19930118 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19930818

MEMORANDUM P-PINT NAMES:
evleWt_'.r :
TO: ,John Dorney ?a P
Planning Brl-inch (y- ??- =Y3
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMM TIONS
***EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (US N i?.. 'OR NO`T ' APPLICABLE )
PERMIT YR: 93 PERMIT NO: 0000118 COUNTY: NEW HANGOVER
APPLICANT NAME: COE - DREDGING DI°,POSAL ON CAROLINA YEAC
PROJECT TYPE: DREDGE DISPOSAL PERMIT TYPE: IND
COE #: DOT # :
RCD FROM _CDA : COE DATE FRM (DA: 021/12 /9-1
REG_OFFIC'E: WIRO RIVER__AND_ )TTB__BA.?:EN #: C)36(_/)
STREA.M__CLA : 53 _1TR_JNDEX__.N0 : e'9-(3 )
WL__IMPACT? : Y/0) WI,_TYPE : -4-11-1
WL_REQUES,TED : WL___ACR__E ;T'? : Y/N
WL._SCORE (#) : WATER. IMPAC'T'ED BY FILM: (91N
HYDRO (-'NECT? : fi)vN MITIGATION'?: Y
MI T I GATI ON_TYPE :? M I T I GAT I ON -S, I %F; :,A
T WETLAND RATING SHEI3T ATTACHED?: Y6)
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One): ED SSUE/COND DENY
COMMENT; :
Regional Office
CerntraI Fi 1. es
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
? I I g
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 61
P.O. BOX 1890
L? WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO February 5, 1993 (a (2 fl M ?;
D lu1 LS ll U -'
Planning Division
F F F3 1 2 1993
Mr. Preston Howard, Acting Director RECEIVED
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources FEB 19 1993
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Wilmington Regional Office
DEM
Dear Mr. Howard:
Enclosed is an Application for Water Quality Certification, pursuant
to Section 401 of Public Law 95-217, for discharge of dredged material
associated with the Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South beach
nourishment project, New Hanover County, North Carolina (figure 1).
The proposed beach erosion control and hurricane wave protection
project would cover approximately 3-1/2 miles of shoreline between the
town of Carolina Beach to the north and the Fort Fisher Historic Site to
the south. Potential borrow areas for beachfill for project construction
and maintenance are located in two borrow areas located approximately
1 to 2 miles offshore in the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Draft Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation (PL 92-217) is
enclosed for your information. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
dated October 1992, was circulated for a 45-day public review period to
Federal and State review agencies and the interested public on November 6,
1992. The public comment period ended on December 21, 1992. A Final
Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared and will also be circulated
for review.
Should you have any questions concerning the application, please contact
Mr. Daniel Small, Environmental Resources Branch, at [phone].
Sincerely,
Walter S. Tulloch
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Enclosures
-2-
Copy Furnished (with enclosures):
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
APPLICATION FOR WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: February 5, 1993
NAME: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: Walter S. Tulloch
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
PROJECT NAME: Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South Project, New Hanover
County, North Carolina
NATURE OF ACTIVITY: The proposed action involves discharge of dredged
material associated with construction of a beach erosion control and hurricane
wave protection project along the ocean shoreline south of Carolina Beach, New
Hanover County, North Carolina (figure 1).
DISCHARGE OF: Dredged material during initial construction and scheduled
renourishment of the beach erosion control and hurricane wave protection
project.
PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: Fall 1996
LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: Kure Beach and the
Wilmington and Hanby Beach
County: New Hanover
Drainage Basin: Cape Fear
Receiving Waters: Atlantic Ocean
Point of Discharge: Ocean beach
unincorporated communities of
NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Ocean
Nature: Salt
Direction of Flow: Variable
1
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: The
material to be discharged on the ocean beach is predominantly medium grain
sand with a small percentage of fine grain material and some shell hash.
Approximately 3.3 million cubic yards of dredged material will be removed
from the selected offshore borrow area and placed on the beach.
The beachfill material will be obtained from dredging in one of two
offshore borrow areas located beyond the 30-foot depth contour offshore of
Carolina Beach. The two borrow areas cover a combined area of approximately
1,191 acres offshore. Dredging in the borrow areas would be to a depth of
approximately -15 feet below the surrounding bottom elevation.
The fill material has been determined to meet the criteria set forth in
40 CFR 230.60(b), in that the material is characterized as sand which is
sufficiently removed from sources of pollution to provide reasonable assurance
that the material would not be contaminated by pollutants and the fact that
the material is inert. Hence, no further physical, biological, or chemical
testing is required pursuant to the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.
TYPE. DIAMETER. OR CROSS-SECTION AND LENGTH OF CONVEYANCE OF DISCHARGE: At
this time, the type of dredge plant and beach disposal method that would be
used for project construction and future maintenance is unknown. The type of
dredge plant that will be used will depend on a number of factors, including
competition in the market place, pumping or haul distance, depth and aerial
extent of dredging, available dredging technology, weather conditions and
time of year, etc. Alternative construction methods include:
1. Ocean-Certified Hydraulic Pipeline Dredge. An ocean-certified
hydraulic pipeline dredge would be used to remove material from the borrow
area and pump the material directly to the beach. The dredge pipeline would
run from the dredge operating in the borrow area, approximately 1 to 2 miles,
to the beach disposal site. The pipeline would be submerged from the dredge
to a point close to shore where the pipeline would then run above the surface
to shore. Standard construction equipment would be used to construct the dune
and storm berm.
2. Ocean-Certified Hydraulic Pipeline Dredge with Scows.
An ocean-certified pipeline dredge would be used to dredge the material
from the borrow area but would pump the material into barges or scows onsite
for transport to the beach instead of a pipeline running to the beach. The
material would then be pumped from the scows at the pump-out station to the
beach.
3. Ocean-Certified Hopper Dredge with Direct Pump Out to the Beach. An
ocean-certified hopper dredge would dredge the material from the borrow area
and then transport it to a pump-out station close to the disposal beach. The
material would then be pumped from the hopper dredge at the pump-out station
to the beach. The dredged material placed on the beach will be shaped by
earth-moving equipment.
2
PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE: Approximately
766,000 cubic yards of dredged material will be placed on the beach during
each renourishment cycle, which will occur every 3 years during the 50-year
life of the project.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF ADJOINING RIPARIAN OWNERS: Town of Carolina Beach and
State of North Carolina, Fort Fisher Historic Site.
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Walter S. Tulloch
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Attachment
3
VA.
N O R T H
PAL Q GH
C A R O L I N A
YI U41
CX
OAK
CAROLINA BEACH
BORROW AREA
U /q%
/
I/ M
// QM
n
vY ------ - V 11 •,
MOREHEAO CITY
CAPE
P ii//W
50 WLES ?°
SITE D ? IN
VICINITY MAP ;1 o
fSL'?0 ??11
/r
rr
rr
/i
I?
l?
? 11
11
JI
lll, Q S
n a ?
ii ro
Am
ii
pG?
CAPE FEAR

CARDUNA BEACH
INLET
OFFSHORE
BORROW AREAS
2 1 0 2
SCALE IN MILES
PROJECT LOCATION
MAP
DRAFT
Attachment A
Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) (PL 92-217) Guidelines
Section 404(b)(1) (PL 95-217) Evaluation
Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South Project
New Hanover, North Carolina
October 1992
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Location. New Hanover County, North Carolina.
B. Background and Project Description. The Carolina Beach and Vicinity -
Area South project is located in New Hanover County, North Carolina. The
Wilmington District has investigated public concerns in the study area related
to hurricane and flood protection. Alternatives investigated consisted of
berms and dunes of various dimensions. The no action alternative was also
considered. The National Economic Development (NED) plan consists of a
25-foot-wide crest width artificial dune with a vegetated crest elevation of
13.5 feet above 0 National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) and a storm berm
approximately 50 feet wide. Project construction will cover approximately
3-1/2 miles of shoreline between the town of Carolina Beach to the north and
the Fort Fisher Historic Site to the south. Potential borrow areas for
beachfill for project construction and maintenance are located in two borrow
areas located approximately 1 to 2 miles offshore in the Atlantic Ocean.
Project construction will require approximately 3.3 million yards of dredged
material. Project maintenance will require approximately 766,000 cubic
yards of beachfill every 3 years. A complete description of the NED plan
alternative can be found in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The project is being evaluated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of
1977, as amended, rather than Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuary Act of 1972 (Ocean Dumping Act), since the proposed discharge
site is within the 3-nautical-mile territorial limits of the State of North
Carolina. ,
C. Purpose. This 404(b)(1) evaluation covers the discharge of dredged
material on the ocean beach for the purpose of construction of a beach erosion
control and hurricane wave protection project. The isolated discharges
associated with dredging to remove beachfill from the borrow areas offshore
are not considered discharges of dredged material for the purpose of filling,
but isolated discharges incidental to the dredging operation and are therefore
not being covered under this evaluation.
A-1

D. General Description of Dredged Material.
1. General Characteristics of Dredged Material. The material to be
discharged on the beach under the NED plan is predominantly medium grain sand
with a small percentage of fine grain material and some shell hash.
2. Ouantity of Material. Approximately 3.3 million cubic yards of
dredged material will be removed from the selected offshore borrow area and
placed on the beach. Approximately 766,000 cubic yards of dredged material
will be placed on the beach during each maintenance cycle which will occur
every 3 years.
3. Source of Material. The beachfill material will be obtained from
dredging in one of two offshore borrow areas located beyond the 30-foot depth
contour offshore of Carolina Beach. The two borrow areas cover a combined
area of approximately 1,191 acres offshore. Dredging in the borrow areas
would be to a depth of approximately -15 feet below the surrounding bottom
elevation.
E. Description of the Proposed Discharge Site.
1. Location and Size. The proposed discharge site is an unconfined
3-1\2 mile strand along the oceanside of Pleasure Island, New Hanover County,
North Carolina.
2. Type of Site. Unconfined beach, surf zone, and nearshore ocean.
3. Ivae of Habitat. The types of habitat present at the site
are coastal dune and beach, intertidal, and nearshore. The native material on
the ocean beach consists of medium grain sand with some shell and shell hash.
4. Timing and Duration of Discharge. Construction of the project is
expected to take approximately 8 months and would occur between November 15
and July 31. Maintenance construction is expected to occur during the same
timeframe every 3 years and would require about 2 months.
F. Description of Discharge Method. At this time, the type of dredge
plant and beach disposal method that would be used for project construction
and future maintenance is unknown. The type of dredge plant that will be used
will depend on a number of factors, including competition in the market place,
pumping or haul distance, depth and areal extent of dredging, available
dredging technology, weather conditions and time of year, etc. Alternative
construction methods being considered for dredging and disposing of beachfill
on the beach include:
1. Ocean-Certified Hydraulics Pipeline Dredge. An ocean-certified
hydraulic pipeline dredge would be used to remove material from the borrow
area and pump the material directly to the beach. The dredge pipeline would
run from the dredge operating in the borrow area approximately 1 to 2 miles to
the beach disposal site. The pipeline would be submerged from the dredge to a
point close to shore where the pipeline would then run above the surface to
A-2
shore. Standard construction equipment would be used to construct the dune
and storm berm.
2. Ocean-Certified Hydraulic Pipeline Dredge with Scows. An ocean-
certified pipeline dredge would be used to dredge the material from the borrow
area but would pump the material into barges or scows onsite for transport to
the beach instead of a pipeline running to the beach. The material would then
be pumped from the scows at the pump-out station to the beach.
3. Ocean-Certified Hopper Dredge with Direct Pump Out to the Beach.
An ocean-certified hopper dredge would dredge the material from the borrow
area and then transport it to a pump-out station close to the disposal beach.
The material would then be pumped from the hopper dredge at the pump-out
station to the beach. The dredged material placed on the beach will be shaped
by earth-moving equipment.
II. FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS
A. Physical Substrate Determination.
1. Substrate Elevation and Slope. There will be a change in the
beach profile in reference to elevation and length. The substrate elevation
and slope will be altered by the construction of the dune and storm berm.
The design foreslope for the dune and berm is 10 horizontal to 1 vertical.
The total width of the dune and storm berm is approximately 210 feet.
2. Sediment Type. The discharged material consists of predominantly
fine-to-medium grain sand, with less than 10 percent fine grain material
(silt/clay), shell, and shell hash. The material is compatible with the
native beach material.
3. Fill Material Movement. Some lateral movement of material will
likely occur as a result of the combined effects of currents, water
circulation, wind, and wave action. There would be some loss of fine grain
material into the water column during construction and initial settlement of
the beachfill.
4. Physical Effects on Benthos. The discharge of fill material will
smother benthic fauna in the immediate vicinity of the discharge on the beach
and nearshore during berm construction. Repopulation should begin soon after
the disposal operation ends. Turbidity-related impacts are expected to be
minor and temporary due to the predominantly fine-to-medium grain sand
material being discharged.
5. Other Effects. None expected.
6. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. Action taken to minimize
impacts include selection of fill material that is similar to the native beach
substrate and is low in silt content. Also, standard construction practices
to minimize turbidity and erosion would be employed. A small berm may be
constructed along the mean high water line at the discharge point to help
reduce turbidity.
A-3
B. Water Circulation. Fluctuation. and Salinity Determinations.
1. Water.
a. Water. No significant effect.
b. Salinity. No significant effect.
c. Water Chemistry. No significant effect.
d. Clarity. The clarity of the water will be temporarily reduced
during the discharges. Conditions should return to ambient levels after
completion of the work.
e. Color. No significant effect.
f. Odor. No effect.
g. Taste. No effect.
h. Dissolved Gas Levels. No significant effect.
i. Nutrients. No significant effect.
j. Eutrophication. No significant effect.
k. Others as Appropriate. None.
2. Current Patterns and Circulation.
` a. Current Patterns and Flow. No significant change in current
pattern and flow would result from construction of the NED plan.
b. Velocity. No significant effect.
c. Stratification. No effect.
d. Hydrologic Regime. No adverse changes to the hydrologic
regime should occur.
3. Normal Water Level Fluctuations. No effect.
4. Salinity Gradient. No effect.
5. Action Taken to Minimize Impacts. See I.f. above.
A-4
C. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determinations.
1. Expected Changes in Suspended Particulates and Turbidity Levels in
the Vicinity of the Disposal Site. Short-term increases in suspended
particulate levels may occur at the time of dredging and disposal. No
violation of applicable water quality standards will occur outside of the area
of discharge or mixing zone. '
2. Effects (Degree and Duration) on Chemical and Physical Properties
of the Water Column. Slight decreases in the degree of light penetration and
dissolved oxygen concentration may occur within the area of construction
during construction and maintenance.
a. Light Penetration. A slight reduction in light penetration
would occur due to the turbidity increase associated with the NED plan.
Turbidity will quickly return to ambient levels upon completion of the work.
b. Dissolved Oxygen. A slight decease in dissolved oxygen
concentration may be associated with construction and maintenance of the NED
plan. The anticipated low levels of organics in the borrow material should
not generate a high, if any, oxygen demand. Dissolved oxygen should return to
ambient levels soon after completion of the work.
c. Toxic Metals and Organics. Based on sediment analyses of the
material available in the borrow areas, no toxic metals or organics are
anticipated. The beachfill material comes from an offshore borrow area with
bottom deposits of predominantly fine-to-medium grain sand.
d. Pathogens. No anticipated effect.
e. Esthetics. A minor, temporary loss of esthetics appeal will
result from elevated levels of turbidity due to the discharge. No significant
loss of aesthetic appeal in the project area should occur.
f. Others as Appropriate. None.
3. Effects on Biota.
a. Primary Production. Photosynthesis. A slight reduction may
occur due to turbidity associated with the NED plan. Any reduction is not
expected to be significant.
b. Suspension/Filter Feeders. No significant effect.
c. Sight feeders. Turbidity resulting from the NED plan would
not be expected to be high enough to significantly affect sight feeding
organisms.
4. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. See II. A. 6. above.
D. Contaminant Determinations. The fill material has been determined to
meet the criteria set forth in 40 CFR 230.60(b), in that the material is
A-5
characterized as sand which is sufficiently removed from sources of pollution
to provide reasonable assurance that the material would not be contaminated by
pollutants and the fact that the material is inert. Hence, no further
physical, biological, or chemical testing is required pursuant to the
404(b)(1) guidelines.
E. Aquatic Ecosystem and Organism Determinations.
1. Effects on Plankton. Deposition of beachfill material along the
beach and adjacent waters will destroy some phytoplankton and zooplankton and
temporarily disrupt light penetration. Due to the nature of the material
being discharged, these impacts are not expected to be significant.
2. Effects on Benthos. Disposal of beachfill material will smother
benthos directly in the construction area. However, these organisms are
adapted to a very rigorous environment in which they experience wave and
storm-induced sedimentation. Thus, the impacts due to the disposal would not
be significant. The loss of organisms during construction is expected to be
offset by the expected rapid opportunistic recolonization from adjacent areas
that would occur following cessation of construction activities.
3. Effects on Nekton. Nektonic organisms in waters adjacent to the
beachfill construction site will probably vacate the areas, at least until
conditions become more favorable. Some nektonic filter feeders may be killed
as a result of being in the affected areas, and other organisms less capable
of movement, such as larval forms, may be physically covered with dredged
material. However, most organisms would generally avoid the project areas and
later return to them.
4. Effects on Aquatic Food Web. No significant effects.
5. Effects on Special Aquatic Sites.
a. Sanctuaries and Refuges. The Zeke's Island National Estuarine
Sanctuary is located south of the project site. This site is not expected to
be impacted by the beach nourishment project.
b. Wetlands. No wetlands will be filled during the proposed
activity.
c. Mudflats. No mudflats will be impacted by the proposed
activity.
d. Vegetated Shallows. No significant effects.
e. Coral Reefs. Intertidal coquina rock outcrops are located
along the southern portion of the project area in the vicinity of the Fort
Fisher National Historic Site. While numerous scattered submerged exposures
exist to the south of the project limits, three dominant exposures exist at
the southern limits of the project. Topographically, the three sites range
from the mean high water tide line to -12 feet mean sea level offshore. The
coquina rock outcrops in this area are composed of shell fragments, marine and
A-6
estuarine fossil, and other sediments cemented together by calcite. The
coquina outcrops provide hard substrate, a place of attachment, and/or
protective environment, for a variety of marine algae, marine invertebrates,
and fishes which are adapted to the hard substrate and high wave energy of the
area. Species associated with these outcrops include sea lettuce, sea
amemone, Atlantic oyster drill, calcareous tube worm, and red gilled marphysa.
Encroachment on the coquina rock outcrops at the southern terminus of the
project would be avoided to the maximum extent possible by naturally sloping
the transition berm into the natural shoreline of the area. Beachfill
material from project construction is expected to be moved by littoral drift,
and portions of the landward sides of the outcrops are expected to be covered.
The areal extent of this coverage cannot be quantified at this time. To
determine effects of the nourishment project on the coquina rock community and
whether any changes observed are the result of natural processes or beach
restoration, a monitoring program would be developed and implemented prior to
and after project construction. Information gathered from the monitoring
program would be used to assess whether changes in disposal operations during
project maintenance are needed.
f. Riffle and Pool Complexes. Not applicable.
6. Threatened and Endangered Species. Construction of the NED plan
alternative would be scheduled to occur between November 15 and July 31. This
schedule would require construction during periods of high biological activity
and will overlap the sea turtle nesting season. A turtle monitoring and nest
relocation program will be implemented to reduce project construction impacts.
Discharge of beachfill during project maintenance will be targeted between
November 15 and May 1 of any given year in order to avoid adverse impacts to
nesting loggerhead and green sea turtles to the maximum extent practicable.
While timing these activities to avoid the nesting season is the method of
choice for avoiding impacts to nesting sea turtles, experiences with similar
projects in North Carolina indicate that work during the season will
eventually be necessary. When such occasions arise, a sea turtle nest
monitoring and relocation program will be implemented.
The piping plover has been documented to nest on beaches south of the Fort
Fisher Historic Site which is south of the project area. There has been no
known nesting in the project area; therefore, no direct impacts to the piping
plover are expected to occur due to the discharge of fill.
7. Other Wildlife. No effects.
8. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. See l.f. above.
9. Proposed Disposal Site Determinations. Dredged material is being
placed on the ocean beach as beachfill for the construction of a beach erosion
control and hurricane wave protection project.
F. Mixing Zone Determination. A mixing zone will be limited to the
minimum needed to allow for proper settling of suspended particulates and
decrease in turbidity to ambient levels.
A-7
I. Determination of Compliance with Applicable Water Quality
Standards. A Section 401 Water Quality Certificate is being requested from
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management for the project. The
disposal activities are not expected to violate state water quality standards.
Water quality standards specified by the certificate are not expected to be
violated outside of a reasonable mixing zone.
2. Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics. The purpose of
the discharge is to provide beachfill for the nourishment of the ocean beach
for hurricane and wave protection. Construction of the project would provide
protection for the structures behind the project.
a. Municipal and Private Water Supply. No effect.
b. Recreational and Commercial Fisheries. Discharge of fill may
temporarily displace the surf-feeding fish populations. However, distribution
of surf-feeding fishes should return to normal upon completion of the project.
c. Water-Related Recreation. Project construction is expected to
take approximately 8 months. Project construction is expected to start around
November 15 and end around July 31. While construction of the project is
targeted to begin during the winter months to the maximum extent practicable,
construction is expected to extend into the water-related recreation period
along the beach. Turbidity levels around the immediate area of construction
would limit water-related recreation during the periods when dredged material
is being discharged on the beach and into the adjacent waters. While the
exact length of any turbidity plumes in adjacent waters updrift or downdrift
of the discharge point are unknown, levels are expected to be within
background levels outside of a reasonably established mixing zone that would
be acceptable for water-related recreation.
d. Esthetics. There will be a short-term effect during
construction and maintenance but it is not expected to be significant.
e. Parks. National and Historic Monuments National Seashores.
Wilderness-Areas, Research Sites and Similar Preserves. The Fort Fisher
Historic Site is located south of the project area. No significant effects on
the site are expected as a result of project construction and maintenance.
G. Determinations of Cumulative Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem. The
cumulative effects of the project are not expected to be significant.
H. Determination of Secondary Effects on the Aquatic System. No
secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem are anticipated.
II. FINDING OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE RESTRICTIONS ON DISCHARGE
A. No adaptations of the guidelines were made relative to this
evaluation.
A-8
B. There are no practicable alternative discharge sites which would have
less adverse impact to the aquatic ecosystem and still achieve the planning
objectives of beach erosion control and hurricane wave protection.
C. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is being requested from the
State Division of Environmental Management. The discharge will comply with
State water quality standards.
D. The discharge will not violate the toxic effluent standards or
prohibitions under Section 307 of P.L. 95-217.
E. The discharge will not affect any threatened or endangered species or
their critical habitat.
F. The proposed placement of fill will not result in significant adverse
effects on human health and welfare, including municipal and private water
supplies, recreational and commercial fisheries, plankton, fish, shellfish,
wildlife, and special aquatic sites. The life stages of aquatic life and
other wildlife will not be adversely affected. Significant adverse effects
on aquatic ecosystem diversity; productivity; stability; and recreation,
esthetic, and economic values will not occur.
G. Appropriate steps will be taken to minimize potential adverse impacts
of the fill material on the aquatic ecosystem.
H. On the basis of this analysis, the proposed discharge sites for fill
material for the Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South project is in
compliance with the requirements of Section 404(b)(1) (PL 95-217) guidelines.
Date
Walter S. Tulloch
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
A-9
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 30, 1993
Mr. John Dorney
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorney:
¦
TAKES 01
PRIDE INS
AMERICA
m
2I?i
L
wF t rtttl to a _,
Attached is the Service's Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Report for the Area South of Carolina Beach, Beach Nourishment
Project, New Hanover County, North Carolina being conducted by the
Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This report
identifies baseline fish and wildlife resources in the general
study area, discusses potential impacts to these resources and
offers recommendations to the Corps to use in project plans.
sincerely yours,

' ' eer -U
Tom Augspurger
Acting Supervisor
AREA SOUTH OF CAROLINA BEACH
FINAL
FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT
Prepared by
Karen Royce Warr
Under the Supervision of
L. K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
Released by
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh, North Carolina
July 1993
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 30, 1993
Colonel Walter S. Tulloch
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Tulloch:
TAKEM
PRIDE INS
AMERICA?¦
Attached is the Service's Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act Report for the Area South of Carolina Beach, New Hanover
County, North Carolina. This report identifies fish and
wildlife resources located in the project area and the
potential impacts of the Corps' recommended project on these
resources. This report constitutes the Service's report in
accordance with Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 -
667) and is provided in accordance with our FY 93 Transfer
Funding Agreement and Scope of Work.
The project may result in significant adverse impacts to unique
coquina outcrops located in the intertidal and subtidal
sections of the beach in the project area. The intertidal
coquina outcrops are the only natural marine rock exposures on
the entire North Carolina beach system and the most northern
beachfront coquina exposures along the eastern coast of the
United States. These intertidal and subtidal coquina outcrops
serve as areas of primary production and are habitat for a vast
array of marine organisms, many of which are not typically
found on the sandy coasts of the southeast. The beach
nourishment project will directly bury the most northern
intertidal coquina outcrop located within the transition zone
of the beach nourishment area. The project also has the
potential to bury some or all of the intertidal and subtidal
coquina outcrops, including those to the south of the beach
nourishment site. We recommend that the Corps determine the
minimum distance between the nourishment project and the
coquina exposures which is necessary to avoid any and all
impacts to the coquina outcrops.
This distance should be maintained between the coquina outcrops
and any beach fill.
The Service is pleased that estuarine habitats and an upland
area designated as a significant natural area by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage program have been deleted from
consideration as potential borrow sites for this beach
nourishment project. Still, there are concerns associated with
the project which need to be addressed.
In obtaining material from offshore borrow sites, impacts to
any hard bottom habitats should be avoided. We believe that
it is essential that the Corps determine and maintain a minimum
distance between any dredging activity and hard bottoms such
that all impacts to the hard bottoms are avoided. A monitoring
plan should be developed which will assess the long term
impacts of mining sand from offshore areas.
The Service is also concerned about the scheduling of dredging
and beach nourishment, and we believe that in the overall
interest of sea turtles, beach invertebrates and fish and
shrimp spawning offshore, sand mining and nourishment should
occur only between November 16 and January 15 of any year, if
at all possible. In developing this recommendation, we
coordinated with the North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries for fisheries dates, and utilized recent scientific
information to develop the dates with regard to beach
invertebrates. We understand that the initial beach
nourishment will require a construction period of about eight
months, if work is attempted during the winter months with a
single dredge. However, if work occurs during the summer
months, three months should be sufficient, assuming two dredges
will be available. Thus, with either timeframe, disposal will
disturb intertidal organism populations during the construction
year. However, if the Corps could get two dredges to do the
work during the winter months, then approximately four to five
months would be required, and work could be completed by early
Spring. This would be more environmentally acceptable than the
other alternatives. The Service is pleased that subsequent
renourishment should require only approximately two months and
should be possible within the recommended late fall-early
winter timeframe.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide this report.
Technical questions should be directed to the attention of
Karen Warr, the biologist handling this project.
Sincerely yours,
1-1A 144b AAA
Tom Augspurger
Acting Supervisor
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
January 12, 1993
Ms. L.K. Mike Gantt
US-Fish & Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3926
Dear Ms. Gantt:
Biologists on our staff have completed their review of
the Service's Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Report - Area South of Carolina Beach. The report is well
written and comprehensive. This letter is to advise you
that the Wildlife Resources Commission fully concurs with
findings and recommendations of this report.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on
this report. If we can provide further assistance, please
call on us.
Sincerely,
N
PChUA& ew4lnn
Richard B. Hamilton
Assistant Director
RBH/cn/Gantt/D1
JAN 15 1993
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report contains
planning information pursuant to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's responsibilities under the general authority of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (48 Stat. 401;
16 U.S.C. 661 - 667d) for the beach erosion control and
hurricane protection study being conducted by the Wilmington
District, Corps of Engineers for the Area South of Carolina
Beach, New Hanover County, North Carolina. The study is being
conducted under the authority of Public Law 87-874, 87th
Congress, October 23, 1962 (House Document 418, 87th Congress,
Second Session). This report constitutes the Service's formal
report required under Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (op. cit.).
The Area South of Carolina Beach Project is designed to provide
beach erosion control and hurricane wave protection for the
ocean beach from the southern town limits of Carolina Beach to
a point south of the southern town limits of Kure Beach.
Three alternatives being considered would entail construction
of a dune and a storm berm. The height of the dune varies with
each alternative. A fourth alternative would involve
construction of a storm berm only. All alternatives would
include a transition zone which grades into the beach at the
southern end. The Corps' preferred alternative and National
Economic Development (NED) Plan is construction of a 13.5-foot-
high continuous dune and a storm berm.
The Corps proposes to obtain sand for nourishment from borrow
sites approximately 1 to 2 miles offshore. Several
alternatives of pumping sand onto the beach are being
considered: a hydraulic pipeline dredge may be used to pump
sand directly onto the beach or a hopper dredge may be used.
If a pipeline dredge is used, a jack-up booster may be required
in order to provide enough force to pump sand to the beach.
Another possibility is the use of a pipeline dredge pumping to
a scow or barge which would be towed to an offshore pumping
station, where material will be pumped from the scow to the
beach. If a hopper dredge is used, it would bring the material
into the nearshore zone and a pipeline would then transport it
directly from the hopper dredge to the beach.
Anticipated adverse impacts of the project would include:
burial of intertidal and subtidal coquina outcrops within and
adjacent to the beach disposal area; mortality of coquina clams
and mole crabs and other invertebrates on the beach to be
nourished and in the nearshore zone; immediate mortality of
benthos at offshore borrow areas; increased turbidity
potentially clogging the gills of fish and invertebrates in the
i
vicinity of the offshore borrow sites and the nearshore waters,
including organisms inhabiting coquina rock outcroppings;
potential burial of sea turtle nests and hatchlings and
shorebird nests; alteration of the natural beach profile and
beach sand properties potentially causing problems for nesting
sea turtles and hatchlings; potential alteration of wave
intensities due to offshore sand removal.
Careful project timing should result in avoidance of direct
adverse impacts to nesting sea turtles and nesting shorebirds,
and should minimize long-term effects to beach and nearshore
invertebrates. However, the Corps has indicated that if one
dredge is used, initial work will require approximately eight
months, if the work is done during the winter months and thus,
would extend into early summer, interfering with sea turtle
nesting and invertebrate recruitment. If the work is done by
two dredges during the summer months, then only approximately
three months would be required also interfering with sea turtle
nesting and invertebrate populations for that year. According
to the Corps, it is much more likely that two dredges would be
available during the summer months than during the winter.
Although the initial construction may take place during
critical times, the Service believes that subsequent
renourishment should not occur during the sea turtle nesting
season or during times which will interfere with intertidal
organism recruitment. The Service believes that efforts should
be made to use two dredges during the winter months and reduce
the needed time for intitial construction to approximately four
to five months.
The Service strongly recommends that all negative impacts to
the coquina rock community be avoided. This coquina outcrop
community is the only one of its type in North Carolina and one
of only a few along the entire eastern coast of the United
States. These intertidal and subtidal coquina outcrops serve
as areas of primary production and are habitat for a vast array
of marine organisms, many of which are not typically found on
the sandy coasts of the southeast. We recommend that the Corps
determine the minimum distance between the nourishment project
and the coquina exposures which is necessary to avoid any and
all impacts to the coquina outcrops. This minimum distance
should be maintained between the coquina outcrops and any beach
fill.
Although the Service has concerns related to offshore sand
mining, we commend the Corps for eliminating the estuarine
areas and significant natural area upland site from
consideration as potential borrow sites. We believe that
offshore sand mining, if carefully and properly conducted,
should result in fewer impacts to the environment than the
mining of sand from the above mentioned sites. However, there
are still concerns related to offshore sand mining and beach
ii
nourishment, which must be addressed. We are particularly
concerned about the potential for disturbance of hard bottom
habitats during dredging within offshore borrow sites. The
Corps should determine and maintain the minimum distance
required between any hard bottom habitats and dredging
activities in order to avoid potential adverse impacts to hard
bottoms. We believe this minimum distance should at least be
equal to the mixing zone around the dredge being used for
mining sand from the offshore areas.
The Service recommends the following additional fish and
wildlife conservation measures to offset project-related
habitat loss and degradation. Sand mining and beach
nourishment should occur between November 16 and January 15 of
any year. The sand grain size of the dredged material should
be compatible with the natural beach sand. Sand hardness of
the beach should be tested before and after each nourishment
and if the sand is too compact following nourishment, then it
should be tilled prior to the sea turtle nesting season. If
the nourished beach profile develops high escarpments, they
should be leveled to grade into the natural profile. A
comprehensive monitoring plan should be developed so that the
long term effects of offshore sand mining and beach nourishment
can be properly assessed and determined. Sand mining should be
conducted in a manner which will avoid adverse impacts to any
hard bottom communities, and offshore sand borrow sites which
are in the immediate vicinity of hard bottom habitats should be
eliminated from project plans. Finally, any destruction to
dune and beach vegetation should be avoided and any unavoidable
impacts will require compensatory mitigation.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................iv
INTRODUCTION .................. .............................1
Purpose, Scope and Authority .......................... .1
Prior Studies ......................................... .1
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ..................................... .2
Land Use .............................................. .2
Topography ............................................ .4
Climate ............................................... .4
Soils ................................................. .4
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CONCERNS AND PLANNING OBJECTIVES. .6
EVALUATION METHODS ......................................... .8
EXISTING FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES ....................... .8
Maritime Shrub Thicket/Forest ......................... .8
Sand Dunes ............................................ .9
Upper Beach ........................................... .9
Intertidal Beach ...................................... .9
Nearshore Zone ........................................ 11
Offshore Area Where Potential Borrow Sites are Found.. 12
Endangered and Threatened Species ..................... 16
FUTURE FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE CONDITIONS
WITHOUT THE PROJECT ................................... 18
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ............................ 19
Borrow Material ....................................... 19
Beach Fill Designs .................................... 19
Method of Disposal on the Beach ....................... 22
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN .................. 22
Impacts Due to Mining Sand from
Offshore Borrow Sites .......... 22
Impacts to Beach and Nearshore Organisms
Due to Beach Nourishment ......................... 24
Impacts to Sea Turtles ................................ 29
Summary of Impacts .................................... 30
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ................................. 30
Offshore Borrow Sites ................................. 30
Beach Fill Designs .................................... 31
Method of Disposal on the Beach ....................... 31
iv
FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MEASURES ....................32
DISCUSSION .................................................35
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................36
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND SERVICE POSITION ...................38
LITERATURE CITED ...........................................39
TABLE
Table 1: Potential Borrow Area Material Data.......... 19
FIGURES
Figure 1: Map of the Project Site ......................3
Figure 2: Long Term Average Annual Erosion Rates For
the Project Site Updated Through 1986........5
Figure 3: Potential Offshore Borrow Sites .............13
Figure 4: Cross Section of Study Site Beach Showing
July 1991 Profile and Alternatives 1-4...... 20
v
INTRODUCTION
Purpose, Scope, and Authority
This Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report contains
planning information pursuant to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) responsibilities under the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (48 Stat. 401; 16 U.S.C.
661 - 667) for the beach erosion control and hurricane
protection study being conducted by.the Wilmington District,
Corps of Engineers for the Area South of Carolina Beach, New
Hanover County, North Carolina. The study is being conducted
under the authority of Public Law 87-874, 87th Congress,
October 23, 1962 (House Document 418, 87th Congress, Second
Session). This report is submitted in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (op.
cit.), and it constitutes the Service's formal report required
under Section 2(b) of that Act.
The purposes of this report are to document the proposed
project's impacts on fish and wildlife and to recommend
measures to conserve fish and wildlife resources. In writing
this report, the Service coordinated with the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, the
North Carolina Aquarium at Fort Fisher, the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Managment, the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program, and with professors at the University of
North Carolina at Wilmington and East Carolina University. A
letter of concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission is included.
Prior Studies
Numerous prior reports by the Service and the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps), address fish and
wildlife resources and habitats and proposed projects within
Carolina Beach and vicinity. The Service and the Corps
prepared reports on five previous Corps projects located in or
adjacent to the Town of Carolina Beach. The most relevant and
recent of these reports concerns beach erosion control at
Carolina Beach (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [hereafter USACOE]
1981 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [hereafter USFWS]
1981a), and beach erosion control at Fort Fisher, North
Carolina (USACOE 1982 and USFWS 1981b). Other relevant
projects are the dredging of Carolina Beach Inlet (USACOE
(1980) and Wilmington Harbor (USACOE (1989), USACOE (1990),
USACOE (1991), USFWS (1991a) and USFWS (1991b)).
Many years ago, the Corps prepared a Design Memorandum for
beach erosion control at the "Area South of Carolina Beach"
1
(USACOE 1967). The Service prepared a Planning Aid Report for
this project in 1989 (USFWS 1989), and a Draft Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act Report in 1992 (USFWS 1992), and the
Corps released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the project in November 1992 and a Final EIS in June 1993
(USACOE 1992 and USACOE 1993, respectively).
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The study area is located on Pleasure Island, originally a
mainland peninsula which is now an island, due to the
construction of Snows Cut, a man-made channel at the island's
northern end. The island is bordered to the west by the Cape
Fear River, to the north by Snows Cut and Carolina Beach Inlet,
to the east by the Atlantic Ocean, and to the south by New
Inlet.
The study area is characterized by a typical barrier island
profile - including beach, dunes, maritime shrub thicket/forest
and other maritime upland communities on the western side of
the island, as well as marsh communities along the back side of
the island. The northwestern section of Pleasure Island
consists largely of undeveloped upland and wetland habitats
within Carolina Beach State Park. The town of Carolina Beach
is the most northern town on the island with the unincorporated
Wilmington Beach/Hanby Beach community bordering it to the
south. Kure Beach is the next community further south. An old
civil war fort, Fort Fisher State Historic Site, borders the
study site to the south. A barrier spit extends south of the
Fort Fisher State Historic Site to New Inlet and the southern
end of the barrier spit is part of Zekes Island National
Estuarine Research Reserve. The study area consists of the
Town of Kure Beach, the unincorporated communities of Hanby and
Wilmington Beaches to the north, and adjacent waters where
potential borrow areas are located (Figure 1).
Land Use
The Town of Kure Beach and its associated planning jurisdiction
encompass approximately 1,512 acres (Kure Beach 1985). Over
half of this acreage, approximately 59.3 percent, consists of
undeveloped land within the buffer (blast) zone of the U.S.
Army's Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point (MOTSU). An
additional 150 acres is within the Fort Fisher Air Force Base.
The remainder consists of residential, commercial, industrial,
recreational, transportation, utilities, institutional and
undeveloped uses. Development in Kure, Hanby, and Wilmington
Beaches is primarily associated with tourism. The economy of
the area is largely dependent on tourism, real estate sales and
rentals. Small and large single family dwellings, as well as
multi-story condominiums line the beaches in the study area.
2
Figure 1: Map of the Project Site.
i To Wilmington
New Hanover
County
Mainland
1 C..?
Brunswick Howls Q~
County ?'
Mainland
ape FeaT
Military Ocean Terminal River arolina
Sunny Point Pleasure Beach
Island

JV u
oaks
-o?
ti
C
d ?
\New Inlet
0

0

/ure ncton Beach /
Beach 1 / PROJECT
SITE /
rt F{isffier State Historic Site
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
Zeke's Island National
Estuarine Research Reserve
C
?r
/Carolina
Be= Inl=t
3
Vacant land and undeveloped tracts in Kure Beach are being
developed with extensive clearing of maritime shrub
thicket/forest communities occurring. Currently, such
development is especially noted along the western side of US
421 which is the road paralleling the beach. A 1990
population survey revealed that Kure Beach had 1,488
residences, 82 percent of which were seasonal rental units.
Between 1985 and 1990, 6 subdivisions and 222 lots were
approved in Kure Beach; 411 building permits were issued and 98
residences were built (Kure Beach 1990). These figures
illustrate the rapid rate of development occurring.
Topography
Due to the presence of high relict dunes in Carolina Beach
State Park, elevations within the general area reach as high as
40 feet above mean sea level (msl). In the immediate study
area, that is, the beach and dune habitats along the shoreline,
elevations vary from sea level to about 6 feet above sea level.
Average annual erosion rates of the ocean shoreline are
approximately 3 feet per year in the immediate study area
(Figure 2).
Climate
Climatic conditions within the study area are mild (Weaver
1977). Average annual temperature for the period 1952-1974 was
63.3 degrees Fahrenheit with a frost-free period of mid-March
to late October. Annual precipitation is approximately 53.5
inches. About 45 thunderstorms occur per year, 27 of them in
the summer. Hurricanes cross the study area every few years.
Northeaster storms occur between October and May with strong
northeast winds blowing for several days. These storms often
cause dramatic shoreline changes and extensive damage to
coastal development.
The predominant littoral drift in the area is from north to
south. Winds blow north and northeast 31.8 percent of the
time; east, southeast and south 29.9 percent of the time; and
southwest, west, and northwest 38.3 percent of the time. The
study area faces east and is thus, affected most by the
easterly, northeasterly, and southeasterly winds (Moorefield
1978).
Soils
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
soils maps for the area depict much of the general study area
as underlain by hydric soils. The sand on the beach and dunes
is classified as Newhan Fine Sand which is excessively drained
and very rapidly permeable (Weaver 1977). Moorefield (1978)
describes the forebeach - nearshore sand in the Fort Fisher
4
tT
O
i•I
E•+
'd
4J
b
'd
D
1
41
4J
•rl
to
41
0
•n
O
14
a ,
xco
41 rn
N H
O4-)
w?
4
RI ?
t~
O
O
W N
c?
O
roU
:3 4.4
O
? N
14
P
?U
Ez
sT ?o
?co
O at
a ri
N
m
14
w
C A5fAL i
t ?
?a
.E t. _
3UIZAD
?S
V,%Pl el c. f .
?W
C V
W U
N r ? a ? O ?n
5
133 Nf 31d)3 -ivnNNv 3D1/a3AY
vicinity as consisting of fine to very coarse quartz sand mixed
with varying amounts of coquina rock fragments, fragmented
shells, and quartz pebbles.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CONCERNS AND PLANNING OBJECTIVES
The involvement of the Service in this study is in response to
a Congressional mandate through the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act which directs that fish and wildlife resource
conservation shall receive full and equal consideration and be
coordinated with other features of federal projects.
Fish and wildlife and their habitats are valuable public
resources which are conserved and managed for the people by
State and Federal governments. If proposed land or water
developments may reduce or eliminate the public benefits that
are provided by such natural resources, then State and Federal
resource agencies have a responsibility to recommend means and
measures to mitigate such losses. In the interest of serving
the public, it is the policy of the Service to seek to mitigate
losses of fish, wildlife, and their habitats and to provide
information and recommendations that fully support the Nation's
needs for fish and wildlife resource conservation as well as
sound economic and social development through balanced multiple
use of the Nation's natural resources.
Fish and wildlife resource concerns related to the present
study center around conservation of the remaining aquatic,
wetland and important upland habitats of the study area,
including habitats within potential borrow areas, and of the
fish and wildlife which utilize these habitats. The remaining
undeveloped wetland and upland areas within and adjacent to
Kure Beach provide a buffer for the adverse impacts associated
with urban runoff; provide valuable fish and wildlife habitat;
and provide an important recreational amenity for area
residents. Remaining wetland and aquatic habitats are already
threatened or affected by nonpoint-source runoff and attempted
drainage. These remaining habitats are further jeopardized by
proposals to develop additional areas for residential use.
Originally, four potential borrow sites for this project were
identified, all of which would have resulted in significant
adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. The
identified sites included estuarine areas in the Cape Fear
River - including a site designated as a secondary nursery
area; an estuarine area around Zekes Island, a National
Estuarine Research Reserve; as well as an upland site located
along the western edge of Pleasure Island which has been
identified by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program personnel as
6
naturally significant habitat. All of these potential sites
have been deleted from consideration, and the Corps is now
looking at several offshore sand sources as borrow sites for
the project. Deletion of the original borrow sites has
resulted in eliminating some of the major service concerns
associated with dredging sand for use in beach nourishment.
While obtaining sand from the offshore sand sources is more
acceptable than utilizing any of the originally proposed
potential borrow sites, there are serious concerns related to
offshore sand mining. The Service is concerned about the
possible effects to marine communities and to any hard bottom
which may lie adjacent to the offshore sand borrow sites.
We are also concerned about the effects that beach nourishment
and regular renourishment may have on nesting sea turtles,
nesting shorebirds, invertebrate organisms which inhabit the
intertidal beach and subtidal nearshore waters, and on fish and
bird species which depend on the nearshore and beach
invertebrates fqr food. Of particular concern is the potential
effect that nourishment may have on the coquina rock community
along the nearshore and intertidal areas of Kure Beach.
The Service proposes the following planning objectives for the
study area:
1. Modify construction activities as necessary to avoid
adverse impacts to organisms which inhabit the beach and
nearshore habitats or which utilize these habitats as nesting
grounds.
2. Avoid any adverse impacts to the coquina outcrops in
the area including avoidance of any activities which will bury
the rocks, or cause turbidity problems to organisms which
inhabit the coquina rocks.
3. Obtain sand for beach nourishment from sites and in a
manner which will not result in significant adverse impacts to
fish and wildlife habitat.
In accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
these planning objectives should be given full and equal
consideration with other features of the study area. The
following sections define the existing fish and wildlife
habitat values, assess the potential impacts of the proposed
plan, and provide the Service's recommendations for habitat
conservation and enhancement.
7
EVALUATION METHODS
Descriptions of natural resources present within the study area
and assessments of anticipated impacts to these resources are
derived from previous studies on this and other projects,
published literature, personal communications with other
biologists and planners, and qualitative information obtained
during site visits by Service and Corps personnel. No
quantitative studies of area resources or anticipated impacts
were conducted for this report. Nomenclature in this report
follows Radford et al. (1968) for plants; American Fisheries
Society (1980) for fish; and Banks et. al (1987) for birds,
reptiles, amphibians, and mammals.
EXISTING FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
Significant natural resources considered in the study area
include fish and wildlife habitats which will be directly
affected by the proposed project. Due to the elimination of
environmentally sensitive estuarine areas and significant
upland natural areas from consideration as potential borrow
sites, these habitats are not discussed in this report. If
project plans change and estuarine or upland sites are
considered as borrow sites, then these habitats will require
thorough discussion and an evaluation of impacts will be
necessary by the Service. The following fish and wildlife
habitats are discussed in this report:
* Maritime Shrub Thicket/Forest
* Sand Dunes
* Upper Beach
* Intertidal Beach with Coquina Rock Outcrops
* Nearshore Zone Including Surf Zone
* Offshore Area Where Potential Borrow Sites are Found
Maritime Shrub Thicket/Forest - Typical vegetation of the
maritime shrub thicket/forest comprises mainly salt-spray
tolerant species such as live oak (Quercus virginiana), wax
myrtle (Myrica cerifera), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), red cedar
(Juniper virginiana), catbriar (Smilax species) and loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda). Maritime shrub thickets/forests are
important resting and foraging sites for many migratory species
such as magnolia warblers (Dendroica magnolia), black-throated
blue warblers (Dendroica caerulescens), palm warblers
(Dendroica palmarum), and important nesting sites for species
such as painted buntings (Passerina ciris), gray catbirds
(Dumetella carolinensis) and Carolina wrens (Thryothorus
ludovicianus). Davis (1979) recorded 107 species of birds in
the Fort Fisher area during a fall migration study in 1978 and
8
the shrub thicket was the most heavily used habitat in the
vicinity. Barrier island shrub thickets are very important
resting and feeding sites for birds as they migrate down the
coast. The Fort Fisher area, in general, due to its
orientation, serves as a "funnel" for birds as they are
migrating south along the coast. As they reach the southwest
end of the island, they rest and feed in the shrub thicket
communities before turning westward and crossing the Cape Fear
River. Due to the study site's developed nature, there are
only limited sections of maritime shrub thicket/forest between
Carolina Beach and Kure Beach. A few isolated pockets remain
along Highway 421 parallel to the project site and larger
sections of this habitat occur at Fort Fisher, to the south of
the project site.
Sand Dunes - The Sand dune community is vegetated primarily by
sea oats (Uniola paniculata) and broomsedge (Andropogon sp.)
with scattered beach pea (Strophostyles helvola), pennywort
(Hydrocotyle bonariensis), gaillardia (Gaillardia pulchella),
sandspur (Cenchrus tribuloides), sea rocket (Cakile edentula),
seaside croton (Croton punctatus), beach spurge (Euphorbia
polygoniflora), evening primrose (oenothera humifusa), and
seaside elder (Iva imbricata). Dunes provide protection to
more inland environments - protecting them from salt spray and
wind forces. They provide foraging habitat for birds such as
red wing blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus), and seaside sparrows
(Ammospiza maritima), and are inhabited by mammals such as
marsh rabbits (Sylvilagus palustris), rice rats (Oryzomys
palustris), house mice (Mus musculus), and raccoons (Procyon
lotor), and by reptiles, such as black racers (Coluber
constrictor) and five-lined skinks (Eumeces inexpectatus).
Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus tundrius), merlins (Falco
columbarius) and other raptors often forage on small rodents in
the dune community.
Upper Beach - The upper beach, also known as the berm region,
between the high tide line and the dune line, is largely
unvegetated. Scattered clumps of dune building species such as
sea rocket are found in this area. These plants trap sand and
serve as the building blocks of dunes. This portion of the
beach is very important as nesting habitat for the loggerhead
sea turtle (Caretta caretta), and for shorebirds such as the
American oystercatcher (Hemitopus palliatus), and the Eastern
willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus). Ghost crabs (Ocypode
quadrata) also inhabit the upper portions of the beach.
Intertidal Beach - The intertidal beac
unusual due to exposed outcrops of
southern section of the study area.
exposed portions of a coquina platform
barrier and continuing landward for
the Cape Fear River. The coquina
h in the vicinity is very
coquina rock along the
The coquina outcrops are
extending underneath the
some distance underneath
rock comprises a porous
9
mixture of shell debris and quartz sand cemented together by
calcium carbonate (Moorefield 1978). A Service site visit was
made on July 1, 1992, and the coquina was examined. The
coquina outcrops are exposed along the beach in several pockets
separated by sandy areas. Exposed coquina rock is found
between the northern edge of the Fort Fisher State Historic
Site to an area approximately 700 yards north along the beach.
The size of the clumps of exposed coquina rock varies, with one
clump extending about 245 yards along the beach and another
only extending approximately 12 yards along the beach.
Exposures of coquina occur from between the mean high water
(mhw) line and approximately -12 feet mean sea level (msl)
(USACOE 1993). Megafossils in the coquina include several
marine and estuarine bivalves such as those of the Eastern
oyster (Crassostrea virginica), the northern quahog (Mercenaries
mercenaria), the wedge rangia (Rangia cuneata), the ponderous
ark (Noetia ponderosa), and the coquina clam (Moorefield 1978).
Algae covers the rocks, and rock elevation and tidal inundation
determine the floral distribution. A "black zone" of blue
green algae is found along the upper limit of the intertidal
zone, and immediately below this level is a layer of stone hair
(Enteromorpha clathrata), a bright green algae growing only
during the warmer months. Red and green algae grow in the tide
pools of the coquina rock and in the subtidal sections.
Species include sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca, U. fasciata), green
sea fern (Bryopsis plumosa), Graceful red weed (Gracilaria
foliifera), False agardhiella (Gracilaria verrucosa), hooked
weed (Hypea musciformis), and laver (Porphyra sp.) (N.C.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 1982).
The rocks provide hard substrate for a wide diversity of marine
organisms such as purple sea urchins (Arbacia punctulata),
common sea stars (Asterias forbesi), sea hares (Aplysia
brasiliana), anemones (various species), Atlantic oyster drills
(Urosalpinx cinerea), skeleton shrimp (Caprella penantis),
flat-clawed hermit crabs (Pagurus pollicaris), striped hermit
crabs (Clibanarius vittatus), stone crabs (Menippe mercenaria),
speckled crabs (Arenaeus cibrarius), blue crabs (Callinectes
sapidus), various polychaete worms and many other species.
Numerous fish such as blennies (family - Blenniidae), gobies
(family - Gobiidae), and skilletfish (Gobiesox strumosus) have
been found within pools within the coquina outcrops (Andy Wood,
Education Curator, North Carolina Aquarium at Fort Fisher,
personal communication, 1992)
The intertidal sandy beach is also inhabited by coquina clams
(Donax variabilis and Donax parvulus) and mole crabs (Emerita
talpoida) and probably by amphipods such as the beach digger
(Haustorius canadensis).
A study by Van Dolah and Knott (1984) identified 22 species and
9 major taxa of invertebrates living in the intertidal zone of
10
South Carolina beaches. Overall, the dominant species was the
coquina clam (D. variablis), and there were more species of
amphipods found than of any other taxa. Polychaetes, nematodes
and mole crabs were also very important. More species were
found in the mean low water area than in the mid and higher
intertidal regions. The mole crab and the amphipod (Amphiporeia
virginiana) were restricted to the mean low water area. At
Myrtle Beach, the polychaete (Scolelepis squamata) was the most
abundant species in the lower intertidal areas whereas at
Cherry Grove, South Carolina, coquina clams were dominant.
These invertebrate species are important food to shorebirds and
fishes utilizing the nearshore zone. Various birds such as
sanderlings (Crocethia alba), black-bellied plovers (Squatarola
squatarola), Eastern willets, ruddy turnstones (Arenaria
interpres), greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), lesser
yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), marbled godwits (Limosa fedoa),
American oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus), laughing gulls
(Larus atricilla), herring gulls (Larus argentatus), and great
black-backed gulls (Larus marinus) forage on the algae and
invertebrates of the coquina outcrops and the invertebrates of
the intertidal beach.
Nearshore Zone - The nearshore zone is generally thought of as
extending out as far as the point where waves do not scour the
ocean bottom. The width of the nearshore area varies, but
typically it is described as extending out to 30 feet of water,
and it includes the surf zone where waves break (Leatherman
1988). In the surf zone and nearshore waters, many fish
species are found including estuarine dependent species,
permanent residents, and seasonal migrants. Examples include
summer flounder (Paralichthyes dentatus), bluefish (Pomatomus
saltatrix), Atlantic croaker (Micropogon undulatus), Spanish
mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus), spot (Leiostomus
xanthurus), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), red drum (Scienops
ocellata), cobia (Rachycentron canadum), black sea bass
(Centropristis striata), spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias),
northern sea robin (Prinotus carolinus), and pompano
(Trachinotus carolinus). Panaeid shrimp (Panaeus duorarum, P.
aztecus, and P. setiferus) also utilize this area. Gulls
(Larus sp.), terns (Sterna sp.), brown pelicans (Pelecanus
occidentalis), ospreys (Pandion haliaetus), gannets (Sula
bassanus) and loons (Gavia sp.) feed in the surf zone and
nearshore waters. The bottle-nosed dolphin (Tursiops
truncates) is common in the nearshore waters of North Carolina
and other cetaceans also enter the nearshore waters
occasionally. Invertebrates such as crustaceans, polychaetes
and molluscs comprise the benthic community of the nearshore
waters.
Van Dolah and Knot (1984) conducted benthic surveys off of
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina and found that infaunal
11
assemblages at nearshore subtidal areas were more complex than
those at intertidal areas. They found 243 species representing
24 major taxa. The most dominant species were polychaetes,
Spiophanes bombyx, Caulleriella killariensis, Clymenella
torquata, Mediomastus californiensis and the amphipods, Batea
catherinensis, Erichthonius brasiliensis, Ampelisca vadorum,
and Unicola serrata. Oligochaetes, pelecypods, and decapods
were also highly represented. These invertebrates serve as
food to fish and larger invertebrates and are an important part
of the nearshore marine community.
At the southern end of the project site, coquina rock outcrops
extend out into nearshore waters in some sections (Moorefield
1978). The subtidal areas of the coquina rock also contain a
large diversity of organisms with species such as starfish,
anemones, sea urchins, various crabs, and fish such as blennies
and gobies inhabiting the coquina substrate. Just off the
beach in the subtidal areas you can find octopi (Octopus sp.)
hiding in the crevices of the coquina rock (Andy Wood,
Education Director, N.C. Aquarium at Fort Fisher, June 1992).
The subtidal outcrops are used heavily by fish as refuges and
for foraging. Species commonly found at these nearshore reefs
include horse-eye jack (Caranx caballus), crevalle jack (Caranx
hippo), Florida pompano (Trachinotus carolinus), permit
(Trachinotus falcatus), feather blenny (Hypsoblennius hentzi),
sergeant major (Abudefduf saxatilis), night seargent (Abudefduf
taurus), sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus), and juvenile
spadefish (Chaetodipterus zonatus). The outcrops serve as
congregation areas for many species and larger fish such as
hammerhead shark (Sphyrna sp.), sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon
longurio), and bignose shark (Carcharhinus altimus) are
attracted to the rocks for foraging (Paul Barrington, Curator
of Aquaria, North Carolina Aquarium at Fort Fisher, personal
communication, December 1992). Hard bottom habitats provide
excellent foraging habitat and shelter for many commercially
and recreationally important species (Dr. David Lindquist,
Icthyologist, University of North Carolina at Wilmington,
personal communication, December 1992).
Waterfowl such as buffleheads (Bucephala albeola), red-breasted
mergansers (Mergus serrator), and hooded mergansers (Lophodytes
cucullatus) forage along the subtidal sections of the rocks
also.
Offshore Area Where Potential Borrow Sites are Found - The
majority of potential offshore borrow sites are located outside
of the 30-foot contour and are, thus, considered as outside the
limits of the nearshore zone (Figure 3). In the offshore
waters, certain estuarine dependent species spawn and the
larvae make their way into the estuaries for growth and
development. Examples include spot, croaker, striped mullet
(Mugil cephalus), gag grouper (Mycteroperca microlepis),
12
N
0)
0)
Q?
Q?
W
4-I
O
N
a
O
U
r
?i
U1
71
GJ
41
.H
3
0
N
0
N
0
4
CI
W
W
0
ri
b
.rq
dJ
4J
0
QI
Q)
.r{
w

/o

I?
a

,r
G
r? ?I•
-Ir ,

?C1 1 1
G t
1 ?
1 1 I
1 ? 1
1 /
is
/
\
\
y
x

O u<
W Z
°
-- ¢ Q x
O a < (n L=a
O 26 ?+~
U)
o
v
O .4 z

W
°

n
c~
` ?y

a
w
LLJ uU
w m Qo

?
?
?

