20041238 Ver 7_CAMA Application_20220823

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH BARGE FLEETING AREA EXPANSION
PORT OF MOREHEAD CITY
5 July 2022
Prepared for:
North Carolina State Ports Authority
PO Box 9002
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Prepared by:
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
201 North Front Street, Suite 307
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
....NU) ASS OC.IATH_S' INC.
KPH •Jrruure-nad r:rnrtiuJierrrrn
DIAL CORDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 2
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA 2
4.0 EFFECTS THE PROPOSED ACTION ON LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL
HABITATS 6
4.1 Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon 6
4.1.1 Status, Distribution, and Habitat 6
4.1.2 Occurrence in the Action Area 7
4.1.3 Factors Affecting the Species 7
4.1.4 Effects of the Proposed Action on Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon 8
4.1.5 Determination of Effect 9
4.2 Sea Turtles 10
4.2.1 Status, Distribution, and Habitat 10
4.2.2 Occurrence in the Action Area 12
4.2.3 Factors Affecting the Species 13
4.2.4 Effects of the Proposed Action on Sea Turtles 15
4.2.5 Conservation Measures 16
4.2.6 Determination of Effect 16
5.0 REFERENCES 17
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Species and critical habitats considered in this assessment. 1
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Proposed Action Location Map 3
Figure 2. North Barge Fleeting Area Expansion Layout 4
Figure 3. North Barge Fleeting Expansion Area - Existing and Proposed Bathymetry 5
Figure 4. Loggerhead Turtle Critical Habitat 14
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
ii

LIST OF ACRONYMS
Percent
°C Degrees Celsius
AIWW Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
ASSRT Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team
CWA Clean Water Act
CY Cubic Yards
DPS Distinct Population Segment
ESA Endangered Species Act
FR Federal Register
FT Feet
GEPs Good Engineering Practices
BMPs Best Management Practices
MCH Morehead City Harbor
MLLW Mean Lower Low Water
NC North Carolina
NCDMF North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
NCSPA North Carolina State Ports Authority
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
PPT Parts per Thousand
RHA Rivers and Harbors Act
SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
SSSRT Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
WID Water Injection Dredging
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Biological Assessment has been prepared in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) to address the effects of proposed new dredging work at the Port of Morehead
City on listed species and critical habitats. The North Carolina State Ports Authority (NCSPA)
has requested Department of the Army authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) to expand the existing north barge
fleeting area in the Newport River at the Port of Morehead City (Port) in Carteret County, North
Carolina (NC). The north fleeting area is a temporary mooring facility for loaded barges that are
awaiting waterborne transport to inland destinations. Barge fleeting activity at the Port is primarily
associated with the transport of imported iron (direct reduced iron and pig iron) to the Hertford
Steel plant on the Chowan River in Cofield, NC. Iron imports at the Port have doubled over the
last several years; resulting in increased demand for barge fleeting capacity. The proposed action
would expand the north barge fleeting area from 2 to 4 acres, thereby accommodating an
additional 4 to 6 loaded barges. This assessment considers listed species and critical habitats
under the jurisdiction of the NMFS that occur or may occur in the vicinity of the Port of Morehead
City; including the Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle,
Kemps ridley sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, and loggerhead nearshore
reproductive critical habitat (Table 1).
Table 1. Species and critical habitats considered in this assessment.
Species/Critical Habitat
ESA
Listing Status
Effect 1
Determination
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)
Endangered
MANLAA
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)
Threatened
MANLAA
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)
Endangered
MANLAA
Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)
Endangered
MANLAA
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii)
Endangered
MANLAA
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)
Endangered
MANLAA
Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus)
Endangered
MANLAA
Loggerhead Nearshore Reproductive Critical Habitat
Critical Habitat
NE
1 MANLAA = May affect, not likely to adversely affect; NE = No Effect
Biological Assessment
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
July 2022
1

2.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The north barge fleeting area is located in the Newport River -600 feet north of the northeast
corner of the Port terminal facility (Figure 1). The existing fleeting area encompasses 2.0 acres
along the western margin of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW). The authorized depth of
the existing facility matches that of the AIWW at -14 ft MLLW (12 + 2 ft of over dredge). A series
of six steel pile mooring piles are currently installed within the fleeting area. The proposed action
would expand the existing facility westward by dredging an additional 2.0 acres of subtidal bottom
to a depth of -14 ft MLLW (12 + 2 ft of over dredge) (Figure 2). An additional 1.0 acre of new
dredging would be required to construct a transitional 3:1 slope along the western margin of the
2.0-acre expansion area. In total, the proposed action would require 3.0 acres of new dredging
and the removal of an estimated 35,000 cy of material. No new mooring structures are proposed,
as the existing mooring piles are sufficient to accommodate additional barges in the expansion
area. The depth of the expansion area would be maintained through periodic maintenance
dredging every 2 to 5 years. Existing depths in the proposed new dredging area range from -4 to
-14 ft MLLW (Figure 3). The sediments to be removed from the new dredging area are part of a
uniform fine sand to silty fine sand layer that extends from the surface to a depth of -45-ft MLLW
(Catlin Engineers 2013). Construction of the barge fleeting expansion area would employ a
hydraulic pipeline (cutterhead) dredge and/or a mechanical bucket dredge and scow system.
Construction dredged material would be placed in one of the existing Port -owned confined
disposal facilities; which include the Marsh Island, Brandt Island, and North Radio Island disposal
areas. Construction disposal operations for cutterhead dredging would involve direct hydraulic
delivery to the disposal area via floating and/or submerged pipeline. In the case of mechanical
dredging, disposal would involve the transport of dredged material via scow to the disposal area
for placement via mechanical means or hydraulic offloading. Periodic maintenance of the barge
fleeting expansion area would be accomplished by the Port -owned water injection dredge. Water
injection dredging (WID) injects water at low pressure into sediments; producing a high density
sediment -water mixture known as a density current that flows along the bottom via gravity to
deeper areas. A pipe manifold with a series of water injection nozzles is used to inject water into
the sediment bed. The use of water injection dredging for maintenance of the Port's existing
berths, fleeting areas, and turning basins is currently authorized under the Port's existing CAMA
Major Permit.
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA
The north barge fleeting area is located -3 miles from the Atlantic Ocean in the lower Newport
River Estuary between Morehead City and Beaufort in Carteret County, NC. The lower Newport
River Estuary is a shallow, tidally -controlled system with an average depth of -3 feet MLLW.
Mean tidal range in the lower estuary is 3.1 feet, and salinities approach those of seawater (34
ppt) (Kirby -Smith and Costlow 1989). The proposed new dredging area is located between the
AIWW federal navigation channel and the Marsh Island disposal area. The AIWW navigation
channel is maintained at a width of 250 feet and depth of 12 + 2 ft MLLW. The Marsh Island
disposal area consists of diked uplands that are partially surrounded by unconfined tidal
saltmarsh. Benthic habitats within the proposed new dredging area consist of sandy
unconsolidated bottom. The surrounding Newport River Estuary contains a complex assemblage
of intertidal and shallow subtidal estuarine habitats; including sandy shoals, shellfish beds,
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds, and tidal saltmarsh.
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
2

m
W
�
Vy
PF
the
NI r
6 �
les
Fe
, TANK MOREHEAE?Ir
W
anoro TE 1
c
f1
l�;1--
n 11(�to
4
R C R 7-�
Fenn St
I.,
or k
� 0
avuc PWR CAE
Ye 'S, .
r
1105
1 Elan,
L1SA(;E mnJuc�
SACE, s_ rei,LI'17
�GHTl'-,l'Hf1L
el,,,,, Irr rrv.nn
paedaof knct
]
P[ n, r
utl`
BEAUFfORT
T. '':)71; AlliUht
25s roe
}TFI ds1 tk `
aM n
� I,G 261 y)
7 II IfJ'ghl7
.3 GSJ _ ACA'r0lr
- r "#\�_ti`
ackl
n.`�.\er .0
ry�o ,
AA ,,,t, r S -------1,-.1'^
jlf! GI
` T
22 •�2fi 2625
5M
�.
::i`rE
`phec
�'�
Pt
3_5
Pry
Ppr
`�Q
\
n
�
?, ��
�/�/
i1
P w
O &,
S/Q
u9h�
\
,_ `
,
oo
`A
13, 1E A,
��
6Leope�e,
The
„a
o straits'
TH E
oi
•
y2
rker
Cs
B
9
C
Pt Ff'
•
,
CITY \ :.:� �d1,,,, d
ARMlsiwu�ui
80GUE SOUND .i;i
- _
one unoll =.. A� 01nrvK„N.,,„ K�s
_PocuP
. E�� � I aarlo
Islarcl
- -- \Pse Nsrt lle
wF r�
�j \J
Fla
__ _
11- `\
y 10 ] _- I r
Zo 1.
z_i 3' 2 _ _ ��w fiy_a---2o.enr.n��lb
-` xa _ s�n 25 3.. ..a_21, ,Ilili •]
9J 37 3.3 ?9-'N• � Z] \ 6 iSQ.
�- - 3e 94 \\ 1
43 40 -�� lY� _ 21
\L \
se 3a 22 1,E t;�
a
5 (Project Location 5�
47
bn 5h Y9 24 37:1vx �A 1,22 S 22 Y 3
24
35 Mlrt Al ' 9
EP 50 50 bbs[nsep 4] �. 21 /J�
49 50 48 41 3d G'5' II
�sre �6,[s�Il ��n�9
4fj;ppy(r. &] bi 1 ! Ha J3Ili 44 �r 2:
�rf �4A 50 52 5t 50 al v lN4so
... .. S5h 51 43 33 48 �f40 M1,
52
50 51 50 .38
SS
'h G S JI FIR2bs
//
! z 29
54—
37 ' 29 \_
41 34 3 ` `- 2P �\
43 39 r5 34 �] s5.\
39
46 46 39
98 A4 43 3�f�
41
17 46 41
su+5 AFSTRICTEQ AREA 45 551 43 a6
(50 CFA 224.105; see note EJ
�I 51 41 Obstr� '
N7EE 51
NNUhCq�M/(F 50 45
43 :3?: ObEh:
!il
Pilot Boarding Areal , 4/NErs'�^ore XJ 4A 4] 4a Prn4ersquatlror
F , _
�'iTa'/c�r rl�� 60
549
14 4E
=L •'
49
.Is nn
48 51
32 F1 G 2.5s . c8
9� 3: ar v
8
5Sn 99 S.M
�8 Q Eq
a`0 r3 34 39 Q II 51
40 !� Q�.y.�i �f
w 41 QJ 4G . OR
`0 ,,m :eT
5.4796 4 Pr ena.9 42 t"R S Sir �2 81
Figure 1. Proposed Action Location Map
Biological Assessment
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
July 2022
3

Marsh Island
Disposal Area
Existing -14-ft Fleeting Area
Proposed -14-ft Expansion Area
Proposed 3:1 slope
Figure 2. North Barge Fleeting Area Expansion Layout
Biological Assessment
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
July 2022
4

co
co
co
to
co
a
co
co
0
M
0
co
co
CO0
co
co0
CO
0
CD
ea
0
N
CO
C7
2692400 2692600
,4 1�11.1thi AA!
t
wily 2111110/vdrA R
itll 1 04
pggivimpla
iocoliarorm
ifillilE
rapt
co
CO0
0
0
CO
co
0
Cci
CI
0
NCO
C7
A- A' Bathymetric Profile Graph
5
6
Existing Bathymetry Profile
7
8
9
Proposed Bathymetry Profile
1
3:1
ore
Proposed Fleeting Area Existing Fleeting Area
2
Area
J
1
1
1 1 1 1 1
4
6
14
16
0
a
- 1
1
50 100 150 200
❑istance (feet)
B - B' Bathyrretric Profile Graph
250
3R.R.!
Existing Bathymetry Profile
Proposed Bathymetry Profile
Slope
Area
Proposed Fleeting Area
xisting Fleeting Area
16o 150 260
Distance (feet)
C - C' Bathymetric Profile Graph
0
0
Existing Bathymetry Profile
0 50 100 150 200
Distance (feet)
250
300
Legend
Profile Location
Barge Fleeting Area
r/i
k\1
Existing Fleeting Area
Proposed Fleeting Area
Proposed 3:1 Slope
1ft Contour (MLBAft
Elevation (MLLW)
Value
- High : -2
Low : -30
0
150
300
450
e
600
Feet
Figure 3. North Barge Fleeting Expansion Area - Existing and Proposed Bathymetry
Biological Assessment
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
July 2022
5

4.0 EFFECTS THE PROPOSED ACTION ON LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS
4.1 Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon
4.1.1 Status, Distribution, and Habitat
Shortnose Sturgeon
The shortnose sturgeon was listed as endangered throughout its range on 11 March 1967 (32 FR
4001). The species inhabits large Atlantic coast rivers from the St. Johns River in northeastern
Florida to the Saint Johns River in New Brunswick, Canada. Adults in southern rivers are
estuarine anadromous, foraging at the saltwater -freshwater interface and moving upstream to
spawn in the early spring. Shortnose sturgeon spend most of their lives in their natal river systems
and rarely migrate to marine environments. Spawning habitats include river channels with gravel,
gravel/boulder, rubble/boulder, and gravel/sand/log substrates. Spawning in southern rivers
begins in later winter or early spring and lasts from a few days to several weeks. Juveniles occupy
the saltwater -freshwater interface, moving back and forth with the low salinity portion of the salt
wedge during summer. Juveniles typically move upstream during the spring and summer and
move downstream during the winter, with movements occurring above the saltwater -freshwater
interface. In southern rivers, both adults and juveniles are known to congregate in cool, deep
thermal refugia during the summer. The shortnose sturgeon is a benthic omnivore that feeds on
crustaceans, insect larvae, worms, and mollusks. Juveniles randomly vacuum the bottom and
consume mostly insect larvae and small crustaceans. Adults are more selective feeders, feeding
primarily on small mollusks (NMFS 1998). No critical habitat has been designated for the
shortnose sturgeon.
Atlantic Sturgeon
The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenseroxyrinchus oxyrinchus) was listed under the ESA in 2012 as five
Distinct Population Segments (DPSs); including the endangered New York Bight, Chesapeake
Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic DPSs and the threatened Gulf of Maine DPS (77 FR 5914, 77
FR 5880). The Carolina DPS encompasses subpopulations from the Roanoke, Tar/Pamlico,
Cape Fear, Waccamaw, Pee Dee, and Santee -Cooper Rivers in NC and South Carolina. Atlantic
sturgeon spawn in freshwater, but spend most of their adult life in the marine environment.
Spawning adults generally migrate upriver in the spring/early summer, although a fall spawning
migration may also occur in some southern rivers. Spawning is believed to occur in flowing water
between the salt front and fall line of large rivers. Post -larval juveniles move downstream into
brackish waters and eventually move to estuarine waters where they reside for a period of months
or years. Subadult and adult Atlantic sturgeons emigrate from rivers into coastal waters, where
they may undertake long range migrations. Migratory adult and subadult sturgeon are typically
found in shallow (40-70 ft) nearshore waters with gravel and sand substrates. Although extensive
mixing occurs in coastal waters, Atlantic sturgeons return to their natal river to spawn [Atlantic
Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT) 2007]. In 2017, NMFS designated critical habitat for the
Atlantic sturgeon in large spawning river systems throughout the five DPSs (82 FR 39160).
Critical habitat for the Carolina DPS was designated in the Roanoke, Tar -Pamlico, Neuse, Cape
Fear, and Pee Dee Rivers of NC and South Carolina.
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
6

