20061471 Ver 1_Final EA CLNS Pg 1_20060810

ff
r.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE
HARKERS ISLAND SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
AUGUST 2006
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE
HARKERS ISLAND SHORE PROTECTIN PROJECT
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
August 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION .......................................................... ........... 1
1.1 Project Location ......................................................................................... ........... 1
1.2 Description of Proposed Action ................................................................. ........... 4
1.3 Need for Proposed Action .......................................................................... ........... 6
1.3.1 Environmental Protection Laws and Policies ................................ ........... 6
1.3.2 National Park Service Mission and National Park Service/
Cape Lookout National Seashore Responses ................................. ........... 7
1.3.3 Cape Lookout National Seashore Park Mission Statement ........... ......... 12
1.3.4 Cape Lookout National Seashore Park Purpose ............................ ......... 12
1.3.5 Stated Need for Proposed Action ................................................... ......... 12
1.3.6 Consistency with NPS Management Policies (2001) .................... ......... 13
1.3.6.1 Section 4.8.1.1, "Shorelines and Barrier Islands" .......................... ......... 13
1.3.6.2 Section 4.6.4, "Floodplains" .......................................................... ......... 13
1.3.6.3 Section 4.6.5, "Wetlands" .............................................................. ......... 14
1.3.7 Related Environmental Documents ............................................... ......... 15
1.3.8 Decisions to be Made ..................................................................... ......... 15
2.0 SCOPING AND ISSUES ...................................................................................... ......... 15
2.1 Issues Evaluated in Detail .......................................................................... ......... 15
2.1.1 Shoreline Stabilization ................................................................... ......... 15
2.1.2 Maintaining a Natural Shoreline .................................................... ......... 15
2.1.3 Public Boat Access ........................................................................ ......... 15
2.1.4 Public Beach Access ...................................................................... ......... 16
2.1.5 Boat Basin Renovation .................................................................. ......... 16
2.2 Summary of Impact Topics Retained for Consideration ........................... ......... 16
2.3 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ................................................. ......... 17
2.3.1 Flood Attenuation .......................................................................... ......... 17
2.3.2 Protected Species ........................................................................... ......... 18
2.3.3 Air Quality ..................................................................................... ......... 18
2.3.4 Water Quality ................................................................................. ......... 18
2.3.5 Birds ............................................................................................... .........18
2.3.6 Noise .............................................................................................. ......... 19
2.3.7 Hydrology ...................................................................................... .........19
2.3.8 Energy Requirements and Conservation ........................................ ......... 19
2.4 Permits ....................................................................................................... ......... 19
i
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................... ......... 20
3.1 Alternative Locations ................................................................................. ......... 20
3.1.1 Reach 1 ........................................................................................... ......... 22
3.1.2 Reach 2 ........................................................................................... ......... 22
3.1.3 Reach 3 ........................................................................................... ......... 23
3.2 Alternative A, Offshore Sill, Bulkhead and Boast Ramp Repair .............. ......... 24
3.2.1 Description ..................................................................................... .........24
3.2.2 Shoreline Stability .......................................................................... ......... 27
3.2.3 Maintaining a Natural Shoreline .................................................... ......... 27
3.2.4 Public Boat Access ........................................................................ ......... 29
3.2.5 Public Beach Access ...................................................................... ......... 29
3.3 Alternative B, Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat, Bulkhead
And Boat Ramp Repair .................................................................. ......... 29
3.3.1 Description ..................................................................................... .........29
3.3.2 Shoreline Stability .......................................................................... ......... 30
3.3.3 Maintaining a Natural Shoreline .................................................... ......... 30
3.3.4 Public Boat Access ........................................................................ ......... 30
3.3.5 Public Beach Access ...................................................................... ......... 30
3.4 No Action Alternative ................................................................................ ......... 31
3.4.1 Description ..................................................................................... .........31
3.4.2 Shoreline Stability .......................................................................... ......... 31
3.4.3 Maintaining a Natural Shoreline .................................................... ......... 31
3.4.4 Public Boat Access ........................................................................ ......... 31
3.4.5 Public Beach Access ...................................................................... ......... 31
3.5 Environmentally Preferred Alternative ...................................................... ......... 32
3.6 Alternatives Considered, But Dismissed ................................................... ......... 34
3.6.1 Inner Offshore Sill Without Upland Grading ................................ ......... 35
3.6.2 Shoreline Grading and Planting Only ............................................ ......... 35
3.6.3 Grading and Planting with Reinforcement .................................... ......... 35
3.6.4 Upland Riprap ................................................................................ ......... 36
3.6.5 Seawall ........................................................................................... .........36
3.6.6 Install Riprap at Base of Outer Bulkheads ..................................... ......... 36
3.6.7 Geotube Placement for Shoreline Protection ................................. ......... 37
3.7 Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................... ......... 37
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................. ......... 40
4.1 General Environmental Setting .................................................................. ......... 40
4.1.1 Natural Resources .......................................................................... ......... 40
4.1.1.1 Vegetation/Wetlands ...................................................................... .........40
4.1.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................. ......... 42
4.1.1.3 Essential Fish Habitat .................................................................... ......... 46
4.1.1.4 Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................ ......... 50
4.1.1.5 Birds ............................................................................................... ......... 50
4.1.2 Physical Environment .................................................................... ......... 51
ii
4.1.2.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................
4.1.2.2 Water Quality ........................................................................................
4.1.2.3 Soils/Geology ........................................................................................
4.1.2.4 Noise .....................................................................................................
4.1.3 Socio-Economic Environment ..............................................................
4.1.3.1 Aesthetic Resources ..............................................................................
4.1.3.2 Recreation Resources ............................................................................
4.1.3.3 Cultural, Historic, and Archeological Resources, including
Native American Values .......................................................................
4.1.3.4 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste, Introduction of
Substances (Compliance with CRCLA and RCRA) .............................
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................
5.1 Impact Measurement .........................................................................................
5.1.1 Definition of Extent of Impacts ............................................................
5.1.2 Cumulative Impacts ..............................................................................
5.1.3 Impairment Analysis .............................................................................
5.2 General Environmental Effects .........................................................................
5.2.1 Natural Resources .................................................................................
5.2.1.1 High-ground Vegetation .......................................................................
5.2.1.2 Wetlands ...............................................................................................
5.2.1.3 Fish and Wildlife ...................................................................................
5.2.2 Physical Environment ...........................................................................
5.2.2.1 Shoreline Stability .................................................................................
5.2.2.2 Soils/Geology ........................................................................................
5.2.2.3 Land Use ...............................................................................................
5.2.2.4 Transportation .......................................................................................
5.2.3 Cultural, Historic, and Archeological Resources ..................................
5.2.4 Socio-Economic Environment ..............................................................
5.2.4.1 Economics .............................................................................................
5.2.4.2 Natural Shoreline ..................................................................................
5.2.4.3 Availability ...........................................................................................
5.2.4.4 Recreation/Boast Access .......................................................................
5.2.5 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste ............................................
5.2.6 Natural and Depletable Resources ........................................................
5.3 Cumulative Impacts ..........................................................................................
5.3.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................
5.3.2 Alternative A, Agency-Preferred Alternative .......................................
5.3.3 Alternative B .........................................................................................
5.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .................................
5.5 Impairment Analysis: Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects ..............
5.6 Relationship of the Proposed Action to Federal, State, and
Local Laws, Plans, Policies, and Controls ........................................................
5.6.1 Laws ......................................................................................................
51
51
51
51
51
51
52
52
52
52
53
53
55
55
56
56
56
58
59
60
60
62
63
64
65
65
65
67
68
69
70
71
72
72
73
73
74
74
74
74
id
5.6.2 Executive Orders ..................................................................................... 76
5.6.3 National Park Service Policies, Director's Orders, and Plans ................ 77
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS .......................................................................78
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................... 78
8.0 COORDINATION ..........................................................................................................79
8.1 Scoping ............................................................................................................... 79
8.2 List of Recipients ................................................................................................ 79
9.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 81
10.0 DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................... 82
FIGURES
Figure 1 Location ....................................................................................... ......................... 2
Figure 2 Site Location Map ........................................................................ ......................... 3
Figure 3 Project Location Map ................................................................... ......................... 3
Figure 4 Changes in NPS/CLNS Shoreline ................................................ ......................... 5
Figure 5 NPS Shoreline Reaches, Harkers Island ...................................... .......................21
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1. NPS Shoreline, Reach 1 ............................................................... ....................... 22
Photo 2. NPS Shoreline, Reach 2 ............................................................... ....................... 23
Photo 3. NPS Shoreline, Reach 3 ............................................................... ....................... 24
Photo 4. Offshore Sill Project .................................................................... ....................... 28
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.2 Summary of Impact Topics Retained for Consideration .............................. ...... 17
Table 3.0 Tabulation of Considered Alternatives ......................................................... ...... 20
Table 3.5A Ranking Values for Level of Promotion of NEPA ....................................... ...... 33
Table 3.513 Summary of Rankings of Considered Alternatives as Environmentally
Preferred By the Six Criteria for Promotion of the National
Environmental Policy .................................................................................... ...... 34
Table 3.7A Impact Measurement Indicators for Considered Alternatives ...................... ...... 38
Table 3.713 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts for Considered Alternatives ........ ...... 39
Table 4.1.1.2 Federal and State Listed Wildlife Identified in Cape Lookout
National Seashore ......................................................................................... ...... 43
Table 4.1.1.3AFish Species Managed under MSFCMA that may occur in the
Cape Lookout Vicinity .................................................................................. ...... 47
iv
Table 4.1.1.3BEssential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern and
Potential Impacts ................................................................................................. 48
Table 5.1.1 Impact Measurement Indicators .......................................................................... 54
v
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE
HARhERS ISLAND SHORE PROTECTION PRO._
CARTER ET COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA
1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION.
1.1 Proiect Location.
The National Park Service (NPS), Cape Lookout National Seashore (CLNS), Park Headquarters
is located at the southeastern end of Harkers Island, Carteret County, North Carolina at an area
identified as Shell Point. The location of the project site is along the shoreline of the NPS/CLNS
Park Headquarters property. For illustration of the project location, refer to Figure 1., Location
Map; Figure 2., Site Location Map; and Figure 3., Project Location Map.
2
Figure 1. Location Map
w
q
ti
3n
Project
Location
Figure 2. Site Location Map
Figure 3. Project Location Map
1.2 Description of Proposed Action. The shoreline of the NPS/CLNS Park Headquarters
property has been experiencing severe and persistent erosion for many years, primarily due to the
effects of wave action with occasional inundation at high tide and, to a lesser extent, wake from
boat traffic. As a result, there has been significant and continuing loss of high ground property
and damage to structures along the shoreline. See Figure 4. Changes in NPS/CLNS Shoreline.
The rate of erosion also presents an imminent threat to structures and other park facilities in the
vicinity of the shoreline. The goal of the proposed action is to effectively and economically
stabilize the shoreline to prevent further erosion, while maintaining as natural a shoreline
appearance as possible.
4
5
Figure 4. Changes in NPS/CLNS Shoreline
1.3 Need for Proposed Action. The purpose of and need for taking action at this time is to
evaluate and implement strategies to protect the facilities at Cape Lookout National Seashore's
administrative site on Harkers Island and prevent adverse effects to protected species, while
allowing for appropriate recreational use, as directed in the park enabling legislation, NPS
management policies, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other applicable laws and
mandates.
1.3.1 Environmental Protection Laws and Policies
In the management of-and the decision-making processes for-National Park sites, three
overarching environmental protection laws and policies guide the National Park Service
1.) the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and its implementing regulations;
2.) the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (NPOMA); and 3.) the NPS Organic
Act.
1. The National Environmental Policy Act is implemented through regulations of the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1500-1508). The National Park
Service has in turn adopted procedures to comply with the act and the CEQ regulations,
as found in Director's Order #12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact
Analysis, and Decision-making (2001), and its accompanying handbook.
2. The National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (NPOMA) (16 USC 5901 et
seq.) underscores the National Environmental Policy Act in that both are fundamental to
NPS park management decisions. Both acts provide direction for articulating and
connecting the ultimate resource management decision to the analysis of impacts, using
appropriate technical and scientific information. Both also recognize that such data may
not be readily available, and they provide options for resource impact analysis should this
be the case.
The Omnibus Act directs the National Park Service to obtain scientific and technical
information for analysis. The NPS handbook for Director's Order #12 states that if "such
information cannot be obtained due to excessive cost or technical impossibility, the
proposed alternative for decision will be modified to eliminate the action causing the
unknown or uncertain impact or other alternatives will be selected" (sec. 4.4).
Section 4.5 of Director's Order #12 adds to this guidance by stating "when it is not
possible to modify alternatives to eliminate an activity with unknown or uncertain
potential impacts, and such information is essential to making a well-reasoned decision,
the NPS will follow the provisions of the regulations of CEQ (40 CFR 1502.22)." In
summary, the Park Service must state in an environmental assessment or impact
statement (1) whether such information is incomplete or unavailable; (2) the relevance of
the incomplete or unavailable information to evaluating reasonably foreseeable
significant adverse impacts on the human environment; (3) a summary of existing
credible scientific adverse impacts that is relevant to evaluating the reasonably
6
foreseeable significant adverse impacts; and (4) an evaluation of such impacts based on
theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific
community.
3. The 1916 NPS Organic Act (16 USC ])commits the Park Service to making
informed decisions that perpetuate the conservation and protection of park resources
unimpaired for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations.
1.3.2 National Park Service Mission and National Park Service/Cape Lookout National
Seashore (NPS/CLNS) Responses. In 1995, the National Park Service (NPS) began actively
working to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) to develop a
usable performance management system. This act requires both strategic planning and
performance measurement -- setting goals and reporting results. The seashore's goals enable the
staff to focus its activities and resources to support mission-related outcomes on the desired
resource conditions and visitor experiences. Most importantly, the GPRA seeks to make the
Federal Government more accountable to the American people in its actions and expenditures.
The NPS, with its mandate to preserve the nation's parks and treasures, can and must
demonstrate its value to the American people. Following, as excerpted from the CLNS Five-
Year Strategic Plan, are the mission goals of the NPS for CLNS, as they relate to the Harkers
Island shoreline. Following each goal is the response of CLNS park management in addressing
that goal. Only those applicable to the proposed action are included.
GOAL CATEGORY L• PRESERVE PARK RESOURCES.
Mission Goal Ia: Natural and cultural resources and associated values are protected,
restored and maintained in good condition and managed within their broader ecosystem
and cultural context.
NPS/CLNS Response: This goal includes natural and cultural resources at the seashore.
Our long-term goals relate to protecting, restoring, and maintaining natural areas,
threatened/endangered species, archeological sites, historic structures and objects. This is
accomplished within the mandate of the National Park Service Organic Act.
Mission Goal Ib and (NPS/CLNS) Response: Cape Lookout National Seashore
contributes to knowledge about natural and cultural resources and associated values;
management decisions about resources and visitors are based on adequate scholarly and
scientific information. Park managers must be able to use scholarly and scientific
information to insure that decisions that are made will not adversely affect the seashore's
resources.
7
GOAL CATEGORYII.• PROVIDE FOR THE PUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND VISITOR
EXPERIENCE OF CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE.
Mission Goal Ha: Visitors safely enjoy and are satisfied with the availability,
accessibility, diversity, and quality of Cape Lookout's facilities, services, and appropriate
recreational opportunities.
NPSICLNS Response: Visitors are able to safely enjoy and experience Cape Lookout
National Seashore. Accessibility for special populations is provided where appropriate.
The diversity and quality of the seashore's facilities, services and recreational
opportunities are considered for all visitors but only to the extent consistent with the
seashore's purpose and philosophy.
Mission Goal IIb: Park visitors and the general public understand and appreciate the
preservation of Cape Lookout and its resources for this and future generations.
NPSICLNS Response: The visitors' experience is enhanced through abetter
understanding of the purpose of the Cape Lookout National Seashore and appreciation of
what makes the park unique. In addition, park neighbors in surrounding communities
understand and appreciate the preservation of the seashore's resources for this and future
generations. Support of the national seashore also comes from the special recognition
facilities receive from various organizations, agencies and communities.
Mission Goal IIIa: Natural and cultural resources are conserved through formal
partnership programs.
NPSICLNS Response: This goal is not applicable to Cape Lookout National Seashore.
GOAL CATEGORYIV.• ENSURE ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS.
Mission Goal IVa: Cape Lookout National Seashore uses current management practices,
systems, and technologies to accomplish its mission.
NPSICLNS Response: Communications will be improved in order to be more
responsive, efficient and accountable both in the park and in the other National Park
Service offices. Continued efforts will be made for a diverse work force, improvements
for safety concerns, and providing training to accomplish the park's mission.
Mission GoallVb: Cape Lookout National Seashore increases its managerial
capabilities through initiatives and support from other agencies, organizations, and
individuals.
NPS/CLNS Response: Cape Lookout National Seashore works in cooperation with the
following partnerships: Davis Island Fishing Foundation Club, Foundation for
Shackleford Horses, Inc., Cape Lookout Mobile Sportsfishermen, North Carolina
Maritime Museum-Cape Lookout Studies Program, Core Sound Waterfowl Museum, and
Cape Lookout Environmental Education Center. In addition, many state, federal and
county land management agencies.
GOAL CATEGORYI.• PRESERVE PARK RESOURCES.
Mission Goal Ia: Natural and cultural resources and associated values are protected,
restored and maintained in good condition and managed within their broader ecosystem
and cultural context.
Long-term Goals to be achieved by September 30, 2005:
Ial. Disturbed Lands/Exotic Plant Species:
IalA. Disturbed Lands, NPS/CLNS Response: this element of disturbed parkland
restoration does not pertain to the Harkers Island portion of the NPS/CLNS property.
IaIB. Exotic Vegetation Species, NPS/CLNS Response: this element, containment of
exotic vegetation, does not pertain to the Harkers Island portion of the NPS/CLNS
property.
Ia2. Threatened and Endangered Species: no federally-listed populations of threatened
or endangered species, or critical habitat for such species, exist on the Harkers Island
portion of the NPS/CLNS property. See paragraph 4.1.1.2 for a summary of threatened
and endangered species which occur elsewhere within the NPS/CLNS property.
Ia2B. T & E Species Stable, NPS/CLNS Response: actions regarding threatened and
endangered species, or critical habitat for such species, do not apply to the Harkers Island
portion of the NPS/CLNS property.
Ia5. Historic Structures, NPS/CLNS Response: maintenance of historic structures that
appear on the List of Classified Structures does not apply to the Harkers Island portion of
the NPS/CLNS property.
Iab. Museum Collections, NPS/CLNS Response: 52% of preservation and protection
conditions in park museum collections meet professional standards. Most artifacts and
specimens from the seashore are stored in the park. All objects will be properly
preserved and protected following NPS Museum Handbook standards and the
recommendations of the Collection Management Plan (in development). As of 1999, the
park met 25% of the standards (exceeding our initial goals). This result is from standards
9
applied to the mainland storage facility only. As we continue to upgrade this facility, the
percentage of compliance will, of course, increase.
Ia8. Archeological Sites, NPS/CLNS Response: there is one archeological site located
on the Harkers Island portion of the NPS/CLNS property, site number 31 CR2, Shell
Point, located at the eastern terminus of Island Road at Core Sound. According to John
Ehrenhard, Archaeologist with the NPS Southeastern Archaeological Center, who
performed the last investigation in 1976, the site was still producing prehistoric artifacts
and human bone. He noted at that time that undisturbed portions of the mound may lie
below the water. Richard Kimmel, archaeologist of Wilmington District, US Army
Corps of Engineers, recommended on August 9, 2005 that the site be re-evaluated by
testing in and adjacent to those portions of the site that will be within the project area of
effect. He recommended a focus on controlled recovery of cultural materials and
evaluation of the potential of the offshore areas to produce significant archaeological and
human remains.
Mission Goal Ib: Cape Lookout National Seashore contributes to public or park
knowledge about natural and cultural resources and their associated values; management
decisions about resources and visitors are based on adequate scholarly and scientific
information.
Long-term Goals to be Achieved by September 30, 2005:
IbO. Feral Animal Baselines, NPS/CLNS Response: this element refers to feral horses
on the barrier islands, and does not apply to the Harkers Island portion of the NPS/CLNS
property.
Ib2. Cultural Resources Baselines:
Ib2A. Archeological Baselines, NPSICLNS Response:
All known sites have been inventoried and entered into the Archeological Sites
Management Information System (ASMIS). The Shell Point site, 31CR2, is under re-
evaluation as noted in paragraph Ia8.
Ib2D. Museum Collections, NPS/CLNS Response: The number of Cape Lookout
National Seashore's museum objects catalogued into the National Park Service
Automated National Catalog System (ANCS+) and submitted to the National Catalog is
increased from 951 in FY 1999 to 1,870 (49% Increase). One hundred and nine (109)
archeological items and their related documentation were cataloged in 1999 by the
Southeast Archeological Center for Cape Lookout. The park will continue to work with
SEAC in identifying and cataloging the remainder of our archeological items. The
backlog of historical items need some research and arrangement before the use of a
temporary Museum Aid/Technician assigned to cataloging will be cost effective. Natural
10
history specimens will also need some care by a conservator before cataloging can take
place.