Z
° m W

==
`°
`x ??
" M
.y
` Y
z
o
x O 8 W W
x >6t x x x x x 1 O ui e 1.
1 x:x, x w Qn x >?bx x? 1 J UZ E-.y
-1 x x x/ IC r ?x xr- x x x I < °
?/x t x xx ?0 rt 'xo x 1 00
to
1 ,x xx / zx Z"?jx N
x 54x ;xy x +x
x /
x @x 9 x /
x \1 x? x
U I _ I
G 1 1 ??? -? I
W I 1 ' ±® i
a1 j 1 1 ? ?
1 /
4 ? I
1 I /
?a
4 / 1
8
n ?o
1
/
` n0 , r
rA x1:exh x \
rx x
1 •`\ •Ytr ze x
x Q?
x
\ \ ti q Z-x x
t \ r .
?-- n x -
I x
w . x
\ u x "pp, x 1
r X\ x t 1
? ' 'fix % 1' 1 t J
xx. I <
I «2 x5 x x\ I \ C
Y W
\ v ?P r y I
r x x C
x x xl 1 \\ < C
x x l W O
rrxxxxxI .I ? \\ C CO
Ir x xl 1 , ?? ,' <
\ l x x x
•.y x x ? I ;,? 3 O
x r. ( I
L?
W O
r x x ?' I C
N r x
<
x 1 1 _ C
?i r\
x LLI
w W\? y x x I 1 // Z <
\\ \ W . O
I
F a I ? ;, I W J X
W. I t i W h- < U
Z V- C
\ 1?\ 0 Z 3
1 - W C
1 \ Vi ~
LLj / O
\? ?1 C N
KfK
southern flounder, summer flounder, penaeid shrimp, and
Atlantic menhaden. Many species spawn much farther offshore
than the location of the potential borrow sites, but the larvae
must pass through this area as they move toward the inlets.
Besides estuarine dependent species, other larvae are found in
the vicinity of the offshore borrow sites.
Van Dolah and Knott (1984) sampled the benthos offshore the
South Carolina coast, sampling some hard bottom areas and some
live bottom areas. They found 167 species representing 9 major
taxa. McCrary and Taylor (1986) studied benthic macrofauna
assemblages offshore Fort Fisher, North Carolina. Their grab
samples were taken from between approximately 0.5 to 2 miles
offshore. They found many polychaete species, isopods,
amphipods, decapods, molluscs, echinoderms, many nematodes, and
a few Amphioxus (Brachiostoma caribaeum) in the benthic
samples. In reference to one of their sampling locations
located approximately 0.5 mile offshore, they state that it was
obvious that hard bottom was in the vicinity, although hard
substrate was not found in the sediment samples of the site.
They found 33 Chrysopetidae individuals, a family which is
predominately associated with coral or other hard substrates.
The benthos inhabiting the potential offshore borrow areas
serve as food for commercially important species and are
essential in marine food chains. For example, adult spot are
benthic feeders, primarily eating polychaetes and benthic
copepods. Atlantic croaker are also bottom feeders, preying on
polychaetes and bivalves, and pink and white penaid shrimp also
prefer benthos.
Bottle-nosed dolphins are common in this area. Several large
cetaceans migrate along the North Carolina Coast and
occasionally they appear in waters close to shore. Included
are humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), and northern
right whales (Balaena glacialis). Humpback whales migrate in
waters between 66 and 240 feet deep. During spring migration,
northern right whales migrate immediately adjacent to the
coast, and probably utilize deeper waters during fall
migration. Sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis) and blue whales
(Balaenoptera musculus) may occur offshore North Carolina on an
irregular basis. Fin whales are thought to winter offshore
North Carolina and sperm whales are pelagic species which occur
on the outer continental shelf year round. It is possible that
all of these species will enter the waters in the vicinity of
the potential offshore borrow sites. All five western Atlantic
sea turtle species have been sighted in ocean waters off the
North Carolina coast. Most sightings of the Kemp's Ridley sea
turtle (Lepidochelys kempi) have been within a few miles of
shore. The hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) is
rare north of Florida, but there have been limited sightings
off the North Carolina coast. The leatherback sea turtle
14
(Dermochelys coriacea) is found between 10 to 30 miles offshore
during April through October and seldomly comes closer into
shore. Green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) have been sighted in
oceans and sounds of North Carolina (USMMS 1990), and the
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), a species which nests
on North Carolina beaches, utilizes the ocean waters and is
likely to be found in the vicinity of the offshore borrow
sites.
The ocean waters offshore Cape Fear contain a high number of
hard bottom habitats (USMMS 1990). Located to the south of the
potential borrow sites, is a well known hard bottom called
Sheepshead Rock. It is approximately 1 mile to 1.5 miles off
the Fort Fisher spit - south of the potential borrow sites.
There is also an artificial reef offshore about 2.7 miles south
of Carolina Beach Inlet (Steve Murphy, NC Division of Marine
Fisheries, personal communication, 1992). According to Bob
Dickson (NMFS, personal communication, July 1992), there is a
hard bottom area called "High Rock" approximately 0.25 miles
off of Fort Fisher. This rock is within only 9 feet of the
water surface at low tide. There are no other known hard
bottoms in the immediate area; but, due to the patchiness of
hard bottoms and the small size of many, vibracore borings may
not indicate their presence unless the cores are taken very
close together (Bob Dickson, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Beaufort laboratory, personal communication, July 1992).
Dr. William Cleary of the University of North Carolina at
Wilmington, is conducting a study concerning the movement of
sand off of recently renourished beaches, Wrightsville Beach to
the north of the study site and Carolina Beach. To date, most
of his work on this project has focused on Wrightsville Beach.
He has found that there are many more hard bottom areas in the
nearshore zone within 1 or 2 miles of shore than was previously
thought and the distribution of rock is very patchy. In some
locations, 5 to 6 feet of sand covers the rock at times. There
are also large depressions filled with sand in places with hard
bottom only 100 meters or so away (Dr. William Cleary,
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, personal
communication, July 1992).
The Corps has taken vibracore borings in the potential borrow
sites and they do not indicate the presence of hard bottom.
However, more vibracores are needed in order to accurately map
out the borrow sites (Daniel Small, Wilmington District Corps
of Engineers, personal communication, June 1992). The location
of the boring samples are shown in Figure 3 by the circles
marked "c" or "k." Sidescan sonar and magnetometers did not
locate any areas with significant relief (greater than 1 meter)
in the area (Corps 1993). However, low profile hard bottoms
may be present in the area, and they may provide very important
habitat for fish and invertebrate species. According to Dr.
15
Cleary, his future research will likely involve taking
additional very closely spaced cores and using cameras off of
the Carolina Beach and Fort Fisher area to identify bottom
characteristics (Dr. William Cleary, UNC-W, personal
communication, July 1992).
Endangered and Threatened Species
The Federally - listed threatened loggerhead sea turtle nests
on beaches in and adjacent to the study area. The nesting
season extends between May 1 and November 15. In 1990, six
nests were recorded at Kure Beach, and two were recorded in
1991. Just south of the study site, at Fort Fisher, 13 nests
were recorded in 1990, 15 in 1991, and 11 in 1992. At Carolina
Beach, to the north of the study site, five nests were recorded
in 1990, 18 in 1991 and one in 1992 (Therese Conant, Sea Turtle
Coordinator, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC),
personal communication, June 1992, and NCWRC 1993).
Nesting of the green sea turtle, a Federally-listed threatened
species, was documented at the southern end of Fort Fisher in
1990, just a few miles to the south of the project site and
within recent years, nesting has occurred on Bald Head Island
located approximately 10 miles to the south of the study site
(Therese Conant, Sea Turtle Coordinator, NCWRC, personal
communication, June 1992).
On June 17, 1992, a Kemp's ridley turtle nested on Long Beach
about 30 miles southwest of the study site. This positive
identification is the first record of this species nesting in
North Carolina. However, two other descriptions of sea turtles
nesting in North Carolina during 1992 fit the description of
the Kemp's ridley turtles (Therese Conant, NCWRC, personal
communication, June 1992).
The loggerhead and green sea turtles and potentially, the
Kemp's ridley and leatherback sea turtles are found in the
nearshore ocean waters in the project vicinity as are various
marine mammals. The National Marine Fisheries Service has
responsibility for marine species including sea turtles "when
in the water," and they should be contacted regarding any
marine endangered and threatened species which may be affected
by the project.
The piping plover is a Federally-listed threatened species.
This species' decline is attributed to increased development
and recreational activities on beaches. Vehicle and foot
traffic on beaches can directly crush eggs and chicks or
indirectly lower productivity by disrupting territorial
establishment and breeding behavior. Increased development of
beach areas also has resulted in an increase in plover chick
and egg predators, such as gulls and raccoons.
16
The piping plover has been documented just south of the study
site. At the southern end of Fort Fisher near New Inlet,
piping plovers are regularly seen resting and foraging on the
beaches during migration and during winter. Prior to the 1991,
1992, and 1993 nesting seasons, an area was staked off to
prevent off-road vehicles and pedestrians from disturbing the
site so that piping plovers would have a better chance at
nesting. Each year since 1991, several piping plovers have
been observed in the staked-off area, but nesting has not been
observed. However, the area is considered prime piping plover
nesting habitat by John Fussel, a North Carolina avian expert
and the NC National Estuarine Sanctuary will continue to stake
off the area in future years (Dr. John Taggart, Director, NC
National Estuarine Research Reserve, personal communication,
July 1993).
Piping plovers prefer upper edges of overwash areas at inlets
or large open unvegetated beaches for nesting. The highly
developed nature of the beaches within the study site very
likely excludes the area as prime piping plover nesting
habitat. However, it is possible that piping plovers will
utilize project beaches, and precautions should be made to
avoid any impacts to them.
Seabeach amaranth is a Federally-listed threatened species. It
generally occurs in large barren areas of extreme overwash,
often near inlets. Suitable habitat for seabeach amaranth may
occur in the study area, although the study area is located
several miles from the closest inlet, and large overwash areas
are absent from the study area. Where found, seabeach amaranth
grows along beaches between dunes and the high tide line and
helps to trap sand and build dunes.
There are species which, although not now listed or officially
proposed for listing as endangered or threatened, are under
status review by the service. These "Candidate" species are
not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act, and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or
endangered. These species may be listed in the future, at
which time they will be protected under the Act. of the
candidate species found in Hew Hanover County, dune blue curls
(Trichostema sp.) is the only one which is likely to occur in
the study area. This plant occurs on well-drained soils
between stable dunes or along roadsides (Duncan and Duncan
1987). Although this species is not legally protected at this
time, the Service would appreciate anything the Corps could do
to protect it.
17
FUTURE FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE CONDITIONS
WITHOUT THE PROJECT
In the future, development will continue and all remaining
undeveloped tracts of maritime shrub thicket and other uplands
will very likely be turned into residential property.
Terrestrial wildlife populations will decline if habitat is not
maintained at its present extent, with the exception of those
species well adapted to human perturbations.
Beach erosion is expected to continue and accelerate with sea
level rising. Beach front property will be lost to the sea due
to storms and general shoreline retreat, and US Highway 421 may
be flooded or even destroyed. Beach erosion will result in
diminished sea turtle nesting habitat and bird resting and
nesting habitat. On an undeveloped beach, sea level rise and
beach erosion would not result in overall longterm habitat loss
because natural coastal processes would maintain the barrier
island profile through washover and landward retreat of the
island. Washover processes would carry sand across the island
and eventually result in the movement of dunes and beach
farther landward. However, on developed islands, condominiums,
roads, and houses prevent the natural landward retreat and the
beach generally is unable to survive sea level rise and beach
erosion. A single hurricane could completely destroy Kure
Beach and vicinity development, but, prediction of such an
event is impossible. General shoreline retreat and beach
erosion can be expected to result in the loss of turtle nesting
habitat, bird foraging, resting, and nesting habitat, and beach
invertebrate habitat.
With sea level rising and erosion continuing, there may be
pressure to resort to extreme erosion control measures such as
constructing bulkheads and other hard structures. Construction
of such structures is inconsistent with the North Carolina
Coastal Area Management Act and its current policy regarding
hard structures. Revetments and other inflexible structures
cause wave energy to reflect downward from the revetment, and
the longshore current is strengthened with an acceleration of
beach erosion resulting. Often, eventually a complete loss of
beach occurs as has happened in many instances where these
static structures have been constructed.
Without the project, the coquina rock community should
experience minor changes due to different levels of exposure
each year. As sea level rises, the intertidal coquina rock
outcroppings may become subtidal and the community structure
may change. Some intertidal organisms of the coquina rock
requiring a period of exposure will be replaced by subtidal
organisms. Other organisms inhabiting the intertidal regions
18
of the coquina outcroppings, can live in subtidal or intertidal
hard bottom habitats. Additional coquina rock, farther
landward than the present exposed outcroppings, may become
exposed in the future, thus maintaining the extent of the
intertidal communities. In general, the Service believes that,
without the project, the coquina outcrops will continue to be
inhabited by algae and invertebrates and will continue to
provide foraging habitat for many birds, fish and
invertebrates. Species diversity should remain high.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Borrow material - Borrow areas have been located beyond the 30-
foot contour one to two miles offshore. Two major areas were
identified as containing sufficient sand quantities and
qualities for beach nourishment. The Corps identifies these as
areas A and B, and they further delineate them as A-South, A-
North, B-East, and B-West (Figure 3). Vibracore borings have
been made in and around these potential borrow areas. The
average quality and quantity of available material is known for
A-South, A-North, and B-West and is shown in Table 1.
The Corps stated that additional vibracore borings will be
taken in order to map out a detailed profile of the borrow
sites prior to mining the sites (Daniel Small, USACOE, personal
communication, July 1992).
Table 1: Borrow Area Material Data (USACOE 1992)
Borrow Area Volume Overfill % % % Renourishment
of Material Ratios Fines Shell Sand Factor
A-South 8,200,000 1.00 7 4 89 0.72
A-North 2,470,000 1.00 6 2 92 0.83
B-West 14,540,000 1.00 5 12 83 0.75
B-East
Native Beach 1.00 2 6 92
* - has not been sampled at this time.
Beach Fill Designs
Several dune and storm berm alternative dimensions are being
considered by the Corps (Figure 4). Alternative 1 would
involve construction of a 17.5-foot-high, 25-foot-wide dune
19
m
m
D
4.1
b
a
N
m
4J
b
a
b
m
W
O
W
P4
ri
a
01
H
H
h .
N
aCh
W H
?m
V m
O
a
m W
+J W
.rl O
W
>m
PO
W U
wE
0
a --
°'
o
ma
to
mo
14
M 44
U y
a
?b
m04
N
9v
w?
cn
CO
d-
m
M
M
m
N
m
m
e-i
m
m
m
A
W
to
z
O
H
H
H
W
C7
W
D
w
a
ov
H
to
W
O
W
H
a
Ea
03
a
H
W
0
a
w
Ea
W
W
w
z
H
w
U
H
to
H
A
w
0
4
0
m
m
q
N
M ?
>1
14
m a
43
?O1 a
0 rri •'i
ao m
a? m
b Q H
ma b
m
V 0
H W
m
mo b
+ .?
rn o ,d
a a
b a •r'
0.0
N 4 '
H
? m
W 4-)
A m k
4J ` fd
b
44
0
m
9? $4
''q '^ :3
a a to
v
m
o b
o
ob
a H
M -H a
41 H
a
0
ami b 1
m U Id
0, m z
a4
A
D
u
z
QAJN 3A08K SHJIaR
20
LO m L LO m Ln V-i t
with a 1:10 dune slope and a 9-foot-high, 50-foot-wide berm
with a 1:10 fore-shore slope. Alternative 2 would involve
construction of a 15.5-foot-high, 25-foot-wide dune with a 1:10
dune slope and a 9-foot-high, 50-foot-wide berm with a 1:10
fore-shore slope. Alternative 3 would entail constructing a
13.5 foot high, 25-foot-wide dune with a 1:10 dune slope and a
50-foot-wide berm with a 1:10 fore-shore slope. Alternatives 1-
3 involve vegetating the dune and the slope to the berm.
Alternative 4 is a berm only alternative and would involve
creating a 9-foot high, 100-foot-wide storm berm with a 1:10
fore-shore slope. According to the-Corps, variations in the
berm width of the storm berm only alternative also have been
investigated. Alternative 3, with the 13.5-foot-high dune and
storm berm is the Corps' preferred alternative and NED plan
(USACOE 1992). Construction would not occur in areas which
currently have a dune at least 13.5-feet-high and a 50-foot-
wide berm (Dan Small, biologist, USACOE, personal
communication, May 1993).
The nourished area will extend from the southern limit of the
Town of Carolina Beach for a distance of approximately 18,000
feet to a point at Kure Peach. At the northern end of the
current project, the nourished beach will join directly to the
berm and beach at Carolina Beach which was last nourished in
1991. There will be a 1500-foot transition section at the
southern end of the project where beach fill will taper into
the shoreline. This transition zone will terminate
approximately 1000-feet-north of the Fort Fisher property line
and is parallel to the southern end of a large condominium
complex named Ocean Dunes. The Town of Kure Beach and
unincorporated Wilmington and Hanby Beaches will be included in
the nourishment project.
Beach nourishment will require 3.3 million cubic yards of sand
which includes initial construction and the amount needed for
the first maintenance fill. Future maintenance is estimated to
require approximately 766,000 cubic yards of material every
three years for a total of approximately 15.6 million cubic
yards of material during the 50-year life of the project. The
estimated overfill factor is 1.20. The target year for initial
construction is 1996. Construction of the preferred plan would
take eight months if construction occured during the winter
months using one dredge and would be scheduled between November
15 and July 31. If construction occured during the summer
months, then it is likely that two dredges could be used and
work would take approximately three months. The Corps has
indicated that it may be difficult to get two dredges to work
during the winter months, since this is the season at which
most dredges are being utilized (Dan Small, biologist, Corps'
Wilmington District, personal communication 1993). However, if
two dredges worked during the winter months, then construction
should require approximately four months. Each renourishment
21
would take approximately two months. The Corps is considering
coordinating the renourishment activities with the Carolina
Beach project (USACOE 1992).
Method of Disposal on the Beach
Three alternatives are being considered for dredging the borrow
material and disposing of it on the beach. Alternative A will
use an ocean-certified pipeline dredge with direct pumping onto
the beach, with or without a jack-up booster. This alternative
would involve placing pipes on the ocean bottom from the borrow
site (s) to the beach. A jack-up booster may be required in
order to provide enough pressure to move the material the one
to two miles from the borrow site to the beach.
Alternative B would involve an ocean certified dredge with
pumpout of the material from the ocean certified dredge to a
scow or barge. The scow would be towed to an offshore pump-out
station where material would be pumped directly to the beach.
Alternative C would utilize a hopper dredge connecting to a
single point mooring with pumpout onto the beach. The hopper
would dredge the material at the borrow site and then transport
it to an offshore pumpout station where it would be pumped
directly to the beach from the hopper. The hopper would make
several trips to obtain more sand from the borrow sites.
All alternatives would require that standard earth moving
equipment be used to construct the dune and berm (USACOE 1992).
Pipeline dredges are less seaworthy than are hopper dredges;
thus, they have more trouble working in offshore waters during
the winter than do hopper dredges. The Corps' tentative date
for construction to begin is October 1996.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
Impacts Due to Mining Sand from Offshore Borrow Sites
Immediate impacts to the benthic community at the offshore sand
sites will result from dredging. Most benthic organisms will
suffer immediate mortality with unknown rates of
recolonization. The long term impacts of dredging on offshore
benthic communities has been studied in only a few instances,
with differing results. Some studies indicate that there is
little difference in density and species diversity of benthos
at offshore sites which had been dredged versus control sites
(Stauble and Nelson 1985). Other studies have indicated a
decline in species diversity, organism abundance, and biomass
22
of benthos at offshore borrow sites (Navgi and Pullen 1982).
Saloman et al. (1982) found a decline in diversity and
abundance of bottom dwelling invertebrates in offshore borrow
pits as a result of dredging. These researchers indicate that
impacts were short term and recovery was complete after one
year. Turbeville and Marsh (1982) found that there were no
significant long term effects on species diversity and faunal
densities at offshore borrow sites dredged five years
previously compared to control sites. Yet, these researchers
indicate that their results are inconsistent with those of
Saloman (1974) who studied a three year old borrow site near
Treasure Island, Florida. Saloman (1974) found a decrease in
diversity and abundance of invertebrates in borrow areas versus
adjacent relatively undisturbed bottom. Grober (1992) warns
that most past borrow area recovery studies have been deficient
in some way, some with limited samples and some without
prenourishment data. Also of concern is that borrow sites
which appear to have recovered based on the number of species
found at the borrow sites may not resemble actual composition
of natural benthic communities. For example, Wilbur and Stern
(1992) (as cited by Grober (1992)), reexamined four borrow
sites which had been determined to be recovered after dredging.
Wilbur and Stern (1992) looked at functional groups - that is,
the trophic level, feeding mode, and depth of penetration of
the organisms within the borrow areas. They found that old
borrow sites were dominated by small filter feeders near the
surface of the sediment. Deep burrowers, predators,
carnivores, and large deposit feeders were lacking. Such a
change in community structure could have serious longterm
impacts on the ocean ecosystem through disturbance to the food
chain.
If the offshore borrow sites are located adjacent to hard
bottom habitats, then serious impacts to these live bottoms may
result from high turbidity related to dredging or as a result
of actual destruction of the hard bottom by dredging machinery.
Turbeville and Marsh (1982) cite a study reporting that corals
near borrow pits off of Hallandale Beach, Florida, received
substantial damage due to careless handling of dredging
equipment during an offshore dredging and beach nourishment
project. Goldberg (1985) gives an example of a Florida
nourishment project which resulted in damage to a nearby rocky
environment 50 to 60 meters offshore. Material placed on the
beach during a nourishment project quickly eroded off the beach
and covered nearshore rocks. Seven years after the project,
the rocks were still covered in fine sand and silt, and
turbidity of the nearshore area remained high.
Coastal geologists, Dr. Stan Riggs of East Carolina University,
Dr. William Cleary of the University of North Carolina at
Wilmington, and Rob Theiller, a graduate student at Duke
University are currently studying bottom characteristics of
23
North Carolina's continental shelf. Their study has indicated
that there are far more small hard bottom habitats off of the
coast within one to two 'miles of shore than was previously
thought. They have found that many of these hard bottoms are
covered in sand. Sand tracking techniques have allowed these
researchers to determine the origin of sand covering the hard
bottoms. Off of Wrightsville Beach, sand covering hard bottoms
was identified as the same sand that was placed on the beach
during the 1970s and 1980s. Apparently, this sand has eroded
off of the nourished beach and covered hard bottoms (Dr.
William Cleary, Coastal Geologist, University of North Carolina
at Wilmington, personal communication, August, 1992). Sand
placed on the beach as nourishment material has apperently
moved off of Wrightsville Beach into 40 to 60-foot depths
offshore (Rob Theiller, Coastal Geology Graduate Student, Duke
University, personal communication, June, 1993).
The effects that dredging sand from the offshore borrow sites
will have on fisheries is unknown. Digging a hole offshore may
discourage fish, or it may attract fish by providing habitat
heterogeneity. If benthic organisms do not recover rapidly
from dredging, then certain fish and other organisms which
depend on benthos for food may suffer. No studies concerning
the effects of dredging sand from borrow sites off the North
Carolina coast have been conducted in the past. Biological
monitoring is needed in order to determine what effects mining
offshore sand has on marine communities in and adjacent to
borrow areas and on the nearby shoreline. Special attention
should be given to identifying hard bottoms and to monitoring
the effects on hard bottom habitats which may be present near
borrow areas. Stender et al. (1991) and Maier et al. (1992)
used side scan sonar and underwater television cameras to
identify live bottoms near potential sand borrow sites off of
South Carolina.
Impacts to Beach and Nearshore Organisms due to Beach Nourishment
Depositing sand on beaches results in negative impacts to
organisms due to burial, compaction, and resuspension. The
burial of organisms, such as coquina clams, mole crabs,
amphipods, polychaetes and other invertebrates, of the surf
zone and beach will usually result in temporary elimination of
these organisms with the exception of any highly mobile species
or any species able to withstand prolonged periods of burial.
The ability to recolonize and the success of recolonization
will be affected by the time of year at which nourishment
occurs, the frequency of renourishment, and the ecology of the
organisms affected. Compaction of sand causes problems for
beach invertebrates and for nesting sea turtles. Invertebrate
organisms may not be able to move up through heavily compacted
sand, and sea turtles have problems moving through and digging
nests in compacted sand. Compaction may also affect the
24
moisture levels and temperature of sand. Beach nourishment may
lead to resuspension of fine sediments which may increase
turbidity to levels damaging to fish and invertebrates.
Reilly and Bellis (1978) studied the effects of depositing
902,174 cubic meters of sand on the beach at Bogue Banks in
Onslow County. Sediments were deposited at a depth of 2 meters
and as a result of nourishment, the intertidal zone was moved
75 meters seaward in one day. Nourishment occurred between
December and April. The researchers sampled the intertidal
organisms before and after nourishment at the nourished beach
and at a nearby control beach. They found complete mortality
of mole crabs and coquina clams after nourishment.
Reilly and Bellis (1978) state that species recruited from
pelagic larval stocks, such as mole crabs and coquina clams,
will recover if nourishment activity ends before larval
recruitment begins in the spring. Coquina clams spend the
summer in the intertidal regions of the beach, move offshore
during the winter, and in the spring, recruitment begins with
juveniles and adults approaching the beach. In the Bogue Banks
study conducted by Reilly and Bellis (1978), nourishment was
still being conducted during March, the recruitment period of
the coquina clam. No increase in coquina clams occurred until
July 29th, two months after cessation of nourishment, and
populations failed to reach pre-nourishment, pre-winter
numbers. At the control site, coquina clam numbers also
decreased during winter as they moved offshore. However,
during March, numbers at the control site increased to high
levels. This study indicated that adult coquina clams were
probably killed in their offshore wintering environment, and
beach nourishment activities, most likely high turbidity,
prevented normal pelagic larvae recruitment. The individuals
that eventually arrived were post metamorphic adults likely to
have diffused from area beaches via littoral drift.
Reilly and Bellis (1978) found the complete absence of mole
crabs within one week of the beginning of the nourishment
project at Bogue Banks. Numbers were also reduced at the
control site as adults moved offshore to spend the winter.
Overwintering adult mole crabs returned to the control site in
April and the young of the year from pelagic larval stocks
returned later in the spring. The return of mole crabs at
Bogue Banks lagged one month behind that at the control site
and then only young of the year mole crabs appeared at the
nourished beach. The lack of adults at the nourished beach
resulted in a drastic reduction in overall biomass of mole
crabs.
Dr. Robert Dolan of the University of Virginia has been
studying the effects of beach fill activities on mole crabs at
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Dare County, North
25
Carolina. Results indicate that nourishment causes a decline
on mole crab numbers in the area where beach fill is placed.
His studies also indicate that nourishment should not occur
during the spring when mole crab recruitment is occurring (Dr.
Robert Dolan, University of Virginia, personal communication,
June, 1992). Dr. Dolan's study indicated that mole crab
numbers counted during the spring and summer of the following
year after nourishment were lower than they were in the same
areas before nourishment (Dolan et al. 1992).
For species spending their entire life cycles in the intertidal
regions of the beach, the impacts of beach nourishment may be
more serious. Haustorius sp., an amphipod found on many
beaches, recovered very slowly after nourishment in the above-
mentioned study by Reilly and Bellis (1978) at Bogue Banks.
After nourishment, no amphipods were found on the beach until
late summer and recovery then was probably due to recruitment
from nearby areas.
Chavrat (1987) (as reported in Nelson (1988)) studied the
impact of beach nourishment on sandy beach amphipods in
Florida. Nourishment did not appear to have any significant
effect on species richness or amphipod abundance, but sand was
deposited only above the high tide line.
The study at Bogue Banks by Reilly and Bellis (1978) also
indicated that numbers of migrating consumers such as the
speckled crab (Arenaues oribrarius), the lady crab (Ovalipes
ocellatus), the ghost crab (Ocypode quadrata) and the blue crab
(Callinectes sapidus) were drastically reduced after
nourishment activities. This may be attributable to greater
turbidity causing resident populations to move elsewhere, a
change in beach slope and offshore bars making approach to the
beach difficult, or more likely a reduction in the abundance of
prey (Reilly and Bellis 1978). Other consumers, such as fish
and birds, also may suffer as a result of a reduction in prey
caused by beach nourishment.
Nelson and Collins (1987) studied beach nourishment effects at
Sebastian Inlet, Florida. They looked at mean abundance and
species diversity of benthic macrofauna and fishes. They did
not find any evidence that nourishment is having a significant
impact on these parameters, and they attributed this to the
careful methods used in that particular nourishment project.
All of the material was placed above high tide, and earth
moving equipment was used rather than hydraulic pumping.
Nelson and Collins (1987) also experimentally buried certain
organisms. They found that mole crabs experienced little
mortality when buried in 10 centimeters (cm) of fine sediment
during a 24 hour period, but they found a 55 percent mortality
rate when mole crabs were buried in 10 cm of coarse sediment.
26
Mole crabs were able to move better through fine sediments than
through coarse sediments. Only 2.5 percent of mole crabs
studied reached the surface of a 10 cm mound of coarse
sediments, while 85 percent of mole crabs studied reached the
surface of a 10 cm mound of fine sediments. Coquina clams on
the other hand, experienced greater mortality in fine sediments
than in coarse sediments (Nelson and Collins 1987).
Goldberg (1985) (as reported in Goldberg (1988)) found that one
year after a nourishment project in Broward County, Florida,
was complete, infauna just offshore-were regaining taxonomic
diversity, but abundance was still as low as 62 percent below
pre-nourishment numbers. Saloman and Naughton (1984) looked at
the effects of a nourishment project at Panama City Beach,
Florida. They found significant decreases in species abundance
and diversity of organisms in the swash zone during a 5 to 6
week period after nourishment. On the other hand, Gorzelany
(1983) (as reported by Stauble and Nelson (1985)) examined the
biological impacts of a nourishment project on Indialantic and
Melbourne Beach, Florida. Nourishment occurred between mid-
October and January, and the researcher found no negative long
term effects to nearshore fauna.
Resuspension of fine materials may affect areas outside of the
immediate vicinity of nourishment and may occur for some time
after cessation of the project. Resuspended fine particles may
increase turbidity and siltation which is the precipitation and
accumulation of the turbidity producing fine material. Reilly
and Bellis (1978) found that after beach nourishment, the total
suspended solids load in the nearshore waters adjacent to the
beach nourishment project was much higher than the load of
"normal sea water." Fish and invertebrates may smother when
gills are clogged due to high suspended solid loads, and
decreasing light may reduce primary productivity.
A beach nourishment study by Saloman and Naughton (1984)
revealed that turbidity was relatively low during nourishment
with the exception of points where high organic content
material was dredged and deposited on the beach. At one site
where the dredge encountered mud, turbidities were as high as
over 160 nephelometer turbidity units (NTUs). At another site,
where deposited material was nearly all clean sand, the
turbidities immediately after dumping ranged from 1.6 to 14.2
NTUs. Beach disposal of dredged material at Atlantic Beach,
N.C. resulted in turbidities as high as 250 NTUs in the
vicinity of the discharge pipe, and they rapidly decreased as
one moved away from the discharge pipe (USACOE, 1993). State
water quality regulations require that in waters classified as
SC, turbidity due to discharge must not exceed 25 NTUs (North
Carolina Department of Environment Health, and Natural
Resources 1991).
27
Turbidity may cause problems for the nearby coquina rock
community. Many organisms which are susceptible to turbidity-
related suffocation inhabit the coquina rocks of the intertidal
and subtidal regions of Kure Beach as well as those rock
communities extending farther offshore. Portions of the
exposed coquina rock may be buried by the material placed on
the beach as it is moved off of the beach. The extent of the
possible burial is unknown at this time. Shoreline analysis
conducted by the Corps indicates that the natural coquina
outcrop is acting as a low level groin. The Corps has stated
that beach nourishment is not likely to have serious impacts to
the coquina outcrops because material will fill up around the
groin to the same elevation as was occuring naturally and
"...material in excess of the natural capacity of the rock
outcropping will simply migrate to the beach south of Fort
Fisher" (USACOE 1993). However, the Service believes that
there is no guarantee that the project will not bury the
coquina outcrops and adversely affect the unique community.
Goldberg (1985) gives an example of a Florida nourishment
project which resulted in damage to a nearby rocky environment
50 to 60 meters offshore. Seven years after the project, the
rocks were still covered in fine sand and silt, and turbidity
of the nearshore area remained high.
Long-term effects of beach nourishment are not well-studied in
North Carolina. Research is limited to the study at Bogue
Banks by Reilly and Bellis (1978), to studies on Hatteras
Island by Hayden and Dolan (1974), and to studies at Pea Island
NWR recently conducted by Dr. Robert Dolan (Dolan et al. 1992).
Comprehensive studies looking at the effects of nourishment on
intertidal and subtidal communities are needed.
In Florida, such extensive studies are beginning to become an
essential part of beach nourishment activities. For example, a
two year comprehensive monitoring project of beach nourishment
activities at Redington Beach, Florida was recently conducted.
Researchers sampled the benthos and analyzed sediment along
closely spaced transects extending from the beach to a water
depth of about 5 feet. Surveys occurred prior to beach
nourishment and then monthly after nourishment for two years
(Davis 1991). Rakocinski et al. (1991) are conducting an
extensive two to three year study of the effects of beach
nourishment on macro invertebrates at Perdido Key in Florida.
Sampling transects extend from the beach out to 800 meters
offshore. While this study is inconclusive at this time,
initial sampling efforts indicated that numbers of intertidal
and subtidal organisms, species richness, and total densities
of invertebrates were drastically reduced after nourishment
with varying degrees of recovery. More studies of this nature,
and studies specific to the North Carolina coast, are needed,
28
before one can develop a clear understanding of the effects of
nourishment on the beach and nearshore community.
Impacts to Sea Turtles
If beach nourishment occurs during the sea turtle nesting and
hatching season, then nests or hatchlings may be buried by
beach fill. More indirect effects to sea turtles such as those
caused by beach compaction and unnatural beach profiles may
result from beach nourishment activities, despite the period of
nourishment activities.
Dumping sand on beaches may disrupt nesting sea turtles by
causing sand to compact so tightly that turtles have a
difficult time moving through the sand and digging nests.
Nesting sea turtles more often reject nest sites, make false
crawls and false digs, and excavate atypical nest cavities on
compacted beaches than on natural beaches (Nelson and Dickerson
1988). Compaction may also increase the length of time
required to excavate a nest and thus cause physiological stress
to the turtles (Nelson and Dickerson 1988).
Compaction may indirectly affect the temperature of nests.
Nests on compacted beaches are often more shallow than those on
natural beaches and shallower nests are warmer than the typical
light bulb-shaped nests. The type of sand used for nourishment
may also affect beach temperature. Sands from oxidized sources
such as inlets are typically light in color and result in a
cooler beach than do dark sands from unoxygenated offshore
sites.
The sex of loggerhead sea turtles appears to be largely
affected by nest temperature during 11 to 31 days into
incubation. Warmer temperatures result in females, and cooler
temperatures result in males. Minor changes in beach and nest
temperatures could possibly alter the sex ratios of loggerhead
turtle eggs.
According to Nelson and Dickerson (1988), the level of
compaction of a beach can be assessed by measuring sand
consistencies using a cone penetrometer. Sand consistencies
above about 550 pounds per square inch increased digging times
of sea turtles. Tilling of a nourished beach reduces the
compaction to levels comparable to unnourished beaches. A root
rake with tines at least 42 inches long and less than 36 inches
apart pulled through the sand is recommended (Nelson and
Dickerson 1988).
Often beach nourishment results in a steep escarpment between
the beach fill area and the natural offshore slope. Such a
change in beach profile may cause access problems for nesting
29
sea turtles or obstruct hatchling sea turtles on their way to
the ocean.
Efforts should be made to ensure that the beach profile after
nourishment is a natural, gently sloping beach rather than a
layered beach with sharp escarpments which might hinder nesting
sea turtles as well as hatchlings.
Summary of Impacts
The following impacts are expected to result from the proposed
project. Immediate mortality to benthos will result from
mining the sand from offshore borrow areas and recovery rates
for the benthos are unknown. Immediate mortality of coquina
clams, mole crabs, and other invertebrates through burial will
result from disposal of the sand on the beach. Mole crabs and
coquina clams are expected to recover if nourishment ceases
before spring when juvenile recruitment to the beaches begins.
The recovery potential of other beach species is unknown.
Increased turbidity at the offshore borrow areas due to
dredging and in the nearshore waters due to the rapid loss of
materials from the nourished beach, may clog gills of fish and
invertebrates, including those inhabiting the coquina rocky
outcrops. Mortality of beach invertebrates and nearshore
invertebrates and fish may adversely affect other species such
as birds and larger fish depending on these species for food.
Nourishment may result in an unnatural beach profile with sharp
escarpments, and may cause sand compaction or alter other sand
properties, and thus, could affect sea turtle nesting success.
Removing sand from the offshore borrow sites could result in
increased wave velocities along the project shoreline or
adjacent beaches if these sand mounds presently serve to
attenuate waves. The effects of offshore sand mining on fish
and the ocean environment in the vicinity, are unknown.
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
A comparison of the alternative offshore borrow sites, the
different beach fill designs and nourishment alternatives, and
the alternative dredging procedures to be used, is made in
order to recommend the alternatives potentially resulting in
the fewest and least significant impacts to fish and wildlife
resources.
Offshore Borrow Sites - Potential offshore borrow sites being
considered are shown in Figure 3. Use of material from the
borrow area with the lowest percentage of fine materials should
result in the least rapid loss of material from the nourished
beach. For the 50-year life of the project, borrow sites A-
South, A-North, and B-West may all need to be utilized.
30
Vibracore borings data from the Corps indicates that there is
considerable vertical and horizontal variability of sand
consistency within the potential borrow sites. While some
borings had an overall low percentage of fines, others had
medium or high fines contents within portions of the core. The
Corps has indicated that additional vibracore borings will be
made so that they are able to differentiate between suitable
and unsuitable sands within the large borrow sites (Daniel
Small, Wilmington District, personal communication, June 1992).
Borrow sites adjacent or in close proximity to hard bottom
habitats should be avoided.
Beach Fill Designs - A dune and berm plan will offer more
protection to the structures along the beach than will the
berm-only design. Hanson and Brynes (1991) tested four beach
fill designs with a computer simulation program using data
taken at Ocean City, Maryland. Only one design included
construction of a large protective dune and this was the most
resilient to simulated hurricanes and back to back
northeasters. The construction of a dune may limit the
frequency of renourishment by providing added protection to the
oceanfront structures. In some cases the construction of large
continuous dunes has altered the natural barrier island profile
by preventing natural overwash processes from occurring. Such
extensive dunes also often provide a false sense of security
with development occurring immediately behind them. However,
in this situation, the area is already developed and if the
present structures and road are to be protected, a dune and
berm design should be more effective than a berm only plan.
Those alternatives involving construction of large dunes will
require more borrow material than will the 13.5-foot dune
alternative.
Method of Disposal on the Beach - The hulls of hopper dredges
are often overfilled and as a result, fine materials spill out
of the hopper as it travels. A benefit of this occurrence is
the deposition of more suitable sand on the beaches during
nourishment. However, increased turbidity, likely to result
from the spillage of fine material from the hopper dredge, is
undesirable. If a hopper dredge is used, the ocean bottom will
be disturbed from the hopper dredge's nearshore location to the
beach.
If a pipeline dredge is used, pipes will be placed on the ocean
floor from the offshore borrow site all the way to the beach
and approximately two miles of ocean bottom will be disturbed.
The pipeline dredge is less likely to result in high turbidity
because fine materials will not spill out, but the resulting
nourishment material may contain more fine material than if a
hopper dredge is used. Hopper dredges would be unable to go as
deep as the pipeline dredges and would possibly disturb more of
31
the bottom surface than would the pieline dredge in order to
obtain the same amount of material.
Several things must be considered in order to determine the
method that will result in the fewest and least significant
environmental impacts. The hopper dredge may cause increases
in turbidity as it loses fine material, but, the pipeline
dredge may result in a higher silt content deposited on the
beach than will the hopper dredge.
Pipeline dredges are less seaworthy-than are hopper dredges,
and pipeline dredges are often unable to work in the winter due
to storms. Hopper dredges are slower in getting the job
completed than are pipeline dredges because hoppers must make
many trips back and forth from the borrow sites to the offshore
pump-out stations, due to the load capacity of their hulls.
Each method has its own constraints. We have recommended that
work be completed between November 16 through January 15 of any
year so that the spring recruitment period for mole crabs and
coquina clams and the sea turtle nesting season (i.e., May 1
through November 15) is avoided. The method allowing work to
be completed during the recommended timeframe, will be the most
environmentally acceptable method. If that method is a hopper
dredge, then appropriate precautions should be taken such that
siltation is not a problem.
FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MEASURES
Fish and wildlife conservation measures as specified in the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act consist of "...means and
measures that should be adopted to prevent the loss of or
damage to such wildlife resources (mitigation), as well as to
provide concurrently for the development and improvement of
such resources (enhancement)." Mitigation, as defined by the
Council on Environmental Quality and adopted by the Service in
its Mitigation Policy, includes:
1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain
action or parts of an action;
2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of
the action and its implementation;
3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or
restoring the affected environment;
32
4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by
preservation and maintenance operations during the life of
the action; and
5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing
substitute resources or environments.
These five actions should be viewed as the proper sequence for
formulating conservation measures.
Enhancement measures are those which-result in a net increase
in resource values under the with-project condition compared to
the without-project condition. For any given type, kind, or
category of resource being evaluated, all project-associated
losses must first be compensated, (i.e., fully replaced, before
any enhancement of that given resource can occur).
We commend the Corps for deleting the previously identified
potential borrow sites within estuarine habitats and
significant natural areas from consideration. This elimination
has resulted in avoidance of some of the most significant
potential adverse environmental impacts to fish and wildlife
resources. In order to minimize impacts associated with the
sand mining of offshore borrow sites, the Corps should conduct
dredging activities during the least biologically sensitive
period of the year. Dredging in offshore borrow areas should
not occur between mid-January through June, if possible, in
order to avoid impacts to many offshore spawning fish and
shrimp (Fritz Rhode, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries,
personal communication, June 1992).
In order to avoid direct impacts to nesting sea turtles,
nourishment should be avoided between May 1 and November 15,
the nesting season of the loggerhead sea turtle. If
nourishment occurs during the winter months and ends before
spring larval recruitment begins, then coquina clams and mole
crabs should be able to recover from nourishment activities.
Taking into consideration the potential impacts to spawning
fish and shrimp, to beach and nearshore invertebrates, and to
sea turtles, the Service believes that sand mining and
nourishment should occur between November 16 and January 15 of
any year. This dredging and nourishment window will minimize
impacts to spawning fishery species such as white and brown
shrimp, allow recovery of beach invertebrates depending on
recruitment by pelagic larvae, and minimize impacts to nesting
loggerhead sea turtles and nesting shorebirds. We recognize
that the initial construction may require a longer time for
completion. However, for maintenance activities, the Corps
should make all effort to renourish the beach between November
16 through January 15 of any year, or as close to this period
as is possible.
33
We believe that it is essential that the Corps determine and
maintain a minimum distance between any dredging activity and
hard bottoms such that all impacts to the hard bottoms are
avoided. This minimum distance should be equal to or greater
than the mixing zone around the dredge head used at the
offshore borrow sites. A monitoring plan should be developed
which will assess the long term impacts of mining sand from
offshore areas.
As part of mitigation plans, the Corps should incorporate a
comprehensive monitoring program which will determine the long-
term effects of beach nourishment on beach and nearshore
organism populations and community structure. To date, North
Carolina beach nourishment projects have not involved
comprehensive biological and geophysical monitoring studies.
In this case, we believe such studies are essential and should
be designed to assess the effects of offshore sediment removal,
to assess the recovery of the offshore borrow areas, and to
assess long-term impacts to beach and nearshore fauna as a
result of nourishment.
The sand consistency of the beach after nourishment should be
determined with a cone penetrometer and if readings of 550
pounds per square inch or higher are found, then the nourished
beach should be tilled. The beach profile resulting from beach
nourishment should be characterized by a gentle slope without
high escarpments potentially hindering sea turtles. If the
nourished beach profile is unnatural and high escarpments
between the beach fill area and the lower beach result, then
the Corps should use earth moving machinery to physically
manipulate the sand so that a natural profile is created.
Impacts to the coquina rock community should be avoided. The
Corps should determine the minimum distance between the
nourishment project and the coquina exposures which is
necessary to avoid any potential adverse impacts to the coquina
outcrops. This distance should be maintained between the
coquina outcrops and the beach nourishment project. Monitoring
should involve a close examination of the effects that
nourishment is having on the coquina rock community. If burial
of the rocks or long-term turbidity in the area results in
mortality of the coquina rock community, then the next
scheduled nourishment should be altered or terminated, and
appropriate mitigation measures implemented by the Corps.
Any pipeline routes passing through wetlands should be avoided.
If pipeline routes pass through dune vegetation, then the dune
sediment and vegetation must be restored immediately after each
nourishment activity is completed.
34
DISCUSSION
Beach nourishment has been used extensively as an erosion
control measure with varying results. Some nourishment
projects have restored beaches for years and with other
projects, the benefits have lasted only a few months.
The success of any nourishment project is partially related to
the comparability of the sediment qualities of the existing
beach sand and the borrow site material and the way in which
the sand is deposited. Zarillo et al. (1985) stress that an
understanding of how sediment is dispersed within the littoral
zone is necessary before beach nourishment projects are
planned.
Nourishment generally displaces the beach farther seaward and
thus "sets it back in time," but nourished beaches often erode
more quickly than natural beaches due to fine sediments being
lost and to rapid erosion of sediments at the edges of the fill
area. These sediments often erode rapidly due to longshore
sediment transport to neighboring beaches with the nourished
area acting as a feeder beach to nearby beaches (Dean 1983).
As pointed out by a letter from the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management (NCDCM) to the Service, the town of Kure
Beach directs their storm water runoff through pipes to the
beach. The NCDCM has expressed concern that this practice may
contribute to the erosion of the beach fill and the Service
urges the Corps to consider this issue during final design and
rectify it if necessary.
Monitoring of beach nourishment projects in North Carolina has
been inadequate in the past. In Florida, the most recent
nourishment projects have required pre- and post-monitoring
aspects. The State of Florida has developed guidelines for
nourishment projects which include the need for monitoring
programs that establish baseline data conditions, assess
impacts to organisms, and determine recovery rates of infauna
after mortality associated with nourishment.
Standard monitoring should be conducted for North Carolina
projects including pre-project and post-project sampling at the
nourished beach, an adjacent or nearby control beach, and
borrow sites. Transects for sampling infauna should pass
across both intertidal and subtidal zones of the beach.
Stauble and Nelson (1985) give more detailed recommendations
for monitoring. They recommend that sampling should be
conducted monthly beginning several months prior to
nourishment, weekly for one to two months after nourishment,
and monthly for the next nine to 12 months thereafter. For
this particular project, monitoring of the coquina outcrops is
necessary so that the project can be modified if the coquina is
significantly affected.
35
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Service recommends that the following fish and wildlife
conservation measures be incorporated into the proposed project
plan.
1) Sand mining and beach nourishment should occur
between November 16 and January 15 of any year, if at
all possible. This will minimize impacts to nesting
sea turtles, nesting shorebirds, fish and shrimp
species spawning offshore in the area of the borrow
sites, and should allow spring recruitment of mole
crabs and coquina clam larvae to the beach community.
The Service understands that initial construction may
require an extended length of time to complete;
however, the Corps should ensure that renourishment
occurs within the recommended time frame. The
Service believes the Corps should make all effort to
have two dredges working during the winter months so
that initial construction is completed as close to
the recommended timeframe as is possible.
2) All impacts to the coquina rock community should be
avoided. The Corps should determine the minimum
distance between the nourishment project and the
coquina exposures that is necessary to avoid any and
all impacts to the coquina outcrops. This distance
should be maintained between the coquina outcrops and
the beach fill. A monitoring plan should be
developed and implemented which examines the effects
that the project has on the coquina rock community.
If monitoring indicates that the nourishment project
is burying or causing other significant adverse
effects on the coquina outcrops, the beach
nourishment project should be modified or terminated.
3) During any year, after nourishment ceases, and prior to
the sea turtle nesting season, sand hardness should be
tested using a cone penetrometer. If sand compaction
is greater than or equal to 500 pounds per square inch,
then the beach should be tilled so that sand compaction
and resulting sand characteristics will not adversely
affect nesting and hatchling sea turtles.
4) The beach profile resulting from beach nourishment
should be characterized by a gentle slope without
high escarpments potentially hindering sea turtles.
If the nourished beach profile is unnatural and high
escarpments between the beach fill area and the lower
beach result, then the Corps should manipulate the
sand so that a natural profile is created.
36
5) A comprehensive biological and geophysical monitoring
plan should be developed in order to assess the long
term effects that offshore sand mining and beach
nourishment have on beach and marine ecosystems. This
monitoring plan should involve benthic and nekton
surveys before and at regular intervals after
nourishment and offshore sand mining. Beach surveys
should involve benthic sampling along transects
extending from the upper beach out to subtidal
nearshore waters.
6) sand mining should be conducted in a manner which
will avoid adverse impacts to any hard bottom
communities at or in the vicinity of the offshore
borrow sites. Dredging should not occur in any hard
bottom areas or in close proximity to hard bottoms.
Vibracore borings should be made close enough
together to ensure that hard bottom habitat will not
be disturbed or adversely affected. The Corps should
determine and maintain the minimum distance required
between any dredging activity and hard bottoms such
that all impacts to the hard bottoms are avoided.
This minimum distance should be at least equal to the
expected mixing zone around the dredge head used at
the offshore borrow sites. A monitoring plan should
be developed which will assess the long term impacts
of mining sand from offshore areas on the benthos and
fisheries of the area.
7) Impacts to dune and beach vegetation should be
avoided. Any unavoidable damage to dunes and dune
and beach vegetation should be mitigated through
replacement of the disturbed communities.
37
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND SERVICE POSITION
The Service believes that beach nourishment is the most
environmentally acceptable means of shoreline erosion control.
There are, however, serious concerns related to beach
nourishment and its effects on beach and nearshore communities
and borrow sites. We recommend that dredging and nourishment
occur between November 16 and January 15 in order to avoid and
minimize impacts to nesting sea turtles and shorebirds,
spawning fish and shrimp and to al-low recruitment of beach
invertebrates after nourishment. We are concerned that beach
nourishment will affect the coquina rock community at the
southern end of the project and we recommend that the Corps
determine and maintain the minimum distance required between
beach nourishment activities and the coquina outcrops in order
to avoid all impacts to the coquina outcrops. We are very
pleased that the Corps has deleted estuarine sites and
significant natural upland communities as sources of sand for
nourishment. A minimum distance equal to or greater than the
mixing zone around the dredge head should be maintained between
the dredge and any hard bottom habitats so that hard bottoms
are not adversely affected by the project. In order to assess
the long term impacts of nourishment and offshore sand mining
on beach and nearshore communities, we recommend that a
comprehensive biological and geophysical monitoring program be
incorporated into the project.
38
LITERATURE CITED
American Fisheries Society. 1980. A list of common and
scientific names of fishes from the United States and
Canada. Third Edition. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland. 150 pp.
Banks, R.C., R.W. McDiarmid, A.L. Gardner. (eds). 1987.
Checklist of vertebrates of the United States, the U.S.
territories, and Canada. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Resource Publication 166. 79 pp.
Chavrat, D.L. 1987. Aspects of the ecology of sand beach
amphipods: spatial distribution patterns and effects of
beach nourishment. M.Sc. Thesis, Florida Inst. of Tech.,
Melbourne, Florida. (as reported in Nelson (1988)).
Davis, R.A, Jr. 1991. Performance of a beach nourishment
project based on detailed multi-year monitoring:
Redington Beach, Florida. In Kraus, N.C., K.J.
Gingerich, and D.L. Kreibel (eds). 1991. Coastal
Sediments 191 Volume II - Proceedings of a Specialty
Conference on Quantitative Approaches to Coastal Sediment
Processes. American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York. 2360 pp.
Davis, R.J. 1979. The fall land bird migration at Ft.
Fisher, North Carolina. Report for Directed Individual
Study (under Dr. James F. Parnell), University of North
Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina. 38
pp-
Dean, R.G. 1983. Principles of beach nourishment, In Komer,
P.D. (ed). CRC Handbook of Coastal Processes and
Erosion. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 217-231.
Dolan, R., J. Fucella, C. Donoghue and A. Elmore. 1992. Final
report monitoring and analysis of beach nourishment
placed on Pea Island, North Carolina, Alligator River
National Wildlife Refuge 1991-1992, Coastal Research
Associates, Charlottesville, VA. 36 pp. + app.
Duncan, W.H. and M.B. Duncan. 1987. The Smithsonian Guide to
Seaside Plants of the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts from
Louisiana to Massachusetts Exclusive of Lower Peninsular
Florida. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C.
409 pp.
Goldberg, W.M. 1985. Long term effects of beach restoration
in Brevard County, Florida, a three year overview.
Unpublished Report to Broward County Environmental
39
Quality Control Board and Erosion Preservation District.
(As reported in Goldberg 1988).
Goldberg, W.M. 1988. Biological effects of beach restoration
in South Florida: the good, the bad, and the ugly. in
Tait, L.S. (ed). 1988. Beach Preservation Technology
188: Problems and Advancements in Beach Nourishment -
Proceedings. Florida Shore and Beach Preservation
Association, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida.
Gorzelany, J.F. 1983. The effects of-beach nourishment on the
nearshore benthic macrofauna of Indialantic and Melbourne
Beach, Florida, M.S. Thesis, Florida Institute of
Technology. Melbourne, Florida. 114 pp. (As reported in
Stauble and Nelson 1985).
Grober, L. 1992. The Ecological Effects of Beach
Replenishment. Master's Thesis, Duke University, Durham,
North Carolina. 99 pp.
Hansen, M. and M.R. Brynes. 1991. Development of an optimum
beach fill design cross-section. in Kraus, N.C., K.J.
Gingerich, and D.L. Kreibel (eds). Coastal Sediments 191
Volume II - Proceedings of a Speciality Conference on
Quantitative Approaches to Coastal Sediment Processes.
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. 2360 pp.
Hayden, B. and R. Dolan. 1974. Impact of beach nourishment
on distribution of Emerita talpoida, the common mole
crab. J. Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering
Division. ASCE 100: WW2: 123-132.
Kure Beach, Town of. 1985. Kure Beach Land Use Plan Update.
Kure Beach Mayor's Office and Board of Commissioners,
Kure Beach, North Carolina. 49 pp.
Kure Beach, Town of. 1990. Kure Beach Land Use Plan Update.
Kure Beach Mayor's Office and Board of Commissioners,
Kure Beach, North Carolina. 74 pp.
Leatherman. S.P. 1988. Barrier island handbook. The
University of Maryland, College Park,Maryland. 93 pp.
McCrary, A.B. and A.Y. Taylor. 1986. Macroinfauna study -
Fort Fisher, North Carolina. Unpublishedreport,
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington,
North Carolina. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina. 25 pp. + app.
Maier, P.P., B.W. Stender, and R.F. Van Dolah. 1992. Final
report to U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, A remote survey of bottom characteristics within
40
a potential borrow site near Little River, S.C. Marine
Resources Research Institute, South Carolina Wildlife and
Marine Resources Department, Charleston, S.C. 20 pp.
Moorefield, T.P. 1978. Geologic processes and history of the
Fort Fisher coastal area, North Carolina. M.Sc. Thesis,
East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina.
100 pp.
Navqi, S.M. and E.J. Pullen. 1982. Effects of Beach
Nourishment and Borrowing on Marine Organisms. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center,
Misc. Rept. 82-14.
Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1988. Effects of beach
nourishment on sea turtles. In Tait, L.S. (ed). 1988.
Beach Preservation Technology 188: Problems and
Advancements in Beach Nourishment - Proceedings. Florida
Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Inc.,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Nelson, W.G. 1988. An overview of the effects of beach
nourishment on the sand beach fauna. In Tait, L.S. (ed).
1988. Beach Preservation Technology 188: Problems and
Advancements in Beach Nourishment - Proceedings. Florida
Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Inc.,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Nelson, W.G. and G.W. Collins. 1987. Effects of Beach
Nourishment on the Benthic Macrofauna and the Fishes of
the Nearshore Zone at Sebastian Inlet State Recreation
Area, Technical Report 87-14, Department of Oceanography
and Ocean Engineering. Florida Inst. Tech. to U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. 180 pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.
1986. Long term average annual erosion rate maps for the
project site - updated through 1986. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management. 1991.
Administrative Code Section: 15A NCAC 2B .0100 -
Procedures for Assignment of Water Quality Standards, 15
NCAC 2B .0200 - Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina.
Raleigh, North Carolina. 25 pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural
Heritage Program. 1982. Designation of Fort Fisher
41
Coquina Outcrop as a designated natural area. Raleigh,
NC. 12 pp.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 1993. Sea
Turtle Newsletter, February 1993, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the
Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of the North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 1183 pp.
Rakocinski, C., S.E. Lecroy, J.A. Mclelland, and R.W. Heard.
1991. Responses by Macroinvertebrate Communities to
Beach Nourishment at Perdidio Key, Florida. Gulf Coast
Research Laboratory. Annual Report for the National Park
Service, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Gulf Breeze,
Florida. 69 pp.
Reilly, F.J. and V.J. Bellis. 1978. A Study of the
Ecological Impact of Beach Nourishment with Dredged
Materials on the Intertidal Zone. East Carolina
University Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources
Technical Report No. 4, Greenville, NC, 107 pp.
Saloman, C.H. 1974. Physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of the nearshore zone of Sand Key,
Florida, prior to beach restoration, Vols. 1 and 2,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Gulf Coast Fisheries
Center, Panama City, FL. (As reported by Turbeville and
Marsh, 1982).
Saloman, C.H. and S.P. Naughton. 1984. Beach Restoration
with Offshore Dredged Sand: Effects on Nearshore
Macrofauna, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Association, NOAA Tech. Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-
133. 20 pp.
Saloman, C.H., S. P. Naughton, J.L. Taylor. 1982. Benthic
community response to dredging borrow pits, Panama City
Beach, Florida. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Misc. Report No.82-3. Fort
Belvoir, VA. 30 pp.
Stauble, D.K. and W.G. Nelson. 1985. Guidelines for beach
nourishment: a necessity for project management. In
Magoon, O.T., H. Converse, D. Miner, D. Clark and L.T.
Tobin. (eds). 1985. Coastal Zone 185 Volume I. Proc. of
the 4th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management.
Baltimore, Maryland. 1232 pp.
Stender, B.W., R.F. Van Dolah, and P.P. Maier. 1992. Final
report to U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
42
Service, identification and location of live bottom
habitats in five potential borrow sites off Myrtle Beach,
SC. 26 pp. + app.
Turbeville, D.B. and G.A. Marsh. 1982. Benthic fauna of an
offshore borrow area in Broward County, Florida. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research
Center, Misc. Report No. 82-1, Fort Belvoir, VA. 41 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1967. Beach Erosion Control
and Hurricane Wave Protection. Carolina Beach and
Vicinity, Area South of Carolina Beach, North Carolina.
Wilmington Corps District, Wilmington, North Carolina. 28
PP.
. 1980. Final Environmental Statement - Carolina
Beach Inlet,North Carolina. Wilmington Corps District,
Wilmington, North Carolina. 29 pp.
• 1981. Final Environmental Impact Statement -
Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave Protection -
Carolina Beach and Vicinity, New Hanover County, North
Carolina. Wilmington Corps District, Wilmington, North
Carolina. 72 pp.
1982. Fort Fisher, North Carolina, General
Design Memorandum Phase II - Design Memorandum 2 -
Project Design. Wilmington Corps District, Wilmington,
North Carolina. 35 pp.
1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Long-term Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor, N.C..
Wilmington Corps District, Wilmington, North Carolina.
100 pp.
1990. Wilmington Harbor - Bald Head Island -
Evaluation Report - Section 933, PL 99-662. Wilmington
Corps District, Wilmington, North Carolina. 44 pp.
1991. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact: Maintenance Dredging in Wilmington
Harbor Ocean Bar Channels by Ocean Certified Hydraulic
Pipeline, or Bucket and Barge Dredge with Disposal in the
Wilmington Harbor Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Site,
Brunswick County, North Carolina. Wilmington Corps
District, Wilmington, North Carolina. 36 pp.
1992. Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South Project, Beach
Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave Protection, New
Hanover County, North Carolina. Wilmington Corps
District, Wilmington, North Carolina. 43 pp. + attachments.
43
1993a. Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South Project, Beach
Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave Protection, New
Hanover County, North Carolina. Wilmington Corps
District, Wilmington, North Carolina. 44 pp. +
attachments.
1993b. Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact, Disposal of Dredged Material on
the ocean Beach of Bouge Banks from Combined Maintenance
Dredging and Deepening of Morehead City Harbor Inner
Harbor Navigation Channels and Pumpout of Brandt Island
Upland Diked Disposal Site, Carteret County, North
Carolina. Wilmington Corps District, Wilmington, North
Carolina. 12 pp. + attachments.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981a. Draft Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act Report - Carolina Beach Erosion
Control and Hurricane Protection, Raleigh, North
Carolina. 25 pp.
1981b. A Report on Fish and Wildlife Resources
Affected by the Fort Fisher Project, North Carolina.
Raleigh Field Office, Raleigh, North Carolina. 18 pp.
1989. Planning Aid Report, Area South of
Carolina Beach Project. Raleigh Field Office, Raleigh,
North Carolina. 43 pp.
1991a. Wilmington Harbor Passing Lane - Draft
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. Raleigh Field
Office, Raleigh, North Carolina. 52 pp.
1991b. Wilmington Harbor Turns and Bends - Draft
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. Raleigh Field
Office, Raleigh, North Carolina. 55 pp.
1992. Area South of Carolina Beach, Draft Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. Raleigh Field
Office, Raleigh, North Carolina. 55 pp.
U.S. Minerals Management Service. 1990. Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf Final Environmental Report on Proposed
Exploratory Drilling Offshore North Carolina. Vol I.
U.S. Minerals Management Service. Atlantic OCS Region,
Environmental Assessment Section, Herndon, VA. 881 pp +
app.
Van Dolah, R.F. and D.M. Knot. 1984. A biological assessment
of beach and nearshore areas along the South Carolina
Grand Strand. Final Report to U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Marine Resources
44
Division, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources
Department, Charleston, South Carolina. 58 pp.
Weaver, A. 1977. Soil Survey of New Hanover County, North
Carolina, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Wilmington, North Carolina. 69 pp.
Wilbur, P. and M. Stern. 1992. A reexamination of infaunal
studies that accompany beach nourishment projects. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station and
Department of Environmental Regulation. In Press. (As
Reported by Grober 1992).
Zarillo, G.A., J. Liu, and Hsiao-Shu Tsien. 1985. A new
method for effective beach-fill design. In Magoon, O.T.,
H. Converse, D. Miner, D. Clark and L.T. Tobin. (eds).
1985. Coastal Zone 185 Volume I. Proc. of the 4th
Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management. Baltimore,
Maryland.
45
1
A
4 1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
225 North McDowell Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
James G. Martin, Governor Roger N. Schecter
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
01/08/93 Q
Mr. Jim Gregson JAN 14 199J
NC DEH&NR
Div. Environmental Management DIVISION OF
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405 COASTAL MAMAGEMIEFY
REFERENCE: CD93-02 County: New Hanover
Applicant/Sponsor: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Section 934 Report/EA: Carolina Beach & Vicinity (Carolina Beach)
Dear Mr. Gregson:
The attached Consistency Determination, dated 12/29/92
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 01/28/93 Si rely,
Ste en B. Benton
Consistency Coordinator
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
-4, 't ,-.- -ro
This office the project proposal.
No Comment.
signed L (,o-.
Date
Agency
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
f
i4
SECTION 934 REEVALUATION REPORT
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMENT
CAROLINA BEACH & VICINITY - CAROLINA BEACH PORTION
CAROLINA BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DECEMBER 1992

1. SYLL US
a. Authorization. This reevaluation report
authority provided by Section 156 of the Wat
1976, as amended by Section 934 of the 1986
Under this authority, the Chief of Engineers
authority to extend Federal participation in
coastal storm damage reduction projects to a
date of initial construction, provided such
economically feasible.
i
was prepared according to the
r Resources Development Act of
'ater Resources Development Act.
was granted discretionary
the cost of beach nourishment for
total of fifty years from the
!xcension is found to be
b. Purpose of Reevaluation. The purpose of this reevaluation report is to
determine the economic feasibility of extending Federal participation in beach
renourishment for Carolina Beach & Vicinity - Carolina Beach Portion to 50
years from the date of initiation of construction. Construction of the
Carolina Beach project was initiated in 1964. Accordingly, a favorable
finding would extend Federal participation through the year 2014.
C. Reevaluation Determination. The reevaluation phase of the project is
complete. It has been determined that Federal participation in the existing
project should be extended through 2014 since it is economically justified
based on current evaluation guidelines and policies.
d. Plan Description. The project extends along the town's 14,000 lineal feet
of ocean shoreline as shown on Figure 1. The southernmost 11,950 feet of the
project, as originally authorized, is a beach profile shaped to form a 25-
foot-wide dune with a crest elevation of 15 feet above mean low water (MLW)
fronted by t 50-foot-wide storm berm at elevation 12.C' feet above MLW.
Protection along the northern 2,050 feet is provided by a rock revetment
fronted i y a '130-foot wide berm at elevation 8 f t; above MLW. Th, equa.valen.t
elevations of the dune and storm berm referenced to the National Geodetic
Vertical Datum (NGVD) are 13.5 feet, 10.5, and 6.5 feet NGVD, respectively..
The National Geodetic Vertical Datum will be used throughout the remainder of
this report. Typical profiles of the two authorized cross-sections are
illustrated in Figure 2. Shown are the beach profile (station 4+00 to station
110+00) and the rock revetment profile (station 116+40 to station 136+90).
e. Cost and Benefits. The annual cost of extended Federal participation in
the authorized 13.5 foot dune plan, including operation and maintenance is
$2,709,000. Expected annual benefits amount to $6,049,200. Benefits and
costs were analyzed using an 8.5 percent rate for the remaining project life
of 20 years, 1994 through 2014, and based on April 1992 price levels. The
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) is 2.23 to 1.
f. Environmental. An Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact (EA/FONSI) addressing project features discussed in this reevaluation
report accompanies this report.
g. Project Sponsor. The Town of Carolina Beach is the project sponsor. A
letter dated September 15, 1992 from the Town has restated its support for the
project and provided assurances of their intent to act as project sponsor, to
provide the required easements, to comply with the cost-sharing requirements
that are in effect at the time of project construction, and to sign an Project
Cooperation Agreement (PCA) at the appropriate time.
iJ
>i it 4
00+ZL -V1S 3NIl HOlVW '1 JJI
I•s•o,oo1100+s?t •rls T1
II
06'10,09 Y1S
00,05 'Y15 -
`*,\M U'15+Lb 'V15
I
wv v T
G
00+01 wis -----
Y
CS' I I+LZ'Y15?- j
r O?
ao.ol •vls -?,-o,
OO4P 'V1S -g
O
00,9 'vis --a
0
00,V 'VIS -- ??
LJ
OO+z 'vls -
00,0 'VlS -
OO,C- 'V lS -
1•S•O,OOl100+011 'Yls
oc'ovt 'Y15
CS'SI+LCI•Yls
1•S•O,SLZIOO,SCI 'Y1S I?
I'S'O,ZSIOO,OCI' Vis -?
OO+OZI 'Vls -
01++91 L vi ?--tl

00.0£l•v1S
oO+sZl•Y1S
O
O p
cr p
NO
J .-
Q Z
W O
L -
+ ?H
.l Q
1 In N
J
(Y Q
iR
O
= O
•--
O
z O
2
0= O
W (?
m F
Z O
O
Z
~ O
U .-
? F
LY Q
NN
Z
C)
U Q
_J id
L5
00+-L1 .'V 1.S•3NIl FIJI VW

o s
° In
z w
d D

$ w ?z
w
Z ?c
F+
Q
o Q i
a?
O `f)
N 0y ?
(r+ 0
U W

-------------- 0
I
1 /
/ M
I /
8 O
I j F-
y ? O
0 W
?? I
I 8 m O
N
!n
I I a
I 1
? I I - g LL +-
? 1 I
I I v' - w +-
yg N
I I F
Y? S J
• I I
X g
b u W
I 4
a o
I
J
!I
I U
T'

y 10A9N1 1333 NI 'A d
r
303 ?
I
I
I
I O
O
I O
I 8 ?
O
I F-
i
1 / - O
I < O

/ 8m O
I/
^
Y
_ n I
", Vl
t o Z
NI
d/ I
I i
O
I u
i
/ SLL a
? I H
I
-- ?

_
? X
b
1
i
I I S
tl
22 0
I
O• I
?
o I
\?'? ? I ? 11 I t
Cl.

