19900243 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19900101

{*: e oa STATF o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
April 17, 1990
Thomas C. Suermann, Lieutenant Colonel
Corps of Engineers, District Engineer
Wilmington District
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Lt. Col. Suermann:
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal
Clean Water Act,
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Long Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
New Hanover and Brunswick Counties
Attached hereto are two (2) copies of Certification No. 2452
issued to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated April 17,
1990.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
edrge T. Everett
rector
Attachments
cc: Wilmington Regional Office
Mr. William Mills
Mr. John Parker
Polludon Prewntilon Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
NORTH CAROLIN
New Hanover and Brunswick Counties
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the
requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500
to.the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to an application
filed on the 11th day of April, 1988 and amended on the 11th day
of October, 1989 to perform long-maintenance of Wilmington
Harbor.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the
discharge of dredged and fill material into the waters of Cape
Fear River and Northeast Cape Fear River and adjacent` wetlands in
conjunction with the proposed long-term maintenance of the harbor
in New Hanover and Brunswick Counties will not result in a
violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge
guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies that
this activity will not violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307
of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the
application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as
to prevent significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the
turbidity in the Stream is 25 NTU`s or less are not
considered significant).
2. That silt fences and other erosion controls be in
place prior to any earthen movement in the area of
the wetlands.
3. That barge,overflow and hopper dredge overfilling
should only be used in areas where sediments are
predominantly sand and only in areas that are out-
side Primary Nursery Areas. Overflow operations
should be closely monitored to insure that
turbidity levels remain below 25 NTU. Overflow
should be discontinued if these levels are
exceeded.
4. The discharge of effluent from upland diked
disposal areas shall meet the requirements of
General Certification No. 1273.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certification.

This Certification shall become null and void unless the
above conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
This the 17th day of April, 1990.
WQC# 2452
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
eorge T. Everett, Director

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 5, 1989
To: Bill Mills
Planning Branch
From: James H. Gregson
Wilmington Region&l Office
Through: Preston Howard
Wilmington Regional Office
Subject: Regional Office Review and.Recommendations
Application for Permit for Excavation and/or Fill
Project # 8911-M
U.S. Army COE / Final EIS
Long Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor,
New Hanover and Brunswick Counties
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed is a 50 year maintenance plan for
Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina.
ADJACENT WATER BODY : Cape Fear River
CLASSIFICATION: SC
STATUS: Closed
The project has been reviewed to determine impacts to water
quality. The following comments have been provided.
The project will require a 401 Certification and that
certification should include the following conditions for grading
the shoreline and dike construction at areas 11-13, for the
construction of a permanent road at site 18, for the discharge of
decant water from the overfilling of hopper dredges and from
barge overflow in the bucket and barge operations.
1. That the proposed project should be done in such a way
as to not cause the turbidity outside the immediate
dredging or construction area to exceed 25 NTU.
2. That silt fences and other erosion controls be in place
prior to any earthen movement in the area of the
wetlands.

8911-M. DEC
Page Two
3. Barge overflow and hopper dredge overfilling should
only be used in areas where the sediments are
predominately sand and only in areas that are outside
Primary Nursery Areas. Overflow operations should be
closely monitored to insure that turbidity levels
remain below 25 NTU. Overflow should be discontinued
if these levels are exceeded.
The proposed discharge of liquid effluent from diked
disposal areas should meet the requirements of General
Certification #1273.
This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
JHG:9011-M.DEC
cc: DCM - Stephen Benton
Jim Gregson
WiRO, CF
-,:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form
end ver
Project Number: County: - Date:
b-0333 - 0 rGth5ccJrc?/, Jl a°2 8?

%?,- - u?\-k k,4
? Project located in 7th floor library
Date Response D (fir deadline):
Z7M 9
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
'Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Air Coastal Management Water Planning

?
Mooresville water Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Groundwater Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? Other (specify)
?/ ? Coastal Management Consultant ? Parks and Recreation
L?QWilmington
// \\ ? Others
,Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
ETURN TO:
Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
0:
Normal Process
Time

PERMITS,
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)

Permit to drill ex
lorator
oil or
as
ell File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
p
g
y
w conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (N/A)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
State Lakes Construction Permit _ Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15-20 days
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership (N/A)
of riparian property.

401 Water Quality Certification
N/A 60 days
(130 days)

CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$10.00 fee must accompany application 55 days
(180 days)

CAMA Permit for MINOR development
$10.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(60 days)
O Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
* Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
reviewer signature agency date
REGIONAL OFFICES
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
? Mooreeville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
9 v -G) 33 _? 1 ;?, -1,)-P
After review of this project it has been.determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office. T.
PERMITS-
-
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
(statutory time
- limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90-120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (N/A
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(NIA)
7 days
Well Construction Permit N/A
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner. 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources N/A (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A
prior to demolition.
(90 days)

Complex Source Permit required under 15 NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation control plan
will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 days before begin activity.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR as shown:
Any area mined greater than one acre must be permited.
AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Mining Permit Less than 5 acres $ 2,500
5 but less than 10 acres 5,000
10 but less than 25 acres 12,500 (60 days)
25 or more acres 5,000
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities N/A (NIA)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, 30 days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a (N/A)
404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
Ps•ios Continued on reverse
r STA7F
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary 11/27/89 Director
'
d 7: {'
Mr. Jim Gregson 6, ` N C y
NC DEH&NR ag
Div. Environmental Management NOV 29 1989
.7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403 nF;-?'
REFERENCE: CD89-21
Applicant/Sponsor: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CESAW-89-0007 Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
Dear Mr. Gregson:
The attached Consistency Determination, dated 11/09/89
describing a proposed Federal Activity is being circulated to
State agencies for comments concerning the proposal's consistency
with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Please indicate your viewpoint on the proposal and return this
form to me before 12/18/89
Sin,E rely
S/ hen'-
Consistency Coordinator
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office supports the project proposal.
No Comment.
Signed
Date
Agency
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
4

Lr7
NOTE: CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT AND FINAL EIS ARE INDICATED IN BOLD TYPE.
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for
The Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina
October 1989
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 Major Conclusions and Fincings. A 50 year maintenance plan has been
developed for Wilmington Harbor for dredging the project to authorized
dimensions and disposing the dredged material in a technically feasible and
environmentally sound manner. Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor is justifies
based on the economic value of the harbor to the region, state and nation ano
lack.of significant adverse impacts on the environment. The estimated full
time equivalent -obs throughout North Carolina attributed to the harbor at
Wilmington was 5y1000 in 1982. Revenue derived from the port in 1982 incl:;ded
approximately $900,000,000 in total salaries and benefits and. $117,000,00C, in
local and state axes.
Potential adverse impacts associated with continued maintenance center
around disposal of 2.3 million cubic yards of dredged material annually. .'-
impact is minimized since all disposal areas selected for the 50 year
maintenance plan have previously been used for the disposal of dredges
material.
1.2 Areas of Controversy. The only controversy concerns the disposal of
dredged material in a previously used disposal site (site 18) in the upstream
segment of the harbor.
1.3 Unresolved issues. There are no unresolved issues.
.1.4 Relationship of Proposed Action to Environmental Requirements. Table
summarizes the relationship of the proposed action to Federal, state and *local
requirements.
described in section 4.5.1. The USACE proposed maintenance activities are
consistent with these classifications. See section 5.6 for the consistency
determination. for the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
5.5.2 Projected Port Growth, Income ano Employment.' Without the maintenance,
of Wilmington Harbor, the employment and related income, commerce, and
revenues (section 4.5) would be severely impacted and eventually the port
would close due to shoaling in the river. This would also result in the
irreversible and irretrievable loss of the following projected port, growth
From the National Waterways Study (1981) projections, for all commodities
handled for the South Atlantic Coast, from the base year of 1977 through the
year 2003, indicate an increase of 16.3 percent, for an annual compound growth
rate of 0.6 percent. These projections are shown in figure 24. The general
trend is toward reduced petroleum products movements and increases in
chemicals and in the pulp and paper group. This follows generally the trend
of recent years for product movements through Wilmington Harbor. P.
relationship between port activities and economic growth of the Wilmington
area was indicated in the Corps' feasibility report for. improvements to
Wilmington Harbor (US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District 1979), in
this report commerce through the port was considered a determinant to total
income and population growth in the area.
While this report projected significant tonnage growth from 1976 to 1986,
actual tonnage has decreased. Future projections working from a 1982-86 base
of 5-6 million tons per year would also be expected to increase, but no growth
rates have been developed.
The Research 'triangle Institute (RTI 1983) conservatively projected
tonnage through the NCSPA facilities to increase at an average annual compound
rate of 3.1 percent between the years 1980 and 2000, assuming only two
container cranes in operation. (Currently, there are three. In November 1989,
two additional cranes are planned to begin operation.) Therate would vary
from 4.2 percent annually from 1980 to 1990and 1.9 percent between 1990 and
2000. Additional informationt on the economic value of Wilmington Harbor is
included in Appendix D of the final EIS:
5.5.3 Recreation and Esthetics. In the future, pipeline dredging activities
and use of disposal islands in the lower river will be reduced. This will
reduce some of the congestion caused by pipelines, thus improving recreation
use. As disposal on the islands is eliminated or reduced, succession will
take place and the esthetics of the lower river will also improve.
Dredging and disposal activities in the upper river will not change
significantly from the past over the 50 year planning period. The height of
the dikes around areas 15, 16 and 18 will be increased but, the disposal areas
proposed for use under this maintenance plan are isolated from view and their -
use, therefore, should have minimal impacts on the esthetics of the region.
5.6 Consistency Determination for the North Carolina Coastal Management'
Program. <Based on the information, contained in this final EIS, the long-term
maintenance of Wilmington Harbor is consistent with the Coastal Management
Program of the State of North Carolina.
84
a

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
CESAW-PD-E-89-N-10-65-0007
November 9, 1989
PUBLIC NOTICE
LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE OF WILMINGTON HARBOR
NEW HANOVER AND BRUNSWICK COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
A final environmental impact statement (FEIS) has been prepared to present
the proposed 50-year maintenance plan for Wilmington Harbor and to identify
the environmental effects of the plan. This maintenance plan involves
dredging the project to authorized dimensions and disposing of the dredged
material in a technically feasible and environmentally sound manner. The
draft environmental impact statement for this action was issued in March 1988.
This project has been reviewed under the following laws:
a. Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217).
b. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347).
c. The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 472a et seq.), the
Migratory Marine Game-Fish Act (16 U.S.C. 760c-760g), and the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 661-666c).
d. The.National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 915,
16 U.S.C. 470).
e. Sections 307(c)(1) and (2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(1) and (2), 86 Stat. 1280).
f. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-532,
33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).
g. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (P.L. 93-205,
16 U.S.C. 1531).
h. Flood Plain Management, EO 11988 (dated May 24, 1977).
i. Protection of Wetlands, EO 11990 (dated May 24, 1977).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Wilmington Harbor project consists of a series of channels or "reaches,"
extending from the ocean bar at the mouth of the Cape Fear River to a point
1.67 miles above the Hilton Bridge at Wilmington, a total distance of 30.8
miles (figure 1). The project requires periodic maintenance (removal of
shoals) in order,to maintain an orderly, efficient, and safe flow of traffic
from the ocean to the North Carolina State Ports, public and private
facilities, and other navigation projects. The average annual volume of
dredged material is 2.3 million cubic yards. The dredged material consists
of a combination of sand, silt, and clay. These sediments are not contami-
nated, based on results of extensive toxicity and bioaccumulation tests.
For the next 50 years, the following dredging methods, disposal locations,
and schedules are proposed:
a. A hopper dredge will be used in the reaches from Bald Head Shoal to
Battery Island (inclusive) with disposal in the Wilmington designated
(52 FR 25008 et seq., August 3, 1987) ocean dredged material disposal
site-(ODMDS, area 1, located just beyond the 3 nautical mile limit of
the territorial sea).
b. A bucket and barge or hopper dredge will be used from Lower Swash to
Keg Island (inclusive) with disposal in the ODMDS.
c. A bucket and barge, hopper, or pipeline dredge will be used for Lower
Big Island with disposal in the ODMDS or areas 11 and 12.
d. A pipeline dredge will be used from Upper Big Island to the upstream
end of the project (inclusive) with disposal in areas 12, 13, 15, 16,
and 18.
e. A pipeline dredge may also be used from Snows Marsh to Keg Island
reaches (inclusive) for the next several years, since capacity is
still available in some of the islands adjacent to these reaches
(3-13)• Also, these islands may be used for disposal of dredged
material intermittently over the 50-year period if consolidation of
dredged materials provides additional capacity or if the substrate
can support higher dikes.
f. Dredging by hopper dredge in the ocean bar channels is performed
any time of the year. Dredging in the rest of the harbor is normally
scheduled to take place during the fall and winter months due to
the concern over damaging or disrupting estuarine resources during
biologically productive periods of the year. Therefore, if possible,
dredging is avoided from April 1 through September 30.
2
c.
1
All proposed disposal areas have been previously used for disposal of dredged
material. Disposal of dredged material in the vicinity of the ODMDS has
occurred for several decades from the maintenance of the lower portion of
Wilmington Harbor (approximately 800,000 cubic yards per year). Since its
designation in 1987, disposal of dredged material has occurred at the ODMDS
from the maintenance of the Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point (MOTSU,
approximately 2 million cubic yards in 1987) and from continued annual
maintenance of Wilmington Harbor. Future disposal at the ODMDS will be about
3-million-cubic yards per year (approximately 1 million from the maintenance
of Wilmington Harbor and 2 million from the maintenance of MOTSU) and will
continue indefinitely. No significant mounding or other adverse impacts have
been observed in the ODMDS.
In addition, all areas to be used for diked disposal have been completely
diked before, except for disposal areas 11-13 and 18. These areas will be
diked before use. The shorelines on the channel side of islands 11-13 are
eroding due to wind waves and boat wakes. There are scattered patches of
marsh along the shoreline but most of this marsh is also eroding. The marsh
appears to be eroding primarily due to a shoreline slope too steep for
successful long-term establishment of marsh and to a lesser degree due to wind
waves and boat wakes. In order to stabilize the shoreline to protect the
proposed dikes, the following is proposed:
The shoreline adjacent to each proposed dike (approximately 2,200
feet per island) will be graded from 10 percent (the average
present slope) down to 3 percent, which is ideal for saltmarsh
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) establishment. A 50-foot-wide
by 2,200-foot-long border of saltmarsh cordgrass would then be
planted on 1.5-foot centers in the upper intertidal zone at each
island (7.5 acres total for all three islands). A 50-foot-wide
border of salt meadow hay (Spartina patens) would then be planted
between the mean high water-(m.h.w.) line and the toe of the
proposed dike at each island (7.5 acres total for all three
islands). Wash-out areas that may occur during the first year
would be replanted. This planting should not only stabilize the
shoreline but create intertidal marsh and high marsh habitat.
This proposed marsh planting will be coordinated with appropriate
agencies and experts prior to initiation.
During the grading and diking process, a total of 6.3 acres of
high marsh and 0.5 acre of intertidal marsh at the three islands
would be lost; however, the planting indicated in the previous
paragraph would result in a net increase of 1.2 acres of high
marsh and 7.0 acres of intertidal marsh.
Site 18 (figure 1) contains 54.5 acres: 28 acres of mixed forest uplands and
26.5 acres of wetlands. Disposal of dredged material at this site is
initially proposed for the 28 acres of uplands but could impact up to 14 acres
of wooded wetlands in two ways. First, 14 acres of wetlands at the site may
be needed for the disposal of dredged material if there is an unexpected
3
increase in shoaling (figure 2). If this 14 acres of wetlands is needed for
additional disposal capacity, it would not be needed for 30 or more years. A
wetland mitigation plan would be developed then so as to result in no net loss
in quantity and quality of wetlands that exist on the site at that time.
Second, a permanent access road is needed to disposal site 18 for equipment to
build and maintain dikes. In addition, the road could be used by trucks in
order for New Hanover County (the local sponsor) to sell the dried dredged
material, or if the material is suitable, it could be used for daily cover at
the county landfill. Either way, removal of dredged material would extend the
life of the disposal site. The county will attempt to arrange, with the
adjacent property owner, for permanent upland road access to the ,site. If
this is not possible, the least adverse impact on wetlands would require the
filling of up to 1.0 acre of wooded wetlands. No separable mitigation is
required for this potential 1-acre wetland loss because of the following:
New Hanover County proposes to purchase site 18 as part of the
local sponsor's responsibility to provide dredged material
disposal areas. By means of this ownership, the local sponsor
will protect from filling, logging, draining, or other alteration
4.5 acres of wetlands in the southwest corner of the site and 8.0
acres of wetlands bordering the Northeast Cape Fear River (figure
2). In addition, the 14 acres of wooded wetlands located between
the upland and railroad will be protected by the local sponsor
from filling (except for the access road), logging, draining, or
other alteration until the area is needed (if ever) for disposal
of dredged material due to unexpected shoaling.
The overfilling of hopper dredges and the barges associated with bucket
dredging is used to displace the decant water in order to achieve a greater
solids load, which results in a more economical load. This overfilling will
continue for the hopper dredge in the ocean bar channels (Bald Head Shoal
through Battery Island Channels, inclusive) and will be initiated for the
hopper dredge and bucket and barge operations in additional channels where the
sediments are predominantly sand (i.e., Lower Swash, Snows Marsh, Horseshoe
Shoal, Reaves Point, and Upper Lilliput Channels).
The proposed action is consistent with the approved Coastal Management Program
of the State-of North Carolina. A consistency determination for the proposed
action is indicated in the FEIS, which has been sent to the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management for concurrence/nonconcurrence.
The proposed discharge of liquid effluent from diked disposal areas resulting
from the proposed pipeline dredging, although subject to review under Section
404(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977, has been determined to satisfy the
terms and conditions of Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(16) and the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management General Water Quality Certifi-
cation No. 1273, issued on November 10, 1978. A Section 401 (P.L. 95-217)
Water Quality Certificate for grading the shoreline and dike construction
4

at areas 11-13, permanent access road at site 18 and overflowing the hopper
dredge and bucket and barge operations has been requested from the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management.
No impact to cultural resources are anticipated by the proposed action since
only maintenance of existing channels is proposed and disposal is proposed in
previously used disposal areas.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that the proposed action
will have-no effect on threatened and endangered species for which they have
responsibility. The National Marine Fisheries Service indicated that hopper
dredging may effect the right whale, shortnose sturgeon, and three sea
turtles, but the proposed action will not jeopardize the continued existence
of these species. Reasonable and prudent measures to be implemented to
mitigate potential impacts are described in detail in the FEIS.
Additional information is presented in the FEIS. The FEIS is available by
contacting Mr. Frank Yelverton, Environmental Resources Branch, at the above
address or by telephone at [phone].
There is attached a list of State, Federal, and local agencies with whom this
activity is being coordinated.
The proposed transportation of this dredged material for the purpose of
disposing of it in ocean waters will be evaluated to determine that the
proposed disposing of it will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human
health, welfare, or amenities or the marine environment, ecological systems,
or economic potentialities. In making this determination, the criteria
established by the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant
to section 102(a) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972, as amended, shall be applied. In addition, based upon an evaluation of
the potential effect which the failure to utilize this ocean disposal site
will have on navigation, economic and industrial development, and foreign and
domestic commerce of the United States, an independent determination will also
be made of the need to dispose of the dredged material in ocean waters, other
possible methods of disposal, and appropriate locations for the disposal.
The decision whether to perform this work will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impact, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for
both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefits which
reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal have been balanced
against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be
relevant to the proposal have.been considered, including the cumulative
effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife
values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline
erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water
quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare
of the people.
5
r #

This public notice is being distributed to all known interested persons in
order to assist in developing facts on which a decision may be made by the
Corps of Engineers with respect to the disposal of dredged material in
navigable or ocean waters. For accuracy and completeness of record, all data
in support of, or in opposition to, the proposed work should be submitted in
writing setting forth sufficient detail to support convictions. Any person
who has an interest which may be affected by the discharge of this dredged
material may request a public hearing. The request must be submitted in
writing to the District Engineer and must clearly set forth the interest which
may be affected and the manner in which the interest may be affected by this
activity. In order for such request to be given appropriate consideration, it
should be mailed or delivered to the U.S.. Army Engineer District, Wilmington,
Post Office Box 1890, Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890, in time to be
received on or before January 5, 1990. All correspondence should refer to the
number and date of this notice.
Robert D. Volz
Major, Corps of Engineers
Deputy District Engineer
Attachments
6

+ • i
LIST OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Chairman Board of County Commissioners
Postmasters
Mayors
Marine Science Council
Water Resources Research Institute
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Assistant US Attorney
US Geological Survey
National Marine Fisheries Service
US Coast Guard
Regional Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Director of the National Park Service
Regional Shellfish Consultant
Office of Chief of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
All United States Senators and Representatives for State of North Carolina
US Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Regional Director, Environmental Protection Agency
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
NC State Clearinghouse and Information Center
a - S
i
K
(Liozi L 3vn9id No sanmlN0? 3N11 HD1MW
r: •
T, f•
O M

(4
W UA
Cie cc
Q Q
00 CC \ -CC -
LLLU W
CC 1%
Q Q
a
W
Oc
Q
W
0
o
x
n
? "'+?
Q
"• GG
s o ?W
? a >
Q Q Q r aG
LLJ W W
Q Q ? ' % iJJ I'••
of I'
N (''') aP
a
? .• PQv LJ
IV-
R;, t?
? N
W
Q ccJ
UA C
Q C'7
N
Z (A
'cb: O.
O O
CIO
Q ?p W
= O -5 ui
OL
Z Q W o ,? DC
0
o? u N U
=
z
Q ?
GC
:*
N
'00
ZCL
r
3 N
F3

r,
V
O
a
es
co
0C
W a
3Q
J
N
J
Q
zZ
O ?-
J N
W
uZ

a
Ip ? Bk `?
-••- a 6? u-
O F Z N ?'?
N

?i
Q F" W `
m Z

O
W
OC O
J = Q E-
0 N

I tr
Q
a. Z
W W
Z
Z
?ZQ V)
W

Q J
~
= _
Q J_
--
/ Ct LLJ
° J
o
m

?
o o
J W

N
co
0
1
(f)
o
CL Uj x N Z QW 6 OC
'
1
Q Q O f O 1! N
W W rc I
Q
=
LL
Q Q (j,
1 0
Z
I I 1
h ? U
O rr h 0
O
J
Z

as ??s ? •
© f
?
Mlrt4S
CR. N
S O
Q ?l

a ?=Z r Z
> > ?- Z
r
z =~
.? d

Q
W t,
0
U.S.lt
OG ?
S Q • `t?? ARKET ST. Z
b? .S .n I
W 'I
Z /
C
z / CASTLE ST.
O r?
°
= r
a
X q _

Z W / O
t7
01
O
N
_ U
I?
M
ul) a I I
Y
Q V ul ?
?
Q to w ?r its
2 J WI

W I I :.. ?.
I v

Q 1`
W I
oh
Oc
Q rI
I W
I I
,

Ziol l ivneii NO SanNaN0:) VNI1 N:)1VW

f (isolated) DEVELOPED
m Wetland COMMERCIAL
-mf _ ` _ J
0.2 ACRES j BOAT BASIN
_ ACCESS
C\J ROAD A RES
v7 DEVELOPED
COMMER- mf b
CIAL-*? PROPOSED
DIKE
3
mf
t
mf
0 I
0
U ?
z Sh
(isolated wetlan
4.5 ACRES
DIKE ALIGNMENT
ONLY IF UNEXPECTED
SHOALING 000URS-
b

WATER LINE
C SITE BOUNDARY
S.a.
PROPOSED DIKE
mn& ---TWETLANDS (8.0 ACRES)
NORTHEAST
sh ` CAPE FEAR
? RIVER
m
T Sp.
/•R . R. BRIDGE
RAILROAD
AREA TO BE DIKED, 28 ACRES
\\\\ WETLANDS THAT MAY BE FILLED, 14 ACRES
SEE FIGURE 1 FOR LOCATION.
LEGEND WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
b barren
mf Mixed Forest DISPOSAL SITE NO. 18
sh Shrub VEGETATION MAP
S.G. S
Phg artino alterniflora FIGURE
P.a. ra mites australi:
T. sR T? Species 0 250 Soo
min Mixed Marsh MAPPING BASED ON
h Herbaceous 4 /85 PHOTOGRAPHY SCALE IN FEET
l

. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
October 11, 1989
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
Mr. R. Paul Wilms, Director
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
. Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Wilms:

OCT ,3
, OF

Enclosed is an amended application for a water quality
certification pursuant to Section 401 of P.L. 95-217 for the
Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina.
The initial application dated April 11, 1988; is being amended
to indicate that an access road to Disposal Site 18 may be
needed, which would result in the filling of-up to 1.0 acre of
wooded wetlands. In addition, wetlands may be needed for the
disposal of dredged material at Site 18 if an unexpected increase
in the rate of shoaling occurs.
You will be mailed a copy of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for this project when it is published later this month.
If you have any questions concerning the initial application
or amendment, please contact Mr. Frank Yelverton, Environmental
Resources Branch, at [phone].
Sincerely,
for Thomas C. Suermann
Lieutenant-Colonel,
Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Enclosure Robert D. Volz
Major. Corps of Engineers
Acting District Engineer
AMENDED APPLICATION FOR WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
`STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: October 11, 1989 (Initial Application Date: April 11, 1988)
NAME: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: Thomas C. Suermann
Lieutenant Colonel,
Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
PROJECT NAME: Long-Term Maintenance (50 years) of Wilmington Harbor,
Brunswick and New Hanover Counties, North Carolina
NATURE OF ACTIVITY: Potentigrl access road and disposal of dredged material in
wetlands at disposal site 18
DISCHARGE OF: Dredged/Fill Material
PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: Fall/Winter 1989
LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: N/A
County: New Hanover
Drainage Basin: Northeast Cape Fear River
Receiving Waters: Northeast Cape Fear River
Point of Discharge: Northeast Cape Fear River
NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Riverine
Nature:, Salt
Direction of Flow: Variable with tide
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT FACILITIES, IF ANY, PRIOR TO DISCHARGE INTO RECEIVING
WATERS: N/A
TYPE_ OF DISCHARGE INCLUDING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION, QUANTITY, FREQUENCY
TEMPERATURE, AND KINDS AND QUANTITIES OF POLLUTANTS OR CONTAMINANTS.- Site 18
(figure 1) contains 54.5 acres: 28 acres of mixed forest uplands and 26.5 acres
of wetlands. Disposal of dredged material at this site is initially proposed
for the 28 acres of uplands but could ..impact,up_. to,.14_.._aQres of wooded wetlands
in two ways. First, 14 acres of wetlands at the site may be needed for the
disposal of dredged material if there is an unexpected increase in shoaling.
This wooded wetland is located between the upland and railroad (figure 2). If
this 14 acres of wetlands is needed for additional disposal capacity, it would
not be needed for 30 or more years. A wetland mitigation plan would be devel-
oped then so as to result in a no net loss in quantity and quality of wetlands
that exist on the site at that time.
1
e
Second, a permanent access road is needed to disposal site 18 (figure 2)
for equipment to build and maintain dikes. In addition, the road could be
used by trucks in order for New Hanover County (the local sponsor) to sell
the dried dredged material. Or, if the material is suitable, it could be
used for daily cover at the county landfill. Either way, removal of dredged
material would extend the life of the disposal site. The county will attempt
to arrange, with the adjacent property owner, for permanent upland road accest
to the site. If this is not possible, the least adverse impact on wetlands
would require the filling of up to 1.0 acre of wooded wetlands. No separable
mitigation is required for this potential 1-acre wetland loss because of the
following:
New Hanover County proposes to purchase site 18 as part of the local
sponsor's responsibility to provide dredged material disposal areas. By
means of this ownership, the local sponsor will protect from filling, logging,
draining, or other alteration the 4.5 acres of isolated wetlands in the south-
west corner of the site and 8.0 acres of wetlands bordering the Northeast Cape
Fear River (figure 2). In addition, the 14 acres of wooded wetlands located
between the upland and railroad will be protected by the local sponsor from
filling (except for the access road), logging, draining, or other alteration
until the area is needed (if ever) for disposal of dredged material due to
unexpected shoaling.
PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATIONS IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE: None
TYPE, DIAMETER OR CROSS-SECTION, AND LENGTH OF CONVEYANCE OF DISCHARGE:
The hydraulic pipeline dredge to be used for pumping dredged material to
disposal area 18 will generally have a pipeline diameter from 16-18 inches
and length of less than 1 mile. For dike and road construction, bulldozers,
draglines, and other earthmoving equipment will be used.
PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE: None
NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ADJOINING RIPARIAN OWNERS:
Delta Marine, Inc.
Post Office Box 2191
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-2191
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Owsley and Sons, Inc.
Post Office Box 1058
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1058
CSX Transportation, Inc.
Post Office Box 45052
Jacksonville, Florida 32232-5052
2
t
fy that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Attachments
foe Thomas C. Suermann
Lieutenant Colonel,,
Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Robert D. Volz
Major., Corps of En4lneers
Acting District Engineer
3
'ice
K
(zioz) t 3anvii NO s3nwiNOD 3NIl H:)IVW
° ;ftf
Cie
W W L \ Q
ix Or
Q Q
W =
?'a p4
Go a li Q
a
Q Q'1''" -
W W °
n
? is
z
za W
< >
-4Ct W)
r ?
a <
W W W
-
J
CII:
W W .. .
e. W
?Q Q ' o
-V i
N
ur)
W
Q -?
a
Q M `
N N
Z
0 O? o
a
'n
?Q
Z
Q r, 0I-) F"
= O -5 W
Z Q W o O
off U N
3Z°?
0

Q'
U
O
0
cC
CO
cy-
W
3Q
N
J
a?
gN
W
VZ
•

?I
a?w
I y1y
` b? s n
Jy.
LL. Z
•- ?- ? Z N
a?W -0 z
W O Q N
a CL Z 7 N ?..?
CIZ c Q J = Q _J Of 1
•-
W
cr cr =O
V i1 Q
LLi ti 00 O cl,
00 d W x N Z Q W O
Dli 0 x O()i-
Q in a I/ v
N ? N v
W W a ui ''? 1 f
= J v, !.L
OC OC m 11
a Q z ?. c,' a a
0 11 y. oj' O N N
rr
J I\11 11 ??
Z O
CL
aa?J8 \I Q •? SMITHS CR
Q w >? = r Z
Z =~
? dd
a
W
OC
ARKET ST. Z
II
W
Z
z ?
Q CASTLE ST.
x /
v / I
0 / I
00 2 1
q? x ti !
W Ma 3
cal
OC Q ?? a 1
J z 1
A 1' x
/
Go
U I
M
W) Z I /
a I I
f
LAJ
W? rl
Q N W Otto ¦
2 ? WI
I v
W if
OC r LL tt)
W
` I I
ZOOI i avncJld NO sinNUNOJ DNI1 H:)iVW

(isolated) DEVELOPED
mf wetiand COMMERCIAL
L mf
0.2 ACRES ( BOAT BASIN
1 -t
_ ACCESS
cv ROAD
DEVELOPE
COMMER-
b
6
WATER LINE
(??SITE BOUNDARY
rr_S.a.
CIAL--)V
3 I
°C t
mf
I
o 0
U ?
Z
A ORES ((
mf b
PROPOSED
DIKE
mf
s
,- PROPOSED DIKE
mrrk_ WETLANDS (8.0 ACRES)
NORTHEAST
sh ` CAPE FEAR
j RIVER
m S. 0.
T. SP.
(isolated wetldn '
4.5 ACRES ?? • R. BRIDGE
DIKE ALIGN,""r1ENT RAILROAD
ONLY IF UNEXPECTED
SHOALING OCCURS /
AREA TO BE DIKED, 28 ACRES
WETLANDS THAT MAY BE FILLED, 14 ACRES
SEE FIGURE 1 FOR LOCATION.
b barren
mf Mixed Forest
sh Shrub
So. artino alterniflora
P.a. ra mites australis
T. sa Typho Species
mm Mixed Marsh
h Herbaceous
LEGEND WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
MAPPING BASED ON
4 /85 PHOTOGRAPHY
DISPOSAL SITE NO. 18
VEGETATION MAP
FIGURE 2
0 250 Soo
$CALE IN FEET

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
CESAW-PD-E-89-N-10-65-0007
PUBLIC NOTICE
November 9,
,e]
LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE OF WILMINGTON HARBOR
NEW HANOVER AND BRUNSWICK COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
N
le? 0 1989
A final environmental impact statement (FEIS) has been prepared to present
the proposed 50-year maintenance plan for Wilmington Harbor and to identify
the environmental effects of the plan. This maintenance plan involves
dredging the project to authorized dimensions and disposing of the dredged
material in a technically feasible and environmentally sound manner. The
draft environmental impact statement for this action was issued in March 1988.
This project has been reviewed under the following laws:
a. Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217).
b. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347).
c. The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 472a et seq.), the
Migratory Marine Game-Fish Act (16 U.S.C. 760c-7608), and the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 661-666c).
d. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 915,
16 U.S.C. 470).
e. Sections 307(c)(1) and (2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(1) and (2), 86 Stat. 1280).
f. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-532,
33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).
g. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (P.L. 93-205,
16 U.S.C. 1531).
h. Flood Plain Management, EO 11988 (dated May 24 ,1977).
i. Protection of Wetlands, EO 11990 (dated May 24, 1977).
40
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Wilmington Harbor project consists of a series of channels or "reaches,"
extending from the ocean bar at the mouth of the Cape Fear River to a point
1.67 miles above the Hilton Bridge at Wilmington, a total distance of 30.8
miles (figure 1). The project requires periodic maintenance (removal of
shoals) in order to maintain an orderly, efficient, and safe flow of traffic
from the ocean to the North Carolina State Ports, public and private
facilities, and other navigation projects. The average annual volume of
dredged material is 2.3 million cubic yards. The dredged material consists
of a combination _of_sand,__-silt,-and-clay.- -These-sediments are-not contami-
nated, based on results of extensive toxicity and bioaccumulation tests.
For the next 50 years, the following dredging methods, disposal locations,
and schedules are proposed:
a. A hopper dredge will be used in the reaches from Bald Head Shoal to
Battery Island (inclusive) with disposal in the Wilmington designated
(52 FR 25008 et seq., August 3, 1987) ocean dredged material disposal
site-(ODMDS, area 1, located just beyond the 3 nautical mile limit of
the territorial sea).
b. A bucket and barge or hopper dredge will be used from Lower Swash to
Keg Island (inclusive) with disposal in the ODMDS.
c. A bucket and barge, hopper, or pipeline dredge will be used for Lower
Big Island with disposal in the ODMDS or areas 11 and 12.
d. A pipeline dredge will be used from Upper Big Island to the upstream
end of the project (inclusive) with disposal in areas 12, 13, 15, 16,
and 18.
e. A pipeline dredge may also be used from Snows Marsh to Keg Island
reaches (inclusive) for the next several years, since capacity is
still available in some of the islands adjacent to these reaches
(3-13)• Also, these islands may be used for disposal of dredged
material intermittently over the 50-year period if consolidation of
dredged materials provides additional capacity or if the substrate
can support higher dikes.
f. Dredging by hopper dredge in the ocean bar channels is performed
any time of the year. Dredging in the rest of the harbor is normally
scheduled to take place during the fall and winter months due to
the concern over damaging or disrupting estuarine resources during
biologically productive periods of the year. Therefore, if possible,
dredging is avoided from April 1 through September 30.
2
x
All proposed disposal areas have been previously used for disposal of dredged
material. Disposal of dredged material in the vicinity of the ODMDS has
occurred for several decades from the maintenance of the lower portion of
Wilmington Harbor (approximately 800,000 cubic yards per year). Since its
designation in 1987, disposal of dredged material has occurred at the ODMDS
from the maintenance of the Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point (MOTSU, -
approximately 2 million cubic yards in 1987) and from continued annual
maintenance of Wilmington Harbor. Future disposal at the ODMDS will be about
3-million-cubic yards per year (approximately 1 million from the maintenance
of Wilmington Harbor and 2 million from the maintenance of MOTSU) and will
continue indefinitely. No significant mounding or other adverse impacts have
been observed in the ODMDS.
In addition, all areas to be used for diked disposal have been completely
diked before, except for disposal areas 11-13 and 18. These areas will be
diked before use. The shorelines on the channel side of islands 11-13 are
eroding due to wind waves and boat wakes. There are scattered patches of
marsh along the shoreline but most of this marsh is also eroding. The marsh
appears to be eroding primarily due to a shoreline slope too steep for
successful long-term establishment of marsh and to a lesser degree due to wind
..waves and boat wakes. In order to stabilize the shoreline to protect the
proposed dikes, the following is proposed:
The shoreline adjacent to each proposed dike (approximately 2,200
feet per island) will be graded from 10 percent (the average
present slope) down to 3 percent, which is ideal for saltmarsh
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) establishment. A 50-foot-wide
by 2,200-foot-long border of saltmarsh cordgrass would then be
planted on 1.5-foot centers in the upper intertidal zone at each
island (7.5 acres total for all three islands). A 50-foot-wide
border of salt meadow hay (Spartina patens) would then be planted
between the mean high water (m.h.w.) line and the toe of the
proposed dike at each island (7.5 acres total for all three
islands). Wash-out areas that may occur during the first year
would be replanted. This planting should not only stabilize the
shoreline but create intertidal marsh and high marsh habitat.
This proposed marsh planting will be coordinated with appropriate
agencies and experts prior to initiation.
During the grading and
high marsh and 0.5 acre
would be lost; however,
paragraph would result
marsh and 7.0 acres of
diking process, a total of 6.3 acres of
of intertidal marsh at the three islands
the planting indicated in the previous
in a net increase of 1.2 acres of high
intertidal marsh.
Site 18 (figure 1) contains 54.5 acres: 28 acres of mixed forest uplands and
26.5 acres of wetlands. Disposal of dredged material at this site is
initially proposed for the 28 acres of uplands but could impact up to 14 acres
of wooded wetlands in two ways. First, 14 acres of wetlands at the site may
be needed for the disposal of dredged material if there is an unexpected
3
increase in shoaling (figure 2). If this 14 acres of wetlands is needed for
additional disposal capacity, it would not be needed for 30 or more years. A.
wetland mitigation plan would be developed then so as to result in no net loss
in quantity and quality of wetlands that exist on the site at that time.
Second, a permanent access road is needed to disposal site 18 for equipment to
build and maintain dikes. In addition, the road could be used by trucks in
order for New Hanover County (the local sponsor) to sell the dried dredged
material, or if the material is suitable, it could be used for daily cover at
the county landfill. Either way, removal of dredged material would extend the
life of the disposal site. The county will attempt to arrange, with the
adjacent property owner, for permanent upland road access to the site. If
this is not possible, the least adverse impact on wetlands would require the
filling of up to 1.0 acre of wooded wetlands. No separable mitigation is
required for this potential 1-acre wetland loss-because of the following:
New Hanover County proposes to purchase site 18 as part of the
local sponsor's responsibility to provide dredged material
disposal areas. By means of this ownership, the local sponsor
will protect from filling, logging, draining, or other alteration
4.5 acres of wetlands in the southwest corner of the site and 8.0
acres of wetlands bordering the Northeast Cape Fear River (figure
2). In addition, the 14 acres of wooded wetlands located between
the upland and railroad will be protected by the local sponsor
from filling (except for the access road), logging, draining, or
other alteration until the area is needed (if ever) for disposal
of dredged material due to unexpected shoaling.
The overfilling of hopper dredges and the barges associated with bucket
dredging is used to displace the decant water in order to achieve a greater
solids load, which results in a more economical load. This overfilling will
continue for the hopper dredge in the ocean bar channels (Bald Head Shoal
through Battery Island Channels, inclusive) and will be initiated for the
hopper dredge and bucket and barge operations in additional channels where the
sediments are predominantly sand (i.e., Lower Swash, Snows Marsh, Horseshoe
Shoal, Reaves Point, and Upper Lilliput Channels).
The proposed action is consistent with the approved Coastal Management Program
of the State of North Carolina. A consistency determination for the proposed
action is indicated in the FEIS, which has been sent to the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management-for concurrence/nonconcurrence.
The proposed discharge of liquid effluent from diked disposal areas resulting
from the proposed pipeline dredging, although subject to review under Section
404(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977, has been determined to satisfy the
terms and conditions-of Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(16) and the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management General Water Quality Certifi-
cation No. 1273, issued on November 10, 1978. A Section 401 (P.L. 95"217)
Water Quality Certificate for grading the shoreline and dike construction
4

at areas 11-13, permanent access road at site 18 and overflowing the hopper
dredge and bucket and barge operations has been requested from the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management.
No impact to cultural resources are anticipated by the proposed action since
only maintenance of existing channels is proposed and disposal is proposed in
previously used disposal areas.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that the proposed action
will have no effect on threatened and endangered species for which they have
responsibility. The National Marine Fisheries Service indicated that hopper
dredging may effect the right whale, shortnose sturgeon, and three sea
turtles, but the proposed action will not jeopardize the continued existence
of these species. Reasonable and prudent measures to be implemented to
mitigate potential impacts are described in detail in the FEIS.
Additional information is presented in the FEIS. The FEIS is available by
contacting Mr. Frank Yelverton, Environmental Resources Branch, at the above
address or by telephone at [phone].
There is attached a list of State, Federal, and local agencies with whom this
activity is being coordinated.
The proposed transportation of this dredged material for the purpose of
disposing of it in ocean waters will be evaluated to determine that the
proposed disposing of it will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human
health, welfare, or amenities or the marine environment, ecological systems,
or economic potentialities. In making this determination, the criteria
established by the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant
to section 102(a) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972, as amended, shall be applied. In addition, based upon an evaluation of
the potential effect which the failure to utilize this ocean disposal site
will have on navigation, economic and industrial development, and foreign and
domestic commerce of the United States, an independent determination will also
be made of the need to dispose of the dredged material in ocean waters, other
possible methods of disposal, and appropriate locations for the disposal.
The decision whether to perform this work will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impact, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for
both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefits which
reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal have been balanced
against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be
relevant to the proposal have been considered, including the.cumulative
effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife
values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline
erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water
quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare
of the people.
5
I
This public notice is being distributed to all known interested persons in
order to assist in developing facts on which a decision may be made by the
Corps of Engineers with respect to the disposal of dredged material in
navigable or ocean waters. For accuracy and completeness of record, all data
in support of, or in opposition to, the proposed work should be submitted in
writing setting forth sufficient detail to support convictions. Any person
who has an interest which may be affected by the discharge of this.dredged
material may request a public hearing. The request must be submitted in
writing to the District Engineer and must clearly set forth the interest which
may be affected and the manner in which the interest may be affected by this
activity. In order for such request to be given appropriate consideration, it
should be mailed or delivered to the U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington,
Post Office Box 1890, Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890, in time to be
received on or before January 5, 1990. All correspondence should refer to the
number and date of this notice.
,??""t l
i
Robert D. Volz
Major, Corps of Engineers
Deputy District Engineer
Attachments

6

LIST OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Chairman Board of County Commissioners
Postmasters
Mayors
Marine Science Council
Water Resources Research Institute
US Fish"and Wildlife Service
Assistant US Attorney
US Geological Survey
National Marine Fisheries Service
US Coast Guard
Regional Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Director of the National Park Service
Regional Shellfish Consultant
Office of Chief of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
All United States Senators and Representatives for State of North Carolina
US Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Regional Director, Environmental Protection Agency
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
NC State Clearinghouse and Information Center
Z _N
a'. 0C4 0
_Z _U
Q J
Z QO J ?
uj
OC
?auj OC
?D
F- V N
Z = J u U-
c
0
3 Z, A "
0
2
Q C'7
Q?
0
co
I 0
Q
N
i o
z
>=
J N
uZ

-?? b
.- o F- _
Z 00--%
N
- ~ w
- w <
m

0-
i W M-1
0
J W
E -j ix
0
?'
I
a
Q
Z L

Z M Z
M
Q U,

W
....

-j

?

Q
x 6L
[L
_5 o _J

w 00
F. V
o i O
W
co
^ 4i i a w x a Z Q W
r D LL. C X O
V
Q Q o t
0
in

-
N

N
?^
?