Ib2F. Historic Research Base, NPS/CLNS Response: Cape Lookout National Seashore
has no plans to fund, sponsor or oversee the preparation of historic resources studies or
administrative histories during this five-year period. The park will continue to seek
special project funding to accomplish this goal.
Ib3. Vital Signs: Cape Lookout National Seashore has identified its vital signs for
natural resource monitoring.
NPS/CLNS Response: The park has not identified its vital signs for natural resource
monitoring but is participating in a region wide effort to develop inventory and
monitoring requirements for the park.
GOAL CATEGORYIL• PROVIDE FOR THE PUBLIC ENJOIIIIENT AND VISITOR
EXPERIENCE OF CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE.
Mission Goal Ha: Visitors safely enjoy and are satisfied with the availability,
accessibility, diversity, and quality of Cape Lookout's facilities, services, and appropriate
recreational opportunities.
Long-term Goals to be Achieved by September 30, 2005:
Hal. Visitor Satisfaction, NPS/CLNS Response: 92% of park visitors are satisfied with
appropriate park facilities, services, and recreational opportunities. The seashore's
facilities and services include primitive roads, boardwalk, water systems, picnic areas,
restroom facilities, contact stations, and visitor information and protection. Due to the
expected continued increase in visitation, it will be harder to upkeep facilities at the same
level to maintain the current level of visitor satisfaction. The park will look for
alternative methods for maintaining park facilities at National Park Service standards.
Consideration of ferry services to, and facilities located on the park's barrier islands
applies to the Harkers Island portion of the NPS/CLNS property, in that the existing boat
basin may be adapted to allow development of public ferry service from the base to the
barrier islands.
Ha2. Visitor Safety, NPS/CLNS Response: The visitor accident/incident rate will be at
or below 8.1 per 100,000 visitor days (a 15% decrease from the FY92 - FY 96 baseline
of 9.48 per 100,000 visitor days).
Visitation to Cape Lookout National Seashore has increased from 370,000 to 500,000
which is an increase of 35% over the last four years. Our visitor safety incident rate has
not increased proportionately to the visitor increase. Since 1997, there have only been six
incidents involving the visiting public. Our recreational activities have been changing
11
over the years. There is still an increase in visitor use by private boats. Efforts will
continue in decreasing our safety incident rate through public education, signs, and visitor
contact.
Mission Goal Hb and NPS/CLNS Response: Park visitors and the general public
understand and appreciate the preservation of Cape Lookout and its resources for this and
future generations.
Long-term Goals to be achieved by September 30, 20115:
Hbl. Visitor Understanding and Appreciation: 95% of park visitors understand and
appreciate the significance of Cape Lookout National Seashore. Visitors' experiences to
Cape Lookout National Seashore are enhanced by a better understanding of the purpose
of the seashore and an appreciation of what makes this barrier island system unique.
Providing information, interpretation and education are activities that assist visitors in
this area. Some baseline data has been established from visitor use studies. Further
evaluation of the visitor comment cards will be made to assure the adequacy and success
in meeting this goal.
1.3.3 Cape Lookout National Seashore Park Mission Statement. The mission of Cape
Lookout National Seashore is to conserve and preserve for the future the outstanding natural
resources of a dynamic coastal barrier island system; to protect and interpret the significant
cultural resources of the past and contemporary maritime history; to provide for public education
and enrichment through proactive interpretation and scientific study; and to provide for
sustainable use of recreation resources and opportunities. Any future development of the
NPS/CLNS property at Harkers Island, whether or not new shoreline protection is built, will be
designed and accomplished in compliance with the stated Park Mission Statement.
1.3.4 Cape Lookout National Seashore Park Purpose. Cape Lookout National Seashore's
purpose is to conserve and preserve for public use and enjoyment the outstanding natural,
cultural and recreational values of a dynamic coastal barrier island environment for future
generations. The seashore serves as both a refuge for wildlife and a pleasuring ground for the
public, including the developed visitor amenities traditionally found in other national parks. Any
future development of the NPS/CLNS property at Harkers Island, whether or not new shoreline
protection is built, will be designed and accomplished in compliance with the stated Park
Purpose.
1.3.5 Stated Need for Proposed Action. In keeping with NPS conservation/protection
policies, there is an urgent need to attenuate the continuing erosion of park shoreline property at
Harkers Island and stabilize the shoreline to prevent further erosion. Also in consideration of
NPS policy, there is a need to preserve the natural appearance of the shoreline to the extent
possible.
12
1.3.6 Consistency with NPS Management Policies (2001).
1.3.6.1 Section 4.8.1.1, "Shorelines and Barrier Islands". According to NPS Management
Policies (2001), section 4.8.1.1 "Shorelines and Barrier Islands", basic policy is to allow natural
shoreline erosion and migration:
Natural shoreline processes (such as erosion, deposition, dune formation, overwash, inlet
formation, and shoreline migration) will be allowed to continue without interference.
However, according to the same section, shoreline erosion control is permitted under NPS policy
for certain circumstances:
Where erosion control is required by law, or where present developments must be
protected in the short run to achieve park management objectives, including high-density
visitor use, the Service will use the most effective and natural appearing method feasible,
while minimizing impacts outside the target area.
The proposed actions (Agency Preferred Alternative A) would involve the attenuation of further
erosion and migration of the shoreline of the NPS property at Harkers Island. Interference with
further shoreline migration is required to protect present developments in order to achieve park
management objectives. Such developments include the park headquarters and visitor center
building, the NPS marina, and established picnic and trail facilities. The proposed actions would
use the most effective and natural-appearing method feasible to stop shoreline migration.
Actions would include construction of an offshore stone sill of low profile to reduce direct wave
impacts to the natural shoreline, provide a feasible level of marshgrass planting along the water's
edge, and allow the development of natural marsh and aquatic vegetation between sill and
shoreline. Existing bulkheads would be maintained to define the marina area. Since the
proposed actions of Alternative A comply with the section 4.8.1.1 conditions for employing
shoreline erosion control, they are consistent with NPS Management Policies (2001).
1.3.6.2 Section 4.6.4, "Floodplains". According to NPS Management Policies (2001), section
4.6.4 "Floodplains", the NPS will
Protect, preserve, and restore the natural resources and functions of floodplains;
Avoid the long- and short- term environmental effects associated with the occupancy
and modification of floodplains; and
Avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development and actions that could
adversely affect the natural resources and functions of floodplains or increase flood
risks.
The proposed action would not serve as flood attenuation for high-ground areas subject to
flooding on Harkers Island, and would preserve existing natural resources and functions of
existing floodplains. The proposed action would benefit floodplain resources and functions by
providing a more stable environment for development of native vegetation along the shoreline,
increasing habitat, and reducing the loss of natural resources. The proposed action would not
13
encourage development and actions that could adversely affect the natural resources and
functions of floodplains, or increase flood risks. Regarding a statement of findings for
floodplains, section 4.6.4 advises that
When it is not practicable to locate or relocate development or inappropriate human
activities to a site outside and not affecting the floodplain, the Service will:
• Prepare and approve a statement of findings, in accordance with procedures
described in Director's Order 77- 2: Floodplain Management; and
• Use non- structural measures as much as practicable to reduce hazards to human life
and property, while minimizing the impact to the natural resources of floodplains;
and
• Ensure that structures and facilities are designed to be consistent with the intent of
the standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (44 CFR Part 60).
There is no need to relocate existing development or other human activities due to existing
floodplain conditions and no measures are needed or proposed to reduce hazards to human life
and property. Since the proposed action would preserve and improve floodplain conditions, with
no need for relocation or protection of existing development or activities, a Statement of
Findings under Director's Order 77-2 will not be required regarding floodplains.
1.3.6.3 Section 4.6.5, "Wetlands". According to Section 4.6.5 of the NPS Management
Policies (2001), the NPS basic policy is "no net loss of wetlands", with restoration of degraded
or lost wetlands to the extent practicable. For activities relating to wetlands, the policy employs
the following actions:
• Avoid adverse wetland impacts to the extent practicable;
• Minimize impacts that cannot be avoided; and
• Compensate for remaining unavoidable adverse wetland impacts by restoring wetlands that
have been previously destroyed or degraded [at a minimum 1:1 acreage ratio].
Section 4.6.5 also states that "If the preferred alternative will result in adverse impacts on
wetlands, a statement of findings must be prepared and approved in accordance with Director's
Order #77-1." Director's Order #77-1, section 4.2, ("Excepted Actions", paragraph "A",
"Exceptions for "Water Dependent" Actions or Other Actions with `Minimal Impacts"') outlines
actions that are considered to have minimal impacts on wetlands, and therefore may be excepted
from Statement of Findings procedures and compensation requirements. Actions designed
specifically for the purpose of restoring degraded or lost natural wetlands, aquatic habitats, or
ecological processes may be excepted from Statement of Findings procedures. The proposed
action is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands, and to enhance wetland
development, in Reaches 1 and 3 as a part of the vegetative zone between sill and shoreline, a
critical element in attenuating shoreline erosion and migration in these reaches. According to
paragraph "A", actions causing a cumulative total of up to 0.25 acres of new long-term adverse
impacts on natural wetlands may be allowed under this exemption if necessary for the
restoration, including small structures. The stone sill footprint in the proposed action would
14
impact no more than 0.05 acre of wetlands for the purpose of wave attenuation and wetland (and
upland) vegetation development throughout the length of Reaches 1 and 3. Therefore, for the
proposed action, a Statement of Findings under Director's Order 77-2 will not be required
regarding wetlands.
1.3.7 Related Environmental Documents. This document neither tiers off from, nor ties to,
another environmental document.
1.3.8 Decisions to be Made. The purpose of this Environmental Assessment is to establish an
acceptable method of preventing further erosion along the shoreline of the NPS/CLNS Harkers
Island property. Since the erosion is threatening the integrity of NPS/CLNS property and
structures at the site, a decision is needed regarding stabilization of the shoreline. Given the NPS
policies on conservation and protection of park resources while maintaining as natural an
environment as possible, any method of stabilization, to be considered acceptable, must both stop
erosion and maintain a stable shoreline of natural appearance.
2.0 SCOPING AND ISSUES.
2.1 Issues Evaluated in Detail. Relevant issues which have been raised during the scoping
process, and are to be discussed in further detail, are as follows. Potential alternatives, described
in section 3.0, Description of Alternatives, were evaluated using these issues.
2.1.1 Shoreline Stabilization. Attenuating the effects of shoreline erosion, and prevention of
further erosion by shoreline stabilization, are the primary issues of concern in regard to any
proposed action. The continuing erosion along virtually the entire shoreline is causing a steady
loss of high ground within the NPS/CLNS property. Shoreline structures are deteriorating, and
structures and buildings in the vicinity of the shoreline are becoming threatened. To address this
issue, the composition of the shoreline would need to be altered in a way which would first
attenuate erosion, then reliably maintain a stable shoreline configuration and position into the
future.
2.1.2 Maintaining a Natural Shoreline. This issue relates to the NPS policy of maintaining
an environment reasonably true to its natural state, considering the practical concerns and
problems faced in managing the resources of this national park. Any activity undertaken to
attenuate shoreline erosion and improve stability must present an image reflective of the natural
shoreline at the site.
2.1.3 Public Boat Access. There is a stated need to maintain reasonable public access to and
from the water along the shoreline of Reach 3 (see paragraph 3. 1, Alternative Locations),
including kayak operators launching from, and landing along, the NPS property, and access for
individuals between boats anchored offshore and the land.
15
2.1.4 Public Beach Access. There is a stated need to maintain, for public use, the beach area
located southwest of the paved parking area which is situated near the southwest shoreline of
Reach 3 (see paragraph 3.2.1, Alternative Locations).
2.1.5 Boat Basin Renovation. There is a stated need to renovate the boat basin bulkheads, and
the boat ramp, which are in various stages of deterioration and disrepair due mostly to damage
during hurricanes. A reconfiguration of the boat basin entrance is proposed to accommodate
future ferry service to the barrier islands of the Cape Lookout National Seashore. This would
involve widening the narrow neck along the entrance canal and building a new stone breakwater
across a portion of the outer opening at the channel entrance.
2.2 Summary of Impact Topics Retained for Consideration. Table 2.2 describes the
impact topics which have been retained and are being considered in Section 5.2, General
Environmental Effects. A summary of impacts affecting these topics is presented in Table 3.713,
Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts for Considered Alternatives.
16
TABLE 2.2
SUMMARY OF IMPACT TOPICS RETAINED FOR CONSIDERATION
IMPACT TOPIC REASON TOPIC 15 RETAINED FOR CONSIDERATION
High-ground vegetation Probable major, long-term loss of high-ground vegetation in Reach 1 due to
continuin shoreline erosion and migration.
Wetlands Perpetuation of sparse and inconsistent wetland growth in Reaches 1 and 3
due to continuing shoreline erosion and migration.
Fish and wildlife Continuing limitation and reduction of suitable habitat due to sparse
development of emergent vegetation and continued loss of high ground,
caused by continuing shoreline erosion and migration in Reaches 1 and 3.
Shoreline stability Major, long-term continuing shoreline instability in Reaches 1 and 3 due to
shoreline erosion and migration.
Soils/geology Major, long-term continuing breakdown of geologic structure in Reaches 1
and 3 due to shoreline erosion and landward migration.
Land use Major, long-term loss of high ground from erosion in Reaches 1 and 2,
disrupting current land uses and eventually affecting land use throughout
NPS property on Harkers Island.
Transportation Potential major, long-term adverse impacts on road access into, and within,
the property due to continuing shoreline erosion and migration in Reaches 1
and 3.
Cultural resources Potential effects to the Shell Point archaeological site due to continuing
erosion and migration, and associated dynamics, of the shoreline.
Economics Potential economic losses due to adverse impacts on park facilities and their
use by the public on Harkers Island, currently threatened by continuing
erosion and migration of the shoreline.
Natural shoreline Although the shorelines of Reaches 1 and 2 presently exist in a natural, but
steadily eroding and migrating, condition there is potential for adverse
change in the nature of these shorelines as they approach park facilities.
Also, there is potential for these Reaches to develop as natural stable
shorelines with active treatment.
Availability Availability of the park facilities to the public could be adversely impacted
due to impacts on accessways and the facilities themselves, from continuing
erosion and migration of the Reach 1 and 3 shorelines.
Recreation/boat access Public recreation and boat access could be adversely impacted due to
potential effects of erosion and migration of Reach 1 and 3 shorelines, as
ark access and facilities are threatened.
Natural resources Continuing long-term adverse effects due to loss of substrate, soil, and high-
ground acreage, vegetation, and habitat, from progressive shoreline erosion
and mi ration in Reaches 1 and 3.
2.3 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Analysis. The following issues were discussed but
considered not relevant for this project, and therefore eliminated from detailed analysis:
2.3.1 Flood Attenuation. During initial discussions regarding shoreline erosion, the subject of
flood attenuation was addressed. NPS/CLNS representatives indicated that there was no
17
expectation that the measures created under this project be extended to prevent the occasional
high-ground flooding that occurs on NPS/CLNS property along the shoreline. Such flooding
generally occurs as a result of major storm events such as hurricanes and northeasters. Flood
protection would be unduly expensive in relation to any expected return. Perhaps more
importantly, any structures built to a size and elevation which could provide reliable flood
protection would almost certainly be unjustifiable on NPS/CLNS lands, due to the NPS policy on
maintenance of a natural shoreline. The adverse effects of such protection would be considered
major-to-moderate and long-term. Flood attenuation was therefore considered not a relevant
purpose for this project.
2.3.2 Protected Species. The seven federally threatened and endangered (T and E) species
that occur within Cape Lookout National Seashore occur on the barrier islands and not at
Harkers Island. These T and E species are managed by the NPS/CLNS under approved recovery
plans. Any beneficial or adverse effects that the Harkers Island Shoreline Protection project
might have to T and E species would be negligible, since the species are not present at Harkers
Island proper. Piping plover habitat at CLNS is concentrated in the open beaches and tidal flats
of the barrier islands, and does not occur at Harkers Island. The estuarine shorelines at Harkers
Island currently offer very limited areas of tidal flat which are not used by the piping plover, and
would become vegetated marsh as a result of construction of the preferred alternative. Although
few marine mammals venture into the very shallow waters of Back and Core Sounds, the Florida
manatee has been sighted in waters near Cape Lookout. Since satellite tagging has revealed that
some Florida manatees travel through Bogue, Back, and Core Sounds on summer migrations to
Chesapeake Bay, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "Precautions for General Construction in Areas
Which May Be Used by the West Indian Manatee in North Carolina" would be utilized during
construction of the preferred alternative.
2.3.3 Air Quality. Air quality changes due to effects of the alternatives would occur only
during the construction period. Effects would occur due to engine emissions from construction
equipment and movement of earth and stone during the construction process, and the adverse
effects would be minor-to-negligible and short-term.
2.3.4 Water Quality. Water quality levels would be temporarily affected during construction,
due to activities such as placing and moving earth and stone in and near the water. These
activities would cause some local increase in turbidity, but any adverse effects would be minor-
to-negligible and short-term. The proposed action would include an offshore stone sill which
would partition nearshore waters from those offshore. In order to maintain adequate circulation
through the sill between storm events to maintain water quality and to provide passage for
aquatic organisms to and from the interior, openings of appropriate size and spacing would be
provided along the sill.
2.3.5 Birds. Any adverse impacts to birds would be expected to occur primarily during the
construction period, due to the additional noise and activity along the shoreline. These impacts
would be minor-to-negligible and short-term. Once the shoreline is stabilized and native
18
vegetation becomes established, there would be a minor but long-term improvement to bird
habitat.
2.3.6 Noise. There would be a temporary increase in noise during construction due to engine
operation for construction and transport equipment, the movement of materials such as earth and
stone, bulkhead repair activities, and concrete placement. The increased noise levels would be
minor in terms of effect upon residents living in the vicinity of the NPS/CLNS property, due to
the sparse population and distance of residences from much of the project site. Effects within
NPS/CLNS property would be noticeable near sites where work is occurring, but would be
anticipated for any construction project. These adverse effects would be minor-to-negligible and
short-term, only for duration of the construction period.
2.3.7 Hydrology. The Harkers Island Shoreline Protection project would serve the purpose of
stabilizing a shoreline with no existing connection of stream tributaries to sound waters. The
existing alignment of the shoreline would not be changed; only its composition would be
modified to stop erosion. Any beneficial or adverse effects to existing hydrology would be
expected to be minor-to-negligible in the long-term.
2.3.8 Energy Requirements and Conservation. Any change to energy requirements and
conservation would occur principally during the construction period, due to fuel and power use
for those activities. Any beneficial or adverse effects to the status of existing energy use would
be considered minor-to-negligible and short-term.
2.4 Permits. Permits that are expected to be necessary to implement the project are as
follows:
• NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal
Management: Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality:
Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Division: Nationwide or Individual Permit for
discharge of fill material into waters of the US.
19
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES.
This section describes in detail the No Action alternative, the proposed action, A, and another
reasonable alternative, B, that were studied in detail. Based on the information and analysis
presented in the sections on the Affected Environment and the Probable Impacts, this section
presents the beneficial and adverse environmental effects of all alternatives in comparative form,
providing a clear basis for choice among the options for the decision maker and the public.
Table 3.0 summarizes the three considered alternatives.
TABLE 3.0
TABULATION OF CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Agency
Key Preferred Description
Alternative
A yes Offshore Sill, Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair
B no Grading & Planting with Concrete Mat, Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair
No Action no No Action, current management practices continued
3.1 Alternative Locations. The range of each considered alternative extends throughout the
entire project location shoreline. The project location area contains three reaches, each with
distinct shoreline characteristics (see Figure 5. NPS Shoreline Reaches, Harkers Island). The
characteristics of Reaches 1, 2, and 3 are described in the following paragraphs.
20
N
atianal Park Sery
(NPS)
Harkers rslandi

3.1.1 Reach 1. Reach 1 includes the northeastern shoreline, approximately 1700 linear feet,
from the coastal marsh at the northeast corner of Harkers Island, southward to the end of the
shoreline bulkhead located north of the boat basin (see Photo 1. NPS Shoreline, Reach 1). This
shoreline consists of an eroded upland bank having a steeply sloping face of between two and
seven feet. A flat extends from the toe of the eroded bank, composed primarily of firm peat
("black rock") outcroppings interspersed with sandy beach areas, and scattered patches of
emergent marsh vegetation. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) communities are not found
along this shoreline, except off the extreme northerly end of the project area where the eroded
bank transitions into coastal marsh. A graveled trail landward of the bank top is threatened by
continuing erosion unless the bank can be stabilized.

1Aif7.k6 JVulkow'ski
3.1.2 Reach 2. Reach 2 includes the southeastern shoreline from north end of the shoreline
bulkhead, across the boat basin entrance, and southward to the south end of the shoreline
bulkhead at the southeastern corner of Harkers Island (see Photo 2. NPS Shoreline, Reach 2).