I I '
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (EA/FONSI)
CAROLINA BEACH HURRICANE WAVE
AND SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DECEMBER 1992
1.00 NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVE OF ACTION.
1.01 Under authority of Section 934 of Public Law (P.L.) 99-662, the
proposed action is a consideration of the feasibility of extending Federal
participation in the project to 50 years from the initiation of construction
with project changes, as stated in 1.h. of the main report.
1.02 The project shoreline is experiencing continuing erosion
to a combination of wind and wave patterns, currents, and storms.
Continuation in the project is warranted to counter the loss and to
the protective beach to reduce potential damage to structures.
2.00 COORDINATION AND REFERENCES.
attributed
restore
2.01 A Final Environmentar Impact Statemen-,,~-?CFEIS) for the Carolina Beach
Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave P
Enviro, rotection project was filed w--- i the
;:,:ital Protection :!'gency on July 17, 1981, for completion of the
project and for a 10-year maintenance period. The FEIS covered all aspects
the project including the use of Carolina Beach Inlet as a source of
renourishment material.
2.02
expansion
Report for
A Renourishment Report for the continuation of the project and
of the borrow site was prepared in October 1987. A Renourishment
the work performed in 1991 was prepared in November 1990.
of
2.03 In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
the project was coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). A biological assessment was
prepared for the project on February 24, 1981, and amended on April 1, 1981,
to include performing the work during the spring and summer months with
implementation of a sea turtle monitoring program. The biological opinions
received from the NMFS on April 30, 1981, and from the USFWS on April 21,
1981, agreed with the Corps of Engineers "may effect" determination and
concluded the project was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered or threatened species. Formal consultation was reinitiated
with the USFWS on February 12, 1985, to address project maintenance
operations. A "no jeopardy" opinion was received from the USFWS on March 27,
1985• A biological assessment, addressin the
plover g project impacts on the piping
,., , was sent to the USFWS on July 29, 1987. The USFWS, on August 25,
1987, concurred that "no effect" to the piping plover would occur.
f?
A
2.04 The project has been coordinated in accordance with the Clean Water:}
Act of 1977. A Section 401 (P.L. 95-217) Water Quality Certificate (WQC)
No. 1505 was issued by the N.C. Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM)
on June 11, 1981. The certification was amended on December 27, 1984, to ut
include maintenance of the project and to revise the Carolina Beach Inlet
borrow area, which would result in approximately 12 percent silt and clay to
be dredged and disposed of within the designated beach disposal limits. The
NCDEM letter dated February 7, 1985, concluded that WQC 1505 is valid as
issued. On November 4, 1987, a request to amend WQC 1505 to include dredging
the existing borrow area to a depth of -40 feet mean low water (m.l.w.) rather
than the previously performed -36 feet m.l.w., and to expand the borrow area
was sent to the NCDEM. Approval to proceed was received from the NCDEM on
January 28, 1988. A 404(b)(1) Evaluation Report and Finding of Compliance
(P.L. 95-217) was completed on June 25, 1981, as amended on February 25, 1985.
In accordance with Section 404(a), a public notice for the project will be
mailed for review and comment prior to commencement of work.
2.05 The project has been coordinated with the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management (NCDCM) for compliance with the approved Coastal
Management Program of the State of North Carolina (N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management,
letter dated September 2, 1981, as amended February 21, 1985`, and December 29,
1987).
2.06 A scoping letter was mailed to Federal and State agencies on
September 15, 1992. The scoping letter included the proposed expansion of the
Carolina Beach Inlet borrow area including the possibility of the taking of
dry land. However, it has been determined that the reevaluation of the
project will not include expansion of the borrow area at this time. Comments
received on the cc , inuation of the .roje-_, have been incor.ot-atcd within i;he°
report.
2.07 A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Carolina Beach
and Vicinity - Area South Project, Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave
Protection Project, New Hanover County, North Carolina, was mailed for review
and comment to Federal, State, and local agencies on October 29, 1992. This
DEIS discusses the feasibility of using offshore borrow sites for potential
borrow material for beach disposal. If these offshore borrow areas are
approved as a source of beach fill material, they may be used as a source of
borrow material for the Carolina Beach and Vicinity project.
3.00 PROPOSED PROJECT CHANGES.
A new pipeline easement along the ocean front of Carolina Beach is being
assessed. The new pipeline easement is shown on Figure 4 . An environmental
analysis of the proposed project change is discussed below.
4.00 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT.
The project, as described in the 1981 FEIS, provides for storm damage
protection along 14,000 lineal feet of shoreline, as shown on figure 1. The
southernmost 11,950 feet consists of a dune with a crown width of 25 feet at
2
IL

elevation 15 feet m.l.w, fronted b
12 feet m.l.w. Y a 50-foot-wide storm berm at elevation
a rock revetment while protection along the northern 2,050 feet is provided b
m.l.w., as shown fronted
figure 2.a 130-foot-wide storm berm at elevation 8 feet by
2 Table 1 of the main report gives a brief
summary of the nourishment for the Carolina Beach project. The Placement
1,008,700 cubic yards of material in 1
present authorization. 991 was the last renourishmentunder othe
main report and the recommended et history is given in paragraph 3.b. of the
report. plan is described in paragraph 10 of the main
The Carolina Beach Inlet borrow area has been used as a source of
nourishment material since 1981. The Carolina Beach Inlet borrow area will
continue to be used as a source of beach fill material for renourishment o
Carolina Beach area(s) used for the p, Any project
Anfuture changes in, or additions to, the borrow
roject will be coordinated prior to use of the are
as
.
5.00 ALTERNATIVES.
As discussed in the FEIS, 1981, all alternatives such as the use of
bulkheads, seawalls, groins, and no-action were considered and eliminat
further study.
ed from
6.00 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.
1 The impacts of the proposed action have been previously discussed in
;. references cited in 2.00, above. The ;.1rpacts e
j,'... project are evaluated as follows: or th° the
cl:?inuation of the
6.01 Aesthetic Resources.
public interest by preservin
Renourishing Carolina Beach would serve the
affording continued protection a toe shore struuctturbescfro Storm- from erosion and
and tides. No impacts to aesthetic resources will occurinduced waves
6.02 Terrestrial Resources.
occur as a impa
. No cts to terrestrial resources will
result of the continuation of the ro ec years.
The placement of p j t for the next 20
Pipeline along the beach front will not impact terrestrial
resources since no dune vegetation will be disturbed. if e
approved pipeline routes are used, the pipeline will avoidtcr previously
ossing of dunes.
6.03 Aquatic Resources.
E would include the benthic inverAnimal tebrates associated with th affected b y the project
within the reach of beach to be renourished, with the borrow area and
.the borrow area would be destroyed; however, theeareaswill e invertebrates in
similar organisms. In the beach renourishment area 11 recolre ca with
upward burrowing and surviving durin organisms are capable of
similar to those destroyed would probably retestablishuwithin 6 to 1
.following completion Organisms
each com letion of the operation. The same impacts will occur duringhs
period of renourishment.
6.04 Water Quality. Turbidity
?n ure minor impacts on water quality andsbiotatbuutwwouldhbepofjactemorawporary
result
dem' ending with project completion or shortly thereafter.
:.r porary effects would occur during each period of renourshment. same
3

6.05 Marine Environment. No i tpipelineerouteralongttheeocean
expected to occur as a result of the e proposed
beach of Carolina Beach.
6.06 Threatened or Endangered Species. As discussed in paragraph 2.03 .'?
above, the project has been evaluated in accordance with Section 7 ofetheal
nd coisultation pt?e work
Endangered Species Act. Previous
impacts to nesting sea turtles a p p g
being performed between April 30 to sea turtles or initiation
of
turtle with the
dUSFWS ,•
program if work extended into the
initiate a sea turtle monitoring program thing the
and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission prior to p
work .
A species proposed for listing as threatened, seabeach amaranth
(AmarS ump_ilus) is known duringthe orth monthsnwouldcessentDalpySavoid `
dredged material on the beach the w
available$tor 1
the the growing season for Amanbeach thus pmilus. may Also, am widening t of
the making of a more gentle
the plant thus having a beneficial effect. A 1992 survey of the beat
renourishment area was conducted by the Wilmington District, in August 199 to
;
establish the presence of the plant within the renourishment area. One plant
approximately 12 inches in eious diameter surveysyoflthelrenouoishmet?toareadhadtbeenthe
renourishment area. No Prv son in 1993
completed. The area will. be surveyed again during the growing sea
to assess potential impacts to the species.
6.07 Cultural Resources. The project ie not expr.rl-.,d to cause any
impacts to significant archaeological or historic resour6creat1ion.itTis
westward of the 1865 shoreline and the inlet is a modern e
project has been reviewed per Section 106 of the dational Hi Condoned
Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-665), as amende, and the Ab
Shipwreck Act of 1987.
6.08 Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). The project has
been evaluated for adherence to the requirements of Executive Order 11990•
The work will not require dredging or filling of any wetlands.
6.09 Executive Order 11988 (Protection of Flood Plains). The proposed
project is within the flood plain and has been evaluated for adherence to the
requirements of Executive Order 11988. The action rehabilitates the belch and
helps to minimize the impacts of floods on human safety, health, and rovif
The only other alternative considered was -action fill orderito must be
beach rehabilitation,of the authorized project, conforms to applicable State
located in the flood plain. The proposed project
and local flood plain protection standards.
6.10 CoF..st l Barrier Resoure_ _ e Act. The project hasobeenPrevieewed4ffjr
compliance with henCoas lettborrowrarealiisrlocated within the Coastal. Barrier
Inlet
The Carolina Beach
Resource system. However, since the borrow area is located within an existin
maintained navigation chanaturaldsythe stematas1describedeinsSectionr?ate a berm
and dune that mimics the
4

"Exceptions to Limitations on Expenditures. (a)(6)(G)," it has been
determined that the project is in compliance with the Act. Impacts to the
downdrift beach due to removal of material from the littoral zone should be
offset by the disposal of approximately 50,000 cubic yards of sediment from
the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Carolina Beach Inlet Crossing on the
downdrift beach. This disposal occurs at an average frequency of once a year.
6.11 North Carolina Coastal Management Program. The proposed project is
consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program of the State of
North Carolina and local land use plans. Coordination with NCDCM is ongoing
and a consistency determination for the continuation of the project has been
requested.
7.00 COORDINATION.
The project has been coordinated informally with representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Coastal Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
This environmental assessment (EA) will be mailed to interested Federal,
State, and local agencies, and the concerned public for review and comment. A
list of recipients of the EA are as follows:

Federal Agencies
Advisory C.uncil on Historic Preservation
Fifth Coasu Guard District
Director, `^ffi(;e of Environmental. Compliance, U.S. Lcy,artment of
Energy
EIS Review Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
IV
Federal Emergency Management Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Maritime Commission
Area Director, Forest Service, USDA
Habitat Conservation Division, Beaufort Marine Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries Service
Office of Ecology and Conservation, National Oceanic and
Administration
National Park Service
State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, USDA
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
State Agencies
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
North Carolina Department of Transportation
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer
5
Center,
Atmospheric
PL _NL-X?
Local Agencies
Brunswick County Manager
CAMA Officer, County of New Hanover
New Hanover County Engineer
New Hanover County Planning Department
North Carolina Council of Governments, Region 0
Wilmington Planning Department
Director of Public Works, City of Wilmington
Postmaster, Wilmington
Postmaster, Carolina Beach
Postmaster, Kure Beach
Conservation Groups
Center for Environmental Health
Conservation Council of North Carolina
Environmental Defense Fund
Izaac Walton League
National Audubon Society
National Wildlife Federation
North Carolina Coastal Federation
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
Sierra Club
Libraries (for information only)
Duke University ?i-brary
Librarian, NCDL;Hi:,i
North Carolina State Library
Randall Library, UNC-Wilmington
UNC-Chapel Hill Library
Elected Officials
All U.S. Senators and Representatives for the State of North Carolina
New Hanover County, Board of Commissioners
Mayor, Carolina Beach
Mayor, City of Wilmington
Mayor, Kure Beach
Interested Individuals
Dr. James Parnell, UNC-Wilmington
Dr. David Webster, UNC-Wilmington
Dr. Orrin Pilkey, Duke University
Mr. Ray Brandi., Cape Fear Community College
6
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANP IMPACT (FONSI)
I have reviewed the reevaluation report and the EA of the considered
action. Based on information analyzed in the EA, I conclude that the
considered action will have no significant impact on the quality of the human
environment.
Reasons for this conclusion are, in summary:
a. Minimal disruption of the aquatic habitat;
b. No adverse impacts to threatened or endangered species; and
c. Aesthetic and functional improvement of area beaches.
In consideration of the information summarized, I find that the considered
action does not require an Environmental Impact Statement.
Date:
Attachments
6?:?
Walter S. Tulloch
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer

7
VA. NYrMX
- - ----------- -
N O R T H
• DOM
I-
d
w
U
0
°
C A R O L I N A l
11 ?
? e
S. C.'.1
CAPE
HA7TERAS 11 1f
HMEWAD CI 11 ??
?, 11 ??I
11
amour 11 1,
11
P II ?%
SITE
SC&E IN MILES
ICINITY MAP
o
If
I
11 8
all
11
?l
it Q
l
?l a
l?
roDn
Tic
.. o
Q
" P
o
in ,
I St wazw
qNO ??
li
" ? /1.0 NERD
SMITH ?S
CAPE FEAR
BORROW
AREA -

Z
PROJECT``
'
.
i
I'
1
L
E 2.542.000
L
E 2.311.000 V
f 2. 0.000
E 2.339.000 $ \
O I .
E 2.33E.000 •?' •? ? ?

W
W
ff
Ld
Lj
LLI
Z
r-?
W
J
Q
U
V)
Q
Z
.-r
J
O
?a
0 U
0
ED Z
W
Cr ?
Z 0
O_ Z
4 U
J w
Q M
wa
wZ
0
Er
a
U
`%L-
1
:EACH
T{
.t•,:.. r
16
13.5' NGVD -
12
_ 10.5' NGVD
a 8
Z `
f- 4 \
-
-4
w -8
-12
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
DISTANCE IN FEET FROM C.O.E. BASELINE
STATION 30+00
TYPICAL BEACH PROFILE
16
12
z 8
z
4
F
w
w
LL
0 ------------
z
w -8
-12
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
2
:ITY
:'ION
F
DISTANCE IN FEET FROM C.O.E. BASELINE
STATION 130+00
TYPICAL ROCK REVETMENT PROFILE
LEGEND
------- DESIGN PROFILE
15 APR 90
REEVALUATION REPORT
CAROLINA BEACH. NORTH CAROLINA
AUTHORIZED
CROSS-SECTIONS
FIGURE 2
J
1 I ? •J

\
BEACH
AROLINA
INLEI
m
U
w
C
I I • G' J ? ?
/
? ? o
aC x

o , I

I I•
• ?-
'-
iw ? Q

d
O
¢
mW
mm
I I
I I
z
W
¢W 0tc
Wmx
U)' ? =
w
W
t co O<E I i
?II XJ-
a? Wz? Z o
k I I • O Q
. •
?II WZ
z" m
W
am U
JQ

II ow
w w
z m a m ?-1

'
I I n
xd
o _jz-
Wo

U w
a

Z F--?
;; I O a
.8 a:
m X11
z
w I I
I I
?? a
v H
µ : a. ? I I F-?-i
(Lo

m
I I
I

H
z r
I? •
I I
II
it
II
I?

II w
II
I? • N
I?
I ?? •

?i
6b

NORTHERN PROJECT

LIMITS

W
w
II o STA 140+00 u

I ?I
II
? I

1)
/1 • (

?
i
p w

J

\ h11

• O O
S I-
? I--

n cr)
° UQW 0
Q W V)
J mW F-
? N =

?
cn
N?
m
(f) 0 O
Z
x[Cx IL W
UW<rLn
EUz
x
W
?- J LL W
W O W
w r \
\ J

Q 2 U)
x U
Q \
xasa
a i- w
m
W
cn
a i= U Q

'
O
c
Q
U

I.:
{;;." STA 50+00

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4
Division of Coastal Management YA
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor e V
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary L7 E H N F
Roger N. Schecter, Director
August 4, 1993
Colonel Walter Tulloch
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
REFERENCE: CD93-24 Final EIS - Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave Protection,
Carolina Beach & Vicinity Area South Project, New Hanover County
Dear Colonel Tulloch:
The State of North Carolina has completed its review pursuant to 15 CFR 930 Subpart C -
Consistency for Federal Activities, of the subject Final Environmental Impact Statement. Based upon our
review, we agree with your determination that the project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program, provided that the project meets the following condition:
Dredging and disposal operations will be limited to the November 16 to January 15 window to
minimize disturbance during the periods of greatest biological activity. We understand that initial
construction of the project is expected to extend beyond this period. However, any future maintenance
of the project will be limited to this time period. Any change in the schedule from what is proposed in
the current plan, such as the summer dredging schedule suggested by the Value Engineering Study in
Attachment E, will comprise a significant change in the project and will require environmental review and
a separate consistency determination.
We ask that the. Corps of Engineers include the State in the review and analysis of its monitoring
programs for this project. The Division of Parks and Recreation are particularly interested in reviewing
the coquina outcrop monitoring plan. We are also interested in following the results of monitoring biota
and the borrow area bathymetry.
Again, as we commented in our response to the draft EIS for this project, if the. Carolina Beach
and Vicinity, Carolina Beach Portion project is reauthorized, the Division of Coastal Management requests
that the Corps consider combining the different Carolina Beach area projects for purposes of impact
analysis, and perhaps even economic analysis. Although they may remain separate in terms of funding,
autorization, and timing of work, we feel that coincident review and analysis for impacts on resources
would accomplish a more thorough and complete evaluation of the projects in relation to the coastal
environment.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
If you have any questions regarding our findings, condition, or requests, please contact Steve
Benton or Caroline Bellis, Division of Coastal Management, at [phone].
Sincerely, y?
Roger N. Schecter
cc: Bob Stroud, Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington
John Taggart, NC Coastal Reserves
Chrys Baggett, NC State Clearinghouse
Fritz Rhode, Division of Marine Fisheries, Wilmington
Daniel Small, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Charles Fullwood, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
John Dorney, Division of Environmental Management
Carol Tingley, Division of Parks & Recreation
4
?Y A STA1I o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division or Coastal Management
225 North McDowell Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
06/21/93
Mr. Jim Gregson
NC DEH&NR
Div. Environmental Management
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
REFERENCE: CD93-24
Applicant/Sponsor:
FEIS Carolina Beach
Dear Mr. Gregson:
U.S. Army Corps of
and Vicinity, Area

C
COASTAL
County: Hanove3o
Engineers
South Project
The attached Consistency Determination, dated 06/11/93
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.
7
46 Please indicate your viewpoini ly?r .man-d--r-e-turn this
form to me before 07/06/93 o?v
Ste aen B. Benton
Consistency Coordinator
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
JA ? This office orts t fie project proposal.
No Comment.
Signed lfx? h? t -'?) S
Date V-t , ?j
Agency DE/A
P.O Box ?7687, l2alci?h North Carolina 276,11-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Fqual Opportunir Affirmative Action Fmplovct
f
f .. •w
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
a Hunt, Jr., Governor )osadw B Howes, Secretary
January 12, 1993
Colonel Walter Tulloch
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
REFERENCE: SCH93-M Draft EIS Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave Protection, Carolina
Beach & Vicinity Area South Project, New Hanover County
Dear Colonel T uRoch.
The State of North Carolina has completed its review pursuant to 15 CFR 930 Subpart C -
Consistency for Federal Activities, of the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Our final
determination for consistency will be made upon review of the Final EIS. Based upon our review of this
draft document, it appears that the proposal could be found consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program„ provided that the project meets the condition below and that the comments which
foUow are given full consideration in the preparation of the final document
2 Dredging and disposal operations will be limited to the extent practical to the November 16 to
January 15 window to minimize disturbance during the periods of greatest biological activity. We
understand that initial construction of the project may extend beyond this period. However, any future
maintenance of the project will be limited to this time period.
3 The EIS should address long term cumulative impacts of the proposed project Dredging and
beach disposal every three years is relatively frequent. Effects on the biota of the intertidal zone, the
borrow site, and the nearby coquina outcrop could be significant, especially considering recovery periods
such as the 1 to 2 year recovery period (as stated in the EIS) for intertidal benthos.
4 We suggest that the Corps establish a monitoring program which will not only investigate short
term impacts (such as from turbidity) but long term impacts and recovery in the project area as well. This
would include pre and post project sampling followed by annual or biannual sampling of biota in the
PQ Box 27687, RakV,. North Cmotina 27611.7657 Td4m 919.733-4984 Fax [phone]
:. • = °:' • : AnEnd Oppornmity Affimuw c Action Emp6
3

f
y n
int, rtidal zone, the borrow area, and the area of coquina outcrop. In addition, topographic surveys of the
borrow area should be conducted to monitor movement of sediment in the area- Attached are comments
from the North Carolina Fstuarisie Reserve which further detail stud} and monitoring needs associates'
with the project-
s If the Carolina Beach and Vicinity, Carolina Beach Portion project is reauthorized, the Divisior
of Coastal Management would like to request that the Corps consider combining the different Carolin-
Beach projects for purposes of impact analysis, and perhaps even economic analysis. Although they ma}
remain separate in terms of funding and tinning of work, we feel that coincident review and analysis fo,
impacts on resources would accomplish a more thorough and complete evaluation of the projects it
relation 4.n the coastal environment
Tltimk you for the opportunity to review this draft plan. If you have any questions regarding ow
comments, please contact Steve Benton or Caroline Bellis, Division of Coastal Management, at (919)733
2293.
SPSchecSC t
er
r
cc Bob Stroud, Division of Coastal Management, Wtmnngton
John Taggart, NC Coastal Reserves
Chrys Baggett, NC State Clearinghouse
Fritz Rhode, Division of Marine Fisheries, Wilmington
Daniel Small, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Charles Fullwood, NC Mdlife Resources Commission
John Dorney, Division of Environmental Management
Carol Tingley, Division of Parks do Recreation

Tyr ?.. .
.'.1T. •Vr.I..
Response to N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Coastal Management, letter dated 12 January 1993
1. Comment noted.
2. See response to No. 4 to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of
Environmental Affairs, letter dated 17 December 1992.
3. See response to Nos. 3 and 5 to the U.S. Department of the Interior,
)ffice of Environmental Affairs, letter dated 17 December 1992.
. See response to Nos. 5 and 6 to the U.S. Department of the Interior,
ffice of Environmental Affairs, letter dated 17 December 1992.
o. Comment noted.
1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N F1
Jonathan B. Howes, , Sec Secreta ry
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 23, 1993
Col. Tulloch
Corps of Engineers
Dept. of the Army
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
Dear Col. Tulloch:
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
Proposed dredging disposal on Carolina Beach
Project # 93118
New Hanover County
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 2841 issued to U.S. Army of Corps of
Engineers dated August 23, 1993.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
reston Ho ard, J . E.
i ctor
Attachments
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Wilmington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney11
John Parker, Division of Coastal Management
Central Files
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
NORTH CAROLINA
New Hanover County
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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in New Hanover County pursuant to an application filed on
the 5th day of February,1993 to discharge dredged material associated with the Carolina
Beach Vicinity-Area South Beach renourishment project.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the
waters of Atlantic Ocean in conjunction with the proposed basin fill in New Hanover County
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).
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 or Coastal Area Management Act Permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory
hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this Certification. This
request must be in the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box
27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. Unless such demands are made, this Certification shall be
final and binding.
This the 23rd day of August, 1993.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
n J?
reston Howard, Jr. P. .
Director
WQC# 2841
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENG 6Rf ,.Rk
P.O. BOX 1890 - -WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 FEB 12 1995
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
February 5, 1993
Mr. Preston Howard, Acting Director
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
GE?NT..
DIV. Dp[ NVCTDVS OFFICE
r ryy, _
e7l
Dear Mr. Howard:
Enclosed is an Application for Water Quality Certification, pursuant
to Section 401 of Public Law 95-217, for discharge of dredged material
associated with the Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South beach
nourishment project, New Hanover County, North Carolina (figure 1).
The proposed beach erosion control and hurricane wave protection
project would cover approximately 3-1/2 miles of shoreline between the
town of Carolina Beach to the north and the Fort Fisher Historic Site to
the south. Potential borrow areas for beachfill for project construction
and maintenance are located in two borrow areas located approximately
1 to 2 miles offshore in the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Draft Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation (PL 92-217) is
enclosed for your information. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
dated October 1992, was circulated for a 45-day public review period to
Federal and State review agencies and the interested public on November 6,
1992. The public comment period ended on December 21, 1992. A Final
Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared and will also be circulated
for review.
Should you have any questions concerning the application, please contact
Mr. Daniel Small, Environmental Resources Branch, at [phone].
Sincerely,
??41
1 F7
Enclosures
Walter S. Tulloch
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer

-2-
Copy Furnished (with enclosures):
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
r
APPLICATION FOR WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: February 5, 1993
NAME: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: Walter S. Tulloch
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
PROJECT NAME: Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South Project, New Hanover
County, North Carolina
NATURE OF ACTIVITY: The proposed action involves discharge of dredged
material associated with construction of a beach erosion control and hurricane
wave protection project along the ocean shoreline south of Carolina Beach, New
Hanover County, North Carolina (figure 1).
DISCHARGE OF: Dredged material during initial construction and scheduled
renourishment of the beach erosion control and hurricane wave protection
project.
PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: Fall 1996
LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: Kure Beach and the unincorporated communities of
Wilmington and Hanby Beach
County: New Hanover
Drainage Basin: Cape Fear
Receiving Waters: Atlantic Ocean
Point of Discharge: Ocean beach
NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Ocean
Nature: Salt
Direction of Flow: Variable
1
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT FACILITIES. IF ANY. PRIOR TO DISCHARGE INTO RECEIVING
WATERS: N/A
TEMPERATURE. AND KINDS AND QUANTITIES OF POLLUTANTS OR CONTAMINANTS: The
material to be discharged on the ocean beach is predominantly medium grain
sand with a small percentage of fine grain material and some shell hash.
Approximately 3.3 million cubic yards of dredged material will be removed
from the selected offshore borrow area and placed on the beach.
The beachfill material will be obtained from dredging in one of two
offshore borrow areas located beyond the 30-foot depth contour offshore of
Carolina Beach. The two borrow areas cover a combined area of approximately
1,191 acres offshore. Dredging in the borrow areas would be to a depth of
approximately -15 feet below the surrounding bottom elevation.
The fill material has been determined to meet the criteria set forth in
40 CFR 230.60(b), in that the material is characterized as sand which is
sufficiently removed from sources of pollution to provide reasonable assurance
that the material would not be contaminated by pollutants and the fact that
the material is inert. Hence, no further physical, biological, or chemical
testing is required pursuant to the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.
TYPE DIAMETER OR CROSS-SECTION AND LENGTH OF CONVEYANCE OF DISCHARGE: At
this time, the type of dredge plant and beach disposal method that would be
used for project construction and future maintenance is unknown. The type of
dredge plant that will be used will depend on a number of factors, including
competition in the market place, pumping or haul distance, depth and aerial
extent of dredging, available dredging technology, weather conditions and
time of year, etc. Alternative construction methods include:
1. Ocean-Certified Hydraulic Pipeline Dredge. An ocean-certified
hydraulic pipeline dredge would be used to remove material from the borrow
area and pump the material directly to the beach. The dredge pipeline would
run from the dredge operating in the borrow area, approximately 1 to 2 miles,
to the beach disposal site. The pipeline would be submerged from the dredge
to a point close to shore where the pipeline would then run above the surface
to shore. Standard construction equipment would be used to construct the dune
and storm berm.
2. Ocean-Certified Hydraulic Pipeline Dredge with Scows.
An ocean-certified pipeline dredge would be used to dredge the material
from the borrow area but would pump the material into barges or scows onsite
for transport to the beach instead of a pipeline running to the beach. The
material would then be pumped from the scows at the pump-out station to the
beach.
3. Ocean-Certified Hopper Dredge with Direct Pump Out to the Beach. An
ocean-certified hopper dredge would dredge the material from the borrow area
and then transport it to a pump-out station close to the disposal beach. The
material would then be pumped from the hopper dredge at the pump-out station
to the beach. The dredged material placed on the beach will be shaped by
earth-moving equipment.
2

PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE: Approximately
766,000 cubic yards of dredged material will be placed on the beach during
each renourishment cycle, which will occur every 3 years during the 50-year
life of the project.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF ADJOINING RIPARIAN OWNERS: Town of Carolina Beach and
State of North Carolina, Fort Fisher Historic Site.
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Walter S. Tulloch
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Attachment
3
VA. NORFOLK CAROLINA BEACH
------------------------- a BORROW AREA
w
N O R T H
0 DURHAM U
pp 11?
O o U h
RALEI GH d
M
C A R 0 L I N A // QI
11
HATTERAS Il N,
G 11
MO!EFEA0 CITY ti I I
17
CAPE '? II /i
LOOKOUT II //
\ YI L4NGT V, I I /
C.\" ?' I I i? 17 LL
0 60 100
>c
FAR SITE D SCjLZd,.ES_jI 17
VICINITY MAP o
l)
40
J!
II °
II
11
FEDOW
POW
D
G
SOUTHPORT
o
OqK ISL4NO maw
roar \? w
1)
"? D NEAO
// SMI Ty
CAPE FEAR
0
a
N
?
U:
V
N
Q
w
J
LL
CU6
e
L?
I .
CAROLINA BEACH
INLET
OFFSHORE
BORROW AREAS
V
0
2 1 0 2
SCALE IN MILES •
PROJECT LOCATION
MAP
Al
DRAFT
Attachment A
Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) (PL 92-217) Guidelines
Section 404(b)(1) (PL 95-217) Evaluation
Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South Project
New Hanover, North Carolina
October 1992
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Location. New Hanover County, North Carolina.
B. Background and Project Description. The Carolina Beach and Vicinity -
Area South project is located in New Hanover County, North Carolina. The
Wilmington District has investigated public concerns in the study area related
to hurricane and flood protection. Alternatives investigated consisted of
berms and dunes of various dimensions. The no action alternative was also
considered. The National Economic Development (NED) plan consists of a
25-foot-wide crest width artificial dune with a vegetated crest elevation of
13.5 feet above 0 National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) and a storm berm
approximately 50 feet wide. Project construction will cover approximately
3-1/2 miles of shoreline between the town of Carolina Beach to the north and
the Fort Fisher Historic Site to the south. Potential borrow areas for
beachfill for project construction and maintenance are located in two borrow
areas located approximately 1 to 2 miles offshore in the Atlantic Ocean.
Project construction will require approximately 3.3 million yards of dredged
material. Project maintenance will require approximately 766,000 cubic
yards of beachfill every 3 years. A complete description of the NED plan
alternative can be found in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The project is being evaluated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of
1977, as amended, rather than Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuary Act of 1972 (Ocean Dumping Act), since the proposed discharge
site is within the 3-nautical-mile territorial limits of the State of North
Carolina.
C. Purpose. This 404(b)(1) evaluation covers the discharge of dredged
material on the ocean beach for the purpose of construction of a beach erosion
control and hurricane wave protection project. The isolated discharges
associated with dredging to remove beachfill from the borrow areas offshore
are not considered discharges of dredged material for the purpose of filling,
but isolated discharges incidental to the dredging operation and are therefore
not being covered under this evaluation.
A-1
A

D. General Description of Dredged Material.
1. General Characteristics of Dredged Material. The material to be
discharged on the beach under the NED plan is predominantly medium grain sand
with a small percentage of fine grain material and some shell hash.
2. Ouantity of Material. Approximately 3.3 million cubic yards of
dredged material will be removed from the selected offshore borrow area and
placed on the beach. Approximately 766,000 cubic yards of dredged material
will be placed on the beach during each maintenance cycle which will occur
every 3 years.
3. Source of Material. The beachfill material will be obtained from
dredging in one of two offshore borrow areas located beyond the 30-foot depth
contour offshore of Carolina Beach. The two borrow areas cover a combined
area of approximately 1,191 acres offshore. Dredging in the borrow areas
would be to a depth of approximately -15 feet below the surrounding bottom
elevation.
E. Description of the Proposed Discharge Site.
1. Location and Size. The proposed discharge site is an unconfined
3-1\2 mile strand along the oceanside of Pleasure Island, New Hanover County,
North Carolina.
2. Type of Site. Unconfined beach, surf zone, and nearshore ocean.
3. Type of Habitat. The types of habitat present at the site
are coastal dune and beach, intertidal, and nearshore. The native material on
the ocean beach consists of medium grain sand with some shell and shell hash.
4. Timing and Duration of Discharge. Construction of the project is
expected to take approximately 8 months and would occur between November 15
and July 31. Maintenance construction is expected to occur during the same
timeframe every 3 years and would require about 2 months.
F. Description of Discharge Method. At this time, the type of dredge
plant and beach disposal method that would be used for project construction
and future maintenance is unknown. The type of dredge plant that will be used
will depend on a number of factors, including competition in the market place,
pumping or haul distance, depth and areal extent of dredging, available
dredging technology, weather conditions and time of year, etc. Alternative
construction methods being considered for dredging and disposing of beachfill
on the beach include:
1. Ocean-Certified Hydraulics Pipeline Dredge. An ocean-certified
hydraulic pipeline dredge would be used to remove material from the borrow
area and pump the material directly to the beach. The dredge pipeline would
run from the dredge operating in the borrow area approximately 1 to 2 miles to
the beach disposal site. The pipeline would be submerged from the dredge to a
point close to shore where the pipeline would then run above the surface to
A-2

shore. Standard construction equipment would be used to construct the dune
and storm berm.
2. Ocean-Certified Hydraulic Pipeline Dredge with Scows. An ocean-
certified pipeline dredge would be used to dredge the material from the borrow
area but would pump the material into barges or scows onsite for transport to
the beach instead of a pipeline running to the beach. The material would then
be pumped from the scows at the pump-out station to the beach.
3. Ocean-Certified Hopper Dredge with Direct Pump Out to the Beach.
An ocean-certified hopper dredge would dredge the material from the borrow
area and then transport it to a pump-out station close to the disposal beach.
The material would then be pumped from the hopper dredge at the pump-out
station to the beach. The dredged material placed on the beach will be shaped
by earth-moving equipment.
II. FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS
A. Physical Substrate Determination.
1. Substrate Elevation and Slope. There will be a change in the
beach profile in reference to elevation and length. The substrate elevation
and slope will be altered by the construction of the dune and storm berm.
The design foreslope for the dune and berm is 10 horizontal to 1 vertical.
The total width of the dune and storm berm is approximately 210 feet.
2. Sediment Type. The discharged material consists of predominantly
fine-to-medium grain sand, with less than 10 percent fine grain material
(silt/clay), shell, and shell hash. The material is compatible with the
native beach material.
3. Fill Material Movement. Some lateral movement of material will
likely occur as a result of the combined effects of currents, water
circulation, wind, and wave action. There would be some loss of fine grain
material into the water column during construction and initial settlement of
the beachfi11.
4. Physical Effects on Benthos. The discharge of fill material will
smother benthic fauna in the immediate vicinity of the discharge on the beach
and nearshore during berm construction. Repopulation should begin soon after
the disposal operation ends. Turbidity-related impacts are expected to be
minor and temporary due to the predominantly fine-to-medium grain sand
material being discharged.
5. Other Effects. None expected.
6. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. Action taken to minimize
impacts include selection of fill material that is similar to the native beach
substrate and is low in silt content. Also, standard construction practices
to minimize turbidity and erosion would be employed. A small berm may be
constructed along the mean high water line at the discharge point to help
reduce turbidity.
A-3
w

B. Water Circulation. Fluctuation, and Salinity Determinations.
1. Water.
a. Water. No significant effect.
b. Salinity. No significant effect.
c. Water Chemistry. No significant effect.
d. Clarity. The clarity of the water will be temporarily reduced
during the discharges. Conditions should return to ambient levels after
completion of the work.
e. Color. No significant effect.
f. Odor. No effect.
g. Taste. No effect.
h. Dissolved Gas Levels. No significant effect.
i. Nutrients. No significant effect.
j. Eutrophication. No significant effect.
k. Others as Appropriate. None.
2. Current Patterns and Circulation.
a. Current Patterns and Flow. No significant change in current
pattern and flow would result from construction of the NED plan.
b. Velocity. No significant effect.
c. Stratification. No effect.
d. Hydrologic Regime. No adverse changes to the hydrologic
regime should occur.
3. Normal Water Level Fluctuations. No effect.
4. Salinity Gradient. No effect.
5. Action Taken to Minimize Impacts. See 1.f. above.
A-4
C. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determinations.
1. Expected Changes in Suspended Particulates and Turbidity Levels in
the Vicinity of the Disposal Site. Short-term increases in suspended
particulate levels may occur at the time of dredging and disposal. No
violation of applicable water quality standards will occur outside of the area
of discharge or mixing zone.
2. Effects (Degree and Duration) on Chemical and Physical Properties
of the Water Column. Slight decreases in the degree of light penetration and
dissolved oxygen concentration may occur within the area of construction
during construction and maintenance.
a. Light Penetration. A slight reduction in light penetration
would occur due to the turbidity increase associated with the NED plan.
Turbidity will quickly return to ambient levels upon completion of the work.
b. Dissolved Oxygen. A slight decease in dissolved oxygen
concentration may be associated with construction and maintenance of the NED
plan. The anticipated low levels of organics in the borrow material should
not generate a high, if any, oxygen demand. Dissolved oxygen should return to
ambient levels soon after completion of the work.
c. Toxic Metals and Organics. Based on sediment analyses of the
material available in the borrow areas, no toxic metals or organics are
anticipated. The beachfill material comes from an offshore borrow area with
bottom deposits of predominantly fine-to-medium grain sand.
d. Pathogens. No anticipated effect.
e. Esthetics. A minor, temporary loss
result from elevated levels of turbidity due to the
loss of aesthetic appeal in the project area should
f. Others as Appropriate. None.
3. Effects on Biota.
of esthetics appeal will
discharge. No significant
occur.
a. Primary Production. Photosynthesis. A slight reduction may
occur due to turbidity associated with the NED plan. Any reduction is not
expected to be significant.
b. Suspension/Filter Feeders. No significant effect.
c. Sight feeders. Turbidity resulting from the NED plan would
not be expected to be high enough to significantly affect sight feeding
organisms.
4. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. See II. A. 6. above.
D. Contaminant Determinations. The fill material has been determined to
meet the criteria set forth in 40 CFR 230.60(b), in that the material is
A-5
characterized as sand which is sufficiently removed from sources of pollution
to provide reasonable assurance that the material would not be contaminated by
pollutants and the fact that the material is inert. Hence, no further
physical, biological, or chemical testing is required pursuant to the
404(b)(1) guidelines.
E. Aquatic Ecosystem and Organism Determinations.
1. Effects on Plankton. Deposition of beachfill material along the
beach and adjacent waters will destroy some phytoplankton and zooplankton and
temporarily disrupt light penetration. Due to the nature of the material
being discharged, these impacts are not expected to be significant.
2. Effects on Benthos. Disposal of beachfill material will smother
benthos directly in the construction area. However, these organisms are
adapted to a very rigorous environment in which they experience wave and
storm-induced sedimentation. Thus, the impacts due to the disposal would not
be significant. The loss of organisms during construction is expected to be
offset by the expected rapid opportunistic recolonization from adjacent areas
that would occur following cessation of construction activities.
3. Effects on Nekton. Nektonic organisms in waters adjacent to the
beachfill construction site will probably vacate the areas, at least until
conditions become more favorable. Some nektonic filter feeders may be killed
as a result of being in the affected areas, and other organisms less capable
of movement, such as larval forms, may be physically covered with dredged
material. However, most organisms would generally avoid the project areas and
later return to them.
4. Effects on Aouatic Food Web. No significant effects.
5. Effects on Special Aquatic Sites.
a. Sanctuaries and Refuges. The Zeke's Island National Estuarine
Sanctuary is located south of the project site. This site is not expected to
be impacted by the beach nourishment project.
activity.
b. Wetlands. No wetlands will be filled during the proposed
c. Mudflats. No mudflats will be impacted by the proposed
activity.
d. Vegetated Shallows. No significant effects.
e. Coral Reefs. Intertidal coquina rock outcrops are located
along the southern portion of the project area in the vicinity of the Fort
Fisher National Historic Site. While numerous scattered submerged exposures
exist to the south of the project limits, three dominant exposures exist at
the southern limits of the project. Topographically, the three sites range
from the mean high water tide line to -12 feet mean sea level offshore. The
coquina rock outcrops in this area are composed of shell fragments, marine and
A-6
estuarine fossil, and other sediments cemented together by calcite. The
coquina outcrops provide hard substrate, a place of attachment, and/or
protective environment, for a variety of marine algae, marine invertebrates,
and fishes which are adapted to the hard substrate and high wave energy of the
area. Species associated with these outcrops include sea lettuce, sea
amemone, Atlantic oyster drill, calcareous tube worm, and red gilled marphysa.
Encroachment on the coquina rock outcrops at the southern terminus of the
project would be avoided to the maximum extent possible by naturally sloping
the transition berm into the natural shoreline of the area. Beachfill
material from project construction is expected to be moved by littoral drift,
and portions of the landward sides of the outcrops are expected to be covered.
The areal extent of this coverage cannot be quantified at this time. To
determine effects of the nourishment project on the coquina rock community and
whether any changes observed are the result of natural processes or beach
restoration, a monitoring program would be developed and implemented prior to
and after project construction. Information gathered from the monitoring
program would be used to assess whether changes in disposal operations during
project maintenance are needed.
f. Riffle and Pool Complexes. Not applicable.
6. Threatened and Endangered Species. Construction of the NED plan
alternative would be scheduled to occur between November 15 and July 31. This
schedule would require construction during periods of high biological activity
and will overlap the sea turtle nesting season. A turtle monitoring and nest
relocation program will be implemented to reduce project construction impacts.
Discharge of beachfill during project maintenance will be targeted between
November 15 and May 1 of any given year in order to avoid adverse impacts to
nesting loggerhead and green sea turtles to the maximum extent practicable.
While timing these activities to avoid the nesting season is the method of
choice for avoiding impacts to nesting sea turtles, experiences with similar
projects in North Carolina indicate that work during the season will
eventually be necessary. When such occasions arise, a sea turtle nest
monitoring and relocation program will be implemented.
The piping plover has been documented to nest on beaches south of the Fort
Fisher Historic Site which is south of the project area. There has been no
known nesting in the project area; therefore, no direct impacts to the piping
plover are expected to occur due to the discharge of fill.
7. Other Wildlife. No effects.
8. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. See l.f. above.
9. Proposed Disposal Site Determinations. Dredged material is being
placed on the ocean beach as beachfill for the construction of a beach erosion
control and hurricane wave protection project.
F. Mixing Zone Determination. A mixing zone will be limited to the
minimum needed to allow for proper settling of suspended particulates and
decrease in turbidity to ambient levels.
A-7
I. Determination of Compliance with Applicable Water Quality
Standards. A Section 401 Water Quality Certificate is being requested from
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management for the project. The
disposal activities are not expected to violate state water quality standards.
Water quality standards specified by the certificate are not expected to be
violated outside of a reasonable mixing zone.
2. Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics. The purpose of
the discharge is to provide beachfill for the nourishment of the ocean beach
for hurricane and wave protection. Construction of the project would provide
protection for the structures behind the project.
a. Municipal and Private Water Supply. No effect.
b. Recreational and Commercial Fisheries. Discharge of fill may
temporarily displace the surf-feeding fish populations. However, distribution
of surf-feeding fishes should return to normal upon completion of the project.
c. Water-Related Recreation. Project construction is expected to
take approximately 8 months. Project construction is expected to start around
November 15 and end around July 31. While construction of the project is
targeted to begin during the winter months to the maximum extent practicable,
construction is expected to extend into the water-related recreation period
along the beach. Turbidity levels around the immediate area of construction
would limit water-related recreation during the periods when dredged material
is being discharged on the beach and into the adjacent waters. While the
exact length of any turbidity plumes in adjacent waters updrift or downdrift
of the discharge point are unknown, levels are expected to be within
background levels outside of a reasonably established mixing zone that would
be acceptable for water-related recreation.
d. Esthetics. There will be a short-term effect during
construction and maintenance but it is not expected to be significant.
e. Parks. National and Historic Monuments. National Seashores
Wilderness Areas. Research Sites and Similar Preserves. The Fort Fisher
Historic Site is located south of the project area. No significant effects on
the site are expected as a result of project construction and maintenance.
G. Determinations of Cumulative Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem. The
cumulative effects of the project are not expected to be significant.
H. Determination of Secondary Effects on the Aquatic System. No
secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem are anticipated.
II. FINDING OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE RESTRICTIONS ON DISCHARGE
A. No adaptations of the guidelines were made relative to this
evaluation.
A-8
J
B. There are no practicable alternative discharge sites which would have
less adverse impact to the aquatic ecosystem and still achieve the planning
objectives of beach erosion control and hurricane wave protection.
C. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is being requested from the
State Division of Environmental Management. The discharge will comply with
State water quality standards.
D. The discharge will not violate the toxic effluent standards or
prohibitions under Section 307 of P.L. 95-217.
E. The discharge will not affect any threatened or endangered species or
their critical habitat.
F. The proposed placement of fill will not result in significant adverse
effects on human health and welfare, including municipal and private water
supplies, recreational and commercial fisheries, plankton, fish, shellfish,
wildlife, and special aquatic sites. The life stages of aquatic life and
other wildlife will not be adversely affected. Significant adverse effects
on aquatic ecosystem diversity; productivity; stability; and recreation,
esthetic, and economic values will not occur.
G. Appropriate steps will be taken to minimize potential adverse impacts
of the fill material on the aquatic ecosystem.
H. On the basis of this analysis, the proposed discharge sites for fill
material for the Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South project is in
compliance with the requirements of Section 404(b)(1) (PL 95-217) guidelines.
Date
Walter S. Tulloch
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
A-9

rc

a IV ? c6af,? to
i?6 rv J vl i (I1-41

IMPORTANT
To
Date Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
of
Phone
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message__ _ _
Signed
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources

June 30, 1993
MEMO
To: Monica Swihart
Through: John Dorney
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: Final EIS - Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South Project, Beach
Control and Hurricane Protection
DEHNR # 93-0984, DEM # 9664
The Wetlands and Technical Review Group has no comments for the subject
project. Please inform us when this document has cleared through the State
Clearinghouse so that we can issue the 401 Certification.
carolina.fes
.. 4k,
..,
L'. i1' i°I .. I I'i j._ i I 1,T .!.." I i -I JD
I. 1 } I 1
i:ij'J%:

I J: I L.. ?::. -.. I:::I: I''7r i L.. [_ :I: ?' .... C; r i I ?' Ci 1...:i: i' 1 Fri 1.:; ?::: r i C; :'' I r?i ? •; T l ?+ 7: C; .;? 1`.1 !: i ,? _.. r? f.- I_ `'' i "I I
F.* F; Ci :I: (:! i'! f:; (:3 i'J i.! j

C' C'.1 LI
j F.
Ole
..? -JUN N? ;"9?1

.i. .

I :I:C1j`d : `lJ,`ii:
..I' O j''.'.
f", Ci ; 1 I . ... ..i .. L.... I ... .
,, r.. "r y .. .. .
, 1 1 .. _ ,..
1:: y
._. __ :..• ? .:.; .. ?.: ? _ ? 1. i ..> i ri (I::. I"! L..1 , ? f•? ?.. I
;:,..! t., :. .. j,,.. t

1:_1 1. iji'ij:_;i)
JUN 2 3 1993
?U
WETLANDS GROUP m
WATER QUALITY SECTION
F, NJ
US Army Corps
of Engineers
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Beach Erosion Control
and
Hurricane Wave Protection
Carolina Beach and Vicinity
Area South Project
New Hanover County, North Carolina

June 1993
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South Project
Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave Protection
New Hanover County, North Carolina

The responsible lead agency is the U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington
ABSTRACT: The Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South project, New Hanover
County, North Carolina, was authorized as part of the Carolina Beach and
Vicinity, North Carolina, project under the Authority of the Flood Control Act
of 1962. The Wilmington District has investigated public concerns in the
study area related to greater protection from hurricane waves and flooding so
as to reduce their detrimental effects, and control of beach erosion to arrest
recession of the shoreline. Alternatives investigated consisted of berms and
dunes of various dimensions. The no-action alternative was also considered.
The National Economic Development (NED) plan consists of a 25-foot-wide crest
width artificial dune with a vegetated crest elevation of 13.5 feet above
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (approximately sea level), and a storm
berm approximately 50 feet wide at 9 feet NGVD. Project construction will
cover approximately 3 112 miles of shoreline between the Town of Carolina
Beach to the north and the Fort Fisher Historic Site to the south. The source
of beachfill for project construction and maintenance is located in two
offshore borrow sites located approximately 1 to 2 miles offshore in the
Atlantic Ocean.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was filed with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency on November 6, 1992, and was circulated for a
45 day public review period ending on December 21, 1992. Comments received on
the DEIS are included in Attachment D of this document.
SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO THE DISTRICT ENGINEER BY THE DATE INDICATED ON THE
REPORT TRANSMITTAL LETTER.
If you would like further information on this statement, please contact:
Mr. Daniel Small
Environmental Resources Branch
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Phone: [phone]
NOTE: CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT AND FINAL EIS ARE INDICATED IN BOLD TYPE.
SUMMARY
The Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South project, New Hanover County,
North Carolina, was authorized as part of the Carolina Beach and Vicinity,
North Carolina, project under the Authority of the Flood Control Act of 1962.
The Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South project is an erosion
control/hurricane wave protection project. It is a separable element of the
Carolina Beach and Vicinity project which covers the Town of Carolina Beach.
The Area South portion of the Carolina Beach and Vicinity project covers a
stretch of beach approximately 3 112 miles long in New Hanover County, North
Carolina. The project reach extends from the southern town limits of Carolina
Beach to almost the northern property limits of the Fort Fisher National
Historic Site, a distance of approximately 18,000 feet. The project study
area consists of the Town of Kure Beach, the unincorporated communities of
Hanby Beach and Wilmington Beach, and the adjacent lands and waters which
potentially could be impacted by the proposed project, including the potential
borrow areas.
The Wilmington District has investigated public concerns in the study area
related to greater protection from hurricane waves and flooding and control of
beach erosion. Alternatives investigated consisted of berms and dunes of
various dimensions. The no-action alternative was also considered. The
National Economic Development (NED) plan consists of a 25-foot-wide crest
width artificial dune with a vegetated crest elevation of 13.5 feet above
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (approximately sea level), and a storm
berm approximately 50 feet wide at 9 feet NGVD. This plan will have minimal
impacts on the existing environment. This plan has a benefit-to-cost ratio of
1.82 to 1.0.
Project construction will cover approximately 3 1/2 miles of shoreline between
the Town of Carolina Beach to the north and the Fort Fisher Historic Site to
the south. The source of beachfill for project construction and maintenance
is located in two offshore borrow sites located approximately 1 to 2 miles
offshore in the Atlantic Ocean. The offshore borrow areas contain enough
material to construct and maintain the project over the project life of 50
years.
Significant resources occurring in the study area that were considered in this
study include marine resources (offshore, nearshore, intertidal, beach, and
terrestrial), endangered species, cultural resources, socio-economic
resources, aesthetic, and recreation. Compliance with all applicable Federal,
State, and local policies has been examined. At this time, the project is in
compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local policies.
A Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
was published on May 15, 1991, in the Federal Register (Vol. 56, No. 94)
inviting comments from all agencies, organizations, and interested parties.
A DEIS, dated October 1992, was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency on November 6, 1992. A notice of availability of the DEIS was
published on November 6, 1992, in the Federal Register (Vol. 57, No. 216).
The DEIS was circulated for a 45-day public review period ending on
December 21, 1992. Comments received from the resources agencies and the
interested public on the DEIS, and the District responses to the comments, are
included as Attachment D of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
The HIS was mailed to the resource agencies and the interested public on June
11, 1993, for a 30-day review and comments period ending July 27, 1993.
Unressolved issues at this time include consideration of project construction
and renourishment during the summer months, and total impact avoidance to the
coquina rock outcrops south of the project reach.
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South Project
Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave Protection
New Hanover County, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.00 INTRODUCTION .......................................................
2.00 SUMMARY ... ............ 1
2.01 Major Conclusions and Findings ................................. 1
2.02 Areas of Controversy ........................................... 1
2.03 Unresolved Issues .............................................. 1
2.04 Relationship of Plans to Environmental Requirements ............ 1
3.00 NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF ACTION .................................. 6
3.01 Study Authority ................................................ 6
3.02 Project Dimensions ............................................. 6
3.03 Environmental Concerns and Investigations ...................... 6
3.04 Public Concerns ................................................ 7
3.05 Planning Objectives ............................................ 7
00 ALTERNATIVES ....................................................... 7
4.01 Alternative Plans . ........ .................................. 7
4.02 Without Conditions (No Action) ................................. 7
4.03 Plans Considered in Detail ..................................... 9
4.04 Recommended Plan ............................................... 9
4.05 Comparative Impacts of Alternatives ............................ 9
4.06 Project Maintenance ............................................ 12
4.07 Alternative Borrow Areas Investigated .......................... 12
4.08 Offshore Borrow Area Investigations ............................ 12
4.08.1 Material Characteristics of the Borrow Areas ............. 14
4.09 Beach-Borrow Area Material Compatibility ....................... 14
4.10 Alternative Construction Methods ............................... 16
00 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................... 16
5.01 Geographic Setting ............................................. 16
5.02 Socioeconomic Resources ...................................... 17
5.03 Recreation and Esthetic Resources .............................. 17
5.04 Marine Resources ............................................... 17
5.04.1 Offshore Resources ....................................... 18
5.04.2 Nearshore Resources ...................................... 22
5.04.3 Intertidal Resources ..................................... 23
5.04.4 Beach and Terrestrial Resources .......................... 23
5.05 Surface Water Quality .......................................... 23
5.06 Cultural Resources ............................................. 25
5.07 Endangered Species ............................................. 25
5.07.1 Biological Assessments ................... .......... 27
5.08 Other Significant Resources (Section 122, P.L. 91-611) ......... 27
6.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .............................................. 28
6.01 Socioeconomic Resources ........................................ 28
i
6.02 Recreational and Asthetic Resources ............................ 29
6.03 Marine Resources ............................................... 29
6.03.1 Offshore Resources ....................................... 29
6.03.2 Nearshore Resources ...................................... 30
6.03.3 Intertidal Resources ..................................... 30
6.03.4 Shore and Terrestrial Resources .......................... 31
6.04 Water Quality .................................................. 31
6.05 Cultural Resources ............................................. 32
6.06 Endangered Species ............................................. 33
6.06.1 Biological Assessment .......... ............ 33
6.07 Other Significant Resources (Section 122, P.L. 91-611) 33
6.08 Environmental Commitments and Mitigation ....................... 35
7.00 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ........................................... 36
7.01 Coastal Zone Consistency Determination ... .................. 36
7.02 EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands and EO 11988, Flood Plain
Management ......................................................... 37
7.03 Wetland Construction ........................................... 37
7.04 Marine, Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act .............. 37
7.05 Coastal Barrier Resources Act ................................. 37
7.06 Hazardous and Toxic Waste (HTW) ................................ 37
7.07 Relationship Between Short-Term Impacts and Long-Term Benefits 38
and Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resoruces ........ 38
8.00 COORDINATION ....................................................... 38
9.00 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................. 39
10.00 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................ 40
11.00 STATEMENT RECIPIENTS .............................................. 40
12.00 REFERENCES ........................................................ 42
13.00 INDEX ............................................................. 44
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - General Vicinity Map - Carolina Beach & Vicinity, N.C. Area South
FIGURE 2 - Project Reach
FIGURE 3 - Alternative Plans Investigated
FIGURE 4 - Borrow Areas Investigated - Carolina Beach & Vicinity, N.C.
Area South
FIGURE 5 - Potential Offshore Borrow Sites
FIGURE 6A & 6B - Generalized Stratigraphic Profiles of Selected Borrow Areas
FIGURE 7 - Benthic Sampling and Potential Offshore Borrow Sites
FIGURE 8 - Coquina Rock Outcrops
4
ii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - Relationship of Plan to Environmental Requirements
TABLE 2 - Comparative Impacts of Alternatives
TABLE 3 - Beach-Borrow Area Material Data
TABLE 4 - Recipients of This Environmental Impact Statement
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

A.
ATTACHMENT A - Section 404(B) (P.L. 92-217) Evaluation
ATTACHMENT B - Cultural Resources Survey
ATTACHMENT C - U.S. Fis h and Wildlife Coordination Act Report
ATTACHMENT D - Comments and Responses on DEIS
ATTACHMENT E - Analysis of Summer Dredging Schedule
ATTACHMENT F - Analysis of Sand Movement in Vicinity of Coquina
Rock Outcrops
iii
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CAROLINA BEACH AND VICINITY - AREA SOUTH PROJECT
BEACH EROSION CONTROL AND HURRICANE WAVE PROTECTION
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.00 INTRODUCTION
The Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South project is an erosion
control/hurricane wave protection project. It is a separable element of the
Carolina Beach and Vicinity project. The Area South portion of the Carolina
Beach and Vicinity project refers to a stretch of beach approximately 3 112
miles long in New Hanover County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The project
study area consists of the Town of Kure Beach, the unincorporated communities
of Hanby Beach and Wilmington Beach (Figure 2), and the adjacent lands and
waters which potentially could be impacted by the proposed project, including
the potential borrow areas. The Town of Kure Beach is the project sponsor for
the Area South project and will handle all local cooperative agreement
negotiations.
2.00 SUMMARY
2.01 Major Conclusions and Findings
The recommended plan consists of constructing an artificial dune and berm
along the ocean beach. This plan will have minimal impacts on the existing
environment. This plan has a minimum benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.4 to 1.0.
The plan would involve a discharge of fill material into waters of the United
States which would be in compliance with Section 404(b)(1), Public Law (P.L.)
95-217 (see Attachment A).
2.02 Areas of Controversy
While there are no known areas of controversy at this time, potential
areas of controversy could be the project's impacts on coquina rock outcrops
located at the southern terminus of the project, and the timing of the project
construction which will extend into periods of high biological activities
along the beach and offshore.
2.03 Unresolved Issues
There are no unresolved issues at this time.
2.04 Relationship of Plans to Environmental Reauirements
Table 1 summarizes the relationship of the NED alternative to
environmental requirements. Compliance with all applicable Federal, State,
and local policies has been examined. At this time the project is in
compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local policies.
EIS-1

VA. IoiRx y
6
N 0 R T H W
. aAMM U
e
ArII01 p o
C A R O L I N A
CAME
INWOUTERAS
IUND" a Q

1amw
\ rw
S. C,'.\ P
?, o w o0
N
VICINITY MAP
Brunswick
County
Mainland
pe ]
River
Military Ocean Terminal
Sunny Point
0 47
010 4o
e
ice
\New Inlet

f To Wilmington
New Hanover
County
Mainland
Vj
Carolina
Beach
Carolina I
Beach
Inlet
Pleasure
Island
Zeke's Island National
Estuarine Research Reserve
CAROLINA BEACH
& VICINITY. N.C.
AREA SOUTH
FIGURE I
EIS-2
Fort Fisher State Historic Site
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
TABLE 1. RELATIONSHIP OF PLAN TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
The Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South project is in compliance with

the following environmental requirements.
r
Federal Policies Prop osed Action
Preservation of Historic Archaeological Full Compliance
Data Act of 1974.
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.
Coastal Barrier Resources Act. Full Compliance
Estuary Protection Act. Full Compliance
Endangered Species Act Full Compliance
of 1973, as amended.
Federal Water Project Full Compliance
Recreation Act.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Full Compliance
as amended.
Land and Water Conservation Not Applicable
Fund Act.
Marine Protection, Research, and Not Applicable
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended.
Rivers and Harbor Act. Full Compliance
T
Watershed Protection and Flood Not Applicable
Prevention Act.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Not Applicable
EIS-3
Executive Orders (EO), Memoranda, etc.
EO 11988, Flood Plain Management. Full Compliance
EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands. Full Compliance
EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement Full Compliance
of the Cultural Environment.
State and Local Policies/Plans.
N.C. Coastal Area Management Act Full Compliance
of 1974, as amended.
New Hanover County Land Use Plan Update Full Compliance
Kure Beach Land Use Plan Update. Full Compliance
NOTES: The compliance categories used in this table were assigned based
on the following definitions.
Full Compliance - All requirements have been met for this stage of
planning.
Partial Compliance - Some requirements remain to be met for this stage of
planning.
Not Applicable - Statute, E0, or other policy not applicable to this
project or area.
Full compliance with NEPA will be noted upon signing of the Record of
Decision.
ry
r

EIS-4

1N1JET N
?y
RWNA
CA D
Z x
_
0
?J U

mM
<m E-
zo
oz V
W
0-
>-
t

U Z
O
U Q=i
> a

Z U p

J w
?
O ,p
a
o

_
U =
U
<
W
m
o
o
O
?-
w
W
W
m
< M ?
N <
Z z
J z

J
O O
K
<

O
W
J

U U
?
U
Q O N
?L1 °
U
0
O
M
STA. 0+00
IOU
T-C
mo
W
I
Ix
0-<
U.W z
O <

Z
_ Z -C

W
Z Jm
v

APPROX.
STA. 76+00 f.-
w
-J
IL
Q

N
H in
?- <
W
.
.
J
Z
O
1-
U y?
<
W y
m p
W
K p
Y STA. 165+00
TRANSITION ZONE
STA. 180+00
??a
oaw
ax

EIS-5 1
3.00 NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF ACTION
3.01 Study Authority
The Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South project was authorized as
part of the Carolina Beach and Vicinity, North Carolina, project under the
Authority of the Flood Control Act of 1962. The Wilmington District prepared
r a Design Memorandum (DM) on measures to reduce storm damages to Carolina Beach
and Vicinity - Area South in 1967. The initial construction of the Carolina
Beach portion of the project was completed in 1965, and has been maintained on
a regular basis since construction using material from dredging of the
Carolina Beach Inlet. The project recommended in the 1967 DM for the Carolina
Beach Area South project involved construction of a dune and berm project from
Carolina Beach south to Fort Fisher. The proposed source of beachfill for the
project was an estuarine borrow area in the Cape Fear River adjacent to
Pleasure Island. The Area South portion of the Carolina Beach project was
declared inactive in 1974 due to local interests being unable to provide the
required local share of project costs.
The Area South portion of the Carolina Beach project was reclassified as
active in 1988 when local interests expressed an interest in sponsoring the
project. An economic reevaluation conducted in 1989 of the measures
recommended in the 1967 DM determined that a project to protect the area south
of the Town of Carolina Beach from hurricane and storm damage would still be
economically feasible.
3.02 Project Dimensions
The project reach of the NED plan for the Carolina Beach and Vicinity -
Area South project extends from the southern town limits of Carolina Beach to
almost the northern property limits of the Fort Fisher National Historic Site
(Figure 2), a distance of approximately 18,000 feet. At the northern end, the
project would tie into the existing Carolina Beach project approximately 700
feet north of the northern fishing pier. The southern transition section is
1,500 feet long, starting at station 165+00 and ending at station 180+00 (at a
rock outcropping approximately 1,000 feet north of the Fort Fisher property
line). Initial plans to construct a terminal groin as part of the project
have been deleted from consideration.
The present plan under consideration would require approximately 3.3 million
cubic yards of material which includes the initial fill and the volume for the
first advanced maintenance fill. Future maintenance nourishment volumes are
estimated to be approximately 766,000 cubic yards every three years. For the
50-year economic life of the project, approximately 15.6 million cubic yards
of fill material would be needed. Potential borrow areas for beach
nourishment material have been located 1 to 2 miles offshore. The offshore
borrow areas contain enough material to construct and maintain the project
over the project life of 50 years.
& 3.03 Environmental Concerns and Investigations
Environmental concerns associated with construction and maintenance of the
Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South project were investigated and
documented in the 1967 DM. Since preparation of the 1967 DM, a significant
EIS-6
number of environmental laws and regulations have been passed at the Federal
and state levels and which are now applicable to the project. An EIS was
deemed appropriate to address all applicable environmental laws and
regulations as well as other environmental concerns associated with the
project.
3.04 Public Concerns
-r
The desires of.local interests include:
a. Greater protection from hurricane waves and flooding so as to reduce
their detrimental effects;
b. Control of beach erosion to arrest recession of the shoreline.
3.05 Planning Objectives
Based on the identified public concerns and the needs and opportunities
determined in the course of the planning process, the following planning
objectives were established:
a. Reduce the adverse effects of hurricane flooding and erosion.
b. Avoid or minimize impacts to natural resources.
c. Protect endangered and threatened species occurring in the project
area (loggerhead and green sea turtles).
4.00 ALTERNATIVES
4.01 Alternative Plans
Beach erosion control and hurricane protection plans investigated during
this study consisted of beachfills with artificial dunes and storm berms.
Alternatives considered in this category included 25-foot crest width dune
sections with elevations of 17.5, 15.5, and 13.5 feet above NGVD, and a berm
only alternative (Figure 3). Each dune alternative would include a storm berm
with a 50 foot wide top section and an elevation of 9.0 feet above NGVD. The
design foreslope for the berm and dune is 10 horizontal to 1 vertical. The
construction of the dune alternatives would transition into the naturally
occurring ground elevation causing minimal disturbance of vegetation. The
dune crest and both sideslopes would be vegetated. The naturally occurring
berm is approximately 9.0 NGVD. The berm only alternative would not involve
the construction of a dune system, and would not alter existing dune systems.
4.02 Without Conditions (No Action) ..
Under a no-action alternative, there would be no federal participation in
shore protection for the project area. Erosion of the beachfront would
continue, with consequent losses of property and increased exposure of the
community to damages from storm conditions. State and/or local governments
could provide protection at their own expense.
EIS-7
all
a
2
W
O
I O W a
I / > a
I ?
00 I • -•
I v / ~
Q
Z
0
I w W
I w F-
I LL
I ? I I' Z Q
/I LL) W
py,• o /
II > o° ? Z
Z
I O N LLJ
(n
K, u, I I m . W
I In
I I. 1 O
o
I -1 p ° LL In
W
I om /, 7 + w
/ U
co o? / 1 O Z Z
/ I M a
LLI 4 1 I r to W
L.tJ 0 I i
Z o
LL i ° W
~ m
O Z Q Q
C\j
I LLJ .--. I N 0 _
I Z 0 ?-
o
Z I J J W N LA O LO O Ln O 1!1
J W 3
V) ZD
N i a o m (OAJN) lA NI 'A3?3 z
Q O >
I IL Q
~z o -1
I 0
~ 0
O O LL M I;
N O w .- I ?. V) •
o LLJ -C
W
in LLJ
..::.:?:•' Z I: >
tV) 0 00 Q Z I I; ?I •
I (n N N Q 1 °o F- LLI
?: I Q 2 J I in ? Q •
1- 1
L D d
2ft.' W Z? A w w Z
J11JW /I W
O C; / I 2 F-
LL-
OVW I .' J .•
N Q
in I W
CL / ?- o Z
I a- c? / I
a- V) f _j Lj
LLI
0 O Z Z I I VLLI
) Z a)
t 1 ?
w
Oa_U Z I I a L
?'' 7 I = rn I• I co
N
0 0
LL-
0 Er
z LL U- Ln
0 1 o I/ ; f O LL
:,.•:
I I 1 z
I I v a
H I I I N to
(n Z 00
I 1
I u
0 in O in O un O in •
cli
i I I N M
(OAON) 13 NI 'A3?3
L -I- -L -L' -I . I . il
O O in O T O in
N
1 I
} (QADN) 13 NI 'A313
EIS-8
4.03 Plans Considered in Detail
The only plans considered in detail were combined beach erosion and
hurricane-wave protection plans. Three dune and storm berm fill cross
sections, plus a berm only section, were analyzed to determine their
effectiveness in reducing storm damages and land losses due to erosion. The
plan that produces the maximum net benefits is referred to as the National
Economic development (NED) plan. The alternative plans considered in detail
included:
a. A 17.5-foot NGVD dune and a 9-foot NGVD storm berm;
b. A 15.5-foot NGVD dune and a 9-foot NGVD storm berm;
c. A 13.5-foot NGVD dune and a 9-foot NGVD storm berm; and
d. A berm-only alternative with a 9-foot NGVD storm berm 100 feet wide.
Figure 3 is a schematic of the four alternatives investigated.
4.04 Recommended Plan
The plan which maximizes net annual benefits, the NED plan, is the 13.5-
foot NGVD dune alternative (Figure 3). This alternative consists of a main
beachfill section with a 25-foot wide crest width dune at an elevation of 13.5
feet above NGVD fronted by a 50-foot wide crest width storm berm at an
elevation of 9 feet NGVD. The transition between the dune and berm would have
a slope of 1 on 10 with an approximate width of 45 feet. The overall project
width for the NED plan would be approximately 210 feet. The project width is
considered to be the distance from the project baseline on the landward edge
of the dune seaward to the toe of the berm. The toe of the berm is considered
to be zero NGVD or approximately sea level. The project reach would cover
approximately 18,000 feet of ocean shoreline and would move the mean sea
level (msl) line an average of approximately 120 feet seaward of its present
position. The dune would be vegetated with dune grasses, primarily American
beach grass and sea oats. Construction of the NED Plan would take
approximately 8 months and would be scheduled to occur between November 15 and
July 31. Subsequent maintenance (renourishment) of beachfill would be
targeted to occur during the same time period, to the maximum extent
practicable. Renourishment of the beach will require 766,000 cubic yards of
material every three years. Each maintenance construction period is expected
to take approximately two months.
4.05 Comparative Impacts of Alternatives
The alternatives considered in detail were the various beachfill
alternatives, the NED plan alternative, and the no-action alternative.
Alternatives to the recommended plan would require greater or lesser
quantities of sand depending on the dimensions of the alternative. The
predicted impacts of these alternatives on the area's resources would be
similar overall, and varying only in the degree of the impacts. See Table 2
for a summary of the comparative impacts of the different alternatives.
EIS-9
v
am
m m
w0
0 w
ro
m w
a) A
?4 C
V 0
a
ro to V
$4 -4 >w
0 V.9
M r.
d14
4-) 4J
w .4
0 rd w
w 0
4) to 4)
b .C 0
14
w a)
044-0
O O
w? M.9
H U
H
14 ga•4
W .d .i >1
0W=
3: V 0'
r14 u -A
N O ••1 v m
W v1 N W
,4 4J $4 >4
d) 04,4
H a C ) 0
~ ?H w
v ro
a! >
w
•ab
H >
4J :3
p, 0C3
14
0 U wv
U W? b
> 1d
V a) r?
?V ro
14 w
?O) 0 44 (D
>
.-1 0
m
C w
a) O Id
a m?
ro v a)
A A
W
W ? 7
A C O
M 0 3
0 ON to
$44r. 4)
0
> y: 0
a)Om
xwm
E-1 V w

C

0

.I
41
u

0
Z
w
0

J
(d
w
0
•A
w
wC
u U
?W

A
V
al m
a9
j: •.1
-•4+1
Vm
C••4
O x
Uw
a)
C
r•1 V v
b

to
3?1
O
O ++
41 U
y
4J w
co V
()m
w >.
4J 'dw
y

vN9
W
a) .-1 O
a w
C.. V w
•a a
4J 0-4
C w ro
Ow C
Uc.0
a) w
U N
N O W
C

(d
a)
A
w w
0 0

C: >.
0 V
•.1 •11
VU
0 ro
V :% P4 0

4)
$4°
-4
$4 CO
a) r..
.C O
41•.1
w V
"3 to
w a!
U
a)
• 1 w
41
U
td
04
Ed C
O
U •,.1
•1 11
{J •.1
a) v
C C
410
m u
Nm

m-.Ii
w V
a)m
> ••1
v x
roa)

010
z r.
>1
a)
N A

.
w
m
a)
w
a

E
0
w

a)
b+
C
ro
X: a
u0
••a
041
z.1
C
O
ri U
w CO
O O
-i w
r. & 0
-4 O J-) C C
4-J U .-1 U a)
to O (a m
w w m a) a)
O O a) .0 w
-1 w a
w .4 .-1
a)rord to E
y -4 w O
a)wma w
bOro+J w

T1AmG• a)
a) U W 0)
0••-100 C
C '0 w +J (a m
•a 0 U W C C
V•a+J4) m u0
C W O w m A
0 w 0 0 m 0V
U W to a) z••1
v U 040 0
C O x w O
I (U w W W N U

C

W

)
a
a 14

E
O
w
w

(D
U)

(d m

u0

Z 1

C
O
r) U

4J 14 X: 4J ?4
O 0 3 Cd ? U
1w w 3 0 0

>9 w .L•. .0 ro 11 O N w b1 m w >, C
41 0 U a) w c a C m A ••1 m r. > V 0
11 ro .4 (a U 0 .-1 •.1 m -.a C to a w C -A >r -4 •r1 •.1
r+ 0) fu 4) r. 4J A •4 '00 0 1:•.-.1 0Uw14 43*0V
ro u C .0 at ro m w •.1 1-4 -A w 0 ro al a) ro +1 O
m p
b' Om Y
54 wmV & C 41.00 $4
d U •4-4imU 0 0$4i
d
>
-+ 44W
0 0 as .4•rl•.1w•.1ww 0 Id •.1 u(i C0V
.
? a) 0 V r.. ON w ••1 w U .-) C r4 w w V to
-4 to d x -4-1 f~ ro v ro V 14 w ro 0 >Y w >I r..
V C C U 0 C V rd 01 al w •.1 m w -.1 41 41 A w v 0
1d 0 010 R a)U ?ww110>-+ 044C 14M v roa)0
r. -4 0 ? > 4 0 v •.y "--1 •.) 0 w >9-4 w V
41 a UEved .4.Cro E4-1V W OId

w
IV
U
roa
01)
00b+u0uw
ro0E
ro?ro O
a
.11 at W - 0) 0 um -4r.011(d w .4 ro a)$4 Ca Eatw
.? w v m 04-1 1: C »+ ro w a) v .-1 A O w r4
u Oa) a41 -.a0 rwvwC 0Ac .0w 41wr4
a)C ww ro(d U ACO14.00a) A (d to vI ro
a) w U a 0 a) >1 a) v 0 44 E w w 0 .•a v 0 m
9 ro V v w w ON W A O ri V V (U O 1: -A w u to C v 0
u va! wU a)U roC > to Cr4u .-I w0 . 11> •a (d
aai
A a)A m 0 > a) w•a -.1 0 0 m-A O.-1 A44 "4 M C Cra w al m U
> 11 w Ow Opw V41w 3w•.1 •.1 +1C ro-4row w0-4C
'0 Ov ro4J >. w WO ro ro>r 41+) mmU0 vV OvVro
a w a) a) m V W 0) E v 0 m w V M C M W 0 -.+ 0.0 •.1 to 0 V
10 AM w w E U a) 41 V 3 W fd 0 a O O W V C ••1 43 E ••4 +1 M 41
E 9:
0
~
H
z
,
W 4J
a
?
w
?
Hq V N 114 4 U Cd
44)14 0 U M 14 ?.4 a
V a IV -4 r.

