20131279 Ver 1_Hatteras EA_November 2013_20131210

US Army Corps
of Engineers
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SIDE CAST MAINTENANCE DREDGING
OF A PORTION OF
HATTERAS- TO- HATTERAS INLET CHANNEL
PAMLICO SOUND, NORTH CAROLINA
November 2013

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SIDE CAST MAINTENANCE DREDGING
OF A PORTION OF
HATTERAS -TO- HATTERAS INLET CHANNEL
PAMLICO SOUND, NORTH CAROLINA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.00 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ........................................................... ............................... 1
1.01
Hatteras -to- Hatteras -Inlet Channel ....................................... ............................... 1
1.02
Project and Agency Coordination History ............................. ............................... 1
1.03
Incorporation by Reference .................................................... ............................... 3
1.04
Environmental Review Process ............................................. ............................... 3
1.05
Purpose and Need .................................................................. ............................... 4
2.00 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................... ..............................4
2.01 Proposed Action ..................................................................... ............................... 4
2.02 No Action ............................................................................... ............................... 5
3.00 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ......................................................... ...............................
5
3.01
Geology, Sediments, and Dangerous Debris ......................... ...............................
5
3.02
Water Resources .................................................................... ...............................
6
3.02.01 Hydrology ................................................................ ...............................
6
3.02.02 Water Quality and Characteristics ........................... ...............................
6
3.03
Air Quality ............................................................................. ...............................
6
3.04
Marine and Estuarine Resources ............................................ ...............................
6
3.04.01 Nekton ...................................................................... ...............................
6
3.04.02 Benthos .................................................................... ...............................
7
3.04.03 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) ................... ...............................
7
3.05
Essential Fish Habitat .......................................................... ...............................
11
3.06
Terrestrial Resources ........................................................... ...............................
11
3.07
Wetlands and Flood Plains ................................................... ...............................
11
3.08
Endangered and Threatened Species ................................... ...............................
12
3.09
Cultural Resources ............................................................... ...............................
12
3.10
Aesthetics and Recreational Resources ............................... ...............................
12
3.11
Recreational and Commercial Fishing ................................. ...............................
12
3.12
Socio- Economic Resources ................................................. ...............................
13
4.00 ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS ..................................................... ...............................
13
4.01
Geology, Sediments, and Dangerous Debris ....................... ...............................
14
4.02
Water Resources .................................................................. ...............................
14
4.02.01 Hydrology .............................................................. ...............................
14
n

5.00 EXECUTIVE ORDERS .................................................................. ............................... 20
6.00 MITIGATION .................................................................................... .............................21
7.00 POINT OF CONTACT .................................................................... ............................... 21
8.00 COORDINATION ............................................................................. .............................21
8.01 Agency and Public Input ...................................................... ............................... 21
8.02 Permits and Authorizations .................................................. ............................... 21
8.02.01 Coastal Zone Management Act .............................. ............................... 21
8.02.02 Section 401, Clean Water Act ................................ ............................... 22
8.02.03 Essential Fish Habitat ............................................ ............................... 22
8.03 Recipients ............................................................................... .............................22
9.00 FINDINGS ....................................................................................... ............................... 22
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Location and Disposal Alternatives .............................................. ............................... 2
Figure 2 - Corps SAV Identification .............................................................. ............................... 8
Figure 3 - NCDCM SAV Identification ......................................................... ............................... 9
Figure 4 - APNEP SAV Identification ......................................................... ............................... 10
in
4.02.02 Water Quality and Characteristics ......................... ...............................
14
4.03
Air Quality ........................................................................... ...............................
15
4.04
Marine and Estuarine Resources .......................................... ...............................
15
4.04.01 Nekton .................................................................... ...............................
15
4.04.02 Benthos .................................................................. ...............................
15
4.04.03 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation ............................. ...............................
16
4.05
Essential Fish Habitat .......................................................... ...............................
17
4.06
Terrestrial Resources ........................................................... ...............................
17
4.07
Wetlands and Flood Plains ................................................... ...............................
17
4.08
Endangered and Threatened Species ................................... ...............................
17
4.09
Cultural Resources ............................................................... ...............................
17
4.10
Aesthetics and Recreational Resources ............................... ...............................
18
4.11
Recreational and Commercial Fishing ................................. ...............................
18
4.12
Socio- Economic Resources ................................................. ...............................
18
4.13
Other Significant Resources ................................................ ...............................
18
4.14
Cumulative Impacts ............................................................. ...............................
19
4.15
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Action ....... ...............................
19
4.16
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .... ...............................
20
5.00 EXECUTIVE ORDERS .................................................................. ............................... 20
6.00 MITIGATION .................................................................................... .............................21
7.00 POINT OF CONTACT .................................................................... ............................... 21
8.00 COORDINATION ............................................................................. .............................21
8.01 Agency and Public Input ...................................................... ............................... 21
8.02 Permits and Authorizations .................................................. ............................... 21
8.02.01 Coastal Zone Management Act .............................. ............................... 21
8.02.02 Section 401, Clean Water Act ................................ ............................... 22
8.02.03 Essential Fish Habitat ............................................ ............................... 22
8.03 Recipients ............................................................................... .............................22
9.00 FINDINGS ....................................................................................... ............................... 22
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Location and Disposal Alternatives .............................................. ............................... 2
Figure 2 - Corps SAV Identification .............................................................. ............................... 8
Figure 3 - NCDCM SAV Identification ......................................................... ............................... 9
Figure 4 - APNEP SAV Identification ......................................................... ............................... 10
in

TABLE
Table 1 - Endangered /Threatened Species Potentially Present in Vicinity of Hatteras Inlet ..... 13
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: Corps' Engineer Research and Development Center modeling summary,
side cast dredge plumes.
ATTACHMENT B: Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment.
ATTACHMENT C: Preliminary Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines 40 CFR 230.
ATTACHMENT D: Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to West Indian Manatees.
ATTACHMENT E: Corps Biological Assessment dated July 1, 1998, and NMFS Biological
Opinion dated March 9, 1999.
FM

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SIDE CAST MAINTENANCE DREDGING
OF A PORTION OF
HATTERAS- TO- HATTERAS INLET CHANNEL
PAMLICO SOUND, NORTH CAROLINA
November 2013
1.00 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1.01 Hatteras -to- Hatteras -Inlet Channel. Hatteras -to- Hatteras -Inlet Channel is a 10 -foot
(deep) by 100 -foot (bottom width) federally authorized channel, the majority of which follows
deep water and extends from Hatteras Harbor SW to the throat of Hatteras Inlet (Figure 1). The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible for maintaining safe navigation in federally
authorized channels. The inlet throat is the deepest continuous portion (thalweg) of the inlet.
The thalweg moves depending on currents and flow, so the actual extent of the federal channel
changes between maintenance events. The ferry channel from the throat/gorge of Hatteras Inlet
to Ocracoke Island is maintained by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
Hatteras Inlet proper is not maintained by the Corps.
1.02 Proiect and Agency Coordination History. This channel is important for ferry traffic
between Ocracoke and Hatteras Islands; therefore, a number of federal dredging projects have
been conducted in the recent past in an effort to maintain safe navigation.
In 2004, the Corps prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) addressing the use of
government -owned dredge plant in federally authorized channels in coastal North Carolina. One
of the channels was the channel from Hatteras Inlet to northeast of the Hatteras ferry terminal
and including the proposed project area. During coordination with federal and state resource
agencies, the potential impact of side cast dredging on submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
adjacent to the channel resulted in the Corps agreeing that no side cast dredging would occur
unless emergency conditions existed and no other dredge plant was available. In this case, the
Corps would declare an emergency in accordance with criteria and protocol set forth in a 1986
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Corps and the North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources (NCDENR) and Community Development. However, naturally occurring
changes in currents and shoaling rates since about 2009 have resulted in an increase in
occurrences of unsafe navigation conditions in federally authorized channels. Because of limited
availability of government -owned dredge plant other than side cast dredges, shoaling conditions
that don't allow the use of government -owned dredge plant other than side cast dredges, and the
need for rapid response, the Corps has had to use the emergency declaration process a number of
times in order to maintain safe conditions in the proposed project area's channel.
Removing shoaled material using a pipeline, hopper, or mechanical dredge from the immediate
dredged area, and disposing dredged material on a "control -of- effluent bird island" or nearshore
berm is the most desirable method of maintenance for this portion of the channel. Depending on
the dredging method and disposal location, different environmental windows can apply to this
work. Given the remote location of this navigation project, contracts for this work can only be

NORTH CAROLINA - -----
.
WLMINGTON ` NA77ERA5
� INLET
� ' L• ,
OCRACOKE
ISLAND
W
H slteres f Net
rhroal
M
US Army Carps
of Engineers
Wilmin gwn District
Navigation Channel
Follows Deep Water
Proposed project limits
. of side cast dredging
p.. .
Sl+rveyer�:
Aug,rsr 26-2 7. 2013 .
S d.
1,;,a 3e 20,3 FIGURE 11
r'
vt Map Date September 5,20, 3
�+ Map Name:Fi>=C FBdar81 Cr18M,41 a7xd
Imagery Date! July 27. 2013 �Dlgl tal Glabr I r c
2
Legend
USACE Fixed Navigation Channel 8-10
Depth In Feet 10-12
�0 -4 12 -14
- 4 -6 X14 -15
6 - 7 15 and deeper
7-8
-
Scale: 1: 12.000
1
I. 0 1.000 2.000 3,000
r
Feet

feasibly solicited when the Wilmington District has nearby projects to dredge concurrently,
thereby, reducing the cost to mobilize a contractor and dredging equipment. The time involved
in preparing dredging contracts means that delays of almost a year can occur between an
identified shoaling problem and a contractor's mobilization to the site. The high- energy
environment near Hatteras Inlet, which has become more unpredictable following Hurricane
Irene, leads to particularly rapid shoal formation, and the increasing need to perform channel
maintenance several times throughout the year.
The last contracted dredging occurred in the Winter /Spring of 2013. The project was divided
into different sections, each of which were surveyed immediately following the completion of
dredging in that section. The Contractor had difficulty attaining project dimensions due to
weather and sea conditions, and completed sections quickly reshoaled. The government -owned
dredges (side cast and special purpose) were needed to reestablish safe navigation following
completion of all sections of the contracted project. The government dredges worked from June
to August.
1.03 Incorporation by Reference. The following documents address the impacts of dredging
the Hatteras - Hatteras Inlet Channel. They are incorporated by reference.
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact, Maintenance of Rollinson Channel, Hatteras to Hatteras Inlet Channel
Section, Dare and Hyde Counties, North Carolina. February 2000.
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Finding of No Significant Impact, Maintenance of
Rollinson Channel, Hatteras to Hatteras Inlet Channel Section, Dare and Hyde Counties, North
Carolina. March 2000.
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Environmental Assessment. Use of Government
Plant to Dredge in Federally Authorized Navigation Project in North Carolina. March 2004.
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. Finding of No Significant Impact. Use of
Government Plant to Dredge in Federally Authorized Navigation Project in North Carolina.
September 2004.
1.04 Environmental Review Process. This EA addresses potential environmental impacts
associated with the proposed side cast maintenance dredging of a portion of the Hatteras -to-
Hatteras Inlet Channel on an as- needed basis. The EA has been prepared in compliance with
Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U. S.C. 4231 et seq.),
as amended, and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40
CFR Parts 1500- 1508).
An EA is a concise public document addressing an action for which a federal agency is
responsible. The document briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis for that agency to
determine whether it is necessary to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The Corps is the lead agency for the proposed
action.
D -3

1.05 Purpose and Need. The Hatteras -to- Hatteras Inlet Channel is important to the residents of
and visitors to Ocracoke Island as a channel for ferry service from Ocracoke to Hatteras Island
and is the shortest distance to mainland North Carolina for pleasure, official, and emergency
traffic. Maintaining access between the North Carolina mainland and the Hatteras - Ocracoke
islands is imperative to the safety of the individuals that reside on the island for transportation,
safety, and supplies. Due to continually shifting shoals, buoys are frequently moved by the U.S.
Coast Guard as a means of identifying the deepest water and safest navigation channel. When
shoaling occurs to the extent that channel adjustments are not possible, timely maintenance
dredging is needed to reestablish safe navigation. Continued shoaling within the Hatteras -to-
Hatteras Inlet Channel reached emergency conditions several times in the past couple of years
due to significant hydrodynamic activity which moves considerable amounts of sediments that
contribute to high shoaling rates. Regular maintenance dredging has not been able to maintain
safe passage for the ferries or other vessels between dredging events.
Contracting a hydraulic pipeline dredge or other similar dredge vessel takes too long to respond
quickly to a rapidly changing shoal situation, especially in regard to shoaling of emergency
routes. This is both costly and potentially hazardous to those individuals that rely on the ferry.
Additionally, maintenance dredging of navigation channels has become increasingly expensive
while the Federal budget for the operation and maintenance of navigation projects is being
reduced. As a result, additional measures are necessary to keep channels open to their authorized
dimensions while addressing the limits of reduced budgets and providing safe navigable waters
through the federally authorized channel.
2.00 ALTERNATIVES
The following sections present and briefly discuss feasible alternatives for maintenance of the
Hatteras -to- Hatteras Inlet Channel. The analysis of alternatives is based on the meeting of the
purpose and need, in addition to minimizing adverse environmental consequences.
The alternatives evaluated were: No action and use of side cast dredge within a specific area on
an as- needed basis.
Other alternatives, such as relocating the navigation channel or maintaining a rapid- response
special purpose, hopper, or cutterhead hydraulic pipeline dredge in the project area are not
feasible and will not be addressed further in this Assessment.
The alternatives are addressed in the following paragraphs.
2.01 Proposed Action - Periodic (as needed) Maintenance Dredging of Hatteras - Hatteras Inlet
Channel Using Side Cast Dredging. The proposed action (and preferred alternative) consists of
the use of the Corps' side cast dredges to expeditiously perform routine dredging of shoals
within the proposed project area (Figure 1) that pose a threat to safe navigation during periods at
times when an alternate form of dredging, either contract or government —owned dredge plant, is
not available or unable to effectively dredge a developing shoal. Because there is no way to
predict when a shoaling event will require maintenance dredging, the Corps proposes conducting
4

this maintenance dredging on an as- needed basis. It is not anticipated that the entire project area
would be dredged at any one event, only the shoaling areas within the project area.
The intent is to remove these isolated shoals before emergency criteria exist, thereby, lessening
potential navigational hazards. The use of the side cast dredge allows for prompt and
economical responses to quickly developing shoaling situations.
The Wilmington District presently has one side cast dredge, the "Merritt." The "Merritt" is
capable of dredging at a minimum depth of 6 feet of water, has two adjustable drag heads, each
having a 12 -inch discharge pipe that is 80 feet long, with a 10 -foot extension available. The
"Merritt" casts material approximately 100 feet from the centerline of the vessel into adjacent
waters.
The Corps' debris boat "Snell" has the capability of side cast dredging but its dredging
efficiency, including the amount of material that can be dredged in a day and the distance
material is discharged is greatly reduced from that of the "Merritt." The "Snell" would be used
only when the "Merritt" is unavailable and when shoal removal is critical.
2.02 No Action. The "No Action" alternative involves maintaining the status quo. This
alternative would result in using government -owned special purpose dredges to remove shoals on
an as- needed basis, and, if special purpose dredges are not available or unable to remove the
shoal(s) due to shallow depths or dangerous conditions, waiting until predefined emergency
conditions exist before initiating the established emergency declaration and emergency dredging
coordination processes.
An Emergency Dredging MOA has been arranged between the Corps and federal and state
agencies. This MOA allows the expedited review of a project that meets emergency criteria. An
emergency declaration is an evaluation made by the Wilmington District Engineer, and approved
by the South Atlantic Division Engineer in Atlanta (33CFR 209.145(F)(4)), based on: the
presence of an unpredictable shoal creating a situation that would result in an unacceptable
hazard to life or navigation, a significant loss of property, or an immediate and unforeseen
significant economic hardship, and normal maintenance dredging is not scheduled within the
next three months. Declaration of an emergency requires contacting multiple agencies and
requesting prompt agency responses, at the expense of ongoing work. Several emergency
declarations separated by short intervals of time can result in a disruption of agencies'
workloads. Although a shoal may not meet the emergency criteria described above, it may still
pose a hazard to navigational safety. The Corps has no options for removal of these shoals other
than to include their removal in dredging contracts or wait until they become emergencies.
3.00 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.01 Geology, Sediments, and Dangerous Debris. Sediments in the project area have been
sampled in the past, as well as examined during dredging events. The material is 90 percent or
greater sand. In the future, grain -size analyses or additional during- dredging observations will
be conducted to reverify the type of sediments present.

No dangerous debris, including unexploded ordnance, is anticipated to be encountered during
any iteration of dredging.
3.02 Water Resources.
3.02.01 Hydrology. Tides in the project area are semidiurnal and the mean tidal range
(difference between mean high water and mean low water) is 3.8 feet. Regular reversals of flow
occur with each tidal cycle. The salinity of the area is 35 parts per thousand (ppt) due to the
proximity to the inlet and the ocean.
3.02.02 Water Quality and Characteristics. The project area is located in North Carolina
Division of Water Resources ([ NCDWR] — formerly the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality [ NCDWQ]) Pasquotank River basin and U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit
03020105.
NCDWR classifies Pamlico Sound (index # 30 -22) and Hatteras Inlet (index # 30- 22 -33) at the
project site as SA and HQW.
3.03 Air Quality. The Wilmington Regional Office of the NCDENR's Division of Air Quality
has air quality jurisdiction for the project area. According to data presented on the Division's
website, (http://daq.state.nc.us /), the project area is in attainment for all of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards.
3.04 Marine and Estuarine Resources.
3.04.01 Nekton. Nekton collectively refers to aquatic organisms capable of controlling their
location through active movement rather than depending upon water currents or gravity for passive
movement. Nekton of the nearshore Atlantic Ocean along the northeastern North Carolina coast
can be grouped into three categories: estuarine dependent species; permanent resident species; and
seasonal migrant species. The most abundant nekton of these waters are the estuarine dependent
species that inhabit the estuary as larvae and the ocean as juveniles or adults. This group includes
species which spawn offshore, such as the Atlantic croaker (Micropogon undulatus), spot
(Leiostomus xanthurus), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), flounders (Paralichthys spp.),
mullets (Mugil spp.), anchovies (Anchoa spp.), blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), and penaeid shrimp
(Penaeus spp.), as well as species which spawn in the estuary, such as red drum (Sciaenops
ocellatus) and weakfish (Cynoscion regalis). Species which are permanent residents of the
nearshore marine waters include the black sea bass (Centropristis striata), longspine porgy
(Stenotomus caprinus), Atlantic bumper (Chloroscombrus chrysurus), inshore lizardfish (Synodus
foetens), and searobins (Prionotus spp.). Common warm water migrant species include the
bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculates), king mackerel
(Scomberomorus cavalla), cobia (Rachycentron canadum), and spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias).
Hatteras Inlet is a passageway for the larvae of many species of commercially or ecologically
important fish. Spawning grounds for many marine fishes are believed to occur on the
continental shelf with immigration to estuaries, including Pamlico Sound, during the juvenile
stage. The shelter provided by the marshes and shallow water habitats within the project area's

estuarine waters serves as nursery habitat where young fish undergo rapid growth before
returning to the offshore environment.
The State of North Carolina defines Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) as tidal saltwater, which
provide essential habitat for the early development of commercially important fish and shellfish
(15 NCAC 3B .1405). It is in these estuarine areas that many fish species undergo initial post -
larval development. PNAs are designated by the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission
(NCMFC). The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) does not classify the
project area as PNA.
Marine mammals also occur in North Carolina's coastal waters. The federally- endangered right
whale (Eubaleana glacialis) and humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) are spri ng and fall
migrants off the coast, and the right whale often occurs in shallow water. A number of other whale
and dolphin species normally inhabit deeper waters offshore, while the bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus) and the harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) utilize nearshore waters. The
bottlenose dolphin is common in the project area. The federally- endangered manatee (Trichechus
manatus) is a rare but occasional visitor to the northeastern North Carolina coast.
Five species of sea turtles are known to nest on the beaches of North Carolina and /or occasionally
enter Hatteras Inlet. These are the federally- endangered hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata),
Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) sea turtles, and the
federally - threatened green (Chelonia mydas) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtles.
3.04.02 Benthos. Aquatic organisms that live in close association with the bottom, or substrate, of
a body of water, are collectively called the benthos. Given the susceptibility of the proposed
project area to currents and water movement and the subsequent shoaling, the sandy sediments
would not be expected to support significant numbers of organisms within benthic communities.
Common benthic organisms in these sediments would likely include polychaetes, amphipods,
decapods, and mollusks.
Shellfish beds are not in the project area to be dredged but are present in Pamlico Sound. The
dominant species are the American oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and the Atlantic hard clam
(Mercenaria mercenaria). Due to the dynamic conditions present within Hatteras Inlet and the
project area, significant numbers of shellfish would not be expected.
3.04.03 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV). SAV beds, a category of Essential Fish
Habitat (below), form a complex and important ecosystem. SAV are prolific in portions of
Pamlico Sound, and in northern portions of Rollinson Channel, behind Hatteras Island.
Although SAV can quickly populate shallow bottom when conditions are conducive, the
currents, sand movement, and turbid water in the project area greatly minimize or eliminate the
presence of SAV in the proposed project area.
Figures 2, 3, and 4 are different mapping efforts and techniques undertaken by the Corps,
NCDMF, and NOAA Fisheries attempting to depict the historic presence and locations of SAV
in the project area.