V
W W K 6 ?
/ u
' Q Q ? I(
' 11 ? ? Z ...?
?
~ Q W
Q
H I rr q 03 c
c
` O
? N
J ? ? 11
-
Z O
a
a 8 CR. f_n

a m
'I
sn _ = r

Z
> ?.Z;
z =~
.p d

W CD \U S.1T
Ix
Q T fT.
A11KE Z

W j'I
Z ??
C
G
CASTLE ST.

cc ej 2 ' 1
x H

t z
Q O
7 '
t J Q ;
o k
M

WI
r
ZX
I
r Y 1
W V =1

CG
? I 1?
u1
Q cn w ?r /1m
2 J WI
Q
aC
w I I :.. '
r?V
ca I

Q 34-
I{
W
cd II
r oh
I I

lfo l I Jinvid NO sanNaN05 3N I1 N:)1rW

mf isolated DEVELOPED
(wetland) COMMERCIAL
-mf ,.?...`_J
0.2 ACRES j BOAT BASIN
.- - ~"-- t WATER LINE
-p _k
_ ACCESS 0.8 SITE BOUNDARY
ROAD ACRES
cn DEVELOPED S.a
COMMER- mf b
CIAL- . PROPOSED PROPOSED DIKE
DIKE m WETLANDS (8.0 ACRES)
;7
` mf NORTHEAST
mf CAPE FEAR
o sh
o I RIVER
U
S. a.
sh m
T. sp.
(isdiated wetlan R R. BRIDGE
4.5 ACRES
DIKE ALIGNMENT RAILROAD
ONLY IF UNEXPECTED
SHOALING OCCURS
AREA TO BE DIKED, 28 ACRES
\\\\ WETLANDS THAT MAY 6E FILLED, 14 ACRES
LEGEND
b barren
mf Mined Forest
sh Shrub
S.a. artina alterniflora
P.a. ra mites australis
T. spy TN ha Species
epm Mixed Marsh
h Herbaceous
SEE FIGURE 1 FOR LOCATION.
WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
DISPOSAL SITE NO. 18
VEGETATION MAP
FIGURE 2
0 250 i00
MAPPING BASED ON
4 /85 PHOTOGRAPHY SCALE IN FEET
? w
r,
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
FINAL
Environmental Impact Statement
Long-Term Maintenance
of
Wilmington Harbor
North Carolina
x.
October 1989
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for
THE LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE OF WILMINGTON HARBOR
NEW HANOVER AND BRUNSWICK COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
Abstract: Wilmington Harbor is a Federal navigation project maintained by the
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers since 1829. The depth and width of the
navigation channel have been increased several times and now can handle ships
with drafts up to 38 feet. Approximately 2.3 million cubic yards of sediment
are dredged from the navigation project annually in order to maintain
authorized dimensions. The purpose of this environmental impact statement
(EIS) is to indicate the plan for dredging and disposal of this sediment for
the next 50 years. Dredging methods proposed include hopper, hydraulic
pipeline and bucket dredges with disposal in a designated ocean dredged
material disposal site (ODMDS) or in diked upland sites. All dredging and
disposal methods are technically and economically feasible and environmentally
acceptable. Several alternatives were considered but they were not acceptable
for technical, economic or environmental reasons. The only controversy
concerns the disposal of dredged material in a previously used disposal site
(site 18) in the upstream segment of the harbor.
SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO THE If you would like further information
DISTRICT ENGINEER BY on this EIS, please contact
January 5, 1990 Mr. Frank Yelverton
Environmental Resources Branch
U. S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington
P.0 Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
Phone # [phone]
NOTE: CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT AND FINAL EIS ARE INDICATED IN BOLD TYPE.
NOTE: CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT AND FINAL EIS ARE INDICATED IN BOLD TYPE.
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for
The Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina
October 1989
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 Major Conclusions and Findings. A 50 year maintenance plan has been
developed for Wilmington Harbor for dredging the project to authorized
dimensions and disposing the dredged material in a technically feasible and
environmentally sound manner. Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor is justified
based on the economic value of the harbor to the region, state and nation and
lack of significant adverse impacts on the environment. 'The estimated full
time equivalent jobs throughout North Carolina attributed to the harbor at
Wilmington was 59,000 in 1982. Revenue derived from the port in 1982 included
approximately $900,000,000 in total salaries and benefits and $117,000,000 in
local and state taxes.
Potential adverse impacts associated with continued maintenance center
around disposal of 2.3 million cubic yards of dredged material annually. This
impact is minimized since all disposal areas selected for the 50 year
maintenance plan have previously been used for the disposal of dredged
material.
1.2 Areas of Controversy. The only controversy concerns the disposal of
dredged material in a previously used disposal site (site 18) in the upstream
segment of the harbor.
1.3 Unresolved issues. There are no unresolved issues.
1.4 Relationship of Proposed Action to Environmental Requirements. Table 1
summarizes the relationship of the proposed action to Federal, state and local
requirements.
ii

s

TABLE 1

Relationship of Proposed Action to Environmental Req uirements
Federal Policies Prop osed Action
National Historic Preservation Full Compliance
Act of 1966, as amended
National Environmental Policy Full Compliance
Act of 1969, as amended -
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended Full Compliance
Clean Air Act, as amended Full Compliance
Coastal Zone Management Act Full Compliance
of 1972, as amended
Endangered Species Act Full Compliance
of 1973, as amended
Estuary Protection Act Full Compliance
Federal Water Project Full Compliance
Recreation Act

Marine Protection, Research, and Full Compliance
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Full Compliance
as amended
Rivers and Harbor Act Not Applicable
Watershed Protection and Flood Not Applicable
Prevention Act
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Not Applicable
Land and Water Conservation Not Applicable
Fund Act
Executive Orders, Memoranda, etc.
EO 11988, Flood Plain Management Full Compliance
EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands Full Compliance
iii
Table 1 (continued)
State Policies
Coastal Area Management Act of 1974
Local Policies
Land Use Plans, New Hanover and
Brunswick Counties
Full Compliance
Full Compliance

iv

NOTE: CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT AND FINAL EIS ARE INDICATED IN BOLD TYPE.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LONG-TERM STUDY
MAINTENANCE OF WILMINGTON HARBOR
NORTH CAROLINA
Page
Abstract. i
1.0 Summary. ii
1.1 Major conclusions and findings. ii
1.2 Areas of controversy. ii
1.3 Unresolved issues. ii
1.4 Relationship of proposed action to environmental ii
requirements.
Tabl e of Contents v
List of Tables ix
List of Figures x
.a Purpose and Need. 1
2.1 Introduction. 1
22 Project history 1
2.3 Project authorization. 5
2.4 Public concerns. 5
2.5 Planning obJectives. 5
3.0 Alternatives Including Proposed Action. .6
3.1 Existing project. 6
3.1.1 Project dimensions. 6
3.1.2 Past and present maintenance. 6
3.1.3 Dredging schedule. 12
3.2 Reasonable alternatives 12
3.2.1 Current and proposed dredging methods. 12
3.2.1.1 Hopper dredge. 12
3.2.1.2 Pipeline dredge. 13
3.2.1.3 Bucket and barge or clamshell dredge. 13
3.2.2 Proposed dredged material disposal. 14
3.2.3 Proposed dredging schedule. 15
3.3 Summary of proposed dredging and disposal methods. 15
3.4 Environmentally preferred alternatives. 16
t, - v
3-.5 Alternative maintenance methods eliminated from further 16
-- study.
i.spos?l in the-estuary--and wetlands 1b ,
- 3.5.2 Beach and littoral disposal. 16
3.5.2f-Beacli disposal alternatives considered 16
using a hydraulic pipeline dredge.
3.5.2.2 Pumping to the beach from.a hopper 19
- dredge.'
3.5.2.3 Littoral disposal by bucket and barge 19
operations.
3.5.3 Ocean disposal by pipeline. 19
3.5.4 Disposal. in.upland disposal areas not 20
previously used for disposal of dredged
material.
3.5.5 Best management practices. 20
3.5.6 Moving the State Port Terminal to the
mouth of the Cape Fear River.
3 .5.7 No action. 20
3.6 Other actions considered. -- - - 21
3.6.1- Maintenance of the harbor for the Military Ocean 21
- Terminal, Sunny Point.
3.6.2 Maintaining the two existing colonial waterbird 21
nesting islands and creating a third nesting
island.
3.6.3 Controlling erosion on existing disposal islands. 21
3.6.4 A_preliminary stability analysis for disposal 22
area dikes.
3.6.5 Periodic review of 50 year maintenance plan, new 22
technology, and unexpected circumstances.
3.7 Other existing navigation projects in the area. 23
3.8 Anticipated harbor expansion. 23
3.9. Ability to'meet navigation and maintenance needs for 24
50 years and local sponsors' responsibilities.
4.0 Affe cted Environment. 25
4.1 Significant resources. 25
4.1.1 Geology and `mineral resources. 25
4.1.2 Seismology: 26
4.1.3 Sediments and grain size analysis. 26
4.1.3.1 Channel reaches._ 26
4.1.3.2 Ocean dredged material disposal site. 26
4.1.4 Water resources. 26
4.1.4.1 Groundwater. 26
4.1.4.2 Surface water . _ _ _ - -28
_ vi

a
4.2 Biology of dredging and disposal sites. 33
4.2.1 Aquatic biology including ocean disposal sites. 33
4.2.1.1 Nekton. 33
4.2.1.2 Benthos. 34
4.2.1.3 Plankton. 34
4.2.1.4 Estuarine nursery areas. 35
4.2.2 Terrestrial biology. 36
4.2.2.1 Flora. 36
4.2.2.2 Fauna. 55
4.2.3 Wetlands and floodplain. 57
4.3 Threatened and endangered wildlife, and plants. 59 =
4.4 Areas of archaeological and historic significance. 59
4.5 Socioeconomic considerations related to Wilmington 60
Harbor.
4.5.1 Land use. 60
4.5.2 Population. 60
4.5.3 Income and employment. 60
4.5.4 Existing terminal facilities. 61
4.5.5 Waterborne commerce. 63
4.5.6 Financial value of the port. 63
4.5.7 Existing transportation- links. 66
4.5.8 Recreational boating traffic. 66
4.5.9 Esthetics. 67
5.0 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Plan 68
-5.1 Significant Resources. 68
5.1.1 Geology and mineral.resource?s.
,2 Se1§016gy 68
5.1.3 Sediments and grain size analysis.. 68
5.1.4 Water 'resources. 68
5.1.4.1 Groundwater. 68
5.1.4.2 Surface water quality. 68
5.2 Biology of dredging and disposal sites. 74
5.2.1 Aquatic biology. 74
5.2.1.1 Nekton. 75
5.2.1.2 Benthos. 76
5.2.1.3 Plankton. 77
5.2.1.4 Estuarine nursery areas. 78
5.2.2 Terrestrial biology. 78
5.2.2.1 Flora. 78
5.2.2.2 Fauna. 78
5.2.3 Wetlands and floodplain. 80
5.2.4 Mitigation plan for site 18. 82
5.3 Threatened and endangered wildlife, and plants. 82
5.4 Areas of archaeological and historic significance. 83
?« vii

-. 5.5 Socioeconomic considerations related to Wilmington 83'
Harbor.
5.5.1 Land use. 3
5.5.2 Pro,jeeted port growth, income and employment. 84
5.5.3 Recreation and esthetics: 84
56 Consistency determination for the North Carolina 84
Coastal Management Program
6.0 List of Preparers. 86
7.0 Public Involvement. 88
8.0 References. 93
INDEX 98
Appendix A - Comments and Responses on the Draft.EIS.
Appendix B - Beach and offshore disposal alternatives.
Appendix C - Geology.
Appendix D - Economics.
Appendix E - Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
Appendix F - Biological Opinions under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended.

v
Long-Term
Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
North Carolina
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page No.

1 Relationship of proposed action to environmental iii
requirements
2 Estimated annual average volume of maintenance dredged 7
material by reach (1970-1987)
3 Dredged material disposal area locations, reaches 8
serviced and dredging method
4 Capacity and life expectancy of each disposal area, costs 10
and alternatives
5 Average annual costs for beach disposal and ocean disposal 18
by bucket and barge for the Snow Marsh to Reaves Point
channels
Yw.v?f'??a .,: .i-r'Ps+s a, „/^, ,i:` .:,:nY'fi{?a..p+.-r r7+*rd, ?K?,'"iiG`t . .:Fdv. r •.
"r racteristics of river sediments proposed for bucket 27
and barge and-hopper dredging
7 Acreage of habitat types within each disposal site 54
8 Port of Wilmington benefits - 1982 62
9 Wilmington Harbor, N.C., waterborne commerce, 64
comparative statement of traffic
10? Wilmington Harbor, oceangoing commerce - 1984 65
11 Water column averaged turbidity (NTU) measured at 74
varying distances from a clamshell dredging activity
at MOTSU
.12 Wetlands involved in the proposed action 81
13 Mailing list for the final EIS 89
ix
Long-Term
Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
North Carolina R
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No; Page No.

1 Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina, disposal site 2°
locations
2 Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina, Water quality 30
classification
3 -Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina, areas closed 32
to shellfishing in the lower Cape Fear River
4 Wilmington Harbor Long-Term Study, disposal 37
site no. 3, vegetation map
5 Wilmington Harbor Long-Term Study, disposal 38
site'nQ. 4, vegetation map
6 Wilmington Harbor Long-Term Study, disposal 39
site no. 5, vegetation map
7 Wilmington Harbor Long-.Term Study, disposal 40
site no. 6, vegetation map;
8 Wilmington Harbor Long-Term Study, disposal 41
site no. 7, vegetation map
9 Wilmington Harbor Long-Term Study, disposal 42
site no. 8, vegetation map
10 Wilmington Harbor Long-Term Study, disposal 43
site no. 9, vegetation map
11 Wilmington Harbor Long-Term Study, disposal 44
site no. 10, vegetation map
12 Wilmington.Harbor Long-Term Study, disposal - 45
site no. 11, vegetation map

x
w
Figure No. Page No.

13 Wilmington Harbor Long-Term Study, disposal .46
site no. 12, vegetation map
14- Wilmington Harbor Long-Term Study, disposal 47
site no. 13, vegetation map
15 Wilmington Harbor Long-Term Study, disposal 48
site no. 14, vegetation map
16 Wilmington Harbor Long-Term Study, disposal 49
site no. 15, vegetation map
17 Wilmington Harbor Long-Term Study, disposal 50
site no. 16, vegetation map

18 Wilmington Harbor Long-Term Study, disposal 51
site no. 17, vegetation map

19 Wilmington Harbor Long-Term Study, disposal 52
site no. 18, vegetation map
20 Wilmington Harbor Long-Term Study, disposal 53
vtir s na . .1, -vege bat i _ . ,.
21 Schematic of average suspended sed iment concentrations 70
for indicated depths and distances from a hydraulic
pipeline dredge, James River, VA
22 MOTSU study area. Plume sampling stations and areas 72
dredged on specific days
23 Turbidities measured up and down current of a clamshell 73
dredge
24 Projections of all commodities by tonnage, South 85
Atlantic Coast segment (1977-2003)
xi

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED.
2.1 Introduction. The purpose of this environmental impact statement (EIS)
* is to present the proposed 50 year maintenance plan for the Wilmington Harbor
project and to identify the environmental effects of the plan. This
maintenance plan involves dredging the project to authorized dimensions and
disposing the dredged material in a technically feasible and environmentally
sound manner. An EIS for Wilmington Harbor was published in 1977 but that EIS
was only valid for 10 years (US Army Engineer District, Wilmington 1977).
This 10 year period was to allow sufficient time for establishment and
implementation of a long-term maintenance plan, the subject of the present
final EIS.

Wilmington Harbor is located along the lower Cape Fear River, in New
Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina. The Wilmington Harbor. project
consists of a series of channels or "reaches," extending from the ocean bar at
the mouth of the Cape Fear River to a point 1.67 miles above the Hilton Bridge
at Wilmington, a total distance of 30.8 miles (figure 1). The project
requires periodic maintenance (removal of shoals) in order to maintain an
orderly, efficient and safe flow of traffic from the ocean to the NC State
Ports, public and private facilities and other navigation projects.
2:2 Project History. A chronological listing of early dredging efforts in
the Cape Fear.River is given below:
1817 - State of North Carolina authorized the creation of a commission to
investigate the navigability of the State's rivers.
1822 - State of North Carolina implemented a program to improve the river
between Wilmington and Big Island (Campbell Island) by
embankments, jetties, and dredging. This resulted in a gain of
depth of 2 feet.
1829 - The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) undertook the dredging and
maintenance of the ship channel in the river for a period of 10
years. This channel extended from a point 2.7 miles above the
confluence of the Cape Fear and the Northeast Rivers and extended
3 miles into the ocean, across the bar formed by Middle Ground
and Baldhead shoals. The State of North Carolina authorized a
charter to the.Cape Fear and Deep River Navigation Company to
make the upper Cape Fear and the Deep River navigable above
Fayetteville, North Carolina. This was to provide economical
transport for coal mined from the then active coal fields in
Chatham County. Between the time of the charter and the Civil
War, North Carolina contributed large sums of money to the
development and maintenance of these channels. The hopes of
making Chatham a major coal producing area dwindled after the
Civil War when the vein was exhausted.
6

K
(Z dog") l ivneid No sanwiNo3 iNn H3jLvw
o t Z N
--
OQ? sr
Q
?Z
v
04 _OJ uJ
CV) Q ZQ?o oM
`
n
e p.. V h 0
W y
?
uJ
ci

Q
OL

?
z

v

W
Q
? - ? O O N
za.

W ,

eo A
Q
W
NJ k? is
u i . >
o
at
Q cc
Q
• IL
=

s ? C

W A4
$I ?- ;i:
DC

w r „ ix
? s
so W
<s i >
_

Q a Q IX
.
a ii
W
CC uJ
aC ui `-
Q'
494
09

(V m
Q W ja
?a a
N
W
Q C_J
0 c
Q cv)
2

0
es
co
OC
W Q
3a
J
N_
Q
oZ
J NY
W
VZ
•

N N a)
' c
\ A S
- >> 4.) L O
?O J-) r-1 O cd
0
3
L
C Ao

00 ? a) a) v) 't:
> .14 4) 9.4 U
a)
N O M U L O O U O a) E
S. T
N '
G O
u U C
b G' >
C c O M N O L .r-1 a) 4.4 L O c(i O
3 O a) A \ r \ L-0 O C w0 a E L -1
\ ?p \ t- CL N a N r1 •r-1 .0 0. ca
V1 ?> N ?O N c0 Li. a) co 1-4 Cd L. L a) a) E

ca
o
C)
E \ ti \ co \ C7 cZ ON cd .N O cd U) .C O •1-4
3
N A U M -A
y
o co -+ L a) -N cd cd a) O E

co ca O 4-) U E?? O 3
c Q A A A A v a .u N J.) S»
.
A c? -7 O
r-4 = C" 0 0) Cd .14

L
Cd (1
) Q O M U C 3
1 a .u c 4.)
'
E- 4.) b0 O C C a) - „ - cd 4 4 a) U
0
U C 4_) -4 (d OD - a) O Q) S O U U C O
43 Q) •.A 0) -C 'O U1 a) o c cr c 4) cd -4

L
C
U
-4 Cd 1
•.- M L Lr) 4.) 1J Q) J-) (d O
' U -4 S.
0 ^ L
.. ) S]
a
ca L U) 4.) a) U ::3 c a) .r-1 a a)
a O .. c:j r_ bO 3 m a) O cn O L a) -4 U cd O a) E --1 a
a 3 O 4.) C bO C L r1 .u 4.3 a) E. Q) 4.) c -0 a)
(L) O 4.) 0 c-4 N C•r-I a) >4.) C z 0 a)v r_ O O U b0
4.) 4.) 1-4 dD • .. .C -4 -1-3 J) O E ..? r4 -4 •rd v! C -0 -0 C -4 L. a C r-
(d v) a) •a c b0 U C U cd .1.) (L) .u a) L Cd a) (d (d cd -4 cd •r-1
.u co .0 a) ••-1 Z L O 3 _-r C O C a) tr N L E> a
?) C C

t/)
a \ C cd C 4-4 r1 v U) O C V. e
.+•. Q) C

E -4 4 ? G .u C r? x - cd U Cd O 4 C .0 ••? E a) .u .N (d
U ..
O S L ••-t r4 O cd 1 -C U) O O L L. L. C r1
z 1- O O 3- 43 44 0 4-) E ? U O U S"•. (d C a a) cd 3 a) N C •r•1 a
ca (4-4 c O ll O M O 4.) 4.) U a) CL U C O J-) C 43 cd
N O O -4 - cu - L ^ L L a 4-) O C r1 I 4.) r.1 E L.
4.) A-) -0 0- x .O O O N 4 a C Cd -
' cd (1) O
- x >,
u O Q) 44 bO
U
C C C 3 CO
cd a)
43 C E. d -0 a) 4.) O U M •r+ .0 ? 0 J-)
.S] a) () C . .
N ( r1 N O 'O r-- (d r I V) M bO. -4 •r4 4.) C O O a) >)
a) L
c ?e (L) O c4.,c •r•1 L. O a) cd 4a 4" 10 a •O a O r-4 U (d r? C a
4
) .
L. U L G^^ O 3 x? 4.) C .0 O O 0 c :j C •ri cd •r-1 •r•1 .u U U) En •ri O O
.
r- 4.3 co co L .0 U 1--1 ca 4.) 4-3 " rt r-4 Ul
U) U C 3 cd .r4 J.- (1) - " C cd (L) r- C - co cd 0 -C U (d U W a)
• 4 C (4 x. J.) V) N 4.) .C TJ :u r-1 4) -CO C bO4-c O 4.) •r4 •sr (I1 C > a)
O U cd 'a CO - a) a a •r 1 a () U a m -4 Ir C a 4?4 .t.) a EO
C 1 1 (1) .S:
'
.
•.-
1 () .c . a) 3 N C •r1 a) ua O •,A to V)
-4 E -4 a .4)
O C N - O 3 S. M 1.) 'O - L7 C 3 a) O cd .4) C 4?3 a) •1•1 Cd U) •r4 =
1
O> O Q )o U O- ai 'O4-) D-4 L. L L-4 4.)
J- O S.
C -4 -4 O tiO%O a) C • ^ C Q) O O a) C a) •r-1 O O H -N 1J a) U) J? a)
-4 d
) bO M cd 0) •r•1 - 4.) rn N O v) U V) - -4 N x 4-3 a, V) ra to C a) >
O .
cd L - (d O •r-I cu %O (d ca O a) bo S. a C S. •r4 > U) O
ca N a) x O c a) .-0 3 a) x a) a) L a) ? c L a) C a) • -4 •r•1 O (L)
' •rA (Ti
A -4 L .C •r•1 L. - CO L Cd > L. a) L C cd > (1) 1.) to E14 -C U >
0
• J-) 3 (L)
L. Cd - U U) V O 1-1 U - O U> U a (d -4 O O cd o w
r- 17 a) U U
bO O O C (d 0 00 (L) S: tc% O?Q C -4 r_ C C r- n • 4 J-) L V) cd O a) a) C
C L M cd O f-1 4.) C H N 4.) cd 1-1 L )-1 ca a W Cfi 3
•.
4 .?
O r-
C U C .C C L
' ? I?
O? pp
B
? O •...1 ? H (d
0
" U1
r-
0 U1 U1 N %.O N U L U
a () C Q)
-•
E .N •.I.• O -:T zzr zzr O ?p ON CO O O -4 (d ) .,..1 E
S3• ••

1 a) C rn •- r- •-
? 1-1
E r. S.
O ? a) O .0 Cd S.
. Q)
.C
-1
cd bo a) -r -f
0 b
O 4.1 N N N - M M ;:s U a) 4-4 •r•1 bo r1 C -0 >
C
O. c
a M N •- O. 4.) W V) O O.. •r4 cd c
A U O
? w
>, U U U >> O bo
a) c cr
M ri r I S. L L >1 4.) L r-1 r •-) C •O > O Ul m a) a)
•r 1 cd cd cd (Ti U cd • cd O C cd .c • r1 To .C
N 3 "? x x.. O X. N E ri OJ C J-) N a cd .u
U1

0 of 4 0
O%

Rs Rs (A •O C. (A cr
m 's w H. O
cr r• 0 w Ds' ct m
m cr 0 m m
.s Cr r• cr a to F- H
w 1_•i aw cmA m
I-- (OD (A m (rA ( ( D cir N
a O 0 v N
crOt "0 0w r- I00)"
?. 1.:T w m Wm
(O 1-4
0) D Q.
"3 (A r• cC
c a
?a•crtON
p H. (A .'3" W (~A
m 0 0 m v
cr N'O cr -0
3c cr(A
(A r• r• w w
b cr 1-' O• F--
a M m N
c•o ? w H_ (D "ws
ws N (CD oC w w
((DD O a 0 H M O
"3 13 (D H.
p3 m (D a0) we
m (A OQ 's "s X:
O ? Cr 1-4 m 1--•
OQQ '
m m aQ "3 "3 3
F-•
(D
r•y n1
9 OQQ
W .? (D L--. C) Cr
1-'"1 ° 0 " O
O 3
0 cr m cr cr "s x
m o o D (D Z w
"s
w"3 r•crctu
r• m 's w 1-- 0
a oQ v << 's
M; 1-, 0) M cr
v y •O O
1w-p m cr MO•
to 4-4
O 0 v EA cr <
M G r• O m'
r• (n cr m
06 0 t-- (D (n rr
(D - GQ (D
0. 0 wad
y ? -
m AA G
a3E?m0V(n
m (D
133 Oho o w (On a
m 00 sr 's w
F? r•
IS (D
n ?
CD
O
cr
A) O act w crw "S (nw ^crxW "qCr MF-'r•O M crCr w G 4-r A) £ HG W -grW W W
< 's r• O' O. O m r• "s to O• PL) H. O m O U! 'O m m m G 'O •• b r• O v r• O
m 0 (A F-• O m U! O m m m "s -+ OQ '3 m O V1 m '3 O ct fA VS "O Cl m (A C O
's L_ v (A c< w O 0 0 a O m cr OQ N cr Cr a O• cr 0 's m cr m M
PD m H O a U1 (A sr m 'O cr w O N 's m - Ul 's r• (A O 's O O W IS "3 (D
-•
OQ 0 a' to w 's cr -S' 13 F-• a "s m 0 m£ O 's m w w O m •• (D
m
M CT m w 's w '3 cr 0 -+ m 0
F-- m G 0 0 m c0 EQ O w "O "o M M P) M 9 H. w r• w" O cr O w R
+ m O m Q
N
'
" >C I -•

C 1-'• 0
w F- =3 (A -4 m 0 "S w -
B m= O
.
a
W
m 0 a m m (A F-( m m m fr O 00 a '7 r• cr
(A m
O (A G O r• OQ "S N O W m O rA r• rr C cr m O a cr cr (n O• "s m m O cr "s
?-' "s M 0 m w- cr . O c..-: cr (A m 4n a£ w O m w O M(D
r• O
A) "s cr 0 a a F- N cr m 0 "s O a a H. cr tr 0 1•-- . cr OQ a m V m O w
" O' (D a O 0 G 1r L_ cr cC 0 w w M a`0'=m cr O :.r' cr O O G m - .:. _m - () cr
m y O "s m r• IS 0 w O -• 's c* O m m O O" :C r• w O" O v O cr cr r•
"S cr m 'O • S m 0 m M r• •• a 3 O v M y M r• (A O m OQ cr (A O• M to 'v <
O 0 a0 m m m O N< w< crm? to 1-• O arcrw a0t7 's m
M 04 A) OQ O F-- O U1 O w O m 3' a v m O m cr r- 3 "3 m x w m 's (A cr m O H. O CA
F-• O m v H. cr O' cr to O • IS O 's 's ct w O" N• F-• (D F-- F-• Cr m r• O' m
a 3 O Cl 'O O (n O F-' a (A m O a w z m cr = w F-- w p? O m v M m m ?-+
13 w G m m w cr w cr cr (A M m (A £ a w OQ 0 H. cr cr D B m O O O
m cr w 3 "s w F-- O O a H 0 m v F-• 'O m cr O' (A O D• O w w m (A cr O
CL (D H- PL) a O r• a F-• O• cr O O cr cr OQ a N "S 1- 0 - O (D ? m cr O .1' cr r• F--
OQF CT a'10."-9crCO "5F-•crMcr O'O'mmO0m0 Loa O:5 00 o 0
m cC m m IS m OQ O' m (A O CD O O c.-• •• cr N w a 's CL :E: O. O£ O a
CL (A "s m a 0 m O 0 3 cr ? r• m r• m w O 's O w •• H. O H. U! H.
N cr r• a OQ M r• w c r 'O O O• w 'O (a 13 (A M 0 v w m M W. £ OQ 1- 's M a O
9 r• w OQ m cr O w< F- 13 - m r• "s w m cr •O Sr "S CD a O m w 3 w m m
w W 3 F-- (D -- m "s m c< w O O PL) F- I-' m "s cr m m OQ (n O r• OQ m
cr O PD O cr m 0 G 3 cr L- O F- 0 cr 0-X cr m cr u a z m cr H 'o
CD O cr -- cr O w a w cr w w m m cr c< 0 ? w 0 r• 17 w OQ cr O• 13
'S - m (n O cr m m a w r• cr O 0 O' w £ 0 "s (A a ^ m (A -+ cr Cr £ O• m 0
W. o a. m (D F_: O m L_ . O O m w cr O w cr P. ON O• r• m 0 9 1- • o w r• IS
w 0 0 13 "S a. M?s w mOQ 's z "s sr m a-4 m N w m< O NO (A a O w o
F- 0 crm O.0 0 r•0 CL H.cram (A m v m O H- (D G O (n
F-•MG £ a a m MO w m m N O• 3 acr - IS m w Or•O•• OQ • m
rr 0 0 0 0 F? O m P. O 0 'O F-- • F- m 0 -+ H. w O O "s (A O 00 a
cC O G O 's m (A "O T. cr 's m r• a 's F-- cr w "S .J= cr a m M ^ £
O O m O cr0 m 3 O a z r•N?m cr0 OO m WMr•cr3 Z.
0 H. ct W •- cr IS (A a" cr m "s ?-+ m H. N un U1 m H. O m -• m CO O cr O H. 0
I' 0 (D r• O a£ m z PL) O m cr w W 0 Cr O O• (D F- ct
w 0 N a (n w cr cr w a cr a 3 1r w O N OQ M Zi.-i un M cr m H.
O cC M • H. m r• O cr 3 cr OQ cr H. w H. 's 0- O m 0 0 0£ (D r• O 1 O
0 w -? x• w 0 O" w m m?r O 13 cr F- O O M CT m IS O r• m 0 0 0 F? O
m IS CO m (n w z "s m O "s a m OQ m m r• < m m w cr cr cr a cr M 0 m 0
~ a
O (D
?
?a
v a ::r
?
O
W
m
m a
(A
m
(D
A ( a(
.()
D
aMm 0
r•(
CL0(DD
A O
OQQ
c
( D D
ti•N•£
D N
's • w a0 w wr_: O O m 's w O c w cr. O H- 0) m w m w w
m F-- r• H. (A O 0 w My 0 IS a O OQ a CS' O a CL (A "s cr cr m (D (A O•'O
w (n U1 ;::j • a m z 0 3 F- Fl- M O 0 w m m o m cr m v cr m w "s
() H (A 'O O O cr Cl) c< < 0 < (A •X7 m 'O - w 1- cr •. F_ a "s O
O w(D () O cr cr w m r• cr r• 's G m r• x 's v v n A O O m .. (_
• O a O (A :1> 0 a F m cr ::r c< a 0 cr O F-• 0 0£ w O O m N £ (D
"S 0) 09 rr
m H. cIr
3
O
m
3 m O N r• 0
-3
w W. T. cr 0 cr
t
O• c
H. Cr (D M a O? a
m (D O cr O "s m (A O 0 '3 F_ O• m N O ct ? cr O '1 w 00 -3 cr m
N O O w m O. O (A • 1-- O' N` w m Qh 0 Z' o m "1 0 cr £ O CD O O 0
- cr cr., 13 "3 m M m OQ w U w m 0 r• (D 3 O (D 0 0
F- (A F- m w r. O cC O O O a "o' Fw-= w O cr O P) _ -" - cr (A '" cr W m O
F-• c< w r' 3 O H. a O M PL) 'S F-- (D 's x O 0 IS C-) O cr m- cr O
fA M to N O m 3 r• (A 'O m O w 0 Cr m F-• Fl- M m "s w m "3 m Sr F-•
cr "S C 44 G "O (A H- F-- Cr O cr (-. O cr a F, m m w U1 m cr w Cr V to
(A 0 (n w cr a w F-- w v O" m m=s OQ cr m v w H. cr G cr m cr
3 m IS w O' 's 0 w O m E(D F? cr 0 a m 0 cr 13 U1 < h- v F-- O cr (A
cr a(D F? m cr a s F-- w (n O cr (z3 m ?- a H. m m m (A O-C a O'
O cr F? O a t h, H. (A : m - 'S m- F_ O a 's cr m O H. W M O
m O E O O M OQ (A M O H. r• 'O Od O 0 .. N "S O OQ F-_ - M
CD r• 0£ m 0 F- m a F- O m a- cr 13 O r• £- cr m a. - 3 0
Pa cr cr cr a O w w m 3 0 x OQ O H. OQ v r• "s
H. cr w w
O m O cr O 1 cr Q .T3 H. ?
m o m -7 m a w a cr m %.D O 0 •O
O O G O• m m m- (A 's 0 0 w (D - 0 OQ PL) F-- cr O m O OQ m 0'
sr cr O (A m m (A w m W OQ O 'O O 0 m O O m cr m H 0 cr cr O'
PL) H. 0 m 13 a cr ?- £ a F-• cr cr O a (A O Or 0 O• 'TJ w
F--- 13 m a w r• r• O O" OQ Cr 0 O• H M w cr a m M O m m O
m w (ncsw F-•mCD :3 wcr£m00CO w (D - pw0
O m m m "3 0 a "s O' O m 0 0 cr w m 13 m
's O H. O w cr m cr O O cr F-
0 Cr O 0 Cr F- O a
O M CO m O m
A !•
1871 - The USACE began straightening and deepening the barge channel by
dredging and diverting the tidal flow from New Inlet by closing
the breach between Zekes Island and Federal Point. Work began to
close New Inlet by a stone dam, 5,300 feet long. The channel was +
dredged to a depth of 12 feet and a width of 100 feet from the
entrance channel to Wilmington.
1889 - Swash defense dam, a stone structure 12,800 feet long running
between Zekes Island and Smith Island, was completed.
1890 - The ship channel was dredged and maintained to a depth of 20 feet
and a width of 270 feet from Wilmington to the ocean.
1912 - The Rivers and Harbors Act provided for a 26-foot-deep channel with
a width at the ocean bar of 400 feet, thence 26 feet deep and 300
feet wide to Wilmington.
1930 - The river channel was deepened to 30 feet with increased width at
its bends. The anchorage basin at Wilmington and turning basins
opposite principal terminals were enlarged. The AIWW Snows Cut
Channel was completed with a 12-foot depth and 100-foot width.
1945 - The ship channel was increased to 400 feet wide by 32 feet deep up
to Wilmington and the turning basin was enlarged. A channel, 12
feet deep and 100 feet wide, was dredged between the AIWW and the
river channel.
1948 - A 200 feet wide by 25 feet deep channel was dredged from the Hilton
Bridge upstream for 1.25 miles. A 600 feet wide by 600 feet long
turning basin was also dredged at the upstream end.
1950 - The depth over the ocean bar was increased to 35 feet and depth of
the remaining reaches was increased to 34 feet up to Castle
Street, in Wilmington.
1955 - MOTSU (Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point) was opened and
entrance channels dredged.
1965 - The 200 feet wide by 25 feet deep channel above the Hilton Bridge
was extended 2200 feet upstream of the turning basin and the
width and length of the turning basin was increased 100 feet.
1966-1970 - The navigation channel in the river was increased to 38 feet
by 400 feet up to Castle Street, in Wilmington.
1971 - Navigation channel over the ocean bar was deepened to 40 feet and
maintained at a width of 500 feet.
1972 - Navigation improvements were made in river adjacent to Wilmington
(above Castle Street) to a depth of 32 feet by 400 feet.
0

4

Q V
W
cc 3
Q h
z
Z
OC
3
0? W z
o?
Q tW ¦
u, 7
ad o =
Q Ja rc i
z
Q J ?" 2
W Q
O V
?- w , o
N O O
CL W x N
N9
Z
N
O o

Q
0
Z
co Q

N
....
'A
W
V)
Q J O J_
? •--
_ O -? YJ
ZQW
0 u o
N
= J 0
la LL.
S_ Q
G O O
J I
J
_
Z

r 0

TABLE 2
Estimated Annual Average Volume of
Maintenance Dredged Material by Reach
(1970-1987)
Annual Average Volume
Maintenance Dredged Material (cu yds) Channel Reach
820,000 Baldhead Shoal, Smith Island,
Caswell-Southport, Southport,
Battery Island
Ocean source sediments (above)
River source sediments (below)
12,000
17,000
47,000
25,000
26,000
118,000
45,000
49,000
29,000
8,000
3,000
31,000
19,500
26,000
50,000
930,000
17,500
10.000
2,283,000
A

* See figure 1 for reach locations.
Lower Swash
Snow Marsh
Horseshoe Shoal
Reaves Point
Lower Midnight
Upper Midnight
Lower Lilliput
Upper Lilliput
Keg Island
Lower Big Island
Upper Big Island
Lower Brunswick
Upper Brunswick
Fourth East Jetty
Between Channel
Anchorage Basin and Approach
32' project
25' project
7
s
_0 O
CA Z
O .?
a to
N aJ
•r L
O Q

4A 41
O #
O
O
L t
a +,

i

G

cr. 0
10 10 s
o a)
.C i
++ D
tL
Z
tT 10
C O
r L
j
a tv
tv f
i
O L
C a)
10 r a
c a
t6 10 °
a
J
L
Q o
Q)
U
•r

L
n,
N 10
N
N u r
t
> O
L) L L
N
tL N
(•n 10
N to

J L
c U
G 0 to
r• (o

to
u
O

J
to - M
a)
to (o 4J
to d N •r co
O C
L a L
LA
u a)
u a
- G F- O
to
N
0
a u

r O O
D Ln
d
s N .-°
a
•r N
L
a

Z
10
a
i erf
O

a
l r
i •
G C

to c
(A 2
o n
In a
•r S
D a
? ? n e•e rr t-r c--• rt '-.
4? 41 4J 4J 44 41 ?••t 1••/ 1••1
Y Y Y Y Y u Y Y Y
m m m m m co m m co
L a! L ty L a) S. a) L a) L. 4) L Q) L 4) L (L
O L1 O 0) O L1 O m L. L. O tm O c) O m O m O a)
L to L b L to L to s- to L to L. to L to L to
am am am a43 m am am am 006 m CL a) cc
a 10 06 10 06 10 06 10 06 10 a 10 . 0610 0610 a 10
or_ o a or_ o c or_ o c or_ or_ or_
2 to = to Z to S to 2 to = to 2 to 2 to S to
c c c c c c c c c

•r •r
r •r
t-
r •r
r •r
N tL tL
Gl
Q
ty
u

a

a a a 0 a a a a
0
a
n a a d d 0_ a a a
r-
C
r 1
O t T o
++ L N 10
r _
o Q r to 10 tio t0 +? ++ +? ++
A o 4? O to c 0 0 O t t L O 7
ti N C to L t0 = ++ Q) m a a
to 0 to L N N C •r •r
• •r
Co t0 L L L •r C C C r r- 10
• 1.1 L -Z
10 N N O 10 10 10 C
1A L
10 t.? L. L. 0 O L. to 0 O d •r •r 10
p
•? p
C )
t6
N
t0 t
to L
'?
J
J r
Qp,, 0
L t C i tL w aJ L L L L L ?-•?
++ ++ ++ to a, 3 3 N 3 to > a a) a) a) a
•r L r- 3 0 0 i 0 L. to 3 a a 3 a m
a o a In o c c 0 c o ty o a a o a tL
V) VI V) V) V) -j le
4-
O 0
Y aJ v tL 061 a a) d
Cl) C Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
O to r r r
I- m G D O O D O O D
•r n
E S
C (0
t0 (f) 0) N tp tT tT n 0) t0
Cl) O rt N N -W Q (•')
• a
v y
L
aJ Q

•r to
tL
O
a U N
N
Q C C = O
q > t
a t
a 3 3
Z d •r t O 10 O O 4-
r•.1 6L L N S Z Z C C L
M
Ln
Ln a)
H *.
N

2L
O to S- 33 4- c
Z E to 3 O tY L C
to V Y L t •--• O t6
Qa C N H 0 a•+ N 3 4 C L J L
r tL to 3 3 3 c O(0 u
•r t ?Q O O O 0 4. 4- ty 4-
4•1 J r_ r_
a 'E O O U LL O
406 C
N N L C
t° 4. N Q) r 4- 4j r- 1-t C tL 4j 4j to
la Q tL 4? C (A C r O N O t 7 a N r
u 3 •r al to a) t0 to r tT •11 to ty to to
•r Z L to a co Q) L L tL O 4+ •r U 3 y-
?•+ 4J 4+ 0 3 3 ar ++ N u r_ L O
7 = L a ++ a) 4+ 10 7 tL I- c 10 to 10 al L 0)
to p
O o a aJ t tL tL o = o =• aJ c u a)
C Z O co 41 co L. N G f n Z t0 G Q ]G
N (h Q LO O n 00 0) O
rt
•
8

74
.-? N N
? N
a O a
(A Z ? i N M Lr) to t,p kO CO co
C
O ?-+ O t--t .-+ rt rt .-? rr ?-. rt C
to
N
r L •O U
C Q C a

a r r_
N # ++ to
o
a
06 la Y 0
O O U •r r-•
L t d
o

f O C C C C C C C C Y
i •r •r •r •r •r •r •r
a a r O
c a tm a a v a a OJ a a +?
•r a i a a a a a a a a
0 (a
D 2 m G. G. CL d a a d C- N
a L
L a
D f
N
3
O O
O C

a E
Q) c c c c c C c
c S-

C r r
a a a a a a a a a N
a a a a a a a a a a
•p •r •r •r L
Q) d a d t1 d a d 4. d U
L a
o a
L
L 'D a

3 to C C
a to
C J O C
a C Y L Y r C 41 41 +j 4- r
U •C t0 U a U T a •r u U U U
•r C a ++
C N
a
a
a
a
•O
> a 3 a 3
.-l r_ a •n n n O
L N N a a m O O O O •r
- a 'O "O C C 7. L L i i L L N
V) C C Ol 7 •C Y U a 0- a Q. a a 'C
m to •r L C U L 4J m a a
. N r r• m In t0 m N C co 41 ++ 41 +> to
a N N 3 t0 a ii O O O O L ?-
t - - L L L N i W a 0 O O O O a N
U a a a c a 3 t 4- 4- 4- 4- a •r
to rn rn n. 3 3 7 a t ?+ U l l l T
a a a 0 0 i a 41 a C N N ti l LO
ti' Y m O J J co O m Q M M N N O t0
Ul N
zw O
cu a

N 7 a a a r
a
r N
to a Y Y Y y
G.
O C O G D 'O •D 'O 'O R L
a r a a a a +1 a a m
N U +J 41 1
4- Y Y Y Y L Y 41 > r-
pp O
F- 2 Z Z O O a s Z
T N
4 •r
+? X
C a
x a •
O co C co CD CD O N N 4 a
S- C14 m C14 Co r
r 41
O
O
++
E

N 'r
a N O U
a L p a
CL N O t
Q C i i
C ? t
0 ea r
o a O R N

O
Y i
N W W W •
N t OJ to =
e a
O ~ O r C a a a >
Y a m
O U
+ L eo to a to a O In
L + U U U N V) t..
41
m u
N Q) -W. 0
C Si C - t a i W W W a a••t
o O c L C c 4> a s Z Z Z N > In
3
S-
U
C 4-
•
r
a T N a a co O L O O O a
U
O a .. _ E i 2 o a a t
a J 41 r F L
4
a Y
y
C O U r-
N 41
a a
'C Y
C Y
C 4- s
a to ?
C tq O 4- 3 tp n-r 4. r
• a a L U
• O J a N O .0 r1 'a
'r
+ O L a t
il y 4..r L L. L. 4- O
4 a a ++ +1 •N C • C +•t a ., a +1 a a a 4-
.? C E E L N 'O N O? N > N > N > L C
O
U E ro
. U o r6 C a V- L t6 O a• a) - a• .-.
r -O

V
K . Z w rp 3 0 m w d 3 d' 3 tY W O' 0) a
a > a
N
M a O 4- a •r 7
N Z
a
Q
N
4?
Q. to r-, N M Q ?O n O tT to Q U Z
N a rt .-t rt r--i r-r r• rr .•y rt
to c a

9
4,
> n
•J
b ?
r
Q
7
d O
? S
N C ?
> 4J 4
r 4? C
++ r C
Rf Q u
C
L C
4)
Q Z
C
C O t
C > +
J
rt3
• 4
?
4to
J
to
? C C
N L L
O •c
V +_1 C
Q 4
r0 i
4, c
L
Q
r
9A C
(U
0 \
O H +
a 4J u
LL L
W C]
J
m L
Q U O
H ? C
W
4- ?o
O Q)
L Z
a o c
U
C ++ +
+
(O C Cl
u (1) 2
U N
Q)
a i
x a
W
41
4- -0 S
•r 4J
J d-t ?
U
O O 4
C a 4
«7 X •?
W
a
U +•t S
CL co u
to J
V
a
•U r
az
b
U
r
t0 C
N 7
O
a°
H a
•r i
Q C
t0 M M M Ch CD CD
9 C9 H O O 10 10
> C N N N N N N en 4 M C C
R M co
41 CU a) 4J 4J 4) 4J
Ol 4J O 41 Ol aJ Of 4J m w tT w tT w
I 'C lT •O Qt pf •O CT Im Ol •C Of io m
DJ L dJ L 41 i O L W L 4l L 4! S-
i b i tt7 L 10 L tt7 i n7 i «7 i A
t6 G? C O O .G C? O .D C? O O
C \ \ \ \ \ \ \
41
i i +w L w L w L ++ L ++ i. +?
Ow O Q)w CU O w w O O 4)W O O A M
a Y C
&
a Y a Y Q. Y CL Y a Y a Y C C
a u a u a u a v
o =
0 a
o
o c
o
0 o =
0 o
o o

? c
m
s m
x m
x
x m
m
x 3

s m

s co
CD CD CD ? r- ? m
M t0 MD to ccn

M
4J
CT
Q
? a,
? L
0 4i a v ar a, a v 4? a,
C C C C C C C C C
i L
4) r r r r r r r r r
a 4J d 4! 4J 4J w 4J 4J a
a a a a a a a a a a
O r r r
x a d d a a a 0- a a
QJ ?
? V
r a . O L
•° O CD CD ° >
a
(v m rn 4
i c
oo rn m rn o
1
4- N of al 47 O rn rn of m O O
4) C r a--i C •-r r•o p•1 r• trl Ul)

I C +•t +j
O O
C C
r-
H co co 00 co co O
I CT 4, al C71 41 Cl CT CT M M CT m
I en to ••. ?-. vt r•+ ro .--• r ra t--t ?-+
m
4! L L
4? 4J O O w O O O O O O O
•r Cl O O tm O O O O O O O
C C O O C O O O O O O O
•1 O O
N r r
O O to C• N P- Ln O a,
C 2 N M 0 ?-+ r+ •7 N nl
a-• v v
I
O
e?
N
t ti N M Q to to f\ co rn rt '-. '-+
10

16

s
0
> 'D
•r
.. a,
CD ° s
c ++ to to
o
•1 01
+
L c C C
•
47 O M V' i •r
(i
0 C O1
a L d
Q

ro +? 'O
O G1 ro
z a 3 0
v °1
'- - aJ (a O 'O L
> 0 In ro
r L N p
. +? Q 4l •r
ro s v
c- ro co 11.1 Ul) 4j r c
L ro c c .-? to to
aJ N L •r
.64 O 4) i 41
_
N O 41 Y
to
U
O "G E ?
C ?
ro ?
0 L
O 0
p 4-
al L 0

al r Q N
41 O O
to ro 0 U
IJJ
L c c C 41 0
al •r r 0 t
41 a,. 4? a 41
r 'p C C al 0 al
a L a a >1
c
t0
a
o a a s
ro 41