N W
x C O
• to w C
C a)
m w w 0.0 a)
w 0
d >
) 4J C yy C+).-1 U $4 -4

m
r•1 a)
N .•-1 W
•-1 a)
N:% •
4
C
.w
r4 4).Q w C A ro :3 0 W
.1 O U 0 41 0.4 U
N .0 -A w O O ro
m? v E
U
•.1
m 1)
U

O m ar
W
m W w
a
$4 0
ro 0 m

w a
Id
C 93 o4
m m
0 Id

U
N 0
) N N O 4
m
0 Y1 11 0 W
m u U m w V

a to as o
w
EIS-10

O

1
L)
oc
z

Cd $4
ar +?
:3 r.

E
w 0
°W

m C
?' ?
a) (d
.--4 A
A 0)
04C 4
ro 0
• 0) N
• 4 A al

r
(d

a
U

43
9 0)
N 114
41
Jm-) 7
U w
co
W01
z°m
1(a+
0
rl w

rn
...,

m
x
a)

1a
W
>
a)
d•
c
ro m
z° 4

0
U m
m c
0
'o ar

G E
ro
11 w

c?4.)
It
E 41
° ?d
A

m m
?ami

• w
.-? O

't7 b >1 w w ?. d• m
RC a) 01 a) O > $4 c .1 d+ b
41 41 > 0 N .11 .-? .? 'O b C m
b b$4 w 0 m (d H C a) •A C m
• U 0 v to O V'0 ••4 (d 4J 11 0)
m C 0) 3 •.1 m -A r-1 4) a a) N U m O X: 0)
0) .C O 0% pO 10 0 -4 -•a E 0) 14 0) b a) 41 a) 0 3 .C
> U 14 a) ?7 1. U -•l -.1 V m 01 Tf O b J1 a) (d W U C A a.)
•-1 b 41 > 1 --+ -A U 3 -4 U +i "4 10 ed 0% U 0) w 0) si 41 b
i) 0) U 01 'O V •.d b ON 1± a E 11 E C C .C Id -n 0) a1 0) m
b A a 14 d) W 0 > 0) -A C ro O) (d C 0 0 +I W 11 010 U+1 a
C 14 4J0)C 11A-.4 C4 14 0W0 wNC a)a)is-./ •OCb
14 '0 V 0 id U M 01 O N tJ 01 +1 w .[ O 0 at ON A a > m .-1 Q)14
0) C'. m A a 14 Id 41 A 0 0 1) 'O 0) 4.) m '0 V M O 01 a) E $4
v bC •10E (d mV'0C.-1A b0id A C.' O>r 11r1$14)4)0
•4 0.-1 u0 -a 11 +10 bO3 CC•.4 .•1b 04 4j r4 >O
0)U.-1 -.-1mb '0 b'0 m900b ro•.+'-? 0OId EC $4 4J 040M
C •.4 V a)C 4) a) a)CE.C.-1 $4mM 0-4E>4 V 010 00 E b
a) 0 ON 3 0 14 Id C V 0 m 0 OR C C m w
? a) m -d -I v 0) •.) 4) at
C 'o C rd to •A 'O 0 a) 4
K C 'a rd Cat A 0 C C m
0 ••4 m 14 H -,I a > J-) C to .C 1-4
V 41 C 11 0) .-1 U O b 0) a)
Ca w 0) -14 to
c
m ? V 4J
3
A U W A
q V N
r.
d -4 >•?41 a
b m b1 $4
m r. C C
b '0w u O •a 0)CC>>4 I.4m4) COLE 0)011C N.-1m-.-1
C m 1d 1d>.m it OOatm roam 0 m04t 114.)0011 .-1-r+V
a1 1.) C.• a 41 m 0) a) U -•a .-) 0) 14 14 +4 .+ A A C -.+ 0 O+-•4 $4 m
U O T1 «4 1) 11 11 U 4J > O .C 41 C'• v +) Id 0 +J w C 3 0 a)
E 04
1
0 C W U
4
m Qfv C
°
d ?? U
A
U C
1A
m U 7
a) 4
.
EN$4 4 0
1
OAU a)
Z
W 3-4•A14+)0) r
0010!
E O
.0 b4 i
O)
A
x O+104bO9 0
m Hi10 zb0) 301141 v0w HF,A 00b HCCAVV141...-)
0) 1t A 11 $4 01 m m > U m r4 41 •.4 m ••4 ••4 M U A
Orl m O 11 P4-4 C 41'0 'bb W c 0 01 11 CA C O 0 4
u mod U 14 A
UC
>b .-1"A .1A0)4)
WId N rh w
3 V
rIOV
6"
'O
4)
$4

Id C
•.1 b
u $4 FA
U
? m W
0 4)
m $4
m b
a
H
?
041
°a ?
'o m N 0)

Id u Id 41 0

0 V 0)
u w

HN
aaa a 3
EIS-11
4.06 Project Maintenance
During storms, material placed on the beach is expected to be eroded from
the upper profile and displaced seaward to form an offshore bar parallel to
the shoreline. With the return of fair weather conditions, most of this
displaced material is expected to work its way back onshore. Between
renourishment of the project, the Town of Kure Beach will be responsible for
making repairs to the beachfill sections following storms. This would consist
primarily of reshaping the fill cross-section using material displaced from
the upper portions of the profile or hauled in from some outside source.
Initial construction of the recommended plan will require approximately 3.3
million cubic yards (cy) of sand. Renourishment of the project would occur
every three years and would require placement of approximately 766,000 cubic
yards of sand during each maintenance cycle over the 50-year life of the
project. The maintenance volumes were calculated based on the performance of
the Carolina Beach project between the years 1984 and 1991. Both projects
would have very similar profiles and nearly identical wave environments.
4.07 Alternative Borrow Areas Investigated
The selected borrow area in the 1967 DM for the Carolina Beach - Area
South project was an estuarine site adjacent to Pleasure Island along the
eastern portion of the Cape Fear River (Figure 4). This site is within an
area designated as secondary nursery area by the North Carolina Division of
Marine Fisheries (NCDMF). During the economic reevaluation study, five
different sites were investigated as potential borrow areas for beachfill
material for the Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South project (Figure 4).
These sites included the estuarine site described in the 1967 DM; a potential
upland site on Pleasure Island within the MOTSU buffer zone; Jaybird Shoal
located at the mouth of the Cape Fear River; an estuarine site in the vicinity
of Zeke's Island National Estuarine Research Sanctuary; and potential offshore
sand deposits.
The estuarine site described in the 1967 DM was dropped from further
consideration because of potential adverse environmental impacts to estuarine
resources including a state designated nursery area. The upland site on
Pleasure Island within the MOTSU buffer zone was identified by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program as a significant natural habitat, and by the
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources as an area with high potential
for containing cultural resources. Jaybird Shoal was dropped from
consideration primarily due to higher cost associated with the transport of
this material to the project site. The potential borrow sites in the vicinity
of Zeke's Island National Estuarine Sanctuary were eliminated as potential
borrow areas because of potential adverse impacts to a national estuarine
sanctuary site. Offshore sand deposits were identified as the most likely
locations of suitable beach quality sand for the project with minimal impacts
on environmental and cultural resources.
4.08 Offshore Borrow Area Investigations
Topographic and geologic profiles of offshore bottom formations,
structures, and subbottom sediment deposits, from previous geologic surveys
offshore of Carolina Beach were reviewed to help determine areas offshore that

EIS-12
va y N
NORTH us
t apYMl U
O
ft%M W O O
C A R O L I N A
MI ut
6?lj
?K?
lll?

I-
Ir
0
a
1-
0
In
" tt
/t I
11 (?
t! V ?I
If
11
11 ?'
II j
II ?/
II /
III
I
II
II ?
a u
MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL
SUNNY POINT //
i/
r. ?
it
tl ?
tl Qt
11
u
?? rol«r
"P
?i N!
?i
P
t.1.4 111 , f
1 n
1•
?Al;X,
'
`\\\
)1
rr

i
v?
ORROW ARE
BORROW AREAS
INVESTIGATED
I yj 0 , s
$CA L IN MLS
CAROL I NA' BEACH
81 VICINITY. N.C.
AREA SOUTH
cull,
ALVTEIP.IS
IOIE)[!0 p ?'
ti
CAPE `
Iaoimur
P
?, o as +oo
CIVIC (h IN "Ln
fEM
VICINITY MAP Eut
flibuKt a
EIS-13
possibly could contain suitable beach quality sand for the project (Meisburger
1979). Based on this assessment, an offshore area was identified beyond the
-30-foot msl depth contour that appeared to contain deposits of beach quality
sand (Figure 4). High resolution seismic scan of portions of the offshore
area was conducted in February 1991. In June 1991, thirty vibracore borings
were taken in the area. Analysis of the thirty borings indicated that there
may be suitable quantities of beachfill material in the area within an
economical pumping distance to shore. Subsequently, 68 additional vibracore
borings were taken in November 1991 for the purpose of delineating depth and
areal extent of the suitable material.
4.08.1 Material Characteristics of the Borrow Areas
Vibracore borings taken in November 1991 were all offshore of the
-30-foot contour. The maximum length of the boring tubes was 20 feet. The
average depth of the borings was 15 feet. The areas within the offshore site
with the highest potential for containing suitable beach quality sand are
shown on Figure 5 as areas A and B, and are further broken down into areas
A-North, A-South, B-West, and B-East (Figure 5). Borrow area A covers
approximately 607 acres of bottom, whereas borrow area B covers approximately
584 acres. The bottom substrate in the offshore sites are covered with
surficial layers of material suitable for beach disposal. Figures 6A and 6B
show generalized stratigraphic profiles of the quality of material across each
potential borrow area.
Based on sediment analyses of the vibracore borings, the substrate and bottom
material in borrow areas A-North, A-South, and B-West consist of predominantly
poorly graded sands with a relatively small percentage of fines and shell
hash. Material properties and quantities for B-East were not determined due
to insufficient laboratory data. Table 3 summarizes the data collected from
sediment analyses of material in the borrow area. The data in the table
reflects a composite of the material taken from the vibracore samples. The
amount of silt and clay in the borrow areas constitutes less than 10 percent
of the total volume of material in the borrow area. Drilling logs and
sediment analyses of each core from the November 1991 vibracore sampling are
available upon request.
4.09 Beach-Borrow Area Material Compatibility
Native beach sediments samples were taken along the project reach at
various locations at sufficient intervals and analyzed in order to
characterize the constituent material which comprises the active beach
profile. Table 3 provides a summary of the native beach material. Native
beach material along the beach and nearshore consists of fine to very coarse
quartz sand mixed with varying amounts of coquina rock fragments, fragmented
shells, and quartz pebbles. The compatibility of the potential borrow
material with native beach material is shown on Table 3. Based on a
comparison of sediments from the vibracore corings with native beach
sediments, sediments in the potential borrow areas appear to be coarser than
the native beach material with a wider range of particle size. The material
in the borrow areas is considered to be 100 percent compatible with native
beach material.
EIS-14
E9
H
N
I
F+
En
r 1

? S x
x x
x
x x
x
u
C (/)a)
?-+ C :O 0 0
00 --4 m x --I R
m --G u D
a >0 Cor-
o m3E o ?-?\ I 1
0 r- M> r ,? 1 1
;0 M> XX m
m ;0 o m 0
mm 3Ea m
1
x
X
x
r mD 1
1
Z
1 x x
o > (/) m c: v
O Q
1 1 I x x x
n o DZ I
1 I
x
x
D = PK -40 ? 1 x x

r I
I.-A -no
?
1
x
x
x
0 0-40 1 x x x
z rZ 0 x x
X x
x x
x
0 r o x
x x
--1
KO z ` I I
I x x x
N \ x x x
-Io 0
ro
Z

•

m /
;0
-I D
D -1

z O
x x x
z
1 `
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 r
1 I1 I
I 1
1
1 1
1 1
\ J /

N
?` x
X x
X X?
Icn n ?? x
J x m x;
x x x ?
? x
In

old
zo
C ?-3
?04
?CA
i ?
vo
DD
a
N
e? .ON
J,
A X
;PK
C0 ? ?VJ
n XID
x x7C
X N
X
xX
Xe ID
w
0
N
X ,me
x
x x
e I
X N X
v
0

ex
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
e`
\
I
I\ JI I
x?\
C'7
eA N
?CY1 \
;IK
O \
?W pe \
w \
n / I \
@)N /
N 1
@;IK C"
elrl ?/

\
w

n O
o
O
Z 0 r
y
rT'

C
d 0 °
7
C? = r 0 -4
z
0 Z a
y <

m co
'rl O

>- m
-?
0 0 _
r
w
O
O m
D .. O
'
p (A
M 0
I
j
Y 0
o

C/I > o
,n o o o
5 ?-+-+
C/I
r-
.» m
O
O DA
I

1
1
1
1
1
/
/
? I \
I 1
54
I
I
\
1
1 ;K i
Ln 7q \
Lnn eL"
N L" m
7K 7C /
eW 7[ Ln
;PK
eL /
I
w
ea e? 7, e
x pw cn
00
x X e? 040 x x X\ x
0x
x x 1
- 1
X @7
Pe x xx NX
C) x x
0 • cu e?
K x x x
? x x x
x ?x On x X X
?
x eaw x
x x -4 x 0
4 x7R x
x /X x
x @C-.,X x
x x/ x o, x
I xA x x?? A
(-
I \
K)q
\
/
)X
/x /
? ?'
$ N
.14
001,11-
0
tP,
VA
Ntz

X?C'xXXX j T u
Z-,- . X/?X /
OD
\
\
i
/ /
/
1 i'1\
1 ?? I
1 1
I 1 I
1 1 1
1 11 d?? -
I/
1 I ?'
i I
JO

co

1e
I
00
I
TABLE 3. BEACH-BORROW AREA MATERIAL DATA
Borrow Area Volume Percent Fines Percent Shell Percent Sand
A-South 81200,000 7 4 89
A-North 2,470,000 6 2 92
B-West 14,540,000 5 12 83
B-East ------Not Determined-----
Native Beach material 2 6 92
4.10 Alternative Construction Methods
The type of dredge plants and beach disposal methods that would be used
for project construction and future maintenance is unknown. The type of
dredge plant used will depend on a number of factors including competition in
the market place, pumping or haul distance, depth and areal extent of
dredging, available dredging technology, weather conditions, and time of year.
Alternative construction methods being considered for dredging and disposing
of beachfill on the beach include:
a. Ocean Certified Hydraulic Pipeline Dredge. An ocean-certified
hydraulic pipeline dredge would be used to remove material from the borrow
area and pump the material directly to the beach. The dredge pipeline would
run from the dredge operating in the borrow area approximately 1 to 2 miles to
the beach disposal site. The pipeline would be submerged from the dredge to a
point close to shore where the pipeline would then run above the surface to
shore. Standard earth moving construction equipment would be used to
construct the dune and berm.
b. Ocean-Certified Hydraulic Pipeline Dredge with Barges and Scows. An
ocean-certified pipeline dredge would be used to dredge the material from the
borrow area and pump the material into barges or scows onsite for transport to
the beach. The material would be transported to a pumpout station offshore of
the beach where the material would then be pumped from the scows to the beach.
c. Ocean-Certified Hopper Dredge with
ocean-certified hopper dredge would dredge
and then transport it to a pumpout station
material would then be pumped from the hop
the beach. The dredged material placed on
moving equipment.
Direct Pumpout to the Beach. An
the material from the borrow area
close to the disposal beach. The
3er dredge at the pumpout station to
the beach will be shaped by earth
5.00 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
5.01 Geographic Setting
The Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South project is located on a
narrow barrier island in New Hanover County, along the southern portion of
North Carolina's coastal plain (Figure 1). A continuous sand beach fronts the
EIS-16
oceanside of the narrow peninsula separating the Lower Cape Fear River from
the Atlantic Ocean. The shoreline has a north-northeast, south-southwest
alignment. The peninsula faces the Atlantic Ocean on the east and is
separated from the mainland by the Cape Fear River. The peninsula is
separated to the north by the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (Snow's Cut).
The study area is located about 15 miles due south of Wilmington, North
Carolina. The project study area is bordered on the north by the Town of
Carolina Beach, to the south by the Fort Fisher Historic Site, and on the west
by the Fort Fisher Air Force Base and the U.S. Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny
Point (MOTSU) buffer zone. U.S. Highway 421 runs along the west side of Kure
Beach and separates the ocean side of the island from the soundside.
5.02 Socioeconomic Resources
Kure Beach and the two unincorporated beach communities of Wilmington and
Hanby Beach to the north are family oriented residential and vacation
communities. The predominate land uses in the study area are residential
and/or tourism related (Town of Kure Beach Land Use Plan Update 1991), with
single family homes occupying most of the developed land areas. Approximately
2,000 linear feet of shoreline along the southern portion of the study area is
owned by LaQue Center for Corrosion Technology, Inc., a private company which
uses the property behind the dunes as a testing site. Numerous racks have
been placed on the property to support the test samples which are being
exposed to weather conditions. There are no buildings on the site.
5.03 Recreation and Esthetic Resources
The Town of Kure Beach and the two unincorporated beach communities to the
north are urbanized beach communities characterized by paved streets, parking
lots, single family dwellings, and condominiums. The esthetic values of Kure
Beach and the two unincorporated-beach communities are evidenced by the
popularity of the area for family orientated use and tourism. The total
environment of barrier islands, oceans, estuaries, and inlets attract many
residents and visitors to the area to enjoy the total esthetic experience
created by the sights, sounds, winds, and ocean sprays.
5.04 Marine Resources
The terms offshore and nearshore are commonly used in coastal studies.
The offshore zone is defined as that region of variable width extending from
the breaker zone to the seaward edge of the Continental Shelf (Allen 1972).
The nearshore-zone is considered to be the indefinite zone extending from the
mean low water (mlw) shoreline out to the breaker zone. For the purpose of
this document, the nearshore zone off Carolina Beach is defined as the area
where littoral transport occurs, and is considered the ocean surface and
bottom extending seaward from the top of the berm out to approximately the
-20-foot mlw depth contour. The mlw datum is approximately 1.5 feet below
NGVD. The offshore zone is considered to be the zone extending from
approximately the -20-foot mlw depth contour seaward to the continental slope
approximately 55-60 miles offshore (USEPA 1983). The -20-foot mlw depth
contour is considered to be the seaward limit of the active beach profile
offshore of Carolina Beach. The selected borrow areas for the Carolina Beach
- Area South project are located beyond the -30-foot mlw contour and
therefore, are considered to be seaward of the active beach profile.
EIS-17
5.04.1 Offshore Resources
The offshore zone off of North Carolina has characteristically been
described as being more stable than the nearshore zone. The bottom substrate
is covered with medium grain sands with scattered low-to-moderate relief, hard
bottom terrain (USEPA 1983). Based on coring data from the 68 vibracore
borings taken in the offshore borrow area in 1991 the bottom substrate in the
borrow areas typically consists of approximately a 1 to 2-foot top layer of
coarse sand with some shell hash (less than 10 percent). Figures 6A and 6B
gives a generalized stratigraphic profile of beachfill quality of the material
from the two borrow areas. There was no evidence of any hard bottoms in the
selected borrow areas based on analyses of sediments from the vibracore
borings. A magnetometer and side scan investigation of the offshore borrow
sites was conducted to help identify potential cultural resources in the
areas. The results of the survey were reviewed to help determine whether rock
outcrops existed in the sites. The surveys showed no evidence of any
significant relief (> meter) being in the areas.
The NCDMF has constructed several artificial reefs offshore of Carolina Beach
(NCDMF 1991) approximately 4 to 10 miles offshore. There are no artificial
reefs in the vicinity of the selected borrow areas.
Biological resources offshore have been characterized as having low biomass,
high diversity, and large seasonal variability (USEPA 1983). Breeding,
spawning, nursery, feeding and passage activities of larval adult finfish and
shell and marine mammals occur in the area (USEPA 1983). Larval forms of
estuarine dependent species such as spot, croaker, weakfish, southern
flounder, summer flounder, penaeid shrimp, and Atlantic menhaden that spawn
offshore during late fall and winter transit the area as they make their way
into the estuaries for growth and development during the fall and winter
months.
While commercial fishing extends up to 20 miles from shore, the majority of
the fishery occurs within 3 miles of shore (USEPA 1983). Gill netting occurs
during the fall and early winter (personal communication, Fritz Rhode,
Division of Marine Fisheries, May 5, 1991). Shrimp trawling occurs from May
through December with the heaviest use occurring during the summer and fall
shrimping seasons.
Limited benthic sampling has been done in the general vicinity of the selected
borrow areas. In 1986, the Wilmington District conducted a benthic survey
offshore of the Fort Fisher Historic Site for the purpose of characterizing
benthic resources in the vicinity of a proposed ocean outfall pipeline for the
disposal of dredged material from the MOTSU (Figure 7). The area sampled is
located between 0.5 to 2.0 miles offshore, south of the potential borrow areas
for the Carolina Beach Area South project. Eighteen bottom stations along 5
transects were sampled on January 15, 1986. Stations A5, B5, C3, C5, and D5
were below the -30-foot mlw depth contour offshore. Grab samples were taken
at each of these stations. The bottom substrate in the areas sampled
consisted of predominately sand with lesser amounts of silt and clay. With
respect to benthic organisms, 243 species representing 24 major taxa were
documented. Dominant species were polychaetes and amphipods with
EIS-18
M
0
I-
N
X
_I
Q O
CD 0
I 5Z? o Q
cr-

H-
LLI
Z LL

o
I

j
Z

W
Ln

Q "o
- N
u L?
O
0 -cm
J I o V
Q W = in
v
o u I
Z
Q
I
bZ?
O
LLJ
=
U
m
m
J o
0
O
O

to
I
N
N
Y

I
I ?- Q
00

M Z
I w
I
I O
I
I N
F-
o
o
H
W
Q
W
L Q
O
I Z
Z
I W w 0 z
I
Q
o
ZU
O

3 N Q W '-?
I N U) f ---

Ye
?, 0'
o •-•
o
U
co W
6 L 'A
Y Ye " ^
N I
I O
O

Ne ®
at I N V)
Y A
Y N I O

0 e Y
0, r1 I
I

?e N
Y

U
Mjs Q i o

O ?
/ W
I 0Z)f
r
U ?
®? Z ?_ I
I ••

N ° I
N
Y ?< O I
I O
o ?1?
z0
?¢ I W
xxx

x a. 00
03
O
i
x x
x
X x x m I
I lZ?
x x x
x x x I

r

'
-
x x x
X x x I
I . LL
X x x
x x x
l
o
X x x o 0 0 0 0 0 0
XXX X
x i N rn Q ' in cO
X x
x x
X x
(ISW)
1333 NI
NO I 1VA313
EIS-19
J
Q N
z? H
O 4 1?
LZJ
Q ~ N

o-.
1

J W
z 00
LLI Q W
CD m ix J
LLJ L) mw
---? W > u
m
Go
U
a
J W
JQD'

CO(l)
Q Z Q
O Y
f- -- 3
Z F- O
W - m Y

Y M O
000
0_Qm

Y(z
OD Y
(.,j
O? Y?
U Ul!

Y m

/ tV +
}Y LLI
I-
6? U +
Y
N A-
Y o0
V)
Y ? Y
3
M
U
Y Y Y Q?
Y? V Q
Y M Y
vz -216 (2)
Y
® (v PMm Y
i
O Y
If
Y
?

? b
N v
Y
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I a
W
I Q
I 3
O
I ?
I O
m
8L,
Zb
4
LL
I N
I ?
I
i J
ON
O
Co
Ln
Ln
O
O
O
Ln
0
0
Ln
v
O
0
O
v
0
O
LO
fn
F--
O W Q
O W
O tl Q
M
z
z
Wp
O Q
o<U
N N LLl
oU)
O
O
O
N
O
O
LO
O
O
O
IO
0
LO
P£o JO
O O O O O O O O
i N M IT LO W r-
(1SW) 1333 NI N0I 1YA313
m
N
x
1 1 I
W
U/
/
O
O
m
Q
L-?
Z
W
O
0-
Ll-
O
z
O
u
LLJ
V)
/I
V
?O
I -
(D
EIS-20
n
I
V
J

O s
t
5
x x
x
x x
p ? x

CO (/) CO 'T1-I
C_ rri CO 00
DZ ?;D ;0 --1
Z -1 -1 m D
m DO cor
_
-
Co
*

m _

' ? ` \
cn 0 r- D r
I
• rriD mm m I
cn X o m 0 .' I
-'D MM fD m
to
_ M> Z
00 -
v DN
1
or 0 >Z
`
...-r r ;K -40 I

r rz 0
0 r
? \
0 --I z \ I
D X0 N
\
4 D /
\
? 0 _
0 r- o m
z • Z T
N ---1 D
D -I

Z O
z
I \
? I
I 1
11 o (W
I A
\Ln x x x
1 x x x
r x x x
be
x x x
X • X
X (7 X
• X X'A X
l u, x x x x
I x x x
x x x
x x x co
x (0 x a
X X
I X
I x x
x x x
x x
I x x ?D
X X cn
x x x
1 x x x x
\ x x x x
1 I x x x x
1 I x
1 1 x x
1 \ x x
\ I x x
\,1 x x x
x
x
x x x
X
° o
Mm
N
O
O ?
CO
CA
0
' O D
•
O N
W
i 1
C' I
? I
? I
I
I
1
I
1? J1 I
/
g \
/
1 /
1 /
1 '
+b \

1
I
I
I
1 I
?ID
? I
1
1
1
\
\
\
O
n
w
O
D
.A
I X \
X X
x x
x
x x x
x x x
"] x x
x
`- x x?
\
1
I
1
/ I \
/ 1 1
_ I
\ I I I
\ \ I I
OA,
/ x x
x x x x 1
K_ X X N \
X x x x x X\ X x I I
x x x > x x x x x w i
x x x x x x x x x /X x x x x x, x x r x /
x x x x x x /x x x , /
x x x x N x x x /x
x x x x/ x x x//x
x x x x x /x x x /x
00
0
70
r
9
t4
C'1

w
0? n

z I-
m 0

1-3
LJ M
Mo
x r .-. o
0 iTl - Z
-n
co

r? z_
> _
? ? W
O
0" m
, ..
A O
O
r^
V / ? o O
Iw1
__4 c
:c
=

0
O
V
-u °
°O v o
0? ?m
a ?
M

V
x x x x x x x/ x
r x x x x x x 1 x x/ / x x j C9? u
?x x , x./ x
\
I
/

G \
vs
"f+

/
I I I
I 1 I
\ 1
I \ 1 ??
1
` 11 din
I '
X30

00

O)'
cN" p

Oligochaetes, pelecypods, and decapods highly represented. The sampling also
documented the presence of many polychaetes species, isopods, amphipods,
decapods, molluscs, echinoderms, nematods, and a few Amphioxus. While no
distinctive cluster of organisms associated with sand-shell sediments were
observed, some of the organisms present were indicative of clean sand
habitats.
5.04.2 Nearshore Resources
The predominant littoral drift along the nearshore zone off Carolina
Beach is from north to south. Surface currents in the nearshore zone
generally flow to the west, whereas bottom currents are oriented towards the
east. The bottom substrate off Carolina Beach consists predominately of soft
sand bottom with isolated hard bottoms substrates of low relief. Isolated
outcrops of low profile(<meter) short run ledges, and flat (no profile) hard
grounds are also present (USFWS 1992). Low relief, hard-bottom areas are
scattered throughout the nearshore region and are subject to temporary burial
by mobile, nearshore sediments, and disturbance from scouring (USEPA 1983).
There are two known rock outcrops offshore of Carolina Beach. "Sheephead"
Rock is located approximately 1.5 miles off the Fort Fisher spit. This
outcrop is located outside of the project area. "High Rock" is located
approximately .25 miles off Fort Fisher and is within 9 feet of the surface at
low tide. This outcrop has not been mapped (USFWS 1992).
Commercial and recreational fishing activities are generally concentrated in
areas within 3 nautical miles of shore. Waters offshore of the study beach
support an abundance of King mackerel and cobia which are available to boat
fishermen. Northern kingfish, pompano, spot, bluefish, spanish mackerel, and
flounder are actively fished for, both from the surf and from the local pier.
A baseline study of benthos in nearshore waters of South Carolina by Van Dolah
and Knot (1984) found that infaunal assemblages at nearshore subtidal areas
were more complex than those at intertidal areas. Based on their sampling,
243 species representing 24 major taxa were found. Dominant species were
polychaetes and amphipods with Oligochaetes, pelecypods, and decapods highly
represented. Benthos in the area were identified as those that serve as food
for commercially important species and were essential in marine food chains.
Commercially important species include adult spots which are benthic feeders,
primarily eating polychaetes and benthic copepods, and Atlantic croaker that
are also bottom feeders preying on polychaetes and bivalves. Pink and white
penaeid shrimp also prefer benthos (USFWS 1992).
The nearshore benthic communities offshore of North Carolina have been
characterized by benthic infaunal assemblages with low abundance and high
diversity, productive penaeid shrimp and anadromous fish species, and hard
bottom assemblages (USEPA 1983). During the benthic sampling offshore of Fort
Fisher in 1986, Thirty-three Chrysopetidae individuals, a family which is
predominately associated with coral or other hard substrates, were found in
samples taken in nearshore waters near Fort Fisher. Although no coral or
other hard substrates were sampled, organisms which are predominately
associated with hard substrates occurred indicating that hard bottom was in
the vicinity (USACOE 1987).
EIS-22
5.04.3 Intertidal Resources
The intertidal zone offshore is considered as being the area between
mean low tide landward to the high tide mark. This area serves as habitat for
invertebrate communities adapted to the high energy sandy beach environment.
Organisms in the intertidal community include mole crabs, coquina clams,
amphipods, isopods, and polychaetes. Although none of these species are
commercially important, they constitute considerable biomass and serve as an
important food source for surf-feeding fish and shore birds.
Intertidal coquina rock outcrops are located along the southern portion of the
project area in the vicinity of the Fort Fisher National Historic Site (Figure
8). While numerous scattered submerged exposures exist to the south of the
project limits, three dominant exposures exist at the southern limits of the
project. Topographically, the three sites ranges from the mean high water
tide line to -12 feet msl offshore. The coquina rock outcrops in this area
are composed of shell fragments, marine and estuarine fossil, and other
sediments cemented together by calcite. The coquina outcrops provide a place
of attachment and/or protective environment for a variety of marine algae,
marine invertebrates, and fishes which are adapted to the hard substrate and
high wave energy of the area (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 1982).
Species associated with these outcrops include sea lettuce, sea
anemones, Atlantic oyster drill, calcareous tube worm, and red gilled marphysa
(USFWS 1992, Natural Heritage Program 1982).
5.04.4 Beach and Terrestrial Resources
The summer berm along the ocean shoreline fronting Carolina Beach south
averages approximately 50 - 60 feet in width. The winter berm is reduced
significantly in some section to less than 40 feet. The primary dune system
behind the berm varies in elevation from 13.5 to 20 feet above NGVD in some
sections. Dune width varies with some sections up to 50 feet wide. However,
some sections have no dune at all. The dunes along the beach are covered with
American beach grass and sea oats. The dominant vegetation along the
oceanside of the barrier island, besides American beachgrass and sea oats on
the dunes, include grassed areas, shrubs, and ornamental trees. Wildlife
found along the oceanside of the island is limited as a result of development.
Animals present in the project area are primarily those that can customarily
tolerate man's presence such as sea gulls, pigeons, starlings, house sparrows
and small rodents. The beach and dune serves as an important nesting area for
certain shorebirds such as the American Oystercatcher and the Eastern willet.
The beach serve as an important food source for shorebirds such as the
sanderlings and sea gulls (USFWS 1992).
5.05 Surface Water Quality
Coastal waters offshore of Carolina Beach are classified "SB" by the State
of North Carolina (NCDEM 1989). Best usage of class SB waters includes
swimming, primary recreation, and all Class SC uses which include fishing,
secondary recreation, fish and wildlife propagation, and other uses requiring
waters of lower quality (NCDEM 1991).
EIS-23

--ss
llll
0 21 ? i?l l I
o p ° i l l l ''°
? =W
1Y ?L S
ODUTTCROP
®®® ? it l
180
i '
COQUINA
OUTCROP /
las
FORT AREA CURRENTLY RESTORED
19°
0 ? 1
OUTTCROP 1
111SRER Q5
szum
? V
? G
/* / 0
EXISTING REVETMENT
P
P
P
Z' / 500 250 0 500 1000
i SCALE IN FEET " ASENVB
CAROLINA BEACH & VICINITY
LEGEND FORT FISHER. NORTH CAROLINA
-- PROJECT LINES COQUINA ROCK
- - VEGETATION LINE OUTCROPS
EIS-24
The Town of Kure Beach has a central wastewater treatment plant. Treated
wastewater effluent from the plant is discharged to the lower Cape Fear River
estuary. The unincorporated communities of Wilmington Beach and Hanby Beach
discharge their wastewater into the Town of Carolina Beach wastewater
treatment plant.
The primary source of drinking water for residential uses in the project study
area is ground water contained in the Castle Hayne Formation Aquifer which
flows beneath Pleasure Island. Potable water is supplied in Kure Beach
through a municipal system which taps into the Tertiary Castle Hayne Aquifer.
There are no ground water recharge areas or public supply watersheds within
the project area.
5.06 Cultural Resources
The project area has been evaluated for its potential to contain historic
properties per the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, and the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987. Upland portions of
the project area are not considered culturally sensitive due to the extent of
coastal erosion and the encroachment of modern development. The offshore
northern and southern borrow areas are considered sensitive for historic
shipwrecks because of their proximity to documented losses occurring in the
vicinity of New Inlet (2 miles southwest of the southern borrow area) and Fort
Fisher State Historic Site (1.5 miles west of the southern borrow area).
These losses include shipwrecks listed in the National Register of Historic
Places Civil War Shipwreck District and losses documented from other periods
of the state's history. Shipwreck sites listed in the Historic District
include individual sites and sites grouped together and documented as units of
the National Register District. Those wrecks in the Carolina Beach Unit are
located approximately 1,800 feet west of the northern borrow area, and those
in the New Inlet Unit are located approximately 2,300 feet west of the
southern borrow area. Most of these ships were used for purposes of running
the Union blockade of southern ports. They include the following, listed with
their state site number:
Hebe 0003CBB Louisiana 0008NEI
Duoro 0004CBB Modern Greece 0001NEI
Venus 0002CBB Arabian 0007NEI
Lynx 0005CBB Peterhoff 0002NEI
Aster 001ONEI Stormy Petrol 0011NEI
Condor 0006NEI General Beauregard 0001CBB
Unnamed Wreck 0009NEI
In addition to these documented National Register sites, site files of the
North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Underwater Archaeology Unit,
list for the period 1803 - 1904 an additional 21 ship losses in the vicinity
of New Inlet and an additional 6 losses in the vicinity of Carolina Beach
Inlet. The locations of most of these wrecks are unknown.
5.07 Endangered Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) provided the following list of endangered and
EIS-25
threatened species that utilize offshore waters or beaches within the study
area and need to be considered during project planning.
LISTED SPECIES
Scientific Name
.9tatiie
finback whale
humpback whale
right whale
Sei whale
sperm whale
Florida manatee
green sea turtle
hawksbill sea turtle
Kemp's (Atlantic)
ridley sea turtle
leatherback sea turtle
loggerhead sea turtle
shortnose sturgeon
piping plover
Balaenoptera physalus
Megaptera novaeangliae
Balaena glacialis
Balaenoptera borealis
Physeter catodon
Trichechus manatus
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricate
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Acipenser brevirostrum
Charadrius melodus
E
E
E
E
E
E
Th
E
E
E
Th
E
Th
Whales have been documented in both nearshore and offshore waters off the
coast of North Carolina (USFWS, 1992). Similarly, while estuarine records
from North Carolina for manatees exist, there are no records of the manatee
from the study area.
The Cape Fear River which is located to the south of the study area provides
all of the life history requirements for the shortnose sturgeon. However, the
specie has not been documented as being present in the project area.
Therefore, the project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the shortnose sturgeon.
Sea turtles known to nest along Kure Beach include the loggerhead sea turtle
and the green sea turtle. In 1990, six loggerhead sea turtle nestings were
documented along Kure Beach (USFWS 1992). Two nestings were recorded in 1991.
Green sea turtles are also known to nest sporadically along the North Carolina
coast. To date, too few green sea turtle nests have been discovered in the
state to allow meaningful analysis of nesting trends or success. Like the
loggerhead, the green sea turtle is also adversely impacted by beach front
development. There are no records of the leatherback, hawksbill and Kemp's
ridley sea turtles from the nearshore waters of Kure Beach. The Kemp's ridley
is known to frequent sounds and nearshore waters in other areas of the state.
All of these species have been found in offshore waters.
The piping plover is a Federally-listed threatened species. Piping plovers
prefer upper edges of overwash areas at inlets or large open unvegetated
beaches for nesting. The Piping Plover has been documented just south of the
project at the southern end of the Fort Fisher near New Inlet. There have
been documented nesting by piping plovers along the ocean beach within the
project area. The highly developed nature of the beaches within the study
area, however, very likely excludes the area as prime piping plover nesting
habitat.
EIS-26
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) is a small, fleshy-leaved plant which
grows just above the normal high-tide line in scattered locations on the
beaches of North and South Carolina, including the study area. This species
formerly had a much broader distribution ranging from Massachusetts to South
Carolina. Due to its decline in distribution in recent years, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has placed the species under Status Review for potential
listing as a threatened or endangered species. If listed, this species (or
any other species so listed) would receive full protection under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and the Corps would have to
reinitiate informal consultation with the Service. A beach survey for
Seabeach amaranth was conducted by personnel from the Wilmington District
during the summer of 1991. No amaranth was sighted along the study beach
during the survey. A similar survey along the study beach was conducted in
September 1992• No plants were observed during the survey.
5.07.1 Biological Assessments
Biological Assessments (BA) have been prepared by the Wilmington
District to address potential impacts of beach nourishment activities on
threatened and endangered species along Carolina Beach and in offshore waters,
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A BA was prepared
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, on February 24,
1981, for the Carolina Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave Protection
project. This BA was amended on April 1, 1981, to include performing beach
nourishment work during the spring and summer months with implementation of a
sea turtle monitoring program. The biological opinion received from the NMFS
and the USFWS on April 30, 1981, and April 21, 1981, respectively, agreed with
the Corps of Engineers "may affect" determination and concluded that the
project would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species. Formal consultation was reinitiated by the Wilmington
District with the two agencies on February 12, 1985, to address project
maintenance operations. A no-jeopardy opinion was received from the USFWS on
March 27, 1987. A biological assessment addressing the project impacts on the
piping plover, was sent to the USFWS on August 25, 1987. The Service
concurred that no effect to the piping plover would occur.
In November 1991, the NMFS issued a regional biological opinion on hopper
dredging in the southeast. This regional biological opinion declares a
dredging window for the use of hopper dredges in inlets in the southeast from
December 1 through March 31. The regional biological opinion does not
restrict the time period for the operation of an ocean-certified dredge.
During preparation of this DEIS, informal coordination was initiated with the
NMFS since offshore dredging may involve use of hopper dredges, and the
potential for encountering sea turtles and/or whales while operating in
offshore waters is possible.
5.08 Other Significant Resources (Section 122, P.L. 91-611)
Section 122 of P.L. 91-611 identifies other significant resources which
must be considered during project development. These resources, and their
occurrence in the study area, are described below.
a. Air, noise, and water pollution: There are no known air quality
problems in the study area. Noise is a prominent feature in the study area
EIS-27
due to the sound of the breakers. These sounds are tranquil and add to the
pleasure experienced by visitors. Water quality is discussed in Section 4.06
and in the Section 404(b)(1) (P.L. 95-217) evaluation included with this
document as Attachment A.
b. Man-made and natural resources, esthetic values, community cohesion,
and the availability of public facilities and services: There are 17 wooden
groins between stations 78+00 and 121+00. The groin field was originally
constructed in the mid-1940s. There are two fishing piers located along the
project reach. Esthetic values are discussed in Section 4.03.
There are 12 stormwater drainage pipes discharging to the beach along the
study area.
A water intake pipe and the remains of a concrete shore structure extends
approximately 120 feet seaward of the beach in the vicinity of station number
67. The water intake pipe and structure were used by the Dow Chemical Company
for the intake of seawater for the making of ethyl bromide between 1930 and
1943. The intake pipe is blocked with sand and is no longer in use.
There are 26 public beach access points with cross over structures along the
project reach. The sites are located at street ends on the landward side of
the dune. Limited parking is available at each site.
c. Employment, tax, and property value: The study area is a major resort
area in New Hanover County. Property values contribute to the tax base of New
Hanover County.
d. Displacement of people, businesses, and farms: Homes along the study
beach are being threatened with displacement as a result of beach erosion.
There are no farms in the area which would be affected by the NED plan
alternative.
e. Community and regional growth: Kure Beach has undergone rapid
population growth in recent decades.
6.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
This section describes the probable consequences (impacts and effects) of
the selected alternative on significant environmental resources within the
project area.
6.01 Socioeconomic Resources
The NED plan alternative would have beneficial impacts on socioeconomic
conditions through greater protection and potential for reducing damages
provided by the beach erosion control and hurricane wave protection project.
A considerably larger expanse of beach available during both high and low
tidal conditions would be far more attractive to tourists who provide the
basis for the local economy. The benefit-to-cost ratio for the NED plan
alternative is 1.4 to 1.0.
EIS-28
6.02 Recreational and Asthetic Resources
Greatly improved recreational quality would be available to beach users
through expansion of the beach area. Recreation benefits for the NED
alternative would result from increased quality of the recreation experience
and an intensification of use. Under the NED plan, existing recreational use
patterns are expected to be changed. The asthetic quality of Kure Beach would
be impacted by the noise and visual intrusion of the dredge and associated
pipes and equipment during construction and maintenance of the project;
however, the presence of such equipment will be periodic and temporary.
6.03 Marine Resources
6.03.1 Offshore Resources
Monitoring studies of post construction borrow areas in the southeast
indicate that borrow areas fill in and return to near predredging conditions
when there is adequate transport of sediment under the influence of strong
currents in the area (Bowen, P.R. & G.A. Marsh. October 1988). The selected
borrow areas are located in waters with depths between -30 and -40 feet msl.
The average depth of dredging in each borrow area would be approximately 10 to
12 feet below surrounding topography. Currents in the area are expected to
contribute to infilling of the borrow site with material from undisturbed
areas adjacent to the construction sites. The limited depth and areal extent
of the dredging in the borrow areas is not expected to have any effect on wave
heights in the project area.
Dredging in the selected borrow areas should not have an adverse impact on any
hard bottoms in the area. Based on the August 1992 magnetometer and side-scan
sonar survey of the selected borrow areas, there was no indications of any
hard bottoms within the areas surveyed. To help further refine and document
whether isolated hard bottom areas less than a meter high are present, the
existing magnetometer, fathometer, and side-scan sonar records will be
analyzed to determine if any evidence exist that they are present. Underwater
video coverage of any suspected areas will be made for confirmation and
documentation should the review indicate their presence. Any documented areas
would be mapped and avoided during dredging. During preparation of plans and
specifications, additional vibracore sampling with closer spacing of the
borings in the offshore borrow areas will be done to further refine the areas
to be dredged and the locations of suitable material. The spacing of these
borings will help refine our existing data on whether any isolated hard bottom
areas exist in the proposed borrow areas. An underwater survey using a remote
camera will be deployed should any isolated areas be identified.
Fish, plankton, and other motile animals in the vicinity of the borrow area
during dredging are least likely to be affected during dredging because of
their ability to avoid the disturbed areas. Fish species are expected to
leave the area temporarily during the dredging operations and return when
dredging ceases (Pullen and Naqvi, 1983). A study of nearshore borrow areas
after dredging offshore of South Carolina revealed no long-term impacts to
fishery, both fish and planktonic organisms, as a result of the dredging (Van
Dolah et al 1992). Creation of new habitat and the uncovering and suspension
of food that attract fish during dredging have been attributed to dredging in
offshore borrow areas (Naqvi and Pullen 1982).
EIS-29
Dredging of the bottom sediments in the Carolina Beach borrow areas can be
expected to attract fish as a result of dredging and suspension of bottom
material. Impacts to anadromous fish and other estuarine-dependent organisms
are not expected to be significant since construction-related activities in
the offshore borrow areas would be localized, and neither site is located in
direct proximity to an inlet with extensive fish and larval migration.
Benthic organisms in the immediate area being dredged will be completely
eliminated when dredging occurs for beachfill for project construction and
during each maintenance cycle. However, initial recolonization of the areas
dredged by opportunistic species is expected to occur soon after cessation of
any dredging activities in the borrow areas. Further recovery is expected
from recolonization from migration of benthic organisms from adjacent areas
and by larval transport. The infilling rate and the quality of the material
would be factors in the recovery rate of the area dredged. Monitoring studies
of post dredging effects and recovery rates of borrow areas indicates that
most borrow sites usually show significant recovery by benthic organisms
approximately 1 year after dredging (Nagvi and Pullen, 1982, Bowen, at al.
1988, and Van Dolah et al 1992). Recolonization of the borrow areas is
expected to occur after each dredging operation as bottom substrate in the
disturbed areas is filled in by material from surrounding areas. To encourage
recolonization by organisms from naturally undisturbed substrates around the
areas being dredged, the dredging area for borrow material during construction
and during each maintenance dredging cycle would be rotated within or between
the borrow areas.
6.03.2 Nearshore Resources
Impacts that the different methods of construction would have on the
environment are expected to be localized in nature. Impacts on aquatic
resources associated with a pipeline crossing, should a hydraulic dredge with
direct discharge to the beach be used, would be expected to be limited to
those along the pipeline route. Pipeline impacts to benthos along the
alignment would be temporary in nature with conditions returning to natural
background levels after removal of the pipe. No impacts to aquatic resources
outside of the pipeline route would be expected.
6.03.3 Intertidal Resources
During project construction and maintenance there will be an increase
in the turbidity of the surf zone in the immediate area of sand deposition.
Most of the fine material in the beachfill is expected to be washed seaward
into the surf zone during construction and maintenance. This increase in fine
material may cause the temporary displacement of various species of sport
fish, causing a negative impact to surf and pier fishing in the area of
deposition. A study done by the NMFS on the effects of beach nourishment on
nearshore macroinfauna concluded that beach nourishment projects using
offshore dredged material have no harmful effects provided that the sediments
are similar to those where they are placed (Saloman and Naughton 1984). The
material that would be used for beachfill is similar in composition to the
native beach material.
Impacts on intertidal microfauna in the immediate vicinity of the beach
nourishment project are expected as a result of discharges of nourishment
material on the beach. A study by Reilly and Bellis (1978) entitled A Study