Legend
SAV present in 1997
SAV present in 2002
SAV present in 2003
L� SAV present in 2006
SAV present in 2007
SAV present on 2009 -03 -18
SAV present on 2009 -12.22
SAV present on 2011 -01.15
SAV present on 2011 -06.17
SAV present on 2012A7.07
SAV present on 2013-05.15
USAGE Fixed Navigation Channel
'Navigariu ml
FoNows Deep Wafer
GUFF 2
iJ
i
Proposed project limits /. •�
of side cast tlredging ps
r.4ap uaca July 29 2013
Map Name: USACE_ 20130729_ Hatteras_ SAV_Polygons.md
Imagery Date: J* 27.2D73®01giiai Gtot+e inc.
SAV data derived from digitizing imagery from 1997 - 2013.
Data Source: USACE (CESAiN)
IO
V
Scale: 1 : 12 000
1
k'S. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000
Feei

'1� p
Note! SAV present in 2006 are defined as
SubtidaI Hard Vegetated Wo Shell.
Legend
SAV present in 9983
SAV present in 2DD6
USACE Fixed Navigation Channel
Navigation Gir.a+r,la+
Follows Deep Warp,
FIGURE 3
rr:ap Date Jun• 29. 2013 .. .
Map Name. NCDMF 20130729 Hatxras_SAV Polygonc.mxd
Imagery Date: July 27. 2013 ®Digits; (lobe Inc.
$AV Bala inchwtes the presence of SAV defected in 1983 and 2006 wily
Data Source NCDENR. Division of Marine Fisheries INCOM F }. Nan•UPACE data - accuracy 6 attributes unknow•i
D -9
Scale: 1 12.000
1'
0 1,000 2,000 3,000
r
Feet

VIP
DENSE; A polygon with 70-1001 submerged aquatic vegetation coverage.
PATCHY; A polygon with 5-70% submerged aquatic vegetation coverage.
Navigation Channel
Follows Deep Water
FIGURE 4
Mal) Date: July 29, 2013
Legend
Map Name: APNEP_M30729_ Flattery _SAV.Polygong.mxd
M Dense SAV 2006 - 2008
Imagery Date: July 27. 2013 Digital Globe InL
Patchy $AV 2006 - 2008 W data lndlcites the PcMonce of W b0wep 2006 and 2000 only-
USACE Fixed Navigation Channel
Nia Source; NCDENR, AWomfle-Parnloo Nalroflal Betuary Partnership (APNEP)- Ron-USAC E date - accuracy unknown,
D-10
v it
f

3.05 Essential Fish Habitat. The 1996 congressional amendments to the Magnuson- Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) (Public Law 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.
Following an emergency dredging coordination in 2008, the Corps prepared an EFH assessment
and by letter dated April 1, 2008, and forwarded it to NMFS.
The updated EFH assessment, which includes fish species which may occur in the vicinity of the
project area and which are managed under MSFCMA, and 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 Fishery Management Council as potentially occurring in
southeastern states, will be re- coordinated with NMFS and is included in Attachment B.
3.06 Terrestrial Resources. Terrestrial areas adjacent to the project area include barrier island
beaches and vegetated dunes and high ground.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) has identified Significant Natural
Heritage Areas (SNHA) throughout the state. The NCNHP compiles the NCDENR list of
SNHA as required by the Nature Preserve Act (North Carolina Geodetic Survey [NCGS]
Chapter 113 -A -164 of Article 9A). The list is based on the program's inventory of natural
diversity in the state (NCDENR, 1997). Natural areas are evaluated on the basis of the
occurrences of rare plant and animal species, rare or high- quality natural communities, and
geologic features. The global and statewide rarity of these elements and the quality of their
occurrence at a site relative to other occurrences determines a site's significance rating. SNHA
designation is used for locations of ecological significance or rarity. The NCNHP has further
classified these SNHAs by priority ranking, which takes into account the relative value of each
SNHA.
There are three SNHA within two miles of the proposed project: the Hatteras Inlet Bird Nesting
Islands, the Hatteras Sand Flats, and the Ocracoke Island Eastern End. These three areas are also
considered "managed areas" (areas managed to some degree by one or more conservation entity
for conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem function). ( NCNHP website:
http : / /portal.ncdenr.org/web /nhp )
3.07 Wetlands and Flood Plains. Coastal wetlands of the vicinity include tidal salt marshes that
occur along the shorelines and the island fringes in the area. These marshes are comprised
mainly of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and are generally more extensive where they
are protected from wind and wave action. Intertidal wetlands of the area are very important
ecologically due to their high primary productivity, their role as nursery areas for larvae and
juveniles of many marine species, and their refuge /forage value to wildlife. In addition, they
provide esthetically valuable natural areas.
D -11

3.08 Endangered and Threatened Species. Federally listed endangered and threatened species
(aquatic and terrestrial) with the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project area are listed in
Table 1. This list includes endangered and threatened species that could be present in the area
based upon their historical occurrence or potential geographic range. However, the actual
occurrence of a species in the area depends upon the availability of suitable habitat, the season of
the year relative to a species' temperature tolerance, migratory habits, and other factors.
Of the species listed in Table 1, the whales, manatee, the sea turtles, and the sturgeons, may be
found in the project area.
3.09 Cultural Resources. Prior to the arrival of Europeans, Dare County was populated by
Native Americans of the Algonquian tribes. The tribes gradually moved out as the number of
European settlers increased. The area has long been populated with fishermen and people making
their living from the sea. Pirates, including Blackbeard, roamed the area in the 1700's. Dare
County has been a vacation destination since the early 1800's. During the Civil War, Union forces
invaded the area and captured Fort Hatteras, Fort Clark, and Roanoke Island. In 1862, a gale sank
the Union ironclad "Monitor" off the coast of Cape Hatteras.
During World War I and World War II, German submarines frequently patrolled the waters off
Dare County. A number of ships were torpedoed and sunk, adding to the area's reputation as the
"Graveyard of the Atlantic."
Since the end of World War 11, Dare County has become a very attractive vacation destination.
The number of boats navigating the channels in Pamlico Sound and Inlets in and out of the
Sound has steadily increased over the years, and this trend is expected to continue in the future.
Due to the dynamic conditions present in the project area, there is little stability for good
archaeological preservation. The migratory process of the barrier islands and Hatteras Inlet
reduces the potential for cultural resources.
3.10 Aesthetic and Recreational Resources. A scenic setting is provided by the ocean and
sound, coastal beaches, and the numerous vessels common to these waters, including commercial
and recreational boats. The marine environment provides opportunities for boating and fishing.
Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands, Hatteras Inlet, and area waters provide a multitude of year -round
recreational opportunities for residents and visitors.
3.11 Recreational and Commercial Fishing. Recreational and commercial fishermen
extensively utilize the nearshore marine and estuarine waters of North Carolina's northeast coast on
a year -round basis. The Corps maintains navigation channels in Pamlico Sound and Hatteras
Inlet that are actively fished, or provide passage to other waters, including the Atlantic Ocean. In
addition, recreational surf fishermen frequently utilize area beaches
12

Table 1. Endangered and Threatened Species Potentially Present in Vicinity of
Hatteras Inlet.
Species Common Names Scientific Name
MAMMALS
Federal Status
Blue whale
(Balaenoptera musculus)
Endangered
Finback whale
(Balaenoptera physalus)
Endangered
Humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae)
Endangered
Manatee
(Trichechus manatus)
Endangered
Right whale
(Eubaleana glacialis)
Endangered
Sei whale
(Balaenoptera borealis)
Endangered
Sperm whale
(Physeter macrocephalus)
Endangered
BIRDS
Piping plover
(Charadrius melodus)
Threatened
Roseate tern
(Sterna dougallii dougallii)
Endangered
REPTILES
Green sea turtle
(Chelonia mydas)
Threatened'
Hawksbill sea turtle
(Eretmochelys imbricata)
Endangered
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
(Lepidochelys kempii)
Endangered
Leatherback sea turtle
(Dermochelys coriacea)
Endangered
Loggerhead sea turtle
( Caretta caretta)
Threatened
FISHES
Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus Endangered
oxyrinchus)
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) Endangered
'Green turtles are listed as threatened, except for breeding populations in Florida and on the Pacific Coast of Mexico, which are listed
as endangered.
3.12 Socio- Economic Resources. The project area is in or near Pamlico Sound, Hatteras Inlet,
and the Atlantic Ocean. These waterways provide important economic benefits to the local
community and the Nation as a much - navigated thoroughfare for recreational activities on the
waters of the area. These socio- economic resources are expected to increase in the future.
4.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following paragraphs provide information about environmental effects and address
anticipated impacts of the proposed project. The No Action alternative would have no
immediate environmental effects. However, continued shoaling is expected and if other dredge
plant are unable to safely or logistically (schedule, dredge- specific funding, channel depth, etc)
remove the shoal, the area will continue to be side cast dredged pursuant to the previously -
described emergency protocol.
13

4.01 Geology, Sediments, and Dangerous Debris. Sediments in the project area are continually
subject to movement facilitated by strong currents. Redistribution of sediments is, therefore, a
natural and continuous phenomenon. Side cast dredging would remove shoaled sandy sediments
from the immediate channel and redistribute them in adjacent waters, atop existing sandy
sediments.
In compliance with the Clean Water Act, a Section 404(b)(1) analysis is included as Attachment C.
Neither the dredging nor the disposal options are expected to produce any adverse impacts to
geology or sediments. The maintenance dredging of the existing navigation channel is not
expected to contribute to increased shoaling or sedimentation in other estuarine areas outside the
immediate disposal area, which is subject to the same natural forces causing the shoaling in the
navigation channel.
No dangerous debris, including unexploded ordnance, is anticipated to be encountered during
any phase of the project. However, should such debris be found, appropriate procedures would
be followed to dispose of the debris appropriately so as to avoid injury to the dredge crew and
the public, as well as damage to property or the environment.
4.02 Water Resources.
4.02.01 Hydrology. The estuarine waters of the project area display considerable daily variation
in current and horizontal salinity conditions due to tides and wind. The proposed work would not
change the authorized project dimensions. Hydrology changes caused by maintenance dredging
and disposal would be very small (if any) and would therefore be considered insignificant.
4.02.02 Water Quality and Characteristics. The potential water quality impacts of dredging
include minor and short-term suspended sediment plumes and the release of soluble trace
constituents from the sediment. During dredging, turbidity increases outside the immediate
dredging area and approximately 50 -75 feet from the disposal should be less than 25 NTUs
(Nephelometric Turbidity Units) and would, therefore, be considered insignificant.
By letter dated March 14, 2012, NCDWR (at the time - NCDWQ) provided written approval for
the Corps' use of general water quality certification (GC) 3703, which authorized the Corps'
discharge of sandy dredged material in open water. All disposal would be conducted in
accordance with the GC. The Corps will coordinate with NCDWR for concurrence that GC 3703
is applicable to the proposed project.
No coordination with NCDWR is required for the dredging component of the project.
The water quality effects of disposal are expected to be short-term and minor; rapidly dissipated by
wave and current action. Living marine resources dependent upon good water quality should not
experience more than minimal adverse impacts due to water quality changes from any aspect of the
proposed project.
14

4.03 Air Quality. The project is in compliance with Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended. The direct and indirect emissions from the project fall below the prescribed de
minimus levels; therefore, the proposed project would not have any adverse effect on the air
quality of the project area.
4.04 Marine and Estuarine Resources.
4.04.01 Nekton. Most free - swimming animals, including fish, shellfish, marine mammals, sea
turtles, and cephalopod mollusks, are not expected to experience any significant or long term
direct effects from the proposed action as the proposed dredging and disposal would occur in and
adjacent to a routinely navigated channel subject to frequent boat traffic. Although the mature
fish species present in these areas are highly mobile and would be able to avoid the dredge and
disposal, some fish mortality is possible. Mortality rates resulting from dredging and disposal
would be low and not adversely detrimental to any species.
Potential entrainment of larvae and early juvenile stages of many species pose a greater concern
than adults because their powers of mobility are either absent or poorly developed, leaving them
subject to transport by tides and currents. Assessment of the significance of entrainment is
difficult, but most studies indicate that the significance of impact is low. Reasons for low levels
of impact include: (1) the very small volumes of water pumped by side cast dredges relative to
the total amount of water in the vicinity, thereby, impacting only a small proportion of
organisms, (2) the extremely large numbers of larvae produced by most estuarine - dependent
species, and (3) the extremely high mortality rate that results naturally (not associated with or the
result of the proposed project) for early life stages of many fish species.
As discussed in the Water Quality section above, turbidities resulting from the dredging of sandy
sediments are expected to be minimal and short- lived. Dredging would be in location of recent
shoaling and in areas subject to frequent navigation; therefore, in the natural setting, sediments
are often in motion and temporarily suspended. Both the quantity of suspended sediments and
the duration of elevated turbidity would be expected to increase during dredging, but neither
would be expected to elevate more than minimally, and both would return to normal levels
rapidly following the cessation of dredging.
The proposed side cast dredging and disposal of dredged material would be localized and in
small enough quantities such that adverse impacts to fishery resources would be negligible.
4.04.02 Benthos. The project area is approximately two miles long, although any single
maintenance dredging event would not affect the entire area, only the area of shoaling. In the past,
this has been approx 2,000 to 4,000 linear feet per event.
Mature and extensive populations of benthic resources in the project area are limited as a result
of its dynamic nature, and continual movement and accumulation of sediments. Small numbers
of colonizing species may be present, specific numbers being dependent upon the occurrence of
the last dredging event, the subsequent sedimentation rate, and the ability of particular species to
survive the conditions present in the project area.
15

Dredging would result in mortality of nearly all sedentary or slow- moving benthic organisms that
have moved into the area, along with removal of the sediments down to the specific depth of the
area to be dredged. Pre - project populations would be expected to reestablish over a period of
months.
The ecological significance of temporary benthic losses is considered minor since the affected
area is very small relative to the amount of benthic habitat present on the estuarine bottom and
the time span of loss is likely short. Benthic populations in the vicinity are in a state of flux due
to the continual sedimentation and shoaling which creates the need for maintenance dredging.
Removal of benthos and benthic habitat by channel maintenance dredging represents a temporary
resource loss since the channel bottom would become a new area of benthic habitat and would
begin to be recolonized by those species of benthic organisms able to habituate the area
immediately following the cessation of dredging.
Side cast disposal in the open water areas would kill a majority of the benthic organisms covered
by the dredged material. However, due to the dynamic nature of and continual movement of
sediments in these areas, in addition to the fact that a small area would be impacted by the
disposal, overall numbers of organisms killed would be small. Most if not all of the species
present would be colonizing and would be expected to repopulate quickly following completion
of the project.
To summarize, impacts to benthos as a result of dredging and disposal within the project area are
anticipated to be minimal and short-lived due to the nature of the area and the ability of impacted
species to recolonize.
4.04.03 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. SAV species are not expected to be growing in the
project area. As stated above, Figures 2, 3, and 4 are different mapping efforts and techniques
undertaken by the Corps, NCDMF, and NCDENR's Albemarle- Pamlico National Estuary
Partnership attempting to depict the historic presence and locations of SAV in the project area.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC) has
run a model predicting the impacts of sandy material dredged from Hatteras Inlet on SAV that
are 350 feet or more from the centerline of the discharge. In a 2,000 -foot reach as shown in
Figure 1 of the model summary, TS concentrations above 10 mg/L, 1 mg /L and 0.1 mg/L are
predicted to occur only within 55 feet, 80 feet and 100 feet, respectively, of the centerline of the
discharge. In a 6,500 -foot reach as shown in Figure 2 of the model summary, TSS
concentrations above 10 mg/L, 1 mg/L and 0.1 mg/L are predicted to occur only within 80 feet,
130 feet and 160 feet, respectively, of the centerline of the discharge. Therefore, the plume is
not predicted to spread over the SAV beds which are at least 350 feet from the centerline of the
discharge.
The ERDC model summary and results are included as Attachment A.
In conclusion, because turbidities would be short-lived and settle quickly, little to no adverse
impact on any individuals or habitat that might be present near the project area is expected.
16

4.05 Essential Fish Habitat. The EFH assessment, Attachment B, addresses anticipated
adverse impacts to EFH and HAPC. To summarize, the proposed project includes the use of a
side cast dredge to maintain a federally authorized navigation channel which is subject to
frequent navigation and shoaling; therefore, adverse impacts to EFH, HAPC, or EFH species
from dredging would be minimal and short- lived. Similarly, adverse impacts to EFH, HAPC, or
EFH species resulting from the side cast discharge of sandy sediments in waters adjacent to the
channel would also be minimal and short-lived on an individual and cumulative effects basis. As
a result of these minimal impacts, mitigation to offset impacts would not be required.
4.06 Terrestrial Resources. Because all work would be conducted in open water greater than
500 feet from any shoreline, the proposed project will not have any impacts to terrestrial
resources. None of the SNHAs or managed areas identified above will be adversely affected by
the proposed project.
4.07 Wetlands and Flood Plains. Because all work would be conducted in open water greater
than 500 feet from any shoreline, the proposed project will not have any impacts to wetlands or
floodplains in the project area.
4.08 Endangered and Threatened Species. The proposed work has been reviewed for
compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
All project activities would comply with all precautions set forth in the "Guidelines For
Avoiding Impacts To The West Indian Manatee" prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Attachment D) to avoid impacts to manatees. Due to the manatee's rare occurrence in the area,
the nature of the proposed construction activities, compliance with the guidelines, and the above -
mentioned review of the Act, it is determined that the proposed project may affect but would not
likely to adversely affect this species.
In 1998, the Corps prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) assessing the year -round use of side
cast dredges on sea turtles, whales, and shortnose sturgeon. NMFS provided a Biological
Opinion (BO) on March 9, 1999, concluding that the year -round use of side cast dredges in
North Carolina's coastal inlets may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the continued
existence of these species. The BA and BO are included as Attachment E.
In summary, as a result of the nature and expected duration of the work, and the precautions that
would be taken, neither the proposed dredging nor the disposal of dredged material would be
expected to adversely affect any federally listed threatened or endangered species.
4.09 Cultural Resources. The proposed dredging of the proposed project would be limited to
maintenance of previously dredged areas. No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated as a
result of either the dredging or the disposal.
By letter dated July 18, 2013 (in response to the Corps' July 2013 scoping letter) North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources (NCDCR) stated that they are aware of no historic resource
which would be affected by the project. Therefore, they have no comment on the project as
proposed.
17