('1 C ++ i
'-
c p 00 0 p ro
4
i C
l 1
0 t
O ti1 m

0 0
u
a
44) rn
CL C-) (a
E a
w
C
in + aa
loa
'm Qj 41 LIn
c w c ;
o t
o 3 L
0 .0
r- ro
v 3 °'
a
i c 0
v cu 3 s
41
0 o to Q a
•
L a1 41 0 O QI C ro
U
4? 41 c N r r r 7 ro ro r
c •- p O L a r
0 _
1
/1 al 4J al 4J 'p al i a r u 3
4) a r• a a c a +? 3
i O •r •r N ro r 4j
a a ro d C l- a ro
L'i L C c
^ H

ro p
0 'O
r o
a

w

?
H u
c
Im LA 3c
i
41 L 4
1 L L L r p
t V 0
a a a a c
V 4l C cc 0 Y
O L 1
4) O 41 O O ro O E t- c
CL 4- Ln c l1') Ln In N 41
t0 4- r to N
W J 41 r O 01 O •r 7 N1 L
o 0 %- - cc
N
r
C 4- 4•1 ro M
d
aa)
'a
>1 13 a) >1
f -
to m
a
0 al CO co 0 V ro
•N
v 1n
to o Q1 N 01 p N ip aJ N
O t
o al 41 e-+
t
-• 4h CA o
pp
>
0
. 7 7 7 E t
a
6 13 ++
L L L •r O N s i 00
T O 4l O O 41 O al v O •r r al r
+? O 01 O O O1 O M O r d
•u M O O O O C O C
O %- t- d al
O ••+ to 3 0 L
4l (a 0 O r- p p O M ++
a o 0 0 0
w
^ a Q O C r\ O v O r-t - a
l 41 L L
• z - z z al ++ •r o 0
++ N E a 4- 4-
L
O # to
= E r- O
'

(a O

# tm -
a (a LA a)
•X w to

LA Z
# z
O 0
O
U
Q 0 cn c u•, t0 r- co 01 'o 0.
(a. i .-•t t--t .--i r-i e-t t--i t--t 0 a 0 H W ++
G Q H Q?o 1O F- Z
?.
# # 41. ik
11
3.1.3 Dredging Schedule. The Anchorage Basin and Between Channel are dredged
annually, while maintenance dredging of individual channels in the 38-foot
project has usually been performed approximately once every 2 years: The
ocean bar channels are dredged by hopper dredge at their current rate of once
a year. The segments of the 32 and 25-foot projects are dredged every 4-8
years.
Dredging by hopper dredge in the ocean bar channels is performed any time
of the year. Dredging in the rest of the harbor is normally scheduled to take
place during the fall and winter months due to the concern over damaging or
disrupting estuarine resources during biologically productive periods of the
year. Therefore if possible, dredging is avoided from April 1 through
September 30. However, the need for dredging has occurred in some reaches of
the project intermittently during the April 1 through September 30 time period
(see section 3.2.3 for proposed dredging schedule).
3.2 Reasonable Alternatives. During the preliminary screening process,
reasonable alternatives were selected which would be environmentally sound,
economical, and provide for adequate maintenance of the harbor. Any
alternatives which would be environmentally disruptive, such as open water
disposal in the estuary were not selected for use. Cost estimates were made
for each reasonable alternative to determine the least cost alternative for
long-term maintenance. Reasonable alternatives included, depending on the
reach, hopper dredge with ocean disposal, bucket-and-barge with ocean
disposal, and pipeline dredge to diked disposal areas. The alternatives to be
used are indicated in table 3 and described below:
3.2.1 Current and Proposed Dredging Methods.
3.2.1.1 The Hopper Dredge. The seagoing hopper dredge is a self-propelled
vessel resembling somewhat the modern ocean tanker in appearance, except for a
larger amount of deck equipment. In lieu of the tanks in the latter, the
hopper dredge is provided with hoppers used to load and carry material dredged
hydraulically from the bottom. It is a completely self-contained dredging
plant. The significant characteristic of the hopper dredge is that it
operates while underway, requiring no anchors or other mooring devices. They
usually work in channels or harbors in which wave action, current, or heavy
traffic make a nonself-propelled dredging plant undesirable or impossible. As
in any dredging operation, the location of the dredging site, the
characteristics of the bottom material, the shape of the waterway, and the
availability of usable disposal areas are important factors that affect the
economics of hopper dredging and dictate the methods and techniques employed.
Hopper dredges are designed primarily to hydraulically dredge materials, load
and retain the solids in the hoppers, and then haul them to the disposal site
where the material is disposed of by dumping through doors in the bottom of
the hoppers or through the hull on the split-hull hopper dredges., Loading is
accomplished by sucking the shoal material into the hoppers through a drag
head and pipe attached to the side of the vessel as it makes one or more cuts
(or passes) through the dredging area. The quantity or volume pumped during
the loading operation depends on several variables: the character of the
material, the amount of pumping time involved, the hopper capacity, and the
12
pumping and propulsion capability of the dredge being used. During the
dredging, the dredged material is pumped on board in a diluted state, with
hoppers being equipped with overflows or skimmers to allow decant water to be
discharged overboard. Overflowing of the hopper dredge will continue in the
• ocean bar channels and is proposed in the rest of the harbor where the
sediments are predominantly sand (e.g. Snows Marsh, Horseshoe Shoal, Reaves
Point, and Upper Lilliput Channels; Section 4.1.3.1).
The loading rate, retention rate, and the time spent in making the round
trip to and from the disposal area are important in determining when to
terminate loading so as to attain the economic load and economic pumping time.
The economic load is determined by a series of load tests conducted
periodically during normal dredging and hauling operations.
3.2.1.2 Pipeline Dredge. The pipeline dredge is the most versatile of the
hydraulic type dredges. It can handle a large volume of materials
economically and can dredge materials from a depth of 60 feet, ranging in
consistency from light silt to rock. The dredge, however, is very sensitive
to swells and waves; therefore, it is most appropriate for projects in
protected waters., Dredging and disposal operations are simultaneous and are
conducted when the pipeline dredge is anchored. The materials are removed by
the rotary cutterhead through the suction pipe in dilution with water,
transported through the main pump, and discharged at the end of the pipeline.
The pipeline may range from, 6 to 36 inches in diameter but, in North Carolina,
12- to 18-inch pipes are most common. Land disposal is accomplished by adding
shore discharge pipes to the floating or submerged pipeline. The length of
the discharge pipeline depends on available power but can be extended with
booster pumps to a total length of several miles. Increasing the length of
the discharge line results in increased costs and often makes it economically
infeasible to pump dredged material for long distances. Single stage
pipelines, in North Carolina Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway work, range to
10,000 feet. Discharge slurries from cutterhead pipeline dredges generally
contain from 10 to 20 percent solids. The rate of sediment removal is
dependent upon difficulty in digging, length of discharge pipe, and lift to
discharge elevation.
3.2.1.3 Bucket and Barge or Clamshell Dredging. The clamshell dredging
procedure consists of the use of a clamshell or bucket, operated from a barge-
mounted crane, to excavate shoal materials. A sediment load will be placed by
bucket into a bottom dumping barge moored next to the crane. The barge,
generally having a 1,000 to 6,000 cubic yard capacity, will be loaded in this
manner until it is filled. Once filled, the barge will be transported by tug
to the designated ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS). At the ODMDS,
the bottom of the barge is opened and the dredged material is dumped.
The overfilling of the barges is used to allow decant water to overflow in
order to achieve a greater solids load in the barge which results in a more
economical load. Barge overflow characteristics are as variable as the size
and shapes of the barges being used by the industry. However, two basic.
overflow methods generally characterize the industry methodology. The most
widely used method can best be described as spillover along the sides of the
barge to reduce the water inside and increase the quantity of sediment. The
13
second method of overflow uses internal skimmers or overflow weirs that allow
the water to flow out of the barge at depths 10 to 15 feet below the surface
underneath the hull. The overflow method is economically beneficial when the
material being dredged is predominantly sand. The water will tend to have
minimal suspended solids and the barge loads will be much more efficient.
Therefore, barge overflow is proposed in the reaches of the harbor where the
sediments are predominantly sand (e.g. Snows Marsh, Horseshoe Shoal, Reaves
Point, and Upper Lilliput Channels, Section 4.1.3.1).
3.2.2 Proposed Dredged Material Disposal. Ocean disposal (as in the past) is
proposed for the five lower reaches to be dredged by hopper dredge (Baldhead
Shoal Channel, Smith Island Channel, Caswell-Southport Channel, Southport
Channel, and Battery Island Channel). The Battery Island Channel rarely needs
dredging as the channel remains naturally deep; however, the other four
reaches combined require the removal of approximately 820,000 cubic yards
annually. The designated ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) is an
area 2.3 nautical miles (nmi) square and is located beginning 3 miles south of
the mouth of the Cape Fear River. The range of water depth at the disposal
site is from approximately 40 to 50 feet. Snows Marsh and Lower Swash rarely
require maintenance, but when dredging is required it will be done by a bucket
or hopper dredge.
Maintenance of the reaches from Horseshoe Shoal to Keg Island will be by
bucket or hopper dredge. Dredged material from bucket and hopper dredging
will be deposited in the ODMDS. A pipeline dredge will be used intermittently
over the 50 year period in the reaches from Snows Marsh`to Keg Island Channels
(inclusive) if capacity is available in the existing disposal islands.
A bucket, hopper or pipeline dredge may be used for Lower Big Island with
disposal in the ocean disposal site or sites 11 and 12. Maintenance of the
channels from Upper Big Island to the upstream end of the project will be by
pipeline dredge with disposal within existing sites 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18.
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the status and capacity of each of the previously
used disposal areas and the proposed alternative(s), if any, to their long
term use.
All sites to be used for diked disposal have been completely diked before
except for disposal sites 11-13 and 18. These sites will be diked before use.
The shorelines on the channel side of islands 11-13 are eroding due to wind
waves and boat wakes. There are scattered patches of marsh along the
shoreline but most of this marsh is also eroding. The marsh appears to be
eroding primarily due to a shoreline slope too steep for successful long-term
establishment of marsh and to a lesser degree due to wind waves and boat
wakes. In order to protect the proposed dikes and shorelines from erosion,
the following is proposed:
The shoreline adjacent to each proposed dike (approximately 2200 feet per
island) will be graded from 10% (the average present slope) down to 3% which
is ideal for saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) establishment. A 50'
wide by 2,200' long border of saltmarsh cordgrass would then be planted on 1.5
foot centers in the upper intertidal zone at each island (7.5 acres total for

•
M

14
all three islands). A 50' wide border of salt meadow hay (Spartina patens)
• would then be planted between the mean high water (m.h.w.) line and the toe of
the proposed dike at each island (7.5 acres total for all three islands).
Wash-out areas that may occur during the first year would be replanted. This
• planting should not only stabilize the shoreline (e.g. Broome et. al 1981) but
create intertidal marsh and high marsh habitat. This proposed marsh planting
action will be coordinated with the appropriate experts and agencies prior to
initiation.
During the grading and diking process, some of the wetlands at the site
would be lost; however, there would be a net increase in wetland habitat. See
sections 4.2.3 and 5.2.3 for details. All graded material would be removed to
the highland portion of the sites and used during dike construction.
Site 18 is a 54.5 acre site, 26.5 acres of which are wetlands (sections
4.2.3 and 5.2.3). Based on current projections, the 28 acre upland portion of
the site will be adequate for 50 years of disposal of dredged material.
However, up to 14 acres of wetlands would be needed for dredged material
disposal if unexpected shoaling occurs. If these wetlands are needed for
disposal of dredged material, they would be mitigated (section 5.2.4).
A permanent access road is needed to site 18 for equipment to build and
maintain dikes, and potentially to be used by trucks in order for New Hanover
County to sell the dried dredged material, or if the material is suitable, for
daily cover at the county landfill. Removal of the dredged material would
reduce the potential need to fill up to 14 acres of wetlands in site 18. The
county will attempt to arrange, with the adjacent property owner, for
permanent upland road access to the site. If this is not possible, the least
adverse impact to wetlands would require the filling of up to 1.0 acre of
wooded wetlands. If wetlands are filled for the access road, actions to be
taken are indicated in section 5.2.4.
Rediking of all designated disposal sites will take place in a manner
which will minimize damages to any existing marsh edge and estuarine areas
which surround the sites. This will occur by filling the diked sites,
leveling them off at higher elevations, re-diking, and filling them again.
Care will be taken in this process not to increase the basal area of the
sites, thereby precluding any significant damage to the surrounding estuarine
areas. The dikes at each site may be constructed up to 20 feet high mean sea
level (m.s.l.) or higher toward the end of the 50 year maintenance period.
3.2.3 Proposed Dredging Schedule. The proposed schedule will be the same as
indicated in Section 3.1.3. including the need to dredge intermittently during
the April 1 through September 30 time period.
3.3 Summary of Proposed Dredging and Disposal Methods. For the 50 year
planning period, the following dredging methods and disposal locations are
considered reasonable:
r
1. A hopper dredge will be used in the reaches from Baldhead Shoal to
Battery.Island (inclusive) with disposal in the designated ocean dredged
material disposal (ODMDS) site.
n
15
2. A bucket and barge or hopper dredge will be used from Lower Swash to
Keg Island (inclusive) with disposal in the ODMDS. •
3. A bucket and barge, hopper or pipeline dredge will be used for Lower
Big Island with disposal in the ODMDS or sites 11 and 12.
4. A pipeline dredge will be used from Upper Big Island to the upstream
end of the project (inclusive) with disposal in sites 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18.
5. A pipeline dredge may also be used from Snows Marsh to Keg.Island
reaches (inclusive) for the next several years since capacity is still
available in some of the islands adjacent to these reaches (table 4). Also,
these islands may be used for disposal of dredged material intermittently over
the 50 year period if consolidation of dredged materials provides additional
capacity or if the substrate can support higher dikes (section 3.6.4).
3.4 Environmentally Preferred Alternative. All reasonable alternatives were
considered environmentally sound and no one alternative was selected as
environmentally preferred.
3.5 Alternative Maintenance Methods Eliminated from Further Study.
The following activities were considered but rejected for the indicated
reasons:
3.5.1 Disposal in the Estuary and Wetlands. This alternative is not proposed
because of its adverse environmental impact and because other alternatives are
available that are feasible, provide 50 year disposal capacity and that do not
have significant adverse impact on the environment. Adverse impacts
associated with estuarine disposal areas could include loss of fish nursery
area, shellfish beds and other benthic resources, and recreation areas.
Adverse impacts associated with wetland disposal could include loss of
breeding and feeding habitat for birds and furbearers, detrital food chain
source, and esthetic resources.
3.5.2 Beach and Littoral Zone Disposal. The grain size characteristics of
the shoal material in the various channels of Wilmington Harbor were evaluated
in order to determine the location of shoal material that would be suitable
for placement on nearby beaches or in the littoral zone (ocean area from the
surf zone to approximately 25 feet deep).
3.5.2.1 Beach Disposal Alternatives Considered Using a Hydraulic Pipeline
Dredge. In developing the beach disposal alternative, two beach disposal
sites were evaluated in detail, namely: (1) the shoreline fronting the Fort
Fisher State Historic Site and (2) the Town of Kure Beach shoreline. In
addition, two methods of depositing the material on the beach were considered
and were: (1) temporarily storing the material during annual maintenance
operations and pumping to the beach on a periodic basis and (2) pumping the
material directly to the beach during each maintenance operation. These +
alternatives have been given the following designation:
Al - Temporary storage with disposal on Fort Fisher
ti

16
A2 - Temporary storage with disposal on Kure Beach
' B1 - Direct disposal on Fort Fisher
B2 - Direct disposal on Kure Beach
For alternatives Al and A2, temporary storage would be on disposal areas 3
or 4 (figure 1). Every 10 years the stored material would be pumped to Fort
Fisher or Kure Beach for beach disposal. For alternatives B1 and B2, the
dredged material would be pumped directly to either Fort Fisher or Kure Beach
during the dredging operation. Only the section of the navigation project
between Lower Swash and Reaves Point channels had grain sizes suitable for
beach disposal. The total average annual volume of shoal material removed
from these channels is 101,000 cubic yards of which 12,000 cubic yards is
removed from Lower Swash channel, 17,000 cubic yards from Snow Marsh channel,
47,000 cubic yards from Horseshoe Shoal channel, and 25,000 cubic yards from
Reaves Point channel (table 2).
Due to the extremely long pumping distance from Lower Swash channel to the
beach disposal sites or to a temporary storage area and the relatively small
quantity of material removed from this channel, Lower Swash channel was not
included in the beach disposal alternative evaluation. For these same
reasons, the lower portion of Snow Marsh channel was also excluded. The
volume of material that would be available for placement on the beach from the
remaining channels; which include Reaves Point, Horseshoe Shoal, and the upper
portion of Snow Marsh is estimated to be about 89,000 cubic yards/year. Of
this total, 25,000 cubic yards/year would be obtained from Reaves Point
channel, 47,000 cubic yards/year from Horseshoe Shoal, and 17,000 cubic
yards/year from the upper portion of Snow Marsh.
None of these four alternatives are considered economically feasible when
compared to bucket and barge operation (table 5). Additional information on
these alternatives are in Appendix B of the final EIS.
An investigation was performed for the alternative of a hydraulic pipeline
dredge pumping the sand removed around the mouth of the river to the beaches
at Baldhead Island. The hydraulic pipeline dredge would only be used in the
reaches closest to Baldhead Island (most economical pumping distance), but a
hopper dredge would still be needed for the remainder of the lower harbor.
The costs would be higher than hopper dredge operations alone because of
extensive periods of time when the pipeline dredge could not operate
efficiently in the rough inlet environment and the increased costs associated
with mobilization and operation of two dredges (USACE 1989).
For any of the above alternatives involving disposal on a beach, if the
State requests that the sand be placed on a beach, the sand will be placed
there if the local sponsor pays 50% of the additional pumping costs, all
necessary environmental clearances are obtained and the provisions of USACE EC
1165-2-142 (cost sharing for disposal of material on beaches) are met.
If an agency or group other than the State desires to have the sand placed
on a beach, this sand will be made available if the agency or group (1) pays
all the additional pumping costs, (2) obtains all necessary environmental
M
17
TABLE 5
Average Annual Costs for Beach Disposal and
Ocean Disposal by Bucket and Barge for the
Snow Marsh to Reaves Point Channels
Disposal
Alternative
Al Fort Fisher Disposal
A2 Kure Disposal
B1 Fort Fisher.Direct
B2 Kure Direct
Bucket and Barge
Average Annual
Cost
$806,000
$936,000
$560,000
$771,000
$205,000

18
clearances, (3)_ the State does not request that the sand be placed on another
beach and (4) pumping the sand to the beach would not adversely impact the
USACE dredging schedule.
3.5.2.2 Pumping to the Beach from a Hopper Dredge This alternative was
considered for pumping the sand removed around the mouth of the river to the
beaches at Bald Head Island or Oak Island. However, the cost of this
alternative would be up to $4.12 a cubic yard more than ordinary hopper dredge
operations. The costs would depend on the size of the dredge and whether the
dredge is government owned or a contract dredge. If the State, an agency or
group desires this sand be placed on a beach, the provisions indicated in
section 3.5.2.1 must be met.
3.5.2.3 Littoral Disposal by Bucket and Barge Operations. The dredged
material considered for this alternative would come from the Reaves Point to
Lower Swash channels which would normally be disposed in the ODMDS. The
annual maintenance volume for these channels is 101,000 cubic yards. Material
dredged upriver of these ranges is unsuitable for littoral disposal due to the
high clay content and the downriver reaches are dredged by hopper dredges
(Bucket and barge operations could also be used in much of the lower reaches
to be maintained by hopper dredge, but the cost comparison and effectiveness
would be similar to that indicated below). To attempt to dispose of dredged
material in the nearshore zone would require an increase in the round trip
distance of 9 nautical miles (compared to disposal in the ODMDS) to reach the
closest feasible disposal area, Long Beach (Long Beach is more feasible than
Baldhead, Caswell or Yaupon Beaches since the barges can get closer to the
beach at Long Beach versus the other beaches). The increased distance is
required because a loaded barge can not cross the shoals adjacent to the
nearshore ocean portion of the navigation channel. The greater distance would
increase the dredging cost by $0.50 per cubic yard or $50,000 per year.
The depth of the disposal area would be 24-25 feet (loaded barge draft is
22 feet). This is near the seaward end of the littoral zone. The amount of
material from littoral disposal moving toward the beach would probably be less
than 25% and quite likely would be much less than 25%. If 25% of the material
moves on the active profile, the effective additional cost of the material
would be $2.00 per cubic yard. If only 10% moves shoreward, the effective
additional cost would be $5.00 per cubic yard. If an agency or group desires
to have the sand placed in the littoral zone, then the sand could be made
available if the agency or group (1) pays all the.additional costs, (2)
obtains all necessary environmental clearances, (3) the State does not request
that the sand be placed on a beach and (4) placing the sand in the littoral
zone would not adversely impact the USACE dredging schedule.
3.5.3 Ocean Disposal by Pipeline. This alternative assumes that material
removed from Lower Lilliput to Lower Swash channels is pumped by pipeline to a
point 5000' offshore of Fort Fisher. Average pumping distances from these
reaches to the beach at Fort Fisher is 36,000' (41,000' total to offshore
disposal point) and could require as many as three booster pumps. Based on
the average annual maintenance volume of 309,000 cubic yards using a 27"
pipeline dredge, the average annual cost just to reach the beach would be
" $6,207,000. Compared to the annual costs of $1,070,000 for bucket and barge
19
dredging for the same reaches, the ocean disposal by pipeline alternative is
not economically feasible. Additional information on this alternative is in
appendix B of the final EIS.
3:5.4 Disposal in Upland Disposal Areas Not Previously Used for Disposal of
Dredged Material. This alternative is not proposed because of its adverse
environmental impact and because other alternatives are available that are
feasible, provide 50 year disposal capacity and that do not have significant
adverse impact on the environment. Adverse impacts associated with upland
disposal areas could include loss of diverse terrestrial habitat, elimination
of the associated fauna, potential of contamination of groundwater by
saltwater, and adverse impacts on esthetic resources.
3.5.5 Best Management Practices. The main purpose of best management
practices (BMP) is to reduce erosion of topsoil from agricultural lands.
BMP's include no till farming, grassed waterways and grassed field borders`.
Similar techniques such as grassed road shoulders and drainage ditches are
also frequently used along highways and in urban areas to control erosion.
The Corps of Engineers encourages the use of BMP's wherever possible; however,
regardless of the extent of use, BMP's only reduce erosion, they do not stop
it. Therefore sediment will still enter the river. This sediment along with
the existing bedload in the river, will always create a need for extensive
maintenance dredging. Since maintenance would still be required if BMP's were
fully implemented, a detailed analysis of this alternative was not performed.
3.5.6 Moving the State Port Terminal to the Mouth of the Cape Fear River.
Comments during the study suggest that harbor maintenance could be minimized
by relocating the NC State Ports facilities to the mouth of the Cape Fear
River. This alternative has many difficulties, including the lack of
available upland, no rail lines in the area, inadequate highway connections,
and the distance from labor markets and shipping service companies. Also
about 45 percent of the cost of maintaining the harbor occurs at the ocean
bar, which would continue to require the same maintenance regardless of
location of terminal facilities along the river. The NC State Ports handles
only about one-half of the tonnage for the harbor, and about half the NC State
Ports tonnage is handled through facilities which are leased to others
(principally Paktank and Koch Fuels). Deep draft shipping would still be
required by oil terminals, Almont Shipping, W. R. Grace, Chemserve, Dixie
Cement, and other terminals. The cost of relocating all deep-draft facilities
to downstream areas would be tremendous and environmentally disruptive.
3.5.7 No Action. The alternative of no action would mean that the authorized
project would be allowed to return.to its natural depth over time and economic
benefits due to the project would slowly decrease until they no longer
existed. At some future point, when sediment had built up in the channel,
medium and deep draft navigation would be impossible.
In view of the tremendous historic, economic, and social impacts the
abandonment of Wilmington Harbor would have on the region, the State, and the
Nation, and since economically and environmentally sound alternatives are
available for harbor maintenance, the choice of no action is not reasonable.
20
3.6 Other Actions Considered.
•
3.6.1 Maintenance of the Harbor for the Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point.
The Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point (MOTSU), is located adjacent to the
Wilmington Harbor channel approximately 15 miles downstream from Wilmington.
MOTSU is operated by the Military Traffic Management Command with a mission to
support the U.S. Armed Forces and Allies through the transfer of military
cargoes from land-based transportation to ocean-going carriers. The
maintenance of adequate depths in the MOTSU berthing areas, turning basins,
and access channels is prerequisite to maintaining a high state of military
preparedness at the facility.
The maintenance of MOTSU harbor facilities is not included in this long-
term evaluation of Wilmington Harbor because of the unique military mission
and maintenance requirements of the MOTSU facility. However, environmental
analysis specific to the MOTSU maintenance dredging program indicate that
ocean disposal of MOTSU dredged material is the only currently available,
environmentally acceptable long-term disposal alternative. Rehabilitation of
existing diked upland disposal areas and sand borrow areas on the MOTSU
property may provide disposal capacity for a limited number of dredging
operations; however, other non-ocean disposal alternatives are not available.
3.6.2 Maintaining the Two Existing Colonial Waterbird Nesting Islands and
Creating a Third Nesting Island. The two existing colonial waterbird nesting
islands (figure 1) are only large enough (maximum of 4 acres per island) to
provide sufficient disposal capacity on an intermittent basis. However, the
District remains committed to the management of the two existing colonial
waterbird nesting islands in the lower Cape Fear River through the
intermittent placement of dredged material. An environmental assessment
discussing such activities was prepared and distributed to all known
interested parties in December, 1982 (USACE 1982).
It has been suggested that a third island in the lower river would be
beneficial to the colonial waterbird population and facilitate future
management. The District does not plan to pursue this option as other sites
are available that have the necessary environmental clearances. However, if
other agencies or interests obtain all necessary environmental clearances and
perform-any necessary site preparation, the District will provide dredged
material to create and maintain the island in conjunction with it's regularly
scheduled maintenance dredging events.
3.6.3 Controlling Erosion on Existing Disposal Islands. As indicated in
section 3.2.2, the undiked disposal islands 11-13 are eroding due to wind
waves and boat wakes. In addition, three diked Wilmington Harbor disposal
areas are eroding (4, 8 and 10). The most severe erosion is occurring at
disposal area 8. All 3,000 feet of the 20-foot high (m.s.l.) dike fronting
the channel is eroding. The erosion is caused by waves striking the base of
the dike during the high stage of the tide. The dike material that sloughs
from the disposal area is redistributed by waves and currents. An estimate of
cost for erosion protection using a stone rubble revetment was made. This
type of structure has proven to be the most reliable and economical over the
years. Based on nationwide demonstration projects, rubble bank protection
21
projects range in price from $140 to $525 per foot of bank protected. A
rubble shore protection structure on Pamlico Sound was recently designed and
had an estimatedcost of $425 per foot of shoreline. Using this rate per
linear foot for disposal area 8 yields a cost for erosion protection of
$1,275,000.
The remaining capacity in disposal area 8 is estimated to be 120,000 cubic
yards. The cost saving obtained by using disposal area 8 ($1.72/cy) versus
using ocean disposal ($2.80/cy) is $1.08 per cubic yard or $130,000. Erosion
protection by stone rubble is clearly not economically feasible. Similarly,
preventing erosion at the other two diked disposal areas is either not
economically feasible or the amount of erosion is so minor that action at this
time is not warranted.
Controlling erosion by planting marsh (similar to sites 11-13) at sites 4,
8 and 10 is not feasible due to the capacity of each site that would be lost
to establish an appropriate slope for marsh planting.
3.6.4 A Preliminary Stability Analysis for Disposal Area Dikes. A
preliminary analysis for the Eagle Island disposal area (site 15) dike, which
was based on standard design and construction techniques, has been completed.
The use of toe berms, flatter side slopes, and/or geotextiles and any other
possible methods of increasing the dike height will be investigated during the
final design analysis in order to assure that the dike capacity is maximized.
The maximum dike height will be limited due to an undesirable foundation
condition at the site. Periodically the dike will need to be raised to
accommodate settlement. Repairs to the dike should be expected, and will be
necessary as a part of the continuing maintenance of the dike. After the dike
construction is completed, any modification to the dike will reanalyzed. Dike
height should be adequate to provide a 50 year disposal capacity.
A similar analysis will be performed at the other disposal sites if or
when dikes need to constructed or raised.
3.6.5 Periodic Review of the 50 Year Maintenance Plan, New Technology
and Unexpected Circumstances.
Periodic Review of Maintenance Plan. It is recognized that modifications
to the proposed action may be necessary during the 50 year period due to
changes in dredging technology, shoaling rates, environmental conditions or
laws and regulations. Therefore, the maintenance plan-will be reviewed every
five years. The first review period will be five years from the publication
of the final EIS. All interested Federal, state, and local agencies, groups
and the public will be invited to participate in these reviews.
New Technology. Potential for new dredging and disposal technology does
exist. More efficent dredges could be developed that would remove sediment
more effectively and cause fewer undesirable environmental impacts. Some
prototype pipeline dredges are being developed that could pump material
further than previously expected and at lower cost.

22
Unexpected Circumstances. While some Federal project channels have been
` deepened by private interests, it is difficult to predict the timing and
location of other improvements. An example of work by private industry is the
deepening of the Federal navigation channel from 32 feet to 35 feet by
Stevedores, Incorporated over about 1.7 miles extending from the upper end of
the 38-foot channel at the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge to a point in the
Northeast Cape Fear River just downstream of the N.C. 133 Highway Bridge.
This work was completed in February 1978 after the necessary State and Federal
permits were issued. Chemserve Terminal, Incorporated deepened approximately
1,000 feet of the Federal navigation channel from 25 to 30 feet between the
Hilton Bridge and their docks. The modification of existing State and Federal
permits was approved in February 1985 and the deepening was completed in
December 1985.
3.7 Other Existing Navigation Projects in the Area. Continued maintenance of
the Wilmington Harbor project is completely compatible with all other Federal
navigation projects in the area. The following Federal navigation projects
are directly or indirectly dependent upon the continued maintenance of the
harbor:
Northeast Cape Fear River, N.C.
Smiths Creek (Wilmington), N.C.
Cape Fear River, N.C., above Wilmington
Black River, N.C.
Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point (MOTSU)
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
U.S. Coast Guard Station access channel at Oak Island
There are no incomplete or planned
that will be adversely affected by the
Modifications to the Wilmington Harbor
discussed below.
projects in the Wilmington Harbor area
continued maintenance of the harbor.
project are being considered which are
3.8 Anticipated Harbor Expansion. The elements recommended in the Wilmington
Harbor - Northeast Cape Fear River, N. C. Feasibility Report and covered in
the revised final EIS (both published in December 1979 and reprinted as H. D.
98-185) have been authorized by Congress (P.L. 99-662). The Wilmington
District is currently conducting a preconstruction engineering and design
study on this project. If constructed, the project elements that will require
long term maintenance include the following: widening the Fourth East Jetty
Channel by 100 feet and deepening to 38 feet; widening the Northeast Cape Fear
River turning basin by 100 feet, and deepening the channel from the Cape Fear
Memorial Bridge (Castle Street) to a point approximately 750 feet upstream of
the Hilton railroad bridge to 35 feet. The current projection is to initiate
construction in FY 1991.
The North Carolina State Ports Authority (NCSPA) has requested the Corps
of Engineers to develop plans for a passing lane approximately half way
between the SCSPA terminal at Wilmington and the mouth of the Cape Fear River,
widening the turning basin near the NCSPA terminal from 1,200 feet to 1,500
feet, and widening various turns and bends in the navigation channel. All of
these improvements would help to remove constraints on the use of the largest
23
size container ships. The studies on these improvements should be complete in
2-3 years.
If these projects are constructed, a 50 year maintenance plan will be
developed for each.
3.9 Ability to Meet Navigation and Maintenance Needs for 50 Years and Local_
Sponsors' Responsibilities. If the project is maintained as proposed, the
authorized Wilmington Harbor project will have adequate dredged material
disposal area to maintain authorized project dimensions for the next 50 years.
Therefore, navigation needs in the harbor will be met.
The maintenance dredging costs for this project are 100% Federal but the
local sponsors are responsible for providing disposal areas for maintenance of
the project and diking costs, if any. The local sponsor for the 38-foot
section of the harbor is the State of North Carolina and the local sponsor for
the 32-foot and 25-foot sections of the harbor is New Hanover County. The
local sponsors have fully complied with their responsibilities in the past and
all of the land required for the 50 year maintenance plan (except site 18) are
owned by the USACE or local sponsors. New Hanover County officials recently
acquired site 16 and are currently in acquisition negotiations with the owners
of site 18. }

24
Y
` 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.
Since this EIS deals only with the maintenance of an authorized project,
' only the aspects of the environment that will be potentially impacted by the
reasonable dredging and disposal alternatives indicated in section 3.2 will be
discussed.
4.1 Significant Resources.
4.1.1 Geology and Mineral Resources (see also Appendix C). Various soil
sample borings were drilled in the Wilmington Harbor project area, in the Cape
Fear River and dredged material disposal areas, to ascertain the viability of
several alternatives for the disposal of dredged material. Twenty-one borings
consisting predominantly of standard penetration test (splitspoon) and shelby
tube sampling were drilled. Fourteen of these borings were drilled at various
places on and inside the dike at the Eagle Island disposal area (site 15) for
a stability analysis of the dike in anticipation of raising the dike for
future needs. Dredged material disposal area 10 had two borings, one
splitspoon hole and one shelby tube hole drilled. The remainder of the
borings were drilled in dredged material disposal areas 3 and 4 and in the
river between these disposal areas and the river channel to determine if the
material was suitable for beach disposal.
Soils Encountered. Soils encountered at Eagle Island consist of the following
types:
SOIL TYPE
UNIFIED SOILS
CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL
1. Sandy silt ML
2. Poorly graded
sand SP
3. Inorganic silt MH
4. Organic silt OH
5. Clayey sand SC
6. Fat Clay CH
7. Silty Sand SM
8. Poorly graded
sand to a silty
sand SP/SM
Most of these soil types represent dredged material from the Between
Channel and the Anchorage Basin, while some are in situ material such as that
encountered in the subsurface at Eagle Island.
Below the dredged material at Eagle Island is an organic silt (OH) with
abundant roots and wood. The dredged material overlying the OH is mostly ML,
• SP, and MH. The OH soil can probably be attributed to the rapid burial of an
ancient grassland or woodland. This soil probably represents original ground.
The high organic content of the soil contributes to the instability of the
sediment under load condition. Below this OH is a greyish clayey sand (SC) or
25
a poorly graded brown or grey sand (SP). These soils are not subject to
consolidation in comparison to the organic OH with wood and roots.
Soils encountered in dredged material disposal areas 3, 4, and 10 in the
Cape Fear River consist of ML, SP, SP/SM, SM. The dredged material comes from
the navigational channel between Snows Marsh and Horseshoe Shoal (areas 3 and
4) and Upper Lilliput and Keg Island (area 10).
4.1.2 Seismology. The Wilmington Harbor area is situated in a seismic Zone 1
(relatively inactive). About five earthquake epicenteres dating from the
years 1871 to 1968 are located around New Hanover County ranging from
intensity III to V on the Modified Mercalli scale. Three of these are
intensity V. The area is relatively aseismic.
4.1.3 Sediments and Grain Size Analysis.
4.1.3.1 Channel Reaches. The general grain size characteristics of the
channel reaches for ocean disposal are indicated in table 6. The grain size
for the remaining channels range from 61% sand and 39% silt/clay in the lower
Brunswick reach to >99% sand in the 25' project near disposal site 18 (USACE
1977).
4.1.3.2 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS). The Wilmington ODMDS
is a site designated by EPA pursuant to Section 102(4) of the Marine
Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, as an ocean
location where ocean dumping of dredged materials may be permitted. The
Wilmington ODMDS received final designation as an EPA approved ocean dumping
site on August 3, 1987 (52 FR 25008 et seq.).
The Wilmington ODMDS lies just beyond the 3 nmi limit of the territorial
sea. The site encompasses an area of approximately 2.3 square nmi.
Bathymetric surveys of the Wilmington ODMDS indicate a very flat ocean floor
gently sloping from north to south from 36 to 46 ft below mean low water
(m.l.w.). The sediments within the ODMDS are predominately sands with small
quantities of shell, silts and clays. '.
4.1.4 Water Resources.
4.1.4.1 Groundwater. There are three groundwater sources in the Wilmington
Harbor/New Hanover County area. At the top is the water table aquifer of the
surficial sand. Below the surficial sand is the aquitard, Canepatch
formation. Below the Canepatch is the aquifer of the Waccamaw and Bear Bluff,
i.e. marine sands. The aquifer below the Waccamaw and Bear Bluff is the
Castle Hayne Limestone. There is an undetermined amount of connection between
the Waccamaw/Bear Bluff and the Castle Hayne aquifers. Most domestic water
wells are set in the surficial sands. The second most used aquifer is the
Castle Hayne limestone.
Locally, vertical groundwater movement may occur downward through the
surficial sand, through the discontinuous aquitard, through the marine sand
aquifer, to the Castle Hayne.
26

•

TABLE 6
Characteristics of river sediments proposed for
Bucket and Barge and Hopper Dredging
% By Weight
Station No. - Channel I % Gravel I % Sand I % Silt & C
1 - Caswell-Southport 18.0 80.5 1.5
2 - South Southport 16.0 82.0 2.0
3 - North Southport 9.0 89.0 2.0
4 - Battery Island 38.0 61.0 1.0
5 - Lower Swash 27.0 70.0 3.0
6 - Horseshoe Shoal 0.0 98.0 2.0
7 - Reaves Point 0.0 99.0 1.0
8 - Lower Midnight 0.0 76.0 24.0
9 - Upper Midnight 0.0 82.5 17.5
10 - Lower Lilliput 0.0 53.5 46.5
11 - Upper Lilliput 0.0 98.0 2.0
12 - Keg Island and Lo wer 0.0 63.0 37.0
Big Island
Note: Gravel - grain size larger than 5.0 mm
Sand - grain si ze between .07 & 5.0 mm
Silt and clay - grain size smaller than .07 mm
All samples were collected using a Petersen grab sampler from within the
channel limits. Samples 1-5 above were taken March 20, 1986 and samples 6-12
were taken July 2, 1986.
Snows Marsh channel sediment was sampled May 3, 1976, and Smith Island
and Baldhead Shoal channels were sampled during April 1979 with the following
results:
Gravel I % Sand I Silt & Clay
Baldhead Shoal channel
offshore reaches 0.0 73.2 26.8
inlet reaches 0.0 98.7 1.3
Smith Island 7.9 92.0 0.1
Snows Marsh channel 0.0 99.0 1.0

27
Regionally the horizontal groundwater movement is eastward with some
southeast movement. The resultant groundwater movement picture is that of
movement to the coast, upward movement, and lateral movement. Because of
confining clays and silts for the most part there are not large artesian
springs like in Florida (Le0rand 1984).
Most disposal islands proposed for use (3-4, 6-13, and 15) are surrounded
by tidal saltwater, and sites 16 and 18 are bordered by the Cape Fear River
and Northeast Cape Fear River, respectively. For all these sites, the
groundwater gradients are into the river and dredged disposal materials from
the river have chloride contents equal to or less than that of the river in
the vicinity in which they are disposed.
4.1.4.2 Surface Water.
Hydrology, Wave, Climate, and Saltwater Intrusion. The drainage area for
the Cape Fear Estuary is 9,140 square miles. The average daily freshwater
flow is 9,700.efs. The estuary is well mixed except during large freshets
when the estuary becomes partially mixed. The location of the zone of mixing
between fresh and saltwater varies between the mouth of the Cape Fear River
and Wilmington. Its exact location depends on the magnitude of the freshwater
inflow and the tidal range. The average tidal range is about four feet.
Surface waves 3 feet or less are typical within the estuary..
In 1987, the State of North Carolina performed a?brief study of the
problem of recent (circa 1982 - 1987) tree mortality in the swamps of the
lower Northeast Cape Fear River estuary. That study concluded that tree death
in the affected areas was attributable to high levels of salinity in the
river. Recent site inspections by the Corps (January and May 1988) found that
tree mortality was evident throughout the lower Northeast Cape Fear River
estuary. Salinity stress was noted on Smith Creek to a point approximately
1.5 miles upstream of the Southern Coastline Railroad (SCLRR) bridge. On the
Northeast Cape Fear River, the upstream limit was a point approximately 4
miles above the SCLRR bridge (figure 1). All tributary streams between Smith
Creek and the upstream limit on the Northeast Cape Fear River have been
similarly affected.
Salinity damage to trees is often first noticed as leaf injury and
ultimately leads to defoliation. The tree species most affected by the salt
water encroachment to date are bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), tupelo gum
(Nyssa aquatics), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer
rubrum), ash (Frazinus sp.) and oaks (Quercus sp.). The salinity tolerances
of these species and other species occurring in the swamp forests of the area
are not well documented but are assumed to be quite low. Some work on
salinity tolerances of freshwater wetland species of plants has been done.
Pezeshki et al. (1987a) found that stomatal conductance and net photosynthesis
of bald cypress seedlings declined significantly at salinities as low as 2
parts per thousand (ppt)(approximately 1,091 mg chloride/L). Similarly,
significant reductions in stomatal conductance and net photosynthesis have
also been reported for green ash (Frazinus pennsylvanica) seedlings with
salinities at approximately 1.95 ppt (1,064 mg chloride/L) (Pezeshki and
Chambers 1986) and for maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) with salinities ranging
w
28 °.,,'°
from 5 to 7 ppt (approximately 2,754 to 3,862 mg chloride/L) (Pezeshki et al
* 1987b).
A recent study performed in the Cape Fear River in the project area has
+ demonstrated that major changes in the salinity regime have occurred in the
past and that these changes are attributable to rising sea level and to
navigation improvements (Hackney and Yelverton, in press). Both of these
factors allow ocean derived salts to encroach further upstream due to
increased tidal amplitude.
Water Quality Classification. The North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management has placed the lower Cape Fear and Northeast Cape
Fear Rivers into three separate water classifications (NC Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development 1989). From the the northern
limits of the project in the Northeast Cape Fear River to the Cape Fear River
is "SC-swamp waters"; the Cape Fear River at the mouth of the Northeast Cape
Fear River to a line across the river between Snows and Federal Points is
"SC"; and the Cape Fear River at the line across the river between Snows and
Federal Points to the Atlantic Ocean is "SA" (except for a segment west of the
Cape Fear River Channel that is classified "SC"). See figure 2 for details.
"SC" waters are suitable for fishing, fish and wildlife propagation, secondary
recreation, and other uses requiring water of lower quality. "Swamp waters"
means that these streams generally have slow velocities. "SA" means that in
addition to the uses in "SC", the waters are acceptable for shellfishing for
market purposes and the water will meet accepted sanitary standards of water
quality for outdoor bathing places and will be of sufficient size and depth
for primary recreation purposes. The water quality standards for these waters
are published by the NC Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development (NCDNRCD 1986a).
Due to various sources of pollution, some of the waters in the lower river
are indicated as prohibited (closed) shellfish areas (figure 3). This means
no person shall take or attempt to take any oysters or clams or possess, sell,
or offer for sale any oysters or clams from those areas.
Analyses of Wilmington Harbor Sediments for Ocean Disposal. In accordance
with EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR Part 227.13),
samples of bottom sediments in the Wilmington Harbor project (Keg Island and
Baldhead Shoal channels) have been tested to evaluate the toxicity and
bioaccumulation potential of chemical contaminants which may be associated
with those sediment materials (US Army Corps of Engineers 1980, and 1986a).
The test results (USACE 1980 and 1986a) indicate that the sediments meet the
testing criteria of the EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria and are,
therefore, acceptable for transportation for ocean dumping under Section 103
of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended.
(The Keg Island sediments are assumed to be representative of the sediments in
the reaches from Lower Midnight to Lower Big Island channels, inclusive.)
The grain size characteristics of the river sediments in the area where
ocean disposal of dredged material is possible are given in table 6.
29
Q?M V
30
Z --
O N
Ix Q
O<U c
^
cc Z ?±- N
??
a =;
= O
W
Z V u o 0=
O
xt: ?
r U-
Z ?- J J
cc Q
On Q
Z
?
W
Q
3
2
v
a
Go
a
0
u
cc
z
in
u
ix z
W
H L

C U

cz

7
w

•
•
f
A U. z
ol.- `
Q ~ °
W , w -, {0
O ? J
Q Ja a s
z
Q J
U
w Q _ cc Ir O
?- w ?°Z o
to o 0
aw x a
z
O N
1-
O
Y O
< N
co Z "
a
Q
=OJ W
Z aV
or-
0 V 0

(
]( ? ?J
L Q W LL
J
O0 "
3 Z o!
W

O?
CD
Ol
V
cc
z
V
Z
Z6
V
o:
2
31

I
K
O
W W
Q Q
W W
OC cz
Q Q ;
z
a

Q

cc
Q f

7
i
h Z
i O
? s

Q
Q
Q a z

Q a a
-1 11 ,
N M ;a
W W ;
CK i
Q Q K
r
,o? \ N
N
W
Q cJ_
C C
Q M
32
N
W
Cie
•si3 Q
z
W
W
z
0 ?
z
cc
W ev
lz 0OW W
dk J W S
.vim to F- & W
Ov O?W o O m
U.
_Z
X 'A
H+ QZd W LL
c
Co-CNQ
? v
W
O Q
?JV v?
W
3
Z ev
N

