 401: 0.00 I I
WRP Mitigation Stream Impacts (ft.)s
Mitigation Project Wetland Wetland Area Length Completion Peren- Inter-
MitigationType Number Type Class (acres) (feet) Date Subbasin nial mittent
Total Mitigation:
lookupVVR
i
W-,?.-,,flands Tracking 401s
j Facility Name COE - DREDGING DISPOSAL. ON CAROLINA BEAC?
93 0118
P
N
b
roject
um
er

Project Type purpose of DREDGE DISPOSAL I County NEW HANOVER

Location ( County2;
Received From COE I COE ID # I Region Wilmington
Received Date February 12, 1993 I COE Susp Date Reg. Contact
Sent to Region Date 2/1/1993 ( DCM Susp Date I APPLICATION FEE INFO
Rcvd Region Date 3/23/1993 ( TIP Number I Payment Date
Last Action Date August 23, 1993 ( More Info Requested I Amount Paid
Last Action ISSUE WQC # ( More Info Received I Payor I ;

Latitude (ddmmss', I Mitigation ? J Check #

Longitude (ddmmc , COC Received Date

Certificates Stream Area
Area Length Length
Permit Wetland Wetland
Score
Cert # Stream Class Wetland (acres) (acres) (feet) (feet)
Req.
Subbasin
Type Impact
Type APpr. Req. APPr.
Class
Index Prim. Supp.
IND 2541 O Y O N 0 99431 SB 030617 0.00 0.00

f' [ O Y ON
I
I ?? l f
Total for 401:
WRIP Mitigation
'Mitigation Project Wetland Wetland Area Length Completion
Subbasin
MitigationType Number Type Class (acres) (feet) Date
I
Total Mitigation: J?
lookupWRP
00

E .

=. 1 -.RK CIO R_.-
985 EAS HOOD ROAD. ?U -E :CO
WILMINGTON. NORTH C:AROUNIA
28,103
T8! EPHOiVE ? 10.256.5 5
-fELE AX 910.256.645:
'. WW.MAUP,,,1i TA. LOR.CO^I
KURT J. OLSON
QP V?
C V,

[phone]
[e-mail]
CERTIFIED MAIL
Norman Mineta, Secretary
U. S. Department of Transportation
10200 Nassif Bldg.
400 7`' St., SW
Washington, DC 20590
January 10, 2003
S ?
'rJ
JAN 2 8 2003
Re: Notice of Intent to File Suit - 33 U.S.C. §. 1365(a)(1)
Gentlemen:
I am writing to inform you of our intention to file suit pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1)
against the U. S. Coast Guard for violations of effluent standards or limitations established under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the "Act"), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387. The violations at
issue occurred (and continue to occur) at the U. S. Coast Guard installation in Wrightsville
Beach, North Carolina and involve a practice referred to as "agitation dredging," with the aim of
scouring the sound bottom in and around the Coast Guard's Wrightsville Beach boat basin to
increase the depth of the water in the affected area. This practice recently has been observed on
two separate occasions - August 30, 2002 and December 29, 2002 - and we have been informed
that the agitation dredging has occurred at other times as well. See attached letter to Col.
Alexander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and accompanying Declaration of Stephen Bastian.
This activity results in the illegal discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States in
violation of Sections 301, 401 and 404 of the Act and also causes erosion to the shoreline in the
affected area. It constitutes a violation of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33
U.S.C. § 403.
Norman Mineta, Secretary
January 10, 2003
Page 2
This notice is being submitted on behalf of Rhett Taber, who owns a residence at 904
Schloss St., Wrightsville Beach, NC, next to the Coast Guard facility. Mr. Taber also resides at
2028 Fairview Road, Raleigh, NC 27608, and his telephone number is 919-834-4385. Mr.
Taber will be represented by the law firm of MAUPIN TAYLOR & ELLIS, P.A. I will act as
the main point of contact for the firm and my address and telephone number are shown above.
We intend to seek the costs of litigating this matter.
Very truly yours,
Kurt J. Olso
Enclosures
cc w/encls.:
Admiral Thomas H. Collins, Commandant, U. S. Coast Guard
Christie Todd Whitman, U.S. EPA
John Ashcroff, U.S. Attorney General
Congressman Mike McIntyre
Jimmy Palmer, Regional Administration, US EPA Region 4
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director, Division of Water Quality, NC DENR
John Dorney, Supervisor, Wetlands Unit,. Division of Water Quality, NC DENR
Donna D. Moffitt, Director, Division of Coastal Management, NC DENR
Wm. Dean Lee, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Group - Fort Macon
Charles R. Alexander, Jr., Colonel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
RALEIG H\362038 I

. ST O-i f ?. DR, E:l I ; c .
275i9-9764
LANDFAIIL i<gRK NORT;
i X85 EAST`,MOOD x,0,40 ,U!TE 200
WIuMINGTOi 1. NORTH CAROLINA
23401
-cLc-A.'r,