It is always possible during the course of the project that vessel remains or other cultural
resources could be encountered. As such, the Underwater Archaeology Unit of the NCDCR has
requested that contractors and others involved in dredging projects be aware that the possibility
exists that work may unearth cultural materials. In the event that this occurs, work would move
to another area or temporarily cease and appropriate personnel in the Corps and the NCDCR
Underwater Archaeology Unit (telephone number 910 - 458 -9042) would be contacted
immediately to determine a course of action.
4.10 Aesthetics and Recreational Resources. The proposed maintenance work would be
located adjacent to areas frequented by boat traffic and fishermen. Aesthetics and public use of
the areas would be disrupted only while actual dredging is occurring. Based on past experience
with similar projects, such impacts are minimal and do not create hardships for the public.
Following completion of the dredging, aesthetics and recreational opportunities would be only
slightly changed, if at all, from conditions existing prior to undertaking the project.
4.11 Recreational and Commercial Fishing. Maintenance of the navigation channel would
occur when navigation is impeded; therefore, maintenance dredging would not adversely impact
recreational or commercial fishing more than minimally. During actual maintenance work,
fishing boat traffic would be temporarily delayed but past dredging work has allowed boat traffic
to periodically navigate through the work area. Once maintenance is completed, area mariners
would benefit from the restored safe navigation conditions in the channel. Because each project
is expected to have a short duration, impacts to fishing should be minimal.
4.12 Socio- Economic Resources. Maintenance of the navigation channel would not adversely
impact socio- economic resources; rather the proposed pro- active dredging will result in benefits
to the ferry system resulting from increased navigational safety.
4.13 Other Significant Resources. Section 122 of Public Law 91 -611 identifies other
significant resources that should be considered during proj ect development. These resources,
and their occurrence in the study area, are described below.
a. Air, noise and water pollution: Impacts to air quality are discussed in Section 5.03 above.
Noise would be a factor associated with any iteration of work in the project area. However,
given the location of the project and recreational activities that commonly occur there, each
dredging event would be short term and any elevated noise levels would be noticeable only
within a localized area around the project site. Water quality is discussed in Section 4.02.02.
b. Man -made and natural resources, aesthetic values, community cohesion and the
availability of public facilities and services. All man -made resources in the project area could be
temporarily impacted only during times of actual construction. Any impacts that do occur would
be minimal and short-term. However, without the project, marine safety in the area could be
considerably more severe. Natural resources are discussed in Sections 4.00 through 4.09.
Aesthetics are discussed in Section 4.10 above.
c. Employment, tax, and property value: Maintenance dredging in the project area would
provide few if any types of employment, but would not adversely affect area employment.
18

Waterfront property values in the vicinity of the project are high with regard to waterfront
property, but these properties and their values would not be impacted as a result of dredging
other than benefits associated with improved and maintained safe navigability. The proposed
maintenance dredging would not adversely affect employment, taxes, or property values.
d. Displacement of people, businesses, and farms: No people, businesses, or farms would be
displaced by the proposed project.
e. Community and regional growth: Because the proposed project involves only temporary,
periodic, and short-term dredging, there would be no affect on the growth climate of any of the
project areas.
4.14 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.
Past projects in the Hatteras - Hatteras Inlet area include federal dredging activities in area
navigation channels for navigation and non - government dredging. Various dredged material
disposal methods including nearshore disposal on either side of Hatteras Inlet, off the northeast
end of Ocracoke Island or off the southwest end of Hatteras Island, and on an unconfined
disposal island that function as colonial waterbird and shore bird habitat. Emergency side cast
dredging and disposal in the project areas has also occurred. In 2003, approximately 850,000 to
1,000,000 cubic yards of sand was pumped by a 30 -inch hydraulic dredge from the channels
between Ocracoke Island and Hatteras Island the federal navigation channel from Hatteras Island
to Hatteras Inlet, and the State ferry channel to the Hatteras Island breach caused by Hurricane
Isabel.
It is reasonably foreseeable that maintenance dredging of the existing projects discussed above
would be expected to continue. No deepening of these channels is currently foreseeable. The
use of the area by NCDOT ferries and recreational navigation is expected to continue and
potentially increase as the boating population in the area continues to grow.
The proposed action, in conjunction with any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future
projects, is not expected to have any significant adverse cumulative impacts to the environment.
Future maintenance actions in the project area and the above - mentioned reasonably foreseeable
future projects would be subject to regulatory requirements and federal actions would be
evaluated in accordance with NEPA.
4.15 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Of The Proposed Action. The proposed dredging of the
proposed project area would disturb portions of an approximately 2 mile long navigation channel
and associated estuarine bottom habitat. The estuarine benthic communities associated with
those habitats would be temporarily lost, but would be expected to re- colonize between
maintenance dredging events. Impacts to this habitat during any specific maintenance event
would be minimal and short- lived.
19

Minor impacts to estuarine bottom from the side cast disposal would also occur. These impacts
during any specific maintenance event would also be minimal and short- lived.
Minor short-term impacts to water quality as a result of the disposal options would occur, but all
work would be conducted in compliance with NCDWR requirements.
Impacts to other natural resources would be expected to be minimal and short- lived, as any
single project would be of short duration.
4.16 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. Dredging would expend fuel,
materials, and labor. However, when determined that the proactive removal of shoals must be
done by a side cast dredge, the increase to navigational safety, and the resumption of normal
ferry traffic and routes is expected to more than offset these expenditures.
5.00 EXECUTIVE ORDERS
E. 0.11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment): The proposed work has
been evaluated under Executive Order 11593, and it is not an undertaking affecting potential
National Register sites.
E. O. 11990 (Protection of Wetlands): The proposed project would not adversely impact any
areas defined as wetlands under Executive Order 11990.
E. O. 11988 (Floodplain Protection): The proposed project would not adversely impact any
areas defined as floodplains under Executive Order 11988.
E. O. 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low Income Communities and Low Income Populations): Executive Order 12898, issued in
February 1994, requires federal agencies to identify and address any disproportionate health or
environmental impacts of their programs, policies, and activities on minority or low- income
communities. It also calls for the meaningful involvement of these populations in project
planning.
The proposed project would not disproportionately affect minority or low- income neighborhoods
or communities.
E. O. 13186 (Protection of Migratory Birds): This Executive Order mandates agencies to protect
and conserve migratory birds and their habitats. The proposed action would not have a
measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations.
E. O. 13405 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks): This Executive Order
mandates federal agencies to 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. The proposed project would not result in any increased safety risks
during actual dredging or upon its completion.
20

6.00 MITIGATION
No mitigation is proposed as a part of this project, which consists of the maintenance of an
existing federally authorized navigation channel.
7.00 POINT OF CONTACT
Any comments or questions regarding this EA should be directed to:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Environmental Resources Section
ATTN: Mr. Jeff Richter
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Mr. Richter may also be contacted at telephone [phone] or email:
[e-mail].
8.00 COORDINATION
8.01 Agency and Public Input.
A scoping meeting was held in the Washington, North Carolina, offices of North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management on July 18, 2013, with state and federal agencies to discuss
dredging in the Hatteras- Hatteras Inlet project area. A scoping letter was also emailed to state
and federal agencies discussing the proposed action. Comments and information received were
reviewed and are addressed in the EA.
This EA is being circulated among federal, state, and local agencies and interested parties.
Notice that the EA is available is being provided to the public, and a copy of the EA will be
made available to groups and individuals requesting one.
8.02 Permits and Authorizations.
8.02.01 Coastal Zone Management Act. Pursuant to Section 307(c)(1) of the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended (Public Law 92 -583), federal activities are
required to be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the federally approved coastal
management program of the state.
The proposed action would take place in areas designated as areas of environmental concern
(AECs) under the North Carolina Coastal Management Program. Activities would occur in
Estuarine Waters and Public Trust Areas.
21

The Corps has determined that the use of a side cast dredge to maintenance dredge the project
area on an as- needed basis, when other dredge plants are not available or unable to safely dredge
the area, is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act. A concurrence
with this determination will be requested from the NCDCM. The use of a side cast dredge in the
area would not occur (unless appropriate emergency declaration and coordination has been
completed) until this concurrence has been obtained. All requirements /conditions identified in
the consistency concurrence would be complied with.
8.02.02 Section 401, Clean Water Act. The proposed side cast discharge of dredged material
would be conducted in accordance with the applicable NCDWR GC (presently GC 3908 - open
water disposal). The Corps will coordinate with NCDWR for concurrence that GC 3908 is
applicable to the proposed project. A water quality certification is not required from NCDWR for
the dredging.
8.02.03 Essential Fish Habitat. As addressed above, adverse impacts to EFH, HAPC, or EFH
species resulting from the disposal options would also be minimal and short-lived on an
individual and cumulative effects basis. An updated EFH assessment is being coordinated with
NMFS.
8.03 Recipients. The EA has been provided to all appropriate federal, state, and local
government agencies, in addition to all groups and individuals who have requested copies. A list
of recipients is available from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District,
Environmental Resources Section, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403, or
by contacting Mr. Jeff Richter at (910) 251 -4636.
9.00 FINDINGS
The proposed proj ect is the use of a side cast dredge to maintenance dredge the project area on
an as- needed basis, when other dredge plants are not available or unable to safely dredge the
area. No deepening or widening of the authorized navigation channel would occur. The
proposed action is expected to have minimal adverse environmental impacts would be expected
to occur as a result of the proposed action. Impacts that do occur would be expected to be
minimal and short- lived. Safe navigation would be restored more quickly in the navigation
channel.
The Corps will attempt to use dredge plant other than side cast dredges when shoaling in the
project area is identified. However, because a side cast dredge is often the only feasible or
logistically appropriate dredge plant to use, proactively dredging with a side cast dredge before
emergency conditions develop will minimize the duration of dangerous navigation caused by the
presence of shoals in the channel. Limiting the use of side cast dredges in the project area only
after the declaration of a navigation emergency and the emergency coordination has been
completed could adversely impact safe navigation, resulting in the slowing or cessation of
navigation or accidents to mariners caused by the unsafe conditions.
22

The majority of the project area's navigation channel follows naturally deep water. This will
reduce the amount of dredging necessary and will involve the removal of recently shoaled
material. No deepening of the channel beyond the authorized project dimensions will occur as a
result of side cast dredging. Because shoals in the project area are sand and the project area is a
dynamic inlet complex, minimal to negligible impacts to environmental resources will result
from side cast disposal. Impacts that do occur would be expected to be minimal and short- lived.
Safe navigation would be restored more quickly in the navigation channel in the event side cast
dredging is the only method of dredging available and can be conducted before emergency
conditions exist.
"No Action" does meet the purpose and need of providing reliable and timely maintenance
dredging when needed to reestablish safe navigation. The No Action alternative would require
that, in the event other dredge plants are unable to safely or logistically remove shoals in the
navigation channels, emergency conditions must exist and emergency coordination with resource
agencies must be completed before a side cast dredge could remove shoals in the project area.
The Corps will ensure receipt of all necessary concurrences and authorizations prior to using a
side cast dredge in the project area and compliance with all terms and conditions of these
authorizations during the life of the project. The proposed action is not expected to significantly
affect the quality of the human environments; therefore, an EIS is not required. If this judgment
is confirmed through coordination of this EA, a FONSI will be signed prior to initiation of the
proposed action. The signed FONSI will be available to the public.
23

Attachment A
Corps' Engineer Research and Development Center Modeling Summary
"Side Cast Dredge Plumes"
A -1

CEERD -EP -E
22 February 2012
MEMORANDUM FOR: Mr. Philip Payonk, Chief, Environmental Resources Section, CESAW-
TS-PE
SUBJECT: Dredged Material Disposal Plume Characteristics for Hatteras Channels
1. The Wilmington District is proposing to perform emergency dredging of the Ferry and Hatteras
Inlet Channels using a hopper dragarm dredge that side casts the dredged material through a 14 -inch
diameter pipeline about 15 ft above the water surface and 150 ft from the centerline of the dredge. The
Ferry and Hatteras Inlet Channels are about 6 miles long, but shoaling occurs sporadically in reaches
about 2000 ft long. The dredge produces about 300 cu yd per hour and advances at a rate of 2 knots.
The channel sediments have an in situ dry density of about 1600 kg /m3 and consist of about 96.5% sands
and gravels, and 3.5% slits and clays. The channel currents are tidally driven. The average peak currents
are about 2 knots. Due to the high velocities, most of the fine - grained material in the dredged material
is expected to be dispersed throughout the water column during disposal, yielding a loss of as much as
3.5% of the dredged material or 3.6 kg /sec. The bottom shear stresses in the area are too high to permit
settling except during slack water, as evident by the coarse - grained nature of the sediments.
2. The suspended solids are dispersed in the water column as a plume that spreads both vertically
and laterally, causing a concern of potential impacts on beds of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV),
which start about 500 ft from the channel or about 350 ft from the side cast discharge locations.
Impacts are primarily caused by obscuring light penetration or burial with fine - grained material, which
are both a function of the suspended solids concentration in the water column above the SAV beds. The
rate of dispersion is a function of the water column depth and the velocity. For a water depth of 4 ft
and a velocity of 2 knots, the lateral diffusion coefficient is estimated to be 940 cm'/sec and the vertical
diffusion coefficient is estimated to be 125 cm'/sec.
3. The plume generated by the dredging can be predicted using the USACE DREDGE model, which
uses a Gaussian dispersion model to predict TSS concentrations in the water downstream of a moving
dredge under steady -state conditions (worst case conditions). The model reports TSS concentrations in
an x -y plane as a function of distance along the centerline of the plume and as a distance laterally off the
centerline. The user selects the desired height of the x -y plane above the bottom of the water column.
The results are reported in an Excel file or can be printed directly from the program.
4. The DREDGE model was run for average peak conditions for a single dredge pass of about
30 minutes in duration. Plumes from consecutive or successive passes are not predicted to interact with
each other because the currents are faster than the dredge. Based on the volume of dredging, proposed
operation and dredging schedule, plumes are predicted to be unsteady and present at any given
location for about 6 hours per day for a period of 5 days. The TSS concentration in the plume was
estimated at the middle of the water column, 2 ft off the bottom. The results are shown as contour
plots of the predicted plumes expressed in mg /L TSS in Figures 1 and 2. In a 2000 -ft reach as shown in
A -2

Figure 1, TSS concentrations above 10 mg /L, 1 mg /L and 0.1 mg /L are predicted to occur only within
55 ft, 80 ft and 100 ft, respectively, of the centerline of the discharge. In a 6500 -ft reach as shown in
Figure 2, TSS concentrations above 10 mg /L, 1 mg /L and 0.1 mg /L are predicted to occur only within
80 ft, 130 ft and 160 ft, respectively, of the centerline of the discharge. Therefore, the plume is not
predicted to spread over the SAV beds which are at least 350 ft from the centerline of the discharge.
TSS Concentrations in mg1L for Hatteras Channel Sidecasting Plume
— 0.1 1 — 10 50 — 100 200
60
50
40
30
20 — - - --
E __
10
0 –
E -10
-M - — -
-30
-40
-50
-6D
v v a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
ti fn m c4 N 'it m m v n r j rfi Co v c v v to Ln kn CO m M n
r r r [V (y ry N N [ D7
Distance Downstream, (m)
Figure 1. Contour plot of TSS concentration in mg /L for a single dredge pass in a 2,000 -foot reach.
A -3

TSS Concentrations in mgIL for Hatteras Channel Sidecasting Plume
— 0.1 1 — 10 50 — 100 200
80
50
40
so
.. 20 --
E
10
0
6
T -10
-20
30
-40
-60
$0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1800 1700 1800 1900 2000
Distance Downstream, (m)
Figure 2. Contour plot of TSS concentration in mg /L for a single dredge pass in a 6,500 -foot reach.
Paul R. Schroeder, PhD, PE
Research Civil Engineer
Environmental Laboratory
A -4

Attachment B
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment
Ilow

Hatteras Inlet Side Cast Dredge EFH Assessment
Proposed Project
The proposed project involves the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) using its side cast dredge plant to maintenance dredge shoaled sand on an as-
needed basis in a portion of the federally authorized Hatteras -to- Hatteras Inlet
navigation channel. Side cast dredging is proposed to occur when other methods of
dredging are not available, are unable to safely work the area, or cannot dredge the
shoal within a reasonable time.
The federally authorized portion of the Hatteras -to- Hatteras Inlet Channel in Pamlico
Sound is 100 feet wide (bottom width) by 10 feet deep mean low water (m.l.w.), with 2
feet of allowable overdepth that begins at the natural throat /gorge of Hatteras Inlet,
extending northeast towards Hatteras Harbor and Rollinson Channel. The inlet gorge is
the deepest continuous portion (thalweg) of the inlet. The thalweg moves depending on
currents and flow, so the actual extent of the federal channel may change between
maintenance events. The channel behind Hatteras Island is fixed; the remainder of the
channel to Hatteras Inlet follows deep water. The project area is shown in Figure 1.
Project Background
Hatteras Inlet is one of the most dynamic coastal inlets in North Carolina. Shoals can
rapidly develop as a result of storms, as well as from normal currents and wave
conditions. Because this channel is important for ferry traffic between Ocracoke and
Hatteras Islands, a number of federal dredging projects have been conducted in the
recent past in an effort to maintain safe navigation.
Given the remote location of this navigation project, contracts for this work can only be
feasibly solicited when the Wilmington District has nearby projects to dredge
concurrently; thereby, reducing the cost to mobilize a contractor's dredging equipment.
The time involved in preparing dredging contracts means that delays of 6 -9 months can
occur between an identified shoaling problem and a contractor's mobilization to the site.
In the proposed project area, a hydraulic pipeline dredge is desirable because dredged
material is placed on bird islands. However, the inlet is too dynamic and dangerous for
this type dredge; therefore, a government -owned special purpose dredge (shallow -draft
hopper) would typically be used as long as depths in both the navigation channel and
bar channel (for transport to and placement in the nearshore disposal area) are
sufficient for safe navigation. When depths in either location are not sufficient for the
special purpose dredge, a side cast dredge is the only feasibly available option for shoal
removal (either total removal or enough to allow a special purpose dredge to complete
the project).
ICJ