4.1.2 Occurrence in the Action Area
Shortnose Sturgeon
Shortnose sturgeon were thought to be extirpated from NC waters until an individual was captured
in the Brunswick River in 1987 (Ross et al. 1988). Subsequent gill -net studies (1989-1993)
confirmed the presence of a small population in the lower Cape Fear River (Moser and Ross
1995). In 1998, the NC Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) reported the capture of a shortnose
sturgeon in western Albemarle Sound (Armstrong and Hightower 1999). Surveys in the Neuse
River during 2001 and 2002 failed to capture any shortnose sturgeon (Oakley and Hightower
2007). The current distribution of the shortnose sturgeon in NC is thought to include only the
Cape Fear and Pee Dee Rivers, and no spawning populations have been confirmed in the state
[Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team (SSSRT) 2010]. Occurrence data specific to the
action area vicinity are lacking. Based on its restriction primarily to large rivers, and more
specifically riverine waters above the saltwater -freshwater interface, shortnose sturgeon
occurrences within the high salinity waters of the action area (i.e., lower Newport River Estuary
and Beaufort Inlet) are considered unlikely. The occurrence of a transient individual within the
action area cannot be entirely discounted, as genetic studies indicate that some individuals move
between the various populations (Quattro et al. 2002, Wirgin et al. 2005).
Atlantic Sturgeon
Extant spawning populations of the Atlantic sturgeon in NC are currently known from the
Roanoke, Tar -Pamlico, Cape Fear, and potentially the Neuse River systems (ASSRT 2007).
Laney et al. (2007) analyzed Atlantic sturgeon incidental capture data from winter tagging cruises
along the NC and Virginia coasts. Cruises conducted in nearshore ocean waters from Cape
Lookout to Cape Charles, Virginia captured 146 Atlantic sturgeons between 1988 and 2006.
Captures typically occurred over sand substrate in nearshore waters that were less than 60 feet
deep. Laney et al. (2007) concluded that shallow nearshore ocean waters along the NC coast
represent an important winter (January -February) habitat and aggregation area for adult and
subadult Atlantic sturgeon. Occurrence data for estuarine waters in the vicinity of the action area
are lacking; however, based on the work by Laney et al. (2007), it is assumed that adult and
subadult Atlantic sturgeon may occur in the vicinity of Beaufort Inlet during the winter months. No
critical habitat has been designated in the vicinity of the action area.
4.1.3 Factors Affecting the Species
Historical overharvesting contributed to drastic declines in shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon
populations. Commercial exploitation of shortnose sturgeons continued into the 1950s, and
Atlantic sturgeons were commercially exploited throughout most of the 20th century (NMFS 1998,
ASSRT 2007). Although directed commercial harvest is no longer permitted, by -catch mortality
associated with other fisheries remains a major threat. By -catch mortality associated with the
shad and shrimp fisheries and water quality degradation in nursery habitats are the primary
threats currently facing southeastern sturgeon populations (Collins et al. 2000). Dams that block
access to spawning grounds are a major stressor in some southern river systems, including the
Cape Fear River. Additional stressors include ship strikes and dredging (ASSRT 2007). Potential
dredging effects include direct impacts on benthic habitats and food resources, hydrological
modifications, turbidity and siltation, contaminant resuspension, and entrainment in hydraulic
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
7

dredge intake pipelines. A total of 18 Atlantic sturgeons were taken by hopper dredges during
federal navigation dredging along the South Atlantic Coast from October 1990 to March 2012,
including two at Wilmington Harbor (USACE 2014). No dredge takes have been reported at
Morehead City Harbor.
4.1.4 Effects of the Proposed Action on Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon
This assessment evaluates potential effects on shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon that may occur
through the following impact mechanisms: physical disturbance and modification of soft bottom
foraging habitat within the dredging footprint, sediment suspension and redeposition, and
entrainment by hydraulic dredges.
4.1.4.1.1 Direct Impacts on Soft Bottom Foraging Habitat
New dredging would directly impact 3.0 acres of soft bottom habitat in the barge fleeting
expansion area. Existing bottom depths ranging from -4 to -13 ft MLLW would be increased to -
14 ft MLLW. Initial construction and subsequent periodic maintenance dredging events would
remove the existing benthic infaunal invertebrate community, thereby temporarily reducing the
availability of potential prey for shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. Depending on shoaling rates,
the affected benthic infaunal communities would experience recurring maintenance dredging
impacts every 2 to 5 years. Studies of benthic community recovery in shallow estuarine navigation
channels along the southeastern coast have reported rapid recovery within two to six months
(Van Dolah et al. 1984 and 1979, Stickney and Perlmutter 1975, and Stickney 1972). These
studies indicate that recolonization via slumping of adjacent undisturbed sediments into the
dredged channel is an important recovery mechanism. Van Dolah et al. (1984) also attributed
relatively rapid recovery to rapid infilling by sediments that were similar in composition to the
extracted material and avoidance of spring benthic invertebrate recruitment periods. Existing
surficial sediments in the new dredging footprint are part of a uniform fine sand layer that extends
to a depth of -45 ft MLLW, thus the proposed action would not be expected to alter sediment
composition. Maximum bottom depth increases of -10 feet would not be expected to alter benthic
community composition within the new dredging area. The proposed project construction and
maintenance window (01 October - 31 January) would avoid peak benthic invertebrate
recruitment periods; thus facilitating relatively rapid recovery with the onset of spring recruitment.
4.1.4.1.2 Sediment Suspension and Redeposition
Dredging -induced sediment suspension and associated increases in turbidity can affect the
behavior (e.g., feeding, predator avoidance, habitat selection) and physiological functions (e.g.,
gill -breathing) of marine fishes (Michel et al. 2013). The extent and duration of dredging -induced
sediment suspension are influenced by sediment composition at the dredge site, the type of
dredge employed, and hydrodynamic conditions at the dredge site (Wilber et al. 2005). Sediment
suspension by cutterhead dredges is generally confined to the near bottom water column in the
immediate vicinity of the rotating cutterhead assembly (LaSalle et al. 1991). Based on sediment
resuspension data collected during navigation dredging projects, Hayes et al. (2000) and Hayes
and Wu (2001) reported average cutterhead dredge sediment resuspension rates ranging from
0.003 to 0.135% of the fine silt/clay fraction. Mechanical dredges (bucket and clamshell) generally
have higher sediment suspension rates due to the washing of material out of the bucket as it is
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
8

withdrawn from the bottom and moved through and above the water column (LaSalle et al. 1991).
Water injection dredging (WID) injects water at low pressure into sediments; producing a high
density sediment -water mixture known as a density current that flows along the bottom via gravity
to deeper areas. Monitoring results for multiple projects in the US indicate that WID-induced
sediment suspension is principally confined to the lower water column within 2 to 5 feet of the
bottom (Welp et al. 2017). Regardless of dredge type, prolonged sediment suspension and
extensive turbidity plumes are primarily associated with the suspension of fine silt/clay particles
that have relatively slow settling velocities, whereas sands and gravels that make up the coarse -
grained sediment fraction resettle rapidly in the immediate vicinity of the dredge (Schroeder 2009).
As previously described, the sediments to be excavated from the new dredging area consist
predominantly of relatively coarse sands that would resettle rapidly to the bottom. Thus, it is
expected that sediment suspension by either a cutterhead, bucket, or water injection dredge
would primarily be confined to the immediate vicinity of the new dredging footprint. It is expected
that suspended fine sediments would be rapidly dispersed by currents in the contiguous AIWW
navigation channel, thus limiting the duration of any adverse effects on water quality.
4.1.4.1.3 Entrainment
Hydraulic dredging operations can potentially impact shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon directly
through entrainment in the dredge intake pipe. Although shortnose sturgeon have been taken by
both hopper and cutterhead dredges in rivers along the North Atlantic Coast, no dredge takes
have occurred along the South Atlantic Coast. The shortnose sturgeon is typically found in the
upper portions of rivers above the freshwater -saltwater interface, which reduces the potential for
dredge interactions. Based on the absence of reported dredge interactions along the South
Atlantic Coast, its restriction primarily to the upper portions of rivers, and the low probability of
occurrence in the action area; it is anticipated that the risk of direct injury to shortnose sturgeon
from dredging operations would be negligible. Atlantic sturgeon have been taken by both hopper
and cutterhead dredges during federal navigation dredging operations along the eastern US coast
(USACE 2014b). However, all confirmed Atlantic sturgeon takes (n=5) by cutterhead dredges
occurred in the upper Delaware River during the winter in an area that is known to contain dense
aggregations of sturgeon that are resting on the bottom and exhibiting little movement. Analyses
of cutterhead dredge intake velocities and sturgeon swimming capabilities indicate that the risk of
entrainment is limited to juveniles within 1.0 meter of the dredge pipe intake (NMFS 2012). NMFS
has determined through previous separate navigation dredging consultations that mechanical
dredges are extremely unlikely to overtake or adversely affect sturgeon (NMFS 2020). Any
occurrences of Atlantic sturgeon in the vicinity of the action area would likely consist of adults or
subadults that would be able to avoid the dredge pipeline suction field. Based on the absence of
reported cutterhead dredge interactions along the South Atlantic Coast and the absence of
suitable juvenile nursery habitats in the vicinity of the action area, it is anticipated that the risk of
direct injury to Atlantic sturgeon from dredging operations would be negligible.
4.1.5 Determination of Effect
The risk of direct injury to sturgeon from dredging is considered negligible, and the proposed
action would have only minor short-term effects on potential foraging habitats and water quality.
Therefore, it is determined that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon.
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
9

4.2 Sea Turtles
4.2.1 Status, Distribution, and Habitat
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
The loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) was initially listed under the ESA as threatened
throughout its range on 28 July 1978 (43 FR 32800). In 2011, the loggerhead's ESA status was
revised to threatened and endangered based on the recognition of nine DPSs. Distinct population
segments encompassing populations in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, South Atlantic Ocean,
Southwest Indian Ocean, and Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean were reclassified as threatened;
while the remaining five populations in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, North
Pacific Ocean, South Pacific Ocean, and North Indian Ocean were reclassified as endangered.
Nesting in the US occurs along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts from southern Virginia to Texas, but
is concentrated from NC through Alabama (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Post-hatchlings initially
reside in neritic (continental shelf) waters where they inhabit convergence zones with
accumulations of floating material such as sargassum. After a period of weeks or months, post-
hatchlings enter oceanic waters and begin a juvenile oceanic phase of development. Oceanic
phase juveniles appear to move with the predominant ocean gyres for several years before
returning to neritic waters where juvenile development continues to adulthood. In the US, juvenile
neritic phase loggerheads inhabit essentially all continental shelf waters along the Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico coasts; including protected estuarine waters (sounds and bays). Adults primarily
inhabit offshore continental shelf waters from New York south through Florida and in the Gulf of
Mexico. Adult loggerheads are less likely than juveniles to utilize enclosed shallow estuarine
waters that have limited ocean access; however, shallow estuaries with expansive ocean access
comprise important foraging habitats for both juveniles and adults (NMFS and USFWS 2008).
Green Sea Turtle
The green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) was initially listed as endangered and threatened under
the ESA on 28 July 1978 (43 FR 32800). Breeding populations in Florida and along the Mexican
Pacific Coast were listed as endangered, while all other populations throughout the species' range
were listed as threatened. In 2011, the green sea turtle's ESA status was revised to threatened
and endangered based on the recognition of eight DPSs (81 FR 20057). All green sea turtles in
the North Atlantic were listed as threatened under the North Atlantic Ocean DPS. Nesting in the
US is primarily limited to Florida, although nesting occurs in small numbers along the southeast
coast from Georgia to NC and the Gulf Coast of Texas. In US waters, green sea turtles are
distributed along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts from Massachusetts to Texas (NMFS and USFWS
2007a). Post-hatchlings migrate to oceanic waters and begin an oceanic juvenile phase of
development. Oceanic phase juveniles appear to move with the predominant ocean gyres for
several years before returning to neritic waters where juvenile development continues to
adulthood. Neritic phase juveniles inhabit shallow estuarine waters and nearshore waters that
are rich in seagrasses and/or marine macroalgae. Adults generally occur in relatively shallow
foraging habitats with abundant seagrasses and macroalgae, but may enter the oceanic zone
when migrating between foraging grounds and nesting beaches. No critical habitat has been
designated for the green sea turtle in the continental US.
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
10

Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle
Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii) occur primarily in coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico
and the western North Atlantic Ocean. Data indicate that adults utilize coastal habitats of the Gulf
of Mexico and the southeastern United States. Adults inhabit nearshore waters and are
commonly found over crab -rich sandy or muddy bottoms. Nesting is limited primarily to the
northeastern coast of Mexico, although rare nesting events have been recorded from the
southeastern United States. Hatchlings migrate to the oceanic zone where they are carried by
currents into various areas of the Gulf of Mexico and the North Atlantic Ocean. At approximately
two years of age, juveniles leave the oceanic zone and move to coastal benthic habitats in the
Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean along the eastern United States. During this stage,
juveniles occupy protected coastal waters such as bays, estuaries, and nearshore waters that are
less than 165 ft. deep. Juveniles utilize a wide range of bottom substrates, but apparently depend
on an abundance of crabs and other invertebrates (NMFS and USFWS 2007c).
Leatherback Sea Turtle
The leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), federally endangered, occurs in all oceans of the
world and has the largest geographic range of any turtle. Nesting occurs on beaches throughout
tropical and subtropical regions, and foraging turtles are distributed north and south into sub -polar
regions. Major nesting areas in the western North Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea include
Florida, St. Croix, the United States Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Costa Rica, Panama, Columbia,
Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Surinam, and French Guiana. Adults and sub -adults migrate
seasonally to foraging areas in the northern latitudes, and during the summer and fall; the highest
densities of leatherback turtles in the north Atlantic are located in Canadian waters (NMFS and
USFWS 2007e). Although leatherback turtles are commonly known as highly pelagic animals,
recent telemetry studies have documented high use foraging sites in continental shelf and slope
waters (James et al. 2005). Leatherback turtles undertake extensive migrations between northern
foraging grounds and tropical and subtropical nesting beaches. Little is known of the distribution
and developmental habitat requirements of hatchling, juvenile, and sub -adult leatherback turtles
(NMFS and USFWS 2007e).
Hawksbill Sea Turtle
Hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata), federally endangered, are distributed circumglobally
in tropical, and to a lesser extent, subtropical waters of the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans.
Nesting occurs on ocean beaches throughout the tropics and subtropics. In the continental United
States, hawksbill turtles have been reported from all of the Gulf States and along the east coast
as far north as Massachusetts; however, sightings north of Florida are rare. Major nesting areas
in the western North Atlantic Ocean include the insular Caribbean, the Yucatan Peninsula in
Mexico, and Panama. Nesting in the continental United States is primarily restricted to the
southeastern coast of Florida and the Florida Keys (NMFS and USFWS 1993). Hatchlings are
carried by ocean currents to the oceanic zone where they reside in major ocean gyres. Once a
carapace length of eight to 12 inches is reached, juveniles leave the oceanic zone and move to
nearshore habitats. Juveniles and adults are most commonly associated with coral reef habitats;
however, additional habitats may include other hardbottom habitats, seagrass beds, algal beds,
mangrove bays and creeks, or mud flats. As immature turtles increase in size, they occupy a
series of habitats, with larger turtles showing some preference for deeper sites. Post pelagic
juveniles and adults utilize a variety of food items that include sponges and other invertebrates,
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
11

as well as marine macroalgae (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). Hawksbill sea turtles are rare in NC
waters (Epperly et al. 1995a) and are primarily associated with coral reef habitats (NMFS and
USFWS 2007c). Coral reef habitats along the NC coast are restricted to deep offshore waters
>20 miles from shore (Maclntyre and Pilkey 1969, Maclntyre 2003).
4.2.2 Occurrence in the Action Area
Loggerhead, Green, and Kemps Ridley
North Carolina's sounds and estuaries provide important developmental and foraging habitats for
post -pelagic juvenile loggerhead, green, and Kemp's ridley turtles. Most of the information
regarding the inshore distribution of marine turtles in North Carolina has been generated by
studies in the Pamlico -Albemarle estuarine complex, where large numbers of loggerhead, green,
and Kemp's ridley turtles are incidentally captured each year during commercial fishing
operations. All three species are represented primarily by juveniles, with few reported captures
of older juveniles and adults (Epperly et al. 2007). Juveniles of all three species move inshore
during the spring and disperse throughout the sounds during the summer. Juveniles leave the
sounds and move offshore during the late fall and early winter. Aerial surveys have shown a
strong relationship between turtle sea distribution and sea surface temperature. Goodman et al.
(2007) conducted aerial turtle surveys and sea surface temperature monitoring in Core Sound,
Pamlico Sound, and adjacent nearshore ocean waters from July 2004 to April 2006. All but one
of the 92 turtle observations occurred in waters where sea surface temperatures were above 11
degrees Celsius (°C). All sightings in the sounds occurred between 16 April and 20 November,
and all sightings in the nearshore ocean occurred between 23 April and 27 November. The winter
distribution of turtles offshore of Cape Hatteras was also correlated with sea surface temperatures
above 11°C (Epperly et al. 1995c). In a similar study by Coles and Musick (2000), turtle
distribution offshore of Cape Hatteras was restricted to sea surface temperatures >_13.3°C.
Leatherback and Hawksbill
The leatherback sea turtle is primarily a pelagic species of deep, offshore waters. Leatherbacks
are known to occur in nearshore ocean waters during certain times of the year, but rarely enter
interior estuarine waters. Epperly et al. (1995b) reported the appearance of significant numbers
of leatherback turtles in nearshore ocean waters during May, coincident with the appearance of
jellyfish prey. Aerial surveys by Goodman et al. (2007) along the Outer Banks coastline recorded
only one leatherback in the nearshore ocean during the summer. Epperly et al. (1995a) reported
the occurrence of three leatherback turtles in Core and Pamlico Sounds during December 1989.
Hawksbill sea turtles are rare in NC and they rarely enter estuarine waters (Epperly et al. 1995a).
A total of nine hawksbill turtle stranding incidents were reported along North Carolina beaches
between 1998 and 2009 (Seaturtle.org 2011). Strandings were reported during the months of
January, March, April, and November. Epperly et al. (1995b) reported the incidental capture of
one hawksbill turtle in Pamlico Sound.
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
12

