20151119 Ver 1_DCM Comments_20151116

( t�4
k1d
3t
PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
5cnrttuy
v;f onow;I 1[7(
C ILI (llif )'
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Heather Coats, DCM Assistant Major Permit Coordinator
FROM: Gregg Bodnar, DCM Fisheries Resource Specialist .
THROUGH: Dough.uggetft,D�fyl`)MajorpermitCoordinator
/
SUBJECT: NC State Port Authority 47-87MM
DATE: November 16, 2015
A North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) Fisheries Resource Specialist has reviewed the
subject permit application for proposed actions that impact fish and fish habitats. The applicant
proposes to relocate an existing docking facility and perform new dredging at the Port of Wilmington
(POW). The waters are classified as Primary Nursery Area (PNA), Anadromous Fish Spawning Area
(AFSA), Secondary Recreation (SC), and are closed to shellfish harvest.
PNA's are estuarine waters where initial post -larval development occurs. Species within this area are
early post -larval to juvenile and include finfish, crabs, and shrimp. Species inhabit PNA's because they
afford food, protection, and proper environmental conditions during vulnerable periods of their life
history, thus protection of these areas are imperative.
Greater than 75% of recreationally and commercially important fisheries off of the southeastern Atlantic
coast have an estuarine component (Fox 1992). Spawning for many of these species occurs in the fall to
winter along the continental shelf, with larval ingress to nearshore habitats such as the surf zone and
through inlets to the estuary (Miller 1998; Ortner et a1. 1999). Dredging can cause the resuspension of
sediment that will create an increase in turbidity, and resuspension of sediments and toxins (DMF 1999).
Larvae and juveniles, especially filter feeding species; have a higher sensitivity to turbidity than adults
(West et al. 1994). An increase in suspended sediments can result in clogged gill surfaces and mortality,
and can cover oysters, SAV, and other sessile fauna and flora. In eutrophic systems an increase in
nutrients through bottom disturbances can result in algal blooms and hypoxia (Corbett et al. 2004; DMF
Nothing Compares'
sale nl Notlh t:vn6na I Il,rviro9menlal Madily
v,ol Mail<emice C""" I thiel,',. Nurlh 0,0in::276N-101
919407-swo
ir�.b411 u* „1 ( L Ire,. r'r ;1✓� ' ii'�i ,• _

PAT MCCRORY
;�_� •, DONALD R. VAN DER VAAR'f
Serr:am r
J(fUfa �•
1999; Paed et al. 1998). To protect such sensitive areas, Coastal Resources Commission rules prohibit
most new dredging in PNA.
In addition this portion of the Cape Fear River has been designated as AFSA. AFSA's have evidence of
anadromous fish spawning through direct observation, capture of running ripe females, or indication of
eggs or early larvae. Anadromous species within the Cape Fear River include American and hickory
shad, striped bass, river herring, American eel and both Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon.
The area of PNA proposed for dredging is within the Kinder Morgan bulk offloading facility and the Port
of Wilmington (POW) turning basin. The area receives large volumes of prop wash from tug boats as
they maneuver container ships to the port and to the berthing area of the bulk offloading/docking
facility immediately adjacent to the POW. The POW performs maintenance agitation dredging at the
northern end of the facility, directly adjacent to the proposed site. The proposed dredge cut will create
considerable sloughing and redistribution of the remaining shallow water sediment that will cause
deepening and further loss of productivity. The applicant identifies a dredge cut of -42ft at mean low
water (MLW). DISCUssions with the Army Corp of Engineers identified that the maintained channel that
wool(] be considered connecting waters is maintained at -38ft at MLW. The shallower depth of
connecting waters (-38ft at MLW) is recommended to prevent creating a depression that could cause
stagnate waters. Overall the area has been highly developed and routinely impacted by large vessels
utilizing the POW as a hub for commerce in the state. Due to Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) rules
relating to new dredging within PNA, there is a technical denial based on rule making.
The applicant does state the willingness to provide mitigation for the degradation of PNA habitat. There
are concerns with mitigation for PNA loss because PNA is defined, partially, by the species that utilize
the habitat, and characteristics of the habitat itself. Therefore PNA can vary in composition, and
mitigation for each case can be subjective. Scale of mitigation examples include replacement of these
characteristics to an area that no longer exhibits them or restoring access to areas that alteration has
made inaccessible or reduced its productivity. It should also be noted that a mitigation option should
never become the norm to validate the loss of PNA or other highly valued habitats.
The applicant proposes to place a 13.4 acre tract of land on the Brunswick River into a conservation
easement and provide $750,000 to complete the placement of a fish passage at Lock and Dam 42 on the
Cape Fear River. The fish passage mitigation, though not in-kind, does restore access to habitat that has
been denied though alteration. It is recommended that additional discussions with interested agencies
be initiated to discuss these options.
Noihfng C:ampares'. -.
Slate nl Nnilh Guu"All a ! rnvironmcnt, l Q -11IRY
bu�uhil5enie. frntmi P+Iniy6, Notlh Caloh, 776991,01
91 �r 101, s:wo
�! � EN