F V
I;
10
i a
ui
Q
U
Z
2 W
N
W
J ?
Q v
v \ O
.
r
Sediments from Smith Island, Caswell-Southport, Southport, Battery Island,
• Lower Swash, Snow Marsh, Horseshoe Shoal and Reaves Point channels were
sampled for grain size analyses and were found to be composed of predominantly
sand or coarser grained materials; therefore, sediments from these channels
were considered acceptable for ocean disposal without further testing (40 CFR
Part 227.13 (b)(1)).
Therefore, USACE concluded that all the channels from Baldhead Shoal to
Lower Big Island, inclusive, were acceptable for disposal in the ODMDS.
USEPA, Region IV, concurred with this conclusion (January 23,'1987 letter and
October 19, 1987 memo.).
Future testing required for continued approval for ocean disposal of
Wilmington Harbor dredged materials is not known; however, it is likely that
re-testing of sediments from reaches proposed for ocean disposal will be
required over the next 50 years.
4.2 Biology of Dredging and Disposal Sites.
4.2.1 Aquatic Biology Including Ocean Disposal Sites.
4.2.1.1 Nekton. Schwartz et al., (1981) reported the collection of 249
species of fish from a 1973-1980 survey of the saline lower Cape Fear River
watershed. Their study area included parts of the Northeast Cape Fear River,
the Cape Fear River downstream of Lock and Dam 1, and the adjacent Atlantic
Ocean off Baldhead and Oak Islands. The Cape Fear estuary including the
adjacent Atlantic Ocean is characterized, however, by a few'species which
occur very abundantly and others which occur only incidentally (CP&L, 1980).
The nekton of the Cape Fear estuary are dominated by species residing in
the estuary as larvae or juveniles, using the estuary as nursery or feeding
habitat, but spawning offshore in the Atlantic Ocean (Birkhead et al., 1979).
Abundant species in the "nursery use" category include Atlantic menhaden,
Brevoortia tyrannus; Atlantic croaker, Micropogon undulatus; spot, Leiostomus
xanthurus; star drum, Stellifer lanceolatus; penaeid shrimp; mullet, Mugil
spp.; and weakfish, Cynoscion regalis. Species that are estuarine endemics or
permanent residents are also abundant, namely, bay anchovies, Anchoa
mitchilli; killifishes, Fundulus spp. ; and silversides, Menidia spp.
(Weinstein, 1979). Anadromous species such as blueback herring, Alosa
aestivalis; American shad, Alosa sapidissima; hickory shad, Alosa mediocris;
alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus; striped bass, Morone saxatilis; and Atlantic
sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus use the Cape Fear estuary as a transportation
route to upper river spawning and nursery areas (Walburg and Nichols, 1967;
Nichols and Louder, 1970). The catadromous American eel, Anguilla rostrata is
widely distributed in the Cape Fear River estuary (Schwartz et,al., 1981).
The nekton of the ocean waters in the area of the Wilmington Harbor ODMDS
and along the southeastern North Carolina coast can be placed into three
categories: estuarine dependent species; seasonal, north-south or warm water
migrant species; and permanent resident species. The most abundant nekton of
these nearshore marine waters are the estuarine dependent species such as
sciaenid fish, including croakers; spot; weakfish; star drum; red drum,
33
Sciaenops ocellatus; banded drum, Larimus.fasciatus; mullets; flounders,
Pa-ralich_thys spp.; and penaeid shrimp (Struhsaker, 1969; Schwartz et al.,
1981). Some species are permanent residents of the nearshore marine waters
and may include the black sea bass, Centropristis striata; longspine porgy,
Stenotomus caprinus; Atlantic bumper, Chloroscombrus chrysurus; inshore .
lizardfish, Synodus foetens; and searobins, Prionotus spp. Common warm water
migrant species include bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix; spanish and king
mackerel, Scomberomorus maculatus and S. cavalla; cobia, Rachycentron canadum;
Florida pompano, Trachinotus carolinus; and spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias.
4.2.1.2 Benthos. According to Birkhead et al. (1979), benthic density in the
lower Cape Fear region was highest in the nearshore ocean rich organic
sediment and lowest in the sandy estuarine areas. Downstream of MOTSU, the
dominant organisms were polychaetes especially a spi-onid polychaete
(Spiophanes bombyx). Other abundant organisms were the little surf clam
(Mulinia lateralis), sea pansy (Renilla reniformis), mud snails (Ilynassa
obsoleta) and brittlestars (subclass Ophiuroidea).
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (1975) conducted a benthic
investigation at six stations ranging from near the mouth of the Cape Fear
River up to the mouth of Smith Creek in the Northeast Cape Fear River near the
upper end of the project Polychaetes dominated the benthic fauna below
MOTSU. Of the 21 species collected, only five species occurred above site 8
and only one species at Smith Creek. Species included (Scolecolepides
virdis), (Capitella capitata), (Branchioasylis americana), (Drilonereis longa)
and (Nereis succinea). Oligochaetes were the most abundant group in the
entire river, comprising 35% of all collected fauna. They were most abundant
from-Campbell Island to the Anchorage Basin. Amphipods (Gammarus spp.)
occurred in all samples but were most abundant near MOTSU, the Anchorage Basir,
and at Smith Creek. Other common species collected were Cumaceans and
Isopods.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1980) surveyed the benthos in the vicinity of
the anchorage basin. Nematodes, the spionid polychaete (Scolecolepides
viridis), and the isopod (Chiridotera almyra) were dominant in the medium-fine
sand. The silty clay substrate was dominated by the oligochaete (Peloscoles
benedeni) and by an amphipod (Gammarus sp).
Shellfish beds are also present in the Cape Fear Estuary, primarily south
of Snows Cut (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1980). All significant beds are in
shallow water east of the ship channel. The dominant species are the American
oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and the clam (Mercenaria mercenaria). In this
area, both species are harvested for sale and personal consumption.
4.2.1.3 Plankton. Carpenter (1971) studied phytoplankton populations in the
Cape Fear estuary and nearby ocean waters. Carpenter found the diversity to
be greater at the mouth of the estuary than in either the coastal waters or
the upriver areas. The dominant phytoplankton was the diatom Skeletonema
costatum. Other common species included the diatoms Asterionella Japonica and
Thalassionsina nana, the dinoflagellate Katodinium rotundatum, and the
loricate flagellate Calycomonas ovalis. Birkhead et al. (1979) indicated that
34
diatoms were more abundant in the ocean and flagellates more abundant in the
estuary.
According to Birkhead et al. (1979), the calanoid copepods (Acartia tonsa
and Paracalanus crassirostris) and barnacle nauplii were the dominant taxa
comprising zooplankton samples in the Cape Fear estuary and nearshore ocean
waters. Other organisms consistently present were bivalve veligers, copepod
nauplii, cyclopoid copepods, crab zoea, gastropod veligers, and polychaete
larvae. Densities of zooplankton tended to be greater in the ocean than in
the estuary.
4.2.1.4 Estuarine Nursery Areas. As discussed previously, the most abundant
nekton species in the Cape Fear estuary are those species residing in the
estuary as larvae or juveniles and using the estuary as nursery or feeding
habitat. The Cape Fear estuary nursery areas can be divided into 3 broad.
ecological zones:
1. Deep water of higher salinity in the turbulent lower reach of the
estuary.
2. Deep channel and channel slopes within the Cape Fear River.
3. Shallow areas including marshes, oyster reefs, mud flats, marsh
rivulets, and tidal creeks (CP&L. 1980).
Individual species appear to have specific choices of nursery sites
especially in terms of temperature, depth, salinity, and substrate type
(Weinstein et al., 1980). Hodson (1979) found larval anchovies;, silversides,
Menidia sp.; killifishes; gobies, Gobionellus sp.; pinfish, Lagodon
rhomboides; spot, mullet; and penaeid shrimp had centers of abundance in the
shallow, marsh rivulets of the Cape Fear estuary. Larval croakers and
menhaden seem to favor the open waters of the main river shoals and channels
(Weinstein, 1979). Generally, with increasing size, juveniles or yearlings
move from their preferred nursery area into the deeper waters of the larger
creeks and bays, eventually into the deeper water of the lower estuary and
offshore to spawning areas (Purvis 1976).
Copeland et al. (1979) described two periods of larval and postlarval
abundance in the Cape Fear estuary. A winter-spring period, approximately
December through April, corresponds to the recruitment into the estuary of
ocean spawned species including spot, croaker, flounder, menhaden, mullet, and
brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus). A summer period, approximately May through
September, corresponds to the recruitment of estuarine or ocean spawned
species such as anchovies, trout, gobies, and white and pink shrimp (Penaeus
setiferus and Penaeus duorarum, respectively).
The Wilmington Harbor Channel from Upper Lilliput upstream to its terminus
extends through areas designated by the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries as
"primary nursery" areas (15 NCAC 3B .1405). However, 300 yards east and west
of the centerline of the main shipping channel from Upper Lilliput Channel to
the mouth of the Brunswick River is excluded from the primary nursery area
designation. The State of North Carolina defines primary nursery areas as
35
those areas in the estuarine system where initial post-larval development
takes place. 44
4.2.2 Terrestrial Biology
4.2.2.1 Flora. Disposal areas planned for use during the maintenance of the
project were mapped in order to identify and delineate the vegetation
communities present and to assess the affects of the project on wetland areas
and wildlife habitat. These maps are presented on figures 4 - 20 and acreages
indicated in table 7. Due to the disturbed nature of most of the sites,
vegetative types often occur in complex mosaics and were difficult to define
in terms of community types. In order to simplify the identification and
mapping process, only the community types of institutional significance
(Section 404 (PL 95-217) wetlands) were defined in detail while those of
lesser concern were combined into broader categories. The following is a
brief description of the community types mapped for this analysis.
BARREN (b) - These are areas with little or no vegetation. On some of
the dredged material disposal areas, these areas are large expanses of sand.
This community is located at higher elevations than the surrounding wetlands.
MIXED FOREST (mf) - This community is generally present in the higher
elevations of the existing dredged material disposal areas and is
characterized by mixed tree species. Some common species include: Live oak
(Quercus virginiana), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), black cherry (Prunus
serotina), red maple (Acer rubrum) and common cottonwood (Populus
deltoides).
SHRUB (sh) - These are communities characterized by a predominance of
low (height up to 15 or 20 feet) woody plant structures. Dense shrub growth
sometimes forms nearly impenetrable thickets. This community is found above
the mean high water elevation. Plants commonly found in this community are
goundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia), marsh elder (Iva frutescens), wax
myrtle (Myrica cerifera), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) and blackberry (Rubus spp.).
SPARTINA ALTERNIFLORA (S.a.) - This wetland community is dominated by
saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and grows on the intertidal flats
which surround most of the dredged material disposal islands. It is tolerant
of a wide range of salinities.
PHRAGMITES AUSTRALIS (P.a.) - This is a monotypic community of common
reed (Phragmites australis). This species grows rapidly to a height of 10 to
12 feet and excludes almost all other vegetation. It grows at all elevations
in the existing dredged material disposal areas.
TYPHA SP. (T.sp.) - This community is found at lower elevations in
areas of low salinity and consists of cattails (Typha angustifolia and/or
Typha latifolia).
36
b

N
1 ?
h
I
.R

DIKED AREA, 29 ACRES

SEE FIGURE 1 FOR LOCATION.
LEGEND
b Barren
mf Mixed Forest
s h Shrub
S.C. Spartina alterniflora
P.a. PP rogmites australis
T. sp. Typha Species
mm Mixed Marsh
h Herbaceous
WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
DISPOSAL SITE NO. 3
VEGETATION MAP
FIGURE 4
0 250 500
MAPPING BASED ON
4 /85 PHOTOGRAPHY SCALE IN FEET
37
I ,
bl
/ EXIST. h
/ DIKE
b ?
1 EXIST
/ DIKE ?
CAPE FEAR RIVER
S.a. /
f A"*,-WATER LINE
b
DIKED AREA, 25 ACRES
SEE FIGURE 1 FOR LOCATION
LEGEND
b . Barren
mf Mixed Forest
sh Shrub
S. a. SPartina allerniflora
P. a. ilea oustralis
P
r aim
T. sp ?
=
Trpho Species
mm Mixed Marsh
IN Herbaceous
WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
MAPPING BASED ON
4/85 PHOTOGRAPHY
DISPOSAL SITE NO. 4
VEGETATION MAP
FIGURE 5
0 250 Soo
SCALE IN FEET
«+

38
M
•

N
;EXIST.
DIKE
PC _'/
mf
P. 4
Y.,&.-WATER LINE
MOTS U
1
1
\1
sh DEXIST
IKE S.a
sh mm
X
c
EXIST.
DIKE I
b I

w
t w

? w
l o-
v
?

t
l

1

1 ?
t ?
?6

SEE FIGURE I FOR LOCATION
WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
DISPOSAL SITE NO. 5
VEGETATION MAP
FIGURE 6
0 230 Soo
DIKED AREA, 46 ACRES
LEGEND
b Barren
mf Mixed Forest
sh Shrub
S.C. SPorfina alferniflora
P.a. P rh agmif
s ausfrolis
T. $A ?
Typho Species
mm Mixed Marsh
h Herbaceous
MAPPING BASED ON Q?s»w
4 /85 PHOTOGRAPHY SCALE IN FEET
39
+i
a
1 ,WATER LINE
b 000,I ?
m
1
4mm P. a•
EXIST.
? IKE
CAPE FEAR RIVER
DIKED AREA, 9 ACRES
SEE FIGURE 1 FOR LOCATION
LEGEND WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
b Barren
mf Mixed Forest DISPOSAL SITE NO. 6
:h Shrub VEGETATION MAP
S.a. S ?artin?o alterniflora
Pa. P,,,rh a mites australis FIGURE 7
T. sp Trpho Species 0 230 500
mm Mixed Marsh MAPPING BASED ON Q?sssw
h Herbaceous 4 /85 PHOTOGRAPHY SCALE IN FEET
R

40
a
4
b
EXIST.
DIKE
P a. WATER LINE
Fsh ? \1 \
EXIST. b 1
CAPE FEAR RIVER DIKE
MITI
S. o. ,.J
DIKED AREA, 9 ACRES
SEE FIGURE 1 FOR LOCATION
LEGEND WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
b Barren
mf Mixed Forest DISPOSAL SITE NO. 7
sh Shrub VEGETATION MAP
S.a. Spartina alterniFlora
Pa. Phramites australis
T. sp. Typho Species 0 250 500
mm Mixed Marsh MAPPING BASED ON
h Herbaceous 4 /85 PHOTOGRAPHY SCALE IN FEET
41
? "b
i
i
mm /
'bS a
I CAPE FEAR RIVER
I
/XIK. 1
b I
rm/inTER D
INE
?/
DIKED AREA, 47 ACRES

SEE FIGURE I FOR LOCATION.
LEGEND WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
.b . Barren
mf. Mixed Forest DISPOSAL SITE NO. 8
sh Shrub VEGETATION MAP
S.a. Spa_rtina alterniflora
P.a. P rh a mites australis FIGURE 9
T. sp Trpho Specie:
o zso soo
r"m Mixed Marsh MAPPING BASED ON
h Herbaceous 4 /85 PHOTOGRAPHY SCALE IN FEET
•
r

42
61
a
rl
EXIST.
'000
DIKE
` b
`mm
sh
CAPE FEAR RIVER \
/ EXIST.
/ DIKE
WATER LINE
S.a.
DIKED AREA, 9 ACRES

LEGEND
b Barren
mf Mixed Forest
sh Shrub
S.o. Spartina alterniflora
P.a. P r12 mites australis
T. sR Typha Species
mm Mixed marsh
h Herbaceous
SEE FIGURE I FOR LOCATION
WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY

MAPPING BASED ON
4 185 PHOTOGRAPHY
DISPOSAL SITE NO. 9
VEGETATION MAP
FIGURE 10
0 250 500
SCALE IN FEET
43
a
V
cl.
r
}
1
I
I
1
I
i
I
I
I
I
1
l?
1
fr
I
I
l
1
1
1
I
b . Barren
mf Mixed Forest
sh Shrub
S.a. rtina olterniflora
Spa
P.a. -
P
rh o mites out:
T. sp. P
Typha Species
mm Mixed Marsh
h Herbaceous
M
7 b 1`\
hI
EXIST. 1.,,--WATER LINE
DIKE
1
EXIST. '
DIKE
.t
CAPE FEAR RIVER
P0' OLD DIKE
b ?
DIKED AREA, 36 ACRES
1
1
r= 1 % SEE FIGURE I FOR LOCATION.
WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
DISPOSAL SITE NO. 10
VEGETATION MAP
FIGURE 11
0 250
MAPPING BASED ON 0
4 /85 PHOTOGRAPHY SCALE IN FEET
A
•
.,
44
U
•
N
sh sh PROPOSED
I DIKE
? b
WATER LINE
sh
c j b ` CAPE FEAR RIVE
h mf i
sh /
I ?
S. a. sh
b
?/ AREA TO BE DIKED,
28 ACRES
WETLANDS TO BE FILLED, 2 ACRES
\\\ 4
SEE FIGURE 1 FOR LOCATION

LEGEND WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
b Barren
mf Mixed Forest DISPOSAL SITE NO. 11
sh Shrub. VEGETATION MAP
S.C. 5 ortna alterniflore
Pa. Pr?teess oustralis
P. FIGURE 12
T. spy Typha Species 0 250 500
mm Mixed Marsh MAPPING BASED ON
h Herbaceous 4 /85 PHOTOGRAPHY SCALE IN FEET
45
a
MITI
sh
Pa a. T. s p•
1 !.
b
N\ Ts CL
` b m S.a.
mm sh Sh ?P. a.
PROPOSED DIKE sh
1
s h
CAPE FEAR RIVER b
1
WATER LINE-
sh I
AREA TO BE DIKED, 31 ACRES
\\\\WETLANDS TO BE FILLED, 0.5 ACRES
SEE FIGURE 1 FOR LOCATION.
LEGEND WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
b Barren
mf Mixed Forest DISPOSAL SITE NO. 12
sh Shrub VEGETATION MAP
5.0. S_ Partina alterniflora
Pa. PP r smites australis FIGURE 13
T. sR Trpha Species. 0
mm Mixed Marsh ?? S00
MAPPING BASED ON
h Herbaceous 4/85 PHOTOGRAPHY SCALE IN FEET

46
16

mm
i ^ _
PROPOSED sh b
DIKE sh '
/ PDR EPOSED
w
CAPE FEAR
RI VE R
sh
l?
I
1 ?
I
F
b a j AREA TO BE DIKED,
40 ACRES
s h f
b ., WA
TER LINE
WETLANDS TO BE FILLED,
3 ACRES
MITI
/ sh {
I ?)
mm
f b I
I ?
/ Pa. /
`V
MAPPING BASED ON
4/85 PHOTOGRAPHY
LEGEND
/ b b Barren
mf Mixed Forest
sh Shrub
S.a. SPartina alternifloro
sh P. a. P rh agmites australis
.0 .0 • T. sp ypT ho Species
e mm Mixed Marsh
m m / / h Herbaceous
/ WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
DISPOSAL SITE NO. 13
VEGETATION MAP
FIGURE 14
o ZSO Soo
SCALE IN FEET

mf
i
i
1
- .+ r
I dow
SEE FIGURE 1 FOR LOCATION.
47
b
mm
t`
h\
b
C-*-?ATER LINE
%T. I
J
mml
I
/CAPE FEAR RIVER
b/
i
DIKED AREA, 28 ACRES
1
1
a
l
i
SEE FIGURE 1 FOR LOCATION.
LEGEND WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
b Barren
mf Mixed Forest DISPOSAL SITE NO. 14
sh Shrub VEGETATION MAP
S.C. S artinaa alterniflora
P.a. P rya mites australis FIGURE 15
T. sp jWha Species
mm Mixed Marsh MAPPING BASED ON 0 Zs0 500
h Herbaceous 4 /85 PHOTOGRAPHY SCALE IN FEET
•
t

48
i
HIGHWAY 74 81 76
OLD DIKE
REDMOND i
CREEK; mm sh/ h
m mm
1. DI OPROPERTY LINE
LD ALLIGATOR CREEK
.S P..0.
mfm EXIST. WATER
DIKE
P a. WATER h

mm r
Pa. DIKED AREA, 880 ACRES
V, h S.C.
1
WATER LINE
Cr mm Cr
w
>
mf b
>

mm
Q
- c mf mm
w
3 Z Pa- I w
z _j jIP.a. h w
Cn
('I s
a.
m m m
?? I

w SEE FIG URE 1 FOR LOCATION
J
C9
Pa,.
j?S.a. LEGEND
Q • 1? ? b Barren
w m 111 mf Mixed Forest
sh Shrub
S.C. Spartina olterniflora
P
1 P0. iz. Pro mites oustralis
T. sR Typho Species
mm Mixed Marsh
h Herbaceous

WILMIN GTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
1
b
DISPOSAL SITE NO. 15
VEGETATION MAP
FIGURE 16
mm
MAPPING BASED ON , 0 1000 2000
4/85 PHOTOGRAPHY Sh SCALE IN FEET
49
BORROW AREA
mm
EXIST. I?
DIKE U
-BREACH h
Pa.
P4
6
HIGHWAY 421
. a.
7h I ? TRANSITIONAL
h
TRANSITIONAL sh
m
CA P E FEAR
RIVER
WATER LINE
BR IDGE
DIKED AREA, 40 ACRES
SEE FIGURE 1 FOR LOCATION
LEGEND WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
b Barren
mf Mixed Forest DISPOSAL SITE NO. 16
sh Shrub VEGETATION MAP
S.G. Sorting olterniflora
Pa. P-romit?es Australis and Sc,lix nigra FIGURE 17
T. sit Trpho Species 0 250 500
mm Mixed Marsh MAPPING BASED ON
h Herbaceous 4 /85 PHOTOGRAPHY SCALE IN FEET

50
•
II
PRIVATE
ROAD DEVELOP E D
COMMERICAL
mm mf
EXIST. P a
mf DIKE
rrrm / NORTHEAST
CAPE FEAR
mf RIVER
mf ?
?7
mm
mf
/,WATER LINE
r
BRIDGE
HIGHWAY 133 //
9rMNSITIONAL
DIKED AREA, 10 ACRES
SEE FIGURE 1 FOR LOCATION.
LEGEND WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
b Barren
mf mixed Forest DISPOSAL SITE NO. 17
sh Shrub VEGETATION MAP
S.C. Spar alterniflora
P.a. P rh o mites australis FIGURE 18
T. sp ` ypho Species
o 250 soo
mm Mixed Marsh MAPPING BASED ON
h Herbaceous 4 /85 PHOTOGRAPHY SCALE IN FEET
51
(isolated) DEVELOPED
mf WetlandCOMMERCIAL
r111

mf t I
0..2 ACR
ACCESS 1
a ROAD
N DEVELOPE
m COMMER-
CIAL--y
3 I
mf
I
o c
d
2
- - i--B_OAT BASI N
----?._?, WATER LINE
_ t
0.8 SITE BOUNDARY
? ACRES
S.a.
mf b PROPOSED DIKE
PROPOSED
DIKE m WETLANDS (8.0 ACRES)
mf NORTHEAST
s CAPE FEAR
RIVER
m
sh T sP-
(isolated wetlan
4.5 ACRES R . R. BRIDGE
.
DIKE ALIGNMENT RAILROAD ?-'
ONLY IF UNEXPECTED
SHOALING OCCURS /
AREA TO BE DIKED, 28 ACRES
WETLANDS THAT MAY BE FILLED, 14 ACRES
SEE FIGURE 1 FOR LOCATION.
LEGEND WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
b Barren
mf Mixed Forest DISPOSAL SITE NO. 18
sh Shrub VEGETATION MAP
S.G. S artina alterniflora
P.a. P?r?tes australis FIGURE 19
T. sp. Trpha Species
o zso soo
min Mixed Marsh MAPPING BASED ON
h Herbaceous 4/85 PHOTOGRAPHY SCALE IN FEET

52

•
•
Pl.-
0
NORTHEAST
CAPE FEAR
RIVER
i
`? '? `.ice ?
mm
I
I
I mf
I b
WATER LINE
1
1
I
mf
POTENTIAL DIKE
AREA; 12 ACRES*
mm
* IF SITE 19 WAS PROPOSED FOR USE, THE DIKE
ALIGNMENT WOULD BE AS INDICATED.

SEE FIGURE

1 FOR LOCATION.
LEGEND WILMINGTON HARBOR LONG-TERM STUDY
b Barren
mf Mixed Forest DISPOSAL SITE NO. 19
sh Shrub VEGETATION MAP
Sm. Spartina altsrniFlora
Pa. P r? aomite
s australis
T. sp. ts
Typha Species

mm
Mixed Marsh MAPPING BASED ON 0 230 S00
h Herbaceous 4 /85 PHOTOGRAPHY SCALE IN FEET
53

a

V)
ro
N
O
Q
N

t
U
ro
W

O
C
O
•r
S.
S.

a
d

Y

O

d

J 41

Q C
F-
L
+•1
3

a,
a
a

ro

ro
S
w
O

C7f
ro
a)
L
U
Q
ro
O
O
F-
a1
r-1
CO
r-1
?O
111
e-?
M
r
a
r N
N ti
N r?
O -1
N
G O
r1
CT
co

Q'
Cl)
(1)
a
a
1-
a
C
E
O
U
Q' 117 O Il ?--? M I
1 O

1D
M
t0
M
O
O I
1 0

i ~

1
Ln I In
?c Rc O1 ~ r+ v I?
~ C f? 1?- 1
N 01 1 M
1 •--1
1

n

? I
I
I
I N
1 •--1
I
1

ti co M i N
M 1 Q
I

O 1
I O
r1 1 ?-1

O I O
? I Q
I

O
O I
I ?O
M N r1 I n
00 I W

n
~ I
1 O
N I N
CO m N r+ I O
rl r? I C

1
I LC)
LC) to
r r1 1 ~
O 1 Cl)
1
I
I? •'+ CO N 1 O
r1 I N
I
I

I? 01 1 t0
N 1 M
,
I
1
1n Q I 01
I
i
I
I n
? I Q
I

N
n I
1 Q1
1
1

M

N

r•
1
I
1 t0
Q i -
1
1 ?
1
Lo In
N 1 N
1
N N
I
N
ro
4- L E
E E L
41

?. ro a
A
4) L • L
al N (A Ca. N UI
.L] L v a7 .. L 7
O +? ro O
li
• $ N
C E U
v v
cr.
v
ro
S- a) to cu
L
L X L L X
a)
m H d
54
ro
O
H
ro

L
ro

°
a
N
a
v
a)
Y
r
V
a!
L
1•+
C
t
•
3

a)

ro
U
O
CT
C

.G
0
O

C
al
?
Q
a
ro

ro
.C
L
U
.C
3
0
O
N
a)
S-
u
to
cm

N
N
L
U
(0
K)
4
Ln
4-
O
1O

O

ro

C w

4J
C
O
U
y
co

U

N
MIXED MARSH (mm) - These are marshes which have no clear dominant
• species and occur in tidal and non-tidal areas. Common species present in
these areas include: Giant cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides), pickerelweed
(Pontederia cordata), saltmarsh bulrush (Scir us robustus), American bulrush
(Scirpus americanus), narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), common cattail
(Typha latifolia), rose mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos), coastal arrowhead
(Sagittaria falcata), sedge (Cyperus spp.), alligator-weed (Alternanthera
philoxeroides), black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), and spike-rush
(Eleocharis sp.).
HERBACEOUS (h) - These communities are dominated by various grasses
and forbs. They are located at higher elevations than the surrounding marshes
and are not considered to be wetlands.
TRANSITIONAL AREA - This is an area that has been cleared of natural
vegetation and where commercial activity is planned or low density commercial
activity exists.
The most diverse terrestrial habitat was at site 18. Approximately 28
acres of the 42 acre site are uplands (mostly mixed forest) and 14 acres
wooded wetlands (mixed forest). Some remnant dikes are located on the upland
portion of the site. The 28 acres of upland contain several sandy dredged
material domes (barren) that grade to the south and southwest through the
upland mixed forest to the 14 acres of mixed forested wetlands (see section
4.2.3 for a description) adjacent to the railroad (figure 19). The upland
forest near the domes has an overstory of sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), willow oak (Quercus
p hellos), black cherry (Prunus serotina) and common cottonwood (Populus
deltoides). The understory has virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), poison ivy (Rhus radicans),
Japanese honey suckle (Lonicera ,japonica), green briar (Smilax sp.) and grape
(Vitus sp.).
4.2.2.2 Fauna. Wildlife populations of most of the dredged material disposal
island sites are rather limited. Most of these islands are of recent origin
and, due to their isolation from the mainland and repeated disturbance, have
not had time to attract and establish stable wildlife communities. Previously
undiked islands have better developed wildlife communities due to a lack of
habitat disturbance since the late 1960's. Portions of islands 11, 12 & 13
are forested and the vertical stratification provided by the vegetation
permits occupation by bird species not normally associated with the dredged
material disposal islands in the river. Island 12, in particular, has well
developed avian and mammalian communities. This is due to the presence of a
wide variety of habitat types, relative habitat stability (it has not been
disposed on since the late 1960's), and close proximity to the Cape Fear
peninsula. Proximity to the peninsula has permitted the immigration of the
many species of mammals which now occupy available habitat. During a field
investigation of this island, signs of deer (Odocoileus virginianus), oppossum
(Didelphis marsupialis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus
aquaticus, rice rat (Oryzymys palustris), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus) were seen. Other more secretive species such as shrews and cotton
mice are probably also present.
55
Diked islands which are frequently disposed upon have depauperate species
diversities due to the monoculture habitats present and the habitat
disturbance caused by dredged material deposition. Such islands are not used
to any appreciable extent by colonially nesting waterbirds and small mammal
populations are restricted to species like marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus !
aquaticus), and rice rat (Oryzymys palustris).
Eagle Island is the largest disposal site which will be used during the
future maintenance of the project and consists of a large complex of habitats.
Much of the island is a large Phragmites monoculture of marginal wildlife
habitat value. There are portions of the island which contain trees; however,
and these areas provide denning and nesting areas for many species including
raccoon and oppossum. Marsh rabbits, hispid cotton rats and rice rats are
probably the most-common species of mammals on the island. The presence of
the long, linear borrow pits adjacent to the dike provides freshwater
throughout most of the year. These borrow pits are heavily used by
alligators, waterfowl and migrating shorebirds.
Site 18 is the most floristically diverse--of all-of the disposal sites
----------
being considered for use in the long-term maintenance of the-project (sec-tion_
4.2.2.1). Many soft and hard mast producing trees occur on the site as do
shrub thickets, bare ground, and seasonal pools of water. Due to the
diversity of habitat types found on the site, it supports a diverse population
of song birds, small mammals and reptiles and amphibians (in ephemeral
pools). While the habitat structure of the site is good, little evidence of
actual use by deer or medium-sized mammals (e.g. raccoon) was noted during
field investigations. This probably relates to the relatively small size of
the site and the fact that it is isolated from adjacent woodlands by
industries on the north and south and a four-lane highway (US 421) to the
west.
Bird Nesting Sites. Several areas in the lower Cape Fear River region are
used by colonially nesting waterbirds as nesting areas. Battery Island, a
natural island which has received some dredged material in the past, is home
to the largest colony of white ibises in North Carolina and is also used for
nesting by other herons, egrets, and some ground nesting birds. Two man-made
islands, the Old Royal Tern Island and the Ferry Slip Island (figure 1), were
created by dredged material in the early 70's and are the most heavily used
islands in the southeastern part of the state by ground nesting waterbirds.
The Wilmington District has supported efforts to manage waterbird nesting
sites in the lower Cape Fear River in the past and will continue this practice
in the future (USACE 1982). Management of nesting sites will be by deposition
of dredged material on an as needed basis only for the purposes of erosion
control and/or habitat management. All such depositions will be coordinated
with appropriate interests prior to disposal. Management of Battery Island
with dredged material will probably not be necessary and such action is not
currently envisioned. If such a need was to arise; however, the District
would respond if possible.
56
Deposition of dredged material on nesting areas will take place during
non-nesting periods if possible. Preferred timing for disposal would,
therefore, be between 1 August and 15 March.
4.2.3 Wetlands and Floodplains.
Wetlands involved with the maintenance plans are located within or nearby
existing or proposed diked disposal areas. These disposal areas are
designated 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 (figure 1). Sites 11, 12, and 13 are not
diked, 16 and 18 have remnant dikes and 15 has maintained dikes.
All of the wetlands discussed below fall under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977, as amended. In addition, all wetlands except the wooded
wetlands and common reed areas fall under the State-of North Carolina Coastal
Area Management Program as Areas of Environmental Concern. Sites 15 and 16
have received, under previous actions, all appropriate environmental
clearances under these regulations for the disposal of dredged material.
At site 11, the wetlands consist of a finger of intertidal common reed (P.
australis) on the west side of the island (figure 12). This wetland is
approximately 2.0 acres and contains a 200 square feet patch of black
needlerush (Juncus roemerianus). Fiddler crab (Uca sp.) burrows were located
throughout this marsh finger. This area has saturated soils and is covered by
tidal waters several times per month.
Site 12 has a 0.5 acre patch of wetland along the west side to be
incorporated into the dike alignment (figure 13). The patch is approximately
80% black needlerush and 20% giant cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides) with
fiddler crab burrows scattered throughout. This area has saturated soils and
is covered by tidal waters several times per month.
Site 13 contains a 3.0 acre patch of wetland in the northwest corner
(figure 14). The wetland is located behind a berm and is probably flooded
only a few times each year. The dominant species is common reed (2.0 acres)
with saw grass (Cladium jamaicense), and giant cordgrass present. The soils
are saturated intermittently due to infrequent flooding and have fiddler crab
burrows present.
In addition, along the shoreline of sites 11, 12, and 13, a total of 0.5
acre of intertidal marsh (saltmarsh cordgrass) and 0.8 acre of high marsh are
present. The high marsh consists of a mixture of black needlerush, saltmeadow
hay (Spartina patens), giant cordgrass, glasswort (Salicornia spp.), sea
lavender (Limonium carolinianum), sawgrass and common reed. Most of this
existing marsh is being lost to ongoing erosion.
Site 15 is the Corps of Engineers Eagle Island diked disposal area (figure
16). The portion to be used for disposal of dredged material is approximately
880 acres and is dominated by common reed.
The 40 acre site 16 disposal area is dominated by common reed and black
willow (Salix ni ra)(figure 17). The dike surrounding this area is intact
•
57
except on the west side which has one major breach. The area around this
breach is probably flooded several times a month by tidal waters.
Of the 54.5 acres at site 18, the site contains 26.5 acres of wetlands, of
which 14 acres are wooded wetlands that may be incorporated within the diked
disposal area (section 3.2.2, figure 19). These wooded wetlands are located
between the upland portion of the site and the railroad. The wooded wetlands
are dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) with common cottonwood (Populus
deltoides), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua) and have an understory of tear thumb (Polygonum arifolium),
lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), mulberry (Morus rubra), privet (Ligustrum
sinense), Japanese honey suckle (Lonicera ,japonica) and poison ivy (Rhus
radicans). The wooded wetlands may be flooded a few times a year by spring
high tides, but the principal source of inundation appears to be from
rainfall.
Site 18 also contains 8.0 acres of wetlands located between the Northeast
Cape Fear--River-and_the upland portion of the site. These wetlands are
-------- --
dominated by mixed marsh containing cattails_(Typha latifolia and
angustifolia), and giant cordgrass (Spartina cynosuro des)-.--Within-this--mixed
marsh are scattered patches of shrub thickets containing grounsel tree
(Baccharis halimifolia), wag myrtle (Myrica cerifera), Japanese honey suckle
and red maple with an occasional bald cypress (Taxodium deltoides) (30-40 feet
tall). Adjacent and parallel to the river is a 15-20 foot wide berm
approximately one foot above mean high water. This berm is dominated by the
shrub thicket species indicated above with the bald cypress becoming more
frequent toward the northern end of the property. The 8.0 acre wetland area
is flooded several times per month by a combination of high tides and high
river flows.
Located in the southwest corner of the site is 4.5 acres of isolated
wooded wetlands. This wetland is dominated by an overstory of red maple,
black willow and an occasional black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) with an understory
of Japonese honeysucle, lizard's tail, poison ivy and chain fern (Woodwardia
areolata). Ephemeral pools are located throughout. The wetland is isolated
by the railroad track on the south and east and by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation right-or-way and commercial development on the
west and north, respectively. The saturated soils are due to rainfall and a
high groundwater table.
In the northwest corner of the site, a permanent 60' wide access road may
be constructed that would cross 0.2 acres of isolated wooded wetlands adjacent
to heavily traveled US Highway 421 (figure 19). This wetland contains an
overstory of red maple, black willow, and sweetgum with an understory of
lizard's tail and blueberry (Vaccinium sp.). This wetland is isolated by US
Highway 421 on the west and upland mixed forest or commercial development on
the other sides. As with the 4.5 acre isolated wetland discussed in the
previous paragraph, the saturated soils are due to rainfall and a high
groundwater table.
These existing disposal sites are located within the 100 year floodplain.
58
4.3 Threatened and Endangered Wildlife, Plants. On 14 April 1986, a letter
was sent to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Asheville Endangered Species
Field Station) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (Southeast Regional
Office) requesting lists of threatened or endangered species which should be
considered in the development and documentation of the long-term maintenance
plan for the project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's list of species to
be considered was amended by telephone on November 30, 1987'due to additions
and deletions from the list which had occurred since the previous
coordination. The lists provided by these agencies were combined to develop a
composite list which was used during plan formulation. This list is as
follows:
MAMMALS
West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus)
Finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus)
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
Right whale (Eubaleana glacialis)
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis)
Sperm whale (Physeter catadon)
BIRDS
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus)
REPTILES
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochel.ys kem ii)
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)
Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)
FISH
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)
PLANTS
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)
See section 5.3 regarding the results of the consultation process on these
species.
4.4 Areas of Archaeological and Historical Significance. The lower Cape Fear
River region is rich in cultural resources with many sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. National Register sites occurring in
the immediate vicinity of the Wilmington Harbor project include the following:
Ft. Fisher National Historic Landmark
59
Brunswick Town and the wreck FORTUNA
Fort Anderson
Lighthouse District
Fort Caswell
Fort Johnston
Historic Wilmington Waterfront
Shipwreck of the CSS RALEIGH
Other sites which.are believed eligible for the National Register but not
yet listed include: Prices Light, Battery Lamb, Robbins House, historic
archeological site 31NH95 and prehistoric site 31NH507.
Because the harbor project has been in place for many years and navigation
of the river has long been an important part of the regions history, it's
continued maintenance is considered to be compatible with the objective of
preserving the region's historical character and attributes. All disposal
sites have been disposed on during previous maintenance events.
-----------
4.5 Socioeconomic Considerations Related to Wilmington Harbor.
4.5.1 Land Use. In accordance with the North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act, New Hanover and Brunswick Counties have developed land use
plans. According to the most recent updates (1987 Brunswick County and 1986
New Hanover County), the dredged material disposal areas fall in one of two
classifications: transition or conservation. The "transition" classification
provides for future.intensive urban development within the ensuing ten years.
The "conservation" classification provides for effective long-term management
of significantly limited or irreplaceable areas. These areas include
wetlands, unique shoreline areas and areas hazardous for development.
4.5.2 Population. The Wilmington area, including-New Hanover, Brunswick, and
Pender counties, had a 1985 population of 181,500; an increase of 12.4 percent
since 1980. While the state was growing about 1 per cent a year, the
Wilmington area was growing at about 2 per cent per year. Brunswick County
has been the second fastest growing county in the state over that five year
period.
4.5.3 Income and Employment. The latest economic data available (1983) show
that the state of North Carolina has about 1,960,000 employees and an annual
payroll of about 29 billion dollars. Of those, about 780,000 work in
manufacturing making about 13 billion dollars, and about 120,000-work in
transportation and public utilities making about 2.5 billion dollars. The
Wilmington area, including New Hanover and'Brunswick counties, have about
45,000 employees making about 700 million dollars.
Personal Income. Research Triangle Institute (1983) indicates that
salaries and benefits resulting from the public docks (i.e. the NC State Port
Authority (NCSPA)) at Wilmington in 1982 were about $545,000,000. Adding the
salaries and benefits from the public docks to the estimated impacts of -
salaries and benefits resulting from private docks yields a total estimate of
about $909,000,000 for 58,747 workers (table 8), or,$15,47Q per worker. The
per capita amount for the affected population of 135,120 was about $6,730. •
60
Salaries and benefits generated for each 1,000 tons of cargo moved across
Wilmington's docks in 1982 were about $152,500.
Employment. In the North Carolina economy, an estimated average of 9.9
jobs in 1982 resulted from each 1,000 tons of cargo moving through the entire
harbor at Wilmington. The relationship for public docks (NCSPA) indicated
that about 14.7 jobs resulted for each 1000 tons of cargo moved due to the
higher value of the break bulk and containerized cargo handled at the NC State
Port Docks. Cargo handled at private docks at Wilmington is primarily bulk
materials and petroleum products, which has lower values and creates less
jobs. The situation is essentially reversed at Morehead City where the
majority of cargo handled by the NCSPA is bulk materials and petroleum
products, similar to those handled at the private terminals in Wilmington.
About 6.6 jobs resulted from each 1,000 tons of cargo moved at Morehead City.
Therefore, the 6.6 figure was used for private activities at Wilmington for
estimating purposes. As shown in table 8, the estimated total full-time
equivalent jobs throughout North Carolina attributed to the harbor at
Wilmington was about 58,747 in 1982.
An indication of the number of people affected by the ports may be
determined by using population-to-worker ratios. The 1980 ratio of 2.3 to 1
for the State was used because of the widespread effects of the ports. Based
on employment resulting from activities in Wilmington Harbor of about 58,747
in 1982, an estimated 135,120 people in North Carolina received the economic
benefits of employment because of the operation of that port (table 8). The
number of persons affected per 1,000 tons of cargo moved was about 23.
4.5.4 Existing Terminal Facilities. Forty-three principal wharves, piers,
and docks are located at the port of Wilmington, with berthing space of about
20,000 linear feet to serve the harbor. These facilities handle containers,
general cargo, chemicals (including fertilizers), and petroleum products.
Specialized cargo handled through local facilities includes asphalt, gypsum,
molasses, cement, tobacco, wood pulp, and salt.
Major capital investment has been made at the NC State Ports since the
early 19701s. Total investment from 1977 to 1984 amounted to approximately
$21 million, of which $12.5 million was container related.
The NCSPA has approved and the Legislature has funded a Master Development
Plan for the ports of Wilmington and Morehead City, covering the period from
1986 to 1990. They propose capital expenditures of $36 million for the port
of Wilmington, including a new 900-foot container berth costing about $14
million and two additional container cranes at $3.5 million each. Additional
items include the rehabilitation of several berths, wharf repairs, and
increased storage areas and heavy equipment. This plan includes major
maintenance of facilities, some of which are nearly 50 years old, and
improvements to service larger container ships of the Panamax class. The new
container berth is under construction and expected to be fully operating in
1990.
61
TABLE 8
PORT OF WILMINGTON BENEFITS - 1982
WILMINGTON HARBOR
Public Docks Private Docks Total
Employment
Salaries & Benefits
State and Local
Taxes
Affected Population
Full-Time Equivalent
35,207 23,540 58,747
$544,766,000 $364,240,000 $909,006,000
$70,391,000 $47,065,000 $1-17,-456-,000
80,980 54,140 135,120
*Based on Fiscal Year 1982 (July 1 - June 30) taxes and calendar year
tonnages.
i
a

62
4.5.5 Waterborne Commerce. A comparative statement of commodity traffic for
Wilmington Harbor for the 35-year inclusive period 1952-1986 is shown in table
9. These data are taken from the Corps of Engineers publication Waterborne
Commerce of the United States.
During the entire period, total tonnage increased 68.2 percent, for an
annual compound growth rate of approximately 1.5 percent. Better rates of
growth have occurred during the 10-year period of record (1969-1979), which
resulted in a total gain of 107 percent, or an average annual compound growth
rate of approximately 7.6 percent. Since 1979, total tonnages have generally
dropped, due primarily to significant reductions in petroleum products and
metallic ore traffic. Approximately 85 percent of the total commodity tonnage
carried in recent years include the categories of (1) petroleum products; (2)
chemicals and allied products; (3) non-metallic minerals; (4) fabricated metal
products, except fuels; and (5) pulp, paper, and allied products (table 10).
The largest tonnage of a single commodity handled in 1986 was paraxylene,
classified as basic chemicals and products, which is used to produce polyester
fiber. The largest group was petroleum products, which includes gasoline,
fuel oil, asphalt and solvents. In 1986, a total of nearly 2.6 million tons
of petroleum products were carried, or approximately 40 percent of the total.
Most of the passenger traffic indicated in table 9 is from the Ft. Fisher-
Southport Ferry.
4.5.6 Financial Value of the Port. Studies by the Research Triangle
Institute (RTI 1983) indicate that the benefits of Wilmington Harbor to the
State's economy are substantial and reach well beyond the immediate vicinity
of Wilmington. Estimated impacts for 1982 from RTI (1983) which addressed the
impacts of the public port facilities of the NCSPA only, are shown in table 8
for Wilmington. Estimates are also shown for the impacts of private docks, -
based on tonnage relationships established for public docks.
Total commerce moved at Wilmington in 1983 was about 5,123,000 tons,
2,349,000 across public docks and 2,744,000 across private docks. This was
the lowest total tonnage for the harbor since 1969.
Tax Revenues. State and local taxes generated by Wilmington Harbor for
each 1,000 tons of cargo moved were estimated at about $19,700, using fiscal
year 1982 tax data and calendar year tonnage. This resulted in a total of
about $117,500,000 for calendar year tonnage. State income taxes and sales
taxes (including gasoline) each accounted for about 35 percent, and local
property taxes accounted for about 30 percent.
Industrial Development. North Carolina's harbors result in firms and
industries that are required, attracted, or induced by port activities. These
categories accounted for about 5, 3, and 92 percent, respectively, of
employment resulting from the harbor at Wilmington in 1982. Required
industries include those which provide transportation and other services that
are necessary to support harbor operations. The second category includes
those firms that export commodities and those that import products for
assembly or distribution within the United States that are attracted to North
63
TABLE 9
WILMIKQTON HARBOR N.C.
WATERBORNE COMMERCE
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF TRAFFIC
Year Tons Passengers
1952 4,047,765 34
1953 4,109,141 67
1954 4,092,862 192
1955 4,693,306 1,171
1956 4,777,127 886
1957 4,752,777 11,727
1958 4,826,608 3,502
1959 _ 5,137,905 5,565
1960 5,168;062 960
1961 4,7969498 713
1962 5,590,064 3,436
1963 6,276,443 1,039
1964 5,545,743 14,661
1965 4,742,108 528
1966 5,272,182 51,472
1967 4,928,333 68,913
1968 5,001,228 103,720
1969 4,971,033 77,403
1970 6,316,740 75,986
1971 6,826,751 86,120
1972 8,535,227 89,001
1973 10,061,882 97,883
1974 9,383,342 100,543
1975 7,939,207 116,891
1976 8,682,623 123,487
1977 10,000,290 104,432
1978 9,920,216 116,491
1979 10,293,376 145,403
1980 8,402,279 152,229
1981 8,434,798 129,739
1982 5,960,350 1342120
1983 5,123,292 145',311
1984 5,797,706 155,402
1985 .5,632,063 176,013
1986 6,806,915 228,324
SOURCE: Waterborne Commerce of the United States, various
years, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
A

64

M
TABLE 10
WILMINGTON HARBOR
OCEANGOING COMMERCE - 1984
Percentage
Commodity Classification of total
Petroleum Products 41.25
Chemicals and Allied Products 27.56
Non-metallic Minerals, except Fuels 8.36
Primary and Fabricated Metal Products 5.79
Pulp, Paper Products, and Printed Matter 5.47
Tobacco, leaf 2.30
Food and Kindred Products 2.08
Lumber and Wood Products, Furniture and Fixtures 1.67
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products 1.21
Machinery and Transportation Equipment 1.01
Department of Defense and Special Category Items 0.71
Metallic Ores 0.70
Farm Products other than Tobacco, Leaf 0.53
Textiles and Apparel 0.49
Waste and Scrap Materials 0.39
Rubber and Plastic Products, Leather and Leather Prod. 0.14
Tobacco Products 0.13
Other 0.21
100.00
SOURCE: Waterborne Commerce of the United States, 1984
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

65
Carolina because of the presence of the ports. Induced industries are those
in the State which expand their markets by exporting through the State's
ports. Indications of the types of industries affected in addition to those
required for port operations are shown in table 10 as to the percent of total
commerce moved through Wilmington in 1984.
4.5.7 Existing Transportation Links. The project area is served by modern
air, rail, and major highway links. The New Hanover County Airport is served
by one major airline, Piedmont, offering service through its connecting hubs
throughout the country. A commuter airline affiliated with American Airlines
has connecting service through its hub at Raleigh-Durham Airport. A new,
modern airport terminal for New Hanover County is under construction and is
scheduled for completion in the fall of 1990.
Rail service is provided by the Seaboard Coastline Railroad with one line
connecting to the main line at Hamlet, N. C. Because of additional traffic
and greater weights, due primarily to the transport of containers, tracks and
other facilities at the-port and--around the city have been upgraded. Some of
the rail lines leading out of the port in various directions-have been
abandoned, usually in the rural areas outside of Wilmington.
Four major U.S. Highways, namely, Highways 74-76, 421, 117, and 17 connect
the area to the Interstate Highway System and to the major cities in North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Also, construction is underway on an
extension of Interstate 40 from Raleigh to Wilmington. The portion of I-40
from Wilmington to Wallace is complete, with the remainder scheduled for
completion by July, 1990. U. S. 74 is almost entirely a four-lane highway to
Charlotte. Improvements to several highways, including a by-pass of Bolton on
U.S. Highway 74, are under construction and others are included in the State's
transportation plan. Also the city of Wilmington has begun land acquisition
for the Smith Creek Parkway, connecting the Interstate 40 terminus with
downtown Wilmington and the port area. Smith Creek Parkway, as envisioned,
would route traffic from I-40 to downtown, across the Northeast Cape Fear
River (CFR) Bridge (N.C. 133), the new CFR Bridge, and back across the river
via the CFR Memorial Bridge to the port. The city has passed a transportation
bond issue to speed construction of additional connector streets and highways.
4.5.8 Recreational Boating Traffic. Wilmington Harbor has a large amount of
recreational boating traffic in the area below Snow's Cut and a much smaller
amount above there. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway follows the Cape Fear
River channel from Fort Caswell up to Snow's Cut. It carries a large amount
of transient recreational boating, as well as local recreation in the vicinity
of Southport. On calm summer days the area from Southport to the mouth of the
river near Bald Head Island is heavily used by all types of recreational
boating.
In the area between Snow's Cut and the upstream limit of the harbor, there
is only a small amount of recreational boating. The city of Wilmington
completed a municipal dock in conjunction with Riverfront Park in 1982 and a
boat ramp at the foot of Castle Street in 1986. A southern extension of the
municipal dock and other improvements were completed in 1988. There is also a
proposal to extend the Riverfront Park northward to a convention center at the
66
CSX Railroad property. These changes have increased recreational boating
a along the Wilmington waterfront, but at present large usage has only occurred
during special events (Riverfest and the Azalea Festival). Recreational
boating will certainly increase in all reaches of the harbor during the next
fifty years as more facilities are developed.
4.5.9 Esthetics. The lower Cape Fear River region is very scenic, with many
miles of ocean beach, historic homes and lighthouses, and large expanses of
salt marsh bordering the river. The majority of the dredged material disposal
sites occur within the river and are visible only from a boat or from the
adjacent shore of the river. Site 18 is totally hidden from view and cannot
be seen from the river or from any road.