Loggerhead Nearshore Reproductive Critical Habitat
Nearshore ocean waters along Bogue Banks from the MHW line out to 1.6 kilometers (km) are
designated as nearshore reproductive critical habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle (Figure 4).
Nearshore marine critical habitat units represent reproductive habitat along nesting beaches that
is used by hatchlings for egress to the open ocean and by nesting females for movements
between beaches and the open ocean during the nesting season. Critical nearshore reproductive
habitat PCEs include: 1) nearshore waters directly off the highest density nesting beaches and
their adjacent beaches, 2) waters sufficiently free of obstructions and artificial lighting to allow
transit through the surf zone to open water, and 3) waters with minimal manmade structures that
could promote predators, disrupt wave patterns necessary for orientation, and/or create excessive
longshore currents (79 FR 39855).
4.2.3 Factors Affecting the Species
Threats that are common to all marine turtle species in estuarine and marine environments
include fisheries by -catch, vessel strikes, marine debris ingestion or entanglement, and
entrainment by hydraulic dredges (NMFS and USFWS 2007a-e). Threats associated with
fisheries by -catch include entrapment in trawls and entanglement in a wide variety of other fishing
gear. Shrimp trawling is the most detrimental fishing practice and the greatest overall
anthropogenic cause of loggerhead turtle mortality. Mortality associated with shrimp trawling is
estimated to be ten times that of all other anthropogenic activities combined. Vessel strikes are
also a common cause of turtle mortality. Of all loggerhead turtle strandings that were reported
from 1997 through 2005, 14.9% exhibited signs of vessel strikes. Marine turtles are vulnerable
to direct injury by hopper dredges as a result of being entrained in the dredge intake pipe during
the sediment extraction process. The Wilmington District USACE reported takes of 30
loggerhead, four Kemp's ridley, and three green sea turtles by hopper dredges in the vicinity of
Wilmington Harbor from 1992-2013 (USACE 2016). Most of the reported takes in the vicinity of
Morehead City Harbor (MCH) occurred during late November through mid -December and mid -
March through April. Takes of hawksbill and leatherback sea turtles by dredges have not been
reported along the southeastern US coast. Hawksbill sea turtles are rare in NC waters (Epperly
et al. 1995a) and are primarily associated with coral reef habitats (NMFS and USFWS 2007c).
Coral reef habitats along the NC coast are restricted to deep offshore waters >20 miles from shore
(Maclntyre and Pilkey 1969, Maclntyre 2003).
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
13

Legend
Loggerhead Beach Critical Habitat (USFWS, 2014)
Loggerhead Beach and Nearshore Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2014)
Loggerhead Critical Habitat - Winter (NMFS, 2014)
Loggerhead Constricted Migratory Area (NMFS, 2014)
0 5 10 15
Miles
Figure 4. Loggerhead Turtle Critical Habitat
Biological Assessment
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
July 2022
14

4.2.4 Effects of the Proposed Action on Sea Turtles
This assessment considers potential effects on sea turtles that may occur through the following
impact mechanisms: physical interactions with dredging equipment, physical disturbance and
modification of benthic foraging habitat within the dredging footprint, and sediment suspension
and redeposition.
4.2.4.1.1 Dredge Interactions
The proposed dredging window of 1 October - 31 January encompasses periods of warmer water
temperatures (October and November) when loggerhead, green, and Kemps ridley sea turtles
are likely to be present in the vicinity of the action area. Construction and maintenance of the
barge fleeting expansion area would employ hydraulic pipeline (cutterhead) and/or mechanical
bucket dredges. Sea turtle takes by cutterhead dredges have not been reported along the
southeastern US coast, and only one take by a mechanical dredge has been reported over the
past several decades (NMFS 2012). In prior separate consultations with the Wilmington District,
NMFS has made the determination that hydraulic cutterhead and mechanical navigation dredging
activities are not likely to adversely affect sea turtles (NMFS 2012). Therefore, it is expected that
the risk of sea turtle -dredge interactions resulting in injury or mortality would be negligible.
4.2.4.1.2 Impacts on Benthic Foraging Habitat
Based on a review of NCDMF benthic habitat maps, there are no SAV or shell bottom habitats in
the immediate vicinity of the proposed new dredging area. New dredging would directly impact
3.0 acres of potential soft bottom foraging habitat in the barge fleeting expansion area. Existing
bottom depths ranging from -4 to -13 ft MLLW would be increased to -14 ft MLLW. Initial
construction and subsequent maintenance dredging events would remove the existing benthic
infaunal invertebrate community, thereby temporarily reducing the availability of potential prey for
sea turtles. However, studies of benthic community recovery in shallow estuarine navigation
channels along the southeastern coast have reported rapid recovery within two to six months
(Van Dolah et al. 1984 and 1979, Stickney and Perlmutter 1975, and Stickney 1972). These
studies indicate that recolonization via slumping of adjacent undisturbed sediments into the
dredged channel is an important recovery mechanism. Van Dolah et al. (1984) also attributed
relatively rapid recovery to rapid infilling by sediments that were similar in composition to the
extracted material and avoidance of spring benthic invertebrate recruitment periods. Existing
surficial sediments in the new dredging footprint are part of a uniform fine sand layer that extends
to a depth of -45 ft MLLW, thus the proposed action would not be expected to alter sediment
composition. Maximum bottom depth increases of -10 feet would not be expected to alter benthic
community composition within the new dredging area. The proposed project construction and
maintenance window (01 October - 31 January) would avoid peak benthic invertebrate
recruitment periods; thus facilitating relatively rapid recovery with the onset of spring recruitment.
4.2.4.1.3 Sediment Suspension
Dredging -induced sediment suspension and associated increases in turbidity may affect sea turtle
behaviors such as foraging and habitat selection. As previously described, the sediments to be
excavated from the new dredging area consist predominantly of relatively coarse sands that would
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
15

resettle rapidly to the bottom. Thus, it is expected that sediment suspension by either a
cutterhead, bucket, or water injection dredge would primarily be confined to the immediate vicinity
of the new dredging footprint. Furthermore, it is expected that suspended fine sediments would
be rapidly dispersed by currents in the contiguous AIWW navigation channel, thus limiting the
duration of any behavioral effects on sea turtles.
4.2.5 Conservation Measures
The following conservation measures would be implemented to avoid or minimize potential effects
sea turtles:
• Construction and maintenance dredging would be conducted within a 1 October to 31
January project window.
• Water injection dredging (WID) would be conducted only on falling tides.
• Good Engineering Practices (GEPs) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be
applied to all dredging activities.
• Dredged material delivery pipelines would be routinely inspected for pressurized leaks,
and any leaks that are found would be immediately repaired.
• Dredging contractors would be required to maintain spill control plans and waste
management plans for all dredging fleet equipment.
4.2.6 Determination of Effect
Loggerhead, Green, Kemps Ridley, Leatherback, and Hawksbill Sea Turtles
The proposed dredging window of 1 October - 31 January encompasses periods of warmer water
temperatures (October and November) when all five listed sea turtles could potentially occur in
the vicinity of the action area. However, the risk of direct injury to sea turtles from dredging is
considered negligible, and the proposed action would have only minor short-term effects on
potential foraging habitats and water quality. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed action
may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the loggerhead, green, Kemps ridley, leatherback,
and hawksbill sea turtles.
Loggerhead Nearshore Reproductive Critical Habitat
Nearshore reproductive critical habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle is located -3 miles from the
proposed new dredging area along the oceanfront shoreline of Atlantic Beach. Therefore, it is
determined that the proposed action would have no effect on nearshore reproductive critical
habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle.
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
16

5.0 REFERENCES
Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT). 2007. Status Review of Atlantic sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northeast Regional Office. February 23, 2007. 174 pp.
Armstrong, J.L. and J.E. Hightower. 1999. Potential for restoration of the Roanoke River
population of Atlantic sturgeon. Applied Ichthyology 18:475-480.
Coles, C.C. and J.A. Musick. 2000. Satellite Sea Surface Temperature Analysis and Correlation
with Sea Turtle Distribution off North Carolina. Copeia 2000: 551-554.
Collins, M.R., D.C. Walling, L.E. Zimmerman, R.F. Van Dolah. 2000. Savannah Harbor Biological
Monitoring: Fish, Shellfish, and Benthos. Final report to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Atlanta, GA.
Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A.J. Chester. 1995a. Aerial surveys for sea turtles in North Carolina
inshore waters. Fishery Bulletin 93: 254-261.
Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A. Veishlow. 1995b. Sea turtles in North Carolina waters.
Conservation Biology 9: 384-394.
Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, A.J. Chester, E.A. Cross, J.V. Merriner, and P.A. Tester. 1995c. The
winter distribution of sea turtles in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras and their interactions with
the summer flounder trawl fishery. Bull. Mar. Sci. 56: 547-568.
Epperly, S.P., J. Braun -McNeill, and P.M. Richards. 2007. Trends in catch rates of sea turtles in
North Carolina, USA. Endangered Species Research 3: 283-293.
Goodman, M.A., J.B. McNeill, E. Davenport, and A.A. Hohn. 2007. Protected species aerial
survey data collection and analysis in waters underlying the R-5306A Airspace: Final
report submitted to U.S. Marine Corps, MCAS Cherry Point. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-551.
Kirby -Smith, W.W. and J.D. Costlow. 1989. The Newport River Estuarine System. Duke
University Marine Laboratory, Beaufort, NC.
Laney, R.W., J.E. Hightower, B.R. Versak, M.F. Mangold, W.W. Cole Jr, S.E. Winslow. 2007.
Distribution, habitat use, and size of Atlantic sturgeon captured during cooperative winter
tagging cruises, 1988-2006. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 56, 167-182.
LaSalle, M.W., D.G. Clarke, J. Homziak, J.D. Lunz, and T.J. Fredette. 1991. A framework for
assessing the need for seasonal restrictions on dredging and disposal operations.
Technical Report D-91-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
17

Maclntyre, I.G. 2003. A Classic Marginal Coral Environment: Tropical Coral Patches off North
Carolina, USA. Coral Reefs 22: 474.
Maclntyre, I.G. and O.H. Pilkey. 1969. Tropical Reef Corals: Tolerance of Low Temperatures
on the North Carolina Continental Shelf. Science 166: 374-375.
Michel, J., A.C. Bejarano, C.H. Peterson, and C. Voss. 2013. Review of biological and
biophysical impacts from dredging and handling of offshore sand. OCS Study BOEM
2013-0119 Herndon, Virginia: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management.
Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1995. Habitat use ad movements of shortnose and Atlantic
sturgeons in the Lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 124:225-234.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2020. South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion for
Dredging and Material Placement Activities in the Southeast United States.
NMFS. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Listing Determinations for
Two Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus)
in the Southeast. 77 FR 5914.
NMFS. 1998. Recovery Plan for Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum. Prepared by the
Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver
Spring, Maryland. 104 pp.
NMFS and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Recovery Plan for the
Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta), Second
Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Atlanta, GA.
NMFS and USFWS. 2007a. Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) 5-Year Review: Summary
and Evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver
Spring, MD and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Jacksonville Ecological
Services Field Office, Jacksonville, FL.
NMFS and USFWS. 2007b. Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) 5-Year Review: Summary and
Evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver
Spring, MD and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Jacksonville Ecological
Services Field Office, Jacksonville, FL.
NMFS and USFWS. 2007c. Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 5-Year Review:
Summary and Evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected
Resources, Silver Spring, MD and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region,
Albuquerque, NM.
NMFS and USFWS. 2007d. Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 5-Year Review:
Summary and Evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
18

Resources, Silver Spring, MD and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region,
Jacksonville Ecological Services Field Office, Jacksonville, FL.
NMFS and USFWS. 2007e. Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 5-Year Review:
Summary and Evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected
Resources, Silver Spring, MD and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region,
Jacksonville Ecological Services Field Office, Jacksonville, FL.
NMFS and USFWS. 1993. Recovery Plan for Hawksbill Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea,
Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg,
FL.
Oakley, N.C. and J.E. Hightower. 2007. Status of shortnose sturgeon in the Neuse River, North
Carolina. American Fisheries Society Symposium 56:273-284.
Quattro, J.M., T.W. Greig, D.K. Coykendall, B.W. Bowen, and J.D. Baldwin. 2002. Genetic issues
in aquatic species management: the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in the
southeastern United States. Conservation Genetics 3: 155-166.
Ross, S.W., F.C. Rohde, and D.G. Lindquist. 1988. Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna of
North Carolina, part 2. A re-evaluation of the marine and estuarine fishes, North Carolina
Biological Survey, Occasional Papers 1988-7 Raleigh, North Carolina.
Seaturtle.org. 2017. Sea turtle rehabilitation and necropsy database, North Carolina stranding
reports. On-line: http://www.seaturtle.org.
Schroeder, P.R. 2009. USACE Technical Guidelines for Practicing the 3R's of Environmental
Dredging. Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association Twenty-ninth Technical
Conference and 40th Annual Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, Tempe, AZ, June 2009.
Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team (SSSRT). 2010. A biological assessment of shortnose
sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northeast Regional Office.
Stickney, R. 1972. Effects of Intracoastal Waterway Dredging on Ichthyofauna and Benthic
Macro- Invertebrates. Technical Report Series. No 72-4. Skidaway Institute of
Oceanography, Savannah, GA. July 1972 60 pp.
Stickney, R. and D. Perlmutter. 1975. Impact of Intracoastal Waterway maintenance dredging
on a mud bottom benthos community. Biol Consery 01/1975; 7(3):211-225.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Sea Turtle Protection and Data
Warehouse. Available at: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/seaturtles/.
USACE. 2014. Section 7(a)(2) and 7(d) Endangered Species Act Jeopardy Analysis of the Effect
on Atlantic Sturgeon of Navigation Channel Maintenance Dredging and Dredging of
Offshore Borrow Sources for Beach Sand Placement on the South Atlantic Coast (21 April
2014). USACE, South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, GA.
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
19

Van Dolah, R.F., D.R. Calder, D.M. Knott, and M.S. Maclin. 1979. Effects of dredging and
unconfined disposal on macrobenthic communities in Sewee Bay, South Carolina. Tech.
Rep. 39. South Carolina Marine Resources Center, Charleston, SC.
Van Dolah, R.F., D.R. Calder, and D.M., Knott. 1984. Effects of dredging and open water
disposal on benthic macroinvertebrates in a South Carolina estuary. Estuaries 7:28-37.
Welp, T.L., M.W. Tubman, D.A. Wilson, and C.E. Pollock. 2017. Water Injection Dredging.
DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E20). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center.
Wilber, D.H., W. Brostoff, D.G. Clarke, and G.L. Ray. 2005. Sedimentation: Potential biological
effects from dredging operations in estuarine and marine environments. DOER Technical
Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E20). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center.
Wirgin, I., C. Grunwald, E. Carlson, J. Stabile, D.L. Peterson, and J. Waldman. 2005. Range -
wide population structure of shortnose sturgeon, (Acipenser brevirostrum), based on
sequence analysis of the mitochondrial DNA control region. Estuaries Vol. 28(3): 406-
421.
Biological Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
20