EIS-30
of the Ecological Impact of Beach Nourishment With Dredged Material of the
Intertidal 'Lone stated, "Beach nourishment virtually destroys existing
intertidal macrofauna; however, recovery is rapid once the pumping operation
ceases. In most cases, recovery should occur within one or two seasons
following the project completion." Similar findings were reached by Van Dolah
(1992) in a study of the impacts of a beach nourishment project in South
Carolina. A study by Dolan et al. (1992) of the effects of beachfill
activities on mole crabs at the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, Dare
County, North Carolina, indicates that while nourishment has a dramatic impact
on mole crabs in the area where beachfill is placed, mole crabs returned to
the beach areas that were nourished soon after pumping stopped. The borrow
areas for the project are located seaward of the active beach profile, and the
wintering areas for intertidal organisms. Dredging in the borrow areas should
not impact these areas.
The landward portion of the coquina rock outcrops on the beach is being
covered by sand as observed during a site visit by District personnel in
September 1992. Sand from a sandbag emergency shore protection project
fronting the condominiums along the beach in the area appears to have moved
over the landward portion of the outcrops. An analysis of seasonal movement
of sand across and around the coquina rock outcrop is included as Attachment F
of this FEIS.
Encroachment on the coquina rock outcrops at the southern terminus of the
project would be avoided to the maximum extent possible by naturally sloping
the transition berm into the existing shoreline north of the outcrops. The
northernmost outcrop, however, may be directly affected by the transition
fill. Beachfill material from project construction is expected to be moved by
littoral drift and portions of the landward sides of the outcrops are expected
to be covered. The areal extent of this coverage cannot be quantified at this
time.
6.03.4 Shore and Terrestrial Resources
Project construction and maintenance is not expected to have an adverse
impact on wildlife found along the beach or that utilizes the dune areas.
Project construction will result in disturbance and removal of some of the
existing vegetation along the seaward side of the existing dune. Project
construction, however, would be followed by measures designed to stabilize the
constructed dunes. Dune stabilization would be accomplished by the vegetative
planting of the dune during the optimum planting seasons and following the
berm and dune construction. Planting stocks shall consist of sea oats and
American beachgrass. The vegetative cover shall extend from the landward toe
of the dune to the seaward intersection with the storm berm for the length of
the dune. American beachgrass will be the predominant plant with sea oats as
a supplemental plant. Planting would be accomplished during the season best
suited for the particular plant. Maintenance of the project would involve
placing material along the berm. Therefore, minimal impacts to dune
vegetation should occur.
6.04 Water Quality
Dredging in the selected borrow areas would involve mechanical disturbance
of the bottom substrate and subsequently redeposition of suspended sediment
and turbidity during dredging. Factors that are known to influence sediment
EIS-31
spread and turbidities are water currents and water depths. Monitoring
studies done on the impacts of offshore dredging indicates that sediments
suspended during offshore are generally localized and rapidly dissipate when
dredging ceases (Nagvi and Pullen. 1984, Bowen and Marsh.1988, and Van Dolah
et al. 1992)• Infilling of the borrow area after dredging is expected to be
from native bottom sediments which consist of predominately sandy material
with a small amount of fine or organic material.
During construction, there will be elevated turbidity and suspended solids in
the immediate area of sand deposition when compared to the existing non-storm
conditions of the surf zone. Significant increases in turbidity are not
expected to occur outside the immediate construction/maintenance area
(turbidity increases of 25 NTU's or less are not considered significant).
Turbid waters (increased turbidity relative to background levels but not
necessarily above 25 NTU's) will hug the shore and be transported with waves
either northeast or southwest depending on wind conditions. Due to the low
percentage of silt and clay in the borrow areas (00 percent), turbidity
impacts are not expected to be greater than the natural increase in turbidity
and suspended material which occurs during storm events. Any increases in
turbidity in the borrow areas during project construction and maintenance are
expected to be temporary and limited to the area surrounding the dredging.
Turbidity levels are expected to return to background levels in the surf zone
upon cessation of dredging.
The proposed offshore dredging and placement of fill on the beach will not
impact ground water resources in the study area.
A Section 401 (P.L. 92-500) Water Quality Certificate is being requested from
the State Division of Environmental Management since the discharge of dredged
material will be into waters of the United States. The impacts associated
with the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States are
discussed in the Section 404(b)(1) (P.L. 95-217) evaluation (Attachment A).
Discharges associated with dredging in the offshore borrow areas are
considered incidental to the dredging operation, and therefore, are not being
3onsidered as being a discharge addressed under the Section 404 (b)(1)
,valuation.
6.05 Cultural Resources
Upland portions of the project have been evaluated as having a low
)tential for containing significant cultural resources; therefore, no impacts
upland cultural resources are anticipated as a result of project
construction or operation. The potential locations of the offshore borrow
areas have been evaluated as sensitive on the basis of 40 known or documented
shipwrecks, 13 of which are listed in the National Register of Historic Places
Civil War Shipwreck District. In anticipation of project construction,
magnetometer and side-scan sonar sample survey has been conducted over both of
the proposed borrow sites. The contractor's preliminary report indicates that
no magnetic or sonar anomalies suspected of representing shipwreck debris
occur in the proposed borrow areas. A copy of the cultural resources report
is included as Attachment B of this report. The report cautions, however,
that debris from small, wooden hulled vessels buried under sand may have gone
undetected during the survey. Therefore, project construction should be
undertaken with caution. If suspected shipwreck remains are encountered, work
EIS-32
in the immediate vicinity would be halted and the Wilmington District Corps of
Engineers, Environmental Resources Branch would be immediately notified.
Dredging would be moved to a different location should this occur.
6.06 Endangered Species
Construction of the NED plan is expected to take approximately 8 months
and is expected to extend into the sea turtle nesting season. While timing
these activities to avoid the nesting season is the method of choice for
avoiding impacts to nesting sea turtles, experience with similar projects in
North Carolina indicates that work during the nesting season will eventually
be necessary. Therefore, a sea turtle nest monitoring and relocation program
will be used to minimize impacts. The sea turtle monitoring program would
include daily monitoring of the beach impact area with relocation of all nests
discovered to a safe hatchery area. Trawling in the borrow area would be done
to identify whether sea turtles are overwintering in.the area should hopper
dredges be used to remove material from the borrow areas and transport the
material to the beach. Observers would also be assigned to the dredge(s) to
monitor for endangered and protected species that may be transiting the area
during the December 1 to March 31 time period.
After project construction, compaction levels within the beach disposal area
will be determined using a cone penetrometer following completion of the beach
disposal project. Any areas that exceed an average greater than 500 cone
penetrometer index (CPI) units will be tilled. A copy of the sampling scheme
will be sent to the USFWS for approval prior to sampling.
During project maintenance, periodic scraping and filling of the beach between
renourishment events has the potential for disturbing sea turtle nesting
activities. However, grading escarpments will improve the beach for turtle
nesting activities and will facilitate movement of the young to the surf.
The Piping plover and seabeach amaranth have not been observed along the
project reach. Therefore, the project is not expected to impact these
species. The project is outside of the area known to provide habitat for
shortnose sturgeons. Therefore, no impacts to these species are expected.
6.06.1 Biological Assessment
A separate biological assessment will not be prepared for the Carolina
Beach and Vicinity - Area South project since existing biological assessments
prepared for the Carolina Beach and Vicinity project essentially cover
potential impacts of a beach nourishment project on threatened and endangered
species found along the Carolina Beach peninsula. Instead, the USFWS and the
NMFS will be requested to allow existing coverage of the project area under
existing BAs. Therefore, this DEIS will serve as a request to both the USFWS
and the NMFS for their concurrence to our request for biological opinions on
the Carolina Beach Area South project based on the information found in these
reports plus the additional information on endangered species presented above
that update these reports.
6.07 Other Significant Resources (Section 122, P.L. 91-611)
a. Air, noise, and water pollution: Air pollution will be created by
construction equipment; however, the pollution produced is no worse than that
EIS-33
from any other large piece of machinery and should be readily dispersed.
Noise from construction equipment is slightly out of character for some of the
project area; however, construction sounds will be readily attenuated by
background sounds from wind and surf. Water quality impacts are discussed in
Section 5.05 and in the Section 404(b)(1) (P.L. 95-217) evaluation included
with this document as Attachment 1.
b. Man-made and natural resources, asthetic values, community cohesion,
and the availability of public facilities and services: The 17 groins along
the ocean beach within the study area would be covered by the beachfill during
construction and would remain buried during the life of the project. The
water intake structure on the beach from the Dow Chemical plant will be
partially buried by the project.
Beach nourishment will require the extension of dune crossover structures
along the beach. The NED plan alternative will provide public accessways over
the beachfill in order to protect the stability of the dune to the maximum
extent practicable. Existing storm drainage pipes will have to be extended to
the shoreward crest of the newly constructed dune. The Town of Kure Beach is
currently in the process of reviewing stormwater drainage needs (including
beach pipe drainage). This review is to culminate in the development of a
town program for drainage (Kure Beach Land Use Plan Update 1991). Stormwater
management along the project area will be addressed in this plan. Further
study of the stormwater pipe extensions will be made during the preparation of
plans and specifications.
Dredging in the offshore borrow areas is not expected to interfere with
commercial and recreational boat traffic. The mobility of a hopper dredge
will preclude any interference with regular commercial ship traffic as a
result of travel to and from the borrow areas. Should a hydraulic pipeline
dredge be used, the pipeline from the borrow area to the disposal beach will
be submerged until it reaches nearshore waters. The pipeline would be marked
to let commercial and recreational boaters know of its presence along the
bottom. Work barges and other appurtenances associated with a pipeline dredge
operating in open water would be moored so as to minimize interference with
boat traffic in the area.
Impacts to asthetic values are discussed in Section 6.02. Impacts to natural
resources are discussed in Sections 6.03. Impacts to cultural resources are
discussed in Section 6.05. Hurricane protection and beach erosion control
will benefit numerous roads, business, and residences. The NED alternative
will have beneficial effects on community cohesion and will protect many
public facilities and services (i.e. roads and utilities) from storm events.
c. Employment, tax, and property value: Employment, tax, and property
value should be positively affected by the NED plan alternative.
d. Displacement of people, businesses, and farms: No people, businesses,
or farms will be displaced by the NED alternative.
e. Community and regional growth: An increase in the growth rate of the
Town of Kure Beach and the unincorporated beach communities of Wilmington and
Handy Beach and in recreational visitation is expected as a result of the NED
plan alternative. The presence of a beachfill project on the beach will
EIS-34
enhance the quality of the recreational experience for both residents and
tourists. Tourism is an industry vital to the region's economy. Existing
beach-front real property and that which occurs as growth continues will be
protected.
6.08 Environmental Commitments and Mitigation
The following environmental commitments are being proposed for the
project.
A biological monitoring plan will be developed to assess qualitatively,
not quantitatively, project impacts on fish and benthic organisms in the
initial borrow area after construction, to help determine the level and rate
of species colonization and recovery, and whether that particular borrow area
should be reutilized as a source of beach material for future maintenance
operations. Biological sampling will include one control site outside of the
immediate borrow area to document natural changes that occur over the life of
the project. Project monitoring will include preconstruction or baseline
sampling with a post-construction survey being done immediately after
dredging. Baseline sampling will be done to ascertain predredge conditions
and benthic community populations in the borrow area. Postdredging sampling
will be analyzed to determine changes in benthic communities and the degree of
repopulation following the dredging operation. A 6-month and 12-month survey
of the borrow area after construction will also be done. Bathymetric surveys
will be taken to assess rate of infilling of the borrow area, as well as
changes in bottom conditions. Physical sampling (e.g., grain-size analysis)
of the infilling material will be done to assess the type of sediment
infilling in the borrow area over time.
Encroachment on the coquina rock outcrops at the southern terminus of the
project would be avoided to the maximum extent possible by transitioning the
project fill north of the outcrops. Beachfill material is expected to be
moved by littoral drift, and portions of the landward sides of the
northernmost outcrop may be covered by the material. The areal extent of this
coverage cannot be quantified at this time. To determine the effects of the
nourishment project on the coquina rock community, and whether any changes
observed are the result of natural influences or beach restoration, a
monitoring program will be developed and implemented for the purpose of
documenting any impacts of beach disposal on the coquina rock outcrops.
Information gathered from the monitoring program would be used to assess
whether changes in disposal operations during project maintenance are needed.
Mitigation requirements refer to actions necessary to reduce or compensate for
adverse environmental impacts of projects. Specific mitigation measures that
would be implemented in conjunction with the project include the following:
A sea turtle nesting and monitoring program will be implemented when
dredging and disposal occur during sea turtle nesting season on the beach
between March 15 and November 15. The design berm elevation is identical to
the naturally occurring berm. Typically, escarpments are not a problem with
design berms that approximate natural elevation. However, should escarpments
occur on the beach after construction or after each maintenance period, the
escarpment will be graded prior to the sea turtle nesting season during any
given year in order to permit sea turtle nesting on the beach.
EIS-35
7.00 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
7.01 Coastal Zone Consistency Determination
The project will take place in the designated coastal zone of the State of
North Carolina. Pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of
1972, as amended (P.L. 92-583), federal activities are required to be
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the federally approved
coastal management program of the state in which their activities would be
occurring.
a. Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC). The NED plan alternative would
take place in areas under the North Carolina Coastal Management Program
designated as AEC. Specifically, the activities will occur in the Public
Trust Areas and the Ocean Hazard System and will affect the following AEC:
Public Trust Areas, Ocean Erodible Area, High Hazard Flood Areas. The
following determination has been made regarding the consistency of the
proposed project with the State's management objective for each of the AEC
affected:
(1) Public Trust Areas: The NED alternative is an acceptable use
within public trust areas. The plan will not be detrimental to the biological
and physical functions of public trust waters.
(2) Ocean Erodible Areas: The discharge of material on the beach
would not cause any significant adverse effect to ocean erodible areas.
(3) High Hazard Flood Areas: Discharge of material on the beach would
provide temporary protection for high hazard flood areas.
b. Other State Policies. The proposed project has been determined to be
consistent with other state policies found in the State's Coastal Management
Program document that are applicable. These include:
(1) North Carolina Mining Act. The removal of dredged material from
the offshore borrow area has been reviewed by the North Carolina Division of
Land Resources and a determination has been made that removal of sand from the
sea floor within the three miles territorial limits is not an activity that
would be classified as mining under the North Carolina Mining Act (15A North
Carolina Administrative Code Subchapter 05A .0200).
(2) Shoreline Erosion Policies. The construction of a dune berm
system as a means of controlling erosion along the ocean front is consistent
with state regulations for development in Ocean Hazards Areas of Environmental
Concerns (AECS'), and under 15 North Carolina Administrative Code 7M - Section
.0200 - Shoreline Erosion Policies).
c. Local Land Use Plan. The local land-use plan covering the study area
is the 1990 Kure Beach Land Use Plan Update, Kure Beach, North Carolina
approved by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission on September 27,
1991, and the Wilmington - New Hanover County Land Use Plan Update, approved
by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission in 1987. The proposed
project is consistent with the Town of Kure Beach Land Use Plan (Land Use Plan
EIS-36
Update, 1991). The Town of Kure Beach has adopted as a local policy the study
on renourishment in the Kure Beach area. The two unincorporated communities
of Wilmington Beach and Hanby Beach are covered under the Wilmington - New
Hanover County Land Use Plan Update (1987). The proposed project is
consistent with policies for growth and development found in the Wilmington -
New Hanover County Land Use Plan Update.
f Based on the information presented within this DEIS, the proposed project is
consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program and the land use
plan for the Town of Kure Beach. This determination is being provided to the
State for its review and concurrence.
7.02 EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands and EO 11988, Flood Plain
Management
The NED plan alternative will not impact wetland pursuant to EO 11990.
Project construction will occur in flood plain areas. All practicable steps
have been taken to ensure compliance to the maximum extent practicable as
required by EO 11988.
7.03 Wetland Construction
All materials dredged will be used as beachfill for construction and
maintenance of the recommended plan alternative. No excess material will be
available for construction of wetlands under the provisions of Section 150 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-587).
7.04 Marine, Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
The proposed beach nourishment project does not involve ocean disposal of
dredged material. Therefore, the project is considered to be in compliance
with the requirements of the Act.
7.05 Coastal Barrier Resources Act
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 (P.L. 97-348) prohibits
expenditure of Federal funds for activities within the designated limits of
the Coastal Barrier Resources System unless specifically exempted by Section 6
of the Act. As stated in that Section, Federal expenditures are allowable in
association with maintenance of existing channel improvements, including
disposal of dredged material related to such improvements. Based on a review
of designated maps showing those islands included in the system in North
Carolina, the Carolina Beach - Area South project is not within the system.
Therefore, the proposed action is in compliance with CBRA.
7.06 Hazardous and Toxic Waste (HTW)
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers standard tiered approach for analyzing
the potential for encountering contaminated sediments in the potential borrow
areas was used to assess the potential borrow areas for HTW. According to
this analysis, before any chemical or physical testing of sediments are
conducted, a reason to believe that the sediments may be contaminated must be
established. The sources of the sediments in the selected borrow areas are
derived from sediment transport and deposition by ocean currents. The
probability of the sites being contaminated by pollutants is low since they
EIS-37
are not within the vicinity of any known dumping activities, industrial
outfalls, or contaminated waters. The bottom sediments that will be dredged
from the borrow areas and placed on the beach will consist of predominately
fine-to-medium grain size with some shell. Therefore, no further analyses or
physical and chemical testing of the sediments is recommended.
7.07 Relationship Between Short-Term Impacts and Long-Term Benefits
and Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resoruces 1
The NED plan alternative will have negligible adverse impacts on fish and
wildlife. Short-term impacts associated with construction activities are
discussed in Section 6.00. The same short-term impacts would occur during
each renourishment for maintenance of a project. There would be irreversible
and irretrievable commitments of fuel and manpower resources to construct and
maintain the selected alternative. There are no significant long-term impacts
associated with the alternative. Without additional sand on the beach,
erosion would eventually affect structures.
8.00 COORDINATION
The coordination required for the NED plan alternative is outlined by the
applicable environmental requirements listed in Table 1.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661, et seq),
requires that the Corps of Engineers coordinate and obtain comments from the
USFWS. Potential impacts of the NED plan alternative are been coordinated
with the USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. A draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report is attached to
this document as Attachment C.
Required consultation on the- NED alternative with the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Marine Fisheries Service, under Section 7(c) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended, is being conducted.
The cultural resources assessment is being coordinated with the North Carolina
Division of Archives and History, Underwater Archaeology Unit, and with the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, codified at 36 CFR 800.
A Federal consistency determination pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, is included in this DEIS and is being
furnished to the State of North Carolina for its review and concurrence.
The NED plan alternative involves discharges of fill material into the waters
of the United States. A Section 404 (b)(1) evaluation (P.L. 95-217) has been
prepared and is attached to this document as Attachment A. A Section 401
water quality Certificate will be requested from the State of North Carolina.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was filed with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency on November 6, 1992, and was circulated for a
45-day public review period ending on December 21, 1992.
EIS-38
9.00 LIST OF PREPARERS
The following people were primarily responsible for preparing this EIS.
Name Expertise Experience
Professional
Discipline
Donald Fore Coastal 12 yrs., Wilmington District Coastal
(Coastal Engineer) Engineering (4 yrs., Coastal Engr. Branch; Engineering
3 yrs., Operations Branch;
5yrs., Struct. Branch)
Anne Goodwin Project
Project Manager) Management
7 yrs., Wilmington District
2 yrs., U.S. Navy
Coastal
Engineering,
Project
Management
Dianne Hood Economics and
Socioeconomics Social Analysis
Richard H. Kimmel Archaeology
(Cultural Resource
Studies Coordinator)
Coleman Long
(Supervisor of
EIS Preparation)
Environmental
Impact
Assessment,
18 yrs., Wilmington District
11 years, Environmental
Resources Branch
Wilmington District; 2
yrs., graduate research,
UNC-Chapel Hill; 1.5 yrs.,
Institute of Archaeology
and Anthropology, USC; 1 yr.,
misc. archaeological studies.
1 yrs. Act. Chief,
Env. Reso. Branch,
4 yrs. Asst Chief,
Env. Reso. Branch
6 1\2 yrs, Chief,
Env. Analysis Section
4 yrs. Env. Res Branch
2 yrs. master Planning
Economist
Archaeology
Landscape
Architect
Daniel Small Environmental 7 yrs., Wilmington District Environmental
(DEIS Coordinator) Impact 7 yrs N.C. Division of Sciences
Assessment Coastal Management
Water quality
Thaddeus Zielonka Subsurface
(Engineering investigations
Geologist) and Analysis
8 1\2 years, Geotechnical Geology
Branch, Wilmington District;
3 years, Geotechnical Branch,
Savanna District;
2 1\2 years Geotechnical Branch,
St Louis District; and
1\2 year, U.S. Geological Survey
EIS-39
10.00 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Wilmington District has coordinated this study with various Federal,
state, and local agencies having concerns about hurricane protection, beach
erosion control, and the environmental impacts of any potential improvements.
The policy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is to develop water resources
plans with a continued interchange of ideas, information, and results with
affected citizens of the study area, the state involved and other Federal
agencies. A Notice of Intent to prepare a DEIS was published on May 15, 1991,
in the Federal Register (Vol. 56, No. 94) inviting comments from all agencies,
organizations, and interested parties. While no formal scoping meetings were
held, significant issues identified by others were coordinated as needed. A
copy of the scoping letter and comments received during the scoping process
are contained in Attachment D. A DEIS was filed with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency on November 6, 1992, and was circulated for a 45-day public
review period ending on December 21, 1992. Comments received on the DEIS are
contained in Attachment E.
The mailing list for this final EIS was essentially the same as for the draft
EIS. This mailing list is indicated on Table 4. A public notice on the 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.
11.00 STATEMENT RECIPIENTS
This statement is being circulated for review and comment to concerned
agencies and the public. Statement recipients are listed in Table 4.
TABLE 4. RECIPIENTS OF THIS EIS
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
N.C. Clearinghouse and Information Center
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Greensboro Area Office
U.S. Department of Commerce
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Department of the Interior
Federal Emergency Management Administration
Federal Maritime Commission
Fifth Coast Guard District
Conservation Council of North Carolina
Izaac Walton League
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
National Audubon Society
N.C. Wildlife Federation
Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
EIS-40
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Electrification Administration
Sierra Club
Oceanic Society
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
University of North Carolina, Wilson Library
Library at Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Randall Library
N.C. State Library, Documents Branch
New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
County Manager, New Hanover County
Town of Kure Beach
Town of Carolina Beach
LaQue Center for Corrosion Technology, Inc.
Dr. Robert Dolan, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Dr. Bill Cleary, University of North Carolina at Wilmington.
Dr. Mark Posey, University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Dr. Orrin Pilkey, Duke University
EIS-41
12.00 REFERENCES
Allen, Richard H. April 1972. A Glossary of Coastal Engineering Term.
Miscellaneous Paper No. 2-72. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Washington, D.C.
Bowen, P.R. & G.A. Marsh. October 1988. Benthic Faunal Colonization of An
Offshore Borrow Pit in Southeastern Florida. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Dredging Operations Technical Support program. Misc. Rept. D-88-5.
Dolan, Robert, et al. July 30, 1992. Monitoring and Analysis of Beach
Nourishment Placed on Pea Island, North Carolina, Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge 1991 - 1992. Coastal Research Associates, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Henry Von Oesen and Associates. July 23, 1991. 1990 Kure Beach Land Use Plan
Update, Kure Beach, North Carolina.
Meisburger, Edward P. Reconnaissance Geology of The Inner Continental Shelf,
Cape Fear Region, North Carolina. Technical Paper No. 79-3. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center. Kingman Building, Fort
Belvoir, Virginia. September 1979.
Naqvi, S.M. & C.H. Pullen. 1982. Effects of beach nourishment and borrowing
on marine organisms. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering
Research Center, Misc.. Rept. 82-14.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
1989• Division of Environmental Management. Administrative Code 15 NCAC 2B
.0311 - Classification and Water Quality Standards assigned to the Cape Fear
River Basin.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
March 1991. Division of Environmental Management. Administrative Code 15
NCAC 2B .0200 - Classification and Water Quality Standards Applicable to
Surface Waters of North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. North Carolina Artificial Reefs.
Morehead City, North Carolina. June 1991.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1982. Statement of Recommendation,
Designation of A Natural Heritage Area - Fort Fisher Coquina Outcrop, New
Hanover County, North Carolina. N.C. Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Reilly, F.J. & J. Bellis. 1983. A Study of the ecological impact of beach
nourishment with dredged materials on the intertidal zone at Bogue Banks,
North Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research
Center , Misc. Rept. No. 83-3.
Saloman, C. H. & S.P. Naughton. 1984. Beach restoration with offshore
dredged sand: effects on nearshore macrofauna. U.S. Dept. Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEF-133.
EIS-42
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. January 1987. Fort Fisher
Ocean Disposal Alternative Environmental Feasibility Analysis. Wilmington,
North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Area South of Carolina Beach, draft
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. Division of Ecological Services,
Raleigh Field Office, Raleigh, North Carolina.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 1983. Final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for Savannah, GA, Charleston, SC and Wilmington, NC
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites Designation, Washington, D.C.
Van Dolah, R.F. and D.M. Knot. 1984. A biological assessment of beach and
nearshore areas along the South Carolina Grand Strand. Final report to U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Marine Resources
Division, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Charleston,
South Carolina.
Van Dolah, R.F. et al. 1992. A Physical and Biological Monitoring Study of
the Hilton Head Beach Nourishment Project. Marine Resources Division, South
Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Charleston, South Carolina.
March 1992.
Wilmington - New Hanover Land Use Plan Update 1986-1995. Policies for Growth
and Development. Approved by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission
on January 23, 1987.
EIS-43
13.00 INDEX
Subject Page Numbers
Affected environment 16
Alternatives 7
Areas of controversv 1
Comparative impact of alternatives q
Cultural resources
Environmental conditions 17
Environmental effects 28
Esthetics 17
List of preparers 39
Major conclusions and findings 1
Marine resources 17
Need for and objective of action 6
Planning objectives 7
Plans considered in detail 9
Public concerns 7
Public involvement 40
Public views 40
References 42
Relationship to environmental requirements 3
Required coordination 38
Socioeconomic resources 17
Statement recipients 40
Study Authority 6
Table of contents
Unresolved issues
Water Quality 22
Without conditions (no action) 7
EIS-44
ATTACHMENT A - SECTION 404(B) (P.L. 92-217) EVALUATION
DRAFT
DRAFT
Attachment A
Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) (PL 92-217) Guidelines
Section 404(b)(1) (PL 95-217) Evaluation
Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South Project
New Hanover, North Carolina
October 1992
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Location. New Hanover County, North Carolina.
B. Background and Project Description. The Carolina Beach and Vicinity -
Area South project is located in New Hanover County, North Carolina. The
Wilmington District has investigated public concerns in the study area related
to hurricane and flood protection. Alternatives investigated consisted of
berms and dunes of various dimensions. The no action alternative was also
considered. The National Economic Development (NED) plan consists of a
25-foot-wide crest width artificial dune with a vegetated crest elevation of
13.5 feet above 0 National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) and a storm berm
approximately 50 feet wide. Project construction will cover approximately
3-1/2 miles of shoreline between the town of Carolina Beach to the north and
the Fort Fisher Historic Site to the south. Potential borrow areas for
beachfill for project construction and maintenance are located in two borrow
areas located approximately 1 to 2 miles offshore in the Atlantic Ocean.
Project construction will require approximately 3.3 million yards of dredged
material. Project maintenance will require approximately 766,000 cubic
yards of beachfill every 3 years. A complete description of the NED plan
alternative can be found in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The project is being evaluated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of
1977, as amended, rather than Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuary Act of 1972 (Ocean Dumping Act), since the proposed discharge
site is within the 3-nautical-mile territorial limits of the State of North
Carolina.
C. Purpose. This 404(b)(1) evaluation covers the discharge of dredged
material on the ocean beach for the purpose of construction of a beach erosion
control and hurricane wave protection project. The isolated discharges
associated with dredging to remove beachfill from the borrow areas offshore
are not considered discharges of dredged material for the purpose of filling,
but isolated discharges incidental to the dredging operation and are therefore
not being covered under this evaluation.
A-1
shore. Standard construction equipment would be used to construct the dune
and storm berm.
2. Ocean-Certified Hydraulic Pipeline Dredge with Scows. An ocean-
certified pipeline dredge would be used to dredge the material from the borrow
area but would pump the material into barges or scows onsite for transport to
the beach instead of a pipeline running to the beach. The material would then
be pumped from the scows at the pump-out station to the beach.
3. Ocean-Certified Hopper Dredge with Direct Pump Out to the Beach.
An ocean-certified hopper dredge would dredge the material from the borrow
area and then transport it to a pump-out station close to the disposal beach.
The material would then be pumped from the hopper dredge at the pump-out
station to the beach. The dredged material placed on the beach will be shaped
by earth-moving equipment.
II. FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS
A. Physical Substrate Determination.
1. Substrate Elevation and Slope. There will be a change in the
beach profile in reference to elevation and length. The substrate elevation
and slope will be altered by the construction of the dune and storm berm.
The design foreslope for the dune and berm is 10 horizontal to 1 vertical.
The total width of the dune and storm berm is approximately 210 feet.
2. Sediment Type. The discharged material consists of predominantly
fine-to-medium grain sand, with less than 10 percent fine grain material
(silt/clay), shell, and shell hash. The material is compatible with the
native beach material.
3. Fill Material Movement. Some lateral movement of material will
likely occur as a result of the combined effects of currents, water
circulation, wind, and wave action. There would be some loss of fine grain
material into the water column during construction and initial settlement of
the beachfill.
4. Physical Effects on Benthos. The discharge of fill material will
smother benthic fauna in the immediate vicinity of the discharge on the beach
and nearshore during berm construction. Repopulation should begin soon after
the disposal operation ends. Turbidity-related impacts are expected to be
minor and temporary due to the predominantly fine-to-medium grain sand
material being discharged.
5. Other Effects. None expected.
6. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. Action taken to minimize
impacts include selection of fill material that is similar to the native beach
substrate and is low in silt content. Also, standard construction practices
to minimize turbidity and erosion would be employed. A small berm may be
constructed along the mean high water line at the discharge point to help
reduce turbidity.
A-3
C. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determinations.
1. Expected Changes in Suspended Particulates and Turbidity Levels in
the Vicinity of the Disposal Site. Short-term increases in suspended
particulate levels may occur at the time of dredging and disposal. No
violation of applicable water quality standards will occur outside of the area
of discharge or mixing zone.
2. Effects (Degree and Duration) on Chemical and Physical Properties
of the Water Column. Slight decreases in the degree of light penetration and
dissolved oxygen concentration may occur within the area of construction
during construction and maintenance.
a. Light Penetration. A slight reduction in light penetration
would occur due to the turbidity increase associated with the NED plan.
Turbidity will quickly return to ambient levels upon completion of the work.
b. Dissolved Oxygen. A slight decease in dissolved oxygen
concentration may be associated with construction and maintenance of the NED
plan. The anticipated low levels of organics in the borrow material should
not generate a high, if any, oxygen demand. Dissolved oxygen should return to
ambient levels soon after completion of the work.
c. Toxic Metals and Organics. Based on sediment analyses of the
material available in the borrow areas, no toxic metals or organics are
anticipated. The beachfill material comes from an offshore borrow area with
bottom deposits of predominantly fine-to-medium grain sand.
d. Pathogens. No anticipated effect.
e. Esthetics. A minor, temporary loss
result from elevated levels of turbidity due to the
loss of aesthetic appeal in the project area should
f. Others as Appropriate. None.
3. Effects on Biota.
of esthetics appeal will
discharge. No significant
occur.
a. Primary Production. Photosynthesis. A slight reduction may
occur due to turbidity associated with the NED plan. Any reduction is not
expected to be significant.
b. Suspension/Filter Feeders. No significant effect.
c. Sight feeders. Turbidity resulting from the NED plan would
not be expected to be high enough to significantly affect sight feeding
organisms.
4. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. See II. A. 6. above.
D. Contaminant Determinations. The fill material has been determined to
meet the criteria set forth in 40 CFR 230.60(b), in that the material is
A-5
estuarine fossil, and other sediments cemented together by calcite. The
coquina outcrops provide hard substrate, a place of attachment, and/or
protective environment, for a variety of marine algae, marine invertebrates,
and fishes which are adapted to the hard substrate and high wave energy of the
area. Species associated with these outcrops include sea lettuce, sea
amemone, Atlantic oyster drill, calcareous tube worm, and red gilled marphysa.
Encroachment on the coquina rock outcrops at the southern terminus of the
project would be avoided to the maximum extent possible by naturally sloping
the transition berm into the natural shoreline of the area. Beachfill
material from project construction is expected to be moved by littoral drift,
and portions of the landward sides of the outcrops are expected to be covered.
The areal extent of this coverage cannot be quantified at this time. To
determine effects of the nourishment project on the coquina rock community and
whether any changes observed are the result of natural processes or beach
restoration, a monitoring program would be developed and implemented prior to
and after project construction. Information gathered from the monitoring
program would be used to assess whether changes in disposal operations during
project maintenance are needed.
f. Riffle and Pool Complexes. Not applicable.
6. Threatened and Endangered Species. Construction of the NED plan
alternative would be scheduled to occur between November 15 and July 31. This
schedule would require construction during periods of high biological activity
and will overlap the sea turtle nesting season. A turtle monitoring and nest
relocation program will be implemented to reduce project construction impacts.
Discharge of beachfill during project maintenance will be targeted between
November 15 and May 1 of any given year in order to avoid adverse impacts to
nesting loggerhead and green sea turtles to the maximum extent practicable.
While timing these activities to avoid the nesting season is the method of
choice for avoiding impacts to nesting sea turtles, experiences with similar
projects in North Carolina indicate that work during the season will
eventually be necessary. When such occasions arise, a sea turtle nest
monitoring and relocation program will be implemented.
The piping plover has been documented to nest on beaches south of the Fort
Fisher Historic Site which is south of the project area. There has been no
known nesting in the project area; therefore, no direct impacts to the piping
plover are expected to occur due to the discharge of fill.
7. Other Wildlife. No effects.
8. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. See l.f. above.
9. Proposed Disposal Site Determinations. Dredged material is being
placed on the ocean beach as beachfill for the construction of a beach erosion
control and hurricane wave protection project.
F. Mixing Zone Determination. A mixing zone will be limited to the
minimum needed to allow for proper settling of suspended particulates and
decrease in turbidity to ambient levels.
A-7
B. There are no practicable alternative discharge sites which would have
less adverse impact to the aquatic ecosystem and still achieve the planning
objectives of beach erosion control and hurricane wave protection.
C. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is being requested from the
State Division of Environmental Management. The discharge will comply with
State water quality standards.
D. The discharge will not violate the toxic effluent standards or
prohibitions under Section 307 of P.L. 95-217.
E. The discharge will not affect any threatened or endangered species or
their critical habitat.
F. The proposed placement of fill will not result in significant adverse
effects on human health and welfare, including municipal and private water
supplies, recreational and commercial fisheries, plankton, fish, shellfish,
wildlife, and special aquatic sites. The life stages of aquatic life and
other wildlife will not be adversely affected. Significant adverse effects
on aquatic ecosystem diversity; productivity; stability; and recreation,
esthetic, and economic values will not occur.
G. Appropriate steps will be taken to minimize potential adverse impacts
of the fill material on the aquatic ecosystem.
H. On the basis of this analysis, the proposed discharge sites for fill
material for the Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South project is in
compliance with the requirements of Section 404(b)(1) (PL 95-217) guidelines.
Date
Walter S. Tulloch
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
A-9
0
all FINAL REPORT
CONSULTANTS
PREPARED FOR
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
REMOTE SENSING SURVEY, SOUTH OF CAROLINA BEACH
BEACH RENOURISHMENT BORROW AREAS
VICINITY OF WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
CONTRACT NO. DACW54-91-D-0010, DELIVERY ORDER 0002
PANAMERICAN CONSULTANTS, INC.
P.O. BOX 334785
BARTLETT, TENNESSEE 38184-0785
UNDER CONTRACT TO:
GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.
570 BEATTY ROAD
MONROEVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 15146
PROJECT 90-311-11
MARCH 1993
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
FINAL REPORT
REMOTE SENSING SURVEY, SOUTH OF CAROLINA BEACH
BEACH RENOURISHMENT BORROW AREAS
VICINITY OF WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
CONTRACT NO. DACW54-91-D-0010, DELIVERY ORDER 0002
Stephen R. James, Jr.
Principal Investigator
PANAMERICAN CONSULTANTS, INC.
P.O. BOX 334785
BARTLETT, TENNESSEE 38184-0785
UNDER CONTRACT TO:
GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.
570 BEATTY ROAD
MONROEVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 15146

PROJECT 90-311-11
MARCH 1993
ABSTRACT
In August of 1992, a remote sensing survey was conducted offshore of Carolina
Beach, North Carolina. The cultural resources investigation, performed by Panamerican
Consultants Inc. of Tuscaloosa Alabama, under contract with GAI Consultants Inc. of
Monroeville, Pennsylvania, was implemented by the Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District. Pursuant to the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 and the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, this project was designed to determine the
presence or absence of targets that may represent historically significant shipwrecks
within the proposed beach renourishment borrow areas. This Investigation was performed
for the Wilmington District in response to their Scope of Work Delivery Order No.0002,
" entitled Remote Sensing Survey, South of Carolina Beach, Beach Renourisnment Borrow
Areas, Vicinity of Wilmington, North Carolina, under Contract No.DACW54-91-D-0010.
The remote sensing survey which employed both magnetometer and side-scan sonar
recorded a total of 27 isolated magnetic anomalies. Based on the duration, intensity,
amplitude, and spatial dimensions, none of the these anomalies was deemed to represent a
sufficient cultural resource potential relative to the National Register of Historic Places
criteria to warrant further investigation. Owing to the absence of potentially significant
cultural material no further archaeological investigations are recommended.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Acknowlegdements
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Chapter 3: PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Chapter 2: REMOTE SENSING INVESTIGATION
Methodology
Results
Chapter 3: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES CITED
APPENDIX A
North Area Track Lines With Navigation Shot Points
APPENDIX B
South Area Track Lines With Navigation Shot Points
APPENDIX C
North Area Magnetic Contour Map Even Numbered Lines
APPENDIX D
North Area Magnetic Contour Map Odd Numbered Lines
APPENDIX E
South Area Magnetic Contour Map Even Numbered Lines
APPENDIX F
South Area Magnetic Contour Map Odd Numbered Lines
ii
iv
iv
v
1
4
5
7
7
11
14
16
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig ure Pam
1. Project Location Map 2
2. Proposed Impact Areas 3
3. Blockade Runner Wreck Location Map 6
4. Project Survey Vessel 8
5. Sidescan and Magnetometer Consoles 9
6. Navigation System 10

LIST OF TABLES

:s Fig ure Pam
1. Navigation Control Locations 11
2. Magnetic Anomaly Locations South Area 13
3. Magnetic Anomaly Locations North Area 14

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the following individuals
whose enthusiastic assistance and support made this endeavor both possible and successful.
Mr. Richard Kimmel, archaeologist for the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, is to be thanked for coordinating the project as well as his support and
cooperation.
Rob Flance, Kevin C. Keener, and Chris Ransome of Chris Ransome and Associates,
Inc. are also to be thanked. While Rob spent long and often uncomfortable hours in the field,
all three spent time processing the navigation data as well as assisting the authors to
achieve the best results from the magnetic data.
Recognition is owed to Angus McLean of Azalea Coast Marine for providing extensive
logistical support which was equal to the variety of demands a project such as this
requires. Recognition is also owed to Captain Francis M. (Mac) McGowan.
The archaeological crew is especially thanked for their professionalism and hard
work during what can only be described as less than ideal weather conditions. The crew
consisted of James A. Duff, Steven Schmidt, Stephen James, and Todd Hannahs. The
report was authored by Todd Hannahs and Stephen James.
V
INTRODUCTION
In August of 1992 a remote sensing survey was conducted offshore of Carolina
Beach, North Carolina (Figure 1). The cultural resources investigation, performed by
Panamerican Consultants Inc. of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, (PCI) under contract with GAI
Consultants Inc. of Monroeville, Pennsylvania (GAI), was implemented by the Department
of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (USACE). Pursuant to the Abandoned
Shipwreck Act of 1987 and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, this project
• was designed to determine the presence or absence of targets that might represent
historically significant shipwrecks within the proposed beach renourishment borrow areas.
This Investigation was performed for the Wilmington District in response to their Scope of
Work Delivery Order No.0002, entitled Remote Sensing Survey, South of Carolina Beach,
Beach Renourishment Borrow Areas, Vicinity of Wilmington, North Carolina, under
Contract No. DACW54-91-D-0010.
The erosion process in the vicinity of Carolina and Kure Beaches, accelerated in
part by the creation of Carolina Beach Inlet, has been a problem of some years standing
(Watts 1984). In order to combat sand loss and to stabilize Kure and Carolina Beaches,
two areas approximately one square mile in extent each (Figure 2) are to be dredged to
provide beach replenishment material. This investigation was instigated in response to the
nature and potential severity of the proposed impacts.
The proposed dredging areas fall within the area south of Carolina Beach Inlet and
north of Fort Fisher, 3000 feet to 15000 feet offshore. These waters off Carolina Beach
have been the scene of a variety of maritime activities. From as early as the 16th
century, the area has been the scene of commercial, military and recreational undertakings
on the ocean (Angley 1984). The surge in naval activity resulting from the Civil War is
well represented in the immediate vicinity by historically recorded, as well as located
shipwrecks (Sacchi and Erlandson 1982; Watts 1984). In the years following the Civil
War, this section of the North Carolina shore witnessed tragedy for sailors and ship
owners alike from storm and mistake (Watts 1984). Thus the cultural resource potential
of the area remains substantial even though Carolina Beach Inlet was artificially created in
September 1952.
The remote sensing survey, employing both magnetometer and side-scan sonar,
discovered no anomalies that were consistent with signatures associated with shipwrecks
or their associated features. Because none of the anomalies defined appear to represent
potentially significant historic remains, additional archaeological investigations are not
recommended. The following chapters address in detail the execution and results of this
study.
1
33 29
r_s- _ •s .' I i j -.y° /ir•u., 43 35
• . •, '?` (? I ' 0-- 32 n°sB' /rr/,y 41
' -'
,DOCTOR PT ' PA .%26v0
OLORAN 31 M, A
f. (, • '+Or 0 6a44E FT V : 'f 4;' 34
016 24 3"
'0" ?ry ewe • •?r 20 4 - 41
_cys+tio Cul? ,
?nr° 3E 17 a 1
40
4, 26
C.. . 31
a..
9123 i 37 7
22 33 S
41
'TANK
"• • 22 41
-io obst,
9 CAROLINA Fsh Haven 42
PA /aurh -In 20NJ
O 25 BEACH 3S 39
49
oc
23 ( 31 39
39
fl, Ple sure WILMINGTON BEACH
34 41 44
Island 13?
28 ?--._
20 S
_ 26 3,, i
31 41
0 32 3 47
I0 3 i 36 48
34 34
TAN
V 22 -- - - 4 - 1
TOWIEK d $
q 37 PROJECT AREA
KURE BEACH 37 3e
PETERS PT / 27 31 30
_ 43
19 39
??
V / 1301 37 '30
42 45
v++w I32
RADONES: ?) % 34
34 / 47
bk M j 21? 42
/ 4E 40
/31 '27,-
?/? 26) 43 49
24 i 3 39 40 50
Marsh C •,' ,?2? 27
'
/-?
42 46
17 39 ? i
44 36
-, ld 23 / i
r p 47
FEDERAL PT /S Sh
4 (ill( 244 43 46 5'
i :4 14
/ 45 br S
The Basin 28 1
' 45
L3111 28 c
O 15 21 32 34 44 •¦oaiws,
e 1224 35 49
.9 Qt ` l) Sheenheod Rock 42 46
y S 21 rky / 32
/31 37
20 ?
FIGURE 1
PROJECT AREA LOCATION MAP
Yards
low o soon loooo
2

k w
V
0
v
0
a
p
? N
m
A
D
m
m
a
dDo
,
t2i?
' G N
1 ?
I
e
I I
I 1
r
e
o e A
a I p /
I A
I 8
I 8 0
1
I ? , ' 11
11 A
? 11 A ? 1 4a
`" A I
I
g ?? 8 K A A 1
I A
0 A 1'
?/ A I
A A '/
91 A
3 \ A A ??
i
6 N 0 / m
Ql ? -
A A \
A
A ? A A ?
A ?
A A 1
b A A A ? `?\ \ ??
/ A . ,gyp
A A / pr
A ?
A / /??\ Cam"
? I I r
A I I C?'7
0 II x
a e I
e
1
i
?' e e i• ? r
O A t ?i
C? ? Q A / 0 ? •?? \I
m o /0
z °
• / 1
to
, 1 1
I 1
o ? 1 day
I , 1
O ? ??dI0
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
The project area is located just south and offshore of Carolina Beach Inlet and just
north and offshore from Fort Fisher. The vicinity of Carolina Beach may have been visited
as early as 1524 when the Italian explorer Giovvani Verrazanno dispatched a landing party
several miles above Cape Fear which is located just to the south of Fort Fisher. Two years
after Verrazano's initial exploration, the Spanish explorer Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon
established a temporary base along the west bank of the Cape Fear River. Although sparse,
settlement of the area was established by the mid-eighteenth century with livelihoods
including farming and fishing (Angley 1984).
During most of the Colonial period, the only inlet present between Cape Fear "Old
Inlet," located to the south of the project area, and Cabbage Inlet, located to the north of
the project area, was New Inlet. Located just south of Fort Fisher, the inlet was opened by
a violent storm in 1761. While Cabbage Inlet was closed by a storm in 1783, New Inlet
was employed by small and shallow-draft vessels for well over a century after its
formation. Carolina Beach Inlet was not created until 1952 when it was dynamited open
(Angley 1984).
The Cape Fear River served as the principal life line for the Confederacy during the
Civil War, especially during its latter stages. Fort Fisher guarded the approaches to North
Inlet but it fell to Union forces in January 1865 as a result of a massive amphibious assault
involving 52 Union warships and 10,000 Federal troops. Prior to the fall of Fort Fisher,
blockade runners, despite Federal patrols of both the Old and New Inlets, made their way to
Wilmington to exchange cotton and local agricultural products for essential supplies
required by the Confederacy. At least four of these vessels are known to have been lost
between Carolina Beach Inlet and New Inlet, the Hebe, Douro, Lynx, and Venus. Between
the close of the Civil War and the end of the Nineteenth century, at least seven other
historic vessels are known to have been lost near the project area. These include the
steamer Frances lost in 1867, and the schooners Samua/ C. Ebom, Racer, Ray and Eleanor
T., which were lost when a storm blew these vessels ashore "a few miles North of Fort
Fisher.' Also lost in this vicinity was the schooner Charlotte Ann Pigott in 1876 and the
brig VA in 1888 (Angley 1984; Watts 1984).
4
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Several submerged cultural resources investigations have been conducted in the
vicinity of the current project area, as well as to the north and south. The remote sensing
surveys and their respective findings are as follows.
Sponsored by the North Carolina Division of Archives and History, and the
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, an underwater archaeological field school was
conducted on two Civil War era shipwrecks in 1974 (Watts 1984). These two sites are
located adjacent the beach and west of the current project areas. In 1984, a
magnetometer survey and archaeological reconnaissance was conducted on obstructions
struck by the dredge Meritt while dredging Carolina Beach Inlet. Reconnaissance activities
identified two obstructions as the remains of Civil War era shipwrecks, most likely
blockade runners (Watts 1984). These two wrecks are located adjacent the beach and
west of the current project areas. Figure 3 illustrates the approximate location of the four
blockade runners, Hebe, Douro, Venus, and Lynx.
In 1980, an intensive land and underwater archaeological survey was conducted
both at and adjacent to Fort Fisher which is located shoreward of the southern end of the
current project area. A total of 28 magnetic anomalies were recorded. Except for the
beached remains of a vessel dating to the turn of beginning of the nineteenth century, none
of the anomalies were examined. Because these anomalies were not to be affected by
impacts, further work was not recommended (Sacchi et al. 1982).
In 1977, a magnetometer survey of Masonboro Inlet and the northern end of
Masonboro Island was implemented by the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. This area is north of the current project area. The remote sensing survey
identified an anomaly cluster in the inlet, and a single anomaly on the island. Although the
investigation failed to reveal the identity of the anomaly on the island, the examination of
the inlet target ascertained that it is the remains of a relatively modern vessel (Saltus
1977; Watts et al. 1978).
In 1985 a magnetometer survey was conducted offshore of Masonboro Island and
Caswell Beach. Of the 35 anomalies recorded, two were correlated with known shipwreck
locations, and five were suggestive of cultural debris. Three of these 5 were deemed
worthy of further investigation (Kimmel 1985).
In 1986, historical, remote-sensing investigations, and archaeological examination
of targets and three shipwrecks were conducted at Lockwood's Folly Inlet, located to the
south of the current project area. Three Civil War era blockade runners, Bendigo,
Elizabeth and the U.S.S. Iron Age, were identified and preliminary assessments were
conducted (Watts 1986).
5

CAROLINA Rti C N INLET
L 10

A

Pitt

Figure 3. Blockade Runner Wreck Location Map (As presented in Watts 1986).
6
REMOTE SENSING INVESTIGATION
As defined in the USACE's Scope of Work, the proposed dredging areas were to be
surveyed with a sixty meter line spacing, employing both magnetometer and side-scan
sonar as well as radio-positioning equipment to accurately determine coverage and to
locate such targets as might be discovered during the survey. The survey commenced on
August 17 aboard the 34 foot Silverton, Beachnut, a sport fishing vessel with a three-foot
draft and dual gas engines (Figure 4). Homeported at La Coquina Marina, Carolina Beach,
the vessel was operated by Mr. "Mac" McGowan.
Onboard remote-sensing equipment consisted of an EG&G Geometrics 866 proton
precession magnetometer using a marine sensor and an EG&G model 260 dual channel side-
scan sonar with a 100 kHz tow fish sensor. The magnetometer's dual trace analog print
out was operated on the 50/500 scale with readings taken every second and automatically
stored on a portable IBM compatible computer. Background noise was reduced below a +/-
3 gamma variation. The side-scan sonar was set on the 100 meter (328 feet) range,
effectively covering a 200 meter (656 feet) swath. Line spacing was 60 meters (197
feet). The magnetometer was operated on every line and the side-scan sonar was
employed on every other line (Figure 5).
The magnetometer's marine sensor was towed 108 feet (33 meters) aft of the
navigation tracking antenna, and depth was controlled by buoying the sensor to 10 feet
(3.05 meters) below the water surface. All excess sensor cable was coiled away from
possible sources of electronic discharge, such as engines, other electronic cables, etc. to
reduce background noise. The side-scan sonar sensor was towed 12 feet (3.65 meters) aft
of the antenna at a depth of six feet (1.8 meters). The short layback allowed the sensor
depth to be tightly controlled as well as preventing it from affecting the magnetometer
sensor. The receiving antenna for the radio location system was mounted above the port
side of the flying bridge to ensure the best reception and to reduce to a minimum any
errors that might result from excessive movement due to oscillation of the antenna mount.
Positioning data was provided by Chris Ransome and Associates of Houston, Texas
(CRA). Rob Fiance operated the radio-positioning system which has an accuracy of plus or
minus one meter and a resolution of 0.1 meter. Navigation was maintained using a Del
Norte trisponder system composed of a Model 520 Digital Distance Measuring Unit a master
antenna with three base stations. Presented in Table 1, the base station locations were
obtained from the Corps. Data was processed using a Hewlett Packard (HP) 9920U series
computer running CRA's proprietary software. A second display monitor was devoted
exclusively to use by the vessel operated where vessel position, speed, heading, previous
track and the pre-plotted survey transects were concurrently displayed. As the data was
processed a hard copy print out was created on a Hp dot matrix printer to provide
increased assurance of full coverage of the survey area (Figure 6).
The Project area was composed of two separate areas designated North and South
areas on the basis of their relative positions, and separate navigational pre-plots were
composed for each. Transect lines were oriented parallel to the long axis of the two
survey areas (Appendix A and B). A log was kept during the survey of each individual
transect in which vessel direction, speed, time of start and end of transact were recorded
7
Figure 4. The Project Survey VesseL
Flguie b. Views of the Sidescan (bop) and magnetometer consoles (bottom.
Figure 6. View of the onboard navigation system
10
to assist later analysis of the data. The remote sensing apparatus were each constantly
monitored by a nautical archaeologist so that data quality and significance could be
assessed as the project progressed and procedures adapted to extract the best results. All
magnetic anomalies and side-scan features noted at the time were also recorded.
It must be stated that this survey was intended to define only those features which
posses either a significant magnetic signature or are protruding into the water column at
the time the survey was conducted. It should also be noted that the line spacing as
specified at sixty meters (181.5 feet) increases the possibility that buried cultural
resources with low magnetic signatures, such as small wooden vessels, may not have been
recorded during this survey. Further discussion concerning this subject are presented in
the Conlcusions section.
TABLE 1
NAVIGATION CONTROL LOCATIONS
Control Relevant Northing/ Latitude/
Station' Area Easting Longitude
Aquarium South N 79136.5 N 33 57 45.3
E 2325739.6 W 77 55 33.3
Kure Beach South N 93445.6 N 34 00 06.2
North E 2332017.1 W 77 54 16.9
Spartanburg Road South N 102028.1 N 34 01 30.8
North E 2334710.9 W 77 53 43.8
Salt Marsh Road North N 113348.6 N 34 03 22.3
E 2338717.8 W 77 52 54.7
Control Station Data supplied by the COE
The primary difficulties encountered during the project were weather and
associated rough seas. Saturday and Sunday, August 15 and 16, were days of heavy and at
times torrential rain. Monday, August 17, was clear and calm with wave heights in the one
to two foot range. However, as the week progressed the wind continued to rise out of the
northeast supplementing the daily afternoon intensification of on shore wind. Friday and
Saturday, August 21 and 22, both were shortened as wave height reached the 5 to 7 foot
range causing background noise and sinusoidal variations to increase to the point where
data was adversely affected. Sunday and Monday, August 23 and 24, were subject to
strong and steady winds out of the northeast with swells in the 6 to 8 foot range
throughout the day precluding operations in the interests of both accurate data and safety.
11
Tuesday and Wednesday, August 25 and 26, were a period of light winds and decreasing
swells in the 1 to 3 foot range. The data collection phase of the project was completed at
this time.
The survey commenced with the deployment of both magnetometer and side-scan
sonar, and every other transect was covered in both the North and South areas. The Sonar
was set at a range of 100 meters to ensure complete coverage with an adequate overlap.
This was necessary because strong wind made it difficult at times to maintain an
undeviating course heading in a vessel with a substantial wind profile.
Both magnetometer and side-scan data were each continuously monitored by a
trained maritime archaeologist as data was collected. This provided a real-time control of
data significance, quality, and reliability. After the completion of the field phase of this
project the magnetic strip charts and side-scan sonar records were again visually re-
examined and matched with adjoining lines to ensure that nothing was either missed or
misinterpreted. The magnetometer data was cross referenced with the navigation data and
the requisite corrections for heading and sensor position relative to the navigation
receiving antenna were factored in. A contour map was then generated employing Surfer
4.2, using the correct northing and easting, with magnetic field strength -represented by
depth. The data thus displayed showed evidence of a phenomena most often noted when data
geographically close is collected over an extended period period of time. A change in the
over all field strength appears as local variations in the magnetic field. Such magnetic
"anomalies" have been previously experienced by other investigators elsewhere and on
this section of coastline (Arnold, 1976; Kimmel, 1985). To compensate for this effect
two sets of contour maps were generated for each area (Appendix C,D,E & F). The plot
employing all the odd numbered lines represents data collected during the earlier portion of
the project, while those plots using the even numbered lines only are derived, except for
three of the shortest lines, from the last two days of the project of field work. When
plotted in this manner the area displays a uniform magnetic gradient over both project
areas. It should also be noted that in none of the three formats, even lines, odd lines, and
both together, did the anomalies noted while examining the strip charts appear.
A total of 27 magnetic anomalies were recorded; 19 were found on the 30 survey
transects of the South Area (Table 1) and 8 were found on the 33 survey transacts of the
North Area (Table 2). Both North and South areas exhibit very steady geographic gradient
shifts making even miniscule anomalies stand out. Based on the signature characteristics
of magnetic amplitude, signal strength, and duration as an expression of spatial extent, all
27 anomalies appear to represent single source objects, small both in physical extent and
low in magnetic strength. Furthermore, the anomalies do not cluster or group together, as
would be the general case for a shipwreck site.
The possibility that these anomalies represent significant cultural resources is
further reduced by the absence of any correlation with the side-scan sonar record. The
sonar record displayed a generally uniform sand bottom with only small, circumscribed
areas of variation. No features consistent with those associated with shipwreck remains
were seen. Given the choice of these areas to supply beach replenishment material the fact
that the side-scan sonar found a homogenous sand bottom is worth noting.
12
TABLE 2
MAGNETIC ANOMALY LOCATIONS
SOUTH AREA
Line Location
by Event Mark No. of
Readings' type strength
S-2 279 3 Monopole -7gms.
S-6 114 3 Monopole -8gms
149 7 Monopole -9gms.
S-7 426 5 Monopole -8gms.
S-8 184 10 Dipole -9gms.,+8gms
S-10 At 161 6 Dipole 20gms, +8gms.
S-11 254 7 Dipole +5gms,-12gms.
S-12 391 6 Dipole -9gms., +7gms.
S-15 274 6 Dipole -7gms., +3gms.
521 8 Dipole +8gms., -5gms.
S-16 111 8 Dipole +6gms., -5gms.
196 3 Monopole -11 gms.
364 2 Monopole -9gms.
401 4 Dipole -6gms., +4gms.
S-18 171 7 Dipole -12gms.,+2gms.
S-20 8 4 Monopole -10gms.
36 3 Monopole -7gms.
171 3 Monopole -6gms.
184 2 Monopole -5gms.
199 5 Monopole -12gms.
Each reading equals an average distance of 1.8 meters

13
TABLE 3
MAGNETIC ANOMALY LOCATIONS
NORTH AREA
Line Location
by Event Mark No. of
Readings' type strength
N-3 226 5 Monopole -10gms.
N-10 234 4 Dipole -5gms.
N-11 308 2 Monopole -9gms.
N-22 64 6 Dipole -29gms.,+35gms.
N-25 316 4 Monopole -13gms.
N-28 79 5 Monopole +7gms.
N-29 74 5 Dipole -11 gms.,+1 ogms.
N-31 At 46 5 Monopole -30gms
Each reading equals an average distance of 1.8 meters
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A total of 27 magnetic anomalies were recorded; 19 were found in the South area
and 8 were found in the North area. Both North and South areas exhibit very steady
geographic gradient shifts. Based on the duration, intensity, amplitude, spatial dimensions,
and the absence of any correlation with the side-scan sonar record, none of the the
anomalies recorded during this survey was deemed to represent a sufficient cultural
resource potential relative to the National Register of Historic Places criteria to warrant
further investigation. Because of the absence of cultural material, detected either
magnetically or sonically, no further archaeological investigations are recommended.
It must be stated that this survey was intended to define only those features which
posess either a significant magnetic signature or that are protruding into the water column
at the time the survey was conducted. It should also be noted that the line spacing as
specified at sixty meters (181.5 feet) increases the possibility that buried cultural
resources with low magnetic signatures, such as small wooden vessels, may not have been
recorded during this survey. Relative to the current survey specifications being
potentially inadequate to detect historically significant shipwrecks, in an assessment
report produced by Tidewater Atlantic Research, Inc. on the potential for cultural
resources at Oregon Inlet, North Carolina, Watts states that "ground truthing of small
14
signatures [magnetic] with limited duration and intensity has demonstrated that they are
often associated with early shipwrecks or smaller vessels" (Watts 1992:114). The
report goes on to state that in order to identify these targets data should "be collected
along parallel transects located no more than 15 meters apart to insure that subtle
signatures would be identified" (Watts 1992:118).
While it is possible that the current line spacing interval might have missed or
allowed a small or early shipwreck site to go undetected, the use of the side-scan sonar in
conjunction with the magnetometer should in no way influence line spacing interval. Given
any line interval for a specific project, if a target is buried, whether it is recorded or not
by the magnetometer, it would still go undetected by the side-scan sonar.
J
15
REFERENCES CITED
Angley, Wilson
1984 An Historical Overview Of Carolina Beach Inlet. North Carolina Division of
Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources.
Arnold, J. Barto
1976 An Underwater Archaeological Magnetometer Survey and Site Test Excavation
at Padre Island. Texas Antiquities Committee, Austin, Texas.
Kimmel, Richard
1985 Analysis of Magnetic Anomalies From Offshore Portions of Masonboro Island
and Caswell Beach. North Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Sacci, Richard, Erlandson, Terry, Diane Lange, Richard Lawrence, Gordon Watts and David
Moore.
1982 An Archaeological Survev and Evaluation at Fort Fisher Sfate Hictnrin Oita
North Carolina and Vicinity. Prepared by the North Carolina Division of
Archivesand History, Department of Cultural Resources. Submitted to the
Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Saltus, Allen R., Jr.
1977 Exploratory Remote-Sensing Survey of the Masonboro Inlet South Jetty
Per *ect. North Carolina. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Watts, Gordon P., Jr.
1984 Underwater Archaeological Reconnaissance Carolina Beach Inlet_ New Hanover
County, North Carolina. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, Wilmington, North Carolina.
1986 Underwater Archaeological Reconnaissance and Historical Investigation of
Shipwreck Sites in Lockwood's Foll .y Inlet. Brunswick County. North Carolina.
Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District,
Wilmington, North Carolina.
1992 Historical and Cartographic Research to Identify and Assess the Potential
Cultural Resources in the Proposed Corridor for a Replacement Bridge on N.C.
12 Across Oregon Inlet. Dare County. North Carolina, Prepared for Parson,
Brinkerhoff, Ouade & Douglas, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina, by Tidewater
Atlantic Research, Inc., Washington, North Carolina.
Watts, Gordon P., Jr., Richard W. Lawrence, Dina B. Hill and James A. Pleasants
1978 Final Report on the Investigation of Magnetic Anomalies at Masonboro Island and
Masonboro Inlet. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District, Wilmington, North Carolina.
16
ATTACHMENT C - U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT
Include U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, response to U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations.
o?Q'Pt? HT F rh?ym
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
CH 3 % Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 12, 1992
Colonel Walter S. Tulloch
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Tulloch:
TAIE ??
?W!!
+eass es
Attached is the Service's Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report
for the Area South of Carolina Beach, New Hanover County, North Carolina.
This report identifies fish and wildlife resources located in the project
area and the potential impacts of the Corps' recommended project on these
resources. This report, when finalized, will constitute the Service's
report in accordance with Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 - 667d.) and our FY92 Transfer
Funding Agreement and Scope of Work.
The Service is pleased that estuarine habitats and an upland area designated
as a significant natural area by the N.C. Natural Heritage program have been
deleted from consideration as potential borrow sites for this beach
nourishment project. Still, there are concerns associated with the project
which need to be addressed. We believe the Corps should assess the
potential for utilizing sand from the nearest EPA approved ocean disposal
site used during dredging of nearby inlets and Wilmington Harbor. If sand
grain size and consistency are appropriate and the sediment is not
contaminated, then nourishing the beach with sand from the already disturbed
ocean disposal site would recycle sediment and would help to reduce overall
impacts of dredging activities in the area.
If it is not feasible to obtain material from the ocean disposal site and
the offshore sand sources identified in this report are used, then impacts
to any hard bottom habitats should be avoided and a monitoring plan should
be developed which will assess the long term impacts of mining sand from
offshore areas.
The Service is also concerned about the scheduling of dredging and beach
nourishment, and we believe that in the overall interest of sea turtles,
beach invertebrates and fish and shrimp spawning offshore, sand mining and
nourishment should occur only between November 16 and January 15 of any
year. In developing this recommendation, we coordinated with the N.C.
Division of Marine Fisheries for fisheries dates, and utilized recent
scientific information to develop the dates with regard to beach
invertebrates.
A copy of this report is being provided to the appropriate State and Federal
review agencies, and their comments will be incorporated in the final
report. Any comments which you or your staff wish to provide should be
received by September 1, 1991, so they may receive adequate and timely
attention in preparation of the Final FWCA report. Technical questions
should be directed to the attention of Karen Warr, the biologist handling
this project.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide this report.
Sincerely yours,
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report contains planning information
pursuant to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's responsibilities under the
general authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (48
Stat. 401; 16 U.S.C. 661 - 667d) and the FY92 Scope of Work Agreement for
the beach erosion control and hurricane protection study being conducted by
the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers for the Area South of Carolina
Beach, New Hanover County, North Carolina. The study is being conducted
under the authority of Public Law 87-874, 87th Congress, October 23, 1962
(House Document 418, 87th Congress, Second Session). This report, when
finalized, will constitute the Service's formal report required under
Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (op. cit.).
The Area South of Carolina Beach Project is proposed to provide beach
erosion control and hurricane wave protection for the ocean beach from the
southern town limits of Carolina Beach to a point south of the southern town
limits of Kure Beach. The project would entail construction of a dune and
storm berm.
Four alternatives being considered would entail contruction of a dune and a
storm berm. The height of the dune varies with each alternative. A fifth
alternative would involve construction of a storm berm only. All
alternatives would include a transition zone which grades into the beach at
the southern end. The Corps' preferred alternative at this time is
construction of a 14.5 foot high continuous dune and a storm berm.
The Corps proposes to obtain sand for nourishment from borrow sites
approximately 1 to 2 miles offshore. Several alternatives of pumping sand
onto the beach are being considered: a hydraulic pipeline dredge may be used
to pump sand directly onto the beach or a hopper dredge may be used. If a
i
pipeline dredge is used, a jack-up booster may be required in order to
provide enough force to pump sand to the beach. Another possibility is the
use of a pipeline dredge pumping through a Spider Rigg to a Scow or barge
which would be towed to an offshore pumping station, where material will be
pumped from the Scow to the beach. If a hopper dredge is used, it would '
bring the material into the nearshore zone and a pipeline would then
transport it directly from the hopper dredge to the beach. The Corps is
preparing a National Economic Development (NED) Plan at this time. The NED
plan will expand design features of the project.
Anticipated adverse impacts of the project would include: immediate
mortality of coquina clams and mole crabs and other invertebrates on the
beach to be nourished and in the nearshore zone; immediate mortality of
benthos at offshore borrow areas; increased turbidity potentially clogging
the gills of fish and invertebrates in the vicinity of the offshore borrow
sites and the nearshore waters, including organisms inhabiting coquina rock
outcroppings; burial of sea turtles nests and hatchlings and shorebird nests
unless timing of the project is planned so as to avoid such impacts;
alteration of the natural beach profile and beach sand properties causing
problems for nesting sea turtles and hatchlings; potential alteration of
wave intensities due to removing sand from offshore sand sources - if these
sand mounds currently provide wave attenuation to adjacent shorelines.
Careful project timing should result in avoidance of direct adverse impacts
to nesting sea turtles, nesting shorebirds, and should minimize long-term
effects to beach and nearshore invertebrates. The Service strongly
recommends that all negative impacts to the coquina rock community be
avoided. This coquina outcrop is the only one of its type in North
Carolina, and to our knowledge, it is the only between Maine and Florida.
Avoidance of some of the potential impacts to the coquina community can be
ii
accomplished through keeping beach nourishment north of the exposed coquina
rocks.
Although the Service has concerns related to offshore sand mining, we
commend the Corps for eliminating the estuarine areas and significant
natural area upland site from consideration as potential borrow sites. We
believe that offshore sand mining, if carefully and properly conducted,
could result in fewer impacts to the environment than the mining of sand
from the above mentioned sites. However, there are still concerns related
to offshore sand mining and beach nourishment, which must be addressed.
The Service recommends the following fish and wildlife conservation measures
to offset project-related habitat lose and degradation. The Corps should
assess the possibility of recycling dredged material by using material from
the Wilmington Harbor ocean disposal site for beach nourishment. Sand
mining and beach nourishment should occur between November 16 and January 15
of any year, and nourishment plans and construction should be carefully
designed to avoid extending as far south as the coquina rock outcrops. The
sand grain size of the dredged material should be compatible with the
natural beach sand. Sand hardness of the beach should be tested before and
after each nourishment and if the sand is too compact following nourishment,
then it should be tilled prior to the sea turtle nesting season. If the
nourished beach profile is unnatural, then it should be manipulated so that
a gentle slope without high escarpments results. A comprehensive monitoring
plan should be developed so that the long term effects of offshore sand
mining and beach nourishment can be properly assessed and determined. Sand
mining should be conducted in a manner which will avoid adverse impacts to
any hard bottom communities, and offshore sand borrow sites which are in the
immediate vicinity of hard bottom habitats should be eliminated from project
plans. Finally, any destruction to dune and beach vegetation should be
avoided and any unavoidable impacts will require mitigation.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paae
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................i ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................v
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................1
Purpose, Scope and Authority .....................................1
Prior Studies ....................................................1
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION .................................................2
Land Use .........................................................3
Topography .......................................................3
Climate ..........................................................5
Soils ............................................................5
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CONCERNS AND PLANNING OBJECTIVES .............7
EVALUATION METHODS .....................................................9
EXISTING FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES ..................................10
Maritime Shrub Thicket/Forest ...................................10
Sand Dunes ......................................................11
Upper Beach .....................................................11
Intertidal Beach ................................................12
Nearshore Zone ..................................................13
Offshore Area Where Potential Borrow Sites are Found ............ 15
Endangered and Threatened Species ...............................19
iv
A