67
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED PLAN
5.1 Significant Resources.

5.1.1 Geology and Mineral Resources. The proposed action will not
significantly impact geology or mineral resources.
5.1.2 Seismology. The Wilmington Harbor area is relatively aseismic. The
proposed action will not be affected by seismic activity.
5.1.3 Sediments and Grain Size Analysis. Since the project involves only
maintenance, the grain size and sediment characteristics of the reaches to be
dredged will not be changed and the associated disposal area grain size will
remain relatively the same.
5.1.4 Water Resources.
5.1.4.1 Groundwater. Disposal of dredged material into the upland diked
disposal areas 15, 16 and 18 and islands (3,4, and 6-13) will not adversely
impact the groundwater quality. Groundwater gradients are into the river and
dredged materials from the river have chloride contents equal to or less than
that of the river in the vicinity in which they are disposed.
5.1.4.2 Surface Water Quality. Effluent from the spillways of diked upland
disposal areas will not significantly impact water quality. The discharge of
effluent from diked upland disposal areas is covered under Section 401 (P.L.
95-217) Water Quality Certification No. 1273 issued November 10, 1978 and a
Nationwide Section 404 permit (33 CFR 330.5(a)(16)).
The water quality impacts resulting from the disposal of dredged material
within the Wilmington Harbor ODMDS were discussed in USEPA's final
environmental impact statement for designation of the ODMDS (USEPA 1983).
According to that document, the disposal of dredged material at the Wilmington
Harbor ODMDS should not significantly degrade water quality in regions
adjacent to the disposal site. Water quality impacts will include minimal and
short-term suspended solids plumes and releases of soluble trace constituents.
The water quality impacts associated with the resuspension of sediment
particles into the water column during a dredging operation are short-term but
unavoidable. A result of the resuspension is an increase in the suspended
solids (non-filterable residue expressed as mg/1) concentration in the water
column. The concentrations of suspended solids do affect turbidity, an
optical property of water often measured as NTUs (nephelometric turbidity
units); however, the two terms are not synonymous.
The plume, the area where the dredge induced suspended solids
concentrations are discernibly increased relative to background levels, is
dependent on many factors including, currents, winds, salinity, sediment type,
and the type of dredge used.
The characteristics of sediment resuspension associated with hydraulic
pipeline, hopper, and clamshell dredges are summarized in the following
68
discussion adapted from Raymond (1984), Barnard (1978), and Hayes et al.
• (1984):
Note: The sediment grain size in Wilmington Harbor is generally
larger than that for the indicated three studies. Therefore, the
sediment resuspension resulting from dredging most channels in
Wilmington Harbor should be of shorter duration and lesser
concentration and areal extent than that associated with the
discussion below. Also overflowing of the decant water from the
hopper dredge will continue in the ocean bar channels and overflow
of decant water from the hopper or bucket and barge operation in
the rest of the harbor is proposed where the sediments are
predominantly sand. In areas that are predominantly sand (table
6), the overflow will tend to have minimal suspended solids and
the barge loads will be more efficient.
For a hydraulic pipeline dredge, resuspended materials result from
materials that are loosened by the cutterhead but not picked up by the
suction. Suspended solids (increases above background) within 50 ft of the
cutterhead have seldom been found to exceed 100 mg/1. Figure 21 illustrates
the average suspended solids concentration associated with an 18 inch
hydraulic pipeline dredge operation in fine-grained sediments in the James
River of Virginia. Even though sediment resuspension with the hydraulic
pipeline dredge has its source at the bottom, action of the cutterhead and the
currents, especially the stronger ebb currents, can move the plume upward in
the water column.
For a hopper dredge, resuspended sediment results from material loosened.
by the action of the draghead and not picked up by the dragarm suction, hopper
overflow during loading, and turbulence generated by the vessel and its
propwash. Generally, a well-defined surface plume is generated by the
overflow process and a near bottom plume by the draghead resuspension; 900 to
1200 ft behind the dredge the two plumes merge into a single plume. In the
immediate vicinity of a hopper dredge working in fine-grained material in
Grays Harbor, Washington, the surface plume of suspended solids behind the
dredge was 200 ft wide by 4000 ft long with suspended solids concentrations
reaching 891 mg/l at a distance of 100 ft behind the dredge. Suspended solids
concentrations in the surface waters were less than 100 mg/l, 1000 feet astern
of the dredge. The near bottom plume had a width of greater than 400 ft and a
length of approximately 8500 ft. Near bottom suspended solids concentrations
remained greater than 100 mg/l at 1500 ft behind the dredge.
The sediment resuspension associated with hopper dredges not using hopper
overflow was considerably less than that with dredges overflowing their
hoppers. At Grays Harbor, a surface suspended sediment plume was not detected
behind a now-overflowing hopper dredge. The highest suspended sediment
concentration recorded for the non-overflowing hopper dredge was 70 mg/l in
near bottom samples.
69
M
FLOOD DISTANCE, FT EBB
800 400 200 100 0 100 200 400 800
0 0 0 0 5 4 27 / 61 15
1o 11
CL / c
W '
0 3
12 44 - 19 0 15 1 47/ 57 25
20 25 14 0 20 24 /84 66 \ 39
E I ? \
44 "ol / 84 74\ 32 25 43'224 199 9
/ io ! (EST) . ??
loool
% 140 ' 143 282 ` % `\le
30 r/
AVERAGE CURRENT SPEED -1.13 FPS AVERAGE CURRENT SPEED - 2.15 FPS
AVERAGE SUSPENDED SEDIMENT, AVERAGE SUSPENDED SEDIMENT,
ABOVE 25 FT -11.5 mg/2 ABOVE 25 FT -37.5 mg/P
FIGURE 21
SCHEMATIC OF AVERAGE SUSPENDED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS
(LESS BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS) FOR INDICATED DEPTHS AND
DISTANCES FROM A HYDRAULIC PIPELINE DREDGE, JAMES RIVER,
VA (RAYMOND, 1984).

70
For a clamshell dredge, sources of resuspended sediment include: material
• resuspended as the bucket impacts and is pulled loose from the bottom;
material within or adhering to the bucket that are washed loose as the bucket
moves through the water column; material that spills or leaks out of the
" bucket when the bucket breaks the water surface; inadvertent spillage of
.material during barge loading or intentional barge overfilling. A method to
predict the combined effects of variables, such as bucket size and type,
hoisting speed, loading methods, sediment types, and hydrodynamic conditions
at the dredging site, or spatial and temporal changes in suspended sediment
conditions that will occur during a specific project does not exist (Lunz et
al., 1984). However, Barnard (1978) suggested that a typical clamshell dredge
operation produces a downstream suspended solids plume that extends for 1000
feet at the surface and 1650 ft at the bottom. Maximum concentrations of
suspended solids in the surface plume should be less. than 500 mg/l in the
immediate vicinity of the dredge and decrease rapidly with distance from the
dredge.
The Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a field
study of clamshell dredging and barge overflow at the Military Ocean Terminal,
Sunny Point (MOTSU), North Carolina in 1987. The results of this study are
presented in Payonk et al. (1988) and Palermo et al. (1988) and summarized in
the following paragraphs.
Sediments dredged during the maintenance dredging of MOTSU were
predominantly highly plastic clays with traces of sand. The clamshell
dredging produced visible plumes of turbid water. Because of the cyclic
nature of the clamshell bucket operation, plumes resulting from bucket
spillage and overflow formed a series of patches which, as they were advected
down-current, tended to spread and merge. The plumes were not visible at
distances greater than approximately 1000 ft down-current to observers in
boats.
Approximately 600 water samples were taken from the stations shown on
Figure 22 coinciding with clamshell dredging on September 24 and 30 and
clamshell dredging with barge overflow on October 20. This total sampling
effort produced 4 measurements which exceeded 25 NTUs, the North Carolina
water quality standard for turbidity in the waters of the Cape Fear River at
MOTSU. All values greater than 25 NTUs were from bottom (30 feet) samples and
ranged from 33 to 27 NTUs.
Figure 23 illustrates turbidities at specific up- and down-current
stations relative to the dredge. Because of the significant tidal currents at
MOTSU, up-current stations can be designated as control or background stations
and down-current stations as effected stations. For September 30, station B1
was down-current, on flood tide, from 0900 through the end of the sample day.
Station B3 was up-current of the dredge for that same period. Differences
between up- and down-current turbidities for September 30 (a dredging only
day) were generally less than 5 NTUs. For October 20 (a dredging and overflow
• day), station B1 is up-current, on ebb tide, from 0800 until approximately

71

G
MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL,_-_ -SUNNY--. POINT
.D3
SNOW ?i/ •82 >
?JE is D3
5EP
/ .83? : /p!
30 i
U! -_????? SE 4 1 1
-Fri 20
985
002
L
HA #&OR
_i /.86 ..?MINGTON -------------
15M 1500 0 1500 3000 4500
wII CA PE FEAR
SCALE IN FEET
r
Figure 22. MOTSU clamshell dredge study area. Plume sampling stations
and areas dredged on specific days (bars with dates) are shown (from
Payonk et al. 1988).

72
Dredging Only
w

30
25
20
N
U 15
10
5
25
20
N
U 15
10
5
40
O
O
20
C
'1
S 0
E
C
-20
m
m
w
-40
-60
SEPTEMBER 30 1987
&--*SURFACE
0---0 M 1 D
*---*BOTTOM
STATION 83

Control/Background

1 ?

i
1 0..... Ar
1
I ?
STATION B1

.
l ?
y

i I
I
I
STATION B3 i
I
O ?
i
B00
30
25
20
N
U 15
10
5
25
20
N
U 15
10
5
40
Im
O
O
LL 20
C
M
S 0
E
C
-20
M
M
w
-40
-60
Dredging with Overflow
OCTOBER 20 1987
b --o SURFACE
1111-01,111)
0 --+ BOTTOM
STATION B1
Control/Background
r ....... 41 i :ir
It` i 9
I
I
1
i STATION 01
1 I
o
9.
I
1 STATION 83
?' A I
a
o.,
/ BARGE OVERFLOW PERIOD
I . I?
1000 1200 1400 1600 B00 1000 1200 1400 1600
TIME (HOURS - 24 HR CLOCK) TIME (HOURS - 24 HR CLOCK)
Figure 23. Turbidities measured up- and down-current of a clamshell
dredge. Measurements of September 30 are dredging only while those of
October 20 include two barge overflow periods as indicated. Current
speed and direction for those days are also shown. Stations are shown
on Figure 22 (from Payonk et al. 1988).
73
1400 when the tide changes. Station D1 is down-current of the dredge for the
majority of the sample day. Station D1 exhibited fluctuations in turbidity
that may be due to dredge-induced perturbations. Station D1 was within 1300
ft of the dredge and the fluctuations may be patchy near-field phenomena not
seen in the comparison of September 30 where the down-current station B1 was
approximately 2,600 ft down-current.
In addition to the above described observations made within a grid of
stations in the MOTSU navigation basin, turbidity and suspended solids
concentrations "spot" samples were taken very close to the dredge and in the
sediment plume. A conscious effort was made to take these samples from the
sediment plume. The plume was located either by fathometer or by in_situ
nephelometric measurements before the sample was -taken. -Maximum turbitities,
measured within 10 feet of the transportation barge during barge overflow,
were 72 NTUs at the surface and 150 NTUs at a depth of 30 ft. Suspended
solids concentrations in the water samples with 72 and 150 NTUs samples were
327 mg/l and 739 mg/1, respectively. The results of plume sampling taken 100
- 1,000 ft down-current from clamshell dredging and simultaneous dredging and
overflow activities are given in Table 11. These data indicate that turbidity
returns to near-background levels short distances down-current from clamshell
dredging and dredging and barge overflow activities.
Table 11. Water column averaged turbidity (NTU) measured at varying
distances from a clamshell dredging activity at MOTSU. Measurements were
taken at 2, 15, and 30 ft depths and then averaged. The October 20 profiles
were taken during overflow.
100 ft Down-Current 1,000 ft Down-currentF Background
to mean range (s d. n) mean range (s.d. n) mean range (s.d. n)
Pt. 24 17.6 9.8-24 (5.9 15) 10.3 7.9-18 (3.8 12) 7.7 1.2-17 (3.3 41)
Sept. 30 9.5 4.3-20 (5.5 9) 10.8 4.7-24 (7.0 9) 7.6 2.8-21 (4.3 60)
Oct. 20 28.8 -5.8-58 (18.0 6) 9.4 5.8-13 (3.3 6) 4.4 3.6-6.6 (0.8 12)
In summary, clamshell dredging and dredging with barge overflow of fine-
grained maintenance materials produces turbidity plumes that return to near-
background levels short distances down-current from the dredging activity.
The water quality effects of clamshell dredging of coarser material should be
even more restricted to the dredging site than those observed with this study.
Saltwater Intrusion. The proposed action involves only maintenance and
does not include any navigation channel deepening. Therefore, the saltwater
intrusion conditions discussed in section 4.1.4.2 will not be altered by the
proposed action.
5.2 Biology of Dredging and Disposal Sites.
5.2.1 Aquatic Biology
w
C
G

74
5.2.1.1 Nekton. The water quality affects produced in the Cape Fear River
M during the Wilmington Harbor maintenance dredging with either a hydraulic
pipeline dredge, clamshell dredge, or hopper dredge will be short-term and are
not expected to have significant adverse impacts on estuarine or marine
• nekton. Also, the disposal of dredged material in diked upland areas, or in
the Wilmington Harbor ODMDS is not expected to have significant adverse
impacts on estuarine or marine nekton. Fish and shellfish species inhabiting
the Wilmington Harbor project vicinity are adapted to, and highly tolerant of,
naturally elevated suspended sediment concentrations. In reviews of
laboratory tests, Hirsch et al. (1978) and Stern and Stickle (1978) found
marine and estuarine organisms to be very tolerant of the effects of sediment
suspensions. Lethal or sublethal effects on larval or adult fish or shellfish
occur after longer exposures to higher concentrations of suspended sediment
than typically occur in the water column during dredging and disposal
(Peddicord and McFarland 1978; Preist 1981).
Bioassay and bioaccumulation tests using Keg Island and Baldhead Shoal
channel sediments indicate that those sediments did not differ significantly
from reference sediments in their affects on estuarine and marine organisms
(US Army Corps of Engineers 1980 and 1986a). The reference sediment
represents background conditions away from the influence of any disposal
operation.
The potential for interruption of the movement of estuarine fish and
shellfish and particularly anadromous species of fish to and from nursery and
spawning areas in the Cape Fear estuary by the physical presence of dredging
equipment or by the physical-chemical water quality alterations associated
with dredging is not well known. However, river currents or flows upon which
larval organisms depend for transport will not be interrupted or reduced.
Dredged induced water quality conditions will only be short-term and impact a
small cross-sectional area of the Cape Fear River; therefore, the potential
for blockage of migration routes will be minimal.
Entrainment of Estuarine Larvae and Fishes By Hogoer and Hvdraulic
Pipeline Dredge. The reported or estimated entrainment rates of fish and
shellfish by hopper and hydraulic pipeline dredges are low, indicating that
dredging causes a minimal direct mortality (Arseneault 1981; Armstrong et al.
1982; Carriker et al. 1986). However, the potential for entrainment of a
larger percentage may be significant during certain periods of the year or
under certain site specific conditions but long-term productivity will not be
adversely impacted. The potential for entrainment is increased in restricted
bodies of water such as narrow channels when mobile organisms may not be able
to avoid the dredge or when passive organisms may be concentrated. The
following physical and biological-factors are given as an analysis of the
potential for dredge entrainment impacts in the Cape Fear River.
The hydraulic pipeline dredge consists of mechanical action of a rotating
cutterhead to loosen bottom material and hydraulic action by a pump to
transport it to the disposal area. The material transported consists of a
slurry of approximately 20% solids and 80% water, depending greatly on the
characteristics of the bottom sediment. Considerable amounts of water can be
• contributed from the bottom material itself; however, water is also taken from
75
the overlying water column. The suction-velocity field or entrainment field
will extend over only a small area in the vicinity of the dredge cutterhead at
the river bottom. For example, MacNair and Banks (1986) determined that a 12
inch dredge with an intake 2 feet above the bottom at a depth of 18 feet and a
suction velocity of 10 ft/sec (7.85 efs) generated a velocity field of .13 and
.06 feet/sec at distances of 2.5 and 5 feet from the intake, respectively.
Considering the average daily Cape Fear River freshwater inflow'of 9,700
cfs, currents generally ranging from 0.6-2 ft/sec, average tidal amplitude of
4 feet, and river bed dimensions, the volume of water removed by the dredge is
insignificant compared to the volume of water in the river.
As indicated in section 4.2.1.4, seasonal variations in abundances and
life stages occur and are triggered by complex hydrological and climatological
factors. Also, the distribution of organisms _in_the--water column is not
uniform. Species specific vertical migrations of larval organisms in the
water column depending on light and tide conditions have been reported. The
complexity of the biological variables indicates that some organisms at some
life stage will be available for entrainment at any time-of the year.
In conclusion, the dredge induced (entrainment) mortality of estuarine
organisms associated with dredging of the Wilmington Harbor project is unknown
but is believed to be insignificant based on the short-term duration, physical
characteristics of the dredging activity and the magnitude of Cape Fear River
water movements in comparison to those caused by the dredge.
Schedule of Dredging and Dredging Window. Maintenance dredging of
Wilmington Harbor channels by hydraulic pipeline or clamshell dredge will
normally be scheduled between October 1 and March 31 of any given year, the
"dredging window" established by the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries and
N.C. Division of Coastal Management. Hopper dredging of the Battery Island to
Baldhead Shoal, Cape Fear River Inlet area, is currently scheduled on the
basis of need for dredging and availability of the dredge, at any time of the
year. A requirement to dredge outside the specified window may arise. If
this occurs, prior approval will be sought from the N.C. Division of Coastal
Management and the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries. Examples of conditions
which may lead to a need to dredge outside the dredging window may include
unpredictable episodic shoaling which creates navigational hazards and
operational considerations such as dredge availability and dredge
capabilities.
5.2.1.2 Benthos. Regardless of the dredging method used, removal of the
substrate will eliminate all benthic resources in the area to be dredged.
This will not be an irreversible loss since benthic resources will repopulate
the area rapidly from nearby areas that are not dredged. The density and
diversity of the population that reestablishes will depend on the frequency of
dredging, but the populations that reestablish should be similar to those
eliminated since the species are substrate dependent and new sediments should
be the same as that.removed. All of the benthic populations are in a state of
flux due to dredging that has been conducted for approximately 150 years and
due to sedimentation that causes the need for maintenance dredging. Any
significant concentrations of sediments suspended during dredging operations
should be confined to the ship channel due to strong currents. The use of a
76
hydraulic pipeline dredge requires at times that the pipeline be laid across
the bottom in order to reach the diked disposal area. Since the pipeline is
laid on the bottom for a short time, the impacts to benthic resources are not
significant. Therefore, based on the above discussion, no significant adverse
impacts are anticipated on benthic resources due to dredging.
The impacts of dredged material disposal within the Wilmington Harbor
ODMDS were addressed in the final environmental impact statement for
designation of the ODMDS (USEPA 1983). That document recommended the
Wilmington Harbor ODMDS as an environmentally acceptable ocean location for
the disposal of dredged materials which comply with EPA's Ocean Dumping
Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR 220-229). Further, the impacts of the
disposal of dredged materials from specific channels of the Wilmington Harbor
project were addressed in the Corps of Engineers' final environmental impact
statement, Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor (US Army Engineer District,
Wilmington 1977) and in the environmental assessment, Maintenance Dredging
with Clamshell Dredge and Ocean Dumping, Keg Island to Snow Marsh Channels (US
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District 1986b).
As discussed in Section 4.1.4.2, the chemical and biological tests of
representative sediment materials from the Wilmington Harbor project are
reported in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1980 and 1986a). These tests
indicate that the sediments from Wilmington Harbor (Baldhead Shoal to Lower
Big Island, inclusive) meet the testing criteria of the EPA Ocean Dumping
Regulations and Criteria. Bathymetric surveys of the Wilmington Harbor ODMDS
conducted in 1984 and 1986 indicated no mounding of dredged materials or
evidence which would indicate that the site was at or near disposal capacity.
The 2.3 square nmi area should have sufficient capacity to contain additional
dredged material from Wilmington Harbor channels beyond the 50 year planning
period.
Based on the information presented above, disposal of dredged materials
from the Wilmington Harbor project, Lower Big Island channel downstream to
Baldhead Shoal Channel inclusive, within the Wilmington Harbor ODMDS will not
significantly degrade or endanger the marine environment, ecological systems,
or human uses of the marine environment.
5.2.1.3 Plankton. The primary potential impacts of dredging activities on
phytoplankton and zooplankton are the increase in suspended sediment
concentrations and turbidity and entrainment of the organisms by pipeline
dredges.
Turbidity equal to or greater than that created by dredging is frequently
noted in the Cape Fear River under natural conditions. Turbidity caused by
dredging will essentially be confined to the navigation channel because of the
strong tidally induced currents there. Effluent from diked disposal areas
will be returned to the vicinity of the navigation channel (except for
disposal areas 15 and 16). The turbidity from all diked disposal sites should
• be minimal since the effluent is controlled by adjustable spillways.
Phytoplankton are concentrated near the surface and zooplankton (depending
on species) are scattered throughout the water column and both are found in .
77
and out of the ship channel. Therefore, removal of these organisms by the
dredges is not deemed significant. Similar dredging activities have been
conducted in the river for years without any apparent adverse impact.
5.2.1.4 Estuarine Nursery Areas. Since the project only involves maintenance
and no disposal in the estuarine nursery areas is proposed, impacts to the
estuarine nursery areas will be similar to that indicated in section 5.2.1.1.
5.2.2 Terrestrial Biology.
5.2.2.1 Flora. As a result of dredged material deposition, all sites which
will be used in the long-term maintenance of the project can be expected to
develop mixed early successional stage communities within diked disposal
areas. These communities will probably be dominated by Phragmites australis,
a hardy competitor which dominates the interiors of the diked disposal areas
in the-region-today. During the diking of islands which are presently undiked
(11-13 and 18) and rediking on existing diked islands, the various types of
plant communities will be irreversibly changed. The proposed dike alignments
are shown overlaying the existing vegetation communities on figures 4-20. As
can be seen from the figures, many types of plant communities will be
incorporated into these disposal areas, ranging from brackish marsh to upland
forested. Table 7 gives the acreages of vegetation community types which will
be affected at each disposal site under the proposed maintenance plan. See
section 5.2.4 for a discussion of mitigation for the significant irreversible
resource losses.
The impacts of dredging pipeline laid across marsh or other vegetation to
reach the disposal areas should be short-term and minor. The vegetation
should quickly recover following pipeline removal.
When dikes are constructed or rebuilt, heavy equipment such as bulldozers,
backhoes and draglines are used. Occasionally temporary earth loading and
unloading ramps from barges are needed to get the heavy equipment to the
disposal islands. Construction of the ramps will be avoided in areas with
significant resources such as marsh. Therefore, ramp construction will have
minor and short-term impacts.
Prior to each ramp construction, a consistency determination will be sent
to the NC Division of Coastal Management for concurrence/nonconcurrence. A
Section 401 (PL 95-217) Water Quality Certification (No. 2020, February 4,
1987) has been issued for this activity.
5.2.2.2 Fauna. In existing dredged material disposal areas, impacts on fauna
from future maintenance will be similar to the impacts taking place with
maintenance at this time. These impacts consist of periodic burial and/or
inundation of habitat during dredged material disposal and associated loss of
nests, young, den sites, etc. The severity of impact from any given disposal
operation is dependent on the time of year when disposal takes place. Species
of animals commonly found in diked disposal area interiors such as marsh
rabbits, hispid cotton rats, and red-winged black birds have a high fecundity
and do not suffer any long-lasting population declines as a result of disposal
impacts.

41
78
At disposal sites not previously diked, impacts on fauna will be dramatic
• and irreversible. In areas such as sites 11, 12, 13, and 18, all faunal forms
associated with the forested or shrub habitats will be lost as these habitats
will be removed by either dike construction or dredged material disposal. The
faunal communities of these areas will decline in species diversity and become
similar to those of already existing disposal areas.
As indicated in section 3.6.2, waterbird nesting islands in the lower Cape
Fear region will only receive dredged material intermittently. Disposal of
dredged material in colonial waterbird nesting areas will normally be
undertaken only as a management measure and will be coordinated with natural
resource management agencies prior to deposition.
Dredged material disposal sites which receive a high percentage of fine
materials (silts and clays), have the potential to become ideal mosquito
breeding habitat. As it dries and compacts, such dredged material will form
an intricate network of cracks, extending from the surface down to a depth of
nearly one foot. The sides of these cracks are then used as attachment sites
for eggs by female mosquitoes. When rain water fills these cracks, the eggs
hatch out and, in a matter of about one week, huge swarms of the newly hatched
mosquitoes become airborne. In the past, there have been several instances of
nuisance mosquito outbreaks from the Eagle Island disposal area located
directly across the river from the City of Wilmington.
The USACE now contracts with the Brunswick County Board of Commissioners
for surveillance and control of mosquitoes on all disposal islands within
Brunswick County, except for aerial spraying of pesticides on Eagle Island.
Due to the large size of Eagle Island (880 acres), personnel with Brunswick
County perform surveillance but the USACE contracts for aerial application of
pesticides which consists of one larvicide and one adulticide. The larvicide
used is Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis (BTI). This larvicide has
proven very effective against mosquitoes and a few other insects but extensive
research has indicated the BTI is not toxic to non-target organisms such as
mammals, fish, shellfish and amphibians (e.g. Sebastien and Brust 1981;
Purcell 1981).
The adulticide used is malathion and is applied by aerial ultra-low-volume
(ULV) equipment. Malathion is the most common mosquito adulticide used in
North Carolina and many other states and the North Carolina Division of Health
Services believes that malathion (using ULV equipment) does not present
significant health risks (NC Department of Human Resources 1988). In field
studies, the application of malathion at the recommended use rate has not
generally affected annelid, reptilian, amphibian, avian, or mammalian
populations. Excessive mortality in fish and other aquatic organisms, as
indicated by the results of laboratory studies, has generally not occurred in
the field, but significant reductions in nontarget aquatic insects have
resulted from field applications (American Cyanamid Co. 1986). Impacts to
non-target organisms outside the Eagle Island boundaries are not anticipated
: to be significant due to the use of ULV equipment, spraying during low wind
conditions (< 5 m.p.h.), short residual time of malathion and no dredged
material disposal or releases from the disposal area spillways for at least 7
days after spraying. Should aerial drift occur, impacts on aquatic fauna in
79
either the Brunswick or Cape Fear Rivers should be imperceptible as the small
amount of pesticide reaching those rivers will be greatly diluted and rendered
non-toxic. The last malathion aerial spraying was in August 1987.
In addition to the above control measures, Brunswick County personnel have
introduced mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) into the Eagle Island disposal area
each spring since 1982 for biological control of mosquito larvae. The
disposal area spillways have been adjusted to allow water to remain on the
site so that the mosquitofish have access to the breeding sites. In order to
control minor problems, the county periodically sprays malathion from the
disposal area dikes using truck mounted ULV equipment.
Both malathion and BTI are EPA registered and are applied by licensed
applicators in accordance with label directions. This-program appears to be
effective in managing the nuisance mosquito problem and will be continued as a
part of future maintenance of the harbor.
The potential need for a mosquito surveillance and control program for New
Hanover County disposal sites will be discussed with New Hanover County
officials before the next diked disposal actions covered under this final EIS.
5.2.3 Wetlands and Floodplains. The proposed action would eliminate wetlands
by diking, grading and disposing in areas 11, 12, 13 and 18 (the wetlands in
sites 15 and 16 have received previous environmental clearances, section
4.2.3; section 5.2.4 discusses the wetlands eliminated at site 18). These
wetlands are indicated in table 12 and described in section 4.2.3. All four
sites have been altered previously by the disposal of dredged material and all
other dredged material disposal alternatives have greater environmental impact
(section 3.5)
if the wetlands were left intact on sites 11 through 13, the wetlands
would essentially "pinch-off" part of the disposal areas (especially as the
height and width of the dikes increased over the 50 year maintenance period).
This would reduce the required disposal capacity and impair settling of
sediment in the disposal areas.
These wetland losses will not be irretrievable since a total of 7.5 acres
oaf high marsh and 7.5 acres of intertidal marsh will be planted along the
shoreline of islands 11, 12, and 13 to stabilize the shoreline and the new
dike (section 3.2.2). The grading and diking process will result in the loss
of 6.3 acres of high marsh and 0.5 acre of intertidal marsh (table 12). The
result is a total net increase of 1.2 acres of high marsh and 7.0 acres of
intertidal marsh. This activity is not mitigation but rather an integral part
of project planning and design.
All the existing disposal areas are located in the 100 year floodplain and
there are no practicable alternatives available that would have less
environmental impact (section 3.5). Impacts have been minimized as indicated
in sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4. The State of North Carolina and New Hanover
County are sponsors of the proposed action and as such the proposed action
conforms to applicable State and local floodplain protection standards.
80
i
w
I
a
r• M
•N • r1

= Zaa
? P4

.64 .r
to h I"

L
V
O
O fa
? O
OC
O UI
Z N
6J
a V

a
N
N ? r
C
L
>
? GJ
41
Q
p
4J
QJ G.? to
3 z
a a
d QJ
a
O O
O QJ
? 3 L
O p
H
U #
Q

a
W
In t -
LA $-
G. L 0J
C=
C
CL

N
W r
m
••
~ O L
J H O to
Z
lb r
-i S Q O
Q
I- p
W
W
J OJ
O L
? Q
Z M

a z
°?
o m QJ
4? C14
Q O
J VY
H r
W fo e-?
mc 41
O
H
m
aJ
L O
Q M
? N
•°
QJ O
Y Z

G Q/ N

C •r
r (n
L

n
3 ?--? N
6L1 Kf O

rt
N O O
O O r?
O O
O Q
#
O
d•
O
C
O
r••
L9
O
Ll R
O t
N
a
Q!
++
yuy
M a
?O v
C
O
O1
7
a
a
LO
O
O
(A ?n
(A N
L L

(A W IA ea
L L
L O t to (0
O
aJ QJ u +1 L. O E u
3
CL
G Q a
C 0)
a 41 t
I
eo i
Q
L Q
QJJ
6J io ..
t
V1 O 0J ro

r

C

U
i7
L y
L E
•
C C O RS ?
o r° E u m e 41 41

(a 41 to i Cf eo

3 U m N ? v S In
M QJ
QJ
C
T
L .-
N .-
(0 U
(0 to
; a
m
3 v
O O
cC O
QJ a
U") E of
O a a
C
ea r
O
O L C
N ?? •O
a
t a
rn ?
L ?
to a
Q) QJ
E
c :-
Q; 4-
2
o m C
`O # #
81
5.2.4 Mitigation Plan for Site 18. The 28 acres of terrestrial habitat.lost
at the site will not be mitigated since it is not considered to be a
significant resource. The site has limited wildlife habitat value due to its
small size and isolation. This terrestrial habitat is described in section
4.2.2. The US Department of Interior by letter of June 2, 1988 and the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission by letter of May 13, 1988 disagreed with the
decision indicated above that the loss of terrestrial habitat at site 18 will
not be mitigated. See appendix A for the reponses to these letters.
.Site 18 (figure 19) contains 26.5 acres of wetlands. Disposal of dredged
material at this site could impact up to 14 acres of wooded wetlands in two
ways. First, the 14 acres of wooded wetlands at the site may be needed for
the disposal of dredged material if there is an unexpected increase in
shoaling. This wooded wetland is located between-the-upland and railroad. If
this 14 acres of wetlands is needed for additional disposal capacity, it would
not be needed for 30 or more years. A wetland mitigation plan would be
developed then so as to result in no net loss in quantity and quality of
wetlands that exist on the site at that time.
Second, a permanent access road is needed to disposal site 18 for
equipment to build and maintain dikes. In addition, the road could be used by
trucks in order for New Hanover County (the local sponsor) to sell the dried
dredged material, or if the material is suitable, it could be used for daily
cover at the county landfill. Either way, removal of dredged material would
extend the life of the disposal site. The county will attempt to arrange,
with the adjacent property owner, for permanent upland road access to the
site. If this is not possible, the least adverse impact from road access
would require the filling of up to 1.0 acre of wooded wetlands. No separable
mitigation is required for this potential 1 acre wetland loss because:
New Hanover County proposes to purchase site 18 as part of the local v
sponsor's responsibility to provide dredged material disposal areas. By means
of this ownership, the local sponsor will protect from filling, logging,
draining or other alteration the 4.5 acres of isolated wetlands in the
southwest corner of the site and 8.0 acres of wetlands bordering the Northeast
Cape Fear River. In addition, the 14 acres of wooded wetlands located between
the upland and railroad will be protected by the local sponsor from filling
(except for the access road), logging, draining or other alteration until the
area is needed (if ever) for disposal of dredged material due to unexpected
shoaling.
5.3 Threatened and Endangered Wildlife, and Plants. Under Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (hereafter referred to as the
Act), biological assessments of the effects of the maintenance of Wilmington
Harbor were prepared on those species listed in Section 4.3. These
assessments were mailed to the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries (NMFS) Service on July 29 and July 26, 1988, respectively.
By letter of September 26, 1988 (appendix F), the US Fish and Wildlife Service
indicated that the biological assessment was adequate, agreed with the
conclusion of no effect and stated that compliance with the Act was satisfied.

82
By letters of December 23, 1988 and January 13, 1989 (appendix F), NMFS
: determined that dredging may affect the right whale, shortnose sturgeon and
three sea turtles (green turtle (Chelonia mydas), Kemp's ridley turtle
(Lepidochelys kempi), and loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta)). NMFS
• indicated that maintenance activities would not jeopardize the continued
existence of the species but identified reasonable and prudent measures to be
implemented. The mitigation measures are as follows:
111.' A preliminary gill net survey of the project site will be conducted to
determine the presence of shortnose sturgeon. This survey will be completed
prior to dredging." (This survey is not needed since the distribution and
abundance (D&S) survey indicated in the 'conservation recommendation' began
11/88. Two shortnose sturgeon (one died, one tagged) have been caught to date
since 11/88. More comprehensive D&S suveys are in the planning stage.)
112. If the preliminary survey indicates large concentrations of sturgeon
or if sturgeon mortalities are observed during dredging, the USACE should be
prepared to implement a plan to capture and remove shortnose sturgeon from the
immediate vicinity of the project.
3. The (dredging) contractor will advise workers that there are civil and
criminal penalties for harming, harassing or killing sea turtles, or shortnose
sturgeon which are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. The contractor will keep a log detailing all sightings, collisions,
damage or killing of sea turtles or shortnose sturgeon, and shall be held
responsible for any listed species harmed, harassed or killed as a result of
dredging.
4. Any take of sea turtles or shortnose sturgeon resulting in injury or
death to the animal will be reported immediately to the Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers and to NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office.
5. If hopper dredges are used, vessels should be adequately screened to
document turtle or shortnose sturgeon mortalities, and a minimum 25% observer
coverage should be maintained."
. In addition, a watch will be instituted for the right whale aboard the
dredges during December - April to assure that dredge/whale collisions are
avoided during transit to and from the ocean dredged material disposal site.
The impacts of pesticides were not discussed in the biological
assessments, but mosquito pesticide treatments of disposal islands should not
impact threatened or endangered species since no such species are known to
inhabit any of the disposal islands. Also, BTI is not toxic to non-target
organisms and any drift of malathion from the disposal areas should not
adversely impact the surrounding waters (section 5.2.2.2).
5.4 Areas of Archaeological and Historic Significance. The maintenance of
the Wilmington Harbor project as outlined in this document will not have any
adverse effect on significant cultural resources. No new dredging is proposed
and all of the disposal areas proposed for use over the 50-year planning
period have received dredged material previously.
5.5 Socioeconomic Considerations Related to Wilmington Harbor.
5.5.1 Land Use. Under the Brunswick and New Hanover Counties Land Use plans
the dredged material disposal areas fall in one of two classifications as
83
described in section 4.5.1. The USACE proposed maintenance activities are A
consistent with these classifications. See section 5.6 for the consistency
determination for the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
5.5.2 Projected Port Growth, Income ana Employment. Without the maintenance
of Wilmington Harbor, the employment and related income, commerce, and
revenues (section 4.5) would be severely impacted and eventually the port
would close due to shoaling in the river. This would also result in the
irreversible and irretrievable loss of the following projected port growth.
From the National Waterways-Study (1981) projections, for all commodities
handled for the South Atlantic Coast, from the base year of 1977-through the
year 2003, indicate an increase of 16.3 percent, for an annual compound growth
rate of 0.6 percent. Theseprojections are shown in figure 24. The general
trend is toward reduced petroleum products movements and increases in
chemicals and in the pulp and paper group. This follows generally the trend
of recent years for product movements through Wilmington Harbor. A
relationship between port activities and economic growth of the Wilmington
area was indicated in the Corps' feasibility report for improvements to
Wilmington Harbor (US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District 1979). In
this report commerce through the port was considered a determinant to total
income and population growth in the area.
While this report projected significant tonnage growth from 1976 to 1986,
actual tonnage has decreased. Future projections working from a 1982-86 base
of 5-6 million tons per year would also be expected to increase, but no growth
rates have been developed.
The Research Triangle Institute (RT1 1983) conservatively projected
tonnage through the NCSPA facilities to increase at an average annual compound
rate of 3.1 percent between the years 1980 and 2000, assuming only two
container cranes in operation. (Currently, there are three. In November 1989
two additional cranes are planned to begin operation.) The rate would vary
from 4.2 percent annually from 1980 to 1990 and 1.9 percent between 1990 and
2000. Additional information on the economic value of Wilmington Harbor is
included in Appendix D of the final EIS.
5.5.3 Recreation and Esthetics. In the future, pipeline dredging activities
and use of disposal islands in the lower river will be reduced. This will
reduce some of the congestion caused by pipelines, thus improving recreation
use. As disposal on the islands is eliminated or reduced, succession will
take place and the esthetics of the lower river will also improve.
Dredging and disposal activities in the upper river will not change
significantly from the past over the 50 year planning period. The height of
the dikes around areas 15, 16 and 18 will be increased but, the disposal areas
proposed for use under this maintenance plan are isolated from view and their
use, therefore, should have minimal impacts on the esthetics of the region.
5.6 Consistency Determination for the North Carolina Coastal Management
Program. Based on the information contained in this final EIS, the long-term
maintenance of Wilmington Harbor is consistent with the Coastal Management
Program of the State of North Carolina.
L'
84
FIGURE 24
PROJECTIONS' OF ALL COMMODITIES
BY TONNAGE
SOUTH ATLANTIC COAST SEGMENT 2
1911-2003

0
z
0
J
88
z
z
0-4
w
< - 84
z
z
0
80

16
19 16 1980
(BASE YEAR 1911)
d
'TRENDLONG 2003A ANALYSIS
2 FROM KEY WEST TO NC-VA BOUNDARY
SOURCE: NATIONAL WATERWAYS STUDY (1981) 85
1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004
YEAR
A
w
N
cc
W
Q
LU
W
CL
CL
W
O
H
N
J
O
?O
+.a
4J
c
a)
E
C
O
L
c
W
N
41
41
rn
c
r
i
06
a)
L
CL
S.-
0
4-
a
r
•r
N
C
O
a
N
a
L
T
r
L
b
E
L
a
a
L
3
a
C
c
O
L
a)
a
N
L
4!
a
c
cm
c
W
4-
O
N
a
i
O
V ?
rn E
c O
r
(a
0
•3
O V)
r H
O ++
4- U
a to
L E
a)
c a
•r U
CL s
L) a
N C
O L.
T 4?
rn c
c c o
to o N c
r• E
to 0) r_ 0 (A

N C O U
N
4)
CM 41
•
• to a)
C u d 4? m N = N
•r to a r• U O C a (1) U N -
C a O r• /C r - O C O L t0
c E E a O to N to
to W a) L (A
a
C L a) +•t m O c •r i C
0 rn o O 4J M 41 O a) to
C a) •r N to +-) a) to •r O) +.?
--J •r 4- +J C N 41 N c 41 C R N
U N t0 > a) co i. to 3 T
Q) (A r• +1 i a 7 aJ a 01 O) i a)

O N rn a O to to 41 O > a) a &-
S- N •r aJ O O (1) > to O to L c O
CL (a 3 > to u L W E U c a = N
C
ro m ° o
L +•> C 41
O C • O •

L
C
C u
t d E L 4 'C O •
u W C (0 a) R C a) •r E (0
c O a) +J +1 O L r+ r C L
M co •• +) L T to (A •r a t0 •r to O m
••? L (A •r :• a) 41 +J 3 r N
• S
m N •r > C) t0 N N U L m N
•r O c '••? r a L •r 4? U a)
a) N m 0 a) ++ 4- 4_ t t0 c to c c u
U a) O r • w U a) a) U aJ 7 a) a) L L O 4 L
V) a) cc u 41
> i O• L t0 L t t0 4- E a) i O
L •r a> 1 ? U V L N C i-t 01 O N
O 0 O .0 a)
N m t a L O Z a)
H N >
L T N N i•) C O _ d'
O as " N O L L a) to a 41 (0 O
Y
C
t0 al
to to
a)
C
U
U X (0 ?