In March 2004, the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) prepared
an Environmental Assessment (EA) identifying the Hatteras -to- Hatteras Inlet Channel
as a frequently shoaling site that would need maintenance outside scheduled contract
dredging projects. Following public review of the EA, concern was expressed regarding
the expected impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) that would result from
side cast dredging in several locations, one of which was the Hatteras -to- Hatteras Inlet
portion of the Rollinson Channel project. The entire channel was considered a single
and complete project, thus, no distinction was made between the section of the channel
closer to Hatteras Inlet and the section closer to Hatteras Harbor (more protected from
shoaling and sediment movement). The Corps stated in the Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) dated September 2004 that no side cast dredging would occur
anywhere in the channel unless emergency conditions existed and no other dredge
plant was available. When this scenario occurred, the Corps would declare an
emergency in accordance with criteria and protocol set forth in a 1986 Emergency
Dredging Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Corps and the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR) and Community Development.
This MOA defined the conditions that constitute a navigation emergency requiring
rapid /immediate dredging, and set protocol for the Corps coordinating with state and
federal environmental resource agencies.
Since the completion of the 2004 EA and FONSI, the Corps' ability to satisfactorily
respond to the public's need for shoal removal to ensure safe navigation has been
hampered by the lack of available funding for a contracted dredging project, in addition
to the unavailability of the Corps's special purpose dredge "Currituck" and "Murden."
Emergency conditions requiring immediate side cast dredging have occurred several
times since 2004, including in April 2006, October 2007, February /March 2008, June
2010, September 2010, and September 2011.
An EFH assessment was prepared in April 2008 for the February/March 2008
emergency dredging project. This document is an update of that April 2008
assessment, and includes an assessment of impacts associated with side cast dredging
that occurs before shoaling requires the declaration of a navigational emergency.
In winter 2012/2013, the Corps contracted maintenance dredging of this channel. The
contractor had difficulty completing the project due to weather and sea conditions. After
successfully completing some sections of the project, the channel quickly shoaled and
government -owned dredges (side cast and special purpose) were needed to reestablish
safe navigation.
A scoping meeting was held in the Washington, North Carolina, offices of NCDENR on
July 18, 2013, with state and federal agencies to discuss dredging in the Hatteras -to-
Hatteras Inlet project area. A scoping letter was also emailed to state and federal
agencies discussing the proposed action.
An EA of the proposed project has been prepared and is being circulated to all interested
parties and state and federal resource agencies for comment.
LION

Existing Project Conditions
Given the dynamic nature of the channel, navigability can quickly change due to storms
and currents causing channel shoaling. The Corps' special purpose dredges have
periodically maintenance dredged the channel throughout the summer of 2013.
At this time, there is no need to conduct any side cast dredging but in the event the
special purpose dredges move to other areas and rapid shoaling occurs, if other
dredges cannot access the area, a side cast dredge will be required to perform some
maintenance dredging.
The Corps' side cast dredge "Merritt" can discharge material 100 feet from its centerline
and to either side of the vessel. With an optional discharge pipe extension and the right
wind, this discharge can occur to a maximum of 150 feet from the dredge. The dredge
captain determines the distance from the dredge, in addition to the direction of the
discharge, based on keeping the dredged material from returning to the channel for the
longest time possible.
The Corps' debris boat "Snell" has the capability of side cast dredging, but the efficiency
is not that of the "Merritt." In addition, the amount of material that can be dredged and
distance material is discharged are much less than the "Merritt." The "Snell" would be
used only when the "Merritt" is unavailable and when shoal removal is critical.
Sediments in the proposed side cast dredging area are composed of 90 percent or
greater sand (grain -size between 0.0625 mm and 2.Omm). Grain -size sampling was
conducted in September 2003 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and in July- August
2000 by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Results of the sampling are
available from the Corps upon request.
Essential Fisheries Habitat, Managed Species, and Habitat Areas of Particular
Concern
The 1996 congressional amendments to the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (MSFCMA) (Public Law 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 EFH and a
requirement for interagency coordination to further the conservation of federally managed
fisheries. Table 1 lists fish species by life stages that may occur in the vicinity of the
project area and are managed under MSFCMA. Table 2 shows the categories of EFH
and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) for managed species that were
identified in the Fishery Management Plan Amendments of the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council and may occur in southeastern states. These fish species and
habitats require special consideration to promote their viability and sustainability. The
potential impacts of the proposed action on these fish and habitats are discussed in this
assessment.

Table 1. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Species of Hatteras Inlet and Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. Source:
NMFS, Beaufort, North Carolina, October 2009.
E -EGGS
Rock Sea Bass
J
J
L- LARVAL
LJA
E L J A
Gag
J
JA
J- JUVENILE
a°)
E L J A
Graysby
u°)
N/A
A -ADULT
o
C
Speckled Hind
o
CU
N/A -NOT FOUND
E
°'
�
Yellowedge Grouper
E
°'
COASTAL PELAGICS
CU
=
Coney
a
=
COASTAL
J
J A
Red Hind
N/A
N/A
DEMERSALS
J A
L J A
Goliath Grouper
N/A
N/A
Red Drum
E L J A
E L J A
SNAPPER /GROUPER
N/A
N/A
Bluefish
JA
JA
Black Sea Bass
LJA
L J A
Summer Flounder I I L J A I L J A I I Bank Sea Bass I I N/A I N/A
INVERTEBRATES
Rock Sea Bass
J
J
Brown Shrimp
LJA
E L J A
Gag
J
JA
Pink Shrimp
LJA
E L J A
Graysby
N/A
N/A
White Shrimp
L J A
E L J A
Speckled Hind
N/A
N/A
Calico Scallop
N/A
N/A
Yellowedge Grouper
N/A
N/A
COASTAL PELAGICS
Coney
N/A
N/A
Dolphinfish
J
J A
Red Hind
N/A
N/A
Cobia
J A
L J A
Goliath Grouper
N/A
N/A
King Mackerel
J A
L J A
Red Grouper
N/A
N/A
Spanish Mackerel
J A
L J A
Misty Grouper
N/A
N/A

HIGHLY MIGRATORY
Bigeye Tuna
Bluefin Tuna
Skipjack Tuna
Yellowfin Tuna
Swordfish
Blue Marlin
White Marlin
Sailfish
Little Tunny
SHARKS
Spiny Dogfish
Smooth Dogfish
Small Coastal Sharks
Large Coastal Sharks
Pelagic Sharks
Prohibited /Research
Sharks
SMALL COASTAL
SHARKS
Atlantic Sharpnose Shark
Finetooth Shark
Blacknose Shark
Bonnethead
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
J
JA
JA
JA
N/A
JA
JA
JA
JA
JA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
JA
JA
JA
JA
N/A
JA
PROHIBITED SHARKS
Sand Tiger
Bigeye Sand Tiger
Whale Shark
Basking Shark
White Shark
C
Warsaw Grouper
N/A
N/A
Snowy Grouper
N/A
N/A
Yellowmouth Grouper
N/A
N/A
Black Grouper
N/A
N/A
Scamp
N/A
N/A
Blackfin Snapper
N/A
N/A
Red Snapper
N/A
N/A
Cubera Snapper
N/A
N/A
Lane Snapper
N/A
N/A
Silk Snapper
N/A
N/A
Vermiliion Snapper
N/A
N/A
Mutton Snapper
N/A
N/A
Gray Snapper
J
J
Gray Triggerfish
N/A
N/A
Yellow Jack
J
J
Blue Runner
J
J
Crevalle Jack
J
J
Bar Jack
J
J
Greater Amberjack
N/A
N/A
Alm aco Jack
N/A
N/A
Banded Rudderfish
N/A
N/A
Atlantic Spadefish
J
J
White Grunt
N/A
N/A
Tomtate
N/A
N/A
Hogfish
N/A
N/A

LARGE COASTAL
Puddingwife
N/A
N/A
SHARKS
Dusky Shark
Silky Shark
Bignose Shark
Sheepshead
J A
J A
Tiger Shark
Galapagos Shark
Red Porgy
N/A
N/A
Blacktip Shark
Night Shark
Longspine Porgy
N/A
N/A
Spinner Shark
Reef Shark
Scup
N/A
N/A
Bull Shark
Narrowtooth Shark
Blueline Tilefish
N/A
N/A
Carribean Sharpnose
Sand Tilefish
N/A
N/A
Lemon Shark
Shark
Nurse Shark
Smalltail Shark
Scalloped hammerhead
Atlantic Angel Shark
Great Hammerhead
Longfin mako
Smooth Hammerhead
Bigeye Thresher
Sharpnose Sevengill shark
PELAGIC SHARKS
Bluntnose sixgill Shark
Shortfin Mako
Bigeye Sixgill Shark
Porbeagle
Thresher Shark
Oceanic Whitetip Shark
RESEARCH SHARKS
Blue Shark
Sandbar Shark
MWIN

Table 2. Categories of Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
in Southeast States.
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT GEOGRAPHICALLY DEFINED HABITAT AREAS
OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
Estuarine Areas Area - Wide
Aquatic Beds
Estuarine Emergent Wetlands
Estuarine Scrub / Shrub Mangroves
Estuarine Water Column
Intertidal Flats
Oyster Reefs & Shell Banks
Palustrine Emergent & Forested Wetlands
Seagrass
Marine Areas
Artificial / Manmade Reefs
Coral & Coral Reefs
Live / Hard Bottoms
Sargassum
Marine Water Column
Council- designated Artificial Reef Special Management
Zones
Hermatypic (reef- forming) Coral Habitat & Reefs
Hard Bottoms
Hoyt Hills
Sargassum Habitat
State - designated Areas of Importance of Managed Species
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
North Carolina
Big Rock
Bogue Sound
Capes Fear, Lookout, & Hatteras (sandy shoals)
New River
The Ten Fathom Ledge
The Point
Areas shown are identified in Fishery Management Plan Amendments of the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council and are included in Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish Habitat Mandate for Federal Agencies.
February 1999. (Tables 6 and 7).

The Fishery Management Amendments of the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council identify a number of categories of EFH and HAPC, which are listed in Table 2.
Many of the EFH and HAPC categories listed on the previous page are not present in
the vicinity of Hatteras Inlet /Pamlico Sound. These include:
• Aquatic beds (defined as assemblages of submerged rooted vascular
vegetation found in tidal freshwater areas) - not found in the immediate
project area due to the salinity of waters.
• Artificial /manmade reefs — nearest structure is over two miles from
project area.
• Big Rock and Ten Fathom Ledge — located off Cape Lookout, over 50
miles south of the project area.
• Bogue Sound — located over 50 miles southwest of the project area.
• Capes Fear, Lookout and Hatteras (sandy shoals) — Cape Hatteras
shoals are over 5 miles east of the project area. Capes Fear and
Lookout shoals are over 50 miles southwest of the project area.
• Estuarine Shrub / Scrub Mangroves — require tropical habitats.
• Hoyt Hills — located in the Blake Plateau in water 450 -600 m deep.
• Intertidal Flats — all work conducted in 5 or more feet of water.
• Live / Hard Bottoms — these areas are found in both nearshore and
offshore areas in the South Atlantic Bight, but none are in the vicinity of
the project area.
• Marine Water Column including surf zone — all work confined to
estuarine habitat.
• New River — located over 50 miles southwest of the project area.
• Reef - forming Corals - warm water temperatures (68 to 82° F) generally
occur between 300 N and 300 S latitudes. Off the east coast of the
United States, this northern limit roughly coincides with northern Florida.
• Sargassum — Atlantic Ocean at the continental shelf, in the Sargasso
Sea, and in the Gulf Stream.
• The Point — located off Cape Hatteras (over 2 miles from project area).
Potential impacts to EFH and HAPC that are in the project area are discussed and
summarized in the following paragraphs.
Estuarine Emergent Wetlands. There are no estuarine emergent wetlands in the
project area. There are estuarine emergent wetlands present in waters adjacent to the
project area but dredging and discharge operations would not adversely affect this
habitat, and any impacts that do occur would be minimal and short - lived.
Estuarine Water Column. Side cast dredging routinely creates localized, short -lived
turbidity elevations. In addition to the actions of winds, waves, and currents, the
duration of these turbidities will be dependent upon the grain -size of material being
dredged: the finer the grain -size, the slower the return to pre- dredging conditions.
Because the material to be dredged is sandy, turbidities elevated greater than those

routinely present in a coastal inlet environment would be localized in the immediate
dredging area and would return to normal levels quickly.
Intertidal Flats. There are no intertidal flats in the immediate project area. There are
intertidal flats present in waters adjacent to the project area but dredging and discharge
operations would not adversely affect this habitat, and any impacts that do occur would
be minimal and short - lived.
Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks. These habitat types are present in the area of
Pamlico Sound but do not occur within the project area. Neither maintenance dredging
nor disposal would affect these habitats.
SAV and Seagrass. During the 2004 EA review, potential impacts to SAV were
identified in 2004, and the potential for mostly patchy and some dense beds of SAV is
indicated on North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries SAV mapping efforts, the
Corps has consulted several years (from different times of the year) of recent aerial
imagery. The Corps has concluded that there are no SAV communities visible on this
imagery within 400 -500 feet of the shoaled areas. Composites of aerial imagery and
mapping efforts of SAV are shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4.
In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Engineering Research and Development
Center (ERDC) has run a model predicting the impacts of sandy material dredged from
Hatteras Inlet on SAV that are 350 feet or more from the centerline of the discharge. In
a 2,000 -foot reach as shown in Figure 1 of the model summary, TSS concentrations
above 10 mg /L, 1 mg /L and 0.1 mg /L are predicted to occur only within 55 feet, 80 feet,
and 100 feet, respectively, of the centerline of the discharge. In a 6,500 -foot reach as
shown in Figure 2 of the model summary, TSS concentrations above 10 mg /L, 1 mg /L
and 0.1 mg /L are predicted to occur only within 80 feet, 130 feet and 160 feet,
respectively, of the centerline of the discharge. Therefore, the plume is not predicted to
spread over the SAV beds which are at least 350 feet from the centerline of the
discharge
The ERDC model summary and results are available from the Corps upon request.
State - designated Areas Important for Managed Species. Primary Nursery Areas
(PNAs) are designated by the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission and are
defined as tidal saltwaters that provide essential habitat for the early development of
commercially important fish and shellfish. This project is far enough from PNAs that
neither the dredging nor the disposal will have adverse impacts.
Additional Project Area Concerns. In addition to EFH species in Table 1, prey
species such as spot, croaker, and pinfish may also occupy Pamlico Sound and the
waters adjacent to Hatteras Inlet during varying life stages. The proposed project will
not adversely affect prey species populations.
B -10

Impact Summary for Essential Fish Habitat. The project area is an established
channel and is subject to frequent navigation; therefore, adverse impacts to EFH,
HPAC, or EFH species from side cast dredging and disposal would at most be minimal
and short -lived on an individual and cumulative effects basis. As a result of these
minimal impacts, mitigation to offset impacts would not be required. This assessment
will be coordinated with the NMFS Southeast Region.
B -11

Attachment C
Preliminary Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines 40 CFR 230
C -1

Maintenance of
A Portion of the Hatteras -to- Hatteras Inlet Navigation
Channel Pamlico Sound, North Carolina
Preliminary Evaluation of Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines 40 CFR 230
This evaluation covers the discharge of all dredged material from the side cast dredging of a
portion of the federally authorized Hatteras -to- Hatteras Inlet navigation channel in Pamlico
Sound, North Carolina into waters of the United States. The proposed location of the disposal is
in Pamlico Sound waters adjacent to the channel being dredged.
Review of Compliance (230.100 -(d)) Preliminary 1/ Final 2/
A review of the NEPA Document
indicates that:
a. The discharge represents the least
environmentally damaging practicable
alternative and if in a special aquatic
site, the activity associated with the
discharge must have direct access or
proximity to, or be located in the aquatic
ecosystem to fulfill its basic purpose
(if no, see section 2 and NEPA document); YES ✓ NO❑ YES❑ NO❑
b. The activity does not:
1) violate applicable State water quality
standards or effluent standards prohibited
under Section 307 of the CWA; 2) jeopardize
the existence of federally listed endangered
or threatened species or their habitat; and
3) violate requirements of any federally
designated marine sanctuary (if no, see section
2b and check responses from resource and
water quality certifying agencies); YES-/ NO❑* YES❑ NO❑
C. The activity will not cause or contribute
to significant degradation of waters of the
U.S. including adverse effects on human
health, life stages of organisms dependent
on the aquatic ecosystem, ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability, and recreational,
aesthetic, and economic values (if no,
see section 2); YES-/ NO❑ YES❑ NO❑
d. Appropriate and practicable steps have
been taken to minimize potential adverse
impacts of the discharge on the aquatic
ecosystem (if no, see section 5). YES-/ NO❑* YES❑ NO❑
Proceed to Section 2 *, 1, 2/ See page 6.
C -2

2. Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C -F)
a. Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C)
(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Suspended particulates /turbidity impacts
(3) Water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns
and water circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water
fluctuations /hydroperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity gradients.
b. Biological Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D)
(1) Effect on threatened /endangered
species and their habitat.
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web.
(3) Effect on other wildlife (mammals
birds, reptiles, and amphibians).
c Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)
(1) Sanctuaries and refuges.
(2) Wetlands.
(3) Mud flats.
(4) Vegetated shallows.
(5) Coral reefs.
(6) Riffle and pool complexes.
d. Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F)
(1) Effects on municipal and private water supplies.
(2) Recreational and commercial fisheries impacts
(3) Effects on water - related recreation.
(4) Aesthetic impacts.
(5) Effects on parks, national and historical monuments,
national seashores, wilderness areas, research
sites, and similar preserves.
Remarks: Where a check is placed under
the significant category, preparer add explanation below
Proceed to Section 3
*See page 6.
N/A Not Significant Significant
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
X
X
X
C -3
NA
X
NA
NA
X
NA
NA
C -3
NA

3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G) 3/
a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the biological
availability of possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material. (Check only
those appropriate.)
(1) Physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓
(2) Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated
sources of contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑
(3) Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in
the vicinity of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓
(4) Known, significant sources of
persistent pesticides from
land runoff or percolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑
(5) Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA)
hazardous substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑
(6) Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries,
municipalities, or other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓
(7) Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by
man - induced discharge activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑
(8) Other sources (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑
List appropriate references.
Reference: Environmental Assessment, Side Cast Maintenance Dredging of a Portion of Hatteras -to- Hatteras Inlet
Channel, Pamlico Sound, North Carolina, dated September 2013 (See sections 1.02, 3.01, and 4.01)
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and
not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site. ** YES ✓ NO❑*
Proceed to Section 4
*, 3/, see page 6.
C -4

4. Disposal Site Determinations (230.110.
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the
disposal site.
(1) Depth of water at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ✓
(2) Current velocity, direction, and
variability at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ✓
(3) Degree of turbulence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ✓
(4) Water column stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ❑
(5) Discharge vessel speed and direction . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ❑
(6) Rate of discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ❑
(7) Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type
of material, settling velocities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ✓
(8) Number of discharges per unit of
time.......... ..............................❑
(9) Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
List appropriate references.
Reference: Environmental Assessment, Side Cast Maintenance Dredging of a Portion of Hatteras -to- Hatteras Inlet
Channel, Pamlico Sound, North Carolina, dated September 2013.
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal site
and /or size of mixing zone are acceptable. YES ✓ NO ❑*
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through application of recommendations of 230.70- 230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed
discharge. List actions taken. YES ✓ NO ❑*
See Section 4.02.02 of the EA for water quality.
See Section 4.04 of the EA for Marine and Estuarine Resources.
See Section 4.05 of the EA for Essential Fish Habitat.
See Section 8.00 of the EA for Coordination
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review. See also
note 3/, page 3.
*See page 6.
C -5