cb ......................................................a3ZIO 3ZinZYZain
9t,** " ''''' .... ................... NOIZISOd 3OIA'd3S aNY SONIQNI3 30 XUYWWt1S
bb ...............................................SNOIivaN3 003.4 30 ZSI'I
Zb ............................................................NOISSnOSIa
6E " " " " " ' .... SZUfISY3W NOIZYA'd3SNOO 33I'Ia'IIM aNY HSI3
BE .................................gavsg ag3 uo TvsodsTa ;o poglsW
LE ..............................................subTssa TTT3 gavsg
9E ...........................................se-4TS M0.7.708 s.sogs;;O
" .... S3AIZYMU317d 30 NOSIUVdWOO
S£ ..............................................e?avdml ;o AsvmmnS
bE ..........................................ssT!z=ny ve8 o-4 s-4ovdml
........... 4uamgsTsnON yoveg o:j sna smsTuvbzo
620402VON Puv gaveg oz szovdml
LZ " " " " - sejTB Mossog wogs;;O mos; puvS buTuTN o-4 sna s-4ovdml
LZ. • . " " " " " .............."NY'Id a3aN3WNOoZV 3HZ 30 SIOYdWI 7YIZN3ZOd
9Z .................................gavsg sga uo TvsodsTa ;o Pog,4eW
bZ ..............................................subTsea TTT3 140vag
EZ .................................................TvTSelvN Mossog
EZ ...................... " " .............S3AIIVfrd3Z'IY 3HI 80 NOI.LdI'dDS3a
ZZ' ' ' ' ' 'ioaroud 3HZ ZAOHZIM SNOILlaNOO 3OHnOSZH 33I' nim aNY HSI3 3'ifLLA3
TABLE
Table 1: Potential Borrow Area Material Data ....................24
FIGURES
Figure 1: Map of the Study Site ..................................4
Figure 2: Average Annual Erosion Rates of Study Site .............6
Figure 3: Potential Offshore Borrow Sites .......................16
Figure 4: Cross Section of Study Site Beach Showing
July 1991 Profile and Alternatives 1-4 ................25
vi
INTRODUCTION
Purpose. Scope, and Authority
This Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report contains planning information
pursuant to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's responsibilities under the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (48 Stat. 401; 16 U.S.C. 661
667d) for the beach erosion control and hurricane protection study being
conducted by the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers for the Area South
of Carolina Beach, New Hanover County, North Carolina. The study is being
conducted under the authority of Public Law 87-874, 87th Congress, October
23, 1962 (House Document 418, 87th Congress, Second Session). This report
is submitted in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (op. cit.) and, when finalized, it will constitute the
Service's formal report required under Section 2(b) of that Act.
The purposes of this report are to document the proposed project's impacts
on fish and wildlife and to recommend measures to conserve fish and wildlife
resources. The contents of this report have been developed in coordination
with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Prior Studies
Numerous prior reports by the Service and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District (Corps), address fish and wildlife resources and
habitats and proposed projects within Carolina Beach and vicinity. The
Service and the Corps prepared reports on five previous Corps projects
located in or adjacent to the Town of Carolina Beach. The most relevant and
recent of these reports concerns beach erosion control at Carolina Beach
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (hereafter USACOE) 1981 and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (hereafter USFWS] 1981a}6 and beach erosion control at Fort
J
Fisher, North Carolina (USACOE 1982 and USFWS 1981b). Other relevant
projects are the dredging of Carolina Beach Inlet (USACOE (1980) and
1
Wilmington Harbor (USACOE (1990), USACOE (1991), USFWS (1991a) and USFWS
(1991b)). The documents most relevant to the current study are those
concerning Wilmington Harbor and the use of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Approved Wilmington Harbor Ocean Disposal Sites in conjunction
with these projects.
Many years ago, the Corps prepared a Design Memorandum for beach erosion
control at the "Area South of Carolina Beach" (USACOE 1967). The Service
prepared a Planning Aid Report for this project in 1989 (USFWS 1989), and
the Corps is presently preparing a Project Management Plan at this time
which will include the Design Memorandum and the Economic Analysis for this
project.
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The study area is located on Pleasure Island, originally a mainland
peninsula which is now an island, due to the construction of Snows Cut, a
man-made channel at the island's northern end. The island is bordered to
the weet by the Cape Fear River, to the north by Snows Cut and Carolina
Beach Inlet, to the east by the Atlantic Ocean, and to the south by New
Inlet.
The study area is characterized by a typical barrier island profile -
including beach, dunes, maritime shrub thicket/forest and other maritime
upland communities on the western side of the island, as well as marsh
communities along the back side of the island. The northwestern section of
Pleasure Island consists largely of undeveloped upland and wetland habitats
within Carolina Beach State Park. The town of Carolina Beach is the most
northern town on the island with the unincorporated Wilmington Beach/Hanby
Beach community bordering it to the south. Kure Beach is the next community
you reach as you travel south. An old civil war fort, Fort Fisher State
2
Historic Site, borders the study site to the south. A barrier spit extends
south of the Fort Fisher State Historic Site to New Inlet and the southern
end of the barrier spit is part of Zekes Island National Estuarine Research
Reserve. The study area consists of the Town of Kure Beach, the
unincorporated communities of Hanby and Wilmington Beaches to the north, and
adjacent waters where potential borrow areas are located (Figure 1).
Land Use
The Town of Kure Beach and its associated planning jurisdiction encompass
approximately 1,512 acres (Kure Beach 1985). Over half of this acreage,
approximately 59.3 percent, consists of undeveloped land within the buffer
(blast) zone of the U.S. Army's Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point
(MOTSU). An additional 150 acres is within the Fort Fisher Air Force Base.
The remainder consists of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational,
transportation, utilities, institutional and undeveloped uses. Development
in Kure, Hanby, and Wilmington Beaches is primarily associated with tourism.
The economy of the area is largely dependent on tourism, real estate sales
and rentals. Small and large single family dwellings, as well as several
story high condominiums line the beaches in the study area. Vacant land and
undeveloped tracts in Kure Beach are being developed with extensive clearing
of maritime shrub thicket/forest communities occurring. Currently, such
development is especially noted along the western side of US 421 which is
the road paralleling the beach. A 1990 population survey revealed that
Kure Beach has 1,488 residences, 82 percent of which are seasonal rental
units. Between 1985 and 1990, 6 subdivisions and 222 lots were approved in
Kure Beach; 411 building permits were issued and 98 residences were built
(Kure Beach 1990). These figures illustrate the rapid rate of development
occurring.
Topooraphv
Due to the presence of high relict dunes in Carolina Beach State Park,
3
Figure 1: Map of the Projact Site.
1 To Wilmington
New Hanover
County
Mainland
Brunswick now$ g~
County
Mainland
pe Fea?
River arolina
o
Military Ocean Terminal Beach
Sunny Point Pleasure
Island
Wilmington Beach/
i
Hanby Beach /
1 /
/ PROJECT
SITE
ure Beach /
O O /
76r F'isfer State Historic Site
Rocks
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
New Inlet
Zeke's Island National
Estuarine Research Reserve
JJC61
/Carolina
Beach Inlet
4
elevations within the general area reach as high as 40 feet above mean sea
level (msl). In the immediate study area, that is, the beach and dune
habitats along the shoreline, elevations vary from sea level to about 6 feet
above sea level. Average annual erosion rates of the ocean shoreline are
approximately 3 feet per year in the immediate study area (Figure 2).
Climate
Climatic conditions within the study area are mild (Weaver 1977). Average
annual temperature for the period 1952-1974 was 63.3 degrees Fahrenheit with
a frost-free period of mid-March to late October. Annual precipitation is
approximately 53.5 inches. About 45 thunderstorms occur per year, 27 of
them in the summer. Hurricanes cross the study area every few years.
Northeaster storms occur between October and May with strong northeast winds
blowing for several days. These storms often cause dramatic shoreline
changes and extensive damage to coastal development.
The predominant littoral drift in the area is from north to south. Winds
blow north and northeast 31.8 percent of the time; east, southeast and south
29.9 percent of the time; and southwest, west, and northwest 38.3 percent of
the time. The study area faces east and is thus affected most by the
easterly, northeasterly, and southeasterly winds (Moorefield 1978).
Soils
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service soils maps for
the area depict much of the general study area as underlain by hydric soils.
The sand on the beach and dunes is classified as Newhan Fine Sand which is
excessively drained and very rapidly permeable (Weaver 1977). Moorefield
(1978) describes the forebeach - nearshore sand in the Fort Fisher vicinity
as consisting of fine to very coarse quartz sand mixed with varying amounts
of coquina rock fragments, fragmented shells, and quartz pebbles.
5
A
0%
0
0
H
$a
E
b
m
41
a
b
a
D
m
41
-.1
to
41
V
m
-n
O
H
a .
mkD
?co
++ 0
H ,-4
O4.j
w?
m GJ
mQ)
41 v
a °'
ab
c
as
o?
m ro
0 41
H h
w(z
?0
aU
Ow
?0
a
0
b• N
H >
m -4
L? U
H
E Z
b? e
R co
O at
4,1
N
m
H
a?
w
W
?W
JC
U
Jill jiltillilli
N ? ? ? ? O h
6
132A mi airy ivnNNV 30VUVAV
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CONCERNS AND PLANNING OBJECTIVES
The involvement of the Service in this study is in response to a
Congressional mandate through the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act which
directs that fish and wildlife resource conservation shall receive full and
equal consideration and be coordinated with other features of federal
projects.
Fish and wildlife and their habitats are valuable public resources which are
conserved and managed for the people by State and Federal governments. If
proposed land or water developments may reduce or eliminate the public
benefits that are provided by such natural resources, then State and Federal
resources agencies have a responsibility to recommend means and measures to
mitigate such losses. In the interest of serving the public, it is the
policy of the Service to seek to mitigate losses of fish, wildlife, and
their habitats and to provide information and recommendations that fully
support the Nation's needs for fish and wildlife resource conservation as
well as sound economic and social development through balanced multiple use
of the Nation's natural resources.
Fish and wildlife resource concerns related to the present study center
around conservation of the remaining aquatic, wetland and important upland
habitats of the study area, including habitats within potential borrow
areas, and of the fish and wildlife which utilize these habitats. The
remaining undeveloped wetland and upland areas within and adjacent to Kure
Beach provide a buffer for the adverse impacts associated with urban runoff;
provide valuable fish and wildlife habitat; and provide an important
• recreational amenity for area residents. Remaining wetland.and aquatic
habitats are already threatened or affected by nonpoint-source runoff and
7
attempted drainage. These remaining habitats are further jeopardized by
proposals to develop additional areas for residential use.
Originally, four potential borrow sites for this project were identified,
all of which would have resulted in significant adverse impacts to
environmentally sensitive areas. The identified sites included estuarine
areas in the Cape Fear River - including a site designated as a secondary
nursery area; an estuarine area around Zekes Island, a National Estuarine
Research Reserve; as well as an upland site located along the western edge
of Pleasure Island which has been identified by the N.C. Natural Heritage
Program personnel as naturally significant habitat. All of these potential
sites have been deleted from consideration, and the Corps is now looking at
several offshore sand sources as borrow sites for the project. Deletion of
the original borrow sites has resulted in eliminating some of the major
Service concerns associated with dredging sand for use in beach nourishment.
While obtaining sand from the offshore sand sources is more acceptable than
utilizing any of the originally proposed potential borrow sites, there are
serious concerns related to offshore sand mining. The Service is concerned
about the possible effects to marine communities and to any hard bottom
which may lie adjacent to the offshore sand borrow sites.
We are also concerned about the effects that beach nourishment and regular
renourishment may have on nesting sea turtles, nesting shorebirds,
invertebrate organisms which inhabit the intertidal beach and subtidal
nearshore waters, and on fish and bird species which depend on the nearshore
and beach invertebrates for food. Of particular concern is the potential
effect that nourishment may have on the coquina rock community along the
nearshore and intertidal areas of Kure Beach.
The Service proposes the following planning objectives for the study area:
8
1. Modify construction activities as necessary to avoid adverse
impacts to organisms which inhabit the beach and nearshore habitats or which
utilize these habitats as nesting grounds.
2. Avoid any adverse impacts to the coquina outcrops in the area
including aivoidance of any activities which will bury the rocks, or cause
turbidity problems to organisms which inhabit the coquina rocks.
3. Obtain sand for beach nourishment from sites and in a manner which
will not result in significant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife habitat.
In accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, these planning
objectives should be given full and equal consideration with other features
of the study area. The following sections define the existing fish and
wildlife habitat values, assess the potential impacts of the proposed plan,
and provide the Service's recommendations for habitat conservation and
enhancement.
EVALUATION NETHODS
Descriptions of natural resources present within the study area and
assessments of anticipated impacts to these resources are derived from
previous studies on this and other projects, published literature, personal
communications with other biologists and planners, and qualitative
information obtained during site visits by Service and Corps personnel. No
quantitative studies of area resources or anticipated impacts were conducted
for this report. Nomenclature in this report follows Radford et al. (1968)
for plants; Robins et al. (1980) for fish; and Banks et. al (1987) for
• birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals.
Y
9
EXISTING FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
Significant natural resources in the study area discussed include fish and
wildlife habitats which will directly be affected by the proposed project.
Due to the elimination of environmentally sensitive estuarine areas and
significant upland natural areas from consideration as potential borrow
sites, these habitats are not discussed in this report. If project plans
change and estuarine or upland sites are considered as borrow sites, then
these habitats will require thorough discussion and an evaluation of impacts
will be necessary by the Service. The following fish and wildlife habitats
are discussed in this report:
* Maritime Shrub Thicket/Forest
* Sand Dunes
* Upper Beach
* Intertidal Beach with Coquina Rock Outcrops
* Nearshore Zone Including Surf Zone
* Offshore Area Where Potential Borrow Sites are Found
Maritime Shrub Thicket/Forest - Typical vegetation of the maritime shrub
thicket/forest is comprised mainly of salt-spray tolerant species such as
live oak (Quercus virginiana), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), yaupon (Ilex
vomitoria), red cedar (Juniper virginiana), catbriar (Smilax species) and
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Maritime shrub thickets/forests are important
resting and foraging sites for many migratory species such as magnolia
warblers (Dendroica magnolia), black-throated blue warblers (Dendroica
caerulescens), palm warblers (Dendroica palmarum), and important nesting
sites for species such as painted buntings (Passerina ciris), gray catbirds
(Dumetella carolinensis) and Carolina wrens (Thryothorus ludovicianus).
Davis (1979) recorded 107 species of birds in the Fort Fisher area during a
fall migration study in 1978 and the shrub thicket was the most heavily used
10
habitat in the vicinity. Barrier island shrub thickets are very important
resting and feeding sites for birds as they migrate down the coast. The
Fort Fisher area, in general, due to its orientation, serves as a "funnel"
for birds as they are migrating south along the coast. As they reach the
southwest end of the island, they rest and feed in the shrub thicket
communities before turning westward and crossing the Cape Fear River.
Sand Dunes - The Sand dune community is vegetated primarily by sea oats
(Uniola paniculata) and Andropogon species with scattered beach pea
(Strophostyles helvola), pennywort (Hydrocotyle bonarlonais), gaillardia
(aaillardia pulchella), sandspur (Cenchrus tribuloides), sea rocket (Cakile
edentula), seaside croton (Croton punctatus), beach spurge (Euphorbia
polygoniflora), evening primrose (Oenothera humifusa), and seaside elder
(Iva imbricata). Dunes provide protection to more inland environments -
protecting them from salt spray and wind forces. They provide foraging
habitat for birds such as red wing blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus), and
seaside sparrows (Ammospiza maritima), and are inhabited by mammals such as
marsh rabbits (Sylvilagus palustris), rice rate (Oryzomys palustris), house
mice (Nus musculus), and raccoons (Procyon lotor), and by reptiles, such as
black racers (Coluber constrictor) and five-lined skinks (Eumeces
inexpectatus). Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus tundrius), merlins
(Falco columbarius) and other raptors often forage on small rodents in the
dune community.
Upper Beach - The upper beach, also known as the berm region, between the
high tide line and the dune line, is largely unvegetated. Scattered clumps
of dune building species such as sea rocket are found in this area. These
plants trap sand and serve as the building blocks of dunes. This portion of
the beach is very important as nesting habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle
(Caretta caretta), and for shorebirds such as the American Oystercatcher
(Hemitopus palliatus), the Eastern willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), and
11
potentially for the Federally-listed threatened piping plover (Charadrius
melodus). Ghost crabs (Ocypode quadrata) also inhabit the upper portions of
the beach.
Intertidal Beach - The intertidal beach in the vicinity is very unusual due
to outcrops of coquina rock which have been exposed along the southern
section of the study area. The coquina rock is comprised of a porous
mixture of shell debris and quartz sand cemented together by calcium
carbonate (Moorefield 1978). A Service site visit was made on July 1, 1992.
The coquina outcrops are exposed along the beach in several pockets
seperated by sandy areas. Exposed coquina rock is found beteen the northern
edge of the Fort Fisher State Historic Site to an area approximately 700
yards north along the beach. The size of the clumps of exposed coquina rock
varies with one clump extending about 245 yards along the beach and another
only extending approximately 12 yards along the beach. These outcrops are
covered by various algae species including green, red and brown types. The
rocks provide hard substrate for a wide diversity of marine organisms such
as purple sea urchins (Arbacia punctulata), common sea stars (Asterias
forbesi), skeleton shrimp (Caprella penantis), various amphipods such as the
beach digger (Haustorius canadensis), anemones (unknown species), Atlantic
oyster drills (Urosalpinx cinerea), flat-clawed hermit crabs (Pagurus
pollicaris), striped hermit crabs (Clibanarius vittatus), stone crabs
(Menippe mercenaria), speckled crabs (Arenaeus cibrarius), blue crabs
(Callinectes sapidus), various polychaetes such as sea hares (Aplysia
brasiliana), and various fish such as blennies (family - Blenniidae), gobies
(family - Gobiidae), and skilletfish (Gobiesox strumosus). This outcrop is
the only one of its type in North Carolina (Andy Wood, Education Director,
North Carolina Aquarium at Fort Fisher, personal communication, 1992) and to
our understanding, it is the only natural intertidal rocky outcrop between
Maine and Florida. Nowhere else in North Carolina does such diversity of
organisms occur on an ocean beach. The intertidal sandy beach is also
12
inhabited by coquina clams (Donax variabilis and Donax parvulus) and mole
crabs (Emerita talpoida) and probably by amphipods such as Haustorius
species.
A study by Van Dolah and Knott (1984) identified 22 species and 9 major taxa
of invertebrates living in the intertidal zone of South Carolina beaches.
Overall, the dominant species was the coquina clam (D. variablis), and there
were more species of amphipods found than of any other taxa. Polychaetes,
nematodes and mole crabs were also very important. More species were found
in the mean low water area than in the mid and higher intertidal regions.
The mole crab and the amphipod (Amphiporeia virginiana) were restricted to
the mean low water area. At Myrtle Beach, the polychaste (Scolelepis
squamata) was the most abundant species in the lower intertidal areas
whereas at Cherry Grove, South Carolina, coquina clams were dominant.
These invertebrate species are important food to shorebirds and fishes
utilizing the nearshore zone. Various birds such as sanderlings (Crocethia
alba), black-bellied plovers (Squatarola squatarola), laughing gulls (Larus
atricilla), herring gulls (Larus argentatus), great black-backed gulls
(Larus marinus) and Eastern willets forage along the intertidal beach.
Nearshore Zone - The nearshore zone is generally thought of as extending out
as far as the point where waves do not scour the ocean bottom. The width of
the nearshore area varies, but typically it is described as extending out to
30 feet of water, and it includes the surf zone where waves break
(Leatherman 1988). In the surf zone and nearshore waters, many fish species
are found including estuarine dependent species, permanent residents, and
seasonal migrants. Examples include summer flounder (Paralichthyes
dentatus) bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), Atlantic croaker (Micropogon
undulatus), Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus), spot (Leiostomus
xanthurus), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), red drum (Scienops ocellata),
13
cobia (Rachycentron canadum), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), spiny
dogfish (Squalus acanthias), northern sea robin (Prinotus carolinus), and
pompano (Trachinotus carolinus). Panasid shrimp (Panaeus duorarum, P.
aztecus, and P. setiferus) also utilize this area. Gulls (Larus sp.), terns
(Sterna sp.), brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis), ospreys (Pandion
haliaetus), gannets (Morus bassanus) and loons (Gavia sp.) feed in the surf
zone and nearshore waters. The bottle-nosed dolphin (Tursiops truncates) is
common in the nearshore waters of North Carolina and other cetaceans also
enter the nearshore waters occasionally. Invertebrates such as crustaceans,
polychastes and molluscs comprise the benthic community of the nearshore
waters.
Van Dolah and Knot (1984) conducted benthic surveys off of Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina and found that infaunal assemblages at nearshore subtidal
areas were more complex than those at intertidal areas. They found 243
species representing 24 major taxa. The most dominant species were
polychaetes, Spiophanes bombyx, Caulleriella killariensis, Clymenella
torquata, Modiomastus californiensis and the amphipods, Batea catherinensis,
Erichthonius brasiliensis, Ampelisca vadorum, and Unicola serrata.
Oligochastes, pelecypods, and decapods were also highly represented. These
invertebrates serve as food to fish and larger invertebrates and are an
important part of the nearshore marine community.
At the southern end of the project site, coquina rock outcrop extends out
into nearshore waters in some sections (Moorefield 1978). The subtidal
areas of the coquina rock also contain a large diversity of organisms with
species such as starfish, anemones, sea urchins, various crabs, and fish
such as blennies and gobies inhabiting the coquina substrate. Just off the
beach in the subtidal areas you can find octopi (Octopus sp.) hiding in the
crevices of the coquina rock (Andy Wood, Education Director, N.C. Aquarium _
at Fort Fisher, June 1992).
14
Offshore Area Where Potential Borrow Sites are Found - The majority of
potential offshore borrow sites are located outside of the 30 foot contour
and are thus considered as outside the limits of the nearshore zone (Figure
3). In the offshore waters, certain estuarine dependent species spawn and
the larvea make their way into the estuaries for growth and development.
Examples include spot, croaker, weakfish, red drum, southern flounder,
summer flounder, penaeid shrimp, and Atlantic menhaden. Many species spawn
much farther offshore than the location of the potential borrow sites, but
the larvae must pass through this area as they move toward the inlets.
Besides estuarine dependent species, other larvea are found in the vicinity
of the offshore borrow sites. A study conducted off of North Carolina
divided the continental shelf into a "seaward" section defined as greater
than 30 meters deep, and a "shoreward" section defined as waters less than
30 meters deep. The "shoreward" zone includes the area of the potential
borrow sites and larvea of the following species were found in this zone:
bluefish, anchovies (Engraulidae), Atlantic menhaden (Scomber scombus),
small-mouth flounder (Etropus microtsomus), hakes (Urophycis spp.), Atlantic
croaker, sea robins (Prinotus epp.), Gulf Stream flounder (Citharichthys
arctifzrons), butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus), windowpane (Scopthalmus
aquosus), lanternfish (Ceratoscopelus maderensis) and summer flounder (U.S.
Minerals Management Service (hereafter USMMS) 1990).
Van Dolah and Knott (1984) sampled the benthos offshore the South Carolina
coast, sampling some hard bottom areas and some live bottom areas. They
found 167 species representing 9 major taxa. McCrary and Taylor (1986)
studied benthic macrofauna assemblages offshore Fort Fisher, North Carolina.
Their grab samples were taken from between approximately .5 to 2 miles
offshore. They found many polychaete species, isopods, amphipods, decapods,
molluscs, echinoderms, many nematodes, and a few Amphioxus (Brachiostoma
caribaeum) in the benthic samples. In reference to one of their sampling
locations located approximately .5 mile offshore, they state that it was
15

op
00
N
Ch
0)
N
G)
n
On
W
W
O
N
tL
0
O
U
M
71
4!

o
14 \
O
m
m
N
O
Yd
W
O
F-4 ?J
? a
P4
x• I \
r'1
m
1d
b+ ?
0y

1 I
'? cx
1 o od "yCOO
m cc CIO
E.W..
1
G o !_ ( (n
I
1 I I O W O
\
w a
o .o
Z =: z o
N , -x , as ?I O ^ d = w GQ
x
ll -j u
Y"y Le` Q O01
x/Ax x W 1 O V, h+N
."x x R M R % x !$ /
Y /l x
If0 M - ( f }
I rt 1r x e•r x s x
/
34 /
\I x x07( • :0 I
n0 _ . f
w I of
•? I
? I 1 1
? I I
.F 1 1 / w0 \
// I w0 \
V , • r w0 \\
S ne y
1 ?
1 • ?0 ?
I I
\ y ?e r• / b /
I ?
5e
' x ox x
i" - y?SlM"3e x
N 1, ?
L) \ x
} x 1 i
y \ '/
` \ 1 1 Z0 } }fix % 11
x 7r? W
\ \,\ `?+1 xry?? ' a
•\ x tY •
\ L x } ?
\\ " e
" 3
x ='? 1 0
r _
\ \\ Ik x cr-
x j \\ C a:
/ xx xxxx 1 I \ m
I C
?- xxN xxx I I 3? 31 O
x x x
M LL.
" I C
Cc x I Q
W x 1
x x w
1
f!1 .? x x\ x x I i 1 / 'J cn a:
ww x x x Z Q
I /
fn W
I 11 I / U W J Y
a? i 1 ? W Q U
ID Z 3
- W CL
WI O
a v,
16
obvious that hard bottom was in the vicinity, although hard substrate was
not found in the sediments samples of the site. They found 33 Chrysopetidae
individuals, a family which is predominately associated with coral or other
hard substrates.
The benthos inhabiting the potential offshore borrow areas serve as food for
commercially important species and are essential in marine food chains. For
example, adult spot are benthic feeders, primarily eating polychaetes and
benthic copepods. Atlantic croaker are also bottom feeders, preying on
polychaetes and bivalves, and pink and white penaid shrimp also prefer
benthos.
Bottle-nosed dolphins are common in this area. Several large cetaceans
migrate along the North Carolina Coast and occasionally they appear in
waters close to shore. Included are humpback whales (Megaptera
novaeangliae), and northern right whales (Balaena glacialis). Humpback
whales migrate in waters between 66 and 240 feet deep. During spring
migration, northern right whales migrate immediately adjacent to the coast,
and probably utilize deeper waters during fall migration. Sie whales
(Balaenoptera borealis) and blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus) may occur
offshore North Carolina on an irregular basis. Fin whales are thought to
winter offshore North Carolina and sperm whales are pelagic species which
occur on the outer continental shelf year round. It is possible that all of
these species will enter the waters in the vicinity of the potential
offshore borrow sites. All five western Atlantic sea turtle species have
been sighted in ocean waters off the North Carolina coast. Most sightings
of the Kemp's Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi) have been within a few
miles offshore. The hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) is rare
north of Florida, but there have been limited sightings off the North
Carolina coast. The leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is found
between 10 to 30 miles offshore during April through October and seldomly
17
comes closer into shore. Green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) have been
sighted in oceans and sounds of North Carolina (USMMS 1990), and the
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), a species which nests on North
Carolina beaches, utilizes the ocean waters and is likely to be found in the
vicinity of the offshore borrow sites.
The ocean waters offshore Cape Fear contain a high number of hard bottom
habitats (USMMS 1990). Located to the south of the potential borrow sites,
is a well known hard bottom called Sheepshead Rock. It is approximately 1
mile to 1.5 miles off the Fort Fisher spit - south of the potential borrow
sites. There is also an artificial reef offshore about 2.7 miles south of
Carolina Beach Inlet (Steve Murphy, NC Division of Marine Fisheries,
personal communication, 1992). According to Bob Dickson (NMFS, personal
communication, July 1992), there is a hard bottom area called "High Rock"
approximately .25 miles off of Fort Fisher. This rock is within only 9 feet
of the surface at low tide. There are no other known hard bottoms in the
immediate area but due to the patchiness of hard bottoms and the small size
of many, vibracore borings may not indicate their presence unless the cores
are taken very close together (Bob Dickson, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Beaufort laboratory, personal communication, July 1992).
Dr. Bill Cleary of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, is
conducting a study concerning the movement of sand off of recently
renourished beaches, Wrightsville Beach to the north of the study site and
Carolina Beach. To date, most of his work on this project has focused on
Wrightsville Beach. He has found that there are many more hard bottom areas
in the nearshore zone within 1 or 2 miles of shore than was previously
thought and the distribution of rock is very patchy. In some locations, 5
to 6 feet of sand covers the rock at times. There are also large
depressions filled with sand in places with hard bottom only 100 meters or
18
so away (Bill Cleary, Univeristy of North Carolina at Wilmington, personal
communication, July 1992).
The Corps has taken vibracore borings in the potential borrow sites and they
do not indicate the presence of hard bottom. However, more vibracores are
needed in order to accurately map out the borrow sites (Daniel Small,
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers, personal communication, June 1992).
The location of the boring samples are shown in Figure 3 by the circles
marked "c" or "k." Dr. Cleary's future research should involve taking
additional very closely spaced cores and using cameras off of the Carolina
Beach and Fort Fisher area to identify the bottom (Bill Cleary, UNC-W,
personal communication, July 1992).
Endangered and Threatened Species
The Federally -,listed threatened loggerhead sea turtle nests on beaches in
and adjacent to the study area. In 1990, 6 nests were recorded at Kure
Beach, and 2 were recorded in 1991. Just south of the study site, at Fort
Fisher, 13 nests were recorded in 1990 and 15 in 1991. At Carolina Beach,
to the north of the study site, 5 nests were recorded in 1990 and 18 were
counted in 1991 (Therese Conant, Sea Turtle Coordinator, N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission, personal communication, June 1992).
The green sea turtle which is a Federally - listed threatened species has
been documented to nest on Bald Head Island located approximately 10 miles
to the south of the study site, although this was an isolated occurrence.
On June 17, 1992, a Kemp's ridley turtle nested on Long Beach about 30 miles
southwest of the study site. This positive identification is the first
record of this species nesting in North Carolina. However, two other
descriptions of sea turtles nesting in North Carolina during 1992 fit the
description of the Kemp's ridley turtles (Therese Conant, Sea Turtle
19
Coordinator, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, personal communication,
Jume 1992).
The Loggerhead and green sea turtles and potentially, the Kemp's ridley and
leatherback sea turtles are found in the nearshore ocean waters in the Y
project vicinity as are various marine mammals. The National Marine
Fisheries Service has responsibility for marine species including sea
turtles "when in the water," and they should be contacted regarding any
marine endangered and threatened species which may be affected by the
project.
The piping plover is a Federally-listed threatened species. This species'
decline is attributed to increased development and recreational activities
on beaches. Vehicle and foot traffic on beaches can directly crush eggs and
chicks or indirectly lower productivity by disrupting territorial
establishment and breeding behavior. Increased development of beach areas
also has resulted in an increase in plover chick and egg predators, such as
gulls and racoons.
The piping plover has been documented just south of the study site. At the
southern end of Fort Fisher near New Inlet, piping plovers are regularly
seen resting and foraging on the beaches during migration and during winter.
During the 1991 and 1992 nesting season, an area was staked off to prevent
off-road vehicles and pedestrians from disturbing the site so that piping
plovers would have a better chance at nesting. Several piping plovers were
observed in the staked-off area during the 1991 nesting season, but they
failed to nest there. However, the area is considered prime piping plover
nesting habitat by John Fussel, a North Carolina avian expert (Dr. John
Taggart, Director, N.C. National Estuarine Research Reserve, personal
communication, June 1992).
20
Piping plovers prefer upper edges of overwash areas at inlets or large open
unvegetated beaches for nesting. The highly developed nature of the beaches
within the study site very likely excludes the area as prime piping plover
nesting habitat. However, it is possible that piping plovers will utilize
r.. project beaches, and precautions should be made to avoid any impacts to
them.
Seabeach amaranth is proposed for Federal listing as threatened. It
generally occurs in large barren areas of extreme overwash, often near
inlets. Suitable habitat for seabeach amaranth may occur in the study area,
although the study area is located several miles from the closest inlet, and
large overwash areas are absent from the study area. Where found, seabeach
amaranth grown along beaches between dunes and the high tide line and helps
to trap sand and build dunes.
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate" species are not legally protected under the Endangered
Species Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section
7, until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered.
These species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be
protected under the Act. Of the candidate species found in Hew Hanover
County, dune blue curls (Trichostema sp.) is the only one which is likely to
occur in the study area. This plant occurs on well-drained soils between
stable dunes or along roadsides (Duncan and Duncan 1987). Although this
species is not legally protected at this time, the Service would appreciate
anything the Corps could do to protect it.
21
FUTURE FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT
In the future, development will continue and all remaining undeveloped
tracts of maritime shrub thicket and other uplands will very likely be
turned into residential property. Terrestrial wildlife populations will
decline if habitat is not maintained at its present extent, with the
exception of those species well adapted to human perturbations.
Beach erosion is expected to continue and accelerate with sea level rising.
Beach front property will be lost to the sea due to storms and general
shoreline retreat, and US Highway 421 may be flooded or even destroyed.
Beach erosion will result in diminished sea turtle nesting habitat and bird
resting and nesting habitat. On an undeveloped beach, sea level rise and
beach erosion would not result in overall longterm habitat lose because
natural coastal processes would maintain the barrier island profile through
washover and landward retreat of the island. Washover processes would carry
and across the island and eventually result in the movement of dunes and
each farther landward. However, on developed islands, condos, roads, and
houses prevent the natural landward retreat and the beach generally is
unable to survive sea level rise and beach erosion. A single hurricane
could completely destroy Kure Beach and vicinity development, but,
prediction of such an event is impossible. General shoreline retreat and
beach erosion can be expected to result in the loss of turtle nesting
habitat, bird foraging, resting, and nesting habitat, and beach invertebrate
habitat.
With sea level rising and erosion continuing, there may be pressure to
resort to extreme erosion control measures such as constructing bulkheads
and other hard structures. Construction of such structures is inconsistent
with the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act and its current policy
regarding hard structures. Revetments and other inflexible structures cause
22
wave energy to reflect downward from the revetment, and the longshore
current is strengthened with an acceleration of beach erosion resulting.
often, eventually a complete lose of beach occurs as has happened in many
instances where these static structures have been constructed.
r
Without the project, the coquina rock community should experience minor
changes due to different levels of exposure each year. As sea level rises,
the intertidal coquina rock outcroppings may become subtidal and the
community structure may change. Some intertidal organisms of the coquina
rock requiring a period of exposure will be replaced by subtidal organisms.
Other organisms inhabiting the intertidal regions of the coquina
outcroppings, can live in subtidal or intertidal hard bottom habitats.
Additional coquina rock, farther landward than the present exposed
outcroppings, may become exposed in the future, thus maintaining the extent
of the intertidal communities. In general, the Service believes that,
without the project, invertebrate organisms inhabiting the coquina rocks
should continue to do well, and species diversity should remain high.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Borrow material - Borrow areas have been located one to two miles offshore.
Two major areas were identified as containing sufficient sand quantities and
qualities for beach nourishment. The corps indentifies these as areas A and
B, and they further delineate them as A-South, A-North, B-East, and B-West
(Figure 3). Vibracore borings have been made in and around these potential
borrow areas. The average quality and quantity of available material is
known for A-South, A-North, and B-West and is shown in table 1.
• The Corps stated that additional vibracore borings will be taken in order to
map out a detailed profile of the borrow sites prior to mining the sites
(Daniel Small, USACOE, personal communication, July 1992).
23

Table : Borrow Area Material Data (Corps 19 92)

Borrow Area volume PHI S2 overfill % % i Renourishment
unit s Ratios Fine s Shell Sa nd Factor

A-South 8,200,000 1.22 1.19 1.00 7 4 89 0.72
A-North 2,470,000 1.26 1.07 1.00 6 2 92 0.83
B-West 14,540,000 1.22 1.14 1.00 5 12 83 0.75
B-East
Native Beach 1.58 1.17 1.00 2 6 92
* undetermined
Beach Fill Desians
Several dune and storm berm alternative dimensions are being considered by
the Corps: Four alternatives involve a 25 feet wide dune with a 1:10 dune
slope and a 9 feet high, 50 feet wide berm with a 1:10 fore-shore slope.
The elevations of the dunes of the four alternatives are different and are
as follows: Alternative 1 - 17.5 feet, Alternative 2 - 15.5 feet,
Alternative 3 - 14.5 feet, and Alternative 4 - 13.5 feet (Figure 4). All
alternatives involve vegetating the dune and the slope to the berm.
Alternative 5 is a storm-berm only alternative with a 9 feet high, 150 feet
wide storm berm with a 1:10 fore-shore slope. According to the Corps,
variations in the berm width of the storm berm only alternative also have
been investigated. Alternative 2, with the 14.5 feet high dune and storm
berm is the Corps' preferred alternative at this time (USACOE 1992).
7
The nourished area will extend from the southern limit of the town of
Carolina Beach for 18,200 feet to a point at Kure Beach. At the northern
end of the current project, the nourished beach will join directly to the
berm and beach at Carolina Beach which was last nourished in 1991. There
will be a 1700 feet transition section at the southern end of the project
24
m
m
41
a
a
N
m
41
R
'd
a
. a
m
•.1
w
0
N
a
rl
01
m
V4
?w
N
a p?
3 ?
O
.0
CA N
?m
?m
W ON
A
mw
?w
•?+ O
W
P4 9'
aN
? O
W U
w
Oa
a
4?
Up
m
mq
O
O W
• N
U m
41
ad
?b
m?
N v
IT qw
••+ 1
w r4
Ln
N
a
04 ? /" ? I
a ? {/ I
a ? ? I
r
N In in
I
? I
S t
m
m
m
cn
f X
r e
m
N
m
m

m
f?
I
A
Ic
w
to
z
0
H
H
H
W
c?
W
7
W
a
oa
a
E4
m
w
0
W
z
H
a
E4
w
a
M
w
z
0
x
w
E+
w
w
w
z
H
W
zU
a
H
m
M
0
w
0
A
41
a
0
m
m
a
qv
N
f•f Ch
.7/ rl
m d
a .. >,
M a
0?
.?
AU
m
bm r-4
m0 a
41
m
m
0 N pl
row m
cc 41
d
41 0 V
?
.
o? 0 ,d
V
'
41 "04
W -Ai N
Id m
? rn N
41" a
w? x
0 >.
41 U ?
m N
"1'^ 0
DAs to
U
0U m
0 d
•rl
o? ? d
0 0
N
mu a
14A z
z4
0
1 >
z
aeDR ZAOHK LHOIZE
25
N LO m Lf? m Lr)
I
where beach fill will taper into the shoreline. This transition zone is
parallel to the southern end of a large condo complex named Ocean Dunes.
The Town of Kure Beach and unincorporated Wilmington and Hanby Beaches will
be included in the nourishment project.
Beach nourishment will require 4.6 million cubic yards of sand for the
initial construction and an estimated 1.2 million cubic yards every 5 years
for maintenance. For the 50-year life of the project, this equals 15.4
million cubic yards of sand required. The Corps is considering coordinating
the renourishment activities with the Carolina Beach project (Corps 1992).
Method of Dis22sal on the Beach
Three alternatives are being considered for dredging the borrow material and
disposing of it on the beach. Alternative A will use an ocean-certified
pipeline dredge with direct pumping onto the beach, with or without a jack-
up booster. This alternative would involve placing pipes on the ocean
bottom from the borrow site(s) to the beach. A jack-up booster may be
required in order to provide enough pressure to move the material the 1 to 2
miles from the borrow site to the beach.
Alternative B would involve an ocean certified dredge, and a spider rigg
would pump the material from the ocean certifed dredge to a scow or barge.
The scow would be towed to an offshore pump-out station where material would
be pumped directly to the beach.
Alternative C would utilize a hopper dredge connecting to a single point
mooring with pumpout onto the beach. The hopper would dredge the material
at the borrow site and then transport it to an offshore pumpout station
where it would be pumped directly to the beach from the hopper. The hopper
would make several trips to obtain more sand from the borrow sites.
26
Pipeline dredges are less seaworthy than are hopper dredges, thus they have
more trouble working in offshore waters during the winter than do hopper
dredges. The Corps' tentative date for construction to begin is October
1995. The first year's nourishment is planned for January 1996.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
Impacts due to Minina Sand from Offshore Borrow Sites:
Immediate impacts to the benthic community at the offshore sand sites will
result from dredging. Most benthic organisms will suffer immediate
mortality with unknown rates of recolonization. The long term impacts of
dredging on offshore benthic communities has been studied in only a few
instances, with differing results. Some studies indicate that there is
little difference in density and species diversity of benthos at offshore
sites which had been dredged versus control sites (Stauble and Nelson 1985).
Other studies have indicated a decline in species diversity, organism
abundance, and biomass of benthos at offshore borrow sites (Navgi and Pullen
1982). Saloman et al. (1982) found a decline in diversity and abundance of
bottom dwelling invertebrates in offshore borrow pits as a result of
dredging. Impacts were short term and recovery was complete after 1 year.
Turbeville and Marsh (1982) found that there were no significant long term
effects on species diversity and faunal densities at offshore borrow sites
dredged 5 years previously compared to control sites. Yet, these
researchers indicate that their results are inconsistent with those of
Saloman (1974) who studied a 3 year old borrow site near Treasure Island,
Florida. Saloman (1974) found a decrease in diversity and abundance of
invertebrates in borrow areas versus adjacent relatively undisturbed bottom.
If the offshore borrow sites are located adjacent to hard bottom habitats,
then serious impacts to these live bottoms may result from high turbidity ,
related to dredging or as a result of actual destruction of the hard bottom
27
by dredging machinery. Turbeville and Marsh (1982) site a study reporting
that corals near borrow pits off of Hallandale Beach, Florida, received
substantial damage due to careless handling of dredging equipment during an
offshore dredging and beach nourishment project.
The effects that dredging sand from the offshore borrow Bites will have on
fisheries is unknown. Digging a hole offshore may discourage fish, or it
may attract fish by providing habitat heterogeneity. If benthic organisms
do not recover rapidly from dredging, then certain fish and other organisms
which depend on benthos for food may suffer. No studies concerning the
affects of dredging sand from borrow sites off the North Carolina coast have
been conducted in the past. Biological monitoring is needed in order to
determine what effects mining offshore sand has on marine communities in and
adjacent to borrow areas and on the nearby shoreline.
Impacts to Beach and Nearshore Organisms due to Beach Nourishment:
Depositing sand on beaches results in negative impacts to organisms due to
burial, compaction, and resuspension. The burial of organisms, such as
coquina clams, mole crabs, amphipods, polychaetes and other invertebrates,
of the surf zone and beach will usually result in temporary elimination of
these organisms with the exception of any highly mobile species or any
species able to withstand prolonged periods of burial. The ability to
recolonize and the success of recolonization will be affected by the time of
year at which nourishment occurs, the frequency of renourishment, and the
ecology of the organisms affected. Compaction of sand causes problems for
beach invertebrates and for nesting sea turtles. Invertebrate organisms may
not be able to move up through heavily compacted sand, and sea turtles have
problems moving through and digging nests in compacted sand. Compaction may
also affect the moisture levels and temperature of sand. Beach nourishment
may lead to resuspension of fine sediments which may increase turbidity to
levels damaging to fish and invertebrates.
28
Reilly and Bellis (1978) studied the effects of depositing 902,174 cubic
meters of sand on the beach at Bogus Banks in Onslow County. Sediments were
deposited at a depth of 2 meters and as a result of nourishment, the
intertidal zone was moved 75 meters seaward in one day. Nourishment
occurred between December and April. The researchers sampled the intertidal
organisms before and after nourishment at the nourished beach and at a
nearby control beach. They found complete mortality of mole crabs and
coquina clams after nourishment.
Reilly and Bellis (1978) state that species recruited from pelagic larval
stocks, such as mole crabs and coquina clams, will recover if nourishment
activity ends before larval recruitment begins in the spring. Coquina clams
spend the summer in the intertidal regions of the beach, move offshore
during the winter, and in the spring, recruitment begins with juveniles and
adults approaching the beach. In the Bogus Banks study conducted by Reilly
and Bellis (1978), nourishment was still being conducted during March, the
recruitment period of the coquina clam. No increase in coquina clams
occurred until July 29th, two months after cessation of nourishment, and
populations failed to reach pre-nourishment, pre-winter numbers. At the
control site, coquina clam numbers also decreased during winter as they
moved offshore. However, during March, numbers at the control site
increased to high levels. This study indicated that adult coquina clams
were probably killed in their offshore wintering environment, and beach
nourishment activities, most likely high turbidity, prevented normal pelagic
larvae recruitment. The individuals that eventually arrived were post
metamorphic adults likely to have diffused from area beaches via littoral
drift.

Reilly and Bellis (1978) found the complete absence of mole crabs within one
week of the beginning of the nourishment project at Bogus Banks. Numbers
were also reduced at the control site as adults moved offshore to spend the
29
winter. Overwintering adult mole crabs returned to the control site in
April and the young of the year from pelagic larval stocks returned later in
the spring. The return of mole crabs at Bogue Banks lagged one month behind
that at the control site and then only young of the year mole crabs appeared
at the nourished beach. The lack of adults at the nourished beach resulted
in drastic reduction in overall biomass of mole crabs.
Dr. Robert Dolan of the University of Virginia is presently studying the
effects of beach fill activities on mole crabs at Pea Island National
Widlife Refuge (NWR) in Dare County, North Carolina. Preliminary results
indicate that nourishment has a dramatic impact on mole crab numbers in the
area where beach fill is placed. Mole crab numbers remain particularly low
for 45 to 60 days after nourishment is finished. His studies also indicate
that nourishment should not occur during the spring, when mole crab
recruitment is occurring (Dr. Robert Dolan, University of Virginia, personal
communication, June 1992).
For species spending their entire life cycles in the intertidal regions of
the beach, the impacts of beach nourishment may be more serious. Haustorius
sp., an amphipod found on many beaches, recovered very slowly after
nourishment in the above-mentioned study by Reilly and Bellis (1978) at
Bogus Banks. After nourishment, no amphipods were found on the beach until
late summer and recovery then was probably due to recruitment from nearby
areas.
Chavrat (1987) (as reported in Nelson (1988)) studied the impact of beach
nourishment on sandy beach amphipods in Florida. Nourishment did not appear
to have any significant effect on species richness or amphipod abundance,
but sand was deposited only above the high tide line.
30
The study at Bogus Banks by Reilly and Bellis (1978) also indicated that
numbers of migrating consumers such as the speckled crab (Arenaues
oribrariua), the lady crab (Ovalipes ocellatus), the ghost crab (Ocypode
quadrats) and the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) were drastically reduced
after nourishment activities. This may be attributable to greater turbidity
causing resident populations to move elsewhere, a change in beach slope and
offshore bars making approach to the beach difficult, or more likely a
reduction in the abundance of prey (Reilly and Bellis 1978). Other
consumers, such as fish and birds, also may suffer as a result of a
reduction in prey caused by beach nourishment.
Nelson and Collins (1987) studied beach nourishment effects at Sebastian
Inlet, Florida. They looked at mean abundance and species diversity of
benthic macrofauna and fishes. They did not find any evidence that
nourishment is having a significant impact on these parameters, and they
attributed this to the careful methods used in that particular nourishment
project. All of the material was placed above high tide, and earth moving
equipment was used rather than hydraulic pumping.
Nelson and Collins (1987) also experimentally buried certain organisms.
They found that mole crabs experienced little mortality when buried in 10
centimeters (cm) of fine sediment during a 24 hour period, but they found a
55 percent mortality rate when mole crabs were buried in 10 cm of coarse
sediment. Mole crabs were able to move better through fine sediments than
through coarse sediments. Only 2.5 percent of mole crabs studied reached
the surface of a 10 cm mound of coarse sediments, while 85 percent of mole
crabs studied reached the surface of a 10 cm mound of fine sediments.
Coquina clams on the other hand, experienced greater mortality in fine
sediments than in coarse sediments (Nelson and Collins 1987).
31
Goldberg (1985) (as reported in Goldberg (1988)) found that one year after a
nourishment project in Broward County, Florida, was complete, infauna just
offshore were regaining taxonomic diversity, but abundance was still as low
as 62 percent below pre-nourishment numbers. Saloman and Naughton (1984)
looked at the effects of a nourishment project at Panama City Beach,
Florida. They found significant decreases in species abundance and
diversity of organisms in the swash zone during a 5 to 6 week period after
nourisment. On the other hand, Gorzelaney (1983) (as reported by Stauble
and Nelson (1985)) examined the biological impacts of nourishment project on
Indialantic and Melbourne Beach, Florida. Nourishment occurred between mid-
t
October and January, and the researcher found no negative long term effects
to nearshore fauna.
Reeuspension of fine materials may affect areas outside of the immediate
vicinity of nourishment and may occur for some time after cessation of the
project. Resuspended fine particles may increase turbidity and siltation
which is the precipitation and accumulation of the turbidity producing fine
material. Reilly and Bellis (1978) found that after beach nourishment, the
total suspended solids load in the nearshore waters adjacent to the beach
nourishment project was much higher than the load of "normal sea water."
Fish and invertebrates may smother when gills are clogged due to high
suspended solid loads, and decreasing light may reduce primary productivity.
A beach nourishment study by Saloman and Naughton (1984) revealed that
turbidity was relatively low during nourishment with the exception of points
where high organic content material was dredged and deposited on the beach.
At one site where the dredge encountered mud, turbidities were as high as 86
Jackson turbidity units (JTUs). At another site, where deposited material
was nearly all clean sand, the turbidities immediately after dumping ranged
from 1.3 to 7.7 JTUs. Beach disposal of dredged material at Atlantic Beach,
N.C. resulted in turbidities as high as 250 nephelometer turbidity units
32
(NTUs) in the vicinity of the discharge pipe, and they rapidly decreased as
one moved away from the discharge pipe (USACOE, 1990). One JTU is
approximately equal to 2 NTUs. State water quality regulations require that
in waters classified as SC, turbidity due to discharge must not exceed 25
NTUs (North Carolina Department of Environment Health, and Natural Resources
1991).
Turbidity may cause problems for the nearby coquina rock community. Many
organisms which are susceptible to turbidity related suffocation inhabit the
coquina rocks of the intertidal and subtidal regions of Kure Beach as well
as those rock communities extending farther offshore. Goldberg (1985) gives
an example of a Florida nourishment project which resulted in damage to a
nearby rocky environment 50 to 60 meters offshore. Seven years after the
project, the rocks were still covered in fine sand and silt, and turbidity
of the nearshore area remained high.
Long-term effects of beach nourishment are not well-studied in North
Carolina. Research is limited to the study at Bogus Banks by Reilly and
Bellis (1978), to studies on Hatteras Island by Hayden and Dolan (1974), and
to studies at Pea Island NWR currently being conducted by Dr. Robert Dolan.
Comprehensive studies looking at the effects of nourishment on intertidal
and subtidal communities are needed.
In Florida, such extensive studies are beginning to become an essential part
of beach nourishment activities. For example, a two year comprehensive
monitoring project of beach nourishment activities at Redington Beach,
Florida was recently conducted. Researchers sampled the benthos and
analyzed sediment along closely spaced transects extending from the beach to
a water depth of about 5 feet. Surveys occurred prior to beach nourishment
and then monthly after nourishment for two years (Davis 1991). Rakocinski
et al. (1991) are conducting an extensive 2.5 to 3 year study of the effects
33
of beach nourishment on macro invertebrates at Perdido Key in Florida.
Sampling transects extend from the beach out to 800 meters offshore. While
this study is inconclusive at this time, initial sampling efforts indicated
that numbers of intertidal and subtidal organisms, species richness, and
total densities of invertebrates were drastically reduced after nourishment
with varying degrees of recovery. More studies of this nature, and studies
specific to the North Carolina coast, are needed, before one can develop a
clear understanding of the effects of nourishment on the beach and nearshore
community.
Impacts to Sea Turtles:
If beach nourishment occurs during the sea turtle nesting and hatching
season, then nests or hatchlings may be buried by beach fill. More indirect
effects to sea turtles such as those caused by beach compaction and
unnatural beach profiles may result from beach nourishment activities,
despite the period of nourishment activities.
Dumping sand on beaches may disrupt nesting sea turtles by causing sand to
compact so tightly that turtles have a difficult time moving through the
sand and digging nests. Nesting sea turtles more often reject nests sites,
make false crawls and false digs, and excavate atypical nest cavities on
compacted beaches than on natural beaches (Nelson and Dickerson 1988).
Compaction may also increase the length of time required to excavate a nest
and thus cause physiological stress to the turtles (Nelson and Dickerson
1988).
Compaction may indirectly affect the temperature of nests. Nests on
compacted beaches are often more shallow than those on natural beaches and
shallower nests are warmer than the typical light bulb-shaped nests. The
type of sand used for nourishment may also affect beach temperature. Sands
34
from oxidized sources such as inlets are typically light in color and result
in a cooler beach than do dark sands from unoxygenated offshore sites.
The sex of loggerhead sea turtles appears to be largely affected by nest
temperature during 11 to 31 days into incubation. Warmer temperatures
result in females, and cooler temperatures result in males. Minor changes
in beach and nest temperatures could possibly alter the sex ratios of
loggerhead turtle eggs.
According to Nelson and Dickerson (1988), the level of compaction of a beach
can be assessed by measuring sand consistencies using a cone penetrometer.
Sand consistencies above about 550 pounds per square inch increased digging
times of sea turtles. Tilling of a nourished beach reduces the compaction
to levels comparable to unnourished beaches. A root rake with tines at
least 42 inches long and less than 36 inches apart pulled through the sand
is recommended (Nelson and Dickerson 1988).
Often beach nourishment results in a steep escarpment between the beach fill
area and the natural offshore slope. Such a change in beach profile may
cause access problems for nesting sea turtles or obstruct hatchling sea
turtles on their way to the ocean.
Efforts should be made to ensure that the beach profile after nourishment is
a natural, gently sloping beach rather than a layered beach with sharp
escarpments which might hinder nesting sea turtles as well as hatchlings.
Summary of Imvacts:
The following impacts are expected to result from the proposed project.
Immediate mortality to benthos will result from mining the sand from
offshore borrow areas and recovery rates for the benthos are unknown.
Immediate mortality of coquina clams, mole crabs, and other invertebrates
35
through burial will result from dumping the sand on the beach, but, mole
crabs and coquina clams are expected to recover if nourishment ceases before
spring when juvenile recruitment to the beaches begins. The recovery
potential of other beach species is unknown. Increased turbidity at the
offshore borrow areas due to dredging and in the nearehore waters due to the
rapid loss of materials from the nourished beach, may clog gills of fish and
invertebrates, including tt.ose inhabiting the coquina rocky outcrops.
Mortality of beach invertebrates and nearehore invertebrates and fish may
affect other species such its birds and larger fish depending on these
species for food. Nourishment: may result in an unnatural beach profile with
sharp escarpments, may cause tiand compaction or alter other sand properties,
and thus, could affect sea turtle nesting success. Removing sand from the
offshore borrow sites could result in increased wave velocities along the
project shoreline or adjacent beaches if these sand mounds presently serve
to attenuate waves. The effects of offshore sand mining on fish and the
ocean environment in the vicinity, are unknown.
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
A comparison of the alternative offshore borrow sites, the different beach
fill designs and nourshment alternatives, and the alternative dredging
procedures to be used, is made in order to recommend the alternatives
potentially resulting in the fowest and least significant impacts to fish
and wildlife resources.
Offshore Borrow Sites - Potential offshore borrow sites being considered are
shown in Figure 3. Use of material from the borrow area with the lowest
percentage of fine materials should result in the least rapid lose of
• material from the nourished beach. For the 50 year life of the project,
borrow sites A-South, A-North, and B-West may all need to be utilized.
Vibracore borings data from the Corps indicates that there is considerable
36
vertical and horizontal variability of sand consistency within the potential
borrow sites. While some borings had an overall low percentage of fines,
others had medium or high fines contents within portions of the core. The
Corps has indicated that additional vibracore borings will be made so that
the Corps is able to differentiate between suitable and unsuitable sands
within the large borrow sites (Daniel Small, Wilmington District, personal
communication, June 1992). Selection of a borrow site located a
considerable distance away from any hard bottom is environmentally preferred
over use of a borrow site adjacent and in close proximity to hard bottom
habitats.
Beach Fill Desions - A dune and berm plan will offer more protection to the
structures along the beach than will the berm only design, and may provide
wildlife habitat if properly vegetated and maintained. Hanson and Brynes
(1991) tested 4 beach fill designs with a computer simulation program using
data taken at Ocean City, Maryland. Only one design included construction
of a large protective dune and this was the most resilient to simulated
hurricanes and back to back northeasters. The construction of a dune may
limit the frequency of renourishment by providing added protection to the
oceanfront structures. In some cases the construction of large continuous
dunes has altered the natural barrier island profile by preventing natural
overwash processes from occurring. Such extensive dunes also often provide
a false sense of security with development occurring immediately behind
them. However in this situation, the area is already developed and if the
present structures and road are to be protected, a dune and berm design
should be more effective than a berm only plan. The construction of a
continuous dune may also reduce the desire for hard structures in the
future.

37
Method of Disposal on the Beach - The hulls of hopper dredges are often
overfilled and as a result, fine materials spill out of the hopper as it
travels. A benefit of this occurrence is the deposition of more suitable
sand on the beaches during nourishment. However, increased turbidity,
likely to result from the spillage of fine material from the hopper dredge,
is undesirable. If a hopper dredge is used, ocean bottom will be disturbed
from the hopper dredge's nearshore location to the beach.
If a pipeline dredge is used, pipes will be placed on the ocean floor from
the offshore borrow site all the way to the beach and approximately 2 miles
of ocean bottom will be disturbed. The pipeline dredge is less likely to
result in high turbidity because fine materials will not spill out, but the
resulting nourishment material will contain more fine material than if a
hopper dredge is used.
Several things must be considered in order to determine the method that will
result in the fewest and least significant environmental impacts. The
pipeline dredge may result in more disturbance to the ocean floor while the
hopper dredge may cause increases in turbidity as it loses fine material.
The pipeline dredge may result in a higher silt content deposited on the
beach than will the hopper dredge.
Pipeline dredges are less seaworthy than are hopper dredges, and pipeline
dredges are often unable to work in the winter due to storms. Hopper
dredges are slower in getting the job completed than are pipeline dredges
because hoppers must make many trips back and forth from the borrow sites to
the offshore pump-out stations, due to the load capacity of their hulls.
Each method has its own constraints. We have recommended that work be
completed between November 16 through January 15 of any year. The method
allowing work to be completed during the recommended time frame, will be the
38
most environmentally acceptable method. If that method is a hopper dredge,
then appropriate precautions should be taken such that siltation is not a
problem.
FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MEASURES
Fish and wildlife conservation measures as specified in the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act consist of "...means and measures that should be
adopted to prevent the loss of or damage to such wildlife resources
(mitigation), as well as to provide concurrently for the development and
improvement of such resources (enhancement)." Mitigation, as defined by the
Council on Environmental Quality and adopted by the Service in its
Mitigation Policy, includes:
1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts
of an action;
2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action
and its implementation;
3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
affected environment;
4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action; and
5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources or environments.
These five actions should be viewed as the proper sequence for formulating
conservation measures.
39
Enhancement measures are those which result in a net increase in resource
values under the with-project condition compared to the without-project
condition. For any given type, kind, or category of resource being
evaluated, all project-associated losses must first be compensated, (i.e.,
fully replaced, before any enhancement of that given resource can occur).
We commend the Corps for deleting the previously identified potential borrow
sites within estuarine habitats and significant natural areas from
consideration. This elimination has resulted in avoidance of some of the
most significant potential adverse environmental impacts to fish and
wildlife resources. In order to minimize impacts associated with the sand
mining of offshore borrow sites, the Corps should conduct dredging
activities during the least biologically sensitive period of the year.
Dredging in offshore borrow areas should not occur between mid January
through June in order to avoid the impacts to offshore spawning fish and
shrimp (Fritz Rhode, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, personal
communication, June 1992). In order to avoid direct impacts to nesting sea
turtles, nourishment should be avoided between May 1 and November 15. If
nourishment occurs during the winter months and ends before spring larval
recruitment begins, then coquina clams and mole crabs should be able to
recover from nourishment activities.
Taking into consideration the potential impacts to spawning fish and shrimp,
to beach and nearshore invertebrates, and to sea turtles, the Service
believes that sand mining and nourishment should occur between November 16
and January 15 of any year. This dredging and nourishment window will
minimize impacts to spawning fishery species such as white and brown shrimp,
allow recovery of beach invertebrates depending on recruitment by pelagic
f
larvae, and minimize impacts to nesting loggerhead sea turtles and nesting
shorebirds.
40
The sand consistency of the beach after nourishment should be determined
with a cone penetrometer and if readings of 550 pounds per square inch or
higher are found, then the nourished beach should be tilled. The beach
profile resulting from beach nourishment should be characterized by a gentle
slope without high escarpments potentially hindering sea turtles. If the
nourished beach profile is unnatural and high escarpments between the beach
fill area and the lower beach result, then the Corps should use earth moving
machinery to physically manipulate the sand so that a natural profile is
created.
To reduce overall impacts from dredging activities in the Cape Fear region,
the Corps should assess the possibility of utilizing material for
nourishment from the EPA-approved Wilmington Harbor offshore dredged
disposal site. Material has been placed at this site as a means of disposal
during dredging activities in the Cape Fear River and Wilmington Harbor. If
sand grain sizes are appropriate and toxic substances, such as heavy metals,
are not found in the sediment, then the use of this stockpile of dredged
material would recycle dredged materials and result in less of an
environmental impact than would mining sand from an undisturbed offshore
borrow area.
As part of mitigation plans, the Corps should incorporate a comprehensive
monitoring program which will determine the long-term effects of beach
nourishment on beach and nearshore organism populations and community
structure. To date, North Carolina beach nourishment projects have not
involved comprehensive biological and geophysical monitoring studies. In
this case, we believe such studies are essential and should be designed to
assess the effects of offshore sediment removal, to assess the recovery of
the offshore borrow areas, and to assess long-term impacts to beach and
nearshore fauna as a result of nourishment. ..
41
Any pipeline routes passing through wetlands should be avoided. If
pipelines routes pass through dune vegetation, then the dune sediment and
vegetation must be restored immediately after each nourishment activity is
completed.
Impacts to the coquina rock community should be avoided. Nourishment should
not extend as far south as the area where coquina is exposed on the beach.
Monitoring should involve a close examination of the effects that
nourishment is having on the coquina rock community. If burial of the rocks
or long term turbidity in the area results in mortality of the coquina rock
community, then the next scheduled nourishment should be altered or
terminated, and appropriate mitigation measures implemented by the Corps.
DISCUSSION
Beach nourishment has been used extensively as an erosion control measure
with varying results. Some nourishment projects have restored beaches for
years and with other projects, the benefits have lasted only a few months.
The success of any nourishment project is partially related to the
comparability of the sediment qualities of the existing beach sand and the
borrow site material and the way in which the sand is deposited. Zarillo st
al. (1985) stress that an understanding of how sediment is dispersed within
the littoral zone is necessary before beach nourishment projects are
planned.
Nourishment generally displaces the beach farther seaward and thus "sets is
back in time," but nourished beaches often erode more quickly than natural
beaches due to fine sediments being lost and rapid erosion of sediments at
the edges of the fill area. These sediments often erode rapidly due to
longshore sediment transport to neighboring beaches with the nourished area
acting as a feeder beach to nearby beaches (Dean 1983).
42
Although there are serious concerns related to beach nourishment, we believe
that beach nourishment offers many advantages over other erosion control
methods. It results in a more natural shoreline than does the use of hard
structures such as bulkheads, jetties, and revetments. The result is
aesthetically pleasing and if planned and implemented carefully, nourishment
projects should not permanently destroy fish and wildlife habitat or disrupt
natural coastal processes. The benefits of beach nourishment include wider
protection for coastal development from large waves and storms, more
recreational resources, more wildlife habitat for organisms such as nesting
sea turtles and birds nesting and resting on beaches, and the management
flexibility to nourish when needed.
Monitoring of beach nourishment projects has been inadequate in the past.
In Florida, the most recent nourishment projects have required pre- and
post-monitoring aspects. The State of Florida has developed guidelines for
nourishment projects which include the need for monitoring programs that
establish baseline data conditions, assess impacts to organisms, and
determine recovery rates of infauna after mortality associated with
nourishment.
Standard monitoring should be conducted for North Carolina projects
including pre-project and post-project sampling at the nourished beach, an
adjacent or nearby control beach, and borrow sites. Transects for sampling
infauna should pass across both intertidal and subtidal zones of the beach.
Stauble and Nelson (1985) give more detailed recommendations for monitoring.
They recommend that sampling should be conducted monthly beginning several
months prior to nourishment, weekly for 1 to 2 months after nourishment, and
monthly for the next 9 to 12 months thereafter.
43
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The service recommends that the following fish and wildlife conservation
measures be incorporated into the proposed project plan.
1) Sand mining and beach nourishment should occur between November 16 and
January 15 of any year, if at all possible. This will minimize
impacts to nesting sea turtles, nesting shorebirds, fish and s h r i m p
species spawning offshore in the area of the borrow sites, and should
allow spring recruitment of mole crabs and coquina clam larvae to the
beach community.
2) Beach nourishment should not extend as far south as the exposed
coquina rock outcrops so as to avoid burial of and adverse turbidity
impacts to the coquina rock community.
3) During any year, after nourishment ceases, and prior to the sea turtle
nesting season, sand hardness should be tested using a cone
penetrometer. If sand compaction is greater than or equal to 500
pounds per square inch, then the beach should be tilled so that sand
compaction and resulting sand characteristics will not adversely
affect nesting and hatchling sea turtles.
4) The beach profile resulting from beach nourishment should be
characterized by a gentle slope without high escarpments potentially
hindering sea turtles. If the nourished beach profile is unnatural
and high escarpments between the beach fill area and the lower beach
result, then the Corps should manipulate the sand so that a natural
profile is created.
44
5) A comprehensive biological and geophysical monitoring plan should be
developed in order to assess the long term effects that offshore sand
mining and beach nourishment have on beach and marine ecosystems.
This monitoring plan should involve benthic and nekton surveys before
and at regular intervals after nourishment and offshore sand mining.
Beach surveys should involve benthic sampling along transects
extending from the upper beach out to subtidal nearshore waters.
6) Sand mining should be conducted in a manner which will avoid adverse
impacts to any hard bottom communities at or in the vicinity of the
offshore borrows sites. Dredging should not occur in any hard bottom
areas or in close proximity to hard bottoms. Vibracore borings should
be made close enough together to ensure that hard bottom habitat will
not be disturbed or adversely affected.
7) Impacts to dune and beach vegetation should be avoided. Any
unavoidable damage to dunes and dune and beach vegetation should be
mitigated through replacement of the disturbed communities.
45
SUNKARY OF FINDINGS AND SERVICE POSITION
The service believes that beach nourishment is the most environmentally
acceptable means of shoreline erosion control. There are, however, serious
concerns related to beach nourishment and its effects on beach and nearshore
communities and borrow sites. We recommend that dredging and nourishment
occur between November 16 and January 15 in order to avoid and minimize
impacts to nesting sea turtles and shorebirds, spawning fish and shrimp and
to allow recruitment of beach invertebrates after nourishment. We are
concerned that beach nourishment will affect the coquina rock community at
the southern end of the project and we recommend that the project terminate
north of the coquina outcrops. We are very pleased that the Corps has
deleted estuarine sites and significant natural upland communities as
sources of sand for nourishment. The Service believes that the Corps should
assess the possibility of using the material deposited at the EPA-approved
Wilmington Harbor offshore disposal site approximately 3 miles from the
study site. If this is feasible, then the overall impacts of dredging in
the Cape Fear River, may be reduced. In order to assess the long term
impacts of nourishment and offshore sand mining on beach and nearshore
communities, we recommend that a comprehensive biological and geophysical
monitoring program be incorporated into the project.
46
LITERATURE CITED
Banks, R.C., R.W. McDiarmid, A.L. Gardner. (eds). 1987. Checklist of
vertebrates of the United States, the U.S. territories, and Canada.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 166. 79 pp.
Chavrat, D. L. 1987. Aspects of the ecology of sand beach amphipods: '
spatial distribution patterns and effects of beach nourishment.
M.Sc. Thesis, Florida Inst. of Tech., Melbourne, Florida. (as
reported in Nelson (1988)).
Davis, R.A, Jr. 1991. Performance of a beach nourishment project based on
detailed multi-year monitoring: Redington Beach, Florida. In Kraus,
N.C., K.J. Gingerich, and D.L. Kreibel (eds). 1991. Coastal
Sediments '91 Volume II - Proceedings of a Specialty conference on
Quantitative Approaches to Coastal Sediment Processes. American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York. 2360 pp.
Davis, R.J. 1979. The fall land bird migration at Ft. Fisher, North
Carolina. Report for Directed Individual Study (under Dr. James F.
Parnell), University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington,
North Carolina. 38 pp.
Dean, R.G. 1983. Principles of beach nourishment, In Komer, P.D. (ed).
CRC Handbook of Coastal Processes and Erosion. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL. pp. 217-231.
Duncan, W.H. and M.B. Duncan. 1987. The Smithsonian Guide to Seaside
Plants of the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts from Louisiana to
Massachusetts Exclusive of Lower Peninsular Florida. Smithsonian ,
Institute Press, Washington, D.C. 409 pp.
47
Goldberg, W. M. 1985. Long term effects of beach restoration in Brevard
County, Florida, a three year overview. Unpublished Report to
Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board and Erosion
Preservation District. (As reported in Goldberg 1988).
0
Goldberg, W. M. 1988. Biological effects of beach restoration in South
Florida: the good, the bad, and the ugly. In Tait, L.S. (ed). 1988.
Beach Preservation Technology '88: Problems and Advancements in Beach
Nourishment - Proceedings. Florida Shore and Beach Preservation
Association, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida.
Gorzelany, J.F. 1983. The effects of beach nourishment on the nearshore
benthic macrofauna of Indialantic and Melbourne Beach, Florida, M.S.
Thesis, Florida Institute of Technology. Melbourne, Florida. 114 pp.
(As reported in Stauble and Nelson 1985).
Hansen,M. and M.R. Brynes. 1991. Development of an optimum beach fill
design cross-section. In Kraus, N.C., K.J. Gingerich, and D.L.
Kreibel (ode). Coastal Sediments 191 Volume II - Proceedings of a
Speciality Conference on Quantitative Approaches to Coastal Sediment
Processes. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. 2360 pp.
Hayden, B. and R. Dolan. 1974. Impact of beach nourishment on
distribution of Emerita talpoida, the common mole crab. J.
Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering Division. ASCE 100: WW2:
123-132.
Kure Beach, Town of. 1985. Kure Beach Land Use Plan Update. Kure Beach
Mayor's Office and Board of Commissioners, Kure Beach, North
Carolina. 49 pp.
48
Kure Beach, Town of. 1990. Kure Beach Land Use Plan Update. Kure Beach
Mayor's office and Board of Commissioners, Kure Beach, North
Carolina. 74 pp.
Leatherman. S.P. 1988. Barrier island handbook. The University of =
Maryland, College Park, Maryland. 93 pp.
McCrary, A.S. and A.Y. Taylor. 1986. Macroinfauna study - Fort Fisher,
North Carolina. Unpublished report, University of North Carolina at
Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina. Submitted to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina. 25 pp. + app.
Marsh, G.A., P.R. Bowen, D.R. Deis, D.B. Turbeville and W.R. Courtenay, Jr.
1980. Ecological Evaluation of a Beach Nourishment Project at
Hallandale (Broward County), Florida, Vol. II, Evaluation of a
Benthic Community Adjacent to a Restored Beach, Hallandale (Broward
County), Florida. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering
Research Center, Miscellaneous Report 80-1(11).
Moorefield, T.P. 1978. Geologic processes and history of the Fort Fisher
coastal area, North Carolina. M.Sc. Thesis, East Carolina
University, Greenville, North Carolina. 100 pp.
Navqi, S.M. and E.J. Pullen. 1982. Effects of Beach Nourishment and
Borrowing on Marine Organisms. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Misc. Rept. 82-14.
49
Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1988. Effects of beach nourishment on
sea turtles. In Tait, L.S. (ad). 1988. Beach Preservation
Technology '88: Problems and Advancements in Beach Nourishment -
Proceedings. Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Inc.,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Nelson, W.G. 1988. An overview of the effects of beach nourishment on the
sand beach fauna. In Tait, L.S. (ad). 1988. Beach Preservation
Technology '88: Problems and Advancements in Beach Nourishment -
Proceedings. Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Inc.,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Nelson, W.G. and G.W. Collins. 1987. Effects of Beach Nourishment on the
Benthic Macrofauna and the Fishes of the Nearshore Zone at Sebastian
Inlet State Recreation Area, Technical Report 87-14, Department of
oceanography and ocean Engineering. Florida Inst. Tech. to U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. 180 pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. 1986. Long term
average annual erosion rate maps for the project site - updated
through 1986. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management. 1991. Administrative Code
Section: 15A NCAC 2B .0100 - Procedures for Assignment of Water
Quality Standards, 15 NCAC 2B .0200 - Classifications and Water
Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina.
Raleigh, North Carolina. 25 pp.
50
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular
Flora of the Carolinas. University of the North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 1183 pp.
Rakocinski, C., S.E. Lecroy, J.A. Mclelland, and R.W. Heard. 1991.
Responses by Macroinvertebrate Communities to Beach Nourishment at
Perdidio Key, Florida. Gulf Coast Research Laboratory. Annual
Report for the National Park Service, Gulf Islands National Seashore,
Gulf Breeze, Florida. 69p.
Reilly, F.J. and V.J. Bellis. 1978. A Study of the Ecological Impact of
Beach Nourishment with Dredged Materials on the Intertidal Zone.
East Carolina University Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources
Technical Report No. 4, Greenville, NC, 107 pp.
Robbins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N.
Lea, W.B. Scott. 1980. A list of Common and Scientific Names of
Fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries
Society, Special Publication No. 12. 174 pp.
Saloman, C.H. 1974. Physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of
the nearshore zone of Sand Key, Florida, prior to beach restoration,
Vols. 1 and 2, National Marine Fisheries Service, Gulf Coast
Fisheries Center, Panama City, FL. (As reported by Turbeville and
Marsh, 1982)
Saloman, C.H. and S.P. Naughton. 1984. Beach Restoration with Offshore
Dredged Sand: Effects on Nearshore Macrofauna, U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, NOAA Tech.
Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-133. 20 pp.
51
Saloman, C.H., S. P. Naughton, J.L. Taylor. 1982. Benthic community
response to dredging borrow pits, Panama City Beach, Florida. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Misc.
Report No.82-3. Fort Belvoir, VA. 30 pp.
Stauble, D.K. and W.G. Nelson. 1985. Guidelines for beach nourishment: a
necessity for project management. In Magoon, o.T., H. Converse, D.
Miner, D. Clark and L.T. Tobin. (ode). 1985. Coastal Zone '85
Volume I. Proc. of the 4th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management.
Baltimore, Maryland. 1232 pp.
Turboville, D.B. and G.A. Marsh. 1982. Benthic fauna of an offshore
borrow area in Broward County, Florida. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Misc. Report No. 82-
1, Fort Belvoir, VA. 41 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1967. Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane
Wave Protection. Carolina Beach and Vicinity, Area South of Carolina
Beach, North Carolina. Wilmington Corps District, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28 pp.
. 1980. Final Environmental Statement - Carolina Beach Inlet,
North Carolina. Wilmington Corps District, Wilmington, North
Carolina. 29 pp.
1981. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Beach Erosion
Control and Hurricane Wave Protection - Carolina Beach and Vicinity,
New Hanover County, North Carolina. Wilmington Corps District,
Wilmington, North Carolina. 72 pp.
52
1982. Fort Fisher, North Carolina, General Design Memorandum
Phase II - Design Memorandum 2 - Project Design. Wilmington Corps
District, Wilmington, North Carolina. 35 pp.
1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Long-term
Maintenance of Wilmington Harbor, N.C.. Wilmington Corps District,
Wilmington, North Carolina. 100 pp.
1990. Wilmington Harbor - Bald Head Island - Evaluation
Report - Section 933, PL 99-662. Wilmington Corps District,
Wilmington, North Carolina. 44 pp.
1991. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact: Maintenance Dredging in Wilmington Harbor Ocean Bar Channels
by Ocean Certified Hydraulic Pipeline, or Bucket and Barge Dredge
with Disposal in the Wilmington Harbor Ocean Dredge Material Disposal
Site, Brunswick County, North Carolina. Wilmington Corps District,
Wilmington, North Carolina. 36 pp.
1992. Preliminary project information - Area South of
Carolina Beach - provided by the Wilmington District Corps of
Engineers. July 1992.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981a. Draft Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act Report - Carolina Beach Erosion Control and
Hurricane Protection, Raleigh, North Carolina. 25 pp.
1981b. A Report on Fish and Wildlife Resources Affected by M
the Fort Fisher Project, North Carolina. Raleigh Field Office,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 18 pp.
53
1989. Planning Aid Report, Area South of Carolina Beach
Project. Raleigh Field Office, Raleigh, North Carolina. 43 pp.
1991a. Wilmington Harbor Passing Lane - Draft fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act Report. Raleigh Field Office, Raleigh,
North Carolina. 52 pp.
1991b. Wilmington Harbor Turns and Bends - Draft Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act Report. Raleigh Field Office, Raleigh,
North Carolina. 55 pp.
U.S. Minerals Management Service. 1990. Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf
Final Environmental Report on Proposed Exploratory Drilling Offshore
North Carolina. Vol I. U.S. Minerals Management Service. Atlantic
OCS Region, Environmental Assessment Section, Herndon, VA. 881 pp +
app.
Van Dolah, R.F. and D.M. Knot. 1984. A biological assessment of beach and
nearshore areas along the South Carolina Grand Strand. Final Report
to U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Marine Resources Division, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine
Resources Department, Charleston, South Carolina. 58 pp.
Weaver, A. 1977. Soil Survey of New Hanover County, North Carolina, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Wilmington,
North Carolina. 69 pp.
r
54
Zarillo, G.A., J. Liu, and Hsiao-Shu Tsien. 1985. A new method for
effective beach-fill design. In Magoon, O.T., H. Converse, D. Miner,
D. Clark and L.T. Tobin. (eds). 1985. Coastal Zone '85 Volume I.
Proc. of the 4th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management.
Baltimore, Maryland.
q
55
RESPONSE TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS
In their Draft Supplement to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report for
the Carolina Beach and Vicinity Area South project (Attachment B), the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recommended measures which they believe
should be incorporated into the project plan to reduce project impacts to fish
and wildlife resources. The Service's recommendations and the extent to which
they have been incorporated into the project plan are as follows.
1. Recommendation - The sand mining and beach nourishment should occur
between November 16 and January 15 of any given year, if at all possible.
This will help minimize impacts to nesting sea turtles, nesting shorebirds,
fish and shrimp, species, spawning offshore in the area of the borrow sites,
and should allow spring recruitment of mole crabs and coquina clam larvae to
the beach community.
Implementation - To the extent possible, dredging and disposal of dredged
material will be limited to the shortest period possible, and during periods
of lowest biological activities. However, project construction is expected to
take approximately 8 months with construction extending from November 15
through July 30. Project maintenance is expected to take less time and is
expected to be closer to the recommended timeframe.
The original construction schedule for the Carolina Beach Area South
Project estimates that construction will take approximately 8 months to
complete with work occurring between November 15 and July 15. This timeframe
is based on the use of one ocean-certified 30-inch hydraulic pipeline dredge
to pump approximately 3,372,000 cubic yards of sand from the offshore borrow
area. Dredging during this timeframe would extend the dredging operation to
approximately 8 months due to wave environment offshore. The Value
Engineering Study (VE) for the Area South project proposed using two ocean
certified hydraulic pipeline dredges during the summer months when the wave
environment would be the mildest. Based on the VE study, the construction
schedule could be reduced from 8 months to approximately 2.8 months by
utilising two ocean-certified 30-inch dredges concurrently within the same
borrow area. Offshore dredge production rates would typically be maximised
during this 5-swath period (from May through September) due to calmer offshore
conditions during this period. Higher dredge production rates equate to a
shorter dredging period. Another alternative to the original construction
method would be to use a single dredge during the summer months. A single
dredge working during the summer months could do the work in approximately 6
months. Based on the VE study the feasibility of performing initial
construction during the May through September timeframe with one or two
dredges being considered. A more detailed analysis of the proposed summer
construction schedule can be found in Attachment D of the FEIS.
2. Recommendation - Beach nourishment should not extend as far south as the
exposed coquina rock outcrops so as to avoid burial of and adverse turbidity
impacts to the coquina rock community.
Implementation - The District has conducted a study to assess the
potential impacts of beach nourishment activities on the coquina rock
outcrops. The results of this analysis can be found in the Attachment F of
the FEIS. Briefly, the results of this investigation indicate that material
transport along this stretch of the shoreline is primarily driven by extended
northerly wind. The coquina rock outcrops appear to be acting as a natural
low-level groin, retaining material to the north during the winter months
(prevailing northerly winds). Littoral material fill in naturally up to the
elevation of the outcrops. Littoral material in excess of the natural groin
capacity of the rock outcropping migrates to the beach south of Fort Fisher.
During the winter months the outcroppings appear to capture littoral material
(up to the capacity of the low-level groin) being transported to the south.
The northern portions of the rock outcropping are typically buried during the
winter months. The outcrops are exposed during the summer months except
during some major storms.
Encroachment on the coquina rock outcrops at the southern terminus of the
project would be avoided to the maximum extent possible by transitioning the
project fill north of the outcrops. After project construction and subsequent
periodic renourishment, there will be more material on the beach profile,
which will be subject to littoral drift. Portions of the landward sides of
the northern most outcrops are expected to be covered by the material similar
to what is already occurring. The areal extent of this coverage cannot be
quantified at this time. Physical monitoring will be conducted during
construction to document whether any changes in sand movement observed are the
result of natural influences or beach restoration. Specific provisions of the
physical monitoring plan will be coordinated with interested agencies.
3. Recommendation - During any year after nourishment ceases, and prior to
the sea turtle nesting season, sand hardness should be tested using a cone
penetrometer. If sand compaction is greater than or equal to 500 pounds per
square inch, then the beach should be tilled so that sand compaction and
resulting sand characteristics will not adversely affect nesting and hatching
sea turtles.
Implementation - Compaction levels within the beach disposal area will be
determined using a cone penetrometer following completion of the beach
disposal project. Any areas that exceed an average greater than 500 cone
penetrometer index (CPI) units will be tilled. A copy of the sampling scheme
will be sent to the USFWS for approval prior to sampling.
4. Recommendation - The beach profile resulting from beach nourishment should
be characterized by a gentle slope without high escarpment potentially
hindering sea turtles. If the nourished beach profile is unnatural and high
escarpments between the beachfill area and the lower beach result, then the
Corps should manipulate the sand so that a natural profile is created.
Implementation - The design berm elevation is identical to the naturally
occurring berm. Typically, escarpments are not a problem with design berms
that approximate natural elevation. However, should escarpments occur on the
beach after construction or after each maintenance period, the escarpment will
be graded prior to the sea turtle nesting season during any given year in
order to permit sea turtle nesting on the beach.
5. Recommendation - A comprehensive biological and geophysical monitoring
plan should be developed in order to assess the long term effects that
offshore sand mining and beach nourishment have on beach and marine
ecosystems. This monitoring plan should involve benthic sampling along
transects extending from the upper beach out to subtidal nearshore waters.
Implementation - A biological monitoring plan will be developed to assess
• qualitatively, not quantitatively, project impacts on fish and benthic
organisms in the initial borrow area after construction, to help determine the
level and rate of species colonization and recovery, and whether that
particular borrow area should be reutilized as a source of beach material for
future maintenance operations. Biological sampling will include one control
site outside of the immediate borrow area to document natural changes that
occur over the life of the project. Project monitoring will include
preconstruction or baseline sampling with a post-construction survey being
done immediately after dredging. A 6-month and 12-month survey of the borrow
area will also be done. Bathymetric surveys will be taken to assess rate of
infilling of the borrow area, as well as changes in bottom conditions.
Physical sampling (e.g., grain-size analysis) of the infilling material will
be done to assess sediment and rate of infilling of the borrow area overtime.