U U C 0

O

t-
.
4J 4? 4) 4) L) _ S- w M
to C N N O T T i to to r 01
C
+? U E •• W O) n N O U U •r N T to L- a) U
to c r_ • ++ C N C c aJ t0 Z O co C
E
t0 a) L O C U 4+ • a) L aJ L i 3 a) U O C L
C E +••) L O •r L E +? c CC +••)
• u L • (0 O 4?
O C N • L O N O N L a) a) O 4- L L L N
O •r > (A +t W •r W +) N C +•t a) U ++ +j •r
•

++
L O
C N N 3
E ++
t0 D
a
O
td •r
L O
N
>
O
td •r a) •r a1 u 41 X () t0 L 3 L to O r-
> C E G 4+ L (1) c C Q) O to N O W C
c 0 N N ++ U N () O L' E N O O
N W Y L O L •r N E +j N N Q) L N +? i 4- N +.t

'"
4
U
•
T c 0) S.- L +•t N u L u rt O O L O
41 . C C t
4
)
6
C) i
+•+ O C co to t0 L L 0• O a to r_
C N T L C •r O to •r t- a) a a) E t0 0 a) L T • t0 a)
O L E a) to u a) r •r E T t- T tL a) T +•t > t >, E
E to r to 3 > a) O >> to > r a a T N N U" u •-
a) •r • O to a •r = C O •r T C a) " • C
r L O •r
to T 3 N Q- V) N O Or W 3 M 4- " to to L .-+ O e-t to n 3
T
la Y
41
C a r +)
to
c
a
)
E 0
N
Qt O O 4•
O O L U L N
to a) a
0 0 > a 41 N
r C
CC

a0 on
0
W 3 to
•r
r
\ to
L •r
O 4)
Q) a)
c ++ a
+.t r tp +-t 01
N rn E C O
•r C r a) r
a W a a E O
to
a Q) (A O 0
+
+ O r a) 0 ) (
0
u t- r a a to t
to O O > w N c u
(a U.
cit H CD Z; a a E Q
N
E

a c to
Q a, a
a W •r
t0 a) r
W m to t?
39
S
E •J d
a Q
L
O
S
N A
L L T
r C r O U O L

r C s-
O t a O t0
3 •7 U W H m
a)
E
Y
S
a
i
t
v
a
b
86
s
•
0

a)
u
L
a+
•r S
U a
N C
p v
N
ro O ~
N C W
O ro
a C O
N U O C
•r N •r ro
O E •r +?
O N to (a
T
C ? r ?
C O •
? O
0f ro U ro > C a r
Q) C (a a) N ro
VI (M to c s
a) c N a) a)
a) > a)
O) U ro ro i O t i 0)
a O ro d •r O i U a) ro

Y 4-1 +4
L E L O 7 E a) (a ro
p p •r a N W •r m 3 E
C
O
ro Y
++ (A aJ C Qf
N L O)•r C
ro +? C ? r•
O) a) u 4- O Q) O E
-
• O T N •r O 4J L i r
O _ L L N Im ro N
' (A O %0 to +) Ia L C U L=
+? > N L ro
N > >

d

^

T •r (0

E

L t
)
a
L ro ++ +? O O L r 4) +, >>

ro i N
2
a) U
co 00 to
•r
aJ L-
u
U

N a) a) +•• N +4 N •0 N ^ &-
0) O T 0) N •r m a) C L 4- L 00
O ro •r (A C +, ro a) ^ O U
^ C Cp C O T •r ro a) t C N
01 O to _
N c u a) 0 a)
C 4J i E C z
ro r- U i •r i 4? L U
m a a) O C O al O) ro ro m L
++ C L U +? C? ro 3 N > C N
o r a) N
N 0
E E 4- R c u R C
' i
a (A
r r L 4- L r• r +: L N O a)
41 rn o +1 a E E c m L to +•r 4?
N 3 O N O a) c 0 }r a) •r ro
4 r
O O 3 C
O Q f
o L
0 f0
++ 01 d L O U Qi C Of
& o
O i a) 01 +•r
N c U a c r a) (a to a u to a a) c

• 0
° L 4-
C
•
E
L
U 41 U (A C
C a
L N +? E 3-+
Q) N rn 01 N L E d i U N r N C U
i a) L O c L E ro i s ro •r L •r i 0 •r
to C to C ro O a T ro C 6) L 10 4- 0 L S -
w •r a) to E 4) c T'a Q) •r T ++ a a) •r +)
T rn T w T O = T tm - N T '0 T> N
a O u ~
r+ Ul)
3 r_ a
) ? .-• w .
•+ O c1 0 Co w D
L
a
i ar a)
a) ? u c
a C L
•
c ro ? v,

o c
0f N (A N W
c c u u a) m a
ro W L c 10
E i0 0n
.- N O O O L C r +
•) O
r
r
•
_
C
C a) C
N
•
_
> O O O ++ (v > (a O
•n O •r u u ro r•- •r O •r
U N m W W; a U l•.) m
c
O
4.
i
In •r a)
Y D Y >
C N N

T > a >
a
, rro , ,
-W CA-
C
+a
id
u C-' In 7 C
ro a 3 to
J Y Y i
c W
C ro Y .
a) L i L •r
07 d W L? `? (?
87
7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
a
On July 19, 1985, a scoping meeting was held with Federal and state '
agencies and local environmental groups to identify pertinent issues to be
addressed in the draft EIS. Discussions, including on-site investigations,
have continued with these groups throughout preparation of this final EIS.
Agencies and groups represented at the scoping meeting were:
US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Environmental Protection,Agency
National Marine Fisheries Service
US Army Corps of Engineers
NC Division of Environmental Management
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
NC Department of Cultural Resources
NC Division of Coastal Management
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Division of Water Resources
Sierra Club
North Carolina Coastal Federation
On July 23, 1987, a notice of intent to prepare an EIS was published in
the Federal Register (52 FR 141).
The draft EIS was mailed to a standard list of Federal, state and local
governments; environmental groups; and libraries; and other interested
businesses, groups and individuals on March 29, 1988. The notice of
availability of the draft EIS was published in the Federal Register (53 FR 73)
on April 15, 1988 and a public notice for the project was issued April 11,
1988. The comment period for the draft EIS and public notice expired June 10,
1988. Comments were requested from all recipients. Comments received are
included in appendix A along with responses. These comments were considered
in the preparation of this final EIS.
The mailing list for this final EIS was essentially the same as for the
draft EIS. This mailing list is indicated in table 13. A public notice on
the proposed action including a notice of availability of the final EIS will
be issued and a copy of the final EIS will be sent to anyone requesting it.
Comments were requested from all recipients of the final EIS and will be used
in preparation of the Record of Decision on the proposed action.

88
TABLE 13
Mailing List for the Final EIS
Federal Agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Forest Service, USDA
Regional Environmental Officer
HUD; Atlanta Regional Office,
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Emergency Management Administration
Department of Health and Human Services
National Marine Fisheries Service
Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Fifth Coast Guard District
Federal Highway Administration
Soil Conservation Service, USDA
Department of Energy
Commanding Officer
USCG Base Fort Macon
Commanding Officer
Wrightsville Beach Station-USCG
Commander
Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point
Commanding General
Camp LeJeune, North Carolina
Officer in Charge
USCG Station Oak Island
Conservation Groups
National Wildlife Federation
Conservation Council of North Carolina
National Audubon Society
N.C. Wildlife Federation
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
State Conservationist, Sierra Club
Cape Fear Group Sierra Club
Capitol Group, Sierra Club
Izaac Walton League
N.C. Coastal Federation
Dr. Anne B. McCrary
Dr. Vince Bellis
Mr. James Dockery
89
Table 13 (continued)
State Agencies and Officials
State Clearinghouse
Mr. John N. Morris, Director
'Division of Water Resources
N.C. State Ports Authority
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Local Agencies
North Carolina Council of Governments Region 0
New Hanover County Health Department
New Hanover County Engineer
New Hanover County Planning Department
New Hanover County Building Inspector
Brunswick County Manager
Wilmington Planning Department
Director of Public Works
City of Wilmington
City Manager
Southport, N.C.
Town Manager
Carolina Beach, N.C.
Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce
District Conservationist
Brunswick County
Soil Conservation Service
Bolivia, N.C.
Soil Conservation Service
Goldsboro, N.C.
Cama Officer
Town of Southport
Cama Officer
Brunswick County
Cama Officer
Town of Carolina Beach
Cama Officer
County of New Hanover

90
Table 13 (continued)
Elected Officials
Hon. Terry Sanford
Hon. Jesse Helms
Hon. Charlie Rose
Hon. R. C. Soles, Jr.
Hon. A. M. Hall
Hon. Harry E. Payne, Jr.
Hon. Tom B. Rabon, Jr.
Hon. Frank Block
Mayor
Wilmington, N.C.
Mayor
Carolina Beach, N.C.
Board of New Hanover County Commissioners
Board of Brunswick County Commissioners
Interested Businesses, Groups and Individuals
Star-News Newspapers Inc.
Brunswick Beacon
Shallotte Broadcasting Company
Stateport Pilot
Wilmington-Cape Fear Pilots Association
Harbor Master
C/O Horton Industries
Southern Wood Piedmont Company
A.S.W. Liquidating Trust
Marine Midland Bank Trustee
East Coast Terminal, Inc.
Dixie Cement Co., Inc.
Almont Shipping Co.
Pfizer Chemical Co.
Chemserve Terminal, Inc.
Stevedores, Inc.
Koch Sulfur Products Co.
W.R. Grace Co.
Horton Iron and Metal Co.
Delta Marine, Inc.
Wilmington Shipyard, Inc.
Unocal Chemicals
Exxon Company, USA
Mobil Oil Corporation
Shell Island Corporation
Aviation Fuel Terminals, Inc.
Paktank Atlantic Company
91
Tattle 13 (continued)

Interested Businesses, Groups and Individuals (continued)
Wilmington Industrial Development Inc.
Bradley Creek 66 Marina Inc.
Wrightsville Marina
Rogers Marine Construction, Inc.
Timber and Land Management Consultants, Inc.
Cape Fear Towing Company, Inc.
Mr. David Weaver
Hanover Towing, Inc.
Stevens Towing, Company
Stone Towing Line
Lavino Shipping Company
Wilmington Shipping Company
Laque Center for Corrosion Technology, Inc.
Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company
Brunswick Electric Membership Corporation
Cape Fear Technical Institute
Dr. James F. Parnell
Mr. A.D. Royal
Mr. William S.R. Beane
Dr. David E. Clapp
Mr. Edmund B. Welch
Libraries
Wilson Library
Chapel Hill
Librarian
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Randall Library
UNC-Wilmington
N.C. State Library
New Hanover County Library
V

92
8.0 REFERENCES
1-1

American Cyanamid Company. 1986. Technical Information, Cythion Insecticide,
the Premium Grade Malathion.
Armstrong, D.A., Stevens, B.C., and Hoeman, J.C. 1982. Distribution and
Abundance of Dungeness Crab and Cran on Shrimp and Dredging-Related Mortality
of Invertebrates and Fish in Gray's Harbor, Washington. Report No. DA-80-86
Washington Department of Fisheries and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle
District.
Arseneault, J.S. 1981. Dredge Monitoring Program - 1981, Memorandum No. 5902-
121-50-2, Field Services Branch, Environment Canada, Vancouver.
Barnard, W.D. 1978. Prediction and Control of Dredged Material Dispersion
Around Dredging and Open-Water Pipeline Disposal Operations. Technical Report
DS-78-13. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, August 1978.
Birkhead, W.A., B.J. Copeland, and R.G. Hodson. 1979. Ecological Monitoring in
the Lower Cape Fear Estuary, 1971-1976. Report 79-1 to the Carolina Power and
Light Company, Raleigh, N.C..
Broome, S.W., E.D. Seneca, and W.W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1981. Planting marsh
grasses for erosion control. UNS Sea Grant Publication 81-09. Raleigh, N.C.
Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L). 1980. Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant, Cape Fear Studies: Interpretive Report. Carolina Power and Light
Company, Raleigh, N.C..
Carpenter, E.J. 1971. Annual phytoplankton cycle of the Cape Fear River
Estuary, North Carolina. Chesapeake Science 12:95-104.
Carriker, M.R., LaSalle, M.W., Mann, R., and Pritchard, D.W. 1986.
Entrainment of Oyster Larvae by Hydraulic Cutterhead Dredging Operations:
Workshop Conclusions and Recommendations. American Malacological Bulletin,
Special Edition No. 3. pp5-10.
Copeland, B.J., R.G. Hodson, and R.J. Monroe. 1979. Larvae and Post Larvae in
the Cape Fear Estuary, North Carolina During Operation of the Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant, 1974-1978. Report 79-3 to the Carolina Power and Light
Company, Raleigh, N.C..

0
Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station. 1984. Shore Protection
Manual, Coastal Engineering Research Center.
Hackney, C.T. and G.F. Yelverton. In press. Effects of Human Activities and
Sea Level Rise on Wetland Ecosystems in the Cape Fear River Estuary, North
Carolina, USA. Junk Publishers, Amsterdam.
93
Hayes, D.F., G.L. Raymond, and T.N. McLellan. 1984. Sediment Resuspension-from
Dredging Activities. in Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal. R.L.
Montgomery and J.W. Leach, eds. Proceedings of the Conference - Dredging 184.
November 14-16, 1984.
Hirsch, N.D., L.H. DiSalvo, and R. Peddicord. 1978. Effects of Dredging and
Disposal on Aquatic Organisms. Technical Report DS-78-5. US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, August 1978.
Hodson, R.G., 1979. Utilization of Marsh Habitats as Primary Nursery Areas by
Young Fish and Shrimp, Cape Fear Estuary, North Carolina. Report 79-5 to the
Carolina Power and Light Company, Raleigh, N.C..
Jones, Edmunds & Associates, Inc. 1979. Grain Size Analysis, Bioassays, and
Bioaccumulation Potential Assessment - Access Channels and Anchorage Basins,
Military Ocean Terminal - Sunny Point, North Carolina.
Law Engineering-Testing Company. 1978. Bottom Sediment and Water Sampling
and Analysis, Wilmington Harbor Anchorage Basin, Geo-Environmental Services
Division.
Law Engineering Testing Company. 1979. Benthos on the Wilmington Harbor
Ocean Bar, North Carolina, Geo-Environmental Services Division.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1975. Aquatic Ecology Studies, Cape Fear
River Estuary, North Carolina, September 1972 to August 1973. Appendix A of
Environmental Impact Assessment of Alternatives for the Maintenance of
Wilmington Harbor North Carolina. Report for the U.S Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District.
LeGrand, H. E. 1984. Groundwater and its Contamination in North Carolina
with Reference to Waste Management. Available from Geo. Science Resources,
Burlington, North Carolina.
Lunz, J., D. Clarke, and T. Fredette. 1984. Seasonal restrictions on bucket
dredging operations. In: Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal, Proceeding
of the Conference, Dredging 1984. ASCE. Montgomery and Leach, editors.
MacNair, C. and G. Banks. 1986. Prediction of Flow Fields Near the Suction of
a Cutterhead Dredge. American Malacological Bull. Spec. Ed. No. 3, October
1986. pp. 37-40.
National Waterways Study. 1981. Traffic Forecasting Methodology.
Nichols, P. and E. Louder. 1970. Upstream passage of anadromous fish through
navigation locks and use of stream for spawning habitat, Cape Fear River,
North Carolina, 1962-1966. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Circ. 252.
North Carolina Department of Human Resources. 1988. Division of Health
Services. Risk Evaluation of Malathion Used for Mosquito Control. Memo to
Nolan Newton, Vector Control Branch From Environmental Epidemiology Branch.
I
94
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
1986b. Division of Marine Fisheries. Prohibited Area Map, Cape Fear Area.
Areas B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 and A-3.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
1989. Division of Environmental Management. Administrative Code 15 NCAC 2B
.0311 - Classification and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of
the Cape Fear River Basin.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
1986a. Division of Environmental Management.- Administrative Code 15 NCAC 2B
.0200 - Classification and Water Quality Standards applicable to Surface
Waters of North Carolina.
Palermo, M., J. Homziak, and A. Teeter. 1988. Evaluation of Clamshell
Dredging and Barge Overflow, Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point, N.C. US
Army Corps of Engineers Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. for US
Army Engineer District, Wilmington, NC. In Preparation.
Payonk, P., M. Palermo, A. Teeter. 1988. Clamshell Dredging and Overflow
Monitoring, Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point, N.C. in: Proceedings of the
American Water Resources Association Symposium on Coastal Water Resources. W.
Lyke and T. Hoban eds. May 1988. pp. 95-108.
Peddicord, R.K. and V.A. McFarland. 1978. Effects of Suspended Dredged
Material on Aquatic Animals. Technical Report D-78-21. US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, July 1978.
Pezeshki, S. R. and J. L. Chambers. 1986. Effect of soil salinity on,
stomatal conductance and photosynthesis of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica).
Canadian Journal Forest Resources 15:371.
Pezeshki, S. R., R. D. Delaune and W. H. Patrick, Jr. 1987a. Response of
bald cypress (Taxodium distichum L. var. distichum) to increases in flooding
salinity in Louisiana's Mississippi River deltaic plain. Wetlands 7(1):1-10.
Pezeshki, S. R.,. R. D. Delaune and W. H. Patrick, Jr. 1987b. Response of
freshwater marsh species, Panicum hemitomon, to increased salinity levels.
Freshwater Biology 16:569.
Preist, W.I. 1981. The Effects of Dredging Impacts on Water Quality and
Estuarine Organisms: A Literature Review. in: A Study of Dredging Effects in
Hampton Roads, VA, Final Contract Report for US Army Corps of Engineers,
Norfolk District by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Walter I.
Preist, III ed. March 1981. SRAMSOE No. 247.
Purcell, B.H. 1981. Effects of BTI on Aedes taeniorhynchus and some non-
target organisms in the salt marsh.
Purvis, C. 1976. Nursery area survey of Northern Pamlico Sound and
tributaries. N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries. Prepared for US National
• Marine fisheries Service.
95
Raymond, G.L. 1984. Techniques to Reduce the Sediment Resuspension Caused by
Dredging. Miscellaneous Paper HL=84-3. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, September 1984. `
Research Triangle Institute. 1983. Contributions of State Ports to the North
Carolina Economy.
Schwartz, F.J., W.T. Hogarth, and M.P. Weinstein. 1981. Marine and Freshwater
Fishes of the Cape Fear Estuary, North Carolina and Their Distribution in
Relation to Environmental Factors. Brimleyana No. 7:17-37. July 1981.
Sebastien, R.J. and R.A. Brust. 1981. An Evaluation of Two Formulations of
Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis for Larval Mosquito Control in Sod-
lined Simulated Pools. Mosquito News 41:508-511.
Stern, E.M. and W.B. Stickle. 1978. Effect of Turbidity and Suspended Material
in Aquatic Environments: Literature Review. Technical Report D-78-21. US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, June 1978.
Struhsaker, P. 1969. Demersal Fish Resources: Composition, Distribution, and
Commercial Potential of the Continental Shelf Stocks of the Southeastern
United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish. Ind. Res. 4:261-300.
TEG International, LTD. 1975. Environmental Impact Assessment of
Alternatives for The Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1979. Grain Size Analysis, Bioassays, and
Bioaccumulation Potential Assessment, Access Channels and Anchorage Basins,
Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point, N.C.. Unpublished Data Provided by Jones,
Edmunds, and Associates, Inc. Under Contract to the Wilmington District.
October, 1979.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1980. Grain Size Analysis, Bioassays, and
Bioaccumulation Potential Assessment, Smith Island and Baldhead Shoal
Channels, Wilmington Harbor, N.C.. Unpublished Data Provided by Jones,
Edmunds, and Associates, Inc. Under Contract to the Wilmington District.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 1979. Feasibility Report,
Wilmington Harbor, Northeast Cape Fear River, Wilmington, North Carolina.
February 1979.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 1982. Environmental
Assessment, for Restoration of the Cape Fear River Pelican Islands, New
Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 1986a. Grain Size Analysis,
Chemical Analysis, Bioassay, and Bioaccumulation Potential Analyses for Keg
Island Channel Sediments. Unpublished Data, September 1986.

r
96
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 1986b. Maintenance
Dredging with Clamshell Dredge and Ocean Dumping, Keg Island to Snow Marsh
Channels, Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina. Environmental Assessment.
November 1986.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 1989. Wilmington Harbor-
Bald Head Island, Wilmington, N.C. Reconnaissance Report, Section 111, PL 90-
483. January 1989.
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. 1967. Carolina Beach and Vicinity,
Area South of Carolina Beach, North Carolina, Design Memorandum.
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. 1971. Fort Fisher and Vicinity,
North Carolina - Survey Report of Beach Erosion Control.
U. S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. 1976. Cape Fear River Bottom
Sample, Unpublished analysis of bottom samples.
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. 1977. Final Environmental
Statement-Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina.
U.S. Engineer District, Wilmington. 1980. Grain Size Analysis, Bioassays,
and Bioaccumulation Potential Assessment - Smith Island and.Bald Head Shoal
Channels, Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina.
U.S. Army Engineer, Waterway Experiment Station. 1974. Containment Area
Facility Concepts for Dredged Material Separation, Drying, and Rehandling, W.
W. Mallory and M. A. Newrocki; Hittman Associates, Inc., Dredged Material
Research Program. Contract Report D-74-6.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Savannah, Georgia; Charleston, South Carolina; and Wilmington,
North Carolina, Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation. October
1983.
Walburg, C.H. and P.R. Nichols. 1967..Biology and Management of the American
Shad and Status of the Fisheries, Atlantic Coast of the United States, 1960.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Spec. Sci. Rpt. Fish. No.550 p35-38.
Weinstein, M.P. 1979. Shallow Marsh Habitats as Primary Nurseries for Fish and
Shellfish, Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Fisheries Bull. 77(2)339-357.
Weinstein, M.P., S.L. Weiss, R.G. Hodson, and L.P. Gerry. 1980. Retention of
Three Species of Postlarval Fishes in an Intensively Flushed Tidal Estuary,
Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Fisheries Bull. 78(2)419-436.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1980. Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology. Prepared
for Brunswick Energy Company.

11
97
INDEX
i
Sub ect Section(s)
A. Abstract page i
Affected environment 4.0
Alternatives including proposed actions 3.0
Alternative maintenance methods eliminated from 3.5
further study
Aquatic biology including ocean disposal sites 4.2.1, 5.2.1
Areheaological and historic significance 4.4, 5.4
Authorization 2.3
B. Beach disposal 3.5.2,
Benthos 4.2.1.2, 5.2.1.2
Best management practices 3.5.5
Biology of dredging and disposal sites 4.2, 5.2
Bucket and barge 3.2.1.3
C. Clamshell dredge 3.2.1.3
Colonial bird nesting islands 3.6.2, 4.2.2.2, 5.2.2.2
Conclusions and findings 1.1
Controversy 1.2
Coordination 7.0
C'jftift"al- reqeup 4.4, 5.4
D. Dimensions -3.1.1
Dredged material disposal 3.2.2, 3.3
Dredging methods 3.2.1, 3.3
Dredging schedule 3.1.3, 3.2.3
Disposal in the estuary and wetlands 3.5.1
E. Economics 4.5, 5.5
Employment 4.5.3, 5.5.2
Endangered species 4.3, 5.3
Environmental consequences 5.0
Environmental preferred alternatives 3.4
Erosion on existing disposal islands 3.6.6
Esthetics 4.5.9, 5.5.3
Estuarine nursery areas 4.2.1.4, 5.2.1.4

S
F. Fauna 4.2.2.2, 5.2.2.2
Financial value of the port 4.5.6
Fish 4.2'.1, 5.2.1
Flora 4.2.2.1, 5.2.2.1
G. Geology 4.1.1, 5.1.1,
Grain size analysis 4.1.3, 5.1.3
Groundwater 4.1.4.1, 5.1.4.1
98
S„hiAr Section(s)

H. Harbor expansion 3.8
History - 2.2
Hopper dredge 3.2.1.1 - +
I. Income 4.5.3, 5.5.2
Impacts 5.0
L. Land use 4.5:1, _5.5.1
Lint of preparers 6.0
M. Mailing list 7.0
Maintenance 3.1.2
Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point 3.6.1
Mineral resources 5_,1.1
Mitigation plan for site 18' 5.2.4
Moving the state port terminal to the mouth 3.5.6
of the Cape Fear Riven
N. Need 2.0
Nekton 4:2.1.1, 5.2.1.1
New technology 3.6.5
No action 3.5.7
Notice of intent 7.0
0. Ocean disposal by pipeline 3.5.31
Other actions considered 3.6
Other existing navigation projects in the area 3.7
P. Periodic review of 50 year maintenance plan 3.,6.5
-
Pesticide .2
5.2.2
Plankton 4.2.1.3, 5.2..1.3
Planning objectives 2.5
Pipeline dredge 3..2.1.2
Population _ 4.5.2
Projected port growth 5.5.2
Proposed action 3.2, 3.3, 3.4
Public concerns 2.4
Public involvement 7.0
Purpose and need 2.0
R. Reasonable alternatives 3.2
Recreation 4.5.8, 5.5.3
References 8.o
Relationship of project plans to environmental 1.4
requirements

Subject Section(s)

S. Saltwater intrusion 4.1.4.2, 5.1.4.2
Scoping 7.0
Sediments 4.1.3, 5.1.3
Seismology 4.1.2, 5.1.2
Significant resources 4.1, 5.1
Socioeconomic considerations related to 4.5, 5.5,
Wilmington Harbor
Stability analysis for disposal area 3.6.4
dikes
Summary 1.0
Surface water 4.1.4.2, 5.1.4.2
Suspended solids 5.1.4.2
T. Terminal facilities 4.5.4
Terrestrial biology 4.2.2, 5.2.2
Threatened and endangered wildlife and plants 4.3, 5.3
Transportation links 4.5.7
Turbidity 5.1.4.2
U. Upland disposal 3.5.4
Unexpected circumstances 3.6.5
Unresolved issues 1.3
W. Waterborne commerce
Water resources 4.1.4, 5.1.4
Wetlands 442.3, 5.2.3
0
t
100

APPENDIX A
Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
North Carolina
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

A-1

APPENDIX A
Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
North Carolina
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES '
ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Comment/Response Date Page
1. United States Department of Agriculture April 20, 1988 A-3
Soil Conservation Service
2. United States Department of Commerce May 13, 1988 A-5
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Service
3. United States Department of Commerce May 26, 1988 A-7
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office
4. United States Department of Commerce May 31, 1988 A-9
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office
5. United States Department of the Interior -June 2, 1988 A-12
Office of Environmental Project Review
6. United States Department of Housing June 2, 1988 A-15
and Urban Development
Region IV
7. United States Department of Health June 7, 1988 A-17
and Human Services
Center for Disease Control
8. United States Environmental June 10, 1988 A-19
Protection Agency, Region IV
9. North Carolina Department of Human Resources April 14, 1988 A-21
Division of Health Services
10. North Carolina Division of Water Resources May 9, 1988 A-24
11. North Carolina Division of Environmental May 12, 1988 A-26
Management
Water Quality Section
12. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission May 13, 1988 A-28
A-2
-United States Sod
Department of Conservation
Agriculture Service
310 New Bern Avenue
Room 535, Federal Bldg.
Raleigh, NC 27601
April 20, 1988
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
Because of the extremely heavy workload in implementing the Conservation
Provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, we are unable to provide
specific comments the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Long-Term
Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor, New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North
Carolina. Some general comments and recommendations regarding the project
are:
1. Work with local units of government to minimize impacts on prime and
locally important farmlands..
2. Utilize soil erosion control measures during project construction
activities to prevent off-site sedimentation damages.
3. Use locally adapted plants and erosion conservation practices to
prevent erosion following project installation.
We regret that we are unable to provide specific comments on your proposed
projects relating to soil and water resources in North Carolina. When the
conservation provisions of the Food Security Act are implemented, we will
again be able to review and provide detailed comments on projects.
Sincerely,
es
4Stae vat onist
cc: Peter F. Smith, SCS, Washington, DC
James B. Newman, SCS, Washington, DC
Phil Edwards, SCS, Raleigh, NC
4
171
I
The Soil Conservation Service A-3
is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture April 20, 1988
Soil Conservation Service
a-

Response:
1. The only upland areas to be impacted by the proposed action are existing
dredged material disposal areas; therefore, no farmlands will be affected.
2 and 3. A sedimentation and erosion control plan will be prepared for all
land disturbing activities involving one or more acres. The proposed plan
will include use of vegetative cover for erosion control.
0 A-4

UNITED STATh.,, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
OFFICE OF CHARTING AND GEODETIC SERVICES
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20852
MAY 13
MEMORANDUM FOR: David Cottingham
Ecology and Environmental Conservation Office
Office of the Chief Scientist
J
_ crai
2?
FROM: Rear lmiral eCs? V. Hull N
OAA
Director, C rtip6 and Geodetic Services
SUBJECT: DEIS 8804.0 - Long-Term Maintenance of
Wilmington Harbor, New Hanover and Brunswick
Counties, North Carolina
The subject statement has been reviewed within the areas of
Charting and Geodetic Services' (C&GS) responsibility and
expertise. Since safety of navigation is one of C&GS' primary
missions, this proposal was examined with that in mind and any
other impact this maintenance plan may have on C&GS' activities
and projects. C&GS considers the maintenance of navigational
channels to be extremely important and welcomes any long-range
plans to accomplish this mission.
Since all disposal sites are located either in the ocean dredged
material disposal site offshore or in diked onshore areas with an
estimated 50-year life expectancy, no apparent impact on C&GS
activities is apparent. The project area is covered on NOS
nautical chart 11537 and, from a chart-making point of view, the
proposed project is of minor consequence. Any new information
resulting from this activity would be reflected on the chart. If
appropriate, the information would be disseminated through
chartlets or Notice to Mariners, or both.
Should there be any need for further information about this
response, please contact Mr. Erich Frey, Marine Chart Branch,
N/CG22x2, WSC1, room 804, Nautical Charting Division, NOAA,
Rockville, Maryland 20852, telephone [phone].
cc:
N/CG17 - Spencer
N/CG22x2 - Frey
A-5
75 Years Stimulating America's Progress * 1913-1988
4.n 0

I
United States Department of Commerce May 13, 1988
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Service
0
Response:
Noted.
A-6
A. 141 Or
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
n NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
jOr o?
Southeast Regional Office
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
May 26, 1988 F/SER111/RSS
919/ 728-5090
1
2
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
District Engineer, Wilmington District
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed Public
Notice CESAW-PD-E-88-N-10-65-0005 dated April 11, 1988, whereby
the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposes a
50-year plan for maintenance dredging in Wilmington Harbor, New Hanover 1
and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina. We have also reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project and have provided
comments in a separate letter.
Overall, we find the proposed 50-year maintenance plan to adequately
address potential adverse impacts to fishery resources for which we are
responsible. However, we are concerned that the plan to mitigate
proposed wetland losses is not clearly identified as such in the DEIS
and the public notice. The proposed "dike stabilization" plan at disposal
areas 11, 12, and 13 would result in a net gain in marsh and thus could 2
offset marsh losses. However, this aspect of the project may be subject
to deletion if future funding is limited. Therefore, we recommend that
the project plans be revised to clearly state the Corps' intended multiple
objective of dike stabilization and mitigation for proposed marsh losses.
This action would lend assurance to both approval and funding of this
necessary aspect of the project.
If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please advise.
Sincerely yours,
'Andreas Mager, Jr.
Acting Assistant Regional Director
Habitat Conservation Division
?10TH ANNIVERSARY 1970-1980
7
4 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
s k A young agency with a historic
tradition of service to the Nation
A-7
•
io

E
United States Department of Commerce May 26, 1988
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
« Southeast Regional Office
Response:
1. Noted.
2. Even though the dike stabilization plan/dike and shoreline erosion control
plan would create more marsh than it would eliminate, this plan is an integral
part of project planning and design, not mitigation. The plan is the most
economical method to prevent the loss of disposal capacity over the 50 year
planning period. Therefore,'this erosion control plan in not a separable
component of the overall long-term maintenance plan and will not be deleted.

A-8
of •` UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
May 31, 1988 F/SER111/RSS
919/728-5090
Colonel.Paul_W. Woodbury
District Engineer, Wilmington District
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
Please reference your March 29, 1988, letter requesting our comments on
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS),`Long-Term Maintenance
Dredging of Wilmington Harbor, New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North
Carolina. The National Marine Fisheries Service has reviewed the subject
document and offers the following comments for your consideration.
General Comments
In our opinion, resources for which we are responsible and this project's
potential adverse impacts on these resources are generally addressed 'to
our satisfaction in the DEIS. However, we are concerned that wetland
losses associated with dike construction in disposal.areas 11, 12, and 13
may not be replaced if future funding constraints were to eliminate the
planned "dike stabilization" using transplanted marsh. Accordingly, we
recommend that the Final Environmental Impact Statement include a firm
commitment to the proposed marsh construction activity not only for the
purpose of stabilizing newly constructed dikes, but also as clearly
stated mitigation for proposed wetland losses.
Specific Comments
Section 3.6.3 Controlling Erosion on Existing Disposal Islands
Page 73, paragraph 2. This section addresssed the "dike stabilization"
plans outlined in Section 3.2.2; however, it does not directly address
mitigation for the proposed wetland losses. We recommend that a paragraph
be added to this section that outlines the Wilmington District's commitment
to mitigating the wetland losses incurred at disposal areas 11, 12, and 13
as an intregal part of the overall project, not necessarily linked to
funding for dike stabilization.
10TH ANNIVERSARY 1970-1980
? National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
s k' A young agency with a historic
Oi'-141'. ' tradition of service to the Nation
"`A-9

16

r
2
& Thank you.for the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely yours,
"
Andreas Mager, Jr.
Acting Assistant Regional Director
Habitat Conservation Division

n
A-10
United States Department of Commerce May 31, 1988
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Southeast Regional Office
Response:
See response to the May 26, 1988 United States Department of Commerce letter.

r
2
L
A-11
«
0
•
ER-88/226
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
`ft 21988
¦
TAIL ?? ?
AMU=IN
¦?
? i
We have reviewed the draft environmental statement for Long-Term
Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor, New Hanover and Brunswick-Counties, North
Carolina, and have the following comments.
General Comments
The document adequately describes the project area's resources of interest
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife-Service (Service). Although the document
1 outlined most of the direct environmental impacts of the proposed project,
additional information is required to assess potential adverse impacts
associated with the use of mosquito larvicides. This includes potential
adverse impacts to federally-listed threatened and endangered species.
Specific Comments
Section 4.2.2.2.; a e 54: The discussion of the habitat values of
disposa _site No. 18 should be expanded. The site's forested uplands
contain pools, shrub thickets, and an abundance of soft and hard mast
producing trees. Small, isolated wetlands, such as the ephemeral pools,
are biologically important systems that support species that normally
cannot avoid predators or compete with species found in larger systems.
Many amphibians that require aquatic habitats for only a portion of their
life history are able to exploit the habitat provided by ephemeral pools
(P.E. Moler and R. Franz 1988). In turn, these amphibians may become prey
items for wading birds and terrestrial vertebrates.
Forested wetlands, such as those that occur on site No. 18, typically
provide high quality habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species,
including opossum (DDi?ideel?l__p?hiis?smarssu ia_lis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), marsh
rabbit (Sylvilagus-pa ustriss), reptiles and amphibians. 7ffese Fabitats
generally support abundant and diverse bird populations and may be
important nesting and foraging sites for migratory neotropical songbirds.
Section 4.3; page 57: Change "rough-leafed loosestrife" to read "rough-
4 leaved loosestrife .
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT REVIEW
RICHARD B. RUSSELL FEDERAL BUILDING, SUITE 1320
75 SPRING STREET, S.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
1
2
4
A-12
0
Section 4.3; page 56: Although many pesticides may be registered for use
by the Environmental Protection Agency (Agency), presently, either: (1)
potential impacts to listed species have not been assessed by the Agency
and consultation, as required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act, has not been conducted; or (2) the reasonable and prudent measures or
alternatives recommended in a biological opinion have not been implemented.
Therefore, the document should assess the potential for adverse impacts to
listed species from the potential use of mosquito larvicides on dredged
material disposal sites.
Section 5.2.2.2.; page 72: Although pesticides may be registered for use
by the Agency, the document should list the pesticides used for mosquito
6 control and assess the impacts to non-target fauna.,from application to
dredged material disposal sites.
Summary Comments
The development of a long-term plan for dredged material disposal in the
Wilmington Harbor is an important step toward minimization of adverse
environmental impacts from harbor dredging activities. We commend the
Corps for the planned shoreline grading and stabilization with plantings of
intertidal marsh vegetation at disposal sites No. 11,12, and 13 as
mitigation for wetlands loss. within these sites.
However, the Service continues to object to the use of disposal site No. 18
for dredged material disposal as outlined in a October 7, 1987, scoping
report. Since dredged material disposal at this location would eliminate
an existing high quality habitat for resident and migratory wildlife, we
8 recommend against the use of this site. Alternatively, we recommend use of
the existing Point Peter disposal site located approximately 2 miles from
site No. 18. The adverse impacts to non-target species, including
endangered species, from use of mosquito-larvicides on dredged material
disposal sites, should be assessed and documented in the Final Statement.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely yours,
James H. Lee
Regional Environmental Officer
5
8
r
A-13
. United States Department of the Interior June 2, 1988
Office of Environmental Project Review
a
Response:
1. Sections 5.2.2.2 and 5.3 of the final EIS addresses these comments.
2 and 3. Section 4.2.2.2 of the final EIS has been modified to reflect that
site 18 is also used by small mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Due to its
isolation from adjacent woodlands the habitat potential of site 18 is atypical
and therefore reduced. As stated in section 4.2.2.2 of the EIS, the habitat
structure and diversity in the site is good but little evidence of actual use
by deer or medium-sized mammals was noted during field investigations.
4. This change has been made.
5 and 6. See response to 1 above.
7. Noted. However, the planting of marsh grass for erosion control on
islands 11-13 is not mitigation, this planting is an integral part of project
planning and design.
8. Site 18 was selected because other sites in the area were either cost
prohibitive or would have even greater environmental losses associated with
their use. Site 18 was also considered the best site for use because of its
relative isolation from other forested habitats and previous history of
dredged material disposal.
The Point Peter disposal site (16) will be used as part of the long-term
maintenance of Wilmington Harbor. However, site 16 alone is not adequate for
the long-term maintenance needs of the entire upper harbor; therefore, site 18
is needed too.
See response to 1 above regarding larvicides.

A-14
Q' PIMENro,y
W ? DG
Gq II?? ?W
BEM DEA 10
June 2, 1968 Colonel Pau Woodbury
Distri ngineer, Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Wilmington, North Carolina 2802-1890
bear Colonel Woodbury:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Atlanta Regional Office, Region IV
Richard B Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3388
0
We have revieweo the graft Environmental Impact Statement for tree
Lang-Term laintehance of Wilmington harbor, New Hanover and Brunswick
Counties, Niortri Carolina. `
Based upon our review, it does not appear that the project will have any
adverse impacts oil the Housing and Urban Development activities in the project
vicinity.
We appreciate the opportunity for review and comment. If we way be of
additional assistance, please contact us at FTS 242-3167.
tK
Sin erely,
Clara J. DeLay
Regional Environmental

Specialist

r
A-15
` United States Department of Housing and June 2, 1988
Urban Development
Region IV
Response:
Noted.
A-16
ORVIC"
v+
.j
ya?rna
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
Centers for Disease Control r
Atlanta GA 30333
June 7, 1988
Frank Yelverton
Environmental Resources Branch
U.S. Army Engineer District
Wilmington
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Yelverton:
Thank your for sending the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for "The Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor, New Hanover and
Brunswick Counties, North Carolina." We are responding on behalf of the
U.S. Public Health Service. We have reviewed the document and have no
comments to offer at this time.
Thank you for sending this document for our review. Please insure that
we are included on your mailing list for further documents which are
developed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Sincerely yours,
'q?avi'd'E . Clapp, Ph.D., P.E.
Environmental Health Scientist
Special Programs Group
Center for Environmental Health
and Injury Control
•
Y
A-17
United States Department of Health and June 7, 1988
Human Services
Centers for Disease Control
Response:
Noted.
A-18
Ja?tEO Sr,?rPS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
?tPR010-0 REGION IV
JUN 10 1988 •
345 COURTLAND STREET
4PM-EA/GJM ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
•
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Long-Terre Maintenance
of Wilmington Harbor, New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North
Carolina; ERP No.: D-COE-E32067-NC
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act, EPA, Region IV has reviewed the subject
document. Prior to this evaluation a member of my technical staff parti-
cipated in a scoping meeting (July 19, 1985) to delineate the significant 1
environmental issues associated with or resulting from this proposal.
Subsequent coordination/discussions with other Federal and state resource
agencies as well as two on-site investigations with District biologists
have continued throughout preparation of the DEIS.
In large measure the issues we raised and suggestions which were made .
during this dialogue have been incorporated in the text.. While this will
be a relatively large and ongoing undertaking, the environmental ramifica-
tions of the harbor maintenance which are within EPA's sphere of interest
are within acceptable limits. However, this appraisal is based on the compre-
hensive structural measures necessary to meet project objectives rather
than an absolute assessment. That is, while the adverse consequences of
this action are not considered significant and no mitigation is planned, 2
the cumulative environmental impacts of this and other similar activities
within this area will have to be considered during the project life. We
anticipate that the project will undergo any number of modifications
during its 50 year life span. As these changes are made we intend to
work closely with the District's technical staff to ensure that the
environmental aspects of these alterations are satisfactorily addressed
together with the more complicated matter of mitigating cumulative/induced
effects.
As a result of our review, a rating of LO has been assigned. That is,
EPA does not.have any significant environmental objections to the proposal 3
as it is currently described. If we can be of any further assistance,
please call Dr. Gerald Miller of my staff at 404/347-3776 or FTS 257-3776.
Sincerely yours,
She par . Moore, Chief
NEPA Review Staff
Environmental Assessment Branch
A-19
United States Environmental Protection Agency June 10, 1988
Region IV
s

Response:
1. Noted.
2. These concerns will be addressed during the periodic review that will
occur every 5 years (section 3.6.5).
3. Noted.
A-20
e . S AIZ
North Carolina Department of Human Resources
Division of Health Services
P.O. Box 2091 • Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-2091
James G. Martin, Governor Dr. Alice L. Anderson Ronald H. Levine, M.D., M.P.H.
David T. Flaherty, Secretary Medical Entomologist State Health Director
NC Division of Health Services April 14
NC Aquarium
Atlantic Beach, NC 28512
Phone [phone]
MEMO
TO: Linda Sewell
FROM: Alice L. Anderson
I have some comments regarding the Draft..Environmental Impact
Statement on Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor, North
Carolina, page 72, section 5.2.2.2 Fauna.
First, the species of mosquitoes which are produced on dredged
spoil habitats (primarily Aedes sollicitans and Aedes taeniorhynchus)
can and do travel from 4 to TO miles in search of a blood meal.
"Remote" spoil sites are therefore still potential "severe
nuisances". If a strong wind blowing from the spoil site to the
inhabited area occurs at any time after the hatch until the end
of the summer season, there is a good chance that the population
of mosquitoes produced even in "remote" areas will become a
severe nuisance in the heavily populated areas of the city.
Since these mosquitoes can transmit dog heartworm and Eastern
equine encephalitis, `hey are a health threat.'
Further, the EIS s that outbreaks in the past have been
controlled by aerie ,.plication of larvicide. In discussing
this with local mosquito control personnel, I have learned that
the larvaciding action was only taken after the public complaint
level had reached a VERY high level. The public complaints
were a result of ADULT mosquito problems, so that larvaciding
had little effect on the problem after the fact.
Our research shows that salt marsh areas produce from one to
two broods of mosquitoes per month in the Southern part of the
Coastal area. If these populations are left untreated and
continue to breed until the public complaint level reaches VERY..-
0
A-21
i
high'levels, larvaciding at the end of the season will be only
of limited success if any, since the adult population is
already very high. If the TOTAL population is not MONITORED and
CONTROLLED throughout the summer, the fall population has built
up to almost unmanageable porportions, especially with the
proposed "as needed" treatment as experienced in'the past.
This document does not define how the "as needed" times will be
determined, does not state who will be responsible for the
surveillance needed to FIND the larvae so that they can be
treated effectively, nor does it state who will be responsible for
the cost of this work.
It is my recommendation that an agreement be drawn up between the
mosquito control division in New Hanover County and the
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers to provide a thorough
surveillance and treatment program for the spoil sites proposed
in this plan. Other states have excellent cooperation with the
Corps on the same problem (Savannah GA, for example).
Without a responsible attitude from the Corps of Engineers concerning
this ongoing problem, I must say that the EIS has tried to
brush aside a serious, well acknowledged problem with a superficial
statement.

A-22
North Carolina Department of Human Resources April 14, 1988 i
Division of Health Services
Response:
Section 5.2.2.2 of the final EIS addresses these comments.
0

A-23 •
0
May 9, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Melba McGee
John D. Sutherlan
Review of Draft EIS for the Long-Term Maintenance of
Wilmington Harbor
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement adequately
describes the environmental consequences of the long-term
maintenance plan for the navigation channels in Wilmington
Harbors.
bb
cc: Mr. John N. Morris
n
A-24
North Carolina Division of Water Resources May 9, 1988
Response:
Noted.
A-25
f

s

DIVISIO14 OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
May 12, 1988
M E M O R A N D U M
TO:
Melba McGee
Planning & Assessment
FROM: Bill Mills
Water Quality
Secti?(_
SUBJECT: Draft EIS
Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
There are two aspects of the proposed maintenance plan
which are not adequately addressed in the Subject document:
1. The proposed discharges from the operation of
barge overflows have not been adequately described
and evaluated with respect to the effects on Water
Quality Standards. The results of the 1987 Barge
Overflow Project at MOTSU should be included and
used in projecting turbidity impacts. A 401 water
Quality Certification for discharges from barge
overflow on the Subject-project was received on
April 20 and is under evaluation.
2. The changes in wetland vegetation caused by
saltwater intrusion into the once freshwater
wetlands bordering the Cape Fear Estuary, and that
the majority of these changes seem associated with
deepening and widening of the Cape Fear River
Channel (Hackney, 1987).