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
NORTH BARGE FLEETING AREA EXPANSION
PORT OF MOREHEAD CITY
5 July 2022
Prepared for:
North Carolina State Ports Authority
PO Box 9002
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Prepared by:
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
201 North Front Street, Suite 307
Wilmington, North Carolina 2 8401
El N I I NC
DIAL ORDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA 6
4.0 Essential Fish Habitat and Managed fisheries IN THE ACTION AREA 7
4.1 Federally Managed Species 8
4.1.1 Peneaid Shrimp 8
4.1.2 Snapper -Grouper Complex 8
4.1.3 Summer Flounder 9
4.1.4 Coastal Migratory Pelagics 9
4.1.5 Bluefish 10
4.1.6 Smooth Dogfish 10
4.2 EFH and HAPC 11
4.2.1 Estuarine Water Column 11
4.2.2 Unconsolidated Bottom 11
4.2.3 Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks 11
4.2.4 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 12
4.2.5 Estuarine Emergent Wetlands (Tidal Marsh) 12
4.2.6 State -Designated Fish Nursery Areas 12
5.0 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON EFH AND MANAGED SPECIES 17
5.1 Estuarine Water Column 17
5.1.1 Sediment Suspension and Turbidity 17
5.1.2 Larval Entrainment 18
5.2 Unconsolidated Bottom 18
5.3 Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks 19
5.4 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) 19
5.5 Estuarine Emergent Wetlands (Tidal Marsh) 20
6.0 CONSERVATION MEASURES 20
7.0 REFERENCES 21
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
ii

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. EFH and HAPC in the vicinity of the action area 7
Table 2. Penaeid shrimp salinity requirements and recruitment periods (NCDEQ 2016). 8
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Proposed Action Location Map 3
Figure 2. North Barge Fleeting Area Expansion Layout 4
Figure 3. North Barge Fleeting Expansion Area - Existing and Proposed Bathymetry 5
Figure 4. NCDMF Shell Bottom Map 14
Figure 5. NCDMF SAV Map 15
Figure 6. State -Designated Fish Nursery Areas 16
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS
°C Degrees Centigrade
AIWW Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
CDF Confined Disposal Facility
CPE Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc.
CWA Clean Water Act
CY Cubic Yards
DA Department of the Army
DMMP Dredged Material Management Plan
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
FT Feet
HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
M Meters
MAFMC Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management Council
MCH Morehead City Harbor
MSFCMA Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
NC North Carolina
NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code
NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NCDMF North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
PNA Primary Nursery Area
PPT Parts Per Thousand
RHA Rivers and Harbors Act
SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
SNA Secondary Nursery Areas
TSS Total Suspended Solids
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
WID Water Injection Dredging
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment has been prepared in accordance with the
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) to address the
effects of proposed new dredging work at the Port of Morehead City on EFH and federally
managed fisheries. The North Carolina State Ports Authority (NCSPA) has requested
Department of the Army (DA) authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) to expand the existing north barge fleeting
area in the Newport River at the Port of Morehead City (Port) in Carteret County, North Carolina
(NC). The north fleeting area is a temporary mooring facility for loaded barges that are awaiting
waterborne transport to inland destinations. Barge fleeting activity at the Port is primarily
associated with the transport of imported iron (direct reduced iron and pig iron) to the Hertford
Steel plant on the Chowan River in Cofield, NC. Iron imports at the Port have doubled over the
last several years; resulting in increased demand for barge fleeting capacity. The proposed action
would expand the north barge fleeting area from 2 to 4 acres, thereby accommodating an
additional 4 to 6 loaded barges.
2.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The north barge fleeting area is located in the Newport River -600 feet north of the northeast
corner of the Port terminal facility (Figure 1). The existing fleeting area encompasses 2.0 acres
along the western margin of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW). The authorized depth of
the existing facility matches that of the AIWW at -14 ft MLLW (12 + 2 ft of over dredge). A series
of six steel pile mooring piles are currently installed within the fleeting area. The proposed action
would expand the existing facility westward by dredging an additional 2.0 acres of subtidal bottom
to a depth of -14 ft MLLW (12 + 2 ft of over dredge) (Figure 2). An additional 1.0 acre of new
dredging would be required to construct a transitional 3:1 slope along the western margin of the
2.0-acre expansion area. In total, the proposed action would require 3.0 acres of new dredging
and the removal of an estimated 35,000 cy of material. No new mooring structures are proposed,
as the existing mooring piles are sufficient to accommodate additional barges in the expansion
area. The depth of the expansion area would be maintained through periodic maintenance
dredging every 2 to 5 years. Existing depths in the proposed new dredging area range from -4 to
-14 ft MLLW (Figure 3). The sediments to be removed from the new dredging area are part of a
uniform fine sand to silty fine sand layer that extends from the surface to a depth of -45-ft MLLW
(Catlin Engineers 2013). Construction of the barge fleeting expansion area would employ a
hydraulic pipeline (cutterhead) dredge and/or a mechanical bucket dredge and scow system.
Construction dredged material would be placed in one of the existing Port -owned confined
disposal facilities; which include the Marsh Island, Brandt Island, and North Radio Island disposal
areas. Construction disposal operations for cutterhead dredging would involve direct hydraulic
delivery to the disposal area via floating and/or submerged pipeline. In the case of mechanical
dredging, disposal would involve the transport of dredged material via scow to the disposal area
for placement via mechanical means or hydraulic offloading. Periodic maintenance of the barge
fleeting expansion area would be accomplished by the Port -owned water injection dredge. Water
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
1

injection dredging (WID) injects water at low pressure into sediments; producing a high density
sediment -water mixture known as a density current that flows along the bottom via gravity to
deeper areas. A pipe manifold with a series of water injection nozzles is used to inject water into
the sediment bed. The use of water injection dredging for maintenance of the Port's existing
berths, fleeting areas, and turning basins is currently authorized under the Port's existing CAMA
Major Permit.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
2

m
,
�
Vy
PF
the
6 �
133
'�—eYe
I
W
a>eroa
f1
1
afro I__ �;r
_-
4.
n 11 (�
m
4
R C R 7-�
sa„n,. s45l
Fenn Pt
I.,
or k
o
� 0
^
avuc vaR CAE
/
105
411
'S.
1
r11
�II
19iPt?h,
1
uSA(;E mnJuc,
SAGE, s_ Frei,
RGHT'WWI
to paeda GMof WWI
ein e 1 32ls r3rk,,
knot
`1c
r
',:t; BEAUFORT
T. '':)1;AlliUhtlsiwuLu�
I25s 2oN5ME��
}TFI ds1 ft `
aM n
� I,G 261 y)
7 II IfJ'ghl7
.3 GSJ _ ACA'r0lr
- r "#\�_ti`
n
ry�
A ��'I;5 r S
` T
22 •2fi 2625
�.
::i`rE
`phec
�'�
Pt
10
Ppr1.
1'^ `�Q
I/AM
�
E.
i1
P w
O &,
S/Q
U9hp
\
j
onThe1
o
`A
3o1u F4t
��
Y !�
6Leope�e,
k.
„
f.
oa
Straits'
T H EMOREHEAE.:��d1,,,
•
y2
rker
Cs
B
9
0
Pt /r
•
,
CITY\ :
d
80GUE SOUND .
- _
one unoll =.. A� 01nrvK „,,„ ,,0
_
aro
I Islarcl
— -- \Pse Nsrt lle
wF r�
�j \J
Fla
__ _
11— `\
, Zo 1.
y 10 ] _— I r
z_i 3' 2 _ _ ��w fiy_�orien'r.n\�
—` xa _ s�n 2e 3....a_21, 1b�—,1�11y�]
�— — 3e 94 \\ 1
Z] \ 6 iSQ.
9J 37 3.3 •?9-'N• 3----„,,
43 40 —�� lY� _ 21
\L
se 3a 22 1,E t;�
a
s (Project Location 5�
bn 5h Y9 24 37:1vx �A I 22 S 22 Y 340
47
24
EP 50 50 bbs[nsep 4] 41 �, 21 /J�
49 5(1 48 41 $d '5' II
�msr� �ll �l
4fj;ppy(r. &] bi 1 .?,-,.a.,,,,
J3Ili 44 �r 2: •
�rf �4A 50 52 5t c0 al v lN4so
... .. S5h 51 43 33 48 �f40M1,
52
50 51 PO 36
'h n G 3 FIR2bs
z 29
�n� �9 54 —
37 '— 29 \_
41 34 33 ` `— 2P �\
•13 39 r5 34 �] 5\
39
3133.
46 46 39
98 A4 43 3�f�
41
47 46 41
su+5 AFSTRICTEQ AREA 45 i551 43 a6
(50 CFR224. 105; see Pate EJ
�I 51 41 Obstr� '
FHgEE 51 :.,
NNUhCq�M/(F 50 43 :3?: Obsh:
!il
Pilot Boarding Area 1 F /NErs'�^ore XJ 4A 4] 4a Prn4ersquatlror
F, _
�'1Ta'/c�r rl�� 60
549
14 4S
=L •'
49
48 SI
32 F1G2.5s ��1 c8
9� 3: ar v
8
5Sn 99 S.M
�8 Q oq
a`0 r3 34 39 0 II 51
48 !� Q.y.�� �!
4a 41 QJ 4G . QA
`ry ,,m :eT
4.0739 40P sIe ma^ar�a.� 42 t"R S Sir �2 91
Figure 1. Proposed Action Location Map
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
July 2022
3

Marsh Island
Disposal Area
-16CO
-ICAO
-15.00
4DO
`Y = 3fi335243]3�
Existing -14-ft Fleeting Area
Proposed -14-ft Expansion Area
Proposed 3:1 slope
Figure 2. North Barge Fleeting Area Expansion Layout
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
July 2022
4

co
co
co
to
co
a
co
co
0
M
0
co
co
CO0
co
co0
CO
0
CD
ea
0
N
CO
C7
2692400 2692600
,4 1�11.1thi AA!
t
wily 2111110/vdrA R
itll 1 04
pggivimpla
iocoliarorm
ifillilE
rapt
co
CO0
0
0
CO
co
0
Cci
CI
0
NCO
C7
A- A' Bathymetric Profile Graph
5
6
Existing Bathymetry Profile
7
8
9
Proposed Bathymetry Profile
1
3:1
ore
Proposed Fleeting Area Existing Fleeting Area
2
Area
J
1
1
1 1 1 1 1
4
6
14
16
0
a
- 1
1
50 100 150 200
❑istance (feet)
B - B' Bathyrretric Profile Graph
250
3R.R.!
Existing Bathymetry Profile
Proposed Bathymetry Profile
Slope
Area
Proposed Fleeting Area
xisting Fleeting Area
16o 150 260
Distance (feet)
C - C' Bathymetric Profile Graph
0
0
Existing Bathymetry Profile
0 50 100 150 200
Distance (feet)
250
300
Legend
Profile Location
Barge Fleeting Area
r/i
k\1
Existing Fleeting Area
Proposed Fleeting Area
Proposed 3:1 Slope
1ft Contour (MLBAft
Elevation (MLLW)
Value
- High : -2
Low : -30
0
150
300
450
e
600
Feet
Figure 3. North Barge Fleeting Expansion Area - Existing and Proposed Bathymetry
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
July 2022
5

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA
The north barge fleeting area is located -3 miles from the Atlantic Ocean in the lower Newport
River Estuary between Morehead City and Beaufort in Carteret County, NC. The lower Newport
River Estuary is a shallow, tidally -controlled system with an average depth of -3 feet MLLW.
Mean tidal range in the lower estuary is 3.1 feet, and salinities approach those of seawater (34
ppt) (Kirby -Smith and Costlow 1989). The proposed new dredging area is located between the
AIWW federal navigation channel and the Marsh Island disposal area. The AIWW navigation
channel is maintained at a width of 250 feet and depth of 12 + 2 ft MLLW. The Marsh Island
disposal area consists of diked uplands that are partially surrounded by unconfined tidal
saltmarsh. Benthic habitats within the proposed new dredging area consist of sandy
unconsolidated bottom. The surrounding Newport River Estuary contains a complex assemblage
of intertidal and shallow subtidal estuarine habitats; including sandy shoals, shellfish beds,
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds, and tidal saltmarsh.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
6

4.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND MANAGED FISHERIES IN THE ACTION AREA
The action area encompasses marine and estuarine habitats that are designated as EFH and/or
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) in Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) developed
by the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC), Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (MAFMC), and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Table 1). The
MSFCMA defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding,
feeding, or growth to maturity." HAPCs comprise a more specific subset of EFH that are
considered to be especially critical due to factors such as rarity, susceptibility to human -induced
degradation, and/or high ecological importance. Federally managed species and associated
EFH/HAPCs that occur in the vicinity of the action area are described in the sections below.
Table 1. EFH and HAPC in the vicinity of the action area.
SPECIES/GROUP
EFH/HAPC
SAFMC EFH
Penaeid Shrimp
Tidal Estuarine Emergent Wetlands
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Subtidal/Intertidal Non -vegetated Flats
Snapper -Grouper
Tidal Estuarine Emergent Wetlands
Tidal Creeks
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks
Unconsolidated Bottom
Coastal Migratory Pelagics
Primary Nursery Areas
Coastal Inlets
SAFMC HAPC
Penaeid Shrimp
Primary Nursery Areas
Coastal Inlets
Snapper Grouper
Primary Nursery Areas
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks
Coastal Inlets
Coastal Migratory Pelagics
Coastal Inlets
High Salinity Estuaries (Bogue Sound)
MAFMC EFH
Summer Flounder
Estuaries with salinities >0.5 ppt
Bluefish
Estuaries
Atlantic Butterfish
Inshore pelagic habitats
MAFMC HAPC
Summer Flounder
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
NMFS EFH
Highly Migratory Species (Smooth Dogfish)
Estuaries
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
July 2022
7

4.1 Federally Managed Species
4.1.1 Peneaid Shrimp
Federally managed penaeid shrimp in NC include brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), pink
shrimp (F. duorarum), and white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus). Adults spawn offshore in high
salinity oceanic waters during the winter or spring, and the ocean -spawned larvae and post -larvae
are transported by currents to inshore estuarine nursery habitats where they maintain a benthic
existence (SAFMC 1981). Larval and post -larval estuarine recruitment periods vary among the
three species (Table 2). Penaeid shrimp tolerate a wide range of salinities (Table 2) and are most
abundant in shallow mud -silt habitats where they congregate at the highly productive marsh -water
interface. As their size increases, shrimp move toward higher -salinity ocean waters, eventually
migrating offshore in the fall. The action area encompasses habitats that are designated as EFH
and HAPCs for all life stages of penaeid shrimp; including estuarine tidal marshes, subtidal and
intertidal non -vegetated flats, coastal inlets, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and state
designated Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) and Secondary Nursery Areas (SNAs).
Table 2. Penaeid shrimp salinity requirements and recruitment periods (NCDEQ 2016).
Species
Salinity (ppt)
Juvenile Recruitment
Brown Shrimp
2-35
February - March
Pink Shrimp
0-35
June - October
White Shrimp
2-35
April - May
4.1.2 Snapper -Grouper Complex
The snapper -grouper complex is an assemblage of 59 species that share a common association
with hardbottom or reef habitats during part of their life cycle. Snappers (Lutjanidae), groupers
(Serranidae), porgies (Sparidae), and grunts (Haemulidae) generally inhabit offshore reef and
hardbottom habitats; whereas, nearshore ocean hardbottoms along the NC coast have cooler
temperatures and a fish community dominated primarily by black sea bass (Centropristis striata),
scup (Stenotomus chrysops), and associated temperate species (Sedberry and Van Dolah 1984).
Most snapper -grouper species are associated with offshore reef and hardbottom habitats
throughout their life cycle; however, a few species such as black sea bass, gag (Mycteroperca
microlepis), gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus), and lane snapper (L. synagris) use estuarine
nursery habitats for juvenile development (SAFMC 1998, NCDMF 2006). Juveniles of these
estuarine -dependent species emigrate from the estuary to nearshore hardbottom habitats in the
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
8