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

(3) The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize
potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑
8. Signature
Steven A. Baker
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Commander
Date:
*A negative, significant, or unknown response indicates that the permit application may not be in compliance with the
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
1/ Negative responses to three or more of the compliance criteria at this stage indicate that the proposed projects
may not be evaluated using this "short form procedure." Care should be used in assessing pertinent portions of the
technical information of items 2 a -d, before completing the final review of compliance.
2/ Negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates that the proposed project does not
comply with the guidelines. If the economics of navigation and anchorage of Section 404(b)(2) are to be evaluated in
the decision - making process, the "short form evaluation process is inappropriate."
3/ If the dredged or fill material cannot be excluded from individual testing, the "short- form" evaluation process is
inappropriate.
C -7

Attachment D
Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to West Indian Manatees
D -1

United States Department of the
Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE
Raleigh Field
Office
Post Office Box
33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-
3726
GUIDELINES FOR AVOIDING IMPACTS TO THE WEST INDIAN MANATEE
Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina
Waters
The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), also known as the Florida
manatee, is a Federally - listed endangered aquatic mammal protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.0 1461 et seq.). The
manatee is also listed as endangered under the North Carolina Endangered Species
Act of 1987 (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes). The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) is the lead Federal agency responsible for the protection
and recovery of the West Indian manatee under the provisions of the Endangered
Species Act.
Adult manatees average 10 feet long and weigh about 2,200 pounds, although
some individuals have been recorded at lengths greater than 13 feet and weighing as
much as 3,500 pounds. Manatees are commonly found in fresh, brackish, or marine
water habitats, including shallow coastal bays, lagoons, estuaries, and inland rivers
of varying salinity extremes. Manatees spend much of their time underwater or partly
submerged, making them difficult to detect even in shallow water. While the
manatee's principal stronghold in the United States is Florida, the species is
considered a seasonal inhabitant of North Carolina with most occurrences reported
from June through October.
To protect manatees in North Carolina, the Service's Raleigh Field Office has
prepared precautionary measures for general construction activities in waters used by
the species. Implementation of these measures will allow in -water projects which do
not require blasting to proceed without adverse impacts to manatees. In addition,
inclusion of these guidelines as conservation measures in a Biological Assessment or
Biological Evaluation, or as part of the determination of impacts on the manatee in an
environmental document prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act,
will expedite the Service's review of the document for the fulfillment of requirements
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. These measures include:
D -2

1. The project manager and /or contractor will inform all personnel associated with
the project that manatees may be present in the project area, and the need to avoid
any harm to these endangered mammals. The project manager will ensure that all
construction personnel know the general appearance of the species and their habit
of moving about completely or partially submerged in shallow water. All
construction personnel will be informed that they are responsible for observing
water - related activities for the presence of manatees.
2. The project manager and /or the contractor will advise all construction personnel
that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing manatees
which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered
Species Act.
3. If a manatee is seen within 100 yards of the active construction and /or
dredging operation or vessel movement, all appropriate precautions will be
implemented to ensure protection of the manatee. These precautions will include
the immediate shutdown of moving equipment if a manatee comes within 50 feet of
the operational area of the equipment. Activities will not resume until the manatee
has departed the project area on its own volition (i.e., it may not be herded or
harassed from the area).
4. Any collision with and /or injury to a manatee will be reported immediately. The
report must be made to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (ph. 919.856.4520
ext. 16), the National Marine Fisheries Service (ph. 252.728.8762), and the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (ph. 252.448.1546).
5. A sign will be posted in all vessels associated with the project where it is clearly
visible to the vessel operator. The sign should state:
CAUTION: The endangered manatee may occur in these waters during the warmer
months, primarily from June through October. Idle speed is required if operating this
vessel in shallow water during these months. All equipment must be shut down if a
manatee comes within 50 feet of the vessel or operating equipment. A collision with
and /or injury to the manatee must be reported immediately to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (919- 856 -4520 ext. 16), the National Marine Fisheries Service
(252.728.8762), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(252.448.1546).
6. The contractor will maintain a log detailing sightings, collisions, and /or injuries
to manatees during project activities. Upon completion of the action, the project
manager will prepare a report which summarizes all information on manatees
encountered and submit the report to the Service's Raleigh Field Office.
7. All vessels associated with the construction project will operate at "no wake /idle"
speeds at all times while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a
four foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water
whenever possible.
D -3

8. If siltation barriers must be placed in shallow water, these barriers will be: (a)
made of material in which manatees cannot become entangled; (b) secured in a
manner that they cannot break free and entangle manatees; and, (c) regularly
monitored to ensure that manatees have not become entangled. Barriers will be
placed in a manner to allow manatees entry to or exit from essential habitat.
Prepared by (rev. 06/2003): U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
919/856 -4520
D -4

Figure 1. The whole body of the West Indian manatee may be visible in clear water; but
in the dark and muddy waters of coastal North Carolina, one normally sees only a small
part of the head when the manatee raises its nose to breathe.
C��
t7[3
Illustration used with the permission of the North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences.
Source: Clark, M. K. 1987. Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina: Part I.
A re- evaluation of the mammals. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey
1987 -3. North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences. Raleigh, NC. pp. 52.
D -5

Attachment E
Corps Biological Assessment dated July 1, 1998
and
NMFS Biological Opinion dated March 9, 1999

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402 -1890
July 1, 1998
IN REPLY REFER TO
Environmental Resources Section
Dr. Andy Kemmerer, Regional Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
9721 Executive Center Drive North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 -2449
Dear Dr. Kemmerer:
Enclosed is our Biological Assessment, Use of the Sidecast Dredges Fry, Merritt,
Schweizer, and the Split -Hull Hopper Dredge Currituck in Coastal United States
Waters, dated July 1998. The assessment documents our finding that the use of these
vessels to maintain navigation channels along the eastern seaboard of the United
States is not likely to adversely affect any listed species under the jurisdiction of your
agency.
As discussed with Ms. Colleen Coogan of your staff, we would like to have your
office serve to coordinate your agency's review of this assessment since it discusses
the operation of these vessels within the National Marine Fisheries Service's Southeast
and Northeast Regions. A copy of this assessment is enclosed for Ms. Nancy Hanley
of the Northeast Region.
If you have any questions regarding the operation of these vessels, the
investigations performed, or any other part of this assessment, please contact
Mr. William Adams at (910) 251 -4748.
Sincerely,
C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure

-2-
Copy Furnished:
Ms. Nancy Haley
National Marine Fisheries Service
Northeast Regional Office
One Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930
Ms. Ruth Boettcher
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
P.O. Box 178
Marshallberg, NC 28553
BCF:
CESAW -TS -ON /Sattin
CESAW -TS -ON /Potter
CESAW -TS -PE /Adams /dr/4748
CESAW- TS- PE/Griffin
CESAW -TS -P /Long
CESAW -TS -ON /Sattin
CESAW- TS /Jahnke
CESAW -TS /Shuford /s/
Mail
CESAW -TS /Files
n:/ 3085pnba /wpdoc/bioass/sidetran.doc

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
USE OF THE SIDECAST DREDGES FRY, MERRITT, SCHWEIZER,
AND THE SPLIT -HULL HOPPER DREDGE CURRITUCK
IN COASTAL UNITED STATES WATERS
DULY 1998

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
USE OF THE SIDECAST DREDGES FRY, MERRITT, AND SCHWEIZER
AND THE SPLIT -HULL HOPPER DREDGE CURRITUCK
IN COASTAL UNITED STATES WATERS
1.00 Background
The sidecast dredges Fry, Merritt, and Schweizer, and the split -hull hopper dredge
Currituck, are used throughout the east coast of the United States to maintain adequate depths in
navigation channels through shallow coastal inlets. These dredges are Government -owned and
are based in, and operate out of, Wilmington, North Carolina, and are administered by the
Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
These dredges were once covered under the Regional Biological Opinion (RBO) for
hopper dredging issued by the Southeastern Regional Office of the National Marine Fisheries
Service. However, they were left out of the 1997 RBO because of concerns about their potential
impacts to listed species since they operate without deflectors, have no screening or observers,
and operate during all times of year, including warm weather seasons. In order to address these
concerns, a separate Biological Assessment became necessary.
2.00 Description of Dredge Plants
These shallow draft dredges all use small California style dragheads to collect shoal
material; however, their sizes and power are substantially less than that of the commercial hopper
dredges which employ similar draghead technology in the southeast. Dredge pumps on these
vessels average around 350 horsepower and draghead sizes range from approximately 2'X T to
2'X 3'. The draghead openings are further subdivided on their undersides by gridded baffles,
with openings ranging from about 5" X 5" to 5" X 8 ". These baffles serve to restrict the size of
objects which can enter the dredge and to even -out and direct the hydraulic forces during
dredging, allowing for maximum production with each dredge cut.
When operating, the Fry, Merritt, and Schweizer cast dredged material to the side of the
navigation channel whereas the Currituck fills a small hopper with the material and transports it
to designated disposal areas. These vessels operate at working speeds ranging between 1 and 3
knots and travel at speeds between 7.0 and 10 knot. These dredges normally dredge shallow
channels, with depths between 4 feet and 14 feet below mean low water.
Photographs and complete descriptions of each of these vessels are provided in
Attachment A. Photographs of the draghead of the dredge Fry are also included in Attachment
D.

3.00 Dredging Locations and Times
These specialized dredge plants are currently used at many locations in North Carolina
and elsewhere along the eastern seaboard. Normally, they are used in: 1) shallow coastal inlets
which cannot be dredged safely or effectively with commercially available dredges, 2) during
emergencies, or 3) when an urgent and compelling need exists for clearing out a navigation
channel (periods when rapid shoaling has occurred, a navigation hazard may exist, and there is
insufficient time to contract commercial dredges).
All locations dredged by these vessels for the past few years are included in Attachment
B. This listing is not intended to be restrictive as future conditions may make the use of these
vessels desirable at additional locations; however, this Biological Assessment assumes that all
covered activities will occur along the eastern seaboard of the United States. Potential activities
in gulf or west coast waters would need to be covered under a separate Biological Assessment.
In North Carolina, these vessels operate under no seasonal restrictions. When working in
other states, the host District normally provides all necessary environmental clearances for a
vessel to operate at the desired locations and dates. In the past, this has included clearances
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. Through this Biological
Assessment, and subsequent NMFS Biological Opinion, the host District will be able to
incorporate this consultation by reference, hopefully minimizing the need for individual
consultations in the future.
4.00 Species Covered Under This Assessment
The following threatened or endangered species are under the jurisdiction of the National
Marine Fisheries Service and are known to occur in the waters of the eastern U.S. seaboard:
MAMMALS
Finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus) - Endangered
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) - Endangered
Right whale (Eubaleana glacialis) - Endangered
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) - Endangered
Sperm whale (Physeter catodon) - Endangered
REPTILES
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) - Threatened
Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) - Endangered
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi) - Endangered
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) - Endangered
Loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta) - Threatened
FISHES
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) - Endangered

5.00 Species Assessments
5.01 Finback whale, humpback whale, right whale, sei whale. and sperm whale
a. Status - all endangered
b. Occurrence in Immediate Project Vicinity - Whales occur infrequently in the ocean
off the coast of North America. Of these, only the right whale routinely comes close enough
inshore to encounter these dredges which would be operating in the immediate vicinity of ocean .
inlets. The right whale winter calving grounds occur in the nearshore ocean near the
Florida/Georgia state line and their late summer feeding and breeding grounds are in the lower
Bay of Fundy or the lower Scotian shelf. Their occurrence along much of the eastern seaboard is
usually associated with migrations. Sighting data provided by the Right Whale Program of the
New England Aquarium indicates that 93 percent of all North Carolina sightings between 1976
and 1992 occurred between mid - October and mid -April (Chris Slay, personal communication,
1993). Since these dredges operate year -round along the eastern seaboard, this species could
easily be in the vicinity of the dredges during some of their operations.
c. Current Threats to Continued Use of the Project Area - None
d. Project Impacts -
(1) Habitat - These dredges restore navigation channels to their authorized
dimensions, in essence, reestablishing a previously existing condition. No permanent
modification of habitat will occur.
(2) Food Supply - Right whales feed on copepods and juvenile euphasiids. The
productivity of these prey species will not be diminished by the maintenance dredging of inlets
channels; therefore, the food supply of the right whale should be unaffected.
(3) Relationship to Critical Periods in Life Cycle - Over most of the eastern
seaboard, these dredges operate year -round while right whales should only be present during
migrations. Right whales are vulnerable to ship and small vessel collisions while migrating;
however, sidecast dredges and the Currituck normally work in the throat and interior portions of
inlets. When working in inlet channels, the vessels operate at speeds between 1 and 3 knots.
The Currituck travels to an adjacent beach to dispose of dredged material at speeds between 5
and 8 knots. The vessels transit between sites at speeds of 7 to 10 knots. These speeds allow
maximum dredging efficiency but maintain an adequate speed for steerage in inlet environments.
Because of these slow speeds, these vessels should present less of a threat to migrating whales
than normal commercial ship traffic and recreational boating. When operating near, or traveling
through, the right whale calving grounds, the Captains of these vessels would be provided daily
information on the locations of the whales from the right whale monitoring program and would
operate their vessels accordingly.

(4) Affect Determination - Since: 1) existing habitat conditions and food
supplies will be maintained, 2) the sidecast dredges and Currituck normally work in the throats
and interior portions of inlets which are not used by whales, and 3) these vessels travel at very
low rates of speed during operation; it has been determined that the operation of these vessels is
not likely to adversely affect any species of whale.
5.02 loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle. hawksbill sea turtle. Kemp's ridley sea turtle, and
leatherback sea turtle
a. Status - loggerhead and green sea turtles, threatened; others, endangered
b. Occurrence in Immediate Project Vicinity - Over most of the eastern seaboard, the
green, Kemp's ridley, and the loggerhead sea turtles are known from primarily from estuarine and
oceanic waters, whereas the leatherback and the hawksbill are known principally from oceanic
waters. All of these species are considered to be residents of the seaboard primarily from the
spring through the fall although occasional winter records exist. Sea turtles are known to nest on
ocean beaches from Virginia south through Florida. The sea turtle nesting season begins in early
spring, increases to a peak in late spring to mid - summer, and declines until completion in late
summer.
c. Current Threats to Continued Use of Area - The most significant threats posed to adult
and subadult sea turtles are accidental drowning in nets, ingestion of lethal non -food material,
collisions with watercraft, and natural predators.
d. Project Impacts -
(1) Habitat - These dredges restore navigation channels to their authorized
dimensions, in essence, reestablishing a previously existing condition. No permanent
modification of habitat will occur.
(2) Food Supply - These species feed primarily on a wide variety of invertebrates
and plant materials. Maintenance dredging will temporarily remove some of these resources
from the channel bottom. Impacts on foraging habitat will be minor as dredging will only affect
a small portion of the estuary and ocean bottom where work is being performed; therefore,
dredging should not have any adverse long term affect on the food supply of these species.
(3) Relationship to Critical Periods in Life Cycle - These dredges operate year -
round and could, therefore, be operating in shallow inlet areas when sea turtles are present.
Turtles frequent such areas, particularly when entering and exiting estuarine waters. Their
residence time in shallow inlet environments is unknown. Because of the apparent potential for
adversely impacting sea turtles, sea turtle stranding data was analyzed by Ms. Ruth Boettcher,
NC Wildlife Resources Commission, to see if over the past several years dead turtles have
washed up in the vicinity of dredging operations. In addition, a field impingement test using a
sidecast dredge and a fresh dead green sea turtle was conducted in New River Inlet on 28
February 1998.

Analysis of stranding data does not reveal any pattern which would indicate that either the
sidecast dredges or the Currituck were responsible for any of the strandings in inlet areas. Of the
eight inlet areas examined, four of them had no strandings during the multiple periods when
dredging was occurring. Of the other four, almost half of the strandings (9 out of 21) could not
be attributed to any known cause, i.e., no damage to the turtles was apparent. Of the remaining,
boat propellers or human molestation appeared to be the probable cause of mortality in most
cases (9 out of 12), in the remaining (3), injury was too non - specific or the specimen was too
badly decomposed to assess any cause of death. The complete text of Boettcher's report is
included as Attachment C.
On 26 February 1998, Ruth Boettcher, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and Messers.
Frank Yelverton and William Adams, Corps of Engineers, visited the sidecast dredge "Fry ",
located in New River Inlet, Onslow Co., N. C., to test whether or not this class of vessel could
take sea turtles. A fresh dead 13.5" green sea turtle from Pamlico Sound (taken last year but kept
frozen) was used in the tests (see photographs in Attachment D). Three tests were run: 1) in the
water column, the turtle was impinged on the draghead and the pumps were run for 5 minutes
(this test was performed twice), 2) the turtle was impinged on the draghead, then the draghead
placed on the bottom and the pumps were run for 5 minutes (this test was also performed twice),
and 3) the turtle was impinged on the draghead and the vessel performed routine dredging for 5
minutes. Results were as follows:
For test one, first run, no significant damage was visible to the turtle, only a few barely
detectable nicks to the carapace. After the second run, the barnacles had been sucked off but,
again, the shell and flippers had no detectable damage. For test two, both runs, no significant
damage was done, a few nicks on the carapace were apparent but nothing else. For test three,
significant abrasions occurred on the anterior portion of the carapace and one blister -like
hematoma (dime- sized) was raised on the underside of the left front flipper. Significant
quantities of sand had also been forced into the turtle's mouth. Several important observations
were made during the tests.
The suction force coming through the draghead was not strong. In one case, the turtle was
not properly impinged and it was easily prodded with a pole into proper position. This
would not have been possible if it were tightly held by suction forces. A check with the
Captain indicated that the vacuum gauge for the pump showed no change when the turtle
was impinged. This further indicates minimal suction forces at the draghead.
The same turtle was used on all of the tests. At the end of all of this cumulative
impingement abuse, the only damage observed was abrasion from being dragged along the
bottom. No fractures, dislocations, or any other type of physical damage was detectable.
The last test was considered to be a worst case scenario - an impinged turtle unable to
escape because it was tied to a draghead. Under normal circumstances, it is questionable
whether these vessels could actually impinge a sea turtle with such low suction forces. If a
sea turtle were to accidentally become impinged, at such low suction forces it would have
ample opportunity for escape due to bottom irregularities.