•
BM/dkb
cc: Preston Howard
A-26
North Carolina Division of Environmental May 12, 1988
Management
Water Quality Section
Response:
1. Section 5.1.4.2 of the final EIS addresses these comments.
2. Sections 4.1.4.2 and 5.1.4.2 of the final EIS addresses these comments.
ti
04
A-27
6
r

j North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission -"
512 N. Salishurv Strcct, R;tlcigh, North C;trulin;i 27611, 9 19-7 33- 3 1 Q I
('liarlrs R. 1"1111W 00J, 1:N'A'Ut iV(.' I )ircl•tl,r ?i \"+t.'?
May 13, 1988
1 (? 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Natural Resources & Comm. Dev.
FROM: Richard B. Hamilton Assistant Director '` tx
SUBJECT: STATE CLEARINGHOUSE A95/EIS PROJECT NUMBER 88-
0846: Draft Environmental Impact Statement---
Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor North
Carolina, New Hanover and Brunswick Counties,
North Carolina
w

The Wildlife Resources Commission has reviewed the
subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and
professional biologists on our staff are familiar with
'habitat values of the project area. Although we have been
unable to conduct an onsite investigation due to time and
staff constraints, we believe that sufficient information is
available to warrant certain comments. In addition we have
A met with the Corps of Engineers with regards to the subject
project during the scoping process for the subject project.
Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1
NCAC 25), and the Coastal Area Management Act (G.S. 113A-100
through 113A-128).
Overall the document is well written and provides a
thorough discussion of most areas of concern. Document
preparers should be commended for a job well done. However,
B we believe certain additional information or clarification
must be considered in preparation of the final document.
The following general comments reflect major concerns:
1• Section 3.2.2 (pg. 14-15) states that erosion
protection will be provided for disposal area dikes
A-28
A
B
in the form of grading shorelines to 3% and
establishing a marsh border. Section 3.6.3 (pg.
20-21) states that the same erosion protection
measures at six sites is not feasible. The
transition between pages is not clear and needs
additional clarification.
2. We believe that the DEIS should contain more
inherent flexibility in utilizing dredged material
for management or creation of colonial bird nesting
habitat. Section 3.6.2 is very restrictive with
regards to future needs as coastal development
continues to degrade other nesting areas and will
probably do so over the next 50 years at an even
greater rate. We believe that re-writing the
section to retain more flexibility is not only
essential for sound management of wildlife
resources, but is also in the best interests of the
Corps of Engineers and local sponsors. As written,
we find the section unacceptable.
3. We disagree with the contention that 32 acres of
non-wetland habitat at Disposal Site 18 is not a'
significant resource (Section 5.2.4, pg. 73).
Based upon the description provided in the DEIS and
a previous site visit, we believe that such a loss
of habitat is significant and cannot go unnoticed.
Coastal development in general has devastated
wildlife habitat along practically all of North
Carolina's coastline. The individual and
cumulative effect of losing an additional 32 acres
of relatively high quality habitat will only
exacerbate the overall problems of coastal wildlife
resources and the quality of the natural
environment. We recommend that Disposal Site 18 be
deleted from further consideration for use in long
term maintenance of Wilmington Harbor and that the
area be permanently protected through public
ownership or conservation easement. Loss in
disposal capacity can be compensated by utilizing
Disposal Sites 17 and 19 due to their relatively
close proximity. If necessary, these sites could
be expanded to receive additional volumes that
would have been placed in Site 18.
4. The DEIS does not address cumulative impacts
(direct and indirect) sufficiently, especially when
considering ongoing and planned projects such as
expansion of the Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape
Fear River proposal. All direct impacts resulting
from past activities, expansion of existing
facilities, planned expansion, and new construction
being considered should be thoroughly discussed.
In addition, the DEIS must address indirect impacts
A-29

such as enhancement of riparian habitat for further
industrial, residential, and urban development.
Such an assessment must consider potential impacts
from private entities with potential for study area
limits.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on
this application. If our comments need clarification of if
we can provide further assistance, please call on us.
RBH/lp
cc: Mrs. L. K. (Mike) Gantt, USFWS
Mr. Dennis Stewart
A
A-30
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission May 13, 1988 it
Response:
A and B. Noted.
1. Agreed. Section 3.6.3 of the final EIS addresses these comments.
2. We disagree that our proposed plans for managing colonially nesting
waterbirds in the river are in need of greater flexibility. We are committed
to the management of existing islands in the river and have completed
management actions on them in the past. However, we are not currently in a
position to recommend creating new islands as they are not required for
dredged material disposal and the costs to the estuarine system are
potentially high. As stated in the EIS (section 3.6.2), if other agencies or
interests obtain all necessary environmental clearances and perform any
necessary site preparation, the District will provide the dredged material to
create the island and will maintain it in conjunction with future maintenance
dredging.
3. The determination of significance of site 18 was based on an evaluation of
many parameters including presence of wetlands, habitat diversity, wildlife
utilization, size of the tract, regional context, availability of similar
habitats in the area, and past use as a disposal site. In weighing these
factors, it was determined that site 18 was not a significant resource
primarily due to its isolation (with subsequently lower wildlife values),
availability of abundant higher quality wildlife habitat nearby, and the sites
prior use as a dredged material disposal area. Therefore we can not justify
the purchase of these lands for conservation purposes.
Site 17 is only 10 acres and is filled with dredged material. The upland
portion of site 19 is only 12 acres. Even if site 17 was not full, the
combined capacity of sites 17 and 19, 22 acres, would be 6 acres less than the
long-term capacity needs that site 18 provides. Sites 17 and 19 can not be
feasibly expanded since they are surrounded by wetlands.
4. We disagree. The EIS adequately addresses the direct and indirect impacts
of the proposed action. The long-term project just involves maintenance of
existing channel dimensions and use of previously used disposal areas. Since
no harbor expansion is proposed under this action, a change in forecasted
growth trends for the port of Wilmington is not anticipated.
All disposal areas will be owned in fee simple by the state, county or the
Corps of Engineers which will preclude development or any use other than the
disposal of dredged material. Therefore, no significant impacts to existing
resources are anticipated.
It
A- 31
Section 3.8 of the EIS describes anticipated harbor expansion. The
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of these actions will be discussed in
the NEPA documents required for each proposed expansion project. A discussion
of the cumulative impacts of these expansions is not appropriate in the long-
term EIS since the long-term maintenance of Wilmington Harbor is not dependent
on any of the expansion projects being constructed.
A-32

i
qa

APPENDIX B
Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
North Carolina
BEACH AND OFFSHORE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES

B-1
APPENDIX B
Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
North Carolina
BEACH AND OFFSHORE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
Beach Disposal Alternative. The grain size characteristics of the shoal
material in the various reaches of the Wilmington Harbor ship channel were
evaluated in order to determine the location of shoal material that would be
suitable for placement on nearby beaches by pipeline dredge. This evaluation
identified several areas that had suitable material and alternative procedures
for placing this material on the beach were investigated.
Shoal Material Size Characteristics. The Wilmington Harbor ship channel
extends about 27 miles from deep water in the ocean off the mouth of the Cape
Fear River estuary to an anchorage basin at Wilmington. This channel is
divided into 21 reaches plus the anchorage basin and approach channel as shown
on figure 1. Table B1 lists each of the channel reaches and the average
quantity of shoal material removed each year. Under present maintenance
procedures, material removed from the Battery Island range seaward to and
including the Baldhead Shoal range is deposited in an ocean disposal area by
hopper dredge while the other reaches are maintained by pipeline dredge using
island disposal areas.
The size characteristics of the ship channel bottom material were
determined from samples collected and analyzed in association with other
studies of Wilmington Harbor (US Army Engineer District, Wilmington 1976,
1977, and 1980; TEG 1975; Law Engineering Testing Company 1978 and 1979;
Jones, Edmunds and Associates, Inc. 1979)• The location of the sample points
are shown on figure B1 while the mean particle size and the standard deviation
of the samples, expressed in phi units, are given in table B2. Based on the
size characteristics of these samples, the channel bottom material downstream
of Wilmington appears to be divided into four major zones, namely: (1) the
ocean bar channel seaward of buoy number 4 which consists primarily of silt
and sandy silt; (2) buoy number 4 to and including Reaves Point Channel which
is composed of sandy material; (3) Lower Midnight Channel to Upper Brunswick
Channel which contains a mixture of sand and silt; and (4) the Fourth East
Jetty Channel to the Anchorage Basin, which is comprised of silt and some
sandy silt. Because of the sand characteristics, the only section of the
channel that could be maintained by placing the shoal material on the beach is
that portion from buoy number 4 to Reaves Point channel. Hopper dredging and
offshore disposal is presently used in the segment of the channel seaward of
the Battery Island Range, and this maintenance practice is expected to
continue in the future. Therefore, only the section of the channel between
the Lower Swash and Reaves Point ranges was considered for possible beach
disposal. The total average annual volume of shoal material removed from this
segment of, the ship channel is 101,000 cubic yards of which 12,000 cubic yards
is removed from the Lower Swash range, 17,000 cubic yards from the Snow Marsh
I«
B-2
range, 47,000 cubic yards from the Horseshoe Shoal range, and 25,000 cubic
yards from the Reaves Point range.
Alternatives Considered. In developing the beach disposal alternative,
two beach disposal sites were evaluated, namely: (1) the shoreline fronting
the Fort Fisher State Historic Site and (2) the Town of Kure Beach shoreline.
In addition, two methods of depositing the material on the beach were
considered and were: (1) temporarily storing the material during annual
maintenance operations and pumping to the beach on a periodic basis and (2)
pumping the material directly to the beach during each maintenance operation.
These alternatives have been given the following designation:
Al - Temporary storage with disposal on Fort Fisher
A2 - Temporary storage with disposal on Kure Beach
B1 - Direct disposal on Fort Fisher
B2 - Direct disposal on Kure Beach
Due to the extremely. long pumping distance from the Lower Swash range to
the beach disposal sites or to a -temporary storage area and the relatively
small quantity of material removed from this range, the Lower Swash range was
not included in the beach disposal alternative evaluation. For these same
reasons, the lower portion of the Snow Marsh range was also excluded. The
volume of material that would be available for placement on the beach from the
remaining ranges; which includes Reaves Point, Horseshoe Shoal, and the upper
portion of Snow Marsh is estimated to be about 89,000 cubic yards/year. Of
this total, 25,000 cubic yards/year would be obtained form the Reaves Point
range, 47,000 cubic yards/year from Horseshoe Shoal, and 17,000 cubic
yards/year from the upper portion of Snow Marsh.
Comparison of Shoal Material Size Characteristics with Native Beach Material
on Kure Beach and Fort Fisher. The composite size characteristics of the
shoal material in the Reaves Point to Snow Marsh channel ranges was determined
from the information given in table B2. The shoal material was found to have
a mean size of 2.0 phi (0.25 mm) and a standard deviation of 1.38 phi (0.28
mm). The size characteristics of native beach sand on Kure Beach and Fort
Fisher was computed from samples collected from five ranges, two on Kure Beach
and 3 on Fort Fisher. Each of these ranges were sampled from the crest of the
berm seaward to the 30-foot depth contour in 2-foot depth intervals.
Information on the Kure Beach and Fort Fisher samples are given in US Army
Engineer District, Wilmington (1967, 1971).
A preliminary comparison of the two native beach sands indicated that both
beaches have essentially the same characteristics. Accordingly, the five
sample ranges were used to compute a composite size distribution for the
native beach sand which is applicable for both Kure Beach and Fort Fisher. The
resulting composite distribution for the beach material had a mean of 1.66 phi
(.32 mm) and a standard deviation of 1.00 phi (0.24 mm). The suitability of
the shoal material as a source of beach nourishment was determined in
accordance with the procedures outlined in Department of the Army (1984). The
suitability analysis indicated that the shoal material has an overfill factor
of 1.4 which means that 1.4 cubic yards of shoal material will have to be
placed on the beach in order to yield 1 cubic yard of sorted beach sand. In
B-3
addition, the renourishment factor, which is a measure of the expected
performance of the fill material compared to the native beach sand, is 1.0
indicating that the erosion losses from the fill following sorting will be
• about the natural rate. Thus, the shoal material is an acceptable source of
beach fill material.
Pipeline Route. The proposed overland pipeline route that would be used to
transport the material to the beach disposal areas comes ashore near the
Southport-Fort Fisher ferry terminal and follows U.S. Highway 421. This
proposed route is shown on figure B2. The average length of the shore
pipeline to the Fort Fisher and Kure Beach disposal sites is 10,000 feet and
16,500 feet, respectively. The total pumping distances range from 21,000 to
25,000 feet.
Temporary Storage Area. Disposal Area 4 which is located as shown on figure
1, would be used as a temporary storage area for the alternatives involving
periodic beach disposal. This disposal area has a total surface area of 21
acres and is ringed by a dike constructed to an elevation of 22 feet above
m.l.w.. The volume of material that would have to be stored depends on the
frequency of the beach disposal operations. Accordingly, the temporary
storage/beach disposal alternatives were developed on the basis of a 10-year
beach disposal cycle. Since the material removed from the channel ranges
during the 10th year of the cycle would be pumped directly to the shoreline,
the temporary storage area was designed to contain 801,000 cubic yards or 9
years of maintenance material.
In order to accommodate this quantity of material, the sand presently
stored in Disposal Area 4 would be excavated and pumped to the beach. If the
assumption is made that a 27-inch pipeline dredge with a minimum digging depth
of 20 feet below m.l.w. is used for this initial excavation, 15.7 acres, or
75%, of Disposal Area 4 would be removed. The area to be dredged contains a
total volume of 860,000 cubic yards. In addition, an access channel would
have to be dredged from the ship channel to Disposal Area 4 which would
increase the initial dredge volume by 65,000 cubic yards. Thus, the total
volume of material to be initially dredged to develop the temporary storage
area would be 925,000 cubic yards.
The adequacy of the temporary storage area to remove solids from the
dredge discharge was based on an average flow rate of a 27-inch pipeline
dredge of 47.6 cfs and a surface area of the temporary storage area of 682,700
ft2 (15.7 acres). According to US Army Engineer (1974), the area is adequate
to remove particles as small as .018 mm. Since the composite distribution of
the sand in the three channel reaches does not contain material this fine, the
temporary storage area would be able to remove essentially all of the solids
in the dredge discharge.
Alternative Al. Material removed during the initial excavation of Disposal
Area 4 to create the temporary storage area would be placed along 8,000 feet
of shoreline fronting the Fort Fisher State Historic Site as shown on figure
B2. Allowing for 15% losses from the fill during placement and the 29%
sorting losses expected due to the difference in the fill and native beach
sand characteristics, the initial deposition of material from Disposal Area 4
B-4
would widen the beach by an average of 48 feet. Historic erosion of the
shoreline in front of Fort Fisher has been extremely high, varying from
approximately 11 feet/year in the vicinity of the existing rubble revetment to
around 6 feet/year south of the revetment. For the entire 8,000-foot beach
segment, the average rate of erosion since 1938 has been 7.7 feet/year which
is equivalent to a volumetric loss of 70,000 cubic yards/year. During each
10-year beach disposal operation, a total of 890,000 cubic yards of material
would be placed on the shoreline. Assuming that 44% of this material would
also be lost during initial placement and by sorting, the net quantity of
material placed on the beach would average 50,000 cubic yards/year. It
appears therefore, that the erosion rate at Fort Fisher would be reduced by
70%.
The equivalent average annual cost of Alternative Al was computed for a
50-year amortization period at an interest rate of 8-7/8%. In all, there are
three different operations involved in the alternative, namely: (1) initial
excavation of Disposal Area 4 with placement on the Fort Fisher shoreline; (2)
temporary storage of the material removed from the channel ranges during a 9-
year period; and (3) beach disposal from the temporary storage area and the
channel ranges every 10 years. The costs of each of these three operations
are given in table B3. The equivalent average annual cost of each operation
and the total average annual cost of Alternative Al are given in table B4.
Alternative A2. The material removed from Disposal Area 4 during initial
excavation would be distributed along 13,000 feet of shoreline in front of the
Town of Kure Beach. The net inplace fill volume obtained from this source
would widen.the beach by 30 feet. The historic erosion rate along this
13,000-foot beach segment has averaged 4.2 feet/year since 1938 which is
equivalent to a volumetric loss of about 62,000 cubic yards/year. The 10-year
disposal cycle on Kure Beach would also result in an average nourishment rate
of 50,000 cubic yards/year which would reduce the erosion rate by 80%.
The operations involved with this alternative are the same as the three
operations associated with Alternative Al with the only difference being the
longer pumping distances to Kure Beach. The cost of the three separate
operations are given in table B5 while the average annual equivalent cost com-
puted over a 50-year period at an interest rate of 8-7/8% is given in table
B6.
t
11
Alternatives B1 and B2. Alternatives B1 and B2 which would involve the
direct disposal of the shoal material on the beaches during each biennial
maintenance operation, would not produce any effective widening of the
respective beaches. Due to the relatively small quantity of material (178,000
gross cubic yards or 100,000 net cubic yards), disposition on the beach would
be in the form of a 1,000-foot-long feeder beach. Generally, the feeder beach
would be placed at the updrift or north end of the beach; however, if problems
developed at specific sites, the disposal location could be varied
accordingly. +
The annual cost of these two alternatives are given in tables B7 and B8
for Fort Fisher and Kure Beach, respectively. In computing the cost of the
alternatives, the assumption was made that an 18-inch pipeline dredge would
B-5
normally perform maintenance dredging in the upper portion of Wilmington
Harbor, i.e., from the Fourth East Jetty channel north, and that this dredge
would be moved to the Reaves Point-Snow Marsh area to transfer material to the
beach. The 18-inch dredge would need the assistance of two booster pumps in
order to place the material on either Fort Fisher or Kure Beach.
Discussion of Alternatives. The average annual costs of the alternatives are
presented in table B9. The cost for bucket and barge dredging is based on
semi annual dredging with a unit cost of $2.40 per cubic yard and a discount
rate of 8 7/8%. The costs for direct beach disposal are 18 to 31% less than
the temporary storage alternatives. However, the average annual cost for
bucket and barge dredging of $205,000 is 63 to 73% less than direct beach
disposal.
Ocean disposal by Pipeline. This alternative assumes that material
removed from Lower Lilliput to Lower Swash range is pumped to a point near
Fort Fisher. Pumping distances, material characteristics and quantities are
contained in table B10.
The costs in table B11 are just for pumping the material to the beach and
do not include the cost of pumping the material 5,000 feet offshore for
disposal. However, the partial cost is enough to make this alternative
economically infeasible when compared to the cost shown in table B12 for
bucket and barge dredging with ocean disposal.

s
B-6
TABLE B1
Estimated Annual Volume of Maintenance Dredging by Reach
Annual Average Volume
Maintenance Dredge
Material (Cu Yds) Channel Reach
820,000 Baldhead Shoal, Smith Island,
Caswell-Southport, Southport,
Battery Island
121000 Lower Swash
17,000 Snow Marsh
47,000 Horseshoe Shoal
25,000 Reaves Point
26,000 Lower Midnight
118,000 Upper Midnight
45,000 Lower Lilliput
49,000 Upper Lilliput
29,000 Keg Island
8,000 Lower Big Island
3,000 Upper Big Island
31,000 Lower Brunswick
19,500 Upper Brunswick
26,000 Fourth East Jetty
50,000. Between Channel
930,000 Anchorage Basin and Approach
17,500 32' project
10,000 25' pro_lect
21283,000 Total

B-7
Range
Baldhead Shoal
Southport
Lower Swash
Snow Marsh

M
TABLE B2
Size Characteristics of Ship Channel Bottom Material
Sample *
Horseshoe Shoal
Reaves Point
Lower Midnight
Upper Midnight
Lower Lilliput
Upper Lilliput
Keg Island
Big Island
Lower Brunswick
Upper Brunswick
Fourth East Jetty
Between Channels
Anchorage Basin
(Seaward Buoy #4)
Buoy #4 t o Buoy #13
1977 EIS #1
1976 #4
1976 #5
1977 EIS #2
1976 #7
1977 EIS #3
1976 #8
1976 #10A
1976 #13
1977 EIS #4
1976 #18
1977 EIS #5
1976 #20
1976 #21
1977 EIS #6
1976 #22
1977 EIS #7
1976 #22A
1976 #23
1977 EIS #8
176 #24
1978 #1
1978 #2
1978 #3
1977 EIS #9
1976 #25
1976 #26
1978 #4
1978 #5
Mean Size Standard Deviation
MO So
Phi (mm) Phi (mm)
Silt
1.652 ** (0.32) 1.082 ** (0.26)
1.24 (0.42) 1.09 (0.35)
-0.61 (1.53) 0.35 (0.37)
1.83 (0.28) 0.43 (0.09)
2.72 (0.15) 0.47 (0.05)
1.35 (0.39) 0.84 (0.24)
1.63 (0.32 0.84 (0.20)
0.97 (0.51) 0.97 (0.37)
1.93 (0.26) 0.64 (0.12)
3.49 (0.09) 0.93 (0.93)
4.34 (0.05) 0.94 (0.03)
1.67 (0.31) 0.27 (0.06)
5.59 (0.02) 1.41 (0.02)
2.13 (0.23) 0.62 (0.10)
2.42 (0.19) 1.06 (0.15)
5.12 (0.03) 1.94 (0.05)
1.23 (0.43) 0.61 (0.19)
3.12 (0.12 0.72 (0.06)
1.68 (0.31) 0.39 (0.09)
1.94 (0.26) 0.62 (0.12)
5.02 (0.03) 0.92 (0.02)
1.46 (0.36) 0.60 (0.16)
1.29 (0.41) 0.78 (0.23)
Silt
Silt
4.14 (0.06) 0.79 (0.03)
5.07 (0.03) 2.67 (0.09)
4.15 (0.o6) 2.36 (0.14)
Silt
Silt
# Buoy number in ship channel.
* Sample location shown on figure B1 .
** Composite characteristics based on 22 samples collected between buoy #4
and buoy #13.
B-8
Table B3
Cost Estimate - Beach Disposal Alternative Al
Periodic Disposal on Fort Fisher
Unit
Item Quantity Cost Cost
I. Initial Dredging of Disposal Area 4
Mobilization and Demobilization 1 Job L.S.
Dredging (27" pipeline dredge w/booster) 925,000 cy $2.45/cy
Subtotal
Contingencies (15$)
Subtotal
Engineering and Design
Supervision and Administration
Total Cost Initial Excavation
II. Temporary Storage in Disposal 4
Mobilization and Demobilization
Dredging (18" pipeline dredge)
Subtotal
Contingencies (15$)
Subtotal
Engineering and Design
Supervision and Administration
Total Cost per Operation
III. 10-Year Beach Disposal Operation
1 Job L. S.
$
178,000 cy $2.90/cy

Mobilization and Demobilization 1 Job L.S.
Dredging (27" pipeline dredge w/booster) 890,000 cy $2.80/cy
Subtotal
Contingencies (15%)
Subtotal
Engineering and Design
Supervision and Administration
Total Cost per Operation
$ 250,000
2,266,000
$2,516,000
377,000
$2,893,000
116,000
145,000
$3,154,000
50,000
516,000
$ 566,000
85,000
651,000
26,000
32,500
709,500
$ 250,000
2,492,000
$2,742,000
411,000
$3,153,000
126,000
158,000
$3,437,000

A
B-9
a
Table B4
Equivalent Average Annual Cost of Alternative Al
n = 50 years; i = 8-7/8 %
Item Annual Cost

r
(a) Interest Amortization of Initial Excavation $284,000
(b) Temporary Storage 293,000
(c) 10-year Beach Disposal 229,000
Total Average Annual Cost - Al $806,000
B-10
Table B5
Cost Estimate - Beach Disposal Alternative A2
Periodic Disposal on Kure Beach
Unit
Item Quantity Cost Cost
I. Initial Dredging of Disposal Area 4
Mobilization and Demobilization 1 Job L.S. $ 300,000
Dredging (27" pipeline dredge w/booster) 925,000 cy $3.25/cy 3,006,000
Subtotal $3,306,000
Contingencies (15x) 496,000
Subtotal $3,802,000
Engineering and Design 152,000
Supervision and Administration 190,000
Total Cost Initial Excavation $4,144,000
II. Temporary Storage in Disposal Area 4
Mobilization and Demobilization 1 Job L.S. $ 50,000.
Dredging (18" pipeline dredge) 178,000 cy $2.90/cy 516,000
Subtotal $ 566,000
Contingencies (15%) 85,000
Subtotal 651,000
Engineering and Design 26,000
Supervision and Administration 32,500
Total Cost Initial Excavation $ 709,500
III. 10-Year Beach Disposal Operation
Mobilization and Demobilization 1 Job L.S. $ 300,000
Dredging (27" pipeline dredge w/booster) 890,000 cy $3.30/cy 2,937,000
Subtotal $3,237,000
Contingencies (15%) 485,000
Subtotal $3,722,000
Engineering and Design 149,000
Supervision and Administration 186,000
Total Cost per. Operation $47057,000
4
r
•
B-11
a
TABLE B6

Equivalent Average Annual Cost of Alternative A2
Periodic Disposal on Kure Beach
n = 50 years; i = 8-7/8 %
Item Annual Cost.

(a) Interest Amortization of Initial Excavation
(b) Temporary Storage
(c) 10-year Beach Disposal
Total Average Annual Cost - A2
$373,000
293,000
270,000
$936,000
B-12
4
TABLE B7
Cost Estimate - Direct Beach Disposal Alternative 1
(Fort Fisher)
Unit
Item Quantity Cost Cost
Mobilization and Demobilization 1 Job L.S. $ 186,000
Dredging (18" Pipeline dredge
w/2 boosters) 178,000 cy $4.20/cy 748,000
Subtotal $ 934,000
Contingencies (15$) 140,000
Subtotal $1,074,000
Engineering and Design 43,000
Supervision and Administration 54,000
Total $1,171,000
Annual Cost $ 560,000
s
4
B-13

TABLE B8
Cost Estimate - Direct Beach Disposal Alternative B2
(Kure Beach)
. Unit
Item Quantity Cost Cost
Mobilization and Demobilization 1 Job L.S. $ 217,000
Dredging (18" pipeline dredge
w/2 boosters) 178,000 cy $6.00/cy 1,068,000
Subtotal $1,285,000
Contingencies (15%) 193,000
Subtotal $11478,000
Engineering and Design 59,000
Supervision and Administration 74,000
Total $1,611,000
Annual Cost
to
$ 771,000
B-14
TABLE B9
Comparison of Alternative Costs
Disposal Average Annual
Alternative Cost
Al FF Storage $806,000
A2 Kure Storage 936,000
B1 FF Direct 560,000
B2 Kure Direct 771,000
Bucket and Barge $205,000

B-15
y
TABLE B10

Ocean Disposal by Pipeline
Average
Annual
Quantity Pumping Distances (ft)
Reaches Type Material (cy) Max Min Avg
Lower Lilliput Sandy/Silt 45,000 57,900 47,900 52,900
Upper Midnight Sandy/Silt 118,000 47,900 34,200 41,100
Connecting Channel Sandy/Silt 19,000 60,100 50,100 55,100
Lower Midnight Sandy/Silt 26,000 34,200 25,700 30,000
Reaves Point Sand 25,000 25,700 19,800 22,800
Horseshoe Shoal Sand 47,000 19,800 16,400 18,100
Snow Marsh Sand 17,000 35,300 19,800 27,600
Lower Swash Sand 12,000 43,500 35,300 '39,400
309,000
The dredging estimate is contained in table B11 and is based on the
following:
a. 27" pipeline dredge,
b. Sand,
c. Bank height of 3 feet,
d. Booster factor = 0.729,
e. 18 hours/day = 24 days/month,
f. Average pumping distance in each range, and
g. Biennial dredging.
.1
B-16
TABLE B11
Cost Estimates for Ocean Disposal by Pipeline for
the Reaches Indicated in Table B10
Unit
Item Quantity Cost Cost
Mobilization and Demobilization 1 Job LS $770,000
Dredging (27" pipeline dredge
with 3 boosters
Subtotal
Contingencies (15%)
Subtotal
Engineering and Design
Supervision and Administration
Total
Annual Costs
618,000 cy
$15.50/cy 9,580,000
$10,350,000
1,550,000
$11,900,000
475,000
595,000
$12,970,000
$6,207,000
t
.Y

r
B-17
fa
TABLE B12
Cost Estimate for Ocean Disposal by Bucket and Barge
• for the Reaches Indicated in Table B10
Unit
Item Quantity Cost Cost
Mobilization and 1 Job LS $ 300,000
Demobilization
Biennial Dredging 618,000 cy $2.40/cy 1,483,200
Subtotal $1,783,200
Contingencies (15%) 267,500
Subtotal $2,050,700
Engineering and Design 82,000
Supervision and Administration 102,500
Total $2,235,200
Annual Costs
117
4
$1,070,000
B-18
.; J r x? v r,* : } I .;Z .. - , -P e•? _?-- ? y 9 -, • 1 IBtrik
I?,1s Z _ _ 4'r ?, .?7[ Ff ,4n n 10 by R ,' 4 rcr '+ts.
?•? $A n „2 1' ?9 ? (`"`I > ? PA={ ?• C : .?'3. I 'a
s .. T, 'wt nC:NlYltlall ?t 4??? . v 4 .9. ., -'Pilaf + I 1?1 i 1 7" ues4 I ! ' :,.
6\ \\ 22 Pif s 4„ p
6, ?9?R A9 \
' /' •6 '+ i Int sec 43f*`*
vvsr Jank o (t'?I z f, t L?, +i? -411 R 4 •4 Ar_'b s0\ 2 •. ;. ,% /' I ..••;. ?f
3?c: ?4 { Il B J `Q6?P:1rG'1' \Gi\ ;•I is
3
x f? Msreh r A.6. _,?1 R ?r n,?. A 39 \$? .\° 4v:.. ;
f{ \3 r\? `
. 17 s , r 0y I ?`s Q601 v'v \0\ \\12 o i Ne• 3 /
ill
169h 191yi' 'Y, '.r ,v z? Sean W
9 v Gpp FI (4)10eso \
tj R ' :.. R Bn 298 I d,':.?'s
AK lL11ND L ` \ \\32 ; Qk FI 20ft
a ~ a }', I OA$ GUARD.?;U ?' \2
Y C I 9?? +r •. ?t` ':. h O TANK • f22 7 ?'
?? + 1 -•''
I I 315
14 gyS ``°\\ 7 4 Fort 11 \\\3
.... See we 5 2/3 34 \6 15 13 s. F t
9 8 © 7 1
17 13 cz .... ` 20, /;)
,.,..;.
II 7 +kPA 10 hannel `8 B 26 IF \?I 17 17
g Bar C 12 12 14 14, 16 4 22 5
17 sterM1 1 13 13 13 \ \6 1616 3 I 1t37 24 It ie
IS ? 14 13 2 12 7 8 27? 4 2 ?1 26 3
19 17 15 9 7 6 5 6 3 k: F/1G4see k1 15
4 2 29 a Pllee j
14 8 6 2 3 13t a
3 5 4 : 22 Sudvn p'lu
21 18 16? S 5 8 4 f?34 Pile sgbii/
11 9 Mdde G,04- yld 3 Fr1 22%c:??,vl
[r S 10 8 76 7 5 6 8 6 4 7 4 3 I h13
Aband. L
21 15 w S / • 23 10 9 9 8 9 /
11 L "9 cl,
BELL
0 13 14 10 3 21 hoc Q` "
II MS I ??'SO 7
21 8 6 I ?/ ?/ £v oar
/ X429/ - Q e,?qt
N 12? 7 5 34
21 1 , 8 6 it 17 15 8 / 3y? ?31,i
Bald Head
20
6 4 2 2 4..
/ FiR4src3
21 16 17 15 ( 4 64 A9/ WS
9Y$ 2
10 ` 4 7" en0rm
20 17 20 © 8 F/G 4sec ?GF 1? 13 41 tbpn1sel Sand dunes
/ 19 8 / /# /at 3
S 3 ..,
?C'r 9Y 20 17 11 ?a ?2 ?f eaa s 3 3
2 5
21 20 19 I 10 2$diary/ 8 6" 4 ?"^... B$
19 14 25 14 N 6 «• 9 7 s
19 19/ / 3 .......
13 19 9 9 9
8 .20 20 15 25 / a 13 11 10 14 Breakers 9 7
23 I8 /23 16 10
R hrd??
14 12 II
?:.. / rIR2.5sec
23 21 ey • 21 14 15 16 4
14 l -
21 /•el 17 15
28 21".5
?c\ 23 22 F/G2.5sec 23 t9
\ 26 21\A 27
?e\e 24 O I/2
27 24 25 25
29 j j
26? SCALE IN MILES
32 .4!l 2 26 eAf 25
?29 / /R
n • SAMPLING STATION (1977-78)
r? R4 sec
32 416/" ,,?29 28 ? 1979 SAMPLING STATION
32 z9 CHANNEL MARKER 80UY
nG4sec ?29
37 38 •33 I
40 001-7 3 5 WILMINGTON HARBOR
4'2CF" /
GRAIN SIZE SAMPLE LOCATIONS
/
• Gpn(2)5secBEL4
•* 39 FIGURE B1 ( 1 of 3
B-19
M
a

11 s
??? ? II?V HIIZ E
t ?? '. r'I+ Its S00 G?(
ttj
I v r'
?I
I /ll
Q rO i/?
Y'N = J ^I u
O a
U ? m
W
Y ~ = II° O
p.... a a ? ! I a
W ??I I U
O z ( ?I
CA z ? r
Z ? ? /raw
Cl)
I= u
I of ,o a
W
0]
r:l W
Ilu
t I ?
I ` Ip Y
?I I
? Iw
o Ida
o/
o /ro
N ?
e a 2
?y w°p+ Od
w Z W
Qry = LL.
VV N
e a v
Wm
F
c
? ? r• Z
H
0-4
Cie r
Q ,Vt Vi
V1 oc N
• M
CO 0
0 4. V
° N = CV O
W
i i b Lli ?.
0 -j ti I ?-
_ d CL- co
o
L0 $ o Z O ¢
m W
-
`?' «• m Z 2 W (f1 (f) cr-
vzw?
;?? e N N
_ wll- 00
W W W
W
N to
y°°' , • m N N iD ? J
y w a ?
. ?o
Y
.i'
B-20
r

Ju s +
e
t .? O
2

fp j ?{ I'

1 N C ~ w

W M
d

Cie
L
1 juou $
=.
z«?o w wo ,

:;l ?Ir S (14
O <
jJYY J'IyY +' } f co U •?I
?? / 1 ? wis•
>O u ?
N• ? Q M?
I ?I` ?i
wi>O O
J Q

i M
YY lyg fYl}Nf CR N ?°

i
a
rn
J
J
m
3 C
_ ¢ z Ir
I V
\ us.rt W
r-+
1.•..f .f. z Q W U.
Z
'
o i
u

Ix 4
?

3
N

3 .1 1?
Y1 W ?N 1??

? Q
c W
m 1
N .?V
I
II
1
f t

ti
`
O

e /l
Ili

I;? o
/y
ii
w

? ?l O

Z U U U
`
.: yv 2
W W W W
O
Co -i -j -i
W
O. IL

Y N CO)
N
U y w
3 "=
W A Of
Z iiY
? 1 lI 01
m
fl
I
I 1 e ??
? c >
J a
x1?
?
W W
Igo
'
I
•D
0
w
d
B-21
¦
v
7
4
v

a w r)
CL. Ix
(a
D i

W
z.- __-
GC ~
H?y8S i W J mOJ
V ?? - -' - -- -----
Q ---:---
LLJ U)
-?,; ; ¢ s o z o N
J ? m
OF Z W V)
` r e 4 jj4k
jQdsl Z J= 0
Zuj
E- 0 ui ca
O
Y X' -
A
FL4
c
Y
\ CL
15
'a0:
? t
8-0 71,oj?
0-
w
` deer y r . f G ?L T" N W
J.. z
!'1 r0.' ..ia?i:?. ? ?saW?.?_., ,? .. ?'.'•%,fT-ai ef.??? {f? ?.^1",.?riw?? ? ?+?Yi ?. ?y..?i?u'_1?.i:_ .i?Y?'?',l!? ? (?
B-22
s
APPENDIX C
Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
North Carolina
GEOLOGY
C-1
APPENDIX C
Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
North Carolina
s
GEOLOGY
Regional Geological Setting. Wilmington Harbor is in the Cape Fear area of
the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic province. The geomorphology of the
Cape Fear area was created by events such as emergence and submergence of the
Coastal Plain, deposition and erosion of sediments, development of the Cape
Fear River, and wave and current action of the Atlantic Ocean.
A basement structural high, underlying the Cape Fear area is the Cape Fear
Arch. There are no apparent topographic expressions attributed to the Cape
Fear Arch. It has a gentle warp with the axial plunge increasing sharply near
the shoreline and gradually diminishing updip toward the Fall Line. The arch
is assymetric in cross section, the north limb being steeper. It is thought
to have become a positive structure through the downwarping of its flanks
during the late, middle Eocene Epoch (about 38 to 54 m.y.a.). The depth to
basement rock at Cape Fear is about 1,100 feet.
The sediments that comprise the Coastal Plain are wedge shaped, with the
thin edge at the Fall Line and thickening toward the Atlantic Ocean. These
sediments overlie older Paleozoic-Precambrian (greater than 195 m.y.a.) age
rocks. The Fall Line is the boundary where the coastal sediments interface
with the older Paleozoic-Precambrian age rocks. of the. Piedmont. The sediments
dip to the southeast at about 13 feet per mile at Cape Fear and range in age
from Cretaceous Period (65 to 135 m.y.a.) to the Recent with the oldest
exposed at the west and the youngest at the east.
Cape Fear Area Geology and Soils. The soils of the Cape Fear area reflect the
coastal environment of deposition. These types of depositions may be barrier,
backbarrier, marsh-swamp, open ocean, and marginal marine. Most of the
Atlantic coast from Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina to the North Carolina-
South Carolina border is flanked by predominantly Holocene age (10,000 years
ago to present) barriers. The southern tip of Smith Island is a Holocene
barrier, while the north end of Smith Island to south of Snows Cut is part of
the Myrtle Beach barrier (Pleistocene, 1.8 m.y.a. to 10,000 years ago) with
Holocene surficial deposits on the seaward side at the shoreline.
The formations names of the rock and sediment commonly encountered in the
Cape Fear area are shown in table C1.
The soil and rock encountered in the Cape Fear area range may be
categorized into three groups: 1) surficial sand (Holocene), 2) Pleistocene
h? sediments, and 3) the Castle Hayne Limestone. Generally, the uppermost
sediments are poorly graded surficial sands with little or no fines (SP);
Holocene in age, and buff colored. These Holocene sands may be
indistinguishable from the underlying buff colored Pleistocene age Socastee
C-2
sand (usually found adjacent to the coast). The Holocene age sands and the
Socastee sand is also referred to as the surficial sand aquifer. Underlying
the Socastee formation is the Canepatch formation. It consists of admixtures
of sand, clay, silt, and peat and in some areas coquina is present. Silty and
sandy, blue to gray clay are present. Shell fragments or layers of shell
fragments may be found in the Socastee and the Canepatch formations. The
Canepatch formation acts as an,aquitard between the surficial or upper sands
and the underlying Waccamaw and Bear Bluff formations. The boundary between
the Waccamaw and Bear Bluff formations is difficult to distinguish and for
this report are considered as a single unit. The Waccamaw and the Bear Bluff
form the marine sand aquifer. The Waccamaw and the Bear Bluff are usually
composed of green-gray to blue-gray silty sand or sand. The sand may have
varying degrees of induration and may have an abundance of mollusk and
echinoid shells. Finally, the Castle Hayne formation is encountered below the
Bear Bluff and Waccamaw formations. The Castle Hayne is a poorly to well
cemented limestone sometimes argillaceous in places. It is occasionally very
fossiliferous with echinoderm fragments. In other places it may have numerous
mollusk casts and molds.
Various Characteristics of the Pleistocene Sediments and Eocene Limestone. In
and along the Cape Fear River from dredge disposal areas 3 to 15, significant
characteristics of individual geologic formations are encountered. The top of
the Castle Hayne formation was irregularly eroded before the deposition of the
Bear Bluff formation. Karst topography in some areas of New Hanover and
Brunswick counties indicates solutioning of the Castle Hayne which supports
the Pleistocene overburden.. The morphological development of the Cape Fear
River may have left buried river channels and flood plain deposits. There
also appears to be Castle Hayne limestone pinnacles which may be erosional or
solution remnants.
Drilling logs. The drilling logs for the borings taken in Wilmington Harbor
are available upon request.

0

4
C-3
TABLE C1

I
Geologic Formations Commonly Encountered
in the Surface or near Subsurface in the Cape Fear Area.
GEOLOGICAL TIME
I
,V
NAME
h
1. Undifferent- Holocene
iated
2. SOCASTEE Pleistocene
3. CANEPATCH Pleistocene
4. WACCAMAW Pleistocene
5. BEAR BLUFF Pliocene
6. CASTLE HAYNE Eocene
Recent
10,000 years ago to 1.8 million
years ago (abbreviated m.y.a.)
overlain by the Socastee
overlain by the Canepatch
5 to 1.8 m.y.a.
38 to 54 m.y.a.
C-4
APPENDIX D
Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
b North Carolina
ECONOMICS
..I
db
D-1
APPENDIX D

Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
North Carolina
ECONOMICS
MAINTENANCE COSTS
Costs.of maintaining Federal navigation projects are borne both by the
Federal Government and non-Federal interests. In instances where only
commercial navigation is served by the project, as is the case for Wilmington
Harbor, the traditional Federal responsibility includes all costs for actual
maintenance dredging of the authorized project. The Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 calls for cost sharing of harbor maintenance dredging
costs through a 0.04 percent fee assessed on value of cargo unloaded at the
port. Costs for diking of disposal areas, any necessary lands, easements, and
rights-of-way, and costs for dredging access channels to the Federal project
would still be the responsibility of the non-Federal interests. The North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development has
contributed funds for diking disposal areas and the NC State Ports Authority
(NCSPA) has provided funds for dredging berths at the State Ports. A summary
of maintenance costs for Fiscal Years (FY) 1981-1986 is shown in table D1.
A project length of nearly 31 miles in itself can cause maintenance
problems, such,,as physically locating the necessary disposal areas and the
associated'costs of maintaining project dimensions over that distance. It
should be noted, however, that the costs of maintenance have.not been
proportionately greater than that at Morehead City, where project length is
much less.
Maintenance costs at several ports were compared to the costs at
Wilmington harbor on a per-ton basis. The ports of Charleston and Savannah
had a recent cost of about 70 cents per ton and Wilmington and Morehead City
averaged about 80 cents per ton. Both Charleston and Savannah handle more
tons of commerce, and all three maintain a shorter channel distance than
Wilmington.
TRENDS IN WATERBORNE TRANSPORTATION
Containers. Trends in shipping are toward greater use of containers, since
cargo can be handled with greater ease and efficiency. Container facilities
for commercial traffic in Wilmington Harbor are located at the State Ports.
The first container crane was placed in operation in 1978, a second in
1979-1980, and a third in late 1984. It appears that the introduction of the
cranes has had an impact on commerce handled through the NCSPA. RTI (1983)
found that the annual compound rate of growth of total NCSPA traffic was 7.9
percent during the 1970's, with much of the growth concentrated in the last
half of the decade. Two additional container cranes are proposed in
conjunction with a new 900-foot berth to begin operation in 1990.

D-2
Statistical analysis of historical commerce data done by RTI (1983)
indicates that the container cranes have had a significant impact on the
volume of port traffic. The analysis indicated that exports increased each ti
time that a container crane was installed. In addition to the baseline
projections of NCSPA traffic without additional cranes added, RTI (1983)
developed projections of commerce based on an increase to four cranes by 1990
and six cranes by the year 2000. Projections for total NCSPA commerce for the
period FY 1987 to 1990 are shown in table D2. These represent a refinement of
longer range projections from the RTI (1983) report.
Traffic through the State Ports has generally held its own under
fluctuating conditions, and managed a large increase in container tonnage in
FY 1986. Also, the percentage of container traffic to total NCSPA traffic has
increased from 1981 to 1986. The relationship between container tonnage and
total tonnage for the last 6 fiscal years is given in table D3.
NCSPA management believes that container traffic for the port of
Wilmington will continue this rapid expansion. NCSPA anticipates a container
tonnage of about 830,000 tons in FY 1990 (see table D2). There are now five
full container lines operating with the equivalent of an additional three
lines which operate privately (i.e., handle their own cargo rather than
soliciting business). Maintenance to the existing channels is crucial to the
container traffic, especially the larger ships.
Intermodal Terminals. In January 1984, the NCSPA opened an "inland port"
shipping terminal in Charlotte, referred to as the Charlotte Intermodal
Terminal. This facility is a container-staging and storage area. Trucks
bring in containers to the terminal, where they are.loaded.on.trains for
shipment to Wilmington. In addition to cutting costs to.shippers by the bulk
movement of containers, NCSPA officials indicate that they have a very
favorable rail rate from Charlotte, which makes the State Ports more
competitive from there to Wilmington than to Charleston, South Carolina.
Recently, a similar "inland port" facility was opened in Greensboro, with
containers moved to the docks by truck. This facility provides cheaper
transportation rates to the port by coordinating container movements and
storing empty containers. These kinds of facilities point out the importance
of Wilmington Harbor in other parts of the the state. (Sources: N.C. State
Ports Authority and Gloria Sajgo, "North Carolina's Seaports and the State
Ports Authority", contained in Popular Government, Winter 1985.)
Military Uses. The Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point (MOTSU)..is located on
the west bank of the Cape Fear River, about 15 miles south of Wilmington and
five miles north of Southport, North Carolina. It is the first installation
in the United States to be designed specifically for the transfer of
ammunition and explosive cargo from land modes to sea lift or vice versa. The
MOTSU mission is to plan, coordinate, and accomplish the movement of
ammunition and other dangerous cargo through Sunny Point, and other assigned
cargo through terminal facilities in Wilmington.
The port of Wilmington has handled military traffic for the pre-positional
force, as well as regular exercises which occur at various times. As of
D-3
November 1984, some NCSPA land was being converted to use for the military,
with additional acreage to be developed in the future. Low clearance of a
powerline crossing below Wilmington limits the superstructure of ships that
can call at the port, affecting the military traffic. The NCSPA is trying to
find funds to relocate or raise this powerline, but have not succeeded as yet.
Military traffic is heavily dependent on the regular maintenance dredging of
the harbor.
Vessel Trends. Vessels have increased in size, both in length and deadweight
tonnage, over the years. Those using Wilmington Harbor include tankers, large
bulk carriers, large container ships, and general cargo vessels. Container
vessels, which make a large number of calls at the NCSPA docks, are being
increased in length at the present time, some to about 900 feet. Vessels in
the "Panamax" class have beams of 106 feet, drafts of about 35-38 feet, and
lengths of 800-950 feet.
Foreign Trade Zone. The foreign trade zone, sometimes referred to as the free
trade zone (FTZ), is a special service designation made by the NCSPA at the
port of Wilmington in 1981. This is a special customs area into which goods
can be imported with no payment of duty until they are shipped domestically.
If re-exported, no duty is paid. While in the zone, any number of activities
can be performed on the shipment. The users of the zone benefit from deferred
or reduced duty payment or avoidance of duty payment (on re-exported items,
damaged goods, and packing). The area benefits from the jobs and income
generated by work in the zone, and the NCSPA benefits from fees paid for use
of the land. (Source: Gloria Sajgo, "North Carolina's Seaports and the State
Ports Authority", Popular Government, Winter 1985.)
There was only limited use of the FTZ in Wilmington until the summer of
1983 when the first two permanent residents began operations. One is a
foreign car impost operation which refits imports to meet U.S. emission and
safety standards and then resells them worldwide. The other is an export
trading company. (Source: Sajgo, as above.)
Other Regional Ports. The five major ports in Virginia, the Carolinas, and
Georgia are Hampton Roads, (which includes Norfolk Harbor, Port of Newport
News, Hampton Creek, and Channel), Morehead City, Wilmington, Charleston, and
Savannah. Wilmington Harbor handled nine percent of the total average yearly
volume for these five ports for the 10-year period 1973-1982. Of the five
ports Hampton Roads, handled by far the most tonnage, averaging approximately
two-thirds of the total. The remaining port percentages are Morehead City-
2.8, Wilmington- 9.1, Charleston-9.7, and Savannah-10.8. Both Wilmington
Harbor and Morehead City Harbor handled a yearly average of 11,656,056 tons
for the period, of which Wilmington Harbor contributed approximately 76
percent.
In 1984, Wilmington ranked 20th in the nation in container traffic with
0.7 per cent of the total, about equal with Boston and Jacksonville. Norfolk,
f Charleston, and Savannah ranked 7th, 8th, and 9th, respectively.
Land for Port Expansion. As mentioned in the Military Uses section, some
NCSPA land has been converted to use for the military, with additional acreage
D-4
planned for the future. The proposed new container berth will expand the
existing wharf to approximately the NCSPA southern boundary. Future expansion io
is expected to be to the north. The NCSPA owns a tract of approximately 52
acres immediately north of their docks, of which about half are developable.
The NCSPA is also hoping to acquire the former Southern Wood Piedmont property
adjacent to their northern boundary from the city of Wilmington for future
expansion.
Only a few undeveloped sites with harbor access remain in Wilmington.
Land adjacent to the channel is available in Brunswick County, and recent
industrial and shipping proposals have centered in that area. Most new port
users in recent years have bought developed facilities from existing users.
At the present time, there are no announced plans for development of new
industrial docks.
I
•
D-5
K
r
1
w
R NOD n
O M ^ V N
W (D q W (D ^ (D
moo
4
ro 1 Ill -M m W^ O
L - V' R u1i 0) Cl) ++ 10
W OD CO N N 0 roar V
> u L
Q>M Cl) V) W O
LL to to N a
W N W
t O
L
O N 0) ^ O W 1
co •- M W M W D
•- UA 1 •- V C ++
(D r 7 U
CD M 03 000 C1+ a ro
1n In v (7) N O a L
> ID N ^ M (7) O .'D r
LL a c x
N N O 7 W
44 tF) Ifl
C
r W h
N U W
ro C
Cl) O 00 M ro ++
IA (D O 00 OD C
•
co m O Il) ID co
W W
>
m ++
>1- O MM O ro c M
LL O) 11) 1101 O L r u
m V Q V O ro Q
L E
Cl) IT u m
(R V) M C L Y
CO M L
O
W ; 3
L
Q r- V ++ D
CO V O O W) W (fl
0 O 1 O (D rnC^ >
> C N
01
LL M In N m ^ U
U) In co c ^
In N N n W a 4- C
D E o O
N N O
? M fR 1R ; U + N
N U U L
+ L ro Q W
N O W
O 4- N W C
U (D M O) O O a) ro c
O OD - co R O O 11 -3 0
G) 1
^ O O ^ W C
W U- > N ++ - +; W
J c m LL r IA . ID N (O N ro
to ro qT n n N a+ OD r V-
Q C> O O) V) 0) L O
H W U-
^ a
r IA • V) E O w
C IR (R fR O L W
L M Cl (C
m v- ^ a L ac
Q Urn
^
NN O 0)0) 01 •-•- W
(0 0) N N V Q ?+ 7 ro L D
Cl) •- (D n O 7 C ++ C
> • +. o (a
LL (D _ Uf D. M •.. D •r 4-
t O N N r, - W W 014
M M ^ Q 1? N N h m
Dr W ++0
N N a+ C L L L^
tR to !A u 3 0 0) O
W 4• L c A
•n ++ O W L
O D 7U Ir (a
L W ro W
-0) O O O) a ++ W •- >
OD 'q n n 7 •L ro
a) 1 0) co .0-V 41 :3 -
> ro L c 11

V
LL Q)
O
Q
L Z
L O 4-
C U
O O N W +? ; O Q h
O ^ M D C
W O 3 IA • LL
N N LL U W' Y)
M fR M C C L
w
O
^ W
+J
O n a r W U
tv) ++ c
-
y . -t U r L
L O V- W W +?