fall, and eventually move to offshore reef and hardbottom habitats. Moser et al. (1999) reported
that juvenile gag, red grouper, and black grouper recruited to the lower Newport River Estuary
and Bogue Sound from mid -April to early June and remained through early November. Juveniles
were found only in polyhaline habitats near inlets, initially occupying SAV beds for 3-4 months
before moving to complex structural habitats such as estuarine jetties. Caridean shrimp
comprised 51% of the total food volume consumed, with Penaeid shrimp and fish contributing
21% and 16% of the total volume, respectively. Amphipods and copepods were frequently
consumed, but comprised only a small percentage of the overall volume. The action area
encompasses habitats that are designated as EFH and HAPCs for the juvenile life stages of
estuarine -dependent snapper -grouper species; including estuarine tidal marsh, tidal creeks,
unconsolidated bottom, SAV, oyster reefs, and state -designated PNAs and SNAs.
4.1.3 Summer Flounder
The geographic range of the summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) includes shallow estuaries
and outer continental shelf waters along the Atlantic Coast from Nova Scotia to Florida (Packer
et al. 1999). Adult summer flounder exhibit strong seasonal inshore -offshore movements;
concentrating in estuaries and sounds from late spring through early fall before migrating offshore
to the outer continental shelf where spawning occurs during the fall and early winter. Larvae and
post larvae recruit to estuarine nursery habitats from October to May and eventually settle to the
bottom and bury into the sediment where development to the juvenile life stage is completed.
Late larval and juvenile flounder actively prey on crustaceans, copepods, and polychaetes
(NEFSC 1999). Juveniles prefer sandy shell substrates; but also inhabit marsh creeks, mud flats,
and seagrass beds. Juveniles often remain in North Carolina estuaries for 18 to 20 months.
Adults prefer sandy substrates, but also use seagrass beds, tidal marsh creeks, and sand flats
(ASFMC 2011c and d, NEFSC 1999). The action area encompasses habitats that are designated
as EFH and HAPCs for larval, juvenile, and adult summer flounder; including estuarine waters
with salinities >0.5 ppt and SAV.
4.1.4 Coastal Migratory Pelagics
The coastal migratory pelagics management unit includes Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus.
maculates), king mackerel (S. cavalla), and cobia (Rachycentron canadum). Adult Spanish
mackerel spawn in groups over the inner continental shelf; beginning in April off the Carolinas.
Larvae are most commonly found in nearshore ocean waters at shallow depths less than 30 ft.
Most juveniles remain in nearshore ocean waters, but some use high salinity estuaries (e.g.,
Bogue Sound) as nursery habitats. Adult Spanish mackerel spend most of their lives in the open
ocean but are also found in tidal estuaries and coastal waters (ASMFC 2011a, 2011b, Mercer et
al. 1990). King mackerel are primarily a coastal species, with smaller individuals of similar size
forming schools over reefs and areas of bottom relief, and larger solitary individuals preferring
anthropogenic structures and wrecks. Cobia are found over the continental shelf and in high
salinity estuaries; preferring waters in the vicinity of reefs and artificial structures such as pilings
and buoys. Cobia spawning along NC occurs primarily in offshore ocean waters during May and
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
9

June; however, spawning has also been observed in estuaries and shallow bays, with the young
moving offshore soon after hatching (SAFMC 1983 and 2011). In Bogue Sound, Spanish
mackerel and cobia larvae are common in the seawater (>25 ppt) salinity zone, while adults and
juveniles are abundant to common in both the seawater and mixing (0.5-25 ppt) zones (Nelson et
al 1991). The action area encompasses habitats that are designated as EFH and HAPCs for
coastal migratory pelagics; including high salinity estuaries, coastal inlets, SAV, and state -
designated PNAs and SNAs.
4.1.5 Bluefish
The bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) is a migratory, pelagic species found in temperate and semi-
tropical continental shelf waters around the world with the exception of the north and central
Pacific. In North America, bluefish range from Nova Scotia to Florida in the Atlantic Ocean and
from Florida to Texas in the Gulf of Mexico. Spawning in the South Atlantic Bight occurs near the
shoreward edge of the Gulf Stream primarily during April and May. Larval development occurs in
the upper water column over the outer continental shelf, with transitional pelagic juveniles
eventually moving to nearshore ocean and estuarine waters that serve as the principal nursery
habitats for juvenile development (Kendall and Walford 1979). Estuarine juveniles are most
commonly associated with sandy unconsolidated bottom habitats; but also use mud/silt bottom,
SAV, marine macroalgae, oyster reefs, and tidal marshes (Shepherd and Packer 2006).
Juveniles are common in high salinity estuaries along the southern NC coast during summer and
fall, where they are usually associated with salinities of 23 to 33 ppt; however, juveniles are found
at salinities as low as 3 ppt (Fahay et al. 1999). Designated inshore EFH for juvenile and adult
bluefish along the southern NC coast includes estuaries below MHW.
4.1.6 Smooth Dogfish
The smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) is a small, migratory, demersal shark species of inshore and
continental shelf waters from Massachusetts to northern Argentina in the Atlantic Ocean. The
species is viviparous, with pupping occurring in estuarine waters from Virginia to Massachusetts
(McCandless et al. 2007). Pups are born during spring and summer, and juveniles remain in
estuarine nursery areas until fall. Larger juveniles occupy deeper estuarine waters before joining
adults on the continental shelf. Juveniles in estuarine nursey areas prey on polychaetes, decapod
shrimp, crabs, bivalves, and small estuarine fish (Able and Fahay 2010). Adults undertake
seasonal migrations between inshore pupping grounds and offshore wintering grounds on the on
the outer continental shelf (Branstetter 2002; Able and Fahay 2010). Adults migrate inshore
during the spring when water temperatures reach 6 to 7 °C, and move offshore during the early
fall as water temperatures decrease (Compagno 1984). Inshore estuarine waters in the vicinity of
the action area are designated as EFH for all life stages of the smooth dogfish.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
10

4.2 EFH and HAPC
4.2.1 Estuarine Water Column
The north barge fleeting area is located -3 miles from the Atlantic Ocean in the lowermost
polyhaline reach of the Newport River Estuary. Just below the fleeting area, the estuary
converges with Bogue Sound, Back Sound, and Beaufort Inlet. Beaufort Inlet extends -2.5 miles
from the Port of Morehead City to the Atlantic Ocean. Beaufort Inlet is an important transport
corridor for the planktonic eggs and larvae of estuarine -dependent fishes and invertebrates that
spawn offshore as adults and reside in estuarine nursery areas during juvenile development.
Successful recruitment of ocean -spawned planktonic larvae to estuarine nursery areas is
dependent on passive ocean -to -sound transport through a relatively small number of narrow tidal
inlets. Larvae spawned offshore are transported shoreward by the prevailing currents, eventually
accumulating in the nearshore ocean zone where they are picked up by long -shore currents and
transported to inlets (Churchill et al. 1999). Temporal patterns of larval transport through Beaufort
Inlet were described by Hettler and Chester (1990). Overall larval densities within the inlet were
highest from late May to early June and lowest in November. Species richness was also highest
(32 taxa) from late May to early June and lowest (3 taxa) in November.
4.2.2 Unconsolidated Bottom
Intertidal and shallow subtidal unconsolidated bottom habitats provide abundant food resources
for estuarine -dependent juveniles in an environment that is relatively inaccessible to large
predators via shallow depths (SAFMC 1998). Shallow unconsolidated bottom habitats support
highly productive benthic microalgal communities. Benthic microagal primary production, along
with imported primary production in the form of phytoplankton and detritus, supports highly
productive benthic infaunal invertebrate communities that comprise the prey base for most
estuarine -dependent demersal fishes; including summer flounder and estuarine -dependent
species of the snapper -grouper complex. Penaeid shrimp are most abundant in shallow
unconsolidated bottom habitats at the highly productive shallow bottom -marsh interface (NCDEQ
2016). Unconsolidated bottom habitats consisting of fine sand to silty fine sand comprise all of
the benthic habitat within the proposed new dredging area (Catlin Engineers 2013).
4.2.3 Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks
Shell bottom habitats include oyster reefs, aggregations of non -reef building shellfish species
[e.g., clams and scallops (Argopecten irradians, A. gibbus)], and surface concentrations of broken
shells (shell hash). Oysters are the dominant reef -building species of estuarine shell bottom
habitats in NC. Non -reef building shellfish species that occur at densities sufficient to provide
structural habitat for other organisms include scallops, pen shells (Atrina seratta, A. rigida), and
rangia clams (Rangia cuneata) (SAFMC 2009). Shell bottom habitats function as important
nursery and foraging areas for estuarine -dependent juveniles. Shell bottom structure provides
refuge from predation and concentrates macroinvertebrates that comprise the prey base for many
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
11

estuarine -dependent juvenile fishes (NCDEQ 2016). NCDMF benthic habitat maps depict a
narrow linear zone of shell bottom habitat -300 feet west of the proposed new dredging area
along the shoreline of Marsh Island (Figure 4). Additional mapped shell bottom habitats are
distributed throughout the surrounding Newport River Estuary.
4.2.4 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) in NC estuaries encompasses a number of bed -forming
rooted aquatic vascular plants (NCDEQ 2016). SAV beds occur on subtidal and occasionally
intertidal sediments in sheltered estuarine waters. Environmental requirements include
unconsolidated sediments for root and rhizome development, adequate light reaching the bottom,
and moderate to negligible current velocities (Thayer et al. 1984, Ferguson and Wood 1994).
SAV beds provide important structural fish habitat and perform important ecological functions
such as primary production, sediment and shoreline stabilization, and nutrient cycling (NCDEQ
2016). SAV habitats are important nursery areas for the juveniles of estuarine -dependent
species; including species of the snapper -grouper complex, bluefish, summer flounder, and
penaeid shrimp. NCDMF SAV maps do not identify any SAV within or immediately adjacent to
the proposed new dredging area (Figure 5). Small patches of SAV are identified along the
western shoreline of Marsh Island opposite the proposed dredging area. Additional mapped SAV
habitats are distributed throughout the surrounding Newport River Estuary.
4.2.5 Estuarine Emergent Wetlands (Tidal Marsh)
Along with shallow unconsolidated bottom areas, salt and brackish marshes along the NC coast
function as important nursery habitats for federally managed species such as summer flounder,
penaeid shrimp, and estuarine dependent species of the snapper -grouper complex. Penaeid
shrimp are considered critically linked to marsh edge habitat (SAFMC 1998). The majority of the
state designated fish nursery areas in NC encompass shallow soft bottom areas and associated
fringing tidal marshes (NCDEQ 2016). Tidal marshes in the lower polyhaline Newport River
Estuary are dominated by monospecific zones of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and
black needlerush (Juncus romerianus). No tidal marshes are present within the proposed new
dredging area. The nearest tidal marshes are located -300 feet west of the proposed dredging
footprint along the shoreline of Marsh Island. The tidal marsh along the eastern shoreline of
Marsh Island consists of an approximately 400-ft-wide zone of smooth cordgrass.
4.2.6 State -Designated Fish Nursery Areas
Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) are defined as "those areas in the estuarine system where initial
post -larval development takes place" [15 North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 31
.0101(b)(20)(E)]. PNAs support uniform populations of very early juveniles and are typically
located in the upper reaches of the estuarine system. Secondary Nursery Areas (SNAs) are
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
12

defined as "those areas in the estuarine system where later juvenile development takes place."
Secondary Nursery Areas support uniform populations of developing subadults that have moved
from PNAs to the lower portions of the estuarine system. For most estuarine -dependent species,
larval settlement occurs in the uppermost reaches of shallow tidal creek systems (Weinstein 1979,
Ross and Epperly 1985). The abundance of juveniles in estuarine nursery areas generally peaks
between April and July (Ross and Epperly 1985). PNAs and SNAs are designated as HAPC for
shrimp, coastal migratory pelagics, and estuarine dependent species of the snapper -grouper
complex. Designated PNAs that are nearest to the proposed new dredging area are located - 1.3
miles to the northwest in small tributaries of the Newport River (Calico Creek and Crab Point Bay)
(Figure 6). The nearest additional PNAs and SNAs are located in the Newport River -4 miles
upstream of the proposed new dredging area.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
13

Barge Fleeting Expansion Area
DMF Shell Bottom Habitat - Shell Bottom _ S - Intertidal Firm Non -vegetated Shell
C - Subtidal Soft Non -vegetated Shell _ U - Intertidal Hard Vegetated Shell
▪ G - Subtidal Firm Non -vegetated Shell
▪ K - Subtidal Hard Non -vegetated Shell
▪ 0 - Intertidal Firm Vegetated Shell
1:23,222
0 0,15 0.3
I I ,
0 0,25 0.5
0.6 mi
Il
1 km
Sources: Esri, Airbus OS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson. NGEAS,
NLS. OS, NMA, GeodatasTyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA,
Intermap and the GIS user community, Sources: Esri, HERE, Germin, FAO,
NOAA, USGS, © OpenelreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 4. NCDMF Shell Bottom Map
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
July 2022
14

„yst �1
Fisher 5t
ad City
70
West nd of
rloaf
land
,..).
Morehead
City
Harbor
.L oh
/
Alk\c,60.7„..
Oft .F
•
010 Cau
1-lw0 70 Radio !s \
PPr
1
ro
Oft
•
6/14/2022
• NC SAV Mosaic 1981 to 2015
1:23,222
0 0.15 0.3 0.0 ml
0 0.25 0.5 1 km
Sources: Esri, Airbus OS, USGS, NGA, NASA. CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS,
NLS, CS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, RlJkswalerstaal, GSA, Geoland, FEMA,
Intermap and the G€S user community, Sources: Earl, HERE. Garmin, FAO,
NOM., USGS, Al OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 Barge Fleeting Expansion Area
Figure 5. NCDMF SAV Map
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
July 2022
15

nt
Village
F n
�G'
t
z Ra'
ad City Crab Point
Club N k
o
nde 5
Morehead City
�
r
m
Money
Island
Atlantic Beach Buy
(
Morehead
City
Harbor
n
t
y
a
s
a, 'a
V
22
sad �1
Michael J Smith
Field El
Steep Pine
Fork
FiRi
Beaufort
Cr
C ��nfJ
,,
Want s,
0
Buck
Sound
6/14/2022
FNA NCDMF - Fishery Nursery Areas
Primary Nursery Areas
Secondary Nursery Areas
Barge Fleeting Expansion Area
1:60,112
0 0.42 0.85 1 .7 mi
I
I ,
0 0.5 I 2 km
Solaces', Esrl, Airbus OS, LOGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS,
NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA,
Intermap and the GIS user community, Sources: Esri, HERE. Garmin, FAO,
NOAA, U5G5, V open51ree1Map contributors, and the 515 User community
Figure 6. State -Designated Fish Nursery Areas
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
July 2022
16