(4) Affect Determination - Based on the findings of Boettcher's report on turtle
strandings and the results of the test dredging, it appears that these dredges, all of which have
similar dragheads and pumps, do not pose a significant threat to sea turtles. Even if a turtle small
enough to pass through the draghead were encountered, it appears highly probable that it would
pass through the dredge unharmed due to the low pump pressures involved. For these reasons, it
has been determined that continued operation of these dredges along the eastern seaboard is not
likely to adversely affect any species of sea turtle.
5.03 shortnose sturgeon
a. Status - endangered
b. Occurrence in Immediate Project Vicinity - The shortnose sturgeon occurs in rivers
along the Atlantic seaboard from the Saint John River in New Brunswick, Canada, to the Saint
Johns River, Florida; therefore, these dredges may occasionally work in the vicinity of shortnose
sturgeon populations. The species is known to use three distinct portions of river systems: (1)
non -tidal freshwater areas for spawning and occasional overwintering; (2) tidal areas in the
vicinity of the fresh/saltwater mixing zone, year -round as juveniles (to 45 cm) and during the
summer months as adults; and (3) high salinity estuarine areas (15 parts per thousand (ppt)
salinity or greater) as adults during the winter. Because of the wide range of habitats available in
the major river systems along the Atlantic seaboard, variation from this general scheme can be
found. One population, in Holyoke Pool, Connecticut, is totally landlocked.
c. Current Threats to Continued Use of the Area. Pollution, over - fishing, and blocked
access to historic spawning areas are generally considered to be the principal causes of the
decline of this species.
d. Project Impacts.
(1) Habitat - Spawning habitat for the shortnose sturgeon should lie well upstream of
the ocean inlet environments typically dredged by these vessels. In addition, juveniles usually
remain inland of saline water until about 45 cm in length. Habitat conditions normally suitable
for adults ( >45cm) could occur within estuarine areas where these vessels might be required to
work. Any sturgeon habitat within the areas dredged would be temporarily disturbed during
maintenance. These dredges restore navigation channels to their authorized dimensions, in
essence, reestablishing a previously existing condition. No permanent modification of habitat
will occur.
(2) Food Supply - The shortnose sturgeon is a bottom feeder, consuming various
invertebrates and occasionally plant material. Adult foraging activities normally occur at night in
shallow water areas adjacent to the deep water areas occupied during the day. Juveniles are not
known to leave deep water areas and are expected to feed there. All bottoms dredged as a part of
a given maintenance activity will suffer temporary declines in benthic fauna populations in
comparison to adjacent undisturbed areas. Given adequate recovery time, future channel bottoms

would be expected to continue to support benthic populations similar to those existing prior to
maintenance dredging.
(3) Relationship to Critical Periods in Life Cycle - Maintenance dredging with these
vessels can be performed at any time of year. Compliance with seasonal restrictions is the
responsibility of the host Corp District; if requested to dredge in a given area, it is assumed that
the host Corps District has coordinated the activity and obtained the necessary environmental
clearances.
Adults could occur in some of the areas that may be dredged by these vessels. Because of the
mobility of adults, they should be able to avoid the slow moving dredging equipment if they
exhibit flight behavior when approached. Whether or not this occurs is unknown. From the sea
turtle tests performed in New River Inlet and described above, it is known that the suction
dragheads of these vessels exhibit very low suction forces and have very small openings, ranging
from 3" X 5" for the Currituck and 5.5 "x 8" for the sidecast dredges. Given the size of shortnose
sturgeon which would be expected to occupy the areas being dredged ( >45cm = 17.7 "), the low
suction forces and small openings, and an expected flight response, it is unlikely that an adult
sturgeon would be taken under normal circumstances.
(4) Affect Determination - Analysis of the life history and range of the shortnose
sturgeon and the general physical characteristics of the areas likely to be dredged within that
range indicate that these dredges may occasionally be working in the vicinity of the species.
Project maintenance should not result in significant habitat modification and feeding areas will
not be significantly affected. Spawning areas and nursery areas for juveniles would be expected
to occur outside of the areas normally dredged, but adult shortnose sturgeon could be present in
dredging areas. Since the shortnose sturgeon which occupy the project area are mobile, they
should be able to avoid locations being disturbed by dredging. Assuming a worst case, based on
the low suction forces of these vessels and the small size of the draghead openings, direct
impingement is considered unlikely. For these reasons, it has been determined that continued
operation of these vessels along the eastern seaboard is not likely to adversely affect the
shortnose sturgeon.
6.00 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
6.01 Factors Considered
This biological assessment has analyzed the potential impacts associated with the
maintenance of coastal inlets along the eastern seaboard with sidecast dredges and the splithull
hopper dredge Currituck, on those listed species which the National Marine Fisheries Service
believes may be in the project area. Factors which were considered in making effect
determinations were as follows:
Project location in relation to distribution of listed species.
Types of environmental impacts created by the project, including secondary impacts.
Seasonality of occupation of the area by listed species.

Life history requirements and behavior of listed species.
Human use pressures on the area.
6.02 Conclusion
Through analysis of the above mentioned factors, it has been determined that the continued use
of these vessels to maintain shallow coastal inlets along the eastern seaboard is not likely to
adversely affect any listed species.
n: 13085pnba lwpdoclbioasslsidecast.wpd

ATTACHMENT A

U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Floating Plant
Manual

,
Gillette -Page f
Surveyboat Gillette
Vessel Characteristics
and Specifications
Hull Material Aluminum
Length, Overall 64'- 11 -5/8"
Beam, Overall 18' -0"
Draft, FWD 2' -5"
Draft, AFT 4' -6"
Vertical Clearance 26' -0"
Speed, light 24 MPH
Speed, loaded 22 MPH
Tonnage, Gross 71.85 tons
Displacement 26.31 tons
Propulsion Engines:
Main Engine- 2 ea 12V71 TI GM Diesel, 1040 HP, total
Propellers- 2 -30 "d x 32 "p 4 -blade (2 1/2" shaft)
Auxiliary Power -20 KW AC Generator GM 2 -71 Diesel
Bunker Capacity: 1200 gal diesel fuel
Crew: 2 -4
Radar:
Furuno Model 805D
Loran:
Micrologic ML -2000
Radio:
Motorola VHF FM 163.4125 Mhz- Syncom 10- Synthesized Regency
MT -5500 XL
Survey Equipment:
Entron Pentium PC
Hypack surveying /navigation software
Ashtech GPS navigation system
Trimble Navbeacon system
Ross 200 and 28Khz dual frequency echosounder
Reson Seabat multibeam system
TSS heave compensation system "
Hazen automated tide gage system
Launch:
16' Aluminum Skiff, Monark COV
Gillette -Page f

Snagboat Snell
Radio Call Letters:AEGC
Performs clearing and snagging and wreck removal in AIWW, navigable rivers and other
channels. Has capability for driving piling, construction and repairs of fender systems, dikes,
jetties, and dolphins. Serves as derrick -boat, refueling vessel, clamshell dredge, etc. Works in
Wilmington and Charleston Districts.
Built: Missouri Valley Bridge and Iron Company in 1945, originally designated Navy YSD 78.
Converted: 1967 by New Bern Shipyard, New Bern, NC. This conversion involved virtual
rebuilding, including repowering, construction of house and replacement of practically all
machinery. A large section of underwater hull plating was replaced.
Vessel Characteristics and Specifications:
Gross Tonnage
Displacement
Length, Overall
Beam
Depth, Molded
Draft, Aft
Draft, Forward
185 long tons
323 long tons
104' -0"
31' -2"
7' -9"
5' -6"
4' -0"
Propulsion Equipment: (Diesel)
Engines: 2 each, GM, Model 12V71, each 350 HP, total 700 HP
Propellers: 2 each, 4- blade, 42 "d x 32 "p
Reduction Gear: Twin disc, Ratio 3:1
Twin Rudders with Wheels in Tunnels
Speed:" 9.5 MPH
— - - -- - Jet pump with GM 371 engine
Generators: 2, 45 KW AC diesel generators, GM 371 engine
Snell - Page 2

Derrick: Pettibone Model 130, 35 ton capacity SWL,
GM 6V53 engine with Hydraulic graple device
Boom, Length: 35 -84 ft. telescope
Bunker Capacity: 10,000 gal diesel
Portable Water: 4,000 gal
Cruising Radius: 2600 miles
Water Pump: (Jet & Dewatering) 4" Diesel powered
Air Compressor: 350 CFM /3 -53 Diesel
Steering and engine controls on bridge wings
Radio Equipment:
Motorola MICOM -X, single side band 2.3000 MHZ thru 20.00 MHZ
Loran C Furuno & Micrologic ML5500 Loran
G.P.S. Plotter Positioning Gear
2- Regency Polaris MT5500 VHF Marine Band 156 -163 MHZ
Transceiver WX1, WX2, WX3, WX4
Cellular Phone
Crew: 6 men
Radar: Furuno Model FP5080, .25mi scale to 48 mi. scale
Fathometer: Standard - Horizon
NOTE: The quarters are centrally air conditioned; galley is fully equipped with freezer locker
and all necessary gear. The mess area serves as a recreation room with TV installed. The
master, Chief Engineer and crew have private quarters.
Launch: 17' fiberglass, Boston Whaler, with 90 HP Mercury outboard motor propulsion unit,
COB
Snell - Page 3

Hopper Dredge Currituck
Radio Call Letters: AEFR
Home Port: Wilmington, North Carolina
This vessel works in the shallow -draft ocean bar channels along the Atlantic Coast. However,
in addition to removing dredged material from the channel, the CURRITUCK can transport the
material to the downdrift beach and deposit it in the surf zone to nourish sand - starved beaches.
Type: Seagoing, split -hull hopper dredge, steel construction, full diesel, with twin outboard
propulsion units.
Built: Barbour Boat Works, New Bern, North Carolina, 1974.
Converted to Dredge: US Army Engineer Yard, Eagle Island, North Carolina, 1977
Vessel Characteristics and Specifications:
Gross Tonnage 484 tons
Displacement, Light 175 long tons
Displacement, Loaded 615 long tons
Length, Overall 150' -0"
Beam, Molded 30' -7"
Draft, Light 3' -4"
Draft, Loaded 7' -6"
Hopper Capacity 315 cubic yards
Propulsion Equipment:
Engines- 2 Detroit Diesels GM 12 -V -71, 350 HP @ 1800 RPM
Outboard Propelling Units- Holland Roerpropeller,
Model HRP 350 Deckunit
Speed, _Loaded Approx: 8 MPH
Speed, Light: 9.5 MPR
Bunker Capacity: 3600 gal diesel fuel
Currituck - Page 4

Dredging Equipment:
Primer mover- 2 ea GM 6V -71
Dredge Pumps- 2 ea HDM-32-1 2x 10, 400 RPM - Dredge Master's direct coupled
Drags- Brunswick County Type, fabricated at Eagle Island Yard
Drag hoisting winches- Braden Series PD 12C
Total Compliment: 11 men split into 2 crews
Radio:
Regency Polaris MT -5500 VHF, Programmable 20 channel scanner, 88 channels -20 scan
and monitor all US, monitor 16 channels, scan 4 weather channels
ICOM - VHF Marine Transceiver IC -M120
Raytheon - Ray 90 VHF -FM Radio Telephone
ICOM - IC -M810 HF Marine Transceiver
Audiovox Cellular Phone
Radar: Furuno, FR 8100D
Fathometer: Furuno FCV -667
Compass: Magnetic - C. Plath
Gyro: Sperry SR130. with Repeator
Loran: Furuno, LC 90
Rayplot 7001
Generator: 2 ea 45 KW GM 3 -71, HP @ 1800, and 30 KW standby
Launch: 16' aluminum work boat and 50 HP Johnson outboard
curKtuck - Page 5

Sidecasting Dredge Fry
Radio Call LettersAESY
Home Port: Wilmington, North Carolina
The FRY was converted to a sidecasting dredge in 1972 by the Philadelphia District. Prior to
that time, the MERRITT had been assigned to maintain four inlet projects in New Jersey in
addition to her schedule in North Carolina. The MERRIMS schedule was such that the
Wilmington District was unable to keep up with the work and Wilmington assisted Philadelphia
in constructing the dredge FRY. The FRY is identical to the MERRITT in all major respects.
The FRY was transferred to Wilmington for operation in the sidecasting fleet in 1983. The FRY
was staffed for two -shift operation and has permitted the sidecasting fleet to maintain the
schedule and react to emergency needs.
Vessel Characteristics and Specifications:
Gross Tonnage
202 tons
Displacement
354 long tons
Length, Overall
104' - 2"
Beam, Molded
30' - 0"
Breath, with drags
in work position
40' - 10"
Depth, Molded
7' - 9"
Draft
4' - 8"
Draft, Loaded
5' - 11"
Draghead & Hoppers
2 Brunswick Adjustable
Drags
10 "d
Discharge Pipe
12 "d, 80' in length, casts material 100' from centerline
Propulsion Equipment:
Main Engines- 2 each Detroit Diesel, 12- cylinder, Total 700 HP @ 1850 RPM
Reduction Gear -Twin Disc, 3:1
Propellers- 2 each, 4- blade, 36, 34 pitch
Fry - Page 6

Pumping Equipment:
Pumps, 2 each, 10" suctions, 10" discharges combine into 12" discharge
Pump engines, 2 each, Detroit Diesel, 6V71, 230 HP @ 1850 RPM
Sidecasting capacity, 10 cubic yards sand per minute
Dredging Depth, 6' to 25'
Auxiliary Power:
Generators- 2 -75KW each. Powered by Detroit Diesel 4 -71 engines.
Derrick:
Crane capacity, 4.5 -ton
Electric - hydraulic operation
Speed:
8.5 MPH (light), 7.5 MPH (loaded)
Bunker Capacity:
10,000 gal diesel oil
Total Compliment:
14 men (2 crews of 7 men each)
Radar:
Furuno FR 8111
Radio:
Motorola Micomix single side band
Motorola VHF FM SYNTOR 136 -174 Mhz
MODOR TRITON UHF FM Channel 16, 6, 13, 21A, 22A, 23A, WEA
KOM K -M56 VHF Marine Transceiver
A.R.C. President 40- channel CB radio
Fathometer: Raytheon Model, V820 Recorder and
Datamarine International offshore digital
Loran: Micrologic Model- ML -320 and Model Explorer 11 Loran C
Compass: Danforth Constellation
Loud Hailer: Raytheon 430
Gyro: Sperry MIC 27 Model
Vertical Clearance from Waterline:
53' mast up, 39 mast down
Launch:
0
CON- Boston Whaler- 16' -6', 90 HP Evinrude Motor
Fry - Page 7

M.
i u
sidecasting Dredge Merritt
Radio Call Letters:AEVZ
Home Port: Wilmington, North Carolina
Performs dredging work in numerous inlets along the South Atlantic Coast. Is especially suited
to maintenance of shallow, unstablized inlets where larger hopper dredges cannot operate due
to strong currents and ocean environment. Often serves hopper and larger sidecasting dredges
by constructing pilot channels across limiting shoals, widening channels into high bank areas,
serving as fueling barge in emergencies.
Type: Seagoing sidecasting dredge, steel construction, side drags, port and starboard, full
diesel, twin screw, twin rudder.
Built: US Navy Yard, Charleston, SC, in 1944 and designated YSD -59.
Converted to Dredge: 1964 by Wilmington Shipyard, Inc., Wilmington, NC.
Vessel Characteristics and Specifications:
Gross Tonnage 195 long tons
Displacement 342 long tons
Length, Overall 104' -0"
Beam, Molded 30' -0"
Width, Overall Over
Drag Elbow 35' -0"
Depth, Molded 7' -9"
Draft, Bow 4' -8"
Draft, Stern 5' -6"
Hoppers None
Drags 2 Brunswick Adjustable
Discharge 12 "d, 80' centerline of ship plus
10' extension- cast material
100 feet from centerline.
Propulsion Equipment:
Main Engines- 2 ea. GM 12V71, 350 HP ea
Total 700 HP @ 1850 RPM
Reduction Gear- 3:1, Twin Disc, MG 514
Propellers- 2 ea, 3- blade, 3' -6 "d, 2' -8" pitch
Merritt - Page 8

Pumping Equipment:
Pumps, Morris, two each, 10" suctions, 10" discharges combine into 12" discharge
Runner, 34 ", 3 -vane
RPM, 500
Pump engine, 1 GM, 12V71, 340 HP @ 1800 RPM, Chain drive (3.66: 1)
Sidecasting capacity, 300 to 450 cy /hr
Dredging depth, 6' to 25'
A.C. Generators:
2 AC 90 KW -4 -71
Derrick:
Driven by electric hydraulic pump, approximately 6 -ton lifting capacity
at typical operating boom angle
Potable Water tank:
4000 gal capacity
Speed:
7.5 MPH
Bunker Capacity:
10,000 gal diesel
Cruising Radius:
1,200 miles
Total Crew:
7- Single Shift Operation
NOTE: Quarters are fully air conditioned accomodations for 8 men including 2 officers, galley,
no recreation room, TV installed for use after hours. No visitor quarters available.
Loran:
North Star GPS -Loran 800
Radio:
CAI SSB 5400 Khz
Regency Polaris MT5500XL
Fathometer:
ICOM M -120, Gradurte 301, International Offshore- Furuno -FCV -667
Compass:
Sperry Gyro
Vertical Clearance
from Waterline:
46'
Launch:
17' Fiberglass -1987 Boston Whaler, 90hp Evinrude, COB
Aluminum Skiff:
16' COB
Radar:
Furuno FR 8111
Merritt - Page 9

Sidecasting Dredge Schweizer
Radio Call Letters:AEWS
Home Port: Wilmington, North Carolina
Performs dredging work in numerous ocean inlets along the Atlantic Coast from Florida to New
England. This vessel is especially suited to maintenance of the shallow, unstablized inlets
where shallow channels prohibit operation of the larger hopper dredges.
Type: Seagoing sidecasting dredge,steel construction, side drags, port and starboard, full
diesel, twin screw and twin rudder.
Built: 1946 by Missouri Valley Bridge Company and originally designated Navy YF -865.
Converted to Dredge: 1966 by Boland Machine and Manufacturing Company from Navy
YF -865.
Vessel Characteristics and Specifications:
Gross Tonnage
Displacement
Length of Hull
Length, Overall Including Discharge Pipe
Beam, Molded
Width, Overall Over Drag Elbow
Draft, Bow
Draft, Stern
Hoppers
Drags
Discharge Pipe
Propulsion Equipment:
Main Engines:
Reduction Gear:
Propellers:
361 long tons
550 long tons
133' -7"
188' -6"
30' -0"
38' -0"
7' -9"
9' -0"
None
2 Brunswick type
12 "d, 99' long.
Casts material 80' from side of vessel
2 ea GM -16 -V -149, 900HP @ 1800RPM, total 1800HP
Twin disc gears MG 540; 4.6 to 1
60" dia X 66" pitch, stainless steel, 4 -blade
Schweizer - Page t 0

Pumping Equipment:
Pumps- (2) 12" Thomas Simplicity Dredge Pumps
RPM- 450
Pump engines- 2 Detroit Diesels, 12V71, 350 HP @ 1800 RPM
Sidecasting capacity- 650 cy /hr
Dredging depth- 9' to 20'
Speed:
Bunker Capacity:
@SPACE _
Total Crew:
9 MPH
:LOT
3 Officers, 4 men
Radio:
Motorola Micomix, SSB, 2300 Khz, 2326, 2350, 4090, 5400, 5437.5, 6785, 6790
Motorola VHF FM Maritime Channels 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 26
Motorola VHF FM Channels 18A, 68, 70, 24,28, 21 A, 22A, 23A, 81 A, WX 1, WX3
Regency Polaris 5500XL VHF FM
Radar: Furuno FCR 1411
Fathometer: Standard: DST Slant Bar 21 with Bronze Transducer
Compass: Sperry Gyro SR /30
Vertical Clearance
from Waterline: 43'
Launch: 17' fiberglass, 1987 Boston Whaler, 90 hp, Evinrude, COB
AC Generators: 2 ea 100 KW GM 6 -71 -175 HP @ 1800 RPM
Emergency AC
Generator: 1 ea 45 KW GM- 3 -71 -HP @ 1800 RPM
Schweizer - Page 11

Wilmington District Engineer Yard
Located west side of the Cape Fear River, two miles downstream from Wilmington on Eagle
Island, North Carolina, this facility is a repair yard and a storage area serving equipment on two
multi - purpose flood control projects, two low flow water storage - flood control reservoirs,
three locks and dams, highway bridges, and all the floating plant owned by the District. The
site contains 3.3 acres with 7 buildings and a wharf. The area is enclosed by a 6' high chain
link fence with a security gate at the entrance. Each building is secured by door locks.
The yard is under the supervision and direction of the Operations Branch,
Construction- Operations Division. The permanent work force at this facility consists of a
superintendent and generally five additional full -time employees.
Two four -man survey parties, the survey boat GILLETTE and several small survey boats are
also based at the yard.
The yard is equipped with a carpenter shop and well equipped machine /welding shop, a
warehouse, and an equipment shelter. Two docks and a steel bulkhead afford vessel berthing
facilities.
Considerable welding and mechanical work is done at the yard on dredging equipment for the
SNELL, FRY, MERRITT, SCHWEIZER, and CURRITUCK and on machinery and fixtures for the
flood control projects, locks, dams, bridges, and vessels.
EngineerYaid - Page 12