This shoreline has been protected with timber bulkheads, typically four to six feet above mean
sea level. There is an SAV community located offshore of the northern segment of bulkhead.
The northern portion, approximately 330 feet, of the bulkhead is in fair condition, with washouts
behind the bulkhead where material has washed through holes in the backup sheeting at tie-rod
22
Photo 1. NPS Shoreline, Reach 1
locations. The portion of bulkhead along the north side of the boat basin entrance, as well as the
portion surrounding the boat basin itself, approximately 680 feet, is also in poor condition. The
rest of the bulkhead, approximately 410 feet, along the south side of the basin entrance and along
the shoreline to the south end of bulkhead construction, as well as the boat ramp, is in poor
condition and showing signs of deterioration and failure.
3.1.3 Reach 3. Reach 3 includes the southern shoreline from the end of the shoreline bulkhead
at the southeastern corner of Harkers Island, westward to the limit of NPS property, near a
concrete bulkhead which terminates the open shoreline (see Photo 3. NPS Shoreline, Reach 3).
This shoreline, approximately 1280 linear feet in length, includes a sandy beach area, an eroding
upland bank one to three feet high, and scattered patches of emergent marsh vegetation, some
large and contiguous. There are communities of SAV growing offshore along most of the south-
facing shoreline. An asphalt parking area and picnic structures are threatened by further erosion
of this shoreline.
23
Photo 2. NPS Shoreline, Reach 2
1;,
i?
Allen Davis
Photo 3. NPS Shoreline, Reach 3
3.2 Alternative A, Offshore Sill, Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair
AGENCY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
3.2.1 Description.
Offshore Sill. This alternative would involve the construction of an offshore stone sill of
trapezoidal cross-section. The sill would be located in Reaches 1 and 3. Sill construction would
be approximately 40 percent porous throughout, and alignment openings would provide to
further encourage movement of aquatic organisms to and from waters shoreward of the sill. The
openings would be constructed in an overlapping configuration to avoid compromising sill
integrity and shoreline protection. The sill footprint would cover approximately 1.21 acres of
bottom in Reach 1 waters and 0.57 acre in Reach 3. See Preferred Alternative Plan 3.2.1. The
stone is projected to be North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) class 2 riprap, a
dense stone up to 24 inches in size, laid over geotextile fabric. The sill footprint would lie one to
two feet below mean sea level in water shoreward of virtually all submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) beds, and waterward of existing emergent marsh vegetation to the extent possible. Direct
impacts to existing emergent marsh vegetation would be less than 0.05 acre. Its position,
24
approximately 30 to 60 feet offshore, would allow development of additional marsh vegetation in
viable portions of the shallows between sill and shoreline. Marshgrass would be planted along
the water's edge in these reaches, and SAV in waters between the sill and shoreline, to the extent
feasible. The top of the sill would be positioned approximately one foot above ordinary high
water, and openings would be incorporated for circulation to maintain water quality, for cross-
movement of aquatic organisms, and at the existing beach in Reach 3, for boat and beach access.
Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair. This alternative would include repair and replacement of
existing bulkheads in Reach 2. Repair would include excavation behind portions of the existing
bulkhead to inspect and repair any holes, placement of a stone filter layer and filter fabric, and
construction of concrete splash protection along the top of the wall. This alternative would also
involve replacement of portions of existing bulkheads which are failing, as well as other selected
portions not failing, but where the new system is desired. The replacement structure would be a
vinyl sheet pile system placed just outside the existing bulkheads. Appropriate founding of this
system would be determined based on a new subsurface investigation. The existing boat ramp,
which is in disrepair, would also be replaced with a new concrete ramp about 20' wide. The
adjacent bulkhead would be extended since the new ramp would be narrower than the existing
one. This alternative would also include construction of a breakwater extension at the outer
opening of the basin entrance. This would allow the entrance channel to be widened by
removing the high-ground peninsula adjacent to the channel. The breakwater extension would
begin at the south corner of the boat basin entrance. It would extend 50 feet across open water
toward the opposite corner of the entrance, and would be constructed in a manner similar to the
stone sill. It would extend to a height of 3 feet above ordinary high water, and its footprint
would cover approximately 1800 square feet of bottom in open waters. See Preferred
Alternative Plan 3.2.1.
25
A B C D E F G H
US Arrnjr Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
1D 10
SA1~ LIMIT ' MARSH ' 6
~ STA 35+20.54 AREA I I I I 0 w
I 5 S.TO.NE.................... i / z _ ---__--v----_ ~ ~ ~ 51LL ~ - ~ fTl ~ ~
VEAN~I HIGH WATER ~ ~
~ I ~ Q .MEAN'. LOW.. WATER D. G 0
> _ - I EXISTING xp w GRADE D_
4 ~ I I O
w _5 . -5 z
3q -1D
xp~ -8Q -60 -4D -2Q 0 20 40 6D 60 80 -10
LEGEND 26+00 z 0
MARSH SOIL a
EXISTING SAU LIMITS 10 AiREA ~©A© N 10
3~ x~
if EXISTING MARSH % i
z 5 STONE ' 5
SILL ' EXISTING' ' EXISTING PEAT OR BLACK RO(,~ ~ MEAN HIDH WATER GRADE
3 Q Q --MEAN--LOW---V~ATER-_ - r C
r 2 • 0 D m
~ ~ w - 5 ~ , ~ BEACH ~ _ , I I O
a W _ ~ f a 5 L~IMITS~~O a EP€AT. z ~ _5 0
~ I I I I I ~ ; o ~ ~ ~ k a a a
a3 ~O 3 4
~ X ~1 -1Q -90 -8Q -60 -4D -2Q D 20 40 60 60 80 -10 0
~y ASPHALT 10+25
~,~a~ ~ PARKI NG AREA ~ ,
STONE SILL - ~~a ~
~'D VERT, 10 0 10 2( 20 30
EXISTING SAV I?9+41,01 ~ 40 60
LIMITS (TYP.j H O R Z, 2 0 0 2 0 4 z O_
00 BASELINE
~ SCALE IN FEET ' ~ ~ V FEET
TYPICAL SECTIONS SECTIONS
_ ~ / r
~ u'i,t~ +OJ
~ ~ PICNIC
~ f ~ ~ Q STRUCTURES J 0 (D
4 ~ M~
P j l l I ~ ~
1~ ~ ~
! ? Q
Z
NEW BOAT RAMP 20' WIDE STONE SILL - U AA~~ ai ~ W
z 0 U
26+00 1 Ltl ? ~ ~
AMR REPAIR OLD BULKHEAD ~ ° 3 ~ D ~p
AREA C / DAMA ED ~ W W¢ ~ C N ~ ° LL L
i ~ i 'off
~ / a C~ ~ M ~ }
- 25 ~ GRAVEL ~ G ..y~ ~ DOCKC d Q W }
~ ' / t, ~ ~ ~ a z m ~ ui
~ -~~~CONCRETE a y O U O ~j,
~ RAMP I ko~ FIEW , ~ L
2~ - BULKHEAD
~ ~ REPAIR OLD BULKHEAD
I \ ~z 03.23~~ REMOVE EXISTING PENINSULA 3 ~ _ - o ~ Q i
- \ : TO LINE OF NEW BULKHEAD ~ ~ BASELINE ~ ~ d
q o° Pi 11+o520 ~ ~ ,~k0 ~ ~ ~ Q \ o 0 PI 7+5231 ~ ~ ~ O o °a ~ ~ ~WQ
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ PI 13+14.D1 o Q ,ti ~ 6 0 ~ A~ + o ~WU
y ~ ~ a SQ o R ~ ~ ~ I ~ o ~r 0~ ~ + + -
~ ~ i U o o ~ S ~ ~ ~ w + ~ ~ o P 5+01. Q ~ ,
I-. 2c+8371 ~ ~ + 1~ a o tai
a~ T i------ t-- ro 14 a3,a4 -r ~ STA D+00 Z ~ Z
~ ~ ..LD BULKHEAD (REPAIR) ~ ~ -
A~ ~ ~ ,~L,~_ ~-,~t i ~ O
~ ~ _ ~ ~ C7
NEW STONE Bk.AKWATER / \ ~ P! 20+31,41 ~
ii~„ _ ~ = ~
,,,i,. ~ ~ ,~r 1 ~ - ~ ~
~ ~-~.a.r- _ i
~ ~ - ~ \ _
~ EXISTINb ~_e"~--~~
SAV LIMITS
~ 2 W
STONE SIL - STONE SILL ~
Z
j~0
rJ~ - - U WJ

g~ ~~o
_ ~ Yarr - U ~ I- r1.
z
w~ ~ZW YW Q~J

= U Q ~ OWC
NOTES 1=Y4
a zoo
1o SURVEYING AND MAPPING BY ~ MCKIM & CREED ENGINEERSo Po A. GEOTEXTILE 243 N, FRONT ST, STONE 4~ - 4'
WILMINGTON NC 284D1 (NCDOT W
1-910-343-1848 CLASS 2) tl
2. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NGVD 29 2 •5 EL 3.0 FOR SILL U
EL 1.51 (MEAN HIGH WATER) 1~ 2 EL 5.0 FOR BREAKWATER ~1
1 3. ONE FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL,
4, ALL COORDINATES ARE BASED ON NCGRID {NAD83l EL -0.2 (MEAN LOW WATER)
5e FIELD WORK PERFORMED JANUARYo2005 PLATE 100 0 100 200 300 NUMBER
SCALE IN FEET P _ 1
STONE SILL OR BREAKN OR BREAKWATER SITE PLAN
SHEET 1 OF 1

3.2.2 Shoreline Stability.
Offshore Sill. This alternative would be expected to effectively satisfy the goal of attenuating
erosion and stabilizing the Reach 1 and 3 shorelines. The establishment and maintenance of an
offshore sill, with increased development of a vegetative zone behind the sill, would be expected
to effectively stabilize the shoreline in these reaches. The offshore positioning and low profile of
the sill would initially dissipate wave energy, and emergent and high-ground vegetative growth
would reduce ordinary wave and wake energy, as well as the heavy impacts of major storms, on
the shoreline. The development of additional vegetative and root mat growth between the sill
and shoreline, initiated by a practicable level of marshgrass planting along the water's edge,
would increase shore protection over time, and further reduce erosive effects. The combination
of stone sill and vegetative zone would reduce the intensity of wave energy imposed on either
element alone. Some turbulence and bottom erosion would be expected along the outer and
inner bases of the sill, requiring occasional repair with respect to maintaining overall
stabilization. The effects of severe storms would likely require more extensive sill repair,
particularly during early stages of plant growth in the vegetative zone.
Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair. Repair and added splash protection for bulkheads in Reach
2 would stop the migration of earth through damaged areas into the water. Voids have formed
behind the bulkheads where this has occurred, and occasional wave washovers accelerate the loss
of soil. Concrete splash protection over the backfill grade would delay recurrence of damage
from washovers. Bulkhead repair, upgrading, and maintenance, provided as necessary over time
and after major storms, would ensure a stable shoreline in this reach. The minimal erosion
occurring in the boat ramp area would also be attenuated by reconstruction of the deteriorated
ramp. Upgrading the bulkhead system with a new vinyl sheet pile system would improve the
reliability of shoreline stabilization, particularly for bulkheads exposed directly to the sound and
its high wave energy. The breakwater extension would diminish wave effects inside the entrance
channel and basin, particularly in view of removal of the bulkheaded peninsula to allow for
greater boat clearance and improved channel maintainability.
3.2.3 Maintaining a Natural Shoreline.
Offshore Sill. A low sill profile would be used to maintain sightlines between shore and open
water; however, the sill would be visible above water level at all normal tide times. With the low
sill profile and its separation from the shoreline, and the development of vegetation between sill
and shore, the shoreline would take on a natural appearance, particularly as viewed from land.
Although the sill would be visible from boats offshore, it would become progressively less
apparent as the vegetation zone develops. Initial planting of marshgrass and SAV, to the extent
feasible, would help initiate additional growth.
Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair. There is currently no natural shoreline in Reach 2, due to
existing bulkheads which compose the boat basin structure. The boat basin and its structural
components is critical to NPS/CLNS staff operations, and must remain in place to serve essential
staff functions. This alternative consists of upgrades to the existing structures. There would be
27
no change to the artificial appearance of the Reach 2 shoreline under this alternative. See Photo
4, Offshore Sill Project for view of a similar offshore sill project.
28
Photo 4. Offshore Sill Project
3.2.4 Public Boat Access.
Offshore Sill. Public boating and boat access in areas along the shoreline would tend to become
substantially more hazardous and difficult due to the hard sill structure of this alternative.
Although the development of marsh vegetation landward of the sill would help define the sill's
location, accessways would need to be made clearly apparent to boaters for safe movement
through the shore protection zone.
Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair. Public boat access would not be affected by this alternative
in that there are no public access areas within existing bulkheaded areas. The boat ramp and
basin are reserved for official use only.
3.2.5 Public Beach Access.
Offshore Sill. The public beach area in Reach 3 would be preserved by curving the stone sill
alignment into high ground on either side of the beach. The alignment curves would be made as
gradual as possible in order to minimize turbulence, which could contribute to change in the
bottom profile of the beach area. Due to potential effects of the offshore sill on hydrology in the
vicinity of the beach, some degradation would be expected over time, and consistent
maintenance of the beach area would be needed to retain its current configuration. Beach
maintenance would involve removing any encroaching vegetation and moving or adding beach
material to maintain an acceptable shape and appearance.
Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair. Public beach access would not be affected by this
alternative in that there are no public beach areas within existing bulkheaded areas.
3.3 Alternative B, Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat, Bulkhead and Boat Ramp
Repair.
3.3.1 Description.
Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat. This alternative would involve the regrading of the
existing shoreline for a 3:1 slope gradient from high ground into the water. The new slope would
be planted with a graded mix of shoreline vegetation within an articulating concrete mat, from
high ground to -2.0 feet, below mean sea level. Vegetation species would be varied, mixed, and
merged for suitable growth along the entire slope to the bottom intercept. The concrete mat
would be composed of perforated concrete units approximately 12" square and 6 to 8" thick,
joined by a matrix of steel cables, and laid over a bed of gravel.
Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair. This portion of work under Alternative B would be the
same as Alternative A, Paragraph 3.2.1.
29
3.3.2 Shoreline Stability.
Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat. There is concern that, even with the concrete mat
acting as ballast, this alternative would either fail to reliably stabilize the shoreline, or would
require excessive maintenance. The existing shoreline has been eroded even in areas which were
covered with concrete rubble. The vegetated slope, even when reinforced with concrete matting,
may prove inadequate, especially during major storm events. This alternative's effectiveness in
shoreline stabilization would be expected to be minor. Consistent maintenance would be
required to maintain stability, involving repair and replacement of the concrete mat and its
subgrade, and replanting of vegetation, particularly after major storm events.
Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair. This portion of work under Alternative B would be the
same as Alternative A, Paragraph 3.2.2.
3.3.3 Maintaining a Natural Shoreline.
Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat. This alternative would satisfy the requirement for a
natural shoreline, in that the construction would involve a vegetated slope. The concrete mat
would initially be highly visible above the waterline, until the vegetation becomes thick enough
to cover and conceal it. The uniform slope gradient would detract from the natural aspect of the
shoreline.
Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair. This portion of work under Alternative B would be the
same as Alternative A, Paragraph 3.2.2.4.
3.3.4 Public Boat Access.
Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat. Public access for boating would be available across
the vegetated border, although due to its hardness the concrete mat may present a hazard to
boats. Public access could reduce the effectiveness of the vegetative growth and its ability to
stabilize the shoreline, in highly-used areas.
Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair. This portion of work under Alternative B would be the
same as Alternative A, Paragraph 3.2.2.5.
3.3.5 Public Beach Access.
Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat. Public access at the existing Reach 3 beach could
be preserved within this alternative, but consistent maintenance would likely be required for
long-term integrity of the beach area once construction is complete. The vegetative growth on
both sides of the beach would tend to expand into the beach and reduce its size. Wave impacts
would likely continue to reshape the shoreline, particularly in the beach area, which would
remain unprotected. The beach opening could expose the adjacent planting zones to heavy
damage during storms, and would increase the chance of potential erosion in this area.
30
Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair. This portion of work under Alternative B would be the
same as Alternative A, Paragraph 3.2.2.6.
3.4 No Action Alternative.
3.4.1 Description. The No Action Alternative would involve no change to the current status of
shoreline management. There would be no construction of new shoreline protection measures
only continuing repair and maintenance of existing seawalls, bulkheads, and structures. See
Figure 5. NPS Shoreline Reaches, Harkers Island, for location of Reaches 1, 2, and 3.
3.4.2 Shoreline Stability. Erosion of high ground along Reaches 1 and 3 of the shoreline
would be expected to continue, and high ground acreage would continue to decrease, under the
No Action alternative. Continuing erosion would eventually threaten structures along these
reaches, including roads, parking areas, trails, and buildings located in the vicinity of the
shoreline. This alternative would not satisfy the goals of attenuating erosion, stabilizing the
shoreline, and protecting existing structures. With no action, the shoreline would remain
unstable and additional high ground acreage would be lost to erosion. This future loss would not
be recoverable, and would, in addition to the reduction of land acreage, diminish the extent of
native forest and shoreline vegetation along these reaches. With no upgrading of existing
bulkheads along Reach 2, including the boat basin, serious deterioration of the bulkheads could
be expected to continue. Portions of bulkhead exposed to the higher wave energy of the sound
could be expected to deteriorate more quickly, as indicated by historical effects and current
bulkhead conditions. Continued deterioration would result in failure of bulkhead structures,
allowing high ground soil migration into the channel and basin. This would both impede the use
of the basin for its basic purposes, essential to NPS/CLNS staff activity, and allow a potential
loss of high ground acreages, portions of the state road, and turnaround on the end of the island,
within and near Reach 2.
3.4.3 Maintaining a Natural Shoreline. The No Action alternative would allow the
shorelines of Reaches 1 and 3 to remain in their current natural state, but they would continue to
erode and migrate inland. This alternative would satisfy the requirement for maintaining natural
shorelines at these reaches, but would fail to satisfy the goals of stopping erosion and stabilizing
the shorelines. Reach 2 has no existing natural shoreline due to the existing boat basin
bulkheads. The bulkheads are necessary to maintain the boat basin for NPS/CLNS staff activity
and a potential base for future public transport to the seashore.
3.4.4 Public Boat Access. Public kayak and boat access would continue in their present state,
primarily along the Reach 3 beach areas. Erosion and shoreline migration would continue,
subjecting the bottom to constant change in shape and location. Over time, these effects could
change the usability of the area for boat access.
3.4.5 Public Beach Access. With no action, erosion and shoreline migration in Reach 3 would
continue unabated. Beach access would continue to be available to the public only to the extent
the continuing changes in this area would maintain the existence of a beach.
31
3.5 Environmentally Preferred Alternative. The environmentally preferred alternative is
the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA Section
101(B) and Section 2.7 of the NPS Director's Order 12 Handbook. This includes alternatives
that meet the following criteria:
• fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding
generations.
• ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally
pleasing surroundings.
• attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk of
health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.
• preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage and
maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of
individual choice.
• achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit high standards of
living and a wide sharing of life's amenities.
• enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable
recycling of depletable resources.
Simply put, "this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and
physical environment; it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances
historic, cultural, and natural resources." In the NPS, the No Action alternative may also be
considered in identifying the environmentally preferred alternative. In Table 3.513, "Summary of
Rankings of Alternatives Considered by the Six Criteria for Promotion of the National
Environmental Policy", criteria rankings are defined numerically as shown in Table 3.5A,
"Ranking Values for Level of Promotion of NEPA." Ranking values are based on alternative
evaluations in sections 3.0, Description of Alternatives, and 4.0, Affected Environment, of this
EA. "Summary of Rankings" ratings at the bottom of Table 3.513 are calculated as the average
of all criteria rankings for each alternative.
32
TABLE 3.5A
RANKING VALUES FOR LEVEL OF PROMOTION OF NEPA
1 2 3
0 Minor Level of Moderate Level of Major Level of
Negligible level of Promotion Promotion Promotion

promotion: neither
promotes nor inhibits -1 -2 -3
NEPA Minor Level of Moderate Level of Major Level of
Inhibition Inhibition Inhibition
Lowest levels of Detectable and Apparent, with Readily apparent, with
detection, barely measurable, but would substantial and substantial and highly
perceptible and not be slight in terms of somewhat perceptible perceptible
measurable. perception in effect consequences to park consequences to park
to park resources. resources. resources.
33
TABLE 3.5B
SUMMARY OF RANKINGS OF CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES
AS ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED
BY THE SIX CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
A B No Action
ALTERNATIVE: Agency Grading and
Preferred Planting with
Offshore Sill, Concrete Mat,
Bulkhead and Boat Bulkhead and Boat
CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION OF NEPA: Ramp Repair Ramp Repair
1. Successful trustee of environment for 2 1 -2
succeeding generations.
2. Ensure safe, healthful, productive,
3 2 -3
esthetically and cultural) pleasing surroundings.
3. Attain widest range of positive beneficial
2 1 -2
uses without negative consequences.