yr4 t17�
r L:
�t
Quidit y
EFFI and BA Document Concerns
PAT MCCRORY
0111111131
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
seurtwr
Throughout the EFH document the proposed impacted footprint ranges from 8.34, 8.43 and 8.53
acres. The official disturbed footprint acreage should be verified.
In the mitigation section the applicant states river and tributary miles that will be restored with the
creation of fish passages at Lock and Dams #2 and 43. The documents have no mention of the
creation of a fish passage at Lock and Dam 43 as mitigation. If restoration efforts at Lock and Dam
#3 are proposed, then it should be identified.
Dredging effects are compared to the amount of soft bottom habitat affected within the Cape Fear
River (0.02 percent). Since this is PNA habitat as well, it should be mentioned that the Cape Fear
River has approximately 17,857 acres of PNA, resulting in approximately 0.048 percent of PNA
habitat affected. The EFH document describes the dredging impacts as a very small area due to a
short-term event. In fact this area will be significantly and permanently altered due to the proposed
depth and maintenance activities. PNA habitat is characterized by shallow estuarine waters where
depth limits potential predation. The excavation potentially alters this characteristic, thereby
permanently degrading the habitat.
In summary the proposed activities has the potential to permanently alter the shallow PNA habitat into
a maintained deep water soft bottom, degrading the PNA habitat. The applicant sites the need to widen
the turning basin to accommodate larger vessels that will increase the POW's accessibility and maintain
the POW as a hub of state commerce. Due to CRC rules this results in a technical denial. The area's
functionality is impaired due to surrounding development, impacts by prop wash from maneuvering
vessels, maintenance agitation dredging adjacent to the location and the offloading of bulk transports.
Mitigation is proposed, though this option should never become the norm to validate the loss of PNA or
other highly valued habitats.
Should a permit be authorized, DCM recommends an AFSA moratorium on in water work, to include
dredging, from 1 February to 30 June, to include an observer posted during dredging operations as
described in the applicant's EFH document. This moratorium reduces the negative effects on critical
fish life history activities, to include spawning migrations and nursery functions. Due to the potential for
both species of sturgeon to inhabit the local area, this moratorium is recommended. In addition, the
best managernent/good engineering practices described in both the EFH and BA documents, to include
those that reduce turbidity, should be conditioned.
Contact Gregg Bodnar at [phone] ext. 213 orgreggbodnar rr ncd(MLLOv_ with further questions
or conce) ns.
"-"Nothing C:c»ryaares::...-
'ilnle of Notlh C.mulin:� (ruvlronrtianl.d duality
IIOf Mrd Servi,e Center N.Hcigh, IVotlli CartriLm x7099-ICUI
9197U/ 111,-00

PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
senr6¢t
Corbett, D. R., T. West, L. Clough, and H. Daniels. 2004. Potential impacts of bottom trawling on water
column productivity and sediment transport processes. NC SeaGrant, Raleigh, NC, NC SeaGrant
Project No, 01 -EP -04, 57p.
DMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries), 1999. Shrimp and crab trawling in North Carolina's
estuarine waters. DENR, Morehead City, NC, Report to NC Marine Fisheries Commission, 121p.
Fox, W.W. 1992. Stemming the tide! challenges for conserving the nation's coastal fish habitats. Pages 9-
12 in R.N. Stroud, editor. Stemming the tide of coastal fish habitat loss. National Coalition for
Marine Conservation, Savanah, Georgia.
Miller, J.M. 1998. Physical processes and the mechanisms of coastal migrations of immature marine
fishes. Pages 68-76 in M.P. Weinstein, editor. Larval fish and shellfish transport through inlets.
American Fisheries Society, Symposium 3, Bethesda, Maryland.
Ortner, P.B.; L. Crowder, D. Hoss. 1999. The South Atlantic Bight recruitment experiment: introduction
and overview. Fisheries Oceanography 8: 1-6.
Paerl, FI. W., J. Pinckney, J. Fear, and B. Peierls. 1998. Ecosystem response to internal watershed organic
matter loading: Consequences for hypoxia in the eutrophying Neuse River Estuary, North
Carolina. Marine Ecological Progress Series 166: 17-25.
" lVothiny tot spares:=,
Syne of �6n ib(amlhm � Cnv!nvlm¢nlal Quality
I h,U flail Seiein Ge:u1 !616,1, h,ILI, U,.Iml)]699. 11,01
919 262 x:600
al (`.•'I