Hull Material:
Length, Overall:
Beam, Overall:
Displacement:
Draft:
Highest Fixed Point:
Speed:
Propulsion Engines:
Surveyboat Wanchese
Vessel Characteristics and Specifications
Aluminum
25'-0"
8' -0"
2.6 tons (light), 3.2 ton (loaded)
8' -0"
31 MPH (light),
30 MPH (loaded)
Main Engine 1 ea. 6 BT 5.9 Cummings
Horsepower 210 @ 2600 RPM's
Propeller 1 ea. 19" dia., 3- blade, 20 pitch Nibral cupped
Drive 1 ea. Marine Drive
Auxiliary Power: 1 each Kohler diesel generator 12 KW
Bunker capacity: 2 each @ 40 gal
Crew: 2 -3
Radio: Motorola Micor VHF FM 163.4125 Mhz and 163.4375 Mhz District Radio
Regency 5500 XL VHF FM Channels 6,9,13,16,22A,24,26,28,WX1
Survey Equipment: Entron Pentium PC
Hypack surveying /navigation software
NovAtel GPS system
Trimble Navbeacon system
Innerspace Technology thermal depth sounder model 448
TSS heave compensation system
Wanchese - Page 13

Surveyboat Beaufort
Beaufort - Page
Vessel Characteristics and Specifications
Material of Hull:
Aluminum
Length, Overall:
47' 6"
Beam, Overall:
15'
Displacement:
14.3 long tons, light, 17.4 long tons, loaded
Vertical Clearance
Required:
16' -6"
Draft, Normal Loaded,
Forward:
2' -6"
Draft, Normal Loaded,
Aft:
4' -6"
Speed:
26 Knots
Propulsion Engine:
2 GM Diesel 8 -V92 TI, 570 HP each at 2300
Bunker Capacity:
800 gal diesel fuel
Cruising Radius:
500 miles
Crew:
2
Propellers:
Two 4- blade, 26" diameter, 25" pitch Nibral
Survey Equipment:
Entron Pentium PC
Hypack surveying /navigation software
Trimble Navigation GPS system
Trimble Navbeacon System
Innerspace Technology thermal depth sounder model 448
TSS heave compensation system
Radar:
Furuno 805D, Marine Radar
Radio Equipment:
Motorola SYNTOR VHF FM District Communications
Northstar 800 Loran C
Regency Polaris MT 5500 XL VHF
Beaufort - Page

ATTACHMENT B

REPORT OF OPERATIONS FOR CURRITUCK
_
I
New River Inlet
Nov 30 - Jan 30, 1996
Carolina Beach
Jan 31 - Feb 5, 1996
Eagle Island
Feb 6 - 27, 1996
Carolina Beach
Feb 28 - Mar 14, 1996
Barnegat Inlet
Mar 15 - Apr 12, 1996
Manasquan Inlet
Apr 13 - Apr 22, 1996
Barnegat Inlet
Apr 23 - 28, 1996
Green Harbor
Apr 29 - May 30, 1996
Block Island
May 31 -Jun 7, 1996
Sesuit Harbor
Jun 8 - 21, 1996
Barnegat Inlet
Jun 22 - Aug 14,1996
New River Inlet
Aug 15 - 26,1996
Staten Island
Aug 27 - Sep 30, 1996
Mays Shipyard j
Oct 1 - 31, 1996
Barnegat Inlet
Nov 1 - Dec 4, 1996
Carolina Beach
Dec 5 - Dec 13,1996
Eagle Island
Dec 14 - Dec 20, 1996
Lockwoods Folly
Dec 21 -Jan 19, 1997
Eagle Island
Jan 20 - 27, 1997
New River Inlet
Jan 28 - 31, 1997
Eagle Island
Feb 1 - 5, 1997
Cape May
Feb 6 -10, 1997
Barnegat Inlet
Feb 11 - 26, 1997
Jones Creek
Feb 27 - Mar 24,1997
Barnegat Inlet
Mar 25 - Apr 26, 1997
Cuttyhunk, Ma
Apr 27 - May 6,1997
Woodhole, Ma
7- May -97
Green Harbor
May 8 - Jun 6, 1997
Barnegat Inlet
Jun 7 -Jul 20, 1997
Topsail Inlet
Jul 21 -Aug 17, 1997
Drum Inlet
Aug 18 - 30, 1997
Lockwoods Folly
Aug 31 - Sep 15,1997
Carolina Beach
ISep 16 - 30,1997
Carolina Beach
Oct 1 -11, 1997
Eagle Island
Oct 12 -15, 1997
Barnegat Inlet
' Oct 28 - Nov 29, 1997
Bennett's Creek
Nov 30 - Dec 12, 1997
Rudee Inlet
Dec 13 -18, 1997
Drum Inlet
Dec 19 - Jan 18, 1998
Lockwood's Folly
Jan 19 - Feb 2, 1998
Carolina Beach
Feb 3 -15, 1998
Engineer Yard
Feb 16 - Mar 5, 1998
Rudee Inlet
Mar 6 -14, 1998
Manasquan Inlet
Mar 15 - Apr 1, 1998
Barnegat Inlet
'Apr 2 - 27,1998
Repairs at Manasquan
128- Apr -98
Green Harbor
Apr 29 - May 23, 1998

MERRITT
Page 2
REPORT OF OPERATIONS FOR MERRITT
LOCATION
DATE
Eagle Island
Oct 1 - 10,1996
New River Inlet
Oct 10 - Nov 15,1996
Bogue Inlet
Nov 16 - 24,1996
Norshipco
Nov 25 - Jan 5, 1997
Eagle Island
Jan 6 - 14,1997
Carolina Beach
Jan 15 - Mar 11, 1997
Lockwoods Folly
Mar 12 - Apr 7, 1997
Topsail Inlet
Apr 8 - 21, 1997
New River Inlet
Apr 22 - May 28, 1997
Carolina Beach
May 29 - Jun 16, 1997
New River Inlet
'Jun 17 -Jul 7, 1997
New Topsail Inlet
IJul 8 - 9, 1997
Eagle Island
Jul 10 - 20, 1997
Bogue Inlet
Jul 21 -Sep 7,1997
New Topsail Inlet
Sep 8 - 30, 1997
New Topsail Inlet
Oct 1 - 27, 1997
Eagle Island
Oct 28 - Nov 2, 1997
Bogue Inlet
Nov 3 - 16,1997
Drum Inlet
Nov 17 - Dec 9, 1997
New Topsail Inlet
Dec 10 -16, 1997
Carolina Beach
Dec 17 - Jan 16, 1998
Oregon Inlet
Jan 17 - Feb 25, 1998
Bogue Inlet
Feb 26 - Mar 14, 1998
Carolina Beach
Mar 16 - Apr 16,1998
New River Inlet
Apr 17 - May 11, 1998
Page 2

FRY
Page 4
REPORT OF OPERATIONS FOR FRY
LOCATION
DATE
LOCATION
DATE
Topsail Inlet
Dec 28 - Jan 4, 1996
New River Inlet
Dec 28 - Jan 24, 1997
Bogue Inlet
Jan 5 - Feb 1, 1996
Engineer Yard
Jan 25 - Feb 12,1997
Lockwoods Folly
Fie-b2 - Mar 5, 1996
New River Inlet
Feb 13 - Mar 19,1997
Topsail Inlet
Mar 6 - 25, 1996
Drum Inlet
Mar 20 -Apr 30, 1997
New River Inlet
Mar 26 - Apr 9,1996
Carolina Beach
May 1 - 4, 1997
Lockwoods Folly
Apr 10 - 24,1996
Engineer Yard
May 5 -15, 1997
New River Inlet
Apr 25 - May 7, 1996
Braswell Shipyard
May 16 - Jun 5, 1997
Eagle Island
May 8 -10, 1996
Folly Beach, SC
Jun 6 -Jul 9, 1997
Carolina Beach
May 11 - Jun 2, 1996
Town Creek, SC
Jul 10 - Sep 3, 1997
Lockwoods Folly
Jun 3 - 14,1996
Carolina Beach
Sep 4 - 10,1997
Folly Beach, SC
Jun 15 - Jul 9, 1996
New River Inlet
Sep 11 - 30, 1997
Lockwoods Folly
Jul 10 -Jul 18,1996
New River Inlet
Oct 1 - 8, 1997
Bogue Inlet
Jul 19 - 31, 1996
Lockwoods Folly
Oct 9 -19, 1997
Eagle Island
Aug 1 - 14,1996
Eagle Island
Oct 20 - 24, 1997
New Topsail Inlet
Aug 15 - 29, 1996
New River Inlet
Oct 25 - Nov 16, 1997
Carolina Beach
Aug 30 - Sep 6, 1996
Bogue Inlet
Nov 17 - Dec 14, 1997
Eagle Island
_
Sep 7 - 10,1996
Engineer Yard
Dec 15 - 20, 1997
Lockwoods Folly
Sep 11 - 23,1996
New River Inlet
Dec 21 - 28, 1997
Carolina Beach
Sep 24 - 27, 1996
Eagle Island
Dec 29 - Jan 1, 1998
New River Inlet
Sep 28 - 30, 1996
New River Inlet
Jan 2 - 5, 1998
New River Inlet
Oct 1 - 30, 1996
New Topsail Inlet
Jan 6 - Feb 2, 1998
Bogue Inlet
Oct 31 - Nov 13, 1996
Cape May Inlet
Mar 12 - 31, 1998
Carolina Beach
Nov 14 - 23, 1996
Eagle Island
Apr 1 - 8, '1998
Engineer Yard
Nov 24 - 28, 1996
Topsail Island
jApr 9 - 20, 1998
Masonboro Inlet
Nov 29 - Dec 5, 1996
Engineer Yard
,Apr 21 - 22,1998
Bogue Inlet
Dec 6 - 27, 1996
Clark Creek
;Apr 23 - May 20, 1998
Page 4

SCHWEIZER
Page 5
REPORT OF OPERATIONS FOR SCHWEIZER
LOCATION
DATE
Oregon Inlet
Oct 1 -Mar 13, 1996
Cape May
Mar 14 - 25,1996
Oregon Inlet
Mar 26 - May 1, 1996
Bulls Bay
May 2 - Jun 24,1996
Eagle Island
Jun 25 - Sep 9, 1996
Oregon Inlet
Sep 10 - 25,1996
Oregon Inlet
Sep 26 - 30, 1996
Oregon Inlet
Oct 1 -Mar 2, 1997
Cape May
Mar 3 - 19,1997
Eagle Island
Mar 20 - Apr 14,1997
Oregon Inlet
Apr 15 - Jun 9, 1997
McClellanville, SC
Jun 10 -17, 1997
Eagle Island
18-Jun -97
Oregon Inlet
Jun 19 - Sep 30,1997
Oregon Inlet
;Oct 1 - Dec 15, 1997
Page 5

ATTACHMENT C

SUMMARY OF SEA TURTLE STRANDINGS REPORTED DURING COASTAL INLET
DREDGING OPERATIONS IN NORTH CAROLINA: 1994 - 1997
This report summarizes all sea turtle strandings reported during inlet dredging operations
from 1994 - 1997. It should be noted that 1997 dredging dates and locations are not complete
because exact starting and ending dates were not specified in the dredge schedule supplied by the
USACOE's Wilmington District. Additionally, it appears that emergency dredging operations
were not included in the schedule (i.e., Drum Inlet, August 1997).
All strandings reported in the area extending from the center of the inlets to three miles north,
three miles south, and three miles inland (hereinafter referred to as the search area) are included in
the summary. The search area for inlets bordered by beaches with an east -west orientation
extends three miles east, three miles west, and three miles north (inland) from the center of the
inlet. Listed below are the inlets and the range of coordinates that form their respective search
area.
Oregon Inlet: 350 45.0' - 350 49.1' N
750 30.2' - 750 35.0' W
Drum Inlet: 340 49.2' - 340 53.0' N
760 16.5' - 760 210' W
Bogue Inlet: 340 37.9' - 340 41.2' N
770 09.5' - 770 04.0' W
New River Inlet: 340 30.7' - 340 34.4' N
770 17.9' - 770 22.9' W
New Topsail Inlet: 340 19.0' - 340 22.5' N
770 37.3' - 770 41.6' W
Masonboro Inlet: 340 08.9' - 340 13.5' N
770 47.0' - 770 51.6'W
Carolina Beach Inlet: 340 027 - 340 07.2'N
770 51.0' - 770 56.7' W
Lockwood Folly Inlet: 330 54.6' - 330 57.0' N
780 11.1' - 780 17.5' W

Listed below are the inlets for which no strandings were reported in the search area.
Dredging periods are included for verification by the USACOE.
Bogue Inlet:
No strandings were reported during the following dredging periods:
07/28/95 - 07/31/95
01/05/96 - 01/31/96
07/09/96 - 08/31/96
New River Inlet:
11/01/96 - 11/30/96
02/15/97 - 02/28/97
07/31 /97 - 07/31 /97
No strandings were reported during the following dredging periods:
10/01/94 - 10/11/94
12/01/94 - 12/31/94
08/01/95 - 08/31/95
10/01/95 - 10/31/95
12/08/95 - 01/15/96
Masonboro Inlet:
10/01/96 - 10/31/96
02/01/97 - 02/15/97
06/01/97 - 06/30/97
08/0 1 /97 - 08/3 1 /97
No strandings were reported during the following dredging period:
12/01/96 - 12/31/96
Carolina Beach:
No strandings were reported during the following dredging periods:
11/01/94 - 11/27/94
12/01/94 - 12/31/94
04/01/95 - 04/10/95
08/01/95 - 08/31/95
09/01/95 - 09/06/95
10/01/95 - 10/22/95
03/01/96 - 03/14/96
05/01/96 - 05/31/96
07/10/96 - 07/31/96
09/01/96 - 09/30/96
01/01/97 - 02/28/97

Definitions of variables and cell values found in the tables below:
Dredge Period - span of time a dredging operation took place.
Strn. Date - stranding date.
Lat. - latitude (stranding location).
Long. - longitude (stranding location).
Cond. - condition of turtle carcass.
Cause - probable cause of turtle stranding.
Cells with n/a indicate that no strandings were reported during the respective dredging
period.
CCL (found under "Carapace Measurements ") - curved carapace length.
CCW (found under "Carapace Measurements ") - curved carapace width.

rn
rn
c
CIS
U
.c
0
z
c
0
a�
O
C
O
iL
0
bA
'LS
'LS
dQ
C
b
b
41
t:
CIS
O
i].
�rs
c
F'
a�
Ri
F'
rn
rn
c
C
O
c�
0
z
a�
2
Q
cn
O
cz
v
0
'LS
'LS
C
b
b
4..
i].
a�
c
�rs
c
F'
c�
a�
N
F'
F
Wz
W
F
a
Q' Vi
Wz
C °
y
U U
U U
w
U U
=>
CQ
CL'
o
o
Adi
rz
o o
z
u
U
N
CQ
r"
rz
d
°
o
p
O
ey N
p
U
C
In p
U
w
Cl) Cr M
y��
rt M
R
a
U
N N
N
c4
CUQ cd
O
u
U U
cz 4)
U 3
(1 00U
U U
U U
Z
CZ
Z
uu7?uuuUU
U U
m u
U U
U U
A U
O
�
�
Y.a
a�
U
M
0
O
O
0
M
M
�
U
F
CN
cl
d
�
z
u
A
>_
Os Cs
C
'
°
cv
W)
3
CZ
b
R
O
3
U
cz
cc
o
z �-J
o
�'
cl
0
0
0
0
o
o
c
W
��
3
° �
-'
3 3
3
•�
3
c
3
o
3
o w
3 0°
n.
zi
c a�
3 0
o
3
a
3 eo
❑
3 oA
c
a
a° c
.�
o
0 aYi
Z
Z
In
In
��4,
U
w
w
N
cd
0
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
Y.a
r
r
r
I
r
r
r
r
Or-
06
a
0-
0
0
0
0
o
rt
-r
In
M
In
M
In
M
In
M
?
G
In
M
'n
M
In
M
In
M
I••I
!0
CC
�
CC
a
o
0
0
cz
'n
�D
t�
t�
t� cs
o
r
N
v
eq
o
c
o
rW►� A
'^
'^
'^
'n O,
O�
r C
'"'
O
CN C,
O, �
O
O
N
O �
`D O
N
O_
N
o_ �
O
M
O_
.* C°
""' N
O
O
M
I
Ca a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
rn
rn
c
C
O
c�
0
z
a�
2
Q
cn
O
cz
v
0
'LS
'LS
C
b
b
4..
i].
a�
c
�rs
c
F'
c�
a�
N
F'
F
Wz
W
a
Q' Vi
N
C °
U U
U U
U U
U U
CQ
CL'
o
o
[
z
CQ
r"
V
°
o
�
�
-o
o
R
a
U
[ U
c4
y
Isgu2'
�
b
A U
O
�
�
Y.a
r
r
M
0
O
O
0
M
M
�
U
CN
d
�
A
Os Cs
C

02/17/98 2::21 $919 729 1359 RUTH BOETTCHER
vo
a\
R
C
ti
t
r•
G1
C1
U
L'
z°
Q%
4
c
0
L.
a�
a.
O
.y
CJ
t'
O
L].
m
C4
C
GO
m
E-+
6Y
m
tV
cc
E"
�Z
Q�
U v
V v
v
►7
Q� GrJ
N
O G
h h
h C
O O
v
O
U Q
rN
N
Iz N
N
chN
N
'd %0
nc N
N�
W%
oo�
NO
vUU3�3(a(��v
UU
U�
UU
Z =uuuvvu
UU
UU
UU
e:
c�
C
O
C
O
(CU]
c
. 0
r
�
O D
�
�
U
CC
=
La
0 06
to y
4,.
a
ado
E
z
A
Q
v2Iu-
-8
I-=s
�
ZO
`a
0
ee
o
c�
O
ti
ee
o
5"
=
QC-
..r
O
N
.•�
O
C
c
[
a
h
U-
h
O
YES
o
M
[
cn
«
c'n
G
�g
�
•�
cs
_
9L
rn
a
Z
p
•3
.�
.°t
•3
r
r
r
r
r
�t
er
r
o0
0�
p0
�O
15
�t
A i'q
00
OO
Q`'

o�
o�
o�
ld
0
03
U
C
0
z
Cd
y
0.
0
h
3
0
co
N
a
0
w
E
b
b
b
b
O
Lr
bA
c
v
a�
C
h
cd
a�
M
a�
cd
h
[�..
U
W Z
U
a
E!u
r�7
« U
�o
z
Z"
z
0
H
z
b
U
W
U
40 .
W
n a.
U
cz r.
3 on
U Q
Z
Z
Z
Z
U n
Z
�o
U
Z
�
co
Z��
Z
en
en
a
a
a
a
ro-
a
N
M
W
�Fes{
U
�
W
�
Lz1
�
Z
o
Z
AO
C�
--
ON
ON
�
W
en
M
C4 N
M o
OC o
rt
0
'"
o
0
0 o
0 o

t-
rn
011
011
c
O
co
U
O
z
O
Lz.
-o
O
O
O
a
CA
O
a�
a.
O
�n
O
Q
N
CA
a
CA
-2
co
cn
co
H
F
wz
w
d�
a r�
�3
UU
UU
UU
UU
� �
o
0
zw
o
ale
�v
5�
Ln
c N
US
a �-
o v
o
>� u
3
3
N a
o
0
c
N
go-go
�
43
v
w
00
drt
rt
M
M
M
M
I�
b
w
N
.Q
N
a
cc
ca
Oq
cc
d
d
E
N
a°qo
d
Q
N
O
N
�
O
O
O
O
CN
O
Cq
M

ATTACHMENT D

Figure 1. Test sea turtle, Chelonia mydas, prior to initiation of tests.
Figure 2. Same turtle as in Figure 1, after completion of all tests.