4. Preserve historic, cultural, and natural
aspects of national heritage, support diversity 2 1 -2
and variety of choice.
5. Balance population and resource use for high
standards of living and wide sharing of life's 1 1 -1
amenities.
6. Enhance quality of renewable resources and
2 1 -2
maximize recycling of de letable resources.
SUMMARY OF +2
0 +1
2 -2
0
RANKINGS, AVERAGED: . . .
As indicated by the "Summary of Rankings" average scores in Table 3.513, the Environmentally
Preferred Alternative is the Agency Preferred Alternative, A, Offshore Sill with Bulkhead and
Boat Ramp Repair. Alternative A ranks highest positive in the Summary of Rankings at +2.0, a
moderate level of promotion of NEPA. Alternative B, Grading and Planting with Concrete
Mat, Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair promotes NEPA to a minor level at a score of +1.2,
and is less environmentally preferable than Alternative A. The No Action Alternative inhibits
NEPA to a moderate level, with a score of -2.0; therefore, this is not an environmentally
preferable alternative.
3.6 Alternatives Considered, But Dismissed. The three considered alternatives which were
evaluated represent a range of reasonable approaches to attenuating erosion and stabilizing the
shorelines, while satisfying the requirements for natural shoreline, public boat and beach access,
and boat basin renovation. These alternatives satisfy the purpose and need for action to varying
but realistic degrees, using alternative design approaches. The following alternatives were
considered, but were dismissed since they did not realistically satisfy the parameters for purpose
and need. Explanations as to the reasons for dismissal of these alternatives are included.
34
3.6.1 Inner Offshore Sill Without Upland Grading. This alternative is similar to the
Offshore Sill portion of Alternative A in that it would involve the construction of a stone sill, and
would allow development of marsh vegetation between the sill and the shoreline. The sill, in this
alternative, would be located inshore in water between zero and one foot below mean sea level,
and would be located approximately 20 to 40 feet offshore. The sill footprint would potentially
have no impact on SAV but, due to its near-shore location, would have considerably greater
adverse impact upon existing communities of emergent shoreline marsh. The exposed location
and minimal size of the sill, along with the narrow protective zone width, would limit this
alternative's long-term effectiveness in preventing erosion and stabilizing the shoreline. The
development of consistent vegetative growth between sill and shoreline, a critical element for
stabilization, would be uncertain. Due to likely difficulty in meeting North Carolina Coastal
Zone Management Act consistency requirements because of adverse effects to marsh vegetation,
and a questionable level of effectiveness in stopping erosion and stabilizing the shoreline, this
alternative was dismissed.
3.6.2 Shoreline Grading and Planting Only. This alternative would involve grading of the
existing banks of Reaches 1 and 3 to a 3:1 maximum slope, and seeding and planting the slopes
with a graded mix of vegetation for stabilization. No other features would be constructed within
Reaches 1 and 3. This alternative's principal advantages would be a natural shoreline, and a
relatively low anticipated cost. A moderate loss of existing high ground would be required to
create the desired slope gradient in order to balance cut and fill volumes of earthwork Based
upon historic erosion of these shorelines in spite of the presence of established natural
vegetation, this alternative would be expected to offer a very low level of protection from
continued shoreline erosion. Without erosion attenuation, this alternative would not be expected
to effectively stabilize the shoreline. Frequent and extensive maintenance, involving regrading
and re-establishing vegetation, would likely be required to maintain the shoreline in a stable
condition. Due to a very poor anticipated level of effectiveness in satisfying the primary issues
of attenuating erosion and stabilizing the shoreline, this alternative was dismissed.
3.6.3 Grading and Planting with Reinforcement. This alternative would involve the
regrading of the existing shorelines of Reaches 1 and 3 for a 3:1 slope gradient from high ground
into the water. The new slope would be planted with a graded mix of shoreline vegetation in a
sheet reinforcing matrix similar to "Pyramat", from high ground to -2.0 feet, below mean sea
level. A small line of riprap toe protection would be placed along the base. Both top and bottom
would be "keyed in" to existing grade, but the toe could still be subject to scour from wave
energy. Vegetation species would be varied, mixed, and merged for suitable growth along the
entire slope to the bottom intercept. With direct exposure to wave and wake energy, especially
during storm events, there is concern that this alternative would fail to reliably stop erosion and
stabilize the shoreline, and would require excessive maintenance. The existing shoreline has
been eroded significantly even in areas which were densely vegetated, due to the effects of wave
and wake action, and the vegetated slope, even when combined with matrix reinforcing, may
prove inadequate in the long term. Without erosion attenuation, this alternative would not be
expected to effectively stabilize the shoreline. Frequent and extensive maintenance, involving
repair and replacement of the reinforcing matrix and its subgrade, and replanting, would likely be
35
required to maintain the shoreline in a stable condition. This alternative would largely satisfy the
requirement for a natural shoreline, in that the construction would involve only a vegetated slope,
although the uniform gradient would not be naturalistic. Due to a poor anticipated level of
effectiveness in satisfying the primary issues of attenuating erosion and stabilizing the shoreline,
this alternative was dismissed.
3.6.4 Upland Riprap. This alternative would involve the protection of the existing shorelines
in Reaches 1 and 3 with stone armoring. The stone would be placed to top out just above the
existing shoreline elevation and the top would taper down into high ground along the land side.
The armoring would slope downward and away from land at a 3:1 gradient, where it would
intersect the bottom and be entrenched 2 feet below bottom elevation. The stone would be
placed over a geotextile underlayment to help maintain consistent placement and to hold a more
consistent shape after construction. This alternative would meet the immediate goal of
attenuating high ground erosion; however, consistent maintenance would be needed to avoid
erosion which could quickly develop when the riprap is displaced or undermined by wave
energy. This alternative would stabilize the shoreline; however, it would not satisfy the goal of
maintaining a natural shoreline, in that it would cover the natural shoreline with a highly visible
structure of armor stone. The armor construction would have adverse effects upon much of the
existing emergent marsh vegetation along the shoreline, and would likely impede the future
growth of significant extents of such vegetation. Due to its failure to satisfy the NPS policy of
maintaining an environment reasonably true to its natural state, and likely difficulty in meeting
North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act consistency requirements, this alternative was
dismissed.
3.6.5 Seawall. This alternative would involve the construction of a timber, masonry, or
concrete seawall along the entire "natural" shoreline of Reaches 1 and 3. The seawall would be
constructed along the existing water's edge (ordinary high water), would be buried at least 2 feet
below low tide level, and would extend vertically to the elevation of the existing high ground
along the shoreline. The cost of this alternative would be significantly higher than the other
alternatives. This alternative would provide immediate protection from shoreline erosion above
the wall, although the turbulence occurring along the outside base of the wall would lead to
increased bottom erosion and maintenance requirements. These factors would affect the stability
of the seawall's foundation and backfill and lead to extensive maintenance, as demonstrated by
existing conditions at the shoreline bulkheads. A seawall would not satisfy the goal of a natural
shoreline, in that it would create a highly visible hard structure. The construction process, as
well as the increase in turbulence at the base of the seawall, would have adverse effects upon
much of the existing emergent marsh vegetation, and impede the future growth of such
vegetation. Due to its failure to satisfy the NPS policy of maintaining an environment
reasonably true to its natural state, and likely difficulty in meeting North Carolina Coastal Zone
Management Act consistency requirements, this alternative was dismissed.
3.6.6 Install Riprap at Base of Outer Bulkheads. This alternative would involve the
placement of riprap along the base of existing outer bulkheads along Reach 2. The stone would
be placed to top out just below the tops of bulkheads which directly face the sound, and would
36
slope downward away from the bulkhead faces at a 3:1 gradient, where it would intersect the
bottom and be entrenched 2 feet below bottom elevation. The stone would be placed over a
geotextile underlayment to help maintain consistent placement and to hold a more consistent
shape after construction. This alternative would help resist wave impacts to the bulkheads with
the intent of reducing maintenance requirements. Its footprint could have adverse impacts on
small areas of submerged aquatic vegetation. Due to limited anticipated benefits as compared
with expected bulkhead maintenance without the riprap, and potential difficulty in meeting North
Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act consistency requirements, this alternative was
dismissed.
3.6.7 Geotube Placement for Shoreline Protection. Early discussions included the concept
of placing sand-filled fabric geotubes along the shorelines of Reaches 1 and 3 for the purpose of
attenuating erosion and stabilizing these non-bulkheaded shorelines. Although the initial cost of
geotubes would likely be less than that of "hard" structures serving a similar purpose, there are
critical disadvantages to the use of geotube construction in this setting. Disadvantages include
degradation of the fabric due to exposure to weather and solar radiation, and fabric damage
caused by wave action, floating debris, vessels, and vandals. Such degradation and damage
could lead to rapid and extensive failure of the shoreline protection over a relatively short term.
Since a durable and reliable method of protection is required along these steadily- and rapidly-
eroding shorelines, the use of geotube construction was considered not appropriate for this
project, and this alternative was dismissed.
3.7 Comparison of Alternatives. In Table 3.713, "Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts
for Considered Alternatives", impact topic ratings are defined numerically as described in Table
3.7A, "Impact Measurement Indicators for Considered Alternatives". Impact topic ratings are
based on evaluations which are detailed in section 5.0, Environmental Consequences, of this EA.
"Impact Intensity" ratings at the bottom of Table 3.713 are calculated as the average of all Factor
impact ratings for each alternative.
37
IMPACT MEASUREMENT INDICATORS
FOR CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES
Type Beneficial Adverse
The effects are beneficial to park The effects are adverse to park
resources resources
(kev 1. 2. or 3 in intensity). (kev -1. -2. or -3 in intensity).
Context Site-specif is Local Regional
The effects are limited The effects encompass The effects extend
to the immediate Harkers Island and throughout the Cape
project location, surrounding waters Lookout region of North
NP5/CLN5 property (key L). Carolina
along eastern shoreline (key R).
of Harkers Island
(kev 5).
Duration Short-term
The effects would last one year or
less
Intensity
Negligible
The effect would
be at the lowest
levels of
detection, barely
perceptible and
not measurable
(key O).
Minor
The effect would
be detectable and
measurable, but
would be slight in
terms of
perception
(key 1).
Long-term
The effects would last more than one
Moderate
The effect would
be apparent, and
have substantial
and somewhat
perceptible
consequences,
which could be
successfully
mitigated to
offset adverse
effects
(key 2).
year
:v U
Major
The effect would
be readily
apparent, and
have substantial
and highly
perceptible
consequences,
markedly
different from
existing
conditions, which
might not be
successfully
mitigated to
offset adverse
effects
38
TABLE 3.78
SUMMARY OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS
FOR CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE: A B No Action
Agency Preferred Grading and Planting with
Offshore Sill, Concrete Mat,
Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Bulkhead and Boat Ramp
Repair Repair
IMPACT EFFECT: x c x c x c '
c V a V o c

IMPACT TOPIC: V ? H V ? H V ? H
High-ground vegetation 5 LT 2 5 LT 1 5 LT -3
Wetlands 5 LT 2 5 LT 1 5 LT -2
Fish and wildlife L LT 1 L ST 1 L LT -1
Shoreline stability 5 LT 3 5 LT 1 5 LT -3
Soils/geology 5 LT 2 5 ST 0 5 LT -3
Land use L LT 2 5 LT 1 L LT -3
Transportation L LT 1 5 LT 1 L LT -3
Cultural resources TB[) TBD TBD TB[) TB[) TBD TBD TBD TBD
Economics 5 LT 1 5 ST 1 L LT -3
Natural shoreline 5 LT 2 5 LT 1 L LT 0
Availability L LT 1 5 LT 0 L LT -3
Recreation/boat access L LT 0 L LT 0 L LT -3
Natural resources L LT 2 L LT 1 L LT -2
IMPACT INTENSITY, +1
6 +0
8 -2
4
AVERAGED: . . .
As shown by the Impact Intensity Averages in Table 3.713, Agency-Preferred Alternative A,
Offshore Sill with Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair, ranks highest in summary of direct and
indirect positive impacts, with a minor-to-moderate positive Cumulative Impact average of +1.6.
Alternative B, Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat, and Bulkhead and Boat Ramp
39
Repair, scores in the negligible-to-minor positive range with an average of +0.8, indicating a
less effective beneficial cumulative effect than Alternative A. The No Action alternative scores
in the moderately negative range with a -2.4 average, indicating an adverse cumulative effect.
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.
Following are descriptions of the existing environmental resources of the areas that would be
affected if any of the alternatives were implemented. This section describes only those
environmental resources that are relevant to the decision to be made. It does not describe the
entire existing environment, but only those environmental resources that would affect or that
would be affected by the alternatives if they were implemented. This section, in conjunction
with the description of the "no-action" alternative, forms the baseline conditions for determining
the environmental impacts of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives.
4.1 General Environmental Setting.
4.1.1 Natural Resources.
4.1.1.1 Vegetation / Wetlands. The function of salt marshes in maintaining a healthy
ecosystem, values for wildlife habitat, and benefit to humans is well-documented. They
generally exist in the intermittently-flooded area between mean sea level and the average spring
high tide. The predominant vegetation is composed of dense stands of smooth cordgrass. Salt
marshes are dependent upon the cyclic inundation to accumulate peat, sediments, and nutrients.
Tidal action also prevents the invasion of upland species and therefore maintains monotypic
stands of cordgrass. High salt marshes are flooded in spring and during storm tides and are
dominated by black needlerush and salt meadow cordgrass. Low salt marshes are dominated by
salt marsh cordgrass and are flooded at mean low tide. Submerged aquatic vegetation is a
diverse assembly of rooted macrophytes that grow in shallow water, under the surface, but not
above it. Under federal regulations, submerged aquatic vegetation beds are considered special
aquatic sites (40 CFR 230 sec. 404(b)(1) Guidelines -Protection of Wetlands and Other Waters
of the U. S.). At Cape Lookout National Seashore, submerged aquatic vegetation beds are
composed of several species of seagrasses. Their deep-rooted rhizome system makes seagrasses
very important in stabilizing bottom sediments and improving water clarity by trapping the fine
particles that would otherwise remain suspended by wave and current action. Seagrasses bind
shallow water sediments with their roots and rhizomes and baffle wave and current energy with
their leafy canopy. The physical stability, reduced mixing, and shelter provided by seagrasses
provide for a highly productive system. Seagrasses form the basis of the food web in clear-water
systems, where they uptake dissolved nutrients and convert them to plant biomass. They provide
important nursery habitat for larval and juvenile stages of many fish and shellfish species
because the vegetation helps to reduce current velocities, provides an attachment surface, reduces
turbidity, and provides refuge and food. Seagrass beds are feeding habitats for many species of
fish, turtles, and waterfowl. Seagrass health and acreage is directly proportional to the health and
status of many commercially and recreationally important seafood species at Cape Lookout such
40
as shrimp, crabs, scallops, red drum, speckled trout, and mullet. Factors that limit seagrass
distribution include low salinity, high turbidity, and high wave energy. The extent of seagrass
beds naturally fluctuates over time. Depending on the species and the physical setting, the rate at
which portions of the seafloor switch from vegetated to unvegetated may vary on the scale of
days and/or decades; therefore, the amount of open seafloor bottom required to maintain patchy
seagrass beds is greater than the coverage by the seagrass itself at any one point in time,
sometimes by a factor of two. Seagrass habitat should be recognized as including not only beds
of continuous cover, but chronically patchy habitat (Fonseca et al. 1998). There is limited
information on the coverage of submerged aquatic vegetation in North Carolina, but anecdotal
information indicates that the coverage of seagrass beds has declined significantly from historic
levels, particularly in the rivers, creeks, and western sounds. As human populations in coastal
areas increase, the anthropogenic impacts on seagrass beds increase through nutrient enrichment
and suspended sediment loading from runoff, light reduction from increased turbidity and
phytoplankton blooms; increased boat traffic; and more direct impacts such as trawling, clam
dredging, and propeller scarring. Dredge and fill activities have also been recognized as a major
factor in the loss of seagrass beds. In Back and Core sounds, seagrass beds located in protected
shallow waters are dominated by eelgrass (Zostera marina), shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), and
widgeon grass (Ruppia maritime), a mixture of species found only in North Carolina (NPS
2001). Between 1985 and 1992, the National Marine Fisheries Service's Beaufort Laboratory
conducted aerial photography of the coastal waters of North Carolina for mapping and
monitoring submerged aquatic vegetation beds (NOAA, no date). Within the Cape Lookout
National Seashore jurisdictional waters, seagrass acreage based on the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's mapping includes 980 acres at Shackleford Banks, 1,100 acres at
South Core Banks, and 130 acres at North Core Banks. The shoreline of Harkers Island in the
project area has been substantially affected by human activity, as well as by natural forces.
Vegetation along the south (Reach 3) shoreline includes sporadic and sparse communities of
Spartina patens in the upper tidal zone rising to lawngrass just above a high ground scarp.
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds exist just off the shore of this reach, except at the turn
to the eastern shore. Vegetation along the southerly portion of the east shoreline, to the end of
the bulkhead, includes communities of Spartina in the tidal range among the rock, below the
bulkheads, with little to no growth in the vicinity of the boat basin. A fragment of SAV exists
along the north portion of the bulkheaded shoreline. North of the bulkhead, in Reach 1, there are
extensive areas of scoured and eroded peat with scattered Spartina patens communities in the
intertidal zone. No SAV is found along Reach 1 in the project area; SAV beds begin offshore of
the coastal marsh located just north of the project area. Along and just above the approximate
line of high tide in Reach 1 lies the toe of an eroded earthen scarp of varying height. Above the
scarp lies a band of shrubby native growth, the shoreline extent of which shows evidence of salt
spray growth inhibition, and which merges into pine/oak forest. Vegetation along the shoreline
band includes Live oak (Quercus virginiana), Loblolly pine (Pious taeda), Sweet bay magnolia
(Magnolia virginiana), Wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), Gallberry (Ilex glabra), Spanish bayonet
(Yucca aloifolia), Groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia), Greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox), and
Reindeer moss (Cladonia spp.). Along the eroded shoreline lie occasional areas of concrete
structural remnants, and concrete and masonry rubble which has been placed along the scarp.
Progressing northward along the eastern Reach 1 shoreline, some of the eroded areas contain
41
previously-forested areas where trees have died due to advancement of the erosion, with their
remnant root systems remaining in various stages of exposure in the tidal zone. As the high
ground depresses along the northerly portion of this east shoreline, a wide marsh area of Spartina
alterniflora has formed, grading into a very gradual transition from marsh to forest. Here, the
newly-constructed trail becomes a raised walkway over wooded flood-prone and wetland areas,
eventually connecting to a raised walkway crossing 200 feet or more of marsh to the water.
4.1.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists species
as threatened or endangered when they are deemed to meet criteria detailed under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973. In addition, candidate species are designated when there is
adequate information regarding threats or vulnerability to warrant issuance of a proposed rule to
list, but circumstances preclude rule issuance. Special concern species include state special
concern species, which are those species that require monitoring but may be collected or sold
under special regulations. Wildlife species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in North
Carolina as threatened, endangered, or special concern species, which may occur in or near the
Cape Lookout National Seashore are listed in Table 4.1.1.2.
42
TABLE 4.1.1.2
FEDERAL AND STATE LISTED WILDLIFE IDENTIFIED IN
CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE
Finback whale
Northern right whale
Humpback whale
Florida manatee
Sperm whale
Eubalaena
Trichechus manatus latirostris
Phvseter catodon
Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kernpi Endangered Endangered
Leatherback sea turtle Derrnochelys coriacea Endangered Endangered
Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened Threatened
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened Threatened
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis Threatened Threatened
(similar in appearance)
Carolina diamondback
Carolina water snake
Outer Banks kingsna
Birds
Roseate tern
American bald eagle
Peregrine falcon
Gull-billed tern
Black skimmer
Brown pelican
Common tern
Glossy ibis
Least tern
Little blue heron
LoLyaerhead shrike
Tricolored heron
Terrestrial Plants
Seabeach amaranth
Nerodia
Sterna dougallii
Haliaeetus leucocep,
Charadrius rnelodus
Falco peregrines
Sterna nilotica
centrata
concern
concern
concern.
Pelecanus occidentalis
Sterna anitllarurn
Sterna antillarurn
Egretta caerulea
Lanius ludovicianus
Egretta thula
Egretta tricolor
Arnaranthus
Threatened Threatened
Threatened Threatened
Threatened
Special concern
Special concern
Special concern
Special concern
Special concern
Special concern
Special concern
Special concern
Special concern
Threatened Threatened
Source: USFWS species listing, Carteret County, 2405.
43
The above-listed threatened, endangered, or special concern species generally occur in
association with the outer banks portion of NPS/CLNS park property and not at the Harkers
Island NPS/CLNS shoreline.