5.0 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON EFH AND MANAGED SPECIES
This assessment considers potential effects on EFH/HAPCs and federally managed species that
may occur through the following impact mechanisms: physical disturbance and modification of
benthic habitat within the dredging footprint, sediment suspension and redeposition, and larval
entrainment. Analyses of potential effects on EFH/HAPCs and federally managed species are
presented according to habitat type.
5.1 Estuarine Water Column
5.1.1 Sediment Suspension and Turbidity
Dredging -induced sediment suspension and associated increases in turbidity may affect the
behavior (e.g., feeding, predator avoidance, habitat selection) and physiological functions (e.g.,
photosynthesis, gill -breathing, filter -feeding) of marine fishes and invertebrates (Michel et al.
2013). The extent and duration of dredging -induced sediment suspension are influenced by
sediment composition at the dredge site, the type of dredge employed, and hydrodynamic
conditions at the dredge site (Wilber et al. 2005). Sediment suspension by cutterhead dredges is
generally confined to the near bottom water column in the immediate vicinity of the rotating
cutterhead assembly (LaSalle et al. 1991). Based on sediment resuspension data collected
during navigation dredging projects, Hayes et al. (2000) and Hayes and Wu (2001) reported
average cutterhead dredge sediment resuspension rates ranging from 0.003 to 0.135% of the fine
silt/clay fraction. Mechanical dredges (bucket and clamshell) generally have higher sediment
suspension rates due to the washing of material out of the bucket as it is withdrawn from the
bottom and moved through and above the water column (LaSalle et al. 1991). Water injection
dredging (WID) injects water at low pressure into sediments; producing a high density sediment -
water mixture known as a density current that flows along the bottom via gravity to deeper areas.
Monitoring results for multiple projects in the US indicate that WID-induced sediment suspension
is principally confined to the lower water column within 2 to 5 feet of the bottom (Welp et al. 2017).
Regardless of dredge type, prolonged sediment suspension and extensive turbidity plumes are
primarily associated with the suspension of fine silt/clay particles that have relatively slow settling
velocities, whereas sands and gravels that make up the coarse -grained sediment fraction resettle
rapidly in the immediate vicinity of the dredge (Schroeder 2009). As previously described, the
sediments to be excavated from the new dredging area consist predominantly of relatively coarse
sands that would resettle rapidly to the bottom. Thus, it is expected that sediment suspension by
either a cutterhead, bucket, or water injection dredge would primarily be confined to the immediate
vicinity of the new dredging footprint. It is expected that suspended fine sediments would be
rapidly dispersed by currents in the contiguous AIWW navigation channel, thus limiting the
duration of any adverse effects on water quality and federally managed species. The proposed
project construction window of 1 October - 31 January would avoid peak periods of larval ingress
and estuarine -dependent juvenile abundance in the vicinity of the action area, thus minimizing
the exposure of federally managed species to sediment suspension effects. In the specific case
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
17

of WID, the potential for upstream sediment transport into the New River Estuary would be
minimized by conducting WID only on falling tides. Based on these considerations, it is expected
that any adverse effects on water quality and federally managed species would be minor and
short-term.
5.1.2 Larval Entrainment
Cutterhead pipeline dredges have the potential to entrain fishes and invertebrates during all life
cycle phases; including adults, juveniles, larvae, and eggs. Among adult and juvenile fishes,
demersal species that inhabit the near -bottom water column environment are most likely to be
entrained (Reine and Clarke 1998); although studies have also reported the entrainment of
pelagic fishes in small numbers (McGraw and Armstrong 1990). Entrainment studies indicate
that dredging elicits an avoidance response by demersal and pelagic species and that most
juvenile and adult fishes are successful at avoiding entrainment (Larson and Moehl 1990, McGraw
and Armstrong 1990). Planktonic eggs and larvae that lack avoidance capabilities are more
vulnerable to entrainment by hydraulic dredges, especially during ingress periods when they are
concentrated in inlets. The results of a long-term sampling program at Beaufort Inlet indicate that
larval densities within the inlet are highest from late May to early June and lowest in November
(Hettler and Chester 1990).
In the case of cutterhead pipeline dredging, the proposed action would affect federally managed
estuarine -dependent species by entraining planktonic eggs and larvae that occur in the vicinity of
the dredge pipe suction field. However, the results of larval entrainment modeling in Beaufort
Inlet indicate that dredge entrainment rates are extremely low regardless of inlet larval
concentrations and the distribution of larvae within the water column (Settle 2003). Even under
worst case model scenarios when the dredge was assumed to be operating 24 hours/day and all
larvae were assumed to be concentrated in the bottom of the navigation channel, projected
entrainment rates barely exceeded 0.1 % of the daily (24-hour) larval flux through the inlet. The
proposed new dredging area is located above Beaufort Inlet in the relatively broad Newport River
Estuary where it is expected that the distribution of planktonic eggs and larvae would be relatively
diffuse. Furthermore, the proposed project construction window of 1 October - 31 January would
avoid the peak larval ingress period at Beaufort Inlet. Based on all of the above considerations,
it is anticipated that the effects of egg/larval entrainment on populations of federally managed
species would be negligible.
5.2 Unconsolidated Bottom
New dredging would directly impact 3.0 acres of unconsolidated bottom habitat in the barge
fleeting expansion area. Existing bottom depths ranging from -4 to -13 ft MLLW would be
increased to -14 ft MLLW. Initial construction and subsequent periodic maintenance dredging
events would remove the existing benthic infaunal invertebrate community, thereby temporarily
reducing the availability of prey for federally managed demersal fishes such as summer flounder
and estuarine -dependent species of the snapper -grouper complex. Depending on shoaling rates,
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
18

the affected benthic infaunal communities would experience recurring maintenance dredging
impacts every 2 to 5 years. Studies of benthic community recovery in shallow estuarine navigation
channels along the southeastern coast have reported rapid recovery within two to six months
(Van Dolah et al. 1984 and 1979, Stickney and Perlmutter 1975, and Stickney 1972). These
studies indicate that recolonization via slumping of adjacent undisturbed sediments into the
dredged channel is an important recovery mechanism. Van Dolah et al. (1984) also attributed
relatively rapid recovery to rapid infilling by sediments that were similar in composition to the
extracted material and avoidance of spring benthic invertebrate recruitment periods. Existing
surficial sediments in the new dredging footprint are part of a uniform fine sand layer that extends
to a depth of -45 ft MLLW, thus the proposed action would not be expected to alter sediment
composition. Maximum bottom depth increases of -10 feet would not be expected to alter benthic
community composition within the new dredging area. The proposed project construction window
(01 October - 31 January) would avoid peak benthic invertebrate recruitment periods; thus
facilitating relatively rapid recovery with the onset of spring recruitment. Based on all of the above
considerations, it is anticipated that effects on estuarine unconsolidated bottom habitats and
associated federally managed species would be minor and short-term.
5.3 Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks
As previously described, NCDMF benthic habitat maps do not identify any shell bottom areas
within or immediately adjacent to the proposed new dredging area. Thus, no direct impacts on
shell bottom habitats would be expected. The only mapped shell bottom area in the vicinity of the
project area is a narrow linear shell bottom feature along the shoreline of Marsh Island-300-ft
west of the new dredging footprint. Fine sediments that are suspended by the dredging process
may be transported outside of the active dredging area, potentially affecting shell bottom areas
through redeposition. Heavy sediment redeposition can impact oysters by inhibiting larval
attachment to hard substrates and reducing the respiration and feeding rates of juveniles and
adults (Wilber and Clarke 2010). However, according to Colden and Lipcius (2015), eastern
oysters that were subjected to experimental sediment deposition did not exhibit significant
mortality or sublethal effects until at least 70% of the shell height was buried. As previously
described, the sediments to be excavated from the new dredging area consist predominantly of
relatively coarse fine sands that would resettle rapidly to the bottom. Thus, it is expected that
sediment suspension by either a cutterhead, bucket, or water injection dredge would primarily be
confined to the immediate vicinity of the new dredging footprint and the contiguous AIWW
channel. Therefore, it is expected that the effects of dredging -induced sediment suspension and
redeposition on oyster reefs and associated federally managed species would be minor and short-
term.
5.4 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
As previously described, NCDMF SAV maps do not identify any SAV within or immediately
adjacent to the proposed new dredging area. Thus, no direct impacts on SAV would be expected.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
19

Small patches of SAV are identified along the western shoreline of Marsh Island opposite the
proposed dredging area. Fine sediments that are suspended by the dredging process may be
transported outside of the active dredging area, potentially affecting SAV through increases in
turbidity and/or sediment redeposition. However, as previously described, it is anticipated that
the predominance of relatively coarse sand in the new dredging area would limit sediment
suspension to the immediate vicinity of the active work area. Therefore, it is expected that any
adverse effects on SAV and associated federally managed species from dredging -induced
sediment suspension and redeposition would be minor and short-term.
5.5 Estuarine Emergent Wetlands (Tidal Marsh)
As previously described, the only tidal marshes in the vicinity of proposed new dredging area are
located —300 feet west of the dredging footprint along the shoreline of Marsh Island. Therefore,
the proposed action would not be expected to have any effect on tidal marshes.
6.0 CONSERVATION MEASURES
The following conservation measures would be implemented to avoid or minimize potential effects
on EFH/HPAC and federally managed species:
• Dredging would be conducted within a 1 October to 31 January construction window.
• Water injection dredging (WID) would be conducted only on falling tides.
• Good Engineering Practices (GEPs) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be
applied to all dredging activities.
• Dredged material delivery pipelines would be routinely inspected for pressurized leaks,
and any leaks that are found would be immediately repaired.
• Dredging contractors would be required to maintain spill control plans and waste
management plans for all dredging fleet equipment.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
20

7.0 REFERENCES
Able, K.W. and M.P. Fahay. 2010. Ecology of estuarine fishes: temperate waters of the western
North Atlantic. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2010. 566p.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2011a. Managed Species Spanish
Mackerel, Species Profile. Washington, D.C. Accessed March 2011.
ASMFC. 2011 b. Managed Species Spanish Mackerel, Habitat Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C.
Accessed March 2011.
ASMFC. 2011c. Managed Species Summer Flounder, Habitat Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C.
Accessed March 2009.
ASMFC. 2011d. Managed Species Summer Flounder, Species Profile. Washington, D.C.
Accessed March 2009.
Branstetter, S. 2002. Smooth Dogfish/Mustelus canis canis (Mitchill 1815). In: B.B. Collette BB,
Klein-MacPhee G, editors, Fishes of the Gulf of Maine, 3rd ed. Washington: Smithsonian
Institution Press; 2002. P 37-38.
Churchill, J.H., R.B. Forward, R.A. Luettich, J.L. Hench, W.F. Heftier, L.B. Crowder, and B.O.
Blanton. 1999. Circulation and Larval Fish Transport within a Tidally Dominated Estuary.
Fisheries Oceanography 8: 173-189.
Cleary W.J. and A.C. Knierim. 2001. Turbidity and suspended sediment characterizations: Nixon
Channel dredging and beach rebuilding, Figure Eight Island, NC. Report submitted to
Figure Eight Beach Homeowners Association, Figure Eight Island, NC, 33 pp.
Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. (CPE). 2004. Bogue Inlet Channel Erosion Response
Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Prepared for the Town of Emerald
Isle and submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers. April 2004.
Colden, A.M. and R.N. Lipcius. 2015. Lethal and sublethal effects of sediment burial on the
eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 527: 105-117.
Compagno, L.J.V. 1984. FAO species catalogue. Vol.4. Sharks of the world. An annotated and
illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. Part 1. Hexanchiformes to
Lamniformes.
Ferguson, R.L. and L.L. Wood. 1994. Rooted Vascular Aquatic Beds in the Albemarle -Pamlico
Estuarine System. NMFS, NOAA, Beaufort, NC, Project No. 94-02, 103 pp.
Hayes, D. and P.Y. Wu. 2001. Simple approach to TSS source strength estimates. In
Proceedings of the WEDA XXI Conference, Houston, TX, June 25-27, 2001.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
21

Hayes, D., T. Crockett, T. Ward, and D. Averett. 2000. Sediment resuspension during cutterhead
dredging operations. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering
126(3):153-161.
Hettler, W.F. and A.J. Chester. 1990. Temporal Distribution of Ichthyoplankton near Beaufort
Inlet, North Carolina. Marine Ecology Progress Series 68: 157-168.
Kendall, A.W.J. and L.A. Walford. 1979. Sources and distribution of bluefish, Pomatomus
saltatrix, larvae and juveniles off the east coast of the United States. Fishery Bulletin
77:213-227.
Kirby -Smith, W.W. and J.D. Costlow. 1989. The Newport River Estuarine System. Duke
University Marine Laboratory, Beaufort, NC.
Larson, K. and C. Moehl. 1990. Fish entrainment by dredges in Grays Harbor, Washington. In:
Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific Coast fishes. C. A. Simenstad, ed.,
Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, Seattle, 102-12.
LaSalle, M.W., D.G. Clarke, J. Homziak, J.D. Lunz, and T.J. Fredette. 1991. A framework for
assessing the need for seasonal restrictions on dredging and disposal operations.
Technical Report D-91-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
McCandless, C.T., N.E. Kohler, and H.L. Pratt Jr. editors. Shark nursery grounds of the Gulf of
Mexico and the East Coast waters of the United States. Bethesda: American Fisheries
Society, Symposium 50; 2007. 402 p.
McGraw, K.A. and D.A. Armstrong. 1990. Fish Entrainment by Dredges in Grays Harbor,
Washington. pp. 113-131. In: C.A. Simenstad (ed.). Effects of Dredging on Anadromous
Pacific Coast Fishes. Workshop Proceedings, University of Washington Sea Grant, FL.
Mercer, L. P., L.R. Phalen, and J.R. Maiolo. 1990. Fishery Management Plan For Spanish
Mackerel, Fisheries Management Report No. 18 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission Washington, DC. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources Morehead City, NC, and East Carolina University Department of
Sociology and Anthropology, Greenville, NC. November 1990.
Michel, J., A.C. Bejarano, C.H. Peterson, and C. Voss. 2013. Review of biological and
biophysical impacts from dredging and handling of offshore sand. OCS Study BOEM
2013-0119 Herndon, Virginia: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management.
Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 1990. Fishery Management Plan for the
Bluefish Fishery, Prepared by Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic
State Marine Fisheries Commission in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the New England Fishery Management Council, and the South Atlantic
Management Council. Dover, Delaware. Updated February 2009; Accessed March 2011.
Nelson, D.M., E.A. Irlandi, L.R. Settle, M.E. Monaco, and L. Coston-Clements. 1991. Distribution
and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Southeast Estuaries. ELMR Rep. No. 9.
NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD. 167 p.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
22

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2016. North Carolina Coastal
Habitat Protection Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, NCDMF.
NCDMF. 2006. Stock status of important coastal fisheries in North Carolina. NCDMF, Morehead
City, NC.
NEFSC. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Summer Flounder, Paralichthys
dentatus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
September 1999.
Reine, K.J. and D.G. Clark. 1998. Entrainment by Hydraulic Dredges - A Review of Potential
Impacts. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Research And
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, DOER Tech Notes Collection (TN DOER -El ).
Ross, S.W. and S.P. Epperly. 1985. Chapter 10: Utilization of shallow estuarine nursery areas
by fishes in Pamlico Sound and adjacent tributaries, North Carolina. p. 207-232 in A.
YanezAranciba (ed.). Fish Community Ecology in Estuaries and Coastal Lagoons:
Towards and Ecosystem Integration. DR (R) UNAM Press, Mexico, 654 pp.
Schroeder, P.R. 2009. USACE Technical Guidelines for Practicing the 3Rs of Environmental
Dredging. In: Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association Twentyninth Technical
Conference and 40th Annual Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, Tempe, AZ, June 2009.
Sedberry, G.R. and R.F. Van Dolah. 1984. Demersal fish assemblages associated with hard
bottom habitat in the South Atlantic Bight of the USA. Environ. Biol. Fish. 11(1).
Settle, L. 2003. Assessment of potential larval entrainment mortality to hydraulic dredging of
Beaufort Inlet. Prepared for USACE-Wilmington District for the Morehead City Harbor
Environmental Assessment. May 2003. NOAA/NOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean
Science.
Shepherd, G.R. and D.B. Packer. 2006. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document:
Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, Life History and Habitat Characteristics 2nd edition. NOAA
Technical Memorandum, NMFS-NE-198:100.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 2011. Regulations by Species, Cobia.
Accessed March 2011.
SAFMC. 2009. Fishery Ecosystem Plan of the South Atlantic Region. SAFMC, Charleston, SC.
SAFMC. 1998. Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat
Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council. SAFMC, Charleston, SC.
SAFMC. 1983. Fishery Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Regulatory
Impact Review Final Regulations for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerels) In
The Gulf of Mexico And South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council Charleston, SC; Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Tampa, FL.
February 1983.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
23

SAFMC. 1981. Profile of the penaeid shrimp fishery in the South Atlantic. South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, 1 Southpark Cir., Ste 306, Charleston, S.C. 29407, 321 pp.
Stickney, R. 1972. Effects of Intracoastal Waterway Dredging on Ichthyofauna and Benthic
Macro- Invertebrates. Technical Report Series. No 72-4. Skidaway Institute of
Oceanography, Savannah, GA. July 1972 60 pp.
Stickney, R. and D. Perlmutter. 1975. Impact of Intracoastal Waterway maintenance dredging
on a mud bottom benthos community. Biol Consery 01/1975; 7(3):211-225.
Thayer, G.W., W.J. Kenworthy, and M.S. Fonseca. 1984. The Ecology of Eelgrass Meadows of
the Atlantic coast: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-84/02,
147 pp.
Van Dolah, R.F., D.R. Calder, and D.M. Knott. 1984. Effects of dredging and open -water disposal
on benthic macroinvertebrates in a South Carolina estuary. Estuaries 7, 28-37.
Van Dolah, R.F., D.R. Calder, D.M. Knott, and M.S. Maclin. 1979. Effects of dredging and
unconfined disposal of dredged material on benthic macroinvertebrate communities in
Sewee Bay, SC. Marine Resources Center Technical Report 39. Charleston, SC.
Weinstein, M.P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nurseries for fishes and shellfish, Cape
Fear River, NC. Fisheries Bulletin 2: 339-357.
Welp, T.L., M.W. Tubman, D.A. Wilson, and C.E. Pollock. 2017. Water Injection Dredging.
DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E20). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center.
Wilber, D.H., W. Brostoff, D.G. Clarke, and G.L. Ray. 2005. Sedimentation: Potential biological
effects from dredging operations in estuarine and marine environments. DOER Technical
Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E20). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Newport River Barge Fleeting Area Expansion July 2022
24