KURT J. OLSON
January 9, 2003
VIA FACSIMILE AND U. S.MAIL
Charles R. Alexander, Jr., Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Re: U. S. Coast Guard Station
Banks Channel, Wrightsville Beach
New Hanover County, NC
Our File no. 16199.002
Dear Colonel Alexander:
[phone]
[e-mail]
On October 2, 2002, I wrote to you to call your attention to activities at the U.S. Coast
Guard ("USCG") installation in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina observed by local residents
that suggested the USCG may be involved in "agitation dredging" to maintain the depth of its
boat basin while the issues concerning its maintenance dredging in Banks Channel were being
addressed. At that time, we were informed that the Wilmington Office's Regulatory Division
discussed this matter with the USCG and was told that the unusual movement of the USCG's
vessel observed by the local residents was the result of difficulties the crew had docking the
vessel during inclement weather and strong currents.
I am writing now to bring your attention to a second incident recently observed that raises
serious doubts about the USCG's prior statements and strongly suggests the USCG is "agitation
dredging" to maintain the depth of its boat basin. Attached to this letter is the Second
Declaration of Stephen Bastian, a homeowner in Wrightsville Beach. In this declaration, Mr.
RALEIGH\361992 I
Charles R. Alexander, Jr., Colonel, U.S. Army
January 9, 2003
Page 2
Bastian states that on December 29, 2002, around 7:10 p.m., he and his wife heard very loud
engine noises coming from Banks Channel. From their second floor deck, they observed the
Coast Guard's 47-foot vessel being maneuvered in and around the Coast Guard's boat basin,
sometimes in a spinning motion. He states that based on the engine noise and nature of the
movements, it appeared that the vessel was running very hard. According to Mr. Bastian, he
decided to get a closer look and walked out onto a dock next to the Coast Guard installation.
From there he observed the Coast Guard move the 47-foot vessel in and out- of the boat basin
area for over 20 minutes and at times conduct a swirling or spinning maneuver in that area. Mr.
Bastian states that it was near low tide at the time the Coast Guard conducted this activity and
there was virtually no wind. Mr. Bastain also states that although it was dark, he could see mud
and sediment rising from the sound bottom as a result of the Coast Guard's activities. Mr.
Bastian decided to photograph the Coast Guard's actions and when the Coast Guard personnel
saw the flashes and him, they immediately ceased what they were doing and docked the vessel.
The USCG's agitation dredging is not authorized by a permit and is illegal. We request
that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers take immediate action to require the USCG to correct the
damage done and to cease this activity for all times.
This letter also is intended to serve as notice pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a), that a
citizens suit will be brought against the U.S. Coast Guard for, among other things, the violations
of Sections 301, 401 and 404 for the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311,
1341 and 1344, resulting from its on-going illegal activities.
We appreciate your attention to these matters.
Very truly yours,
Kurt J. son
Attachment: Declaration
cc w/attachment:
Congressman Mike McIntyre
Cmdr. A. P. Kimos
Cmdr. Wm. Dean Lee
Mayor Avery Roberts, Jr.
Andrea Surratt, Interim Town Manager, Wrightsville Beach
Angie Pennock, Regulatory Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
M. Brooke Lamson, Esq., Assistant District Counsel, Department of the Army
Tom Jarrett
Rhett Taber
RALEIGH\361992 1
IN RE: U.S. COAST GUARD )
INSTALLATION )
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina )
SECOND DECLARATION OF STEPHEN BASTIAN
Stephen Bastian, affirms, deposes and says:
1. My name is Stephen Bastian. I currently reside at 312 Transylvania Ave., Raleigh,
North Carolina. I also own a house in south end Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina located at
901 Schloss Street. I have first hand, personal knowledge of the matters discussed below.
2. Earlier this year I prepared and signed a declaration stating what I had observed at
approximately 7:30 p.m. on Friday, August 30, 2002 at the U.S. Coast Guard installation in
Wrightsville Beach. At that time, my wife and I were out on the fourth floor balcony of our
house in Wrightsville Beach which has an unobstructed view of Banks Channel and the U.S.
Coast Guard installation. At 7:30 p.m. it was low tide and as I looked towards Banks Channel I
observed the U.S. Coast Guard's 47-foot cutter being repeatedly moved in and out of the area
where the floating dock is located in front of the Coast Guard installation. At times the vessel
also moved in a swirling or fishtail motion around this area. This maneuvering lasted for a total
of about 15 to 20 minutes and appeared to churn up the sound bottom in the areas where the
vessel was operating.
3. I was aware of the controversy concerning the U.S. Coast Guard's dredging in
Banks Channel and the erosion it causes. I personally have observed severe erosion to the
beaches north of the Coast Guard's facility. My family and I use the public access beaches north
R.W75237f 1 -1-

of the U.S. Coast Guard facility. Over the years, the erosion of these beaches has been dramatic.
4. I also was aware that in August 2002 the Coast Guard claimed that it needed to
dredge because its boat basin was filling in but that the dredging was being opposed by citizens in
Wrightsville Beach and the Coast Guard needed to get the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers
permission before it could dredge. I also knew that a citizens group had filed a petition with the
Corps asking it to revoke or modify the Coast Guard's permit to dredge.
5. The area where I observed the U.S. Coast Guard's 47-foot cutter maneuvering on
August 30th was the area of the Channel where the Coast Guard wanted to dredge. Based on
my observations and the fact that it was low tide at the time of these events, I believe that the
vessel was being used to chum or scour the bottom of the Channel to create more depth without
dredging. As I understand it, this practice is known as "agitation dredging."
6. I prepared a declaration concerning the August 30th incident and it was sent to the
Corps. As I understand it, the Corps investigated the matter and was told by the Coast Guard
that bad weather and high winds on August 30'h prevented it from mooring its vessel easily and
that was the reason for the unusual maneuvering I saw. I do not recall particularly bad weather
or high winds on that day and was skeptical about this explanation.
7. On December 29, 2002, I again was at our Wrightsville Beach house. At around
7:10 p.m. my wife Chandler and I heard very loud engine noises coming from Banks Channel.
From our third floor deck, I observed the Coast Guard's 47-foot vessel being maneuvered in and
around the Coast Guard's boat basin. I observed the vessel being maneuvered in a spinning
motion and based on the engine noise and nature of the movements it was obvious to me that the
vessel was running very hard.
RAL.7523711
-2-
8. After seeing this activity from my third floor deck, I decided to get a closer look. I
went over to Rhett Taber's house, which is on Banks Channel next to the Coast Guard
installation and walked out onto Rhett's dock. From there I watched the Coast Guard move the
47-foot vessel in and out of the boat basin area and at times conduct a swirling or spinrung
maneuver m that area. I watched this activity from the dock for over thirty minutes.
9. It was near low tide at the time the. Coast Guard was conducting this activity.
There was virtually no wind and even though it was dark, I could see that the vessel's props
were churning up mud and sediment from the sound bottom.
10. I decided to take photographs of the Coast Guard's maneuvering and took three
quick pictures. At that point the Coast Guard personnel saw the flashes and me. They
immediately ceased what they were doing and docked the vessel.
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND
CORRECT. Executed on the .0 day of GA,?UAV-L! , 2003.
Stephen ian
RAL7523711 -3-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HIGH`+VOODS TOWER ONE
SUITE 500
3200 BEECHLEAF COURT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27604-1064
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 919.981.4300
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE DRAWER 19764
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27619-9764
LANDFALL PARK NORTH
1985 EASTWOOD ROAD, SUITE 200
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
28403
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 910.256.6451
WWW.MAUPINTAYLOR.COM
KURT J. OLSON
480 BETA BUILDING
HEADQUARTERS PARK
"._222 CHAPEL HILL-NELSON HWY..
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
2771:
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 919.361.2262
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE BOX I S
646
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
NORTH CAROLINA
27709-3646
\NR.ITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
[phone]
[e-mail]
November 26, 2002
VIA FACSIMILE Fri I? M
R. Alexander, Jr., Colonel, U.S. Army ?` .
x
District Engineer
Department of the Army ?g NOV 2 72002
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 L?7WATMTUXUTY SECTION
Re: U. S. Coast Guard Station
Banks Channel, Wrightsville Beach
New Hanover County, NC
Our File no. 16199.002
Dear Colonel Alexander:
Enclosed is a October 29, 2002 letter from John Dorney at the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
("DWQ") to CDR Mobley at CEU Cleveland, U.S. Coast Guard. The letter explains that the DWQ is unable to
find a 401 Certification that was issued in support of the Coast Guard's 1993 permit (Action Id. 199303594)
allowing it to dredge in Banks Channel. I have reviewed the file myself and the only certification present
relates to a Nationwide Permit No. 16 that was not issued. The permit issued to the Coast Guard was an
individual permit. Furthermore, the certification in the file refers to a proposal the Coast Guard submitted on
August 13, 1993, whereas the Coast Guard submitted the application for the 1993 permit on July 28, 1993. It is
apparent therefore, as stated in Mr. Dorney's October 29th letter, that the Coast Guard does not have a valid 401
Certification for its dredging project and it cannot be permitted to proceed.
RALEIGH\358532_ I
Charles R. Alexander, Jr., Colonel, U.S. Army
November 26, 2002
Page 2
In addition, the 1993 permit requires that the Coast Guard obtain an approved sedimentation plan at least
30 days prior to the onset of work from North Carolina's Land Quality Section. There is nothing in the record
showing that this was done in 1993 or that it will be done this time if the Coast Guard is permitted to dredge.
Accordingly, we again submit that an authorization to proceed cannot be issued.
We appreciate your attention to these matters.
Ver?y.truly yours,
Kurt J. Olson
Enclosures
cc: Senator Jesse Helms
Congressman Mike McIntyre
Commander A. P. Kimos, USCG
Wm. Dean Lee, Commander, USCG
Mayor Avery Roberts, Jr.
Keith Harris, Field Office Chief, Regulatory Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Angie Pennock, Regulatory Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
John Dorney
Tom Jarrett
Rhett Taber
RALEIGH\358532._ I
odr c,9pG
`o
r
>_ y
O 'C
October 29, 2002
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
R.E. Mobley, CDR'
CEU Cleveland
US Coast Guard
1240 East Ninth Street
Room 2179
Cleveland, Ohio 44119-2060
Dear Mr. Mobley:
RE; 401 Water Quality Certification
Maintenance dredging and disposal
Coast Guard Station - Wrightsville Beach, NC
DWQ # 01-1550
New Hanover County
S,
RECEIVED
NOV 0 1 2002
MULAW KI
WUING" MD OFFICF
On November 7, 2001 we wrote you a letter concerning your application to conduct maintenance
dredging and disposal at the Coast Guard Station - Wrightsville Beach, NC. This letter (attached) placed the
project on hold due to incomplete information. Specifically we asked whether the sand could be disposed of on
the beaches north of the Coast Guard facility. To date we have not received an answer to our November 7,
2001 letter.
However we have received a copy of a letter from yourself to the US Army Corps of Engineers dated
April 29, 2002. This memo requested that the October 11, 2001 application be withdrawn and went on to say
that your understanding is that the December 1, 1999 permit is still valid. We have no record of a 401 Water
Quality Certification issued for this older permit and therefore have (tentatively) concluded that the December
1, 1999 permit also needs a 401 Water Quality Certification. Please either provide a copy of a 401 Water
Quality Certification for that project or provide an answer to our November 7, 2001 letter so we can then
process the 401 Certification for this project.
I can be reached at 919-733-9646 if you have any questions. Until we receive an answer to this letter,
this project will remain on hold and cannot proceed.
Cc:
Doug Huggett, DCM
File copy
Central files
Kurt Olson; Maupin, Taylor and Ellis
Noelle Luthern, DWQ Wilmington Regional Office
Tom Garrett; Wilmington District US Army Corps of Engineers
C. Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environmeht and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
J
[phone] Customer Service
&LUDE-M
1 800 623-7748
/rte yr r ??t I I I L.G. Jllf lU
s
,4ealthtand Natu al Resou ce
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
September 2, 1993
Mr. R.A. Koehler
Commanding Officer
U.S. Coast Guard Civil Engineering Unit
1240 East Ninth Street
Cleveland Ohio, 44199-2060
Dear Mr. Koehler:

Subject: Proposed fill in Wetlands or Waters
Maintenance dredging, US Coast Guard Station at
Wrightsville Beach
New Hanover County
DEM Project # 93691
Upon review of your request for 401 Water Quality Certification
to place fill material in waters which are tributary to Banks Channel
for maintenance dredging located at US Coast Guard Station, Banks
Channel in New Hanover County as described in your submittal dated 13
August 1993,-we have determined that the proposed fill can be covered
by General Water Quality Certification No. 2668. A copy of the
General Certification is attached. This Certification may be used in
qualifying for coverage under Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit
No. 16.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right.
to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30)
days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in
the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. Unless such
demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at 919-733-
1786.
Sincerely,
Freston Howard, Jr P.E.
93691.1tr d
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers,
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Wilmington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
4t
4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HIGHWOODS TOVJER ONE
SUITE 500
3200 BEECHLEAF COURT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27604-1054
TELEPHONE [phone],00
TELEFAX 9;9.98!.4300
MAiLiNG ADDRESS
POST OFFICE DRAWER 976":
RALEIGH, NORTH CA.ROLtNA
276;9-9764
LANDFALL PARK NORTH
1985 E,ASTWOOD ROAD. SUITE 200
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
28403
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 910.255.6451
WWW,MAUPINTAYLOR.COP
KURT J. OLSON
4d0 ?ZETA OUILDING
HEAOQUA{TERS PARK
222.2 CHAPEL HILL-NELSON H'VY fY
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA.
-,7713
TELEPHONE 9 i 9.361.11900
TELEFAX 919361.2262
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE 8-OX i 36:6
RESEARCH TRIANGi_E PAR!:
NORTH CAROLINA
2'709-3645
%VRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUi` 3ER
[phone]
[e-mail]
CERTIFIED MAIL
Admiral Thomas H. Collins
Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street, NW
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Tit
eel
January 10, 2003
Re: Notice of Intent to File Suit - 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1)
Gentlemen:
I am writing to inform you of our intention to file suit pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1)
against the U. S. Coast Guard for violations of effluent standards or limitations established under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the "Act"), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387. The violations at
issue occurred (and continue to occur) at the U. S. Coast Guard installation in Wrightsville
Beach, North Carolina and involve a practice referred to as "agitation dredging," with the aim of
scouring the sound bottom in and around the Coast Guard's Wrightsville Beach boat basin to
increase the depth of the water in the affected area. This practice recently has been observed on
two separate occasions - August 30, 2002 and December 29, 2002 - and we have been informed
that the agitation dredging has occurred at other times as well. See attached letter to Col.
Alexander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and accompanying Declaration of Stephen Bastian.
This activity results in the illegal discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States in
violation of Sections 301, 401 and 404 of the Act and causes erosion to the shoreline in the
affected area. It also constitutes a violation of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,
33 U.S.C. § 403.
a
Admiral Thomas H. Collins
January 10, 2003
Page 2
This notice is being submitted on behalf of Rhett Taber, who owns a residence at 904
Schloss St., Wrightsville Beach, NC, next to the Coast Guard facility. Mr. Taber also resides at
2028 Fairview Road, Raleigh, NC 27608, and his telephone number is 919-834-4385. Mr.
Taber will be represented by the law firm of MAUPIN TAYLOR & ELLIS, P.A. I will act as
the main point of contact for the firm and my address and telephone number are shown above.
We intend to seek the costs of litigating this matter.
Very truly yours,
Kurt J. O son
Enclosures
cc w/encls.:
Norman Mineta, Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Transportation
Christie Todd Whitman, U.S. EPA
John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General
Congressman Mike McIntyre
Jimmy Palmer, Regional Administration, US EPA Region 4
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director, Division of Water Quality, NC DENR
John Dorney, Supervisor, Wetlands Unit, Division of Water Quality, NC DENR
Donna D. Moffitt, Director, Division of Coastal Management, NC DENR
Wm. Dean Lee, Commander, USCG Group Fort Macon
Charles R. Alexander, Jr., Colonel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
I-i IG HWOODS TOkP/ER 0,NE
SUITE 500
3200 BEECHLEAF COURT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27604-1054
? ELGPHONE 919.921.4000
TELEFAX 919.99 ill .4300
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE DRAWER 19-64
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27519-9764
LANDFALL PARK NORTH
1985 EASTWOOD ROAD, SUITE 200
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
28403
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 910.256,6451
WWW.M.AUPINTAYLOR.COM
KURT J. OLSON
January 10, 2003
CERTIFIED MAIL
Norman Mineta, Secretary
U. S. Department of Transportation
10200 Nassif Bldg.
400 7`h St., SW
Washington, DC 20590
Re: Notice of Intent to File Suit - 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1)
Gentlemen:
486 SETA, BUILDING
HEADQUARTERS PARK
2222 CHAPEL HILL-NELSON HWY.
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
27713
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 919.361.2262
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE SOX 13646
RESEARCH TRIAiNGLE PARK
NORTH CAROLINA
27709-3646
'WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
[phone]
[e-mail]
I am writing to inform you of our intention to file suit pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1)
against the U. S. Coast Guard for violations of effluent standards or limitations established under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the "Act"), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387. The violations at
issue occurred (and continue to occur) at the U. S. Coast Guard installation in Wrightsville
Beach, North Carolina and involve a practice referred to as "agitation dredging," with the aim of
scouring the sound bottom in and around the Coast Guard's Wrightsville Beach boat basin to
increase the depth of the water in the affected area. This practice recently has been observed on
two separate occasions - August 30, 2002 and December 29, 2002 - and we have been informed
that the agitation dredging has occurred at other times as well. See attached letter to Col.
Alexander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and accompanying Declaration of Stephen Bastian.
This activity results in the illegal discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States in
violation of Sections 301, 401 and 404 of the Act and also causes erosion to the shoreline in the
affected area. It constitutes a violation of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33
U.S.C. § 403.
Norman Mineta, Secretary
January 10, 2003
Page 2
This notice is being submitted on behalf of Rhett Taber, who owns a residence at 904
Schloss St., Wrightsville Beach, NC, next to the Coast Guard facility. Mr. Taber also resides at
2028 Fairview Road, Raleigh, NC 27608, and his telephone number is 919-834-4385. Mr.
Taber will be represented by the law firm of MAUPIN TAYLOR & ELLIS, P.A. I will act as
the main point of contact for the firm and my address and telephone number are shown above.
We intend to seek the costs of litigating this matter.
Very truly yours, '
Kurt J. Olso
Enclosures
cc w/encls.:
Admiral Thomas H. Collins, Commandant, U. S. Coast Guard
Christie Todd Whitman, U.S. EPA
John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General
Congressman Mike McIntyre
Jimmy Palmer, Regional Administration, US EPA Region 4
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director, Division of Water Quality, NC DENR
John Dorney, Supervisor, Wetlands Unit, Division of Water Quality, NC DENR
Donna D. Moffitt, Director, Division of Coastal Management, NC DENR
Wm. Dean Lee, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Group - Fort Macon
Charles R. Alexander, Jr., Colonel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
RALEIGM362038 1
ATTORNEYS AT LAIN
HIGHWOODS TOViER ONE
SUITE 500
3200 BEECHLEAF COURT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27604-1064
TELEPHONE 919.93!.4000
TELEFAX 919.981.4300
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE DRAWER 19764