A number of baseline studies (i.e., Hayden and Dolan 1974, and Reilly and
Bellis, 1978) have been done documenting the ecological impacts of beach
nourishment operations on benthic communities along coastal beaches. Some of
these studies are referenced, and their findings discussed, in the EIS. A
study by Reilly and Bellis (1978) entitled A Study of the Ecological Impact of
Beach Nourishment With Dredged Material of the Intertidal Zone stated, "Beach
nourishment virtually destroys existing intertidal macrofaunas however,
recovery is rapid once the pumping operation ceases. In most cases, recovery
should occur within one or two seasons following the project completion."
Similar findings were reached by Van Dolah (1992) in a study of the impacts of
a beach nourishment project in South Carolina. A study done by the National
Marine Fisheries Service on the effects of beach nourishment on nearshore
macrofauna concluded that beach nourishment projects using offshore dredged
material have no harmful effects provided that the sediments are similar to
those where they are placed (Saloman and Naughton 1984). Currently, a
baseline, long-term quantitative study is being conducted by R. Dolan et al.,
University of Virginia, on the effects of beach disposal of dredged material
from Oregon Inlet on intertidal organisms along the ocean beach of Pea Island
National Wildlife Refuge, Dare County, North Carolina. The Wilmington
District is funding this study in conjunction with the maintenance dredging of
the Oregon Inlet Navigation Channel with disposal along the ocean beach of the
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. This 3-year study is expected to provide
definitive documentation on the long-term recolonization and recovery of
intertidal organisms on beaches that receive dredge material on a regular
basis, and is expected to address the issues and concerns relative to
environmental consequences of long-term beach disposal in general.
Preliminary results from this study are expected to be available around
September or October 1993. We recommend that the results of this long-term
monitoring study be be reviewed prior to a decision on whether a long-term
monitoring plan be implemented for the Area South project. The results of
this study will be shared with interested Federal and State agencies for their
consideration.
6. Recommendation - Sand mining should be conducted in a manner which will
avoid adverse impacts to any hard bottom communities at or in the vicinity of
` the offshore borrow sites. Dredging should not occur in any hard bottom areas
or in close proximity to hard bottoms. Vibracore borings should be made close
enough together to ensure that hard bottom habitat will not be disturbed or
adversely affected.
Implementation - Based on our documentation (i.e., vibracore sampling and
magnetometer and side-scan sonar surveys) there are no hard bottoms within the
limits of the offshore borrow areas surveyed. However, to help further refine
and document whether isolated hard bottom areas less than a meter high are
present, the existing magnetometer, fathometer, and side-scan sonar records
will be analysed to determine if any evidence exist that they are present.
Underwater video coverage of any suspected areas will be made for confirmation
and documentation should the review indicate their presence. Any documented
areas would be mapped and avoided during dredging. During preparation of
plans and specifications additional vibracore sampling with closer spacing of
the borings in the offshore borrow areas will be done to further refine the
areas to be dredged and the locations of suitable material. The spacing of
these borings will help refine our existing data on whether any isolated hard
bottom areas exist in the proposed borrow areas. An underwater survey using a
remote camera will be deployed should any isolated areas be identified. The
results of this study will be shared with all interested agencies.
7. Recommendation - Impacts to dune and and beach vegetation should be
avoided. Any unavoidable damage to dunes and dune and beach vegetation should
be mitigated through replacement of the disturbed communities.
Implementation - Project construction will result in disturbance and
removal of some of the existing vegetation along the seaward side of the
existing dune. Project construction, however, will include measures designed
to stabilize the constructed dunes. Dune stabilization would be accomplished
by the vegetative planting of the dune during the optimum planting seasons and
following the berm and dune construction. Planting stocks shall consist of
sea oats and American beachgrass. The vegetative cover shall extend from the
landward toe of the dune to the seaward intersection with the storm berm for
the length of the dune. American beachgrass will be the predominant plant
with sea oats as a supplemental plant. Planting would be accomplished during
the season best suited for the particular plant. Maintenance of the project
would involve placing material along the berm. Therefore, minimal impacts to
dune vegetation should occur.

ATTACHMENT D - COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DEIS
Copies of letters and correspondence received on the DEIS and the Corps
response to each comment.
r
10
I si 0 North Carolina National Fshmine Research Reserve
Col. Walter S. Tulloch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
x,
I ~
Dear Col. Tulloch:
1 The draft EIS for the offshore borrow project to renourish
the Carolina Beach area was passed to me for review. I was
disappointed to find that my letter to Dan Small was not included
in the scoping correspondence for the project. It is enclosed.
2 1 am glad the project has eliminated the groin and reduced
potential impacts to the Zeke's Is. component of the NC National
Estuarine Research Reserve. 1 still have some concerns about
protection of hard bottom habitats, and I encourage you to
consider a more extensive mapping of the.area adjacent to the
proposed borrows. Even if hard bottoms do not occur within the
borrow itself, adjacent hard bottoms and their biota can be
negatively affected by dredging activity in the region. Covering
of attached organisms by drifting fine sediments is one 'example of
3 such negative effects. On pages 10 and. 11 the EIS indicated that
certain negative effects were "unquantifiable". Data may be
lacking at this time, but I disagree that effects can not be
4 quantified. I encourage the USACOE to initiate companion studies
to accompany this program to investigate the following: .
1) Whether borrow dredging enhances or negatively disturbs fish
feeding in the area.
2) Related to the above whether dredging tends to aggregate or
repel certain species.
3) Rate and mechanisms of recovery to pre-dredging conditions
biologically and-.physically.
These studies are minimal suggestions and would not be overly
expensive to conduct. These data would be useful for evaluating
future impacts of similar projects.
5 One large biological error exists in the report <p. 18, 3rd
para. The animals listed spawn offshore from late fall through
late winter not "during the summer". Larvae traverse the
nearshore shelf from at least October - March to recruit into
estuaries mostly from January - May. Only the red drum in that
list spawns inshore during summer.
1 hope these comments may be useful. I am willing to discuss
any aspects of the project with your staff.
Si cerely,
w
?
Steve W. A;toss
Research Coordinator
cc: F. Rohde, M. Currin, J. Taggart, R. Shaw
The North Carolina National Eouarinc Rt_?scarch RLmrve i% a oxTocrative program betwexcn die
Univemty of Nortil Carolina at \Villninaton. 1'11C North C-.amlina D,-partnivnt of Emironmcnt. Health. and
Namrai R(.n+!ro. Diokina of (,nvsial Niana'2r•n,?•Ili. and ',':Itigln l t)??^.!1DC and .Atnir?dlvri, .?(?miniOra N!n.
Center for Marine Silence Research
The University of North Carolina at Wilmington
7205 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
919-256.3721 1 9 Nov 1992
1
2
3
4
5
LAIL-
North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve #A IFA AN
"
Center for Marine Science Research a
The Unh nily of North Carolina at Wilmington
7205 Wrightsville A%x*nue
%%lilmington, North Carolina 28403
919-2513-3721

Dan Small
US Army Corps
Box 1890
of Engineers
Wilmington, NC 28402
Dear Dan:
22 May 1991
Enclosed please find my 1987 SEAMAP report on live bottom
mapping in the South Atlantic Bight. Although the methodology
derived for identifying hard/live bottom relates to the SAB, the
test area only mapped the southern third of Onslow Bay. We did
however aquire most of the data necessary to map all of North
Carolina from the beach to the 200 m Isobath. After looking at
your map of the potential borrow areas this report may not provide
the detail you need. Also, I generally only mapped areas deeper
than 20 m. 1 believe there are some live bottom areas within, or
very near the area you are interested in. Unfortunately, to my
knowledge, these have not been officially mapped. Most of them in
this area would exist as low profile (( 1 m), short run ledges or
flat (no profile) hard grounds. Fishes and invertebrates would be
heavily concentrated around them. As I mentioned to you mapping
of hard ground (and soft bottom) areas is a high priority of both
the SEAMAP organization and the state's OCS office.
As I mentioned to you on the phone, part of our southern-most
component of the NC National Estuarine Reserve System Is located
inshore of the proposed borrows. 1 have enolosed a copy of our
management plan, which describes these components. We would be
very concerned about any activities which may affect in any way
the inlet, beach, or water flows in the vicinity of a Reserve.
Let me know if I can answer additional questions or provide
other input. I am interested in keeping up with your activities
in this area, so keep me posted. Thanks.
Sin erely,
Steve W. Ross

The North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve is a cooperative program between the
University of North Carolina at Wilmington. Tlie North Carolina Department of Environment, ticaith, and
Natural Resourow/Division of Coastal f?fariagcmcnt, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Response to North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve, Letter dated
19 November 1992.
1. We apologize for this oversight. A copy of the letter dated 22 May 1991
has been included in the scoping section of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement '(FEIS).
2. Comment noted.
Based on our documentation (i.e., vibracore sampling and magnetometer and
side-scan sonar surveys) there are no hard bottoms within the limits of the
offshore borrow areas surveyed. However, to help further refine and document
whether isolated hard bottom areas less than a meter high are present, the
existing magnetometer, fathometer and side-scan sonar records will be analyzed
to determine if any evidence exist that they are present. Underwater video
coverage of any suspected areas will be made for confirmation and
documentation should the review indicate their presence. Any documented areas
would be mapped and avoided during dredging. During preparation of plans and
specifications additional vibracore sampling with closer spacing of the
borings in the.offshore borrow areas will be done to further refine the areas
to be dredged and the locations of suitable material. The spacing of these
borings will help refine our existing data on whether any isolated hard bottom
areas exist in the proposed borrow areas. An underwater survey using a remote
camera will be deployed should any isolated areas be identified. The results
of this study will be shared with all interested agencies.
Sediment samples from vibracore borings in the offshore borrow areas have
been analyzed for grain size, shell content, and percent fines. The results
indicates that there are no significant deposits of silt and clays within the
areas investigated. Given the low percentage of silt and clay in the
material, turbidity impacts from dredging are not expected to be any greater
than the natural increase in turbidity and suspended.material which occurs
during storm events. Any increases are expected to be temporary in duration
and are not expected to be wide spread.
3. We agree that negative effects are quantifiable. It is not our intent to
give the impression that certain effects are not quantifiable based on the
statements found on pages 10 and 11 of the draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
4. A monitoring program will be developed and implemented to assess the
effects of dredging on benthos within the offshore borrow areas. The
monitoring program will consist of both physical monitoring (bathymetric
surveys, sediment sampling, and grain size analysis) and biological
monitoring. Sampling to assess sediment quality and rate of infilling of the
borrow area overtime will be done. Biological sampling will include
qualitative sampling of benthos to assess impacts of dredging and to document
recolonization and rate of recovery of disturbed bottoms. A control site
outside of the immediate borrow area dredged will be identified and sampled in
order to document changes that occur naturally within the general vicinity of
the borrow site(s).
\ 5. The error found on page 18, paragraph 3 of the DEIS, regarding offshore
spawning, has been noted. The correction has been made in the FEIS.
LaQUE CENTER for CORROSION TECHNOLOGY, INC.
P.O. BOX 656 / Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
919-256-2271 FAX: [phone]
November 24, 1992
Mr. Daniel Small
Environmental Resources Branch
U.S. Army Engineer District
Wilmington District
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
REFERENCE: Planning Division -
Dra Env ronra r tal Impact Statement. Carolina
Beach and Vicinity - Area South Protect Beach
Er ion Control and Hurricane-Wave- Protection
New Hanover ounty. North Carolina
Dear Mr. Small:
The LaQue Center for Corrosion Technology, Inc. is a world leader in the study of
materials used in corrosive environments and has owned and operated the world-renowned
atmospheric facility at Kure Beach since 1938. The Kure Beach Marine Atmospheric
Testing Site is a key component and integral part of the LaQue Center's testing program.
The Kure Beach sites are the world standards for natural marine atmospheric exposures and
have been referenced in many scientific journals, presentations, and academic documents.
No simulated environment could begin to match the natural atmospheric conditions of the
Kure Beach test site, located on the Atlantic coast at latitude W. north, longitude 77.5
west and includes more than 0.9 km of ocean frontage. At the oceanfront test location,
materials are exposed facing the surf in an easterly directly at an average distance of 25
meters from the mean tide level; the exposures conform to procedures outlined in test
standards ANSI/ASTM G-50. Here, the specimens are subjected to a severe marine
atmosphere which is heavily laden with chlorides.
With all corrosion testing, full knowledge of the corrosive environment is of primary
importance. This scientific principle is not overlooked at the LaQue Center's Kure Beach
Atmgspheric Test Site. The value of testing in a natural marine environment as compared
to an artificial one is directly related to the existence of several variable and sometimes
interactive factors. The most important of these factors is the chloride content in the air and
its accumulation of the material exposed as transported by the air-borne sea spray from the
surf. Proximity to the ocean, elevation about sea level, prevailing winds and wave action,
precipitation, humidity, and shelter also play controlling roles. The Kure Beach site is
equipped with sophisticated monitoring and calibration equipment to measure the
environmental factors that influence the mechanisms of atmospheric corrosion. Also, the
site is an official source of current weather data for NOAA-National Weather Service,
Eastern Region.
Letter Corps of Engineers/ H. T. Michels
November 24, 1992
Page 2
The Kure Beach Atmospheric Testing Site has a history of testing and evaluating an over-
growing list of alloys, coatings, non-metallics and finished products. In addition to
thousands of specimens exposed on test racks in lots 25 meters from the ocean surf and
250 meters back from the shoreline, there are components from a wide variety of consumer
and industrial products under evaluation. Some tested material has been and continues to
be on exposure for many years. The Kure Beach test facility continues to provide diverse,
industrial, institutional, and government clients worldwide with practical information on
corrosion resistance. Some of these clients are steel producers, electroplating companies, _
automotive manufacturers, aerospace industry, paint manufacturers, communication industry,
chemical industry, public utilities, technical societies, industry associations, standards
organizations, academic institutions, and U.S. and foreign government department and
agencies. Many of the Fortune 500 companies have used the facility.
We believe the changes to the dune structure and height as proposed under the reference
project would dir?v affect the results of exposure testis
borne chloride which would be deposited on materials and by
compon g tts a amount of girt for
tes at the 25 meter, oceanfront site. If this should happen, it would alter the refe encd
standard used by engineers and scientists in the corrosion field, as well as change results
on existing long-term exposure tests-
2
be Because o of of this, we are Specifically requesting the dune area on our existing property not 2
by the renourishment project. This could be accomplished by either not
budding up the dune or reducing the height to compensate
dune. If the cono?tY of the area is seriously for an eventual buildup of the
could indeed be in breech of contract with our customers rs to the extent mentioned and end up losing valuablelong-
term customers and, potentially, be subject to litigation as well
Enclosed are brochures which further elaborate on this most valuable test facility. We look
forward to discussing this matter with you further, and thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
V-'Qt?l C?Z--
Harold T. Michels
President
HTM/ceb
Enclosures
Response to Laque Center For Corrosion Technology Inc., letter dated
24 November 1992.
Comment noted.
2. In a 18 December 1992 coordination meeting, and subsequent telephone
conversations with officials of Laque Inc. and the N.C. Division of Coastal
Management, a satisfactory solution was reached regarding construction of a
dune along the beach fronting Laque Inc. It was agreed that there would be no
reshaping of the existing dunes or construction of a dune for the project
reach in front of Laque's property. It was agreed that a dune and berm would
be constructed in the immediate vicinity of the storm drain along the project
reach. Vegetation will be placed along the beach fronting Laque Inc. and
would extend 25 feet seaward of the toe of the established project dune line.

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James G. Martin, Governor
James S. Lofton, Secretary
December 2, 1992
Col. Walter S. Tulloch
District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 2840271890
Office of Marine Affairs
North Carolina Aquariums
Dr. Ned A. Smith, Director
d
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Beach Erosion
Control and Hurricane Wave Protection, Carolina Beach and
Vicinity- Area, South Project, New Hanover County, North Carolina
Dear Col. Tulloch:
I have reviewed the above subject document and wish to provide
comments for your consideration.
General Comments:
I am pleased that the Corps is no longer considering an estuarine
borrow site. That alternative could result in greater
environmental impacts *than the proposed one. The greatest
environmental risk posed by this project is the risk of
smothering hard bottom habitat. The Corps should either more
fully analyze the existing side-scan data or if needed, collect
more extensive data to better describe the distribution of hard
bottom data in and around the borrow area; keeping in mind the
patchy distribution of hard bottoms in the area.
Specific Comments:
2 Page EIS-17, sec 5.04. I question your use of a 20 foot mlw
depth contour as the outward limit of the active beach profile
zone. Some geologists believe that limit to be quite deeper.
According to Dr. Steve Snyder at NC State University, there is
evidence that the limit of the active beach profile in the Kure
Beach area is as much as 16-17 meters (50-55 feet) water depth,
but at least 12 meters (39 feet). Such estimates put the borrow
pits within the active beach zone. This could change the
assessment of renourishment benefits and environmental impacts.
417 N. Blount Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 • Telephone [phone] -FAX [phone]
2
An Equal Opportunity ; Affirmative Action Emplover
Comments on DEIS Carolina Beach Project
December 1, 1992
Page 2.
3 Page EIS-18, sec 5.04.1. It is unclear whether the side-scan 3
data were fully analysed for the presence of hard bottom. Such
data could be useful in locating hard bottom. Typically, hard
bottom in that area is patchily distributed and might be easily
missed by vibracore sampling.
Your arbitrary selection of one meter as a measure of
"significant relief," may greatly under estimate important
habitat. Minor relief (< 1 meter) can aggregate and support
important fishery species. Again, side-scan data should be able
to discern hard bottom relief of such a magnitude.
4 Page EIS-18, sec 5.04..1, paragr. 3. ... feeding and passage 4
activities of larval and adult finfish. Larva (1) form(s)... .
Of the eight species of estuarine fishes mentioned here, only
weakfish and red drum spawn in the summer (actually late spring).
All the others (including striped mullet) are winter spawned
species whose larvae will be traversing the shelf during the
dredging period. The USFWS Coordination Report is cited here,
but I failed to find a reference to spawning season in that
report (see USFWS 1992, page 15).
5 Page EIS-18, sec 5.04.1, paragr. 4. Spanish mackerel, and 5
bluefish are examples of - important nekton species which are not
"typically restricted to scattered reefs."
6 Page EIS-22, sec 5.04.2, paragr. 3.- King mackerel is mis-spelled 6
and spanish mackerel is omitted from the list of sought after
species.
7 Page EIS-22, sec 5.04.21 paragr. 4. The words polyc(h)aetes and 7
pena(o)lds are mis-spelled. I am unsure what "... benthic
softwoods,..." are.
8 Beginning on page EIS-28 and onto page EIS-29, the word 8
(a)esthethic is mis-spelled several times. Also see page EIS-33
& 34.
9 Page EIS-29, sec 6.03.1, paragr. l.. You state that wave height 9
will not be affected, but will wave refraction change?
10 Page EIS-29, sec 6.03.1, paragr. 2. To determine that 10
"Dredging... should not have an adverse impact on any hard
bottoms in the area...", you must first know the extent of
deposition (outside of the borrow area) of the projected
suspended sediments. And secondly, you must know the location of
hard bottoms within that possible deposition area. Apparently,
limited vibracore and side-scan surveys have been conducted
outside of the borrow area.
Comments on DEIS Carolina Beach Project
December 1, 1992
Page 3.
11 Page EIS-30, sec 6.03.2. There is apparently a word missing from 11
the sentence "Impacts on aquatic (?) associated... ."
12 Page EIS-31, sec 6.03.2 paragr. 1. Again, I question whether the 12
borrow area is located seaward of the "active beach profile."
This statement should be referenced and verified.
13 Page EIS-32, sec 6.04 paragr. 1. The statement, "Turbidity
-
limited to the area surrounding the dredging..." is tQo nebulous. 13
The affected area should be better defined.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. I
will be happy to discuss any of the above points with your staff.
Sincerely,
Mac Currin
Marine Policy Analyst
Response to N.C. Department of Administration, Office of Marine Affairs,
letter dated 2 December 1992.
1. Comments regarding the use of the estuarine borrow site have been noted.
See response to No. 2 to North Carolina National Estuarine Research
Reserve, letter dated 19 November 1992 for Corps response regarding isolated
hard bottoms within the identified borrow areas.
2. Our data regarding the seaward limit of the active beach profile zone
offshore of Carolina Beach set the limits at approximately the 30-foot mean
low water (m.l.w.) depth contour as stated in the DEIS. The data used to
establish this limit are site specific and are based on (1) monitoring project
performance of the Carolina Beach project to the north and (2) grab samples
taken offshore for compatibility analyses. While our volume calculations were
somewhat conservative, they are based on a practical limit with a closure
depth of -25 feet NGVD. While we agree that transport is occurring at the 50-
55 feet water depths (and even deeper), transport at these depths are
insignificant. For an actual project, the January 1993 Shore and Beach
publication fully documents a 3-D littoral transport study for the Ocean City,
Maryland, nourishment project. Ocean City has a similar wave climate as Kure
Beach. The study demonstrated that over a 6-month period (covering the 3
November 1991 Halloween Storm and the 4 January 1992 Northeaster) 100 percent
of the fill material stayed in the active beach profile. This particular
study covers two major storms, one with very long period waves. From the
surveys presented, it appears that 100 percent of the material stayed above
the -23 foot contour and about 98 percent of it stayed above the -20 foot
contour.
3. See response to No. 1 above.
4. The seasonal migrations of the species identified have been noted.
Changes have been made in the FEIS to reflect the comments made.
5. Comment noted. The changes have been made in the FEIS.
6. Comment noted. The changes have been made in the FEIS.
7. Comment noted. The changes have been made in the FEIS.
8. Comment noted. The changes have been made in the FEIS.
9. The depth and areal extent of the dredging in the offshore borrow areas is
not expected to result in a significant change in the wave refraction in the
vicinity of the borrow sites.
10. See response to No. 1 above.
11. Comment noted. The changes have been made in the FEIS.
12. Comment noted. See response to No. 2 above.
13. See response 2 to North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve,
letter dated 19 November 1992.
afiq^OA
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary -,
December 4, 1992
W. Coleman Long
Environmental Resources Branch
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
Re: Carolina Beach and vicinity, North Carolina Area
South Project, Hurricane, etc., New Hanover
County, CH 91-E-0000-0807, ER 93-7689
Dear Mr. Long:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of November 4, 1992, transmitting the archaeological
report for the above project.
During the course of the survey no significant magnetic or sonar targets were
located within the project area. Panamerican Consultants, Inc., has recommended
that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this
project. We concur with this recommendation since this project will not involve
significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations foe Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Response to N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, letter dated 4 December
1992.
1. Comment noted.
Response to N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Coastal Management, letter dated 11 December 1992.
1. Comment noted.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
225 North McDowell Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27W2
James G. Martin, Governor Roger N. Sc:hene
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Directo
December 11, 1992
Daniel Small
Planning Division
US. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
REFERENCE: SCH93-0282 DE1S Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South Project
Dear Mr. Small:
In a letter dated October 9, 1992, the Corps of Engineers submitted the subject document for
review and comment. This letter requests that comment be provided by December 28, 1992. On
November 17, we agt•eed to provide the Corps with a draft consistency response by that date. We have
since learned that the closing date for comments to be received in the State (3earinghouve has been
extended to December 28. Since our review process includus tho review and consideration of other agency
review comments, we are extending the date of our response 15 days to January 12, 1993.
If you have any questions about our finding, please contact me or Caroline Bellis, Division of
Coastal Management; at [phone]. Thank you for your consideration of North Camlinds Coastal
Management Program.
Stnc1 ly,
4Stepn B. Benton
Consistency Coordinator
cc: Bob Stroud, Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington Office .
RF
PQ Boer 27687, Raldsk Nonh Carolina 27611.7687 Tckpltone 919733.2293
M Equal Opportunity Affwnative Action Employer
:?=•:.•fink;;,ICl;i?.et?n?!;+.;?;r.?ra•rPROM•DIV-OP-COASTAL-MOMNT 12-14-92 03:25 PM P02
United States Department of the Interior
? w
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Office of Environmental Affairs
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atianta, Georgia 30303
December 17, 1992
ER 92/1012
Colonel Walter S. Tulloch
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Tulloch:
Tw ??
This responds to your request for the Department of the Interior
to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
the Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave Protection Project,
Carolina Beach and Vicinity, Area South Project, New Hanover
County, North Carolina. This report is provided in accordance
with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(16 U.S.C. 661-667d, 48 Stat. 401, as amended) and the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The DEIS adequately discusses the various project alternatives
and potential project related impacts to fish and wildlife
resources. Potential impacts to those federally listed
threatened and endangered species which are under the
jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are
adequately discussed in the DEIS, although Section 7 consultation
is not yet complete.
2 The project, however, may result in significant adverse impacts
to the unique coquina outcrops located in intertidal and subtidal
sections of the beach in the project area. These intertidal and
subtidal coquina outcrops serve as areas of primary productivity
and are habitat for a vast array of marine organisms, many of
which are not typically found on the sandy coasts of the
Southeast. The intertidal sections of the coquina rock offer
prime habitat for various species of marine algae, sessile
animals, such as anemones and urchins, and other forms of marine
life. They serve as foraging habitat for many shorebirds, and
the subtidal sections of the coquina outcrops are inhabited by
many reef fishes and invertebrates, such.as octopi. The beach
nourishment project will directly bury the most northern coquina
outcrops located within the transition zone of the project.
Other coquina exposures are located farther south, immediately
adjacent to the project site. We believe the project has the
potential to bury some or all of the intertidal and subtidal

coquina, including those to the south of the project site, as
sand moves off of the nourished beach and moves downshore and
into the nearshore zone.
The intertidal coquina outcrops are the only natural marine rock
exposures on the entire North Carolina beach system and the most
northern coquina outcrops along the eastern coast of the United
States (Dr. Stephen Leatherman, Coastal Geologist and Barrier
Island Expert, University of Maryland, personal communication,
October 1992). Due to the high species diversity, and the
biological and geological uniqueness, the coquina community is an
exceptional educational, recreational, and scientific resource.
Such a high diversity of organisms inhabiting the coquina
community does not occur on the typical sandy coasts of North
Carolina or other southeastern beaches. The intertidal coquina
outcrops are particularly invaluable as an educational resource,
used by the Marine Biology Department at the University of North
Carolina at Wilmington, by the North Carolina Aquarium at Fort
Fisher and by various summer science camps sponsored by the
Office of Special Programs at the University of North Carolina at
Wilmington.
Destruction of this habitat would result in the loss of the only
coquina outcrop found along the North Carolina beachfront and one
of only approximately three such beach outcrops found along the
Atlantic Coast of North America. The Service believes the Corps
of Engineers (Corps) should avoid any activities which might
result in negative impacts to the coquina community. The
Service's Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report
recommended that beach nourishment should not extend as far south
as the coquina rock community to avoid burial and adverse impacts
to the coquina. After further research and coordination with
other agencies, the Service has determined that a beach
nourishment project which does not directly bury the coquina but
is within the local area whereby littoral drift transport could
carry the sand down drift to the Coquina could result in
significant adverse impacts. Therefore, we recommend the Corps
undertake the studies to determine the minimum buffer between
distance the nourishment project and the coquina that should be
maintained to protect this important habitat. In determining the
minimum distance necessary to avoid adverse impacts to the
coquina outcrop, the sediment budget of the area, as well as the
effects of storm events on the movement of sand, should be
considered (Dr. Stan Riggs, Coastal Geologist, Department of
Geology, East Carolina University, personal communication,
December 1992). Given the uniqueness of the coquina outcrops,
the biological diversity associated with the rocks, and their
value as an exceptional educational resource, we strongly
recommend that all impacts to them should be avoided. Such
measures should be clearly defined in the Final EIS.
2

3 Additionally, we are concerned about impacts to benthic organisms 3
at the project site. The DEIS states that mortality of benthos
at the beach nourishment areas and at offshore borrow sites will
occur, but "...rapid recovery should occur." We believe that the
Final EIS should indicate that frequent renourishment converts
the short-term impacts of beach nourishment into long-term
effects. Reductions in benthic species composition which recover
within 1 to 2 years may be considered short-term if nourishment
is a one time event or if renourishment occurs very infrequently.
However, renourishment occurring every 3 years could result in a
serious long-term decline in organism abundance and species
diversity at the nourishment site and at the offshore borrow
sites.
4 The DEIS states that initial construction will require 8 months 4
and will occur between November 15 and July 31 of the
construction year and that maintenance activities will require
only 2 months. We are pleased that maintenance activities can be
completed in a shorter timeframe than initial construction, and
we recommend that maintenance occur between November 16 through
January 15 of any year. These dates are recommended so that
invertebrates, such as coquina clams and mole crabs, are more
likely to experience a rapid recovery than if nourishment occurs
during the spring or summer. These invertebrates are prey for
many recreationally important fish species as well as for
shorebirds. The recommended timeframe also avoids the sea turtle
nesting season, May 1 through November 15. We are pleased that
the DEIS states that project maintenance is expected to occur
close to the recommended timeframe. The Service believes the
Final EIS should clearly state the dates that project maintenance
will occur.
5 The Corps states that the "...sampling of intertidal organisms 5
during and after nourishment is not considered to be necessary
since existing technical studies have well documented, both
qualitatively and quantitatively, impacts and recovery rates of
beach fill projects. on intertidal organisms." However, we
believe a comprehensive biological monitoring plan which is
designed to determine the effects on the entire nearshore system
is needed for North Carolina beach nourishment projects.
Although Hayden and Dolan (1978), Reilly and Bellis (1978), and
Dolan (1992) have studied the effects of nourishment on
intertidal beach invertebrates, an assessment of the effects of
beach nourishment on invertebrates and fish of the nearshore zone
has not been conducted in North Carolina. Due to the number of
beach nourishment projects occurring or being proposed in North
Carolina, the frequency of renourishment required, and the
presence of the coquina outcrops along the study area beach and
in the nearshore waters, we strongly believe that more thorough
monitoring is justified. We are pleased with the Corps' plans to
monitor the coquina rock community, and we recommend that the
3

Final EIS present the general provisions, including as much
detail as possible for this monitoring plan. Monitoring should
not be viewed as an alternative to impact avoidance.
6 The DEIS states that studies by Van Dolah et al. (1992) indicated
that no long-term impacts were revealed as a result of dredging
at nearshore borrow areas offshore South Carolina. However, it
should be noted that Van Dolah et al.'s (1992) study found that
the benthos, at one out of two offshore borrow sites used, had
not recovered to pre-dredging levels by the end of a 1-year
sampling period following dredging. We are pleased with the
Corps' plans to monitor the benthos at the offshore borrow sites.
Given that renourishment will occur every 3 years and dredging of
sand from the offshord borrow sites will occur repeatedly,
monitoring should be designed to determine the long-term effects
of repeated dredging at offshore borrow sites.
7 The DEIS also states that dredging should not have an adverse
impact on any hard bottoms in the area. Sidescan sonar and
vibracore data have not indicated any hard bottom in the
potential borrow areas, and according to the DEIS, any areas
indicating the presence of hard bottoms will be eliminated as
potential sand sources. According to Goldberg (1988), in South
Florida the typical mixing zone-around a dredge site is about
150 meters, and he proposes that the extent of the mixing zone
should be the minimum buffer distance to protect hard bottoms.
The Service recommends that a minimum distance equivalent to the
mixing zone expected around the dredge used for the current
project, be maintained between dredged areas and any hard bottom
habitat to ensure.that hard bottoms in the vicinity are not
adversely affected by'dredging. The mixing zone around the
specific dredge used for this project should be determined by the
Corps and a•minimum distance equivalent to or greater than this
mixing zone should be maintained between the dredge and any live
bottom habitats. The Final EIS should address this issue and
include a commitment to determine the mixing zone and to maintain
this buffer area during project implementation.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this DEIS report and
we look forward to continued coordination with the Corps
regarding this project.
Sincerely yours,

James H. Lee
Regional Environmental officer
6
7
4
Literature Cited
Dolan, R., J. Fucella, C. Donoghue, and A. Elmore. 1992. Final
report - monitoring and analysis of beach nourishment placed
on Pea Island, North Carolina, Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge 1991-1992. Coastal Research Associates,
A Charlottesville, VA. 37p + app. -
Goldberg, W. M. 1988. Biological effects of beach restoration
in South Florida: the good, the bad, and the ugly. In Tait,
L.S. (ed). 1988. Beach preservation technology 188:
problems and advancements in beach nourishment -
proceedings. Florida Shore and Beach Preservation
Association, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida. 9p.
Hayden, B. and R. Dolan. 1974. Impact of beach nourishment on
distribution of Emerita talpoida, the common mole crab. J.
Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering Division. ASCE
100: WW2: 123-132.
Reilly, F.J. Jr., and V.J. Bellis. 1978. A study of the
ecological impact of beach nourishment with dredged
materials on the intertidal zone. East Carolina University
Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources, Technical Report
No. 4., Greenville, North Carolina. 107p.
Van Dolah, R.F., P.H. Wendt, R.M. Martore, M.V. Levisen, W. A.
Roumillat. 1992. A physical and biological monitoring study
of the Hilton Head beach nourishment project. Marine
Resources Research Institute, South Carolina Marine
Resources Division, Charleston, S.C. 159p.
..r
Response to U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Affairs,
letter dated 17 December 1992.
1. The comments regarding the adequacy of the DEIS relating to impacts to
fish and wildlife resources have been noted. The comment regarding Section 7
consultation has also been noted.
2. The District has conducted a study to assess the potential impacts of
beach nourishment activities on the coquina rock outcrops. The study is based
on a review of natural sand movement around and across several groin fields
north of the outcrops, existing bottom contours offshore of the outcrops (0.0
and -4.0-foot contours), and photography taken of seasonal (i.e., summer and
winter months) movement of sand along the beach within the general vicinity of
the outcrops. The results of this analysis can be found in the Design
Memorandum Supplement, APPENDIX A - Coastal Engineering. Briefly, the results
of this investigation indicate that material transport along this stretch of
the shoreline is primarily driven by extended northerly wind. The coquina
rock outcrops appear to be acting as a natural low-level groin, retaining
material to the north during the winter months (prevailing northerly winds).
Littoral material fill in naturally up to the elevation of the outcrops.
Littoral material in excess of the natural groin capacity of the rock
outcropping migrates to the beach south of Fort Fisher. During the winter
months the outcroppings appear to capture littoral material (up to the
capacity of the low-level groin) being transported to the south. The northern
portions of the rock outcropping are typically buried during the winter
months. The outcrops are exposed during the summer months except during some
major storms.
After project construction and subsequent periodic renourishment, there
will be more material on the beach profile, which will be subject to littoral
drift. Portions of the landward sides of the northern most outcrops are
expected to be covered by the material similar to what is already occurring.
The areal extent of this coverage cannot be quantified at this time. Physical
monitoring will be conducted during construction to document whether any
changes in sand movement observed are the result of natural influences or
beach restoration. Specific provisions of the physical monitoring plan will
be coordinated with interested agencies.
3. The optimum renourishment interval for the project was calculated to be 3
years. This interval was based on the project performance of the Carolina
Beach project, which is immediately to the north of the Area South project.
The actual performance will be a function of the wave environment between
renourishment intervals. We do not expect that the 3 year or greater
intervals will have significant long-term effects on beach organisms since
complete recovery appears to occur in 1 to 2. years. While optimum performance
of the project indicates that renourishment should be scheduled every 3 years,
actual conditions may require less frequent nourishment and may not
necessarily require disposal along the entire project reach. Less frequent
disposal, and-discharging only along those reaches needing material, would
help minimize impacts to beach fauna recovery.
4. The-original construction schedule for the Carolina Beach Area South
Project estimates that construction will take approximately 8 months to
complete with work occurring between 15 November and 15 July. This timeframe
is based on the use of one ocean-certified 30 inch hydraulic pipeline dredge
A
41
to pump approximately 3,372,000 cubic yards of sand from the offshore borrow
area. Dredging during this timeframe would extend the dredging operation to
approximately 8 months due to wave environment offshore. The Value
Engineering Study (VE) for the Area South project proposed using two ocean
certified hydraulic pipeline dredges during the summer months when the wave
env )nment would be the mildest. Based on the VE study, the construction
schedule could be reduced from 8 months to approximately 2.8 months by
utilizing two ocean-certified 30-inch dredges concurrently within the same
borrow area. Offshore dredge production rates would typically be maximized
during this 5-month period (from May through September) due to calmer offshore
conditions during this period. Higher dredge production rates equate to a
shorter dredging period. Another alternative to the original construction
method would be to use a single dredge during the summer months. A single
dredge working during the summer months could do the work in approximately 6
months.
Periodic renourishment of the project will require placement of
approximately 766,000 cubic yards of material along the project reach every
3 years. Under the current plan each renourishment period would take
approximately 2 months and would be scheduled to the maximum extent possible
to occur during the 16 November through 15 January time period.
Based on the VE study the feasibility of performing initial construction
during the May through September time frame with one or two dredges being
considered. Potential impacts of performing the initial construction during
the summer months include possible loss of intertidal macroinfauna along the
beach disposal site and possibly subsequent reduction in surf feeding fish, a
partial loss of beach use during construction. Potential impacts on sea
turtles would be mitigated through the implementation of a turtle nesting and
relocation plan. Measures to address any seasonal restrictions on dredging
during the summer months would be coordinated with appropriate Federal and
State resource agencies.
5.' A number of baseline studies (i.e., Hayden and Dolan 1974 , and Reilly and
Bellis, 1978) have been done documenting the ecological impacts of beach
nourishment operations on benthic communities along coastal beaches. Some of
these studies are referenced, and their findings discussed, in the EIS. A
study by Reilly and Bellis (1978) entitled A Study of the Ecological Impact of
Beach Nourishment With Dredged Material of the Intertidal Zone stated, "Beach
nourishment virtually destroys existing intertidal macrofauna; however,
recovery is rapid once the pumping operation ceases. In most cases, recovery
should occur within one or two seasons following the project completion."
Similar findings were reached by Van Dolah (1992) in a study of the impacts of
a beach nourishment project in South Carolina. A study done by the National
Marine Fisheries Service on the effects of beach nourishment on nearshore
macrofauna concluded that beach nourishment projects using offshore dredged
,material have no harmful effects provided that the sediments are similar to
those where they are placed (Saloman and Naughton 1984). Currently, a
baseline, long-term quantitative study is being conducted by R. Dolan et al.,
University of Virginia, on the effects of beach disposal of dredged material
from Oregon Inlet on intertidal organisms along the ocean beach of Pea Island
National Wildlife Refuge, Dare County, North Carolina. The Wilmington
District is funding this study in conjunction with the maintenance dredging of
the Oregon Inlet Navigation Channel with disposal along the ocean beach of the
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. This 3 year study is expected to
provide definitive documentation on the long-term recolonization and recovery
of intertidal organisms on beaches that receive dredge material on a regular
basis, and is expected to address the issues and concerns relative to
environmental consequences of long term beach disposal in general.
Preliminary results from this study are expected to be available around
September or October 1993. We recommend that the results of this long-term
monitoring study be be reviewed prior to a decision on whether a long-term
monitoring plan be implemented for the Area South project. The results of
this study will be shared with interested Federal and State agencies for their
consideration.
6. See response to No. 4 to the North Carolina National Estuarine Research
Reserve, letter dated 19 November 1992.
7. It would be premature at this stage of project development to designate a
buffer zone around the borrow areas to protect hard bottoms since our existing
documentation indicates that there are no hard bottom areas within the limits
of the designated borrow areas. However, should future surveys indicate the
presence of isolated hard bottom areas near the areas to be dredged, a mixing
zone of sufficient width will be established to protect identified hard bottom
areas.

i
_ M,/? ? UNITED STATES ENVfRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
z
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
DEC 21 1992

Colonel Walter S. Tulloch
District Engineer
Corps of Engineers,
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington District
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Subjects Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Carolina
Beach and Vicinity - Area South Project, Beach Erosion
Control and Hurricane Wave Protection, New Hanover
County, NC
Dear Colonel Tulloch:
Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102 (2)
(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), EPA, Region
IV has reviewed the subject document which describes the
consequences of renourishing approximately 18,000 feet of eroding
shoreline between the Town of Carolina Beach and Fort Fisher.-
Initial construction of the project will require about 3.3
million cubic yards of material with an anticipated maintenance
frequency of three years. Actual construction will take around 8
months using borrow material obtained from sources located one to
two miles offshore of the project area. Only structural measures
(various widths of beachfill and artificial dunes) for beach
erosion control and hurricane protection were examined in detail,
although a no-action option was provided for comparison.
I'll
2 EPA remains equivocal regarding the issue of pumping sand onto an
eroding shoreface. Generally, we have not opposed beach
nourishment when it provides a disposal site for a proximate,
alreAdy authorized navigation project and biologically sensitive
resources would not be adversely affected through the use of this
disposal method.
In this particular case the stated value of the threatened
structures, declining width of the recreational beach, and the
perceived need to provide continued economic potential to
shorefront property owners serve as the rationale for beach
nourishment. The purpose and needs statement notes that these
societal factors subsume the minor environmental losses resulting
from the proposed beach fill. The basis for the characterization
of minor losses is the observation that the surf zone is
inherently unstable. We acknowledge that the surf zone places
pronounced stresses on the biota which reside there, however,
2
Printed on Recycled Pape
these organisms are evolutionarily attuned to these perturbations
and their natural seasonal rhythms. The magnitude of the
activities associated with renourishment transcends all but the
most catastrophic natural processes. Moreover, the necessity of
subsequent renourishment due to continuing erosion means that the
periods of natural equilibrium can be short to nonexistent.
3 We are concerned about this proposal from a cumulative 3
standpoint. How many other coastal areas of the Wilmington
District are experiencing similar marine processes which induce
erosion? What percentage of these sites will require nourishment
activities to protect at-risk development and/or engender
increased recreational potential? The latent cost, environmental
and otherwise, of providing similar protection to these areas is
additive and needs to be assessed during lead agency planning
from this total perspective rather than in an incremental
fashion. Given the comprehensive nature and magnitude of the
coastal erosion forces, the availability of federal funds to
maintain an increasing number of these nourishment projects needs
to be verified.
4 In a related matter recent decisions to restructure federal 4
funding along with attendant changes in the cost sharing,-make
the possibility that the local sponsor may have to increase its
financial commitment over the project life more likely. The
ability of the local sponsor to assume these added commitments
should be settled now rather than after the fact.
5 An unstated problem along this reach of Carolina Beach is the 5
election of home owners, businessmen, etc., JA conformance with
the current zoning regulations (Kure Beach Land Use Plan) to
intensify development in this attractive, but high risk area.
Given the amenities associated with living on the ocean
shoreline, this may be understandable. Nonetheless, Corps of
Engineers, publications have well documented that these coastal
areas are dynamic features experiencing almost daily fluctuations
due to marine processes. In this regard, an important point to
emphasize is that "short-term" protection is all that is being
offered. At the end of the project life it is conjectural
whether the present erosion situation will be any different let
alone better.
6 The EIS did not indicate whether the exact cause of the beach 6
losses is known. At some point a study to determine the causal
reason for this erosion should be considered in an attempt to see
if a more lasting solution is available. While not seriously
considered, the nonstructural alternative of building relocation
may provide the only long-term solution to the situation. The
nourishment proposal may merely postpone the inevitable, but at
substantial cost.
t

7 All of the above notwithstanding, we are sensitive to the 7
immediate economic and societal benefits accruing from individual
beach nourishment projects. However, the local sponsors should
be made aware of the possibility that ultimate economic losses
could actually subsume short-term profits. This would be due to
continued intensification of land use predicated on the
assumption that the beach will always exist in precisely its
present location and current funding arrangements to maintain
this situation will remain constant. These two conditions are
not immutable. The future potential for fundamental change may
not prove especially compelling to the local sponsors right now,
but we would be remiss not to indicate that the long-term
effectiveness of beach nourishment has been called into doubt by
some coastal geologists.
8 A rating of EC-2 was assigned. That is, we have some significant 8
environmental concerns about certain aspects of this proposal and
request additional information and evaluation of the items in the
detailed comments.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this action. If we
can be of further assistance in this matter, Dr. Gerald Miller
(404-347-3776) will serve as initial point of contact.
Sincerely,
einz J. Mue ler, Chief
LEnvironmental Policy Section
Federal Activities Branch
V
DETAIL COMMENTS
The storm damage model (together with its component elements)
used for this project should be discussed in the final EIS.
The assumptions used in the overall development of annual
damage estimate(s) compared to losses for more intense storm
episodes is of particular interest. Annual storm damage
prevention on the basis of reoccurence frequency generates the
most benefits. However, larger storms overtop the expanded
berm barely recognizing its presence. The operative issue is
this regard is an understanding of how intensification of
development engendered by the small project compares to the
losses arising from all larger storms.
2 Different scenarios of sea level rise need to be taken into
account. Namely, a determination should be made regarding how
`the potential for an increase in the present rate of sea level
rise would influence this project. If an accelerated rise does
prove to be the case, the details of the impact(s) should be
assessed, especially the frequency of maintenance.
3 Since this action is part of a larger project, the benefits
generated by construction as well as the analysis thereof were
not stated. It has been our experience that the storm damage
reduction component is usually a significant subset of the
total value of threatened beach front property. The final EIS
would be improved if the individual elements of this latter
value were presented. More precisely, how much of this beach
front property value figure is a function of its worth as
housing, per se, and how muoh has to do with its location
immediately adjacent to'the shoreline? An insightful bit of
information for decision-makers of this project is the
probability that the costs of the nourishment project over its
50-year life span could subsume the real value of threatened
property.
This information is very important since the second element is
immediately affected by the degree of shoreline stability. In
this particular case the shoreline is degrading; therefore,)
just how.this property should be valued,isigeimane. In the'
absence of a federal interest to continue with this nourishment
project and/or the ability/willingness of the homeowners to
protect this property, its long-term value would be lessened..,
This would greatly affect the economics of the project and more
importantly its purpose and need. This potential should also
be examined in the final EIS.

'i
2
0
3

1. w t.
;,
Moreover, for the without project condition is it reasonable to
assume that this property would be maintained for more than a
few years let alone the 50-year life of the project? This, in
fact, is the underlying premise of the without project
comparison. Rather, it seems much more likely that the annual
loss value would just accumulate as no repairs were
accomplished. The figure would rapidly approach the total
value of the beach front dwellings and then as rapidly decline
after they were no longer habitable. Of course, the value of
the adjoining, landward property would probably increase as it
became "beach front". If there are any data which would
support the premise that in the absence and/or anticipation of
a federally subsidized nourishment project that homeowners will
sustain the losses assumed by the Corps of Engineers' models,
this should be provided in the final EIS.

4 It was noted that under the NED plan existing recreational use
patterns are expected to be changed. The reasons for and
assumption used to make this statement should be discussed in
the final document.
5 It was noted that limited parking was available at each of the
cross over structures within the project reach. Nonetheless,
we would like to be reassured in the final EIS that sufficient
parking spaces are available to meet the needs of the numbers
of beach patrons that were used to economically justify this
renourishment. The statement was made that greatly improved
recreational quality would be available to beach users through
expansion of the beach area. We infer that this improvement
would be a function of availability of increased dry beach per
patron, but this should be explicitly stated. This is
warranted relative to our concern as to whether sufficient
parking is available to accommodate the additional beach users.
6 Although no hard bottoms were sampled in the offshore study,
the presense of organisms which are associated with hard
substrates indicate that this habitat is in the vicinity.
Figure 8 does show the locations of the coquina outcrops which
are known in the transition zone at the south end of the
project. While the areal extent of all hard bottoms in the
project area may not be known at this time, the general effects
of their inundation should be noted in the final document.
7 We support the planting of vegetative cover to help stabilize.
the seaward faces of the dunes which are adjacent to the
artificial berm which will be created in the project reach.
The discussion of this action in Section 6.03.4 provides an
overview of what will be done to mitigate the disturbances
engendered by construction activities. However, the final EIS
4
5
6
7
should provide details of exactly what will be done, who will
pay for the initial and any subsequent work, how this planting
will be accomplished, who will be responsible for monitoring
results, and who determines successful completion of the job.
8 The text states that monitoring studies of post construction 8
borrow areas in the Southeast reveal that borrow areas fill in
and return to near predredging conditions when there is
adequate transport of sediment under the influence of strong
currents in the arga. This conclusion makes the amount and
grain ksize distribution?,of the infill compared to the original
material very important. There are examples where borrow areas
have become effectively sumps for fine grained material.
Whether there is sufficient material in the surrounding area to
meet the "adequacy":;test was not stated in the text.
Likewise, the presense of4"strong":currents in the vicinity of,
`
the proposed borrow area to mov6 this material needs to be
answered.
The length of time for this reconstitution to occur is also
important given the three year renourishment frequency. We
understand that an effort will be made to rotate within and
between the borrow areas to mitigate adverse consequences.
However, the overall sediment loss to these areas is a given
while the reconstitution is much less precise. As a minimum,
the method(s) which will be used to accomplish this
apportioning of impacts within the borrow area should be noted
in the final EIS.
A study done by the National Marine Fisheries Service on the
effects of beach nourishment on nearshore macroinfauna
concluded that beach nourishment projects using offshore
dredged-material have no harmful effects provided that the
sediments are similar to those where they,,are placed. This is
a very definitive statement. We have not read the original
research by Saloman and Naughton which forms the basis for this
assertion, but find it perplexing that there are "no harmful
effects." Perhaps, no harmful effects that the authors were
able to measure or the harmful effects were short-term, but
this is not the same as; no effects.
It should-.also`be noted whether the Saloman and Naughton
research took into account the recurrent impacts of periodic
maintenance. In' this instance the percentage of fines within
the borrow areas, while low, is at least 200% greater than the
native beach material.:: . This calls into question whether a
difference of this mAgh.itude would meet the author's test of
similarity.
9 The study by Reilly and Bellis noted that while beach 9
nourishment virtually destroys existing intertidal macrofauna,
recovery is rapid and should occur within one or two seasons
following the project completion. This statement would be more
compelling as a justification for discounting the impacts of
beach nourishment if nourishment were a one time event, but
this is not the case. The recovery which occurs at the end of
the second season is obviated by the redredging which occurs in
the third.

Response to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1V, letter dated
21 December 1992
1. Comments noted.
2. Comments noted. Our conclusions are not gust based on the observation
that the surf zone is unstable but on the "tested" quick recovery of these '
zones following renourishment.
3. We have not performed and have not been funded to perform a state-wide
evaluation of erosion rates and damage potential. Studies are authorized and
funded by congress based on need. Projects are authorized and funded on a
project-by-project basis.
4. Project sponsorship and cost sharing arrangements are defined before
project construction.
5. Economic conditions both with and without a project are discussed in the
DMS, APPENDIX C, Economic Evaluation. A copy of APPENDIX C is being furnished
for your review. The project has a favorable benefits to cost ratio of 1.82
to 1.0. Benefit calculations are based on a 50-year project life.
6. The mechanics and causes of beach erosion along the project reach are
documented in the report "Analysis of Coastal Sediment Transport Processes
from Wrightsville Beach to Fort Fisher, North Carolina," U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center Miscellaneous Report No. 81-6,
June 1991. Erosion along the project reach is attributed to a result of net
material transport to the south due to the wave environment and geometry of
the shoreline in the area.
The project was authorized by Congress in 1962,(House Document Number 418,
87th Congress, 2nd Session) which provides for the authorization of a beach
nourishment project. The cost of protecting existing development along the
project reach is justified economically based on a beach nourishment project.
7. The local sponsor supports this project and is aware of the project
economics.
8. Noted.
DETAILED COMMENTS
1. The storm damage model is discussed in the DMS, APPENDIX A - Coastal
Engineering. A copy of APPENDIX A is being provided for your review.
2. The long-term erosion rates used in this study are based on data developed
and published by the North Carolina Department,of Environment, Health, and . `
Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management, Raleigh ("Long Term Average
Erosion Rates"). Their long-term erosion rates calculations incorporate the
rates of sea level rise along this portion of the coast.
3. Information regarding project economics and recreation values associated
with the project can be found in the DMS - Appendix C, Economic Evaluation. A
copy of the DMS is being furnished for your review.
4. See response to No. 3 above regarding recreation values of the project.
5. Information regarding beach access and sufficient parking can be found in
the DMS, - APPENDIX C, Economic Evaluation.
6. See response 2 to the North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve,
letter dated 19 November 1992.
7. Project construction will result in the disturbance and removal of some of
the existing vegetation along the seaward side of the existing dune.
Stabilization of the constructed dunes would be accomplished by the vegetative
planting of the dune during the optimum planting seasons. Planting stocks
would consist of American beachgrass and sea oats extending from the landward
toe of the dune to the seaward intersection with the storm.berm for the length
of the dune.
8. Sediment infilling of the disturbed areas within the offshore borrow sites
is expected to be from the natural movement of material from surrounding
undisturbed areas. Bottom sediments within the designated sites consist of
fine-to-medium grain sand with some shell. Based on sediment analyses, there
doesn't appear to be any significant deposits of fine or silty material within
the limits of the borrow sites that would serve as a source of inf ill
material.
With respect to minimizing impacts within the offshore borrow areas,
removal of material during construction and renourishment would be rotated
between and within selected borrow area(s).
While the Saloman and Naughton study focused on a single nourishment
activity, and does not include periodic maintenance, the study nevertheless
documents the fact that recovery does occur along the beach within a short
period after disposal of dredged material. We expect similar recovery to
occur after initial construction and after each renourishment along the Area
South project reach.
9. See response to No. 3. to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of
Environmental Affairs, letter dated 17 December 1992.