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
August 23, 2022
MEMORANDUM:
FROM:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
Gregg Bodnar, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
NCDEQ - Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557
Office: 252-515-5416 (Courier 11-12-09)
[e-mail]
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
Applicant: NC State Ports Authority
Project Location: 107 Arendell St, Carteret County
Proposed Project: Major Modification to Major #120-13
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Gregg Bodnar at the address above by September 20, 2022. If you have any
questions regarding the proposed project, contact Brad Connell 252-515-5415.
when appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
**Additional comments may be attached**
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
PRINT NAME
AGENCY
SIGNATURE
DATE
£ D_E
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Oual
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1400 Commerce Avenue I Moorehead City, North Carolina 28557
252.808.2808

DCM MP-1
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
(last revised 12/27/06)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
North Carolina State Ports Authority
Project Name (if applicable)
Port of Morehead City Northern Barge Fleeting area
Applicant 1: First Name
Brian
MI
E
Last Name
Clark
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address
PO Box 9002
PO Box
City
Wilmington
State
NC
ZIP
28402
Country
New Hanover
Phone No.
910 - 251 - 5678 ext.
FAX No.
- -
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
2. Agent/Contractor Information
Business Name
Dial Cordy And Associates Inc.
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
Steve
MI
Last Name
Dial
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name
James
MI
Last Name
Hargrove
Mailing Address
201 North Front St. Suite 307
PO Box
City
Wilmington
State
NC
ZIP
28401
Phone No. 1
910 - 251 - 9790 ext.
Phone No. 2
- - ext.
FAX No.
Contractor #
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
<Form continues on back>
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoastalmanagement.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple)
Carteret
Street Address
113 Arendell Street
State Rd. #
Subdivision Name
City
Morehead City
State
NC
Zip
28557 -
Phone No.
252 - 726 - 3158 ext.
Lot No.(s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
, , , ,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
Newport
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Newport River
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above,
natural or manmade?
d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
Bogue Sound, Atlantic Ocean
@ Natural EManmade EUnknown
e. Is proposed work within city limits or
planning jurisdiction?
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
work falls within.
Morehead City Limits
Yes ❑No
4. Site Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
NA
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
130,680
c. Size of individual lot(s)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
NWL (normal water level)
-4 to -14 ft ❑NHW or 0 NWL
e. Vegetation on tract
The proposed dredge footprint contains no SAV according to NCDMF's SAV maps. There is a small fringing marsh that is
located adjacent to the Action Area on Marsh Island disposal area; however, it is outside the dredge footprint by —+200 ft.
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
The Northern Barge Fleeting area contains a series of six steel pile mooring piles that are currently utilized to secure barges
within the fleeting area. The proposed project is directly adjcent to the western edge of the exisiting fleeting area with no
current or proposed structures.
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses ad acent to the proposed
project site.
USACE and the NCSPA. The single property owner in relative
In an abundance of caution, a notification letter will be
is not close to the Project Area. The closest adjacent land is
sites proposed for disposal of the dredged material.
The adjacent lands to the south function as wharfs for the
proximity to the project area is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
sent to the Morehead City Yacht Club; however, this property
Marsh Island which contains one of the dredge material management
h. How does local government zone the tract?
Industrial
i.
Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
Yes ❑No ❑NA
j. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal?
❑Yes 0 No
k. Has a professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract?
If yes, by whom?
If yes, attach a copy. EYes 0 No ❑ NA
I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District
National Register listed or eligible property?
or does it involve a ❑Yes 0 No ❑NA
<Form continues on next page>
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoastalmanagement.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site? ❑Yes 0 No
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ❑Yes 0 No
(iii) If yes to either (i) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted? ❑Yes 0 No
(Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
All proposed activity is located within the Newport River Estuary/Bogue Sound.
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
The town of Morehead City gets its drinking water from 5 wells around the county.
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
The proposed project would not result in new impervious areas requiring stormwater management and/or treatment
systems.
5. Activities and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? 0 Commercial 0 Public/Government
❑ Private/Community
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
The North Carolina State Port Authority (NCSPA) at the Port of Morehead City (POMC) is proposing to expand the existing
northern barge fleeting area to accommodate an additional 4-6 barges for the growing import iron business. The expansion
of the fleeting area is necessary due to the doubling of the business over the last few years. The barges typically consist of
300,000 to 500,000 tons of Direct Reduced Iron (DRI) or crude iron (pig iron) that is transported from the POMC to the Nucor
Steel Terminal. The barge traffic moves the equivalent of 25,000 truckloads of material each year and is a vital transportation
route for NC commerce. The increase in frequency of barge traffic puts an excessive demand on the fleeting areas thus
warranting expansion. The existing mooring dolphins are structurally able to support doubling the space by docking barges
on the west side of the northern fleeting area and no new moorings structures are being proposed.
The daily operations would include staging barges within the fleeting area. Tug boats would be used to position the barges
before being moored to the steel piles. Periodic maintenance of the barge fleeting expansion area would be accomplished by
the Port -owned water injection dredge.
c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type
of equipment and where it is to be stored.
New dredging of approximately 35,000 cy of material would be removed via one hydraulic pipeline (cutterhead) dredges or
one mechanical bucket dredge and scow systems within the dredge window of October 1st to January 31st and placed on
Marsh, Brandt, or the North Radio Island dredge material management areas
d. List all development activities you propose.
There are no development activities proposed.
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? New work for expansion of an existing
barge fleeting area.
f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? 3 ❑Sq.Ft or @Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area ❑Yes 0 No ❑NA
that the public has established use of?
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
It is expected a cutterhead dredge will be used and subsequent water and sediment slurry will be pumped into a dredge
material disposal site. It is also expected that Marsh Island disposal site will be used for the proposed action. The water
associated with the dredge slurry will be decanted through a weir system and discharged back into the waters adjacent to the
project area. All previous permit requirements will be adheared to.
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoastalmanagement.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
i. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland?
❑ Yes No ❑NA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? EYes ❑No ®NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed?
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal.
❑ Yes ®No ❑NA
<Form continues on back>
6. Additional Information
In addition to this completed application form, (MP-1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application
package to be complete. Items (a) — (f) are always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application
instruction booklet on how to properly prepare the required items below.
a. A project narrative.
b. An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view and cross -sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of the
proposed project. Is any portion already complete? If previously authorized work, clearly indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish
between work completed and proposed.
c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site.
d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties.
e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR.
f. A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such
owners have received a copy of the application and plats by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in
which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management.
Name Army Reserve Phone No. [phone]
US Army Corps of Engineers
Address 69 Darlington Ave
Wilmington, NC 28403
Name Morehead City Yacht Basin LLC Phone No. [phone]
Address 2645 Temples Point Road
Havelock, NC 28532
Name Phone No.
Address
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
NCDEQ Major CAMA 120-13 SAW 2013-01747
SAW 2017-01680
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
i. Wetland delineation, if necessary.
j. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by property owner)
k. A statement of compliance with the N.C. Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A 1-10), if necessary. If the project involves expenditure
of public funds or use of public lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
7. Certification and Permission to Enter on Land
I understand that any permit issued in response to this application will allow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review agencies to
enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up
monitoring of the project.
I further certify that the information provided in this application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoastalmanagement.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 5 of 5) APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
Date 7/5/2022 Print Name Brian E Clark
Signature
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
®DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information EDCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
❑ DCM MP-3 Upland Development
❑ DCM MP-4 Structures Information
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoastalmanagement.net

Form DCM MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet.
Access
Channel
(NLW or
NWL)
Canal
Boat Basin
Boat Ramp
Rock Groin
Rock
Breakwater
Other
(excluding
shoreline
stabilization)
Length
560
Width
415
Avg. Existing
Depth
-4 to -14
MLLW
NA
NA
Final Project
Depth
-14 MLLW
NA
NA
1. EXCAVATION
❑ This section not applicable
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in
cubic yards.
It is expected that the proposed project will remove approximately
35,000 cubic yards of course material from the 3 acre footprint.
c. (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
OWL None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
The purpose of excavating this area is to expand the existing
northern barge fleeting area to accomadate mooring additional
barges.
b. Type of material to be excavated.
Unconsolidated fine grained sediment
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
NA
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL ❑This section not applicable
a. Location of disposal area.
Marsh Island, Brant Island, or Northern Radio Island
disposal areas are contenders for the material depending
on the available space at Marsh Island. Marsh Island is the
closest in proximity and therefore the expected disposal
site.
c. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner.
e. (i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB),
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
b.
Dimensions of disposal area.
No current demension data is available for the potential
disposal sites.
d. (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, where?
f. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
❑Yes No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12/26/06

Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 2 of 3)
❑WL ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION This section not applicable
(If development is a wood groin, use MP-4 — Structures)
a. Type of shoreline stabilization:
❑Bulkhead ❑Riprap ❑Breakwater/Sill ❑Other:
c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL:
e. Type of stabilization material:
b.
d.
Length:
Width:
Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL:
f. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level. h. Type of fill material.
Bulkhead backfill Riprap
Breakwater/Sill Other
i. Source of fill material.
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
O This section not applicable
a. (i) Will fill material be brought to the site? ❑Yes ❑No
If yes,
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water
(iii) Dimensions of fill area
(iv) Purpose of fill
❑ NA
b.
(i) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh (CW),
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
❑WL ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion
controlled?
The areas proposed for receiving the dredged material are existing
disposal sites that have earthen berms to retain sediment.
c. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
❑Yes No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
b.
What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline,
backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
It is anticipated that a hydraulic pipeline (cutterhead) dredge will
be used for this project; however, a mechanical dredge could
be used and periodic maintenance would be accomplished by
the Port -owned water injection dredge.
d. (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
site? ❑Yes No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12/26/06

Date
Project Name
Port of Morehead City Northern Barge Fleeting Area Expanson
Applicant Name
Brian E Clark
Applicant Signature
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12/26/06

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
APPLICANT'S NAME: NC State Ports Authority
LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: The project is located adjacent to an island north of
107 Arendell Street in the Newport River in Morehead City, Carteret County.
Latitude: 34°43'31.60"N Longitude: 76°41'41.96"W
INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/D&F
INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Date(s) of Site Visit — 8/11/22
Was Applicant or Agent Present —No
Photos Taken — No
PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received — cc: 7/26/22
Office — MHC
SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan — Morehead City
Land Classification from LUP —Developed
(B) AEC(s) Involved: PTA, EW
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Government
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing — none
Planned - none
(F) Type of Development: Existing — mooring dolphins
Planned - dredging
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source — N/A
HABITAT DESCRIPTION: DREDGED
(A) Open Water
232,400 ft2
FILLED INCORP/SHADED
II
(E) Total Area Disturbed: 232,400 ft2
(F) Primary Nursery Area: No
(G) Water Classification: SA; HQW Open: No
(H) Cultural Resources: None
Project Summary: The applicant wishes to excavate in order to expand a mooring
facility within the Newport River for government use in Morehead City, Carteret
County.

Field Investigation Report:
NC Port Authority
Page 2
Narrative Description:
The proposal is located 550 feet to the east of Marsh Island, immediately west of the ICW, and 700
feet north of 107 Arendell Street in Morehead City, Carteret County. This location is currently
developed with six dolphin pilings to support a barge berth (ref Major Permit #120-13). This
mooring facility is for government/commercial use. The adjacent island has been utilized for the
disposal of dredge spoil material.
Water depths in the project area range from —4' to —14' nlw. This -14' nlw depth is connecting to the
ICW channel area. The subaqueous substrate is firm with shell. This proposal is located immediately
adjacent to the ICW Federal Channel. There is not a cultural resource in the project area. This
waterbody is approximately 0.5 mile across at this location. These estuarine waters are not classified
as a Primary Nursery Area. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is not present at this location. This
section of the Newport River is closed to shellfish harvest and is classified as SA; HQW.
Proposed Development:
The applicant is proposing to excavate 1 acre in order to expand a barge mooring facility within the
Newport River, in Morehead City. The proposed development would take place adjacent to 107
Arendell Street, Carteret County. This proposal is for government/commercial use.
The applicant is proposing to expand the east side of the mooring facility by excavating 35,000 cubic
yards. The proposed spoil area is yet to be determined. The proposed excavation is to be
accomplished via hydraulic dredging methodology. The proposed excavation would encompass an 1-
acre area, and would remove approximately 10' of benthic habitat in order to connect to the adjacent -
14' nlw depth of the Federal Channel.
Anticipated Impacts:
This proposed excavation should not pose a hazard to traditional navigation. However, the
eastward expansion of mooring barges may impact navigation within the ICW Federal Channel.
The proposed excavation would impact 232,400 square feet of Public Trust Area. Traditional
hydraulic dredging methodology would be utilized during the construction of this project. The
spoil area impacts are unknown at this time as the spoil site has not yet been determined.
Turbidity impacts are anticipated during the excavation activities within the Newport River.
However, the applicant is proposing to mitigate these impacts by conducting the work during the
less biologically productive periods of the winter months. This waterbody is not classified as a
Primary Nursery Area and the is no SAV present in the project area.
Brad Connell
August 23, 2022 Morehead City

NORTH CAROLINA STATE PORTS AUTHORITY
PORT OF MOREHEAD CITY
NORTHERN BARGE FLEETING AREA EXPANSION
JUNE 2022
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Proposed Action
The Proposed Action by the North Carolina State Ports Authority (NCSPA) at the Port of
Morehead City is to modify the existing Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Major Permit 120-
13 to expand the current dredge footprint of the northern barge fleeting area. The north barge
fleeting area is located in the Newport River at the Port of Morehead City (Port) in Carteret County,
North Carolina (NC). The north fleeting area is a temporary mooring facility for loaded barges
that are awaiting waterborne transport to inland destinations. Barge fleeting activity at the Port is
primarily associated with the transport of imported iron (direct reduced iron and pig iron) to the
Hertford Steel plant on the Chowan River in Cofield, NC. Iron imports at the Port have doubled
over the last several years; resulting in increased demand for barge fleeting capacity. The
proposed action would expand the north barge fleeting area from 2 to 4 acres, thereby
accommodating an additional 4 to 6 loaded barges.
Description of the Proposed Action
The north barge fleeting area is located in the Newport River -600 feet north of the northeast
corner of the Port terminal facility (Figure 1). The existing fleeting area encompasses 2.0 acres
along the western margin of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW). The authorized depth of
the existing facility matches that of the AIWW at -14 ft MLLW (12 + 2 ft of over dredge). A series
of six steel pile mooring piles are currently installed within the fleeting area. The proposed action
would expand the existing facility westward by dredging an additional 2.0 acres of subtidal bottom
to a depth of -14 ft MLLW (12 + 2 ft of over dredge) (Figure 2). An additional 1.0 acre of new
dredging would be required to construct a transitional 3:1 slope along the western margin of the
2.0-acre expansion area. In total, the proposed action would require 3.0 acres of new dredging
and the removal of an estimated 35,000 cy of material. No new mooring structures are proposed,
as the existing mooring piles are sufficient to accommodate additional barges in the expansion
area. The depth of the expansion area would be maintained through periodic maintenance
dredging expected to occur once every 2-5 years. Existing depths in the proposed new dredging
area range from -4 to -14 ft MLLW (Figure 3). The sediments to be removed from the new
Port of Morehead City Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Northern Barge Fleeting Expansion June 2022
1