Figure 3. Draghead of sidecast dredge Fry. Overall, draghead is 24 "X24 ", individual
ports are 5.5 inch square and 5.5" by 8 ". Intake pipe is 10" diameter.
Figure 4. Close -up of same draghead as in Figure 3.

4�ENT OF COy
ma n
0
tforTArrs OF
Mr. C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402 -1890
Dear Mr. Shuford:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
9721 Executive Center Drive North
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
(727) 570 -5312; FAX [phone]
MAR 9 1999 F /SER3:EGH:ts
This letter responds to your letter to me dated July 1, 1998 and enclosed Biological Assessment
(BA). Your BA, submitted pursuant to Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 consultation
requirements, assesses the use of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) sidecast dredges
FRY, MERRITT and SCHWEIZER, and the split -hull hopper dredge CURRITUCK in United
States coastal waters. Additional, revised information was submitted to this office on March 2,
1999.
Proposed Action
This consultation addresses the use of the sidecast dredges FRY, MERRITT and SCHWEIZER
and the split -hull hopper dredge CURRITUCK, to maintain shallow, coastal inlet navigation
channels along the eastern seaboard of the United States. These specialized dredge plants are
currently used primarily by the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers at many locations in
North Carolina but also occasionally elsewhere along the eastern seaboard. Normally, they are
used in: 1) shallow coastal inlets which cannot be dredged safely or effectively with
commercially available dredges, 2) during emergencies, or 3) when an urgent and compelling
need exists for clearing out a navigation channel, such as periods when rapid shoaling has
occurred, a navigation hazard may exist, and there is insufficient time to contract commercial
dredges.
The sidecast dredges FRY and MERRITT each have two drag arms, one on each side, that
vacuum the sediment through 10 -inch intake pipes as the arms drag along the bottom. The
sediment is pumped through a combined 12 -inch discharge pipe that is above the water surface
and perpendicular to the dredge. The SCHWEIZER is laid out similarly but its dredge suction
pipes are 14 inches in diameter and combined discharge pipe is 16 inches in diameter. In all
three dredges the discharge pipe extends about 60 feet beyond the side of the dredge. This pipe
distance and force from the pumps generally results in the sediment being deposited 85 to 100
feet from the dredge. The sediment is discharged on the side of the channel where the
predominant currents would tend to move the sediment away from the channel.
gyp ATM0.5q Eq
�ArMENT Oi ��

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effects on Whales
Right whales and humpback whales are vulnerable to small vessel and ship collisions when the
whales make their annual migrations along the eastern seaboard. The sidecast dredges FRY,
MERRITT and SCHWEIZER transit at approximately 7 to 10 knots from the inlet dredging sites
to adjacent beach sites to dispose of dredged materials. The CURRITUCK travels at speeds of 5
to 8 knots to adjacent beaches or offshore disposal sites. Because of these slow speeds, these
vessels should present a minimal threat to migrating whales — certainly less than that of normal,
faster - moving commercial ship traffic and recreational boating. Adverse impacts to right whales
and humpbacks from the dredges and dredging operations are not expected because 1) the
dredges work in the throats and interior portions of inlets which are not used by whales, 2) the
dredges travel at very low rates of speed during dredging operations, 3) the captains of the
dredges will be provided daily information on the positions of the migrating right whales, and 4)
the dredges will reduce their speed as necessary and maintain a proper lookout to avoid collisions
with whales when transiting to disposal sites and right whales are in the area.
Conclusion
Based on our consideration of the best available information, we believe that the year -round
operation of the hopper dredge CURRITUCK and the sidecast dredges FRY, MERRITT and
SCHWEIZER to maintain coastal inlets on the eastern seaboard of the United States may affect,
but is not likely to adversely affect the continued existence of listed species under NMFS
purview. This consultation is valid as well for the operation by Wilmington District Corps of
Engineers for channel maintenance dredging of up to 10 vessels of this or similar type and size
class (under 500 gross tons), with similar dragheads (Brunswick, Brunswick County Type,
Brunswick Adjustable, or equivalent), dredge pump horsepower (400 H.P. maximum), and
suction and discharge pipe specifications (dredge suction pipes 10 -14 inches in diameter, and
combined discharge pipe 12 -16 inches in diameter).
This concludes consultation responsibilities with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA.
Consultation should also be reinitiated pursuant to 50 CFR 402.16 if there is new information
that reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat (when
designated) in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, if the identified action is
subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed species or critical habitat that
has not been considered, or if a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be
affected by the identified action.
Please call Mr. Eric Hawk, Fishery Biologist, at 727/570 -5312 if you have any questions
regarding this consultation or if further coordination is necessary.
cc: F/PR3
7
Regional Administrator

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

An updated
"Wilmington District
Floating Plant and
Engineer Yard"
summary follows:

U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Floating Plant
Engineer Yard
2013

Wilmington District Engineer Yard
Located west side of the Cape Fear River, two miles downstream from Wilmington on Eagle
Island, North Carolina, this facility is a repair yard and a storage area serving equipment on two
multi- purpose flood control projects, three low flow water storage - flood control reservoirs, three
locks and dams, and all the floating plant owned by the District. The site contains 3.3 acres
with 5 buildings and a wharf. The area is enclosed by a 6' high chain link fence with a security
gate at the entrance. Each building is secured by door locks and monitored by security
cameras.
The yard is under the supervision and direction of the Operations Branch. The permanent
work force at this facility consists of eight full -time employees with additional support from each
vessel's crew.
Three survey parties and several small survey boats are also based at the yard.
The yard facilities include a fully- equipped machine shop, a welding shop, and a warehouse.
Two docks and a steel bulkhead afford vessel berthing facilities.
Considerable welding and mechanical work is done at the yard on dredging equipment for the
vessels SNELL, MERRITT, CURRITUCK and MURDEN and on machinery and fixtures for the
flood control projects, locks, dams, and vessels.

Sidecasting Dredge Merritt
Home Port: Wilmington, North Carolina
The Merritt is the first dredge ever developed to employ the sidecasting method. It was
designed and constructed in Wilmington, N. C.
Performs dredging work in numerous inlets along the South Atlantic Coast.
Is especially suited to maintenance of shallow, unstabilized inlets where larger hopper dredges
cannot operate due to strong currents and ocean environment.
Type: Seagoing sidecasting dredge, steel construction, side drags, port and starboard, full
diesel, twin screw, twin rudder.
Built: US Navy Yard, Charleston, SC, in 1944 and designated YSD -59.
Converted to Dredge: 1964 by Wilmington Shipyard, Inc., Wilmington, NC.
Vessel Characteristics and Specifications:
Gross Tonnage 195 tons
Displacement 342 long tons
Length, Overall 104' -0"
Beam, Molded 30' -0"
Width, Overall Over
Drag Elbow 35' -0"
Depth, Molded T -9"
Draft, Bow 4' -8"
Draft, Stern 5' -6"
Hoppers None
Drags 2 Brunswick Adjustable
Discharge 12 "d, 80' centerline of ship plus
10' extension -cast material
100 feet from centerline.

Merritt continued
Propulsion Equipment:
Main Engines- 2 ea. CAT 3406E, 450 HP ea.
Total 900 HP @ 1800 RPM
Reduction Gear - 3:1, Twin Disc, MG 5114 (Deep Case)
Propellers- 2 ea., 4- blade, 42 "d x 31 " pitch, 4" shaft
Pumping Equipment:
Pumps, 2 each, Dredge Masters HDM- 32- 12x10, 10" discharges into 12" discharge
Pump engines, 2 each, CAT 3304T, 160 HP
Dredging Depth, 6' to 25'
Auxiliary Power:
Generators- 2 each -105 KW. Powered by CAT 3304T engines.
Derrick: Driven by electric hydraulic pump, approximately 6 -ton
lifting capacity at typical operating boom angle
Potable Water Tank: 4000 gal capacity
Speed: 6.5 knots
Bunker Capacity: 10,000 gal diesel
Cruising Radius: 1,200 miles
Total Compliment: 14 men (2 crews of 7 men each)
NOTE: Quarters are fully air conditioned accomodations for 7 men including 2 officers, galley/
recreation room, TV installed for use after hours. No visitor quarters available.
Loran:
North Star GPS -Loran 800
Radio: CAI SSB 5400 Khz
Regency Polaris MT5500XL
Computer with Hypack Software and integrated GPS
for positioning.
Fathometer: ICOM M -120, Gradurte 301, International Offs hore -
Furuno -FCV -667
Compass: Sperry Gyro
Vertical Clearance
from Waterline: 46'
Launch: 17' Fiberglass -1987 Boston Whaler, 90hp Evinrude, CGB
Aluminum Skiff: 16' COB
Radar: Furuno FR 8111

Shallow Draft Dredge Currituck
Home Port: Wilmington, North Carolina
This vessel works in the shallow -draft ocean bar channels along the Atlantic coast. However, in
addition to removing dredged material from the channel, the CURRITUCK can transport the
material to the d own drift beach and deposit it in the surf zone to nourish sand - starved beaches.
Type: Seagoing, split -hull hopper dredge, steel construction, full diesel, with twin outboard
propulsion units.
Built: Barbour Boat Works, New Bern, North Carolina, 1974.
Converted to Dredge: US Army Engineer Yard, Eagle Island, North Carolina, 1977.
Vessel Characteristics and Specifications:
Gross Tonnage 484 tons
Displacement, Light 175 long tons
Displacement, Loaded 615 long tons
Length, Overall 150' -0"
Beam, Molded 30' -7"
Draft, Light 3' -4"
Draft, Loaded 7' -6"
Hopper Capacity 315 cubic yards
Propulsion Equipment:
Engines- 2 - CAT 3406E, 454 HP @ 1800 RPM
Outboard Propelling Units- Holland Roerpropeller, (HRP)
Model HRP 350 Deckunit
Speed, Loaded Approx: 7 knots
Speed, Light: 8 knots
Bunker Capacity: 3600 gal diesel fuel
Potable Water Capacity: 400 gal

Currituck continued
Dredging Equipment:
Primer mover- 2 ea, CAT 3304 DIT 169 HP
Dredge Pumps- 2 ea HDM-- 32- 12x10, 400 RPM - Dredge Master's direct coupled
Drags- Brunswick County Type
Drag hoisting winches- Braded Series PD 12C
Total Compliment: 24 men split into 4 crews (24 hour dredging)
Radio:
Regency Polaris MT -5500 VHF, Programmable 20 channel scanner, 88 channels -20 scan
and monitor all US, monitor 16 channels, scan 4 weather channels
ICOM - VHF Marine Transceiver IC -M120
Raytheon - Ray 90 VHF -FM Radio Telephone
ICOM - IC -M810 HF Marine Transceiver
Audiovox Cellular Phone
Computer with Hy pack Software and integrated G P S for positioning
Radar: Furuno, FR 8100D
Fathometer: Furuno FCV -857
Compass: Magnetic - C. Plath
Gyro: Sperry SR130 with Repeater
Loran: Furuno, LC 90
Rayplot 7001
Generator: 2 ea, 65 KW, CAT 3304N, @ 1800, and a 20 KW standby
Launch: 16' aluminum work boat and 50 HP Mercury Outboard

Snagboat Snell
Home Port: Wilmington, North Carolina
Performs clearing and snagging and wreck removal in AIWW, navigable rivers and other
channels. Has capability for driving piling, construction and repairs of fender systems, dikes,
jetties, and dolphins. Serves as derrick -boat, refueling vessel, clamshell dredge, etc. Works in
Wilmington and Charleston Districts.
Built: Missouri Valley Bridge and Iron Company in 1945, originally designated Navy YSD 78.
Converted: 1967 by New Bern Shipyard, New Bern, NC. This conversion involved virtual
rebuilding, including repowering, construction of house and replacement of practically all
machinery. A large section of underwater hull plating was replaced.
Vessel Characteristics and Specifications:
Gross Tonnage
Displacement
Length, Overall
Beam
Depth, Molded
Draft, Aft
Draft, Forward
Propulsion Engines: (Diesel)
185 tons
323 long tons
104'-0„
311-2"
T-9"
5' -6"
4'-0"
Engines: 2 each, CAT, 3406E, each 450 HP, total 900 HP @ 1800
Propellers: 2 each, 4- blade, 42 "d x 31 "pitch, 4" shaft
Reduction Gear: Twin Disc, MG 5114 (Deep Case), Ration 3:1
Twin Rudders - with propellers in Tunnels
Speed: 8 knots
Auxiliary Equipment: Jet pump with GM 3 -71 engine
Generators: 2 ea., 65 KW AC diesel generators, with CAT 3304N engines

Snell continued
Derrick:
Pettibone Model 130, 35 ton capacity SWL,
CAT 3408N engine located below decks,
Hydraulic grapnel & clam shell bucket
Boom, Length:
35 -84 ft. telescope
Bunker Capacity:
10,000 gal diesel
Potable Water:
4,000 gal
Cruising Status:
2600 miles
Water Pump:
(Jet & Dewatering) 4" Diesel powered
Air Compressor:
350 CFM 1 GM 3 -53 Diesel
Steering and engine controls on bridge wings
Radio Equipment:
Motorola MICOM -X, single side band 2.3000 MHZ thru 20.00 MHZ
Loran C Furuno & Micrologic ML5500 Loran
G.P.S. Plotter Positioning Gear
2- Regency Polaris MT5500 VHF Marine Band 155 -163 MHZ
Transceiver WX1, WX2, WX3, WX4
Cellular Phone
Computer with Hypack Software and integrated GPS for positioning
Crew: 1 crew, 6 men
Radar: Furuno Model FP5080, .25mi scale to 48 mi. scale
Fathometer: Standard - Horizon
NOTE: The quarters are centrally air conditioned; galley is fully equipped with freezer locker
and all necessary gear. The mess area serves as a recreation room with TV installed. The
master, Chief Engineer and crew have private quarters.
Launch: 17' fiberglass, Boston Whaler, with 90 HP Mercury outboard motor propulsion unit,
COB

Shallow Draft Dredge Murden
Home Port: Wilmington, North Carolina
This vessel will work in the shallow -draft ocean bar channels along the Atlantic Coast. The
Murden will be capable of working in waters as shallow as 5 feet. The split hull configuration
allows for spoils discharge in shallow water as the spoils dump between the hulls, instead of
underneath.
Type: Seagoing, split -hull hopper dredge, steel hull, aluminum house construction, diesel
propulsion with twin outboard propulsion units and bow thrusters.
Under Construction: Conrad Shipyard, Morgan City, LA
Vessel Characteristics and Specifications:
Gross Tonnage
551 tons (est.)
Displacement, Light
400 tons, (est.)
Displacement, Loaded
TBD
Length, Overall
156' -0"
Beam, Molded
35' -0"
Draft, Light
Bow 3' -10 ", stern 4' -3"
Draft, Loaded
TBD
Hopper Capacity
512 cubic yards
Propulsion Equipment:
Engines- 2 — Cummins QS19M Main Engines, 760 HP @2100 RPM
Outboard Propelling Units -2- ZFI H R P Z drives, model 4100
Bow Thruster - 2- WESMAR, 100 HP
Speed, Loaded Approx: TBD
Speed, Light: 10 kts
Bunker Capacity: 14,500 gal diesel fuel
Potable Water Capacity: 1000 gal

Dredging Equipment:
Prime mover -
Dredge Pumps -
Drags-
Drag hoisting winches-
Minimum Crew
Murden continued
2 ea TEC0 electric motors, 100HP, variable frequency drive
2 ea Triathalon Pump, 10"
Brunswick County Type
Coastal Marine
6
Generator: 2 ea Cummins Q5M11 -DM 25OKW 480V

U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Survey Vessels
2013

Survey Vessel Swart
Vessel Characteristics and Specifications
Home Port: Wilmington, North Carolina
Hull Material:
Aluminum
Length, Overall:
48'
Beam, Overall:
16'
Draft:
4' -5"
Speed:
25 knots
Tannage, Gross:
15 tons
Propulsion Engines:
2 ea. Caterpillar C -18 Diesel, 715 HP ea.
Auxiliary Power:
20 KW diesel generator
Bunker Capacity:
1000 gal. diesel fuel
Crew:
2 - 3 including surveyor
Radar:
FURUNO NavNet 3D (auto pilot, chart plotter, fathometer)
Radio:
Icom IC -M504 VHF 2 ea.
AIS:
Icom MA -500TR (automatic identification system)
TIS:
FUR M- Series (thermal imaging system)
Survey Equipment: Hypack surveying /navigation software
Applanix POS MV 320 V5 (positioning system)
Trimble SP351 DGPS unit
Reson 7125 SV2 multibeam sonar
Knudsen 320M dual frequency (281200) singlebeam sonar
Proxicast LAN -2 cellular modem

Survey Vessel Beaufort
Vessel Characteristics and Specifications
Home Port:
Hull Material:
Length, Overall:
Beam, Overall:
Displacement:
Vertical Clearance
Required:
Draft, Normal Loaded,
Forward:
Draft, Normal Loaded,
Aft:
Speed:
Propulsion Engine:
Bunker Capacity:
Cruising Radius:
Crew:
Propellers:
Survey Equipment:
Radar:
Radio Equipment:
Morehead City, North Carolina
Aluminum
47' -6"
15'
14.3 tons (light), 17.4 tons (loaded)
16' -6"
0
4' -6'
23 knots
2 ea. CAT Diesel 3406E, 600 HP each, at 2100
800 gal diesel fuel
500 miles
2
Two 4- blade, 26" d X 28" p, Nibral, 2'/2" shaft
Entron Pentium PC
Hypack surveying /navigation software
Trimble Navigation GPS system
Trimble Navbeacon System
lnnerspace Technology thermal depth sounder model 448
TSS heave compensation system
Furuno 805D, Marine Radar
Motorola SYNTOR VHF FM District Communications
Northstar 800 Loran C
Regency Polaris MT 5500 XL VHF

Survey Vessel Sanderson
Vessel Characteristics and Specifications
Home Port:
Hull Material:
Length, Overall:
Beam, Overall:
Draft:
Speed:
Tonnage, Gross
Propulsion Engines:
Propulsion-
Auxiliary Power:
Bunker Capacity:
Crew:
Radar:
Radio:
Wilmington, North Carolina
Aluminum
30'
12'
2' -5'
32 knots
8 tons
Main Engine - 2 ea. Caterpillar C -9 Diesel, 510 HP ea.
Twin Disc waterjets 2 ea.
13 KW diesel generator
375 gal diesel fuel
2 - 3, including surveyors
FURUNO NavNet VX2 chart plotter
ICOM VHF (1 ea)
Survey Equipment: Hypack surveying /navigation software
Applanix POS MV 320 V4
Trimble SP351 DGPS unit
Knudsen 320M dual frequency (28/200) singlebeam sonar
Proxicast LAN -2 cellular modem