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27619-9764
LANDFALL PARK NORTH
1985 EASTWOOD ROAD. SUITE 200
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
28403
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 910.256.6451
WWW.MAUPINTAYLOR.COM
KURT J. OLSON
January 9, 2003
VIA FACSIMILE AND U. S.MAIL
Charles R. Alexander, Jr., Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1.890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Re: U. S. Coast Guard Station
Banks Channel, Wrightsville Beach
New Hanover County, NC
Our File no. 16199.002
Dear Colonel Alexander:
480 BE FA. BUILDING
HEADQUARTERS PARK
2222 CHAPEL HILL-NELSON HWY.
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
277133
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 919.361.2262
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE BOX 13646
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
NORTH CAROLINA
27709-3646
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
[phone]
[e-mail]
On October 2, 2002, I wrote to you to call your attention to activities at the U.S. Coast
Guard ("USCG") installation in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina observed by local residents
that suggested the USCG may be involved in "agitation dredging" to maintain the depth of its
boat basin while the issues concerning its maintenance dredging in Banks Channel were being
addressed. At that time, we were informed that the Wilmington Office's Regulatory Division
discussed this matter with the USCG and was told that the unusual movement of the USCG's
vessel observed by the local residents was the result of difficulties the crew had docking the
vessel during inclement weather and strong currents.
I am writing now to bring your attention to a second incident recently observed that raises
serious doubts about the USCG's prior statements and strongly suggests the USCG is "agitation
dredging" to maintain the depth of its boat basin. Attached to this letter is the Second
Declaration of Stephen Bastian, a homeowner in Wrightsville Beach. In this declaration, Mr.
RALEIGH\361992_ I
Charles R. Alexander, Jr., Colonel, U.S. Army
January 9, 2003
Page 2
Bastian states that on December 29, 2002, around 7:10 p.m., he and his wife heard very loud
engine noises coming from Banks Channel. From their second floor deck, they observed the
Coast Guard's 47-foot vessel being maneuvered in and around the Coast Guard's boat basin,
sometimes in a spinning motion. He states that based on the engine noise and nature of the
movements, it appeared that the vessel was running very hard. According to Mr. Bastian, he
decided to get a closer look and walked out onto a dock next to the Coast Guard installation.
From there he observed the Coast Guard move the 47-foot vessel in and out of the boat basin
area for over 20 minutes and at times conduct a swirling or spinning maneuver in that area. Mr.
Bastian states that it was near low tide at the time the Coast Guard conducted this activity and
there was virtually no wind. Mr. Bastain also states that although it was dark, he could see mud
and sediment rising from the sound bottom as a result of the Coast Guard's activities. Mr.
Bastian decided to photograph the Coast Guard's actions and when the Coast Guard personnel
saw the flashes and him, they immediately ceased what they were doing and docked the vessel.
The USCG's agitation dredging is not authorized by a permit and is illegal. We request
that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers take immediate action to require the USCG to correct the
damage done and to cease this activity for all times.
This letter also is intended to serve as notice pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a), that a
citizens suit will be brought against the U.S. Coast Guard for, among other things, the violations
of Sections 301, 401 and 404 for the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311,
1341 and 1344, resulting from its on-going illegal activities.
We appreciate your attention to these matters.
Very truly yours,
Kurt J. son
Attachment: Declaration
cc w/attachment:
Congressman Mike McIntyre
Cmdr. A. P. Kimos
Cmdr. Wm. Dean Lee
Mayor Avery Roberts, Jr.
Andrea Surratt, Interim Town Manager, Wrightsville Beach
Angie Pennock, Regulatory Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
M. Brooke Lamson, Esq., Assistant District Counsel, Department of the Army
Tom Jarrett
Rhett Taber
RALEIGH\361992 1
IN RE: U.S. COAST GUARD )
INSTALLATION )
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina )
SECOND DECLARATION OF STEPHEN BASTIAN
Stephen Bastian, affirms, deposes and says:
My name is Stephen Bastian. I currently reside at 312 Transylvania Ave., Raleigh,
North Carolina. I also own a house in south end Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina located at
901 Schloss Street. I have first hand, personal knowledge of the matters discussed below.
2. Earlier this year I prepared and signed a declaration stating what I had observed at
approximately 7:30 p.m. on Friday, August 30, 2002 at the U.S. Coast Guard installation in
Wrightsville Beach. At that time, my wife and I were out on the fourth floor balcony of our
house in Wrightsville Beach which has an unobstructed view of Banks Channel and the U.S.
Coast Guard installation. At 7:30 p.m. it was low tide and as I looked towards Banks Channel I
observed the U.S. Coast Guard's 47-foot cutter being repeatedly moved in and out of the area
where the floating dock is located in front of the Coast Guard installation. At times the vessel
also moved in a swirling or fishtail motion around this area. This maneuvering lasted for a total
of about 15 to 20 minutes and appeared to churn up the sound bottom in the areas where the
vessel was operating.
3. I was aware of the controversy concerning the U.S. Coast Guard's dredging in
Banks Channel and the erosion it causes. I personally have observed severe erosion to the
beaches north of the Coast Guard's facility. My family and I use the public access beaches north
R u,7523,:1 -1-
of the U.S. Coast Guard facility. Over the years, the erosion of these beaches has been dramatic.
4. I also was aware that in August 2002 the Coast Guard claimed that it needed to
dredge because its boat basin was filling in but that the dredging was being opposed by citizens in
Wrightsville Beach and the Coast Guard needed to get the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers
permission before it could dredge. I also knew that a citizens group had filed a petition with the
Corps asking it to revoke or modify the Coast Guard's permit to dredge.
5. The area where I observed the U.S. Coast Guard's 47-foot cutter maneuvering on
August 30th was the area of the Channel where the Coast Guard wanted to dredge. Based on
my observations and the fact that it was low tide at the time of these events, I believe that the
vessel was being used to churn or scour the bottom of the Channel to create more depth without
dredging. As I understand it, this practice is known as "agitation dredging."
b. I prepared a declaration concerning the August 30th incident and it was sent to the
Corps. As I understand it, the Corps investigated the matter and was told by the Coast Guard
that bad weather and high winds on August 30`h prevented it from mooring its vessel easily and
that was the reason for the unusual maneuvering I saw. I do not recall particularly bad weather
or high winds on that day and was skeptical about this explanation.
7. On December 29, 2002, I again was at our Wrightsville Beach house. At around
7:10 p.m. my wife Chandler and I heard very loud engine noises coming from Banks Channel.
From our third floor deck, I observed the Coast Guard's 47-foot vessel being maneuvered in and
around the Coast Guard's boat basin. I observed the vessel being maneuvered in a spinning
motion and based on the engine noise and nature of the movements it was obvious to me that the
vessel was running very hard.
RAU75237/1 -2-
w
8. After seeing this activity from my third floor deck, I decided to get a closer look. I
went over to Rhett Taber's house, which is on Banks Channel next to the Coast Guard
installation and walked out onto Rhett's dock. From there I watched the Coast Guard move the
47-foot vessel in and out of the boat basin area and at times conduct a swirling or spinning
maneuver in that area. I watched this activity from the dock for over thirty minutes.
9. It was near low tide at the time the Coast Guard was conducting this activity.
There was virtually no wind and even though it was dark, I could see that the vessel's props
were churning up mud and sediment from the sound bottom.
10. I decided to take photographs of the Coast Guard's maneuvering and took three
quick pictures. At that point the Coast Guard personnel saw the flashes and me. They
immediately ceased what they were doing and docked the vessel.
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND
CORRECT. Executed on the f 0day of '?jA,40A)ZU , 2003.
i
Stephen ian
RAU75237/ 1
-3-