dredging area are part of a uniform fine sand to silty fine sand layer that extends from the surface
to a depth of -45-ft MLLW (Catlin Engineers 2013). Construction of the barge fleeting expansion
area would employ hydraulic pipeline (cutterhead) dredges and/or mechanical bucket dredge and
scow systems. Dredged material would be placed in one of the existing Port -owned confined
disposal facilities, which include the Marsh Island, Brandt Island, and North Radio Island disposal
areas. Disposal operations for cutterhead dredging would involve direct hydraulic delivery to the
disposal area via floating and/or submerged pipeline. In the case of mechanical dredging,
disposal would involve the transport of dredged material via scow to the disposal area for
placement via mechanical means or hydraulic offloading. Periodic maintenance of the barge
fleeting expansion area would be accomplished by the Port -owned water injection dredge. Water
injection dredging (WID) injects water at low pressure into sediments; producing a high density
sediment -water mixture known as a density current that flows along the bottom via gravity to
deeper areas. A pipe manifold with a series of water injection nozzles is used to inject water into
the sediment bed. The use of water injection dredging for maintenance of the Port's existing
berths, fleeting areas, and turning basins is currently authorized under the Port's existing CAMA
Major Permit.
Description of the Action Area
The north barge fleeting area is located -3 miles from the Atlantic Ocean in the lower Newport
River Estuary between Morehead City and Beaufort in Carteret County, NC. The lower Newport
River Estuary is a shallow, tidally -controlled system with an average depth of -3 feet MLLW.
Mean tidal range in the lower estuary is 3.1 feet, and salinities approach those of seawater (34
ppt) (Kirby -Smith and Costlow 1989). The proposed new dredging area is located between the
AIWW federal navigation channel and the Marsh Island disposal area. The AIWW navigation
channel is maintained at a width of 250 feet and depth of 12 + 2 ft MLLW. The Marsh Island
disposal area consists of diked uplands that are partially surrounded by unconfined tidal
saltmarsh. Benthic habitats within the proposed new dredging area consist of sandy
unconsolidated bottom. The surrounding Newport River Estuary contains a complex assemblage
of intertidal and shallow subtidal estuarine habitats; including sandy shoals, shellfish beds,
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds, and tidal saltmarsh.
Potential Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action
A summary of effects on fish and fish habitat within the action area is provided below. An EFH
Assessment and a Biological Assessment that have been prepared for the Corps of Engineers
are available upon request.
Water Column
The proposed dredging and maintenance associated with expanding the northern barge fleeting
area may have minor effects on the estuarine water column through localized sediment
suspension and associated increases in turbidity. The sediments to be excavated from the new
Port of Morehead City Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Northern Barge Fleeting Expansion June 2022
2

dredging area consist predominantly of relatively coarse sands that would resettle rapidly to the
bottom. Thus, it is expected that sediment suspension by either a cutterhead or bucket dredge
would primarily be confined to the immediate vicinity of the new dredging footprint. Water injection
dredging (WID) injects water at low pressure into sediments; producing a high density sediment -
water mixture known as a density current that flows along the bottom via gravity to deeper areas.
Monitoring results for multiple projects in the US indicate that WID-induced sediment suspension
is principally confined to the lower water column within 2 to 5 feet of the bottom (Welp et al. 2017).
It is expected that suspended fine sediments would be rapidly dispersed by currents in the
contiguous AIWW navigation channel, thus limiting the duration of any adverse effects on water
quality and federally managed species. The proposed project construction window of 1 October
- 31 January would avoid peak periods of larval ingress and estuarine -dependent juvenile
abundance in the vicinity of the action area, thus minimizing the exposure of estuarine and marine
fish and invertebrate species to sediment suspension effects. In the specific case of WID, the
potential for upstream sediment transport into the New River Estuary would be minimized by
conducting WID only on falling tides. Based on these considerations, it is expected that any
adverse effects on water quality and estuarine and marine fish and invertebrate species would be
minor and short-term.
Larval Entrainment
In the case of cutterhead pipeline dredging, the proposed action would affect estuarine -dependent
fish and invertebrate species by entraining planktonic eggs and larvae that occur in the vicinity of
the dredge pipe suction field. However, the results of larval entrainment modeling in Beaufort
Inlet indicate that dredge entrainment rates are extremely low regardless of inlet larval
concentrations and the distribution of larvae within the water column (Settle 2003). Even under
worst case model scenarios when the dredge was assumed to be operating 24 hours/day and all
larvae were assumed to be concentrated in the bottom of the navigation channel, projected
entrainment rates barely exceeded 0.1 % of the daily (24-hour) larval flux through the inlet. The
proposed new dredging area is located above Beaufort Inlet in the relatively broad Newport River
Estuary where it is expected that the distribution of planktonic eggs and larvae would be relatively
diffuse. Furthermore, the proposed project construction window of 1 October - 31 January would
avoid the peak larval ingress period at Beaufort Inlet. Based on all of the above considerations,
it is anticipated that the effects of egg/larval entrainment on populations of estuarine -dependent
fish and invertebrate species would be negligible.
Unconsolidated Bottom
New dredging would directly impact 3.0 acres of unconsolidated bottom habitat in the barge
fleeting expansion area. Existing bottom depths ranging from -4 to -13 ft MLLW would be
increased to -14 ft MLLW. Initial construction and subsequent maintenance dredging events
would remove the existing benthic infaunal invertebrate community, thereby temporarily reducing
the availability of prey for federally managed demersal fishes such as summer flounder and
estuarine -dependent species of the snapper -grouper complex. However, studies of benthic
community recovery in shallow estuarine navigation channels along the southeastern coast have
reported rapid recovery within two to six months (Van Dolah et al. 1984 and 1979, Stickney and
Perlmutter 1975, and Stickney 1972). These studies indicate that recolonization via slumping of
Port of Morehead City Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Northern Barge Fleeting Expansion June 2022
3

adjacent undisturbed sediments into the dredged channel is an important recovery mechanism.
Van Dolah et al. (1984) also attributed relatively rapid recovery to rapid infilling by sediments that
were similar in composition to the extracted material and avoidance of spring benthic invertebrate
recruitment periods. Existing surficial sediments in the new dredging footprint are part of a uniform
fine sand layer that extends to a depth of -45 ft MLLW, thus the proposed action would not be
expected to alter sediment composition. Maximum bottom depth increases of -10 feet would not
be expected to alter benthic community composition within the new dredging area. The proposed
project construction window (01 October - 31 January) would avoid peak benthic invertebrate
recruitment periods; thus, facilitating relatively rapid recovery with the onset of spring recruitment.
Based on all of the above considerations, it is anticipated that effects on estuarine unconsolidated
bottom habitats and associated estuarine and marine fish and invertebrate species would be
minor and short-term.
Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks
NCDMF benthic habitat maps do not identify any shell bottom areas within or immediately
adjacent to the proposed new dredging area. Thus, no direct impacts on shell bottom habitats
would be expected. The only mapped shell bottom area in the vicinity of the project area is a
narrow linear shell bottom feature along the shoreline of Marsh Island -300-ft west of the new
dredging footprint. Fine sediments that are suspended by the dredging process may be
transported outside of the active dredging area, potentially affecting shell bottom areas through
redeposition. Heavy sediment redeposition can impact oysters by inhibiting larval attachment to
hard substrates and reducing the respiration and feeding rates of juveniles and adults (Wilber and
Clarke 2010). However, according to Colden and Lipcius (2015), eastern oysters that were
subjected to experimental sediment deposition did not exhibit significant mortality or sublethal
effects until at least 70% of the shell height was buried. As previously described, the sediments
to be excavated from the new dredging area consist predominantly of relatively coarse fine sands
that would resettle rapidly to the bottom. Thus, it is expected that sediment suspension by either
a cutterhead, bucket, or water injection dredge would primarily be confined to the immediate
vicinity of the new dredging footprint. Therefore, it is expected that the effects of dredging -induced
sediment suspension and redeposition on oyster reefs and associated estuarine and marine fish
and invertebrate species would be minor and short-term.
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
NCDMF SAV maps do not identify any SAV within or immediately adjacent to the proposed new
dredging area. Thus, no direct impacts on SAV would be expected. Small patches of SAV are
identified along the western shoreline of Marsh Island opposite the proposed dredging area
(Figure 4). Fine sediments that are suspended by the dredging process may be transported
outside of the active dredging area, potentially affecting SAV through increases in turbidity and/or
sediment redeposition. However, as previously described, it is anticipated that the predominance
of relatively coarse sand in the new dredging area would limit sediment suspension to the
immediate vicinity of the active work area. Therefore, it is expected that any adverse effects on
SAV and associated estuarine and marine fish and invertebrate species from dredging -induced
sediment suspension and redeposition would be minor and short-term.
Port of Morehead City Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Northern Barge Fleeting Expansion June 2022
4

State -Designated Fish Nursery Areas
There are no Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) or Secondary Nursery Areas (SNAs) in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed new dredging area. Designated PNAs that are nearest to the
proposed new dredging area are located -1.3 miles to the northwest in small tributaries of the
Newport River (Calico Creek and Crab Point Bay) (Figure 5). The nearest additional PNAs and
SNAs are located in the Newport River -4 miles upstream of the proposed new dredging area.
No effects on PNAs or SNAs are anticipated.
The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and
complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. The project proponent hereby requests that the
certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the
applicable reasonable period of time.
Port of Morehead City Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Northern Barge Fleeting Expansion June 2022
5

6.1104
BOGUE SOUND
nonC na p Q>wx
6 aw
9
� . a_
+3
K
-• -.� 1 21
$tl 91 22
96 Project Location i yA
CS ��..� ffi 21a
�sn ,P .; er to s
2.
ep 00
W x au a'�n °'
;+evert .:o 51 A.._...'.,.1
. 5
90 45 41
50 51 66 NM
`9ae.90/64.4 f NMASR_
•'Y`�1 f,700
as
a
S FA
5C
50
5,
-sr
as
9:
jsa 94
31 90
a0 11
57 ▪ 93 .a pa as
s+ 50 • cs I'r a
R 82.53 /. + RFYm u ae
41
RQ "?V 41 47
81
$$1i 56 ▪ 5!f 5a0S RESTRICTED AFEA °a
•8 (50 CFR 22i.54:5; sea note 8)
50 +3 54 58 Q : f 51 '++ 5, 51 47
w 40 41 .6 OCO J A.2- .6..
IS! .-..r:, 0 f -S ;t P.YW 800261/327.4991
ee
'SS' "
05
as
Tr.
THE
41
.3
cam. Q'aR
Paw Saar
Figure 1. Project Location and Proposed Action Area
Port of Morehead City
Northern Barge Fleeting Expansion
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
June 2022
6

Marsh Island
Disposal Area
Existing -14-ft Fleeting Area
Proposed -14-ft Expansion Area
Proposed 3:1 slope
Figure 1. North Barge Fleeting Area Expansion Layout
Port of Morehead City
Northern Barge Fleeting Expansion
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
June 2022
7

O
O
CO
CO
0
M
m
M
O
a
m
N
M
O
4.0
0
CO
N
CO
0
m
M
0
N
CO
CO
N
N
so
C1
2692400 2692600
ViMyr
1 �1� ,4 �D
. ILithiir !1
' 18 ir‘7" 1
a ? 00
11 totit,
I,
Id
owitaisomi
oi161og witioxfs-**%%
et1\Tl
, 1 oisw r.11
111
e,
a
so
M
0
N
O
C]
N
N
so
C1
A -A' Bathymetric Profile Graph
4 5
6
Existing Bathymetry Profile
7
8
9
Proposed Bathymetry Profile
1
3:1
l
Proposed Fleeting Area Existing Fleeting Area
2
a
Area
3
1
J
1
1
1 1 1 1 1
4
6
- 10
0 12
-14
16
1
O 50 100 150 200
Distance (feet)
B - B' Bathyn' tric Profile Graph
250
300
Existing Bathymetry Profile
Proposed Bathymetry Profile
Slope
Area
Proposed Fleeting Area
'—.i, Existing Fleeting Area
O
100 150 200
Distance (feet)
C - C' Bathyrretric Profile Graph
0
Existing Bathymetry Profile
Proposed Bathymetry Profile
31
Slope
Area
Proposed Fleeting Area Existing Fleeting Area
1
1 1 1 1
O 50 100 150 200
Distance (feet)
250
300
Legend
Profile Location
Barge Fleeting Area
Existing Fleeting Area
Proposed Fleeting Area
Proposed 3:1 Slope
l /1
ILN1
1ft Contour (MLLIN
Elevation (MLLW)
Value
- High : -2
Low :-30
0
150
300
450
e
600
Feet
Figure 3. Northern Barge Fleeting Expansion Area — Existing and Proposed
Bathymetry
Port of Morehead City
Northern Barge Fleeting Expansion
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
June 2022
8

Aillir\-'2\----\ti
1
Ray StA
�
Fisher St
ad City
7D
West rid of
rloaf
and
iiirif
Morehead
City
Harbor
aft
\
>
O ft g}
old Cau
Hw9 70 Radio Is
AP r
n
0
oft
6/14/2022
• NC SAV Mosaic 1981 to 2015
"" ""'
1:23,222
0 0,15 0.3 0,5re
ILI
,
0 0,25 0,5 1 km
Sources: Esri, Airbus DS. USGS. NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS.
NLS, CS, NMA, Geotlatestyrelsen, RiJkswaterstaat, GSA, Geolend_ FEMA.
Entermap and the GIS user community, Sources: Esrl, HERE. Garmin. FAO.
NOAA, USGS, C: Ope,,StreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 Barge Fleeting Expansion Area
Figure 4. NCDMF SAV Map
Port of Morehead City
Northern Barge Fleeting Expansion
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
June 2022
9

nt
Village
F n
�G'
t
z Ra'
ad City Crab Point
Club N k
o
nde 5
Morehead City
�
r
m
Money
Island
Atlantic Beach Buy
(
Morehead
City
Harbor
n
t
y
a
s
a, 'a
V
22
sad �1
Michael J Smith
Field El
Steep Pine
Fork
FiRi
Beaufort
Cr
C �onfJ
,,
Want s,
0
Buck
Sound
6/14/2022
FNA NCDMF - Fishery Nursery Areas
Primary Nursery Areas
Secondary Nursery Areas
Barge Fleeting Expansion Area
1:60,112
0 0.42 0.85 1 .7 mi
I
I ,
0 0.5 I 2 km
Solaces', Esrl, Airbus OS, LOGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS,
NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA,
Intermap and the GIS user community, Sources: Esri, HERE. Garmin, FAO,
NOAA, U5G5, V open51ree1Map contributors, and the 515 User community
Figure 2. State -Designated Fish Nursery Areas
Port of Morehead City
Northern Barge Fleeting Expansion
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
June 2022
10

References
Colden AM, Lipcius RN (2015) Lethal and sublethal effects of sediment burial on the eastern
oyster Crassostrea virginica. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 527:105-
117. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11244
Kirby -Smith, W.W. and J.D. Costlow. 1989. The Newport River Estuarine System. Duke
University Marine Laboratory, Beaufort, NC.
Settle, L. 2003. Assessment of potential larval entrainment mortality to hydraulic dredging of
Beaufort Inlet. Prepared for USACE-Wilmington District for the Morehead City Harbor
Environmental Assessment. May 2003. NOAA/NOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean
Science.
Stickney, R. 1972. Effects of Intracoastal Waterway Dredging on Ichthyofauna and Benthic
Macro- Invertebrates. Technical Report Series. No 72-4. Skidaway Institute of
Oceanography, Savannah, GA. July 1972 60 pp.
Stickney, R. and D. Perlmutter. 1975. Impact of Intracoastal Waterway maintenance dredging
on a mud bottom benthos community. Biol Consery 01/1975; 7(3):211-225.
Van Dolah, R.F., D.R. Calder, and D.M. Knott. 1984. Effects of dredging and open -water disposal
on benthic macroinvertebrates in a South Carolina estuary. Estuaries 7, 28-37.
Van Dolah, R.F., D.R. Calder, D.M. Knott, and M.S. Maclin. 1979. Effects of dredging and
unconfined disposal of dredged material on benthic macroinvertebrate communities in
Sewee Bay, SC. Marine Resources Center Technical Report 39. Charleston, SC.
Welp, T.L., M.W. Tubman, D.A. Wilson, and C.E. Pollock. 2017. Water Injection Dredging.
DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E20). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center.
Wilber, D.H., W. Brostoff, D.G. Clarke, and G.L. Ray. 2005. Sedimentation: Potential biological
effects from dredging operations in estuarine and marine environments. DOER Technical
Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E20). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center.
Port of Morehead City Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Northern Barge Fleeting Expansion June 2022
11