• Marine Mammals. Because the waters of Back and Core Sounds are very shallow
(waters in the park's jurisdiction are generally less than 10 feet deep), few marine
mammal species venture into these waters. The Florida manatee has occasionally been
sighted in waters near Cape Lookout, with individual manatees having been reported at
Beaufort, Morehead City, and Taylor Creek in recent years. Satellite tagging has
revealed that some manatees travel through Bogue, Back, and Core Sounds on summer
migrations to Chesapeake Bay. In the 19th century, the manatee was hunted for its meat
and oils in the U.S., resulting in a severe population decline. While manatees are now
protected from hunting, more than 30% of manatee deaths continue to be human-related,
primarily from collisions with boats, but also including entanglement in commercial
fishing gear, and being crushed in canal locks and floodgates. Manatees spend much of
their time feeding and resting in shallow seagrass beds, which often results in their being
struck by boats, as they cannot always dive quickly enough to avoid being hit. A
significant factor in the decline of the manatee populations has been the loss of seagrass
beds, the manatee's primary food source, due to human development impacts on coastal
waters.
• Aquatic Reptiles. Four species of sea turtles are found in the waters around Cape
Lookout National Seashore: the green sea turtle, Kemp's ridley sea turtle, leatherback
sea turtle, and Atlantic loggerhead sea turtle. The Kemp's ridley and the leatherback are
listed as federal and state endangered, and the Atlantic loggerhead and green sea turtles
are listed as federally and state threatened (USFWS 2005). These sea turtle are present in
the park waters between the spring and fall, and Atlantic loggerheads and green sea
turtles nest on Atlantic side beaches of the park during the summer months. Leatherback
turtles also nest on the park's beaches. In 2003, the first known nesting of a Kemp's
ridley turtle at Cape Lookout was documented (NPS 2003). The shallow waters of Core
and Back Sounds are important feeding areas for juvenile and adult sea turtles migrating
up and down the coast. Formerly on the endangered species list, the American alligator
has subsequently been considered fully recovered and was listed as threatened due to
similarity of appearance in 1987. The American alligator rarely visits the Core Banks
and has been sighted once on the beach (NPS 2001).
• Terrestrial Reptiles. The Carolina diamondback terrapin is a state listed special concern
species. It primarily inhabits coastal salt marshes and can tolerate fresh water, but rarely
leaves salt or brackish water. The Carolina diamondback terrapin is a resident of the salt
marsh environment at Cape Lookout, which is generally located on the sound side of the
islands and is common in the marshes and sound side waters of the park. The Carolina
water snake, also known as the Carolina salt marsh snake, is a state listed special concern
species. It is a coastal subspecies of the northern water snake and inhabits brackish
water, salt marshes, and fresh water along the Outer Banks. It is a resident of the salt
44
marsh environment at Cape Lookout, which is generally located on the sound side of the
islands (NPS 2001). The Outer Banks king snake is a state listed special concern species.
It is a subspecies of the eastern king snake and is often brownish in ground color with
heavy speckling. The Outer Banks king snake may be found in shrub thickets behind the
dunes (NPS 2001).
• Birds. The roseate tern rarely visits Cape Lookout, and does not nest within the park
(NPS 2001). The American bald eagle is both a federal and state-listed threatened
species. Typical habitat within the national seashore consists of areas with adequate food,
perching areas, and nesting sites. It uses the national seashore in limited numbers for
feeding and resting (NPS 2001). The piping plover is also both a federal and state-listed
threatened species. Habitat is concentrated in open beaches and tidal flats, and at Cape
Lookout all nesting is near both active and inactive inlets on the Outer Banks. The
peregrine falcon was recently de-listed under the Endangered Species Act, but is still
listed as a state listed endangered species in North Carolina. It uses the national seashore
primarily for feeding and resting during fall migration. The gull-billed tern is a state
listed threatened species. It nests in colonies in low dune areas within the Cape Lookout
Seashore (NPS 2001). The black skimmer is a state-listed special concern species.
Primary habitat for the black skimmer is coastal waters, including beaches, bays,
estuaries, and sandbars, as well as tidal creeks which are used for foraging. It primarily
nests on sandy beaches, small coastal islands, and dredge spoil islands, and usually nests
in association with or near terns (NatureServe Explorer). Within the national seashore, it
also nests in colonies on the beach, among scattered low dunes, and on tidal flats (NPS
2001). The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, except for the Atlantic Coast, Florida, and
Alabama, list the brown pelican as an endangered species. It is a state-listed special
concern species. The brown pelican feeds primarily in shallow waters within 20 miles of
shoreline, rests during the day and roosts at night on sand spits and offshore sand bars,
and nests on small coastal islands that provide protection from mammal predators and
have sufficient elevation to prevent flooding of nests. It flies up and down the coast and
feeds offshore, but does not nest in the park (NPS 2001). The common tern is a state
listed special concern species. It is found on seacoasts, estuaries, bays, lakes, rivers, and
marshes. It nests on sandy, pebbly, or stony beaches, matted vegetation, marsh islands,
and grassy areas, typically on isolated, sparsely vegetated islands in large lakes or along
the coast. It nests in areas with other terns on the national seashore (NPS 2001). The
glossy ibis is a state listed special concern species. It is found mainly in marshes,
swamps, lagoons, pond margins, lakes, or flooded pastures in fresh, brackish, and salt
water. It is found in marsh habitats within Cape Lookout, which are generally located on
the sound side of the islands (NPS 2001). The least tern is a state-listed special concern
species. It nests near water, particularly on seacoasts, beaches, bays, estuaries, lagoons,
lakes, and rivers. It rests and loafs on sandy beaches, mudflats, and salt pond dikes. The
least tern is susceptible to human disturbances, predation, flooding, and loss of habitat.
Within the national seashore, it also nests in colonies on the beach, among scattered low
dunes, and on tidal flats (NPS 2001)
45
Terrestrial Plants. The seabeach amaranth is both a federally and state-listed threatened
species. It is a small annual dune plant found only on sandy beaches. At Cape Lookout it
is most common near inlets. Most of the plants are found on the south facing beaches at
Shackleford Banks and between Cape Point and Power Squadron Spit.
4.1.1.3 Essential Fish Habitat. The 1996 Congressional amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) (PL 94-265) set forth new requirements
for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), regional fishery management councils
(FMC), and other Federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish
habitat. These amendments established procedures for the identification of Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH) and a requirement for interagency coordination to further the conservation of
Federally managed fisheries. Table 4.1.1.3A lists, by life stages, fish species which may occur in
the project area or immediate vicinity (Back Sound and Barden Inlet) and which are managed
under MSFCMA. Table 4.1.1.313 shows the categories of EFH and Habitat Areas of Particular
Concern (HAPC) for managed species (identified in the Fishery Management Plan Amendments
of the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic FMCs) and indicates their status in the project area and
immediate vicinity. These fish species and habitats require special consideration to promote
their viability and sustainability. The potential impacts of the proposed action on these fish and
EFH found in the project impact area are discussed in the following paragraphs.
46
TABLE 4.1.1.3A
Fish Species Managed under MSFCMA that May Occur in the Cape Lookout Vicinity.
EFH FISH SPECIES Back Sound Barden Inlet
drum ELJA ELJA
;fish ELJA ELJA
aver flounder LJA L J A
grouper J J A
V snapper J J A
)hin N/A N/A
is ELJA ELJA
mackerel J A J A
fish mackerel LJA L J A
;k sea bass LJA LJA
ry dogfish J A J A
xnshrimp ELJA ELJA
:shrimp ELJA ELJA
teshrimp ELJA ELJA
loped hammerhead shark N/A A
nose shark N/A A
;k tip shark N/A A
ky shark N/A A
it shark N/A A
lbar shark N/A A
y shark N/A A
.r shark N/A A
ntic sharpnose shark N/A A
gfin mako shark N/A A
tetip shark N/A A
;sher shark N/A A
E STAGES PRESENT:
= Not Found, E = Eggs, L = Larvae, J = Juvenile, A = Adult
47
TABLE 4.1.1.3B
Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern and Potential Impacts.
Potential Presence Potential Impacts
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT* In/Near Project Offshore Onshore
Project Impact to Shoreline Construction
ESTUARINE HABITATS Vicinity Area Activities Activities
Estuarine Emergent Wetlands Yes Yes Moderate benefit No
Estuarine Scrub / Shrub Mangroves No No No No
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Yes Yes No No
Oyster Reefs & Shell Banks Yes No Negligible No
Intertidal Flats Yes Yes No No
Palustrine Emergent & Forested Yes No No No
Wetlands
Aquatic Beds No No No No
Estuarine Water Column Yes Yes Negligible Negligible
Seagrass Yes No No No
Creeks Yes No No No
Mud Bottom Yes No No No
MARINE HABITATS
Live / Hard Bottoms No No No No
Coral & Coral Reefs No No No No
Artificial / Manmade Reefs No No No No
Sargassum No No No No
Marine Water Column No No No No
GEOGRAPHICALLY DEFINED
HABITAT AREAS OF
PARTICULAR CONCERN
AREA- WIDE
Council-designated Artificial Reef
Special Management Zones
Hermatypic (reef-forming) Coral
Hard Bottoms
Hoyt Hills
Sargassum Habitat
State Primary Nursery Areas
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
NORTH CAROLINA
Big Rock
Bogue Sound
Pamlico Sound at Hatteras / Ocracoke
Islands
Cape Fear sandy shoals
Cape Hatteras sandy shoals
Cape Lookout sandy shoals
New River
The Ten Fathom Ledge
The Point
No No No No
No No No No
No No No No
No No No No
No No No No
Yes No No No
Yes No No No
No No No No
No No No No
No No No No
No No No No
No No No No
No No No No
No No No No
No No No No
No No No No
48
*Essential Fish Habitat areas are identified in Fishery Management Plan Amendments for the
South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. Geographically Defined
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern are identified in Fishery Management Plan Amendments
affecting the South Atlantic Area. Information in this table was derived from Essential Fish
Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. February 1999
(Revised 10/2001, Appendices 4 and 5).
The project vicinity including Back Sound and Bardin Inlet include most of the estuarine EFH
categories with the exception of scrub/shrub mangroves, which require a more tropical
environment, and aquatic beds that occur in tidal fresh water. Marine habitats and associated
ocean EFH and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are outside of the project vicinity. As
discussed below, EFH found in the project vicinity include: Estuarine Emergent Wetlands,
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, Oyster Reefs & Shell Banks, Intertidal Flats, Palustrine Emergent
& Forested Wetlands, Estuarine Water Column, Seagrass, Creeks and Mud Bottom. The only
Estuarine HAPC in the project vicinity are Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and State Designated
Primary Nursery. No HAPC occur within the project impact area The only EFHs found in the
project impact area are emergent wetlands and estuarine water column. The impacts on these
habitats are discussed in the following paragraphs. Since no significant impact is expected on
EFH, no mitigation is proposed.
Emergent Wetlands. Estuarine emergent wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted,
herbaceous plants that are predominantly perennial and, in the project vicinity, are
represented by salt marsh communities that are dominated by smooth cordgrass (Spartina
alterniflora) and saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens). These extremely valuable
communities occur along the estuarine shoreline of CLNS and other nearby islands in Core
and Back Sound. These vegetated areas are found along the Reach 1 and 3 shorelines, and
would be adversely affected to a negligible extent by placement of the stone sill, but
ultimately benefited to a moderate extent by a net increase in acreage between sill and
shoreline.
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. Locations of SAV beds in the project vicinity have
been coordinated with the NMFS, Beaufort, NC. Since the stone sill would be aligned to
avoid the beds, there would be negligible direct impact to SAV by stone placement. The
proposed action may temporarily increase turbidity, which could impede light penetration
and adversely impact SAV, but these effects would be minor and short-term. Turbulence
which would occur along both the outside and inside base edges of the sill would cause
minor long-term indirect adverse effects to existing SAV outside the sill, but there would
be potential for development of additional areas of SAV between the sill and shoreline.
Oyster Reefs. Oysters occur in Back Sound and Core Sound; however, no live oysters
would be affected by the proposed action in the project vicinity.
• Intertidal Flats. Intertidal flats may occur in the project vicinity, but would not be
adversely affected by the proposed action.
49
• Palustrine Emergent and Forested Wetlands. The palustrine system is defined as all
nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or
lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where ocean-derived salinity is less
than 0.5 parts per thousand. None of these wetland types occur in the project impact
area.
• Estuarine Water Column. Construction activities conducted to place the stone sill will
impact the estuarine water column in the immediate vicinity of the activity.
• Creeks. A number of creeks, streams, along Back and Core Sounds provide valuable
fish nursery habitat and are designated as Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) by the NC
Marine Fisheries Commission. All are distant from the project site and do no occur in the
project impact area.
• Mud Bottoms. Mud bottoms occur at scattered locations in Back and Core Sound.
However, these areas would not be affected by the proposed action since no mud bottoms
occur in the project impact area.
• State-designated Nursery Areas. Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) are designated by the
NC Marine Fisheries Commission and are defined by the State of North Carolina as tidal
saltwaters, which provide essential habitat for the early development of commercially
important fish and shellfish (15 NC Administrative Code 313.1405). These areas are very
important ecologically because many fish species undergo initial post-larval development
here. The closest PNA is several miles away from the project area. No PNAs occur in
the project impact area.
4.1.1.4 Fish and Wildlife Fish occurring along the Harkers Island shoreline include Bluefish
(Pomatomus saltatrix), Speckled trout (Cynoscion nebulosus), Flounder (Paralichthys
lethostigma), and Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). Sea turtles occur in the waters off this
shoreline, including loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia mnydas), and leatherback
(Derrnochelys coriacea) species. Wildlife observed along the shoreline includes Nutria
(Myocaster coypu), Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus),
Eastern woodrat (??'eotoma floriclana floridana), King snake (Lampropeltis getula), and Carolina
water snake (j erodla Slpedon it idhamengelsi).
4.1.1.5 Birds. Birds which may occur along or near the Harkers Island shoreline include Blue
Jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Carolina Chickadee (Poecile carohnensis), American Redstart
(Setophaga ruticilla), Northern Waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis), Owl spp., Osprey
(Pandion haliaetus) (passing but not nesting in this area), and Gull species.
50
4.1.2 Physical Environment.
4.1.2.1 Air Quality. According to the NC Division of Air Quality, North Carolina coastal areas
in general have fairly good air quality. No notable violations of EPA standards have been noted
in areas near Harkers Island.
4.1.2.2 Water Quality. The waters along the south and east shorelines of Harkers Island are
designated Class SA Outstanding Resource Waters by the North Carolina Division of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR/DWQ).
Substantially all of the waters along the project location shoreline fall into the Outstanding
Resource Water designation. The waters along the northern shoreline of Harkers Island are
designated High Quality Waters by NCDENR/DWQ.
4.1.2.3 Soils / Geology. Soils for Harkers Island are mapped and discussed in detail in the Soil
Survey of the Outer Banks, North Carolina (USDA, SCS, 1977). Reach 1 soils are characterized
by a mix of unstable sandy material over a firm but deteriorating substrate of peat outcroppings.
Soils of Reaches 2 and 3 are characterized by poor bearing capacity, instability due to wind and
water activity, and high water tables.
4.1.2.4 Noise. Existing noise levels are generally low-level, with occasional increases due to
boat operation in the basin, passing vessels, and vehicular traffic arriving at, and leaving, the
CLNS Park Headquarters property. There are occasional noise level increases related to
maintenance and construction work on the property. Since the property is located at the terminus
of Island Road, the main traffic artery of Harkers Island, noise from high-speed passing vehicular
traffic is not a concern.
4.1.3 Socio-Economic Environment. The proposed project site is located along the shoreline
of CLNS Park Headquarters property, which is situated at the eastern extremity of Harkers
Island. Harkers Island is situated in a relatively remote area of coastal North Carolina.
Inhabitants consist of both old-family residents of moderate-to-low-income, involved in the
fishing and tourist trades, as well as higher-income part- or full-time residents who have more
recently acquired property on the island and constructed residences.
4.1.3.1 Aesthetic Resources. The total area of the national seashore encompasses 28,400 acres,
including the 91-acre site on Harkers Island. The shoreline of the NPS/CLNS Harkers Island
property affords a valuable aesthetic resource. It provides a quiet setting with expansive
estuarine views along the shoreline and across Back Sound to the barrier islands. There are areas
for picnicking and recreation, both land- and water-based. For hiking and interpretive purposes,
a trail has been developed through wooded areas along Reach 1, and extended across a marsh at
its northern extremity. Interpretive resources are provided at the CLNS Visitor Center and the
Waterfowl Museum located on the property.
51
4.1.3.2 Recreation Resources. Community values of Harkers Island are greatly enhanced by
recreational opportunities that the park offers. Local economics are heavily influenced by park
visitation: fishing, boating and day-use activities such as hiking, picnicking, and swimming,
within the park's boundaries.
4.1.3.3 Cultural, Historic, and Archeological Resources, including Native American Values
and Uses..
As an agency of the National Park Service, Cape Lookout National Seashore has utilized the
services of the Southeastern Archaeological Center and other Park Service specialists in cultural
resources management. In addition, Harkers Island has received the attention of a number of
university and avocational archaeologists. Therefore, the cultural resources of the island are
relatively well known and many of the sites have been evaluated for their importance as
interpretive or research sites.
Cape Lookout National Seashore has 60 historic structures that are integral parts of Portsmouth
Village and Cape Lookout history. These sites are maintained in good condition in response to
the National Park Service Organic Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and other mandates. Good condition means that the
sites are not deteriorating due to natural processes such as storms or human impacts such as
vandalism. Cape Lookout Village on South Core Banks has been nominated by the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Board to be included as a historic district. If the site is
included on the National Register, there will be at least 20 more historic structures added to the
List of Classified Structures for the seashore.
Past archaeological surveys have identified 36 archaeological sites, of which 18 are monitored to
insure preservation. Many of the sites are difficult to monitor and protect due to the changing
landscape of the barrier islands. One prehistoric archaeological site, 31CR2, is within the
shoreline protection project area and will require inspection or survey to determine its condition,
importance, and eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places
4.1.3.4 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste; Introduction of Toxic Substances
(Compliance with CRCLA and RCRA). The proposed project site has no history of use as an
industrial site, dump, or other repository for hazardous or toxic materials, and no impacts are
anticipated. If any hazardous or toxic waste sites are identified during construction, response
plans and remedial actions would be undertaken.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.
This section is the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons of the alternatives. Refer to
Table 3.713 for summary of impacts. The following is a discussion of the anticipated context,
intensity, and duration of changes to the existing environment, including direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects.
52
5.1 Impact Measurement.
5.1.1 Definition of Extent of Impacts. National park system units are directed to assess the
extent of impacts on park resources as defined by the context, duration, and intensity of the
effect. Each alternative is compared to a baseline to determine the context, duration, and
intensity of resource impacts. For purposes of impact analysis, the baseline is the continuation of
current management practices, with continued erosion of the shoreline threatening the integrity
of NPS/CLNS property and structures at the site (No Action Alternative). To determine impacts,
methodologies were identified to measure the change in park resources that would occur by
implementation of Alternatives A and B, which incorporate measures to attenuate shoreline
erosion. Thresholds were established for each impact topic to help understand the severity and
magnitude of changes in resource conditions, both adverse and beneficial, of the alternatives. In
general, the thresholds used come from existing literature, federal and state standards, and
consultation with subject matter experts and appropriate agencies. In the absence of quantitative
data, best professional judgment was used to determine impacts. While measurement by
quantitative means is useful, it is even more crucial for the public and decision-makers to
understand the implications of those impacts in the short and long term, cumulatively, and within
context, based on an understanding and interpretation by resource professionals and specialists.
With interpretation, one can ascertain whether certain impact intensity to a park resource is
"minor" compared to "major" and what criteria were used to base that conclusion. The terms
used in this Environmental Assessment to describe the impacts of evaluated alternatives are
defined in Table 5.1.1.
53
Type Beneficial Adverse
The effects are beneficial to park The effects are adverse to park
resources resources
(kev 1. 2. or 3 in intensitv). (kev -1. -2. or -3 in intensitv).
Context Site-specific Local Regional
The effects are limited The effects encompass The effects extend
to the immediate Harkers Island and throughout the Cape
project location, surrounding waters Lookout region of North
NP5/CLN5 property (key L). Carolina
along eastern shoreline (key R).
of Harkers Island
(key 5).
Duration Short-term Long-term
The effects would last one year or The effects would last more than one
less year
(kev ST). (kev LT).
Intensity
Negligible
The effect would
be at the lowest
levels of
detection, barely
perceptible and
not measurable
(key 0).
Minor
The effect would
be detectable and
measurable, but
would be slight in
terms of
perception
(key 1).
Moderate
The effect would
be apparent, and
have substantial
and somewhat
perceptible
consequences,
which could be
successfully
mitigated to
offset adverse
effects
(key 2).
Major
The effect would
be readily
apparent, and
have substantial
and highly
perceptible
consequences,
markedly
different from
existing
conditions, which
might not be
successfully
mitigated to
offset adverse
effects
54
5.1.2 Cumulative Impacts. The CEQ regulations to implement the National Environmental
Policy Act require the assessment of cumulative impacts in the decision-making process for
federal projects. Cumulative impacts are defined as "the impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or
person undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts are considered for
all alternatives, including the No Action alternative. Cumulative impacts were determined by
combining the impacts of the alternative being considered with other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions. See paragraph 5.3 for summary of Cumulative Impacts.