f<'
1
1
1
1
1

1

s
1

1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1

01%30/2003 16:55 FAX [phone]
Commanding Officer
Civil Engineering Unit Cleveland
1240 East Ninth Street (Rm 2179)
Cleveland, OH 44199

Chu I:LtSVhL MV
mFr• S N
1.'N+r.L r' ice"
ura5i `C v! 9LY'?'M
-LIMA
eLCm I ,,,mwiM a ?' •? _
er, axev.'y1., wureax? - dr
LA
To: Mr. John Domey From: LGDR Mike Carosotto
4- e6l :5
Fajc 919-7:3a-24K Page=
Phone: [phone] pate: January 30, 2003
Re: Station Wrightsville Beach 401 Water Cert CC:
X Urgent ? For Review ? Please Can-%went Q Please Reply ? Please Recycle
• Comments:
Mr. Domey.
Please find attached a 401 Water Quality Certification for our 1993 ALOE Dredging permit to perform
maintenance dredging at Station Wrightsville Beach, NC. This letter was in the ALOE files along with
Quality binding can we assume your
n approval. Appreciate you
receivvee 401 Water final
that your
the 1we3 ehaavmett our obligations to this
quick attention to this matter.
V1R,
LCDR Mike Carosotto, USCG
n c.z- o? ?d
e-. ?--?
?-?u3
x`1./30/2003 16:55 FAX [phone] CEU CLEVELAND
7?. ironmental Management
4A5Qnotharl NoWrol Resources
t, Jr., Govemor
. owes, Secretory
A. Pr eston Howarc{ Jr., Re., Director
September 2, 1993
Mr. R.A. Koehler
CQ=Adinq Officer
V. S - Coast Gue.xd Civil Engino-eying Unit
1240 East Ninth Street
Cleveland Ohio, 44199-2060
Dear Mr, Koehler:

Subjeot. ftoposed fi.ls in Wetlands or Waters
Maintenance dredging, CS Coast Guard Station at
Wrightsville Beach
saw Hanover County
DEM project 0 93691
Upon review of your request f'or 401 Water Duality Certirication
to place fill matezxal in waters w'ich are tributary to Banks Channel
for maintenanda dxedgriug located at US Coast Guard Station, Banks
Channel in New Hanover County as described in your sUbmittal dated 13
August 1993, we have dete=ine4 thit the proposed fill can be covered
by General Watex Quality Certi.fi.cwiqn No. 2669. A c6py of the
General. Certification is attached. This Certification may be Used in
qualifying for coverage under Corps of Engineers, Nationwide Permit
No, 16.
`- if this certification is unacceptable to
you, you have the right
to an adjudicatory heaxing upon written request within thirty (30)
clays fol owing receipt of this Certification. This request must be in
the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 1508 of the North
Carolina General Statutes and filed with the office of Administrative
Hsari.ngs, F.D. Box 27497, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. Unless ouch
demands are made, this Certifloati-on shall be final and bindirig.
if you have any questions, please contaot John Dorrey at 919-733-
17$6.
Sincerely,
qz-
reeston goward, Jr S . E.
93691.1tr ,
Attachment
cc: Wiludngton District Corps of Engineersa
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Wilmington DON Regional Office.
Mr. John Dorney
Central Piles

P.Q. Box 29M, ftoieidh, North Cerolho 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] F,AX 919-738 2446
Ah Equ d dpportUrUlyAffirtnatift Action 6rnp14:n er 50% rewded/ 10% past-cavimer popei
z . d Ves ' om N0ismlW I III a:3esn wdrtla - E E687! I e5 I wur
IM 002