UNITEO STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
?'¢o ?.•? Office of the Chief Scientist
•a,,,n of . Washington, D.C. 20230
December 24, 1992
.`
Colonel W. Scott Tulloch
District Engineer
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Tulloch:
1 Enclosed are comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave Protection, New
Hanover County, North Carolina. We hope our comments will assist
you. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to review the
document.
Sincerely,
OBE
v David Cottingham
• Director
Ecology and Conservation Office
Enclosure
4?rM a ?`
Response to U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, letter dated 24 December 1992.
1. Comment noted.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE;
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
+?•.. a'+? Southeast Regional Office
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
December 11, 1992
Colonel W. Scott Tulloch
District Engineer, Wilmington District
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Tulloch:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the Draft
Environmental' Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared by the U.S. Army
Corps- of Engineers (COE), Wilmington District, concerning the Beach
Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave Protection, New Hanover County,
North Carolina. The following comments are provided for your use
in project planning and preparation of the Final Environmental
Impact Statement.
General Comments
2 The DEIS does not adequately describe potential project related
impacts to NMFS trust resources. Although side-scan sonar has been
used to examine the borrow area, the document states that bottom
relief of less than one meter was not considered to be significant.
This is of 'concern since much of the "live bottom" habitat found
off the coast of North Carolina is low profile reef with a relief
of less than one meter.
3 We are concerned that the selected plan will likely result in
covering an identified area of coquina rock outcrop. These
naturally occurring reef structures are located at the southern
terminus of the project near Fort Fisher. They are unique in the
nearshore • environment • and are important dun to their productiv.L L y
and diversity. Accordingly, the DEIS should be revised to include
a plan whereby adverse impacts to all coquina rock outcrops are
avoided. Additionally, a more detailed examination, preferably by
divers, of the proposed offshore borrow sites is needed to ensure
all live bottom habitat located here have been identified and will
be avoided.
2
3
3 YYY
b"A
a?'yn d cU'4
i fI=

4 The document does not adequately consider seasonal restrictions on 4
dredging and dredged material disposal. Dredging in late winter
and early spring could adversely impact post-larval fish and
invertebrates. These species congregate in the nearshore zone
prior to being transported through the ocean inlets located to the
north and south of the project area. Consideration should be given
to limiting dredging and disposal to the period November 15 through.
January 15 to minimize impacts to post-larval estuarine dependent_
species. If the COE proposes to extend the work through late
winter and into spring and summer, then studies should be performed
to determine the presence of post-larval fish and invertebrates in
the nearshore zone.
5 Pre- and post-project monitoring of invertebrate communities in the 5
nearshore subtidal and intertidal zones is also needed. The number
and frequency of beach nourishment projects in North Carolina has
reached such proportions that a significant area of the coast is
either being impacted by, or is recovering from sand deposition and
burial. Despite repeated requests for a definitive assessment of
the cumulative effect of periodic burial of substantial portions of
the nearshore benthos, this needed evaluation has not been
performed.
Specific Comments
6 Page 11. Table 2. The project involves about 1,191 acres of 6
offshore dredging and 436 acres of nearshore filling. Table 2
should be revised to indicate that multiple beach nourishment
projects in the same area may result in substantial cumulative
habitat alteration.
7 Pane 18. paragraph 1. We are concerned that the side-scan sonar 7
investigation considered bottom relief of less than one meter as
insignificant. Low relief (less than one meter) live bottom, as
described on Page 22, Paragraph 2, is important fishery habitat and
should be identified: If bottom features less than one meter in
elevation were observed in the survey, then they should be
investigated for the presence of live bottom and described in the
EIS.
8 Page 18. Paragraph 3. The life cycles of the estuarine-dependent 8
species identified in this paragraph are incorrectly described.
These species spawn offshore in late winter, not in the summer, and
are recruited into the estuaries through ocean inlets in late
winter and early spring. This cycle greatly increases the number
of larval and postlarval fish and invertebrates found in nearshore
waters during the proposed dredging period and increases their
susceptibility to project related impacts such as elevated
turbidity and physical damage.
9 Page 18, paragraph 4. Is the term "nekton" in the last sentence of 9
this paragraph intended to include species such as amberjack and
king mackerel? These species congregate over reef areas, but are
not restricted to these locations and may be taken throughout the
project area.
10 Page 22, paragraph 5. line 9. We are unfamiliar with the term 10
"benthic softwoods." We assume that this a misprint.
11 Page 27. paragraph 3. Informal coordination with the NMFS 11
concerning endangered species was initiated, but no information is
provided regarding the conclusions reached as a result of this
coordination. The results of the coordination should be presented
in the EIS.
12 Page 29. paragraph 3. Areas found to have live bottom habitat will 12
be eliminated as potential dredging sites. However, no information
is given regarding how close dredging will be allowed to live
bottom areas. We recommend that a minimum setback of 200 meters be
established around any live bottom.
13 Page 31. Paragraph 3. We are concerned with the statement that 13
coquina rock will be "avoided to the maximum extent possible by
naturally sloping the transition berm into the existing shoreline
north of the outcrop." These areas are unique and should not be
impacted by the proposed project. We recommend that the COE
develop a plan that includes measures to entirely avoid impacts to
these hard bottom habitats.
14 Paste 33. paragraph 4. This paragraph states that the DEIS serves 14
as a request for further input from the NMFS regarding endangered
species. The COE should insure that the document has been
forwarded to our Protected. Species Branch located in the NMFS
Southeast Regional office.
15 Page 35. Paragraph 2: This paragraph proposes a study of project 15
impacts on the northernmost coquina rock outcrop. We believe that
the project goal should be avoidance of adverse impacts to this
unique habitat and the COE should develop a plan to accomplish this
goal.
Page A-2, paragraph 3. Paragraph 3 states that dredging depths in
16 the proposed borrow site would be approximately 15 feet while other 16
sections of the document state that 12 foot depths are planned.
Which is correct?
I
17 Page A-8._paragraph 2. See comments for Page 31, paragraph 3 and 17
Page 35, paragraph 2.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
e z.?. /
Andreas Mager, Jr:
Assistant Regional Director
Habitat Conservation Division

Response to U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Southeast Regional office,
letter dated 11 December 1992.
1. Comment noted.
2. See response to No. 2 to the North Carolina National Estuarine Research
Reserve, letter dated 19 November 1992.
3. For response to concerns regarding potential impacts to coquina rock
outcrops see response to No. 2 to the U.S. Department of the Interior., Office
of Environmental Affairs, letter dated 17 December 1992. For response to the
need for additional mapping in the offshore borrow areas, see response 2 to
the U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Southeast Regional Office, letter dated
11 December 1992.
4. Seasonal restrictions on dredging and dredged material disposal have been
considered throughout the development of the project. See response 4 to the
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Affairs, letter dated
17 December 1992.
5. See response 5 to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of
Environmental Affairs, letter dated 17 December 1992.
6. See response 3 to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of
Environmental Affairs, letter dated 17 December 1992.
7. See response to No. 2 above.
8. The District is currently working with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, Beaufort Marine Laboratory, Beaufort, North Carolina, to help
document migratory patterns of estuarine dependent fish and their movement in
nearshore waters near inlets. The results of their study will help determine
whether estuarine-dependent fish are using nearshore waters adjacent to beach
disposal sites. The findings from their study will be shared with all
interested agencies.
9. Comment noted. The changes have been made in the FEIS.
10. Comment noted. The changes have been made in the FEIS.
11. See letter dated 1 February 1993 from the National Marine Fisheries
Service, Endangered Species Section, St. Petersburg, Florida, regarding
project impacts on endangered species.
42. See response 7 to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of
Environmental Affairs, letter dated 17 December 1992.
13. Comment noted. See response to No. 3 above.
14. Comment noted. See response to No. 11 above.
15. See response to No. 2 to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of
Environmental Affairs, letter dated 17 December 1992.
16. The maximum penetration depth of the vibracore borings in the offshore
borrow areas is 20 feet. The quality of the_ material below this depth is
unknown. Therefore, dredging below this depth is not planned.
17. Comment noted.

1208
12-22-92
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003

INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS •
MAILED T0:
FROM: ,
DEPT OF THE ARMY/CORPS OF ENGINEERS
OR BAGGETT
WALTER TULLOCH CIRMRS.ECTCHRYS
OR
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NC 28402-1890 N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
DRAFT EIS - CAROLINA BEACH AND VICINITY - AREA SOUTH PROJECT, BEACH
EROSION CONTROL AND HURRICANE WAVE PROTECTION
SAI NO 93E00000282 PROGRAM TITLE - DEIS
"HE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
-NTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
S SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
(x) COMMENTS ATTACHED
HOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C. REGION 0
Caroline Bellis, Office of Coastal Mgt.
Response to N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Planning and Assessment, letter dated 10 December 1992.
1. Comment noted.
I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee 0
Project Review Coordinator
RE: #93-0282 - DEIS - Carolina Beach - South Erosion
Control and Protection Project
DATE: December 10, 1992
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the subject proposal. This department ask that
careful consideration be given to the attached suggestions provided
by our reviewers.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM: bb
Attachments
LS %Z:7
OEC 1 01992 I
1

-: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission E-
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
December 1, 1992
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Assessment Section
Department of DEHNR
FROM: Brent Wilson ?G??l
Wildlife Biologist / J
SUBJECT: Environmental Imoact Statement review for the
..S. Army Corps of Engineers' Carolina Beach -
South Erosion Control and Protection Project.
As a biologist on the Wildlife Resources Commission
1 staff, I have reviewed the draft EIS.for the Carolina Beach
- South Erosion Control and Protection project and conducted
an onsite investigation on November 30, 1992 for the purpose
of assessing project impacts on wildlife and fisheries
resources. Comments are provided in accordance with certain
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U. S. C. 661 et seq. ) and the
Coastal Area Management Act (G.S. 113A-100 through 113A-
128).
2 The project proposal involves construction from 2
offshore sand deposits of an artificial dune and berg with
renourishment every three years to protect residential and
recreational interests along 18,000 feet of New Hanover
county beach. Considerations for fish and wildlife
resources appear to be adequately addressed in the EIS
document, however, I would like the opportunity to
reemphasize important project aspects affecting these
resource-.
Memo
Page 2
December 1, 1992

Conforming the project to account for fish and wildlife 3
resource requirements is recommended through the following
considerations:
3
1. Limit construction activities to the suggested
November 16 to January 15 window to minimize disturbance
during the periods of greatest biological activity.
2. Adhere to maintenance standards providing a gradual
beach contour and sand characteristics to facilitate use by
nesting sea turtles and shorebirds.
3. Protect the coquina rock outcrops, identified a a
unique habitat component, from interment by sand through
restricting the nourishment project in the rock outcrop
proximity.
4. Avoid damage to native plant communities during
project construction and restore areas unavoidably damaged.
Thank you for. the opportunity to review and comment on
this draft Environmental Impact Statement. If I can be of
assistance, please contact Brent Wilson at [phone].
cc: The Honorable R. G. Sowers, I I I
Dennis Stewart, Habitat Conservation Program Manager
4
Response to N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, memorandum dated 1 December
1992.
1. Comment noted.
2. Comment noted.
3. RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
(1) See response to No. 4 to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office
of Environmental Affairs, letter dated 17 December 1992.
(2) The design berm elevation is identical to the naturally occurring
berm. Typically, escarpments are not a problem with design berms that
approximate natural elevation. However, should escarpments occur on the beach
after construction or after each maintenance period, arrangement may have to
be made to have them graded prior to the sea turtle nesting season during any
given year in order to permit sea turtle nesting on the beach.
(3) See response to No. 2 to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office
of Environmental Affairs, letter dated 17 December 1992.
(4) See response 7 to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
IV, letter dated 21 December 1992.

Division of Environmental Management
Biological Assessment Group
November 16, 1992
MEMORANDUM
To: Monica Swihart'
Through:
Ken Eagleson \
Jimmie Overto -?,
Trish Finn Mac on' t,.-
From: Larry Eaton 2 _r
Subject: Comments on the Corps Draft EIS for Carolina Beach Erosion
Control Measures
1 I have had an opportunity to review the Corps of Engineers Draft Environmental
Impact Statement concerning Erosion Control measures proposed for Carolina Beach.
Overall I am surprised and pleased that the Corps has come up with a means of controlling
erosion that does not involve large amounts of rocks on or near the beach. Their proposal,
for the most part, appears sound and thus I have only a few comments.
2 1. Despite the Corp's arguments against the Fish and Wildlife Service suggestion that 2
monitoring of beach fauna recovery would be appropriate, I would like to side with the
FWS. The EIS states that intertidal benthos usually takes 1-2 years to recover from beach
renourishment. Since maintenance renourishment is scheduled every 3 years, this means
that the beach fauna will be in a state of recovery for approximately 25 of the next 50 years
(something that the shore birds who use these critters as a food source may notice). I
would suggest sampling I year and 2 years after initial dune creation (the time of the
greatest disturbance and recolonization) at a couple of transects on the beach to demonstrate
that this beach recovery really does behave like other documented cases. If beach recovery
proceeds as expected, no further sampling should be required. If not, the deviation and its
impact on the intertidal food chain (including birds, crabs, etc.) should be further explored.
3 2. I am a little concerned that by extending the beach 120 h into the ocean from its current
location, that longshore currents cannot help but permanently (at -least as far as my lifetime 3
is concerned) bury most or all of what is currently North Carolina's only natural example
of a rocky intertidal community (the beach coquina rock) thus depriving beachgoers of an
aesthetic resource. Unfortunately, I can not think of a way to preserve these areas without
reducing the hurricane protection area.
4 3. If the proposed further coring at the borrow sites shows suitable sediment deposits 4
deeper than the currently proposed dredging depth of 10-15 ft, I would encourage the
Corps to dredge deeper for their sand rather than over a wider area. This would reduce the
amount of benthos destroyed in the dredging and the smaller area would probably recover
more quickly.
5 4. It was not clear in the Draft EIS what sampling. and comparison methods would be 5
employed to monitor recovery in the borrow areas. T1re DEIS states that the benthic
infaunal assemblage here is of "low abundance and high diversity". Many sampling
methods can not adequately characterize the entire faunal assemblage of an area in such a
situation using only a single site. This could make demonstrating recovery in the borrow
area more difficult, especially if a sensitive comparison method, such as a multivariate
analysis, is used rather than a less sensitive diversity index or taxa richness value. An
additional control site or two might be necessary to adequately address this problem; the
number of additional sites would depend on the sampling methods employed.
Response to N.C. Division of Environmental Management, Biological Assessment
Group, memorandum dated 16 November 1992
1. Comment noted.
2. See response to No. 3 and 5 to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office
lk of Environmental Affairs, letter dated 17 December 1992.
3. See response to No. 1 to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of
Environmental Affairs, letter dated 17 December 1992.
4. Vibracore borings in the offshore borrow areas have a maximum penetration
of 20 feet below the bottom, with an average penetration of 15 feet. While
sediment quality has been analyzed to the maximum depth of 20 feet, our
preliminary recommendation is to dredge from 10-15 feet. However, the
District will consider dredging to the maximum penetration depth of the
vibracore borings where beach quality material can be assured. Dredging below
20 feet is not being considered since the quality of the material is unknown
and assurances cannot be made that it will be of beach quality.
5. See response to No. 6 to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of
Environmental Affairs, letter dated 17 December 1992.

r?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
225 North 'McDo\vell Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
James G. Marrin, Governor
William W. Lobey, Jr., Secretary
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning & Assessment
FROM: Stephen B. Benton, NC Division of Coastal Management
SUBJECT: Review of SCN ?f 3 • vz??L
RSVIBw cclGo gTS:
DATE : NU v. 18,
Roger N. Schecter
Director
_ZReviewer Comments Attached
This document is being reviewed for consistency with the NC Coastal
Management 'Program. Please forward a copy of agency comments to us as
they are received.
A CAMA Permit or Consistency Determination is/may be required
for this project. Applicant should contact
in phone no. for assistance.
v/ Proposal is in draft form, a consistency response is inappropriate.
A consistency determination should be included in the final document.
A CAMA Permit or Consistency Response has.already been issued,
or is currently being reviewed under a separate circulation.
Permit/Consistency No. Date Issued
Proposal involves < 20 acres or a structure < 60,000 aq.ft. and no
AEC Is or Land Use Plan problems.
Proposal not in the Coastal Area and will have no significant
impacts on the Coastal Area.
Proposal is exempt from CAMA by statute. Other (See attached)
COBSISTE&CY POSITION:
The proposal is consistent with the NC Coastal Management Program
provided that all State authorization and/or permit requirements are
met prior to implementation of the project.
A consistency position will be developed based on our review on, or
before
The proposal is inconsistent with the NC Coastal Management Program.
1

i/ Not Applicable Other (See attached)
Response to N.C. Department of Enviro
Division of Coastal Management, letter dated 18 No Environment , Health
, and Natural Resource,
ver 1992. s
1• Comment noted.
S
8
I*
? ?y ? SZA/t
S t S-
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
225 North McDowell Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
James G. Martin, Governor Roger N. Schecter
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary MEMORANDUM Director
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning & Assessment
FROM: I%Qr-aroline Bellis, Division of Coastal Management
THROUGVpteve Benton, Division of Coastal Management
DATE: November 18, 1992
REFERENCE: SCH93-0282 Draft EIS: Carolina Beach & Vicinity Area South Project, Beach Erosion
Control and Hurricane Wave Protection, New Hanover County, NC
The Division of Coastal Management has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the subject project, which has been submitted for review by the US Army Corps of Engineers. We are in
the process of preparing a draft consistency response to the Corps as requested in their letter of submittal
dated October 29, 1992. We request that your office please forward agency review comments to us to
us to assist in our evaluation.
We will provide you with a copy of our draft consistency response.' Our final decision on the
project's consistency with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program will be made upon review
of the final EIS. If you have any questions, please call me or Steve Benton at [phone]. Thank you.
cc: Bob Stroud, Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington
4
0/
Response to N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Coastal Management, memorandum dated 18 November 1992.
1. Comment noted.
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
NOVEMBER 30, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
THROUGH: Steve Hall
FROM: Marshall Ellis N.A,rc,.JW_ CwS
SUBJECT: DEIS - CABE'Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave Protection
Project. Project # 93-0282.
The two major concerns raised by Carol Tingley in her June 4, 1991
response to the Corps of Engineers' (COE) scoping letter of May 1,
1991 have been satisfied in this DEIS. COE originally planned to
construct a terminal groin, which would have impeded the north to
south drift of sand and probably would have accelerated the rate of
erosion'south toward Ft. Fisher. That groin has, been deleted from
the project. Concerns over impacts to vegetation from use of the
originally proposed borrow areas have been removed by the decision
to move the borrow areas to offshore locations. Therefore, we have
no further objections to the project from those standpoints.
2
However, it should be noted that although COE acknowledges the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's concerns about the project's potential
impacts on the northern end of. the coquina rock outcrops and states
that the outcrops will be "...avoided to the maximum extent
possible by transitioning the project fill north of the
outcrops.... ", a comparison of NHP maps with Fig. 8 (DEIS p. 24)
indicates that the project's southern end will-encroach heavily
into the Ft.Fisher Coquina Outcrop Registered Natural Heritage Area
The text on page 31 admits that the landward sides of the northern-
most outcrops are expected to be covered. These outcrops are the
only ones that are visible most of the time. Hence, the project
could affect a geologically significant Registered Natural Heritag
Area.
We stress the importance and rarity of the coquina outcrops an
recommend that instead of assessing damage after the project has
been allowed to encroach on the outcrops (which is what the DEI
implies will be the case), that the project be amended to ensure
that its southern terminus falls to the north of the Registered
Natural Heritage Area (i.e., above Project Line 165 in the
transition zone on Fig. 8).
2
/me
Response to N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation, memorandum dated
30 November 1992.
1. Comment noted.
2. See response to No. 2 to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of
Environmental Affairs, letter dated December 17, 1992.
I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Reviewing Office*
i.t?. M.
pt,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Proct Number. Due Date:
-oa ?a is ?3
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obt
i

order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law. a
ned in
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
Regional Office. Normal Process
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct 6 operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of
facilities, sower system extensions, b sewer
construction contracts On-site inspection. Post •applicalion 30 days
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

permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities .
Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to 90.120 days
discharging into state surface waters. construct Wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES (NrA)
permit -whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(NIA)
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued 7 days
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)

Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property
owner. On-sale inspection. Pre-application confer
F 55 days
ence usual.
illing
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of
190 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct d operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H. NIA 60 days
190 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos malarial must be in compliance with 15A

NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal:
NIA 60 days
vrior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733-0820.

:omplex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800. l90 days;
the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion d sedimentatro
:ontrol plan will be required it one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouslity Sect.) at least 30 20 days
Jays before beginning activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and S2000 for each additional acre or part must accompany the plan (30 day s)
'he Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: 130 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Aining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited..The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
forth Carolina Burning permit On-site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources il.permrl 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
peciat Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required -0 more 1 day
ounlies 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."

)d Refining Facilities
NIA 90.120 days
(NIA)
If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.

am Safety Permit Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv•
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 (Jays)
a doe permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verily Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing lee based on a
percentage or the total prciect cost will be required upon comptelion.

Response to State of North Carolina Intergovernmental Review, letter dated
December 12, 1992.
1. Comment noted.
18 November 1992
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Fritz Rohde
SUBJECT: 93-0282
1 A more thorough survey of the proposed borrow areas should be 1
done to look for possible hard bottom areas. This could be done
with a number of techniques. If any such areas are found, they
should be avoided when dredging.
0
Response to memorandum from Fritz Rohde to Melba McGee, memorandum dated 18
November 1992
1. See response to No. 1 to the N.C. Department of Administration, Office of
Marine Affairs, letter dated 2 December 1992.
r
i
Oiw
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James R Hunt, Jr., Governor January 12, 1993 Jonathan R Howes, Secretary
Colonel Walter Tulloch
District Engineer
US. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
REFERENCE: SCH93-0282 Draft EIS Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave Protection, Carolina
Beach & Vicinity Any South Project, New Hanover County
Dear Colonel Tulloch:
The State of North Carolina has completed its review pursuant to 15 CFR 930 Subpart C -
Consistency for Federal Activities, of the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Our, final
determination for consistency will be made upon review of the Final EIS. Based upon our review of this
draft document; it appears that the proposal could be found consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Prograni, provided that the project meets the condition below and that the comments which
follow are given full consideration in the preparation of the final document.
2 Dredging and disposal operations will be limited to the extent practical to the November 16 to 2
January 15 window to minimize disturbance during the periods of greatest biological activity. We
understand that initial construction of the project may extend beyond this period. However, any future
maintenance of the project will be limited to this time period.
3 The EIS should address long term cumulative impacts of the proposed project. Dredging and 3
beach disposal every three years is relatively frequent. Effects on the biota of the intertidal zone, the
borrow site, and the nearby coquina outcrop could be significant, especially considering recovery periods
such as the 1 to 2 year recovery period (as stated in the EIS) for intertidal benthos.
4 We suggest that the Corps establish a monitoring program which will not only investigate short 4
term impacts (such as from turbidity) but long term impacts and recovery in the project area as well. This
would include pre and post project sampling followed by annual or biannual sampling of biota in the
pm Boor 27651, Rakigh, Noah Cmana 27611-7687 Tekphorx 919-733-4984 Fax [phone]
;.. ?? i ..,.. An EguA Opportunity Affirmative Action Empk w
intertidal zone, the borrow area, and the area of coquina outcrop. In addition, topographic surveys of the
borrow area should be conducted to monitor movement of sediment in the area. Attached are comments
from the North Carolina Estuarine Reserve which further detail study and monitoring needs associated
with the project.
5 If the Carolina Beach and Vicinity, Carolina Beach Portion project is reauthorized, the Division 5
of Coastal Management would like to request that the Corps consider combining the different Carolina
Beach projects for purposes of impact analysis, and perhaps even economic analysis. Although they may
remain separate in terms of funding and timing of work, we feel that coincident review and analysis for
impacts on resources would accomplish a more thorough and complete evaluation of the projects in
relation to the coastal environment.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft plan If you have any questions regarding our
comments, please contact Steve Benton or Caroline Bellis, Division of Coastal Management, at (919)733-
2293.
Zo
Schecter
cc Bob Stroud, Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington
John Taggart, NC Coastal Reserves
Chrys Baggett, NC State Clearinghouse
Fritz Rhode, Division of Marine Fisheries, Wilmington
Daniel Small, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Charles Fullwood, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
John Dorney, Division of Environmental Management
Carol Tingley, Division of Parks & Recreation
I
-10
a?r•. w a^ _.. ? 'yM ;C..v?ys?p.??wiF-t?"?.h.'S?r?l?•?i7JCr4t ?-"ow?,? ? ? _ ? ...
Response to N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Coastal Management, letter dated 12 January 1993
1. Comment noted.
2. See response to No. 4 to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of
Environmental Affairs, letter dated 17 December 1992.
3. See response to Nos. 3 and 5 to the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of Environmental Affairs, letter dated 17 December 1992.
4. See response to Nos. 5 and 6 to the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of Environmental Affairs, letter dated 17 December 1992.
5. Comment noted.
I

f? UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
9450 Roger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
February 1, 1993 F/SE013:JEB
COL Walter S. Tolloch
District Engineer
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 29402-1890
Dear Colonel Tolloch:
Taxis its in reply.to your October 29, 1992, letter requesting
review of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) on the
beach erosion control and hurricane wave protection plan for
Carolina Beach and vicinity, Area South Project, New Hanover
County, North Carolina. The DEIS concludes that the proposed
dune and berm project would not adversely affect listed species
under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The DEIS will serve as the biological assessment (BA) for the
purpose of this consultation..
We have reviewed the BA and concur with your determination that
populations of threatened or endangered species under our purview
would not be adversely affected by the proposed action. This
concurrence is based upon the understanding that the Corps will
implement the protective measures described in section 6.06 of
the DEIS during dredging activities.
This concludes consultation responsibilities under section 7 of
the ESA. However, consultation should be reinitiated if new
information reveals impacts of the identified activity that may
affect listed species or their critical habitat, a new species is
listed, the identified activity is subsequently modified, or
critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the
proposed activity.
If you have any questions please contact Jeffrey Brown, Fishery
Biologist, at [phone].
Sincerely,
I

d .J Q .
Charles Orave91"__ZT_
Chief
Protected Species Management
Branch
cc: F/PR2
F/SE02
:? Y
Response to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Endangered Species Section,
St. Petersburg, Florida, letter dated 1 February 1993.
1. Comment noted.

I

ATTACHMENT E
ANALYSIS OF SUMMER DREDGING SCHEDULE
CAROLINA BEACH AND VICINITY AREA SOUTH PROJECT
CAROLINA BEACH AND VICINITY - AREA SOUTH PROJECT
ANALYSIS OF SUMMER DREDGING SCHEDULE
Project Description. Project construction for the Carolina Beach and Vicinity
Area South Project involves dredging approximately 3.3 million cubic yards of
material from offshore borrow areas and placing it along a 3 mile stretch of
beach. Potential borrow areas for beach nourishment material have been
located one to two miles miles offshore and contain enough material to
construct and maintain the project over the project life of 50 years. Initial
fill would include the amount of material to construct the authorized project
plus the volume required for the advanced nourishment. Future nourishment
volumes are estimated to be approximately 766,000 cubic yards every three
years. For the 50-year economic life of the project, approximately 15.6
million cubic yards of fill material would be needed.
Proposed Construction Dredging Schedule. Based on preliminary analysis,
construction of the Carolina Beach Area South project would take approximately
8 months to complete based on the use of one ocean-certified pipeline dredge.
The extended time frame for construction is due to the volume of material to
be dredged. Construction would start around November and would end in July.
This construction period would extend through the fall, winter, spring, and
part of the summer. Periodic maintenance of the project would require
approximately 2-3 months.
Alternative Construction Schedule. During preparation of the Design
memorandum Supplement, an alternative analysis was conducted of the dredging
schedule Based on this analysis, it was recommended that initial construction
could be reduced from 8 months to 6 months by using a single ocean certified
hydraulic pipeline dredge working during the summer months. The work could be
reduced to 2.8 months by utilizing two ocean-certified pipeline dredges
working concurrently within the same borrow area. Periodic maintenance could
also be reduced by similarly performing maintenance operations during the
summer months. Periodic maintenance could be reduced to 1 month if performed
during the summer months versus approximately 2 months during the November-
January timeframe. Table 1 gives a comparison of the concerns associated with
project construction and periodic maintenance during the summer months versus
conducting these operations during the winter months using one or two ocean
certified pipeline dredges.
Recommended Construction Schedule. Environmental resource agencies have
recommended a winter construction schedule with construction and renourishment
occurring between November 16 and April 30 of any given year. The preferred
window is that the work occur between November 16 and January 15 of any given
year.
Seasonal Constraints on Offshore Dredging. A longer construction period would
be expected during the winter months due to weather delays and disruptions.
Dredging during the summer months would permit project construction to occur
during the optimum time of the year for ocean certified pipeline dredges.
Table 2 shows the average wave heights by month offshore of Carolina Beach.
Factors that affect dredges working in offshore shore include swells and waves
(maximum for a dredge is around 6-feet). Ocean certified pipeline dredges are
somewhat restricted to mild wave climates. The availability of nearby
sheltered areas is critical since they are not self-propelled and have to be
moved during inclement conditions offshore. The ideal time for ocean
certified pipeline dredges to be operating offshore of Carolina Beach is
between May and October given the fact that wave heights during this period
would be minimal. The preferred months are July, August and September.
Higher dredge production rates obtained by dredging during the summer months
result in a shorter dredging period. Table 3 compares potential dredge
production rates with offshore wave height by month. Dredging during the
winter months would tends to lower production rates and extend the length of
time needed for project construction. Dredging during the summer months would
result in reduced overall project cost compared to dredging during the winter.
A single dredge plant (versus two dredge plants) operating during the summer
months would be economically advantageous since it would have a single
mobilization and demobilization expense. Table 1 shows the approximate cost
savings associated with project construction during the summer versus the
winter months. The availability of dredge plants to do the work is critical
to the timing of project construction. Based on contract schedules along the
Atlantic coast, the limited number of ocean certified pipeline dredges
available to do the work is least available during the winter months since
this is the high point of maintenance dredging. These dredges are usually
freed-up during the spring-summer
Preferred Construction Period. Based on an analysis of the various
alternatives, the preferred option is to perform project construction, and
periodic maintenance, during the summer months (between April 15 and October
15). A construction period of April 15 through October 15 is identified
because dredging contracts can only specify the construction periods for the
work and not the exact months in which the work is to be done. Consideration
was given to using two ocean-certified dredges during the November 15 through
July 15 timeframe. Using two dredges during the winter months would reduce
construction time to approximately 4-5 months. Howeve, while production rates
would be expected to increase with two dredges, environmental and operational
constraints that would limit the operating efficiency of one dredge operating
offshore during the winter months would also exist. Hence, whether two
dredges could accomplish the work within a shorter period during the winter
months would be contingent on wave climate and weather conditions offshore.
Environmental Concerns Associated With Summer Dredging. Environmental
concerns associated with construction during the summer months include
potential impact on endangered species (piping plover, seabeach amaranth, sea
turtles); possible impacts on intertidal organisms and offshore fishery;
potential impacts on recreational uses along the nourishment beach; and
aesthetic impacts.
Impact on Endangered Species. The Piping plover has not been observed
along the project reach. A beach survey for seabeach amaranth was conducted
by personnel from the Wilmington District during the summer of 1991. No
amaranth was sighted along the study beach during the survey. A similar
survey along the study beach was conducted in September 1992. No plants were
observed during the survey. The project is not expected to affect piping
plover and seabeach amaranth since the eroding shoreline area provide minimal
value to both species. Therefore, the only species of concern in the project
area are nesting populations of sea turtles.
Sea turtle nesting begins in early spring, increases to a peak in late
spring to mid-summer, and declines until completion in late summer (August-
September). To help minimize impacts of dredging during the summer months, a
sea turtle monitoring program would be implemented for the entire nesting
season (May 1 through August 30) along the project reach. Implementation of
the the sea turtle monitoring plan would include daily monitoring of the beach
impact area with relocation of all nests discovered to a safe hatchery area.
Impact on Intertidal and Organisms and Offshore Fishery. While project
construction and periodic maintenance during the summer months would impact
intertidal organisms along the beach, populations of these organisms are not
expected to be stressed beyond their adaptive capabilities. Intertidal
organisms associated with high energy beaches are continually subjected to
effects of erosion and accretion and major physical changes resulting from
storms and hurricanes. Project construction and periodic maintenance during
the summer would be during the period after offshore migration of adult
coquina clams (Donax spp.) and mole crabs (Emerita talpoida) and before the
onset of larval recruitment in spring. Recovery of intertidal organisms as a
result of nourishment during the summer months is expected as a result of
recolonization and spring recruitment. Dredging during the summer months
would minimize potential impacts to offshore spawning fish and shrimp which
spawn offshore in the winter.
Impacts on Recreation Uses. Carolina Beach is extensively used for
recreational activities such as swimming, walking, sunbathing, and fishing.
These activities have large seasonal fluctuations with peak use occurring in
warm months. In the fall, recreational surf fishing is extensive. The ideal
time for obtaining borrow material from offshore sources is during the spring-
summer months during temperate weather and calm waters. This is also the
period in which recreational uses along the ocean beach peaks. Hence, project
construction, and renourishment, during the summer months would affect
recreational activities. Therefore, measures would have to be incorporated in
project design to minimize known impacts. Heavy equipment, the pipeline on
the beach, and the discharge of dredge material on the beach would temporarily
disrupt recreational use of the beach. To accommodate recreational activities
along the project reach, project construction and renourishment during the
summer would be conducted in a manner so as to minimize adverse impacts on
existing uses in and adjacent to the work areas. Sand placement along the
beach would be done so as to minimize the length of beach being disturbed at
any given time. Safety precautions around the discharge pipes would be
strictly enforced.
Overall, surf fishing should not be Beverly impacted by project
construction or periodic renourishment activities, since it primarily occurs
• during the fall. During construction surf fishing would not be precluded
except in the immediate construction area. The material that will be placed
on the beach contains small percentages of silt. Hence, turbidity levels in
nearshore waters should be limited to the immediate discharge areas.
Turbidity levels outside of a reasonable mixing zone during the actual
discharges of dredged material are not expected to be above background levels.
Therefore, any impacts on surf fishing would be temporary and minor and
limited for the most part to the actual construction area.
Aesthetic Impacts. The ocean beach, dunes, and beach vegetation along
the project reach offer natural scenery and is aesthetically appealing to
many. Aesthetic qualities associated with project construction and
renourishment dredging during the summer months would be the impact associated
with the noise and visual intrusion of the dredge and associated pipes and
equipment on the beach. For many beach users, the appearance of the beach
will be degraded by the construction activities and the appearance of
construction equipment on the beach. However, construction and use of
construction equipment will not be a permanent part of the natural scene along
the beach. The presence of such equipment will be periodic and temporary and
limited to the construction and renourishment periods. Therefore, no long
term adverse impacts on aesthetic resources are expected. As its constructed,
the beach will be greatly enhanced for recreational purposes by adding more
storm berm and beach face area for sunbathing and other beach related
activities.

g W

W
CO o
cn
§

o

K C

W E

F
? Lq

1t7

M co
W r
936
p

w C)

S

2

O
W C

OWC

LL

Q S

(a

o H =
0

_ ec
f Q
cc W

L rr
W

CD
C., 3 W
g G s

a

c o °

ca W

:110 C7
Z W LU
Q
C
N x co W y k Q

v a
. W
13 >
=
S
i
C ?. (a Ln
_ O °
?

CL {. J m

r c °

?

O

2

3 W

W W
co
cc p 3
C cc

.?
y
O
O O
C3
^ H
C?
?n W °
3
?- t 7
O
W W z 3 0 -W s W x

O ?= ? 3 W 3
C4 a W o °o p
M Z c x z
W 1
W W 2c o
$ Z 3
a

LLI

Q L/?U

Y? Q,

.

z

?

W

8

M

y

t=D

r

CC G

?

Q o

"

o

a

Q
Q
a ?
Q
O
co') (' W
W. O
°
O
°
_ W o
SR
_
cm
!v
?+
I
W
2
z
°
U
{
I
p
n

1?
A p- W ^ E o m W

5

? . cc u
2
2

!
LL
G

W

J x

o L.

dc c

2

p Z

° p

N cm

m
m

w
h W ~
Q Cl)

Z
z
W

W
z
0

U.

c
0
Z O
°; ?
W
? x to
°

Q ?.
La

r

C=

?.
La

Cs

Q 0 ~ W C',
? e ? H a
pc? o
¢ W W C a
-2 2 y
z
z
40 uzi
Z W Z
° ? 3
o 3 ?
'? W
d m
p W
o 3
a 3
r 3
?
g
' c 3
.. W r r W ^ ai
2 = ?' Z FS m IE : 'J N N O ap

Nix LU
U C3 LU
LA. 40 ca
C3
.
W W
co

m
ELI
a °
a!
a z ? z g
W

0

(, W

n CA

v ° W

r- tq

c+
t y

C

~
c
L!
z

z
o
a O

LU

i
dc
us at

y v -C
CD
ILA

co
IS
r-

?- v
i
z z
F z
i s n
o m
H F z z n
r m
y n
m
L"
n n ?' W yI
CD ° Z ? u?
O z `` ° W El CD 8

me

0:
2
cc Pu .Pi N

I
C,
F. cm
o c at ca g y o c IE cc S
U
w
Cl
t-
? F-
O=
Cl) 0
W W
N LU_
aw
MJ ??
W
Q W
F- 00 O
Z?
-•? LL
0 LL
OC O
U
O
Z
H
U
O
CL
w
O
D
J

J

x

z V)

a
Q
cc
a
o?
i
t
CD p co r- l0 tq tt 00 N +- p
(1J) P913H IAVM 1NV9131N91S
WIN 11115 NI 1=3d0)
NOIOVJ NoiionOOdd 300340
C) rn C? CD CR n o cq Cl o v c° coy ° oo,
0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0
0
z
O
H
H
U
a
A
to O
H a
a w
o w
? cn
A
M ? o
J ? W
m w M
H
? W
zm
H W
0 D
4
PC
a
0
m
to
P4
P4
0
U
W
O
z
H
U
O
CL
w
co

J
D
3
z
D
3
a
w
a

in
w
w
z
U
J
x
0
x
a
w
CO
Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LA I' CM CV e- p
(B) 1H913H 3AVM IWIJIN91S
ATTACHMENT F
ANALYSIS OF SAND MOVEMENT IN VICINITY OF COQUINA ROCK OUTCROPS
CAROLINA BEACH AND VICINITY AREA SOUTH PROJECT
0
ANALYSIS OF SAND MOVEMENT IN VICINITY OF COQUINA ROCK OUTCROPS
CAROLINA BEACH AND VICINITY AREA SOUTH PROJECT
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Introduction. Coquina rock outcrops naturally occur at the southern end of
the Carolina Beach and Vicinity Area South project. Presently, three outcrops
exist along the shoreline as shown on figure 1. This figure also indicates a
line of coquina deposits extending southward from the present outcrops just
offshore of Fort Fisher.
These slowly eroding natural outcroppings act as a low-level groin.
During the winter months they retain material moving to the north (prevailing
northerly winds). Alternatively, the same area is starved during the summer
months when the winds are predominately from the south. The northern portions
of the rock outcropping are typically buried during the winter months, and
alternatively, are exposed during the summer months except during some major
storms. Figures 2 and 3 are typical summer and winter profiles for the area
immediately north of the coquina rock outcroppings. Figures 4 and 5 are
photographs of the same area but viewed looking to the south.
The shoreline configuration in the area shows the rock outcroppings
protruding beyond the shoreline, which allows for little longshore transport
of material to the north (even with the wind blowing from the south in the
summer months). Additional evidence supporting the movement of material is
the shoreline configuration in the area. The natural shoreline configuration
has created an unbalanced transport of material along this shoreline. The
characteristic shoreline downdrift of the emerging outcrop is the formation of
a large embayment in the lee of the resistant rock formations. An analysis of
of the shoreline contour in the area indicates that the coquina rock
outcroppings are acting as a natural low-level groin. The configuration of
these outcroppings capture the material (up to the capacity of the low-level
groin) during the winter months when the material is being transported to the
south. Excess material continues around and past the rock outcropping,
finally arriving at the beach south of the Fort Fisher revetment. For
material to be transported north of the outcropping (potential for the summer
months), the material must first fill to capacity the southern potential
fillet of the low-level groin. This requires considerable material transport
from an extended southerly wind.
Long-Term Changes. The coquina rock outcropping is continually eroding.
Figure 6 is a shoreline comparison in the vicinity of the outcrops since 1865.
The erosion rate for the southern reaches of the project are a function of the
resilience of the rock outcropping. Project construction with placement of
sand along the beach north of the outcrop should not diminish the habitat
value of the coquina rock outcropping. Placement of material on the project
should have minimal effects on the organisms residing in the rock
outcroppings, because during winter months the material will fill in at the
same elevation as was occurring naturally (without the fill). Material in
excess of the natural groin capacity of the rock outcropping will simply
migrate to the beach south of Fort Fisher. After project construction and
subsequent periodic renourishment, there will be more material on the beach
profile, which will be subject to littoral drift. Portions of the landward
sides of the northern most outcrops are expected to be covered by the material
similar to what is already occurring. The areal extent of this coverage
cannot be quantified at this time. A potential effect of the beachfill on the
rock outcropping is the slowing of the erosion of the rock outcropping.
Monitoring Plan. Physical monitoring will be conducted during construction of
the Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South project to help document whether
any changes in sand movement observed are the result of natural influences or
beach restoration. The plan will include surveys of the rock outcrops and
elevation of sand movement prior to and after nourishment. Biological
sampling is not included in the plan. Specific provisions of the physical
monitoring plan will be coordinated with interested agencies.
4
17
FORT A°^ CURRENTLY RESTORED
I
o
COQUINA
OUTCROP 1
R C

16
O
US
/
421
LEGEND
- - PROJECT LINES
- - VEGETATION LINE
165
op O 170 i?
00
o
,Zw
COQUINA A N
UUU UUTCROP
? , - Leo
COQUINA 1
OUTCROP /
CBS
\Ci
\V
V-
500 250 0 500 1000
P
SCALE IN FEET ASENV8
CAROLINA BEACH & VICINITY
FORT FISHER. NORTH CAROLINA
COQUINA ROCK
OUTCROPS

I
Figure 2.
Summer profile for area not
outcropping (Aug. 30, 1992)
(looking north)
of rock

J
4 ?? L»ty 4r. p ??.y ??k{

w»r P
E ,
&
d
ej :? -hA
n
? y ?._ JL M £

'? X M

A
yI
5
.
wmn

s.,
«w.e
U
a.. x ? ?^ ??.F t 3 i
e < ,
^ i
NP &n.,r

Figure 4. Summer profile for area north of rock
outcropping (Aug. 30, 1992)
(looking south)
Figure 5. Winter profile for area north of rock
outcropping (Jan. 1, 1993)
(looking south)

Al
cr
k
Q
m
k
- Ir
N k ` ? \N

I
? tr
m \m
RR?I \

IAA IR U. S.
FORCE
r FACILITY
\

k
w
1 1
1
1 ?
1
F FISHER
VISITOR NTETRNPRMUII --1 \
1
1
\ 1
RESTORED /
FORTIFICATIONS BATTLE /
ACRE /
k
?Nk
0
V
Qj
O N
? k
i
k ?/ IFI FRTTRATIONS
lam/
? k
A. AWARI Uir
v
Al
f
T
N
l?
l
1
m
.o
v
(A N
O
A
m
z
z
m
k
1000 500 0 1000 2000
SCALE IN FEET FFDW_,
FT FISHER. NORTH CAROLINA
SHORELINE COMPARISONS
1865 - 1992
FIGURE 6
?a
OSoNI
B. Water Circulation. Fluctuation, and Salinity Determinations.
1. Water.
a. Water. No significant effect.
b. Salinity. No significant effect.
c. Water Chemistry. No significant effect.
d. Clarity. The clarity of the water will be temporarily reduced
during the discharges. Conditions should return to ambient bevels after
completion of the work. 7
e. Color. No significant effect.
f. Odor. No effect.
g. Taste. No effect.
h. Dissolved Gas Levels. No significant effect.
i. Nutrients. No significant effect.
j. Eutroghication. No significant effect.
k. Others as Appropriate. None.
2. Current Patterns and Circulation.
a. Current Patterns and Flow. No significant change in current
pattern and flow would result from construction of the NED plan.
b. Velocity. No significant effect.
c. Stratification. No effect.
d. Hydrologic Regime. No adverse changes to the hydrologic
regime should occur.
3. Normal Water Level Fluctuations. No effect.
4. Salinity Gradient. No effect.
5. Action Taken to Minimize Impacts. See l.f. above.
f

A-4

shore. Standard construction equipment would be used to construct the dune
and storm berm.
2. Ocean-Certified Hydraulic Pipeline Dredge with Scows. An ocean-
certified pipeline dredge would be used to dredge the material from the borrow
area but would pump the material into barges or scows onsite for transport to
the beach instead of a pipeline running to the beach. The material would then
be pumped from the scows at the pump-out station to the beach.
3. Ocean-Certified _Hopper Dredge with Direct Puma Out to the Beach.
An ocean-certified hopper dredge would dredge the material from the borrow
area and then transport it to a pump-out station close to the disposal beach.
The material would then be pumped from the hopper dredge at the pump-out
station to the beach. The dredged material placed on the beach will be shaped
by earth-moving equipment.
II. FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS
A. Physical Substrate Determination.
1. Substrate Elevation and Slope. There will be a change in the
beach profile in reference to elevation and length. The substrate elevation
and slope will be altered by the construction of the dune and storm berm.
The design foreslope for the dune and berm is 10 horizontal to 1 vertical.
The total width of the dune and storm berm is approximately 210 feet.
2. Sediment Type. The discharged material consists of predominantly
fine-to-medium grain sand, with less than 10 percent fine grain material
(silt/clay), shell, and shell hash. The material is compatible with the
native beach material.
3. Fill Material Movement. Some lateral movement of material will
likely occur as a result of the combined effects of currents, water
circulation, wind, and wave action. There would be some loss of fine grain
material into the water column during construction and initial settlement of
the beachfill.
4. Physical Effects on Benthos. The discharge of fill material will
smother benthic fauna in the immediate vicinity of the discharge on the beach
and nearshore during berm construction. Repopulation should begin soon after
the disposal operation ends. Turbidity-related impacts are expected to be
minor and temporary due to the predominantly fine-to-medium grain sand
material being discharged.
5. Other Effects. None expected.
6. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. Action taken to minimize
impacts include selection of fill material that is similar to the native beach
substrate and is low in silt content. Also, standard construction practices
to minimize turbidity and erosion would be employed. A small berm may be
constructed along the mean high water line at the discharge point to help
reduce turbidity.
A-3
D. General Description of Dredged Material.
1. General Characteristics of Dredged Material. The material to be
discharged on the beach under the NED plan is predominantly medium grain sand
with a small percentage of fine grain material and some shell hash.
2. Ouantity of Material. Approximately 3.3 million cubic yards of
dredged material will be removed from the selected offshore borrow area and
placed on the beach. Approximately 766,000 cubic yards of dredged material
will be placed on the beach during each maintenance cycle which will occur
every 3 years.
3. Source of Material. The beachfill material will be obtained from
dredging in one of two offshore borrow areas located beyond the 30-foot depth
contour offshore of Carolina Beach. The two borrow areas cover a combined
area of approximately 1,191 acres offshore. Dredging in the borrow areas
would be to a depth of approximately -15 feet below the surrounding bottom
elevation.
E. Description of the Proposed Discharge Site.
1. Location and Size. The proposed discharge site is an unconfined
3-1\2 mile strand along the oceanside of Pleasure Island, New Hanover County,
North Carolina.
2. Type of Site. Unconfined beach, surf zone, and nearshore ocean.
3. Type of Habitat. The types of habitat present at the site
are coastal dune and beach, intertidal, and nearshore. The native material on
the ocean beach consists of medium grain sand with some shell and shell hash.
4. Timing and Duration of Discharge. Construction of the project is
expected to take approximately 8 months and would occur between November 15
and July 31. Maintenance construction is expected to occur during the same
timeframe every 3 years and would require about 2 months.
F. Description of Discharge Method. At this time, the type of dredge
plant and beach disposal method that would be used for project construction
and future maintenance is unknown. The type of dredge plant that will be used
will depend on a number of factors, including competition in the market place,
pumping or haul distance, depth and areal extent of dredging, available
dredging technology, weather conditions and time of year, etc. Alternative
construction methods being considered for dredging and disposing of beachfill
on the beach include:
1. Ocean-Certified Hydraulics Pipeline Dredge. An ocean-certified
hydraulic pipeline dredge would be used to remove material from the borrow
area and pump the material directly to the beach. The dredge pipeline would
run from the dredge operating in the borrow area approximately 1 to 2 miles to
the beach disposal site. The pipeline would be submerged from the dredge to a
point close to shore where the pipeline would then run above the surface to
f
4
A-2
4
DRAFT
Attachment A
Evaluation of Section 404(b)(1) (PL 92-217) Guidelines
Section 404(b)(1) (PL 95-217) Evaluation
Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South Project
New Hanover, North Carolina
October 1992
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Location. New Hanover County, North Carolina.
B. Background and Project Description. The Carolina Beach and Vicinity -
Area South project is located in New Hanover County, North Carolina. The
Wilmington District has investigated public concerns in the study area related
to hurricane and flood protection. Alternatives investigated consisted of
berms and dunes of various dimensions. The no action alternative was also
considered. The National Economic Development (NED) plan consists of a
25-foot-wide crest width artificial dune with a vegetated crest elevation of
13.5 feet above 0 National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) and a storm berm
approximately 50 feet wide. Project construction will cover approximately
3-1/2 miles of shoreline between the town of Carolina Beach to the north and
the Fort Fisher Historic Site to the south. Potential borrow areas for
beachfill for project construction and maintenance are located in two borrow
areas located approximately 1 to 2 miles offshore in the Atlantic Ocean.
Project construction will require approximately 3.3 million yards of dredged
material. Project maintenance will require approximately 766,000 cubic
yards of beachfill every 3 years. A complete description of the NED plan
alternative can be found in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The project is being evaluated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of
1977, as amended, rather than Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuary Act of 1972 (Ocean Dumping Act), since the proposed discharge
site is within the 3-nautical-mile territorial limits of the State of North
Carolina.
C. Purpose. This 404(b)(1) evaluation covers the discharge of dredged
material on the ocean beach for the purpose of construction of a beach erosion
control and hurricane wave protection project. The isolated discharges
associated with dredging to remove beachfill from the borrow areas offshore
are not considered discharges of dredged material for the purpose of filling,
but isolated discharges incidental to the dredging operation and are therefore
not being covered under this evaluation.
A-1

VA. NORFOLK
N 0 R T H
? OURFWN
O
RALEIGH
C A R O L I N A?
YI LK
S. CX
PAK
CAROLINA BEACH
BORROW AREA
v
O 11?;\
11 p
11 Q4
11 N
g 11 r,
v' V 11 ''
hOREHEAD CITY II
CLOOKWF
Too I I j?
D 50
SITE SCALE IN W ES /
VICINITY MAP I o
l?
Q 11
11
!I
J/
lil ? s
o Q
ii
II a ?
FEDERAL
POINT
D ? THE
G
SOUTHPORT
iSLANO row \`\
\\I
/ ALD HEAD
// / SMrTti
CAPE FEAR
CAROLINA BEACH
INLET
OFFSHORE
BORROW AREAS
2 1 0 2
SCALE IN MILES
DESIGN MEMORANDUM SUPP
PROJECT LOCATION
MAP

PROJECTED FUTURE VARIATION IN THE NATURE OF THE DISCHARGE: Approximately
766,000 cubic yards of dredged material will be placed on the beach during
each renourishment cycle, which will occur every 3 years during the 50-year
life of the project.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF ADJOINING RIPARIAN OWNERS: Town of Carolina Beach and
State of North Carolina, Fort Fisher Historic Site.
I certify that all information contained herein or in support thereof is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Walter S. Tulloch
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Attachment
3
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT FACILITIES. IF ANY PRIOR TO DISCHARGE INTO RECEIVING
WATERS: N/A
TEMPERATURE. AND KINDS AND QUANTITIES OF POLLUTANTS OR CONTAMINANTS: The
material to be discharged on the ocean beach is predominantly medium grain
sand with a small percentage of fine grain material and some shell hash.
Approximately 3.3 million cubic yards of dredged material will be removed
from the selected offshore borrow area and placed on the beach.
The beachfill material will be obtained from dredging in one of two
offshore borrow areas located beyond the 30-foot depth contour offshore of
Carolina Beach. The two borrow areas cover a combined area of approximately
1,191 acres offshore. Dredging in the borrow areas would be to a depth of
approximately -15 feet below the surrounding bottom elevation.
The fill material has been determined to meet the criteria set forth in
40 CFR 230.60(b), in that the material is characterized as sand which is
sufficiently removed from sources of pollution to provide reasonable assurance
that the material would not be contaminated by pollutants and the fact that
the material is inert. Hence, no further physical, biological, or chemical
testing is required pursuant to the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.
TYPE. DIAMETER. OR CROSS-SECTION AND LENGTH OF CONVEYANCE OF DISCHARGE: At
this time, the type of dredge plant and beach disposal method that would be
used for project construction and future maintenance is unknown. The type of
dredge plant that will be used will depend on a number of factors, including
competition in the market place, pumping or haul distance, depth and aerial
extent of dredging, available dredging technology, weather conditions and
time of year, etc. Alternative construction methods include:
1. Ocean-Certified Hydraulic Pipeline Dredge. An ocean-certified
hydraulic pipeline dredge would be used to remove material from the borrow
area and pump the material directly to the beach. The dredge pipeline would
run from the dredge operatina in the hnrrnw area, approximately 1 to 2 miles,
to the beach disposal d be submerged from the dredge
to a point close to sh lould then run above the surface
to shore. Standard co ld be used to construct the dune
and storm berm. ???a_? G-?
v / 1 ? Y
2. Ocean-Certifie.? dge with Scows.
An ocean-certified pip -2 ed to dredge the material
from the borrow area b %i eta - al into barges or scows onsite
for transport to the b___.. -..ne running to the beach. The
material would then be pumped from the scows at the pump-out station to the
beach.
3. Ocean-Certified HooDer Dredgewi_th Direct Pump Out to the Beach. An
ocean-certified hopper dredge would dredge the material from the borrow area
and then transport it to a pump-out station close to the disposal beach. The
material would then be pumped from the hopper dredge at the pump-out station
to the beach. The dredged material placed on the beach will be shaped by
earth-moving equipment.
2
APPLICATION FOR WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: February 5, 1993
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL: Walter S. Tulloch
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
PROJECT NAME: Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South Project, New Hanover
County, North Carolina
NATURE OF ACTIVITY: The proposed action involves discharge of dredged
material associated with construction of a beach erosion control and hurricane
wave protection project along the ocean shoreline south of Carolina Beach, New
Hanover County, North Carolina (figure 1).
DISCHARGE OF: Dredged material during initial construction and scheduled
renourishment of the beach erosion control and hurricane wave protection
project.
PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO BEGIN: Fall 1996
LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:
Municipality: Kure Beach and the
Wilmington and Hanby Beach
County: New Hanover
Drainage Basin: Cape Fear
Receiving Waters: Atlantic Ocean
Point of Discharge: Ocean beach
unincorporated communities of
NATURE OF RECEIVING WATERS:
Type: Ocean
Nature: Salt
Direction of Flow: Variable
1
-2-
Copy Furnished (with enclosures):
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO February 5, 1993
Planning Division
Mr. Preston Howard, Acting 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. Howard:

T R ion
FEB 1 21993
N
Enclosed is an Application for Water Quality Certification, pursuant
to Section 401 of Public Law 95-217, for discharge of dredged material
associated with the Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South beach
nourishment project, New Hanover County, North Carolina (figure 1).
The proposed beach erosion control and hurricane wave protection
project would cover approximately 3-1/2 miles of shoreline between the
town of Carolina Beach to the north and the Fort Fisher Historic Site to
the south. Potential borrow areas for beachfill for project construction
and maintenance are located in two borrow areas located approximately
1 to 2 miles offshore in the Atlantic Ocean.
r
M j
A copy of the Draft Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation (PL 92-217) is
enclosed for your information. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
dated October 1992, was circulated for a 45-day public review period to
Federal and State review agencies and the interested public on November 6,
1992. The public comment period ended on December 21, 1992. A Final
Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared and will also be circulated
for review.
Should you have any questions concerning the application, please contact
Mr. Daniel Small, Environmental Resources Branch, at [phone].
Sincerely,
a ter S. Tulloch
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Enclosures

0
C. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determinations.
1. Expected Changes in Suspended Particulates and Turbidity Levels in
the Vicinity of the Disposal Site. Short-term increases in suspended
particulate levels may occur at the time of dredging and disposal. No
violation of applicable water quality standards will occur outside of the area
of discharge or mixing zone.
2. Effects (Degree and Duration) on Chemical and Physical Properties
of the Water Column. Slight decreases in the degree of light penetration and
dissolved oxygen concentration may occur within the area of construction
during construction and maintenance.
a. Light Penetration. A slight reduction in light penetration
would occur due to the turbidity increase associated with the NED plan.
Turbidity will quickly return to ambient levels upon completion of the work.
b. Dissolved Oxygen. A slight decease in dissolved oxygen
concentration may be associated with construction and maintenance of the NED
plan. The anticipated low levels of organics in the borrow material should
not generate a high, if any, oxygen demand. Dissolved oxygen should return to
ambient levels soon after completion of the work.
c. Toxic Metals and Organics. Based on sediment analyses of the
material available in the borrow areas, no toxic metals or organics are
anticipated. The beachfill material comes from an offshore borrow area with
bottom deposits of predominantly fine-to-medium grain sand.
d. Pathogens. No anticipated effect.
e. Esthetics. A minor, temporary loss of esthetics appeal will
result from elevated levels of turbidity due to the discharge. No significant
loss of aesthetic appeal in the project area should occur.
f. Others as Appropriate. None.
3. Effects on Biota.
a. Primary Production, Photosynthesis. A slight reduction may
occur due to turbidity associated with the NED plan. Any reduction is not
expected to be significant.
b. Suspension/Filter Feeders. No significant effect.
c. Sight feeders. Turbidity resulting from the NED plan would
not be expected to be high enough to significantly affect sight feeding
organisms.
4. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. See H. A. 6. above.
D. Contaminant Determinations. The fill material has been determined to
meet the criteria set forth in 40 CFR 230.60(b), in that the material is
A-5
4
characterized as sand which is sufficiently removed from sources of pollution
to provide reasonable assurance that the material would not be contaminated by
pollutants and the fact that the material is inert. Hence, no further
physical, biological, or chemical testing is required pursuant to the
404(b)(1) guidelines.
E. Aquatic Ecosystem and Organism Determinations.
1. Effects on Plankton. Deposition of beachfill material along the
beach and adjacent waters will destroy some phytoplankton and zooplankton and
temporarily disrupt light penetration. Due to the nature of the material
being discharged, these impacts are not expected to be significant.
2. Effects on Benthos. Disposal of beachfill material will smother
benthos directly in the construction area. However, these organisms are
adapted to a very rigorous environment in which they experience wave and
storm-induced sedimentation. Thus, the impacts due to the disposal would not
be significant. The loss of organisms during construction is expected to be
offset by the expected rapid opportunistic recolonization from adjacent areas
that would occur following cessation of construction activities.
3. Effects on Nekton. Nektonic organisms in waters adjacent to the
beachfill construction site will probably vacate the areas, at least until
conditions become more favorable. Some nektonic filter feeders may be killed
as a result of being in the affected areas, and other organisms less capable
of movement, such as larval forms, may be physically covered with dredged
material. However, most organisms would generally avoid the project areas and
later return to them.
4. Effects on Aquatic Food Web. No significant effects.
5. Effects on Special Aquatic Sites.
a. Sanctuaries and Refuges. The Zeke's Island National Estuarine
Sanctuary is located south of the project site. This site is not expected to
be impacted by the beach nourishment project.
activity.
b. Wetlands. No wetlands will be filled during the proposed
c. Mudflats. No mudflats will be impacted by the proposed
activity.
d. Vegetated Shallows. No significant effects.
e. Coral Reefs. Intertidal coquina rock outcrops are located
along the southern portion of the project area in the vicinity of the Fort
Fisher National Historic Site. While numerous scattered submerged exposures
exist to the south of the project limits, three dominant exposures exist at
the southern limits of the project. Topographically, the three sites range
from the mean high water tide line to -12 feet mean sea level offshore. The
coquina rock outcrops in this area are composed of shell fragments, marine and
A-6
I
estuarine fossil, and other sediments cemented together by calcite. The
coquina outcrops provide hard substrate, a place of attachment, and/or
protective environment, for a variety of marine algae, marine invertebrates,
and fishes which are adapted to the hard substrate and high wave energy of the
area. Species associated with these outcrops include sea lettuce, sea
amemone, Atlantic oyster drill, calcareous tube worm, and red gilled marphysa.
Encroachment on the coquina rock outcrops at the southern terminus of the
project would be avoided to the maximum extent possible by naturally sloping
the transition berm into the natural shoreline of the area. Beachfill
material from project construction is expected to be moved by littoral drift,
and portions of the landward sides of the outcrops are expected to be covered.
The areal extent of this coverage cannot be quantified at this time. To
determine effects of the nourishment project on the coquina rock community and
whether any changes observed are the result of natural processes or beach
restoration, a monitoring program would be developed and implemented prior to
and after project construction. Information gathered from the monitoring
program would be used to assess whether changes in disposal operations during
project maintenance are needed.
f. Riffle and Pool Complexes. Not applicable.
6. Threatened and Endangered Species. Construction of the NED plan
alternative would be scheduled to occur between November 15 and July 31. This
schedule would require construction during periods of high biological activity
and will overlap the sea turtle nesting season. A turtle monitoring and nest
relocation program will be implemented to reduce project construction impacts.
Discharge of beachfill during project maintenance will be targeted between
November 15 and May 1 of any given year in order to avoid adverse impacts to
nesting loggerhead and green sea turtles to the maximum extent practicable.
While timing these activities to avoid the nesting season is the method of
choice for avoiding impacts to nesting sea turtles, experiences with similar
projects in North Carolina indicate that work during the season will
eventually be necessary. When such occasions arise, a sea turtle nest
monitoring and relocation program will be implemented.
The piping plover has been documented to nest on beaches south of the Fort
Fisher Historic Site which is south of the project area. There has been no
known nesting in the project area; therefore, no direct impacts to the piping
plover are expected to occur due to the discharge of fill.
7. Other Wildlife. No effects.
8. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts. See l.f. above.
9. Proposed Disposal Site Determinations. Dredged material is being
placed on the ocean beach as beachfill for the construction of a beach erosion
control and hurricane wave protection project.
F. Mixing Zone Determination. A mixing zone will be limited to the
minimum needed to allow for proper settling of suspended particulates and
decrease in turbidity to ambient levels.
A-7
1. Determination of Compliance with Applicable Water Quality
Standards. A Section 401 Water Quality Certificate is being requested from
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management for the project. The
disposal activities are not expected to violate state water quality standards.
Water quality standards specified by the certificate are not expected to be
violated outside of a reasonable mixing zone.
2. Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics. The purpose of
the discharge is to provide beachfill for the nourishment of the ocean beach
for hurricane and wave protection. Construction of the project would provide
protection for the structures behind the project.
a. Municipal and Private Water Supply. No effect.
b. Recreational and Commercial Fisheries. Discharge of fill may
temporarily displace the surf-feeding fish populations. However, distribution
of surf-feeding fishes should return to normal upon completion of the project.
c. Water-Related Recreation. Project construction is expected to
take approximately 8 months. Project construction is expected to start around
November 15 and end around July 31. While construction of the project is
targeted to begin during the winter months to the maximum extent practicable,
construction is expected to extend into the water-related recreation period
along the beach. Turbidity levels around the immediate area of construction
would limit water-related recreation during the periods when dredged material
is being discharged on the beach and into the adjacent waters. While the
exact length of any turbidity plumes in adjacent waters updrift or downdrift
of the discharge point are unknown, levels are expected to be within
background levels outside of a reasonably established mixing zone that would
be acceptable for water-related recreation.
d. Esthetics. There will be a short-term effect during
construction and maintenance but it is not expected to be significant.
e. Parks, National and Historic Monuments, National Seashores,
Wilderness Areas, Research Sites, and Similar Preserves. The Fort Fisher
Historic Site is located south of the project area. No significant effects on
the site are expected as a result of project construction and maintenance.
G. Determinations of Cumulative Effects on the Aauatic Ecosystem. The
cumulative effects of the project are not expected to be significant.
H. Determination of Secondary Effects on the Aauatic System. No
secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem are anticipated.
II. FINDING OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE RESTRICTIONS ON DISCHARGE
A. No adaptations of the guidelines were made relative to this
evaluation.
A-8

B. There are no practicable alternative discharge sites which would have
less adverse impact to the aquatic ecosystem and still achieve the planning
objectives of beach erosion control and hurricane wave protection.
C. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is being requested from the
State Division of Environmental Management. The discharge will comply with
State water quality standards.
D. The discharge will not violate the toxic effluent standards or
prohibitions under Section 307 of P.L. 95-217.
E. The discharge will not affect any threatened or endangered species or
their critical habitat.
F. The proposed placement of fill will not result in significant adverse
effects on human health and welfare, including municipal and private water
supplies, recreational and commercial fisheries, plankton, fish, shellfish,
wildlife, and special aquatic sites. The life stages of aquatic life and
other wildlife will not be adversely affected. Significant adverse effects
on aquatic ecosystem diversity; productivity; stability; and recreation,
esthetic, and economic values will not occur.
G. Appropriate steps will be taken to minimize potential adverse impacts
of the fill material on the aquatic ecosystem.
H. On the basis of this analysis, the proposed discharge sites for fill
material for the Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South project is in
compliance with the requirements of Section 404(b)(1) (Pi Or 1.17) guidelines.
Date

eers
A-9
t
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
February 5, 1993
Mr. Preston Howard, Acting 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. Howard:
1)1/K
1 1993
M [LANDS GRTUF)
AII:fi f?UALITY FCTIIJPI
Enclosed is an Application for Water Quality Certificatibn,,",odtU ant
to Section 401 of Public Law 95-217, for discharge of dredged material
associated with the Carolina Beach and Vicinity - Area South beach
nourishment project, ew Hanover County, North Carolina (figure 1).
The proposed beach erosion contro and hurricane wave protection
project would cover approximately 3-1/2 miles of shoreline between the
town of Carolina Beach to the north and the Fort Fisher Historic Site to
the south. Potential borrow areas for beachfill for project construction
and maintenance are located in two borrow areas located approximately
1 to 2 miles offshore in the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Draft Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation (PL 92-217) is
enclosed for your information. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
dated October 1992, was circulated for a 45-day public review period to
Federal and State review agencies and the interested public on November 6,
1992. The public comment period ended on December 21, 1992. A Final
Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared and will also be circulated
for review.
Should you have any questions concerning the application, please contact
Mr. Daniel Small, Environmental Resources Branch, at [phone].
Sincerely,
I
• Walter S. Tulloch
Z-Z('g3 I Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Enclosures