5.1.3 Impairment Analysis. The NPS Management Policies 2001 require an analysis of
potential effects to determine whether or not actions would impair park resources. The
fundamental purpose of the national park system, as established by the Organic Act and
reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a mandate to conserve park
resources and values. The NPS managers must always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the
greatest degree practicable, adversely impacting park resources and values. However, the laws
do give the National Park Service the management discretion to allow impacts to park resources
and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, as long as the impact
does not constitute impairment of the affected resources and values. Although Congress has
given the National Park Service the management discretion to allow certain impacts within a
park system unit, that discretion is limited by the statutory requirement that the agency must
leave park resources and values unimpaired, unless a particular law directly and specifically
provides otherwise. The prohibited impairment is an impact that, in the professional judgment of
the responsible NPS manager, would harm the integrity of park resources or values. An impact
to any park resource or value may constitute impairment, but an impact would be more likely to
constitute impairment to the extent that it has a major or severe adverse effect upon a resource or
value whose conservation is:
• Necessary to fulfill purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of
the park;
• Key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or
Identified as a goal in the park's general management plan or other relevant NPS
planning documents.
Impairment may result from NPS activities in managing the park, visitor activities, or activities
undertaken by concessionaires, contractors, and others operating in the park. The following
process was used to determine whether the alternatives had the potential to impair park resources
and values:
55
• The park's enabling legislation; the General Management Plan, the Strategic Plan, and
other relevant background were reviewed with regard to the unit's purpose and
significance, resource values, and resource management goals or desired future
conditions.
• Management objectives specific to resource protection goals at the park were identified.
• Thresholds were established for each resource of concern to determine the context,
intensity, and duration of impacts, as defined above.
• An analysis was conducted to determine if the magnitude of impact reached the level of
"impairment," as defined by NPS Management Policies.
The impact analysis includes any findings of impairment to park resources and values for each of
the management alternatives. Impairment determinations were based on analysis presented in
the Environmental Effects Section. The 1916 NPS Organic Act (16 USC 1) commits the Park
Service to making informed decisions that perpetuate the conservation and protection of park
resources unimpaired for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations.
5.2 General Environmental Effects.
5.2.1 Natural Resources.
5.2.1.1 High-ground Vegetation.
No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would result in major, long-term, site-
specific adverse impacts to high-ground vegetation in Reach 1, due to the continuing progress of
unabated high-ground erosion. See Figure 4. Changes in NPS/CLNS Shoreline, Paragraph 1.2.
There would be no appreciable effect on high-ground vegetation in Reach 2, due to the lack of
natural vegetation and the presence of bulkheads. This alternative would allow continued
erosion and landward migration of the shoreline in both Reaches 1 (1700 linear feet) and 3 (1280
linear feet), but adverse effects would occur primarily in Reach 1, since this entire reach supports
a full growth of high-ground vegetation. Wave energy along this unstable shoreline would
continue washing the high-ground soil into adjacent waters, exposing and killing roots of high-
ground vegetation by progress of erosion. Natural high-ground vegetation is almost nonexistent
in Reach 3 due to the establishment and maintenance of grassed lawn areas.
Alternative A, Agency-Preferred Alternative. The stone sill of Alternative A, Offshore Sill
and Bulkhead/Boat Ramp Repair would reduce the intensity of wave impacts along the
shoreline, and create a more favorable growth zone for the development of well-graded natural
shoreline vegetation. The reduction of wave impact levels would stabilize the continuing erosive
impacts to bottom and shoreline soil profile. With a more stable shoreline, emergent vegetation
could become established in the shallows just landward of the sill, grading up the slope into a
56
better-established mix of high-ground vegetation. Because of the expected turbulence and
bottom erosion along the outside and inside toes of the sill, a minor degree of regular
maintenance would be necessary to maintain effective shore protection, particularly during the
early stages of vegetative development. Major storms could result in more extensive sill damage
and need for repair, especially during these early stages. Initial plantings of marshgrass along
the water's edge and SAV between sill and shoreline, where feasible, would help initiate
additional growth in the vegetative zone. The development of a consistent growth and mix of
vegetation between sill and high ground would join with the sill in further reducing the adverse
effects of wave-energy impacts to the shoreline, protecting the sill in turn and further improving
shoreline soil stability. Good soil stability would provide a reliable medium for root growth, and
result in vigorous growth of high-ground vegetation along the Reach 1 shoreline. A measure of
high-ground vegetation could be allowed to establish in Reach 3, while maintaining lawn areas
beyond the natural vegetation. The repair of bulkheads in Reach 2 would better stabilize the
high-ground soil, although natural high-ground vegetation would not be allowed to grow above
the bulkheads, to facilitate maintenance and access. This alternative would provide major site-
specific, long-term benefits for high-ground vegetation in Reaches 1 and 3.
Alternative B. This alternative, Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat, and
Bulkhead/Boat Ramp Repair, would result in moderately beneficial, site-specific, long-term
effects to high-ground vegetation. The concrete mat would provide a protective covering to the
bottom and shoreline soil profile in Reaches 1 and 3, reducing the erosive effects of wave
energy. The improved stability would favor rooting and development of mixed natural shoreline
vegetation, from water's edge to high ground. The plant growth would be limited somewhat by
exposure to direct wave impacts, and a moderate level of maintenance would be required to keep
the mat intact and sustain healthy growth. The emergence of vegetative growth would also be
limited by the ground coverage of the concrete mat. Maintenance of the concrete mat would be
critical to the development of high-ground vegetation, and major storms could create extensive
damage to the mat, adversely affecting plant growth. To the extent that a reasonable growth
zone could be maintained, high-ground vegetation would become better established in
conjunction with developing emergents. As with Alternative A, the repair of bulkheads in Reach
2 would better stabilize the high-ground soil. Natural high-ground vegetation would not be
allowed to grow above the bulkheads, however, to facilitate maintenance and access.
Conclusions. The NPS concludes that alternatives A, to a moderate extent and B, to a minor
extent, would provide reliable shoreline stabilization with growth potential for natural high-
ground vegetation, in Reaches 1 and 3. Status quo would be maintained for vegetation in Reach
2, with lawns in lieu of natural high-ground vegetation at the bulkheads. The NPS concludes as
well that the No Action Alternative would result in continued major adverse effects to high-
ground vegetation in Reaches 1 and 3, with unabated erosion control along those shorelines.
This alternative would have no effect on high-ground vegetation in Reach 2, since lawngrass
would remain the primary plant growth above the bulkheads.
Impairment Conclusion. The NPS concludes that neither Alternative A, the NPS preferred
alternative, nor B would impair high-ground vegetation. The NPS also concludes that the No
57
Action Alternative would not impair high-ground vegetation in Reach 1, although continuing
erosion would result in continued loss of such vegetation.
5.2.1.2 Wetlands.
No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would result in minor long-term, site-
specific adverse impacts to wetlands in Reaches 1 and 3. Erosion and instability along these
shorelines would be expected to continue, causing constant change in the position and extent of
existing wetlands. Existing wetland communities are in constant flux due to shoreline and
bottom changes caused by wave energy. This alternative would have no wetland effects in
Reach 2, which, due to the existing bulkheads, with their associated turbulence and increased
water depths, do not support wetlands.
Alternative A, Agency-Preferred Alternative. With its offshore stone sill, Alternative A,
Offshore Sill with Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair, would reduce the adverse impacts of
direct wave energy on existing emergent wetlands in Reaches 1 and 3. The sill would diffuse
wave energy before it could strike the shoreline, and provide a larger and more stable growth
zone for emergent, as well as high-ground, vegetation. The sill would be placed in an alignment
designed to minimize direct impacts of its footprint on either emergent wetlands (landward of the
sill) or beds of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), located waterward of the sill. Initial
plantings of marshgrass along the water's edge, where feasible, would help initiate additional
growth in the vegetative zone. A minor level of regular sill maintenance would be required for
effective wetland development, due to the erosive effects of turbulence along the inner and outer
sill toes. Major storms could result in a need for more extensive repair. The establishment of a
consistent growth zone would in turn improve shoreline stability with development of a
continuous root mat and vegetative mass shielding and holding the soil in place. The resulting
wetland communities would be much larger and more contiguous in form than existing
communities. There would be minimal adverse effects to existing SAV communities due to
construction of the sill, caused by temporary turbidity and sediment re-deposition during
placement of the stone. Although there would be virtually no placement of stone directly upon
SAV beds, the completed sill would create a line of turbulence and increased turbidity/sediment
re-deposition immediately adjacent to its outer (and inner) toe. These effects would inhibit the
growth of SAV in the immediate vicinity of either toe, and could adversely effect edges of the
existing beds which would lie near the sill in Reach 3. Based upon a similar installation at
Festival Park, Manteo, NC, there would be potential for additional development of SAV
landward of the sill as the vegetative zone forms between sill and shoreline. This would result in
a potential balance, or net increase, of SAV community acreage depending upon growth inside
the sill. This alternative would provide moderate, site-specific long-term benefits for wetlands in
Reaches 1 and 3. There would be no change in Reach 2, which does not support emergent
wetlands due to the presence of excessive turbulence and water depths along the bulkheads.
Small communities of submerged aquatic vegetation offshore of the bulkheads would not be
affected, since the bulkhead footprints would remain essentially the same.
58
Alternative B. This alternative, Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat and Bulkhead and
Boat Ramp Repair, would provide minor site-specific, long-term benefits to wetlands along
Reaches 1 and 3. The concrete mat would reduce direct erosive impacts of wave energy on the
bottom and shoreline soil profile in these areas. Due to the lack of positive wave attenuation,
emerging plant growth would suffer the effects of direct wave impact at the shoreline. The high-
percentage ground coverage of the concrete mat would limit the density and development rate of
vegetative growth within the mat placement area Construction of this alternative could
adversely affect virtually all of the existing wetland vegetation within the project area, since the
mat, and potentially the grading, would extend throughout the existing wetland zone. Wetland
vegetation would be expected to re-establish over time in a more consistent and extensive
fashion than the existing communities. Long-term survivability of the resultant wetlands would
be highly dependent on adequate maintenance of the mat, particularly following major storms.
Conclusions. The NPS concludes that Alternative A, to a moderate extent, and B, to a minor
extent due to improvement of substrate stability, would benefit wetland growth in Reaches 1 and
3. The NPS also concludes that the No Action alternative would result in minor adverse effects
to wetlands in Reaches 1 and 3, due to continuing constant change in wetland habitat conditions.
Status quo would continue in Reach 2 under all three alternatives: no existing or anticipated
wetland communities in these bulkheaded areas.
Impairment Conclusion. The NPS concludes that neither Alternative A, the NPS preferred
alternative, nor B would impair wetlands. The NPS also concludes that the No Action
Alternative would not impair wetlands in Reaches 1 and 2, since wetlands lost due to continued
shoreline migration would regenerate in a similar manner along the new shore alignments.
5.2.1.3 Fish and Wildlife.
No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would result in minor, long-term, local
adverse effects to fish and wildlife resources in the entire shoreline of the project area. Adverse
effects would result from the continually eroding shoreline, and from the sparse development of
emergent vegetation due to shoreline dynamics. Other adverse effects would result from the
gradual loss of high ground, particularly in Reach 1, where such losses would continue
diminishing available woodland habitat. Effects to fish and wildlife would be less pronounced in
the bulkheaded shorelines of Reach 2.
Alternative A, Agency-Preferred Alternative. Alternative A, Offshore Sill with Bulkhead
and Boat Ramp Repair, would provide minor, long-term local benefit to fish and wildlife along
the project area shoreline, primarily in Reaches 1 and 3. The beneficial effects would extend to
the range of affected fish and wildlife. A stable shoreline with well-developed natural vegetation
would provide improved habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms. A minor level of regular
sill maintenance would be required for effective habitat improvement for fish and wildlife, due to
the erosive effects of turbulence along the inner and outer sill toes. Major storms could result in
a need for more extensive repair. Initial plantings of marshgrass along the water's edge, where
feasible, would help initiate additional growth in the vegetative zone. Although the stone sill
59
would create an apparent barrier for fish access to the inner vegetated shallows, the sill's
construction would include 40 percent voids, allowing for movement of tidal waters and many
aquatic species through the sill structure. Openings would be created where feasible by
alignment offset, to further facilitate the movement of waters and aquatic organisms into and out
of the shallows, while preserving the integrity of the structure and shoreline protection in these
high-energy areas. The stone, in conjunction with developing marsh vegetation and potentially
SAV, between the sill and shoreline, would provide habitat diversity for aquatic life in Reaches 1
and 3. Shoreline stability, particularly in Reach 1, would also improve habitat for land-based
wildlife, both by reducing continuing loss of high ground and by encouraging the growth of a
mix of native vegetation from high ground into the water.
Alternative B. The shoreline-stabilizing effects of this alternative, Grading and Planting with
Concrete Mat and Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair, would provide minor, local benefit to
fish and wildlife, primarily along Reaches 1 and 3, with benefits extending throughout the range
of organisms utilizing this shoreline. The beneficial effects would be long-term to the extent that
the integrity of the concrete mat is maintained, particularly considering the potential effects of
major storms. With a stable base offering resistance to erosive wave energy, the shoreline would
develop better vegetative cover for aquatic organism and wildlife habitat. Although
characteristics of the natural bottom would be changed by the concrete mat, its joints and
openings would allow development of a root mat and growth of emergent and high-ground
vegetation. Access to the vegetated zone would be direct, both from open water and from high
ground.
Conclusions. The NPS concludes that Alternatives A, the NPS Preferred Alternative, and B
would offer minor benefit to fish and wildlife resources in Reaches 1 and 3. The No Action
Alternative would result in minor adverse effects, primarily due to continued loss of high ground
in Reaches 1 and 3 and sparse development of vegetation in Reach 1. The NPS also concludes
that no effects to fish and wildlife would be expected in Reach 2 under any of the alternatives,
where existing bulkheads would be maintained. The new stone breakwater would provide
minimal additional habitat for aquatic organisms under all the alternatives.
Impairment Conclusion. The NPS concludes that none of the three considered alternatives
would impair fish and wildlife resources.
5.2.2 Physical Environment.
5.2.2.1 Shoreline Stability.
No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would result in major, long-term, site-
specific adverse impacts to shoreline stability in Reaches 1 and 3, due to continued erosion and
migration of these reaches as expected, based on historic changes as shown in Figure 4. Changes
in NPS/CLNS Shoreline, Paragraph 1.2. There would be no effects to shoreline stability in
Reach 2, the bulkheaded shoreline, assuming continued repair and maintenance of the bulkheads
to prevent their failure.
60
Alternative A, Agency-Preferred Alternative. Construction of the stone sill of Alternative A,
Offshore Sill and Bulkhead/Boat Ramp Repair, followed by development of a viable and
well-graded mix of natural shoreline vegetation, would result in major, long-term, site-specific
benefits to shoreline stability in Reaches 1 and 3. The sill would provide a first-line diffusion of
wave energy offshore, reducing direct impacts of waves onto the shoreline, which has caused
continued erosion of shoreline soil into the water. A minor level of regular sill maintenance
would be required for effective shoreline stability, due to the erosive effects of turbulence along
the inner and outer sill toes. These effects could result in slumping of portions of the sill,
reducing wave diffusion in those areas. Major storms could result in a need for more extensive
repair, if sections of the sill are dislodged. To maximize the reliability of shoreline protection
considering the high levels of wave energy, the sill would be built using a uniform crest
elevation, and openings created by offsetting the sill alignment rather than lowering the crest
elevation. Initial plantings of marshgrass along the water's edge, and SAV between sill and
shoreline, where feasible, would help initiate additional growth in the vegetative zone. Once
developed under protection of the sill, a vegetative cover between sill and shore in these reaches
would further protect shoreline soil from direct impacts and erosion. The vegetative mass would
further diffuse wave energy in its approach to the shore. The elements of sill, vegetation, and
root mat would support one another in arresting continued erosion and migration of the
shoreline.
Alternative B. The concrete mat of this alternative, Grading and Planting with Concrete
Mat, and Bulkhead/Boat Ramp Repair, would provide minor, site-specific benefit to shoreline
stability in Reaches 1 and 3. Long-term shoreline stability could be realized only by consistent
maintenance of the concrete mat to ensure protection of the underlying soil from the erosive
forces of direct wave action. Major storms could shift, dislodge, or dismantle portions of the mat
and expose the subgrade to erosion. Prompt repair would be essential to prevent continued
erosion and deterioration of the mat, leading to shoreline instability, in areas adjacent to ruptures.
Vegetative growth within the mat, once established, would help reduce direct wave impacts, and
a well-developed root mat would add some measure of durability to the mat structure.
Conclusions. The NPS concludes that Alternative A would provide a major benefit to shoreline
stability in Reaches 1 and 3; also, that Alternative B would provide only a minor level of benefit
due to susceptibility of the concrete mat to damage during major storms. The NPS also
concludes that the No Action alternative would result in major adverse effects to shoreline
stability in these reaches, due to expected continued erosion and migration of the shoreline.
Impairment Conclusion. The NPS concludes that neither alternative A, the NPS Preferred
Alternative, nor B would impair shoreline stability. The NPS also concludes that the No Action
Alternative would not impair shoreline stability; however, there would be continued loss of high
ground and an increasing threat to park structures.
61
5.2.2.2 Soils/Geology
No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would result in major, long-term, site-
specific adverse effects to the soils and geology of the shoreline of Reaches 1 and 3. With no
action, continuing erosion would perpetuate shoreline instability and the shoreline would
continue to migrate landward. The historical breakdown of high-ground soil structure would be
expected to continue as it has in the past (see Figure 4. Changes in NPS/CLNS Shoreline,
Paragraph 1.2). Underlying firm peat outcroppings would continue to become exposed along
much of Reach 1, eventually breaking up into the water from the stress of constant wave action.
The relatively thin high-ground soil structures in the turfed areas composing most of Reach 3
would continue to disintegrate under the stress of erosion and landward migration of the
shoreline. Effects to soils and geology in Reach 2 would be negligible due to the presence of
bulkheads along this shoreline.
Alternative A, Agency-Preferred Alternative. This alternative, Offshore Sill with Bulkhead
and Boat Ramp Repair, would provide moderate, long-term site-specific beneficial effects to
the soils and geology of Reaches 1 and 3. The wave energy-diffusing effect of the stone sill,
backed with a consistent vegetative zone, would greatly reduce direct erosive impacts to the soil
surfaces of the shoreline. A well-developed vegetative root mat from sill to high ground would
reinforce the soil structure in these reaches, and the exposed vegetative mass would help further
cushion wave impacts to the soil. A minor level of regular sill maintenance would be required
for effective attenuation of shoreline soil erosion, due to the erosive effects of turbulence along
the inner and outer sill toes. Major storms could result in a need for more extensive repair.
Initial plantings of marshgrass along the water's edge, and SAV between sill and shoreline,
where feasible, would help initiate additional growth in the vegetative zone. Effects to soils and
geology in Reach 2 would be negligible due to the presence of bulkheads along this shoreline.
Alternative B. The concrete mat of this alternative, Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat
and Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair, would shield the soil of the shoreline from direct wave
impacts. With consistent maintenance, the mat would allow development of vegetative growth
through its openings and joints, which would help in turn to maintain the integrity of the mat. A
well-developed vegetative root mat would also serve to reinforce and preserve the soil structure
beneath the concrete mat. Maintenance of the mat, particularly after major storms, would be
critical for continued protection of soil structures, since breaks in mat coverage would allow
rapid increases in soil erosion in those areas. Due to the expected need for intensive
maintenance, this alternative would provide negligible, site-specific benefit in the short term, to
soils and geology of Reaches 1 and 3. Any effects to soils and geology in Reach 2 would also be
negligible due to the presence of bulkheads in this reach.
Conclusions. The NPS concludes that Alternative A would provide a moderate benefit to soils
and geology of Reaches 1 and 3, and that any benefit of Alternative B would be negligible, due
to susceptibility of the concrete mat to rupture during major storm events. The NPS also
concludes that the No Action Alternative would result in major adverse impacts to soils and
62
geology of these reaches due to continuation of the historic erosion and migration of their
shorelines.
Impairment Conclusion. The NPS concludes that neither alternative A, the NPS Preferred
Alternative, nor B would impair soils and geology of any of the three reaches. The NPS also
concludes that the No Action alternative would not impair soils and geology, although there
would be continued deterioration of these elements in Reaches 1 and 3.
5.2.2.3 Land Use
No Action Alternative. Due to continued erosion and shoreward migration of the shorelines of
Reaches 1 and 3, the No Action alternative would result in major, long-term local adverse
impacts to land use of the NPS/CLNS Harkers Island property. Continuing shoreline erosion and
migration would progressively inhibit, and potentially remove, current land uses adjacent to
these shorelines. These adverse effects would in turn effect other land uses within the park, and,
eventually, those outside the NPS/CLSN property. Affected land use areas would include Reach
3 picnic, parking, and play areas, and vehicular access from the highway, as well as the Reach 1
woodland shore recreation trail and structures. The progressive loss of land, and associated uses,
would dictate the reallocation of other uses in order to maintain a full complement of NPS
services within the property. Eventually the land losses would imply purchase of additional
property, and changing land uses outside park boundaries. There would be negligible effects to
land use in Reach 2 due to the presence of bulkheads along this shoreline.