"ICE

OW AT ?RpG
r
o ?
January 27, 2003
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
A.P. Kimos
Commander, United States Coast Guard
Commanding Officer
Civil Engineering Unit
1240 E. Ninth Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44199-2060
Dear Commander Kimos:
RE: Water Quality Certification approval
Maintenance dredging at Coast Guard Station Wrightsville Beach, NC
New Hanover County
DWQ # 01-1550
In response to your 25 November 2002 letter, I have carefully reviewed all our past files and past
approvals (Individual and General Certifications) for the above-mentioned project. Your letter contends that the
Division of Water Quality issued a 401 Water Quality Certification to allow the disposal of dredged material
from the Wrightsville Beach Coast Guard Station to the Shinn Creek disposal area based on a 1993 Permit
issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers. This Permit would require an Individual Water Quality
Certification from the Division of Water Quality but I can find no record that any such Individual Certification
was issued.
The NC Division of Water Quality did issue authorization for a General Certification on September 2,
1993 (DWQ Project Number 93-0691) to allow the United States Coast Guard "...to place fill material in
waters which are tributary to Banks Channel for maintenance dredging...". However, this approval did not
allow dredge spoil to be placed at the Shinn Creek site. Similarly, the Division issued a General Certification in
1996 (Certification Number 3122 which was reauthorized as Certification Number 3368 on March 18, 2002) to
allow disposal "...for existing dredge sites at Manteo (Shallowbag Bay), Wilmington Harbor (bird islands), Big
Foot Slough and Wainwright Slough.". Again, this approval does not allow dredge spoil to be placed at the
Shinn Creek site.
Therefore, I must conclude that the United States Coast Guard does not have approval from the NC
Division of Water Quality to disposal of dredged spoil from the Wrightsville Beach Coast Guard station into the
disposal site at Shinn Creek. I would suggest that representatives of the United States Coast Guard, US Army
Corps of Engineers and Division of Water Quality meet soon to discuss this issue in order to find an acceptable
location for dredge spoil from the Wrightsville Beach Coast Guard Station or to provide additional information
on this issue. As part of our review for any new approval, we will require you to examine the feasibility of
disposing of the dredge spoil on beaches north of the Coast. Guard facility as we have stated in earlier
correspondence. Please call me at 919-733-9646 to schedule a meeting if you so wish.
A [?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
p'2003 16:55 FAIL 216 902 6277 CELT CLEVELAND 10001
Commanding Officer
Civil Engineering Unit Cleveland
1240 East Ninth Street (Rm 2179)
Cleveland, OH 44199
..,--.
?vir. a ?. ur.

P,rYf.,c w_
I HYSf 0
-i
e-AX
UNITED
E ST
N A
GI TES
NE COAST
ERING GUA
UNIT RD
CIVIL
CLEVE LA N D
- - Sri ?.:-:Z'6?-'
? ??3 I PIdSIX?P, -
I
r.P;?PeP.y "L RHJYG.L _ 5 ANA5
Pfu?w
r ?
???lWirA a, M?t?HA
t7?
t1
05? AP
To., Mr. John Domey From: LCDR Mike Carosotto
Faic 919-73$-2Pages:3
Phone: [phone] Rate: January30, 2003
Re: Station Wrightsville Beach 401 Water Cert CC:
X Urgent ? For Review ? Please Comment Q Please Reply ? Please Recycle
• Cvmnnents:
Mr. Domey,
Please find attached a 401 Water Quality Certification for our 1993 ACOE Dredging permit to perform
maintenance dredging at Station Wrightsville seach, NC. This letter was in the ALOE files along with
the 1993-dredging permit. Since this certification is final and binding can we assume your concurrence
that we have met our obligation to receive 401 Water Quality Certification approval. Appreciate your
quick attention to this matter.
VIR,
LCDR Mike Caro8ott0, USCG _r
yr?r Ge.rf'• , ?1?.?-s e_ /?.? ??,e. !/?,?,.?. ? -t' ?.,,??...
A fe-. r r????.?../ °`F Ai 's
I
AV 2003 16:55 FAX [phone] CELT CLEVELAND
9V Ir?rlrrlent,
Natural resources
on of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jar>athan B. Howes, Secretary -
j A. Preston Howard. Jr., Re., Director
Septembat 2, 1993
Mr. R.A. ):Koehler
Comr=Adinq officer
U. S , Coast Guard Civil Engizaering Unit
1240 East Ninth Street
clevelaad Ohio, 44199-2060
Dear Mx. Koehler:
X1002
r-
,4 ; * S?

subject. Proposed fill in Wetlands or waters
Xa4ntenanae dredging, LYS Coast Guard Station at
Wrightsville Beach
New Hanover county
DEN! pro jest 4 93591
Upon review of your request for 401 Water Quality Certification
to place till material in waters which are tributary to Bankz Channel
for maintenanoo dxedgi.ng located at US Coast Guard Station, Banks
Channel in New Hanover County as described in your submittal dated 13
August 1993, we have determined thit the proposed fill can be covered
by General water Quality Cezti.fi.cwi.en No. 2659. A copy of the
General Certification is attached. This Certification may be used in
qualifying for coverage tinder Corps of Engineers` Nationwide Permit
pie, 16.
`--'+ if this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right
to an ad udiaatory hearing upon written. request within thirty (31D)
days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in
the fox7m of a, written petition conforming to Chapter 1505 of the North
Carolina General Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative
Hsa7ri.>ngs, P.D. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611•-7047. Unless such
demands are made, this Certificatic= shall be final and bindirig.
if you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at 919--733-
1786.
Sincerely,
RZ ('Jf
xeston Howard, Jr V.E.
93691.1tr '
Attachment
cc: Wilriington District Corps of Engineezs
Corps of Engineers ftlaington field Offioe
Wilmington D Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Piles
/ P.O.6ox 2953$, tideidh, Nord} Cerolln0 27626-0635 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
Ah Egad OpportUnlfy AffittncdNe Acflon 6-r?pl0Aer 5096 recycled/ IC% pwi-icorsUmer pope)
21 d Ves, ON NOIE NXW-1IM a3om W*rtla : 8 E,00Z 1 081 HUI
01/3/2003 16:25 FAX [phone] CEU CLEVELAND 2001/002
Commanding Officer
Civil Engineering Unit Cleveland
1240 East Ninth Street (Rm 2179)
Cleveland, OH 44199

a
}
IJVA
_.-uFr
Mrti•. n ? „?

To: Mr. John Dorney
Fax: [phone]

.C
..wrA? Jeurv`
1 .rrl w
wv

0
11
Z ? ,
A
From: LCDR Mike Carosotto
Pages: 3
Phone: [phone] Date: January 30, 2003
Re: Station Wrightsville Beach 401 Water Cert CC:
X Urgent ? For Review ? Please Comment ? Please Reply ? Please Recycle
• Comments:
Mr. Domey,
Please find attached a 401 Water Quality Certification for our 1993 ACOE Dredging permit to perform
maintenance dredging at Station Wrightsville Beach, NC. This letter was in the ACOE files along with
the 1993-dredging permit. Since this certification is final and binding can we assume your concurrence
that we have met our obligation to receive 401 Water Quality Certification approval. Appreciate your
quick attention to this matter.
V/R,
LCDR Mike Carosotto, USCG
01/3F2003 16:25 FAX [phone] CEU CLEVELAND
MVImnment,
pWjlu Natural Resources
of Envlronmental Mdnagernent
James 13. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E„ Director
Septembrex 2, 1993
Mr. R.A. Koehler
Commandin Officer
U.S. Coast Guard Civil Engineering Unit
1240 East Ninth Street
Cleveland Ohio, 44199-2060
Dear Mr. Koehler:

Subject Proposed fill in Wetlands or Waters
Maintenance dredging, US Coast Guard Station at
Wrightsville Beach
New Hanover County
DEM Project- * 93691
Upon review of your request for 401 Water Quality certification
to place fill material in waters which are tributary to Banks Channel
for maintenance dxedging located at US Coast Guard Station, Banks
Channel in New Hanover County as described in your submittal dated 13
August 1993, we have determined thAt the proposed fill can be covered
by General Water Quality Certification No. 2669, A copy of the
General Certification is attached. This Certification may be used in
qualifying for coverage under Corpu. of Engineers` Nationwide Permit
No, 16.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right
to an adjudicatory hearing upon wr?J.tten request within thirty (30)
days following receipt of this Cert.if.ication. This request must be in
the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150E of the North
Carolina General Statutes and filet) with the office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447, Unless such
demands are made, this Certification shall be final and banding.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at 919-733-
1786.
Sincerely,
reston Howard, Jr P . E .
93691.1tr '
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of ;Engineers,
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field office
Wilmington DEM Regional Office
Mr_ John Dorney
Central F:Lles

P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal OpportunltyAlflltnotlVe Action ErnpkYer So% recycled/ 1096 post-consumer papal
2-d K:S'011 N019NIwim a3usn WdEO-,6 E0 2113elwir
2002/002
r ??
R?
SP,????F10
-EB, 11. 2003 3:32PM
MAUPIN TAYLOR & EL IS. PA.
ATTORNIM AT LAN'/
HIGHWOODS TOWER ONE
SUITE S00
3200 BEECHLEAF COURT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27609.1064
TELEPHONE 919."1.4000
TELEFAX 919.9a1.430D
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE DRAWER 19764
RALEIGH NORTH CAKOUNA
27619-9761
ww4Y.MAUP1NLAwC0M
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
CONFIDENTIAL ?
TO: John Dorney
DWQ, Wetlands, DENR
FAX NO.: 733,6893
TELEPHONE NCB: 733-1786
FROM: Kurt J. Olson
3200 Beechleaf Court, Spite 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
[phone]
kolsonaxaMiata lor.com
DATE: February 11, 2003
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER, 4
NO. 3004 P. 1/4
4W BETA BUILDING
HEADQUARTERS PARR
2222 CHAPEL HILL-NELSON HWY.
DURHAM NORTH CAROLINA
27713
TELEPHONE 919,361,4500
TELEFAX919.361.2262
HAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE 80X 13616
RESEARCH TRIANGLE HARK
NORTH CAROLINA
IYM-3646
RUSH NN
FAX IS GEN9RATED FROM RALEIGH OFFICE [phone]
Our File No. 16199.002
Original is to follow by Mail: No
MESSAGE:
The material transmitted and communicated herein ("communication") is intended only for the use of the individual or antity to which it is addressed, and may
contain information that constitutes work product, or is subject to attomey-client privilege, or is confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable taw. If
the reader of this oommUnication is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error please rictify us imm9diafely by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Servica Thank you.
Should you have any problems receiving this facsimile transmission, please call [phone]
(Raleigh Office).
=EB. ' i. 2003 3: 32PM
ATTORNrY5 AT L AW
IUGIIWoobi TowrR ONr
',IJITr `,00
lj00W17 HIFAi COURT
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27604.1064
TELEPHONE 919."1,4000
TELE:AX 919.901.4300
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE DRAWER 19764
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27619-9764
LANDFALL PARK NORTH
1995 EASTWOOID ROAD, SUITE 200
WILMINGTON, NQRTH CAROLINA
20405
TELEPHONE 910AMS 135
TELEFAX 910.256.6451
WWWMAUPINTAYLOR,COM
KuR1r J. OLsoN
February 11, 2003
VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS M,AM
Angie Pennock
Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Re: United States Coast Guard
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina
Action fl) No. 199303594
Our File No. 16199.002
Dear Ms. Pennock:
NO.3004 P. 2/4
400 BITA 0011 DING
IIEADQU.vRTCRs PARK
2221 o wr1 14114 NA ;0111 HWY
DURHAM, NORTH C.ARta11NA
27713
TELEPHONE [phone]
TELEFAX 919.351.2262
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE 90X 13646
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
NORTH CAROLINA
27709.3644
WRITER'S DIRECT DULL NUMBER
(949) 9844084
[e-mail]
Following our conversation yesterday I feel compelled to write to you concerning the Coast
Guard's dredging in Banks Channel and the required Section 401 Certifications for that activity. 1
recognize that you are extremely well versed in the regulatory regime at issue. Nevertheless, I wish to
emphasize that pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the "Act"), 33 U.S.C.
§ 1341, no federal permit or license authorizing an activity that will result in a discharge into navigable
waters may be issued, or if issued, is valid unless the applicant forthe license or permit provides the
issuing agency a certification ("401 Certification") from the state where the discharge will take place
certifying that the discharge will not violate applicable provision of the Act. To date,the U.S. Coast
Guard has not supplied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the issuing agency) a valid 401
Certification for the dredging ot -the disposal activity it plans to. comduct under the permit previously
issued by the Corps, Action 111199303594 (the "1993 Permit").' The Corps is statutorily required to
assure that the appropriate certifications are obtained: "[njo license orpermit shall be granted until the
3 Anyprior 401 Certif"ieatiou has expired.
RALEIGM63947_ 1
=EB.11.2003 3:32PM
Angie Pennock
FebrClary 11, 2003
Page 2
NO.3004 P. 3/4
certification ... has been obtained ...." 33 US C. § 1341. Thus, the Corps cannot simply say that the
matter is now in the hands of the State of North Carolina. The Corps has an affirmative duty to assure
that 401 Certifications are obtained for all aspects of the project requiring a certification.2
We understand now that the Coast Guard claims it will rely on NWF 16 to authorize the disposal
component of its planned activities. MVP states specifically that the "dredging itself may require a
Section 404 permit ... but will require a Section 10 permit if located in navigable waters . . . . " 67 Fed.
Reg. 2020, 2081. If that dredging involves a "discharge," a 401 Certification is required s The burden is
on the Coast Guard to show that its dredging will not involve a discharge. See 66 Fed. Reg, 4549-4575
(d'anuary 17, 2001). See also, 66 Fed. Reg. at 4554, 4562 (hydraulic dredging results in a "discharge"
unless project specific considerations show that it will be conducted "without re-suspending and
relocating sediment ...."). The Clean Water Act demands that the Corps be involved in this evaluation
and not abdicate its duties and responsibilities by asserting that the decision is up to the State of North
Carolina.
Finally, as we understand it, the Coast Guard also has indicated that it intends to rely upon WQC
#3363 in conjunction with NWP 16. WQC #3363 has very specific criteria applying: to the disposal site
and the nature of the effluent. The Coast Guard cannot just simply say that WQC #3363 applies because
NWP 16 applies. It must affirmatively demonstrate that the criteria of WQC #3363 will be met. It is
doubtful that this can be done, and more than mere verbal assurances are required. The Coast Guard must
affini-Atively demonstrate, for example, that the design criteria of WQC #3363 will be met. It also must
show that its effluent will be no greater than 0.lml/1 and that the turbidity caused will not violate the
water quality standard or be above ambient background levels, which ever is more stringent. The Corps
is required by statute to assure that WQC #3363 is properly invoked in this instance and that entails
assuring that all of the above requirements and others in WQC #3363 are met or will be satisfied. The
Act places this responsibility squarely on the Corps.
2 We understand that at the time the 1993 permit was issued, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality prepared
a letter stating that General Water Quality Certification 2668 would support activities performed under Nationwide
Permit ("NWF") 16 br its predecessor. Not one item in the record for Action M.199303594 shows that the Coast
Guard relied upon NWP 16 in seeking approval for the activities encompassed by Action ID. 199303 594.
)Everything in the record shows that the Coast Guard applied for, sought and obtained an individual permit to cover
all actNities, including the disposal activity, Under those circumstances, General Water Quality Certification 2668
was inapt and an individual water quality certification was required. Moreover, nothing in the record shows that the
criteria: of General Water Quality Certification 2668 were met; that the disposal site was consistent with the design
requirements of that certification or that the effluent met the limitations established. General Water Quality
Certification 2668 establishes precise requirements and it is highly doubtful that these were met at the time or even
could be met givers the nature of the Coast Guard's operation. General Water Quality Certification 2668 also
covered only the discharge associated with the disposal activity authorized by the 1993 Formit. The dredging also
involved a discharge and a 401 Certification was required for that activity as well. No such 401 Certification was
obtained.
3 As discussed in my December 4, 2002 letter to you, it is our opirdon that the dredging in this instance will result in
a discharge and as such, will require a 401 Certification.
RALEIGH36S947-1
=EB.11.2003 3:32PM NO, 3004 P. 4/4
Angie Pennock
Febraary 11,2003
Wage 3
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
very truly your,
A ?U/ ? a V., ?
Kurt J. Olson
Enclosure
cc: Representative Mike McIntyre
Colonel Charles R. Alexander (via facsimile)
Commander A. P. Kimos, USCG (via facsimile)
Wm. Dean Lee, Commander, USCG (via facsimile)
Mayor Avery Roberts, Jr.
Keith Harris: Field Office Chief, Regulatory Division (via facsimile)
John Dorney, Supervisor, Wetlands Unit, Division of Water Quality (via facsimile)
Tom Jarrett (via facsimile)
Rhett Taber (via facsimile)
RPM MOM6594% 1