^ ro O V) c (O
N N I a N U)
Oro 0113 N) C O
U W C W +• N •? V-
L .•- ++ O W OD O •
^ Q 017 C D(3)D U
ro D D 7^ W
N
L 7 ^ W •? C a
Z
O ?M LL UL•r L
1] U V1 0 ++ U C W ro O
L ro 0 c ++ •? D ++
U C
ro N a NO W ac O
'D LO ,
U 4J 4J 0 Y
c D+ L O
u u E CP
C 7 a) a O 1 N c 0 L C
O LL r 0. L > Q •?
M 7 0) ro +• N C 4- E
D C W ro +1 L W r •.
C ro +• ++ O W O L N r
L L Y ro O {- in o v) O •;
E W 4J -- +•r ^ N rL
D ca (aa L V W
) U N
3
LL a m
+1
D-6
TABLE D2
CARGO PROJECTIONS
N. C. STATE PORT AT WILMINGTON
Category ' FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990
Container Freight 652,466 648,000 703,000 759,000 828,000
Breakbulk 589,857 765,000 800,000 825,000 850,000
Dry Bulk 71,854 103,290 103,290 103,290 103,290
Liquid Bulk 1,267,065 1,384,170 1,384,170 1,384,170 1.,384,170
Military Activities 60,484 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
Total (All Types) 2,641,726 2,960,460 3,050,460 3,131,460 3,225,460
All figures i6 short tons, FY 1986 is actual, FY begins Julyl1
Source:- N. C. State Ports Authority
•
D-7
r
TABLE D3
' Container and Total Traffic at the NC Sta te Port
M
TRAFFIC
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
(TONS)
Container 421,662 502,439 521,391 509,144 479,963 653,424
Total NCSPA 2,734,974 2,577,380 2,349,055 2,704,734 2,573,108 2,641,726
% Cont./NCSPA 15.4 19.5 22.2 18.8 18.7 24.7
•
i
D-8
K
•
?r
APPENDIX E
Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
North Carolina
EVALUATION OF SECTION 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES
.t
,K
E-1
K
6

01
APPENDIX E
Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor (LTMWH)
North Carolina
Evaluation of Section-404(b)(1) Guidelines
40 CFR 230
Section 404 Public Notice No. CESAW-PD-89-N-10-65-0007
1. Re view of Compliance (230.10(a)-(d)) Preliminary 1/ Final 2/
A review of the NEPA.Document
in dicates that:
a. The discharge represents the least
environmentally damaging
practicable alternative and if in
a special aquatic site, the
activity associated with the
discharge must have direct access
or proximity to, or be located in
the aquatic ecosystem to fulfill
its basic purpose (if no, see
section 2 and information _ _ _ _
gathered in the NEPA document); YESIXI NOI_i* YESIXI N01_1
b. The activity does not:
1) violate applicable State water
quality standards or effluent
standards prohibited under Section
307 of: the CWA; 2) jeopardize the
existenceof federally listed
endangered or threatened species
or their habitat; and ) violate
requirements of any feaerally
designated marine sanctuary (if
no, see section 2b and check
responses from resource and water _
quality certifying agencies); YESIXI N01_1* YESIXI N01_1
c. The activity will not cause or
contribute to significant
degradation of waters cf the U.S.
including adverse effects on human
health, life stages of organisms
dependent on the aquatic
ecosystem, ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability, and
recreational, esthetic, and economic _ _
values (if no, see section 2); YESIXI NOI_I* YESIXI 11101_1
d. Appropriate and practicable steps
have been taken to minimize
potential adverse impacts of the
discharge on the aquatic

ecosystem (if no, see section 5;. _
YESIXI N01 I* YESIXI N011
Proceed to Section 2
*, 1, 2/ See page E-7
9/89
E-2
Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina (con't)
2. Technical Evaluation Factors (Subparts C-F)
a. Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of the Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart C)
(1) Substrate impacts.
(2) Suspended particulates/turbidity
impacts.
(3) Water column impacts.
(4) Alteration of current patterns
and water circulation.
(5) Alteration of normal water
fluctuations/hydroperiod.
(6) Alteration of salinity
gradients.
b. Biological Characteristics of the
Aquatic Ecosystem (Subpart D)
Not Signifi- Signifi-
N/A cant cant*
I I X I I
I I?
I I
I I X I I
I I X I I

IX I I
I I
I
IX I I
I I I I
IX I I
a
(1) Effect on threatened/endangered I I I
species and their habitat. I l X I I
(2) Effect on the aquatic food web. I I X I
(3) Effect on other wildlife (mammals, ( I i I
birds, reptiles, and amphibians). I I X I
c. Special Aquatic Sites (Subpart E)
(1) Sanctuaries and refuges.
(2) Wetlands.
(3) Mud flats.
(4) Vegetated shallows.
(5) Coral reefs.
(6) Riffle and pool complexes.
d. Human Use Characteristics (Subpart F)
(1) Effects on municipal and private I X ( I I
water supplies. I I I I
(2) Recreational and commercial i I I - I
fisheries impacts. I I X I
(3) Effects on water-related recreation.) I X
(4) Esthetic impacts. I I X I
(5) Effects on parks, national and I I I i
historical monuments, national I I I I
seashores, wilderness areas, I I I I
research sites, and similar I I I
preserves. I _X I I J
Remarks: Where a check is placed under
the significant category, preparer add
explanation below.
@ 2(c)(2) See sections 3.2.2, 4.2.3 and 5.2.3 of the FEIS, LTMWH.
Proceed to-Section 3
*See page E-7
•
9/89 E-3
Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina (con't)
3. Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (Subpart G) 3/
` a. The following information has been
considered in evaluating the biological
• availability of possible contaminants in
dredged or fill material. (Check only
those appropriate.)
(1) Physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
(2) Hydrography in relation to
known or anticipated _
sources of contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
(3) Results from previous
testing of the material
or similar material in _
the vicinity of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I X
(4) Known, significant sources of
persistent pesticides from _
land runoff or percolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I_I
(5) Spill records for petroleum
products or designated
(Section 311 of CWA) _
hazardous substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I
(6) Other public records of
significant introduction of
contaminants from industries,
municipalities, or other _
sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I _ I
(7) Known existence of substantial
material deposits of
substances which could be
released in harmful quantities
to the aquatic environment by _
man-induced discharge activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I_I
(8) Other sources (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I_I
List appropriate references.
FEIS, LTMWH
b. An evaluation of the appropriate information in 3a
above indicates that there is reason to believe the
proposed dredge or fill material is not a carrier of
contaminants, or that levels of contaminants are sub-
stantively similar at extraction and disposal sites and
not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site.
The material meets the testing exclusion criteria. YES IXI NO I_I*
Proceed to Section 4
• *, 3/, see page E-7
9/89 E-4
Long-Term Maintenance of Wilmington, North Carolina (con't)
4. Disposal Site Determinations (230.11(f)).
a. The following factors as appropriate,
have been considered in evaluating the r
disposal site.
(1) Depth of water at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(2) Current'velocity, direction, and _
variability at disposal site . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(3) Degree of turbulence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I X
(4) Water column stratification . . . . . . . . . . . IXI
(5) Discharge vessel speed and
direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
(6) Rate of discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I X I
(7) Dredged material characteristics
(constituents, amount and type _
of material, settling velocities). . . . .IXI
(8) Number of discharges per unit of
time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I X I
(9) Other factors affecting rates and
patterns of mixing (specify)
List appropriate references.
FEIS, LTMWH
b. An evaluation of the appropriate factors in
4a above indicates that the disposal site _
and/or size of mixing zone are acceptable . . . .YES IXI NO I_1*
5. Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects (Subpart H).
All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken,
through application of recommendations of 230.70-230.77,
to ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed
discharge. List actions taken. YES IXI NO 1_1*
For wetlands, see sections 3.2.2, 4.2.3, and 5.2.3 of the FEIS. For water
quality, see sections 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.3, and 5.1.4.2 of the FEIS.
Return to section 1 for final stage of compliance review. See also
note 3/, page E-7
*See page E-7
9/89 E-5
Lona-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina (con't
6. Factual Determinations (230.11).
r A review of appropriate information as identified in
• items 2-5 above indicates that there is minimal
potential for short- or long-term environmental
effects of the proposed discharge as related to:
a. Physical substrate at the disposal site
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES IXI NO I _I*
b. Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES IXI NO 1 _1*
c. Suspended particulates/turbidity
(review sections 2a, 3, 4, and 5). YES IXI NO 1 _1*
d. Contaminant availability
(review sections 2a, 3, and 4). YES IXI NO 1 _1*
e. Aquatic ecosystem structure and function YES IXI NO I _I*
(review sections 2b and c, 3, and 5).
f. Disposal site
(review sections 2, 4, and 5). YES IXI NO 1_1*
g. Cumulative impact on the aquatic
ecosystem. YES IXI NO I_I*
h. Secondary impacts on the aquatic
ecosystem. YES IXI NO 1_I*
7. Findings.
a. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the _
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IXI
b. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material complies with the
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines with the
inclusion of the following conditions:
*See page E-7

9/89 E-6
Lona-Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor,-North Carolina (con't
c. The proposed disposal site for discharge of
dredged or fill material does not comply with
the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for the r
following reasons(s):
(1) There is a less damaging practicable alternative. . . . . I_I
(2) The proposed discharge will result in significant _
degradation of the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . I_I
(3) The proposed discharge does not include all
practicable and appropriate measures to minimize _
potentiy,l harm to the aquatic ecosystem . . . . . . . . I_I
8. 41
?,,-
VLawrence P. Sa nders Thomas C. SuerRiafin
Chief, P1 nn' Division Lieutenant Colonel,
Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Date: Date: /,q Y
*A negative, si ificant, or unknown response indicates that the permit
application may not be in compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
1/ Negative responses to three or more of the compliance criteria. at this stage
indicate that the proposed projects may not be evaluated using this "short form
procedure." Care should be used in assessing pertinent portions of the
technical information of items 2 a-d, before completing the final review of
compliance.
2/ Negative response to one of the compliance criteria at this stage indicates
that the proposed project does not comply with the guidelines. If the
economics of navigation and anchorage of Section 404(b)(2) are to be evaluated
in the decision-making process, the "short form evaluation process is
inappropriate."
3/ If the dredged or fill material cannot be excluded from individual testing,
the "short-forma' evaluation process is inappropriate.

U
9/89 E-7
r
APPENDIX F
Long -Term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor
North Carolina
Biological Opinions under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended
r
•
F-1
40
•

¦
` United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 26, 1988
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
We have reviewed your July 29, 1988 biological assessment of the
long-term maintenance of Wilmington Harbor, New Hanover and Brunswick
Counties, 'North Carolina, with regard to potential impacts to species
protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 , as amended (Act)
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The biological assessment is adequate and supports the conclusion of
no effect' with which we concur. In view of this, we believe that the
requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been satisfied. However,
obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1)
new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may
affect l i'sted species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner which
was not considered in this biological assessment; or, (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected
by the identified action.
Your interest and initiative in enhancing endangered and threatened
species are appreciated.
Sincerely yours,/
L.K. Mike Gantt
Field Supervisor

F-2
4%WAT Oe CO,y
a
r
'Fe "Arcs P 6
UNITED STATES :PARTMENT OFCOMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Silver Spring. Maryland 20910
0.
to

Dec. 23, 1988
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
U.S. Department of the Army
Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
This responds to your July 29, 1988, request for an Endangered
Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation on proposed long-term
maintenance of the Wilmington Harbor Project. A Biological
Assessment (BA) was transmitted by the Corps of Engineers
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.of 1973
(ESA).
Enclosed is the Biological Opinion prepared by the 'National
Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). In formulating this
opinion, NOAA Fisheries used the best available information,
including scientific and commercial data. The opinion addresses
the-potential impacts of annual maintenance dredging of;the
30.8 mile long project on endangered and threatened species.
We conclude that these actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any listed species under our jurisdiction,
but that the activity may result in the injury or mortality of
individual shortnose sturgeon or Kemp's ridley, green, or
loggerhead sea turtles. Therefore, pursuant to Section 7(b)`(4)
of the ESA,-we have established a low level of incidental take
and terms and conditions that we believe are necessary to
minimize and monitor such impacts. These terms and conditions
are contained in the enclosed "Incidental Take Statement."
I look forward to continued cooperation in future consultations.
Sincerely,
C j mes W. Brennan
sistant Administrator
for Fisheries
Enclosures
75 Years Stimulating America's Progress * 1913-1988 F-3
4
sag s??W
IN aI

V
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
SECTION 7 CONSULTATION
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Wilmington District
Activities: Long-term Maintenance Dredging of the Wilmington
Harbor Project.
Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service
(NOAA Fisheries), Southeast Region
Date Issued: DEC 2 3 1988
Background:
In accordance with Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act,
the Wilmington District COE in a letter dated July 29, 1988,
initiated consultation on proposed long-term maintenance of the
Wilmington Harbor Project. This consultation was to consider the
potential impacts of annual removal of approximately 2,300,000
cubic yards of shoal sediments from the project area. Of
particular' ",concern, was the potential impacts of this project on
recently discovered populations of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevirostrum) in the Brunswick River, North Carolina.
On January 4, 1988, the Wilmington District COE initiated
consultation for navigation improvements of the Wilmington Harbor
- Northeast Cape Fear River Project by requesting a list of
endangered and threatened species under NOAA Fisheries
jurisdiction. In a letter of January 12, 1988, NOAA Fisheries
provided a list of all endangered and threatened species under
our jurisdiction known to occur in North Carolina waters,
suggesting that the loggerhead turtle, the Kemp's ridley turtle
and the shortnose sturgeon were most likely to be affected by the
proposed activity. In subsequent communications with the COE,
NOAA Fisheries indicated that the same species might be affected
by long-term maintenance dredging of the Wilmington Harbor
Project. On July 29, 1988, the COE transmitted a Biological
Assessment (BA) concluding that the "continued operation and
maintenance of the project will not affect any listed species."
This biological opinion responds to the COE July 29, 1988,
letter. The conclusions offered in this opinion are based on
current information on the distributions and abundance of
threatened and endangered species that may occur in the project
area, and the probable effects of annual maintenance dredging on
these listed species.
F-4
2
Proposed Activities
This project consists of a channel (40 feet deep, 500 feet wide)
through the ocean bar, up the Cape Fear River, 38 feet deep, 400
feet wide, with increased width at bends, to the upstream end of
the anchorage basin (foot of Castle Street) at Wilmington.
Dredging in the protected reaches of the channel is accomplished
using pipeline, bucket and barge, or clamshell dredges. A
seagoing hopper dredge is used in the ocean bar channels.
Listed Species likely to occur in the project area
Listed species under the jurisdiction of the NOAA Fisheries that
may occur in the project area and may be affected by the
proposed action include:
(1) the endangered right whale - Balaena glacialis
(2) the threatened loggerhead turtle - Caretta.caretta
(3) the endangered/threatened green turtle- Chelonia mydas
(4) the endangered Kemp's ridley turtle - Lepidochelys kempi
(5) the endangered shortnose sturgeon - Acipeneer
brevirostrum
Green turtles in U.S. waters are listed as threatened,texcept for
the Florida breeding population which is listed as endangered.
Additional species known to occur along the North Carolina coast
include:
(1) the finback whale - Balaenoptera physalus
(2) the humpback whale - Megaptera novaeangliae
(3) the sei whale - Balaenoptera borealis
(4) the hawksbill turtle - Eretmochelys imbricata
(5) the leatherback turtle - Dermochelys coriacea
NOAA Fisheries has determined that these species are unlikely to
be affected by the proposed activity.
Biology and distribution of Species
Right whale (Balaena glacialis)

•

Right whale populations in the North Atlantic are estimated at a
few hundred individuals (NMFS 1984). In the western North
Atlantic, stocks of right whales are seasonally abundant in areas
such as the Great South Channel, at the mouth of the Bay of Fundy
and on Brown's Bank (NMFS 1985). During winter months, a portion
of the population moves from the summer foraging grounds to the
calving/breeding grounds off Florida-South Carolina. Aerial
surveys in February 1984, between Ossabaw Island, Georgia, and
Jupiter Inlet, Florida, revealed the presence of 13 right whales
F-5
3
V
It
0
including four cow/calf pairs (Kraus, pers. comm.). During 1985
winter surveys which began in early February, an additional 10
right whales were sighted (Anon. 1985). These data, observations
by the right whale sighting network, and aerial surveys conducted
by the University of Rhode Island, indicate the presence of a
right whale calving area off the southeastern coast of the United
States. The majority of these sightings have occurred off the
coast of Georgia, but three cow/calf pairs were observed within
five miles of the Florida shoreline.
Right whales feed primarily on copepods, but also take euphasids.
Calves are produced in late winter; adult females calve every
three to four years. Sexual maturity is reached at about eight
years (size at this stage is from 30-40 feet in length). This
species was decimated during the 1800's by commercial whaling
fleets; it was the preferred target species because right whales
floated and were easily butchered. Present populations of right
whales are estimated at about 1-4% of the initial populations.
Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta)
The threatened loggerhead turtle is the most abundant sea turtle
species occurring in U.S. waters. Loggerheads inhabit coastal
areas of the'.continental shelf where they forage around rocky
places, coral reefs, shellfish beds and old boat wrecks; they
commonly.enter bays, lagoons and estuaries (Ernst and Barbour
1972). Aerial surveys of loggerhead turtles at sea indicate that
they are most common in waters less than 50 m in depth (Shoop et
al. 1981; Fritts et al. 1983), but they occur pelagically as
well. The primary food sources of the loggerhead turtle are
benthic ;invertebrates including molluscs, crustaceans and sponges
(Mortimer 1982). Crabs and conchs were identified (Carr 1952) as
the most frequently found items in stomachs, although loggerheads
often eat fish, clams, oysters, sponges and jellyfish. Ernst and
Barbour (1972) included marine grasses and seaweeds, mussels,
borers, squid, shrimp, amphipods, crabs, barnacles and sea
urchins among the foods of loggerhead turtles. The horseshoe
crab (Limulus polyphemus) has been identified as a major food
source of loggerheads in Mosquito Lagoon, Florida (Mortimer
1982).
In U.S. waters, loggerhead turtles commonly occur throughout the
inner continental shelf. Populations of loggerheads have been
under stress for a number of years due, among other things, to
mortalities caused by the incidental drowning in shrimp trawls.
An estimated 9,874 individuals are killed annually by shrimp
trawlers in the Gulf of Mexico and southern North Atlantic
(Henwood and Stuntz 1987).
Several sea turtle researchers (Ehrhart 1987; Frazer 1986; Murphy
pers. comm.) have suggested that loggerhead turtle nesting
populations in the U.S. are continuing to decline at rates of up
F-6
4
to five percent annually. A theoretical explanation for these
declines was recently published (Crouse et al. 1987). Applying a
Leftovitch stage-class matrix model of loggerhead populations on
Little Cumberland Island, GA, these authors showed that
loggerhead population stability is more sensitive to changes in
the subadult stage of development than in other developmental
stages. Records of turtle mortalities from dredging indicate
that the majority of those animals are subadults. By impacting
the most sensitive developmental stages of loggerhead turtles,
dredging may exert a major impact on the recovery of these
stocks.
Green turtle (Chelonia mydas)
Green turtles are circumglobally distributed mainly in waters
between the northern and southern 200C isotherms (Hirth 1971).
In the western Atlantic, several major nesting assemblages have
been identified and studied (Peters 1954; Carr and Ogren 1960;
Duellman 1961; Parsons 1962; Pritchard 1969a; Schulz 1975; Carr
et al. 1978). In the continental U.S., however, the only known
green turtle nesting occurs on the Atlantic coast of°Florida
(Ehrhart 1979).
While nesting activity is obviously important in determining
population distributions, the remaining portion of the green
turtle's life is spent on the foraging grounds. Some of the
principal feeding pastures in the western Atlantic 0cean include:
upper west coast of Florida, northwestern coast of Yucatan
peninsula, south coast of Cuba, Mosquito Coast of Nicaragua,
Caribbean coast of Panama, scattered areas along Colombia, and
scattered areas off the Brazilian coast (Hirth 1971). The
preferred food sources in these areas are: Cymodocea, Thalassia,
Zostera, Sagittaria and Vallisneria (Babcock 1937; Underwood
1951; Carr 1954; Carr 1952; Neill 1958; Mexico 1966).
Although no green turtle feeding pastures or major nesting
beaches have been identified on the southeast Atlantic coast,
evidence provided by Mendonca and Ehrhart (1982) indicates that
immature green turtles may utilize lagoonal systems during
periods of their lives. These authors identified a population of
young green turtles (carapace length 29.5 - 75.4 cm) believed to
be resident in the Mosquito Lagoon, Florida. The Indian River
system, of which Mosquito Lagoon is a part, supported a green
turtle fishery during the late 1800's (Ehrhart 1983), and these
turtles may be remnants of this historical colony. Similar use
of inshore systems may occur in North Carolina waters, as well.
Kemp's ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempi)
Of the seven extant species of sea turtles of the world, the
Kemp's ridley is probably in the greatest danger of extinction.
The only major nesting area for this species is a single-stretch
10
40
F-7
IF
5
of beach near Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico (Carr 1963;
Hildebrand 1963). Virtually the entire world population of adult
females nest annually in this single locality (Pritchard 1969b).
When nesting aggregations at Rancho Nuevo were discovered in
1947, adult female populations were estimated to be in excess of
40,000 individuals (Hildebrand 1963). By the early 19701s, the
world population estimate of mature female Kemp's ridleys had
been reduced to 2500-5000 individuals. Most recent estimates of
the total population of sexually mature female Kemp's ridleys are
540 turtles (Byles pers comm 1985).
The foraging range of mature Kemp's ridley turtles is restricted
to the Gulf of Mexico. Evidence provided by tagging programs
(Chavez 1968), suggests that post-nesting females move in
comparable numbers to the north (mostly to Louisiana) and to the
south (mostly to Campeche) (Pritchard and Marquez 1973). It is
assumed that adult male turtles follow similar migratory
patterns`.
Movements, of .hatchling Kemp's ridley turtles may be controlled by
current patterns: either the loop current for northward
transport or an eddy for southward transport with occasional
transportation through the Florida Straits via the Gulf stream
(Hildebrand _1982). Young Kemp's ridley turtles are known to
occur in-eastern U.S. coastal waters from Florida to Canadian
portions' of the Gulf of Maine (Lazell 1980). Pritchard and
Marquez (1973) suggest that passive transportation via the Gulf
Stream up the eastern coast of the U.S. may be the usual
dispersal pattern of young Kemp's ridley turtles. They
speculate that turtles feed and grow rapidly during passive
transport, and by the time they reach offshore waters of New
England they are large enough for active swimming. At this
stage they reverse the direction of travel toward the Gulf of
Mexico. Kemp's ridley turtles feed primarily in shallow coastal
waters on bottom-living crustaceans (Hildebrand 1982).
Organisms identified from stomachs include crabs (Polyonchus,
Hepatus, Callinectes, Panopeus, Mineppe, Ovalipes, Calappa,
Portunus, Arenaeus), fish (Lutianus, Leiostomus) and molluscs
(Noculana, Corbula, Mulinia, Nassarius) (Dobie et al. 1961;
Pritchard and Marquez 1973). All of these genera are forms
common in the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern coast of the United
States.
Kemp's ridley turtles may also burrow in the bottom mud of
channels during periods of extreme low temperature, as has been
observed with loggerheads. Adverse effects may occur if ridleys
w are dislodged from the warmer mud during extreme cold periods.
"Cold-stunning" is likely to occur if Kemp's ridleys are
subjected to temperatures below 110C for extended periods;
therefore, during winter dredging, ridleys may be in a torpid
state and-unable to react to the suction of the oncoming
draghead.
F-8
6
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)
Shortnose sturgeon occur in rivers, estuaries, and at sea, along
the east cost of North America from the Saint John River, New
Brunswick, Canada (Leim and Day 1959), to the Indian River, FL
(Evermann and Bean 1898). This anadromous species migrates
upriver to spawn (spawning occurs between February and May
depending on latitude), and returns downstream in the fall
(Dadswell et al. 1984). In some river systems during the fall, a
portion of the breeding adults migrate upstream to deep,
overwintering sites adjacent to the spawning grounds (Greeley
1935; Dadswell 1979; Dovel 1981; Buckley 1982); some ripening and
most nonripening adults spend the winter in deep, saline sites
(Dadswell 1979; Marchette and Smiley 1982). Juveniles and post-
spawning adults may move downstream to areas adjacent to the salt
wedge during the summer months (June through August). As water
temperatures cool, adults move to the lower estuary where
salinities exceed 15 ppt.
The shortnose sturgeon is a benthic feeder whose diet is composed
of small invertebrates and occasional plant material. Juvenile
sturgeon feed primarily on benthic insects and crustaceans, while
adult sturgeon eat mostly molluscs (Dadswell 1984). The,species
composition of food items found in sturgeon stomachs varies
according to the river system in which the animal was captured,
and whether the sturgeon was taken in fresh or salt water.
During the summer months, sturgeon forage at night in;."shallow
areas over mud bottom in depths of 1-5 m; winter feeding is
restricted to deeper waters with mud bottoms. In saline waters,
sturgeon feed over sandy or mud bottoms in 5-10 m depths.
Assessment of Impacts
Dredging could negatively impact right whales through harassment,
injury, and mortality while hopper dredges are in transit to and
from the offshore disposal sites. The potential for right
whale/vessel collisions would be highest during time periods when
whales are migrating to and from the calving grounds off Georgia
and northern Florida. NOAA Fisheries does not anticipate any
effects of the proposed dredging activity on populations of right
whales, but believes that additional precautions to avoid
vessel/right whale collisions may be necessary during the months
of December through April.
•
Of all the activities which may negatively impact sea turtles,
the only quantitative information available concerns the catch
and mortality of sea turtles by shrimp trawlers. However, we are A
beginning to develop a significant data base on sea turtle
mortalities associated with channel dredging operations using a
hopper dredge. During maintenance dredging of Cape Canaveral
Harbor, Florida, entrance channel, well over 100 sea turtle
mortalities have been documented. At Kings Bay, Georgia, a
F-9

7
minimum of 11 sea turtles were killed during recent construction
dredging. Sea turtles are known to occur in navigational
channels all along the eastern seaboard, and it appears likely
that hopper dredges will take sea turtles in any channels where
turtles reside. The magnitude of potential impacts from these
activities, considered on an additive basis for the southeast
region is unknown, but could be significant. The proposed
project may result in the injury or death of an unknown number of
sea turtles, particularly in areas where hopper dredges are
used.
Potential direct impacts to shortnose sturgeon, such as
harassment, injury and mortality, may result from channel
dredging. Although we have no direct evidence that sturgeon
occur in the project area, the recent discovery of shortnose
sturgeon in the Brunswick River, N.C., suggests that the Cape
Fear River drainage probably contains a self-sustaining
population of shortnose sturgeon. Assuming that sturgeon reside
in the project area, the dredging of the channel could result in
injury or death of an unknown number of individuals.
Conclusions
Riaht whale:
NOAA Fisheries concludes that the proposed activities are not
likely to.jeopardize the continued existence of the right whale
(Balaena glacialis). However, we believe that additional
precautions should be taken during December through April when
right whales may be migrating along the coast. NOAA Fisheries
concludes that hopper dredging and offshore disposal during these
times may affect right whales, and that a right whale "watch"
should be instituted aboard the dredges during these times to
assure that dredge/whale collisions during transit to and from
the offshore disposal site are avoided.
Sea Turtles:
NOAA Fisheries concludes that dredging with a hopper dredge may
affect the green turtle (Chelonia mydas), the Kemp's ridley
turtle (Lepidochelys kempi), and the loggerhead turtle (Caretta
caretta). This conclusion is based on the critically small
population sizes of Kemp's ridley and green turtles, the
suspected occurrence of greens and Kemp's ridleys in the shipping
channel, the known adverse impacts on sea turtles associated with
A hopper dredging, and the cumulative impacts of past and future
dredging on these species. The additive effects of hopper
dredging may negatively impact the loggerhead turtle (Caretta
caretta), because of the annual magnitude of hopper dredging in
the southeastern U.S., and the fact that subadult loggerheads are
the predominant turtles taken during these activities.
F-10
8
Shortnose sturgeon:
Based on the best available information, NOAA Fisheries believes
that the proposed activity is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of populations of the shortnose sturgeon.
However, we conclude that channel dredging may adversely affect
shortnose sturgeon by displacement, injury or mortality of an
undetermined number of fishes within the population. A
conservation recommendation and an incidental take statement
containing measures to reduce these adverse impacts are provided
with this opinion.
Critical habitat
No critical habitat for sea turtles or the shortnose sturgeon has
been designated or proposed within or near the project site.
Cumulative Effects
"Cumulative effects" are those effects of future state or private
activities, not involving federal activities, that are reasonably
certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action
subject to consultation. At this time, there are no known
projects or activities of this type ongoing or planned within the
project site.
Reinitiation of Consultation
Reinitiation of consultation is required if (1) the amount or
extent of taking specified in the incidental take statement is
exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of this action that
may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to
an extent not previously considered; (3) the identified action is
subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the
listed species that was not considered in the biological opinion;
or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated
that may be affected by the identified action.

A
F-11
•

A
9
Conservation Recommendation
Pursuant to Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA, the following
conservation recommendations are made to assist the Corps of
Engineers in reducing or eliminating adverse impacts to sea
turtles and shortnose sturgeon resulting from dredging in the
vicinity of Wilmington Harbor - Northeast Cape Fear River, New
Hanover and Brunswick Counties, North Carolina.
1. A survey to establish the distribution and abundance of
shortnose sturgeon in the Cape Fear drainage should be
conducted. This survey should provide basic biological
information on the shortnose sturgeon including movements,
seasonality, size and age structure, migration patterns,
feeding habits, etc. This study should be designed to
provide needed information on the shortnose sturgeon for
this project, and future maintenance dredging and
improvements of channels in the area.
F-12
Incidental Take Statement

Section 7(b)(4) of the Endangered Species Act requires that when
a proposed agency action is found to be consistent with Section
7(a)(2) of the Act and the proposed action may incidentally take
individuals of listed species, NOAA Fisheries will issue a
statement that specifies the impact (amount or extent) of such
incidental taking and the terms and conditions that must be
followed. Only incidental taking by the Federal agency or
applicant that complies with the specified terms and conditions
of this statement, is authorized and exempt from the taking
prohibition of the ESA.
No records of sea turtle or shortnose sturgeon take in the
project area have been reported. However, there is a growing
body of evidence that dredging with a hopper dredge may adversely
affect turtles; it is also possible that shortnose sturgeon may
experience negative impacts as a result of dredging activities.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 7(b)(4) of the ESA, an incidental
take (by injury or mortality) level of one documented Kemp's
ridley or green turtle, ten loggerhead turtles or ten shortnose
sturgeon is set for this project. If the incidental take meets
or exceeds this specified level, the COE must reinitiate
consultation. The Southeast Region, NOAA Fisheries, will
cooperate with the COE in the review of the incident to.
the need for developing further mitigatio'n,measures.
The reasonable and prudent measures that NOAA Fisheries believes
are necessary to minimize the impact of incidental takings
associated with the proposed project have been discussed with the
COE and will be incorporated in the project design. The
following terms and conditions are established.for this project
to implement the identified mitigation measures and to document
the incidental take should such take occur:
1) A preliminary gill net survey of the project site will
be conducted to determine the presence of shortnose
sturgeon. This survey will be completed prior to
dredging.
2) If the preliminary survey indicates large
concentrations of sturgeon or if sturgeon mortalities
are observed during dredging, the COE should be
prepared to implement a plan to capture and remove
shortnose sturgeon from the immediate vicinity of the
project.
r
3) The contractor will advise workers that there are civil 4b
and criminal penalties for harming, harassing or i,
killing sea turtles, or shortnose sturgeon which are
protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. The contractor will keep a log detailing all
sightings, collisions, damage or killing of sea turtles
F-13
or shortnose sturgeon, and shall be held responsible
for any listed species harmed, harassed or killed as a
result of dredging..
4) Any take of sea turtles or shortnose sturgeon resulting
in injury or death to the animal will be reported
immediately to the Wilmington District COE and to NOAA
Fisheries Southeast Regional Office.
5) If hopper dredges are used, vessels should be
adequately screened to document turtle or shortnose
sturgeon mortalities, and a minimum 25% observer
coverage should be maintained.
Section 7(b)(4)(C) of the ESA specifies that in order to allow an
incidental take of an endangered or threatened marine mammal
species, the taking must be authorized under Section 101 (a)(5)
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Since no taking of
marine mammals incidental to the proposed activity has been
requested or authorized, no statement on incidental take of
endangered or threatened marine mammals is provided.

F-14
1
REFERENCES
Anonymous. 1985. Offshore Georgia: Calving ground for an .
Endangered Species. Coastlines, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp 8-11.
Babcock, H. L. 1937. The sea turtles of the Bermuda Islands, with
a survey of the present state of the turtle fishing
industry. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 107: 595-601.
Buckley, J. L. 1982. Seasonal movement, reproduction, and
artificial spawning of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevirostrum) from the Connecticut River. M.S. Thesis,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 64pp.
Butler, R. W., W. A. Nelson and T. A. Henwood. 1987. A Trawl
survey method for estimating loggerhead turtle, Caretta
caretta, abundance in five eastern Florida channels and
inlets. Fishery Bulletin, Vol. 85, No. 3.
Byles, R. Personal Communication. U.S. Fish and wildlife
Service.
Carr, A. F. 1952. Handbook of turtles. Ithaca, New York: Cornell
University Press.
Carr, A. F. 1954. The passing of the fleet. A.I.B.S. Bull., 4(5):
17-19.
Carr, A. F. 1963. Panspecific reproductive convergence in
Lepidochelys kempi. Ergebn. Biol. 26: 298-303.
Carr, A. F., M. H. Carr and A. B. Meylan. 1978. The ecology and
migrations of sea turtles. 7 The western Caribbean green
turtle colony. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 162(1): 1-46.
Carr, A. F. and L. Ogren. 1960. The ecology and migrations of sea
turtles 4. The green turtle in the Caribbean Sea. Bull.
Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 131(1): 1-48.
Carr, A., L. Ogren and C. McVea. 1980. Apparent hibernation by
the Atlantic loggerhead turtle of Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Biol. Conserv. 19: 7-14.
Carr, D. and P. H. Carr. 1978. Survey and reconnaissance of
nesting shores and coastal habitats of marine turtles in
Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. NMFS
report. 34pp.

a

F-15

2
r Chavez, H. 1968. Marcado y recaptura de individuos de tortuga
lora Lepidochelys kempi (Garman), Inst. Nac. Inv. Biol.
Pes., Mexico, Vol 19, 28pp.
Crouse, D. T., L. B. Crowder and H. Caswell. 1987. A stage-based
model for loggerhead sea turtles and implications for
conservation. Ecology 68(5): 1412-1423.
Dadswell, M. J. 1979. Biology of the shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum) in the Saint John River estuary,
New Brunswick, Canada. Trans. Atl. Chap. Can. Soc. Environ.
Biol. Annu. Meet. 1975: 20-72.
Dadswell, M. J., B. D. Taubert, T. S. Squires, D. Marchette and
J. Buckley. 1984. Synopsis of biological data on shortnose
sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818. FAO
Fisheries Synopsis No. 140. NOAA Tech Report NMFS 14, U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, 3300 Whitehaven St., Washington, DC.
Dobie, J. L., L. H. Ogren and J. F. Fitzpatrick, Jr. 1961. Food
notesand records of the Atlantic ridley turtle
(Lepdochelys kempi) from Louisiana. Copeia 1961(1):
109-110.
Dovel,.W., L. 1981. The endangered shortnose sturgeon of the
Hudson estuary: Its life history and vulnerability to the
activities of man. An investigation by the Oceanic Society
under contract (No. DE-AC-39-79-RC-10074) to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 139pp.
Duellman, W. E. 1961. The amphibians and reptiles of Michoacan,
Mexico. Publ. Univ. Kans. Mus.'Nat. Hist., 15: 1-148.
Ehrhart, L. M. 1979. A survey of marine turtle nesting at Kennedy
Space Center, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, North
Brevard County, Florida, 1-122. Unpublished report to
Division of Marine Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida, Fla.
Dept. Nat. Res.
Ehrhart, L. M. 1983. Marine turtles of the Indian River lagoon
system. Florida Sci. 46(3/4): 337-346.
Ehrhart, L. M. 1987. A status review of the loggerhead turtle,
Caretta caretta, in the Western Atlantic. WATS Proceedings
t (Unpublished).
Ernst, L. H. and R. W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United
States. Univ. Kentucky Press, Lexington Ky.
F-16
3
Frazer, N. B. 1986. Survival from egg to adulthood in a declining
population of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta.
Herpetologica 42:47-55.
Fritts, T. H., A. B. Irvine, R. D. Jennings, L. A. Collum, W.
Hoffman and M. A. McGehee. 1983. Turtles, birds and mammals
in the northern Gulf of Mexico and nearby Atlantic waters.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. Div. Biol. Ser., Washington,
D.C.
Greeley, J. R. 1935. Fishes of the watershed with annotated list.
In A biological survey of the Mohawk-Hudson Watershed. Rep.
N.Y. State Conserv. Dep., Suppl. 24: 63-101.
Henwood, T. A. 1987. Movements and seasonal changes in loggerhead
turtle, Caretta caretta, aggregations in the vicinity of
Cape Canaveral, Florida (1978-84). Biol. Conserv. Vol. 40,
No. 3: 191-202.
Henwood, T. A. and L. H. Ogren. 1987. Distribution and migrations
of immature Kemp's ridley turtles (Legidochelys kempi) and
green turtles (Chelonia mvdas) off Florida, Georgia and
South Carolina. Northeast Gulf Science Vol. 9, No. 2: 153-
159.
Henwood, T. A. and W. E. Stuntz. 1987. Analysis of sea:.turtles
captures and mortalities during commercial shrimp trawling.
Fishery Bulletin Vol. 85, No. 4: 813-817.
Henwood, T. A. 1987. Cruise Report: October 15, 1987, COE Survey
of turtle populations in the Cape Canaveral ship channel
shoreward of the jetties. (Unpublished).
Hildebrand, H. H. 1963. Hallazgo del area de anidacion de la
tortuga marina "lora", Lepidochelys kempi (Garman), en la
costa occidental del Gulfo de Mexico. Ciencia, Mex 22(4):
105-112.
Hildebrand, H. H. 1982. A historical review of the status of sea
turtle populations in the western Gulf of Mexico. pp
447-453 In: Biology and conservation of sea turtles. K. A.
Bjorndal.. (ed.) Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
D. C.
Hirth, H. F. 1971. Synopsis of biological data on the green
turtle Chelonia mydas(Linnaeus) 1758, FAO Fisheries Synopsis
No. 85: 1-77.
Kraus, S. Personal Communication. New England Aquarium. Boston,
MA.

•
[,
F-17
r
4
Lazell, J. D. 1980. New England waters: critical habitat for
" marine turtles. Copeia 1980(2): 290-295.
Leim, A. H. and L. R. Day. 1959. Records of uncommon and unusual
fishes from Eastern Canadian waters, 1950-1958. J. Fish.
Res. Board Can. 16: 503-514.
Marchette, D. E. and R. Smiley. 1982. Biology and life history of
incidentally captured shortnose sturgeon, Acivenser
brevirostrum, in South Carolina. S.C. Wildl. Mar. Res.
unpubl. ms 57pp.
Mendonca, M. T. and L. M. Ehrhart. 1982. Activity, population
size and structure of immature Chelonia m das and Caretta
caretta in Mosquito Lagoon, Florida. Copeia (1982)1:
161-167.
Mexico. 1966. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones
Biologico-Pesqueras. Programa nacional de marcado de
tortugas marinas. Mexico, INIBP: 1-39.
Mortimer,.J. 1982. Feeding ecology of sea turtles. pp 103-109
In: Biology and conservation of sea turtles. K. A. Bjorndal
(ed.) Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Murphy, P. A. Personal Communication. South Carolina Wildlife and
Marine Resources Department.
Neill, W. T. 1958. The occurrence of amphibians and reptiles in
salt water areas, and a bibliography. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf
Caribb. 8: 1-97.
Parsons, J. J. 1962. The green turtle and man. Gainesville,
University of Florida Press.
Peters, J. A. 1954. The amphibians and reptiles of the coast and
coastal sierra of Michoacan, Mexico. Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool.
554: 1-37.
Pritchard, P. C. H. 1969a. Sea turtles of the Guianas. Bull. Fla.
State Mus. 13(2): 1-139.
Pritchard, P. C. H. 1969b. The survival status of ridley sea
turtles in-American waters. Biol. Cons. 2(1): 13-17.
Pritchard, P. C. H. and R. Marquez. 1973. Kemp's ridley turtle or
Atlantic ridley. I.U.C.N. Monograph No. 2, Morges,
Switzerland.
Rebel, T. P. 1974. Sea turtles and the turtle industry of the
West Indies, Florida and the Gulf of Mexico. Univ. Miami
Press, Coral Gables, Florida.
F-18
5
Ross, J. P. 1982. Historical decline of loggerhead, ridley and
leatherback sea turtles. pp 185-195 In: Biology and
conservation of sea turtles K. A. Bjorndal (ed.) Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Schult, J. P. 1975. Sea turtles nesting in Surinam. Sool. Verh.
143: 1-143.
Shoop, C., T. Doty and N. Bray. 1981. Sea turtles in the region
between Cape Hatteras and Nova Scotia in 1979. pp IX 1-85
In: A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the
mid- and north-Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer continental
shelf: Annual report for 1979. Univ. Rhode Island, Kingston.
Underwood, G. 1951. Introduction to the study of Jamaican
reptiles. Part 5. Nat. Hist. Notes Nat. Hist. Soc. Jamaica
46: 209-213.
t
F-19
tNT 0/f0
1
Qri r$
s'O sr Tts Of
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Woodbury:
UNITED STATES D. ARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
JAN 13I1185 F/SER23:TAH:td
This responds to questions raised by your staff regarding the
December 23, 1988, Biological Opinion (BO) on long-term maintenance
dredging of the Wilmington Harbor Project. Concern was expressed
over the incidental take statement and the requirement for gill net
surveys of the project site prior to dredging. I would like to
clarify our position on these surveys.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) intent in
requiring these surveys was to assure that adequate precautions
are taken to protect endangered shortnose sturgeon populations in
the Cape'Fear drainage. Surveys were identified in our BO as a
conservation recommendation; however, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) are not obligated to implement this recommendation.
If the recommended surveys are not conducted, NOAA Fisheries
believes' that individual project sites should be sampled for
shortnose sturgeon prior to dredging. This reasonable and prudent
measure is a precaution to assure that unexpected numbers of
shortnose sturgeon are not impacted by any dredging event. If the
COE implement our conservation recommendation, site specific
surveys will not be necessary because the research surveys will
provide the needed information on sturgeon distributions and
movements.
Finally, the site specific surveys will not be necessary during
every dredging cycle. When sufficient data are available to
establish that sturgeon are not likely to be impacted by dredging
in a given area, there is no need to continue pre-dredging
sampling. Also, if the timing of the dredging is such that
sturgeon are not likely to occur in the area, there is no reason
to conduct pre-dredging surveys.
NOAA Fisheries believes that long-term maintenance dredging of the
Wilmington Harbor Project will not jeopardize populations of
L shortnose sturgeon if reasonable precautions are exercised. We
also believe that timing of the dredging can be adjusted to assure
that the least number of individuals will be impacted during any
dredging event. To avoid a potential dredging/endangered species
conflict, basic research is needed to determine when, and if,
shortnose sturgeon may be present in areas scheduled for dredging.
75 Years Stimulating America's Progress * 1913-1988
F-20
nORR
If you have additional questions regarding the BO or the incidental
take statement, please contact Dr. Terry Henwood at FTS 826-3366.
Sincerely yours,
J eph W. Ang vic, Ph.D.
ting Regional Director
cc: F/PR2
0
F-21
United States Department of Commerce January 13, 1989
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Southeast Regional Office
R
Response:
1. Section 5.3 of the final EIS addresses these comments.
F-22