Alternative A, Agency-Preferred Alternative. This alternative, Offshore Sill with Bulkhead
and Boat Ramp Repair, would provide moderate, long-term site-specific beneficial effects to
the land use of NPS/CLNS Harkers Island property. The combination offshore stone sill and
development of a vegetative zone from sill to high ground would stabilize the shoreline in its
current position and prevent further adverse effects to land use of the property, particularly in
areas near shorelines in Reaches 1 and 3. A minor level of regular sill maintenance would be
required for effective stabilization and protection of existing land use, due to the erosive effects
of turbulence along the inner and outer sill toes. Major storms could result in a need for more
extensive repair. Initial plantings of marshgrass along the water's edge, and SAV between sill
and shoreline, where feasible, would help initiate additional growth in the vegetative zone and
more quickly improve stability. Picnic, parking, and play areas would be preserved in Reach 3,
as well as vehicular access to these areas. Public boat and beach access would be maintained at
the existing beach in this reach. The Reach 1 woodland recreation trail and structures would also
be preserved. Reach 2 land use would be unaffected due to the continuing presence of
bulkheads.
Alternative B. This alternative, Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat, and
Bulkhead/Boat Ramp Repair, would result in minor beneficial, site-specific, long-term effects
to land use in Reaches 1 and 3. The concrete mat, if given consistent maintenance and prompt
attention following major storms, would allow development of vegetative growth through its
openings and provide stabilization in these reaches. Under these conditions, existing land use
63
patterns could persist. If the mat becomes deteriorated due to storm effects, continued erosion
could result and eventual adverse effects to land use could follow. No effects to land use would
be expected in Reach 2 due to the continued presence of bulkheads.
Conclusions. The NPS concludes that the Preferred Alternative, A, would provide a moderate
benefit for preservation of appropriate land uses in Reaches 1 and 3. Also, the NPS concludes
that the expected benefits of Alternative B to land use would be minor, since deterioration of the
mat could result in further shoreline erosion and changes to existing land use patterns in these
reaches. The NPS concludes that the No Action Alternative would result in a major detrimental
effect on land use due to unabated erosion, and would involve adverse effects upon a variety of
features of existing land use.
Impairment Conclusion. The NPS concludes that neither alternative A, the Preferred
Alternative, nor B would impair land use. The NPS concludes that No Action Alternative C
would impair land use through loss of land and existing land use features, which would harm the
integrity of park resources.
5.2.2.4 Transportation
No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would result in major, long-term local
adverse impacts to transportation into the NPS/CLNS property via highway through Harkers
Island, as well as local transportation within the property. Unchecked erosion and shoreline
migration could adversely effect the entrance highway access to the property near Reach 3.
Vehicular access to all NPS/CLNS site features, including the Visitor Center, marina, Waterfowl
Museum, and public use areas, would be impeded. This alternative would have a less critical
effect on transportation along Reach 1, but would adversely affect the recreation trail. Potential
effects on transportation in Reach 2 could occur once public ferry service is established from the
marina.
Alternative A, Agency-Preferred Alternative. This alternative, Offshore Sill with Bulkhead
and Boat Ramp Repair, would provide minor, long-term local benefit to transportation. The
stabilizing effect of the stone sill with development of a vegetative zone from sill to high ground,
in Reaches 1 and 3 would preserve the existing highway access, parking, and roadways within
the NPS/CLNS property. A minor level of regular sill maintenance would be required for
effective stabilization and protection of transportation corridors. Major storms could result in a
need for more extensive repair. There would be no effect on transportation in Reach 2 due to the
bulkheaded shoreline.
Alternative B. This alternative, Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat and Bulkhead and
Boat Ramp Repair, would provide minor, long-term site-specific benefit to transportation. The
concrete mat, if adequately maintained, repaired following major storms, and allowed to develop
vegetative growth through its openings, would stabilize the shoreline in Reaches 1 and 3 and
prevent adverse effects to roadways, parking, and trails within the NPS/CLNS property. This
alternative would have no effect on transportation in Reach 2 due to the bulkheaded shoreline.
64
Conclusions. The NPS concludes that Alternative A, and B, if adequately maintained, would
offer minor benefit to transportation in Reaches 1 and 3. These alternatives would prevent
erosion and shoreline migration which would eventually adversely affect roadways, trails, and
parking within the NPS/CLNS property. The NPS also concludes that the No Action Alternative
would result in major adverse effects to transportation due to eventual migration of the eroding
shoreline into roadway, trail, and parking areas in Reaches 1 and 3. The NPS concludes that
there would be no effects to transportation from Reach 2 due to the bulkheaded shorelines.
Impairment Conclusion. The NPS concludes that neither alternative A, the Preferred
Alternative, nor B, if adequately maintained, would impair transportation. The NPS concludes
that the No Action Alternative would not impair transportation; however, unabated shoreline
migration could eventually adversely affect highway access to the NPS/CLNS site, as well as
roadways, trails, and parking within the site.
5.2.3 Cultural, Historic, and Archeological Resources
Past archaeological surveys have discovered one prehistoric site that may still exist within the
project area. This site, 31CR2, was first recorded in 1963 by avocational archaeologist Tucker
Littleton. University of North Carolina archaeologist, Joff c Coe, conducted further
investigations 1969, and NPS archaeologist John Ehrenhard tested the site in 1976. The site was
described by Ehrenhard as a badly disturbed shell midden or remnant shell mound deposited by
Native Americans. Shell from the site has been excavated away but Ehrenhard noted that the
mound may extend into the water, below the low water line. Ceramics, shell tools, and a
fragment of human femur were recovered (John E. Ehrenhard 1976, Cape Lookout National
Seashore, Assessment of Archaeological and Historical Resources).
As the Lead Federal Agency for purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act, the National
Park Service will further investigate 31CR2 to determine if significant portions of the site still
exist. If the site is relocated, it will be evaluated for its archaeological importance and the
project will be evaluated for its potential to cause adverse effects to the site. If adverse effects
are anticipated, plans will be developed to mitigate, reduce, or eliminate these effects. This
evaluation will be undertaken per provisions of 36CFR800, Protection of Historic Properties, in
coordination with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer and other interested
parties.
5.2.4 Socio-Economic Environment
5.2.4.1 Economics.
No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would result in major, long-term, site-
specific adverse effects to the economics of NPS/CLNS. The continuing shoreline erosion and
migration in Reach 3 would impact park facilities including picnic area parking and structures,
and eventually the main access roadway. Erosion and migration impacts in Reach 1 would
65
impact the recreation trail and other structures. Adverse economic impacts have developed in
Reach 2, where portions of the existing bulkheads have deteriorated and may become subject to
failure without a moderate level of repair and reconstruction.
Alternative A, Agency-Preferred Alternative. This alternative, Offshore Sill with Bulkhead
and Boat Ramp Repair, would provide minor, long-term site-specific beneficial effects to the
economics of NPS/CLNS. This alternative would avoid the eventual major adverse economic
impacts of the No Action alternative, by stabilizing the shoreline and preventing the shoreline
migration in Reaches 1 and 3 which would threaten park facilities near the shoreline. The initial
cost of Alternative A would be offset to a moderate extent by the eventual cost of protection,
repair, replacement, or loss of facilities that would be threatened by continuing shoreline
migration. A minor level of regular sill maintenance, and allowance for more extensive repair
after major storms, would be required for long-term benefit to economics.
Since this alternative would include the upgrading of existing bulkheads in Reach 2 for better
future durability, there would be a minor economic benefit realized in this reach by the reduction
in future maintenance requirements.
Alternative B. Alternative B, Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat and Bulkhead and
Boat Ramp Repair, would provide minor, short-term site-specific benefits to the economics of
NPS/CLNS. If adequately maintained, this alternative would avoid the eventual major adverse
economic impacts of the No Action alternative by preventing shoreline migration in Reaches 1
and 3 which would threaten park resources near the shoreline. The integrity of the concrete mat
could be threatened by major storms, which could result in immediate further erosion and
possible shoreline migration without consistent maintenance. This would modulate the offset in
initial cost of Alternative B as compared with eventual cost of the effects of shoreline migration
on park facilities. As in Alternative A, bulkheads in Reach 2 would be upgraded for better
durability and reduced maintenance, resulting in a minor economic benefit in this reach.
Conclusions. The NPS concludes that Alternatives A and B would provide minor economic
benefit for NPS/CLNS in Reaches 1 and 3. The NPS also concludes that the No Action
Alternative would result in major adverse economic effects, due to the threat of continuing
erosion and shoreline migration to park facilities in the shoreline areas.
Impairment Conclusion. The NPS concludes that neither alternative A, the NPS Preferred
Alternative, nor B would impair NPS/CLNS economics. The NPS also concludes that the No
Action Alternative would not impair the economics of NPS/CLNS; however, unabated shoreline
migration would result in major adverse economic impact to park facilities.
66
5.2.4.2Natural Shoreline
No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would have negligible, long-term local
impacts on the natural shoreline aspects of Reaches 1 and 3 of the NPS/CLNS Harkers Island
property. The existing shorelines of these reaches exist in a natural state, though a dynamic one
of continuous erosion and migration. These shorelines are in a constant mode of change, and are
now largely without artificial or man-made elements. There is a segment of concrete rubble and
some remnant concrete foundation in Reach 1, and linear areas of rip-rap-sized stone, mostly
below water level, just offshore in Reach 3. Reach 2 has no natural shoreline due to the presence
of bulkheads along its entire shoreline.
Alternative A, Agency-Preferred Alternative. This alternative, Offshore Sill with Bulkhead
and Boat Ramp Repair, would add a stone offshore sill along Reaches 1 and 3, which would be
visible above water level. This artificial element would initially adversely affect the natural
aspects of these shorelines, but would create a more stable zone between sill and shoreline where
natural vegetation could become established. Initial plantings of marshgrass along the water's
edge, and SAV between sill and shoreline, where feasible, would help initiate additional growth
in the vegetative zone and speed the establishment of natural shoreline vegetation. A minor level
of regular sill maintenance would be required for effective plant growth in the vegetative zone,
due to the erosive effects of turbulence along the inner and outer sill toes. Major storms could
result in a need for more extensive repair. Vegetative growth would be expected to fill a
majority of this zone, and would include a natural graded mix of emergent and high-ground
species. Once the vegetative zone becomes established, it would blend visually with the sill and
replace the existing eroded, sparsely-vegetated shorelines with a stable, better-vegetated
transition from open water to high ground. The existing gradients and shoreline characteristics
would not be changed by grading, and vegetation would be allowed to fill the growth zone to the
extent possible. Alternative A would provide a moderate, long-term site-specific beneficial
effect to natural shoreline aspects of Reaches 1 and 3. This alternative would not change the
aspect of Reach 2 with regard to natural shoreline, since the bulkheads lining these shorelines
would remain.
Alternative B. Alternative B, Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat and Bulkhead and
Boat Ramp Repair, would have an adverse initial effect on natural-shoreline aspects of Reaches
1 and 3. The shorelines of these reaches would be regraded for a uniform slope from high
ground into the water, eliminating all existing high-ground and emergent vegetation within the
graded areas. The graded area would then be covered with concrete matting from high ground to
-2.0 feet below mean sea level. The uniform slopes and artificial armoring would initially
present an artificial appearance, but would be planted with a mix of native vegetation installed
through openings in the mat. Once the vegetation matures, the mat would no longer be visible
and the shorelines would take on a natural, though uniformly sloping, appearance. Maintenance
of the mat, particular with regard to repair following major storms, would be critical to the
preservation of a stable, vegetated natural shoreline. Alternative B, assuming adequate
maintenance, would provide a minor, long-term, site-specific beneficial effect to the natural
shoreline aspects of Reaches 1 and 3.
67
Conclusions. The NPS concludes that Alternative A, to a moderate extent, and B, to a minor
extent, would benefit natural aspects of the shorelines in Reaches 1 and 3. The NPS also
concludes that the No Action Alternative would result in negligible effects to the natural
shoreline aspects of these reaches. None of the considered alternatives would effect natural
shoreline aspects of Reach 2, since this will continue to be a bulkheaded shoreline.
Impairment Conclusion. The NPS concludes that none of the three considered alternatives
would impair natural shoreline conditions at the site.
5.2.4.3 Availability
No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would result in major, long-term local
adverse effects to availability of the NPS/CLNS park facilities to the public. Without
construction along the shorelines, the current level of availability would continue unimpeded for
a time. However, continuing shoreline erosion and migration in Reach 1 would eventually
adversely affect the recreation trail and related structures. In Reach 3, these effects would
adversely impact access-related facilities such as picnic area parking and structures, and
eventually the main access roadway. Public access to and from the water would be impeded to
the extent that access to the NPS/CLNS site would be adversely affected. Reach 2 availability
could be adversely affected by these effects as well, since public access to ferry transportation
from the marina would be impeded.
Alternative A, Agency-Preferred Alternative. This alternative, Offshore Sill with Bulkhead
and Boat Ramp Repair, would have a minor, long-term local beneficial effect on availability of
park resources to the public. Land access to public facilities would be preserved by the
attenuation of continuing shoreline erosion and migration which might adversely affect public
access. A minor level of regular sill maintenance would be required for effective long-term
protection of availability, due to the erosive effects of turbulence along the inner and outer sill
toes. Major storms could result in a need for more extensive repair. This benefit would be most
pronounced in Reach 3, the location of main roadway access and front-line public facilities, but
would extend to Reach 2, where public ferry access would be based, and the recreation trail in
Reach 1. Availability would be temporarily impeded during the construction period. The
completed offshore stone sill, and the development of a consistent shoreline vegetation zone,
would tend to impede general public access to and from the water. Water access would be
preserved under this alternative at the existing beach in Reach 3, where the sill alignment would
be brought in to high ground on either side of the beach.
Alternative B. Alternative B, Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat and Bulkhead and
Boat Ramp Repair, would result in negligible, long-term site-specific effects to availability of
park resources to the public. The shoreline grading and placement of the concrete mat would
impede availability during the construction period. Given adequate maintenance of the
completed mat, shoreline erosion and migration would be attenuated and plantings within the
mat would develop into a consistent zone of vegetation. Major storm effects could cause mat
68
deterioration and resume shoreline erosion, and access to park facilities could be impeded,
without consistent maintenance and repair of the concrete mat. Existing public access to and
from the water would be impeded to a minor extent by the concrete mat and plantings, which
would be continuous in Reaches 1 and 3. Public access in itself would adversely affect the
durability of this alternative, and indirectly the availability of park resources, in that foot traffic
across the mat would inhibit plant growth in affected areas.
Conclusions. The NPS concludes that Alternative A would have minor beneficial effects on
availability of park resources to the public, and that Alternative B would result in negligible
effects, due to potential deterioration from major storms leading to further shoreline migration,
and to inhibited public access across the mat and vegetation. The NPS also concludes that the
No Action alternative would result in major adverse effects to availability, due to the eventual
adverse impacts of continuing shoreline erosion and migration on public accessways into the
park and to park facilities.
Impairment Conclusion. The NPS concludes that Alternative A, the NPS Preferred
Alternative, nor B, would impair availability of park resources to the public. The NPS also
concludes that the No Action Alternative would not impair availability; however, there would be
eventual adverse effects to public accessways to the park facilities.
5.2.4.4 Recreation/Boat Access
No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would result in major, long-term local
adverse effects to public recreation and boat access at the NPS/CFNS Harkers Island site.
Continuing erosion and shoreline migration would adversely impact parking, and eventually
roadways in Reach 3, inhibiting public access to recreational and boat access areas of the park.
Continued shoreline migration would also adversely affect picnic structures and play areas in
Reach 3, as well as the recreation trail and structures in Reach 1. Adverse impacts to roadway
access to the park would also hinder public access to ferry transportation to the NPS/CLNS
Outer Banks, planned for the marina in Reach 2.
Alternative A, Agency-Preferred Alternative. This alternative, Offshore Sill with Bulkhead
and Boat Ramp Repair, would result in negligible, long-term local effects to public recreation
and boat access. There would be temporary adverse effects to recreation and boat access during
the construction period. The stone sill and developed vegetative zone would protect recreational
facilities in Reaches 1 and 3 by attenuating further erosion and shoreline migration. A minor
level of regular sill maintenance would be required for effective protection of recreational
facilities. Major storms could result in a need for more extensive repair. Initial plantings of
marshgrass along the water's edge, where feasible, would help initiate additional growth in the
vegetative zone. These plantings would be excluded in the existing beach area of Reach 3.
There would be a reduction in general water access by the public due to the sill structure and
developed vegetation zone, although the existing beach area in Reach 3 would be preserved for
public water access for boating and recreation. Public accessways to future ferry transportation
from the Reach 2 marina would be preserved under this alternative.
69
Alternative B. This alternative, Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat and Bulkhead and
Boat Ramp Repair, would result in negligible, long-term local effects to recreation and boat
access. Given adequate maintenance, the concrete mat, with developed vegetative growth
through its openings, would attenuate shoreline erosion and migration and protect recreational
facilities in Reaches 1 and 3. There would be temporary adverse effects to recreation and boat
access during the construction period. Major storm effects could cause deterioration in the mat,
and result in continued shoreline migration. This would adversely affect recreational features,
and eventually, access to them, in Reaches 1 and 3. Adverse impacts to park access roadways
would also hinder public access to ferry transportation, planned for the marina in Reach 2. No
specific allowance for public water access would be provided by this alternative: access would
be over the mat through vegetation, and plant growth could be repressed by foot traffic in certain
areas.
Conclusions. The NPS concludes that Alternatives A and B would result in negligible adverse
effects to public recreation and boat access in all three Reaches. The NPS also concludes that the
No Action Alternative would result in major adverse effects to recreation and boat access,
primarily in Reaches 1 and 3, due to adverse impacts to recreational resources and public water
access, cause by continued shoreline erosion and migration.
Impairment Conclusion. The NPS concludes that neither Alternative A, the NPS Preferred
Alternative, nor B, would impair recreational and boat access resources. The NPS also
concludes that Alternative C, No Action, would impair recreation and boat access, due to the
adverse effects of continued shoreline erosion and migration to park access and facilities. These
effects would harm the integrity of park resources and values.
5.2.5 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste.
No Action Alternative. No Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) sites would be
affected under this alternative.
Alternative A, Agency-Preferred Alternative. No HTRW sites within the project location
would be affected by construction of this alternative.
Alternative B. No HTRW sites within the project location would be affected by construction of
this alternative.
Conclusions. The NPS concludes that none of the considered alternatives would result in effects
to HTRW sites within the project location.
Impairment Conclusion. The NPS concludes that none of the considered alternatives would
result in impairment of park resources due to effects to HTRW sites.
70
5.2.6 Natural or Depletable Resources.
No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would result in moderate, long-term, local
adverse effects to the natural or depletable resources of the NPS/CLNS park at Harkers Island.
Continued erosion and migration of the shoreline would result in further losses of substrate, soil,
and high ground in Reaches 1 and 3, which would include a continuing loss of natural forested
shoreline acreage, with trees, shrubs, and ground cover, in Reach 1. Since Reach 3 high-ground
vegetation is principally lawngrass, depletable resource losses in this reach would mainly involve
soil and shoreline substrate. Emergent marsh communities would also be adversely affected in
Reaches 1 and 3, but lost vegetation would regenerate as the shoreline migrates. There would be
no effect to resources along the bulkheaded Reach 2 shorelines.
Alternative A, Agency-Preferred Alternative. This alternative, Offshore Sill with Bulkhead
and Boat Ramp Repair, would provide moderate, long-term local benefit to natural or
depletable resources at Harkers Island. The stone sill and development of a vegetated zone from
sill to high ground would attenuate erosion and migration of the shoreline in Reaches 1 and 3.
This would allow the shoreline to stabilize without additional loss of resources, and to extend
natural plant growth from high ground to the sill. A minor level of regular sill maintenance
would be required for effective protection of natural resources, due to the erosive effects of
turbulence along the inner and outer sill toes. Major storms could result in a need for more
extensive repair. Initial plantings of marshgrass along the water's edge, and SAV between sill
and shoreline, where feasible, would help initiate additional growth in the vegetative zone.
Forest and shoreline habitat would be preserved, improved, and extended. There would be no
effect to resources along the bulkheaded Reach 2 shorelines.
Alternative B. This alternative, Grading and Planting with Concrete Mat and Bulkhead and
Boat Ramp Repair, would provide minor, long-term local benefit to natural or depletable
resources at Harkers Island. Grading and placement of the concrete mat would disrupt and cause
a loss of existing substrate, soil, vegetation, and habitat at the shoreline edges of Reaches 1 and
3. Given adequate maintenance, the concrete mat and integral vegetative growth would form a
more consistent graded mix of vegetation from water to high ground. The effects of major
storms could result in deterioration of the mat and lead to further erosion and shoreline
migration, but with consistent maintenance, shoreline vegetative communities and habitat could
become more extensive and productive than the existing shoreline conditions. There would be
no effect to resources along the bulkheaded Reach 2 shorelines.