14,E i
ate l

,,?X9 7/- cz 8
a
x193
G
04
,nd 40
III ?. le n C?? ©?? ?/

11

e, 6
g#p__ /,?YOZ, Y?7?-,

o c ea?,
C 2J

_I
(tbst Vuon!( wA?_ /
(/ -z'3Yrw.
<OE ??? /1?T
?sr

eo6&X s-7Q

dA CL

g

Z,l

'02,

Civil Engineer ng Unit Cleveland
1240 Last 9th St. Roorn 2179
Cleveland, Ohio 44199-1060
Phone_ (216) 9026200
Fax: [phone]
FAX COVER SHEEN'
TO: John Dorney
FAX: [phone]
PHONE:
FROM: Rebecca Murphy
DATE: February 10, 2003
RAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: 2
? Urgent ? For Review ? please Comment ? Please Reply ? Please Recycle
02,(10/2003 16:38 FAX [phone] CEU CLEVELAND
E001/002
REMARKS: Re: 401 Certification

W 10/2003 16:38 FAX [phone] CEU CLEVELAND
U002/002
inland waters. Four boats are stationed at this basin. These include a 47 foot Motor Life
Boat, a 41-foot Utility Boat, a 23-foot Utility Bout, and a 21-foot Rigid Hull Boat. The station
is scheduled to receive an additional boat for Homeland Security. At this time, the basin
must be maintained at 10 feet MLW to provide adequate moorage for these vessels and
allow the USCG to continue their mission. The station performed 786 missions in fiscal year
2002. The majority of these missions were conducted for search and rescue purposes and
resulted in lives saved and property protected. The New Hanover County Sheriffs
Department, NC Wildlife, NC Marine Patrol, all five branches of the military, and several
local fire departments and dive teams also use the USCG moorings at the Wrightsville
Beach station Obviously, moving forward with this project has a positive effect on safety.
10) Navigation: Not only does the USCG play a role in rescuing endangered
mariners, but they promote safe navigation as well. The USCG must have adequate
moorage at their facility to continue their mission. That mission includes marking areas that
are unsafe and publishing notices to mariners for areas where there are shoals or sunken
vessels. There is a positive effect on navigation with this project.
Mr. Olson's concerns with the validity of the 1993 permit and the maintenance condition also
extend to the authorization required from other agencies. The NC Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources issued a consistency for this project on
September 20, 1993. By letter dated November 21, 2002, the DCM stated that the original
consistency issued for this project is still in effect. The Division of Environmental
Management issued a 401 water quality certification on 2 September 1993 for the discharge
associated with the outfall from the effluent pips on the upland disposal island. There is not
a current 401 certification issued by the DWQ specifically for this project. However, effluent
discharge is covered by NWP #16 and the corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification #
3363, which may be applicable to this project. The applicant should confirm the applicability
of this certification with the DWQ prior to commencing work.
Factor 4. Revisions to applicable statutory and/or regulatory authorities: There have been no revisions to the statutes or regulations associated with this project.'
vkc Ywca
Factor 5. The extent to which modification, suspension, or other action would adversely . --
affect plans, investments and actions the permittee has reasonably made or taken in
reliance on the permit: The USCG must maintain the basin at the Wrightsville Beach Station
to continue their mission at their current level of service (please refer to the comments
provided by BMCM Scott Hall at the meeting on December 17, 2002).Modification,
suspension, or revocation of this permit would adversely affect their ability to continue with
that mission. The USCG is discussing alternate mooring designs, but this will not be
completed in time to meet the immediate need:, of the Station, and the public's need for the
services provided by the Coast Guard. Alternatives presented for this work included a sand
bypass system to place material moving into the USCG basin from the south to-the
shoreline to the north developing a feeder beach, rearrangement of the current mooring to
place the floating dock on the outside of the existing concrete pier, design of new mooring
that will involve the extension of the existing pier, and disposal of the dredged material onto
0 Page 22
Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
Print your name and address on 03 reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
1 Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
Article Addressed to: I,
? Agent
B. ?F a Ived by ( nted Name) ' I C. Date of Delivery
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ? Yes
R YES, enter de)1t Tatfdies5 b low' ? No
Cr - !
USCG, Civil Engineering Unit
1240 E. Ninth Street i FEU 101 3
Cleveland, Ohio 44199-2060 3. Service Awe
DWQ# 01-1550 I ? Register LReturn ceiptforMerchandise
? Insured Mail
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ? Yes
. Article Number 7002 2 410 ... 0 0 0 3..0 2 75 -,., 0,3 5 5, .
(Transfer from service label) S IS Form 3811, August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 2ACPP'
.=D STATES POSTAL SERVICE

• Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box •
NC DENR Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
First-Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Permit No: G-10
?3 ?l 14t{!!{!flltlitEtiiti4l{f3l3?lIli{Flt}!ti!!S!I{?{l11?liffl?{(