Conclusions. The NPS concludes that Alternative A, to a moderate extent, and B, to a minor
extent, would benefit natural or depletable resources at Harkers Island in Reaches 1 and 3. There
would be no effect to these resources in Reach 2 under either A or B. The NPS also concludes
that the Alternative No Action would result in moderate adverse effects to natural or depletable
resources in Reaches 1 and 3, due to continuing shoreline erosion and migration, with loss of
substrate, soil, vegetation, and habitat in these reaches. The NPS concludes that there would be
no effect to these resources in Reach 2, the bulkheaded shorelines.
71
Impairment Conclusion. The NPS concludes that neither Alternative A, the NPS Preferred
Alternative, nor B, would impair natural or depletable resources. The NPS also concludes that
the No Action alternative would not impair natural or depletable resources in Reaches 1 and 3;
however there would be continued loss of shoreline acreage. Losses would include substrate,
soil, vegetation, and habitat.
5.3 Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts are defined in 40 CFR 1508.7 as impacts on
the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or
non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. The NEPA process requires that these
connected, similar action impacts be analyzed. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable
actions in the project area are as follows:
• Removal of former marina structures at Shell Point, Reach 3 (past).
• Removal of shoreline structures in Reaches 1 and 3 (past).
• Placement of concrete rubble on shoreline of Reach 1 (past).
• Construction of boat basin and boat ramp in Reach 2 (past).
• Institution of public ferry service from modified existing boat basin in Reach 2
(reasonably foreseeable).
• Construction and upgrading of recreation trail in Reach 1 (present and reasonably
foreseeable).
5.3.1 No Action Alternative. With the removal and disintegration of former marina structures
at Shell Point in Reach 3, and other shoreline structures in Reach 1, any maintenance of the
"built" shoreline in these areas ceased and the natural erosion and migration processes resumed.
With these processes in action, the No Action Alternative would result in continued erosion and
landward migration of the Reach 1 and 3 shorelines, with embedment of the remnants of old
structures and rubble further below water level and increasingly offshore, as the shoreline
migrates. Although potential navigation hazards could develop if remnants are not removed, the
hazards would be located primarily in the southern portion of Reach 1, and would be limited in
scope to several hundred feet of shoreline. The only remnants located in Reach 3 are various
underwater "arms" of riprap-sized stone which extend from the existing shoreline outward. With
continued shoreline migration these "arms" would be located increasingly further from the shore
and potentially somewhat deeper. Any navigational hazard offshore of Reach 3 would not be
expected to be substantially greater than the existing conditions. Construction of the boat basin
and bulkheaded shoreline in Reach 2 came with a requirement for continual maintenance, and
some measure of reconditioning and rebuilding as the structures approach their life expectancy,
to keep this facility in usable condition. With only routine maintenance of the existing
bulkheads, there would be an increasing risk of failure, particularly during major storms.
Bulkhead failure would potentially cause damage to vessels, impede or prevent use of the basin
due to shoaling, and require emergency resources to return the basin to usable condition.
Without a usable basin, park management objectives would be seriously impeded. Public ferry
service from the boat basin to the Outer Banks portion of the NPS/CLNS park would be
72
impractical without an upgrade of the existing basin for an adequately-sized and maintainable
entrance channel. The NPS/CLNS park management would continue to be unable to furnish
public ferry service. Unabated shoreline migration would result in undermining of the recreation
trail in Reach 1, and would negate the resources used to create and upgrade this public feature.
Because of safety concerns, availability of the trail to the public as an interpretative feature
would be lost, at least temporarily, and additional resources would be required for restoration or
rebuilding. Any future improvements to the trail would add to the potential losses, if shoreline
migration is allowed to overtake the trail alignment.
5.3.2 Alternative A, Agency-Preferred Alternative. The removal of former marina and
shoreline structures in Reaches 1 and 3 has released the natural processes of shoreline erosion
and migration in these areas, which now proceed unchecked. Alternative A, Offshore Sill with
Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair, would stabilize the shorelines in these Reaches by construction
of an offshore stone sill, which would allow development of a consistent vegetative zone
between sill and high ground. Nearshore remnants of old structures and rubble within this zone
would be encompassed by the new sill and overgrown by new vegetative growth. Although the
structural rubble could impede sill construction, such areas would be very limited in extent. Any
existing navigation hazard presented by old rubble would be reduced by coverage of the new sill
and vegetative zone, and defined by the visible crest of the sill. The habitat functions of the
shoreline would be enhanced by better vegetative growth between the sill and high ground. The
existing boat basin in Reach 2 was constructed by defining bulkheaded shorelines; the bulkheads
have aged and are now in varying states of deterioration. There is increasing risk of bulkhead
failure, which would seriously impede current park management objectives. Under Alternative
A all the bulkheads would be repaired and reconditioned to renew their dependability. Public
ferry service to the Outer Banks park area is now furnished only by private boat operators on
Harkers Island. Alternative A would modify the basin to make it capable of handling future
public ferry service from the NPS/CLNS facility, a park management objective. The existing
recreation trail alignment in Reach 1 is now threatened by impending erosion and undermining
due to landward shoreline migration in Reach 1. The public safety and interpretive functions of
the trail are increasingly at risk, and increasingly so as upgrades are made to the trail. With
Alternative A, the recreation trail would be protected by the sill and vegetative zone, and future
upgrades would be viable and lasting, due to attenuation of the threat of erosion and
undermining.
5.3.3 Alternative B. The removal of old shoreline structures in Reaches 1 and 3 has left these
areas fully subject to natural shoreline erosion and migration. Alternative B, Grading and
Planting with Concrete Mat and Bulkhead and Boat Ramp Repair, would serve the purpose of
stabilizing the shoreline and protecting park facilities and management objectives. The remnants
of former shoreline structures and rubble in Reaches 1 and 3 would have to be moved to attain
the desired gradient for the mat. These elements would either become part of the mat substrate,
or would have to be displaced outside the mat zone or removed from the site. Under this
alternative the shorelines of Reaches 1 and 3 would be stabilized by regrading the shorelines of
Reaches 1 and 3, placing a concrete mat, and planting vegetation through the mat openings. Any
navigational hazards created by existing remnants and rubble would be attenuated by the
73
formation of a smooth gradient from high ground, and boat accessibility would be improved
(although a measure of hazard would remain due to hardness of the concrete mat). Any hazards
outside the mat limit would remain. Boat basin improvements and development of public ferry
service from the boat basin, and their cumulative effects, would be the same as stated for
Alternative A in the previous paragraph. The recreation trail in Reach 1 would be protected, as
would all Reach 1 and Reach 3 facilities, to the extent that the integrity of the concrete mat is
maintained by consistent attention to repair, particularly after major storm events. Without
careful maintenance, segments of the shoreline could resume eroding and migrating due to
deterioration of the concrete mat. This would result in potential undermining of the trail and
deterioration of other facilities near the shorelines. The public safety and interpretive functions
of the trail are at stake, and increasingly so as upgrades are made to the trail. With this
alternative, park management objectives satisfied by the shoreline facilities could be maintained
only by preserving the integrity of the mat.
5.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. Irreversible impacts are
those effects that cannot be changed over the long-term or are permanent. An effect to a
resource is irreversible if the resource cannot be reclaimed, restored, or otherwise returned to its
condition prior to the disturbance. Irretrievable commitments of resources are those that, once
gone, cannot be replaced; that is, the commitment of a renewable resource or the short-term
commitment of any resource. No adverse effect to irreversible or irretrievable resources would
occur as a result of any of the alternatives, although the No Action alternative would allow
continued loss of high-ground resources along the migrating shorelines of Reaches 1 and 3.
5.5 Impairment Analysis: Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects. The three
alternatives would not result in any unavoidable adverse environmental effects, although the No
Action alternative would allow continued loss of high ground resources along the shorelines of
Reaches 1 and 3. Alternatives A and B would result in net beneficial environmental effects,
since their purpose would be to attenuate erosion and shoreline migration and establish a more
stable and productive shoreline environment in those reaches.
5.6 Relationship of the Proposed Action to Federal, State, and Local Laws, Plans,
Policies, and Controls.
5.6.1 Laws
The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916,16 U.S.C. §§ 1-4. Directs the NPS to
conserve park resources, processes, and values unimpaired and to provide for their
enjoyment by present and future generations.
The National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, P.L. 105-391. Directs the
NPS to base management decisions on ample technical and scientific studies properly
considered and appropriate to the decisions made. The NPS and the other involved
agencies have shared technical and scientific information in the course of designing and
permitting the project.
74
Establishment of Cape Lookout National Seashore, 16 U.S.C. §§ 459 - 459a10.
Directs the NPS to manage the Seashore as a "primitive wilderness," and to avoid
undertaking activities for the convenience of visitors "which would be incompatible with
the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now
prevailing in this area," except in areas deemed especially adaptable for recreational uses.
The project is not being undertaken solely for the convenience of visitors.
• NPS Regulations, 36 C.F.R. Parts 1 and 5. The project is being permitted pursuant to
these regulations.
• Endangered Species Act. Compliance obligations under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (PL 93-205), as amended were fully coordinated with the USFWS
and the NMFS during preparation of the EA and during the USACE permitting process.
Consultation with the USFWS will be completed upon receipt of USFWS signed
determination. No formal consultation or correspondence is necessary.
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (PL 92-583, 86 Stat. 1280). This act states a
national policy to "preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance
the resources of the nation's coastal zones" and to encourage and assist the states in
implementing management programs to achieve wise use of land and water resources of
coastal zones. Federal agencies are required to comply, as much as possible, with
applicable, approved state coastal zone management programs. The project will take
place in the designated coastal zone of the State of North Carolina. Pursuant to the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended (P.L. 92-583),
federal activities are required to be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the
federally approved coastal management program of the state in which their activities
would be occurring. The proposed activity would be undertaken in a manner consistent
to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the coastal
management program (Subpart C of 15 CFR 930). The Coastal Zone management Act
requires that a Federal agency provide the State of North Carolina with a Consistency
Determination. Information contained within this EA supports the determination by the
NPS that the proposed action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the
North Carolina Coastal Management Program. The proposed action has been
coordinated during preparation of the NEPA document and during the USACE permit
process leading to the preparation of a consistency determination.
• Clean Water Act. A Section 404(b)(1) evaluation and a Section 401 Water Quality
Certificate under the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217), as amended, are required for
specific aspects of the proposed action. A permit from the USACE Regulatory Division
is required for the proposed discharge of stone sill material into waters of the sound. The
proposed discharge of stone sill material into waters of the sound would be authorized by
the NCDWQ General Water Quality Certification (GC). NPS will not begin construction
until the necessary USACE permit authorization is received, and work will comply with
75
all conditions of the authorization. The proposed discharge of stone sill material into
waters of the sound is authorized by NCDWQ General Water Quality Certification (GC)
No. 3493.
• Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403). The Rivers and Harbors Act regulates
activities in navigable and tidal waters of the US. Permit authorization is required from
the USACE Regulatory Division, in conjunction with the authorization required pursuant
to the Clean Water Act. As stated above, NPS will not begin construction until the
necessary USACE permit authorization is received, and work will comply with all
conditions of the authorization.
5.6.2 Executive Orders
• Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). The NPS Director's Order #77-1,
Wetland Protection, dated October 30, 2002, establishes the standards for implementation
of Executive Order 11990. These standards include the utilization of the definition of
wetland types found in the 1979 publication by Cowardin, et al., Classification of
Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the United States. The placement of a stone sill
along the estuarine shoreline would minimally impact estuarine tidal and subtidal
wetlands in accordance with this classification system. Avoidance of those impacts is not
practical. All practical measures to minimize harm to wetlands would be taken including
avoidance of direct impacts upon virtually all the wetlands. Minimal adverse effects to
existing wetlands would result from temporary construction activity, and from hydrologic
turbulence along the stone sill alignment. However, the resultant stabilization of the
shoreline environment would create a net increase of wetland area between sill and
shoreline. There would be no salinity changes with resultant effects on wetlands. Permit
authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act has been requested from the US Army Corps of Engineers. The
project construction and maintenance will comply with all conditions of the issued
permits. NPS has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the North
Carolina Coastal Management Act. Concurrence with this determination has been
requested from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. The project
construction and maintenance will comply with all conditions of the State's consistency.
Accordingly, the project is in compliance with Executive Order 11990, dated May 1977,
and the NPS Director's Order #77-1.
• Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management). The proposed action would occur
in the floodplain. A stone sill would be constructed in waters offshore of Reaches 1 and
3 and a vegetated zone would be allowed to develop between the sill and high ground.
The purpose of the proposed action is to stabilize these shorelines and to repair and
upgrade the boat basin and boat ramp in Reach 2. No practicable alternative to the
project would be located within the 100-year flood level. This action is not anticipated to
induce development of the floodplain, nor would it adversely affect any floodplain. The
proposed action is in compliance with the requirements of Executive Order 11988, Flood
76
Plain Management, dated May 1977, and the NPS Director's Order #77-2 (Floodplain
Management) dated September 8, 2003.
• Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment).
The proposed plan has been evaluated under Executive Order 11593, and the
recommended plan is not believed to be an undertaking affecting potential National
Register criteria
• Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income Communities and Low Income Populations).
No adverse impacts to either minority/low income populations or low-income
communities are anticipated as a result of this activity.
• Executive Order 13186 (Protection of Migratory Birds). This Executive Order
mandates agencies to protect and conserve migratory birds and their habitats. The
proposed action will not have a measurable adverse effect on migratory bird populations.
• Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks).
This order mandates Federal agencies identify and assess environmental health and safety
risks that may disproportionately affect children as a result of the implementation of
federal policies, programs, activities, and standards (63 Federal Register 19883-19888).
The Proposed Action would not impact schools or housing areas. Protection will be
enhanced through the construction zone being restricted and monitored by the contractor.
No unauthorized individuals will be allowed within the work zone. Therefore, there
would be no short- or long-term impacts on the health and safety of children.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income Communities and Low Income Populations).
The Proposed Action would not impact minority communities or low-income populations
because no minority communities or low-income populations reside in the project area.
5.6.3 National Park Service Policies, Director's Orders, and Plans
• NPS Management Policies (2001). These policies mandate that the National Park
Service prevent impairment of the natural resources, processes, systems, and values of
units of the national park system, perpetuate their inherent integrity, and provide present
and future generations with the opportunity to enjoy them. The NPS must generally
allow natural geologic processes to proceed unimpeded, including shoreline processes.
Intervention in natural geologic processes is permitted only when:
o directed by Congress;
o necessary in emergencies that threaten human life and property;
o there is no other feasible way to protect natural resources, park facilities, or
historic properties; or
77
intervention is necessary to restore impacted conditions and processes, such as
restoring habitat for threatened or endangered species. (Section 4.8.1, Protection
of Geologic Processes).
In this case, there is no other feasible way to protect park facilities at Harkers Island,
which are being are threatened by shoreline migration, so intervention is appropriate.
Natural shoreline processes (such as erosion, deposition, dune formation, overwash, inlet
formation and shoreline migration) must generally be allowed to continue without
interference. However, where present developments must be protected in the short run
to achieve park management objectives, including high-density visitor use, the Service
must use the most effective and natural-appearing method feasible. (4.8.1.1, Shorelines
and Barrier Islands)
In this case, shoreline migration is endangering critical developments on Harkers Island,
which must be protected in the short run to achieve park management objectives. The
proposed actions of the Preferred Alternative would include an offshore, low-profile
stone sill, and increased net development of natural marsh and aquatic vegetation
between sill and shoreline. These actions would provide the allowable protection using
the most effective, natural-appearing, feasible method.
The Service must also comply with the provisions of Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain
Management) and state coastal zone management plans prepared under the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972. (4.8.1.1, Shorelines and Barrier Islands) These policies
require the NPS to preserve natural processes as much as possible, but to also recognize
that in some situations overriding interests must be accommodated.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
No environmental commitments have been made on behalf of the proposed project, through
Section 7 (ESA), Section 106 (NHPA), or other agency coordination.
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Allen Davis, Community Planner
Reg. Architect, Reg. Landscape Architect
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Technical Services Division, Planning Services Section
Draft of Environmental Assessment text, figures, and tables.
78
Larry Creech, Civil Engineer
Registered. Professional Engineer
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Technical Services Division, Design Section
Design of Project Alternatives
8.0 COORDINATION
8.1 Scopinp. The proposed action has been coordinated with resource agencies and the
public through early agency scoping meetings, on site visits, and through the USACE public
notice process. The project has been coordinated with the NCDMF regarding fisheries and
submerged aquatic vegetation surveys within the project area. A request for consistency
determination has been coordinated and mailed separately to the NCDCM. Compliance with the
Clean Water Act has been coordinated with the NCDWQ.
8.2 List of Recipients. The following agencies and individuals have been provided a copy
of this Environmental Assessment for 30-day review and comment.
• REPRESENTATIVES
Honorable Walter B. Jones, Jr.
Honorable Richard Burr
Honorable Elizabeth Dole
• FEDERAL AGENCIES
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities
U.S. EPA, Region IV, Atlanta, GA
Forest Service, USDA
HUD, Atlanta Regional Office
Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Environmental Conservation Office, Department of Commerce, NOAA
Center of Disease Control
Beaufort Marine Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service
Director, Office of Environmental Affairs, Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office
Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District
Federal Highway Administration
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Field Office
USDI, Office of the Solicitor, Energy and Resources
USDA, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service
USDA Area Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Director, Office of Environmental Compliance, Department of Energy
79
USFWS, Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
Regional Director, National Park Service
• STATE AGENCIES
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Ferry Division
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
CAMA Officers, Carteret County
• LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Carteret County Board of Commissioners
Mayors, Carteret County
Carteret County Register of Deeds
Town Managers, Carteret County
Carteret County NRCS
• INDEPENDENT GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS
Biodiversity Legal Foundation
Conservation Council of North Carolina Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
Defenders of Wildlife
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Audubon Society
NC Wildlife Federation
National Wildlife Federation
NC Environmental Defense Fund
NC Coastal Federation
NC Fisheries Association
National Wildlife Refuge Association
Wilderness Society
Dr. Vince Bellis
Orrin Pilkey Ph.D.
• LIBRARIES
N.C. Collection, Wilson Library, UNC- Chapel Hill
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Library
Randall Library, UNC-Wilmington
State Library of North Carolina
Joyner Library, East Carolina University
80
9.0 REFERENCES
Fonseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworthy, and G.W. Thayer. 1998. Guidelines for the Conservation and
Restoration ofSeagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Waters. NOAA Coastal Ocean
Program Decision Analysis Series No. 12. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD 222
PP.
John O. Fussell III. Survey for Rare Plant Species at the Willow Pond and Site of Proposed
Waterfowl Museum, Shell Point, Harkers Island. September 14, 1992.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (no date). NOAA charts available on the
internet at <http//www.noaa.gov>.
National Park Service. Environmental Impact Methodologies and Thresholds: Examples.
National Park Service. 2001. Cape Lookout National Seashore: Amendment to General
Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, 2001. Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta,
GA.
National Park Service website: General Management Plan Amendment - 2001
National Park Service website: Cape Lookout National Seashore Five-Year Strategic Plan.
March 2000. http:; ;/Ni Ni Ni,.nps. gos,/calo/fiveyear.htm
National Park Service website: Director's Order 12, Conservation Planning, Environmental
ImpactAnalysis, and Decision Making
http:/AvNvw.nature.nps. gov/protectinarestoring/DO12Site/"01 intro,`O l 1 intro.htm
National Park Service, Cape Lookout National Seashore, Michael Rikard. Interview. April 5,
2005, Fauna of Harkers Island.
North Carolina Division of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
website. Carteret County DWQ Environmental Sensitivity Map, High Quality and Outstanding
Resource Waters-2003.
http :L!h2o. enr. state. ne.us 11adminl'maps 11 counties/cart. pdf
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries. (no date). Coastal Habitat Protection Plans: available at:
http:/,`www.nctisheries.net/habitat/chpp l .htm
North Carolina Fish and Game website:
http://w«-w.ncfishandgame. com,/fish,/harkers.html
North Carolina's State and Federally Listed Wildlife Species. June 2004. Website:
www.ncwildlife.org.
81
United States Environmental Protection Agency Air Quality System, Quick Look Report
(Amp450). 2003-2004. Email response and attachment dated May 19, 2005, from Wayne
Cornelius, North Carolina Division of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air
Quality.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Threatened and Endangered Species System. Accessed at
http://ecos.fws.gov/servlet/TESSpeciesReport/generate.
10.0 DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. No unacceptable adverse
effects on water and aquatic resources, terrestrial resources, wetlands and flood plains,
threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, recreational resources, essential fish
habitat, or socio-economic resources are expected to occur as a result of the proposed action.
Based on the EA, the recommended plan will not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment; therefore, this action will not be the subject of an environmental impact statement.
If this judgment is confirmed through coordination of the EA, a Finding of No Significant Impact
will be signed prior to initiation of the proposed action.
82